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)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One ..... The Modern Interpretation of History
A Radical New View
How History Is Written
Not Without Bias
A Case History
"Anything but Historical Truth"
History Involves Interpretation
The Truth about the "Historical Method"
Evidence of God Rejected as "Myth"
History Cut from Its Moorings
Chapter Two ..... 6000 Years of History
It Is Never Safe to Assume
No "Prehistory" of Man
Cultures, Not "Ages"
Origin of the Study of History
Historians Follow the Higher Critics
Framework of History Founded on Egypt
Is Egyptian History Correct?
Distorting History
Chapter Three ..... History Begins at Babel
History Corroborates the Bible
On To Egypt
The Chronology of Dynasty I
Shem in Egypt
Dynasty II of Thinis
Joseph and the Seven Years' Famine
The Exodus
Pharaoh of the Exodus
Dynasty IV -- The Pyramid Builders

Chapter Four ..... The Missing Half of Egypt's History

The Story Unfolds
Moses the General
History of Upper Egypt
The Great Theban Dynasty XII
Who Was Rameses?
Chapter Five ..... Egypt After the Exodus
Who Were the Invaders?
The Great Shepherds
Hyksos in Book of Sothis
Amalekites after 1076
Chapter Six ..... The Revival of Egypt
Dynasty XVIII
The Biblical Parallel
Shishak Captures Jerusalem
Who Was Zerah the Ethiopian?
Dynasty XVIII in Manetho
The Book of Sothis
Chapter Seven ..... The Era of Confusion
Egypt As It Really Was
The Later Eighteenth Dynasty
Manetho's Evidence
The El-Amarna Letters
Are the "Habiru" Hebrews?
After El-Amarna
Chapter Eight ..... Egypt to the Persian Conquest
The "Israel" Inscription
The "Thirteen Fatal Years"
Nebuchadnezzar and Ramesses the Great
Catching Up Loose Ends
Dynasty XXV, the Ethiopians
Dynasty XXVI of Sais
Manetho's Account of Dynasty XXVI
Book of Sothis and Dynasty XXVI
Another Look at the Book of Sothis
Appearance of Dynasty XXIV of Sais
Who Was Usimare Piankhi?
Dynasty XXIII of Tanis
Dynasty XXII of Bubastis
So-called Dynasty XXII
Dynasty XXI of Tanis
What Eratosthenes Revealed
Chapter Nine ..... The Eclipse of Egypt
Answer in Ezekiel
Persian Kings of Egypt
Egypt Rebels
And Now Dynasty XX of Thebes

Chapter Ten ..... It Began at Babel

Mesopotamia Rediscovered
What Archaeologists Learned
Analyzing the Sumerian King List
History Continues at Erech
Chapter Eleven ..... Berossus and Babylonian History
Another Account of Earliest Dynasties
First Dynasty of Ur and Successors
Now Sargon of Akkad
Dynasties IV and V of Erech
The Guti Dynasty
Three Other Dynasties
Dynasty III of Ur
Dynasty of Isin
Dynasty IV of Kish and the "400 Years"
Dynasty of Akshak
Dates of Queen Ku-Baba
Chapter Twelve ..... Hammurabi to the Fall of Babylon
Why Hammurabi Dated Early
The Dynasty of Larsa
When Did Hammurabi Reign
Damiq-ilishu Reappears'
Nebuchadnezzar the First
Era of Nabonassar
Three Succeeding Dynasties
Chapter Thirteen ..... History of Assyria
Later Assyrian Kings
Who Was Shalmaneser?
Predecessors of Shalmaneser III
King Pul and the Bible
Tiglath-pileser I and Thutmose III
Chapter Fourteen ..... History of Assyria Concluded
The Kassite Dynasty
The Earliest Kassites
The First 1000 Years of Assyrian History
Analyzing the King List
Chapter Fifteen ..... Media, India, Japan and China
The Revolts of the Medes
History of Early India
Early Indian Kings of Magadha
Scythia and the History of Japan
History of China
Chapter Sixteen ..... Asia Minor and the West
Modern Mythology
Beginnings of History
The Proof of Language
The Proof of Race
The Kingdom of Mitanni and the Hurrians
Who Were the Hurrians?
Phrygians and Hatti

Chapter Seventeen ..... How Greek History Was Corrupted

Greeks Admit Homer Was Demented
The Plot Centers on Troy
Homer and the Lydian Kings
Restoring Greek History
Kings of Corinth
The History of Athens
The History of Sicyon
Enter Sparta
Who Were the Heraclidae?
The History of Argos
Genealogy of Danaus
Sea Powers of Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean
The History of Italy
Chapter Eighteen ..... The History of Ireland
How Confusion Arose in Irish History
The First 1000 Years
The Coming of the Milesians
Did David Visit Ireland?
Jerimiah Goes to Ireland
The Milesian Kings
The Throne in Scotland
Chapter Nineteen ..... Early Britain and Western Europe
The Enigma Solved
Early Europe
The Heraclidae Kings
The Trojans and Western Europe
The Testimony of Archaeology
Chapter Twenty ..... The Proof of Archaeology
Archaeology in the Aegean World
Palestine, Syria and Archaeology
The Coming of Israel into Palestine
Mesopotamian Archaeology
Northern Mesopotamia
Egypt in Parallel
Bibliography

--------------------

CHAPTER ONE
The Modern Interpretation of History
By what authority have historians left God and the Bible out of
history?
This question may come as a surprise. Many are unaware that a
radically new interpretation of history is being taught in schools and
colleges today. It is a history of the world in which God and the
supernatural are rejected.
It is impossible to believe BOTH this history AND the Bible. Both
cannot be right.
The modern interpretation of world history stands in open conflict
with Scripture. How did this conflict arise? When did history forget
God and become confused? Why are historians so sharply divided into
opposing schools over the chronological events of the ancient world?
A Radical New View
What many do not realize is that the modern world-view of history
without God is a radically new interpretation of human experience.
Almost no one today, it seems, has ever questioned whether this new
interpretation is right. It is merely assumed to be right.
Students in particular -- and the public in general -- have been
led to believe that archaeologists, historians, scientists and
theologians live with full assurance and in absolute conviction that
this new interpretation of HISTORY WITHOUT GOD is correct. Nothing
could be farther from the truth!
One would be shocked to hear the candid admissions and private
confessions of learned scholars. These men appear to write and speak
with confidence. They are assumed to know the answers to history's
greatest questions: how did man originate? why is man here? where is
man going?
But they do not know. They have no scientific way of discovering
the answers. They are only guessing! One famous historian -- Hendrik
Van Loon -- dared to confess this in his book "Story of Mankind". Here
are his candid words: "We live under the shadow of a gigantic question
mark. What are we? Where did we come from? Whither are we bound?"
And his answer: "We still know very little but we have reached the
point where (with a fair degree of accuracy) we can guess at many
things."
Astounding -- but true! Yet these guesses are masquerading today
as authoritative interpretations of history!
How History Is Written
Casual readers would be shocked to learn how history books are
prepared. It is usually assumed that history is solely a matter of
collecting factual material, judiciously evaluating it, and recording
it for posterity. "Nothing could be farther from the truth," warns C.
W. Ceram in "Secret of the Hittites," p. 119.
A historian is not a scribe, but a JUDGE of the evidence that is
brought before him. He is his own final authority. He is not judged by,
but sits in judgment of, history. Whatever evidence does not conform to
the commonly accepted beliefs of the age or community in which he lives

he summarily rejects!
History, in other words, is based only on that part of evidence
which agrees with the prevailing opinions of the society in which a
historian lives. These may be shocking evaluations, but they are true.
World-history texts prove it. Historians admit it!
"The SELECTION of sources still rests upon the discretion of the
individual historian. What he chooses as relevant depends upon his
conception of the period he is studying. In this the historian is
limited by his own temperament and guided by the spirit of his age." So
writes C. W. Ceram in the previously mentioned volume, on page 119.
Is there any wonder that different nations and peoples have
divergent histories of the same events?
Not Without Bias
Take as an example the history of the Second World War. Communist
historians write only those facts about the war that can be shaped to
suit the aims of the Communist Party. Japanese historians view the
episode at Pearl Harbor quite differently from Americans. Even in
America there are two or more versions about the responsibility for the
Pearl Harbor incident -- depending upon the political party with which
one is affiliated!
Today many German historians are united in a conspiracy to hide
the truth about the Hitler regime from the younger generation. The Nazi
period is glossed over almost as if it did not exist!
And how did historians handle the events of the First World War?
In the same manner. The French historians' account of the Versailles
Treaty at the end of the war was diametrically opposed to the German
version. Each nation chose to accept only those facts which would lend
historical support to its selfish motives.
The reconstruction and interpretation of history to suit
political, social, economic, religious or race prejudices is a practice
of scientific historians of all nations. Much of this prejudice the
writers themselves are unaware of. It is so natural to human nature
that they are often convinced that their prejudices do not exist! This
suppression of part of the truth is the primary reason the world has
never learned the lessons of history. The secondary reason, of course,
is that most individuals do not want to believe the truth of history
even when it is told them.
A Case History
A remarkable episode occurred in America in 1954 when the highest
court of the land was confronted with a major social issue. A noted
historian had become involved in the legal aspects of the case. Here is
what happened, in his own words, told to fellow historians:
"The problem we faced was not the historian's discovery of the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; the problem instead
was the formulation of an adequate gloss ....
"It was not that we were engaged in formulating lies; there was
nothing as crude and naive as that. But we were using facts,
emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly
ignoring facts and, above all, interpreting facts in a way to ... 'get
by ...."'
This candid admission strikes at the heart of the problem! Many

times educators and ministers and writers of textbooks are confronted

with the conflict between truth and the beliefs and ideas of the
society around them. If they are to be accepted by the people, they
must conform -- by altering or rejecting part of the truth!
Of course they use facts -- but how they use those facts, which
facts they use, which facts they ignore or reject and the
interpretation they place on the facts -- that is the crux of the
problem!
Trapped in the vicious whirl of intellectual pressures like so
many others, the historian admitted he was forced unwittingly to face
the question of whether he would compromise his conscience. He reported
to fellow historians in Washington, D. C., on December 28, 1961, that
he was asked to produce "a plausible historical argument that will
justify ..." a certain particular decision affecting public schools. "I
was facing," he continued, "the deadly opposition between my
professional integrity as a historian and" -- notice it -- "a
contemporary question of values, of ideals, of policy, or partisanship
and of political objectives. I suppose if a man is without scruple," he
noted as a concluding thought, "this matter will not bother him, but I
am frank to say that it bothered me terribly ...."
What an intellectual tragedy! Forced to make a decision between
historical truth and the whims, the false ideas, the political
partisanship of society!
"Anything but Historical Truth"
After days and nights of hard labor, a lengthy document was
presented to the highest court of the land. "I am convinced now that
this interpretation, which we hammered out with anything but historical
truth as our objective, nonetheless contains an essential measure of
historical truth," he concluded.
He was now convinced by his own arguments. This is exactly how
every human mind works.
It is this same attitude of mind that has precipitated the
conflict between the Bible and the new interpretation of history.
Altering history is not new to the twentieth century. It has been
occurring ever since men began to write history.
In the United States, for example, there are two unharmonious
versions of causes of the American Civil War. Yet these different
versions are officially approved as texts in schools -- depending, of
course, on the geographical area! The British account of the American
Revolution of 1776 differs materially from the American version. A
traitor in British eyes becomes a patriot in American histories.
One cannot peruse any major historical subject such as the Middle
Ages, the Inquisition, or Church History without discovering Catholic,
Protestant or agnostic bias. No Biblical subject can be read in any
encyclopedia without noting the author's liberal, conservative or
orthodox views. Or consider the life of Jesus. Could we think for a
moment that Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu or Muslim would view alike
the place of Jesus in history? Or the apostle Peter? Would the Anglican
version agree with the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic version?
Yet every historian has access to the same evidence.
History Involves Interpretation

History is not mere recording of facts. Contrary to the common

idea, it is essentially interpretative. "The reconstruction of ancient
history is an abstracting from the facts by means of hypothesis ...",
wrote G. Ernest Wright in "The Biblical Archaeologist Reader," page 19.
What occurs when the hypothesis is in error? The reconstruction of
history will be in error!
This is one of the chief sources of confusion among historians.
Each historian interprets the facts in accordance with his own
hypothesis. He ignores those facts that do not fit the hypothesis.
"This is inevitable for any hypothesis," admits George E. Mendenhall;
for a hypothesis "is not intended as a presentation of eternal truth"
(page 38 of "Biblical History in Transition," "The Bible and the
Ancient Near East"). Yet many of these hypotheses ARE passing for truth
in history textbooks.
One of the clearest summaries of this modern method of historical
study was presented by Dr. Alfred H, Kelly at the annual meeting of the
American Historical Association on December 28, 1961. He declared:
"History is art as well as fact: everyone in this room knows that the
facts do not automatically arrange themselves without the historian's
creative leap, which occurs in our craft as well as in the exact
sciences ...."
It is time historians took a GENUINELY creative leap and called
into question the whole basic assumption of modern historical
interpretation.
The Truth about the "Historical Method"
The foundation of modern historical research is the "historical
method" of study. Few laymen are aware of what it is. Even many
historians are not aware of its limitations and its fallacies. The
"historical method" of study is essentially a new approach to history.
It is called SCIENTIFIC because it limits itself to the tools of
scientific research and reasoning. It is not based on demonstrable
fact. It rests on only one fundamental -- and unprovable -- hypothesis:
THAT GOD HAS NEVER AND DOES NOT NOW INTERVENE IN, OR DETERMINE, THE
COURSE OF HISTORY.
Let a modern exponent of this new world-view explain it: "In any
case, modern science does not believe that the course of nature can be
interrupted or, so to speak, perforated by supernatural powers.
"The same is true of the modern study of history, which does not
take into account any intervention of God or of the devil or of demons
in the course of history .... Modern men take it for granted that the
course of nature and of history, like their own inner life and their
practical life, is nowhere interrupted by intervention of supernatural
powers." ("Jesus Christ and Mythology", by Rudolf Bultmann, pgs.
16-17.)
This assumption has not been and can never be proved. There are no
physical tools of science by which it may be demonstrated. It remains
only a hypothesis. Yet scientists and historians take it for granted as
if it were true.
The modern scientific historian blindly follows the "historical
method." If he did not do so, he would be cast out by his fellows. He
is taught to reject everything supernatural from history texts -- EVEN
WHEN EVIDENCE OF THE INTERVENTION OF GOD IS RECORDED BY EYE-WITNESSES
IN ANCIENT SECULAR RECORDS. He simply refuses to believe lt. This is
not true history or science. It is half truth and intellectual folly.

This unscientific approach is the universally required method of

modern historical study in institutions of higher learning. One will
find it explained, for example, in the well-known text "The Critical
Method in Historical Research and Writing". The author, Homer Carey
Hockett, warns his students against God and the supernatural in
history. He writes: "Moreover there are some kinds of statements which
are rejected even without being subjected to the usual tests. The
historian must reject them when the tests he usually makes are not
applicable. Such treatment is due statements reporting happenings which
do not conform to the laws of nature as established by scientific
methods."
Since God cannot be scientifically tested He is rejected as myth.
"It requires no justification where myths ... are involved. Their
summary rejection is implied in the rule that no statement can be
accepted unless it can be shown to rest upon trustworthy observation."
Any who recognize God does intervene in nature is automatically assumed
to be untrustworthy. "If any one asserts them he must be regarded as
ignorant, superstitious, the victim of hallucination, or some other
form of mental aberration" (p. 62).
What does all this mean? Just this: no one wants to be accused of
"ignorance," "superstition" or "mental aberration." To avoid this
stigma, the student or the historian finds himself compelled to reject
God and any supernatural event recorded in history. He is forced to
accept ,whatever passes under the vogue of science and reject whatever
is presently called "myth." No observation is accepted as trustworthy
if it disagrees with the present view of the natural world in which God
and the supernatural are deliberately excluded. ALL RECORDS AND EVENTS
ARE REINTERPRETED to fit the fallacious and unprovable assumption that
God is not in history.
The "historical method" is nothing more than a new myth -- a new
superstition. Its basic assumption is not only unverified, but
absolutely and irrevocably refuted by the evidence of past records and
of human experience WHICH HISTORIANS KNOW THEY HAVE REJECTED OR
IGNORED.
Evidence of God Rejected as "Myth"
To justify the use of the "historical method" historians have had
to discard or gloss over literally thousands of ancient records which
corroborate the history of the Bible. These secular records include not
only carefully preserved annals and references to the patriarchs, but
also accounts of every major Biblical event, including the deluge, the
building of the Tower of Babel and the Exodus! They are all summarily
discarded -- as is the Bible -- under the name of "myth." Many of these
records and annals will be re-examined in this compendium and properly
placed in their historical milieu.
But how does a historian or a theologian prove whether the Bible
or a secular record is a "myth" or a "fact." The answer is, he does not
prove anything. He ASSUMES.
"The beginning of Thy word is truth," declares Psalm 119:160
(trans. of Jewish Publication Society). But modern scholarship would
have us assume the beginning of Scripture -- Genesis -- is untrue or
"myth."
Let Rudolf Bultmann explain it. "The whole conception of the world
which is presupposed in the preaching of Jesus ... is mythological
i.e., ... the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in

the course of events .... This conception of the world we call

mythological because it is different from the conception of the world
which has been formed and developed by science since its inception in
ancient Greece ..." (p. 15).
It is called "myth" ONLY because it differs from pagan Greek
science and its modern derivative! What modern science refuses to
believe is arbitrarily and without proof designated "myth."
It is the very same hypothesis that atheistic, communistic
materialists accept. Yet it is called "Christian scholarship." There is
no essential difference between this Western God-rejecting skeptical
scholarship and Communistic scholarship. Both reject the God who has
intervened in the course of history. The former rejects Him in the name
of humanistics and science; the latter in the name of atheistic
materialism!
This similarity should surprise no one. For Karl Marx, the founder
of atheistic Communism, was trained in the same German universities of
Bonn, Berlin and Jena and by the same men who influenced Western
scholars to accept the God-rejecting "historical method."
History Cut from Its Moorings
Scholarship today is in confusion -- usually dignified by the
expression "learned controversy." The disagreement over the meaning of
practically everything is so wide ranging, so acute, that archaeologist
George E. Mendenhall wrote that it "may with perhaps less courtesy but
more accuracy be called chaos"! (From "Biblical History in Transition,"
"The Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by G. Ernest Wright. pp.
38, 33.)
The cause of this chaos is that historical conclusions are based
not so much on authorities as on theories. There has been no true
respect for the history of the Bible and for accurate secular annals.
The Bible has been discounted simply because it has not been
understood. Scripture has often been compared to a heap of winnowed
chaff.
There is a reason the learned intellects have not understood the
Bible. It is this: "And even as they did not like to retain God in
their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" -- or, as the
margin reads: "a mind void of judgment" (Romans 1:28). And again, as
Dr. Lamsa renders the Aramaic of I Corinthians 2:14: "For the material
man rejects spiritual things, for they are foolishness to him: neither
can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
The modern interpretation of history is devoid of judgment. It is
based on ignoring or disregarding the very documents and the evidence
that disprove it.
Scholars and theologians therefore have read their own
interpretations of secular records into the Bible. If necessary, they
altered the text to accomodate a hypothesis. Even so conservative a
scholar as A. T. Olmstead admitted when explaining the relationship of
the Bible to history:
"This is only to say in other words that the Bible cannot be
understood by itself .... It has become obvious that before we may
claim to KNOW the Bible, we must first investigate all these varied
sources and arrange their data in a general narrative. Then and only
then we are ready at long last to fit the Biblical stories into ancient
history." ("History, Ancient World, and the Bible -- Problems of
Attitude and Method", "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", Vol. II, No.

1, January 1943.)
THERE is the root of the conflict that permeates theology,
history, archaeology and related sciences. Men have rejected -- without
examining the proof -- God as the source of truth. "Thy Word," declared
Jesus, "is truth" (John 17:17). They have read their own
interpretations into history and into the Bible. Each one follows his
own human reasoning, apart from, and in opposition to, the revealed
truth of God. Chaos is the result.
"But when you have the truth, everything fits"! (E. R. Punshon,
"Information Received", Penguin Books, 1955.)

CHAPTER TWO
6000 Years of History
How long has Man been upon earth? Where, and through whom, did
civilization originate? What about "prehistoric man"? Can the history
of the Bible be reconciled with ancient history? with Egyptian and
Babylonian chronology?
Historians and archaeologists are sharply divided over these
questions today. Many sense something is drastically wrong with the
present explanation of the ancient world. How did all this scholarly
doubt arise?
It is Never Safe to Assume
Remove from a library shelf any volume on world history or ancient
and examine its opening chapters. In it will be such expressions
"it is thought," "there appears to be some basis for believing,"
has been suggested," "it may be presumed," "one may safely assume,"
"others are of the opinion" -- just to mention a few.
What do all these carefully chosen expressions really signify?
Just this: that no demonstrable evidence really exists for accepting as
a fact what has been written in the textbook. It is mere speculation!
The modern reconstruction of ancient history without God is almost
100% erroneous. And no wonder! It is derived from only a part of the
historical sources that are available. It casts aside as "myth" factual
and datable evidence of the past merely because God appeared in that
evidence. without it, the modern historian is able only to theorize
about the time or the place man appeared upon the earth. He cannot
know. When these written records are rejected, not even archaeologists
or geologists can come to the historians' aid and provide adequate
dating.
Some modern writers, relying only on geological inferences, would
place the appearance of man about 25,000 to 35,000 years ago. Others
suggest the period is no less than 100,000 years ago. No small number
of scholars assume it may be 500,000 years ago. And there are a few who
place it several hundred thousand years earlier.
But how could intelligent, able men arrive at such absurdly
varying figures for the origin of man and the beginnings of ancient
history? They all have access, remember, to the same geological and
archaeological sources of information.
The answer is, they are all interpreting geologic and
archaeological evidence in accordance with their private theories. They
are only guessing. They have no way of knowing.
One well-known writer phrased it this way: "We know that there is
no absolute knowledge, that there are only theories, but we forget
this. The better educated we are the harder we believe in axioms" (from
Lincoln Steffens "Autobiography", page 816).
But we can know. The God who has intervened in history, records of
whose acts we may read of in ancient sources from many nations -- that
God has made known both the time and the place of origin of man. But
historians, theologians and scientists alike refuse to believe it, for
it leaves them no room to guess!
Before we examine these ancient secular and Biblical records, let
us notice one classic illustration of the total inability of either
man
as:
"it
and

archaeology or geology to determine DURATION OF TIME. Take the case of

the Neolithic (New Stone) colonists of Wessex, England -- near the site
of famous Stonehenge. "Estimates of the length of their sojourn have
been very varied, the most extreme being that of W. A. Sturge,
President of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia in 1909, who
confidently stated and considered that he had proved 'on irrefragable
evidence' that the Neolithic period had lasted well over 200,000 years
-- a grossly inaccurate estimate .... Five to ten generations of men,
or 100-200 years, would perhaps be nearer the mark as an estimate of
time ...," declared archaeologist J. F. S. Stone recently ("Wessex
Before the Celts", page 51).
Why such incomprehensible variations? Because no scientific means
can determine the speed with which geological deposits were laid in the
past -- or how long ago the deposition occurred, or the cause. Nor can
any archaeology determine accurately the rate of accumulation of human
remains unless there is some contemporary written evidence!
No "Prehistory" of Man
The modern idea that man has been upon earth for more than 6000
years is predicated on the assumption that "prehistoric time" once
existed. Almost everyone takes it for granted. Few have ever thought to
question it.
As used by critical historians, "prehistoric time" is said to
refer to earliest antiquity that is nowhere documented in written
records. Is this kind of "prehistoric time" really a fact?
Turn to Genesis 1:1 for the answer. "In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth." Time is coeval with the creation, for time
is measured by the movements of the created heavenly bodies. But here
also is a record of what occurred at the beginning. Here is a
documented account reaching back even to the beginning of time.
"Prehistoric time" in this sense is therefore irreconcilable with
Scripture, for there is no period of time that is not documented in the
Bible.
But how did the theory of "prehistoric time" originate? Why was
the idea invented? Stuart Piggott, noted British archaeologist,
summarized the development of the theory in his book "Approach to
Archaeology." Note carefully his wording: "The first step was the
realization that non-documented antiquity could in fact exist at all:
that the whole creation and the sum of human history was not in fact
contained within the Biblical narrative. This was the repudiation of
the theological model of the past ..." (page 53).
"Prehistory" was developed to explain the presence of man without
the Bible. It is merely another facet of the "historical method" which
denies the possibility of God in history.
The fallacy of "prehistory" is clearly explained in the
"Encyclopedia Americana". Here is its surprising statement: "... it is
no longer accurate or logical to use the term 'prehistoric,' unless it
is employed to designate that vague and hypothetical period in the
beginnings of human development of which there exists no positive and
tangible record ...." (from "History, its rise and development".)
Could words be plainer?
"Prehistoric" -- scholars now admit -- denotes nothing more than a
"vague and hypothetical period ... of which there exists no positive
and tangible record"!
But what of the famous periods or "ages" designated the

Palaeolithic (Old Stone), the Mesolithic (Intermediate Stone), the

Neolithic (New Stone), the Chalcolithic (Stone and Copper), the Bronze
and the Iron?
Cultures, Not "Ages"
These terms do not represent "ages." They are CULTURAL
appellations. It is a historical deception to speak of the "Stone Age."
There are only STONE CULTURES. "These names," writes William L. Langer
in "An Encyclopaedia of World History", "are excellent to identify
cultures, but their use to designate periods of time has led to much
inaccuracy and confusion, as the dates of the cultures to which they
refer differ widely in different parts of the world" (page 2).
That is, societies using iron were contemporary with other
societies using bronze or only stone. Most ancient societies used stone
and bronze and iron. Today one may see backward tribes with a stone
culture in New Guinea, Australia, areas of India, Africa and South
America side by side with highly industrialized civilizations. These
tribes are not "prehistoric." They are contemporary. Throughout history
they have paralleled contemporary higher cultures, not ancestral to
higher cultures as anthropologists assume. Even the Bible makes special
mention of some of these degenerate tribes who anciently lived in
Palestine and Sinai. The reference is found in Job 30:1-8, Jewish
translation:
"But now they that are younger than I have me in derision,
Whose fathers I disdained to set with the dogs of my flock ....
"Men in whom ripe age is perished. They are gaunt with want and
famine;
They gnaw the dry ground, in the gloom of wasteness and
desolation.
"They pluck salt-wart with wormwood;
"And the roots of the broom are their food.
"THEY ARE DRIVEN FORTH FROM THE MIDST OF MEN ....
"In the clefts of the valleys must they dwell,
"In holes of the earth and of the rocks.
"Among the bushes they bray;
"Under the nettles they are gathered together.
"They are children of churls, yea, CHILDREN OF IGNOBLE MEN;
"They were scourged out of the land."
No evolution here. Only degeneration. civilized man did not
descend from degraded, "primitive" tribes. But degraded tribes did
descend from civilized men of low birth and degenerate habits. They
were anciently driven out from the Middle East with its rising
civilization, only to be rediscovered in tropical forests in recent
centuries!
These facts make it clear why evolutionists are forced to admit:
"Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a
matter of inference" (from "New Views of Evolution" by George Perrigo
Conger, pp. 91).
Origin of the Study of History
Now we come to the origin of the scientific study of history. The

facts are surprising. Few historians are aware of the real origin of
their discipline. They generally take for granted as true the
principles already laid down for them by preceding historians. Yet one
of the basic rules of any scientific study is never to take anything
for granted. Let us pull back the curtain on the study of history and
view a plot that has eluded even the historians' keen eyes.
History as a scientific discipline may be said to have taken its
rise with Lorenzo della Valla. He demonstrated that the "Donation of
Constantine", on which the secular claims of the Roman Catholic Church
were originally based, was a medieval forgery.
Forgery. That word became a touchstone. Soon non-catholic scholars
everywhere became critical, negative, looking for spurious documents.
The Middle Ages provided many rich finds.
During the same period a great revival in Classical Learning had
been occurring, The popes had encouraged Catholic scholars of the
Renaissance to revive the study of ancient Roman and Greek literature.
In non-Catholic educational circles Classical Learning became
associated with Catholicism. The inevitable occurred. Scholars who
resented everything the word AUTHORITY stood for saw in the Greek and
Roman Classics the symbolism of authority and tradition. Tradition
would not be purged out, they reasoned, unless the Classics were also
attacked and labeled as spurious.
The frontal assault began. At the close of the eighteenth century
Friedrich August Wolf challenged the scholarly world with his
"Prolegomena ad Homerum" (1795). The ancient Greek poet Homer -- famous
for having composed the two great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey -did not compose either epic in its present form, charged Wolf. Homer,
he reasoned, did not know how to write. The epics, he concluded, were
pieced together about the seventh century from oral traditions, long
after Homer lived. They were therefore unauthentic, Wolf concluded.
The floodgates of criticism were now opened wide. Thousands of
youths, flocking to the German universities for their doctorates, were
assigned the task of criticising classical literature. At the height of
the epidemic, scarcely a single ancient work remained unimpugned as
biased, untrue to fact, or unauthentic. Into the swirl of condemned
poems, dramas, myths were heaved the sober histories of Herodotus, and
Thucydides, the annals of the Greek city states, the Greek records of
ancient Egypt, Assyria and Media. All ancient Greek and Roman history
was condemned as spurious, unauthentic, fabulous, unhistorical -because writing, said the critics, had not been known. How could the
Greeks have preserved authentic histories reaching back 2000 years
before the time of Christ, asked the critics, if the Greeks did not
even know how to write till the seventh century before our era?
Historians Follow the Higher Critics
The historians of that day were greatly influenced by the
subjective reasoning of the German Higher Critics. They accepted their
verdict. Greek records prior to the seventh century disappeared from
history books, or were labeled in footnotes as fabulous, or, at best,
garbled.
Nearly a half century elapsed. During that period a new science
arose -- archaeology. The past was being dug up. What did the
excavators discover? Writing materials and documents dating more than
2000 years before the time of Christ! And in the Greek world, too!
The Greeks did know how to write after all. The critics, including

Wolf, had been wrong. The imagined illiteracy of the early Greeks was a
myth. The argument that they could not have preserved their history
correctly was false.
But did the new evidence make any difference to the critics or to
the historians? Were they willing to reconsider their conclusions? How
were the historians going to explain that the basis for rejecting Greek
history had been exploded?
No answers came forth. The new evidence was greeted with silence.
All who brought up the problem were ridiculed as unscientific. Decades
have passed, but not once has the evidence been reconsidered. The plot
to suppress the truth had succeeded till now.
There is absolutely no reason why the records preserved by the
Greeks should not be reinstated in their proper place in history.
Refusal to reconsider the evidence is a standing indictment against the
modern naturalistic interpretation of history.
But the story does not end here.
Every year saw fresh hordes of students arrive at the German
universities demanding doctoral dissertations. Johann Gottlieb Fichte
had made the German educational system famous the world over. Many
students from abroad were coming to study in Germany under the great
literary critics. The German professors insisted that their students
thresh again the old classics. But this was not research. It was mere
confirmation of what had already been universally accepted. With the
quantity of classical raw material strictly limited in the early
nineteenth century, a new field of study had to be thought up.
A "new discovery" must be found, the critics agreed, if Germany
was to maintain absolute educational domination of the world. Such a
discovery necessarily meant something to attack, for assailing a
commonly accepted idea always creates interest. What literature, the
critics asked themselves, did people believe to be true, but which had
not yet been subjected to higher criticism?
The Bible!
Protestant Germany had, since the days of Dr. Martin Luther,
assumed the absolute authenticity of Scripture. What a challenge! The
opening wedge of the attack had, in actuality, been made by Dr. Luther
himself, for had he not denounced the epistle of James as a book of
straw?
All the methodology and reasoning, once feverishly applied to
classical literature, was now directed in a frontal assault on the
authenticity and historicity of Scripture. The Bible, proudly announced
the critics, was pieced together from tradition in much the same
fashion as the ancient Greek and Roman classics had been. The
extremists declared it a pious fraud.
The literature of the Old Testament was rejected as contrary to
human experience. It was obviously unhistorical, they concluded, for no
events of a supernatural nature were befalling any nation today -- and
certainly not any German professors and students! There was no God
punishing them for their attacks upon Him, as He had once punished
Israel, or Egypt, or Babylon.
Historians who had heretofore acknowledged the authority of the
historical record in the Old Testament were impressed with the theories
of the literary scholars. Then, too, the theory of organic evolution
was mushrooming. Rationalism was king. Within a few decades the entire
study of history was reshaped to meet the new theories.
But how were historians to reconstruct ancient history without the
Old Testament? without God? without the supernatural? with all the
early classical events removed? What kind of framework would they use

to date events? History had to have some kind of chronological

backbone.
Framework of History Founded on Egypt
A new reconstruction and interpretation of history without God or
the supernatural, and now without Genesis, was foisted upon the world
in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It first created the
phantom of "prehistory", as we have already noted. To bolster their
concept of "ancient man," the discoveries by travellers of savage,
cannibalistic tribes in far away places were heavily called upon. It
became a fad to picture "early man" in the garb of a savage.
The next step was to tie "prehistory" to modern history. What
chronological means was to be used? The answer is two-fold: astronomy
and the history of Egypt.
Rationalism had disposed of all supernaturalism in history. God
was excluded from nature. Uniformitarianism became a basic concept. The
astronomer was now called on by the historian to date the past for
thousands of years on the basis of the present movement of heavenly
bodies. All ancient historical records referring to supernatural
movements of the heavens were rejected as mythological. Away went
"Joshua's long day," and the backward decline of the sun for ten
degrees in the kingship of Hezekiah. (See II Kings 20:8-11.)
From the Biblical record it would be impossible to determine the
position of any solar body prior to the time of Hezekiah. But
historians postulated that since God, according to their reasoning,
could not intervene in the course of nature, it would be possible to
date the past by calculating backward the present movements of the sun,
moon and other planets, and the stars. All that was necessary, said the
historians, was to discover, through archaeological means, early
calendars and ancient documents that referred to positions of the sun,
or moon, or the rise of the stars on certain stated calendar days. A
few documents were discovered -- but, alas, they did not agree with the
present movements of the heavenly body. The historians -- unwilling to
admit uniformitarianism an error -- decided the mistaken numbers lay in
the scribes who copied the astronomical documents. It was an easy task
to change the figures on the cuneiform tablets and Egyptian papyri.
Still a problem remained. Astronomical movements repeat themselves
in varying cycles. The 19-year cycle of the Hebrew calendar is an
illustration. No ancient date could be determined by astronomical means
unless the approximate date had already been determined by historical
methods. Here is where Egypt comes on the scene.
Egypt seemed to provide the best solution. Her earliest documents
were more likely to be preserved because of the warm, dry climate. Most
of the monuments were above ground, unlike those in Mesopotamia. This
made it a much easier task for the archaeologist. Egypt, decided the
scholars, should become the historical standard of the world. Its
civilization was certainly one of the oldest and earliest. Why not tie
"prehistory" and modern history together through Egypt.
Now came the difficulty. Archaeology could not always determine
which Egyptian monuments and which kings reigns came first. There were
no buried cities, one above another, as in Mesopotamia. No stratigraphy
to determine the exact order of events. The only solution was to adopt
the traditional dynastic history of Egypt. It is based on the Greek
versions of Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian, who drew up the
history of ancient Egypt under thirty dynasties.

The influence of Manetho on the order of events of ancient history

is tremendous. This is confirmed by Sir Alan Gardiner, one of the most
famous Egyptologists of the twentieth century. "That I have devoted so
much discussion to what survives of Manetho ... will need no excuse for
those familiar with the evolution of our science; no Egyptologist has
yet been able to free himself from the shackles imposed by the native
annalist's thirty Dynasties, and these are likely always to remain the
essential framework of our modern expositions" ("Egypt of the
Pharaohs", p. viii).
Is Egyptian History Correct?
The dynastic history of Egypt is universally assumed to be
correct. NO historian thinks of questioning it. It is simply one of the
assumptions he has taken for granted.
The time has come to explode this assumption! The story of how it
became universally accepted over 2000 years ago is one of the most
intriguing in all the annals of history. Let us roll back the centuries
and discover the plot that changed history.
The historians of the last century inherited their views of
history from the classical professors, for ancient history was for a
long time an aspect of classical studies. The classical professors were
interested in attacking LITERATURE. But they needed history for
background if they were to demonstrate that early writings were merely
garbled oral traditions and mythical accounts of heroes.
It suited their purpose to retain the commonly accepted view of
history -- especially Homer's story of the fall of Troy. The earlier
that ancient events could be placed the longer the time for oral
traditions and myths to develop. The greater the likelihood for events
to become garbled and untrue to fact.
Thus the framework of history remained essentially the same as it
has been all through the Middle Ages.
Medieval and Modern Europe inherited its account of the past
mainly through Catholic scholars and historians. Sextus Julius
Africanus (early third century), Eusebius (early fourth century), and
George the Monk, known as Syncellus (eighth to ninth century)
contributed greatly to the transmission of ancient history. These men,
together with the Jewish historian Josephus, obtained their information
from earlier Greek documents long since lost. But from where did the
Greek world obtain its history of Egypt? From the Egyptians.
The framework of all history, in simple terms, is derived
ultimately from Egypt -- particularly through the writings of Manetho.
"In the arrangement of ... Egyptian materials within a framework
of
consecutive dynasties, all modern historians are dependent upon an
ancient predecessor. This was an Egyptian priest and writer Manetho who
lived under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.). Manetho was born at
Sebennytus (now Samannud) in the Delta. Eventually he rose to be high
priest in the temple at Heliopolis. Berossos of Babylon," continues
Finegan, "was practically a contemporary, and the two priests became
rivals in the proclamation of the antiquity and greatness of their
respective lands." (From "Light from the Ancient Past", by Jack
Finegan, pp. 65-66.)
In Manetho's time this spirit of competition reached a climax.
Egypt and Babylonia were vying with each other for influence over the
Greek-speaking world. Each sought to be known as the founder of

civilization, of cultural and religious institutions, of political

unity. Vanity was coupled in both by a deep sense of inferiority, for
both were peoples subject to the Greeks. To rise above that feeling,
each claimed to be the first people of earth, not alone in the sense of
civilization, but in the sense of time.
Distorting History
To justify their claims to antiquity, Manetho and Berossos
utilized their early records, the king lists of the various cities, and
cleverly marshalled them together in consecutive order. Manetho
summarized the history of Egypt under the rule of thirty dynasties, or
ruling houses, from the royal cities of Abydos, Memphis, Elephantine,
Heracleopolis, Xois, Thebes, Tanis, Bubastis, Sais and other cities.
The history of the royal families of each city was drawn up to make it
appear that only one city at a time dominated Egypt, and that Egypt
was, from its beginning, under the government of only one ruler at a
time. The result was that Egypt appeared to be extremely ancient and
the first land to establish unity -- thousands of years before the
Greek city-states were united. It was a fraud!
The internal details of the reigns of the kings of the various
dynasties were scrupulously correct -- they had to be to make the
history look valid -- but the order in which the dynasties appeared was
a historic lie. Manetho cleverly told the history of the ruling
families of each city, then attached them end to end to make Egypt
appear the oldest and earliest unified nation on earth.
Egypt was a confederation. Its several kings exercised authority
under the most powerful who was called Pharaoh. The word "Pharaoh"
means the Great House -- as there were also lesser houses ruling.
Even the Bible preserves an account of more than one king in Egypt
at the same time: "Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us," said
the Arameans, "the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the
Egyptians" (II Kings 7:6).
Like Egypt, the land of Assyria also had more than one king at the
same time: "At that time did king Ahaz send unto the kings of Assyria
to help him" (II Chronicles 28:16). Historians falsely charge these
verses are untrue to fact.
As an example of the strength of a great confederation, one may
name Germany. Few are really aware that the German Empire, like the
ancient Egyptian Empire, was a confederation governed by several kings
even at the time of World War I. The supreme ruler was of the Prussian
House of Hohenzollern, William II (1888-1918). Ruling with him in the
German Confederation were Frederick Augustus III (1904-1918), king of
Saxony: William II (1891-1918), king of Wuerttemberg Louis III
(1913-1918), king of Bavaria and Ernest Augustus (1913-1918), duke of
Brunswick. All lost their thrones in November of 1918.
To return to the theme of the story. Succeeding chapters of this
compendium will now demonstrate how the true history of Egypt may be
restored. Never before has the history of the ancient world been made
clear as it will now be.

CHAPTER THREE
History Begins at Babel
The restoration of history begins with this chapter. It has taken
years of research to recover all the vital pieces of evidence needed to
tell the full story. The assumptions of historians and archaeologists
had first to be cleared away. The most difficult part, however, was the
recovery of rejected evidence -- much of it published over 100 years
ago.
At last the restoration of the framework of history was complete
for Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, Media. All the records went back
to one momentous event.
The event? The building of the City and Tower of Babel! The
beginning of the civilization of this world! It commenced as an act of
rebellion against the Government of God. It began with the
establishment of the Government of Man. And just as one might expect,
all the ancient nations began to reckon their kings from this event.
History Corroborates the Bible
The Biblical account of the City and the Tower of Babel may be
found in Genesis 11:1-9. In the Jewish Publication Society translation
we read:
And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it
came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the
land of Shinar: and they dwelt there. And they said one to another:
'Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick
for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said: 'Come, let us
build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make
us a name: lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole
earth.' And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of men builded. And the Lord said: 'Behold, they are one
people, and they have all one language: and this is what they begin to
do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to
do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they
may not understand one another's speech.' So the Lord scattered them
abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth and they left off to
build the city. Therefore was the name of it called Babel: because the
Lord did there confound the language of all the earth and from thence
did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
The most complete secular record is that found in the Akkadian
Creation Epic. It is reproduced in "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", by
James B. Pritchard, pages 68-69. This account, like most from ancient
pagan sources, is encrusted with myth. But that does not nullify the
basic historical evidence contained in the epic. Following are
extracts, freely translated, from the Epic of Creation concerning the
building of the City and the Tower of Babel. A vague recollection of
the Supreme God is discernable.
"'Now, O lord, thou who hast caused our deliverance,

What shall be our homage to thee?

Let us build a shrine ....'
Brightly glowed his features, like the day:
'Like that of lofty Babylon, whose building you have
requested,
Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name it "The
Sanctuary"'
For one whole year they molded the bricks.
When the second year arrived,
They raised high the shrine equaling a great height.
Having built a stage-tower a great height,
They set up in it an abode for Marduk, Enlil, and Ea.
"This is Babylon, the place that is your home' ...'"
The account in Genesis describes exactly what is given here -- the
building of a Tower, or religious edifice, and of a City.
The epic then continues with the establishment of human
government. At this point the document is fragmentary, but a father and
a son are clearly spoken of:
"He set up a throne ....
Another in ....
'Verily, most exalted is the son ....
His sovereignty is surpassing ....
May he shepherd the human race."
The Biblical account reveals who these two individuals were. Cush,
the father, and Nimrod, the son. "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be
a mighty one in the earth .... And the beginning of his kingdom was
Babel ..." (Genesis 10:8, 10).
With the reign of Cush and of Nimrod the history of civilization
begins. At this point commences also the chronology of Egypt, of
Assyria, of Babylonia and of the whole Near East.
The exact date of this event was preserved down to Roman times.
For Velleius Paterculus cites from Aemilius Sura, in his "Roman
History", book I, section VI, the following: "Between this time (when
Rome conquered Philip, king of Macedonia) and the beginning of the
reign of Ninus (Nimrod) king of the Assyrians, who was the first to
hold world power, lies an interval of 1995 years." Philip was conquered
in 197. (All dates in this compendium which are not otherwise
designated are understood to be before the present era, commonly,
though mistakenly, written "B.C.") Nimrod, therefore, began his sole
reign in 2192. It followed a joint reign with his father Cush for 62
years, according to Julius Africanus. That places the overthrow of
Babel 2254 years before the present era. The two previous years,
according to the Epic of Creation, had been spent in erecting Babel.
The building of the Tower may therefore be dated 2256-2254. The Bible
does not specifically date this event. But it does confirm the general
period: "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg;
for in his days was the earth divided ..." (Genesis 10:25).
Certainly the most spectacular confirmation of this date may be
found in the history of China. For the Chinese begin their authentic
history also 2254 years before the present era. This is no coincidence.
China's first king was "black." His eyes shown with "double
brightness." That is, theologically, "demon possessed." They called him
Shun, and his father's name is spelled variously Chusou or Kusou -that is, Cush. In his days lived a very famous woman whose name may be

translated as either "the mother of the king of the west," or the

"queen mother of the west " (See the "Annals of the Bamboo Books," "The
Chinese Classics", by James Legge, vol. III, part I, pages 114-115.)
Before presenting the chronological history of China -- which has
been preserved without alteration since the Tower of Babel, let us
trace in the West the story of these heroes who founded Babel. No story
of history is so unusual, so filled with the unexpected.
On to Egypt
The tombs of all the famous heroes who founded Babel are located
in Egypt. Egypt early became the second center of civilization. One can
now easily understand why both Babylonians and Egyptians claimed to be
the first people in the world -- claimed their civilization and their
religious customs were the earliest. In Egypt we now trace the history
of what occurred immediately after Babel.
Egyptian history opens with Dynasty I. Its capital was Thinis in
Upper Egypt. The names of the first four rulers of Dynasty I are Menes,
Athothis, Kenkenes and Uenephes. The spelling of the names is from the
Greek of Manetho. The early Egyptian forms vary slightly. Who were
these famous individuals?
Let the Egyptians themselves provide the answer. Athothis, Egypt's
second king, was Osiris. The tomb of Athothis at Abydos was "the
sepulchre of the god Osiris, and, as such, became the shrine to which
millions of pilgrims made their way," declared Arthur Weigall in "A
History of the Pharaohs", vol. I, page 111. The Egyptian god Osiris was
the Baal of the Phoenicians, the Marduk of the Babylonians, the Tammuz
of the Semites, the Nimrod of the Bible.
The Cairo fragment of the Annals of Dynasties I-V preserves a name
of the mother of Athothis. She is Hept, meaning "the veiled one." This
is a designation of Isis, the mother and wife of Osiris. The Assyrians
called Isis or Hept Ishtar or Semiramis. In Scripture she is called
Ashtoreth. This woman was originally the queen of Meni. Egypt's first
king. She became Athothis' queen and wife after the planned death of
Meni. Here is confirmation of the age-old tradition that Nimrod married
his own mother. Later. Athothis himself was slain in the 28th year of
his reign, according to Plutarch.
The father of Athothis, and Egypt's first king, was Meni or Mena
-- Menes in Greek. His name means "The Establisher" ("History of
Ancient Egypt", vol. II, p. 26, by George Rawlinson), or "The
Everlasting" (Waddell's "Manetho", p. 215) Menes was the first to
ESTABLISH himself as king in place of the Everlasting God. Since Menes
was the father of Athothis (Nimrod), he is the Cush of the Bible. "And
Cush begot Nimrod, he began to be a mighty one in the earth" (Gen.
10:8).
The third name in the first dynasty is Kenkenes, a Greek form of
Kenken, meaning "The Terrible." He was born, according to Egyptian
tradition, after the death of Osiris. His mother placed him on the
throne. She claimed he was the reincarnation of Osiris, or Athothis;
hence he is at times called Athothis, or Itit in early fragments.
(These various names may be found in Sir Alan Gardiner's "Egypt of the
Pharaohs" and in Weigall's "A History of the Pharaohs") He was also
named Horus, the son of Isis.
Everyone of these famous men of old had many names. Of Nimrod, we
read in the Epic of Creation:

"As for us, by however many names we call him, he is our god'
Let us then proclaim his fifty names ...."
Listed fourth in Dynasty I is Uenephes. This king was a woman! She
called herself Henneit, meaning "Neit is victorious." Neit is the
Egyptian form of the Greek Athena. She also called herself Hept, which
means "the veiled one," as already noted. This evidence clearly means
that the wife of Meni, or Cush, was the mother and later the wife of
Nimrod, and later still the mother of Kenkenes or Horus.
Years later, she even propositioned her own son Horus, called
Gilgamesh in Babylonian tradition, as we read in the following extracts
from the Epic of Gilgamesh:
"When Gilgamesh had put on his tiara,
Glorious Ishtar raised an eye at the beauty of Gilgamesh:
'Come, Gilgamesh, be thou my lover!
Do but grant me of thy fruit.
Thou shalt be my husband and I will be thy wife'.
Gilgamesh opened his mouth to speak,
Thou art but a brazier which goes out in the cold;
A back door which does not keep out blast and .windstorm;
Pitch which soils its bearers; A waterskin which soaks
through its bearer;
A shoe which pinches the foot of its owner!
Which lover didst thou love forever?
Come and I will name for thee thy lovers:
Of .... (the story of Cush is broken from the cuneiform
tablet)
for Tammuz, the lover of thy youth,
Thou hast ordained wailing year after year.
them."
(Consult Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", pages 83-84.
Compare the account of Tammuz with Ezekiel 8:14.)
The Chronology of Dynasty I
Now we are ready to build the chronology of Egypt and of all
ancient history from its beginning. Without a knowledge of who these
rulers of Dynasty I are, it would be impossible to make sense of the
following lengths of reign. The various pieces of information came
originally from a full-length account by Manetho. The abstractors each
told only part of the full story. No one list is complete in itself,
but taken together -- in the same way the Bible ought to be studied -every chronological fact makes sense.
Africanus

Eusebius

Eusebius
(Armenian
Version)
Years

Years

Years

1 Menes (Cush)

62

60

30

2 Athothis (Nimrod)

57

27

25

3 Kenkenes (Horus or

Gilgamesh)
4 Uenephes (Ishtar
or Isis)

31

39

39

23

42

42

Eratosthenes gives 62 for Menes and 59 for Athothis.

The immediate comment that all modern historians give, is that the
list is corrupt. But they have no proof. They have never assembled
these figures to tell the full story. Remember, the full account of
what really occurred is lost in Manetho's original work. (A few facts
have been reclaimed by archaeology.) Each of the abstractors of Manetho
told only part of the story. Like the writers of the four gospels, each
viewed what he saw in history from a different perspective. What was
important to one, did not appear as important to another. It is time
scholarship had a little more respect for the documents they purport to
handle so judiciously.
The numbers in this list, as in almost all ancient history and
also the Bible, are calendar years. That explains why they are whole
figures. The immediate years after the building of Babel are assigned
to Cush, although his son Nimrod reigned jointly with him.
The account begins with the reign of Cush or Menes. He began to
reign in Shinar, not in Egypt. He came to Egypt where he spent his last
30 years. Cush or Menes ruled altogether 62 years, after which Nimrod
began his sole rule of 25 years. Nimrod settled in Egypt 60 years after
the building of Babel, and reigned two years jointly with his father.
His total reign in Egypt was therefore 27 years. Plutarch records that
Osiris (Nimrod) had to flee Egypt at the end of 27 years. He was
executed in the summer in his 28th year by Shem, in the month of
Tammuz, the 17th day according to ancient tradition.
These events may thus be clearly dated as follows:
Menes (Cush)

60

2254-2194 (reign prior to coming of Nimrod)

Athothis (Nisrod)

27

2194-2167 (total reign in Egypt)

-or-

Menes (Cush)

62

2254-2192 (total reign of Cush)

Athothis (Nimrod)

25

2192-2167 (sole reign in Egypt)

Cush came to Egypt about 2222 and united Upper and Lower Egypt
under his supreme authority for 30 years -- 2222-2192. This marks the
beginning of Cushite, or Ethiopian, settlement in Africa. Cush, at the
time of death, may have been nearly 170 years of age.
Josephus confirms this restoration of history in "Antiquities"
book VIII, chapter vi, sect. 2: "All the kings from Menes, who built
Memphis, ... until Solomon ... was more than one thousand three
hundred years."
In 2167 Nimrod (Athothis) fled to Italy and was slain there. At
the flight of Nimrod, his mother-wife Uenephes also had to flee -tradition states to the Delta. At this point some continued to reckon
after the era of Nimrod or Athothis, since he had no male heir. Others
reckoned time after his mother-wife who went into hiding. Thirty years
passed. Now see how Manetho's figures fit!
It was about 57 years after Nimrod had come to Egypt. Suddenly his

widow Uenephes or Isis reappears with a son -- Kenkenes or Horus. Four

years later -- 59 years after the death of Menes or Cush, she
associates the son with her on the throne of Egypt. Isis or Uenephes
thus temporarily triumphs over those who were responsible for the
execution of Nimrod.
Eight years later -- 42 years after the death of Nimrod -- the son
Horus becomes supreme ruler as his mother turns over to him the reins
of government. Horus or Kenkenes reigned altogether 39 years, alone for
31 years. Uenephes therefore reigned, after her return from exile, for
12 years (four years alone and eight years with her son). Afterward she
returned to the throne again for 11 years following the departure of
Horus for Babylonia, making a total of 23 years. (In Babylon Horus
received the name Gilgamesh.) Thus every figure of Manetho, preserved
from antiquity, fits.
This information may therefore be summarized as follows:
Athothis (Nimrod)

57

2194-2137 (years from Nimrod's coming

into Egypt to return of Isis)

Uenephes (Ishtar)

12

2137-2125

Kenkenes (Horus)

31

2125-2094 (sole reign of Horus)

Uenephes -- 11 years more,

2094-2083, making a total of 23.

-orAthothis (Nimrod)

27

2194-2167 (total reign in Egypt)

Uenephes (Ishtar)

42

2167-2125 (years from flight of Nimrod to

sole reign of Horus)

Kenkenes (Horus)

31

2125-2094
-or-

Athothis (Nimrod)

59

2192-2133 (years from the death of Cush to

reign of Horus)

Kenkenes (Horus)

39

2133-2094 (total reign of Horus)

It is immediately noticeable that Horus or Gilgamesh left Egypt

exactly 100 years after Nimrod left Babylonia to come to Egypt -2194-2094. This figure has important significance when we come to
comparing Egyptian history with that of the land of Shinar or Sumer, in
Mesopotamia.
Shem in Egypt
The first book of Manetho lists four more kings in Dynasty I.
Among them is Shem. All classical records agree as to the length of
reign. The reconstructed Cairo fragment of the Palermo stone gives
different figures, but the same total -- indicating there were
contemporary reigns, during which more than one ruler shared the
throne. A Biblical parallel to this may be observed in the case of
Jehoshaphat and Jehoram in Judah (II Kings 8:16).

The figures appear as follows:

Manetho

Palermo Stone Restored

5 Usaphais

20

2083-2063

34

2083-2049

6 Miebis

26

2063-2037

19

2049-2030

7 Semempses

18

2037-2019

2030-2021

8 Bieneches

26

2019-1993

28

2021-1993

The total length of Dynasty I is 261 years -- 2254-1993.

The seventh king is especially significant. His original name in
the Egyptian records is Semsem -- meaning the Great Sem or Shem. In the
New Testament Greek, Shem is spelled Sem (Luke 3:36). The hieroglyphics
representing Shem depict him in Asiatic, not Egyptian, dress. He
appears as an old man with a long beard in priestly garb. Old indeed he
was. About 430 years old!
Shem left Egypt in 2019 or one year before the death of Noah in
2018 which was 350 years after the Flood Shem probably heard that Noah
was approaching death in 2019.
Now consider Miebis, the sixth king, and predecessor of Semsem.
His tomb was defaced by Semsem. A later section, in volume II, will
reveal Miebis to be Osiris II. He was slain by Semsem. The Egyptians
called him Typhon. He was the "father" or ancestor of "Judah and
Jerusalem," records Plutarch.
Dynasty II of Thinis
The kings of the second dynasty were comparatively insignificant.
Other and more powerful rulers were dominating Egypt at this time -ever since the days of Shem, but who they were will be disclosed only
after the chronology of the first eight dynasties is firmly
established. The change from Dynasty I to II at this point in history
will also become apparent, once we begin to examine parallel dynasties
who fought over the possession of Abydos and Thinis.
The first four rulers of Dynasty II:
Names in
Manetho

Names in
King lists

Years
of Reign

1 Boethos

Bedjau

38

1993-1955

2 Kaiechos

Kakau

39

1955-1916

3 Binothris

Banutjeren

47

1916-1869

4 Tlas

Wadjnas

17

1869-1852

Dates

The fragment of the Palermo Stone agrees with this total.

In the reign of Binothris "it was decided that women might hold
the kingly office," wrote Manetho. This legal decision accounts for the
bifurcation of the dynasty within two generations. Manetho's
abstractors list both branches of the dynasty in successive order,
giving the false impression that one followed the other. This is the

very same technique Manetho employed in listing contemporary dynasties.

The Turin Papyrus and the Palermo Stone provide the information missing
from Manetho. Once again all the evidence must be considered, including
Manetho.
The fifth king listed by Manetho and the monuments was Sethenes
(Sendi in the King-lists). He reigned altogether for 41 years -1852-1811. The Palermo stone provides the added fact that he associated
others with him after his 37th year. His sole reign was 37 years -1852-1815.
At this point he associated Chaires and Sesochris with him on the
throne. Sesochris -- the eighth in Manetho's list -- was succeeded by
Cheneres -- the ninth in Manetho. Their reigns:
Names in Manetho

Names in
King-lists

Years of Reign
In Manetho

5 Sethenes

Sendi

8 Sesochris

Neferkaseker

37
(or 41)
48

1852-1815
(or 1852-1811)
1815-1767

30

1767-1737

9 Cheneres

--

Dates

Parallel with Sesochris was Chaires, who reigned for 17 years. His
successor was Nephercheres (Neferkare in the King-lists). Manetho gives
him a total reign of 25 years, but the Palermo Stone and the Turin
Papyrus indicate he was removed from the kingship by Sesochris after a
reign of only 15 years. The Turin Papyrus preserves the record that
Sesochris replaced him for 8 years. Following the usurpation by
Sesochris, Nephercheres returned to the throne for 10 more years
completing 25 years of reign. He was succeeded by Necherophes, the
first king listed by Manetho for Dynasty III of Memphis. In chart form
this information appears thus:
Names in Manetho

Years of Reign

Dates

6 Chaires

17

1815-1798

7 Nephercheres

15

1798-1783

1783-1775

10

1775-1765

28

1765-1737

8 Sesochris (Neferkaseker)
7 Nephercheres
Necherophes
(reigns in Memphis)

The Turin Papyrus indicates that the return to power of

Nephercheres was facilitated by another prince of royal blood who
shared the throne. Though Manetho does not list him, he and his
successor appear in the King-lists and in the Turin Papyrus as follows:
Names in King-lists
and Turin Panyrus

Years of Reign

Dates

Hudjefa

11

1775-1764

Beby (Bebty)

27

1764-1737

Thus every date from each document is accounted for. The total
length of Dynasty II is 256 years -- 1993-1737, Altogether 517 years
had elapsed since human government was established after the deluge.
Joseph and the Seven-Years' Famine
It has been necessary to name kings not associated with Biblical
events in order to establish the proper date for Dynasty III. This
dynasty is one of the most important in all Egyptian history. In it are
the records of Joseph's rulership and of the seven years' famine. This
dynasty is usually mistakenly placed over a thousand years too early!
But before proceeding, we must examine the Turin Papyrus for a most
significant summary date.
The Turin Papyrus contains the following entry after Dynasty VIII:
"Kings since Menes, their kingdoms and years: 949 years: kingless
years: 6. Total, 955." (See Gardiner's Royal Canon of Turin.) It also
lists 181 years for Dynasty VI. The known length of Dynasty III is 74
years, of Dynasty IV, 123; of Dynasty V, 140; of Dynasty VIII, 140. And
remember, Dynasty I and Dynasty II totaled 517 years. Yet the total for
the entire period is only 955 years. There is no other possible
explanation than that certain of these dynasties reigned parallel with
each other. Joseph will be found listed in two of them!
To return to Dynasty III -- the first dynasty of the city of
Memphis. The Turin Papyrus, together with the restored Palermo Stone,
provides the complete regnal years of the five successive kings who
dominated the dynasty. The name Zoser, the first ruler of the dynasty
is also spelled Djoser.
Names of Kings
in King-lists

Name in
Manetho

Reigns in
Turin Canon

Zoser-za (Netjrikhe)

Tosorthros

19

1737-1718

19

1718-1699

1699-1693

1693-1687

24

1687-1663

Nebka (of the royal

line of Beby)
Zoser-teti
Nebkare
Huny

Tosertasis

Dates

The end of a seven-year's famine occurred at the close of year 18

of Zoser I (end of winter 1719). No other seven-years' famine is
reported during the entire history of the Pharaohs. This is the
Biblical seven-years' famine under Joseph. It is at the right time.
An account of the calamity is to be found on the rocks of the
island of Sehel, at the First Cataract. A modern translation of it may
be found in "Biblical Archaeology" by G. Ernest Wright, page 56. The
account reads:
"Year 18 .... I was in distress on the
Great Throne, and those who are in the palace
were in Heart's affliction from a very great
evil, since the Nile had not come in my time

for a space of seven years. Grain was scant,

fruits were dried up, and everything which
they eat was short .... The infant was wailing;
the youth was waiting; the heart of the old
man was in sorrow .... The courtiers were
in need. The temples were shut up ....
Everything was found empty." (Translation
by J. A. Wilson in "Ancient Near Eastern Texts",
edited by J. B. Pritchard, page 31.)
But where does Joseph appear in this period? The answer is found
in Dynasty III and Dynasty IV of Manetho. He appears under the name
Suphis (or Souphis or Saophis) -- different Greek spellings from
Manetho's abstractors. Joseph in Hebrew, it should be noted, is not
pronounced with an English "J" sound, but with a "Y" sound. In
Manetho's Egyptian transcription of the name only the consonents "s"
and "ph" appear -- hence the Greek Souphis or its variant forms.
Eratosthenes wrote that the Egyptians had designated Suphis as a
"money-getter" or "trafficker" (Fragment 17, "Manetho", by W. G.
Waddell, page 219).
Dynasty III in Manetho is made up of many rulers which do not
appear in the Turin Papyrus. Only the two Djosers appear in each list,
and in each case the full length of reign is preserved in Manetho.
These otherwise unknown rulers are accounted fiction by modern
historians. Had they only looked in the Bible they would have found one
of them in the person of Joseph.
Names in Manetho

Name in
King-lists

Length of
Reign

Dates

1 Necherophes
(previously mentioned
at end of Dynasty II)

28

1765-1737

2 Tosorthros

29

1737-1708

1708-1701

4 Mesochris

17

1701-1684

5 Souphis (Joseph)

16

1684-1668

3 Tureis

Djoser-za

In Dynasty IV Suphis or Joseph is given 66 years by Manetho. This

makes it clear that Dynasty IV -- a foreign dynasty -- parallels
Dynasty III. The two records together tell the full story. Only the
latter portion of Joseph's reign is preserved in the list of rulers in
Dynasty III. The entire period of Joseph's public service is contained
in the parallel account. The 66 years of Joseph's public service cover
the years 1734-1668. Compare this date with Zoser's seven years of
famine. The famine ended in 1719 after the rise in Upper Egypt of the
new Nile during the summer of 1720 in Zoser's 18th year. The famine
thus extends in Egypt from the spring of 1726 to the spring of 1719
(Jacob came to Egypt in the summer of 1725, after the harvest had
failed two years in Palestine ) The seven harvests of great abundance
were during the years 1733-1727. Joseph, according to the Bible, came
to power in 1734, the year before the beginning of the seven years of

prosperity. And 1734 is the very date for the commencement of Joseph's
public office, as listed in the fourth dynasty! Joseph was 30 years of
age upon entering his service (Gen. 41:46). He thus served till 96
years of age, and died at 110 (50:26).
But Manetho's account does not end here. There are yet four kings
that complete the dynasty. These kings parallel, in part, those already
mentioned, and whose reign is preserved in the Turin Papyrus.
Names in Manetho
Dynasty III

Names in Turin
Canon and Kinglist

6 Tosertasis

Djoser-teti or
Teti

Length of
Reign in

7 Aches
8 Sephuris

Sahure

9 Kerpheres

Dates

19

1699-1680

42

1680-1638

30

1638-1608

26

1608-1582

In summary, the third dynasty is divided at times into two or

three branches -- just as was the second dynasty. The government under
this dynasty was centered at Memphis. Not every ruler was of the same
rank, of course, but all exercised royal power (Genesis 41:39-44).
Although Dynasty IV, in which Joseph's and Job's long reigns are
recorded, is parallel with these events, it is better to restore it
after the fifth and sixth dynasties are presented.
The Exodus
In Manetho, Dynasty V is designated as from Elephantine -- far
away to the south, in Upper Egypt on the borders of Nubia. Although
Manetho lists nine kings in the dynasty, he plainly states that there
were only "eight kings from Elephantine." This mystery has never been
solved by historians. Their explanation is that the records are
incorrect. Not so. There were only eight kings from Elephantine,
because Sephres, the second in the list, was of the Memphis line and
had already appeared as Sephuris in the third dynasty. He is the key to
the proper dating of Dynasty V. Though from Elephantine, the government
was usually centered near Memphis. The Turin Papyrus and the restored
Palermo Stone give us the following summary:
Names in Manetho

Names in
King-lists &
Canon of Turin

Years of Reign Dates

in Turin Canon
and Palermo Stone

1 Usercheres

Userkaf

1627-1620

2 Sephres (mentioned
in Dynasty III
as Sephuris)

Sahure

12

1620-1608

3 Nephercheres

Neferirkare

21

1608-1587

4 Sisires

Shepseskare

1587-1580

5 Cheres

Khaneferre

17

1580-1563

6 Rathures

Niuserre

11

1563-1552

7 Mencheres

Menkauhor

1552-1544

8 Tancheres

Djedkare

28

1544-1516

9 Onnos

Unis (Unas)

30

1516-1486

With Unis the dynasty comes to a catastrophic end. (He was a

contemporary of the Pharaoh who perished at the Red Sea.) The king died
the night of the Passover. Unis was a firstborn' He was also a
cannibal! After Moses left Egypt, he commenced the frightful practice
of eating the firstborn of his enemies. That is one of the reasons God
slew the firstborn of Egypt. From the pyramid-tomb of Unis one may read
this horrible account of his life, his blasphemous claims, and his
deeds.
"Behold, Unas hath arrived at the height of heaven .... Ra is on
one side and Horus is on the other, and Unas is between them .... Unas
hath weighed his word with the hidden god who hath no name, on the day
of hacking in pieces the firstborn .... Unas devoureth men .... He ...
cutteth off hairy scalps ... the cordmaster hath bound them for
slaughter. Khonsu the slayer of ... hath cut their throats and drawn
out their inward parts, for it was he whom Unas sent to drive them in:
and Shesem hath cut them in pieces and boiled their members in his
blazing cauldrons. Unas hath eaten their words of power, and he hath
swallowed their spirits; the great ones among them serve for his meal
at daybreak, the lesser serve for his meal at eventide, and the least
among them serve for his meal at night. The old gods and the old
goddesses become fuel for his furnace. The mighty ones in heaven shoot
out fire under the cauldrons which are heaped up with the haunches of
the firstborn; and he that maketh those who live in heaven to revolve
around Unas hath shot into the cauldrons the haunches of their women
of the gods in visible form. UNAS IS THE FIRSTBORN OF THE FIRSTBORN
existence is ... and the offerings made unto him are more than those
made unto the gods ..." (from E. A. Wallis Budge's "A History of
Egypt", vol. II, pages 83-88.) Compare King Unis and his blasphemous
claims with II Thessalonians 2:3-4. A remarkable analogy.
Manetho adds details to this dynasty missing from the Turin Canon.
His figures for length of reign clearly illustrate that several kings
of Dynasty V reigned jointly as with almost every previous royal line.
From Manetho's abstractors the following table may be drawn up:
Name in Manetho

Length of Reign

Dates

1 Usercheres

28

1648-1620

(The reign of Usercheres in the Turin Papyrus does not begin until
1627, after the end of its Dynasty IV, though he had previously been
reigning.)
2 Sephres

13

1620-1607

3 Nephercheres

20

1607-1587

4 Sisires

1587-1580

5 Cheres

20

1580-1560

At this point the line of Elephantine divides into two branches.

After year 17 of Cheres, Rathures came to power for 44 years and was
succeeded by Unis.
6 Rathures

44

1563-1519

9 Onnos
(Unis)

33

1519-1486

After the 20-year reign of Cheres, Tancheres came to power also

for 44 years, with Unis as his successor as follows:
8 Tancheres
9 Onnos (Unis)

44

1560-1516

30 in Turin
Canon

1516-1486

For a total period of 9 years Mencheres shared in the government,

giving rise to three parallel reigns. Subdivisions of government as
here illustrated were quite typical of the ancient world. An example
that might be cited is the government of the later Roman Empire when
subdivided into two parts, each under two emperors.
Pharaoh of the Exodus
Now for the sixth dynasty. To determine its chronological place in
history, we must first establish the end of Dynasty VIII. Dynasty VIII,
located at Memphis, was a very weak period -- under foreign dominion,
as will later be established. It lasted a total of 140 years. Many of
the names of its kings have been found, but no regnal dates for any
individual kings can be determined. (Consult Gardiner's "Egypt of the
Pharaohs", page 437.) This dynasty concludes the 955 years from the
beginning of the government of Menes or Cush at Babel, according to the
Turin Canon. Its dates are therefore 1439-1299.
It was preceded by 6 kingless years, extending from 1445-1439.
This period corresponds with Joshua's conquest of Goshen to the Nile
(Joshua 10:41 and 11:16). Sometimes these six kingless years are
attached to Dynasty VI; on other occasions the period is attached to
Dynasty VIII. During this period of six kingless years occurs the
ephemeral seventh dynasty. Africanus records that it comprised a kind
of council with 70 kings exercising authority for 70 days. Eusebius
declares there were 5 kings who ruled for 75 days. Little else is known
of the period.
Dynasty VI of Memphis immediately preceded this period. It lasted
181 years -- 1626-1445. The following chart is determined from
archaeological evidence and the Turin Canon.

Names in Manetho

Names in Turin
Canon and King-

Length of
Reign

Dates

lists
1 Othoes

Teti
Userkare (a usurper)

13

1626-1613

1613-1607

20

1607-1587

1587-1581

94

1581-1487

2 Phios

Piopi

3 Menthusuphis

Merenre

4 Phiops

Neferkare

5 Menthesuphis

Merenre-Antyemzaef

1487-1486

Nitokerty

12

1486-1474

Neferka, the younger 20

1474-1454

Nufe

1454-1452

Kakare (Ibi)

1452-1448

(name missing)

1448-1446

(name missing)

1446-1445

6 Nitocris
(Manetho ends
his list here)

Manetho assigns to Othoes 30 years, at the end of which time he

was assassinated by his bodyguard, His total reign extended from
1643-1613. Manetho's second king Phios is assigned 53 years: 1613-1560.
He reigned jointly during the early years of his young son Pepi the
Great (Phiops Neferkare) Menthusuphis is assigned by Manetho 7 years,
and archaeological finds indicate he reigned a year jointly with his
young brother before he died (1581-1580).
Compare these dates with those of Dynasty V for the Exodus.
Dynasty V ended at 1486 with the death of the magician-king (Unis is
called Jannes in II Timothy 3:8.) In Dynasty VI king Merenre II also
dies in 1486, after only one year's reign. He was succeeded by his wife
Nitocris, then by his son Neferka "the younger." Neferka's older
brother, the firstborn, died at the Passover. No trace of him has been
found. Compare this with Exodus 2:23, "And it came to pass in the
course of those many days that the king of Egypt died." This king is
Neferkare -- more commonly called Pepi II -- who reigned the longest in
all Egyptian history. He came to the throne at 6 years of age and died
at 100. Then God calls Moses. To Moses he declared: "Go, return into
Egypt: for all the men are dead that sought thy life" (Exodus 4:19).
Merenre II was now reigning -- the Pharaoh whom Moses and Aaron met and
who perished in the Red Sea. At this juncture in history Egypt
collapsed. Foreign invaders enter the land -- but who they were and
where they came from must wait until all the previous dynasties before
the Exodus are determined.
Dynasty IV -- the Pyramid Builders
To return to the story of Joseph. Parallel with Dynasty III of
Memphis, was Dynasty IV, "eight kings of Memphis belonging to a
different line." This dynasty includes such famous names as Cheops,

Chephren and Mycerinus -- to use the names made familiar by Herodotus.

The list of kings of the fourth dynasty in the Turin Canon and on the
Palermo Stone differs from Manetho after Cheops. The result, no doubt,
of the tragic plague that came upon Cheops (Job). The Palermo Stone and
the Turin Canon begin Dynasty IV 123 years before Dynasty V. That means
it commenced the 24-year reign of Snefru in 1750. The following dates
are from Turin Canon and restored Palermo Stone.
Name in King-lists
and on Turin Papyrus

Length of Reign

Dates

Snefru

24

1750-1726

Khufwey (Cheops)

23

1726-1703

(According to Herodotus, the Great Pyramid took 20 years to build,

much of it during the time of the seven-years' famine when labor was
available. The loss of authority after 23 years appears to correspond
with the plague on Job. At this point the death of several of the sons
of Cheops is recorded at the tombs near Gizeh) Continuing:
Radjedef

1703-1695

27

1695-1668

1668-1661

28

1661-1633

Shepseskaf

1633-1629

(name missing)

1629-1627

Khafre
Hardjedef
Baufre

At this point this branch of the dynasty was succeeded by the

kings of Dynasty V, from Elephantine.
The following is the information preserved by Manetho who begins
the dynasty five years earlier than does the Turin Canon. (Note that
Cheops is designated as Job. See May 1958 "Good News", p. 3.)
Names in Manetho

Names in Kinglists

Length of
Reign

1 Soris

Snofru or
Snefru

29

1755-1726

2 Suphis (Cheops
or Job)

Khufwey

63

1726-1663

---

66

1734-1668

Menkaure

63

1668-1605

3 Suphis (Joseph)
4 Mencheres

Dates

Parallel with Mycerinus were the following:

5 Ratoises

---

25

1668-1643

6 Bicheris

---

22

1643-1621

7 Sebecheres

---

8 Thampthis

---

7
9

1621-1614
1614-1605

Herodotus tells us that according to Egyptian tradition there were

150 years between the beginning of the dynasty and the end of the life
of Mycerinug, 1755-1605. Manetho's account appears senseless to
historians because they have assumed there were no other kings than
those whose records they have found through archaeology. It is often
the men who were least important in their own age whose tombs or
monuments have been recovered, while the individuals who loomed large
at the time have vanished completely.

CHAPTER FOUR
The Missing Half of Egypt's History
Who was the daughter of Pharaoh who adopted Moses? Where is Moses
mentioned in the story of Egypt? Who was that Ramses whose land Jacob
was given to dwell in? Which Pharaoh took Sarai from Abram?
Thus far only half the story of Egypt before the Exodus has been
told. The first eight dynasties have told of the royal lines from
Abydos or Thinis and of Memphis and Elephantine. Memphis, as most are
aware, was the ancient capital of Lower Egypt. Who were the kings of
Upper Egypt during this period? And of the Delta and of Middle Egypt?
The Story Unfolds
The Bible is not a history textbook. It is a guide book. Without
it nothing important in ancient history can be rightly understood. But
this does not mean all ancient history is recorded in the Bible.
Scripture is the starting point of study. It opens up solutions to
secular records that otherwise would be misunderstood. This is
especially true of Egypt's history.
Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century of our era,
wrote in his "Antiquities" of the life of Moses before he fled Egypt at
age 40. Just prior to the flight of Moses, the Egyptians had been
overrun by the Ethiopians from the south. This is the famous period of
the Ethiopian Wars. Josephus records Moses' part in them. "The
Egyptians, under this sad oppression, betook themselves to their
oracles and prophecies; and when God had given them this counsel, to
make use of Moses the Hebrew, and take his assistance, the king
commanded his daughter to produce him, that he might be the general of
their army." (Book II, chapter x, part 2.)
Moses' generalship is carefully recorded by Josephus in the entire
chapter. The final victory was gained at the city of Saba (later
Meroe), where the daughter of the Ethiopians -- Tharbis -- turned over
the city as the price of her marriage to Moses. (Is this the beginning
of the story in Numbers 12:1?)
"Now the Egyptians," continues Josephus in the next chapter,
"after they had been preserved by Moses ... told the king he ought to
be slain. The king ... also ... was ready to undertake to kill Moses;
but when he (Moses) had learned beforehand what plots there were
against him, he ... took his flight through the deserts, and where his
enemies could not suspect he would travel."
Moses, it must be remembered, was heir to a throne in Egypt. The
ruling Pharaoh had a daughter, but no grandchildren. Josephus explains
Moses' peculiar position at the end of chapter ix of book II. "If Moses
had been slain (after his adoption), there was no one, either akin or
adopted, that had any oracle on his side for pretending to the crown of
Egypt."
Here are the needed clues. A dynasty in which Moses is General,
and one which was broken at the very point in history that Moses fled.
Is there such a dynasty -- one which also exercised jurisdiction in the
northeastern Delta where Israel dwelt and Moses was found?
Indeed there is just such a dynasty -- Dynasty XIII of Thebes!
The total length of this dynasty, according to Africanus' and
Eusebius' epitomes from Manetho, was 453 years, under 60 rulers. But

the version of Barbarus provides a missing detail from Manetho. It

reveals that for a time the court was not only at Thebes, but at
Bubastis in the Delta for the first 153 years. (See Alfred Schoene's
edition of "Eusebius", page 214.)
Moses the General
In the Turin Canon catalogue of kings of the thirteenth dynasty,
listed number 17, is "The General," with the throne name of
Semenkhkare. (Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 440; and
Weigall's "History of the Pharaohs", pages 136, 151-152.) The Egyptian
word for "the General" was Mermeshoi. Not in all dynastic history does
this title appear again as the personal name of a ruler of Egypt. This
General was Moses as will be demonstrated by a comparison with
contemporary history. Two beautiful large granite statues of Mermeshoi
-- the General -- have been found in the Delta at Tanis. They are of
excellent workmanship.
When Moses was made General or Commander of the Troops, he
automatically inherited royal authority, as did Joseph before him. Only
KINGS could have the supreme command of the army. That explains his
appearance in this list. Before the rise to power of this famous
General, the thirteenth dynasty was of Asiatic blood. Its kings at
times bore the epithet "the Asiatic." There was consequently no basic
prejudice in adopting the Hebrew child Moses into the family. (See
Volume II, chapter II of the revised "Cambridge Ancient History", 1962)
The sixteenth king listed in the Turin Canon -- just before "the
General" -- was Userkare Khendjer -- the latter being an un-Egyptian
personal name. He ruled over the Delta as well as Upper Egypt. A
pyramid of his has been found at South Saqqara. No descendant of his is
known to have succeeded to the throne. Though nothing more is known of
this man's family, every evidence points to him as the Pharaoh whose
daughter is mentioned in the book of Exodus. Within a few years the
influence of this dynasty in the eastern Delta ceased.
The kings of this period often have their names associated with
King Neferkare on royal seals. This name is that of Pepi the Great.
Here is the final proof that these rulers of Dynasty XIII were
contemporary with the last great Pharaoh of the sixth dynasty of
Memphis! More than one name on a scarab has puzzled many historians,
who view Egypt as ruled generally by only one king at a time. But
literally hundreds of such seals have been found. They are generally
treated with discreet silence, for the implication of these seals would
revolutionize the history of Egypt! (See "The Sceptre of Egypt", by
William C. Hayes, Volume I, page 342.)
About 40 years after the reign of the General, Egypt collapsed.
With the reign of the 25th king of the dynasty, nearly all contemporary
evidence ceases. Foreigners invade the country. This period is
summarized by Sir Alan Gardiner by the dismal words: "... darkness
descends upon the historical scene, leaving discernible in the twilight
little beyond royal names ..." (page 155 of "Egypt of the Pharaohs").
No internal dates for this dynasty are now available. But the
history of this and preceding dynasties of Thebes can be restored Take
the evidence of Barbarus, which gives the dynasty, while centered in
the Delta, 153 years. Place this date in the 41st year before the
collapse of Egypt in 1486. The 41st year before 1486 brings us to 1527.
(This is when Moses is nearly 40 years old during the war with
Ethiopia. When Moses is forty, in 1526 he flees Egypt.) The beginning

of the dynasty was then 153 years before this, or in 1680. There were
only two dynasties of Thebes before this time -- the eleventh and the
twelfth. Dynasty XI ruled 143 years; the famous Dynasty XII for 212
calendar years. Add these figures up and one reaches 2035 -- the reign
of Shem!
Now the story of Shem is clear. Shem came into Egypt to divide the
country up into various kingships, in order to prevent the rise to
power of one unified kingdom over the entire world.
But Shem did more than found a new kingship at Thebes -- he also
established a kingship at Heracleopolis, south of Memphis. Manetho's
Dynasty IX -- the first of two dynasties to be established in
Heracleopolis -- ruled 409 years. It is exactly 409 years from 2035 to
1626, the date at which Dynasty VI of Memphis began.
The historians' fiction of an Old and a Middle Kingdom -- under
Memphis, and then Thebes -- is completely demolished by these facts of
history. It is, rather, the story of the kings of Memphis in Lower
Egypt and the kings of Thebes in Upper Egypt ruling in a great
confederacy.
History of Upper Egypt
Now, to tell the history of the kingships of Thebes and
Heracleopolis which paralleled the dynasties of Thinis and Memphis and,
later Elephantine. The city of Thebes, like Thinis during the second
dynasty, was a small semi-independent kingdom that steadily rose to
power. From archaeology the Turin Canon and monuments, the entire 143
years of the Dynasty XI can be restored as follows.
Names
Mentuhotpe, Hereditary Prince
and Sehertowe Inyotef

Length of Reign
together

Dates

16

2035-2019

49

2019-1970

1970-1962

Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe

51

1962-1911

Sankhkare Mentuhotpe

12

1911-1899

7 years of
near anarchy

1899-1892

Wahankh Inyotef
Nakhtnebtepnufe Inyotef

Nebtowere Mentuhotpe and others

In the days of Wahankh Inyotef a tragic war broke out in Egypt

between the rulers of Heracleopolis and Thebes over control of the city
of Thinis (Abydos). In this struggle the first dynasty of Thinis
collapsed, and a new dynasty arose in 1993. It is interesting to note
that Wahankh came to power in the year (2019) that Shem ceased to reign
in Thinis. It appears that with his departure war convulsed Egypt. Once
these dynasties are properly placed the whole of Egypt's ancient
history makes sense -- to the very year! Since the restoration, in this
compendium, must proceed solidly step by step, the events cannot be
told here in logical order until the chronological position of the
dynasties is positively determined. It is advisable that the lists of
dynasties already given be continuously consulted.

Before we can proceed further with the story, a chart of the two
dynasties of Heracleopolis and of Dynasty XI of Thebes is needed. The
meaning of this chart will become apparent with the development of the
story of Thebes. The figures for the length of the Heracleopolitan
dynasties are falsely labeled spurious -- by historians. Now consider
Dynasty XI of Thebes.
Theban Dynasty XI -- 143 years -- 2035-1892
First conquest of Heracleopolis, ninth year of Nebhepetre
Mentuhotpe -- 1954
Final conquest of Heracleopolis and union of all Egypt 100 years
after founding of dynasty -- 1935
Years of dominion over all Egypt: 43 -- 1935-1892
Dynasty IX at Heracleopolis appears in Manetho thus:
Length of rule: 409 years -- 2035-1626 -- to Dynasty VI of Memphis
Length of power: 100 years -- 2035-1935
Dynasty X at Heracleopolis appears in Manetho thus:
Length of rule: 204 years -- 1954-1750 -- to Dynasty IV of Memphis
Length of rule: 185 years -- 1935-1750 -- to Dynasty IV of Memphis
The preceding outline is explained by these facts. Three dynasties
contended for the control of Egypt after Thebes obtained control of
Thinis and subordinated its second dynasty.
In the ninth year of Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe -- the Pharaoh to whose
harem Sarah was brought -- a great war was fought over the city of
Heracleopolis. So small was Egypt's population in those days that only
60 men were lost by the Thebans in their attack. This and many other
evidences clearly indicate that the eleventh dynasty was one of the
earliest in Egypt. This ninth year was 1954-53. This date is very
significant. Barbarus, the Latin writer, designated Dynasty X of
Heracleopolis as lasting 204 years. (In this account a note of caution
should be observed. As Manetho listed the dynasties of Egypt, the only
two dynasties of Heracleopolis were labeled Dynasty IX and Dynasty X.
In any final history textbook Manetho's numbering should be discarded.
and each city's dynasties should be renumbered from the beginning. Thus
these two dynasties were not IX and X of Heracleopolis, but I and II of
Heracleopolis.) There were exactly 204 years between 1954, when the
dynasty was founded, and 1750 when Snefru brought the fourth dynasty to
power at Memphis.
Thus every major event in the history of the Theban kings is
reflected in the history of Heracleopolis.
This does not mean that Dynasty IX ceased. It continued 409 years
to the beginning of Dynasty VI, as already mentioned. The war with
Heracleopolis continued intermittently until the 100th year of the
Theban dynasty 1935. In that year Egypt was completely united under
Mentuhotpe. This date, too, is significant. Although Africanus gives
the length of Dynasty IX as 409 years, Eusebius gives it only 100
years. Since it was founded in 2035, its hundred years extended to 1935
as did that of Thebes. Thus one may see that instead of these figures
being corrupt and unhistorical records, each tells only part of the
whole story.
Already it has been noted that Dynasty X of Heracleopolis lasted
204 years. But Africanus and Eusebius state that its period of dominion
was 185. It was exactly 185 years also from 1935 to 1750. The
difference between these figures is 19 -- the same as between the years

1954 and 1935 in the reign of Mentuhotpe. Also Africanus and Eusebius
both state that Dynasty XI of Thebes extended its rule over Egypt 43
years. From 1935 to the end of the dynasty in 1892 is exactly 43 years.
All this is simple arithmetic that historians have not solved in 2000
years!
Few of the names of the Heracleopolitan dynasties have been
preserved. Nor has any internal dating been preserved in any records.
With the addition of the twelfth dynasty at Thebes, the following chart
illustrates the order of dynasties in this early period.
Thinis
Dynasty I -- 261 years -- 2254-1993
Dynasty II -- 256 years -- 1993-1737
Memphis
Dynasty III -- 74 years -- 1737-1663
Thebes
Dynasty XI -- 143 years -- 2035-1892
Dynasty XII -- 212 years -- 1892-1680
Dynasty XIII -- 453 years -- 1680-1227
-----------Heracleopolis
Dynasty IX -- 100 years -- 2035-1935
Dynasty X -- 185 years -- 1935-1750
Memphis
Dynasty IV -- 123 years -- 1750-1627
Dynasty V -- 140 years -- 1627-1486
Heracleopolis
Dynasty IX -- 409 years -- 2035-1626
Memphis
Dynasty VI -- 181 years -- 1626-1445
Dynasty VII and 6 kingless years 1445-1439
Dynasty VIII -- 140 years -- 1439-1299
The Great Theban Dynasty XII
With the restoration of Dynasty XII of Thebes -- the second
dynasty to rule in Thebes -- the history of early Egypt to the Exodus
will be nearly complete.
The lengths of reigns of Dynasty XII are firmly established,
though they have come down in several forms due to the practice of
associating successors on the throne prior to death of predecessor, or
of dating from designation as heir to the throne. In each case the
total is 212 calendar years -- 1892-1680.
Names in Manetho

Ammenemes

Personal
Names
Amenemhe I

Length of Reign
based on the
Monuments
20

Dates

1892-1872

Sesonchosis

Senwosre I

42

1872-1830

Ammanemes

Amenemhe II

32

1830-1798

(No name given)

Senwosre II

19

1798-1779

Sesostris

Senwosre III

38

1779-1741

Lachares
(Lamares)

Amenemhe III

49

1741-1692

Ameres

(No name given)

Ammenemes

Amenemhe IV

1692-1683

Scemiophris

Sebeknofru

1683-1680

(Dynasty XIII of Thebes follows.)

The Canon of Turin reckoned the first three kings' reigns
differently, but the total again is the same. Amenemhe I is given 29
years (1892-1863). Senwosre I is given 45 years (1863-1818). Amenemhe
II is given 20 years (1818-1798). These various datings, when taken
together, illustrate the full tenure of public office.
Manetho's figures, as they have come down to us, tell another part
of the story not contained in these records. His account deletes one
king and adds another, beside referring to a rule of twelve. Manetho
records that Amenemhe ruled 16 years during the close of the eleventh
dynasty. His 30 years of rule after the close of seven years' anarchy
is not recorded by Manethos abstractors.
Name in Manetho
Ammenemes

Length of Reign
from Manetho

Dates

16

1908-1892

(30)

(1892-1862)

Sesonchosis

46

1862-1816

Ammanemes

38

1816-1778

Sesostris

48

1778-1730

1730-1722

22

1722-1700

Ameres

1700-1692

Ammenemes

1692-1684

Scemiophris

1684-1680

Lamares
"Others" during
Dodecarchy, or
rule of twelve.

In late Ptolemaic times a document was written on the temple wall

at Edfu concerning a great war that occurred in the 363rd year of the
era of Menes. Menes was crowned in 2254. The 363rd year is 1892. It was
in this year that the climax of seven years of near anarchy was ended
and the power or hegemony of Thebes was re-established over all Egypt.
This same event is also recorded on the Palermo stone in the 363rd year
of the kingdom.
Sesostris III was one of the greatest conquerors in early Egyptian
history. Manetho records that "in nine years he subdued the whole of
Asia, and Europe as far as Thrace ..." Asia, of course, refers to Asia
Minor and the Near East only. But our interest in this dynasty centers
rather on Amenemhe III, the Pharaoh who dominated all Egypt in Joseph's
day. Egyptian history rarely records a man who exerted so much energy
in a positive direction. Under him Lake Moeris was developed in the
Fayyum for the storage of water. He was responsible for the
construction of a long canal, a kind of secondary river, along the Nile
to Lake Moeris. It is named to this day the Bahr Yusuf -- the River of
Joseph! The famed Labyrinth was also erected under his rule. He
associated, during the middle of his reign twelve rulers with him,
called the Dodecarchy. Were these the brothers of Joseph? Amenemhe III
took special efforts to measure the rise of the Nile. (Volume II of "A
History of the Pharaohs", by Weigall.)
Before closing this period of history, it is important that one
take notice of two facts that are at times misunderstood about this
dynasty. Most historians date this dynasty to specific years "B.C." by
astronomical methods. To do so they have recourse to altering certain
readings in the documents they use. Further, historians neglect the
fact that even the Egyptians state in their records that the courses of
the heavens have on occasion changed. The Egyptian calendar does not
determine the chronology of the time, but the proper historical
restoration of the dynasties will instead enable the honest historian
to determine the changes that have taken place in the Egyptian
calendar.
The second problem is the stated length of the Dynasty XII in the
Turin Canon. The figure is "213 years, 1 month, 17 days." The total
length of the dynasty was only 212 calendar years. The last ruler -Sebeknofru reigned for "3 years 10 months, 24 days." The last 10
months, together with about 3 months of the last year of Dynasty XI,
when Amenemhe obtained control of Egypt prior to New Year, are added to
212 years to make 213. But the last 10 months of Sebeknofru's reign
became the first year of Dynasty XIII. Hence it is not counted to
Dynasty XII when calculated in sequence. (See page 71 of Gardiner's
"Egypt of the Pharaohs".)
Who Was Rameses?
Perhaps the greatest difficulty in reconciling the Bible has been
the reference in Genesis to the land of Rameses (Genesis 47:11). It has
been assumed either that the book of Genesis was a late document which
inserted the name of Rameses in place of some lost original name, or
that the name is original and the account of the Exodus took place
after Rameses and not in the manner described in the Bible. Neither of
these explanations is correct.
Long before Rameses the Great was born, there were several kings,
not known by modern historians, with some form of the name Rameses. The
record of these kings of the Delta, foolishly rejected by all
historians today, is the key to this enigma in the Bible. The names are

preserved by Syncellus in the Book of Sothis. A list of them may be

found in Waddell's "Manetho", page 235.
This line of kings begins with "Mestraim" -- the Mizraim of the
Bible, from whom the Egyptians descended. Many early commentators
thought this Mestraim was the same person as Menes, and have therefore
inserted Menes' name as an explanation of Mestraim. But this is not so.
Mestraim founded a dynasty at Zoan in the Delta entirely separate from
that of Cush and Nimrod. Among these rulers is a Rameses who lived in
the days of Joseph and the fourth dynasty. Many historians have been
puzzled by the fact that the name of Rameses should appear on so many
of the building blocks that went into the early buildings of the third
and fourth dynasties. Their mistaken explanation is that the later
Rameses had his servants take time out to carve his name on all these
stones. It never occurred to them that there might actually have been a
Rameses who assisted in the erection of these fabulous monuments of a
by-gone era.
As the history of Egypt is gradually reconstructed, the Book of
Sothis will play an ever more prominent part in it. Syncellus believed
the book to be a genuine list of kings from Manetho. It names many
otherwise unknown kings, and places the known dynasties in the correct
order. For this reason the book has been rejected for centuries as a
fictitious account of Pharaonic Egypt. The Book of Sothis is one of the
most important proofs of the true order of kings as presented in this
restoration of Egyptian history.
The kings in the Book of Sothis continue to the coming of the
Persians in 525, but they will not all be listed in this compendium
until their proper place in history. Following are the kings from the
book of Sothis to the year 1299.
Names of Kings
from Book of Sothis

Length of Reign

Dates

1. Mestraim

35

2254-2219

2. Kourodes

63

2219-2156

3. Aristarchos

34

2156-2122

4. Spanios

36

2122-2086

5,6. Two others unrecorded

72

2086-2014

7. Osiropis

23

2014-1991

8. Sesonchosis

49

1991-1942

9. Amenemes

29

1942-1913

10. Amasis

1913-1911

13

1911-1898

12. Anchoreus

1898-1889

13. Armiyses

1889-1885

11. Acesephthres

14. Chamois

12

1885-1873

15. Miamus

14

1873-1859

16. Amesesis

65

1859-1794

17. Uses

50

1794-1741

18. Rameses

29

1744-1715

19. Ramesomenes

15

1715-1700

20. Usimare

31

1700-1669

21. Ramesseseos

23

1669-1646

22. Ramessameno

19

1646-1627

23. Ramesse Iubasse

39

1627-1588

24. Ramesse Uaphru

29

1588-1559

1559-1553

254

1553-1299

25. Concharis
4 kings of Tanis

The fifth year of Concharis is the 700th year from Mestraim.

Because of this statement, most commentators alter the length of reign
of Concharis from 6 to 5. ("Chronological Antiquities", by John
Jackson, Vol. II, page 150.) The correct figure is 6. Following
Concharis were four other kings of Tanis, names not preserved, who
reigned during the succeeding 254 years. Add to the 700 the last year
of Concharis, plus 254 and the total is 955. This is exactly the same
figure which the Turin Papyrus gives for the end of the eighth dynasty
of Memphis. Both these lists are historical. They come from the same
original sources. Such a figure as 955 to end an era is preposterous on
the basis of coincidence. This list of Tanite (Zoan) kings is
historical.
Only one dynasty remains to be discussed before the coming of the
Shepherd Kings. That is Dynasty XIV of Xois in the Delta. Its 76 kings
lasted 484 years. It is known to be parallel with Dynasty XIII of
Thebes. It commenced at the end of Dynasty III of Memphis, in 1663,
following the reign of Huny and the departure of Job or Cheops in the
same year, and ended in 1179. Africanus states that the dynasty
exercised power for 184 years, but this covers only the time to the
usurpation of power by the Shepherd kings. Few names have been
preserved complete, and no regnal years are available. A complete list
of the fragmentary names is printed in Gardiner's "Egypt of the
Pharaohs", pages 441-442.
With this chapter the restoration of Egyptian history to the
Exodus closes.

CHAPTER FIVE
Egypt After the Exodus
Numerous catastrophic events befell Egypt at the time of the
Exodus. A frightful destruction of its national wealth; loss of two
million people used as slaves; the death of its most powerful rulers.
All public building ceases. Historians have looked vainly for this
sign of the Exodus sometime in the great eighteenth and nineteenth
dynasties of Thebes. They have never found it. And no wonder. The
Exodus occurred at the end of the fifth dynasty, and during the sixth,
thirteenth and fourteenth! Every one of these dynasties preserves the
record of the calamity.
After the Exodus an invasion of the Delta occurred, a natural
consequence of Israel evacuating the territory. The story of the Exodus
and of this invasion is recounted in the "Admonitions of Ipu-wer." A
recent translation by John A. Wilson, of this early document may be
found in Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", pages 441-444.
Who Were the Invaders?
The Egyptian priest Manetho wrote a full account of this great
event. Much of his material has been preserved by Josephus. It is found
in "Against Apion", book I, chapter 14, parts 73-92.
Manetho began his report by admitting, "... for what cause I know
not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the
East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against
our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow,
and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they burned our cities
ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated
all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading
into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally they appointed a
king of one of their number whose name was Salatis. He had his seat at
Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and always leaving
garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions."
The name Salitis comes from a Semitic root meaning prince. It is
the root of the word Sultan. These invaders came from the East. They
must have passed to Egypt from Sinai. They made Egyptians slaves. Does
the Bible speak of such a people who suddenly gained the dominance of
this part of the world? Indeed, the Edomite Amalekites!
As late as the days of King Saul the Egyptians were still partly
subject to these people. In I Samuel 30:11-13 appears this account:
"And they found an Egyptian in the field .... And David said unto him,
To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young
man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because
three days ago I fell sick."
In the time of Moses, shortly after the Exodus, Balaam spoke of
Amalek in these terms: "And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his
parable, and said, Amalek the first of nations: but his latter end
shall be that he perish forever" (Numbers 24:20). "The first of
nations" is not a matter of time, but of position and rank. The
Amalekites were a nation late to arrive, since they stemmed from Esau.
But they were suddenly plummeted to greatness by seizing the Delta at
the Exodus.
The first people to attack the children of Israel in Sinai were

the Amalekites. "Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim"
(Exodus 17:8). Had not God intervened on behalf of Israel, the
Amalekites would have gained a great victory.
From 1486 to 1076 the Amalekite Shepherd Kings and kindred peoples
dominated the land of Egypt, as shall now be demonstrated. Historians
have arbitrarily shortened this period to little more than a century
and placed it much too early. But such are the vagaries of historians
who have no respect for the record of history.
The Great Shepherds
Manetho tells us that Dynasty XV was composed of Shepherd Kings.
The Egyptian word for them is "Hyksos". Hence these people are often
spoken of as "the Hyksos." In the year the Hyksos overran Egypt they
established their government at Memphis -- 1486 -- and ruled Egypt for
the next 259 years. Nine years after the Exodus -- in 1477 -- they
established court in Thebes. This explains why Eusebius assigns them
only 250 years at Thebes -- 1477-1227. The year 1477, uniquely,
coincides with the founding of Troy, in Asia Minor, by a related
people. Dynasty XV is listed below according to Josephus and Eusebius.
The varied spellings are from transcriptions by Josephus and Eusebius.
Names of Hyksos
of Dynasty XV

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1 Salatis or Saites

19

1486-1467

2 Bnon

44

1467-1423

3 Pachnan or Apachnan

36

1423-1387

4 Apophis

61

1387-1326

5 Iannas or Staan

50

1326-1276

6 Archles or Assis

49

1276-1227

The name of the fifth ruler is usually spelled by modern

archaeologists "Khayan" -- a title very similar to the Turkish and
Tatar word Khan.
The fourth king, Apophis, is an important figure in Greek history,
as will be seen when restoring to the correct dates the rulers of the
Greek city of Sicyon. The Greeks knew him as Epopeus. He was killed in
Greece.
The Great Hyksos kings of Dynasty XV tolerated the native rulers
of Dynasty XIII of Thebes until 1227. In that year the Hyksos were
forced to adopt a change in government at Thebes consequent to a native
uprising. There followed, wrote Manetho, Dynasty XVII with 43 Shepherd
Kings paralleled by 43 native kings of Thebes for 151 years. The native
kings continued as vassals of the Hyksos. The 43 appointed Shepherd and
native kings of Dynasty XVII ruled from 1227 to 1076, when the Hyksos
were overthrown and the native Thebans of Dynasty XVII were superseded
by Dynasty XVIII, In chart form the change in dynasties appears thus:
Dynasty XV 259 years

Dynasty XIII 453 years

1486-1227

1680-1227

Dynasty XVII 151 years

1227-1076

Dynasty XVII 151 years

1227-1076

The same pattern of change took place in 1179. In that year the
fourteenth dynasty of Xois ceased (1663-1179). In its place arose an
important new king line also called Dynasty XVII because it is related
to the kings that came to power in Thebes in 1227. "They were brothers
from Phoenicia and foreign kings: they seized Memphis." The Theban and
Memphite branches were related by blood. The stronger ruled in Memphis
the other in Thebes. This new line of Memphite kings ruled for 103
years -- 1179-1076. The names and dates are these:
Names of Great Hyksos
of Dynasty XVII who
Ruled in Memphis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1 Saites

19

1179-1160

2 Bnon

40

1160-1120

3 Archles or Archaes

30

1120-1090

4 Aphophis

14

1090-1076

The year 1076 is clearly one of the most important in Egyptian

history.
At the time of the conquest of Egypt by Dynasty XV, which set up
its capital at Memphis, and later held court at Thebes, a lesser
dynasty of foreigners set up a new regime in Upper Egypt in Thebes.
This line of kings is known as Dynasty XVI. The names of these kings
have not come down through the classical writers. There were 32 kings
in all, ruling 511 or 518 years. The dates commence, of course. with
the fall of the fifth dynasty 1486.
Many have thought these long dynastic figures preposterous. But
they make good sense when studied in connection with the expeditions of
Thutmose the Great. The two different lengths of reign extend to 975
and 968. They represent the 23rd and the 30th years of Thutmose. The
campaign of 975 took him along the southern Phoenician coast and as far
inland as Megiddo. The campaign of the 30th year brought Egyptian arms
to Kadesh (Jerusalem) and to Arvad far to the north, along the upper
Phoenician coast. Since the Phoenicians were associated with the
Amalekites in the invasions of Egypt, under Dynasty XVII, the final
overthrow of those rulers was in Egyptian records synonymous with the
conquest of Phoenicia.
According to Africanus, the first five kings of Dynasty XVI ruled
in Thebes for 190 years -- 1487-1297. At that time another line of
Shepherd kings replaced them at Thebes for 221 years according to
Barbarus. These 221 years extend from 1297-1076. It is apparent
therefore that after 1297 Dynasty XVI ceased to rule at Thebes. The
classical writers do not state where the government of this dynasty was
later centered, although toward the end it was located in Phoenicia
where Thutmose ends the rule of these local kings.
From Barbarus' account it is also clear that Dynasty XVII ruled at
Thebes 70 years before replacing the Great Hyksos of the Fifteenth
Dynasty in 1227. When Manetho stated the period as 151 years he

referred only to the time after Dynasty XV. In actuality Dynasty XVII
had been reigning in Thebes since 1297 and continued for 221 years.
Thus all these figures, which at first seem so senseless, fit
perfectly together. In chart form it may thus be illustrated.
Dynasty XVI 190 years
1487-1297

Dynasty XV 259 years

1486-1227

Dynasty XVII 221 total years

1297-1076

Dynasty XVII 151 years

1227-1076

One item yet remains for discussion -- the 48-year period between
1227-1179. The names of the chief rulers of Egypt from 1486 to 1227 are
known -- Dynasty XV. So are the names of the rulers from 1179-1076 -the Memphite branch of Dynasty XVII. What is the name of the ruler
between these two dynasties? Surely Egypt can hardly have left us
without a name for 48 years!
The answer is to be found in Africanus' account of Dynasty XV.
Previously only Josephus' and Eusebius' transcriptions of Manetho were
presented in chart form. It is now time to study Africanus' account.
Scholars have long puzzled over Africanus' transcription of
Dynasty XV from Manetho. It is most commonly thought that Julius
Africanus misplaced the name of Apophis from fourth place to last place
in the dynasty. This assumption is unfounded. Africanus meant exactly
what he wrote -- that an Apophis did in fact continue the line of kings
of Dynasty XV after 1227. This second Apophis was not included after
king Archles (1276-1227) by either Josephus or Eusebius. or in the Book
of Sothis. Similarly Africanus did not include the first Apophis
(1387-1326) whom the other transcribers recorded.
That there were in fact three Hyksos kings with the name Apophis
-- two from Dynasty XV and one from Dynasty XVII -- has been amply
confirmed by archaeological discovery. From the monuments modern
research teams have recovered the full Egyptian names of each: Akenenre
Apopi (1387-1326) who was slain in Greece: Aweserre Apopi (1227-1166)
who fought a native rebellion which rocked the country in 1227: and
Nebkhepeshre Apopi (1090-1076) of Dynasty XVII, whose short reign ended
in the collapse of Hyksos dominion in Egypt. ("Egypt of the Pharaohs"
by Gardiner, pages 157-168 and 443.)
The following chart presents the data preserved from Manetho by
Africanus for Dynasty XV, beginning the year after the Exodus.
Dynasty XV According
to Africanus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Saites

19

1486-1467

Bnon

44

1467-1423

Pachnan

61

1423-1362

(Aphophis I -- 1387-1326 -- is not included by Africanus, and a longer

reign of 61 years instead of 36 years is assigned to Pachnan.)
Staan (Iannas or Khian)

50

1326-1276

Archles

49

1276-1227

Aphophis (II)

61

1227-1166

This is the Hyksos ruler whose reign extended over the 48-year
period between the end of Dynasty XV in 1227 and the commencement of
Dynasty XVII in 1179.
Hyksos in Book of Sothis
According to the Book of Sothis there were seven Hyksos kings who
dominated Egypt from 1486-1227. These kings in the book of Sothis are
labeled "the Seventeenth Dynasty" according to the reckoning of George
Syncellus. They were, however, the kings usually known as Dynasty XV.
Syncellus and Barbarus and other writers in early times apparently
followed different methods in numbering Manetho's dynasties. Notice
that even Africanus grouped two lines of kings -- one foreign, the
other native -- under the heading "Dynasty XVII."
These Hyksos kings in the Book of Sothis appear as follows:
Names of Kings in
Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

26 Silites

19

1486-1467

27 Baion

44

1467-1423

28 Apachnas
29 Aphophis

36
61

1423-1387
1387-1326

30 Sethos

50

1326-1276

31 Certos

29
(or 44)

1276-1247
(or 1276-1232)

32 Aseth

20

1247-1227

At this point -- 1227 -- the natives forced the Hyksos or

Amalekite to accept a new line of Egyptian rulers to represent Egypt at
Thebes.
Amalekites After 1076
One must not assume, from these events. however, that Amalekite
power was crushed solely by the Egyptians. Biblical history proves that
Saul had no small part in the final overthrow of the Shepherd
Amalekites outside Egypt. Saul was king 40 years altogether (Acts
13:21). After his anointing by Samuel there were almost twenty years
(1091-1071) for which we have no record in the Bible. The country went
to pieces under Philistine and Amalekite invaders. Then Saul regained
his power for 20 years -- 1071-1051 ("Antiquities of the Jews" by
Josephus, book VI, chapter XIV, section 9). One year later (following
his return to power) Saul appointed his now-grown son Jonathan to
assist him in a military campaign against the Philistines. This was the
calendar year 1070-1069. God intervened on behalf of Israel with a
tremendous earthquake that shook the earth (I Sam. 14:15).
"So Saul took the kingdom over Israel" (I Sam. 14:47) after this

great event. He then gathered a great host against the Amalekites and
defeated them (I Sam. 14:48). This account is amplified in I Sam.
15:1-9.
It is significant that in the year 1069, in Greek history, there
was an invasion of the Aegean by Amalekites and their brethren who were
fleeing from war and from a terrible earthquake that had destroyed
their possessions in Western Europe. Here we have the surprising
Biblical evidence which reveals what befell the Hyksos in the 7 years
after their expulsion from Egypt.

CHAPTER SIX
The Revival of Egypt
The return of Egypt to a great world power commenced with the
overthrow of the Shepherd Kings in Upper Egypt. It opened the way for
the most glamorous -- and the most incestuous -- of all Egyptian
families -- Dynasty XVIII of Thebes.
(NOTE: To view the figure placed here, see the file CMPDM1A.TIF in the
Images\OtherWCG directory.)
Archaeology has provided a wealth of information for this period.
Yet no standard textbook has ever restored Dynasty XVIII to its
rightful place in history. Because Manetho presented his history of
Egypt's thirty dynasties in successive order, it was early assumed that
the exodus occurred under this dynasty. Modern historians have long
recognized that not one shred of evidence supports this preposterous
traditional conception inherited from Catholic scholars. As a solution,
they have proposed an even more preposterous theory -- that the exodus
-- if it took place at all! -- was under the succeeding nineteenth
dynasty. There is indeed a reference to Israel during the nineteenth
dynasty of Egypt, but it is to the captivity of Israel -- not to the
exodus, as will be demonstrated when restoring the Ramesside period.
Dynasty XVIII
Archaeological and classical materials are sufficient to restore
in detail the dynastic sequence and relationship of the kings and
queens of Dynasty XVIII. Ahmose commenced the dynasty and expelled the
foreign Shepherd Kings. His queen, Ahmose-Nofreteroi, is "depicted for
some unaccountable reason with a black countenance," declared Sir Alan
Gardiner in "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 175. The second king,
Amenhotpe (Amenophis I), was pictured, black (I. Rosellini, "I
Monumenti dell' Egitto e della Nubia", Pisa, 1832-44). Foucart in an
article in the "Bulletin de, l'Institut Egyptien", 5 serie, II (1917),
pages 268-269), presented evidence that in the Egyptian royal family of
this period was Ethiopian blood.
But first, to restore Dynasty XVIII to its rightful place in
history. From archaeological research and the classical writers the
following chronological chart may be constructed.
Names of the
Kings and Queen
of Dynasty XVIII
from archaeology

Names from
Manetho

Lengths of
Reign from
Archaeological
evidence and
Manetho

Dates

Ahmose

---

25

1076-1051

Amenhotpe
(Amenophis I)

---

21

1051-1030

Thutmose (I)

Chebron

13

1030-1017

Thutmose (II)

Amenophis

20

Hashepsowe
(Hatshepsut)

Amessis or
Smensis

21

996- 975*

Thutmose (III)

Mephres or
Misaphris

54

997- 943

Amenhotpe
(Amenophis II)

Mephramuthosis or
Misphragmuthosis 25

943- 918

Thutmose (IV)

Tuthmosis

918-909

1017- 997

*Joint with Thutmose III.

At this point the dynasty should be interrupted to recount the major
events in Egypt which synchronize with the history of neighhoring
nations and with the Bible.
The Biblical Parallel
The synchronism of Biblical and Egyptian history begins in the
reign of Solomon, king of Israel. "Solomon became allied to Pharaoh
king of Egypt by marriage, and took Pharoah's daughter, and brought her
into the city of David ..." (I Kings 3:1, Jewish Pub. Soc. trans.).
(Who was the Pharaoh who became Solomon's father-in-law?
The answer may be established by determining the time of Solomon's
reign. It is stated in I Kings 6:1, "And it came to pass in the four
hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the
land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in
the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the
house of the Lord" (JPS trans.).
From Egyptian history the exodus may be dated Nisan (March-April)
1486. The 480th year thus extended from 1007-1006 (spring to spring).
The fourth year of the reign of Solomon (1008-1007, reckoning autumn to
autumn according to the civil calendar) thus corresponds to the time of
Pharaoh Thutmose II. His chief wife and queen was Hashepsowe
(Hatshepsut in earlier authors). As the mother of the Egyptian princess
whom Solomon married is unrecorded it is presently impossible to
determine from history whether Hashepsowe was Solomon's mother-in-law
or step-mother-in-law. In either case she could learn firsthand of the
riches and fame of Israel's king.
Solomon commenced the building of the Temple in his fourth year.
In the eleventh year of his reign it was completed (I Kings 6:37-38).
Thereupon Solomon devoted his time to the erection of his palace. "And
Solomon was building his own house thirteen years ..." (I Kings 7:1).
It was now the twenty-fourth year of Solomon's reign.
"And it came to pass at the end of twenty years (7 plus 13),
wherein Solomon had build the two houses ..." that Hiram the king of
Tyre came to visit Solomon (I Kings 9:10). But Hiram was not the only
royal visitor who came about this time. "And when the queen of Sheba
heard of the fame of Solomon because of the name of the Lord, she came
to prove him with hard questions" (I Kings 10:1). Jesus called the
queen of Sheba "the queen of the south" (Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31).
In the book of Daniel, chapter 11, the king of the south is the ruler
of Egypt and Ethiopia. Jesus' designation of the queen of Sheba as the

"queen of the south" therefore means that she was the ruler of Egypt
and Ethiopia. Was a woman -- a queen -- ruling Egypt in the
twenty-fourth year of Solomon? Indeed -- Maekaure Hashepsowe!
Josephus, the Jewish historian, preserves an account of this
famous visitor. "There was then a woman, queen of Egypt and Ethiopia
book VIII, chapter vi, part 5).
Many modern historians have assumed that both Jesus and Josephus
were incorrect. They limit the land of Sheba exclusively to southern
Arabia. It is at this point that they seem to forget their history.
Ethiopia anciently extended to southern Arabia. The land of Sheba -the leading Ethiopian tribe -- included both southern Arabia and
Ethiopia. Under Dynasty XVIII of Thebes Ethiopia and Egypt were united.
The queen of the south was therefore also queen of Egypt -- the
Hashepsowe of history.
Josephus preserves the name of the Queen of Sheba. He quotes from
Herodotus and calls her "Nicaule" ("Antiquities", book VIII, chapter
vi, part 2). Any philologist would immediately recognize in the name
Nicaule (Nikaule in Greek) only a dialectic form of the Egyptian
Maekaure, the "prenomen" of Hashepsowe.
Perhaps the most striking proof that Hashepsowe visited Palestine
may be found recorded in the temple at Deir el Bahari. The walls of
this temple enshrine the visit of the Queen to "God's Land." The event
occurred in her ninth year -- 988-987 -- the year Solomon completed his
great palace. In "Ancient Records of Egypt", by Breasted, volume II,
may
be found the English translation of the inscriptions of the expedition.
Here are extracts from this most famous of all Egyptian voyages:
"Sailing in the sea, beginning the goodly way towards God's-Land,
journeying in peace to the land of Punt ..." (section 253).
God's Land is described in detail in section 288: "I have led them
on water and on land, to explore the waters of inaccessible channels,
and I have reached the Myrrh-terraces."
Queen Hashepsowe explored in God's Land "waters of inaccessible
channels" -- an awkward modern translation meaning "spring-fed pools."
Solomon built many spring-fed pools to supply the lovely artificial
wooded terraces. "I made me gardens and parks," wrote Solomon, "and I
planted trees in them of all kinds of fruit; I made me pools of water,
to water therefrom the wood springing up with trees" (Ecclesiastes
2:5-7).
"It is a glorious region of God's-Land; it is indeed my place of
delight .... They took myrrh as they wished, they loaded the vessels to
their hearts' content, with fresh myrrh trees, every good gift of this
country, Puntites whom the people know not, Southerns of God's-Land."
"Trees were taken up in God's-Land, and set in the ground in Egypt"
(sect. 294). The vessels of the Queen, on the return trip up the Nile
to Thebes were heavily loaded with "all goodly fragrant woods of
God's-Land" and many other rarities which previously had been imported
from around the world by the people of God's-Land. "Never was brought
the like of this for any king who has been since the beginning" (sect.
265).
Scholars have foolishly puzzled for decades over the location of
"God's-Land" -- "Toneter" in Egyptian. It is really no puzzle. The word
in Egyptian signifies "Divine Land" or "Holy Land." The "Holy Land" is
Palestine!
Egyptian inscriptions precisely define the location of God's-Land
as Palestine. It lies between Egypt and Syria. In the Papyrus Harris
one reads of "the products of Egypt, God's-Land, Syria and Kush"

(Breasted, op. cit., vol. IV, sect. 313). Again: "products of Egypt,
products of God's-Land, products of Syria" (sects. 341, 387).
From the Piankhi Stela comes the same evidence: "Then the ships
were laden with silver, gold, copper, clothing, and everything of the
Northland, every product of Syria, and all sweet woods of God's-Land.
His majesty sailed up-stream ..." from the Mediterranean coast
southward up the Nile to Upper Egypt (Breasted, op. cit., vol. IV,
sect. 883).
En route from Egypt to Upper Syria, Thutmose III passed by God's
Land. "All plants that grow, all flowers that are in God's-Land which
were found by his majesty when his majesty proceeded to Upper Retenu
(Syria)" (Breasted, op. cit., vol. II, sect. 451).
Amenhotpe III cut cedar in God's Land for his sacred barge: "
was dragged over the mountains of Retenu (Lebanon) by the princes of
all countries" (section 888). No mistaking this reference. God's Land
could refer to no other region than Palestine, the Holy Land.
In God's Land, or Palestine, Hashepsowe found more than one
people. Inhabiting the southern portion, where the Queen first landed,
were native "Puntites," presented to her as servants by the ruling
people of the land. In her monuments at Deir el Bahari these "Puntites"
are pictured as a short, round-headed, dark-skinned, thick-lipped
people, whereas the dominant people were white men (Naville's "Deir el
Bahari", Pt. III, page 12).
The two peoples of the Holy Land were Israelites and Canaanites. A
remnant of Canaanites -- the "Puntites" of the inscriptions -- long
lived in the mountains of Seir bordering on the Gulf of Aqaba. The
words "Punt" and "Puntite" came to be pronounced in Egyptian without
the "t." A better spelling of the Egyptian word would be "Puoni" or
"Pwene", the latter most commonly used today by scholars. (See
Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 37, note 1.) When referring to
wars with the Canaanite Carthaginians, the Romans spoke of Punic wars
-- Punic being a synonym for Canaanite. The chief Canaanite people were
the Sidonians. The father of Sidon, in classical literature, was named
Pontus (Eusebius, "Preparation for the Gospel", I, x, 27). In Scripture
he is Canaan.
The land of Punt or Pwene was the land wherever Canaanites
settled. Originally the land of "Punt" was limited to Palestine -- in
Scripture "the land of Canaan" -- but in later times signified any land
to which Phoenicians or Canaanites migrated. "Afterward were the
families of the Canaanite spread abroad" (Genesis 10:18). Hence in
Egyptian literature Punt included lands outside of Palestine or God's
Land.
God's Land is Palestine. The Queen of Sheba is Hashepsowe. But who
is "Shishak" the king of Egypt at the close of Solomon's reign?
Shishak Captures Jerusalem
In the later years of Solomon's reign, Egypt was ruled by a king
named Shishak. He is introduced in I Kings 11:40, in an account of the
strife between Solomon and Jeroboam. "Solomon sought therefore to kill
Jeroboam; but Jeroboam arose, and fled to Egypt, unto Shishak king of
Egypt, and was there in Egypt until the death of Solomon." Archaeology
has as yet not found this name in Egypt, but it has appeared on tablets
excavated at Ras Shamra in northern Syria. (See Dhorme's article in
"Revue Biblique", XL, Jan. 1931, page 55.) The Pharaohs of Egypt
usually

had many names, many of which have not yet been recovered by the
archaeologists. Which king of Dynasty XVIII was Shishak?
The chronological chart at the beginning of this chapter indicates
he was Thutmose III, often designated "the Great." He reigned not only
in the later years of Solomon, but in the time of Rehoboam.
The Biblical record states that Shishak invaded Judah shortly
after Solomon's death. "And it came to pass in the fifth year of king
Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; and he
took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of
the king's house: he even took away all; and he took away all the
shields of gold which Solomon had made" (I Kings 14:25-26).
A parallel and richer account is preserved in II Chronicles
12:1-8:
And it came to pass, when the kingdom
of Rehoboam was established, and he was
strong, that he forsook the law of the
Lord, and all Israel with him. And it
came to pass in the fifth year of king
Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt
came up against Jerusalem, because
they had dealt treacherously with the Lord,
with twelve hundred chariots, and threescore thousand horsemen; and the people
were without number that came with him
out of Egypt; the Lubim, the Sukkiim,
and the Ethiopians. And he took the
fortified cities which pertained to
Judah, and came unto Jerusalem. Now
Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam,
and to the princes of Judah, that were
gathered together to Jerusalem because
of Shishak, and said unto them: 'Thus
saith the Lord: Ye have forsaken Me,
therefore have I also left you in the
hand of Shishak.' Then the princes of
Israel and the king humbled themselves;
and they said: 'The Lord is righteous.'
And when the Lord saw that they humbled
themselves, the word of the Lord came
to Shemaiah, saying: 'They have humbled
themselves; I will not destroy them: but
I will grant them some deliverance, and
My wrath shall not be poured out upon
Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they shall be his servants; that
they may know My service, and the service
of the kingdoms of the countries.' "
This momentous event in the history of Judah is dated to the fifth
year of king Rehoboam. Reckoning from the fourth year of Solomon,
1008-1007 (autumn to autumn according to the civil calendar). the fifth
year of Rehoboam would be 967-966. Now the thirty-first year of
Thutmose III is 967-966 (spring to spring). The two regnal years
overlap six months in the autumn and winter of the year 967-966.
In his thirtieth year Thutmose campaigned in Judah. He did not
capture Jerusalem in this year (Breasted's "Ancient Records of Egypt",

vol. II, sect. 465, footnote a). However he did harvest their grain and
take hostages.
Year thirty-one of Thutmose corresponds to Rehoboam's fifth. In
this year Rehoboam humbled himself. Nevertheless, God allowed Thutmose
to take Jerusalem. (For best Bible rendering see the Jewish Publication
Society translation of II Chronicles 12:1-8.) For the list of spoils
and tribute taken see Breasted, sections 471 and 473.
The first Egyptian to pierce the walls of Kadesh was Amenemhab He
records in his biography: "His majesty sent forth every valiant man of
his army, in order to pierce the wall for the first time, which Kadesh
had made. I was the one who pierced it, being the first of all the
valiant: no other before me did it" (section 590).
Archaeologists have spent years guessing the whereabouts of the
city of Kadesh. No one, it seems, has suspected that it is Jerusalem!
All scholars recognize that the word Kadesh means "Holy." When
used in reference to a city, it means a Holy City. Jerusalem is many
times called the Holy City in Scripture. In Daniel 9:24 Jerusalem is
referred to as "the holy city." In the original Hebrew, the root word
for "holy" is KADESH. Nehemiah 11:1 speaks of "Jerusalem the holy
city." Again the Hebrew root for "holy" is KADESH, sometimes spelled
KODESH. See also Isaiah 48:2 and numerous other passages.
In all, Thutmose mentions one hundred and nineteen captured cities
of Palestine. Kadesh is listed first, Megiddo second (A. Jirku, "Die
aegyptischen Listen der Palaestinensischen und Syrischen Ortsnamen,"
"Klio Beihefte", XXXVIII, Leipzig, 1937). The wealth plundered from the
Palace and the Temple in Jerusalem was engraved on the walls of the
great Amon temple at Karnak and may be seen to this day.
Thutmose received continuous tribute from Judaea during the
succeeding years of his reign, confirming the Biblical statement that
the Jews became the "servants" of Shishak (II Chronicles 12:8).
In the forty-second year of Thutmose's reign he again "arrived at
the district of Kadesh, captured the cities therein." (Sections 529,
531 ) This was in 955 or one year before Rehoboam died. Rehoboam
reigned seventeen years in all (II Chronicles 12:13) In 954 Abijah
succeeded his father -- twelve years after the capture of Jerusalem
(966) Thutmose's intention was to perpetuate Egyptian rule on the
kingdom of Judah. Rehoboam was old and weak after continual wars with
Jeroboam.
Before completing the life of Thutmose, it is important to
consider two other campaigns which preceded the attack on Jerusalem. In
his twenty-third year, 975 exactly 511 years after the Exodus and the
coming of the Hyksos into Egypt, Thutmose commenced "the first
victorious expedition to extend the boundaries of Egypt with might ...
Now, at that period the Asiatics had fallen into disagreement, each man
fighting against his neighbor ." (Breasted, op cit., vol II, sections
415-416).
This campaign proceeded no farther north than Tripolis of the
southern Lebanon. It marks the termination of the 511 years assigned to
the Hyksos period by Josephus and the classical writers. Southern
Phoenicia, from whence came some of the Shepherd Kings, was now subject
to the Egyptians. Seven years later, 518 years after the Exodus in the
thirtieth year of Thutmose III, a major campaign was carried on along
the eastern Mediterranean coast to the city of Arvad (sect. 461). All
of Phoenicia now passed under Egyptian sway. With this campaign the 518
years also assigned to the Hyksos period by Josephus were completed.
These momentous shifts in world politics at the close of Solomon's
reign were the direct result of Solomon' sin, described in I Kings

11:1-13. Historians, interpreting history without God and the Bible,

have mistakenly assumed that the spectacular growth in Egyptian power
was due solely to Thutmose's political astuteness. Neglected is the
military situation. Thutmose could never have accomplished his extended
campaigns apart from revolts against Solomon. I Kings 11 14-40 unveils
what the trip-hammer blows were that cracked Israel's power. The
Edomites became restive, the Arameans in Damascus independent, and ten
out of the twelve tribes of Israel were anticipating the death of
Solomon as a quick remedy for excessive taxation. Thutmose merely
seized the spoils of a nation which had grown soft spiritually because
it set its mind on physical greatness alone.
Who Was Zerah the Ethiopian?
Time moves on to another generation. Thutmose is dead. In his
stead reigns Amenhotpe II. In Jerusalem king Rehoboam was succeeded
first by Abijah (for 3 years), then by his grandson Asa. The record is
found in II Chronicles 14 and 15.
Important military changes were disturbing the eastern
Mediterranean seaboard. Fortified cities had to be hastily constructed
throughout Judah (II Chr 14:5). An efficient army was trained during
ten years of quiet. Suddenly in the fifteenth year of Asa (937-936)
"there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an army of a
thousand thousand (one million troops), and three hundred chariots; and
he came unto Mareshah. Then Asa went out to meet him ...." Judah
earnestly sought divine intervention against the great host of Lubim
and the Ethiopiens (II Chr. 16:8) that had come out of Egypt. "So the
Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the
Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them
unto Gerar; and there fell of the Ethiopians so that none remained
alive: for they were scattered before the Lord, and before His host:
and they (Judah) carried away much booty" (Jewish translation), After
the battle and the spoiling of the region of Gerar, the Jews "gathered
themselves to Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Asa. And they sacrificed unto the Lord in that day
(Pentecost), of the spoil which they had brought ..." (II Chr.
15:10-11). Who was the Zerah whose army was totally annihilated in
Asa's reign?
One would hardly expect to discover the full truth of such a
catastrophic defeat engraven on the monuments of the vanquished.
Perchance the defeat is glossed over and made to appear a victory.
No monument to our knowledge tells the story of the defeat.
However, there certainly is an historical Zerah. He appears in the king
lists of Ethiopia at the very time the battle occurred. Through the
centuries the Ethiopians preserved the name of this man who played no
small role in the history of Judah.
Zerah belonged to the Dynasty of Menelik I. The dynasty began with
the death of Hashepsowe in 975 B.C. Menelik, the first ruler, was the
son of Solomon and an Egyptian princess. The complete king list can be
found in C.F. Rey's book: "In the Country of the Blue Nile", 1927.
Dynasty of Menelik I
Ruler

Length of Reign

Dates

1 Menelik I
(succeeded Hashepsowe)
2 Hanyon
3 Sera I (Tomai)
Sera is Zerah
the Ethiopian

25
1

975-950
950-949

26

949-923

The king list continues down to the present and can be referred to
in the Compendium, vol. II, appendix B.
In Egypt Amenhotpe II was reigning. His authority extended south
beyond Napata in Ethiopia (Breasted, "Ancient Records", vol. II, sect.
797). He succeeded his father Thutmose III in 943. Amenhotpe's first
documented campaign into Palestine occurred in his year 3 (941). This
was near the close of the 10th year of Asa, king of Judah. Asa had ten
years of peace at the beginning of his reign (951-941). (See II
Chronicles 14:1, 5, 6). A later Egyptian campaign occurred in the
beginning of Amenhotpe's seventh year (937). The king set out on a
grand expedition into Palestine. His seventh year corresponds to Asa's
fourteenth. This date -- 937 -- is one year before Zerah's invasion.
Amenhotpe's campaign, recorded on the Memphis stela, should not be
confused with the Ethiopian invasion of Palestine in the spring of 936.
(NOTE: To view the figure placed here, see the file CMPDM1B.TIF in the
Images\OtherWCG directory.)
The Memphis stela reads: "Year 7, 1st month of the third season.
day 25 .... His majesty proceeded to Retenu (Palestine) .... His
majesty reached Shamesh-Edom." On the Karnak stela the next move is
also dated: "1st month of the third season. day 26. His majesty's
crossing the ford of the Orontes on this day." He was north of
Palestine.
The prince of Kadesh surrendered the city to the armies of
Amenhotpe. He swore fealty to the Egyptians rather than undergo a
siege. But this Kadesh -- a holy city -- was Carchemish in Syria.
(Consult Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 245, and
footnotes 8 and 9; also Breasted's translation of the Karnak stela,
section 784.)
Dynasty XVIII in Manetho
Manetho's transcribers -- Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius -- are
usually charged with totally corrupting this Theban dynasty. Had the
archaeologists and historians spent as much time understanding
Manetho's extractors. instead of condemning them, they would have
recovered the full account of Amenhotpe II. The chart which follows is
based solely on Manetho's transcribers. It should be compared with the
first one given in this chapter which is based on archaeological
evidence and on Manetho. (The abbreviations -- "J", "A", "E", "T" -following either names, or lengths of reign stand for variations in
Josephus Africanus, Eusebius, or Theophilus. -- The figures of Josephus
have been reduced to whole calendar years.)
Names of Dynasty
XVIII in Manetho

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Names from
Archaeology

Tethmosis (J),
called also
Amose (A) and
Amosis (E)

25

1076-1051

Ahmose

His son: Chebron,

or Chebros (A)

13

1030-1017

Thutmose I

Amenophis (J),
Ammenophthis (A) (E)

21 (A) (E)1017- 996

20 (J)
1017- 997

Thutmose II

His sister: Amessis (J),

Amensis (A)

21 (J)
22 (A)

Hashepsowe
(Queen of
Sheba)

Her (step)son:
Mephres (J)
Misaphris (A),
Miphres (E)

12 (J) (E) 975- 963

13 (A)
976- 963

Thutmose III
(Shishak)

His son: Mephramuthosis (J)

Misphragmuthosis (A) (E)
Mephrammuthosis (T)

25 (J)
26 (A)(E)
20 (T)

943- 918
944- 918
963- 943

Amenhotpe II

918- 909

Thutmose IV

His son: Thmosis (J)

Tuthmosis (A) (E)

996- 975
997- 975

The insignificant differences of spelling in the Greek are due

naturally to the changes in pronunciation of Egyptian sounds over many
centuries -- and to abbreviations. Several of these names have never
been discovered by archaeologists. This does not mean the Greek or
Hebrew writers imagined names, but rather that archaeology is limited
in what it can recover from the past.
Of greater historic significance are the variations in regnal
years. Far from being mere scribal errors, each contributes additional
information not preserved by the other epitomes of Manetho. If Manetho
is to be fully understood, all the evidence must be taken together.
Consider the minor variations in the reign of Thutmose II and
Hashepsowe. Josephus preserves the fact that he reigned only twenty
full calendar years when succeeded by his son Thutmose III. But both
Africanus and Eusebius bring out the detail that one more year elapsed
before his sister and queen, Hashepsowe, assumed supreme rule as Queen
of Egypt. Again, Africanus assigns 22 years to Hashepsowe to indicate
that she was associated with her stepson for 22 calendar years after
the death of her brother. Her dominant role in government as senior
co-regent for 21 years is preserved only by Josephus, who is confirmed
by archaeology and monumental finds.
The length of reign of Thutmose III as preserved by Manetho's
abstractors has been rejected in toto. Though it appears on the surface
to be irreconcilable with archaeological finds, it is nevertheless
correct. Thutmose III reigned solely for only 12 years after the death
of Hashepsowe. At that time he associated his son Amenhotpe II with him
on the throne. Archaeology confirms a period of joint reign, but has
not yet discovered its duration. Had the archaeologists opened their
eyes, they would have long ago found its duration in Manetho. (See
Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 245, footnote 1.)
The figure of 13 calendar years for the reign of Thutmose III,

preserved by Africanus, does not commence with the death of his

step-mother, but with his assumption of power in 976 -- the beginning
of his 22nd year. In the year following 976 he began his military
campaign into southern Phoenicia, 511 years after the Exodus. Next the
reign of Amenhotpe II -- the son of Thutmose III. His frightfully long
name is not what has confounded historians. It is his length of reign
that no one, it seems, has made sense of. Compare the information from
archaeology, in the first chart, with these figures from Manetho. It is
immediately evident that Theophilus has preserved the length of the
joint reign -- 20 years -- 963-943. In 943 Thutmose III died. Josephus,
by contrast, has preserved Amenhotpe II's length of reign -- 25 years
-- after the death of his father. But Africanus and Eusebius give yet a
different length -- 26 years. They measure the length of Amenhotpe's
reign from the time he held full power during the last year of his
father's reign -- that is 944-943. The emphasis upon this date in
Amenhotpe's reign has been corroborated by archaeology. Again the
figures of the transcribers can be explained.
It should be noted that none of the transcribers of Manetho has
preserved all his facts. Each, however, complements the other. Why is
Amenhotpe I missing as the second king in the dynasty? Tethmosis or
Amose is correctly stated to be the first king. His 25 years are also
confirmed by archaeology. He is plainly declared by Manetho's
transcribers to be the father of Thutmose I or Chebron who was the
third king of Dynasty XVIII. How are these apparent discrepancies to be
resolved?
It has been commonly assumed by moderns that Thutmose I was a son
of the first Amenhotpe by a secondary wife. But there is absolutely no
evidence from archaeology to support this hypothesis (Drioton and
Vandier, "L'Egypte" (1952), page 336).
Manetho's statement that he was a son of Ahmose explains, in part,
why the classical writers passed over Amenhotpe I. The story of Dynasty
XVIII is the story of a family through blood descent. Apparently
Amenhotpe I was not in that line of descent. He may have been a younger
brother of Amosis. The following list of kings, beginning from the
expulsion of the Hyksos rulers in 1076, is preserved by Syncellus from
the book of Sothis. Take special note of the dates of Amose.
The Book of Sothis
Kings in Book
of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

33 Amosis, also called

Tethmosis

26

1076-1050

34 Chebron, his son

13

1030-1017

35 Amemphis

15

1011-1002

36 Amensis

11

1002- 991

37 Misphragmuthosis

16

991-975

38 Misphres

23

975-952

39 Tuthmosis

39

952-913

This list also placed Amosis immediately before Chebron (Thutmose

I). Ahmose (Amosis) reigned into his 26th year. Syncellus therefore
assigned the last incomplete year as a whole calendar year and gave him
26 -- from 1076 to 1050. In 1030 his son Chebron assumed the throne
under the name of Thutmose. Manetho's other transcribers gave only the
length of reign from 1076 to 1051 using the non-accession year method
of reckoning. By contrast Syncellus used the accession year method of
reckoning for Amosis, whereby the last incomplete year is assigned to
the predecessor, not to the successor. Since Syncellus also did not
include Amenhotpe I, he overlooked 20 years and proceeded to name
Chebron next.
To fully understand Manetho, one must combine the evidence from
his transcribers with archaeological discoveries. Neither Manetho nor
archaeological evidence is sufficiently complete to be used alone for
the beginning reigns of this dynasty.
The Book of Sothis' dates of the reigns of the first several
rulers of the Theban dynasty are not necessarily indicative of the year
of death. They may designate political changes. Recall the case of
Joseph in the third dynasty, who lived another 14 years after
completing his term in public office.
In the book of Sothis king Thutmose II, the husband and brother of
Amenses-Hashepsowe, is given only 15 years. This dating is confirmed by
rock inscriptions at Assuan. Hashepsowe ordered Senmut, an important
public officer, to prepare two great obelisks to commemorate her
co-regency "in year 16" of her brother Thutmose II. It has been
commonly assumed that "year 16" refers to a time in her own reign. This
conclusion is totally unwarranted, for "in year 16" Hashepsowe was
still "King's Sister, Divine Consort, Great King's Wife." Thutmose II
was still living. The inscription is in honor of "the Divine Consort,
Sovereign of the entire Two Lands" -- that is, in honor of the
assumption of royal power by Hashepsowe in her brother's sixteenth
year. The obelisks were not finally erected and inscribed until her
joint reign with her stepson Thutmose III. (See Breasted's "Ancient
Records", vol. II, sections 359-362; also Weigall's "History of the
Pharaohs", vol. II, pages 288-289.)
Thus for five years prior to his death, Thutmose II associated his
sister-wife with him on the throne as queen consort. She became senior
co-regent with her stepson in 996, one year after the death of her
brother. She continued in public office until 975.
Why then does her reign appear to cease in 991 according to the
book of Sothis? Who is the "king" named Misphragmuthosis who ceased to
reign the very year that Hashepsowe died?
The answer is unique in Egyptian history. The masculine name
Misphragmuthosis is Hashepsowe's! Under Thutmose II she was originally
only queen consort. In the year after his death she began to rule as
Queen. At length -- in 991 -- she assumed masculine titles, appeared as
a man and took a man's name. The monuments of Egypt picture her in her
later life as a male, though they at times refer to the king as "her."
Writes Sir Alan Gardiner in "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 183: "
man. The change did not come about without some hesitation, because
there is at least one relief where she appears as King of Upper and
Lower Egypt, and yet is clad in woman's attire."
The inscriptions recovered by archaeologists indicate she
commenced the idea of becoming a king as early as her second year.
("Nachrichten von der Koeniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Goettingen," 1955, page 212.) But it was not until her sixth year that

it is officially recognized in the Book of Sothis.

One other hitherto unnoticed fact appears in the book of Sothis.
The reign of Misphres (Thutmose III) continues 23 years after the reign
of "King" Hashepsowe. At that point his grandson Thutmose IV is
associated with him on the throne. The book of Sothis takes no notice
of Amenhotpe II. These records indicate that the practice of Theban
Dynasty XII, of associating sons and grandsons on the throne. was also
a practice of Theban Dynasty XVIII. For the last nine years of Thutmose
III or Shishak's life, he was associated on the throne with both son
and grandson.
With the reign of Thutmose IV, the first half of Dynasty XVIII is
completed. The succeeding rulers of the dynasty lead into the
much-misunderstood period of the Ramessides, to be unravelled in the
next chapter, or two.

CHAPTER SEVEN
The Era of Confusion
No period of Egyptian history is in greater confusion than the
close of Dynasty XVIII. To reconstruct this period scholars have
limited themselves almost wholly to the meagre finds of archaeology.
without any proof whatsoever, they have rejected or silently passed
over the testimony of Africanus and Josephus, of the book of Sothis and
the Bible.
To fill up gaps in the commonly accepted interpretation of
history, they have written countless volumes on the unimportant king
Tutankhamen -- who reigned only ten years. They have lauded Akhenaten,
the father of King Tutankhamen, as the world's "first monotheist," when
he was instead, a sexual deviate who used the cloak of religion to
beget children by his own mother and daughters -- not to speak of his
attraction toward his son Smenkhkare.
There is a reason historians have painted the closing years of
Dynasty XVIII as one of religious idealism and philosophic wisdom. In
some way they have to erase the presence of monotheism in Israel, and
the rise of Proverb literature. Since the scholarly world has not been
willing to attribute it to God, the origin has been sought in Egypt. No
such foolish deduction could have been possible had historians properly
placed Dynasty XVIII parallel with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
Egypt As It Really Was
The history of Egypt for the late eighteenth and the nineteenth
dynasties is vividly described in the Bible. It is a picture quite
unlike that of the early Thutmoses. Changes were becoming noticeable in
the reign of Thutmose IV. But not until the accession of Amenhotpe III,
the grandson of Amenhotpe II, did the history of Egypt become one of
utter religious confusion, political division, folly. What happened is
made clear in the book of Isaiah:
"The princes of Zoan are utter fools;
"The wisest counsellors of Pharaoh are a senseless counsel;
"How can ye say unto Pharaoh:
" 'I am the son of ancient kings'? ...
"The princes of Zoan are become fools,
"The princes of Noph (Memphis) are deceived;
"They have caused Egypt to go astray" (Isaiah 20:11-13).
Who are these princes of Zoan -- the descendants of ancient kings?
Isaiah again writes of the same period:
"And I" -- God is speaking -- "will spur Egypt against Egypt,
"And they shall fight everyone against his brother,
"And every one against his neighbor;
"City against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
".... And I will give over the Egyptians
"Into the hand of a cruel lord;
"And a fierce king shall rule over them,
"Saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:2-4).

For nearly 170 years following the expulsion of the Hyksos, Egypt
was united under one royal family. But here one sees an Egypt divided,
not merely into cities, but into kingdoms. What parallel dynasties
ruled these feuding kingdoms? Are the records of these internal wars
found on the monuments?
Indeed! All these surprising Scriptures are made plain once the
history of Egypt is properly restored to its true chronological
position.
The Later Eighteenth Dynasty
The records of Theban Dynasty XVIII have been restored through
Thutmose IV. Beginning with Amenhotpe III, historians are in great
confusion. Most of the controversy is suppressed in textbooks. It does
not reach the ears of students.
The controversy is primarily due to the serious mistake of
rejecting the classical evidence from Manetho. As with the early
dynasties, Manetho preserved much that archaeology has not, and perhaps
never will, discover. By; contrast, much that Manetho's transcribers
thought unimportant has been rediscovered by archaeology. The true
picture of what really happened in the next four centuries can be told
only by utilizing both Manetho and archaeological finds.
So varied were the events surrounding the later years of Dynasty
XVIII that no one ancient writer preserves all the details from
Manetho. Not even Manetho appears to have recorded the whole account.
Archaeology has unearthed many of the missing pieces of the puzzle.
What is needed is to combine both Manetho and the finds of archaeology
with the Bible.
Historians for years have been sharply divided over the events of
the last years of Amenhotpe III. Many hold that he associated his son
Akhenaten with him on the throne. Though other historians deny it,
Manetho confirms the association. See the chart from Africanus
presented later in this chapter.
The archaeologists who recognize that the father associated the
son on the throne for a time have made the mistake, however, of
interpreting the reign of Akhenaten as commencing, in the documents and
monuments, from the beginning of his appointment. On his monuments,
Akhenaten adopted the practice of dating his reign from the death of
his father Amenhotpe III. The evidence of the El-Amarna correspondence
absolutely proves that Akhenaten was abroad during many years of the
coregency and did not return till the death of his father ("The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology", vol. 43, 1957, pages 13-14). This fact misled
the opposing school of historians to deny the firmly documented
coregency.
From archaeology the following chart may be constructed. (See
"Journal of Near Eastern Studies", vol. xxv, April 1966, Pages 113-124,
by Donald B. Redford.)
Names of Kings of Dynasty
XVIII from Archaeology
Thutmose IV

Lengths of Reign

Dates

918-909

Amenhotpe III

38

909-871

Akhenaten (Orus)

17

871-854

Smenkhkare

854-851

Tutankhamen

10

851-841

841-837

59

837-778

Ay
Haremhab

The classical writers took no note of the short reigns of Orus'

sons Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen. For them, the entire period was
assigned to Orus. Similarly archaeology knows little or nothing of the
other children born to Akhenaten.
King Ay, whose name appears next to last, was not of royal
descent. He gained great influence in the latter years of the court of
Amenhotpe III. He is mentioned in documents as father-in-law of
Akhenaten. His daughter was Nefertiti, the king's chief queen.
Unfortunately Ay later became the brother-in-law of Akhenaten. Ay's
sister Tiy, who was the mother of Akhenaten, became also his wife
toward the middle of his reign. What befell Nefertiti afterward is
unrecorded in history.
Young Smenkhkare -- for whom Akhenaten also had an unnatural
attraction -- later returned to the old capital of Thebes while his
father remained at El-Amarna. After three short years on the throne,
the youth was supplanted by his younger brother Tutankhamen.
Ten years later, Tutankhamen died. Ay gave Tutankhamen a sumptuous
burial, then mounted the throne himself and apparently married
Tutankhamen's young widow, his own granddaughter, to secure his claim
to royalty. (See "Journal of Egyptian Archaeology", "King Ay, the
successor of Tut-Ankh-amun," vol. XCIII (1932), pages 50-52.)
Ay reigned 4 years. He died in 837.
Haremhab, who succeeded Ay, was a general who played no small part
in the drama that climaxed the El-Amarna period. General Haremhab
controlled the army. At his coronation in 837 he married the "Queen's
sister Mutnodjme" (Aldred, "Journal of Egyptian Archaeology", vol. 43.
Page 39 and Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. III, Sections 22 and
28.) Haremhab thus became the king's brother-in-law and Ay's
son-in-law. A comparatively long reign is usually attributed to
Haremhab. The highest discovered date assigned to him is 59 years. None
of the documents bear a king's name. This figure is in agreement,
however, with Manetho's transcribers.
Neither the mummy of Akhenaten nor of Haremhab has been found. A
mummy, once thought to be Akhenaten's is undoubtedly that of Smenkhkare
(Aldred, "The End of the El-Amarna Period," in December 1957 "Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology").
Manetho's Evidence
Now let's consider what happened to the family of Akhenaten during
the lifetime of Haremhab.
Africanus has correctly preserved Dynasty XVIII from Thutmose IV
to a king named Ramesses. The variations of other writers will be
considered later. Here is Africanus' record beginning with Thutmose IV:
Names of Rulers of
Dynasty XVIII

Lengths of Reign

Dates

according to Julius
Africanus
Tuthmosis (IV)

918-909

Amenophis (Amenhotpe III)

31

909-878

Orus (Akhenaten)

37

878-841

Acherres

32

841-809

Rathos

809-803

Chebres

12

803-791

Acherres

12

791-779

Armesis

779-774

Ramesses (usually mislabeled "I")

774-773

A break in the list occurs here. Now let's examine Eusebius before
proceeding further with Africanus.
Names of Kings of
Dynasty XVIII from
Eusebius' Greek Text

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Amenophis (III)

31

909-878

Orus (Akhenaten)

36

878-842

Achencherses, his daughter

12 (joint)

837-825

Athoris, her brother

39

842-803

Chencheres

16

803-787

787-779

Acherres
Cherres
Armais

15 (joint)
5

794-779
779-774

Note the parallel reign of Cherres, beginning 794. This figure

will be significant for dating Dynasty XXIII of Tanis later. The dating
of Akhenaton's daughter. Beginning in 837, will be proved shortly.
We should now consider other variants from Manetho, illustrated by
this fragmentary copy.
Names of Kings of
Dynasty XVIII from
Eusebius' Armenian
Version
Amenophis (III)

Lengths of Reign

31

Dates

909-878

Orus (Akhenaten)

28

Achencherses, his
daughter

---

---

871-843

16

803-787

Acherres

787-779

Cherres

15

794-779

Armais

779-774

Eusebius' account of Orus supports the archaeological record of 38

years for Amenhotpe III mentioned earlier:
Amenhotpe III

38 (from
archaeology)

909-871

Orus (Akhenaten)

28 (Armenian
version)

871-843

Eusebius' Greek Manuscript B of the king list differs from the

others. It has been misunderstood by some modern editors who have
inserted, mistakenly, the figure 12 in place of 16 (that is, 841-825)
for the reign of Achencherses, Akhenaten's daughter. They assumed that
Eusebius has been incorrectly copied. But manuscript B of Eusebius
plainly has 16. Because Cencheres also reigned 16 years, certain
manuscript copies of Eusebius' original work have deleted his name and
that of Athoris. (Compare Eusebius Werke, edited by Rudolph Helm, vol.
I, pages 40-45 with Manetho, by W.G. Waddell, Fr. 53.)
What do these variants mean? They indicate that Manetho originally
gave in detail the events surrounding the reigns of Akhenaten,
Tutankhamen, Smenkhkare and Ay! Now see how the year 837 -- the end of
Ay's reign -- can be established from Josephus and the Book of Sothis.
Names of Josephus
and Theophilus

Lengths of Reign

Amenophis (Amenhotpe III)

Orus (Akhenaten)

30

Dates
909-879

36
(or 38 in Eusebius)

879-843
(879-841)

Acencheres (daughter of Orus)

12
(or 16 in Eusebius)

837-825
(841-825)

Rathotis (her brother)

825-816
(14 missing years)

Acencheres I

12

802-790

Acencheres II

12

790-778

Harmais

778-774

Ramesses

774-773

It must first be remembered that Manetho, in his original work,

presented to the world three vast tomes. These have been lost to the
world. But before they perished many writers extracted material that,
to them, appeared vital. Different writers viewed the multitude of
Manetho's facts differently. Josephus considered certain events more
important than did Africanus, for example; his dates for the reign of a
king consequently might differ somewhat from Africanus. On occasion,
whole reigns might be deleted as unimportant -- a fact already noted
for the first half of Dynasty XVIII.
Josephus' abstract contains several unusual features. First, it is
not consecutive. There is a significant break between Orus and his
daughter Acencheres.
The second divergency is the dating of Amenhotpe III. Africanus
assigns him 31 years and ends his reign in 878. Josephus and Theophilus
follow the Book of Sothis and end it in 879. There is no scribal
carelessness here, only a difference in evaluating events. Amenhotpe
III associated his son Orus on the throne toward the end of his 31st
year -- after 30 years and 10 months, to use Josephus' account. The
question naturally arose, should the 31st year of Amenhotpe III be
assigned to him, or to the son now that he had come to coregency?
Africanus adopted the former method, dating it 878. Josephus, as well
as Syncellus in the Book of Sothis, adopted the latter method, dating
it 879.
The same variation may be noticed for the reigns of the kings
Acencheres I and II and Harmais. Africanus, in these instances, began
their regnal years one year earlier than Josephus; but assigned five to
Armais. The total in each instance is the same.
Now see the Book of Sothis confirm the unusual dates 837-816 for
Akhenaten's daughter and son -- and consequently 837 for the end of
Ay's reign.
Names in Book
of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

39 Tuthmosis (IV)

39

952-913

40 Amenophthis (III)

34

913-879

41 Orus (Akhenaten)

48

879-831

42 Achencheres (a daughter)

25

841-816

43 Athoris

29

831-802

44 Chencheres

45 Acherres
46 Armais

26 (note -816-790
14 missing years in
Josephus found!)
30
(or 8)

809-779
(or 787-779)

779-770

Very little is known of the family of Akhenaten in later years.

What is known is that Acencheres, the daughter of Akhenaten. had a
brother Rathotis (or Rathos). His son is Achencheres I, the Chebres of

Africanus. The next generation is Achencheres II, the Acherres II of

Africanus. None of these names have been found as yet by archaeologists
in Egypt. Yet they are important for their chronological value. If
archaeologists had not been led astray they would have recognized the
six successors of Orus as the six immediate predecessors of Piankhi,
king of Nubia, of Dynasty XXV.
Now consider the literary evidence for this restoration of Dynasty
XVIII.
The El-Amarna Letters
Amenhotpe III was an effeminate individual who purchased his
pleasures by bestowing power on his friends. In his senile years he was
sculptured "wearing a type of gown usually worn by women" (Cyril
Aldred, "Bulletin of Metropolitan Museum of Art", Feb. 1957). Quite an
about face since the days of the Queen of Sheba! The result of this
personal aberration was the rise to prominence of non-royalty -- the
family of Ay, for example.
The reigns of Amenophis III and Akhenaten have become famous for
the El-Amarna letters. The letters are official foreign correspondence.
Some date from the time of Amenhotpe III, or before, though most
pertain to the government of his son.
It is the common assumption of the majority of historians that
these letters reveal internal events in Palestine at the time Joshua
was invading the Holy Land. To make the Biblical account of the
conquest chronologically correspond to the time of Akhenaten,
historians had to displace the history of the book of Joshua. Some went
so far as to assume that Joshua lived before Moses -- since they had
previously misdated the exodus in the later reign of Ramesses "the
Great" or his son. Such foolish interpretations of history stand
self-condemned. What the letters really indicate is an altogether
different set of events.
The letters reveal that many of the coastal towns of Syria and
Palestine, which had owed allegiance to Egypt, were torn asunder by
internal strife or were being overrun. Local princes and Egyptian
officials usually sought in vain for Egyptian assistance. What power
expanded in Syria and Palestine during this period?
The Bible makes the answer plain. The Arameans.
The El-Amarna letters were written mainly in the days of Athaliah
and Joash of Judah, and of Jehu and Jehoahaz of Israel. A few are from
the earlier period of the Jehorams or before. The time setting is made
clear in the Bible. Asa, in whose fifteenth year (937-936) Zerah
invaded the land, died after a reign of 41 years. That brings history
to 910. Jehoshaphat, his son succeeded him and reigned 25 years -- to
885. This was the 24th year of Amenhotpe III.
After the death of Jehoshaphat "Edom revolted from under the hand
of Judah ..., then did Libnah revolt at the same time" (II Chronicles
21:10). The events move rapidly: "And the Lord stirred up against
Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians that are
beside the Ethiopians and they came up against Judah, and broke into it
up against him" -- Joash -- "and they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and
destroyed all the princes of the people" (II Chr. 24:23).
During these years Israel was being devastated by the Arameans,
"Then Hazael king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and took
it; and Hazael set his face to go to Jerusalem" (II Kings 12:18).
Later, in the reign of Jehoahaz of Israel, "the anger of the Lord was

kindled against Israel, and He delivered them into the hand of Hazael
king of Aram and into the hand of Ben-Hadad, the son of Hazael,
continually .... For there was not left to Jehoahaz of the people save
fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the
king of Aram destroyed them, and made them like the dust of threshing"
(II Kings 13:3, 7).
Later, Israel was delivered from the power of Aram during the time
of Jeroboam II.
In the El-Amarna letters "Aziru" is a king of "Amurru", with his
capital at "Dumasqa". All historians recognize that Dumasqa is
Damascus, the capital of Aram or Syria. "Amurru" is the common name for
Aram. But who is Aziru in these cuneiform documents? Hazael! The "l"
and the "r" are often linguistically interchanged. The "H" has been
dropped, just as it has in Josephus' spelling of Hazael -- "Azaelos."
Compare the Biblical dropping of the "H" in Hadoram to Adoram (II
Chron. 10:18 and I Kings 12:18).
Hazael posed as Pharaoh's obedient ally -- as did most of the
quarreling princes of the eastern Mediterranean coast. But he refused
to render any act of submission. The king of Egypt had received many
reports that Aram was not remaining loyal. In letter 162, addressed to
Aziru or Hazael, the king of Egypt warns: "If thou for any object
desirest to do evil, or if thou layest up evil words of hatred in thy
heart, then wilt thou die by the axe of the king together with thy
whole family. Render submission then to the king, thy lord, (and) thou
shalt live. Thou knowest, indeed, that the king does not desire to go
heavily against the whole land of Kinahhi" -- Canaan. ("The Tell
El-Amarna Tablets", by Samuel A.B. Mercer, vol. II, page 523.)
The letter was filled with empty words. Egypt had too many
troubles of her own to afford costly expeditions to Syria.
Are the "Habiru" Hebrews?
The letters to the Egyptian court also speak of the habiru -sometimes spelled khabiru. It was at first commonly assumed that it
meant "Hebrew," and was indicative of Joshua's invasion of Palestine.
But not one king or Canaan in Joshua's day has ever been found in the
El-Amarna letters. Nor is there one word of the fall of Jericho. The
conquest of Palestine recorded in the book of Joshua contrasts at every
fundamental point with the world of the El-Amarna letters. Egypt was an
important power in the eastern Mediterranean in the days of the kings
of Israel and in the El-Amarna world, but "Joshua did not find any such
Egyptian hold during his conquest" (Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie,
"Palestine and Israel", page 56).
Scholars have long disputed over the import of the word "habiru",
or "khabiru". From the letters it was known to be equivalent to the
word "sa-qaz" which means "brigands," "plunderers," "bandits," and
"cutthroats." On occasion the word "khabiru" "is also written with an
ideogram signifying 'cutthroats,' " declared C.J. Gadd in "The Fall of
Nineveh". The Hebrew root of "khabiru" is "khaber" (spelled "chaber" in
"Young's Concordance"). It means a "companion," "member of a band,"
hence, in a derogatory sense, "bandit." The word appears in Isaiah 1:23
as "companions of thieves": and in Proverbs 28:24 as "companion of a
destroyer."
The "khabiru" or "habiru" were the Aramean, Philistine, Moabite,
Arabian bands of plunderers who were overrunning Phoenicia, Syria and
Palestine in the days of Jehoram and Jehoahaz.

Much also has been written of the person of Abdi-hibba. Scholars

assume he was the king of "Urusalim". That the name "Urusalim" is the
cuneiform transcription of the name Jerusalem is plausible. But
Abdi-hibba was no king of Jerusalem. In addressing the Egyptian court
he wrote: "Verily, I am not a regent; I am an officer of the king, my
lord. Behold I am a shepherd of the king, and I am one who bears the
tribute of the king. Neither my father nor my mother, but the mighty
hand of the king has set me in the house of my father" (Letter 288).
The king is Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Again in Letter 287 he repeats:
"Verily, this land of the city of Urusalim, neither my father nor my
mother has given it to me." And in Letter 285: "Behold, I am not a
regent, I am an officer of the king, my lord." Abdi-hibba was a
Palestinian adventurer who had himself appointed an officer of Pharaoh
to administer Egyptian affairs over a portion of the land that belonged
to the city of "Urusalim". "Take silver and follow me," he was accused
of saying (Letter 280).
It was commonplace for the petty kingdoms of Syria and Palestine
to seek Egyptian "foreign aid" in their quarrels. Isaiah reveals what
God thought of it:
"Woe to the rebellious children, saith
the Lord, That take counsel, but not of
Me: And that form projects, but not of
My spirit, That they may add sin to sin;
That walk to go down into Egypt, And have
not asked at My mouth; To take refuge in
the stronghold of Pharaoh, And to take
shelter in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the stronghold of Pharaoh turn
to your shame, And the shelter in the
shadow of Egypt to your confusion. For
his princes are at Zoan, And his ambassadors
are come to Hanes. They shall all be
ashamed of a people that cannot profit
them, That are not a help nor profit
But a shame, and also a reproach" (Isaiah
30:1-5, "Jewish Pub. Soc." trans.).
And verse 7: "For Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose:
therefore have I called her 'Arrogancy that sitteth still.' "
Dissension and jealousy sundered Egypt's government during the
El-Amarna period. It was, in part, the result of infiltration of
foreign influence during the reign of Amenhotpe III. The book of Sothis
records of his day: "The Ethiopians, removing from the River Indus,
settled near Egypt."
They brought with them not only the concept of marriages between
uterine brothers and sisters, a practice already established in Egypt
by the royalty of Sheba, but of the marriage of parents with children.
Children of the union of a mother and son were deemed especially well
born. Akhenaten inherited this concept through his father's marriage
relationships. But the practice was revolting to many Egyptians of high
rank. No known ruler among them since the time of the Ethiopian Nimrod
had dared marry his own mother and beget children of her.
Akhenaten did it because he regarded himself as a new incarnation
of Nimrod, the sun-god. Hence the name Orus applied to the king. Orus
is another spelling of Horus, third king of Egypt, who was anciently
assumed to be the first incarnation of Nimrod.

The claims of Akhenaten were so widely known that in El-Amarna

letter 41 the Hittite king addresses Akhenaten by the name of "Huria"
-- the cuneiform of Horus.
Akhenaten made religion the cloak for his perversions. He pictured
himself as the solar disk, and from his nude body eminated the beams of
light that were to illuminate the world. The claims of the "heretic
king" threatened the power of the Theban pontiffs. To retain their
influence they first supported one, then another, or a third member of
the royal family. Each change was presented to especially constructed
idols which moved their heads -- through secret manipulation -- in
approval or disapproval of the rival royal candidates.
After El-Amarna
The climax to the El-Amarna age is usually thought to be the early
death of Akhenaten and the return to Thebes of young king Tut,
supported by the Theban priesthood. What is not understood by
historians or archaeologists is the sundering of Egyptian political
unity.
In the next chapter it shall be proved that Libyans penetrated
Lower Egypt and after the death of Ay set up a dynasty of their own.
Two generations later the political center of gravity shifted to Tanis
in the Delta. Egypt consequently became a significant sea power in the
eighth century before the present era. Greek classical records provide
numerous references to Egyptian trade, settlement and warfare in the
Mediterranean during this century.
Upper Egypt meanwhile saw the last kings of Dynasty XVIII retire
to their homeland in Nubia. Dynasty XVIII arose in Ethiopian Nubia to
oust the Hyksos. Its king Zera is called "Ethiopian," and its queen,
"Queen of Sheba." (Sheba was a son of Cush, father of the Ethiopians.)
When the religious controversy under Akhenaten developed, the religious
and political pressures of the Upper Egyptians forced a withdrawal of
the later members of the Dynasty to Napata in Nubia. Here, as we shall
presently see, a branch of the family arose to new power in Nubia and
Egypt in the person of Piankhi and reestablished the famous Ethiopian
era in Egypt. But this Ethiopian period was not centered any longer in
Thebes, but in Napata, Nubia.
Historians have never understood the connection between the early
Ethiopian influence in Egypt and the later Ethiopian period, because
they have separated them by over five centuries. This restoration of
Egyptian history makes plain the connection.

CHAPTER EIGHT
Egypt to the Persian Conquest
The next big surprise in Egyptian history is the dating of
Ramesses the Great and Dynasty XIX. Few scholars were willing to
consider the evidence, presented in 1945, for dating Ramesses about
seven centuries later than the conventional dating (see "Theses for the
Reconstruction of Ancient History," "Scripta
Academica-Hierosolymitana", Scientific Report III, by Immanuel
Velikovsky).
Ramesses the Great was a contemporary of King Nebuchadnezzar of
Babylon! The king of Hatti whom Ramesses fought at Kadesh was the
Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar. At the rise of Babylon to a world power,
Nebuchadnezzar had conquered Hatti -- the ancient name of Syria,
Palestine and a portion of Asia Minor.
The site of the battle of Kadesh, which Ramesses made so famous in
his monuments, was not a city on the Orontes River in Syria, but the
famous city of Carchemish. Kadesh is a Semitic word for "holy." Kadesh
was a holy city. A number of cities in the ancient world bore the name
Kadesh because they were holy places. Carchemish was famous -- as was
Jerusalem -- as a holy city. The Greek name of Carchemish was
Hieropolis, meaning Holy City.
Before proceeding with the detailed relationship between Ramesses
and Nebuchadnezzar, we should first establish the chronology of the
period from Manetho's transcribers. The exact dating of Dynasty XVIII
(and preceding dynasties) has been established and confirmed by the
Biblical record. Dynasty XIX follows Dynasty XVIII -- and therefore
ruled in the eighth, seventh and sixth centuries B.C.
The following table establishes the proper chronology of the
period.
Names of Kings of
Dynasty XVIII after
773 B.C. and of
Dynasty XIX from
Eusebius

Lengths of Reign

Date

Ramesses

68

771-705

Ammenophis

40

705-665

Sethos (Seti I)

55

665-610

Rampses (Ramesses the Great)

66

610-544

544-536

Ammenephthis (Merenptah)
Ammenemes

Thuoris, whose husband

was Sethos II

5 (See
Africanus'
epitome)
7

536-531
531-524

The Egyptian year at this period began January 1 531 B.C. and

January 1, 524 B.C. This makes the calendar year 525 the last full year
of Thuoris. With Queen Thuoris, a contemporary of Psamtik III, this
royal line of Egypt and Nubia died out as Ezekiel foretold.
Dynasty XIX has been greatly confused in history books because
historians carelessly discarded Manetho. They confounded several
Ramesses in Manetho's list into one. It will be proved later that the
Ramesses who ruled from 773 to 705 was the Ethiopian Piankhi. Modern
historians have long assumed Manetho overlooked him. He didn't.
Ramesses (773-705) is not a mere duplicate of Rampses (610-544). They
are two different individuals.
The last documented year of Ramesses the Great recorded on any
monument in Egypt is year 44 -- 567-566. The dynasty withdrew to Nubia
following Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Egypt.
The "Israel" Inscription
This restoration of history for the first time makes sense out of
the Egyptian account of "Israel" under Ramesses' son, Merenptah.
The name "Israel" has been clearly found only once in all Egyptian
annals. This illustrates how inadequate is archaeology when used as the
whole source of knowledge. The single inscription appears from the
reign of Merenptah, son of Ramesses the Great. It is often referred to
as the "Israel Stela." The reference to Israel is as follows:
"... Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
"Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; ...
"Israel is laid waste, his seed is not ...."
(See Pritchard, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 378.)
It is to be specially noted that in the Egyptian text all names
are preceded with a determinative sign meaning land, except for the
name of Israel. The hieroglyphic determinative which precedes the name
of Israel refers to people, not land. The record of Merenptah is
therefore a historical account of the disappearance of the people of
Israel from Palestine. This was never completely fulfilled until the
captivity of the House of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar!
For decades historians have attempted to read into this document
an account of the exodus, or of Joshua's invasion! Utter nonsense! It
is a contemporary record of the deportation of the last remnant of the
people of Israel from Palestine.
The "Thirteen Fatal Years"
In Josephus' "Contra Apionem", I, 26-31, there is a remarkable
account of Egyptian calumnies against the Jews involving this period.
The story involves "thirteen fatal years," and foreign invaders who
polluted the Egyptian religious temples. The Egyptian Manetho made it
appear that the enemies of Egypt were the Jews. The enemies were not
the Jews but the Assyrians who sent their troops into Egypt, conquered
the land and polluted its religious worship.
The setting of the event is during the time of an Amenophis.
Josephus doubted such an individual lived. Josephus was correct in
assuming the account was propaganda against Jews, but he was incorrect
in denying the historical reality of the personages involved.
Amenophis, king of Egypt, had, at the beginning of the thirteen years

of exile, a five-year-old son Sethos. Young Sethos was named Ramesses

after his grandfather. Amenophis was subject to the Ethiopian king,
Manetho reports.
The grandfather Ramesses is the Ramesses who rules from 773-705.
The Amenophis is his son who ruled during the years 705-665 (including
the 13-year exile). The 5-year old son is Sethos (665-610), father of
Ramesses the Great. The period is the Assyrian occupation during
Dynasty XXV.
Nebuchadnezzar and Ramesses the Great
As final proof of the dating of Ramesses' reign to 610-544, notice
the parallels between Egypt and Chaldaea. The history of Chaldaea for
this period is best summarized in the "Chronicles of the Chaldaean
Kings" 626-556 (B.C.), edited by D.J. Wiseman, 1956 edition. Egyptian
source material may be found in J.H. Breasted's "Ancient Records of
Egypt", vol. III.
From these Chaldaean and Egyptian records the following events are
extracted.
Egyptian:

Chaldaean:

607-606 -- fourth year of

Ramesses, Egyptians march
through Palestine, slay
Josiah of Judah, and reach
Kadesh (Carchemish) on
Euphrates.

607-606 -- year nineteen of

Nabopolassar, father of
Nebuchadnezzar, Chaldaeans
march up Euphrates, seize
Kimuhu on banks of the
river near Carchemish.

606-605 -- fifth year of

Ramesses, Egyptians record
spectacular victory in
vicinity of Kadesh
(Carchemish) over ruler
of Hatti (Syria).

606-605 -- Babylonian
Chronicle reports for twentieth year of Nabopolassar:
"... the army of Egypt came
to the city of Kumuhu
and then captured the
city." "The Egyptian army
which had crossed the
Euphrates at Carchemish came
against the Babylonian
army ... the Babylonian army
withdrew quickly and retreated."

605-604 -- Ramesses silent

about events in Syria and
Palestine.

605-604 -- Egyptian army

smashed at Carchemish.
Chaldaeans seize "the whole
area of the Hatti country."

604-603 -- Ramesses again

silent about events in
Palestines

604-603 -- Chaldaeans
capture Judah and city of
Ashkelon in land of
Philistines.

603-602 -- eighth year -Ramesses reconquers Ashkelon, overruns Galilee

and proceeds to Carche-

603-602 -- in spring of
year 603 Chaldaeans marched
to land of Hatti with a
powerful army. employ siege

mish. Breasted comments

in a footnote: "At some
time between the fifth
and eighth years all
Palestine ... revolted
against Ramses II,
and he was obliged to
take up the reconquest
of his Asiatic possessions, at his very door,
Ashkelon" (pp. 157-158).
Ramesses records nothing
of the outcome of his
march to Carchemish (Kadesh)except that he received tribute upon
reaching the Euphrates.

towers against a city whose

name is broken away on the
clay tablet. A notable
victory is achieved. Jeremiah
46:2 comes to our aid.
This victory was achieved
at Carchemish -- it is the
second battle for Carchemish (historians have only
taken note of the first
The Egyptians are totally
overthrown. (Who Pharaoh
Necho was in the Biblical
account will be explained
later.)

601-600 -- a damaged
monument seems to refer
to year 10 of Ramesses
and a struggle for
Palestine (see p. 125
of Breasted's work,
vol. III).

601-600 -- Chaldaean chronicle records: the king

"took the lead of his army
and marched to Egypt. The
king of Egypt heard (it)
and mustered his army. In
open battle they smote the
breast (of) each other and
inflicted great havoc on
each other. The king ...
turned back and returned to
Babylon."

Here is historical confirmation of astounding significance. We

have proceeded with the restoration of Egyptian history from its
earliest period. That restoration required that Ramesses the Great be
placed in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. -- contemporary with
Nebuchadnezzar. And when the pages of history are opened for those
centuries. the parallels are there!
In conclusion. note the deeds of Ramesses "the Great" found on the
monuments under the name of Tirhakah, in classical tradition a
contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar.
Inscriptions found upon certain reliefs at Medinet-Habu -- the
Pylon of the Ethiopians -- record the statement that a king Tirhakah
claimed sovereignty over Western Mesopotamia, the land of Hatti, part
of Assyria, as well as Libya and other regions of Africa (G. Daressy,
"Medinet Habou", page 9). Scholars immediately recognized this vast
realm was unhistorical for the Tirhakah of Dynasty XXV. The list was
pronounced "worthless." Then Mariette discerned that the same record
appeared elsewhere on the base of a colossal statue of Ramesses II.
(See Mariette's "Karnak", page 67, plate 18.) Mariette refused to
believe his eyes. But there was the evidence: This Tirhakah was indeed
Ramesses "the Great."
"Curiously enough," admits E.A. Wallis Budge in "A History of
Egypt", vol. VI, page 157, "Tirhakah obtained the reputation of being a
great traveller and conqueror, and Strabo, under the name of 'Tearko
the Ethiopian,' mentions him ... as one whose expeditions were not
generally known." (See "Strabo", book I, chapter 3, part 21.) "In
another place he quotes Megasthenes, who says that ... Tearko the

Ethiopian advanced as far as Europe ...." (See "Strabo", book XV,

chapter 1, part 6.)
Catching Up Loose Ends
Now to complete the restoration of Dynasty XIX from archaeology
and Manetho's transcribers. According to Eusebius, Manetho assigns 8
years (544-536) to Ammenephthis (known as Merenptah from archaeology).
In Syncellus' copy of Eusebius' epitome of Manetho the figure given is
40 years -- that is 576-536. Now see this confirmed from archaeological
sources:
Names of Ramesses and
Successors from
Monuments

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ramesses

67

610-543

Merenptah

10

576-566

Sethos II

543-537

Siptah

537-531

Twosre, a queen and

widow of Sethos II
(Thuoris in book of
Sothis)

531-524

Compare this chart, based on archaeological evidence, with the

record of Manetho. The reign of Merenptah (Ammenephthis) is given as 8
years in the Armenian version of Eusebius. This eight year period
followed the reign of Ramesses. But Syncellus' copy of Eusebius'
Manetho reads 40 years. Merenptah therefore reigned jointly with his
father Ramesses for 32 years. Since the 10-year reign of Merenptah is
recorded in Egypt, and not solely in Nubia, these ten years are
Merenptah's first ten years -- 576-566. Merenptah continued his reign
in Nubia after Egypt was depopulated between 570 and 566 by the
Chaldaeans.
The reign of Ramesses in Nubia was followed by those of Sethos II,
Siptah and Twosre. All the historical inscriptions of Siptah are Nubian
graffiti, primarily from Wadi Halfa. Here again is confirmation of
Ezekiel's prophecy of Egypt's 40-year desolation (Eze. 29:8-16).
The tombs of these rulers are all found in Egypt. The explanation
is simple. Manetho's longer figures indicate that each began to reign
in Egypt jointly with Ramesses before the land became desolate. Notice
these additional figures from Manetho confirming the joint reigns!
Names of Rulers of
Dynasty XIX according
to Africanus
Sethos

Lengths of Reign

Dates

51

656-605

Rapsaces (Ramesses the Great) 61

605-544

Ammenephthis (Merenptah)

20

557-537

Ramesses (Siptah -- in
60
contemporary records his name
is spelled Ramesse-siptah)

591-531

Ammenemnes

26 (according
to Eusebius)

557-531

50 (from book
of Sothis)

574-524

Thuoris (Twosre)

For the date 656 marking the beginning of the reign of Sethos, see
Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", p. 450, especially the comment on
the reign of Tanuatamun.
With this, the restoration of Dynasty XIX has been completed. But
what are we to do with all the other dynastic houses which, historians
say, ruled Egypt during these centuries? And who is that other
long-lived Ramesses dated 773-705?
Dynasty XXV, the Ethiopians
Drop back in time to the end of the eighth century B.C. This is
the period of Ethiopian rule of Egypt. The evidence from Assyrian
sources for the proper dating of this period is so overwhelming
historians have been unable to upset it.
From archaeological discoveries the reigns of the recognized kings
of Dynasty XXV appear as follows:
Names from the
Monuments and
Stelae

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Shabako

15

707-692

Shebitku

692-689

Taharka

26

689-663

In 663 Thebes was sacked by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal. In 663

Taharka was succeeded by another Ethiopian Bakare Tanuatamun, whom the
Assyrians named Urdamane. Archaeology has recovered indications of only
8 regnal years, but the history of Dynasty XXVI of Sais preserves
evidence that his reign following the destruction of Thebes was 9 years
-- 663-654.
The account of Dynasty XXV from Eusebius provides additional
information of joint rulership not discovered by archaeologists.
Names of Dynasty XXV
in Eusebius

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sabacon

12

707-695

Sebichos

12

695-683

Taracus

20

683-663

The name of Tanuatamun does not appear in the dynasty. In the book
of Sothis the names are as follows: 75 Sabacon; 76 Sebechon; 77
Taraces. The lengths of reign are those of Eusebius.
A comparison of Eusebius' Manetho with archaeological finds
indicates Shabako and Shebitku reigned as equals for 3 years -695-692, as did Shebitku and Taharka for 6 years -- 689-683.
The account of Africanus differs somewhat from that of Eusebius.
Names of Dynasty XXV
in Africanus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sabacon

705-697

Sebichos

14

697-683

Tarcus

18

683-665

The shorter reign of Sabacon will be explained later by the

46-year reign of Bochchoris, preserved by Eusebius. Thus:
Bochchoris
Sabacon

46

751-705

705-697

In Africanus it may be observed that Sebichos (Shebitku) is found

associated on the throne in 697, two years earlier than the coregency
indicated by Eusebius. A Biblical parallel may be observed in the
relationship of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. Jehoshaphat associated his son
Jehoram on the throne with him in year 17, but it was not till year 22
that he was made full co-regent (compare I Kings 22 with II Kings 1 and
8).
Again these figures illustrate that if all the information is
available, the records fit perfectly.
Scribal errors are not the cause of the variations. More important is
the individual author's evaluation of events which leads him to
emphasize different dates.
The short 18-year reign of Taharka (to 665 instead of 663) is
easily accounted for by Egyptian and Assyrian information. Two years
after Assurbanipal attacked Memphis (667) the Assyrian records indicate
Tanuatamun came to the throne. He was king of Egypt during the final
Assyrian attack on Thebes in 663. Though archaeology has provided no
documents mentioning a joint reign, the classical writers plainly
confirm the Assyrian record. Taharka and Tanuatamun were ruling jointly
for two years: 665-663. With the end of the reign of Tanuatamun the
last vestiges of Ethiopian control of Egypt cease.
Dynasty XXVI of Sais
The Ethiopian rule over Lower Egypt ended in 663 with the end of
the reign of Taharka. Thereafter It passed to Dynasty XIX. In Lower
Egypt in that year Dynasty XXVI of Sais rose to power. It was
established by Assyrian authority, but its rulers were, to some extent,
related to the Ethiopian Theban line by marriage. From the monument the
following list of kings, parallel with Dynast; XIX Thebes in Upper
Egypt, has been firmly established.

Names of Kings of
Dynasty XXVI of Sais
in Lower Egypt

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(Taharka)

(26)

(689-663)

Psamtik I

54

663-609

Necho

16

609-593

593-588

Apries (Hophra)

19

588-569

Ahmose II (Amasis)

44

569-525

Psamtik II

Psamtik III

6 months

525

The Persian invasion occurred in the year 525 and the line of
Egyptian royalty passed from the scene. The princes that had ruled
Egypt for centuries ceased. At this point the proof of the restoration
of Egyptian history is established. It agrees to the very year -- from
the Tower of Babel in 2254 to the Persian conquest in 525.
Though the archaeological record for the last Saite dynasty is
amply demonstrated, some scholars have been puzzled by the dating of
the last king Psamtik. A record early in his year 2 has been found. The
answer is, of course, that he counted the 44th year of Amasis, during
which he came to the throne, as his first year. This method of
pre-dating hereafter became the usual mode of reckoning the Persian
rulers in native annals. Psamtik's six months of reign overlapped the
end of one calendar year and the beginning of the next, hence the date
"year 2" during which he was overthrown.
The classical writers preserve some important additional
information concerning Dynasty XXVI that is not known from archaeology.
Manetho's Account of Dynasty XXVI
The evidence from Herodotus is especially valuable, as it gives a
fuller view of joint reigns of the various kings. His information for
the reign of Apries, the Hophra of the Bible, is as follows:
Name of King

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Psammetichos I (Psamtik)

54

663-609

Nechao II

16

610-594

594-588

Apries

25

594-569

Amasls

44

569-525

Psammetichos II

Psammetichos III

6 months

525

The overlap of Necho II is insignificant. But it is worthy of note

that Herodotus pictures Apries and Psammetichos exercising power from
the same year. Both Africanus and Eusebius preserve a short reign of 6
years for Necho II, and Eusebius assigns 17 to Psammetichos. Thus:
Nechao II
Psammetichos

610-604

17

604-587

Psammetichos died in the early part of 588, near the beginning of

his 17th calendar year. From this it appears that Psammetichos and his
father Necho shared the throne jointly for 10 years -- 604-594.
In Eusebius' "Chronicon" another set of regnal years (though
improperly dated) is preserved for Apries and Psammetichos:
Psammetichos II

12

599-587

Apries

30

599-569

Here again one sees that Apries exercised equal authority with
Psammetichos II even prior to his sole reign, whatever the significance
of the year 599 may be.
Eusebius has two other variants of historical significance. He
assigns Amasis 42 years only 567-525 -- dated from his expulsion by the
Chaldaeans to Cyprus. Also, Eusebius assigns for the Theban reign of
Psammetichos I 45 years (according to Syncellus) and 44 in the Armenian
Version. These may be easily understood if 9 years (to be proved from
book of Sothis) are assigned to Tanutamun, nephew of Taharka, and if
610 and 609 are considered the beginnings of the reign of Necho II. It
should be remembered that Psamtik I ruled in Lower Egypt nine years
before his first year at Thebes commenced.
Tanuatamun

663-654

Psammetichos I

45

654-609

Nechao II

15

609-594

or

663-654

44

654-610

16

610-594

These are not scribal blunders, but consistent evaluations based

upon different points of view. Some dates are predated, others
postdated. The year 610 is predated. It marks the year in which
Ramesses the Great, Necho's contemporary, rose to power. Dynasty XIX of
Thebes and Dynasty XXVI of Sais were undoubtedly related. Their kings
participated on joint ventures -- as, for example, the wars of Ramesses
and Necho with Nebuchadnezzar.
Before the reign of Psamtik I, Manetho preserves a number of kings
not included in archaeological lists. From Africanus the following list
may be drawn up.
Names of Rulers of
Dynasty XXVI

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Stephinates

684-677

Nechepsos

677-671

Nechao I (whom the Assyrians

671-663

appointed in 671)
Eusebius adds the following extra information from Manetho not
preserved by Africanus:
Names of Rulers of
Dynasty XXVI

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ammeris the Ethiopian

12

696-684

("Ameres" in Armenian
Verion)

18 (in Armenian
Version)

702-684

The remainder of the list is the same as Africanus'.

Book of Sothis and Dynasty XXVI
Before restoring other dynasties of this period, look at the book
of Sothis. It ends with additional figures for the Saite dynasty. It
appears so divergent from all other records that it has been totally
rejected. Yet its details agree with this restoration of history. In
the following chart the dates have been inserted, after which they will
be analyzed.
Names in Book of
Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

77 Taraces (Takarka II)

20

683-663

78 Amaes (Tanautamun)

38

692-654

79 Stephinathes

27

684-657

80 Nechepsus

13

684-671

671-663

14

648-634

609-600

84 Psamuthes II

17

604-587

85 Uaphris (Hophra)

34

600-566

86 Amosis (Amasis)

50

575-525

81 Nechao
82 Psammetichus
83 Nechao II

Several of these dates are in chronological order, others are not.

In numerous instances the reigns apparently indicate the total length
of public service. They take on meaning only after a consecutive
chronology for the period has been established.
What is the significance of Nechepsos' 13-year reign? According to
Manetho, his 7-years' reign ended in 671 at the Assyrian invasion of
Esarhaddon. The 13 years of his reign must therefore precede that date.
His reign parallels that of Stephinathes, beginning 684.
In the Sothic list Amaes is given as the successor of Taharka.

(The break in continuity occurs after Amaes' name, not before.)

Tanuatamun was his Egyptian name. Urdamane is the name in Assyrian. He
was the son of Shebitku and nephew of Taharka. He reigned as late as
calendar year 655-654 according to Manetho. His 38-year reign would
therefore extend from 692-654. It is significant that in 692 Shebitku
assumed control of the government according to the archaeological
record of Dynasty XXV. Shebitku then associated his son on the throne
with him when he came to power.
Necho II's 9 years of reign in the book of Sothis immediately
precedes an unusual 34 years of Hophra. This evidence indicates that
Hophra, or Apries, assumed powers of government in 600. It explains the
emphasis placed by one account of Eusebius on the next (postdated) year
-- 599 -- as the commencement of the reign of both Psamtik II and
Apries.
But did Hophra live into the calendar year 567-566? Indeed he did.
His death is recorded on the Elephantine Stela as occurring in Year 3
of Amasis. Amasis' year 3 was from 567-566. The 50-year reign of Amasis
is obviously his sole rule and co-regency.
And what is the origin of the unusual dating of Psammetichus? For
an explanation we must turn to an earlier portion of the Book of
Sothis.
Another Look at Book of Sothis
The account commences with the end of Dynasty XVIII.
Names in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

47 Ramesses Aegyptus

Dates

68

770-702

702-694

49 Thuoris

17

694-677

50 Nechepsos

19

677-648

51 Psammuthis

13

648-635

635-631

53 Certos

20

631-611

54 Rampsis (Ramesses "the Great")

45

611-566

48 Amenophis

52

-- - (no name)

This unusual list seems clearly to be based on political events

and royal family relationships otherwise unrecorded. Notice the reign
of Psammuthis (Psammetichus), beginning in 648. Observe also the date
702. Compare this with the 18-year reign of Ameres from Eusebius'
version of Manetho's Dynasty XXVI presented earlier. Ameris the
Ethiopian succeeded Ramesses-Piankhi the Ethiopian in 702.
Now turn back Egyptian history to the beginning of the Ethiopian
period in Egypt.
Appearance of Dynasty XXIV of Sais

Immediately before the reign of Shabako of Dynasty XXV the city of

Sais, in the Delta, became prominent in politics. Its dynasty is famous
for one man, Bochchoris. His father Tefnakhte was of much less
importance. The classical writers mention only Bochchoris.
Archaeologists recovered the name of Tefnachte. The total duration of
Dynasty XXIV was 44 years.
Africanus assigns only 6 years to Bochchoris, but Eusebius and the
book of Sothis each attribute 44 years to him. The variation allows for
a simple explanation. Tefnakhte, Bochchoris' father, was a local prince
before he became king. At the time he rose to kingship he associated
his son with him on the throne. Tefnachte must have survived 38 years.
The dates of the dynasty are as follows:
Name of King

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Bochchoris, or
Bocchoris (the
Bekenrinef of archaeology)

44

751-707

Tefnakhte

38

751-713

Bocchoris

713-707

or

The end of the official reign of Bochchoris is 707.

In one document Eusebius indicates Bochchoris survived two more
years, for he assigns 46 years to his entire reign -- 751-705.
Africanus informs us that Bochchoris was captured by his successor
Sabacon (Shabako).
Who Was Usimare Piankhi?
The pages of history must be turned back a few years again to
establish the identity of the Ethiopian Usimare Piankhi, of Dynasty
XXV, the immediate predecessor of Shabako, who ruled over all Egypt in
the eighth century before the present era. By archaeologists Piankhi is
determined to be the father of Taharka (689-663), and of Shebitku
(692-689), and the brother of Shabako (perhaps the English
"half-brother" would be more correct).
All archaeologists have expressed surprise that Manetho would have
neglected so famous a ruler! But Manetho did not neglect him! The
annals of Usimare Pianki reveal who he was.
No archaeologist professes to know when Piankhi obtained control
of Egypt. They do know, however, that in the year 21 of his reign a
rebellion broke out in Egypt against his rule. (Breasted, "Ancient
Records", vol. IV, page 418). The leader of the revolt was Tefnakhte,
the father of Bochchoris. In the Piankhi stela Tefnakhte is commencing
his rise to power; he is not yet a king. His official title is only
great prince. Upon hearing of the attempt to seize the Delta, Usimare
Piankhi ordered his troops in Egypt to quell the rebels, while he
remained in Napata, Nubia. The revolt was not quelled. Then, in the
succeeding year (see Breasted's footnote on the dating in the Piankhi
Stela), Piankhi himself led an expedition and drove Tefnakhte into the
marshes of the Delta. An agreement was finally signed before the two,
and local autonomy seems to have been granted Tefnakhte, the founder of

Dynasty XXIV.
Now turn to the tables of the rulers of Dynasty XXIV of Sais. The
21st and 22nd calendar years of Piankhi's reign must have preceded the
first year of Tefnakhte rulership (751-750) for in Piankhi's
inscriptions Tefnakhte was not yet king. Here are the limits. The 21st
and 22nd years of Usimare Piankhi must not be later than 751. What
famous king was in Egypt already in control of Egypt in these years,
whose 21st year was 753-752 and whose 22nd year was 752-751 at the
latest?
Only one! Ramesses Aegyptus at the end of Dynasty XVIII of
Manetho. Ramesses Aegyptus (773-707) was of the Cushite line of Sheba
that had been ruling Egypt from Solomon's day. They had intermarried
for generations with Egyptians. Piankhi was also a Cushite or Ethiopian
ruling Egypt. Archaeologists have discovered his Ethiopian name. They
have completely overlooked the fact that Manetho mentioned him under
his Egyptian name.
Archaeological evidence indicates that Ramesses-Piankhi made
Napata in Nubia his royal city, ruling Egypt from Thebes. The other
kings of Dynasty XVIII who succeeded Ay also must have made Nubia their
center of operations, since archaeologists have not been able to find
evidence for them in Egypt. They have ruled through General Haremhab.
Now consider what occurred in Lower Egypt prior to the Dynasty of
Tefnakhte and Bochchoris of Sais.
Dynasty XXIII of Tanis
Dynasty XXIV of Sais was preceded in Lower Egypt by Dynasty XXIII
of Tanis. Here are the facts surrounding the new royal family ruling in
Lower Egypt while the Thebans of Dynasties XVIII and XIX ruled from
Upper Egypt. In the following table "A" and "E" stand for Africanus and
Eusebius.
Kings of Dynasty XXIII
Petubastis (E) or
Petubates (A)

Lengths of Reign
25 (E)
40 (A)

Dates
794-769
794-754

Osorthon (E) or
Osorcho (A)

9 (E)
8 (A)

770-761
769-761

Psammus
Zet (only in A)

10
31 (A), or
34 (A)

761-751
751-720
754-720

For the dynasty the book of Sothis provides the following:

Names in Book of Sothis
68 Petubastes

Lengths of Reign

Dates

44

794-750

69 Osorthon

770-761

70 Psammus

10

761-751

These figures may, at first, seem confusing. They can be

immediately simplified by the following arrangements.

Petubastis
Osorthon

25

794-769

Petubastis

40

769-761

Zet

754-720

34

794-754

or
Psammus

10

761-751

Zet

31

751-720

The year of overlap of Osorthon with Petubastis is probably the

result of the co-regency having commenced during the 25th year.
This dynasty is very important in Greek history. Africanus wrote
of Petubates: "in his reign of the Olympic festival was first
celebrated" ("Manetho", by Waddell, page 161). The Olympic festival
commenced in 776, about the middle of Pedubastes' reign.
Further, Osorthon, or Osorcho, was by the "Egyptians called
Heracles." In Greek history, Heracles lived three generations before
the famous Trojan War. He was also the originator of the Olympic games.
No historian has ever been able to reconcile these two facts. The
reason? None recognize that there were two major Trojan Wars -- one
ending 1181, the other over 500 years later in 677. The full story of
this dynasty and of the Trojan War must wait the restoration of Greek
history.
Documents have been found dated to year 6 of Pedubast and year 12
of an unnamed king, and to year 16 of Pedubast and year 2 of Yewepet.
Yewepet was king of Mendes, but none of the Mendesian dynasties have
been recorded by Manetho. These parallel datings with Mendesian kings
are of value in dating Piankhi contemporary with Dynasty XXIII of
Tanis. (See references in Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaoh's", page
449; "L'Egypte", by Drioton and Vandier, vol. II, page 542, Elgood,
"Later Dynasties of Egypt", page 52.)
Eusebius, unlike Africanus, ended Dynasty XXIII of Tanis with the
reign of Psammus in 751, at which point he took up the Dynasty of Sais.
The date of 794 for the beginning of Dynasty XXIII is undoubtedly
associated with events in the reigns of Acherres (802-794) and Cherres
(794-779). But neither history nor archaeology has preserved any
worthwhile events for this period.
In Manetho, Dynasty XXIII of Tanis was preceded by a royal family
of foreign origin. It was Libyan, numbered Dynasty XXII and ruled from
Bubastis.
Dynasty XXII of Bubastis
Few points in Egyptian history are more misunderstood than this
dynasty. Archaeologists have turned up a wealth of information
pertaining to Libyans from Bubastis. But they have failed to notice
that their kingly line is utterly different in number and sequence from
Manetho's. First, one must compare Manetho with history. Then the
archaeological evidence must be examined.
Diodorus of Sicily tells us that during the reign of Horus the
Libyans from North Africa west of Egypt came into Egypt during the
expansion of their realm and dominated the land. That Horus is the Orus
of the Greeks the Akhenaton of Dynasty XVIII!
In the previous investigation of this dynasty it should be noted

that Orus or Akhenaton actually lived longer than the mere 17-years
assigned to his reign by archaeological investigation. Manetho assigns
him a reign that even outlasts Ay. This explains several enigmas that
historians have puzzled over.
The most plausible moment for the Libyans to have established
their dynasty would be just after the death of Ay, in 837, while
Akhenaton (Orus) still lived. At this moment in history a curtain of
silence descends on the family of Akhenaton. How long Libyan control in
lower Egypt lasted may be determined by examining Assyrian records of
Egypt. When Essarhaddon and Assurbanipal invaded the land of Egypt in
671-663 they found no Libyan dynasty ruling at Bubastis. But 90 years
earlier Piankhi the Ethiopian specifically names a Libyan as king in
Bubastis. (See Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", pp. 289-295
for the Assyrian account.) The only recorded king of the Libyans
mentioned in the Bible is "So, king of Egypt" (II Kings 17:4). The
king's full name would be the Libyan "Soshenk" or "Soshenq".
For years the name Soshenk has been mistaken for the Biblical
Shishak. The assumption is that the Libyans under Soshenk attacked
Jerusalem after the death of Solomon. Impossible. No philologist can
demonstrate why the "n" should have disappeared from Soshenk to become
Shishak.
Several historians have questioned the authenticity of the
Biblical So. But they need not have done so. The account of So is
preserved by the Assyrians in the records of Sargon. In Assyrian the
name is spelled Sib'e. The Greek Septuasint translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament renders the name "Soba". According to the Biblical record
So was a Delta king second in rank to the Ethiopian rulers of Upper
Egypt. For that reason the Assyrians refer to him as "Turtan", or
second in command, to the great "Pir'u" or Pharaoh.
King So or Sib'e conspired with Hoshea, king of Israel. The time
was the calendar year 722-721. The Assyrians quickly heard of it.
Sargon dispatched his army to Israel. "At the beginning of my royal
rule" (in 721 -- the accession year of Sargon) the Assyrian king
besieged and captured Samaria, carried away 27,290 captives and
imprisoned King Hoshea. "I installed over them an officer of mine and
imposed upon them the tribute of the former king," reports Sargon. In
the second year of Sargon's rule (720) "Hanno, king of Gaza and also
Sib'e, the "turtan" of Egypt set out from Rapihu against me to deliver
a decisive battle. I defeated them; Sib'e ran away ... and has not been
seen again" (Pritchard's Texts, pp. 284-285). So disappeared from the
scene in 720.
Using the date of 720 as a guide for the reconstruction of the
Bubastite Libyan Dynasty, the following table may be constructed.
Dynasty XXII according
to Africanus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sesonchis (Sosenq)

21

836-815

Osorthon

15

815-800

Three other kings

25

800-775

Takelothis

13

775-762

Three other kings

42

762-720

It is significant that 720 also marks the full end of Dynasty

XXIII of Tanis, with the demise of Zet. Assyrian power overwhelmed the
petty dynasts and the Pir'u (Pharaoh) himself offered the Assyrians
tribute to keep the peace.
Manetho's transcribers have not recorded the names of each of the
three other kings. From contemporary sources discovered through
excavations in the past century the following names may be supplied.
For the period extending from 762 to 720 the Ethiopian Piankhi names
"King Namlot and King Yewepet. Chief ... Sheshonk, of Per-Osiris
(Busiris) ... King Osorkon, who was in Per-Bast (Bubastis)."
(Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. IV, pp. 423-424, 439) All these
were Libyan kings in the Delta of Egypt at the time of Piankhi's war in
the years 753-751. Manetho's second group of "three other kings" are
here named, together with So or Sib'e. The implication is that during
this period the Bubastite family ruled the Delta from three cities -Osorkon in Bubastis, Yewepet in Tentremu and Tayan, and Namlot in
Hermopolis. At a later time anyone of these three kings would have been
replaced in his local realm by a son or other near relative. That is
probably how So, thirty years later, came to be one of three kings.
For the same threefold division for the earlier period -- 800-775
-- we have the mention of a Libyan king Yewepet (who came to power in
780) as a contemporary with the Tanite king Pedibast. It is doubtful
that any other names have yet been recovered.
So-called Dynasty XXII
Archaeologists and historians have totally discarded Manetho's
account of Dynasty XXII. They have substituted for it a totally
different group of Libyan kings and mislabeled it "Dynasty XXII." They
never asked themselves whether they may have found another dynasty of
Libyans not mentioned by Manetho. They took for granted without proof,
that Manetho couldn't be correct.
It is admitted by all historians that the so-called Libyan Dynasty
XXII followed Dynasty XX of Thebes. When did Dynasty XX of Thebes rule?
After Dynasty XIX. But that would put Dynasty XX of Thebes after the
Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 -- the date for the end of Dynasty
XIX.
That shocking fact will be proved in the next chapter! There it
will be established that Dynasty XX of Thebes governed Egypt during the
fourth and third centuries B.C.! The Libyan Dynasty archaeologists have
discovered therefore existed sometime during the Ptolemaic period of
Egyptian history!
These kings of so-called Libyan Dynasty XXII were not Pharaohs in
the ancient sense. They were only local dynasts -- similar to the
princes and kings of colonial areas in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century of the present era.
The kings of this mislabeled dynasty boasted of being related
through intermarriage to the "royal sons of Ramesses" (page 327 of
Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs" and other volumes for this period).
Historians are hard pressed to explain away the "royal sons of
Ramesses" who survived their father upwards of two centuries! They were
indeed what the monuments and stelae claim, the sons of the Ramessides
of Dynasty XX.
The monuments and historical inscriptions of the true Dynasty XXII
are scarce. Nevertheless archaeology has contributed greatly to our
knowledge of the later Bubastite royal family. No small portion of it

has been derived from the foreboding Memphite Serapeum, a vast

subterranean structure where Apis bulls were buried. It was reopened by
the Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy I, after the Persians had forbidden
its use.
Discovered by Mariette in 1851, the Serapeum contained huge
sarcophagi with mummies of no less than sixty-four bulls. During its
lifetime an Apis bull was worshipped as the embodiment of Apis -- a
name connected with Orisis. On its death and replacement by another
living animal it was mummified and buried with pomp. Stelae were
erected in the Serapeum designating, among numerous details, its time
of birth, time of death and length of life. The chronological value of
the find is obvious. Its historical value negligible.
From the monuments, Nilometer inscriptions and these stelae the
following restoration of the so-called Dynasty XXII of Bubastis is now
possible.
Here briefly is the proper restoration of the later Libyans during
the Hellenistic period.
Names of Kings of Bubastis
during the Ptolemaic Era
(mislabeled Dynasty XXII)

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Soshenk "I"

21

308-287

Osorkon "I"
(Soshenk "II" co-regent)

36

287-251

Takelot "I"

251-244

Osorkon "II"

23

244-221

Takelot "II"

25

221-196

Soshenk "III"

52

196-144

144-138

37

138-101

Pemay "the Cat"

Soshenk "IV"

The Roman numerals given after the preceding rulers are those
assigned by archaeologists. They are not correct and overlook
completely earlier rulers of the real Dynasty XXII mentioned by
Manetho. The priest Manetho lived and wrote during the early third
century B.C. and died 150 years before the last of these Libyans from
Bubastis reigned! No wonder they are not mentioned by Manetho!
These dates are established by the following facts. Soshenk "I"
built the Bubastite Portal adjoining a small temple of Ramesses III of
Dynasty XX. This Portal was built sometime AFTER Ramesses III completed
his temple. Ramesses III lived near the close of the Persian Period as
shall be proved in the next chapter. The Bubastites were therefore
contemporary with and subject to the Ptolemaic Greeks of the
Hellenistic Period. The last heir of Alexander the Great died about
308. (See Mahaffey's "The Empire of the Ptolemies".)
Alexander had been proclaimed a god-king by the oracle at Ammon in
the Libyan desert. Apparently at the death of his last heir, about 308
B.C., the Libyans assumed the right to succeed his line. The first king

of this new dynasty, Soshenk "I," is commonly -- though erroneously -assumed to be the Shishak of the Bible. The inscriptions arraying his
captured towns in the Palestine-Syria area are found on the Bubastid
Portal at Thebes. In them no reference is made to Jerusalem, or to any
important town in Judah. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner of the vanishing
list: "The innumeration is disappointing, of the 150 and more places
named only a few are well enough preserved to suggest definite routes
and these skirt around the hill-country of Samaria without reaching the
centre of the Israelite kingdom; nor is there any hint that they ever
touched Judah at all. There are, however, some indications of a raid
into Edomite territory" ("Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 330).
Soshenk did not live in the fabulously rich Solomonic period. His
was the period of Ptolemaic control of Egypt. His claimed capture of
Palestinian and Syrian towns -- perhaps villages is the better word -occurred as a general of Egyptian troops under Ptolemy I.
In the fourth year of Osorkon "I" -- 284-283 -- a vast compilation
of wealth was donated to the temple service. Here again is a parallel
with Ptolemaic history. In the year 284 prodigiously rich coronation
ceremonies were celebrated for Ptolemy II Philadelphus. No small
portion of the riches were later donated to the pagan temple service.
Also, a flood in the third year of Osorkon "II" corresponds to the
period of upset weather conditions mentioned in the Canopus Inscription
in the 240's. In Egypt famines are cause by either too much water or an
insufficient amount of water flowing in the Nile at the period of
inundation.
Osorkon "II," in most Biblical studies, is falsely equated with
the Ethiopian Zerah of Scripture. Osorkon "II" was not an Ethiopian.
Much less did he ever command a million troops in an attack on
Palestine. It was Twentieth Dynasty Ramesside culture that influenced
Palestine just prior to and during the years of Osorkon ("Archaeology
of Palestine", by W.F. Albright, page 137). Osorkon "II" reigned after
the fall of Persia, not in the days of Israel's kings.
In the 15th year of Osorkon's successor Takelot II, Egypt was
devastated by revolt and Nubian invasion. "Now, afterward, in the year
15 ... great wrath arose in this land .... They set warfare in the
South and North ----- not ceasing to fight against those who were
therein ... while years passed in hostility each one seizing upon his
neighbor ..." (Breasted, "Ancient Records", vol. IV, sec. 764).
It was during the last two years of the life of Ptolemy IV that
Upper Egypt revolted, beginning in the year 207-206.
E.A. Wallis Budge writes: "... a revolt broke out in Upper Egypt,
and the Nubians endeavoured to include the Thebaid in the kingdom as in
the days of Piankhi I and his successors; this rising was not quelled
when Ptolemy IV died, and the Nubians carried on their revolt into the
reign of his son." (Page 251 of "Egypt Under the Saites, Persians and
Ptolemies", vol. vii of the series "History of Egypt".)
The end of this Libyan dynasty is not necessarily indicated by the
year 101. That is merely the last record in the Serapeum.
Dynasty XXI of Tanis
Yet another dynasty of Manetho must be restored -- number XXI of
Tanis. Historians recognize that it preceded a Libyan dynasty. The
question is, which one? Should it precede Manetho's Dynasty XXII of
Bubastis because it is mentioned previous to it? Or should it be
associated in some way with Dynasty XX of Thebes because it is

mentioned after it? It means a difference of centuries!'

The answer may be found in the Serapeum. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner
in "Egypt of the Pharaohs": "Strangely enough not a single inscription
of Dyn. XXI was found in the Serapeum, but the material bearing upon
Dyn. XXII ... is all the richer" (p. 326). On the same page Gardiner
adds: "Huge sarcophagi had contained the mummies of no less than
sixty-four bulls, the earliest dating from the reign of Amenophis III
and the latest extending down to the very threshold of the Christian
era."
Yet none from Dynasty XXI of Tanis? Absurd -- unless there was a
period when use of the Serapeum was forbidden. Just such a period
occurred -- under the Persians and early days of the Greeks before
Ptolemy I.
When Cambyses conquered Egypt he ended the religious worship of
Apis bulls by ordering the Egyptian priests to devour their god as
food! Not until Ptolemy I was the old worship restored to favor ("A
Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization", art. "Serapeum").
Dynasty XXI of Tanis is the Persian and early Greek period and
immediately precedes the mislabeled Libyan Dynasty XXII of Bubastis.
When Herodotus visited Egypt around 450 B.C., he did not find this
dynasty ruling in Tanis. It therefore commenced sometime later. It
could not have continued further than into the reign of the first
Ptolemies.
Archaeology has provided evidence that the last king of Manetho's
Dynasty XXI -- Psusennes II -- gave his daughter in marriage to the
Bubastite Osorkon. He was the son of the Soshenq who founded the Libyan
Dynasty. Therefore Psusennes was a contemporary of Soshenq and the
daughter was of the same generation as Osorkon.
Archaeology has recovered the latest known year of Soshenq from
his monuments as year 21. Whether this was his latest year or not may
be answered by Manetho.
Psusennes, the contemporary of Soshenq is assigned two lengths of
reign by Manetho -- 14 years and 35 years. The difference is 21! The
answer is clear. Soshenq did reign only 21 years at Bubastis before
Osorkon, his son, came to the throne. And those 21 years overlapped
with the last 21 years of Psusennes II. With the date 308 (see
preceding chart of Bubastite Libyans) for the end of the 14-year reign
of Psusennes II, the entire twenty-first dynasty may now be
reconstructed from Manetho. In the following chart the letters "A" and
"E" stand for Africanus and Eusebius.
Kings of Dynasty XXI
of Tanis
Smendes
Psusennes (I)

Lengths of Reign
26
41 (E)
(46) (A)

Dates
417-391
391-350
(391-345)

Nephercheres

4 (A & E)

350-346

Amenophthis

346-337

Osochor

337-331

Psinaches

331-322

Psusennes (II)

14 (A)
(35) (E)

322-308
(322-287)

The Book of Sothis preserves the following variations:

63 Psuenus

25

384-359

64 Ammenophis

359-350

65 Nephecheres

350-344

15

346-331

331-327

66 Saites
67 Psinaches

These charts are in perfect harmony. The Book of Sothis preserves

the length of reign of Psusennes, not from the beginning of his reign,
but from an event in 384 -- a little-known war between Persians and
Egyptians to be explained in the next chapter. It also provides
additional information regarding the longer joint reign of Amenopthis.
The beginning date of 417 for the dynasty occurs during a period,
which, for historians, is "a complete blank so far as Egypt is
concerned" (Gardiner, "Egypt of the Pharaohs", p. 371). All that is
known of the period in that the Persian king who then governed Egypt
never visited the country. The Tanites were probably established to
maintain Persian authority in the absence of the Persian King. The
dynasty survived severe struggles between Egyptians, Greeks and
Persians as the only symbol of authority in the Delta, or Lower Egypt.
Its last king had only a daughter as heir, and the line was superseded
by Libyans who intermarried with the Tanite line.
What Eratosthenes Revealed
Up to this point little has been presented from Eratosthenes, the
Alexandrian astronomer, geometer, geographer, grammarian and
philosopher who became chief librarian, under Ptolemy III, of the
Library at Alexandria. Eratosthenes is noted as the founder of
"scientific chronology." He had access to the Theban records, preserved
by the priests, of all the kings of Egypt. A fragmentary account of his
complete book has come down to us through the work of George the Monk
-- Syncellus.
Syncellus preserved only those points of Egyptian history of most
interest to the Greek mind of his day. Included were the adventures of
Cush, Nimrod, Horus, Heber, Shem. Next he preserved the kings who
reigned from the momentous year 1958 -- when Babylonia was recovered
from the Medes -- to the time of Job (Cheops) and his successors. Then
the period of the Exodus.
Syncellus records nothing more of the original Eratosthenes. There
is added beginning, with the king of Dynasty XXVIII, a series of rulers
under the Persians and Greeks This additional list of kings is from
later sources, not Eratosthenes. (See "Apollodors Chronick" by Jacoby,
for proof the last section of the list is not Eratosthenes'.)
The proof of the dating of this list of petty dynasts is found in
the names of the so-called "kings of Thebes." None are typical of the
days of Egypt's greatness. Number 32 is called the second Ammenemes.

The previous king of that name was Ammenemes of Dynasty XIX who ruled
from 557-531. This earlier Ammenemes does not appear in the list
ascribed to Eratosthenes though, some transcribers have incorrectly
inserted his name. This second must then have been later! Number 30 is
titled Ochytyrannus -- meaning a tyrant like king Ochus -- the Persian
who reconquered Egypt in 343. This king of Thebes must have been after
the reign of Ochus to have borne such a title! This list is really of
petty princes, priests or commanders of the army of upper Egypt who
pretended to greatness by the names they took.
Kings Who Ruled in
Thebes According to
Eratosthenes

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1 Menes, a Theban of This

62

2254-2192

2 Athothes (Nimrod)

59

2192-2133

3 Athothes II (Horus)

32

2126-2094

4 Miabaes -- "His name by

interpretation signifies
'humane', or 'friendly'". He
is the second Osiris who
was deposed and finally
slain by Typhon.

19

2049-2030
(same dates
as the
Palermo
Stone has)

5 Pemphos -- is Shem

18

2037-2019

Eratosthenes' record continues with events after 1958

6 Toegar Amachus -- Momcheiri of
Memphis, "leader of men" -"he was irresistible"

79

1958-1879

1879-1873

8 Gosormies -- "All demanding"

30

1873-1843

9 Mares, "his son" -- "gift

of the sun"

26

1843-1817

10 Anoyphis

20

1817-1797

11 Sirius

18

1797-1779

12 Chnubos or Gneuros -"gold" (Observe that

Chnubos is contemporary
with the seventh king of
Dynasty II of This -the last half of whose
reign extended from 1775

22

1779-1757

7 Stoichos, "his son" -"the unfeeling Ares"

Ares is the Greek
name of the god of War
-- Mars

1765. In Nephercheres'
reign Manetho records that
the Nile flowed with honey
-- not literally, but figuratively,
as the land of Palestine was to
flow with milk and honey -great prosperity. Hence the
word "gold" as the name of the
king, signifying prosperity.)
13 Rayosis

13

1757-1744

14 Baiyres

10

1744-1734

15 Saophis Comates -"trafficker, money-getter"

-- that is Joseph (according
to Manetho, Dynasty IV,
Joseph began his reign in
1734!)

29

1734-1705

16 Saophis II (Cheops or Job)

27
(see Dynasty IV of Manetho
for the same beginning date of
Cheops: in 1699 a branch of
Dynasty III came to power in
the person of Zoser-teti or
Tosertasis)

1726-1699

17 Moscheres
(the year 1668 is also a
major date in the internal
history of Dynasties III
and IV)

31

1699-1668

18 Mosthes

33

1668-1635

19 Pammes

35

1635-1600

(From here Eratosthenes proceeds to rulers of Dynasty VI who are

recognized as rulers at Thebes as well as at Memphis, where the royal
line originated.)
20 Appapos (Pepi "the very
great"); Eratosthenes
impllee that Pepi was
chosen to sit upon the
throne from the very
date of his blrth.

100

1587-1487

21 Acheskos Okaras, the

Pharaoh of the Exodus

1487-1486

22 Nitocris, a queen, widow

of the Pharaoh who perished
in the Red Sea.

1486-1480

Eratosthenes' original list ends here. The succeeding kings are no

part of the original Eratosthenes who wrote in the third century B.C.
These rulers extended two centuries beyond his time.
23 Myrtaios Ammonodotos,
the Amyrteos or Amonortais
of Manetho's Dynasty XXVIII
of Sais

22

421-399

24 Thyosimares, "Mighty is the

Sun"

12

399-387

25 Thinillo, "having
increased his ancestral
power"

387-379

26 Semphrucrates, "Heracles
Harpocrates"

18

379-361

27 Chuther Taurus, a tyrant

361-354

28 Meures Philoscoros

12

354-342

29 Chomaephtha

11

342-331

30 Ancunios Ochytyrannus -a tyrant like Ochus" -Ochus was the Persian king
who reconquered Egypt

60

331-271

31 Penteathyris

16

271-255

32 Stamenemes (Ammenemes) II

23

255-232

33 Sistosichermes, "valiant
Hercules"

55

232-177

34 Mares

43

177-134

134-129

14

129-115

115-110

63

110- 47

35 Siphoas "also called Hermes"

36 Fourteen years for which
name of king is lost
37 Phruron, "the Nile"
38 Amuthantaeus

The calendar year 47 marks the year of Caesar's invasion of Egypt,

and the perishing of native Egyptian dynasts under Greek Ptolemaic
rule.
The dating of the first king of this period -- Myrtaios (421-399)
-- is based on the known date 399, when, as the sole king of Dynasty
XXVIII, he ceased to reign. The year 421 consequently marks his rise to
power. It was undoubtedly to counteract this aspiring ruler that the
Persians established Dynasty XXI of Tanis as a counterweight in 417.

The events that led up to the catastrophe of 47 is told by Budge.

Ptolemy XIII died in 51 and "left his kingdom by will to his daughter
Cleopatra VII., and to his elder son Ptolemy XIV., surnamed Dionysius,
who was to marry his sister; three years later (B.C. 48) a violent
dispute broke out between brother and sister, who had reigned jointly
until that time, and Cleopatra was obliged to leave Egypt. In 47 Caesar
sent troops to support her claims, and as a result her brother's forces
were defeated with great slaughter. Ptolemy XIV, was accidentally
drowned in crossing a river whilst trying to escape" ("A History of
Egypt", vol. viii, p. 87).
As commander of the Egyptian contingent under Ptolemy, the last
native dynast perished in 47.
This chapter of the Compendium closes the history of Egypt to the
Babylonian and Persian conquests with a quick, and needed, view into
two later dynasties. In all there were twenty-four recorded dynasties
ruling from the time of Babel to 525 B.C. Now we come to Dynasty XX of
Thebes! These are the many Ramessides III to XI. Where do they belong
in Egyptian history? Is the story of Thebes not yet complete?
The answer will be found in the next and final chapter on Egyptian
history.

CHAPTER NINE
The Eclipse of Egypt
For the first 2000 years of human history, Africa -- and Egypt in
particular -- was the vortex of world politics. Today Africa is
militarily a void. Its native population borders on savagery in many
areas. Its culture is universally primitive. Egypt and Ethiopia -- once
the world's leaders -- are today backward, unprogressive nations.
Why?
Numerous answers have been offered. None of them is the key to the
sudden decline of Egypt and of Africa.
Answer in Ezekiel
The answer to the riddle of the Dark Continent lies in the book of
Ezekiel, in a little-understood prophecy. Before revealing its
significance, one primary fact of geography and history must be noted.
The contact of Africa with the ancient Near East always passed through
Egygt, or its domains. The valley of the Nile led to the heart of
Africa. To cut off Africa from the influences of civilization, only one
land had to be destroyed -- Egypt
Now to consider the prophecy of Ezekiel -- and its historical
import for today. It is found in Ezekiel 29, specifically verses 8-16:
"Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will bring a sword
upon thee, and will cut off from thee man and beast. And the land of
Egypt shall be desolate and waste, and they shall know that I am the
Lord: because he hath said: The river is mine, and I have made it.
Therefore, behold, I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I
will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from Migdol to
Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass
through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it
be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in
the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the
cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will
scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through
the countries. For thus saith the Lord God: At the end of forty years
will I gather the Egyptians from the peoples whither they were
scattered and I will turn the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them
to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their origin: and
they shall be there a lowly kingdom. It shall be the lowliest of the
kingdoms, neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations;
and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the
nations. And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel,
bringing iniquity to remembrance, when they turn after them and they
shall know that I am the Lord God."
Historians insist this prophecy was never fulfilled. They find no
monumental evidence in Egypt that the country was without inhabitant
forty long years. Of course not! There was not a single human being
living in Egypt to record it -- nor any wild animal: And what Egyptian
would want to record it upon return from forty years' exile?
When was this prophecy fulfilled? and by whom? About the year 570
a message from God was sent to Ezekiel. It is found in Ezekiel chapters
29 and 30. In this divine message the frightful events to befall Egypt
are further amplified:

"Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of

Babylon; and he shall carry off her abundance, and take her spoil, and
take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him
the land of Egypt ..." (Ezek. 29:19-20).
Chapter 30:10-12 makes it even more emphatic.
"Thus saith the Lord God: I will also make the multitude of Egypt
to cease, By the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. He and his
people with him, the terrible of the nations, Shall be brought in to
destroy the land; And they shall draw their swords against Egypt, And
fill the land with the slain. And I will make the rivers dry, And will
give the land over into the hand of evil men; And I will make the land
desolate, And all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the Lord
have spoken it."
The military power that overthrew Egypt was from Babylon. Its
king, Nebuchadnezzar, carried the Egyptians captive. But man's power
alone could not have wrought what befell Africa. Forty long years
following the enslavement of the Egyptians God sent a terrible drought
on East Africa. Normal rains ceased. No water flowed in the Nile. The
land dried up. Wild beasts could not even survive in the parched soil
of Egypt.
All this occurred at the time the remainder of the world was
enjoying the Golden Age of human civilization. Cut off from direct
contact with Europe and Asia, the native populations stagnated, then
degenerated. Never again was Africa able to catch up with the world. It
was the eclipse of Africa.
To cover up the humiliating defeat at the hands of Babylon, the
Egyptian priests later invented the story that Egypt was never more
prosperous than during these 40 years! Yet archaeologically the period
in Egypt is a total blank. A few remains have been attributed to this
period -- a dated grave here and there. But they were only late
reburials of those who died abroad in captivity and whose families
could afford the expense.
Historians have mistakenly taken the Egyptian priests at their
word. They think they find supporting evidence in the rule of Pharaoh
Amasis on the Isle of Cyprus. Without exception every ancient history
text portrays Egypt militarily strong during this period. Amasis is
acclaimed as the builder of an empire that included Cyprus, while
Nebuchadnezzar was limited to the mainland. No one, it seems, has ever
noticed that Amasis was sent into exile to Cyprus by Nebuchadnezzar's
command!
The only document to record the total destruction of Egypt was
discovered in 1878. In that year a mutilated cuneiform cylinder was
discovered, disclosing an event of Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-seventh
year. It was purchased by the British Museum. The fragmentary remains
are difficult to translate. The record is cast in the form of a
plaintive prayer from Nebuchadnezzar to Merodach, god of Babylon.
"My enemies thou usedst to destroy; thou causedst my heart to
rejoice ... in those days thou madest my hands to capture; thou gavest
me rest; ... thou causedst me to construct; my kingdom thou madest to
increase ..."
Clearly something is wrong with Nebuchadnezzar. Though he began
the Egyptian campaign with brilliant success, he did not continue on
the throne to see it completed. He became insane. His generals
continued the efforts as the document proves:
"... the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king tof Bab- ... Egypt to
deliver a battle .... -sis of Egypt called up his army .... distant
regions which are amidst the sea ... many ... who are in Egypt ...

carrying weapons, horses and ... he called up to assist him" (Compare

"Egypt and Babylon" by George Rawlinson, pages 90-91 with Pritchard's
"Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 308). The remainder of the cylinder
is unintelligible.
The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 568-567. The campaign in Egypt
thus occupied the space of three full years -- 570-567. In the calendar
year 567-566 the destruction of Egypt was complete. Amasis was sent
into exile in Cyprus. Forty years later he returned to Egypt with his
people, under the scrutiny of the Persians. Amasis was succeeded by
Psamtik II. His attempted rebellion brought the Persian king Cambyses
to Egypt. Psamtik II offered his daughter in marriage to the Persian.
The request was rebuffed. The royal dynasty of Egypt was overthrown. In
525 the Egyptian royal blood perished.
Persian Kings of Egypt
Very little of the history of Egypt is known for the next century
and a quarter. Most of what has been preserved comes from Greek
sources. The chronology of the period is correctly preserved by
Manetho. It is in full agreement with the Persian records. Minor
controversial details that do not pertain to Egypt, but to Persia, will
be treated there.
Manetho's history of Persian dominion begins thus: "Cambyses in
the fifth year of his kingship over the Persians became king of Egypt."
The fifth year was 525-524, spring-to-spring reckoning in Persian
annals. Cambyses reigned over Egypt three years, according to Eusebius'
extract, 525-522, EXCLUSIVE reckoning. He was followed by the Magi who
seized the throne and reigned for 7 months in 522.
The account of Africanus differs considerably and has never been
understood by historians. He records that Cambyses reigned over Egypt 6
years, INCLUSIVE reckoning, 527-522. The 8-year reign of Cambyses in
Persia extentled from 529-521. Africanus reckons to the end of
Cambyses' eighth year (December 31, 522 according to Egyptian
reckoning) even though the Persian monarch died early in the eighth
year, March 522. But what of the date 527 for the beginning of his
reign in Egypt? The only possible answer is that Africanus -- and
Manetho -- considered the dominion of the Persian king in Egypt as
beginning in the year that the Egyptian exiles returned. Africanus thus
is a witness to the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy of the 40-years'
exile -- 567-527! The kings of Persia, including illegitimate rulers
(in parentheses), are now listed in chart form in the traditional Greek
spelling. The dates are according to the Egyptian calendar, which
regularly preceded the Persian by three to four months.
Dynasty XXVII -Kings of Persia
Cambyses

Lengths of Reign

Dates
(Egyptian reckoning)

6 (A)

Jan. 2, 527-Dec. 31, 522

3 (E)

525-522 (Conquest to
Magian revolt)

(Magi

7 months
(E only)

522)

Darius

36

Jan. 1, 521-Dec. 22, 486

Xerxes "the Great"

21

Dec. 23, 486-Dec. 16, 465

(Artabanus

7 months
(A only)

465)

Artaxerxes

41 (A)

Dec. 17, 465-Dec. 6, 424

40 (E)

465-425

(Xerxes (II)

2 months

424)

(Sogdianus

7 months

424)

Darius (II)

19

Dec. 7, 424-Dec. 1, 405

The specific dates for the commencement of the Egyptian years may
be found in "Manuel d'Histoire de Genealogie et de Chronologie de tous
les Etats du Globe", by A.-M.-H.-J. Stokvis, vol 1.
Egypt Rebels
Over 120 years elapsed since Persian armies marched into Egypt.
Darius was now dead. Smoldering revolt suddenly flared into the open.
Though Persian authority was tacitly acknowledged for a few years,
Egypt became virtually independent. Persian and mercenary armies were
sent against the land of the Nile. Unsuccessful attempts followed one
another until 343, when Egyptian forces collapsed before a determined
Persian onslaught.
The history of this fast-moving period begins with Dynasty XXVIII
of Sais. This dynasty -- if it even deserved that designation -consisted of one king, Amyrteos. His reign lasted only 6 years,
405-399. He was overthrown by pretenders from the city of Mendes, whose
rulers constituted Dynasty XXIX.
None of these dynasties were of ancient royalty. They were largely
of prominent families, often of foreign descent.
The duration of Dynasty XXIX was only 20 years, after which it,
too, was overthrown. The evidence of Manetho, as preserved by
Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus is as follows.
Dynasty XXIX
of Mendes
according to
Africanus
Nepherites
Achoris

Lengths of
Reign

6
13

Eusebius

Lengths of
Reign

Nepherites
Achoris

6
13 or
12 (in the Canon)

Psammuthls

Psammuthis

Nepherltes (II)

4 months

Nepherites (II)

4 months

Muthis

In the Armenian version of Eusebius Muthes precedes Nepherites.

Eusebius also assigns 13 years to Achoris in the Armeinan, which is the
total length of his reign.
The real puzzle that has confounded historians of this period is
found in the Demotic Chronicle. The Chronicle places the name
Psammuthis before Achoris, in apparent opposition to Manetho. The
apparent contradiction would vanish if each writer were to be carefully
compared with the other. Manetho and the Chronicle both preserve part
of the facts: neither preserves all the details. But how could Achoris
precede Psammuthis and yet have Psammuthis precede Achoris?
The key is found in Eusebius' Canon, which contains one version of
Manetho not found elsewhere. The Canon notes that Achoris reigned 12
years before Psammuthis. As Achoris reigned 13 years altogether, the
final year must have succeeded the one-year reign of Psammuthis. That
is, Achoris was deposed, and returned to the throne a year later.
Remarkably, the unnamed king who follows Nepherites and precedes
Psammuthis in the Demotic Chronicle is said to have been "deposed."
Psammuthis usurped his throne one year. Then Achoris appears followed
by Nepherites II. These details may be placed in chart form as follows:
Names of Kings of
Dynasty XXIX of Mendes

Lengths of Reign

Nepherites

Dates

399-393

12

393-381

Psammuthis

381-380

Achoris (again)

1 (the 13th
year)

380-379

Muthis (jointly with Achoris)

380-379

Nepherites (II), son of

Achoris

4 months

379-378
(winter)

Achoris

It is to be noted that Muthis succeeds Psammuthis and reigns

during the same calendar year that Achoris returns to the throne. This
is made clear by the fact that his name is left out in Africanus'
account in which Achoris is assigned 13 years. Eusebius, in one case,
adds Muthis to his list in which Achoris is assigned only 12 years.
Why the years commencing in 381 suddenly became politically
unstable will become apparent when unveiling the mystery of Dynasty XX
of Thebes!
But to continue the history of Egypt with Africanus' epitome of
Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus. (The monumental names are in parentheses.)
Kings of Dynasty XXX
of Sebennytus

Lengths of Reign

Nectanebes (Nekhtnebef)
Teos (Takhos)
Nectanebos (Nekhtharehbe)

Dates

18

379-361

361-359

18

359-341

The Demotic Chronicle (IV, 14) assigns to Nekhtnebef a reign of 19

years -- 380-361. This begins with the year that Achoris returned to
power. In the previous line in the Demotic Chronicle a length of only
16 years is assigned -- 377-361. What event occurred in the calendar
year beginning 377 will be clarified by the history of Dynasty XX of
Thebes!
The account of Dynasty XXX found in Eusebius' Canon is the same as
Africanus'. But in the Armenian Version of Eusebius and in Syncellus'
account of Eusebius the following differences should be noticed.
Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus
According to Eusebius
Nectanebis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

10

371-361

Teos

361-359

Nectanebos

359-351

This epitome of Manetho is chronologically abridged. But it does

indicate major military or political events for the calendar years
beginning in 371 and 351. The significance of the year beginning 371
again lies in the history of Dynasty XX of Thebes. In the calendar year
beginning 351 an important invasion of Egypt was unsuccessfully
attempted by the Persians ("Diodorus Siculus", XV, 40, 3) See also A.
T. Olmstead's "History of the Persian Empire", revised edition -- one
of the most accurate texts covering this century of Egyptian
quasi-independence.
In 343 -- in the sixteenth year of Nectanebos -- a great Persian
campaign against Egypt was mounted. The Delta soon fell. The Egyptian
king fled to Ethiopia where he continued to exercise authority over
Upper Egypt for another two years -- to 341.
In 341 the last vestige of Egyptian independence vanished. The
short-lived Persian dominion which followed constituted Dynasty XXXI.
Persian Kings
of Dynasty XXXI

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ochus

341-339

Arses

339-336

Darius

336-332

The conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great occurred in 332.

And Now Dynasty XX of Thebes
The authority of Thebes over Egypt disappeared about 663 with the
Assyrian conquest. For almost three centuries no native dynasty is
known to have been centered in the ancient capital of Upper Egypt. Yet,
according to Manetho and the archaeological record, Thebes was again to
become the capital of Upper Egypt! Its rulers -- including the famous
Ramessids III to XI -- constitute Dynasty XX.
The famous Papyrus Harris contains a historical record of the

period immediately prior to the rise of Dynasty XX. It reads:

"The land of Egypt was cast aside with every man a law unto
himself. They had no chief spokesman for many years previously up to
other times. The land of Egypt consisted of officials and heads of
villages, one slaying his fellows both high and low. Then other times
came afterwards in the empty years, and a Syrian with them made himself
prince. He set the entire land tributary under his sway. He united his
companions and plundered their possessions. They made the gods like the
people, and no offerings were presented in the temples." The king then
claims: "He brought to order the entire land, which had been
rebellious. He slew the disaffected of heart who had been in Egypt. He
cleansed the great throne of Egypt .... He established the temples
Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 260).
Here is an era of many "empty years" -- with no native kings. Only
officials and village headsmen. Foreign princes had Egypt in tribute.
The religion of Egypt was suppressed; its temples bare. Not in all the
history of Egypt had such a time occurred from the days of Nimrod to
the Persian conquest! Even the Hyksos period had its own native kings
ruling under the foreign Shepherd Princes. But here is a time when no
native kings ruled.
Only one period in Egyptian annals corresponds to this tragic era
-- the time of the Persian conquest and dominion. Dynasty XX of Thebes
therefore rose to power during the period of rebellion against Persia
in the fourth century before the present era. Yet historians would
place the dynasty nearly eight centuries earlier -- in the time of the
prophet Samuel and of king Saul!
The most famous king of Dynasty XX was Ramesses III. In his 8th
year he fought a tremendous battle against invaders from Asia. These
invaders are usually assumed to be Philistines. History texts claim
that Ramesses' victory over the "Philistines" forced them to withdraw
from Egypt and settle in Palestine, where they commenced their attacks
against Israel in the time of Saul. This reconstruction of history is
an utter fiction! Historians have willingly forgotten that the
Philistines were already dwelling in Palestine in the days of Abram -over eight centuries before the kingship of Saul. "And Abraham
sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days" (Genesis 21:34,
also verse 32).
The invaders whom Ramesses III repelled in his eighth year were
"sea peoples" -- from the isles and coastlands of the northern
Mediterranean. They were mercenary troops of a vast empire that ruled
in Asia Minor and over Palestine. That was the Persian Empire -- and
its mercenaries were Greeks and their allies! The Egyptian word
Haunebu, applied by Ramesses III to the northern sea peoples, is the
very same word found on Egyptian monuments in reference to Greeks! (See
E. Naville's "The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen"
(1887), pages 6 ff.)
Ramesses III's invaders were crested soldiers. The Greeks were
famous for their crested troops. Ramesses' enemies moved through
Palestine. So did the Persian and Greek troops in 373. By contrast,
there was no land invasion from Asia Minor through Palestine in the
days of Samuel or Saul!
Ramesses defeated his enemies at the time of the rising Nile. The
Persians and Greeks were defeated in 373 at the time of the Nile floods
("Diodorus Siculus", XV, 41-43). Ramesses III speaks of natural
calamity and unrest in the isles of the sea peoples. In 373 the Greek
isles were devastated with frightful earthquakes and floods, according
to Diodorus and other ancient writers.

The dates of Ramesses III may now be established as follows:

Ramesses III --

31 years --

381-350.

His 8th year was 374-373, the year of his great victory. Ramesses
also records victories in his 5th and 11th years over Libyan and other
invaders. His 5th year began in 377, his 11th year in 371. Now turn to
the account of Dynasty XXX. The year 377 marked the beginning of the 16
years assigned by the Demotic Chronicle to Nectanebes. The year 371
begins his 10-year reign according to Eusebius. Thus the reign of
Ramesses III, with its records of major wars in Egypt, provides the
clues for the unusual dates sometimes assigned to Dynasty XXX.
The father of Ramesses III is known to historians as Setnakhte.
His highest regnal date found on the monuments is Year 2. His reign, of
little historical significance, was at least extended over the years
383-381. It is highly probable that he reigned no longer than these two
years. A war between the Persians and Egyptians was fought about years
385-383. As Setnakhte was famous as a general, it appears that he arose
in power in Thebes following the repulse of the Persian armies. The
ancestry of Setnakhte is unknown, though the family was probably
Ethiopian in origin. Everywhere they mimicked the ways of the famous
Ethiopian king Ramesses II -- the Tarhakah of the Bible.
Manetho's transcribers provide no names for these kings, nor any
individual lengths of reign. The only source of evidence is from the
monuments and papyri. The unusual abundance of well-preserved papyri
and monuments is another strong indication of the lateness of Dynasty
XX. ("Egypt of the Pharaohs", Gardiner, page 299.) From these records
the following information may be deduced.
Names of Kings of
Dynasty XX of Thebes

Known Lengths of Reign

Setnakhte

Resultant
Dates

383-381

Ramesse-hekaon (III)

31

381-350

Ramesse-hekamae (IV)

350-344

Ramesse-Amenhikhopshef (v)

344-340

Nebmare Ramesse (VI)

340-333

Usimare-akhenamun Ramesse (VII)

---

---

Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon (VIII)

333-326

The records of Ramesses VII and VIII are very obscure. There are no
known dates for Usimare-akhenamun Ramesse (designated Ramesses VII in
Bibl. Or., xiv, 138). A badly tattered document indicates that
Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon (VIII) reigned possibly 7 years. That his
reign was PARALLEL with Ramesse IX is indicated by a papyrus discussed
in "The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology", xi, 72-75 and xiv, 60.
Of far greater interest are the three succeeding Ramessides,
listed and dated in the next chart. (A discussion of the dates
follows.)
Neferkare Ramesse (IX)

17

343-326

Khepermare Ramesse (X)

Menmare Ramesse (XI)

3
27 --

326-323
323-296 --

The Persian conquest of Egypt in 343 brought to power a collateral

branch of the Ramessid family. Ramesses V was deprived of most royal
prerogatives. (See page 297 of Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs".) In
his place ascended Neferkare Ramesse, in whose latter years foreigners
and sea peoples -- Greeks! -- were found in Thebes. The years of
Ramesses IX disclose great unrest and serious unemployment -- a result
of the Persian conquest and the later penetration of the Greeks.
Ramesses XI is famous for the controversial "Renaissance" -- or
rebirth of Egyptian influence -- which commenced in his 19th year. The
19th year is 305-304 -- the very year that Egypt became independent
under Ptolemy I. The Renaissance or "renewal of birth" is the
independence of Egypt under the Ptolemies'
Further, after year 17 of Ramesses XI there was a rebellion of
Pinhasi in Upper Egypt coupled with a "war in the Northern District"
(Lower Egypt). This struggle occurred before the Renaissance, hence in
year 18. Year 18 of Ramesses XI was 306-305 -- the year that Egypt was
invaded -- unsuccessfully -- by Antigonus of Syria.
The remaining history of the petty rulers under the Ptolemies is
exceedingly obscure -- and historically of little value. Theban and
Tanite royalty are known for several generations following the
Ramessides. They are mistakenly labeled by historians as Dynasty XXI -but have nothing in common with the Tanite Dynasty XXI as found in
Manetho. Most of their time was spent in rewraping the mummies of the
ancient pharaohs. A much misunderstood monument is the Bubastite Portal
at Karnak. Containing material pertaining to Dynasty XXII and built
after the reign of Ramesses III, it is at times called upon to support
a false early dating of Dynasty XX. The answer is quite simple. The
inscriptions are late reproductions inscribed by Bubastite officials in
honor of their early and famous kings -- the Soshenks and the Osorkons.
It was commonplace during the Persian and Greek period to revive the
past.
With this chapter the restoration of Egyptian history is complete.

CHAPTER TEN
It Began at Babel
Civilization began at Babel. But the thread of history first had
to be traced through Egypt. Into Egypt journeyed the founders of
civilization. Egypt kept the history of the past alive. The Greek and
Roman historians and theologians and philosophers were universally
interested in Egypt.
By contrast, Mesopotamia died. Its early inhabitants migrated into
Eurasia. Its history was only meagerly preserved. Later, Arabs dwelt on
its barren wastes. Yet in those barren wastes lay the buried cities of
ancient times, with their fallen libraries and history texts waiting
the archaeologists' keen sight.
Mesopotamia Rediscovered
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries Europeans became aware
of the treasures of the TELLS or mounds of the Mesopotamian flatlands.
Archaeological expeditions cut into many of the most impressive ones.
Hoards of private and public documents were discovered -- most of them
lying to this day untranslated in the basements of European museums. A
multitude of undreamed of facts were disclosed for the first time. But
how were the archaeologists and historians to interpret these facts?
How would they arrange the dynastic lists of hitherto unknown kings?
Unfortunately the key to a true knowledge of history was being
discarded at the very time excavations began in Mesopotamia. That key
is God in history. Without God -- and hence without the Bible -- there
were no bounds to curb historical speculation. A deliberate conspiracy
to interpret every possible fact in opposition to the Bible was
summarily begun. The literary critics quickly seized the opportunity.
The Babylonian accounts of creation and the Flood were interpreted as
the originals of Genesis. Moses, they claimed, patterned the law after
Hammurabi's Code.
No one questioned whether Hammurabi lived BEFORE or AFTER Moses.
Or whether Genesis was written before rather than after the idolatrous
Mesopotamian accounts of creation and the great Flood. Everyone assumed
that the ancient arrangements of the dynastic lists of kings and
city-states were in proper sequence. That the scribes might have
deliberately arranged their history to make Babylonia appear older than
any other part of the world did not dawn upon the first critics.
Then came the astounding discovery. Business documents, public
monuments, literary classics were translated which made kings
contemporaries who were separated by hundreds or thousands of years in
the dynastic lists of kings. What were the historians to do?
Wrote Leon Legrain in 1922: "The problem of parallel dynasties is
one of the most troublesome for Babylonian chronologists" (Publication
of Babylonian Section of University of Pennsylvania, XIII, 17). Weldner
of Austria forced the historical world to recognize the problem despite
themselves. His famous articles pointing out that several successive
dynasties were in fact contemporary appeared in 1923 in "Archiv fuer
Keilschriftforschung" (I, 95), and in 1926 in "Archiv fuer
Orientforschung" (III, 198).
But the strongest evidence against the modern interpretation of
history was discovered by the French at Mari on the Euphrates River.

There it was discovered that during the lifetime of Hammurabi -- who

was mistakenly dated by historians to the time of Abraham -- the
Benjamites were in control of Palestine and men like David were famous!
(See Werner Keller's "The Bible as History", pages 49-52).
How were the historians and archaeologists to interpret these
astounding discoveries? Were they to date Hammurabi properly to the
time of Saul and David? Not at all! Rather, they cleverly assumed that
Benjamites were in Palestine long before Benjamin was born -- that the
name of David was famous for nearly a thousand years before David was
born! They hoped thereby to keep their interpretations of the king
lists and reject the history of the Bible.
It is time such nonsense were banished from history. It is time
that the truth of history were made plain.
What Archaeologists Learned
In the ruins of the libraries of Assyria and Babylonia the
archaeologists uncovered many fragmentary and broken records of ancient
Mesopotamian city-states and royal houses. These records will now be
examined and the history of Babylonia restored.
The scribes of Babylonia drew up their records of the past quite
differently from those of Egypt. In Egypt the scribes told the entire
history of each city before passing to the history of the next city.
Thus the history of Memphis was completed before the history of Thebes
was expounded. The Babylonian records present a striking contrast.
Ancient Babylonian history may be best understood by presenting a
sketch of the Sumerian account of the dynastic royal houses.
Name of Dynasty
First Dynasty of Kish
First Dynasty of Uruk (Erech)
First Dynasty of Ur
Dynasty of Awan
Second Dynasty of Kish
Dynasty of Hamazi
Second Dynasty of Uruk
Second Dynasty of Ur
Dynasty of Adab
Dynasty of Mari
Third Dynasty of Kish
Dynasty of Akshak
Fourth Dynasty of Kish
Third Dynasty of Uruk
Dynasty of Akkad, etc.
Certain lists vary the order slightly or add other dynasties (a
significant fact to be explained later).
This list when officially drawn up by scribes, intended to convey
the concept that each dynasty in turn had dominated all neighboring
states. The result was the mistaken concept that Babylonia, unlike
other areas, was always united under one ruler at a time, and that
Babylonia, by reason of its extreme antiquity, had political and
religious precedence over the world.
No restoration of Babylonian history can claim completeness until
these dynasties, recovered by archaeology, are properly assigned their

place in the chain of historical events.

Analyzing the Sumerian King List
The Sumerian King List opens the history of postflood civilization
by the following account: "After the Flood has swept over the earth and
when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in
Kish. In Kish, Ga ... ur became king and ruled 1,200 years ...." The
First Dynasty of Kish contains three kings who ruled, according to the
scribes, for 24,510 years! (Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts",
page 265.)
Here certainly is a chronological account that is neither
historical nor Biblical. Yet several of the kings named have left
behind incontestable evidences of their reality. That the original
reigns are purposely lengthened far beyond actual duration is
recognized by all historians. The cause of this Babylonian flight of
fancy is the same as that which prompted evolutionists and geologists
to stretch out the "Ice Ages" to hundreds of thousands of years -though in reality they occurred in historical times and are found
described in Greek and Roman literature.
People want to believe in the extreme antiquity of Man's past. The
ancient Babylonians were no exception. In his account of Babylon's
first two kings, Cush and Nimrod, the priest Berossus assigned 2,400
years to Evechous (Cush) and 2,700 to Cosmaskelos (Nimrod). ("The Dawn
of Civilization", by Maspero, p. 573.) These figures are significant.
From Egyptian, Greek and Roman sources it has already been demonstrated
in this Compendium that Cush ruled 60 years before he was succeeded by
the 27-year reign of his son Nimrod. Thus Berossus multiplied the 60
years of Cush by 40 and arrived at the date 2,400. (In the Sumerian
king list the figure for Ga ... ur, the first king, who is Cush, is
1,200 -- that is, 60 multiplied by 20.) Berossus multiplied the 27
years of Nimrod by 100 and obtained 2,700 years. The Babylonians used a
clever mathematical trick to lengthen the reigns of the rulers of Kish.
However, the device used by the priests has been solved. The dating for
Dynasty I and II of Kish can be found in Appendix A of vol. II of the
Compendium.
But what is the special significance of the city of Kish? Why
should it be considered first to bear rule in Mesopotamia?
Kish is the city of Cush or Kush. It is situated near the site of
ancient Babylon. It became a sacred site because people first dwelt
there in the land of Shinar after the flood. From the area of Kish they
commenced the erection of the city of Babel. But Babel turned out to be
a failure -- "they left off to build the city" (Genesis 11:8).
The government of Cush and Nimrod, begun at Babel, thus continued
at Kish while the towns of Erech, Accad and Calneh were being built in
the land of Shinar following the abortive attempt at Babel. The First
Dynasty of Kish commenced 2256 -- the date of the beginning of the
construction of the tower of Babel. The dynasty continued to 1809 at
which point the Second Dynasty of Kish began (see vol. II of the
"Compendium" for proof).
The Second Dynasty ruled from 1809 to 1748.
History Continues at Erech
The first city which Nimrod succeeded in building was Erech. The

government of Cush and Nimrod extended over this city as well as over
Kish, and its history is told in the surprising annals of the First
Dynasty of Uruk or Erech.
From the "Sumerian King List", published by Thorkild Jacobsen, and
accessible in Pritchard's often-quoted work, the first Dynasty of Uruk
may be summarized as follows:
Sumerian Names
of Rulers (some
in fragmentary
form)

Lengths of Reigns
in King List

Notations in King
List

Mes-kiag-gasher

325 (in one text

read as 32(4),
see p. 85 of T.
Jacobsen's
"Sumerian King
List".)

Son of Utu, became

high priest and king.
Journeyed into the
Sea and reached the
Mountains beyond.

En-me(r)-kar

420

Son of predecessor.
He built Erech.*

Lugal-banda

1,200

A god and shepherd.

Dumu-zi

100

A god and fisherman.

Gilgamesh

126

Ur-lugal

30

A divine man,
begotten by a spirit.
became a high priest
Son of Gilgamesh.

Udul-kalamma

15

Labasher

En-nun-dar-anna

Meshede

36

Melam-anna
Lugal-ki-dul

A smith.

6
36

*Some tablets read: Under him Erech was built.

Though these names may, at first sight, be meaningless, five of
the rulers are mentioned by other names in the Bible and a sixth -Gilgamesh -- has already been alluded to in Egyptian history in this
Compendium.
To break down this list one must commence from the known facts.
Dumu-zi is a variant spelling of Tammuz, a Mesopotamian name of Nimrod.
Nimrod succeeded his father Cush in Babylonia after a 60-year reign.
The 60 year reign of Cush has been established as 2254-2194 (see the
Egyptian history of Dynasty I of Thinis). The 100 years assigned to
Nimrod are, like the records of Egypt, based upon the Era of Nimrod to
the coming of his successor. Though Nimrod was executed after a reign
of 27 years, his Era continued to year 100, and is to be dated

2194-2094.
What occurred in 2094? Who left Egypt in 2094 to come to the land
of Shinar to claim the throne of Nimrod? Horus!
Thus Horus of Egypt is Gilgamesh of Mesopotamia. Each claimed to
be heir of Nimrod. Both were born of a Queen of Heaven -- Isis or
Ishtar. Both had a "spirit" as a father -- the supposed Nimrod alive as
the impregnating sun.
Gilgamesh ruled in Mesopotamia, after he left Egypt, for another
126 years -- 2094-1968. This brings us down to the lifetime of Abram!
Gilgamesh lived to be almost 200 years of age. This is in complete
harmony with the genealogy of the Bible for the same period (Genesis
11:10-32).
Gilgamesh was succeeded by Ur-lugal -- a name which means "Great
King." This Great King was ruler of Erech. Erech was in the land of
Shinar. Whoever controlle Erech controlled Shinar. What was the
personal name of this Great King who controlled Shinar in the days of
Abram? Amraphel (Genesis 14:1).
Amraphel reigned 30 years before he was slain by Abram's army. The
dates of Amraphel are 1968-1938. The struggle, recorded in Genesis 14
between Mesopotamian kings and the Canaanites therefore climaxed in
1938 with the death of four kings of Mesopotamia. When Assyrian history
is studied this same year will be established for Arioch, king of
Ellasar -- that is, king of the City of Asar or Asshur
To return to the Sumerian King List. The predecessor of Dumu-zi
(or Tammuz, who is Nimrod), is named Lugal-banda -- a title meaning
"Little King." He is Cush. Son Nimrod was, of course, the "Great King."
The 1200 years assigned to Cush are a clever expansion (20 x 60) of the
true figure of 60 years already established from other sources. The
correct dates are 2254-2194.
But how are the two predecessors in the list -- Mes-kiag-gasher
and En-mer-kar -- to be explained? Were they parallel rulers who also
exercised authority in that world?
The mother of Gilgamesh -- Semiramis or Ishtar -- was at one time
the wife of Lugal-banda -- that is, Cush (Jacobsen, "Sumerian King
List", page 91). She was also a wife and daughter-in-law of Asshur. The
real grandfather of Gilgamesh, however, was not Cush, but En-mer-kar
(Aelian in "De natura Animalium", vii, 21, quoted in Jacobsen's work on
page 87). From these facts it is clear that the Dynasty of Erech is
composed of two blood lines -- that of Cush and that of Asshur.
In history there were three famous queens named Semiramis -- each
one claiming to be a Queen of Heaven. The last Semiramis claimed to be
thrice born. Each one of them was an Assyrian queen. Does this indicate
that En-mer-kar is the Sumerian form of the Semitic name of Asshur? In
the King List it is stated either that Erech was built under the rule
of En-mer-kar, or that it was built by En-mer-kar. In the Bible the
builder is Nimrod. But Nimrod did not build it alone! For "out of that
land" Shinar -- where Erech is located -- "went forth Asshur, and built
Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah" (Genesis 10:11). This is the
correct translation according to the vowel pointing of the Hebrew text.
But the consonants, without the pointing, may be translated, "he" -that is, Nimrod, "went forth, being strong, and build Nineveh and
Calah." The land of Assyria or Asshur is also the land of Nimrod (Micah
5:6). The original enterprise was a joint affair.
Cush was originally a prominant figure at Babel. But he was
superseded by Nimrod, who gained the carnal affections of his own
mother. Cush soon perished and the two dominant figures remaining were
Asshur and Nimrod. Then Nimrod was driven from Mesopotamia to Egypt.

Thus the entire history of the later world came to be dominated by the
shadow of Asshur's children.
But if En-mer-kar is Asshur, the result is that Mes-kiag-gasher is
the Sumerian name of Shem! Mes-kiag-gasher was in Sumerian parlance,
the "son of Utu" -- the God who warned Noah of the Flood. That is, he
was a man who knew the God of creation.
Mes-kiag-gasher was also a high priest. From Egyptian records
historians have discovered that Semsem -- the Great Shem -- of Dynasty
I of Thinis was also pictured as a high priest! This famous man crossed
from Asia over the water to the mountains of Europe. Shem travelled far
and wide to put down the government of Nimrod.
Now consider the 325-year reign of Shem. When did it begin and
when did it end?
In Egypt only a small part of his life story is revealed. But in
the annals of Erech one sees Shem's great figure striding over three
and a quarter centuries of history! Shem had no part in the government
established at Babel in opposition to the rule of God. When the terror
of Nimrod loomed great over the horizon, Shem acted. He exercised,
after Nimrod's seizure of power, the administration of government
beginning 2191 in Shinar as patriarch and priest of the Semitic world.
His full 325 years of authority lasted from 2191 till his death in
1866.
This date -- 1866 -- is the exact year of the death of Shem in
Scripture. According to Egyptian history the exodus occurred in 1486.
This was exactly 430 years after the covenant God made with Abraham
when he was 99 years old -- it was not made at the time Abram entered
the land at 75. (See Genesis 17:1-8, Exodus 12:40-41 and Galatians
3:17.) The verb is not expressed in the original Hebrew of Exodus
12:40, which should properly be translated: "Now the sojourning of the
children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, completed four hundred and
thirty years."
Calculating back from 1486, year 99 of Abraham was 1918-1917
autumn to autumn reckoning -- for in the next spring, of 1916, Abraham
was already 99 years old and in his hundredth year. Abraham was 75 when
he departed from Haran following the death of his father in 1941 (Gen.
12:4). By adding the figures of the Genesis 11, from Terah to Arphaxad,
the year 2367-2366 is reached (autumn to autumn). In that year -- two
years after the Flood -- Arphaxad was begotten. Shem lived after he
begot Arphaxad 500 years (Genesis 11:10-11). This 500 years extends
from 2366 to 1866 -- the very year Shem's 325-year reign ended,
according to the evidence of the Erech list!
(The broken reading of 32(4) years. proposed by Sumeriologists, if
correct, probably merely excludes the calendar year in which Shem
died.)
The 420 years of En-mer-kar are also datable. The figure probably
represents the length of time between the death of Asshur in 1906 (see
German history in vol. II of the "Compendium") and his becoming a head
of household in 2326, when age 40 (assuming he is a twin of Arphaxad
who was born in 2366).
The First Dynasty of Uruk may now be restored as follows,
beginning with Cush (Lugal-banda).
Names of Kings

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Lugal-banda (Cush)

(60)

2254-2194

Dumu-zi (Nimrod or

100

2194-2094

Tammuz)
Gilgamesh (Horus or
Ninyas)

126

2094-1968

Ur-lugal (Amraphel)
dies in Abram's year 78)

30

1968-1938

Utul-kalamma

15

1938-1923

Labasher

1923-1914

En-nun-dara-anna

1914-1906

36

1906-1870

1870-1864

36

1864-1828

Meshede
Melam-anna
Lugal-ki-dul

After this dynasty the kings of Shinar do not reappear in the

Bible until the reign of Merodach-baladan.

CHAPTER ELEVEN
Berossus and Babylonian History
The writings of Berossus, the contemporary of Manetho, are
altogether lost. No valid dates of individual kings have been preserved
by classic writers from Berossus.
Berossus' first post-flood dynasty is completely distorted. It is
said to be composed of 86 Chaldean kings who supposedly reigned about
34,000 years! This dynasty includes Evechous and Kosmabelos -- Cush and
Nimrod. The kings who composed the first dynasty were not successive
but contemporary leaders who formed the first Democratic Council in
history this side of the flood. Samuel Kramer, in his book "History
Begins at Sumer", draws attention to the fact that the earliest records
of democratic government are found in references to Shinar and the city
of Kish.
The other dynasties of Berossus strikingly confirm the Sumerian
King List and Biblical history. The following chart is from Berossus'
transcribers.
Dynasty II

8 Medes

224 years (the Armenian copy reads 234)

Dynasty III

11 Chaldeans

NO YEARS ASSIGNED, AS DYNASTY

WAS CONTEMPORARY. (In margin
of Armenian version 48 years
is noted.)

Dynasty IV

49 Chaldeans

458 years

Dynasty V

9 Arabians

245 years (Semiramis II

reigned during this
period.)

Dynasty VI

45 Chaldeans

526 years to seizure of

Babylonia by Pul.

The dates for these dynasties may easily be restored. Pul, in

Babylonian history, is Tiglathpileser III. He seized the city of
Babylon in 729, during the third year of the reign of Ukinzer. See the
"Babylonian Chronicle", Col I. Tiglathpileser considered this his first
year; the Babylonians considered it his accession year assigning it to
Ukinzer. Ptolemy coupled them together and designated the period as
that of Chinziros and Poros.
Dynasty VI continued 526 years -- 1255 to 729
Dynasty V for 245 years -- 1500 to 1255
Dynasty IV for 458 years -- 1958 to 1500
(Dynasty III for 48 years -- 2006-1958)
Dynasty II for 234 years -- 2192-1958
or
224 years -- 2192-1968

The year 2192 marks not only the beginning of Nimrod's rule in
Egypt, but also the Median seizure of Babylonia at the time Nimrod
usurped Supreme authority at the dethroning of his father cush. This
confirms Greek traditions that even Japetus (Japheth) opposed the
Titans -- the followers of Nimrod. The Medes, descendents of Japheth
kept their power over Babylon for 224 years to 1968 -- the year of the
death of Gilgamesh. In another ten years (1968-1958) the Chaldeans
regained full power.
Those ten years and the previous 38 were times of great stress
during which 11 Chaldean kings, including Gilgamesh, ruled
contemporaneously as Berossus' Dynasty III -- 2006-1958. The date 2006
is confirmed by the Persian account of Gilgamesh. Persian historians
assign him only 38 years -- 2006-1968 -- the exact duration of his rule
as part of Dynasty III of Berossus. (See Al Biruni's "Ancient Nations",
page 99.) The remarkable agreement of all these figures, found among
different nations, is proof that the historical data have never been
totally lost.
Another Account of Earliest Dynasties
As generally recorded, Berossus' First Dynasty begins with Cush
and Nimrod; the Second Dynasty was Median. But Alexander Polyhistor and
Abydenus preserve, from the most ancient records of the Temple of Belus
at Babylon, an account of parallel rulers -- five Chaldean kings who
were in turn succeeded by no less than six Arabians (pre-Ishmaelites).
The information may be obtained from Jackson's "Chronological
Antiquities", Pages 233-235. These much-misunderstood dynasties -- even
Jackson did not understand their import -- perfectly correspond with
the restoration of the Dynasty of Erech already presented.
First Kings of the
Chaldeans after the
Tower of Babel

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Porus

35

2254-2219

Nechubes

43

2219-2176

Abtus
Oniballus

48
40

2176-2128
2128-2088

Zinzirus

45
(or 46)

2088-2043
(2088-2042)

(Note that the 35 years -- 2254-2219 -- of Porus are also the same for
Mizraim.)
Dynasty of Six Kings
of the Arabians
Mardocentes
Mardakos

Lengths of Reign

Dates

45
(or 44)

(2042-1998)

40

1998-1958

(the year 1958 marks the final expulsion of the Medes from Babylonia.)
Sisimardacus

28

1958-1930

Nabius

37

1930-1893

Parannus

40

1893-1853

Nabonnabus

25

1853-1828

In 1828, "the Assyrian kings succeeded in the Babylonian Empire,

and thenceforth Babylonia and Chaldea became a part of the Assyrian
Empire" -- Page 237, Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities". This is
also the year of the defeat of Erech by Ur. Syncellus preserved a total
of 190 years for the Chaldean kings, and not the above total of 211 -though his separate figures add up to 211! It is exactly 190 years from
2233 to 2043. The year 2233 was famous in Babylonian history as the
beginning of astronomical observation. The Babylonians began their
observations 1903 years before Alexander came to Babylon in 330.
First Dynasty of Ur and Successors
The city of Ur in Babylonian history is not the Ur from which
Abram came. Abram's Ur was Urfa in northern Mesopotamia, not on the
fringes of Shinar.
According to the Sumerian King List, the First Dynasty of Ur came
to power at the close of the First Dynasty of Erech.
Names of Kings of
First Dynasty of Ur

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Mes-Anne-padda

80 (includes
reign of son
A-Anne-padda)

1828-1748

Mes-kiag-Nunna

30
(or 36)

1748-1718
1748-1712

Elulu

25

1718-1693

Balulu

36

1693-1657

The significance of the 36 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna will be

explained when the Dynasty of Akshak is restored. The proper dates of
Dynasty I of Ur are those of the Nippur list, which gives the total as
171 -- 1828-1657. (The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 adds the parallel reign
of six years of Mes-kiag-Nunna to the total.)
At the close of the First Dynasty of Ur the Sumerian King List
carries the government to the city of Awan in Elam (see page 224 of
Pallis' "Chronology of the Shub-Ad Culture"). Reference to three kings
is made, but only a cuneiform remnant of the last king's name is
preserved: Kul ... 36 years. The total length of the Dynasty is 356
years -- 1657-1301. The date of the last king is therefore 1337-1301. A
confirmation of these dates will be found in the succeeding history of
the city of Isin and Dynasty III of Ur.
Historically the date 1657 marks Elamite prominence in Southern

Mesopotamia and throws important light on the early history of India.

After Awan the Sumerian King List returns to Dynasty II of Kish.
Though the names of the rulers of Kish during this period are
preserved, the dates assigned to its rulers are extravagant -- over
3000 years being designated to 8 kings. Kish II begins about the time
of the reigns of Gilgamesh and Mes-anne-padda, whose lives overlapped;
for the last king of Kish I submitted to both (see the Sumerian poem
"Gilgamesh and Aqqa" in Pritchard's Texts). The true length of Dynasty
II is confirmed by Kish III and IV which we will now establish.
Listed after Kish II, though in part contemporary with it, is the
Dynasty of Hamazi. Only one name of this dynasty is preserved:
Hadanish. The total length of the dynasty is sometimes given as 360
years, sometimes as 420. It cannot be dated until Dynasty II and
Dynasty III of Uruk are determined.
The shattered list of Dynasty II of Uruk is in the prism given 60
years and 120 years. In other documents it ends a period of 480 years.
There is a definite relationship between these figures and those of
Hamazi. But Uruk II and Hamazi cannot be dated until Uruk III is
established.
From archaeology it is known that Uruk II was followed immediately
by Uruk III -- though the King List branches off into parallel
dynasties. Uruk III is composed of one King Lugal-zaggisi, who reigned
25 years. Comparative archaeology establishes that he succeeded Ur I,
1828-1657. The date of king Lugal-zaggisi is therefore 1657-1632.
As Uruk II preceded Uruk III, the 480 years extend back from 1657
to 2137. That is, the year 1657 ended an era of 480 years which began
in 2137. As Uruk I ended in 1828, Uruk II lasted only 171 years
1828-1657. The figure 480 is not the length of the dynasty but the
dating of an era. What happened in the year 2137? Isis (Ishtar or
Semiramis) came to power after the 57-year era (2194-2137) of Nimrod.
It was commonplace to date reigns in the "Era of Ishtar" (see
Pritchard's "Texts", page 266, in Sargon's "Chronicle", and footnote
2). In chart form the figures for Uruk II are as follows.
480 years -- 2137-1657
120 years -- 1777-1657
60 years -- 1717-1657
Now the Dynasty of Hamazi may be dated:
360 years -- 2137-1777
420 years -- 2137-1717
Both these dynasties commenced with the Era of Ishtar. In another
chart these two would appear as follows:
Hamazi

360 years

2137-1777

Uruk II

120 years

1777-1657

or
Hamazi

420 years

2137-1717

Uruk II

60 years

1717-1657

Skipping for the moment other parallel Dynasties, notice that Uruk
III was succeeded by the Dynasty of Akkad. Uruk III -- composed of one
king Lugal-zaggisi -- extended for 25 years to 1632.
Now Sargon of Akkad
The greatest name in Babylonian history in this period is
undoubtedly that of Sargon "the Great" -- first king of the Akkadian
Dynasty. The history of this dynasty has been confused by the
Weld-Blundell Prism 444. The complete and correct record is that of the
Nippur lists. Prism 444 is incomplete.
Names of Kings of
Dynasty of Akkad

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sargon

55

1632-1577

Rimush

15

1577-1562

1562-1555

Naram-Sin

56

1555-1499

Sharkalisharri

24 or
25

1499-1475
1500-1475

Igigi, Nanum, Imi

3 years of
confusion

1475-1472

Dudu

21

1472-1451

Shudurul

15

1451-1436

Manish-tusu

The reign of Sharkalisharri confirms Berossus, who dates the

Arabian invasion in 1500. It toppled Naram-Sin from his power and
brought his successor to a weakened throne. Naram-Sin died after one
more year of reign. Rimush is the younger twin brother of Manish-tusu
(Jacobsen, "Sumerian King List", p. 113). He overthrew an otherwise
unknown Kaku of Ur.
The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 is fractured in the middle of the
history of this dynasty. However, its total indicates that Naram-Sin's
reign is cut short and does not include part of the period of his
subjection to the invading Guti hordes. It also gives different figures
for the three early rulers as follows.
Sargon
Rimush
Manish-tusu

56 years

1633-1577

1577-1568

15

1568-1553

Year 1633 is the accession year of Sargon.

This document(W.-B. 444) by itself is not a proper standard for
Babylonian history. It should be used in conjunction with the other

lists rather than by itself as is customarily done by modern authors.

Dynasties IV and V of Erech
The collapse of the Dynasty of Akkad brought Erech again into
prominence. In the Scheil Text the Fourth Dynasty of Uruk is listed as
follows:
Names of Kings of
Dynasty IV of Uruk

Lengths of Reign
in Scheil Text

Dates

Ur-Niginak

1436-1433

Ur-Gigirak

1433-1427

Kudda

1427-1421

Puzur-ili

1421-1416

Ur-Utuk

1416-1410

The Weld-Blundell prism assigns 7 years to the first king -1440-1433.

Fragment C of the Susa list of these kings follows (see "Journal
of Near Eastern Studies", Apr. 1960, p. 157).
Name of Kings of
Dynasty IV of Uruk
Ur-Gigirak
Lugal-me-lam
Ur-Utuk

Lengths of Reign

Dates

15

1442-1427

1442-1435

25

1435-1410

In this list the contemporary reigns of Kudda and Puzur-ili are

incorporated in the long reign of Ur-Utuk. As in Egyptian history,
numerous rulers shared the government at the same time. In another
fragment of the Susa list the following information is preserved for
the first three kings:
Ur-Niginak

30

1472-1442

Ur-Gigirak

15

1442-1427

1442-1435

Lugal-me-lam

What is the significance of the year 1472? It is the end of three

years of confusion (1475-1472) under the Akkadian Dynasty when four
kings ruled. During that period it became proverbial to ask: "who was
king? who was not?" Far from being bad scribal errors, these various
figures for Dynasty IV of Uruk tell much of the story that is otherwise
unpreserved. The real rise to power commenced in 1472, though the kings
of Uruk did not replace the kings of Akkad until 1436.
The kingship over Uruk was obtained in 1410 by Utuhegal, who
constitutes Dynasty V. All documents agree in giving full 7 years to

this short-lived Dynasty -- 1410-1403. Utuhegal gained prominence at

the beginning of his reign by overthrowing the Guti who had invaded
Babylonia 125 years before, in 1535, and wrested complete control in a
second attack in 1500 (see the dates from the W.-B. Prism 444).
The Guti Dynasty
Berossus designates 1500 as the year in which an Arabian dynasty
of 9 kings wrested control of Babylonia from the Chaldeans. Coupled
with this invasion from Arabia was one from the east under the Guti.
The Guti Dynasty is not complete in any one document, but may be
determined from a comparison of each of the documents. Its first King
is nowhere preserved in the King Lists, but an otherwise unknown king
of the Guti has been found. As he is the only Guti king known to have
usurped the titles of Naram-Sin, it is quite clear that he -Erridupizir -- should head the list as the leader in the initial attack
on Akkad in 1535. (Jacobsen's , "King List", p. 117, from Hilprecht's
"The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and The Temple
Library of Nippur". Pennsylvania Univ. Babylonian Expedition, Series D:
Researches and Treatises V 1 (1910), chap. 4.)
The initials in brackets in the following list indicate the source
of the different reading. Their significance will be explained
afterward.
Kings of the Guti

Lengths of Reign

(Erridupizir)

(33 -- restored
by subtraction
from dynastic
totals)

Dates
1535-1502

Imta

3
5 (L1)

1502-1499
1504-1499

Inkishush

6 or
7 (L1)

1499-1493
1500-1493

Sarlagab

1493-1487

Shulme (or Iarlagash in L1)

1487-1481

Elulumesh

7 (G)
or 6

1481-1474
1481-1475

Inimabakesh

1474-1469

Igeshaush

1469-1463

Jarlagab

15

1463-1448

Ibate

1448-1445

Jarla(ngab)

1445-1442

Kurum

1442-1441

Habilkin

1441-1438

Laerabum

1438-1436

Irraum

1436-1434

Ibranum

1434-1433

Hablum

1433-1431

Puzur-Sin

1431-1424

Jarlaganda

1424-1417

Sium

1417-1410

Tirigan

40 days

1410

The second king is, in one tablet, assigned 5 years instead of 3.

This indicates that Erridupizir may have reigned the last two years
(1504-1502) jointly with Imta. The different lengths assigned to the
reign of the third king -- Inkishush -- exactly fits the years 1500 and
1499 which overlap in the account of the Akkadian Dynasty. The
variation in the reign of Elulumesh, the sixth king, is again made
plain by the struggle for power recorded in the Akkadian Dynasty for
1475-1472. The king's total reign was 7 years, but only six to the year
1475, when the struggle for power in Babylonia commenced.
Three Other Dynasties
The coming of the Guti into Babylonia brought further division to
the land. At the city of Ur a new Dynasty rose to power and lasted 108
years according to the Nippur List. The total for the Dynasty is
missing from the document, but the total for Dynasties I, II and III is
plainly given as 396. Dynasty I ruled 171 years; Dynasty III, 117, as
will be noticed shortly. These two figures, subtracted from 396, leave
108.
The royal names of this dynasty are nearly illegible, and no
internal dates are preserved. The Dynasty may be dismissed with the
dates: 1535-1427.
In 1427 the Dynasty of Adab succeeded Ur II according to the
Sumerian King List. It exercised authority in Babylonia for 90 years -until 1337. The only name of a king of this Dynasty is that of
Lugal-Annemundu. The collective verb -- "they reigned" -- indicates
other names are lost.
At the same time that Ur II lost control to the city of Adab,
another city, far distant, on the Middle Euphrates, came into power. It
was the city of Ma (e) ri. Mari later became famous as a town bordering
on Israel's territory on the Euphrates. The Mari Dynasty, placed after
Adab in the King Lists, was, in point of fact, contemporary. It lasted
136 years -- 1427-1291. All that has been thus far discovered of its
rulers is a tattered document that looks like the following:
Fragmentary Names
of Mari Kings

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ansud

30

1427-1397

Total: six kings for 136 years.

The year 1291 will become significant in the study of Kish IV.
Dynasty III of Ur
Meanwhile the city of Ur revived and another powerful dynasty came
to power -- the Third. This dynasty was made famous by Woolley's
excavations at Ur. It succeeded Dynasty V of Erech, and reigned for 117
years according to the Nippur List. Its first king once was functionary
of Utuhegal before Ur rebelled and seized political prominence.
Utuhegal (Uruk V) ruled 1410-1403.
Kings of Dynasty III
of Ur according to
the Nippur List

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ur-Nammu

18

1403-1385

Shulgi (often spelled: Dungi)

58

1385-1327

Amar-Sin (often spelled: Bur-Sin)

1327-1318

Shu-Sin

1318-1311

Ibbi-Sin

25

1311-1286

Fragment C of the Susa List has a different account of this

Dynasty. This account is usually rejected, merely because it is
different from the preceding one.
But in it is a key to yet a third account of the same dynasty! The
duration of Ur III was 117 years -- 1403-1286.
Kings of Dynasty III
of Ur according to
Susa List

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ur-Namme

18

1403-1385

Shulgi

48

1385-1337

Amar-Sin

25

1339-1314

Shu-Sin

16

1318-1302

Ibbi-Sin

15

1302-1287

This list does not include the last year of Ibbi-Sin, during which
he was carried captive to Elam. But, as in the Nippur List, it does

include that year in its dynastic total (123 years), which is one year
more than the total assigned to all the kings (122 years).*
The 48-year reign of Shulgi assigned in the Susa List stops in
1337. This date is significant. It marks the end of the Adab Dynasty
(already discussed). It also is the beginning of the reign of "Kul
scribe recording the Susa List does not give the last 10 years of
Shulgi as it is incorporated in the long reign of Amar-Sin.
The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 differs from either preceding list in
its length of the reign of Shulgi, which it gives as 46 -- 1385-1339.
This dating provides the clue to the proper beginning of the 25-year
reign of Amar-Sin as recorded in the Susa List. Also, W.-B 444 shortens
the reign of Ibbi-Sin to 24 years -- 1311-1287, ending it in the same
year as the Susa scribe does. That is, it does not include the last
year in which the king was taken captive. It also assigns 9 years to
Shu-Sin, probably the 9 years from 1311 (when Ibbi-Sin came to power)
to the year 1302 (the last year of Shu-Sin in the Susa List).
(*Note: dynastic total of 123 years includes coregencies.)
Dynasty of Isin
During the reign of Ibbi-Sin of Ur the Elamites made inroads into
the land of Shinar. This is the time that Elamite Awan dominated part
of Babylonia under its last king.
The question of the corresponding years between Ibbi-Sin of Ur III
and Ishbi-Irra, first king of Isin, has led to many learned articles in
all the journals on Near Eastern Studies. The question cannot be
determined by itself. Vital information is missing for the earliest
years of Ishbi-Irra. The problem can be resolved, however, when
combining the known facts with the information contained in Dynasty IV
of Kish. Why no historian has ventured to correlate Kish with both
dynasties is a mystery: If they had done so, they would have resolved
the difficulties.
The following outline history of the Dynasty of Isin begins with
the correlation of Ibbi-Sin's year 24 with Ishbi-Irra's year 14, and
year 25 of Ibbi-Sin with year 15 of Ishbi-Irra. This correlation is one
of several possibilities commonly espoused. It is, however, the only
one which harmonizes with the history of Kish IV -- a fact to be proved
in a succeeding section.
Kings of Isin

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ishbi-Irra

33

1301-1268

Shu-ilishu

10

1268-1258

I(d)din-Dagan

21

1258-1237

Ishme-Dagan

20

1237-1217

Lipit-Ishtar

11

1217-1206

Ur-Ninurta

28

1206-1178

Bur-Sin

21

1178-1157

Lipit-Enlil

1157-1152

Irra-imitti

1152-1144

Enlil-bani

24

1144-1120

Zambia

1120-1117

Iter-pisha

1117-1113

Ur-Dukuga

1113-1109

Sin-magir

11

1109-1098

Damiq-ilishu

23

1098-1075

In 1075 Damiq-ilishu was overthrown by Rimsin of Larsa, who was in

turn overthrown by Hammurabi.
The above list is the recognized standard for the Dynasty of Isin.
Minor variations occur in two documents discussed in the "Journal of
Cuneiform Studies", VIII, 4, "New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin."
In
them the year in which Ishbi-Irra came to power is treated as the
accession year -- only 32 are assigned him. Ishme-Dagan is given 19
instead of 20, but Bur-Sin is assigned 22 instead of 21. In other
documents the last year of Irra-imitti is replaced by a ursurper.
Dynasty IV of Kish and the "400 Years"
The records of Dynasty IV of Kish are so divergent -- and unusual
-- that no historian or archaeologist would accept them. "Corrupt,"
"worthless," are the common epithets applied. No one has tested the
evidence to see if the accounts are, in fact, true'!
In the Scheil Text (left) and the Weld-Blundell Prism 444 (right)
Dynasties III and IV of Kish appear as follows:
Names of Rulers

Scheil Text

W.-B 444

(Dynasty III)
Ku-Baba, a queen

100 years

---

(Dynasty IV)
Puzur-Sin

25 years

25 years

6 years

400 years

Simudar

30 years

30 years

Usiwatar

6 years

7 years

Ishtarmuti

11 years

11 years

Ishme-Shamash

11 years

11 years

3 years

7 years

Ur-Zababa

Nannia

Total 28 kings -- 586 years.

The 586 years of the Scheil Text includes the 400 not listed,
minus the 6 which is listed: 100 plus 25 plus (400) plus 30 plus 6 plus
11 plus 11 plus 3 equals 586.
Now compare this with the evidence of the Susa Text. Notice the
changed order of kings.
Puzur-Sin

25 years

Ur-Zababa

400 years

Usiwatar

6 years

Ishtar-muti

11 years

Ishme-Shamash

11 years

Shu-ilishu
Simudar

15 years
30 years

Who is this Shu-ilishu?

"This king can be no other than the well known Shu-ilishu of Igin
and, comparing the account of the Isin dynasty ... we may perhaps
assume that the copyist had a loose, unplaced fragment ..." -- and thus
Thorkild Jacobsen suggests that a King of Isin was misplaced by a
stupid scribe into the Kish IV Dynasty! (See page 108 of his "Sumerian
King List", footnote 228.)
First, consider the mysterious 400 years. This period begins with
the end of the reign of Puzur-Sin. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa (in the
Schell Text) are a part of the 400 of the other texts. A break in the
continuity of the dynasty is clearly indicated by this unusual figure.
Next, consider the close of the dynasty. One list ends with Nannia
-- the other with Simudar. Now to assemble these divergent facts.
Shu-ilishu reigned 10 years after Ishbi-Irra according to the Isin
dynastic list. His dates: 1268-1258. The W.-B Prism 444 states
Shu-ilishu's total reign as 20 years, but does not count the first 10
in its total. In the Kish list from Susa his reign is given as 15 -that is, 1273-1258. The following charts indicate how the remaining
kings fit around the reign of Shu-ilishu.
Names of Kings

Lengths of Reign

Usiwatar

Dates

1291-1284

Ishtarmuti

11

1284-1273

Ishme-Shamash

11

1273-1262

1262-1255

Ishtar-muti

11

1284-1273

Shu-ilishu

15

1273-1258

Nannia
or

Nannia

1258-1255

Usiwatar

1291-1285

Simudar

30

1285-1255

and

What is the significance of the dates 1291 and 1255? The year 1291
is the date of the overthrow of Mari and the return of the old royal
family of Kish to power. And the year 1255 is the date of return of the
Chaldeans to power according to Berossus!
Now place the end of the 400 years in 1255. The beginning of the
400 years brings us to 1655. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa therefore extend
from 1655 to 1649. This is shortly before the reign of Sargon "the
Great" of Akkad. When Sargon was young he served as cupbearer to
Ur-Zababa! (Pallis, "Chronology of Shub-Ad Culture", p. 360). Thus the
400 years have significance after all!
The reign of Puzur-Sin covers the preceding 25 years: 1680-1655.
But why should Kish IV have ended abruptly in 1649 and Ur-Zababa
been slain? Archaeology answers: Lugal-zaggisi of Erech III overthrew
Kish. The inhabitants were sent into exile. Years later Sargon restored
the inhabitants to their estates: "Sargon, king of Agade, ... king of
Kish .... restored Kish, he ordered them to take again possession of
their city" (Pritchard's "Texts", p. 267).
The year 1649 is also of unusual significance in the history of
India. IN THE WINTER OF 1650-1649 THE ASSYRIANS WERE DEFEATED ON THE
BORDERS OF INDIA, resulting in collapse of Assyrian confederates in
Mesopotamia.
Dynasty of Akshak
At the time Kish was overthrown Akshak was defeated also. The
Dynasty of Akshak appears next.
Kings of Akshak
Unzi

Lengths of Reign

Dates

30

1748-1718

12
(or 6)

1718-1706
(1712-1706)

1706-1700

Puzur-Sahan

20

1700-1680

Ishuil

24

1680-1656

7
(or 24)

1656-1649
(1656-1632)

Undalulu
Ur-ur

Gimil-Sin

Several of the dates are paralleled with others in contemporary

dynasties. Year 1748 marks the end of the long reign of Mes-Anne-pada
of Dynasty I or Ur. The short reign of 6 years for Uhdalulut second
king of Akshak, explains the extra 6 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna of Ur I.
In chart form the two kings' reigns appear thus:

Mes-kiag-Nunna

30

1748-1718
(Ur I)

Undalulu

12

1718-1706
(Akshak)

or
Mes-kiag-Nunna
Undalulu

36

1748-1712

1712-1706

But the relationship does not end here. Under Akshak's king
Puzur-Sahan aging Queen Ku-Baba of Kish III gained unusual reputation
for her "pious deeds." As a result her son Puzur-Sin came to royal
estate upon the death of Puzur-Sahan in 1680. (See Pallis' "Shub-Ad
Culture", pp. 359-360.) Notice that in the restoration of Kish IV the
year 1680 is already marked as the commencement of the reign of
Puzur-Sin, the son of Queen Ku-Baba! Here again is harmony among
contemporary dynasties. Though Akshak lost power in 1649 the last king,
Gimil-Sin (1656-1649), is assigned in the Susa List a total reign of 24
years (1656-1632) to the reign of Sargon of Akkad.
Dates of Queen Ru-Baba
Only one more Dynasty needs to be firmly established -- Kish III.
Kish III is famous for a one-time woman wine merchant who became Queen.
Her son and grandson ruled during her late years as the first two Kings
of Kish's Dynasty IV. Since Dynasty III of Kish is at times listed
first and on occasion later than the Dynasty of Akshak, it must have
begun at the same time as Akshak. The dates of Kish III are therefore
1748-1648. Who the husband or the father of Queen Ku-Baba may have been
is not stated in the lists. That she continued one year after the death
(in 1649) of Ur-Zababa, her grandson, is clear from the statement of
Sargon. He claims that she adopted him as her own son in place of her
own heir now dead (S. Lloyd, "Mesopotamia", page 140).
It becomes clear with this restoration that Dynasties I and II of
Kish are limited to the time between 2254 and 1748, with Kish I ending
in the days of Gilgamesh.
With this account the clouded history of Babylonia to the era of
Hammurabi closes. It is a period of nearly twelve centuries of strife
division and wars.

CHAPTER TWELVE
Hammurabi to the Fall of Babylon
Since the building of the city of Babel, not a single recorded
dynasty originated in the city precincts of Babylon for over 1000
years. Not until the renowned First Dynasty of Babylon did it become
the supreme seat of political power.
Hammurabi -- or rather each historian who has written about him -has made The First Dynasty of Babylon famous. It was a time of
blossoming culture, of proverbial literature, of law. Vast quantities
of written material have been recovered from this and succeeding
centuries.
Shortly after archaeologists uncovered the history of this period
it was commonplace to connect Hammurabi with Amraphel of the Bible
(Genesis 14). Today the equasion of Hammurabi with the generation of
Abram has been abandoned. In its place confusion reigns. Dates for this
famous king now range from the "short chronology" of Albright and
Cornelius through the "middle" of S. Smith and the comparatively "long"
chronological reckonings of Goetze. In other words, anywhere from the
seventeenth to the nineteenth century before the present era.
Why Hammurabi Dated Early
To bring disrepute upon the Law of God critical scholars early
indulged in speculating that Babylonian law was the basis of the Hebrew
Torah. Proof? -- There was none: History, when properly restored,
overturns the hypothesis. Whatever influence there may have been was in
the opposite direction.
Culturally the Hebrews in Solomon's day led the world. The reigns
succeeding Hammurabi's saw a rapid expansion in writing of proverbs and
other wisdom literature -- a consequence of Solomonic influence.
Historians have assumed that this literature long antedated Solomon.
Contrariwise, the writing of this kind of literature in Mesopotamia can
now be proved a result of direct influence of Solomon's Empire on
surrounding cultures. Egypt exhibits the same literary features at the
same time -- not centuries before.
Now for the political restoration of the land of Shinar. In the
days of Saul and David the cities of Sumer were in a three-corner
struggle for supreme political dominion. In the struggle between Isin
and Larsa, the latter won, only to be devoured by the city of Babylon.
The events may be summarized in four concerted attacks. Babylon first
reduced Isin, but was forced to yield to Larsa's military attack and
final conquest of the city two years later. In another eight years,
however, Babylon had grown in strength sufficiently to challenge the
hegemony of Larsa over Shinar. Isin was recaptured. Then, 23 years
later, Larsa succumbed to Hammurabi.
The Dynasty of Larsa
To date the First Dynasty of Babylon correctly, it is first
necessary to restore the royal family at Larsa to its true place in
history. This dynasty rose to power during the struggles between Elam
and the Third Dynasty of Ur. The last king of Isin I -- Damiq-ilishu --

was driven from the city after completing a 23-year reign (1098-1075).
Rim-sin, the victor, and king of Larsa won the war and incorporated the
city of Isin into his realm in his year 29 -- 1075-1074. (Where
Damiq-ilishu fled, and how much longer he reigned elsewhere, will be
discussed later under the First Sealand Dynasty.)
From the synchronism between these two kings the entire Larsa
Dynasty may be restored as follows (see "Journal of Cuneiform Studies",
III, "Nippur und Isin", page 27, for lengths of reign).
Kings of Larsa

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Naplanum

21

1306-1285

Emizum

28

1285-1257

Samu'um

35

1257-1222

Zaba'a

1222-1213

Gungunum

27

1213-1186

Abi-sare

11

1186-1175

Sumu-ilum

29

1175-1146

Nur-Adad

16

1146-1130

Sin-idinnam

1130-1123

Sin-iribam

1123-1121

Sin-iqisham

1121-1116

Zilli-Adad

1116-1115

Warad-Sin

12

1115-1103

Rim-Sin

61

1103-1042

When Did Hammurabi Reign?

Larsa's last king, Rim-sin, reigned full 60 years. Then, in his
year 61, Hammurabi attacked the aging king and captured Larsa in
Hammurabi's year 29 -- 1043-1042. This victory became the "year-name"
of the succeeding calendar year.
A second synchronism (already referred to) between the First
Dynasty of Babylon and Larsa is provided in a historical record from
the reign of Hammurabi's father, Sin-muballit. Sin-muballit attacked
Isin and reduced it to submission in his year 16, which was year 22 of
Damiq-ilishu -- 1077-1076. This event became the year name of
Sin-muballit's succeeding year. ("Orientalia", series 2, no. 24,
"Chronological Notes," by H. Levy.)
Two years later the Babylonians were driven out and Isin was
overthrown by Larsa in Rim-sin's year 29. The event became the
"year-name" of Rim-sin's year 30. (It was the custom in that day to
name each year after some famous event in the preceding twelve months.)

Then, in year 6 of Hammurabi, Isin was recaptured by Babylon. A

tablet dating from the time of the conquest bears the following double
dating: "the eighth and tenth year since Isin was captured"
("Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt", by P. Van der Meer,
page 44).
These chronological notes make absolutely certain the dates of the
First Dynasty of Babylon as follows:
Names of Kings of First
Dynasty of Babylon

Lengths of Reign
from "Year-Names"

Dates

Sumu-abum
Sumu-la-ilum

14
36

1174-1160
1160-1124

Zabum

14

1124-1110

Apil-Sin

18

1110-1092

Sin-muballit

20

1092-1072

Hammurabi (often spelled

Hammurapi)

43

1072-1029

Samsu-iluna

38

1029- 991

Abi-eshuh

28

991- 963

Ammi-ditana

37

963- 926

Ammi-zaduga

21

926- 905

Samsu-ditana

26

905- 879

Of special note are the 26 years for the last king. Many books
erroneously insert the figure 31. Only 26 year-names have ever been
found. ("Journal of Near Eastern Studies", "The Date List of
Samsu-ditana," by Samuel I. Feigin, vol. XIV, no. 3, July 1955.)
The figure 31 is taken from a king list which dates the reigns
differently. The two methods of dating should not be mixed
promiscuously. From the king list the reigns of Hammurabi to the end of
the dynasty are as follows:
Names of First
Dynasty of Babylon

Lengths of Reign
from King List

Dates

Hammurabi

55

1072-1017

Samsu-iluna

35

1017- 982

Abi-eshuh

25

982- 957

Ammi-ditana

25

957- 932

Ammi-zaduga

22

932- 910

Samsu-ditana

31

910- 879

The total from Hammurabi to the close of the dynasty is precisely

the same -- 1072-879. The early kings of the dynasty appear as follows
from the king list:
Sumu-abum

15

1174-1159

Sumu-la-ilum

35

1159-1124

Zabum

14

1124-1110

Apil-Sin

18

1110-1092

Sinmuballit

30

1092-1062

It is to be noticed that the king list preserves a ten-year joint

reign in the early part of Hammurabi's long government -- from
1072-1062. These divergent figures are not mere scribal errors. They
are genuine. Egyptian records and the Bible reflect the same practice.
In most cases it is due to joint reigns -- of father with son. On
occasion they are due to internal political changes of which the
divergencies in dating are the sole remaining testimony.
In summary: Hammurabi is the contemporary of Saul and David!
The ancient king lists recovered by archaeological excavation
insert two lengthy dynasties after the First Dynasty of Babylon -- the
First Dynasty of the Sealand and the Dynasty of the Kassu or Kassites.
The "Sealand" is referred to in the Bible as the "Desert of the Sea" in
Isaiah 21:1, KJV.
It was originally assumed that these dynasties were successive.
Today it is recognized that they were, in part, contemporary with the
First Dynasty of Babylon and with each other.
The list of the Kassite kings is so badly shattered that it is not
possible to restore it without recourse to Assyrian history. But it is
possible at this point to present the history of the Sealand in full.
Damiq-ilishu Reappears!
No greater enigma faces Mesopotamian archaeologists and historians
than the mystery surrounding the Sealand Dynasty. The total reigns of
its kings -- several of which are exceedingly long -- still fall 22
years short of the total of 368 years assigned to the dynasty by the
ancient scribes. At first numerous readings were proposed to "restore"
the text. Critics simply could not accept the simple evidence of the
tablets. Not until 1921 was a clear reproduction of an original tablet
made available, by C. J. Gadd. (See Pallis' "Chronology of the Shub-Ad
Culture", page 309.) The evidence was clear. The scribe had indeed
added
22 years too many! Or had he?
The mistaken figure was presumably that of king Damiq-ilishu. But
why should his reign be shortened 22 years? Could it be that the
missing 22 years were the same 22 years which had elapsed in the reign
of Damiq-ilishu of Isin at the time of the conquest of Isin by
Sin-muballit of Babylon? Was Damiq-ilishu of Isin the same man as
Damiq-ilishu of the Sealand?
Indeed! And the restoration of Mesopotamian history when completed
will confirm it.
Damiq-ilishu was king of both Isin and the Sealand. The scribe

recorded in the Sealand Dynasty only those years of his reign which
elapsed after Isin ceased to be independent. Isin, it will be
remembered, was reduced to submission in year 22 of Damiq-ilishu by
Babylon. Though Damiq-ilishu contained at Isin one more year -- his
23rd -- it was included in the reckoning of the Sealand because the
king was independent only in the Sealand, not at Isin.
Following are the kings of the Sealand (excluding the first two,
which will be discussed immediately after).
First Dynasty of
the Sealand

Lengths of Reign

Damiq-ilishu (before &

(First 22 years)
after Sin-muballit's
conquest of Isin)
16

Dates
(1098-1076)
1076-1060

Ishkibal

15

1060-1045

Shushshi

24

1045-1021

Gulishar

55

1021- 966

Pesgaldaramash

50

966- 916

Aidarakalamma

28

916- 888

Ekurulanna

26

888- 862

Melamkurkurra

862- 855

Ea-gamil

855- 846

Some transcribers have 26 years for Shushshi, but see Pallis'

summary regarding the clear reading of 24 years.
In 846 the Dynasty of the Sealand was overthrown by the Kassites
in a famous war that involved Assyria and other Mesopotamian powers.
In the king list appears a vague notation after Gulishar. Its
implication is that another king reigned at the same time as
Pesgaldaramash. Who was that other king?
Listed before Damiq-ilishu in the Sealand Dynasty are two Kings of
another branch of the royal house. Their reigns may readily be dated
from synchronisms with the First Dynasty of Babylon. Van der Meer's
study (page 21 of "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia", second edition)
proves that the first of these two kings, Iluma-ilum, came to power in
the year 14 of Samsu-iluna of Babylon. That is 1016-1015 (See the chart
giving "year-name" sequence). Iluma-ilum reigned 60 years -- 1016-956.
He was succeeded by the second in the king list: Itti-ili-nibi, who
reigned for 56 years -- 956-900.
Little else is known of the Sealand other than these royal names.
Nebuchadnezzar the First
The end of the First Dynasty of Babylon in 879 brought to
prominence a new line of kings from the city of Isin. One of its kings
is the famous Nebuchadnezzar I, a predecessor of the Nebuchadnezzar of
the Bible. The new Isin royalty is often referred to as the Pashe

Dynasty. It exercised its government both from its native city and from
the city of Babylon. At that time in history Babylon played a role in
Mesopotamia similar to the role of Thebes in Egypt. Both cities had
become the political and religious capitals of their respective
regions.
It has been too long assumed by historians that the Second Dynasty
of Isin followed the Kassite rule in Mesopotamia. It did not. It was
contemporary with it. The kings of Isin record several wars with the
Kassites. Nebuchadnezzar I attained the epithet "destroyer of the
Kassites" consequent to his wars with them. Who the Kassites were will
be discussed in the next chapter of this Compendium.
The most thorough discussion of the new royal house at Isin is
found in the University of Chicago Press publication: "Second Dynasty
of Isin according to a New King List Tablet," by Arno Poebel.
The Dynasty of Pashe or Isin II appears in chart form thus:
Names of Kings
or Isin II

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Marduk-kabit-ahheshu

18

879-861

Itti-marduk-balatsu

861-853

Ninutar-nadin-shumi

853-847

Nebu-kudur-uzur (or
Nebuchadnezzar I)

22

847-825

Enlil-nadin-apli

825-821

Marduk-nadin-ahhe

18

821-803

Marduk-zapik-zeri

13

803-790

Adad-apal-iddin

22

790-768

Marduk- . .

768-767

Marduk- . .

12

767-755

755-747

Nabu-sum-libur

The names of two of the kings are partly broken away in the most
complete tablet. But they may be restored by other records to be
discussed later.
Era of Nabonassar
At this point the history of ancient Babylonia is correct. Through
all succeeding centuries the reigns after 747 have been known and
available to the public. The year 747 marks the beginning of the "Era
of Nabonassar" -- named after the first of a new series of kings,
native and foreign, who ruled at Babylon. The ancestors of Nabonassar
are broken away in the king lists.
The classic account of these later kings has always been, since
its writing, the Canon of Ptolemy. In early days the Babylonian

Chronicle, unearthed through archaeological expeditions, contained the

same information -- only in more detail. For those who do not have
ready access to the Canon of Ptolemy for the Era of Nabonassar the
following list is provided. The Greek spellings of Ptolemy are not used
as generally the Babylonian names find complete acceptance with
scholars. A list of the kings is available in "The Mysterious Numbers
of the Hebrew Kings", by Edwin R. Thiele, page 293.
Kings of Babylon from
the Era of Nabonassar
to the Persian Conquest

Lengths of Reign

Nabonassar

Dates

14

747-733

Nabu-nadinzir

733-731

Ukinzer and Pulu (Tiglathpilerer III)

731-726

Ululai (Shalmaneser V)

726-721

12

721-709

709-704

Marduk-appal-iddin (Mero
dach-baladan)
Sargon

Two kingless years

704-702

Bel-ibni

702-699

Assur-nadin-shum

699-693

Nergal-ushezib

693-692

Mushezib-Marduk

692-688

Eight kingless years

688-680

Assur-akh-iddin

13

680-667

Shamash-shum-ukin

20

667-647

Kandalanu

22

647-625

Nabopolassar

21

625-604

Nebuchadnezzar

43

604-561

Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach)

561-559

Nergal-shar-usur

559-555

17

555-538

Nabonidus (father of Belshazzar)

Babylon fell to the Persian and Median armies at an annual

festival -- a new moon -- in the seventh month in year 17 of Nabonidus
(539). But the calendar year continued to the beginning of spring in

538. The succeeding kings of Babylonia were the Persian rulers, whose
reigns are commonly available. The finest summary of the period after
the fall of Babylon is "Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75", by
Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein.
Three Succeeding Dynasties
Though the Second Isin Dynasty was succeeded at Babylon by king
Nabonassar in 747, the king lists add three other short dynasties
immediately after the Isin Dynasty. These ruled to 700, the year of the
great Median rebellion against Assyria, recorded by Herodotus. These
three short dynasties are listed next.
Second Dynasty of
the Sealand
Simmash-Shipak

Lengths of Reign
18

Ea-mukin-shumi

5 months

Kashshu-nadin-ahhe

Dates
747-729
729
729-726

In 726 the Second Sealand Dynasty was displaced by kings from the
House of Bazu.
Kings of Dynasty
of Bazu

Lengths of Reign

Dates

E-ulmash-shakin-shumi

17

726-709

Ninurta-Kudurri-usur

709-706

Shiriktum-Shukamuna

3 months

706

The year 706 witnessed an Elamite incursion into the land of

Akkad, an event which ultimately made possible the rebellion of the
Medes (in 700) against their Assyrian overlords. The "Elamite Dynasty",
the seventh to exercise authority at Babylon, was composed of one king:
Marbiti-apal-usur. He reigned for 6 years 706-700.
With this the history of Southern Mesopotamia is restored, except
for the Kassite kings of Karduniash. This line of kings cannot be
placed until the history of Assyria is presented.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN
History of Assyria
In earlier days of critical study scholars were enamored of
Egyptian history. Everything in the Bible was made to conform to the
latest interpretation of Egyptologists. As with all fads, it wore thin.
Then came an abundance of new material from Mesopotamia. Assyria
proved particularly rich. In its buried palaces and libraries were
unearthed long lists of Assyrian kings and of officials who gave their
names to each succeeding calendar year. These lists were assumed to be
consecutive. That is, one Assyrian dynasty was thought to have followed
another in orderly succession for century after century. This careless
interpretation of Assyrian history was a consequence of German
Rationalism. If the scholars even once admitted the lists to be of
parallel dynasties, they knew they would have to turn to some other
source in order to assemble the dynasties correctly. That meant to the
Bible, the only complete written record of the ancient world. That they
would not do.
Instead, they contrived to reject the historicity and authority of
Scripture. As always they found a way to justify their interpretation
of the Assyrian dynastic lists. In the Assyrian "limmu" lists -- lists
of officials who held an office comparable to Greek "eponyms" -- there
was found a reference to a summer solar eclipse. It was dated to the
"limmu" year of Bur-Sagale. As the lists were drawn up in successive
order by the Assyrian scribes, this "limmu" year appeared to fall in
763. In that year, astronomers assured the historians, there was indeed
a solar eclipse that could have been seen in Assyria. That
pronouncement was deemed all-sufficient. Assyrian chronology -- as
interpreted by modern scholars -- henceforth became the standard of the
world. Where the Bible history did not agree with it, the Bible was
arbitrarily rejected. Josephus contradicted the new interpretation. Out
went Josephus.
Only one little flaw in the historians' conclusions. The
astronomers' evidence they accepted would be valid only if the "limmu"
lists were themselves correct. What astronomers overlooked is this.
They assumed that the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale was 763, when an
eclipse did occur. They overlooked the fact that the "limmu" list was
not drawn up until more than a century after 763. And that what really
happened is that the eclipse of the year 763 was arbitrarily assigned
to the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale who really held office 124 years
later. The scribes who added the astronomical datum to the "limmu" year
of Bur-Sagale did so to make this historical record appear confirmed by
astronomy, when, in fact, it was not.
The Bible records a more outstanding astronomical event than the
solar eclipse of 763. This event occurred in 710 during the reign of
Hezekiah. By a divine act the sun was seen in the heavens to return ten
degrees in the direction in which it had arisen (Isaiah 38:8).
Egyptians, too, were startled by it. Their priests, who kept the
records, informed Herodotus that their history preserved an account in
which the sun was seen to set that morning at the place where it was
wont to rise!
Ancient Peruvians, too, observed a drastic change in the heavenly
movements about Hezekiah's time. See volume II of the Compendium for
Yahuar Huquiz, Peruvian contemporary of Hezekiah.

Later Assyrian Kings

It is now possible to restore Assyrian history to its original
form.
In 745 a new dynasty sat upon the Assyrian throne in Nineveh. It
commenced with Tiglath-pileser III. This dynasty existed to the
collapse of Assyria in 612. It is correctly dated in all modern history
books. The original account of it is found in the Babylonian Chronicle
and confirmed by Ptolemy's Canon of Babylonian kings.
Tiglath-pileser III came to power in April of 745. The "limmu"
lists designate this as his accession year, but he claimed it as his
first year. Altogether he reigned 19 years. He is listed below with his
successors.
Dynasty of Tiglathpileser III at Nineveh

Lengths of Reign

Tiglath-pileser (III)

Dates

19

745-726

726-721

Sargon

17

721-704

Sennacherib

23

704-681

Essarhaddon

13

681-668

Assur-banipal

42

668-626

Assur-etililani

626-622

Sin-sarra-ishkun

10

622-612

612-608

Shalmaneser (V)

Assur-uballit (II) -- reigned

in Haran after fall of Nineveh,
in 612, then disappears from
history.

Who Was Shalmaneser?

Almost everyone has assumed that Shalmaneser V, whose
inconsequential reign extended from 726-721, is the Shalmaneser of the
Bible who besieged Samaria. But how, one might ask, could Shalmaneser
V, who died late in 722 (in the last year of his reign), execute a
three-year siege of Samaria in 721-718 after he was dead? And then wage
war against Tyre, including a five-year siege of the famous emporium,
as Josephus records? ("Antiquities", book IX, chap. 14.) Shalmaneser V
accomplished neither of these two deeds! But the Assyrian records do
reveal a Shalmaneser who did accomplish both!
Who was this Shalmaneser?
Surprising though it may appear, the Shalmaneser of the Biblical
record -- and of Josephus -- is Shalmaneser "the Great" or the III.
Ever since archaeology became a fad -- as well as a science -- scholars
have assumed that Shalmaneser "the Great" was a contemporary of
Israel's king Ahab and of king Jehu. They had no proof of it. They

merely wanted to believe it.

The dates in the Assyrian annals were 40 years too low for the
reign of Ahab (914-892) It was impossible to reconcile the Assyrian
records as understood by the critics with the Bible. It was much easier
to strip away about 40 years from the Biblical record and make it
conform to the assumed date of Shalmaneser III. Thus the end of
Solomon's reign was changed from 971 to about 930 by historians.
But, ask the critics, did not Shalmaneser III refer to an Ahab of
Israel and to a Jehu son of Omri in his monuments? Indeed he did! But
once again the historians have had recourse to deception. The Jehu of
the Bible is "the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi" (II Kings 9:2).
The Jehu of the Assyrian records is another person -- the son of Omri!
Two different people. How did the scholars resolve this dilemma? They
concluded the Assyrians did not know what they were writing about!
Furthermore, not one word is in the Bible that Jehu ever paid
tribute to any Assyrian king. Assyria is not so much as mentioned in
his reign. Who the Jehu of the Assyrian records is will be revealed
shortly.
But what of Ahab? In the Assyrian account this king of Israel is
allied with the Arameans against the Assyrians. He contributed a
contingent of troops to fight against Shalmaneser III at Karkar near
the Euphrates. The Arameans and their allies were routed. Shalmaneser,
follows up the victory by the conquest of Syria and Phoenicia and
neighboring nations. (See Shalmaneser's annals in Pritchard's "Ancient
Near Eastern Texts".)
Does this political situation conform to the era of the Ahab of
the Bible?
Certainly not! The Ahab of Scripture fought many battles with the
Arameans, none with the Assyrians. Aram (Syria), in Ahab's day, was a
powerful confederation. There is not the slightest Biblical indication
that any Aramean king was the least concerned over Assyrian expansion.
Nor is there any shred of evidence that Ahab, the son of Omri, ever
sent troops to Aram to defend the eastern Mediterranean lands against
Assyrian incursions at the time of his death.
Modern historians mistakenly place the death of Ahab in 853 -- the
supposed year of the battle of Karkar. In the Biblical history Ahab
died fighting the Arameans, not as an ally of the Arameans at Karkar
against the Assyrians!
Who then is the "Ahab of Israel" mentioned by Shalmaneser "the
Great" in his monuments? And at what period were Israel and Aram allied
against Assyria?
The last question first. II Kings 16 unveils the answer. Israel
and Aram (Syria) were allied shortly before the fall of Samaria! Rezin
king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel united to attack Judah. In
defense the Jews sought the assistance of the Assyrians who attacked
Aram first, then later Israel.
But who was "Ahab of Israel"? The answer again is found in
Scripture. II Kings 15:30 reveals that Hoshea made a conspiracy against
Pekah, king of Israel, slew him and reigned in his stead. This occurred
in the autumn of 737, the fourth year of Ahaz or twentieth of Jotham.
Yet later, the Bible records Hoshea again returning to the throne, this
time in the summer of 728, near the end of the twelfth year of Ahaz (II
Kings 17:1). Tiglathpileser (III) records in his monuments that Hoshea
has been deposed and that he had restored him to power.
About nine years occurred between Hoshea's seizure of the throne
and his restoration. Who was king during those years? The Bible does
not reveal the answer -- but the Assyrian records do! The king was Ahab

II, who perished in his wars with Assyria.

In his year 14 -- 722-721, spring-to-spring reckoning -- king
Shalmaneser III sent 120,000 troops across the Euphrates to crush a
revolt, which had suddenly developed along the shores of the Eastern
Mediterranean. His attack met with brilliant success. The next three
years are silent in Shalmaneser's annals.
No record has been preserved. Then, in year 18 -- 718-717 -Shalmaneser receives tribute from "Jehu, son of Omri." The three
intervening years (721-718) were those of the siege. When the war was
over, the Assyrian reorganized Palestine into an Assyrian province and
appointed Jehu, son of Omri, to administer Assyrian affairs temporarily
in the land of Israel! Nebuchadnezzar treated the Jews in similar
fashion when he appointed Gedaliah temporarily to supervise Babylonian
affairs in Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 40:5).
It is now possible to date the Calah Dynasty of Assyrian kings
from the reign of Shalmaneser "the Great" to the revolt at Calah in
622-621. Calah, a suburb of Nineveh, was one of the three capitals of
the late Assyrian Empire. It was also called Nimrud. (See page 53 of
"Chronicles of Chaldean Kings", by D. J. Wiseman.)
Names of Assyrian
Kings at Calah

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Shalmaneser "the Great" (III)

35

735-700

Shamshi-Adad (V), whose queen

Semiramis (III), exercised
great authority for 42 years
-- 699-657

13

700-687

Adad-nirari (III)

28

687-659

Shalmaneser (IV)

10

659-649

Assurdan (III)

18

649-631

Assur-nerari (V)

10

631-621

Observe the exact parallel between these dates and the collapse of
the Assyrian Empire. The last six years of Shalmaneser III's reign are
the years 706-700. These years are each marked by the word "revolt" in
the "limmu" canon. They are the six years of the incursion of the
Elamite king Marbiti-alap-usur -- 706-700.
During the reigns of the last three kings in Calah (659-621) the
Assyrian Empire gradually disintegrated. Plagues ravaged the homeland.
Revolt flared throughout the length and breadth of the Empire. Then a
final revolt in Calah in the last year of Assur-nirari V brought the
downfall of the dynasty in the calendar year 622-621. This is the very
year that the Babylonian Canon records a revolt and a great victory
over the Assyrian army.
For details, compare the "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings", by
Wiseman, with the corresponding "limmu" canons on pages 288-290 in
Thiele's "Mysterous Numbers of the Hebrew Kings". Remember that Thiele
misdates the reigns of Shalmaneser III and his successors 124 years too
early:
Predecessors of Shalmaneser III

In the Assyrian Canon are listed 20 predecessors of Shalmaneser

III who reigned altogether 323 years. These kings are usually dated
about 124 years too early in most books because the dynasty is made to
end about 745 instead of 621!
The following chart lists these 20 kings from the beginning of the
dynasty through the reign of Shalmaneser III. (The cumbersome spelling
of "Ashshur" is reduced to the simple Assur in this list.)
Names of Kings of
The Calah Line
Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of
Ilu-ihadda, seized the throne
Assur-dan (I)
Ninurta-tukulti-Assur

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1058-1055

46

1055-1009

reigned for
a "bab tuppisu",
that is, for
part of the
remaining
official year

Mutakkil-Nusku, his brother,

fought with him, held the
throne, then died.

calendar
year
1010-1009

1009

Assur-resh-isshi (II)

18

1009-991

Tukulti-apil-Esarra
(Tiglath-pileser I)

39

991-952

952-950

Assur-bel-kala

18

950-932

Eriba-Adad (II)

932-930

Shamshi-Adad (IV), son of

Tiglath-pileser (I), deposed
Eriba-Adad, seized throne

930-926

Assur-nasir-apli (I)

19

926-907

Shulmanu-asarid
(Shalmaneser II)

12

907-895

Assur-nirari (IV)

895-889

41

889-848

Assur-resh-ishi (II)

848-843

Tukulti-apil-Esharra
(Tiglath-pileser II)

32

843-811

Asarid-apil-Ekur

Assur-rabi (II)

Assur-dan (II)

23

811-788

Adad-nirari (II)

21

788-767

Tukulti-Ninurta (II)

767-760

Assur-nasir-apli (II)

25

760-735

Shulmanu-asarid
(Shalmaneser III -- "the Great")

35

735-700

Of these kings it is known that Assur-reshishi II was a

contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar I of Isin, and that Tiglath-pileser II
of Marduk-nadin-ahhe of Isin. Van der Meer and most other historians
mistakenly assumed Assur-resh-ishi I and Tiglath-pileser I were the
contemporaries. This error arose when the Assyrians drew up in two
opposite columns the kings of Assyria and the kings of Babylonia. Kings
which were not contemporary were made to appear so, and those who were
contemporary appeared not to be.
A similar error occurred when the late kings counted the years
between themselves and their ancestors. Kings who lived no more than
200 years earlier, for example, were recorded to have lived perhaps 500
or 600 or more years previous. The cause of this kind of error is
readily determined. The king lists were drawn up with the kings of the
city Assur listed first, then the kings of Calah followed by Nineveh.
This naturally placed the rulers of Assur, who were contemporary with
those of Calah, centuries too early and centuries apart. These errors
did not, however, completely obscure the known total length of time
that had elapsed since Babel. But the contradictory statements of
elapsed time between any two kings led later scholars in the Greek and
Roman world into confusion. Van der Meer sums up these supposed
durations of time between early and late Assyrian kings by saying: "The
statements of Esserhaddon and Salmanasser also fail to agree with one
another"; and "hence all the statements which we have from Nabonaid are
incorrect" (pages 36, 35 of "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and
Egypt").
King Pul and the Bible
This dynasty provides a clue to the ancestry of Tiglath-pileser
III, who ascended a separate dynastic throne in 745. Tiglath-pileser
III named "Adad-nirari" as his father. This is Adad-nirari II -788-767. Upon the death of the father the direct line of descent passed
to Tukulti-Ninurta II. But the throne was shared with Tiglath-pileser,
who, at that time, had the personal name of Pul, which he also later
used when he ascended the throne of Babylon in 729.
In his later annals Tiglath-pileser refers to kings Uzziah of
Judah and to Menahem of Israel. As both of these rulers were dead
several years before 745, historians assume that the Bible is woefully
in error. It never occurred to them to verify how many years elapsed
between the death of Adad-nirari and 745, years in which the young Pul
might have been ruling jointly with an older brother.
In the Bible the name "Pul" refers to those early years, and
"Tiglath-pileser" or "Tilgath-pilneser" to the later independent reign
beginning in 745. See II Kings 15:19 and 29. Also I chronicles 5:26,

which should be translated: "And the God of Israel stirred up the

spirit of Pul king of Assyria, EVEN the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king
of Assyria, and HE carried them (Israel) away."
Historians generally have been unwilling to recognize the
possibility of joint reigns among Assyrian kings. Yet their own
discoveries prove it. Events which Shalmaneser III dates as years 11
and 18 in his annals are dated to years 14 and 21 on the Black Obelisk
(page 280 of Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts"). He therefore
reigned 3 years jointly with his predecessor. Similarly, Sennacherib
was king of Assyria in year 14 of Hezekiah -- 711-710 (II Kings 18:13)
-- although he did not succeed his father until 704.
Tiglath-pileser I and Thutmose III
Another king in the Calah list is very significant -Tiglath-pileser I. His reign commences in 991, almost the exact
midpoint of Solomon's reign. Tiglath-pileser wrote in his annals that
he beheaded the kings of Meshech at that time. "In the beginning of my
reign, twenty thousand men of the land of Mushki and their five kings,
who for fifty years had held the lands of Alzi and Purukuzzi, which (in
former times) had paid tribute and tax unto Assur, my lord, and no king
had vanquished them in battle," he beheaded. ("Ancient Records of
Assyria and Babylonia", by Daniel David Luckenbill, vol. I, page 74.)
What is the significance of the 50 years from 1041 to 991 when
Tiglath-pileser I defeated Meshech (Musku)? In year 32 of Hammurabi
(1041-1040) he and his allies defeated Assyria and annexed it to his
expanding realm! (See Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western
Asia", page 30.) It was exactly 50 years between Hammurabi's victory
and Assyria's return to power.
In the latter days of Tiglath-pileser I's reign Assyria was again
defeated and conquered. who was the conqueror? Thutmose III! In his
annals Thutmose recorded receipt of tribute from Assur. "The tribute of
the chief of Assur" (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. II, sec. 446).
In conclusion. The first king of the Calah line -Ninurta-apil-Ekur -- began his sole rule in 1058 (near the end of the
reign of King Saul of Israel). The SDAS King List assigns a 13-year
reign to him, implying a 10-year joint rule with a predecessor. Who
were the kings that ruled Assyria before the Calah line came to power?
The next chapter will answer!

CHAPTER FOURTEEN
History of Assyria Concluded
The history of Assyria differs greatly from the history of
Babylonia. Babylonia was divided into numerous semi-independent regions
and city-states. Its dynasties were usually shortlived. Assyria, by
contrast, had unusually centralized government. Not more than two or
three royal families dominated the life of the Empire for generations.
Historians today assume that these contemporaneous dynasties
succeeded one another. They place the kings of the city of Assur -- the
Ellasar of the Bible -- immediately before the kings of Calah and
Nineveh. Their assumption is based on the fact that the Dynasty of
Assur is listed immediately before the kings of Calah. As in all the
royal canons, the order in which dynasties appear does not prove they
were necessarily successive. It indicates only that one line of kings
may have begun earlier than another. This fact is admitted for much of
early Babylonia, but adamently denied -- without proof -- when it comes
to late Babylonian and Assyrian history.
The kings of the city Assur were contemporary with Dynasties XVIII
and XIX of Egypt. Hence they, too, must have ruled during the time of
the kings of Israel and Judah -- not in the time of the judges!
Numerous letters of correspondence have been found in El-Amarneh,
Egypt, that passed between these Assyrian kings and those of the
Egyptian Empire. The Dynasty of Assur thus constituted a third
contemporary royal line ruling Assyria from the twelfth to the seventh
century before the present era.
The following chart restores to their proper dates the Assur kings
from Enlil-Nasir II to Enlil-kudur-usur, the last king of the city
Assur.
Names of Kings
of the City Assur

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(two preceding numbers lost)

Enlil-nasir (II) deposed
his brother

930-924

Assur-nirari (II)

924-917

Assur-bel-nisheshu

917-908

Assur-rim-nisheshu

908-900

Assur-nadin-ahhe (II)

10

900-890

Eriba-Adad (I), son of

Assur-bel-nisheshu

27

890-863

Assur-uballit (I)

36

863-827

Enlil-nirari

10

827-817

Arik-den-ili

12

817-805

Adad-nirari (I), brother of

Arik-den-ili

32

805-773

Shulmanu-asarid
(Shalmaneser I)

30

773-743

Tukulti-Ninurta (I)

37

743-706

4 or 3

707-703
706-703

Assur-nirari (III), son

of Assur-nasir-apli

703-697

Enlil-kudur-usur, son of
Tukulti-Ninurta (I)

697-692

While Tukulti-Ninurta lived,

Assur-nadin-apli, his son,
seized the throne

The "Cambridge Ancient History" or any other reputable source will

provide the information linking the reigns of these kings with their
contemporaries in Egypt. The exact dates are determined as follows.
Assur-uballit I was a contemporary of Akhenaton and Tutankhamen, and
corresponded with both. In 930 a revolt occurred in the Calah line. In
the preceding chart a revolt in 930 brought Enlil-nasir II to the
throne. The line ceased in 692 when the last king was killed in a
battle with the Kassites in Babylonia. The year 692 witnessed a great
war in Babylonia which also involved Sennacherib, an Assyrian king of
Nineveh (see the account in his annals).
The Kassite Dynasty
The Kassite Dynasty in the King List was inserted by the ancient
scribes after Dynasty I of the Sealand and before Dynasty II of Isin
(the Pashe Dynasty). This position proves only that it began after ,the
Sealand Dynasty (1098), but before Dynasty II of Isin (879). It is
known to have been contemporary with both these royal families, as well
as the line of Hammurabi. Its kings ruled over Karduniash, a territory
bordering on Babylon and the Sealand.
The last king of the Assur dynasty of Assyria -- Enlil-kudur-usur
-- died in the same battle in which a Kassite king fell. The year was
692. From this event the list of Kassite rulers of Southern Mesopotamia
can be dated consecutively back to 845. Prior to that point the names
and dates are broken away. A few contemporary tablets supply the
missing names almost in entirety, but they cannot be dated.

Names of Kassite
Rulers from 845-692

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Nazi-bugash comes to power during struggle in 846 when Kassites

overthrow Eagamil of the First Dynasty of the Sealand.
Kurigalzu (the younger)

25

845-820

Nazi-maruttash

26

820-794

Kadashman-turgu

18

794-776

Kadashman-harbe

11

776-765

9
(or 6)

765-756
(765-759)

Kudur-enlil

During the three years from 759-756 two other Kassite kings
(listed next) came to the throne who were not sons of Kudur-enlil.
Enlil-nadin-shumi
Kadashman-harbe

1 1/2
1 1/2

759-756

They were succeeded by

Adad-nadin-shumi

756-750

Thereafter the royal line of Kudur-enlil was restored.

Shagarakti-shuriash, son of
Kudur-enlil
Kashtiliash, son of
Shagarakti-shuriash

13

750-737

737-729

At this point there occurs a break in the history of the Kassite

Dynasty. Tukulti-ninurta I occupied Babylon for seven years -- 729-722.
(observe that 729 is also the year that Tiglathpileser III "took the
hands of Bel" and became king of Babylon.) An inscription of
Tukulti-Ninurta I on a building informs us: "... I made ready to do
battle with Kashtiliash, king of Karduniash, and brought about the
overthrow of his host. His warriors I slew. In that encounter I took
Kashtiliash prisoner. I trod upon his royal neck as on a footstool,
naked and in bonds brought I him before Asshur my lord, Sumer and Akkad
in their whole extent I brought under my power." Another document
reads: "The defeat of Kashtiliash .... Tukulti-Ninurta turned back to
Babylon ... he drew near, he wasted the wall of Babylon, he destroyed
the Babylonians .... He set his governors over Karduniash. For seven
years Tukulti-Ninurta ruled over Karduniash, thereafter the great ones
of Akkad and Karduniash arose and made Adad-shumuli-nasir to sit upon
his father's throne" (see pages 13-14 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of
Ancient Western Asia").
Adad-shumuli-nasir

30

722-692

The period from Kudur-enlil to Adad-shumuli-nasir has not been

properly understood by any modern authors. Van der Meer espouses one
view; M. B. Rowton another in the "Revised Cambridge Ancient History",
Vol. I, ch. IV. The Assyrian record proves that no Kassite rulers
succeeded Kashtiliash until the reign of Adad-shumuli-nasir. Therefore
the only place for the reigns of Enlil-nadin-shumi, Kadashman-harbe and
Adad-nadin-shumi was at some previous period. Where that period
occurred is revealed by the otherwise inexplicable difference in the
length of reign of Kudur-enlil -- 6 or 9 years. The Kassite king list
does not place them in the actual order of their rule. It places the
son and grandson of Kudur-enlil first because the scribe who drew up

the document presented the kings in their blood relationship. His list
of kings was not intended to be successive.
After the year 692 four more Kassite kings came to the throne.
They are as follows:
Kassites from 692-660

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Melishipak

15

692-677

Marduk-aplaiddin, his son

13

677-664

Zababa-shumiddin

664-663

Ellil-nadin-ahhe

663-660

In 660 the Kassites -- Cushites from the east -- were overthrown

in an Assyrian attack that carried Assyrian arms to the River Indus!
The Earliest Kassites
The Kassite kings make their first appearance in Southern Mesopotamia
in year 8 of Samsu-iluna, son of Hammurabi. The event is commemorated
in the "year-name" of year 9: "Year in which Samsu-iluna the king
(defeated) the host of the Kassites." Year 8 is 1022-1021. (See p. 23
of Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia".) The first
Kassite kings are listed below:
Names of First
Kassite Kings
Gandhe (or Gandash)
Agum the First, son of Gandhe
Kashtiliash I
Ushshi

Lengths of Reign
16

Dates
1022-1006

12
(or 22)

1006-994
1006-984

22

984-962

962-954

Though succeeding names are known, the years of reign are broken
away.
Now consider Agum I, who is variously assigned 12 or 22 years. Who
was his contemporary after 12 years of reign? Here is the answer. The
great-grandfather of the Assyrian king Enlilnasir II (930-924) was
Puzur-Assur. The dates of Puzur-Assur's reign have not yet been
presented. (Later it will be demonstrated that they fell from 994-980.)
A contemporary of Puzur-Aggur III was the Kassite king Burnaburiash. A
document naming them both reads: "Puzur-Assur, king of Assur, and
Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash, took oath, they established the
border of that region." (Page 19 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of
Ancient Western Asia", second edition.)
This Burnaburiash (probably an older brother of Kashtiliash I) was
contemporary with the Kassite kings Agum I and Kashtiliash I. His reign
must have begun in 994.
For the 109 years between Ushshi (962-954) and Kurigalzu the
Younger (845-820) only a bare outline of Kassite names is preserved. By

a comparison with Egyptian and Assyrian and Babylonian history the

Kassites can be associated with their contemporaries, though it is not
always possible to determine which Kassite rulers were brothers, which
sons.
After Kashtiliash I (984-962) some lists place either Ushshi or
Abirattash (who were apparently brothers). After Abirattash come either
Kashtiliash II or Tazzigurumash (again probably older and younger sons
of Abirattash). Inheritance of the Kassite line was passed first to
brothers, then to sons.
Following Tazzigurumash were Harbashipak, Tiptakzi and Agum II
Kakrime, probably all brothers, since Agum II is known to be a son of
Tazzigurumash. Agum II overthrew Babylon in 879, bringing to an end the
First Dynasty of Babylon. (page 22 of Van der Meer's "Chronolgy of
Ancient Western Asia"). No lineal descendants of Agum II are known.
Agum II is the fifth generation after Gandhe in about a century and a
quarter.
The successor of Agum II was Burnaburiash II, who descended from a
different line of Kassite kings. Burnaburiash II's long reign began in
the closing years of the life of Amenhotpe III of Egypt and extended to
the early years of Tut-ankhamen. (p. 17 of Van der Meer's publication).
Burnaburiash's father was Kurigalzu I, a contemporary of Amenhotpe III.
The two previous generations were Kadashman-harbe I and Karaindash I.
Karaindash I, near the close of his life signed a treaty with
Assur-bel-nisheshu (917-908). He also gave his daughter (a sister of
Kadashman-harbe I) to Amen-hotpe III. Karaindash I was therefore of the
generation of Thutmose IV of Egypt. The ancestry of Karaindash is not
yet recovered. He may have been a descendant of Ushshi, brother of
Abirattash.
Burnaburiash II had three sons: Karaindash II, Ulamburiash and
Kashtiliash III. Ulamburiash defeated Eagamil and conquered the Sealand
in 846. Some years later the Sealand had to be reconquered by Agum III,
a son of Kashtiliash III in a war which involved Nebuchadnezzar I, the
king of Isin (847-825).
A third son of Burnaburiash II was Karaindash II, who married the
daughter of Assur-uballit of Assyria. Their son was Kadashman-harbe II
(who was also named Karahardash in the Assyrian record). A rebellion
broke out against Kadashman-harbe II. He was slain and a usurper, known
by the names of Suzigash or Nazi-bugash, seized the throne. To avenge
his grandson, Assuruballit (863-827) launched an attack on the Kassite
realm. Upon the defeat and death of Nazi-bugash the throne was restored
to Kurigalzu the Younger, a son of Kadashman-harbe II. This Kurigalzu
has already been dated from the Kassite list as ruler from 845-820.
Thus all 36 kings of the Kassites have been recovered from
contemporary documents. Their government in Mesopotamia and Sumer
extended from 1022-660, a period of 362 years. Because of numerous
joint reigns with brothers, nephews and sons the total assigned to the
Kassite kings in the King List is 576 years. There is no reason to
dispute this figure, as many scholars have recently done. A final note
of caution. None of the artificial lists of Kassite kings usually found
in history textbooks is correct.
The First 1000 Years of Assyrian History
The complete line of kings from the city Assur has not yet been
restored because the two predecessors of Enlil-nasir II have their
regnal years broken away in every tablet thus far discovered.

The key to these missing years lies in the early history of

Assyria preserved exclusively in classical Greek sources.
The Greek historian Ctesias copied out of the annals in the
Persian realm the ancient histories of Assyria and Media. Historians,
since the advent of archaeology, have cast aside his records as
worthless. They have found no evidence of the kings -- but then they
have found no written records of anything for that period. Mere lack of
knowledge does not disprove the traditional record of history.
In numerous cases the most important events of the past were
carefully copied each generation on perishable materials -- and later
preserved in the classical writers. Witness the history of the Hebrews.
The history of Palestine cannot be found on stone monuments or on clay
tablets. It is to be found only in the pages of a Book, the Bible.
The same is true of Assyria. The earliest ages have come down
through royal annals only in the pages of books. Archaeology had
nothing to say about the period other than confess its own ignorance!
The most complete evidence for the early Assyrian kings may be
found in "Fasti Hellenici the Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece",
by Henry Fynes Clinton, vol. I, p. 267. Additional works include John
Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities", vol. I, pp. 247-253. The
classical records in Greek and Latin are reproduced in Dr. Alfred
Schoene's "Eusebi Chronicorum", especially in the "Excerpta Latina
Barbari." Compare these with Dr. Rudolf Helm's "Die Chronik des
Hieronymus".
Ctesias begins his consecutive history with the last 38 years
(2006-1968) of the reign of Gilgamesh or Ninyas. Ninyas, it should be
remembered, was the Assyrian name for Gilgamesh; Horus was his
Egyptian. Ctesias does not preserve any record of the short period
following the 42-year reign of Semiramis I (the Egyptian Isis) to the
year 2006. This was the period of Median power in Babylonia.
In his History, Ctesias noted that the Assyrian power endured 1306
years before the time of the Median revolt. It was exactly 1306 years
between 2006 and 700, the year the Medes obtained their freedom from
the Assyrians -- only to lose it again to their own rulers!
In the following chart all significant variants in names and
figures are included.
Names of Assyrian Rulers
Preserved by Ctesias

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ninyas (Gilgamesh)

38

2006-1968

Arius (Arioch of Genesis 14)

30

1968-1938

(Note that the year 1938 also marked the death of Amraphel of Shinar,
according to the king list of Erech. Thus archaeological and classical
records confirm the date of Abram's slaughter of the kings as 1938.)
Aralius (Amyrus)

40

1938-1898

Xerxes (Balaeus)

30

1898-1868

Armamithres

38

1868-1830

Belochus

35

1830-1795

Balaeus

52

1795-1743

Sethos (Zaztagus, Altallus,

or Altadas)

35

1743-1708

Mamythus

30

1708-1678

Aschalius (Macchaleus)

30
(or 28)

1678-1648
(1678-1650)

Sphaerus

20
(or 22)

1648-1628
(1650-1628)

(The year 1650 marked a great Assyrian attempt to conquer India. The
battle was fought in the winter of 1650-1649. Assyrian losses, together
with those of their allies, were sufficient to change the balance of
power in Babylonia in 1649. See the history of Indian and early
Babylonia for that date.)
Mamylus

30

1628-1598

Sparaethus (Spartheus, or
Spareus)

42

1598-1556

Ascatades

38

1556-1518

Amyntes

45

1518-1473

Belochus

25

1473-1448

Attosa (Semiramis II)

23

1448-1425

Beletares
or
Belochus

34

1425-1391

45

1473-1428

1428-1421

30

1421-1391

Attosa (Semiramis II)

Beletares

(With Semiramis II the direct male line ceases. Beletares, the keeper
of the royal gardens, comes to the throne, possibly through
intermarriage with an heir of royal line.)
Lamprides

32

1391-1359

Sosares

20

1359-1339

Lampares

30

1339-1309

Panyas

45
(or 42)

1309-1264
(1309-1267)

Sosarmus

19
(or 22)

1264-1245
(1267-1245)

Mithraeus

35

1245-1210

Teutamus (Assyrian King during

the First Trojan War)

32

1210-1178

Teutaeus

44

1178-1134

Thinaeus

30

1134-1104

Dercylus

40

1104-1064

Empacmes

38

1064-1026

Laosthenes

45

1026-981

Pertiades

30

981-951

Ophrataeus

21

951-930

Ephecheres
(Ophratanes)

52

930-878

Acraganes

42

878-836

Thonos Concolerus

20

836-816

In 816 the Medes end the Assyrian dynasty. The king at this time
was at his royal Palace at Rehoboth-Ir on the Euphrates (Genesis
36:37). A history of the Median kings who rode to prominence in 816
will be given in another section.
Analyzing the King List
Several unusual features, some not included in the preceding
chart, are worth special study.
First, consider king Sethos or Altadas (1743-1708). His reign,
according to Syncellus, extended over half a century -- 1758-1708. Why
did he come to the throne about 1758 during the reign of Balaeus?
Assyrian history is silent. But Egyptian history may reveal the answer.
This was the time of King Senwosre III (the Sesostris of classical
writers). Senwosre III had spent his first 19 years (1779-1760) in the
subjugation of Ethiopia (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. I). He then
set out to conquer all Asia. Manetho records that "in nine years he
subdued the whole of Asia (meaning Western Asia), and Europe as far as
Thrace." It is very probable that the year 1758 marks the conquest of
Assyria by the Egyptian Pharaoh and the beginning of a joint reign in
Assyria to stabilize the weakened monarchy.
In Eusebius' account of Ctesias only 32 years (1740-1708) are
assigned to Sethos or Altadas. As this king's reign is the only one in
the early part of the list to vary so unusually, this figure too must
have significance. As the sole reign of Senwosre III ended in 1741, it
may well be that the year 1740 points up the regaining of independence
from Egyptian overlordship.
Now consider the reigns of Sosarmus (1267-1245) and Mithraeus
(1245-1210). In the "Excerpta Barbara" king Sosarmus is assigned only
20 years (1267-1247). In Africanus his successor Mithraeus is given 37
years (1247-1210). What is especially significant is that Eusebius
assigns only 27 years to Mithraeus (1247-1220).

Eusebius' figure cuts the reign of Mithraeus short by 10 years.

What is the significance of his figure which ends the reign in 1220
instead of 1210? Herodotus answers the question! The year 1220 marks
the beginning of 520 years of Assyrian hegemony over Upper Asia, ending
in the year 700 at the Median revolt (Clio -- I, sect. 95).
The full significance of the year 1220 has not yet been exhausted.
Syncellus' account of Ctesias includes four otherwise unknown Assyrian
rulers who belong to a collateral dynasty. Their reigns total 162
years. No other writer includes them. Where should these kings be
placed? Syncellus provides a clue. He placed this short dynasty at its
midway point, opposite kings Teutaeus and Thinaeus. Its beginning would
therefore be about 1220. Observe the missing link in Assyrian history
when this short dynasty is properly placed beginning in 1220.
Contemporary Kings
of Assyria

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(Mithraeus)

27

1247-1220

Arabelus

42

1220-1178

Chalaus

45

1178-1133

Anebus

38

1133-1095

Babius (or Tautamus II)

37

1095-1058

(What occurred in 1058? The answer is in the next line!)

Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of
Ilu-ihadda, seized the throne

1058-1055,
etc.

From here on the kings of the Calah line continue until 621. Thus
the four kings of Syncellus provide the missing link that unites the
testimony of Herodotus with the list of Ctesias and the record of
archaeology!
To return to the history of Ctesias. For the three kings Teutamus,
Teutaeus and Thinaeus (1210-1104) several transcribers of Ctesias
provide shortened figures. Altogether, 6 years are deleted. Who came to
power during those six missing years? In chart form the three reigns
appear thus:
Teutamus

31
(6 missing years)

1210-1179
(1179-1173)

Teutaeus

40

1173-1133

Thinaeus

29

1133-1104

Did a new dynasty perhaps arise in the years 1179-1173? Was there
a king who ruled 6 years at this period in Assyrian history? Indeed.
These years witness the rise of the royal house of the city of Assur.
Its first king, Assur-dugul, reigned 6 years. In his sixth year -1174-1173 -- some kind of internal catastrophy hit the city, for six
kings came to the throne during the sixth and last year of Assur-dugul.
Was there a special event that befell Mesopotamia in the year
1174-1173?

The year 1174-1173 was the first year of king Sumu-abum of the
First Dynasty of Babylon: Heretofore no parallel event could account
for the sudden appearance of government at Babylon in 1174. A major
revolution in Assyria would have been necessary to allow a rival power
to rise in the city Babylon, which had had no political power since the
days of Nimrod.
With this period as a starting point it is now possible to
complete the list of kings of the city Assur and fill in the sum of the
two missing reigns.
Kings of the City Assur

Lengths of Reign

Assur-dugul, "son of a 'nobody'"

Dates
1179-1173

Assur-apla-idi, "son of a 'nobody'";

Nasir-Sin, "son of a 'nobody'":
Sin-namir, "son of a 'nobody'":
Ipqi-Istar, "son of a 'nobody'";
Adad-salulu, "son of a 'nobody'';

"together exercised
sovereignty for a
BAB TUPPISU", that
is, the remainder of
an official year

and Adasi, "son of a 'nobody'"

1174-1173
Belu-bani, son of Adasi

10

1173-1163

Libaiiu

17

1163-1146

Sarma-Adad (I)

12

1146-1134

En-tar-Sin, son of Sarma-Adad

12

1134-1122

Bazzaiiu, son of Belu-bani

28

1122-1094

1094-1088

14

1088-1074

1074-1071

13

1071-1058

1058-1052

Isme-Dasan, son of Samsi-Adad

16

1052-1036

Samsi-Adad, son of Isme-Dasan,

son of Su-Ninua

16

1036-1020

Assur-nerari, son of Isme-Dasan

26

1020- 994

Puzur-Assur, son of Assur-nerari

14

994- 980

Enlil-nasir, son of Puzur-Assur

13

980- 967

Lullaiiu, "son of a 'nobody"'

Su-Ninua, son of Bazzaiiu
Sarma-Adad, son of Su-Ninua
Erisu, son of Su-Ninua
Samsi-Adad, son of Erisu

Nur-ili, son of Enlil-nasir

Assur-saduni, son of Nur-ili
Assur-rabi (I), son of Enlil
nasir, deposed Assur-saduni,
and seized the throne

12
1 month

967- 955
955

---

---

(25)

(955-930)

Assur-nadin-ahhe (I), son of

Assur-rabi (I)

---

---

Enlil-nasir (II) deposed his

brother Assur-nadin-ahhe

930-924,
etc.

The lengths of the reigns of Assur-rabi and Assur-nadin-ahhe are

broken away on every document. But the preceding restoration of
contemporary history supplies the total length of the missing figures
-- 25 years (955-930) -- a very reasonable figure for the passage of
one generation. The reigns of Enlil-nasir and his successors to 692
have been presented in a former section.
With this chart the restoration of Assyrian history is complete
for all datable reigns.
The next chapter will connect the history of Media, India and
Japan with the Assyrian Empire and with famous Queen Semiramis III, the
thrice-born "Queen of Heaven."

CHAPTER FIFTEEN
Media, India, Japan and China
The wide conquests of the Assyrian Empire brought her into direct
contact with many nations dwelling within and beyond the confines of
the Middle East. Twice Assyria attempted to conquer India. Twice she
failed. Twice the Medes rose in successful revolt against the
Assyrians.
A people so far removed as the Japanese also trace their history
to a remarkable event in Assyrian history. Only the Chinese, of all
eastern people, remained relatively apart from the West.
The Revolts of the Medes
In one sense no restoration of the Median Empire is necessary.
Ctesias and Herodotus preserve accurately the chronological history of
the early Median tribes and of two distinct revolts. The modern
historian has created an artificial problem by rejecting the traditions
of both Ctesias and Herodotus. Why were they rejected? Because many of
the leading events surrounding the Medes' early rise to power were
absolutely supernatural. Take the classic example in Herodotus. At
least 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, the prophet Isaiah was
inspired by God to record the name of Cyrus as the future conqueror of
Babylon. The birth of Cyrus is narrated by Herodotus. The last Median
king, wrote Herodotus, had no son, only a daughter. During the
pregnancy of his daughter, Astyages was frightened by a dream in which
it was revealed that the child to be born of her was destined to
overthrow the grandfather and conquer the world. To thwart this portent
he contrived to have the child murdered. The official appointed to
accomplish the deed sublet the act to a shepherd whose wife has just
suffered the loss of a young baby boy. The dead infant was substituted
for the living infant Cyrus. Thus the young lad survived, eventually to
rule the world.
Historians view such an account as myth. By that they mean that
anything so unusual as the birth of Cyrus speaks of the intervention of
God whom they refuse to acknowledge. To rid themselves of His presence
and His intervention in history they must discount the writers who
recorded these events.
The history of Media is preserved by several early Greek and Roman
writers. Diodorus Siculus records in detail how the Medes successfully
overthrew the Assyrians in 816 -- the time of the prophet Jonah. One of
the royal Assyrian capitals at that time was at Rehoboth on the
Euphrates. There the Medes successfully attacked the person of the
king, Thonos Concolerus, also known as Sardanapallus, slew him and his
armed guards and razed the city. Only the repentance of the Ninevites
saved it from the Median ravages.
This was also the period of the extensive conquests of Seti I in
Asia.
The Median royalty which came to power in 816 was the line of
Darius the Mede. The Median kings who rose to power after the revolt in
700-699 were another and distinct line of Kings.
Here are the Median kings according to Ctesias' record from the
Persian archives.

House of Arbaces
Median Rings After
Overthrow of Assyrians
at Rehoboth

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Arbaces

28

816-788

His son Mandauces

20

788-768

Sosarmus

30

768-738

Artycas

30

738-708

Arbianes

22

708-686

Artaeus

40

686-646

Artynes

22

646-624

Astibaras

40

624-584

35
(or 38)

584-549
(584-546)

Aspadas (called Astyigas

or Astyages)

The successor of Aspadas was Darius the Mede, mentioned in Daniel

5:31 and 9:1. The Hebrews called Aspadas "Ahasuerus". The Greeks called
Darius the Mede Cyaxeres II.
Historians have completely misunderstood the events surrounding
the end of Median independence. The reason is this. There were two
Median kings reigning at the same time with the same name -- Astyages,
or similar spelling. One was grandfather of Cyrus the Persian; the
other, Aspadas called Astyigas, was father of Darius the Mede. Before
explaining any more details, it is necessary to introduce the second
Median royal house and the second Astyages.
In the year 700-699, following the death of Shalmaneser III, the
Medes successfully completed a second revolt against the Assyrians. Not
until this year were all the Medes completely free from Assyrian
dominion. Herodotus preserves the names of these Median kings who
ascended the throne in 699.
House of Deioces
Median Kings Following
Revolt in 700-699.

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Deioces

53

699-646

Phraortes

22

646-624

Cyaxeres I

40

624-584

Astyages, grandfather of Cyrus

35

584-549

Certain late Greek and Roman writers used figures other than those
given by Herodotus and Ctesias. The preceding are the original and true
figures. The variants may have risen from otherwise unknown events
occurring in the Median realm, or from joint reigns.
In 549 Astyages was overthrown by his grandson, Cyrus the Persian.

Cyrus had come to the Persian throne, which he shared with his father,
in the year 558. He reigned altogether 29 years (558-529).
The chronological evidence from Ctesias and Herodotus indicates
the last three kings of each Median line shared the throne jointly.
Each was succeeded by a son in 646, 624 and 584. An exception occurred
in the case of Astyages, son of Cyaxeres I. This man, declared
Herodotus, had no son, only a daughter. He ruled with a harsh hand. His
daughter he gave in marriage to the king of Persia, Cambyses, who
became the father of Cyrus. By contrast Josephus stated that Astyages
had a son -- Darius the Mede. Historians have -- for no justifiable
reason -- assumed the testimony of Josephus and Herodotus were
irreconcilable. A little thought would have made it plain that each
writer was discussing a different Astyages. Josephus, and Daniel too,
wrote of the Astyages or Aspadas who was of the house of Arbaces.
Herodotus' account was of Astyages of the house of Deioces.
The confederation of Persians and Medes, often stressed in the
Bible, resulted from a political union of the house of Arbaces, which
began in 816, with the young Persian monarch Cyrus. Cyrus could never
have come to power had there not been strife between the two Median
royal families.
Worthy of special note in the preceding charts is the date 584,
ending the reigns of both Cyaxeres and Astibaras. This was 28 years
after the overthrow of Nineveh (612) and marked the end of Scythian
dominion in ancient Upper Asia. Who those Scythians were will become
apparent in the study of Japanese history and the traditions of the
Parsees of India.
History of Early India
In 1956 a remarkable book on early India was published. Its title:
"The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya." The author, Dr. P. H. L.
Eggermont, resolved several difficult problems in early Indian
literature. His solutions are in complete harmony with the history of
Assyria.
Many of the enigmas in Indian history could long aso have been
resolved had the scholars RESPECTED the literary accounts preserved by
the early scribes and priests. The first step in the solution of early
Indian history began when Dr. Eggermont recognized the historicity of
India's earliest literary accounts. Too many scholars had arbitrarily
rejected or altered them.
Dr. Eggermont's book does not include later problems in Indian
history. As these difficulties have no direct bearing on the
authenticity of Biblical history they are also excluded from this
compendium. Only the history to the time of King Asoka is presented
here.
True Indian history begins with the famous battle of Kuruksetra in
the winter of 1650-1649. At the winter solstice a heavy attack was
launched against Sahadeva, Indian king of Magadha, by the "Assuras" or
"Daityas" from the west. The Indian king perished. Had not there been
some kind of supernatural change in the weather during the course of
the struggle India would have been devastated. As events turned out,
Assyria was defeated.
Indian scholars long ago recognized in the "Assuras" or "Daityas"
the
Assyrians of the west.
The date 1649 is paralleled in Mesopotamia. In that year king

Lugal-zaggisi, of Erech's Third Dynasty, toppled Assyria's allies and

suddenly seized control of the land. (See the restoration of Early
Babylonian history.)
The Bahadratha dynasty rose to power in Magadha in the beginning
of 1649, upon the death of Sahadeva. Names, but no dates of previous
kings are preserved. The following chart outlines the history of India
until about 180.
Names of Dynasties

Duration of Dynasties

Dates

Bahadratha

989

1649-660

Pradyota

138

660-522

Sisunaga

162

522-360

The Nanda

43

360-317

131

317-186

Maurya

(For the length of the Mauryas see "Persica", No. II, 1965-1966,
article by Eggermont.)
The year 1649 is not the time of the traditional migration of
Aryan-speaking peoples into India. Those migrations, so famous in
Indian history, did not commence until shortly before 660, toward the
close of the Assyrian Empire. Aryan-speaking people were, however,
already in India from earliest times.
To the plains of India the Assyrians sent into exile (around 660)
tens of thousands of Ethiopians, thousands of Egyptians and multitudes
from the region of the Hindu-Kush mountains in Bactria. This forced
migration was the period of Assyrian conquests in Egypt and Bactria.
The wholesale dumping of captive slaves was climaxed by an
Assyrian attempt to conquer India in 660. In that year Semiramis III
(699-657) -- self-styled reincarnation of the "Queen of Heaven" -- led
Assyrian troops to the frontier of India. Diodorus of Sicily describes
the battle in detail in his history of India. A great catastrophe
befell the Assyrians. The troops of the Queen were annihilated. She
fled almost alone from the battle scene -- to live on in myth and
religious tradition as the thrice-born "Queen of Heaven."
Early Indian Kings of Magadha
Following the tragic Indian victory in 1649 Somadhi founded a new
dynasty on the Ganges. Indian history, preserved in the Puranas,
centers from this time onward in the modern province of Magadha. From
here royal influence was exercised across the plains to the Indus River
region. Though there were other princely families governing India, only
one dynastic line exercised supreme authority.
Political disintegration in India did not develop until centuries
later.
Following is the official account of the Dynasty of Somadhi
(beginning 1649) which was overthrown at the time of the Assyrian
invasion in 660. It is taken from the Vayu Purana, edited by
Rajendralala Mitra, Calcutta, 1888. (Eggermont, "Chronology of Asoka",
pp. 217-218).

Royal House of Somadhi

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Somadhi

58

1649-1591

Srutasruvas

64

1591-1527

Ayutayus

26

1527-1501

Niramitra

100

1501-1401

Sukrtta

56

1401-1345

Vrhatkarman

23

1345-1322

Senajit

23

1322-1299

Srutamjaya

40

1299-1259

Nrpa

35

1259-1224

Suci

58

1224-1166

Ksema

28

1166-1138

Bhuvata

64

1138-1074

1074-1069

Nrpati

58

1069-1011

Suvrata

38
(or 28)

1011- 973
(1011- 983)

Drdhasena

48
(or 58)

973- 925
(983- 925)

Sumati

35

925- 890

Sucala

22

890- 868

Sunetra

40

868- 828

Satyajit

83

828- 745

Virajit

35

745- 710

Arinjaya

50

710- 660

Dharmanetra

In Indian literature other spellings and occasional variations in

reigns are used. But the preceding is the official register and is in
perfect harmony with parallel events elsewhere in the world. The extra
long reign of Niramitra is not out of keeping with the contemporary Old
Testament world in which men were living to be 120.
Consequent to the Assyrian invasion a change of power occurred in
Magadha in 660. The Pradyota regime came to prominence. Its kings ruled
to the time of the death of Cambyses in Persia.

Pradyota Dynasty
in Magadha

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Pradyota

23

660-637

Palaka

24

637-613

Visakhayupa

50

613-563

Ajaka

21

563-542

Varttivarddhana

20

542-522

At this juncture the Saisunagas replaced the Pradyota family. The

Saisunagas received their name from the fourth and most famous king.
Dynasty of the
Saisunagas in Magadha

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Bimbisara

28

522-494

Ajatasatru

25

494-469

Udayin

33

469-436

Sisunaga

40

436-396

Kakavarna

36

396-360

The Saisunagas in Indian literature were so famous that the length

of the dynasty became artificially inflated with contemporary reigns to
suit the heroic deeds of its kings. Dr. Eggermont had no need to
restore the two dynasties preceding the Saisunagas. His efforts were
spent primarily on the kings between the end of the Pradyotas (in 522)
and the reign of Asoka. Any questions arising on this period should be
directly referred to his aforementioned study published by E. J. Brill,
Leiden, The Netherlands.
The next dynasty after 360 was composed of one king -- The Nanda,
or, in Indian literature, Mahanandin. His actual length of reign was
only 43 years -- 360-317.
The year 317 is the direct link between India and Greek history.
At that date Eudamos and Peithon departed from the Panjab and Sindh,
whereupon Candagutta occupied the Indus. The Mauryas ruled for 131
years. Dr. P.H.L. Eggermont proves in his book that the date for the
commencement of this dynasty is not 321, as long assumed, but 317, a
restoration which makes Indian history harmonious with all contemporary
records.
Dynasty of the Mauryas
to Asoka

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Candagutta (Chandragupta)

24

317-293

Bindusara

25

293-268

Asoka

29

268-239

Dasaratha

239-231

Samprati

10

231-221

Salisuka

13

221-208

Somasarman

208-201

Satadhanvan

201-193

Brhadratha

193-186

(See Eggermont's reconstruction in Persica, No. II, 1965-1966,

"New Notes on Asoka and His Successors".)
The year 186 marks the commencement of the Sunga Era, from which
point succeeding dynasties may be accurately dated.
For a complete list of later ruling houses consult volume I of
Stokvis' "Manuel D'Histoire", p. 237.
Scythia and the History of Japan
The vast reaches of Scythia were famous in antiquity. Within its
borders lived numerous unrelated tribes. Anciently the word Scythia (or
Sacae) was applied to a people living in that region in the Caucasus,
(Jeremiah 51:27). This area bore the name "Land of the Rising Sun."
But in the process of time the name Scythia passed to other tribes
and peoples who dwelt in, or migrated through, the land of Scythia.
Hence the Greek writers included in Scythia the Eastern Slavic people
who migrated from Asia Minor into Eurasia. Diodorus Siculus refers to
their queen as "Zarina" -- Russian feminine for Czar (Book II, 34, 3).
Other writers, like Paul the apostle, divided the world into Greek and
Jew, Barbarian and Scythian (Colossians 3:11) -- applying the name
Scythian to that people which came out of the east and migrated into
Western Europe and the British Isles. The modern word Scot is, in fact,
merely a corruption of the old Greek Scythian.
Herodotus describes the Eastern Scythians. To him they were
unusual people, lacking body hair, with noticeably rounded face and
chin, flat-nosed, speaking a peculiar language and wearing a
distinctive costume (Melpomene, 23).
According to Herodotus the Scythians of antiquity were allied with
the Assyrians during most of the last century of Assyrian dominion.
Semiramis III -- famous for her marital relations with the "kings of
the earth" -- especially prized her relationship with these Scythians.
The alliance between the two royal families endured long after the
Assyrian "Queen of Heaven" died.
In 612 the Medes and Babylonians were besieging Nineveh. Onto the
scene came Scythian troops from the region of Bactria to lift the
siege. The Medes, sensing what would happen if Assyria were to recover
strength, submitted terms to the Scythians in exchange for breaking
their alliance with Assyria. They were accepted. Nineveh fell. But the
agreement cost the Medes control of much of Upper Asia for 28 bleak
years. (Herodotus, Clio. 106).
At the end of that period Media and Scythia came to blows.
Scythian ravages were more than the Medes could take. The Medes were
victorious. The Scythians withdrew to far Asia.
The Parsees of India have preserved several traditions of these

events. (The Parsees are Persian immigrants living in India.) In their

sacred literature references to a famous prince Zoroaster II -- a "son
of heaven" -- are found. He came to royal prominence in 660, following
defeat in India of his mother, the "Queen of Heaven." Zoroaster means
"seed of Ishtar." He spread the religion of sun-worship throughout the
east. The Parsees -- and scholars ever since -- have puzzled how
Zoroaster II could have exercised such influence and yet not be a king
of Media or Persia They overlooked Scythia.
In Parsee tradition Zoroaster lost his life in a war in Media in
the year 584-583 (see "Ency. Amer.", art. "Zoroaster").
Is there any Oriental nation, at least in part Scythian, with a
tradition of a "son of Heaven" who came to the throne in 660, who
reigned to about 584, who extended his rule from west to east, whose
mother was a "goddess" and a queen, in whose land sun-worship spread?
Was Zoroaster II known under another name in the Far East?
Absolutely! In Japan. The Japanese royal throne, according to the
"Nihonji", a book of traditional and sacred history, was founded in
660. Its first emperor is assigned 76 years, to 584. He was a "son of
Heaven;" his mother a "goddess" and a queen. In the traditions of the
Nihonji it is reported of him that he said: "Now I have heard ... that
in the East there is a fair land encircled on all sides by blue
mountains .... I think that this land will undoubtedly be suitable for
the extension of the Heavenly task" -- that is, world conquest -- "so
that its glory should fill the universe" (p. 110 of "Nihonji", trans.
by W. G. Aston).
The Nihonji continues: "In that year, in winter, ... the Emperor
in person led the Imperial Princes and a naval force on an expedition
against the East" (page 111).
In Chinese history we find the following quote: "The barbarians
invaded the territory of the Marquis of Wei I Kong in 660 B.C. The
Marquis gave them battle in the marsh of Yug." The Chinese were
defeated and the barbarians passed on to the east. ("Cults and Legends
of Ancient Iran and China", Sir. J. C. Coyajee, p. 47.)
The Japanese, according to their tradition, were led to their
isles by a symbolic three-legged sun-crow. In Pamphylia and Lycia, in
Scythian-dominated Asia Minor, coins have been found which bear the
rare figures of three-legged birds in various forms. ("La Migration des
Symboles", by Comte Goblet d'Alviella, page 222 of 1891 edition.)
Compare this symbol with the Biblical "wings of a great eagle" (Exodus
19:4).
Here are coincidences that cannot be explained unless Scythian
tribes migrated to Japan under the authority of a prince who was a son
of the Assyrian "Queen of Heaven." Had historians been willing to
restore Assyrian history and Semiramis III to the proper place in
history, had they been willing to credit the chronological framework of
Japanese history, the mystery of the Scythians, of Togarmah and other
peoples of North Asia would have vanished.
Of course there are legends and apparent contradictions in
Japanese historical literature. But they do not alter the essential
facts of history around which the legends were later woven. Historians
carelessly reject most early Japanese records on the unprovable
assumption that their history could not have been recorded prior to the
adoption of the Chinese art of writing. Overlooked is the fact that in
Scythia they were literate long before adopting Chinese culture in the
east.
The Japanese Imperial family is found in most thorough histories
of that nation and need not be included here. One note of caution,

however. It has become all too common for historians to criticise

freely what they do not want to believe. Because the early Japanese
rulers appear to have governed unusually long -- 76 years, 36, 38, 35,
83, 102, 76, 57, 60, 68, etc. (but much shorter later) -- the early
period is discounted. Yet Chinese sources of the same period refer to
the Japanese as especially longlived people in the centuries
immediately following their arrival to the isles. Also, the sons who
succeeded to the throne were often not the eldest. "Primogeniture was
evidently not recognized in Japan at the time ...", writes Aston on
page 110, note 1, in "Nihonji".
The names of Japanese emperors, by which they are known in
history, are given to them after death. The first emperor received the
posthumous name Jimmu Tenno -- signifying "divine valour." (For further
references see the "History of the Empire of Japan", compiled and
translated for the Imperial Japanese Commission of the world's
Columbian Exposition, 1893.)
History of China
Everyone owes a great deal of respect to the Chinese nation for
being the only people whose chronological records have been preserved
without need of restoration from the time of Babel till now. The
history of the Chinese nation is found in the Shoo King, which means
literally the "Canon of History."
China naturally has had her literary critics who have sought to
reinterpret the ancient records. Witness the "Bamboo Annals". But their
attempts have been consistently rejected as unwarranted opposition to
the traditional history of the "Shoo King". Only China's unusual
reverence for tradition -- and superstition -- could have preserved the
framework of history for more than 4,200 years:
True, some of the events are legendary. Nevertheless, no other
people's secular history is more accurate than China's. The chinese
recorded their history in a form similar to the Hebrews' accounts in
the books of the Old Testament. Each ruler is evaluated for his "moral
conduct." His special contributions, good or bad, are simply evaluated.
Such evaluations are, of course, subjective and may reflect later
political thinking. But politics, in the modern western sense, was
unknown in China.
The Chinese reckon the reigns of their rulers in calendar years
commencing at approximately the winter solstice. In the earliest period
it fell in what would have been the later weeks of January. (See page
99, vol. III, 1, of Legge's "Chinese Classics".) As centuries rolled
by, the Chinese regnal year came to approximate a January-to-January
year. Later still, the solstice dropped back into December.
The following list of Chinese rulers is derived from Shoo King,
translated by Legge in "Chinese Classics", III, 1, pp. 184-188. As the
later history of China is recognized by all reputable scholars as
valid, only the early portion is included in this Compendium.
Late in Chinese historiography it became the practice to add to
the list of early rulers the legendary names of heroes from before the
flood. These late additions are manifestly invalid, for no nation
without the Hebrew record had access to the information after Babel.
The first man of whom Chinese sources speak is Yao, or Yaou. The
traditional information about Yao is nebulous. When referring to the
Mongols, the Arabian historians speak of Magog and Yagog. It is likely
that the Yagog of Arabic tradition is the personage whom the Chinese

tradition knows as Yao.

The results of a catastrophic flood were still apparent in Yao's
day. "The deluge assailed the heavens, and in its vast expanse
encompassed the mountains, and overtopped the hills ..." (Canon of
Yao).
In the lifetime of Yao a stranger named Shun came to power. The
meaning of his name is obscure. Later legends found in the Shoo King
attempt to create Shun a native Chinese hero. But the earliest records
(some found in the Bamboo Annals) make it clear he was a black
foreigner. His mother was "Queen of the West land;" his father was
Kusou, or Chusou -- Cush. From Babylonian traditions we learn that Cush
and Nimrod shared jointly in the government together until Nimrod
displaced his father. In Chinese records, as in Genesis, only Shun
(Nimrod) appears -- for he was certainly the mainspring of the
rebellion.
Shun reigned but 50 years after Babel over the Chinese people
2254-2204. Thereafter, through migration, the Chinese appear to have
gained independence. A native Chinese family came to power in 2204,
known in modern parlance as the Hsia Dynasty. It governed 439 years -2204-1765. (Some authors incorrectly pre-date these years into the
December of the preceding year.)
Kings of Hsia Dynasty
2204-1765

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Yu

2204-2196

Ch'i

2196-2187

T'ai K'ang

29

2187-2158

Chung K'ang

13

2158-2145

Hsiang

27

2145-2118

Hong-Yi, a usurper

2118

Han Cho, another usurper,

assassinates Hong-Yi

40

2118-2078

Shao K'ang

22

2078-2056

Ch'u

17

2056-2039

Huai

26

2039-2013

Mang

18

2013-1995

Hsieh

16

1995-1979

Pu Chiang

59

1979-1920

Chiung

21

1920-1899

Chin

21

1899-1878

K'ung Chia

31

1878-1847

Kao

11

1847-1836

Fa

19

1836-1817

Chieh Kuei

52

1817-1765

Shang (or Yin) Dynasty (1765-1121)

Under first king of this dynasty the year was made to begin at new
moon nearest winter solstice.
Ch'en T'ang

13

1765-1752

In his reign China suffered from seven years of famine, shortly

before that of Egypt (Jackson's "Chronology of Most Ancient Nations",
vol. II, 455).
T'ai Chia

33

1752-1719

Wu Ting

29

1719-1690

T'ai Keng

25

1690-1665

Hsiao Chia

17

1665-1648

Yung Chi

12

1648-1636

T'ai Mou

75

1636-1561

Chung Ting

13

1561-1548

Wai Jen

15

1548-1533

1533-1524

Tsu Yi

19

1524-1505

Tsu Hsin

16

1505-1489

Wu Chia

25

1489-1464

Tsu Ting

32

1464-1432

Nan Keng

25

1432-1407

Yang Chia

1407-1400

P'an Keng

28

1400-1372

Hsiao Hsin

21

1372-1351

Hsiao Yi

28

1351-1323

Wu Ting

59

1323-1264

Ho Tan Chia

Tsu Keng

1264-1257

Tsu Chia

33

1257-1224

Lin Hsin

1224-1218

Keng Ting

21

1218-1197

Wu Yi

1197-1193

T'ai Ting

1193-1190

Ti Yi

37

1190-1153

Ti Hsin (Chou)

32

1153-1121

Wu Fa

1121-1114

Ch'eng

37

1114-1077

K'ang Chao
Chao H'ia

26
51

1077-1051
1051-1000

Mu Man

55

1000- 945

Chou Dynasty (1121-256)

This king was unusually fond of horses and chariots. He lived

during the time of King Solomon who exported horses and chariots
throughout the world.
Kung I Hu

12

945-933

I Hsi

25

933-908

Hsiao P'ih

15

908-893

I Sieh

16

893-877

Li Hu

51

877-826

Hsuan Tsing

46

826-780

Yu Kung Nieh

11

780-769

P'ing Hsuang Chiu

51

769-718

Huan Lin

23

718-695

Chuang T'o

15

695-680

Hsi Hu Ch'i

680-675

Hui Lang

25

675-650

Hsiang Ching

33

650-618

(from this reign on the years in this chart are reckoned as

corresponding to Roman years, January through December)
Ch'ing Jen K'uang

617-612

K'uang Pan

611-606

Ting Yu

21

605-585

Chien I

14

584-571

Ling Hsieh Sin

27

570-544

Ching Kewi

25

543-519

Ching Ch'ih

44

518-475

474-468

Chen Ting Chiai

28

467-440

K'ao Wei

15

439-425

Wei Lieh Wu

24

424-401

An Chiao

26

400-375

Lieh Hsi

374-368

48

367-320

319-314

58

313-256

Yuan Jen

Hsien Pien
Shen Ching Ting
Nan Yen

A list of succeeding dynasties may be found summarized in "The

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

CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Asia Minor and the West
The journeys of the apostle Paul have made Asia Minor an important
area of New Testament studies. In apostolic times the region was under
Roman dominion. The inhabitants were primarily Greek, with a heavy
influx of Jews into the cities of the southeastern provinces. Scattered
remnants of earlier peoples existed, primarily Armenians.
Today the Turk inhabits Asia Minor. But neither Turk nor Greek
were the original peoples of the plains and mountains of Anatolia.
Until the advent of archaeology, the history of Asia Minor was almost
unknown before the Greek period. Classical writers indeed preserved
marvelous tales of the region -- of the Golden Fleece -- of the Trojan
War (there were really three wars!) -- of King Midas -- of Amazons -of the Phrygians who later migrated into Europe.
Modern Mythology
The Greeks turned the facts of Anatolia's history into myths.
Unfortunately the archaeologist and the modern historian, discarding
both Greek myth and historical fact, have created new and more fabulous
myths.
Scholars today would have us believe, for example, that most of
Asia Minor and the Greek world went through five long centuries of
darkness -- "Dark Ages" is the academic label used. The early
civilizations of Crete, of Greece, Cyprus and Asia Minor snuffed out
for centuries -- only to suddenly reappear in full bloom 500 years
later.
Historians label the early civilization in the Aegean world
"Mycenaean" after the site of ancient Mycenae in Greece. This
civilization is assumed to have perished during the twelfth century
before the birth of Jesus. Not until the seventh century does the
curtain of history lift with clarity again -- according to the modern
myth:
Such an interpretation of history is absurd. This was long ago
admitted in a publication of the Cambridge University Press: "Memphis
and Mscenae", by Cecil Torr. Torr wrote on page 69:
"For example, the Greek coins and gems of about 700 to 600
resemble the Mycenaean gems so closely, that any judge of art would be
prepared to place the Mycenaean age immediately before 700." Not before
1200 as is done today:
In Asia Minor the same absurdity exists in modern textbooks. A
great Anatolian empire -- the Hatti -- is said to have perished shortly
after 1200. Its greatest heyday is marked by an utter paucity of
monuments. Yet in the five following centuries -- after the Empire
(supposedly) perished -- the Hatti kings "left a wealth of monuments,
reliefs, steles, rock carvings, most of them covered with the
hieroglyphic script, in striking contrast with the relatively few
monuments that have survived from Imperial times." ("Hittite Art", by
Maurice Vieyra, page 7.)
Of course, the only reason for a 500-year blank is that Asia Minor
and Aegean history have been conformed to the misplaced chronology of
Egypt. Once the history of Egypt and Mesopotamla is restored in proper
historical setting, the gaps in Asia Minor and Greece disappear.

Beginnings of History
Asia Minor first appears in Biblical history in the days of Abram.
In Genesis 14:1 "Tidal king of Goiim" is named as ruler of Asia Minor.
"Goiim" is the Hebrew word for "Nations." The history of ancient Asia
Minor is the story of continuous attempts to unite the warring nations
of the region into a loose confederacy. In earliest days Tidal ruled
this confederacy.
But the nations of Asia Minor were themselves part of a greater
empire composed of kings of Shinar, Elam and Assyria. The Jewish
historian Josephus describes this vast empire in "Antiquities", I, ix.
"At this time, when the Assyrians had the dominion over Asia, the
people of Sodom were in a flourishing condition .... the Assyrians made
war upon them; and, dividing their army into four parts, fought against
them. Now every part of the army had its own commander; and when the
battle was joined, the Assyrians were conquerors; and imposed tribute
on the kings of the Sodomites, who submitted to this slavery twelve
years ... but on the thirteenth year they rebelled, and then the army
of the Assyrians came upon them, under their commanders Amraphel,
Arioch, Chodorlaomer, and Tidal. These kings had laid waste all Syria,
and overthrown the offspring of the giants ...."
Tidal was therefore an Assyrian king and general ruling over
several different nations and peoples. So famous was Tidal that many
later kings took the same name in Asia Minor. Historians,
transliterating late cuneiform inscriptions, spell the name
Tudhaliya(s) -- as, in similar fashion, they spell Tiglathpileser
Tukulti-apil-Esarra.
In the three succeeding centuries after the battle of Genesis 14,
little is known of Asia Minor. The curtain lifts during the reign of
Sargon "the Great" of Akkad. Assyrians from Mesopotamia continually
migrated into Asia Minor, where they set up numerous trading posts. The
Akkadian kings claim to have conquered the region. A vast collection of
cuneiform tablets from this and later periods have been recovered by
archaeologists. They exhibit an unusual affiliation between native
rulers and Assyrian traders. An affiliation inexplicable apart from
Josephus' statement that Assyrians settled and ruled Anatolia in
Abram's day. So prominent were the Assyrians in Asia Minor that Sylax,
the author of "Periplus" (he lived about 550), wrote of this region:
"The coast of the Black Sea ... is called Assyria" (p. 261 of Perrot
and Chipiez' "History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria and Asia
Minor", vol. II).
Assyrian kings and traders were only one of the early people to
inhabit Asia Minor. Egyptian and Mesopotamian records reveal it was
also the land of Meshech and Tubal (spelled Musku and Tabal in Assyrian
documents), and of Armenians and Lydians. Along the coasts dwelled
outposts of the children of Javan. Greek traditions speak of Amazons
and Phrygians. Cappadocia, in eastern Anatolia, was a dwelling place of
the children of Togarmah (Tegarma or Tilgarimmu).
But how did the name "Hittite" become associated with this land of
many races? Modern historians, remember, use the words "Hittite" or
"Hatti" or "Chatti" to designate any or all of the diverse peoples who
dwelled in Asia Minor or North Syria.
Even the Bible uses similar expressions. Solomon traded with the
"king of the Hittites," who dwelt in the mountainous lands north of the
Arameans (I Kings 10:29).

The true "Hittite" people were children of Canaan. Canaan was the
father of Heth, the Hittite. The land of the Hittites in the days of
Joshua, and of the judges who followed, extended north of Palestine
through Syria to the Euphrates (Judges 1:26).
After the Israelite conquest of Palestine, many Hittites migrated
northward through Syria into Anatolia. So famous were these people, so
different from other races, that they gave their name to the whole wide
regions to which they migrated. As late as the Chaldean Empire of
Nebuchadnezzar the name Hatti, or Chatti, was applied to the vast area
of Syria-Palestine and to part of eastern Asia Minor.
In Egyptian monuments the original Canaanite Hittites were
portrayed with singularly striking characteristics. They were depicted
with unusually prominent noses, "somewhat broad, with lips full, the
cheek-bones high, the eyebrows fairly prominent, the forehead receding
like the chin, and the face hairless." "The hair is black, the eyes
dark brown." ("The Races of the Old Testament", by A. H Sayce, page
133.)
They were a brachycephalic or even hyperbrachycephalic people. The skin
color varied from brown to yellowish and reddish. Greek tradition
insists the people were a warlike, rude people, known for their
frenzied dances and music.
This racial type has become so characteristic a part of the
Armenoid racial stock of Anatolia, the Caucasus and Syria, that one
must conclude the Hittites heavily intermarried with their Armenian and
Aramaic neighbors.
The Proof of Language
The true Armenians are sons of Hul, son of Aram (compare Genesis
10:23 with Josephus).
Armenian is an Indo-European language. Indo-European languages are
divided into two groups by scholars. It had long been assumed that the
Armenian belonged to the Eastern or satem group, primarily because of
vocabulary. Then the ancient language of the Hittites was discovered.
It proved to belong to the Western or centum group, to which the
German, Celtic, Latin and Greek belonged. Then scholars began to
recognize that this ancient language, rediscovered after 2000 years,
bears a striking resemblance to Armenian.
The Armenian language has been found to share so many grammatical
and lexical elements with the ancient language of the Hittites that
scholars have been forced to the conclusion that Armenian developed
from the Hittite-Luwian dialects of Lesser Armenia west of the Upper
Euphrates. (See W. M. Austin's "Is Armenian an Anatolian Language?" in
"Language", 18 (1942), 22 ff.)
Hittite and Armenian, for instance, are characterized by lack of
grammatical gender. So many other phenomena were found to be exhibited
by both groups that scholars now wonder why they did not see the
relationship before. The Hittite language, a member of the "centum"
group of Indo-European languages, lives on today in Armenian.
Over the centuries the Armenian, of course, has acquired a very
large number of its vocabulary words from neighboring languages. So
many, in fact, that its original relationship with the Western or
"centum" group of Indo-European languages has been obscured. An
excellent summary of the relationship of Armenian and Hittite is found
in the revised edition of Cambridge Ancient History, vol. I, chapter
iv, part iii "The Indo-Hittite Family," by Albright and Lambdin.

The Proof of Race

The Armenians are the only people who have preserved the
well-known "Armenoid" form of the ancient Hittite crania. Admittedly
continuity of physical type and language is not necessarily related.
But if both language and racial characteristics are found among two
peoples who still live in almost the same geographic region, but
separated by centuries of time, the proof becomes striking. Especially
when it is considered that no other group of people in ancient times
had the same racial strains.
The original cradle of the Armenian nationality and culture is
precisely that area characterized by the greatest use of hieroglyphic
script. In fact the latest Hittite inscriptions can be proved to
overlap the known presence of Armenians in the same region (in the
inscriptions of Darius Hystaspes) by a number of centuries, once the
ancient history of the Hittites is properly restored.
The use of the modern Armenian alphabet begins where ancient
Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions cease!
Because of early predominance of population and war-like
characteristics, the fame of the ancient Hittite name spread. The
rulers of Asia Minor, once known as "kings of nations" (in Abraham's
day), because of the many different peoples who populated the region,
came to be called "kings of the Hittites" by Solomon's time. The
Armenians ceased to be referred to under their national name and were
included among the Hittites (spelled also Kheta, Chatti, or Hatti) by
distant nations.
In Syria and Asia Minor, as time passed, the Arameans and
Armenians gradually gained predominance over their Hittite neighbors
and absorbed them. The Hittites disappeared as a separate racial stock
and their name was totally lost. The names Aramean and Armenian
replaced that of Hittite.
The Hebrew root "heth" (from whence Hittite is derived) signifies
"warrior." The Canaanite Hittites were famous warriors. As the
Assyrians were a war-making nation, the world also attached the name
"Chatti" -- meaning "warrior" or "men of war" -- to them when they
anciently migrated to the Halys River basin in Asia Minor. Thus
Assyrians, like Armenians, in Anatolia also came to bear the name
"Chatti."
Ninevite kings marched their armies through Anatolia to aid Troy
in the First Trojan War shortly before the rise of the Canaanite
Hittites to power. Assyrian colonists continued to live in Asia Minor
for centuries thereafter. Sardanapallus, king of Assyria, "sent his
three sons and two daughters together with much of his treasure to
Paphlagonia (Asia Minor) to the governor Cotta ..." (Diodorus II,
26,8). It was an Assyrian district. For the same reason Assyrians were
"removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus" after the collapse
of Nineveh (Diodorus II, 43,6).
After the fall of Troy in 677 the Assyrians commenced migration
out of Anatolia northwest up the Danube into Europe. Roman annals
within a few centuries were filled with the name Chatti, or Hatti,
which later became changed to Hesse. (See "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
article "Germany".)
The warlike proclivity of the Hessians through the Roman period
and the Middle Ages, is undoubtedly due to some absorption of Hittite
stock.

The history of the Hittites of Asia Minor may now be restored in

proper setting. First, it should be remembered that modern textbook
writers are in utter confusion chronologically. They speak of an "Old
Kingdom" and a "New Empire," sometimes of a "Middle Kingdom." Rulers of
the "Old Kingdom" were about 750 years too early, the latter about 600!
The reason for this preposterous restoration of central Anatolian
history is this. "Old Kingdom" rulers are known to parallel the close
of the Hammurabi Dynasty of Babylon. As Hammurabi is often placed about
750 years too early in history, these kings of Hatti are likewise
misplaced by that figure. The late kings of the supposed "New Empire"
are known to be contemporary with Ramesses the Great of Dynasty XIX of
Egypt. Since this period of Egyptian history is misplaced about 600
years. the kings of the "New Empire" are likewise placed six centuries
too early.
Babylonian and Egyptian archives prove there was only one Empire
period in Central Anatolia. That more than one king at a time was on
occasion ruling Hatti is confirmed by the documents: "Formerly Labarnas
was king: and then his sons, his brothers, his connections by marriage
and his blood-relations were united." ("The Hittites", by O. R. Gurney,
page 21.) Most of these were set over major cities in the realm -- such
as Carchemish.
For the Great Kings of Hatti king lists exist, but no date lists.
A restoration can provide only synchronisms with other nations. In the
following chart parallel rulers in other lands are listed and dated to
indicate synchronisms.
The chart begins with kings of the so-called "Old" and "Middle
Kingdom" and continues with the "New Empire" rulers who are known
through correspondence as contemporary with the kings of Dynasty XIII
and XIX of Thebes. (In spelling the following names of Hatti kings, the
final "s" is used, though in numerous documents the letter is often
dropped or sounded as an "sh.")
Contemporary
Kings of Egypt

Great Kings of
Hatti

History from
Contemporary
Documents

Thutmose III

Labarnas (I),
founder of new
dynasty

Contemporary of
Solomon

Amenhotpe II
Thutmose IV

Hattusilis (I), son

Mursilis I,
adopted son

Amenhotpe III

Akhenaten

Hantilis (I),
brother-in-law

Attacks and
destroys Aleppo.
Conquers Babylon at end of
Samsu-ditana's
reign (905-879).
After returning
home is
assassinated.
Arameans attack
Hittite realm in
south. Numerous
disasters. Hurrians
and Mitanni in
Mesopotamia.

Zidantas (I)
Ay

Ammunas, son

Rise of Medes
(Mitanni)

Huzziyas (I)
Telipinus,
brother-in-law
of Huzziyas

Hittites slowly
revive and expand
(see "Journal of
Cuneiform Stud.", xi,
3, p. 73)

Alluwamnas, son
in-law
Hantilis (II)
Piankhi

Zidantas (II)

Hittite fortunes
continue to rise

Huzziyas II
Tudhaliyas (II)
Arnuwandas (I),
a brother

Taharka

Suppiluliumas (I)

Seti I

Arnuwandas (II),
son
Mursilis (II),
brother
Muwatallis, son

Ramesses the
Great

Urhi-Teshub, son
Hattusilis (III),
uncle

Tudhaliyas (III).
son

Expansion of
Hittites as
Assyrians decline
and Troy falls;
long struggle
with Medes

Arnuwandas dies
of plague after
reigning a few
months
Plague and wide
spread rebellions.
Fought with
Nebuchadnezzar against
Ramesses at battle
of "Kadesh" in his
tenth year.
Reigned jointly
with brother
and nephew.
Signed treaty
with Ramesses
in latter's
year 21.
West in
rebellion -struggle with

Lydia
Arnuwandas (III).
son

East in
rebellion -expansion of
Medo-Persians

Suppiluliumas (II),
brother

Collapse of
Hittite Empire
as Persians
conquer Asia
Minor in 546

Notice the parallel between the events in column three and the
Biblical history of the rise and fall of the Arameans. During the reign
of Amenhotpe III and Mursilis I -- about 890 -- the Arameans rebelled
and expanded under general Naaman. In their wars against Israel they
feared the possibility that Israel would hire Egyptians and Hittites,
to attack them. In II Kings 7:6 the Arameans, after hearing a noise of
supernatural origin. are quoted as saying: "Lo, the king of Israel hath
hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the
Egyptians. to come upon us."
There are two known areas of contact from documents between these
Hittite kings and Egypt and Babylon. Suppiluliumas, Mursilis,
Muwatallis and Hattusilis are the known contemporaries of Ramesses the
Great and his father Seti. This documented contact, including the
account of the battle of Kadesh (Carchemish), determines the general
dating of the late Hittite rulers. Muwatallis came to power about 616
since the first battle of Kadesh was fought in his tenth year. This was
in the year 607-606, the date of the initial Egyptian struggle against
Babylon and its allies. Egypt was momentarily victorious (see the
restoration of Egyptian history for the period of Ramesses the Great).
An earlier area of contact is established by documentary evidence
for the reign of Mursilis I, conqueror of Aleppo and Babylon at the
close of the reign of Ammisaduga. Since the Babylonian king can be
accurately dated, the overthrow of Babylon by the Hittite king dates
the period of the early Hittite rulers. It is then merely a matter of
placing the generations in between. The known number of generations of
Hittite rulers and the time between Ammisaduga and his Egyptian
contemporary to the reign of Ramesses the Great agrees perfectly.
The only question is the supposed parallelism between
Suppiluliumas and Akhenaten and Tutankhamen. This parallelism is
impossible. It arose from a false assumption. The Hittite documents of
Suppiluliumas and his son mention two Egyptian rulers by name. But the
names are not specific. Scholars have merely assumed that the Hittite
names may refer to Akhenaten and his son. The names could just as well
belong to other Egyptian kings -- in this instance to the period of the
close of Dynasty XXV This is the only possible period to which the
events could apply. The eighteenth dynasty, archaeologists assume, died
out with the widow of Tutankhamen. This is untrue. The line of
Akhenaten continued to rule to the time of Piankhi the Ethiopian. The
only dynasty to cease to reign through the male line in Egypt was that
of the Ethiopians at the end of Dynasty XXV. The Ethiopians were killed
in battle or fled from the Assyrians. The successor dynasty was Saite,
of the line of Necho, an Egyptian family appointed by the Assyrians.
This line intermarried into the Ethiopian line to legitimize its reign
in Egypt. It is this family that must have plotted the death of the son

of Suppiluliumas who was on his way to Egypt to become heir to the

Ethiopian line in Egypt.
The Kingdom of Mitanni and the Hurrians
In Mesopotamia, on the upper reaches of the Euphrates river, is a
kingdom known as Mitanni in hieroglyphic and cuneiform records. This
was the region in which the Median revolt occurred in 816. The history
of the kingdom of Mitanni is, in fact, the history of the Medes and
Midianites in the ninth and tenth centuries before the present era.
In the following chart the kingdom of Mitanni is restored to its
proper place in history. In column one are the kings of Egypt. Column
two, center, contains the kings of Mitanni. The third column is devoted
to excerpts of important contemporary history. No date lists of the
early kings of Mitanni are known.
Contemporary
Kings of Egypt

Kings of Mitanni

History from
Contemporary Sources

Thutmose I
(1030-1017)

Suttarna I

Conquers city of
Assur during Assyria's
50 years of decline
(1041-991)

Thutmose II
(1017-997)

Saussatar

Thutmose III
(997-943)

Artatama I

Thutmose III asks

for his daughter to
wife.

Suttarna II

Amenhotpe III sought his

daughter in marriage.

Artasura

Kingdom of Mitanni
sundered.

Thutmose IV
(918-909)
Amenhotpe III
(909-871)

Tusratta, son
of Suttarna II
Akhenaton
(871-854)

Mittiwaza

Rise of Hurrian kingdom

under Artatama II and
Suttarna III. Mattiwaza became Hittite
vassal. Assyria rules
Mesopotamia under
Assur-uballit.

The final comment in column three again demonstrates that Assyria

and the Great Kings of Kheta or Hatti formed one vast empire far more
extensive than modern historians realize.

Who Were the Hurrians?

But who were the Hurrians who suddenly migrate from apparently
nowhere to dwell in Mitanni on the borders of the Egyptian Empire in
Asia? Of all the people known in the Middle East the "Hurrians," or
"Harrians," are the most controversial. They should not be. Consider
the facts of history.
Tushratta (Tusratta) was the first Mitannian king of this era to
claim the title "lord of the Hurrian land" as well as "lord of the
Mitanni land." ("Journal of Cuneiform Studies", XI, 3, p. 67, column
two.) Tushratta was a contemporary of Amenhotpe III. Is there any
record of a people in the days of Amenhotpe III who came to dwell on
the borders of the Empire of Egypt? There certainly is. The record has
already been mentioned in this Compendium in connection with Akhenaten
("Huria" in Hittite) in the beginning of chapter eight. Here it is
again: "The Ethiopians, removing from the River Indus, settled near
Egypt."
There are two branches of Ethiopians in the world. wrote
Herodotus. Those who dwell in India, with straight or wavy hair; and
those who dwell in Africa with frizzled hair ("Polymnia", sect. 20).
The Indian Cushites. or Ethiopians, are Aryan-speaking. The leaders of
the Hurrians, or Harrians. were Indo-Iranian or Aryan speaking. The
Hurrians worshipped Indra, Varuna and various other gods of the Hindu
pantheon. No such worship has ever been found among African tribes. No
migration to Africa from the Indus is known. But the migration of
Indo-Iranian people into Mesopotamia is well attested in history.
Why, then, did Manetho, in the Book of Sothis, refer to "Egypt" as
the neighborhood of the Ethiopian migration from the Indus? Because in
the days of Amenhotpe III the Empire of Egypt extended to the Upper
Euphrates. Literally dozens of Assyrian references speak of "Musri" -Egypt -- as that territory immediately west of the Upper Euphrates. See
the annals of Tiglath-pileser I, for example. As late as the days of
Necho and Nebuchadnezzar the city of Carchemish, on the Euphrates. was
regarded as the fixed border of Egypt. That the Hurrians were Cushites
is also clear from Egyptian annals which speak of "God's Land, Syria
and Cush."
The famous migration of Cushites into Mesopotamia during the reign
of Amenhotpe had been preceded by Cushite migrations from the Persian
highlands over a century before. They were the Kassu or Kassites under
Gande, the first Kassite king. The Kassites worshipped Maruttash, a god
of India. These Ethiopian incursions from the East were paralleled by
Ethiopian conquests in Asia from Egypt under the Theban kings. The
influence of the children of Cush in the ancient world has never been
made plain before. It reveals why so many of the descendants of Aram
and Lud, sons of Shem, show strong intermixture with dark races. In
most of the Middle East, the population today has become light brown,
not white, as a result of such mixture.
Phrygians and Hatti
To turn to northwestern Anatolia. Historians have constructed from
Greek annals an extensive kingdom in northwestern Asia Minor called
Phrygia. Its influence is known to have extended over much of Anatolia
at the very time Assyrian and Egyptian history speaks of the Empire of
Hatti.
"Phrygia" is a Greek word. The eleventh edition of the

"Encyclopaedia Britannica", article "Phrygia." provides its meaning:

"Phrygia, the name of a large country in Asia Minor, inhabited by a
race which the Greeks called Phryges, 'freemen'." The Phrygians -- or
Freemen -- were said to have spoken "the original speech of mankind."
They were known for their extensive wealth. It is said of one of their
kings, Midas, that everything he touched turned to gold -figuratively, of course! They showed a high degree of artistic skill.
After the Trojan War the region of Phrygia was utterly devastated
by Cimmerians -- Greek for people of Gomer. The Phrygians gradually
migrated into Europe. Because they came from the region ruled by the
wild Cimmerian hordes, it was common to speak of the Phrygians also as
Cimmerians. The Greek name Phryges was gradually changed to Phraggoi.
When the Romans encountered them, they applied the Roman word for
Freemen -- Franci -- Franks in English. Procopius, in his Roman
history, called the Franks Phraggoi (III, 3, 1). They finally settled
in France. Is it only a coincidence that the name of the capital of
their new land is Paris -- the name of the famous Trojan or Phrygian
hero Paris, son of Priam?
The original region which the Greeks called Phrygia extended to
the Hellespont, for the Phrygians at one time controlled the sea. This
land was termed Wilusa or Uilusa in Hattic inscriptions. The Great
Kings of Hatti were allied with the Phrygians of Wilusa -- a name
changed in later Greek to Ilion, the plain of Troy. "In bygone times
Labarnas, my ancestor, fought against the Arzawan Lands and the Land of
Wilusa; he subdued them. Now after that, Arzawa became hostile ... but
never did the Land of Wilusa secede from Hatti, but from afar they
remained loyal to the kings of Hatti," declared the Treaty of
Muwatallis, Great King of Hatti, with Alaksandus (Alexander) of Wilusa
(Ilion, or early Phrygia). This union maintained itself even after both
the Assyrians in the land of Hatti and the Phrygians were defeated at
the fall of Troy in 677.
The collapse of Phrygia and the decline of the Hittites east of
the Halys River basin in 677 is confirmed by Herodotus. His words are:
"... the Medes bent under the Persian yoke, after they had ruled over
all Asia beyond the river Halys for the space of one hundred and
twenty-eight years, excepting the interval of the Scythian dominion"
("Clio", 130). The Medes succumbed to Cyrus in 549. And 128 years
before is 677 the date of the Fall of Troy and the defeat of the Hatti
who were Trojan allies. There were no five centuries of darkness
between the so-called "Hittite Empire" and the Medes. One followed the
other. West of the Halys River the Phrygians are said by several
classical writers to have been overrun in the succeeding year, 676, by
the Cimmerians.
In a sense the Phrygians and Assyrians in Hatti were one vast
confederation. When these people journeyed into Europe they maintained
the old league. The Romans recognized among the Franks, or Phraggoi,
two groups: East and West Franks. The one German, the other French. The
German tribe called East Frankish was the Chatti or Hessian tribe -the same as in ancient Anatolia. Could history repeat itself any more
precisely?
In reading any book on Asia Minor -- many are now being published
-- always remember that it is common practice to apply the name
"Hittite" to all peoples of Asia Minor. It properly belongs only to
Canaanite Hittites, a wild and rude people who disappeared from the
area after the fall of Persia.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
How Greek History Was Corrupted
It is not generally admitted. But Homer, the famous epic poet of
Greece, was mad. His "Iliad" and "Odyssey" -- recording the events
surrounding the Greek struggles with Troy -- were written while Homer
was demented.
Homer was not merely an insane poet. He was also a mad historian.
Through Homer Greek history was altered, with diabolical cleverness.
Homer telescoped three Greek wars with Troy into one. Men and events
five centuries apart are artificially joined together as if
contemporary. Recent archaeological investigation at Troy reveals
Homer's lie. There are three wars layers -- the first and last
separated by about five centuries' (See C. W. Blegen's "Troy," in the
revised edition of the "Cambridge Ancient History".)
Little wonder Paul the apostle wrote of Homer -- and of Hesiod and
the other demented poets: "Neither give heed to fables and endless
genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying ..."
(I Timothy 1:4).
Greeks Admit Homer Was Demented
No poet in ancient Greece was ever considered worthy of special
honor unless he was demented. Democritus "denies that any one can be a
great poet, unless he is mad," wrote Cicero (Cicero, "Divin"., i, 80).
Homer was therefore mad.
Plato described the unusual kind of insanity that clutched the
minds of Greece's great poet-historians and philosophers. In the
"Phaedrus" Plato characterizes "poetic inspiration" as the "state of
being possessed by the Muses" -- a kind of "madness, which, on entering
a delicate and virgin soul, arouses and excites it to frenzy in odes
and other kinds of poetry .... But he that is without the Muses'
madness when he knocks at the doors of Poesy, fancying that art alone
will make him a competent poet, -- he and his poetry, the poetry of
sober sense, will never attain perfection, but will be eclipsed by the
poetry of inspired madmen" (245 A). Again, in the "Laws" Plato wrote
that "whenever a poet is enthroned on the tripod of the Muse, he is not
in his right mind" (719 C). In "Ion" the Greek theory of "inspiration"
is most thoroughly expressed: "It is not by art, but by being inspired
and possessed, that all good epic poets produce their beautiful poems
they are dancing, even so the melic poets are not in their right mind
when they are composing their beautiful strains. On the contrary, when
they have fallen under the spell of melody and metre, they are like
inspired revellers, and on becoming possessed, -- even as the Maenads
are possessed and not in their right senses ... the soul of the melic
poets acts in like manner, as they themselves admit .... And what they
say is true; for the poet ... cannot compose until he becomes inspired
and out of his senses, with his mind no longer in him; but, so long as
he is in possession of his senses, not one of them is capable of
composing, or of uttering his oracular sayings" (533 E-534 D).
In Biblical terms, Homer and all the famous Greek poet-historians
were possessed of demons. It was not really the poets or philosophers
who uttered the sayings, but the demon, masquerading as God, "who is
the speaker, and it is THROUGH them that he is speaking to us,"

concluded the author of "Ion".

The conclusion is absolutely clear. History has purposely been
perverted by the diabolical influence of fallen spirits who seized the
minds of poet-historians, such as Homer and Hesiod, and through them
twisted the events of antiquity. Jesus Himself declared that Satan, the
prince of demons, "deceiveth the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). One of
Satan's clever artifices is manifest in the form of corrupted history!
This diabolical plot to make God and His Word appear untrue has
deceived the whole world.
The Plot Centers on Troy
The final fall of Troy in 677 occurred at the close of the reign
of Thuoris (694-677) of Egypt. Eusebius confused this Thuoris with the
later queen Twosre and placed the event in her last year of reign. (See
the restoration of Egyptian history in this Compendium.) The year 677
marked the rise of Media (according to Herodotus) to power in Asia
Minor east of the Halys river.
The third fall of Troy in 677 climaxed a ten-year siege of the
city. A Greek victory had once before occurred -- about 504 years
before, in 1181. Another war, ending in 1149 -- and to be discussed
later -- is generally unreported in Greek annals, for it was a Greek
defeat!
Archaeology finds evidence of all three wars. Homer's epics
deliberately associate the leaders and events of the third war with
those of the first war. By so doing half of the history of ancient
Greece was made to appear over five centuries too early. Events that
transpired between 1181 and 677 were pushed back to the period
1685-1181.
The same diabolical conspiracy that worked through Homer in Greece
also worked through the priesthood of Egypt. Its dynasties were
deliberately placed successively so that sections of Egyptian history
appeared five centuries earlier. Similar diabolic manipulations
occurred in Mesopotamia. When later Greek, Roman, and now modern
critics and historians found Homer in apparent agreement with the
altered Egyptian and Mesopotamian data, they never thought to question
Homer or the Egyptian records. The conspiracy -- the deception -- was
so thorough, so far superior to human ingenuity that the whole world
has been deceived by it.
Homer and the Lydian Kings
To perpetuate this deception -- for the critics and historians
cannot admit they have been deceived -- we are told that Homer lived
several centuries before 677, in fact, near the time of the first Greek
war with Troy.
If Homer lived at that early period, counter the critics, how
could Homer have been responsible for a clever twisting of historical
events that occurred long after he was dead?
The answer is, Homer's own writings date his life to the time of
Gyges, king of Lydia. Homer mentions "'the Gygaean lake,' so called
from Gyges, king of Lydia" (J. S. Watson's footnote to Alexander Pope's
translation).
Before proceeding further, it is important to inset the kings of
Lydia, from which the date of Homer may be determined. Herodotus is

absolutely correct in his list of late Lydian kings. Modern historians

attempt arbitrarily to shorten the reigns of the Lydian monarchs.
Following is a list of the last royal family -- the Mermnadae -- to
rule Lydia to the time of Cyrus, king of Persia.
Mermnadae Kings of Lydia

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Gyges

38

716-678

Ardys

49

678-629

Sadyattes

12

629-617

Alyattes

57

617-560

Croesus

14

560-546

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

Prior to the Mermnadae, another line of kings governed Lydia -the Heraclidae. Their rule lasted 22 generations during 505 years -1221-716 (Herodotus, I, 7).
The history of the kingdom of Lydia, settled heavily by the
children of Lud, son of Shem, has been lost. All that has been
preserved are a few fragments of Xanthus' history of his nation.
Restoring Greek History
The modern interpretation of ancient Grecian civilization is a
paradox. Strange though it may seem, historians today reject the valid
history of Greece as error and take for granted the Homeric fable of
the Trojan War!
It is time history students were told why the traditional
histories of Athens, of Sparta, Sicyon and Corinth have been rejected
-- and why confusion rules the dates of the Trojan War. This kind of
twisted thinking took its rise in the German literary criticism of the
eighteenth century. In the German schools all antiquity was rejected in
total as fabulous. None of the ancients knew how to write, the critics
assumed. And oral tradition was at best a weak link. Within a century
the historians, trained in this literary atmosphere, began to assume
the same rationalist explanations of the past. With no history left by
which their speculations could be judged, the historians were free -so they thought -- to reconstruct the Aegean world. Even the Trojan War
was called into question as fabulous. It barely passed muster.
But what the historians never thought to query was the general
date of the last Trojan War. The literary critics wanted to believe in
the early dating of the war with Troy to make it appear as folklore.
Historians, newly entering the critical field, accepted as valid the
literary critics' supposition of one early Trojan War. It never
occurred to them that the period of the last war over Troy had been
confused with the first war and the contemporary kings of Argos and
Mycenae. Once the dates of the three major Trojan Wars are determined.
the problems in Greek history vanish.
Kings of Corinth

The chronological history of Greece commences later than the Tower

of Babel. Hence it is necessary to begin with more recent times and
build up the history of early Greece to its beginning. The starting
point will be the city-state Corinth, whose dates will be immediately
confirmed by those of Athens. The kings of Corinth ruled for 323 years.
They were followed by a constitutional oligarchy for 90 years, then by
the Tyranny of the Cypselidae. The dates of the Cypselidae are
determined from nearly contemporary sources.
It should be noted that late traditional dating in the Greek world
was made to conform to the Olympiads, which began at the summer
solstice. The following lists may therefore generally be considered
June-to-June calendar years.
The rule of the Cypselidae Tyranny lasted 73 and 1/2 years,
according to Aristotle ("Politics", 1315b). It dates from 656 (June) to
583 (December). The founder of the tyranny, Cypselus, reigned
altogether 30 years -- 656-626. According to Eusebius, however, he
associated his son Periander with him in the government in 628, after
28 years. Periander, according to Aristotle, ruled altogether 44 years
until his death in 584. The date of the death of the tyrant Periander
is given by Diogenes Laertius in "Periandros". Laertius, quoting
Sosikrates, places it at the end of Olympiad 48, 4, immediately before
Olymplad 49, 1. As the Olympiads commenced in 776, the 48th Olympiad
ended at the summer solstice in 584. (Each Olympiad consists of 4
years.)
The last of the Corinthian tyrants was Psammetichus, the brother
or nephew of Periander. He ruled three years according to Aristotle -586-583 (December to December). Psammetichus came to the government SIX
MONTHS AFTER Periander had completed his 40th year (reckoned from the
death of Cypselus in 626), or his 42nd year (reckoned from the
beginning of his reign in 628). The Armenian version of Eusebius
assigns to Periander 43 years, including the calendar year in which
Psammetichus came to the government.
The commencement of the Corinthian Tyranny by Cypselus in 656
marked the overthrow of the Constitutional Oligarchy. The Constitution
lasted altogether 90 years -- 746-656. In the year 746 the last of the
early kings of Corinth was overthrown. The revolt ended 323 years of
kingship. The following chart lists the kings of Corinth from the
beginning of their rule in 1069 to the revolt of 746. The significance
of the year 1069 will be discussed under the history of Athens.
Kings of Corinth

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Aletes

35

1069-1034

Ixion

37

1034- 997

Agelaus

37

997- 960

Prymnus

34
(or 35)

960- 926
(960- 925)

Bacchis

36
(or 35)

926- 890
(925- 890)

Agelas

30

890- 860

Eudemus

25

860- 835

Aristomedes

35

835- 800

Agemon

16

800- 784

Alexander

25

784- 759

Telestes

12

759- 747

Automenes

747- 746

The Constitution

90

746- 656

The Tyranny

73 1/2

656- 583

The History of Athens

Athens was for centuries, as it is today, the chief city of
Greece. Its early history focuses on the year 1069 when an Athenian
victory combined with a great earthquake to rekindle the myth of the
"fall of Atlantis."
Modern writers reject Athens' early history altogether of course,
they have never disproved it. Their only argument is the falacious
assumption that the Greeks could not have known their own history!
The following chart gives the complete framework of Athenian
history which has been preserved correctly from Castor, the historian
of Rhodes, in the Eusebian Chronicles. Athenian history commences with
the founding of the city by Cecrops in 1556.
Kings of Athens

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Cecrops

50

1556-1506

Cranaus

1506-1497

Amphictyon

10

1497-1487

Erecthonius

50

1487-1437

Pandion I

40

1437-1397

Erechtheus

50

1397-1347

Cecrops II

40

1347-1307

Pandion II

25

1307-1282

Aegaeus

48

1282-1234

Theseus

30

1234-1204

Menestheus

23

1204-1181

(Eusebius dates the fall of Troy in the First Trojan War to the
year 1181, just before the summer solstice. Immediately after the war

Menestheus was murdered at the Isle of Melus, before he was able to

return to Athens.)
Demophon

33

1181-1148

Oxyntes

12

1148-1136

Aphidas

1136-1135

Thymoetes

1135-1127

Melanthus

37

1127-1090

Codrus

21

1090-1069

Codrus, the last Athenian king, perished in a great war in 1069.

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

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Medon, son of Codrus

20

1069-1049

Acastus

36

1049-1013

Archippus

19

1013- 994

Thersippus

41

994- 953

Phorbas

31

953- 922

Megacles

30

922- 892

Diognetus

28

892- 864

Pherecles

19

864- 845

Ariphron

20

845- 825

Thespieus

27

825- 798

Agamestor

20

798- 778

Aeschylus

23

778- 755

Alcmaeon

755- 753

In 753 the Perpetual Archons were replaced by Dicennial Archons.

That is, each held the office for 10 years. The seven Dicennial Archons
of Athens were Charops, Aesimides, Clidicus, Hippomenes, Leocrates,
Apsander, Eryxias. Their rule covered a period of 70 years -- 753-683.

In 683 the government of the Athenians -- famous for their democracy -passed into the hands of Annual Archons, the first of whom was Creon.
This date is fixed by numerous evidences. See Clinton's "Fasti
Hellenici", I, 182.
The History of Sicyon
Athens was not the oldest city in Greece. That honor goes to
Sicyon, a city located near Corinth. Interestingly enough, Sicyon
ceased to be an important city during the flowering of Corinth,
beginning in 1069. When Corinth became subject to internal strife
during the reign of Periander, Sicyon again rose to prominence under
the Tyranny of Clisthenes. It quickly achieved a high degree of
prosperity and fame.
The ancient city-state of Sicyon lasted 1000 years, according to
Apollodorus and others. Its prominence blanketed the millennium from
2063 to 1063. That the figure should be exactly 1000 years has troubled
many a historian. Yet that is the plain record of history. When will
men learn that the destinies of men and of cities and nations are in
the hands of God who numbers all things! He determines the times and
the seasons during which men rule.
There were other ancient Greek historians who reckoned the history
of Sicyon differently. The information preserved from their writings
assigns Sicyon dominion for only 962 years -- that is, from 2063 to
1101. Year 1101 is the time of the re-establishment of the Heraclidae
at Sparta, 80 years after the fall of Troy in the First Trojan War.
Both these views of the history of Sicyon are valid. The
difference is only one of viewpoint. For during the years from 1101 to
1063 the old dynasty at Sicyon was displaced by priests of Apollo
Carnaeus who were subservient to the Heraclidae.
The original name of Sicyon was Aegialea. This Greek name was
derived from the city's first king, Aegialeus.
The name Aegialeus in Greek means "man of the coastland" or
"shoreland" (Smith's "Classical Dictionary", art. "Achaia"). Compare
this with the meaning of the name Eber, or Heber, from which the word
Hebrew is derived. One of the root meanings of Eber is "shoreland" or
"shoreregion." Another root meaning is "migrant." Both are very closely
related. The ancient routes of migration usually took one along the
shores of a river or along coastlands.
The evidence unmistakeably points to the name Aegialeus as a Greek
translation of Heber. In other words, Hebrews were among the settlers
of ancient Greece.
Elisha, son of Javan, also settled the Greek coastlands. From him
the name Hellas came to be applied to Greece.
Early influence of Hebrew people in the Grecian land is also
recorded throughout Greek history. Witness the incursions of the Hyksos
-- the Edomite Heraclidae -- a branch of the Hebrews. Later the Danites
from Palestine appear. The influence of Hebrews in the Grecian land
helps to explain one of the most remarkable events in the Gentile world
-- the choosing of the Greek nation to preserve the New Testament
Scriptures.
The Greeks knew of the God of Shem because the Hebrews, a Semitic
people, dwelt among them. Two thousand years in advance God was
preparing the Greek people for the preservation of His Word.
Moreover the Greeks have preserved most of the history of the
ancient world. Manetho has come down to us, not in the Egyptian tongue,

but in the Greek language. The early history of Assyria is found in

Greek, so also that of the early kings of Media.
But to return to the kingship of Aegialea or Sicyon.
Kings of Sicyon

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Aegialeus

52

2063-2011

Europs

45

2011-1966

Telchin

20

1966-1946

Apis

25

1946-1921

Thelxion

52

1921-1869

Aegydrus

34

1869-1835

Thurimachus

45

1835-1790

Leucippus

53

1790-1737

Messapus

47

1737-1690

Eratus, or Peratus

46

1690-1644

Plemnaeus

48

1644-1596

Orthopolis

63

1596-1533

Marathon

30

1533-1503

Marathus

20

1503-1483

Echireus

55

1483-1428

Corax

30

1428-1398

(The lists, as they have been handed down, add Epopeus next,
followed by Lamedon, younger brother of Corax. Epopeus was a foreigner,
a Shepherd King, who demolished Greek temples and altars. He is Apophis
I of Egypt, Hyksos king of Dynasty XV. As Egyptian records proved he
died in 1326, it is clear that Lamedon preceded Epopeus, then was
driven into exile. He returned, in old age, and ended his reign shortly
afterward.)
Lamedon

40

1398-1358

Epopeus

32

1358-1326

1326-1323

Lamedon again

(According to Sycellus, Lamedon reigned altogether 43 years. Eusebius

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

Sicyon, who gave his

name to the city.

45
(or 42)

1323-1278
(1323-1281)

Polybus

40
(or 43)

1278-1238
(1281-1238)

Inachus

42

1238-1196

Phaestus

1196-1188

Adrastus

1188-1184

Polyphides

31

1184-1153

Pelasgus

20

1153-1133

Zeuxippus

31
(or 32)

1133-1102
(1133-1101)

(The year 1102-1101 marks the return of the famous Heraclidae, in

the 80th year after the fall of Troy (1181) in the First Trojan war. In
his last year Zeuxippus was compelled to share the throne with the
priests of Apollo Carneus, appointed at the return of the Heraclidae.)
Priests of Apollo
Carneus Governing
Sicyon

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Archelaus

1102-1101

Automedon

1101-1100

Theoclytus

1100-1096

Euneus

1096-1090

Theonomus

1090-1081

Amphichyes

12
(or 18)

1081-1069
(1081-1063)

The year 1069 (for the reign of Amphichyes) is the date of the
decisive struggle when Athens maintained her independence against a
grand alliance of foreign peoples, associated with the Heraclidae. In
1069 Corinth superseded Sicyon as the dominant city in the Corinthian
plain.
Enter Sparta
One of the most famous cities in the classical Greek period was
Sparta. Castor wrote the history of this famous city. Though now lost,
its bare outline is preserved by Eusebius and others. Sparta was
founded by the Heraclidae 80 years after the First Trojan War. From
here, a generation later they launched an attack on Athens. Though
finally defeated, they were yet strong enough to establish a new line
of native kings in Corinth friendly to Sparta. The Spartan kingship,

descended from the Heraclidae, was very unusual in that two royal
houses ruled the throne at the same time for almost 900 years. A full
list of the two royal houses is preserved in Lempriere's "Classical
Dictionary", article "Lacedaemon." The following short summary from
Eusebius is all that needs be included in this Compendium.
Many doubts have arisen over the dates of the Spartan kings due to
the tradition among them of dating the reigns from the time of
appointment to the throne as minors. In most instances Spartan kings
are known to have lived into the reigns of successors who are listed
chronologically as kings when only minors under tutelage.
Agidae Kings of Sparta
to the First Olympic
according to Eusebius
Eurysthenes

Lengths of Reign

Dates

42

1101-1059

1059-1058

Echestratus

35

1058-1023

Labotas

37

1023- 986

Dorysthus

29

986- 957

Agesilaus

44

957- 913

Archelaus

60

913- 853

Teleclus

40

853- 813

Alcamenes

37

813- 776

Agis

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

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Caranus

28

813-785

Coenus

12

785-773

Tyrimmas

38

773-735

Perdicca I

51

735-684

Argaeus I

38

684-646

Philippus I

38

646-608

Aeropus

26

608-582

Alcetas

29

582-553

Amyntas I

50

553-503

Alexander

43

503-460

Perdicca II

28

460-432

Archelaus

24

432-408

Orestes

408-405

Archelaus (again)

405-401

Amyntas II

401-400

Pausanias

400-399

Amyntas II (again)

399-393

Argaeus II

393-391

18

391-373

Alexander

373-372

Ptolemaeus

372-368

Perdicca III

368-362

Philippus II

26

362-336

Alexander the Great

12

336-324

Amyntas II (again)

In the preceding list the duration of time is accurately

preserved. But it should be noted that in several occasions the change
of reign does not mark the death of the predecessor, but the
appointment to royalty of the son and heir to the throne. This same
type of varied dating also occurred in ancient Egypt. It has led
historians to treat the records as artificial or fabricated, when they
should have viewed the records as relating only part of the story.
Alexander died in his 13th year, in 323. But as the Macedonians
adopted the non-accession-year system, the last incomplete year of
Alexander -- 324-323 -- was assigned as the first year of his brother
Phillip.
Who Were the Heraclidae?
Most everyone has assumed that the Heraclidae were Greeks by descent.
That they were lnfluenced by Greek culture and language is true. But
they were not originally Greek in ancestry. With occasional
intermarriage they became partly Grecianized.
The Heraclidae are said to have returned 80 years after the First
Trojan War. They returned to Greece from Asia Minor. Asia Minor had
earlier been dominated by the Hyksos rulers -- Apophis and Khayan. The
Hyksos were Amalekites and other tribes descended of Edom (see the
early chapter on the history of the Hyksos in this Compendium). Was
there a racial affinity between Hyksos and Heraclidae?

The Greeks called these people Heraclidae after an ancestor

Heracles. Who that man was may be discovered by investigating the
history of Argos in Greece.
The History of Argos
The story of the taking of Troy by Agamemnon is known to almost
every schoolboy who has studied literature. What is not known today is
the history of Agamemnon's dynasty. How, and when it originated,
through whom it began.
The complete list of rulers of the Greek cities of Argos, Mycenae,
Tiryns in the Argolid plain of Greece to the first Trojan War is
derived from Castor. It has been preserved in entirety by Eusebius.
(See "Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei
Jahrhunderte", vol. 7, edited by Rudolf Helm.) The list is given below,
with the correct dates.
Kings of Argos to End
of First Trojan War
According to Castor,
from Eusebius

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Inachus

50

1852-1802

Phoroneus

60

1802-1742

Apis

35

1742-1707

Argus

70

1707-1637

Criasus

54

1637-1583

Phorbas

35

1583-1548

Triopas

46

1548-1502

Crotopus

21

1502-1481

Sthenelus

11

1481-1470

Danaus, fled from

Egypt to Greece

50

1470-1420

Lynceus, son-in-law of
Danaus

41

1420-1379

Abas

23

1379-1356

Proetus

17

1356-1339

Acrisius

31

1339-1308

Eurystheus

45

1308-1263

Atreus and Thyestes

65

1263-1198

Agamemnon, exercised
hegemony over Argos

17

1198-1181

Agamemnon reigned 35 years according to Eusebius -- that is, from

1215 to 1180. His first seventeen years were in his youth, when
Thyestes still governed. The Greeks seized Troy in the beginning of
summer, in 1181, at the very beginning of the eighteenth year of
Agamemnon. The king lost his life at the end of the year upon his
return to Greece.
The date of Inachus is significant. Inachus is but the Latin form
of the Greek name Inachos, or the Egyptian name Weneg. The tradition is
that Inachus and his immediate descendants were in some way connected
with Egypt. A comparison with Dynasty II of Egypt reveals a king Weneg
whose reign ended in 1852, the very year Inachus appeared in Greece!
There can be no doubt that this was an early Egyptian colony in Greece.
Inachus was not some unknown hero. He was of the royal family of Egypt.
Note Egyptian names of son and grandson -- Phoroneus, Apis -- as added
proof.
Genealogy of Danaus
Now consider the lineage of Danaus who came to Egypt with his
brother Aegyptus, according to Greek tradition, from somewhere in the
region of Arabia or Palestine. The lineage, given below, with dates of
those who ruled in Greece, is from Henry Clinton's "Fasti Hellenici",
vol. I, p. 101. Unless otherwise stated, each is presumed a son of the
name above.
Belus, father of Danaus and Aegyptus
The many sons of Aegyptus who ruled in Egypt
constituted Dynasty VII of Memphis.
Danaus (1470-1420)
Hypermnestra, daughter of Danaus
Married Lynceus (1420-1379), son of Aegyptus
Abas (1379-1356)
Acrisius (1339-1308)
Danae, a daughter
Danae secretly had a son by "Zeus" -- probably
Giemshid the Persian king.
Perseus, the Alphidun of the Persian king list
Perseus was grandfather of Eurystheus of Argos
(1308-1263). He had a son Perses, report the Greeks.
Persian history makes Perses the son of Irege, son
of Perseus. Since Irege died before his father,
Perseus must have adopted Perses as his son. His
Persian name was Manougeher, and he was known as
Phirouz -- that is, Perses.
Electryo, daughter of Perseus

Alcmena, a daughter
Heracles, a contemporary of Eurystheus
Hyllus
Cleodaeus
Aristomachus
Aristodemus
Eurysthenes (1101-1059), king of Sparta
From him one of the royal Spartan kingly lines
descended. The Spartans claimed descent from Abraham
according to a letter they wrote to the Jews. See
Josephus: "Antiquities of the Jews", XII, iv, 10 and
XIII, v. 8. The Jews admitted the truth of the
statement, saying they found it in their Scriptures.
Our question is where in Scripture is Belus, the ancestor of this
royal line, mentioned? The only Belus mentioned at that period in the
Bible is Bela (the Latin form would be Belus), the son of Beor and
brother of Balaam. Bela was a king of Edom (Genesis 36:32). Edom was
the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. Here is one of the earliest
indications of the settlement of the Aegean and the western parts of
Turkey by the sons of Esau. The ancient Spartans were a very warlike
people, at constant cross-purposes with other Greek city-states.
Now consider the chronological significance of Danaus' actual
arrival in Argos. Note that Danaus first arrived in Argos in 1486 -the actual year he fled from his brother when the Hyksos quarreled over
setting up the kingship in Egypt. For the significance of 1486 see the
section on Egyptian history concerning the Exodus.
Kings of Argos
According to Syncellus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Inachus, Weneg of
Dynasty II of Egypt

56

1858-1802

Phoroneus

60

1802-1742

Apis

35

1742-1707

Argus

70

1707-1637

Criasus

55

1637-1582

Phorbas

25

1582-1557

Triopas

36

1557-1521

Crotopus

24

1521-1497

Sthenelus

11

1497-1486

Danaus, flees from his brother

58

1486-1428

Lynceus

35

1428-1393

Abas

37

1393-1356

Proetus

17

1356-1339

Sea Powers of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean

One of the most interesting documents of antiquity is a list of
Sea Powers (Thalassocracies) preserved by Eusebius from Diodorus. This
list begins with the revival of anti-Greek Heraclidae power in the
second Trojan War under the Maeonians who settled in Lydia. The
Maeonians are mentioned in the Bible, in Judges 10:12 as Maonites, and
as allies of the Midianites and Amalekites. (See also Judges 6:33.)
"The Journal of Hellenic Studies", Vol. XXVII (1907), page 83, provides
the most important scholarly study of the Thalassocracies yet made.
Sea Powers (Thalassocrasies)
of the Eastern Mediterranean
and Aegean Seas to 480

Duration

Date

Lydians, who are the Maeonians

92

1149-1057

Pelasgians or Sea Peoples

85

1057- 972

Thracians

79

972- 893

Rhodians

23

893- 870

Phrygians

25

870- 845

Cyprians

32

845- 813

Phoenicians

45

813- 768

Egyptians

43

768- 725

Milesians

18

725- 707

Carians

61

707- 646

Lesbians

68
(or 96)

646- 578
(674- 578)

Phocaeians

44

578- 534

Samians

17

534- 517

517- 515

Naxians

10

515- 505

Eritreans

15

505- 490

Lacedemonians (Spartans)

Aeginetans

10

490- 480

In the year 480 Xerxes marches his armies from Asia into Europe.
Several significant figures appear in the preceding list of Sea
Powers. The year 1149 marks the period of the Second Trojan War, and
the defeat of the Greeks. In archaeological finds at Troy, two war
layers immediately follow one another -- one ending in 1181, the second
in 1149. Troy, it must be noted, was a key port, the control of which
was essential if the Lydians or Maeonians were to gain control of the
seas. A third war layer, during the Mycenaean period, is separated by
about five centuries of deposits.
The name Pelasgians in Greek annals referred to the Phoenicians
and Israelites. Notice that the period of Pelasgian domination in Greek
literature (1057-972) covered the period of Phoenician greatness and of
Solomon's reign, referred to so often in the Bible.
Notice also the period of the Carian control of the sea. Diodorus
(V, 84) declares that the Carians continued to grow in sea power even
after the war with Troy. The Third Trojan War was ended in 677. This
was the very period of Carian dominance. The Carians were also famous
as hired mercenaries during the early years of Psammetichus of Egypt.
But what of the Egyptian sea power? No sea power of Egypt is known
between 768-725 according to the modern interpretation of Egyptian
history. When Egyptian history is restored, however, this period is
very significant. The year 768 is the second year of Osorthon, of
Dynasty XXIII of Tanis on the shore of the Mediterranean. Osorthon is
called Heracles by the Greeks and was famous for his sea expeditions.
Take special note also of the dates of sea power of the Cyprians
and the Phoenicians. Compare these with the chart in a succeeding
chapter on the archaeological sequence of Troy. Note that the Mycenaean
Late Bronze period at Troy commences during this period. This list of
sea powers will offer strong evidence that the Mycenaean culture was
not native Greek, but Phoenician. That the homeland of Mycenaean wares
was the Syrian coast, and that the extensive settlement of Phoenician
colonies in the Greek world occurred during this and succeeding
centuries. The Mycenaean culture paralleled native Greek wares with
their geometric designs.
The History of Italy
Troy is famous in European history. After the third war over Troy,
many peoples from Asia Minor migrated into Northwestern Europe and
carried the name of Troy with them. London became New Troy. In France
appeared Troyes.
The refugees of the First Trojan War settled also in Italy. They
founded Lavinium two years after the First Trojan War -- that is, in
1179 -- and later the city of Alba (the site of the Pope's summer
palace today) at the time of the Second Trojan War in 1149. (Consult
Dionysius or Diodorus for these details.) The Trojan royal house
founded in Italy a line of kings that reigned in Alba from 1178 until
753, when the center of government passed to Rome.
Latinus, king of Latium who preceded the Trojans, died in 1178,
three years after fall of Troy in 1181. In Greek his name is spelled
"Lateinos". Aenaes the Trojan, son-in-law of Latinus, succeeds him.
Early Kings of Lavinium

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(founded 1179) and Alba

(founded 1149) after the
First Trojan War
Aenaes

1178-1175

Ascanius

38

1175-1137

Sylvius

29

1137-1108

Aenaes Sylvius

31

1108-1077

Latinus Sylvius

50

1077-1027

Alba Sylvius

39

1027- 988

Aegyptus Sylvius

24

988- 964

Capis Sylvius

28

964- 936

Carpentus Sylvius

13

936- 923

Tiberinus Sylvius

923- 915

Agrippa Sylvius

41

915- 874

Aremulus Sylvius

19

874- 855

Aventinus Sylvius

37

855- 818

Procas Sylvius

23
(or 21)

818- 795
(818- 797)

Amulius Sylvius

42
(or 44)

795- 753
(797- 753)

In 753, according to the accurate account of the Roman historian

Varro, Rome was re-founded for the third time. Shortly before that
famous event the twins Romulus and Remus killed Amulius Sylvius in the
last year of his reign. Amulius Sylvius had deprived his older brother
Numitor, maternal grandfather of the twins, of the throne at Alba.
Slight variations in the preceding list occur in some authors.
Eusebius assigned only 40 years to Agrippa Sylvius, predating each
reign: Dionysius designated 51 to Lateinos Sylvius, postdating the
reigns.
Another variation indicating joint rule is given in chart form
thus:
Aenaes Sylvius

30

1108-1078

Lateinus Sylvius

50

1078-1028

Alba Sylvius

38

1028- 990

Aegyptus Sylvius

26

990- 964

-----------------------

Kings of Rome to the

Founding of the Republic
Romulus

Lengths of Reign
37

Dates
753- 716

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

Numa Pompilius

43

715- 672

Tullus Hostilius

32

672- 640

Ancus Martius

24

640- 616

Targuinius Priscus

38

616- 578

Servius Tullius

44
(or 34)

578- 534
(578- 544)

Tarquinius Superbus

25
(or 35)

534- 509
(544- 509)

In the 25th year (or 35th) year of Tarquinius Supurbus -- 510-509

-- the first Roman Consuls were appointed. They held their office about
16 months. The Consuls thereafter held their office for a Roman
calendar year -- January to January. A complete list of consular
magistrates may be had in Lempriere's "A Classical Dictionary", article
"Consul".
In several instances in the preceding list, the lengths of reign
of the kings are shortened by some authors -- notably Eusebius, Cicero,
Polybius -- who viewed the royal power as subordinate, on occasion, to
the Senate. But the full and correct account is preserved correctly by
Dionysius of Halicarnassus' "Roman Antiquities", I, 75.
Hereafter the history of Rome is essentially correct in most
histories -- though the lessons of Roman rule have yet to be learned by
Man!

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 approved 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

1016-1015

1002- 999

Muimhne mac Gede the Ereamhon,

Luighne mac Gede,
Laighne mac Gede
Er mac Eber,
Orba mac Eber,
Fearon mac Eber,

6 months

999

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

909- 905

40

905- 865

20

865- 845

24

845- 821

Eochaidh I Eadghadhach mac Daire

(Ith)
Cearmna Fionn mac Ebric (Ir),
Sobhairce mac Ebric (Ir)
Eochaidh II Faobharglas mac
Conmhaol (Eb.)
Fiachadh I Labhrainne mac
Smiorgoll (Er.)

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

747- 742

14

742- 728

Muineamhon mac Cas Clothach (Eb.)

728- 723

Faildeargdoid mac Muineamhon (Eb.)

723- 714

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

625- 617

Bearnghal mac Ghedhe (Ir)

12

617- 605

Oilioll I mac Slanoll (Ir)

15

605- 590

Seadhna I mac Airtri (Ir)

Fiachadh II Fionscothach mac
Seadhna (Ir)

(Eochaidh) Ollamh Fodhla mac

Fiachadh (Ir)
(not the later prophet Ollamh
Fodhla)

Fiachadh III Fionnailches mac

Fionnachta (Ir)

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.)

569- 562

Elim I Oillfinshneachta mac

Roitheachtach (Eb.)

562- 561

Giallchadh mac Oilioll Olchaoin (Er.),

son of Tea Tephi
9

561- 552

Art I Imleach mac Elim (Eb.)

552- 540

12

Nuadhat I Fionnfoil mac Giallchadh

(Er.)
13

540- 527

Breas mac Art (Eb.)

527- 518

Eochaidh IV Apthach mac Fionn (Ith) 1

518- 517

Fionn mac Bratha (Ir)

20

517- 497

Seadhna II Ionnarrach
14
mac Breas (Eb.)
Siomon Breac mac Aodhan Glas (Er.) 6

497- 483

Duach I Fionn mac Seadhna (Eb.)

477- 469

Muireadhach I Bolgrach mac Siomon

(Er.)

469- 468

Eadhna II Dearg mac Duach (Eb.)

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.)

430- 425

Lughaidh II Laimhdhearg mac

Eochaidh (Eb.)

425- 421

Conaing Beageaglach mac Congal

Cosgarach (returns, (Er.)

421- 414

414- 407

Oilioll II Fionn mac Art (Eb.)

407- 398

Eochaidh VII mac Oilloll (Eb.)

398- 391

Airgeatmhar mac Siorlamh (Ir)

10

391- 381

Duach II Ladhgrach mac Fiachadh

Tolgrach (Er.)

10

381- 371

371- 367

483- 477

Conaing Beageaglach mac Congal

Cosgarach (Er.)

Art II mac Lughaidh, (Eb.)

Fiacha Tolgrach (Er.)

Lughaidh III Laighdhe mac Eochaidh

(Eb.)

(Next four reign alternately in 28 years.)

Aodh I Ruadh mac Badharn (Ir)

367- 360

Diothorba mac Deman (Ir)

360- 353

Ciombaoth mac Fionntan (Ir)

353- 346

The prophet Ollanh Fodhla lived about 240 years before his time. He was
Jeremiah.
Machadh Mongruadh, Queen (Ir)

346- 339

Reachtaidh Righdhearg mac

Lughaidh (Eb.)

339- 330

30

330- 300

Ugaine Mor mac Eochaidh

Buadhach (Er.)

(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

241- 235

Aonghus II Ollanh mac Oilioll (Er.) 7

235- 228

Irereo (Iarann) Gleofathach mac

Melghe (Er.)

228- 222

Fearcorb mac Modhcorb (Eb.)

222- 215

Connla Camh mac Irereo (Er.)

215- 211

Oilioll III Caisfhiaclach mac Connla

(Er.)
25

211- 186

Modhcorb mac Cobhtach Caomh (Eb.)

Adhamair Foltchaon mac

Fearcorb (Eb.)

186- 181

Eochaidh VIII Ailtleathan mac Oilioll

(Er.)
7

181- 174

Fearghus I Fortamhail mac Breasal

174- 162

12

Breac (Er.)
Aonghus III Tuirmheach Teamhrach
mac Eochaidh (Er.)

32

162- 130

Conall I Collamhrach mac Ederscel

130- 125

Niadh Sedhamain mac Adhamair (Eb.)

125- 118

10

118- 108

108- 104

Eadhna III Aighneach mac Aonghus

Criomthann I Cosgrach mac
Fedhlimidh (Er.)
Rudhraighe mac Sithrighe (Ir)

17

104-

87

Ionnatmar mac Niadh (Eb.)

87-

84

Breasal Boidhiobhadh mac

Rudhraighe (Ir)

84-

75

Lughaidh IV Luaighne mac

Ionnatmar (Eb.)

15

75-

60

Congal I Claroineach mac

Rudhraighe (Ir)

60-

57

Duach III Dallta Deadhadh mac

Cairbre Lusg (Eb.)

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.)

Nuadhat II Neacht mac Seadhna
Sithbhaic (Er.)
Conaire I Mor mac Ederscel (Er.)

1
59

1-

60

(Interregnum)

60-

65

Lughaidh V Sriabhndearg mac Breas

Fineamhnas (Er.)

65-

73

Conchobhar I Abhradhruadh mac Finn

Fili (Er.)

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

90-

95

Cairbre Cinncait (usurp.) and son

Morann Mac-Maom
Fearadhach Finnfeachtnach mac
Criomthann (Er.)

21

95- 116

Fiatach Fionn mac Daire (Er.)

116- 119

Fiachdh IV Finnfolaidh mac Fearadhach

(Er.)
7

119- 126

Elim II mac Conrach (Ir)

126- 130

30

130- 160

160- 164

Tuathal I Teachtmhar mac Fiachadh

(Er.)
Mal mac Rochraidhe (Ir)

Feidhlimidh Reachtmhar mac Tuathal

(Er.)
10
Cathaoir Mor mac Feidhlimidh
Firurghlais (Er.)
3

164- 174
174- 177

Conn Cedcathach mac Feidhlimidh

(Er.)

35

177- 212

Conaire II mac Modha-Lamha (Er.)

212- 220

30

220- 250

250- 253

Fearghus II Duibhdeadach mac Imchadh

(Er.)
1

253- 254

Cormac Ulfada mac Art (Er.)

23

254- 277

277- 279

17

279- 296

Art III Confhir mac Conn (Er.)

Lughaidh VI Mac-Con mac Macniadh
(Ith)

Eochaidh XI Gonnat mac Feig (Er.)

Cairbre Liffeachair mac Cormac
(Er.)
Fothadh I Cairptheach mac Lughaidh
(Ith) and

1
Fothadh II Airgtheach mac Lughaidh (Er.)
Fiachadh V Sraibhtine mac
Cairbre (Er.)

296- 297

30

297- 327

327- 331

Cairioll Colla-Uais mac Eochaidh

Doimhlen (Er.)
Muireadhach II Tireach mac Fiachadh

(Er.)

26

331- 357

Caolbhadh mac Crunn Badhrai (Ir)

357- 358

Eochaidh XII Muighmheadhoin mac

Muireadhach (Er.)

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

508- 513

Muircheartach I Mor Mac-Earca mac

Muireadhach (Hereafter all are of the
line of Ereamhon.)
20

513- 533

(Interregnum)

(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

566- 568

Ainmire mac Seadhna

568- 571

Baodan II mac Ninnidh

571- 572

27

572- 599

Aodh III Slaine mac Diarmaid and

Colman Rimidh mac Baodan

599- 605

Aodh IV Uairidhnach mac Domhnall

Ilchealgach

605- 612

Maolcobha mac Aodh

612- 615

Aodh II mac Ainmire

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

658- 665

Seachnasach mac Blathmac

665- 671

Ceannfaoladh mac Blathmac

671- 675

20

675- 695

Loingseach mac Aonghus

695- 704

Congal II Ceann-Maghair mac

Fearghus

704- 711

11

711- 722

Fogartach mac Niall

722- 724

Cionaoth mac Irgalach

724- 727

Flaithbheartach mac Loingseach

727- 734

Aodh V Allan mac Fearghal

734- 743

Domhnall III mac Murchadh

20

743- 763

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

Fionnachta II Fleadhach mac

Dunchadh

Fearghal mac Maolduin

Niall II Frosach mac Fearghal

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

529-534

Comghall mac Domhangart

24

534-558

Gabhran mac Domhangart

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

Domhnall I Breac mac Eochaidh

629
13

629-642

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

689-697

Eochaidh II Rianamhail mac Domhangart

1

697-698

Ainbhceallach mac Fearchar

698

Fearchar I mac Connchadh

Fearchar II Fada mac Feradhach

Sealbach mac Fearchar

25

698-723

Dungal II mac Sealbach

723-726

Eochaidh III Angbhaid mac Eochaidh

726-733

Dungal II mac Sealbach (returns)

733-736

Alpin mac Eochaidh

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
Cinaeth I (Kenneth) mac Alpin

Lengths of Reign
15

Dates
843-858

(Obtains Lia Fail from son-in-law, Aodh VII Finnliath of Ireland, in

843.)
Domhnall III (Donald)

858-862

14

862-876

876-878

(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

954-962

Dubh

962-967

Cuillen

967-971

24

971-995

Custantin III

995-997

Cinaeth III

997-1005

29

1005-1034

Donnchadh I (Duncan)

1034-1040

Macbeathadh (Macbeth)

17

1040-1057

1057-1058

35

1058-1093

Domhnall V Bane

1093-1097

Donnchadh II

1093-1094

Edgar

12

1094-1106

Alexander I

18

1106-1124

Custantin I
Aodh II
(Eochaidh V, king Strathclyde)

Cinaeth II

Maelcolaim II

Lulach
Maelcolaim III Ceanmohr

David I

29

1124-1153

Maelcolaim IV

12

1153-1165

William

49

1165-1214

Alexander II

35

1214-1249

Alexander III

37

1249-1286

1286-1290

(2)

(1290-1292)

Margaret
(Interregnum)

Dynasties of Baliol and of Bruce

John Baloil
(Interregnum)

1292-1296

(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

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.

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

Lengths of Reign

Dates
according to
Sammes

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

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

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

487-482

Cordeilla, queen

Ferrex and Porrex

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

312-309

10

309-299

Morindus

299-290

Gorboman

10

290-280

Archigallo

280-279

Elidure his brother

279-276

Archigallo restored

10

276-266

Elidurus again

266-265

Vigenius and Peridurus

265-256

Elidurus again

256-252

Gorbonian

10

252-242

Morgan

14

242-228

228-221

Ydwallo

20

221-201

Rimo

16

201-185

Geruntius

20

185-165

Gatellus

10

165-155

Coilus

10

155-145

Perrox II

145-140

Cherimus

140-139

Kimarus
Elanius or Danius

Emerianus

Fulgentius

139-138

Eldred

138-137

Androgeus

137-136

Urianus

136-133

Elihud

133-128

Dedantius, or Dedacus

128-123

Detonus

123-121

Gurguineus

121-118

Merianus

118-116

Bleduus, or Bladud

116-114

Capenus

114-111

Ovinus

111-109

Sisilius

109-107

10

107- 97

Archimalus

97- 95

Eldolus

95- 91

Rodianus

91- 89

Redargius

89- 86

Samulius

86- 84

Penisillus

84- 81

Phyrrus

81- 79

Caporius

79- 77

Dinellus

77- 73

Heli

73- 72

Lud

11

72- 61

Bledgabedrus

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 (632604); 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.

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 prove 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 overlying city remains,
preceded by earthquake; 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 socalled "Late Bronze"
d
end of "Middle
Bronze"
c

Three stages of city "g"

through "e" reflect control of
Egyptians for 43 years (768725) and the Phoenician for 45
years (813-768)
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

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 socalled "Middle
Bronze"

Rhodes in control 23 years

(893-870); culture of Greek
world and Asia Minor replaces
that of previous European
people

d traditional end of
"Early Bronze" in
the Troad
c
b
a

IV e (intermittent earthquakes
appear from
time to time)
d

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
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

c
b
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
II

g
war layer ends
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
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";
a
layers "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 14771181 (Troy was refounded in
1477 by Dardanus)

(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 proves 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, proves 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 proves 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
proves 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 BronzeMiddle 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

1441-1391 Lifetime of Joshua and

(Kenyon) also labeled

Middle Bronze II A
(Albright)
Middle Bronze II
(Kenyon) or II B and C
(Albright) (influence
of culture from
Mesopotamia)

Elders, oppression of
Cushanrishathaim and
his defeat in 1391
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
proved 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 proves 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 socalled Protoliterate
Period. It ends around
1649 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
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
Akkadian 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.
--------------------

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.