mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Gunnar Heinsohn
Did the historians of classical Greece merely leave us lies and fantasies
about all the major empires, nations and events of antiquity?
Or: How to reconcile archaeologically-missing historical periods with
historically-unexpected archaeological strata of the ancient world
I. Summary.
II. The sequence of ancient empires with the center in Assyria as it was
taught by Greek historians since the time of Hekateios -560/550 to
-500/494).
III. Archaeologically-missing history and historically-unexpected
archaeology i n major areas of antiquity.
IV. How could historical periods so well known from Greek authors be
shown to be "elusive", whereas in the very same territories modern
archaeology revealed sensationally ancient civilizations unknown before
the late 19th century?
V. Reconnecting occidental and oriental progress of civilization.
VI. The restoration of ancient Israel by abandoning fundamentalist dates
of historical biblical narratives and pseudo- scholarly dates of strata in
the land of Israel.
VII. Synchronization of ancient Eurasian chronology with the chronology of
anci ent China.
In the last 150 years the learned world was time and again struck by the
discovery of lost nations and forgotten empires which were so ancient that
even the best historians of antiquity had never heard of them. This
caused great surprise because these superancient civilizations were found
in territories which were otherwise well known to the historians of
Classical and Hellenistic Greece. Yet, the surprise did not end there.
The nations and empires which were described by the classical authors in
great detail could hardly be verified by the spade. One and a half
centuries of excavations, thus, brought as much desperation as it did
provide success stories for European scholars. Modern archaeologists,
e.g., dug in vain for the Kat or Khat in Katpatuka/Cappadocia, who kept
Medes and Persians on the alert (-630 to -330), but hit much older and
mysterious Khat/Hittites. They dug in vain between Tigris and Euphrates
for Mardoi/Amardians of Cyrus the Great but found much older and
mysterious Mart(d)u/Amorites. They dug in vain for the breathtaking
riches of Assyria as the most splendid satrapy of the Akhaemenid
superpower but found no less breathtaking, yet mysterious and much older
riches of Middle-to Sargonid/Assyrian superpowers. They dug in vain for
the treasures of Persia's Indian (XXth) satrapy but hit the mysterious and
much older civilization of Harappa. They dug in vain for Indo-Aryan Medes
and their empire in Assyria but hit much older and mysterious IndoAryan
Mitanni and their empire. They dug in vain for the scientific splendor of
the Chaldaeans on the Persian Gulf but hit the scientific splendor of much
older and mysterious Sumerians. They dug in vain for marauding Scythians
in Mesopotamia but hit the much older and mysterious Quthean/Gutaean
marauders. They dug in vain for Armenians and Alarodians in Armenia but
hit much older and mysterious Armians and Urartians. They dug in vain for
mankind's First Great Power of Ninos the Assyrian but found a mysterious
and much older first Great Power of Naram Sin the Old-Akkadian etc. etc.
This writer claims that none of the newly discovered nations is new at all
but merely provide the archaeology of the nations known since antiquity.
Because they applied erroneous dating schemes, modern scholars failed to
recognize their findings as the remains of the nations they only
apparently looked for in vain. The writer thus claims that none of the
historically established nations is misssing and offers the following
equations.
SELECTION OF SENSATIONAL DISCOVERIES OF NEW ASIAN NATIONS AND EMPIRES BY
MODERN ARCHAEOLOGY SINCE 1840 WHICH, TODAY, ARE DATED BETWEEN THE -3RD
MILLENNIUM AND ca. - 600
ASIAN NATIONS AND EMPIRES DATED BY HISTORIANS OF ANCIENT GREECE BETWEEN
-1100A ND - 300 BUT DIFFICULT TO VERIFY BY EXCAVATIONS EXECUTED SINCE 1840
Enigmatic conqueror Gulkishar follows the Old-Babylonian Martu/Amorites
Alexander the Great ends the Persian Mardoi/Amardoi
Martu/Amorites of Old-Babylonia and Middle-Assyria
Mardoi/Amardoi (most important tribe of Persians into which Cyrus was
born) in Satrapies Babylonia and Assyria
Middle-, Neo- and Late-Assyrian (Sargonid) empire centered in Assyria
Persian Empire centered in Satrapy Assyria
Old-, Middle- and Late-Babylonians in Southern Mesopotamia
Persian Satrapy Babylonia with leqendary wealth
Chanaea and Subartu as most northwestern foes and/or allies of
OldBabylonian Martu/Amorites
Ionia and Sparta as most northwestern foes and/or allies of
Persians=Mardoi
Mature Harappan culture/Indus Valley
Persia's XXth Satrapy India
Armians of Armenia
Armenians of Armenia
Urartians/Hurrites of Armenia
Alarodians of Armenia
Khat/Hittites of Cappadocia
K(h)at of Katpatuka/Cappadocia
Ahhijawa of Western Anatolia
Achaeans of W. Anatolia
Mitanni empire centered in Assyria
Medish empire centered in Assyria
Neo-Sumerians
Chaldaeans of Medish Period
Qutheans/Gutaeans help to bring down Old-Akkadians
Scythians help to bring down Ninos-Assyrians
Old-Akkadins-Old-Assyrians of Naramsin
Assyrians of Ninos (-Hyksos)
Early Sumerian Dynasties
Early Chaldaean Dynasties
MUSHIKA, the mysteriously missing capital of Akhaemenid India with its
legendary riches, is identical with MOHENJO-DARO, the well identified
metropolis of the Indus-Valley.
WASHSHUKANNI, the mysterioulsy missing capital of the Mitanni, is
identical with EKBATANA, the well identified capital of the Medes.
AKKAD, the mysterioulsy missing capital of Naramsin's Old-Akkadians, is
identical with NINEVEH of the Assyrians of Ninos. The enigmatic and most
massive city walls of Old-Akkadian Nineveh confirm Herodotus' record on
the magnificent city of Ninos.
II. THE SEQUENCE OF ANCIENT EMPIRES WITH THE CENTER IN ASSYRIA AS IT WAS
TAUGHT BY GREEK HISTORIANS SINCE THE TIME OF HEKATEIOS (-560/550 TO
-500/494
According to the -5th century author of The History, Herodotus, mankind's
first superpower were the Assyrians They did not emerge as a high culture
before -1150: "The Assyrians had held sway over upper Asia for five
hundred and twenty years" (I: 95) After an undefined period of
development and expansion [equals Mesopotamia's pre-Alexander period (4)
the overview on page 11 below], King Ninos became the most famous and
powerful of all Assyrian rulers around -750 (The History I: 7).
According to Diodoros (II: lff.), Ninos conquered Chaldaea (Southern
Mesopotamia/Babylonia), Armenia and Media. Later he added Egypt,
Cappadocia and Asia to the frontiers of Bactria to his empire [equals
pre-Alexander period (3)].
Around -630, after the weakening of the Assyrians of Ninos' empire, the
Medes- also employing their Persian brethren "began to subdue all Asia,
going from people to people" ( The History I: 102). At the same time,
they also made their first attempt to conquer Assyria. Their king,
Phraortes, "came against the Assyrians, and especially those of the
Assyrians who held Nineveh. These Assyrians had formerly ruled all of
Asia but were now quite isolated, all their allies having dropped away
from them. But in themselves they were as strong as ever, and when
Phraortes fought them, he himself was killed, after a reign of twenty two
years, and also much of his army" (The History I: 102). It took the Medes
another two decades until they managed to do away with the might of
Assyria. Around -610, under their king Cyaxares they eventually "made the
Assyrians their subjects, except for the province of Babylon" (The History
I: 106). Babylonia was regained by the Chaldaeans with whom the Medes had
to share the spoils of Ninos' empire. Because Egypt, Cilicia and Chaldaea
did not fall to the Medes, who called themselves Aryans, their power could
not match the might of Ninos. Nevertheless, this first Indo-Aryan Empire
was the unchallenged superpower of its time [equals pre-Alexander period
(2)]
The first genuine world empire in the history of humankind was founded by
the Persian Cyrus the Great. Ethnically, Ctesias informed us, Cyrus
belonged to the bellicose tribe of the Mardians/ Amardians [pre-Alexander
Period (1)]. The extension of the empire from Greece and Egypt to Bactria
and India and its division into twenty satrapies is carefully described by
Herodotus ( The History III: 89-94).
As it was the case in the times of Ninos and the Medes, Assyria once again
formed the heart of the empire: "In power, the land of Assyria counts as
one third of all Asia. Rule over this country which rule is called by the
Persians a satrapy-is of all the satrapies far the greatest" (The History
I: 192).
Herodotus' report on the sequence of the empire of Ninos, Medes and
Persians was never put into doubt in antiquity. His most vicious
opponents, who loved to take him to task for smaller mistakes and larger
blunders, confirmed the Assyrian sequence of NinosAssyrians> Medes>
Persians. Even Ctesias, who was second to none if it came to criticizing
Herodotus, wrote about this very sequence of Assyria-centered empires
(Persica ยง 1). He was employed as a medical doctor at the court of
Artaxerxes II (-404 to -359) and claimed to have had access to Persian
archives. If the empires of Ninos, Medes and Persians had not existed in
Assyria, Ctesias would not have hesitated to inform his Greek audience
about this astonishing lack.
Alexander the Great-and, thereby, Hellenism-initiated his conquest of the
Persian world empire with a fortunate victory at the river Granikos
(-334). He took the Indus Valley (XXth satrapy of the empire) in -325.
Nobody ever doubted his achievements. A flock of scholars accompanied the
Macedonian: Archelaeos, Arsitobulos, Diodotos of Erythrai, Diognetos,
Eumenos, Nearchos etc. Much of what they wrote about the lands from
Anatolia to India was copied by Arian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarchos
and Justin. Their accounts never allowed for the idea that in actual fact
there had not been an empire of the Persians, and that Alexander has not
been the conqueror of the satrapies.
Greek Dates
SUMMARIZING OVERVIEW of pre-hellenist empires which- according to the best
historians of Classical Greece-were centered in Assyria but supposedly
cannot be confirmed there after 150 years of modern archaeology
Pre-Alexander periods (1) - (4) 1330
Hellenism
(1)-540 Persian Empire (2)-620 Medish Empire <Chaldaeans in South
Mesopotamia> (3)-750 Ninos-Assyrians (4)-1150 Early Assyrians <Chaldaens
in South Mesopotamia>
(Chalcolithicum)
In the 1980's, a series of eight major conferences brought together the
world's finest experts on the history of the Medish and Persian empires.
They reached startling results. The empire of Ninos [pre-Alexander period
(3)] was not even mentioned. Yet, its Medish successors were extensively
dealt with-to no great avail. In 1988, one of the organizers of the eight
conferences, stated the simple absence of an empire of the Medes [pre-
Alexander period (2)]: "A Median oral tradition as a source for Herodotus
III 95106 is a hypothesis that solves some problems, but has otherwise
little to recommend it ... This means that not even in Herodotus' Median
history a real empire is safely attested. In Assyrian and Babylonian
records and in the archeological evidence no vestiges of an imperial
structure can be found. The very existence of a Median empire, with the
emphasis on empire, is thus questionable" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "Was
there ever a Median Empire?", in A. Kuhrt, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds.,
Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory, Leiden, 1988, p. 212).
Two years later came the really bewildering revelation. Humankind's first
world empire of the Persians [Pre-Alexander Period (1)] did not fare much
better than the Medes. Its imperial dimensions had dryly to be labeled
"elusive" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "The quest for an elusive empire?", in
H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History IV. Centre and
Periphery, Leiden l990, p. 264).
III. ARCHAEOLOGICALLY-MISSING HISTORY AND HISTORICALLY-UNEXPECTED
ARCHAEOLOGY IN MAJOR AREAS OF ANTIQUITY
The repercussions of the shock over the missing archaeology of the richest
satrapies were so widely felt because an "elusive" Persian empire could
not help but putting into doubt Alexander's conquests of the legendary
wealthy Achaemenid continent. Modern Orientalists believe that the
largest part of the-now 'would-be'-Persian empire lay in ruins between ca.
-600 and -300. Quite a few areas are even considered to have been without
cities for up to 1500 years. The impressive settlements of Hellenism were
supposedly built on dead tells which were ruined long before any Persian
entered the Greek books of history. Where, suddenly, did the cultured
Asian masses came from, who settled the big cities of Hellenism? It is
known that only small minorities were ethnic Greeks. Moreover, it is no
longer understood where the huge Persian armies came from which attacked
Greece in the late -6th and early - 5th century. If their homelands-apart
for very small Iranian heartlands-were a vast ghost empire already in
Medish times, the lies and fantasies of Greek historians (and Persian
rulers like Darius the Great with his Behistun text) surpassed even the
worst suspicions. After all, not only Alexander's conquest, but the man
himself and his massive army, is no longer credible. Who could have fed
many thousands of men and horses if they marched through wasteland and
rubbled cities? Nobody can answer these questions.
ASSYRIA
Archaeological strata-groups discovered within the last expected
historically (conventional dates).
Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no
archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).
HELLENISM
(Assyrians of Seleucid and Parthian Empires)
(-330) (1) Late-, Neo- and Middle-Assyrians (from -1340 to -610; with
gaps; then gap to -300)
( 1 ) Rule of Akhaemenids in their Assyrian heartland (IXth satrapy) ca .
-55a
(2) Rule of Indo-Aryan speaking Mitanni in Assyria (-1500 to -1350)
(2) Rule of Indo-Aryan speaking Medes in Assyria ca. -63C
(3) Naramsin's Old-Akkadians become Asia's first masters (-2350 to -2200,
the gap)
(3) Ninos-Assyrians become Asia's first masters ca. -750
(4) Early Bronze Age with "Ninevite-5 Ware" (ca. -3000)
(4) Rise of Assyrians ca -ll50
Assyriologists were so stunned by the archaeoloqical absence of Ninos-
Assyrian, Medish and Persian period strata in the Assyrian "heartland of
empires", that it took them nearly one and a half centuries to draw their
conclusions. In 1988, the empire of the Medes was declared missing. In
l990, the Akhaemenid continent-the largest of all the empires-had to be
described as elusive. The Greek claim that the first Asian
superpower-Assyria of Ninos-did not emerge before -750, was not even
considered worth checking.
CHALDAEA=KASDIM=KASSITES (SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA)
Archaeological strata groups discovered within the last 150 years which
were not expected historically (conventional dates).
Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no
archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).
HELLENISM
(Chaldaeans/Kassites of Seleucid and Parthian Empires)
Sumerian writing is well-alive in astronomy up to the first century C.E.
though civilization collapsed before - 2000 (-330)
No traces of Chaldaean language or astronomy though Alexander must fight
against Kassites and -330
(l) Old-Babylonian Mardu/Amorites (-2000 to -1700) and-elsewhere-Middle-
Babylonian Kassites(-16th to - 12th c.) rule in Chaldaea; then gap to -330
(1) Rule of Mardians/Amardians (the tribe of Cyrus the Great, founder of
the Akhemenid Empire) in Chaldaea=Kasdim ca . -55C
(2) Rule of Ur III-Sumerians in Chaldaea as cradle of civilization (-21st
c. to -2000)
(2) Independent Chaldaea as cradle of science from which the Greeks learn
(3) Naramsin's Old-Akkadians become Asia's first masters and rulers of
Sumerians (-2350 to -2200)
(3) Ninos-Assyrians become Asia's first masters and rulers of Chaldaeans
Early Sumerian Dynasties (ED I-IIIb) (ca. -3000)
(4) Rise of Chaldaean Dynasties ca. -1150
CHALCOLITHICUM
Students of Chaldaea are stunned by the archaeological absence of the most
learned nation of antiquity which the Greeks considered as the cradle of
knowledge. Nobody understands how this brilliant people, which blossomed
between the time of Ninos (-750) and Alexander the Great (-330), which
became the teacher of nations but left no deity, text, brick or even
potsherd. Yet, the same researchers take great pride in the discovery of
the Sumerians (1867) in the very heartland of Chaldaea. These Sumerians
became teachers of mankind. Yet, they were so ancient that even the best
historians of antiquity had never heard of them.
ARMENIA AND ALARODIA
Archaeological strata groups discovered within the last 125 years which
were not expected historically (conventional dates).
Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no
archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).
HELLENISMUS
(Airarat and Armenia of Seleucid Greeks)
(-330)
(1) Urartians and Armians (!) of Assyrian Period (from -1240 to -600; with
gaps; then gap to -300)
(1) Urartians--Alarodians and Armenians of Persian Period (XIIIth/XVIIIth
satrapy) ca. -550
(2) Hurrites/Urartians and Hai of Indo-Aryan Mitanni Period (-1500 to
-1350)
(2) Urartians and Armenians=Hai of Indo-Aryan Medish Period ca. -63C
(3) Hurrites (=Early Urartians) from the period of Naramsin's
Old-Akkadians (- 2350 to -2200, then gap)
(3) "Arima" (Ilias II: 783) and Alarodian neighbours from the period of
Ninos- Assyria ca. -750
(4) Early Bronze Age (ca. -3000)
(4) Early Armenia ca. -115a
(Armenologists are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of
the Alarodians and Armenians from Ninos (-750) to Alexander the Great
(-330) which was taken for granted for nearly two and a half millennia.
They have to teach their students that the Armenian inlaws of the Persian
Great Rings and the satrap of Armenia who became Great Ring himself
(Darius III) appear to have been cave dwellers. Yet, they take pride in
the discovery of the Urartians/Hurrites and Armians, which were too
ancient for even the finest historians of antiquity to know.)
K(H)ATPATUKA/CAPPADOCIA
Archaeological strata groups discovered within the last 120 years which
were not expected historically (conventional dates).
Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no
archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).
(Left: Post-KHAT (HITTITES) and Phrygians to be dated up to -800 if
stratigraphy is taken seriously, then gap down to Hellenism. Right:
KATaonians according to Strabo between -330 and -190)
(-330)
-330
(1) KHAT (=Hittites) of Late Empire Period (-1300 to -1100)
(1) KAT/KHAT of XIXth Akhameni satrapy Katpatuka ca. -550
(2) KHAT (=Hittites) of Early "Empire" Period as ally and/or foe of
Hitanni (-1500 to -1300)
(2) KAT/KHAT of Katpatukan/Cappadocian ally and/or foe of Medes
(3) KHAT (=Hittites) of Old Empire (i.e., Hyksos) Period (-1700 to -1500)
(3) "KETians" (Odyssee XI: 521) of pre-Medish period of Ninos-Assyrians
(4) Pre-KHAT/Hittites of Early Bronze Age (-2100 to -1700)
(4) Predecessors of RAT/KHAT ca. -1150
CHALCOLITHICUM
(The experts on KAT-Patuka (Cappadocia) are stunned by the archaeological
absence of the history of the KAT/KHAT from Ninos (750) to Alexander the
Great (-330) which was taken for granted for nearly two and a half
millennia. Yet, the same scholars take pride in the discovery of the KHAT
or Hittites/which even the finest historians of Greek antiquity to know.)
EGYPT (with her as yet best stratigraphy at TELL EL DABA)
Archaeological strata groups discovered in the 1980's
Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no
archaeological traces (dates from Greek historians)
HELLENISM
Ptolemaic Egypt
- 330
(1) Ramessides of Late New Kingdom in stratum B/1-3 (-1300 to -1085; then
gap to -330)
(1) Satrapy of the Persian Empire with interruptions ca. -520
(2) Early New Kingdom of the Mitanni Period in D/l (-1540 to -1300)
(2) Egypt of the Medish Period ca. -630
(3) Hyksos Rule (with Old-Akkadian material culture) in strata E to D/2
(- 1680 to -1540)
(3) Rule of Ninos-Assyrians in Egypt ca . -75C
(4) Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze II/A to II/B in G/F (-1740 to -1680)
(4) Egypt before conquest by Ninos-Assyria ca. -1150
CHALCOLITHICUM
-4th millennium Egyptian ceramics mixed with Syro-Palestinian Middle
Bronze II/A-ceramics of early -2nd millennium in stratum H
Early contact between Syro-Palestine and the Nile valley before -1150
Egyptologists are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of
Egypt from Ninos (-750) to the end of the Persian Period (-330) which was
taken for granted for nearly two and a half millennia. They are convinced
that there was not much to conquer for Alexander the Great, when even the
finest stratigraphy exhibits a bewildering gap between -1085 and -330.
On the other hand, they are struck by the continuity between the material
culture of stratum B, which supposedly ends in -1085, in stratum A which
only begins after -330. The confusion peaked in an attempt to shift
strata of another area of Tell el-Daba between the continuous strata B and
A
CENTRAL ASIA with the finest stratigraphies at Namazga Depe and Altyn Depe
Archaeological strata groups discovered in the 20th century which were not
expected historically (conventional dates).
Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no
archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).
HELLENISM since -250 PARTHIANS
(-300)
(1) Namazga VI and later of Hartu/Amorite and Kassites (-2000 to
-1700/-1400; then gap to -300)
(1) Satrapy XVI of the Persian (Mardian/Amardian) Empire ca. -520
(2) Namazga V/Altyn 3-1 .of Ur III-period (-2500/-2250 to -2150/-2000)
(2) Provinces Hyrcania and Parthia of the Medish Empire
(3) Namazga IV/Altyn 8-4 of Old-Akkadian times (-3000/-2500 to -2500/-2250
(3) Provinces Hyrcania and Parthia of Ninos-Assyria ca . -75C
(4) Namazga III/Altyn 13-9 (-3500/-3000 to -3000/-2500)
(4) Hyrcania and Parthia before Ninos-Assyria Namazga II-I/Altyn 15-14
Students of Ancient Central Asia are stunned by the archaeological absence
of the history of the land bridge between the Near East and India/China,
from Ninos down to the end of the Persian Empire, which was taken for
granted for nearly two and a half millennia. They are convinced that
there was no urban Central Asia to talk of when Alexander the Great
conquered it. Yet, they take pride in the discovery of a steppe bronze
and iron high culture which preceded China's by l500 and more years. on
the other hand, they are bewildered to have found Achaenenid looking,
i.e., post-550 pottery as early as -l500. They are even more puzzled by
the similarity of the material culture of -2000 to the material culture of
-330. Irrigation canals of -1800 are reused 1500 years later.
INDUS VALLEY
Archaeological strata groups discovered after 1875 which were not expected
historically (conventional dates).
Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no
archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).
HELLENISM
Buddhism [with architectural monuments not before -150]
1-330)
-330 (1) Mature Harappa Period (-2000 to -1700: then gap to -330)
(1) Mature Harappa Period (-2000 to-1700: than gap to -330)
(1) Satrapy XX of the Persian Empire ca. -520
(2) Middle Harappa Period (-2200 to -2000)
(2) Independent India on the eastern border of the Medish Empire ca. -63C
(3) Early Harappa Period of Old-Akkadian times (-2400 to -2200)
(3) Independent India on the eastern border of Ninos-Assyria ca . -75a
(4) Amri-Period (-2600 to -2400)
(4) India before cultural contact with Ninos-Assyria ca. -1150
(Indologists are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of
India from Ninos to the end of the Persian Period, which was taken for
granted for nearly two and a half millennia. They are convinced that
there was no India to talk of, when Alexander the Great conquered it.
Yet, they take pride in the discovery of sculptures looking like Greek art
of the -4th century as early as -2000 to -1700. Moreover they can show a
Persian type apadana (assembly hall) which was expected for the missing
Persian Period of the -5th century, as having existed already 1500 years
earlier.) The shock over the archaeological absence of the imperial
dimensions of the Persians [pre- Alexander periods (1)] is softened only
by the finds in Persia proper. Yet, the Iranian heartlands cause a
different sort of scholarly bewilderment. Splendid sites like Pasargade
and Persepolis exhibit a fully grown civilization, with no predecessor out
of which they could have developed. Moreover, these sites give the
impression of mere political and ceremonial centers built in the middle of
nowhere. It is not really clear over what body of lands and cities they
ruled: "It seems that the Achaemenids did not build cities in the true
sense ... Neither Pasargade nor Persepolis have the appearance of
permanent 'capitals', and they could not have functioned as such ... Both
lack permanent residence palaces ... It seems that the Persians did not
develop integrally conceived, coherent, completely organized, large- scale
planning schemes before the Seleucid and Sassanian periods when they came
under Hellenistic and Roman influence, respectively" (P. Lampl, Cities and
Planning in the ancient Near East, London, 1968, p. 117ff.).
STRATIGRAPHICAL PUZZLES OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE
Dates
Core-Satrapies Armenia, Assyria and Cappadocia
Iranian Heartland with structures in Pasargade, Persepolis, rock tombs
etc.
HELLENISM built on nothing but pre-600 or older ruins in satrapies
conquered against strong resistance after - 333
-330 (Greek dates) -550
absence of finds for imperial dimensions, but also absence of aeolic layer
for gap
impressive imperial structures with no empire and even homeland to rule
over. Culture resembles -900 to- 600-items known from lower line left
etc.
-600 (biblical dates) -900
most impressive finds before empire which stratigraphically sit directly
beneath Hellenism
absence of archaeological finds out of which the later Persians could
develop the skills and architecture of their forefathers. Yet, the
Persian territory is often mentioned in texts found in lands mentioned on
the left.
Only if stratigraphy is allowed to replace conventional dating schemes,
the - 900 to -600 structures in, e.g., Armenia and Assyria, instantly
materialize as the hard evidence of Persia's core-satrapies. What the
Ancients considered as the most powerful rulers of all times before the
Roman Empire suddenly become visible in the annals of Assyria excavated in
the 19th and 20th century.
Equation of selected Assyria-centered royal names as known to modern
Assyriology (left) with Assyria-centered royal names known since Classical
Greek historiography (right)
Sin-shar-ishkun Dareios III Kodamannos Assur-etil-ilani Artaxerxes IV
Arses Assurbanipal Artaxerxes III Okhos Esarhaddon Artaxerxes II Asarkes
(-4th c.) Sanherib Dareios II Okhos Shalmaneser III + Sargon II (Israel:
Shalmaneser's vassal Jehu) Artaxerxes I Assurnasirpal II Xerxes I Tukulti
Ninurta I Dareios I (-6th/-5th c.) Shalmanesar I Cambyses (II) Adad-Nirari
I Cyrus the Great (II) Shutarna ("III") the Mitanni Astygages the Mede
(-6th c.) Shaushatra, the Mitanni conqueror of Assur Cyaxares, the Medish
conqueror of Assur Khuwaruwash the Mitanni Phraortes the Mede (-7th c.)
Naramsin of Akkad Ninos of Assyria (- 8th/-7th c.) Sargon of Akkad Sharek
+ Salitis (Hyksos) (-8th c.)
IV. HOW COULD HISTORICAL PERIODS, SO WELL KNOWN FROM GREEK AUTHORS, BE
SHOWN TO BE "ELUSIVE", WHEREAS IN THE VERY SAME TERRITORIES MODERN
ARCHAEOLOGY HAS REVEALED SENSATIONALLY ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS, UNKNOWN
BEFORE THE LATE 19TH CENTURY?
The best scholars of Classical Times today are looked upon as inventors,
dreamers and liars, because the archaeological strata excavated by modern
researchers are not dated in accordance with the dates used by Greek
historiography. They applied different dates to the excavated strata.
If it comes to stratigraphic depth, the Greek sequence of periods might
well fit the strata in the ground. Yet, these strata are not dated
according to their location in the ground. They are dated by modern day
Egyptological and Assyriological chronology schemes against which the
Greek dates look utterly out of place. The triumph of modern scholarship,
therefore, appears to be twofold: (i) It 'debunked' the Greek sequence of
empires as a hoax. (ii) In addition, it proved Ancient Greece's finest
scholars to be ignorant of Asia's most splendid civilizations between
-3000 and -1000.
If modern dates can be shown to be sound the Greek sequence of empires
indeed is left without sufficient material evidence, and must be
discarded. With all due respect, its defenders will be pushed into the
cranks' corner. If, however, modern dating schemes can be shown to be
without scholarly foundation, it will be possible to compare the four
major post-Chalcolithic strata-groups of modern archaeology, with the four
major post-Chalcolithic periods of Classical historiography. In the
writer's view, the former provide the material basis for the latter.
When and why did Herodotus' four historical periods lose Herodotus' and
later Greek historians' dates (-1150 to -330)?. This happened as early as
the 2nd century CE. In that time Jewish and Christian chronographers
established what today is called comparative world history. It began with
the comparative history of Greeks and Jews. This comparison focused on
the question if Moses was more ancient than Homer. The basis to decide
this contest was written material whose correctness was not doubted.
Stratigraphical research to check the dates of Bible and Ilias still had
to be waited for another 1,700 years. Since dates used in the Bible
simply were earlier than the Greek dates, the latter lost the competition
for the earlier periods of civilization. Nevertheless, the Jewish
historians of the Persian and Hellenist periods had already taken a
tremendous step towards a reasonable chronology, by boldly cutting
bewildering time-spans of nearly 400,000 years, which were used by
Babylonian and Egyptian priests, down to some 4,000 years. Yet, this
time-span still was three times as long as the one adopted by Herodotus.
The Jewish writers had reduced phony time spans down to one- hundredth.
Still, the Greek dates cut the biblical ones down to about one- third.
When their dates were replaced by the biblical ones, the following picture
emerged. Suddenly, the historians were confronted with a gap of 1, 500
years. It was created by equating Biblical Nimrod of Abraham's -3rd
millennium with
insert>>>>>>>
Herodotus' Ninos of the 8th century
Ancient Near Eastern sequence of Assyria-centered empires, from the
Chalcolithic to Hellenism, in Classical Greek dates (left) which were used
up to the 2nd century CE. when they were replaced by biblical dates which
openly dominated comparative world chronology up to about 1870 and-in a
disguised manner-are used up to the present
Greek dates
Greek periods
Biblical dates
-330
Hellenism
-330 -540
(1) Persian Empire
-540
-620
(2) Medish Empire (Chaldaeans in South Mesopotamia)
-620 gap of ca. 1500 years to be filled
-750
(3) Ninos-Asstruabs
-3rd mill.]
-1150
(4) Early Assyrians (Chaldaeans in south Mesopotamia)
-3200
Chalcolithicum
de-insert>>>>>>>>>>
A typical early comparative world history now even provided the Greek
tradition with biblical dates, as can be seen in the third column from the
left of the most famous of all Christian-period history books:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<hand copy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First page of Eusebius' 5th century Chronicle, in Hieronymus' 5th century
Latin translation, with Abraham's Bible Fundamentalist date as anchor
point for comparative world history, with Egypt still waiting for the
patriarch's arrival (R. Helm ed. (l956), Eusebius Werke. Siebenter Band.
Die Chronik des Hieronyuus, Berlin, l956. pp. 16/17)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<hand copy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fourth page of Eusebius' 4th century Chronicle, in Hieronymos' 5th century
Latin translations with Abraham's Bible fundamentalist date as anchor
point for comparative world history, after the patriarch's arrival in
Egypt, which thereby was also dated via the Bible (R. Helm, ed. (1956),
Eusebius Werke. Siebenter Band. Die Chronic des Hieronimus. Berlin, 1956,
pp. 22/23)
Modern archaeology openly and undisputedly kept the Biblical dating scheme
up to the late 19th century, as may be seen from Loftus' famous Travels
and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana (London, 1857). With the focus on
the South of Mesopotamia, he still retains only the well-known four major
post- Chalcolithic periods of Greek historiography, but now ties the end
of the 3rd to Abraham's late -3rd millennium biblical birthdate. Thereby
he cannot help but create a gap to the Second or Neo-Chaldaean empire
beginning ca. -620. Loftus may have been confident that sooner or later
other researchers would come up with a multitude of rulers, empires and
wars, to colour the staggering blank of one-and-a-half millennia. He
himself had no means whatsoever to meet this horrendous challenge.
"Sumerians", "Akkadians", "Old- Babylonians", "Mitanni",
"Middle-Assyrians" etc., were not yet known in his lifetime.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<hand copy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Extract from chronology chart for Ancient Mesopotamia taken from the first
true archaeoloqical textbook in Assyriology (W. K., Loftus Travels and
Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana, London, 1857, pp. 135/l36) with
Abraham dates for King Ilgi. Today, Ilgi is read Shulgi and dated -2094
to -2097. He is no longer openly linked to Abraham, but the king-lists'
absolute dates are still unconsciously tied to that patriarch's framework
of the -3rd millennium. . The biblical triplication of Herodotus' time
span could only be achieved on paper. What one was able to do with the
pen could not be repeated with the spade. Even if we use a chronology of
3,000 or 1,000 pre- Christian years of high civilization, this will not
change the number and thickness of strata actually in the ground. They
remain unalterably the same. Therefore, biblical chronology, applied to
Herodotus' four Ancient Near Eastern periods, between the Chalcolithicum
and Hellenism, created huge gaps of up to 1,500 or more years at
individual sites. These notorious lacunae were eventually filled by
historians, who multiplied actual time spans by three. They performed
this miracle by heaping three stratagroups from different areas, but from
contemporary periods, on top of each other on the pages of the chronology
books. Of course, scholarly justifications were needed. These
justifications arose from the use of three different dating schemes, which
made contemporary strata of different areas look like successive periods,
whose centres of power were located in different areas. The three schemes
used were (i) fundamentalist dates of Assyriology, (ii)
pseudo-astronomical Sothic dates of Egyptology, and (iii) dates of Greek
historiography.
Any reasonable Assyriologist will fiercely object to the label
"fundamentalist" of his chronological scheme. Proudly, he will point-not
to stratigraphy-but at least to eponym-lists and king-lists. They, of
course, pose one serious problem. They do not exhibit absolute dates.
Whether a king belongs to the -3rd, -2nd or first millennium, must still
be established by other means. They are still derived from the Bible.
Again, the Assyriologist will object, and confidently point to the
abolishment of Abraham, who is no longer considered historical.
This erasion of Abraham from chronology books was begun in the late l9th
century and completed in the 70's of the 20th century. Then, it was
established that the Abraham-lore dates from the Persian period (-550
onwards) and later. Chronology building had to start from scratch. As
far as Mesopotamia is concerned, the materials used today consist of the
eponym- and king-lists gradually being unearthed-without the
stratigraphical levels in which they are found, always being identified
and taken seriously, however. Abraham is hardly ever given a mention in
the work now being carried out on these lists. Yet, the dates of the
"new" chronology do not differ very much from the dates used up to the
l9th century, when Abraham was still openly viewed as the ultimate
chronological anchor-point. How were Abraham-dates kept-or
"co-dependently" backed by the lists-without keeping Abraham as a
historical figure? This was done through Hammurabi, the lawgiver of the
mysterious, but most powerful Martu/Amorites of the so-called
Old-Babylonian period: "The date of Hammurabi is the keystone of the
chronology of the second and third millennia B.C." (G. Roux, Ancient Iraq,
Harmondsworth, 1980, p. 43). His approximate date, however, derives from
the contact between Abraham and Amraphel in Gen. 14:1. For a long time,
Assyriologists have equated Amraphel with Hammurabi, whose date, thus, was
also calculated via Abraham's Biblical birthdate in the -21st century.
Only after 1960, the identification of Amraphel with Hammurabi was
eventually dropped, but the latter's Abraham date was kept up to this very
day. Only the time-span between the years -2300 to -1700, around which
Hammurabi oscillated within the last 90 years, is due to internal
evidence. The absolute position of the time-span, around 2000, still is
due to Abraham's date. Thus, the expunging of the name of Abraham from
scientific research does not indicate the application of a convincing new
method to prove the existence of developed civilizations as early as the
third millennium, but merely casts an embarrassed-as well as cosmetic-veil
over the original pious basis for this early date.
If, however, one moves Hammurabi's dates together with the dates of the
Abraham-Amraphel-material, which is now set in the -6th century and later,
a real breakthrough in chronology building may be at hand. The great
power of the -6th to -4th century period was the nation of Cyrus the
Great, who was a descendent of the Persian tribe known by the name
Mardians or Amardians. This writer believes that the Persians/Achaemenids
were christened pars pro toto by other nations of the ancient Near East,
after their most famous and founder's tribe. The enigmatic Old-Babylonian
Martu/Amorites, then, would simply have to be compared with the
Mardians/Amardians of Persia's satrapy Babylonia.
Egyptology's chronology is not only pseudo-astronomical-which many an
Egyptologist will readily concede-but also no less fundamentalist than
Assyriology's, which even a cautious Egyptologist will thoroughly reject.
Again, the very great age of Egyptian civilization-rooted, in the final
reckoning, in Abraham's visit to the Nile-was tacitly maintained. In
addition, an independent method of objectively dating the past was sought.
The result, following in the wake of l9th-century Egyptologists, and
embodied in the canonisation by Eduard Meyer (1904) that was to be so rich
in consequences, was the adoption of an astronomical retrocalculation
procedure.
As with Mesopotamia, Egyptian datings were now to be arrived at with pen
and paper rather than by stratigraphical excavation. But we should at the
same time emphasize that Eduard Meyer, like the others, clung assiduously
to the text of Gen. 14, as a general chronological anchor-point for the
period around -2100. He merely leaves out the references to Abraham in
Gen. 14. The remainder of the material from Gen. 14, once purged of
references to Abraham, is declared by Meyer to be not only authentic but
also extremely old-an assumption without any support of an archaeological
find, unearthed from a particular deep level, or any other convincing
chronological proof: "It [Gen. 14] will in fact be part of the popular
tradition, and will have come down from this source to the Jews, who will
then have used it to insert a great feat into the story of their ancestor"
(E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, Vol. 2, 9th edition, ed. H.E. Stier,
Stuttgart, 1952-58, p. 297). Just why the "popular tradition" should be
precisely some 1500 years old, so as to provide a bridge between the
period after the Babylonian Exile and the late -3rd millennium, remains
totally obscure. The chronological anchor- point from Gen. which
supposedly could provide third millennium evidence without resorting to
Abrahamic legends, in actual fact, deals with kings active when the
patriarchal narratives were composed in the Persian period and later.
In reality, Meyer gives just one further example of circular reasoning,
taking the Israelite material to be as young as it actually is, but
allowing the persons mentioned in the same material the great age that has
successfully been denied to Abraham and the other early figures of the
Israelites. This kind of treatment is evidence of a slanted approach
rather than scientific honesty. Honesty would have demanded that the Gen.
14-Amraphel-dated Hammurabi-history be sought precisely in the period
after the emergence of the Persian empire, i.e., after -550. If this had
been done, the Persians would probably have emerged as possible alter egos
of Hammurabi's Martu/Amorites very quickly.
Triplication ([5] to [12] of Classical sequence of Ancient Near Eastern
empites [(1) to (4)] by the application of three different dating systems
to contemporary strata at different sites
Biblical Abrahamitic date of Hammurabi created the early -2nd and -3rd
millennium. The king-lists and eponym-lists of assyriology also received
their absolute chronological framework via Hammurabi.
Egyptology pseudo astronomic. Sothic date for Amarna created the -2nd
millennium of Hyksos, Mitanni, Kassites + Middle-Assyrian. Bible-
fundamentalism dates Neo-Assyrian end in late -7th century.]
-1st millennium of Classical Greek Historiography with meager to none
archaeological remains which were used to create the new periods [5]-[12]
Dark Age
Dark Age
Hellenism
[9] Old-Babylonian Mart(d)u/Amorites
[10] Neo-Sumerians and Elamites
[11] Old-Akkadians; Chabur-Ware
[12] Early Sumerians
[5] Middle-Assyrian-Amorites
[6] Kassites and Mitanni
[7] Old-Assyrians/Hyksos in Levant; Chabur-Ware
[8] Ninevite-5-Ware
[l] Persians; Mardians/Amardians of Cyrus
[2] Chaldaeans and Medes
[3] Ninos-Assyria
[4] Early Chaldae and Assyria
Chalcolithicum
The Ninos-Assyrians of Herodotus I: 7, 95 etc. are conventionally
identified with the Late-Assyrians (Sarsonids 1). Yet, the latter sit
stratigraphically immediately below Hellenism, i.e, take the
archaeological position of Persia's supposedly missing satrapy [1].
Nowhere, Medish and Persian strata were found on top of Late-Assyrian
ones, as is required by Herodotus' sequence Ninos>Medes>Persians>Hellenism
V. RECONNECTING OCCIDENTAL AND ORIENTAL PROGRESS OF CIVILIZATION
Though the ancient Greeks freely admitted that their science teachers were
Chaldaeans (from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), they never gave any hint
that they trailed their inspirators by oneand-a-half millennia. They
rather gave the impression that Chaldaean knowledge was obtainable by
traveling Greek students. Today, we are taught that there were no
Chaldaean teachers to speak of. This supposedly most learned nation of
mankind, did not leave us bricks or potsherds, not to mention written
treatises. Yet, modern scholars also teach us that there is one grain of
truth in the Greek tradition. The teachers of humanity did indeed derive
from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia. However-though they lived in the very
territory of the Chaldaeans, where the Chaldaeans are missing-they were
not Chaldaeans but Sumerians, and the Greeks had never heard of them:
When their poleis (city-states) began culturally to blossom in the early
-6th century, the wise men of Sumeria had already met their fate 1,500
years earlier. Nevertheless, researchers before 1868-when Jules Oppert
created the term Sumerian-had called proto-Chaldaean that today is called
Sumerian. Up to the end of the l9th century, art historians labeled as
Chaldaean artifacts which today are called Sumerian artifacts. At the
turn of the century, major European museums underwent a relabeling
procedure from Chaldaean to Sumerian on their exhibition pieces from
Southern Mesopotamia.
As the writer tried to prove, the sensationally unexpected Sumerians
received a hidden fundamentalist Abrahamic date, whereas the Chaldaeans
received a Classical Greek date. If we leave unscholarly dating systems
aside, and resort to comparative stratigraphy, we will immediately
recognize the contemporaneity of the early Greek city-states and the
so-called Neo- Sumerians, who thereby are outed as the painfully-missing
Chaldaeans. "Neo- Sumerian" Chaldaeans and early -6th century poleis
alike, are found merely two strata-groups below Hellenism. This still
leaves a head start for Chaldean scholarship. Yet, it is not measured by
millennia or centuries, but by decades at most
Re-synchronization of Ancient Greek and Ancient Near Eastern history, on
the basis of comparative stratigraphy and Classical historiography
(Dates are tentative Classical Greek ones; the conventional dates are
given in footnotes.)
Ancient Greece
Ancient Near East
HELLENISM
(Greeks after -330; indigenous Asians of Seleucid and Parthian Empires)
-330
[1] Flowering of the Polis
ca. -550
[1] Akhaemenid Empire (=in Assyria "Middle-, Neo- and Late Assyrians l; in
Babylonia "Old- to Late Babylonians" 2)
[2] Rise of the Polis
ca -632*
[2] Medes and Chaldaeans (="Mitanni" 3 and "Ur III Sumerians 4)
[3] Mycenaean Period 5
ca. -750
[3] Ninos-Assyrians (="Old Akkadians" 6 = "Old-Assyrians" 7 = "Hyksos" 8
with "Chabur-Ware" for all)
[4] Middle Helladic 9 (Early Bronze Age
ca. -1000
[4] Early Assyrian and Chaldaea (= "Ninevite-5 Ware 10 and Early Dynasty
"Sumerians" 11)
* A date even closer to -600 is indicated for the rise of the Polis if
archaeological evidence is set against arbitrary desk fabrications of
ancient writers-e.g., Hippias of Elis-on the chronology of the Olympics
with a mythical beginning at -776 (cf. B-J. Peiserm, 'The Crime of Hippias
of Elis. Zur Kontroverse um die Olympionikenliste". in Stadion. Vol.XVI.
No l pp 37-65
1...Up to now pseudo-astronomically Sothic dated. 'Middle-Assyrians',
-1350 to -1100. "Neo"- and "Late"- Assyrians are
Bible-Fundamentalistically dated -9O0 to -600 via by kings and eponyms
tied to Israel and Judah and/or to Ptolemy's pseudo-astronomical
chronology.
2 Old-Babylonians are Bible-Fundamentalistically dated (-2000 to -1750) by
kinglists tied to Abraham. Late Babylonians are dated (-610 to -510)
Bible- -Fundamentalistically by kings and eponys tied to Judah and/or to
Ptolemy's pseudo-astronomical chronology.
3. Up to now, pseudo-astronomically Sothic dated (-1550/1500 to-1350).
4. Neo-Sumerians are Bible-Fundamentalistically dated (-2120 to -2000) by
kinglists tied to Abraham.
5. Up to now, pseudo-astronomically Sothic dated (-1600 to -1200).
6. Old-Akkadians are Bible-fundamentalistically dated (-2350 to -2200) by
kinglists tied to Abraham.
7. Old-Assyrians are Bible-Fundamentalistically dated (early -2nd
millennium) by kinglists tied (via a low chronology Hammurabi) to Abraham.
8. Up to now, pseudo-astronomically Sothic dated (-1650 to -l5OO).
9. Up to now, pseudo-astronomically Sothic dated (-1800 to -l6OO).
10. Bible-Fundamentalistically dated (-3200/3000 to -2350) by kinglists
tied to Abraham
11. Bible-Fundamentalistically dated (-3200/3000 to -2350) by kinglists
tied to Abraham
VI. THE RESTORATION OF ANCIENT ISRAEL BY ABANDONING FUNDAMENTALIST DATES
OF HISTORICAL BIBLICAL NARRATIVES AS WELL AS PSEUDO-SCHOLARLY DATES OF
STRATA IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
Mainstream scholars are in the process of deleting Ancient Israel from
history books. The entire period from Abraham the Patriarch in the -21st
century (fundamentalist date) to the flowering of the Divided Kingdom in
the -9th century (fundamentalist date) is found missing in the
archaeological record. The period from the -9th to the -6th century
(fundamentalist dates) is bewildering, for a different reason. The
corresponding strata are found immediately below Hellenism of -300.
Moreover, there are no windblown layers between Hellenistic strata of -300
and Israel/Judah strata of 700/-600, and the material culture
(architecture, artifacts, ceramics etc. ) between -600 and -300 is clearly
continuous. From an unbiased stratigraphical point of view, therefore,
what now is fundamentalistically dated -900 to -600 requires a hard
evidence chronology of -600 to -300. Yet, if the strata now dated - 900
to -600 in biblical years are changed to -600 to -300 in evidence based
years, Israel's entire biblical history from -2100 to -600 is lost.
Statements like "historical Israel remained as elusive as ever",
therefore, dominate the most 'advanced' level of Bible research (T. L.
Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People, Leiden, 1992, p. 27).
The worst enemy of Israel's history, indeed, is biblical chronology.
Whoever puts his faith in it, cannot help but be tempted to extinguish
Ancient Israel from the map. This is not only true for anti-Semites and
anti-Zionists and neutral researchers, but even for the best and the
brightest of Israeli scholars. I do not, of course, subscribe to each and
every detail contained in historical biblical narratives, but claim that
the material remains in the strata-groups of Israel, which today are up
for grabs, are not overstretched, if one detects in them some hard
evidence for written traditions. I cannot see a convincing reason to
deprive Israel of the major events in her ancient history, as they are
preserved in biblical legends. The main haven of fundamentalism, I
believe, is rooted in biblical chronology and not in the historical
narratives of biblical Israel. Before disposing of any Jewish stories
(and of no less formidable Greek ones, about Ninos-Assyrian, Medish and
Persian superpowers, Chaldaean creators of civilization, or Armenian,
Cappadocian, Central Asian and Indian history between -600 and -300 etc.
), I would, rather, abandon biblical and mainstream chronologies alike.
Then, everything is open for a new debate. Today, such an exchange must
appear futile. Usually, an event in Israel's books with a fundamentalist
date, is compared to the same date which unscholarly mainstream chronology
forced upon a stratum in Israel's soil. If the biblically dated story
does not match the stratum (with an identical date acquired by different
means ), the story is discarded. Yet, the nations dwelling in the
'liberated' strata remain unknown, but they are said to have anticipated
"Canaanite and later Israelite cult practice" (S. Richard, "The Early
Bronze Age: Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine", in
Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 50, 1987, March, p. 32 - my emphasis).
Thus, the strata removed from biblical Canaanites and Israelites, are
transferred to enigmatic Proto-Canaanites and Proto- -Israelites .
The Exodus provides a typical example for the mismatch between the
biblical date of a biblical historical event, and the mainstream date for
a stratum in Israel. A stratum which would fit the story does exist.
Yet, the story is discarded because the stratum in question has received
an unfitting date. If, however, both unscholarly dates are discarded, the
Exodus might well reenter history books. I put the "Exodus" event at the
end of the Middle Bronze Age, when the Hyksos are expelled from Egypt.
To the writer, this expulsion is identical with the expulsion of the
pre-Medish Ninos-Assyrians from Egypt. Therefore, the Exodus falls in the
time of the rise of Media , i.e., in conventional terms, of the Mitanni.
The Medes=Mitanni emerge as the new superpower around -630. An Exodus
date of ca. -630, of course, has nothing to do with a biblical Exodus date
of -1450 or with a mainstream Hyksos ' expulsion date of ca. -1550. The
latter-pseudo-astronomical Sothic-date of - 1550 led to the discarding of
the Exodus story because it came too late.
As may be seen from Amihai Mazar's fine Summary, the dramatic shift from
Middle to Late Bronze, exhibits many of the ingredients of an Exodus
event, stretching from natural catastrophes hitting the Hyksos to military
and non- military destructions in Israel. As an adherent to Sothic
pseudo-astronomical dating, Mazar, of course, dates that shift around
-1550 and, therefore, can not match it to a fundamentalistically or
otherwise-dated Exodus:
"The most significant event concerning Palestine was the expulsion of the
Hyksos from Egypt in the mid-sixteenth century B.C.E. The Hyksos princes
fled from the Eastern Delta of Egypt to Southern Palestine; the Egyptians
followed them there and put them under siege in the city of Sharuhen.
This event was probably followed by turmoil and military conflicts
throughout the country, as a number of Middle Bronze cities were destroyed
during the mid- sixteenth century B.C.E.... However, unlike the great
collapse of the urban culture at the end of the Early Bronze III period
[after which I see the "Abrahamites" coming from Mesopotamian Chaldaea to
Israel around -800 - G.H. ], the turmoils of the mid-sixteenth century
B.C.E. did not cause a total break of the Canaanite urban culture" (A.
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E., New York et al.,
1990, p. 226).
Pre-Exodus "Israel-in-Egypt" thus refers to mercenaries, administrators
and settlers coming with the Ninos-Assyrian (=Old-Akkadian=Hyksos) forces,
who could not help but launch their attacks during-the stratigraphy-dated-
-8th century on Egypt from Israelite soil.
By taking stratigraphy seriously, I also had to restore the Amarna-
correspondence to its evidence-based chronological position. The partners
of the Medes ("Mitanni") in Akhet-Aton are to be dated to the late -7th
and early -6th century of the Medes. The founder of the "House of David"
emerged in these turmoils from a tribal background in the Judaean
territory. The biblical narratives about David put him nearly half a
millennium after Joshua and Exodus. Yet, all the ingredients of the
stories indicate their contemporaneity. The compilers of the Bible put
500 years between them, because they did not know better. They had no
resort to libraries, and were in no position to check the dates and
sequences of events by looking at the stratigraphy.
The Joshua-stories refer to the Nino-Assyrian (=Hyksos=Old-Akkadian)
coastal flight out of Egypt. They belong to Israel rather than to Judah.
The flight is stopped by the Medes ("Mitanni") who play the main role in
vanquishing Ninos-Assyria. The "Exodus"-people even know the Medes by
their indigenous name; this name was derived from the most bellicose of
the Medo-Persian tribes, Amardians/Mardians, and recorded as "Amorites" by
the biblical authors. The Mitanni=Medes rule as far as Megiddo, whence
the Medish=Mitanni governor, Biridiya, corresponds with Egypt. This
powerful Medish position is reflected in Joshua's failure to conquer
Megiddo. Media's treason-minded allies, the Scythians, from Asia's
steppes, go their own way and rush up to the borders of Egypt (Herodotus,
The History I: 105) to give the Exodus people of the Joshua-legends a lot
of trouble. The Exodus people remember their aggressors simply as Asians
("Amalekites"). We find their icons (stag, panther) well preserved in the
Medish ("Mitanni") strata of Scythopolis (Beth Shean).
The David-legends belong to Judah rather than to Israel. Yet, the
problems of iron shortage, clashes with Philistines, who were also looking
for a haven in the Land of Israel-indicate the same historical context.
The Hyksos expulsion coincides with a broadened use of iron. Mainstream
chronology dates David (biblical fundamentalism) 600 years after the
Hyksos (pseudo- astronomy). Yet, he is still only beginning with iron
technology. This puts him right in the Late Bronze Age-with its emergence
of iron technology-if we do not believe that iron took 600 years to travel
35 kms from Philistine sites to Judaean hills.
What sets David apart from Joshua is that the former rather has to build
himself a position in his native land, whereas the latter is on the attack
against people who already may have forgotten their forefathers whose
descendants were returning. These earlier "Israelites"-as mentioned
above- settled in the Nile valley some 100 years earlier, reaching Egypt
as subjects of the NinosAssyrian world power. Moreover, the masses now
fleeing from Egypt must have included many ethnic groups- notably
descendants of Ninos- Assyrians who were hindered by the Medes=Mitanni
from returning to Assyria proper (now Media's heartland as we know from
Mitanni rule in Nineveh) and had to be content with disputed territory in
Israel.
From this context it becomes clear that early Judah and early Israel,
simultaneously, lived under Egyptian and/or Medish rule during the
-7th/-6th century. The steady growth of these ethno-political entities in
the early - 6th century could not have gone unnoticed by these big powers.
And, indeed, the Amarna correspondence of the early -6th Medes=Mitanni
mentions warring and conquering Habiru time and time again. These
statements, I conclude, refer to further conquests of the "Exodus"-people
and to the expansion of the House of David. That's why I utterly disagree
with the conventional conviction that "we have no historical evidence to
associate the fourteenth- century Amarna letters and the 'Apiru' mentioned
in them with the origins of Israel" (T.L. Thompson, Early History of the
Israelite People, Leiden, 1992, p. 135).
This "fourteenth-century" is derived from pseudo-astronomical Egyptology.
But even after giving Amarna its stratigraphical date, the early -6th
century of Medish=Mitanni times, nobody will look in that period for the
beginnings of Judah and Israel. David, after all, is dated
fundamentalistically, to the - lOth century, whereas the Exodus is either
dated by the same technique to the -15th century or-inconclusively-to a
variety of later Egyptian kings. Stratigraphically and, therefore,
chronologically, all three items are connected: ( i ) The complaints of
the Amarna correspondence about Habiru reflect (ii) the growth of Israel
through the Exodus people and (iii) the growth of Judah through the House
of David.
Now, with the House of David emerging in the Medish period we should be
able to look for descendants of this princely house in the Persian
period-which immediately follows Media, around -540. To do this, one has
to scan the strata found immediately below the Hellenistic strata-which
are dated beginning around -300. If one performs such a search program in
Tel Dan, he or she will have to start immediately below its Hellenistic
stratum I. Abraham Biran found his stele, with the "House of David"
inscription, in a location belonging somewhere between Dan's strata II and
III. That is as close to a Persian period successor of David as one can
get. It also confirms the identity of Shalmaneser III-Jehu's overlord
(cf. p. 22 above)-who had to be identified with early -5th century
Artaxerxes I in the garb of his Assyrian satrapy.
Post-neolithic stratigraphy of Tel Dan. Conventional dates of biblical
fundamentalism and pseudo astronomy are put in brackets (right column).
Tentative evidence-based dates are given under strata in underlined
italics (centre column).
Periods in conventional terminology
Hellenism/Romans (Greek dates)
strata + strata groups (1) - (4) Evidence dates
Hellenism/romans (Greek Dates)
HELLENISM -300 onwards
(-300 onwards)
mysterious Hiatus of 400 years between -700 and -300 (biblical dates)
no hiatus
Omrides II
-701
Biran's stela with "House of David" inscription in Aramaic
(biblical dates )
III -425 to -300
-701 -925
(biblical dates)
IV -480 to -425
-925 -1000
(pseudo-astronomical dates of Egyptology)
(1) V, VI -540 to -480 EMERGENCE OF PERSIA
-1000 -12000
Mysterious Hiatus of 1500 years
no hiatus
Late Bronze or MITANNI age ( in pseudo-astronomical dates )
(2) Mass burial -630 -540 MEDES ARRIVE
Middle Bronze II or HYKSOS age (in pseudo-astronomical dates)
(Old-Akkadian culture )
City ramparts -750 to -630 NINOS-ASSYRIANS
-1500 -1700
poorly stratified Early Bronze plus Middle Bronze I remains. MYSTERIOUS
LACK of material to cover 1, 600 year
(4)
-1700 -3300
The rehabilitation of Israel's history through synchronization of the
content of major historical narratives in Israel's Bible With the strata
in Israel's soil.
Neither Egyptology's pseudo-astronomical nor Assyriology's hidden
fundamentalist kinglist dates nor fundamentalist dates of true believers
are accepted. The author's column on the right is tentatively dated by
the chronology of Assyria-centered empires known from Herodotus I: 95,
102: Ninos- -Assyrians (="Old-Akkadians" = "Hyksos") Medes plus Chaldaeans
(="Mitanni" plus "Sumerians"), Persian period Assyria (= post-"Mitanni"
Assyrians). This chronological sequence is related to the amount and
volume of strata in the ground of the Land of Israel.
Macalister's Gezer dates and terminology (1912)
Conventional dates and terminology
Author's terminology and chronology for HISTORY OF ISRAEL
Hellenism Enigmatic absence of Persian stratum 550-330
Hellenism 330-100
Hellenistic urban strata group 330-100
4th Semitic Farmer's Almanac from Gezer in earliest alphabetical Hebrew in
Phoenician characters 1000-550
Iron Age (to -586) through Iron much earlier; Sargonids, Neo-Babylonians +
Persians ONSET OF ISRAEL'S HISTORY' Period from Abraham to the beginning
of monarchy considered a fantasy; more confusion down to 2nd temple in -
6th or -4th century.
-18th c. Amorite cuneiform in Hazor 1200-330
(1) 1st pre-Hellenistic urban strata-group. ISRAEL in Persian period with
"monarch's" borders being identical with Satrapy Transeuphrates (Divided
Kingdoms). The beginning of alphabetical Hebrew. 530-330
3rd Semitic 1400-1000
Late Bronze Age (MITANNI + CHATTI), though Iron already used.
Indo-Aryans rule in "Canaan". cuneiform from Megiddo to Amarna partly
sounds like "purest Hebrew" (Bohl). the "Habiru" of the Amarna letters
are comparable to the Joshua/David developments in Israel/Juda under
impact of Hyksos refugees. 1550-1200
(2) 2nd pre-Hellenistic urban strata-group. ISRAEL under Amorites +
Hittites of Ezekial 16:3 (=Medish Mardoi and Chatti). David/Joshua.
Late cuneiform "Hebrew". Destruction between 3rd and 2nd pre-Hellenistic
stratum = "EXODUS" (Hyksos' expulsion from Egypt) 620-530
2nd Semitic (late)
Middle Bronze IIB-C ENIGMATIC HYKSOS with 2350 BCE Old-Akkadian material
culture and Old-Akkadian cuneiform in Hazor. 1800-1550
(3a) 3rd pre-Hellenistic urban strata-group/upper part. ISRAEL (part of
Hyksos) IN EGYPT. Early cuneiform "Hebrew" 720-720
2nd Semitic (early) 1800-1400
Middle Bronze MBIIA (with 2500 BCE EARLY DYNASTIC IIIB Mesopotamian
pottery. Bronze appears only now. STRATUM OF MASSIVE MESOPOTAMIAN
(CHALDAEAN) IMPACT 2000-1800
(3B) 3rd pre-Hellenistic urban strata-group/lower part ONSET OF ISRAEL'S
HISTORY with earliest Chaldaean impact in "ABRAHAM" Stratum. 800-720
1st Semitic ONSET OF ISRAEL'S HISTORY with Abraham the Patriarch.
2000-1800
Early Bronze to Middle Bronze I though no bronze yet. NO STRONG IMPACT
FROM MESOPOTAMIA, where Nineveh-5 and Uruk Ware dominate pottery.
3300-2000
(4) 4th pre Hellenistic urban strata-group Preliterate Period. "Canaan"
before immigration from Chaldaea 950-800
Pre-Semitic
Chalcolitihic
5th pre-Hellenistic strata group of pre-urban Chalcolithic period.
VII. SYNCHRONIZATION OF ANCIENT EURASIAN CHRONOLOGY WITH THE CHRONOLOGY
OF ANCIENT CHINA
When the vast stretch of land from Spain to the Indus-Valley entered the
Bronze Age in the -4th millennium, China slowly moved into the New stone
Age (Neolithic). Even the urban oases in the Central Asian and Afghan
west of China, which entered the Bronze Age more or less simultaneously
with Mesopotamia, failed to tempt the Chinese to adopt the technological
level of their barbarian steppe neighbors. The mythology of western Asia
spoke of theomachies (combats of celestial deities) as the triggers of
high culture in the -3rd millennium, whereas China's mythology did not do
so for another 1, 500 to 2, 000 years. When the Eurasian land mass
entered the Iron Age around -1600/-1400, China slowly moved into the
Bronze Age. The Chinese waited an additional millennium-around 600/-400-
before they could bring themselves to work iron. The Chinese did not seem
to care about falling millennia behind. Yet, they were extremely careful
not to miss a single developmental step in culture, religion and
technology the neighbors in the west had gone through so much earlier.
Why did they not take a shortcut into iron technology, after they had to
make good the 1,500 years they had lost in bronze technology? Modern
students of Ancient China have no way of comprehending the behavior of
such a gifted nation. They simply feel embarrassed: "Whichever
chronological scheme we may chose, the fact is that the known beginning of
civilization in China is approximately a millennium and a half later than
the initial phases of Near Eastern civilization. We can also take note of
the fact that many essential elements of Chinese civilization, such as
bronze metallurgy, writing, the horse chariot, human sacrifice, and so
forth, had appeared earlier in Mesopotamia. Here, then, is the problem of
East-West relationships all over again" (K. Chang, The Archaeology of
China, New Haven & London, 1963, p. 136). Western scholars are quick to
blame their Chinese colleagues for this anachronistic relationship: "A
more serious omission, perhaps, is the comparative silence of Chinese
archaeologists when it comes to placing Chinese history in its Asiatic
context" (M. Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens, "China. The archaeological
background", in C. Flon, ed., The World Atlas of Archaeology, London,
1985, p. 259). Western and Chinese scholars alike exhibit full confidence
in conventional chronologies. Yet, it is only the territory from Spain to
the Indus-Valley which is dated by Mesopotamian king lists tied to the
biblical birthdate of Abraham the Patriarch, China -like Mesoamerica-is
dated independently. It, therefore, can be used as an interesting
measuring rod for the true age of the beginning of the Bronze Age.
Synopsis of the 3000 B.C.E. emergence of high civilization ("Bronze Age")
in the territories of Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia, Iran, Central
Asia and the Indus Valley, which take pride in being the "cradle of
civilization" but later have to pay with chronological gaps (framed with
dotted lines) of some 1500 years, as opposed to the territories of the
Ganges Valley and China, which suffer from a late beginning of high
civilization but can take pride in the absence of chronological gaps in
their histories:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<do chart by hand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*This author's revision of ancient chronology claims that the gaps do not
really represent a cessation of settlements but are due to unscholarly
chronological constructs based on either Bible-fundamentalist premises of
Assyriologists and/or pseudo-astronomical calculations of Egyptologists.
Therefore, the years assigned to the gaps simply do not exist at all.
The territories in India, Central Asia, Iran, Asia Minor, the Levant,
Egypt and Mesopotamia proper, which have been dated via Abraham the
Patriarch and false astronomical assumptions, must abandon the
one-and-a-half-millennia allotted to their gaps-plus a few more centuries.
The latter have to be deduced from the Early Dynasties whose levels
nowhere provide the stratigraphic depth to reliably fill their
conventional 600 years. Thus, the emergence of post- Neolithic high
civilization does not come about before the turn to the 1st millennium
B.C.E.. This reduction brings China, the Ganges Valley as well as
Mesoamerica (Olmecs) etc., into line with the rest of the world.