Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors


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 in
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 ancient 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.



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

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


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.


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:

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 § 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


(1)-540 Persian Empire (2)-620 Medish Empire
<Chaldaeans in South Mesopotamia> (3)-750 Ninos-Assyrians (4)-1150
Early Assyrians
<Chaldaens in South Mesopotamia>


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).


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.


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).


(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

(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.


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).


(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


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.


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).


(Airarat and Armenia of Seleucid Greeks)


(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.)


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)



(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


(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)


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


-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).



(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.


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).


Buddhism [with architectural monuments not before -150]


-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.).



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

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.)


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


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 -540

(1) Persian Empire



(2) Medish Empire (Chaldaeans in South Mesopotamia)

-620 gap of ca. 1500 years to be filled


(3) Ninos-Asstruabs

-3rd mill.]


(4) Early Assyrians (Chaldaeans in south Mesopotamia)




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


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<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

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

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


[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


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


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

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

Ancient Greece

Ancient Near East


(Greeks after -330; indigenous Asians of Seleucid and Parthian Empires)


[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


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

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

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


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


-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

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 +
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.

(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.

(3B) 3rd pre-Hellenistic urban strata-group/lower part
ONSET OF ISRAEL'S HISTORY with earliest Chaldaean impact in "ABRAHAM"

1st Semitic
ONSET OF ISRAEL'S HISTORY with Abraham the Patriarch.

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



5th pre-Hellenistic strata group of pre-urban Chalcolithic period.


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

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.

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665