Troy was an ancient fort-city occupied from antiquity into Roman times. Troy was as important in early trade routes as Suez or Singapore were in the nineteenth century to the far-flung British Empire. Each people who possessed political control of Troy remoulded the city after its own image. Nearly every twenty to twenty-five years — about every generation — a thorough rebuilding of the site occurred. The foundations of major buildings and often the entire floors were left IN SITU and piled upon them were the remains of the demolished buildings, with all the broken wares of that generation. With each passing age the mound on which Troy was built became higher and higher. Walls about the city rose in proportion. Today archaeologists dig down through these buried remains and find one cultural level beneath another. The lower is in each instance the older unless a late building has been sunk deep into the mound. Periods without occupation are obvious from signs of extended erosion. According to modern historical ideas there should be an immence gap — of about 500 years between the fall of Troy and the rebuilding of the city by the Aetolian Greeks in the 600's. The fragmentary remains of life between the final war stratum and the Aetolian city prove there was no more than the lapse of a few years! In other words the final Fall of Troy was in the early 600's, not the early 1100's. Archaeologists have numbered each major period of occupation at the site of Troy. Beginning from the top down — through Roman, Hellenistic and Persian periods — one soon comes to the Greek settlements that immediately succeeded the temporary Trojan village established after the final war. The sequence of strata is continuous. If archaeologists had been honest with what they saw they could have concluded no other fact than that established already in the historical section of this Compendium. In the left-hand column, on the following pages, are the numbers used by archaeologists to designate the strata from the top of the mound to the virgin rock below. At the right are comments about the meaning of each numbered building period, with the proper dates.
Archaeological Designation The Explanation of Trojan of Superimposed Deposits History from Classical Writers at Site of Ancient Troy and Biblical Evidence
Beneath Roman, Hellenistic and Persian remains is a period of Greek settlement corresponding to the Late Assyrian and Chaldean Empires. Immediately under this — NOT FIVE CENTURIES EARLIER — appear the following strata, as labeled by archaeologists
VII b 1: post-war settlers Trojan stragglers temporarily resettle site after Third
VII a; seige layer over- Third Trojan War (687-677) lying city remains, involved a 10 year siege; preceded by earth- (this stratum includes previous quake; this stratum city built after great earthquake said to end "Late (710) related to events Bronze" period in Hezekiah's day (Isaiah 38: 7-8); Carian sea power became dominant beginning 707
VI h earthquake ends City during Milesian Sea Power this stratum which began in 725
g Three stages of city "g" through "e" reflect control of f Egyptians for 43 years (768- 725) and the Phoenician for 45 e beginning of so- years (813-768) called "Late Bronze"
d end of "Middle Cyprus controls the Troad as a Bronze" key to sea power for 32 years (845-813); two levels reflect major changes during period in c Egypt and the Aegean world at Argos
b Phrygian sea power in control of Troy for 25 years (870-845): Phrygians were allies of Kingdom of Hatti in Asia Minor
a beginning of so- Rhodes in control 23 years called "Middle (893-870); culture of Greek Bronze" world and Asia Minor replaces that of previous European people
V d traditional end of Four building periods during "Early Bronze" in rule of European Thracians for the Troad 79 years (972-893); the people of Thrace at this period were c civilized, cultured farming people related to the Phrygians b (Franks) and Pelasgians; in later centuries a wild people, a given to hunting and rapine, temporarily settled in Thrace before being driven out of Western Europe in Roman times
IV e (intermittent earthquakes Pelasgian sea control during appear from four building periods; 85 time to time) years (1057-972); this is period of Solomonic, Davidic d and Phoenician sea power in Mediterranean; upon revolt in c House of Israel in Solomon's last year in Palestine the b maritime power passed to Hebrew settlements in Thrace
IV a — a layer immediate- Five building periods elapsed ly overlying devasta- under Maeonian, or Lydian, tion by a tremendous control of the seas (during earthquake close of Hyksos period); layer III d ends in earthquake III d ended in terrible earthquake of 1069 (I Samuel 14:15 c and II Sam. 22); total period from "III a" to "IV a" covers b 92 years (1149-1057); the year III a commonly designated 1149 (at which III a begins) as beginning of marks Greek defeat which "Early Bronze 3" ended Second Trojan War and period began Maeonian sea power
II g war layer ends Covers period of Greek period domination from 1181-1149
f war layer ends End the period of the First period Trojan War (1181)
e (Entire period from Building periods "II a" to "II f" d "II a" to "II g" is represent the lengthy period c commonly referred to of Hyksos domination from 1477- b as "Early Bronze 2"; 1181 (Troy was refounded in a layers "a" to "e", 1477 by Dardanus) though divided into 5 parts, represent 10 building periods
I (not less than 10 The period of pre-Hyksos building periods, settlement; began in 1700's and commonly referred to ended with Hyksos conquest as "Early Bronze 1")
Notice the general cultural relationship between Troy, in Asia Minor, and Britain in Western Europe (where many Trojans settled before finally migrating to Brittany). The use in archaeology of the terms "Early," "Middle," and "Late Bronze" and "Iron," is deceptive. Iron was used during Troy's "Bronze" period. The fact is, archaeologists do not really use metals as a guide. Their cultural dating is dependent on pottery, whether or not metals are even present. Scholars label certain cultures as "Neolithic," or "CHALCOLITHIC," OR "BRONZE," OR "IRON" NOT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE, BUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THESE PARTICULAR CULTURES EXISTED DURING WHAT THEY ASSUME WERE THOSE "AGES" OR "PERIODS."
Archaeology in the Aegean World
Historians have long puzzled over the archaeological evidence uncovered in the Aegean world and in Asia Minor. What they found did not fit their theories. Here is what happened, and why. First historians made the mistake of assuming that the traditional framework of Egyptian history is true. They never questioned the scheme of having each Egyptian dynasty succeed the other. It never entered their minds that there may have been extensive periods in Egyptian history during which different dynasties in Upper and Lower Egypt reigned contemporaneously. Once the false view of Egyptian history was accepted. archaeological evidence in Egypt was made to conform to it. The so-called "Bronze" and "Iron" ages, for example, were dated centuries too early. This had an immediate effect on archaeological studies in the Greek world. In Egypt archaeological evidence is often associated with inscriptions that date the remains to a specific dynasty or Pharaoh. In the Greek world this is not the case. The kings of ancient Greece did not leave inscriptions. How then is one to properly associate the remains of a Greek palace with the king who reigned in it? The answer is, archaeologists can only guess. What they attempt to do is date the Greek pottery by evidence from Egypt. The ancient world was a trading world. Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians traded their wares in each other's ports. Egyptian pottery found its way into Greece. Greek and Phoenician pottery into Egypt. Pottery styles change. Each century or generation created its own distinctive pottery. If pottery remains in any one of these countries could be accurately dated, then of course it could be immediately determined what kind of pottery was contemporary in the other countries. It was assumed that Egyptian pottery could be accurately dated. By noting what kind of Greek pottery was being traded at specific periods in Egypt. archaeologists thought they had arrived at the correct method of dating Greek pottery. They overlooked only one thing. Egyptian pottery is not correctly dated. Most of it is dated centuries too early. Pottery in the Aegean world and in Asia Minor is consequently dated too early also. Greek kings long dead came to be associated with palaces and pottery styles they never saw or dreamed of. Kings were assumed to be buried in tombs that belonged, in reality, to their descendants or to others living twenty generations later. In Egypt this curious error could not occur, because archaeological remains included royal inscriptions associating the ruler with tomb, palace or pottery. In Greece there were no inscriptions to date remains. So pottery, tombs and palaces in Greece and Asia Minor were predated in accordance with Egyptian history, but the kings were either rejected as fabulous or were dated according to Greek chronologers who usually had the kings correctly dated. Thus Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, who fought in the First Trojan War came to be associated with pottery of the Third Trojan War. The pottery was dated centuries too early because it was found in Egypt associated with remains of Dynasties XVIII and XIX which were dated centuries too early! In the Aegean world archaeologists use the terms Early, Middle and Late Helladic (in Greece). or Early, Middle and Late Cycladic (in the Cyclades), or Early, Middle and Late Minoan (in Crete). Each of these are also sometimes designated Early, Middle and Late Bronze by archaeologists, Mycenaean culture in the Eastern Mediterranean is another name for the so-called Late Bronze period. It is commonly thought to have originated in Mycenae in Greece during this period. Hence its name. The Mycenaean culture is assumed, today, to be the Greek culture of the First Trojan War. This assumption is based on the fact that Mycenaean remains have been found in association with remains of Dynasties XVIII and XIX of Egypt which are dated five to six centuries too early. The previous chart on the archaeological remains of Troy proves that the culture of Greece during the First Trojan war ending in 1181 was Early Bronze. The culture of Greece during the last Trojan War was Mycenaean. Hence Agamemnon is to be associated with Early Bronze (so-called) pottery, not with Mycenaean palaces which belonged to tyrants living centuries later! Archaeologists contend that the Mycenaean world collapsed and was followed by so-called "Dark Ages" in Greece. Traditional Greek geometric styles of pottery, it is assumed, returned to favor after falling into disuse during the Mycenaean period. Thege geometric styles, we are asked to believe, continued down to the Hellenistic period, around 331, when Alexander conquered Persia. In most archaeology books about eight and one half centuries are allowed between the end of the Mycenaean world and Alexander the Great. But the true restoration allows less than one and one half centuries. Here is an extraordinary variation of over seven centuries between traditional interpretations or archaeological evidence and the facts. Have archaeologists really uncovered remains abundant enough to fill the extra seven centuries demanded by their theories? Were there really "Dark Ages" that befell Greece at the close of the Mycenaean world? Archaeologists have, of course, found the surprising evidence. But they have been unable to believe it. There simply are not enough material remains to fill the gap artificially created by antedating the Mycenaean world to conform to the false Egyptian scheme of history taken for granted today. Chester G. Starr, in his book "The Origins of Greek Civilization", admits on page 77 that "only the scantiest of physical remains" exist to fill the gap. Now consider the facts. The so-called Mycenaean or Late Bronze or Helladic culture has been subdivided by archaeologists into three major periods. The third period has been further subdivided into three parts. At the time of the final fall of Troy in 677 Greek imports were still of the late Helladic IIIB cultural style. This style continued well into the next century during the reign of Ramesses the Great (610-544). During his reign the Mycenaean pottery styles degenerated into sub-Mycenaean or IIIC pottery styles which continued even after the overthrow of Mycenae. Greek history tells us that Mycenae was destroyed in the 470's by Argos (see "Oxford Classical Dictionary"). But this date does not mark the introduction of Geometric pottery into Greece. Archaeologist Wilhelm Doerpfeld in his work "Alt-Olympia", published in 1935, proves that excavators deliberately hid their eyes from the fact that Mycenaean wares were contemporary with Geometric pottery in Greece, that Mycenaean wares were actually of Eastern or Phoenician origin and existed side by side with Greek geometric wares during the so-called Late Bronze period in the Aegean. The geometric styles were followed by Orientalizing styles in Greek pottery. This Orientalizing style is associated with the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Aegean Isles. The list of Sea Powers presented earlier dates this period from about the time of the last Trojan War to the defeat of the Aeginetan sea power in 480. In other words, Orientalizing styles among the Greeks occurred during the sub-Mycenaean period. The rise of Athens after the Persian wars led to Athenian wares dominating the markets of the world, beginning in the 470's. This is the time of the spread of Attic black-figured ware — not a century and a quarter earlier as is usually assumed. Archaeologists, of course, have carelessly overlooked the significance of the ancient list of Sea Powers which proves that Athens did not control the seas until after the defeat of Xerxes. Classic styles of Greek ware, soon developed, continued to the late fourth century when Hellenistic tastes took on new dimensions with Alexander's conquests.
Palestine, Syria and Archaeology
The land which boasts the most complete archaeological record is Palestine. This is partly an empty boast. The only really early city that is thoroughly documented is Jericho. Hardly any of the other early Palestinian sites are known. By contrast, much of early Syria and Mesopotamia is better documented. Early Jericho begins with a "Prepottery Neolithic A" culture. The duration of this culture extended over a few centuries, though it is carelessly maximized by archeologists many more hundreds of years. The period of this culture is pre-Flood, as is the succeeding "Prepottery Neolithic B." It is found in strata X to XVII. It is a period of intense warfare. The city walls were being constantly rebuilt. The story of Jericho is really the account of the great walled city Cain built before the Flood. Jericho had walls long before any other city. See the latest excavation reports by Miss Kenyon. Thereafter two new cultural strata occur. Each is a period of great retrogression, as if some calamity had befallen the people. Each is separated by a span of time in which the site was depopulated. The inhabitants used pottery. (See Chart I of "The Archaeology of Palestine" in "The Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by G. E. Wright.) The site of Jericho hereafter was for several centuries abandoned. The population of Palestine disappeared. This is the period of the Flood. of human depopulation, and the meagre beginnings of the new post-Flood world. In Mesopotamia small beginnings of modern society developed. Then over much of the Jordan valley, the southern hill country and elsewhere in Palestine a new culture sprang up. It is labeled Chalcolithic or Ghassulian after a site where first discovered. It flourished in areas which today are far removed from any water sources. Sites with this culture extend far out into the arid plain about the Dead Sea. The culture comes to a sudden end! Now notice the record in Genesis 13:10, "And Lot lifted up his eyes. and behold all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt." Here is the so-called Ghassulian culture! It was in the days of Abraham. This culture perished with the burning of the cities of the plain in the year 1916 — just before the birth of Isaac. Very little is known of cultures elsewhere in Palestine prior to this time. All that has so far been recovered are remains of wretched cave cultures and open camp sites. These cave cultures, usually placed millenniums before the habitation of Jericho, include both pre-Flood remains and early post-flood deposits. Cave dwelling continued, however, long after the beginning of cities. Even Lot, when he fled from Sodom, dwelt in a cave (Gen. 19:30) The culture which follows the overthrow of the cities of the plain is designated "Early Bronze I." It is subdivided into sections "A", "B" and "C". This culture has been associated, mistakenly, with Dynasty I of Egypt. It is indeed found in the tomb of Semempses (Shem) in Egypt (pp. 59, 70 of "Pottery of Palestine", by G. E. Wright). All that proves is that it was the family of Shem which introduced it widely among the Canaanites after the destruction of Sodom. Early Bronze I was succeeded by Early Bronze II and III. The latter ends abruptly in 1446, at the crossing of the Jordan under Joshua.
The Coming of Israel Into Palestine
The next archaeological period in Palestinian stratigraphy is designated "Early Bronze IV" or "Early Bronze III B." It is a period at Jericho and elsewhere of frantic building of defences. "No well-preserved constructions of Early Bronze IV have yet been discovered," writes William Foxwell Albright in "Archaeology of Palestine", page 77. The most spectacular remains of this period is of a gigantic open-air camp site overlooking the Dead Sea. Here is William Albright's description of it: "... overlooking the Dead Sea from an eastern terrace, is a great open-air enclosure, defended by a wall of large field stones. Inside the enclosure and around it are many ancient hearths, with quantities of sherds" — and here an incorrect date is suggested. "Outside, at a greater distance, are many graves dug in the ground and surrounded with small stones arranged in such a way as to resemble megalithic dolmens superficially .... Most of the graves were covered by shallow tumuli. At a little distance is a group of fallen menhirs ("messaboth"), which seem originally to have numbered seven" (p. 78). Whose camp was this? Israel's! At this point in the cultural history of Palestine archaeologists find the country was suddenly devastated. Destruction and abandonment of towns are everywhere. A sudden reduction in population occurs. Here is the archaeological evidence of the invasion of Joshua! Now we are in a position to place in chart form the proper relationship between archaeological finds and history. Note that during the so-called bronze culture, iron was every where in use in Palestine. A description of each period may be found in detail in the works of Albright, Glueck, Kenyon, Wright and others.
Cultural Development Contemporary Historical Events in Palestinian Pottery
Early Bronze I-III 1916-1446 From about the destruction of Sodom to the crossing of the Jordan
Early Bronze III B 1446-1441 From crossing of Jordan also labeled by Kenyon to the division of the Inter. Early Bronze- land in 1441-1440: dates Middle Bronze or are found by subtracting Middle Bronze I (by successive judgeships Albright) from 300 years after Exodus — 1446-1146 (see Judges 11:26).
Middle Bronze I 1441-1391 Lifetime of Joshua and (Kenyon) also labeled Elders, oppression of Middle Bronze II A Cushanrishathaim and (Albright) his defeat in 1391
Middle Bronze II Phase 1 Judgeship of Othniel (Kenyon) or II B and C 1391-1333 (40 years) and period (Albright) (influence of Ammonite oppression of culture from (18 years) Mesopotamia) Phase 2 Period of major deposits 1333-1253 during lengthy time of peace — judgeship of Ehud (during 80 years)
Phase 3 Oppression of Jabin king 1253-1193 of Canaan (20 years); also time of Philistine incursions; judgeship of Barak (40 years) and of Deborah and Shamgar
Phase 4 Midianite, Amalekite and 1193-1146 Maonite invasion (7 years) followed by judgeship of Gideon (40 years)
Phase 5 Philistine invasion(40 years 1146-1091 1146-1106) and second Ammonite invasion during time of Samuel, Jephthah, Samson. Three hundred years after conquest of Palestine east of Jordan (1446) the Ammonites launched an attack upon Palestine (Judges 11:26) and overran the land for 18 years 1146-1128; parallel with this invasion the Philistines attacked Israel (in 1146) and oppressed the land 40 years (during the life of Samson); Samuel delivered the country from the Philistines in 1106: peace restored until Saul's reign, which began in 1091
Phase 5 of Middle Bronze, so-called, ends in Palestine with a sudden destruction of every major city! This is the Philistine invasion about 1091 when Saul was first made king.
Transition Middle to Reign of Saul to the time Late Bronze of David's victory over the (Kenyon and Philistines; period of dis- Mazar) location
Late Bronze I Later years of David, reign of Solomon and time of Thutmose's domination of Palestine
The so-called Late Bronze period in Egypt and Palestine was quite lengthy. It began much earlier than in Greece and the region of the Troad. This period has not been clearly subdivided by archaeologists because they do not know it pertains to the time of Israel and Judah It is usually assumed that it represents the pre-Israelite Canaanites. Not only does the so-called Late Bronze continue to the time of Assyrian domination of Israel in the north of Palestine, it continued through the time of the kingdom of Judah to Nebuchadnezzar's invasion and the reign of Ramesses the Great, Throughout the Late Bronze there is evidence of war and gradual decline. Late Bronze pottery continued in use in Palestine even after the sixth century. It was the culture of the returning Jews during the Persian period. This shocking fact can be proved from contemporary Egyptian history! Miss Kathleen M. Kenyon points out in her book "Archaeology of the Holy Land" (Praeger edition), page 218, that near the close of Late Bronze II the site of Megiddo has yielded a model pen-case bearing the cartouche of Ramesses III. His dates, restored earlier, are 381-350. At Bethshan a statue of Ramesses III was found in Late Bronze setting. Below Ramesses III were stelae of Seti I of the seventh century and scarabs and other objects of Thutmose III. Late Bronze II, Level VII, of the dig at Megiddo even yielded evidence of the reign of Ramesses VI (correctly dated to 340-333) in association with a little so-called "Philistine" pottery. This pottery is not Philistine ware at all. It is Greek and Phoenician ware of the time of Alexander the Great! It is derived from sub-Mycenaean III C, which is datable to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. So-called "Philistine" ware is misdated eight centuries too early. It is falsely attributed to Philistines of the time of Samuel, Saul and David! The reason for this mistake is, of course, that it is associated with Dynasty XX of Egypt, which has been misplaced by about eight centuries. "Philistine" — actually Aegean — ware marks the final transition from the so-called Bronze to Iron ages in Palestine. It is commonly believed that the Iron Age began about the period of Joshua's invasion of Palestine, that so-called Philistine ware then appeared, and that the archaeological remains of David and Solomon and the kings of Israel all belong to this period. This idea is utterly false. Other than at Samaria, the so-called Iron Age in Palestine is a period of decadence and poverty. It generally represents the period of rising Greek influence in Asia and the later Hellenistic period and early Roman periods. The site of Samaria has been used as proof that the Iron Age is the period of the Israelite kings. It proves just the opposite, The citadel on the summit of the hill of Samaria, which is commonly attributed to Omri, Ahab and Jehu has all the characteristics of typical acropolises invariably associated with Greek towns! The Greeks under Alexander, having overthrown the Samaritans, cleared away the top of the hill of Samaria and built their garrison buildings on its summit. Archaeologists have taken for granted that Omri built it. The architectural remains show typical Greek architecture. The excavation on the hill of Samaria has not included the living quarters of the common people of the Israelite period. If all the area had been excavated, archaeologists would have found remains typical of the Israelites' culture during the so-called Late Bronze period. (See page 269 of Kenyon's "Archaeology of the Holy Land".) As a result of antedating the so-called Iron Age culture by about eight centuries, the period after the exile under the Persians is nearly a total blank in archaeological works (see Kenyon's work, pages 298-299). On page 301, Miss Kenyon writes: "The only architectural remains belong to official buildings presumably associated with the Persian administration, and the few rich burials probably belong to members of the official hierarchy." In reality, the few structures found are those of the Hellenistic period.
The final phase of the restoration of World History is now approaching — the archaeology of Shinar, Assyria and Egypt. The region of Mesopotamia is best studied by taking Shinar as one unit, and the remainder of Mesopotamia as another — the political areas of Babylonia and Assyria. The post-Flood culture of Shinar begins with a phase known as "Late Ubaid." "Early Ubaid" is pre-Flood. "At all sites so far investigated in the South the Ubaid remains rest directly on virgin soil, and there seems little doubt that the people who bore this culture were the first settlers on the alluvium of whom we have any trace" (Perkins, "Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia", p. 13). The earliest known phase near Ur is known as Ubaid I. It contains Woolley's "flood deposit." The earliest post-Flood phase is known as Ubaid II which continues to 1938, the year of the defeat of the four kings in Palestine by Abram. With the defeat of the Mesopotamian (Assyrian) kings in 1938 a total break ensues in the cultural complex of Ubaid III. The land is never again culturally united until the late Assyrian Empire. The next major period is generally known as the Protoliterate Period. In older works and the most recent it commonly receives the name Jamdat Nasr, after a city in Mesopotamia. In this Period excavations at the cities of Eridu and Uruk will be noted in chart form.
City of Eridu City of Uruk
Temple stratum III Phase "a" is composed of strata covers the period VIII-VI. ending 1717, the Stratum VIII of the Eanna Temple close of the Hamazi contains a major cultural change. Dynasty (2137-1717). This period continues to 1777 — In archaeological the earliest recommencement of parlance this is the Second Dynasty of Uruk. phase "a" of the Stratum VII also exhibits a new, Protoliterate Period. though minor cultural phase. This period extends from 1777 to 1748, the time of the rise of both Kish and Akshak. Stratum VI extends from 1748 to 1717, the date of the final restoration to power of Uruk.
Eridu Temple stratum The second phase of the covers phases "b," "c" Protoliterate Period covers the and "d" of the so- remains of strata V-III. Written called Protoliterate materials begin to make their Period. It ends around appearance in the strata, but 1649 with the rise to this is not the real beginning power of Dynasty III of writing in Mesopotamia. of Uruk. Divisions of the later Protoliterate Period are based not so much on political events as on Temple strata V, IV and III, which correspond with "b", "c" and "d." Quite significant! — but that is the foolishness to which scholars descend who have cut themselves off from true history.
The next Period is designated Early Dynastic I. It is properly equated with the Dynasty of Akkad (see "Relative Chronologies of Old World Archaeology", p. 48). The cultural period extends to the initial invasion of the Guti in 1535. Early Dynastic II extends from 1535 to about the end of the Akkadian Dynasty in 1436. (Of course, these political dates are only general indicators of changes in cultural patterns.) Early Dynastic III extends to the Elamite invasion that brought about the establishment of the cities of Isin (1301) and Larsa (1306). The next cultural phase is properly associated with Isin, Larsa and Dynasty I of Babylon (1174-879).
And now Northern Mesopotamia, especially the land of Assyria. It is commonly taught today that Assyria and the highlands surrounding the Mesopotamian plain were settled long before the region of Shinar was dry enough to inhabit. To some extent this is true. But the duration of time cannot be archaeologically determined. Only a historical record can determine that. The duration of human settlement from the highland down the river valleys eastward to Shinar took only about one century! The city and the tower of Babel were built only 114 years after the flood ended. The earliest cultural phase in Northern Mesopotamia is generally designated Hassuna, from a site where it was first found. Unstratified, less advanced cultures have also been found in the highlands, but they are not demonstrably older. They are of nomadic peoples and minor villages, and continued parallel for a few centuries with other cultures in the growing cities of the later pre-Flood Mesopotamian Plain. The pre-Flood Hassuna culture is represented at the site of Nineveh by strata 1 and 2, and at Hassuna by strata I-V. The phase covers human movements somewhat before the end of the pre-Flood world in the area settled by the family of Seth. We next find the development of a later pre-Flood culture. This northern culture is called by archaeologists the Halaf Period — after the site of Halaf. These meaningless archaeological names would really become interesting if they had been properly connected with contemporary leaders who have molded ancient history. Halafian is represented at Nineveh by strata 2 b and 2 c. At Hassuna by strata VI through X. At Arphchaiyyah it is represented by strata 10 through 6. At each site there is evidence of warfare at the end of the period. Violence filled that world. The sudden end of the Halafian period signifies the end of the pre-Flood world. Just before it ended there was a new cultural development in Southern Mesopotamia. The next cultural period was once thought to commence with a heavy influence out of Iran, but now is beginning to be recognized as of local origin. The new cultural period is termed Northern Ubaid I and is the latest pre-Flood culture. Through Noah's family it continues into the post-Flood world. The most important post-Flood phase of this new period reveals a revival of religious practice. At Tepe Gawra in Assyria, a temple began to be built. Its commencement corresponds with the new building phase of the temple at Eridu. This revival of religion can be dated from the time of Nimrod to about the year 2137 — the return of Isis (Semiramis or Ishtar). A complete break in cultural unity occurs at the end of Northern Ubaid II. As in Shinar the land becomes divided into numerous local cultures. This phase — the Warka Period — bears the same name as in the south, but it exhibits many different features. It is related to Eastern Anatolia and North Syria, the Aramaic homeland. It corresponds in time to the latter period of influence of the Arabian or Aramean Dynasty of Berossus — 2043-1828. Beginning with the Warka Period, the cultural phases of northern Mesopotamia are generally correctly associated with the phases of Babylonia as not to necessitate further discussion here. Any of the publications listed in the Bibliography are suitable for pursuing this section further. It is only in the earliest periods that a restoration is needful. Note in concluding, that every cultural phase is reflected in political events. Further, observe that the common stratum occupies about the space of a generation — not upwards of a century as postulated by evolutionary archaeology.
Egypt In Parallel
But what about the many centuries that are assigned to the "Pre-Dynastic" cultures of early Egypt? How can these be reconciled with the demonstrable historical fact that human beings did not arrive in Egypt until the Dynastic Period? Egyptian history teaches us that there was no "Pre-Dynastic Age" in Egypt. What have the archaeologists discovered in the Nile Valley? Is there correspondence between Egypt and Palestine and Mesopotamia that dates these assumed early cultures of Egypt? Indeed there is! The Maadi culture in North Egypt is known to correspond with the Gerzean in South Egypt (p. 2 of "Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology", R. W. Ehrich editor). With what period is Gerzean contemporary? Here is the surprising answer: "The equation of Late Gerzean and Early Bronze I in Palestine is clear" (page 5). Again: "Most important for establishing a synchronims are the four cylinder seals of Jemdet Nasr style (imports and imitations), two of which occur in well-documented Late Gerzean graves" (page 5). This means that the latest so-called "Pre-Dynastic" culture was parallel with the Protoliterate in Mesopotamia, which began about 1828. Egypt's latest "Pre-Dynastic" (!) culture was the culture of Egypt just before the coming of the family of Jacob to Egypt — four hundred years after the first dynasty commenced at Thinis. Prior to the Maadi (in the North) and the Gerzean (in the South), Egyptian culture is subdivided into Merimde and Fayum in the North and Amratian, Badarian and Tasian in the South. These cultures show affinities with the Ubaid of Mesopotamia and the Neolithic of Jericho. But how does one explain the backward cultures of the people of Egypt when the royal tombs exhibit such sophisticated tastes — superior, in fact, to the common tastes of Palestine or Mesopotamia? Josephus answers: "Whereas these Egyptians are the very people that appear to have never, in all the past ages, had one day of freedom, no not so much as from their own lords" ("Against Apion", II, 12). See also "Antiquities" I, 8. Egyptian princes and kings always lived in a fashion far beyond the inclinations, or even the knowledge, of the common fellaheen. The backward culture of early Egypt is not found stratigraphically beneath the remains of the earliest dynasty, but contemporary with it and succeeding dynasties. "Neolithic" remains in Egypt were reproduced even to Roman times! With this material the essential framework of history is restored. There is perfect harmony between true history, true scientific archaeology and the Bible. History and the Bible can be reconciled.
Akurgal, Ekrem, "The Art of the Hittites". London, 1962.
Albright, William F., "The Archaeology of Palestine", Baltimore, 1960.
Allen, Herbert J., "Ssuma Chien's Historical Records", "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society," April 1894, January and July 1895. "Anatolian Studies". 1951-. London.
Ancient and Modern Britons. (No author.) London, 1884.
"Ancient Egypt", 1914-1933. London.
"Antiquity a Quarterly Review of Archaeology". 1927-. Gloucester, England.
Aston, W. G., "Nihongi". London, 1956.
Bellew, H. W., "The Races of Afghanistan". Calcutta, 1880.
Beloe, William, "Herodotus, Translated From the Greek". 4 vol. London, 1821.
"The Biblical Archaeologist". Vol. I (1938)-. New Haven, Connecticut.
Blegen, C. W., "Troy" ("Cambridge Ancient History, Fascicle 1".), Cambridge, 1961.
Bosanguet, J. W., "The Fall of Nineveh and the Reign of Sennacherib, Chronologically considered". London, 1853.
Breasted, J. H., "Ancient Records of Egypt". 5 vol. Chicago, 1906.
Breasted, J. H., "A History of Egypt". New York, 1905.
Brinton, D. G., "The American Race". New York, 1891.
Brinton, Daniel G., "The Myths of the New World". Philadelphia, 1905.
Brugsch-Bey, H., "Egypt Under the Pharaohs". London, 1891.
Bryant, Jacob, "A New System; or, an Analysis of Ancient Mythology". Third Edition. 3 vols. London, 1807.
Budge, E. A. Wallis, "The Book of the Kings of Egypt". 2 vols. London, 1908.
Budge, E. A., Wallis, "A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII. B.C. 30", 8 vols. London, 1902.
"Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research". No. 1-. New Haven, Connecticut.
Bunsen, C. C. J., "Egypt's Place in Universal History". 5 vols. London, 1848.
Burn, Andrew R., "The Lyric Age of Greece", New York, 1960.
Bury, J. B.; Cook, S. A.; Adcock, F. E., "The Cambridge Ancient History". 12 vols. Cambridge, 1923.
Cary, Earnest, "The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus". The Loeb Classical Library, 7 volumes. London, 1948-.
Ceram, C. W., "The Secret of the Hittites", New York, 1956.