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.

a) 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.
b) 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.
c) They dug in vain for the treasures of Persia's Indian (XXth) satrapy but hit the mysterious and much older civilization of Harappa.
d) They dug in vain for Indo-Aryan Medes and their empire in Assyria but hit much older and mysterious IndoAryan Mitanni and their empire.
e) 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.
f) They dug in vain for marauding Scythians in Mesopotamia but hit the much older and mysterious Quthean/Gutaean marauders.
g) They dug in vain for Armenians and Alarodians in Armenia but hit much older and mysterious Armians and Urartians.
h) 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 missing and offers the following equations.

SELECTION OF SENSATIONAL DISCOVERIES OF NEW ASIAN NATIONS AND EMPIRES BY MODERN ARCHAEOLOGY SINCE 1840 WHICH, TODAY, ARE DATED BETWEEN THE -3RD MILLENNIUM AND ca. - 600.
[See also on the Ice Age]
ASIAN NATIONS AND EMPIRES DATED BY HISTORIANS OF ANCIENT GREECE BETWEEN -1100AND - 300 BUT DIFFICULT TO VERIFY BY EXCAVATIONS EXECUTED SINCE 1840.

a) Enigmatic conqueror Gulkishar follows the Old-Babylonian Martu/Amorites
b) Alexander the Great ends the Persian Mardoi/Amardoi
c) Martu/Amorites of Old-Babylonia and Middle-Assyria
d) Mardoi/Amardoi (most important tribe of Persians into which Cyrus was born) in Satrapies of Babylonia and Assyria
e) Middle-, Neo- and Late-Assyrian (Sargonid) empire centered in Assyria
f) Persian Empire centered in Satrapy Assyria
g) Old-, Middle- and Late-Babylonians in Southern Mesopotamia - [See also about Babylonian influence in Samaria through the history of Simon Magus auf Deutsch]
h) Persian Satrapy Babylonia with legendary wealth
i) Chanaea and Subartu as most northwestern foes and/or allies of Old Babylonian Martu/Amorites
j) Ionia and Sparta as most northwestern foes and/or allies of Persians=Mardoi
k) Mature Harappan culture/Indus Valley
l) Persia's XXth Satrapy India
m) Armians of Armenia
n) Armenians of Armenia
o) Urartians/Hurrites of Armenia
p) Alarodians of Armenia
q) Khat/Hittites of Cappadocia
r) K(h)at of Katpatuka/Cappadocia
s) Ahhijawa of Western Anatolia
t) Achaeans of W. Anatolia
u) Mitanni empire centered in Assyria
v) Medish empire centered in Assyria
w) Neo-Sumerians
x) Chaldaeans of Medish Period
y) Qutheans/Gutaeans help to bring down Old-Akkadians
z) Scythians help to bring down Ninos-Assyrians
aa) Old-Akkadins-Old-Assyrians of Naramsin
bb) Assyrians of Ninos (-Hyksos)
cc) Early Sumerian Dynasties
dd) 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.[1000]

WASHSHUKANNI, the mysteriously missing capital of the Mitanni, is identical with EKBATANA, the well identified capital of the Medes (See map).

AKKAD, the mysteriously missing capital of Naramsin's Old-Akkadians, is identical with NINEVEH of the Assyrians of Ninos. The enigmatic and most massive city walls of Old-Akkadian Nineveh confirm Herodotus' record on the magnificent city of Ninos.

II. THE SEQUENCE OF ANCIENT EMPIRES WITH THE CENTER IN ASSYRIA AS IT WAS TAUGHT BY GREEK HISTORIANS SINCE THE TIME OF HEKATEIOS (-560/550 TO -500/494

According to the -5th century author of The History, Herodotus, mankind's first superpower were the Assyrians. They did not emerge as a high culture before -1150: "The Assyrians had held sway over upper Asia for five hundred and twenty years" (I: 95) After an undefined period of development and expansion [equals Mesopotamia's pre-Alexander period (4) the overview on page 11 below], King Ninos became the most famous and powerful of all Assyrian rulers around -750 (The History I: 7). According to Diodoros (II: lff.), Ninos conquered Chaldaea (Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), Armenia and Media. Later he added Egypt, Cappadocia and Asia to the frontiers of Bactria to his empire [equals pre-Alexander period (3)]. [1050]

Around -630, after the weakening of the Assyrians of Ninos' empire, the Medes-also employing their Persian brethren "began to subdue all Asia, going from people to people" ( The History I: 102). At the same time, they also made their first attempt to conquer Assyria. Their king, Phraortes, "came against the Assyrians, and especially those of the Assyrians who held Nineveh. These Assyrians had formerly ruled all of Asia but were now quite isolated, all their allies having dropped away from them. But in themselves they were as strong as ever, and when Phraortes fought them, he himself was killed, after a reign of twenty two years, and also much of his army" (The History I: 102). It took the Medes another two decades until they managed to do away with the might of Assyria. Around -610, under their king Cyaxares they eventually "made the Assyrians their subjects, except for the province of Babylon" (The History I: 106). Babylonia was regained by the Chaldaeans with whom the Medes had to share the spoils of Ninos' empire. Because Egypt, Cilicia and Chaldaea did not fall to the Medes, who called themselves Aryans, their power could not match the might of Ninos. Nevertheless, this first Indo-Aryan Empire was the unchallenged superpower of its time [equals pre-Alexander period (2)]

The first genuine world empire in the history of humankind was founded by the Persian Cyrus the Great. Ethnically, Ctesias informed us, Cyrus belonged to the bellicose tribe of the Mardians/ Amardians [pre-Alexander Period (1)]. The extension of the empire from Greece and Egypt to Bactria and India and its division into twenty satrapies is carefully described by Herodotus ( The History III: 89-94).

As it was the case in the times of Ninos and the Medes, Assyria once again formed the heart of the empire: "In power, the land of Assyria counts as one third of all Asia. Rule over this country which rule is called by the Persians a satrapy-is of all the satrapies far the greatest" (The History I: 192).

Herodotus' report on the sequence of the empire of Ninos, Medes and Persians was never put into doubt in antiquity. His most vicious opponents, who loved to take him to task for smaller mistakes and larger blunders, confirmed the Assyrian sequence of Ninos-Assyrians> 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, Aristobulos, Diodotos of Erythrai, Diognetos, Eumenos, Nearchos etc. Much of what they wrote about the lands from Anatolia to India was copied by Arian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarchos and Justin. Their accounts never allowed for the idea that in actual fact there had not been an empire of the Persians, and that Alexander has not been the conqueror of the satrapies.

Greek Dates

SUMMARIZING OVERVIEW of pre-hellenist empires which- according to the best historians of Classical Greece-were centered in Assyria but supposedly cannot be confirmed there after 150 years of modern archaeology Pre-Alexander periods (1) - (4) 1330

Hellenism

[See also Foundations of History and Olympia.]

(1)-540 Persian Empire (2)-620 Medish Empire
{Chaldaeans in South Mesopotamia} (3)-750 Ninos-Assyrians (4)-1150

Early Assyrians
{Chaldaens in South Mesopotamia} (Chalcolithicum)

In the 1980's, a series of eight major conferences brought together the world's finest experts on the history of the Medish and Persian empires. They reached startling results. The empire of Ninos [pre-Alexander period (3)] was not even mentioned. Yet, its Medish successors were extensively dealt with-to no great avail. In 1988, one of the organizers of the eight conferences, stated the simple absence of an empire of the Medes [pre-Alexander period (2)]: "A Median oral tradition as a source for Herodotus III 95106 is a hypothesis that solves some problems, but has otherwise little to recommend it ... This means that not even in Herodotus' Median history a real empire is safely attested. In Assyrian and Babylonian records and in the archeological evidence no vestiges of an imperial structure can be found. The very existence of a Median empire, with the emphasis on empire, is thus questionable" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "Was there ever a Median Empire?", in A. Kuhrt, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory, Leiden, 1988, p. 212).

Two years later came the really bewildering revelation. Humankind's first world empire of the Persians [Pre-Alexander Period (1)] did not fare much better than the Medes. Its imperial dimensions had dryly to be labeled "elusive" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "The quest for an elusive empire?", in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History IV. Center and Periphery, Leiden l990, p. 264).

III. ARCHAEOLOGICALLY-MISSING HISTORY AND HISTORICALLY-UNEXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGY IN MAJOR AREAS OF ANTIQUITY

The repercussions of the shock over the missing archaeology of the richest satrapies were so widely felt because an "elusive" Persian empire could not help but putting into doubt Alexander's conquests of the legendary wealthy Achaemenid continent. Modern Orientalists believe that the largest part of the-now 'would-be'-Persian empire lay in ruins between ca. -600 and -300. Quite a few areas are even considered to have been without cities for up to 1500 years. The impressive settlements of Hellenism were supposedly built on dead tells which were ruined long before any Persian entered the Greek books of history. Where, suddenly, did the cultured Asian masses come from, who settled the big cities of Hellenism? It is known that only small minorities were ethnic Greeks. Moreover, it is no longer understood where the huge Persian armies came from which attacked Greece in the late -6th and early - 5th century. If their homelands-apart for very small Iranian heartlands-were a vast ghost empire already in Medish times, the lies and fantasies of Greek historians (and Persian rulers like Darius the Great with his Behistun text) surpassed even the worst suspicions. After all, not only Alexander's conquest, but the man himself and his massive army, is no longer credible. Who could have fed many thousands of men and horses if they marched through wasteland and rubbled cities? Nobody can answer these questions.

ASSYRIA

Archaeological strata-groups discovered within the last expected historically (conventional dates). Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).

HELLENISM

(Assyrians of Seleucid and Parthian Empires)

(-330) Duplications or parallels

(1) Late-, Neo- and Middle-Assyrians (from -1340 to -610; with gaps; then gap to -300)
(1) Rule of Akhaemenids in their Assyrian heartland (IXth satrapy) ca . -55a
(2) Rule of Indo-Aryan speaking Mitanni in Assyria (-1500 to -1350)
(2) Rule of Indo-Aryan speaking Medes in Assyria ca. -63C
(3) Naramsin's Old-Akkadians become Asia's first masters (-2350 to -2200, the gap)
(3) Ninos-Assyrians become Asia's first masters ca. -750
(4) Early Bronze Age with "Ninevite-5 Ware" (ca. -3000)
(4) Rise of Assyrians ca -ll50

Assyriologists were so stunned by the archaeological absence of Ninos- Assyrian, Medish and Persian period strata in the Assyrian "heartland of empires", that it took them nearly one and a half centuries to draw their conclusions. In 1988, the empire of the Medes was declared missing. In l990, the Akhaemenid continent-the largest of all the empires-had to be described as elusive. The Greek claim that the first Asian superpower-Assyria of Ninos-did not emerge before -750, was not even considered worth checking.

CHALDAEA=KASDIM=KASSITES (SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA)

Archaeological strata groups discovered within the last 150 years which were not expected historically (conventional dates).

Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).

HELLENISM

(Chaldaeans/Kassites of Seleucid and Parthian Empires)

Sumerian writing is well-alive in astronomy up to the first century C.E. though civilization collapsed before - 2000 (-330)

No traces of Chaldaean language or astronomy though Alexander must fight against Kassites in -330

(l) Old-Babylonian Mardu/Amorites (-2000 to -1700) and-elsewhere-Middle-Babylonian Kassites(-16th to - 12th c.) rule in Chaldaea; then gap to -330
(1) Rule of Mardians/Amardians (the tribe of Cyrus the Great, founder of the Akhemenid Empire) in Chaldaea=Kasdim ca . -55C

(2) Rule of Ur III-Sumerians in Chaldaea as cradle of civilization (-21st c. to -2000)
(2) Independent Chaldaea as cradle of science from which the Greeks learn

(3) Naramsin's Old-Akkadians become Asia's first masters and rulers of Sumerians (-2350 to -2200)
(3) Ninos-Assyrians become Asia's first masters and rulers of Chaldaeans Early Sumerian Dynasties (ED I-IIIb) (ca. -3000)

(4) Rise of Chaldaean Dynasties ca. -1150

CHALCOLITHICUM

Students of Chaldaea are stunned by the archaeological absence of the most learned nation of antiquity which the Greeks considered as the cradle of knowledge. Nobody understands how this brilliant people, which blossomed between the time of Ninos (-750) and Alexander the Great (-330), which became the teacher of nations but left no deity, text, brick or even potsherd. Yet, the same researchers take great pride in the discovery of the Sumerians (1867) in the very heartland of Chaldaea. These Sumerians became teachers of mankind. Yet, they were so ancient that even the best historians of antiquity had never heard of them.

ARMENIA AND ALARODIA

Archaeological strata groups discovered within the last 125 years which were not expected historically (conventional dates).

Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).

HELLENISMUS

(Airarat and Armenia of Seleucid Greeks) (-330)

(1) Urartians and Armians (!) of Assyrian Period (from -1240 to -600; with gaps; then gap to -300)
(1) Urartians--Alarodians and Armenians of Persian Period (XIIIth/XVIIIth satrapy) ca. -550

(2) Hurrites/Urartians and Hai of Indo-Aryan Mitanni Period (-1500 to -1350)
(2) Urartians and Armenians=Hai of Indo-Aryan Medish Period ca. -63C

(3) Hurrites (=Early Urartians) from the period of Naramsin's Old-Akkadians (-2350 to -2200, then gap)
(3) "Arima" (Ilias II: 783) and Alarodian neighbors from the period of Ninos-Assyria ca. -750

(4) Early Bronze Age (ca. -3000)
(4) Early Armenia ca. -115a

(Armenologists are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of the Alarodians and Armenians from Ninos (-750) to Alexander the Great (-330) which was taken for granted for nearly two and a half millennia. They have to teach their students that the Armenian inlaws of the Persian Great Rings and the satrap of Armenia who became Great Ring himself (Darius III) appear to have been cave dwellers. Yet, they take pride in the discovery of the Urartians/Hurrites and Armians, which were too ancient for even the finest historians of antiquity to know.)

K(H)ATPATUKA/CAPPADOCIA

Archaeological strata groups discovered within the last 120 years which were not expected historically (conventional dates).

Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).

(Left: Post-KHAT (HITTITES) and Phrygians to be dated up to -800 if stratigraphy is taken seriously, then gap down to Hellenism. Right: KATaonians according to Strabo between -330 and -190)

(-330)

(1) KHAT (=Hittites) of Late Empire Period (-1300 to -1100)
(1) KAT/KHAT of XIXth Akhameni satrapy Katpatuka ca. -550

(2) KHAT (=Hittites) of Early "Empire" Period as ally and/or foe of Hitanni (-1500 to -1300)
(2) KAT/KHAT of Katpatukan/Cappadocian ally and/or foe of Medes

(3) KHAT (=Hittites) of Old Empire (i.e., Hyksos) Period (-1700 to -1500)
(3) "KETians" (Odyssee XI: 521) of pre-Medish period of Ninos-Assyrians

(4) Pre-KHAT/Hittites of Early Bronze Age (-2100 to -1700)
(4) Predecessors of RAT/KHAT ca. -1150

CHALCOLITHICUM

(The experts on KAT-Patuka (Cappadocia) are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of the KAT/KHAT from Ninos (750) to Alexander the Great (-330) which was taken for granted for nearly two and a half millennia. Yet, the same scholars take pride in the discovery of the KHAT or Hittites/which even the finest historians of Greek antiquity did not know.)

EGYPT (with her as yet best stratigraphy at TELL EL DABA)

Archaeological strata groups discovered in the 1980's

Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no archaeological traces (dates from Greek historians)

HELLENISM

Ptolemaic Egypt - 330 BC

(1) Ramessides of Late New Kingdom in stratum B/1-3 (-1300 to -1085; then gap to -330)
(1) Satrapy of the Persian Empire with interruptions ca. -520

(2) Early New Kingdom of the Mitanni Period in D/l (-1540 to -1300)
(2) Egypt of the Medish Period ca. -630

(3) Hyksos Rule (with Old-Akkadian material culture) in strata E to D/2 (-1680 to -1540)
(3) Rule of Ninos-Assyrians in Egypt ca . -75C

(4) Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze II/A to II/B in G/F (-1740 to -1680)
(4) Egypt before conquest by Ninos-Assyria ca. -1150

CHALCOLITHICUM

-4th millennium Egyptian ceramics mixed with Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze II/A-ceramics of early -2nd millennium in stratum H

Early contact between Syro-Palestine and the Nile valley before -1150

Egyptologists are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of Egypt from Ninos (-750) to the end of the Persian Period (-330) which was taken for granted for nearly two and a half millennia. They are convinced that there was not much to conquer for Alexander the Great, when even the finest stratigraphy exhibits a bewildering gap between -1085 and -330. On the other hand, they are struck by the continuity between the material culture of stratum B, which supposedly ends in -1085, in stratum A which only begins after -330. The confusion peaked in an attempt to shift strata of another area of Tell el-Daba between the continuous strata B and A CENTRAL ASIA with the finest stratigraphies at Namazga Depe and Altyn Depe Archaeolo- gical strata groups discovered in the 20th century which were not expected historically (conventional dates).

Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).

HELLENISM since -250 PARTHIANS (-300)

(1) Namazga VI and later of Hartu/Amorite and Kassites (-2000 to -1700/-1400; then gap to -300)
(1) Satrapy XVI of the Persian (Mardian/Amardian) Empire ca. -520

(2) Namazga V/Altyn 3-1 .of Ur III-period (-2500/-2250 to -2150/-2000)
(2) Provinces Hyrcania and Parthia of the Medish Empire

(3) Namazga IV/Altyn 8-4 of Old-Akkadian times (-3000/-2500 to -2500/-2250
(3) Provinces Hyrcania and Parthia of Ninos-Assyria ca . -75C

(4) Namazga III/Altyn 13-9 (-3500/-3000 to -3000/-2500)
(4) Hyrcania and Parthia before Ninos-Assyria Namazga II-I/Altyn 15-14

Students of Ancient Central Asia are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of the land bridge between the Near East and India/China, from Ninos down to the end of the Persian Empire, which was taken for granted for nearly two and a half millennia. They are convinced that there was no urban Central Asia to talk of when Alexander the Great conquered it. Yet, they take pride in the discovery of a steppe bronze and iron high culture which preceded China's by l500 and more years. On the other hand, they are bewildered to have found Achaenenid looking, i.e., post-550 pottery as early as -l500. They are even more puzzled by the similarity of the material culture of -2000 to the material culture of -330. Irrigation canals of -1800 are reused 1500 years later.

INDUS VALLEY

Archaeological strata groups discovered after 1875 which were not expected historically (conventional dates).

Historical periods prior to Hellenism, which mysteriously left no archaeological traces (dates from Greek historiography).

HELLENISM

Buddhism [with architectural monuments not before -150] 1-330

(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. See later history of India here.

(Indologists are stunned by the archaeological absence of the history of India from Ninos to the end of the Persian Period, which was taken for granted for nearly two and a half millennia. They are convinced that there was no India to talk of, when Alexander the Great conquered it. Yet, they take pride in the discovery of sculptures looking like Greek art of the -4th century as early as -2000 to -1700. Moreover they can show a Persian type apadana (assembly hall) which was expected for the missing Persian Period of the -5th century, as having existed already 1500 years earlier.) The shock over the archaeological absence of the imperial dimensions of the Persians [pre- Alexander periods (1)] is softened only by the finds in Persia proper. Yet, the Iranian heartlands cause a different sort of scholarly bewilderment. Splendid sites like Pasargade and Persepolis exhibit a fully grown civilization, with no predecessor out of which they could have developed. Moreover, these sites give the impression of mere political and ceremonial centers built in the middle of nowhere. It is not really clear over what body of lands and cities they ruled: "It seems that the Achaemenids did not build cities in the true sense ... Neither Pasargade nor Persepolis have the appearance of permanent 'capitals', and they could not have functioned as such ... Both lack permanent residence palaces ... It seems that the Persians did not develop integrally conceived, coherent, completely organized, large- scale planning schemes before the Seleucid and Sassanian periods when they came under Hellenistic and Roman influence, respectively" (P. Lampl, Cities and Planning in the ancient Near East, London, 1968, p. 117ff.).

STRATIGRAPHICAL PUZZLES OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE

Dates

Core-Satrapies Armenia, Assyria and Cappadocia

Iranian Heartland with structures in Pasargade, Persepolis, rock tombs etc.

HELLENISM built on nothing but pre-600 or older ruins in satrapies conquered against strong resistance after - 333 -330 (Greek dates) -550 absence of finds for imperial dimensions, but also the absence of the aeolic layer for gap impressive imperial structures with no empire and even homeland to rule over.

Culture resembles -900 to- 600-items known from lower line left etc.

... -600 (biblical dates) -900 most impressive finds before empire which stratigraphically sit directly beneath Hellenism

... absence of archaeological finds out of which the later Persians could develop the skills and architecture of their forefathers. Yet, the Persian territory is often mentioned in texts found in lands mentioned on the left.

Only if stratigraphy is allowed to replace conventional dating schemes, the - 900 to -600 structures in, e.g., Armenia and Assyria, instantly materialize as the hard evidence of Persia's core-satrapies. What the Ancients considered as the most powerful rulers of all times before the Roman Empire suddenly become visible in the annals of Assyria excavated in the 19th and 20th century.

Equation of selected Assyria-centered royal names as known to modern Assyriology (left) with Assyria-centered royal names known since Classical Greek historiography (right)

Sin-shar-ishkun Dareios III Kodamannos Assur-etil-ilani Artaxerxes IV Arses Assurbanipal Artaxerxes III Okhos Esarhaddon Artaxerxes II Asarkes (-4th c.) Sanherib Dareios II Okhos Shalmaneser III + Sargon II (Israel: Shalmaneser's vassal Jehu) Artaxerxes I Assurnasirpal II Xerxes I Tukulti Ninurta I Dareios I (-6th/-5th c.) Shalmanesar I Cambyses (II) Adad-Nirari I Cyrus the Great (II) Shutarna ("III") the Mitanni Astygages the Mede (-6th c.) Shaushatra, the Mitanni conqueror of Assur Cyaxares, the Medish conqueror of Assur Khuwaruwash the Mitanni Phraortes the Mede (-7th c.) Naramsin of Akkad Ninos of Assyria (- 8th/-7th c.) Sargon of Akkad Sharek + Salitis (Hyksos) (-8th c.)

IV. HOW COULD HISTORICAL PERIODS, SO WELL KNOWN FROM GREEK AUTHORS, BE SHOWN TO BE "ELUSIVE", WHEREAS IN THE VERY SAME TERRITORIES MODERN ARCHAEOLOGY HAS REVEALED SENSATIONALLY ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS, UNKNOWN BEFORE THE LATE 19TH CENTURY?

The best scholars of Classical Times today are looked upon as inventors, dreamers and liars, because the archaeological strata excavated by modern researchers are not dated in accordance with the dates used by Greek historiography. They applied different dates to the excavated strata. If it comes to stratigraphic depth, the Greek sequence of periods might well fit the strata in the ground. Yet, these strata are not dated according to their location in the ground. They are dated by modern day Egyptological and Assyriological chronology schemes against which the Greek dates look utterly out of place. The triumph of modern scholarship, therefore, appears to be twofold:

(i) It 'debunked' the Greek sequence of empires as a hoax.
(ii) In addition, it proved Ancient Greece's finest scholars to be ignorant of Asia's most splendid civilizations between -3000 and -1000.

If modern dates can be shown to be sound the Greek sequence of empires indeed is left without sufficient material evidence, and must be discarded. With all due respect, its defenders will be pushed into the cranks' corner. If, however, modern dating schemes can be shown to be without scholarly foundation, it will be possible to compare the four major post-Chalcolithic strata-groups of modern archaeology, with the four major post-Chalcolithic periods of Classical historiography. In the writer's view, the former provide the material basis for the latter.

When and why did Herodotus' four historical periods lose Herodotus' and later Greek historians' dates (-1150 to -330)?. This happened as early as the 2nd century CE. In that time Jewish and Christian chronographers established what today is called comparative world history. It began with the comparative history of Greeks and Jews. This comparison focused on the question if Moses was more ancient than Homer. The basis to decide this contest was written material whose correctness was not doubted. Stratigraphical research to check the dates of Bible and Ilias still had to be waited for another 1,700 years. Since dates used in the Bible simply were earlier than the Greek dates, the latter lost the competition for the earlier periods of civilization. Nevertheless, the Jewish historians of the Persian and Hellenist periods had already taken a tremendous step towards a reasonable chronology, by boldly cutting bewildering time-spans of nearly 400,000 years, which were used by Babylonian and Egyptian priests, down to some 4,000 years. Yet, this time-span still was three times as long as the one adopted by Herodotus. The Jewish writers had reduced phony time spans down to one- hundredth. Still, the Greek dates cut the biblical ones down to about one- third. When their dates were replaced by the biblical ones, the following picture emerged. Suddenly, the historians were confronted with a gap of 1,500 years. It was created by equating Biblical Nimrod of Abraham's -3rd millennium with Herodotus' Ninos of the 8th century.

insert***** I was not able to find this insert anymore ***********

Ancient Near Eastern sequence of Assyria-centered empires, from the Chalcolithic to Hellenism, in Classical Greek dates (left) which were used up to the 2nd century CE. when they were replaced by biblical dates which openly dominated comparative world chronology up to about 1870 and-in a disguised manner-are used up to the present.

Greek dates

Greek periods

Biblical dates -330

Hellenism -330 -540

(1) Persian Empire -540

(2) Medish Empire (Chaldaeans in South Mesopotamia) -620

-620 gap of ca. 1500 years to be filled -750

(3) Ninos-Asstruabs

-3rd mill.]

-1150

(4) Early Assyrians (Chaldaeans in south Mesopotamia)

-3200

Chalcolithicum

de-insert---------------
A typical early comparative world history now even provided the Greek tradition with biblical dates, as can be seen in the third column from the left of the most famous of all Christian-period history books:

------------------------------hand copy---------------------------------

First page of Eusebius' 5th century Chronicle, in Hieronymus' 5th century Latin translation, with Abraham's Bible Fundamentalist date as anchor point for comparative world history, with Egypt still waiting for the patriarch's arrival (R. Helm ed. (l956), Eusebius Werke. Siebenter Band. Die Chronik des Hieronyuus, Berlin, l956. pp. 16/17)
----------------------------------hand coopy------------------------------------------

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 color the staggering blank of one-and-a-half millennia. He himself had no means whatsoever to meet this horrendous challenge. "Sumerians", "Akkadians", "Old-Babylonians", "Mitanni", "Middle-Assyrians" etc., were not yet known in his lifetime.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

----------------------------------hand coopy---------------------------------------------

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 centers of power were located in different areas. The three schemes used were

(i) fundamentalist dates of Assyriology,
(ii) pseudo-astronomical Sothic dates of Egyptology, and
(iii) dates of Greek historiography.

Any reasonable Assyriologist will fiercely object to the label "fundamentalist" of his chronological scheme. Proudly, he will point-not to stratigraphy-but at least to eponym-lists and king-lists. They, of course, pose one serious problem. They do not exhibit absolute dates. Whether a king belongs to the -3rd, -2nd or first millennium, must still be established by other means. They are still derived from the Bible. Again, the Assyriologist will object, and confidently point to the abolishment of Abraham, who is no longer considered historical.

This erasing 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 birth date 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 proto to by other nations of the ancient Near East, after their most famous and founder's tribe. The enigmatic Old-Babylonian Martu/Amorites, then, would simply have to be compared with the Mardians/Amardians of Persia's satrapy Babylonia.

Egyptology's chronology is not only pseudo-astronomical-which many an Egyptologist will readily concede-but also no less fundamentalist than Assyriology's, which even a cautious Egyptologist will thoroughly reject. Again, the very great age of Egyptian civilization-rooted, in the final reckoning, in Abraham's visit to the Nile-was tacitly maintained. In addition, an independent method of objectively dating the past was sought. The result, following in the wake of l9th-century Egyptologists, and embodied in the canonisation by Eduard Meyer (1904) that was to be so rich in consequences, was the adoption of an astronomical retrocalculation procedure.

As with Mesopotamia, Egyptian datings were now to be arrived at with pen and paper rather than by stratigraphical excavation. But we should at the same time emphasize that Eduard Meyer, like the others, clung assiduously to the text of Gen. 14, as a general chronological anchor-point for the period around -2100. He merely leaves out the references to Abraham in Gen. 14. The remainder of the material from Gen. 14, once purged of references to Abraham, is declared by Meyer to be not only authentic but also extremely old-an assumption without any support of an archaeological find, unearthed from a particular deep level, or any other convincing chronological proof: "It [Gen. 14] will in fact be part of the popular tradition, and will have come down from this source to the Jews, who will then have used it to insert a great feat into the story of their ancestor" (E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, Vol. 2, 9th edition, ed. H.E. Stier, Stuttgart, 1952-58, p. 297). Just why the "popular tradition" should be precisely some 1500 years old, so as to provide a bridge between the period after the Babylonian Exile and the late -3rd millennium, remains totally obscure. The chronological anchor- point from Gen. which supposedly could provide third millennium evidence without resorting to Abrahamic legends, in actual fact, deals with kings active when the patriarchal narratives were composed in the Persian period and later.

In reality, Meyer gives just one further example of circular reasoning, taking the Israelite material to be as young as it actually is, but allowing the persons mentioned in the same material the great age that has successfully been denied to Abraham and the other early figures of the Israelites. This kind of treatment is evidence of a slanted approach rather than scientific honesty. Honesty would have demanded that the Gen. 14-Amraphel-dated Hammurabi-history be sought precisely in the period after the emergence of the Persian empire, i.e., after -550. If this had been done, the Persians would probably have emerged as possible alter egos of Hammurabi's Martu/Amorites very quickly. [Compare our Zimri-Lim on this subject.]

Triplication ([5] to [12] of Classical sequence of Ancient Near Eastern empires [(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

[See also Olympia on this subject.]

Hellenism

[9] Old-Babylonian Mart(d)u/Amorites
[10] Neo-Sumerians and Elamites
[11] Old-Akkadians; Chabur-Ware
[12] Early Sumerians
[5] Middle-Assyrian-Amorites
[6] Kassites and Mitanni
[7] Old-Assyrians/Hyksos in Levant; Chabur-Ware
[8] Ninevite-5-Ware

[l] Persians; Mardians/Amardians of Cyrus
[2] Chaldaeans and Medes
[3] Ninos-Assyria
[4] Early Chaldae and Assyria

Chalcolithicum

The Ninos-Assyrians of Herodotus I: 7, 95 etc. are conventionally identified with the Late-Assyrians (Sarsonids 1). Yet, the latter sit stratigraphically immediately below Hellenism, i.e, take the archaeological position of Persia's supposedly missing satrapy [1]. Nowhere, Medish and Persian strata were found on top of Late-Assyrian ones, as is required by Herodotus' sequence Ninos}Medes}Persians}Hellenism.

V. RECONNECTING OCCIDENTAL AND ORIENTAL PROGRESS OF CIVILIZATION

Though the ancient Greeks freely admitted that their science teachers were Chaldaeans (from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), they never gave any hint that they trailed their inspirers by one and-a-half millennia. They rather gave the impression that Chaldaean knowledge was obtainable by traveling Greek students. Today, we are taught that there were no Chaldaean teachers to speak of. This supposedly most learned nation of mankind, did not leave us bricks or potsherds, not to mention written treatises. Yet, modern scholars also teach us that there is one grain of truth in the Greek tradition. The teachers of humanity did indeed derive from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia. However-though they lived in the very territory of the Chaldaeans, where the Chaldaeans are missing-they were not Chaldaeans but Sumerians, and the Greeks had never heard of them: When their poleis (city-states) began culturally to blossom in the early -6th century, the wise men of Sumeria had already met their fate 1,500 years earlier. Nevertheless, researchers before 1868-when Jules Oppert created the term Sumerian-had called proto-Chaldaean that today is called Sumerian. Up to the end of the l9th century, art historians labeled as Chaldaean artifacts which today are called Sumerian artifacts. At the turn of the century, major European museums underwent a relabeling procedure from Chaldaean to Sumerian on their exhibition pieces from Southern Mesopotamia.

As the writer tried to prove, the sensationally unexpected Sumerians received a hidden fundamentalist Abrahamic date, whereas the Chaldaeans received a Classical Greek date. If we leave unscholarly dating systems aside, and resort to comparative stratigraphy, we will immediately recognize the contemporaneity of the early Greek city-states and the so-called Neo- Sumerians, who thereby are touted as the painfully-missing Chaldaeans. "Neo-Sumerian" Chaldaeans and early -6th century poleis alike, are found merely two strata-groups below Hellenism. This still leaves a head start for Chaldean scholarship. Yet, it is not measured by millennia or centuries, but by decades at most.

Re-synchronization of Ancient Greek and Ancient Near Eastern history, on the basis of comparative stratigraphy and Classical historiography.

(Dates are tentative Classical Greek ones; the conventional dates are given in footnotes.)

He showed that the Bronze Age started in China and Mesoamerica some 1500 years later than in the Near East and proposed this gap be largely closed by lowering the ages of the Mediterranean civilisations. He cited the Indus Valley where the early period civilisations, dated from Mesopotamian seals to c. 2400BC, sit right underneath the Buddhist strata of 7-6C. Seals from Mesopotamia are found in the Indus valley and in Mesopotamia there are seals from the Indus Valley. So the excavators have to say they have an occupation gap of some 1700 years. Thus some sites only about 30km apart have chronologies some 1500 years apart. But in the same strata, supposedly 1500 years apart, they frequently find the same pottery.

C&CR had insufficient space to provide a full forum for Heinsohn's work, but a volume entitled Ghost Empires of the Past was published in C&CR format in 1988, thanks to help from SIS stalwarts Birgit Liesching and Derek Shelley-Pearce. In this, Heinsohn set out many chronological 'problems' and 'riddles', and argued persuasively for equating, among others, the Mittani with the Medes and the Empire Hittites with the Late Chaldeans.

His excellent paper on the archaeology of Hazor (C&CR 1996:1) revealed some important anachronisms. For example, two cuneiform tablets written in Old-Babylonian Akkadian and two more written in the Akaddian of the Amarna era were found in the upper layers of the site. Heinsohn asks 'How did tablets from the early second millennium end up in a stratum reaching its peak in the period of the Persian Empire (550-330 BC)?'. The tablets were, of course, immediately labelled 'heirlooms' by their finders. But, as Heinsohn pointed out, it seems strange that the later Hazoreans kept tablets for over 1000yrs as heirlooms from the MBA or LBA, yet were apparently incapable of producing any texts of their own. Also, a clay jar inscribed in 23C Old-Akkadian was found in the Hyksos layer c17C. Yes, you've guessed - this was explained as yet another boring old 'heirloom'. Heinsohn makes a plea to archaeologists to 'set textbooks aside and allow oneself the liberty of following reason and hard stratigraphical evidence'. The textbook schemes 'separate by enormous time spans what is found in parallel stratigraphical locations, exhibiting very similar material cultures.' Unfortunately for archaeologists, the writers of the textbooks are often the 'Guardians of the Dogma' who control the funding for archaeological research. As a result, an archaeologist brave enough to confront conventional thinking may quickly find himself both professionally discredited and out of a job.

Heinsohn has presented many well-researched papers exposing stratigraphical problems, and suggesting much lower chronologies for Near Eastern civilisations. His stratigraphy and stylistic-based chronologies and, more recently his explanation for the 'lost' Persian layer throughout the Persian Empire have generated much debate and some unanswered controversy among revisionists. [From:http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm]

*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.

[01000] Photos, painted images, a map and information on Mohenjo-Daro can be found in Mysteries of the Ancient World, National Geographic, 1985, p. 81-99.

[1050] The elusive character of this `Ninos' may be an indication that he was also known under different names.

[5000] When Professor Heinson wrote this paper, he did not know about the underwater landbridge connecting Nuweiba Beach with the Saudi Arabian side across the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea area. This feature makes the Exodus possible in the otherwise deep Gulf. The historical Exodus occurred at this location and marks the beginning of the Amalekite/Hyksos occupation of Egypt until the dawn of the 18th dynasty in the days of King Saul of Israel.
[5200] The five kings of Joshua chapter 10 are: (1) Adonizedec of Jerusalem, (2) Hoham of Hebron, (3) Piram of Jarmuth, (4) Japhia of Lachish, and (5) Debir of Eglon; Joshua 10:1-3. The city names or locations that figure prominently during the events are: Jerusalem, Gibeon, Gilgal, Beth-horon, Azekah, Makkedah.