cais1.gif (153930 bytes)

CAIS Persian Text.gif (34162 bytes)

CAIS

The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies


 Persian Section.PNG (9914 bytes)


Home


About CAIS


Articles


Daily News


News Archive


Announcements


CAIS Seminars


Image Library


Copyright


Disclaimer


Submission


Search


Contact Us


Links


Facebook-Button.jpg (107165 bytes)



.


IRANIAN HISTORY

EMPIRES LOST AND FOUND

Stratigraphy and the Search for the Great Powers of the Past


 

By: Professor Gunnar Heinsohn

(University of Bremen)

 

 

 

Classical Historiography debunked for good?

 

"Assyrii principes omnium gentium rerum potiti sunt, deinde Medi, postea Persae, deinde Macedones.���

(Aemilius Sura, 2nd century BCE.)

 

 

The first about whom history provides us with stories of his outstanding deeds is Ninos, king of the Assyrians. / Easily he defeated the inhabitants of Babylonia [and] / the Armenians. // Eventually he began to subdue the nations of Asia. And, indeed, within 17 years he was master of them all — with the exception of India and Bactria. / He subjugated Egypt and Phoenicia, Coele-Syria, Cilicia, Pam­phylia, and Lycia.”

(Ctesias as preserved in Diodorus Siculus 2, 1: 4-8;//2, 2: 1/3.).

 

“The story of Ninos is mainly a Greek invention.”

(Menko Vlaardingerbroek, “The Founding of Nineveh and Babylon in Greek Historiography”, in Collon, D., George, A., Hg., Nineveh: Papers of the XLIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London 7—11 July 2003, London, 2005, pp. 233-241 [234].

  

“Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, [...] drew together under his own rule all Asia beyond the Halys. Then, collecting all his subject peoples, he attacked Nineveh. [...] He had defeated the Assyrians in battle; but then, when he was beleaguering Nineveh, there came upon him a great host of Scythians, whose leader was their king, Madyes. / The Medes also took Nineveh [...] and they made the Assyrians their subject, except for the province of Babylon.

(Herodotus, The History I: 103 / 106.)

  

"This survey of the evidence, both textual and archaeological for Media between 612 and 550 BC has revealed almost nothing. Media in the first half of the sixth century is a Dark Age" (Miachel Roaf). "It has to be admitted at the outset that there is not the slightest archaeological indication of a Median presence in Assyria after 612 BC"

(John Curtis). From: Giovanni Lanfranchi, Michael Roaf, Robert Rollinger, Continuity of Empire (?). Assyria, Media, Persia. Proceedings of the International Meeting in Padua, 26th-28th April 2001. History of the Ancient Near East. Monographs, V. Padova: S.a.r.g.o.n., 2003, p. 19 and p. 165.

 

"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 by far the greatest"

(Herodotus, The History I: 192). That is why the Hebrews called Achaemenid rulers “King of Assyria” (Ezra 6: 22).

 

"Unfortunately there are no cuneiform tablets from the Assyrian heartland that are securely dated to the Achaemenid period. [...] We are not confident in our ability to identify Achaemenid pottery. [...] At the same time, there is no evidence for major urban centres, with the possible exception of Erbil, and it is doubtful whether they existed”

(John Curtis, The Achaemenid Period in Northern Iraq, November 2003, www.aina.org/articles/curtis.pdf).

 


"The topic of our symposium, 'Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period', leads us to the realm of mystery. The word mystery evokes a twofold feeling of sadness and of hope: sadness, because we know so little and would like to know so much more; hope, because there is still much work to be done in this area. [...] The Hebrew Bible contains very few passages that address Achaemenid rule over Judah and the Judeans (539-332 B.C.E.). Very few events are illuminated or given any kind of value judgment. [...] The existing extrabiblical sources contain little or no reference to the Judeans or Judah. There are only a few archaeological and epigraphic finds. Thus, Herbert Donner justifiably refers to the Persian era as the 'dark ages'."

(O. Lipschits / M. Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake/Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2006, IX).

 

“It should come as no surprise to learn that this mass of new material has resulted in drastic revisions of almost everything we thought we knew about ancient Mesopotamia. […] It is important that Classical scholars come to appreciate the hard-won advances that have been made in the study of "Oriental" history in recent decades.”

(James D. Muhly, Review of G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, R. Rollinger, Continuity of Empire (?). Assyria, Media, Persia. Proceedings of the International Meeting in Padua, 26th-28th April 2001. History of the Ancient Near East. Monographs, V. Padova: S.a.r.g.o.n., 2003, in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2004, 11.11.).

 

 

Classical Historiography confirmed

The Chaldaean priest Berossos, around 278-290 B.C.E., writes, in Greek, a history of his homeland for the Macedonian/Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter (281 -261). The work becomes known under the title Babyloniaka of which fragments are preserved in ancient Greek writings. In his section on the Deluge, Berossos, surprisingly, calls the flood hero Xisuthros (Alexander Polyhistor) or Sisithrus (Abydenus). This is a Greek transliteration of Ziusudra. Yet, Ziusudra is the protagonist of the “Sumerian” version of the Flood. That Berossus does not leave us the Chaldean name of the flood hero has never stopped to stun Orientalists. After all, Berossos tells us nothing about the “Sumerians” who, since Jules Oppert’s coining of the term 1868, are thought to have created mankind’s first civilization in his very homeland. All ancient Greek writers who cite Berossos take him for a Chaldaean expert of Chaldean history. Therefore, they list his records under headings like “Chaldaean History” (Alexander Polyhistor), “Of the Chaldaean Kings” (Apollodorus) or “Of the Chaldaean Kings and the Deluge” (Abydenus).

 

Like Berossos, ancient Greek authors never give the slightest hint of a “Sumerian” civilization though Greek transliterations of cuneiform texts, called “Sumerian” by modern scholars, are produced as late as the 2nd or even 3rd century AD (so called Graeco-Babyloniaca). Thus, ancient Greeks are able to read and write “Sumerian” for nearly half a millennium but fail to recognize the “Sumerian” people not to speak of a “Sumerian” cradle of civilization. What they know is a Chaldean civilization with some 900 larger and smaller settlements which supposedly did not leave a single grave, brick or even potsherd.

 

Why Berossos would draw on sources of the “Sumerians” to tell Chaldean history remains as mysterious as the bewilderingly wanting scholarly and astronomical/astrological texts of the Chaldaeans whose erudition is famous all over Antiquity and “from whom the Greek mathematicians copy” (Flavius Josephus). This enigma is aggravated by the fact that the “Sumerians” themselves, who have left countless astronomical/astrological texts, never employ the word “Sumer” or “Sumerians”. In their own cuneiform writing they call their country Kalam (e.g., Sumerian Kinglist) and its inhabitants people of Kalam (e.g., the Nippur poem Praise of the Pickax).

 

Yet, not only the term Kalam fits Chaldea well—as do the Mitanni fit the Medes or the Martu the Mardoi­—but also its stratigraphic location just two strata groups below Hellenism where one would look for the predecessors of the Akhaemenids in Babylonia. Therefore, beginning in 1987, this author has been suggesting that certain empires of the ancient near east did not really exist, and should therefore be removed from modern textbooks (in English see Heinsohn 1991. 1996 and 1998).  At the same time realms and empires well-known since antiquity should be restored to the place they once held in the history and chronology of the ancient world.  

 

The logical basis for this proposal is that in order for great empires and civilizations that appear in modern textbooks to be accepted as genuine there must be evidence of their existence in the archaeological layers of the earth.  If textbook empires are without such layers, then there are two possibilities: (1.) these empires should disappear from the pages of modern textbooks. (2.) the existence of these empires must be affirmed by using archaeological layers that are currently assigned to other empires, thus causing these latter empires to disappear. 

 

The author prefers a conservative solution, i.e. possibility 2. Otherwise we would have to throw out teachings and empires that have dominated historical writings for two and a half millennia.  We would have to punish thus countless authors of antiquity—Jews, Greeks, Romans and Armenian—by calling them liars, without being able to explain why, in their own time, they had no doubt that the realms described by them were real.  Despite their rather quarrelsome dispositions they were united in agreement about the imperial succession—starting, quite in tune with proven Chinese chronology, around -1000—of Assyrians, Medes (with Chaldeans and Scythians), Persians and Macedonians: "Assyrii principes omnium gentium rerum potiti sunt, deinde Medi, postea Persae, deinde Macedones” (Aemilius Sura, -2nd century). Today’s beginning of Mesopotamian civilization around -3000 was obtained by employing unscholarly dating techniques which prefer Bible Fundamentalist genealogies and pseudo-astronomical retro calculations to volume of strata and their depth in the ground. The 2nd option produces the following results:

 

(A) The imperial dimensions of the Akhaemenids, regarded as “elusive” by modern Assyriologists, remain in the textbooks.  They are well-known in the cuneiform literature pars pro toto under the name of the martial and metallurgically famous Persian tribe of the Mardoi (Mardians/Amardians). They are thus the Old Babylonian (and/or Middle Assyrian) Mar(d)tu/Amorites, who didn't enter the history books until the 19th century. Their great kings are really Babylonian and/or Middle to Late Assyrian throne names for the Akhaemenid rulers (or their satraps) in Persia's two richest provinces—Babylon (”Baberus“) and Assyria (“Athura”): "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 by far the greatest" (Herodotus, The History I: 192). That is why the Hebrews called Akhaemenid rulers “the King of Assyria” (Ezra 6: 22). Examples given, the five last “Neo-Assyrian” rulers Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Ashur-etil-ilani, Sin-Shumu-Lishir (eunuch), and Sin-Shar-Ishkun are identical with the last five Akhaemenids: Artaxerxes II Arsakes, Artaxerxes III Okhus, Artaxerxes IV Arses, Bagoas (enuch), and Darius III Kodomannos. The nine slain soldiers found by David Stronach at Nineveh’s Halzi Gate are victims of Alexander’s capture of the city. “According to Moses [of Khoren; 5th century] these archives [of Nineveh] had been translated from the ‘Chaldaean“ [cuneiform] to Greek at the command of Alexander the Great“ (R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenatsi’s: History of the Armenians, translation and commentary on the literary sources, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: Harvard University Press, 1978, p. 12). Enigmatic Chana and Subartu of the Martu period are Ionia and Sparta of the Persian (Mardian) period.

 

(B) The first Indo-Aryan empire of the horse-breeding Medes, judged as a “phantom” by modern Assyriologists,  can be identified in the layers of the Mitanni (imperial dimension) and the Middle-Elamites (Iran proper). Both powers were only admitted to the history books in the 19th century. Cyaxares, despoiler of Assur and conqueror of Nineveh, and Shaushatra (Hurrian transcription), despoiler of Ashur and ruler over Nineveh, are one and the same Medish Cyaxares. In the Assyrian language, Cyaxares of Ekbatana appears in Nineveh as Shamshi-Adad of Ekallatum, in the “Elamite” language of Iran as Kutuk-Inshushinak. Aziru the Martu, as the man of the future rising at the end of the Mitanni era, is identical with Cyrus the Mardian rising at the end of Media’s empire. Aziru’s father Asratu is the same as Cyrus’ father A(s)tradates. Aziru’s Armenian friend and ally Karanis is identical with Cyrus’ friend Tigranis. The rebellious Medes of the “Late-Assyrian” Period are the Medes notoriously rebelling against their Akhaemenid overlords.

 

The Scythians under Madyas as allies of the Medes and Chaldaens against Sharakos likewise return to the history books.  The Qutheans (Guti) under Madga, who were admitted to history books in the 19th century as allies of the "Sumerians" and Elamites against Shar-kali-sharri, disappear. The vassal graves of Ur, a unique feature in the entire history of Babylonia, belong to the brief interregnum of Scythians well known for that type of  burial.

 

(C)  The more than 900 cities and towns of Chaldaea, known to the Greeks as "the cradle of civilization" but seen as non-retrievable by modern Assyriologists, returns to the textbooks.  To Chaldaea are given the archaeological layers that not until 1868 began to be called  "Sumer" (albeit Kalam in its own language), which disappears accordingly.

 

 (D) The Ninos and/or Nimrod Assyrians as the first empire builders of history, defined as mythological creations by modern Assyriologists, get the layers of the Old Akkadians, who received those strata in a 19th century transfer.  In Egypt the empire Assyrians were known as the Great Hyksos. The close relationship between the enigmatic Hyksos – with Sharek (Salitis) as their first ruler – and Old-Akkadians – with Sargon in the same role – was seen long ago: Stratigraphically, both empires immediately precede the Mitanni. However, the Hyksos are pseudo-astronomically Sothic-dated to the -2nd millennium whereas the Old-Akkadians are tied via a hidden Bible-fundamentalist Abraham-date to the -3rd millennium. In glyptic, writing, pottery, weaponry (scimitars and composite bows), bellows, true tin bronzes, vertical looms, chariots, vaulted burials, toggle pins, glass, glazing, sophisticated triple gates etc. these stratigraphical bedfellows always looked like twins. The first Akkadian "world ruler" Naram Sin, a great hunter, supplies the empirical basis for Ninos of the Greeks and/or Nimrod of the Hebrews, a great hunter before the Lord: “Nimrod began to be a mighty one on the earth. / And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar" (Genesis 10: 8/10). Ctesias (in Diodorus Siculus 2, 1: 4-8;//2, 2: 1/3) writes: "The first about whom history provides us with stories of his outstanding deeds is Ninos, king of the Assyrians. / Easily he defeated the inhabitants of Babylonia [and] / the Armenians. // Eventually he began to subdue the nations of Asia. And, indeed, within 17 years he was master of them all — with the exception of India and Bactria. / He subjugated Egypt and Phoenicia, Coele-Syria, Cilicia, Pam­phylia, and Lycia (Ctesias as preserved in Diodorus Siculus 2, 1: 4-8;//2, 2: 1/3.)

 

By dismissing dating schemes tied to Bible-fundamentalism and pseudo-astronomical reckoning one must not fall into a new trap by sanctifying the chronology provided by Classical historiography. Thus, Cyaxares’ reign from -625 to -585 is not at all sacrosanct. Greek historians, too, may have expanded the actual historical time span to meet a pre-conceived system (Heinsohn 2005, 4). Yet, by liberating the chronologies from Egypt to India from some 1500 blank years enforced by Abraham’s genealogy, the Greek dates seem to be much closer to reality than Scripture. Thus, if Assyriology will muster the strength to break the shackles of Bible-fundamentalism in the 21st century, it may profit no less than the sciences do since the 19th century.

 

Today, the best and the brightest historians of Classical Greece are slandered as inventors or even liars and crackpots in matters of the pre-Hellenistic Ancient World. With is defense of the empires of Ninos-Assyrians, Medes and Achaemenids by invoking stratigraphy into the witness stand, and by desisting the belief in the chronology of GOD or baseless retro calculations, this author will certainly come up against the same accusations. Yet his case, he may be told, is even more hopeless because he neglects all that was excavated and deciphered within the last 200 years. This could not be further from the truth. He merely tries to assign this evidence its appropriate historical frame. The scholars of antiquity – taken with a grain of salt – are borne out strikingly by the works of modern archaeology. Yet, this work is not set to good use by forcing the excavators not to follow the strata in the ground but pre-conceived chronology ideas. Modern Assyriology has excavated and deciphered the very sources used by Greek historians in antiquity. This seminal achievement will last forever.

   

 

Bibliography:

Heinsohn, G. (1991), “Who were the Hyksos?”, in: Organizing Committee/ S. Curto et al., eds., Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia. Abstracts of Papers, Torino: Organizing Secretariat,  pp. 208-209

Heinsohn, G. (1993a), „Astronomical Dating and Calendrics“, paper given at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CIVILIZATIONS (ISCSC), University of Scranton/Pennsylvania, June 3-6

Heinsohn, G. (1993b), “Where Are the Houses of Assyria's Akhaemenid, Medish and Ninos-Assyrian Periods? An Evidence Based Look at the Archaeological Strata of Post-Mitanni, Mitanni and Old-Akkadian Assyria“, Poster at the 40e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 5 - 8

Heinsohn, G. (1996), "Cyrus the Mardian/Amardian, Dethroner of the -6th Century Medes, and Aziru the Martu/Amurru, Dethroner of the -14th Century Mitanni” paper given at the Symposium on Cosmic Deities and Ancient History, Deerfield Beach, Florida, July 12-14,  55 pp.

Heinsohn, G. (1998), “Why Were Ancient Greek, Latin and Armenian Historiographers [from the 5th century BCE to the 5th century CE] So Wrong About the Pre-hellenistisc Periods of the Ancient Near East, And How Did We Arrive at Our Present Understanding of These Periods?”, Poster at the  XLVe Rencontre ASSYRIOLOGIQUE Internationale, Cambridge/Mass. (Harvard University) and New Haven (Yale University), July 5-8, DIN A0

Heinsohn, G. (2005), „Phantom Periods and Astronomical Retrocalculation“, paper given at the Toronto Meeting, June 28-30

 

 

 

 

1. Stratigraphy and Search for Empires: Egypt (Tell el-Daba as best stratigraphy)

 

Strata groups:

Empire searched (Daba-Strata) (Greek sources and dates)

Empire found and Dating Method

(Hieroglyphic and cuneiform sources)

Hellenistic strata group:

A/3-1 Macedonians/Ptolemies

Dates: Greek (from -300)

Ptolemies (from -300)

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

1st  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

B/3-1 Akhaemenids in Egypt

Dates: Greek (from -550)

Ramessides (-1300 to -1085) gap to -300

Dates: Sothic pseudo-astronomy 

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Not at that date

2nd  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

D/3-1 Contact with Medes under Cyaxares and Astyages

Dates: Greek (from -700)

Contact (Amarna) with Mitanni (-15th century -1300) under Shaushatra and Tushratta

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? No

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group

E/3-1 Ninos-Assyrians

Great Hyksos (from 1680) with script and artifacts of Old-Akkadians (last king Sharkalisharri[-2200])*

Ninos (greatest), Sharakos (last king) 

Dates: Greek (from -800

Dates: Sothic pseudo-astronomy

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? No

 

 

*Abraham genealogy back to Naram Sin

   

 

2. Stratigraphy and Search for Empires: Anatolia (Cappadocia)

Strata groups:

Empire searched (Daba-Strata) (Greek sources and dates)

Empire found and Dating Method

(Hieroglyphic and cuneiform sources)

Hellenistic strata group:

Kat (known from Strabo)

Dates: Greek (from -300 to -190)

gap from -1100 or -800 to -190

1st  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Kat from Akhaemenid satrapy Kat-Patuka

Dates: Greek (from -550)

Khat of Late Empire-“Hittites” (-1300 to -1100)

Dates: Sothic pseudo-astronomy 

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? No

2nd  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Kat from Media’s satrapy Kat-Patuka

Kat-leader Aribaeus assists Assyria

Dates: Greek (from -630)

Khat of Empire-“Hittites” (-1500 to -1300; Mitanni)

Dates: Sothic pseudo-astronomy 

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? No

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group

“Ketans” (Odyssee XI: 521)

Dates: Greek (from -750)

Old-Empire-“Hittites”* (1700 to -1500; Hyksos)

Dates: Sothic pseudo-astronomy

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Not at that date

 

*Old-Empire Hittites use cuneiform of Old-Akkadians (-2200) instead of  Old-Babylonians” supposedly preceding them. Yet, stratigraphically, Old-Babylonians are in 1st pre-Hellenistic strata group whereas Old-Akkadians (Abraham-date) sit in same 3rd pre-Hellenistic strata group as Old-Hittites

 

 

 

3. Stratigraphy and Search for Empires: Northern Mesopotamia (Assyria)

Strata groups

Period searched

(Greek sources and dates)

Empire found and Dating Technique

(cuneiform sources)

Hellenistic strata group:

Macedonians / Parthians

Dates: Greek (from -300)

Macedonians and (later) Parthians (from -300)

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

1st  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Assyria, Persia’s richest Satrapy

Dates: Greek (from -550)

Middle- to Late Assyrians (-1200/-600). Gap to –300

Sothic pseudo-astronomy (Middle-Assyrians)

Dates: Biblical Destruction of Israel (Late Assyrians)

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

2nd  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Indo-Aryan Medes with Cyaxares

Dates: Greek (from -700)

Rising star is Cyrus (Mardian)

Indo-Aryan           Mitanni (-1500/-1300) with Shaushatra of Ninveh (Sothic date of modern Egyptology), or Shamshi-Adad  (Nineveh; Biblical date). Rising star Aziru. Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

Interregnum of Scythians (Madyas)

Dates: Greek (from -650)

Qutheans (Guti) with General Madga (-3rd mill.)

Counted back from Biblical Abraham genealogy

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Assyrians  as 1st Great Power Ninos (greatest), Sharakos (last king)

Dates: Greek (from -800)

Old-Akkadians 1st Great Power (-2300) gap to 1500 Naram-Sin (greatest) +  Sharkalisharri (last king)

Counted back from Biblical Abraham to Naram Sin

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

   

 

4. Stratigraphy and Search for Empires: Southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia)

Strata groups

Period searched

(Greek sources and dates)

Empire found and Dating Technique

(cuneiform sources)

Hellenistic strata group:

Macedonians / Parthians

Dates: Greek (from -300)

Macedonians and (later) Parthians (from -300)

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

1st  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Akhaemenid Satrapy Babylonia

Mardoi (tribe of Cyrus)

Dates: Greek (from -550)

Kassites);

Old to Late Babylonians (-2000/-550). Gap to –300

Dates: Biblical Deportaion of Judah (Late Babylon.;

Sothic pseudo-astronomy (Middle-Babyl.-

Biblical Abraham genealogy (Martu=Old Babylon.)

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!

Did ancient Greeks know empires? Supposedly not

2nd  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Chaldeans (908 settlements)

Dates: Greek (from -700)

URIII-„Sumerians“ (Kalam in own language; -2100)

Biblical Abraham genealogy for „Sumerians“

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

Interregnum of Scythians (known for vassal graves) under Madyas

Dates: Greek (from -650) (908 settlements)

Qutheans (Guti) with General Madga (-3rd mill.)

Vassal graves of Ur

Counted back from Biblical Abraham genealogy

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group 3000)

Early Chaldaeans (cradle of civil.)

Dates: Greek (from -800)

Early „Sumer“ (Kalam, cradle of civilization, -3000)

Counted back from Biblical Abraham genealogy

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!

Did ancient Greeks know civilization? Supposedly not

   

 

5. Stratigraphy and Search for Empires: Iran (Susa, Perseopolis)

Strata groups

Period searched

(Greek sources and dates)

Empire found and Dating Technique

(cuneiform sources)

Hellenistic strata group:

Macedonians / Parthians

Dates: Greek (from -300)

Macedonians and (later) Parthians (from -300)

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

1st  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Achaemenids

Dates: Greek (from -550)

Achaemenids (from -550)

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

2nd  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Medes under Cyaxares

Dates: Greek (from -700)

“Elamites” under Kutuk-Inshushinak; then gap

Dates: Sothic pseudo-astronomy 

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Assyrians as 1st Great Power in control of Media

Ninos (greatest), Sharakos (last king)

Dates: Greek (from -800      

Old-Elamites under Akkad as 1st Great Power (-2300) with Naram-Sin (greatest)+Sharkalisharri (last king)

Counted back from Biblical Abraham to Naram Sin

Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly not

   

 

 

6. Stratigraphy and Search for Empires: India (Harappa, Mohendjo Daro)

Strata groups

Period searched

(Greek sources)

Period Found

(cuneiform texts+local strata)

Hellenistic/Buddhist strata group:

Buddhism with Greek influence

Dates: Greek (from -300)

Buddhism with Greek influence

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes

Did ancient Greeks know period? Yes

1st  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Satrapy XX of Achaemenids with capital Mushikanos

Dates: Greek (from -550)

Late Indus Valley Culture (-2000) gap to –300 albeit with Persian style Apadana (Mohendjo) because of Mesopotamian contacts

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know culture? Supposedly not

2nd  Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Median borders close to India

Dates: Greek (from -700)

Beginning of Late Indus Valley Culture (-2200)

Biblical Abraham genealogy for URIII-Sumerians because of Mesopotamian contacts

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know period? Supposedly not

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group

Assyrians as 1st Great Power with influence in India

Dates: Greek (from -800)

Early Indus Valley culture (-2300)

Biblical Abraham genealogy for Old-Akkadians because of Mesopotamian contacts

Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high

Did ancient Greeks know period? Supposedly not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top of Page

 

my_Iran.jpg (13682 bytes)

"History is the Light on the Path to Future"

 

Persian_NOT_Farsi_by_Shapour_Suren-Pahlav_3D2.gif (177309 bytes)


 

Encyclopaedia Iranica


BIPS.jpg (15695 bytes)

The British Institute of Persian Studies


"Persepolis Reconstructed"

Persepolis_reconstructed2.jpg (36944 bytes)

Persepolis3D


The British Museum


The Royal

Asiatic Society


Persian_Gulf_Facebook.jpg (1935028 bytes)

The Persian Gulf

Facebook Page




Please use your "Back" button (top left) to return to the previous page

Copyright © 1998-2015 The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS)