The Old World Mesopotamian & Egyptian Empire Dating Problem

Mesopotamian archeology is a mess. It contains by far the greatest density of prehistoric archeological ruins on the planet and yet the history we have pieced together is a mixture of nineteenth and early twentieth century well meaning bible believing archeologists who have distorted and twisted the evidence to make it correlate with the bible story, combined with equally well meaning Hellenists and Egyptologists who have correlated all archeological finds with the unfortunately incorrect dates of a handful of ancient king lists and histories (read on for proof). On top of all this you have a new breed of scientist and archeologist who relying on carbon dating (which has its own issues) do their best to fit their radiometrically dated findings into the existing convoluted timelines.

As a result we have a mess of repeating empires in Mesopotamia. The same empires given different names and different dates in repeating cycles. The Babylon of the bible dating around 600 BC being renamed ‘Old-Babylon’ of many cuneiform tablets and being ‘historically’ dated to 1700 BC (and requiring archeologist to rename the biblical Babylon ‘Neo-Babylon’). Both also being the same as geographically identical Sumerian Empire which then is archaeologically dated to around 4000 BC.

Thus the biblical/historical empire cycle of (neo) Assyria > (neo) Babylon > Medo-Persia > Macedonia > Rome is repeated in sites and tablets which are renamed Old Assyria > Old Babylon > Kassites > Late Hittite (and dated to x-xbc), which are yet again in Akkad > Sumer > Early Hitite… and kings of these empires like Sargon become two characters called Sargon of Akkad (xx bc) and Sargon II of Assyria (xx bc).

An example of a modern equivalent would be if we were to try and

finish this article… How mesopotamian history repeats itself….


summarize this…

“During the 19th century, Europeans came across certain monuments at Yazilikaya. Yazilikaya is situated just outside Boghazkoi, the site of ancient Hattusas. Hattusas was the ancient capital of the Hittite Empire. At Yazilikaya are many rock carvings showing important figures of the Hittite world. One such carving represents the assembling of two kings, each holding their royal emblems together with their respective entourages. One is dressed in a tight-fitting dress with a high conical cap and wore a beard. The other is dressed in loose flowing robes with a square-turreted headdress and has no beard. The headdress of the first resembled the well-known Phrygian bonnet and the second resembled a Persian style crown. Two figures next to them held symbols of a new moon and an eclipsed sun. These two were eventually identified as late seventh century kings, Alyattes, the king of Lydia and Cyaxares the king of the Medes. According to Herodotus [Histories I.74] these two kings came to do battle. The eclipse was a sign from heaven – a bad omen for warring nations – so the two were reconciled in a peace treaty due to the urging of the kings of Babylon and Cilicia. This was sealed by the betrothal of the daughter of King Alyattes to the son of Cyaxares. The date of the rock carving was thus set in the late seventh century or the early sixth century.
The Assyrian Connection

The dress of the two figures certainly represents what we know of the royal apparel of the seventh century. In addition, the regal weaponry displayed was a club and battleaxe well known from Assyrian carvings of the same date. Furthermore, these weapons appeared on Assyrian reliefs only as late as the reign of Ashurbanipal (668-632 BC). Nearby, the ruins of Hattusas revealed architecture of the palace area that resembled that of the Northwest Palace of Nineveh built in the early seventh century by Sennacherib, King of Assyria. [Barth, H. pp 128-157]. The dating of these carvings of Yazilikaya prior to the seventh century would appear to be excluded.

The Assyrians also influenced the art of the ancient Hittites. An art expert expressed his opinion after studying the rock carvings at Yazilikaya and Boghazkoi that the Hittite art forms were the result of Assyrian innovations that were introduced into Mesopotamia in the seventh and sixth centuries BC and not before. The most prominent motifs of Hittite art belong to the seventh century and were not present in the art of even the late eighth century BC. [Puchstein, 1890.] This too would seem to dictate the date of the New Hittite Empire to the seventh century and not before.

This opinion was reversed because of the discovery of the archive of the Hittites found at Boghazkoi in 1906 by Winckler. Thousands of Hittite clay tablets were discovered. These tablets were in several languages including Hittite, Nessian and cuneiform Babylonian. As the scholars deciphered these texts they came across a peace treaty with an Egyptian Pharaoh named Ramesses II, a mighty king of the 19th Dynasty. The existence of the treaty was not news. The Egyptologists had found the Egyptian version of the treaty. The two treaties were compared and found to be the same. The treaty could now be firmly dated to the time of Ramesses II of Egypt, the thirteenth century BC, over six hundred years earlier than had been suspected”

Also Sargon of Akkad vs Sargon I (see email with refs).

Also sumerized this… The Amorites = The Babylonian Israelites…

It is clear from many sources on the Amorites that they are the assyrian and babylonian name refering to both the barbaric tribes which surrounded Israel (philistines etc..) and later Israel itself. One article describes the Amorite “migration” into Sumerian (Babylonian) lands…

“The Amorites began to arrive in the territory to the west of the Euphrates, modern Syria, from around 2500 BC. The Akkadians called them Amurru, and they probably originated from Arabia… Although there was no actual invasion, for a period of five hundred years they drifted [up] into southern Mesopotamia, integrating into Sumerian civilization where they lived in enclaves. They served in the armies of Third Dynasty Ur, and provided general labour for both Ur and Akkad before that. As Ur declined, and with it Sumerian civilization, many Amorites rose to positions of power. When the final end of Ur came at the hands of the Elamites, the Amorites, virtually Sumerians themselves by now, were in a strong position to pick up the pieces.”

“Their discoveries contributed extensively to the development of civilisation. They founded many of the basics concepts of early literature and mathematics, and they developed multiplication, aiding in mercantile and sales transactions. This flowering of knowledge led to the creation of the Code of Hammurabi, one of the most important documents in Babylon’s history. This was a series of ‘laws’ which emphasised the pursuit of justice, especially in relation to business transactions, and it set the form for later law codes”

akkad = archeologically dated assyria
sumer = archeologically dated babylon

Kassites = Persians (cyrus who attacks babylon)
Amorite Kingdoms = ?northern kingdom?
Hittite Empire = Macedonian Empire

Ramesis II (1300 BC, 19th dynasty) comptemporary with Alyattes the king of Lydia (herodotus calls them scythians) and Cyaxares the king of the Medes (likely in 585 B.C). Some say Cyaxares was Daniel’s ‘Darius the Mede’ who is likely Herodotus’ King Cyrus (the great) 520ish BC.