To:  EEF
FROM:  Clark Whelton 

Below is a paper presented by Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn of
the U. of Bremen at the 6th International Congress of
Egyptology in Turin, September, 1993, posted with
permission of Dr. Heinsohn.

Dr. Heinsohn, who is co-author of "Wann lebten die
Pharaonen?"  (Mantis Verlag, 1997), advocates a
sharply lower chronology for Egypt and the entire ancient
 world.  His analytical method is based on stratigraphy and
 material culture.  In this paper he applies his method to
the problem of identifying the Hyksos.

 * * * * * *


Can Archaeology and Stratigraphy Provide
a Solution to the "Enigma of World History?"

by  Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn

I   The Graveyard of Theories on the Hyksos

        The graveyard of theories concerning the Hyksos has
been growing for nearly 2,300 years.   The tombstones for
its 12 major burials carry the names of an impressive array of
candidates for the Hyksos title "Rulers of  Foreign Lands."
Eleven of the candidates are Asian , one is European.   These
12 candidates can be identified as:
(1)  pre-Exodus Israelites [Manetho {Waddell 1940, 89};
     Josephus Flavius "Contra Apionem"{I, 14}];
(2)  Marauding Arab Bedouins (many authors);
(3)  -1st millennium Phoenicians [Newton 1728; Illig 1992, 111];
(4) only the invention of a narrator [Uhlemann, 1858];
(5)  Indo Aryans [Meyker, 1928 {1952-58}];
(6)  Hittites [Procksch, 1914; Pieper 1925];
(7)  15th century BCE Biblical Amalekites [Velikovsky, 1952];
(8)  the United Kingdom of Israel from Saul to Solomon [Sieff
     1988; Chetwynd 1991];
(9)  Old-Babylonian Amorites [Van Seters 1966];
(10)  Hurrites [Watzinger 1933;  Helck 1971];
(11)  Mycenaeans [Dayton 1978];  and
(12)  Syro-Canaanites [Weinstein 1981;  Kempinsky 1985;
      Dever 1985;  Mazar 1990].

      Only the twelfth theory, which equates the Hyksos with
Palestinian princes or Syro-Canaanites in general, can still
muster a considerable number of supporters.  Syro-Palestine's
Middle Bronze Age IIB-C shows a strong archaeological similarity
with Hyksos sites in Egypt, e.g. Tell Daba.  However,
Mesopotamia proves to be another serious contender in this
field.  More important, the ancient Egyptians themselves did not
identify the Hyksos with Canaanites.  On the Amada Stela from
the time of Amenophis II (1439-1413) "the Hyksos _and_ the
princes of Palestine (Retenu)" are mentioned together
(Stock, 1942, 71 - italics added;  also Bietak 1980, col. 102].
Obviously the Egyptians could tell the difference between
Canaanite chieftains and their non-Canaanite overlords.

Another problem for the Canaanite option is provided
by an undeniable Hurrian element [Helck, 1971, 89ff] within the
predominantly Semitic Hyksos.  The Hurrians are not indigenous
to Early Bronze or Middle Bronze Palestine.   The Canaanite
option also suffers if one considers the case of a female slave,
"Ishtar-ummi," who was captured by an Egyptian in the Hyksos wars.
"This name belongs to north Mesopotamia and not to Canaan, where
it would have been Astarte." [Helck 1971, 101].

II    Stratigraphy versus Textbook Chronology: The Mitanni
      as Immediate Successors of Hyksos and Old-Akkadians Alike

How can we justify annoying the public with a 13th theory
on the identity of the Hyksos?  Would  it not be more appropriate
to accept the fact that "a solution to this enigma of world history
lies beyond the scope of scholarship"  [ Beckerath, 1964, 113]?
Yet, this author felt encouraged to approach the problem afresh
because the classical tools of scholarship have never been
rigorously used in a search for an Asian home for the Hyksos.
Neither comparative stratigraphy and archaeology (architecture,
pottery, small finds, etc.) nor paleography and the evaluation of
original historiographical source material has been applied to
check possible Asian alter egos of the Hyksos.

As long as the textbook date of some candidate comes close
to the textbook date of the "Rulers of Foreign Lands" as new theory
about the Hyksos can be expected to spring up.  Researchers took
the dates for both the Hyksos and the various candidates for granted,
although there exists wide agreement that the chronological systems
in use are highly unreliable.  This holds notably for the Sothic
dating of Egyptologists.  This pseudo-astronomical scheme never
looked well under scientific scrutiny [Neugebauer, 1938; Velikovsky
1973; Newton 1977] but it was not until 1985 that mainstream
Egyptology also questioned it. "Work on chronology has clearly
arrived at a crisis.  The reason for this is in part due to the
adoption of dogmatic [Sothic -G.H.] scientific facts without
testing their applicability to Egyptian material and the reliability
of this material [Helck 1985, 95].

        The chronology ideas of Assyriologists do not look more
convincing than Egyptological ones.  Third millennium Mesopotamia
is dated by counting backwards from Hammurabi, whose "date is the
keystone of the chronology of the -2nd and -3rd millennia"
[Roux 1980, 43]. Within the last 90 years Hammurabi's date has
oscillated between the years -2300 and -1700, with a median date
of ca. -2000. It was originally derived from Genesis 14:1, where
"Amraphel king of Shinar" is mentioned in connection with Abraham
[Genesis 13:18].  For many years Amraphel was equated with
Hammurabi, who thereby got his date via Abraham's Bible
fundamentalist date.  Today many scholars have dropped Abraham as
a historical person, and the equation Amraphel = Hammurabi is also
no longer adhered to.  Yet, unconsciously, Abraham's pious date was
kept as Hammurabi's date and, thereby, to this very day serves as
the hidden anchor of Mesopotamia's absolute chronology [cf. Heinsohn
1988b, 13-5].

        If one wants to escape the quicksand of Bible fundamentalism
and pseudo-astronomy alike, -- not to mention wildly differing C14
dates [cf. Illig 1991a; Bloss/Niemitz 1996] -- comparative chronology
has to resort to comparative stratigraphy.  What does this method tell us
about the Hyksos of Syro-Palestine's Middle Bronze Age?
    _Stratigraphically_ and, therefore, also historically, they immediately
preceded the Mitanni/Hurrians of the Late Bronze Age.  If the Hyksos
originated in Mesopotamia, as is suggested by their being a mixture of
Semites and Hurrians, their Mesopotamian alter ego must have preceded the
Late Bronze Age Mitanni/Hurrians between the Euphrates and the
Tigris in very much the same manner as they preceded the Late Bronze
Age in their Syro-Palestinian and Egyptian realm.  Any credible
candidate for the Hyksos on Mesopotamian territory must be located
_stratigraphically immediately underneath_ the Mitanni/Hurrians.

What nation settled the strata which are found
_immediately_ below the Mitanni/Hurrian layers in northern
Mesopotamia?  When the most careful excavations of the 1920s
and 1930s tried to answer this question, the archaeologists
found themselves in confusion, as can be seen at Tell Billa
[Speiser, 1932-33], Nuzi [Starr, 1938], Tepe Gawra [Speiser,
1935], and Chagar Bazar [Mallowan, 1936-37].

Contents of Stratum           Sites                Period
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Tell             Tepe   Chagar   Nuzi/Yor-
Billa          Gawra   Baza r    gan Tepe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fully developed
stratum of the    3    III     I      II-I        14th cent.
Amarna Period,
which continues
from preceding
stratum without
provable hiatus.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Transient stratum
with first Hurrian
remains plus Old-
Akkadian remains    4    IV    II   part of II       -16th/
which continue                      as IIB-IIA       -15th
from preceding                                         but
stratum without                                        also
recognizable hiatus.                                   late
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Fully developed      5      V    III   V-III          -24th/ -23rd
Old Akkadian
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

     None of these four sites posed any problem for dating
the fully developed Old-Akkadian stratum of the -24th/-23rd
century or the fully developed Mitanni/Hurrian stratum of
the -14h century.  The confusion derived from the
intervening stratum (hardly recognizable at Nuzi) which
contained a mixture of Old-Akkadian and Hurrian (i.e. -23rd
and -15th century remains, but was expected to contain Neo-
Sumerian and Old-Babylonian remains of the period -2200 to
-1600.  Tell Billa 4 was assigned to the early -2nd
millennium Old-Babylonian period, which created an
unprovable hiatus between levels 5 and 4.  Tepe Gawra IV
landed in the late -3rd millennium Neo-Sumerian period,
which created a similar hiatus between IV and III.
Therefore, from a purely archaeological point of view, the
so-called Early Bronze IV Old-Akkadians immediately preceded
the Late Bronze Hurrians.  In this respect they strikingly
resembled the Middle Bronze Hyksos preceding the Late Bronze
Age in Syro-Palestine and Egypt.

Since the 1980s an impressive series of excavations has
been undertaken in northern Mesopotamia.  The Swiss work at
Tell Hamadiyah [Wafler, 1986] and the German dig at Tell
Munbaqa are considered examples of careful research on the
Mittani/Hurrian period, and the strata preceding them.
Hamadiyah, which was settled well beyond the Hellenistic
period, is compared here with a site in southern
Mesopotamia, Der [Opificius 1961, 7], to allow for an
understanding of the total stratigraphic depth from the Old-
Akkadians up to the Greeks.  If the dates for the Old-
Akkadians had been determined by archaeological means alone
the scholarly world would have been told that they were
located in the third strata group beneath the Hellenistic
strata group.  While it is true that the two intervening
strata groups in the north of Mesopotamia contained somewhat
different material remains than those in the south, both
areas have only two strata groups between Old-Akkadians and

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _

Mesopotamian Sequences According to Stratigraphic Evidence

     Hamadiyah                       Der
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Hellenist stratum                Hellenist stratum
(1) Pre-Hellenist stratum        (1)  Pre-Hellenist stratum
    of the Middle Assyrians           of the Old-Babylonians
(2)  Mitanni/Hurrians             (2)  Ur-III Neo-Sumerians
(3)  Old-Akkadians                (3)  Old-Akkadians

The scholarly world is usually not confronted with the
above stratigraphic evidence in the ground but instead is offered
excavation reports that add historical periods to the strata
actually found.  This stretching of the sites’ historical
duration is done to satisfy preconceived textbook chronology
ideas that excavators have on their minds before their work
begins.  Instead of testing the chronographers’ ideas by
their own archaeological results, excavators usually try to
adjust their finds to fit these preconceived dates.  For our
two exemplary tells these reports give the following

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Tell I:  Hamadiyah                     Tell II:  Der
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Hellenistic stratum from -330     Hellen. Stratum from -330

1st HIATUS                                              HIATUS

(1)  Middle Assyrians from -1350      (1) Babylonians from -2000

(2) Mitanni/Hurrians from -1750     (2) Ur III Sumerians from -2150

  2nd HIATUS

(3)  Old-Akkadians from -2350      (3) Old-Akkadians from  -2350

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Since none of the hiatuses was ever proven by archaeological
means -– as, e.g., windblown layers, discontinuity of
architecture, pottery, small finds etc. -- our search for
the _stratigraphically immediate_ Mesopotamian predecessors
of the Mitanni/Hurrians ends at the Old-Akkadians.

Stratigraphically, our search for the _immediate_ Mesopotamian
predecessors of  the Mitanni/Hurrians ends at the Old-Akkadians.
And yet every Assyriologist has to reject such a result.  Assyriologists
have been taught that a 700-year hiatus separates the Old-Akkadians
from the Mitanni/Hurrians.  Assyriologists are usually not aware of
 the shaky foundations of the textbook chronology that created the
hiatus in the first place – an Egyptological Sothic date for Hyksos and
Mitanni, but a Bible fundamentalist date for the Old-Akkadians.  Therefore
Assyriologists would never consider the contemporaneity – not to mention
the identity – of Hyksos and Old-Akkadians.   That is why the
Old-Akkadians as history’s first “world power” have never been taken into
consideration as an alter ego of the Hyksos, the first “superpower” in
Syro-Palestine and Egypt.

In February, 1988, this author published his stratigraphy-based
equation of Hyksos and Old-Akkadians.  The German archaeologist,
Wilfried Pape, was the first to take up the challenge.  Like the site at
Hamadiyah, mentioned earlier, Munbaqa exhibited the notorious hiatus
between the Old-Akkadian “Early Bronze Age IV” and the Mitanni “Late
Bronze Age strata. In 1988, Pape made the first special sounding at
Munbaqa, but could not confirm the supposed gap between ca..-2250
and -1475.  On the contrary, Pape found clear-cut architectural continuity.
 His findings were written to me on November 22, 1988.  In 1989, three
special soundings were made to test the existence of an Akkad-Mitanni
gap at Munbaqa.  A geologist specializing in sediments and aeolic layers
confirmed the work of the archaeologists.  There is no hiatus between the
Old-Akkadian and Mitanni/Hurrian strata at Munbaqa [Rosner, 1990].
Moreover, Old-Akkadian cylinder seals remained in use for business
contracts in the Mitanni/Hurrian stratum [Mayer, 1990, 48], another
indication of the uninterrupted continuity between the two periods, i.e.,
for the very absence of a hiatus of some 750 years.

3.  The striking resemblance of Hyksos and Old-Akkadian glyptic,
paleography, pottery and weapons

Old-Akkadian features are also known from Hyksos cylinder seals.  A
piece from Tell Beit Mirsim’s Hyksos strata  (E/D) carried an Akkadian sign
which can be read as Nabu.  Another Hyksos-period cylinder seal of
unknown provenance combined Egyptian motifs with bull-men (minotaurs)
that are particularly prominent in Old-Akkadian times:  “The bull-man
appears in the Early Dynastic period as is seen after the end of the
Akkadian period” [Collon, 1975, 191].

Paleography confirms the Old-Akkadian relationship with the Hyksos.
Palestine proper only yields one clearly stratified find of the Hyksos
period with a cuneiform inscription.  It was excavated at Hazor.

The excavators immediately understood that the “the historical
conclusions connected with the fact that the grammatical form  (of  the
inscription) is Akkadian and not Western Semitic” [Yadin et al. 1960, 117]
would have to be far-reaching.  Unwillingly they had confirmed what was
already known from pottery studies.  The striking resemblance of  Early
Bronze IV (-26th to -23rd century; Early Dynastic IIIb Sumerian and Old-
Akkadian) pottery from south and central Mesopotamia to Palestinian Middle
Bronze II pottery (-19th to -16th  century) was already seen 60 years ago
[Watzinger, 1933] and clearly shown by the Israeli archaeologist Jacob

The close relationship between Hyksos and Old-Akkadian
recognizable from stratigraphy, glyptic writing and pottery can also be
supported in the field of weaponry.  “In the second half of the third
millennium, the earliest sickleswords make their debut.  These were curved
swords used for striking.   They are clearly depicted on relics from the
Akkadian period” [Yadin, 1963, 45].  Archaeologists that, beginning in
Mesopotamia, “scimitars certainly very quickly spread to neighboring nations
as a weapon, as well as a symbol” [Bonnet 1926, 92].  Yet “there is no hint
whatsoever that the scimitar came to Egypt before the time of the Hyksos
[Bonnet 1926, 94; cf. Also Daba-D/3 – Bietak 1984, 1985, 1988].  Thus,
with a date of -2500/2400 for the earliest Mesopotamian scimitars, this
powerful weapon supposedly spent at least 750 years on its journey to Egypt.
Even more of a mystery was caused by the conservatism of the Hyksos.
When they decided to adopt the scimitar they chose the Old-Akkadian model,
which was ‘state of the art” more than seven centuries earlier.  By taking
the stratigraphical contemporaneity of Hyksos and Old-Akkadians into
the scimitars belong to one and the same nation, and the mysteries

A surprise even greater than the scimitar’s slow movement to Egypt
was caused by the likewise late arrival of the composite bow.   After first
appearing on Old-Akkadian monuments of the -23rd century [Yadin 1963,
150f] this weapon, which was as revolutionary “ as the discovery of
gunpowder thousands of  years later” [Yadin, 1963, 48], took some 700 years
to strengthen the armies of Egypt, “where it was introduced by the Hyksos”
[Decker 1975, 843].  Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why the
Egyptian military was allowed by its superiors to act so tardily in bringing
its weaponry up to date.

  The list of items which, -- _in stratigraphically secured contexts_ --
first appeared in Mesopotamia, in Old-Akkadian times, but were not known
in the Levant and Egypt before the Hyksos period, can easily be extended:
bellows, true tin bronzes, vertical looms, chariots, peculiar vaulted
burials, toggle pins, glass, glazing, sophisticated triple gates etc.
  Many of these striking similarities between -3rd millennium
Mesopotamians and -2nd millennium Hyksos were seen long ago.
Yet the appropriate conclusions were never drawn:  “It is certain that the
 earliest dated specimens of forms
like, or comparable to, some metal implements regarded as Hyksos have
come from _Mesopotamia_.  Specifically, we may note crescent-shaped
dagger pommels and socketed axheads.  Toggle pins, one of  the most
characteristic of Hyksos metal forms, appeared in Mesopotamia as early as
3,000 B.C.  As for the concept of bronze itself, it is an established fact
that bronze was known in Sumer and Anatolia by the _first half of -3rd
millennium._  _If Mesopotamian parallels of the -3rd millennium_ should
prove to have a direct bearing on the case, they would seem  to indicate a
Semitic or Sumerian contribution, no matter how remote [Engberg 1937,
43/44] (emphasis added).

More recent research points to the same relationships:  “There is
abundant material for the study of the cultural appearance of the Middle
Bronze Age in the Nile delta at Tell el-Daba.  The cultural background of
this MB population was urban rather than nomadic.  Indicators of urban
can be seen in intramural burials, a typical urban custom not practiced by
nomads, and distinct architectural traditions of this culture, e.g. the
technique of building vaults.  The majority of tombs were constructed
according to a technique which _had a tradition in [25/24th century; Brink,
1982] Mesopotamia, but not in Egypt._  The Middle Bronze Age element in
the town site seems to have been increased by a new influx which most likely
was responsible for _the rise of the Hyksos rule in Egypt”_ [Bietak 1987]
(emphasis added).

4.  Old-Akkadians as Foreign Rulers of Magan (Egypt) and 
Meluhha (Ethiopia).

Stratigraphy, paleography, glyptic, pottery, weaponry, 
architecture [Kaplan, 1975] and many other technologies 
point to the contemporaneity of Hyksos and Old-Akkadians.  
Yet it is Old-Akkadian historiography that provides the 
decisive clue for the _identity_ of the two nations.  
Manetho claimed that the Hyksos were the earliest Asians to 
occupy Egypt.  Who were the earliest Asians to claim that 
they militarily conquered Egypt?  The  Old-Akkadian Great 
Kings, Sargon, Naram Sin and Manishtusu:  "Sargon [2334-
2279] dismantled (all) the cities, as far as the shore of 
the sea.  At the wharf of Agade he made moor ships from 
Meluhha, ships from Magan" [ANET, 268].  "I, Naramsin [2254-
2218] the mighty, king of  four regions. / Magan he 
subjugated and Manium lord of Magan had dispatched" 
["Barton, 1929, 143].  

The location of Magan and Meluhha "is still in doubt, 
although they may turn out to be Egypt and Ethiopia.  In 
fact, most cuneiformists agree that by the first millennium 
B.C. Magan and Meluhha did correspond roughly to Egypt and 
Ethiopia.  /  This has led to the hypothesis that over the 
millennia there was a shift of toponomy, that in the third 
and second millennia B.C. the names Magan and Meluhha 
corresponded to the lands bordering the east and southeast 
Arabian coasts but that for one reason or another these 
names were later transferred to Egypt and Ethiopia" [Kramer, 
1963, 276].  It is for reasons of modern chronology only 
that a Mesopotamian rule over Egypt and Ethiopia (in the -
3rd millennium) is ruled out.  

This first world power 
supposedly had no knowledge of Egypt, though cultural 
features of Mesopotamia were well known in the Nile Valley 
since the early -3rd millennium.  It is admitted, however, 
that -1st millennium texts mentioning Magan and Meluhha 
always mean Egypt and Ethiopia.  It is also admitted that 
the Sargonic texts in question were not written in the -3rd 
millennium but are "depending for the greatest part upon 
much later tradition" [Gadd 1971, 440] of the -1st 
millennium, when Magan and Meluhha unquestionably mean Egypt 
and Ethiopia.  Thus, all that is actually stated is:  if one 
day we _original_ -3rd millennium texts mentioning Magan and 
Meluhha, these toponyms _could not_ mean Egypt and Ethiopia, 
because such identifications violate modern chronology 

Yet even with this assumption an agreement has not been 
reached, because Naram Sin's booty from Magan does not 
appear to be southeast Arabian at all, but Egyptian.  
Therefore, some scholars would also like to translate any 
forthcoming true -3rd millennium mention of Magan as "Egypt" 
[for a prominent example cf. Jacobsen, 1988].  This is 
because Naram Sin's inscriptions speaking of "a vase of the 
spoil of Magan" [Barton 1929] could be related to "existing 
alabaster vases inscribed with his name and the words 'booty 
of Magan'.  These vases, combined with the names of Magan 
and Manium, have given a singular interest to this episode, 
for Magan was a name undoubtedly applied to Egypt in a later 
period of Babylonian history, and the vases have _a distinct 
likeness to Egyptian alabaster vases"_ [Gadd 1971]  Thus, 
Old-Akkadians were in Egypt and are known there as the 
Hyksos, Asian rulers.

Last but not least, the Hyksos realm and period is on 
record for having the first pottery imports from Crete 
{Amiran, 1969].  The first Asian power that claimed Kaptaru 
(Crete) as the western limit of its empire, were the Old-
Akkadians.  For chronological reasons, modern scholars have 
ruled out this claim:  "It is impossible to impose this on 
the 3rd millennium [Edzard, 1974].  Yet if the Hyksos are 
considered as the alter ego of the Old-Akkadians, the former 
clearly provide the archaeological proof for the political 
claims of the latter.


The two long-standing enigmas of  (1) the Semitic 
Hyksos with no world history of their own,  but with 
substantial archaeological records in the Nile Valley, as 
well as records written about them in Egypt, and (2) the 
Semitic Old-Akkadians with cuneiform records of their rule 
in Egypt and Ethiopia ("Magan and Melukhha") but no material 
remains or texts in Egypt mentioning them, are solved 
simultaneously.  The Old-Akkadians are the Hyksos.  
Therefore, it is not by chance that the Hyksos fortress 
cities with their triple gates lie scattered along the 
strategic routes between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Neither the early -2nd millennium date for the Hyksos 
nor the -3rd millennium date for the Old-Akkadians can be 
upheld.  Stratigraphically both are found just three strata 
groups beneath the Hellenistic period in Syro-Palestine/Daba 
or Mesopotamia respectively.  The author (Heinsohn) 
tentatively equates the Hyksos/Old-Akkadians with the pre-
Medish Assyrian superpower mentioned in Herodotus I:95, 
which is not to be confused with the Sargonid Assyrians 
found immediately beneath Hellenistic strata.  The Medish 
successors of Herodotus' I:95-102 Assyrians, whose vast 
Mesopotamian empire supposedly did not leave a single brick 
or potsherd, are equated with the Mitanni, who only became 
known a century ago.  _Stratigraphically_ the Medes=Mitanni 
follow the Old-Akkadians in the east as directly as they 
follow the Hyksos in the west and the "Neo-Sumerians" follow 
the Old-Akkadians in Babylonia.   The alleged gap between 
Old-Akkadian and Mitanni/Hurrian strata in many Mesopotamian 
sites represents a pseudo-hiatus.

Between the strata of the Medes=Mitanni and Hellenists 
only one additional strata group could be found in any one 
individual _north_ Mesopotamian site.  It is assigned to 
"Middle Assyria" known for its enigmatic conquest of Egypt 
("Musri").  In the _south,_ the immediately pre-Hellenist 
stratum is called "Old Babylonian," and lies directly on the 
"Neo-Sumerians," who _stratigraphically_ are contemporary 
with the Medes=Mitanni and, therefore, must be identified as 
the Chaldaeans known from Assyrian, Jewish and Greek 
sources.  Applying historical and stratigraphical reasoning, 
"Middle Assyria" and "Old-Babylonia" can be none other than 
the long sought  after Persian satrapies Assyria and 
Babylonia.  Their Amorit(d)e or Mart(d)u ethnic background 
is rooted in Cyrus the Great's tribe of Mardoi (Amardians) 
mentioned by Herodotus and Ctesias. 

The duplication of Herodotus' I:95 Assyrians of the -
8th/7th centuries to -17th  /16th  century Hyksos and their 
triplication to -24th/23rd century Old-Akkadians is due to 
pseudo-astronomical and Bible fundamentalist chronology 
ideas of modern Egyptology and Assyriology respectively.  
Because of these unscholarly dating ideas, the Bronze and 
Iron Age chronologies of the ancient Near East and Egypt are 
haunted by some 2,000 phantom years for which there is no 
convincing basis in stratigraphy.  It is only because of 
these ghost millennia that the ancient Near East, from Egypt 
to the Indus Valley, gained its enormous head start into 
high civilization over the Ganges Valley, India, Southeast 
Asia, China and Meso-America (Heinsohn, 1990).  


Syro-Palestine/Daba             Mesopotamia

Hellenistic                    Hellenistic

Iron Age               (1)  Middle Assyrians (north)
                                    Old Babylonians (south) IA

(2) Late Bronze Mitanni    (2)  Mitanni (north) 
                                                  UR-III Sumerians (south)

Middle Bronze IIB-C    (3)  Old-Akkadians (=EB IV)

Middle Bronze IIA      (4)  ED IIIb Sumerians (=EB IV)

----------- *

Early Bronze I-III    (5)  Early Dynastic I-IIIa

Chalcolithic          (6)  Chalcolithic

*  Early Bronze IV/MBI is without a clear-cut stratum in 
major tells of Israel [Mazar 1990, 152].

# #