shems descsndants

linwage of shem to joseph

ham shem japhet

Sargon

eden

map

qncient

assyrua

Timeline

Destruction of Jerusalem

jj

wae

connevtiomn

babel

bunaqan

Sumerian King List

Name of Dynasty 
First Dynasty of Kish 
First Dynasty of Uruk (Erech) 
First Dynasty of Ur 
Dynasty of Awan 
Second Dynasty of Kish 
Dynasty of Hamazi 
Second Dynasty of Uruk 
Second Dynasty of Ur 
Dynasty of Adab 
Dynasty of Mari 
Third Dynasty of Kish 
Dynasty of Akshak 
Fourth Dynasty of Kish 
Third Dynasty of Uruk 
Dynasty of Akkad, etc.

Analyzing the Sumerian King List

   The Sumerian King List opens the history of postflood civilization by the following account: "After the Flood has swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish. In Kish, Ga ... ur became king and ruled 1,200 years ...." The First Dynasty of Kish contains three kings who ruled, according to the scribes, for 24,510 years! (Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 265.) 
   Here certainly is a chronological account that is neither historical nor Biblical. Yet several of the kings named have left behind incontestable evidences of their reality. That the original reigns are purposely lengthened far beyond actual duration is recognized by all historians. The cause of this Babylonian flight of fancy is the same as that which prompted evolutionists and geologists to stretch out the "Ice Ages" to hundreds of thousands of years — though in reality they occurred in historical times and are found described in Greek and Roman literature. 
   People want to believe in the extreme antiquity of Man's past. The ancient Babylonians were no exception. In his account of Babylon's first two kings, Cush and Nimrod, the priest Berossus assigned 2,400 years to Evechous (Cush) and 2,700 to Cosmaskelos (Nimrod). ("The Dawn of Civilization", by Maspero, p. 573.) These figures are significant. From Egyptian, Greek and Roman sources it has already been demonstrated in this Compendium that Cush ruled 60 years before he was succeeded by the 27-year reign of his son Nimrod. Thus Berossus multiplied the 60 years of Cush by 40 and arrived at the date 2,400. (In the Sumerian king list the figure for Ga ... ur, the first king, who is Cush, is 1,200 — that is, 60 multiplied by 20.) Berossus multiplied the 27 years of Nimrod by 100 and obtained 2,700 years. The Babylonians used a clever mathematical trick to lengthen the reigns of the rulers of Kish. However, the device used by the priests has been solved. The dating for Dynasty I and II of Kish can be found in Appendix A of vol. II of the Compendium. 
   But what is the special significance of the city of Kish? Why should it be considered first to bear rule in Mesopotamia? 
   Kish is the city of Cush or Kush. It is situated near the site of ancient Babylon. It became a sacred site because people first dwelt there in the land of Shinar after the flood. From the area of Kish they commenced the erection of the city of Babel. But Babel turned out to be a failure — "they left off to build the city" (Genesis 11:8). 
   The government of Cush and Nimrod, begun at Babel, thus continued at Kish while the towns of Erech, Accad and Calneh were being built in the land of Shinar following the abortive attempt at Babel. The First Dynasty of Kish commenced 2256 — the date of the beginning of the construction of the tower of Babel. The dynasty continued to 1809 at which point the Second Dynasty of Kish began (see vol. II of the "Compendium" for proof). 
   The Second Dynasty ruled from 1809 to 1748.

History Continues at Erech

   The first city which Nimrod succeeded in building was Erech. The government of Cush and Nimrod extended over this city as well as over Kish, and its history is told in the surprising annals of the First Dynasty of Uruk or Erech. 
   From the "Sumerian King List", published by Thorkild Jacobsen, and accessible in Pritchard's often-quoted work, the first Dynasty of Uruk may be summarized as follows:

  
Sumerian Names      Lengths of Reigns        Notations in King    
of Rulers (some       in King List                List    
in fragmentary    
form)    
    
Mes-kiag-gasher       325 (in one text       Son of Utu, became    
                         read as 32(4),      high priest and king.    
                         see p. 85 of T.     Journeyed into the    
                         Jacobsen's          Sea and reached the    
                         "Sumerian King      Mountains beyond.    
                         List".)    
    
En-me(r)-kar          420                         Son of predecessor.    
                                             He built Erech.*    
    
Lugal-banda         1,200                    A god and shepherd.    
    
Dumu-zi               100                    A god and fisherman.    
    
Gilgamesh             126                    A divine man,    
                                             begotten by a spirit.    
                                             became a high priest    
Ur-lugal               30                    Son of Gilgamesh.    
    
Udul-kalamma           15    
    
Labasher                9    
    
En-nun-dar-anna         8    
    
Meshede                36                    A smith.    
    
Melam-anna              6    
    
Lugal-ki-dul           36    
  
          *Some tablets read: Under him Erech was built.    

   Though these names may, at first sight, be meaningless, five of the rulers are mentioned by other names in the Bible and a sixth — Gilgamesh — has already been alluded to in Egyptian history in this Compendium. 
   To break down this list one must commence from the known facts. Dumu-zi is a variant spelling of Tammuz, a Mesopotamian name of Nimrod. Nimrod succeeded his father Cush in Babylonia after a 60-year reign. The 60 year reign of Cush has been established as 2254-2194 (see the Egyptian history of Dynasty I of Thinis). The 100 years assigned to Nimrod are, like the records of Egypt, based upon the Era of Nimrod to the coming of his successor. Though Nimrod was executed after a reign of 27 years, his Era continued to year 100, and is to be dated 2194-2094. 
   What occurred in 2094? Who left Egypt in 2094 to come to the land of Shinar to claim the throne of Nimrod? Horus! 
   Thus Horus of Egypt is Gilgamesh of Mesopotamia. Each claimed to be heir of Nimrod. Both were born of a Queen of Heaven — Isis or Ishtar. Both had a "spirit" as a father — the supposed Nimrod alive as the impregnating sun. 
   Gilgamesh ruled in Mesopotamia, after he left Egypt, for another 126 years — 2094-1968. This brings us down to the lifetime of Abram! Gilgamesh lived to be almost 200 years of age. This is in complete harmony with the genealogy of the Bible for the same period (Genesis 11:10-32). 
   Gilgamesh was succeeded by Ur-lugal — a name which means "Great King." This Great King was ruler of Erech. Erech was in the land of Shinar. Whoever controlle Erech controlled Shinar. What was the personal name of this Great King who controlled Shinar in the days of Abram? Amraphel (Genesis 14:1). 
   Amraphel reigned 30 years before he was slain by Abram's army. The dates of Amraphel are 1968-1938. The struggle, recorded in Genesis 14 between Mesopotamian kings and the Canaanites therefore climaxed in 1938 with the death of four kings of Mesopotamia. When Assyrian history is studied this same year will be established for Arioch, king of Ellasar — that is, king of the City of Asar or Asshur 
   To return to the Sumerian King List. The predecessor of Dumu-zi (or Tammuz, who is Nimrod), is named Lugal-banda — a title meaning "Little King." He is Cush. Son Nimrod was, of course, the "Great King." The 1200 years assigned to Cush are a clever expansion (20 x 60) of the true figure of 60 years already established from other sources. The correct dates are 2254-2194. 
   But how are the two predecessors in the list — Mes-kiag-gasher and En-mer-kar — to be explained? Were they parallel rulers who also exercised authority in that world? 
   The mother of Gilgamesh — Semiramis or Ishtar — was at one time the wife of Lugal-banda — that is, Cush (Jacobsen, "Sumerian King List", page 91). She was also a wife and daughter-in-law of Asshur. The real grandfather of Gilgamesh, however, was not Cush, but En-mer-kar (Aelian in "De natura Animalium", vii, 21, quoted in Jacobsen's work on page 87). From these facts it is clear that the Dynasty of Erech is composed of two blood lines — that of Cush and that of Asshur. 
   In history there were three famous queens named Semiramis — each one claiming to be a Queen of Heaven. The last Semiramis claimed to be thrice born. Each one of them was an Assyrian queen. Does this indicate that En-mer-kar is the Sumerian form of the Semitic name of Asshur? In the King List it is stated either that Erech was built under the rule of En-mer-kar, or that it was built by En-mer-kar. In the Bible the builder is Nimrod. But Nimrod did not build it alone! For "out of that land" Shinar — where Erech is located — "went forth Asshur, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah" (Genesis 10:11). This is the correct translation according to the vowel pointing of the Hebrew text. But the consonants, without the pointing, may be translated, "he" — that is, Nimrod, "went forth, being strong, and build Nineveh and Calah." The land of Assyria or Asshur is also the land of Nimrod (Micah 5:6). The original enterprise was a joint affair. 
   Cush was originally a prominant figure at Babel. But he was superseded by Nimrod, who gained the carnal affections of his own mother. Cush soon perished and the two dominant figures remaining were Asshur and Nimrod. Then Nimrod was driven from Mesopotamia to Egypt. Thus the entire history of the later world came to be dominated by the shadow of Asshur's children. 
   But if En-mer-kar is Asshur, the result is that Mes-kiag-gasher is the Sumerian name of Shem! Mes-kiag-gasher was in Sumerian parlance, the "son of Utu" — the God who warned Noah of the Flood. That is, he was a man who knew the God of creation. 
   Mes-kiag-gasher was also a high priest. From Egyptian records historians have discovered that Semsem — the Great Shem — of Dynasty I of Thinis was also pictured as a high priest! This famous man crossed from Asia over the water to the mountains of Europe. Shem travelled far and wide to put down the government of Nimrod. 
   Now consider the 325-year reign of Shem. When did it begin and when did it end? 
   In Egypt only a small part of his life story is revealed. But in the annals of Erech one sees Shem's great figure striding over three and a quarter centuries of history! Shem had no part in the government established at Babel in opposition to the rule of God. When the terror of Nimrod loomed great over the horizon, Shem acted. He exercised, after Nimrod's seizure of power, the administration of government beginning 2191 in Shinar as patriarch and priest of the Semitic world. His full 325 years of authority lasted from 2191 till his death in 1866. 
   This date — 1866 — is the exact year of the death of Shem in Scripture. According to Egyptian history the exodus occurred in 1486. This was exactly 430 years after the covenant God made with Abraham when he was 99 years old — it was not made at the time Abram entered the land at 75. (See Genesis 17:1-8, Exodus 12:40-41and Galatians 3:17.) The verb is not expressed in the original Hebrew of Exodus 12:40, which should properly be translated: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, completed four hundred and thirty years." 
   Calculating back from 1486, year 99 of Abraham was 1918-1917 autumn to autumn reckoning — for in the next spring, of 1916, Abraham was already 99 years old and in his hundredth year. Abraham was 75 when he departed from Haran following the death of his father in 1941 (Gen. 12:4). By adding the figures of the Genesis 11, from Terah to Arphaxad, the year 2367-2366 is reached (autumn to autumn). In that year — two years after the Flood — Arphaxad was begotten. Shem lived after he begot Arphaxad 500 years (Genesis 11:10-11). This 500 years extends from 2366 to 1866 — the very year Shem's 325-year reign ended, according to the evidence of the Erech list! 
   (The broken reading of 32(4) years. proposed by Sumeriologists, if correct, probably merely excludes the calendar year in which Shem died.) 
   The 420 years of En-mer-kar are also datable. The figure probably represents the length of time between the death of Asshur in 1906 (see German history in vol. II of the "Compendium") and his becoming a head of household in 2326, when age 40 (assuming he is a twin of Arphaxad who was born in 2366). 
   The First Dynasty of Uruk may now be restored as follows, beginning with Cush (Lugal-banda).

  
Names of Kings         Lengths of Reign            Dates    
    
Lugal-banda (Cush)            (60)                2254-2194    
    
Dumu-zi (Nimrod or            100                 2194-2094    
     Tammuz)    
    
Gilgamesh (Horus or           126                 2094-1968    
     Ninyas)    
    
Ur-lugal (Amraphel)            30                 1968-1938    
dies in Abram's year 78)    
    
Utul-kalamma                   15                 1938-1923    
    
Labasher                        9                 1923-1914    
    
En-nun-dara-anna                8                 1914-1906    
    
Meshede                        36                 1906-1870    
    
Melam-anna                      6                 1870-1864    
    
Lugal-ki-dul                   36                 1864-1828   

Berossus and Babylonian History

   The writings of Berossus, the contemporary of Manetho, are altogether lost. No valid dates of individual kings have been preserved by classic writers from Berossus.
   Berossus' first post-flood dynasty is completely distorted. It is said to be composed of 86 Chaldean kings who supposedly reigned about 34,000 years! This dynasty includes Evechous and Kosmabelos — Cush and Nimrod. The kings who composed the first dynasty were not successive but contemporary leaders who formed the first Democratic Council in history this side of the flood. Samuel Kramer, in his book "History Begins at Sumer", draws attention to the fact that the earliest records of democratic government are found in references to Shinar and the city of Kish.
   The other dynasties of Berossus strikingly confirm the Sumerian King List and Biblical history. The following chart is from Berossus' transcribers.

  
Dynasty II      8 Medes       224 years (the Armenian copy reads 234)    
    
Dynasty III    11 Chaldeans   NO YEARS ASSIGNED, AS DYNASTY    
                              WAS CONTEMPORARY. (In margin    
                              of Armenian version 48 years    
                              is noted.)    
    
Dynasty IV     49 Chaldeans   458 years    
    
Dynasty V       9 Arabians    245 years (Semiramis II    
                              reigned during this    
                              period.)    
    
Dynasty VI     45 Chaldeans   526 years to seizure of    
                              Babylonia by Pul.    

   The dates for these dynasties may easily be restored. Pul, in Babylonian history, is Tiglathpileser III. He seized the city of Babylon in 729, during the third year of the reign of Ukinzer. See the "Babylonian Chronicle", Col I. Tiglathpileser considered this his first year; the Babylonians considered it his accession year assigning it to Ukinzer. Ptolemy coupled them together and designated the period as that of Chinziros and Poros.

  
     Dynasty VI continued 526 years — 1255 to 729    
    
     Dynasty V for 245 years — 1500 to 1255    
    
     Dynasty IV for 458 years — 1958 to 1500    
    
     (Dynasty III for 48 years — 2006-1958)    
    
     Dynasty II for 234 years — 2192-1958    
                     or    
                    224 years — 2192-1968    

   The year 2192 marks not only the beginning of Nimrod's rule in Egypt, but also the Median seizure of Babylonia at the time Nimrod usurped Supreme authority at the dethroning of his father cush. This confirms Greek traditions that even Japetus (Japheth) opposed the Titans — the followers of Nimrod. The Medes, descendents of Japheth kept their power over Babylon for 224 years to 1968 — the year of the death of Gilgamesh. In another ten years (1968-1958) the Chaldeans regained full power.
   Those ten years and the previous 38 were times of great stress during which 11 Chaldean kings, including Gilgamesh, ruled contemporaneously as Berossus' Dynasty III — 2006-1958. The date 2006 is confirmed by the Persian account of Gilgamesh. Persian historians assign him only 38 years — 2006-1968 — the exact duration of his rule as part of Dynasty III of Berossus. (See Al Biruni's "Ancient Nations", page 99.) The remarkable agreement of all these figures, found among different nations, is proof that the historical data have never been totally lost.

Another Account of Earliest Dynasties

   As generally recorded, Berossus' First Dynasty begins with Cush and Nimrod; the Second Dynasty was Median. But Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus preserve, from the most ancient records of the Temple of Belus at Babylon, an account of parallel rulers — five Chaldean kings who were in turn succeeded by no less than six Arabians (pre-Ishmaelites). The information may be obtained from Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities", Pages 233-235. These much-misunderstood dynasties — even Jackson did not understand their import — perfectly correspond with the restoration of the Dynasty of Erech already presented.

  
First Kings of the    Lengths of Reign          Dates    
Chaldeans after the    
Tower of Babel    
    
Porus                         35                   2254-2219    
    
Nechubes                      43                   2219-2176    
    
Abtus                         48                   2176-2128    
Oniballus                     40                   2128-2088    
    
Zinzirus                      45                   2088-2043    
                            (or 46)               (2088-2042)    

(Note that the 35 years — 2254-2219 — of Porus are also the same for Mizraim.)

  
Dynasty of Six Kings     Lengths of Reign            Dates    
of the Arabians    
    
Mardocentes                   45    
                            (or 44)               (2042-1998)    
    
Mardakos                      40                   1998-1958    

(the year 1958 marks the final expulsion of the Medes from Babylonia.)

  
Sisimardacus                  28                   1958-1930    
    
Nabius                        37                   1930-1893    
    
Parannus                      40                   1893-1853    
    
Nabonnabus                    25                   1853-1828    

   In 1828, "the Assyrian kings succeeded in the Babylonian Empire, and thenceforth Babylonia and Chaldea became a part of the Assyrian Empire" — Page 237, Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities". This is also the year of the defeat of Erech by Ur. Syncellus preserved a total of 190 years for the Chaldean kings, and not the above total of 211 — though his separate figures add up to 211! It is exactly 190 years from 2233 to 2043. The year 2233 was famous in Babylonian history as the beginning of astronomical observation. The Babylonians began their observations 1903 years before Alexander came to Babylon in 330.

First Dynasty of Ur and Successors

   The city of Ur in Babylonian history is not the Ur from which Abram came. Abram's Ur was Urfa in northern Mesopotamia, not on the fringes of Shinar.
   According to the Sumerian King List, the First Dynasty of Ur came to power at the close of the First Dynasty of Erech.

  
Names of Kings of         Lengths of Reign             Dates    
First Dynasty of Ur    
    
Mes-Anne-padda                80 (includes             1828-1748    
                               reign of son    
                               A-Anne-padda)    
    
Mes-kiag-Nunna                     30                  1748-1718    
                              (or 36)                  1748-1712    
    
Elulu                              25                  1718-1693    
    
Balulu                             36                  1693-1657    

   The significance of the 36 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna will be explained when the Dynasty of Akshak is restored. The proper dates of Dynasty I of Ur are those of the Nippur list, which gives the total as 171 — 1828-1657. (The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 adds the parallel reign of six years of Mes-kiag-Nunna to the total.)
   At the close of the First Dynasty of Ur the Sumerian King List carries the government to the city of Awan in Elam (see page 224 of Pallis' "Chronology of the Shub-Ad Culture"). Reference to three kings is made, but only a cuneiform remnant of the last king's name is preserved: Kul ... 36 years. The total length of the Dynasty is 356 years — 1657-1301. The date of the last king is therefore 1337-1301. A confirmation of these dates will be found in the succeeding history of the city of Isin and Dynasty III of Ur.
   Historically the date 1657 marks Elamite prominence in Southern Mesopotamia and throws important light on the early history of India.
   After Awan the Sumerian King List returns to Dynasty II of Kish. Though the names of the rulers of Kish during this period are preserved, the dates assigned to its rulers are extravagant — over 3000 years being designated to 8 kings. Kish II begins about the time of the reigns of Gilgamesh and Mes-anne-padda, whose lives overlapped; for the last king of Kish I submitted to both (see the Sumerian poem "Gilgamesh and Aqqa" in Pritchard's Texts). The true length of Dynasty II is confirmed by Kish III and IV which we will now establish.
   Listed after Kish II, though in part contemporary with it, is the Dynasty of Hamazi. Only one name of this dynasty is preserved: Hadanish. The total length of the dynasty is sometimes given as 360 years, sometimes as 420. It cannot be dated until Dynasty II and Dynasty III of Uruk are determined.
   The shattered list of Dynasty II of Uruk is in the prism given 60 years and 120 years. In other documents it ends a period of 480 years. There is a definite relationship between these figures and those of Hamazi. But Uruk II and Hamazi cannot be dated until Uruk III is established.
   From archaeology it is known that Uruk II was followed immediately by Uruk III — though the King List branches off into parallel dynasties. Uruk III is composed of one King Lugal-zaggisi, who reigned 25 years. Comparative archaeology establishes that he succeeded Ur I, 1828-1657. The date of king Lugal-zaggisi is therefore 1657-1632.
   As Uruk II preceded Uruk III, the 480 years extend back from 1657 to 2137. That is, the year 1657 ended an era of 480 years which began in 2137. As Uruk I ended in 1828, Uruk II lasted only 171 years 1828-1657. The figure 480 is not the length of the dynasty but the dating of an era. What happened in the year 2137? Isis (Ishtar or Semiramis) came to power after the 57-year era (2194-2137) of Nimrod. It was commonplace to date reigns in the "Era of Ishtar" (see Pritchard's "Texts", page 266, in Sargon's "Chronicle", and footnote 2). In chart form the figures for Uruk II are as follows.

  
     480 years — 2137-1657    
    
     120 years — 1777-1657    
    
      60 years — 1717-1657    

Now the Dynasty of Hamazi may be dated:

  
     360 years — 2137-1777    
    
     420 years — 2137-1717    

   Both these dynasties commenced with the Era of Ishtar. In another chart these two would appear as follows:

  
Hamazi                   360 years           2137-1777    
    
Uruk II                  120 years           1777-1657    
    
                         or    
    
Hamazi                   420 years           2137-1717    
    
Uruk II                   60 years           1717-1657    

   Skipping for the moment other parallel Dynasties, notice that Uruk III was succeeded by the Dynasty of Akkad. Uruk III — composed of one king Lugal-zaggisi — extended for 25 years to 1632.

Now Sargon of Akkad

   The greatest name in Babylonian history in this period is undoubtedly that of Sargon "the Great" — first king of the Akkadian Dynasty. The history of this dynasty has been confused by the Weld-Blundell Prism 444. The complete and correct record is that of the Nippur lists. Prism 444 is incomplete.

  
Names of Kings of     Lengths of Reign        Dates    
Dynasty of Akkad    
    
Sargon                        55             1632-1577    
    
Rimush                        15             1577-1562    
    
Manish-tusu                    7             1562-1555    
    
Naram-Sin                     56             1555-1499    
    
Sharkalisharri                24 or          1499-1475    
                              25             1500-1475    
    
Igigi, Nanum, Imi             3 years of     1475-1472    
                                confusion    
    
Dudu                          21             1472-1451    
    
Shudurul                      15             1451-1436    

   The reign of Sharkalisharri confirms Berossus, who dates the Arabian invasion in 1500. It toppled Naram-Sin from his power and brought his successor to a weakened throne. Naram-Sin died after one more year of reign. Rimush is the younger twin brother of Manish-tusu (Jacobsen, "Sumerian King List", p. 113). He overthrew an otherwise unknown Kaku of Ur.
   The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 is fractured in the middle of the history of this dynasty. However, its total indicates that Naram-Sin's reign is cut short and does not include part of the period of his subjection to the invading Guti hordes. It also gives different figures for the three early rulers as follows.

  
Sargon                             56 years            1633-1577    
    
Rimush                              9                  1577-1568    
    
Manish-tusu                        15                  1568-1553    

   Year 1633 is the accession year of Sargon.
   This document(W.-B. 444) by itself is not a proper standard for Babylonian history. It should be used in conjunction with the other lists rather than by itself as is customarily done by modern authors.

Dynasties IV and V of Erech

   The collapse of the Dynasty of Akkad brought Erech again into prominence. In the Scheil Text the Fourth Dynasty of Uruk is listed as follows:

  
Names of Kings of              Lengths of Reign           Dates    
Dynasty IV of Uruk              in Scheil Text    
    
Ur-Niginak                           3                 1436-1433    
    
Ur-Gigirak                           6                 1433-1427    
    
Kudda                                6                 1427-1421    
    
Puzur-ili                            5                 1421-1416    
    
Ur-Utuk                              6                 1416-1410    

   The Weld-Blundell prism assigns 7 years to the first king — 1440-1433.
   Fragment C of the Susa list of these kings follows (see "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", Apr. 1960, p. 157).

  
Name of Kings of              Lengths of Reign            Dates    
Dynasty IV of Uruk    
    
Ur-Gigirak                         15                  1442-1427    
    
Lugal-me-lam                        7                  1442-1435    
    
Ur-Utuk                            25                  1435-1410    

   In this list the contemporary reigns of Kudda and Puzur-ili are incorporated in the long reign of Ur-Utuk. As in Egyptian history, numerous rulers shared the government at the same time. In another fragment of the Susa list the following information is preserved for the first three kings:

  
Ur-Niginak                         30                  1472-1442    
    
Ur-Gigirak                         15                  1442-1427    
    
Lugal-me-lam                        7                  1442-1435    

   What is the significance of the year 1472? It is the end of three years of confusion (1475-1472) under the Akkadian Dynasty when four kings ruled. During that period it became proverbial to ask: "who was king? who was not?" Far from being bad scribal errors, these various figures for Dynasty IV of Uruk tell much of the story that is otherwise unpreserved. The real rise to power commenced in 1472, though the kings of Uruk did not replace the kings of Akkad until 1436.
   The kingship over Uruk was obtained in 1410 by Utuhegal, who constitutes Dynasty V. All documents agree in giving full 7 years to this short-lived Dynasty — 1410-1403. Utuhegal gained prominence at the beginning of his reign by overthrowing the Guti who had invaded Babylonia 125 years before, in 1535, and wrested complete control in a second attack in 1500 (see the dates from the W.-B. Prism 444).

The Guti Dynasty

   Berossus designates 1500 as the year in which an Arabian dynasty of 9 kings wrested control of Babylonia from the Chaldeans. Coupled with this invasion from Arabia was one from the east under the Guti. The Guti Dynasty is not complete in any one document, but may be determined from a comparison of each of the documents. Its first King is nowhere preserved in the King Lists, but an otherwise unknown king of the Guti has been found. As he is the only Guti king known to have usurped the titles of Naram-Sin, it is quite clear that he — Erridupizir — should head the list as the leader in the initial attack on Akkad in 1535. (Jacobsen's , "King List", p. 117, from Hilprecht's "The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and The Temple Library of Nippur". Pennsylvania Univ. Babylonian Expedition, Series D: Researches and Treatises V 1 (1910), chap. 4.)
   The initials in brackets in the following list indicate the source of the different reading. Their significance will be explained afterward.

  
Kings of the Guti          Lengths of Reign          Dates    
    
(Erridupizir)                 (33 — restored      1535-1502    
                              by subtraction    
                              from dynastic    
                              totals)    
    
Imta                            3                 1502-1499    
                                5 (L1)            1504-1499    
    
Inkishush                       6 or              1499-1493    
                                7 (L1)            1500-1493    
    
Sarlagab                        6                 1493-1487    
    
Shulme (or Iarlagash in L1)     6                 1487-1481    
    
Elulumesh                       7 (G)             1481-1474    
                                or 6              1481-1475    
    
Inimabakesh                     5                 1474-1469    
    
Igeshaush                       6                 1469-1463    
    
Jarlagab                       15                 1463-1448    
    
Ibate                           3                 1448-1445    
    
Jarla(ngab)                     3                 1445-1442    
    
Kurum                           1                 1442-1441    
    
Habilkin                        3                 1441-1438    
    
Laerabum                        2                 1438-1436    
    
Irraum                          2                 1436-1434    
    
Ibranum                         1                 1434-1433    
    
Hablum                          2                 1433-1431    
    
Puzur-Sin                       7                 1431-1424    
    
Jarlaganda                      7                 1424-1417    
    
Sium                            7                 1417-1410    
    
Tirigan                       40 days                  1410    

   The second king is, in one tablet, assigned 5 years instead of 3. This indicates that Erridupizir may have reigned the last two years (1504-1502) jointly with Imta. The different lengths assigned to the reign of the third king — Inkishush — exactly fits the years 1500 and 1499 which overlap in the account of the Akkadian Dynasty. The variation in the reign of Elulumesh, the sixth king, is again made plain by the struggle for power recorded in the Akkadian Dynasty for 1475-1472. The king's total reign was 7 years, but only six to the year 1475, when the struggle for power in Babylonia commenced.

Three Other Dynasties

   The coming of the Guti into Babylonia brought further division to the land. At the city of Ur a new Dynasty rose to power and lasted 108 years according to the Nippur List. The total for the Dynasty is missing from the document, but the total for Dynasties I, II and III is plainly given as 396. Dynasty I ruled 171 years; Dynasty III, 117, as will be noticed shortly. These two figures, subtracted from 396, leave 108.
   The royal names of this dynasty are nearly illegible, and no internal dates are preserved. The Dynasty may be dismissed with the dates: 1535-1427.
   In 1427 the Dynasty of Adab succeeded Ur II according to the Sumerian King List. It exercised authority in Babylonia for 90 years — until 1337. The only name of a king of this Dynasty is that of Lugal-Annemundu. The collective verb — "they reigned" — indicates other names are lost.
   At the same time that Ur II lost control to the city of Adab, another city, far distant, on the Middle Euphrates, came into power. It was the city of Ma (e) ri. Mari later became famous as a town bordering on Israel's territory on the Euphrates. The Mari Dynasty, placed after Adab in the King Lists, was, in point of fact, contemporary. It lasted 136 years — 1427-1291. All that has been thus far discovered of its rulers is a tattered document that looks like the following:

  
Fragmentary Names           Lengths of Reign       Dates    
of Mari Kings    
    
Ansud                          30                  1427-1397    

   Total: six kings for 136 years.

   The year 1291 will become significant in the study of Kish IV.

Dynasty III of Ur

   Meanwhile the city of Ur revived and another powerful dynasty came to power — the Third. This dynasty was made famous by Woolley's excavations at Ur. It succeeded Dynasty V of Erech, and reigned for 117 years according to the Nippur List. Its first king once was functionary of Utuhegal before Ur rebelled and seized political prominence. Utuhegal (Uruk V) ruled 1410-1403.

  
Kings of Dynasty III          Lengths of Reign          Dates    
of Ur according to    
the Nippur List    
    
Ur-Nammu                           18                  1403-1385    
    
Shulgi (often spelled: Dungi)      58                  1385-1327    
    
Amar-Sin (often spelled: Bur-Sin)   9                  1327-1318    
    
Shu-Sin                             7                  1318-1311    
    
Ibbi-Sin                           25                  1311-1286    

   Fragment C of the Susa List has a different account of this Dynasty. This account is usually rejected, merely because it is different from the preceding one.
   But in it is a key to yet a third account of the same dynasty! The duration of Ur III was 117 years — 1403-1286.

  
Kings of Dynasty III       Lengths of Reign      Dates    
of Ur according to    
Susa List    
    
Ur-Namme                      18             1403-1385    
    
Shulgi                        48             1385-1337    
    
Amar-Sin                      25             1339-1314    
    
Shu-Sin                       16             1318-1302    
    
Ibbi-Sin                      15             1302-1287    

   This list does not include the last year of Ibbi-Sin, during which he was carried captive to Elam. But, as in the Nippur List, it does include that year in its dynastic total (123 years), which is one year more than the total assigned to all the kings (122 years).*
   The 48-year reign of Shulgi assigned in the Susa List stops in 1337. This date is significant. It marks the end of the Adab Dynasty (already discussed). It also is the beginning of the reign of "Kul scribe recording the Susa List does not give the last 10 years of Shulgi as it is incorporated in the long reign of Amar-Sin.
   The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 differs from either preceding list in its length of the reign of Shulgi, which it gives as 46 — 1385-1339. This dating provides the clue to the proper beginning of the 25-year reign of Amar-Sin as recorded in the Susa List. Also, W.-B 444 shortens the reign of Ibbi-Sin to 24 years — 1311-1287, ending it in the same year as the Susa scribe does. That is, it does not include the last year in which the king was taken captive. It also assigns 9 years to Shu-Sin, probably the 9 years from 1311 (when Ibbi-Sin came to power) to the year 1302 (the last year of Shu-Sin in the Susa List).

   (*Note: dynastic total of 123 years includes coregencies.)

Dynasty of Isin

   During the reign of Ibbi-Sin of Ur the Elamites made inroads into the land of Shinar. This is the time that Elamite Awan dominated part of Babylonia under its last king.
   The question of the corresponding years between Ibbi-Sin of Ur III and Ishbi-Irra, first king of Isin, has led to many learned articles in all the journals on Near Eastern Studies. The question cannot be determined by itself. Vital information is missing for the earliest years of Ishbi-Irra. The problem can be resolved, however, when combining the known facts with the information contained in Dynasty IV of Kish. Why no historian has ventured to correlate Kish with both dynasties is a mystery: If they had done so, they would have resolved the difficulties.
   The following outline history of the Dynasty of Isin begins with the correlation of Ibbi-Sin's year 24 with Ishbi-Irra's year 14, and year 25 of Ibbi-Sin with year 15 of Ishbi-Irra. This correlation is one of several possibilities commonly espoused. It is, however, the only one which harmonizes with the history of Kish IV — a fact to be proved in a succeeding section.

  
Kings of Isin             Lengths of Reign              Dates    
    
Ishbi-Irra                         33                  1301-1268    
    
Shu-ilishu                         10                  1268-1258    
    
I(d)din-Dagan                      21                  1258-1237    
    
Ishme-Dagan                        20                  1237-1217    
    
Lipit-Ishtar                       11                  1217-1206    
    
Ur-Ninurta                         28                  1206-1178    
    
Bur-Sin                            21                  1178-1157    
    
Lipit-Enlil                         5                  1157-1152    
    
Irra-imitti                         8                  1152-1144    
    
Enlil-bani                         24                  1144-1120    
    
Zambia                              3                  1120-1117    
    
Iter-pisha                          4                  1117-1113    
    
Ur-Dukuga                           4                  1113-1109    
    
Sin-magir                          11                  1109-1098    
    
Damiq-ilishu                       23                  1098-1075    

   In 1075 Damiq-ilishu was overthrown by Rimsin of Larsa, who was in turn overthrown by Hammurabi.
   The above list is the recognized standard for the Dynasty of Isin. Minor variations occur in two documents discussed in the "Journal of Cuneiform Studies", VIII, 4, "New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin." In them the year in which Ishbi-Irra came to power is treated as the accession year — only 32 are assigned him. Ishme-Dagan is given 19 instead of 20, but Bur-Sin is assigned 22 instead of 21. In other documents the last year of Irra-imitti is replaced by a ursurper.

Dynasty IV of Kish and the "400 Years"

   The records of Dynasty IV of Kish are so divergent — and unusual — that no historian or archaeologist would accept them. "Corrupt," "worthless," are the common epithets applied. No one has tested the evidence to see if the accounts are, in fact, true'!
   In the Scheil Text (left) and the Weld-Blundell Prism 444 (right) Dynasties III and IV of Kish appear as follows:

  
Names of Rulers               Scheil Text              W.-B 444    
    
(Dynasty III)    
Ku-Baba, a queen              100 years                 —    
    
(Dynasty IV)    
Puzur-Sin                      25 years                 25 years    
    
Ur-Zababa                       6 years                400 years    
    
Simudar                        30 years                 30 years    
    
Usiwatar                        6 years                  7 years    
    
Ishtarmuti                     11 years                 11 years    
    
Ishme-Shamash                  11 years                 11 years    
    
Nannia                          3 years                  7 years    
  
Total 28 kings — 586 years.    

   The 586 years of the Scheil Text includes the 400 not listed, minus the 6 which is listed: 100 plus 25 plus (400) plus 30 plus 6 plus 11 plus 11 plus 3 equals 586.
   Now compare this with the evidence of the Susa Text. Notice the changed order of kings.

  
Puzur-Sin                      25 years    
    
Ur-Zababa                     400 years    
    
Usiwatar                        6 years    
    
Ishtar-muti                    11 years    
    
Ishme-Shamash                  11 years    
    
Shu-ilishu                     15 years    
  
Simudar                        30 years    

   Who is this Shu-ilishu?
   "This king can be no other than the well known Shu-ilishu of Igin and, comparing the account of the Isin dynasty ... we may perhaps assume that the copyist had a loose, unplaced fragment ..." — and thus Thorkild Jacobsen suggests that a King of Isin was misplaced by a stupid scribe into the Kish IV Dynasty! (See page 108 of his "Sumerian King List", footnote 228.)
   First, consider the mysterious 400 years. This period begins with the end of the reign of Puzur-Sin. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa (in the Schell Text) are a part of the 400 of the other texts. A break in the continuity of the dynasty is clearly indicated by this unusual figure.
   Next, consider the close of the dynasty. One list ends with Nannia — the other with Simudar. Now to assemble these divergent facts.
   Shu-ilishu reigned 10 years after Ishbi-Irra according to the Isin dynastic list. His dates: 1268-1258. The W.-B Prism 444 states Shu-ilishu's total reign as 20 years, but does not count the first 10 in its total. In the Kish list from Susa his reign is given as 15 — that is, 1273-1258. The following charts indicate how the remaining kings fit around the reign of Shu-ilishu.

  
Names of Kings                Lengths of Reign           Dates    
    
Usiwatar                            7                  1291-1284    
    
Ishtarmuti                         11                  1284-1273    
    
Ishme-Shamash                      11                  1273-1262    
    
Nannia                              7                  1262-1255    
    
                              or    
    
Ishtar-muti                        11                  1284-1273    
    
Shu-ilishu                         15                  1273-1258    
    
Nannia                              3                  1258-1255    
    
                              and    
    
Usiwatar                            6                  1291-1285    
    
Simudar                            30                  1285-1255    

   What is the significance of the dates 1291 and 1255? The year 1291 is the date of the overthrow of Mari and the return of the old royal family of Kish to power. And the year 1255 is the date of return of the Chaldeans to power according to Berossus!
   Now place the end of the 400 years in 1255. The beginning of the 400 years brings us to 1655. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa therefore extend from 1655 to 1649. This is shortly before the reign of Sargon "the Great" of Akkad. When Sargon was young he served as cupbearer to Ur-Zababa! (Pallis, "Chronology of Shub-Ad Culture", p. 360). Thus the 400 years have significance after all!
   The reign of Puzur-Sin covers the preceding 25 years: 1680-1655.
   But why should Kish IV have ended abruptly in 1649 and Ur-Zababa been slain? Archaeology answers: Lugal-zaggisi of Erech III overthrew Kish. The inhabitants were sent into exile. Years later Sargon restored the inhabitants to their estates: "Sargon, king of Agade, ... king of Kish .... restored Kish, he ordered them to take again possession of their city" (Pritchard's "Texts", p. 267).
   The year 1649 is also of unusual significance in the history of India. IN THE WINTER OF 1650-1649 THE ASSYRIANS WERE DEFEATED ON THE BORDERS OF INDIA, resulting in collapse of Assyrian confederates in Mesopotamia.

Dynasty of Akshak

   At the time Kish was overthrown Akshak was defeated also. The Dynasty of Akshak appears next.

  
Kings of Akshak           Lengths of Reign       Dates    
    
Unzi                          30                   1748-1718    
    
Undalulu                      12                   1718-1706    
                            (or 6)                (1712-1706)    
    
Ur-ur                          6                   1706-1700    
    
Puzur-Sahan                   20                   1700-1680    
    
Ishuil                        24                   1680-1656    
    
Gimil-Sin                      7                   1656-1649    
                           (or 24)                (1656-1632)    

   Several of the dates are paralleled with others in contemporary dynasties. Year 1748 marks the end of the long reign of Mes-Anne-pada of Dynasty I or Ur. The short reign of 6 years for Uhdalulut second king of Akshak, explains the extra 6 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna of Ur I. In chart form the two kings' reigns appear thus:

  
Mes-kiag-Nunna                30                   1748-1718    
                                                     (Ur I)    
    
Undalulu                      12                   1718-1706    
                                                     (Akshak)    
    
                              or    
    
Mes-kiag-Nunna                36                   1748-1712    
    
Undalulu                       6                   1712-1706    

   But the relationship does not end here. Under Akshak's king Puzur-Sahan aging Queen Ku-Baba of Kish III gained unusual reputation for her "pious deeds." As a result her son Puzur-Sin came to royal estate upon the death of Puzur-Sahan in 1680. (See Pallis' "Shub-Ad Culture", pp. 359-360.) Notice that in the restoration of Kish IV the year 1680 is already marked as the commencement of the reign of Puzur-Sin, the son of Queen Ku-Baba! Here again is harmony among contemporary dynasties. Though Akshak lost power in 1649 the last king, Gimil-Sin (1656-1649), is assigned in the Susa List a total reign of 24 years (1656-1632) to the reign of Sargon of Akkad.

Dates of Queen Ru-Baba

   Only one more Dynasty needs to be firmly established — Kish III. Kish III is famous for a one-time woman wine merchant who became Queen. Her son and grandson ruled during her late years as the first two Kings of Kish's Dynasty IV. Since Dynasty III of Kish is at times listed first and on occasion later than the Dynasty of Akshak, it must have begun at the same time as Akshak. The dates of Kish III are therefore 1748-1648. Who the husband or the father of Queen Ku-Baba may have been is not stated in the lists. That she continued one year after the death (in 1649) of Ur-Zababa, her grandson, is clear from the statement of Sargon. He claims that she adopted him as her own son in place of her own heir now dead (S. Lloyd, "Mesopotamia", page 140).
   It becomes clear with this restoration that Dynasties I and II of Kish are limited to the time between 2254 and 1748, with Kish I ending in the days of Gilgamesh.
   With this account the clouded history of Babylonia to the era of Hammurabi closes. It is a period of nearly twelve centuries of strife division and wars.

Was Keturah Abraham's Wife?

Was Keturah Abraham's Wife?

Analysis of the marriage and ascendancy structure of Abraham's Horite people reveals that the rulers had two wives. The first was a half-sister, as was Sarah to Abraham. The second wife was usually a patrilineal cousin, as was Keturah to Abraham. The wives maintained households in separate settlements on a north-south axis. Sarah resided in Hebron, at the northern edge of Abraham's territory in Edom. Keturah, of the royal line of Sheba, resided at Beersheba to the south. Both Hebron and Beersheba were in the territory that the Greeks called Idumea, which is Edom, the land of red people.


Alice C. Linsley


According to Genesis 25:1, Keturah is described as Abraham’s wife. The word here in Hebrew is ishshah, which means woman or wife. However, according to I Chronicles 1:32, Keturah was Abraham’s concubine. The Hebrew here is piylegesh or piyegesh meaning concubine. Keturah can’t be both a wife and concubine, so which is she?  I Chronicles reflects a time long after the events described and is not consistent with the overwhelming evidence that Keturah was a wife. The confusion may be due to the Chronicles' post-exilic reading of Genesis 25:6: "To the sons of his concubines Abraham made grants during his lifetime, sending them away from his son Isaac..."  It was the custom to sent away sons who would rule. Abraham was himself one of these sent-away sons. So were Moses and Jacob.

Keturah was Abraham's second wife which means that she was his patrilineal cousin who he married at a later age. Analysis of the marriage and ascendency pattern of Abraham’s people makes it clear that Keturah was a wife. Rulers among Abraham’s Kushite people had two wives. The first wife was the wife of the man's youth and his half-sister (as was Sarah to Abraham). The second wife was a patrilineal cousin or niece (as was Keturah to Abraham).

The name "Ketu-rah" refers to the Ketu division of the Jebusites. The Jebusites had two main divisions: the Nago-Jebu and the Ketu-Jebu. Of the Ketu-Jebu there is a good deal of information in Genesis. This division resided in Palestine and Arabia. Abraham payed tribute to the Ketu-Jebu priest Melchizedek, who was the ruler of the Jebusite city of Salem (Jerusalem). Ketu-rah was of this division of Jebu, as evidenced by her name. She resided at Beer-Sheba, which took its name from the great patriarch Sheba who controlled the well there. (Beer means well.) Ketu-rah's firstborn son was Joktan, the progentior of the Joktanite clans of Arabia. So the clans of Jebu, Sheba and Joktan are related, but what was their western boundary? It appears fromhistorical records that it was in Nigeria at the confluence of the Niger and Benue rivers which in the time of Abraham's ancestors were very great rivers.


Abraham and Keturah are descendants of Sheba, the great grandson of Ham. They are also descendants of Shem, as the lines of Shem and Ham intermarried. Sheba was a contemporary of Eber, Shem's great grandson. Eber’s son Joktan married a daughter of Sheba. We know this because Joktan’s first-born son was named Sheba, after his cousin bride’s father. This naming prerogative of the cousin bride was already a custom in the time of Lamech (Gen. 4). Lamech’s daughter Naamah married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah and named their firstborn son Lamech after her father.  Lamech the Younger would ascend to the throne of his maternal grandfather.
 
 

Keturah likewise named her first-born son Joktan, after her father. So Abraham had two first-born sons by his wives: Isaac and Joktan. He also had firstborn sons by his two concubines Masek and Hagar. By Masek he had Eliezar and by Hagar he had Ishmael. Contrary to common belief, Ishmael was not Abraham's firstborn.

The assumption that Keturah was a concubine runs contrary to the biblical information about her relationship to Abraham and her status. Instead, we should recognize that Keturah and Sarah were wives whose firstborns sons would rule over different territories. Hagar and Masek were Abraham's concubines whose subordinate status we can discern from studying Jacob's relationship to Bilhah and Zilpah and the subordinate status of their sons to the firstborn sons of Rachel (Joseph) and Leah (Reu-ben).


The Pattern of Keturah Parallels the Pattern of Naamah

According to Gen. 10:24-30, Keturah’s father had a brother named Peleg. The text makes much of the implications of Peleg’s name which means “division”, “because it was in his time that the earth was divided” (Gen. 10:25). There are different possible explanations for this division, but the most likely is that expressed in the pattern of genealogical information. The daughter of Sheba who married Joktan and named her firstborn son Sheba is the last bride named of Ham’s line. In this respect she parallels Naamah, the last bride named of Cain’s line.

Ketu-rah’s father was Joktan and her paternal uncle was Peleg, who is said to be the “first” son. This means that Joktan, like Abraham, was not to receive the rights of primogeniture by which he would become chief after his father’s death. So Joktan, Abraham’s firstborn by Ketu-rah, would not be chief after his death. That would fall to Isaac, the son of Sarah. Nevertheless the Joktanites would become a powerful presence in the Sinai and by their skills and generosity would enable the Israelites to come out of Egypt and survive in the wilderness.

Genesis 10: 26 tells us that Joktan had 13 sons. Almodad appears to be the first-born, as his name is listed first. If Joktan followed the pattern of his fathers, his two wives would have maintained separate households on a north-south axis. This may be the meaning of the sites mentioned in Gen. 10:30: Mesha and Sephar, although “sephar,’ which means “numbering,” might refer to the cosmology of Abraham’s people rather than to a specific location.

Some of the descendants of Joktan and Sheba hold an annual autumn feast at an oasis in the wilderness to celebrate the date harvest. This is the one time of the year that women and men may dance together. Thedate palm (“tamar”) is a symbol of prosperity and fertility. The ‘Id el-Tamar is a festival when the unmarried check out the pool of available matches. As is the custom from time immemorial, wife selection takes place at a well or an oasis.

The Evidence of the Well

Wells and oases are where boy meets girl in the Bible. There are several incidents of wives being found at wells. Abraham’s servant found Rebecca at a well. Moses met Zipporah, his future wife, at a Midianite well. In none of these stories is the woman a concubine. Keturah could not have been a concubine because Abraham met her at the well of Sheba (Beer-Sheba) according to the pattern of wives.

The Horite priests among Abraham's people established their shrines near rivers and wells. They needed the water to sustain their flocks and it was from these flocks and herds that they selected animals to sacrifice.  The evidence of the Bible indicates that the rulers among Abaham's people married the daughters of priests. Moses married Zipporah, the daughter of a priest named Jethro. He was of the clan of Midian. Midian was another son born to Abraham by Ketu-rah.
Abraham had nine sons, according to the Septuagint. Here is a list of sons:

Sarah, daughter of Terah (Gen. 20:12)
Yitzak (Issac)

Hagar the Egyptian (Sarah’s handmaid)
Yismael (Ishmael) was Egyptian, since ethnicity was traced through the mother and Hagar was Egyptian.  Tracing ethnicity through the mother rather than the father is still required to establish Jewish identity today. This pattern is recognized in Egypt as well, which is why the Egyptian government has made it illegal for Egyptian men to marry Jewish women.

Ketu-rah, daughter of Joktan (Gen. 25)
Yisbak
Joktan – Keturah’s firstborn son
Midian
Zimran
Medan
Shuah

Masek (Keturah’s handmaid)
Eliezar of Damascus

Related reading:  The Nigerian Boundary of the Jebu-Sheba-Joktan Confederation; Abraham's Sons; Who was Eliezar of Damascus?; Abraham's Two Concubines

magog china

China: The Next Superpower.” “China: America’s Number-One Enemy.”

Such headlines have become common. It is logical that the nation with nearly 20 percent of the world’s population, the second-biggest economy and the biggest military (in terms of manpower) would inspire such discussion.

But will China become the world’s next superpower? The truth is, you cannot knowChina’s future unless you understand that nation’s identity in the Bible, the only source that can reveal the answer!

Yes, if you believe the Bible, you can actually know for certain—without a doubt—who will dominate the world very shortly!

Hundreds of think tanks spend countless hours and vast sums of money in search of an answer to this question. Yet, the Bible reveals the answer—if they would only believe!

The Bible is a book primarily about Israel, physical and spiritual. When other nations are mentioned, it is typically in relation to Israel. In biblical times, the interaction between the Chinese and the Israelites was of no major consequence, and so China was rarely mentioned.

However, the Bible does speak prophetically of China’s role in end-time events. Technological advances in communication and trade have shrunken the distance between China and the modern descendants of Israel considerably (for an explanation of who these nations are, request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy). Today China has considerable global influence: Witness, for example, the amount of U.S. debt China holds and the huge trade imbalance between the two nations, and the fact that China is the world’s most dominant trading nation.

An understanding of these prophecies hinges on knowing the biblical identity of the Chinese people. Before delving into this, however, we must gain a basic overview of Chinese history.

A Brief History of a Great People

The Chinese people comprise one dominant ethnic group and many small minorities. The ethnic Han comprise more than 90 percent of the 1.3 billion people living in China. Though minority ethnic groups—such as the Uygurs, Tibetans, Mongols and Manchu—make up a small percentage of the Chinese population, in absolute numbers they are still large populations. For example, there are actually more Mongols living in China than in Mongolia.

These other ethnic groups have been absorbed into China through conquest by the Han Chinese. The Han have long dominated the heartland of China, usually defined by the Yellow River in the north, the Yangtze in the middle and the Pearl River on the south. This rich agricultural region is surrounded by border regions occupied by non-Han peoples, such as Tibet, Xinjiang (home of the Muslim Uighurs), Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, the historical name given to the territory north of North Korea.

Historically, fierce nomadic cavalry armies from the northern border regions have posed a difficult challenge to the agriculture-based Chinese. The incursions motivated the building of the Great Wall.

When the Han were strong, just like today, the border regions were under their rule. When they were weak, they lost control of those buffer regions and in some cases were even invaded by their Turkic and Mongol neighbors.

The foreign invaders all achieved measures of success, controlling portions of Chinese territory for various periods, mainly in northern China. The most complete conquest was the Mongol invasion started by Genghis Khan in the A.D. 1200s: The resulting dynasty fully controlled China for a century.

All these invasions had one thing in common, however: They all met their end by the Han Chinese.

No matter which foreign invader occupied the throne, China always remained Chinese.

One remarkable demonstration of the resilience of their society and culture was the survival, amid all the invasions, of the Chinese language—a feat few other languages have managed.

This was partly due to the size of the Han population. In A.D. 2, the first available census shows a Chinese population of about 60 million, one fourth of the world’s population at the time!

To better rule this immense population, nomadic invaders typically adopted Chinese administration techniques and the Chinese language, a language quite unrelated to their own. Eventually their descendents adopted Chinese culture and the agricultural lifestyle as well. When the Han reasserted themselves, they easily absorbed the invaders that remained.

All the mixing and migrating of different peoples has made it impossible to characterize what a pure ethnic Han is. Nevertheless, prophetically speaking, China refers to all the people of China, not just the Han ethnic group. And at any rate, the Chinese and all the minority groups living in China are of the Mongoloid race, which stems from Noah’s son Japheth.

The Mongoloid Race

As Herbert W. Armstrong taught throughout his ministry, Noah’s son Japheth married a woman of the yellow race, and went on to father the Mongoloid people. The Hebrew word Japheth means enlargement, according to The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary,and a glance at the modern world shows that the Oriental populations have been enlarged and multiplied to an unparalleled degree. Japheth’s descendants have long been the most populous people on Earth, with the bulk living in China, Southeast Asia and Japan.

Genesis 10:2-5 show that the enlargement of Japheth began with the patriarch himself siring seven sons and an untold number of daughters. Obviously, these sons and daughters were a mix between the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races, the latter of which grew more definitive in subsequent generations. Soon after the dispersion at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:8), Japheth’s descendants migrated through Central Asia to the lands they occupy now.

One of the seven sons of Japheth bears special importance to the prophetic identity of the Chinese and even their nomadic neighbors. That is Magog, the second son of Japheth mentioned in Genesis 10:2.

Where Did Magog Go?

Again, the Bible deals primarily with Israel. Since Magog’s descendants migrated to an area largely independent of the civilizations developing in the Middle East, no sons of Magog are listed in Scripture.

However, Jewish historian Josephus indicated where Magog’s descendants settled. He wrote in the first century, “Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians” (The Complete Works of Josephus).

In a prophecy in Ezekiel 38, the Bible labels this vast territory of northern Eurasia where the Scyths lived—a region that stretched from the Russian steppes east into modern-day China and Mongolia—as Magog.

This territory contained many different tribes of people of the white and yellow races, all of whom were called Scyths or Scythians by the Greeks (see last month’s installment in this series). The Ezekiel 38 prophecy demonstrates this as well, listing numerous nations and peoples associated with or dwelling “in the land of Magog.” The people who most prominently settled this land are typically identified as Mongolic and Turkic. The name Mongol is even derived from the name Magog.

The ancient history of this land is a story about different Turkic and Mongolic tribes vying for control of the area. Whenever a tribe grew strong enough, it would rule the area; in rare cases—such as with the Huns, Seljuk Turks and Mongols—if these nomadic tribes consolidated enough power, they conquered lands beyond their own.

The resulting conquests led to much cultural and genetic intermixing with the people of Central Asia—and makes their national borders largely irrelevant to defining their ethnic backgrounds.

Today the land the Bible calls Magog is dominated in the west by Russia—which is reasserting control over the region it once possessed through the USSR—and China in the east.

Details of the ancient history of Magog and its people remain obscure since the Turks and Mongols didn’t develop a written language until after their contact with the Chinese or Persian civilizations. Though these nomadic peoples have a sketchy history, they still play an important role in understanding China’s prophetic role.

While the Mongols’ connection to Magog is most obvious, they were just one tribe of a related people that carry the biblical name Magog. Ezekiel 38 is a prophecy about the land of Magog and all the distant “cousins” that live there and are associated with each other, such as the Russians and Chinese. One of the Mongolic nomadic tribes in this area bears a special relationship with China. They are the Khitan, a people responsible for China’s modern name and one of China’s biblical names, Chittim.

China Is Chittim

Isaiah 23:1 has a prophecy about “the land of Chittim.” To which modern nation does this end-time prophecy apply? This biblical name refers to both the island of Cyprus and to the nation of China, whose progenitors first populated Cyprus and gave it its name.

Jewish historian Josephus records that some descendants of Japheth—such as the families of Gomer, Tubal and Togarmah—first settled in southern Europe before migrating east into Asia. Kittim was one such family, originally settling lands to the west of Mesopotamia before moving to the Far East.

Genesis 10:4 lists the sons of Japheth’s fourth-born son: “The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim” (New King James Version). Kittim is synonymous with the Chittim of Isaiah’s prophecy. Verse 5 mentions that these sons of Javan settled the isles, or the coasts. This occurred shortly after the dispersion of the Tower of Babel, when the sons of Javan migrated to the northern Mediterranean. These tribes gave their names to various cities and islands, such as Cyprus and Rhodes.

The Mongoloid types of these families, including the Kittim, did not stay in the Mediterranean, however. Over hundreds of years and many generations, some of these families migrated east into Asia from Cyprus, where they are found today, according to research by Dr. Ernest Martin, formerly of Ambassador College.

The descendants of Javan’s son Kittim came to Asia some time after many of their cousins had already settled there. After their migration through Central Asia, the Kittim made their appearance in modern-day northern China and Mongolia under the name Khitan in the fourth century A.D. In the 10th century, the Khitan people managed to create a dynasty that subjugated the peoples, including the Chinese, in modern-day northern China. Their territory stretched from what is now Korea to eastern Kazakhstan, including Beijing, the seat of government in China today.

Because the Khitans controlled the overland trade and communication route from China through Central Asia to Europe, China was called Cathay, after the Khitans. The designation first applied to north China, but later designated all of China. It is a name the Russians still use for China today.

Isaiah 23:1-3 reveal that Chittim, modern-day China, will form a part of a global economic market along with Europe, one that is prophesied to shut out the nations of Israel. It should be no surprise that China will be an integral part of this economic partnership with Europe, as it is now the world’s greatest exporter. These two trading blocs will soon dominate the global economy!

The history of the Khitan demonstrates what has happened to many of the Mongolic tribes that once roamed the western portions of what the Bible calls Magog. These nomadic tribes were not considered Chinese when they were conquering the Han civilization, but after centuries of living inside China’s borders, much of their populations have been ethnically absorbed by the Han Chinese. Whatever remnants of these Mongolic nomads that have managed to remain distinct, such as the Mongols, are now classified as ethnic minorities in China.

In the Khitan’s case, their absorption was so complete that an ethnic minority group from their descendants doesn’t even exist!

The history of these nomads shows just how strong a connection China has with biblical Magog. To a certain degree, they even share the same borders and the same people. But if this explains the Mongolic nomads whose descendants now live in northern China, what about the original Han people who settled and continue to live in China’s heartland?

Handling the Han

The history of the Han Chinese is much less obscure. In fact, the Han people record their history all the way back to the time of the Tower of Babel!

Ancient Chinese records speak of China’s first emperors, Yaou, Shun and Yu.

One such record, The Shoo King, explains that one of Yaou’s tasks was to deal with the effects of a great flood that ravaged the land: “Destructive in their overflow are the waters of the inundation. In their vast extent they embrace the mountains and overtop the hills.”

While scholars explain the inundation as a local flood in China, it is clear from the biblical account, God’s sacred Word, that these annals are talking about Noah’s Flood. Consider:

During Yaou’s lifetime a new leader, Shun, came to power. According to another ancient Chinese manuscript, The Bamboo Annals, Shun is described as having a “black body.” He was obviously not Chinese, and his mother was called “the queen mother of the west,” indicating him as a foreigner. The Shoo King gives the name of Shun’s father as Koo-sow.

According to Dr. Herman Hoeh’s Compendium of World History, this Shun was none other than the Nimrod of the Bible. Therefore Koo-sow, which can also be spelledKusou, is Nimrod’s father Cush! And the “queen mother of the west” can only be Semiramis. She was the mother-wife of Nimrod who called herself “queen of heaven,” as documented in Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons. These are the three principal figures of man’s rebellion at the Tower of Babel.

Nimrod was a son of Cush and therefore of the black race. The Bible describes him as a mighty rebellious leader who caused the people to revolt against God shortly after the Flood (Genesis 10:8-9). He gathered the different races and peoples together to build the Tower of Babel, but was stopped when God intervened and confused the languages (Genesis 11:1-7). The different races and peoples were then scattered to different areas of the world (verse 8).

At that point, Yu became the next ruler. Yu, China’s first great hero, founded the Xia dynasty; from that point forward, leadership was given on a hereditary basis. The return of government to a Chinese ruler indicates that the Chinese immediately left the area of Babel and broke free from Nimrod and his successors’ rule. Under Chinese rulers, they migrated to their modern-day location.

The chronology as presented by The Shoo King places the rules of these three kings toward the end of the third millennia B.C. (The Chinese Classics). This time frame also agrees with the Bible.

The Chinese have preserved the most complete secular history of their civilization, dating back more than 4,000 years. There is a lot of myth and legend included as well, but the general chronology of emperors is verified by archeological finds, as well as what is recorded in Scripture.

Archeological Proof

Western scholars and the Chinese themselves, heavily influenced by Western thought after the 1920s, believed the Xia dynasty and the history immediately following were mere inventions, mythical heroes and kingdoms.

However, an archeological find in 1959 at Erlitou in the western part of the Henan province revealed an early Chinese society dating back to the same time and place thatThe Shoo King records the Xia dynasty existed! The city found at Erlitou is the largest of all cities found dating to this time period and is believed to be the capital city of the Xia government.