New Chronology
"The Genesis of Civilisation"
Conclusions to help support the New Chronology Theories by David Rohl
Part One:
From the Mists of Time: The Geography of Genesis
Conclusion 1:
The four rivers of [Eden named in] Genesis 2:10-14 [rise in the Caucasus, in greater Armenia, and] are the Kezel Uizhun (Heb. Pishon), the Gaihun/Aras (Heb. Gihon), the Tigris (Heb. Hiddekel) and the Euphrates (Heb. Perath).
Conclusion 2:
The biblical land of Cush [Genesis 2:13] was located in Azerbaijan whilst the land of Havilah [Genesis 2:11] was located in the Iranian mountain region now known as Anguran.
Conclusion 3:
The biblical Garden of Eden is to be identified with the Adji Chay valley (formerly known as the Meidan valley) in north-west Iran at the heart of which is the regional capital of Tabriz.
Conclusion 4:
The Land of Nod [Genesis 4:16] was located in the plain west of the Elburz mountains around the city of Ardabil.
Conclusion 5:
The lost kingdom of Aratta, mentioned in the earliest Sumerian epics [as a land rich in timber, mineral wealth, and gemstones, inhabited by people with the same language as the Sumerians, and the mountain source of at least some Sumerian deities], is to be [identified with Urartu / Ararat and] located within the Miyandoab plain to the south of Lake Urmia in greater Armenia [within the boundaries of Eden].
Conclusion 6:
With the Garden of Eden located in the Adji Chay valley and the Aratta identified with the Miyandoab plain, the extinct volcano overlooking both legendary places takes on a new significance. Mount Sahand may once have been seen as the "bright mountain" of the heavenly assembly of Sumerian tradition and therefore the "Mountain of God" of the later biblical tradition.
Part Two:
The Mighty Heroes: Civilisation's Rise in the Heartland of Sumer
Conclusion 7:
The archaeological evidence from prehistory suggests that the "Neolithic Revolution" originated in the Zagros mountains [source of the Hiddekel, Sumerian Idiglat, i.e., the Tigris] and gradually transferred to the Mesopotamian plain. The early Genesis narratives reflect this movement of the progenitors of civilisation down from the eastern highlands into the alluvial lowlands during the fifth millennium BC.
Conclusion 8:
The use of the term "Sumerian" to describe the earliest written language of Mesopotamia, does not define the ethnicity of the first people to settle in the Mesopotamian plain. There is evidence in local toponyms [place-names] of an earlier language which must be linked with these settlers. The fact that the Akkadian-speaking peoples referred to the "land of Sumer" does not presuppose that the original occupiers of that land spoke Sumerian. Indeed, it is possible that the language known as Sumerian was not the spoken tongue of the people classified by both modern scholars and ancient writers as the "Sumerians".
Conclusion 9:
The people of Sumer may have been designated "Sumerians" after Shem, son of Noah, who was remembered as the eponymous [name-giving] ancestor of those who reoccupied biblical Shinar following the destruction of the antediluvian cities during the Mesopotamian flood. The name Shumer is therefore an eponym [a bestowed rather than original name].
Conclusion 10:
The appearance of Ubaid pottery marks the arrival of Eden's tribal groups into the southern lowlands of Mesopotamia - a region which would only later acquire the name Sumer, following the flood and resettlement.
Conclusion 11:
Noah's ark did not come to rest in the highlands of Armenia far to the north of the alluvial plain, as in the late Christian tradition. Mount Ararat [in Turkey] is not, therefore, to be identified as the Place of Descent. The peak of Judi Dagh, bordering upon the Mesopotamian lowlands in the region later known as Assyria is, in fact, the original traditional site of the ark's landing as stated by numerous early authorities.
Conclusion 12:
Gilgamesh, the fifth king of the First Dynasty of Uruk, is to be located in the Early Dynastic I Period [c. 2900-2700 BE, OC; 2700-2500 BCE, NC] rather than the Early Dynastic III phase [c. 2600-2340 BCE, OC; 2400-2140, NC] as is the currently held view. [This is a key to the date of the Deluge, which preceded the time of Gilgamesh by several generations.]
Conclusion 13:
The era of Enmerkar's rule in Uruk is not to be placed in the ED I or ED II but rather in the late Uruk Period, also known as the Proto-literate period [c. 3500-3200 BCE, OC; 3100-2500 BCE, NC. The Deluge also preceded the reign of Enmerkar, in whose time - according to tradition - writing originated].
Conclusion 14:
What we know from the book of Genesis as Noah's flood was probably an actual historical event which took place not long before the appearance of wheel-thrown pottery and writing in the ancient Near East. This catastrophic flood brought an end to the Ubaid culture and acted as a catalyst for the rapid development of civilisation in the succeeding Uruk period. [The NC places the Flood in c. 3100 BCE.]
Conclusion 15:
Several of the early Sumerian cities seem to have been named after their eponymous founders. They appear in Genesis 4-5 as the antediluvian ancestors of Abraham.
Conclusion 16:
The Sumerian legends surrounding Adapa, the sage of Eridu, contain several literary elements which parallel the biblical story of Adam.
Conclusion 17:
Yahweh of the Old Testament was known to the Semitic tribes of Mesopotamia as Ea [West Semitic Eyah] and to the Sumerians as Enki.
Conclusion 18:
Eve is closely associated with the Sumerian high goddess Ninhursag through her epithet "Mother of All the Living" [Genesis 3:20].
Conclusion 19:
The first two legendary kings of the Uruk I Dynasty - Meskiagkasher and Enmerkar - are to be identified with the heroes of Genesis known as Cush and Nimrod.
Conclusion 20:
The first platform temple [the model of the "Tower of Babel"] was that constructed at Eridu (Sumerian Nun.ki) rather than the much later ziggurat of Babylon (Akk. Bab ilu but Sum. Nun.ki). The mistaken identification of the tower of Babel is further evidence that some of the original sources for the Genesis composition were Sumerian.
Conclusion 21:
The island of Bahrain [with its huge burial grounds] represents the legendary Isle [or Abode] of the Blessed - the idealised place of burial for the Sumerian people and their gods.
Conclusion 22:
There were perhaps two Dilmuns [Sumerian homelands]: an original "prehistoric Dilmun beyond the Zagros mountains and "historic" Dilmun island [Bahrain] which was only later founded by the descendents of the ancestral Dilmunites descending from the mountains.
Part Three:
The Followers of Horus: The Origins of Egyptian Civilisation
Conclusion 23:
The high-prowed boats, so typical of the pre-dynastic rock-art of the Eastern [Egyptian] Desert, seem to have derived from Sumerian prototypes of the Protoliterate period (Uruk IV and Jemdet Nasr [c. 3300-2900 BCE, OC; 2900-2700 BCE, NC]). Their design is not Nilotic. The ships would appear to be designed for both river and sea usage, their fabric being almost certainly reed bundles coated in bitumen.
Conclusion 24:
The appearance of Mesopotamian culture in Egypt was instigated by sea trading activities between the Persian Gulf and north-east Africa.
Conclusion 25:
There is considerable evidence to suggest that the people known as the Phoenicians once inhabited the Islands of Bahrain. In effect, they were once and the same as the ancient Dilmunites. However, the Egyptians knew them as the Poen - the people of God's Land (Ta-Netjer) the mysterious land of Punt.
Conclusion 26:
There is clear archaeological evidence for an influx of foreigners into the Nile valley in the Nakada II Period. These people introduced new technologies - particularly in warfare - and buried their deceased in a different way to the Nile valley folk of Nakada I. Anthropological examinations of the two burial populations show marked differences, with the newcomers of Nakada II exhibiting Armenoid characteristics indicating Zagros mountain origins. The artefacts and art of the Nakada II élite graves confirm that these foreigners were culturally connected and contemporary with the Square-Boat people [of the Eastern Desert rock art].
Conclusion 27:
The most dramatic evidence of Sumerian technological, artistic and religious influence in the Nile valley was the introduction of niched-façade architecture. It is highly improbable that such specialised building techniques were independently invented in two such widely-separated regions at the same historical period without cultural transmission.
Conclusion 28:
The early Mesopotamian flood hero, known as Ziusudra ["Far-Distant Ziu"] or Atrahasis [Atrahasis ruku, "Far-Distant Atrahasis"], may be mythologically connected in some way with the Egyptian solar sky-god known as Har (Horus) - "the far distant".
Conclusion 29:
Ptah, the great creator-god of the Egyptians, may be equated with the Sumerian creator-god, Enki, whose primeval temple was built by the waters of the abzu at Eridu. This sacred place was known to the Egyptians by its ancient Sumerian name of Nun.
Conclusion 30:
The heraldic plant motif of Upper Egypt [the seshen, Hebrew shoshan] is a lily which grows only in temperate mountain zones. This royal symbol is clear evidence of the foreign origins of the first pharaohs.
Conclusion 31:
The journey to the Isle of Flame, so crucial to the resurrection cycle of Egyptian mythology, is a return voyage to the Persian Gulf. The pharaoh must return along the dark river of the underworld to the island of Bahrain where the predynastic ancestral gods originated. There he joins the great ancestor, Utnapishtim "the far distant" - the first of the Horus rulers and descendant of the high-god Atum.