Mystery of Sumerian kings Text solved: Sumerian kings reigned in days, NOT YEARS

The Sumerian king list: translation
Citing only in part:

1-39 After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years. En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years. Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years. 3 kings; they ruled for 108000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Larag. In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 years. 1 king; he ruled for 28800 years. Then Larag fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Zimbir. In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 years. 1 king; he ruled for 21000 years. Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag. In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years. 1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 years. Then the flood swept over.

Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford 1998- .



http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm

U le’u akannaka sattu gabbi - the scribe and the [engraved] record are there the entire year The Assyrian Dictionary (University of Chicago), p.157

http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/cad_tet.pdf

Sattisamma - year by year p.122

It seems that the proper word for "year", rather than a simple measure of time of an unknown factor, does not appear in the Akkadian chronology for it to be translated as "year" or such.

The word "year", not being a variant of sattu in the relevant texts below...are translated as to what appears to be an original intent of the scribe...an approximation of "days" is the logically correct translation...often in forms of one hundred as the measure of rounding up or down...based on reconstructing the corruption of the texts.


The chronology of the list of Sumerian kings is resolved by a better translation, reconstruction of corrupt texts to original intent, and a placing of that chronology upon the accuracy of the Biblical chronology.

1-39

After the kingship descended from heaven, 2348 B.C.
{after Noah’s ark}
the kingship was in Eridug.

The word for heaven, might easily be read as that which was first intended as waters from above...or, 'after that the [Noachian] flood receded". If this is the intent, there may have to be an adjustment to create a family (grandchildren and great grand-children) of Noah. This adjustment can be as little as 15 to as many as 50 years. All you need is a son of Shem intercoursing with two of his sisters or cousins for the clock to start ticking...if we were to take that approach. But the best we can do with the text, for now, is just a generalized reconstruction...until a better or comparative copy from antiquity surfaces.


In Eridug,
Alulim became king;

he ruled for 28800 {DAYS}. 78 years 10 months 2348 to 2269 B.C.

Alaljar ruled for 36000 {DAYS}. 98 years 6 months 2269 to 2171 B.C.

[some 22-30 years after 2269 B.C., the earth is divided]

2 kings; they ruled for 64800 {DAYS}. 177 years, 4 months -- ending 2171 B.C.


Then falling over to Eridug
Taking (into account) the kingship (in regard to) Bad-tibira.



In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 {DAYS}. 118 years, 3 months 2348 to 2230 B.C.

En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 {DAYS}. 78 years 10 months -- 2230 to 2151 B.C.


Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 {DAYS}.
98 years, 6 months -- 2151 to 2053 B.C.


3 kings; they ruled for 108000 {DAYS}. 295 years, 7 months


Then falling over to Bad-tibira
Taking (into account) the kingship (in regard to) Larag.

In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 {DAYS}. 78 years, 10 months -- 2053 to 1974 B.C.


1 king; he ruled for 28800 {DAYS}. 78 years, 10 months

Then falling over to Larag
Taking (into account) the kingship (in regard to) Zimbir.

In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 {DAYS}. 57 years, 6 months -- 1974 to 1917 B.C.

1 king; he ruled for 21000 years. 57 years, 6 months


Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag.

In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 {DAYS} 50 years, 11 months -- 1917 to 1866 B.C.

1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. 50 years, 11 months


In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 {DAYS}. 660 years, 3 months

However, the actual length breaks down to something like 482 years of existence, with 364 years of some kind of regional domination...both having their point of reference as ending 1866 B.C.

There may have to be some adjustment in the dating and translation regarding Eridug. The alternate scenario would have usregard the first de facto ruler as in 2230 B.C. as the date immediately following the fall of Babel, while dating Babel to within a decade of the Biblical expectancy.


"Then the flood swept over."

That is, here in this instance, "wiping the slate clean."

It is an expression of resoftening the clay, so that it can be reused for writing...or telling us that a new accounting, or sub-history, or of those with lesser titles, is taking place.

Therefore, we are next prepared for sub-kings, district lords, or first administrators of their provinces during the period following that up to this point. The Sumerian structure had essentially disintegrated by 1866 B.C., according to this timeline of the Sumerians, which dating is verified against the Bible timeline. But, like the vice-regent duality lists known to Manetho, who counted second in commands as if they too were Pharoahs…so also does this Sumerian account offer confusion in the number of what are reckoned as their own leaders. The list appears to be composed in or very shortly following 1720 B.C.



1866 - 1799 B.C.
(40-94) After the [same] flood [as listed above] had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kic. In Kic, Jucur became king; he ruled for 1200 {DAYS}. etc.

... 23 kings; they ruled for 24510 {Days} ...Then Kic was defeated and the kingship was taken to E-ana. -- 67 years,1 month

...

1799 - 1793 B.C. / The Hyksos now invading Egypt, by my reconstruction of the Exodus timeline, textually provable by Greek history preserved by Patristics, and the Bible.


(95-133) In E-ana, Mec-ki-aj-gacer, the son of Utu, became lord and king; he ruled for 324 {Days}. etc.

...12 kings; they ruled for 2310 {Days}. Then Unug was defeated and the kingship was taken to Urim. -- 6 years, 4 months
...


(378-431) A total of 39 kings ruled for 14409 {Days}...in Kic.
That is, 39 years, 5 months or 1793 - 1754 B.C. in Kic.

A total of 22 kings ruled for 2610 {days}... in Unug.-- 7 years, 2 months or 1793 to 1786 B.C. in Unug

...A total of 134 kings, who altogether ruled for 28876 {days}

-- That is, 79 years or 1799 to 1720 B.C.

By this above reconstruction, edited down, we can see that the Akkadian / Old Babylonian / Sumerian vacuum was present in 1866 B.C.

If the Akkadians are any rule of measure to the Hittite issue...of the debate that sometimes arises as to precisely when the Hitites had their zenith in ancient history...we can say that the likelihood of the zenith of the Hittites was between 1866 B.C., to a point beyond 1720 B.C. on just the Sumerian texts alone.

With the Akkadian collapse, the uniting of bands in the Hittites would have allowed the prospering and dominance from the Lebanese Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates river for hundreds of years, while being beyond the permanent logistically supported presence of an Egyptian army seeking to subjugate the same region.



In comparison, the nation of Israel's pre-Exodus Chronology is thus:
(Egyptian kings termed by the Greek names given them by their own historian Manetho. -- Brianroy).


Genesis 11:26 - Abram is born as one of a set of triplets in 2056 B.C.

Abram first enters Keme / Egypt in 1986 B.C.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ca. 1980 - 1960 B.C.

Isaac is born in 1956 B.C.

Esau and Jacob are born in 1896 B.C.

Abraham dies in 1881 B.C.

Joseph is born in 1804 B.C.

Beon succeeds Salatis as Hyksos ruler of the recent conquest of Keme / Egypt in 1791 B.C.

The lands being conquered are to be distinguished from Theban controlled Egypt. The Hyksos controlled only from Memphis and points north into the still forming Nile Delta regions.

A simultaneous Theban House of Egypt ruled in the south, and were part of the 330 of the Herodotan reference, though these rulers (and their vice regents who were also part of the 330 number used by Herodotus) ran simultaneously with the Hyksos rulers in the north.

Isaac dies in 1776 B.C.

Joseph receives Jacob and the house of Israel in 1766 B.C.

Apachnas succeeds Beon in 1747 B.C.

[The Assyrian Chronology ends in 1720 B.C., and the Hitites out of Modern Turkey now control the regions of Northern Iraq and through the the Levant as far south as Galilee, and co-exist peacefully in regions south of that...or perhaps rich merchants and traders from the Hittites so do.]

Apophis succeeds Apachnas in 1711 B.C.

Joseph, the son of Jacob and servant of Israel who was known of Apophis, dies in 1694 B.C.

Jonias, the "Pharoah" who knew not Joseph, succeeds Apophis, in 1650 B.C.

It is at this point, between 1650 and 1646 B.C., that the indentured servitude of the House of Israel begins, in which the Hebrews must forcibly work off their debts as a result of borrowing to feed and house the average family which regenerated at a rate of 5 sons every 30 years or so.

The massacre of the Hebrew boys occurs in 1631 B.C.

Moses is formerly adopted as an heir to the throne by 1628 B.C.

The wars of Moses in behalf of the Hyksos in Egypt was circa 1597 B.C.

Assiss assumes the throne of the Hyksos in 1595 B.C.

Moses receives his mandate in the wilderness to deliver Israel, no later than (Rosh HaShana) 1552 B.C.

The deliverance of Israel out of Egypt through the Red Sea in 1551 B.C.

More Data and Considerations on Dating the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt

The Eruption of Thera: Date and Implications From the Thera Foundation
http://www.therafoundation.org/articles/chronololy/theeruptionoftheradateandimplications calls for a rethinking of chronology.

From past radiocarbon dates, and the shape of the calibration curve between c. 1625-1525 BC, there appear two possible results: an ambiguous result compatible with both a high or lower chronology ... or that including a result compatible with the 17th century BC radiocarbon analysis.

The weighted average from the five dates with carbon-13 normalization in the central 12 (P-2791, P-2793, P-2795, K-3228, K-4225) is c. 3351 ± 32 BP. Calibrated on the Pearson and Stuiver (1986) curve this yields: c. 1687-1618 BC. The weighted mean of the five dates on samples pre-treated with NaOH in the central 12 (P-1889, P-1892, P-1894, K-3228, K-4225) is c. 3330 ± 25 BP. Calibrated on the Pearson and Stuiver (1986) curve this yields c. 1676-1609, 1552-1547 BC. [/b]

1552-1547 B.C. - for those trusting Carbon dating; or within 150 years for those that don't as much (from 1687 or 1676 B.C. worst case scenario), still puts 1551 B.C. as more highly likely than a 1400s dated Exodus. That is, Santorini / Thera may well have blown (like Krakatoa) and contributed to the Exodus events in Egypt after all.


James B. Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" Princeton, 1969, lists on pp. 252-253 the stela of the Seti family at Tanis, dedicated by Ramesses II, in which he lists his family struggle as Ra / Re 's representative as being 400 years old.

...(5) His majesty commanded the making of a great stela of granite bearing the great name of his fathers, in order to set up the name of the father of his fathers (and of) the King Men-maat-Re, the Son of Re: Seti Mer-ne-Ptah, (Seti I) and abiding forever like Re every day: Year 400, 4th month of the third season, day 4,' of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt....

That is, beginning 400 years prior, Ram II's ancestor was a high priest of Ra/Re who sparked the revolt against the Hyksos. Depending on when we date the stela, this will determine when the revolts of Egypt against the Hyksos began...and it took many decades to succeed.

on p.231, we read a proclamation which says:

"...since the Asiatics [the Hyksos] were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland, and vagabonds [the Hebrews] were in the midst of them, overthrowing that which had been made. They ruled without Re, and he did not act by divine command down to (the reign of) my majesty. (Now) I am established upon the thrones of Re...."


The Jews are listed in Egyptian terminology, not as Jews or Asiatics, but as bums and vagabonds (depending upon the translator). Have Egyptologists followed upon this "vagabond" terminology...the ones who were in the midst of the Hyksos Asiatics and who also overthrew them? Now, there may be those who wish to espouse different dates than me by centuries in regard to the Exodus...but the historical record can be reasonably interpreted to support my thesis. That's all I need to do: present a sound thesis based on historic data that is verifiable by a couple or several sources independent of each other in antiquity, reaching the same conclusions. Acadaemia very often can't even do that.

In regard to my Egyptian date support, we can always bring up Tell el-Yahudiyeh, and others, which even the Israeli Antiquities Authority says falls into the 30 year margin of era criteria some may pine for.


Eusebius: Chronicle -- Egypt from 1st father to Cleopatra's death as 2206 years

[p131] THE EGYPTIANS

How [the history of] the Ethiopians is included in the chronology of the Egyptians, and [the times when] the Ptolemaei ruled over Egypt and Alexandria.
How the Egyptians have kept records of their dates.
After the chronology of the Chaldaeans, the Assyrians and the Hebrews, it it time to move on to the records of the Egyptians.
Diodorus, in the first book of his historical library [ 1.44 ], writes as follows: "Some of them tell the story that the first rulers in Egypt were gods and heroes, who ruled for slightly less than 16,000 years;

[note the very obvious hyperbole and myth-making aspect of the account]

the last of the gods who ruled there was Horus the son of Isis. Then men became kings of the country, in the time of Myris, and have continued for slightly less than 5,000, until the 180th Olympiad [60-57 B.C.], when I [Diodorus] visited Egypt, in the reign of Ptolemaeus, who was called the New Dionysus.

[p133] "For the great majority of that time, the country has been ruled by native kings; but for short periods it was ruled by Ethiopians, by Persians and by Macedonians.

There were only four Ethiopian kings, and they did not rule in a single sequence, but at separate times; in total, they ruled for slightly less than 36 years.

During the supremacy of the Persians, which was established when Cambyses conquered the [Egyptian] people by force, and which lasted for 135 years, the Egyptians rose in revolt, because they could not endure the harsh government and the impiety [of the Persians] towards the native gods.

Then the Macedonians and their descendants became kings, for 276 years. For the whole of the rest of the time, [Egypt] was governed by native rulers, who consisted of 470 kings and 5 queens.

"Records about all of these rulers have been kept by the priests in their sacred books, which have been continuously handed down from one [generation] to another, since the most ancient times. These books tell about the character of each king, their virtue and their bravery, their spirit and their nobility, as well as the achievements of each of them in their reigns. However it is unnecessary, and moreover worthless, for us to write down the deeds of each of them; especially since many of them were judged to be insignificant even in their own times." That is what Diodorus says.

And now it is right and fitting for us to add to this Manetho's account of the Egyptians, which seems to be a reliable history.

From the Egyptian records of Manetho, who composed in 3 books commentaries about the gods, demi-gods, spirits, and the mortal kings who ruled over the Egyptians, up until the time of Dareius the king of the Persians.

The first man amongst the Egyptians was Hephaestus, who discovered fire for them; he was the father of Sol [the Sun]. After him came [(?)Agathodaemon; then] Cronus; then Osiris; then Typhon the brother of Osiris; and then Horus the son of Osiris and Isis. These were the first rulers of the Egyptians. [p135]

After them, one king succeeded another until the time of Bidis, for a total of 13,900 years - calculated by lunar years, which lasted for 30 days. That is the period which we now call a month, but the men of that time called it a year.

[Note this...that these thousands of "years" were de facto only lunar months. We are not just talking 12 month lunar adjustments between 365 and 360 day years. This would merely adjust 1158.3 years at 360 days to a year = 1141.65 years. The actual calculation is an hyperbole of years being 30 day months. Divide the sum total by 12 months and then divide into a 365.25 rounded up to nearest hundredth year, multiplying at .9856. This gives a quick approximation as the historical intent of the testimony.]


After the gods, a race of demi-gods ruled for 1,255 years. {de facto, 1255 months at 103 years}

After them, other kings ruled [the country] for 1,817 years.
{149.23 years as adjusted to the formula given}

After them, 30 kings from Memphis [ruled] for 1,790 years;
{147 years}

and then another ten kings from Thinis ruled for 350 years. {28.74 years}

And then the shades and demi-gods were kings, for 5,813 years.
{477.44 years}

The total for all of these is 11,000 years - which are lunar years, or months.

The total time, which the Egyptians assign to the gods and demi-gods and spirits is 24,900 lunar years - which is the equivalent of 2,206 solar years.

Cleopatra to the first Egyptian leader is then at max-out chronology in the historical testimony, only from 30 B.C. extending back to 2236 B.C.

Hence, there is clear testimony according to the ancients, that for modern Egyptologists and others to date Egypt older than the Flood of Noah or into any period pre-2300 B.C., is INACCURATE.

Over 100 years ago, an extensive write up on the historical documents of Egypt showed that at the Karnak Inscription, there is a reference to the name of Rome as being present in Egypt in the 1300s B.C.
(cf. ANCIENT RECORDS OF EGYPT, Historical Documents, EDITED BY JAMES HENRY. BREASTED
VOLUME 3, The NINETEENTH DYNASTY, CHICAGO: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
May 1906, p.266). In that case, ROME was the name of a high priest of an idol deity.

As I have demonstrated earlier, there was a direct relationship with Isis and Greece, in which Isis was actually the Greek girl named Ceres, who became queen of Egypt, and then called IO by the Greeks. IO, which is a mathematical formula (the basis of the formation of later Greek letters of its alphabet) and a statement...beginning here, eternity begins. Or, more literarily: "As a civilized society, time begins for us here...", or something to this effect.

In taking in all this, we see that the same Ceres who is Isis in Egypt, and called IO in Greece...also is known as Demeter in ROME. The descendants of Greece and Sicily had pre-10th century B.C. patri-lineal ties to the Delta regions of Egypt.

As Europe thawed from the Ice Age, and the glacial regions of Italy -- and later France and then Germany --receded and gave way to vegetation, new areas (that were previously uninhabitable) opened up.

If ROME was so named as it was, in the 700s B.C., after an Egyptian high priest listed at the Karnak Inscription...and Isis was to be worshipped as Demeter, she who sustains with food and wine and goods...we might wish to look at the connection of trade in which Italy was founded as a Greek colony under Egyptian influence.

Perhaps Mars, the father of Romulus, was half Greek and half Egyptian royal or that of an Egyptian high priest family? Perhaps. But, if not, could Mars have married her who was a beloved sister or daughter of such a one? Perhaps. The more likely hypothetical...Mars was a hired military leader leading a trapping and trading outpost in behalf of Egypt,in an area rich with new life, following the glacial recessions upthe boot of Italy. A reasonable historical presentation for this latter possibility.

The very name of ROME may be meaning that Egypt's trade in the Mediterranean, especially in the low 800s and 700 B.C., and in the centuries going back to Osiris and Isis, was more extensive than what is usually discussed.

The idols that pass in Isaiah's day in the mid-700s B.C. from Rome to Babylon via Israeli ports and Israeli trade route passage, is not by accident. If there were pirates or local interests along the coastal regions of the north and northeast Mediterranean resisting Egypt at that time, the Egyptian merchant vessels must have been escorted by naval military war vessels of some kind.

Egyptian dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean, at least in the time of Isaiah, would likely have been thus limited to the sea lanes well south of Cyprus and Crete.

In Isaiah and post Isaiah prophets, if there is a speaking of Egyptian influence, it may extend out further than was previously supposed.

Even as recent tests in Europe have shown 5-6 knots as the perfect ramming speed in later vessel warfare, we are consistently finding that we are once again changing the perceptions and requirements we modernly place upon the ancients...often worked up by getting away into Orwellian rewrites, as "experts" digress from literary sources and focus on the commentaries on commentaries, perhaps nearer or further based -- in turn -- on the commentary of the translation or historical literary sources. That is, we need to get back to source material whenever possible, so we are less prone to the modern reinterpretation made ignorantly by finger wetting conclusions.

Modern Egyptology bases its chronology on Manetho and Eusebius...and it screws it all up.

The First Dynasty gives way to the Third Dynasty...the Second Dynasty is apart from the First and Third, but the actual simultaneous year, no one has thus far delivered. Manetho has divided the Dynasties in such a pattern as that in which we are to follow the cities until the coming of the Hyksos, and thereafter we see regularity in joining the Delta with Memphis and Thebes. That redating process only puts us into Egypt with its first family in the 2200s B.C., with few dozens to a few hundreds at the first. Even Diodorus' and Polyhistor's contributions from antiquity have shown this to Middle Bronze Age origin of what we call "Ancient Egypt" (and no older than MBA) be the case.

So how much of Assyria and Syria do we date based on what was perceived in dating through modern archaelogical processing foundations in Egyptology? Quite a bit.

As can easily be shown in regard to the Hebrew 215 year sojourn, with good fertility, great numbers in earliest Egypt can be achieved in a short number of years to produce a great labor force. The Rome / Egypt relationship in the 770s to the 740s B.C. is proving to be quite interesting...and may be as simple as the township (and later city of) ROME being a colonial outpost for trapping and trade that came into its own rather quickly.

There is much of the trade and inter-relationship of the ancient world we still don't know. It seems that most historians and scholars of the relevant fields are afraid to openly talk about and compare to the pre-industrial colonial theaters dating back to the Fall of Rome or human patterns of comparative behavior that may or may not apply to aid our understanding of the more ancient past that preceded them some 2000 or more years prior, and why.

In this temporary pdf link, of a 1979 article by Willy Hartner of Frankfurt University, we are informed of the calendral cycles of 19 years, were in place in Babylonia by no later than 503 B.C.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1979JHA....10....1H&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

The significance of this is that there was a large Jewish population in the region when the calendars were perfected to a great accuracy, and this same length of a 19 year cycle, was taken to Israel (probably ff. this date of 503 B.C., but also perhaps earlier) and incorporated at that time...as the 19 year cycle still exists in Jewish calendars to this day.

This data is also consistent with the testimony by generalization (i.e., the Patristics) in the Early Church, by those who were noting a fundamental change in reckonings starting just a couple decades earlier than the latest deadline of 503 B.C. that Hartner specifies for the use of the 19 year cycle.

Wily Hartner, describes the Babylonian calendar as essentially cyclically unintelligible in its reckonings in the centuries before circa 526 B.C.
If the Assyrian calendars are looked into, one will find various cites and regions of Assyria at the same time, showing both different dates and different seasons during the same regnal year of so-and-so. One region to the north might have 3 seasons, and another to the south would have 4 seasons, for example.

Any rate...just the thought of our pin-pointing of the 19 year cycle in Time, as it being used by the Hebrews to this day and that 19 year cycle as being started between 526/525 - 503 B.C. while in Babylonia, and perhaps calculated or at least assisted by wise men from among them, I thought would be interesting to note.


In an assessment of "The Amarna Succession", by James Allen,
http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/Allen%20-%20Amarna%20Succession.pdf
we see that the inter-relationships in Egyptian Chronology cross over neat lines and go into places that Egyptian scholars don't want them to go.

You may come away reading this above temporary pdf. with an interesting conclusion / solution.

It appears that reigns of a grandfather, his daughter, and a child could co-exist in the chronology of Pharaohs as happening simultaneously...whereas modern Egyptologists are determined to neatly separate them.

Hence a king could hypothetically rule 36 years by one account, his daughter 22, her son 9, and the first king to have ruled throughout his daughter's 22 years. Yet by Manetho, in this hypothetical, he would list the first king as ruling but 14 years, NOT 36.

Egyptian girls married and were expected to produce children at age 13 (note53, pdf.). This marriageable age was also used by the Hebrews of ancient Israel as far back as Rebecca's marriage to Isaac (if Rashi is to be lacunae corrected). Boys could ascend the throne of Egypt at age 10, as did Tutankhamen. These two factors, along with incestuous lineage, must be taken into account in examining Egyptian royal chronology against Manetho's accounts.

Of another interest should be separation by racial features, so as to distinguish clans or ruler ethnicities, in order to aid in Egyptian chronology in order to make it accurate.

By example, Tuthmosis IV and His Mother, Tiaa,
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis4.htm
strangely look more Japanese Asiatic than what we might normally expect for Egyptian lines in Africa's Egypt.

Is it possible, that in an Ice Age world prior to 1,000 B.C., there were Asiatics in the regions west of the Caspian Sea, and settled as far west as the shores of the Mediterranean before migrations took them completely East? That is a question for history, and for the saints to ask the LORD Jesus when he teaches us the meaning behind every text of the Bible in Glory.