Scrutinising the C7th AD for its conundrums and anachronisms

by Damien F. Mackey Introduction So far, my only other article in this series has been this one (on the C15th AD): Bible-themed people and events permeate what we call [the] C15th AD (3) Bible-themed people and events permeate what we call C15th AD Here now, in this new article, we flip all the way back to what the text books, and historians generally, call the C7th (AD). Someone (cryptastic) has already written a handy summary of this era, at: https://steemit.com/history/@cryptastic/our-world-in-the-7th-century-a-d It is entitled: Our World in the 7th Century A.D. I shall be drawing from parts of this article (I would not necessarily accept population figures estimated), with my own comments added: Sometimes this question will randomly pop in my head, "What are other people around the world doing right this second?"; it's an interesting thing to think about. It occurred to me that was an interesting idea to apply to history. For example, while the Sui Dynasty was collapsing in China, what was going on in Canada? While the Mayans were performing human sacrifices, who were the Vikings raiding? When Braveheart was getting beheaded was Kublai Khan wiping his butt? These are burning questions that need answering. So basically I thought it would be interesting to choose a specific time period and look at what was going on globally. I'm currently studying early medieval China so I thought I'd pick the 7th century, 600-700 A.D. I'll organize this by region, listing interesting facts about the people or culture. It's interesting the variance in detail of historical records by location. Areas close to where human civilization began: Europe, middle east, central asia, you have documented historical records, while in America and Africa you have to rely mostly on artifacts and geological data to determine the cultures and timelines. China • The Tang Dynasty was started by Gaozu after the Sui collapsed (blowing all their cash on failed military exploits). Success of the Tang was mainly due to Emporer Taizhong, son of Gaosu, regarded by most as the greatest dynastic ruler in Chinese history. He did this by basically just being a rational dude. • Cultural achievements: Largest civilization in the world, first printed book, golden age of poetry, advanced criminal code, opera, porcelain, metalwork, clockwork. This is way above most other cultures at the time and for hundreds of years. • Population was about 50 million people. "Fun" fact - it would have been a lot more, but it was cut in half by the wars of the Three Kingdoms period a couple hundred years before. • Buddhism was made the state religion for the first time. • Chang An, currently known as Xian, was the largest city in the world with a population of 500k - 1 million. My comments: The Chinese, people of Sin (Sinites), hailed from a cursed ancestor, Canaan (cf. Genesis 9:24-27; 10:17). Considering the distance of China from the Middle East, where humanity began, the Chinese civilisation would have been much younger than, say, the Syro-Palestinians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians – though it, in its isolation, developed more slowly (e.g. its primitive logographic writing form), no alphabet. Much of what the Chinese are supposed to have invented, “way above most other cultures at the time and for hundreds of years”, would already have been known in the earlier civilisations. “Metalwork” was already practised before the Great Noachian Flood (Genesis 4:22). Unsurprisingly, the Chinese carried into their mythology some of early Genesis, including the Flood. On this, see e.g. my article: Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis (4) Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis Just as the later Greeks were given credit for discoveries that already, long before, had been made by the Egyptians: https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba …. Much has been attributed to the Greeks that did not belong to them - e.g. Breasted … made the point that Hatshep¬sut's marvellous temple structure was a witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the later Greeks would be credited as originators. …. and by the Assyrians, e.g. the water screw pump: Beware of Greeks boasting inventions https://www.academia.edu/123266859/Beware_of_Greeks_boasting_inventions So what if the Chinese discovered pasta – a really big “if”, I would think? Buddha is but a fictitious non-historical composite, based primarily on Moses: Buddha partly based on Moses (4) Buddha partly based on Moses Today, a more fertile ground for critics may be ancient China, which, like Egypt once again, has known many dynasties. Biblical lecturer John D. Morris (Institute for Creation Research) tells of his having been the recipient of such a query from a scholar about the Chinese: http://www.icr.org/article/how-can-chinese-dynasties-extend-back-many-thousan/ I was lecturing on the Biblical and scientific evidence for recent creation to a university audience in Hong Kong, China, when a scholar raised the objection: “The Chinese have a documented history going back many thousands of years, much earlier than your dates for creation and the Flood. We have known dynasties and named rulers. The Bible must be wrong”. Critics have said the very same thing about the Egyptian and other ancient histories, presuming them to be right, hence the Bible must be wrong. The fact is that, when exposed to the torch of scrutiny, they are found to be, not right. What about China? China’s Documented Dynasties According to Morris, reliably documented Chinese history does not even precede 2000 BC: The solution lies in an examination of the earliest Chinese dynasties. Actually, precisely documented dynasties go back only to about 2000 B.C. The first true dynasty was founded about 4000 years ago by a leader remembered for having "sweetened the waters," making the land habitable after wide-spread flooding. The ten listed dynasties before that, however, were of a different sort, with very long lives and questionable details attributed to them. …. This sounds suspiciously Noachic and reminds one of the great Genesis Flood. North America-600-700 A.D. • The eastern United States was in the Later Woodland Period of Hopewell culture. These were hunter-gatherers on the verge of developed farming. There were small groups of hunter gatherers roaming around most of what is now the USA and Canada. • Cultural achievements and characteristics during this period: bow and arrow, burial mounds, sport, tempered pottery with decoration, wigwams and longhouses. No written history. • Population about 4 million (less than the population of modern San Francisco) …. My comment: I know next to nothing about early North America. But this puzzles me, the Fernando de Soto expedition and its failure to mention bisons - although it is supposed to pertain to the C16th AD, rather than to the C7th AD: AI Overview De Soto's expedition traveled through Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, among other areas. These regions are within the historical range of the bison …. Absence of Bison in Records: Historical accounts of De Soto's expedition do not mention bison, despite detailed descriptions of the flora and fauna encountered. …. Though I am dealing here with the C7th, not C16th AD, the following article might help to account for Spanish Conquistador anomalies in the C16th AD: Alexander the Great and Hernán Cortés https://www.academia.edu/62585521/Alexander_the_Great_and_Hern%C3%A1n_Cort%C3%A9s Europe-600-700 A.D. A lot to cover here so I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. • Population about 20 million (population of modern New York or Shanghai) • Byzantine Empire: This is what was left of the Roman Empire after Italy was overrun by the Ostrogoths, who had been supplanted by the Lombards in Italy by the 7th century. It consisted of parts of Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Egypt, and a smidge of Italy. Heraclius, emporer [sic] at the time, and his dynasty were Armenian in ancestry. It was an advanced culture, with art, literature, and Roman technology, but like any at the time, still brutal, they were mainly at war with the Persians. The emperor at the time, Heraclius had many political opponents blinded, castrated, or subject to nose, hand, or leg amputations. Including his son, who tried to overthrow him, but in the end his rebellion didn't have a leg to stand on. My comment: Let’s stop right here with the emperor Heraclius, the most confused attempt at an historical character of whom I have ever read. I have just written this on him in my article: James D. Tabor claims the Shroud of Turin to be an early C14th medieval relic (3) James D. Tabor claims the Shroud of Turin to be an early C14th medieval relic …. Now, here is our ‘miraculous’ Heraclius. What a treat! But what a joke!: A composite character to end all composites Heraclius seems to have one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old Roman Republic, and, whatever feet may be left (because this definitely cannot be right), in the Christian era. What a mix of a man is this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum! What a puzzle! I feel sorry for Walter Emil Kaegi, who has valiantly attempted to write a biography of him: Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. The accomplishment of this scholarly exercise I believe to be a complete impossibility. And I could simply base this view on what I read from Kaegi’s book itself (pp. 12 and 13): The story of Heraclius, as depicted in several literary historical traditions, is almost Herodotean in his experience of fickle fortune's wheel of triumph and tragedy, of ignorance or excessive pride, error, and disaster. My comment: To classify the story of Heraclius as “Herodotean” may be appropriate. Herodotus, ostensibly “the Father of History” (according to Cicero), has also been called “the Father of Lies” by critics who claim that his ‘histories’ are little more than tall tales. Heraclius, as we now read, is spread ‘all over the place’ (my description): At one level his name is associated with two categories of classical nomenclature: (1) ancient classical offices such as the consulship, as well as (2) many of the most exciting heroes, places, precedents, and objects of classical, ancient Near Eastern, and Biblical antiquity: Carthage, Nineveh, Jerusalem, the vicinity of Alexander the Great's triumph over the Persians at Gaugamela, Noah's Ark, the Golden Gate in Jerusalem, Arbela, the fragments of the True Cross, Damascus, Antioch, perhaps even ancient Armenia's Tigra-nocerta, and of course, Constantinople. My comment: According to a late source (conventionally 600 years after Heraclius): “The historian Elmacin recorded in the 13th Century that in the 7th Century the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius had climbed Jabal Judi in order to see the place where the Ark had landed”. http://bibleprobe.com/noahark-timeline.htm Biblically, Heraclius has been compared with such luminaries as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, and even with Jesus Christ. And no wonder in the case of David! For we read in Steven H. Wander’s article for JSTOR, “The Cyprus Plates and the “Chronicle” of Fredegar” (pp. 345-346): https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1291381.pdf …. there is one episode from the military career of Heraclius that bears a striking similarity to the story of David and Goliath. Byzantine chroniclers record that during his campaign against the Emperor Chosroes in 627, Heraclius fought the Persian general Razatis in single combat, beheading his opponent like the Israelite hero. …. George of Pisidia, the court poet, may have even connected this contemporary event with the life of David. In his epic panegyrics on Heraclius' Persian wars, he compared the Emperor to such Old Testament figures as Noah, Moses, and Daniel; unfortunately the verses of his Heraclias that, in all likelihood, dealt in detail with the combat are lost. …. [End of quote] That fateful year 627 AD … the year … of the supposed Battle of Nineveh said to have been fought and won by Heraclius! [Nineveh disappeared in c. 612 BC] According to Shaun Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886-912): Politics and People: “Heraclius … appears to have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”. • Spain at the time was ruled by the Visigoths, germanic people. Interestingly, the Spanish language didn't exist there until the 10th century. Conquering muslims took Spain from the Visigoths the following century. There is virtually no trace of the Visigoth culture in modern Spain, besides the weird kids in school that wear black eye liner. They were pagans, not christians, and one interesting thing that remains of the Visigoth culture in modern Spain is some of their law code giving women property rights. • The UK was split into many different kingdoms and had a population between 1-2 million. The UK was a mess since the Romans left the 5th century. The Germanic Angles and Saxons invaded and wiped out a lot of people, in fact the population during Roman occupation, before the chaos, was over 2 million. During 7th century, the area was largely converted to Christianity and became split into the Anglo Saxon regions of Northumbria, Mercia, Anglia, then the Picts in Scotland. • Irish history wasn't documented until the beginning of the Christian period in the 6th century. There wasn't much outside interaction until the Vikings invaded and conquered a hundred years later. It was all Gaelic at the time with a clan/chieftain system. The Gaelic history was orally preserved until the introduction of literature in the 6th century by the Christian Missionaries. • The vikings weren't around yet, Scandinavian people at the time were just clans that apparently really liked cold weather. It was the next century in which they learned to build boats and they discovered they also really liked killing and stealing. • France and much of Western Europe was ruled by the Franks; Germanic people who are seen as the forebears of most Europeans, French, Germans, Dutch, Austrians. During the 7th century, the Frankish Realm was divided into a handful of Kingdoms like Aquitaine and Ron Burgundy. Chlothar II reunited them under his rule. Most spoke variants of German and Dutch. Modern French started later in a small area of what is now Northern France and Belgium, and evolved from the previous mix of Roman and the local people's colloquial dialect at the time. • Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Russia, were at the time populated with the Slavs, Bulgurs, and Avars. They preceded the Rus peoples that became Russian, Poland, Ukraine, etc. The Slavs were pagan tribes, the Avars were horse raiders from the southeast, that basically were like the Vikings of the area. Not very nice with all their raping and pillaging. The slavs through interaction became horsemen as well. The Avars origins are not known for sure. What is known is that besides raiding for themselves, they acted as mercenaries for the Byzantine Empire, until they turned on them as well. Guess who stopped their shenanigans? The French! Who would've thought. Although really the French were mostly German at the time. We'll give it to them since they were all called "Franks". Got all that? My comment: Now, switching to the Avars, I have written this article, based on an idea of Gyula Tóth: Avaric advancement coincides with the Magyar advancement? (3) Avaric advancement coincides with the Magyar advancement? Therein I wrote: I shall include this other section from Tóth’s article, as it includes Heraclius and Constantine III or Constantine VII? Illig in his book takes account of the [eerie] resemblance between events of the 5th and the 10th century as well. "The (Byzantine) empire is weakened militarily by the advancements of the Avars around the year 600 to the Balkan peninsula." - he writes. Let's not forget: with the correction of 300 years the Avaric advancement coincides with the Magyar advancement! For the Byzantine Empire had to face a strong enemy from the north in the beginning of the nine hundreds, [namely] the Magyars, the suspicion arises that the whole Avaric era is [none] other [than] the duplicate of the Magyar Ingression backdated. Illig takes reference on Manfred Zeller, who in his works about the peoples of steppe shows that: "the number of the horse-archer peoples' in the first millennium doubles, filling the empty centuries!" Therefore the Avars are just a duplicate! A duplicate created beside the Hun-Magyar nations with one purpose, to fill in the empty centuries. The archaeological artifacts denoted as Avaric could easily be that of the Huns of Atilla's. For now let's return to the Byzantine Empire: in 602 under the name of Phocas, a fearsome and untalented emperor sits on the throne by usurpation. At this time, the king of the Persians, Khosrau II, taking advantage of the situation makes an attack on Byzantine seemingly to avenge the murdered emperor. In 610 Heraclius puts an end to the terror reign of Phocas, but the Persian advancements continue: they take over Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestina, Egypt and on the Northern shores of Africa they reach till Tripoli. The occupation of Jerusalem and the taking of the True Cross happened in 614 may 22nd after a three [week] siege. An interesting thing about Heraclius is that he had a co-emperor. This is his own son who is already crowned in 613 at the age of two. Being at the side of his father with no contribution in decision making. When he finally got to the throne he only ruled for a mere four months. This being none other then Constantine III, who is mentioned in the Chronicon Pictum about the time of the Magyar Ingression: "... one hundred and four years after the death of the Magyar king Atilla, in the times of Emperor Constantine the III. and Pope Zachary - as can be found written in the chronicles of the Romans - the Magyars rode out for the second time from Scythia..." It is very interesting that the Chronicon Pictum's author sets the emperor from the time of the Magyar Ingression as an emperor who lived in the six hundreds! As we know according to Illig, the start of the phantom segment in our chronology takes place from 614, shortly after the True Cross is taken away. In this time Constantine III is already crowned, but only of three years of age. The time when he gains power to reign falls within the phantom segment. If Illig is right, then the character of Constantine III has to appear in some form in the 10th century as well. And as by magic, in the 10th century we also have a Constantine! This time not the III but the VII! Namingly Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (the Purpleborn), who probably was one of the mastermind behind the fabrication of our chronology. After this Illig analyzed Constantine's life story. The story of the 10th century takes its beginning where Emperor Leo VI the Wise within four years becomes a widower three times, then finally Zoe Zaoutzaina gives birth to a son but illegitimate. When Leo crowns this boy as co-emperor, he dies within a year, in 912. (One should keep in mind that according to Illig in the year 911 the history starts anew. So in 912 the crowning of the illegitimate son belong to the real events of the time line.) But this boy has no saying in the state's matter until the age of 24. In this perspective bares resemblance with Constantine III, who also was crowned as coemperor at a young age and only could take the state's power into his hands much later on. So who do you think was the illegitimate son of Emperor Leo from the 10th century? Well, none other then Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos! The similarities are too remarkable between the life of Constantine III from the 7th century and that of Constantine VII from the 10th century. Worthy of note is the matter of the regaining of the True Cross from the hands of the Persians. It is not by mistake that Constantine VII has put it on the account of Heraclius, by doing this he did nothing else but paying homage to his own father's memory. For Heraclius in first of all not only being the father of Constantine III from the 7th century, he was also the father of Constantine VII of the 10th century! On top of all Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos arranges the beginning of the real history in a way that would start with his own coronation! In similarities not only the characters of the two emperors show resemblance, but also the foreign policies of the Byzantine Empire of the 7th and 10th century. As we've seen, in the 7th century the empire was troubled from the north by the Avaric advancements, meanwhile, in the southeast by that of the Persians. In the 10th century events repeat with different characters: in the north the Magyars trouble the empire, while in the southeast the Arabic expansion does the same. At this point one pauses for a brief moment and asks himself: isn't it possible that the Avars of the 7th century are no more [than] the Magyars of the 10th century? And the Arabic expansion of the 10th century is likely to be the Persian expansion of the 7th century? So, if the Byzantine Empire was troubled in the 7th century by Persians and Avars, in the 10th century these become Arabs and Magyars! My comment: And, regarding the supposed C11th AD Muslim conquests, see my article: Myth of C11th AD Arab Invasion (3) Myth of C11th AD Arab Invasion South America and Mexico-600-700 A.D. • Population - 4 million in Mexico, 3 million in South America. • 7th Century was the peak of Mayan Society. Mayans, on the Yucatan Penninsula, had an advanced written language, not just symbols(the only group in the Americas of this time period that did), art, mathematics, and astronomical system. Of course, they also liked war and they performed human sacrifices by cutting the still beating heart out of victims, as well as by torture and decapitation. So you take the good with the bad. • In South America there were the Wari and Tiwanaku Cultures, which were antecedents to the Incan Empire(The Incan Empire peaked in the 15th century). The Tiwanaku used the resources of Lake Titikaka, fish, birds, plants. They herded llama and Alpaca and also ate potatoes, quinoa, beans, and corn. • Note- All around North and South America, besides the specific sites mentioned, there were small groups of hunter gatherers for which there is very little historical data, but they also contributed to the population numbers mentioned above. The big cities of the Mayans, Tiwanaku, and Wari typically had no more than 100,000 residents. My comments: Again, see my article (above) on Hernán Cortés. The Incas, Mayans and Aztecs were all BC peoples. The Spanish led by Hernán Cortés, had he existed, would have had about as much chance of encountering Aztec multitudes in the C16th AD as Napoleon Bonaparte would have had being faced by an Egyptian army led by Pharaoh Ramses II when Napoleon rode up to the Giza Pyramids in c. 1800 AD. India-600-700 A.D • India at the time had the world's largest economy, 1/3-1/4 of the world's wealth. • Population over 50 million, more than Tang China or anywhere else at the time. However, the population of Tang China was the largest population under one ruling empire. • From this period South India started a shift from smaller kingdoms to larger empires, like the Chalukya, Pallavas, and Penyas. This brought advancements in government administration, overseas trade, and architecture. It was a golden age of South India. • Temples of Hinduism to gods like Vishnu were excavated sandstone, essentially sculpted from stone already at that location. • Sanskrit, the oldest Indo-aryan language was spoken mostly in the North, while Tamil was spoken mostly in the South. Both are thousands of years old written languages, predating our modern systems. Mongolia and Siberia-600-700 A.D • Between the vast Mongolian step plains and Siberia's frozen tundra, the step tribes formed from nomadic east and central asians, as well as some eastern europeans. From 1st millennia B.C. through the 15th century were a dominant force of mostly nomadic tribes of horse warriors occasionally uniting to wreak havoc on the surrounding peoples. • By the 7th century, many tribes had coalesced and the gokturk culture came to dominate the step plains north of China, reaching through Russia, eastern Europe, and towards Iran. • They were raiders and mercenaries, often used by Chinese militaries and many times the decisive factor for victory. They were, however, completely unreliable and would often rape and pillage the cities that they were supposed to be fighting for. • Over the millennia they had blended with the Chinese to a large degree. Interestingly, when looking at the whole of ancient history, it was the step tribes that were generally victorious over Imperial China. Chinese military was not successful using traditional warfare in the harsh environment of the north against the more mobile calvaries of horse warriors. The step tribes like the gokturks never tried to control much of China, however, with the exception of some Northern kingdoms, and of course the Mongol Empire which lasted a hundred years or so around the 13th century(the time of Ghengis Khan). • Even young girls were trained with horse and bow as children. • Ruling class members often took Chinese names and spent time in Chinese capitals. Chinese would send women to them for marriage alliances so they would stop raiding Northern Chinese towns. Africa-600-700 A.D • Population was about 15 million. • Languages included Nilo-Sara of Nubia and West Africa, Coptic/ancient Egyptian in Egypt(not like modern Egyptian/Arabic), and Bantu(antecedent of Zulu) in the South. • In the north people were skilled with copper, bronze, and iron. Jewelry, pottery, coins, eating utensils, etc. • Islam started to reach Eastern and Northern Africa during the 7th century as the Muslim Empire started to invade and conquer surrounding areas. • The Arabs also began the slave trade in 7th century, transporting across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert. • The southern Bantu peoples were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen at the time, mostly unaffected by the chaotic goings on of the North. Middle East-600-700 A.D • Languages spoken at the time were Arameic [sic] and Greek (language of Byzantine Empire). Arabic was not spoken until the 8th century. • The 7th century was huge for the middle east, it was a time of unification and expansionism. Muhammad the prophet of Islam appeared and unified the Arabian Peninsula by 632. Unified under Islam, this paved the way for the Umayyad Caliphate to form after Muhammad and conquer Iran, central asia to the borders of China, Northern Africa, and even Spain by mid 8th century. • The Muslims were mainly able to conquer due to their unification under Islam and the weakness of the surrounding empires, the Byzantine and Persian, after they had been warring against each other for many years. It all disintegrated by the end of the 8th century though. • Interestingly, within the Muslim Empire, non-muslims were free to practice their own religion, as long as they acknowledged their second class citizenship. My comment: The influence of Aramaïc may have been “overrated”: https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/A/aramaean-language.html “According to historical records which trace the migrations of the Syro-Arabians from the east to the south-west, and also according to the comparatively ruder form of the Aramaic language itself, we might suppose that it represents, even in the state' in which we have it, some image of that aboriginal type which the Hebrews and Arabians, under more favorable social and climatical influences, subsequently developed into fullness of sound and structure. But it is difficult for us now to discern the particular vestiges of this archaic form; for, not only did the Aramaic not work out its own development of the original elements common to the whole Syro-Arabian sisterhood of languages, but it was pre-eminently exposed, both by neighborhood and by conquest, to harsh collision with languages of an utterly different family. Moreover, it is the only one of the three great Syro-Arabian branches which has no fruits of a purely national literature to boast of. We possess no monument whatever of its own genius; not any work which may be considered the product of the political and religious culture of the nation, and characteristic of it — as is so emphatically the case both with the Hebrews and the Arabs. The first time we see the language it is used by Jews as the vehicle of Jewish thought; and although, when we next meet it, it is employed by native authors, yet they write under the literary impulses of Christianity, and under the Greek influence on thought and language which necessarily accompanied that religion. These two modifications, which constitute and define the so-called Chaldee and Syriac dialects, are the only forms in which the normal and standard Aramaic has been preserved to us. It is evident, from these circumstances, that up to a certain period the Aramaic language has no other history than that of its relations to Hebrew. The earliest notice we have of its separate existence is in Ge 31:47, where Laban, in giving his own name to the memorial heap, employs words which are genuine Aramaic both in form and use. The next instance is in 2Ki 18:26, where it appears that the educated Jews understood Aramaic, but that the common people did not. A striking illustration of its prevalence is found in the circumstance that it is employed as the language of official communication in the edict addressed by the Persian court to its subjects in Palestine (Ezr 4:17). The later relations of Aramaic to Hebrew consist entirely of gradual encroachments on the part of the former. The Hebrew language was indeed always exposed, particularly in the north of Palestine, to Aramaic influences; whence the Aramaisms of the book of Judges and of some others are derived. It also had always a closer conjunction, both by origin and by intercourse, with Aramaic than with Arabic. But in later times great political events secured to Aramaic the complete ascendency; for, on the one hand, after the deportation of the ten tribes, the repeopling their country with colonists chiefly of Syrian origin generated a mixed Aramaic and Hebrew dialect (the Samaritan) in central Palestine; and on the other the exile of the remaining two tribes exposed them to a considerable, although generally overrated, Aramaic influence in Babylon, and their restoration, by placing them in contact with the Samaritans, tended still further to dispossess them of their vernacular Hebrew”. Japan-600-700 A.D • During the Asuka period of medieval Japan. Population was about 4 million. • Buddhism first entered Japan during this period. • Japan experienced a military defeat by Tang China joined by Scilla (early Korean Kingdom). This was well before Japan's Samurai strong military period, and this loss inspired Japan to start reformations of their military. • Japan adopted Tang China style government administration during this period. My comment: Japan may have borrowed from an ancient Hebrew tradition: Japanese ‘omikoshi’ like Ark of Covenant (3) Japanese 'omikoshi' like Ark of Covenant Problems with Islamic ‘History’ In some cases, Islam and its scholars have shown a complete disregard for historical perspective. I had cause to discuss this in my review of Islamic scholar Ahmed Osman’s book, Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed, in: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part Two: Christ The King | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu his books being a diabolical historical mish-mash in which the author, Osman, sadly attempts to herd a millennium or more of history into the single Eighteenth Dynasty of ancient Egypt. But getting right to the heart of the situation, the historical problems pertaining to the Prophet Mohammed himself are legendary. My own contribution, amongst many, to this subject, is, for example: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History (4) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Scholars have long pointed out the historical problems associated with the life of the Prophet Mohammed and the history of Islam, with some going even so far as to cast doubt upon Mohammed’s actual existence. Biblico-historical events, normally separated the one from the other by many centuries, are re-cast as contemporaneous in the Islamic texts. Muslim author, Ahmed Osman, has waxed so bold as to squeeze, into the one Egyptian dynasty, the Eighteenth, persons supposed to span more than one and a half millennia. Now, as I intend to demonstrate in this article, biblico-historical events that occurred during the neo-Assyrian era of the C8th BC, and then later on, in the Persian era, have found their way into the biography of Mohammed supposedly of the C7th AD. Added to all this confusion is the highly suspicious factor of a ‘second’ Nehemiah, sacrificing at the site of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem during a ‘second’ Persian period, all contemporaneous with the Prophet of Islam himself. The whole scenario is most reminiscent of the time of the original (and, I believe, of the only) Nehemiah of Israel. And so I wrote in an article, now up-dated as: Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time https://www.academia.edu/12429764/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time This … later Nehemiah “offers a sacrifice on the site of the Temple”, according to Étienne Couvert (La Vérité sur les Manuscripts de la Mer Morte, 2nd ed, Éditions de Chiré, p. 98. My translation). “He even seems to have attempted to restore the Jewish cult of sacrifice”, says Maxine Lenôtre (Mahomet Fondateur de L’Islam, Publications MC, p.111, quoting from S.W. Baron’s, Histoire d’Israël, T. III, p. 187. My translation), who then adds (quoting from the same source): “Without any doubt, a number of Jews saw in these events a repetition of the re-establishment of the Jewish State by Cyrus and Darius [C6th BC kings of ancient Persia] and behaved as the rulers of the city and of the country”. [End of quote] So, conceivably, the whole concept of a Persian (or Sassanian) empire at this time, with rulers named Chosroes, again reminiscent of the ancient Cyrus ‘the Great’, may need to be seriously questioned. Coins and Archaeology And how to “explain inscriptions on early Islamic coins – the ones that showed Muhammed meeting with a Persian emperor [Chosroes II] who supposedly died a century before”? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-london/plain/A85654957 Emmet Scott, who asks “Were the Arab Conquests a Myth?”, also points out major anomalies relating to the coinage of this presumed period, and regarding the archaeology of Islam in general, though Scott does not go so far as to suggest that the Sassanian era duplicated the ancient Persian one: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/160197/sec_id/160197 Note the remark [in Encyclopdaedia Iranica]: “The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not imitations,” but were “designed and manufactured by the same people as the late Sasanian issues.” We note also that the date provided on these artefacts is written in Persian script, and it would appear that those who minted the coins, native Persians, did not understand Arabic. We hear that under the Arabs the mints were “evidently allowed to go on as before,” and that there are “a small number of coins indistinguishable from the drahms of the last emperor, Yazdegerd III, dated during his reign but after the Arab capture of the cities of issue. It was only when Yazdegerd died (A.D. 651) [in the time of the Ummayad Caliph Mu'awiya] that some mark of Arab authority was added to the coinage.” (Ibid.) Even more puzzling is the fact that the most common coins during the first decades of Islamic rule were those of Yazdegerd's predecessor Chosroes II, and many of these too bear the Arabic inscription (written however, as we saw, in the Syriac script) besm Allah. Now, it is just conceivable that invading Arabs might have issued slightly amended coins of the last Sassanian monarch, Yazdegerd III, but why continue to issue money in the name of a previous Sassanian king (Chosroes II), one who, supposedly, had died ten years earlier? This surely stretches credulity. The Persian-looking Islamic coins are of course believed to date from the time of Umar (d. 664), one of the “Rightly-guided Caliphs” who succeeded Muhammad and supposedly conquered what became the Islamic Empire. Yet it has to be stated that there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence either of Umar or any of the other “Rightly-guided” Caliphs Abu Bakr, Uthman or Ali. Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men. Archaeologically, their existence is as unattested as Muhammad himself. …. [End of quote] But surely what Scott alleges about these early Caliphs, that: “Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men”, cannot be applied to Suleiman the Magnificent himself, evidence of whose building works in, say Jerusalem, are considered to abound and to be easily identifiable. A typical comment would be this: “Jerusalem’s current walls were built under the orders of Suleiman the Magnificent between the years 1537 and 1541. Some portions were built over the ancient walls from 2,000 years ago. The walls were built to prevent invasions from local tribes and to discourage another crusade by Christians from Europe”: http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101/4-walls-today.html