Volume 1 Chapter 20

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate
School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

CHAPTER TWENTY

The Proof of Archaeology

Troy was an ancient fort-city occupied from antiquity into Roman times. Troy
was as important in early trade routes as Suez or Singapore were in the nineteenth
century to the far-flung British Empire. Each people who possessed political
control of Troy remoulded the city after its own image. Nearly every twenty
to twenty-five years — about every generation — a thorough rebuilding of the
site occurred. The foundations of major buildings and often the entire floors
were left IN SITU and piled upon them were the remains of the demolished buildings,
with all the broken wares of that generation. With each passing age the mound
on which Troy was built became higher and higher. Walls about the city rose
in proportion.

Today archaeologists dig down through these buried remains and find one cultural
level beneath another. The lower is in each instance the older unless a late
building has been sunk deep into the mound. Periods without occupation are obvious
from signs of extended erosion. According to modern historical ideas there should
be an immence gap — of about 500 years between the fall of Troy and the rebuilding
of the city by the Aetolian Greeks in the 600’s. The fragmentary remains of
life between the final war stratum and the Aetolian city proof there was no
more than the lapse of a few years! In other words the final Fall of Troy was
in the early 600’s, not the early 1100’s.

Archaeologists have numbered each major period of occupation at the site
of Troy. Beginning from the top down — through Roman, Hellenistic and Persian
periods — one soon comes to the Greek settlements that immediately succeeded
the temporary Trojan village established after the final war. The sequence of
strata is continuous. If archaeologists had been honest with what they saw they
could have concluded no other fact than that established already in the historical
section of this Compendium.

In the left-hand column, on the following pages, are the numbers used by
archaeologists to designate the strata from the top of the mound to the virgin
rock below. At the right are comments about the meaning of each numbered building
period, with the proper dates.

Notice the general cultural relationship between Troy, in Asia Minor, and
Britain in Western Europe (where many Trojans settled before finally migrating
to Brittany).

The use in archaeology of the terms ‘Early,’ ‘Middle,’ and ‘Late Bronze’
and ‘Iron,’ is deceptive. Iron was used during Troy’s ‘Bronze’ period. The fact
is, archaeologists do not really use metals as a guide. Their cultural dating
is dependent on pottery, whether or not metals are even present.

Scholars label certain cultures as ‘Neolithic,’ or ‘CHALCOLITHIC,’ OR ‘BRONZE,’
OR ‘IRON’ NOT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE, BUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THESE
PARTICULAR CULTURES EXISTED DURING WHAT THEY ASSUME WERE THOSE ‘AGES’ OR ‘PERIODS.’

Archaeology in the Aegean World

Historians have long puzzled over the archaeological evidence uncovered in
the Aegean world and in Asia Minor. What they found did not fit their theories.

Here is what happened, and why. First historians made the mistake of assuming
that the traditional framework of Egyptian history is true. They never questioned
the scheme of having each Egyptian dynasty succeed the other. It never entered
their minds that there may have been extensive periods in Egyptian history during
which different dynasties in Upper and Lower Egypt reigned contemporaneously.

Once the false view of Egyptian history was accepted. archaeological evidence
in Egypt was made to conform to it. The so-called ‘Bronze’ and ‘Iron’ ages,
for example, were dated centuries too early. This had an immediate effect on
archaeological studies in the Greek world.

In Egypt archaeological evidence is often associated with inscriptions that
date the remains to a specific dynasty or Pharaoh. In the Greek world this is
not the case. The kings of ancient Greece did not leave inscriptions. How then
is one to properly associate the remains of a Greek palace with the king who
reigned in it? The answer is, archaeologists can only guess.

What they attempt to do is date the Greek pottery by evidence from Egypt.
The ancient world was a trading world. Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians traded
their wares in each other’s ports. Egyptian pottery found its way into Greece.
Greek and Phoenician pottery into Egypt.

Pottery styles change. Each century or generation created its own distinctive
pottery. If pottery remains in any one of these countries could be accurately
dated, then of course it could be immediately determined what kind of pottery
was contemporary in the other countries.

It was assumed that Egyptian pottery could be accurately dated. By noting
what kind of Greek pottery was being traded at specific periods in Egypt. archaeologists
thought they had arrived at the correct method of dating Greek pottery. They
overlooked only one thing. Egyptian pottery is not correctly dated. Most of
it is dated centuries too early. Pottery in the Aegean world and in Asia Minor
is consequently dated too early also. Greek kings long dead came to be associated
with palaces and pottery styles they never saw or dreamed of. Kings were assumed
to be buried in tombs that belonged, in reality, to their descendants or to
others living twenty generations later.

In Egypt this curious error could not occur, because archaeological remains
included royal inscriptions associating the ruler with tomb, palace or pottery.
In Greece there were no inscriptions to date remains. So pottery, tombs and
palaces in Greece and Asia Minor were predated in accordance with Egyptian history,
but the kings were either rejected as fabulous or were dated according to Greek
chronologers who usually had the kings correctly dated.

Thus Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, who fought in the First Trojan War came
to be associated with pottery of the Third Trojan War. The pottery was dated
centuries too early because it was found in Egypt associated with remains of
Dynasties XVIII and XIX which were dated centuries too early!

In the Aegean world archaeologists use the terms Early, Middle and Late Helladic
(in Greece). or Early, Middle and Late Cycladic (in the Cyclades), or Early,
Middle and Late Minoan (in Crete). Each of these are also sometimes designated
Early, Middle and Late Bronze by archaeologists, Mycenaean culture in the Eastern
Mediterranean is another name for the so-called Late Bronze period. It is commonly
thought to have originated in Mycenae in Greece during this period. Hence its
name. The Mycenaean culture is assumed, today, to be the Greek culture of the
First Trojan War. This assumption is based on the fact that Mycenaean remains
have been found in association with remains of Dynasties XVIII and XIX of Egypt
which are dated five to six centuries too early. The previous chart on the archaeological
remains of Troy proofs that the culture of Greece during the First Trojan war
ending in 1181 was Early Bronze. The culture of Greece during the last Trojan
War was Mycenaean. Hence Agamemnon is to be associated with Early Bronze (so-called)
pottery, not with Mycenaean palaces which belonged to tyrants living centuries
later!

Archaeologists contend that the Mycenaean world collapsed and was followed
by so-called ‘Dark Ages’ in Greece. Traditional Greek geometric styles of pottery,
it is assumed, returned to favor after falling into disuse during the Mycenaean
period. Thege geometric styles, we are asked to believe, continued down to the
Hellenistic period, around 331, when Alexander conquered Persia. In most archaeology
books about eight and one half centuries are allowed between the end of the
Mycenaean world and Alexander the Great. But the true restoration allows less
than one and one half centuries. Here is an extraordinary variation of over
seven centuries between traditional interpretations or archaeological evidence
and the facts.

Have archaeologists really uncovered remains abundant enough to fill the
extra seven centuries demanded by their theories? Were there really ‘Dark Ages’
that befell Greece at the close of the Mycenaean world?

Archaeologists have, of course, found the surprising evidence. But they have
been unable to believe it. There simply are not enough material remains to fill
the gap artificially created by antedating the Mycenaean world to conform to
the false Egyptian scheme of history taken for granted today.

Chester G. Starr, in his book ‘The Origins of Greek Civilization’, admits
on page 77 that ‘only the scantiest of physical remains’ exist to fill the gap.
Now consider the facts.

The so-called Mycenaean or Late Bronze or Helladic culture has been subdivided
by archaeologists into three major periods. The third period has been further
subdivided into three parts. At the time of the final fall of Troy in 677 Greek
imports were still of the late Helladic IIIB cultural style. This style continued
well into the next century during the reign of Ramesses the Great (610-544).
During his reign the Mycenaean pottery styles degenerated into sub-Mycenaean
or IIIC pottery styles which continued even after the overthrow of Mycenae.
Greek history tells us that Mycenae was destroyed in the 470’s by Argos (see
‘Oxford Classical Dictionary’).

But this date does not mark the introduction of Geometric pottery into Greece.
Archaeologist Wilhelm Doerpfeld in his work ‘Alt-Olympia’, published in 1935,
proofs that excavators deliberately hid their eyes from the fact that Mycenaean
wares were contemporary with Geometric pottery in Greece, that Mycenaean wares
were actually of Eastern or Phoenician origin and existed side by side with
Greek geometric wares during the so-called Late Bronze period in the Aegean.

The geometric styles were followed by Orientalizing styles in Greek pottery.
This Orientalizing style is associated with the Greeks of Asia Minor and the
Aegean Isles. The list of Sea Powers presented earlier dates this period from
about the time of the last Trojan War to the defeat of the Aeginetan sea power
in 480. In other words, Orientalizing styles among the Greeks occurred during
the sub-Mycenaean period.

The rise of Athens after the Persian wars led to Athenian wares dominating
the markets of the world, beginning in the 470’s. This is the time of the spread
of Attic black-figured ware — not a century and a quarter earlier as is usually
assumed. Archaeologists, of course, have carelessly overlooked the significance
of the ancient list of Sea Powers which proofs that Athens did not control the
seas until after the defeat of Xerxes. Classic styles of Greek ware, soon developed,
continued to the late fourth century when Hellenistic tastes took on new dimensions
with Alexander’s conquests.

Palestine, Syria and Archaeology

The land which boasts the most complete archaeological record is Palestine.
This is partly an empty boast. The only really early city that is thoroughly
documented is Jericho. Hardly any of the other early Palestinian sites are known.
By contrast, much of early Syria and Mesopotamia is better documented.

Early Jericho begins with a ‘Prepottery Neolithic A’ culture. The duration
of this culture extended over a few centuries, though it is carelessly maximized
by archeologists many more hundreds of years.

The period of this culture is pre-Flood, as is the succeeding ‘Prepottery
Neolithic B.’ It is found in strata X to XVII. It is a period of intense warfare.
The city walls were being constantly rebuilt. The story of Jericho is really
the account of the great walled city Cain built before the Flood. Jericho had
walls long before any other city. See the latest excavation reports by Miss
Kenyon.

Thereafter two new cultural strata occur. Each is a period of great retrogression,
as if some calamity had befallen the people. Each is separated by a span of
time in which the site was depopulated. The inhabitants used pottery. (See Chart
I of ‘The Archaeology of Palestine’ in ‘The Bible and the Ancient Near East’,
edited by G. E. Wright.) The site of Jericho hereafter was for several centuries
abandoned. The population of Palestine disappeared. This is the period of the
Flood. of human depopulation, and the meagre beginnings of the new post-Flood
world. In Mesopotamia small beginnings of modern society developed.

Then over much of the Jordan valley, the southern hill country and elsewhere
in Palestine a new culture sprang up. It is labeled Chalcolithic or Ghassulian
after a site where first discovered.

It flourished in areas which today are far removed from any water sources.
Sites with this culture extend far out into the arid plain about the Dead Sea.
The culture comes to a sudden end!

Now notice the record in Genesis 13:10, ‘And Lot lifted up his eyes. and
behold all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before
the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the
land of Egypt.’

Here is the so-called Ghassulian culture! It was in the days of Abraham.
This culture perished with the burning of the cities of the plain in the year
1916 — just before the birth of Isaac.

Very little is known of cultures elsewhere in Palestine prior to this time.
All that has so far been recovered are remains of wretched cave cultures and
open camp sites. These cave cultures, usually placed millenniums before the
habitation of Jericho, include both pre-Flood remains and early post-flood deposits.
Cave dwelling continued, however, long after the beginning of cities. Even Lot,
when he fled from Sodom, dwelt in a cave (Gen. 19:30)

The culture which follows the overthrow of the cities of the plain is designated
‘Early Bronze I.’ It is subdivided into sections ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. This culture
has been associated, mistakenly, with Dynasty I of Egypt. It is indeed found
in the tomb of Semempses (Shem) in Egypt (pp. 59, 70 of ‘Pottery of Palestine’,
by G. E. Wright). All that proofs is that it was the family of Shem which introduced
it widely among the Canaanites after the destruction of Sodom. Early Bronze
I was succeeded by Early Bronze II and III. The latter ends abruptly in 1446,
at the crossing of the Jordan under Joshua.

The Coming of Israel Into Palestine

The next archaeological period in Palestinian stratigraphy is designated
‘Early Bronze IV’ or ‘Early Bronze III B.’ It is a period at Jericho and elsewhere
of frantic building of defences. ‘No well-preserved constructions of Early Bronze
IV have yet been discovered,’ writes William Foxwell Albright in ‘Archaeology
of Palestine’, page 77. The most spectacular remains of this period is of a
gigantic open-air camp site overlooking the Dead Sea. Here is William Albright’s
description of it: ‘… overlooking the Dead Sea from an eastern terrace, is
a great open-air enclosure, defended by a wall of large field stones. Inside
the enclosure and around it are many ancient hearths, with quantities of sherds’
— and here an incorrect date is suggested. ‘Outside, at a greater distance,
are many graves dug in the ground and surrounded with small stones arranged
in such a way as to resemble megalithic dolmens superficially …. Most of the
graves were covered by shallow tumuli. At a little distance is a group of fallen
menhirs (‘messaboth’), which seem originally to have numbered seven’ (p. 78).
Whose camp was this? Israel’s!

At this point in the cultural history of Palestine archaeologists find the
country was suddenly devastated. Destruction and abandonment of towns are everywhere.
A sudden reduction in population occurs. Here is the archaeological evidence
of the invasion of Joshua!

Now we are in a position to place in chart form the proper relationship between
archaeological finds and history. Note that during the so-called bronze culture,
iron was every where in use in Palestine. A description of each period may be
found in detail in the works of Albright, Glueck, Kenyon, Wright and others.

The so-called Late Bronze period in Egypt and Palestine was quite lengthy.
It began much earlier than in Greece and the region of the Troad. This period
has not been clearly subdivided by archaeologists because they do not know it
pertains to the time of Israel and Judah It is usually assumed that it represents
the pre-Israelite Canaanites.

Not only does the so-called Late Bronze continue to the time of Assyrian
domination of Israel in the north of Palestine, it continued through the time
of the kingdom of Judah to Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion and the reign of Ramesses
the Great, Throughout the Late Bronze there is evidence of war and gradual decline.
Late Bronze pottery continued in use in Palestine even after the sixth century.
It was the culture of the returning Jews during the Persian period. This shocking
fact can be proofd from contemporary Egyptian history!

Miss Kathleen M. Kenyon points out in her book ‘Archaeology of the Holy Land’
(Praeger edition), page 218, that near the close of Late Bronze II the site
of Megiddo has yielded a model pen-case bearing the cartouche of Ramesses III.
His dates, restored earlier, are 381-350. At Bethshan a statue of Ramesses III
was found in Late Bronze setting. Below Ramesses III were stelae of Seti I of
the seventh century and scarabs and other objects of Thutmose III.

Late Bronze II, Level VII, of the dig at Megiddo even yielded evidence of
the reign of Ramesses VI (correctly dated to 340-333) in association with a
little so-called ‘Philistine’ pottery. This pottery is not Philistine ware at
all. It is Greek and Phoenician ware of the time of Alexander the Great! It
is derived from sub-Mycenaean III C, which is datable to the fifth and fourth
centuries B.C.

So-called ‘Philistine’ ware is misdated eight centuries too early. It is
falsely attributed to Philistines of the time of Samuel, Saul and David! The
reason for this mistake is, of course, that it is associated with Dynasty XX
of Egypt, which has been misplaced by about eight centuries. ‘Philistine’ —
actually Aegean — ware marks the final transition from the so-called Bronze
to Iron ages in Palestine. It is commonly believed that the Iron Age began about
the period of Joshua’s invasion of Palestine, that so-called Philistine ware
then appeared, and that the archaeological remains of David and Solomon and
the kings of Israel all belong to this period. This idea is utterly false. Other
than at Samaria, the so-called Iron Age in Palestine is a period of decadence
and poverty. It generally represents the period of rising Greek influence in
Asia and the later Hellenistic period and early Roman periods.

The site of Samaria has been used as proof that the Iron Age is the period
of the Israelite kings. It proofs just the opposite, The citadel on the summit
of the hill of Samaria, which is commonly attributed to Omri, Ahab and Jehu
has all the characteristics of typical acropolises invariably associated with
Greek towns! The Greeks under Alexander, having overthrown the Samaritans, cleared
away the top of the hill of Samaria and built their garrison buildings on its
summit. Archaeologists have taken for granted that Omri built it. The architectural
remains show typical Greek architecture. The excavation on the hill of Samaria
has not included the living quarters of the common people of the Israelite period.
If all the area had been excavated, archaeologists would have found remains
typical of the Israelites’ culture during the so-called Late Bronze period.
(See page 269 of Kenyon’s ‘Archaeology of the Holy Land’.)

As a result of antedating the so-called Iron Age culture by about eight centuries,
the period after the exile under the Persians is nearly a total blank in archaeological
works (see Kenyon’s work, pages 298-299). On page 301, Miss Kenyon writes: ‘The
only architectural remains belong to official buildings presumably associated
with the Persian administration, and the few rich burials probably belong to
members of the official hierarchy.’ In reality, the few structures found are
those of the Hellenistic period.

Mesopotamian Archaeology

The final phase of the restoration of World History is now approaching —
the archaeology of Shinar, Assyria and Egypt. The region of Mesopotamia is best
studied by taking Shinar as one unit, and the remainder of Mesopotamia as another
— the political areas of Babylonia and Assyria.

The post-Flood culture of Shinar begins with a phase known as ‘Late Ubaid.’
‘Early Ubaid’ is pre-Flood. ‘At all sites so far investigated in the South the
Ubaid remains rest directly on virgin soil, and there seems little doubt that
the people who bore this culture were the first settlers on the alluvium of
whom we have any trace’ (Perkins, ‘Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia’,
p. 13).

The earliest known phase near Ur is known as Ubaid I. It contains Woolley’s
‘flood deposit.’ The earliest post-Flood phase is known as Ubaid II which continues
to 1938, the year of the defeat of the four kings in Palestine by Abram.

With the defeat of the Mesopotamian (Assyrian) kings in 1938 a total break
ensues in the cultural complex of Ubaid III. The land is never again culturally
united until the late Assyrian Empire.

The next major period is generally known as the Protoliterate Period. In
older works and the most recent it commonly receives the name Jamdat Nasr, after
a city in Mesopotamia. In this Period excavations at the cities of Eridu and
Uruk will be noted in chart form.

The next Period is designated Early Dynastic I. It is properly equated with
the Dynasty of Akkad (see ‘Relative Chronologies of Old World Archaeology’,
p. 48). The cultural period extends to the initial invasion of the Guti in 1535.

Early Dynastic II extends from 1535 to about the end of the Acadian Dynasty
in 1436. (Of course, these political dates are only general indicators of changes
in cultural patterns.)

Early Dynastic III extends to the Elamite invasion that brought about the
establishment of the cities of Isin (1301) and Larsa (1306).

The next cultural phase is properly associated with Isin, Larsa and Dynasty
I of Babylon (1174-879).

Northern Mesopotamia

And now Northern Mesopotamia, especially the land of Assyria.

It is commonly taught today that Assyria and the highlands surrounding the
Mesopotamian plain were settled long before the region of Shinar was dry enough
to inhabit. To some extent this is true. But the duration of time cannot be
archaeologically determined. Only a historical record can determine that. The
duration of human settlement from the highland down the river valleys eastward
to Shinar took only about one century! The city and the tower of Babel were
built only 114 years after the flood ended.

The earliest cultural phase in Northern Mesopotamia is generally designated
Hassuna, from a site where it was first found. Unstratified, less advanced cultures
have also been found in the highlands, but they are not demonstrably older.
They are of nomadic peoples and minor villages, and continued parallel for a
few centuries with other cultures in the growing cities of the later pre-Flood
Mesopotamian Plain.

The pre-Flood Hassuna culture is represented at the site of Nineveh by strata
1 and 2, and at Hassuna by strata I-V. The phase covers human movements somewhat
before the end of the pre-Flood world in the area settled by the family of Seth.

We next find the development of a later pre-Flood culture. This northern
culture is called by archaeologists the Halaf Period — after the site of Halaf.
These meaningless archaeological names would really become interesting if they
had been properly connected with contemporary leaders who have molded ancient
history.

Halafian is represented at Nineveh by strata 2 b and 2 c. At Hassuna by strata
VI through X. At Arphchaiyyah it is represented by strata 10 through 6. At each
site there is evidence of warfare at the end of the period. Violence filled
that world.

The sudden end of the Halafian period signifies the end of the pre-Flood
world. Just before it ended there was a new cultural development in Southern
Mesopotamia. The next cultural period was once thought to commence with a heavy
influence out of Iran, but now is beginning to be recognized as of local origin.
The new cultural period is termed Northern Ubaid I and is the latest pre-Flood
culture. Through Noah’s family it continues into the post-Flood world.

The most important post-Flood phase of this new period reveals a revival
of religious practice. At Tepe Gawra in Assyria, a temple began to be built.
Its commencement corresponds with the new building phase of the temple at Eridu.
This revival of religion can be dated from the time of Nimrod to about the year
2137 — the return of Isis (Semiramis or Ishtar).

A complete break in cultural unity occurs at the end of Northern Ubaid II.
As in Shinar the land becomes divided into numerous local cultures. This phase
— the Warka Period — bears the same name as in the south, but it exhibits
many different features. It is related to Eastern Anatolia and North Syria,
the Aramaic homeland. It corresponds in time to the latter period of influence
of the Arabian or Aramean Dynasty of Berossus — 2043-1828.

Beginning with the Warka Period, the cultural phases of northern Mesopotamia
are generally correctly associated with the phases of Babylonia as not to necessitate
further discussion here. Any of the publications listed in the Bibliography
are suitable for pursuing this section further. It is only in the earliest periods
that a restoration is needful.

Note in concluding, that every cultural phase is reflected in political events.
Further, observe that the common stratum occupies about the space of a generation
— not upwards of a century as postulated by evolutionary archaeology.

Egypt In Parallel

But what about the many centuries that are assigned to the ‘Pre-Dynastic’
cultures of early Egypt? How can these be reconciled with the demonstrable historical
fact that human beings did not arrive in Egypt until the Dynastic Period? Egyptian
history teaches us that there was no ‘Pre-Dynastic Age’ in Egypt. What have
the archaeologists discovered in the Nile Valley? Is there correspondence between
Egypt and Palestine and Mesopotamia that dates these assumed early cultures
of Egypt? Indeed there is!

The Maadi culture in North Egypt is known to correspond with the Gerzean
in South Egypt (p. 2 of ‘Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology’, R.
W. Ehrich editor). With what period is Gerzean contemporary?

Here is the surprising answer: ‘The equation of Late Gerzean and Early Bronze
I in Palestine is clear’ (page 5).

Again: ‘Most important for establishing a synchronims are the four cylinder
seals of Jemdet Nasr style (imports and imitations), two of which occur in well-documented
Late Gerzean graves’ (page 5).

This means that the latest so-called ‘Pre-Dynastic’ culture was parallel
with the Protoliterate in Mesopotamia, which began about 1828. Egypt’s latest
‘Pre-Dynastic’ (!) culture was the culture of Egypt just before the coming of
the family of Jacob to Egypt — four hundred years after the first dynasty commenced
at Thinis.

Prior to the Maadi (in the North) and the Gerzean (in the South), Egyptian
culture is subdivided into Merimde and Fayum in the North and Amratian, Badarian
and Tasian in the South. These cultures show affinities with the Ubaid of Mesopotamia
and the Neolithic of Jericho.

But how does one explain the backward cultures of the people of Egypt when
the royal tombs exhibit such sophisticated tastes — superior, in fact, to the
common tastes of Palestine or Mesopotamia? Josephus answers: ‘Whereas these
Egyptians are the very people that appear to have never, in all the past ages,
had one day of freedom, no not so much as from their own lords’ (‘Against Apion’,
II, 12). See also ‘Antiquities’ I, 8.

Egyptian princes and kings always lived in a fashion far beyond the inclinations,
or even the knowledge, of the common fellaheen. The backward culture of early
Egypt is not found stratigraphically beneath the remains of the earliest dynasty,
but contemporary with it and succeeding dynasties. ‘Neolithic’ remains in Egypt
were reproduced even to Roman times!

With this material the essential framework of history is restored. There
is perfect harmony between true history, true scientific archaeology and the
Bible. History and the Bible can be reconciled.