MESOPOTAMIA REVEALED: 'Kingship At Its Source' VOL-III

MESOPOTAMIA REVEALED: ‘Kingship At Its Source’ VOL-III, by Dr. John D. Pilkey, c. 2007, 2019 (Soon to be republished Volume-III) Published by < Book Portal: www.WeirdVideos.com > For Volumes II-VI see Amazon books under the names; Dr. John D.Pilkey and Ross S. Marshall (editing, Annotations), also under the following titles on Amazon: - Noah’s Family Speaks Vol-II - Noah’s Ark and the Genesis 10 Patriarchs , and soon to be republished - Mesopotamia Revealed: ‘Kingship At Its Source,’ Vol-III - A Mesopotamian [originally ‘Postdiluvian’] Timeline Vol-IV - A Continuous Narrative of Postdiluvian History Vol-V, and - Noah’s Designed World, or A Designed World Vol-VI - Origin of the Nations Vol-I - Noah’s Cosmos, Vol-IA CONTENTS List of Illustrations List of Tables Chronological List of Colonizations Preface Glossary of Terms 1 The World in Two Halves The War of Uruk and Aratta Effects of the War Struggle for Control of the Hamitic Linguistic Stock Two Kinds of Early Postdiluvian Traditions Indo-Europeans and Europe 2 Punitive Exile Timetable of the Arabian Exilic Process The Egyptian Ennead Rebellion against the Exilic Process Centum Aryans and the Teutates Panel Harappan Civilization Black Africa 3 To the Ends of the Earth Five Sons of Ur-Nanshe Ashkenaz and the Ural-Altaics The Austronesian Linguistic Stock Colonization of Africa Colonization of the Americas Mesoamerican Identities Colonization of North America 4 The Elite of Genesis 10 The First Kish Order Induction of the Noahic Elite Feudal Titles in Genesis 10 Ethnology of the Aratta Schism Ethical Themes of the Feudal Clans of Eleven 98 103 138 144 5 Narmer and His Enemies “Dynasties” of the Sumerian Dynasty III Period Akkadians and the Battle of Teutates First Four Egyptian Dynasties 6 The Twenty-Second Century and Egyptian Chronology Egyptian Chronology The Gutians Amorite Kings Egyptian Dynasties of the Twenty-Second Century The Abrahamic War and the Sumerian Restoration Retrospect on Sumerian Chronology The Antediluvian Dynasties 7 Identities of the Noahic Elite The Japhethite Section The Hamite Section The Shemite Section 149 111 154 114 158 117 162 122 167 124 170 128 175 131 178 133 181 136 183 143 191 147 195 150 166 8 Ur-Nanshe, the Akkadians and L. A. Waddell L. A. Waddell’s View of Ur-Nanshe Hittite Mythology Waddell’s View of the Akkadians Waddell’s “Ukhu City” 9 The Living Noahic World Japhethites Hamites The Taranis and Medb Panels and Xia Dynasty Shemites Colonization of Teutonic and Danubean Europe Antediluvian Ethnology 10 Profiles of the Noahic Elite I Male Antediluvians and Japhethites Noah Shem Ham Japheth Colonization of Celtic Western Europe Gomer From Empire to Nation: The Turning Point of 2158 Magog Madai Javan Tubal-Eber Meshech and Tiras Ashkenas Riphah Togarmah Vassals of Javan 11 Profiles of the Noahic Elite II Cush Mizraim Phut Canaan 107 Hamites 198 216 Sabtah Sabtecah Olympian Empire in the Aegean Zud and Anam Philist and Caphtor Sidon Members of the First Kish Dynasty Heth Daughters of Noah Labors of Herakles and the Argonautic Tradition 12 Profiles of the Noahic Elite III Shemites Asshur Arphaxad-II Ghost Phonemes and Casual Etymologies Sons of Shem The Satem Aryan Expedition Arphaxad-I and the Tradition of the Gundestrup Caldron Shelah The Colonization of Egypt Vassals o Joktan 13 Summary Chronology Twenty-Fourth Century Twenty-Third Century Twenty-Second Century Appendix I: An Analysis of Pantheons Appendix II: The Problem of Japheth and Kali Appendix III: Tribal Divisions of Northern Albania Appendix IV: A Selection of Constructs 477-Noah. The Ukko; The Didanu; 478 The Etana-Balih; 479 Shem. The Dadasig; 479 Ham. The Havilah; Ham. The Titan-Olympian. 482 Japheth. The Sheba; The Suilap; 483 The Fornjot; The Svarog 484 Magog. The Gutian Japhethite; 484 Ashkenaz. The North- American 485 Togarmah. The Kudai Bai Ulgon; 486 An. The Sumerian High Pantheon 488 Sidon. The Inanna; 489: The Javanite 491 Inanna. The Cainan 492 Shelah. The Shemite 493 Joktan. The Sarmatian Joktanites Appendix V: A Replication in Ptolemy’s Eastern Germany Appendix VI: A Replication in Southeast Asia Appendix VII: Selective Index Chronological List of Colonizations Cities of Sumer. Table 4.1. 2368-2340 First Kish Order. Table 4.2. 2338 Interim Colonies of the Sons of Ham. Table 11.1. 2338-2310 Primary Semitic Cities. Table 12.1. 2302-2277 Satem Aryan Sarmatia. Table 12.3. 2278-2250 Interim Punitive Colonies in Arabia. 2278- 2208 “Olympian” Colonies: Aegean and Greece. Table 11.4. 2244-2188 Egyptian Nile. Tables 12.5 and 12.6. 2230-2189 Ural-Altaic Eurasia. Table 3.1. 2218-2188 Interior Africa. Table 3.3. 2208-2168 Far East. Table 11.6. 2188-2158 Coastal Europe. 2178-2162 Interior Europe. Table 9.6. 2166-2155 North America. Table 3.8. 2162-2146 Era 6 Era 7 Era 8 Era 9 Era 9-11 Era 10-11 Era 10-11 Era 11 Era 11-12 Era 12 Era 12 Era 12-13 Era 12-13 Preface The ideal goal of Genesis 10 study is to destroy secularism. Secularists believe that they possess a logically coherent worldview proving that the Bible cannot be comprehensively true concerning origins. They worked out this consensus in the 19th and 20th centuries through a constant pressure of rebellion vigilant to select and interpret data seemingly inconsistent with the Bible. Several key components go to make up their belief system: the traditional chronology of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, a critical use of “eponym ancestry,” anthropological and psychological assumptions about mythology and, in contrast, certain misconceptions among Biblicists such as the belief that linguistic and racial diversity did not exist prior to the Tower of Babel. At the root of modern secularism lies the 18th century trend known as the “Enlightenment.” This movement derived from the desire by Europeans to put an end to the religious strife of the previous two centuries. Thinkers in the 18th century searched for and found a common ground between Protestants and Catholics in a general avoidance of religious themes by a re-focus on natural philosophy or “science.” This re-focus gained rapid recognition through the practical benefits of scientific study. Theological insight began to appear abstract and impractical. Religious faith seemed to have caused more harm than good. Even devoted Christians began to adopt an ideal of the Brotherhood of Man, at odds with religious sectarianism. The two dominant cultures that existed before and after 1740 were adversarial in more ways than one. Theology was not the only issue. The earlier, Renaissance culture emphasized social, political and intellectual eminence. After the time of Voltaire, the “enlightened” culture came to mean egalitarian democracy. Both sides in this conflict of values were ill-equipped to appreciate the biblical account of origins. The Renaissance culture was crippled by racism and contempt for the masses. The enlightened culture, as it developed in the 19th and 20th centuries, was prejudiced against the central element in postdiluvian times— kingship built from the monogenetic top down. When the crucial science of Sumerology came to light, the Sumerian assertion that “kingship descended from heaven after the Flood” could no longer be appreciated as a foundational truth. In their embittered rivalry the Renaissance and Enlightened viewpoints both crippled the modern capacity to appreciate biblical origins. Latter-day Renaissance types like L. A. Waddell in the 1920s understood that radical kingship held a key to origins but centered their concept of eminence in an anti-Semitic bias in favor of ancient Indo-Europeans. Waddell despised the Bible as a Semitic document. He found the Renaissance principle of eminence in a set of ancient, exclusively Indo-European rulers of universal, imperial scope. He could not imagine that the rulers he admired derived from a multi-racial and polyglot elite at the core of Noah’s expanding family. Neither he nor other secular scholars could reckon with the high longevities which made this elite a practical reality. Another type of Renaissance mindset, loyal to the Bible, reacted inappropriately toward Semitism in a way that failed to appreciate the Sumerians and other non-Semites. These Biblicists reacted to the opposite extreme and were offended to discover that neither the Sumerians nor Elamites— the latter assigned to Shem’s family in Genesis10:22— were Semitic speakers. They kept looking for Semites as though Noah himself were a Semite. Meanwhile the ardently democratic, mainstream culture processed antiquity in a plausible but equally false manner. On the Christian side, the central emphasis on the Brotherhood of Man seemed to make common cause with biblical monogenesis: the unity of human origins in Adam and Noah. This stress on radical unity came to rest, however, in the mistaken assumption that humanity was united in race and language throughout history prior to the Tower of Babel event. As early as the Christian fifth century, St. Augustine laid a false foundation for the “enlightened” view with two mistaken beliefs about Genesis 10-11: (1) that mankind was strictly unified in race and language before Babel and (2) that the names in Genesis 10 refer to “races not men” so that these names, taken as persons, can only be viewed as eponymous ancestors without concrete historical reality. Augustine and other early Christians added the equally mistaken assumption that polytheism is the same thing as idolatry. They neglected the form of polytheism affirmed in Psalm 82. The secular worldview can be shattered at its foundation by a number of perceptions based on a harmony between the biblical account of origins and observed data: racial fixity of type; the module value of thirty-year periods in Genesis 11; the recognition that linguistic unity of language was the sin under judgment in the Tower of Babel event; a reinterpretation of eponym ancestry; evidence of both euhemerism (the equation of men and gods) and a theology of diversity of the names of God in the polytheism of the earliest nations; and the steady emphasis on kingship in the earliest records of Sumer, Egypt and India. An accurate understanding of biblical monogenesis must be built, not on generalities, but on specific identifications of ancient names with a core of elite human beings listed in the text of Genesis 10-11. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 refers both to races and men according to a pattern of interlocking feudal relationships. A systematic study of these lists by means of comparison with selected historical and mythological names results in certain surprises. Twelve of the names refer to women: three scattered through the Mizraim clan, four at the close of the Canaanite clan and five at the end of the Joktanite clan. At the time of the Flood, the four female survivors gained high importance as genetic carriers of the Adamic heritage of four races. For thematic reasons the Bible practices tact by refusing to acknowledge these female identities. To do so would have meant dealing with racial diversity explicitly. The Bible diverts attention from race to realities that all men and women share in common. Race remains implicit and so does the female presence in Genesis 10. Compiled by Moses by the time of the Exodus, the Book of Genesis is in some ways an anti-Egyptian document. Hebrews of Moses’ time were fully aware of the great goddesses of the Egyptian pantheon and preferred an account of origins purged of such persons. There was no room for a “goddess” in the Hebraic worldview. To have specified female members of of the community of names in Genesis 10 would have simultaneously promoted a distractive knowledge of racial diversity and brought to light the “Mahadevi tetrad” of the East Indians: the four female survivors of the Flood conceived as a four-in-one sect of women under the label “Mahadevi,” “Great Goddess.” Another peculiarity of Genesis 10 is that it combines a minority of physical paternities with a majority of feudal sonships by oaths of loyalty. The Japhethite section is typical. Only the first three names in 10:2 refer to physical sons of Japheth. The fourth name refers to a grandson. The remaining three are vassals of Japheth recruited from the family of Shem. The three vassals of Gomer in 10:3 were all postdiluvian sons of Noah; and the four vassals of Javan in 10:4 combined one son and three grandsons of Sidon, son of Canaan son of Ham. Although the text places emphasis on Noah’s three antediluvian sons, the full body of persons referred to throughout the text reveals an intertexture of genetic and political relationships. These conclusions have relatively little to do with biblical exegesis. The study recorded in this book lays hold of all relevant data from high antiquity under guidelines furnished by Genesis 10-11.When I name the patriarch Ashkenaz of Genesis 10:3, for example, I am simultaneously referring to Wakan-Tanka of the Dakotas, Skan of the Sioux, Kanati of the Iroquois, Yarlaganda of the Gutians and Yarilo of the Slavs. Each name in Genesis 10 draws to focus light gathered from the ends of the earth. This exercise in reconstructive history depends so heavily on hypotheses concerning the cross-cultural transmission of proper names that it is always subject to criticism by conventional skepticism based on academic linguistics. This sort of criticism is deeply entrenched in academia because it reflects the time, effort and social prestige involved in the mastery of ancient languages. It reasons from fine nuances of phonetic habit and preference in specific languages as well as grammatical, syntactic and idiomatic practices. Despite its usefulness in some cases, this critical method is fundamentally illogical in dealing with cross-cultural transmission of “foreign” names such as Persian “Ashkenaz” or “Arphaxad” in the Hebrew Bible. False assumptions are made about the closed character of linguistic cultures; and these in turn are based on popular, nationalistic or “Nativist” views of human origins as opposed to the imperial-international view developed in this study. The replication pattern shown in Appendix V and VI furnishes positive proof of the validity of our method and basic premise. Thirteen contiguous tribes in Ptolemy’s chart of ancient Germany tell an unambiguous story. As named and located, they display an ancestral memorial of the early postdiluvian heartland from Lydia in the northwest to eastern Arabia in the southeast and including Akkad and Sumer. “Nativist” assumptions about the origin of such tribes are quite false. Mankind once belonged to a vast, worldwide empire shaped by an elite set of fifty-four persons whose lives extended over the second half of the third millennium BCE. “Nativism” is democratic sentiment misapplied to ancient history. The opposed term “Diffusionism” is inadequate to convey the precise and explicit nature of man’s imperial origin. Glossary of Terms Anship. High priesthood of the heaven god An, equivalent to El Elyon, a name of God associated with political sovereignty. Antediluvian. Referring to the period of world history prior to Noah’s Flood. Aryan. A synonym for “Indo-European” and referring to one of the eight great linguistic stocks of mankind. Atum. An Egyptian term meaning “totality” and denoting the imperial monad of the world in the early postdiluvian period. Austroasiatic. The southern part of the Sino-Tibetan linguistic stock inhabiting Southeast Asia. Austronesian. The linguistic stock inhabiting the oceanic, island world extending from Malagasy to Polynesia and including Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua, native Philippines, native Taiwan, Micronesia and Melanesia. Dumuziship. High priesthood of the shepherd god Dumuzi, equivalent to Hebrew Adonai and associated with blood sacrifice as first practiced by Abel. Early Postdiluvian. The period after Noah’s Flood when the imperial monad of the world was still clearly recognizable. Enkiship. High priesthood of the water and wisdom god Enki, equivalent to Hebrew El Olam and associated with eternity, mystery and intellect. Enlilship. High priesthood of the air god Enlil (“Lord Wind’), equivalent to Elohim and associated with the creation of nature and man as well as with verbal inspiration. Euhemerism. The identification of gods with human leaders chiefly of the Noahic world monad. Feudalism. A political system based on oaths of personal allegiance such as described in Genesis 14:1-4. Genesis 10 is chiefly a feudal document in which the governing principle is feudal as well as natural sonship. The common term for feudal sonship is “vassalage” with an implication of obligatory service. Finno-Ugrian. A western branch of the Ural-Altaic linguistic stock including Hungarians, Finns and certain tribes of greater Russia. Hamitic. The linguistic stock proper to ancient Egypt. The term is carefully distinguished from the phrase “sons of Ham” because it refers to a people descended chiefly from Japheth and transferred to Ham by political revolution. Indo-European. The linguistic stock predominating in Europe, Russia, Iran and India. Inanna Succession. The derivation of Shem’s imperial line of Genesis 11 from the male bloodline of Canaan owing to the teenage union of Arphaxad I’s daughter Inanna (“Cainan”) with Canaan’s son Sidon, generating the next imperial heir Shelah. Ishkurship. High priesthood of the storm god Ishkur, equivalent to Hebrew Yahweh, God of justice, punitive righteousness and religious and moral separatism. Isochronic Modules. Units of time used by the Noahic council to divide and schedule colonization processes and local “dynasties.” Ka. The Egyptian term equivalent to Sumerian namlugal meaning “kingship” and Akkadian term karibu meaning “enthroned.” In Egyptian hieroglyphics, it is represented by the figure of a man with upraised arms. This image carries the same meaning in the Celtic Gundestrup Caldron. Monogenesis. The origin of mankind from a single genetic source. Nannaship. High priesthood of the moon god, equivalent to El Shaddai and associated with the passage time and generations and the principle of revolutions in history together with their dispensational results. The Nannaship constrasts with the solar Utuship, the principle of immutable glory. Ninurtaship. High priesthood of the war god Ninurta, equivalent to El Gibbor and associated with physical strength and its correlatives. Noahic Elite. A compact community of fifty-four persons bearing the feudal names in Genesis 10 and distinguished from later humanity by high longevity and unique political privileges and genetic and other duties. The Noahic elite are the absolute feudal aristocracy of early man, invariably accompanied by euhemeristic deification. Polygenesis. The theory that the races of mankind are genetically unrelated, especially as it existed prior to World War II and the Nazi Holocaust. Since the Holacaust, polygenetic views have been restated as “Nativism,” waiving the genetic element but maintaining that cultures have developed independently according to distinctive local environments. Semitic. The linguistic stock predominating in Ethiopia, Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and North Africa. Hebrew is an ancient Semitic language. The term is carefully distinguished from “Shemite,” meaning “pertaining to Shem,” a man who began life as an Indo-European and inherited the Semitic stock through political revolution. Sino-Tibetan. The linguistic stock proper to China, Tibet and Austroasia. Sumer. Ancient southern Mesopotamia inhabited by speakers of Sumerian, a language related to the Finno-Ugrian branch of the Ural-Altaic stock. Because Noah was a Ural-Altaic, Sumerian was the most likely lingua franca in the diluvian family at the time of the Flood. Noah’s family inhabited Sumer for sixty years prior to the Flood and are incorporated into the antediluvian section of the Sumerian King List. Ural-Altaic. The linguistic stock of Manchuria, Mongolia, non-Russian Siberia, central Asia, Turkey and the Finno-Ugric nations as well as Korea and Japan. The Ural-Altaic character of Korea and Japan is rather uncertainly defined. Utuship. High priesthood of the sun god Utu, equivalent to Yahweh Sabaoth and associated with resurrection and changeless perfection. Chapter One The World in Two Halves A series of four momentous events occurred in the years 2518, 2398, 2340 and 2302: Noah’s Flood, the sin of Ham and curse on Canaan, the Tower of Babel event and the war between Uruk and Aratta. The first is reported by the Bible and the Sumerian King List; the second, by the Bible and the Akkadian Marduk Epic; the third, by the Bible and indirectly by Hellenic tradition; and the fourth by Sumerian legends and the Marduk Epic. The data at my disposal is identical to what is commonly known and accepted as fact by nearly everyone. The radical difference lies in interpretation. Owing to an instinctive contempt for biblical monogenesis, modern historians have failed to put the Flood tradition to work. Noah’s universal deluge occurred in 2518 and reduced the population of mankind to eight persons. One of the reasons why this event remains virtually inconceivable to modern thought is that nations were built from the top down by patriarchs who pre-existed the people they subsequently ruled. That reality is so alien to democratic thought that modern scholars cannot process the simple statement in the Sumerian King List that, “Kingship descended from heaven” after the Flood. They deny the Universal Deluge because they are unwilling to follow up its implications. Following the Flood the foundational political history of mankind was largely determined by three events occurring 120, 178 and 216 years after the Flood. Prior to the 120th year, eight survivors of the Flood worked to organize one linguistic stock each: Noah, the Ural-Altaics; Japheth, the Hamites (Egyptians); Ham, the Semites*; Shem, the Indo-Europeans; Noah’s wife Mahadevi, the Amerindians; Japheth’s wife Kali, the Austronesians; Ham’s wife Uma, the Sumerians; and Shem’s wife Durga, the Sino-Tibetans. When Ham offended Noah, his father punished him by cursing his son and heir Canaan. The curse transferred rule of Ham’s Semitic stock to Shem. In compensation, Ham inherited Japheth’s “Hamitic” stock. Shem transferred his Indo-Europeans to Japheth. [*p.140]* Reasons for identifying Ham with the Semitic stock are given in Chapter Nine in the entry on the year 2398. This radical exchange occurred so early that there is nothing misleading in referring to Ham’s original stock as “Semites” or to Japheth’s as “Hamites.” The original status quo, however, continued to influence the political course of later events. The West Semites of Palestine adopted the name of Canaan according to their origin from Ham’s son Canaan. Japheth attempted to recover his Egyptian people and continued to be venerated in Lower Egypt as the god Atum Re. East Indian Aryans remembered their founder Shem as Brahma, the Originator. Shem turns up in other Indo-European pantheons as storm gods such as Tar, Thor and Zeus. Among the Semites the same patriarch appears as the storm god Adad or Bal. The second major event was the construction of the Tower of Babel in central Mesopotamia in the 178th year. Because Ham lost his Semitic stock to Shem, he felt justified in making the most of the Hamites received from Japheth. He determined to reduce the entire world community to a single Hamitic stock by teaching the Hamitic language to all the protoplasts as a lingua franca. The Tower of Babel scheme arose from his effort to create radical linguistic unity where it had never existed before. He designed a world capital at Babel to be built by the world community speaking Hamite.The tower itself was to be a temple to Noah’s Ural-Altaic Heaven God An (Akkadian Anu), Hebrew El Elyon. As master of the world’s one universal language, Ham would now attempt to answer Noah’s curse by claiming the priesthood of An for himself and, in effect, become the first “Pharaoh” of World-Egypt. In that respect he overreached the theocratic mandate of the Hamitic stock, which Japheth had devoted instead to the worship of God as Sun, Utu-Shamash-Re and Hebrew Yahweh Sabaoth (“Lord God of Hosts”). Divine intervention condemned Ham’s scheme by causing non-Hamitic workers at Babel to forget the lingua franca. All the families resumed the diverse languages of Noah’s original design. The Tower of Babel event did not create languages and races but confirmed their existence. In the 180th year the linguistic protoplasts lived in separate colonies in and around Mesopotamia under the rule of Shem’s heir Peleg the Divider. This arrangement held firm until the 210th year. In that year Peleg split the world community into halves in order to preserve the “Inanna succession” according to which he was already Shem’s fourth imperial heir. In his mind it remained possible that the imperial line of Mesopotamia might revert to the direct male descendents of Shem’s son and first heir Arphaxad I rather than passing, as it does, to the male line of Canaan through the teenage union of Canaan’s son Sidon with Arphaxad’s daughter Inanna. Such a reversion would mean that Peleg’s grandfather Shelah would no longer claim the imperial birthright. In withdrawing half the world to Aratta, Peleg hoped to secure his followers from listening to propaganda in favor of changing the succession. The result was a typical dynastic war like the Hundred Years’ War between England and France over the succession of the French crown. The War of Uruk and Aratta Peleg’s anxious schism resulted in the third formative event of early postdiluvian history: the war between Sumerian Uruk (Erech) and Iranian Aratta. An added dimension was a continuing struggle between Japheth and Ham over control of the “Hamitic” linguistic stock located at this time at Sippar in Akkad. The family of Ham reasserted their claim to the Hamitic stock by centering their hopes in Cush’s son Nimrod. To explain Nimrod’s significance, it is essential to clarify the genealogies of Shem and Ham. Genesis 11 contains Shem’s genealogy extending from his son Arphaxad, born two years after the Flood, to Abram in Shem’s eighth generation. Although this genealogy should be accepted at face value as a theocratic reality, it is complicated by genetic interaction between the families of Shem and Ham. The line in Genesis 11 is penetrated twice by the family of Ham, first by his son Canaan and later by his son Cush. It is entirely mistaken to interpret the line of Shem as the “godly seed” and the line of Ham as ritually impure. The entire family of Noah was formally holy at the time of the Flood. Ham simply violated Noah’s moral standards. His family persisted in offending Noah down to the time of the curse. Genetically, however, there was nothing unholy about the union of the families of Shem and Ham. All the families were essential to rebuild the racial plenitude which God had first created in Adam’s family. Ham’s mother descended from the “red” race of Abel, who outlived their murdered father to inhabit the antediluvian land of Havilah in Arabia. This race worshipped God under the name Elohim and became the Semitic stock. Shem and Japheth’s mother descended from the white race of Cain. This stock worshipped God as Yahweh and inhabited the Kurgan region northeast of the Caspian Sea as the first Indo-Europeans. Both these races were part of a divine design. The first entrance of the male line of Ham into the line of Shem occurred at the birth of Shem’s nominal grandson Shelah, who was born 37 years after the Flood to a female designated “Cainan” in the Septuagint Greek translation and Gospel of Luke. This female was a daughter of Shem’s son Arphaxad. At a very early age, she united with Canaan’s son Sidon and gave birth to Shelah by him. Shelah became known as the victor in the Uruk-Aratta War under the Sumerian name Lugalbanda and Akkadian mythological name Marduk. The second intrusion of Ham’s family into Shem’s line occurred in Shem’s fifth generation at the birth of Peleg’s son Reu. Ham’s son Cush begot this ruler by Peleg’s twin sister Bilika-Pele. Destined to become the foundational Emperor Sargon of the Akkadians, Reu appears in Genesis 10:8 as “Nimrod,” the “Mighty Hunter,” so important to Mesopotamian history that the Bible styles that region of the earth the “land of Nimrod.” Nimrod’s nominal father Peleg ruled Mesopotamia after the 180th year. Nimrod became Emperor Sargon in the 270th. Particular importance, however, attaches to his political behavior after the 210th. Knowing that Japheth intended to reclaim the Hamitic stock for himself, Peleg-Kingu, Reu-Nimrod and Noah’s wife Mahadevi-Tiamat devised a conspiracy to undermine Japheth’s plan. All three served the interests of Ham: Mahadevi because Ham was her antediluvian son; and Peleg and Nimrod because they derived in the male line from Ham’s sons Canaan and Cush respectively. Mahadevi exercised control over her antediluvian “sisters” Durga and Kali and their proper stocks and hers: the “red” Amerindians, Durga’s Sino-Tibetans and Kali’s Austronesians. Uma’s portion of the Ural-Altaic stock remained true to her son Japheth at Uruk and became the historic Sumerians; but the rest of the stock joined the Aratta faction. These four stocks constituted a formal half of the world’s population. In the 210th year, the three conspirators guided their half world from Mesopotamia to Aratta somewhere to the northeast. This emigration is clearly represented in the mythology of the Pygmy Negritoes of the Andaman Islands in which Puluga, god of the northeast wind, carries half the world community to the northeast, leaving the other half in the hands of Darya in the southwest. Egyptian tradition associates the Uruk-Aratta War with their founder Japheth by dating it precisely in the 336th year of the Sun King Re-Harakhte. These 336 years bracket the period from 120 years before the Flood when the Ark project began to the 216th after the Flood when the war began in the reign of Enmerkar of Erech. Japheth’s role in this event can be deduced from Sumerian legends of the war together with an overview of Japhethite peoples located in Iran. A Sumerian legend states that Aratta was overthrown by Lugalbanda and a band of eight heroes “of whom he was the eighth.” These details are summarized by Samuel Noah Kramer in The Sumerians (1963). The other main source for the Uruk-Aratta War is the Akkadian Marduk Epic where it forms the narrative climax where Peleg is named the adversary Kingu. Peleg’s immediate goal was to isolate half the world so that they would not be persuaded to acclaim Obal (the Sumerian sun god Utu) as Shem’s second heir rather than Shelah. Eventually Peleg intended to overthrow Uruk by force of numbers. To counteract Peleg’s plan Japheth acted through his seven vassals in Genesis 10:2. The first four of these belonged to his own family. Gomer, Magog and Madai were his sons and Javan a grandson by Gomer. Particular political importance attaches to the last three names in the list. These three were Shelah-Lugalbanda’s progeny. Unlike Peleg Shelah felt secure in his possession of the imperial birthright. He allied himself with Japheth. His son Eber takes the name Tubal in 10:2. Two of Eber’s sons conclude the list of seven names, Joktan as Meshech and another son Tiras. At the time of the schism, Peleg refused to join these vassals of Japheth and had to be replaced by Tiras. Joktan-Meshech preceded Enmerkar as ruler of Uruk in the Eanna dynasty under the Sumerian name Meskiaggasher, calling himself a “son” of Utu-Obal, the man Peleg feared as alternative heir of his ancestor Nanna-Arphaxad I. Eber and all three of his sons appear together in Hellenic-Phrygian tradition under the names Atys, Lydus (Peleg), Tyrsenos (Tiras) and Car (Joktan-Meshech). Eber, Peleg and Joktan are also listed among the five vassals of Shem in Genesis 10:22 under the names Elam, Lud and Aram respectively. Peleg’s name Lud is embodied in the Indo-European Lydians and Joktan’s name Aram in the Semitic Aramaeans. The Sumerians identified Eber as Gilgamesh, a subsequent ruler in the Eanna dynasty of Uruk and hero of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Most of the patriarchs in Japheth’s list are represented in Iran as reward for their role in conquering Aratta. Eber’s Shemite name Elam corresponds to the land Elam or Lumma east of Sumer in the southwestern corner of Iran. Japheth’s third son Madai is commonly identified with Media in the Zagros Mountains farther north. Intervening between Elam and Media lies Luristan, inhabited by the Lurs, named for Llyr, Japheth’s firstborn Gomer in the Celtic tradition of Wales. Gomer’s son Javan is represented indirectly by the Kurds or ancient Kardouchi named for Caradoc, Gomer’s grandson though Brân (the Welsh name for Javan). Javan’s own tribe was the Yavanas of Ionia known in India from the time that Gangetic Indians inhabited Anatolia. Magog is represented by the land of Hyrcania south of the Caspian. Japheth’s son by the Red Matriarch Tiamat-Mahadevi, Magog was remembered by the Aryans as a wind god Rudra the Howler. In Amerindian tradition, the Caribs name him as the hurricane god Hurricano, cognate with Hyrcania. The last two tribes of Japheth are located westward as though to confirm Kramer’s Lake Van theory of Aratta’s location despite the Andamese tradition that Puluga moved his half world to the northeast. This discrepancy may be explainable by the way the Sumerians always thought of mountains as lying in the east and would not distinguish the Caucasus from the Zagros. Aside from his Shemite identification with the land Elam, Eber gave his Japhethite name Tubal to inhabitants of Georgia in the Caucasus. These people speak a language radically distinct from the original eight; and the same is true of Eber’s son Tiras, if we assume that the Tyrsenoi of Asia Minor migrated to Italy to become the linguistically exotic Rasena or Etruscans. This distribution of the Japhethite names thoughout Iran and the mountainous north reveals that the seven heroes who accompanied Lugalbanda-Marduk in his conquest of Aratta were the seven of Genesis 10:2. The result of the war was that the three matriarchal stocks that followed Tiamat to Aratta became the “blood of Kingu” shed abroad over the earth in distant exile from Mesopotamia-Iran. The race of Caucasoid Uma, Sumerians, remained in Mesopotamia and was replaced at Aratta by Noah’s Ural-Altaic stock. Kramer refers to the Sumerian language as “Turkic” as though belonging to the Ural-Altaic stock. The same is true of the Finno-Ugrians, who are classified as the westernmost branch of the Ural-Altaics. Unlike the similar Finno-Ugrians, however, the Sumerians remained true to Japheth’s faction at Uruk. An interpretive issue has always been how Aratta was subdued. A detail given by Sumerian legend is that Mesopotamian Uruk controlled Aratta’s grain supply. Another concerned which city state maintained the favor of the goddess Inanna. Sumerian legend refers to a duel fought to determine the dispute and conserve lives when world population was still comparatively low. The lord of Aratta, no doubt Peleg-Kingu, demanded that the force from Uruk present a champion “colored neither black nor white, neither brown, yellow nor dappled.” (Kramer, 271) From the time of Adam’s family forward, four races of mankind had been “color coded”: black Adam, white Cain, red Abel and yellow Seth. These four racial types were carried into the postdiluvian world chiefly by the four surviving females. As for the term “dappled,” Nimrod seems to have been a spotted mulatto since more than one culture symbolizes him by a leopard. If “brown” represents the red strain, the challenge seems to mean that the Erechites should produce a champion distinct from the four “female” stocks at Aratta and from its spotted leader Nimrod. The duelists are identified, in effect, by Iranian tradition as the opposed gods of good and evil. The winner was Japheth’s son Madai, identified by the Sumerians as Mashda of First Kish and by Iranians as Ahura Mazda, the god of goodness and light. The loser was Cush’s son Nimrod, who emerged from the battle with two different Aryan images as the losing god of evil, Ahriman, and as the hangman-captor of Aratta fugitives, Varuna as recruited to the Erechite cause after losing the duel. Effects of the War The war split the world into halves creating a civilized-uncivilized barrier with lasting effects. Political realities following the war suggest that both Peleg and Nimrod abandoned Tiamat’s cause and returned to Mesopotamia, leaving the rebel stocks in Iran doomed to distant exile. To a great extent the defeated stocks became what we now call the “Third World.” Peleg and Nimrod reappear in Mesopotamia as the powerful rulers Lugalannemundu and Sargon. Peleg is identifiable with Lugalannemundu for two reasons. First this Sumerian is said to have reigned for ninety years. That sum was arrived at by stringing together three successive eras of thirty years each from the beginning of the First Kish period to the rise of Sargon. The Celtic Gundestrup Caldron interprets its version of Peleg as Cernunnus, sitting cross-legged, wearing stag antlers, holding a serpent and surrounded by a field of paired animals. This image represents the First Kish order and interprets it as the first thirty years of Peleg’s domination. Ignoring his defeat as the lord of Aratta, Sumerian tradition interprets the thirty years of the Eanna dynasty as Lugalannemudu’s second thirty. The third is the period from the 240th to the 270th when Peleg reigned as “King of Kish” (Emperor of Sumer) under the Sumerian name Lugalannemundu at Adab. The Noahic high longevities made for situations like this and have been misunderstood by secular scholars, who reject high longevities merely because they are biblical. The second reason for identifying Lugalannemundu with Peleg is that this ruler left an inscription claiming to reign over eight regions of the earth. These regions in Mesopotamia, Iran and Syria prove to be the original eight lands claimed by the Flood survivors in the earliest decades after the Flood. Lugalannemundu took care to specify these lands, not because they were the result of his conquests, but because he knew their true origin. By claiming them he established the full meaning of his Hebrew name Peleg, meaning “Division.” The eight lands constituted the first political division of the earth after the Flood. Noah claimed Subir-Subaria on the Upper Tigris where he established the Ural-Altaics. Japheth located the “Hamitic” stock at Musri in the land named by Lugalannemundu’s inscription Marhashi and marked by the trade town Markasi, modern Turkish Maraş near the River Ceyhan. Shem claimed the Mesopotamian capital zone Akkad-Sutium; and Ham, Semitic Martu west of Akkad. Three of the antediluvian females claimed lands in Iran; black Kali, Lumma-Elam, east of Sumer; red Mahadevi, Gutium in the Zagros Mountains east of Akkad; and yellow Durga, Lugalannemundu’s “Cedar Mountain Land,” Persia proper southeast of Elam if not the Indus Valley even farther east. Although these claim lands were clearly remembered down to the time of Lugalannemundu after 2278, most of their original inhabitants were forced into other parts of the world as a result of the Uruk-Aratta war in 2302. Iran was eventually taken by a single linguistic stock, the “Satem” or eastern division of the Indo-Europeans. Japheth’s motive in the war was to recover control of the “Hamitic” stock. As a result of his effort, his Indo-European vassals took command of Iran, supplanting the female stocks whose matriarchs had originally claimed the Iranian lands of Lugalannemundu’s inscription. Japheth was venerated in Egyptian religion as Atum Re and placed at the head of an important set of progenitors, the Ennead or “Great Nine.” As Pharaoh Snefru he introduced the Pyramid Dynasty IV in Egypt where he reigned with several of his offspring in the 22nd century. Portrait statues of Magog as Menkaure are probably the best likenesses of an early postdiluvian in existence, surpassing even the portrait busts of Sidon as the late-ruling Gudea of Lagash in Sumer. The conflict of Uruk and Aratta lived on in the curious ideology pitting Lower and Upper Egypt against each other in a perennial, though bloodless, opposition. Reu-Sargon’s son Serug, the Akkadian Emperor Manishtushu became the first dynastic Pharaoh Menes in Upper Egypt. Nimrod-Sargon was venerated as Amun-Re in Upper Egyptian Wazet (Thebes) as a result of Serug’s reign there and became the rival of Lower Egyptian Atum Re as chief Egyptian sun god. The net result of these events was that the monogenetic aspect of the Noahic world community was destroyed by the exile of black, red and yellow stocks to the ends of the earth. The Akkadian Marduk Epic gloats over this development, picturing it as the diffusion of Kingu’s blood to create mankind. Kingu was Peleg’s political identity in 2302, scapegoated as enemy of the Sumero-Akkadian world. What the diffusion of his “blood” really led to was a false polygenetic impression of man’s origin bereft of any clear knowledge of Adam and Noah. Because of this polygenetic delusion, I have always viewed the outcome of the Uruk-Aratta War as a vast evil akin to the Fall of Man. On the other hand, I am in no position to place blame on Peleg, Nimrod, Shelah or any of the other players, even Sidon, who masterminded the overthrow of Noah’s authority and created the cult of statuary idolatry. Each of these characters is a historic treasure as part of the reality underlying universal world history. There is nothing evil in linguistic and racial diversity. It was part of the divine plan from Adam’s family forward. I honor Peleg, Nimrod and Shelah simply because they were elite early postdiluvians, sharing in the gift of dynamic high longevity foreign to later humanity. To that extent they were types of resurrection glory. I take their world-building enterprise as analogous to the future role of immortals in building the millennium: the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. The real blame for polygenism lies with modern scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries who jumped at the chance to discredit the Bible by developing the false implications of widely separated races of mankind without clear traditions of ancient unity of origin at a common geographic center. Struggle for Control of the Hamitic Linguistic Stock Leaders of the Aratta Schism must have realized that grain supply would be a problem. In the Marduk Epic the conspiracy of Tiamat and Kingu poses a threat to the other “gods,” especially Ea-Sidon, Marduk’s father. The epic pictures Tiamat and Kingu as preparing some mysterious weaponry capable of overthrowing the world order. In contrast the Andamese myth of Puluga and Darya asserts merely that the world was divided because of overpopulation. One conclusion to be drawn is that the leaders at Aratta hoped to establish independence coupled with the goal of eventual supremacy. A ready explanation is that Nimrod had already laid the groundwork of his favor among the proto-Egyptians as rival sun god Amun Re. He sought to appropriate the Hamitic stock and tip the balance of the world in favor of the community at Aratta. As it turned out the Egyptian protoplast remained in Mesopotamia until Akkadian times after 2448. As legitimate heirs of the language Ham attempted to make universal at the Tower of Babel, they remained at first in Akkad at the Sumerian cult center of the sun god Utu-Shamash. They lived at Sippar and Kish until the rise of Sargon. Eventually Nimrod’s son Serug-Menes approached Upper Egypt by the “Lower Sea” route from the Persian Gulf via the Arabian and Red Seas. A strong clue to this strategy is that the Braided Goddess panel of the Gundestrup Caldron shows Mahadevi-Tiamat as the empress of the Arabian Peninsula and Upper Egypt. Just what form her imperial authority over that part of the world took remains to be analyzed. It is clear that Arabia and adjacent Africa corresponded to the antediluvian lands of Havilah and Cush from which Mahadevi and her black “sister” Kali derived. The panel shows Kali as the goddess’ companion in the position of East Africa. Mahadevi outranked Kali and the other two antediluvian matriarchs because she was Noah’s wife and mother of Ham, his original heir before the curse. In the Joktanite list of Genesis 10, Mahadevi appears under the name “Havilah,” the same name assigned to her antediluvian son Ham in the Cushite list. The Aratta scheme appears to have been an attempt to divert attention to the north before descending in great force to the Lower Sea from Iran and seizing control of Egypt from the south as Menes eventually did. In contrast Japheth intended to bring the Egyptian stock into Lower Egypt via the Mediterranean from Syria. In the earliest division of the earth after the Flood, he claimed as his portion Syria or the Amanus Mountains, known to the Sumerians in Lugalannemundu’s inscription as Marhashi. Noah’s postdiluvian family had already toured the Nile in the sixty years prior to the 120th year. These early nomadic tours were conducted, not to colonize, but to prearrange orderly colonization later. Egyptian tradition stresses the duality of Upper and Lower Egypt. That duality was a direct result of the Uruk-Aratta war as memorialized in the design of two Pharaonic thrones placed back to back. Nimrod’s plan was to split the Egyptian stock into halves, one approaching the Nile from the south and the other from the north. If he had not succeeded at this in the Akkadian period, the stock would have remained unified according to Japheth’s principle of atum or unity. Given the four matriarchal stocks at Aratta, the conspirators sought to appropriate the Hamite stock as a unit; but Nimrod may have planned all along to divide the stock as actually happened after the war. As divider of the entire world community in the 210th year, Peleg-Kingu was either the source of this plan of division or amenable to it when it was proposed. As a result of the war, the “Centum” division of the Indo-European stock eventually found a home in Europe. One of the most potent arguments against biblical monogenism in modern times has resulted from the discovery of this international linguistic group in the late 18th century. The discovery that European languages including English belong to a far-flung linguistic community excluding the Semitic of the Old Testament led to a sense of cultural independence from the Bible. It implied that biblical antiquity counted for little if it represented only one linguistic branch of a larger world. This sense of Indo-European independence was powerfully reinforced by an analysis of the basal vocabulary of the language as recounted in Albert C. Baugh’s History of the English Language. This analysis uncovered a vocabulary implying an origin for the entire stock in a northern, landlocked region such as White Russia (Belarus). Baugh quotes Harold H. Bender’s Home of the Indo-Europeans. The basal vocabulary excludes words for animals at more southern latitudes like the camel, lion, tiger, monkey, and crocodile and for vegetable life such as rice, banyan, bamboo and palm. Instead it includes such northern animals as bears, wolves, beavers, weasels, deer, rabbits, mice, and horses. Special importance attaches to the common words for the beech tree and bee, not found in Asia. Thomas Cable, co-author of later editions of Baugh’s book supplies additional insight including a suggestion that the Kurgan region is a more likely homeland than White Russia. Instead of compromising my views of Noahic origins, Bender’s analysis sheds light on how languages originated in Noah’s family. The postdiluvian founder of the Indo-European stock was Shem, a man of Cainite, Caucasoid origin through his mother Uma. Shem’s face appears in one of the exterior panels of the Gundestrup Caldron: the Hirschnatur or “Stag Nature” panel. It depicts the patriarch in the usual “Ka” posture with upraised hands holding a pair of stags in either hand. Bender’s list includes the deer. Two important biblical traditions explain this detail. In Genesis 2:19 Adam named the animals and birds as though such labels were a primary step in the formation of language. Second, Noah’s family spent a hundred and twenty years before the Flood in preparation for it. In that time they not only built the Ark but collected animal species to carry on the diluvian voyage. Each of the eight survivors of the Flood was of monumental importance because the eight formed a plenitude, not just a random band of survivors but a designed kosmos from which a world of nations would emerge. These eight persons complemented the animal species because God had already designed a tetrad of races in the family of Adam. Because Noah represented only the Sethite or Yellow race, the other races had to be gathered from the regions of the earth which they inhabited. The Red Matriarch’s face appears, as we have seen, in the Braided Goddess panel designed to represent the Arabian Peninsula as in a north-top map. Her antediluvian race inhabited this Arabian land of “Havilah.” The design of Shem’s Stag Nature panel suggests that his responsibility was to represent a region of the earth reflected in the basal Indo-European vocabulary. In contrast his brother Japheth established ties to antediluvian Egypt so that the Egyptians could claim that he reigned continuously as the Sun King Re-Harakhte from 120 years before the Flood. Actually Japheth was born two decades later. A division of labors assigned Shem to the antediluvian Kurgan region and his brother to antediluvian Egypt, no doubt to gather animal species from these lands and to invent or preserve the respective Indo-European and “Hamitic” tongues by “naming the creatures” as Adam had done. Some Biblicists have concluded that climate must have been uniform throughout the earth in the antediluvian period, excluding the kinds of climatic habitats suggested by the Indo-European vocabulary. The majority of evangelicals follow tradition in assuming that linguistic and even racial diversity did not exist prior to the Flood. In my view the definition of the four seasons in Genesis 8 is just another example of the Noahic mandate to form a designed kosmos, in this case, by naming what was already present in nature. Genesis 8 elicits a tetrad from nature— “seed time and harvest, summer and winter”— just as God designed a tetrad of races and, more explicitly, the system of four rivers in Genesis 2: 10-14. Bender’s linguistic evidence convinces me that climatic zones of the type familiar to us existed before the Flood and that Shem’s task was to observe the northern zone and absorb the Indo-European language from it. Japheth took up an entirely different language while observing the physical environment of Egypt. Ham derived the Semitic from the environment of antediluvian Havilah. The discovery of Asian or brachycephalic skulls of an early type in the Far East suggests that Noah’s Sethite race had already inhabited an antediluvian version of the Far East. Just how these lands related to the four-river system I have not yet discovered. My chief interest lies with the early postdiluvian world, not the antediluvian. Eventually I will analyze the antediluvian scheme revealed at the start of the Sumerian King List; but most of the focus remains on the world after the Flood. Everything about the early postdiluvian period singles it out as one of the most unusual stages in world history: high longevities thrown into juxtaposition with a more populous world of ordinary mortals, the deification of these unique rulers, regular thirty-year eras imposed on history according to political agreement among the patriarchs, the deliberate creation of nations through such practices as eugenic polygamy, a universal polytheism rooted implicitly in monotheism and the net result of a symbolically reinforced theocracy. The real marvel is the comparative sobriety of the Book of Genesis as reflective of Moses’ chastened spirit at the giving of the Law. In contrast with Moses the majority of Noahic princes were a euphoric, even manic breed, inclined toward mythology from the outset and dealing with concrete realities of mythic stature. The events themselves were marvelous, memories fragmented and selective, the plurality of cultures confusing, symbolic acumen intense and universal, personal names multiple and magical in implication and travel, discovery and colonization the order of the day. One of the saddest spectacles of scientific history is to witness German scholars rejecting the perspective of British and French writers like Jacob Bryant and Samuel Bochart because the theme of colonization struck them as too mundane to acknowledge mystical view of the gods as “creative powers.” What was needed was a combination of mystical acumen concerning symbols and powers and the British theme of concrete, sober history. The synthesis never happened and its absence allowed for the vacuum into which Darwinism rushed. World history of the early postdiluvian period was a vast, cryptic poem rooted in the concrete facts stated in the Book of Genesis and in the concrete records of Sumerology and Egyptology. In The Sumerians Samuel Noah Kramer expresses surprise at the discovery that Gilgamesh, hero of the epic, also turns up as a member of the Eanna dynasty of the Sumerian King List. The analytic bias of modern science persuaded him that sober history and imaginative literature belong to two distinct categories of writing. Of course our culture has worked out its own understanding of the difference between fact and fiction despite the vast amount of factual information included in most fiction. There is no reason to believe that the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh intended any of his text to be read as fiction. Nor is there any reason to regard it as anything less than historical merely because it is stylized in certain ways. Two Kinds of Early Postdiluvian Traditions Early postdiluvian traditions are of two kinds. In the first, events referred to occurred in Mesopotamia or Iran even when anachronism transfers the locales to other regions of the earth. A case in point is the Welsh Mabinogion in which a variety of Noahic persons and events are treated as though they were the homegrown chronicles of Wales.The second kind refers to events that took place outside the Noahic heartland but in the early postdiluvian period. This second kind is difficult to confirm because the possibility of anachronism must always be considered. A special feature of the question is whether the elite patriarchs themselves journeyed to distant regions. When Gilgamesh visited the Noah figure Ziusudra the Faraway, how far away was this version of Noah located? It is easy enough to place patriarchs in the Canaanite and Syrian west and Egypt. In other cases this sort of insight is difficult to establish. For example did Eber and his sons Peleg, Joktan and Tiras ever journey to Asia Minor where they appear in Phrygian and Hellenic tradition as Atys and his sons Lydus, Car and Tyrsenus? According to conventional scholarship, these names are “eponyms” invented by the Greeks to personify the Lydians, Carians and Tyrsenoi of Asia Minor. The critical notion of “eponym ancestry” is an all-too-convenient way to discredit traditions so as to undermine the biblical assertion that specific nations descended from specific patriarchs. As a critical tool used indiscriminately, eponym ancestry is a weapon of the polygenetic conviction that different nations are radically unrelated in high antiquity. That understanding of the device, however, does not mean that it is untrue in all cases. At first glance Lydus, Car and Tyrsenus seem shadowy and must be proved to have been physically present in Asia Minor. Another feature of Hellenic tradition suggests that Eber’s family did, in fact, inhabit Asia Minor for a time. Peleg’s “son” Reu was Nimrod as well as Sargon of Agade. Nimrod the “Mighty Hunter” appears no fewer than three times in lands adjacent to Caria. He is Xuthus-Cush’s son Ion, “eponym” of the Ionians, who inhabited Greek Ionia along the west coast of Caria; Orion the Mighty Hunter, located on the island of Chios off the coast of Ionia; and Helius, “Sun,” son of the sun Titan Hyperion-Cush and father of the Heliadae, who inhabited Rhodes off the southern coast of Ionia-Caria. This reinforced Hellenic association with Nimrod may explain why the Book of Daniel identifies the Alexandrian Empire as a leopard, that spotted beast being a symbol of Nimrod the spotted mulatto. The myth of Atys places Nimrod in Asia Minor in another way. Atys aspires to marry the daughter of the god of the River Sangarius (the Sakarya southeast of Istanbul). That name echoes Tangaroa, a Polynesian god who represents Ham’s son Mizraim (nominal patriarch of Egypt) in the Maori family of Raki-Ham. The significance of this name for Nimrod is that the Polynesians are members of the Austronesian linguistic stock created by Kali as devotees of the war god Ninurta, Nimrod’s pantheon name in Mesopotamia. As for Tangaroa-Mizraim, two of the tribes assigned to him in Genesis 10 found homes in the Aegean to the west: the Caphtorim of Crete and the Philistines who left Crete to inhabit coastal Palestine. As Ninurta, Nimrod probably knew Austronesian as suggested by the names of his first two cities Babel and Uruk in the Palau Islands. He may well have assigned Mizraim’s Austronesian name to the River Sangarius. There is a distinct possibility that Nimrod took the name Tangaroa or Sangarius himself in order to consolidate his relationship with Egypt in becoming their rival sun god Amun-Re. Waddell identifies Sargon and Manishtushu with a pair of East Indian kings, Sagara and Asa-Manja. If Sagara is a version of Sargon-Nimrod, this Indian name could easily derive from the same source as Sangarius. The Turkish version of the River Sangarius, Sakarya, makes the point that Sagara and Sangarius could easily be cognate. This reinforcing coincidence removes Ionian and Rhodian Nimrod from the logic of mere eponym ancestry. Granted that “Ion” looks like an eponym, why then does the same patriarch appear under two other names in the same region? All three traditions look like a local reflection of the actual man’s presence in a part of the world where he was remembered by three different populations, all testifying that Reu-Sargon-Nimrod came to the southwest corner of Asia Minor at one stage in his career. If he was present there, the “eponymous” Lydus, Car and Tyrsenus cease to figure as fabricated shadows and turn solid. The real explanation of eponymous ancestry is that the Greeks adapted names of persons they knew to be real to the nations they knew to derive from them. All these traditions suggest that Eber, three of his sons and a grandson (Nimrod) actually journeyed to Asia Minor at the Aegean coast. Two traditions explain Nimrod’s presence in Asia Minor. As Sargon he carried out a western campaign of undetermined extent in the eleventh year of his reign in 2333. This campaign as far west as Ionia complemented the expansion of the Akkadian Empire into Magan-Egypt as described in L. A. Waddell’s Makers of Civilization in Race and History (1929). The other tradition is the biblical account of Nimrod’s career in Genesis 10:10-11. Under his Shemite name Asshur, he founds four cities in Assyria after creating his empire in Sumer and Akkad. When the Assyrian Empire eventually developed, its rulers dealt with the Ludu or Lydians of Asia Minor. The Persians incorporated Lydia into their empire. All these empires were successors to the first one formed by Nimrod-Sargon in Mesopotamia. The same thesis is supported by a curious affinity between the traditions of Syrian Ugarit and Phrygian Troy. In setting the background for the Trojan War, the Greeks traced the descent of the Trojan king Priam from a patriarch Dardanus, brother of Lacedaemon (“eponym” of the Lacedaemonian Spartans) and the god Hermes of nearby Arcadia. The name Hermes is cognate with Hebrew “Ham” as it is with Sumerian “Gurmu,” grandfather of Ur-Nanshe-Heth, king of Lagash. As brothers of Hermes-Ham, Lacedaemon and Dardanus prove to be Japheth and Shem respectively. A version of the name Dardanus appears among the Shemite Assyrians as Tartan. In the Hellenic tradition of Troy, Dardanus begets Erichthonius (Yerikh-Nanna-Arphaxad I), who fathers Tros and Ilus, one of whom becomes the ancestor of Priam. The names Tros and Ilus are a linguistic curiosity. Instead of referring to two patriarchs, they really represent one, misinterpreted as two. The Greeks responsible for the tradition constructed two names from an unpointed Ugaritic text referring to their chief god Tr Il, “Bull El,” another version of Arphaxad’s son Shelah-Marduk. Bull El’s sons Athtar, Mot and Yamm include the Shemites Hazarmaveth (Mot) and Elam-Eber (Yamm). The other son Athtar turns up in the Trojan genealogy as Tros-Ilus’ son Assaracus. One of the important mythological texts, from Ugarit, recounts the struggles of Bull El’s sons against Aliyan Bal, “Puissant Baal,” the storm god known in Syria as Adad or Dada, the Syrian cult version of Shem. The strange construction of “Tros and Ilus” from Tr Il reveals that someone in the Hellenic world understood that Troy and Ugarit were closely connected even though the Phrygians spoke Indo-European and the people of Ugarit a West Semitic tongue closely related to Hebrew. To expand the picture, Bull El’s son Yamm-Elam-Eber (Phrygian Atys) appears as Ebrium, king of Ebla (Ibla) in West Semitic Syria. The same movement that brought the Semitic Aramaeans to Syria extended farther west to Asia Minor and, as we will see, into the Lower Danube region. The Levantine coast extends to Caria-Ionia; so there is nothing surprising in this development. The crucial question, however, is when and why Nimrod and other patriarchs should have journeyed along that coast. L. A.Waddell supplies an answer. Sargon-Nimrod’s successor Manishtushu became a great mariner, responsible for colonizing Upper Egypt by the Lower Sea and the Upper Sea island of Crete where he was remembered as Minos, “eponym” of the pre-Hellenic Minoans. The Hebrews referred to Crete as Caphtor and locate the Caphtorim or Cretans in Genesis 10 among the vassal tribes of Ham’s son Mizraim, Egypt personified. Once focus turns to Crete, we recall the Greek myth that Zeus carried Europa from Phoenicia to Crete together with Euhemerus’ claim to have found an inscription by Zeus and his father Cronus in Crete. With Eber’s family located in Asia Minor, there is no reason to doubt that the Noahic patriarchs represented by the names Zeus and Cronus actually settled for a time in Crete on the southern edge of the same Aegean Sea that washes the shores of Ionia on the east. Caria, Ionia, Rhodes, Chios and Crete, therefore, all enter the immediate sphere of the early postdiluvian world community in the period of the Akkadian Empire. The Greek trade town of Argos on the west side of the Aegean appears to reflect Nimrod’s Akkadian name Sargon. Indo-Europeans and Europe A corollary question is whether the Noahic world community reached into Europe at a time when the earliest patriarchs were still living. The answer depends, to some extent, on the antiquity of Greek traditions. To Robert Graves none of the Greek mythology can have any bearing on realities of the third millennium. Greek myths, in his view, were either fabricated out of whole cloth or picked up randomly from Asiatic or Egyptian sources no earlier than the start of the first millennium. Graves rests on the assumption that the Greeks, like other Indo-Europeans, were grown from polygenetic seed in the soil of isolated White Russia or the Kurgan region. In support of that view tangible Greek history does not extend much further back than the 7th or 8th century. In reply I suggest for Greece the same explanation that I offer for the eight lands of Lugalannemundu’s inscription or the nomes of the Nile. Noahic patriarchs, in small numbers, visited and defined locations in advance of any large-scale colonization. Conceding that the bulk of the Indo-European stock inhabited the Kurgan region even in postdiluvian times has no bearing on such pre-colonial locations, whether in the Middle East, India, Egypt or Europe. Concrete archeology is valuable but not definitive for this subject. Noahic presence in Greece could have laid the foundation for the twelve Olympians, not only through anachronistic references to Mesopotamian events but as the record of an actual set of patriarchs on site in Greece and personally identifiable with the Olympian twelve. If Eber’s family spent time in Asia Minor, there is no reason to doubt that other sets of patriarchs spent time in Greece. The design of the Olympian twelve gods suggests that it is data of the second rather than the first kind. By Noahic standards, it is loosely enough constructed to represent a political sect of patriarchs emigrating under duress from the heartland. The general outline of the Hellenic pantheon, despite all its contradictions based on varying local traditions, is easy to recognize as Noahic. The chief Titans are the four sons of Ham: Hyperion, Cush, father of Nimrod-Helius; Oceanus, Mizraim; Phut, Iapetus; and Canaan, Cronus, whose first two sons, Poseidon and Hades, match the names of Canaan’s first two sons, Sidon and Heth. When I wrote The Origin of the Nations in 1983, I assumed that Cronus’ third son Zeus should likewise be identified as a begotten son of Canaan. But such a figure never materialized from the relevant traditions. The third name listed under Canaan, the “Jebusites,” were a Canaanite people inhabiting pre-Hebrew Jerusalem in Palestine. One of the keys to Zeus’ actual identity rests with personalities of the Abrahamic War in Genesis 14 involving Jerusalem under the name “Salem.” Talmudic tradition states that the mysterious Melchizedek, King of Salem, was the patriarch Shem. I agree. The Christian Book of Hebrews treats Melchizedek as a type of Christ because he is presented in Genesis 14 without parentage. I interpret Melchizedek as a version of Shem during the last 150 years of his life following the death of Noah 350 years after the Flood. It will be noted that the year 350 fell eighty years after the accession of Sargon. At that time the Akkadian Empire was in decline but still existed. Abraham was a grandson of Naram Sin (Nahor), the third major Akkadian emperor. Abraham’s birthplace Ur of the Chaldees was Sumerian Ur, lunar cult center favored by Naram Sin. Shem’s presence in West Semitic Palestine late in life may not appear to bear on the question of Indo-European origins in Europe; but a connection exists. In order to place Shem in the Olympian tradition, it is necessary to analyze the complementary relationship between the Indo-European and Semitic traditions. Shem created the Indo-European stock before inheriting the Semitic stock as a result of Noah’s curse on Canaan. For a time after the 120th year, he controlled both the Indo-European and Semitic stocks in a union symbolized by the dual name of his God, Yahweh Elohim. Yahweh represents the Cainite God of Storms (Psalm 18) native to Shem; and Elohim, Abel’s God of Ham’s ancestral land of Havilah in Arabia. There is every reason to believe that the West Semitic lands of Martu, Syria and Palestine were the Semitic counterpart to Indo-European Europe. That is why the name “Hittite” refers both to a West Semitic people and to Indo-Europeans living in Anatolia between Assyria and Asia Minor. Shem’s history includes an explanation of why the West Semites are a distinct people from the East Semites of Mesopotamia. The explanation rests with a Sumerian text, the Myth of Zu. According to this story, Zu stole the “Enlilship” from its rightful owner. Because Enlil, “Lord Wind,” is the Sumerian counterpart to Hebrew Elohim, the myth records a Hamite claim that Shem “stole” the cult of Elohim and the Semitic stock from its originator Ham. The myth claims that Ninurta took it back. Equivalent to Nimrod, the mythic Ninurta is the historical Sargon, whose Empire was the political core of East Semitic Mesopotamia, the “land of Nimrod.” The Eastern Semites are the portion of the “Enlilship” that Nimrod wrested from Shem. Accordingly the Western Semites— among whom Shem-Melchizedek and Abraham made their home— were the portion of the stock that Shem retained. That is why Shem’s Indo-Europeans were destined to inhabit Europe beginning with the “isles of the gentiles” along the Mediterranean and Aegean. Syria-Palestine was the jumping off point for Europe just as the Western Semitic Phoenicians were destined to invade Roman Italy in the Second Punic War. Shem’s Sumerian name Zu offers a first hint that he is the actual “third son” of Canaan, Olympian Zeus. Before appearing together on Euhemerus’ island of Crete, Canaan and Shem (Cronus and Zeus) established a political alliance requiring Canaan to adopt the older Shem as his vassal in the context of the Canaanite list of Genesis 10:15-18. Aside from the Greeks, the core of Shem’s family is perhaps best represented by Teutonic tradition. In the Eddic mythology, Shem appears as Thor (his traditional identification with the Storm God Yahweh), Joktan as Odin, Peleg as Frey and Shelah’s grandfather Canaan as the war god Tue. Shem is our “Thursday”; Canaan, our “Tuesday”; Joktan, our “Wednesday”; Shem our “Thursday”; and Peleg, our “Friday.” As capstone of the Teutonic reflection of Noah’s family, Canaan’s two sons, Sidon and Heth (Olympian Poseidon and Hades) appear as Teutonic tribes in Ptolemy’s map of Germany: the Sidones to the east and Chatti (Hessians) to the west. The Anatolian Hittites were also referred to as Chatti or Hatti. Before the rise of Sargon, Heth appeared in Sumerian tradition as the historic ruler Ur-Nanshe (“Champion of the Nanshe,” Canaan’s mother Uma) son of Gunidu (Canaan) son of Gurmu (Ham-Hermes). At Lagash Heth apparently chose sides with Nimrod and the East Semites rather than Shem and the West Semites. Ninurta-Nimrod became the chief god of Sumerian Lagash under the name Ningirsu, the “chief warrior of Enlil.” Because Nimrod’s father Cush takes the identity of Enlil in The Marduk Epic, it follows that Ningirsu should be Enlil’s advocate and hence a prime representative of the Semitic linguistic stock in its Mesopotamian form. As Sargon, Nimrod brought that stock to a position of dominance at Agade. Given a pattern of alliance between Canaan and Shem, Euhemerus’ claim of finding an inscription by Cronus and Zeus in Crete lends high importance to the Olympian tradition of the Hellenes. As priest of Yahweh, Shem appears in many cultures as a god of storms: Sumerian Ishkur, Ugaritic Aliyan Bal, Syrian Adad, the Hittite Great Storm God, Teutonic Thor, Prussian Tar and others. The names Tar and Dardanus suggest that Shem was Darya, who governed the Erechite half of the world in Andamese tradition. Zeus is both a storm god and sky god, reflecting Shem’s dual identity as the first priest of the Storm God Yahweh and then as representative of Noah’s Heaven God An, Melchizedek’s El Elyon. Despite the early enmity between Shem and Canaan based on Noah’s curse, the two became co-belligerents in a struggle against Nimrod’s Akkadian Empire. The polarized world of Shem and Ham gave way to the opposition of Akkadian power and an anti-Akkadian league. In keeping with the Hellenic tradition that Zeus carried “Europa” from Phoenicia into Crete, the alliance between Canaan and Shem on that island figures as a stage in the colonization of Europe. As the Olympian sea god Poseidon, Canaan’s firstborn Sidon opened the way to Europe. In the oldest pantheons he appears as Akkadian Ea (Nudimmud of the Marduk Epic), Sumerian Enki, Ugaritic Kothar-wa-Khasis (responsible for building Aliyan Bal’s “temple”) and Egyptian Ptah. Ugaritic tradition throws Kothar and Bal into alliance in harmony with the Olympian fraternity of Poseidon and Zeus. The Egyptians placed Crete under the rule of Ptah. These traditions converge on a single point. Shem and Canaan agreed to cooperate in the colonization of Europe, beginning with Crete. We might even conclude that “Bal’s Temple” is Europe, especially in that Bal’s adversary Bull-El Shelah had made Mesopotamia his “temple” as Marduk. The co-belligerant alliance between Shem and Canaan may appear to be contradicted by the way Shem stirred up Hamite enmity just before the rise of Sargon by destroying the cultus of Ningirsu at Lagash and receiving the curse of its priest Urukagina, Ham’s son Coeus. Once the nature of Sargon’s tyranny was recognized, however, the alliance became a necessity. Coeus’ own people, the Gutians or Goyyim of Genesis 14:1 became the chief anti-Akkadian force on earth. The argument that all Indo-Europeans inhabited the northern land of Kurgan after the Flood is rendered unnecessary by locating their ancestors and the formation of their basal vocabulary there in the antediluvian period. There is no reason to trace all the postdiluvian Indo-Europeans back to that land except for positive evidences that they inhabited Kurgan after 2500 B. C. If the postdiluvian Hellenes, Teutons, Italics and Celts did, in fact, inhabit the Kurgan region or White Russia before reaching their traditional lands in Europe, Shem and Canaan coordinated their colonization process from the opposite end of maritime Europe in Crete. Naturally we think of White Russia or Kurgan as undesirable compared with lands of the Fertile Crescent. Did the Greeks conceive of the Baltic location as their punitive land of Tartarus? If so the Indo-European colonists were somehow implicated in the fate of the fallen Titans. The Indo-European Celts are believed to have dwelled in North Africa because of certain affinities to the Egyptians. Celtic tradition furnishes a particularly significant version of Ham’s son Mizraim, Egypt personified. Welsh Mynogan combines a source for both Mizraim’s Egyptian name Min and his Hellenic Titan name Oceanos. Process of elimination throws the fourth great Centum Indo-European stock of Europe, the Italics, into identification with Ham’s son Cush, Titan Hyperion. However the last contact between the Centum Indo-Europeans and sons of Ham took place, not in Europe, but on the coasts of Arabia where the Hamites were serving as Ocean Dragon Kings or judges of the captive stocks from Aratta. Just how the Centum Indo-Europeans were prevailed on to obey Shem’s design to consign them to “Tartarus” remains to be explained; but we have already pointed out that Shem inherited the antediluvian version of the Indo-European tongue and fathered the original core of the postdiluvian Indo-European stock. Shem knew this people in and out; and they knew him as representative of the Storm God, for whom the stock was first created. The question is why they would divide into four branches in order to act out the ritual punishment of Ham’s four “Titan” sons. The European connection with Ham’s sons was at least partly genetic. Despite Shem’s role in originating the linguistic stock, the Hellenes claimed descent from Phut-Iapetus; and Canaan fathered the Teutons through his firstborn Sidon. The same logic applies to the Celts. The Celtic facial type shown in the Gundestrup Caldron displays a brachycephalism in keeping with Mizraim’s character as son of the Yellow Matriarch Durga. Welsh tradition includes, not only Japheth’s yellow son Gomer as Llyr but Ham’s yellow son Mizraim as Mynogan. The family of Ham, however, did not exclude the genetic influence of Shem and Japheth from Europe. The Italics claim descent from Shem’s son Arphaxad as the Latin god Saturnus (Arphaxad I’s Joktanite name Hadoram). Saturnus heads a four-deep genealogy proceeding from his son Picus (“woodpecker”) to the grandson Faunus (the “faun”) and ending in the Latin eponym, his great-grandson Latinus. The tradition refers to the sequence from Arphaxad to Shelah, Eber and Peleg. The Roman image of a “faun” is consistent with Eber’s substantially Negroid character just as the similar Pan son of Hermes represents Ham’s mulatto son Cush. Japheth is represented in Centum Europe by the Suiones or Swedes, descendents of Japheth as Suilap, that patriarch’s Ural-Altaic name as son of Kudai Bai Ülgön-Noah. The name accounts both for the Swedes and Finno-Ugric Lapps. The larger question is how and at what time the four sons of Ham entered into the genetic formation of the major Centum Indo-European stocks from whom so many of us descend. In view of Ham’s diluvian marriage with the White Matriarch Uma, there is nothing surprising in the generation of a large number of fair-skinned Hamites. The question is how these became speakers of Centum Indo-European. If there is any question about the role of white Hamites in European origins, evidence comes from the Danish tradition of Saxo Grammaticus, who gives the Danes and Angles eponyms Dan and Angle. Those names refer to Ham’s sons Phut and Mizraim, the first as Egyptian Pharaoh Den of Dynasty I and the other as Tangaloa or Tangaroa, Polynesian name of Mizraim-Oceanus. Tangaroa resonates on the other side of the world in Polynesian New Zealand where Ham appears as Raki, Tangaroa’s father. The dyad of Shem and Ham is nothing compared to the world dyad of the matriarchal and patriarchal stocks generated by the Uruk-Aratta War. Noah’s curse set Ham at odds with Shem and Japheth; but the non-white stocks of Kali, Durga and Mahadevi fell into states of isolation from which they have only now begun to recover. Nothing like this ever happened to the Semites, Egyptians or even the more far-flung Indo-Europeans. The Egyptians whom we call Hamite and the “Semites” originally fathered by Ham were free from such a fate. The destiny of the Ural-Altaics resembled that of the matriarchal stocks because their father Noah fell out of favor. In fact one of Tiamat’s motives in the Aratta schism was to avenge Noah’s fall. The Hamite polarity of Europe can be explained further. There is much reason to believe that 210 years after the Flood Ham pressed for another universal lingua franca as he had thirty-two years earlier. We derive from the Olympian Ham-Hermes a jargon term “hermeneutics,” meaning the science of interpretation, because of the Greek tradition that, “Hermes interpreted the languages and then came discord,” meaning the Uruk-Aratta War. The thirty-year generations revealed in Genesis 11 were really a political term among the long-lived children of Noah. Once the conflict between Ham and Shem developed after the 120th year, periods of thirty years were treated as a means of maintaining peace by alternating Shemite and Hamite power. Shem’s faction dominated the period beginning in the 180th year. Ham’s turn came in the 210th. To win over his Shemite adversaries in the 210th year, he proposed that the Indo-European language of Shem and Japheth serve this purpose. The Centum Indo-European Hamites are fair-skinned members of Ham’s family, who accepted the scheme and spoke the language from that day forward. That is why the Centum Indo-European languages are generally less conservative than Satem Indo-European Indian and Lithuanian. The Japhethite polarity of Iran and Shemite polarity of Balto-Slavs clearly indicates that the Satem Aryans were to Japheth and Shem what the Centum Aryans were to Ham. The Centum Aryans followed Peleg to Aratta, hence the Gaelic tradition of William Butler Yeats’ poem, “Who Goes with Fergus?” that is, “Who follows Peleg to Aratta?” In the next chapter we will see that Centum Aryans, as members of the defeated colony of Aratta, participated in a punitive plan of exile bringing all these nations from Iran to coasts of the Arabian Peninsula. In Oman, in eastern Arabia, they rebelled against the plan to settle them at the Indus and circumnavigated Arabia to fight a battle near Carchemish on the Upper Euphrates before migrating to Europe. The behavior of the Satem Aryans is complementary. Under Japheth’s primary seven vassals, they followed Shelah against Aratta and settled the Japhethite names in Iran, their classic homeland. However there is some evidence that they did not remain in Iran at this time. The two Latvian towns of Indra and Dagda memorialize the Satem Aryan god Indra (Noah as priest of Shem’s God Yahweh) and the Centum god Dagda of the Gaels. Those names were planted there by the Balto-Slavic division of the Satem Aryan stock, who reached the same latitude as the Centum stock of Europe. Chapter Three will explain that some Slavs migrated to India, entered upper Eurasia through a pass in the Himalayas and settled in Sarmatia-Russia. This explanation will show that the Satem group, victors at Aratta, acted as watchdogs in making sure that the defeated Centum group obeyed the order to stay far from Mesopotamia. They pushed on to the Baltic where a share of them became the Balto-Slavs: Satem Aryans who represent Shem’s proper share of the Indo-European stock as we will see when we come to an analysis of the Canaanite section of Genesis 10. Indo-European Europe is to Ham what Russia, Iran and India are to Japheth and Shem. The jargon terms “satem” and “centum” are the contrasting words for “hundred” in the Sanskrit and Latin languages. Another European tradition with a bearing on the development of Aryan Europe is the Gallic tetrad of the gods Teutates, Taranis, Esus and Cernunnus. A major factor in the interior panels of the Gundestrup Caldron discovered in Denmark in the 1890s, these names represent Shem, Arphaxad I, Joktan and Peleg respectively. It would appear that these four Shemites took over the European scheme at the time of the “Battle of Teutates” in 2178 in Syria. The four Shemites took control of the Centum Aryans despite the genetic derivation of these from Ham and the White Matriarch. Latin tradition emphasizing Saturnus as founder identifies their European leader as Arphaxad-Taranis. Joktan’s place at the head of the Eddic pantheon as Odin identifies Esus-Joktan as leader of Canaan’s Teutonic stock. The same logic assigns the Hellenic stock to Zeus-Shem-Teutates as chief of the Olympians. The dominant figure of Peleg-Cernunnus in the Gundestrup Caldron places him at the head of the Celtic stock. Ancestors of the Celts who “went with Fergus” (Welsh Fercos) continued to follow Fergus-Cernunnus-Peleg, once their physical father Mynogan-Mizraim abandoned them in Arabia. This discussion of the Indo-European stock has not been intended to suggest that they are any more important in the universal scheme of things than Semites, Hamites, Ural-Altaics, Sino-Tibetans, Austronesians, Amerindians or black Africans. Our English-speaking membership in the Indo-European group, however, has given us more to work with in dealing with European origins. Of all the stocks banished from the Fertile Crescent, the Indo-Europeans are the most clearly visible to us. End of Chapter-I See publication for remaining 400+ pages.