CHAPTER NINETEEN

Early Britain and Western Europe

Why does the history of Western Europe begin with the Romans? Eastern Asia's history begins with the chinese over 22 centuries before the birth of christ. Africa's history commenced along the Nile equally early. So did Mesopotamia's. Greek history commenced with the government of Heber in 2063. Irish history reaches into the dim past to within three centuries after the Flood. Why should the history of continental western Europe be so different? Was Europe really uninhabited all this time? If inhabited, were its people the only folk unable to write or preserve a history? For even backward people of India have a recorded chronological history beginning 1649 before the present era!

The Enigma Solved

Surprising though it may be, Western Europe does have an ancient written history! Europe was populated -- albeit sparcely -- by numerous tribes who were indeed able to preserve their remarkable past in written form. This history of early western Europe was included in some texts as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century! Yet today it is almost wholly unknown! It has been literally erased from the consciousness of men.

The people who preserved the history of early Western Europe until modern times were the Welsh and the Germans. Because of bitter jealousies between the English and the Welsh and Germans, the history of early Europe and Britain -- especially Wales -- was finally extirpated from the English school system. English historians did everything in their power to label this history as "myth." Educators around the world, enamoured of the theory of evolution, gradually accepted, without seriously questioning, the conclusions of the English historians. How could early Europe ever have had a written history, so went the reasoning, if Europe was still gripped by the fetters of the "Stone Age" at the time Egypt and Mesopotamia were near the end of the "Late Bronze Age"?

Today, however, leading archaeologists admit that the so-called Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages were not ages at all, but cultures. It is time the whole question of myth, archaeology and early European history were reopened. It is time we asked ourselves what is the time relationship between so-called Stone, Bronze and Iron cultures and written history. Did civilization and writing really begin only with the bronze period, as is commonly assumed today? Or were the first civilizations and the earliest written records the products of people who, in fact, had not yet blossomed into what is today termed the bronze period? In what period, for example, did the Hebrew patriarchs live -- the Stone? the Chalcolithic? the Early Bronze?

To answer these basic questions, let us first present the history as it has been preserved by ancient Welsh and German authors.

Early Europe

Who were the earliest Europeans to inhabit the regions now known as Britain, France, Germany and Italy? The Angles and the Saxons -- the ancestors of the English-speaking people -- did not reach the British Isles until 449 -- over four centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus! This was the same period that other tribes flowed into the Roman regions of France, Germany, Italy -- and most everywhere else in Western Europe. Who were the people that possessed this part of the world before the coming of the recent Europeans, and before the coming of the Romans?

The history of Western Europe 2000 years before the conquests of Julius Caesar is just as surprising as the history of Ireland. Early volumes covering this period include: "Britannia Antiqua Illustrata: or, The Antiquities of Ancient Britain", by Aylett Sammes, 1676, London, Thomas Roycroft publishers: "The Historie of Cambria, now called Wales: A part of the most famous Yland of Brytannie, written in the Brytish lanquage above two hundred years past": translated into English by H. Lhoyd, 1584; and "Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre shewing the Origen and Antiquity of that illustrious Nation", by Bercy Enderbie, London, 1661.

The first volume mentioned -- by Aylett Sammes -- is by far the most complete and most accurate. It preserved to the very year the entire period from the beginning of settlement to the coming of Caesar. Sammes begins his book by dating the earliest record as "A.M. 1910." As he follows Archbishop ussher, his date is equivalent to 2094. (That is, After Man 1910 in Sammes' terminology means 1910 years after 4004.)

What is the significance of 2094? That date, famous from Mesopotamian history, is the beginning of the kingdom of Horus (Gilgamesh or Ninyas) in the land of Shinar. In 2094 Horus (Kenkenes), the son of Ninus II, left Egypt to restore the government of Nimrod, in Erech in Babylonia.

Sammes himself recognized a direct connection between the Middle East and Western Europe. The history of Western Europe, in fact, begins with the kingship of Gilgamesh in 2094 in Shinar.

But why should the early Europeans have begun their history with an event in the land of Shinar?

Because it was in the land of Shinar that they were living when Horus arrived from Egypt! It was from Shinar that Horus, or Zames Ninyas, led them to Western Europe.

Ancient Belgian and German records confirm that their oldest city, Trier, was founded by Trebeta another son of Ninus II, king of Assyria. The inhabitants of Trier maintain that their city is the oldest in all Europe," records Josef K. L. Bihl in his text "In deutschen Landen", p. 69. "Trier was founded," he continues. "by Trebeta, a son of the famous Assyrian king Ninus. In fact one finds ... in Trier the inscription reading, 'Trier existed for 1300 years before Rome was rebuilt.'"

Trebeta was a half-brother of Horus or Ninyas. His mother was not Semiramis, but a daughter of the ruler of Armenia. The Welsh or Britons knew Zames Ninyas as Samothes.

The migration from Shinar and the Assyrian realm in Mesopotamia shortly after 2094 brought Chaldeans and Assyrians, and probably Elamites as captive slaves, into Western Europe as its first civilized inhabitants. Thereafter Europe became the land to which Chaldeans and Assyrians continued to migrate as they left the Middle East.

Horus continued his rule in Western Europe until 2048, according to the traditions preserved by Sammes. That was the year his mother by duplicity came to the throne of Assyria. See Syncellus' history of Assyria, where Semiramis is assigned a 42-year reign (2048-2006) immediately prior to the 38-year reign of Zames Ninyas (2006-1968). Zames or Samothes relinquished personal dominion over Western Europe to his son in that year and returned to Assyria, where a lengthy three-way struggle ensued between himself, his mother and the king of Armenia.

Here are the first kings to rule over Western Europe.

Celtes' mother was named Galathea. In her honor he named his daughter Galathea also. As celtes had no son he gave his daughter in marriage to Hercules (who has been identified with Seir the Horite from Josephus). From her Hercules had a son named Galathes, the ancestor of a tribe named Galli -- one of the Gauls or Galatians. This tribe, joined with others, later migrated into Asia Minor and gave its name to the region of Galatia.

With Celtes the direct male line of kings from Samothes or Horus ceases.

The Heraclidae Kings

In the next chart will appear the line of kings who sprang from Galathea.

In 1149 Brutus of Troy came to Britain with his troops.

The Trojans and Western Europe

The story of the famous Trojan kings -- once so widely discussed in Greek literature -- is little known to history students today. It begins in the days of Jasius, or Jason, who became king of Celtica in 1601. The halfbrother of Jasius is Dardanus, whom Josephus declares to be Darda or Dara (See II Chronicles 2:6). Darda was of the House of Judah and the Trojan kings therefore were Jews! Following a quarrel Dardanus fled to Asia Minor, married the daughter of a native king, and founded the vital fort of Troy.

Thus the Trojan line of kings -- to be discussed in detail in Vol. II of the Compendium -- were able to dominate Western Asia Minor. The Trojans were generally supported by the Assyrians in all their wars against the Greeks. The line of Trojan kings may be found on page 12 of Enderbie's "Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre".

In 1181 the Trojans were crushed in the First Trojan War with Greece. Aeneas, of the royal famlly, fled to Italy. A son, Brutus, expelled from Italy returned to the Aegean area and organized the enslaved Trojans, Lydians and Maeonians. The Greeks were defeated and Troy was recaptured. With the recapture of Troy in 1149 the list of Sea Powers of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean began. According to the terms of the treaty with the Greeks Brutus migrated, with all who wished to follow him, via the Mediterranean into Britain.

His sons continued to rule ancient Britain, and on occasion vast areas of the continent. The line of Brutus fell in a fratricidal war in 482.

(Ebranck was a great conqueror, made an alliance with the king of Italy, occupied all Gaul and much of Germany, threatened to invade the eastern Mediterranean. Does this explain the unusual behavior of King David of Israel in his late years when he sought to take a census of the House of Israel in preparation for a vast military program?)

These two sons of Gorbodug perished in a fratricidal struggle after 5 years. Thus the direct line of Aeneas and Brutus ceased -- as the Trojan line through Aeneas and Ascanius perished in Italy in 509, only 27 years before.

After the death of Porrex and Ferrex the land of Britain was divided among Rudaucus, king of Wales; Clotenus, king of Cornwall; Pinor. king of Loegria; Statorius, king of Albania, and Yevan, king of Northumberland for 48 years -- 482-434.

The total duration of the struggle that ensued upon the death of Gorbodug was 53 years -- 487-434. In 434 Molmutius Dunvallo, son of Cloten, king of Cornwall, unified the kingdom. (The ancestry of Cloten is unrecorded). He enacted remarkable laws and was the first prince of Britain to be installed with the rites and ceremonies of Coronation. He wore a golden crown and other ornaments of solemn inauguration, a custom unknown by his predecessors. This new line of kings ruled till the coming of Julius Caesar in 55.

Native British kings continued even under the Roman Caesars, revived after the departure of the Romans, and were finally replaced by the direct Davidic line from Ireland, Scotland and England by Edward I.

In the seventh year of his sons Angrogaenus and Theomantius, when Cassibelan their uncle usurped the kingdom, Julius Caesar entered Britain. The seventh year is 55-54. Caesar first came in autumn of 55.

The Testimony of Archaeology

Having thrown out the early history of Europe and Britain, historians have sought archaeology as the only remaining means of unravelling early European history. But archaeology alone is insufficient.

What historians should have done was to combine the evidence of scientific archaeological research with the testimony of written history. Then they would have known the time, the people and the leaders whose mute testimony they have uncovered from the soil. Consider, for a moment, what archaeologists have to report concerning early Britain. Take special note of the vocabulary they must use in order to clarify themselves.

The first substantial migration to British soil, report archaeologists Jaquetta and Christopher Hawkes in "Prehistoric Britain", page 8, was of "Neolithic" long-headed farmers. When they came, who they really were, how long they resided until the succeeding migration -- these and other questions can only be guessed at. The second migratory wave to reach British shores were a round-headed, "bronze-culture" folk whom archaeologists have dubbed "Beaker Folk", or "Bell-beaker Folk." But all this jargon does not really tell who they were. How would you know who a people really were if all you were told was that they were a "Food-Vessel folk," a "Tea-kettle folk", or a "Beerbottle People"? Or used buttons instead of zippers?

After this, archaeologists declare, came an "Urn People," later a "Deverel-Rimbury" invasion followed by a "La Tene" invasion -- and at length Julius Caesar's invasion in 55. Is it not time that sober historians cease fooling themselves by supposed knowledge that is, by itself, really no knowledge?

Now see how clear this evidence becomes when placed side-by-side with written history. In the succeeding chart is the evidence -- couched in scientific Jargon -- as recovered by archaeology, combined with the written history of Britain -- as preserved in historical sources.

Numerous books separate "Wessex Chieftains" from "Urn People." They were the same people -- Wessex chieftain burials were merely those of the aristocracy; urn burials those of the common people, See page 106 of Wessex, by J. F. S. Stone. "unfortunately we have," writes Stone, "absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the existence of any contemporary habitation or occupation site in Wessex." Had the scholars combined the "Urn People" with the Wessex chieftains, they would have had the contemporary sites of occupation.

And that is how history provides a clear explanation of archaeological findings. Of course the idea that iron was not in use until the "Iron Age" is absurd. Yet this is the idea that most laymen have as a result of using such terminology.

Since much of the early history of Britain is interwoven with ancient Troy, the next chapter will present the archaeological results of the excavation at Troy, side-by-side with the record of history, especially the historical list of Sea Powers that seized upon Troy as a key to controlling the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean and Black seas.

Next

Prev

Table of Contents