"New" DEEP Search All of Realhistory using Keyword or Phrase 
Achaemenid Persian Empire
Alexanders Empire
Seleucid Empire
Parthian Empire
Sassanian Persian Empire
Ottoman Empire

Ancient Man and His First Civilizations


Modern Turkey




















As we have seen from page one, the original "early" civilizations of Anatolia, were built by the Khoisan African, Grimaldi. Evidence of Grimaldi's continued presence, is demonstrated by the pronounced Buttocks of the Hattic mother above. But this marks the end of the period when a clear differentiation can be made between the Khoisan African and other Africans who have migrated northward, through the Levant. The following millennia's will see an almost constant movement of people, in and out of the area.

The Hatti are probably the original "advanced civilization" of Anatolia. They ruled a kingdom in central Anatolia that was made up of several Small city-states. Their language is extinct and little is known of it, but it could possibly have been Sumerian, since there are signs of Mesopotamian influence on Hatti art and culture. The main cities of Hatti were, Mahmatlar, Horoztepe, Alacahoyuk and Hattus. Their religion was nature/animalistic as their gods depict various aspects of nature in the form of animals.


Relief from the ruins of Apadana, the Persian capital at Persepolis, about 500 B.C.

This relief provides a good example of how Whites twist facts and just plain lie in their telling of history. The encyclopedia Wikipedia has this quote: "Herodotus tells us that the name of the Cappadocians was applied to them by the Persians, while they were termed by the Greeks as "Syrians" or "White Syrians" (Leucosyri).

This term "Leucosyri" was coined by Strabo, a Greek writer who lived from 64 B.C. to 24 A.D. Almost 500 years AFTER the period under discussion. The purpose of the quote can only be to suggest that the ancient Anatolians were White people - as the relief above, and the other artifacts clearly show, they were not!

Continued on next panel >>

Saint Gregory Palamas

Born 1296, Constantinople (Istanbul)
Died November 14, 1359, Thessaloniki
Venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy
Eastern Catholic Churches
Canonized 1368, Constantinople by Patriarch Philotheos of Constantinople

However by Strabo's time, there may well have been White Cappadocians. With Alexander's defeat of the Persians, millions of Whites poured into the former Persian territories.

But Blacks remained an important part of the Anatolian population, well into the current era.

































By the 6th century B.C. Hatti was a provence of the Persian Empire called Cappadocia. After bringing the Persian Empire to an end, Alexander the Great tried to rule the area through one of his military commanders. But Ariarathes I, a Persian aristocrat, somehow became king of Cappadocian. Ariarthes I (332—322 B.C.) was a successful ruler, and extended the borders of the Cappadocian Kingdom as far as the Black Sea. The kingdom of Cappadocia lived in peace until the death of Alexander, when the kingdom was taken over by Eumenes: a friend of Alexanders, said to be from Thracian Chersonesus (modern Gallipoli). His claims were made good in 322 B.C, by the Greek regent Perdiccas, who crucified Ariarathes I. But Eumenes was then killed by the son of Ariarathes, who reclaimed the kingdom. A later king, Ariarathes V, marched with the Roman proconsul Publius Mucianus against Aristonicus, a claimant to the throne of Pergamon, but their forces were annihilated in 130 B.C, bringing the dynasty to an end.






















The history of another important people, the Phrygian's of Phrygia, who inhabited north-central Anatolia, is very difficult to pin down. As is the truth of their King Midas, (of Midas's Gold fame), was he a mythical king or a real person – confusing things further; Midas may have been the titled name of many kings. In any event, the Phrygian's (then under Roman rule) issued coins with his likeness in the early current era.





Most historians date Phrygia at about 1,200 B.C. But; that is because they reference it to the collapse of the mythical Caucasian "Hittite" Empire – the problem is - there was NO Hittite Empire: it was in reality simply the Hatti Empire. (more on this mythical Empire below).





Another part of the Phrygian mystery is the city of Troy (of Trojan Horse Fame). The question is; was Troy a Phrygian city? According to Homer's Iliad; the Phrygians sent forces to aid Troy during the Trojan War against Greece – but of course Homers Iliad is a poem, and cannot be taken literally; and it’s dating and relationship to actual events, is highly questionable. But in any event, the locations of Phrygia and Troy, and the dating of both, makes it highly likely that both of their people were ethnically members of the Hatti people.
























Herodotus on the Phrygians

Now the Egyptians, before the reign of their king Psammetichus (Psamtek III), believed themselves to be the most ancient of mankind. Since Psammetichus, however, made an attempt to discover who were actually the most primitive race, they have been of opinion that while they surpass all other nations, the Phrygians surpass them in antiquity. This king, finding it impossible to make out by dint of inquiry what men were the most ancient, contrived the following method of discovery:- He took two children of the common sort, and gave them over to a herdsman to bring up at his folds, strictly charging him to let no one utter a word in their presence, but to keep them in a sequestered cottage, and from time to time introduce goats to their apartment, see that they got their fill of milk, and in all other respects look after them. His object herein was to know, after the indistinct babblings of infancy were over, what word they would first articulate.

It happened as he had anticipated. The herdsman obeyed his orders for two years, and at the end of that time, on his one day opening the door of their room and going in, the children both ran up to him with outstretched arms, and distinctly said "Becos." When this first happened the herdsman took no notice; but afterwards when he observed, on coming often to see after them, that the word was constantly in their mouths, he informed his lord, and by his command brought the children into his presence. Psammetichus then himself heard them say the word, upon which he proceeded to make inquiry what people there was who called anything "becos," and hereupon he learnt that "becos" was the Phrygian name for bread. In consideration of this circumstance the Egyptians yielded their claims, and admitted the greater antiquity of the Phrygians.




However, the assertion that the Phrygians were ethnically Etruscans (because of the dating), cannot be totally dismissed. A large part of the Etruscan population was part of the "Sea People" exodus that migrated into Anatolia (about 1190 B.C.), while fleeing the White invasion in Italy. As members of this group, they were known as Tyrrhenians by the Hellenes (White Greeks).

Click Here for an account of the Sea People in Egypt: And Pictures of the Sea People. <<CLICK>>


But; the argument concerning Phrygian/Etruscan identity is somewhat diminished by the Etruscan Tomb Painting below - this is from the Francois Tomb, Vulci Italy – dated 200 B.C. It is titled - Sacrifice of the Trojan Captives. The scene depicts the Sacrifice of Trojan Captives for the burial ceremony of the Greek hero Patroclus.

It seems unlikely that the Etruscans still in Italy, would use their Trojan Etruscan brethren from Anatolia, as sacrificial victims. However, the burial scene appears to be taken from Homers Iliad (supposedly written 800 B.C.). Why would Etruscans paint tomb frescos depicting scenes from a Greek poem? It may be that by 200 B.C, the Etruscans, who are now under the hegemony of the Latin’s (Romans), like their Latin overlords, they have accepted Greek mythology as their own, and thus the myth of Achilles and Patroclus.






Another important kingdom of Anatolia, was that of "Urartu" which was in the eastern part of Anatolia. Urartu was a considerable military power at around 1,000 B.C. However the Urartians were later displaced in the area, in the 6th century B.C, by the Armenians (not the modern Turkish Armenians). These Armenians called themselves "The Hayk", and may have been from the Indus Valley - more on them later. The Hurri were yet another people of Anatolia, their territory also extended into eastern Anatolia. Later these Hurri, who originated in northern Elam, united into a nation called Mitanni.




























Sam'al was a Hittite (no such people, perhaps Hattians: see below), and Aramaean city located at Zincirli Höyük in the Anti-Taurus Mountains of modern Turkey's Gaziantep Province. The site of Sam'al was originally occupied in the Early Bronze Age and later became part of the kingdom of Yamhad (Aleppo) early in the second millennium. It was absorbed into the Hittite empire during the middle of that millennium. After the fall of the Hittites, it was controlled by the Neo-Hittites until the arrival of the Aramaeans established the city as the center of a kingdom called Sam'al. With the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Sam'al became a vassal state and later a province of the Assyrian empire. This ended in the 7th century B.C. with the fall of the Assyrian Empire.




















Anatolia (now Turkey) In the 8th century B.C, Gurgum, was the capital of a prosperous Neo-Hittite kingdom in southeastern Anatolia. It was also a center of production for stelae strongly marked by Hittite tradition, especially in their use of hieroglyphs.














During the Bronze Age collapse (13th to 12th centuries BC), the Nairi tribes were considered a force strong enough to contend with both Assyria and Hatti. The Battle of Nihriya, the culminating point of the hostilities between Hittites and Assyrians for control over the remnants of the former empire of Mitanni, took place there, circa 1230. Nairi was incorporated into Urartu during the 10th century BC.





































The Eurasian Invasion? - the Hittites

Conventional history states: that by about 2,000 - 1,500 B.C. the Hittites, supposedly the first of the Caucasian tribes of the Eurasian Plains to enter the middle-east, had established themselves in central Anatolia.


Note: The term "Hittites" is taken from the King James Bible (first published in 1611), which is a translation of a translation etc. of the first Bible, The Greek Septuagint, plus the Greek new Testament. The Hebrew words in question translate as the "Children of Heth". But this is a Canaanite group in the Bible. How did these people magically get transposed into the history of Anatolia? {See: History of the Bible in the Additional Material Menu Area - Blue banner below}.



Caucasian Myth Making

During the late 1800's, archaeologists discovered artifacts in Anatolia that were of such poor artistic quality, that it was assumed that they could not possibly have been made by native Anatolians. Ever on the lookout for opportunities to inject a Caucasian presence into a history, where there was none. They combined the occurrence in the "Kültepe tablets" of supposedly Indo-European personal names ( in correspondence between Assyrian merchants and local rulers of central Anatolia - the Hatti), with what was assumed to be, ancient Caucasian artifacts. They then identified them with those King James Bible "Hittites". How the connection was made is a mystery, but it is assumed that since these Biblical Hittites were an obscure people - no one would know the difference.





The Hittites were supposedly a great Empire and civilization. But yet, there is precious little archaeological evidence of their existence, and even that meager bit, seems bogus. To further debunk the Hittite myth: There were several tablets found at Bogazköy Turkey, some of these can be dated earlier than the 17th century B.C. One of these tablets concerns two semi-legendary kings of Kussara, they are named Pitkhanas and his son Anittas. The city called Kussara has yet to be found, but the tablet text gives an impressive list of cities that king Pitkhanas had conquered. And among them appears the name of Nesa, which his son Anittas, subsequently adopted as his capital.

Also included in the list, is the city named Hattusas, this is known to be the ancient name of the supposedly later Hittite capital called Bogazköy, which Anittas was said to have destroyed. The fact that no direct connection could be found between these two kings, and the history of the Hittites, has been explained by later archaeological discoveries. These new discoveries demonstrated that Pitkhanas and Anittas were in fact Native Anatolian (Hattian) rulers of the 18th century B.C. NOT Hittites. Indeed, a dagger bearing the name Anittas has also been found at Kültepe.

Historically: After settling in Anatolia, the Hittites are "supposedly" to have pursued wars of expansion and created a great Empire. But this Europeanized history, just never seemed creditable. How could it be that the Hittites, with an Empire so vast, that it supposedly covered all of Anatolia and parts of Canaan, which is far to the south. And an army so powerful, that it could stand toe to toe with the mighty Egyptian army, and fight it to a standstill - at the battle of Kadesh.

How could it be, that this great Empire could have been totally and utterly destroyed by the Sea People in 1193 B.C. The very same Sea People, who were stopped dead in their tracks at Egypt's border, when they tried to enter Egypt. Then there is the supposed willingness of snobbish Egyptian Pharaohs, to conclude dynastic marriages with what would undoubtedly have been, illiterate barbarian newcomers - that just wouldn't happen.







Because of the insurmountable problems associated with trying to prove the existence of this mythical Hittite Empire: Many researchers have now come to the conclusion that there never really was a Caucasian Empire in Anatolia at all - just wishful thinking on the part of some. They speculate that the so-called Hittite empire, is really a confusion with that of the Hattians, Phrygians, Chaldeans, Babylonians, or some other ancient Empire. And that this is why: Neither ancient Greek, or any other ancient historians, ever mentioned it.

But the problem is: Caucasians write the history books. So references to the Hittites and the bogus Hittite Empire, abound throughout history, as written by Caucasians.

Accordingly: In this work, translations such as The Amarna Letters; where the translator incorrectly substituted "Hittite" for the Egyptian word; we have corrected it by using "Hattian" instead. The Hattie were much more likely to be the involved people. Other areas are left uncorrected, so as to avoid confusion.  

As to the Amarna letters; about one fifth of these correspondences are from the Hattian royal family itself. The oldest letter, in Akkadian, is that of Tutankhamun's widow Ankhesenamen, to the Hattian king Suppiluliuma; proposing an alliance by marriage between the two kingdoms. Several of these letters are in the Ankara Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. 

Click here for the Amarna Letters <<Click>>



Click here for pictures of Artifacts supposedly indicating a Hittite Empire, and a further explanation of what started this Hittite Empire nonsense in the first place.



Once again we have gotten ahead of ourselves, but sometimes it's necessary in order to maintain the logical flow of our presentation. In this case, it is because the Hittites are supposedly an important element in upcoming history, and it should be understood that their identification as the involved party, is not accurate.



Please visit the "Additional Material Area" for many more photographs of each civilization, and related material <Click>



< Back Home Next >