1

The Alchemists

Author’s Prologue

I personally favour the smooth unctuousness of the velvet glove when approaching a mystery that warrants

a solution.

There is a paradox at the heart of our modern perception of history. On the one hand we view with lofty

scorn the unscientific mish-mash of legend and fable that once passed for ‘history’. We imagine that over

the past 500 years, with our libraries, our Records offices, our armies of industrious scholars sifting the

facts, that we have developed a much more rigorous scientific approach to ‘evidence’, with the implication

that somehow we are always getting nearer to a definitive view of the truth and ‘what really happened –

what is the solution ... in history’

On the other hand we can look back at the same 500 years of writing History, -an ambitious survey- and

nothing may strike us as forcefully as the fact that the conventional historians have really been looking at

the past through the distorting glass of their own age and perceptions, their prejudices and or personal

limitations.

Inevitably perspectives and fashions change and other quite cogent interpretations or sets of facts emerge,

as the previous erstwhile sagas should be appropriately cast aside mercilessly. I perceive Alan and Baram

as Alchemists inter-alia. Fascinating historical detectives, vastly experienced and proficient, armed with a

modern method of historical analysis and evaluation of primary evidence. Much of their framework is filled

in a workmanlike manner rather than in an inspired fashion. For instance any who have read Buckle’s

‘History of Civilization’, which pleased his fellow Victorians so much, with its view of history as a climb

out from superstitious ignorance to the elevated heights of Victorian enlightenment, will recall that he

became a household name even though he completed only two of his projected sixteen volumes.

By contrast there is the poignant story of Lord Acton who held fashionable Victorian friends spellbound as

he spoke of his great planned ‘History of Liberty’, for which he had assembled a mass of material, but he

died leaving mere lecture notes and his famous misquoted dictum, “All power tends to corrupt.”

These are simply a few of my own personal investigations into the History of writing History before I

began to collaborate with Wilson and Blackett. I have encountered closed minds that are violently

dismissive of anything new or different. Hasty recapitulation is the order of the day when university

employees are confounded with fresh evidence – no matter how cogent.

I found with relief the humanity and the good sense of C V Wedgewood when she sums up the story of

modern History with the words: -

“When a new discipline and techniques of Historical research were turned on the variously agreed fables

which had served men for several generations these fables naturally disintegrated, they were replaced by

new, better, and more truthful fables, but by further argument –History like other forms of art, had entered

into a period of abstraction.”

The Alchemists expose incompetence, apathy, and sometimes, even corruption. They have skilfully

combined alchemy with science, a new albeit original method with the historical research as their

foundation. There is an irony in the kind of splendour of having stood, and even fought for, the right thing.

Doing and not just thinking of doing, creates the world for the better.

If the truth of our cultural heritage, of our country, of our roots, is lost, then we as a society are doomed. I

advocate niceties, but those are not going to produce anything of social value, or of literary substance of

enduring value.

Grant Berkley Dublin 2005

2

MOSES IN THE HIEROGLYPHS

Introduction.

Our cultural heritage enshrined in the histories with a quality spanning three thousand five hundred years, a

birthright of Britain, Europe, and America, has been almost lost in a murky scholastic masquerade. The fact

that the entire 3500 years old continuous History of a Nation in Western Europe has been abandoned in the

Twentieth Century will probably come as a surprise to most readers. What remains from the destruction

wreaked in the name of political and religious correctness, is now regarded as “folklore” and as nonsense

tales, and the remarkable preserved Histories of Britain lay mouldering and gathering dust.

Selective emphasis and due embellishment by fundamentalist political and religious bigotry, armed with

their deceptive rhetoric and the advantages of ignorance has deprived generations of the Nation’s citizens

of the fruits of their glittering past. Fortunately the older generations have preserved the truth and a great

number of local ancient relics and sites still remain. It was natural that Alan Wilson should begin to

question this, beginning in 1956, and he was joined in this exploration by Baram Blackett in 1976.

Formally relegated to the status of mere folklore and myths, and left to gather dust in the never visited

archives and in private collections, and in the secret avoided places of academia, the priceless histories

have remained silent. At last there is revealed in this book a sublime work of re-activated inspiration that

reveals the miraculous power of regeneration.

The paradox is self-evident. The passing bullock has indifferently trampled all over the bright flowers and

butterflies, leaving behind only a mud-hole. Around AD 1750 there was an increasing interest in “British

History”, possibly fuelled by the growth of Empire and the possibilities that opened up by the expanding

marvels of the techniques of book publishing. There were however problems as at least 95 % of “British

History” was locked away in Welsh Manuscripts that were generally unavailable and there was no national

archive as Parliament assiduously set up for England and Scotland. So the surviving Welsh Manuscripts

were privately owned, with some families having one or two, others a few more, and some collectors who

were determined to preserve the past had as many as several hundred, and these relics were jealously

guarded and kept out of sight. Some manuscripts had been lent to a notable scholar, and he broke his

solemn agreement to return them. When he died this thief actually bequeathed what was not his to a

University and to a Cathedral library. Sadly the whole corpus of these manuscripts gradually faded into

obscurity.

The need to “create” a suitable past for the growing imperial state required that a suitably grandiose History

should be written, and this was done at Oxford, Cambridge, and London. The fabricators of this exercise in

highly imaginative ingenuity were aided by the huge advantage of at least 95 % total ignorance of what was

actually in the preserved records. It would not have mattered much if they had knowledge, as the project to

invent a suitable history demanded that it should reflect greatness on the part of the dominant group was the

over-riding necessity.

In the 20th Century the politicians “centralised” education and so out went British History in 1922 –1924.

There was no need for British history going back 3500 years, when that history could be replaced by a

brand new invented version.

None-the-less the British history was preserved, but as it was at variance with the vainglorious imaginative

product fabricated by the religiously and politically biased Cambridge and Oxford writers, it was now

attacked. When colleges were again re-established in Wales in the mid to late 19th Century they were

staffed by those who were taught in Oxford and Cambridge. Finally, in the 1930’s this resulted in an

eruption and an onslaught by an ambitious and misguided country yokel from North Wales. This idiot

actually believed the English version of ancient British History, and he managed to get himself onto the

BBC London State controlled monopoly Radio. From this prestigious theatre he weekly blasted out Dr

Goebbels like tirades against the relevant and accurate historical records, completely unopposed. This

tragically and quite literally destroyed the reputation and the integrity of ancient British History.

3

Amongst the treasures thrown away are the Ancient Migration Stories and the Ancient British Alphabets,

that Julius Caesar, Strabo. Ammianus Marcellinus, and others recorded. These were all alleged to be forged

around AD 1800, and at the same time as these tirades sent shock waves across the airways, in 1946 a five

foot high clay jar containing an entire Gnostic Christian Library was dug up at Nag Hamadi in Egypt. This

collection of ancient texts was buried before AD 400 and it contained a description of the Alphabet that

was allegedly forged in 1800. So finally having found every other aspect of preserved British History to be

truthful and accurate, Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett began to research these records. In 1793 Edward

Williams had compared the British with the indecipherable Etruscan and Pelasgian Alphabets, and this near

identicality of these Alphabets was published by John Williams in 1846, and by D. Delta Evans in 1906. In

1904 E O Gordon again published the correlation and quoted Bunsen. It did not take long to discover that

the ancient migration trails of the British people were littered with ancient inscriptions. Fortunately the

Bard Llewellyn Sion had preserved the ciphers of the Coelbren Alphabet, and so, armed with (a) the

Alphabet signs, (b) their modern Latin alphabet equivalents, (c) the correct language, it was possible to read

the ancient messages on stones and artefacts in Britain, in Etrurian Italy, in Rhaetian Switzerland, in the

Aegean, in Asia Minor, further east into Assyria, and down into Palestine, back to around 800 BC.

As the English language, alphabet, culture, religion, and heritage, were all transplanted to Australia, New

Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and North America, so also our British ancestors left their records along

their path to Britain. The people moved on or were assimilated, but the mute inscribed stones remained. It

is possible to correctly decipher and read the “indecipherable” Etruscan in Italy, and Rhaetian in

Switzerland, and also the Aegean and Asia Minor, and other inscriptions, and the Story and the proving

Manuscripts are completed and available for publication.

The claim that every known language was tried in attempts to read Etruscan is not true, and the British

Language was never tried.

In 1984 other matters then needed attention, and an ancient Triad stated that there was a connection

between the British -Khumric language and the ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics. In Bangor Professor Sir

John Morris Jones wrote a thesis in 1898 in which he compared the complex syntax of Khumric with the

exactly matching Ancient Egyptian. Sir Norman Lockyear had set up a team in Cambridge around 1908 to

try to investigate these ancient British records of origin, but sadly the 1914-1918 Great War had ended that

effort. However, the German 19th Century scholar Bunsen had proclaimed the founding connection between

ancient British Khumric and the Egyptian Hieroglyphics, but no one took any notice in Britain. This was all

totally ignored because the real British History does not fit in any way, or shape, with the fabricated history

that was invented in the mid 19th Century.

What emerged was that the J F Champollion system of decipherment of 1822 is not correct and it has

serious flaws and inaccuracies that results in misreadings. The theory of using a cocktail mixture of Coptic-

Hamatic Arabic-Hebrew, aided occasionally by Greek, to decipher the Hieroglyphs is inadequate. In

driving from New York to Los Angeles it only takes one wrong turning to end up in either Florida or

Alaska. All that is required to read the Hieroglyphics is the one correct language, and that Language is

certainly not Coptic, nor Hebrew, nor Hamatic-Arabic.

The Oxford & Cambridge cobbled together version of British History does not match with Roman or other

records, and it is obviously incorrect. Equally scholars are aware that the chronology of Ancient Egyptian

History is incorrect by several centuries. As Egyptian historical chronology is used to “establish” the dating

of all other ancient chronologies, using wars, royal intermarriages, trade, and treaties, it is no surprise that

the histories of every ancient Nation around the Mediterranean and in the Near East is in chaos before 600

BC, with inexplicable blank eras and Dark Age gaps of 500 –600 years, and strange repetitions and

dislocations. So Wilson and Blackett decided to attempt to decipherment and translation of the Ancient

Egyptian Hieroglyphics using the Khumric “Welsh” as the basic Language, and this was found to work

brilliantly, and consistently. Why would an old Bard or Monk writing 900- 1000 years ago, and almost

certainly relying on older texts, make such a claim? Answer, because it is true. Everything else that had

been so carelessly abandoned was correct, and it would have been a surprise if this attempt at decipherment

were not equally accurate.

4

The claim that every known Language was tried in attempts to read the Egyptian Hieroglyphics is not true.

The British Khumric Language was never tried.

Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett are both Christians (Blackett a Roman Catholic) are concerned that

Christian values are being undermined, yet out of the Egyptian decipherments spring Joseph, and Moses,

and Benjamin, and Solomon and Sheba. Read the British Histories preserved in Wales and the connections

with ancient Egypt are clear. Intelligent research proves the old records to be precise and accurate. What we

now have available is a marvellous tool with which diligent historians may unlock the secrets of the past.

No other Nation on Earth has ever denigrated its own native history in the manner as has happened in

Britain. The tragedy is that whenever it is possible to check the facts, the outcome is always verification

and vindication of the Ancient British records. Discarding ancient Khumric history is an indignation and a

catastrophic loss with huge repercussion, not only for Britain but also for all Nations that have British and

European links and origins.

5

Moses in the Hieroglyphs.

The Darkness Factor

The decision that was taken in 1984 to attempt to use the Khumric British language to decipher the Ancient

Egyptian Hieroglyphics stemmed from several promptings.

First there was an Ancient British tradition that the Language was somehow connected to Egypt. An

ancient Triad records “the stones of Gwydion Gan Hebdon, upon which all the knowledge of the world is

written”, and this has always been believed to mean that these are the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Ancient

Egypt. The implication being that these inscriptions could be read using Khumric-Welsh. Secondly, Sir

John Morris Jones had taken the trouble to write a thesis in 1898 demonstrating the near identicality of

Khumric and Ancient Egyptian syntax.

More importantly the much derided and abused ancient British Coelbren Alphabet had been many times

stated to be identical with allegedly indecipherable Etruscan, Rhaetian, Pelasgian, and so on. Principally by

Edward Williams in 1793, by John Williams published in 1846, and by D Delta Evans in 1906, and finally

again by E O Gordon quoting Bunsen in 1914. The exercise into deciphering and translating these ancient

inscribed texts back along the ancient British migration trails as detailed in our histories, had proved to be

brilliantly successful, leading back from Britain through to Etruria, to the Aegean, to Asia Minor, to

Northern Iran, to Palestine, of around 800 BC. The further east and the further back in time, these messages

in these deciphered texts not only matched with known histories, but they also pointed directly at Egypt.

Beginning in the 1950’s a number of books have been written exposing the disaster in the chronology of

Ancient Egypt. The academic establishment puts on a brave face, but the problem is growing as 500 –600

years long yawning gaps and phantom ages are continuously appearing in all the ancient histories of all the

nations associated with Egypt. Because the Egyptian model of chronology is used to set and establish all

other ancient histories the problem is to contain the widespread chaos that is resulting.

The logic is that as there are hundreds of thousands of ancient texts of all sorts in Egypt, and it is claimed

that these can be successfully read, “why is it then that there is any problem”? The Khumric ‘Welsh’ and

the ancient Egyptian have the same seven vowels A.E.I.O.U.W.Y. In Ancient Egyptian “nefer hotep”

means “heaven beloved”, and in Khumric “nefol hoffiant” means “heaven beloved”, and in fact the other

similarities are endless. It was therefore reasoned by Wilson and Blackett that the claims made by J F

Champollion that he knew how to correctly read the hieroglyphics were (to say the least) somewhat

exaggerated. If the Egyptian texts were read correctly then there should be none of the all too well known

“Dark Ages” littered throughout all ancient chronology.

6

7

The first phase was therefore to carry out a detailed check up on the methods used by Champollion, Ipolitto

Rosselini, Wallis-Budge, and others, in establishing the alleged “system” of decipherment and translation.

This turned out to be an excursion into an Alice in Blunderland comic scenario. All that emerged was a

heap of guesswork, assumptions, and surmises, which sooner or later solidified into alleged facts. Coptic

was definitely not the basic language of the hieroglyphics as is confidently claimed, and the “system” of

using a cocktail of Coptic, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and so on, to decipher was an absurdity.

The first attempts to use the British Language as the tool with which to read the hieroglyphics was instantly

successful. The total difference was that this “Forward Working” by simply identifying the object shown in

the hieroglyph and chasing the word through the Khumric ‘Welsh’ dictionaries worked. Previous attempts

have been “Backward Working”, by searching for words to apply to the hieroglyphics. It was soon obvious

that the hieroglyphics after c 306 BC, in the Ptolemaic era, had become diluted or contaminated with the

introduction of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and later Latin words. So the apparent results from the Rosetta

Stone and the Canopus Decree were misleading.

Various exercises were set up and the decipherment of the names of the gods, and of the Pharaohs and

Queens, and other nobility, quickly led to a confidence to attempt longer texts. The first long text that was

attempted produced a shock, for although the inscription read out easily, the information that it undoubtedly

contained was of around 600 BC, yet the previous and much quoted view was that it was of around 1200

BC. This almost caused the Project to be abandoned, as previous experience of academics had been too

painful to bear, and another “spitting match” with closed minds was not required. The evidence from this

inscription was a confirmation of hypothesis that was published in 1950, and the author had been

mercilessly witch-hunted in disgraceful personal attacks, whilst the facts were ignored. Even stricter

secrecy was therefore imposed.

Very valuable historical information emerged from the decipherments, and the temptation to proceed

proved to be too strong however, and so a programme of seeking out Target Names was adopted in order to

direct scarce resources into what might be the most profitable directions. One target was the Queen named

as Nitocris and as Nicaule in no less than eight ancient sources, including Flavius Josephus (c AD 80), the

Bible, the Kebra Nagast of Ethiopia, Herodotus (c 450 BC) and so on. Nitocris and Nicaule are the names

of the fabled Queen of Sheba, and the steles and the texts containing the Cartouche of Nitocris-Nicaule

were located. Photographs of these were obtained and the work of decipherment and translation went on

smoothly.

Again very valuable historical information emerged, but when compared with the conventional academic

dates, the dates that emerged were different by several centuries. A mini Project was set up to examine the

chronological ramifications of these results. References to Solomon are clear, and the information from the

decipherments is solid.

Time out was taken to check the work of the much ignored ancient Arab Historians and again the picture

that emerged was one where the ancient Arab scholars were generally right, and the modern 19th century

Egyptologists were generally anything between 600 –1000 years wrong in most of their ancient historical

chronology. What was already clear was that the strange Dark Ages in the ancient histories of Greece and

Asia Minor and elsewhere, with their inexplicable 600 years yawning gaps when no one lived, nothing

happened, and nothing was made or built, were disappearing.

Another group of royal names in the hieroglyphics attracted attention as this group contained names that

read out as Hercules, Perdicas, Cleomenes, Nearchus, Craterus, and so on. Hercules was the eldest son of

Alexander the Great by his common law wife Barsine. Nearchus was the son-in-law, close friend, and

Admiral, of Alexander. Perdicas and Craterus were close relatives and were the Regents of the Macedonian

Empire after Alexander’s death in 322 BC, whilst Cleomenes was the Greek appointed by Alexander as the

Governor/ Satrap of Egypt. The immediate problem was that all these persons were being dated at between

700 to 800 years too early by the Egyptologists. So another mini-Project was set up to deal with this and

Alexander was duly traced to his tomb. Again the information emerging confirmed the chronological

disorder, and these persons had been wrongly dated to 1085- 945BC instead of between 332 –306 BC.

8

There can be no doubt at all about this. The Champollion based attempts at these names and texts were

totally ludicrous.

It takes no imagination to see that any research that results in criticism of the demi-god of the religion of

archaeology, J F Champollion, will result in the usual mindless fury from academia. None-the-less, he is he

author of this giant catastrophe that has devastated the histories of every nation and country of the ancient

world. Basically, the problem is that around 80 % of ancient Egyptian History has been duplicated. Whole

Dynasties are re-recorded under different names of the same kings. All this was pointed out in detail 40 –

50 years ago, and there was no civilized debate.

Then there was a stroke of luck, as it sometimes happens, and the name of a great non-royal potentate

named as Mwseff was found. This caused the usual dry phlegmatic approach to the findings to quicken in

pace, for in old Khumric ‘Welsh’ texts Mwseff is Moses. This derives from “mwys = basket” and “ef” =

“he, him”. This meant that there was a massive stone carved text available for decipherment concerning

Mwseff = Moses. Not only that, there were several other carved and painted hieroglyphic texts and also

statuary and a huge tomb complex in Egypt. This again required a mini-Project within the Project, and the

information that emerges from this is priceless. Checks were run against the Jewish Talmud stories, against

ancient Arab history, the related Babylonian Khassite history, and everything else that was possible.

Always the record emerging and being read stood up to whatever comparison test could be made.

No one could find Moses using Champollion’s “Egyptospeak” because it does not work correctly. He got

things wrong. The Pharaoh of the Exodus and his family were traced, and everything slots in together with

the known histories of Babylon, the Hittites, and elsewhere. The Moses texts are currently misdated at

around 2400 BC and they should be of around 1400- 1300 BC. It would be equally difficult to find

Napoleon in histories dated at around AD 800, and George Washington would disappear if he was sought

in AD 1500.

What had been creeping out from all directions was the comprehensive evidence of duplications and

misdatings of the famed 18th and 19

th Dynasties of Egypt. These Dynasties had been the subject of the first

long text decipherment that had alarmed Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, and so once again there was a

major effort required. The shape of the emerging history of Egypt follows the pattern as set down by

ancient historians, and the endless archaeological confusions in Palestine, the Lebanon, Syria, Asia Minor,

and in several other ancient countries are resolved. Everything takes its rightful place once the correct

chronology and the correct order of the Dynasties of Ancient Egypt is established.

The Trojan War crept out of the mists of time and became unavoidable at circa 650 BC, precisely when the

Roman, British, Frankish, and Jewish records indicated. Again this was hived off into a new Project in its

own right. So it went on with the targeting of inscriptions on the ancient stelae by identifying key names.

One day Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett were surprised to hear that an 80 years old retired railway

worker, Reg Stuart, had also somehow worked out the connection between ancient Britain and Egypt, and

he had published a 24 page booklet on the Narmer Palette. It had not occurred to Blackett and Wilson

before this, that if the Khumric Language was the correct Language with which to read the hieroglyphics,

then it should be possible to read even the earliest known texts. So it as decided that a decipherment –not an

interpretation- of the famed 1st Dynasty ‘Narmer Palette’ should be attempted. This was done and the

Forward Working system of decipherment again worked with no problems.

All manner of decipherments were made and piled up, but the modern era is the age of conformity, and no

one is allowed to dare to question the established order. The fact that the established order is in chaos does

not matter. Out of all this comes a correct ancient chronology that emerges of its own volition. All the

phantom people and events of the duplicated records in all the other histories disappear. All the chasms of

the Dark Ages of 500 –600 – 700 years that disfigure all the ancient histories disappear.

Our ancestors have been telling us how to read the hieroglyphics and much more for at least 1000 years,

and no one has taken any notice. We now have a marvellous tool available for historians to use to unlock

the secrets of the past.

9

Moses in the Hieroglyphs. Chapter One. Part One.

King Arthur and the Pharaohs of Egypt.

The fact that researchers identifying the two British Kings named Arthur I son of Magnus Maximus, and

Arthur II son of King Meurig should somehow be led along a long forgotten historical trail leading back in

time and distance from Britain to ancient Etruria and Rhaetia, (Italy and Switzerland), and then further back

to the Aegean and Asia Minor and on to ancient Armenia and Assyria around 730 BC and finally to

Palestine, may at first appear strange. The idea that there is a solid link between Britain and Ancient Egypt

will undoubtedly appear to be a little strange to some readers. It certainly does not fit with the political

histories, which have masqueraded as factual for the past two centuries or more in Britain.

Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett spent years tracing the ancient British Coelbren Alphabets back along the

migration trail set out in the politically and religiously discarded ancient British Khumry Histories, and

proving the ancient British histories of migration to be correct. Just as in the modern era the English

language, and the associated legal system and religion, was transplanted from Britain around the world to

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America, India, and parts of Africa and elsewhere, so also the migrating

ancestors of the British, known as the Khumry (Khumry ="Welsh") and the earlier Ealde Cyrcenas (Old

Syrians), left traces of their writing and culture along their migration routes.

The ancient British Alphabet was traced back to the Aegean and Asia Minor, and to Etruria (Italy) and

Rhaetia (Switzerland), where half the nation migrated from Asia Minor around 650 BC, leaving the other

half to sail to Britain in c 504 BC. The same people, with their same Alphabet and Language, were the

Kimmeroi and the Kimmerians of the ancient Greeks, who crossed over Asia Minor in the c 690 -650 BC

period. These same Khumry were recorded in the annals and archives of the Emperors of Assyria,

discovered by Austin Layard in 1846 at Nineveh. The Assyrian Emperors knew them as the same people

who they deported from ancient Israel in the 740 -700 BC era and called them the Khumry. Always the

same Language written in the same ancient Alphabet marks the passing of these same Khumry people.

As the Ciphers of the Coelbren Alphabet were preserved in a Manuscript of Llewellyn Sion around AD

1540, it is known which modern Alphabetic letter A. B. C, and so on, matches with its ancient counterpart

letter. In this way it is possible to decipher and to translate the ancient messages written in stone, on cloth,

on pottery, and so on. The obvious fact that emerges is that the British Khumry are demonstrably the "lost"

Ten Tribes of Israel. This leads to one more inevitable conclusion, and that is that the ancestors of the

British Khumry were at one period in Ancient Egypt, until Moses led them out around 1350 BC. This

caused Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett to start to look closely at Ancient Egypt.

All this is detailed in the volumes “The King Arthur Conspiracy”, and "The Holy Kingdom", and "Artorivs

Rex Discovered", and other volumes.

In 1898 Professor Sir John Morris Jones wrote a Thesis in which he demonstrated that the peculiar Syntax

of the Welsh-Khumric language was identical with that of Ancient Egypt. A strange finding. The same

seven vowels A.E.I.O.U.W and Y were also used. No one took much notice, as the Welsh are not a

"popular" cause. It did not take Wilson and Blackett very long to realise that both the ancient Egyptians and

the Khumry stated that their language was "the language of heaven". Also simple numbers of simple

phrases matched, like the Egyptian "Nefer Hotep", and the Khumric "Nefol Hoffiant", both meaning

"Heaven Beloved". Both nations also counted in Twenties, and seventy in Welsh is "Tri Ugain a Deg" or

Three Twenties and Ten. So there was the same Syntax, the same Seven Vowels, and numbers of matching

phrases.

Alan Wilson then remembered the ancient Triad which speaks of "the Stones of Gwydion Ganhebdon,

upon which all the knowledge of the World is written," and which has always been held to mean the stones

of Ancient Egypt plastered with the Hieroglyphics. If the Khumry had been in ancient Egypt in the 1550 -

1350 BC era, might there not be a link between the two ancient languages and the writing? This brought

about a study of the Sinatic inscriptions, and an immediate attempt to read the ancient Egyptian

Hieroglyphics in the Khumric language in 1984. Contrary to the false claim, which is routinely paraded,

10

that scholars tried every known language in attempts to decipher the Egyptian Hieroglyphics, the Khumric

language was never ever tried by anyone. The fact is that Coptic is not, and was not, the basic language of

the ancient Hieroglyphics, as proposed by J F Champollion. This was actually pointed out by the German

scholar Bunsen in the late 19th Century, and was then later reiterated by Wallis-Budge, in 1906, who wrote

openly: - "If only we knew the language." .

In 1914 E O Gordon wrote his "Prehistoric London" and quoted the notable German scholar Bunsen: -

"The Khumric language prevailed in different dialects over the whole of Europe and a large part of Asia. It

is the sub-structure of all the Keltic tongues and the archaic element in the Greek, the Sanskrit, and the

Hieroglyphic Egyptian (see Bunsen, "Christianity and Mankind", vol iv, page 158) .It is the key to the

affinity between the languages of the East and the West. All other languages can be traced to an alien

source - this alone cannot. It is certain that it was brought into Britain, as it was spoken by their forefathers

in Armenia 1700 BC, and that its purity and integrity have been guarded by them in all ages with jealous

care. It is the witness, above suspicion and corruption, to the extreme antiquity of their nationality and

civilization." (The underlining is inserted by the authors.)

If we leave aside the gross mistake of misidentifying the British Khumry as a "Keltic" nation, which almost

certainly results from following the weird theories emanating from Oxford and Cambridge Universities in

the mid 19th Century, we have an astonishing statement. In the light of this extraordinary claim made by

Bunsen, it is amazing that no one ever before has ever sought to make the language and alphabetic

comparisons, which Wilson and Blackett have made. An experimental attempt to read the ancient Egyptian

Hieroglyphics as being written in the British Khumric Language would only take a few hours at most, and

would require nothing more than intelligence and an unbiased mind, a clear photograph of an ancient

Egyptian Hieroglyphic inscription, an old Khumric-Welsh dictionary, a pen, and a few sheets of paper.

In 1949 the work of Dr W F Libby revealed to the startled world of historical and archaeological academia

the scientific possibility of accurately dating ancient artefacts, objects, and remains, which had once held

living material. Anything, which had once been living organic matter that was combustible could be dated

by establishing its current Radio Carbon 14 content. Dr Libby had established that there was a constant rate

of decline in the Radio Carbon 14 content of organic materials, amounting to a 50 % loss every year. This

meant that if the average amount of Radio Carbon 14 present in any tree ring in the year of its growth in

any ancient wooden item were to be measured, or the quantity remaining in human or animal tissue from

say ancient bodies buried in bogs or Egyptian mummies, an accurate dating could be established. This

required that the normal quantity of Radio Carbon 14 expected to be present at the time of death had to be

established and from then onwards the quantity of Radio Carbon 14 found in an ancient timber artefact or

an Egyptian mummy could be measured and by a simple mathematical calculation its age could be

established.

Dr Libby's discovery was at first hailed as a major breakthrough of the first magnitude, but there was a

problem. Dr Libby's proposal that after the death of any plant, animal or organism, the quantity of Radio

Carbon 14 accumulated during lifetime began to decay and was lost at a constant rate per annum, and

therefore could be calculated to the present date, seemed simple enough. It was considered necessary

however to construct a table of the Radio Carbon 14 quantities present in ancient artefacts, presumably to

verify the theory. This was in fact a near impossibility, as any Table of anticipated Radio Carbon 14

quantities could only be constructed from items whose age was already accurately known. Even timber

from a mediaeval cathedral would pose problems as ancient oak, and other long-lived hardwood trees, lived

to a great age, and therefore their inner rings were hundreds of years older than their outer rings. Added to

this is the problem that such timber could be seasoned for years before being used, and as valuable building

material it was often re-used. So even attempting to construct a Table of Content and dating from ancient

timber, scraps of clothing, mummy wrappings, preserved animal remains, and so on, was almost

impossible.

This hazardous situation was ignored, and the academic view, that the history and the chronology of

Ancient Egypt was firmly and very accurately established, prevailed. It was held that Ancient Egyptian

dating was impeccably correct, and that the remarkable dry preservative conditions natural to the Egyptian

climate, provided an unrivalled abundance of R.C.14 dateable materials. Mummies, mummified animals,

11

all manner of timber artefacts, and even straw and fruits from ancient tombs, were readily available. So on

the dangerous and false assumption that Egyptian Ancient History had been accurately worked out and

established beyond question, the cart was placed well and truly before the horse. Radio Carbon 14 values

were calculated and dated against the claimed "known dates" of Ancient Egyptian History. In fact there was

no way to verify these "known dates".

So the moribund stagnant pond of ancient studies remained in its normal state of turgid calm, and all was

well with the house of cards built upon quicksand. The absurdity of taking an item from an Egyptian tomb

and dating it at around 1320 BC and then measuring its Radio Carbon 14 content, and then "establishing"

that figure as a level for 1320 BC seemed to occur to no-one. It was even claimed that all was well with all

other ancient historical dates of Assyria, Hatti (the Hittites), Chaldea, Babylon, Mycenae, and elsewhere.

This would be because all these other chronologies were constructed around the Egyptian model being used

as the yardstick.

Basically all plant and animal organisms accumulate Radio Carbon 14 during their lifetimes. This process

ceases upon death, and there then ensues a slow measurable loss of the Radio Carbon 14 atoms that can

take around 11,000 years to complete. In short the quantity of Radio Carbon 14 atoms remaining in any

dead plant or animal matter can be used to establish the date of death. At first all appeared to be well, but

developments proved otherwise. Dr W F Libby's work should have proved to be an invaluable tool to aid

the study of ancient History and archaeology. It didn't, so what went wrong?

First, the Radio Carbon 14 technique spawned the new study of ancient tree rings in the profession of

dendro-chronology. Trees grow a new ring every year, and in a year when the weather favours growth,

usually by reason of a warm season with plentiful rain, the tree ring grows thick. In a year of drought, and

or cold weather, the tree ring growth is stunted and the annual ring growth is thin.

High up in the cold clear snow bound White Mountains of California in the U.S.A. are the scattered forests

of the lonely Bristle cone Pine Tree, a hardy tree which has an extraordinary life span. Following a

suggestion made by Schulmann, Professor Charles Wesley Ferguson of the Arizona State University set up

a major study of these trees, which can live to be over 5200 years old. By analysing the Radio Carbon 14

present in every individual annual tree ring growth in samples extracted from a living tree, and then by

calculating backwards from the present year of life of the tree, the quantity of decaying Radio Carbon 14

could be established for every year back to the birth of the tree.

There was huge optimism in scientific circles that the constant gradual loss of Radio Carbon 14 on the scale

of 50 % per annum would allow for a reliable chronology to be established for ancient history. With

humans the succeeding generations overlap and share some years of their lives in common, with

grandparents, parents, and children, all alive at the same time. Trees are no different, and some very old

long dead Bristlecone pines were still alive when some of the present living 4000 and 5000 year old trees

were very young. These dead trees are preserved by the extreme cold at high altitude in the California

Mountains. So core samples from the early youth of living trees can be used to match annual tree ring

growth patterns with the later years of older dead trees. This allowed for a pattern to be established, and by

matching these unique annual tree ring growth patterns, Professor Charles Ferguson and able to extend his

ancient Radio Carbon 14 chronological clock back to around 8200 years. The Measurement Table of tree

ring growth and Radio Carbon 14 decline was finally constructed, going back for around 8,200 years.

Similar studies are being undertaken with ancient tree ring growths from samples found preserved in bogs,

or taken from ancient mediaeval cathedrals, and in other archaeological circumstances in Europe and in

many other areas.

Now the desperately needed scientific measuring clock to establish firm and accurate dates for ancient

organic materials was available. The work of Dr W F Libby had been complimented by that of Professor C

W Ferguson, and the hazardous guesswork and comparison estimating forced upon archaeologists and

historians could be abandoned in many areas. Now all materials of an organic nature could be scientifically

tested and accurately dated by their Radio Carbon 14 content, as set against the known quantities from the

carefully counted consecutive samples from the Bristlecone Pine tree rings of accurate date. Up to this

12

point in time the Accused had also been the Judge, the Witness, the Prosecution, the Defence, and the Jury,

in the trial of ancient dates. An item historically estimated to be from 1400 BC in Egypt was tested and the

R.C.14 content was measured. That Radio Carbon 14 figure resulting from the scientific test was then

declared to be the figure to be anticipated for 1400 BC materials. The quantity of Radio Carbon14 in the

item was tested, was then compared against its own result, and "hey presto" a perfect 100 % vindication

emerged. By establishing Radio Carbon 14 values in this way, and by creating a graph of "results" against

calendar years, a perfect straight line could be achieved on a simple graph. Items of 1200 BC obviously

read off as calendar of 1200 BC, and the same applied to every other date, 1000 BC, 1100 BC, 1200 BC,

1300 BC, and so on and on, like a spinning dog chasing its own tail, and remaining on the same spot going

nowhere.

The key to all this was the immense over-confidence of the Egyptologists in the supposed chronological

and factual accuracy of their historical subject. Inevitably the new Tables of Radio Carbon 14 decline and

content, accurately calculated from the carefully counted (and checkable) and known dateable tree ring

samples, were now applied to surviving materials from the ancient world. Inevitably the super-abundance

of items of animal, plant, and other organic forms, which had survived in the dry preservation chamber that

is Egypt, were of central importance.

Given the widespread preservation of good quality timber items in ancient Egypt, resulting from the unique

climatic conditions favouring preservation, Radio Carbon 14 dates back to the dawn of ancient Egyptian

History were available. All was no longer well however, because by the 1970's the Bristlecone Pine

scientific tabular data was producing Radio Carbon 14 figures which were at variance with the 19th century

guessed and speculative historical dates "established" for ancient Egyptian History by between 600 and 800

years. Sanity might demand that the extraordinary feat of applied science stemming from the discovery of

Radio Carbon 14 decline by Dr W F Libby, and the work on the Bristlecone Pine by Professor Ferguson

might have resolved these known problems. Not so, and with typical selectivity of choice of evidence the

scientific method was declared to be inaccurate, by the non-scientific archaeological community.

These results, which were at such great variance with the historical calculations of the Egyptologists,

produced consternation. The new scientific Radio Carbon 14 dates were wildly different to those resulting

from those "calculated" by the Astrological methods of the 19th Century Berlin School of archaeological

mathematical humbug. Dates that emerged from Radio Carbon 14 testing by the 1970's, were 200 years,

400 years, 600 years, 800 years, and even 1000 years, and more, different from what was expected.

Logic demanded that there should be an urgent detailed in-depth study of the ancient Egyptian History and

its chronology, and a very thorough re-examination of the very suspect and slipshod methods by which the

18th & 19th Century astrologers and amateurs had claimed to establish this historical chronology. If the

scientific method of Radio Carbon 14 dating was valid and correct, then ancient Egyptian chronology was

in total disarray – even in chaos. This was and still is the case. The stark and very basic choice facing the

"experts" in Egyptology was that either Chaos continued to reign in the order of events and the chronology

of ancient Egypt, or otherwise there was something very wrong with the obviously scientifically correct

Radio Carbon 14 dating system.

In fact the moment was a heaven sent opportunity to reject the overstated claims of the "great" pioneers of

Egyptian research, and it offered a chance to put the house of ancient history in order for the first time in

well over a thousand years. The problem was all the more formidable as it has been explained, and it is

apparent that with ancient Egyptian dating in total pandemonium, all the other ancient histories of Assyria,

Chaldea, Babylonia, Hatti, Crete, Ugarit, Mycenaean Greece, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Libya, Judea, Israel.

Byblos, and so on, and every other related history everywhere are all equally in a disordered muddle

chronologically. The chance was missed. All the senior older established "experts" had all written their

learned books; they had stood up and posed as the "experts", lecturing, teaching, advising on films and

television, writing learned papers. They had awarded each other scholastic honours, prizes, medals, and

titles, for decades, and so it was perhaps understandably difficult for them to do a standing triple

somersault, and to try to start again from a new position armed with a new powerful tool of proven

scientific accuracy. So, inevitably, it was declared in the seepage through the labyrinthine academic

13

grapevines of mutual self-interest, that the system of Radio Carbon 14 dating, arrived at in an impeccably

controlled scientific manner, was somehow wrong.

This should have caused uproar, but most academic arguments and debates are won very simply by the

"experts" who remain silent and refuse to come out and fight. Almost every issue of importance passes by

default and no progress is made, because the media - T.V., Radio, and Press- are persuaded that the refusal

to fight and debate, and the refusal to emerge from the ivory towers and discuss any issue, means that the

old brigade, who hide away using silence as their only resort, must somehow be right.

Everything was turned upside down, and the entire matter was stood on its head. The Egyptologists stuck

rigidly to their ramshackle chronology fabricated from a series of vague assumptions in the late 18th, the

19th, and early 20th centuries. Ancient Egyptian chronology was alleged to be "known", and therefore 19th

Century guesstimating was to be preferred. Bizarre as it may appear to be the key date upon which to hang

the entire chronology of ancient Egypt was based upon a guess, that in turn was based upon a supposed

ancient astronomy. An absurd 19th Century theory introduced the notion of a calendar Sothic Cycle of

1456 years in ancient Egypt, by which the ancient Egyptians were imagined to maintain their chronological

records. This theory of the 1456 year Sothic Cycle is a provable absurdity. The importance of this

absurdity, which will be detailed later, is that a word read as Menophres, and which probably refers to the

city of Memphis, was alleged to mean a "King Sesostris III" and that a Sothic Cycle proved that this King

lived in AD 1820. From this point of time with the "Key" date of 1820 BC every ancient Egyptian dating

was calculated forwards or backwards in time.

No attempt was made to establish whether the ragbag collection of the alleged Thirty One Dynasties all set

out in succession was accurate. Did some Dynasties co-exist and run alongside each other? No one even

asked. Were some of these Dynasties simply repetitive duplications, with the same Kings listed at least

twice? No one bothered to even ask the question. The result is that there is a plethora of very serious major

difficulties in ancient chronology in the pre 600 BC eras of all the civilizations of the Near Eastern World.

The magnitude of the problem is not merely one of 600 - 800 year errors in ancient Egyptian chronology.

Major difficulties have been constantly arising in the study of other ancient civilizations, because the

Egyptian chronology is used as the yard-stick. Every time a war is recorded between an Egyptian Pharaoh

and an Assyrian, or Chaldean, or other King, or a Treaty was made, or a Marriage Alliance arranged, it is

the Egyptian model that is used to "establish" the dating for Babylonian, "Hittite", Chaldean, Assyrian, and

other ancient civilizations. In short there is a pandemonium in the chronology and the study of all these

ancient civilizations.

All manner of ingenious solutions, calibrations, recalibrations, adjustments, variations, are suggested,

recommended, and attempted. No one is prepared to admit that the rush to publish, and to become famous

in the 19th Century, resulted in crucial errors and mistakes of a huge order. It appears that so much has

been written, debated, and stated, with overweening confidence, on the matter of ancient Egypt that the

huge errors cannot be admitted. The result is that the scholars of the 20th Century were shackled and

fettered hostages of the grey ghosts of the over-hasty 19th Century.

At this time the world at large labours under the total misapprehension that there is no surviving evidence

of any of the Old Testament Biblical figures of Joseph, Benjamin, Moses, and Solomon and the Queen of

Sheba, anywhere in Egypt. Not true. There is also the accepted fiction is that the Trojan War took place

around 1200 BC and not when it actually took place around 650 BC. Again not true. There is in fact

something very strange going on in the arcane world of ancient history and archaeology in the Eastern

Mediterranean. A highly selective mathematical formula, which has no scientific basis, is now being used

to "establish" ancient dates.

For almost forty years the public at large has been aware of the use of the constant ratio of the decline of

the Radio Carbon 14 content of combustible materials to establish the age of those materials tested. On the

face of it this technique should have proved to be an invaluable tool to aid historians and archaeologists in

their endeavours. There is however a major problem in this seemingly straightforward situation because the

eminent historians and archaeologists had already established dates of ancient history, and the terrifying

14

threat that they were going to be openly proved to be catastrophically incorrect loomed over them. What if

the over-confidently asserted dates listed in innumerable books, and repetitively uttered in radio talks,

lectures, and television programmes, were hopelessly wrong?

The current situation indicates that this was the case, and detail research proves it. The extraordinary truth

is that an invisible line has been drawn on the Maps, and this runs From East to West through the Black Sea

from the Caucasus keeping to the North of Turkey, across the Balkans from the Dardanelles to the Adriatic,

and then North to South down the Adriatic and across the Mediterranean ocean and over through North

Africa. Radio Carbon 14 readings to the West of this invisible divide throughout Italy, Spain, France,

Britain, and all the rest of Western Europe, are simply Radio Carbon 14 dates, and nothing else. Radio

Carbon 14 readings produced from testing materials to the East of this divide are however subjected to a

mathematical calculation in order to "Calibrate" them.

One of three things happens to Radio Carbon 14 dates resulting from tests carried out to the East of the

Invisible Curtain. First, any academically unpleasant results can be declared to be contaminated, and

therefore they can be discarded. Second, results can be declared to be aberrant, and so also contaminated

and discarded. Third, the few remaining results can be re-arranged by mathematical formula and accepted.

Radio Carbon 14 dating figures of this third category are first divided by 80, and then the resulting numbers

are multiplied by 100. Why this is necessary is not known. Why not divide the figure obtained by 57 and

multiply it by 136, or divide it by 109 and multiply by 77? In fact why divide and then multiply the figure

at all? Anyone doing this sort of thing with the figures in industry or commerce would be accused of

deception and fraud, and hauled into court. How on earth does anyone justify the taking of a scientifically

calculated figure in one selective geographical region and altering it by division and multiplication? The

answer is simple: the perpetrators are "cooking the books". It is a fraud.

If, for example, a Radio Carbon 14 figure indicated that an item that was found in a specific strata could be

dated at being 2600 years old, this would produce a dating of circa 600 BC. When this dating is then

"calibrated" something strange happens. First 2600 divided by 80 produces 32.5, and then by multiplication

32.5 x 100 produces 3250 years. In this way material which produced a Radio Carbon 14 dating of the

reign of Necho II, around 600 BC, would be instantly transformed into the "correct" period of the reign of

Ramesses II around 1350 BC.

The same jerrymandering applies to the Trojan War. Materials which might Radio Carbon 14 date at 2650

years, this total of 2650 is divided by 80 to get 33.125 and multiplied by 100, to produce 3312 years or

1312 B.C. This is inside the acceptable deviation of plus or minus 150 years, and the c 1200 BC fiction is

maintained.

The same applies to say a Radio Carbon 14 reading of circa 2800 years, which gives a date of around 800

BC. The 2800 years divided by 80 becomes 35, and then by multiplication, 35 x 100 produces 3500 years.

The material is now transformed from the reign of Queen Nitocris around the 970-920 BC era, into the

fictional era of Queen Hatshepsut around 1450 BC. So it seems that the arbitrary selection of 80 and 100 as

suitable figures for calibration has a quite sinister motivation. Dividing by 57, or 109, or whatever, and

multiplying by 136, or 77, or whatever, would not produce the desired result. The question is of course,

"Why divide and multiply the Radio Carbon 14 figures in selected geographical areas in the first place"?

How on earth was this formula of dividing by 80 and then multiplying by 100 arrived at? On a hypothetical

basis let us assume that a Radio Carbon 14 date for materials taken from the tomb of the boy-Pharaoh

Tutankhamun produced a reading of say 2650 years. This would indicate a date of 650 BC. If however we

apply the unscientific formula of dividing by 80 and multiplying by 100, then' lo and behold' we arrive at a

"calibrated" dating of 1312 BC. As Tutankhamun is currently Sothic Cycle calculated to have lived around

1320 BC, and all is well in the dream world of Egyptology.

If we take another very simple hypothetical example we can see how serious this matter really is. Let us

assume that a Radio Carbon 14 dating figure resulting from a properly conducted scientific test produced a

figure of 3500 years. This would indicate 1500 BC as the correct date, but by "calibration" this figure

15

becomes 437.5 x 100, and the figure from the cookery book is 4375 or 2375 BC. What if a document

concerning Moses was Radio Carbon 14 dated and produced a correct dating of the era around 1400 BC

(plus or minus 100 years), and this was then "calibrated" back to 2375 BC so making it unrecognisable

because it was now about 1000 years before Moses time?

This is in fact what is happening. The over-riding desire to preserve a system of dates in the chronology of

ancient Egypt that was arrived at through quite ludicrous 19th Century guesswork, is obliterating the

evidence. There is no justification for the quite extraordinary practice of "Calibrating" Radio Carbon 14

dates to the East of the Adriatic and correctly not tampering with the figures to the West of the Adriatic.

The Egyptologists are desperately attempting to protect a chronological shambles, which is well known to

exist in all scholarly circles. Even worse the notion of Calibration is spreading westwards to bring Western

ancient record in line with Egyptian.

Radio Carbon 14 readings relevant to ancient Egypt are set into three categories: -

1. Aberrant Readings. Readings that do not match with the anticipated dates and cannot be fudged to fit by

using the divide by 80 and multiply by 100 formula. These are declared to be aberrant readings and as such

are discarded.

2. Contaminated Readings. This introduces the claim that materials, which produce Radio Carbon 14 dates

that again cannot be fitted into the desired established dating system, must have somehow been

contaminated. This alleged contamination makes the Radio Carbon 14 dating result invalid, and as such it

is discarded.

3. Acceptable Readings. These are readings which result from the Radio Carbon 14 dating being increased

by 600, or 800, or 1000 years, after dividing the figure by 80 and multiplying by 100, and which then fit

with the desired establishment dating system.

In the 1950's and 1960's Dr Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a series of Books, several of which directly

challenged the chaotic chronology of ancient Egyptian history. He very forcefully raised the very

unwelcome question of the 500 to 600 year mistakes in the bogus Egyptian chronology, which he attempted

to illustrate by using very simple and obvious comparative analysis. These publications, and the questions

they raised, caused outrage amongst the majority of the fearful academic establishment, and the treatment,

which was accorded to Dr Velikovsky, was uncivilised to say the least. Anyone who doubts this should

read "Velikovsky Reconsidered" published by Pensee, and "The Age of Velikovsky" by R J Ransom by

Delta Books.

When after some years of effort Dr Velikovsky finally managed to get the extremely reluctant authorities to

Radio Carbon 14 test materials from Tutankhamun's tomb, the readings were startling at circa 890 BC and

854 BC, and obviously nowhere near the required 1330 -1320 BC era. For years Alan Wilson and Baram

Blackett have hesitated to publish their findings, and have deliberately stayed clear of this wonderland of

partisan strife torn history for as long as they were able to do so. They are well aware from previous

experience that there will be no civilized and properly conducted debate of a proper professional nature. It

was however the constant total accuracy of well preserved British History that finally brought them to the

Bristlecone Pine in California and to Ancient Egypt.

Their simple straightforward exhibition of British History as it is preserved brought forth all that is worst in

the ugliness of jealous bile from die-hard protectionists, which constantly disgraces academia. A shambles

of misdirections and misquotations, mayhem of misinformation, a catalogue of serious vicious character

assassinations, together with roadblocks on public speaking or access to press, radio, and television, all

served to obscure a logical and provable history of huge international value. Thirty years earlier Dr

Immanuel Velikovsky received exactly the same mistreatment.

This brings any enquiry to another strange crossroads. Throughout Egypt the climate has allowed many

hundreds of thousands of writings on papyrus, parchment, wood, and stone, to be preserved. It is

confidently claimed that the method of reading these writings has been successfully deciphered, and yet

paradoxically there is an admitted chaos in the chronology of Ancient Egyptian History. How can these

Hieroglyphic records of this uniquely preserved and hugely recorded history have been successfully

deciphered and read, if the result is chronological chaos? This is the absolutely vital and the unasked

16

question. No one dares to ask, and no one is allowed to question, whether or not J F Champollion actually

did in fact decipher the Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics in 1822. If he did succeed in deciphering the

Hieroglyphics correctly, then the Hieroglyphics should be correctly read and there would be no

chronological problems as all the necessary information would be available.

The problem does not lay in the correct decipherment of the ancient British, Rhaetian, Etruscan, Aegean,

Asia Minor, or other more distant and ancient inscriptions. Nor does the problem lie in the correct

decipherment of ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The only difficulty, and the only problem, lies in

penetrating the academic "Berlin Wall" and the Iron Curtain behind which the intransigent incumbents of

academia seek shelter from the truth. No one in modern times has ever before deciphered the ancient

Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and, as will be shown, those who claimed to do so simply guessed, they supposed,

they surmised, they extrapolated, and interpolated, and often they invented. They invented "Egyptospeak"

which no one ever actually spoke at all. It is all about identifying the correct language, and this was never

done. Coptic, which was the language selected by J F Champollion, is known not to be the correct basic

language, but this is not too often, and not too loudly, admitted.

The solution to this great problem is to approach it from what should have been the initial starting point,

and that is to read the Egyptian Hieroglyphics correctly for the first time in perhaps 2000 years using the

correct language. This automatically requires that the amazingly convoluted, complex, inconsistent, and

multiple interpretative "system", which germinated in the fertile imagination and the inventive mind of the

French youth J F Champollion should be ignored. Correct reading of the pre 300 BC ancient Egyptian

Hieroglyphics gives constant and overwhelming support to the Radio Carbon 14 dates. There will probably

be no need to fudge the figures with any "calibration", of dividing and multiplying in a selective and

unscientific ad hoc manner

We can quote the words of T G H James, the one time Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British

Museum, on the reading of ancient Egyptian names in Hieroglyphics using the Champollion "decipherment

system"-

"The order and choice of these signs used in writing these names are capable of great variation, thus the

forms of the names discussed here, represent only one set of possibilities."

Think about it, "Well, it may read Napoleon, but there again it might say Julius Caesar, or on the other hand

perhaps it is Winston Churchill."

T G H James was actually faced with the awesome problem that it was claimed that Ramesses II could have

had his name spelled using no less than fifteen very different combinations of Hieroglyphic signs.

TGH James, again trying to grapple with the Champollion "system" of deciphering Egyptian

Hieroglyphics: -

"So cumbrous and illogical does the multiplicity of signs seem that it is hard to understand the process of

thought by which it was evolved, and even more difficult to imagine why it should have continued with so

little development over so long a period of time."

Analyse this; a system of writing which only a tiny handful of genius I.Q. experts could read and write. A

convoluted, confusing, brain-wracking, baffling, "system", which lasted for 2500 years. The fact is that

when the actual method is understood, the reading of the Hieroglyphic writings is a remarkably simple

procedure, and that is why it persisted in use unchanged for 2500 years. The Pharaohs who plastered the

walls of temples and obelisks with Hieroglyphic statements wanted every one to read of their

achievements, their victories, their statutes, and treaties, not just a tiny handful of professional priests.

The Current Crisis in Chronology.

Five bold archaeologists collaborated to write a book entitled "Centuries of Darkness". This volume

"Centuries of Darkness" published in 1991, and written by five practising archaeologists attempted to

grapple with the immense problems of chronological chaos that currently bedevil researches into all the

ancient Eastern Mediterranean cultures. Peter James, I J Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot, and John

Frankish, all contributed Chapters dealing with some of the intractable and tangled chronological problems

17

facing archaeologists in ancient Egypt, Nubia, Assyria, Judea, Babylonia, Urartu, Phrygia, Hittite Syria,

Troy, Macedonia, Greece, Etruria, Edom, Carthage, etc, etc, etc. The problem is endemic, and although

these five authors confine themselves to the 600 to 1100 BC era, it is obvious that if the dates of this era are

wrong then all earlier dates are equally, indeed perhaps more, incorrect.

A short foreword by Professor Colin Renfrew of Cambridge University includes in Paragraph 2 page xiii, -

"This disquieting book draws attention, in a penetrating and original way, to a crucial period in world

history, and to the very shaky nature of the dating, the whole chronological framework, upon which our

current interpretations rest." ..........."The revolutionary suggestion is made here that the existing

chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in

consequence, history will have to be re-written."

Later Professor Renfrew states, Page xiv: - ""I have myself (influenced by the canny scepticism of

Professor Robert Cook) been deeply aware that the calendar dates for ancient Greece in the time range

1000 - 600 BC are based on a very odd line of reasoning." A masterly understatement, which is followed

on Page xv by: - "The first step is to realize the depth of our ignorance. To realize how the existing

'chronologies' in different parts of the Mediterranean are bolstered up by circular arguments, where

specialists in one area believe that those in other areas must know what they are talking about, and blindly

use dating systems which are no better than their own." He concludes: - "I feel that their critical analysis is

right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way."

The suggestion is of course not revolutionary at all. The same suggestion was made in several books

including "Ages in Chaos" published 1952, "Oedipus and Ahkenaten" 1960, "Peoples of the Sea", 1977,

and "Ramesses II and his Time" 1978, all by Dr Immanuel Velikovsky. The result was a negative,

mindless, widespread outburst of vituperation from the academic establishment, who were at that time

reeling under the shock of Radio Carbon 14 results which scientifically proved that ancient pre 600 BC

chronology was a tattered chaos.

Most remarkable of all is the fact that around 1900 two well-known scholars, Cecil Torr and Jens Lieblein

argued vigorously against what is called the "high" chronology of Ancient Egypt, but were totally ignored.

As messrs James, et al put it, -"Since their time, academic inertia and convenience of following long

established teachings has discouraged any serious challenge to the accepted chronology." and shortly after -

"What has been conspicuously lacking is a workable alternative to the conventional chronologies."

Interestingly they state: -

"Before the 7th century BC the task is different. The edges of the puzzle in this case the chronologies of

ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, are not as certain as they are usually thought to be........Imagine trying to

complete a jigsaw where the sides are far too long......Frustratingly many pieces will appear to fit into two

places in the puzzle, whilst many 'ghost pieces' will be needed to fill the space that is unaccounted for."

This means that there are duplications anticipated, and dislocations resulting from disorder.

They then describe their own work which outlines a galaxy of mismatched dates, centuries long historical

gaps and voids, dual possibilities, - in fact chaos in ancient chronologies, and state: -

"This volume provides the outlines of a comprehensive model, covering every major region from the

Western Mediterranean to Iran. Clearly, a colossal amount of work lies ahead in building new detailed

chronologies for individual areas. What is here is only a beginning, but one which is long overdue. As

James Melkart wrote in 1979: -

"Conventional chronologies have served us long enough and not too well as an interim tool. Most tools

need sharpening over the years, and finally replacement.""

Sadly the best that Messrs James, Thorpe, Kokkinos, Morkot, and Frankish, could come up with after

exposition of a huge number of serious difficulties, was a rather lame suggestion that all the dates should be

simply dropped and reduced by 200 years. Again, why 200 years? Why not 180 years, or 150 years, or why

not 230 years? In fairness, as these five gentlemen earn their living as practising archaeologists, they are all

to be commended for at least attempting to expose many of the very uncomfortable skeletons hidden away

18

in the archaeological cupboards. Their analysis is in fact flawed, as the first step in any consultative work in

industry or commerce is to correctly define the problem, and this was overlooked.

Actually the revision of the Histories will not involve any colossal amounts of work, as anyone with

industrial experience will know. The facts won't change, where was what won't change too much, how

things were done will not change, who was who will have to change, (but that is no great problem), all that

really changes is WHEN.

On Page 22 a small Map is shown which illustrates what is called the "Chronological Fault Line", which

was defined by Professor Colin Renfrew in 1973. To the East of the Line Radio Carbon 14 dating is used

and accepted. To the East of the Fault Line, the traditional = 19th century dates remain in use. The

corruption of correct Roman history by the adoption of the Greek dating of the Trojan War, arrived at by

childish mathematical calculation, at around 1200 BC, instead of the correct 650 BC, can be dealt with

later. The Romans were right, and the Greeks were wrong, yet Greek learning was regarded with such

misplaced awe that the Romans set aside their own correct record in favour of nonsense.

19

20

Suffice it to say that the Roman consular lists dated the start of the Republic to 509 BC, and there were the

Five Kings of Rome in the period before 509 BC leading back to the building of Rome as a city rather than

a collection of village huts, by Aeneas, and everything points to the Trojan War of 650 - 636 BC. The King

Lists of Tyre preserved by Flavius Josephus around 80 AD, using the then extant histories of Chaldea, of

Phoenicia, and of the Hebrews and others, in his Book I, Against Apion, are correct and do not need

duplication. It is important to note that Flavius Josephus mocks the dating of the Trojan War at around

1200 BC, and states that it took place around 1000 years after the time of Moses. As no one dates Moses to

2200 BC, it would seem that 650 BC is more accurate.

Next came "A Test of Time" by David Rhol, published in 1995, a book that formed the basis for a

television series "Pharaohs and Kings", presented by the author. Whilst the author may be regarded as an

amateur archaeologist and historian, he has spent many years on pursuing his studies, and gained a degree

in Egyptology and Ancient History in 1990. Again this volume, which concentrates upon exploring the

religious history of ancient Judea in relation to Egypt, again illustrates the fact that the ancient pre 600 BC

chronology is wrong. Again, the author is only able to offer the vague and lame suggestion that dates

should be arbitrarily reduced by 200 years. This proposal is not supported by any acceptable historical

reasoning, and the figure of 200 years may be an attempt to close ranks with the authors of "Centuries of

Darkness".

If a man is taken to a hospital suffering from gangrene in both legs, pneumonia in his lungs, a brain tumour,

typhoid, and a stomach ulcer, there is little point in prescribing him an aspirin twice a day. He requires

radical surgery and extensive medication, and it may be better to let him die peacefully, and to bury him

quietly. This is what is required with the scheme of ancient Egyptian chronology, which infects all other

related ancient chronologies, which in turn infect other ancient histories related to them. There is no point

in tinkering and playing around with the edges of the problem.

All this is subsequent to the remarkable discoveries made by Blackett and Wilson in 1984. Their reasoning

was simple. They had traced the same Alphabet, the same Language, and the same People, back through

the various Histories with correct chronology, and back geographically along the stated migration routes.

The trail had led them to ancient Egypt. They knew that both the ancient Egyptians and the Khumry

referred to their Language as "the language of heaven". They knew that both ancient nations employed the

same seven Vowels. They knew that Professor Sir John Morris Jones had demonstrated in his 1898 Thesis

that the complex syntax of the Khumric Language was identical with that of ancient Egyptian. They also

knew that an ancient Triad included a statement on "the Stones of Gwydion Ganhebdon, upon which all the

knowledge of the world is written", and that this had always been identified as referring to the Hieroglyphic

inscriptions of ancient Egypt by generations of scholars.

They knew from British records supported by the records of the Franks, and of the Romans, (Virgil &

Horace etc.), and the Jewish records of Flavius Josephus, that the dating of the Trojan War, which is pivotal

to all ancient dates, was wildly incorrect. They also knew from general reading that there was something

very wrong with the chronology of all the ancient world of the Near East before 600 BC. The statement by

Sir Wallis Budge when referring to the problems of deciphering the Hieroglyphics, was a sad -"if only we

knew the language," and Sir Alan Gardiner stated that -"what passes for ancient History in Egypt is nothing

but a collection of rags and tatters." Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett had originally set out to research the

history of the English Midlands and that of South East Wales, in search of Arthur I son of Magnus

Maximus, of circa AD 345 -400, and Arthur II son of Meurig of circa 503 -579, and they had somehow

arrived at the gates of ancient Egypt.

The utter nonsense that the Khumry, the Irish, and the Scots, are Kelts and Keltic, is totally contrary to all

British and Irish History and Tradition, and has been dealt with in "The King Arthur Conspiracy". It is an

unhistorical modern invention stemming from England. It is worth noting that the Irish History of Origin as

in the Chronicles of Eri, translated by Roger O'Connor in 1822 (B.N.600.i. 20,21.), also involves the

ancestral Irish in a long march of migration from a region up near the Caspian Sea, down to near the Tigris

(named as Tethgris) south through Syria, and then through to the Egyptian Delta, and then westward along

the Coast of North Africa. They were forced to move on from Syria by the nation they called the Eir Soir,

21

probably the Assyrians, and the story involves three rivers, named the Scinde/ Sgeindi, the Tethgris, and

the Affreidgeis, interpreted as the Scirtus, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. The story demonstrates that the

ancient Irish would also have had some connection with Egypt.

Aware that most people would believe that an attempt to read the ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics as written

in Khumric was (a) somewhat eccentric, and (b) needless, as they would wrongly think that this had already

been done, Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett told no one of their intentions. Nor did they ever show anyone

the detail of the results. The unproven theory that asserts that the Hieroglyphics were written in Coptic, and

that the dead language of Coptic had anciently been the popular tongue of ancient Egypt, was first put

forward by Athanasius Kirchner in 1643. This guess, or idea, was later pursued relentlessly by the young J

F Champollion from 1808 to 1822, and subsequent to claims made by Champollion this notion has been

widely accepted. Yet Wallis-Budge, who was regarded as something of an expert, wrote that only some 100

words of ancient Egyptian could be traced into Coptic. Also, that many words had changed so greatly over

the centuries that they were finally in unrecognisable forms.

The Earth is not flat as was once widely believed. The Earth was not created in 4597 BC at 9 am on a

Sunday morning, as was once calculated. The Atlantic Ocean is not 30,000 miles across, as was claimed by

academics in their successful attempts which prevented Columbus from sailing for years. All these, and

thousands of others, were once fondly held notions, which littered and obstructed the path of progress. It

follows that if J F Champollion was wrong, then his mistakes serve to obstruct discovery and the

advancement of knowledge, and the old adage that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs

applies. The fact is that Champollion made his mind up firmly, in advance of any discovery, that Coptic

was the language with which to decipher the Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics

The First Reading of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

The statement written by T G H James, one time Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, in

commenting on ancient Egyptian names written in Hieroglyphics, -"The order and choice of signs used in

writing these names are capable of great variation, and thus the forms of the names discussed here,

represent only one set of possibilities", is contrary to logic. If one finds C A T then it means "Cat", and "D

O G" cannot also mean, "Cat".

The important and vital feature, which is to be anticipated in any Picture Script, is that the individual

Pictures must represent consistent sounds or words. This is a fact that is unavoidable in all Alphabets, or

Root-Word Pictographs, and in all the Languages expressed in them. In the case of any Picture Script there

is also the direct requirement that the System upon which the Writing System is based is simple, pure, and

direct, as well as consistent. A Picture can no more have multiple meanings, and also multiple sounds, in

different contexts than our modern Letters have.

In the face of this we are asked to believe that the Egyptian Hieroglyphs form a complicated and intricate

system of writing and expression. We are asked to believe that the Hieroglyphs individually had multiple

purposes, and could be grouped together in very different combinations to give exactly the same word.

What this means is that Hieroglyphic writing is believed to be exactly the opposite of what it should be. It

automatically raises the vital questions of, (1) how on earth were these conclusions reached, and (2) has

anyone ever correctly deciphered and read the Hieroglyphics in the past 1600 years? This again

automatically brings us to Jean Francois Champollion, the young gentleman who, in 1822, announced that

he had successfully deciphered the ancient Hieroglyphic Picture Script.

The story of Champollion's endeavours inescapably involves the Rosetta Stone, now held in the British

Museum. This relic was found by a French Army Officer, Brigadier General Bouchard in 1799, when

soldiers were digging the foundations of a fort at Rashid (Rosetta), on the Western branch of the Nile near

the sea. The British obtained possession of the stone under the terms of the Treaty of Alexandria in 1801,

following Nelson's destruction of the French Fleet, and the defeat of the French army abandoned by

Napoleon in Egypt. The international rivalry over scholastic achievement is evident from the fact that

possession of the stone was part of the surrender Treaty, and that General Bouchard made a determined

attempt to retain it.

22

The Rosetta Stone was inscribed with three different types of writing. These are Greek, which could be

read, and Demotic, and Hieroglyphic, which could not be read. It was assumed that the Demotic text was

written in the same language as the Hieroglyphic text, and therefore it was asserted that the stone carried

three different types of writing, but only two languages. Although the stone is damaged and parts are

missing, a simple counting of the numbers of the Greek words, and the number of Egyptian Hieroglyphs is

revealing. There are 1419 Hieroglyphs and 486 Greek Words, but the number of Greek letters far exceeds

the number of Hieroglyphs.

This points to the Hieroglyphs being a system of Root-Words and not to an Alphabetic system at all. A

basic vocabulary of short commonly used Words, which, when used in combination, made longer more

composite Words. As the Rosetta Stone was inscribed in at least two languages, and was more probably

trilingual, it offered an opportunity to decipher the ancient Hieroglyphics, and for twenty years it defied all

attempts to accomplish this. Scholars applied themselves to testing languages from all over Europe and the

Near East - with one notable 4000 years old exception.

The decision taken by Wilson and Blackett was to follow as nearly as possible the route taken to alleged

decipherment by Champollion. It was to deal first with the same three names, which Champollion had

"deduced" and "interpreted" rather than deciphered or translated, as the start point to attempted readings.

These were the names of Ptolemy, Cleopadra, and Alexander. It was generally accepted that the series of

Hieroglyphic Signs that were encircled by looped and knotted ropes, styled as Cartouches, represented the

names of Egyptian rulers. The Englishman Dr Thomas Young had guessed that the name Ptolemy was

inscribed in a Cartouche on the Philae shrine and published this, and these same Hieroglyphics were

evident in a cartouche on the Rosetta Stone. He was also able to recognize the name of Berenice in another

Cartouche, and he then hazarded an opinion as to the Letter intent of these Hieroglyphic Signs. Thomas

Young then deduced that another Cartouche, on the Egyptian Philae shrine taken to Kingston Lacey in

Dorset, England, contained the name of Cleopadra. This six foot tall inscribed shrine carried both a Greek

and a Hieroglyphic text, expressed the name of Cleopadra in Greek, and he guessed that its Hieroglyphic

counterpart inside a cartouche should also read as Cleopadra.

J F Champollion saw the opportunity that these clear pioneering deductions made by Dr Thomas Young of

England offered, and he made a simple series of now famous comparative deductions between the names of

Ptolemy and Cleopadra, and then a further comparison between the cartouches of Ptolemy, Cleopadra, and

Alexander, identifying the Letter intent of the Signs that spelled these names. "Genius is the perception of

the obvious that no one else can see." Logically, if these series of Signs enclosed in cartouches spelled out

Ptolemy, and Cleopadra, and Alexander, then the Signs should be identifiable in that order as P-T-O-L-E-

M-Y and C-L-E-O-P-A-D-R-A, or something very close to this.

Champollion's first comparison was as in the illustration.

This is in fact an exercise in simple logic. J.F Champollion knew that the first letter of PTOLEMY was a

"P", and that the fifth letter of CLEOPATRA was also a "P". By setting down the rows of Hieroglyphs in

order, it was immediately apparent that a matching Door Sign was in both these positions. So a Door Sign

would indicate "P". Next the third letter in Ptolemy is an "O", and the fourth letter in Cleopatra is also an

"O", and again in these positions Champollion found the matching Slingshot or Olive Sign. Thirdly, the

fourth letter in Ptolemy is an "L" and the second letter in Cleopatra is also and "L", and in these matching

positions in the order of the Hieroglyphs, there is a Reclining Lion, so the Reclining Lion should mean "L".

As both the sixth and ninth letters of Cleopatra are "A", then the sixth and ninth Hieroglyphic Signs should

be identical, and they are both shown by an Eagle, and so an Eagle is "A".

This then enabled Champollion to guess that a Cake indicated "T", a Cloak indicated "S", Corn indicated a

"Y" (wrong as it is "E"), an Open Mouth indicated "R", an Angle or Slope indicated "C", and a Mattress

indicated "M". Then he made his second mistake as he misidentified the Fist or Hand Sign as a second "T"

instead of a "D". He thought he should have Cleopatra when in fact it was correctly Cleopadra. It is

illogical that two different Signs should both read "T". Equally, Champollion thought that he was dealing

with Letters only, and this turns out not to be the case.

23

This should have been immediately obvious when Champollion made his next set of comparative

deductions. Here he compared the listed Hieroglyphs of Ptolemy and Cleopadra with the anticipated

Alexander. Again the Fist-Hand Sign appears where the "D" of Alexander should be, but Champollion

again read a second "T" and this then produced ALEKSENTRS.

Champollion had a decision to make. Did the Fist Sign represent a Letter "D", giving ALEKSENDRS, or

was it a second Letter "T" which produced ALEKSENTRS. In the event he stuck with the notion that it was

a "T", and not having the correct Language with which to actually identify the real Word for Fist, he was

forced into guessing. At this very first stage of deduction a situation had now already been created where it

was thought that two entirely different Hieroglyphic Signs could represent the same Letter and Sound. This

phenomenon is known as Homophones. For example, in English an "f" and a "ph" are sounded almost

identically, and these are Homophones. This strange idea concerning the Hieroglyphs has been accepted

without question as being correct. As will be shown this idea is wrong.

Champollion now thought that he had 12 Phonograms, pictures with sounds, when in fact he had thirteen.

He had unwittingly opened the Devil's Door of the notion that quite different Hieroglyphic Signs could

mean the same Letter and Sound.

These names Ptolemy, Cleopadra, and Alecsander, are from what is known as the Greco-Roman period of

Egyptian History, beginning around 308 BC and continuing until the Hieroglyphs ceased to be used around

AD 400. In this era the number of Hieroglyphic Signs increased greatly as Alexandria became a great

cultural centre and scholars from many nations assembled. Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew, words

appeared mixed in the texts alongside the original Language of Heaven. It is the claim that the correct

translation of the Language used in the Hieroglyphs has been accomplished in the 1800 years of the early

Pharonic eras from around 2150 BC down to 308 BC, which is challenged.

In this pre-Ptolemaic Macedonian-Greek age only the original Language appears used in the Hieroglyphic

texts, and decipherment and translation is very different.

What was the Original Language?

The warning signs and the danger signals are everywhere. One leading Egyptologist wrote: - "The ancient

Egyptian language bears affinities to both the Semitic and the Hamatic groups of languages." This is

qualified by a statement that, some 300 Semitic and 100 Hamitic, similar words have been found. This is

almost un-nerving for it was the practice of J F Champollion and Ippolito Rosellini, and their successors to

seek for possible words in Coptic to deduce Hieroglyphic meanings, and if this produced nothing they then

turned to Hamatic Aramaic, and to Hebrew. Imagine that if a strange inscribed stone was found in Spain,

and the would-be decipherers began looking for words in Russian, and then when this failed they sought

words in French or Greek. Or perhaps -"Aha, word No.1 looks like German, and word No.2 is definitely

Swedish, and word No.3 appears to be found in French." and so on with Dutch, Italian, and maybe Russian.

This would be laughed at. A similar exercise could be carried out in any language, and it would be equally

insignificant.

In 1890, one scholar showed that it was possible to identify around 1000 "loan words" from Welsh to Latin

and vice versa, and some 500 words from Welsh to Greek and vice versa, and large lists from Sanskrit,

Basque, French, and from High German, and finally between English and Welsh. All these languages are

clearly known and are still spoken and written. Ancient Egyptian was however unknown, and there is no

guarantee that these claims to identify words in Semitic and Hamatic tongues are correct. This is all the

more so as it rapidly becomes clear that the mistaking of a "D" for an alternate "T" is not the only

misidentification.

It will be shown in the Wilson and Blackett researches that numbers of other Signs are demonstrably

incorrect. The Large Snake is not "Dj", an evaluation derived from total guesswork, and is instead "N" or

"Na". The Tethering Rope Sign is not "Tj", but instead it is "Ar" or "Aw" arrived at from Awen or Aren.

The Angle Sign as found in Cleopadra is a "C", but the curving Hill Slope Sign is an "Ll" and not a "Q".

The Owl is definitely not an "M" and is instead a "Du", and the much quoted Hebrew "Ayin" is not the

value for the outstretched arm with open palm upwards, which is instead "Rh".

24

What has happened is this. The dialects of Egypt, which are thought to have survived the Roman Imperial

period are known as Coptic. These Egyptian dialects are then believed to have been preserved for us by the

translation of the Christian Bible from Greek into Coptic, and the continued use of that Text in the religion

of the Copts after the common spoken use of the Coptic language died out. The theory is that four Coptic

dialects existed as follows, 1.Sahidic of Upper Egypt, 2.Boheric of Lower Egypt, 3.Suhak, and 4.Fayyum.

It has then been assumed that Ancient Egyptian was the forerunner and the original language from which

Coptic evolved, and therefore by extending this assumption it follows that Coptic was the basic language of

the ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics. It is an assumption that these were the languages of the Ancient

hieroglyphics, and all assumptions are dangerous unless proven to be correct.

If the Greeks could casually mistake what is said to be "Hikau-Khaswet" and probably meaning "rulers of a

foreign hill country", and turn this into Hyksos meaning "Shepherds", and then invent two entire Dynasties

of "Shepherd Kings", then again there is a clear warning signal. There were in fact three Dynasties of these

Hikau-Khaswet or Khassite Kings. What if the Ancient Egyptian language did not bear affinities to the

Semitic and Hamatic tongues? Russian and Chinese can be translated into English, but there is no affinity

of any kind between these languages.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to take a look at England between AD 1066 and 1400. The King

and the nobility spoke Norman-French. The Church preached and the scholars wrote in Latin, a dead

foreign language, and the people all spoke Early English. Over to the West, in Wales, the entire nation

spoke and wrote in Welsh, and in the North the people spoke Pictish and Scottish Gaelic. None of these

five languages are in any way related, and tracing the pre Anglo-Saxon speech before AD 600 would

appear to be a nightmare task. A future archaeologist would find virtually all texts in England from AD

1066 -1400 written in Latin and would deduce that the people spoke Latin. If it was realized somehow that

all the aristocracy spoke French then they might conclude that French and Latin were the common

languages of the people.

J F Champollion did not say -"Ah, the first Sign of this first word ever read in Egyptian Hieroglyphics is a

Door, and the word for Door is Pxxxxx, therefore the Sign reads as 'P'". He didn't know the word for Door,

and even today Egyptologists actually write the astonishing statement that the ancient Egyptians did not

have a word for Door. Nor did Champollion say, "The second Sign is a Cake, and the word for Cake is

Txxxxxxx, and therefore the Cake Sign means 'T''", and so on. He didn't know the language and all he

could do was to compare and deduce. The first sign in the Ptolemy Cartouche was a Door and the fifth Sign

in the Cleopadra Cartouche was a Door, so by matching them up the Door had to be a 'P'. This means that

he was neither translating nor was he deciphering, he was using deduction and guesswork to interpret the

Greek versions of Egyptian names, in the Greek Ptolemaic era of Egypt.

Neither did Champollion, nor later would be decipherers, know whether or not the Hieroglyphic Signs were

words or letters. The majority of Hieroglyphic texts do not have any mark or symbol to show where words

begin and end. Nor did they know the correct syntax of the language. In English a person might praise a

child, -"you are a good boy," but in Khumric this would be - "there is a good boy you are," similarly some

two letter Khumric words are seven and nine letter words in English, and occasionally vice versa. The

Rosetta Stone and the second trilingual Canopus Decree, which was discovered in1866 by Lepsius and

Reinisch, were both written in the era of muddled Hieroglyphs which did then include Greek, Latin,

Aramaic and Hebrew, words. This is not the case in the pre Greek Ptolemaic era before 308 BC. What was

attempted was the reverse of decipherment and translation, and they tried to express and to convert Coptic

(plus Aramaic and Hebrew) into the Hieroglyphics.

Champollion thought always that he was dealing with Letters, and this was only partly true for the royal

names enclosed inside the cartouches. Here they are both (1) letters to spell the name, and (2) titular

statements. Further, the idea that the three scripts of Hieroglyphs, Hieratic, and Demotic, are one and the

same is questionable because of syntax differences and the simple fact that some words in a language are

indecipherable in another language.

25

So the question is, did he decipher the Hieroglyphs successfully or not? If he did decipher correctly, then

how is it that despite there being multitudes of surviving inscriptions and writings on stone, wood, clay,

leather, and papyrus, there is confusion in the history?

The Theory of Archaism.

It is an indisputable fact that the history every ancient nation in the Middle East is currently disfigured by

inexplicable Dark Ages. It is also a fact that time and time again, over and over, archaeologists encounter

inexplicable mismatching finds that are centuries out of context. There is a constant need to invent

ingenious solutions to endeavour to account for the muddled presence of items and objects in situations that

are many centuries apart.

To try to explain away the immensity of the problems the Egyptologists came up with a truly breath taking

theory paraded as a solution. They invented Archaism. From the pages of the Cambridge Ancient History

of 1925 we find this extraordinary passage attempting to explain just why the whole lifestyle of Egypt

around 600 BC in all its multitude of manifestations, is clearly a continuation of the lifestyles of eras dated

to before 1800 BC and a mirror image of lifestyles of eras thought to be of 1600 - 1180 BC.

"A new style of art had arisen, the beginnings of which we see under the Ethiopians, characterised by an

imitation or an adaptation of the style of the Old Kingdom: it is thus a consciously archaising style. It is

seen in the branches of art from the decoration of scarabs to the style of the hieroglyphics and relief

sculpture; we know it as the "Saite" style. It varied to the extent of its faithfulness of its imitation of the old

models. In statuary it was rather adaptive than imitative. More will be said of its characteristics later."

In short the reader is being told that the Egyptians consciously and deliberately turned the clock back and

reverted to doing things exactly as they had been done some 600 or even 1500 years earlier. The reader

need not be alarmed, as it does get worse.

"It is interesting to find the same archaising spirit prevalent in other matters besides art. Costume was

perhaps modified in accordance with ancient fashion, though it is probable that it was considered in good

taste to represent great men in ancient costume, which they did not actually wear. (See p.331). Ranks and

titles also now followed ancient models. The priesthoods of the ancient pyramid-kings that had been

forgotten for ages were revived. Men wished to feel nearer to the ancient Memphite kings than to the

Ramessids. This spirit-

""set in, apparently as a fashion of protest against the outworn and vulgarised culture and art and empire.

The imperial tradition had not in the long run served Egypt who had lost her empire and seen her own land

over-run by conquerors. In the bitterness of subjection the Egyptians turned from the empire to the simple

old days, as they seemed, of the Pyramid builders. Names and titles of that period reappeared, a kind of

archaistic crusade sprang up, and eventually when Psamtek I restored the rule of the pharaohs over the

whole land, the archaistic mode was officially adopted by the whole state. It was as if a degenerate and

worn-out England of the future, tired of imperial pomp, were to go back for her inspiration to the Anglo-

Saxon period, were to imitate that period in every way, in art, in costume, and in manners, to replace the

dignitaries of the present day by "ealdormen", "jarls" and "thegns", and substitute for the Imperial

Parliament an English comic opera Witanmegot.""

This hilarious nonsense continues: -

"This archaistic fashion is one of the most curious and interesting characteristics of the new age in Egypt; it

is instructive to compare it with the not dissimilar temper in Babylonia under Nabonidus."

The writer and all his fellow academics were all so mentally dominated by a pre-conceived mind set that

they all missed the obvious, that ancient Egyptian chronology was in a shambles with Dynasties being

duplicated, and the whole scheme out of order without a semblance of continuity. The Babylonian

chronology has been constructed and tied to the spaghetti like Egyptian model, and if Egyptian history was

seen to start of all over again 1000 years later, then Babylonian history had to do the same. No one ever

turned the clocks back 1000 years in Ancient Egypt: instead the Egyptologists duplicated the History. The

alleged ancient history is in a fine old mess.

26

How is it that Turkish archaeologists are in near despair with an unbridgeable 600 years gap -an historical

void- a chasm of a Dark Age, between circa 1200 to 600 BC in every one of the ancient states of Asia

Minor?

How is it that the same state of affairs exists in the history every ancient Greek state, with a slumbering Rip

Van Winkle type of situation where no one lives, no one does anything, nothing happens, for 600 years and

then suddenly as if the Good Fairy had waved her magic wand, everything springs back into life, right were

everything had left off without any development 600 years earlier?

This ridiculous state of affairs was dealt with extensively by Velikovsky in his "Ages in Chaos", and

"Peoples of the Sea", and “Ramesses II & His Time", and "Akhenaton and Oedipus", 30 to 50 years ago.

The pill was too bitter, and too large, for academia to swallow, and the assault on Velikovsky was so crude

that there was no room left for negotiation or any sane diplomatic manoeuvres to save face.

A few examples should suffice to illustrate the disaster. One concerns the finding of an ancient royal tomb

that was exposed when a hillside facing the sea slipped into a landslide following unusually heavy rain on

the 16th January 1922 at Byblos the ancient Gwal of Biblical record. Most archaeological discoveries

appear to be accidental, unexpected, and made by local people. Eight more royal tombs were later found by

the French archaeologists Montet and Dussaud, after this site had literally exposed itself. This first tomb

contained funerary gifts which had been donated by the Pharaoh Amenemhat III, who is currently believed

to have ruled Egypt from 1842 -1797 BC. The tomb of the King Ahiram was the most important of these

discoveries and it provided a series of historical paradoxes. There were broken alabaster funerary vases that

carried the cartouches of the Pharaoh Ramesses II, and this King reigned, allegedly, from 1304 to 1247 BC.

An ivory plaque was dated by the excavator, Dussaud, as being Mycenaean, therefore circa 1200 BC. Then

came the problems, as the Cyprian pottery in the tomb was recognised by other scholars as being of around

600 BC. Next there were Phoenician inscriptions on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram, which were typical

of what was known of the era around 600 BC.

Montet and Dussaud had a problem; was the tomb of King Ahiram of around 1250 BC or was it of around

600 BC? Grave robbers had violated the tomb in antiquity and this provided an escape route out of the

dilemma. So Dussaud wrote, "together with the Mycenaean relics (1300-1200 BC), Montet found

fragments of Cypriote pottery, characteristic of the seventh century (700-600 BC), which thus fixes the

time of the tomb violation. No fragment of a more recent date was found." Amazing as it may seem,

Montet and Dussaud were alleging that the valuable Cypriote pottery was brought into the tomb by the

tomb robbers.

Dussaud continued; "there is no doubt that (faced with a choice) between the age of Ramesses II and the

seventh century (as the time when the tomb was built and the inscriptions were made), the first must be

accepted." The emphasis is the author’s, but the situation is clear, in that no one must ever dare to

question the sacrosanct ancient Egyptian history. It is obvious that as Frenchmen, both Montet and Dussaud

could not contemplate any evidence that might undermine the wobbling, tottering, ramshackle edifice of

history founded on the strange ideas of their countryman Champollion

Just why tomb robbers would have taken hugely valuable vases INTO a tomb, which they were allegedly

robbing 600 years after the tomb was sealed was not explained. The real problem now lay with the

Phoenician inscriptions as these were now being dated at 500 - 600 years earlier than any epigraphic studies

had ever shown. The Epigraphists were now inevitably in conflict with these French archaeologists. Two

Phoenician Kings named as Abibaal and Elibaal both carved inscriptions on statues of their Egyptian

patrons the Pharaohs Osorkon and Shoshenk of the Libyan Dynasty, who can be confidently shown to have

reigned in the 850 to 740 BC era. These inscriptions closely matched the inscriptions in the tomb of

Ahiram, made by his son Ithobaal. Epigraphic opinion was that these two inscriptions lay at some time

between the writing of the Mesha Stele (circa 850 BC.) and the Hezekiah inscriptions on the rock wall of

the water conduit at Shiloh (circa 700 BC.).

As the Trojan War was fought around 650 BC and not 1200 BC, the Mycenaean evidence shifts from 1300-

1200 BC to around 650 BC which will leave these two inscriptions of the name of Ramesses II isolated. A

27

major debate and argument ensued, but as usual the Egyptologists won the day. The result was that the

invention of the Alphabet was arbitrarily shifted back by some four centuries, to prop up the Egyptian

edifice, and the accolade for invention was then automatically handed to the Phoenicians. All this is much

to the dismay of most competent Epigraphists.

Sanity went out of the window in desperate attempts to preserve the Egyptian model of history. The fact

that the detail of figures carved on the sarcophagus of Ahiram are virtually identical to those carved on

another sarcophagus which is dated to the Fourth Century BC was ignored. The idea that the Phoenicians

invented the Alphabet around 1300 BC has now become enshrined as yet another sacred cow of academia,

and all because no one was allowed to question the dating of Ramesses II, alias Necho II. As a direct result

many scholars now claimed that the Greeks had the alphabet around 1300 - 1200 BC, but they didn't bother

to write anything else with it until 650 BC.

A similar fiasco occurred at Ras Shamra following the discovery of a stone burial vault made by a farmer

ploughing a field. Twelve years of excavations followed and a buried city with its harbour and necropolis

were uncovered. Again there were inscriptions in the upper, near surface levels, of this very ancient city

site, and again on the basis of a few Egyptian items and Mycenaean and Cypriote pottery these late eras

were assigned to the period between 1500-1300 BC. As the Mycenaean and Cypriote dates are all fixed by

reference to the Egyptian chronology, we only have Egyptian evidence.

Problems began to surface when the intact tombs of the rich and powerful of this era at Ras Shamra were

excavated. These tombs entered down flights of stone steps leading to sepulchral chambers with arched

ceilings and roofs, were virtually identical with those found on Cyprus. The difficulty was that the tombs

which were found on the island of Cyprus, opposite the sea port of Ras Shamra-Ugarit, were dated at 700

years later that the tombs at Ras Shamra. As the Ras Shamra tombs had been concealed for this alleged

intervening 700 years it is difficult to believe that the Cyprus tombs were late copies of much more ancient

examples. Even worse, most of the pottery found in these allegedly 700 years earlier Ras Shamra tombs,

was identified as Cypriote.

Once again the inscriptions turned Epigraphy into turmoil as "Jamanu" was deciphered, and "Jamanu" was

well established from Assyrian inscriptions of around 700 -650 BC as "Ionians", and Ionians around 1400

BC was impossible. There was also the name of Didyme, the Ionian city, and the name of its deity

Didymeus, which deciphers and was directly and unhesitatingly read as "Appolon Didymeus". This all

pointed to the 880-700 BC era, at the very earliest. Along with this were mentions of the King of Ugarit

named as Nikmed, and this was seen as the Ionian-Greek name of Nicomedes, and again the professional

Epigraphists were in collision with the Egyptian based chronology by at least 600 years.

Even worse, a list of ships was discovered at Ras Shamra, which is remarkably similar to a famous

catalogue list of ships written into Book II of the "Illiad". This descriptive listing of commercial and

military vessels was apparently used for lexicographic purposes. As the majority position is that the "Illiad"

was not set down in written form before circa 650 BC, and this particular listing was always seen as an

even later interpolation this raised another difficulty. As usual an ingenious solution was found by the

"experts", who simply performed a standing backwards somersault, and instead of the list being a later

addition it was now extremely old. "The catalogue as certain scholars now agree, would not be a later

interpolation, but has a long history behind it; as the Ras Shamra texts show they were drawing up such

catalogues in the port of Ugarit many centuries before the date of the Homeric lists." This alleged "long

history" of the list is not demonstrated.

This could go on and on and indeed whole books, which are conveniently ignored, have been written on

this. Imagine the baffled frustration of a leading Turkish archaeologist, Ekrem Akurgul, who was forced to

conclude: -

"Despite the industrious digging of the last decades, the period from 1200-750 BC for most parts of

Anatolia still lies in complete darkness."

As far as archaeologists could make out the whole area contains no relics of art, no industry, no remains of

any human culture or activity, even no remains of any habitation.

28

"It is striking that until now in central Anatolia not only no Phrygian, but generally no, cultural relics of any

people have turned up that could be dated between 1200 and 750 BC."

"Also in the Southern part of the peninsular the early Iron Age, or the period between 1200 and 750 BC is

enshrouded in darkness."

It will be eminently clear to even the most uneducated of people that there is something very wrong with

the chronology upon which this conclusion is based. This should have occurred to every historian and

archaeologist when Dr Rodney Young of Pennsylvania University excavated at Gordium in 1950. If the

accepted scheme of alleged history, based on the Egyptian scenario, is correct, then the levels of remains of

the "Hittite Empire" at Gordium should lie below the levels of the Phrygian period. What Dr Young and his

team found was just the opposite. The archaeological remains of the Hittite Imperial layers were on top of

the Phrygian levels, when according the Egyptian chronology they should have been below them. The

Phrygian strata lay covered by a layer of clay that contains the imperial Hittite period remains.

Paradoxically, Dr Young wrote: - "For purposes of dating the sherds from this layer of clay are of little use;

they are almost entirely Hittite." He actually concluded that as everything was upside down and the wrong

way around, this was -"clearly a deposit already in the clay when it was brought from elsewhere to be laid

down over the surface of the Phrygian mound." This assertion is nothing short of incredible, for Dr R

Young had discovered the key, the clue, the reason, for the inexplicable Dark Ages, and all he could do was

fabricate an "ingenious solution" to maintain the status quo to preserve the Dark Age fiasco. He should

have run down the mountain shouting, "Eureka, There are no more Dark Ages. I have solved the problem."

Ancient cities all over Europe and the ancient world of the Eastern Mediterranean, are built up layer upon

layer of their past. Long abandoned ancient city sites are dug into systematically layer by layer. The first, or

topmost, layer that is reached is numbered as No.1, Strata, underneath is No.2 Strata, then No.3, and so on.

No one knows how many Stratas of rebuilding will be uncovered when digging begins. Dr Young

concluded that a very unusual and un-necessary feat had been carried out, and that some six million tons of

debris had been carried to Gordium from an unknown, untraced, unrecorded, very old, Hittite abandoned

site. It was asserted that this enormous mass, some 18 feet thick, had been carried in over the city walls,

and dumped down as a base on top of the Phrygian levels, for the building of the future Persian era city. So

pre-Phrygian debris from ancient Hittite times now finished up on top of the later Phrygian. Examination of

these remains was regarded as a useless exercise, as these relics were considered to have been carried into

Gordium somehow at a later period.

This layer of six million tons of imported clay debris packed with allegedly ancient "Hittite" remains was

some four meters thick, and would have needed to be carried over rough hill terrain to get it to Gordium

from its undetected site. Imagine it, six million tons of clay being carried in baskets up and down over

rough hills, just to be dumped on a ruined city that was to be re-built. It makes the construction of the Great

Pyramid at Giza look like a minor effort. This ingenious solution" is preposterous and unreal, and all the

more so as there is nothing remaining of the period between the end of the Phrygian Kingdom, thought to

be around 687 BC and the year 548 BC when Cyrus the Great seized most of Asia Minor.

"The new city built over the clay layer dates from the second half of the sixth century. There is thus a

lacuna of about a century and a half in the stratification and history of the site: the clay layer was not

accumulated but dumped, apparently all at one time; the clay brought from elsewhere, contains almost

exclusively pottery of the Hittite period." So there is now another Dark Age of 150 years, another chasm

and void in the historical record. The Phrygian city of Gordium fell to the Khumry-Kimmerians in circa

687 BC, and then no one at all lived there for around 150 years. Later, in the time of Cyrus after 548 BC, a

colossal, unnecessary, earth moving engineering enterprise was set up to transport many millions of tons of

debris from an older abandoned city site which is not proven to even exist. Once this was done a new city

of Gordium was built after 548 BC.

Dr Young even found clues to support the obvious that he was ignoring. He found that the architecture of

the Phrygian era city gate at Gordium was a close match to the Sixth city built at Troy, and no less than five

hundred years were supposed to separate these constructions. "Though separated by time by five hundred

29

years or thereabouts the two fortifications may well represent a common tradition of construction in North

Western Anatolia: if so intermediate examples have yet to be found."

The reconstruction of correct history is possible simply by eliminating the Egyptian duplications and

confusions, and this allows for a reconstruction of Chaldean "Hittite" history and the chronology of the

order of the Kings. This is quite a simple matter. The Hittite layer at Gordium is in its correct place, and the

two city gates at Troy and Gordium are contemporary. This can be positively demonstrated by this

Language Project, and has already been amply be demonstrated by others.

There are dozens of other illustrations of these obvious anomalies that have been published, but all to no

avail. The numerous Hittite City States of Syria are held to be some of form of refugee migration hangovers

from the Hittite Empire of Asia Minor some 600 years earlier. This again is a fallacy, and this 600 years

dislocation exists only in the minds of those academics, who refuse to examine the Egyptian model of

ancient history objectively. The Hittite Empire and the Hittite City States of Syria were reversed in

chronology. The carvings at Malyata, Yazilikaya, and Alaca Huyuk, and the statuary, which is identical, are

contemporary. There is no 600 years Dark Age gap.

Time and time again excavators in the Lebanon and Palestine have found royal Scarabs of the Pharaohs

Amenophis III and Ahkenaton-Amenophis IV, and over and over again these Scarab gifts are always in the

stratas of 700 - 650 BC, some 700 years after they are anticipated to be found. Always the same excuses are

made, that these gifts had become "family heirlooms" which were preserved for seven centuries and then

buried, or that the Scarabs are forgeries, made 600- 700 years later. Sometimes there is a variation to this

theme, but always there is a refusal to question the dating of these Pharaohs who can be shown to have

lived in roughly the era 700 - 650 BC by correct decipherment of the hieroglyphics.

Authors writing on ancient Greece postulate a strange Dark Age from around 1200 BC to 700-650 BC,

where there were no Kings, no cities, no wars, no progress of any kind, and nothing happened. The

suddenly everyone and everything awakes after an era of 550 years reminiscent of the children's tales of

Sleeping Beauty and Rip Van Winkel, everything takes off again in all the hustle and bustle and turmoil of

ancient Greek life. This is again unreal and it cannot be true.

This small selection of instances should suffice to show that there is a catastrophe in the chronology of

ancient history. The 19th Century "pioneers" tried to take short cuts and they went for a "quick fix" to

arrange a dating system for the ancient histories, and these hasty ill-judged theories are now obstructing and

frustrating all progress. The unquestioning adoption of the 300 to 500 years later second hand fragments of

what was alleged to be the scenario imagined by the priest Manetho of around 300-250 BC was just such a

"quick-fix". A ready-made history with no studying required. To this they added the laughable Sothic Cycle

system of Dating, and in the time honoured words of the stage magician, "Hey Presto" they had the entire

ancient History of Egypt all ready made and completely dated down to the hour of any given day even 4000

years ago. This doesn't work.

A Journey Through Dreamland.

The fact that the apparently straightforward work of Professor Charles Wesley Ferguson is of epoch

making importance has been generally overlooked. This is very probably because in archaeological circles

it is as popular as the legendary rattlesnake in the lucky dip barrel at the village fair. In order to understand

this, let us create an imaginary parallel scenario, in a purely hypothetical analogy of the present situation.

Let us suppose that in the United States of America all writing was always done in Americoglyphics, and

that through some dread catastrophe to Planet Earth the knowledge of how to read the Americoglyphs had

been lost and that the History of America had also been lost with this loss of Language and reading

technique. No fear however, for in 2000 years time along came the Berlin School of ancient dating experts,

and they sat down in the ruins of New York, Boston, Washington, and elsewhere, and they calculated the

rising and falling of the Star Sirius, and they then introduced the Sothic Cycle. To assist with this astrology

it would be decided by a Frenchman that the correct language of the Americoglyphs was Chinese. Needing

a fixing date for their new Sothic Cycle these Berlin School of crystal gazers decided that Kalamazoo was

the fifteenth President of the United States of America, and not a place at all. They then decided that Mr

30

Kalamazoo had governed during Year One of their astrological Sothic Cycle, and fixed this at AD 1200,

when Richard the Lionheart was busy crusading. From this point they then took an old Greyhound Bus

Timetable and calculated the dates of the Presidents New Jersey, New England, Virginia, Illinois, and so

on. Out of this wonder they were then able to establish that Columbus sailed to the West Indies in AD 700,

and that the slaves were freed in AD 1400, and that a War of Independence was fought in AD 1570, and so

on.

From this they could then date Napoleon to AD 1600, and Winston Churchill to AD 1445 and ad infinitum.

Now imagine the future libraries, with room after room, stuffed with row after row of towering shelves

holding the thousands of learned tomes detailing all this remarkable evidence. Hundreds of thousands of

learned volumes, books of all kinds, memorandums, papers, thesis papers, all carefully catalogued and

attributed. Then along came a future Dr Libby who introduced Radio Carbon 14 dating as a prospect. No

problem at all, for all the Columbus items located would be used to establish the Radio Carbon 14 level

expected in AD 700. All items from the Civil War would be tested and the resultant readings would be

declared to be those relevant to AD 1400, -and so it would go on. So far the academic Historical and

Archaeological establishment would survive. Then however along came another Professor Charles W.

Ferguson with his very accurate Bristlecone Pine Tree Data, establishing the correct chronological clock for

Radio Carbon 14 dating. The result would be electric. Even worse some daring person would point out the

obvious that the Americans spoke English and not Chinese.

It would be pointed out by some intrepid soul that Columbus appeared to have sailed in AD 1492, and not

around AD 700, and that George Washington was not the inventor of television, but was instead the First

President of the United States, and that there was no George Washington II listed as the 37th President. It

would indicate that Washington crossed the Delaware between 1777 and 1781, and not around AD 1580,

and so on. In this situation of Historical pandemonium and chaos, the "experts" would be unavailable for

comment, and would refuse any debate with these "amateur and unqualified" laymen, who were producing

the correct, but unauthorised data.

The problem would still remain with 800 and 600 and 400 years differences between the academic holy

cow theories and the precise Radio Carbon 14 dating figures. This dire situation would be quite simple

from the academic standpoint however, for now the "experts" would claim that Radio Carbon 14 dates were

fine and acceptable in Europe and Asia, but that they needed to be calibrated and "adjusted" in America.

They would also claim that the majority of Radio Carbon 14 dates in America were unfortunately

Contaminated, and otherwise Aberrant, and therefore these readings had no validity.

This is precisely what has happened in reality in Egypt. A map was drawn with a line running from North

to South across the Eastern Mediterranean. All areas East of the line, enclosing Greece, Asia Minor and all

Eastern "Hittite" lands, ancient Lebanon and the cities of Tyre, Sidon, Ugarit, and Byblos, etc, Babylonia,

Summer and Akkad, Judea, Israel, Assyria, Syria, Urartu, Medea, Edom, Egypt, and Ethiopia, etc, - all

these areas are stated to need "adjustments" and calibration of Radio Carbon 14 dates. All areas West of

this line, including central Europe, Gaul, Spain, and Britain, would have acceptable dates that would not

require "adjustments". The barefaced effrontery and chicanery of this ludicrous proposition is staggering.

The fact is that there is academically only one ancient chronology in the ancient Middle Eastern World and

that is the contorted and shapeless chronology of ancient Egypt. Every other ancient nation has its history

bent and mangled to fit and match with the dates guessed and estimated for ancient Egypt.

The question is both simple and obvious. Is the unscientific and illogical history of ancient Egypt, arrived at

by ancient mathematics, astrology and astronomy, and third and fourth hand muddled and conflicting

statements, correct? If it is by some miracle correct, then the scientifically arrived at, and tested, methods of

Radio Carbon 14 dating and Bristlecone Pine dendro-chronology are incorrect, or just plain wrong.

Alternatively, if this ramshackle 19th century invented presentation of ancient Egyptian chronology is

incorrect, then the scientific methods of Radio Carbon 14 dating allied to Bristlecone Pine dendro-

chronology are probably more accurate.

31

The attitude of Egyptologists is that these scientific methods are wrong and inaccurate. This thinking is

now leading to an extension of the disaster, which is sweeping West like a plague, and leading to demands

that all Radio Carbon 14 dates should now be calibrated with the childish divide by 80 and multiply by 100

formula. Everything will be "adjusted" to distort all these archaeological and historical records to match the

disorganized tangles of ancient Egyptian chronology. This dishonest and absurd exercise in creative

accountancy should never have been tolerated in the first place.

The alternative is to accept that the dates of all Near East and Middle Eastern ancient nations before 306

BC are in a pandemonium of chaos. This means that many vast libraries of books, thesis papers, learned

memorandums, academic papers and publications, are all in need of radical revision. This then raises the

question, which is never asked, which is "Is there a search for the truth"? The unspoken answer is an

emphatic "No", for the truth appears nowhere is this farce. Institutional and individual reputations are all

that ever matter.

Fortunately there is another way to approach the problem. This is to read the Egyptian Hieroglyphics

CORRECTLY for the first time in 1600 years. This requires only that the amazingly convoluted, complex,

inconstant, and multiple interpretative, "system" which germinated in the fertile imagination and the

inventive mind of the 22 year old Frenchman J F Champollion, should simply be ignored and forgotten.

Correct reading of the Hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt appears to offer consistent and overwhelming

support to the Radio Carbon 14 dates based on the Bristlecone Pine dendro-chronological clock established

scientifically by Professor C W Ferguson. There is no need to tamper with and to fudge or adjust the

figures and dates. The practice of altering Radio Carbon 14 dates is indefensible, and so is the practice of

declaring most results as either aberrant or contaminated.

The modern ancient Historian and archaeologist is the prisoner of the 19th Century pioneers. They are

bound and shackled in a situation where the Naked Emperor does parade the corridors of academia, dressed

in his non-existent finery, which is said to be invisible to fools. The little child who has the temerity to cry

out that the Emperor is stark naked is seized and whisked away to a mental institution and locked up under

the care of a child psychiatrist.

How Chronology was Established -Foundations of Quicksand

There will inevitably be readers who will doubt what is being said. They will mentally refuse to believe that

the "established" chronology of the ancient world is in the chaotic mess that it is actually in. Many people

will be under the delusion that all those thousands of academics studying these associated subjects cannot

possibly all be wrong. Actually it is in the way of things that all the academics are always all wrong. Every

time a discovery is made, then what is taught in universities has to be changed, as what was is no longer

valid in the light of new discoveries.

First, there are not thousands or even hundreds of scholars involved. Academia is very like a military

organization where a few generals commit the thousands of soldiers of all ranks who serve under them to

actions, which all the thousands blindly follow. It is rather like a set of colonies of Bees, where there is only

one Queen Bee and thousands of sterile workers. The academic thought patterns are, and always have been,

dictated by a small number of leading "experts", whose status as experts largely depends upon which job

they hold in what university. The rest follow on meekly and act as true believers, as their jobs and their

hopes for promotions depend almost entirely on them exhibiting themselves as conformist true believers.

The present totally muddled scenario of ancient history was "established" by a small handful of the best

placed and most aggressive and vociferous "experts" of the 19th and early 20th Century. The other many

thousands are merely followers and academia is definitely not a democracy and so they do not even get to

chance to vote - however incorrectly.

The staggering fact is that even the most assiduous researchers almost always miss the vital point in all this.

That is that the current chronological scenario of ancient Egypt, which is used to establish all other ancient

historical chronologies, was not founded by any scientific means whatsoever. The ramshackle, tottering,

and indeed ridiculous, disorder of ancient Egyptian chronology was set up on the basis of conjecture. It

resulted from a long running argument between the "great" experts who each propounded his or her own

pet theory, and each individual's theory was concocted to defend the proponent’s reputation and works. In a

32

total contradiction of terms archaeology is described as "the inexact science", which means that it is not

scientific in any way whatsoever. It may use and employ the fruits of scientific research and discovery, but

in itself it is not science.

In one corner was Finders Petrie who argued that the start date of Dynasty One in ancient Egypt should be

set at around 4880 BC, and in the other corner was Cecil Torr who argued that these Egyptian dates were

immediately threatening to cause a dating disaster in ancient Italian studies by several hundred years.

Everyone ignored Censorius who placed the start of Dynasty One in Egypt at around 2150 BC. In the

middle, almost refereeing this bout, were those who thought that Dynasty One should be placed at around

3400 BC. In short they were generally guesstimating, they were theorising, they were speculating, they

were voicing biased opinions, but most of all very few of them were doing anything scientific or well

organized. In their own terms, there was a "high chronology" which wanted to claim that Egyptian ancient

history dated back to around 4880 BC and a "low chronology" which claimed that Egyptian history only

dated back to around 3400 BC, and even this is a wild exaggeration. The situation resembled the ridiculous

dispute illustrated in Gulliver's Travels" where the inhabitants of Lilliput and the equally tiny inhabitants of

Brobdignag, fought a war over whether it was correct to open the small end of a boiled egg or instead to cut

open the large end of the boiled egg.

None of them bothered to ascertain whether or not the Order of the Dynasties and Pharaohs of ancient

Egypt was, as they assumed, actually correct. None of them ever considered that Dynasties might be

duplicated, or that the Dynasties might be set out in the wrong Order of sequence. None of them bothered

to question whether several ancient Dynasties of Pharaohs had ruled contemporaneously in different areas

of Egypt. Not one of them ever considered these very obvious possibilities, which means that the subject of

Ancient Egyptian History was never ever properly studied at all by anyone.

Finally, the argument went in favour of the "high chronology" because the older the studies and discoveries

were held to be the greater the public interest and brought the greater the financial rewards. The evidence

preserved in ancient histories counted for nothing. The consequences were bizarre, as the Greeks were now

held to have had their alphabet and wrote around 1250 BC before falling silent and writing absolutely

nothing at all for 600 years until around 650 BC. Hittite history was totally dislocated and Suppiliulumas I

was transferred from around 660 BC back to around 1320 BC and all his ancestors and descendants were

equally dislocated. Jacob, Joseph, Benjamin, Moses, Solomon, and Nicaule-Nitocris were all plastered over

and obliterated in Egyptian records by being deported to eras long before any of them ever lived. The

records of Moses were dated at 2400 BC, instead of circa 1400 BC and he was declared to be untraceable,

as were all the others. Ahkenaten very clearly knew of Hebrew Psalms and by being transferred from

around 670 BC back to 1360 BC, he was declared the unlikely author, and so the mayhem ensued in

hundreds -even thousands- of instances.

The incredible comic opera began with the works of one Joseph Scaliger who lived AD1540 -1609.

Scaliger calculated the creation of the world and set the Creation at 3949 BC, and then he took an old

Byzantine summary of the writing of Manetho, the Greek-Egyptian priest who is the author of all this

mayhem around 235 BC, and Scaliger then calculated the start of the First Egyptian Dynasty at 5285 BC.

In the same style of inventing ingenious solutions as practised by bemused archaeologists ever since,

Scaliger came up with a solution and he proposed a "proleptic" era which was a period of History which

anticipated the Creation of the World, the Galaxy, and the Universe. Sanity demanded that he should

remember the adage "beware of Greeks bearing gifts", and reject the Greek-Egyptian priest Manetho.

Otherwise he had to reject the Biblical notions of chronology, but he was able to evade this issue by

postulating that Egyptian History started long before the Creation of the Earth by god.

Centuries of Darkness.

To illustrate the point that is being made a few quotations from the volume "Centuries of Darkness" are

worthwhile. In viewing these we should remember that this is a book compiled by five professional

archaeologists, with a Foreword written by Professor Colin Renfrew of Cambridge University. In the

Preface written by Colin Renfrew he begins with: -

33

"History needs dates. Chronology is the backbone of archaeology as well as history, for without a time

framework there can be no established sequence of events, no clear picture of what happened in the past, no

knowledge of which development came first."

If this statement is true - and we believe it is- then can anyone explain why it is that university employees

so ferociously defend the status quo and campaign against all well-founded research, which might help to

establish a proper chronology. He continues: -

"This disquieting book draws attention, in a penetrating and original way, to a crucial period in world

history, and to the very shaky nature of the dating, the whole chronological framework, upon which our

current interpretations rest."

In fact this book is definitely not original as Immanuel Velikovsky wrote several books detailing the need

to correct the well known huge muddles of ancient chronologies in the 1950's and 1960's. Velikovsky was

disgracefully and disgustingly attacked in such a shameful way that academics are now afraid to even

mention his name in case it arouses memories of institutional and individual wrongdoing. This appalling

episode is dealt with in a later Chapter.

He continues by stating that this period is that of the emergence of "classical" histories, i.e. those of Greece

and Rome, and Quote: -"the onset of the "Dark Ages". He is referring to those prolonged eras where the

disorder of chronology produces alleged centuries long periods when no one lived or died, no one built

anything, or made anything, and absolutely nothing happened, in dozens of ancient alleged Histories of

major nations. With of course the sole exception of Ancient Egypt. It goes on: -

"The revolutionary suggestion is made here that the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in human

history are in error by several centuries, and that in consequence history will have to be rewritten."

We argue with the statement "history will have to be rewritten" and a more accurate statement might

replace "rewritten" with "restored", as it is the archaeologists who have "rewritten" and corrupted the

histories and chronologies themselves. Professor Renfrew plays an inevitable academic dud card when he

asks rhetorically: -

"Could so bold a claim possibly be right? Is so radical a change really possible? Can the accumulated

scholarship of more than a century or so be so much in error?"

Certainly it could. People died by the hundred thousand for 1600 years until the medical profession was

compelled to recognize that the circulation of the blood in the human body was not as stated by the Greek

'doctor;' Galen. Everyone in every University once held that the world was flat -it is not. The Atlantic

Ocean was said to be 30,000 miles wide by the dominant group opposing Columbus' voyage. Everyone in

academia once held that a vacuum could not possibly exist – although it can, and when Otto von Guericke

demonstrated a vacuum publicly before some 10,000 people that was declared to be "a fluke" for over

twenty years. In 1958 the British astronomer royal stated that no man would ever set foot upon the moon.

Every academic once held that no heavier than air vehicle could ever fly. The list of massive mistakes and

wrong ideas is monumental. It would fill hundreds of volumes.

It is not that long ago that all surgical operations were carried out on wide awake patients, and huge

numbers died of shock The first surgeon to administer an anaesthetic, to mercifully render a patient

unconscious during a surgical operation, was disbarred from the medical profession for life by the outraged

and furious leading practitioners whose only claims to fame was the speed at which they could operate to

limit the period of agony for the patient. Unfortunate sufferers were actually compelled to undergo the

agony of surgery whilst conscious for some time before sanity finally prevailed. Have the archaeologists

got it wrong by many centuries? Of course they have, and if they are admitting errors of 200 to 300 years,

then errors of 600 to 1000 years are equally possible. It is only a matter of degree.

The universality of an error proves absolutely nothing, other than the fact that the error is universal.

Up until the 1960's every textbook on the subject firmly stated that the planet Venus was a frozen mass of

ice by hundreds of degrees. Every scientist dutifully agreed, with one exception -Velikovsky who stated

that Venus was raging hot and could have temperatures of anything between 300 -800 degrees. When the

34

exploratory space probes sent back the data on Venus -lo and behold- Velikovsky, who was an outcast who

didn't have a clue, turned out to be right. This was only one of dozens of major scientific predictions in

which Velikovsky proved the entire scientific community to be totally incorrect.

Professor Renfrew proceeds: -

"Two instructive studies of recent years show that such confusion is not unimaginable. The first was the

'Radiocarbon Revolution'- the redating of later prehistoric Europe in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. It

showed that the megalithic monuments of North Western Europe, instead of being derived from such

Mediterranean achievements as the Pyramids, were in fact centuries, even millennia, earlier than these. The

correction (or calibration) of radiocarbon dates using tree-ring dating showed that the assumptions upon

which scholars had based the dating of prehistoric Europe were quite simply wrong, and that dates for

Europe in the time range 5000-1500 BC (and earlier) had to be changed, and the textbooks rewritten."

(The underlining is that of the author & not Professor Renfrew.)

The key word in the above passage is "assumptions". Academics have by the hundred, and by the thousand,

made and followed totally wrong assumptions, and they have for centuries taught unsuspecting students,

they have written books and delivered lectures, and they have made radio broadcasts and television

programmes, with overweening overconfidence based upon these false "assumptions". And heaven help

any poor misguided soul who dares to question their totally unfounded "assumptions"

The Professor continues by outlining how previously the huge volcanic eruption which tore apart the island

of Thera in the Eastern Mediterranean had been dated by reference to historical events in ancient Egypt to

around 1500-1450 BC. Now however scientific evidence and Radiocarbon dating was indicating that the

date of the eruption was at least 150 years earlier. He does not however state whether or not these

Radiocarbon 14 dates had been messed about and corrupted by the unscientific and totally unethical

archaeological practice of multiplying the figures by 80 and dividing the result by 100 in order to fudge the

figures.

He then briefly raises the possibility that ancient eras nearer to our own times could also be in similar error

and specifies the time range from 1100 -700 BC.

"Is it not the case that the chronology for a phase significantly closer to our own time, and that of the

scholarly historians of Greece and Rome, is much better established"? -"The authors of this book show

conclusively that it is not!"

So they raise the possibility that there can be errors of centuries in the dates of events in the 1100 -700 BC

era. This question raised by Professor Renfrew lacks logic as the fact that the conflicting works alleged to

be those of Manetho were used to "establish" this era of ancient Egyptian History, which makes it possible

that any or every era of that history is used as the yardstick to "establish" all other ancient histories can be

wrong. It also avoids the fact that if the era of 1100 to 700 BC is wrong, then all other earlier eras are

automatically wrong.

It also ignores the great debate in Rome in the time of Augustus when the contemporary Roman works of

Virgil brought the dating of the Trojan War as preserved in Roman records to the forefront of controversy.

If Virgil and Roman historical records were correct then the Trojan War took place around 650 BC, but if

the Greek calculators were right then the Trojan War took place some time between 1300 - 1100 BC. The

result was a typical academic capitulation, and the prestige of the 400 years old Lyceum in Athens and the

prestige enjoyed by Greek "scholars" won the day. The truth of 650 BC was rejected and the insanity of

1200 BC was installed. The point is that the ancient records of the Franks, the British, the Romans, and the

Jews, all point unmistakeably towards 650 BC and all these conflict drastically with the mathematical

calculations of the Greeks, and so also does ancient Egyptian record when carefully examined.

What Professor Renfrew, and Peter James and his colleagues, overlook is that the Order of ancient History

is wrong. If, as for one simple instance, the alleged 21st Dynasty of Egypt which is conventionally dated at

around 1050 -950 BC, is shown to be the Macedonian Dynasty of 332 -306 BC, then the Order of the

History is in complete disarray, and it is no longer a simple game of lowering or raising dates arbitrarily

and without solid cause. If the Hittite Empire, which is alleged to have followed the first Hittite Old

35

Kingdom, is proved to have followed the Great Kings of the Syrian city states instead of preceding them,

and then these Emperors who are currently wrongly placed at circa 1460 -1215 BC are put into their correct

time era of around 740- 545 BC, then there is no credible Order in the existing archaeological theories on

ancient History. In short both the Professor, writing the Foreword, and the five scholarly Authors of

"Centuries of Darkness" fail to grasp the nature of the problem that they are discussing and proposing to

solve.

The Professor's next paragraph is revealing, and having already stated that the authors of "Centuries of

Darkness" show that the chronology of the era between 1100 - 700 BC is in disarray, he continues: -

"The authors of this book show conclusively that it is not! (i.e. the chronology is not accurate). They

indicate that the Egyptian chronology for the time-period in question - the so called 'Third Intermediate

Period'- is altogether shaky. They show that there are problems also with the historical chronology of the

Near East. And the sad fact is that the historical chronology of the rest of the Mediterranean, until well after

700 BC rests upon these. It is already widely known that the chronology for early Italy, during the Iron Age

period, down to and including the foundation of Rome, is a complete shambles. Swedish scholars debate

with Italian scholars over dates which may differ by as much as two centuries."

So everyone has it all wrong. What we have is the well known modern concept of the Domino effect, if the

Egyptian Domino of Historical chronology collapses then it knocks over the Mesopotamian-Babylonian

Domino, and that Domino knocks over the Chaldean-Hittite Domino, and these knock over the Israel

Domino and the Assyrian Domino, and then the Lebanon Domino, and then the Crete and then the Cyprus

Dominos and so on, and on, and on. It is simply like knocking the bung out of a beer barrel, and every

single drop runs out until it is empty.

Logically if the chronology of the 1100 -700 BC era is wrong then the Domino effect also affects all the

earlier periods of History. It follows that they are also wrong. To return to Professor Renfrew's Foreword.

""I have myself (influenced by the canny scepticism of Professor Robert Cook) been deeply aware that the

calendar dates for ancient Greece in the time range 1000 -600 BC are based on a very odd line of

reasoning."

In short the chronology fabricated for ancient Greece is in disarray. Were the Professor to state that the

History of ancient Greece between 1200 -650 BC is virtually non-existent we could agree. It is another of

the multitude of "Dark Ages", or Black Holes in History, all manufactured out of the Egyptian historical

scenario. After a short outline on ancient Greece Professor Renfrew states: -

"The authors (Centuries of Darkness) here suggest that many of these dates should be made later. I suspect

the opposite, and am more impressed by their destructive reasoning - that the existing chronologies are

unreliable- than by their alternative proposals."

In short the authors -who deserve much praise for their efforts, as does Professor Renfrew- present only

part of the problem but they do not have the solution to the problem. In this the Professor is we believe

again correct. Right at the outset of this volume we are again and again told that there are huge

chronological problems in all areas of ancient History. The academics all had it totally wrong in assuming

that building with stone began in Egypt and the East and moved Westwards, yet evidence then proved that

building in stone began in Western Europe and moved Eastwards. The Foreword continues.

"The first step, however, is to recognize the depths of our ignorance. To realize how the existing

'chronologies' in different parts of the Mediterranean are bolstered up by circular arguments, where

specialists in one area believe that those in other areas must know what they are talking about, and blindly

use dating systems which are no better than their own."

"The authors of this book do a great service by the very breadth of the survey which they undertake. By

considering the whole of the Mediterranean, from Iberia to Levant, from Egypt to Cyprus and Greece, and

indeed by looking North from Italy into central Europe, they are able to show the frailty of the links by

which the whole ramshackle chronological structure is held together. I feel that their critical analysis is

right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way."

(underlining by the author.)

36

It goes on, but the point, which every reader must surely grasp, is that ancient chronologies and histories,

which are so boldly and over-confidently presented in multitudes of television programmes and books, are

almost certainly universally wrong. What we are doing in our expositions of British History and of the

Domino effect which these Histories, and Alphabet and Decipherment studies present, are answers to

almost all these rarely admitted major problems which Professor Renfrew outlines, and Peter James and his

four co-authors partly illustrate in some detail. "Centuries of Darkness" was published in 1991 and the

major British discoveries that can assist in this situation were made in 1984, and now in 2002 nothing

whatsoever has happened. Total inertia and frozen immobility and stagnation still reign.

This British Research offers assistance. It offers invaluable tools with which to begin to bring Order into

this rarely admitted historical and chronological pandemonium, and out of the correct Order will come

more accurate chronologies and correct Histories. The truly alarming fact that emerges from a study of

"Centuries of Darkness" is the realization that archaeologists are playing games like small children playing

with coloured building blocks. "Well, what if we reduce the time of the Iron Age II A by two hundred

years"? Or "How about reducing the time of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty from around 1500 BC to

1200 BC"? and so on and on. This is no way to solve anything by bartering whole eras of time.

The academic community simply have to understand that the ORDER of things in Ancient Egypt as

allegedly set out by the Greek-Egyptian Manetho around 230 BC is plainly wrong. There is no point

whatsoever in clinging desperately to the Order of alleged ancient History cobbled together by second, or

third, or fourth, hand copyists of Manetho, when these remnants of Manetho's alleged works can be shown

to be a total shambles. The Order of ancient History as allegedly set out by Manetho is not just misleading,

for it is totally dangerous and in fact destructive. The academic community should not continue to act as

drowning men clutching at Manetho's straw, when all they need to do is to learn to swim. There is a method

of dealing with these problems.

37

Chapter Two.

How the Hieroglyphs are Read.

Observing the diamond dusted crisp snow from the first floor of the Newcastle upon Tyne Central Library

on the festive season of 1984 Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett sat down and prepared to take a significant

step forward in their first attempt to see if the British Triad record, which told of the Stones of Gwydion

Ganhebdon upon which All the Knowledge of the World was Written, was correct. They could not be

interrupted as all the university students were away for the Christmas break and they had put aside all other

work.

They focused on the task before them, and assembled their three Khumric Dictionaries. One: a reprint of a

1688 Dictionary; another of 1848; and the third a modern Dictionary, to be used as a last resort. They had a

selection of books on Egypt, which contained good clear photographs of various ancient Egyptian

inscriptions. They also had some basic books on Grammar handy, and with a lined pad of writing paper and

a clutch of ballpoint pens and some pencils they were ready to start. They spread their books and

documents out on the large table and they were ready to start.

They had already decided to follow the same route as that taken by J F Champollion in 1822, and they

intended to attempt to decipher the same three names of Ptolemy, Cleopatra, and Alexander, using the

Khumric Welsh language, and to see what - or if anything - emerged in this test. Alan said, "OK, Where do

we begin. Deciphering the ancient British, and Etruscan, and the so-called Pelasgian is no problem, we had

the same alphabet, and the ciphers, and so we knew what every letter was. Here all we have is pictures."

"Well, that should shed some light," replied Baram Blackett, " If we have a picture of a Duck, we will look

up Duck in the old Dictionaries. If it is a Cake or a Goose, or anything else, we will look up Cake, and

Goose, and whatever else it is."

"Alright, let's draw the little pictures of this name they say is Ptolemy,” resumed Alan, and they did this.

"The first sign is a Door."

So, they looked for door and found that the answer was the old word "Porth" meaning generally "a door, an

entry", and in modern times normally used for harbours and river estuary points. Places where ship might

enter. Also it matched the English "portals" meaning the doorway of a residence. So for the Door sign they

had a "P", and the Root Word was "Por" which means "supreme". So far, so good.

The second sign of Ptolemy is a Cake, and Cake in Welsh is Teisfyn and Tishen Lap made by Alan’s

grandmother and mother. So again there was no problem, and "T" was available, and the basic "Ti" has a

dual meaing of "you are" and of "distinctly". The third sign was thought to be either an Olive or a Slingshot

as with David and Goliath and this produced either Olewydd or Offeryn. The word Offeriad means a Priest.

The fourth sign is a Reclining Lion, and Alan laughed, as everyone and his brother knows that the Lion is

Llew that gives the "L", which is correct for the Ptolemy cartouche. Out of this is either Lledw for

"abundant, profuse", or Lledogwyddo for a "guardian". Next was the Mattress sign and in Welsh this is

Matrass, and this provides the necessary "M" and the Welsh "ma" means "the place" (possibly "this place").

So they now had P-T-O-L-M, and everything was falling into place.

Next came the two upright Corn or Grain Stalks, which are either Yden or Eden in Welsh. The modern

preference is for Yden, but a host of Welsh words all associated with Wheat or Grain, and ploughing or

plough-land, all begin with the "E" and not the "Y". So they now had the necessary E + E and "E" means

either "he" or "who is".

The final sign for Ptolemy is a Cloak, and the Welsh for Cloak is Segan, and obviously this provides the

final letter "S" or "Se". This Segan then provides "Se" meaning, "fixed or established," and the less likely

"segru" for "secret, set apart", and "segur" meaning "untroubled".