Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Peoples Of The Sea Revealed.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi all,
In the other thread of the Trojan war I have found clues that point to the identity of the Peoples Of The Sea. Velikovski had wrongly suggested that they were the Persians and Greeks of the 4thC BC. But I now put forward the idea that they were in fact the Persions and Ionion Greeks of Asia Minor shortly after the Ionion cities had fallen to the Persions after Croseus had been defeated. Here is part of the Medinet Habu text(remember that Ramses in the new chronolog would now reside in the 6thC BC:
An inscription of Ramesses II relates in the 8th year of his reign:
"No land could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Qode, Carchemish, Arzawa and Alasiya on, being cut off at one time. A camp was set up in one place in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting: 'Our plans will succeeded!'
So we know from this inscription that the Hatti- the Hittites had been defeated. The Hittites had been defeated around 800BC in my scheme of things. The peoples who took their place were the Phrygians, Lydians, Carians etc. The Lydians eventually took control of the anatolian region under Croseus which included all the Ionion Greek cities, Greece itself and the Troad.
When the Persians defeated Croseus they inherited his Greek possessions except mainland Greece.This was around the midde of the 6th Century BC. Once the Persians had the Ionion city states they made a push for Egypt itself as related in the Text. When this failed they then turned against the mainland Greeks but were frustrated and defeated in great the battles of 490BC and 479BC securing the future of Greece.
Now we come to the names of the Peoples of the Sea.
The Pereset (TRS in ancient Egtian)
The Serdan (Srdn)
The Tjeker (Tjkr)
The Weshesh (Wss)
The Shekelesh (Skls)
The Denien(Dnn) (peoples of the Isles)
We can see from the original Egptian forms that use no vowals that these have been guessed at.
The Trs
This has been transalted as Terest or Peleset. This is the name of the persians.
The Srdn
Now this hold the biggest clue as to the identity of the Greek allies. It is translated Serden. But this must be Sardis and this is agreed by many comentators. This holds the clue becuase here we see that the Egyptians were calling them by their City name. We can now apply city names from the Ionion cities to all these rest of the names.
Tjkr
Usualy translated as Tjeker. My proposed translation is Tjokar. The the people of Troy.
Wss
Usually translated Weshesh. Why translated weshesh is strange as the W in Egyptian has the U sound. So my translation would be Usus. This is Ephesus.
Skls
Usually translated a Shekelesh. My translation Sokolos. This is Colophon.
Dnn
Ususally tranlated Denyen. These were described elsewhere as peopels of the Isles. These then are the seven Ionion island cities.
So now I look forward to your comments and suggestions should I have named a city incorrectly. -
Message 2
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Actually, read the Camridge Ancient History about this period and for some reason they have come to the same conclusion but without the need to seriously reduce the timescale of the transition from Bronze to Iron. As such its mostly nonesense that seeks to identify Ö÷²¥´óÐãric heroes from the characters found in other communities literature from the same period, for example Mopsus.
-
Message 3
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi,
So, lets get this straight, the peoples of the sea become contemporaries of pisistratus of Athens, rather than the 13th century BCE generally accepted? And Velikovski was seriously expecting us to take them as 4th century greeks and Persians? I'm not sure if you can fix enough joins throughout the historical fabric your new timeline to fly. There is not enough corroborative evidence from cultures that were in the beginnings of recorded history.
Elistan -
Message 4
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
What I am saying is that Velikovsi was out in his asumption of 4th C BC. I place the peoples of sea in 6thC BC.
It's not that far fetched. A lot of study has already been done to show that Greek names for some Pharohs of the 6thC BC have no basis in reality and that they actually relate to Pharohs of the 12thC/11thC BC in the old chronology. When Ramses is brought to his correct time his Greek name is dicovered.
If the Cambridge Ancient history comes to the same conclusion within the current accepted timeframe then how do they place the Persians in 1200BC? Impossible so they canot have come to the same conclusion. -
Message 5
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Just had a look at the Cambridge Ancient history and it does mention that these peoples came from the Anatolian region but it does not name them as I have done becaue of the very reason that they cant based on old chronology. Here is a snippet about the period details in the Cambridge Ancient History:
"The relevant chapters by James Mellaart, Carl W. Blegen, Hildegard Lewy, O.R. Gurney, and A. Goetze in The Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., vol. 1, part 2 (1971), vol. 2, part 1 (1973), and vol. 2, part 2 (1975), were for the most part written before the mid-1960s and therefore do not take account of more recent research"
-
Message 6
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Artorius,
Fair enough. I don't know enough of the specific area to argue against you. I always took them to be Syrian/Anatolian peoples forced out of their homelands for one reason or another (you know, the usual migratory pressures). I find that if Vel. was stimping for a 4thC date that his general credibility must take a knock on that one. Your own dating of the 6thC is blurred enough for an event of this magnitude to have occured without reference elsewhere (probably), and addressing doubts and uncertainities in the accepted version of events is admirable. Still feel that you are trying to cram everything to close together and you are not allowing for gaps between events. Would it be too much to ask you to draft a tri-parte timeline of Persian, Greek and Egyptian events so that we could cross-reference occurences? I know it is a big ask, but it would enable us to better appreciate the points you are trying to make.
Cheers
Elistan -
Message 7
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi Ellistan,
Okay I will try to make a timeline but it will take a while.
Just looking at archaelogy for a moment. How come these great peoples such as the Phoenicians, Achaens, Egyptian Ramsesides etc are placed/founded in the 12thC BC but all their early settlements only date to the 9th/8thC BC according to Archaeology. Why? Because of the error in Egyptian chronology forming the dark age. -
Message 8
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi Ellistan,
I dont see that I am trying to cram everything in. My revised date of the first Oylmpics in 720BC only means a period of 56 years difference to accpeted chronology after 776BC. I am sure these 60 years can be accounted for in the period 700BC to 1BC if we look close enough. Thats less than ten years per century. Tree ring dating has already shown that some dates are out by as much as 23years. -
Message 9
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi Artorius,
I appreciate the effort (in advance). The reason I said 'cram', poetic license if you will, is because you are taking events and occurences that I was taught were centuries apart and are making them effectively comtemporary. I'm still not sold on Ö÷²¥´óÐãr being a propagandist for the Lydian conflict, and I find your 'brainwashing' forgetfulness of this to be your weakest link. Personally I think we differ on the fact that the evidence you use to date the tale for me only dates the telling of the tale.
That said, I'm open to the idea that the dating of the pharoahs may be inaccurate, and I'd be interested in seeing how inaccurate. I concur that a region-wide decline is a significant phenomenon, and one that would probably illict a more significant culture impact than is given credit for.
By the way how does Hesiod fit into your new chronology? Do you attribute any significance to his Five Ages of Man? Also, Vergil seems to accept this gap between the Trojan founding of Rome and the Remus/Romulus story, thus allowing effectively for a dark age between the two events.
Elistan -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
These are good points Elistan. I would also be suprised if such an alliance of various peoples (Sea people) going to raid Egypt would not be remembered by Greeks or other people but only by Medinet Habu writtings (which often over-exaggerate on the importance of these battles).
In anyway Artorius you mention that Persians failed to conquer Egypt? They had it conquered by the 6th century and Egyptians had to give ships and troops to Darius and Xerxis in their campaigns against Greeks. -
Message 11
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi E's
At the time the Persians attacked Egypt the `Greek' cities of Asia minor were no longer Greek but under Persian control (555BC). The attack of the Sea Peoples(persians+Aolians,Lydians)under Darius in the time of Ramses11 I date to around 550BC. This leaves plenty of time for his succesor Cambyses to return to Egypt and finally conquor it in 525BC. Then of course they turned there attention to Greece again around 500BC/490BC. Theres plenty of evidence for these attacks. Herodotus for one.
Ellistan asks why such amnesia of the Greek mainland peoples. I dont see it amnesia. Ö÷²¥´óÐãr was writing a story for Bards to recite not history as Herodotus does. The thing is Herodotus live 250 years after the events he was writing about so his accuracy has to be questioned. -
Message 12
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi Elistan and E
I am working on the timeline for this period now. It follows that if the Hitties are also moved forward to 800BC or later(when the dark age is removed) then they also must have continued after the earthquakes of 800BC. They were pushed east by the Phrygians and became what we later know as the Assyrians, to later become the Babylonians. So when Ramses11(psametich1 of the Greeks) is fighting the Hatti these are the Hatti who have been pushed east known also as Assyrians. Hence RamsesII fights the Hatti, Psametich1 fights the Assyrians. Both are the same. Just called differently by Greek and later historians. RamsesII(PSmaetich) had help from the Greeks as Gyges was then in power and sent men to support him. These are the men on the temples who are Greek who first help the Egypians. Described as Shekelesh, Lukka and Aikwaisha.
We know the Shekelesh are the Colophonians. Gyges had recently conquored Colophon, the Troad and elsewhere. The Lukka are the Lycians of southern Anatonlia. The Aikwaisha are a puzzle at the moment to me. I need to research their Egyptian name. I presume its of the form Akws but i dont know.
I have come to the conclusion that the Trst are not the Persians. From reading of the battle it appears the Persians took the Land route and arrived after the sea battle had been lost and so turned around and went home. So the Trs, or Tereset must have been another Sea peoples. The Sea peoples did have Persians amongst them though, mainly as commanders, just not the main body of the army.
So the Terest, who are they? I have concluded that they were the Thracians. These people, a very celt like people had moved down the seaboard of Asia Minor settling along the Ionion asian coast and Cyprus. They were great warriors, but also made fine works of art and traded and carried tattoos on their bodies. After losing the battle these poeple unable to return home in ships moved eastwards along the coast becoming the Philistines of old. -
Message 13
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
I tentively suggest the name of the city of the Aikwaisha. Gyges had recently taken Colophon and has also taken the Troad. The capital city of the Troad was Adramyttium. I suggest this as a possible name for the Akws of the Egyptians.
-
Message 14
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Here is an interesting clip about the problems of Egyptian chronology with respect to carbon dating.
RADIOCARBON DATING
THE RADIOCARBON COVER-UP—There are additional important facets of the problem in Egyptian dating that need to be discussed, but for a moment we shall turn our attention to one aspect which, by itself, has become a massive cover-up operation: the C-14 problem. However, we should recognize there is a special reason for the cover-up: As long as ancient Near Eastern chronology is kept out-of-step with Biblical chronology, the scholarly world can be taught that all Biblical history is little better than worthless.
"As prehistory is made continuous with [preceding that of] recorded history, a problem of ancient chronology exerts a crippling effect on both the study of the Old Testament and on ancient history in general. Evidence is accumulating rapidly that Egyptian chronology is off by as much as 500-600 years. Since most scholars calibrate Old Testament events and the history of other ancient cultures by Egyptian dates, the effect is devastating, crippling, and stifling." —Erech von Fange, "Time Upside Down" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 26
In the late 1940s, Willard F. Libby developed his radiocarbon dating method. ("Radiocarbon dating," "carbon 14 dating," and "C14 dating" all mean the same thing.) We will not go into detail on how it works. The technique and serious flaws in carbon 14 assumptions and dating were discussed in an earlier chapter (chapter 7, Dating Methods). At any rate, living organisms absorb radiocarbon from the atmosphere. After they die, the carbon disintegrates at what is thought to be a known rate. By measuring the amount remaining in a sample of organic material, such as wood, charcoal, or bone, technicians try to determine how long ago the plant or animal died.
MORE ACCURATE DATING FROM 600 B.C. ONWARD—Because of atmospheric conditions immediately following the Flood, carbon 14 dating, when applied to samples which died closer to the deluge, tends to give inaccurate, lengthened-out date readings which extend too far into the past. But dates from about 600 B.C. on down to A.D. 200 tend to be closer to reality—and far more accurate than radiodating methods (such as uranium or thorium dating). C-14 dates from A.D. 200 on down to the present are generally still more reliable.
Thus, radiocarbon is able to provide us with more accurate dates than uranium, thorium, potassium-argon, etc., for several centuries prior to the birth of Christ. In fact, even carbon 14 dates closer to the Flood are still far more accurate than is radiodating methods.
VELIKOVSKI BEGINS WRITING LETTERS—Upon learning of Libby's new radiocarbon dating method, Velikovsky immediately determined that it needed to be applied to Near Eastern materials—especially in Egypt and Palestine. Velikovsky was no timid soul, and he spent years urging that this be done. In 1953, he sent Libby a copy of his newly-printed, Ages in Chaos, and asked that he perform tests on 18th and 19th dynasty materials. Shortly thereafter, Libby returned the book and said he could not conduct such sample C-14 tests. The reason given: he knew nothing about Egyptology or archaeology! A strange reply indeed; Libby knew little about anatomy or botany, yet he regularly radiodated bones and wood.
In 1963, Libby wrote an article in Science, in which he said that C-14 dates needed to be separated into two broad categories: Egyptian and non-Egyptian dates. The reason for this dichotomy, Libby explained, was that Egyptian chronology was not fully understood, was subject to possible errors—and that radiocarbon dating on many Egyptian materials yielded dates that were too young by as much as 500 years) That was quite an admission.
Such a statement was the result of a ten-year letter-writing campaign by Velikovsky and scientific acquaintances. They wrote museums and C14 laboratories all over Europe and North America, in an effort to obtain radiocarbon datings of material from the New Kingdom dynasties of Egypt.
Velikovsky had done his homework. He had learned what is more generally known today in creationist circles, that catastrophes which greatly affect the atmosphere, such as the Flood, damage the C-14 balance. He felt that, in later centuries, dating of Egyptian articles would yield more accurate results, even though not in the earlier ones just after the Flood.
In Velikovsky's books you wilt find accounts of some of the strange responses he received to those letters. For example, in 1960 Dr. Klaus Borer, Assistant Professor of Egyptology at the University of California, replied that, to his knowledge, no published datings of any objects from the New Kingdom existed, and that they would not be necessary (1) since Egyptian dating had already been confirmed in other ways.
By that time, Velikovsky had good reason to suspect that such tests had already been made, but had produced results that were not wanted: dates which, if published, would have connected Egyptian history with those in the Bible.
A year before, in 1959, Dr. Froelich Rainey of the University of Pennsylvania revealed that its C-14 laboratory had, in fact, dated samples from every period of Egypt's history including the New Kingdom, and concluded his statement by admitting that "there are many serious problems in the C-14 method."
A later 1961 reply to Velikovsky from New York City was revealing. A curatorial assistant in the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City mentioned that in 1947 Libby had requested from their department New Kingdom samples. Libby afterward reported back that the samples had been judged to be contaminated. This meant that those samples had been tested and that the results were not as expected.
Then the breakthrough came in 1962. A scientist, Dr. David Baker, who had carefully read Velikovsky's book, Ages In Chaos, went to the C 14 lab at the University of Pennsylvania and had a lengthy visit with two scientists at the laboratory: Dr. Froelich Rainey and Dr. Elizabeth K. Ralph, director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory.
Following the visit he summarized it in a letter which he sent to Velikovsky.
"Mutual friends secured for me a most favorable introduction to Dr. Froelich Rainey, Director of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Rainey is a vigorous, enthusiastic, obviously very well informed, courteous gentleman in his late middle years. At no time was your name brought up by me or by anyone else at the University. I told Dr. Rainey that I was interested in the latest findings that have bearing on the date of the Exodus. My position as a professor of religion in Ursinus College and a long-time interest in the matter had prompted my quest for information in this area . .
" `The dating of Egyptian history,' said Dr. Rainey, 'is one of the most controversial matters in the whole realm of archaeology today. On the basis of radiocarbon dating we have come up with a vary serious difference of 600 years between the old chronology and the radiocarbon evidence! We do not know how to account for it. It seems to extend throughout Egyptian history, but the earlier dates are off more than more recent ones. Fortunately we have an astronomical fix in the time of Seti I, so we are pretty sure of his date, but before him we are in real trouble. Right now our Museum, the British Museum, and the University of Leiden are working furiously to try to find out the cause of the discrepancy." . .
" `Is it your opinion than,' I asked Dr. Rainey, `that we may expect some vary drastic changes In the dates of early Egyptian history in the next few years?' He replied, `Yes. And not only in Egypt but in the dating of the entire Ancient World, especially the Near East.'
"Dr. Rainey then called Miss Elizabeth K. Ralph who is in charge of the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania. This laboratory is located in marvelous quarters in the basement of the new Physics Building. A special guide took me to Miss Ralph.
"..Miss Ralph is a deeply serious, dedicated scientist, whose whole life is bound up with her work. She received me most kindly, was in no wise hurried in answering my inquiries, and most willingly answered all my questions and gave me access to all the information she had!
"In addition to confirming everything that Dr. Rainey told me, she furnished me a wealth of other information . . Miss Ralph was insistent on the wide gap between the so-called archaeological dates of Egyptian history and those derived from radiocarbon dated materials. In almost every case the radiocarbon dates are significantly younger. Today, they feel they can date to within an accuracy of 25 years in some instances. I found her working on a huge graph on which she had entered every reported item of radiocarbon Egyptian evidence, plotted against the archaeologically determined dates for the same material. This graph shows a very unmistakable trend throughout Egyptian history in the interest of younger dates. She is trying to ascertain what the cause may be." —David Baker letter dated 1963 to I. Velikovsky, in "Letters," Ash Pensee 4(1):14 (1973) [emphasis ours].
In 1964 Velikovsky wrote to Elizabeth Ralph, expressing his view that Tutankhamun ("King Tut") did not live in the 14th—but 9th-century B.C., and that if tomb samples were analyzed by carbon 14, those samples should date to about 840 B.C. A test made in 1971 corroborated his conclusions. In that year, L.E.S. Edwards of the British Museum forwarded the conclusions of two Tutankhamun tests to the University of Pennsylvania C-14 lab. One test dated at 846 B.C. and the other at 899 B.C.
Always prodding people, Velikovsky wrote to the director of the British Museum C-14 laboratory and inquired when those test results would be published, and if not, why not. In reply, the director wrote back that test results which deviate substantially from what is expected are often discarded and never published.
That is science? Throw away the facts which do not fit the theories?
In 1972, G.W. Oosterhout of the Delft University of Technology of the Netherlands wrote the British Museum about those same two test results. He asked for a written statement of some kind in regard to the test and its results. In reply, he received a letter stating that the lab at the British Museum had made no radiocarbon measurements on any material from the tomb of Tutankhamun.
David Baker (quoted above) had been told in 1962 that the major universities and museums of the world were "working furiously to try to find out the cause of the discrepancy," and that "some very drastic changes in the. . dating of the entire Ancient Word, especially the Near East" could be expected shortly.
But that has not happened and it will not happen. To do so would be to admit that Biblical documents are reliable—and this the humanists will never admit. As with everything else, the evolutionists seek to strike from the record all data which is not favorable to their cause.
"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it." —Professor Brew, quoted by J.O.D. Johnston, "Problems of Radiocarbon Dating, " in Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105, p. 13 (1973).
MORE ON RADIOCARBON DATING—Frederick Johnson, a coworker with Willard Libby, made this important statement on radiocarbon dating:
"This [radiodating verification by actual historical dates] is not true of geological and archaeological measurements, except in relatively rare instances. Measurements of time in these fields are inferred from processes, the rates of change or progress of which are not consistent and which are, as yet, quite unpredictable. There is no known standard rate for any one of these processes, and measurements of time for one process are invariably relative to rates of progress in other processes." —Frederick Johnson, quoted in H. M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.
Carbon 14 produced a date of 200 B.C., when archaeological dating theories had fixed it at 600 B.C.
"The book, Gears from the Greeks, about an ancient astronomical device found in an ancient wreck off the Greek Island of Antikithera early in this century, has provided a piece of information [about radiocarbon dating] . . During additional investigation recently, wood from the wreck was dated by radioactive carbon in the usual way. The result was an indicated date of about 220 B.C. But on archaeological grounds, the date of the wreck has been set at about 800 B.C." —News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1978, p. 87.
Yet we must keep in mind that not even carbon 14 dating is reliable. J.G. Ogden III, director of a radiocarbon dating laboratory, lists reasons why carbon 14 is unreliable. He explains that too many unknown factors stand in the way of successful dating. Then he gives a revealing statement:
"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been opted as 'acceptable' by investigators." —*J. Gordon Ogden III, "Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon Dates, " Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 288:187 (1977).
Not even radiocarbon dating is fully reliable. We dare not entrust Near Eastern dating to its conclusions.
"A last difficulty, and at the moment one of the most frustrating, is the failure of the radiocarbon technique to yield dates of certain dependability. Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian's prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the method because of the chronological uncertainties (in some cases, absurdities) that would follow a strict adherence to published C14 dates. This is not to question the physical laws underlying the principle used, or the accuracy of the counters now in operation around the world; the unsolved problem, instead, seems to lie in the difficulty of securing samples completely free from either older or younger adherent carbon.
"At least to the present, no kind or degree of chemical cleaning can guarantee one-age carbon, typical only of the time of the site from which it was excavated. What bids to become a classic example of C14 irresponsibility is the 6,000-year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq, which, on the basis of all archaeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years." —*Charles A. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East, " Science, 130:1830 (1959). -
Message 15
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
Re: virgil and Romans.
The Romans considered that their city was founded about 750/800BC. They should have known and archaelology has proved them right. However when they talked to Greek `historians' The Greek historians claimed this as too late because they believed eroneously that the Trojan war was ages before this. Why Greek historians from 50BC should know is dabatable. So the Romans had a dilema. They trusted Greek thought and so concocted not a dark age but a mythogical king list going back 400 years lol... -
Message 16
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
Re: Hesiod.
He must also be dated to 7thC not 8th. This is obvious by his mention of the Phrygians, for whom there is no archaeological evidence of in Anatolia until late 8th early 7thC BC
They are claimed to have arrived in anatolia in 1200Bc but then dissapear for 500 years and appear full blown 7thC. Obvious dark age fallacy again. -
Message 17
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Well Hesiod is dated to around that period as much by the fact that concepts and formulae in his poetry seem to put him somewhere between Amos and Issaiah, the latter mentions the Assyrian sack of Israel in 701 BC. Moreover there seems a good chance his dad, a merchant, though not particularly successful according to the poet, was probably contributing to the material remains in Anatolia. The problem is that for much of the period from the end of the Late Helladic IIIC layer of stratigraphy there seems to be a decline in international exchange and as a result the archaeolical levels are not so abundant with artefacts especially highly crafted pieces. I'm of the oppinion that the explosion in international trade and the sudden upsurge in literacy with the introduction of the alphabet as well as cult centre activity in the eighth century BC are linked. Delphi did not come to prominence until the spread of his poetry inspired the likes of the Corinthians to use the site to bless their colonial ventures during the seventh century BC.
-
Message 18
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
Yes, the problem of revising the timeline also means revising the Biblical timeline as well. Interstingly, when the Biblical timeline is reduced all the events in the bible fit into historical context. For some reason the 'authorities' or whoever it is, doesnt want to have to admit that Biblical history is actually accurate. In the current chronology it can still be explained away as myth and legend.
I have found some examples of Archaeology and carbon dating to show how things are confused. See the Troy thread for them. -
Message 19
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
Re: virgil and Romans.
The Romans considered that their city was founded about 750/800BC. They should have known and archaelology has proved them right. However when they talked to Greek `historians' The Greek historians claimed this as too late because they believed eroneously that the Trojan war was ages before this. Why Greek historians from 50BC should know is dabatable. So the Romans had a dilema. They trusted Greek thought and so concocted not a dark age but a mythogical king list going back 400 years lol...
Ìý
Artorious,
I may be getting confused in this, but did you not claim that the Dark ages were a modern invention elsewhere in this debate? If that is so why were the Greeks telling the Romans that it had occured? As far as I am aware the Greeks from the Classical period onwards (490BCE+) accepted that there was a period previous to them that they could not feel, but before which, in the words of Hesiod, Man was closer to the Gods. As Nik has illustrated elsewhere (on the other thread) the interrelationships of Gods and Men which is such a feature of the Trojan conflict and its outcomes do not feature anywhere in your near contemporaneous events. Also, you are being disingenuous with your dates when you say 'Greek Historians from 50BC', because surely you do not expect us to take it that no historian mentioned this fact until Vergil chose to write his great work? The sack of corinth in 146BCE would even be a late date for Greek influence on Roman historical perspective. The dilemma faced by the Romans was not so much a non-existent dark age, but rather a spurious claim to Trojan descent that didn't square with their other foundation myths, so they had Rome 'founded' twice, as per the Aeneid.
On a related issue, I also find it disingenuous when you refer to Troy as a minor city,(msg 15, other thread) yet Ö÷²¥´óÐãr tells us it was the pre-eminent city of its day, with walls thick enough for three chariots to ride abreast on. Are you being overly selective in your data from Ö÷²¥´óÐãr, utilising the passages that back your predetermined theory? As you stated in that same sequence of posts, what we determine anachronisms you determine evidence, yet you have excluded certain other facts from your analysis.
I'm afraid I haven't had time yet to read your post on radio-carboning dating, and I would have to admit to not being an expert, as I was more into the literature and politics of the time than the archaeology, but I look forward to it when I can find a moment.
And despite by disagreement with your conclusions, I am still interested in seeing a comprehensive timeline that could vindicate your views.
Regards
Elistan
PS Sorry for cross-threading, but its all the same debate really -
Message 20
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
Yes, thanks for remiding me, the Ö÷²¥´óÐãr story does indeed hold a lot of information concerning the actions of the Gods. The very reason it does is because of the upheavals of the time, earthquakes etc. These were all blamed on the Gods. Ö÷²¥´óÐãr is full of the Gods strikig down men left right and centre and this is a reflection of the turbulent nature of the time.
Is it any coincedence that Achilles, the greatest hero of the Achaeans is a _Mermydion_? The greatest hero of Ö÷²¥´óÐãrs time in my timeline was King Gyges of the _Mermnad_ dysnasty. Is it coincidence that Achilles' best friend was Patroclus, and that the main river of Lydia is the Pactolus? Is it coincidence that Achilles' shield is inlaid with Electrum. The source of electrum first ored by the Lydians from the river Pactolus.Hence we now know why Pactroclus was so important to Achilles, his shield was inlaid with electrum giving it extra strength. Ö÷²¥´óÐãr you can see made his story from the very place he knew, the people he knew (Helen/Todu already discussed), the weapons, the chariots, he knew them all very well. He was born not too far way from Troy as it is! He knew the region well, the terrain, everything. I am sure if I keep looking I could find all the real people that Ö÷²¥´óÐãr made mythical in his story. He did not make them the exact people, it was too close to the time for that, but he wrapped up the whole epsiode well. He was very smart.
Yes the later Greeks, of 50BC thought there was a period of the gods between the time of man. But we know from our studies that this was a mear 100 years at the most. 850-800/750BC. In 50Bc they wouldnt have known this. We know from this from the pottery found. The thing is only a very small amount of pottery from this dark time has been found. If it was 400 years there would be a hell of lot more.
Troy was a minor city. It had been destroyed by Earthquake in 800BC hence losing it's past influence. Obviosuly by choosing Troy Ö÷²¥´óÐãr was recalling its past inportant position. Pergamum had taken over this importance. And the captial of the Troad was anther city Adrastymes(sp). Troy may have ben Ö÷²¥´óÐãrs favourite city for all we know. -
Message 21
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Tuesday, 13th December 2005
Hi all
In associating the Terest - Thracians with the Philistines/Phoenicians I must garner some evidence for this.
The ancient Thracians made their way down the coast and inlands of Anatolia forming cites. The Mysians or Smrynans seem to be descendants of theirs as do the Phocea in Anatolia and Phokia in Greece.
Now why the Thracians should be called Phokia or Phocea is related in their myths. The Thracians were linked with the Phoenix, the word comming from Ancient Greek Phoinikes:
"These Phoinikes turn up repeatedly in Ö÷²¥´óÐãr’s Odys-sey, where they are greedy, knavish slavers plying their wares on the highseas."
" across such places where old Thracian legends had told about the Phoenix Bird itself coming to die from Northern Egypt; this mythical creature would hold in its beak an ancient Pelasgian emblem, while in its claws an Egg from the ashes of which, somewhere high on Cerna's mountainous peaks, the Phoenix Bird was said to be born again)".
"Phoenicia was named after Phoenix"
So in antiquity the Phoenix was related to the Thracians and indeed may have been their emblem. They were known to dress in brightly coloured clothes with geometric patterns.
It is know that before the Phoencians were called such they were called Kenaani.(people of Canaan)
"In terms of archaeology, language, and religion, there is little to set the Phoenicians apart as markedly different from other local cultures of Canaan. However, they are unique in their remarkable seafaring achievements. Indeed, in the Amarna tablets of the 14th century BC they call themselves Kenaani or Kinaani (Canaanites); and even much later in the 6th century BC, Hecataeus writes that Phoenicia was formerly called χνα, a name Philo of Byblos later adopted into his mythology as his eponym for the Phoenicians: "Khna who was afterwards called Phoinix".
What we can gather from this is that in the 14thC BC, in my timeline approx 10thCBC they were still known as Cananities. It was not until the Phoikians arrived that they changed. I date this to approx 800BC-750BC or later.
Purple Dye
The making of Purple dye has long been associated with the Phoenicians. This same purple die, sometimes in myths associated with fire(Phoenix) is also found being made in Anatolia. Notably in Thyatera but also in other places in northern Anatolia. Another possiblity for Tereset.
So to sum up, the Tereset/Pereset were the Thracians\Thyatereans\Phoikians\phocea\philistines of old. Phoenician lands in Canaan would have originally been Canaanite until the Phoikians(the people of the Pheonix) arrived.
So when the peoples of the sea had been defeated the Pereset headed for the only safe place they could. The land where their ancestors had already made a home in.
I believe the Phoenix myth concerning phoenix and its visit to Egypt is a telling of the tale of the failure of the Tereset amongst the Sea Peoples to conquor Egypt. -
Message 22
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
The timeline is comming together now. It gets very complicated when you have to involve the biblical and Akkadian/babylonian/persian all in there. Some major surprises though and I even think I may have located and identified Solomon. One thing for sure, the Hittites of Ramses are not who we think they are. The Biblical chronology and hence perhaps persian/akkadian looks like it is out by about 200years.
-
Message 23
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
I look forward to the full prospectus, and I think I will withhold further comment until then so that my response can be as structured as your argument clearly is
Regards
Elistan -
Message 24
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
i always thought the sea peoples where from the black sea. or the pontus. whatever you wanna call it.
-
Message 25
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Dunno, I'm not hot on languages but it seems the Egyptian confederation came from all over the place, as far afield as Sardinia and Sicely but not the Black Sea, they were too busy fighting Jason and the Argonaughts or something like that. There are suggestions that they were based around Crete and Southern Anatolia, although groups of people listed at Medinet Habu appear as mercenaries in the Nile Delta before Rameses III came to the throne so it is possible that Crete would have been the main area such a diverse group of sea raiders could organise such a raid.
-
Message 26
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Ha all
There has been much dispute as to the Egyptian term HMT or Hemet as its translated. this was an alloy of metals at the time of RamsesIII. The reason no one knows what it is is that both camps - some revisionists and old chronology are placing it in the wrong time. When placed in the right time is it very obvious what it was - Electrum. It is decribed as comming from Atika. Again because it has been in the wrong time people assumed this was the Aticca of Greece major, where no trace of any sort of metal deposits of this sort can be found.. But it is in fact Aticca of Asia Minor. A major export port for Electrum at the time of Gyges and his descendents. It is situated just south of Lydia, and the river Patoclus(rich in electrum) making it an ideal place for the export. -
Message 27
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
I have proof that AmasisII(Ahmose) is in fact RamsesII. This is a fragment of text from Babylon. NebuchadnezzarII reigned from 605BC -562BC and attacked Amasis in 568BC. You will see from this fragment that Amasis calls up the peoples of the sea to help him fight. This is exactly as RamsesII did earlier in his reign. But Ramses is suposed to have lived in the 12thC BC. Guess who our only references to Amasis are, yes Herodotus again, not Egyptian records. At this time the `Sea Peoples' were under the reign of Alyattes(end of his reign) and his son Croesus.(Croesus is said to have sent help to AmasisII of Egypt.
(2) From a fragmentary historical text (BrM 78-10-15, 22, 37, and 38). (13—22)
... [in] the 37th year, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Bab[ylon] marfched against] Egypt (Mi-sir) to deliver a battle. [Ama]sis (text: [ . . . ]-a(?)-su), of Egypt, [called up his a]rm[y] ...[... ]^« from the town Pufu-laman . . . distant regions which (are situated on islands) amidst the sea . .. many ... which/who (are) in Egypt . . . [car]rying weapons, horses and [char-iot]s ... he called up to assist him and . .. did [ . . . ] in front of him ... he put his trust. . . (only the first signs at the beginning and the end of the following 7 or 8 lines are legible).
The Ancient Near East - An anthology of text and pictures. (James B Pritchard) -
Message 28
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Sorry
Mixed up my Ramses in above message. It is of Course RamsesIII -
Message 29
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
Velikovsky gives a number of reasons for thinking that the 20th dynasty duplicates the 28th - 30th dynasties, and that the Peleset and the Peoples of the Sea are the Persians and Greeks respectively. Whether these reasons hold water is a matter for debate, but it's worth enumerating them, so tht a judgement of their collective weight may be made.
First the actual equivalencies of the pharaohs proposed by Velikovsky:
Setnakht = Nepherites (399-393)
Ramses III = Nectanebo I (380-362)
Ramses IV = Tachos
Ramses V - no equivalent; he died young and it's acknowledged that he may never have reigned independently.
Ramses VI = Nectanebo II
Ramses VII & VIII - no equivalents; both obscure and little known
Ramses IX - probably Amyrteus I, a 5th century rebel gainst the Persians, as were
Ramses X - Amyrteus II and
Ramses XI - Inaros (Greek name, not given in Manetho)
The period 393-380 is the reign of Acoris.
The general bckground:
The archaeology of Tell-el-Yehudiyah, and the dispute between Naville and Griffiths over its age. Here were found the tiles with Greek letters on the reverse in a palace of Ramses III, and a cemetery originally thought to be late dynastic because of the poor quality of the burials, but where scarabs of Setnakht and Ramses III were also found. The next layer in the archaeology is Ptolemaic.
The Harris Papyrus of Ramses IV, in which he laments the state of Egypt before his predecessor (a lament which is acknowledged to be mysterious, but which would make sense if it referred to the period of Persian rule), and stresses at great length that he is the rightful ruler (to an extent that has led to the suggestion "methinks he doth protest too much" - and Tachos, we know, was a usurper.)
The Medinet Habu inscriptions
Egyptian has no letter l - P-l-s-t should be rendered P-r-s-t. In the Ptolemaic Canopus decree Persia is rendered P-r-s. Moreover, the uniforms (particularly the headgear) of the Prst are similar to depictions of Persian soldiers at Persepolis. The sequence of events depicted is the same for Ramses war with the Peoples of the Sea, and Nectanebo's defeat of the Persians.
The 21st dynasty, the dynasty of priests, comes not after the 20th, but alongside it - a Persian theocratic construction along the lines of the temple state in Jerusalem.
It was claimed that an important argument against Velikovsky was that there was no contemporary account of Ramses III wars in Greek/Persian times. This is nonsense; the wars of Nectanebo I re well documented. There is, however, no independent account of the wars of Ramses III in the 12th century-
Noggin -
Message 30
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
Hi Noggin,
The idea that the Egyptians didnt have an L letter is not quite correct. The later egyptians ie the ones where we now place the events used the sideways lion figure to denote L. This can be seen in the cartouches of Ptolmys and Kliopadrat. The question is when did this use of the L sound in Egyptian words first start. The Rosetta stone only dates from about 200BC. But it would seem obvious that it would have been in use before this. Alexander arrived in around 331BC. So we could put the use back further before he arrived. Now putting the date this L started back to about 550BC to where I place RamsesIII would be possible and probably acceptable, but not to 1200odd BC where Ramses is usally placed. To me this would be confirmation that the sea peoples are of a much later date than thought, as the very inscription carries the L . -
Message 31
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
Could the Peleset be the Pelusians? Sea peoples settled there by Amasis(RamsesIII) to defend the border earlier in his reign.. When the Persians took Lydia and advanced to Egypt these Pelusians may have changed sides. The dated remains of the settlement are to late 6th C BC, exactly where they would be in the correct new chronology.
-
Message 32
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
Hi Artorious
The letter that appears in Prst is the same as the one that appears in Ramses, because both are heiroglyphs. We can't be sure how the Egyptians pronounced it.
If Ramses III is located in the 6th century BC and is to be equated with Amasis (approx 550-525 BCE), as I think you suggested earlier, how do the other pharaohs of the 20th and 26th dynasties match up?
Noggin -
Message 33
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 26th December 2005
Hi Noggin,
I have studied the cartouches of Ramses and the name of the Pereset in Egyptian texts. There is no similarity of the letter R at all. In fact neither contain the letter R or L. Will explain more later, there's not even an S in Perset!! -
Message 34
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Monday, 26th December 2005
If there is no R, L, or S in Prst/Plst where does the original reading of the name come from?
And if Ramses III is Amasis, who are the other pharaohs of the 20th dynasty? -
Message 35
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 26th December 2005
Hi Noggin,
Sorry, was rushing, Pereset contains an R. Ramses does not, some of the cartouches start with the sign for Sun which early decipherers equated with Re, so it became Re(messes).Wether this was meant to be pronounced is debatable. In most other circumstances it is not. The other cartouches leave out the Sun sign and start with the God/King sign and read something like Messesek, could possibly be pronounced Messesech. Some people leave out the Mes sign and try to pronounce it Sessesek- and equate it to Shishak.
Pereset reads something like Peredjedet or Peredjet. There does not appear to be an L or an S in it. Why it was translated Peleset is possibly because the Djed part/sign could almost be a Z and so become an S. Too long winded for my likeing. In the inscription I base this on it also has the figures for 103. Meaning I presume 103 were captured. -
Message 36
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Hi all
The Pereset/Peredjet are still a problem. From the descriptions/pictures of the ships(without oars) they arrived in and their headress it appears they were from Cyprus/Pheonicia. For me, the Persian tiara helmet is not a good match, and the Persians are all bearded. The sea peoples were not predominately bearded.
The Cypriot/Phoenicians not only had similar ships, the merchant type(without oars), they also had a similar headress/helmet.
So Peredjet may mean Pheonician. -
Message 37
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Further to this we have another possibility for Pereset/Tereset. Tarsus. The ancient city in Cilicia. In ancient times spelled Trsw (Teresu - Tarses - Tarsus).
Also another possibility for the Denyen, the nearby city of Adana. All these cities are also just opposite Cyprus, enforcing the Phoenician link with all of them. I have linked the Denyen with Adanya/Adana before but thought this was Cyprus but perhaps the two have become mixed or the Assyrians became confused? The text says Ia-ad-na-na and mentions Island in the same context. Perhaps they are two cities with simialr names Cyprus ruled the mainland as well and so Adana became part of Cyprus territory, or t'other way round. -
Message 38
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Friday, 30th December 2005
One can always pluck names out of a hat.
But if Ramses III is Amasis, one still has to account for the other kings of the 20th and 26th dynasties, and for the fact that there is no external corroboration of what seemed to be a major historical event.
Noggin -
Message 39
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Hi Noggin,
It's certainly complicated. I still have an open mind regarding the link between Ramses and Amasis. Possibilities are that:
Amasis of the Nebuchednezar inscription quoted is not an Egyptian and so does not apply. ie the word Musri may not refer to Egypt at all but a region closer to Assyria.
Amasis may have co-ruled in some way, ie been a lesser king or in charge whilst Ramses was away fighting. The idea of co ruling Pharohs is accepted at other periods in Egyptian history.
Amasis may be who Herodotus says he is but why Egyptian records so silent on the matter? In Herodotus' description it concludes that in the time of Amasis the Cypriots first came under Egyptian control and paid homage. Yet Seti and son RamsesII 600 years before are also claimed to have recieved homage from Cyprus.
The two stories of RamsesIII's fight against the Sea Peoples is much the same as the fight Amasis made against the sea peoples under Persian control. Is it a co-incidence? Are they really seperate events?
There are further complications of course. RamsesII or III mentions Ugarit. Ugarit would have been destroyed by the period I assign the Ramses to. So will need to study the orignal Egyptian text to see if it is indeed Ugarit that is indicated.
The Lukka I also have new ideas about. I think these were part of the group that supported RamsesIII against Nebuchednezar. They are not mentioned in the later group that attacked Rameses. This would tie in with the time of Lydian Croesus having taken Anatolia and the Islands made an alliance with the Spartans, the Lacaedamons. So the Lukka were the Spartans who helped Ramses. The reason they did not take part in the later battle against Ramses is that the Persians had taken Lydia and its possessions, but not Sparta of course, so the Spartanss did not help the Persians. Far from it, they proceeded to help keep them at bay. -
Message 40
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Friday, 30th December 2005
What Nebuchadnezar insciption is this?
Nebuchadnezar was the neo-Babylonian whose rule starts in about 605 BCE. Amasis was the last ruler of the 26th dynasty, who seems to have died immediately before the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 BCE, and is therefore hardly likely to have been mentioned in any inscription of Nebuchadnezzar's.
Noggin -
Message 41
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Hi Noggin
See message 27 above. -
Message 42
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Saturday, 31st December 2005
Seems you're right about Nebuchadnezzar and Amasis. Going from memory (never a good idea at my age) I hadn't realised that the two reigns had a period of overlap.
Got to go out now, but I'll be back later.
Noggin -
Message 43
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Despite the above it still seems unlikely that Ramses III can be equqted with Amasis. Nebuchadnezzar's "invasion" isn't mentioned in any other historical record that I'm aware of, the length of Amasis' reign is too long, and there's no place in the scheme for the other 20th dynasty pharaohs.
Noggin -
Message 44
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Hi Noggin,
To find the other historical records of this battle you need to look at the records of RamesesIII where he allies with Sea Peoples.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.