Revising Ancient Chronology

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:53 am

* Velikovsky started revising ancient chronology in his 1950s book, Ages in Chaos. He removed some of the "dark ages" as from Greece etc and lowered the dates of ancient Egypt by an average of about 500 years and identified which names should belong to the same rulers. Donavan Courville later made a more thorough revision that meshed with Velikovsky's.
* Here's what Michael (Starbiter) said in my thread, 5 Versions of Catastrophism, at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4897:
Hello Lloyd: You might want to consider some of the following in your thread.
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/ancient.htm#p6
5.5 G Heinsohn and the Evidence of Stratigraphy
- Heinsohn has made a very important contribution to the revisionist debate by focus[-]ing attention on the evidence of stratigraphy outside Egypt. Dayton had uncovered many examples in museums around the world where near identical ancient artefacts of very similar styles and manufacturing techniques were given dates which varied sometimes by as much as 1000-1500 years. Heinsohn, from an extensive study of archaeological reports from most of the better known sites across Asia Minor, showed how these anachronisms had arisen. At site after site, archaeologists had artificially increased the age of the lower strata by inserting, without supporting evidence, 'occupation gaps' of many centuries. They did this in order to meet the expectations of excessive antiquity among historians, who had used Biblically derived dates for Abraham (c. 2100), initially seen as broadly contemporary with the great Assyrian king Hammurabi. Using this elongated time frame, great empires of the past such as the Sumerians, Akkadians and Old Babylonians were invented by late 19th C and early 20th C scholars to fill the historical voids. The ancient Greek and Roman historians, not surprisingly, knew nothing of these ancient peoples. Sumerian, said Heinsohn, 'is the language of the well known Kassite/Chaldeans, whose literacy deserves its fame'.
- He showed that the Bronze Age started in China and Mesoamerica some 1500 years later than in the Near East and proposed this gap be largely closed by lowering the ages of the Mediterranean civilisations. He cited the Indus Valley where the early period civilisations, dated from Mesopotamian seals to c. 2400BC, sit right underneath the Buddhist strata of 7-6C [BC]. Seals from Mesopotamia are found in the Indus valley and in Mesopotamia there are seals from the Indus Valley. So the excavators have to say they have an occupation gap of some 1700 years. Thus some sites only about 30km apart have chronologies some 1500 years apart. But in the same strata, supposedly 1500 years apart, they frequently find the same pottery.
- ... Heinsohn ... argued persuasively for equating, among others, the Mittani with the Medes (as did Velikovsky) and the Empire Hittites with the Late Chaldeans. His excellent paper on the archaeology of Hazor (C&CR 1996:1) revealed some important anachronisms. For example, two cuneiform tablets written in Old-Babylonian Akkadian and two more written in the Akaddian of the Amarna era were found in the upper layers of the site. Heinsohn asks 'How did tablets from the early second millennium end up in a stratum reaching its peak in the period of the Persian Empire (550-330 BC)?'. The tablets were, of course, immediately labelled 'heirlooms' by their finders. But, as Heinsohn pointed out, it seems strange that the later Hazoreans kept tablets for over 1000yr as heirlooms from the MBA or LBA, yet were apparently incapable of producing any texts of their own. Also, a clay jar inscribed in 23C [BC] Old-Akkadian was found in the Hyksos layer c17C [BC]. Yes, you've guessed - this was explained as yet another boring old 'heirloom'....
- Emmett Sweeney, a contributor to many early Workshops, [has] had two revisionist books published; 'The Genesis of Israel and Egypt' [28] and 'The Pyramid Age' [29]. The latter in particular contains much well argued evidence in favour of a much lower Egyptian chronology.... Although his conclusion that the three Giza pyramids were built c870-770BC have not found much support, the real value of his books lies in the very wide range of evidence he introduces in support of many of his proposed synchronisms.
- Concerning Charles Ginenthal's model, http://www.maverickscience.com/misinformation.pdf, ... in Pillars of the Past, ... eliminate[s] some 1500 years from ancient Near Eastern history, [which he] derives from Gunnar Heinsohn.... Heinsohn argued that the Sumerian civilization never existed as such, and should properly be identified with the Chaldean empire of the first millennium BC. Among other sensational claims advanced by Heinsohn are that Sargon I of Akkad is to be identified with Sargon II of Assyria; that Hammurabi is to be identified with Darius; and that the Mitanni and Median empires are one and the same. ... Emmet Sweeney [is] known for arguing that Abraham brought the first instruments of civilization to Egypt and that the pyramids were constructed in the first millennium BCE.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:55 am

* Here's some criticism of Heinsohn at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Heinsohn.
Heinsohn's ideas on ancient chronology were introduced to the English-speaking world in the Velikovskian journal Kronos in 1985.[5] They have found support with a small number of writers and academics, most of whom are favorably disposed towards Velikovsky; amongst whom are Professor of Philosophy Lynn E. Rose, Professor of Classics at Bard College William Mullen, Professor of Art History Lewis M. Greenberg, speech writer and long-time observer of the Velikovsky scene Clark Whelton, German independent scholar Dr Heribert Illig, and British writer Emmet Sweeney. However, his views have been severely criticized by several students of Velikovsky-inspired ancient chronology revision: Aeon editor Dwardu Cardona,[6] New Zealand researcher Lester Mitcham,[7] University of New Orleans Professor of History William H. Stiebing, Jr.,[8] British researcher Anthony Rees[9] and Aeon publisher Ev Cochrane.[10] Stiebing's critique argued four points: (1) The great antiquity of civilization is based on more evidence than just the Old Testament, (2) epigraphy and philology disprove Heinsohn's revision, (3) scientific dating is more reliable than Heinsohn admits, and (4) archaeological stratigraphy is more complicated than Heinsohn's simplistic perspective would have it. Mitcham concludes ". . . [I]t is quite clear that none of Heinsohn's claimed alter-ego identifications can be regarded as valid. Claimed alter-egos have totally different reign lengths, while within a dynasty it is often necessary for Heinsohn to omit mention of kings who have no corresponding alter-egos. The ancient records themselves prove Akkad as Babylonia, that rulers who Heinsohn claims did not exist are well documented, as are many others who receive no attention at all - probably because they cannot be placed within Heinsohn's revision." Cochrane concluded his critique of Heinsohn's equating Hammurabi with Darius as follows: ". . . Heinsohn's reconstruction cannot be taken seriously for the simple reason that it is entirely at odds with the historical record it seeks to reform. . . . [I]t seems clear that his theory raises more problems than it solves and requires ad hoc suppositions galore. That Heinsohn is forever misrepresenting his sources does not inspire confidence in his methodology. . . . Heinsohn's reconstruction cannot be made to square with the historical record." These critiques have been ignored by Heinsohn. Because of the problems with his methodology almost all professional ancient historians, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, archaeologists, and specialists in scientific dating methods reject Heinsohn's claims.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:56 am

* Now here are some criticisms of Heinsohn and Ginenthal by Ev Cochrane from the link posted above by Michael.
- Virtually every claim advanced by Ginenthal is blatantly false. Ginenthal proclaims that the Medes and Mitanni occupied “virtually the same region.” Yet the traditional homeland of the Medes was in the Zagros mountains of western Iran hundreds of miles to the east of Baghdad, while Mitanni was centered on the Khabur triangle in northern Syria, hundreds of miles to the west of Baghdad
- Nor, for that matter, is it true that they “worshiped the same gods.”
- As evidenced by the extant texts, Mitanni ... worshipped such gods as Teshub, Shauska (a Hurrian Ishtar-like goddess) and Shimige[, some of the] gods [-] regularly invoked in the el-Amarna correspondence [-] (unlike Mithra, Varuna, and Indra, who are never mentioned).
- Ginenthal states that the kings of the Medes and Mitanni shared “the same names.” Once again, Ginenthal presents no evidence in support of this claim and there is no reason to believe that it is true.
- Ginenthal writes that the Median kingdom and Mitanni shared “a capital that could clearly be similarly named.” Here, too, Ginenthal himself offers no evidence in support of this claim. Rather, he has simply accepted as gospel Sweeney’s absurd etymological analysis....
- The capital of the Medes was Ecbatana, located in Iran at modern Hamadan. The Mitanni capital was Wassukanni, yet to be discovered, but generally sought for in the Khabur valley in northern Syria in the general vicinity of Tell Brak.
- Among the most preposterous statements ... is Ginenthal’s claim that “the scientific and technological facts” corroborate the identification of Mitanni and the Medes. Yet ... Ginenthal doesn’t cite a single scientific or technological fact ... that ... supports the identification of the Medes and Mitanni.
- Amazingly, Heinsohn’s arguments are every bit as incompetent and contrived as those of Sweeney and Ginenthal.
Consider, for example, Heinsohn’s arguments with respect to the alter egos of Cyrus and Astyages [claiming Astyages was Cyrus]. It was Cyrus the Great who laid the foundations for the far-reaching Persian Empire [-] with his victory over the Medes and Astyages in 550 BCE.
- Since Heinsohn would identify the Median empire with Mitanni he is compelled to find a parallel for Cyrus’s conquest in the annals of Mitanni. Always one for catchy titles, Heinsohn summarized the situation as follows in “Cyrus the Mardian/Amardian Dethroner of the –6th Century Medes and Aziru the Martu/Amurru (Amorite) Dethroner
of the –14th Century Mitanni”: “If my identification of Mitanni and Medes is to prove valid, Media’s last Great King, Astyages (Xenophon’s Cyaxares) must find his alter ego in the last Great King of the Mitanni, Tuisheratta (also Dushratta or Tushratta).”
- Heinsohn proceeds to offer a number of superficial parallels between the two kings.... With this sleight-of-hand Heinsohn attempts to gloss over the striking differences between the respective fates of the two kings. Tushratta lost the throne when he was murdered by one of his sons; Astyages, in contrast, not only survived the loss of his kingdom, he was actually wined and dined by Cyrus (Herodotus wrote that “Cyrus kept him near him until his death and did him no other harm.”).
- Also noteworthy is the fact that Tushratta’s palace at Wassukanni was destroyed shortly after his death by Suttarna
III, son of the Hittite vassal Artatama II. The palace of Astyages, in contrast, was retained as the capital of the Medes and continued to serve as the winter residence for the Persian kings. Amazingly enough, the fact that Tushratta’s palace was destroyed while that of Astyages remained standing does not prevent Heinsohn from identifying the two capitals, separated by many hundreds of miles and, presumably, many hundreds of years.
- Heinsohn’s attempt to find a reference to Cyrus the Great within the records describing the Mitanni Empire is every bit as farfetched. For evidence of the Persian ruler he turns to the el-Amarna correspondence, famous for its unique insights into the diplomatic relations between Tushratta’s Mitanni and the Egypt of Amenophis III and Akhenaten (Tushratta’s daughter would marry both kings): “... There was only one candidate for that role: Aziru the Martu/Amurru with whom that correspondence is virtually obsessed.”
- Heinsohn’s claim that Cyrus stemmed from the Mardian clan is utterly without foundation, as I documented elsewhere. In fact, Cyrus stemmed from the Pasargadae (an Indo-European clan) while Aziru was of Semitic ancestry (the Amurru). Like his father [-], Aziru was a double-dealing leader of the vassal-state Amurru, which at the time was busy carrying out raids against the various cities along the Mediterranean coastline. Such nefarious activities had earned the wrath of one Rib-Hadda, the ruler of Byblos, who was constantly complaining about him to the Egyptian
pharaoh. For his insubordination, Aziru’s father had been called to Egypt and apparently executed. Cyrus’ father, in contrast, lived to see his son conquer the world.
- In his quest to maintain his precarious hold on power and avoid the fate of his father, Aziru attempted to placate both the Egyptians and the Hittites, alternately pledging allegiance to one empire and then to the other. Aziru would eventually go over to the Hittites, where he would remain a loyal vassal to the end of his life. He and Cyrus the Great [-] have virtually nothing in common. Cyrus ruled over the greatest empire the world had ever seen as of 539 BCE. At the height of his power, Aziru was a governor of Amurru, a tiny vassal state just north of Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast, many hundreds of miles removed from Cyrus’s homeland. Throughout his life Aziru remained subject to the whims of his Hittite and Egyptian overlords, hardly the same status enjoyed by the mighty Cyrus, ruler without peer.
- Heinsohn’s attempt to identify the Medes with Mitanni leads to more problems than it solves, hardly the mark of a sound chronology.

* There's much more at http://www.maverickscience.com/misinformation.pdf.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:13 am

* This is what JohnM33 said:
In one of Alan Wilson/ Baram Blacketts books he mentions that a french linguist searching for the roots of the english language found far more corelations with ancient chaldean than with any german language. According to older versions of british history, in the time of king lear who founded leicester [cair leriron] the border between the Cymreig [welsh] language and Icinglas [old english] was just to the south and west of leicester. Anywhere theres a river called avon[afon = river] spoke welsh so in the south it clearly extended into the sacred landscape around avebury and stonehenge. In a book called 'the keys of the temple' david furlong makes a fairly convincing case for a large plan of the great pyramid being overlayed on the landscape, with the sightlines being facillitated by silbury hill, I know there are other connections so I just googled 'silbury hill great pyramid' and got this http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/thoughts/200901sgp.html.
- There are two possible explanations for the english-chaldean connection the first is that albine [Albion?] is said to have arrived in about 1600 bc from syria and brutus who after liberating the trojan slaves from their greek masters arrived in devon [totnes] around 600bc and went on to found 'new troy'- london [known at the time of boudiccas revolt as trinovantium] and founded a temple to diana ,now st pauls. At the moment i'm leaning to some sort alliance between crete/ knossus and the hittites/chaldeans with strong connections to the british isles but cant decide who were the 'elders'
.
* And Jay said this.
http://s8int.com/joseph.html
I came across this a few years ago and even got a reply from Sweeney. See I always figured that if there is anything to the Bible (and I figure there is) Egypt had the best opportunity to build the pyramids just prior to Exodus. I think Sweeney was going just after. By my fake historian calculations Egypt was not only feeding herself but all the region. Pharaoh not only ended up with all the money and land of Egypt but lots of money from the famine starved nations surrounding him. Before the famine ended he had a 20% income tax and an entire population of genuine slave labor, along with the proceeds from the starving nations who came to buy grain from Joseph. There was a centralized government well organized and the population had been relocated to cities. My argument is that after the Exodus Egypt had suffered the 10 plagues and lost it's entire army in the Red Sea. Anyhow, I am hoping this qualifies as "revised chronology". Oh, incidentally Micheal, Job was several generations prior to Moses IMHO

* Jay, as you can see in the previous post, Sweeney, like Heinsohn and Ginenthal, is likely largely all mixed up.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:35 am

* Here's some of David Rohl's Revised Chronology at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29.
Identifications in the New Chronology
Personal identifications [mostly of names in the El Amarna Letters, it seems, which Velikovsky discussed]
Rohl identifies:
Nebkaure Khety IV (16th Pharaoh of the 10th Dynasty) with the Pharaoh who had dealings with Abraham.
Amraphel (Genesis 14) with Amar-Sin, king of Kish in Sumer (1834-1825 BC/BCE by Rohl's chronology).
Tidal (Bible), King of Goyim/King of Nations (Genesis 14), with Tishdal, Hurrian ruler from the Zagros mountains.
Zariku, governor of Ashur, with king Arioch of Ellasar.
Kutir-Lagamar of Elam with Chedorlaomer of Elam.
Amenemhat III with the Pharaoh of Joseph, and Joseph with the Vizier of Amenemhat III.
The "new king who did not know Joseph" in Exodus 1:8 is identified by Rohl with Sobekhotep III.
Neferhotep I with the adoptive grandfather of Moses.
Khanefere Sebekhotep IV, brother and successor of Neferhotep, with Khenephres, the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled to Midian.
The Pharaoh of the Exodus with Tutimaios, known also as Dudimose.
Ibni, Middle Bronze Age ruler of Hazor, with Jabin, king of Hazor in Joshua 11:10.
Akish or Achish, king of Gath, is identified with Šuwardata, King of Gath in the Amarna letters. Akish is believed to be a shortened form of the Hurrian name Akishimige, "the Sun God has given." Shuwardata is an Indo-European name meaning "the Sun God has given."
Aziru of the Amarna Letters is identified with Hadadezer, Syrian king in II Samuel.
Labaya, a ruler in the Amarna Letters, with King Saul.
King David with Dadua in Amarna Letter EA256.
Mutbaal, writer of the letter, is identified with Ishbaal (aka Ishbosheth). The two names have exactly the same meaning: "Man of Baal." Following the death of his father (Labaya/Saul), Mutbaal/Ishbaal moved his center to Transjordan.
"The Sons of Labaya," in the Amarna Letters (EA 250), with Mutbaal/Ishbaal and David/Dadua, the latter being the son-in-law of Labaya/Shaul.
Benemina, also mentioned in EA256, is identified by Rohl with Baanah, Israelite chieftain in II Samuel 4, who would later betray and assassinate Ishbosheth.
Yishuya, also mentioned in EA256, is identified with Jesse (Ishai in Hebrew), father of David.
Ayab, the subject of EA 256, is held to be the same as the Biblical Yoav (English "Joab").
Lupakku ("Man of Pakku"), Aramean army commander in the Amarna Letters, with Shobach ("He of Pakku"[citation needed]), Aramean army commander in the Bible.
Nefertiti with Neferneferuaten and with Smenkhkare.
Horemheb is identified with the Pharaoh who destroyed Gezer and later gave it to Solomon, together with one of his daughters as a wife. When Horemhab took Gezer he was not yet the ruler, but was acting under Tutankhamun. However, he became Pharaoh not long after, and Tutankhamun died too young to have left any marriageable daughters.
Ramses II (hypocoristicon = Shysha) with Shishaq in the Bible.
Irsu the Syrian, who took over control of Egypt according to the Harris Papyrus, with Arza, Master of the Palace of Israel according to I Kings 16:8-10.
Sheshi, a Hyksos ruler, with Sheshai, a ruler of Hebron descended from Anak (Joshua 15:13-15).
Io of the Line of Inachus with Queen Ahhotep of the 17th Dynasty of Egypt at Waset
Cadmus of Thebes with Cadmus in the line of Pelasgian rulers of Crete
Inachus with Anak-idbu Khyan of the Greater Hyksos
Auserre Apepi of the Greater Hyksos with Epaphus
Cush, son of biblical Ham with Meskiagkasher of the First Dynasty of Uruk
Nimrod, son of biblical Cush with Enmerkar ('Enmer the Hunter') of the First Dynasty of Uruk

Geographical identifications
Rohl, in addition to his chronology, also has some geographical ideas that are different from the conventional notions. These include:
The Garden of Eden, according to Rohl, was located in what is now northwestern Iran, between Lake Urmia and the Caspian Sea.[31] [Catastrophists say it was the Saturn configuration in the sky.]
The Tower of Babel, according to Rohl, was built in the ancient Sumerian capital of Eridu.[32] [It was the Polar Column.]]
The site of the ancient city of Sodom is "a little over 100 metres beneath the surface of the Dead Sea," a few kilometers south-by-southeast from En-Gedi.[33]
The Amalekites defeated by King Saul were not the ones living in the Negev and/or the Sinai, but a northern branch of this people, "in the territory of Ephraim, on the highlands of Amalek" - or, in an alternative translation "in the Land of Ephraim, the mountains of the Amalekites" (Judges 12:15). This is supported by the report that, immediately following his destruction of the Amalekites, "Saul went to Carmel and set up a monument" (I Samuel 15:12). Once Saul is removed from the Negev and the Sinai, "Saul's kingdom as described in the Bible is precisely the area ruled over by Labaya according to the el-Amarna letters."[34]
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:28 am

Joseph
Tayga likes the identification of Joseph with Imhotep. Here's what this site, http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/just-who-was-joe/, says about David Rohl's identification of Joseph. It also discusses the Imhotep ID separately on the same page.
[Joseph] Vizier under Amenemhat III (12th Dynasty, 1860 BCE)
- Amenemhat III This view is detailed by David Rohl, rogue Egyptologist, who believes that the academic world has dated the ancient world incorrectly. Until the last five years, most scholars didn’t give him the time of day, much less the time of Egypt. But recently, astronomical dating on lunar events recorded in ancient times confirms Rohl’s dates as close as four years! Rohl’s new timeline is being hailed by some as the “round earth” for Biblical archeology. He is an unbeliever and claims no religious dogma, yet he confirms the existence of Joseph based on archeological digs dated to this time period.
- One of the logical ways to begin dating Joseph is to discover ancient famines in Egypt. The ancient Egyptians kept records detailing the most important agricultural event of the year, the flooding of the Nile. Flood records show the Nile flooded four times its normal size (27 feet higher than normal) during this era which would have made seed sowing impossible for years, creating famine. To handle the influx of water, a new channel was dug at this time which retains its name from antiquity to this day: Bahr Yussef, the Waterway of Joseph. Pharaoh Amenemhat III built his pyramid overlooking this drainage channel. Financial records show that fortunes were in sharp decline and a new agricultural department was established called “the Department of People’s Giving.” This could be the system Joseph utilized to collect the grain given years in advance to the shortage.
- 12th Dynasty, Semitic grave artifacts are abundant in the area of the delta called Avaris, the Biblical Goshen. Some archeologists believe Joseph was entombed in a pyramid in his palace complex in Avaris. ”When excavated, Joseph’s pyramid tomb turned out to be empty. ‘But that’s consistent with his dying wish to be returned to the Promised Land,’ argues Rohl. ‘At the exodus, they took his body with them.’ What was found in the chapel of the tomb, however, was a busted-up painted statue of an Asiatically pale fellow with reddish hair adorned with the multicoloured coat of a middle Bronze Age chieftain.” TIMES ONLINE
- Ptahwer (speculated to be Potiphar) is the name of a man in service to Amenemhat III. His name is found on an inscription in Sinai. This is another link connecting Joseph to the reign of Amenenhat III.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby johnm33 » Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:36 am

http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/t ... =1587_0127
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/t ... =1587_0129
the first part of the english chronicle including a version of the arrival of albyne [second link] dated by khumric scholars to 1567 +/-

..
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/t ... =1577_0116
this is the tale ofthe arrival brutus which takes place not too long after the trojan war
..
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/t ... =1577_0136
this is a tale of two brothers which is extremely easy to tie into orthodox chronology, providing you abandon the orthodox story
..
this is well worth a look too
http://treasure1.tripod.com/sutton.html
johnm33
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:13 pm

Sutton Hoo treasure ship
* John, that last link to the treasure ship found in England in 1939 at [url]http://treasure1.tripod.com/sutton.html
[/url] has some interesting statements as follows. The other links take too long to analyze. Why don't you mention anything useful from them relating to revising chronology?
- The Gilgamesh epic would have been known to our Chaldean-Hittite ancestors ... came into Britain and were led by Albyne around 1560 BC
- The archaeologists recognize two ancient cultural explosions of advanced skilled metal working people coming into Britain around 1600 and around 500 BC.
- The advent of these traceable metal-working cultures into Britain matches with the Historical records of the invasions of Albyne around 1560 BC and of Brutus around 500 BC.
- If the language of the Iceni prevailed as the foundation or cornerstone of English, and the Iceni are descendants of the Albyne invasion of around 1560 BC then English is the oldest Language in Britain.
- The Iceni are probably best known through their Queen Boudicca �Boddicea, who led a major campaign against the Romans.
- primitive tribes ... had entered devastated depopulated Britain in chaos after the catastrophe of the impacts of debris from the passing comet of AD 562
- a Comet is documented and recorded In Tysilio Chronicles and here is part of what is written. At this time a star of amazing size appeared. It had one beam, and on the head of the beam was a ball of fire resembling a dragon; and from the jaws of the dragon two beams ascended, the one towards the extremity of France, and the other towards Ireland, subdividing itself into seven small beams
- this comet strike ... was dated to the time of the Battle of Camlan which was in AD 562
- There are certain objects that were found [with the Sutton Hoo treasure ship] and are on display at the British Museum that if analyzed correctly link the ship to the Ten Lost tribes of Israel
- We know there were two migrations into Britain, one in 1600 BC by the ten lost Tribes of Israel by Albyne, and another in 600 BC by the remnants of Troy under the leadership of Brutas.
- An early British historian, Camden, stated that the mines of Cornwall had been worked under the direction of Israelites from the Tribes of Asher, Dan, and Naphtali [and] were associated together often, including their camping order in the Wilderness for forty years after the Exodus.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby venn » Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:14 am

Here are links to two Heinsohn papers in English from 2006 as an example of his work. He trusts the archaeological record more than written history and that puts him at odds with some of his colleagues in chronology revision.

"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.
venn
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby tayga » Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:23 am

If the language of the Iceni prevailed as the foundation or cornerstone of English, and the Iceni are descendants of the Albyne invasion of around 1560 BC then English is the oldest Language in Britain.


That doesn't fit with the geographical distribution of Celtic languages at the western peripheries of Britain. This suggests that English, or its root language(s), came to the isles after the Iron Age Celts (c 600 BC) and displaced them westwards or replaced them in all but the extremities of Britain.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby johnm33 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:29 am

LLoyd the first two refs, follow the collapse of sumer, the next brutus was the great grandson of a trojan so 150-180 years after troy max. the third is the first conquest of rome by the brits, or as the romans called them the gauls.
Tayga icinglas and cymaig were mutually understandable,[according to the welsh triads] icinglas became much more latinised, and cymraig was deliberately recovered after the roman barbarians withdrew. the english are 'celts' genetically
johnm33
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby tayga » Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:34 pm

johnm33 wrote:the english are 'celts' genetically


I think the prevalent British gene profile is older than the Celtic culture but that wasn't my point. Historically, cultures are far more mobile than the people they absorb.

That Celtic languages remain at the western peripheries of Europe suggests they preceded English and its antecedents. I'm sure the current view of the spread of Germanic languages after the spread of Celtic languages could be all wrong but it does seem a simpler model than the one you cited.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:00 pm

John M said: LLoyd the first two refs, follow the collapse of sumer, the next brutus was the great grandson of a trojan so 150-180 years after troy max. the third is the first conquest of rome by the brits, or as the romans called them the gauls.

* So the Brit-Gauls conquered Rome in 562 AD? Conventional history seems to say that Justinian of Byzantium conquered Rome at that time.
Tayga icinglas and cymaig were mutually understandable,[according to the welsh triads] icinglas became much more latinised, and cymraig was deliberately recovered after the roman barbarians withdrew. the english are 'celts' genetically

* Can you provide references for evidence that the English are Celts?
The article said: our Chaldean-Hittite ancestors ... came into Britain and were led by Albyne around 1560 BC. ... the Iceni are descendants of the Albyne invasion ... [And] We know there were two migrations into Britain, one in 1600 BC by the ten lost Tribes of Israel by Albyne....

* Is Sumer here considered the same as the Chaldean-Hittite ancestors?
* Is it stated what caused the collapse of Sumer?
* The migration in 1600 or 1560 BC is also called an invasion. Who did Albyne invade? Not Celts?
* The Ten Lost Tribes weren't lost until about 700 or 800 BC. How could Albyne and some of the lost tribes have been Chaldean-Hittites in 1560 BC and migrated to Britain before the tribes were lost? The 12 tribes didn't exist until the latter part of Jacob's time. Did Jacob live before 1560 BC? When exactly did he live? And when did Moses live?
* What people was Brutus and the Trojans? This Brutus apparently was a different one from the one who killed Caesar in 44 BC.
* I'm not denying the claims by you or the article. I'm trying to understand them more clearly.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby tayga » Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:04 am

Lloyd wrote:* Can you provide references for evidence that the English are Celts?


Lloyd, I think John was mistaken to define 'Celt' as a genotype but he is still welcome to make the cultural claim. I looked into the genetics issue and Bryan Sykes seems to be the man who has done most work re. the genes of us Brits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread postby johnm33 » Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:51 am

Lloyd compare this to the tale of the brothers. http://www.alternatehistory.com/discuss ... 42742.html
king tut is dated to about 650bc by AW+BB http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=205680 who think his wife was helen, the key to the inheritence of the egyptian throne. One of his near succesors was rameses the great who was a viceroy to nebuchudnezzar, he reigned so long everybody who new where tut was buried predeceased him.
AW+BB equate joseph with djoser[1500bc+-] who was also a viceroy, imhotep may have been a title he held.
As to the 'celts'
I once believed that the 'celts' arrived around 500bc but so many questions and doubts about the official history arose that i had to look outside the mainstream for evidence. Most of the doubt centred around the the ages and distribution of stone or earthwork monuments, newgrange ,stonhenge, avebury, the rollrights etc. which generally seemed older in the west, all of which predate the arrival of the 'celts'some by thousands of years. My distrust of official history was fueled by a trip to the continent when i was 12 i was struck by the relative absence of 'roman' roads even in italy!
For me the celts are defined by druid and stone artifacts. My current working hypothesis is built on a limited understanding of the ancient books of wales and the chronicles of england scotland and ireland, and i expect it will change. The celts were the people of the atlantic coast of europe, and probably had their first civilization in the river valley that this flood destroyed.
http://creation.com/north-sea-megaflood
They regrouped and populated their hinterland, britain and ireland [from other populations on the atlantic coast? ] They were the Titans.They were the atlanteans,who carried the heavens on their shoulders,or full knowledge of the stars in their minds,the ancient sea kings who first mapped the world, the sea peoples, the bearded wonders who are described in 'myths'from all around the world as the bringers of the arts of civilization. Like any rising civilization they established colonies among their trading partners. Some of which may have outgrown their originators. They educated Enoch [in Ireland and the orkneys?] and founded Ur some taking locals as wives. They were the ancient copper miners in america. They built the 'undiscovered' pyramid beneath the great lakes. They roamed the steppes looking for meteoric iron [for tools not following rainbows] which they characterised as the bones of their god and bought them with gold. They gathered and disseminated knowledge around the world. They built the pyramids at giza [ starting in about 1700 bc +-150 which migration left the country weak and underpopulated] and were part of the exodus, some of the treasures from this are buried near ynysybwl, google earth it, and see if you can spot a fake hill. They were [?]the hurrians, amorites, phrygians, summerians,sammeri[t]ans,cimmerians,khumry,kimmeroi, etruscans, minoans, rhaetians,melungians, some of whom returned in 1500bc with albine some in 500bc with brutus as 'celts'some not all .
In moses in the hieroglyphs there's a new chronology for egypt which is based on a reassessment of egyptian history based on reading the hieroglyphs in the proper language. if I recieve permission I'll type it out and post it.
The top 4 books on this website are an absolute mine of infomation I can thoroughly reccomend them all, however the authors are not writers but amatuer historians, they have no indexs -make one as you go, and can be repetitive so they're only for the incurable. I have complete faith in their integrity but don't agree with everything they say.
http://www.kingarthurslegacy.com/index.html
johnm33
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests