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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:20 pm

* Tayga, the article you cited says this:
In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.
* Do you think that means they could have come from Israel?
* John, can you answer my previous questions? I don't know when I'll get time to study your last post thoroughly. I'll probably be busy for a few days.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:44 pm

* Tayga, you said you'd like to see Cardona's work. You can read quite a bit at the interview thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =10&t=3824. I started that thread, because I wanted to know more about his findings and he answered a lot of questions there. I also posted a lot of notes from God Star, which he also commented on.
* Gary and others, I hope to get time later to discuss more.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tayga » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:47 am

Lloyd wrote:* Do you think that means they could have come from Israel?
I think Israel is a possibility but it is widely accepted that there were a number of ancient civilisations east of the Mediterranean so I would be cautious. Furthermore (and I really am nothing like an expert) the myths of those civilisations are pretty much versions of one myth.

I'm not au fait with the means by which migration to Iberia is thought to have occurred although migration from Iberia northwards is familiar. I think these people are referred to as 'Beaker People' and their dates are held to be after 2900 BC.

This makes them later than the people who brought us barrows, Carnac and the standing stones in the UK and Ireland. I guess these were already in Europe. Sykes suggests they owe their genetic makeup to earlier Cro-Magnon (as do the Iberians). Incidentally, Jno Cook thinks that the barrows may have preceded and influenced the pyramids and other great building projects in the Middle East. This suggests the initial cultural flow was west to east.

I understood from the article that the UK genotype was predominantly established during the Mesolithitic. As I said above, the influx of later cultural ideas need may have been accompanied by just a small contribution to the gene pool.
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

jim1967
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:14 pm
Location: Huntington, West Virginia, USA

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by jim1967 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:37 am

As an amateur historian, I find this thread fascinating. I am a general-to-specific thinker and prefer a broad overview and from there delve into details in an orderly fashion. What I would like to see is a timeline of revised history that includes each major civilization. Do the histories of China, India and Meso-America mesh with the revised timelines proposed in many of these posts? I've not been able to locate this type of chart after an internet search. Would anyone have any ideas for links for this type of info (graphically displayed if possible)? Thanks in advance.
Jim

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:50 pm

* Here's a revised chronology website: http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/ ... ytable.htm. I don't know if it's Rohl's or whose.
* Here's a criticism of Rohl: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article.
* See what you think.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tayga » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:44 am

Lloyd wrote:* Tayga, you said you'd like to see Cardona's work. You can read quite a bit at the interview thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =10&t=3824. I started that thread, because I wanted to know more about his findings and he answered a lot of questions there. I also posted a lot of notes from God Star, which he also commented on.
Many thanks for this, Lloyd. Now I know a bit more I'll go back to have a look at that thread.

Incidentally, since similar members are contributing to this and the catastrophism thread, would it make sense to merge them?
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

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:13 pm

Tayga said: since similar members are contributing to this and the catastrophism thread, would it make sense to merge them?
* I don't know about that. I started separate threads so the 5 Versions of Catastrophism wouldn't get bogged down discussing fairly irrelevant history that's unconnected to evidence of catastrophes. Si?

johnm33
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by johnm33 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:57 pm

Lloyd in exodus twice you wrote of b siversens book[which i must get] that sets the minoan eruption in 1628bce, apart from academic historians everone seems to accept that date, so that seems to be a pretty good date to start hanging things on. Its easy to imagine that eruption disrupting the whole region and the mycenaen greeks seem to have displaced the minoans about 60 years after this, which is practically a match for the 1567bce arrival in britain of albine. As best as i can recall the minoans had no forts, or weapons buried with them, so must have enjoyed an alliance or something closer with a local power. This is also the time of the arrival of the hiksos in egypt [in Mo.In.Th.Hi.] and the begining of the construction of the pyramids [same source] Did the hiksos move their power base south leaving a vacuum filled by the greeks? who then claimed crete? In the british histories they say that the arrival of albine followed a max exodus which by their account was to build a monument that recorded all the knowledge of all the world, i can't think they mean anything but the great pyramid. Somewhere tacitus says that abraham was a 'royal' refugee from crete, so this although speculative hangs together quite well.
Tayga You'll have to define 'celts' for me, the welsh, cornish,bretons and irish all have stories of there arrival by ships, and they established themselves in the west. These were all migrations of peoples, tribes/nations. The saxons,vikings and normans were merely bands of thugs who fought the local elite for control of the working population, as were the romans, and whilst the defeated elite went west the general population were put under the yoke.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:15 pm

* John, I don't know what good evidence there is for dating the Thera eruption. I've heard it dated to about 1200 BC. I think Simcha Jacobovici had a show about that eruption being the cause of the conditions of the Exodus in the 13 or 14 hundreds BC.
* I don't have time to discuss more right not.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tayga » Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:11 am

johnm33 wrote:Tayga You'll have to define 'celts' for me, the welsh, cornish,bretons and irish all have stories of there arrival by ships, and they established themselves in the west. These were all migrations of peoples, tribes/nations. The saxons,vikings and normans were merely bands of thugs who fought the local elite for control of the working population, as were the romans, and whilst the defeated elite went west the general population were put under the yoke.
John, I'm happy with the conventional definition of 'Celt' which includes, as well as those you listed, Britons (Brythons)and Gauls. It's obviously a mistake to think of Celts as one organised nation or society but they are more defined, in retrospect, by their culture and language. Anyone coming to Britain after the last Ice Age would have to do so by sea and there is nothing controversial in the migrations of the 'Beaker People' from Iberia.

There is genetic evidence to suggest that the Anglo-Saxons migrated en masse.

http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropolog ... le2002.pdf

However, none of this impacts on or, as far as I can tell, contradicts the possibility that a Khumric people migrated to the Brtish isles.
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

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tholden » Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:12 am

Lloyd wrote: * Jay, as you can see in the previous post, Sweeney, like Heinsohn and Ginenthal, is likely largely all mixed up.
My own two-cents worth.....

This one is like the KFC ad where the old Colonel says that KFC just does the one thing (chicken) and gets powerful good at it.

Heinsohn, Sweeney, Ginenthal and a few others represent the other branch of the family of neo-catastrophists. As opposed to the Kronia/Thunderbolts crowd, they have largely stuck with the one thing, i.e. chronologies, and have gotten very good at it. In my estimation it is the Thunderbolts/Kronia crowd which is a bit mixed up in this area.

The one other thing which Heinsohn is noted for is his "youth bulge" theory which predicts political unrest with near 100% accuracy, which is why Dr. Heinsohn is a frequent speaker at NATO gatherings.

For that matter, a number of years back, a group of European archaeologists set out to bury Heinsohn and his theories regarding ancient Persia and all they needed to do was produce one stratigraphic layer which Heinsohn's interpretation predicted would not exist and theirs predicted would, and guess what??

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tholden » Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:11 am

by Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:55 am

* Here's some criticism of Heinsohn at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Heinsohn....
Sorry, but that's as far as I would ever need to read.

Once again, Wikipedia is a valuable resource for any topic under the sun for which no controversy could plausibly exist; for anything other than that, Wikipedia is entirely worthless and that certainly includes anything involving Heinsohn and chronological revision.

Archonix
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Archonix » Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:30 pm

Ho folks, here's a site you might be interested in: How old is English?

The author's central thesis is that the English language is a lot older than current theories claim and that the germanic languages are a substrate on which indo-european has been layered, rather than a mere branch of the indo-european family. Given the way the germanic languages are all arranged around the north sea, I find his arguments quite convincing.

The whole site is worth a read. It attempts to reconstruct how various languages migrated through europe, where language came from and a whole host of other things, all in an attempt to demonstrate that English was already indigenous to the British Isles before the anglo-saxon "invasion".

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tayga » Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:31 am

Archonix wrote:Ho folks, here's a site you might be interested in: How old is English?
There's a hammer to follow the spanner in the works! That's another site added to my ever-growing reading list. Does this support the khumric migration theory?
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

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tholden » Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:04 am

Archonix wrote:
The whole site is worth a read. It attempts to reconstruct how various languages migrated through europe, where language came from and a whole host of other things, all in an attempt to demonstrate that English was already indigenous to the British Isles before the anglo-saxon "invasion".
There's reason to believe that the entire idea of spoken languages such as we use presently is no more than four or five thousand years old.

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/babel.html

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests