Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Chronological Revisions

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006

  Hi all
  
  I am nearly finished my Chronological revisions for the period 1200bc to 500BC. With each revision I have found my dates being pushed back further and further in time. My timeline now resembles that of Peter James and Rohl except that I base my Assyrian chronology on an eclipse in 791BC as year 10 of Ashur-Dan III. This has the effect of making the assyrian timeline earlier by about 28 years. This works out well and solves a hell of a lot of problems including the mysterious Assur-Uballit of the Armana letters who is Ashur-Rabi II.(1040-999 MC)
  
  Since revision3 I have abandoned the idea that Ramses could be Amasis and any other dual identities also go out of the window. I still have one though that sits there until I can prove it.
  
  What does occur is that there are major overlaps in Dynasties of the Third Intermediate Period(TIP)
  The 21st starts towards the end of the 20th with further overlaps of the 22nd, 23rd, 24th 25th and 26th with some duplicate pharaohs being removed.
  
  It is just a matter of fine tuning now and sorting out the Mittanian/Hurrian/Aramaean lines.
  
  The Supululma of Shalmanessar III is now Supililiuma II not I as previously thought.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Chronological Revisions

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006

  There is a significant problem with the chronology of Sicily during the era 1700-1200bce.The equivocal archaeologigal dates seem to be 150-200 yearsearlier
  than the conjectuaral ceramic chronology,which is based on Egyptian pottery via a Minoan link.
  How much of a correction do you have for 1200bce in
  Egyptian chronology?

  Link to this forum: Chronological Revisions

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006

  Artorious. Your knowledge of ancient history and your theories concerning a revised chronology never cease to amaze me. As a fan of David Rohl, or anyone who is prepared to challenge the conventional "that's the way it is....just accept it" attitude, it certainly gets my vote. Keep up the good work. I read these threads with great interest and I'm learning all the time.

  Link to this forum: Chronological Revisions

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 23rd January 2006

  Hi Henwell,
  
  My latest revision shows a difference of 300-350 years between accepted Egyptian chronology and new Egyptian chronology. This period of course is about the same period of time as the Greek Dark age. So by moving the events of 13th C BC to 10th C BC the dark age is removed. The main problem is synchronisms. There exists various letters and inscriptions between various kings of the time.
  
  These all have to be matched up if the new chronology is to work. This means not accepting the current understanding of these letters and inscriptions but to go back to basics and find the original translations and examine them to see if mistakes were made by the translators. As many were translated in the early days of Egyptology many mistakes did creep in.
  
  So far my sychcronisms are working well. Discovering the identity of the major problem of Assur-Uballit(there is no Assur-Uballit in king lists for Assyria at any revised chronology dates) in the Armana letters shows hope for finding the other problems of Burniburiash and others.
  
  The shifting of Assyrian dating and hence Babylonian dating upwards by 28 years has solved in my view not only a lot of chronological problems but also archaeological as well. in Archaeaology the revisionists always claim the conventional dates are slightly too high and the conventional claims the revisonist dates are too low. So to solve this the solution is to raise Assyrian and Babylonian chronology by those 28 years. This has the effect of moving archaeology into the mid ground between the two camps. So by basing Assyrian chronology on the Eclipse of 791BC instead of 763BC is the answer. This move brought Ashur-Rabi into the period of the Armana letters and from there I realised he was Assur-Uballit.(Ashurabillit - Ashur-Rabilit - Ashur-Rabi)
  
  I hav'nt looked further back yet to 1700BC and beyond but as accepted chronology for this period is always being revised I would think there is room for your 200 years. All depends on the Hyksos period of Egypt and how long it lasted.

  Link to this forum: Chronological Revisions

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Monday, 23rd January 2006

  Thanks,mate.If you extend your study to the pre 1200
  bce era, could you please post your results.

  Link to this forum: Chronological Revisions

  Report message5

Back to top