Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Centuries of Darkness
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Has anyone read Peter James's "Centuries of Darkness"? Some very thought-provoking theories on the chronology of the ancient world. I'd be interested to know whether there are any experts out there who can provide any counter-arguments.
-
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Tony G,
The 'Greek Middle Ages' or 'Geometric era' as the era 1200-750 is often called is one good example of how archaiologists wrongly view the ancient civilisations without the aid of other sciences and I am sure Greeks, Egyptians, Jewish and Assyrians are not the only examples.
Tony, I am not supposed to be a specialist and my profession is technical, but my years in science tell me one thing: in the absence of proof we can still use hints and of course common sense - in no case can we form absolute theories of the style 'no writting in Greece in that period'.
I saw some comments of James Peter on the net. He makes some interesting points but he is often wrong: eg. when he mentions that we do not find writtings because maybe they used more often papyrous-paper than other means to write on. Papyrous plants were coming from egypt and were really expensive to had been used by realitvely poor Greeks of Geometric Era.
Archaiologists have also said things like the volcanic eruption (till now thought to have occured around 1600, some now say in 1750) of Thera (Santorini) destroying the Minoan civilisation which was not exactly true since it continued some 100 years before Mycenean conquest around 1600-1500. All that must have happened is that the volcanic eruption caused large destructions in Crete, the earthquakes may have changed for example water outlets (thus cities might have left without water sources, sommething common in Greece were no big rivers exist), then the catastrophe had political impact since the power and image of Minoan Kings must have suffered in a more intense way than for example the image of Bush administration suffers from the Katrina distruction. Hence, the country became weak in all senses and Myceneans soon took advantage of it and invaded (I wonder why Myceneans were not destroyed, well it could be the wind direction or the fact that at that time they were less developed thus less sensitive to such destructions).
Mycenean kingdoms (i.e. not only Mycenes) developed, flourished, continued from early Minoan writtings and Linear A to develop Linear B, expanded to Minor Asia (perhaps there lies the myth of the Trojan War), to Cyprus where the Linear C was developed (known deliberately as Cypriot in order to 'break' the one and only chain of greek alphabets), then expanded to Palestine (Philistines were from Crete, some say these were actually Minoans that fled the Mycenean conquest, could be true, but these must had been greek talking people , if these were minoans then minoans were also greeks - see what traps exist in history e? Personally I regard Minoans as Greek talking cos I consider this language as no indoeuropean since this theory is not valid any more). In Philistine, Myceneans developed the Linear D which is nothing more than the well known Phoenician ALphabet which the Phoenicians (very influenced by Greeks) took and used it in their golden age 1100-800 (i.e. during the time their competitors in commerce Greeks were in decline).
Myceneans expanded too much, often they are mentioned as being behind the sea people that invaded Egypt - it is well established that Myceneans followed tradition of Minoans having relations with Egyptian empire, and many mycenean soldiers actually served as mercenaries in the Egyptian army. Myceneans were trading in all over the mediterranean and must had already started making colonies though we mainly know about their expansion in Italy from obscure myths (Italus, grandson of Odysseus etc. founding colonies there etc.).
That fast expansion might have caused inherent weakness in the mother-kingdoms of Myceneans and that certainly gave the opportunity to the southern branch of the Makednoi tribe (the mother tribe of Macedonians and Dorians) i.e. the Dorians to descend Olympus and raid their cities. Many historians employing again the stereotypical treatment of history said that Dorians had iron weapons and Myceneans were using bronze. In fact at those times people used whatever metal was readily available (and Greece had no great ressources of all metals) - not that Myceneans did not know the iron: in anyway I personally believe that an army of bronze weapons was pretty much as effective as one with crude rusty iron ones (even at Roman times bronze was highly used due to the fact it was not rusting and needed no maintenance - but then it became far too expensive to use, hence all weapons became iron).
Mycenean fall could also had been caused by internal strife, deseases and famines (it is known that in 1200-1000 there was a climatic change in Greece and the climate became considerably colder - that extinguished lions (could be also the hunting) and other tropical animals in Greece!).
Now, when such destructions happen civilisation is the last thing that counts. That does not mean that evertything is lost. Ancient cities were destroyed and new ones started rising in their place (since habitable places are few in Greece). Thus Mycenean Sparta was replaced by Doric Sparta, ancient Athens was spread to villages that united again to give historical Athens (history repeated in 1830AD!), only Mycenes and Pylos were not rebuilt again and remained in ruins.
Now, when cities became spread to villages, the old administration was lost, thus the need for writting diminished, people were more concerned on everyday survival but that does not mean that writting extinguished as if Dorians were such bad guys and hunted to kill particularly the educated ones!!!! This is very childish to think. Commerce and shipping still existed but must had been on a smaller scale since Phoenicians had taken the upper hand in the absense of competition.
If we find no writtings on that era is only due to the lack of organised administrations. Greeks themselves mention nothing like that apart from Herodotus who is uncertain and makes a guess about the alphabet coming from Phoenice (i.e. the Linear D that gave Linear E - the greek alphabets). Archaiologists are so stupid that they have found only plates of Linear B for exalple mentioning product catalogues and lists and they think instantly that Myceneans utilised the alphabet only for practical reasons.... NO NO NO... that is no science at all - who can say that these people knew how to write and used that knowledge only to state how much oil they produced or how many weapons they had. Of course they would have used it for other purposes also like laws, holy texts, history archives, even everyday palace gossip (since writting supposedly was restricted to people of upper social classes). But then, how many proofs hav ewe found? Written texts in those times were not hidden under the earth waiting for us to find them but they were instantly stolen from the ruins by curious people and wanna-be-archaiologists of those ancient times thus lost forever... nobody seems to be able to state that. It is more the question of how lucky we are on our findings. Then it is always the question: on what material did they write in the Geometric Age? Most propbably on easily destroyed materials like wood (not papyrus - that was highly expensive) and rarely on stone, you write large texts on stone only in temples, state buildings and rich graves: in Geometric years we know that temples were made of wood and few of them survived even as easrly as in the classical Era.... That is not to say that Geometric years were a time of cultural boom, no - these were difficult times, of social change, and economic regression, yes literacy levels must had dropped though not vanished completely but then these changed resulted in an interesting civilisational evolution.
PS: I have already explained why we do not find written texts on vases of the early geometric era on another message, do not remember where... well this message is already huge... I will leave you to construct the logical argument for that -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Wow. Interesting, but I'm not sure it answers my question. I am a bit puzzled by your assertion that Peter James is wrong when he claims that writing was lost because people wrote on perishable materials. That is one of the things he argues against in his book.
The "perishable materials" argument is, according to James, put forward to explain why writing apparently ceased for a few hundred years and then re-appeared. James claims that the chronology is wrong and that writin gdid not disappear at all. -
Message 4
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Personally, I think that the central thesis of the book - that the Dark Age of Greece nd Anatolia are artefacts of a falsely extended Egyptian chronology - is correct. If the twenty first dynasty must, on archaeological grounds, be made contemporaneous with, or later than, the twenty second, and the length of the twenty second shortened, then there can be no saving of the accepted dates for earlier Egyptian history.
The question is whether James- reconstruction is sufficiently radical. What, for instance of the classical Greek letters inscribed on the reverse of tiles from the temple of Rameses III at Tell el Yehudiyah, or the statues of Rameses II erected over a twenty second dynasty pavement at Tanis?
Noggin -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Yes, as usually I was carried by the flow ... sorry! Today I had a lazy morning and I read a bit on James' theory; it is quite interesting and intriguing. Now I see where our friend BlueHue1 was referring too. However, there are many details that he misses and I am sure that any further analysis of items found (expecially in relation to which geological layers these where found) will prove him largely wrong.
I will not try to say he is completely wrong but I will make one logical assumption.
Imagine he is correct, that it all fits, that the Trojan War happened 100-150 years before 麻豆约拍r (who wrote it in 750BC), that Dorians came down around 800BC and that the Olympic Games' Truce was possibly a means of making peace among invading Dorians and Achaians.
There are many things that instantly will not fit: First 麻豆约拍rs poems seem to be a collection of quite earlier stories spread mainly orally from grandfathers to their grandchildren. If James is right, then in 麻豆约拍r's city (probably Miletus) there would be living people whose parents and grandparents would have participated in that great war, thus either his poems would have been a bit more historic or even if 麻豆约拍r was a hardcore artist not caring about facts, there would had survived other texts mentioning the actual people that took part in that campaign. We would not talk about nales like Menelaus (menes+laos= the anger of people, i.e. not a usual name for a king!!!) or Helen (probably from the verb helano=to move forward and destory, in modern greek it is 'proelano' - a fitting name for a woman like that!) but we would talk about historical people. For example, we do not know when exactly Lycourgus the famous (Dorian) Spartan politician was born and how he died. We assume he lived in the early 8th century as the Spartan military and social system (restricted democracy) started gradually from that time and as he was mentioned to be one of the many founders and strong supporters of the Olympic games in 776 BC. However, for heros of the Iliad poem that lived according to James from 900 to 800 we have no such information. It is logical to assume that even in 5th century Greeks would have kept a lot of records on such a great war that occured only 400 before them in the same fashion (it is known that)they had elaborate records in cities up to the time of 800-900 but not much beyond that.
Then, the Olympic Games were initially just one of the many games like Delphic, Pythian, Nemean, Isthmian, and became most popular than the rest well after the 7th century BC, thus one cannot say that they were institutionalised in order to make peace among Dorians and Achaians or Arcadians. Mycenean tribes did not wait for Dorians to have civil wars, Greeks fought each other from 3000BC well into the 20th century AD! Ancient writers mention that Games in Olympia were organised much earlier than 776 BC (perhaps before Dorians said to come down around 1100BC), sometimes they were organised, sometimes they were not... it was just that in 776 BC the first 'modern-ancient' Olympic games happened that continued up to the times of Theodosius in 393AD when he banned them.
Overall, the fact that classical Greeks had little 'contact' and 'memory' of the great Mycenean Kingdoms mainly through myths and 麻豆约拍r's poems means that 麻豆约拍r lived indeed around 750 and after at least 500 years from the time these events took place. -
Message 6
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
The Trojan War is generally thought to have taken place at the end of the Mycenean age, at which time Troy was abandoned and supposedly left unoccupied for several centuries. The date (c 1250 BCE) is calculated from the chronological link between the start of Mycenean IIIB, and the Amarna period in Egypt (the city being occupied only briefly, and containing mainly Mycenean IIIB pottery, with a little IIIA, establishes the relative chronology beyond reasonable doubt.)
BUT - if the Egyptian 21st dynasty has to be removed from before the 22nd and made contemporary with or later than it, then Egyptian history must be shortened by at least this span. The Amarna period is then later than currently supposed, and the Mycenean period must also be later.
The dates for Bronze Age Greece are derived from the Egyptian, not from the internal evidence from Greece itself.
In fact, it is Egyptian chronology that has been the "gold standard", and if it is wrong, everything has to be reevaluated according to a new scheme.
Noggin -
Message 7
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Nick, Herodotus is only uncertain because you read in my oppinion as a lack of personal conviction. I see it as a statemnt asserting his firm belief that Kadmos of Tyre brought Phoenician letters to Greece which the locals adopted and adapted to their own needs although it is obviously not the only story in circulation during the fifth century BC. We are rather lucky to have a fragment of Hecateus of Miletus that suggests the stories of the Greeks are many and absurd in his oppinion. Not much room for doubting his statement of intent. As far as I can see the idea that because Herodotus states it is his oppinion suggests that it was not that controversial, if it was he would no doubt have cited some other source to back up his claims. Whether an audience would have accepted a Phoenician higher authority above a Greeks is debatable however given Odyseus' description of them to Athena. However it is probably Hecateus that is the basis for the genealogical claim.
Sites on the Anotolian coast were largely resettled in the early Iron age from the mid eleventh century BC according to C14 dating if that is what you mean by colonising activity although as I understand it the formation of the Greek polis and their subsequent expansion from the eighth century are part of the same process. In any case, if you admit that the administrative organisation of the Mycenean world collapsed, why not that Linear B was all but abandoned, except on some Southern Greek outposts. It is clear that Herodotus was not aware of Linear B so why should we assume that any of his contempraries knew about it. So far as I was aware the first secure date the Greeks could agree on was the first Olympiad which we put in the early eighth century BC. -
Message 8
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 12th September 2005
Noggin, dunno about you but do you think Velivosky made a bit of a leap suggesting that the tiles were from the initial construction of Tell el Yehudiyah. Given the fact the Ptolomies were keen to point out Palestine was part of it traditional sphere of influence I'd say it far more likely that it is a Hellenistic reconstruction. It might be noted how the Ptolomies also went to the extent of giving the Persian monument commemorating Persia's conquering of Egypt back to Susa. This was as much to remove all trace that Egypt had been part of a united Asian Empire given the other successor Kingdoms desire to recreate Alexander's Empire.
-
Message 9
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Monday, 12th September 2005
If the tiles were the only evidence I would probably agree with you, but Velikovsky presents a lot of other evidence as well, including the associated cemetery, the P-r-s in the Medinet Habu inscriptions, details of the dynastic succession, the context of the Harris papyrus, and so on. On the other side, the assignation of the Ramesside pharaohs from Rameses III on to Manetho's dynasty XX (whose pharaohs are unnamed) has no basis at all except that they follow Rameses II of the nineteenth dynasty. Although the Ptolemies *might* have rebuilt an 800 year old palace, this possibility does not amount to a definitive refutation of Velikovsky's thesis.
Noggin -
Message 10
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 13th September 2005
Hmmn, care to place money on which chronology is correct? We are both aware of several alternatives to the accepted timeline. Whereas two or three and a half centuries lost may be stretching revisionism to the boundaries of credibility what with the suspicion of an elongated Near Eastern Chronology, six is quite ludicrous. Most of Velivosky is unabashed psycho babble about the supposed common memory of some global catastrophe in prehistory derived from his adherence to Freud and Jung鈥檚 psychological methodologies on the relevance of myth and folklore. Ages in Chaos was initially inspired by Freud鈥檚 musings on the common identity of the Jewish people and his belief that Moses the law giver learnt monotheism from Akhenaten. Velivosky鈥檚 work is interspersed with vague spiritualist appeals leading to quite bizarre attacks on Newton, Darwin and Einstein among others, particularly in Worlds in Collision and later rebuttals of scientific means of dating. Society for interdisciplinary studies my backside, despite his impressive references it is always the bible that is the basis of his assumptions Personally I cannot help feeling that this as much down to a shared preoccupation with successive head librarians based on New York鈥檚 42nd street.
All the same it did force historians and archaeologists to look at ice cores from Greenland and the Tibetan plateau in greater detail to disprove his notion of a forty year cold snap caused by debris that would later form Venus being blown across Earth鈥檚 orbit from a major impact event on Mars. Nevermind that he was wrong, in attempting to refute Velivosky patterns of global mean temperature stretching back thousands of years were identified playing into the development of world system theory of benign and harsh climatic conditions governing the rise and fall of civilisations. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 13th September 2005
I have quite manu things to note down cos as usual the discussion 'gathers'on it various things as it moves!
First to get finished: please take out the bible of our discussion, we are talking about history and not theology. The bible is a collection of religious book; some of them have been repeatedly proven to be unreliable, not to say blatantly false and propagandistic. Hence, any mention of the Bible within a discussion on history is largely irrelevant. Please do not comment on Americans views, for some americans Alexander was macedonian and not Greek (that is why Macedonians spoke Dorian, participated in the Olympics even when they were still a small pathetic kingdom and that is why we go to India, even China and still find only written Greek by common soldiers but no other language), for some americans even Socrates was black (that is why he was an athenian citizen from two citizen parents (perhaps all athenians were africans!!!) while nobody noticed his... difference!!! mercy ... -
Message 12
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 13th September 2005
Technically Alexander I was recognised as being a descendent of the Heraclidae allowing him to compete in the Olympics but I don't think many were prepared to suggest that the mass of Macedonian subjects were Greeks. If they were, their pro medizing never allowed them to be fully accepted as such. Mind you I gather the Daidochai were not really that happy about being thought Greeks for that matter, although admittedly it was a step up from Alexander III attempts to Medize the Macedonian aristocracy so far as they were concerned. Besides which I thought the Epiriots maintained they lived at the starting point of the supposed Doric migrations.
Dunno, I gather the Bible has had quite a bit of influence so to dismiss it out of hand is pehaps a bit extreme. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Dear Lolbeeble, I quite did not expect that from a European... (apart from Bulgarians and bulgarian talking Skopjans - even Albanians recognize the Hellenic identity of Macedonians, they claim the Epirots - brother kingdom of Macedonians - to be of Illirian descend in order to claim territories southern of them though even in North modern Albania habitated Greeks like in the city of Epidamnos!).
Now I had seen a map in an american book and it was showing the map of Greece with colours in order to show were the Greeks habitated: from ... south Thessaly and below it was saying 'Greece' and from northern Thessaly and above it was saying 'hellenised areas'. Then the whole Epirus was said to be 'helenised area'.
Excuse me, but isn't the mountain Olympus fallin within the Macedonian kingdom? Strange that the mountain of Greek gods was habitated by barbarians. Ok, Greeks were not crusaders to have 'holy lands' but then isnt't it strange that it missed the reference of all ancient historians the fact that barbarians habitated... on Olympus instead of Gods.
Then which is the most ancient oracle in Greece? Is it in Delphi? Is it in Olympia? Nooo it is in Dodone in Ipirus - claimed also to be helenised... the oracle of Dodone counts its days maybe from early Mycenean era.
The story you say about Alexander the 1st (king of Macedonians during persian invasion in 490-480) took place but you missed some details: it was only when Alexander I took the gold metal that others came up with the idea of accusing him and his people of not being Greek taking advantage of the fact that Macedonians bordered with barbarians on the north and that they were socially backward people in relation to the progressed south and southerners did not know much of them. The law in Olympia was that the athlete should speak for himself, so Alexander spoke for himself and his 'Heraclidian' (i.e. Dorian) family roots. Now I do not think there is any naif to be based on that in order to say Macedonians were not kings and only their king ALexander was... And I am asking: COULD a Greek from mother and father but coming from a barbarian kingdom come down to Olympics? Cos athletes were representatives of cities not of their own!!!! Of course he could not and his punishement would be the death penalty.
Isn't it that strange that we dig dig dig and find only Greek Greek Greek? Don't we know the macedonian language? Yes we know it and it belongs to the Dorian family that is considered to be a more ancient form of Greek (even Athenians would not argue with that). Hence, if Macedonians were not Greeks, then Spartans, COrinthians and most South Italians like Syracusians were not Greeks!!!! Amazing!!!! Maybe they were black but nobody noticed it??? Maybe they spoke German or Chinese but because they loved the greek civilisation they wrote only in greek... (what greek civilisation? is there any city left to be naled greek after that???).
The utter stupidity does not stop here! Some people wanted us to believe that a barbarian kingdom loved so much his conquered people (southern cities) that spoke their language till China and India. And do not tell me that in China, India and Taiwan went Greek philosophers and mathematicians cos as far as I know these were semi-iliterrate Macedonian soldiers and lower officers. The utter stupidity of course is not informed that we dig dig dig and still no sign of barbarian language, names, artistic style, anything at last to suggest at least some barbarian mixture even by the short period they were conquered by barbarians (northern and middle macedonia was invaded by barbarian Dardanians for some 15-20 years till great king Philips rule who not only kicked them out but went on at once to conquer all their lands). We dig and dig and dig and have found some more than 20,000 graves all over the place and from various eras earlier than king Philip with writtings on them, and we only see Greek names... now according to the other theory of 'greek or helenised aristocracy-barbarian people', these Macedonians must had been quite rich people even before Philips era and there were many many aristocrats... nice try ... but nope it does not fit with reality!
There are so many things to say that it is more easy to prove why Queen Elisabeth was Chinese, or that Attila was African....
I personally laugh much with the 'watered' theory of 'helenised' kingdom. Now, was it so helenised that in the time of king Amundas (grandfather of Philip, ruled during Peloponesian war), at a time when Macedonia was just another poor little kingdom, they had as their special guest Euripides who wrote theatrical pieces there and gave performances in front of 10,000s of people in public theaters - he liked their hospitality that stayed for some years there! 10,000s of people imply that spectators were not only 'helenised' macedonians or aristocrats of Greek origin but also "barbarians" commoners... who seemed to be .... uncunnily educated to have learnt ... foreign languages ... were they paying private lessons or something or was Macedonia at that time The rich kingdom were all greek merchants gathered so that the last Macedonian goatkeeper would know 'greek' (really? what Greek? Athenian Greek perhaps? Cos from what it seems Spartans spoke barbaric).
What about the accusations of Demosthenes? Demosthenes was a politician and in politics what you do is propaganda. He had to mobilise the 'tired' Athenians by naming Philip a barbarian (he actually concentrated on the face of Philip rather than his people). He was using argument of the style 'he is behaving like a barbarian, he does not have proper manners, he is drinking like a barbarian without watering his wine, he is a ruler no different to barbarians, he has 80 wifes like barbarians do, so he is a barbarian!'. So, Philip was a barbarian because of his 'big' personality! Nice, that sounds like those computer games like Diablo were the barbarian is the big-loud-rude guy ... but is that an argument for national distinction? Of course, people are forgetting that Demosthenes gained the majority in Athens only when Philip was directly threatening the independence of their city - while earlier the city was divided into anti-macedonians and philo-macedonians led by also great rehtor Aishunis. Now, if Macedonians were barbarians then why great rehtor Aishunis, or philosopher strong greek-nationalist philosopher Isocratis or actually ... half of southern Greek cities would appeal to him to unite Greeks against all other external enemies? I mean would they appeal to a barbarian to unite Greek cities? You should know that the mere suspicion that a greek citizen of even the most liberal city (and Athens was not the most liberal city) thinks like that would instantly mean his death penatly on the charge of treason - it would never have gone into political discussion. Mind you after Macedonians took over all southern cities in the peninsula, Spartans refused to follow them not on the charge that Macedonians were barbarians as they should have done but based on their law that would not allow them to send any Spartan army to be other Greeks.
Perhaps, since Macedonians had conquered barbarian lands they had recruted barbarian mercenaries in their armies: Of course they did! So what? Why did you think that Athenians or even Spartans had not done that? In one of his speeches Alkiviades had proposed the plan of conquering S. Italian states then reach up to Spain and conquer and recrute even Iberians and Celts against Spartans and perhaps later Persians (what a stupid plan!!). Does that mean Athenians had an Iberian or Celtic ancestry? Who knows!!!!!Macedonians were definitely not Dardanians, Dardanians were a conquered barbaric nation (as far as we know... cos there existed tribes in Thrace and Minor Asia that were named Thraecian barbarians without ever proof found of that since they left no written records - Greeks were not Gods or extra-terrestrials, all of them necessarily progressed and educated,if you consider them like that then what can I say, thank you very much, next time you bow in front of me!). The original Macedonian kingdom reached up to some 100Km north of the sea not like what we usually see at stupid maps showing the area of Macedonia only after Philip's conquests expanding till ... modern Serbia... if you are so stupid to call ancient habitants of modern Serbia macedonians and based on that to say that macedonians were not greek then what can I say: 1 is not only one, it is also two and three and four so 1=six. Niiiiiiiiice!
Now, that is only a very few things to talk on the subject, but as I know there are people out there searching for Socrates in Africa then it is quite difficult to explain to them that nooooo Greeks were not all democratic, noooopo they were not all of them living in city-states - Greeks were living in kingdoms (Cypriots, Macedonians, Epirots and some S.Italian colonies till 5th century), federations, alliances and city states under kingships, oligarchies, tyrannies and democracies, nooooo there was nothing like a 'Greek' land - Greeks habitated all over the mediterranean, nooo Athenian was not the only Greek, in fact they were an offshot of Ionian Dialect, Greeks spoke also a number of other dialects, nooo Macedonians did not conquer Greeks or Greece, Macedonians did conquer the rest of greek states.
Dear Lolbeeble, when we reach that low how can then we progress to talk about earlier and more obsure eras in history?
Apart from my origins that are directly related to that issue, I try to consider it -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
.. to consider the issue coldly... and that is why when I read such views I am wondering: 'If for such obvious facts, they can write so many blatant lies, imagine then what are they prepared to write for events in areas of the world that we know less'.
-
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
... all these are so absurd that I forgot my mathematics: actually 1=ten!
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Just before I was about to turn our discussion back to our topic, I saw your out-of-nowhere comment on the Diadochoi (Alexander's generals), people with such barbaric names as Ptolemeos, Seleukos, Antigonos, Lysandros. At what point did they express their discontent at being called... Greeks?!?!?! As far as we know it was them that complained to Alexandros that he gave too much freedom to barbarians and that in the empire it should be the Greeks that should rule and no other nation. And that is what they did. Dispite their relatively relaxed attitude towards conquered people and their effort to appeal to locals by 'mixing' habbits (religion etc), it was the Greek people that they forwarded in all high positions in their empire, largely leaving out the locals and that was not only Greeks from Macedonia but also from any other Greek city. Trust me, it was not at all a practical matter, they could just nicely forward the locals instead of Greeks if the Greeks were another nation from their own!! Barbarians complained that they were largely inhibited by Greeks (not by Macedonians!). Greeks in Greece did not complain of being conquered by barbarians but they did complain that the Macedonian rule took out the old city-state system under which it was Athens or Sparta the prevailing forces. Now, if any of the Diadochoi declared anything else than Greek, trust me we would know it!!! People in Asia do not even know what means Macedonia (if they were hearing it often they would maintain it) because they did not hear that word often as Macedonians declared first their Greek identity and after their local identity thus being the most greek-conscious people something which is natural considering the fact that they bordered with barbarians and fought repeatedly against them; Greeks in S.Italy and Greeks in Minor Asia had a more pronounced Greek identity than Greeks of southern cities who were more localists and were fighting each other. If you imply that these nationalist generals (and they were cos they never forgot who they were) were considering themselves as non-Greek then what can I say. Imagine that even the last Epigonos who was queen Cleopatra (according to archaiology of stupidity she was... Egyptian), she spoke by birth only Greek and was the first one who decided to learn foreign languages (egyptian first of all) in order to become more popular to the locals; strangely enough she learnt no 'language of her macedonian ancestors' despite being born only some 250 years after the death of Alexander. Strange 'nation' these Macedonians e?
PS: It took tribes in Thrace and tribes in Minor Asia more than 1000 years after Alexander to become fully Greek (till late Roman era they were still called Ellino-frugai, Ellino-Galatai implying that these - usually rural - people still talked in Greek as their second language), but these Macedonians became fully Greek in ... 2-3 years... despite the fact that it was them the conquerors not the conquered!!! 'archaiology of stupidity'...fitting term, sorry for the language. -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Ok, lets go back to our subject now.
-
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Now, you seem to quote that guy Velikovsky and his likes - we are talking about a marginal group of wannabe 'history revolutionaires' that want to claim they have found out the great truth to which we the rest had been blind.
Ok, so Velikovski is a guy in New York that in the time 1940-1945 that the war was raging throught the world he found it the right time to write down and donate to the world his tales of absolute naivity and semi-illitereness. Lets see some of his points (the numbers):
74. Jewish artists brought to Egypt introduced their fine arts and influenced the aesthetic conceptions of the Egyptians.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeee? Could be but where is the proof? Egyptian art was highly 'traditionalised' apart from the 15 years of pharao Akenaton (could he be Jewish? The cult of the one god? But then it was the cult of the Sun not one abstract god...) - so where is the proof for Jewish influence?
96. The Khari (Cari) of the Scriptures were the Khar or Carians from Ras Shamra.
97. The Carian language is studied in the disguise of the Hurrian (or Hurrite) language. The reading of the cuneiform Khar can be helped by a comparative study of the Carian inscriptions in Greek letters found in Egypt.
98. The reading of Carian will contribute to the decipherment of the Cyprian and Cretan hieroglyphics and may aid in reconstructing the early history of the West.
A so, Carians (people of unknown origins that believed to be of the most ancient in middle, southern Minor Asia, not to be confused with Lyceans - their language is not fully studied up to date, they left few things written and did that in greek letters), were certainly (really? for sure? are we 100% certain?), linked to Cretans and spoke their own language which if deciphered we will know the language of Cretans and the Linear A. Nice. If it was that easy Mr Velikovski we would had done it even before the Linear B.
99. The name of the city Ugarit (Ras Shamra) is probably the equivalent of Euagoras, the Carian-Ionian name of a number of Cyprian kings.
Aaaaaaaa, here things become big!!!Now for those who do not know, Cyprus an island habitated and ruled by Arcadian Greeks at least the early 13th century (personally I would go even earlier) remained till classical times under the rule of kings (remember about greek kingdoms? macedonia, ipirus, cyprus). Now, Euagoras (more typical Greek name than that you cannot have!!!!) Eu+agora has become linked with Ugarit, the mysterious city (thought to be multicultural where the main writting was cuneiform but where supposedly the first ordering of letters ABC was done, Ugarit is mentioned to have influence Phoenicians for their supposedly invention of their supposed alphabet. Dear, Mr Velikovski there is only one chance that these two names are related - the chance of Ugarit being founded or habitated by Greeks (very possible due to its multicultural character)
100. The name Nikmed of the Ras Shamra texts is the Ionian-Carian name Nikomed(es).
Nikmed or Nikodimos? Niki+Dimos (Nike+Demos), Or Nikomidos, Nike+Midoi (Medians), are you a bit confused Mr Velikovski ... Ionian-Carian names ... nice title... Carians, at least later in historical times had greek names, now if Carians were a foreign nation (and I assume here that in the absence of full proof), then an Ionian-Carian name would be obvious. Or are you talking about hte change in pronounciation?
101. The city of Ras Shamra was destroyed in the days of the King Nikmed by Shalmanassar (in 856 B. C. E). Its destruction is recorded by Shalmanassar and the city is called 鈥渢he city of Nikdem鈥. A proclamation telling about the expulsion of Nikmed, found in the city, refers to the same event.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa ok its also Nikodimos??? Ok so we stay at Nike+Dimos
102. It is highly probable that King Nikmed (Nikdem) fled to Greece, and that this man of learning there introduced alphabetic writing. Therefore, he might have been Cadmos of the Greek tradition.
Cadmos, brother of Europa from whom our continent is named, came from Phoenice? That city with the anyway Greek name. I know Greeks had the habbit of changing foreign names according to their language but phoenix was a greek name of the mythological bird, why then a clearly local city in Palestine having a Greek name? These were the Chanaan people (some confuse them with jewish) but the myth of Europa, Cadmos and the foundation of Thebes, certainly predates historic Chanaanite Phoenicians and all Velikoskis stories of around 1000-700 BC. His assertions on Nikmed/Nikdem related to Cadmos are pure imagination.
103. Minoan inscriptions of the Mycenaean Age may comprise alphabetic writings following in principle the cuneiform alphabet of Ras Shamra Hebrew.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Okkkkkkkkkkkk After the salads, he gives us the roasted meat. Okkkkkkkk
Probably we are talking about someone really anxious to prove something though .... what??? SOoooo what has LINEAR to do with CUNEIFORM? Are you blind Mr Velikovsky or not?
110. The so-called Mycenaean ware was mainly of Cypriote (Phoenician) manufacture. It dates from the tenth to the sixth century.
What is he trying to assert here? Ok, it is known Phoenicians had their stations in Cyprus, but then these were later than Arcadian settlement.Why Mycenean ware would be Cypriot thus Phoenician I do not know. Perhaps Mr Veliskoski you think that Linear C (Cypriot) that is very close to Phoenician alphabet (i wonder why), was given to Cypriots by Phoenicians e? Too bad for you, the Linear C largely predates Phoenician alphabet and is directly linked to Linear B which is directly linked to undeciphered Linear A. Linears B and C are known to to be in Greek Mr Velikovsky too bad for your efforts.
Comments: his blatant ignorance of the greek language (a must for that kind of research at those times) and the time of his reasearch 1945, i.e. earlier than Ventris and Chadwick, are no excuse for such a 'religious effort' to distort history through proposing intriguing they may be but highly unbased not to say blatantly offensive to science positions. -
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
to close discussion for today (it took me 25 minutes to write the above, enough)...
How are we expected to progress in our search if we spend our time considering such theories after 45 years? Ok, if it was recent, we would have to read it then answer back proving it wrong and "that's all folks!". We could dig it out only if something nw was found that helps to bring it back. So this theory came out in 1945, since then we have deciphered Linear B, we have found so many other stuff and nothing helps to bring Mr Velikovsky's theories back to the table.
So, why all that effort and what is your point? Try to prove that 'not everything was due to greeks?'. But I never tried to assert the 'everything was due to Greeks'. Facts speak by themselves, what can you say on those? -
Message 20
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Nick, if you re-read my messages about Velivosky you will see they are adressed to Noggin and relate to points about discrepancies in the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean although I know you pay acant regard to the original question when posting. It is just coincidence that he mentioned Tell el Yahudiah, somehow I get the feeling if Noggin had mentioned the tomb of Osorkon featured in both James et al and Rohl you would not have got so confused.
-
Message 21
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Tony
just a brief note to say yes I have read it and found it very interesting. I found the possible impact on biblical history to be particualrly fasinating and would note that this is also covered in 'A Test of Time' -
Message 22
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Nick, Alexander I had to justify his Hellenic ancestry to be even allowed to compete at the games, which is why his victory is seen as worthy of comment by Herodotus. This must suggest that many Greeks regarded them as barbarians what with their strange dialect with its tendency to replace F for B meaning that lover of horses was pronounced Bilip. Alexander I attempts to get Macedonians accepted as Greeks saw him bestow Hellenic names upon his rude subjects wrapped in skins. As a matter of interest a fifth century BC tripod was uncovered in the Macedonian Royal tombs at Vergina not far from you, although this was for a later victory at the Games to Hera. In any case Alexander I was still dubbed Philhellene and not actually a full blown Greek in later sources meaning Philip had to go over the arguments again to be allowed to sit on the Delphic Amphyctyony. You鈥檇 think fellow Dorians the Thessalians would not have needed such proof if Macedonians were seen as their common ancestors. Only he was admitted however and not the Macedonian people, even then Demosthenes wasn鈥檛 convinced. Mind you it would seem Thrasymachus had the same reason to suggest the Macedonians were not Greek given Athenian preoccupation with the area round Amphipolis. Themistocles鈥 decision to transform Athens into a naval power left the city dependent on wood which was in short supply across Attica but plentiful in the Northern Aegean.
The Macedonian nobility seems to have had a powerful sense of its own national identity in any case and adopted what they felt was useful in Hellenic culture such as symposia although not to the extent of watering their wine. One might note how Ptolomy chided Philip asking him when he was going to marry a proper Macedonian princess not a foreigner, such as the Epiriot Olympia that outraged Alexander. Philip had married Ptolomy鈥檚 daughter Cleopatra not long after. The way the successors rounded on Eumenes of Cardia seems to suggest this was a Macedonians only affair.
Moreover one can see how the Macedonian elements of the armed forces were keen not to be sidelined by creation of Asian Royal infantry and Horse divisions leading to the mutiny at Opus. They were pacified by elevation to the status of Alexander鈥檚 kinsmen however which might explain why they too can also lay claim to be Greek.
As for Mt Olympus, I gather it was either an idealized creation or had several proposed sites based on the local traditions. An innaccesable peak is an inaccesable peak with or without surveying techniques but it is only in the historical era that we settled on Mytikas. -
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
right, personally I did not know him, i heard him from here, spent some minutes reading what he was saying and seems to be one more american (though at 1945 he must had been of the first of that wave), that tries desperately to prove the bible right by distorting every reality and every sense of logic. His weird ideas og history are only disrupting in our effort to delve into that anyway 'difficult' period.
Should rather try and prove now why the Trojan war is a myth and must have happened earlier than 1200 AD that many claimed (do not forget that our chronology of the Minoan civilisation and the eruption of Santorini has already moved by 150 years earlier - largest volcanic destruction on earth for at least the last 10,000 years that however did not destroy completely the Minoan civilisation). There is absolutely no proof of the time period that these events took place - not to mention that Odysseus voyages in Odyssey must have been even earlier myths and ones describing voyages that certainly did not take place in the Mediterranean (a sea known by heart to Greeks). -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Lolbeeble, as far as I knew till now, you were a keen history researcher but then as I see - at least talking about this subject - you are nothing else than 'cut, glue, erase, paint, brush' so as to suit the unexplainable. You failed to answer any of my points, not a single one! You are so 'offshoot' reality that I suspect you write all these just to make me write things so you have a laugh - so absurd they are! Next thing you will tell me is that Macedonians (why not other greeks also) spoke some form of early Bulgarian (that some Skopjans dared claim!!!). I do not know what to expect then.
Honestly I see your points and I can only laugh. That Philip Bilip thing was hilarious - you only seem to forget that most Dorians did not pronounce F as F but as a heavy P while even Ionians pronounced F not as F but as PF (like Michelle pppppfeiffer, I am sure she must know better than what I read here!).
I also laughed with your efforts with the Olympics. I mean you say Alexander I, convinced them that he was Greek but he did not convince that his people were Greek: Thus according to you Alexander I was the first Greek who came down representing no city or kingdom but just himself!!!! Aaaammaaaaazzzzing!!!! What a breakthrough! He was the Greek leader of a barbaric kingdom and participated in the Olympics? Where did you read that? Again, according to you the king of a pathetic, small, unimportant, useless kingdom in the mountains was so smart as to convince that his kingdom was Greek????
Do you want a full list of cities and athlets that were accused of being barbarian and the list of banned cities taking place in the Olympics? THEY WERE ALL PURE GREEKS, it was a mere thing of politics, ignorance, and perhaps their possesion of a few powerful athlets that could steal victories from Athens or Spart or Corinth. They were Greeks, do you know why? Because there was never any barbarian interested at all in participating in the Olympics, it was all a Greeks' thing. We never heard of Egyptians, Lydians, Persians trying to participate. Of course you heard the Romans but then when you treat Macedonians as barbarians I guess you treat Romans as Chinese of course being completely the ignorant you are on the fact that Rome was founded by Greeks, ruled by Greeks (patricians), their archives till the 4th century were written by Greeks, their nobility talked, dressed and fought Greek style and it was only after the 6th century when the events called for giving rights to surrounding non-greek tribes in order to srenthen it thus unavoidably 'barbarising Rome'. First Latin writers appeared only in the late 5th century while earlier all written roman texts were in Greek (perhaps another stupid barbaric tribe that was trying to pretend to be Greek? To gain what really?).
That is well documented and the call of Romans to participate in the Olympics was based on their history: that they derived from old Greek settlers in the area. -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th September 2005
If you want a full answer on your so-called-points I can give it to you but I suggest we do something else than play around. Why not talk about the direct chinese descendance of Zulu?
-
Message 26
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Chinese relationship to the Zulu, you've not found some of Clyde Ahmed Winter's stuff have you. I've ?warned you about those Afro-Centrists...
-
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th September 2005
That kind of archaiology is what I am opposing Lolbeeble. For example, what is all that afro-centrism trying to prove with ancient Egypt (ancient Egyptian and Ethiopean kingdoms had nothing to do with african tribes of the western parts).
On my side, I am not fighting for some kind of weird Hellinocentriscism. Even in my comment on Romans, I am not arguing that Romans were all Greeks when they entered Greece. About the issue of Macedonians you are are welcomed by 'my point of view', to view them as 'Macedonians' as long as you view the rest as 'Athenians', 'Spartans', 'Syracuseans', 'Epirotes' - that is what their identity was, the Greek identity was second to all -
Message 28
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Nick, for your information Herodotus Book V is where I read about Alexander's Olympic exploits, he came joint first in the foot race. So far as I was aware nationalism at the Olympics was a modern development from the first London games and genealogy was far more important in the ancient Olympiad, poleis identity having arisen later than family loyalty. True Olympic victors were revered in their home communities however given the way aristocratic families married their social peers from other communities as opposed to low born residents from their home cities it would seem that many of the Olympic competitors were a fairly homogenous lot. Consider Kleisthenes mother was from Scion on the Gulf of Corinth. It would be nice of you to prove you had actually read something so by all means do list the athletes and Olympiads they competed in or were denied entry to. As these are generally from foundations on the periphery of the Hellenic world it was a matter of validating their genealogical claims usually by testament of an influential witness. Note the similarity to the Athenian method of determining disputed citizenship claims. Given the importance of the Macedonian lineage, Callisthenes attempts to alter it to suit his model of the past was deemed a capital crime. Just speaking Greek seems not to have been sufficient proof of Hellennic nationality especially as Greeks believed their culture was so superior other people, Egyptians aside, couldn鈥檛 help but want to adopt their norms.
You asked me to justify why the Daidochai would not necessarily have considered themselves Greek, even if I did add as a caveat that this was a step up from Persian. The Greeks wouldn鈥檛 accept them en masse regarding them as backward so why should those who had successfully conquered the Persians share this accolade with the rest of the Greeks. So far as the Romans were concerned it was all Greek however. What is perhaps crucial is that if the Macedonians were not recognized as Greek they could legitimately be enslaved by Greeks be it by Euboan settlers of the colonizing period or the Athenians in the classical era, Spartans and Messenians being the notable exception. In any case the Pella katadesmos is in a North Western Greek dialect although I wonder if the Macedonian Royal centre would have been a little more cosmopolitan than much of Macedon so whether she is a native or a camp follower of some kind is still up for grabs.
As such the lists of the Roman magistracies and their actions while in office were kept on the Capitoline Hill and provided Fabius Pictor with the material to translate into Greek for Hellenic consumption, Rome being considered unworthy of Hellenic attention until the third century BC. Livy alludes to a deputation to Athens in 451, which might suggest an attempt to link the Decimvirs to the Athenian Council of ten and Tyrtais old lie seems to have found popular expression in Latin but it hardly suggests that they spoke Greek exclusively. Considering the presence of related tongues like Oscan I think Latins were Italian. -
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th September 2005
You talk about aristocratic families which is a small detail; you forget about S. Italias tyrans like Hieron of Syracuse who invited athlets from all over the greek world to take the Syracusean citizenship and after that you had Olympic champions only from S. Italy!! However still you miss the point: a Greek from another city could make the trick and participate pretending to be from another city (remember that a spartan did that in that year when sparta was banned from the games for breaking the olympic truce but once found out he was wipped publickly for humiliation). But..... a Greek participating representing a barbaric nation? Where did you hear that and why you still avoid that point?????
How can you explain the fact that I am answering you point by point and you only seem to avoid head to head confrontation with my arguments. Thus, there must be something wrong in your point of view.
At the time of Alexander the I (just at the time of Persian Wars) there was ABSOLUTELY nothing for a suppossedly barbaric nation to feal jealous about Greeks: their fate was to vanish in front of the Persian cataclysm, their so-called-golden-age soon to come seemed impossible, Persians considered themselves as by far superior than Greeks, then what was the fuss for barbarians in the peninsula to imitate Greeks? Did not see any Dardanians or Ilyrians imitating Greeks (they only imitated some war concepts but nothing more). What then pushed your supposedly barbarian tribe to feel Greek other than the fact that it was 100% Geek and in fact 100 times more Greek than traitors Thebans, treacherous Spartans and dubious Athenians? -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th September 2005
traitors, treacherous, dubious goes in realtion with the greek nation; according to their beliefs the city was in front of the nation; for macedonians the idea of nationality was more elevated than in othet city states of course because macedonians were no city state but a kingdom, a greek kingdom that for centuries was shielding the greek part of the peninsula from barbarians (dardanians and ilyrians).
-
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
it seems Lolbeeble that you inspired a historian from that country to open a discussion in a message and forced me to spent 20 minutes writting to her. She is a historian by profession. You do not need to mention anything else...
... just see the ease with which an engineer like me can 'beat' in arguments a so-called-professional historian taught whatever. I will tell you now what will happen:
I am going to talk with facts and remain to points, she will avoid practically all my points, will only narrate unbelievable stories, will pose some questions and will finally ignore all my direct and speficic answers to her questions point by point... its easy to talk history like that isn't it Lolbeeble? -
Message 32
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 18th September 2005
Granted these were primarily internal wranglings and to outsiders like the Romans and Persians they were Hellenes. The Persians termed them the Greeks in hats. In any case it was really to suggest that the Greeks as a rule were prepared to treat those they conquered as foreigners no matter who they were and not invite them to share in the spoils of victory.
It is true that Hesiod maintained Hellenes were those who spoke the Greek language and shared the same customs but I suspect he is just trying to get past preoccupation with genealogies. Even then Macedon was a cousin of Aeolus hence the Argive connection. However on that basis it would be worth asking why he wanted to reduce it to those two simple points. As you are aware the term Hellene referred to the descendants of Hellas and it seems some did not recognize Dorian claims of common descent through the Heraclidae in the eighth century BC. The Dorian counter argument exploited the gap left by the disappearance of Heracles and his vow to return to Greece to legitimise their conquest and it was to prove a useful precedent for Alexander I. There again as he had acted as mediator between the Greek allies and the Persian army in 480 one can see why some would have brought up the issue. Certainly Herodotus was quick to mitigate the event with tales of Macedonian conduct in the Ionic revolt and the aftermath of the negotiations.
Some used Hesiod鈥檚 arguments about shared customs to restrict those recognized as Greeks as opposed to the inclusive manner it was intended. One might look at Xenophon dismissing a member of the ten thousand for having pierced ears like a Carian. That Macedon was organized as an ethnos as opposed to along the lines of a polis and likewise showed very little inclination towards urbanism, like the Thessalians for example, alongside its dialect鈥檚 peculiarities, no unvoiced aspirants unlike Dorian, were other examples of this trend. Thus there were three lines of argument employed by those suggesting Macedonians were not Greek adding at least a millennia to your assertions about the question. The fact that others were prepared to accept them as such is evident in the alteration of Macedon鈥檚 status to son as opposed to cousin of Aeolous. If all else failed they went back to the genealogies.
I therefore stand by my claim that proof of descent was crucial to the Hellanodokai in order to determine who was eligible to participate in pan Hellenic games. The fact that it was contentious in Southern Greece, particularly Athens, saw Herodotus appeal to their authority to settle the manner so far as he is concerned. Archaic Dorian elites were similarly preoccupied with their genealogical purity refusing recognize issue from unions outside the line of descent, note the Bachiads in Corinth or the Spartiae. The importance placed on genealogy by Hecateus and Herodotus is further evidence for this, even though they differed in how many generations it took before there was divine ancestry. The importance was to highlight the purity of spirit passed from father to son.
What seems evident is that with the restriction of Persian influence in the Aegean the Macedonian royal house sought to be recognized as Greek. This was so that Alexander I might be accepted amongst the primarily oligarchic elites of the Greek peninsular. Certainly they shared a dislike of Athenian democracy with its increasingly Imperialist outlook especially after 465 and the attempts to place a colony on the River Strymon. Of course getting a poet like Pindar to compose an ode about your Olympic victory was very much part of this process while offering support to Athenian cultural figures seems to be an attempt to ingratiate himself with voters in the public assemblies. Marrying his sister to a Persian noble was more effective for cementing recognition with Persia after their withdrawal what with its more centralized dynastic political structure. Securing legitimacy for his independence with the powers to the South and East allowed Alexander I to expand westwards. -
Message 33
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 19th September 2005
Tony, to get back to the initial question, as the issue here is about the validity of Kenneth Kitchen's Third Intermediate Period chronology you might want to try looking up a website called Waste of Time that parodies Rohl's Test of Time. It primarily sets out to address the more widely publicised three hundred and fifty year revision but the issues raised are as valid for Centuries of Darkness' proposed two hundred and fifty year reduction. The forum鈥檚 posters seem a mixed bunch with those out to defend Kitchen鈥檚 Old Chronology as well as advocates for blurring the distinctions between these dynasties to reduce the timeline. There is a good series of points by Stephen Macintyre on the particular importance of key anchors between various timelines any would be revisionists would have to take into consideration
As for Centuries of Darkness, it is slightly less obsessed with the Bible, probably explaining why it is not so widely known and thus doesn't generate such heated criticism. It is also more hopeful when discussing archaeological treatment of Radiocarbon Dates, suggesting better sampling techniques than one or two hearths on a site ought to be employed to iron out any statistical blips in caliberation. Mind you that depends on finding sufficient organic material in a relatively secure stratigraphical context. For a long time carbon extraction was rather costly and required fairly large amounts of organic material to produce any kind of reliable data so one couldn't be so blas茅 about sending multiple samples from every layer of occupation to be scientifically dated. Refinements in technique have allowed smaller amounts of organic material to be dated as well as reducing the cost of the process, allowing for more varied sampling strategies. All very nice but those scientific dates still don't agree with Centuries of Darkness, even after factoring the increased carbon in the atmosphere from the 1628 and Hekcla III eruption events on iceland. Somewhere between these events there is also Thera or Santorini to take into consideration. Those ice cores again, is there nothing they can't prove? Well possibly when Thera erupted.
Heckla III has also been thought responsible for the climatic change in the Aegean that Nick mentions although syncronisation with Geometric pottery found in the Levant at sites like Tel Hador in Israel leave room for some possible contraction of the Dark Age though not by as much as James et al suggest. There is also the decline in the main Anatolian Hittite sites and their preserved appeals to the Egyptians for grain as well as the waves of marauding peoples of the sea that seem to have afflicted much of the Eastern Mediterranean. The period falls within the Kuniholm Anatolian tree ring sequence for that matter. Mind you I've seen Icelandic eruptions blamed for the gradual flooding of Late Bronze Age sites in Britain which appears to have been a continuing process over some five centuries. -
Message 34
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Monday, 19th September 2005
<>
Although if the revisionists have a case, then secure stratigraphical contexts may be hard to find.
<>
But these are entirely hypothesised from the Egyptian account, and the apparent discontinuity at the end of the Bronze Age, as dated by the Egyptian chronology. Is there any record of them from any other source?
<>
I couldn't find the website you mentioned (you can post the URL on these boards now), so it would be interesting to know what these key anchors are. I've mentioned the el-Amarna/Mycenean IIIb connection, for instance, to show how these two timelines connect, and that revision of one means revising the other.
Noggin -
Message 35
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 19th September 2005
Can do...
-
Message 36
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 19th September 2005
Noggin, perhaps anchor points was a bad turn of phrase as they are more like a series of connected buoys floating synchronised at relative points in each chronology. I've no doubt that any reduction in time alocated to the transition into the early iron age will similarly bring down the date of such events however they must be uniform across Ancient societies.
In any case the provisional identification of Hekla III as having erupted in 1159BC, this time on the basis of the growing evidence of dendrochronological sequences from across the globe, certainly suggest that Rameses III and his actions against the Sea Peoples could drop a generation at least.
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 聽to 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
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 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.