Priam vs Ramses III?
Jorn Barger
I think is worth some exploring. It's mainly based on some
logistic improbabilities in the Iliad and in the Medinet Habu
inscription of Ramses III:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sea_peoples.htm
The Iliad describes a ten-year siege over a fine point of honor,
enlisting the aid of the finest warriors in a vast confederation
of Aegean peoples. Bizarrely, the siege happens only a day or
two's sail from the warriors' homes, so the logistics make no
sense. Various clues in the Iliad suggest a date around 1200BC.
Around 1200BC there _was_ a vast confederation of Aegean peoples
who laid a sort of ill-conceived 'siege' against the greatest
empire of the time. The identification of the 'Peoples of the
Sea' with the Aegean region has been very slow to take hold,
but I think it's mostly uncontested now.
The assumption has been that they'd been displaced from their
homeland, and were raping and pillaging their way down the
Mediterranean coast because the alternative was somehow even
bleaker-- but this again makes little sense: if you're having
a hard time you don't launch a frontal attack on the strongest
power in the world, you look for someone weaker than you.
(Remember, you must already have been weakened by the supposed
unknown displacing force.)
So I propose we rethink the Medinet Habu narrative as a battle
over some forgotten point of honor-- the Pharaoh or his son
may even have seduced the bride of a Mycenean king. Ramses
saw trouble coming and started building defenses; the Myceneans
took some time to collect their vast navy, and began pillaging
their way down the coast, destroying what naval support the
Egyptians might otherwise have been able to summon to their
aid.
Perhaps a staging area was set up along the Philistine coast--
this makes little sense to me, but the Medinet Habu depiction
claims oxcarts and women and children were involved. Ramses
paints a resounding victory, while Homer has forgotten most
of the structural facts, remembering and reshaping a few
artistic tidbits 400 years later.
The Aegean community was traumatised by the loss of hundreds
of their finest. Ramses survived 20 years, although his
harem continued to cause problems: http://touregypt.net/hdyn20a.htm
Chris Camfield
[snip]
>The Iliad describes a ten-year siege over a fine point of honor,
>enlisting the aid of the finest warriors in a vast confederation
>of Aegean peoples. Bizarrely, the siege happens only a day or
>two's sail from the warriors' homes, so the logistics make no
>sense. Various clues in the Iliad suggest a date around 1200BC.
FWIW, I think the travel time that you quote is unrealistic. Having reviewed
Morrison & Coates, the distance is longer than a trireme could have done in a
day, and I suspect whatever ships were in use at the time were a great deal
slower.
[snip]
>So I propose we rethink the Medinet Habu narrative as a battle
>over some forgotten point of honor-- the Pharaoh or his son
>may even have seduced the bride of a Mycenean king.
This seems a bit backwards. I don't see any particular reason to take the
Iliad's explanation for the Trojan War at face value and then to assign it to
another conflict.
Neville Lindsay
"Chris Camfield" <ccam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3e078515...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> On 23 Dec 2002 09:25:38 -0800, jo...@enteract.com (Jorn Barger) wrote:
> [snip]
> >The Iliad describes a ten-year siege over a fine point of honor,
> >enlisting the aid of the finest warriors in a vast confederation
> >of Aegean peoples. Bizarrely, the siege happens only a day or
> >two's sail from the warriors' homes, so the logistics make no
> >sense. Various clues in the Iliad suggest a date around 1200BC.
>
> FWIW, I think the travel time that you quote is unrealistic. Having
reviewed
> Morrison & Coates, the distance is longer than a trireme could have done
in a
> day, and I suspect whatever ships were in use at the time were a great
deal
> slower.
In fact, Thucydides says most of them had to go farming on the Gallipoli
Peninsula to support the force.
NL
Matt Giwer
> This is just a wild hypothesis I haven't seen explored, that
> I think is worth some exploring. It's mainly based on some
> logistic improbabilities in the Iliad and in the Medinet Habu
> inscription of Ramses III:
> http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sea_peoples.htm
>
> The Iliad describes a ten-year siege over a fine point of honor,
> enlisting the aid of the finest warriors in a vast confederation
> of Aegean peoples. Bizarrely, the siege happens only a day or
> two's sail from the warriors' homes, so the logistics make no
> sense. Various clues in the Iliad suggest a date around 1200BC.
Poetic license?
--
Israel does have the most moral army in the world. Unfortunately
for those who get it its' way, it is Old Testament morality.
And they are proud of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1423
Jorn Barger
> FWIW, I think the travel time that you quote is unrealistic. Having reviewed
> Morrison & Coates, the distance is longer than a trireme could have done in a
> day, and I suspect whatever ships were in use at the time were a great deal
> slower.
The logistic question is how to feed hundreds of men for an unknown
period. Theory A is raid-the-neighbors, but the neighbors tend to
catch on, so it gets harder and harder. Theory B might be cultivate-
Gallipoli, but this takes time and labor, and the fields have to be
defended. Theory C is rotate provisions in from home, which makes
much more sense given the distances, but spoils various plotpoints.
> >So I propose we rethink the Medinet Habu narrative as a battle
> >over some forgotten point of honor-- the Pharaoh or his son
> >may even have seduced the bride of a Mycenean king.
>
> This seems a bit backwards. I don't see any particular reason to take the
> Iliad's explanation for the Trojan War at face value and then to assign it to
> another conflict.
If your brain works in an all-or-none fashion, you probably should
have stopped reading when I said "wild hypothesis".
My heuristic is to generate lots of alternates that try to address
different gaps in the conventional reconstruction. Since I find
the displaced-warriors model implausible, I went looking for some
other explanation of why a multinational navy might pick a fight
with someone bigger than them, around 1200BC. An alternate
exemplar came immediately to hand.
There certainly isn't any evidence of what the hypothetical 'point
of honor' might have been, except the Iliad. But simply raising
the question encourages a thousand new lines of speculation.
Jorn Barger
> So I propose we rethink the Medinet Habu narrative as a battle
> over some forgotten point of honor-- the Pharaoh or his son
> may even have seduced the bride of a Mycenean king. Ramses
> saw trouble coming and started building defenses; the Myceneans
> took some time to collect their vast navy, and began pillaging
> their way down the coast, destroying what naval support the
> Egyptians might otherwise have been able to summon to their
> aid.
A couple of afterthoughts:
- We might imagine Ramses defended by habiru mercenaries, whose
trick with the net drowned hundreds of Homeric heroes.
- I picture the Egyptian prince visiting Crete because I think
the House of the Double Axe was an international brothel, run
by Mycenean pirate-traders. The girls (and boys) were
kidnappees, or yearly tribute as in the Minotaur tale.
http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/thera.html
So the prince arrives in splendor, expecting to be treated
like a god, and somehow his eye fixes on a beauty who's the
private property (wife?) of a Mycenean noble. She's
dazzled by his wealth, his bearing, and his refinement
compared to the Homeric savagery she's used to... so she
goes home with him.
This strikes the Mycenean pirate-community as an insult that
must not be allowed-- if Egyptians claim free rights over
Mycenean women, the whole pirate lifestyle will be threatened.
So they beat the bushes for the biggest naval sortie the world
had ever seen. And they got their butts kicked anyway.
And Greek poets rewrote it as a private tragedy, while the
Egyptian scribes saw it as just-another-barbaric-nuisance.
Agamemnon
"Jorn Barger" <jo...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:16e613ec.02122...@posting.google.com...
> This is just a wild hypothesis I haven't seen explored, that
> I think is worth some exploring. It's mainly based on some
> logistic improbabilities in the Iliad and in the Medinet Habu
> inscription of Ramses III:
> http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sea_peoples.htm
>
> The Iliad describes a ten-year siege over a fine point of honor,
> enlisting the aid of the finest warriors in a vast confederation
> of Aegean peoples. Bizarrely, the siege happens only a day or
> two's sail from the warriors' homes, so the logistics make no
> sense. Various clues in the Iliad suggest a date around 1200BC.
>
The is no suggest. The Trojan War is dated to EXACTLY 1193-1183 BC by all
Greek historians.
Agamemnon retuned to Mycenae and his murder occurred on 13 Gamelion 1183 BC
whcih is corroborated by the Annular Solar Eclipse of 12 January 1183 BC
that would have been seen from Anatolia and which marked the beginning of
the reign of every new Pelopid king.
Aegisthius coronation took place at the time of the Total Solar Eclipse of
19 April 1178 BC and this was the same year that the suitors of Penelope
arrived at Ithaca. Orestes murdered Aegisthius at the time of the Total
Solar Eclipse of Aug 19 1176 BC. In the following year 1175 BC Menelaus
returned from Egypt 8 years after the Trojen ware. This was EXACTLY the same
year the Ramses III expelled the Sea People from Egypt including the Danai,
Pelast (Pelasgians) and Teukrians of Salamis led by Teucer the cousin of
Achilles who then captured Cyprus. All of these peoples are recorded in the
inscription of Ramses III and coroborated the accounts of Herodotus,
Apollodorus, and Euripides "Helen" where both Teucer and Menelaus arrive in
Egypt after being defeated in a naval batted as recorded by the murals above
Ramses III inscription.
Tsiamneus took the throne at the time of the Totals Solar Eclipse of May 18
1124 BC when Orestes died at the age of 70 as recoded by Greek historians.
http://www.enthymia.co.uk/Myths2.htm
http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/ParaApion.htm
During this time the Biblical Exodus occurs in Exactly 1193 BC according to
the Bible.
Egypt was ruled by between 4 of 5 Pharaohs reigning simultaneously.
Using Euripides account and the extant inscriptions it is possible to
determine that Proetus was Pharoh Setnakhte and that the "Helen" that was
engaged to be mareid to Theoclymenos (Ramses III) was based on Twosret who
shared her tomb with Setnakhte hence the story of Helen spending all the
time as a suppliant to the tomb of Proetus.
The first born son of Pharaoh who the bible described as being killed by the
Angel of Death was either Seti II or Seti-Ramase or both.
Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower Egypt. One or
the other of these or both were the Pharaoh of Moses, hence the change of
mind of Pharaoh after he let Moses leave Egypt.
Setnakhte is the LORD GOD of Moses since Jeremiah makes it perfectly clear
beyond doubt that the LORD GOD of the bible was always a Pharaoh of Egypt.
Merneptah-Siptah would have been to young to take on that role.
Chronology
1212 BC Amenophis/Amenemses becomes pharaoh of Egypt after Ramses II
1211 BC Seti is born to Amenemses
1206 BC Egypt is invaded by an alliance of Sea Peoples led by the Teukrians.
Menelaus marries Helen and the Greeks pledges him allegiance. Amenemses and
Seti aged 5 flee from Memphis to Ethiopia.
1203 BC Helen is abducted by Paris the prince of Troy.
1201 BC Agamemnon leads the Greeks to Asia Minor but the cannot find the
Trojans.
1200 BC Merneptah becomes king at Memphis. Paris arrives in Egypt with Helen
and is entertained by Proteus.
1195 BC Proteus finds out that Paris has committed a crime against the
Greeks and orders him to leave. Merneptah begins his campaign against the
Sea Peoples and after one year finally expels the Teukrians. His allies
included the Akawasha (Achaeans), Luka (Lycians), Tursha (Tyrsenoi or
Tyrennians), Sheklesh (Cycladians/Sikeloi or Sicilians) and the Sherden
(Sardinians).
1194 BC Paris is expelled from Egypt and returns to Troy. Amenemses and his
son Seti take part in the expulsion of the Sea Peoples in the 13th year of
Amenemses reign.
Spring Orestes the son of Agamemnon is born.
1193 BC The death of the Egyptian first born occurs. Amenemses dies.
Merneptah-Siptah the son of Seti II rules after Seti II is deposed by
Merneptah-Siptah's Syrian butler Bey/Arsu who is made chancellor. Bey/Arsu
imposes extreme taxes on the people and deprives the temples of their
tribute. The Red Sea Canaanites defeated by Merneptah migrate north and the
myth of the biblical exodus created.
Summer Iphigenia the daughter of Agamemnon is born.
Autumn Agamemnon lays siege to Troy.
1187 BC Seti II dies at the age of 25 according to the X-ray dating of his
mummy. Twosret the widow of Seti II becomes queen.
1185 BC Setnakhte becomes Pharaoh.
1184 BC Winter Troy falls to Agamemnon after Odysseus devises a wooden horse
siege engine.
1183 BC January 13 Agamemnon returns to Mycenae is murdered by Clytemnestra
and Aegisthus. Menelaus failing to find Helen at Troy heads for Egypt.
Agapenor is blown off course and arrives in Cyprus.
1182 BC Ramses III/Theoclymenos becomes Pharaoh of Egypt. Menelaus embarks
on campaigns in Syria, Cyprus, Libya and Egypt. Teucer is exiled from
Salamis and founds another Salamis in Cyprus.
1175 BC Proteus dies. Setnakhte is buried in the tomb of Twosret.
Merneptah-Siptah dies at the age of 20 according to the X-ray dating of his
mummy. Ramses III/Theoclymenos expels the Sea Peoples that attacked Egypt.
Orestes murders Clytemnestra and Aegisthus.
1171 BC Jericho falls to Joshua.
1151 BC Ramses III dies.
1150 BC Demophon dies in Cyprus.
Neville Lindsay
The alternate exemplar is the Viking raiding of NW Europe. Pretty close
really.
NL
bobbyhaqq
You seem to imagine this as a war of Greek people who had grown up in
Greece when actually the Sea People were established in the Souther
Levite, in modern day Gaza, filling in places left empty by a collapse
in the Bronze Age economies of the Middle East, caused by political
crisis in Egypt.
>
> The assumption has been that they'd been displaced from their
> homeland, and were raping and pillaging their way down the
> Mediterranean coast because the alternative was somehow even
> bleaker-- but this again makes little sense: if you're having
> a hard time you don't launch a frontal attack on the strongest
> power in the world, you look for someone weaker than you.
> (Remember, you must already have been weakened by the supposed
> unknown displacing force.)
Your assumption here makes two major errors. Firstly Egypt at the
time of the attack of the Sea People was in a time of instability, and
the southern Levite, where the Sea People settled, had experienced a
profound economic crisis resulting from the collapsed trade with
Egypt. Many Urban settlements in the Southern Levite had been
disbanded and were ripe for conquest.
As for the futility of the attack, remember these were ancient times,
information movements were highly expensive and the Sea People would
not have had much in the way of advanced intelligence concerning
Egypt. Coming in around Gaza they would simply have been attracted by
the riches they saw on the Nile and may have made an attack for them.
From the results the attack was not entirely illconcieved either, the
Sea People got a huge part of Southern Levite, which still has their
Biblical name: Palastine.
>
> So I propose we rethink the Medinet Habu narrative as a battle
> over some forgotten point of honor-- the Pharaoh or his son
> may even have seduced the bride of a Mycenean king. Ramses
> saw trouble coming and started building defenses; the Myceneans
> took some time to collect their vast navy, and began pillaging
> their way down the coast, destroying what naval support the
> Egyptians might otherwise have been able to summon to their
> aid.
Well context makes this higly suspicious. If I recall correctly there
had been over 100 years of conflict between Egyptian and the Sea
People. Such a long period of conflict indicates long standing
conflicts over land or resources rather then a issue of honor.
Also there is a utter failure to understand Egyptian society.
Egyptians viewed their nation as Paradise on Earth, and the
requirements from mummification meant that Egyptians generally did not
like to venture out side of their nation. A Pharaoh might leave the
nation on Campaign, maybe, but generally speaking the Pharaoh stayed
in his Capital and forgien diplomats came to him. As the great power
of the time most Kings were dying to have a daugher marry in to the
Egyptian family and all rulers seemed to seek such connections. Since
Egyptians never married their daughters off to forgien kings the only
alliance was through children going to Egypt to marry, this was a
welcome event.
It seems almost impossible to believe that a Paraoh would venture
outside of Egypt for anything other then the most serious battles.
Certainly not for a sexual lark. And it would have been very unlikely
that any family would find a relationship between their daugther and
the Pharaoh as anything but a great opportunity.
As for this 1200 Greek naval attack on the Levite coast, utterly
impossible. Firstly we have no records of it, also it was totally
beyond the logistics and techincal capity of the Greeks of that time.
I profoundly doubt that 420 BC Athenes could have pulled it off, and
certainly not the Minoan civilization of that time.
And, since the Minoians had critical trade relations with Egypt, the
sole source of gold at that time, why would they ruin their trade
relations over a point of sexual honor?
>
> Perhaps a staging area was set up along the Philistine coast--
> this makes little sense to me, but the Medinet Habu depiction
> claims oxcarts and women and children were involved. Ramses
> paints a resounding victory, while Homer has forgotten most
> of the structural facts, remembering and reshaping a few
> artistic tidbits 400 years later.
>
It think here you are boarding on the more likely truth. Homer lacks
enough structural facts of the Sea People migrational wars with Egypt
that we can only conclude that the two stories are in fact
unconnected.
> The Aegean community was traumatised by the loss of hundreds
> of their finest. Ramses survived 20 years, although his
> harem continued to cause problems: http://touregypt.net/hdyn20a.htm
You story failures to explain one critical fact: at the end of the
wars with the Sea People the Sea People are established in settlements
in modern day Gaza.
It is a creative connection, and an interesting one, but there is no
reason to assume it.
What I find more fruitfull in studies these ancient stories is to see
how uses of myth and history emerge and involve by tracking patterns
of stories over centures, often coming to modern propaganda and story
telling.
What makes the comparison of Egyptian war narratives of 1200 BC and
Homer and later the Greek Historians and Trajedies is the subtle
emergence of what we would view as dramatic elements. Egyptian story
telling is rather linear and crude, from the book of the dead to the
records of battles they are black and white and rather dull, they
don't make great writing and though we have a great deal of Egyptian
lit from that time, for the wrote a great deal and great deal longer
then anyone else, little of it is inderesting as literature.
The Illiad is litterature. Members of the stories can be viewed as
charcters in the fullest rights. They have conflicts, and
imperfections, they make mistakes, they struggle against fate which
rules them all. A Greek can write a tender account of a Trojan on the
walls holding his son who he knows will never grow to manhood or
kissing his wife who he knows will die a slave in a Greek city,
repeatedly rapped and humiliated. As far as I know such brilliant
writting has no equal in Greek writing and was a Middle Eastern
invention.
bobbyhaqq
> like a god, and somehow his eye fixes on a beauty who's the
> private property (wife?) of a Mycenean noble. She's
> dazzled by his wealth, his bearing, and his refinement
> compared to the Homeric savagery she's used to... so she
> goes home with him.
Ancient Egypt viewed their nation as perfect, and rarely ventures
beyond their home. Since mummification could not be carried out for
those who died in voyage it was a risky propositon. Thus Egypt wished
to stay at hope, venturing to forgien lands only on critical trade
missions or for war.
The idea that a Egyptian role would go to Crete for little sexual
tourism is simply out of the question, especially since they had mass
harems back home stocked with princesses of the major powers of the
time.
At that time every leader in the region was all too happy to hand over
daughters to the Paraohs.
>
> This strikes the Mycenean pirate-community as an insult that
> must not be allowed-- if Egyptians claim free rights over
> Mycenean women, the whole pirate lifestyle will be threatened.
>
Accept in that Egyptians didn't leave Egypt very often, and as sailors
they were inferior to the the Myceneans.
The Egyptians ruled much of the Levite for hundred of years and I have
never encountered any such problems. Egyptians like to stay in Egypt
and marry Egyptians.
> So they beat the bushes for the biggest naval sortie the world
> had ever seen. And they got their butts kicked anyway.
>
Well firstly the ships of that time were just not up to it. And the
Sea People, who are the people we are talking about, had left the
Aegean some 800 years before and settled in Gaza.
As for having their butts kicked you trust the Egyptian tale to much.
Egyptians never lost in their own telling. The fighting was
inconclusive with the Sea People kicked out of Egypt but able to take
a great deal of Canaan.
> And Greek poets rewrote it as a private tragedy, while the
> Egyptian scribes saw it as just-another-barbaric-nuisance.
And the Greeks also got the names of the kingdoms wrong, the span of
the war, the place, the Kings, and just about everything else wrong.
Sadly the conventional accounts have facts behind them. The Sea
People were established in Gaza and had a hinderland north of Egypt to
supply them. They had liked there a long time and had conducted a
number of war against Egypt. They also had a great deal of success
and would live there for some time.
I am willing to imagine that if the Illiad is true, Troy may not have
been in modern day Turkey, but as I recall there is a great deal of
evidence that Troy was destroyed.
Jorn Barger
> The Sea
> People were established in Gaza and had a hinderland north of Egypt to
> supply them. They had liked there a long time and had conducted a
> number of war against Egypt.
Give it up, Bob. Your brain is mush.
grapheus
A nice subject for a fiction book ! .. Or even better, for a Cecil B.
de Mil 's movie !..
But little chance to be a real history : you are mixing the "Troyan
War" and the "Peoples of the Sea" attack against Egypt, two events
separated by about 100 years, with different actors...
grapheus
bobbyhaqq
>
> Give it up, Bob. Your brain is mush.
Well I don't know how to respond to a point like this.
Yesterday I spent a couple hours in the British Museum going through
the Ancient Levite desplay cases. What struck me is that they have
coffins of Sea People found in Gaza, along with houshold implements
and tons of jars. All the signs of a settled people.
This culture was long established in the region, and ultimately
settled there. There is no evidence that this was a long sea voyage
of conquest by the Greeks to Egypt and then back, in fact we have
references to the Sea People in the area of the Gaza from Hebrew,
Egyptian, and Hittite references covering hundreds of years.
There is a great deal not known about the Sea People, but we do know
that they were a mass migration taking advantage of economic problems
in Canaan. They tried to invade Egypt but were forced back. They
are, at this point, an entirely Levite people living in the Universe
of Assyrians, Hittites, Hebrews, Phonecians, and Egyptians.
Jorn Barger
> > Give it up, Bob. Your brain is mush.
>
> Well I don't know how to respond to a point like this.
Here's a few suggestions:
1) Proofread what you write, to demonstrate a minimal level of
reading comprehension. (If you can't tell Levites from the Levant,
you can't reliably tell 'before' from 'after'.)
2) Do something comparable with the ideas you present-- give
some minimal indication that you have a consistent mental model,
and that you've tried to express it clearly, and that you're
capable of recognizing and remembering when inconsistencies are
pointed out.
3) Demonstrate that you can find webpages on the topic and
accurately summarise their theories-- and post the urls so we
can confirm your skills.
If you find yourself making excuses why you don't want to do
any of these, you should really seriously consider that you're
hopelessly braindamaged, and stop stalking me.
> Yesterday I spent a couple hours in the British Museum
I will acknowledge that there's a 0.1% chance that the BM is
advocating a revolutionary new view of the Peoples of the Sea.
But there's a 99.9% chance that you've gotten it entirely wrong.
bobbyhaqq
> de Mil 's movie !..
> But little chance to be a real history : you are mixing the "Troyan
> War" and the "Peoples of the Sea" attack against Egypt, two events
> separated by about 100 years, with different actors...
>
Though I agree with you, your critic is circular and does not stand up
against the original idea. The point is that the Trojan war was not
at the date or place we tend to believe but was in fact a distant
memory of the war with the Sea People.
Certainly there is no proof of the assertion, but it is rather
interesting. Actually I like the idea a great deal and find that
disproving it has lead me to clarify my own knowledge about the Sea
People.
The key issue is the contention that the Sea People were Greeks
sailing to Egypt, fighting, and then returning to Greece. This is
simply not true for a number of reasons:
1. The presence of the Sea People in the lower Levite south of the
Phonecian cities for hundreds of years before and after their war with
Egypt.
2. The fact that there had been many wars between the Sea People and
Egypt over several generations.
3. The impossibility of a bronze age proto-Greek army fighting against
Egypt in Egypt with lines of communication so long, it was simply not
possible.
Agamemnon
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.02122...@posting.google.com...
> A nice subject for a fiction book ! .. Or even better, for a Cecil B.
> de Mil 's movie !..
> But little chance to be a real history : you are mixing the "Troyan
> War" and the "Peoples of the Sea" attack against Egypt, two events
> separated by about 100 years, with different actors...
WRONG. The two events are SIMULTANEOUS. Read Herodotus. First attack on
Egypt c.1206 BC repelled by Merneptah, Amenemses and Seti II in 1195-3 BC
with the Sea People as their allies. Second attack on Egypt was by Meneleus
in 1175 BC and was repeled by Ramses III/Theoclymenos. Trojen War 1193-1183
BC. Abduction of Helen 1203 BC. Biblical exodus 1193 BC.
Margin of error on traditional Greek and biblical dates +/-6 months and
arithmetically and statistically irrefutable. Margin of error on Egyptian
dates +/-5 years.
http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/index.htm
>
> grapheus
Agamemnon
"bobbyhaqq" <rhook...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:689922c7.02123...@posting.google.com...
> grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message
> > A nice subject for a fiction book ! .. Or even better, for a Cecil B.
> > de Mil 's movie !..
> > But little chance to be a real history : you are mixing the "Troyan
> > War" and the "Peoples of the Sea" attack against Egypt, two events
> > separated by about 100 years, with different actors...
> >
>
>
> Though I agree with you, your critic is circular and does not stand up
> against the original idea. The point is that the Trojan war was not
> at the date or place we tend to believe but was in fact a distant
> memory of the war with the Sea People.
>
> Certainly there is no proof of the assertion, but it is rather
> interesting. Actually I like the idea a great deal and find that
> disproving it has lead me to clarify my own knowledge about the Sea
> People.
>
> The key issue is the contention that the Sea People were Greeks
> sailing to Egypt, fighting, and then returning to Greece. This is
> simply not true for a number of reasons:
RUBBISH
The Sea Peoples boar the names of know Greek tribes including Danai,
Achaeans, Pelasgians and Teukrians. The Teukrians make have been named after
their leader Tuecer the son of Telamon and therefore the Egyptian
inscription confirms the existence of this king.
>
> 1. The presence of the Sea People in the lower Levite south of the
> Phonecian cities for hundreds of years before and after their war with
> Egypt.
The Greeks invaded Egypt in 1667 BC at the time of the abduction of Io. The
entire 18th and 19th Dynasties were their descendents. Perseus was even
married to Amenhotep III's daughter Andromenda (Ankhesenamen) and the palace
at Mycenae bares Amenhotep III's cartouch. Alcius killed Hormemheb and his
successor Ramses I and Eumolpus was even educated in Horemhebs court and
married one of his daughters.
> 2. The fact that there had been many wars between the Sea People and
> Egypt over several generations.
> 3. The impossibility of a bronze age proto-Greek army fighting against
> Egypt in Egypt with lines of communication so long, it was simply not
> possible.
RUBBISH.
The Greeks controlled the sea and the whole of Palestine and all of
Asia-Minor by 1175 BC.
grapheus
>
> >
> > Give it up, Bob. Your brain is mush.
>
> Well I don't know how to respond to a point like this.
>
> Yesterday I spent a couple hours in the British Museum going through
> the Ancient Levite desplay cases. What struck me is that they have
> coffins of Sea People found in Gaza, along with houshold implements
> and tons of jars. All the signs of a settled people.
>
In Gaza, i.e. on the coast, yes !
> This culture was long established in the region, and ultimately
> settled there.
Not "in the region". On the coast, only.
> There is no evidence that this was a long sea voyage
> of conquest by the Greeks to Egypt and then back,
Agreed. Nevertheless, the culture of these "Sea People" is Mycenaean.
What do you mean by "back" ?.. back to where ?..
> in fact we have
> references to the Sea People in the area of the Gaza from Hebrew,
> Egyptian, and Hittite references covering hundreds of years.
>
Not "hundreds of years" . About 100 years.
> There is a great deal not known about the Sea People, but we do know
> that they were a mass migration taking advantage of economic problems
> in Canaan.
Or fleing from their own countries !.
As for the reason for that, see now J.Faucounau's paper at
<http://users.hol.gr/~dilos/anistor/vpoints/v024.htm>
Very enlightening !..
> They tried to invade Egypt but were forced back.
Yes. But they settled pretty massively into Canaan.
> They
> are, at this point, an entirely Levite people living in the Universe
> of Assyrians, Hittites, Hebrews, Phonecians, and Egyptians.
What do you call "a Levite people" ?.. Do you mean a "Semitic people"
?.. Then this is not true at the time when the Sea people arrived into
Canaan. It's true a century later... When they arrived, they were
already mixed peoples, with a Mycenaean culture.
Best Wishes to all !
grapheus
Agamemnon
news:<16e613ec.02122...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > Give it up, Bob. Your brain is mush.
>
> Well I don't know how to respond to a point like this.
>
> Yesterday I spent a couple hours in the British Museum going through
> the Ancient Levite desplay cases. What struck me is that they have
> coffins of Sea People found in Gaza, along with houshold implements
> and tons of jars. All the signs of a settled people.
>
> This culture was long established in the region, and ultimately
> settled there. There is no evidence that this was a long sea voyage
> of conquest by the Greeks to Egypt and then back, in fact we have
> references to the Sea People in the area of the Gaza from Hebrew,
> Egyptian, and Hittite references covering hundreds of years.
Hebrew. Have you gone insane. There was NO SUCH THINGS as Hebrews unitll
they were invented by the Maccabees in 167 BC. In Egyptian the term Apiru
meant Horse or Bandit.
>
> There is a great deal not known about the Sea People, but we do know
> that they were a mass migration taking advantage of economic problems
> in Canaan. They tried to invade Egypt but were forced back. They
> are, at this point, an entirely Levite people living in the Universe
> of Assyrians, Hittites, Hebrews, Phonecians, and Egyptians.
RUBBISH.
If you bothered to read Herodotus you would know that there was a Greek
colony in Egypt that was established during the reigns of Amenhotep III and
IV by the Greeks that came there with Perseus and this colony was still
extent in Herodotus time.
Before that time the Greek ancestors of the Danai were already in Egypt
since the time of the abdution of Io in 1667 BC and these Danai migrated to
Greece from 1500 BC onwards. The Phoenicians were also descended from Io.
Tyre was a Greek city and bares a Greek name, as does Biblis which was a Cyp
riot colony.
All the archaeology confirms that all of Palestine was Greek from 1200 BC
onwards until 900 BC.
bobbyhaqq
>
Wow big guy. Had no idea you were this vested point as to the Sea
People.
I am sorry if my spelling so offends you. Please accept my deepest
regrets.
Though I utterly fail to see how my spelling, or my lack of URL
references make what I post any more of less significant. I assume
that everyone else can find basic information on the Internet.
I mean if you are going to make any believe the utterly knew an
unproven idea that somehome the Sea People came from Greece and sailed
to Egypt and then went back to Greece and years later this became the
stories of Homer I imagine you might need to present some evidence
rather then insult my posting.
> 1) Proofread what you write, to demonstrate a minimal level of
> reading comprehension. (If you can't tell Levites from the Levant,
> you can't reliably tell 'before' from 'after'.)
>
> 2) Do something comparable with the ideas you present-- give
> some minimal indication that you have a consistent mental model,
> and that you've tried to express it clearly, and that you're
> capable of recognizing and remembering when inconsistencies are
> pointed out.
>
> 3) Demonstrate that you can find webpages on the topic and
> accurately summarise their theories-- and post the urls so we
> can confirm your skills.
>
> If you find yourself making excuses why you don't want to do
> any of these, you should really seriously consider that you're
> hopelessly braindamaged, and stop stalking me.
>
> > Yesterday I spent a couple hours in the British Museum
>
> I will acknowledge that there's a 0.1% chance that the BM is
> advocating a revolutionary new view of the Peoples of the Sea.
I imagined you were the one presently the revolutionary new idea of
the Sea People. Is that not what you said.
Look the Sea People were, generally held, to be settled in the
Southern Levite. They are refered in the Bible to as the
Phillistines.
> But there's a 99.9% chance that you've gotten it entirely wrong.
Yah, probably. And you are utterly wasting your time responding to
me.
Someday we all will learn in school that the Sea People are the Greeks
in Homer.
George Durbridge
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<snip>
> Margin of error on traditional Greek and biblical dates
+/-6 months and
> arithmetically and statistically irrefutable. Margin of
error on Egyptian
> dates +/-5 years.
Your evidence for this, netkook? And yes, I've looked at
the URL and it doesn't support your claim. It's down to
your usual standard of scholarship. This requires rigorous
analysis of hard data, not more self-indulgent credulity.
> http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/index.htm
George Durbridge
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> The Greeks invaded Egypt in 1667 BC at the time of the
abduction of Io. The
> entire 18th and 19th Dynasties were their descendents.
Perseus was even
> married to Amenhotep III's daughter Andromenda
(Ankhesenamen) and the palace
> at Mycenae bares Amenhotep III's cartouch. Alcius killed
Hormemheb and his
> successor Ramses I and Eumolpus was even educated in
Horemhebs court and
> married one of his daughters.
Your evidence for any of this, netkook? Evidence, I mean,
not your website.
> The Greeks controlled the sea and the whole of Palestine
and all of
> Asia-Minor by 1175 BC.
Your evidence for this, netkook?
Agamemnon
"George Durbridge" <gdur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:20021231074818.4...@bigpond.net.au...
If you cannot understated basic statistics and arithmetic that is not my
problem. GET AN EDUCATION YOU before you start commenting on a proof that is
beyond your present intellectual level. Either tell me what you do not
understand or else shut up.
>
> > http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/index.htm
Agamemnon
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:40:58 -0000
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > The Greeks invaded Egypt in 1667 BC at the time of the
> abduction of Io. The
> > entire 18th and 19th Dynasties were their descendents.
> Perseus was even
> > married to Amenhotep III's daughter Andromenda
> (Ankhesenamen) and the palace
> > at Mycenae bares Amenhotep III's cartouch. Alcius killed
> Hormemheb and his
> > successor Ramses I and Eumolpus was even educated in
> Horemhebs court and
> > married one of his daughters.
>
> Your evidence for any of this, netkook? Evidence, I mean,
> not your website.
The evidence in quoted on my website. Find it.
>
> > The Greeks controlled the sea and the whole of Palestine
> and all of
> > Asia-Minor by 1175 BC.
>
> Your evidence for this, netkook?
The evidence in quoted on my website. Find it.
Neville Lindsay
> > Here's a few suggestions:
> >
>
> Wow big guy. Had no idea you were this vested point as to the Sea
> People.
>
> I am sorry if my spelling so offends you. Please accept my deepest
> regrets.
>
> Though I utterly fail to see how my spelling, or my lack of URL
> references make what I post any more of less significant. I assume
> that everyone else can find basic information on the Internet.
>
> I mean if you are going to make any believe the utterly knew an
> unproven idea that somehome the Sea People came from Greece and sailed
> to Egypt and then went back to Greece and years later this became the
> stories of Homer I imagine you might need to present some evidence
> rather then insult my posting.
Your response's demonstration that you were incapable of understanding what
he was saying (you think he was talking about spelling - he didn't mention
that, is that too difficult to comprehend?) puts it in a nutshell. Start
with 'vested point'. What does that phrase mean? We just can't understand
you.
First learn to read what people say, then learn to write what people can
understand. Then we might be interested in talking to you, if you will
further go on and get some knowledge to base your writing on.
NL
bobbyhaqq
> First learn to read what people say, then learn to write what people can
> understand. Then we might be interested in talking to you, if you will
> further go on and get some knowledge to base your writing on.
>
Boy we got some real very social colanders on this group. Personally,
with all the things going on the world today, I am not going to get in
to a flame war concerning the Sea People.
If you can't understand my posts your free to not read them. Its not
like this thread is flooded with posts or anything like that. If you
can't read them then I regret that. I generally like to post the
Internet late at night when I am a bit wasted and I guess I am wasting
all of your time. Please accept my deepest regrets for having wasted
any of your precious superior mind.
The essential point of the Sea People = Homer is itself beyond all
current evidence, no matter how well proofed ones spelling is. The
idea is fun and interesting but nuts.
If you are interested in what I am trying to say it is simple (and I
don't ask you to be), the Sea People wars in Egypt were a mass
migration moving through the Levite. The Sea People settled in
Southern Gaza and were a part of the world of the Middle East.
The idea that a King of Egypt would sail to Crete for the purposes
whoring around, and would then find a princess, take her back to
Egypt, and the Greeks would mount a massive war effort in 1,200
against Egypt is simply not valid.
We have accounts of Sea People fighting with Hittites and Jews in that
area. We have coffins and jugs from their settlements in the Gaza.
This was a migration not an group of Greeks going to Egypt to fight
over a princess.
Beyond that how would one ever prove that this strange new idea.
Odysseus
>
> If you are interested in what I am trying to say it is simple (and I
> don't ask you to be), the Sea People wars in Egypt were a mass
> migration moving through the Levite.
Sounds sort of like Asimov's _Fantastic Voyage_, but on a much larger
scale. Did they pass through members of any other tribe on the way? ;)
--Odysseus
bobbyhaqq
Well I imagine perhaps you have heard of migrations, it is when one
group of people move, in mass, with their families from one place to
settle in another ;) It has been known to happen once in a while in
human history.
Neville Lindsay
Odysseus, you beat me to the punch, but as expected, the irony was a bit
deep for him - he simply isn't smart enough to twig the difference between
Levi and Levant. Swine have been cast before your pearls.
NL
grapheus
Your FAITH in the LEGEND is AMAZING to me !!! .. And in which year,
month and week did the Goddess Athena intervene in the fight ?...
Happy New Year !
grapheus
grapheus
Your narrative is a mixture of facts, legend and hypotheses !..
> The is no suggest. The Trojan War is dated to EXACTLY 1193-1183 BC by all
> Greek historians.
>
This is not exact, but let's suppose it is, for convenience sake.
> Agamemnon retuned to Mycenae and his murder occurred on 13 Gamelion 1183 BC
> whcih is corroborated by the Annular Solar Eclipse of 12 January 1183 BC
> that would have been seen from Anatolia and which marked the beginning of
> the reign of every new Pelopid king.
>
> Aegisthius coronation took place at the time of the Total Solar Eclipse of
> 19 April 1178 BC and this was the same year that the suitors of Penelope
> arrived at Ithaca. Orestes murdered Aegisthius at the time of the Total
> Solar Eclipse of Aug 19 1176 BC. In the following year 1175 BC Menelaus
> returned from Egypt 8 years after the Trojen ware. This was EXACTLY the same
> year the Ramses III expelled the Sea People from Egypt including the Danai,
> Pelast (Pelasgians) and Teukrians of Salamis led by Teucer the cousin of
> Achilles who then captured Cyprus. All of these peoples are recorded in the
> inscription of Ramses III and coroborated the accounts of Herodotus,
> Apollodorus, and Euripides "Helen" where both Teucer and Menelaus arrive in
> Egypt after being defeated in a naval batted as recorded by the murals above
> Ramses III inscription.
>
> Tsiamneus took the throne at the time of the Totals Solar Eclipse of May 18
> 1124 BC when Orestes died at the age of 70 as recoded by Greek historians.
>
> http://www.enthymia.co.uk/Myths2.htm
>
> http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/ParaApion.htm
>
> During this time the Biblical Exodus occurs in Exactly 1193 BC according to
> the Bible.
>
Therefore, from your own calculations : Trojan War : 1183 at the
latest. Attack of Egypt under Ramesses III : 1175. This is what you
call : "Simultaneous" !!!
> Egypt was ruled by between 4 of 5 Pharaohs reigning simultaneously.
This is an hypothesis !.. There is NO HINT that Mineptah was not
reigning alone !
After his death, yes, there has been a struggle between at least two
candidates to the throne. You should read the book : "Moses, the
Pharaoh" by the German egyptologist Rolf Krauss. Enlightning !..
>
> Using Euripides account and the extant inscriptions it is possible to
> determine that Proetus was Pharoh Setnakhte and that the "Helen" that was
> engaged to be mareid to Theoclymenos (Ramses III) was based on Twosret who
> shared her tomb with Setnakhte hence the story of Helen spending all the
> time as a suppliant to the tomb of Proetus.
>
Hypotheses of yours !.. Possibly right, possibly wrong !..
> The first born son of Pharaoh who the bible described as being killed by the
> Angel of Death was either Seti II or Seti-Ramase or both.
>
Another hypothesis of yours !..
> Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower Egypt.
New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following R.
Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
> One or
> the other of these or both were the Pharaoh of Moses, hence the change of
> mind of Pharaoh after he let Moses leave Egypt.
>
> Setnakhte is the LORD GOD of Moses since Jeremiah makes it perfectly clear
> beyond doubt that the LORD GOD of the bible was always a Pharaoh of Egypt.
> Merneptah-Siptah would have been to young to take on that role.
>
>
> Chronology
>
> 1212 BC Amenophis/Amenemses becomes pharaoh of Egypt after Ramses II
>
> 1211 BC Seti is born to Amenemses
>
> 1206 BC Egypt is invaded by an alliance of Sea Peoples led by the Teukrians.
NO. Where are the proofs of this ?.. WHO are "the Teukrians" ???
> Menelaus marries Helen and the Greeks pledges him allegiance. Amenemses and
> Seti aged 5 flee from Memphis to Ethiopia.
>
??????
> 1203 BC Helen is abducted by Paris the prince of Troy.
>
> 1201 BC Agamemnon leads the Greeks to Asia Minor but the cannot find the
> Trojans.
Wow ! Where were they hidden ?..
>
> 1200 BC Merneptah becomes king at Memphis. Paris arrives in Egypt with Helen
A wedding trip, perhaps ?..
> and is entertained by Proteus.
How could Proteus be "king of Memphis" (Herodotus), if Merneptah was
???
>
> 1195 BC Proteus finds out that Paris has committed a crime against the
> Greeks and orders him to leave. Merneptah begins his campaign against the
> Sea Peoples and after one year finally expels the Teukrians.
Not your mysterious "Teukrians" : the Libyans !.. (See Merneptah's
inscriptions)
> His allies
> included the Akawasha (Achaeans), Luka (Lycians), Tursha (Tyrsenoi or
> Tyrennians), Sheklesh (Cycladians/Sikeloi or Sicilians) and the Sherden
> (Sardinians).
>
> 1194 BC Paris is expelled from Egypt and returns to Troy.
After a six year wedding trip ?..
CONCLUSION : A nice subject for romance, with little historical truth
!..
Happy New Year !
grapheus
Jorn Barger
> > This culture was long established in the region, and ultimately
> > settled there.
>
> Not "in the region". On the coast, only.
What is the evidence for this?
Agamemnon
This is NOT legend but historical fact recorded in writing.
> month and week did the Goddess Athena intervene in the fight ?...
The Athena cult was based in part on the Atthis cult which was began at
Athens in 1440 BC. This was merged with the Egyptian Neith cult which was
brought to Greece by Danus (recorded in Egyptian texts) between 1488 and
1472 BC.
>
> Happy New Year !
Same to you.
>
> grapheus
Agamemnon
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:<auc1e9$sca$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> Your narrative is a mixture of facts, legend and hypotheses !..
>
> > The is no suggest. The Trojan War is dated to EXACTLY 1193-1183 BC by
all
> > Greek historians.
> >
>
> This is not exact, but let's suppose it is, for convenience sake.
The date is exact and confirmed by the Solar Eclipse below.
Since Menelaus was involved in both they were historical concurrent.
Menelaus attack on Egypt was in reprisal to Memnon the king of Ethiopia
(Merneptah-Siptah) sending force to assist the Trojans.
>
> > Egypt was ruled by between 4 of 5 Pharaohs reigning simultaneously.
>
> This is an hypothesis !.. There is NO HINT that Mineptah was not
> reigning alone !
WRONG.
Mantho says that lower Egypt was ruled by Amenemses and that Ethiopia was
ruled by another Pharaoh who owed Amenemses a favour. These two pharaohs
along with Seti II grandson of Rmases II all took part in the expulsion of
the Sea Peoples. So says Manetho.
At the same time as this Setnakte the son of Ramases was still alive and he
would have had a better claim to the throne than Mernepta-Sipta who was
still an infant.
> After his death, yes, there has been a struggle between at least two
> candidates to the throne. You should read the book : "Moses, the
> Pharaoh" by the German egyptologist Rolf Krauss. Enlightning !..
>
I prefer to rely on primary evidence.
> >
> > Using Euripides account and the extant inscriptions it is possible to
> > determine that Proetus was Pharoh Setnakhte and that the "Helen" that
was
> > engaged to be mareid to Theoclymenos (Ramses III) was based on Twosret
who
> > shared her tomb with Setnakhte hence the story of Helen spending all the
> > time as a suppliant to the tomb of Proetus.
> >
>
> Hypotheses of yours !.. Possibly right, possibly wrong !..
There is no possibly about it. The story of the Phantom Helen was not part
of Homers account as Herodotus makes perfectly clear. This story was
invented somewhere between 800 and 650 BC and based on Egyptian texts
brought back by the Ionians.
>
> > The first born son of Pharaoh who the bible described as being killed by
the
> > Angel of Death was either Seti II or Seti-Ramase or both.
> >
>
> Another hypothesis of yours !..
>
> > Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower Egypt.
>
> New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following R.
> Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
Manetho.
>
> > One or
> > the other of these or both were the Pharaoh of Moses, hence the change
of
> > mind of Pharaoh after he let Moses leave Egypt.
> >
> > Setnakhte is the LORD GOD of Moses since Jeremiah makes it perfectly
clear
> > beyond doubt that the LORD GOD of the bible was always a Pharaoh of
Egypt.
> > Merneptah-Siptah would have been to young to take on that role.
> >
> >
> > Chronology
> >
> > 1212 BC Amenophis/Amenemses becomes pharaoh of Egypt after Ramses II
> >
> > 1211 BC Seti is born to Amenemses
> >
> > 1206 BC Egypt is invaded by an alliance of Sea Peoples led by the
Teukrians.
>
> NO. Where are the proofs of this ?.. WHO are "the Teukrians" ???
The Teukrians are Trojens or "Tjehenu" in the inscription of Merneptah.
The similarity between the words Trojens and "Tjehenu" makes it perfectly
clear that these people came from the city of Troy itself and not just the
region of Teukria.
Manetho dates the invasion to 1206 BC when Seti II was 5.
The inscription of Ramses III referring to 1175 BC names Teucer the son of
Telamon "Tjeker" (Teukrian on his mothers side) and also mentions the
Spartans or "Sped" in referring to events in 1178 BC.
>
> > Menelaus marries Helen and the Greeks pledges him allegiance. Amenemses
and
> > Seti aged 5 flee from Memphis to Ethiopia.
> >
>
> ??????
See Maetho.
http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/ParaApion.htm
>
> > 1203 BC Helen is abducted by Paris the prince of Troy.
> >
> > 1201 BC Agamemnon leads the Greeks to Asia Minor but the cannot find the
> > Trojans.
>
> Wow ! Where were they hidden ?..
The Trojans were in Egypt so of course Agamemnon could not find them. They
didn't return to Troy until Merneptah expelled them.
>
> >
> > 1200 BC Merneptah becomes king at Memphis. Paris arrives in Egypt with
Helen
>
> A wedding trip, perhaps ?..
Euripides says he was blown off course and ended up in Egypt where he left
Helen behind. More likely Paris came to reinforce the Teukrian forces after
sacking Sparta and abducting the women.
>
> > and is entertained by Proteus.
>
> How could Proteus be "king of Memphis" (Herodotus), if Merneptah was
> ???
Everyone claimed they were king of Memphis even Amenemses. In reality
Memphis was abandoned in 1206 BC to the invaders. So anyone could claim
kingship.
>
> >
> > 1195 BC Proteus finds out that Paris has committed a crime against the
> > Greeks and orders him to leave. Merneptah begins his campaign against
the
> > Sea Peoples and after one year finally expels the Teukrians.
>
> Not your mysterious "Teukrians" : the Libyans !.. (See Merneptah's
> inscriptions)
Merneptah says Teukrinas
"Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace"
The Teukrinas were neghbours of the Hittites. Merneptah starts his list at
Troy then moves to eastern Anatolia the down through Palestine to Egypt
listing the peoples as they appear in order.
>
> > His allies
> > included the Akawasha (Achaeans), Luka (Lycians), Tursha (Tyrsenoi or
> > Tyrennians), Sheklesh (Cycladians/Sikeloi or Sicilians) and the Sherden
> > (Sardinians).
> >
> > 1194 BC Paris is expelled from Egypt and returns to Troy.
>
> After a six year wedding trip ?..
A six year orgy of rape and pillage.
>
> CONCLUSION : A nice subject for romance, with little historical truth
> !..
WRONG.
June R Harton
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Z%5Q9.13282$aV5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
Nevile, I see you are at it again. Keep your nastiness out of here, please.
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
June R Harton
> > > scale. Did they pass through members of any other tribe on the way? ;)
> > >
> > > --Odysseus
> deep for him - he simply isn't smart enough to twig the difference between
> Levi and Levant. Swine have been cast before your pearls.
More like "Swine is just posted on Odysseus' tail", Nevile.
bobbyhaqq
> Odysseus, you beat me to the punch, but as expected, the irony was a bit
> deep for him - he simply isn't smart enough to twig the difference between
> Levi and Levant. Swine have been cast before your pearls.
>
Oh, I am in a thread with the comic book store guy on the Simpsons!
I have never gotten in to a flame war over Ancient History, and I gues
I am too old to start now.
Wow big guy, you get insulting over a threat on the Sea People. I mean
thats ancient History. And to flame someone with a joke like Levi and
Levites. I bet that works great at bars with the girls eh? I figured
I could be petty and pathetic but this is really sad. I mean who
wants to grow up to be the kind of person who insults people about the
history of the Sea People.
You should read this post again and ask yourself why you felt the need
to insult someone over a thread like this. I never insulted you, and
the entire issue is utterly unimportant. I mean this is a debate
about a wild theory concerning the Sea People. We are talking 3,000
years ago. I fail to see any reason for insults. Jokes are one thing,
but insults. You are clearly of those people so pathetic you need to
flame others on a very obscure Usenet thread in order to fell better
about yourself. Maybe you could insult some people over Roman
history, or use that killer wit of yours in a thread about the Indus
Valley civ.
I mean the joke is really one you. You insult people on the Usenet
over the history of the Sea People. I mean what more need be said?
Neville Lindsay
> "Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:<XdtQ9.18288
>
> > Odysseus, you beat me to the punch, but as expected, the irony was a bit
> > deep for him - he simply isn't smart enough to twig the difference
between
> > Levi and Levant. Swine have been cast before your pearls.
> >
>
> Oh, I am in a thread with the comic book store guy on the Simpsons!
>
> I have never gotten in to a flame war over Ancient History, and I gues
> I am too old to start now.
>
> Wow big guy, you get insulting over a threat on the Sea People. I mean
> thats ancient History. And to flame someone with a joke like Levi and
> Levites. I bet that works great at bars with the girls eh? I figured
> I could be petty and pathetic but this is really sad. I mean who
> wants to grow up to be the kind of person who insults people about the
> history of the Sea People.
You just don't have it in you to admit to a blooper do you? People all the
time here have the spirit to say 'soree' or 'my bad', but you exhibit your
'I am right' attitude right to the end. And you have been trying to hide
behind the pretence that it is only your spelling which is being criticised.
Says it all - megalomania.
Pathetic.
NL
Italo
grapheus schreef:
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > 1206 BC Egypt is invaded by an alliance of Sea Peoples led by the Teukrians.
>
> NO. Where are the proofs of this ?.. WHO are "the Teukrians" ???
The Trojans consist of three branches, the Troes, the Dardanoi and the Teukroi.
In legend Tros is a grandson of Dardanus, descendant of Atlas. When Dardanus'
people migrated to Anatolia (by way of Samothrace) they ally with an earlier
arrival, Teucer, who gives them the hill Bateia to build their first city on.
Strabo about the Teucrians (13.1.1+) :
"When the Teucrians arrived from Crete (Callinus the elegiac poet was the first
to hand down an account of these people, and many have followed him), they had
an oracle which bade them to "stay on the spot where the
earth-born should attack them"; and, he says the attack took place round
Hamaxitus, for by night a great multitude of field-mice swarmed out of the
ground and ate up all the leather in their arms and equipment; and
the Teucrians remained there; and it was they who gave its name to Mt. Ida,
naming it after the mountain in Crete. [...] Others say that a certain Teucer
came from the deme of Troes, now called Xypeteones, in Attica, but that no
Teucrians came from Crete. As a further sign of the close relationship of the
Trojans with the people of Attica they record the fact the Erichthonius was one
of the original founders on both tribes."
An remainder of the Teucrians in the Troad were the Gergithes (of the town
Gergis). their prime deity, as the Trojans, was Athena.
Agamemnon
"Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:3E131C61...@home.nl...
1500 Scamander/Xanthus
1460 Teucer
1440 Dardanus
1404 Erichthonius
1374 Tros
1330 IIyus
1282 Laodemon
1242 Priam
1183 Paris
bobbyhaqq
>
> You just don't have it in you to admit to a blooper do you? People all the
> time here have the spirit to say 'soree' or 'my bad', but you exhibit your
> 'I am right' attitude right to the end. And you have been trying to hide
> behind the pretence that it is only your spelling which is being criticised.
> Says it all - megalomania.
>
> Pathetic.
Mealomania, wow. This is starting to read like one of those nerd
jokes on the Simpsons.
Well let me take this chance to say I am sorry for wasting your time.
I am sorry that a man of your great intellect needed to waste his time
insulting the likes of me. Please accept my regrets for wasting you
precious time and brillance.
Really actually you are a very brite person, it shows. I just fail to
understand why you are so motivated to insult people over a group
concerning the Sea People.
grapheus
Well, this is a curious notion concerning simultaneity !...
> >
> > > Egypt was ruled by between 4 of 5 Pharaohs reigning simultaneously.
> >
> > This is an hypothesis !.. There is NO HINT that Mineptah was not
> > reigning alone !
>
> WRONG.
>
> Mantho says that lower Egypt was ruled by Amenemses and that Ethiopia was
> ruled by another Pharaoh who owed Amenemses a favour. These two pharaohs
> along with Seti II grandson of Rmases II all took part in the expulsion of
> the Sea Peoples. So says Manetho.
>
But he did'n't say that this "Pharaoh who owed a favour to Ameneses"
was Mineptah !.. This is the crucial point !..
> At the same time as this Setnakte the son of Ramases was still alive and he
> would have had a better claim to the throne than Mernepta-Sipta who was
> still an infant.
>
> > After his death, yes, there has been a struggle between at least two
> > candidates to the throne. You should read the book : "Moses, the
> > Pharaoh" by the German egyptologist Rolf Krauss. Enlightning !..
> >
>
> I prefer to rely on primary evidence.
>
But he gives primary evidence !.. Evidence that you don't know...
> > >
> > > Using Euripides account and the extant inscriptions it is possible to
> > > determine that Proetus was Pharoh Setnakhte and that the "Helen" that
> was
> > > engaged to be mareid to Theoclymenos (Ramses III) was based on Twosret
> who
> > > shared her tomb with Setnakhte hence the story of Helen spending all the
> > > time as a suppliant to the tomb of Proetus.
> > >
> >
> > Hypotheses of yours !.. Possibly right, possibly wrong !..
>
> There is no possibly about it. The story of the Phantom Helen was not part
> of Homers account as Herodotus makes perfectly clear.
Herodotus is not infallible !.. In some cases, he told false stories
!..
> This story was
> invented somewhere between 800 and 650 BC and based on Egyptian texts
> brought back by the Ionians.
>
> >
> > > The first born son of Pharaoh who the bible described as being killed by
> the
> > > Angel of Death was either Seti II or Seti-Ramase or both.
> > >
> >
> > Another hypothesis of yours !..
> >
> > > Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower Egypt.
> >
> > New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following R.
> > Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
>
> Manetho.
>
Manetho does'n't cite the Merneptah name, as far as I remember... This
double reign corresponds more, following Rolf Krauss, at what happened
AFTER Merneptah's death...
And what about the city itself ? And what about their wives and
children ?.. Would the Trojan warriors be out-of-town at that time,
Agamemnon would have been glad to pillage the city, and tell it to the
whole world !..
Your hypothesis is just absurd.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 1200 BC Merneptah becomes king at Memphis. Paris arrives in Egypt with
> Helen
> >
> > A wedding trip, perhaps ?..
>
> Euripides says he was blown off course and ended up in Egypt where he left
> Helen behind. More likely Paris came to reinforce the Teukrian forces after
> sacking Sparta and abducting the women.
>
> >
> > > and is entertained by Proteus.
> >
> > How could Proteus be "king of Memphis" (Herodotus), if Merneptah was
> > ???
>
> Everyone claimed they were king of Memphis even Amenemses. In reality
> Memphis was abandoned in 1206 BC to the invaders. So anyone could claim
> kingship.
>
Another hard-to-believe explanation of yours !.. And concerning
Memphis, there is another, more credible explanation in Rolf Krauss
concerning the obliteration of some names on its monuments in this
confused period !..
> >
> > >
> > > 1195 BC Proteus finds out that Paris has committed a crime against the
> > > Greeks and orders him to leave. Merneptah begins his campaign against
> the
> > > Sea Peoples and after one year finally expels the Teukrians.
> >
> > Not your mysterious "Teukrians" : the Libyans !.. (See Merneptah's
> > inscriptions)
>
> Merneptah says Teukrinas
>
> "Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace"
>
> The Teukrinas were neghbours of the Hittites. Merneptah starts his list at
> Troy then moves to eastern Anatolia the down through Palestine to Egypt
> listing the peoples as they appear in order.
>
This is another hypothesis of yours, that little if any Egyptologist
will share !.. The general opinion is that Mineptah (I am not saying :
Ramesses !) has fought only against Lybians, helped by Mycenaeans.
> >
> > > His allies
> > > included the Akawasha (Achaeans), Luka (Lycians), Tursha (Tyrsenoi or
> > > Tyrennians), Sheklesh (Cycladians/Sikeloi or Sicilians) and the Sherden
> > > (Sardinians).
> > >
> > > 1194 BC Paris is expelled from Egypt and returns to Troy.
> >
> > After a six year wedding trip ?..
>
> A six year orgy of rape and pillage.
>
> >
> > CONCLUSION : A nice subject for romance, with little historical truth
> > !..
>
> WRONG.
>
RIGHT !
bobbyhaqq
> > jo...@enteract.com (Jorn Barger) wrote in message news:<16e613ec.02122...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Give it up, Bob. Your brain is mush.
> >
> > Well I don't know how to respond to a point like this.
> >
> > Yesterday I spent a couple hours in the British Museum going through
> > the Ancient Levite desplay cases. What struck me is that they have
> > coffins of Sea People found in Gaza, along with houshold implements
> > and tons of jars. All the signs of a settled people.
> >
>
> In Gaza, i.e. on the coast, yes !
So the coast is not the region? As I understand it coast lines are
parts of regions.
>
> > This culture was long established in the region, and ultimately
> > settled there.
>
> Not "in the region". On the coast, only.
>
Again, is not the coast line in the region? Gaza is on the coast in
this region.
Also, they caused trouble for almost all the players in this region.
> > There is no evidence that this was a long sea voyage
> > of conquest by the Greeks to Egypt and then back,
>
> Agreed. Nevertheless, the culture of these "Sea People" is Mycenaean.
> What do you mean by "back" ?.. back to where ?..
>
The point I was debating against said that Homer, a Greek, was writing
about the Sea People. Therefore, the back means Greece.
> > in fact we have
> > references to the Sea People in the area of the Gaza from Hebrew,
> > Egyptian, and Hittite references covering hundreds of years.
> >
>
> Not "hundreds of years" . About 100 years.
On this I must surrender. My memory failed me on this one. Upon
further reading I see that I was in error as for the time span that
has been established for the Sea People. It was about 100 years
established. I deeply regret the harm I seemed to cause some of our
more sensitive readers.
But do you agree that the Sea People were a migration of entire family
units over generations?
>
> > There is a great deal not known about the Sea People, but we do know
> > that they were a mass migration taking advantage of economic problems
> > in Canaan.
>
> Or fleing from their own countries !.
Well I never said they were not fleeing. The issue I am addressing is
why they ended up in Gaza.
>
> > They tried to invade Egypt but were forced back.
>
> Yes. But they settled pretty massively into Canaan.
>
Yes.
> > They
> > are, at this point, an entirely Levite people living in the Universe
> > of Assyrians, Hittites, Hebrews, Phonecians, and Egyptians.
>
> What do you call "a Levite people" ?.. Do you mean a "Semitic people"
> ?.. Then this is not true at the time when the Sea people arrived into
> Canaan. It's true a century later... When they arrived, they were
> already mixed peoples, with a Mycenaean culture.
>
They lived in the Levant, they were part of that world. They are
mentioned by the Hebrews, Hittites, and Jews.
As I wrote, they were living in the Universe of Assyrians, Hittites,
Hebrews, Phonecians, and Egyptians. They are part of the near east,
not part of the Greek world.
Again I regret my failure to express myself. My point is rather
simple, the Sea People came to Egypt via a migration which resulted in
their settling in Gaza.
> Best Wishes to all !
And a happy new year.
bobbyhaqq
Sea People artifacts dug up in Gaza, including jars and coffins.
Agamemnon
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:<auuqbh$gue$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Therefore, from your own calculations : Trojan War : 1183 at the
> > > latest. Attack of Egypt under Ramesses III : 1175. This is what you
> > > call : "Simultaneous" !!!
> >
> > Since Menelaus was involved in both they were historical concurrent.
> > Menelaus attack on Egypt was in reprisal to Memnon the king of Ethiopia
> > (Merneptah-Siptah) sending force to assist the Trojans.
> >
>
> Well, this is a curious notion concerning simultaneity !...
Menelaus went to Egypt in 1183 BC after the sack of Troy and remained there
for 8 years. Learn some history.
> > >
> > > > Egypt was ruled by between 4 of 5 Pharaohs reigning simultaneously.
> > >
> > > This is an hypothesis !.. There is NO HINT that Mineptah was not
> > > reigning alone !
> >
> > WRONG.
> >
> > Mantho says that lower Egypt was ruled by Amenemses and that Ethiopia
was
> > ruled by another Pharaoh who owed Amenemses a favour. These two pharaohs
> > along with Seti II grandson of Rmases II all took part in the expulsion
of
> > the Sea Peoples. So says Manetho.
> >
>
> But he did'n't say that this "Pharaoh who owed a favour to Ameneses"
> was Mineptah !.. This is the crucial point !..
If it wasn't Merneptah then the only other Pharaoh it could have been was
Setnakte. Either way there were at least 2 Pharaohs ruling in Egypt plus a
regent Seti II.
>
> > At the same time as this Setnakte the son of Ramases was still alive and
he
> > would have had a better claim to the throne than Mernepta-Sipta who was
> > still an infant.
> >
> > > After his death, yes, there has been a struggle between at least two
> > > candidates to the throne. You should read the book : "Moses, the
> > > Pharaoh" by the German egyptologist Rolf Krauss. Enlightning !..
> > >
> >
> > I prefer to rely on primary evidence.
> >
>
> But he gives primary evidence !.. Evidence that you don't know...
WRONG. I have cited primarily evidence.
>
> > > >
> > > > Using Euripides account and the extant inscriptions it is possible
to
> > > > determine that Proetus was Pharoh Setnakhte and that the "Helen"
that
> > was
> > > > engaged to be mareid to Theoclymenos (Ramses III) was based on
Twosret
> > who
> > > > shared her tomb with Setnakhte hence the story of Helen spending all
the
> > > > time as a suppliant to the tomb of Proetus.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hypotheses of yours !.. Possibly right, possibly wrong !..
> >
> > There is no possibly about it. The story of the Phantom Helen was not
part
> > of Homers account as Herodotus makes perfectly clear.
>
> Herodotus is not infallible !.. In some cases, he told false stories
> !..
RUBBISH. There is NO proof that Herodotus told false stories. His Egyptian
history is perfectly sound.
>
> > This story was
> > invented somewhere between 800 and 650 BC and based on Egyptian texts
> > brought back by the Ionians.
> >
> > >
> > > > The first born son of Pharaoh who the bible described as being
killed by
> > the
> > > > Angel of Death was either Seti II or Seti-Ramase or both.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Another hypothesis of yours !..
> > >
> > > > Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower Egypt.
> > >
> > > New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following R.
> > > Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
> >
> > Manetho.
> >
>
> Manetho does'n't cite the Merneptah name, as far as I remember... This
> double reign corresponds more, following Rolf Krauss, at what happened
> AFTER Merneptah's death...
Manetho is referring to a 19 year reign for Amememses and that make him
contemporary to Merneptah.
Further more the evidence of the bodies of the Mummies of Seti II and
Merneptah Sipta show that they continued to live until 1186 and 1175 BC
respectively, meaning that they were usurped by Twosret and Setnakte. And if
Seti-Ramase is the son of Pharaoh who the bible says was killed by
Moses/Angel of Death that means that Seti II was a full Pharaoh in 1193 at
the same time as Amenemses and Merneptah and Merneptah-Sipta and Twosret and
Setnakte was lurking in the background.
WRONG. Agamemnon would NOT have attacked a city unless it refused to submit
to him. If all the war lords were away from Troy then the city would have
been of no use to Agamemnon and posed no threat so what was the point of war
with no one to fight.
The Trojans probably took their wives and children with them and went to
Egypt over the land route, like the Cimmerians and Skyths did 500 year
later.
Herakles had already destroyed Troy in 1241 BC so the city was a shadow of
its former self.
The bible also states that Pharaoh (aka. the LORD GOD) brought the
Philistines out of Cappodicia and the Syrians out of the Red Sea (the deep).
Thus there is plenty of evidence of full scale land migrations. Canaan is
also called the land of the Philistines by the bible which further
reinforces the fact the Canaanites and Phoenicians were descended from
Agenor the son of Libya, daughter of Epaphus, son of Io, daughter of Inachus
the king of Argos. The bible also makes all the sons of Noah to be
Europeans.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1200 BC Merneptah becomes king at Memphis. Paris arrives in Egypt
with
> > Helen
> > >
> > > A wedding trip, perhaps ?..
> >
> > Euripides says he was blown off course and ended up in Egypt where he
left
> > Helen behind. More likely Paris came to reinforce the Teukrian forces
after
> > sacking Sparta and abducting the women.
> >
> > >
> > > > and is entertained by Proteus.
> > >
> > > How could Proteus be "king of Memphis" (Herodotus), if Merneptah was
> > > ???
> >
> > Everyone claimed they were king of Memphis even Amenemses. In reality
> > Memphis was abandoned in 1206 BC to the invaders. So anyone could claim
> > kingship.
> >
>
> Another hard-to-believe explanation of yours !.. And concerning
> Memphis, there is another, more credible explanation in Rolf Krauss
> concerning the obliteration of some names on its monuments in this
> confused period !..
Manetho makes Amenemses king of Memphis at the same time that Mernepta
claims to be king, except that Amenemses abandoned the cist in 1206 BC so
Mernepta could say what he liked.
This is what the king list should read
1212-1206 Amenemses (exiled 1206-1194)
1206-1195 Priam/Podakis (king of Memphis)
1200-1194 Merneptah (king of Ethiopia nominally over Memphis)
1194-1193 Amenemses (king of Memphis)
1194-1193 Seti II (king of Memphis)
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1195 BC Proteus finds out that Paris has committed a crime against
the
> > > > Greeks and orders him to leave. Merneptah begins his campaign
against
> > the
> > > > Sea Peoples and after one year finally expels the Teukrians.
> > >
> > > Not your mysterious "Teukrians" : the Libyans !.. (See Merneptah's
> > > inscriptions)
> >
> > Merneptah says Teukrinas
> >
> > "Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace"
> >
> > The Teukrinas were neghbours of the Hittites. Merneptah starts his list
at
> > Troy then moves to eastern Anatolia the down through Palestine to Egypt
> > listing the peoples as they appear in order.
> >
>
> This is another hypothesis of yours, that little if any Egyptologist
> will share !.. The general opinion is that Mineptah (I am not saying :
> Ramesses !) has fought only against Lybians, helped by Mycenaeans.
The general opinion my arse. Merneptah NAMED the people he fought with and
against. All his enemies are named in sequence from east to west Anatolia
and north to south Palestine and into Egypt; the Trojens to the Hittites to
the Canaanites, to the people of Ashdod, Gaza, Ammon? Israel, Cush, and the
Apiru or Bandits of Egypt.
"The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued [ie. the Apiru].
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,
Given life like Re every day."
>
>
> > >
> > > > His allies
> > > > included the Akawasha (Achaeans), Luka (Lycians), Tursha (Tyrsenoi
or
> > > > Tyrennians), Sheklesh (Cycladians/Sikeloi or Sicilians) and the
Sherden
> > > > (Sardinians).
> > > >
> > > > 1194 BC Paris is expelled from Egypt and returns to Troy.
> > >
> > > After a six year wedding trip ?..
> >
> > A six year orgy of rape and pillage.
> >
> > >
> > > CONCLUSION : A nice subject for romance, with little historical truth
> > > !..
> >
> > WRONG.
> >
>
>
> RIGHT !
WRONG !!
bobbyhaqq
>
> Nevile, I see you are at it again. Keep your nastiness out of here, please.
>
>
I would just want Nevile to know that he is so bright and creative a
person that flaming not only adds nothing but it changes the subject.
If a mental health professional was to read his posts on this thread
they could not escape the question: "For what reason do you feel the
need to insult people on this thread?"
You just want to say to the guy:
"Nevile, you are very very very smart. I wish I could write as well
as you. Flaming about issues of ancient history only dimish you
intellect."
Its sad to see someone so talented engaging so often in behavior which
just undermines the dignity of his education and creativity. At
present the brilliance of many of his posts are simply lost in the
aggression of his flames.
o8TY
--
o8TY
"Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:3E131C61...@home.nl...
>
>
Dardanus and Teucer were both Pelasgians ex Krete, as were the Athenians.
The Trojan War was between Axaians and Pelasgians. Ultimately the Pelasgians
won because they got back the Peloponnese by expelling the Axaians with the
help of the Dorians and then they settled Rome.
Italo
o8TY schreef:
> "Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote
Maybe Dardanus and Tros represent Tyrsenian 'pelasgians' while Teucer respesents
an Proto-Ionian group of 'pelasgians' from Attica or Salamis who alied when they
met *before* they all migrated to N.W.Anatolia
Agamemnon
TWADDLE.
The Tyrsenian Pelasgi came from Thessaly. Presumably they were descended
from Pelasguns the son of Niobe in 1600 BC.
Teucer was the son of Scamander aka. Xanthus and thus was a Hellene. Priam
even had a son called Helenus.
Scamander/Xanthus was probably a son of Aeolus (1448 BC) who was descended
from Deukalion I who was around at the time of the Thera Erruption in 1628
BC. This would be in line with Euripides genealogy of Achaeus who was a son
of Xuthus the son of Aeolus since Archander the son of Acaheus is required
to have lived at around 1472 BC so as to have married a daughter of Danus
(in 1457 BC after the killed their original husbands). This would make
Metanastes the son of Archander the father of Lacedaemon whose daughter
married Acrisius. Thus both the descendents of Perseus and the Spartans
could call themselves Achaeans but the citizens of Argos were called Danai
since the were descended from Proetus son Megapenthes who had nothing to do
with Acaheus, Peseus having swapped Argos with Megapenthes for Mycenae and
the coastal cities.
Erichthonius rulled at Athens at the same time as Erichthonius the son of
Dardanus ruled at Troy. Their regins ended in 1374 BC.
Since Teucer was the son of Scamander/Xanthus and ruled in 1460 BC that
would mean that he was also Deukalion II and possibly he was also Cranaus at
Athens who ruled at the same time since none of these kings ever met.
Dardanus came from Samothrace and succeded Tecuer in 1440 BC after he
married his daughter Batia.
bobbyhaqq
>
RUBBISH. Wow, now that is nice.
>
> The Sea Peoples boar the names of know Greek tribes including Danai,
> Achaeans, Pelasgians and Teukrians. The Teukrians make have been named after
> their leader Tuecer the son of Telamon and therefore the Egyptian
> inscription confirms the existence of this king.
And the evidence that the sea people returned to modern day Greece and
their stories and culture became part of Classic Greek culture is
where again?
>
> The Greeks invaded Egypt in 1667 BC at the time of the abduction of Io. The
> entire 18th and 19th Dynasties were their descendents. Perseus was even
> married to Amenhotep III's daughter Andromenda (Ankhesenamen) and the palace
> at Mycenae bares Amenhotep III's cartouch. Alcius killed Hormemheb and his
> successor Ramses I and Eumolpus was even educated in Horemhebs court and
> married one of his daughters.
>
These claims seem a bit specific for the studies I've seen of early
Bronze Age cultures. How can you be so certain of specific contacts?
>
> RUBBISH.
>
> The Greeks controlled the sea and the whole of Palestine and all of
> Asia-Minor by 1175 BC.
Wait a minutre here, I really am lost.
Now who do you mean precisely by Greeks? Ethnic groups which had
lived for a time in what is modern day Greece, or some proto-Hellenic
empire.
Do you or do you not see the Sea Peoples movements to Gaza as a mass
migration? Do you beleive that these "Greek" communities were united
politically in any way?
grapheus
Thanks for the reference concerning Strabo.
But all this is pretty confusing !.. If I follow the reconstruction of
the history of Troy, as described by J.Faucounau in his book about the
Proto-Ionians, Troy had, from the beginning (2900 BC) on, a mixed
population : Proto-Ionian Greeks and Luwians. With Troy IV (c.2200
BC), the Luwian population was the most important, but with Troy VI
(beginning c.1700 BC), the city was re-opened to Aegean influences :
from Crete and the Cycladic islands first, then after 1470 from the
Mycenaean Greece. Then, after the destruction of the city of Troy VI
in 1250BC, Troy became a Mycenaean colonial town until the natural
catastrophe (tsunami) of c.1200.
So, who are the Teukrians ?.. Proto-Ionians ? Minoans ? Mycenaeans ?
Thracians ? Others ?..
From Strabo's reference, only the hypothesis of Thracians seems
excluded... But their link with the Gergithes (a Persian P.Name !) is,
at the least, bizarre !..
Alexander Hay
find someone else to insult regarding some other insidiously unimportant subject.
hehehehehe. Entertaining though.
bobbyhaqq wrote:
--
Alexander J. Hay III, esq.
Attorney at Law
Tel. (US): 713-680-3033
Fax. (US): 713-680-0502
email: alexan...@post.harvard.edu
ASSET PROTECTION, TAX REDUCTION AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTING.
NEW: http://www.squireorg.com/privacypassport/
Agamemnon
> >
> > RUBBISH
>
> RUBBISH. Wow, now that is nice.
> >
> > The Sea Peoples boar the names of know Greek tribes including Danai,
> > Achaeans, Pelasgians and Teukrians. The Teukrians make have been named
after
> > their leader Tuecer the son of Telamon and therefore the Egyptian
> > inscription confirms the existence of this king.
>
> And the evidence that the sea people returned to modern day Greece and
> their stories and culture became part of Classic Greek culture is
> where again?
The evidence is on Cyprus and at Sparta. Teucer was the ancestor of the
kings of Salamis named after the island of the coast of Athens where he was
expelled and Meneleus retuned to Sparta and gave his daughter in marriage to
Orestes. Egyptian inscriptions mention both the Spartans or Sped and Teucer
ie. Tjeker.
Agapenor and his Arcadian Pelasgi also settled on Cyprus and became the
ruler of Paphos. The Pelasgi or Pelast are named by Ramses III.
Not long after the historic accounts came to Homer at Samos who wrote the
Iliad in 840 BC.
>
> >
> > The Greeks invaded Egypt in 1667 BC at the time of the abduction of Io.
The
> > entire 18th and 19th Dynasties were their descendents. Perseus was even
> > married to Amenhotep III's daughter Andromenda (Ankhesenamen) and the
palace
> > at Mycenae bares Amenhotep III's cartouch. Alcius killed Hormemheb and
his
> > successor Ramses I and Eumolpus was even educated in Horemhebs court and
> > married one of his daughters.
> >
>
> These claims seem a bit specific for the studies I've seen of early
> Bronze Age cultures. How can you be so certain of specific contacts?
Because Herodotus names Horemheb as Moeris and dates his reign to 900 years
before he wrote his Histories in 440 BC. Apollodorus identifies him as
Busiris and confirm Herodotus account of Alcius killing him. Both mistake
him for Alciades or Herakels but Herakles lived at the time of Rmases II and
died a decade before Ramases II so the story has to have been about Alcius
who probably also ruled over Lydia from 1315 to 1290 BC going by Herodotus
date for his great grandson Agron of 1221 BC.
There is also plenty of evidence for foreign princes being educated in Egypt
and the inscriptions of Amenhotep III are set in stone so are indisputable.
>
> >
> > RUBBISH.
> >
> > The Greeks controlled the sea and the whole of Palestine and all of
> > Asia-Minor by 1175 BC.
>
> Wait a minutre here, I really am lost.
>
> Now who do you mean precisely by Greeks? Ethnic groups which had
> lived for a time in what is modern day Greece, or some proto-Hellenic
> empire.
The Greek speaking Danai, Achaeans, Pelasgians, Aeolians, Lycians,
Militians, Teukrians and Minyans.
>
> Do you or do you not see the Sea Peoples movements to Gaza as a mass
> migration? Do you beleive that these "Greek" communities were united
> politically in any way?
Ramses III says they were united politically and so does Homer. Agamemnon
was their chosen leader.
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<auuqbh$gue$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
SNIP
I maintain that confusing the Trojan War with the attacks of Egypt by
the Sea Peoples leads to absurdities.
The heart of the matter concerns Merneptah, as shown by this exchange
:
> > > > > Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower Egypt.
> > > >
> > > > New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following R.
> > > > Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
> > >
> > > Manetho.
> > >
> > Manetho does'n't cite the Merneptah name, as far as I remember... This
> > double reign corresponds more, following Rolf Krauss, at what happened
> > AFTER Merneptah's death...
>
> Manetho is referring to a 19 year reign for Amememses and that make him
> contemporary to Merneptah.
>
The generally accepted chronology says that Merneptah, son of Ramesses
II reigned *alone* from 1213 to 1203. He was obviously a VERY POWERFUL
pharaoh : one has just to give a look at the monuments he left !..
After his death, there has been a struggle between his successors.
His "designed" successor Amenemes (who could have been nominated as
co-regent by Merneptah, so the 19 year-counting) has had a very short
reign *as a full pharaoh*, and surely a troubled one. That his
immediate successor, Seti II, was a full pharaoh (as you say
hereafter) in 1193 is possible. But this does'n't change the fact that
under Merenptah, there was NO POSSIBILITY for foreign conquerors
(Menelaus or another) to settle in the Delta. Supposing the contrary
is not allowed : The "Israel Stele that you quote hereafter is clear
enough with the fact that Merenptah would have not tolerated it. You
CANNOT transform him, as you do, in a "second hand pharaoh", whose
power was limited to Ethiopia !!!
> Further more the evidence of the bodies of the Mummies of Seti II and
> Merneptah Sipta show that they continued to live until 1186 and 1175 BC
> respectively, meaning that they were usurped by Twosret and Setnakte. And if
> Seti-Ramase is the son of Pharaoh who the bible says was killed by
> Moses/Angel of Death that means that Seti II was a full Pharaoh in 1193
YES !
> at the same time as Amenemses and Merneptah
NO ! Merenptah was dead since 1203 !
> and Merneptah-Sipta and Twosret and
> Setnakte was lurking in the background.
>
> > > > > Chronology
> > > > >
> > > > > 1212 BC Amenophis/Amenemses becomes pharaoh of Egypt after Ramses II
NO !
> > > > > 1211 BC Seti is born to Amenemses
> > > > >
Yes !
> > > > > 1206 BC Egypt is invaded by an alliance of Sea Peoples led by the
> Teukrians.
> > > >
NO ! You are mixing two inscriptions : the Israel Stele and the Karnak
Great Inscription. Only the second one relates an attack by the Sea
Peoples, who are said TO HELP THE LIBYANS. The "Teukrians"/Tjeker are
NOT mentionned in this inscription. Consult again your sources !..
> > >
> > > Manetho dates the invasion to 1206 BC when Seti II was 5.
> > >
The date seems correct.
Conclusion : Your theory does'n't fit with the fact that Merenptah WAS
A POWERFUL PHARAOH. The flaw is in the TOO LATE DATE for the "Trojan
War" that you adopted, stretching it moreover to reach 1206, date of
the first attack of Egypt by the Peoples o the Sea, in help of the
Libyans : The Karnak inscription is very clear about this : the head
of the assailants was Meryai, the Libyan.
grapheus
bobbyhaqq
>
> Ramses III says they were united politically and so does Homer. Agamemnon
> was their chosen leader.
So the Greeks of Greece and the Sea People of Gaza existed in a single
Empire then? As early as 1,200 BCE, with a single ruler.
I am not convinced.
bobbyhaqq
> UTTER AND TOTAL BOREDOM IS MY BET. Stop responding and let them go and they will
> find someone else to insult regarding some other insidiously unimportant subject.
>
> hehehehehe. Entertaining though.
>
I don't think it is funny at all. NL is a brilliant thinker and a
excellent writer, a man of immense talent and creativity. Humanity
needs men of his capacity. I wish he would stop wasting his time
insulting over such tiny matters, he owes it to the world to not waste
himself by being so petty over nothing.
I've seen so much talent in my life wasted. And the world is run by
idiots motivated by greed and ignorance. To see someone so gifted
undermining himself with such irrational and pointless hatred is just
tragic. He could clearly be a gift historian,
Agamemnon
Then read Homer. All the Greek kings made a treaty of alliance in 1215 BC at
the marriage of Helen. In 1201 BC they chose Agamemnon as there leader.
Egyptian texts confirm this alliance. The sea people of Gaza were Cypriots.
Palestine was a Cypriot dominion as confirmed by the archeolongy. Cyprus
kings between 1183 and 1151 BC were Agapenor from Arkadia, Teucer from
Salamis and Demophon from Athens.
Italo
grapheus schreef:
>
> Italo <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message news:<3E131C61...@home.nl>...
> > grapheus schreef:
> > >
> > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >
> > > > 1206 BC Egypt is invaded by an alliance of Sea Peoples led by the Teukrians.
> > >
> > > NO. Where are the proofs of this ?.. WHO are "the Teukrians" ???
> >
> > The Trojans consist of three branches, the Troes, the Dardanoi and the Teukroi.
> > In legend Tros is a grandson of Dardanus, descendant of Atlas. When Dardanus'
> > people migrated to Anatolia (by way of Samothrace) they ally with an earlier
> > arrival, Teucer, who gives them the hill Bateia to build their first city on.
> >
> >
> > Strabo about the Teucrians (13.1.1+) :
(Strabo 13.1.48 rather)
> > "When the Teucrians arrived from Crete (Callinus the elegiac poet was the first
> > to hand down an account of these people, and many have followed him), they had
> > an oracle which bade them to "stay on the spot where the
> > earth-born should attack them"; and, he says the attack took place round
> > Hamaxitus, for by night a great multitude of field-mice swarmed out of the
> > ground and ate up all the leather in their arms and equipment; and
> > the Teucrians remained there; and it was they who gave its name to Mt. Ida,
> > naming it after the mountain in Crete. [...] Others say that a certain Teucer
> > came from the deme of Troes, now called Xypeteones, in Attica, but that no
> > Teucrians came from Crete. As a further sign of the close relationship of the
> > Trojans with the people of Attica they record the fact the Erichthonius was one
> > of the original founders on both tribes."
> >
> >
> > An remainder of the Teucrians in the Troad were the Gergithes (of the town
> > Gergis). their prime deity, as the Trojans, was Athena.
and Apollo Smintheus..
> Thanks for the reference concerning Strabo.
> But all this is pretty confusing !.. If I follow the reconstruction of
> the history of Troy, as described by J.Faucounau in his book about the
> Proto-Ionians, Troy had, from the beginning (2900 BC) on, a mixed
> population : Proto-Ionian Greeks and Luwians.
There is some evidence that suggest early cultural/trade relations with the
west, as far as Sicily and Malta. e.g for the 3 so called "bossed bone plaques"
from latter third millenium Troy, there are more similar and contemporary
specimens found in Malta, south-Italy, and especially Sicily(Castelluccian
Culture).
> With Troy IV (c.2200
> BC), the Luwian population was the most important, but with Troy VI
> (beginning c.1700 BC), the city was re-opened to Aegean influences :
> from Crete and the Cycladic islands first, then after 1470 from the
> Mycenaean Greece.
> Then, after the destruction of the city of Troy VI
> in 1250BC, Troy became a Mycenaean colonial town
Heracles(Alcaeus) puts Priam as a younster on the throne of Troy as a vassal,
its only when the Heraclides are deposed from their kingdoms in Greece, leaving
only Mysia to Telephus, that Troy again gets to lead in the east.
> until the natural
> catastrophe (tsunami) of c.1200.
A tsunami from sea, or a riverflood? (Maybe the death of Laocoon and his sons by
sea-serpents is a metaphore?) is there any evidence for earlier floods from the
sea?
> So, who are the Teukrians ?.. Proto-Ionians ? Minoans ? Mycenaeans ?
> Thracians ? Others ?..
I'd say they're from the same pelasgian (Proto-Ionian?) stock as the
Athenians/Salaminians.
> From Strabo's reference, only the hypothesis of Thracians seems
> excluded...
What is this Thracian hypthesis. Has it to do with the Paeonians saying
[Her.5.13.1] that they were a colony from the Teucrians of Troy?
Further on [7.20.2] Herodotus says :
"..the one [army] of the Mysians and Teucrians which before the Trojan war
crossed the Bosporus into Europe, subdued all the Thracians, and came down to
the Ionian sea, marching southward as far as the river Peneus."
This is by some suggested to be a reversal, because the Mysians are supposed to
come *from* Thrace(Moesia) rather then to, but if it really happened this would
be the reason for the Paeonians claim. And for the Dardanians in Illyria maybe.
btw, Herodotus also mentions Dardanians in Syria [1.189], could they be a colony
of the Dardanians who went with the Hittites to fight at Kadesh? I think memory
of this expedition may be reflected in the myth of the Trojan campaign towards
Susa, where they allied themselves (by marriage) to the 'eastern-Aethiopians'
(Elamites?), whose prince Memnon later came to help defend Troy.
> But their link with the Gergithes (a Persian P.Name !) is,
> at the least, bizarre !..
If you mean the Persian general by the name 'Gergis', could it be that his name
was derived from the region? (like 'Germanicus' was the nickname of several
Roman generals who fought the ancient Germans)
>
> Happy New Year !
>
> grapheus
P.S. below some mentions regarding Gergis
"Then when the army [of Xerxes] had come to the river Scamander,--which of all
rivers to which they had come, since they set forth from Sardis and undertook
their march, was the first of which the stream failed and
was not sufficient for the drinking of the army and of the animals with
it,--when, I say, Xerxes had come to this river, he went up to the Citadel of
Priam, having a desire to see it; and having seen it and learnt by inquiry of
all those matters severally, he sacrificed a thousand heifers to Athene of
Ilion, and the Magians poured libations in honour of the heroes: and after they
had done this, a fear fell upon the army in the night. Then at break of day he
set forth from thence, keeping on his left hand the cities of Rhoition and
Ophryneion and Dardanos, which last borders upon Abydos, and having on the right
hand the Gergith Teucrians." [Her. 7.43]
Rhoition, Ophryneion and Dardanos are to the north-east of Ilium, on the
Hellespont, so Gergis should've been to the east or south-east of Ilium. Maybe
Gergis was what Strabo calls the "village of the Illians"(Bali Dagh?) :
"Yet even Ilus did not have full courage, for he did not found the city [Ilium]
at the place where it now is, but about thirty stadia higher up towards the
east, and towards Mt. Ida and Dardania, at the place now called "Village of the
Ilians." But the people of the present Ilium, being fond of glory and wishing to
show that their Ilium was the ancient city, have offered a troublesome argument
to those who base their evidence on the poetry of Homer, for their Ilium does
not appear to have been the Homeric city." [Strabo 13.1.25]
"In the territory of Lampsacus is a place called Gergithium which is rich in
vines; and there was also a city called Gergitha from Gergithes in the territory
of Cyme, for here too there was a city called Gergithes, in the feminine plural,
the birthplace of Cephalon the Gergithian. And still today a place called
Gergithium is pointed out in the territory of Cyme near Larissa." [Strabo
13.1.19]
"Near the sources [of the Caicus river] is a village called Gergitha, to which
Attalus transferred the Gergithians of the Troad when he had destroyed their
place."Strabo [13.1.70]
Happy New Year
Regards,
Italo
Agamemnon
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:<av1acq$l6e$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:<auuqbh$gue$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
>
> SNIP
>
> I maintain that confusing the Trojan War with the attacks of Egypt by
> the Sea Peoples leads to absurdities.
WRONG.
The Achaeans and Teukrians are named by Merneptah and the Danai, Teukrians,
Pelsgians and Spartans are named by Ramses III. The siege of Troy and the
attacks by the Sea People were part of the same war.
> The heart of the matter concerns Merneptah, as shown by this exchange
> :
>
> > > > > > Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower
Egypt.
> > > > >
> > > > > New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following R.
> > > > > Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
> > > >
> > > > Manetho.
> > > >
> > > Manetho does'n't cite the Merneptah name, as far as I remember... This
> > > double reign corresponds more, following Rolf Krauss, at what happened
> > > AFTER Merneptah's death...
> >
> > Manetho is referring to a 19 year reign for Amememses and that make him
> > contemporary to Merneptah.
> >
>
> The generally accepted chronology says that Merneptah, son of Ramesses
That chronology is wrong.
Manetho says Amenemses the son of Ramses reigned 19 year therefore he began
his reign in 1212 BC. He also says that the Sea Peoples remeind in Egypt for
13 years and that when they came to Egypt Amenemses fled with his 5 year old
son Seti.
> II reigned *alone* from 1213 to 1203. He was obviously a VERY POWERFUL
Not possible.
The Sea Peoples stayed in Egypt for 13 years therefore Merneptahs reign
isn't long enough. Seti II would not have been considered a legitimate heir
unless he was born during Amenmeses reign therefore this places the attack
of the Sea Peoples in 1206 BC and their final expulsion in 1193 BC.
> pharaoh : one has just to give a look at the monuments he left !..
You mean defaced.
> After his death, there has been a struggle between his successors.
> His "designed" successor Amenemes (who could have been nominated as
> co-regent by Merneptah, so the 19 year-counting) has had a very short
> reign *as a full pharaoh*, and surely a troubled one. That his
Amenemses went into exile in 1206 BC and returned in 1194 BC only to die in
1193.
> immediate successor, Seti II, was a full pharaoh (as you say
> hereafter) in 1193 is possible. But this does'n't change the fact that
> under Merenptah, there was NO POSSIBILITY for foreign conquerors
> (Menelaus or another) to settle in the Delta. Supposing the contrary
WRONG. Manetho says they did and that Memphis was abandoned form 13 years.
Also according to Manetho Merneptah or Mephres reigned for 13 years. This
means that Merneptah was nominally Pharaoh over Memphis during Amenemses
exile but he never set foot in the city during this time. He dies in 1194 BC
after he partially expels the Sea Peoples
> is not allowed : The "Israel Stele that you quote hereafter is clear
> enough with the fact that Merenptah would have not tolerated it. You
> CANNOT transform him, as you do, in a "second hand pharaoh", whose
> power was limited to Ethiopia !!!
Yes I can. Since Memphis was occupied by the Sea Peoples and Amenemses was
in exile the king of Ethiopia was nominally Pharaoh of all Egypt.
I also postulate that Setnakte was regent in Memphis as an ally of the Sea
Peoples since Euripides makes it clear that as the father of Ramses
III/Theoclymenos he must have been Proetus. This also backs up my earlier
assertion that he was also the God of Moses, since it is clear from Jeremiah
that the God of Israel was always a reference to the Pharaoh of Egypt. When
God appears to Moses in the wilderness it is during the time that the Sea
Peoples occupy Egypt. Manetho makes out Osarsiph to be Moses but it is more
likely that this Osarsiph was Setnakte.
>
> > Further more the evidence of the bodies of the Mummies of Seti II and
> > Merneptah Sipta show that they continued to live until 1186 and 1175 BC
> > respectively, meaning that they were usurped by Twosret and Setnakte.
And if
> > Seti-Ramase is the son of Pharaoh who the bible says was killed by
> > Moses/Angel of Death that means that Seti II was a full Pharaoh in 1193
>
> YES !
>
> > at the same time as Amenemses and Merneptah
>
> NO ! Merenptah was dead since 1203 !
NO ! Merneptah was dead in 1194 BC. He was only nominally king of all Egypt
from 1206 BC when Amenemses went into exile and Setnakte was not recognised
as the legitimate heir.
>
> > and Merneptah-Sipta and Twosret and
> > Setnakte was lurking in the background.
> >
>
> > > > > > Chronology
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1212 BC Amenophis/Amenemses becomes pharaoh of Egypt after
Ramses II
>
> NO !
According to Manetho he does and he reigns in Memphis, therefore Merneptah
could not have reigned there at the same time. Merneptah was king of
Ethiopia only untill 1206 BC.
>
> > > > > > 1211 BC Seti is born to Amenemses
> > > > > >
>
> Yes !
>
> > > > > > 1206 BC Egypt is invaded by an alliance of Sea Peoples led by
the
> > Teukrians.
> > > > >
>
> NO ! You are mixing two inscriptions : the Israel Stele and the Karnak
No I am not.
> Great Inscription. Only the second one relates an attack by the Sea
> Peoples, who are said TO HELP THE LIBYANS. The "Teukrians"/Tjeker are
> NOT mentionned in this inscription. Consult again your sources !..
Yes they are. I even quoted it to you.
The Achaeans are called in to help Merneptah fight the Libyans, but a
seprate battle also takes place in Palestine where Israel is left barren and
the Teukrias are defeated along with 7 other peoples who make up the 9 Bows.
The Apiru referred to in this inscription are the people that Manetho says
dwelt in Avaris.
>
> > > >
> > > > Manetho dates the invasion to 1206 BC when Seti II was 5.
> > > >
>
> The date seems correct.
>
> Conclusion : Your theory does'n't fit with the fact that Merenptah WAS
> A POWERFUL PHARAOH. The flaw is in the TOO LATE DATE for the "Trojan
Merenptah was a nobody.
> War" that you adopted, stretching it moreover to reach 1206, date of
> the first attack of Egypt by the Peoples o the Sea, in help of the
> Libyans : The Karnak inscription is very clear about this : the head
> of the assailants was Meryai, the Libyan.
The attack of the Libyans has nothing to do with the Sea Peoples.
The Sea Peoples attack from a base in Palestine in 1206 BC and are expelled
in 1193 BC when they return to Troy and the Trojan War begins.
In 1203 BC Paris comes to Egypt with Helen and this is why Agamemnon cannot
find him at Troy in 1201 BC. It is about this time that the Achaeans are
called in to assist Merneptah since it is at this time 1202 BC that Odysseus
goes to Cyprus to solicit the help of Cinyras thus a trip to Libya on route
is feasable. Cinyras at this time was already engaged in a war over seas so
was only able to contribute one real ship and 49 ships made of clay.
>
> grapheus
Agamemnon
>
>
> grapheus schreef:
> >
The Greek ships were hit by storms on their return from Troy in 1183 BC. If
there was ever a tsunami then it would have to date to this date.
>
> > So, who are the Teukrians ?.. Proto-Ionians ? Minoans ? Mycenaeans ?
> > Thracians ? Others ?..
>
> I'd say they're from the same pelasgian (Proto-Ionian?) stock as the
> Athenians/Salaminians.
The people of Salamis were Minyans from Boeotian Orchomenos.
>
> > From Strabo's reference, only the hypothesis of Thracians seems
> > excluded...
>
> What is this Thracian hypthesis. Has it to do with the Paeonians saying
> [Her.5.13.1] that they were a colony from the Teucrians of Troy?
The Paeonians were so named after Paeon the son of Endymion a grandson of
Deukalion who migrates there from Aethlia. That dates the colony to 1360 BC
which would be in the same generation that Tereus the king of Thrace assists
Erechteus at Athens..
If the Paeonians were from Troy that would mean that Deukalion and Teucer
were the same person. Cranaus the king of Athens was probably the same
person too since Amphytrion the son of Deukalion succeeded him to the throne
followed by Erichthonius who was Cranaus grandson by Atthis or Athena and
Hephaestus.
Erichthonius the king of Troy was the son of Batia the daughter of Teucer
and Dardanus. Since Batia and [B]atthis are very similar I suspect that both
stories are based on the same tradition as recorded by Troy and Sparta
respectively in their own dialects.
In the original poem Dardanus would have been substituted by Hephaestus
appearing in the form of Dardanus. At the time that Herakles sacked Troy
Homer relates the story of Hephaestus trying to usurp the throne of Zeus and
being thrown out of Olympus for trying to rescue Hera who was chained up by
Zeus, thus Hephaestus must have been a reference to one of Laomedons sons
attempting to rescue Hesione.
bobbyhaqq
>
> Then read Homer. All the Greek kings made a treaty of alliance in 1215 BC at
> the marriage of Helen. In 1201 BC they chose Agamemnon as there leader.
> Egyptian texts confirm this alliance. The sea people of Gaza were Cypriots.
> Palestine was a Cypriot dominion as confirmed by the archeolongy. Cyprus
> kings between 1183 and 1151 BC were Agapenor from Arkadia, Teucer from
> Salamis and Demophon from Athens.
Well as I recall Homer has Athena coming down from Heave to fight with
the Greeks. As I recall she weighed a great deal.
Was that also correct?
Jorn Barger
> They lived in the Levant, they were part of that world. They are
> mentioned by the Hebrews, Hittites, and Jews.
> As I wrote, they were living in the Universe of Assyrians, Hittites,
> Hebrews, Phonecians, and Egyptians. They are part of the near east,
> not part of the Greek world.
> Again I regret my failure to express myself. My point is rather
> simple, the Sea People came to Egypt via a migration which resulted in
> their settling in Gaza.
Jorn's idea of communication, for contrast (improvements explicitly
requested):
The Late Bronze Age (1600BC to 1100BC, but ymmv) is an
especially challenging period. In the Aegean, the Minoan
palaces were at their peak. In Egypt, the New Kingdom
drove out the Hyksos and inundated the world with gold
from their Nubian mines. The Mitanni kingdom supplied
queens to the Egyptian pharaohs. The Hittites rose to
power in Anatolia.
The Amarna tablets offer some vivid glimpses of
international geopolitics c1350BC-- squabbling in
Palestine, eastern rulers grovelling for gifts of Egyptian
gold: http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/luxor/tablets.html
Egypt was aware of Aegean/Minoan culture even long before
the LBA: http://members.tripod.com/kekaitiare/greece.htm
It was named as one of the traditional 'Nine Bows' that
Egypt dominated as early as Amenhotep III:
http://www.chafer.edu/CTSjournal/journals/97-01.htm
By 1200BC, Aegean colonists from Sicily and Sardinia may
have been allying themselves with Egypt's Libyan enemies,
as recorded by Merneptah. Minoan murals seem to depict
Libya as a close but 'exotic' neighbor. Shipwrecks from
south of Anatolia c1300 and 1200 may imply that
Phoenicians already dominated sea-trade along that route.
This was the age of chariot warfare, but the balance of
power seems to have shifted c1200, perhaps because
swarming footsoldiers discovered how to overpower the
chariots: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1994/94.01.09.html
Homer's Iliad seems to recall the heroics of this era, but
there was a near-universal collapse after this time which
remains unexplained. (One theory is that the Greeks had
cut down all their forests to smelt their bronze, and the
consequent depletion of the topsoil meant the mainland
almost totally ceased to support agriculture.)
more links etc: http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/troy.html
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<av1acq$l6e$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<auuqbh$gue$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > I maintain that confusing the Trojan War with the attacks of Egypt by
> > the Sea Peoples leads to absurdities.
>
> WRONG.
>
> The Achaeans and Teukrians are named by Merneptah
NOT in the Karnak Inscription, which relates the attack by the People
of the Sea !.. The "Israel Stele" DOES NOT ! Please, READ WHAT I WROTE
!
>and the Danai, Teukrians,
> Pelsgians and Spartans are named by Ramses III.
Irrelevant !
> The siege of Troy and the
> attacks by the Sea People were part of the same war.
>
That is what YOU say !..
In spite of the difference in the dates !..
> > The heart of the matter concerns Merneptah, as shown by this exchange
> > :
>
> > > > > > > Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower
> Egypt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following R.
> > > > > > Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Manetho.
> > > > >
> > > > Manetho does'n't cite the Merneptah name, as far as I remember... This
> > > > double reign corresponds more, following Rolf Krauss, at what happened
> > > > AFTER Merneptah's death...
> > >
> > > Manetho is referring to a 19 year reign for Amememses and that make him
> > > contemporary to Merneptah.
> > >
> >
> > The generally accepted chronology says that Merneptah, son of Ramesses
>
> That chronology is wrong.
>
That is what YOU say !.. Against the opinion of ALL Egyptologists !..
Would you be an unrecognized genius ?..
> Manetho says Amenemses the son of Ramses reigned 19 year therefore he began
> his reign in 1212 BC.
NOT necessarily !.. He was appointed co-regent during the Merneptah's
reign. This explains Manetho's calculation !
> He also says that the Sea Peoples remeind in Egypt for
> 13 years
AFTER Merenptah's death !.. NOT BEFORE !
>and that when they came to Egypt Amenemses fled with his 5 year old
> son Seti.
>
> > Merneptah reigned *alone* from 1213 to 1203. He was obviously a VERY POWERFUL
> > pharaoh : one has just to give a look at the monuments he left !..
>
> You mean defaced.
>
Before some of them were defaced, they were ERECTED !!! Your remark
has no meaning !
> > After his death, there has been a struggle between his successors.
> > His "designed" successor Amenemes (who could have been nominated as
> > co-regent by Merneptah, so the 19 year-counting) has had a very short
> > reign *as a full pharaoh*, and surely a troubled one. That his
>
> Amenemses went into exile in 1206 BC and returned in 1194 BC only to die in
> 1193.
How do you know THAT ?.. Did you deduced it from your calculations, in
order to maintain your theory ?..
>
> > immediate successor, Seti II, was a full pharaoh (as you say
> > hereafter) in 1193 is possible. But this does'n't change the fact that
> > under Merenptah, there was NO POSSIBILITY for foreign conquerors
> > (Menelaus or another) to settle in the Delta. Supposing the contrary
>
> WRONG. Manetho says they did
NO ! YOU said that !.. Manetho does'n't cite Merneptah !.. YOU DID !..
> and that Memphis was abandoned form 13 years.
During Amenemses reign, YES !.. NOT during Merenptah's reign !..
> Also according to Manetho Merneptah or Mephres reigned for 13 years.
As far as I know, the figure has been obliterated !.. It's just
"10+x". Most Egyptologists have chosen the number 10, fixing
Merneptah's reign from 1213 to 1203. Personnally, I see no objection
to a slightly different figure : from 1213 to 1200, if you like it
better !..
> This
> means that Merneptah was nominally Pharaoh over Memphis during Amenemses
> exile but he never set foot in the city during this time. He dies in 1194 BC
> after he partially expels the Sea Peoples
>
SPECULATION OF YOURS, based upon YOUR theory about Merenptah, a
"second hand pharaoh" in your theory !!!
> > is not allowed : The "Israel Stele that you quote hereafter is clear
> > enough with the fact that Merenptah would have not tolerated it. You
> > CANNOT transform him, as you do, in a "second hand pharaoh", whose
> > power was limited to Ethiopia !!!
>
> Yes I can.
Sure, YOU can !.. Against any plausibility !..
As for me, I am sticking to the MATHEMATICAL TRUTH : 1193 is NEITHER
equal to 1206, nor to 1175, and the Trojan War has - in a direct way -
NOTHING to do with the attacks of the Sea Peoples against Egypt. You
may put any argument you want in trying to destroy these mathematical
equations, enunciating horrors like "Merenptah was a second hand
pharaoh, ruling only over Ethiopia" -- "Pāris spent more than 10 years
in Egypt" (Where did you find a single trace of this in the legend
???) -- Etc. , you will not change my opinion.
THIS IS FINAL.
grapheus
grapheus
> grapheus schreef:
> >
> > Italo <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message news:<3E131C61...@home.nl>...
> > > grapheus schreef:
> > > >
> > > The Trojans consist of three branches, the Troes, the Dardanoi and the Teukroi.
Yes. This is mentioned in J.F.'s book, with some illustrations.
> > With Troy IV (c.2200
> > BC), the Luwian population was the most important, but with Troy VI
> > (beginning c.1700 BC), the city was re-opened to Aegean influences :
> > from Crete and the Cycladic islands first, then after 1470 from the
> > Mycenaean Greece.
>
> > Then, after the destruction of the city of Troy VI
> > in 1250BC, Troy became a Mycenaean colonial town
>
> Heracles(Alcaeus) puts Priam as a younster on the throne of Troy as a vassal,
> its only when the Heraclides are deposed from their kingdoms in Greece, leaving
> only Mysia to Telephus, that Troy again gets to lead in the east.
>
> > until the natural
> > catastrophe (tsunami) of c.1200.
>
> A tsunami from sea, or a riverflood? (Maybe the death of Laocoon and his sons by
> sea-serpents is a metaphore?) is there any evidence for earlier floods from the
> sea?
>
See the J.F.'s paper in ANISTORITON at
<http://users.hol.gr/~dilos/anistor/vpoints/v024.htm>
(I know that this author will soon publish a whole book on the
matter).
> > So, who are the Teukrians ?.. Proto-Ionians ? Minoans ? Mycenaeans ?
> > Thracians ? Others ?..
>
> I'd say they're from the same pelasgian (Proto-Ionian?) stock as the
> Athenians/Salaminians.
>
The word "Pelasgians" is pretty ambiguous, as explained in J.F.'s book
on the Proto-Ionians. It covers different ethnies. So, saying that the
Teukrians were "Pelasgians" is probably correct, but does'n't explain
much !..
> > From Strabo's reference, only the hypothesis of Thracians seems
> > excluded...
>
> What is this Thracian hypthesis. Has it to do with the Paeonians saying
> [Her.5.13.1] that they were a colony from the Teucrians of Troy?
>
Yes.
> Further on [7.20.2] Herodotus says :
> "..the one [army] of the Mysians and Teucrians which before the Trojan war
> crossed the Bosporus into Europe, subdued all the Thracians, and came down to
> the Ionian sea, marching southward as far as the river Peneus."
>
Interesting !.. But not very enlightening !..
> This is by some suggested to be a reversal, because the Mysians are supposed to
> come *from* Thrace(Moesia) rather then to, but if it really happened this would
> be the reason for the Paeonians claim. And for the Dardanians in Illyria maybe.
> btw, Herodotus also mentions Dardanians in Syria [1.189], could they be a colony
> of the Dardanians who went with the Hittites to fight at Kadesh?
Personally, I believe that the Dardanians are nothing but the Trojans.
More precisely, the name they gave to themselves.
> I think memory
> of this expedition may be reflected in the myth of the Trojan campaign towards
> Susa, where they allied themselves (by marriage) to the 'eastern-Aethiopians'
> (Elamites?), whose prince Memnon later came to help defend Troy.
>
> > But their link with the Gergithes (a Persian P.Name !) is,
> > at the least, bizarre !..
>
> If you mean the Persian general by the name 'Gergis', could it be that his name
> was derived from the region? (like 'Germanicus' was the nickname of several
> Roman generals who fought the ancient Germans)
>
> P.S. below some mentions regarding Gergis
Thanks again for thos Strabo's quoting !.. Pretty interesting !
>
> Happy New Year
>
> Regards,
>
> Italo
Same to you ! Happy New Year !
grapheus
Agamemnon
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:<av2l85$dcm$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:<av1acq$l6e$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:<auuqbh$gue$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > I maintain that confusing the Trojan War with the attacks of Egypt by
> > > the Sea Peoples leads to absurdities.
> >
> > WRONG.
> >
> > The Achaeans and Teukrians are named by Merneptah
>
> NOT in the Karnak Inscription, which relates the attack by the People
> of the Sea !.. The "Israel Stele" DOES NOT ! Please, READ WHAT I WROTE
> !
WRONG. It quoted you the Israel Stele and the Teukrians are named in
geographical sequence. There is no mistaking them.
>
> >and the Danai, Teukrians,
> > Pelsgians and Spartans are named by Ramses III.
>
> Irrelevant !
Completely relevant.
>
> > The siege of Troy and the
> > attacks by the Sea People were part of the same war.
> >
>
> That is what YOU say !..
> In spite of the difference in the dates !..
There is no difference in the dates. The Sea Peoples of Palestine are
expelled from Egypt in the same year the Trojan War begins 1193 BC in the
19th year of Amenemses, 13 years after they arrived.
>
> > > The heart of the matter concerns Merneptah, as shown by this exchange
> > > :
> >
> > > > > > > > Merneptah was ruling over Ethiopia and Amenemses over Lower
> > Egypt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > New Hypothesis of yours, and this time surely false, following
R.
> > > > > > > Krauss !.. Where are the proofs of your statement ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Manetho.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Manetho does'n't cite the Merneptah name, as far as I remember...
This
> > > > > double reign corresponds more, following Rolf Krauss, at what
happened
> > > > > AFTER Merneptah's death...
> > > >
> > > > Manetho is referring to a 19 year reign for Amememses and that make
him
> > > > contemporary to Merneptah.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The generally accepted chronology says that Merneptah, son of Ramesses
> >
> > That chronology is wrong.
> >
>
> That is what YOU say !.. Against the opinion of ALL Egyptologists !..
> Would you be an unrecognized genius ?..
The standard Egyptian chronology is subject to a margin of error of +/-5
years. The traditional Greek chronology based on a date of summer 776 BC for
the first Olympiad is subject to a margin of error of +/- 6 months. Thus the
date of 1193 BC for the Trojen war is far more accurate than the date
adopted by modern Egyptologists for the beginning of the reign of Mernepta.
If Merneptahs reign is moved down 6 years to 1206-1193 BC to corresponded
with Manethos account and the length of reign attributed to Mephres then
this is entirely within the margin of error and completely justified.
Merneptah was a king of Ethiopia and was only nominally in control of Lower
Egypt when Amenemeses went into exile in 1206 BC.
>
> > Manetho says Amenemses the son of Ramses reigned 19 year therefore he
began
> > his reign in 1212 BC.
>
> NOT necessarily !.. He was appointed co-regent during the Merneptah's
> reign. This explains Manetho's calculation !
WRONG. Amenemses was the full king of Lower Egypt from 1212 to 1206 BC and
when he went into exile he was co-regent with Mernemtah the king of Ethiopia
who owed him a favour for services rendered.
>
> > He also says that the Sea Peoples remeind in Egypt for
> > 13 years
>
> AFTER Merenptah's death !.. NOT BEFORE !
NO. Merneptah expelled the sea peoples so they must have remained in Egypt
for 13 year during his own reign.
>
> >and that when they came to Egypt Amenemses fled with his 5 year old
> > son Seti.
> >
> > > Merneptah reigned *alone* from 1213 to 1203. He was obviously a VERY
POWERFUL
> > > pharaoh : one has just to give a look at the monuments he left !..
> >
> > You mean defaced.
> >
>
> Before some of them were defaced, they were ERECTED !!! Your remark
> has no meaning !
Merneptah defaced other Pharaohs inscriptions.
>
> > > After his death, there has been a struggle between his successors.
> > > His "designed" successor Amenemes (who could have been nominated as
> > > co-regent by Merneptah, so the 19 year-counting) has had a very short
> > > reign *as a full pharaoh*, and surely a troubled one. That his
> >
> > Amenemses went into exile in 1206 BC and returned in 1194 BC only to die
in
> > 1193.
>
> How do you know THAT ?.. Did you deduced it from your calculations, in
> order to maintain your theory ?..
According to Manetho the Sea Peoples are expelled simultaneously by
Amenemses, Seti II and the King of Ethiopia in their 13th year of
occupation. That year is 1194-1193 BC. According to Merneptah he takes a
full year to expel the Teukrians and Hittites 1195-1194 BC. The year common
to both accounts is 1194 BC which gives the Teukrians a full year to return
to Troy for the Trojan War to begin in 1193 BC.
>
> >
> > > immediate successor, Seti II, was a full pharaoh (as you say
> > > hereafter) in 1193 is possible. But this does'n't change the fact that
> > > under Merenptah, there was NO POSSIBILITY for foreign conquerors
> > > (Menelaus or another) to settle in the Delta. Supposing the contrary
> >
> > WRONG. Manetho says they did
>
> NO ! YOU said that !.. Manetho does'n't cite Merneptah !.. YOU DID !..
Manetho specifically states that the foreign conquerors sacked Memphis and
remained there for 13 years. At the time Amenemses went into exile and
subjugated himself to the king of Ethiopia, who was neither Seiti or
himself. That leave only Merneptah and Setnakte as the possible candidates.
Since Euripides makes it perfetly clerar that Setnakte the father of Ramses
III/Theoclymense was Proetus, that means Merneptah was king of Ethiopia.
This is corroborated by Herodotus who says that Proetus was king at Memphis
at the very same time.
The Chronology for Memphis is as follows.
1212 Amenemses
1206 Setnakte/Proetus
1194 Merneptah, Amenemses, Seti II
A
1193 Merneptah-Sipta/Memnon (vassel of Twosret and Bay)
1187-1183 Twosret (alone while Memnon is at Troy)
B
opposed by
1193-1182 Setnakte/Proetus/the God of Israel
1182 Ramses III/Theoclymenos/Rampsinitus
The Chronology for Ethiopia is as follows.
1212 Merneptah
A
1193 Merneptah-Sipta/Memnon
1187-1183 Twosret (alone)
B
opposed by
1193-1182 Setnakte/Proetus/the God of Israel
1182 Ramses III/Theoclymenos/Rampsinitus
>
> > and that Memphis was abandoned form 13 years.
>
> During Amenemses reign, YES !.. NOT during Merenptah's reign !..
Merenptah was king of Ethiopia during the 13 year occupation of Memphis.
>
> > Also according to Manetho Merneptah or Mephres reigned for 13 years.
>
> As far as I know, the figure has been obliterated !.. It's just
> "10+x". Most Egyptologists have chosen the number 10, fixing
> Merneptah's reign from 1213 to 1203. Personnally, I see no objection
> to a slightly different figure : from 1213 to 1200, if you like it
> better !..
I told you Merneptah was only the king of Ethiopia. His power did not extend
to Lower Egypt until Amenemses was expelled from Memphis by the Sea Peoples
in 1206 BC. 1206 BC marks the beginning of Merneptahs nominal reign over
Memphis and all Egypt, opposed by Proetus who Herodotus say actually ruled
at Memphis at the time of the abduction of Helen 1203 BC and the time that
Menelaus came to Egypt 1183 BC
>
> > This
> > means that Merneptah was nominally Pharaoh over Memphis during Amenemses
> > exile but he never set foot in the city during this time. He dies in
1194 BC
> > after he partially expels the Sea Peoples
> >
>
> SPECULATION OF YOURS, based upon YOUR theory about Merenptah, a
> "second hand pharaoh" in your theory !!!
BASE ON THE HISTORICAL FACTS.
>
> > > is not allowed : The "Israel Stele that you quote hereafter is clear
> > > enough with the fact that Merenptah would have not tolerated it. You
> > > CANNOT transform him, as you do, in a "second hand pharaoh", whose
> > > power was limited to Ethiopia !!!
> >
> > Yes I can.
>
> Sure, YOU can !.. Against any plausibility !..
>
> As for me, I am sticking to the MATHEMATICAL TRUTH : 1193 is NEITHER
> equal to 1206, nor to 1175, and the Trojan War has - in a direct way -
> NOTHING to do with the attacks of the Sea Peoples against Egypt. You
WRONG. Danai, Pelasgians, Achaeans, Lycians, Teukrians and Spartan are named
in Egyptian inscriptions of this time both as allies and enemies of Egypt.
The only what to explain the switch of allegiances and the confederation
made by these peoples is the Trojan War and its causes and aftermath.
> may put any argument you want in trying to destroy these mathematical
> equations, enunciating horrors like "Merenptah was a second hand
The is NOTHING mathematical in your argument.
I have shown you the ONLY mathematical solution which agrees with ALL the
known historical texts of this period.
> pharaoh, ruling only over Ethiopia" -- "Pāris spent more than 10 years
> in Egypt" (Where did you find a single trace of this in the legend
The Teukrians are NAMED by Merneptah.
> ???) -- Etc. , you will not change my opinion.
> THIS IS FINAL.
Then you are a fool
> grapheus
Memphis
=======
1212 Amenemses
1206 Setnakte/Proetus
1194 Merneptah, Amenemses, Seti II
A
1193 Merneptah-Sipta/Memnon (vassel of Twosret and Bay)
1187-1183 Twosret (alone while Memnon is at Troy)
B
opposed by
1193-1182 Setnakte/Proetus/the God of Israel
1182 Ramses III/Theoclymenos/Rampsinitus
Ethiopia
=======
1212 Merneptah
A
1193 Merneptah-Sipta/Memnon
1187-1183 Twosret (alone)
B
opposed by
1193-1182 Setnakte/Proetus/the God of Israel
1182 Ramses III/Theoclymenos/Rampsinitus
Italo
Agamemnon schreef:
>
> "Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message
snip
> > Maybe Dardanus and Tros represent Tyrsenian 'pelasgians' while Teucer
> respesents
> > an Proto-Ionian group of 'pelasgians' from Attica or Salamis who alied
> when they
> > met *before* they all migrated to N.W.Anatolia
>
> TWADDLE.
>
> The Tyrsenian Pelasgi came from Thessaly.
Where did you get this idea. Strabo?
"..for what is now Caere was formerly called Agylla, and is said to have been
founded by Pelasgi who had come from Thessaly. But when those Lydians whose name
was changed to Tyrrheni marched against the Agyllaei, one of them approached the
wall and inquired what the name of the city was, and when one of the Thessalians
on the
wall, instead of replying to the inquiry, saluted him with a "Chaere," the
Tyrrheni accepted the omen, and, on capturing the city, changed its name
accordingly" [Strabo 5.2.4]
or, if you are referring to the Tyrrhenians living in Chalcidice or the Acte
peninsula, I think they went there from the islands rather than the reverse.
(maybe the first even by the time of the Trojan expedition mentioned by
Herodotus? [7.20.2])
Strabo again :
"Some of the Pelasgi from Lemnos took up their abode on this peninsula [Acte],
and they were divided into five cities, Cleonae, Olophyxis, Acrothoï, Dium,
Thyssus."
Diodorus Siculus :
"When the Tyrrhenians were leaving Lemnos, because of their fear of the
Persians, they claimed that they were doing so because of certain oracles, and
they gave the island over to Miltiades. The leader of the Tyrrhenians in this
affair was Hermon, and as a result presents of this kind have from that time
been called "gifts of Hermon." " [10.19.6]
Thucydides :
"[1] The same winter the Megarians took and razed to the foundations the long
walls which had been occupied by the Athenians; and Brasidas after the capture
of Amphipolis marched with his allies against Acte, [2] a promontory running out
from the king's dike with an inward curve, and ending in Athos, a lofty mountain
looking towards the Aegean sea. [3] In it are various towns, Sane, an Andrian
colony, close to the canal, and facing the sea in the direction of Euboea; the
others being Thyssus, Cleone, Acrothoi, Olophyxus, [4] and Dium, inhabited by
mixed barbarian races speaking the two languages. There is also a small
Chalcidian element;
but the greater number are Tyrrheno-Pelasgians once settled in Lemnos and
Athens, and Bisaltians, Crestonians, and Edonians; the towns being all small
ones. [5] Most of these came over to Brasidas; but Sane and Dium held out and
saw their land ravaged by him and his army." [4.109.]
> Presumably they were descended
> from Pelasguns the son of Niobe in 1600 BC.
Why would that be then. btw, the Niobe you mean is different from the Niobe of
Thebes. In myth one could see some relation between the early people of Thebes
and the Trojans maybe.
> Teucer was the son of Scamander
Scamander is a RIVER. This doesn't necessarily mean the Teucrians were native to
the region, the "reign of Scamander" just denotes the period before the
Teucrians.
> aka. Xanthus and thus was a Hellene.
There appear to be many different Xanthus's, I have no idea if Homer intended
some pun or reference by calling the river Scamander the Xanthus
> Priam even had a son called Helenus.
right
> Scamander/Xanthus was probably a son of Aeolus (1448 BC) who was descended
> from Deukalion I who was around at the time of the Thera Erruption in 1628
> BC. This would be in line with Euripides genealogy of Achaeus who was a son
> of Xuthus the son of Aeolus since Archander the son of Acaheus is required
> to have lived at around 1472 BC so as to have married a daughter of Danus
> (in 1457 BC after the killed their original husbands). This would make
> Metanastes the son of Archander the father of Lacedaemon whose daughter
> married Acrisius. Thus both the descendents of Perseus and the Spartans
> could call themselves Achaeans but the citizens of Argos were called Danai
> since the were descended from Proetus son Megapenthes who had nothing to do
> with Acaheus, Peseus having swapped Argos with Megapenthes for Mycenae and
> the coastal cities.
>
> Erichthonius rulled at Athens at the same time as Erichthonius the son of
> Dardanus ruled at Troy. Their regins ended in 1374 BC.
> Since Teucer was the son of Scamander/Xanthus and ruled in 1460 BC that
> would mean that he was also Deukalion II and possibly he was also Cranaus at
> Athens who ruled at the same time since none of these kings ever met.
>
> Dardanus came from Samothrace and succeded Tecuer in 1440 BC after he
> married his daughter Batia.
Batia was also a hill.
"Now there is before the city a steep mound afar out in the plain, with a clear
space about it on this side and on that; this do men verily call Batieia, but
the immortals call it the barrow of Myrine, light of step. There on this day did
the Trojans and their allies separate their companies." [Homer, Ill.2.811]
o8TY
All the Pelasgians came from Krete, who existed before Minos. They had
settled upon Samothrake before Dardanos was born where they showed the
islanders how to make the ithyphallic images ie a variant of the double axe
mounted in a pyramid shaped base.
At the birth of Athene, Hephaistos strikes the head of Zeus with a double
axe, hence the Athenians per se are also linked with the Pelasgians from
Krete. The Tuekrians coming from Athens may have been an earlier colony ie
before the Athenians adopted Athene as their patron deity.
The ancestry of the Trojan ally Sarpedon in the Iliad also traces back to
Krete, hence to the Pelasgians. As does Idomenios but who allied himself
with the Arkadians and Axaians. A double axe is also associated with both
Idomenios and Sarpedon in the Iliad.
If one could trace the Tyrsenians, one might find they also heralded from
Krete.
Greatly appreciate the references to Strabo, btw.
o8TY
> >
> > Then read Homer. All the Greek kings made a treaty of alliance in 1215
BC at
> > the marriage of Helen. In 1201 BC they chose Agamemnon as there leader.
> > Egyptian texts confirm this alliance. The sea people of Gaza were
Cypriots.
> > Palestine was a Cypriot dominion as confirmed by the archeolongy. Cyprus
> > kings between 1183 and 1151 BC were Agapenor from Arkadia, Teucer from
> > Salamis and Demophon from Athens.
>
>
> Well as I recall Homer has Athena coming down from Heave to fight with
> the Greeks. As I recall she weighed a great deal.
>
> Was that also correct?
What has this got to do with "deerhide" ingots on Kupris?
bobbyhaqq
> Then read Homer. All the Greek kings made a treaty of alliance in 1215 BC at
> the marriage of Helen. In 1201 BC they chose Agamemnon as there leader.
> Egyptian texts confirm this alliance. The sea people of Gaza were Cypriots.
> Palestine was a Cypriot dominion as confirmed by the archeolongy. Cyprus
> kings between 1183 and 1151 BC were Agapenor from Arkadia, Teucer from
> Salamis and Demophon from Athens.
Well again the archeology does not establish direct political control
but ethnic make up. And Homer tells of Gods looking down upon the war
before Troy and taking an active part, are we to accept these notions
as well.
I had always believed that everything in Homer was to be assumed to be
made up unless proven otherwise. It is an old myth.
I would point out to how difficult making an Agean Empire turned out
for the Classic Age Greeks, 800 years later. Both Athenes and Sparta
would fail to manage large empires dominating the modern Agean, how
could these socities have kept a united Kingdom of disperate Bronze
Age Communities in the Eastern Med.
I would point to the later Birth of the Punic peoples in modern
Tunisia. Though they had a strong sense of their origins in Tyre they
lost direct control. The Bronze Age just did not have the technology
or social organizations to run an Empire of that type.
bobbyhaqq
> requested):
>
> The Late Bronze Age (1600BC to 1100BC, but ymmv) is an
> especially challenging period. In the Aegean, the Minoan
> palaces were at their peak. In Egypt, the New Kingdom
> drove out the Hyksos and inundated the world with gold
> from their Nubian mines. The Mitanni kingdom supplied
> queens to the Egyptian pharaohs. The Hittites rose to
> power in Anatolia.
>
As I recall the period around the invasion of the Sea People was a
period of economic recession in Egypt and the Levant.
> The Amarna tablets offer some vivid glimpses of
> international geopolitics c1350BC-- squabbling in
> Palestine, eastern rulers grovelling for gifts of Egyptian
> gold: http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/luxor/tablets.html
>
> Egypt was aware of Aegean/Minoan culture even long before
> the LBA: http://members.tripod.com/kekaitiare/greece.htm
> It was named as one of the traditional 'Nine Bows' that
> Egypt dominated as early as Amenhotep III:
> http://www.chafer.edu/CTSjournal/journals/97-01.htm
Egypt had knowledge of the culture on Crete, but did the Sea People
have any major contacts back to the Aegean?
> By 1200BC, Aegean colonists from Sicily and Sardinia may
> have been allying themselves with Egypt's Libyan enemies,
> as recorded by Merneptah. Minoan murals seem to depict
> Libya as a close but 'exotic' neighbor. Shipwrecks from
> south of Anatolia c1300 and 1200 may imply that
> Phoenicians already dominated sea-trade along that route.
>
> This was the age of chariot warfare, but the balance of
> power seems to have shifted c1200, perhaps because
> swarming footsoldiers discovered how to overpower the
> chariots: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1994/94.01.09.html
Well the Sea People did not establish their rule in Egypt, so maybe
they did not change the balance of power.
Agamemnon
>
>
> Agamemnon schreef:
> >
> > "Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message
> snip
> > > Maybe Dardanus and Tros represent Tyrsenian 'pelasgians' while Teucer
> > respesents
> > > an Proto-Ionian group of 'pelasgians' from Attica or Salamis who alied
> > when they
> > > met *before* they all migrated to N.W.Anatolia
> >
> > TWADDLE.
> >
> > The Tyrsenian Pelasgi came from Thessaly.
>
> Where did you get this idea. Strabo?
[1.57.1] What the language of the Pelasgi was I cannot say with any
certainty. If, however, we may form a conjecture from the tongue spoken by
the Pelasgi of the present day- those, for instance, who live at Creston
above the Tyrrhenians, who formerly dwelt in the district named
Thessaliotis, and were neighbours of the people now called the Dorians-
>
> "..for what is now Caere was formerly called Agylla, and is said to have
been
> founded by Pelasgi who had come from Thessaly. But when those Lydians
whose name
> was changed to Tyrrheni marched against the Agyllaei, one of them
approached the
> wall and inquired what the name of the city was, and when one of the
Thessalians
> on the
> wall, instead of replying to the inquiry, saluted him with a "Chaere," the
> Tyrrheni accepted the omen, and, on capturing the city, changed its name
> accordingly" [Strabo 5.2.4]
>
> or, if you are referring to the Tyrrhenians living in Chalcidice or the
Acte
> peninsula, I think they went there from the islands rather than the
reverse.
The Tyrrhenians came from Lydia. They were Lydian colonists c.1600 BC
> (maybe the first even by the time of the Trojan expedition mentioned by
> Herodotus? [7.20.2])
That was probably in the time of Deukalion 1460-1440 BC.
As I said before Deukalion, Cranaus and Teucer were all probably the same
person as was Tudhaliya II the king of the Hittites.
If Scamander/Xanthus was descended from an earlier Deukalion (the son of
Prometheus) who reigned in 1628 BC then the Trojans were no different to any
other Greeks. Aeschylus firmly dates Prometheus 14 generations before
Perseus so there need to be two Deukalions for continuity.
>
> Strabo again :
>
> "Some of the Pelasgi from Lemnos took up their abode on this peninsula
[Acte],
> and they were divided into five cities, Cleonae, Olophyxis, Acrothoï,
Dium,
> Thyssus."
The Lemnian Pelasgi came from Athens after they were expelled from there in
about 1090 BC at the same time that Theras colonised the island of Thera.
So these Pelasgians ultimately came from Thessaly then. We're back where we
started.
>
>
> > Presumably they were descended
> > from Pelasguns the son of Niobe in 1600 BC.
>
> Why would that be then. btw, the Niobe you mean is different from the
Niobe of
> Thebes. In myth one could see some relation between the early people of
Thebes
> and the Trojans maybe.
I am talking about Niobe the daughter of Phoroneus not the sister of Pelops
who was a Lydian.
>
> > Teucer was the son of Scamander
>
> Scamander is a RIVER. This doesn't necessarily mean the Teucrians were
native to
> the region, the "reign of Scamander" just denotes the period before the
> Teucrians.
>
> > aka. Xanthus and thus was a Hellene.
>
> There appear to be many different Xanthus's, I have no idea if Homer
intended
> some pun or reference by calling the river Scamander the Xanthus
Xanthus is a mispronunciation of Scamander in the same mode that Sekander is
a mispronunciation of Alexander. All four of these names are one and the
same.
Agamemnon
news:<av2ia8$2aq$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> > Then read Homer. All the Greek kings made a treaty of alliance in 1215
BC at
> > the marriage of Helen. In 1201 BC they chose Agamemnon as there leader.
> > Egyptian texts confirm this alliance. The sea people of Gaza were
Cypriots.
> > Palestine was a Cypriot dominion as confirmed by the archeolongy. Cyprus
> > kings between 1183 and 1151 BC were Agapenor from Arkadia, Teucer from
> > Salamis and Demophon from Athens.
>
>
>
> Well again the archeology does not establish direct political control
> but ethnic make up. And Homer tells of Gods looking down upon the war
Ramses say the Greeks were allied in a confederation which confirms
everything that Homer wrote.
> before Troy and taking an active part, are we to accept these notions
> as well.
If you bothered to actually read the Iliad you would know that the Gods
appeared in human form in the shape of persons who took part in the siege
and in the battle and surrounding events.
>
> I had always believed that everything in Homer was to be assumed to be
> made up unless proven otherwise. It is an old myth.
WRONG.
>
> I would point out to how difficult making an Agean Empire turned out
> for the Classic Age Greeks, 800 years later. Both Athenes and Sparta
> would fail to manage large empires dominating the modern Agean, how
> could these socities have kept a united Kingdom of disperate Bronze
> Age Communities in the Eastern Med.
Irrelevant. The classical Spartans were Dorians and did not capture the
Peloponnese until 1103 BC.
>
> I would point to the later Birth of the Punic peoples in modern
> Tunisia. Though they had a strong sense of their origins in Tyre they
> lost direct control. The Bronze Age just did not have the technology
> or social organizations to run an Empire of that type.
Irrelevant.
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.0301...@posting.google.com...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<av2l85$dcm$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<av1acq$l6e$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<auuqbh$gue$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
Are you able to understand what is written ? Example :
> > >
> > > The Achaeans and Teukrians are named by Merneptah
> >
> > NOT in the Karnak Inscription, which relates the attack by the People
> > of the Sea !.. The "Israel Stele" DOES NOT ! Please, READ WHAT I WROTE
> > !
> WRONG. I quoted you the Israel Stele and the Teukrians are named in > geographical sequence.
Special explanation for Agamemnon : Please read :
NO, the Teukrians are NOT mentioned in the Karnak Inscription. Only
the Achaeans and some other Peoples of the Sea, who were helping the
Libyans. The SOLE Karnak Inscription relates the attack of Egypt by
the Peoples of the Sea (but NOT the "Teukrians" were amongst them, I
repeat it !). The "Israel Stele" (which MAY cite "Teukrians", if some
phonetic equivalence is accepted - What is not mandatory !-) DOES NOT
RELATE an attack by the Peoples of the Sea.
> > > Manetho also says that the Sea Peoples remeind in Egypt for
> > > 13 years
> >
> > AFTER Merenptah's death !.. NOT BEFORE !
>
> NO. Merneptah expelled the sea peoples so they must have remained in Egypt
> for 13 year during his own reign.
>
Menerptah did'n't expel Sea Peoples ALREADY SETTLED in Egypt. This is
an HYPOTHESIS of yours !.. Merenptah expelled AN ATTACK by the
Libyans and their allies, as shown by the Karnak Inscription ! Why you
never quote this inscription, and quote only the "Israel Stele", which
obviously concerns the Egyptian domination over Syria and Palestine
?..
The settlement of the Sea Peoples in Egypt during 13 years, as
reported by Manetho, happened AFTER Merenptah death, and DURING the
Amenemses' REIGN !.. I challenge you to find a single inscription
saying the contrary !.. All your arguments are viciated by the
IMPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS of yours that Amenmeses has been a more
important pharaoh than Merenptah, when they are inscriptions
describing the future Amenmeses as only the head of the army,
APPOINTED BY MERENPTAH (See reference in R. KRAUSS book that you don't
want to read !)..
> According to Manetho the Sea Peoples are expelled simultaneously by
> Amenemses, Seti II and the King of Ethiopia in their 13th year of
> occupation. That year is 1194-1193 BC.
But THERE IS NO PROOF that the said "king of Ethiopia" was Merenptah
!.. THIS IS JUST A FANCY HYPOTHESIS OF YOURS !!!
> Manetho specifically states that the foreign conquerors sacked Memphis and
> remained there for 13 years. At the time Amenemses went into exile and
> subjugated himself to the king of Ethiopia, who was neither Seiti or
> himself. That leave only Merneptah and Setnakte as the possible candidates.
Ah, Ah ! At least you recognize that your "Merenptah solution" is NOT
MANDATORY !
Just go a bit further on this (good) way !..
> Since Euripides makes it perfetly clerar that Setnakte the father of Ramses
> III/Theoclymense was Proetus, that means Merneptah was king of Ethiopia.
NO !.. That means only that Setnakte and Proetus were possibly the
same guy if Setnakte was the father of Ramses III !
> This is corroborated by Herodotus who says that Proetus was king at Memphis
> at the very same time.
Ballony !.. It just confirms that Proetus was king at Memphis DURING
THE TROUBLED PERIOD WHICH FOLLOWED THE MERENPTAH's REIGN !.. NOTHING
MORE !..
grapheus
Agamemnon
"o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0YgR9.299$xf7....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
And they all were descended from Cretan apes who dwelled in the Cretan
trees, right ?
Pelasgi means City Dwellers. The name is applicable to almost everyone in
Greece.
> settled upon Samothrake before Dardanos was born where they showed the
What was this island called before it was called Dardania ?
> islanders how to make the ithyphallic images ie a variant of the double
axe
> mounted in a pyramid shaped base.
>
> At the birth of Athene, Hephaistos strikes the head of Zeus with a double
> axe, hence the Athenians per se are also linked with the Pelasgians from
Pelasgus the son of Niobe was probably an early king of Athens between
Ogygus and Coleanus hence the people were named after him.
> Krete. The Tuekrians coming from Athens may have been an earlier colony ie
> before the Athenians adopted Athene as their patron deity.
The Teukrians date to the same year as the Cranaans which is when the Athene
Atthis cult was founded.
>
> The ancestry of the Trojan ally Sarpedon in the Iliad also traces back to
> Krete, hence to the Pelasgians. As does Idomenios but who allied himself
The Pelasgians did not come to Crete until Tectemus brought them there with
the Aeolians c.1380 BC.
The original Cretans were Cronidians and became extinct.
> with the Arkadians and Axaians. A double axe is also associated with both
> Idomenios and Sarpedon in the Iliad.
1410 Sarpedon
1368 Iobates
1227 Ballerophon
1293 Sarpedon
1270 Lycus
1235 Hippolochus
1200 Sarpedon
1180-1160 Glaucus
>
> If one could trace the Tyrsenians, one might find they also heralded from
> Krete.
Really. And where did the come from before they came to Crete.
Gordon
agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
>
> "bobbyhaqq" <rhook...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:689922c7.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<av2ia8$2aq$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> > > Then read Homer. All the Greek kings made a treaty of alliance in 1215
> BC at
> > > the marriage of Helen. In 1201 BC they chose Agamemnon as there leader.
> > > Egyptian texts confirm this alliance. The sea people of Gaza were
> Cypriots.
> > > Palestine was a Cypriot dominion as confirmed by the archeolongy. Cyprus
> > > kings between 1183 and 1151 BC were Agapenor from Arkadia, Teucer from
> > > Salamis and Demophon from Athens.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well again the archeology does not establish direct political control
> > but ethnic make up. And Homer tells of Gods looking down upon the war
> > as well.
>
> If you bothered to actually read the Iliad you would know that the Gods
> appeared in human form in the shape of persons who took part in the siege
> and in the battle and surrounding events.
If you had, you'd know that Apollo does not don a human guise when he
kills Patroclus. He simply punches him in the back of the head. So, how
exactly do you think that happened, keeping the verbatim Homeric
narrative as historical fact?
I'm also dying to know just what historical personages were involved in
Zeus & Hear's "nookie on the mountain" scene, and what exactly the
magical lingerie looked like, as I'm sure you can tell us.
Sad, little netkook...
--
Gordon
"I have just as much authority as the Pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
Agamemnon
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
>
> Are you able to understand what is written ? Example :
What is your problem.
>
> > > >
> > > > The Achaeans and Teukrians are named by Merneptah
> > >
> > > NOT in the Karnak Inscription, which relates the attack by the People
> > > of the Sea !.. The "Israel Stele" DOES NOT ! Please, READ WHAT I WROTE
> > > !
> > WRONG. I quoted you the Israel Stele and the Teukrians are named in
> geographical sequence.
>
> Special explanation for Agamemnon : Please read :
> NO, the Teukrians are NOT mentioned in the Karnak Inscription. Only
> the Achaeans and some other Peoples of the Sea, who were helping the
> Libyans. The SOLE Karnak Inscription relates the attack of Egypt by
> the Peoples of the Sea (but NOT the "Teukrians" were amongst them, I
> repeat it !). The "Israel Stele" (which MAY cite "Teukrians", if some
> phonetic equivalence is accepted - What is not mandatory !-) DOES NOT
> RELATE an attack by the Peoples of the Sea.
The Israel Stele dates to Merneptahs 5th year as does the Cairo Column and
the Athribis Stela all of whcih along with the Karnak Inscription refer to
the SAME BATTLE.
>
> > > > Manetho also says that the Sea Peoples remeind in Egypt for
> > > > 13 years
> > >
> > > AFTER Merenptah's death !.. NOT BEFORE !
> >
> > NO. Merneptah expelled the sea peoples so they must have remained in
Egypt
> > for 13 year during his own reign.
> >
>
> Menerptah did'n't expel Sea Peoples ALREADY SETTLED in Egypt. This is
> an HYPOTHESIS of yours !.. Merenptah expelled AN ATTACK by the
> Libyans and their allies, as shown by the Karnak Inscription ! Why you
> never quote this inscription, and quote only the "Israel Stele", which
> obviously concerns the Egyptian domination over Syria and Palestine
> ?..
The Israel Stele dates to the same year of Merneptahs reign. This is when
the Teukrians are expelled from Egypt thus confirming Herodotus and setting
the scene form the Trojan War. I don't dive a damn about the Libyans.
> The settlement of the Sea Peoples in Egypt during 13 years, as
> reported by Manetho, happened AFTER Merenptah death, and DURING the
Nope. There simply isn't enough time for this. Amenemses reigned for 19
years and there are only 19 years between the end of Ramses II's reign and
1193, 13 of which Memphis is occupied by the foreign invaders and 5 years
before which Seti II is born. Amenemses MUST have reigned at the same time
as Merneptah. His exile in Ethiopia when Seti was 5 provides a simple
explanation for Merneptah being considered as his master if Mernaptah is
considered as king of Ethiopia..
> Amenemses' REIGN !.. I challenge you to find a single inscription
> saying the contrary !.. All your arguments are viciated by the
MANETHO says so.
> IMPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS of yours that Amenmeses has been a more
> important pharaoh than Merenptah, when they are inscriptions
Setnakte/Proetus was even more important than both of them. After all the
bible calls him the LORD GOD of Israel. Herodotus says he was the father of
Rhampsinitus or Ramses III or Theoclymenos according to Euripides and rulled
at Memphis in 1203 BC when Paris kidnapped Helen. Herodotus source was the
Egyptian priests.
> describing the future Amenmeses as only the head of the army,
> APPOINTED BY MERENPTAH (See reference in R. KRAUSS book that you don't
> want to read !)..
This appointment was made when Amenemses was in exile in Ethiopia.
>
>
> > According to Manetho the Sea Peoples are expelled simultaneously by
> > Amenemses, Seti II and the King of Ethiopia in their 13th year of
> > occupation. That year is 1194-1193 BC.
>
> But THERE IS NO PROOF that the said "king of Ethiopia" was Merenptah
> !.. THIS IS JUST A FANCY HYPOTHESIS OF YOURS !!!
Then who was it ?
>
>
> > Manetho specifically states that the foreign conquerors sacked Memphis
and
> > remained there for 13 years. At the time Amenemses went into exile and
> > subjugated himself to the king of Ethiopia, who was neither Seiti or
> > himself. That leave only Merneptah and Setnakte as the possible
candidates.
>
> Ah, Ah ! At least you recognize that your "Merenptah solution" is NOT
> MANDATORY !
> Just go a bit further on this (good) way !..
Setnakte was Proteus the father of Ramses III.
>
> > Since Euripides makes it perfetly clerar that Setnakte the father of
Ramses
> > III/Theoclymense was Proetus, that means Merneptah was king of Ethiopia.
>
> NO !.. That means only that Setnakte and Proetus were possibly the
> same guy if Setnakte was the father of Ramses III !
The inscriptions say he was.
>
> > This is corroborated by Herodotus who says that Proetus was king at
Memphis
> > at the very same time.
>
> Ballony !.. It just confirms that Proetus was king at Memphis DURING
> THE TROUBLED PERIOD WHICH FOLLOWED THE MERENPTAH's REIGN !.. NOTHING
> MORE !..
The biblical Exodus referred to in the Israel stele dates to EXACTLY 1193 BC
+/- 6 months. This date is irrefutable and anchored to the Thera Eruption,
The Greek Traditional Chronology and the Assyrian King list. The latter two
chronologies are accurate to +/- 6 months at the anchor points and are based
on archons lists. The Thera Eruption date is given by both the Traditional
Chronology and the Bible.
1203 - 1193 is only 10 years. The foreigners remained in Egypt for 13 years
and Seti II was already 5 when they came.
Amenemses and Mernepta must have ruled over differ parts of Egypt
simultaniously and Setnakte must have ruled over Memphis while Amenemses was
in exile in Ethiopia with Merneptah.
>
> grapheus
bobbyhaqq
> Ramses say the Greeks were allied in a confederation which confirms
> everything that Homer wrote.
Everyting?
> If you bothered to actually read the Iliad you would know that the Gods
> appeared in human form in the shape of persons who took part in the siege
> and in the battle and surrounding events.
>
Well I have not read this for a long time. Greek Gods generally took
animal or human form to enteract with us. As I recall Homer has a lot
to say about what the Gods are thinking, saying, and doing away from
the battle in their God forms, are these matters true or not.
> > I had always believed that everything in Homer was to be assumed to be
> > made up unless proven otherwise. It is an old myth.
>
> WRONG.
Well, so you assert that all things in Homer are to be assumed true
unless proven otherwise. Bad science in more than one way, especially
since you can't prove a negative.
>
> >
> > I would point out to how difficult making an Agean Empire turned out
> > for the Classic Age Greeks, 800 years later. Both Athenes and Sparta
> > would fail to manage large empires dominating the modern Agean, how
> > could these socities have kept a united Kingdom of disperate Bronze
> > Age Communities in the Eastern Med.
>
> Irrelevant. The classical Spartans were Dorians and did not capture the
> Peloponnese until 1103 BC.
No, we are talking about leves of technology and social organization.
The greeces of the Classic period were far more advanced then those of
the late Bronze Age.
What was technically impossible in 400 BCE would likely have been
technically impossible in 1200 BCE
> > I would point to the later Birth of the Punic peoples in modern
> > Tunisia. Though they had a strong sense of their origins in Tyre they
> > lost direct control. The Bronze Age just did not have the technology
> > or social organizations to run an Empire of that type.
>
> Irrelevant.
The level of technology and social organization of Near East and
Aegean societies in the late Bronze Age is not irrelevant, but central
to the issue.
What was impossible for advanced early Iron Age cultures was almost
certainly impossible for stressed less organized late Bronze Age
cultures.
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<av3vvj$7jg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
It is really tiresome to discuss with someone who obviously has never
studied the "Great Inscription" from Karnak, and repeats again and
again the same false statements !..
> > > > >
> > > > > The Achaeans and Teukrians are named by Merneptah
> > > >
> > > > NOT in the Karnak Inscription, which relates the attack by the People
> > > > of the Sea !.. The "Israel Stele" DOES NOT ! Please, READ WHAT I WROTE
> > > > !
> > > WRONG. I quoted you the Israel Stele and the Teukrians are named in
> > geographical sequence.
> >
> > Special explanation for Agamemnon : Please read :
> > NO, the Teukrians are NOT mentioned in the Karnak Inscription. Only
> > the Achaeans and some other Peoples of the Sea, who were helping the
> > Libyans. The SOLE Karnak Inscription relates the attack of Egypt by
> > the Peoples of the Sea (but NOT the "Teukrians" were amongst them, I
> > repeat it !). The "Israel Stele" (which MAY cite "Teukrians", if some
> > phonetic equivalence is accepted - What is not mandatory !-) DOES NOT
> > RELATE an attack by the Peoples of the Sea.
>
> The Israel Stele dates to Merneptahs 5th year as does the Cairo Column and
> the Athribis Stela all of whcih along with the Karnak Inscription refer to
> the SAME BATTLE.
>
IF you had some knowledge of the Karnak Inscription, you would
understand that IT CANNOT BE THE SAME BATTLE !... The adversaries are
different, and the time is not the same, in spite of your FALSE
STATEMENTS !!!
> >
> > > > > Manetho also says that the Sea Peoples remeind in Egypt for
> > > > > 13 years
> > > >
> > > > AFTER Merenptah's death !.. NOT BEFORE !
> > >
> > > NO. Merneptah expelled the sea peoples so they must have remained in
> Egypt
> > > for 13 year during his own reign.
> > >
> >
> > Menerptah did'n't expel Sea Peoples ALREADY SETTLED in Egypt. This is
> > an HYPOTHESIS of yours !.. Merenptah expelled AN ATTACK by the
> > Libyans and their allies, as shown by the Karnak Inscription ! Why you
> > never quote this inscription, and quote only the "Israel Stele", which
> > obviously concerns the Egyptian domination over Syria and Palestine
> > ?..
>
> The Israel Stele dates to the same year of Merneptahs reign.
TOTALLY WRONG !.. You obviously have no knowledge of the Karnak "Great
Inscription" !..
> This is when
> the Teukrians are expelled from Egypt thus confirming Herodotus and setting
> the scene form the Trojan War. I don't dive a damn about the Libyans.
>
QUOTE from the inscription : Lines 13/14 : "The wretched head of the
REBU (Libyans) is Meriaď, the son of Didi"...
But, of course, as you don't give a damn about this inscription, you
may ignore theses lines and the Libyans, right ?..
> > The settlement of the Sea Peoples in Egypt during 13 years, as
> > reported by Manetho, happened AFTER Merenptah death, and DURING the
>
> Nope. There simply isn't enough time for this. Amenemses reigned for 19
> years and there are only 19 years between the end of Ramses II's reign and
> 1193, 13 of which Memphis is occupied by the foreign invaders and 5 years
> before which Seti II is born.
GOOD !.. At least, an intelligent remark !.. The conclusion is that
your datation 1193 COMING FROM THE BIBLE is simply wrong of about 10
years !.. We are making progress !..
> > IMPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS of yours that Amenmeses has been a more
> > important pharaoh than Merenptah, when they are inscriptions
> > describing the future Amenmeses as only the head of the army,
> > APPOINTED BY MERENPTAH (See reference in R. KRAUSS book that you don't
> > want to read !)..
>
> This appointment was made when Amenemses was in exile in Ethiopia.
>
Ballony !.. You are talking about documents you obviously IGNORE, from
your own avowal ! (You have not read Krauss book !).. A typical method
of yours !..
> >
> >
> > > According to Manetho the Sea Peoples are expelled simultaneously by
> > > Amenemses, Seti II and the King of Ethiopia in their 13th year of
> > > occupation. That year is 1194-1193 BC.
NO ! The Bible is not a Historical book !..
> The biblical Exodus referred to in the Israel stele dates to EXACTLY 1193 BC
> +/- 6 months. This date is irrefutable and anchored to the Thera Eruption,
> The Greek Traditional Chronology and the Assyrian King list.
WRONG !.. There is no "anchorage" at all, except in your imagination
!..
> The latter two
> chronologies are accurate to +/- 6 months at the anchor points and are based
> on archons lists. The Thera Eruption date is given by both the Traditional
> Chronology and the Bible.
>
And WHAT about the SCIENTIFIC METHODS of datation of this eruption
?..Have you ever heard about them ?.. But, of course, you prefer, I
guess, trusting your own calculations, based upon YOUR interpretation
of the texts !..
grapheus
Agamemnon
"Gordon" <moi...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QeqR9.41647$an1.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> Sad, little netkook...
Yes you are.
Agamemnon
news:<av4qsn$adc$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>
> > Ramses say the Greeks were allied in a confederation which confirms
> > everything that Homer wrote.
>
> Everyting?
Everything
>
> > If you bothered to actually read the Iliad you would know that the Gods
> > appeared in human form in the shape of persons who took part in the
siege
> > and in the battle and surrounding events.
> >
>
> Well I have not read this for a long time. Greek Gods generally took
> animal or human form to enteract with us. As I recall Homer has a lot
> to say about what the Gods are thinking, saying, and doing away from
> the battle in their God forms, are these matters true or not.
Homer is alluding to the Gods taking over the main players in the war for
the purpose of poetic description. Everyone know perfectly well that for
example when Zeus appears in the form of Nestor to Agamemnon it is really
Nestor who enter his tent.
>
> > > I had always believed that everything in Homer was to be assumed to be
> > > made up unless proven otherwise. It is an old myth.
> >
> > WRONG.
>
> Well, so you assert that all things in Homer are to be assumed true
> unless proven otherwise. Bad science in more than one way, especially
> since you can't prove a negative.
You don't know anything about science.
A theory is ALWAYS assumed TRUE until it is shown not to fit in with the
observed facts. That is how science works.
You are still living in the Anglo-Saxon Papist middle age where no one was
allowed to question the state dogma.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I would point out to how difficult making an Agean Empire turned out
> > > for the Classic Age Greeks, 800 years later. Both Athenes and Sparta
> > > would fail to manage large empires dominating the modern Agean, how
> > > could these socities have kept a united Kingdom of disperate Bronze
> > > Age Communities in the Eastern Med.
> >
> > Irrelevant. The classical Spartans were Dorians and did not capture the
> > Peloponnese until 1103 BC.
>
> No, we are talking about leves of technology and social organization.
> The greeces of the Classic period were far more advanced then those of
> the late Bronze Age.
WRONG.
Greece never surpassed the late bronze age civilisation until the time of
Alexander the Great.
>
> What was technically impossible in 400 BCE would likely have been
> technically impossible in 1200 BCE
WRONG.
The 3 story palaces of the Kronidian civilisation on Crete c.1700 BC were
never surpassesd.
>
> > > I would point to the later Birth of the Punic peoples in modern
> > > Tunisia. Though they had a strong sense of their origins in Tyre they
> > > lost direct control. The Bronze Age just did not have the technology
> > > or social organizations to run an Empire of that type.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> The level of technology and social organization of Near East and
> Aegean societies in the late Bronze Age is not irrelevant, but central
> to the issue.
>
> What was impossible for advanced early Iron Age cultures was almost
> certainly impossible for stressed less organized late Bronze Age
> cultures.
RUBBISH. Who built the Pyramids in 3500 BC.... Aliens ?
Who do you think built the Mycenaean palaces in 1340 BC.... More Aliens ?
It took 1000 years before the Mycenaean palaces could be dismantled and over
4000 years before the Pyramids could be stripped of their facing blocks.
Italo
grapheus schreef:
>
> Italo <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message news:<3E14CE91...@home.nl>...
> > grapheus schreef:
> > >
<snip>
> > > If I follow the reconstruction of
> > > the history of Troy, as described by J.Faucounau in his book about the
> > > Proto-Ionians, Troy had, from the beginning (2900 BC) on, a mixed
> > > population : Proto-Ionian Greeks and Luwians.
> >
> > There is some evidence that suggest early cultural/trade relations with the
> > west, as far as Sicily and Malta. e.g for the 3 so called "bossed bone plaques"
> > from latter third millenium Troy, there are more similar and contemporary
> > specimens found in Malta, south-Italy, and especially Sicily(Castelluccian
> > Culture).
> >
>
> Yes. This is mentioned in J.F.'s book, with some illustrations.
I must have overlooked it. I'll check it again (my French is somewhat sluggish,
though).
> > > With Troy IV (c.2200
> > > BC), the Luwian population was the most important, but with Troy VI
> > > (beginning c.1700 BC), the city was re-opened to Aegean influences :
> > > from Crete and the Cycladic islands first, then after 1470 from the
> > > Mycenaean Greece.
> >
> > > Then, after the destruction of the city of Troy VI
> > > in 1250BC, Troy became a Mycenaean colonial town
> >
> > Heracles(Alcaeus) puts Priam as a younster on the throne of Troy as a vassal,
> > its only when the Heraclides are deposed from their kingdoms in Greece, leaving
> > only Mysia to Telephus, that Troy again gets to lead in the east.
> >
> > > until the natural
> > > catastrophe (tsunami) of c.1200.
> >
> > A tsunami from sea, or a riverflood? (Maybe the death of Laocoon and his sons by
> > sea-serpents is a metaphore?) is there any evidence for earlier floods from the
> > sea?
> >
>
> See the J.F.'s paper in ANISTORITON at
>
> <http://users.hol.gr/~dilos/anistor/vpoints/v024.htm>
OK. I assumed you meant a flood at Troy specifically.
> (I know that this author will soon publish a whole book on the
> matter).
>
> > > So, who are the Teukrians ?.. Proto-Ionians ? Minoans ? Mycenaeans ?
> > > Thracians ? Others ?..
> >
> > I'd say they're from the same pelasgian (Proto-Ionian?) stock as the
> > Athenians/Salaminians.
btw, there was also a Minoan settlement near Salamis; "Nisaea is the naval
station of the Megarians; [...] this, too, used to be called Minoa."[Strabo
9.1.4]
>
> The word "Pelasgians" is pretty ambiguous, as explained in J.F.'s book
> on the Proto-Ionians. It covers different ethnies. So, saying that the
> Teukrians were "Pelasgians" is probably correct, but does'n't explain
> much !..
> > > From Strabo's reference, only the hypothesis of Thracians seems
> > > excluded...
> >
> > What is this Thracian hypthesis. Has it to do with the Paeonians saying
> > [Her.5.13.1] that they were a colony from the Teucrians of Troy?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > Further on [7.20.2] Herodotus says :
> > "..the one [army] of the Mysians and Teucrians which before the Trojan war
> > crossed the Bosporus into Europe, subdued all the Thracians, and came down to
> > the Ionian sea, marching southward as far as the river Peneus."
> >
>
> Interesting !.. But not very enlightening !..
Well, it does give some orientation points, they supposedly reached the Ionian
and the river Peneus to the south. Maybe they went by boat up the rivers (Axios,
Haliacmon, Peneus) but they'll still had to do some marching to reach the sea in
the west.
> > This is by some suggested to be a reversal, because the Mysians are supposed to
> > come *from* Thrace(Moesia) rather then to, but if it really happened this would
> > be the reason for the Paeonians claim. And for the Dardanians in Illyria maybe.
> > btw, Herodotus also mentions Dardanians in Syria [1.189], could they be a colony
> > of the Dardanians who went with the Hittites to fight at Kadesh?
>
> Personally, I believe that the Dardanians are nothing but the Trojans.
> More precisely, the name they gave to themselves.
I'm still wondering why the Etruscans, in the text of those Tunisian boundary
stones, would invoke "the Dardanian Gods" if they settled there to escape the
Romans(who purported to have some Dardanian origin) after the mariane wars.
<snip>
regards,
Italo
Agamemnon
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:<av56r1$rrl$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:<av3vvj$7jg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
>
> It is really tiresome to discuss with someone who obviously has never
> studied the "Great Inscription" from Karnak, and repeats again and
> again the same false statements !..
Provide me with the full text. Not extracts. Then we shall see what it
really says.
TWADDLE. If you had bothered to read the Israel Stele you would know that it
begins by mentioning the battle with the Libyans and then goes on the
mention the Teukrians, Hittites and Israel in geographical order so there
can be no confusion. All these events are dated to Merneptahs 5th year.
>
> > >
> > > > > > Manetho also says that the Sea Peoples remeind in Egypt for
> > > > > > 13 years
> > > > >
> > > > > AFTER Merenptah's death !.. NOT BEFORE !
> > > >
> > > > NO. Merneptah expelled the sea peoples so they must have remained in
> > Egypt
> > > > for 13 year during his own reign.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Menerptah did'n't expel Sea Peoples ALREADY SETTLED in Egypt. This is
> > > an HYPOTHESIS of yours !.. Merenptah expelled AN ATTACK by the
> > > Libyans and their allies, as shown by the Karnak Inscription ! Why you
> > > never quote this inscription, and quote only the "Israel Stele", which
> > > obviously concerns the Egyptian domination over Syria and Palestine
> > > ?..
> >
> > The Israel Stele dates to the same year of Merneptahs reign.
>
> TOTALLY WRONG !.. You obviously have no knowledge of the Karnak "Great
> Inscription" !..
The Karnak "Great Inscription" does not contain any sort of date. The ONLY
way to date the battle is to refer to the Cairo Column and the Athribis
Stela and the Israel Victory Stela which all mention it and place in
Merneptah 5th year..
>
> > This is when
> > the Teukrians are expelled from Egypt thus confirming Herodotus and
setting
> > the scene form the Trojan War. I don't dive a damn about the Libyans.
> >
>
> QUOTE from the inscription : Lines 13/14 : "The wretched head of the
> REBU (Libyans) is Meriaď, the son of Didi"...
> But, of course, as you don't give a damn about this inscription, you
> may ignore theses lines and the Libyans, right ?..
What have the Libyans got to do with the fact that an alliance from Anatolia
and Palestine invaded Egypt and captured Memphis as declared by Manetho and
by the Israel Stela. Why do you keep ignoring this historical fact. The
Teukrians are listed with the Hittites, the people of Gaza and Ashkelon and
Israel. This is what corroborates the story related by Herodotus who say
Paris took Helen to Egypt and this is what corroborates the story of the
biblical exodus.
>
> > > The settlement of the Sea Peoples in Egypt during 13 years, as
> > > reported by Manetho, happened AFTER Merenptah death, and DURING the
> >
> > Nope. There simply isn't enough time for this. Amenemses reigned for 19
> > years and there are only 19 years between the end of Ramses II's reign
and
> > 1193, 13 of which Memphis is occupied by the foreign invaders and 5
years
> > before which Seti II is born.
>
> GOOD !.. At least, an intelligent remark !.. The conclusion is that
> your datation 1193 COMING FROM THE BIBLE is simply wrong of about 10
> years !.. We are making progress !..
WRONG. The bibles dates and the traditional Greek chronology are IMMUTABLE.
The margin of error, which I doubt you understand the meaning of, is only
+/-6 months. These chronologies were established on the basis of Archons
lists. The standard Egypt chronology is only accurate to +/-5 years and most
of it is guesswork.
If there is not enough time for Amenemses and Merneptah to have reigned in
succession then they reigned in Parallel. Also accoridn to Herodotus
Proetus/Setnakte reigned of Memphis at exactly the same time.
Manethos account of how Amenemses abandoned Memphis offer the best
explanation of what was really going on.
Amenemses rules Lower Egypt and at the same time Merneptah rules over
Ethiopia. When Amenemses flees to Ethiopia in 1206 BC Setnakte allies
himself with the foreign invades and rules at Memphis. Herodotus account
require Setnakte to have ruled at Memphis until 1200 BC after the first
gathering at Aulis fails to find any Trojans at Troy.
After 1200 BC I would say that Merneptah attempt to take the city but all
his attempts fail until about 1195 BC. Amenemses dies in 1193 BC, Seti II is
exiled, Merneptah is either dead or exiled and Sipta takes the thrown
opposed by Setnakte who refused to recognize Siptas reign in any of his
inscriptions.
This explantion is the only one which does not contradict Herodotus,
Manetho, the Bible, the extant Egyptians inscriptions and Euripides. What do
you have to dispute my 5 sources.
>
>
> > > IMPLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS of yours that Amenmeses has been a more
> > > important pharaoh than Merenptah, when they are inscriptions
> > > describing the future Amenmeses as only the head of the army,
> > > APPOINTED BY MERENPTAH (See reference in R. KRAUSS book that you don't
> > > want to read !)..
> >
> > This appointment was made when Amenemses was in exile in Ethiopia.
> >
>
> Ballony !.. You are talking about documents you obviously IGNORE, from
> your own avowal ! (You have not read Krauss book !).. A typical method
> of yours !..
Why should I read Krauss. Provide me with copies of the full text
inscriptions and lets les what the really say.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > According to Manetho the Sea Peoples are expelled simultaneously by
> > > > Amenemses, Seti II and the King of Ethiopia in their 13th year of
> > > > occupation. That year is 1194-1193 BC.
>
> NO ! The Bible is not a Historical book !..
WRONG. The bible provides a source of historical dates and persons and is
therefore a historical book.
>
> > The biblical Exodus referred to in the Israel stele dates to EXACTLY
1193 BC
> > +/- 6 months. This date is irrefutable and anchored to the Thera
Eruption,
> > The Greek Traditional Chronology and the Assyrian King list.
>
> WRONG !.. There is no "anchorage" at all, except in your imagination
> !..
GET AN EDUCATION. It is a FACT that the Greek Traditional Chronology and the
Assyrian King list are anchored to Archons lists. The Greek Traditional
Chronology and the bible both give the exact date of the Thera Erruption. I
have already proved this statistically. arithmetically and historically.
http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/index.htm
>
> > The latter two
> > chronologies are accurate to +/- 6 months at the anchor points and are
based
> > on archons lists. The Thera Eruption date is given by both the
Traditional
> > Chronology and the Bible.
> >
>
> And WHAT about the SCIENTIFIC METHODS of datation of this eruption
> ?..Have you ever heard about them ?.. But, of course, you prefer, I
The dendrochronolgial date of 1628 BC and the ice cores date c.1610 agree
with the date given by the Greek and Biblical sources of 1629 (Castor and
Eusebius regin of Apis), 1627 (Syncellus regin of Apis and the Bible flood
of Noah) +/- 6 months. Tatians generations list gives a date of 1625 BC but
this is only accurate to +12/-25 years (reign of Apis).
Italo
Agamemnon schreef:
>
> "Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message
<snip>
> > A tsunami from sea, or a riverflood? (Maybe the death of Laocoon and his
> sons by
> > sea-serpents is a metaphore?) is there any evidence for earlier floods
> from the
> > sea?
>
> The Greek ships were hit by storms on their return from Troy in 1183 BC. If
> there was ever a tsunami then it would have to date to this date.
>
> >
> > > So, who are the Teukrians ?.. Proto-Ionians ? Minoans ? Mycenaeans ?
> > > Thracians ? Others ?..
> >
> > I'd say they're from the same pelasgian (Proto-Ionian?) stock as the
> > Athenians/Salaminians.
>
> The people of Salamis were Minyans from Boeotian Orchomenos.
> >
> > > From Strabo's reference, only the hypothesis of Thracians seems
> > > excluded...
> >
> > What is this Thracian hypthesis. Has it to do with the Paeonians saying
> > [Her.5.13.1] that they were a colony from the Teucrians of Troy?
>
> The Paeonians were so named after Paeon the son of Endymion a grandson of
> Deukalion who migrates there from Aethlia. That dates the colony to 1360 BC
> which would be in the same generation that Tereus the king of Thrace assists
> Erechteus at Athens..
>
> If the Paeonians were from Troy
Meaning; some Dardanians or Teucrians once settled among the Paeonians.
> that would mean that Deukalion and Teucer
> were the same person. Cranaus the king of Athens was probably the same
> person too since Amphytrion the son of Deukalion succeeded him to the throne
> followed by Erichthonius who was Cranaus grandson by Atthis or Athena and
> Hephaestus.
>
> Erichthonius the king of Troy was the son of Batia the daughter of Teucer
> and Dardanus. Since Batia and [B]atthis are very similar
Atthis/Attica seems to come from the older name Aktaia(?).
> I suspect that both stories are based on the same tradition as recorded by
> Troy and Sparta respectively in their own dialects.
> In the original poem Dardanus would have been substituted by Hephaestus
> appearing in the form of Dardanus. At the time that Herakles sacked Troy
> Homer relates the story of Hephaestus trying to usurp the throne of Zeus and
> being thrown out of Olympus for trying to rescue Hera who was chained up by
> Zeus, thus Hephaestus must have been a reference to one of Laomedons sons
> attempting to rescue Hesione.
<snip>
I doubt it
Italo
Agamemnon schreef:
>
> "Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:3E158918...@home.nl...
> >
> >
> > Agamemnon schreef:
> > >
> > > "Italo" <cuNOca...@home.nl> wrote in message
> > snip
> > > > Maybe Dardanus and Tros represent Tyrsenian 'pelasgians' while Teucer
> > > respesents
> > > > an Proto-Ionian group of 'pelasgians' from Attica or Salamis who alied
> > > when they
> > > > met *before* they all migrated to N.W.Anatolia
> > >
> > > TWADDLE.
> > >
> > > The Tyrsenian Pelasgi came from Thessaly.
> >
> > Where did you get this idea. Strabo?
>
> [1.57.1] What the language of the Pelasgi was I cannot say with any
> certainty. If, however, we may form a conjecture from the tongue spoken by
> the Pelasgi of the present day- those, for instance, who live at Creston
> above the Tyrrhenians, who formerly dwelt in the district named
> Thessaliotis, and were neighbours of the people now called the Dorians-
What this says is that the pelasgians who are *not* the Tyrsenians, but their
neighbours, lived once also in Thessaly next to the Dorians.
> >
> > "..for what is now Caere was formerly called Agylla, and is said to have
> been
> > founded by Pelasgi who had come from Thessaly. But when those Lydians
> whose name
> > was changed to Tyrrheni marched against the Agyllaei, one of them
> approached the
> > wall and inquired what the name of the city was, and when one of the
> Thessalians
> > on the
> > wall, instead of replying to the inquiry, saluted him with a "Chaere," the
> > Tyrrheni accepted the omen, and, on capturing the city, changed its name
> > accordingly" [Strabo 5.2.4]
> >
> > or, if you are referring to the Tyrrhenians living in Chalcidice or the
> Acte
> > peninsula, I think they went there from the islands rather than the
> reverse.
>
> The Tyrrhenians came from Lydia. They were Lydian colonists c.1600 BC
They may've been in Lydia but the later Lydians seem to have moved there down
the Hermos river, from upstream Maeonia.
Like on Lemnos there was also place called Myrina on the Lydian coast. Maybe
there is also a connection between the river Hermos and Hermon the leader of the
Lemnians?
> > (maybe the first even by the time of the Trojan expedition mentioned by
> > Herodotus? [7.20.2])
>
> That was probably in the time of Deukalion 1460-1440 BC.
>
> As I said before Deukalion, Cranaus and Teucer were all probably the same
> person as was Tudhaliya II the king of the Hittites.
>
> If Scamander/Xanthus was descended from an earlier Deukalion (the son of
> Prometheus) who reigned in 1628 BC then the Trojans were no different to any
> other Greeks. Aeschylus firmly dates Prometheus 14 generations before
> Perseus so there need to be two Deukalions for continuity.
what
> >
> > Strabo again :
> >
> > "Some of the Pelasgi from Lemnos took up their abode on this peninsula
> [Acte],
> > and they were divided into five cities, Cleonae, Olophyxis, Acrothoï,
> Dium,
> > Thyssus."
>
> The Lemnian Pelasgi came from Athens after they were expelled from there in
> about 1090 BC at the same time that Theras colonised the island of Thera.
They went to Lemnos because their people already lived there. The last expulsion
of Athenian pelasgians has to be later as 1090 BC I think.
> >
> > Diodorus Siculus :
> >
> > "When the Tyrrhenians were leaving Lemnos, because of their fear of the
> > Persians, they claimed that they were doing so because of certain oracles,
> > and they gave the island over to Miltiades. The leader of the Tyrrhenians
> > in this affair was Hermon, and as a result presents of this kind have
> > from that time been called "gifts of Hermon." " [10.19.6]
> >
> > Thucydides :
> >
> > "[1] The same winter the Megarians took and razed to the foundations
> > the long walls which had been occupied by the Athenians; and Brasidas
> > after the capture of Amphipolis marched with his allies against Acte,
> > [2] a promontory running out from the king's dike with an inward curve,
> > and ending in Athos, a lofty mountain looking towards the Aegean sea.
> > [3] In it are various towns, Sane, an Andrian colony, close to the
> > canal, and facing the sea in the direction of Euboea; the others being
> > Thyssus, Cleone, Acrothoi, Olophyxus, [4] and Dium, inhabited by
> > mixed barbarian races speaking the two languages. There is also a small
> > Chalcidian element; but the greater number are Tyrrheno-Pelasgians once
> > settled in Lemnos and Athens, and Bisaltians, Crestonians, and Edonians;
> > the towns being all small ones. [5] Most of these came over to Brasidas;
> > but Sane and Dium held out and
> > saw their land ravaged by him and his army." [4.109.]
>
> So these Pelasgians ultimately came from Thessaly then. We're back where we
> started.
There are Pelasgians and then there are pelasgians. The "Tyrrheno-Pelasgians
once settled in Lemnos and Athens" are not the "Bisaltians, Crestonians, and
Edonians".
<snip>
Italo
o8TY schreef:
> All the Pelasgians came from Krete, who existed before Minos. They had
> settled upon Samothrake before Dardanos was born where they showed the
> islanders how to make the ithyphallic images ie a variant of the double axe
> mounted in a pyramid shaped base.
>
> At the birth of Athene, Hephaistos strikes the head of Zeus with a double
> axe, hence the Athenians per se are also linked with the Pelasgians from
> Krete.
Why should a double axe be exclusively Kretan. The mainlanders used them too.
Also the two axes in the Roman fascis were originally an (Etruscan) double-axe.
> The Tuekrians coming from Athens may have been an earlier colony ie
> before the Athenians adopted Athene as their patron deity.
>
> The ancestry of the Trojan ally Sarpedon in the Iliad also traces back to
> Krete,
Does it? Lycian king Sarpedon is of the lineage of Bellerophon -from Corinth
originally-, and like the Dardanian kings his ultimate lineage extends to Atlas.
Agamemnon
Which is exactly what is meant by "Tyrsenian Pelasgi" not the
Tyrsenians/Tyrrhenians but the Pelasgi who lived above them. What is your
problem ?
>
> > >
> > > "..for what is now Caere was formerly called Agylla, and is said to
have
> > been
> > > founded by Pelasgi who had come from Thessaly. But when those Lydians
> > whose name
> > > was changed to Tyrrheni marched against the Agyllaei, one of them
> > approached the
> > > wall and inquired what the name of the city was, and when one of the
> > Thessalians
> > > on the
> > > wall, instead of replying to the inquiry, saluted him with a "Chaere,"
the
> > > Tyrrheni accepted the omen, and, on capturing the city, changed its
name
> > > accordingly" [Strabo 5.2.4]
> > >
> > > or, if you are referring to the Tyrrhenians living in Chalcidice or
the
> > Acte
> > > peninsula, I think they went there from the islands rather than the
> > reverse.
> >
> > The Tyrrhenians came from Lydia. They were Lydian colonists c.1600 BC
>
> They may've been in Lydia but the later Lydians seem to have moved there
down
> the Hermos river, from upstream Maeonia.
Moved where ? To Tyrrhenia.
> Like on Lemnos there was also place called Myrina on the Lydian coast.
Maybe
> there is also a connection between the river Hermos and Hermon the leader
of the
> Lemnians?
What are you talking about. The Lemnian Pelasgi came form Athens. They had
noting to do with the Tyrrhenians or Lydian's.
>
> > > (maybe the first even by the time of the Trojan expedition mentioned
by
> > > Herodotus? [7.20.2])
> >
> > That was probably in the time of Deukalion 1460-1440 BC.
> >
> > As I said before Deukalion, Cranaus and Teucer were all probably the
same
> > person as was Tudhaliya II the king of the Hittites.
> >
> > If Scamander/Xanthus was descended from an earlier Deukalion (the son of
> > Prometheus) who reigned in 1628 BC then the Trojans were no different to
any
> > other Greeks. Aeschylus firmly dates Prometheus 14 generations before
> > Perseus so there need to be two Deukalions for continuity.
>
> what
Kings of the region of Pthiotis and Pocis and Boeotia.
1715 Iapetus
1670 Prometheus
1628 Deukalion I
1599 Orestheus ?
~~~
1548 Aeolus I
(1525 Arne)
1500 Aeolus II, Boeotus, Xanthus, [1480 Achaeus I]
~~~
1460 Deukalion II, [Archander]
1440 Hellen, Amphytryon, Macedon ?, Orestheus ?, [Matenesthes]
1400 Aeolus II, Xuthus, Dorus
1329 Ion, Achaeus II
>
> > >
> > > Strabo again :
> > >
> > > "Some of the Pelasgi from Lemnos took up their abode on this peninsula
> > [Acte],
> > > and they were divided into five cities, Cleonae, Olophyxis, Acrothoï,
> > Dium,
> > > Thyssus."
> >
> > The Lemnian Pelasgi came from Athens after they were expelled from there
in
> > about 1090 BC at the same time that Theras colonised the island of
Thera.
>
> They went to Lemnos because their people already lived there. The last
expulsion
> of Athenian pelasgians has to be later as 1090 BC I think.
WRONG AND WRONG.
The people who lived on Lemnos were the Minyans who were expelled by the
Pelasgi from Athens in 1090 BC and fled to Sparta where they took Spartan
wives and joined Theras when he colonised the island of Thera. The
expedition to Thera can date to no later than 1080 BC otherwise Theras would
have been in his 80's and it is inconcievable that it can be dated later
than 1061 BC because it occurred during the reigns of Proclese and
Eursthenes who were both dead in this year according to Diodorus.
Did I say they were. What I said is that the originated from Thessaly.
Herodotus say that all the Pelasgi he know spoke the same dialect
irrespective of where they lived, meaning they had a common origin. He also
says that Hellenic was a dialect of Pelasgic.
>
> <snip>
>
o8TY
> > settled upon Samothrake before Dardanos was born where they showed the
> > islanders how to make the ithyphallic images ie a variant of the double
axe
> > mounted in a pyramid shaped base.
> >
> > At the birth of Athene, Hephaistos strikes the head of Zeus with a
double
> > axe, hence the Athenians per se are also linked with the Pelasgians from
> > Krete.
>
> Why should a double axe be exclusively Kretan. The mainlanders used them
too.
> Also the two axes in the Roman fascis were originally an (Etruscan)
double-axe.
>
Because the oldest known double axes come from Krete from the early minoan
period (ca 2200 BC) and their presence on the mainland does not come til
much much later (Tegea in Arkadia - 13thC refer Ankaios and 8thC BC stroma
at Temple of Zeus). My reasoning is based on the premise that the Pelasgian
name derives from Pelux-Gaia, ie the name of the tribe who worshipped the
double axe "pelux" of the earth mother goddess Gaia. The Pelasgians fled
Krete and established themselves at Athens and in the Argolid at the time of
the eruption of Thera. It was the Pelasgians that drove out the initial
occupants of the Peloponnese, ie the Kentaurs.
> > The Tuekrians coming from Athens may have been an earlier colony ie
> > before the Athenians adopted Athene as their patron deity.
> >
> > The ancestry of the Trojan ally Sarpedon in the Iliad also traces back
to
> > Krete,
>
> Does it? Lycian king Sarpedon is of the lineage of Bellerophon -from
Corinth
> originally-, and like the Dardanian kings his ultimate lineage extends to
Atlas.
>
Both Sarpedon, son of Bellerophon, and Sarpedon, brother of Minos, were
Arkadian Pelasgians. The Pelasgians from Krete had penetrated to as far
north as Thessaly and Dodona by around 1500 BC and in the following century
the Arkadians Pelasgians did a reverse takeover of Krete, hence Minos was a
son of Zeus, not a son of Gaia.
Agamemnon
Yes. In Herodotus time they claimed to be Teucrian colonists.
>
> > that would mean that Deukalion and Teucer
> > were the same person. Cranaus the king of Athens was probably the same
> > person too since Amphytrion the son of Deukalion succeeded him to the
throne
> > followed by Erichthonius who was Cranaus grandson by Atthis or Athena
and
> > Hephaestus.
> >
> > Erichthonius the king of Troy was the son of Batia the daughter of
Teucer
> > and Dardanus. Since Batia and [B]atthis are very similar
>
> Atthis/Attica seems to come from the older name Aktaia(?).
Actaeus ruled in 1520 BC.
Atthis was born in about 1460 BC.
>
> > I suspect that both stories are based on the same tradition as recorded
by
> > Troy and Sparta respectively in their own dialects.
> > In the original poem Dardanus would have been substituted by Hephaestus
> > appearing in the form of Dardanus. At the time that Herakles sacked Troy
> > Homer relates the story of Hephaestus trying to usurp the throne of Zeus
and
> > being thrown out of Olympus for trying to rescue Hera who was chained up
by
> > Zeus, thus Hephaestus must have been a reference to one of Laomedons
sons
> > attempting to rescue Hesione.
> <snip>
>
> I doubt it
Then provide a better explanation.
Its obvious that most of the so called Homeric Hymns are fragments of major
epics that predated the Iliad since it is pretty easy to date them to the
reigns of specific kings.
The Hymn to Demeter date to the reign of Arcas in 1420 BC since Arcas was
contemporary to Triptolemaios and knew him and Demeter also had an affair
with Iasion the brother of Dardanus.
The original story was about Kore the daughter of Deo of Crete, probably
Europe since Kore is attributed as her daughter also, who is abducted by
Dardanus. Dardanus is made into Hades and Almus the father of Etocles king
of Boeotian Orchomenos (then known as Andreis) was Hermes.
The story of the birth Asclepius by Coronis the daughter of Phlegyas occurs
in 1360 BC at the end of the reign of Phlegyas of Orchomones (then known as
Phlegyia). In this case Phlegyas is made into Apollo and Ischys the son of
Elatus the king of Arkadia is made into Hermes.
Later on the Homeric Hymn to Pithian Apollo can be firmly dated to the
reigns of Trophonius and Agamedes at Orchomenos somewhere between 1246 and
1230 BC.
o8TY
I too believe the Arkadian story of the birth of Asklepios is correct, that
Asklepios was the son of Isxus by Koronis, daughter of Phleguas. This is
because Elatos, son of Arkas, goes north from around Mt Kullene to help the
Phokians in their war against Phleguas at Thebes, and upon defeating
Phleguas, Elatus establishes Elateia while other Arkadians from Orxomenos in
Arkadia found Orxomenos in Boiotia. Part of the treaty forced upon Pleguas
was that Isxus son of Elatos marries Koronis who then gives birth to
Asklepios.
At the same time another Arkadian from Tegea in Phulakos colonises the part
of Phokis below Delphi, perhaps Krisa. The first priests at Delphi were said
to come from Krete which is again supported by the Arkadian Pelasgian rule
on Krete.
Gordon
agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
>
> "Gordon" <moi...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:QeqR9.41647$an1.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > In article <av4qsn$adc$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
>
> >
> > Sad, little netkook...
>
> Yes you are.
No, I didn't think you had an answer for the refutation of your moronic
claim that the Homeric poems were 100% factual history, you sad little
Netkook.
--
Gordon
...awaiting Aggie's brilliant 'I'm rubber, you're glue' defense.
bobbyhaqq
>
> Homer is alluding to the Gods taking over the main players in the war for
> the purpose of poetic description. Everyone know perfectly well that for
> example when Zeus appears in the form of Nestor to Agamemnon it is really
> Nestor who enter his tent.
>
These seems more like a point of view created to deal with the
presence of God's activities in Homer against your assertion that the
book tells historical truth.
> You don't know anything about science.
>
> A theory is ALWAYS assumed TRUE until it is shown not to fit in with the
> observed facts. That is how science works.
>
It is impossible to prove a negative. A theory is assumed to be
untested before it has been submitted to either experimentation or
observation.
If theories that were not disproven were simply assumed to be true
then theories that either defy validation, theories that can not be
converted in to test conditions, or tautologies would be the the core
of science.
> WRONG.
>
> Greece never surpassed the late bronze age civilisation until the time of
> Alexander the Great.
>
Well I just can't accept that. Bronze age artifacts from Greece
simply do not poses the levels of skill that Classic Period ones do.
Any culture depend on Bronze tools will experience a greater level of
damage and a higher cost to repair and production, leading to lower
less surplus production allowing less government.
> WRONG.
>
> The 3 story palaces of the Kronidian civilisation on Crete c.1700 BC were
> never surpassesd.
Never, did they have jets and computers.
>
> RUBBISH. Who built the Pyramids in 3500 BC.... Aliens ?
The Pyramids are impressive, but they could be built via brute force
methods. Essentially it is a massive pile of material.
> Who do you think built the Mycenaean palaces in 1340 BC.... More Aliens ?
The palaces are something, but they ain't Rome.
> It took 1000 years before the Mycenaean palaces could be dismantled and over
> 4000 years before the Pyramids could be stripped of their facing blocks.
Yes, ancient people accomplished some amazing projects. But the
economics of bronze age Greece has not been show to be able to support
the kind of Empire you are talking about.
George Durbridge
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> You don't know anything about science.
>
> A theory is ALWAYS assumed TRUE until it is shown not to
fit in with the
> observed facts. That is how science works.
Netkook, you surpass yourself. First spurious statistics
based on no data and no analysis whatsoever. Now a general
adoption of the underlying fallacy: whatever nonsense occurs
to the Netkook is true, unless someone else can refute it.
George Durbridge
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Provide me with the full text. Not extracts. Then we shall
see what it
> really says.
You had already claimed to have known what was in that
inscription. This request shows that you made that up, as
well as most of the your 19th Dynasty history.
George Durbridge
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Herodotus say that all the Pelasgi he know spoke the same
dialect
> irrespective of where they lived, meaning they had a
common origin.
Yes, 1.57
> He also says that Hellenic was a dialect of Pelasgic.
No, he stresses how different the languages are. Same
chapter.
Agamemnon
"George Durbridge" <gdur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:20030105084025.1...@bigpond.net.au...
LEARN TO READ. Herodotus says that Hellenic is a dialect of Pelasgic.
[1.58.1] The Hellenic race has never, since its first origin, changed its
speech. This at least seems evident to me. It was a branch of the Pelasgic,
which separated from the main body, and at first was scanty in numbers and
of little power; but it gradually spread and increased to a multitude of
nations, chiefly by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes
of barbarians. The Pelasgi, on the other hand, were, as I think, a barbarian
race which never greatly multiplied.
Agamemnon
GET AN EDUCATION YOU IDIOT.
I have a science honours degree. What do you have.
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:<av56r1$rrl$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > > news:<av3vvj$7jg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
I give up !.. I am tired to discuss with someone who obviously has
never studied the "Great Inscription" from Karnak, repeats again and
again the same false statements, and DOES'N'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING !..
Last example :
> > QUOTE from the inscription : Lines 13/14 : "The wretched head of the
> > REBU (Libyans) is Meriaď, the son of Didi"...
> > But, of course, as you don't give a damn about this inscription, you
> > may ignore theses lines and the Libyans, right ?..
>
> What have the Libyans got to do with the fact that an alliance from Anatolia
> and Palestine invaded Egypt and captured Memphis as declared by Manetho and
> by the Israel Stela.
HOW MANY TIMES SHALL I HAVE TO SAY THAT THESE ARE TWO *DIFFERENT*
EVENTS ????
Keep your ideas ! I don't really care !..
grapheus
George Durbridge
I can read, Netkook. You might afford Herodotos the
courtesy of reading what he says.
What he says according to this translation of this passage
is that the Hellenic race was a branch of the Pelasgic race,
and that those of the Pelasgoi who retained their non-Greek
language never greatly multiplied. The first sentence would
then imply that the Hellenes acquired their Greek language
when they branched off from the Pelasgoi, and did not change
it afterwards, but that is inconsistent with Chapter 56,
according to which Greek and Pelasgic were always distinct
languages.
Waterfield translates this passage as "when they [the
Hellenes] were separate from the Pelasgians" as distinct
from when they later absorbed Hellenized Pelasgoi, such as
the people of Attica.
However you read the passage, it is about the separation or
merger of the races, not about separation of dialects.
Agamemnon
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:<av6ojj$8i4$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:<av56r1$rrl$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:337ae51f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > > > news:<av3vvj$7jg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> I give up !.. I am tired to discuss with someone who obviously has
> never studied the "Great Inscription" from Karnak, repeats again and
> again the same false statements, and DOES'N'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING !..
> Last example :
POPPYCOCK.
>
> > > QUOTE from the inscription : Lines 13/14 : "The wretched head of the
> > > REBU (Libyans) is Meriaď, the son of Didi"...
> > > But, of course, as you don't give a damn about this inscription, you
> > > may ignore theses lines and the Libyans, right ?..
> >
> > What have the Libyans got to do with the fact that an alliance from
Anatolia
> > and Palestine invaded Egypt and captured Memphis as declared by Manetho
and
> > by the Israel Stela.
>
> HOW MANY TIMES SHALL I HAVE TO SAY THAT THESE ARE TWO *DIFFERENT*
> EVENTS ????
WRONG.
>
> Keep your ideas ! I don't really care !..
GET AN EDUCATION YOU IDIOT.
The Victory (Israeli) Stele of Merneptah
Year 5, 3rd month of summer, day 3, under the Majesty of Horus: Mighty Bull,
Rejoicing in Maat; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Banere-meramun; the
Son of Re: Merneptah, Content with Maat, magnified by the power, exalted by
the strength of Horus; strong bull who smites the Nine Bows, whose name is
given to eternity forever.
Recital of his victories in all lands, to let all lands together know, to
let the glory of his deeds be seen: the King of Upper and Lower Egypt:
Banere-meramun; the Son of Re: Merneptah, Content with Maat; the Bull, lord
of strength who slays his foes, splendid on the field of valour when his
attack is made:
Shu who dispelled the cloud that was over Egypt,
letting Egypt see the rays of the sun disk.
Who removed the mountain of copper from the people's neck,
that he might give breath to the imprisoned folk.
Who let Hut-ka-Ptah exult over its foes,
letting Tjenen triumph over his opponents.
Opener of Memphis' gates that were barred,
who allowed the temples to receive their foods.
The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
the Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat.
The Sole One who steadied the hearts of hundred thousands,
breath entered their nostrils at the sight of him.
Who destroyed the land of the Tjemeh in his lifetime,
cast abiding terror in the heart of the Meshwesh.
He turned back the Libyans who trod Egypt,
great is dread of Egypt in their hearts.
Their leading troops were left behind,
Their legs made no stand except to flee,
Their archers abandoned their bows,
The hearts of their runners grew weak as they sped,
They loosened their water-skins, cast them down,
Their packs were untied, thrown away.
The vile chief, the Libyan foe,
Fled in the deep of night alone,
No plume on his head, his feet unshod,
His wives were carried off from his presence,
His food supplies were snatched away,
He had no drinking water to sustain him.
The gaze of his brothers was fierce to slay him,
His officers fought among each other,
Their tents were fired, burnt to ashes,
All his goods were food for the troops.
When he reached his country he was in mourning
those left in his land were loath to receive him
"A chief, ill-fated, evil-plumed",
All said of him, those of his town.
"He is in the power of the gods,
the lords of Memphis The Lord of Egypt has made his name accursed;
Merey is the abomination of Memphis,
So is son after son of his kin forever.
Banere-meramun will be after his children,
Merneptah, Content with Maat is given him as fate.
He has become a [proverbial saying] for Libya,
Generation says to generation of his victories:
It was never done to us since the time of Re;"
So says every old man speaking to his son.
Woe to Libyans, they have ceased to live
In the good manner of roaming the field;
In a single day their stride was halted
In a single year were the Tjehenu burned!
Seth turned his back upon their chief,
By his word their villages were ruined;
There's no work of carrying [loads] these days.
Hiding is useful, it's safe in the cave.
The great Lord of Egypt, might and strength are his,
Who will combat, knowing how he strides?
A witless fool is he who takes him on,
He knows no tomorrow who attacks his border!
As for Egypt, "Since the gods," they say,
"She is the only daughter of Pre;
His son is he who's on the throne of Shu,
None who attacks her people will succeed.
The eye of every god is after her despoiler,
It will make an end of all its foes",
So say they who gaze toward their stars,
And know all their spells by looking to the winds.
A great wonder has occurred for Egypt,
Her attacker was placed captive (in) her hand,
Through the counsels of the godly king,
Who prevailed against his foes before Pre.
Merey who stealthily did evil
To all the gods who are in Memphis,
He was contended with in On,
The Ennead found him guilty of his crimes.
Said the Lord-of-all: "Give the sword to my son,
The right-hearted, kind, gracious Banere-meramun,
Who cared for Memphis, who avenged On,
Who opened the quarters that were barred.
He has freed the many shut up in all districts,
He has given the offerings to the temples,
He has let incense be brought to the gods,
He has let the nobles retain their possessions,
He has let the humble frequent their towns".
Then spoke the lords of On in behalf of their son,
Merneptah, Content with Maat:
"Grant him a lifetime like that of Re,
To avenge those injured by any land;
Egypt has been assigned him as portion,
He owns it forever to protect its people".
Lo, when one dwells in the time of the mighty,
The breath of life comes readily.
The brave bestows wealth on the just,
The cheat cannot retain his plunder;
[What a man has of ill-gotten wealth
Falls to others, not (his) children.]
This (too) shall be said:
Merey the vile foe, the Libyan foe
Had come to attack the walls of Ta-tenen,
Whose lord had made his son arise in his place,
The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat.
Then said Ptah concerning the vile Libyan foe:
"His crimes are all gathered upon his head.
Give him into the hand of Merneptah, Content with Maat,
He shall make him spew what he gorged like a crocodile.
Lo, the swift will catch the swift,
The lord who knows his strength will snare him;
It is Amun who curbs him with his hand,
He will deliver him to his ka in Southern On,
The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat".
Great joy has arisen in Egypt,
Shouts go up from Egypt's towns;
They relate the Libyan victories
Of Merneptah, Content with Maat:
"How beloved is he, the victorious ruler!
How exalted is he, the King among the gods!
How splendid is he, the lord of command!
O how sweet it is to sit and babble!"
One walks free-striding on the road,
For there's no fear in people's hearts;
Fortresses are left to themselves,
Wells are open for the messengers' use.
Bastioned ramparts are becalmed,
Sunlight only wakes the watchmen;
Medjai are stretched out asleep,
Nau and Tekten are in the fields they love.
The cattle of the field are left to roam,
No herdsmen cross the river's flood;
There's no calling out at night:
"Wait, I come," in a stranger's voice.
Going and coming are with song,
People don't [lament] and mourn;
Towns are settled once again,
He who tends his crop will eat it.
Re has turned around to Egypt,
The Son is ordained as her protector,
The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat
The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,
Given life like Re every day.
>
> grapheus
Agamemnon
GET AN EDUCATION YOU RACIST IMBECILIC CRETIN and learn to speak Greek.
"LVIII. to de Hellênikon glôssêi men epeite egeneto aiei kote têi autêi
diachratai, hôs emoi kataphainetai einai: aposchisthen mentoi* apo tou
Pelasgikou eon asthenes, apo smikrou teo tên archên hormômenon auxêtai es
plêthos tôn ethneôn, Pelasgôn malista proskechôrêkotôn* autôi kai allôn
ethneôn barbarôn suchnôn. prosthe de ôn emoige dokeei oude to Pelasgikon
ethnos, eon barbaron, oudama megalôs auxêthênai."
"but the Hellenic tongue on the one hand since its birth has itself always
been used constantly, so it seems to me: on the other hand when it split off
from the Pelasgic it was week in numbers at the beginning, moving to
increase to many tribes, it certainly came to the Pelasgians and other
tribes of non-speakers aplenty. Before that, it seems to me, neither the
Pelasgian race or the foreigners had increased much.