Subject: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (you be the judge)...
Lisa Aaronson
>li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) wrote:
>>Moses *died* about 530 years before Akhnaton was born. Akhnaton's
>>dates are nowhere near 1379 BCE.
> According to Velikovsky and who else?
I hate to disappoint you, Arlo, but I'm no Velikovskian. The vast majority of
his revision of ancient history was wrong. Plain and simple, no beating
around the bush, wrong. And the parts that weren't wrong were almost
coincidentally right.
>>Check out http://www.interport.net/~lisa/care.html
> A very nice paper.
Thanks, but it doesn't sound like you really read it. I don't mean that to be
nasty, truly I don't. But I get the feeling that it's so easy to grab anyone
who might have something positive to say about the biblical historical
narratives and toss them in with the fundamentalists and other wackos. So
easy that it's often preferable to actually dealing with the evidence that's
being brought.
If this doesn't describe you, you have my apologies. But this post of yours
certainly does sound that way.
>>>tomb of Ay that the "Hymn to the Aten" is inscribed. Moses, on the
>>>other hand, left his life in the court of Ramses II around 1250 B.C.E.
>>>with the so called "Exodus". Incidentally, there is no egyptian record
>>
>>The Pharoah of the Oppression was Pepi II of the 6th Dynasty. Not Ramses
>>II of the 19th. Sorry.
> WHAT?!
Do you have a problem with that? I guess so.
> Hi Lisa,
> I'm not trying to be rude, I promise. It's just that I'm
>having a hard time with this. Thanks for sending me the informative
>article on the Exodus by the way, I found it enjoyable to read. All of
>it seems plausible in it's own convoluted way and I'm always with an
>open mind learning new things and on a search for truth. So I have some
>questions that I hope you can help me with. Please don't take my state-
>ments and questions as offensive only because they are *not* meant to
>be in any way!
That's good enough for me.
>1. How can you (or do you?) base the adjustment of Egyptian chronology
>solely on I Kings 6:1 and a book by Velikovsky?
I don't. I Kings 6:1 is a single data point. Who bases entire reconstruc-
tions on a single data point? I brought that verse simply to illustrate the
kind of egregious dishonesty that has sometimes been resorted to. I
mean, Arlo, face it: that verse says what it says. It says 480 years. Not 12
generations, but 480 years. You don't like that ("you" in the collective
sense)? You don't agree with that? Fine. Say so. But don't try to fudge
the data and make it say something it doesn't, just to fit your preconceived
notions. That doesn't seem very honest, does it?
This is a classic example of the whole problem of stratigraphic dating. We
have archeological evidence of an empire stretching from the Nile to the
Euphrates (Middle Bronze IIB,C). We have a description of just such an
empire in the Bible (the United Monarchy of David and Solomon). But
rather than match the two up, we take a historical narrative that doesn't
match the archeological evidence (the Hyksos described by Josephus) and
emend it to fit. And we take a stratigraphic level that doesn't match the
biblical description (Iron Age IIA) and emend the biblical narrative to make
it fit.
The same thing is done over and over. The Bronze/Iron interchange
*doesn't* match the Israelite invasion and settlement of Canaan. It *does*
match the Assyrian invasions of North Israel and the settlement of the
Samaritans.
Imagine a dullard trying to force a square peg into a round hole. He might
even be justified in doing so, if not for the fact that there's a round peg
sitting right next to him. And that if he only looks around a bit, there's a
square hole just the size of that peg.
I don't mean by this to call historians dullards. By no means. They are
simply stuck with a hidden premise that is *so* taken for granted that it's
never even questioned. And that's the basic demarcation line between the
Bronze and Iron Ages, which was set around the 12th century BCE,
ironically enough, because of a mistranslation of a biblical verse in the
King James Bible.
And I'm not making the mistake that some people who have tried to do
revisions of ancient chronology have made. I'm not talking about isolated
incidents. I'm talking about the entire span of history from the end of the
Chalcolithic and beginning of the Early Bronze Age (the time of Abraham)
through Babylonian conquest and exile of the Kingdom of Judah. This
entire period is identical, whether seen through the biblical narrative or
through the stratigraphical evidence. Point by point. Period by period.
Culture by culture.
In both records, there were three, and three only major cultures in the Land
of Israel from the earliest urban settlements through the Babylonian Exile.
Historians call these three cultures "Canaanean", "Amorite/Hyksos/ Canaanite/Judahite" and "Israelite". The Bible identifies them as
"Canaanite", "Israelite" and "Samaritan". Same people; different labels.
There's no real conflict, Arlo. It's illusory.
>2. If Akhenaten didn't live anywhere near circa 1350 B.C.E., when did
>he live? Doesn't grossly adjusting the entirety of egyptian chronology
>fly in the face of a giant database of convincing evidence?
He lived at the end of the 18th Dynasty. And the 18th Dynasty dates to the
Late Bronze Age. The difference is where we date the LBA. Given the
dates we get from a rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel, Akhnaton
dates to around 800 BCE. Roughly.
>If according to you, Akhenaten lived several hundred years after Moses,
>why do the Amarna letters consistently refer to the Hebrew (Hapiru)
>as not a race or nation, but a troublesome class of worker causing
>anxiety within Egypt's realm? It would seem to conventional scholars
>that this is because the Exodus had not yet taken place. It makes more
>sense in consideration of most sources that the Exodus took place much
>later, during the reign of Ramses II, or maybe his son, Merneptah.
The 'Apiru have not a thing to do with the Hebrews. Zippo. Nada. And
if it hadn't been for the incorrect dating of the 'Apiru far too early, the rather
bizarre idea that there *is* a connection would never have been suggest-
ed.
The 'Apiru were brigands, that's all. Merneptah lived *way* later than the
Exodus. That bit about "Israel is desolate, her seed is not" from the stele
dated to his 5 year (IINM), refers to the year of 4 kings in North Israel.
When Jeroboam II died, and after 6 months, his son Zechariah died, and
after another month, Shallum was killed and Menahem became king.
>3. From what source do you attribute the biblical account of the Exodus?
>From where does it (or possibly it's many parts) originate? Have you
>convincingly dated the writing of the Exodus?
Source? Parts? You're arguing circularly. If you don't start off with a
dating system that requires you to date the Exodus (using a fair and
honest reading of the text) in the middle of the 18th Dynasty, which is
ridiculous on the face of it, as I'm sure you'll agree (Thutmose III was not
plagued by plagues, last I checked), there's no reason to doubt that the
Exodus happened. And had you really read that Exodus article I sent you,
you'd have seen that the effects of the plagues were indeed recorded by
the Egyptians.
And what do you mean "the writing of the Exodus"? The Exodus was an
event, not a novel.
>4. You've asserted to me that historians have intentionally shortened
>timeline indications in the Bible (I Kings 6:1) to allow for the present
>chronology of ancient Egyptian history. *Why* would they do that? Are
>you so certain that 99% of scholarly historia would intentionally ignore
>a profound indication to the truthful chronology of the most important
>civilization in human history?
Because the Bronze/Iron interchange was dated, *before* the birth of
modern archeology or Egyptology or Assyriology, to the time of King Saul.
This was because the morons of King James' translating committee chose
to translate the Hebrew word "charash" as "smith", and this was under-
stood to mean "blacksmith". And the understanding was that if the Phili-
stines had iron and the Israelites didn't (presumably they must have had
bronze, then, the reasoning went), this was the line between the Bronze
and Iron Ages. Which is nonsense, but forget that.
This little assumption was so "obvious" that it was ignored forever after.
It's never defended, never argued about. When Egyptian dates, originally
stretching way back into the 6000s or 7000s BCE, were brought down to
roughly where we find them today, it was the fact that Ramses III dates to
the Bronze/Iron interchange that kept it from being brought all the way down.
Ironically enough, it was the historians who were *not* emotionally com-
pelled to "disprove" the Bible who messed things up. An honest person
would have said, "Okay, I Kings 6:1 says 480 years, and that's totally im-
possible. So it's wrong." But no. They wanted to dance at two weddings
at the same time. So they deliberately falsified what the verse says to
fit an a priori conclusion. But why focus on that verse? There're worse
offenses.
>5. Akhenaten's Egypt moved it's capital to an entirely new place during
>his rule and again moved at the end. It seems quite certain that such
>an up-rooting of Egypt's most important city, along with the Pharoah
>himself, would render the entire populace aware of Akhenaten's complete
>transition to monotheism. Temples across the country were largely shut
>down and the Pharoah's word was spread throughout. If (according to
>the chronology as it is accepted now) some years later, Moses were a
>noble in the Pharoah's court, he would certainly be aware of Akhenaten's
>acomplishments.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. Okay, no argument.
*If* Moses lived after Akhnaton, and *if* he was a noble in the court at that
time, it's pretty reasonable to assume that he'd have heard about what
Akhnaton did. So?
>6. The Book of the Dead (c. 1200 B.C.E., according to accepted Egyptian
>chronology) is a compilation of much older materials, ie., most of the
Uh, uh. What you really mean to say, when you say 1200 BCE, is Iron
Age I. Also known as the Bronze/Iron interchange. I don't accept conclu-
sions as premises.
>"Pyramid Texts" and "Coffin Texts". These writings are dated (according
>to the present Egyptian chronology) to c.2700 B.C.E. - c.1800 B.C.E. How
>do you approach the fact that *five* of the "10 Commandments" are con-
>tained word for word, save for the negative tense, within this material?
Well, given the fact that Iron I began about 7 centuries *after* the Exodus
and the giving of the Torah, which included the 10 commandments, I'd say
your question sort of answers itself, no?
And the question is sneakily put. Tsk, tsk. When you say that these lines
which resemble some of the commandments appear in a document from "1200 BCE", and add that this document contains material which
dates from "2700-1800 BCE" (by which you mean the Early Bronze Age and
the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age), you beg the question. Did
*these* lines date from that earlier period? Why not just say so? What's
the relevance of "1200"? But they didn't.
>"I have not..." verses "I shall not...". In addition to the Commandments
>almost *every last* Proverb is also present in the texts and this has
>been documented thoroughly.
If you want to find something badly enough, you'll find it. If you want 1
Kings 6:1 to say 300 years, you'll make it say 300 years and then present
it as "proof" that there were only 300 years between the Exodus and the
building of the Temple. "After all, even the Bible says so." But it doesn't.
>7. Why are so many Jewish historians so overridingly eager to adjust
>Egyptian chronology? Just what is the benefit or goal? If Biblical
>chronology is so precise, I mean to say if timelines can be drawn so
>accurately from the Bible, why are so few able to calculate them prop-
>erly? If Egyptian chronology as it is now, is so grossly contrived, how
>do you know King David lived 250 years before Akhenaten?
Because life just isn't that black and white, Arlo. Egyptian chronology
is *not* contrived. A mistake made long ago has warped subsequent
work, *to a degree*. In fact, this makes the work of archeologists, Egypt-
ologists and Assyriologists that much more praiseworthy. Because it
points up their basic honesty. Had they known the true dates of the evi-
dence they were looking at, they might have been accused of trying to
make the evidence fit the biblical narratives. But since they didn't know
this, no such accusation can be made. In other words, when they show
that the Middle Bronze IIB,C culture constituted an empire, stretching
from the Nile to the Euphrates, with monumental art and a commercial
empire that reached even to the British Isles, and with a population
that spoke and wrote biblical Hebrew, and was extremely wealthy,
we might have suspected that these experts had their Bibles open to
the chapters describing Solomon's empire. And were slanting their
views of the physical evidence to match. But they weren't doing that,
Arlo, because they thought they were looking at a time 600 years before
Solomon was born. And they got it right anyway. I call that damned
good work.
> And finally, let me tell you what I am thinking now, and how this
>appears to me after reading the lengthy article you e-mailed to me. It
>seems to me now that these revisions by some are meant to establish
>the Old Testament as the birth of ancient wisdom and as the primary
>source of ancient Egypt's wisdom and prosperity, rather than simply
>a transmitter of Egypt's gift to humankind. It's a tug-of-war; if we
>pull the timeline this way just a bit, then things change dramatically
>in our favor.
No. Or let me clarify that. There may be (are, in fact) some people who
are doing work on historical revisions for that purpose. I've seen some
of their work. I'm unimpressed. What I'm doing is simply to go over to
the dullard I mentioned before and point out that the *round* peg goes in
the *round* hole. And that the *square* peg goes in the *square* hole.
And that there's no reason to do damage to either of the pegs or either
of the holes trying to fit the wrong ones together. Did I start out because
I was attracted just out of college by Velikovsky's books? Sure. So what?
I got over it. Can you get over it?
> Let me make it clear to you that I'm completely aware that I may
>be badly mistaken and quite wrong about my understanding of these
>things. I am completely comfortable with the way Egyptian and Hebrew
>histories jive now, but I'm also alert enough to know I wasn't there
>and neither was anybody else I know and so I could be very wrong.
But Arlo, they don't jive at all. Rather, a completely invented thing which
looks much like the "Hebrew" histories with more revisions than actual
text, "jives" with the Egyptian histories. Which is no trick, since the re-
visions were based on the Egyptian histories to begin with. That's called
circular reasoning, Arlo. It's a no-no.
I'd apologize for posting this monstrously long thing to Usenet. But I
figure that anyone who's read to this point was actually interested in it.
Thank you, Arlo, for asking good questions. I hope that my answers, if
not convincing, were at least understandable.
Lisa
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
Lisa Aaronson
>li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) wrote:
>>The Pharoah of the Oppression was Pepi II of the 6th Dynasty. Not Ramses
>>II of the 19th. Sorry.
>>Do you have a problem with that? I guess so.
>Yes, I take exception to that.
I don't see why. The biblical account of the oppression and Exodus fits well
at the end of the Old Kingdom. And nowhere else. And that's *besides* the
overall match of the biblical history to the stratigraphic record.
So "Yes, I take exception to that" is a cute thing to say, but not very
informative.
>>>1. How can you (or do you?) base the adjustment of Egyptian chronology
>>>solely on I Kings 6:1 and a book by Velikovsky?
>>
>>I don't. I Kings 6:1 is a single data point. Who bases entire reconstruc-
>>tions on a single data point? I brought that verse simply to illustrate the
>>kind of egregious dishonesty that has sometimes been resorted to. I
>>mean, Arlo, face it: that verse says what it says. It says 480 years. Not 12
>>generations, but 480 years. You don't like that ("you" in the collective
>>sense)? You don't agree with that? Fine. Say so. But don't try to fudge
>>the data and make it say something it doesn't, just to fit your preconceived
>>notions. That doesn't seem very honest, does it?
>Preconceived? Dishonest?
"Interpreting" a clear statement to mean something it doesn't for the sole
purpose of supporting an a preconceived notion is indeed dishonest, Arlo. Or
would you care to argue that this verse was "reinterpreted" to mean 12
generations before or independent of the conclusion that 480 years was too
long for the period between the Exodus and the Temple. I assure you that if
you do, you'll be wasting your time.
So yes, preconceived. Dishonest. Don't pick at the words, Arlo. If you
think they're unfair, explain why. Don't just sound shocked at them.
It's a lot easier arguing with fundamentalists, isn't it.
>>Imagine a dullard trying to force a square peg into a round hole. He might
>>even be justified in doing so, if not for the fact that there's a round peg
>>sitting right next to him. And that if he only looks around a bit, there's a
>>square hole just the size of that peg.
>Yes, I can imagine this scenario.
Well, do you think the dullard is right to ignore the correct fits and to do
damage to the material at hand in order to fit the wrong peg into the wrong
hole?
>>I don't mean by this to call historians dullards. By no means.
>Historians meaning, non-Jewish, secular scholars?
However *you* meant it, Arlo. I mean everyone who uncritically accepts the
conventional stratigraphic dating.
>>>2. If Akhenaten didn't live anywhere near circa 1350 B.C.E., when did
>>>he live? Doesn't grossly adjusting the entirety of egyptian chronology
>>>fly in the face of a giant database of convincing evidence?
>>He lived at the end of the 18th Dynasty. And the 18th Dynasty dates to the
>>Late Bronze Age. The difference is where we date the LBA. Given the
>>dates we get from a rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel, Akhnaton
>>dates to around 800 BCE. Roughly.
>If according to Lisa's rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel,
>Akhenaten dates to around 800 B.C.E., then Ramses II dates to around
>675 B.C.E. and the large-scale Nubian invasion of Egypt to around
>250 B.C.E. That's right, Lisa's pet theory moves the 25th (Nubian)
>Dynasty to around 250 B.C.E. Also, Alexander was confused.
Gather 'round folks, for a lesson in the history of history.
Once upon a time, some historians got together and looked at the records we
have of ancient Egypt. They took all the lengths of reign and added them
together. And got Egypt being founded way back in 6000 or so BCE. Check out
any book on Egyptian history from the past century, though, and you'll find
much lower dates. Why? Because it was realized that some dynasties
overlapped. That there were coregencies. That stringing one reign after the
other like that was uncritical and just plain wrong.
Sort of what Arlo just did. You see, the Third Intermediate Period, which was
once held to have lasted about 1000 years, and is now held to have lasted for
more like 500-600 years, actually didn't last that long at all. In fact,
Herodotus wrote that it only lasted 120 years, which is pretty close to the
mark. So those cute dates Arlo quoted above aren't even close. They do have
really nice propaganda value, though. Good job, Arlo. Can we be serious now?
>>And what do you mean "the writing of the Exodus"? The Exodus was an
>>event, not a novel.
>I'm in full agreement with you: the Exodus was an event. Maybe you can
>come to grips with the reality that this event was recorded in writing.
>Now, when do you date this writing?
Well, most Egyptologists date the Ipuwer Papyrus to the early Middle Kingdom.
And hold that it is referring to events at the end of the Old Kingdom. But
I forgot, you "take exception" to my saying that the Exodus took place at the
end of the Old Kingdom.
>>And the question is sneakily put. Tsk, tsk. When you say that these lines
>>which resemble some of the commandments appear in a document from "1200 BCE",
>>and add that this document contains material which dates from "2700-1800
>>BCE" (by which you mean the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle
>>Bronze Age), you beg the question. Did *these* lines date from that earlier
>>period? Why not just say so? What's the relevance of "1200"? But they
>>didn't.
>Sneakily put? I said resemble? No, I didn't think so. These five
>(originals?) of the 10 Commandments are components of the so-called
>"Pyramid Texts" which are inscribed on various structures dating circa
>2600 B.C.E. Or with your revision, 2100 B.C.E. These are also contained
>in the Book of the Dead, which is a compilation of these texts among
>others.
Sources please. Detailed, if you don't mind. The particular lines that are
"identical" to some of the 10 commandments and your basis for dating them
prior to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt.
>>Did I start out because I was attracted just out of college by Velikovsky's
>>books? Sure. So what? I got over it. Can you get over it?
>Uh, I guess I can recover at some point. What attracted you to his books
>in the first place? Were you initially attracted for some perceived
>truth or because you disagreed
Not that it's relevant, but it wasn't so much his solutions, but the problems
he raised with the conventional chronology. Even if his solutions were wrong,
he was dead on in most of his criticisms.
>Thank you as well, Lisa for your good answers. Isn't this fun?
Thrillsville. But, Arlo, you do realize that you totally evaded most of my
points, don't you?
David Snyder
Aaronson) wrote:
> [...]
>
> >If according to Lisa's rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel,
> >Akhenaten dates to around 800 B.C.E., then Ramses II dates to around
> >675 B.C.E. and the large-scale Nubian invasion of Egypt to around
> >250 B.C.E. That's right, Lisa's pet theory moves the 25th (Nubian)
> >Dynasty to around 250 B.C.E. Also, Alexander was confused.
>
> Gather 'round folks, for a lesson in the history of history.
>
> Once upon a time, some historians got together and looked at the records we
> have of ancient Egypt. They took all the lengths of reign and added them
> together. And got Egypt being founded way back in 6000 or so BCE. Check out
> any book on Egyptian history from the past century, though, and you'll find
> much lower dates. Why? Because it was realized that some dynasties
> overlapped. That there were coregencies. That stringing one reign after the
> other like that was uncritical and just plain wrong.
>
Maybe, but their could not be the amount of coregency you would have to
claim. Is there a reason why you feel the need to make these claims? I
think accepted history meshes reasonably well with the Bible. Especially
when you look at the character of history in the Torah.
> Sort of what Arlo just did. You see, the Third Intermediate Period,
which was
> once held to have lasted about 1000 years, and is now held to have lasted for
> more like 500-600 years, actually didn't last that long at all. In fact,
> Herodotus wrote that it only lasted 120 years, which is pretty close to the
> mark. So those cute dates Arlo quoted above aren't even close. They do have
> really nice propaganda value, though. Good job, Arlo. Can we be serious now?
>
Still, even though I do not know that much about ancient Egypt, even if
dynasties do overlap, the dates are still unreasonably recent. Doubtless,
the dates accepted are not accurate, but still, 800 BCE is way too recent,
it would seem. Expecially considering that I am sure Tutankhomon (sp?)
who, if I remember right, was Akhtenaten's son, has had stuff associated
with him that was carbon dated.
> [...]
> Well, most Egyptologists date the Ipuwer Papyrus to the early Middle
Kingdom.
> And hold that it is referring to events at the end of the Old Kingdom. But
> I forgot, you "take exception" to my saying that the Exodus took place at the
> end of the Old Kingdom.
>
Let me guess, you also think the Hebrews built pyramids. If the Hebrews
were enslaved, how come they spent so much time on cities when more help
would have been needed on pyramids which were built in the old kingdom ...
> [...]
> Lisa
> [...]
This only goes to show that even the people who you think would be most
interested in accurate rational history are not. Given this lack of
commitment to rational history, I cannot see how it even can exist. All
of this proves no-one's pet theories but my own!
David Snyder
dasn...@uci.edu
Whittet
>I've snipped this post extensivley so please refer to the previous post
>as reference. The post (without a retort) is Subject: Ancient
>Egyptian Chronology (you be the judge)...
>sci.archaeology,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel
>
>li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) wrote:
>
>>Moses *died* about 530 years before Akhnaton was born. Akhnaton's
>>dates are nowhere near 1379 BCE.
>
>>I hate to disappoint you, Arlo, but I'm no Velikovskian.
>snip
>>The Pharoah of the Oppression was Pepi II of the 6th Dynasty. Not Ramses
>>II of the 19th. Sorry.
>>Do you have a problem with that? I guess so.
>
>Yes, I take exception to that.
>
>>>1. How can you (or do you?) base the adjustment of Egyptian chronology
>>>solely on I Kings 6:1 and a book by Velikovsky?
>>
>>I don't. I Kings 6:1 is a single data point. Who bases entire reconstruc-
>>tions on a single data point? I brought that verse simply to illustrate the
>>kind of egregious dishonesty that has sometimes been resorted to. I
>>mean, Arlo, face it: that verse says what it says. It says 480 years.
>> Not 12 generations, but 480 years. You don't like that ("you" in the collective
>>sense)? You don't agree with that? Fine. Say so. But don't try to fudge
>>the data and make it say something it doesn't, just to fit your preconceived
>>notions. That doesn't seem very honest, does it?
Both of you seem eager to resolve this so what I would like to see you both do
is to list side by side the chronology of Egypt and the Chronology of the Bible.
You can limit the list to the period under discussion, though you may both
start and end at different points.
For example if you want to use the 480 years the Bible claims passed between
the Exodus and the building of Solomons temple (generally dated to c 966BC)
then you should also use the 430 years the Bible claims the Israelites were in
Egypt to work back and show us in whose reign you think they arrived.
lets see where your alignments differ.
>snip
>
>>>2. If Akhenaten didn't live anywhere near circa 1350 B.C.E., when did
>>>he live? Doesn't grossly adjusting the entirety of egyptian chronology
>>>fly in the face of a giant database of convincing evidence?
Despite the claims of David Rohl that it is misalligned, there is a huge
amount of data supporting Egyptian dates in various segments. The
problem with adjusting the allignments with such mecahnisms as
overlapping dynasties is that often the other correlations are not cross
referenced, so if you want to do that here you should mention the
contraindications as well as the correlations.
>
>>He lived at the end of the 18th Dynasty. And the 18th Dynasty dates to the
>>Late Bronze Age. The difference is where we date the LBA. Given the
>>dates we get from a rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel, Akhnaton
>>dates to around 800 BCE. Roughly.
I am sorry but what dates from a rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel
support this?
>If according to Lisa's rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel,
>Akhenaten dates to around 800 B.C.E., then Ramses II dates to around
>675 B.C.E. and the large-scale Nubian invasion of Egypt to around
>250 B.C.E. That's right, Lisa's pet theory moves the 25th (Nubian)
>Dynasty to around 250 B.C.E. Also, Alexander was confused.
Lisa, Arlos reaction is actually quite understated. If you want to be taken
seriously when you say things like this you need to provide us with a lot
more facts.
>
>snip
>> An honest person
>>would have said, "Okay, I Kings 6:1 says 480 years, and that's totally im-
>>possible. So it's wrong." But no. They wanted to dance at two weddings
>>at the same time. So they deliberately falsified what the verse says to
>>fit an a priori conclusion. But why focus on that verse? There're worse offenses.
The data does not fit as well with present chronologies as it used to. less than 100
years ago the XVIIIth Dynasty was dated between c1700 and 1400 BC now it has been
adjusted to fit in the position c1550-1307 BC. Part of the adjustments were due to
people with theories of overlaping dynasties, others were due to studies of the sothic
cycle, and even archaeological data.
Ken Kitchners study of the form of the references in the Exodus seems to place it
in the 13th or 14th centuries BC, Akhenaten is presently dated to c 1353-1335 BC
the construction of Solomons temple is dated to c 966 BC. there does seems to
be a discrepancy of about 100 years, but I don't see how that justifies expanding
the discrepancy to more than half a millenium, or even why that is useful?
>>>6. The Book of the Dead (c. 1200 B.C.E., according to accepted Egyptian
>>>chronology) is a compilation of much older materials, ie., most of the
>>
>>Uh, uh. What you really mean to say, when you say 1200 BCE, is Iron
>>Age I. Also known as the Bronze/Iron interchange. I don't accept conclu-
>>sions as premises.
>>
>>>"Pyramid Texts" and "Coffin Texts". These writings are dated (according
>>>to the present Egyptian chronology) to c.2700 B.C.E. - c.1800 B.C.E. How
>>>do you approach the fact that *five* of the "10 Commandments" are con-
>>>tained word for word, save for the negative tense, within this material?
How about at the time of the Exodus they were a part of the "wisdom literature"
a Literary tradition which was probably a part of the common heritage of any
Egyptian; especially anyone whos family had lived in Egypt since the time
they were written.
>>
>>And the question is sneakily put. Tsk, tsk. When you say that these lines
>>which resemble some of the commandments appear in a document from "1200 BCE",
> and add that this document contains material which
>>dates from "2700-1800 BCE" (by which you mean the Early Bronze Age and
>>the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age), you beg the question. Did
>>*these* lines date from that earlier period? Why not just say so? What's
>>the relevance of "1200"? But they didn't.
The way I read it, the document written at the latter date contained elements
found in earlier documents. Why wouldn't we expect to see that?
>
>snip
>These five
>(originals?) of the 10 Commandments are components of the so-called
>"Pyramid Texts" which are inscribed on various structures dating circa
>2600 B.C.E. Or with your revision, 2100 B.C.E. These are also contained
>in the Book of the Dead, which is a compilation of these texts among
>others.
>snip
>
>>>7. Why are so many Jewish historians so overridingly eager to adjust
>>>Egyptian chronology? Just what is the benefit or goal? If Biblical
>>>chronology is so precise, I mean to say if timelines can be drawn so
>>>accurately from the Bible, why are so few able to calculate them properly?
>snip
>>But Arlo, they don't jive at all. Rather, a completely invented thing which
>>looks much like the "Hebrew" histories with more revisions than actual
>>text, "jives" with the Egyptian histories.
I see the resemblance also. They appear borrowed rather than independently
invented, but again, why isn't that just what we should expect to see?
>
>>I'd apologize for posting this monstrously long thing to Usenet. But I
>>figure that anyone who's read to this point was actually interested in it.
>>Thank you, Arlo, for asking good questions. I hope that my answers, if
>>not convincing, were at least understandable.
Lisa,
It is an intersting topic for discussion, though you need to provide
more information if you wish to seem convincing. I think I do
understand what you are saying, but I don't see you providing
any evidence to back it up. I don't mind your response being
long if it eventually makes a point.
Arlo,
Your discussion of the relation between the Pyramid texts
and the ten commandments is something I have observed also,
would you care to give some cites where you find the best
correlation between the two? It isn't just the Ten commandments
where I see this but also in the rest of the Old Testament as well.
I
>>
>>Lisa
>>
snip
>Thank you as well, Lisa for your good answers. Isn't this fun?
>
>-Arlo
>
>
steve
Norman Morin
Aaronson) wrote:
>>2. If Akhenaten didn't live anywhere near circa 1350 B.C.E., when did
>>he live? Doesn't grossly adjusting the entirety of egyptian chronology
>>fly in the face of a giant database of convincing evidence?
>
>He lived at the end of the 18th Dynasty. And the 18th Dynasty dates to the
>Late Bronze Age. The difference is where we date the LBA. Given the
>dates we get from a rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel, Akhnaton
>dates to around 800 BCE. Roughly.
Lisa, how do you reconcile these new dates to contacts with other
civilizations like the Hittites, Mitanni/Hurrians, Assyrians? Your
dating scheme would radically alter dates for these states as well,
given known battles and correspondences between them and the Egyptians.
Many of the dates for these states, however, are not derived from
the Egyptians, but from internal evidence. It might prove very
difficult, if not impossible, to substantially alter the chronologies
of the other Near Eastern states to conform to your dating.
--Norm
--
Norman J. Morin
nmo...@weber.ucsd.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Economics * University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive * La Jolla, CA 92023-0508
-------------------------------------------------------------
"You have to consider we're only made out of dust. That's admittedly
not much to go on and we shouldn't forget that." -- Philip K. Dick
David Barnett
A. Malamat in "A history of the Jewish People", Ed. H.H.Ben-Sasson,
this is based on 2 data points (see p.43).
The claim is that the 480 years from the exodus to the foundation of
the Temple (I Kings 6:1) should be read as "12 generations" and scaled
to 25 years per generation, giving 300 years.
The other claimed data point is the remark of Yiftha`h to the king of
the Ammonites (Judges 11:26) that Israel conquered transjordan from
the Amorites 300 years before. Rescaling that as "7 1/2" generations
gives about 187 years (Malamat says 180).
Malamat claims that these tow rescalings then point to the same time
for the Exodus as mid 13th century bce.
My question is, can we, from internal biblical evidence, say how long
the interval was between Yiftha`h and the founding of the temple?
If it was 180 years, then the Bible "years" must be understood literally
(since such a reconstruction, presumbably would not rely on many
pro-forma "years" in its calculation). The rescaling would be
supported if the interval from Yiftha`h to Solomon's Temple was only
110 to 120 years.
Does anyone have a good biblical chronology for the Yiftha`h--Solomon
interval?
David Barnett
Lisa Aaronson
>In article <lisa.1742...@interport.net>, li...@interport.net (Lisa
>Aaronson) wrote:
>>>2. If Akhenaten didn't live anywhere near circa 1350 B.C.E., when did
>>>he live? Doesn't grossly adjusting the entirety of egyptian chronology
>>>fly in the face of a giant database of convincing evidence?
>>
>>He lived at the end of the 18th Dynasty. And the 18th Dynasty dates to the
>>Late Bronze Age. The difference is where we date the LBA. Given the
>>dates we get from a rational dating of the stratigraphy of Israel, Akhnaton
>>dates to around 800 BCE. Roughly.
>Lisa, how do you reconcile these new dates to contacts with other
>civilizations like the Hittites, Mitanni/Hurrians, Assyrians? Your
>dating scheme would radically alter dates for these states as well,
>given known battles and correspondences between them and the Egyptians.
>Many of the dates for these states, however, are not derived from
>the Egyptians, but from internal evidence. It might prove very
>difficult, if not impossible, to substantially alter the chronologies
>of the other Near Eastern states to conform to your dating.
Difficult <> impossible, though. If you're interested, e-mail me and I can
send you a couple of articles on the subject. Dealing particularly with the
Hittites and Mitanni. They're even bigger than the Exodus article I posted,
and I don't like when other people post monstrosities, so I shouldn't either.
Suffice it to say that it's not nearly as "difficult" as you may think. Btw,
did you read my article at http://www.interport.net/~lisa/care.html? That
might answer some of your questions, although it was really written for an
audience of "Velikovskians" with the aim of getting them to tone it down.
The offer is open to others as well.
Lisa Aaronson
>On the issue of rescaling 480 years to 300 years, according to
>A. Malamat in "A history of the Jewish People", Ed. H.H.Ben-Sasson,
>this is based on 2 data points (see p.43).
>The claim is that the 480 years from the exodus to the foundation of
>the Temple (I Kings 6:1) should be read as "12 generations" and scaled
>to 25 years per generation, giving 300 years.
But it's an entirely unjustified claim. *Totally*. The text in question says
nothing about generations. Some people decided for other reasons that 300
years would suit them, and came up with this silly generation thing in order
to fudge the data to fit.
David Barnett
Tutankamun's tomb? What were the quoted errors?
David Barnett
David Barnett
In jumping on the intro paragraphs of my post you have neglected
the questions I was posing.
David Barnett
Peter Szabo
Arlo and Lisa.
Neither side is showing any weakness yet but Lisa's scoring more
points with a more patient and detailed presentation. Come on Arlo the
pressures on you !
marduk
>
>This is a classic example of the whole problem of stratigraphic dating. We
>have archeological evidence of an empire stretching from the Nile to the
>Euphrates (Middle Bronze IIB,C). We have a description of just such an
>empire in the Bible (the United Monarchy of David and Solomon). But
>rather than match the two up, we take a historical narrative that doesn't
>match the archeological evidence (the Hyksos described by Josephus) and
>emend it to fit. And we take a stratigraphic level that doesn't match the
>biblical description (Iron Age IIA) and emend the biblical narrative to make
>it fit.
>
ARGHHH!!!!!! I can't STAND it anmore. I have sat quietly by and watched in
wonder as you talk such utter nonsense about the archaeology and chronology of
the ancient near east...not to mention your pathetic forays into etymology and
philology.
As a professor of assyriology and archaeology, i can state with absolute
conviction that i know of no single reputable scholar in the field who bases
chronological assumptions simply upon stratigraphic evidence. The whole concept
of modern chronological research is based upon the use of relative chronology,
that is, the constant correlation and cross reference between the written
records and the archaeological evidence. If you want a more complete
explanation, i can always e-mail to you my standard handout that i give to my
first year Archaeology 101 students. Apparently, you could benefit from it.
Just a few more points:
Your citation of Josephus as a credible source for the Hyksos invasion is
laughable. Josephus wrote his Contra Apionem as an attempted justification of
jan unbroken jewish presence. Consequently, using Mantheo as his guide, he
identified the Hyksos as the patriarchal jews, Maybe in
alth.chronology.kook, this counts as an authoratative citation, but not
in the real world, kiddo.
>I don't mean by this to call historians dullards. By no means. They are
>simply stuck with a hidden premise that is *so* taken for granted that it's
>never even questioned. And that's the basic demarcation line between the
>Bronze and Iron Ages, which was set around the 12th century BCE,
>ironically enough, because of a mistranslation of a biblical verse in the
>King James Bible.
Are you serious? c'mon, tell me you were just joking...do you really believe
that archaeologists rely upon the king james bible as a reference for
chronological conclusions? first of all, we all happen to read primary texts in
their original languages, its kinda part of the training (DOH!).
IT was round 1200 B.C. that the archaological record reveals a distinct use of
iron implements, a not surprising development considering that this was also
the time of a transition from a migratory to a sedentary existence. In Gilead
and in the southern regions of Transjordan hundreds of settlements dating to
this 13th century beginning of the iron age have been discovered. So too in the
southern part of Upper Galilee between the Valley of Bet-haherem and Nahal
Keziv there is a continuous chain of small settlements from the beginning of
the iron agae. All of this is cross-correlated with a continuous chain of
pottery evidence. I would suggest you take a gander at Ruth Amiran's Ancient
Pottery of the Holy Land....
>
>Imagine a dullard trying to force a square peg into a round hole. He might
>even be justified in doing so, if not for the fact that there's a round peg
>sitting right next to him. And that if he only looks around a bit, there's a
>square hole just the size of that peg.
>
Actually, Lisa, if the truth be known, its you who is forcing the square peg
into a round hole. In your single-minded, fanatical zeal to prove that the
Bible is the inerrant word of god and completely and totally factually correct,
you will perform gymnastic feats of wonder to push and massage facts to suit
your needs. you hardly exhibit the detached scientific methodology of a true
historian
Stella Nemeth
>In article <lisa.1746...@interport.net>, li...@interport.net (Lisa
>Aaronson) wrote:
>> Gather 'round folks, for a lesson in the history of history.
>>
>> Once upon a time, some historians got together and looked at the records we
>> have of ancient Egypt. They took all the lengths of reign and added them
>> together. And got Egypt being founded way back in 6000 or so BCE. Check out
>> any book on Egyptian history from the past century, though, and you'll find
>> much lower dates. Why? Because it was realized that some dynasties
>> overlapped. That there were coregencies. That stringing one reign after the
>> other like that was uncritical and just plain wrong.
>>
>Maybe, but their could not be the amount of coregency you would have to
>claim.
Actually there can. Even in the standard chronologies it is normal to
run two and three dynasties simultaneously during the Intermediate
Periods of Egyptian history, and to have co-regencies going in each of
the dynasties as well. This is what makes Egyptian chronology so
slippery.
>> Sort of what Arlo just did. You see, the Third Intermediate Period,
>which was
>> once held to have lasted about 1000 years, and is now held to have lasted for
>> more like 500-600 years, actually didn't last that long at all. In fact,
>> Herodotus wrote that it only lasted 120 years, which is pretty close to the
>> mark.
>Still, even though I do not know that much about ancient Egypt, even if
>dynasties do overlap, the dates are still unreasonably recent.
This is the sticking point for me too and a reasonable objection. For
any restructuring of Egyptian history, it is necessary to explain how
it meshes into the history of the Greek Classical world, for which we
have good dates. If you can't get the two timelines to match up, it
doesn't work.
>Doubtless,
>the dates accepted are not accurate, but still, 800 BCE is way too recent,
>it would seem. Expecially considering that I am sure Tutankhomon (sp?)
>who, if I remember right, was Akhtenaten's son, has had stuff associated
>with him that was carbon dated.
What was carbon dated? What were the dates? When was the carbon
dating done?
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Lisa Aaronson
>ARGHHH!!!!!! I can't STAND it anmore. I have sat quietly by and watched in
>wonder as you talk such utter nonsense about the archaeology and chronology
>of the ancient near east...not to mention your pathetic forays into
>etymology and philology.
Well *hi* there, Marduk! You know, they say that when you're dealing with a
donkey, the best thing to do is get his attention. And that the best way to
do that is with a 2 x 4.
Gee... maybe I posted all this just to get your goat. Seems to have worked,
hasn't it...
>As a professor of assyriology and archaeology, i can state with absolute
>conviction that i know of no single reputable scholar in the field who
>bases chronological assumptions simply upon stratigraphic evidence. The
>whole concept of modern chronological research is based upon the use of
>relative chronology, that is, the constant correlation and cross reference
>between the written records and the archaeological evidence. If you want a
>more complete explanation, i can always e-mail to you my standard handout
>that i give to my first year Archaeology 101 students. Apparently, you
>could benefit from it.
Oh, Marduk, Marduk... Context, professor. You're taking the current state
of affairs as a primary. That's a mistake. I wouldn't argue with you in
the least about the above paragraph. As of today. But the entire edifice
is built, unfortunately, on a couple of troublesome little hidden
assumptions. All science, and I consider Assyriology and archeology to be
sciences of a sort, is based on previous work. Well, the earliest work on
ancient chronology was indeed based on the things I mentioned (among others)
and even if you don't deal with that directly now, it's an integral part of
the foundation of your work.
Does it bother you that if this is the case, some of your own work, perhaps,
will need to be redone? Tough luck... That's called progress.
>Your citation of Josephus as a credible source for the Hyksos invasion is
>laughable. Josephus wrote his Contra Apionem as an attempted justification
>of jan unbroken jewish presence. Consequently, using Mantheo as his guide,
>he identified the Hyksos as the patriarchal jews, Maybe in
>alth.chronology.kook, this counts as an authoratative citation, but not
>in the real world, kiddo.
Don't be an ass. What other literary source do we have for the Hyksos?
There are Egyptian inscriptions referring to the Amu. Others referring to
the hekau khasut. Because the Amu were expelled from Egypt at the beginning
of the 18th Dynasty, and the hekau khasut are so close phonetically to
Hyksos, it's assumed that they are the same. Assumed. But that doesn't fit
the evidence.
And there is no evidence whatsoever from inscriptions or literary sources
that would link the MB IIB,C culture with the Amu, the hekau khasut or the
Hyksos. Simply, with the MB IIB,C misdated about 600 years back in time,
there was no one else even close to match them with. Dated correctly, the
MB IIB,C is a dead ringer for the Davidic Empire.
Josephus may be a jerk (and is, IMRHO), but that's totally irrelevant to the
point I was making.
>>I don't mean by this to call historians dullards. By no means. They are
>>simply stuck with a hidden premise that is *so* taken for granted that
>>it's never even questioned. And that's the basic demarcation line between
>>the Bronze and Iron Ages, which was set around the 12th century BCE,
>>ironically enough, because of a mistranslation of a biblical verse in the
>>King James Bible.
>
> Are you serious? c'mon, tell me you were just joking...do you really
> believe that archaeologists rely upon the king james bible as a reference
> for chronological conclusions? first of all, we all happen to read primary
> texts in their original languages, its kinda part of the training (DOH!).
I thought about maybe leaving this without comment and seeing if you were
bright enough to link it to what I wrote at the beginning of my reply. I
decided you might not be. So let me be explicit. Were there archeologists
100 years ago? 150? Take your mind back to when the field got started.
And try and make the blanket assumptions you're making. Are *you* serious?
>IT was round 1200 B.C. that the archaological record reveals a distinct use
>of iron implements,
Aw, jeez... Go back to grade school, Marduk. Where'd you get the idea that
use of Iron is still the determining factor in the Iron and Bronze Age
divisions? That was old. Exercise for the student (excuse me, for the
professor): when did Iron come into widespread use in Asia Minor? How about
Egypt? And Marduk, that sentence above is so fallacious I'm surprised to
see it even from you. It was *not* around 1200 BCE that anything. 1200 BCE
isn't a relevant term here. What you *meant* to say was that around Iron I
etc., etc. Since my whole thesis deals with the premise that the strata are
misdated, calling that 1200 BCE is putting the cart before the horse.
Tacky, Marduk. Not very professorial.
>Actually, Lisa, if the truth be known, its you who is forcing the square
>peg into a round hole. In your single-minded, fanatical zeal to prove that
>the Bible is the inerrant word of god and completely and totally factually
>correct, you will perform gymnastic feats of wonder to push and massage
>facts to suit your needs. you hardly exhibit the detached scientific
>methodology of a true historian
Would you like to go back and count the number of logical fallacies you
perpetrated above? Or should I? Do please tell me how the Iron Age strata
do fit the biblical account of the Israelite invasion and settlement
(without emending that account to make it match the Iron Age strata, if you
don't mind). Or how they don't fit the biblical account of the Assyrian
conquest of North Israel and the settlement of the Samaritans (again,
without emending the biblical account there, even if you have to sit on your
hands to keep from that).
Same with the other points of identity all up and down the stratigraphic
sequence, from the beginning of the Bronze Age to the end of the Iron Age.
Single minded fanatical zeal? You're the one who sounds like the Catholic
Church dealing with heliocentrism.
marduk
>
>-Arlo
>
SIGH.....you're only encouraging her to continue with her
pseudo-historical Revised Frummie History...Now we can await
further Aaronsonian diatribes that archaeology is simply the
confused mumblings of self-hating jews.
It kinda reminds me of trying to discuss history/archaeology with an
Afro-Centrist.
Harvey S. Cohen
>[sd]
>As a professor of assyriology and archaeology, i can state with absolute
>conviction that i know of no single reputable scholar in the field who bases
>chronological assumptions simply upon stratigraphic evidence. The whole concept
>of modern chronological research is based upon the use of relative chronology,
>that is, the constant correlation and cross reference between the written
>records and the archaeological evidence. If you want a more complete
>explanation, i can always e-mail to you my standard handout that i give to my
>first year Archaeology 101 students. Apparently, you could benefit from it.
I think it's very odd for someone to argue from authority without revealing
their identity. If marduk wants to claim the credibility due a professor of
assyriology and archeology, he needs to identify himself.
--
Harvey....@att.com
Whittet
Not really
> We have archeological evidence of an empire stretching from the Nile to the
>>Euphrates (Middle Bronze IIB,C).
Though there was contact with Anatolia as early as the Vth Dynasty, the direction
of expansion in early dynasties was to the south and east, Nubia and the Red Sea.
In the XIIth Dynasty Egyptian influence did reach as far as Palestine and probably
was ongoing and continuous throughout the Hyskos period. The XVth Dynasty in
particular had widespread trading contacts throughout the Near East.
It was the military campaigns of Tuthmosis I (c 1504-1492 BC) which first created
anything like an Empire reaching the Euphrates and even then Syria and Palestine
were really petty states bound to the Egyptian king by oaths of alleigence and the
payment of tribute.
This is toward the end of the Middle Bronze age in Mesopotamia (c 2000-1500 BC)
Throughout the rest of the new kingdom Egypt continually lost ground.
>> We have a description of just such an empire in the Bible
>> (the United Monarchy of David and Solomon).
This is some 500 years later Lisa.
>> But rather than match the two up, we take a historical narrative that doesn't
>>match the archeological evidence (the Hyksos described by Josephus) and
>>emend it to fit.
I think it fits rather well. We have any number of Hyskos artifacts spread through
Palestine and the rest of the near east dated to Egypts 15th Dynasty.
>> And we take a stratigraphic level that doesn't match the biblical description
>>(Iron Age IIA) and emend the biblical narrative to make it fit.
Perhaps you need to read some other sources besides Josephus, Velikovsky,
The Mishrad and Emannual Anati.
>
>ARGHHH!!!!!! I can't STAND it anmore. I have sat quietly by and watched in
>wonder as you talk such utter nonsense about the archaeology and chronology of
>the ancient near east...not to mention your pathetic forays into etymology and
>philology.
As you can see Lisa, your presentation has been less than convincing to those
who are familiar with the subject area.
>
>As a professor of assyriology and archaeology, i can state with absolute
>conviction that i know of no single reputable scholar in the field who bases
>chronological assumptions simply upon stratigraphic evidence.
Of course, but then Lisa hasn't offered any stratigraphic evidence anyway...
> The whole concept
>of modern chronological research is based upon the use of relative chronology,
>that is, the constant correlation and cross reference between the written
>records and the archaeological evidence.
It is fair to point out that there are still some correlations which don't work
as well as they might, and which are perhaps worth discussion.
snip
>
>
>Just a few more points:
>
>Your citation of Josephus as a credible source for the Hyksos invasion is
>laughable. Josephus wrote his Contra Apionem as an attempted justification of
>jan unbroken jewish presence.
Josephus, while extremely contraversial, is the principal source of access to
Mantheo, who while also contraversial provides one of several data points
considered in establishing the Egyptian chronological correlations.
>Consequently, using Mantheo as his guide, he identified the Hyksos as the patriarchal jews,
There is considerable archaeological evidence of contact between Palestine and Egypt
during the Hyskos period but also a hiatus in the occupation of the Negev during the middle
bronze age. While I am not a great fan of Emmanual Anati, his dig at Har Karcorum is
providing information which Lisa is apparently also taking into account.
snip
>>I don't mean by this to call historians dullards. By no means. They are
>>simply stuck with a hidden premise that is *so* taken for granted that it's
>>never even questioned. And that's the basic demarcation line between the
>>Bronze and Iron Ages, which was set around the 12th century BCE,
>>ironically enough, because of a mistranslation of a biblical verse in the
>>King James Bible.
>
>
> Are you serious? c'mon, tell me you were just joking...do you really believe
>that archaeologists rely upon the king james bible as a reference for
>chronological conclusions?
I think her point was that "historians" of an earlier age, not modern "archaeologists"
made this division. I happen to think it is a good place to have a dividing line, but
is not necessarily definitive about who was using bronze or iron and at what date.
first of all, we all happen to read primary texts in
>their original languages, its kinda part of the training (DOH!).
I think it is possible that the academics of earlier ages were less skilled in ancient
languages than you may happen to be, and that their conclusions are sometimes
taught and repeated without really questioning the underlying assumptions.
>IT was round 1200 B.C. that the archaological record reveals a distinct use of
>iron implements, a not surprising development considering that this was also
>the time of a transition from a migratory to a sedentary existence.
Of course in Egypt there are iron implements in use in the pyramid age and
even earlier if you count the iron tool used by the shem priest in the ceremony
of "opening the mouth." Around the world there are occasional instances
of iron tools going back into the third and fourth millenium, particularly,
in the form of natural deposits of relatively pure metal, I have found some
myself, but yes, c 1200 BC provides a useful timeline here.
> In Gilead and in the southern regions of Transjordan hundreds of settlements dating to
>this 13th century beginning of the iron age have been discovered. So too in the
>southern part of Upper Galilee between the Valley of Bet-haherem and Nahal
>Keziv there is a continuous chain of small settlements from the beginning of
>the iron agae. All of this is cross-correlated with a continuous chain of
>pottery evidence. I would suggest you take a gander at Ruth Amiran's Ancient
>Pottery of the Holy Land....
There are large surface deposits of naturally occuring metalic iron produced
by the atmospheric sedimentation of iron sulphate from gases released
by oil deposits in Arabia, at least some of which occur on major trade routes
developed during the middle bronze age.
>
>snip
>
>Actually, Lisa, if the truth be known, its you who is forcing the square peg
>into a round hole. In your single-minded, fanatical zeal to prove that the
>Bible is the inerrant word of god and completely and totally factually correct,
>you will perform gymnastic feats of wonder to push and massage facts to suit
>your needs. you hardly exhibit the detached scientific methodology of a true
>historian
>
a bit harsh but worth considering Lisa...
steve
Lisa Aaronson
>mar...@idirect.com (marduk) wrote:
>>[sd]
>>As a professor of assyriology and archaeology, i can state with absolute
>>conviction that i know of no single reputable scholar in the field who bases
>>chronological assumptions simply upon stratigraphic evidence. The whole concept
>>of modern chronological research is based upon the use of relative chronology,
>>that is, the constant correlation and cross reference between the written
>>records and the archaeological evidence. If you want a more complete
>>explanation, i can always e-mail to you my standard handout that i give to my
>>first year Archaeology 101 students. Apparently, you could benefit from it.
>>[sd]
>I think it's very odd for someone to argue from authority without revealing
>their identity. If marduk wants to claim the credibility due a professor of
>assyriology and archeology, he needs to identify himself.
What, you haven't heard of the famous Professor F.X. Marduk? He collaborated
with Von Danikken on _Chariots of the Gods_, but then they had a falling out
and his name was taken off...
marduk
>
>mar...@idirect.com (marduk) wrote:
>>[sd]
>>As a professor of assyriology and archaeology, i can state with absolute
>>conviction that i know of no single reputable scholar in the field who bases
>>chronological assumptions simply upon stratigraphic evidence. The whole
concept
>>of modern chronological research is based upon the use of relative
chronology,
>>that is, the constant correlation and cross reference between the written
>>records and the archaeological evidence. If you want a more complete
>>explanation, i can always e-mail to you my standard handout that i give to my
>>first year Archaeology 101 students. Apparently, you could benefit from it.
>>[sd]
>
>I think it's very odd for someone to argue from authority without revealing
>their identity. If marduk wants to claim the credibility due a professor of
>assyriology and archeology, he needs to identify himself.
>Harvey....@att.com
Don't have time for a longish answer....I'm just rushing out the door early
Thursday morning to go snowboarding....Yippee...gonna play hokey today and let
a Teaching assistant take over a boooring intro Akkadian class....now on to
business:
because i spend a good deal of time heere and elsewhere confronting
pseudo-scientific evidence that is presented by fundamentalist wackos such as
Aaronson, there can (and inded has been) adverse repurcussions. About every
month or so, we get a looney letter to the Department from some whacko who
claims that he has received a cuneiform letter in his box of Cheerios. I have
no intention of exposing my family or myself to tne danagerous vagaries of the
loony religious mind.
So you can take what i say at its face value, and evaluate it as such....or you
can fret over whether the data i present has the proper haschgacha...i could
care less....
In the meantime...I'M GOING BOARDING!!!!!!
Herr Doktor Professor Marduk (DINGIR.AMAR.UTU)
Lisa Aaronson
>>I think it's very odd for someone to argue from authority without revealing
>>their identity. If marduk wants to claim the credibility due a professor of
>>assyriology and archeology, he needs to identify himself.
>Don't have time for a longish answer....I'm just rushing out the door early
>Thursday morning to go snowboarding....Yippee...gonna play hokey today and let
>a Teaching assistant take over a boooring intro Akkadian class....now on to
>business:
>because i spend a good deal of time heere and elsewhere confronting
>pseudo-scientific evidence that is presented by fundamentalist wackos such as
>Aaronson, there can (and inded has been) adverse repurcussions. About every
>month or so, we get a looney letter to the Department from some whacko who
>claims that he has received a cuneiform letter in his box of Cheerios. I have
>no intention of exposing my family or myself to tne danagerous vagaries of the
>loony religious mind.
Pretty words from someone who make crank calls.
>Herr Doktor Professor Marduk (DINGIR.AMAR.UTU)
Lisa
Piotr Michalowski
In article <ragnaroek1996Fe...@news2.compulink.com>
mar...@idirect.com (marduk) writes:
>...I'm just rushing out the door early
>>Thursday morning to go snowboarding....Yippee...gonna play hokey today and let
>>a Teaching assistant take over a boooring intro Akkadian class....now on to
>>business:
>>because i spend a good deal of time heere and elsewhere confronting
>>pseudo-scientific evidence that is presented by fundamentalist wackos such as
>>Aaronson, there can (and inded has been) adverse repurcussions. About every
>>month or so, we get a looney letter to the Department from some whacko who
>>claims that he has received a cuneiform letter in his box of Cheerios. I have
>>no intention of exposing my family or myself to tne danagerous vagaries of the
>>loony religious mind.
Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me... Sorry, but this is part of the
territory. I think that if you wish to stand on your authority, the least you
can do is iidentify yourself.
Guenter A. Scholz
marduk <mar...@idirect.com> wrote:
>In article <31332069...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, h...@zippy.ho.att.com says...
i ........snip........
>>
>>I think it's very odd for someone to argue from authority without revealing
>>their identity. If marduk wants to claim the credibility due a professor of
>>assyriology and archeology, he needs to identify himself.
>>--
>>Harvey....@att.com
to which marduk replies:
> .........snip....
>
>I have
>no intention of exposing my family or myself to tne danagerous vagaries of the
>loony religious mind.
>
>In the meantime...I'M GOING BOARDING!!!!!!
>
>Herr Doktor Professor Marduk (DINGIR.AMAR.UTU)
>
Interesting claim by Herr Doktor Professor marduk. Recently, in
response to a simple query re a recipe he had posted, his private e-mail
response simply consisted of: "f... off, as....e, s... head, p... off"
Unfortunately my kids (7 & 12) came across his e-mail before I did.
So much for his worries re the loony religious mind, I guess he is
in good company. re his professorial position; ... sure marduk.
-guenter
ps. while snowboarding, try for a triple flip .... preferably near a tree!
marduk
>
>
>
>In article <ragnaroek1996Fe...@news2.compulink.com>
>mar...@idirect.com (marduk) writes:
>
>>...I'm just rushing out the door early
>>>Thursday morning to go snowboarding....Yippee...gonna play hokey
today and let
>>>a Teaching assistant take over a boooring intro Akkadian class....now
on to
>>>business:
>>>because i spend a good deal of time heere and elsewhere confronting
>>>pseudo-scientific evidence that is presented by fundamentalist wackos
such as
>>>Aaronson, there can (and inded has been) adverse repurcussions. About
every
>>>month or so, we get a looney letter to the Department from some
whacko who
>>>claims that he has received a cuneiform letter in his box of
vagaries of the
>>>loony religious mind.
>
the
>territory. I think that if you wish to stand on your authority, the
least you
>can do is iidentify yourself.
lafffff.....but Pete, you already know me...after all, I was one of your
students in Remedial Sumerian, lo these many years ago!!!!
marduk
>>>[sd]
>>>As a professor of assyriology and archaeology, i can state with absolute
>>>conviction that i know of no single reputable scholar in the field who bases
>>>chronological assumptions simply upon stratigraphic evidence. The whole
concept
>>>of modern chronological research is based upon the use of relative
chronology,
>>>that is, the constant correlation and cross reference between the written
>>>records and the archaeological evidence. If you want a more complete
>>>explanation, i can always e-mail to you my standard handout that i give to
my
>>>first year Archaeology 101 students. Apparently, you could benefit from it.
>>>[sd]
>
>>their identity. If marduk wants to claim the credibility due a professor of
>>assyriology and archeology, he needs to identify himself.
>
>with Von Danikken on _Chariots of the Gods_, but then they had a falling out
>and his name was taken off...
>
>
>-------------------------------------
>I still believe in all my dreams
>And all that I can be
>I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
>To make it eventually
>'Cause I still believe in me.
> - from the TV show "Fame"
can combine Ayn Rand's bogus "philosophy" with an insipid show like "Fame" must
have some sense of humour....hmmm...on the other hand, it just might be for
real...GAWD help us all
marduk
>
>In article <ragnaroek1996Fe...@news2.compulink.com>
>
>>>I think it's very odd for someone to argue from authority without revealing
>>>their identity. If marduk wants to claim the credibility due a professor of
>>>assyriology and archeology, he needs to identify himself.
>
let
>>a Teaching assistant take over a boooring intro Akkadian class....now on to
>>business:
>>because i spend a good deal of time heere and elsewhere confronting
>>pseudo-scientific evidence that is presented by fundamentalist wackos such as
>>Aaronson, there can (and inded has been) adverse repurcussions. About every
>>month or so, we get a looney letter to the Department from some whacko who
>>claims that he has received a cuneiform letter in his box of Cheerios. I have
>>no intention of exposing my family or myself to tne danagerous vagaries of
the
>>loony religious mind.
>
>
>
>
Lets see if I understand this....You are accusing me of making long distance
crank phone calls to you? Hmmmm...it seems that even (or perhaps especially)
frummie women can succumb to paranoid fantasies...
Just out of curiosity, exactly how do you think I would be able to ascertain
your phone number, let alone your location? And why would I waste money on the
likes of you?
Mike Tittensor
> Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me... Sorry, but this is part of the
> territory. I think that if you wish to stand on your authority, the least you
> can do is iidentify yourself.
Errr.... forgive my rather naive comment but I had not actually noticed
anyone on this board gaining any benefit whatsoever from any formal
qualifications or positions. Great or small, august or bizarre, no one seems
to be accorded any respect purely for who they are. Merely for what they
say...
I like this. I like it a lot...
--
Mike Tittensor (mi...@heridoth.demon.co.uk)
"The ghost of Tiddles the flame ghost kitten rides on in the ether.
Meeeeow."
GROOVE YOU
the dead....most of the commandments came from akhanaten.I believe that
moses was a egyptian preist.The hebrews didnt get any of the commandments
until they left egypt and that is exactly where they came from....egypt.
marduk
>
>Avi Jacobson wrote:
>>
>> No flames, please, Marduk; just a name.
>
>He wants the name too badly. I wouldn't give it to him. ;>
OKAY!!! OKAY!!! I'm gonna finally tell you all my name..its...its...
AARGH!!!!!!!!!!! the power in the battery is going ...
Profess--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Collins
mar...@idirect.com says...
I have an avid interest in History, particularly ancient Greece and
the Holy land. My specialty areas are Greek History and Culture from
the death of Phillip to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem
I am also a biblical scholar (self-taught), although I lean more
toward deism than anything else. (I am NOT a christian)
I have no formal qualifications in re archeology or history except
thirty years of self-taught, rather eclectic scholarship. I do not
claim to be expert on anything, but am knowledgeable about a number of
subjects.
I usually lurk, reading the posts from all and sundry, and more
often than not getting irritated at the petty bickerings and
antagonistic desire for flamewars demonstrated by several members of
this and other groups.
The only reason I am posting this is to say that, while we all enjoy
the anonymity of the 'net, if you offer me a learned opinion on a
subject, you had better be willing to sign your name to that opinion,
else it is worthless, regardless of what qualifications you think you
might have.
Steve Collins (eye...@digmo.org)
Peter J. Lima
I doubt that any part of the (Hebrew) Bible is derived from the "Book of the
Dead" (i.e. the Book of Coming Forth By Night), as the latter is clearly a
funery text that would hardly have been of interest to the first Hebrews. It
is also clearly polytheistic -- what influence could that metaphysics have
upon the first Bible compositors? The Commandments are simply universal
social/cultural precepts that just about _any_ tribe of sapiens could derive
out of common sense (rules on incest, theft, and intra-tribal killing for
example.) We already know the Hebrews (> Egyptian _hebiru_, wanderer)
originated in Egypt. . .what's the point? They became an indepenent and
identifiable group in themselves.
pjl
Peter Szabo
--
The fool doth think he is wise,
but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
-William Shakespeare
P.MONIZ
I just wanna say that I had a e-mail chat recently
with Mr. John Baines himself, and he has considered
that Lisa's chronology obviously too recent.
Carlos Moreira
P.S. Give up, Lisa. Nobody believes you....
Lisa Aaronson
>I just wanna say that I had a e-mail chat recently
>with Mr. John Baines himself, and he has considered
>that Lisa's chronology obviously too recent.
Argument from authority. I am just *so* impressed.
>Carlos Moreira
>P.S. Give up, Lisa. Nobody believes you....
Truth is not determined by majority rule. Pity you can't address the issues.