history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
© 2001-2004 Catastrophism.com
|Sign-up | Log-in|
Introduction | Publications | More
Search results for: amarna in all categories
305 results found.
31 pages of results.
71. Society News [SIS C&C Review $]
... up with Eric's findings. This then stimulated a wide ranging discussion covering Egyptian and Assyrian historical problems from the time of Akhenaten to Alexander the Great. Eric's scheme was disputed in many places, with Tony Chavasse and Bob Porter arguing the case for their own revisions and others contributing to a lively, informative and extended debate. Eric opened the meeting by explaining his 'Black Hole' (see article, p. 25). In his studies, he had initially followed Velikovsky's chronology, which he largely supported. From studies of the Amarna letters, and assuming the Sumur of the letters is Samaria, he concluded this was built in 850BC and fell in 711BC, so the Amarna letters date from this era. Since the Ashuruballit mentioned was conventionally dated much earlier than 711BC, he tried to resolve this problem by turning to Luckenbill. He listed out every Assyrian and Babylonian historical character with a father/son relationship, or who was clearly linked with another. When he came to do his revision he found the Ashuruballit of the Amarna letters could not be brought ...
72. The habiru as the 'ibrim of I Samuel and the implications for the 'new chronology' [SIS C&C Review $]
... living? Finally, I decided to include a section on Assyro-Hittite synchronisms in the light of the NC. Phillip has argued [4 that we have not been able to come to terms with the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies in as far as they relate to our revised dates for the New Kingdom in Egypt. I believe the absence of articles on this subject in Review and Workshop is due more to lack of time than inability to deal successfully with the problems of the subject matter. 1. The Habiru -'Ibrim Problem 1.1 The El Amarna Letters and I Samuel It was very surprising that Phillip Clapham never said a word about what I consider to be the main argument of my thesis, i.e. the striking literary analogy between the El Amarna habiru and the 'ibrim of I Samuel. Phillip instead criticised my thesis by asking the question as to when the term habiru disappeared finally from literary usage. Even if I have argued, as several distinguished scholars do also, that the habiru must have been widely reintegrated into the cosmopolitan LB II society from which they had originally ...
73. Did the Sumerians and the Akkadians Ever Exist? [Aeon Journal $]
... away from sacrifice during the Babylonian Exile, and the Greek philosophers follow a similar path. Both movements experience a momentous backlash in the state institution of Christianity in the late Roman Empire where the eucharistic deicide of Jesus Christ/Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) is reinstated as a central ritual that brings discipline and psychological release. Kassite kings (like Burnaburiash and Kadashman-Enlil) corresponding with el-Amarna indicate-- as does the rule of Mitanni-Media over Nineveh (see below, 4(1)- a 7th century date for the Amarna period. Accordingly those Kassite kings are Chaldaeans of the late Assyrian and neo-Babylonian period. The Assyrian Amarna correspondent Assuruballit, thus, must be the last Assyrian king Assuruballit. Assur-nadin-ahhe, his forefather and receiver of tribute in gold from Egypt (Amarna tablet 16), is Esarhaddon (688-669 BCE) who conquered Egypt. Though in accord widh the liberation of the Amarna period from the pseudo-astronomical/Egyptological chronology-- first refuted by I Velikovsky and meanwhile also abandoned by W. Helck-- this author cannot subscribe to Velikovsky's ...
74. June 15, 762 BCE: A Mathematical Analysis of Ancient History [The Velikovskian $]
... made. Egyptian Dynasty 20 poses no problems of synchronization and ghost correlation, provided the revolutionary leaders, Inaros and the first Amyrtaeus, are counted among the last nine Ramssides. But enough of this introduction. Let the cold, unbiased mathematics speak for itself. ISRAEL AND JUDAH 1. In Table 1, at the end of this section, the period of years from Asa and Ahab to Queen Athaliah and Jehu (from 897 to 855 altogether) has been structured in such a way as to satisfy the requirements for the revised Amarna Period, as discussed in Ages In Chaos, Chapter 7. The reign of Ahab (897-868) is the key adjustment in this period. It must be lengthened from its usual 22 years to 29 years, (7) so that it will overlap the sixth year of Shalmaneser III in Assyria (872) and the first year or two of Akhnaton in Egypt (870-868). 2. Uzziah is said to have begun his reign in the 27th year of Jeroboam II. (8) Jeroboam II started in 802 ...
75. Shishak - Ramesses II or Ramesses III? [SIS C&C Review $]
... [9 was investigated for many years by SIS members but was eventually rejected by most of our leading chronologists because the archaeological/historical evidence could not be condensed by the necessary five and a half centuries [10. The next candidate was Ramesses II, nicknamed Sesysu (possibly imperfectly transliterated into Shishak), who only required a three and a half century reduction. This idea was proposed by Rohl and James [11 and subsequently amplified by Rohl [12 and apparently further corroborated by a series of attractive identifications between characters in the Amarna Letters with those of the early Israelite monarchy period including Kings Saul and David [13. However, James no longer supports Ramesses II as Shishak and has moved to Ramesses III, nicknamed Sesi, who only requires a two and a half century reduction [14. Obviously, it is easier to remove two and a half centuries than three and a half (or the two centuries for Ramesses VI as proposed by Goldberg [15, or would Merenptah be a good compromise [16?) Ramesses VI is little known and ...
76. Letters [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... From: SIS Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop 1995 No 1 (June 1995) Home¦ Issue Contents Letters Saul, David and the Amarna Pharaohs I was fascinated by the correspondence in 'Forum' in C&C Workshop 1994:2 on the subject of the Amarna correspondence and the respect- or not- in which Saul and David were held. One point- which seemed to me telling- is that during the reign of David a Pharaoh died- he is referred to in the Bible as 'Nahash'- and David sent consolatory letters to his successor, by the hand of 'Ambassadors'. These were treated with considerable contempt by the Pharaoh concerned (II Samuel X). This Pharaoh is also referred to in the reign of Saul (I Samuel 11&12). So either he was an old man when he died, or 'Nahash' (Serpent) was a general term in Israel for Pharaoh. However his son- in II Samuel X- is referred to as Hanun. The treatment of David's Ambassadors would seem to confirm that David ...
77. Hazor and the anachronisms in the chronology of the Ancient Near East [SIS C&C Review $]
... James A. de Rothschild resumed work between 1955 and 1958 under the guidance of Yigael Yadin. In 1968, Yigael Yadin returned to dig. For the time being- after the death of Aharon Kempinsky- Amnon Ben-Tor (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) is in charge of archaeological work in Hazor. Kempinsky was especially interested to find Iron Age archives from the time of the Kingdom of Israel in the upper city (1200 to 300 BC) whereas Ben-Tor seems to have given up such hope and focuses instead on finding archives for the Amarna (Late Bronze) period (-15th /-14th c.), which saw the Mitanni rule of Asia, and also for the Old-Babylonian period which he (and everybody else) believes to have preceded the Mitanni by about half a millennium. So far there is no archive but individual tablets inscribed in cuneiform were indeed found in Hazor's upper layers. They bewildered the excavators for chronological reasons. They did not (as expected) belong to the 1st millennium BC but were written in Old-Babylonian Akkadian from the time of the enigmatic Martu/ ...
78. The Chronology of the Late Kings of Egypt [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... the chronology of Egypt. This construction had been regarded for a number of decades as having been 'established' from astronomical data 10, thus closing the door to any proposal involving such gross alteration. If further reason for rejection were needed, it was only necessary to point to the 'obvious' impossibility of satisfactorily condensing the subsequent history of Egypt by an amount of time equal to the proposed abbreviation of the earlier chronology. The magnitude of the problem involved in such a condensation was most apparent in terms of the necessary redating of the Amarna Period, currently dated 1360-1340 B.C., but necessarily redated to c. 860-840 B.C., the proposed correction at this point amounting to a full 500 years. A Search for Further Evidence in Support of Velikovsky In the closing pages of Ages in Chaos, 11 it was promised that a further volume would be forthcoming which would explain how the subsequent chronology could be modified to meet the demands of the alteration in the earlier chronology. Twenty-five years were to elapse before the appearance of the promised volume under the title Peoples of ...
79. Haremhab: Assyrian Vassal or XVIIIth Dynasty Pharaoh? [Kronos $]
... pharaohs-- Ramesses I, Seti I (Velikovsky's "Seti the Great"), and Ramesses II, who was a contemporary of the Hittite kings Muwatallis (his opponent at the battle of Kadesh) and Hattusilis III (with whom he signed a treaty in year 21 and whose daughter he married in his year 34).(6) Both Hittite kings were sons of Mursilis II and grandsons of Suppiluliumas I, author of el-Amarna letter No. 41. The latter's annals record his campaigns against Tusratta of Mitanni (another Amarna correspondent) while his son, Murtsilits II, referred to Aziru of Amurru (whom Velikovsky identified as the Biblical Hazael of Damascus) as a vassal of Suppiluliumas in his treaty with one of Aziru's successors.(7) Peter James has already drawn attention to the problems inherent in Velikovsky's attempt to prove that the Suppiluliumats of the Amarna period was an entirely different person from the grandfather of Hattusilis III, since this requires two rulers of that name, both of whom were overlords of an Aziru of Amurru 150 years apart. ...
80. In Support of Gammon [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... From: Catastrophism and Ancient History III:2 (July 1981) Home¦ Issue Contents INTERACTION In Support of Gammon Donovan A. Courville The article by Geoffrey Gammon in the April 1979 issue fills the need for additional support of Velikovsky's redating of the Amarna period in the 9th century. I had accepted this correction of traditional views on the basis of the demand resulting from repositioning the exodus and the sacking of Solomon's temple in Egyptian history. Velikovsky's support for this revised setting of the Amarna Period seemed short of being convincing. Hence I was delighted to note the added support provided by Gammon. Gammon's skepticism on the veracity of the proposed eleven-year co-regency between Amenhotep III and Akhnaton was noted. I had recognized a somewhat shorter co-regency between those two kings (Fig. 11, vol. 1). However, I now find my thinking shifted to the other side of this debate, and hold that there was no co-regency at all between these two kings. Nevertheless, unlike Gammon, I still include all of his reign as part of the 50-year period ...
Search took 0.080 seconds
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine