history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
© 2001-2004 Catastrophism.com
|Sign-up | Log-in|
Introduction | Publications | More
Search results for: assyrian in all categories
601 results found.
61 pages of results.
81. Haremhab: Assyrian Vassal or XVIIIth Dynasty Pharaoh? [Kronos $]
... From: Kronos Vol. VII No. 1 (Fall 1981) Home¦ Issue Contents Haremhab: Assyrian Vassal or XVIIIth Dynasty Pharaoh? Geoffrey Gammon Copyright (C) 1981 by Geoffrey Gammon KRONOS V:3 contained an article by Dominick A. Carlucci, Jr. entitled "On the Placement of Haremhab: A Critique of Gammon", together with an editorial note by Professor Lewis M. Greenberg.(1) Both writers commented unfavorably on an article published in the SIS Review (III:2), in which I departed radically from the chronological placement proposed for this pharaoh by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky in his as yet unpublished Assyrian Conquest.(2) The correct placement of Haremhab in the sequence of Egyptian kings and dynasties is crucial to the development of any chronology whose starting point is the radical revision put forward by Velikovsky in Volume I of Ages in Chaos.(3) I am therefore grateful to the editor for this opportunity to reply to the criticisms which have been made of my presentation of the evidence linking Haremhab to the ...
82. The Reliability of Biblical Synchronisms in Constructing an Historical Chronology from Rehoboam to Hezekiah [SIS C&C Review $]
... & Catastrophism Review 1994 (Vol XVI) (Oct 1995) Home¦ Issue Contents The Reliability of Biblical Synchronisms in Constructing an Historical Chronology from Rehoboam to Hezekiah by Daphne Garbett The Old Testament supplies the length of each king's reign, the age at accession of the Judean kings and the corresponding regnal year of the king of Israel until Hezekiah's accession. It should therefore be a straightforward matter to construct a chronology for the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. A simple computation, however, not only fails to synchronise with Assyrian and Babylonian data but is also internally inconsistent. The chief difficulty is that there is no way of knowing whether or not co-regnal years have been included in the reign when the accession date to a co-regency is expressed in the co-regnal years of the other junior king. The date is not fixed and reign lengths can be telescoped or expanded. The date of a junior king's accession to a co-regency is never expressed in the unambiguous terms of his father's regnal years. The omission of this simple way of keeping track of reign lengths ...
83. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan [Aeon Journal $]
... were assigned to two different nations completely unknown to this very day, though their cultic material remains are remarkably suggestive of the "later" Canaanites and Israelites and are, therefore, sometimes called proto-Canaanite and proto-Israelite. The third group of strata was identified as belonging to the Hyksos, a tremendously powerful and utterly ruthless Semitic nation whose origins and later whereabouts are still shrouded in mystery, though the best indications point to Mesopotamia. The similarities between the Hyksos invasion of Palestine and Egypt, usually dated around 1750 B.C.E., and the Assyrian invasion a millennium later, may well be grounds for calling the former proto-Assyrians. After the proto-nations occupied the lion's share of strata, surprisingly few layers were left over for the well-attested nations whose remains were expected to dominate the site. Unfortunately, they are haunted by finds which are much too recent to be really attributable to the second millenniu and the first four centuries of the first millennium B.C.E. This author's restoration and shortening of Mesopotamian chronology by 1500 (and up to 2000) years allowed for an equivalent reduction of centuries ...
84. Ugarit [Velikovsky Archive Website]
... metal bowls ? of Phoenician workmanship, firmly dated to the 9th-7th centuries B.C. 14 What is more ? remarkable ? than the Ugaritic examples ? manufacture and burial over 500 years before the ? later ? series began, is the subject matter of the two items. Extraordinary conservatism was attributed to the Phoenicians, since the later group faithfully reproduced similar scenes and arrangement of the decoration, 15 after a lapse of 500 years. The chariot scene on the 14th-century gold plate is compared to similar scenes of the 9th-century Neo-Hittites and of the Assyrian King Assurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.). 16 The elongated gallop of the horse is seen to be quite similar to depictions on Assyrian reliefs, but Assyrian influence ? is chronologically impossible, all the Assyrian monuments presently known where horses are depicted at gallop being about half a millennium later than our plate ?( 174). The gold bowl (Fig. 7) with its combination of Aegean, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Levantine motifs is ? an excellent example of Phoenician syncretism, half a millennium before Phoenicians in the ...
85. Who Were the Neo-Assyrian Kings? [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... and put them all between 700 and 330 BC. The parallels given in the chart are valid, but are they enough? Identifying a series of great names from ancient history with another requires more than a few or even several coincidences of story and events, however compelling these may be. To identify one king with another, every piece of information which applies to one must, by definition, apply to the other, or else it must be clearly shown to apply to neither. Whatever the merits or demerits of lining up Assyrian and Persian rulers, the ones chosen make a chronological jump which seems to me to have serious consequences for the historical links with Israel, Judah and other neighbouring and even further off states. Perhaps Sweeney has considered these, in which case he will be able to answer the following questions: (a) which Assyrian/Persian ruler defeated Israel and when? (b) who sacked the temple in Jerusalem and when? (c) which Assyrian/Persian ruler permitted the Jews to return to Judah and when? ( ...
86. Aftermath of the Trojan War [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... Trojan War Arie Dirkzwager In my article "'Dating the Trojan War"[1 I tried to make it probable that this great event took place c. 747 B.C. In the new biblical chronology recently developed or promoted by Hickman[2 and Sieff,[3 the catastrophe of 702 (Sennacherib, Hezekiah) has been moved back to 710[4 or even 713.[5 Thus there should be a redating of the Velikovskian catastrophes of the 8th century based on the new dates of the Hezekiah catastrophe and a redating of the Assyrian kings, the difference being 8 or 11 years. In this scheme the catastrophe behind the Trojan War should be that of 758 or 755, instead of 747. In Greek protohistory (or should I say mythologistory?) several heroes moved to Asia or Cyprus during or after the Trojan War. We hear, for example, of Mopsus and Teucer. Concerning Mopsus we learn that he went to Cilicia and founded a city, Aspendus, named after his son Aspendus.[6 According to Strabo[7 his people were ...
87. Osarsiph [Kronos $]
... not in dispute: he belongs to the short-lived Twenty-fourth Dynasty that ruled over a part of the Delta in the second half of the eighth century, in the period when the rest of Egypt was under Libyan domination. In the conventional scheme the versions of Manetho and Lysimachus refer to two different periods, separated by five hundred years- the fourteenth and the eighth centuries. The revised chronology places the events in the same general time- the late ninth or eighth centuries B.C. One other historical event may have influenced Manetho's tale the Assyrian occupation of Egypt. The foreigners coming from Asia and ruining the country have some resemblance to the Assyrian overlords whose destructive acts are so graphically described in the cuneiform texts. Like the Amarna kings, the Assyrian overlords were expunged from official history, but they lived on in popular legend. REFERENCES 1. This is a view expressed by Velikovsky in his as yet unpublished manuscript The Assyrian Conquest. For Osorkon's inscription, see R. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, Analecta Orientalia 37 (1958). 2. See ...
88. Reopening the Sumerian Question [Aeon Journal $]
... was assigned to the third millennium. "Ur of the Chaldees," Abraham's native city, became the "Sumerian" city of Ur. King "Amraphel," mentioned in Genesis as a contemporary of Abraham, was identified with Hammurabi of Babylon. The date of Hammurabi in turn was used to anchor the entire chronology of the "Sumerians" and "Akkadians" that preceded him. By the middle of the nineteenth century it had become evident that the cuneiform script had been adapted for the writing of Semitic languages such as Assyrian, but that this had not been its original use; at the same time many of the tablets excavated in southern Mesopotamia were found to be written in a language unlike any other yet known. The eventual decipherment of this language with the aid of bilingual texts made it necessary to postulate the existence of a people of unusual talent and ability as the originators of the cuneiform script and of the civilization that developed along with it. The evidence of the tablets also demanded the existence of another people hitherto unknown, the Semitic-speaking Akkadians ...
89. Sennecherib & Esarhaddo [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... 1, Jan. 1988), because even his title isn't correct, let alone its inflexible contents. His article concerns the "Stele of Adad-Guppi," which can be found in ANET: pp. 560-2, under the title of "The Mother of Nabonidus." I have studied this text for many years, and have found it to be a valuable chronological source. The problem with Jonsson, is that this stele doesn't fit in with his view of the chronology. We will show that his chronology is faulty. Assyrian Eponym Canon When George Smith published his "Eponym Canon" in 1875, this became one of the foundations for Assyrian history. Today, his canon is still used with only one major "correction." An "extra" eponym-year was found in the canon, when compared with the "Assyrian King List." 1 As a result, the date of the battle of Karkar was changed from 854 to 853 B.C. The regnal-year of Ashur-Dan III (eclipse of the sun), was changed from his 9th to his ...
90. Necho I [Velikovsky Archive Website]
... hearts plotted evil.? They sent mounted messengers to Tirhaka, saying: ? Let brotherhood be established among us, and let us help one another. We shall divide the land in two, and among us there shall not be another lord.? But soon the Assyrians caught wind of the plot: ? An officer of mine heard of these matters and met their cunning with cunning. He captured their mounted messengers together with their messages, which they had dispatched to Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia.? (1) The Assyrian reaction was characteristically swift and decisive: The governors were arrested, bound in chains, and sent to Nineveh to face the wrath of Assurbanipal. There followed a wave a savage reprisals in the cities of Egypt against the civilian population. The soldiers ? out to the sword the inhabitants, young and old~.~.~. they did not spare anybody among them. They hung their corpses from stakes, flayed their skins, and covered with them the wall of the towns.? (2) It happened as ...
Search took 0.070 seconds
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine