history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
© 2001-2004 Catastrophism.com
|Sign-up | Log-in|
Introduction | Publications | More
Search results for: babylonian in all categories
681 results found.
69 pages of results.
21. New Proposals for a Downdating of the Egyptian New Kingdom (Part II) [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... canonical predecessor, Samsi-Adad IV. 61 And as will be argued in the second part of this paper, such a scheme would appear to allow a very attractive and self-consistent interpretation of all of the principal pieces of correspondence known from the imperial Hittite period which bear on Assyro-Hittite relations. This would still leave, though, a long series of Kassite kings named in Dyn. 18-19 (or earliest Dyn. 20) period texts, whose names could seem to very impressively parallel those of a series of selected late 15th-early 12th c. Babylonian Kassite kings. As will be sketched in the next section, however, an acceptance of these parallels would cause many problems. Moreover, several extremely tempting lines of argument can be adduced in support of an alternative interpretation that would be consistent with Tudhalias IV's synchronism with Shalmaneser II (and inconsistent with his synchronism with Shalmaneser I). 3 A Late 2nd Millennium B.C. Singaran-Centered Kassite Kingdom The greatest individual problem arising from an identification of the known Dyn. 18-19 period Kassite kings with their ca. 14th-13th c. plausible Babylonian ...
22. Ankylosis in the Chronology of Reconstructed History? [SIS C&C Review $]
... From: SIS Review Vol V No 4 (1984) Home¦ Issue Contents Ankylosis in the Chronology of Reconstructed History?- A letter from by Christoph Marx During a course on "Elements of Assyrian and Babylonian Chronology" [1, I took the opportunity to look at the fact that most of the chronologies around the Mars catastrophes have been linked to the date of 15th. June, -763, the day of a solar eclipse mentioned in the Eponym Lists [2}). These again have been linked to Greek and Roman chronology by way of the Ptolemaic Canon of Babylonian kings, "the correctness of which is proved by the lunar eclipses mentioned in the Almagest" [3, and through the Babylonian King List A with three rulers being kings of Babylon and Assyria at the same time. Three lunar eclipses are given for the years -721 and -720. The Ptolemaic Canon, which links our own to the ancient chronology, is built upon the Egyptian Calendar with years of 365 days only. The effect of all this is to fix the ...
23. Assyria, Karduniash, Babylon: A Rational chronology [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... in 1250 B.C. to the Phrygian invasion around 700 B.C. solves innumerable anachronisms relating to the Assyrian and Aegean synchronisms. (2) The reduction also eliminates an anchor of the conventional chronology-- the raid of Mursilus I on Babylon, assumed to have occurred at the time of Sansuditani of Babylon (c. 1500 B.C.). Under the principles of revised chronology dating for the Hittite epoch, Mursilus I had to reign at about 1120 B.C., and there is an amazing coincidence": Nebuchadnezzar I of Isin Babylonian dynasty (1120 B.C.) does indeed report a Hittite raid. (3) Thus there occurred two Hittite raids, one at the time of Samsuditani around 1520 and the other 400 years later in 1120, in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I. This cannot be denied. The revised chronology puts Mursilis I at the time of Nebuchadnezzar I, as this is naturally predicted by the revision, and an unknown pre-Hittite kingdom ruler is the suggested conqueror of Babylon in 1520 B.C. The alternative conventional scheme has Mursilis I around 1500 ...
24. Ankylosis in the Chronology of Reconstructed History? [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... From: SIS Workshop Vol 3 No 2 (Oct 1980) Home¦ Issue Contents Ankylosis in the Chronology of Reconstructed History? by Christoph Marx During a course on "Elements of Assyrian and Babylonian Chronology"(1), I took the opportunity to look at the fact that most of the chronologies around the Mars catastrophes have been linked to the date of 15th. June, -763, the day of a solar eclipse mentioned in the Eponym Lists (2). These again have been linked to Greek and Roman chronology by way of the Ptolemaic Canon of Babylonian kings, "the correctness of which is proved by the lunar eclipses mentioned in the Almagest" (3), and through the Babylonian King List A with three rulers being kings of Babylon and Assyria at the same time. Three lunar eclipses are given for the years -721 and -720. The Ptolemaic Canon, which links our own to the ancient chronology, is built upon the Egyptian Calendar with years of 365 days only. The effect of all this is to fix the chronologies of ...
25. Three Views of Heinsohn's Chronology [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... Semitic' (Y. Yadin et al. [1960, p. 117) would have been far reaching. The cuneiform expert consulted on the inscription, however, could not alleviate their concern: "In any case, it is instructive that the first element in the name, whose reading is plain, has the Akkadian form is-me (i.e., "he has heard") and not the West Semitic form one would expect: iasmah, as in the name Iasmah-Adad known from Mari. Does this indicate a strong Babylonian influence in Hazor, as we inferred above from the Akkadian name of the king of Hazor?"" [A. Malamat: "Hazor 'The Head of all those Kingdoms'" in Journal of Biblical Literature (1960) vol. XXVIII, p. 18. A Mesopotamian background for Hazor in the period of the Hyksos was the least to be expected because 17th century BC Mesopotamia was ruled by the Old-Babylonian Martu. After all, there exists a whole school identifying the Martu-speaking West Semitic with the Hyksos (J. ...
26. Stiebing, BAR, and the Revised Chronology [Kronos $]
... weekend conference on the theme of Ages in Chaos. Here we would like to discuss briefly the two main objections which Professor Stiebing raised against Velikovsky's reconstruction concerning (a) the evidence of Mesopotamian synchronisms, and (b) Palestinian stratigraphy. Stiebing raised the problem of the identity of the Mesopotamian el-Amarna correspondents- Assuruballit, Kadashman-Enlil, and Burnaburiash- who are usually dated to the 14th century B. C., whereas Velikovsky dates the archive to the mid-9th century B. C., when Shalmaneser III of Assyria and apparently different Babylonian monarchs were reigning. Stiebing is justified in pointing to this difficulty, but his discussion contained several serious mis-statements of fact that should be noted: 1. According to Stiebing, Velikovsky identifies Shalmaneser III with both Assuruballit of Assyria and Burnaburiash of Babylonia, which is incorrect, although he does suggest that Shalmaneser used the latter name in Babylonia.(2) 2. Stiebing then claims that "Assyrian king lists giving the names of Assyrian kings as well as their counterparts in Babylon disprove Velikovsky's reconstruction". In fact there is ...
27. The Saturn Problem [SIS C&C Review $]
... made an attempt to elevate the Moon-god (Sin) to the top of the divine hierarchy and he rebuilt Sin's temples in the provinces at the expense of the Marduk cult in Babylon [6. When he lost his throne to the Persians in 539BC, the victors legitimised their conquest by presenting themselves as the restorers of the rites of Marduk. Rivalries between different political centres and their long-established cults may explain many such religious struggles. (Amun and Marduk were the gods of Thebes and Babylon, sites of the most powerful Egyptian and Babylonian temples respectively.) Yet they do not explain why the most powerful gods of these societies were not the most obvious choices, the Sun and Moon, in the first place. Nor do they explain the lack of distinction that the ancients made between the main heavenly bodies: Sun and Moon were usually grouped together with Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars and Mercury as the 'seven planets', glossing over vast disparities in size and luminosity in a way that seems surprising to us. So why did the god associated with ...
28. A Critical Re-appraisal of the Book of Genesis, Part Two [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... this fact. It should be remembered, too, that we are dealing only with the Book of Genesis and not the entire Pentateuch. Nevertheless, we wish to make it clear at once that the Egyptian elements are traceable to the same extent and with the same frequency throughout the entire Pentateuch as they are in Genesis [8. But What of the Akkadian Influence? One of the main reasons why modern Biblical scholars cling to the theory that the Book of Genesis, in the main, was written around the period of the Babylonian Exile [9, hundreds of years after Moses' death, is because parts of the book contain clear Assyrian and Babylonian elements. Assyriologists have rightly concluded that some parts of Genesis must have originated in a period when the Israelites (or Hebrews) were connected closely with Mesopotamia. As is well known, according to the Bible there were two periods during which the Israelites were in immediate contact with Mesopotamia: the first in the time of the Patriarchs (e.g. Noah to Jacob), before the time of Moses, ...
29. June 15, 762 BCE: A Mathematical Analysis of Ancient History [The Velikovskian $]
... year was 692. If Sennacherib started out for Jerusalem in 692 and reached it in 691, then the requirements of both Hebrew and Assyrian histories are satisfied. Elsewhere, this attack on Hezekiah is said to have started in Sennacherib's fourth year, (19) which would coincide exactly with 691, Hezekiah's 14th year. 6. After the destruction of the Assyrian army in 687, Hezekiah became ill. While he was ill, a diplomatic delegation of well-wishers was sent to him from Marduk-baladan II, who had been restored to the Babylonian throne. (20) The year was 686. Sennacherib reconquered Babylonia in his tenth year, after a nine-year period of Babylonian independence, (21) and he ruled there for six years: 695- 10= 685 685- 6= 679. Thus, Marduk-baladan II was ousted again a year or so after he dispatched the diplomats to Jerusalem. 7. From the beginning of the reign of Uzziah, in 786, through the beginning of the reign of Josiah, in 619, a period of 167 years, ...
30. Dating the Hammurabi Dynasty Using the Venus Tablets [SIS C&C Review $]
... Academy [14. He favoured the Cornelius date, -1581, and his argument was set out in more detail in an article in 1948 [15. However, not everyone was prepared to accept his findings. Accordingly, Prof. Huber of Harvard University carried out a fresh investigation and published his findings in June 1982 [16. By this time his astronomical calculations could be carried out by computer. This made it possible to examine attested 30-day months in addition to comparing the solutions. Over the years, a large number of Babylonian and Ur III business documents had been published, some dated on the 30th day of the month. By examining these, it is possible to compile a list of attested 30-day months for the two dynasties. That can be compared with the computed months for the same dates. It was found that Solution -1701 to -1680 gave the best results. My own investigation, published in 1982, seemed to confirm Huber's findings [17. However in 1990 Wayne A. Mitchell, who specialises in archaeo-astronomy, published a paper in which ...
Search took 0.070 seconds
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine