| Man, Myth & Mayhem in Ancient History and the Sciences |
history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
|
Catastrophism.com
history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism |
|
| Sign-up | Log-in |
Introduction | Publications | More
|
Search results for: amarna in all categories
352 results found.
36 pages of results. 111. The Albrecht/Glueck-Aharoni/Rothenberg Confrontation [Journals] [Catastrophism & Ancient History]
... using the ternt "astronomical" for this dating ntethod is that astronomical data are used. But astronomical data can be misused just as can any other intfornttation. [48] X. Does Velikovsky Support Glueck/Albright?It might appear at first that Velikovsky's proposal for moving Egyptian dates forward for the era from the Hyksos invasion through the Amarna period would indeed provide a basis for supporting the Glueck/Albright position as opposed to that of Aharoni. This might have been true had Velikovsky left dynasties XIX and XX in succession to the Amarna period. But he did not do this. He elected rather to make the dynasty XIX kings alter egos of those of dynasty XXVI and ...
112. Kronos by Robert de Telder (Reviewed) [Journals] [SIS Review]
... his scheme and takes the Father of History at his word in placing the 4th Dynasty pyramid-builders immediately before the Ethiopian 25th Dynasty. Essentially, therefore, this is a combination or synthesis of Velikovsky, Herodotus and the Bible, all of which are treated, more or less, as revealed truth'. In this way the author makes the Amarna Age (late 18th Dynasty), which Velikovsky placed in the 9th century, contemporary with the Pyramid Age, which Herodotus placed immediately before the Ethiopian Shabaka (late 8th century). The Amarna Age pharaohs are therefore identified with the pyramid-building 4th Dynasty. Thus Akhenaten = Cheops; Smenkhkare = Chephren; Tutankhamun = Mycerinus; Ay = ...
113. Ancient Near Eastern Chronology Revised [Journals] [Velikovskian]
... Hazor, Beth-Shean, Megiddo, Gezer, Tell Batash and Shechem). And last, but not least, correspondence partners of the Mitanni are well known in Egypt's New Kingdom (Amenophis III and Akhenaton). Because of its highly peculiar pottery style (Nuzi Ware) and a wealth of written tablets listing its rulers also known from the Amarna correspondence, there is little danger that archeologists do not recognize a stratum of the Mitanni nation once they see it. Thus, no other nation of antiquity is better suited for archeological cross-references than the Mitanni. The Mitanni got their -15th/ -l4th century date via the Amarna correspondence, which was dated by the pseudo-astronomical scheme of Sothic cycles ...
114. Stiebing, BAR, and the Revised Chronology [Journals] [Kronos]
... c. 1503-1482 B.C .) was equated with the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon in the tenth century B.C . Thutmos III (conventionally dated c. 1504-1450 B.C .) was supposedly the Egyptian king Shishak who invaded Judah during the reign of Rehoboam (c . 922-915 B.C .) . The Amarna letters from the reign of Akhenaton (usually dated c. 1379-1362 B.C .) are placed by Velikovsky in the era of Jehoshaphat of Judah and Omri and Ahab of Israel (the mid-ninth century B.C .) . To support these contentions Velikovsky quotes numerous parallels between Egyptian and Biblical texts. He also provides extensive documentation ...
115. Forum [Journals] [SIS Review]
... Bronze Age rests on four key arguments based on the evidence of textual data plus the archaeological evidence. The key arguments are: a). the building of the store cities of Pithom and Raamses by the children of Israel (Exodus 1:11) whilst in bondage in Egypt, b). the identification of the Habiru of the Amarna Letters (the Apiru in Egyptian texts) with the Hebrew tribes, c). the evidence of the Israel stela' of Merenptah (mentioned above), and d). the nature of the Exodus covenant and the city lists in Joshua etc. The 19th Dynasty would have seen the end of the bondage of the children of ...
116. Letters to the Editor C&AH 3:2 [Journals] [Catastrophism & Ancient History]
... history as closely as possible, minimizing errors as necessary. It seems to me that more convincing evidence is needed. His placement of Horemhab in Dynasty 19 is circumstantial and explains nothing, whereas Velikovsky's evidence reveals many mysteries concerning Horemhab's reign not solved by placing him in the time of Tutankhamen. I think the many references to Tutankhamen and El Amarna are explained by the fact that, just as in our day we have King Tut exhibits long after his death, the treasures in his tomb were exploited by the Pharaonic administration to suit its own purposes. I also feel historians are not paying enough attention to evidence in Oedipus and Akhnaton for dealing with the problems of dynastic succession; ...
117. In Defence of the Revised Chronology [Journals] [SIS Review]
... have born this name involving a Hittite goddess?" (1 ) Agreed - Abdi-Hiba, who like the other vassal kings of Syria/Palestine addressed the Pharaoh as "my Sun-god" (2 ), is unlikely to have been the pious Jehoshaphat. Who then was Abdi-Hiba? Velikovsky is surely right in his general chronological placement or the Amarna Letters - the wealth of evidence he has compiled on the art, architecture, customs and literary styles of "Amarna Palestine" and the Palestine of Elisha's time leave little room for doubt. So Donovan Courville in his work The Exodus Problems: "They (the El-Amarna Letters) belong to the era of the mid-9th century.. ...
118. Assuruballit and his Time [Journals] [SIS Workshop]
... 2 ) 2. Assur-danin-apli . Again I would say this is quite unacceptable unless Mr James can offer an acceptable chronology for the XVIIIth Dynasty that would enable us to place the last part of the reign of Akhnaton as late as the years 828 to 823 BC. Such late dates for this reign would create problems with the dating of the Amarna period. It is therefore unlikely that the Assyrian letters could have come from this period. 3. Mr James also reviewed the solutions proposed by Courville and Velikovsky. Again, both appear quite unacceptable for the reasons Mr James has stated. In addition, the Courville solution would seem to require the acceptance of Assur-nadin-ahe as Shalmaneser III. ...
119. Society News [Journals] [SIS Workshop]
... Society News Ancient History Study Group The Ancient History Study Group held another meeting at 11 Dulwich Court on Sunday 19th July 81. The discussion centred around Lester J. Mitcham's Some Notes on the Revised Chronology' which appeared in WORKSHOP 3:3 p.6 . Peter James advanced some interesting arguments against Velikovsky's identification of Sumer of the El Amarna letters as Samaria, preferring to identify Sumer with Simyra, a town in Northern Syria near Arvad which apparently had been of some importance in ancient times. His conclusions are in preparation for publication in the near future. Further interest was generated by means of a collection of notes which had been prepared by Philip Clapham and handed around to ...
120. Recent Developments in Near Eastern Archaeology [Journals] [SIS Review]
... note that on this graph the dates were set at 39 years older than the new scheme and hence 1159 BC appears as 1198 BC]. Professor Colin Renfrew reviews Kuniholm's work in the same issue of Nature (pp. 733-734) and is rightly sceptical but remains hopeful that further developments will settle the matter. The Bible, Ugarit and Amarna Michmanim is a Hebrew publication of the Hecht Museum in Haifa, with English summaries. Issue 10 (May 1996) raises anew the similarity between some biblical literature and that of the Late Bronze Age. In The Canaanite Literary Heritage in Ancient Hebrew Writing' (pp. 19-38 & 8*) E Greenstein applies literary criteria to compare ...
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine Search took 0.072 seconds |
