history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
© 2001-2004 Catastrophism.com
|Sign-up | Log-in|
Introduction | Publications | More
Search results for: persian in all categories
382 results found.
39 pages of results.
71. Ancient History Revisions: the Last 25 years - a Perspective [SIS C&C Review $]
... A special edition on Ages in Chaos material, edited by James, including papers by Velikovsky and Eva Danelius, John Bimson and other major SIS revisionists, was published as SISR 2:3 (1977/78). In 1977 and 1978, Velikovsky's last two published volumes in the AIC series appeared: Peoples of the Sea [11 and Ramses II and His Time [12. These contained many important examples of archaeological anachronisms, still unexplained today. Peoples of the Sea included much persuasive evidence that Ramesses III ruled during the Persian period. There could hardly be an 800 year gap between the pylon of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu and the almost identical Ptolemaic pylons at Edfu and Kom Ombo- and how did Medinet Habu survive unscathed when Cambyses was reported to have destroyed all the Egyptian temples? The Greek historian Diodorus of Sicily describes in detail a prolonged and unsuccessful struggle by the Persians, first without and later with Greek support, to recover Egypt from a king he calls 'Nectanebos'. Astonishingly, no record of this great victory appears anywhere in Egypt ...
72. The Foundations of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology [SIS C&C Review $]
... Matematischen und technischen Chronologie, I, (Leipzig 1906), p.139 The Eponym Canon and Ptolemy's Canon When Sir Henri Rawlinson's translation of the eponym lists appeared in print in 1866, their importance for the fixing of the Neo-Assyrian chronology was immediately realised [4. It was pointed out that the limmu-list at several points could be linked up with and brought into chronological harmony with the Canon of Ptolemy- a list of kings and their length of reigns beginning with the rule of Nabonassar in Babylon (747-733 BC) through the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman rulers to Antoninus Pius (138-161 AD), a contemporary of Ptolemy. In this way, and not by the aid of the Eponym Canon eclipse, it was first shown that the eponymy of Pur-Sagale fell in the year 763 BC. Prof. Eberhard Schrader, in a work published in 1878, demonstrated this mutual agreement between the limmu-list and Ptolemy's Canon, and concluded: "Thus the Canon of Ptolemy performs the double service to the Assyriologists: it fixes the line of eponyms in the whole chronological ...
73. Society News [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... 1792. He proposed bringing the end of the Kassite dynasty down from 1160 to 760 and this would considerably alter the alignments on Tony Rees' chart. Gunnar Heinsohn added that he equates Gulkishar with Alexander the Great. Then Gunnar Heinsohn read an addendum to his Nottingham paper. This proved to be the main item, with Gunnar forcefully reiterating his theory that stratigraphy and not history based on false premises should dictate the chronology. He concentrated on Assyria and Cappadocia. Stratigraphy yields four layers before that of Hellenism at 330 BC: the Persian Empire from -540, the Medish Empire -620, Ninos Assyria -750 and Early Assyria -1150. These hold good in Assyria, Armenia, Cappadocia and the Indus Valley. In reverse order, these are the first empire in the history of man, according to Herodotus, Diodorus etc., rising around -1150 and reaching its peak with King Ninos in -750. This is archaeologically Naram-Sin's Old Akkadians, being directly below the Late Bronze Age. This is followed in turn by the Mitanni and the Achaemenids. Art from outside Assyria dated ...
74. A Chronology for Mesopotamia (contra Heinsohn) [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... Mesopotamia: Rees NOTES: Some dynasties boxed for clarity. Arrows indicate attested links. Spellings may vary from those in text. Study I (Babylon) This re-introduced the criticism of Lester J. Mitcham [15 as regards the stratigraphy of Babylon. It showed that an early or low stratum contained artifacts of Hammurabi's dynasty. But much higher than that, and hence much later in time, was a layer containing artifacts from the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II, Neriglissar and Nabonidus. One stratum higher than this contained remains belonging to the Persian domination period. These quite unambiguous details illustrate how Heinsohn's proposals, whereby Hammurabi was the same as the Persian King Darius 'the Great' (who ruled after Nebuchadnezzar, Neriglissar and Nabonidus), is apparently clearly denied by the stratigraphy of Babylon. With regard to this study, so far as the dynasty of Hammurabi was concerned, in October 1991 Heinsohn was of the opinion [16 that the stratigraphy at Babylon had been poorly established and that conventional interpretations of it had been based on incorrect information. He felt that the content ...
75. In Defence of the Revised Chronology [SIS C&C Review $]
... have no inscriptions listing together the (presumed) different names of Velikovsky's (presumed) "double" rulers. They must, quite simply, be regarded as separate individuals after all. One up for the Conventional Chronology? Not quite. Firstly: ''The identifications are made by Velikovsky on the basis of what he would claim are parallel events in the reigns of the kings in question". (Day). Claim? Under Part 3 I summarise Velikovsky's evidence for the identification of the Sea Peoples of Ramses III's time with the Persian Empire and its Greek mercenaries of the 4th century. Also Day's argument against this and the answer to it. The reader is left to draw his own conclusions. Similarly, Velikovsky proposes: the 2nd campaigns of Ramses II towards the Euphrates is recorded in his annals and in the Pentaur-poem, and has parallel in Jeremiah 46 (1). His first march towards it is related on the Tanis obelisk and the Nahr el Kalb (near Beirut), rock inscription, written in his second year (2). The ...
76. Three Views of Heinsohn's Chronology [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... scimitars, horse-drawn chariots, weighty daggers, and glacis fortifications etc- but they never qualified for Akkadian. The perception of them as speakers of a Mesopotamian language appeared chronologically too horrifying to come to the minds of Egyptologists and Assyriologists alike. Why is the question of Thutmose III's teacher of Akkadian a problem at all? Because the Egyptians, like Hyksos and Old Hittites, could not bring themselves to use the West Semitic cuneiform of their immediate Martu predecessors who disappeared from history around 1600 BC and only re-emerged in 'Middle Assyrian' and Persian times, of the 13th and 6th centuries BC. The majority of the letters arriving at Amarna were written in an Akkadian a bit more developed than the Old Akkadian of the 24th century BC but, strangely enough, 'typologically more ancient, i.e., less simplified than the "older"' Old Babylonian (G. Wilhelm [1984, p. 649). Palaeographically, the Akkadian script of the Amarna archive (14th century BC) precedes the West Semitic cuneiform of the 20th to 17th century BC. The Martu ...
77. In Defence of Higher Chronologies [SIS C&C Review $]
... ended on October 4 (Julian) -331, when the reign of Sebeknefru came to a close and Alexander the Great took over [5. The Old Kingdom presumably started very late in the second millennium and ended in about the 7th century [6. Since there are ample indications that the Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the First Babylonian Dynasty were contemporary, or at least overlapped [7, my lowering of the Middle Kingdom led me to endorse an earlier claim by Gunnar Heinsohn that the First Babylonian Dynasty needs to be lowered to Persian times and is, in fact, to be identified with the Persian Empire [8. In this, Hammurabi would be the same as Darius the Great, Ammisaduqa would be the same as Artaxerxes III Ochos [9 and so on. Heinsohn based these conclusions mainly on archaeological and stratigraphical considerations, which I tend to see as of secondary import. My endorsement of Heinsohn's late dating of the First Babylonian Dynasty resulted from astronomical and calendrical considerations, which he tends to see as being of very limited import. My summary here ...
78. Bookshelf [SIS C&C Review $]
... of the problem", and of the momentous consequences for ancient history of his new interpretation of Ramesses III's wars (7). The acceptance of the basic tenets of Peoples of the Sea by historians would, ironically enough, result in the complete disappearance of the "Sea Peoples" from histories of the Ancient World. For according to Velikovsky, the records of Ramesses III do not describe the tail-end of a barbarian invasion that began in southern Europe- they describe the successful wars of Nectanebo I against the organised forces of the Persian Empire attempting to recover the lost province of Egypt. The Aegean elements of the "Sea Peoples" are understood, in Velikovsky's reconstruction, as a reflection of the heavy reliance at that time (early 4th century BC) of the Persians on Greek mercenaries and military know-how. The whole idea of a mass movement of "barbarian war bands" is revealed as a "ghost". If Velikovsky is correct, then some other cause of the destructions of Late Bronze civilisation must be sought. (8). This utter ...
79. Bookshelf [SIS C&C Review $]
... BC. It begins with a detailed description of the tiles of Ramesses III from Tell el-Yahudiya, which bear Greek letters incised on the reverse during the process of manufacture. Photographs and full descriptions of these tiles allow the reader to judge for himself the veracity of these letters- they are not only letters of the Greek alphabet, which did not originate until the eighth century BC, but show clear signs of being classical forms, that is, from no earlier than the fourth century BC. On their obverse, the tiles betray Persian influence. The chapter concludes with an interesting account of the protracted argument between the British excavators Naville and Griffith, both eminent archaeologists of their day, over the date of the cemetery near Tell el-Yahudiya. Naville presented a strong case that the coffins and grave-goods dated from Greek times; Griffith, however, could demonstrate with equal conviction that they dated from the time of Ramesses III. In Velikovsky's opinion, both were right. This strong archaeological case for a radical revision of the dates of the XXth Dynasty is backed up in ...
80. A Survey of Archaeological Evidence for a Revised Chronology [SIS C&C Review $]
... archaeological horizon on the basis of their ceramic assemblages.' In the light of the fuller understanding of the stela's historical context provided by Fragments B1 and B2, it is clear that it demands an even more radical chronological revision than Chapman envisages here. In short, the full implications of the Tel Dan inscription for Iron Age chronology have yet to be faced. When they are, its chronological significance may turn out to be even more far-reaching than its reference to the 'house of David'. 7. Iron Age IIC and the Persian Period James et al. have already made a strong case for reducing the dates of Strata III and II at Lachish [48. The result of this revision is that the last phase of the Iron Age, Iron IIC, extends well down into the Persian period instead of ending with the Babylonian invasions of 587/86BC. Evidence in favour of this adjustment is coming to light from various quarters but here I will focus on one only [49. Figure 6 Ketef Hinnom: burial cave no. 25 Figure 7 Silver ...
Search took 0.080 seconds
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine