history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
© 2001-2004 Catastrophism.com
|Sign-up | Log-in|
Introduction | Publications | More
Search results for: tutankhamun in all categories
101 results found.
11 pages of results.
71. Objections to the Revised Chronology [SIS C&C Review $]
... print, will appear in the next Newsletter. (My first three objections to Velikovsky's thesis relate essentially to the as yet unpublished sequels to Ages In Chaos: I base myself on his outline in the Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History (1945).) 1. RADIOCARBON DATES Velikovsky claims that radiocarbon tests will prove his reconstruction of ancient history to be correct. Already, the fact that a test on Tutankhamun's tomb gave a date of 1030 B.C.( 50) is claimed in his support. (Orthodox chronology dates Tutankhamun about 1350 B.C. whilst Velikovsky dates him about 830 B. C.), However, a number of relevant radiocarbon rests have already been made and, far from confirming Velikovsky's reconstruction, they tend to refute it and it is important to note that not only are radiocarbon dates lower than the orthodox chronology demands in cases where Velikovsky differs from the orthodox chronology, but also in cases where Velikovsky agrees with the orthodox chronology. Thus, according to Velikovsky (in agreement with orthodox chronology), the 26th Egyptian dynasty began ...
72. Syria and Ugarit [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered," part IV. Pensee, time chart (foldout) 7. These kings belong in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. 8. "Thesis 114" and Ages in Chaos, pp. 235, 295, 308. 9. It is here accepted that the dates yielded by Geoffrey Gammon in both private correspondence and in C&AH (vol. I, part 2, p. 63) are correct. They are Amunhotep III, 874-837; Akhnaton, 848-832; Smenkhare, 834-832; Tutankhamun, 832-823; Ay, 825-822; Horemheb, 822-814; Ramses I 814-813; Seti I, 813-802; and Ramses II, 804-738. The only point that needs additional consideration is the co-regency between Tutankhamun and Ay, which may necessitate lowering the later dates by two years, Ramses II to 802-736. Gammon's proposed Hittite dates require a slight adjustment, so that Mursilis II can be allowed a reign of at least twenty-six years (see note 32, below). Gammon's dates are Suppiluliumas I, 860 ?-827; Arnuwandas II ...
73. Evidence of the Prophets and Egypt [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... the Amarna Period." JARCE, III, 1964, 51-69; "Excursus on the 'Military Officer" Nakhtmin." Ibid., 124-26; "The Berlin 'Trauerrelief' (No. 12411) and Some Officials of Tut'ankhamun and Ay." Ibid., IV, 1965, 55-68). 34. Alan Gardiner, "The Memphite Tomb of the General Haremhab." JEA, 39 (1953), 3-4. The campaign occurred before Haremhab came to the throne. The king has been variously identified as Akhnaton and Tutankhamun (see Schulman, JARCE, III, 1964, 56, note 33). 35. ANET, 319, 395; Alan R. Schulman," 'Ankhesenamun, Nofretity, and the Amka Affair." JARCE, XV (1978),43-47. 36. See note 4. A Hittite king received a letter from an Egyptian queen Dakhamun who was the widow of a king of Egypt named either Bibkhuruyias or Nibkhuruyias (ANET, 319). She is thought to be the widow of Tutankhamun (Ta-onkh-s-amen is a ...
74. Experiments with Time II: Synchronisms and Stratigraphies [SIS C&C Review $]
... bad chronology rather than any fundamental difference in the viewpoint of the protagonists. Now that solutions to the five key chronological problems have been found, it is possible to draw-up a comparable list of synchronisms accurately dated by the Absolute Chronology. This is set out below. Royal Synchronisms based on the Absolute Chronology Ashur-bel-Nisheshu II Kara-Indash (1245-1221) (1265-1236) Amenhotep III Kurigalzu II (1200-1176) (1194-1156) Kadashman-Enlil I (1175-1147) Akhenaten (1155-1139) Suppiluliumas I (1156-1123) Ashuruballit II (1150-1115) Burnaburiash II (1146-1121) Tutankhamun Suppiluliumas I (1156-1123) (1138-1130) Burnaburiash II (1146 --1121) Ashuruballit II Burnaburiash II (1146-1121) (1150-1115) Kara-hardash (1120) Nazi-bugash (1120) Kurigalzu III (1119-1095) Enlil-nirari (1329-1320) Kurigalzu I (1330-1313) Ramesses II (1079-1014) Muwatallis (1095-1072) Urhi-Teshub (1071-1065) Hattusilis III (1064-1040) Hattusilis III (1064-1040) Kadashman-Turgu (1068-1051) Kadashman-Enlil II (1050-1042) Tukulti-Ninurta I Shagarakti-Shuriash (1252-1240) (1245-1209) Kathtiliashu IV (1239-1232) Tudhaliyas II (1220-1206) Tudhaliyas IV ...
75. Index of Titles [Uncategorised]
... , The Titius-Bode Law and the Evolution of the Solar System, The To everything there is a season Tomb of the High Priest of Aten at Memphis, The Tony Rees on Lasken's chronology Towards a new Evolutionary Synthesis Towards a Science of Mythology: Velikovsky's Contribution Towards an astronomical dating of the pyramids Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues, The TRACE at Lockheed Martin Transcontinental Contact Trip to Noah's Ark Trisms and Planetary Iconography (1) Trouble With Aztex, The Troy and the Greek Dark Age Tunguska 2001 Conference Tuning in to Nature Tutankhamun Prophecies by Maurice Cotterell, The Tutankhamun radiocarbon dates TV Documentary on Impact Threat Twelfth Planet: by Zecharia Sitchin, The Twelve More Moons Around Saturn Twenty-One Years of Venus, The Twilight of the Gods (Review) Twists of Time Two Babylons: The Great Red Dragon, The Two Experiments Involving Gravity and Electromagnetism Two Jehorams, The Two Major Censuses in the Book of Numbers, The Two Sargons and Their Successors (Part II), The Two Sargons and Their Successors (PART ONE), The Typhon and the Comet of ...
76. The Hebrew Patriarchs in Greek Tradition (Part I) [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... to India where dwelt the Eastern Ethiopians. It also indicates that he considered her descendants to have arrived in the Egyptian sphere of influence at the time under scrutiny. Figure 2 No.41 ORUS¦ +---+ No.42 No.43 daughter son CENCHERES RATHOTIS¦ No.44 son ACENCHERES Most commentators blithely assign these four monarchs, and sometimes even Danaus, to the late 18th Dynasty period on the basis of their placement in the 18th Dynasty list. Usually they attempt to link Orus of 38 years with Amenhotep III of 37-39 years, Rathotis with Tutankhamun, and Danaus of 4-5 years with King Ay of 4 years. This is despite Manetho clearly designating them all as foreigners and as a separate dynasty who had just arrived in the area. It also ignores the facts that Aegyptos was a king within the Delta while Danaus was a subordinate king in Libya. Nor can the relevant traditions correlate in any sense with the Amarna age and the Theban kings. Manetho did actually give a strong indication that these foreigners were contemporaries of the early Thutmosides. This indicator can be seen in ...
77. Society News [SIS C&C Review $]
... all over the Middle East so, for Heinsohn to be correct, all these LBA strata must be raised into the Iron Age. The end of the Late Period Mycenaean pottery defines the end of the LBA but Heinsohn's Mittani layers contain it and he calls the Mittani the Medes, who are the same as the Persians. So, is the Persian Period in the LBA? 3. Placement of Akhenaten. John Pietron led a brief discussion on the placement of Akhenaten. He has been looking for evidence for dating Akhenaten and found Tutankhamun addresses Amenhotep III as his father, not grandfather. John considered Akhenaten to be a Venus-event Pharaoh. The Aten was Venus- all the Aten rays end in a Venusian glyph in the Venus symbol. The sign of life is the sign of Venus, still seen today in the symbol for the London Metal Exchange. He thought the astronomy of the Amarna period was wrong, being the astronomy of a 90-degree obliquity. The astronomy of the remaining Dynasty 18 kings is one of twelve 30 day months, as seen in the ...
78. An Answer to the Critics of Ramses II and His Time [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... to the witness-stand. Nevertheless, one incident from the life of Suppiluliumas, father of Mursilis (who fought against Seti I) does deserve mention. In his earlier years, a widowed Egyptian queen named Dakkamun wrote to Suppiluliumas requesting him to send one of his sons as a husband. The queen's late husband is named as Bib-kururia, or Nib-khururia, in cuneiform. It is generally assumed that the letter was addressed to the same Suppiluliumas as the man who wrote to Akhenaten, so that the dead king is believed to have been Tutankhamun (Nebkheperure). However, as Velikovsky stated, Tutankhamun's queen was not named Dakkamun. Only one queen by that name (Duk-hat-amun) is known from Egyptian history; she was the wife of Tirhaka. Duk-hat-amun became a widow after Tirhaka died of the wounds he received at the siege of Thebes in 663 BC. Of great importance is the fact that Tirhaka's throne-name was Nefer-tem-khu-ra, which may possibly have been also written as Neferkhure. Given the interchangeability of the sounds 'f', 'v' and 'b', it is ...
79. Egyptian Monumental Evidence [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... to their predecessors. A duplicate list, of which part is in the British Museum, was originally set up in Ramesses II's own temple at Abydos..." Comment:These lists each comprised about 76 cartouches. In that of Seti I they are shown in two rows, the first row giving kings from dyns 1-6, and the second row giving kings from dyns 6-18. That of Ramesses II is mutilated but gives the kings in three rows. Missing are dyns 13-17 and the 18th dyn kings Akhenaten, Smenkhare, Tutankhamun and Ay who were regarded as heretical or unworthy. Conclusion: Dyn 18 preceded dyn 19. Furthermore there was a continuity of succession from Horemheb the last 18th dyn king, to Ramesses I the first 19th dyn king. The order and duration of the 19th dyn kings are well known. Though it must be admitted that there is some argument over various co-regency lengths which means that dyn 18 might have lasted only 220 yrs. New Kingdom Evidence- The transition from dynasty 19 to 20 C.A.H. Vol 2, part 2 ...
80. New Chronology Issues, continued from Workshop 1991:1 [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... the New Chronology, until well after 860 BC. Nor did I advance the cylinder seals at Thebes as evidence that the alphabet was invented long before 800 BC. I merely remarked that the cuneiform inscriptions tended to confirm Herodotus's account of the Greek alphabet's origin and that my New Chronology date for Cadmus, c. 1010-985 BC, was consistent with (a) the genealogical data, (b) the earliest archaeological remains of the Greek alphabet in the 8th century and (c) the independently calculated date for Cadmus's contemporaries Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. I don't see how this is circular reasoning unless, in fact, the Egyptian dates are wholly dependent on Greece's. But they are not. Sweeney calls them fictitious without substantiating the point. There is absolutely no evidence for imagining that the Spartan kingship was an unstable institution. Lest any reader be misled by Sweeney here, we do not 'find Sparta at certain periods of her history going through up to half a dozen kings in a single year'. Is it because this suggestion originates with himself that Sweeney finds no ...
Search took 0.110 seconds
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine