h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Gif

For chronological purposes the key find at Amarna (apart from the royal archives, of course) was pottery of the period designated Mykenean IIIB (with a little IIIA). Because Amarna was only occupied briefly this gives us a cross reference between the Amarna Period and the start of Mykenae IIIB. One can argue about the absolute date, but whatever the absolute date, it's the same for both of them. More minor finds, like scarabs from the Hyksos period and eighteenth dynasty in Crete and Greece essentially confirm this.

Although there have been a few finds that push a little way into the end of the dark age we still have four hundred years without any writing at all in Greece and Anatolia, and only a few pieces of pottery. Compared with the literate societies that appear within a couple of generations, along with thousands of known occupied sites, it would be astonishing if the failure to find anything was just bad luck.

AFAIK, (though I could easily be wrong) the Habiru are never mentioned as being in Egypt. They are referred to in the Amarna letters, in a manner that does indeed suggest bandits or outlaws, as invading or raiding the cities of Palestine. They are not, I think, Hebrews.

On a more general note, it is obvious that if one section of a country's history is displaced through time, it will leave a gap where it was, or add duplicates or parallels in the places it arrives, and distort the histories of other countries as a result. Naturally the supporters of the standard chronology claim that this is what the revisionist's have done. And equally naturally, the revisionists claim that this what the standard chronology has done, and that they are putting things straight again.

I would say that the large scale displacement at the end of the eastern Med is actually a sharp edge left behind by the displacement of a period of Egyptian history into its own past. The evidence is there (IMO), but the change in perspective can be dizzying.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

OK, forgive me if I'm losing track of this a bit (it's late at night, and like I said I'm not really up on Greek pottery).

So we've got the Amarna period in Egypt, consisting of (part of) the reigns of Amenhotep III, Ankhenaten and Smenkhare (plus possibly a year or two of Tutankhaten / Tutankhamun) - 'standard' dates around 1387 - 1334 or so.

Pottery ties this in to the end of Late Helladic IIIA1, all of IIIA2 and the very start of IIIB in Greek terms - 'standard' dates 1350 - 1300 (anything earlier being IIIA1, anything later IIIB). Better still, the IIIA1 seems to be associated with Amenhotep and the IIIA2 with Ankhenaten, with IIIB appearing only at the very end.

As a bonus, it seems that Hittite records refer to either Akhenaten or Tutankhaten by name.

So yes, a good point of synchrony between the three empires. But I'm afraid I've lost track of how that indicates a dating problem? There's a clear progression in the Greek pottery, matching a progression in the Egyptian Pharaohs. Are you saying that Greek LHIIIA1 pottery also turns up with later Pharaohs? Or that there is no Greek pottery style from the following Greek Dark Ages (Wiki says that's when Protogeometric Art comes from)?

Gif

Hi Gif.

The period of occupation at Amarna can probably be narrowed to about 1350-1335 in the conventional chronology, and coincides with the first part of LHIIIB. The timetable of Helladic pottery is anchored by this horizontal date, *not* by any vertical dating, and all the chronologies, standard and revised, abide by it.

AFAIK the Hittite records don't mention Akhenaten, but there are letters from Supiluliuma in the Amarna collection.

The dating problem.

We've already mentioned the dark age of Greece and Anatolia that runs from c1200-800/750 BC. Also the Tomb of Ahiram (13th century or 7th century?) and the 13th century Hittite layer at Gordium between the 8th century and 6th century strata. We haven't delved into Lachish, the Gold Tomb of Carchemish, and many other examples that show this selfsame problem. In all cases the 13th century dates are derived from the standard chronology of Egypt. In all cases the low dates are derived from the stratigraphy and from dateable written records.

When I ask historians/archaeologists what evidence they have for being so sure of the conventional chronology being correct, given that it was pretty much in place even before Champollion deciphered the hieroglyphs, I get the same kind of blank look that I get when I ask the likes of Warner what they really mean by immaterial.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

OK, if we could just focus on the pottery issue for the moment?

So we have two points of undisputed agreement: the style of Greek pottery called LHIIIB ties in with the end of the Egyptian Amarna period (absolute dates disputed); and by the time we get to 'classical ancient Greece' (specifically the first Olymics in 776BC) we're into written history and everyone agrees the dates.

The dispute, then, is the gap between the two. 'Standard' chronology puts Amarna at c. 1300 BC, and therefore needs ~500 years of 'stuff' to fill the gap between the two. You've avoided saying exactly exactly how long you would reduce the chronology by, but if you are eliminating the whole Greek Dark Age (and only the Dark Age, nothing more), that would be about 300 years, so you only need 200 years worth of 'stuff', right?

To shorten Egyptian history, you also need to 'double up' on Dynasties, i.e. you need 2 Dynasties ruling at the same time in different parts of the country, e.g. 20th and 21st Dynasties overlapping rather than the 21st following the 20th. We should therefore see pottery from a single Greek period at several points in the 'standard' Egyptian chronology. (This is, presumably, what you're getting at with the scarabs - but I'm talking pottery for now.)

If we *don't* see that - if Greek pottery found in Egypt during the late 18th, 19th, 20th and early 21st Dynasties is Protogeometric, with Geometric Art appearing later - then we could take that as support for the standard chronology, right?

Gif

NB: bearing in mind that I don't actually know what Greek pottery if found in Egypt. I'm not saying the evidence does support the 'standard' chronology, I'm just seeing if we can agree how to tell the two apart.

Gif

Hi Gif

That's broadly right. According to the standard chronology the Amarna period ends around 1335-1325 (different historians arrive at slightly varying dates, but not enough to bother us here), and end around 750 (again the Greek olympics is close enough to get a handle on things, although in the Velikovsky reconstruction some of the earlier stuff appears considerably later, but essentially by duplicating (or unduplicating) the existing written history.

On Greek pottery in Egypt I have to admit myself ignorant, too. I'm pretty sure that Protogeometric and Geometric pottery never appear in Egypt, and I haven't seen any reference to Greek pottery in the polemics over dating, which I probably would if anyone thought they could prove anything by it.

Doubling up and duplication of dynasies... This depends on your choice of revisionist

All three agree on an approximate start date of 825 for the Libyan period, rather than 945, but the agreement ends there. James identifies Shishak as Ramses III, and doubles up most of the 21st dynasty with the 22nd/23rd dynasties to make the space. Rohl identifies Shishak as Rameses II, and consequently pushes a big chunk of the 20th dynasty into the Libyan period. It occurs to me, saying this, that it's hard to fit the peoples of the sea into the biblical account with this reconstruction, which is odd given that proving the Bible seems to be part of Rohl's agenda.

I'm going to have lunch now, so the rest of this post will appear as a sequel.

Noggin

, but this is just too priceless.

Wondering whether anyone at Conservpedia has seen the news today, I came across this:

http://conservapedia.com/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Deserved_Peace_Prize_Recipients

Yes, that's right, a definitive list of those Nobel Peace Prize winners who actually deserce the award.

And carry on reading:
It took 30 years for an American to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, despite most of the best writing of the era coming from America.

Yes, that's right, America so clearly led the world in literature in the 1900s - 1920s that you don't even need a reference to prove it.

Gif

I *love* it when this thread does highbrow...

Glad you're enjoying it Clive

The Velikovsky reconstruction is the most radical, most controversial and most complete.

Here the age of the 18th dynasty is reduced by almost exactly five centuries. Shishak is Tuthmoses III (Isaac Newton thought this, too, in opposition to the accepted opinion of his day), and the Amarna period is the time of Jehoshaphat and Ahab, and their immediate successors. The 18th dynasty is followed immediately by the 22nd to 25th dynasties, in their conventional places. The 19th dynasty proves to be a duplicate of the 26th dynasty, and the 20th dynasty of the 28th, 29th and 30th dynasties. The 21st dynasty is a parallel, starting before, continuing through, and finishing a little after, the 20th.

Noggin

Rohl has a different version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC_Egyptian_chronology_comparison.png

(click to zoom in)

Gif

Yes, I mentioned it in post 21666.

That's a confusing diagram isn't it?

The period from the late 22nd to early 26th dynasties is recognised by all contenders as particularly confused and confusing, but it's nice to see Rohl proving Anderson's Law.*

*There is no problem, no matter how difficult and complicated, which, when looked at in just the right way, does not become even more difficult and complicated.

Noggin

A58213280

Gif

it dont matter

<>

So still seeing what I can find out about Greek pottery in Egypt.

I can't find any reference to protogeometric Greek pottery being found in Egypt. So this leaves me 2 questions for a 'revised chronology': if the Greeks weren't undergoing a Dark Age, why did this one style not get exported to Egypt? And why did Dynasties that (presumably, according to the revised chronology) were running in parallel not both/all have the same Greek pottery?

And a third question also: it seems that quite a bit did happen during the Greek Dark Ages, not leastly the evolution of the Greek script from Phoenician. If there was no Greek Dark Age, when did this happen?

Gif

"A shopping centre in a town associated with Arthurian legend has won a fight to rename itself after Merlin.

Conservationists and church leaders had opposed rebranding Greyfriars in Carmarthen, named after a medieval abbey at the site, to Merlin's Walk.

They said the wizard's links with the town were only based on myth or legend. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8296354.stm

Ag, another of my irony meters goes SPOING!!!!!

So, a 2000year old myth or legend is OK then?

I bought a copy of Emile Durkheim's 'The Elementary Forms of Religious Life' from Barnados on Friday. (We have a cool Barnados down my way. Also a cool Oxfam and Cancer Research.). My son is more-or-less named after him.

Back cover quote:

'If religion generated anything that is essential in society, this is because the idea of society is the soul of religion.'


WOW! Is it any wonder my wife and I love Durkheim?

Oooo, I used to live in Carmarthen. I can see that one ending in fisticuffs.

I've been looking too, Gif, but there really doesn't seem to be much.

It's late now, but look for a considered reply in the morning. Or a bit later, seeing as it's Sunday. Like my lie in, I do.

Noggin

I had no idea you dabbled in functionalism Ed.

Nnnn...I don't see it that way, C. Durkheim's not saying that religion *fulfils* a (necessary) function, rather describing how society functions. Religion is a phenomenon within society. This must have some sort of explanation. (other than 'God told us to do it' that is.)

Total change of subject.

Don't know if anyone else has been following this over at Pharyngula, but....


First there was this.
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#


Then this
http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm


and now...


this.


http://s841.photobucket.com/albums/zz333/Extemporanus/?action=view&current=One_Nation_Under_Cthulhu.jpg