Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Sargon of Akkad |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sharrukin 
Chieftain 
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Sargon of AkkadPosted: 02-Aug-2018 at 00:44 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I lost my entire message to all your assertions so I will just make this into an essay. To say that arguments, which you say, are "cunningly deceptive" only demonstrate how ignorant you are about ancient documents and their usefulness. You underestimate how much scholarship has gone into creating the Mesopotamian chronology. In some periods, the documentation is so embarrassingly complete, that even many medievel sources are inferior in comparison. For many reigns the year-names or eponyms for the reigns of various kings are COMPLETE!!!! The Ur III kings chronology is virtually COMPLETE for instance. The Neo-Assyrian eponym lists are nearly COMPLETE for the 1st millennium BC!!!! You do underestimate the usefulness of synchronisms as well. These augment the regnal years of the kings AND are a check on the chronology. And then your rejection of the usefulness of the Venus tablets because of the variety of solutions only shows your disregard of various chronological sources which have allowed scholars to choose from either the Low or Middle Chronology above ALL others......and they are only a insignificant 64 years apart!!! This only shows how near agreement these scholars are for the chronology AFTER the period of those two dates for the Venus tablets. Even after your objection for some variances in the rule of kings, those variances are insignificant to the over all chronology.
By comparison your methodology is chaotic!!!!! Not only do you try to match names with rulers with totally different careers, cultures, pedigrees, and belief systems, (come on, the Patriachs were NOT kings!!!), but with names of rulers disregarding any chronology!!! After playing that "match name game" with you, I realize that you have NO idea who to match Sargon with. And then I have to question WHY you choose classical legendary sources for your history in favor of more ancient and more detailed sources of information. The scribes who compiled the more ancient sources had sources of documentation at their disposal that the classical sources didn't have, otherwise there would have been more agreement. The only possible exception are the late native Babylonian chronicles which do reflect the more ancient sources. For the most part the classical sources just recorded half-remembered legends, which barely match their more ancient documented counterparts. I'm sorry, but it is going to take a lot more than your "match name game" to be taken seriously. Until new sources of information come to light with the spade, the best available information shows that Sargon reigned in the late 24th century/early 23rd century BC.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General 
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 03:07 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sorry I was not able to view the forum all the last 24 hours due to some sort of problem. If i am not able to reply any more in future it may be because i have again lost access to view/visit forum. Probably the one main area where the biggest problem presumably is with their/your chronology between Sargon "2300s" to Ammisaduga "1600s" to Assyrians c 601 bc is probably the Assyrian (and/or Babylonian) king list between "1440/1430/1410/1408/1401" and 601 bc. (I am justified to use words "presumably/probably" because they/you have not given the data for all the Assyrian/Babylonian dynasties/kings involved between "1400s" and 601 for analysis.) The Assyrian king lists are disputable as regards possible contemporary dynasties/cities being supposedly consecutive. "At that time did king Ahaz send unto the kings [plural] of Assyria to help him" (II Chronicles 28:16). Assur and Calah and Nineveh dynasties were not necessarily all consecutive, there may be overlaps. Assyrians power variously stated to have lasted for either: 1013/1240/1280/1300/1306/1500 yrs from Bel/Semiramis to Medes 816/700 bc (Ctesias); or 1995 yrs Ninus to Philip 197 bc; or "30/33 generations/descents from Belus/Ninus/Ninyas to Sardanapalus"; or 520 yrs duration of Assyrians until Medes (Herodotus); or Semiramis 5 generations before Nitocris; or Bel 322 yrs before Trojan war 1229 bc (Thallus/Theoph.) (Kutirnahunte 1635/1850 yrs before Ashurbanipal 650 bc.) (Assyrians had periods of 1805 yrs with the last one ending in 712 bc.) So i do not see that there is proof for that Sargon was 2300s bc, you have only shown that they/you can cleverly claim some seeming supposed supports reasons, but it doesn't mean or prove it is right. There are problems and assumptions involved with so many kings reigns lengths figures data, and there is no strong external confirmation of the long periods dates, and it conflicts with some other evidences like biblical and some other sources (like Herodotus). I think it it seems cunningly deceptive. Do these kings lists say/show whether part years are counted as full years for preceding and succeeding kings? If you have more than about a 100 kings involved and if each king has only one extra year added then one would already have a misleading difference of a 100 years in alleged dates. Some of the dynasties have differing claimed durations in different king lists versions: Akkad 161/177/181/197 yrs Uruk 4 dyn 26/30/43/47 yrs Guti 25/99/124 yrs Uruk 5 dyn (42)7 yrs Ur 3 dyn 108/117 / 120 + x / 123 yrs Isin 159/203/225 yrs. I assume that you/they will claim that theirs/yours is reliable despite my criticisms, so i will have to re-study the Assyrians (and Babylonian) kings lists and find more forceful proofs exactly where the king list is not really consecutive/reliable. Replying to bits in the second and third posts: Just because the Venus Tablets theoretical calculation supposedly "fits well with" the Assyrian king lists data calucaltions doesn't mean it is right. History knows many proven cases of misleading coincidences, there are quite a few cases of where dates supposedly coincide but they turn out to be false coincidences (eg Mayan start date and orthodox Menes date). Synchronisms don't fill gaps, they don't prove the length of time between, they only prove the two persons are contemporary (though it might be true that alignments chances require consistent length in both lists). Your dates conflict with some sources like the Bible so yous are picking and choosing to accept some and reject or distort other sychronisms (i mean like yous claim "synchronisms" support your chronology, but yous have don't have synchronisms with biblical, you have anti-synchronisms with biblical, your dates don't synchronise with biblical). Their/your chronology is cunningly deceptive, it all hinges on all many the kings and dynasties lengths being correct and consecutive. (The more number of data you have the more possible problems.) I admit you have made a point that you/they do at least have some support reasons for their/your case, but i do not agree that it is honest reliable truth. The Edomite/Seirite/Horite genealogical information in Genesis and Chronicles is not necessarily as clear cut as what your diagram showed. There are contradictions in different Genesis/Chronciles sections/chapters. However, after my last post the last time i visited 1-2 days ago i was re-reading info on Sargon and Manishtusu and Naramsin and i am not so sure now that my previous Sargon and Joseph (or Moses) connection was not possibly right after all, because i again saw some very intriguing similarities, and i also saw that the second Seir correspondence doesn't necessarily seem so likely after all. So i am still looking into whether the possible Joseph correspondence is or is not right. I am withdrawiing because in my opinion i detect in all the replies above unfair cunning tactics that falsely make me look all-wrong and not right about anything all the time, and falsely making the other side out to be all right and not wrong about anything all the time. Some day in the future someone will prove that the ascribed dates of Sargon and other early events are not so old as they keep "authoritatively/expertly" asserting. But until then it always seems to be cunningness not truth that wins. Edited by Arthur-Robin - 01-Aug-2018 at 05:24 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 02:35 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Middle Chronology from the Venus Tablets does fit well with the available data. Please see the chronology after 1646 BC. While there are gaps, we have enough synchronisms from betweeen the fall of Babylon, 1595 BC to 1430 BC to fill in the gap. After 1430 BC, the Assyrian king lists and eponym lists fill in for the period afterwards into the 1st millennium BC.
A variance of 34 years. Not enough to move Sargon's date appreciably downwards. I'm actually allowing for an overlap making the Guti period even smaller considering those two synchronisms. Otherwise, Sargon's reign would have been even more ancient. So, no complaints!!!!
But we do!!! And I did account for those overlaps!!! The documentation for all those synchronisms are there!!! You just won't recognize them!!! The narratives and the year-names mention ALL the essential synchronisms!!! And then, you don't want 'additions" for they would only put Sargon into a more ancient period. And then, there is very little evidence of omissions, the Gutian rulers being the most obvious one. However, there had been such a consistancy in documentation of dynasties after the Gutians that the supposed "omissions" would have been inconsequential in the altering of the chronology.
The variations are few and far in between. And then they don't alter appreciably the chronology. I've thrown out, for example the 'long" reign of Naram-Sin, otherwise that would have made Sargon's reign even more ancient. So, again, no complaining!!!!
"About" means "give or take a few years". Uncertainties arise because of the Mesopotamian calendar. Because it was a traditionally mixed (i.e. solar/lunar) calendar, there will be a variance of a few years which need to be corrected. Regardless of this "uncertainty" it does NOT alter appreciably the chronology. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 01:44 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here is the problem with Seir according to the Biblical data.: Esau married Oholibamah who was the daughter of Anah, who was the son of Zibeon (Gen. 36:2) Oholibamah was the daughter of Anah, who was the son of Zibeon who was the son of Sier (Genesis 36:20-25). This is was it looks like graphically: Seir | Abraham Zibeon | | Isaac Anah | | Esau = Oholibamah If Seir was Sargon, and Seir was in the generation before Abraham, then Sargon was before Abraham. But, since there is no connection between Sargon and the land of Seir (Edom) this exercise is moot. I don't think you can now accept the idea that Seir is Sargon, now since Seir can no longer fit into your scheme of Sargon being after the Patriarchs.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2018 at 00:10 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I have already demonstration there is a complete continuity of documentation from the first year of Ammisaduqa of Babylonia backwards to Sargon of Akkad. I shall now deal with the chronology DOWNWARD of the Venus Tablet established date of 1646 (Middle Chronology) which is the 1st year of Ammisaduqa
Ammisaduqa (21) Samsuditana (31) Subtracting the total of their reigns takes us to 1595/4 which is the date of the Fall of Babylon by the Hittites. Now we have a "dark age" because the chronological data is scanty. The inscriptions of many of the kings after the Fall of Babylon have been hopelessly worn off, but, fortunately we not only have one kinglist for this period but multiple kinglists of not just one kingdom but three kingdoms which we can synchronize. In some cases the length of reign has been preserved and so the length of time can be checked for a fair amount of certainty until 1440 BC when the documentation is complete enough to bring the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria into the 1st millennium!!! An inscription of Gulkishar, king of the Sealand shows that he was "King of Babylon" after the Fall of Babylon. 24 years after the Fall of Babylon, Agum II Kakrime, the Kassite king, "King of the... Land of Babylon" saw the return of the statues of Marduk and his wife back to Babylon so about 1571 BC. So sometime before, Agum was able to supplant Gulkishar from Babylon. Agum's successor, Burn-buriash I came to terms with Puzur-Ashur III on their mutual border. Three Kassite reigns later, Ulamburiash conquered the Sealand endng the reign of Eagamil, its last king. Four Kassite reigns later, Kara-Indash had another agreement regarding the border with Ashur-bel-nisheshu of Assyria. Thus, we have the following sychronisms (in bold): ASSYRIA SEALAND KASSITES Gulkishar (55 years) c. 1595-1575 at Babylon Peshgaldaramesh (50 years) Agum III c. 1575 BC Puzur-Ashur III (14/24 years) Burna-Buriash I Ayadaragalama (28 years) <a missing king> Enlil-nasir I (13 years) Akurduanna (26 years) Nur-ili (12 years) Melamkurkurra (7 years) Kashtiliash III Ashur-shaduni (1 month) Eagamil (9 years) Ulamburiash Ashur-rabi I Agum III c. 1455 Ashur-nadin-ahe Enlil-nasir II (6 years) <a missing king> Ashur-nirari II (7 years) Ashur-bel-nisheshu (9 years) Kadashman-harbe I Ashur-rim-nisheshu (8 years) Karaindash c. 1410 1408-1401 From about 1575 or presumably the end of the reign of Gulkishar to the end of the reign of Eagamil was a space of 120 years ending about 1455 BC. Since it was Agum III who finished the conquest of the Sealand, he can be dated to this date. The next datum we have is the reign of Ashur-rim-nishsehu who reigned from 1408 to 1401 hence dating Kara-Indash from about 1410 BC. Beginning with Enlil-Nasir II in about 1430 BC or three reigns before Ashur-rim-nisheshu in the Assyrian kinglists, we have a continuous list of Assyrian kings with totals of the length of their reigns all the way to the end of the Assyrian kingdom in 609 BC.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2018 at 02:52 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
replying to the Sargon date:
Thanks for the time and effort in presenting the Sargon date info. Though i am sorry to say that i can't agree it is proven. The one main place where i majorly disagree with your Sargon "2300 bc" date "proof" is your starting point is based on Venus Tablets. I myself refuse to accept your insistence that the Venus Tablets are not an unreliable dating source. Even orthodox "peer" sources admit they are unreliable because the true accuracy of the Venus Tablets dating info is uncertain. There is also no other confirmations (excepting supposed Egyptian) of the Babylonian 1 dynasty's supposed date. Moreover i am positive that the dynasty does not date to "1646 bc" (half way between Joseph and Moses in biblical) because i know for sure that this does not match but goes against the biblical while our own dates do fit both the Mesopotamian/Egyptian and biblical. Not only do the Venus Tablets info have ucertainties but also we know that there have been changes in astronomical movements in ancient times (eg Joshua sun stand still, eg Barak stars fought in their courses, eg Hezekiah sun go back 10 steps, eg Hyksos calendar year days number change, eg Herodotus said priests said sun had changed direction of travel 2 x 2 times in ancient Egyptian history). So i do not agree that you have proven Sargon dates to "2300s bc" because it all hinges on the Venus Tablets are reliable or not (and because i know from other evidences that the dates are not right because not match biblical). I guess you/they will refuse to admit that the Venus Tablets date is unreliable unless someone can prove what the true date of them is or more forcefully disprove their reliability (orthodox sources do admit they have uncertainty). Minor other places where i differ: Difference in long, middle and short chronology date for starting point. The Guti length "varied in the manuscripts from 91 to 125 years" shows that the Guti dynasty/period duration could have quite an uncertain length varying duration. Adding up reigns of many kings of dynasties is flawed because (1) we can't prove that all the dynasties and kings were really all consecutive and that there were not any additions or omissions. (2) Some individual kings reigns may have different length of reigns according to some different lists or different scholars/sources. (Not so much in Mesopotamian but especially in Egyptian.) Sargon's reign length is variously either 37 or 40 or 54/55/56 yrs. (Hammurabi's reign also has different figure in some sources?) The words "began his reign about". "About" illustrates uncertainties? Edited by Arthur-Robin - 30-Jul-2018 at 03:09 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2018 at 02:20 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before i reply to your reply I have this update from today. I have revised this topic and as far as i can see the only better biblical match for Sargon is maybe Seir the Horite. I differ to you Sharrukin in that i don't see that it is so unlikely for Sargon to have a match in the bible as you have implied it is. Sargon was/is a major historical figure in the time and area covered by the bible, and surely he must be known/found in the bible somewhere (or else he at least certainly seems to come in time somwhere between Joseph and Moses/Joshua in the bible). My considered bibical candidates for Sargon have included: Cain, Ashkenazi/Ashkuz, Cush (Nimrod similarity), Serug, Joseph/Israel (Manasseh similarity), Seir, Arba, or pharaoh Senusert (Moses similarity). Despite the intriguing similarities of Sargon('s sons) with Joseph and Moses, it looks like our previous tentative theoretical match of Sargon with Joseph story and a 3rd/4th/5th dynasty of Egypt doesn't seem to be very likely now. The most likely biblical candidate for Sargon instead now seems to maybe be Seir? (My past candidates for Seir the Horite have included Scorpion king (Horus race), Sargon of Akkad, or Sinuhe.) Possible match(es) between Sargon/Sharru-kin and Seir "the Horite" of Genesis 36 & Chronicles 1: - The names Seir/Dusares and Sargon/Sharru-kin could possibly be related, and the possible names match is less able to be linuistically disputed. (Compare Sharuhen? Compare 1st Hyksos king name? Compare Saracen?? Sarku??) The -Kin "established/just" might be extra title, or it might be similar to Seir's "(the) Horite" surname? (There was an n/r interchange in Sumer-Akkadian. Bible scholars have said Horite might be same as Hivite. Esau also had a son named Kenaz.) - Sargons brother/brothers were "in the mountains". Seir was in the mountains according to Genesis 36. Meskiaggaseir was in mountains in Sumerian king list. - "Sargon didn't know his father"? Seir's ancestry is not known/given in Genesis/Chronciles. - Sargon / Akkadian was "Semitic". Seir is associated with Edomites (Shemite). (Also compare the Admu of Sumer-Akkad with Edom of bible? Sargon ruled over the "black-headed people" 'nisi zalmat kakkadi' who are also called Admu?) - Sargon was in (north & west) Iraq/Mesopotamia. Seir/Edom is in between Israel/Palestine and Iraq. - Amalek "first of the nations". Akkadian the "first world empire"? - The 2 persons daughters names are similar? Sargon's daughter Enheduanna (modern rendering might have variants?) Seir's daughter Timna. Enheduanna was prominent/famous for her literary work. Timna was famous enough to be mentioned in Genesis 36. - Their sons/sucessors/sheikhs/dukes names might possibly be similar: Sargon's sons/sucessors: Alusharshid/Rimush/Uru-mush/Mush; Manish-tu(su); Anum-muttabbi? Naramenzu/Naramsin; Shu-enlil/Ibarum; Ilaba'is-takal/Abaish-takal. Seir's sons/sheikhs: Lotan; Shobal; Zibeon; Anah; Dishon; Ezer; Dishan. Anah is similar to Manish or Anum? Dishon similar to tusu? Lotan is maybe similar to Alusharshid? Amalek similar to Naram, plus Agu (Sin/Enzu) possibly like Eriaku/Rimsin? Enzu similar to Ezer? Rimush/Uru-mush/Alusharshid similar to Lotan or Hori? Manish-tusu similar to Anah & Dishon, or Hemam, or Manahath? Hori & Hemam similar to Uru-mush/Rimush & Manish-tusu? Alvan son of Shobal similar to Ali-ahum son of Ibarum/Shuenlil (Enlil was also called Bel). Oholibamah is maybe similar to Lippushjaum? - Amalek might be Naramsin who is a giant in his stele picture? - Sargon comes in time in orthodox chronology around about the time of the 6th dynasty (which matches our "between the 4th [Joseph] and 6th/12th [Moses] dynasty"). Seir comes in the bible somewhere between after Canaan/Hivite or Esau or Moses, and before Moses or Saul. (- Anakki/Akki who found baby Sargon resembles Anak(im) of Joshua?) (- Azupiranu on the Euphrates might resemble Rehoboth(-Ir) on the great river Euphrates in Edomite king list?) Although the casual tentative Sargon & Joseph/pharaoh correspondence seems to have probably been wrong/not-workable, it doesn't mean my biblical & Egyptian matches are wrong (i can provide stark evidences for some of the matches); and it doesn't mean i am wrong (or they are right) about the orthodox Egyptian/Mesopotamian dynasties/periods ascribed dates being too old/long. Btw I was also interested to see that Manishtusu had a "pyramidical" stele. Can't really blame me for having had the first casual (and i did treat it as only casual tentative provisional not certain) theory because there were a few very intriguing similarities. I find things because i keep looking and checking until i am satisfied we found the true matches. I don't just accept what the "peers" assert to be better. Edited by Arthur-Robin - 30-Jul-2018 at 03:03 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 15:03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
done. see above.
I will do so on another thread on the SUBJECT of the date of Khufu. It is not relevant here. This thread is on the date of Sargon.
Upon examining all the data available to me, I am astounded as to HOW much data there actually was!!! I had too much data to work with!!! Not only is the regnal data nearly complete but the narrative is just very rich in details!!!! We've come a long way!!!! Northern Mesopotamia and Syria outside of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt can now tell their own story of the rise and fall of great kingdoms and how they fit into the chronology.
Sorry A-R, but we DO have much chronological info to justify the inclusion of the Venus tablets. On my next post, I will use the 1646 date to track Babylonian chronology into the 1st millenium BC.
Edited by Sharrukin - 29-Jul-2018 at 15:06 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 14:03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Continuing from the last post, the end of the Guti was about 2120 BC. In order to date the rule of the kings of Akkad thee is a chronology synchronization between Shar-kali-sharri the king of Akkad and an certain Sharlag(ab), king of Gutium. According to the standard Sumerian King List the rules there was listed a Gutian ruler known variously as "Sarlagab", "Zarlagab", and "Iarlagab". The reigns of the Gutian kings to Sarlagab are thus:< ="text/" async="" ="/_Incapsula_Resource?SWJIYLWA=719d34d31c8e3a6e6fffd425f7e032f3&ns=2&cb=1913572352">
//
Sarlagab (6 years) Shulme/Yarlagash (6 years Elulumesh/Silulumesh (6 years) Inimabakesh (5 years) Igeshaush/Igigi (6 years) Yarlagab (3 years) Ibate (3 years) Yarla/Yarlangab (3 years) Kurum (1 year) Apilkin (3 years) La-erabum (2 years) Irarum (2 years) Ibranum (1 year) Hablum (2 years) Puzur-Suen (7 years) Yarlaganda (7 years) <name lost> (7 years) Tirigan (40 days) From 2120 to the beginning of the reign of Sarlagab is then 2190 BC. Since according to Shar-kali-sharri's year-name says that Sarlagab was "taken prisoner" an end date for his 6 year reign would fall to about 2184/5. The problem here now is where does this actually in the reign of Shar-kali-sharri, since all we have is his year-name but no corresponding data to match what actual year in his reign. However we do have another datum to consider. A later king of Akkad called Elulu matches the name of another Gutian ruler named Elulumesh, the second successor to Sarlagab. Thus: GUTIUM AKKAD Sarlagab (6) Shar-kali-sharri (25) taken prisoner 2184/5 Shulme (6) 2184/5-2178/7 Elulumesh (6) Igigi, Nanum, Imi, Elulu (3 years) 2178/7-2172/3 Assuming that 2172/3 was the last year of Elumesh (and the last year of the group of 4 Akkadian kings), the beginning of the rule of Igigi of Akkad was about 2175 BC. The reigns of the earlier kings of Akkad are thus: Sargon (56 years) Rimush (9 years) Manishtusu (15 years) Naram-Sin (37 years) Shar-kali-sharri (25 years) This take us to about 2317 for the beginning of the reign of Sargon. This is close to one of the "orthodox" dates for the beginning of the reign of Sargon at about 2334 BC. The difference is just 17 years, so the variance is negligible. I can adjust my chronology up to 6 years to about 2323 BC so the variance is just 11 years. Hmmm, I wonder if I'm missing something...... Well, anyways in virtual agreement with the chronology adopted by eminent scholars, Sargon is to be dated to the late 24th and early 23rd centuries BC. Earlier chronologies had put the beginning of the reign of Sargon at about 2370 BC assuming that the Gutians reigned their entire regime without overlapping the last rulers of Akkad. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 03:34 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As stated earlier I adopted the Middle Chronology using the 1646 BC as my starting point. As the first year of Ammisaduqa we then total the earlier reigns to Hammurabi, thus:
Hammurabi (43 years) Samsuiluna (38 years) Abi-Eshuh (28 years) Ammiditana (37 years) Ammisaduqa year 1. 1646 BC. Hammurabi began his reign about 1792 BC. Now Hammurabi in his 31st year conquered Larsa and "subjugated" its king Rim-Sin. This would be about the year 1763/2 (two year allowance due to Babylonian calendar reckoning). Now Rim-Sin who had a reign of 60 years began his reign about 1822 BC. In his 30th year he conquered Isin bringing its dynasty to an end. This would be about the year 1794/3. Now we have the totals of the length of reigns of all the kings of Isin. From 1794/1793 working backwards the numbers of the reigns are thus: Ishbi-Erra (33 years) Shu-Ilishu (10 years) Iddin-Dagan (21 years) Ishme-Dagan (19 years) Lipit-Ishtar (11 years) Ur-Ninurta (28 years) Bur-Sin (22 years) Lipit-Enlil (5 years) Irra-imitti (8 years) Enlil-bani (24 years) Zambiya (3 years) Iter-pisha (3 years) Urdukuga (3 years) Sin-magir (11 years) Damiq-ilishu (23 years) The Dynasty of isin began about 2018/2017 BC. This may comprehend the 14th year of Ibbi-Sin, the last king of Ur III, according to a tablet from Ur dated to that year where it is mentioned that Ishi-Erra already as already possessing Isin. Ibbi-Sin's reign thus began about 2030 BC. His predecessors reigns were as follows. Ur-Nammu (18 years) Shulgi (48 years) Amar-Suen (9 years) Shu-Sin (9 years) The totals of the years of the earlier kings of Ur III from 2030 BC take us to about 2114 for the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Ur-Nammu, the first king, was the successor of Utu-khegal, the King of Uruk who reigned for 7 years hence Utu-khegal's reign began about 2121/0 BC Utu-hegal defeated the Gutians about 2120 BC. Their reign varied in the manuscripts from 91 to 125 years and even the names and number of their rulers are different. However one of the year-names of Shar-kali-sharri, king of Akkad, is named as "....the year in which Shar-kali-sharri laid the foundations of the temples of the goddess Annunitum and of the god Aba in Babylon and took prisoner Sharlag(ab) the king of Gutium." This seems to be resemble one of the rulers of Gutium listed in the Sumerian King List. We are now at the threshold of the chronology of the Dynasty of Akkad and the reign of Sargon. To be continued in the next post. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 02:44 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't see any archaeological syncrhonism of Solomon with Iron Age. [On the contrary Solomon is associated with bronze/brass in traditions?] Joshua's has no match of 1200s Jericho level. What layer/strata/level that Solomon matches at certain city sites is disputable in some cases. It is only "archaeological" theory that Solomon matches iron age strata. Not a true synchronism like the example ones.
I gave a list of half a dozen candidates for who Sargon might match (Djoser, Sekhemkhet, Sneferu, Israel, Sare/Sera, Userkaf, Sahure). Khufu = Jacob. I am not sure which one he might match. We merely said that there are similarities between Sargon's dynasty and Joseph and/or Moses, and this makes us look at if Sargon matches Joseph/Jacob & 3rd/4th/5th dynasty king. This is not unscholarly. We are objectively looking to see. My whole casual theory in this thread can be easily resolved by just focusing on the proposed Manistusu and Manasseh/Menakure match. If a match between these two/three persons is wrong or impossible or weak for good reasons then the whole Sargon & Joseph/OldKingdom theory is unlikely because the Manasseh match is the foremost main similarity reason. So if there are details of Manishtusu's life that are unmatchable with Menkaure/Manasseh then i will have to accept that the Sargon theory has no major reason. I don't mean mere asserted differencs like their ascribed dates, because the orthodox ascribed dates are only disputable theory of modern "peers".
Akkad city location is not known for sure last i heard. Dilmun of the few different sources is not known for sure. It is claimed to be Bahrain but this is disputed.
I said Jacob matches Khufu, Joseph was 3rd-4th dynasty. Sargon has intriguing similarities with Joseph &/or Moses story, and Sargon might possibly match Joseph or Jacob and a 3rd/4th/5th dynasty king. Khufu/Jacob is thus one of the candidates. Also they are part of the same "Joseph" story so dates of Joseph and Jacob could be mingled/conflated.
The point is merely that the asserted "right" ascribed dates don't actually have any solid proof they are only asserted theory. You can't prove that Sargon was definitely or certainly "2300s" bc date. Yous keep claiming can't match only because theoretical ascribed dates are supposedly different, but the problem is the orthodox dates can/may be wrong. As i said above, i can reduce this to my casual theory hinges on the Manishtusu & Manasseh similarity. They might only be "different times" only according to orthodox ascribed dates. It depends on what their true dates are. Orthodox is not (more) solid. They have stuff all much real concrete ancient evidences. I only accept ancient confirmations not modern methods/theories. What ancient confirmation of date of Sargon is there similar to Naramsin inscription or Venus tablets (which both are uncertain true date)? I have been consistent in Sargon possibly being time of either Joseph & 3rd/4th/5th dyn or Moses & 6th/12th dyn. I agree that if someone is the same then they will be same in number of ways not just name. I do not agree that you can only assume from only ascribed theoretical dates.
Yous reject Naramsin inscription but you accept the Venus tablets, yet they are both similarily uncertain true dates.
Prove that Sargon was "2300 bc". Venus tablets are disputed according to orthodox sources and so they are not a reliable dating source. "Corpus" picks and chooses what few evidences they accept or reject. The corpus confl;icts with records like the biblical but they say the ancient is wrong and their modern "corpus" is right.
Previously you argued Ur of the Chaldees is Ur city. Naharaim means 2 rivers. Padan-Aram & Aram-Naharaim "Mesopotamia" both mentioned. There are seeming possible matches of persons in Sumerian kinglist with Hebrew patriarchs like for example Abraham and Enmebaragesi.
The fleets area of operation etc is open to question according to some?
Sorry correction Deuteronomy 33:15 which is a similar account to Genesis 49.
Bible says the whole world came to Joseph/Egypt.There are evidences in archaeology and in traditions/records for major extant famine/drought. No proof that Joseph famine was only Egypt (and Canaan).
Dilmun's location is uncertain. At the time i was lead to "concede" it seemingly might be in the Sealands area, but my candidates have always pretty much remained still the same. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 01:30 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Djoser 7 years drought/famine (Sahel/Philae inscription) - Unas famine scenes (beside Sekhemhet pyramid complex, who we show connected with Zaphenath/Joseph & Djoser) - models of Granaries in Old Kingdom tombs. - "Neferkasokar (2nd dyn) saved Egypt from a long lasting drought". - "grain storage bins in step pyramid complex"? storage chambers in Sekhemhet complex. There are some other evidences too from Egypt and/or other nations. Yes there were many famines/droughts in Egyptian, but so there also are in the bible too, and there were not so many 7 years ones and world-wide ones. We show in some articles that comparing lists of the Egyptian ones and of the Biblical ones we can see which ones likely match. I already gave an example list of many evidences for Joseph & Jacob matching the 3rd-4th dynasty. Khufu's name has same consonants and exact same meaning as Jacob and both 17 years in Egypt is stark matches between the 2 people.
I don't need to "try to fit" or "distort" biblical and Egyptian. We have found strong/stark matches between Biblical and Egyptian. You refuse to consider the evidences merely because you assert that ascribed chronology dates are superior. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 00:50 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please provide ancient proof that Sargon dates to ca "2300 bc" (figure/number date). Please provide proof that Khufu/Cheops dates to ca "2500s bc" (relevance to this thread topic is Joseph/Jacob was 4th dynasty). What real strong evidence proofs are there for the ascribed date that orthodox assert to supposedly be right? Venus tablets are not a reliable dating method because their true value is not known for sure by anyone. (They might have a synchronism with something like Hyksos calendar change, or Joshua sun stand still, or Barak stars fought in their courses. Also see our star of Bethlehem thread.) Ammisaduga and/or the Venus tablets date has ranged in sources from 2113/2105 to 1977/1956 to 1419 to 8th cent bc. The "Venus" cycle number of years also varies. There is even quite a difference between long and short dates of the Old Babylonian. So if Mesopotamian/Egyptian chronology is based on that and other few similar then it is pretty flimsy and dubious. Edited by Arthur-Robin - 29-Jul-2018 at 01:04 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2018 at 00:05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The chronology of the early 2nd and 3rd millennium currently rests on the observation of the planet Venus made in the 8th year of Ammisaduqa, king of Babylon. The most likely dates, known as the High, Middle, and Low dates, are 1702 BC, 1646 BC, and 1582 BC, respectively. Combining these with the totals of the length of reign of Babylonian and Assyrian kings favor either with the Middle or Low dates. The literature adopts either the Middle or Low chronology, hence a negligible 64 years difference in chronology for the 2nd millennium BC. A solar eclipse observed in the 10th year of King Mursilish, king of Hatti help with the chronology of the late 2nd millenium BC. To further detail the chronology of the early 2nd millennium, I will use the Middle Chronology.< ="text/" async="" ="/_Incapsula_Resource?SWJIYLWA=719d34d31c8e3a6e6fffd425f7e032f3&ns=3&cb=1804491434">
//
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2018 at 23:42 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Continuing with my previous post I don't see any proof that Joseph and Sahure were contemporaries. As a matter of fact I don't see any mention of a famine during the time of Sahure. There is one "7-year" famine during the time of Djoser and one which preceded the collapse of the Old Kingdom about 2180 BC. The Egyptians recorded many famines during its long history.
Now after reviewing the rest of your responses, I see its just the same "match games" which have been shown to be completely insubstantial. There seems to be just 3 themes which you are fixated on. Trying to fit Biblical figures into Egyptian chronology, trying to distort Babylonian chronology to fit your Egyptian/Biblical chronology, and trying to equate Sumero/Akkadian rulers to Egyptian and biblical figures. The first distorts biblical chronology to ridiculous lengths, the second completely ignores archaeology, and the third is totally unfounded. I will no longer play the game. What i will do is the establish the date Sargon and let the other forumites decide. I will give YOU the opportunity to criticise. Let's see whose treatment has the ring of truth. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2018 at 21:38 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You date Solomon to the 18th Dynasty. The 18th Dynasty was a Bronze Age regime, Solomon's Kingdom was an Iron Age kingdom. So, YES you do ignore archaeological synchronisms!!!
There is no need for me to revisit this. I've already made the case regarding "similarities" of names. I've noted that you are NOW trying to connect Sargon with OTHER Egyptian kings. It only goes show how fluid your narrative gets. You can't create an historiography like that. I will no longer play "match-game" with you.
A-R we already KNOW the locations of these geographical names. I remember we discussed Dilmun once and even YOU admitted ultimately that it was located NEAR Sumer. Let's not play this game either.
And again, you are still trying to equate Sargon with yet ANOTHER Egyptian king. This game is over.
A-R, the problem is that virtually nothing can be concluded with your hypothesis. For every one of your arguments, there is a valid counter argument. Your complete dismissal of Sothis is one of them!!! Trying to find matches by "comparing names" is NOT a valid historiographical method when the historical figures themselves lived in different places, in different times, with different parentage, had different careers, and had different beliefs. And again, you keep floating Sargon around comparing him with different Egyptian kings which lived in DIFFERENT times!!! I'm sorry, but the "orthodox" chronology is much more solid than yours.
What is it a valid historical evidence of?
So, what do you get out of the inscription? By the way the inscription isn't in hieroglyphics. It is in cuneiform.
We have the corpus of Sumero-Babylonian chronicles and king lists to work with. In addition to that we have the translations of historical documents from various archives from the early 2nd millenium to work with!!!! We have the Venus tablets which anchor the chronology of the early 2nd millennium BC. This large corpus of inscriptions is what makes the "orthodox" chronology robust.
Such movements are rather timeless. At any given period one finds pastoralists and other nomads making such movements. The ethnic names change, but the behavior is the same.
Jacob came from Canaan. He had relatives living in "Aram Naharain" which comprehends the land immediately east of the bend of the upper Euphrates. He went there to get his wives.
The evidence only shows trade with coastal Canaan including Byblos as well as expeditions to the Sinai Peninsula.
While the existence of the "Dorak Treasure" is doubtful, an article of his within the assemblage may only indicate trade with Yortan Culture in the region of Troy. Sahure did have a large fleet of ships which were depicted laden with trunks of cedars of Lebanon and in some cases Asiatics, but no such evidence that he reached "Syria".
I don't see any reference to "Mountains of the East" in that "section". What is the verse?
No it wasn't.
"maybe disputable" only leads to wild speculations as to what is the case. It only leads to wild fancies of imagination - "maybe this", "maybe that". Let's stick to what documentation we have, shall we? I don't want to play another one of your games.
Initial claims as the what the Ebla archive mention was proven to be mere hype. After more careful study of the inscriptions, the mention of Sodom and Gomorrah were shown to be false. Let's take the context of the Sumero-Babylonian inscriptions shall we? They were described as being near Sumer. You yourself had already conceded the point for Dilmun sometime ago.
Edited by Sharrukin - 28-Jul-2018 at 22:10 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2018 at 09:32 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I only answer some of the long post because the Sargon & Sesostris comparision is agreed not likely anyway as opposed to the Sargon and 3rd to 5th dynasty pharaoh correspondence which seems more likely, and so trying to answer the comments is problematic if i don't really consider the match correct anyway.
You can not only base the chronology only on one or few supposed things like supposed no mention of Israel or Ramses before 19th dynasty. It is not necessarily true that there is no Israel before 19th dynasty. There are possible matches for Israelites/Hebrews/Jews in Egypt/Palestine in earlier dynasties. Some possible examples include: Philitis & the 4th dynasty matches Jacob & sons. Asiatics in the FIP. Herusha? Asher & Menti? Followers of Apophis versus Horus/Ra in El-Arish inscription. "Typhon in Serbonis". "Hyksos" of Manetho, & Jacob names in 15th-16th dynasties. You know that Egyptians had a number of names for peoples of the area including Aamu, Namu, Set race, Shut, Fenech, Shasu, Sagaz, Habiru, Hyksos, Aati, Menti, Punt, Kharu, Amurru, etc, any of which could have included Hebrews. Israel in Merneptah is disputed by some. Horses may mean after Solomon's time. It may be the northern kingdom of Israel. Ramses 2 may match Zerah of Asa's time. Merneptah stele and the drought in those times seems about the time of Zerah or Elijah. Josephus said Menes 1300 yrs before Shishak, matching Herodotus said Menes (1)1340 yrs before Seti, making Seti close to Shishak. I don't agree that the data matches. The evidence for Moses in 19th dynasty is very scanty/poor/weak and conflicts with other evidences.
There are many reasons why Moses does not (only-best) match 19th dynasty including: Too close to Israel in Merneptah stele. 1300/1200s bc is after "480 years before Solomon". Moses much better matches (6th &) 12th dynasty. No trace of Joshua's Jericho in 1200s strata of Jericho. Merneptah's time more closer to Elijah's time than Moses' time. No quality trace of Joseph in Hyksos time. There are evidences of bible matches in earlier dynasties, eg: Mes in pectoral of Sithathoryunet. Hebrew slaves in pectoral of Mereret. Ipuwer Papyrus. Joshua's Jericho matches after end of Middle Kingdom (ref Velikovsky). Khufu matches Jacob; Shepherd Philitis in 4th dynasty; Goshen is Giza.
Its up to you whether you consider we have enough quality and quantity evidences or not in the ebook etc. We have more better ones than the orthodox has: theirs is not any more strong/solid/reliable or scientific than ours.
Can't you see general similarities between the Hyksos period and the Judges period? There are some researchers who agree that the Hyksos/Amu seem to be Amalekites and Edomites. The Edomite king list in Genesis and Chronicles may match the Hyksos kings. Shasu might be related to Esau. (Compare names in Sinuhe story?) I looked for who/what possible match of the Edomite kings and found that the Babylonian and Hyksos seem the most likely matches. Baal hanan may be Hammurabi who may match a Hyksos king. Hyksos scarab was found at Bagdad. Sharuhen is possibly connected with either Petra/Seir or Jericho. Ipuwer Papyrus may be connected. Velilovsky discussed Hyksos link with exodus and judges period in detail. Rohl showed possible link with Anakim in Joshua. Egyptian/Egyptologist use of names like "Edomite" are not necessarily always what assume they are. The names of some of the kings might be same as some names of some of the 15th/16th dynasty Hyksos in some sources. The names matches in this case are not necessarily so simple and easy as you seem to expect, especially when you consider the Babylonian dynasty names as well. Baalhanan may match Hammurabi who might match Apachnan or other Hyksos name.
So what? "Israel" (disputed by some) in Mernptah's time only proves that Israel existed then. Doesn't prove that it didn't exist before then. There is evidence for Hebrews before then but people refuse to accept the evidences and are only willing to accept excessive quality proof. I have good matches evidences that Khufu matches Jacob but it is refused to be accepted without alot more excessive quality/quantity proofs. They can't find or prove Moses in the 19th dynasty, but they say "oh you can't argue absence of evidence because we might find it some day", yet they/you argue supposed absence of evidence. They say "you have to prove this and that (the burden is on the person bringing the new), but we don't have to prove ours (we are superior experts)". I have quite a few of evidences for Moses in (6th and/or) 12th dynasty (better than other dynasties). The Biblical & Egypt matches is too big to deal with, even Moses and 12th dynasty involves alot to have to write. Easier for me to say see my ebook for the evidences. I can't provide heaps of evidences on many details of such hugh topic, i can only given evidences on one match at a time. Instead of Moses & 6th/12th match it would be easier to instead show the Khufu & Jacob match which has more evidence. I don't see why we can't just discuss Sargon possible match with Joseph and 3rd/4th/5th dynasty king pretending to accept our scenario of Joseph contemporary with 3rd-4th dynasty. The we can cut out all the verging-off-topic arguing about biblical-Egyptian chronology. Afterall the issue is not the dates but whether the persons etc really do or don't match. If the 3 persons really are same time then they will have matches. Arguing that there is a supposed chronological difference sort-of diverts.
The orthodox Egypt - Biblical matches has no biblical all before 11th/12th dynasty. Evidence of Joseph in Hyksos is weak and contradicts other evidences. Evidence of Moses in 19th is weak and conctradicts others (and is too late in overall Egyptian). Evidence of Joshua in Jericho 1200s layer is absent. Draw up whole timeline of Egyptian and Biblical and Mesoptamian post-flood histories and place then beside and you will see that biblical is placed by orthodox too late in Egyptian and Mesopotamian.
It is pretty weak basing the orthodox chronology only on one or two things like the opinion that there was supposedly no Ramses in Egyptian before 19th dynasty. If it were true then Ramses in Joseph story also must be not before 19th dynasty (unless anachronism). In our ebook we show some possible Ramses names before 19th dynasty including Rimush in Akkadian, and Ranmaat in 12th dynasty. The Assyrian king list may have contemporary or overlapping dynasties. Hoeh also showed this possibility. Velikovsky was pretty much right to place exodus in the 13th dynasty (though it seems to have been 12th dynasty).
There is no proof that ours is wrong. The biblical & Egyptian is too big and off-topic to discuss here. The problem here is there is no easy way to convey a massive amount of evidences for our chronology and/or against theirs (the ebook tried to give alot). Even if i only picked only one pin-point to prove like Khufu = Jacob. There is no easy way to prove because we only have a certain amount of quality and quantity evidences, but we can't absolutely prove with totally indismissable proofs. This is one reason i get so mad because its not fair that not matter even when we find stark evidences they still reject. Not fair that only someone that eventually finds an indismissable proof while all the others who found quality evidences were trashed. Joseph only-best matches 3rd-4th dynasty out of all dynastic Egyptian history. Moses only-best matches (6 &) 12th dynasty out of all dynastic Egyptian history. Can't discuss the many evidences here. See the ebook chapters for evidences for them then. Can't you just pretend that if we just accept our Joseph in 3rd-4th dynasty then does Sargon have possible matches with the two?
Look, many orthodox sources brag that the biblical doesn't match the archaeological. They arrograntly claim "no trace of Joseph and Moses in Egypt". They spout off that "nothing much in Jericho in this time when we place Joshua". They admit that the biblical events don't match their claimed "expert" corresponding dynasties. Meanwhile many alternative scholars including myself have found quality matches for the events in earlier dynasties. There are plenty of evidences that the orthodox dates and correspondences are wrong and the new revised ones are right. But people keep claiming "we are superior experts and have quantity/quality supports, and you are nonexperts and have [supposedly] poor evidences". We have to prove to excessive standards, but they get away with just making our they are superior experts. I do not see any proof of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian dates before Israel and Judah, just claims that the few supports they have are supposedly quality. People are not being honest, they are falsely making their chronology out to be far more superiorly infallible than it really is. There is no proof that Sargon and/or Pepi is "2400s bc", it is only "expert" assertion based on a small number of not-solid reasons. We are forced to accept the ruling opinions. The ruling scheme is not forced to consider any others.
Yes i have read some of the letters and i saw names and details matches with David's and Solomon's times. There are names similar to names in David's time (similar to Araunah, David, Dodo, Joab, Solomon, etc). Labayu & Lion of Judah? The 3 years drought in Amarna is similar to one in David's time. Like Rohl contended, the letters may relate to when David took Jerusalem. Agur (Proverbs) and/or Genubath (Kings/Chronicles) resembles Akhenaten and/or Ankhenmaat. Shishak/Susakim may match Tutankhamun whose battle armour was recently commented on.
Moeris is 12th dynasty. Herodotus said he was only 900 years before [Amasis 2]. So about same date as Moses (whose name is also similar).
The priests they chatted with and read were. They are still ancient evidences that agree with many other evidences. We have a lattice of evidences just like the orthodox claims they have, but ours has far more ancient texts matches evidences with the texts all matching. The only way to resolve this is to pick one match. I can't write on thousands of details evidences on such large issues events matches. So i will pick Khufu and Jacob. Their names have similar consonants. The meanings are identical. They both lived in Egypt 17 years. Both had similar number of wives and of sons. Herodotus said Philitis dwelt at Giza then, and he matches Jacob. Giza/Ergesher seems to match Goshen. Sphinx connects with either Zaphenath and/or head of Joseph and/or lion of Judah of Genesis 49. Khafre and Menkaure seem to link with Ephraim & Manasseh. Joseph's 7 year famine connected with 7 year drought of Djoser, and with famine scenes beside Sekhemhet complex. Models of granaries in Old Kingdom tombs. Joseph's Zaphenath name has possible matches in 3rd/4th dynasty (including Sekhemhet or Sphinx). Potiphera priest of on seemingly matches Rahotep priest of Heliopolis. Fits with Abraham in 1st dyn, and Moses in 6th/12th dynasty. Thats not all, that's just an attempted example summary of matches. Far more evidences than "Joseph in Hyksos period". I can't prove the date, but you can't say we don't have a certain amount of quality and qauntity matches evidences that Joseph matches 2nd/3rd-4th/5th dynasty better than any other dynasty.
Depends on the true/real relative times of the 2 dynasties. Akkadian does seem to be some dynasties earlier than 12th dynasty. Senusert the 3rd seems to be the main one of Moses.
Kish Chronicle king list mentions or implies a 430 years gap in the Kish 4 dynasty. This is mentioned in Waddell (who has it to Kish 4) and in Hoeh (who has it from Kish 4 to Isin). This 430 years is similar to that of 'Exodus'. Might not be connected, but it might be.
The name Rimush/Uru-mush does resemble the name Ra-mses. Rimush is son of Sargon, and Sargon birth story does resemble Moses birth story. Iraq is almost next door neighbours to Egypt. Hebrews were from Mesopotamia; Akkadian was "Semitic". "1st world empire". Joseph famine was global. Sahure in Syria, and Dorak treasure.
Moses was adopted son of pharaoh. He was leader of Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt and Sinai/wilderness. The assassinated evidence maybe more substantial evidence which i will check out with the possible matches.
Moses was adopted son of pharoah or of pharaoh's daughter. He also was leader of Hebrews/Israelites. Cupbearer was like primeminister according to some biblical/ancient sources. Sargon and Ishtar (like Ishullanu & Ishtar) has similarities with Joseph and Potiphar's wife (like Gilgamesh and Ishtar).
If any kings in Egypt and Mesopotamia do match then the names could be somewhat different renderings in the two different countries writing systems and languages. If we find a match that seems right then we will be able to show more better how the names match. Sesostris is pretty different to Senusret. Soris is pretty different to Sneferu. Waddell claimed Sargon matches Sakuni and Sagara in Indian king lists, so names could have somewhat different renderings in different languages? Sargon's name is variously rendered S(h)ar-ru-(u(m)-)ki-(i/e)n(a/u(m)) . Some of the candidates i gave may be better possible matches (Djoser/Seris or Sekhemhet or Sneferu or Israel or Sera or Userkaf or Sahure). Snefru or Sahu is not very different to Sarru? ukin or "kun" might resemble Huni (Sneferu-Huni?). Sharru is similar to Shaaru/Seris/Surid. Sneferu's name supposedly matches "Soris" (Surid) in Manetho. Sneferu's name has some different renderings in some sources. Isra-el is possibly similar to Sarru-kin if a n/l interchange which was known in some languages in the area. "king is established / just" could be a title or throne name.
Founder of the 11th/12th dynasty?
I agree that Sargon doesn't seem to match 12th dynasty. But: Sesostris is claimed to have had wide-extant conquests similar to Hercules, including Canaan and Colchis. Ancient traditional memories and legends and records all have value. How can we be so sure the Egyptian records are all hundred percent truthful honest literal in every detail? The Senursets & Amenemhets of the 12th dynasty might be the same Senusret and Amenemhet??
The ones i looked at the faces do look somewhat similar possibly. True there are some differences in facial hair, headress, etc. I think Sargon more likely matches 3rd-5th dynasty than 12th. I objectively retain in my mind all possibilities until we are sure of the right match, favouring the best.
The "2 suns" in the stele is not definitely correctly known the true meaning in the sources i have seen? The similarity was possible, but the relative time periods (not ascribed dates) seem to not match so i am not pursuing it other than remembering it is possible.
I have seen an orthodox source that said 4th to 6th dynasty. (Can't remember it was years ago.) They are not sure of the 6th dyn match because the Ebla connection has ifs and buts about the dates matches. Akkadian dynasty could match somewhere in the 4th to 6th dynasty period.
The pectoral of Sit-hathor-yunet has a Mes glyph prominent in the lower middle section. I have a dozen reasons why the pectoral probably shows child Moses. in the lower middle picture (including: water waves along bottom, Mes glyph is prominent, figure is blue, Heh was frog headed, Moses was found by daughter of pharaoh, etc). Moses was adopted by daughter of pharaoh.
"Manaila king of Westernland (Gushua)" in list of the 17 kings conquered by Manishtusu.
I'm not sure i agree that the Sargon places are all definitely different and not possibly same places as the biblical ones. Some of the places seem pretty close/similar possibly. "Iarmuti remains to be found, but the refernces imply it lay to the south...." Although Ebla has been found, Ebla's name is also similar to some other places like Jebus.
Agreed there may be differences. But i only meant more general period events similarities: FIP & SIP similar? Guti & Kassite & Hyksos invasions could be similar? Egypt after exodus & the Intermediate Periods and dark ages?
There is a verse in a biblical prophetic book mentioning the Assyrian which is said by biblical scholars to be considered to have connection with exodus pharaoh that he was an Assyrian (heard this years ago in a radio bible study but don't have the exact details). Josephus also said the Hyksos were afraid of the Assyrians. Cushanrishathaim may match Old Assyrian king or Isin king.
The date of Zoser/Sesortosis of 3712 bc (2500 yrs before Nilus 1212 bc) is similar/close to date of Naramsin of 3750 bc (3200 yrs before Nabonidus 550 bc). The coincidence is intriguing and possibly might be connected.
We only have a few actual archaeological sychronisms (not just matches of ascribed dates). We have sycnronisms of: Semainian & Jemdet Nasr "Old Kingdom graves similar to Ur 0 graves" (Waddell)? 3rd dyn with Byblos & Lagash? (4th-)6th & Akkadian (via Ebla)? 13th & Babylonian 1 dyn Amarna & Mid Assyrian & Kassite The Akkadian & 6th is said to be uncertain because date of Ebla & Akkadian is uncertain. So there is maybe some room for movement back or forward of the Egyptian/Mesopotamian dynasties in between that do not have archaeological sychronisms. Edited by Arthur-Robin - 28-Jul-2018 at 09:39 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2018 at 04:42 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I tried to reply to all the posts (being online for ages). But we need to lessen that massive amount for me to reply to each time in future posts.
I'm only interested in actual historical evidences details not mere claims of authority. I do not agree that the orthodox chronology has as much quality evidences as made-out.
The quantity and quality of the small number of supports of the orthodox chronology of Egypt/Mesopotamia is not great in my view. There is not really any much strong ancient proof of any dates. Orthodox sources (like the wikipedia articles we gave links to) admit that there are a number of problems and uncertainties.
The Sothaic/Siriadic dating of Egyptian is not a reliable method because there are problems with the "understanding". You chucked-out Naramsin dating inscription for such a reason. The only basis of Egyptian chronology was the 2 sothaic dates. The orthodox Egyptian chronology has no solid basis, only a small number of supposed supporting reasons which all are not definite/concrete dating methods and/or which have problems/uncertainties/pitfalls. There is no proof of 12th dynasty being 1800s bc other than the problematic sothaic date, and there are evidences that the 12th dynasty was more like 1400s bc (eg Moeris 900 years before in Herodotus). Josephus said Menes only 1300 yrs before Shishak. My ebook gives many evidences for our own dates and i say we have more quality and quantity than the orthodox chronology has, though we can't totally prove the dates. I don't even see why it is such a big deal. We merely have a not so long length timeline and merely move biblical back a few centuries in Egyptian & Mesopotamian.
Yes the orthodox/conventional/consensus chronology admit their dates may be out by centuries in the Old/Early half. But that is only if you only consider the the orthodox sources and nothing else. Look at how much the dates for Menes / 1st dynasty have fluctated in the modern period (5000s to 2000s bc!) and i have a file of dates in a number of nations including Egypt and Biblical and Mesopotamian that shows similar ranges of ascribed dates for various events.
What i always trying to say is that have no real ancient records confirmations of the true dates of the dynasties/periods. The very few ancient evidences we have are not yet truly known the correct readings (Naramsin date inscription, Venus tablets, Sirius/Sothis dates). (And others they blatantly ignore like Herodotus saying Moeris was 900 years before.) The secular "scientific" dating attempts are likewise unreliable/problematic. Any truly honest objective scholar would admit that the whole orthodox chronology is alot less quality than is being made-out. Maybe it is pointless us arguing this. I see/say that the orthodox chronology is not so quality/sound/strong/concrete; yous assert that they are more quality/expert/superior than we do. I try to show that they have no real strong/solid dates proofs, and try to show evidences that dates are not right. The orthodox long/mid/short date for the Old Babylonian are only ascribed/theoretical without any strong proof that the date is correct. There are evidences that the dates are centuries too old/early/long. Yes experts have some quality but they are not gods and can still be wrong or lying. I personally do not just believe things only because they are "experts". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2018 at 03:44 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes it is my opinion that Moses was before Hammurabi. (6th &) 12th dynasty -- Moses 13th dyn -- Babylon 1 Hyksos -- Edom kings / Judges Amarna -- Solomon -- Mid Assyrian / Kassite. Hyksos scarab found at Baghdad. Hammurabi may match Baalhanan (Edomite king) and a Hyksos king. Law code of Hammurabi is very similar to Mosaic laws. (Benjaminites in Mari records similar to in Judges?) (David-like names in Isin-Larsa and Mari period?) Cushan-rishathaim might best match an Old Assyrian or Mari or Isin king. Josephus said Hyksos were afraid of Assyrians. (Og and 5 Midianite kings and Balaam are possibly similar to certain names in the period between Guti and Ur 3 and Isin-Larsa and Babylon 1?) (Sealands dynasty similar to Judah kings??) Shechem and Jerusalem are in 12th dyn execration texts. Joshua's Jericho matches end of Middle Kingdom strata. (Chariots lost in reign of Sesostris in Herodotus. Moeris 900 years before Amasis in Herodotus. Sais 800(0) yrs in Atlantis Account may match Moeris 900 and Salatis/Saites 800?) I don't see that the 6th dynasty is too early for Moses (who was early in biblical) except that the ascribed dates of the dynasty are too old/early. Joseph is certainly 3rd-4th and Moses can match (6th &/or) 12th dynasty, and Shishak seems to be 18th dyn. The end of the Old Kingdom seems to have overlaped with the Middle Kingdom (ie 6th & 12th). In one of the Egyptian king lists the 6th dyn comes immediately before reversed-order 12th dyn. What frustrates me is that no matter how much quality and quantity evidences i have tried to show in many discoveries it is never enough but they always still deny/dismiss or refuse to give fair consideration (even in some cases of even stark evidences they still deny/dismiss or evade/ignore).
Manasseh was the supplanted elder brother of younger brother Ephraim (Genesis 48). Manishtusu is the succeeding elder brother of younger brother Rimush (Akkad dynasty in Kish Chronicle), plus the "... speculation ... that the two were twins, as in: man istusu? rimus! "Who is with him? His beloved!", as apparently the second born was thought to be the first conceived." Menkaure's is the 2nd of 2nd two pyramids after Khufu's at Giza. It might only be a similarity possibly, but the similarity is intriguing enough for me to not just dismiss or believe without checking if is or is not possible match. Egyptian -- Biblical -- Akkadian? Khufu -- Jacob -- ? Redjedef/Sphinx -- Joseph/Judah? -- ? Khafre -- Ephraim? -- ? Menkaure -- Manasseh (elder son/bro)? -- Manishtusu (elder son/bro)? (Menkaure could be Manasseh or else Machir or Benjamin? But i think the overall group seems to best match Jacob and Joseph's 2 sons.) The Egyptian "sons" are not necessarily true textual records. I mean like Menkaure might not really have been the son of Khafre. Menkaure's pyramid is smaller which might match him being placed after Ephraim. Laipum is similar to Laban. Sneferu had 2 or 3 or 4 pyramids which might indicate he was powerful in conquests? Naramsin stele has a pyramid-like mountain. Joseph's famine was global. Sargon's was "first world empire". Dorak treasure. Sahure in Syria. Sargon was "Semitic". Edited by Arthur-Robin - 28-Jul-2018 at 03:47 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2018 at 02:53 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I had two long posts to reply to and now two more since. So can we please lessen the sheer amount of points and posts to reply to each time to only a couple/few points? The massive amount stresses me hence my negative post (the clever tactics i always encounter are annoying enough, and the stress makes worse). We can not agree on a date unless we have a way to prove the date or unless we happen to agree on similar parallel Egyptian Biblical Mesopotamian chronologies. Akkadian is considered to be around about (4th to) 6th dynasty in orthodox sources. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
