Thursday, February 20, 2014

Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination



Watch full-length lecture videos as dozens of top scholars discuss new Exodus research at a recent UCSD conference

Noah Wiener• 02/06/2014
“The closest parallel to the Book of Exodus in the ancient West is Homer’s Odyssey. Both are stories of migration—of identity suspended until the protagonist—Odysseus or Israel—reaches a home. Neither account records events of the sort that are likely to have left marks in the archaeological record, or even in contemporaneous monuments… But the Exodus is not the story of an individual; it is the story of a nation. It is the historical myth of an entire people, a focal point for national identity.”
–Baruch Halpern, “The Exodus from Egypt: Myth or Reality?” The Rise of Ancient Israel, 1991.
The Exodus sits at the heart of Israelite religion, literature and identity, and aspects of the narrative helped shape independent Islamic and Christian traditions. Yet challenging textual and archaeological evidence has led some scholars to question whether the Biblical narrative reflects a single historical event or if it should be read, as Ronald Hendel wrote in Bible Review, as “conflation of history and memory—a mixture of historical truth and fiction, composed of ‘authentic’ historical details, folklore motifs, ethnic self-fashioning, ideological claims and narrative imagination.”
A recent international conference hosted by Calit2’s Qualcomm Institute at UC San Diego addressed some of the most challenging issues in Exodus scholarship. According to the Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination website, the conference “brought together more than 40 of the world’s leading archaeologists, Biblical scholars, Egyptologists, historians and geo-scientists. In tandem, the Qualcomm Institute staged an exhibition, EX3: Exodus, Cyber-Archaeology and the Future … as an experiment in trans-disciplinary research, team science, and scholarly communication using technologies developed for the museum of the future.”
Watch the conference’s full-length lectures online for free on Bible History Daily, courtesy of conference host Thomas E. Levy, distinguished professor and Norma Kershaw Chair in the Archaeology of Ancient Israel and Neighboring Lands at UCSD. For more on research at UCSD, visit the Levantine and Cyber-Archaeology Lab.

Lectures

Watch the opening remarks at the bottom of this page, and click on lecture titles in the list below to watch. Over the next few weeks, we’ll release additional Out of Egypt lecture videos. Want to see a lecture before then? They are all available on the conference website.

Egyptology & Exodus

*Keynote Lecture* On the Historicity of the Exodus: What Egyptology Can Contribute Today in Assessing the Sojourn in Egypt. Manfred Bietak, director emeritus, Institute of Egyptology, University of Vienna. Keynote introduction: Thomas Schneider.
Out of Egypt: Did Israel’s Exodus Include Tales? Susan Hollis, State University of New York.
The Ark of the Covenant and Egyptian Sacred Barks: A Comparative Study. Scott Noegel, University of Washington (video unavailable).
Traditions Regarding a Great Going Forth from North-East Africa: Date and Reliability. Antoine Hirsch, Canadian Institute in Egypt on behalf of Donald Redford, Pennsylvania State University.
The ‘Image’ of the Pharaoh in Judahite and Israelite Society According to the Glyptic Evidence, Stefan Münger, University of Bern.


Archaeology & History

*Keynote Lecture* The Wilderness Itineraries: Who, How and When Did Biblical Authors Know About the Southern Deserts? Israel Finkelstein, Tel Aviv University.
Dates for the Exodus I Have Known, Lawrence T. Geraty, La Sierra University.
Egyptian Text Parallels to the Exodus: The Egyptology Literature, Brad C. Sparks, Archaeological Research Group.
Can Archaeological Correlates for the Mnemo-Narratives of Exodus Be Found? Aren Maeir, Bar-Ilan University.
The Emergence of Israel in Retrospect, Robert Mullins, Azusa Pacific University.
The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: The Question of “Origins,” Avraham Faust, Bar-Ilan University and Harvard University.


Geography & Exodus

Har Karkom: Archaeological Discoveries on a Holy Mountain in the Desert of Exodus, Emmanuel Anati, University of Lecce.
Which Way Out of Egypt? Physical Geography Constraints on the Exodus Itinerary, Stephen Moshier, Wheaton College.
Egyptology, Egyptologists and the Exodus, James Hoffmeier, Trinity International University.


In the FREE eBook Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus, top scholars discuss the historical Israelites in Egypt and archaeological evidence for and against the historicity of the Exodus.


Text & Memory

*Keynote Lecture* Exodus and Memory: Remembering the Origin of Israel and Monotheism, Jan Assmann, University of Konstanz.
The Exodus and the Bible: What Was Known, What Was Remembered, What Was Forgotten, William Dever, University of Arizona and Lycoming College.
The Exodus Based on the Sources Themselves, Richard Friedman, University of Georgia.
The Omerta on the Exodus, Baruch Halpern, University of Georgia.
The Exodus Account in Recent Pentateuchal Interpretation, Konrad Schmid, University of Zurich.
Sources of Judicial Power in the Moses Story, Stephen Russell, Princeton Theological Seminary.


History & Memory

Coming soon to BHD. Currently available on the conference website.
Hero and Villain: Outline of the Exodus Pharaoh in Artapanus, Caterina Moro, University of Rome Sapienza.
Leaving Home: Jewish-Hellenistic Authors on the Exodus, Rene Bloch, University of Bern.
Exodus in the Quran, Babak Rahimi, University of California, San Diego.
From Liberation to Expulsion: The Exodus in the Earliest Jewish-Pagan Polemic, Pieter van der Horst, University of Utrecht (delivered in his absence by Kathleen Bennallack).
The Despoliation of Egypt: From Stealing Treasures to Saving Texts, Joel Allen, Dakota Wesleyan University.
In Search of Israel’s Insider Status: A Re-Evaluation of Israel’s Origins, Brendon Benz, William Jewell College.
What Was the Exodus? William Propp, University of California, San Diego.


Interested in the latest archaeological technology? Researchers at the University of California, San Diego’s Calit2 laboratory recently released the FREE Biblical Archaeology Society eBook “Cyber-Archaeology in the Holy Land — The Future of the Past,” featuring the latest research on GPS, Light Detection and Ranging Laser Scanning, unmanned aerial drones, 3D artifact scans, CAVE visualization environments and much more.

Myth & History

Coming soon to BHD. Currently available on the conference website.
*Keynote Lecture* The Exodus as Cultural Memory: Poetics, Politics, and the Past, Ronald Hendel, UC Berkeley.
Outside of Egypt: Joseph, Moses, and the Idea of Pastoralism Across Distance, Daniel Fleming, New York University.
Moses the Magician, Gary Rendsburg, Rutgers University.
The Revelation of the Divine Name to Moses, Thomas Römer, University of Lausanne.
The Exodus Narrative Between History and Literary Fiction, Christoph Berner, Universität Göttingen.
Mythic Dimensions of the Exodus Tradition, Bernard Batto, DePauw University.
Exodus and Exodus Traditions After the Linguistic Turn in History, Garrett Galvin, Fransciscan School of Theology and Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, and University of San Diego.


Science & History

Coming soon to BHD. Currently available on the conference website.
“The First Memory of Things”: Isaac Newton on Exodus and the Chronology of the Egyptian Empire, Mordechai Feingold, California Institute of Technology.
How Calculations Invaded the Deep Past, Jed Buchwald, California Institute of Technology.
Times of Darkness: Extreme Events, Long-Term Environmental Change, Mythology and History, John Grattan, Aberystwyth University.
Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Egypt Over the Periods Relevant to the Exodus Tradition, Michael Dee, University of Oxford (co-authors C. Bronk Ramsey, T. Higham).
The Thera Theories: Science and the Modern Reception History of the Exodus, Mark Harris, University of Edinburgh.
Exodus: A Geophysical Perspective, Steven Ward, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Inspired by a Tsunami? Computer Simulations of Potential (Tsunamigenic) Scenarios Related to the Exodus Narrative, Amos Salamon, Geological Survey of Israel (with co-authors S. Ward, F. McCoy, T. Levy).

Exhibition

EX3: Exodus, Cyber-Archaeology and the Future. Thomas E. Levy, UCSD.













Opening Remarks Video


Exodus Welcome and Introductions, Thomas Levy, Conference Chair; Jeff Elman, Dean, Division of Social Sciences, UCSD; Ramesh Rao, Director, Qualcomm Institute; Pradeep K. Khosla, Chancellor, UC San Diego

Welcome, Seth Lerer, Dean, Division of Arts + Humanities, UCSD



Closing Remarks

Coming soon to BHD. Currently available on the conference website.
Out of Egypt Conference: Summation, Thomas Schneider, University of British Columbia.
Closing, Thomas Levy, University of California, San Diego.


Lecture videos courtesy of conference host Thomas E. Levy, distinguished professor and Norma Kershaw Chair in the Archaeology of Ancient Israel and Neighboring Lands at UCSD. All videos originally published on the Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination website, which features additional Exodus research and more information on the UCSD conference. For more on research at UCSD, visit the Levantine and Cyber-Archaeology Lab.
....

Related Posts

Posted in Exodus, Video.
Tagged with , , , , , , .

Add Your Comments

4 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. D says

    It is amazing how blind and confused the “experts” are when it comes to the Bible. They begin with assuming it is only an ordinary history. The Bible was dictated by God the those who wrote and has an amazing unity, harmony and continuity throuhout.
    Much of it was written by eyewitnesses. They were there an wrote about others who were there. Parts of the Bible were revealed by God and kept true to real history by God’s guidance. It is not as Peter said “a cunninly devised fable” as the “experts” seem to say.
    How do they know? Were they there? Do they have knowledge of events that they did not witness from some source better than God? Do they know all things. To imagine that they know better than the eye witnesses and God is extremely arrogant. Such arrogace is irrational and cannot even be considered to have any validity.
    Trust God and His word The Bible.

    February 10, 2014, 10:52 am

  2. Kurt says

    An Issue Greater Than Deliverance
    On commissioning Moses, Jehovah emphasized the importance of the divine name. Respect for that name and the One whom it represents was vital. When asked about his name, Jehovah told Moses: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” Further, Moses was to tell the sons of Israel: “Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.” Jehovah added: “This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Exodus 3:13-15) Jehovah is still the name by which God is known to his servants around the earth.—Isaiah 12:4, 5; 43:10-12.
    Appearing before Pharaoh, Moses and Aaron delivered their message in the name of Jehovah. But Pharaoh arrogantly said: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.” (Exodus 5:1, 2) Pharaoh proved to be both hardhearted and deceitful, yet Jehovah urged Moses to deliver messages to him again and again. (Exodus 7:14-16, 20-23; 8:1, 2, 20) Moses could see that Pharaoh was irritated. Would any good come from confronting him again? Israel was eager for deliverance. Pharaoh was adamant in his refusal. What would you have done?
    Moses delivered yet another message, saying: “This is what Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has said: ‘Send my people away that they may serve me.’” God also said: “By now I could have thrust my hand out that I might strike you and your people with pestilence and that you might be effaced from the earth. But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth.” (Exodus 9:13-16) Because of what would be done with hardhearted Pharaoh, Jehovah purposed to demonstrate his power in a way that would serve notice on all who defy him. This would include Satan the Devil, the one whom Jesus Christ later called “the ruler of the world.” (John 14:30; Romans 9:17-24) As foretold, Jehovah’s name was declared around the earth. His long-suffering led to preservation for the Israelites and a vast mixed multitude that joined them in worshiping him. (Exodus 9:20, 21; 12:37, 38) Since then, the declaration of Jehovah’s name has benefited millions more who have taken up true worship.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005366#h=8:0-11:1072
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200272060

    February 11, 2014, 10:55 am


Continuing the Discussion

  2. Video: Exodus and Memory: Remembering the Origin of Israel and Monotheism | newsantiques.com linked to this poston February 20, 2014
    [...] harangue “Exodus and Memory: Remembering a Origin of Israel and Monotheism” during a new Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination discussion hosted by Calit2’s Qualcomm Institute during UC San Diego. Watch a full harangue video [...]
    ....
Taken from: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/out-of-egypt-israels-exodus-between-text-and-memory-history
Posted by AMAIC at 3:39 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

Monday, November 4, 2013

El Amarna in Chaos



by
Damien F. Mackey


The good news is that I have retained intact all of the early 18th dynastic sequence with its revised biblical correlations. Namely:

Ahmose (biblical Ahimaaz)
Amenhotep I (biblical King Saul)
Thutmose I (biblical King David)
Thutmose II – {Senenmut} (biblical King Solomon)
Hatshepsut (biblical ‘Queen of Sheba’)
Thutmose III (biblical ‘King Shishak’)
Amenhotep II ….

At this stage, though, I introduce a bit of a fold, with, instead of Thutmose IV coming next, after Amenhotep II, I make Thutmose III and IV (both ‘Menkheperure’) the same person, and IV’s son who pre-deceased him, ‘Aakheperure’, the same as Amenhotep II ‘Aakheperure’.
This means that Amenhotep III ‘the Magnificent’ actually rises to power right after the long reign of Thutmose III.

Now here come the bombshells.

Bombshell One. Amenhotep III is King Asa of Judah, both of approximately 40 years of reign. He comes to the throne of Judah about (and I am following P. Mauro’s biblical chronology here) 15 years after the ‘Shishak’ incident, hence in Year 38 of Thutmose III. In the latter’s Year 43, approximately, which is Year 5 of Amenhotep III (Asa), Pharaoh Thutmose III, whose personally-led Palestinian campaigns had ceased a few years earlier (presumably due to his age), sent his Nubian commander, the biblical “Zerah the Ethiopian”, with a massive army of a million men and 300 chariots, Ethiopians and Libyans, to crush Judah. This was likely the largest army until then ever assembled. King Asa turned to God for help and defeated the enemy host. This was virtually the only major war waged by Asa in his guise as Amenhotep III. He records it on various stelae and he names his ‘vile Kushite’ foe, Ikheny.
Amenhotep III took a massive 30,000 prisoners.
In previous articles I had identified this “Zerah” with Amenhotep II’s Nubian commander (or commander of Nubia), User-tatet; the biblical name “Zerah” having been derived from the name element, User (or Uzer). I think that that identification can still stand, even though I now suspect that Amenhotep II himself was no longer alive (otherwise this warlike man would have led the army himself). I would also suggest in this context that Ikheny was the native name of User-tatet.
Thanks to this massive victory for Judah, King Asa became extremely rich, famous and mighty, just like Amenhotep III, a new King Solomon. And, as Thutmose III’s reign faded out, and with no heirs left to him, Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’ was able to rule Egypt for about three decades.

Bombshell Two. Amenhotep III married the formidable Queen, Tiy. Nicknames were common at this time, and Tiy is one such, or simply an abbreviation, Egyptologists say, equivalent to the ending of the name Neferti-ti. Well, Tiy, who fades out right at the very time of Akhnaton’s reign as does Nefertiti, around Year 16, is Nefertiti, I now suggest. Tiy’s apparent marriage to Akhnaton, her presumed son, of which Velikovsky had made so much (and justifiably so in his context), is nothing other than Akhnaton’s marriage to Nefertiti.

Bombshell Three. Since it was King Asa who was struck with a disease in his feet (and this is when he turned away from his full dependence on Yawheh), he, and not Akhnaton, may then perhaps be considered for Oedipus (‘swollen feet’). El Amarna's Tushratta (my Ben-Hadad I) is thought to have sent Amenhotep III a statue of Ishtar from Nineveh, in the vain hope of curing him. That is probably what the Bible refers to as ‘physicians’, in relation to Asa, that is, magicians or witchdoctors.

Bombshell Four. There is no need for my previous shunting of Queen Jezebel/Queen Nefertiti, from (i) Ahab of Israel, to (ii) Amenhotep III, and then on to (iii) Akhnaton. For Ahab was Akhnaton. Nefertiti (Tiy) had firstly married Amenhotep III (Asa), and, after he had died, or had lost interest, she had passed on (as apparently was her wont) to Akhnaton (= Ahab - as his wife, Jezebel).

{Nefertiti is almost certainly, too, the legendary Queen Semiramis of that same era, who was said to have ruled both Egypt and Babylon – so this incredible woman must have either found time also to have married an Assyro-Babylonian royal, or, perhaps more likely, one of her husbands already mentioned was also ruling Babylon}.
Posted by AMAIC at 7:17 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,

The Great Edict of Horemheb

 
[According to the AMAIC, Horemheb was the founder of the 19th Dynasty Ramessides]
 
 
His majesty took counsel with his heart [how he might] .... [exp]el evil and suppress lying. The plans of his majesty were an excellent refuge, repelling violence behind ...... [and delivering the Egyptians from the oppressions] which were among them. Behold, his majesty spent the whole time seeking the welfare of Egypt and searching out instances [of oppression in the land]. .... [came the scribe] of his majesty. Then he seized palette and roll; he put it into writing according to all that his majesty, the king himself said. He spoke as follows: "[My majesty] commands ... [concerning all] instances of oppression in the land.
 
If the poor man made for himself a craft with its sail, in order to be able to serve the Pharaoh, L.P.H., [loading it with the dues for the breweries and the kitchens of the Pharaoh, and he was robbed of the craft and] the dues, the poor man stood reft of his goods and stripped of his many labors. This is wrong, and the Pharaoh will suppress it by his excellent measures. If there be a [poor man] who pays the dues of the breweries and kitchens of the Pharaoh, L.P.H., to the two deputies, [and he be robbed of his goods and his craft, my majesty commands: that every officer who seizes the dues] and taketh the craft of any citizen of the army or of any person who is in the whole land, the law shall be executed against him, in that his nose shall be cut off, and he shall be sent to Tharu.

[Furthermore, concerning the impost of wood, my majesty commands that if any officer find] a poor man without a craft, then let him bring to him a craft for his impost from another, and let him send him to bring for him the wood; thus he shall serve [the Pharaoh].

[Furthermore, my majesty commands that if any poor man be oppressed by] [robbe]ry, his cargo be emptied by theft of them, and the poor man stand reft of hi[s good]s, [no further exactions for dues shall be made from him] when he has nothing. For it is not good, this report of very great injustice. My majesty commands that restitution be made to him; behold .... .

[Furthermore, as for those who] ... and those who bring to the harem, likewise for the offerings of all gods, paying dues to the two deputies of the army and ... [my majesty commands that if any officer is guilty of extortions or thefts], the law [shall be executed] against him, in that his nose shall be cut off, and (he) shall be sent to Tharu likewise.

When the officers of the Pharaoh's house of offerings have gone about tax-collecting in the towns, to take [katha-plant], [they have seized the slaves of the people, and kept them at work] for 6 days or 7 days, without one's being able to depart from them afar, so that it was an excessive detention indeed. It shall be done likewise against them. If there be any place [where the stewards shall be tax-collecting, and any one] shall hear, saying: "They are tax-collecting, to take katha-plant for themselves," and another shall come to report, saying: "My man slave (or) my female slave has been taken away [and detained many days at work by the stewards;" it shall be done likewise against them.]

The two divisions of troops which are in the field, one in the southern region, the other in the northern region, stole hides in the whole land, not passing a year, without applying the brand of [the royal house to cattle which were not due to them, thereby increasing] their number, and stealing that which was stamped from them. They went out from house to house, beating and plundering without leaving a hide for the people .... Then the officer] of the Pharaoh went about to each one, [to collect the hides charged against him and came to the people demanding] them, but the hides were not found with them (although) the amount charged against them could be established. They satisfied them, saying: "They have been stolen from us." A wretched case is this, therefore it shall be [done] likewise.

When the overseer of the cattle of Pharaoh, L.P.H., goes about to attend to the loan-herds in the whole land, and there be not brought to him the hides of the ... which are on the lists, [he shall not hold the people responsible for the hides if they have them not, but they shall be released by command of his majesty] according to his just purposes. As for any citizen of the army, (concerning) whom one shall hear, saying: "He goeth about stealing hides," beginning with this day, the law shall be executed against him, by beating him a hundred blows, opening five wounds, and taking from him by force the hides which he took.

Now, as for the other instance of evil which the [official staff were accustomed to commit, when they held inspection] in the land, of that which happened [against the law], [the table-scribe of] the queen and the table-scribe of the harem went about after the official staff, punishing them and investigating their affair ...... of the one who sailed down-or up-river. One investigated it among the officials in the time of the King Menkheperre (Thutmose III). Now, when the one who sailed down-or up-river whom they took; and when [the superior officials of] [the king], Menkheperre, went about [after these officials] each year, [that they might make an] expedition to the city, and that these superior officials might come to these officials, saying: "Give thou [to us] the consideration for the careless expedition;" then, behold, the Pharaoh, L.P.H., made the expedition at the feast of Opet each year without carelessness. One prepared the way before the Pharaoh [and questioned the local magistrate, wherever he] landed, [concerning the corrupt official] causing him to ......what he (the corrupt official) was like. As for one who goes about again, afterward, to seek the consideration ......, then these officials shall go about with the expedition concerning the affairs of these poor people ...... My majesty commands to prevent that one shall do thus, beginning with this day ..... the landing; he is the one against whom one shall prosecute it.

Likewise the collection of vegetables for the breweries [and kitchens of the Pharaoh and] ..... [Extortion was practiced, and the officials plundered] the poor, taking the best of their vegetables, saying: "They are for the impost [of the Pharaoh]." [Thus they] robbed the poor of their labors, so that a double [impost was levied. Now, my majesty commands that as for any officials who come to] collect vegetables [for] the impost of Pharaoh, L.P.H., in the arbors, and the .... houses of the estates of Pharaoh, L.P.H., and the ... of Pharaoh which contain vegetables, (concerning whom) one shall hear, saying: "They ... for any ... of any citizen of the army, or [any] people, [beginning with this day, the law shall be executed against them] ...... transgressing commands.

Now as far as these officials of the herds, who go about ...... in the southern region or the northern region collecting grain from the [citizens] of the city .... going about .... in the southern region or northern region collecting ... from the poor ... . ......... going about taking possession to bring every citizen, to cause them to see ... (concerning whom) one shall hear, (saying) ".... a crime, .... collection of the harem who go about in the [towns tax-collecting] ...... the ... of the fishermen .... carrying the ..... .

I have improved this entire land ...... I have sailed it, as far as south of the wall, I have given ..., I have learned its whole interior, I have traveled it entirely in its midst, I have searched in .... [and I have sought two officials] perfect in speech, excellent in good qualities, knowing how to judge the innermost heart, hearing the words of the palace, the laws of the judgment-hall. I have appointed them to judge the Two Lands, to satisfy those who are in ...... . [I have given to each one] his seat; I have set them in the two great cities of the South and the North; every land among them cometh to him without exception; I have put before them regulations in the daily register [of the palace] ........ I have directed [them] to the way of life; I led them to the truth, I teach them, saying: "Do not associate with others of the people; do not receive the reward of another, not hearing .... . How, then, shall those like you judge others, while there is one among you committing a crime against justice.

Now, as to the obligation of silver and gold ....... [my] majesty remits it, in order that there be not collected an obligation of anything from the official staff of the South and North.

Now, as for any official or any priest (concerning whom) it shall be heard, saying: "He sits, to execute judgment among the official staff appointed for judgment, and he commits a crime against justice therein;" it shall be against him a capital crime. Behold, my majesty has done this, to improve the laws of Egypt, in order to cause that another should not be ........... .

[Behold, my majesty appointed] the official staff of the divine fathers, the prophets of the temples, the officials of the court of this land and the priests of the gods who comprise the official staff out of desire that they shall judge the citizens of every city. My majesty is legislating for Egypt, to prosper the life of its inhabitants; when he appeared upon the throne of Re. Behold, the official staffs have been appointed in the whole land ... all ... to comprise the official staffs in the cities according to their rank. ....

They went around ... times a month, which he [made] for them like a feast; every man set down at a portion of every good thing, of good bread, and meat of the storehouses, of royal provision .....; their voices reached heaven, praising all benefits ... the heart of all the soldiers of the army. [The king appeared to the people] ... throwing (gifts) to them from the balcony while every man was called by his name by the king himself. They came forth from the presence rejoicing, laden with the provision of the royal house; yea, they too [grain-heaps] in the granary, every one of them [bore] barley and spelt, there was not found one who had nothing .... their cities. [If they did not complete the circuit therein within three days, [....] their khetkhet-officers hastened after them to the place where they were immediately. They were found there .....

Hear ye these commands which my majesty has made for the first time governing the whole land, when my majesty remembered these cases of oppression which occur before this land.


Sources: James Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt , Vol. III 50 to 67
[ ] A stone slab with a copy of the Great Edict was discovered near the 10th pylon at Karnak. About a third of the text is missing.


Posted by AMAIC at 2:43 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Ramses II Clearly C8th BC



Taken from:
http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973
 
....
Here is what Sweeney has noted in regard to the similarities between Ashurnasirpal’s cavalry tactics and that of the Hittite opponents of pharaoh Seti I (c. 1294-1279 BC, conventional dates):[1] “Hittite cavalry are shown in action against Seti I, and their deployment etc. displays striking parallels with that of the cavalry belonging to Ashurnasirpal II”. Thus for example the Assyrian horsemen, he says, “ride bareback, obtaining a firm grip by means of pressing the raised knees against the horse’s flanks - exactly the method of riding employed by the Hittites portrayed on the monuments of Seti I and Ramses II”. Again, both the early neo-Assyrian cavalry and those of the Hittites against whom Seti I battled, employed the bow as their only weapon. “Even more importantly, they are used in an identical way tactically: they are invariably used in conjunction with the chariotry”.
Sweeney next turns to Maspero’s description of the cavalry of Ashurnasirpal: “The army [of Assyria] ... now possessed a new element, whose appearance in the field of battle was to revolutionize the whole method of warfare; this was the cavalry, properly so called, introduced as an adjunct to the chariotry.” More specifically, he writes:
This body of cavalry, having little confidence in its own powers, kept in close contact with the main body of the army, and it was not used in independent manoeuvres; it was associated with and formed an escort to the chariotry in expeditions where speed was essential, and where ordinary foot soldiers would have hampered the movements of the charioteers.
Again, this is just what one would expect from the prevailing ‘Indo-European’ influence, the ‘chariot-riding aristocracy’, with its magnificent horsemanship. Similarly, James tells of the definite likeness between the neo-Assyrian art of Ashurnasirpal II and that of the ‘Middle’ Assyrian period several centuries earlier, C13th-12th BC:[2]
One scholar noted that the forms of decoration of the intricately carved Assyrian seals of the 12th century are ‘clearly late’, as they ‘point the way to the ornate figures which line the walls of the Neo-Assyrian palace of Assurnasirpal [mid-9th century BC]’. The sculptors employed by this king, in the words of another expert on Assyrian art, ‘worked within a tradition that went back to the thirteenth century BC’.
Professor Greenberg has observed, along the same lines, that Mycenaean Greece Shaft Grave Stelae, currently dated variously to the late C14th, or mid C13th BC, “make a good deal more art historical sense when compared, for example, with the hunting scenes of Ashurnasirpal II from Nimrud, which are dated in the ninth century BC …”.[3]
Thus Meyer was being perfectly logical, according to his own artificial context - with its subsequent misalignment of the early history of Israel - when issuing his bold challenge to gainsay the traditional view that Moses was a real historical person. And Meyer was entirely correct too back then, in 1906 (a full century ago), when stating that “not one of those who treat [Moses] as a historical reality has hitherto been able to fill him with any kind of content whatever …”. For Meyer’s chronology, as promoted by the Berlin School of Egyptology, and later by Sir Henry Breasted, which had become the standard, had made it quite impossible for scholars even to locate Moses in that complex scheme, let alone “to fill him with any kind of content”. Whilst an independent-minded historian like Sir Flinders Petrie might try valiantly to make a major adjustment to Sothic chronology - though still unfortunately based on that system’s faulty premises, by adding an extra Sothic period - he did not like what he eventually saw and so had to reject his novel idea.[4] Meyer’s Sothic chronology therefore survived the challenge and prevailed.
Today, for those who do give some credence to the story of Moses and the Exodus account, the favoured era is, as it was in Meyer’s day, the 19th Ramesside dynasty, Sothically dated to the C13th-C12th’s BC – but still two or more centuries after properly calculated biblical estimates for Moses. Ramses II (c. 1279-1212 BC, conventional dates) is now generally considered to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus; though no evidence whatsoever for a mass exodus of foreigners can be found during his reign.
Fortunately, the work of revision is serving to resurrect some long-lost biblical characters of great import. I have already shown in fair detail in Part I how C9th BC biblical characters, for instance, emerge in some profusion when a Velikovskian-based revision is carefully applied to the well-documented EA period. According to the model for Egypt that I shall be proposing in Chapter 11 (section: “A Basic, Revised Chronology for Ramses II”), the reign of Ramses II actually straddled the last half of the C9th and the first part of the C8th BC; the latter being the same century to which king Hezekiah in fact belonged. Thus Ramses II came into being more than half a millennium after Moses. He was certainly not the pharaoh of the Exodus.


[1] Ibid, p. 24.
[2] Centuries of Darkness, p. 273.
[3] ‘Lion Gate at Mycenae’ (1973), p. 28.
[4] Researches in Sinai, ch. xii; q.v. his A History of Egypt, vol. i, add. xvii, xviii.
Posted by AMAIC at 2:36 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Europa and Jeroboam of Israel



[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]
 
Europa and Jeroboam of Israel
by John R. Salverda

Do Kidnapped Europa and Her Brothers Represent Lost Israelites?

Background:

Greek Mythology relates that the chief god Zeus disguised himself as a white bull and abducted the Phoenician princess Europa daughter of Agenor from her home in Tyre, Lebanon. They went to Crete where Europa gave birth to Minos, Rhadamanthys, and Sarpedon.
Minos became king of the Minoans in Crete.
Sarpadon went to Lycia in Anatolia (in present-day Turkey).
Rhadamanthus went to Boetia in Greece. His sons were Gortys and Erythrus whose name is Greek for Edom.
Virgil (69 - 18 BC) makes Rhadamanthus one of the judges and punishers of the damned in the Underworld (Tartarus) section of The Aeneid.
Pindar says that Rhadamanthus is the right-hand man of Cronus (now ruling Elysium) in the Isles of the Blessed (a term that could be applied to the British Isles) and was the sole judge of the dead.

Elysium, a paradise which Homer placed in the far west, on the banks of the encircling river Oceanos.

Cadmos and his brothers sons of Agenor of Tyre in Phoenicia were sent to search for Europa. Cadmos founded Thebes in Greece and introduced the Phoenician [Proto-Hebraic] Alphabet to the Greeks. He was reponsible for the creation of the Spartans who sprang from the earth.

In the article below, John R. Salverda, analyses the legends surrounding these figures and finds in them traditions concerning the Ten Tribes of Israel in their journeys westward from the Land of Israel after being exiled by Assyria.

Europa Lost

Europe is named after a descendant of Io's who was called, 'Europa.' The myth of Europa can be found in any book of Greek Mythology, and has been well known for almost 3000 years. Can anything new be learned from it' No, but oddly enough, we can still learn something old, from it. Let us begin by examining the name itself. The name Europa, is a feminized form of the same Hebrew name that comes to us through Biblical sources, in its masculine Latin form, 'Jeroboam.' I learned this, when I compared two maps of the same city in Syria, one had the city labeled, 'Jerablus,' while the other had it as, 'Europos.' It occurred to me that this was a perfectly reasonable transliteration, and that both names were one and the same.

King Jeroboam, the first king of the northern ten tribes of Israel, is mentioned often in the Bible, unfortunately his name usually follows after the phrase, 'the sins of...' This is because Jeroboam was infamous for reintroducing the worship of god in the form of a bull, and calves were set up as images of god's savior, these constituted the 'sins of Jeroboam.' This tendency toward tauropomorphism, began at the Exodus, when Israel's agent of deliverance, (legends say it was Michael the Archangel) was overwhelmingly agreed, by the very witnesses of the event, to have been a calf, of whom they built a golden image. This was an idol, not of God, but of the son of god, and they sang these words as they danced around it, 'This is your god oh Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.' Israel was regularly personified as a maiden, (the Virgin Israel) who was beloved by God and betroth to Him. But the Israel of Jeroboam, went, whoring after foreign gods. It becomes obvious that, to some, she was known by a feminized version of King Jeroboam's name. The evidence for this identification is overwhelming. Europa got carried away adoring god in the form of a bull as well, and both the Virgin Israel and the maiden Europa, were from Phoenicia. The resulting, 'loss among the nations,' occurred in both cases, from the same place, and for the same reason. Does it surprise us to think that this story, (which included a promise by God to his People who were dispersed amongst the nations,) may have, in ancient times, received a wider distribution, than to be stored away on some Temple scroll and only be known, eventually, through the Bible' In fact the story was far famed, as we might have known.

The Greek myths tell us that Europa had a son who ruled over the Island of Crete, his name was Minos. If Europa be from Jeroboam, and the Cretans spoke Western Semitic, (the same language as the land of Canaan) which they did, then I'll bet 'Minos,' is the same name as 'Manasseh.' In fact one wonders indeed, if there wasn't a bit of confusion between the stories of the Cretan, King Minos, and the later Judean, King Manasseh. How many other kings, from this same area, with the same name, were famous for sacrificing youths to a bull headed god' (Minotaur, Manasseh's Torah' is Manasseh an alternate version of the name Moses' as in Judges, chapter 18, Verse 30, if so, perhaps the Minotaur was blasphemously named for the Law of Moses.) Thus it seems likely that the 'Minoan' civilization was named for the son of Joseph, Manasseh.

This series of coincidences about Europa is impressive enough without mentioning this other weird point, which was the fact that Israel was prophesied to be regathered by an heir to the throne, and returned to her homeland in the last days. (Isa. 11;10-12) But, this famous promise, must be cited here as evidence that Europa is Israel, because this hopeful prophecy is also coincidental to the 'myth.' The Greek myth asserts that the true heir to the throne was sent to find the lost Europa, and he was told not to return until he could bring her back.

Cadmus and the Brothers of Europa

Although the story of Io must have been in existence in one form or another, since the Exodus, (parts of her story belong to the days of Abraham, but most of it, is the story of Hermes Argiophontes, her deliverer, who plays the role of Moses at the Exodus) there is no doubt that the version of her story which has come down to us, did not receive it's final form, until after her descendant Cadmus came to Greece. We know this, because the story incorporates the use of the Alphabet within its body, for Io was able to spell her name in the sand with her cow hoof. (This part of the story relies upon the fact that the Greek 'I' was just a 'Jot,' and the letter 'o,' resembles a hoof print.) She was thereby identified when she returned home after her extensive 'wanderings.' This detail limits the Greek antiquity of Io's story, until about 850 BC. when the Greeks first began to use the Alphabet. But, this was a Phoenician story that was brought to Greece at a later date, generations after these events actually occurred, and the Phoenicians knew about the founding of Argos already for years back home, because, they were Israelites and the city of Argos was a colony of Hebron, also it was they who had an alphabet which Io could spell, the Hebrew alphabet.

No one doubts that the Hebrew alphabet was used in Greece, but it seems to me, calling it 'Phoenician,' is a bit misleading. If Moses, famous for his writings, wrote anything, then it is logical to assume him to be the oldest known user of this alphabet. The Greeks, in keeping with the identification of Moses with Hermes, (the serpent stick carrying messenger of god who delivers god's earthly wife from her bondage,) credit Hermes as the inventor of the alphabet. Cadmus is accredited with bringing the alphabet of Hermes, from Phoenicia to Greece, but, not until about 850 BC. It's easy to dismiss all myths in a group as fairy tales, but Cadmus was not a god, he was a man who is famous for doing something which really happened, others who lived within a few hundred years of him speak of Cadmus as an actual historic personage. He came to Greece with a colony and was considered to be the founder of Thebes, a quite well known city in Boeotian Greece, which was even called 'Cadmea,' after him.

While there seems to have been a real Cadmus, it is, as if a very familiar religious doctrine, has gotten attached to him. Because the role of Cadmus in the story about the return of Europa, foreshadows a type of the Christian Messiah, he is made to perform a series of tasks, which are obviously designed to fulfill many key Messianic prophecies. These tasks were, perhaps, more 'expected,' of him than were actually 'performed' by him. He destroys the serpent by transfixing it to a tree, thus, 'lifting it up,' and 'nailing it to the tree.' Leaving the Sparti in Greece, Cadmus goes to the Northwest, into Europe proper, where they make him King, in the land of the Enchelians, (Angels' Angles, or English') where, in the end, he and Harmonia, never really die but are instead Miraculously translated.

The Sparti remained in Greece, where they left many descendants, and worshipped Cadmus as a hero, with shrines. One famous, such hero shrine of Cadmus, was located in the Greek nation of Sparta, on the Laconian coast, and was maintained by the Spartans, (sown ones) even down to the days of the Jewish high priests Onias, and Jonathan. As reported by Josephus, and recorded in Rabbinical writings, Onias and the Spartans, wrote to each other, and both recognized the Spartans as having a common ancestor.

-John R. Salverda

For more articles on the Hebraic Connections of Greek Mythology, see:

"Helleno-Yishurin. The Hebrew Origin of Greek Legends"


Posted by AMAIC at 4:20 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Emmet Sweeney Identifies Hattusilis with Alyattes of Lydia

 

[The AMAIC does not accept all of Emmet's revised dates]

 

Hattusilis, King of Lydia

Hattusilis, King of Lydia

In his Ramses II and his Time (1978) Velikovsky argued that Ramses II, the great warrior pharaoh of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty, reigned in the first half of the sixth century BC, and not in the thirteenth century BC, as conventional scholarship believes. In support of this dating Velikovsky brought forward manifold proofs, from many different disciplines; and, from an archaeological perspective at least, the case he presented was compelling.
There were however two major problems: First and foremost, if Ramses II was to be placed in the sixth century, this meant opening a gap of two centuries between the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (which Velikovsky placed in the latter ninth century) and the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty (which Velikovsky placed in the latter seventh century). Critics were quick to point that an overwhelming body of evidence showed the Nineteenth Dynasty to have directly followed the Eighteenth, with no hiatus of any kind.
The second problem centred round the identity of Hattusilis, the Great King of the Hatti or Hittites, against whom Ramses II waged war for many years. Velikovsky argued that Hattusilis was none other than Nebuchadrezzar, the King of the Chaldaeans, who is said to have deported the population of Judah to Babylonia sometime in the first half of the sixth century BC. But this identification caused immense problems, as Velikovsky’s critics (and some of his allies) were quick to point out. Most pressingly, how could Hattusilis, whose capital city was in the middle of Anatolia and who never claimed to rule Mesopotamia, be identified with a king of Babylonia who never claimed to rule Anatolia? This was a crucial point; one which, notwithstanding the ingenious arguments presented by Velikovsky, he could not counter.

The answer to the conundrum was finally provided, I believe, by the stratigraphic evidence brought forward by Gunnar Heinsohn in the 1980s. Essentially, Heinsohn found that the Nineteenth Dynasty did come directly before the Persian Age, as Velikovsky claimed (ie in the sixth century), but that the Eighteenth Dynasty immediately preceded the Nineteenth Dynasty – which therefore placed it in the seventh century (actually, late eighth and seventh centuries). This meant bringing the whole of the Eighteenth Dynasty down the timescale by a further two centuries from the position accorded it by Velikovsky. If Heinsohn was right, then both the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties must have been contemporaries of the Medes, the great Indo-Iranian nation which had overthrown the Assyrians during the seventh century, and with the Lydians, the mighty power which controlled much of Anatolia in the same epoch.
As a matter of fact, the greatest power in the Fertile Crescent during the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty was that of the Mitanni, or Mita. These kings, who bore Indo-Iranian names and worshipped Indo-Iranian gods, were famous for having conquered the Old Assyrian kingdom, whose two most notable kings were named Sargon and Naram-Sin. It goes without saying that Heinsohn thus identified the Mitanni with the Medes, and the evidence he mustered for this was extremely compelling. It is an identification fully supported by the present writer.
Ancient writers insisted that during the period of Median supremacy much of Anatolia was controlled by Lydia; and indeed the Lydians were great rivals of the Medes. Now, whilst the monuments and diplomatic correspondences of the Mitanni period apparently make no mention of the Lydians, they do refer repeatedly to a mighty rival power centred in Anatolia. This was the kingdom of Hatti; the Hittite Empire.
Modern textbooks describe the Hittites as a mysterious people, a nation whose history and even existence had been forgotten until revealed by archaeologists in the nineteenth century. The “rediscovery” of the Hittites is held to be one of the great triumphs of modern archaeology. In the early days of archaeology, however, travellers to Anatolia were often inclined to associate the monuments and remains we now call “Hittite” with the ancient Lydians, and several carved bas-reliefs at Yazilikaya, just outside Boghaz-koi, were actually linked to specific events from Lydian history. Thus for example W.J. Hamilton in his Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia (1842) remarked that in his opinion one of the major reliefs commemorated a treaty signed by Croesus with Cyrus around 550 B.C. “I am rather inclined to think that it represents the meeting of two coterminous kings, and that it was intended to commemorate a treaty of peace concluded between them. The Halys, which is not many miles distant, was long the boundary between the kingdoms of Lydia and Persia and it is possible that in the figure with the flowing robes we may recognise the king of Persia, and that in the other the king of Lydia, with his attendants, Lydians and Phrygians, for their headdress resembles the well-known Phrygian bonnet. This spot may have been chosen to commemorate the peace.” (W.J. Hamilton Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia (1842) 393-95)
Another scholar of the same period also identified the monuments as Lydian, but inclined more to the view that the bas-relief commemorated a treaty signed by Croesus’ predecessor Alyattes with the Medes under Astyages. (H. Barth “Versuch einer eingehenden Erklärung der Felssculpturen von Boghaskoei in alten Kappadocien” Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1869) 128-75) According to Herodotus these two kings had met with their armies near the river Halys, but fighting broke off when the sun was eclipsed. (Herodotus, i, 74) Afterwards, through the efforts of the kings of Babylon and Cilicia a peace was negotiated and signed.
The more our knowledge of Hittite civilisation and history has grown, the more clear-cut the Lydian connection has become. The Boghaz-koi documents for example showed that a number of Hittite kings had borne the name Mursilis; identical to the name (Myrsilos) given by Herodotus to one of the greatest kings of Lydia. The language of the Hittite Empire, known as “Hittite” to us, but actually called “Neshili” in the Boghaz-koi texts, was found to be Indo-European. Further research into the linguistic make-up of ancient Asia Minor found that Lydian too was an Indo-European dialect - a dialect identical to “Hittite”. In the words of one scholar, “Linguistically Lydian is related to the Hittite-Luwian group, but the curious thing is that unlike most of its contemporaries it seems to be Hittite rather than Luwian.” (J. G. Macqueen, The Hittites (London, 1975) p. 59) In other words the Lydian language is one and the same as that of the Hittites in their Cappadocian heartland - Nesha/Neshili - rather than Luwian, a related tongue employed by many other peoples of Asia Minor and Anatolia, such as the Phrygians and Lycians. In explanation of this strange anomaly, the writer quoted above continues,
“One has to assume that in the disturbances following the collapse of the Hittite Empire a central Anatolian group had seized power among the ruins of Arzawa, and a memory of this may be preserved in the Herodotean story of a Heraclid dynasty with eastern connections which gained power in Lydia about 1200 BC.” (Ibid.)
Arzawa, of course, is the name given to the Lydian district in the Hittite documents, and indeed the word may be identical to Lydia, given the interchangeability of “l” and “r”, and the conjectural nature of vowels in cuneiform. Thus Arzawa may reasonably be reconstructed as “Lyzawa”.
The relationship between Arzawa/Lydia and the greater Hittite world has in fact caused considerable confusion amongst scholars, a confusion highlighted in the following statement;
“And so we reach the final position that the language originally known as Arzawan [Lydian] is in fact the language of the Hittites, while the language written in ‘Hittite Hieroglyphs’ is a dialect of the language of Arzawa.” (Ibid. pp. 24-5)
Thus the Lydian and Hittite kingdoms used the same language, occupied the same geographical space, and were, as we shall argue, contemporary.
It is generally presumed that the Hittite Empire took in only the eastern part of what was later to constitute the Lydian kingdom – a domain supposedly centred more on western Asia Minor. However, it is untrue to say that Hittite rule did not extend as far as the Aegean coast. The documents of Boghaz-koi show quite clearly that the regions comprising Lycia, Caria, Ionia and Aeolia were considered to be part of the Empire, and this has been confirmed by the discovery of Hittite monuments at Karabel near Smyrna, and on Mount Sipylus overlooking the Aegean.
If then we accept the Hittites as Lydians, how do they fit into the history of the period, and do the historical records of the Hittite period speak of events known to us from the classical authors? Do the two histories match?
An examination of the lives and careers of the last two Hittite emperors, Hattusilis III and Tudkhaliash IV, reveals a close match with the lives and careers of the last two Lydian kings, Alyattes and Croesus. The Hittite Empire came crashing to destruction during the time of Tudkhaliash IV, and we find the “Assyrian” king Tukulti-Ninurta boasting of carrying off great numbers of Hittite prisoners. Since Tukulti-Ninurta was a contemporary of Ramses II and Merneptah, it follows that (if we credit Velikovsky’s own chronological measuring-rod and place these kings in the sixth century), Tukulti-Ninurta must be associated with Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Lydia. As such, Hattusilis, who earlier waged a protracted war against Ramses II, must be the same person as Alyattes.
Classical sources inform us that Alyattes, was a mighty king who waged war against many of his neighbours, and who subjugated most of the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. This certainly does not contradict what we know of Hattusilis. We know that Hattusilis maintained and extended Hittite control over western Asia Minor, and his victories in the far west are commemorated in various surviving documents. The list of Hittite allies at the battle of Kadesh “mentions several peoples who all ... are hitherto already familiar and recognisable from the Hittite imperial records as being the names of peoples of Western and Central Anatolia.” (R.D. Barnett “The Sea Peoples: Anatolians at the Battle of Qadesh” in CAH Vol.2 part 2 (3rd ed.) p.360) The writer of these words, R.D. Barnett, offers the following identifications of these names:
 
Drdny = Dardanoi (Homeric name for Trojans).
Ms = Mysia (a region of Asia Minor).
Pds = Pitassa (either Pedasa, near Miletus, or Pedasos, in the Troad).
Krks = Karkisa (Caria).
Lk = Lukka (Lycia).

If these identifications are broadly correct, and virtually no authority denies it, then the Hittites were at that time in control of most of western Asia Minor.
As part of his policy to strengthen Lydian control over Asia Minor, Herodotus tells us that Alyattes attacked the Greek port of Miletus, continuing a war initiated by his father Sadyattes. (Herodotus, i, 17) By our reckoning Sadyattes must of course be the same as Hattusilis’ father Mursilis, and we must expect this king to be involved in military action on the Aegean coast. Sure enough, Hittite records tell us that Mursilis attacked and conquered a city on the Aegean coast named Millawanda (generally agreed to be Miletus), a settlement which had been the property of the king of Ahhiyawa (generally agreed to be Achaea - ie. Greece). From the records of Mursilis we find that the king of Ahhiyawa at this time was called Antarawas, a name that has been identified with the Greek Andreus. Twelve years later he names another king of Ahhiyawa, this time Tawalagawas, who is also known as “the Ayawalawas”. This has been interpreted as Eteocles the Aeolian. (A. R. Burn, Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks (London, 1930) p. 121)
Yet these clear references to Greek settlements in Hittite documents of supposedly the 13th century BC. have caused the utmost embarrassment to scholars, since the Ionic and Aeolian colonies are not dated by anyone earlier than the 10th century BC. But if we are actually in the 6th century BC., there is no problem, and Greek settlements, as well as a Greek city of Miletus, are entirely to be expected.
During the time of Mursilis the province of Arzawa, the Lydian heartland, rebelled. Uhha-zitish, the rebel leader, was, we are told, defeated in a great battle, and pursued to the town of Apasa, identified with Ephesus. Mursilis followed him to Apasa, but Uhha-zitish had fled “across the sea”, no doubt to Greece.
Thus it would appear that during and directly preceding the reign of Hattusilis the Hittites were busy consolidating their hold over the peoples of the Aegean coast, a situation which agrees precisely with what we know of the Lydian kingdom in the time of Alyattes and his immediate predecessors.
Herodotus mentions the fact that one of Alyattes’ greater successes was his conquest of Smyrna, (i, 16) and sure enough, a stela of Mursilis, Hattusilis’ father, stands at Karabel, just outside the city. (A. R. Burn, op cit. pp. 134-5)
In the end, we are told, Alyattes failed to conquer Miletus, which would explain why Hattusilis makes no mention of a successful war against Millawanda. He recalls with pride however his successful fifteen-year war against the Gasga (whom I equate with the Scythians – see my Empire of Thebes, 2006), a fact which recalls Alyattes’ achievement of driving the Cimmerians out of Asia. (Herodotus, i, 16)
Alyattes, we have seen, was also involved in prolonged warfare on his eastern front against the Medes. Peace was however briefly restored in this region when a major battle was interrupted by an eclipse.
One final point. The name written in the cuneiform of Boghaz-koi as Hattusilis is composed of two elements; Hattus-ili. Since vowels are conjectural and the order in which cuneiform syllables should be read by no means always certain, the same word could be written as Ali-hattus. In short, Hattusilis and Alyattes (Greek Aluattes) are the same name.
Thus Egypt’s link with Lydian and Classical history. But the repositioning of Egypt’s Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties in the seventh and sixth centuries causes profound problems for Biblical history. If we agree with Velikovsky that the Eighteenth Dynasty was contemporary with the Early Monarchy of Israel, this means that the Early Monarchy must likewise be brought into the seventh and sixth centuries. If Hatshepsut, of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, really was the Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon in Jerusalem, we cannot bring that same queen into the seventh century and leave Solomon in the tenth. Clearly Solomon must then also have lived in the seventh century!
How, the reader might ask, can Hebrew chronology be recalibrated in such a way? Is it not true that Hebrew history is well documented at least as far back as the time of David? Is it not accurately aligned, for example, with the histories of Babylonia and Assyria? How then are we to remove two and a half centuries from the span of that same history?
This is a problem I have examined in great detail in two of the Ages in Alignment books, most particularly in Empire of Thebes and Ramessides, Medes and Persians. There it is shown that Hebrew history is not aligned accurately to that of the Classical world, and that a “phantom time period” of over two centuries has been inserted into the Biblical timescale. The two phantom centuries are in fact located in the second half of the Persian Empire and the first century of the Seleucid epoch, a period of more than two centuries that in terms of Hebrew history is a complete blank. Between the time of Ezra, and the Book of his name, and the period of the Maccabees (circa 160 BC), Jewish history is totally silent: The Jews, greatest of record-keepers, apparently left not a single historical document to cover this enormous stretch of time. Yet things get even worse when we realize that archaeology has been no more successful at filling the gap. Between the middle of the Persian Age and the middle of the Seleucid archaeologists have found almost nothing in the land of Israel.
What is the explanation?
The explanation is straightforward; but it requires an imaginative leap in order to be successfully digested. The simple fact is, no three-century gap exists between Ezra and the Maccabees: one follows the other directly. And the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings who come before Ezra are Persian kings under the guise of Mesopotamians. Ezra therefore was active around 260 BC rather than 450 BC, and the king Nebuchadrezzar who took the Jews captive to Babylon shortly before his time was none other than the Persian king Artaxerxes III. In the same way, all the Hebrew kings who interacted with these Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian rulers must be brought forward in the timescale by two centuries. King Zedekiah of Judah, blinded and deported by Nebuchadrezzar, suffered that fate not in 570 BC, but around 340 BC. The prophets Elijah and Elisha, along with the Hebrew kings with whom they were contemporary, lived and worked in the late seventh century, not in the late ninth; and Solomon, who welcomed the Queen of Sheba to Jerusalem, did so around 680 BC, not 930 BC.


Last modified on Monday, 09 May 2011 12:29

....

Taken from: http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/13-hattusilis-king-of-lydia.html
Posted by AMAIC at 4:43 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)