Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:Here's a full translation of the stele...I guess the text is written on the back?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitch ... ses01a.htm


Other than talking about a storm and a "rising deluge" I'm not sure what you mean.

Min, I wouldn't rely on Sitchin. Do you have another translation handy?

Minimalist wrote:

There is a real problem here as the eruption of Thera is known to have occured at 1628 BCE by tree ring data. When we take a look at some of the dates for Ahmose, there is a hundred year difference.

Precisely. But Jacobovici never lets "facts" get in the way.

This attack by Upper Egypt ( Kamose ) against Lower Egypt (the Hyksos) took quite a while before it was successful. It is not unreasonable to think that the effects of Thera, happening 75-100 years before Ahmose, did weaken the Hyksos regime. Certainly, they held the coast and were more likely to have been harmed by whatever fallout reached Egypt. The fact that Manfred Bietak found such minimal residue of volcanic ash at Avaris indicates that the bulk of the ash cloud headed northeast as the prevailing winds would indicate. Certainly the tsunamis would have wiped out any fishing villages along the Med but would anyone lose a lot of sleep over the loss of a few villages? More likely, the Hyksos suffered because their trading partners in Crete and Cyprus, etc. were devastated. The resulting loss of wealth may well have encouraged the Upper Egyptians to strike while their opponents were weak. That, at least, makes sense from a strategic point of view.

Not a bad hypothesis. Let's explore it for a minute.

The experts are still trying to determine exactly how bad the consequences of the Thera eruption were. One thing that is certain is that the dust cloud affected sunlight, which affected agriculture, and thus left a weakened population open to disease. These effects were global, as may be seen in the large mound constructed at Poverty Point at this time.

But the mega-tsunami likely destroyed more than a "few fishing villages" in the Aegean. These were major city states who operated in federation. If I remember, there were also substantial mega-tsunami deposits found in one of the inland cities in Greece where the wave was funneled by a valley. It is a certainty that all of the fishing and trading vessels were destroyed, It is also certain that the coast of Turkey was hit hard. The Hittites had appenage states there, and did not rule directly.

As sea vessels were also used to transport troops, the eruption makes a perfect time to attack, when no outside military aid would be available.

Before radio-carbon dating, the only tools available for absolute dating were astronomical texts. The problem was that astronomical events would reccur, and thus you had several possible and competing chronologies. And not only did you have Egyptian, Hittite, Babylonian, and Assyrian chronologies to work through, in the Americas you had several competing solutions to the Mayan calendar correlation problem, along with wildly varying radio carbon dates. For example, end Hopewell dates were given from 300 CE to 700 CE.

Catastrophes (whether volcanic or impact caused) as dated by tree rings provide absolute dates to sort this out. For example, on the basis of Thera, Astour's late Hittite chronology can be dropped and the middle Hittite chronolgy adopted.

Each of the competing chronologies for the Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians and others may be keyed as well. If the keying is correct, then they should agree, and the interactions among them shown in their rulers' records should agree in time.

I think that Redmond's article on Hyksos chronology is about the best available. If your hypothesis is correct you may be able to find evidence within their records and data. Then all you have to do is reconcile that with the Hittite and Babylonian chronologies.

Once that is done, in other words after you've worked through the primary materials, then you have to work through the secondary materials, such as myths of Tantalus (Te Hantilishi) and the OT, whatever it was written from.

One of the curious things in the OT Exodus is the mention of a column of light viewed in the east, exactly at the time when Comet Encke would be making its pass in 1628 BCE.

As they did not know about Thera, perhaps the people at Poverty Point built their thunderbird mound (and yes, it was a thunderbird, as we know by the clay tokens found there) as an appeal for help against the sky serpent Encke.

But the mega-tsunami likely destroyed more than a "few fishing villages" in the Aegean.

Agreed. As I said, the Middle Bronze trade network doubtless included Cyprus and Crete as well as Asia Minor and these were hammered. But Egypt seems to have had minimal coastal presence. Avaris was well inland. Besides, if you consider this map:




It is apparent that Crete would have absorbed most of the tsunami headed south thus protecting Libya and much of Egypt. Also the Islands of Karpathos and Rhodes would have absorbed much of the wave headed for the East and Cyprus, off map to the east, would have done a fair job of shielding the Levantine coast.

Certainly, the Aegean Islands, the Eastern Greek coast from Kithira to the lower coast of Euboea would have been devastated as would parts of the Asia Minor coast. Really, it was a matter of luck and areas that were not shielded by a fortuitously situated island must have thought the world ended.

This map:



gives an idea of the spread of the ash cloud and, as can be seen, the northern Egyptian coast was least hard hit. But your point still has merit, EP. Damaged less than their commercial partners it might well have been an ideal time for the Egyptians to expand.

One thing argues against it. They would have been overrunning territory which was blasted to smithereens and it was a time when war had to pay for war. Where is the advantage to conquering land that is of no use to anyone. Second, what does seem to have happened is that the Hyksos were drawn into fighting with Upper Egypt, who presumably were not damaged at all. They also would have been cut off from commerce with the other Middle Bronze cultures by the Hyksos control of the mouth of the Nile and so not losing any markets.

jw1815 wrote:

I suppose it depends on whose definition of PIE you use. Does the one you're using include Lycian?

Not sure why you’re throwing Lycian into the mix, but I’ll answer your question in the course of clarifying some terms.

A simple definition for any linguistic family is a shared core of words derived from common roots and a shared pattern of grammatical structure among member languages.

The proto language of a linguistic family is the oldest or “original” form, before it evolved into various branches and sub branches of different, but related languages.

So, PIE does not apply to Lycian, although IE does. Lycian was part of the Luwian sub group of Anatolian IE languages. There were other branches of IE at the time, so this is too late in time to be calling these languages PIE. Hittite was also an Anatolian IE language. Is it possible that you’re confusing Hittite with Hurrian because their speakers were near each other geographically and their cultures interacted so closely at times? However, the two languages, Hittite and Hurrian, were from different linguistic families.

In summary, linguists include Lycian as well as Hittite into the ancient Anatolian branch of IE, but neither one is the proto language for the IE linguistic family, so PIE doesn’t apply to them. Hurrian was not a member of the IE family. It was a member of the Urartian linguistic family, related to other Urartian languages.

No, I'm not confusing Hittite and Hurrian, just noting Bjarte Kadhols' suggestions on a possible Linear A/Hurrian relationship. And of course, Brown's identification of Linear A as Lycian may be accepted as proved.

Personally, I've always found mutual understandability to be a useful guide to language families,
and Lycian is still baffling to all. But out of deference to Pallotimo's definition of Etruscan, I used PIE in his sense, the one he used for Etruscan. As for Lycian being IE, it sure looks strange, but then that's the way the experts think of Luwili. Again, I was trying to use PIE in that sense.

Personally, I think that Pre-Indo European would work better (PIE).

jw1815 wrote:

IMO, Sumerian likely had cognate languages among the early languages of India.

Even if this were true, which it doesn't appear to be, it would have no bearing on the fact that Hurrian is not IE. And there’s no linguistic family relationship between Sumerian and Lycian, or between Hurrian and Lycian.

Sumerian did not share a common grammatical structure with IE languages, nor common root morphemes for core vocabulary.

http://history-world.org/sumerian_language.htm

The linguistic affinity of Sumerian has not yet been successfully established. Ural-Altaic (which includes Turkish), Dravidian, Brahui, Bantu, and many other groups of languages have been compared with Sumerian, but no theory has gained common acceptance. Sumerian is clearly an agglutinative language in that it preserves the word root intact while expressing various grammatical changes by adding on prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. The difference between nouns and verbs, as it exists in the Indo-European or Semitic languages, is unknown to Sumerian. The word dug alone means both "speech" and "to speak" in Sumerian, the difference between the noun and the verb being indicated by the syntax and by different
affixes.

I agree completely that there's no relationship between Lycian and Sumerian. On the other hand, I think that Kadhol's hypothesis deserves close consideration, given the pre-Hittite population of Anatolia, and the Hittite's move there, as mentioned in the chronology.

The Sumerian memories of migration from a homeland elsewhere, and their advanced technologies, indicate India to me.

There is a big hole in the ground (impact crater) in southern Iraq dated to shortly before their appearance, so it looks to me like they may have simply migrated by sea to a recently depopulated area.

E.P. Grondine wrote:

Minimalist wrote:Here's a full translation of the stele...I guess the text is written on the back?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitch ... ses01a.htm


Other than talking about a storm and a "rising deluge" I'm not sure what you mean.

Min, I wouldn't rely on Sitchin. Do you have another translation handy?

The translation is attributed to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature which is based at Oxford. Can't hold them responsible for who links to them.

Minimalist wrote: One thing argues against it. They would have been overrunning territory which was blasted to smithereens and it was a time when war had to pay for war. Where is the advantage to conquering land that is of no use to anyone. Second, what does seem to have happened is that the Hyksos were drawn into fighting with Upper Egypt, who presumably were not damaged at all. They also would have been cut off from commerce with the other Middle Bronze cultures by the Hyksos control of the mouth of the Nile and so not losing any markets.

Min, as you said before, the Hyksos's territory would not have been blasted to smithereens. But as we know from the finds at Tel Daba, the Thera explosion crippled the Hyksos' trading partners and possible military allies.

The Egyptians just wanted them gone from their lands, and from their neighborhood.

Take a close look at Hattusili 1's activitites in the chronology - they make sense as a response to the Thera eruption.

I thought Hattusili I was more or less a contemporary of Ahmose I?

If so, c 1550, he would have been advancing into areas which had 75 years to recover but, even more to the point, he may have been advancing into areas that were shielded from the tsunami by the aforementioned islands of Rhodes and Cyprus.


On the rest of it we have to keep focused on who we are talking about. Even if the Hyksos wished to sail to Crete/Cyprus they were constrained from doing so by an undamaged enemy on their southern border. Were I commanding the Hyksos I would think twice about sending my army to occupy a devastated land to the north while the Upper Egyptians were sharpening their spears to the south. There had to have been some balance of power between the Hyksos and the Upper Egyptians and I can see where the after effects of Thera could upset that equilibrium.

Hi min -

Wrong text there - that looks like a bit of the Curse of Akkad.

This is the one I am referring to:

"Whereas, for all time since the formation of humankind there has never been
a king who overthrew Armanum and Ebla with the weapon of Nergal (as) did
Naram-Sin, the mighty, open the only path and he (Nergal) gave him Armanum
and Ebla. He (Nergal) bestoyed upon him (Naram-Sin) the Amanus too, (and)
the Cedar Mountain (the Jordan Valley), and the Upper Sea (the Mediterranean
Sea), and by the weapon of Dagan, exalter of his kingship, Naram-Sin, the
mighty, defeated Armanum and Ebla. Then, from the hither face (far west
side) of the Euphrates (River), he (Naram-Sin) smote the river bank as far
as Ulusium, as well as the people whom Dagan had for the first time bestowed
upon him, and they bear for him the burden of Ilaba his god. The Amanus
too, the Cedar Mountain, he conquered completely."

My hypothesis is that in this passage "with the weapon of Nergal" is a very important qualifier,
since Sargon had conquered Ebla earlier, and this fact was well known by all
Akkadians. On the other hand, Sargon had never had an impactor strike his
enemies and deliver them to him, as Naram-Sin had, and Naram-Sin fell into
delusions of grandeur, elevating himself to the status of a god, as may be
seen by the horned headress he shows himself wearing in his victory stela.

Can't find a copy online.

As far as the "Bull of Heaven" goes in the text you cited, the annual Taurid (Bull) meteor stream is little bits still left over of Comet Encke.

We don't know what role they may have played in the climate collapse at that time, the one that ended Akkad. It would be real nice to know its date and cause.

Minimalist wrote: I thought Hattusili I was more or less a contemporary of Ahmose I?

Yes, exactly, and using the Hittite middle chronology that places Ahmose I ca 1628 BCE.

Minimalist wrote: If so, c 1550, he would have been advancing into areas which had 75 years to recover but, even more to the point, he may have been advancing into areas that were shielded from the tsunami by the aforementioned islands of Rhodes and Cyprus.

Note Hattusili 1's attack on Arzawa - Ephesus (Apassa) was hard hit.

Note also the revolt which takes place to the south of the Hitties - by those less affected by the eruption.

Minimalist wrote: On the rest of it we have to keep focused on who we are talking about. Even if the Hyksos wished to sail to Crete/Cyprus they were constrained from doing so by an undamaged enemy on their southern border. Were I commanding the Hyksos I would think twice about sending my army to occupy a devastated land to the north while the Upper Egyptians were sharpening their spears to the south. There had to have been some balance of power between the Hyksos and the Upper Egyptians and I can see where the after effects of Thera could upset that equilibrium.

The Hyksos did not willingly go north. They were driven out.

Also note the appearance of the Hapiru around Aleppo a short while after the 1628 eruption.
Right around 1585 BCE. Say around 40 years later. This is part of my CC note on contemporaneous records of the Joshua Impact, which is what really matters here. Note especially the contemporaneous texts:

To recap and expand that note, we now have some six distinct textual traditions referring to the Joshua Impact, and one of the completely independent documents is contemporaneous.
If Sorrenson' guess about the Gebal Barbuk inscription is correct, that will
bring to two the number of completely independent contemporaneous sets of
documents which refer to the Joshua Impact Event, and the total number of
distinct text sets to seven.

The first written source for the event, the one with which Conference
participants are probably most familiar, is the biblical book of Joshua,
which admittedly was composed quite a while after the impact event itself.
To summarize once again the account in Joshua, the Israelites leave Egypt at
the time of the eruption of Thera in 1628 BC. They are repulsed at Rephidim,
return to the desert, eliminate the Kohath faction, and establish themselves
on the east bank of the Jordan in lands which were long before under Horim
(Hurrian) control. By the year count within Joshua, this brings us to around
1588 BC.

The Israelites begin to move across the Jordan, and after a particularly
savage attack on Ai, a "multi-national" force is assembled by the Hittites
to stop them. It is important to note that while some researchers point to
one particular tel as Ai, and to the lack of a destruction level there as
proof that the Joshua account is fictional, the identification of this
particular tel as Ai is not universally accepted, and there is another tel
nearby which remains uninvestigated and ignored.

Under the leadership of Joshua, the Israelites launch a night attack on the
Hittite "multi-national" force, and as the force regroups the impact event
occurs: "And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were
going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven
upon them unto Azekah, and they died. More died with hailstones than they
whom the children of Israel slew with the sword." The Israelites then went
on to slaughter and enslave a large region, dividing the land ca 1583 BC.

The second group of written sources for this impact event are the
comtemporary Hittite records of Hantilish's (Hantili's) defeat. To
summarize, Hantilish's predecessor Murshilish I (Musili I) is deafened by
the explosion of Thera as a child, and takes the throne in 1604 BC. (The
dating used here follows the Hittite scholar Michael Astour's sequence of
dates in "Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age, page
2", but adjusted back by 64 years using the middle chronology Babylonian
astronomical cycle observation, which is commonly accepted by Hittite
scholars. The dates thus arrived at coincide very well with those
independently arrived at from the ice cores for the Thera explosion and
other the other texts.)

Murshilish I marches on Babylon in 1595 BC, but on his way home he is
attacked and defeated by the Hurrians. There is a treaty (KUB XXXVI 106 +
KBo IX 73)with "hapiru" ("raiders") which was concluded by either Murshilish
now, or by his successor Hantilish, some time after Hantilish's murder of
Murshilish in 1594 BC and his seizure of the throne.

It is important to note that exactly who the "hapiru" were remains another
issue very hotly contested today. The earlier use by cuneiform scribes of
"hapiru" to indicate a type of vassal seems to be entirely consistent with
the role of the ancient Israelites as vassals to the so-called "Hyksos", the
people who had earlier seized control of Egypt; and as will be seen shortly,
the Israelites are referred to as "hapiru" in other contemporaneous
documents.

Hantilish, after his murder of Murshilish I, also campaigns against the
Hurrians, but the Hurri defeat him and take his queen and heirs to Shugziya
and kill them. (Edict of Telepinush, 15-17) According to fragmentary record
KBo III 46, someone dies in Shugziya, after the death of 3 Hittite
commanders, and an unnamed Hittite king assembles 3000 "Hapiru" men and
garrisons them in a (name lost) city. (Astour, page 87)

Filling in the breaks in this series of extremely fragmentary
contemporaneous Hittite records, we also have a third document, a nearly
complete contemporaneous account of the events, the Akadian testament of
Idrimi Ilim Ilimma, King of Alalah. In Indrimi's version of events, a series
of disputes breaks out (which probably arose as a result the Hittite King
Murshilishi I's conquest of Aleppo in 1595 BCE), and he flees Aleppo to the
city of Emar, from which he is also forced to flee.

Idrimi finally find refuge for 7 years with the "hapiru" at Ammija in
Canaan, along with others from Aleppo, Muksis, Nihi and Amae. During these
7 years Idrimi and the "hapiru" are in conflict with Barrattarna, the King
of the Hurrians (biblical Horim).

After these 7 years, "Teshub" the sky god favors Idrimi because of his pious
worship. THIS IS A MENTION OF THE JOSHUA IMPACT EVENT IN A CONTEMPORARY
ACCOUNT. An approximate date for the impact event may be derived by moving
some 7+ years from 1595 BCE, the date of Murshilish I's
conquest of Aleppo, say sometime immediately after 1588 BCE.

Following the impact, Idrimi builds ships at the harbor of Nulla (with the
sabe(Erin mesh), also used to describe the "hapiru") and attacks and
conquers the cities of Alalah, Muksis, Amae, and Nihi. Now independent of
the "hapiru" and running his own kingdom, Idrimi betrays them and makes
peace with Barattarna, the King of the Hurrians.

Then, as Idrimi put it, the "kings to his right and left came against him".
Who exactly these kings were is not clear, but most likely they included
Hantilish, King of the Hittites, Hantilish's new "allies" the Israelites,
the "hapiru", as both were common enemies of the Hurrians, and Thutmose I of
Egypt, who was the enemy of the Hittites, Hurrians, and the
"hapiru", the Israelites. If this makes it any clearer, what we are dealing
with here is a 5 sided conflict which occured after the explosion of Thera
between the Hittites, Hurrians, Aleppans, Israelites, and Egyptians for
control of the northern Syrian ports and these ports' links to the Euphrates
River and thus to the valuable trade with the east.

Though under attack, Idrimi tells as that he defeated all his enemies and
left their bodies piled on the ground, as his father had done. Now secure
against attack, Idrimi goes on to attack the Hittite vassal cities of
Passahe, Damrut-re-i, Hulahhan, Zise, Ie, Uluzila, and Zarana, and he uses
the wealth of these cities to build his kingdom at Alalah.

(For a transcription, translation, and commentary on Idrimi's testament, see
Die Inschrift der Statue des Konigs Idirmi von Alalah, M. Dietrich and O.
Loretz, Ugarit Forschungen, Band 13, 1981, p 201-268.)

The destruction of the Minoan vassal forces under the Hittite King
Hantilish's command left their home lands defenceless, and easy prey for the
Myceneans. Thus Late Minoan IB comes to a rather decisive end, and this
leads to the creation of the forth group of written sources for the Joshua
Impact Event, the Ionian Greek "mythological" records. It appears that
Hantilish was known to the Achaean Mycenean Greeks as Tantalus, the god
(Theos) Hantilish, or T'e-Hantilish, the king of the coastal region of
Sipylus, which has been correctly identified as Hittite Zippasla. The rather
direct Mycenean sense of humor finds typical expression in its description
of Tantalus's fate. After Tantalus dies he is sent to hell, where though
surrounded by food and drink, he can not enjoy them, as he must hold up a
large stone with both hands, in order to keep it from falling on his head.
Thus we have another mention of the Joshua Impact Event.

The fifth group of documents are the later classical records which came from
the region of Sipylus which mentioned Hantilish's expedition. I saw second
hand notice of them in Peter James' book on Atlantis, "The Sunken Kingdom"
and corresponded with James, but still do not have direct citations from him
for this set of records, though I did receive information from James that
Dr. Eva Danelius had conducted work at the area around Beth Horon to the
west of Jerusalem. Whether today's Beth Horon is the same as yesterday's
Beth Horon is another question entirely.

As for other archaeological records of the Joshua impact, there are
destruction levels at Jericho, Hormah, Gibeon, and Arad which have been
dated to 1550 BC, though I do not know if these dates are still valid. It
also appears that the Hittites were so weakened by the Joshua Impact Event
that they were unable to prevent the migration of the Gasgas (Kaskas) and
Achaeans, so in addition to every LM IB site, every archaeological site
concerning the movement of the Gasgas may be listed as well as support for
the Joshua Impact Event. As for our witness Idrimi Ilimi-Ilimma, the
University of Chicago's Oriental Institute has just re-started their
research into his homeland in Northern Syria, and those who are still
blessed may want to consider a tax-deductable donation to the Oriental
Institute's Amuq (Mukishe) Valley Survey project.

All of this brings us to Johansson's note on the Gebal Barkal monument in
Syria, an inscription whose contents I was earlier unaware of. While I don't
have a definitive copy of the Gebal Barkal inscription at hand (though
available either in Baltimore or Chicago, I don't feel like driving today),
one part of it is available via the internet:

"It was not known that you might learn/witness the miracle of [Amun-Re]
before the face of all the Two Lands (Egypt). [It was evening, when the
enemy troops came near]. [The guards] were about to come to meet in the
night to make the regular (change of) watch. THERE WERE TWO HOUR-WATCHERS;
THEN A STAR CAME FROM THE SOUTH OF THEM. THE LIKE HAD NEVER HAPPENED. IT
BEAMED TOWARDS THEM FROM ITS POSITION. NOT ONE REMAINED STANDING THERE"
(Younger, 217).

When dealing with this particular text it is important to keep in mind that
the restorations of it set out in brackets need to be handled with extreme
caution, if not re-done entirely, particularly the statements about "[enemy
troops coming near]". Astour places the invasion of Thutmose I against the
Hurrians, (who the Egyptians conveniently refer to as the people of
Mitani-Naharina, as if things weren't already confusing enough), as occurring
at the same time as Hantilish's reign as King of the Hittites. Astour's
chronology for the Egyption kings of this period yields Thutmose I from
1589-1576 BCE, Thutmose II from 1576-1568 BCE, Hateshput 1567-1546 BCE, and
Thutmose III 1568 (co-reign)- 1514 BCE, when adjusted by 64 years to the
Middle Chronology. Reignal year three for Thutmose I thus becomes 1586 BCE.

Thutmose I attacked Za'una and Niya, cities which had been taken by Idrimi,
and this most likely is one of the attacks Idrimi referred to in his
testament. Thus what appears to have happened is that Thutmose I saw the
impact, heard of the Hittite defeat, and realized it would be a good time to
re-assert Egyptian control of the North Syrian coastal ports.

For another separate and distinct biblical account of the "hapiru"
(Israelite)/Aleppan alliance, see Judges Chapters 1-3, wherin as an attempt
at reconciling the two different text sets the scribe gave Joshua the
impossible lifespan of some 110 years. More to the point is that immediately
after Joshua's conquests in Judges Chapter 2, the Israelites are visited
with destruction due to their alliance with the followers of Astarte and
Ba'al, the patron's of Alala. In other words Thutmose I invades, and some
40 years later, the Children of Ammon, in other words the Children of Amon
Ra, the Egyptians, attack Israel again under while under the rule of
Thutmose III (Judges 3:11-13).

In conclusion, we now have some six sets of documents referring to events at
the time of the Joshua Impact Event. If the Gebal Barbuk Inscription holds
up under scrutiny, it will be the seventh document and the second
contemporaneous account of the Joshus Impact Event which we will have. If
might be useful if Sorrenson could e-mail the Conference the full text of
the inscription and if it was posted to the Conference archives.

...

What is this leading to? Goran will probably want to read Karen Reiter's
book "Die Metalle im Alten Orient", which I also mentioned in an earlier
post to the Conference. To re-cap, Reiter includes ancient iron as part of
her study of metals (Eisen, pages 344-399), and if it has to do with ancient
iron, which was nearly all meteoritic before about 1300 BCE, if its not in
there, then there is a reference to it there.

Reiter reaches the same conclusion that Ted and his colleague James Muhly of
the University of Pennsylvania reached so many years ago in their
compendium, "The Coming of the Age of Iron": There is a dramatic increase in
the supply of iron shortly after 1600 BCE, several hundred years before
smelted iron came into use; nearly all of this iron is meteoritic, and the
price of iron in terms of gold and silver dropped markedly.

Now for my part. Clearly this iron did not appear by magic, and it seems
most likely to me that the "great stones" of the Joshua/T'e
Hantilish/Tantalus impact event of ca. 1584 BCE were iron. Of course
barring the recovery of iron meteorites from the impact site itself, this
will only remain a hypothesis. This is the only information which will
allow a determination to be made whether the reference in Joshua to "hail
stones" is a later scribal correction, or a description of contemporaneous
atmospheric phenomenon.

EP

Again, EP, and not to belabor the point, but modern archaeology dismisses these tales of Israelites in Egypt. The current theory backed by artifacts is that "Israel" and "Judah" arose independently in the eastern hill country around 1,200 BC probably in the aftermath of Sea People assaults and general economic collapse.

There seems to be a lot of doubt about Hittite chronology except where it comes into contact with Egypt. Ahmose I is fairly consistently dated to the period between 1550 and 1525 BC.

"with the weapon of Nergal"

That's pretty thin. The "Spear of Longinus" was said to have magical properties too. And "Excalibur."

Minimalist wrote:

"with the weapon of Nergal"

That's pretty thin. The "Spear of Longinus" was said to have magical properties too. And "Excalibur."

min, the ancient peoples they had no idea of orbital mechanics, nor of space, nor did not use the modern scientific words "asteroid" and "comet". Frankly, they were terrified of them, because of their experiences of impact. All sorts of magical rites were employed to deal with the hazard, and the sky gods are a universal mythological feature across all of planet Earth.

I want to thank you for letting me recount over the last several days some of my earlier work, work which which I am no longer able to do, but which part of my brain remembers, with the aid of the internet.

I never made it to the Oriental Institutes's library after my stroke, and likely never will. Finest collection of ancient Near Eastern materials in the world. It would be pointless now.

I really can not discuss OT document sources with you now in detail, other then to express my earlier opinion that they were written, and that some of them were pretty accurately transmitted. In any case, they are secondary materials, not contemporary records.

My ambitions now extend to getting "Man and Impact in the Americas" circulated, and hoping that perhaps some publisher will pick it up, one with copy editors, graphics artists, and production and distribution. I could then correct mistakes in it, and perhaps be able to add materials from the mide of the Three Fires. I know that you think that it has too much "myth", but please keep in mind that tribal histories were much different than other materials in the First Peoples' oral corpus, and were handled and preserved in a far different manner.

I get that but ancient writings...especially where we are not completely sure of our translations, are rather like a Rohrshact test in that anyone can see whatever they wish to see in them.

Minimalist wrote:I get that but ancient writings...especially where we are not completely sure of our translations, are rather like a Rohrshact test in that anyone can see whatever they wish to see in them.

No question that Imaginary translations have been done. And no question that imaginary histories have been written as well.

One of the nice things about impact events is that you have hard geological data to work with.
Also seen in ice cores, and tree rings.

No, I'm not confusing Hittite and Hurrian, just noting Bjarte Kadhols' suggestions on a possible Linear A/Hurrian relationship. And of course, Brown's identification of Linear A as Lycian may be accepted as proved.

Linear A, of course, has NOT been identified to any specific language family, let alone to a specific language. But, if it had been identified as Lycian, then that would negate the suggestion from Kaldhol of a possible relationship to Hurrian, since Hurrian and Lycian are not related in any way. Kaldhol does favor a connection between Linear A and Hurrian. However, in Kaldhol’s own words in the following excerpt from a list serve conversation, the suggestion of a relationship between Lycian and Linear A (or AB - shared A and B symbols) is “absurd.”

http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/m031.htm

My comment: I can think of words in many languages that would explain the Linear AB acrophonogram KA, for example the Hurrian kakkare (a round bread; compare the many Minoan words ending in -are). To look for Indo-European (and even Greek!) parallels will lead us astray, since what (little) we know about Minoan Linear A, indicates that the language is very different from IE. To compare Lycian and Minoan Linear A is absurd, because Lycian as we know it, is more than a thousand years younger than Minoan (and so is Latin). When the Cretan scripts developed at the beginning of the second millennium BC, the speakers of IE Anatolian languages had barely arrived in Anatolia. Lycian inscriptions are known from 500-200 BC. Lycian did not exist when Linear A developed. It decended from a western Luwian/Luvian dialect, and as far as I can see, not even Luwian, which is closer to Linear A in time, can be related to Minoan Linear A. (If there were a relationship, it would have been fairly easy to demonstrate, and one would have expected that the several hundred Minoan names known from Linear A tablets would have been similar to Luwian and Hittite names. Also, as far as we know, there was almost no contact between the Minoans and their Anatolian neighbours in the form of written correspondence. If the Minoans were related to the Hittites and the Luwians, wouldn't we have expected frequent diplomatic exchanges? Have any Hittite letters ever been found on Crete? Is Minoan Crete ever mentioned in Hittite sources?)

Hurrian, by the way, is probably not a Caucasian language. It originated in eastern Anatolia and the northern Tigris area.

Best wishes,
Bjarte Kaldhol