Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Trojan War


The Puzzler

Recommended Posts

Rianns idea is certainly interesting but personally, since starting this thread I'm of the opinion Troy is where it's now generally placed in Western Turkey.

What I do find odd is the same time as the arrival of the Sea People and the collapse of the Hittite empire is the timeframe of the Trojan War.

After 1180 BC, amid general turmoil in the Levant associated with the sudden arrival of the Sea Peoples, the kingdom disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until as late as the 8th century BC

Seems a little strange this huge Trojan War event occurred at the same time yet we don't necessarily connect the downfall of Hattusus with the downfall of Troy at the same time - nor is there any story of the sacking of Hattusas, strange too, such a large empire with not a speck of myth about it's end.

Then I ask myself, so where did Homer get this story from anyway?

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But how would they know the statues were of Amenhotep III? The Greeks couldn't read hieroglyphs. So the association of Memnon with the South makes a logical reason to connect the statues with him. But it wasn't the only connection made. Pausanias says this (1.41.3):

"This made me marvel, but the colossus in Egypt made me marvel far more than anything else. In Egyptian Thebes, on crossing the Nile to the so called Pipes, I saw a statue, still sitting, which gave out a sound. The many call it Memnon, who they say from Aethiopia overran Egypt and as far as Susa. The Thebans, however, say that it is a statue, not of Memnon, but of a native named Phamenoph, and I have heard some say that it is Sesostris. This statue was broken in two by Cambyses, and at the present day from head to middle it is thrown down; but the rest is seated, and every day at the rising of the sun it makes a noise, and the sound one could best liken to that of a harp or lyre when a string has been broken."

Thanks again for your detailed response! In my book I show that some legends about Amenhotep III were mistakenly attributed to the legendary king Sesostris. That 'some said the statues were not of Memnon but of Sesostris' would support this hypothesis.

I'm not sure why you're making that equation. Herodotus is linking the Colossi with Sesostris, which would make him Amenhotep III, and thus Pheros would be Akhenaten, and Proteus would be Tutankamun.

But we know from Herodotus' descriptions of these kings that he's clearly way off the mark about them, and the names he gives can't be linked to any known pharaohs. Manetho gives the name Sesostris to a 12th dynasty figure, but that's clearly not the same as the guy Herodotus is describing. Proteus, as we've seen, is clearly an adaptation of the Old Man of the Sea. Pheros, then, we can suggest either comes from the word "pharaoh" or perhaps from "pharos," the island on which the Proteus is said to dwell.

In my book I show that the legendary king Sesostris was not Senusret, who has a name phonetically similar to 'Sesostris', but in fact Tuthmosis III. This identification is based on the interpretation of the name Sesostris from Greek as Se (you) sos (yours) and tris (the third). Tuthmosis III, the third ruler of the Tuthmosid dynasty, was known to deport entire peoples to Egypt as a work force, hence the description. That Sesostris should be translated from the Greek in this manner is further suggested by two variants of the name, Sesoösis (Se-sou-hosos) and Sesonchosis (Se-sun-choos-sos), which respectively can be interpreted as "You and everything that is yours" and "You with the heap of what is yours". These names are fitting descriptions of how Tuthmosis III conducted his affairs. I also show that numerous other accounts of the exploits of Sesostris match those of Tuthmosis III. This includes a naval campaign of Sesostris which had to turn back when the fleet reached a sea too shallow for his vesels. He subsequently marched over land to achieve his goal. The navy of Tuthmosis III sailed to Byblos, where its carpenters built a series of flat-pack boats. These were loaded in pieces onto carts and transported with the army to the Euphrates, where the boats were assembled. Tuthmosis' army could then cross the river and defeat the Mitannians. The Sesostris legend in all likelihood was based on this event.

I'm using Greek, of course. "Memnon" comes from the verb "meno" meaning "to stay, wait"; the specific form coming from a poetic reduplication. (from the LSJ) The usual translation of Memnon is thus "the steadfast" and Agamemnon would be "the very steadfast."

Note that your previous post stated "In the Greek legend Aga-memnon, meaning 'Monument for the leader' and Memnon ('leader') are opponents", so you've switched around the meanings from what you propose here. Another problem with your proposal is that mnemeion fails to explain the form of his name. Memnon is an active participle, which gives the -ōn ending, but the word mnemeion has an omicron, not an omega as you've indicated.

I have no background whatsoever in ancient languages and what I have translated comes almost without exception from Strong's Greek phonetic lexicon. I cannot comment on the various forms of the words, but phonetically Memnon seems to be a slightly distorted version of the Greek word mnemeion, much more so than of memo.

There are some difficulties here. Scholars struggle to find a convincing etymology for Priamos in Greek, and usually turn to other Anatolian languages, such as Luwian or Lydian, since the Trojans are not Greeks. But your proposal is difficult for me. Firstly I can't find "preo" in the LSJ at all, and googling it only led me to Strong's, which suggested it as a hypothetical word. I did find two similar words, though: pretho, meaning "to blow out, to swell out by blowing", and pepreso, "to burn with fever". In either case, though, you would need more letters than just "pr" to preserve the meaning.

For Paris, I failed to find "ios" in LSJ with that meaning, but Autenreith had it meaning "arrow", and I noted your definition in Strong's. This suggests that "ios" meaning "poison" is exclusive to Koine, which means it's far too late to apply to the name of Paris. I did find a folk etymology that Paris comes from "parienai" meaning "to pass by, escape" because he survived exposure as an infant. Autenreith, however, suggests Paris means "fighter," perhaps analogous to his other name Alexander, "defender of men". And there is actually evidence from Hittite records that the city of Wilusa (= Ilion) has a ruler named Alaksandu, who could have inspired the legendary prince.

For Menolaos, "laos" is certainly correct, but the more obvious etymology for "mene" is the previously mentioned verb "meno", which yields the translation "Abiding-Men" (LSJ).

As I acknowledged above, I based my translations on Strong's. In virtually all cases the names appear to have become distorted versions of the original Greek wording.

I still see difficulties. We know that the Mycenaean Greek civilization flourished for centuries after the eruption of Thera before being ended by invasion of the "Sea Peoples". And when the Greeks rebounded and emerged from the Dark Ages in the 8th century, Homer clearly demonstrates a remembrance of Mycenaean culture, and indeed demonstrates that he is composing poems in the context of an extensive body of tales surrounding the destruction of Troy. But the Greeks were not in contact with Egypt during the Dark Ages, so when the Orientalizing period starts in the 8th century and the Greeks again had contact with Egypt and the Near east, they already had the Trojan tradition. So it's very difficult to fit an Egyptian origin of the legends into the known historical sequence.

In my view the key question that should be answered is why there are any links between the Troy legend and Egypt at all. We know that Memnon travelled all the way to Troy in Anatolia to assist Priam against Agamemnon (somewhat of an absurdity by itself, due to the distance his army would have had to travel). The ancient writers must quite logically have concluded that Memnon had travelled through Egypt to reach Troy, and for some reason the colossi of Amenhotep III became the colossi of Memnon. Helen supposedly was in in Egypt during the entire siege of Troy. Why these links back to Egypt, when there should not have been any at all?

Other points. Is it not rather odd that two of the principal characters in the legend of Troy had rather peculiar, near identical names, Aga-Memnon and Memnon? According to Manetho there was indeed an Ethiopian king who came to the assistance of a foreign king - the king of Ethiopia allowed Amenhotep III to move into his country and remain there for 13 years (Josephus, Against Apion I.26, 246-247).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come late to the party but would like to weigh in. The bottom line in research is one's sources. Writers of Classical and Hellenistic times and Late Antiquity can provide important information but are rarely reliable as primary sources for historical events which occurred outside the writer's immediate culture and heritage—and this is especially true when the events occurred a great length of time before the writer lived, which in turn can affect the veracity of events he recorded within the distant history of his own people. Manetho is a perfect example. His accounts are problematic for many reasons. ...

Hi kmt, thanks for your detailed response! As you have indicated in several of our debates on other topics, you and presumably the majority of scholars do not have much faith in Manetho's work, even suggesting that Josephus had used 'literary license' when quoting Manetho's work. From Josephus' indignant tone, however, one can conclude that he is quoting verbatim what Manetho was saying.

I have to wonder to what extent you've explored the professional Egyptological literature about the Amarna Period and the periods immediately framing it. Authors such as Aldred, Redford, Dodson, and Kemp paint a much clearer and more reliable picture of this pharaonic time period than ancient Greek writers were capable of doing. The conclusions of modern researchers derive from the abundant archaeological and textual record and incorporate details and information to which ancient writers had no access and which they probably would not have understood in the first place. For example, there was no rebellion before, during, or after the Amarna Period, aside from interesting court intrigue. There was no overthrow of government, nor is there any evidence that a pharaoh of this time fled Egypt. The closest one comes to rebellion is Akhenaten's upset of the orthodox cultural and religious order, although Amunhotep III was almost certainly dead by the time this was really taking off.

It is simply impossible to read through all the scholarly articles and publications on these issues. However, what I have gathered so far is that not all scholars agree on how archaeological and textual evidence from ancient Egyptian history should be interpreted. Manetho's history of Egypt spans a wide era and may contain inaccuracies, but his version of the Exodus events appears to be on target. He names the pharaoh of the Exodus as Amenhotep III, and asserts that Amenhotep had to retreat into Ethiopia where he remained for 13 years. That Amenhotep III had been present in Ethiopa for an extended period of time is attested by the numerous monuments erected in his honour in that country. Several aspects of Manethos' account are corroborated by the El Arish Shrine text (details in my book - I am busy writing an article on the EL Arish link which I will post on my website for clarification). So why should we reject Manetho's account?

Akhenaten reigned for around seventeen years. This is clear. There were no widespread military actions in his reign, although he seems to have been compelled to quell uprisings in the Levant. Campaigns conducted in Nubia were few to none. Akhenaten sequestered himself in his purpose-built city of Akhetaten by or in year five of his reign, and for all intents and purposes never left his city again. This was at his own behest—no one forced him to do it. There is no evidence for fortifications at Akhetaten, nor for invasions or battles anywhere in the vicinity. This was one of the problems that plagued his reign and marked him as basically an ineffectual king, which is borne out in the many details of the Amarna Letters.

Perhaps the clearest indication of a revolution during the Amarna era is the complete state of devastation in Egypt as described in Tutankhamun's Restoration Stele. The country effectively was in ruins, exactly as described by Manetho.

These two statues flanked the entrance pylon to Amunhotep III's mortuary temple in Western Thebes. At no point did the Egyptians of his time or at any time in the following reigns call these two statues "Memnon." That name does not seem to appear in the historical record until late in the first century BCE—over 1,300 years after the life of Amunhotep III. It was not the Egyptians who associated the statues with the mythical figure of Memnon but the Greeks, or possibly the Romans through cross-cultural Greek transference. For that matter there is no evidence in the extant pharaonic textual record for an Ethiopian king named Memnon.

I agree. What I am suggesting is that the Greeks based the legend of Troy on what Greeks residing at Akhetaten experienced.

While this is certainly true, you would need to present evidence to make your version of events stand up to careful review. You've spun an interesting tale, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you must be able to substantiate its details in a manner that would survive peer-review if you want it to be more than a story. This begins by divorcing yourself from a heavy reliance on Classical writers and delving deeply into the archaeological record and the literature produced from its analyses.

When independent classical sources tell the same story, I am inclined to think that there may just be an element of truth in them. In the case of my 'Helen = Nefertiti' hypothesis I will gladly concede that I have no hard evidence to present - only the the deductive arguments presented above. Helen of Troy is but a brief digression in terms of the Exodus. As for the rest of the book, I attempt to show that many previously isolated legends and historical accounts can be used to build a solid circumstantial evidence case for what actually happened during the Exodus.

"Memnon" means "to stand fast."

That is the modern interpretation, evidently from the Greek word 'meno' (see Everdred above).

But in your earlier post you did state that a town or city named Troy existed on the Nile. I don't know of any such-named town or city in ancient Egypt.

A village called Troy, Chapter 13 in my book, references 105-107:

105. Troy – The World Deceived (Lascelles), pp. 170-171.

106. Diodorus, Library of History (Oldfather), 1.56.4.

107. Strabo Geography (Jones), 17.1.34.

All I will say here is that there's no evidence for a familial relationship between Ay and Amunhotep III. While Ay might have been the father of Nefertiti (emphasis on "might," because it's far from clear), Ay himself was not of royal blood.

Such a relationship has been suggested - see for instance The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (Dodson & Hilton). If he was indeed a son of Yuya, he would have been the brother-in-law of Amenhotep III.

... than likely numerous different factors were at play. It certainly had nothing to do with the eruption at Thera, which had occurred some four hundred years earlier. In fact, it was the Thera event that probably spelled the beginning of the end for the Minoan thalassocracy, which was the only reason the Mycenaeans were able to rise up and supplant them. This was not a dark age for the ancient Greeks but a sort of golden age. It's what led to the great Mycenaean fortresses and their hegemony of the northern Aegean.

I discuss the dating of the eruption of Thera in my book and indicate that there were two main eruptions that had occurred, the first during the reign of Ahmose and the second during the reign of Amenhotep III.

None of this is recorded in Egypt. No inscription or text mentions it. All we can glean from the Egyptian records is the successes of Merneptah (Dynasty 19) and Ramesses III (Dynasty 20) in driving back the Libyans and their Sea Peoples allies. While the Egyptian record is replete with the listings of names of foreign kingdoms and polities, actual historical accounts are almost always limited to events in Egypt. This is because the Egyptians did not care a whit for people beyond their own borders.

The Tempest Stele of Ahmose mentions darkness on the western horizon and water all over Egypt - an indication that Thera had erupted and blocked the sun in the west, and that its tsunami had flooded large parts of Egypt. Nobody was able to light a torch anywhere - matching the darkness that covered Egypt following the second eruption during the reign of Akhenaten.

I suggest you dig deep into the reign of Amunhotep III. He definitely did not initiate a rebellion. He was one of the most powerful kings of Egyptian history, which is why he is often referred to as Amunhotep the Magnificent. It was not Amunhotep III's fault that his son Akhenaten mucked things up, and only because crown prince Tuthmose died so young. Why would one of the wealthiest kings of pharaonic history cause a rebellion? The fact is, the time of Amunhotep's reign is marked by stability and prosperity, possible plague events aside (plague events occurred throughout pharaonic times). What's obvious in the time of Amunhotep III is that very little military action of any kind was carried out because his predecessors on the throne had already secured a vast empire that was well under the control of the Egyptian state. This hegemony of the Near East was begun by Ahmose I, solidified by Tutmosis III, and did not start to falter until the reign of Akhenaten.

Manetho relates that Amenhotep III was advised by his sacred scribe to expel the 'polluted people' from his country - various other ancient accounts of the exodus directly or indirectly confirm this link between Amenhotep and his scribe. In my book I show that the scribe ultimately advised Amenhotep to sacrifice in fires all the firstborn in Egypt in order to pacify the gods. When the sacrifice failed, a large portion of the Egyptian population rebelled against Amenhotep and the priesthood of Amun. This was the reason why Egypt rejected Amun and the other gods, ultimately in favour of the Aten.

There is no concrete proof that crown prince Tuthmose had died young. He just vanished from the scene. With Maentho's identification of Amenhotep III as the pharaoh of the Exodus, Moses would have been his firstborn son (according to some legends). That would make Moses and crown prince Tuthmose one and the same person. In the El Arsihh text it is the king Shu's son Geb who sent messengers to the Asiatics in their land, summoning them to him, matching Manetho's Moses who sent messengers to the shepherds in Jerusalem, summoning them to him. In other words, Moses was the king's son.

According to Artapanus,

"…having given the name Apis to a bull, commanded the troops to found a temple for him, and bade them bring and bury there the animals which had been consecrated by Moses, because he wished to bury the inventions of Moses in oblivion."

The burial of the first Apis bull was performed at a cemetery in Saqqara during the reign of Amenhotep III. Artapanus’ record therefore not only links both names to Amenhotep III, but also confirms that Moses, by whom the Apis bull was consecrated, was indeed Prince Tuthmosis, who as high priest of Ptah assisted his father during the burial ceremony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no background whatsoever in ancient languages and what I have translated comes almost without exception from Strong's Greek phonetic lexicon. I cannot comment on the various forms of the words, but phonetically Memnon seems to be a slightly distorted version of the Greek word mnemeion, much more so than of memo.

As I acknowledged above, I based my translations on Strong's. In virtually all cases the names appear to have become distorted versions of the original Greek wording.

It's important to consider more than just phonetics--sounds have meanings. Mnhmeion (using h to represent eta as opposed to e for epsilon) can be broken down into the following morphemes:

- "mn(a)" = "to remember" - the verbal stem

- "m(e)" = an infix to form a noun from the verbal stem

- "i" = an infix, possibly a diminutive

- "on" = neuter gender noun ending

And all that together gives us the meaning of a remembrance or memorial. But to get from there to Memnwn (w for omega as opposed to o for omicron) means we have to switch around the first two morphemes and shorten the vowel, drop the third morpheme, and lengthen the vowel of the fourth morpheme. But if Memnwn comes from the active participle of the verb menw, which is menwn, all we have to do is reduplicate the initial sound. And the reason scholars like that explanation is because we find other examples of that reduplication of the m in menw in Homer and other authors.

Also I do recommend using the LSJ over Strong's. It is available freely online in a few different implementations. Perhaps the best is found here: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lsj

In my view the key question that should be answered is why there are any links between the Troy legend and Egypt at all. We know that Memnon travelled all the way to Troy in Anatolia to assist Priam against Agamemnon (somewhat of an absurdity by itself, due to the distance his army would have had to travel). The ancient writers must quite logically have concluded that Memnon had travelled through Egypt to reach Troy, and for some reason the colossi of Amenhotep III became the colossi of Memnon. Helen supposedly was in in Egypt during the entire siege of Troy. Why these links back to Egypt, when there should not have been any at all?

Other points. Is it not rather odd that two of the principal characters in the legend of Troy had rather peculiar, near identical names, Aga-Memnon and Memnon? According to Manetho there was indeed an Ethiopian king who came to the assistance of a foreign king - the king of Ethiopia allowed Amenhotep III to move into his country and remain there for 13 years (Josephus, Against Apion I.26, 246-247).

Egypt is there because it is a foreign place (and one that was popular with the Greeks) and adds color to the story. There are plenty of other foreign places that are part of the Trojan legends. Consider Odysseus' adventure all around the Mediterranean. Or Aeneas' flight to Italy (which was later seized upon by Virgil for his famous epic). There's nothing peculiar about links to any country--the Greeks are well-traveled people with colonies and trade contacts all over the Mediterranean.

Also it should be noted that Memnon is not at all a principal character in the legend. He shows up right at the end of the war, feasts, and dies. He gets just one book of the Posthomerica. Nor is the similarity of name odd. Memnwn, as discussed, means "steadfast"--a brave warrior who stands tall in battle. So it's not surprising that two heroes renowned for their prowess in battle have such names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rianns idea is certainly interesting but personally, since starting this thread I'm of the opinion Troy is where it's now generally placed in Western Turkey.

What I do find odd is the same time as the arrival of the Sea People and the collapse of the Hittite empire is the timeframe of the Trojan War.

After 1180 BC, amid general turmoil in the Levant associated with the sudden arrival of the Sea Peoples, the kingdom disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until as late as the 8th century BC

Seems a little strange this huge Trojan War event occurred at the same time yet we don't necessarily connect the downfall of Hattusus with the downfall of Troy at the same time - nor is there any story of the sacking of Hattusas, strange too, such a large empire with not a speck of myth about it's end.

Then I ask myself, so where did Homer get this story from anyway?

The destruction of Troy certainly seems to be part of the larger Bronze Age collapse--it may even have been part of the Hittite Empire at the time of its destruction. If we do accept that the destruction of Troy VII is the source of Homer's tales, and given that it occurs at roughly the same time as the destruction of the Mycenaean civilization, perhaps we have here a tale of the beginnings of the Sea Peoples. There is certainly good evidence that at least some of the Sea Peoples were Mycenaeans, and some scholars suggest that the names of some of the peoples mentioned in Egyptian records match Homer's various terms for Greeks.

It's definitely an interesting thought that the legends of Troy might preserve some faint remembrance of the events that destroyed many nations around the Mediterranean, though there will probably never be enough evidence to prove or disprove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear what you are saying.

If the area was a strategic enough area to be taken to control the Black Sea you would think they would immediately utilise that so the area doesn't seem to really have any original idea of taking it for trade.

See, I hear that alot, they took it for trade and to control the Black Sea....but like, what trade, where? I never see them doing this.

If they used it for trade afterwards, all well and good but it seems to contradict the idea they actually TOOK it for trade.

I agree it seems no plan was made in advance so that is why I doubt that it might even be in that area as it was not really the original idea.

The trade from the east is the valuable trade of all ancient history. Spice, silk, etc.

I don't think they HELD Troy. That was the end of them, basically, bronze age collapse after that.

Ultimately it seems that they overtended themselves in Troy, it was their Vietnam or Afghanistan and ultimately drained them dry and helped set them up for very swift obliteration. That's what the tale is all about, what I got from it immediately.

Why people doubt it even happened is the huge mystery to me, it seems the whole tale IS the tale of how the mycenae greek civilization fell apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The destruction of Troy certainly seems to be part of the larger Bronze Age collapse--it may even have been part of the Hittite Empire at the time of its destruction. If we do accept that the destruction of Troy VII is the source of Homer's tales, and given that it occurs at roughly the same time as the destruction of the Mycenaean civilization, perhaps we have here a tale of the beginnings of the Sea Peoples. There is certainly good evidence that at least some of the Sea Peoples were Mycenaeans, and some scholars suggest that the names of some of the peoples mentioned in Egyptian records match Homer's various terms for Greeks.

It's definitely an interesting thought that the legends of Troy might preserve some faint remembrance of the events that destroyed many nations around the Mediterranean, though there will probably never be enough evidence to prove or disprove it.

Does anyone know how high above sea level Troy is located? If low enough, the city could have been destroyed by Thera's tsunami. The tsunami would also have rushed up a continuous upward slope. I could not find any decent topographical maps of ancient Troy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how high above sea level Troy is located? If low enough, the city could have been destroyed by Thera's tsunami. The tsunami would also have rushed up a continuous upward slope. I could not find any decent topographical maps of ancient Troy.

Approximately 100 to 120 feet above sea level.

Not unless it was destroyed 400+ years earlier. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, there's only evidence of one eruption of Thera in the 2nd millenium BC. That eruption dates to c.1613 +/- 10 BC.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Approximately 100 to 120 feet above sea level.

Not unless it was destroyed 400+ years earlier. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, there's only evidence of one eruption of Thera in the 2nd millenium BC. That eruption dates to c.1613 +/- 10 BC.

cormac

From my book - the photograph below shows 'reworked' volcanic ash found at Crete, in the words of Bruins et al: "The volcanic ash was evidently reworked by the tsunami and redeposited with the other multimodal components of the non-sorted sediment ... the tsunami came after the deposition over eastern Crete of airborne volcanic ash, but before the ash layer became dispersed by erosion and soil-biological mixing."

However, from the photograph it is clear that the lumps of Santorini ash had long been solidified before being broken into pieces. In other words, the lumps of solidified from the first eruption were 'reworked' by the tsunami of the second eruption.

Santorini_Ash_On_Crete.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my book - the photograph below shows 'reworked' volcanic ash found at Crete, in the words of Bruins et al: "The volcanic ash was evidently reworked by the tsunami and redeposited with the other multimodal components of the non-sorted sediment ... the tsunami came after the deposition over eastern Crete of airborne volcanic ash, but before the ash layer became dispersed by erosion and soil-biological mixing."

However, from the photograph it is clear that the lumps of Santorini ash had long been solidified before being broken into pieces. In other words, the lumps of solidified from the first eruption were 'reworked' by the tsunami of the second eruption.

Santorini_Ash_On_Crete.jpg

The main difference between 14C dating and archaeology can perhaps be summarized in the following way: Although the 14C clock is based on a well-established physical law (radioactive decay), which is not affected by environmental conditions, it requires detailed knowledge of the starting conditions, i.e. the 14C content of the sample before the clock starts running. Despite extensive efforts to establish global starting conditions for the time range of 14C dating (Reimer et al. 2009), there sometimes remains the question of possible deviations from the calibration curve by regional effects. Although it seems unlikely that the 120-yr shift of Tell el-Daba can be explained by such a regional effect, on the basis of the current 14C results it cannot be definitely excluded.

Archaeological dating, on the other hand, depends primarily on the seriation of pottery obtained from well-dated assemblages and the seriation at the site, where the changing market situation in specific phases is evaluated by the quantification of ceramic or metal types that occur in the same time context in repetitive proportions. In addition, dates can be determined by inscribed material such as names of pharaohs that are used as termini post quos. In lucky circumstances, one has datum lines like the 5th year of Sesostris III (the construction of the Temple of Ezbet Rushdi, beginning of Phase K) or the conquest of Avaris (end of phase D/2) at Tell el-Daba. Cross-dates with other betterdated contexts of the same type also play an important role.

http://www.academia...._U._Weninger_F.

Which means, in short, that the C14 dating is more objective while the archaeological dating is more subjective. All of which further means that at this point in time the two methods cannot be reconciled.

Edit to add:

post-74391-0-83042700-1362432745_thumb.j

The circled portions and dates are what's relevant to the discussion. Your un-calibrated dates are meaningless in this regard.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.academia...._U._Weninger_F.

Which means, in short, that the C14 dating is more objective while the archaeological dating is more subjective. All of which further means that at this point in time the two methods cannot be reconciled.

Edit to add:

post-74391-0-83042700-1362432745_thumb.j

The circled portions and dates are what's relevant to the discussion. Your un-calibrated dates are meaningless in this regard.

cormac

Perhaps you should take this issue up with Bruins and his colleagues. The photograph shows evidence of two eruptions - solidified ash crushed by a later tsunami. Are there any Egyptian records from 1613 BCE which suggest that a massive volcanic eruption had occurred in the Mediterranean Sea? Surely its impact on that part of the world would have been recorded. There are none, as far as I am aware. The Hyksos were in charge in Lower Egypt only. Also no records there.

Edited by Riaan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should take this issue up with Bruins and his colleagues. The photograph shows evidence of two eruptions - solidified ash crushed by a later tsunami. Are there any Egyptian records from 1613 BCE which suggest that a massive volcanic eruption had occurred in the Mediterranean Sea? Surely its impact on that part of the world would have been recorded. There are none, as far as I am aware. The Hyksos were in charge in Lower Egypt only. Also no records there.

I don't have to take anything up with Bruins. As it stands right now the link I gave to the article "THE CHRONOLOGY OF TELL EL-DABA: A CRUCIAL MEETING POINT OF 14C DATING, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND EGYPTOLOGY IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM BC (2012)" is the latest view on the subject and it clearly states the two chronologies cannot be reconciled currently. This does not mean you can rewrite the facts to suit your fancy.

And as we've been through before in the "Visibility of Thera's ash cloud from Egypt" thread a year ago there's no way the Thera plume, based on it's understood direction and height, could have been seen from Egypt which was some 533+ miles away. Again, your attempting to requite the facts.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't have to take anything up with Bruins. As it stands right now the link I gave to the article "THE CHRONOLOGY OF TELL EL-DABA: A CRUCIAL MEETING POINT OF 14C DATING, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND EGYPTOLOGY IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM BC (2012)" is the latest view on the subject and it clearly states the two chronologies cannot be reconciled currently. This does not mean you can rewrite the facts to suit your fancy.

And as we've been through before in the "Visibility of Thera's ash cloud from Egypt" thread a year ago there's no way the Thera plume, based on it's understood direction and height, could have been seen from Egypt which was some 533+ miles away. Again, your attempting to requite the facts.

cormac

Thanks for the very useful link! I am not sure what you are trying to prove by quoting it - all it does is confirms that there are as yet unresolved discrepancies between 14C dating and archaeology, both being well established methods (I read the article). In the end both have to agree, suggesting that one method is less accurate than the other, don't you think?

I have to return to the photograph - it shows solidified ash from Thera mingled with other tsunami deposited debris. Bruins and his colleagues argue:

"Therefore, in terms of environmental geological dating, the tsunami came after the deposition over eastern Crete of airborne volcanic ash, but before the ash layer became dispersed by erosion and soil-biological mixing. A tsunami generated in the 3rd or 4th (last) eruption phase, as found on Thera, meets the above requirement and fits the presence of discrete volcanic ash in the tsunami deposits at Palaikastro…"

How long would it take volcanic ash to become solid rock? A couple of days? How much time lapsed between the various eruption phases? A much more logical explanation would be that the volcanic ash rocks shown in the photograph were formed a very long time before a second eruption, which caused the tsunami.

How else would you interpret the photograph?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the very useful link! I am not sure what you are trying to prove by quoting it - all it does is confirms that there are as yet unresolved discrepancies between 14C dating and archaeology, both being well established methods (I read the article). In the end both have to agree, suggesting that one method is less accurate than the other, don't you think?

I have to return to the photograph - it shows solidified ash from Thera mingled with other tsunami deposited debris. Bruins and his colleagues argue:

"Therefore, in terms of environmental geological dating, the tsunami came after the deposition over eastern Crete of airborne volcanic ash, but before the ash layer became dispersed by erosion and soil-biological mixing. A tsunami generated in the 3rd or 4th (last) eruption phase, as found on Thera, meets the above requirement and fits the presence of discrete volcanic ash in the tsunami deposits at Palaikastro…"

How long would it take volcanic ash to become solid rock? A couple of days? How much time lapsed between the various eruption phases? A much more logical explanation would be that the volcanic ash rocks shown in the photograph were formed a very long time before a second eruption, which caused the tsunami.

How else would you interpret the photograph?

I'd agree. And since the Calibrated Dates that I circled earlier are the dates that are important to the conversation and not the uncalibrated ones, as can be seen they support the 1613 BC timeframe and not your later one. Since the Archaeological Dating method relies on the types and usage of pottery then it would appear, IMO, that said types may have been utilized for a longer period overall than is currently believed. Which again means you cannot cram the two timeframes together and claim they're one and the same.

Volcanic ash can stay airborne for days, weeks and potentially even several months at a time. Also, you're assuming the tsunami was caused by Thera when it's just as possible to have been a result of the eruptions of either Mt. Etna or Mt. Vesuvius, both of which erupted c.1550 BC.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volcanic ash can stay airborne for days, weeks and potentially even several months at a time.

Whichever way you look at it, the lumps of solid ash existed before the tsunami arrived. Had there been just one eruption, the tsunami would have come first and would long have subsided by the time the ash arrived. There would not have been any ash present in the tsunami deposits, only on top of it.

Also, you're assuming the tsunami was caused by Thera when it's just as possible to have been a result of the eruptions of either Mt. Etna or Mt. Vesuvius, both of which erupted c.1550 BC.

This is an assumption made by Bruins and others. Attempting to associate the tsunami with an eruption of Mt Etna may be stretching things a bit - it does not erupt that violently and is a lot further from Crete than Santorini is. Vesuvius is even further away and is shielded from Crete. The most likely candidate is Thera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whichever way you look at it, the lumps of solid ash existed before the tsunami arrived. Had there been just one eruption, the tsunami would have come first and would long have subsided by the time the ash arrived. There would not have been any ash present in the tsunami deposits, only on top of it.

This is an assumption made by Bruins and others. Attempting to associate the tsunami with an eruption of Mt Etna may be stretching things a bit - it does not erupt that violently and is a lot further from Crete than Santorini is. Vesuvius is even further away and is shielded from Crete. The most likely candidate is Thera.

That's just one of many possibilities. One doesn't need an eruption to cause a tsunami. Earthquakes suffice just as well and the Mediterranean has its share. But I realize you're wanting to do what the experts say they can't do currently, which is reconcile the discrepancy between the two methods.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just one of many possibilities. One doesn't need an eruption to cause a tsunami. Earthquakes suffice just as well and the Mediterranean has its share. But I realize you're wanting to do what the experts say they can't do currently, which is reconcile the discrepancy between the two methods.

cormac

There still remains the issue of all the ancient accounts of volcanic eruption phenomena - the darkness over Egypt, the floods of Ogyges and Deucalion, etc, etc. Are all of these legends pure fantasy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There still remains the issue of all the ancient accounts of volcanic eruption phenomena - the darkness over Egypt, the floods of Ogyges and Deucalion, etc, etc. Are all of these legends pure fantasy?

Jebal Marra in the Sudan as well as "the Mountain of God", known to the Massai in Tanzania, also erupted in the 16th century BC. Your point? There's no evidence that these claimed eruptions are all one and the same. Nor that any of them had anything to do with the Hebrews, aside from your wanting it to be true.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There still remains the issue of all the ancient accounts of volcanic eruption phenomena - the darkness over Egypt, the floods of Ogyges and Deucalion, etc, etc. Are all of these legends pure fantasy?

I'm not familiar with the Ogyges flood, but the Deucalion flood seems very likely to be a Greek adaptation of the Mesopotamian flood story, extant in the tales of Noah (Hebrew), Utnapishtim (Babylonian), and Atrahasis (Sumerian).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There still remains the issue of all the ancient accounts of volcanic eruption phenomena - the darkness over Egypt, the floods of Ogyges and Deucalion, etc, etc. Are all of these legends pure fantasy?

I imagine your referring to the Tempest Stela in reference to Egyptian accounts. As you know, this dates to the reign of Ahmose I. However, this inscription clearly describes a flood event and there is nothing on the face of it that describes a volcanic eruption. See the translation here. Because colossal rainstorms are rare in Egypt, some have posited that the events described in this account do refer to Thera, but there are a couple of problems: there is no eruption of Thera dated to the time period of Ahmose I and, perhaps just as important, ascribing this flooding event to Thera stands as simple, idle speculation. There is nothing evidentiary—scientifically or textually—to link the two. The fact is, although it doesn't rain much in Egypt, on occasion when rains do hit, they come as severe downpours that cause widespread flooding. This is as true now as it was 3,000 years ago. The amount of conglomerated, hardened flood debris that choke ancient tombs is testament to this.

Ogyges and Deucalion describe flood events belonging to Greek mytho-history, not to actual historical events. While perhaps there's something to the old adage that myths contain kernels of truth, the issue is trying to discern fact from the surrounding fiction, which is nearly always impossible to do. The same is true for Troy and the legends surrounding it, Heracles and his adventures, Gilgamesh and his deeds in Sumer, and of course Noah and Moses and the other figures of biblical lore. In the case of both Ogyges and Deucalion, I am not aware of anything which would underpin either case as factual.

As for the tsunami in question, cormac already noted something very important: geology doesn't require a volcanic eruption to produce a tsunami. I would wager that the majority of tsunamis are not caused by eruptions in the first place. Earthquakes have produced some of the most devastating tsunamis, and the Mediterranean is and always has been a very seismically active region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine your referring to the Tempest Stela in reference to Egyptian accounts. As you know, this dates to the reign of Ahmose I. However, this inscription clearly describes a flood event and there is nothing on the face of it that describes a volcanic eruption.

By the same token, the fact that only a flood is mentioned cannot rule out a volcanic eruption. It is very peculiar that 'darkness in the Western region' is specifically mentioned. It could very well have been the ash cloud of Thera drifting in a south-eastern direction.

Ogyges and Deucalion describe flood events belonging to Greek mytho-history, not to actual historical events. While perhaps there's something to the old adage that myths contain kernels of truth, the issue is trying to discern fact from the surrounding fiction, which is nearly always impossible to do. The same is true for Troy and the legends surrounding it, Heracles and his adventures, Gilgamesh and his deeds in Sumer, and of course Noah and Moses and the other figures of biblical lore. In the case of both Ogyges and Deucalion, I am not aware of anything which would underpin either case as factual.

These two floods are quoted by quite a few ancient historians and they link Moses and the Exodus to one or the other. What if there had indeed occurred two major tsunamis? Then there is also the El Arish Shrine text, about which I will post a summary on my website shortly. This text confirms Manetho's account of Moses and Amenhotep III, and most significantly a complete darkness over Egypt that lasted 9 days. This could not have been caused by anything but volcanic ash descending upon Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.