187 replies to this topic

[Leonardo]

The Puzzler on Oct 16 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

No, I did not put in an extra '0'. lol


I will do more checking on the beginnings of Tyre, thanks for reminding me of that, but as you can see Heracles is not a Greek God but an ancient Egyptian one who is indeed according to them 17,000 years immortal. I have included so much text from Herodotus for you to read since it is all inclusive about Heracles and many people don't know he was an Egyptian God before a Greek one, note also that they didn't know about or have Poseidon as a God, I believe he was Phoenician, father of Sidon.
I find all of Herodotus work absolutely fascinating and never tire of reading it.

I understand now, thanks for clarifying. I thought you were stating that Egyptian culture was over 17,000 years old, but you are referring to Herodotus. The same exaggeration of the passage of time applies - only more so - in this, imo. It was important for Egypt and their prestige that they be seen as predating all other civilisations, so I think a bit of creative license by the teller of this tale to Herodotus is warranted in this instance.

It would not be beyond probability, also, that the one who told Herodotus of Heracles being an ancient Egyptian god was simply enagaging in 'one-upmanship' by co-opting the Greek hero and god and implying the god was already known to them. I can't find any reference to a Heracles in ancient Egyptian mythology, except during and after the Hellenic period. There is an Egyptian god, Heryshaf, who was later identified (loosely) with Heracles, but identifying one cultures' god with a god of another culture happened all the time. it does not mean Heracles was worshipped by the ancient Egyptians.

[The Puzzler]

Leonardo on Oct 16 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

I understand now, thanks for clarifying. I thought you were stating that Egyptian culture was over 17,000 years old, but you are referring to Herodotus. The same exaggeration of the passage of time applies - only more so - in this, imo. It was important for Egypt and their prestige that they be seen as predating all other civilisations, so I think a bit of creative license by the teller of this tale to Herodotus is warranted in this instance.

It would not be beyond probability, also, that the one who told Herodotus of Heracles being an ancient Egyptian god was simply enagaging in 'one-upmanship' by co-opting the Greek hero and god and implying the god was already known to them. I can't find any reference to a Heracles in ancient Egyptian mythology, except during and after the Hellenic period. There is an Egyptian god, Heryshaf, who was later identified (loosely) with Heracles, but identifying one cultures' god with a god of another culture happened all the time. it does not mean Heracles was worshipped by the ancient Egyptians.

No worries. Here's the thing, Manetho also placed the Gods as being around for 36,000 years...are we to understand these people were just pulling these times out of the air?
In the Bible we have the Flood, ok, and prior to that we have the 'men of old, men of renown' Noah etc, very old men, aged 900 years and so, Methuselah comes to mind, what does this all mean, are all these ages just pulled out of the air and wrong to boot, or should we take a bit more notice and thought about it all...
In the Gehenna thread I am going on about Moloch, what that did was make one immortal, Demeter is caught out trying to do it to Demophon, Triptolemus' brother, he of the Eleusian Mysteries, the one Demeter taught agriculture to. Are we just unaware of how this worked in todays age? Achilles mother is knowledgable about it too.
These people are very old and we just cannot comprehend it, the Flood wiped all knowledge of this out, whether there was a Flood doesn't matter, the allegory is there, at some point in time this practice was stopped and that is what the Flood in the Bible is representing. The sons of God and the daughters of men, it's all relative to it..were we at one time able to be immortal, seems quite irrational NOW....but I wonder.

Edited by The Puzzler, 16 October 2008 - 11:34 AM.

[Tann de Mae]

I think that the Phoenicians were way ahead of their time with seafaring and wordly travel.  I believe they were mining and refining ores in other shores centuries before the New World was found.  I also believe their trademarked Dye reflects their actions and characteristics.  The dye called  Tyrian was highly prized by nobility as it reflected their bloodlust and warmongering (in my opinion).  I just get a wierd feeling about the Phoenicians, their history seems vague at best, they were one of the first to utilize the alphabet, their seafaring knowledge was unsurpassed, they had cities and port towns all over the mediterranean and most likely beyond~

I've always heard that the Phoenicians eventually became the Venetians or Black Venetians but have not looked into that at all.  I realize their people must have garnished quite the amount of money from their travels and trade and I hope it was put to good use, but something tells me~ nope.

[The Puzzler]

Tann de Mae on Oct 16 2008, 11:42 PM, said:

I think that the Phoenicians were way ahead of their time with seafaring and wordly travel.  I believe they were mining and refining ores in other shores centuries before the New World was found.  I also believe their trademarked Dye reflects their actions and characteristics.  The dye called  Tyrian was highly prized by nobility as it reflected their bloodlust and warmongering (in my opinion).  I just get a wierd feeling about the Phoenicians, their history seems vague at best, they were one of the first to utilize the alphabet, their seafaring knowledge was unsurpassed, they had cities and port towns all over the mediterranean and most likely beyond~

I've always heard that the Phoenicians eventually became the Venetians or Black Venetians but have not looked into that at all.  I realize their people must have garnished quite the amount of money from their travels and trade and I hope it was put to good use, but something tells me~ nope.

I have that same weird feeling...........

[The Puzzler]

Leonardo on Oct 16 2008, 05:16 AM, said:

I'm assuming you put an extra '0' in 1,700 by accident when referring to how long Heracles had been an Egyptian god!!!  

Regarding the dating of the founding of Tyre by Herodotus - I would be a little wary of the figure given. While I am not familiar with the calendric system in use in Phoenicia it is likely the priests quoted a date to Herodotus based on previous royal or high priestly personages and the length of their reign, rather than give him a date based on exact knowledge of founding based on calendar. As such, given the propensity of those in the ancient civilisations to exaggerate the length of rule of important or dearly held royals etc we should look more towards hard evidence of the founding - and the first monumental mention of Tyre as a city is in 1300BCE, we also have the Amarna letters of 1350BCE (source). Interestingly, the Amarna (Tyre) letters seem to have been written by a mayor - not a King. An indication Tyre was, at that time, not important enough to rate a royal presence?

We might allow a century or two before that for it's founding, but I'd be skeptical of a date of double that without real evidence.

I'm baaaack...
Did some research on Tyre:

Quote

At Tyre, a very thorough archaeological excavation was performed in 1974 which went all the way down to bedrock.[xi] This produced clear evidence of a founding date for this city occurring in the first part of the third millennium B.C. This was confirmed by Herodotus, often called the father of history, who traveled to Tyre around 450 B.C. He gave us the following report in The Histories (2:44).[xii]

“I wanted to understand these matters as clearly as I could, so I also sailed to Tyre in Phoenicia, since I had heard that there was a sanctuary sacred to Heracles there, and I found that the sanctuary there was very lavishly appointed with a large number of dedicatory offerings. In it were two pillars, one of pure gold, the other of emerald which gleamed brightly at night. I talked to the priests of the god there and asked them how long ago the sanctuary of the god was founded, and I discovered that they too disagreed with the Greek account, because according to them the sanctuary of the god was founded at the same time as Tyre, which was 2,300 years ago, they said.”

When we add 2,300 years to the date of Herodotus’ visit (450 B.C.) we get 2750 B.C. As it turns out, this falls exactly in the range given to us by Bikai’s archaeological evidence. We can therefore have a reasonably high degree of confidence in this beginning point for Tyre.

http://www.phoenician.org/origin.htm

So, there you go. When is anyone gonna believe Herodotus? Good thing I do.

[OldTimeRadio]

None of the Christian Lebanese-Americans of my acquaintance show the slightest sign of Ethiopian ancestry. I'm a light-skinned Northern European but they are lighter-skinned than I. Their complexion is very nearly bluish-white.

[jaylemurph]

The Puzzler on Oct 16 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

So, there you go. When is anyone gonna believe Herodotus? Good thing I do.

Right about the time he's more right than wrong...

--Jaylemurph

[Leonardo]

The Puzzler on Oct 16 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

No worries. Here's the thing, Manetho also placed the Gods as being around for 36,000 years...are we to understand these people were just pulling these times out of the air?

As far as I can research, Puz, Manetho does not place the gods as having reigned for 36,000 years. That figure is from the Turin Papyrus which, dating from around 1200BCE, predates Manetho by nearly a millenium.

Manetho (via Eusebius) is quoted as having the gods of Egypt reign for 13,900 years, with another 11,000 or so for the demigods and Kings. However, it is likely he derived his dates from the Turin Papyrus (or another document of the same ilk). If the orginal was composed of figures based on sacred numerology (which is very possible) then Manetho's would as well, so you simply have a case of one source based on an erroneous other.

[The Puzzler]

Leonardo on Oct 19 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

As far as I can research, Puz, Manetho does not place the gods as having reigned for 36,000 years. That figure is from the Turin Papyrus which, dating from around 1200BCE, predates Manetho by nearly a millenium.

Manetho (via Eusebius) is quoted as having the gods of Egypt reign for 13,900 years, with another 11,000 or so for the demigods and Kings. However, it is likely he derived his dates from the Turin Papyrus (or another document of the same ilk). If the orginal was composed of figures based on sacred numerology (which is very possible) then Manetho's would as well, so you simply have a case of one source based on an erroneous other.

Yep, my error there, no worries, does not take away from my thoughts on it, Manetho is not overly reliable. He places Apollo as Horus , which I find to be incorrect anyway.
The Turin Papyrus has the Gods being very old at any rate.

What did you think of my evidence showing that Tyre could have been settled back when Herodotus said it was?

Quote

At Tyre, a very thorough archaeological excavation was performed in 1974 which went all the way down to bedrock.[xi] This produced clear evidence of a founding date for this city occurring in the first part of the third millennium B.C. This was confirmed by Herodotus, often called the father of history, who traveled to Tyre around 450 B.C.

Edited by The Puzzler, 19 October 2008 - 06:23 AM.

[The Puzzler]

jaylemurph on Oct 19 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

Right about the time he's more right than wrong...

--Jaylemurph

I have shown that Herodotus has been correct on many occasions, I linked a site that showed it was possible to put into place the huge granite megaliths inside the pyramid by using short cubic wooden blocks in the method Herodotus tells us the Egyptians told him. I have just shown Leo how Herodotus is correct in his placement of the foundation of Tyre at 2750BC.

I have also just provided info in my Atlantis Discussion Thread that the earliest Athenians that had the names of Gods were Egyptians. These people are not the Mycenaeans or the Pelasgians but earlier than both of them. When they married into the Pelasgians they lost their Egyptian identities but they are easily found in the Greek myths. All the Greek Gods except for a few are originally Egyptian ones. Heracles included, which I will attempt to show kmt in my ADT thread, just gathering my info. The trouble is kmt is looking for someone called Heracles in Egypt and that you will not find.

Edited by The Puzzler, 19 October 2008 - 11:15 AM.

[The Puzzler]

Also herodotus says he SAW the Colchians and that they were Egyptian looking and did practice circumcision, which was practised in Egypt way before the Jews started it. So if he saw them himself why would one not believe that they were indeed Egyptian.

As for Phoenicians being not of African stock, that debate could go on forever and my opinion is that they were originally. It doesn't take many generations to wipe the black out of you OldTime Radio, I have many Aboriginal friends that are now white, unless my best friend told me she had Aboriginal in her I would never had guessed it. Usually the women are the black ones and the men whom the DNA tests show their origin were the white men who raided or took over these places, so therefore Y chromosome DNA tests are useless for determining origins imo. The indigenous women were usually raped by the invaders with all traces of that origin being wiped out. Just because people of Sidon and Tyre show no signs of being black once is no sure-fire answer to the 'fact' that they weren't. In Tasmania here no test will show the original inhabitants were black Aboriginals, they are all gone.

[Leonardo]

The Puzzler on Oct 19 2008, 07:22 AM, said:

What did you think of my evidence showing that Tyre could have been settled back when Herodotus said it was?

It was good research. I read the article and found it compelling and believable. With respect to the topic of the thread, though - why does the founding of Tyre have any meaning if Byblos was the 'original' Phoenician city? The artcle implied Byblos (and thus the Phoenicians) being Canaanite in origin and made no reference to any other possibility of ethnicity of the peoples of the city. Knowing the date of it's founding is only relevant if you can show this area wasn't inhabited by indigenous peoples (Canaanites) at that time and so must have been a 'colony' city of another culture. Neither does knowing the founding dates of these cities have any meaning for the origin of the Canaanite peoples themselves (imo).

Edited by Leonardo, 19 October 2008 - 10:19 AM.

[The Puzzler]

Leonardo on Oct 19 2008, 08:17 PM, said:

It was good research. I read the article and found it compelling and believable. With respect to the topic of the thread, though - why does the founding of Tyre have any meaning if Byblos was the 'original' Phoenician city? The artcle implied Byblos (and thus the Phoenicians) being Canaanite in origin and made no reference to any other possibility of ethnicity of the peoples of the city. Knowing the date of it's founding is only relevant if you can show this area wasn't inhabited by indigenous peoples (Canaanites) at that time and so must have been a 'colony' city of another culture. Neither does knowing the founding dates of these cities have any meaning for the origin of the Canaanite peoples themselves (imo).

It is my opinion and there are some archaeological evidences for Byblos (Gebel) to have been an Egyptian colony. As part of Canaan it was also a place they practised human sacrifice, which ties in also to my thought that the Hebrews in the Bible are not in Egypt but in the areas of what became Phoenicia. The Bible has been written in a way that makes them seem to be in Egypt but I don't believe they are, Egypt is used as reference to them being controlled by Egyptians and to hide the fact they were actually still in their own land rebelling against their own religious practises. How else can Moses have his meeting with God where he doesn't sacrifice Isaac at Mt Moriah which is under the Dome of Jesrusalem if he didn't get to the 'promised land'?

The Phoenicians when they were Canaanites were not Phoenicians, so what made them Phoenicians, I believe it was a combined culture of the Egyptians entering it around 2500BC in the times of Khufu, Egyptians knowing sea faring. This same time period is when archaeological evidence can be shown at Byblos as being a town. The Egyptians being the new comers had to accept the human sacrifices practises there but it also developed a new seperate culture distinct from the inland Canaanites. They kept Baal and human sacrifice but that's about it. They developed into the Phoenicians only when the Egyptians came. The city Gods of Byblos and Tyre were Egyptian Gods, Eshmun and Heracles/Melqart. This is also why Phoenicians practised circumcision, that was bought in from the Egyptians.

[Leonardo]

The Puzzler on Oct 19 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

The Phoenicians when they were Canaanites were not Phoenicians, so what made them Phoenicians

I'll have to research the idea of Byblos beginning as an Egyptian city (rather than just having some Egyptian influences later on as trade developed) but the point I've quoted above is fairly easily addressed. What made the Akkadians Akkadian, but the Assyrians, Assyrian? Both are derived from the same root of peoples from the same region- so did they have to have an external influence to become separate cultures?

No.

Cultures can spring out of other cultures without any external influence having to be involved. It could have been internal dissent, an opportunity (such as trade monopoly) for a strong leader to undertake some of his or her own empire-building, or simple geographic separation that made the Phoenicians develop their own culture derived from their Canaanite cousins/forebears. We need no imagined African/Egyptian instigation of this. No doubt there was some influence from Egypt due to the trade, and this may have spurred their separation from other Canaanite tribes/cultures, but not because the Egyptian brought this culture to the Canaanites, imo.

I would also suggest records from the time are not clear enough in knowing from whom the initiation of trade was made. You suggest the Egyptians under Khufu were the instigators by sailing to the Levant, but the article you linked to earlier suggested the Phoenicians of Byblos would have had a fairly well developed culture by this time (if Byblos was founded around 6,000BCE as the author attests). In fact, the author provides evidence trade between the two cultures was happening around the time of the Egyptian Pharaoh/King Narmer circa 3100BCE. But is this when trade first began? Not enough evidence, I would suggest and there is also not enough evidence to say whether it was the Egyptians or the Phoenicians who instigated the trading relationship.

Edited by Leonardo, 19 October 2008 - 04:07 PM.

[The Puzzler]

Leonardo on Oct 20 2008, 02:06 AM, said:

I'll have to research the idea of Byblos beginning as an Egyptian city (rather than just having some Egyptian influences later on as trade developed) but the point I've quoted above is fairly easily addressed. What made the Akkadians Akkadian, but the Assyrians, Assyrian? Both are derived from the same root of peoples from the same region- so did they have to have an external influence to become separate cultures?

No.

Cultures can spring out of other cultures without any external influence having to be involved. It could have been internal dissent, an opportunity (such as trade monopoly) for a strong leader to undertake some of his or her own empire-building, or simple geographic separation that made the Phoenicians develop their own culture derived from their Canaanite cousins/forebears. We need no imagined African/Egyptian instigation of this. No doubt there was some influence from Egypt due to the trade, and this may have spurred their separation from other Canaanite tribes/cultures, but not because the Egyptian brought this culture to the Canaanites, imo.

I would also suggest records from the time are not clear enough in knowing from whom the initiation of trade was made. You suggest the Egyptians under Khufu were the instigators by sailing to the Levant, but the article you linked to earlier suggested the Phoenicians of Byblos would have had a fairly well developed culture by this time (if Byblos was founded around 6,000BCE as the author attests). In fact, the author provides evidence trade between the two cultures was happening around the time of the Egyptian Pharaoh/King Narmer circa 3100BCE. But is this when trade first began? Not enough evidence, I would suggest and there is also not enough evidence to say whether it was the Egyptians or the Phoenicians who instigated the trading relationship.

I'm just off to bed now Leo but will add at the end of the link it says:

Quote

Although the evidence supporting 2750 B.C. is very strong, it may yet be best to take a conservative position at this time since we are breaking new ground here. In this vein, we review all the surveyed texts and look for the one statement which most accurately reflects the emergence of the Phoenicians as a major player in the affairs of nations in the Mediterranean. In doing this, we see that the statement in Traditions & Encounters most truly reflects the facts and evidence in front of us:

“By about 2500 B.C.E. Phoenician merchants and ships already dominated trade in the Mediterranean basin.”

Since this statement is fully consistent with the information we have in our hands today, it is recommended that it be adopted in all future editions of textbooks and references as the most accurate description available for the origin date of the Phoenician empire.

It is my opinion that the Phoenicians as we know them started around this date, with the Egyptians being settled into Byblos by this time. Just because there is evidence at Byblos for people 6000BC does not mean they were Phoenicians by then, still just Canaanites. An event had to happen to make them Phoenicians and not just Canaanites and my opinion is that it is the arrival of Egyptians settling there, rather than just trading there. If Egyptians had been going there for 600 years prior (since Narmer) it would only be logical they would soon leave people there. Only then did they become more advanced into sea faring Phoenicians. Byblos is Greek for papyrus, to trade so much papyrus from there would imo mean Egyptians were in charge of trading.
My answer is yes, sometimes it does take outside influence to develop a different culture, why else did the Phoenicians practice a typically Egyptian custom of circumcision?
I'll be back tomorrow to add more. Night.

Edited by The Puzzler, 19 October 2008 - 04:37 PM.