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 -

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 3]


Abramelin
 Share

Recommended Posts

In addition to Het Ura Linda Book, you subscribe to the Khazar Theory which has been markedly rejected by genetics. Though I suppose they're just another Zionist plot, eh?

*Sigh* I was hoping I wouldn't have to come in contact with Zionist Conspiracy theorists after I stopped browsing /pol/

EDIT: The essential flaw of the Zionist Conspiracy is that it assumes a vasy, shadowy conspiracy of the world Jewry, rather than Ashkenazi, being of a similar background, have economic views that tend to overlap. And they push these ideas in the businesses they tend to control disproportionately- not for the purposes of any conspiracy, but because of historical and socio economic factors which pushed them into banking and entertainment.

Hi Flashman....dont read too much into my posting of that video , it was more to show that some

Jews , the phoenicians could have come from the area of Sidon ,which was in answer to your post , and it coming from someone who said he was semitic ,and part of the Ashkenasi heirarchy , i thought it might carry more weight.

If you go back to Josephus you can read that there was a division of the jews , after some had taken wives outside of jewry they went up the side of two mounts , facing each other , one side shouted to the other the great gifts which God had given mankind and of their love for him.........whilst the other shouted back to the other side , the great power and the awe with which they feared him.(this i think is just explaining the different sides of the division . some remaining true to the law , those in

Jerusalem, and those who went to Gerizim , realising if they wanted to survive as a people , they

had to acknowledge that evil also existed, and had to use it , to be able to fight succesfully.

this division escalated .... some would keep their genetics pure and only marry another jew , some intermarried , some obeyed the sabbath no matter what ( you will agree , in a war refusing to fight on the sabbath would be a problem , the enemy is unlikely to honour your holy day ) whilst some banded together and fought for their survival.even on the Sabbath some remained to worship at Jerusalem , whilst those in division moved their point of worship to Mount Gerizim .

This i think is an important division , and led to what is reported in other books as a similar division in Zoroastrianism ,where the white Magi worship the God of Love , and the Black Magi worship the D-Evil , not because they have become devil worshippers in place of the good God , but because they understand the existence of evil in the world , and to try to placate the evil God , by acknowledging his existence , so accepting there must be dual Gods rather than a duality of

the one God... as their religion up to now could not accept that the one Godalso had evil in

his singular being.

reference the Ashkenazi being of similar background , i think you are right , there is plenty written about certain Semitics being banished to the North , so that is probably how the Ashkenasi got there , apart from the deportation of the 10 tribes, who knows where they were really settled ,

after all that time in the north ....are they still close culturally to those left in the oldlands ?? we could ask exactly the same about the Frians/Finda.......after 1200 years in India , are they not now completely Indians ....with just a tribal memory of where they came from ??

Edited by Passing Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:tu:

Sure, the flood in this thread is not dated with the Mt Etna tsunami though and the strait mentioned isn't dried out but changes because of an earthquake, so it doesn't seem to hold any relevance to your idea even though Id agree it doesn't erase it.

I'm not slavish to dates. But the general timeline fits. We are talking about a period from when the Black Sea was flooded for the last time by the Mediterranean (Black Sea sits at a higher elevation). Some experts say that at that time the Black Sea flooded continuously this way for 300 days. I still find that hard to believe but? Anyway, if that was happening at a higher elevation than the N. Sahara/lowlying ME regions, then surely, absolutely they must have been inundated as well. Logic demands that that is the case. So, we also have reports that around that time (6,000 B.C.) the Sahara's eastern portion was a huge swamp. And that area was drying out until 2,000 B.C. +/- My inundation theory of N. Africa fits with lore and written accounts of the time frame.

So, at that time frame, given that 1,500 B.C. is pretty darn close to it, there may have been a residual inundation allowing passage from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and yes, that passage may have been abruptly stopped by a land rising from an earthquake. Hence trying to clear up Flashman's wonderings about how the passage to the Red Sea may have been possible by the Fryans before it closed up.

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not slavish to dates.

You're relevant neither to geological history nor human history. On that most here would agree.

We are talking about a period from when the Black Sea was flooded for the last time by the Mediterranean (Black Sea sits at a higher elevation).

Which would be c.7400 BC, no matter how many times you ignore that fact. And the Black Sea does not sit at a (significantly) higher elevation. That's just another fabrication you've continued to present as fact, it's not.

Anyway, if that was happening at a higher elevation than the N. Sahara/lowlying ME regions....

Again, you are misrepresenting your fabrication as fact, it's still not.

Logic demands...

Since you've shown no actual logic your understanding of what logic demands is moot.

cormac

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

I'm not slavish to dates. But the general timeline fits. We are talking about a period from when the Black Sea was flooded for the last time by the Mediterranean (Black Sea sits at a higher elevation). Some experts say that at that time the Black Sea flooded continuously this way for 300 days. I still find that hard to believe but? Anyway, if that was happening at a higher elevation than the N. Sahara/lowlying ME regions, then surely, absolutely they must have been inundated as well. Logic demands that that is the case. So, we also have reports that around that time (6,000 B.C.) the Sahara's eastern portion was a huge swamp. And that area was drying out until 2,000 B.C. +/- My inundation theory of N. Africa fits with lore and written accounts of the time frame.

So, at that time frame, given that 1,500 B.C. is pretty darn close to it, there may have been a residual inundation allowing passage from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and yes, that passage may have been abruptly stopped by a land rising from an earthquake. Hence trying to clear up Flashman's wonderings about how the passage to the Red Sea may have been possible by the Fryans before it closed up.

Around 2200 BCE in the Middle East occurred what scientists call the 4.2 kiloyear event. Core sampling and other test have confirmed this. North Africa, the Levant, swaths of Mesopotamia, and up to the Hindu Kush experienced extreme aridification. Egypt plummeted into the First intermediate Period, marked by severe drought and famine. The event contributed to the collapse of other kingdoms, such as the Akkadians. What caused all of this is not precisely known, but it's unlikely to have been only one factor (a single earthquake, for example, is not going to cause hyper-aridification throughout the entire Near East). There were several different kiloyear events in the ancient Near East, including one in the Late Bronze Age that contributed to the collapse of numerous regional civilaztions.

>>>But perhaps all of this is besides the point, SS. Read this part carefully. Posters in the OLB thread rarely see me in here, and in fact some of them probably don't even know me. I have really no personal interest in the OLB and leave its discussion to the good people who have been so dedicated to this thread for so very long—making it one of the most popular and longest-lasting threads in UM's history.

Your recent posts in this thread are what caught my attention. You are of course free to join in the discussion, but it had better be directly related to the OLB. You are not going to hijack this thread, too. If you want to talk about your Sahara flood theme, keep it in the Sahara thread. If you do not have an interest in the OLB, leave this thread. If you try to populate this discussion with your theme and attempt to hijack it, I will suspend you.

Is that understood?

(Other posters know I'm an easy-going guy, so I kind of resent being forced to play the heavy.)

Edited by kmt_sesh
Edit: Typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, when I noticed you had made the last post Kmt, my heart skipped a beat, has the topic been closed..? Aaahhh

You are correct, thank you, please leave this thread for its purpose which myself and my tenacious OLB pals have spent years on.

If SS can show something of substance toward the closing of the Red Sea, I'd be more than interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, when I noticed you had made the last post Kmt, my heart skipped a beat, has the topic been closed..? Aaahhh

You are correct, thank you, please leave this thread for its purpose which myself and my tenacious OLB pals have spent years on.

If SS can show something of substance toward the closing of the Red Sea, I'd be more than interested.

The sterness of my post is with apologies to the OLB posters. It was not my intent to scare you, Puzzler, or any other active OLB enthusiast.

But the person to whom my previous post was addressed is clear enough, and SS would be wise to take it seriously.

Everyone else, please do carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm being followed. But that's not my fault. Puzzler, what are your ideas for the Fryans being able to sail through the Red Sea at that time in history? Assuming that account is accurate? Before the earthquake or whatever blocked the passage.. I'm thinking there was a lot more water in the ME and eastern N. Africa at that time than there is now. Do you agree?

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm being followed. But that's not my fault. Puzzler, what are your ideas for the Fryans being able to sail through the Red Sea at that time in history? Assuming that account is accurate? Before the earthquake or whatever blocked the passage.. I'm thinking there was a lot more water in the ME and eastern N. Africa at that time than there is now. Do you agree?

Yes I do. There was definitely more water, every myth and mention seems to indicate this, even islands in the Med. are said to have emerged from the water. I'd have to check theoi for the precise ones though and I'm on an iPad so don't usually do my proper research on it - later.

How did the Phoenicians arrive in Tyre is my big question, as said by Herodotus they came from the Erythraean sea, did they pull apart their ships and haul them overland? Google earth seems to indicate to me that rather than coursing through the current Suez Canal, that it veered East at the Bitter Lakes area coming out closer to Canaan than Egypt but that's just speculation too, on my part for now. The river Jordan valley was probably deeper in water too.

The OLB totally goes against this by saying the Tyrians arrived there as men of Neef Tunis and Magyar from nth Europe so the Herodotus quote becomes irrelevant but this time they are heading south through this mystery strait. I haven't spent enough time on this one, looking for evidences of geological changes in this area at this time except briefly years ago, I'm onto it now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder then, if her name should be a "match" with this place.

According to the author of a commentary on Amarakosha, the word Vindhya derives from the Sanskrit word "Vaindh" (to obstruct). A mythological story (see below) states that the Vindhyas once obstructed the path of the sun, resulting in this name

Only as an aside , just something i noticed in passing.....but prob of no particular significance.,

The name Amarakosha , backwards ( maybe as Semitics would write it , right to left ) includes the names of two

significant Indian Kings.......ASHOKA and RAMA..... i have also read that the name Kashmir is thought to have

KOSHA (ie food prepared to Jewish laws ) as it's root .

have wondered before if AK-KAD could be the origin of Kat in OLB (T=D ).........have not found it this morning but didn't Kat's nickname easily convert to an eastern leaders title (will find the reference in OLB after work ) i think it was Ka-lip which got an explanation of a cleft palate or

some such ... but which i think was probably a title of Kaliph , Caliph. ?

Edited by Passing Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The river Jordan valley was probably deeper in water too.

Puzzler, the entire Jordan River/Dead Sea area was preceded by Lake Lisan from circa 70,000 BP - 15,000 BP which is much too early to be relevant to either the OLB or anything the Phoenicians would have known.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puzzler, the entire Jordan River/Dead Sea area was preceded by Lake Lisan from circa 70,000 BP - 15,000 BP which is much too early to be relevant to either the OLB or anything the Phoenicians would have known.

cormac

Exactly, yet their accounts and many more of the region being much more inundated with water & a more lush flora & fauna persist and persist and persist stubbornly in widespread historical accounts.

So unless all those people decided to have one large mass delusion together, I prefer to think of the horse here when I hear hoofbeats instead of the zebra. I believe them, long story short. Why would all of them be lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puzzler, the entire Jordan River/Dead Sea area was preceded by Lake Lisan from circa 70,000 BP - 15,000 BP which is much too early to be relevant to either the OLB or anything the Phoenicians would have known.

cormac

Hi cormac, from 70,000 to 12,000 years ago, the lake's level was 100 m (330 ft) to 250 m (820 ft) higher than its current level. This lake, Lake Lisan, fluctuated dramatically, rising to its highest level around 26,000 years ago, indicating a very wet climate in the Near East.[16] Around 10,000 years ago, the lake's level dropped dramatically, probably to even lower than today's. During the last several thousand years, the lake has fluctuated approximately 400 m (1,300 ft), with some significant drops and rises. Current theories as to the cause of this dramatic drop in levels rule out volcanic activity; therefore, it may have been a seismic event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea

Lake Lisan dropped dramatically around when you said but the last part states that in the last several thousand years the lake has fluctuated by 400m with some significant drops and rises probably due to seismic events.

I didn't say that the Jordan river valley had anything to do with the Phoenicians actually, it was more in relation to there being more water in the area as SS had asked, I made a clear point to say that they may have travelled an ancient strait from the Bitter Lakes to the Med but not at the current Suez cutting.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around 10,000 years ago, the lake's level dropped dramatically, probably to even lower than today's. During the last several thousand years, the lake has fluctuated approximately 400 m (1,300 ft), with some significant drops and rises. Current theories as to the cause of this dramatic drop in levels rule out volcanic activity; therefore, it may have been a seismic event.

Puzzler, the problem with the above is the last two quoted sentences which are not in evidence nor Wikipedia supported from your Dead Sea link. What should have been noticed in your quote was the above bold word which suggests that Lake Lisan is still in existance when it's not. Something else that may have escaped your attention is that the paragraph the above is taken from only lists one source, that being Geochimica et cosmochimica acta (1971) which is very much dated and would not be entirely accurate material. There are a few good links on Lake Lisan if you're interested:

http://earthquakes.ou.edu/reches/Publications/Bartov_2002_lake_levels.pdf

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/09/17/origins-of-the-dead-sea-lake-lisan-the-jordan-valley-under-water/

My previous post was meant to show that the depth of the Dead Sea has nothing on its predecessor, the much deeper Lake Lisan, so there is nothing to suggest the formers relevance to any 'flood story', the OLB and its alleged 2193 BC origin, or some kind of direct access between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do. There was definitely more water, every myth and mention seems to indicate this, even islands in the Med. are said to have emerged from the water. I'd have to check theoi for the precise ones though and I'm on an iPad so don't usually do my proper research on it - later.

How did the Phoenicians arrive in Tyre is my big question, as said by Herodotus they came from the Erythraean sea, did they pull apart their ships and haul them overland? Google earth seems to indicate to me that rather than coursing through the current Suez Canal, that it veered East at the Bitter Lakes area coming out closer to Canaan than Egypt but that's just speculation too, on my part for now. The river Jordan valley was probably deeper in water too.

The OLB totally goes against this by saying the Tyrians arrived there as men of Neef Tunis and Magyar from nth Europe so the Herodotus quote becomes irrelevant but this time they are heading south through this mystery strait. I haven't spent enough time on this one, looking for evidences of geological changes in this area at this time except briefly years ago, I'm onto it now though.

If sea levels were high enough circa 1530 BC to submerge the Sinai or a portion thereof, ignoring the fact that the Egyptians would have recorded something so incredibly useful for trade (A direct line from the rich delta to Punt, Ethiopia and Ophir!), and I believe Kmt Sesh would confirm that there are no such records, but lets just ignore that for a second: If sea levels were high enough, the Delta would surely have been underwater.

Sinai-Peninsula(1).jpg

We should be finding textual, geologic nad archaeological evidence all over Sinai and Egypt.

As to the Phoenecians: as you have pointed out so many times in you discussions of Greek mythology, they called Herodotus a lier for a good reason. Genetics and linguistic bear out no relation between the south-arabians and the Phoenecians. It was a contiguous population with no observable incursions fro Erethaeayan peoples. But, if we were to, who says they crossed the sea at all? Maybe they walked, only developed a strong sea faring culture later.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of geology, though: I've been doing research for years on it for the Mascarene/ Mauritian Microcontinent, and it has really been a great experience. I know a great resourcefor the effects of raising wwater levels, too. If I can remember the name, I'll send you a link. Floodmap or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If sea levels were high enough circa 1530 BC to submerge the Sinai or a portion thereof, ignoring the fact that the Egyptians would have recorded something so incredibly useful for trade (A direct line from the rich delta to Punt, Ethiopia and Ophir!), and I believe Kmt Sesh would confirm that there are no such records, but lets just ignore that for a second: If sea levels were high enough, the Delta would surely have been underwater.

Sinai-Peninsula(1).jpg

We should be finding textual, geologic nad archaeological evidence all over Sinai and Egypt.

As to the Phoenecians: as you have pointed out so many times in you discussions of Greek mythology, they called Herodotus a lier for a good reason. Genetics and linguistic bear out no relation between the south-arabians and the Phoenecians. It was a contiguous population with no observable incursions fro Erethaeayan peoples. But, if we were to, who says they crossed the sea at all? Maybe they walked, only developed a strong sea faring culture later.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of geology, though: I've been doing research for years on it for the Mascarene/ Mauritian Microcontinent, and it has really been a great experience. I know a great resourcefor the effects of raising wwater levels, too. If I can remember the name, I'll send you a link. Floodmap or something like that.

I've already been on the flood sites thanks. Its too late for me to respond to you and cormac properly since I just spent so much time reading the links cormac put up. Tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already been on the flood sites thanks. Its too late for me to respond to you and cormac properly since I just spent so much time reading the links cormac put up. Tomorrow.

Unfortunately, it appears ot be down for me at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If sea levels were high enough circa 1530 BC to submerge the Sinai or a portion thereof, ignoring the fact that the Egyptians would have recorded something so incredibly useful for trade (A direct line from the rich delta to Punt, Ethiopia and Ophir!), and I believe Kmt Sesh would confirm that there are no such records, but lets just ignore that for a second: If sea levels were high enough, the Delta would surely have been underwater.

<<Snip>>

We should be finding textual, geologic nad archaeological evidence all over Sinai and Egypt.

As to the Phoenecians: as you have pointed out so many times in you discussions of Greek mythology, they called Herodotus a lier for a good reason. Genetics and linguistic bear out no relation between the south-arabians and the Phoenecians. It was a contiguous population with no observable incursions fro Erethaeayan peoples. But, if we were to, who says they crossed the sea at all? Maybe they walked, only developed a strong sea faring culture later.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of geology, though: I've been doing research for years on it for the Mascarene/ Mauritian Microcontinent, and it has really been a great experience. I know a great resourcefor the effects of raising wwater levels, too. If I can remember the name, I'll send you a link. Floodmap or something like that.

I can't really contribute to a lot of the finer details of the OLB saga, but I heard my name called. And about the potentiality for such flooding in the Late Bronze Age, I am in agreement. I am not aware of any evidence for it. Of course there were fluctuations in the Mediterranean, as there were in all regional waterways and bodies of water, but as far as I'm aware an increase that flooded the Sinai all the way to the Red Sea is not extant in the historical record. I found this study which is of a site not far from the area in question, and it stresses that the Mediterranean more or less reached its present level by the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 BCE).

Certain problems are inherent in envisioning a massive rise in water level around 1500 BCE. This marks the onset of Egyptian hegemony of the region, and in fact it was around this time that Ahmose I chased the remnants of the Hyksos out of Egypt, through the coastal Sinai, and up into the Negev, where he ultimately besieged and exterminated them. Moreover, to counter the possibility of further encroachment from Syro-Palestine, the Egyptians began building around 1500 BCE a series of forts they called the Way of Horus all along the coastal Sinai, stretching out to southern Palestine. Here's a map showing the Way of Horus. At least four of the ancient forts have been found and excavated along this route (but for all I know one or more have been found beyond that).

I'll throw out something else relevant, too. An important Sinai site to Egypt was Serabit el Khadim, situated just to the east of the northwestern-most arm of the Red Sea (see map). This was the principal site for Egyptian turquoise mining, stretching all the way back to Early Dynastic times. It thrived in the Middle Kingdom and again in the New Kingdom (1550-1069 BCE). I am not aware of any significant climatic or geological interruption in operations there. Inactive periods were generally during weakened socio-political periods, which 1500 BCE was not.

Your point about the Delta is also salient. Had the Mediterranean risen so dramatically, a lot of the key cities in this area would've been abandoned and submerged, and I am not aware of evidence for such in the archaeological record.

As for the Phoenicians, it's quite possible I'm not getting the gist of the discussion about them as of late. They were decidedly Semitic, of Canaanite stock. Their own abjad (a consonantal alphabet) demonstrates this. I'll leave it at that for the time being because I'm not clear on the intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Kmt. No one is saying there was a massive water rise at 1500BC or even Bronze Age. What was put forth was a higher sea level and wetter climate was in existence slowing lowering itself through the Bronze Age, until what appears in our times to be trend toward higher sea levels once again. I don't think it means that water had to cover the Delta, which needed at least 7 m to do so.

However point I made was the existence of higher water levels at that time may have made the water deeper in the Jordan valley. It really was a mute point cormac jumped onto, it never really meant that much nor contributed to any Red Sea crossing.

SS threw out the idea that some water may have remained as navigable lakes or waterways from a wetter period that hadn't dried up yet, there is lots of places this happened, wadis everywhere, not nec. Huge lakes but wet areas that were prone to being rivers when wetter or flooded. Lake Triton is a remnant in myth of one such area. I don't think it's that bad an idea.

In the OLB there is mention of a strait through from the Med. to the Red Sea that an earthquake occurred near and closed it up.

The second thing I considered is Herodotus said Phoenicians arrived from Red Sea, ready to trade - how did they get through? Carry the ships overland? take them apart for the haul? That's the context we are at here on this issue at the moment, just so you know.

They may indeed have just walked there or whatever but it made me think about it from that angle.

One may think everyone should know about this route but 2 things may impede that at least. The Egyptian Necho (I think) had a dream warning him off opening the route, for fear of enemies coming through, the trade it would bring wasn't worth the enemies it may bring, also the Phoenicians were shifty, secret folk who guarded their sea going knowledge, not letting anyone else in on them.

Diodorus has a great quote: For the Phoenicians, it appears, were from ancient times clever men in making discoveries to their gain, and the Italians are equally clever in leaving no gain to anyone else.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If sea levels were high enough circa 1530 BC to submerge the Sinai or a portion thereof, ignoring the fact that the Egyptians would have recorded something so incredibly useful for trade (A direct line from the rich delta to Punt, Ethiopia and Ophir!), and I believe Kmt Sesh would confirm that there are no such records, but lets just ignore that for a second: If sea levels were high enough, the Delta would surely have been underwater.

Sinai-Peninsula(1).jpg

We should be finding textual, geologic nad archaeological evidence all over Sinai and Egypt.

As to the Phoenecians: as you have pointed out so many times in you discussions of Greek mythology, they called Herodotus a lier for a good reason. Genetics and linguistic bear out no relation between the south-arabians and the Phoenecians. It was a contiguous population with no observable incursions fro Erethaeayan peoples. But, if we were to, who says they crossed the sea at all? Maybe they walked, only developed a strong sea faring culture later.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of geology, though: I've been doing research for years on it for the Mascarene/ Mauritian Microcontinent, and it has really been a great experience. I know a great resourcefor the effects of raising wwater levels, too. If I can remember the name, I'll send you a link. Floodmap or something like that.

I have never pointed out that they called Herodotus a liar for a good reason. In fact, I reject it totally and would never say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herodotus said they came from the Erythraean Dea, Who said that has to be Southern Arabia? he specifically refers to the Indian Ocean edge not the now called Red Sea actually now I recall.

.Zalloua and Wells 2004 and al-Zaheri 2003 uncovered the earliest known migration of J2, from Sumeria to Canaan.[9][10] In what may or may not have been a reference to that particular migration from Sumeria to Canaan, Genesis 11:27-28 [3] says that the family of Abraham came from Ur, a Sumerian city; likewise, Sumeria has a myth of a flood, same gods in the Sumerian pantheon as some of those in the Canaanite religion and a creation myth similar to those of the Israelites.

haplogroup J-M172

Sumeria would be classed as on the Erythraean Sea.

I'm happy to acknowledge they may not have come through the Suez Canal area to settle Tyre now though by sailing through.

It doesn't however negate the OLB, other things might but that in itself doesn't.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this Bathymetric map in the bottom right hand corner , not only can you see the relative shallows , possibly showing that at some previous time there may have been land right up to and surrounding Cyprus , but follow the dead sea lake bed (the right hand/finger of the churchillian two finger salute ) and you can visualize when this was a river course , it follows to the darker brown land shown (hills or mtns ) and looks like it would have veered left at the foot of them.

somewhere around Tyre ? .......how much of an advantage would the Phoenicians have had if Tyre was the entrance to a river which reached from the Mediteranian into the Red Sea , and all the trading lands of Egypt , Africa , and India.

either restricting trade to their own ships , or taxing either ships or goods wishing to enter or leave.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ibcm/ibcmbath.html

Edited by Passing Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acc to wiki on the Erythraean Sea , and the Periplus , the name originally was used by Cartographers for the whole area

from the horn of Africa to the Indian Ocean , including the Arabian Sea , the Persian Gulf , Gulf of Aden etc.

Eritraea is also said to have its name from the Eritraean sea , or vice versa .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never pointed out that they called Herodotus a liar for a good reason. In fact, I reject it totally and would never say it.

What, do you no longer believe that he stole Celtic/ North European myths and attributed them to Greece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herodotus said they came from the Erythraean Dea, Who said that has to be Southern Arabia? he specifically refers to the Indian Ocean edge not the now called Red Sea actually now I recall.

.Zalloua and Wells 2004 and al-Zaheri 2003 uncovered the earliest known migration of J2, from Sumeria to Canaan.[9][10] In what may or may not have been a reference to that particular migration from Sumeria to Canaan, Genesis 11:27-28 [3] says that the family of Abraham came from Ur, a Sumerian city; likewise, Sumeria has a myth of a flood, same gods in the Sumerian pantheon as some of those in the Canaanite religion and a creation myth similar to those of the Israelites.

haplogroup J-M172

Sumeria would be classed as on the Erythraean Sea.

Would the Erythaean sea extend to the Persian Gulf? I don't know about that. The way I had always understood it, it referred to the Red Sea (after all, that's what the name means), the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the African portions of the Indian Ocean all the way down to Zanzibar/ Mafia Island (and the city of Lindi, for that matter) or thereabouts.

Do you have any source on the Persian Gulf being referred to as a part of the Erythraean Sea?

It doesn't however negate the OLB, other things might but that in itself doesn't.

It's a pretty major thing that it has dead wrong- how could the Geertmen possibly have sailed to the Red Sea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herodotus said they came from the Erythraean Dea, Who said that has to be Southern Arabia? he specifically refers to the Indian Ocean edge not the now called Red Sea actually now I recall.

.Zalloua and Wells 2004 and al-Zaheri 2003 uncovered the earliest known migration of J2, from Sumeria to Canaan.[9][10] In what may or may not have been a reference to that particular migration from Sumeria to Canaan, Genesis 11:27-28 [3] says that the family of Abraham came from Ur, a Sumerian city; likewise, Sumeria has a myth of a flood, same gods in the Sumerian pantheon as some of those in the Canaanite religion and a creation myth similar to those of the Israelites.

haplogroup J-M172

Sumeria would be classed as on the Erythraean Sea.

I'm happy to acknowledge they may not have come through the Suez Canal area to settle Tyre now though by sailing through.

It doesn't however negate the OLB, other things might but that in itself doesn't.

Or like you said they may have completely broken their boats down and carried them overland to set them up and sail again. Though, that seems the less likely scenario to get to India by boat from the Mediterranean?

Zebra? Horse?

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.