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 -
Riaan

Thera's second eruption ca. 1360 BCE

28 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Riaan

While I'm on a roll, I might as well keep on amusing you - this time about what I interpret as solid geological evidence that a second eruption must have occurred following the 1613 BCE on (more and more scientists have now come to the same conclusion as I had in Thera and the Exodus, that Ahmose I must have witnessed this eruption (his Tempest Stele, etc)  - see my summary in my updated Addendum to Thera and the Exodus. The reason for this is firstly to be found in the tsunami rubble found on Crete (see image below), which shows rock-hard Santorini ash 'intraclasts' which had been geochemically dated to the 1613 ±13 years BCE eruption (remembered by the Greeks as the Flood of Ogygus).

Crete_Tsunami_Deposits_sm.jpg.3cb044d6aae35215fd5b11002dba2dfe.jpg

According to the authors,

“the volcanic ash (from Thera’s eruption) … appears as distinct intraclasts in chaotic geoarcheological tsunami deposits … These deposits are geologically dated to the Minoan Santorini eruption, because the embedded volcanic ash is proven to have the geochemical fingerprint of this (the 1613 BCE) eruptionThe volcanic ash was evidently reworked by the tsunami and redeposited … it can be concluded that airborne volcanic ash deposition over eastern Crete preceded the tsunami. The volcanic ash was most likely deposited at Palaikastro during the 1 st eruption phase (Plinian) with winds blowing from Santorini to the southeast … The tsunami was apparently generated during the 3rd or 4th eruption phase, according to stratigraphic evidence of tsunami deposits at Thera … 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.”

In my opinion, this is utter BS. There is no way on God's earth that the ash could have sifted down over Crete and somehow managed to become rock solid within a couple of days, and the tsunami only then arriving at Crete. As an experiment, take a bucket filled with ash from a fireplace and dump it over a rocky area anywhere. Wait a couple of days and then throw bucket-full of water over it. What will you see? The ash will simply be dispersed all over the show, but nowhere will it show the distinct rock-like edges that are visible in the photograph. To me the only logical conclusion is that the ash was indeed deposited over Crete in a thick, continuous layer after the eruption's tsunami had already run over the place. It took many years for this layer of volcanic ash to solidify and become rock hard. It was during a second eruption (250 years later, remembered by the Greeks as the Flood of Deucalion), that a tsunami shattered the once continuous layer into rock-hard 'intraclasts'. That would have occurred ca. 1360 BCE, during the last decade of the reign of Amenhotep III.

Although Egypt has suffered numerous earthquakes due to various causes during its history, there is one in particular that caught my attention.  American archaeologists have recently unearthed ancient tombs belonging to Amenhotep, guard of the temple of Egyptian deity Amun, and his son Sa-mut (Simut), respectively. The tombs date back to the New Kingdom of the 18th Dynasty (1543-1292 BC). Amenhotep, along with Ramose, was one of viziers during the last decade of Amenhotep III’s reign and he was most likely the Amenhotep to whom one of the tombs belonged. Simut was an Egyptian priest who held the position of Second Prophet of Amun towards the end of the reign of Amenhotep III and would, therefore, most likely have been the vizier Amenhotep’s son. That places them ca. 1360 BCE (they had not yet died, as ‘Many of scenes represent the tomb owner and his wife in front of an offering table and a view of a goddess nursing a royal child as well as scenes of the daily life’). It is clear that the type of damage they suffered (collapsed ceilings and walls, see photographs below, @Ministry of Antiquities) could only have been caused by an earthquake and not by 'vandals'. 

The tombs clearly must have been damaged by an earthquake (see photograph below and the link above for more). It is perhaps too much of a coincidence that this one occurred at the precise time that other evidence points to an eruption of Thera. Furthermore,

 “The name and titles of the tomb owner, some hieroglyphic texts and scenes in addition to the names of the god Amun were deliberately erased… the tombs appear to have been looted at some point and the sarcophogi containing the bejeweled mummies were missing.”

This would confirm my proposed reason for the populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun, the high priest of which had advised the king to issue a decree that all firstborns should be sacrificed in fires so-as to appease the wrath of the gods and free Egypt from the plague that was decimating its population (i.e. the tenth plague). This failed, horrific sacrifice led to the Egyptians rejecting Amun as their primary deity and adopting the Aten instead, during the reign of Akhenaten. That no sarcophagi with jewels were found in the tombs probably suggests that these two gentlemen had followed Amenhotep III and the rest of his court when he retreated into Nubia.

Tombs_combo.thumb.jpg.c983cf5c21c8dbcb2e0bb7c44b07f24f.jpg

Tombs with collapsed ceilings and cracks in walls (see original article for more photographs)

 

Edited by Riaan
Spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
10 minutes ago, Riaan said:

While I'm on a roll, I might as well keep on amusing you - this time about what I interpret as solid geological evidence that a second eruption must have occurred following the 1613 BCE on (more and more scientists have now come to the same conclusion as I had in Thera and the Exodus, that Ahmose I must have witnessed this eruption (his Tempest Stele, etc)  - see my summary in my updated Addendum to Thera and the Exodus. The reason for this is firstly to be found in the tsunami rubble found on Crete (see image below), which shows rock-hard Santorini ash 'intraclasts' which had been geochemically dated to the 1613 ±13 years BCE eruption (remembered by the Greeks as the Flood of Ogygus).

Crete_Tsunami_Deposits_sm.jpg.3cb044d6aae35215fd5b11002dba2dfe.jpg

According to the authors,

“the volcanic ash (from Thera’s eruption) … appears as distinct intraclasts in chaotic geoarcheological tsunami deposits … These deposits are geologically dated to the Minoan Santorini eruption, because the embedded volcanic ash is proven to have the geochemical fingerprint of this (the 1613 BCE) eruptionThe volcanic ash was evidently reworked by the tsunami and redeposited … it can be concluded that airborne volcanic ash deposition over eastern Crete preceded the tsunami. The volcanic ash was most likely deposited at Palaikastro during the 1 st eruption phase (Plinian) with winds blowing from Santorini to the southeast … The tsunami was apparently generated during the 3rd or 4th eruption phase, according to stratigraphic evidence of tsunami deposits at Thera … 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.”

In my opinion, this is utter BS. There is no way on God's earth that the ash could have sifted down over Crete and somehow managed to become rock solid within a couple of days, and the tsunami only then arriving at Crete. As an experiment, take a bucket filled with ash from a fireplace and dump it over a rocky area anywhere. Wait a couple of days and then throw bucket-full of water over it. What will you see? The ash will simply be dispersed all over the show, but nowhere will it show the distinct rock-like edges that are visible in the photograph. To me the only logical conclusion is that the ash was indeed deposited over Crete in a thick, continuous layer after the eruption's tsunami had already run over the place. It took many years for this layer of volcanic ash to solidify and become rock hard. It was during a second eruption (250 years later, remembered by the Greeks as the Flood of Deucalion), that a tsunami shattered the once continuous layer into rock-hard 'intraclasts'. That would have occurred ca. 1360 BCE, during the last decade of the reign of Amenhotep III.

Although Egypt has suffered numerous earthquakes due to various causes during its history, there is one in particular that caught my attention.  American archaeologists have recently unearthed ancient tombs belonging to Amenhotep, guard of the temple of Egyptian deity Amun, and his son Sa-mut (Simut), respectively. The tombs date back to the New Kingdom of the 18th Dynasty (1543-1292 BC). Amenhotep, along with Ramose, was one of viziers during the last decade of Amenhotep III’s reign and he was most likely the Amenhotep to whom one of the tombs belonged. Simut was an Egyptian priest who held the position of Second Prophet of Amun towards the end of the reign of Amenhotep III and would, therefore, most likely have been the vizier Amenhotep’s son. That places them ca. 1360 BCE (they had not yet died, as ‘Many of scenes represent the tomb owner and his wife in front of an offering table and a view of a goddess nursing a royal child as well as scenes of the daily life’). It is clear that the type of damage they suffered (collapsed ceilings and walls, see photographs below, @Ministry of Antiquities) could only have been caused by an earthquake and not by 'vandals'. 

The tombs clearly must have been damaged by an earthquake (see photograph below and the link above for more). It is perhaps too much of a coincidence that this one occurred at the precise time that other evidence point to an eruption of Thera. Furthermore,

 “The name and titles of the tomb owner, some hieroglyphic texts and scenes in addition to the names of the god Amun were deliberately erased… the tombs appear to have been looted at some point and the sarcophogi containing the bejeweled mummies were missing.”

This would confirm my proposed reason for the populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun, the high priest of which had advised the king to issue a decree that all firstborns should be sacrificed in fires so-as to appease the wrath of the gods and free Egypt from the plague that was decimating its population (i.e. the tenth plague). This failed, horrific sacrifice led to the Egyptians rejecting Amun as their primary deity and adopting the Aten instead, during the reign of Akhenaten. That no sarcophagi with jewels were found in the tombs probably suggests that these two gentlemen had followed Amenhotep III and the rest of his court when he retreated into Nubia.

Tombs_combo.thumb.jpg.c983cf5c21c8dbcb2e0bb7c44b07f24f.jpg

Tombs with collapsed ceilings and cracks in walls (see original article for more photographs)

 

So this is all coming from your fiction story or is there some basis for it? Good story by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
20 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

So this is all coming from your fiction story or is there some basis for it? Good story by the way.

I just came across it one day and realized this obvious earthquake damage  just happens to coincide with my 1360 BCE eruption date (the tombs). The most important aspect is, and could you please honour me with your scientifically-based opinion, is whether Bruins et al can be correct in assuming that the tsunami had arrived at Crete a couple of days after Thera's ash had been deposited there and the ash had already become solidified (rock hard intraclasts) by that time. This has you-know-what to do with my actual Exodus 'story' - it revolves about the scientific interpretation Bruins et al had offered for something they simply could not envisage or understand, namely that a second eruption must have occurred a long time after the 1613 BCE eruption. The question is, do you agree with them, or with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
6 minutes ago, Riaan said:

I just came across it one day and realized this obvious earthquake damage  just happens to coincide with my 1360 BCE eruption date (the tombs). The most important aspect is, and could you please honour me with your scientifically-based opinion, is whether Bruins et al can be correct in assuming that the tsunami had arrived at Crete a couple of days after Thera's ash had been deposited there and the ash had already become solidified (rock hard intraclasts) by that time. This has you-know-what to do with my actual Exodus 'story' - it revolves about the scientific interpretation Bruins et al had offered for something they simply could not envisage or understand, namely that a second eruption must have occurred a long time after the 1613 BCE eruption. The question is, do you agree with them, or with me?

Neither I have not studied that specific eruption and don't know the details. I would say however I don't believe there was any exodus from Egypt. Instead it was 'puffed' up memory of leaving Egyptian control Canaan for awhile then returning. It was modified to create some heroes and a back story for an emerging religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

I think he asked for your scientifically based opinion, not for what you believe or not believe.

You know what Clint Eastwood once said about 'opinions'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
34 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I think he asked for your scientifically based opinion, not for what you believe or not believe.

You know what Clint Eastwood once said about 'opinions'...

Thanks, that is exactly what I would like to know. You don't have to be a geologist or an archaeologist to answer this one, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
3 hours ago, Riaan said:

This would confirm my proposed reason for the populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun, the high priest of which had advised the king to issue a decree that all firstborns should be sacrificed in fires so-as to appease the wrath of the gods and free Egypt from the plague that was decimating its population (i.e. the tenth plague). This failed, horrific sacrifice led to the Egyptians rejecting Amun as their primary deity and adopting the Aten instead, during the reign of Akhenaten. That no sarcophagi with jewels were found in the tombs probably suggests that these two gentlemen had followed Amenhotep III and the rest of his court when he retreated into Nubia.

I would like to see the evidence for all of this. Also, do you propose that the damage to the two tombs you mention, and lack of sarcophagi and mummies, is unique, as it sounds as if this is so.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
22 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I would like to see the evidence for all of this. Also, do you propose that the damage to the two tombs you mention, and lack of sarcophagi and mummies, is unique, as it sounds as if this is so.

You can find the original article by Bruins and his colleagues here (free PDF download). My conclusion is based on the comment by the authors, so I don't know what other 'evidence' you may be looking for. The damage to the tombs could only have been caused by an earthquake, but this one, by coincidence, coincides spot-on with the date of Thera's second eruption which I have proposed in my book. The earthquake is certainly NOT unique, as I have stated in the beginning - Egypt is known to have suffered numerous earthquakes due to various causes throughout its history. This earthquake, which happened during the last decade of the reign of Amenhotep III (vizier Amenhotep and his son Sa-mut) may, therefore, have been caused by a second eruption of Thera. The Crete tsunami rubble is to me a much clearer indication that a second eruption must have occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
33 minutes ago, Riaan said:

You can find the original article by Bruins and his colleagues here (free PDF download). My conclusion is based on the comment by the authors, so I don't know what other 'evidence' you may be looking for. The damage to the tombs could only have been caused by an earthquake, but this one, by coincidence, coincides spot-on with the date of Thera's second eruption which I have proposed in my book. The earthquake is certainly NOT unique, as I have stated in the beginning - Egypt is known to have suffered numerous earthquakes due to various causes throughout its history. This earthquake, which happened during the last decade of the reign of Amenhotep III (vizier Amenhotep and his son Sa-mut) may, therefore, have been caused by a second eruption of Thera. The Crete tsunami rubble is to me a much clearer indication that a second eruption must have occurred.

I deliberately quoted that part of your post about a "Populist uprising against Amunhotep III and the priesthood of Amun" because that is what I would like to see evidence for, not about a posited second Thera eruption.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
5 hours ago, Riaan said:

Thanks, that is exactly what I would like to know. You don't have to be a geologist or an archaeologist to answer this one, I think.

No but you have to have all the information, which I don't. My opinion is that I lack sufficient information to chose who is right. Let me ask you a scientitic question outside your area of knowledge but within mine and to which you don't have the information. Would you agree with Ian Todd of Brandeis University about the developmental stages of the Kalavassos site or do you agree with the French teams position?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I think he asked for your scientifically based opinion, not for what you believe or not believe.

You know what Clint Eastwood once said about 'opinions'...

I thought I clearly stated: " Neither I have not studied that specific eruption and don't know the details." That seems clear to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

No but you have to have all the information, which I don't. My opinion is that I lack sufficient information to chose who is right. Let me ask you a scientitic question outside your area of knowledge but within mine and to which you don't have the information. Would you agree with Ian Todd of Brandeis University about the developmental stages of the Kalavassos site or do you agree with the French teams position?

 

 

All you need in this case is common sense. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

I wonder @Riaan if you have yet collated the evidence for this statement you made last Thursday "Populist uprising against Amunhotep III and the priesthood of Amun", and are ready to make your reply. Your statement, if true, would blow the world of Amarna studies wide apart and would need all the books to be re-written, and cause a huge flurry of activity on line, and probably resurrect some dead forums. So, the evidence, if you would be so kind.

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
On 9/24/2020 at 5:40 PM, Riaan said:

While I'm on a roll, I might as well keep on amusing you - this time about what I interpret as solid geological evidence that a second eruption must have occurred following the 1613 BCE on (more and more scientists have now come to the same conclusion as I had in Thera and the Exodus, that Ahmose I must have witnessed this eruption (his Tempest Stele, etc)  - see my summary in my updated Addendum to Thera and the Exodus. The reason for this is firstly to be found in the tsunami rubble found on Crete (see image below), which shows rock-hard Santorini ash 'intraclasts' which had been geochemically dated to the 1613 ±13 years BCE eruption (remembered by the Greeks as the Flood of Ogygus).

Crete_Tsunami_Deposits_sm.jpg.3cb044d6aae35215fd5b11002dba2dfe.jpg

According to the authors,

“the volcanic ash (from Thera’s eruption) … appears as distinct intraclasts in chaotic geoarcheological tsunami deposits … These deposits are geologically dated to the Minoan Santorini eruption, because the embedded volcanic ash is proven to have the geochemical fingerprint of this (the 1613 BCE) eruptionThe volcanic ash was evidently reworked by the tsunami and redeposited … it can be concluded that airborne volcanic ash deposition over eastern Crete preceded the tsunami. The volcanic ash was most likely deposited at Palaikastro during the 1 st eruption phase (Plinian) with winds blowing from Santorini to the southeast … The tsunami was apparently generated during the 3rd or 4th eruption phase, according to stratigraphic evidence of tsunami deposits at Thera … 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.”

In my opinion, this is utter BS. There is no way on God's earth that the ash could have sifted down over Crete and somehow managed to become rock solid within a couple of days, and the tsunami only then arriving at Crete. As an experiment, take a bucket filled with ash from a fireplace and dump it over a rocky area anywhere. Wait a couple of days and then throw bucket-full of water over it. What will you see? The ash will simply be dispersed all over the show, but nowhere will it show the distinct rock-like edges that are visible in the photograph. To me the only logical conclusion is that the ash was indeed deposited over Crete in a thick, continuous layer after the eruption's tsunami had already run over the place. It took many years for this layer of volcanic ash to solidify and become rock hard. It was during a second eruption (250 years later, remembered by the Greeks as the Flood of Deucalion), that a tsunami shattered the once continuous layer into rock-hard 'intraclasts'. That would have occurred ca. 1360 BCE, during the last decade of the reign of Amenhotep III.


As a non geologist you may find it utter BS, but I note that the authors also state that " The largest volcanic particle we found is a sand-size piece of pumice, 1.50.8 mm, visible in Fig. 15a to the right and enlarged in Fig. 15b ".

http://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/Crete-Cyprus/Palaikastro-Bruins2008.pdf

And if you drop, say 2 ft of ash over a hundred square miles, and then throw water on it, I bet you'll end up with a few muddy lumps of ash ;) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
On 9/25/2020 at 12:26 AM, Riaan said:

All you need in this case is common sense. 

No you asked me specifically my 'scientifically-based opinion'.

"" The most important aspect is, and could you please honour me with your scientifically-based opinion, is whether Bruins et al can be correct in assuming that the tsunami had arrived at Crete a couple of days after Thera's ash had been deposited there and the ash had already become solidified (rock hard intraclasts) by that time.""

I then asked you, to give me your scientific opinion on this: Would you agree with Ian Todd of Brandeis University about the developmental stages of the Kalavassos site or do you agree with the French teams position?

Given you don't know anything about that site you cannot do so, the same situation applies to me.

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
23 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I then asked you, to give me your scientific opinion on this: Would you agree with Ian Todd of Brandeis University about the developmental stages of the Kalavassos site or do you agree with the French teams position?

Your original quote:

Quote

Let me ask you a scientitic [sic] question outside your area of knowledge but within mine and to which you don't have the information. Would you agree with Ian Todd of Brandeis University about the developmental stages of the Kalavassos site or do you agree with the French teams position?

The difference being, the least of which it is not the topic of the thread or what you are commenting on in the negative, the Minoan eruption is one of the most widely studied defining events in human history for many reasons which an abundance of information can be found by any maroon with an intent connection or library card whereas the Kalavassos-Tenta site is an obscure aceramic Neolithic village with little interest beyond the minutia of local Cyrpus pre-history, tourism and specialist literature. 

What is your "area of knowledge" exactly? Prehistoric Mediterranean maritime culture? Cypriotic acermaic neolithic period? Vasilikos Valley? Kalavassos-Tenta? The Cypriotic Bronze Age period? By all means....Tellingly you refer to Kalavassos-Tenta as "Kalavassos" which as a rule among those with such an "area of knowledge" it is referred to as Kalavassos Tenta or just "Tenta".  You also pit "Ian Todd of Brandeis University" against the enigmatic "French team". Ian Todd is synonymous with Tenta so for one in the know it is unnecessary to refer to him as "Ian Todd of Brandeis University" and if he needs to be qualified to a laymen wouldn't you want to mention the more relevant fact that he was (is?) the lead on the Vasilikos Valley Project for some 30yrs or more instead? And who is this mysterious "French team"-what University are they from?  Also, it would be helpful to know the third party source you are parroting this from? 

Quote

Given you don't know anything about that site you cannot do so, the same situation applies to me.

What a bizarre excuse. One that you use far too often. It does in fact apply to you as you the the one commenting in a thread on this subject, not Tenta. 

Edited by Thanos5150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
On 9/26/2020 at 1:48 PM, Essan said:


As a non geologist you may find it utter BS, but I note that the authors also state that " The largest volcanic particle we found is a sand-size piece of pumice, 1.50.8 mm, visible in Fig. 15a to the right and enlarged in Fig. 15b ".

http://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/Crete-Cyprus/Palaikastro-Bruins2008.pdf

And if you drop, say 2 ft of ash over a hundred square miles, and then throw water on it, I bet you'll end up with a few muddy lumps of ash ;) 

Yet the Volcanic Santorini Ash intraclast on the photograph next to the pottery sherd is almost 5 cm long, and apparently rock solid with sharp edges and clear signs of erosion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
On 9/24/2020 at 5:40 PM, Riaan said:

This would confirm my proposed reason for the populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun, the high priest of which had advised the king to issue a decree that all firstborns should be sacrificed in fires so-as to appease the wrath of the gods and free Egypt from the plague that was decimating its population (i.e. the tenth plague). This failed, horrific sacrifice led to the Egyptians rejecting Amun as their primary deity and adopting the Aten instead, during the reign of Akhenaten. That no sarcophagi with jewels were found in the tombs probably suggests that these two gentlemen had followed Amenhotep III and the rest of his court when he retreated into Nubia

 

I guess you missed my post 13 from last Saturday as I didn't quote you directly, at least not on that time of asking the same question. So, do you have evidence for this "populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
16 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I guess you missed my post 13 from last Saturday as I didn't quote you directly, at least not on that time of asking the same question. So, do you have evidence for this "populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun".

It is part of my Exodus theory (for which you'll have to read the book or the Addendum to T&E), but this was NOT the main purpose of this post. So please ignore any reference to my Exodus theory - the only question is whether the tsunami deposits at Crete inadvertently prove that a second eruption of Thera must have occurred many years after the 1613 BCE one (i.e. it was that second tsunami that shattered the solidified 1613 BCE ash layer on Crete into rock-like 'intraclasts').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
9 minutes ago, Riaan said:

It is part of my Exodus theory (for which you'll have to read the book or the Addendum to T&E), but this was NOT the main purpose of this post. So please ignore any reference to my Exodus theory - the only question is whether the tsunami deposits at Crete inadvertently prove that a second eruption of Thera must have occurred many years after the 1613 BCE one (i.e. it was that second tsunami that shattered the solidified 1613 BCE ash layer on Crete into rock-like 'intraclasts').

You cannot expect to make such a bold statement in a thread and not have it questioned. That it is not the main point of the thread is not really relevant because it is you who have brought this up, not me or another poster interjecting with OT matters. I'll debate what you put forward on this forum, not read your book, so please debate this major "revelation" here by presenting those relevant parts of your book. Just a short synopsis of your evidence would do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
On 9/30/2020 at 2:23 AM, Wepwawet said:

You cannot expect to make such a bold statement in a thread and not have it questioned. That it is not the main point of the thread is not really relevant because it is you who have brought this up, not me or another poster interjecting with OT matters. I'll debate what you put forward on this forum, not read your book, so please debate this major "revelation" here by presenting those relevant parts of your book. Just a short synopsis of your evidence would do.

I wonder if this is in part some odd mistaken conflation with the Suppression of the Priest Amenhotep centuries later.

Edited by Thanos5150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

I wonder if this is in part some odd mistaken conflation with the Suppression of the Priest Amenhotep centuries later.

That's possible I guess to confuse the shenanigans at the end of the 20th Dynasty with those towards the end of the 18th, but as Riaan attaches this to a plague, and though he does not mention it, at least here, an association with the army of Sekhmet statues set up by AIII as an potential  "anti plague defence", and perhaps some of the "bad things" that Akhenaten mentions on the boundry stelae, I think it clear that he does refer to AIII, though possibly confusing him with the movements of the Amunhotep who was High Priest of Amun. There's no great evidence that AIII set foot outside of Malkata palace and Thebes for some years before he died. Some clarification and evidence from Riaan would help of course

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by Wepwawet
double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
On 9/30/2020 at 11:23 AM, Wepwawet said:

You cannot expect to make such a bold statement in a thread and not have it questioned. That it is not the main point of the thread is not really relevant because it is you who have brought this up, not me or another poster interjecting with OT matters. I'll debate what you put forward on this forum, not read your book, so please debate this major "revelation" here by presenting those relevant parts of your book. Just a short synopsis of your evidence would do.

I think I am quite entitled to question only whether the tsunami rubble at Crete indicates that a second eruption of Thera must have occurred many years after the first one ca. 1613 BCE. Yes, I have quoted the reason why I am interested in your opinion about my interpretation of the tsunami rubble, but that is still all I want. I don't expect you to read my book - I later realized that I had written it more like a PhD dissertation, 'a boring read trying to split hairs', or something like that. However, you can find a rather old synopsis called The Moses Puzzle here, but even better would be my Addendum to T&E, (this topic is discussed before/after Figure 21.16, a continuation of figure numbers from my book). I cheated (the publisher) a bit with the summaries and specifically in the Addendum, as I summarized many of my main arguments in the book in the Addendum, along with, of course, several new conclusions I have reached (about 40 pages to read, pp. 459-501 continuing from the book, if you exclude the appendix containing The Story of Joseph and Asenath and the references). With cheated I mean that you can buy a Kindle version of the book, but you'd still have to read the whole thing.

I have absolutely no problem with being questioned and in fact expect it to happen. I am not going to write a short(er) synopsis specifically for you, as it actually has little to do with my post. I see your reply as another attempt to sidestep a direct question: Do the tsunami deposits shown in the photograph suggest that there must have been a second eruption of Thera, or not. If no, I would expect you to substantiate your answer scientifically, without referring to whichever way I may want to use this information.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Riaan said:

I think I am quite entitled to question only whether the tsunami rubble at Crete indicates that a second eruption of Thera must have occurred many years after the first one ca. 1613 BCE. Yes, I have quoted the reason why I am interested in your opinion about my interpretation of the tsunami rubble, but that is still all I want. I don't expect you to read my book - I later realized that I had written it more like a PhD dissertation, 'a boring read trying to split hairs', or something like that. However, you can find a rather old synopsis called The Moses Puzzle here, but even better would be my Addendum to T&E, (this topic is discussed before/after Figure 21.16, a continuation of figure numbers from my book). I cheated (the publisher) a bit with the summaries and specifically in the Addendum, as I summarized many of my main arguments in the book in the Addendum, along with, of course, several new conclusions I have reached (about 40 pages to read, pp. 459-501 continuing from the book, if you exclude the appendix containing The Story of Joseph and Asenath and the references). With cheated I mean that you can buy a Kindle version of the book, but you'd still have to read the whole thing.

I have absolutely no problem with being questioned and in fact expect it to happen. I am not going to write a short(er) synopsis specifically for you, as it actually has little to do with my post. I see your reply as another attempt to sidestep a direct question: Do the tsunami deposits shown in the photograph suggest that there must have been a second eruption of Thera, or not. If no, I would expect you to substantiate your answer scientifically, without referring to whichever way I may want to use this information.

 

But you are the thread starter. You lay out your proposition and it's up to anybody interested to put you to the question. I clearly stated that I was questioning you on one specific element of the OP, your assertion that there was a, "populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun". I've asked the same question about five or six times, and you have sidestepped or ignored the question. Why you accuse me of stidestepping is ridiculous as I have never made a single post except about this single question, not about a photo of tsunami deposits, of which I have no interest, and about which I have not made a single post to be questioned on.

So, can you please provide evidence for a, "populist uprising against Amenhotep III and the priesthood of Amun", thank you.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.