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 -

Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History


The Puzzler

Recommended Posts

On 3/26/2024 at 3:23 AM, Abramelin said:

Did Loki also lead his people to 'the promised land'? Or divide the waters of the North Sea??

I gotta say this could be indicative of older stories…. recall linking the Trojan War theory by the woman professor of Hittite languages recently…? These stories might not seem the same on top, but in layers underneath that we might not see, there could be similarities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm…if “Mycenaean heroic success and prestige” existed at all, in the Bronze Age…invent a story and history to legitimise yourself and your power, isn’t that what Rome did?……

The river Eleutherion runs close to the sacred site, providing water for cleansing rituals and sacrifices.[8] Also nearby the Heraion are tombs from the plain's predecessors, the Mycenaeans; the establishment of the Heraion nearby this already sacred area served as a way for Argos to legitimize their growing state by linking it to Mycenaean heroic success and prestige”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps…? Herodotus clearly states iron was used in scaffolding.
An iron object perhaps dating to the Old Kingdom was found between the stones of the outside of the pyramid of Khufu at Giza and has sometimes been cited as evidence that iron tools were used to build the pyramids, and Herodotus has been quoted to support this.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herodotus also says the Phoenicians, were were best informed in history….giving themselves a longer span by even 2000 years…Herodotus just repeated what they told him, so they said they arrived in Phoenicia 2000 years before Herodotus time…then also he explains how Cadmus “must have” bought writing to Greece c. 2000 BC…

So, Phoenicians themselves in Herodotus time have exaggerated themselves massively….

Since Velikovsky associates Mycenaeans as being offshoots of Phoenicians, this all falls into place. neither of them were ancient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this mask be from the Pazyryk…? That moustache is intriguing….

The Pazyryk are considered to have had a war-like life.[4] The Pazyryk culture was preceded by the "Arzhan culture" (Initial Scythian period, 8th - 7th century BC)

IMG_1228.jpeg

IMG_1229.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

I gotta say this could be indicative of older stories…. recall linking the Trojan War theory by the woman professor of Hittite languages recently…? These stories might not seem the same on top, but in layers underneath that we might not see, there could be similarities.

Stories travel, and travel far.

Just look at a map of Europe, and then follow the course of the Danube, the Rhine and the Elbe: these rivers connect the North Sea region with the Balkans and the Black Sea.

url(134).jpg.44292fb3bdd7173ac2640366f50b9067.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

Could this mask be from the Pazyryk…? That moustache is intriguing….

The Pazyryk are considered to have had a war-like life.[4] The Pazyryk culture was preceded by the "Arzhan culture" (Initial Scythian period, 8th - 7th century BC)

IMG_1228.jpeg

IMG_1229.jpeg

The mask is from about 1600 BCE.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

The mask is from about 1600 BCE.

 

Yes, the beginning of the Mycenaean period which lasted about 500 years.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Could this mask be from the Pazyryk…? That moustache is intriguing….

The Pazyryk are considered to have had a war-like life.[4] The Pazyryk culture was preceded by the "Arzhan culture" (Initial Scythian period, 8th - 7th century BC)

IMG_1228.jpeg

IMG_1229.jpeg

The Saka were nowhere near there and they grew out of the Eastern Iranian Afanasievo Culture in Siberia. 

Big moustaches are a common IE trait though. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early Geometric period starts around 900BC so the so called “dark ages of Greece” if they ever actually happened lasted roughly two centuries.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Early Geometric period starts around 900BC so the so called “dark ages of Greece” if they ever actually happened lasted roughly two centuries.

I wonder if a little Yersinia pestis problem popped up again to help the population drop. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Abramelin said:

The mask is from about 1600 BCE.

 

Are you missing something here in this topic…?

If we bring the Mycenaean mask down to the early first millennium….when V says the Mycenaeans actually inhabited Greece…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Early Geometric period starts around 900BC so the so called “dark ages of Greece” if they ever actually happened lasted roughly two centuries.

These are key points he uses…Mycenaean Geometric Ware at 900BC..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Herodotus also says the Phoenicians, were were best informed in history….giving themselves a longer span by even 2000 years…Herodotus just repeated what they told him, so they said they arrived in Phoenicia 2000 years before Herodotus time…then also he explains how Cadmus “must have” bought writing to Greece c. 2000 BC…

So, Phoenicians themselves in Herodotus time have exaggerated themselves massively….

Since Velikovsky associates Mycenaeans as being offshoots of Phoenicians, this all falls into place. neither of them were ancient.

HOWEVER... Herodotus has been called "Father of Lies" and his material seems to be drawn from travelers tales and the tales of guides (who were more than happy to tell tourists whatever made the tourist happy).  Relying on him as a source isn't a good idea... UNLESS you're discussing the ideas and beliefs of his time period.

Velikovsky didn't know how to research history and archaeology (and even after people offered to help him, he rejected any attempts to teach him how to find the documents he might have wanted.)  By ignoring advice and critics, he could basically do what fantasy writers call "world-building" for a fantasy world (today it would be called "alternate history fiction".)  Unlike history (but like alternate history fiction), his ideas have some huge plot holes in them (like Venus being ejected from Jupiter as a comet)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

Are you missing something here in this topic…?

If we bring the Mycenaean mask down to the early first millennium….when V says the Mycenaeans actually inhabited Greece…

 

Well, yes.  Mycenae was a very small area in Greece, as you can see from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae#History) but the material has been dated by many sources as being 1600 BC to 1100 BC.  

Velikovsky never actually studied these sites, never studied the artifacts to any degree.  People who have worked the sites and worked with the artifacts and museums (comparing objects and documents) strongly disagree with his ideas.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

HOWEVER... Herodotus has been called "Father of Lies" and his material seems to be drawn from travelers tales and the tales of guides (who were more than happy to tell tourists whatever made the tourist happy).  Relying on him as a source isn't a good idea... UNLESS you're discussing the ideas and beliefs of his time period.

Velikovsky didn't know how to research history and archaeology (and even after people offered to help him, he rejected any attempts to teach him how to find the documents he might have wanted.)  By ignoring advice and critics, he could basically do what fantasy writers call "world-building" for a fantasy world (today it would be called "alternate history fiction".)  Unlike history (but like alternate history fiction), his ideas have some huge plot holes in them (like Venus being ejected from Jupiter as a comet)

From an earlier post…(my words) Herodotus is misconstrued as this so called father of lies more like it…

Herodotus also says the Phoenicians, were were best informed in history….giving themselves a longer span by even 2000 years…Herodotus just repeated what they told him, so they said they arrived in Phoenicia 2000 years before Herodotus time…then also he explains how Cadmus “must have” bought writing to Greece c. 2000 BC…

So, Phoenicians themselves in Herodotus time have exaggerated themselves massively….not Herodotus himself.

Concentrating on this particular thesis, not his later books.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Puzzler said:

From an earlier post…(my words) Herodotus is misconstrued as this so called father of lies more like it…

 

Herodotus also says the Phoenicians, were were best informed in history….giving themselves a longer span by even 2000 years…Herodotus just repeated what they told him, so they said they arrived in Phoenicia 2000 years before Herodotus time…then also he explains how Cadmus “must have” bought writing to Greece c. 2000 BC…

So, Phoenicians themselves in Herodotus time have exaggerated themselves massively….not Herodotus himself.

Concentrating on this particular thesis, not his later books.  

Do we not see these kinds of exaggerations everywhere? Claims on ancient grounds, belonging to one group through some half-baked old traditions…which may or may not have existed…

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Well, yes.  Mycenae was a very small area in Greece, as you can see from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae#History) but the material has been dated by many sources as being 1600 BC to 1100 BC.  

Velikovsky never actually studied these sites, never studied the artifacts to any degree.  People who have worked the sites and worked with the artifacts and museums (comparing objects and documents) strongly disagree with his ideas.

Datings begin here with Schliemann, although I consider him extremely dedicated to his research, I think the dating methods used by him in the very beginnings of archaeology in the Aegean could be wrong….I’m sure I read somewhere even Arthur Evans had trouble with his timeframes…I just find it interesting someone who is so maligned by many, is the one we look to for our timelines…but even he was surprised the Mask of Agamemnon wasn’t within his own expectation.

 

IMG_1230.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Piney said:

The Saka were nowhere near there and they grew out of the Eastern Iranian Afanasievo Culture in Siberia. 

Big moustaches are a common IE trait though. 

Seemingly…can be harder to find this type of moustache in images, from this time period, except maybe on some other gold death masks…

Anyway, if we place these Scythians to an intermediate between Mycenaean and Pazyryk, we get closer to what what going on….Saka…Scythians entering Europe. Celts taking on witch hats…who knows but big changes occurred….there is mentions in the Iliad of very Celtic type practice, Ajax falling on his sword for instance.

Cultures preceding Pazyryk…same people…?

“Thanks to their development of highly mobile mounted nomadic pastoralism and the creation of effective weapons suited to equestrian warfare, all based on equestrianism, these nomads from the Pontic-Caspian Steppes were able to gradually infiltrate into Central and Southeast Europe and therefore expand deep into this region over a very long period of time.[23][7]

Graves of both the Chernogorovka and Novocherkassk phases of the complex are spread across a large area ranging from north-eastern Bulgaria and Moldavia in the west through Ukraine and Crimea and up to the Kuban and Volga-Kama regions in the east.[19] The Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk complex thus covered the area ranging from Central Europe and the Hungarian Plain in the west to the Pontic and Ciscaucasian Steppes in the east.[6]

In the 8th century BC, a part of the Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk complex expanded into the Pannonian Steppe,[24]where it contributed to the formation of the Mezőcsát culture.[25][26] This in turn allowed the Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk complex itself to strongly influence the Hallstatt culture of Central Europe:[23] among these influences was the adoption of trousers, which were not used by the native populations of Central Europe before the arrival of the Central Asian steppe nomads.

Another direction of expansion of the Arzhan-Chernogorovka cultural layer was represented by the movements of the Cimmerians and Scythians to the south of the Caucasus into West Asia during the 8th to 7th centuries BC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk_complex

Edited by The Puzzler
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Kenemet said:

HOWEVER... Herodotus has been called "Father of Lies" and his material seems to be drawn from travelers tales and the tales of guides (who were more than happy to tell tourists whatever made the tourist happy).  Relying on him as a source isn't a good idea... UNLESS you're discussing the ideas and beliefs of his time period.

 

Or unless what he wrote about was or has been confirmed by archaeology. No ancient author should be used as a sole source in and of themselves, even those which have proven to be relatively accurate about most of the things they wrote.

 

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kenemet said:

HOWEVER... Herodotus has been called "Father of Lies"

Not that it makes Herodotus any more of a reliable source, or not, but he was called the "father of lies" by Plutarch centuries after the fact for largely personal reasons namely because Herodotus did not portray Plutarch's people in a favorable light. Father of History or Father of Lies; the Reputation of Herodotus.  p14. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Archaeology's Iron 1 and Iron 2 ages have probably replaced Velicovsky's 500 "missing" years.  From Wikipedia's article titled Iron Age:

rrvs84hbqaoyhxxxmvwx0s1wvpxq5xh.png

Edited by atalante
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Not that it makes Herodotus any more of a reliable source, or not, but he was called the "father of lies" by Plutarch centuries after the fact for largely personal reasons namely because Herodotus did not portray Plutarch's people in a favorable light. Father of History or Father of Lies; the Reputation of Herodotus.  p14. 

Excellent point. It’s also relevant I think to note that in his day there was no concept of something like a “historian” the way we think of it in modern terms. He was intentionally making his work part travelogue, part historical facts, collecting tales he’d heard, recording myths, etc.  If his goal was to strictly write down historical details I think he would have been more discriminating and selective in the things he chose to record for posterity.

For me the most important takeaway of his Histories is that there is indeed some factual historical information in it (ie Macedonians and Dorians were the same people), things confirmed by archaeology, as well as clues to some modern day unsolved mysteries (like noting the tradition of his day amongst Egyptians that Khufu was buried under the Giza plateau and not in G1). So I find the whole “Father of Lies” moniker falls almost on the side of propaganda. Which probably was Plutarch’s intention to begin with. There’s undoubtedly inaccurate and/or incomplete information in his work, but I wouldn’t personally throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying nothing in it can be trusted or verified, which is what the “Father of Lies” name does.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/27/2024 at 8:47 PM, Kenemet said:

Well, yes.  Mycenae was a very small area in Greece, as you can see from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae#History) but the material has been dated by many sources as being 1600 BC to 1100 BC. 

Why do we need to see the Wikipedia page for this? Regardless, Puzzler said "Myceneans" (the people) not "Mycenae" (the city) who in fact occupied a very large portion of Greece. 

875px-Mycenaean_World_en.png 

Since you are only capable of citing Wikipedia these days, try this one instead: Mycenaean Greece

Quote

Velikovsky never actually studied these sites, never studied the artifacts to any degree. 

At all you say? THE DARK AGE OF GREECE

Quote

People who have worked the sites and worked with the artifacts and museums (comparing objects and documents) strongly disagree with his ideas.

I am sure that they do or would if they even knew/know who Velikovsky was, but can you give a few sources that specifically back up this claim?

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.