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

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

 Regardless, Puzzler said "Myceneans" (the people) not "Mycenae" (the city) 

I have to admit I missed that. Good catch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The history of ferrous metalurgy can be used to explain why the eastern Mediterranean region was relatively a latecomer to the Iron Age.  The issue seems to be charcoal, which was used, and needed, to convert soft wrought iron into hard steel.  The eastern Med had lost many of its trees in the extended droughts of 1200-1050 BCE.  So the eastern Med had a shortage of charcoal for a long time.

 

from:  https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/History_of_ferrous_metallurgy.html

Mesopotamia was fully into the Iron Age by 900 BC, central Europe by 800 BC. Egypt, on the other hand, did not experience such a rapid transition from the bronze to iron ages: although Egyptian smiths did produce iron artifacts, bronze remained in widespread use there until after Egypt's conquest by Assyria in 663 BC.

Concurrent with the transition from bronze to iron was the discovery of carburization, which was the process of adding carbon to the irons of the time. Iron was recovered as sponge iron, a mix of iron and slag with some carbon and/or carbide, which was then repeatedly hammered and folded over to free the mass of slag and oxidise out carbon content, so creating the product wrought iron. Wrought iron was very low in carbon content and was not easily hardened by quenching. The people of the Middle East found that a much harder product could be created by the long term heating of a wrought iron object in a bed of charcoal, which was then quenched in water or oil. The resulting product, which had a surface of steel, was harder and less brittle than the bronze it began to replace. Quench-hardening was also known by this time.

Iron smelting at this time was based on the bloomery, a furnace where bellows were used to force air through a pile of iron ore and burning charcoal. The carbon monoxide produced by the CHARCOAL reduced the iron oxides to metallic iron, but the bloomery was not hot enough to melt the iron. Instead, the iron collected in the bottom of the furnace as a spongy mass, or bloom, whose pores were filled with ash and slag. The bloom then had to be reheated to soften the iron and melt the slag, and then repeatedly beaten and folded to force the molten slag out of it. The result of this time-consuming and laborious process was wrought iron, a malleable but fairly soft alloy containing little carbon.

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

22 hours ago, Antigonos said:

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.

And he doesn’t rely solely on Herodotus but uses his information, even though “defective in details”  to back his own ideas up.

IMG_1245.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, atalante said:

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

It depends on the chronology and how it became verifiable.

 

IMG_1244.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Over 15 years in here, I have constantly noticed these patterns myself, with or without Dr V.

Theres no Phrygians before like 800BC if that, yet Priams wife, mother of Hector is said to be Phrygian and who arrived after the Hittites fell c. 1200BC.

Theres no evidence of any big war at Hissarlik c. 1200BC.

Agamemnon is depicted as a Cabeiri.

Tyrian Phoenicians did not exist before 1000BC. (From Tyre)

Forget about Aeneas stopping in Carthage. The whole things a farce. Giving ancient lineage to people….

There is no evidence of Mycenaean Linear B out of Greek writing, via Phoenician language….because they were really Phoenicians, just like V said.

Pelasgians, Cyclops, Trojans, Minoans, Mycenaeans…what a glorious Bronze Age mindset. 
Then it fell….or was it never there to begin with? What a convenient way to erase it.

Herodotus tells us how the Phoenician traders took Helen aboard, willingly, from Argos, while they stopped there to trade. Was Homer writing from occurrence of 500 years earlier. We take it at face value but if you break it down, it gets ridiculous.

There is no way any of these said things are so old.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A myth that even YOU remember…why? Because it’s not even very old…? The PHaethon myth, the one myth that has me going in circles…Aristotle tells us a bit about comets and meteors and he doesn’t mention any before about 500BC…see Meteorology by Aristotle. 
So, this has me thinking the PHaethon myth does not occur before this time and is the earliest one mentioned by Aristotle himself.

“A marvellous forgetfulness”…how fortunate.
9000 years ago, says Plato…really? I think he’s making fun of the pre-conceived ideas of time the Greeks and even Egyptians gave themselves. 

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Puzzler said:

Tyrian Phoenicians did not exist before 1000BC. (From Tyre)

Herodotus said Tyrians claimed their city was ancient, and archaeology proved him right.

Edited to add:

%%%%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tyre,_Lebanon

Quote:

Doric Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC), born in the city of Halicarnassus under the Achaemenid Empire, visited Tyre around 450 BCE at the end of the Greco-Persian Wars (499–449 BC), and wrote in his Histories that according to the priests there, the city was founded around 2750 BCE,[4][5] as a walled place upon the mainland,[6] now known as Paleotyre (Old Tyre). Archaeological evidence has corroborated this timing. Excavations have also found that there had already been some settlements around 2900 BCE,[4] but that they were abandoned.[2]

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

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Herodotus said Tyrians claimed their city was ancient, and archaeology proved him right.

No, he claimed they said THEY were ancient by arriving around 2000 years before his time.

The Phoenicians themselves have only existed since 9th and 6th century. Otherwise we would see their influence before this time. I think people were certainly settled in the areas that became Phoenicia beforehand but not Tyrians, who became Phoenicians as we knew them. 

“The ancient city of Tyre is located along the coast of Phoenicia in modern Lebanon. The site has been occupied since the Bronze Age. The city became a prominent Phoenician city-state between the 9th and 6th centuries BCE, settling prestigious colonies around the Mediterranean Sea, such as Carthage and Leptis Magna.”

Herodotus also says when they arrived, they began immediate trade with Assyria…which Assyria was this? The old one or the new one?….

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Herodotus said Tyrians claimed their city was ancient, and archaeology proved him right.

Edited to add:

%%%%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tyre,_Lebanon

Quote:

Doric Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC), born in the city of Halicarnassus under the Achaemenid Empire, visited Tyre around 450 BCE at the end of the Greco-Persian Wars (499–449 BC), and wrote in his Histories that according to the priests there, the city was founded around 2750 BCE,[4][5] as a walled place upon the mainland,[6] now known as Paleotyre (Old Tyre). Archaeological evidence has corroborated this timing. Excavations have also found that there had already been some settlements around 2900 BCE,[4] but that they were abandoned.[2]

Indeed. Excellent examples of archaeology confirming some of his writings. And at least he visited most of the places he wrote about, unlike later ancient authors like Diodorus.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Puzzler said:

 

The Phoenicians themselves have only existed since 9th and 6th century. Otherwise we would see their influence before this time. I think people were certainly settled in the areas that became Phoenicia beforehand but not Tyrians, who became Phoenicians as we knew them. 

We’ve been through this. They existed well before then, they were not called Phoenician but were the same people regardless.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

“The ancient city of Tyre is located along the coast of Phoenicia in modern Lebanon. The site has been occupied since the Bronze Age.

It was occupied long before that, up to 2,900 bce.

As I showed you.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

We’ve been through this. They existed well before then, they were not called Phoenician but were the same people regardless.

If we follow Puzzler's reasoning, then Native Americans, called 'Indians' by Columbus and his merry men, didn't exist before 1492.

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

3 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

What am I? An amateur here? I’ve read, I’ve processed it. Abe, give me some credit. I do not believe either the Egyptians, Greeks OR Phoenicians are as old as they stated. No matter how old their land or cities are.

Thanos made this point too, On Mycenae. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Puzzler said:

What am I? An amateur here? I’ve read, I’ve processed it. Abe, give me some credit. I do not believe either the Egyptians, Greeks OR Phoenicians are as old as they stated. No matter how old their land or cities are.

Thanos made this point too, On Mycenae. 

So archaeologists are all just a bunch of idiots?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

If we follow Puzzler's reasoning, then Native Americans, called 'Indians' by Columbus and his merry men, didn't exist before 1492.

Don’t even. 
It’s just showing me how much you are missing the whole gist of the topic tbh….

Occupation does not correlate to a particular culture at a particular point in time.

Is it like saying Australia didn’t exist until English people got here….It didn’t. it was a large piece of land in the sea of nowhere, and people lived on it but it wasn’t Australia.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

So archaeologists are all just a bunch of idiots?

You should wonder how Aegean archaeology began and fits into its current paradigm, yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm... I just noticed that theses rhymes with feces...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

What am I? An amateur here? I’ve read, I’ve processed it. Abe, give me some credit. I do not believe either the Egyptians, Greeks OR Phoenicians are as old as they stated. No matter how old their land or cities are.

Thanos made this point too, On Mycenae. 

It doesn’t matter what they themselves claim or not. What matters is what archaeological facts tell us.

When it comes to archaeology you do seem to be an amateur.  And IMO you place way too much uncritical stock in ancient writings, including myths, and other questionable sources. If such is the case it really doesn’t matter how long you’ve been researching or posting. 

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

It doesn’t matter what they themselves claim or not. What matters is what archaeological facts tell us.

When it comes to archaeology you do seem to be an amateur.  And IMO you place way too much uncritical stock in ancient writings, including myths, and other questionable sources. If such is the case it really doesn’t matter how long you’ve been posting. 

.
 

 

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

What am I? An amateur here? I’ve read, I’ve processed it. Abe, give me some credit. I do not believe either the Egyptians, Greeks OR Phoenicians are as old as they stated. No matter how old their land or cities are.

Thanos made this point too, On Mycenae. 

Thanos places priority on archaeology above all else. You should study his threads in depth. You should also start studying archaeology in general if ancient history is something you’re truly interested in.

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

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Thanos places priority on archaeology above all else. You should study his threads in depth.

This is because you’re all following blindly the archaeology that’s been accepted…to make cultures out to be older than they are…the Romans were a prime example. It’s because I know so much about archaeology I’m challenging it.

Maybe if you knew yours better you would see it too.

PS I’m not questioning Thanos comment nor even suggesting he’s agreeing with me. 

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

hmm... I just noticed that theses rhymes with feces...

Very observant….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

If we follow Puzzler's reasoning, then Native Americans, called 'Indians' by Columbus and his merry men, didn't exist before 1492.

How long did we discuss the OLB? I bet Dr V read it too….all those strange timeframes not fitting…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sea People…?

IMG_1246.jpeg

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.