posted
I myself have often wondered if the inaccurate archaeological dating of Egyptian and Near Eastern dynasties might explain some of the discrepancies in the appearance in artwork of peoples which have never been clearly supported in the skeletal record particularly in the LibyoEgyptian area and the Middle East (Sumeria).
The Amazon.com publisher's summary says the 2005 book by Emmet Sweeney, entitled The Ramessids, Medes and Persians - "inspired by Velikovsky's 1952 series Ages in Chaos, seeks to complete the work which Velikovsky commenced, identifying the problems he could not solve and bringing forward a great body of evidence which supports his claims, including the identification of Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba. "
The description for the book reads "The chronology of ancient Egypt and Babylonia is wrong to a dramatic degree, with some major historical events mis-dated almost 2000 years before they actually occurred, according to a controversial new book.
Ages in Alignment argues for a complete reconstruction of ancient chronology. Part 4 brings the reconstruction to a close. The 19th Dynasty is shown to have ended in 525 BC with the Persian Conquest, and the last important 19th Dynasty ruler, Seti II, is shown to have never ruled an independent Egypt. The histories of the Near Eastern civilizations are generally believed to have commenced around 3300 BC, about 2,000 years before those of China and the New World. Yet Ages in Alignment demonstrates that the Near Eastern cultures had no 2,000-year head start. All the ancient civilizations arose simultaneously around 1,100 BC, in the wake of a terrible natural catastrophe recalled in legend as the Flood, or Deluge. The four volumes of Ages in Alignment reconstruct the histories of the Near Eastern cultures, from the rise of the first monarchies around 1,100 BC until the conquest of Alexander. Ages in Alignment is an originally-researched reconstruction which begins with the start of literate civilization (actually introduced to the Nile Valley from Mesopotamia by the Abraham tribe) and ends with the conquest of Alexander. Inspired by Velikovsky's 1952 series Ages in Chaos, this series seeks to complete the work which Velikovsky commenced, identifying the problems he could not solve and bringing forward a great body of evidence which supports his claims, including the identification of Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba. Velikovsky was rejected by the academic establishment because of a number of contradictions in the chronology he outlined. Sweeney shows that despite some gaps and incompletions, his books were brilliant works of scholarship with much to recommend them. For decades now scholars have attempted to solve the enigma. Yet the answer was stunningly simple, and in front of us all the time. Volume 4, The Ramessides, Medes and Persians, brings the reconstruction to a close. The 19th Dynasty is shown to have ended in 525 BC with the Persian Conquest, and the last important 19th Dynasty ruler, Seti II, is shown to have never ruled an independent Egypt. He was the same person as Inaros, the Egyptian rebel leader who battled against the Persians in the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I. Ramses III, of the 20th Dynasty, is revealed to be identical to Nectanebo I of the 30th Dynasty, who defeated the Persian Artaxerxes II. Ramessides, Medes and Persians also shows that the so-called Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings were actually Persians using Semitic names. So for example Sargon II was Darius I, Sennacherib was Xerxes, Esarhaddon was Artaxerxes I and Nebuchadrezzar was Artaxerxes III."
There are certain problems from the start however with some of his premises and among them are those that have to do with the knowledge of Pythagorean geometry which he may believe Egyptians adopted from the Greeks. He thus feels confident of giving the pyramids an age closer to 800 B.C. rather than 2250 B.C., although similar pyramids appear in Central America and south America dated much earlier than he says Egyptians pyramids were built. The idea of an "Abraham tribe" coming from Mesopotamia is probably out of the question, especially looking at the allegorical origins of the Abraham legend. The Emmett Sweeney books were evidently written before the astronomical finds of Nabta Playa among other discoveries.
Nevertheless Sweeney is able to show some of the theories produced by Velikovsky were not on such shaky theoretical ground, and the book might deserve some looking into. Among these the very late appearance of the Peoples of the Sea (Scythians or proto- Greeks) in libya and the probability that the early Medes were the Mitanni dating as late as the Medean period.
Although 1,100- B.C. may seem very late the dating is certainly more in agreement with the presence of African like pyramid building cultures in the Olmec and the South Pacific.
Then again it might be that the pyramids at the Great Pyramid Complex are as Dr. Schoch has concluded thru purely scientific methods, much older than the Egyptian culture that began with Menes. I tend to agree on Schoch and his theory of "a much older global culture" and/or cultural contacts around the world (by guess who).
Certainly the book should give food for some new thought, just as those of other alternative theorists Rohl's, Osmans, Bauval's, Heinsohn's and Kamal Salibi's. From each of these authors one can take the good and dispense with the bad and/or ridiculous.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree that there have always been problems in dating such as the theory Rohl has brought up, but as technology progresses dating is becoming more accurate.
Posts: 26241 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic