Larsguy47

Thanks, great.

LG47

3DJay

Think Hex mentioned it, too. Maybe if we all say it enough, it'll sink in.....let's not hold our breaths though. :banghead:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/jericho.htm
The small late bronze age settlement wasn't even within the old walled area. Garstang got some things wrong, but I'll accept that he can tell if something is on top of another site, or not.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...st/jerques.htm
"no cities" = only small settlements. "no walls" = NO WALLS.

http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/...na1/samp65.htm

Peace

spin

Like I can't tear apart your dumb crap about the Tel Rehov C14 which you resolutely refuse to understand, appealing to the distribution of found objects indicated by "relative probability" and ignoring the probability given as 1-sigma and 2-sigma.

All along forgetting that the C14 data refers only to the date of the cutting of the carbon-based life-form and doesn't in itself represent the data of events. This means that from the time of the death of the life-form to the destruction there is usually a gap of some years, time to shape, time to install and them arbitrary time after that when the destruction took place.

I don't need to run, when you have no argument. You bring no coherence to your mess. You avoid responding meaningfully to others or checking references. I doubt whether you have checked one scholarly reference presented to you.

It sure is. You ignore anything that comes your way. The cutest tack is to put off dealing with it for a while and then, forgetting that others have trashed the idea, reintroduce it to the discourse.

Not until I see you do the effort to face the epigraphic evidence for Persian chronology rather than putting it off with silly excuse scenarios such as...
What's your evidence for how much he built and how long it took to build it??

Behistun was close to the start of his reign.

He didn't need to justify himself once the reign blossomed. There is sufficient epigraphy elsewhere, such as in the archives of Jewish merchants.

You're doing such a good job without me.

This is ironic: other people than you ignore?

Do Archaeology 101.

So far it sounds like you fantasizing. Would you care to specify the sources and what your logic and real conclusion from the evidence is?

Like you dismiss every piece of epigraphic evidence???

Rubbish. You're here to do what you do. Crap on a forum with unprocessed crud.

Go with Ctesias: Herodotus was not necessarily too good with Mesopotamian issues and Ctesias spent time in the Persian court. What is the exact reference in Herodotus, by the way?



No evidence means fantasy. Either you try to make the claim that Xenophon revised Thucydides or you give it up as a dishonest ploy.

You know what they have calculated, you've frequented those sites so why are you misrepresenting the evidence?

Stick your head n the sand like a true ostrich. Manipulate your evidence so it is in conflict and forget about what it conflicts with.

Such as you. You've been parading not as an expert but an "expert", who doesn't even use serious sources. Did you get your much of stuff out of a Watchtower publication?

Number twiddling got you into this mess in the first place. You started by ignoring what astronomers who make a living working with astronomy have already done and revising it, regardless of what they had done.

About the most constructive thing you've done here is use someone else's comment. How novel.

Running? Another novel word in this context, with all its irony. Let's forget about evidence such as epigraphy. Let's reinvent the wheel -- and make it square because it looks so cool and never mind the fact that it doesn't work.

"[I]gnornance" certainly is bliss.

I never said you did. You just spread the crap around.

That's really logical and relevant.

That's really logical and relevant.

Except that Aristotle wasn't born at the time.

You haven't been trying. It appeals to your gonads.

Of course you're for denial. You've been in denial since many people have shown you haven't got a clue what the data represents.

I have cited other more recent studies, which you typically ignore ignore ignore ignore. If it's not denial, you need to give a better word for this willfulness.

I don't give a hoot for what Rohl did. He has little connection with reality. He chops a leg off a stool and wonders why it won't stand up and out of desperation he attempts to chop another leg off, but it won't cut.

Depending on Rohl is like depending on a straw while you're drowning.

There was no fall of Jericho. The walls are intact. You can go and look at them. They've been uncovered near the main gate of the town (1998). Try as hard as you can to find those walls came tumbling down. :wave:

Guilty by association.

Modern historical analysis of Egyptian chronology has nothing to do with either Manetho or Syncellus. Why don't you get up to date?

Hey, that's great.

Yes, we know how your denial works.

Perhaps it's time you learnt a bit.

Do you honestly think that Hunger wouldn't get a laugh out of this "no, no, it's not what you said, it's what I say" stuff? Where is the evidence for rewriting Hunger's analysis in that letter?? Please do send it to Hunger.



You sort of remind me of the old days when the Watchtower organization would come to one's door with crackpot signs and wonders. But then everyone was into signs and wonders. Remember the World Tomorrow?

Have you got a photocopy of their response?

I'd recommend that you publish your findings in a peer review journal.

Why? How could you help me?

:wave:

I must admit one of the things you ignored a while ago is that if you redate the 431BCE eclipse to nearly 30 years later, you suddenly don't have an eclipse for the beginning of spring seven years later.


spin

Larsguy47

Thanks for your reply spin, I appreciate it. Hope you don't mind my breaking this up into a couple of sub-categories:

[QUOTE]Again, the chart speaks for itself, assigns different values to different years in a scale from 0.0 to 1.0 labeled "relative probability." 925BCE is about 0.05 and 874-867BCE on that scale appear at around .098+. Whatever that means. It doesn't nullify the other references.

Which proves you're totally out of touch with what this is all about. The excitement here for the RC14 dating is entirely focussed on "short-lived" grains and cereals for the very reason these things are considered "contemporary" with that level, say moreso than timber found burned that might have been already several decades old before use. In the case of a destructive level where grains are found, however, it is particularly considered to be very close to the true date of the event, since the presumption is that the grains may have been harvested the previous season. So all that is considered, certainly. That's why short-lived grains are the focus in the first place.

Yes. You do have to factor in that error margin. But since cereals were harvested annually, grains burned in a fire at a destructive level are considered to be within a year or less, potentially, of that event. So no one here, particularly me, has missed that.

More excluses for not addressing the issue and simply establishing a contradictory argument. If I have "no argument" then state your case. If I say, "Oh, um, there's a reference by Syncellus that Joseph became vizier in the 17th of Apophis", your simply saying, "That's a ridiculous assertion, you have no argument! This is too stupid for me to address" doesn't count as a rebuttal. You have to say something like: "There is no such statement in the original works of Syncellus, that was added in later times..." or something. Simply talking "about" my assertions is not enough.


Point, again is, WHY AREN'T YOU DOING IT NOW? It's a debate "trick" to claim you've won an argument in the past so you don't have to win it now. It's just a clean exit and excuse. You give details otherwise for my assertions, why not now? You're excusing yourself conveniently when you should simply engage in the debate and give your specific side of the argument. When I have credibly challenged some writers for what they did and it was clear they would lose the argument to me, they always get "really busy" and refuse to discuss things with me, claiming I'm unreasonable or that they already won the point int he ancient past and don't want to reassert those argumets again. It's just an escape tactic.


GREAT! Show me the epigraphic evidence, the specific epigraphic evidence, and we'll go from there. Show me the epigraphic evidence that says Darius ruled for 36 years. We'll find some of these references and examine where they came from. You know, some might just be a quote from another one, etc. so we need to look at each one, try and locate the SOURCE of the epigraphic reference, then I'll comment on it. So give me the reference.

BEHISTUN only talks about the first 3-4 years of the rule of Darius. Written in three languages on a sheer cliff. Not a peep after that. So Behistun does not support a 36-year rule, only a 4-year rule.

PERSEPOLIS: Darius began that city in his 4th year and though starting several buildings only completed his palace, possibly one other building, leaving the rest to be finished by Xerxes. This suggests that Pesepolis was "under construction" and still incomplete over a 32-year period. There are only 11 major buildings here. A double wall around Jerusalem using less people only took 16 years. The temple there only took 22 years to build with a 2-year interruption. Normally other palaces built were completed in just 2 years. Further, Artaxerxes finishes some works started by Darius-Xerxes (i.e. the Throne Hall), meaning if that building was begun at the time times the others were started in the 4th of Darius then not only did it remain unfinished during the entire rule of Darius for the next 32 years, but it also remained unfinished for the next 21 years for the rule of Xerxes, meaning it was under contruction for over 51 years. The other side of that scenario is that these buildings really didn't take that long to build, but simply that Darius died in his sixth year, 2-3 years after starting the city, Xerxes finished most of the buildings under "Xerxes" but having adopted the new throne name of "Artaxerxes" happened to finish the Throne Hall under his new name. Further, it is clear that Artaxerxes has the same staff as "Xerxes" when he was co-ruling with Darius.

BeYes. And why didn't he continue to document major events during the rest of his long, 36-year rule? Why stop documenting? That's the question. But under the question that he actually died shortly afterwards, that explains it.

Yes, I've heard that excuse before. I'm not saying it's not a legitimate explanation, there are lots of reasonably good reasons why a chicken crosses the street. But since he was so interested in documenting what happened and making sure it was written in three languages to make sure there was no revisionism, it seems that he might have wanted to document events during the rest of his reign, that's all. Had he done so, it would have been a very strong argument for establishing his reign past his 4th year. So of note, in this argument where the Bible says he died in his sixth year, Behistun doesn't contradict that, only establishing the first 4 years of his rule, etc. Sure there are LOTS of reasons why he didn't get around to documenting anything else for the rest of his rule, even near death?

LG47

Larsguy47

THEMISTOCLES FLIGHT:

Here's everything from Plutarch. Plutarch notes that it was always a debate to whom Themistocles fled. But the actual historical interview he records is with Xerxes. Here it is, let me know what you think:

FROM, PLUTARCH, LIVES, THEMISTOCLES:


"Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest.

"When Themistocles was come to the critical point, he applied himself first to Artabanus, commander of a thousand men, telling him that he was a Greek, and desired to speak with the king about important affairs concerning which the king was extremely solicitous. Artabanus answered him, "O stranger, the laws of men are different, and one thing is honorable to one man, and to others another; but it is honorable for all to honor and observe their own laws. It is the habit of the Greeks, we are told, to honor, above all things, liberty and equality; but amongst our many excellent laws, we account this the most excellent, to honor the king, and to worship him, as the image of the great preserver of the universe; if, then, you shall consent to our laws, and fall down before the king and worship him, you may both see him and speak to him; but if your mind be otherwise, you must make use of others to intercede for you, for it is not the national custom here for the king to give audience to any one that doth not fall down before him." Themistocles, hearing this, replied, "Artabanus, I that come hither to increase the power and glory of the king, will not only submit myself to his laws, since so it hath pleased the god who exalteth the Persian empire to this greatness, but will also cause many more to be worshippers and adorers of the king. Let not this, therefore, be an impediment why I should not communicate to the king what I have to impart." Artabanus asking him, "Who must we tell him that you are? for your words signify you to be no ordinary person," Themistocles answered, "No man, O Artabanus, must be informed of this before the king himself." Thus Phanias relates; to which Eratosthenes, in his treatise on Riches, adds, that it was by the means of a woman of Eretria, who was kept by Artabanus, that he obtained this audience and interview with him.

"When he was introduced to the king, and had paid his reverence to him, he stood silent, till the king commanding the interpreter to ask him who he was, he replied, "O king, I am Themistocles the Athenian, driven into banishment by the Greeks. The evils that I have done to the Persians are numerous; but my benefits to them yet greater, in withholding the Greeks from pursuit, so soon as the deliverance of my own country allowed me to show kindness also to you. I come with a mind suited to my present calamities; prepared alike for favors and for anger; to welcome your gracious reconciliation, and to deprecate your wrath. Take my own countrymen for witnesses of the services I have done for Persia, and make use of this occasion to show the world your virtue, rather than to satisfy your indignation. If you save me, you will save your suppliant; if otherwise, will destroy an enemy of the Greeks." He talked also of divine admonition, such as the vision which he saw at Nicogenes` house, and the direction given him by the oracle of Dodona, where Jupiter commanded him to go to him that had a name like his, by which he understood that he was sent from Jupiter to him, seeing that they both were great, and had the name of kings.

"The king heard him attentively, and, though he admired his temper and courage, gave him no answer at that time; but, when he was with his intimate friends, rejoiced in his great good fortune, and esteemed himself very happy in this, and prayed to his god Arimanius, that all his enemies might be ever of the same mind with the Greeks, to abuse and expel the bravest men amongst them. Then he sacrificed to the gods, and presently fell to drinking, and was so well pleased, that in the night, in the middle of his sleep, he cried out for joy three times, "I have Themistocles the Athenian."


Please make your own comment here. But the context from the Biblical point of view, where it is considered the Bible establishes that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, is that nobody can figure out precisely when one king died and the other began to rule. Further, in the midst of this, the only reference is Themistocles who ended up wealthy and influencial in Persia, completely defecting to their side, and thus being the person who invented the propaganda that Xerxes had died and now "Artaxerxes" was on the throne, whom he was calling his "son", taking advantage of Xerxes' second name.

In the meantime, there are astronomical texts that list a king Artaxerxes "who is also known as Arses" whose rule dated at least to the 27th year. All the alternative names are known for all the other Artaxerxes (i.e. Artaxerxes II was "Menomon", and Art III was "Nothus.") Xerxes' alternative name is thus considered to have been Artaxerxes and visa versa. Now THAT would be a nice "epigraphical" reference to consider here for sure! I'd love for you to explain which king that was referring to.

I'll await your reply.

LG47

Larsguy47

DEATH OF DARIUS BY HERODOTUS, REQUESTED REFERENCE:

Book 7.4 "After appointing Xerxes as his successor, Darius rturned his mind to military matters. But then, a year after the Egyptian rebellion, while he was in the middle of his preparations, it so happened that Darius died, after a reign of thirty-six years in all, before he had the chance to punish either the rebellious Egyptians or the Athenians. After his death the kingdom passed to his son Xerxes."

This has to be contrasted with Pesepolis, begun in the 4th year of Darius and clearly showing Xerxes not only an adult but already co-ruler. How is it that only a few years before his death, late in his rule is he appointing Xerxes? Xerxes was already appointed as co-ruler successor as early as the 4th year of Darius.

Furthermore, another consideration is that the MEDES were always the strong and major part of the empire. The royal line of the medes continued through Cyrus who was married to the daughter of Astyages (per Ktesias). Darius the Mede, the uncle-in-law of Cyrus had no children and Astyages no male heir. So the children of Cyrus were half Mede in the royal line. Darius I just married Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus and thus carried the royal line of the Medes as well. So when Darius usurped the throne, being purely Persian, the Medes suddenly did not have a royal representative on the throne, but they did with Xerxes, so Xerxes was made co-ruler right away.

So here's your HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: How is it that Xerxes is shown as an adult and co-ruler with Darius in his 4th year, when per Herodotus Darius didn't even Marry Atossa and have children until after he began his rule? That is, Xerxes shouldn't have been no more than 3 or 4 years old in the 4th year of Darius when he began to build Persepolis, right?

I know you have a perfectly good explanation, but I'd still like to hear it, if you don't mind. Sorry, "You're paranoid!" doesn't count.

LG47

Larsguy47

Which again addresses your lack of understanding of what is going on. But you're getting close. Please pay attention. The 424BCE eclipse is part of the 403BCE chronology. The 431BCE chronology dates the invasion of Xerxes in 480BCE, where there is no eclipse in the spring. The 402BCE eclipse which begins the war in 403BCE means the invasion of Xerxes falls in 424BCE where it originally did and there IS the above eclipse in the spring.

Thus note. The war begins in 403BCE and the 10th year of the war ends a 30-year peace agreement in 394BCE. This would be the original 30-year peace agreement evoked at the time of Xerxes' invasion, presumably, so we use this reference to test the dating for Xerxes invasion 30 years earlier than 394BCE, which is 424BCE. See? We have two tests, initially:

1) Is this an Olympic year? YES.
2) Is there an eclipse at the very beginning of spring this year? YES.

We then test against Bible chronology:

1) If Xerxes invasion was in 424BCE, then the Battle of Marathon would fall in 434BCE. Per the Bible that is the 6th of Darius when the 1st of Cyrus is dated to 455BCE! The temple was completed 22 years after it began in the last month of the 6th of Darius, that means 433BCE + 22 = 455BCE. Therefore, Darius, only ruling for six years, would have to die the same year as the Battle of Marathon!

Herodotus claims that it was after Marathon that Darius dies, but gives this cryptic reference of a soldier with a "huge beard" at Marathon:

"There fell in this battle of Marathon, on the side of the barbarians, about six thousand and four hundred men; on that of the Athenians, one hundred and ninety-two. Such was the number of the slain on the one side and the other. A strange prodigy likewise happened at this fight. Epizelus, the son of Cuphagoras, an Athenian, was in the thick of the fray, and behaving himself as a brave man should, when suddenly he was stricken with blindness, without blow of sword or dart; and this blindness continued thenceforth during the whole of his after life. The following is the account which he himself, as I have heard, gave of the matter: he said that a gigantic warrior, with a huge beard, which shaded all his shield, stood over against him, but the ghostly semblance passed him by, and slew the man at his side. Such, as I understand, was the tale which Epizelus told."

It goes without saying that the best known Persian with a beard that large was the king himself:



This places Darius at Marathon and thus explains why Xerxes invaded Greece ten years later with a vengeance, just to punish the Athenians.

So perfect. The battle of Marathon and the death of Darius in his sixth year lines up perfectly with the 455BCE chronology and the redated PPW to 403BCE. The extra confirmatory eclipse in the spring of 424BCE adds one more degree of authenticity.

This is in contrast with the regular chronology which sports a poorly matched eclipse in 431BCE, dismissed by Stephenson as a non-match astronomically, and a reference that claims that Plato was consulted to help resolve the plague (the Delian Problem) when he wasn't even born yet in 431BCE but would have been 25 years old in 403BCE.

So whose living in a fantasy world, did you say?




LG47

RED DAVE

Sorry, but he did document it: on his tomb among other places.

http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html

All that in only four years?

RED DAVE

3DJay

Hrrrmmmm....tough one. Let me think.....

First came: The order to build in his 4th year. Then came: The planning. Then came: THE BUILDING OF A MASSIVE FREAKING PLATFORM AND ITS DECORATIVE CARVINGS AND FORTIFICATIONS. On top of which came: The building of the Apadana, where the reliefs were set into the Eastern and Northern stairs. The Eastern stairs were finished by Darius, the Northern stairs were finished by Xerxes.

Only an idiot, would think the reliefs for the Apadana stairways were made in the first year, before anything else was built.


Peace

Larsguy47

[QUOTE]Okay. I'll try and hunt down a reference; one that comments on the history of Thucydides and that it was "redacted" and one that at least implies that Xenophon might have been involved since he begins his history right where Thucydides leaves off. But that's fair, I need to have the references for this.

Many of the "serious" sources I've found are incorrect, so why should I use them? Anyway, we're discussing a SPECIFIC ASTRONOMICAL TEXT, the VAT4956. Are you saying that the "moon" in line 18 was a responsible and honest representation of the 15th of Sivan as portrayed by Sachs/Hunger? The British Museum acknowledges the apparent "error." The VAT4956 is considered a key text in this dating. It's definitely a "serious" source. You're just handwaving.


Sorry, but you're out of your depth here. Astronomy is one thing, what an astronomical text says is another. We're just making comparisons between the astronomy and what the text says. Astronomers can't control what an astronomical text says.


NO. It's your move here. You give me the specific reference of the "epigraphy" you want to discuss. I don't know specifically what you're talking about. So you provide the epigraphy and I'll give my argument on it. WHERE IS IT?


What? No links back to what you are specifically referring to? That's interesting. Some have claimed I haven't answered something and I have, they just missed the reply. So if you're serious about following up, you have to give the links. Otherwise, it is presumed you are just generalizing and making this up.

So. Does that mean that eclipse didn't occur in the 12th of Akhenaten? Can you actually establish otherwise? If so, why don't you. When you run out of answers you attack the messenger. Here, you need to address the MESSAGE, the EVIDENCE. Anybody can act upset and call names. You have to do better.

You're drowning. That eclipse was dated by FR Stephenson to 1375BCE. That's the only authority I need.

Reference, please? When you ask for a reference, I give it to you. So where are your references for your claims?

You're dreaming. The moment Syncellus mentioned 17th of "Apophis" that connects into the Egyptian timeline. End of story.

I've already sent it Hunger and written him and he's written me back. He's not laughing. Basically Sachs and Hunger are great translators and did their best with the astronomy at a time when we didn't have computerized astronomy programs. So it's inevitable on review and recharting with the new programs that there will be refinements. I was just offering my suggestions. But he knows "the moon" was not the right reference for line 18, unless he made a comment about a mismatch, which he didn't. He placed it there with no comment, suggesting all was well and this was a correct match. Only someone checking the astronomy of this specific line would have noticed it. It needs to be changed. He hasn't done it that I know up and the book has been published twice I believe.

Um NO. BUT do you want to write them again? I will and will share the interaction with you. It will be FUN! Or you can do it. I'll give you a draft letter for them. It can be simple. Just write them and note that Line 18 of the VAT4956 inserts "the moon" without an error comment for the 15th of Sivan, however, the moon was in Capricorn at the time. But of note, you noticed that VENUS was present below beta-Virginis on that date. Then ask whether this has been corrected in any scholarly journals that they know of and if so which, you'd like to read the comments. Then they respond in like a couple of days. They're quite good. Then you can see yourself. BUT YOU NEED COACHING AND MONITORING! They will blow you off if you don't know what you're doing. You have to be very specific and deal with one specific issue only. The reason we are writing is only to confirm whether the author has made an "official" correction of this error. That's all. That gives them the chance to indicate it has or hasn't that they know of. If it has been corrected, then we'll go and look it up and see what it says! WANT TO? Let's do it!!!

I might do that. I was in contact with the University of Hawaii astronomy department regarding my two-part discovery/update, that of how the ancient Assyrians and Egyptians were able to predict a certain kind of eclipse. What you do is find a professor who teaches that or who is interested in it. No one there was really into ancient history or ancient astronomy. But once you do that, you then explain it fully to someone in the field who understands it and then they take that and co-publish with you or publish it themselves as a review and give you credit for the discovery.

TECHNICALLY, I should get credit for this eclipse pattern and it should be named after me! The "Larguy47 Predictable Ancient Eclipe Pattern" or something. When people discover things, it gets named after them. Then they can update the information on ancient predictable eclipses instead of claiming there was no such thing as NASA is doing now, and it's just not true.


LG47