Note: this topic is from . Not a re-ping, just updating the ping message / image.
Posted on 03/06/2019 11:22:10 PM PST by SunkenCiv
It is hard to explain why such a thing occurred. As well as why in Minoan culture there is no representation of or reference to a lord. "In Minoan culture we have no representation of a lord, neither has any name come down to us except for that of Minos and perhaps Radamanthes, about whom we do not have much information. Moreover, Homeric Idomeneas was a Mycenaean king of Crete", noted Mrs Tsipopoulou having already stressed the mystery of Minoan culture which continuously thickens, despite new finds and fresh interpretations. Here is an interesting piece of information from the archaeologist herself: "For those who wonder about the famous Prince with the lilies from Knossos, I am afraid I shall have to disappoint them, because this fresco has been made up of two or three different images; the body belongs to a boxer while the head is that of a sphinx, according to a study of the fragments published by Wolf Dietrich Niemeyer".
However, walls did exist in Minoan Crete, like those discovered during systematic excavations conducted by Mrs Tsipopoulou in the 1980s in the Bay of Siteia, specifically in Aghia Fotia and mainly in Petras. A Minoan palace was discovered there, part of an urban settlement as well as a un plundered elite cemetery which was in use for approximately 1.000 years. In Aghia Fotia, the wall that surrounds the, so far, only rectangular building, dates with the latter from around 2100-2000 B.C...
(Excerpt) Read more at tornosnews.gr ...
If the Philistines are indeed the “Sea Peoples” and the Minoans (I guess after their collapse!) are one of that group. I’ve seen an argument that the “Sea Peoples” include Mycenae refugees. A lot of turmoil back then.
Peoples..................plural.......................clue..................
Your point?
Even in ancient languages the plural used to identify a group, as in this case, quite possibly means that the ‘Sea Peoples’ were a combination of different ‘peoples’, like a mongrel race, consisting of Minoans, and others, when their island(s) were destroyed....................
Everything I have read indicates they were.
Egyptian records lump them together as a group. I think they even called them the “Sea People (or Peoples)”. They just appeared on the coast kind of like 1200 BC Vikings.
King Hammurabi is the best known of the early monarchs of ancient times... belonged to the First BabyIonian Dynasty which came to an end, under circumstances shrouded in mystery, some three or four generations after Hammurabi. For the next several centuries, the land was in the domain of a people known as the Kassites. They left few examples of art and hardly any literary works -- theirs was an age comparable to and contemporaneous with that of the Hyksos in Egypt, and various surmises were made as to the identity of the two peoples. A cartouche of the Hyksos king Khyan was even found in Babylonia and another in Anatolia, a possible indication of the extent of the power and influence wielded by the Hyksos. Until a few decades ago, the reign of Hammurabi was dated to around the year 2100 before the present era... At Platanos on Crete, a seal of the Hammurabi type was discovered in a tomb together with Middle Minoan pottery of a kind associated at other sites with objects of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, more exactly, of its earlier part. This is regarded as proof that these two dynasties were contemporaneous... however... At Mari on the central Euphrates, among other rich material, a cuneiform tablet was found which established that Hammurabi of Babylonia and King Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria were contemporaries. An oath was sworn by the life of these two kings in the tenth year of Hammurabi, The finds at Mari "proved conclusively that Hammurabi came to the throne in Babylonia after the accession of Shamshi-Adad I in Assyria"... The Khorsabad list ends in the tenth year of Assur-Nerari V, which is computed to have been -745... the first year of Shamshi-Adad is calculated to have been -1726 and his last year -1694... it reduced the time of Hammurabi from the twenty-first century to the beginning of the seventeenth century... "a puzzling chronological discrepancy", which could only be resolved by making Hammurabi later than Amenemhet I of the Twelfth Dynasty... If Hammurabi reigned at the time allotted to him by the finds at Mari and Khorsabad -- but according to the finds at Platanos was a contemporary of the Egyptian kings of the early Twelfth Dynasty -- then that dynasty must have started at a time when, according to the accepted chronology, it had already come to its end. In conventionally-written history, by -1680 not only the Twelfth Dynasty, but also the Thirteenth, or the last of the Middle Kingdom, had expired.
[Immanuel Velikovsky, Hammurabi and the Revised Chronology]
Minoan/s and Mycenaean/s keywords, combined, chrono, duplicates out:
Note: this topic is from . Not a re-ping, just updating the ping message / image.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
