Not quite. You are just bringing forth the issue (that might be just "issue") of Shishak and base your whole structure on that. Alright, even though there is NO PROOF to support your pet theory, let us say that ok, there is a 2 centuries difference in the Egyptian chronology... HOW does that change the whole corpus of archeology? How does that support the thories about Black Sea civilizations, proto-Turkic people, or whatever? The dating of Sumer is done based on the Egyptian dating?Quote:
I gave you several new chronologies to investigate. You can do so or not.
The ancient Greece dating is based on the Olympics events and the yearly archondes. So, how does the Shishak thing change that as well? I mean, is it even debatable when the first olympics were done?Quote:
We don't have exact dates in the hieroglyphic record. The Egyptians didn't use dates.
The Greek Dark Ages - and that's a given - stretch from 1100 (the date of the supposed Dorian invasion) to 800. That's 3 centuries, not 4. There is no stretch here and there is nothing that has been adjusted to match Hittite dates with Mycenean. Mycenean artifacts and relics have been dated with every available method (strata, radioisotopes etc. etc.) and the dates we have found are those used. Myceneans didn't keep records of events, only daily business and stuff. So there's really no point in matching the more generic Hittite records with the Mycenean.Quote:
First it was 400 years not 300. The period of the Greek Dark Ages, between the Mycenaen and Ancient Greek periods, is assumed to be from 1200-800 BCE.
First of all, the dark ages were 300 years, not 400. Secondly, there is material evidence suggesting Dorian elements in the helladic area (south of Tembe mountains) even from the 1500s. Those have been tossed aside in the previous decades in order to continue to support the - internationally dominant - IE and Invasion theories. Actually, there was not "dorian invasion" but that's a different topic altogeher. But some more serious and devoted archeologists are now starting to build up theories based on the material evidence and not vice versa.Quote:
But there is no archaeological evidence of Dorians prior to 1000 BCE. That's a 200 year difference. Half of the entire Dark Ages period!
The ancient Greeks "were not Dorians". They were Dorians and Ionians and Aeolians and NW Greeks and "Pelasgians" and many other things. The record keepers of the Greek world (the Athenians) were definitely not Dorians. They themselves claimed to be Pelasgian, but they were the leaders of the Ionian Greeks.Quote:
The ancient Greeks talked about a period. They don't say how long that period was. The ancient Greeks were also Dorians. It was quite simply a case of the new masters trying to tie themselves to the history of the old masters. Talk about wishful thinking and nationalistic aims!
the IE FIASCO is NOT supported by genetic evidence (on the contrary, genetic evidence contradicts the IE theory in EVERY account). As for archeology... Gimbutas has stretched the boundaries of creative interpretation of findings to support the IE theory, but even that way she had to put back the accepted IE chronology by a millenia. And Gimbutas' theories are now torn apart by more modern findings.Quote:
You have an apparently limited understanding of linguistic archaeology, it seems. Did something they've found upset your dearly held world-view? Put a dent in some nationalistic and fervently held dogma? You're reaction seems rather vitriolic to be explained in any other way.
You have NO findings, NO dating, NO excavations, NO NOTHING and you talk about FACTS? Show me the facts! Show me an underwater site that dates from the 3rd or 4th or 6th milenia BC (DATED by some of the established methods, please, not out of your belly) show me relevant artifacts, show me a nice little paper on the whole issue...Quote:
"For what you know" should be corrected by actually looking at the evidence. Not dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't match your dearly held views. Remember, bad science dismisses facts in favor of hypothesis. Good science takes new facts and forms new hypotheses.
On the contrary, dear Watson, modern archeology (seems you are still stuck in the 19th century...) has proven the IE theory wrong in every account. Read Colin Renphrew, for instance. And everything after him. The IE hypothesis is invalid. The early Neolithic continuity theory has been formed, in order to find a theory that reflects the FINDINGS and not vice versa (find stuff to support a hypothesis, as the IEists have done for one and a half century). Even the linguists themselves are admitting they are wrong and are adjusting their theories (instead of getting rid with the altogether).Quote:
Your mischaracterization of this as just "a couple of archeologists and linguists with no hard evidence" is interesting considering that you dismiss the linguistic evidence of Indo-European language origins, even though that is now the overwhelmingly accepted view. It isn't a few linguists. It's almost all of them. And the archaeological evidence and genetic evidence agrees. It is the generally accepted view now. A paradigm shift. You got left behind. You are among "the few" in this instance.
The latest evolvement in the IE front is that the separation of the IE languages was not as far down the timeline they believed, but much closer to our time. Like 2.500 BC. The archeological evidence not only doesn't support such an absurdity, but pushes further BACK any possible "common ancestry" thingy. If we take Renphrew's view (and not more radical ones, like Alinei's) the latest accepted date got well into the 6th millenia BC... NOT on par with the linguists, on the contrary.
