History Forum / General / Archaeology / January 2008

Pure surmise.  I surmise that Atenite refugees may have taken
monotheistic ideas to Palestine after Akhenaten's death.  Any takers?

I think that has to be true because to believe the Bible you have to
believe in some things that are MIRACLES.  Like angels, etc.

But apart from that, which cannot be proven or disproven, there
are some historical things to consider that we can compare with what
we have found archaeologically.   It's not a complete picture but
it's worth considering when archaeologists will sometimes misquote
the Bible or misunderstand it and then compare that to their archaeological
findings; or they will selectively avoid certain things when they want to
promote their own view.

Case in point, both David Rohl (New Chronology) and Israel
Finkelstein quote from Kathleen Kenyon and aggressively promote the
idea that there was just nothing of a city to conquer in LBA Period when
Joshua was supposed to have come through.  But that is not what Kenyon
herself says, who specifically date the Israelite overthrow between
1350-1325 BCE.
Her authority would validate a pro-con LBA Jericho debate for Joshua.
So the topic has been moved to how the Bible can't be fulfilled at Jericho
from
whether it can be fullfilled by the LBA occupation that actually did exist.
That
is a legitimate issue:  Why Rohl and Finkelstein, et al dismiss Kenyon's
opinion.
It must be significant because they skip past it so quickly.

These are things that support directly the Biblical historical record and
timeline.
This is apart from "blind faith" Christian logic, even though I have had
some
accuse me of simply being selective of whatever works for the Bible but not
open to anything that doesn't, even though when they bring up some of those
things, they are in the area of things that can't be proven one way or
another.

So I don't mind those who want to claim Eden or even the Global flood is a
myth.  But David and Solomon?  No.  There is far too much in place to claim
they are mythical.

Lars Wilson

(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html

This question has been clouded by self delusion and deliberate
deception as far back as the written record goes. Which, if you
recall, was by the scribes in the pay of the warrior class, and who
therefore crafted everything they had to say to pander to their
master's sensibilities.

But lets start with the DNA. Sykes. "The Seven Daughters of Eve"
reports that there are only 7 native European mtDNA lines that lived
there from 10,000 BP back to 50,000 BP. I note what he does not, that
50,000 years ago, the only women in Europe were Neanderthal. Then too,
there are two more mtDNA lines found only in Finland. But even if we
take it as 9, it is remarkable because there are scores of mtDNA lines
in the Levant, and 140+ in Africa.

But there are 60 odd Y chromosome lines in Europe, many of which also
trace to the Levant. So, on the issue of race, what makes Native
Europeans different is not the white man, but the white women. And as
women go in the history of hominids, they evolved very differently
with different adaptations, physical, but also emotional and
psychological.

Part of this can be seen in "The Early Slavs" by Barford, who picks
them up in the 5th century on the fringe of the Roman empire. And by
then, the Roman Legions had been operating across the Danube and Rhine
as slave traders for a couple hundred years. The result, seen in the
archeological record, is a paucity of communities. There was a no-
man's land 100-200 km wide before you reach the Celtic hill forts and
trading towns.

Course, after an area had been stripped of population, either as
slaves or refugees fleeing further away, for a few decades, the whole
region grows back up in inpenetrable brush. And it is in this
landscape that Barford first find the Slavs, who pioneered building a
characteristic dug out kind of cabin, earth bermed with a very low
profile.

Any young woman could flee with a lover into this bush with a few
farming tools. If she selected a hardworking organized man of
character, who had the self control to deal with cabin fever, and not
abuse his wife and kids, then she and her line propagated. But if not,
then not. There was no witch or shaman or chief there to stop the
violence. And if she came to fear her lover, she could likewise flee
to find a new home, and there wasnt jack sh.t he couldda done.

No where in Africa, India, China, or the Levant was this possible. The
population densities were too high, a log cabin would've been found by
hunters. And, after a generation, what starts out as a single cabin
has the grown kids next door, and in a few generations, there's a
village. Barford reports that when the Slavs start out, its less than
one person/sq km, then a few generations later, 3, then after a
century, 9/sq km. Next thing you know there's hill forts and trade
towns.

From "Constant Battles" by LeBlanc, we see its a pattern that exists
to some extent all over Europe and much of the world, where clans,
tribes, or nations war, and then as the violence subsides, a no man's
land emerges between them. Often the powers that be dont object to
outsiders pioneering, feeling that were an enemy to attack, the
refugees would tip them off. But in most regions of the earth, the
general population level is too high for this to go on for more than a
generation, and too much of the population is engaged in hunting,
which brings men into these areas to find them, rather than farming.

The real enemy is Old Man Winter. Only those couples with the
foresight to properly manage their own resources stay in the gene
pool. Other tribes- elders, shamen, & witches, provide what we now
call case management to keep the unfit in the gene pool. They mite
have good immune responses to the many diseases which appear in higher
population density areas. But in Europe, the only case management was
mom or grandma. It empowered women. It didnt matter how strong and
brave a warrior was if a woman- tired of his impulsive violence- split
with a lover to carve out a life in the boonies.

Gimbutas writes of the communal houses that evolve out of the
grandmothers being in charge. They want to be able to see the
grandkids. The successful grrandmothers, who'd already been in the
farming and livestock business, bred men with an eye on what kind of
kids would be produced, rather than how sexy he was. It aint that
other races are over sexed, its that white men have more control over
their sexuality. After all, for thousands of years before the Slavs
and written records, this pioneering evolved into matriarchic
communities. And when grandma has dozens of kids living in the manor
hall, she dont want any of them hurt cause some jackass got steamed
and hit a kid cause he missed his target.

But as we see with Barford, its a very confused situation, with
warrior tribes running around kidnapping women to stay in the gene
pool. It aint like the power of the grandmothers was always adequate.
However, relevant to the question of Aryan conquest, the first time we
see it is at Tripolye. There, the standard mighty Kurgan warriors
domesticated the first horses as pack animals. And- were *displaced*
by the diminuative Cucuteni. WTF? This goes against the whole history
of Aryan conquests.

But the problem is that these horses were too small, only 137 cm at
the withers for a Kurgan warrior, who to judge from the skeletons was
nearly 2 meter tall and 100kg. But the Cucuteni women were only 50kg,
and when mounted- could ride faster than a warrior could run. The
result was the Amazons, who ruled the steppes for millennia until
larger horses with flatter backs were developed.

Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" says that the original
Aryans were assimilators not conquerers, and that Aryan war bands did
not emerge until the late bronze age. By then, there were larger
horses and written records that could be used to organize the
logistics to outfit and supply an army. Before that however, just as
we've seen many times since, the Steppes had period of drought which
drove the nomadic Amazons south looking for greener pastures.

Like down into India and the Levant. And what did they run into? We
all know. The usual, a power elite with a goon squad warrior class
exploiting the f.ck out of the farmers. And just like with Attilla or
Spartacus, when a new force arrives on the scene, in this case a horde
of Amazons, the goon squads are not numerous enough to deal with it,
and the whole system collapses. The peasants are delighted, thinking
that new more reasonable management has arrived. And after the Amazons
go back to the Steppes, cause they like the cowgirl life, they leave
that new *Aryan* management behind.

This has something to do with why so many of the early palace images
show white women with dark skinned aristocratic men. And to this day,
dark skinned aristocratic men still have a decided preference for
blondes.