> Thanos, you are the one who began the quibbling
In response to this from you:
But we know that there are ancient accounts of a connection between Harran and Egypt, through Hermes who is understood to be Thoth and the prophet of the Sabians. The Sabians were scattered at some point and no doubt their writings with them. Who knows where they originated?
What I "began" with:
These connections are nearly 2,000yrs or more after the fact and have no relevance to Egyptian history prior to these times. The relationship with Harran, for example, was established in the 7th century BC when the Assyrians invaded and conquered Egypt. Harran itself was not even founded until the end of the 3rd millennium. The poorly documented Sabians, mostly from less than credible Arab accounts, are from AD times and the connection they have with Egypt is only by way of their alleged belief in some form of Hermeticism. The connection between Hermes and Thoth was made in the Ptolemaic Period and one imposed by the Greeks with no historical relevance prior to its invention.
I did not realize noting a nearly 3,000yr gap between the Sabians and the 4th Dynasty was considered "quibbling".
The "quibbling" actually started with you regarding my comment the city of Harran was not founded until the end of the 3rd millennium:
The founding of Harran at the end of the 3rd millennium? Do you know of a text that establishes plainly that Harran did not exist earlier than that? Of course, there is the mention of Harran in Genesis, not that it helps with a timeframe. There is a town not too far away from Harran, ancient Edessa now called Sanliurfa, that has some rather lovely gardens and an ongoing tradition concerning Abraham. Apparently, it was on a par with Harran for its teachings at one time – Arabian source in AD, of course.
The Syrian Ebla tablets gave Harran as ‘a crossroads for trade in the Middle East’ at around 2300 BC. It would have been active well before that if it was already known far and wide as a crossroads. In fact, its very position along with this description would no doubt mean that Harran was in full contact with Egypt in the 3rd millennium, if not before.
> also the one who backpedalled on your very
> blunt statement of fact – yes, that is the term
> for it.
Which obviously your continued accusal of some kind of inequity on my part is nothing more than an emotional one for no other reason than it contradicts your beliefs, none of which having to do with the actual facts, my own actions least among them.
Prior to the Ebla tablets the oldest reference to Harran was c.2000BC and the city was believed to have been founded towards the end of the 3rd millennium which would be sometime between 2300-2000BC. Obviously, in context of the noted text, it stands to reason this would have occurred at least a few centuries before meaning sometime c.2300-2200BC. This should not be that hard for you to comprehend.
The Ebla tablets were discovered in the 1970's and translations offered in the decades that followed. The texts that mention Harran are dated to the last few generations before Ebla was sacked which is most commonly dated by way of the Near East "Middle chronology" of 2334-2154BC corresponding to the Akkadian Empire The "c.2300BC" is just a placeholder date rounded up for convenience with the more common date used c.2250BC which itself is rounded up from the average of the high and low of these dates which would be 2244BC. This is but one chronology used. The Low chronology is 2270-2083BC which would date these tablets on average to c.2177BC. If the Ultra-low chronology is used the average is then 2109BC. So while you are clinging to a date of "c.2300BC" it is actually c.2244BC and is only worse if other chronologies are used being c.2177BC and c.2109BC respectively.
Middle chronology is derived from fixing the two dates of the reign of Hammurabi (by way of Ammisaduqa), 1792-1750BC, and the sack of Babylon to 1595BC. The reign of Hammurabi, for example, is derived from highly contested interpretations of the the "Venus Tablet" which vary more than 200yrs where some suggest it is bunk in the first place. To make matters worse, the Venus Tablet dates to the 8th century BC and is said to be copies from earlier documents from the reign of Ammisaduqa, the 4th ruler after Hammurabi. Physicist Wayne Mitchel, for example, provides a "Venus Solution" which redates Ammisaduga's rule to 1419BC meaning Hammurabi would have first ruled c.1565BC, over 200yrs later than the accepted Middle chronology date. Meaning, this would also pull the Ebla tablets forward in time by over 200yrs as well, i.e the Ultra low chronology of c.2109BC. Oops. .
And apparently you missed the part where I said the archaeology of Harran has not yielded results prior to the first half of the 3rd millennium which would mean before c.2500BC. Hence why I am willing to revise my statement by a few centuries. And what has been found, the first remains of the city, could just as easily be at any point in the latter half including 2300BC or later. The urban expansion of the period is generally dated to c. 2600-2400BC which by all accounts the founding of the city of Harran was a part of so I defer to the greater context of the archaeology.
Blech. No thanks.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07-Mar-19 04:49 by Thanos5150.