BRUTUS AND THE TROJAN WAR
Discussion between JXF and Ian Bradley
Subject: Brutus and the Trojan War
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:25:23 +0100
Hello John
I have just discovered your website.
I am an Evangelical Christian from Southport UK and a young earth creationist.
Did you know that there is a major problem with holding to a 13th Century BC Trojan war and a creation date of about 4004 BC.? Bill Cooper seems to have overlooked this totally in his book: 'After the Flood'.
Greek and Turkish archaeological finds are linked to Egyptian finds for dating. The 13th Century remains of the city identified as Troy is therefore linked to the 19th Dynasty in Egypt (Seti I, Rameses II, Merneptah etc).
However, if you have a catastrophic world wide flood approx 2500 BC, this would have wiped out the archaeology before it, and so all archaeological finds - stone ages, bronze, iron etc have to be moved to post flood.
If you date the Exodus to about 1447 BC(if the 480 year period mentioned in 1 Kings is the total period) this would place the Exodus at the time of the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose III / Amenhotep II. However if you shift all the archaeology as a 2500 BC flood demands, rather than a New Kingdom Exodus, the New Kingdom moves on to around the time of David and Solomon (10th Century BC) and a good candidate for the Exodus is now the end of the Old Kingdom and Pharaoh Pepi II and his immediate successors (now redated to the 15th Century BC, but conventionally dated to around 2100 BC). This links the Exodus to the destructions in Canaan at the end of the early Bronze age (rather than end of Middle Bronze Age or Late Bronze 1 under conventional scheme).
Because the Trojan War is linked to the New Kingdom 19th Dynasty the Trojan War moves with this dynasty from the 13th Century to around the 10th Century BC. This also redates the time of Brutus the Trojan.
Geoffrey of Monmouth's work / Tysilio Chronicle points to a 13th Century Trojan War - following the indications of certain classical writers. However, there is an interesting civil war that Monmouth describes before the coming of the Romans. It lasted 300 years - unusually long for a civil war. Could this be artificial to stretch the chronicle to the 13th Century?
The only other way I can see to maintain a 13th Century BC Trojan War and a c4004 BC creation date is to say that the scholars have got it totally wrong, and the Trojan War did not take place at the end of the Mycenean period as is normally accepted and the archaeological layer identified as the Troy destroyed during the war is incorrect.
I have to admit that I remain to be convinced about the accuracy of Geoffrey of Monmouth / Tysilio Chronicle re: the coming of Brutus the Trojan etc. I do not see archaeological evidence of Trojan exiles in Britain. However when people argue for it's historical accuracy and hold to a creation of about 6000 years old, I would like to see the above taken into consideration. As the saying goes "You cannot have your cake and eat it". It is almost impossible to maintain a world wide catastrophic flood about 2500 BC and a Trojan War that took place in the 13th Century BC around the times of the 19th Dynasty Pharaohs - Rameses II and co.
One website that has some detailed information on archaeological redating is: http://vernerable.wordpress.com/
The author of the above is building upon the work done by Donovan Courville.
A detailed criticism of a 13th Century Trojan war has been given in Centuries of Darkness by Peter James and others, see http://www.centuries.co.uk/
Let me know your thoughts on the above.
Best wishes
Ian
Ian Bradley
Dear Ian many thanks for your interesting email; and most interesting in this connection that you have found my website. First let me say that Darrell informs me that the ancient chroniclers confirm Ussher's Biblical chronology with a date for the exodus thus at 1491 BC and a despersion date from Babel at 2191 BC . This would give exactly 700 yrs that Oard would need for the ice age and ice age melt down. However veryrespectfully this author does not toe the "Oardian Creation Party Line " on the course of the Ice Age . I maintain that there was an Ice Plannet strike at the time of despersion from Babel. However the water vapour cannoppy could have given some rise to the ice seen on the mountains by the world survey teams. My date for the Neanderthals is 2225 BC shortly before the Babel incident which is also exactly 200 yrs before Battle of Magithe with Partholan in Ireland. Yes I am sugesting that the Formorai (Neanderthal) under Cichol Gricenchos were the first to colonise Northern Scotland and built the city or if you like village of Skara Brae in 2189 BC contrary to what evolutionists would have us believe about Neanderthals. Note this date is contemporary with the founding of Egypt. As for Brutus you will find my and Darrell's date for him on my Industries chart. For this please click the icon "Neolithic Man". Many thanks for this ; Meanwhile Good Hunting :-John
Hello John
Sorry I for the delay in my reply.
The best thing I can do is to detail where I am coming from.
I am in the process of examining the arguments put forward by young earth creationists regarding chronology to see which does the most justice to God's word.
As an Evangelical Christian I accept that the Bible is God's written word and that it is without error. I also believe that the Scriptures teach a literal 6 day creation and that the Scriptures point to creation being only thousands of years old. I believe that the Scriptures teach we all descend from Adam and Eve and that the Garden of Eden and the Fall are literal. I believe that the Scriptures teach a universal deluge that destroyed humanity apart from Noah and his family.
With the flood being universal and catastrophic I also believe that all the archaeological evidence we have (pyramids included) all have to be post flood, as the sort of world wide deluge that the bible describes, where the fountains of the deep were broken up, would have destroyed all trace of civilisation and buried it under sedement. Hence it is impossible to locate the Garden of Eden.
The issue I am investigating is when did this happen? If the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 do not have gaps then creation is to be dated around 4000 BC (a number of variable dates on this all around the same time - eg. Ussher 4004) if the Massoretic text is correct, or around 5000 BC if the Septuagint is correct. However, if the genealogies do have gaps then creation can be dated anywhere from about 4000 BC to 10000BC. Looking at the genealogies, they do not seem to allow for gaps. Gaps seem to be a case of special pleading. This puts the most likely dates to be around 4000 BC (MT) or around 5000 BC (LXX). I am more inclined to accept the Massoretic Text date as being correct than the Septuagint.
This however presents problems archaeologically that would be made much easier if there are gaps in the genealogies. Because all archaeological remains now have to be dated post-flood, the standard archaeological dating can no longer be accepted. For example Peter Clayton (Chronicles of the Pharaohs) dates Egyptian dynasty 1 to start at about 3500 BC and end just after 2900 BC. This can not be accepted as it's Pre-Flood, therefore Dynasty 1, along with what came before it now needs to be moved to post flood (and probably post Babel). By moving all of this lot forward, you therefore logically have to move forward everything that came after it. For example, this means that Thutmose III of the 18th Dynasty is no longer a 15th Century ruler of Egypt and Rameses II of the 19th Dynasty is no longer a 13th Century ruler. They now come much later in Egyptian history. It would not work to hold to a flood date of approx. 2300 BC and still refer to Rameses II as reigning in 13th Century BC.
This also means that what archaeologists regard as the stone age, bronze and iron ages all have to be dated post flood (or post Babel if those in the plain of Shinar represent all the families of Shem, Ham and Japheth).
The problem with moving Egyptian Pharaoh's is that they do not move by themselves. At least since the work of Sir Flinders Petrie, the dating of sites in Canaan / Israel and in the Greek world have been cross linked to Egyptian dates through finds such as pottery fragments. Move the dates of the Pharaohs and you also have to move the remains they are linked to in Greece and Israel. For example the time of Rameses II is cross linked via e.g. pottery remains to the period in Canaan/Israel that represents the end of the Late Bronze Age. Move Rameses II, you move the Late Bronze Age and all that comes before it.
For some time now there have been voices (including secular) saying that there is something wrong with the archaeological dating of Egypt, Canaan and Greece. One of the problems they have identified is a possible wrong identification - Pharaoh Shoshenq I (Dynasty 22) with Pharaoh Shishak who attacked Judah in the time of Rehoboam. It has been suggested that these are not the same Pharaoh - the campaign description we have of Shoshenq I is not like the campaign description we have in the Scriptures. However this identification is one of the pillars of Egyptian chronology. Shoshenq I has been identified as the Biblical Shishak and therefore dated to the time of Solomon and Rehoboam - 10th Century BC. Because Shoshenq I is linked to the archaeological period in Israel known as Iron Age II, so Iron Age II has been linked to the time of Solomon.
What, however, these critical voices who have challenged this link have pointed out is that this wrong identification has produced a massive Greek dark age of about 300 years between the Mycenean Age and the Classical Age. The problem being that evidence of the same culture has been found both sides of the Dark Age. The same can be found in the Hittite Culture where we have a Hittite Empire, collapse and dark age of about 300 years, and then the re-appearance of Hittites in the form of independence states (after vanishing for 300 years).
Peter James and team are excellent on this problem - see their book 'Centuries of Darkness'. They also have a website, http://www.centuries.co.uk/
However if the Pharaohs are all moved up (as the Biblical Chronology seems to require), the age of Solomon now becomes the Late Bronze Age, which has moved forward with the Pharaoh's. The Pharaoh's of the time of Solomon are now the New Kingdom Pharaoh's. Shishak is now to be identified with one of these Pharaoh's and not the problematic Shoshenk I of Dynasty 22 (he is moved on to about the 8th Century BC).
Those who have identified the above problem with the identification of Shishak and the problem of these massive dark ages are:
Velikovsky (set the modern ball rolling) id Shishak = Thutmose III, 18th Dynasty.
Courville - Shishak = Thutmose III.
In the late 1970s and 1980s a team of British enthusiasts looked into this and finished up saying that Thutmose III cannot be Shishak because it leaves to much Egyptian history to fit in after the 10th Century BC.
Alternatives have been suggested, including:
Peter James and his team have identified Shishak as Rameses III (20th Dynasty).
David Rohl has identified him with Rameses II (19th Dynasty)
More recently Vern Crisler has identified him with Merneptah (19th Dynasty).
Which ever is correct that Pharaoh and his archaeological context would be moved to the time of Solomon, 10th Century BC, with all the Pharaoh's that came before bringing up the rear.
This is all great for the Biblical Chronology outlined above (flood approx 2300 BC and all the archaeology following after), as it shows that there is a big problem with the current Egyptian dates.
In your e-mail you asked about Donovan Courville. I am not sure were he stood regarding the stone ages. He tried to merge the Eyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. Evidence however has been presented showing that this does not work. His great contribution however was his identification of the destruction of the Early Bronze Age cities (normally dated to about 2300 BC) with the conquest of the Israelites (15th Century BC, assuming the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings refers to the total period from Exodus to Solomon, rather than being just a part of it, but that is another issue).
This is what happens when you move the archaeology with the Pharaohs they are cross linked to. With a flood about 2300 BC, the end of the Early Bronze Age can now be moved to the 15th Century BC and the time of the Exodus and Conquest. Most of the current books that take the 480 years seriously, date the Conquest to the 15th Century represented by the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the early Late Bronze Age (Late Bronze 1). However, as I have explained, this is not possible if the flood is about 2300 BC, the archaeology is moved forward and Shishak becomes an earlier Pharaoh who has been moved along with all the archaeology he is associated with. The 15th Century is represented by an earlier archaeological age, and at the end of the Early Bronze age many of the cities in Canaan were destroyed. This is a very good candidate for the period of the conquest - conventionally dated to about 2300 BC but now moved forward to the time of the Exodus.
In my e-mail I gave you the following link http://vernerable.wordpress.com/ This is Vern Crisler's site, he is a young earth creationist and he is building on the work done by Courville. He does not accept all of Courville's conclusions but he is convinced that the destruction at the time of the Early Bronze Age was as a result of the conquest.
Others have pointed out that around the time of the destruction of the Early Bronze Cities in Canaan, the Old Kingdom of Egypt Collapsed. One document - Admonitions of Ipuwer describes the disaster and it could be an Egyptian account of Egypt after the flood. Before the collapse of the Old Kingdom, Egypt had their longest reigning Pharaoh, Pepi II (Dynasty 6), ruled for over 90 years. This could very well be our redated Pharaoh of the oppression, the one who Moses fled from. Then going back to Dynasty 3, we have the Pharaoh Djoser who built the step pyramid. He had a visier called Imhotep and a later document links to this reign a 7 year famine. It has been suggested that Djoser and Dynasty 3 should be moved to the time of Joseph and Imhotep may even be Joseph. Abraham also would fit in nicely in a much earlier period of Egyptian history.
This is what you have to do with Egyptian history, Canaanite, Israelite, Greek and every other history when you date the flood to about 2300BC. If the Septuagint is correct, the problem is not as dramatic, giving you another thousand years to play with.
Now, back to the point of my original e-mail, the Trojan War and the dating of Brutus the Trojan. The historical context of the Trojan War has been identified as the end of the Mycenean Age, before the Dorian invasion. Archaeologically, Troy has been identified with the site of Hissarlik in Turkey. The end of the Mycenaean age has been linked to the 13th Century BC (or early 12th Century). The 2 candidates at the site for the city destoyed in the Trojan War are level VIIa (destroyed early 12th Century) and level VI (destroyed some time earlier). The Greek classical writers seem to point to a date for the Trojan War around this time, as does Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the Tysilio Chronicle (which Bill Cooper believes to be the main source book that Monmouth refers to at the beginning of his book). So Bill Cooper in his book After the Flood can talk about the Trojan War as being 13th Century BC (page 70) and Brutus the Trojan being in Britain in 1104 BC (page 71). But, as I have explained this does not work with a catastrophic world wide flood dated to about 2300 BC, an event which necessitates the redating of archaeology to post flood.
Conventional archaeology has the Trojan War in the 13th / early 12th Century BC followed shortly after by a massive dark age of about 300 years.
However, with the redating I have described above, the destroyed cities of Troy move forward with the 19th / 20th Dynasty Pharaohs to 10th Century early 9th Century and the anomoly of this massive dark age, with a similar culture both sides, evaporates.
As I mentioned in my first e-mail in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History and the Tysilio Chronicle there is reference to a 300 year civil war before the Romans arrive. This is unusually long for a civil war and is similar in length to this mysterious dark age that could very well be the invention of archeaologists / historians. Replace this 300 years with a more realistic figure and you bring the Trojan War and Brutus the Trojan to a time in line with the chronology above.
Why would the Tysilio Chronicle extend this civil war to 300 years. It could be because the compiler did not have enough data to stretch the line of kings back to the accepted date of the Trojan War, and so the civil war period to cover the missing period - like the mysterious Dark Age that has been created in conventional archaeology / history to cover the period between the Mycenaean Age and Classical Greece.
On your website you have a link to http://www.xenohistorian.faithweb.com
Charles Kimball's site. On the following page he dates Brutus to 829 BC http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europe/eu01.html#Loegria
From what I have seen of his website, Charles Kimball sees the need to redate Egyptian Chronology and move the date of the Trojan War with this redating (which is what I have been saying).
I mentioned above that the Classical Greek writers seem to be pointing to a date - 13th Century / 12th Century for the Trojan War. Their methodology at reaching this date has been questioned. See Peter James Centuries of Darkness .
See also On Dating the Trojan War by Steven Robinson (Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Chronology and Catastrophism 1990 number 1 p11-14. One such writer is Herodotus - Robinson takes issue with the length of generations that Herodotus seems to be using.
I am not saying that I accept the Tysilio Chronicle / Monmouth as accurate history. I remain to be convinced of this. My plea is for those who argue for a catastrophic flood at approx 2300 BC understand the implications that this has to have on archaeology and on events like the Trojan War.
If there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, the archaeology is alot more straight forward. For a long time this has been my position, but I am reluctantly having to come to terms with the fact that these lists do not allow gaps. If the Septuagint is correct there is a thousand more years left to play with. My gut feeling is that the MT is correct and so what I have outlined above is a necessary outcome and many Evangelical books on the Old Testament and archaeology are wrong.
My plea is that those who have a ministry in the field of creationism come to terms with these issues.
If you have got this far, thank you for your patience.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Regards
Ian
Hi Ian I am just studying your paper on Brutus;- as I am at Stafford (Shires Hall ) Library right now which will give me some time to think about the content and will get back to you as soon as possible tonight from my brother's (Bob Hext) computer tonight; and many thanks to you for replying to my email. Number one email from you was most interesting and you've certainly gone to a lot of trouble in being very thourough with your research. I have always been one for taking Ussher at his word; although Darrell informs me he did make one or two mistakes:- For example in Ussher's Annals; it says the faroe of the time in 1484 BC invaded Greece. However are we talking about a "Phantom Egyptien Pharoe and army" when in 1491 BC the pharoe of the exodus was destroyed by the red sea as the Israelites passed over safely. I sugest and so does Darrell that this happened in 1577 BC; some years before annomundi 2520 or for our purposes here 1484 BC. Another thing: Partholan should be dated to 2035 BC and Not 1484. John
Subject:
[SPAM] Re: Brutus and the Trojan War
Hello Ian sorry to keep you waiting; As you say I have a link at my website to that of Mr Charles S Kimble xenophile historian. As I pointed out earlier is the fact that Ussher seems to have made one or two mistakes with particular interest in this connection (1484 BC and a phantom Egyptian army supposedly invading Greece at this time which infact happened about 1577 BC according to Darrell K White. Another case in point is the founding of Babel (3 witnesses from book of Jubilees in 2234 BC (Ussherian timeline) and the tower itself taking 43 yrs to Build) which means that the despersion took place in 2191 BC and not 2242 BC (As per Larry Pierce and Ussher's Annals of the World< Indeed Ian you are also correct in saying that Bill Cooper possibly got it wrong also on his dating of Partholan (Bill's date for Partholan am 2520 or 1484 BC) It should also be noted in this connection that the wrong annomundi calandar was used by Bill Cooper in the dating of Partholan coming to Ireland . Darrell has pointed out that he used the LXX and according to the masorectic text should be dated at arround am, 1969 or 2035 BC. Cichol Gricenchos (Formor /Neanderthal chieften) fought Partholan at the Battle of Magithe in 2025 BC but colonised Orkney in Northern Scotland according to Keating 200 yrs Before; thus 200 yrs before = 2225 BC assuming Cichol bourne 2250 BC (son of sidon) would make him a mature leader by age 25 yrs old. I do not trust the chronology of Stephen J Robinson (whom I know from Aylesbury in Bucks who reckons creation to be about 21000 BC or for that matter Charles S Kimble as he is also a "Gap theorist" and thus makesit plain that he does not use Ussher's chronology. Another chronology for Europe by Prof Gunnar Heinsohn says that Neanderthal arrives Europe 1500 BC ; Swanscombe men 2000 BC to 1500 BC; Cromagnon 1400 BC; Bronze Age 900 BC and Iron 600 BC. I would respectfully argue that for crweation history one needs exact dates (and not rounded off) For example the date of 2300 BC could infact be 2295 BC (Early survey teams after the flood) or it could for that matter mean am1656 or 2348 BC Year of the flood. I maintain however tha the bulk of the Ice Age occurred in 2191 BC by Astral catastrophism to 1491 BC which constitutes exactly the number of yrs required by Oard for a post flood Rappid Ice Age as this author has repeatedly said on a number of occasions that he does not toe the "Oardian" "Creation Party Line" on the flood being the absolute trigar mechanism) Graham Fisher (Speak through the Earthquake Wind and Fire ) says the same as me exept his date is near enough to 2242 BC which should be 2191 for the despersion. On the 300 year civil war. Did this not take place in Brtain at the end of the line of kings of Brutus and so on into the pre-Roman Iron Age? How it could be possibly stretched back to the 13th century BC I could'nt possibly immagine and is thus beyond my understanding or for that matter any comprehension. Please Ian go to my website and see my final conclusions by clicking the icon "Neolithic Man" and there is there a 14 page document I have compiled withthe help of Darrell K White of an Industries chart for Spain Germany Scandenavia Northwest Europe Britain and Ireland cobined with contemporary middle Eastern events which I thiink you will find interesting. Perhaps you might like to draw up an industries chart for Britain and Ireland giving if possible the exact dates (Not rounded off) as you think it might be or using Ussher's chronology for the Palaeolithic Neolithic ; Bronze and Iron ages giving your own interpretation as you think yourself it might be; and this would be good : John
Pleasure Ian. I've just been looking at some of Charles Kimball's dates; and to me they seem to be all over the place. I would point out as Darrell advised me; and that is that Bill Cooper used the wrong annomundi calander on the LXX. He has dated Partholan to am 2520 or 1484 BC. The correct date on Ussherian chronology is am 1969 or 2035 BC. The Battle of Magithe with Cichol Gricenchos (Formor/Neanderthal Leader was fought 10 yrs later in 2025 BC). Would you place the earliest tribes in 2247 BC. I'm looking at Donovan Courville's paper at the moment and he places the mesolithic in the middle east just after the flood. However there was metal working before any stoneage industries took place. I'd like to know what he means by the term "Proto-Mesolithic". I believe this label could be a piece of evolutionary nonsense . What do you reckon Ian? I will consult with Darrell to see what he reckons as all these industries took place (Most of them after Babel) but Cichol can be placed in Scotland about 2225 BC as this coloney in the early days is the first one we know about. Please go to my website and see the article "The Doggerlands Palaeolithic Industries". John
Hi Larry Ian Bradley has pointed out that the Trojen war was later than the 13th century BC and has a direct link to Charles Kimball's website where he (Kimball) dates the arrival of Brutus in Britain to 829 BC (Note this date might well aggree with your book on Newton although I would'nt like to speculate on that. John
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM, john hext-fremlin > wrote:
Hi again Darrell down below in the text Ian Bradley says that Charles kimball dates Brutus to 829 BC. John
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM, john hext-fremlin <johnhextfremlin@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi Darrell I thought that Courville was some 50 odd plus years off on his chronology. I aggree with you about the Civil war in Troy as being about 1184/83 BC but will have to refur to my industries chart to see what time of arrival in Britain. Apparrently the Mesolithic period Ian is talking about ; says the flint tools are diffrent from the Palaeolithic industries which involve the use of Microliths; ie small flint tools &c which if true; I sugest be investigated. Meanwhile good hunting John
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Darrell White wrote:
Hi John,
I noted that Ian stated
"In
the late 1970s and 1980s a team of British enthusiasts looked into this and
finished up saying that Thutmose III cannot be Shishak because it leaves to much
Egyptian history to fit in after the 10th Century BC."
Brutus, Ice Age
>
>
> Subject: Brutus and the Trojan War
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:25:23 +0100
Hello John
I have just discovered your website.
> I am an Evangelical Christian from Southport UK and a young earth creationist.
>
> Did you know that there is a major problem with holding to a 13th
> Century BC Trojan war and a creation date of about 4004 BC.? Bill
> Cooper seems to have overlooked this totally in his book: 'After the
> Flood'.
>
> Greek and Turkish archaeological finds are linked to Egyptian finds
> for dating. The 13th Century remains of the city identified as Troy is
> therefore linked to the 19th Dynasty in Egypt (Seti I, Rameses II,
> Merneptah etc).
>
> However, if you have a catastrophic world wide flood approx 2500 BC,
> this would have wiped out the archaeology before it, and so all
> archaeological finds - stone ages, bronze, iron etc have to be moved
> to post flood.
>
> If you date the Exodus to about 1447 BC(if the 480 year period
> mentioned in 1 Kings is the total period) this would place the Exodus
> at the time of the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose III / Amenhotep II. However
> if you shift all the archaeology as a 2500 BC flood demands, rather
> than a New Kingdom Exodus, the New Kingdom moves on to around the time
> of David and Solomon (10th Century BC) and a good candidate for the
> Exodus is now the end of the Old Kingdom and Pharaoh Pepi II and his
> immediate successors (now redated to the 15th Century BC, but
> conventionally dated to around 2100 BC). This links the Exodus to the
> destructions in Canaan at the end of the early Bronze age (rather than
> end of Middle Bronze Age or Late Bronze 1 under conventional scheme).
>
> Because the Trojan War is linked to the New Kingdom 19th Dynasty the
> Trojan War moves with this dynasty from the 13th Century to around the
> 10th Century BC. This also redates the time of Brutus the Trojan.
>
> Geoffrey of Monmouth's work / Tysilio Chronicle points to a 13th
> Century Trojan War - following the indications of certain classical
> writers. However, there is an interesting civil war that Monmouth
> describes before the coming of the Romans. It lasted 300 years -
> unusually long for a civil war. Could this be artificial to stretch
> the chronicle to the 13th Century?
>
> The only other way I can see to maintain a 13th Century BC Trojan War
> and a c4004 BC creation date is to say that the scholars have got it
> totally wrong, and the Trojan War did not take place at the end of the
> Mycenean period as is normally accepted and the archaeological layer
> identified as the Troy destroyed during the war is incorrect.
>
> I have to admit that I remain to be convinced about the accuracy of
> Geoffrey of Monmouth / Tysilio Chronicle re: the coming of Brutus the
> Trojan etc. I do not see archaeological evidence of Trojan exiles in
> Britain. However when people argue for it's historical accuracy and
> hold to a creation of about 6000 years old, I would like to see the
> above taken into consideration. As the saying goes "You cannot have
> your cake and eat it". It is almost impossible to maintain a world
> wide catastrophic flood about 2500 BC and a Trojan War that took place
> in the 13th Century BC around the times of the 19th Dynasty Pharaohs -
> Rameses II and co.
>
> One website that has some detailed information on archaeological
> redating is: http://vernerable.wordpress.com/
>
> The author of the above is building upon the work done by Donovan Courville.
>
> A detailed criticism of a 13th Century Trojan war has been given in
> Centuries of Darkness by Peter James and others, see
>
> Let me know your thoughts on the above.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Ian
>
> Ian Bradley
>
>
>
>
> Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
>
>
>
> We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories.
> Tell us now
> Reply Reply to all Forward
>
>
> Your message has been sent.
>
> Reply |john hext-fremlin to ibrdly
> show details 5:06 PM (0 minutes ago)
>
> fromjohn hext-fremlin <johnhextfremlin@googlemail.com>
>
> dateSun, Mar 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM
> subjectRe: Brutus and the Trojan War
> mailed-bygooglemail.com
>
> hide details 5:06 PM (0 minutes ago)
>
>
> Hi Ian many thanks for your response. It's just that Donovan Courville
> rejects the Ice Age in his scheme of things. Mind you I don't know
> whether or not he's a "Velekovskian Evolutionist" to coin a phrase
> with his paper on "Mesolithic Times" "Shallow Time" &C. However
> Darrell White informs me that the socalled Pre-dynastic preiod began
> immediately after the the flood ca 2347 BC when Noah planted a vinyard
> and probably used stonetools in aiding them to mine for metals. Thus
> this would appear as Darrell rightly says to be Neolithic in orrigens
> and not Mesolithic (An evolutionary term both Darrell and myself
> reject) Thus the Neolithic/Bronze/Iron and Steel Industries. We both
> of us adhere to the terms Palaeolithic and Neolithic as usefull
> handles to differenciate between huntergatherers and Aggriculturalists
> so the two terms in my oppinion make life a lot easier and simpler. As
> for the Ice Age I think there is a lot of evidense that it lasted 700
> yrs with a meltdown at the time of the Exodus ca 1491 BC. Thus if the
> Ice age started at the time of despersion from Babel 2191 BC then this
> would be a very good fit for my Ice Plannet theory. (The Book of Job
> talks about storehouses of Snow and the face of the "Deep " is frozen
> and as "Hard As Stone". This to me denotes an Astral origin for the
> Ice age with perhaps as Mike Oard says a rappid catastrophic melt down
> at the time of the Exodus. I have just been reviewing Holinshed's
> Chronicles and the placemement of Herculese Egyptus and Albion in the
> Samothean King Lists which go back into the Stone Age industries ca
> 2088 to 2044 BC. Holinshed has been in error here so Darrell informs
> me by 400 or so years later by mixing up Herculese Egyptus (The first
> Herculese who was Nimrod's General with Herculese Lybicus who was in
> the later time frame of the 1700's BC. It was Nimrod who reintroduced
> Neolithic civilization world wide about 2094 BC (as an estimate) HLH
> places Samothes in AM 1910 or 2094 BC following Ussher's chronology.
> Holinshed on the other hand has 3 possible dates for Samothes one
> being 200 yrs after the flood in 2148 BC. Thus I am of the oppinion
> that the Samothean King Lists should be shortened from 90 plus years
> to about 60 years in order to allow Albion's rule from 2088 BC to 2044
> BC (Son of Seidon). These were Huntergatherers according to Darrell
> who says HLH Compendium of World History Volume one was in error in
> some of his calculations. HLH places the Palaeolithic as 1656 yrs . If
> his interpretation is correct then this would refur top Genesis
> chapter 6 verse 4 (The Neanderthal/Nephilim Giants) 120 yrs before the
> flood which could be dated say 2348 BC + 120 yrs =2468 BC and not the
> 1656 yrs HLH sugests. He identifies the Palaeolithic with Cain being a
> wanderer and "Vagabond", In conclusion it's certainly an interesting
> thought. As for the Egyptian chronology I would aggree with you that
> it certaily is'nt easy; but never the less I have found Darrell White
> to be most lerned and very well informed on ancient world history as
> he puts Misraem (Menes) at the first dynasty (EB1) 2189/2188 BC two
> years or so after Babel which I find very helpfull. Please don't worry
> if you cannot be of any further help on the Ice age issue as I have my
> own oppinions on Astral catastrophism and perhaps stone henge being a
> monument to the Ice catastrohe at the despersion at Babel which to me
> makes very good sense and the placement of the stoneage cultures &c as
> post flood. My placement of the Neanderthals under one Cichol
> Gricenchos is 2225 BC 200 before the Battle of Magithe with Partholan
> (Irish Neolithic Industry) in 2025 BC. Surprising as it may seem the
> village of Skara Brae was built in 2189 BC contemporary with Egyptian
> civilization. Evolutionists would have us believe that the
> Neanderthals were never in Northern Scotland ; but my /Darrell's
> research proves the absolute contrary. thus Red ochre paint was used
> by the Neanderhtals in burial cerimonies and has beeb found complete
> with Pottery &c at Skara Brae plus a fragment of a shull of a young
> Neanderthal mail has been dredged from the North Sea . Please see my
> article on the "Doggerlands Palaeolithic Industry" It shows that the
> tools used were from Cichol's coloney which in the earliest days in
> conclusion was the first one and in the final analasys what further
> proof do we need. It would be interesting to see what your ideas about
> my deductions are on this subject; Meanwhile Ian it's great to hear
> from you and many thanks for your very interesting email ; Meanwhile
> very good Hunting and all the Best:- John Post Script Please visit my
> website at www.johnhextfremlin.com and click the icon "Neolithic Man"
> John
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, John Hext-Fremlin
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>> Subject: Re: Brutus and the Trojan War
>> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:49:29 +0000
>>
>> Hello John
>>
>> Sorry, the ice age is not my specialist field. I have Oard's popular
>> book on the subject but that's about all. It has been sitting on my
>> shelf for some time but I've not got round to reading it.
>>
>> All I can say is that it would appear to be difficult to dismiss that
>> there was an ice age and the person who did would have there work cut
>> out in explaining the evidence that points to an ice age in a different manner.
>>
>> I have seen from the Answers in Genesis web site that a long awaited
>> study on geology by Andrew Selling has been published. It is 2
>> volumes and being sold for £40.00. It is being described as the
>> successor to Whitcomb and Morris "Genesis Flood". I don't know
>> whether Andrew has included the ice age in his study, if he has, it should be worth a read.
>>
>> All I can say is that I have come down a hard road to admit that the
>> book of Genesis does not seem to allow for gaps in Genesis 5 and 11.
>> With God's word pointing to an approx 6000 year old earth, everything
>> else has to fit in to that. My area of interest has been in an
>> Egyptian / ancient world revised chronology that fits in to the post
>> flood world. This is anything but easy, one of the chief headaches
>> being the identity of Pharaoh Shishak. I think if he could be identified building a revised chronology would be much easier.
>> There are lots of candidates. My suspicion is Thutmose III is still a
>> hard one to beat.
>>
>> Sorry I cannot be any further help on this.
>> Best regards
>>
>> Ian Bradley
>> From: John Hext-Fremlin
>> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:48 PM
>> Subject: RE: Brutus and the Trojan War Dear Ian would you aggree with
>> me that there was indeed a post flood rappid Ice age 2191 BC to 1491
>> BC from the despersion at Babel to the Exodus date exactly
>> constituting Mike Oard's 700 year time line. Thus I am also sugesting
>> that the main course of the Ice Age was by a flyby of an Ice Plannet
>> that disintegrated over the North and South selestial poles without
>> the destruction of landbridges; thus the mammoths would ownly die out
>> in these regions and some later at the Ice age melt down in 1491 BC
>> where the geographical poles frose over. It will be noted that some
>> young earth creationists reject the ice age all together. However I
>> would say that the polar regions are still in the Ice Age. Can you
>> respond to this? John ________________________________
>> Subject: Brutus and the Trojan War
>> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:25:23 +0100
>>
>> Hello John
>>
>> I have just discovered your website.
>>
>> I am an Evangelical Christian from Southport UK and a young earth
>> creationist.
>>
>> Did you know that there is a major problem with holding to a 13th
>> Century BC Trojan war and a creation date of about 4004 BC.? Bill
>> Cooper seems to have overlooked this totally in his book: 'After the Flood'.
>>
>> Greek and Turkish archaeological finds are linked to Egyptian finds
>> for dating. The 13th Century remains of the city identified as Troy
>> is therefore linked to the 19th Dynasty in Egypt (Seti I, Rameses II, Merneptah etc).
>>
>> However, if you have a catastrophic world wide flood approx 2500 BC,
>> this would have wiped out the archaeology before it, and so all
>> archaeological finds - stone ages, bronze, iron etc have to be moved to post flood.
>>
>> If you date the Exodus to about 1447 BC(if the 480 year period
>> mentioned in
>> 1 Kings is the total period) this would place the Exodus at the time
>> of the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose III / Amenhotep II. However if you
>> shift all the archaeology as a 2500 BC flood demands, rather than a
>> New Kingdom Exodus, the New Kingdom moves on to around the time of
>> David and Solomon (10th Century BC) and a good candidate for the
>> Exodus is now the end of the Old Kingdom and Pharaoh Pepi II and his
>> immediate successors (now redated to the 15th Century BC, but
>> conventionally dated to around 2100 BC). This links the Exodus to the
>> destructions in Canaan at the end of the early Bronze age (rather
>> than end of Middle Bronze Age or Late Bronze 1 under conventional scheme).
>>
>> Because the Trojan War is linked to the New Kingdom 19th Dynasty the
>> Trojan War moves with this dynasty from the 13th Century to around
>> the 10th Century BC. This also redates the time of Brutus the Trojan.
>>
>> Geoffrey of Monmouth's work / Tysilio Chronicle points to a 13th
>> Century Trojan War - following the indications of certain classical writers.
>> However, there is an interesting civil war that Monmouth describes
>> before the coming of the Romans. It lasted 300 years - unusually long
>> for a civil war. Could this be artificial to stretch the chronicle to the 13th Century?
>>
>> The only other way I can see to maintain a 13th Century BC Trojan War
>> and a
>> c4004 BC creation date is to say that the scholars have got it
>> totally wrong, and the Trojan War did not take place at the end of
>> the Mycenean period as is normally accepted and the archaeological
>> layer identified as the Troy destroyed during the war is incorrect.
>>
>> I have to admit that I remain to be convinced about the accuracy of
>> Geoffrey of Monmouth / Tysilio Chronicle re: the coming of Brutus the
>> Trojan etc. I do not see archaeological evidence of Trojan exiles in
>> Britain. However when people argue for it's historical accuracy and
>> hold to a creation of about 6000 years old, I would like to see the
>> above taken into consideration. As the saying goes "You cannot have
>> your cake and eat it". It is almost impossible to maintain a world
>> wide catastrophic flood about 2500 BC and a Trojan War that took
>> place in the 13th Century BC around the times of the 19th Dynasty Pharaohs - Rameses II and co.
>>
>> One website that has some detailed information on archaeological
>> redating
>> is: http://vernerable.wordpress.com/
>>
>> The author of the above is building upon the work done by Donovan Courville.
>>
>> A detailed criticism of a 13th Century Trojan war has been given in
>> Centuries of Darkness by Peter James and others, see
>> http://www.centuries.co.uk/
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts on the above.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Ian
>> Ian Bradley
From: John Hext-Fremlin
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:48 PM
> Subject: RE: Brutus and the Trojan War
>
>
> Dear Ian would you agree with me that there was indeed a post flood
> rapid Ice age 2191 BC to 1491 BC from the despersion at Babel to the
> Exodus date exactly constituting Mike Oard's 700 year time line. Thus
> I am also sugesting that the main course of the Ice Age was by a flyby
> of an Ice Planet that disintegrated over the North and South
> selestial poles without the destruction of landbridges; thus the
> mammoths would ownly die out in these regions and some later at the
> Ice age melt down in 1491 BC where the geographical poles frose over.
> It will be noted that some
> young earth creationists reject the ice age all together. However I
> would say that the polar regions are still in the Ice Age. Can you
> respond to this? John
Subject: Re: Brutus and the Trojan War
> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:49:29 +0000
>
>
> Hello John
>
> Sorry, the ice age is not my specialist field. I have Oard's popular
> book on the subject but that's about all. It has been sitting on my
> shelf for some time but I've not got round to reading it.
>
> All I can say is that it would appear to be difficult to dismiss that
> there was an ice age and the person who did would have there work cut
> out in explaining the evidence that points to an ice age in a
> different manner.
>
> I have seen from the Answers in Genesis web site that a long awaited
> study on geology by Andrew Selling has been published. It is 2 volumes
> and being sold for £40.00. It is being described as the successor to
> Whitcomb and Morris "Genesis Flood". I don't know whether Andrew has
> included the ice age in his study, if he has, it should be worth a
> read.
>
> All I can say is that I have come down a hard road to admit that the
> book of Genesis does not seem to allow for gaps in Genesis 5 and 11.
> With God's word pointing to an approx 6000 year old earth, everything
> else has to fit in to that. My area of interest has been in an
> Egyptian / ancient world revised chronology that fits in to the post
> flood world. This is anything but easy, one of the chief headaches
> being the identity of Pharaoh Shishak. I think if he could be
> identified building a revised chronology would be much easier. There
> are lots of candidates. My suspicion is Thutmose III is still a hard
> one to beat.
>
> Sorry I cannot be any further help on this.
> Best regards
> Ian
> Ian Bradley
BRUTUS
DW andJXF
Hi Darrell I am trying to claryfy the end of the reigns of kings
>> >>> in the line of Brutus in England. I dont know whether you said
>> >>> 722 BC to
>> >>> 585 (Late Bronze) or 728 BC to 585 BC. I have got 722 on my
>> >>> industries chart. Could you please tell me if 722 is correct or is it 728 BC?
>> >>> Thanks John
>> >> Need more information. What do you mean by "the end of the reigns
>> >> of kings in the line of Brutus in England."
>> >>
>> >> As for what I said, I do not remember at this time and have no
>> >> real record to check - since I try not to think in terms of industries.
>> >> The last king in my list is
>> >>
>> >> Cymbeline (Cynvelin) (Cunobelin King of the Britons) about 25 BC
>> >> Who was king during 722 is very debatable - depending on when it
>> >> really started. I suspect that Brutus - of the Trojan line never
>> >> started that line of kings -- due to references to the king when
>> >> the Irish under Miles first arrive. The two references are
>> >> incompatible.
>> >> One has to be wrong. Based on other errors in synchronizing the
>> >> Brutus list with other nations. I think the Irish version is much
>> >> more probable. If so, Brutus the Trojan descendent is not the
>> >> start of that list.
>> >> Otherwise, the list itself seem authentic.
Hi Darrell what I ment was the period when there was civil war
>> > before the Re-introduction of the Iron industry or begginning of
>> > the so-called "Pre-Roman Iron Age" You gave me a date for "Late
>> > Bronze" It was either 728 BC or 722 BC.
>> > Looking at Courville's chart: He has for Israel or Judah 722 BC for
>> > Iron (A) and something like 583-300 BC for Late Iron. So I have a
>> > feeling that the one you gave me for Britain on "Late Bronze "
>> > was728 BC. Could you please check this for me Darrell. If the date
>> > of 722 on my industries chart is incorect I need to change it to
>> > 728 BC John
>> Darrell; I think you mentioned 728 but I'm not sure before a new line
>> of Kings came with Morindus. The date was either 722 to 585 BC 0r 728
>> to 585 BC for the late "Bronze" period. Can you substantiate this for
>> me please Darrell Thanks John
Hi John,
> I would probably have just been repeating Courville in that specific case.
> I suggest you go with 722 BC since Courville's authority is behind it
> - he has studied this stuff more than I have. I am quite sure I just quoted him.
Many thanks for that Darrell; thus I can say at last that my "Post Flood" Industries chart is complete. However at the moment; I'm doing a most interesting study with Damien Macay on the antideluvien era.
While Damien seems to think that Wooly's "Ur Flood" and part of the Noahic Deluge and confines the flood to that specific aria I still insist that the Flood was indeed global. (Pre-historic animals &c so what further proof do we need?).
Damien has an interesting idea like I do that there might have been a stone age Sequence from Adam to Tubal Cain (Ancient Bronze and Iron Industries. I might just thus add to the readers and indeed my interest by adding in part of the antideluvien period ie 4004 BC to annomundi 474 or 3530 BC through 2468 to 2348 BC; and have a "Speculative" sequence for Neanderthal/Nephilim.
I think Darrell you will find Damien's email most interesting all though we beg to differ on the matter of the Flood. I think he confuses the Black Sea Flood which occurred near the Ice age melt down with Noah.
The mittigating circumstances and speculative evidence for Antideluvien Man are Bill Cooper's article on "Miocene Man" and Dr Jack Cuozzo's evidence for waterlogged fossils found at Swanscombe.
I'll certainly go with your date of 722 for British late Bronze. Many thanks once again darrell Good Hunting John