Bücher veröffentlicht von Digital Ink Productions

L'ère du Nouvel Empire de l'histoire égyptienne émerge des ténèbres de la Deuxième Période Intermédiaire, lorsque la dynastie thébaine chasse les Hyksôs d'Égypte, puis conquiert Canaan et la Nubie. La chute de la dynastie des Hyksôs semble être due en grande partie à l'éruption minoenne en Grèce, qui a obscurci le ciel de l'Égypte et recouvert le nord de l'Égypte d'une couche de cendres pouvant atteindre deux mètres. La stèle de la Tempête de Karnak décrit les effets de la tempête jusqu'au sud de l'Égypte à l'époque d'Ahmôsis Ier, le pharaon qui a finalement chassé les Hyksôs d'Égypte.L'Autobiographie d'Ahmès fils d'Abana couvre de nombreuses batailles qui ont forgé le Nouvel Empire égyptien, notamment la bataille d'Avaris, et la bataille ultérieure de Sharouhen quelques années plus tard, qui a abouti à la prise de contrôle de l'Égypte sur l'ensemble de l'ancien domaine des Hyksôs. Ahmès fils d'Abana est souvent décrit comme un amiral égyptien, cependant, sa carrière dans la marine égyptienne a duré des décennies au service d'une série de pharaons, dont Ahmôsis Ier, Amenhotep Ier et Thoutmôsis Ier, couvrant plus de 50 ans, de 1550 av. JC aux années 1490 av. JC Comme il se décrit lui-même comme un jeune homme lors de la bataille d'Avaris, où il a servi en remplacement de son père dans la flotte, il est probable qu'il n'ait pris sa retraite qu'à l'âge de plus de 60 ans. Il a répertorié de nombreuses campagnes tout au long de sa vie, principalement dans le nord du Soudan le long du Nil et du Nil Jaune, avant que le pharaon ne tourne son attention vers le nord et ne les envoie occuper la Syrie.

The origin of the Book of Judith has been debated for thousands of years, and is often assumed to have been written in Greek as anti-Hellenic propaganda during the Maccabean Revolt. It isn't clear why an anti-Hellenic book would have been written in Greek by an Aramaic-speaking people, however, no ancient copies of it survive in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Phoenician (Samaritan / Judahite). There are Hebrew translations, however, they are dated to the middle ages, 1000 years after the oldest surviving copies of the Judith found in the Septuagint. The Greek translations are remarkably consistent compared to the radically different versions of the Book of Tobit in the surviving copies of the Septuagint.The name of the king in the book of Judith is named Nebuchadnezzar, which was the name of the king of Babylon, between 605 and 562 BC. However, other than the name of the king, no other elements of the story indicate the story originated with the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar did not fight the Medes, and could not have killed the king of Media, as the two countries were close allies at the time, and under King Cyaxares the Median Empire reached its peak. Nebuchadnezzar didn't launch a war against the Elamites, who in fact fell under the control of Cyaxares's Median Empire. As the name Nebuchadnezzar was used to replace Achiacharos in the book of Tobit, when the Sinaiticus version was simplified into the Vaticanus version, it's likely that the name Nebuchadnezzar was simply used to replaces an older name as well.There are several indicators in the book that point to the original king being Ashurbanipal, the king of Assyria between 668 and 627 BC. Ashurbanipal did fight two wars against Elam, and virtually annihilated the Elamites in the second war. Ashurbanipal also invaded Media, and during the fighting the Median king Phraortes was killed, allowing Ashurbanipal to claim victory, even though he didn't consolidate his victory and integrate Media back into the Assyrian Empire. When Ashurbanipal had launched the invasion of Media, in his 17th year, he ordered the local kings from across his empire to send troops to the war, but almost all refused, which was a general insurrection. Therefore, while committed to the war against Media, after defeating the Medians, he was eager to return to Assyria, and restore order to his empire.

The current conventional Mesopotamian timeline of dynastic Mesopotamia is impossible. Believing in it means endorsing the idea the Egyptians lagged thousand years behind the Sumerians technologically during the Middle Kingdom. This timeline forces the bronze age Harappan civilization to have existed as recently as 1200 BC, even as an iron age civilization had existed on the Ganges since at least 1800 BC. It is also not what the ancient Sumerians actually recorded, so believing it means believing that modern Assyriologists know more about ancient Sumer than the ancient Sumerians themselves. Given that the ancient Sumerians lived through it, and all Assyriologists have to go on is random bits of clay-tablets and mostly ruined city-mounds, this seems like an incredible stretch of the imagination. The fact is Assyriologists cant' and don't need to explain the anachronisms, because the Mesopotamian timeline is synchronized with the Egyptian timeline, which Egyptologists insist on keeping as short as possible.The idea that the ancient Sumerians built their earliest cities in the marshlands of Southern Iraq using stone imported from other countries is entirely illogical, they would have simply built them using mud-bricks as they did in the later periods. As the stone had to have been locally quarried, the region could not have been a marshland when the earliest cities built, meaning that the oldest levels of Uruk and Eridu must date back to before the region began turning into a marshland circa 9,000 years ago. The fact that they switched to using mud-bricks simply proves that the water-levels rose during the course of Sumerian history, flooding their farmlands, and ultimately forcing the Mesopotamian cultures to migrate northward to Akkadia, Babylonia, and Assyria. The fact that Assyriologists ignore the ancient Sumerian records of the antediluvian era is probably for the best, as they cannot even accept that the 1st Kish Dynasty went back to 25,000 BC, even though it has been proven that grains was being farmed in the region at that time.Unfortunately, the timeline of Egypt and Sumer are the two pillars that ancient history is built around. As the early Sumerians were trading with the early Egyptians, Assyriologists have been forced to synchronize the Mesopotamian timeline with the preposterous timeline used by Egyptologists. While this means that most of Sumerian history is has to be ignored, is also effects the timelines of all other Eurasian cultures in contact with the Mesopotamian. The Harappan civilization of ancient India was trading with the Sumerians throughout its history and went into decline around the end of the Sumero-Akkadian dynastic period, which means the entire Harappan civilization is forced to correlate with the short Conventional Mesopotamian Timeline. This forced the entire Harappan timeline into a period of 2000 years, even though some of the archaeological sites in Pakistan and India have been carbon-dated back to over 8000 BC. These broken timelines then fan out further pulling the Minoans and Greeks, Iranians, and Chinese into this confusing mess.

The current timeline of dynastic Egypt is impossible. Believing in it means endorsing the idea the Hyksos were time-travelers, and that the Egyptians were technologically a thousand years behind their major trading partners in Mesopotamia during the Middle Kingdom. It also is not what the ancient Egyptians actually recorded, so believing it means believing that modern Egyptologists know more about ancient Egypt than the ancient Egyptians themselves. Given that the ancient Egyptians lived through it, and all Egyptologists have to go on is random bits of pottery and mostly ruined buildings, this seems like an incredible stretch of the imagination, granted no more than time-traveling Hyksos, but still a stretch. The fact that Egyptologists feel they don't need to explain these anachronisms because the history of Egypt is a political timeline, not subject to science, is insulting both to the intelligence and to the integrity of anyone that bothers looking into the history of this preeminent ancient culture.The idea that the ancient Egyptians built docks in the middle of the desert, and then dredged out mind-boggling amounts of mud to move the Nile to the docks, is beyond ridiculous. Maybe that's how Egyptologists would do it, but the existence of the pyramids proves the ancient Egyptians just weren't that stupid. The fact that they did dredge mind-boggling amounts of mud simply proves that the Nile water-levels were dropping rapidly at the end of the Old Kingdom. The fact that Egyptologists ignore the ancient Egyptian records of the pre-Dynastic era is probably for the best, imagine the nonsense they would have made up to explain the Osireion if they had to admit it is 15,000 years old!Unfortunately, the timeline of Egypt is the cornerstone of ancient history. As the Sumerian and later Mesopotamian civilizations were trading with the Egyptians, the Mesopotamian timeline is broken as the dates of certain Egyptians Kings are known to have lived at the same time as certain Mesopotamian Kings. This means that the bulk of the recorded history of Sumer has to be ignored by Assyriologists, as it just doesn't fit into the Egyptian timeline. As the Harappan history is then dated according to when they were trading with the Mesopotamians, and Indologists also fall subject to the inventive nonsense of Egyptologists. This means that Indologists have to accept the impossible fact that the bronze age Harappan civilization existed next to the iron age Ganges civilization for over 500 years, and never noticed they were there. These broken timelines then fan out further pulling the Minoans and Greeks, Iranians, and Chinese into this confusing mess.