Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors

 

Hittites and their Skulls

In The Hittites (1952; Penguin edition, 1954, pp. 212-13), O. R. Gurney states:

"Another problem which may be dealt with here is that of the human types represented on [the] monuments.  What did the Hittites look like? . . . that there were in fact at least two types of Hittites is apparently confirmed by the Egyptian monuments, which are very carefully executed.  Plates 2a and 3 show the 'Armenoid' type in a pronounced form, whereas the two central figures in 2b have a totally different type of face . . . We might well suppose that the 'Armenoid' type represents the mass of the Hittite (perhaps Hattian) population, while the upright type of face belongs to the Indo-European ruling class, though the proud bearing of the 'Armenoid' charioteer in Plate 3 would show that in any case the types had become considerably intermingled.

"However, these hypotheses seem to be belied by the evidence of excavation.  Examination of the skulls which have been found on several sites in Anatolia shows that in the third millennium the population was preponderantly long headed or dolichocephalic, with only a small admixture of brachycephalic types.  In the second millennium the proportion of brachycephalic skulls increases to about 50 per cent.  But in neither millennium is this brachycephalic element of the 'Armenoid' type, which is hyper-brachycephalic with flattened occiput, but is classified rather as 'Alpine'.  It is not till the first millennium that the 'Armenoid' type appears.

            "It seems impossible to reconcile this facts with the monuments.  If the contradiction were confined to Anatolia it might be evaded by supposing that the comparatively few skulls that have been excavated there are not truly representative, but the same contradiction has been observed in Persia and Iraq, where the craniological material is much more plentiful.  The problem thus raised has so far proved insoluble."

The Hittites represented on the Egyptian monuments are dated from the reign of the Pharaoh Horemheb and (while not indicated) apparently from that of Ramses II and the "insoluble" problem results from the dating of the monuments, which of course are dated according to the traditional chronology.  Gurney never thought of questioning the dates of his monuments even though he recognizes a grave problem.  The reigns of Horemheb and Ramses II are ca. 1325 and ca. 1290 B.C., respectively, according to the present chronology of Pharaonic Egypt.  According to Velikovsky, who could not have known of Gurney's statement prior to 1952, the reigns of Horemheb and Ramses II are ca. 687 and ca. 600 B.C., respectively.  This resolves the craniological problem with the monuments and also indicates the relationship between the peoples of Anatolia and Mesopotamia in the first millennium.  Velikovsky claims both were Chaldeans.

Lewis M. Greenberg

PENSEE Journal V

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665