Ages in Chaos: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Merger proposal
address criticisms - see talk
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Notability|date=February 2011}}
{{Notability|date=February 2011}}
{{Refimprove|date=April 2009}}
{{Refimprove|date=April 2009}}
{{POV-lead|date=July 2011}}
[[File:ages-in-chaos.jpg|right|thumb|''Ages in Chaos'' book cover]]
[[File:ages-in-chaos.jpg|right|thumb|''Ages in Chaos'' book cover]]


'''''Ages in Chaos''''' is a book by the controversial writer [[Immanuel Velikovsky]], first published by [[Doubleday (publisher)|Doubleday]] in 1952, which put forward a major revision of the history of the Ancient Near East. Velikovsky had put forward his ideas briefly in ''Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History'' in 1945, but ''Ages in Chaos'' was his first full-length work on the subject.
'''''Ages in Chaos''''' is a book by the controversial writer [[Immanuel Velikovsky]], first published by [[Doubleday (publisher)|Doubleday]] in 1952, which put forward a major revision of the history of the Ancient Near East. He claimed in ''Ages in Chaos'' that the histories of [[Ancient Egypt]] and [[Ancient Israel]] are five centuries out of step. He followed this with a number of other works where he attempted to complete his reconstruction of ancient history.


Velikovsky's work has been harshly criticised, including by fellow chronological revisionists such as [[Peter James (historian)|Peter James]]. In 1984 [[fringe science]] expert [[Henry H. Bauer]] wrote ''Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy'', which ''[[Time magazine|Time]]'' described as "the definitive treatise debunking Immanuel Velikovsky".<ref name="time">{{cite web | url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064461-2,00.html | title = Science on the Fringe | publisher = [[Time magazine]] | author = Michael D. Lemonick/Gainesville | date = 2005-05-24 | accessdate = 2008-06-02 }}</ref>
A second volume was due for publication shortly after this but was postponed. Instead it was followed eight years later by ''Oedipus and Akhnaton''. In the last two years of his life Velikovsky published a further two works on ancient history: ''Peoples of the Sea'' and ''Rameses II and His Time''. At the time of his death he considered that completing his reconstruction of ancient history would require a further two volumes: ''The Assyrian Conquest'' and ''The Dark Age of Greece''; these were never published in English, but the manuscripts have long been available online at the Velikovsky archive.
<ref>[http://www.varchive.org/ The Immanuel Velikovsky Archive]</ref>


==Summary of Ages in Chaoss==
Velikovsky claimed in ''Ages in Chaos'' that the histories of [[Ancient Egypt]] and [[Ancient Israel]] are five centuries out of step. His starting point was that the [[The Exodus|Exodus]] took place not, as orthodoxy has it, at some point during the Egyptian [[New Kingdom]], but at the fall of the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt|Middle Kingdom]]. Velikovsky made heavy use in this and later works on ancient history of the concept of "ghost doubles": historical figures who were known by different names in two different sources (e.g. Egyptian and Greek) and were considered to be entirely different people living in different centuries, but who he proposed to be actually erroneously dated accounts of the same individuals and events.


Velikovsky's work has been harshly criticised, including by fellow chronological revisionists such as [[Peter James (historian)|Peter James]]. In 1984 [[fringe science]] expert [[Henry H. Bauer]] wrote ''Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy'', which ''[[Time magazine|Time]]'' described as "the definitive treatise debunking Immanuel Velikovsky".<ref name="time">{{cite web | url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064461-2,00.html | title = Science on the Fringe | publisher = [[Time magazine]] | author = Michael D. Lemonick/Gainesville | date = 2005-05-24 | accessdate = 2008-06-02 }}</ref>

==Chronological proposals==
{{nonfiction|date=July 2011}}
{{nonfiction|date=July 2011}}
Velikovsky made a number of specific proposals in ''Ages in Chaos'' and his later works on ancient history.

===''Ages in Chaos''===
In Chapter 1, Velikovsky synchronised the [[Ipuwer Papyrus]], from the beginning of Egypt's [[Second Intermediate Period]], with the Biblical [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]]. The Ipuwer Papyrus was conventionally dated to approximately 350 years before the conventional date of the Exodus (1450 BCE). He identified [[Dudimose|Tutimaios]] as the [[Pharaoh of the Exodus]] (much earlier than any of the mainstream candidates).


Velikovsky had put forward his ideas briefly in ''Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History'' in 1945, where he claimed that the hisory of the ancient Near East down to the time of [[Alexander the Great]] is garbled, but ''Ages in Chaos'' was his first full-length work on the subject.
In Chapter 2, he identified the [[Hyksos]] with the biblical [[Amalekites]].


His starting point was that [[the Exodus]] took place not, as orthodoxy has it, at some point during the Egyptian [[New Kingdom]], but at the fall of the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt|Middle Kingdom]]. He made heavy use of the concept of "ghost doubles": historical figures who were known by different names in two different sources (e.g. Egyptian and Greek) and were considered to be entirely different people living in different centuries, but who he proposed to be actually erroneously dated accounts of the same individuals and events.
In Chapter 3 he identified the Egyptian Pharaoh [[Hatshepsut]] with the Biblical [[Queen of Sheba]] and the [[land of Punt]] with [[Solomon]]'s kingdom.


First he claimed tha the [[Ipuwer Papyrus]] came from the beginning of Egypt's [[Second Intermediate Period]], and he claimed that this was an Egyptian account of the [[Plagues of Egypt]]. He then identified [[Dudimose|Tutimaios]] as the [[Pharaoh of the Exodus]] (much earlier than any of the mainstream candidates, the [[Hyksos]] with the biblical [[Amalek|Amalekites]], the Egyptian Pharaoh [[Hatshepsut]] with the Biblical [[Queen of Sheba]], the [[land of Punt]] with [[Solomon]]'s kingdom, Pharaoh [[Thutmose III]] with the Biblical King [[Shishak]]. He clamed that the Egyptian [[Amarna letters]] from the late [[Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt|18th Dynasty]] describe events from the kingdoms of Israel and [[Kingdom of Judah|Judah]], from roughly the time of King [[Ahab]].
In Chapter 4 he identified the Egyptian Pharaoh [[Thutmose III]] with the Biblical King [[Shishaq]] who sacked [[Jerusalem]].


== Later works on ancient history ==
In Chapters 6 to 8, he states that the Egyptian [[Amarna letters]] from the late [[Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt|18th Dynasty]] describe events from the kingdoms of Israel and [[Kingdom of Judah|Judah]], from roughly the time of King [[Ahab]].
A second volume was due for publication shortly after this but was postponed. Instead it was followed in 1960 by ''Oedipus and Akhnaton'', where he claime that the story of the Egyptian pharaoh [[Akhnaton]] was the origin of the Greek legend of [[Oedipus]], and that [[Amenophis III]] was [[Laius]], and [[Tutankhamun]] was [[Eteocles]].


In the last two years of his life Velikovsky published a further two works on ancient history: ''Peoples of the Sea'' and ''Rameses II and His Time''.
===''Oedipus and Akhnaton''===
In ''Oedipus and Akhnaton'' Velikovsky states that the story of the Egyptian pharaoh [[Akhnaton]] was the origin of the Greek legend of [[Oedipus]], and that [[Amenophis III]] was [[Laius]], and [[Tutankhamun]] was [[Eteocles]].


In ''Peoples of the Sea'', Velikovsky deals with the final period of his reonstruction, the Persian invasions of Egypt. [[Manetho]]'s [[Twentieth dynasty of Egypt|20th dynasty]] here becomes identified with the dynasties which ruled a newly independent Egypt in the early 4th century BCE, and [[Nectanebo I]] is a ghost double of [[Rameses III]]. Rameses fought invasions by [[Sea Peoples]], including the "Peleset", conventionally identified with the [[Philistines]]. According to Velikovsky, the "Peleset" are actually the Persians and the other Sea Peoples are their Greek mercenaries. The [[Twenty-first dynasty of Egypt|21st dynasty]] then becomes a line of priest-kings who ruled in the [[oasis|oases]] simultaneously with the Persians.
===''The Assyrian Conquest''===
In ''The Assyrian Conquest'' Velikovsky separated the [[Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt|18th Dynasty]] and [[Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt|19th dynasty]] pharaohs, specifically arguing that over a century separated [[Ay]] and [[Horemheb]], conventionally regarded as his successor. Instead, he had the 22nd through 25th dynasties follow upon the earlier part of the 18th, leading down to the Assyrian invasions of the early 7th century BCE. The "great king" who crowned Horemheb was the Assyrian king.


===''Rameses II and His Time''===
[[File:Statue Pinudjem I im Karnak Tempel von Luxor.jpg|thumb|Statue of Rameses III in [[Luxor]].]]
[[File:Statue Pinudjem I im Karnak Tempel von Luxor.jpg|thumb|Statue of Rameses III in [[Luxor]].]]
In ''Rameses II and His Time'', Velikovsky identified each of the major 19th dynasty pharaohs with a corresponding pharaoh of the [[Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt|26th dynasty]]. Thus, [[Rameses I]] becomes [[Necho I]], [[Seti I]] becomes [[Psamtik I]], [[Rameses II]] is [[Necho II]], and [[Merneptah]] is [[Apries]]. In order to make these identifications work, Velikovsky claims that the [[Hittites|Hittite Empire]] is an invention of modern historians, and the supposedly Hittite archaeological remains in modern [[Turkey]] are actually Chaldean i.e. Neo-[[Babylonian]]. The Hittite kings are held to be "ghost doubles" of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and therefore Rameses II's battle with the Hittites at [[Kadesh]] is identical to Necho's fight against [[Nebuchadrezzar II]] at [[Carchemish]], [[Nabopolassar]] is [[Mursili II]], [[Neriglissar]] is [[Muwatalli]], [[Labashi-Marduk]] is [[Mursili III|Urhi-Teshup]], and Nebuchadrezzar II is [[Hattusili III]].
In ''Rameses II and His Time'', Velikovsky identified each of the major 19th dynasty pharaohs with a corresponding pharaoh of the [[Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt|26th dynasty]]. Thus, [[Rameses I]] becomes [[Necho I]], [[Seti I]] becomes [[Psamtik I]], [[Rameses II]] is [[Necho II]], and [[Merneptah]] is [[Apries]]. In order to make these identifications work, Velikovsky claims that the [[Hittites|Hittite Empire]] is an invention of modern historians, and the supposedly Hittite archaeological remains in modern [[Turkey]] are actually Chaldean i.e. Neo-[[Babylonian]]. The Hittite kings are held to be ghost doubles of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and therefore Rameses II's battle with the Hittites at [[Kadesh]] is identical to Necho's fight against [[Nebuchadrezzar II]] at [[Carchemish]], [[Nabopolassar]] is [[Mursili II]], [[Neriglissar]] is [[Muwatalli]], [[Labashi-Marduk]] is [[Mursili III|Urhi-Teshup]], and Nebuchadrezzar II is [[Hattusili III]].


At the time of his death he considered that completing his reconstruction of ancient history would require a further two volumes: ''The Assyrian Conquest'' and ''The Dark Age of Greece''; these were never published in English, but the manuscripts have long been available online at the Velikovsky archive. <ref>[http://www.varchive.org/ The Immanuel Velikovsky Archive]</ref> In the former work, Velikovsky separated the [[Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt|18th]] and [[Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt|19th dynasties]], specifically arguing that over a century separated [[Ay]] and [[Horemheb]], conventionally regarded as his successor. Instead, he had the 22nd through 25th dynasties follow upon the earlier part of the 18th, leading down to the Assyrian invasions of the early 7th century BCE. The "great king" who crowned Horemheb was the Assyrian king.
===''Peoples of the Sea''===
Having arrived at the Persian conquest, Velikovsky now has the problem of fitting in [[Manetho]]'s [[Twentieth dynasty of Egypt|20th]] and [[Twenty-first dynasty of Egypt|21st]] dynasties. The 20th dynasty here becomes identified with the dynasties which ruled a newly independent Egypt in the early 4th century BCE, and [[Nectanebo I]] is a "ghost double" of [[Rameses III]]. Rameses fought invasions by [[Sea Peoples]], including the "Peleset", conventionally identified with the [[Philistines]]. According to Velikovsky, the "Peleset" are actually the Persians and the other Sea Peoples are their Greek mercenaries. The 21st dynasty then becomes a line of priest-kings who ruled in the [[oasis|oases]] simultaneously with the Persians.


==Controversy and criticism==
==Controversy and criticism==
{expandd-section|date=July 2011}}
Velikovsky's revised chronology has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and [[Egyptology|Egyptologists]]. It was claimed, starting with early reviewers, that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective.<ref>[[William F. Albright|Albright, William]] 1952. ''New York Herald Tribune Book Review'' April 20. Retelling the Near East's Ancient History. p. 6.</ref><ref>[[Waldemar Kaempffert|Kaempffert, Waldemar]] 1952. ''New York Times Book Review'' April 20. Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, and the Egypt of Exodus. p. 23.</ref><ref>Stiebing, Jr., William H. 1984. Cosmic Catastrophism, Chap. III, in ''Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions'' Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-260-2. pp. 57-80.</ref> In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at [[Brown University]], discredited Velikovsky's use of [[Mesopotamia]]n [[Cuneiform script|cuneiform]] sources.<ref>see transcript in ''Aeon'' 1992, Vol.3 No.1, pp.103-5, and also http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vsachs.html</ref> Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack.<ref>[[C. Leroy Ellenberger|Ellenberger, Leroy]] 1992. ''Aeon'' '''3''' (1), section "Bonanza from Brown" in "Of Lessons, Legacies, and Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri (Part One)", pp. 88-90. "Velikovsky confronted a panel of four professors [at Brown University on March 15, 1965]: [[Leon Cooper|Leon N. Cooper]] (physics), Bruno J Giletti (geology), Charles Smiley (astronomy) and Abraham J. Sachs (history of mathematics) [who was substituting for [[Otto Neugebauer]] ], moderated by [[Henry Kucera]] (linguistics). In the event, Velikovsky debated the first three handily. He was stunned by Sachs whose address was both a rhetorical and substantive ''tour de force''. Velikovsky's rebuttal began: 'Dr. Sachs threw so many accusations in that [[Philippic]] of his that I am at a difficulty to answer; but I invite Dr. Sachs to spend the hour and a half tomorrow at the meeting [at Diman House], and every one of you too, and point by point each of his statements will be proven wrong.' Unfortunately, Sachs did not show up the next day and Velikovsky did not even mention Sachs [according to the tape recording of the proceedings in the possession of [http://www.velikovsky.info/Warner_B._Sizemore Warner B. Sizemore] who loaned it to Ellenberger March 31, 1979]. Curiously, Velikovsky's file for the Brown trip contains typed rebuttals to all the panelists ''except'' Sachs, for whom only partial, penciled notes exist--but later that year Velikovsky would reply to Kim J. Masters, a Princeton sophomore, within a week in ''The Daily Princetonian'' (Nov. 15, 1965) over a criticism of ''Oedipus and Akhnaton''. Velikovsky's rebuttal to Masters was scathing, running the gamut from haggling over details to ''ad hominems''.</ref> In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's ''Ages in Chaos'' series, the [[United Kingdom]]-based Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in [[Glasgow]] specifically to debate the revised chronology.<ref>"Ages in Chaos?'-Proceedings of the Residential Weekend Conference, Glasgow, 7th-9th April 1978" ''Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review'' Vol. VI, issue 1/2/3 84pp (1982)</ref> The ultimate conclusion of this work, by scholars including [[Peter James (historian)|Peter James]], John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and [[David Rohl]], was that the Revised Chronology was untenable.<ref>Bimson, "Finding the Limits of Chronological Revision" in "Proceedings of the SIS Conference: Ages Still in Chaos" ''Chronology & Catastrophism Review'' 2003</ref>
Velikovsky's revised chronology has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and [[Egyptology|Egyptologists]]. It was claimed, starting with early reviewers, that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective.<ref>[[William F. Albright|Albright, William]] 1952. ''New York Herald Tribune Book Review'' April 20. Retelling the Near East's Ancient History. p. 6.</ref><ref>[[Waldemar Kaempffert|Kaempffert, Waldemar]] 1952. ''New York Times Book Review'' April 20. Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, and the Egypt of Exodus. p. 23.</ref><ref>Stiebing, Jr., William H. 1984. Cosmic Catastrophism, Chap. III, in ''Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions'' Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-260-2. pp. 57-80.</ref> In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at [[Brown University]], discredited Velikovsky's use of [[Mesopotamia]]n [[Cuneiform script|cuneiform]] sources.<ref>see transcript in ''Aeon'' 1992, Vol.3 No.1, pp.103-5, and also http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vsachs.html</ref> Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack.<ref>[[C. Leroy Ellenberger|Ellenberger, Leroy]] 1992. ''Aeon'' '''3''' (1), section "Bonanza from Brown" in "Of Lessons, Legacies, and Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri (Part One)", pp. 88-90. "Velikovsky confronted a panel of four professors [at Brown University on March 15, 1965]: [[Leon Cooper|Leon N. Cooper]] (physics), Bruno J Giletti (geology), Charles Smiley (astronomy) and Abraham J. Sachs (history of mathematics) [who was substituting for [[Otto Neugebauer]] ], moderated by [[Henry Kucera]] (linguistics). In the event, Velikovsky debated the first three handily. He was stunned by Sachs whose address was both a rhetorical and substantive ''tour de force''. Velikovsky's rebuttal began: 'Dr. Sachs threw so many accusations in that [[Philippic]] of his that I am at a difficulty to answer; but I invite Dr. Sachs to spend the hour and a half tomorrow at the meeting [at Diman House], and every one of you too, and point by point each of his statements will be proven wrong.' Unfortunately, Sachs did not show up the next day and Velikovsky did not even mention Sachs [according to the tape recording of the proceedings in the possession of [http://www.velikovsky.info/Warner_B._Sizemore Warner B. Sizemore] who loaned it to Ellenberger March 31, 1979]. Curiously, Velikovsky's file for the Brown trip contains typed rebuttals to all the panelists ''except'' Sachs, for whom only partial, penciled notes exist--but later that year Velikovsky would reply to Kim J. Masters, a Princeton sophomore, within a week in ''The Daily Princetonian'' (Nov. 15, 1965) over a criticism of ''Oedipus and Akhnaton''. Velikovsky's rebuttal to Masters was scathing, running the gamut from haggling over details to ''ad hominems''.</ref> In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's ''Ages in Chaos'' series, the [[United Kingdom]]-based Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in [[Glasgow]] specifically to debate the revised chronology.<ref>"Ages in Chaos?'-Proceedings of the Residential Weekend Conference, Glasgow, 7th-9th April 1978" ''Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review'' Vol. VI, issue 1/2/3 84pp (1982)</ref> The ultimate conclusion of this work, by scholars including [[Peter James (historian)|Peter James]], John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and [[David Rohl]], was that the Revised Chronology was untenable.<ref>Bimson, "Finding the Limits of Chronological Revision" in "Proceedings of the SIS Conference: Ages Still in Chaos" ''Chronology & Catastrophism Review'' 2003</ref>



Revision as of 21:44, 19 July 2011

Ages in Chaos book cover

Ages in Chaos is a book by the controversial writer Immanuel Velikovsky, first published by Doubleday in 1952, which put forward a major revision of the history of the Ancient Near East. He claimed in Ages in Chaos that the histories of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Israel are five centuries out of step. He followed this with a number of other works where he attempted to complete his reconstruction of ancient history.

Velikovsky's work has been harshly criticised, including by fellow chronological revisionists such as Peter James. In 1984 fringe science expert Henry H. Bauer wrote Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, which Time described as "the definitive treatise debunking Immanuel Velikovsky".[1]

Summary of Ages in Chaoss

Template:Nonfiction

Velikovsky had put forward his ideas briefly in Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History in 1945, where he claimed that the hisory of the ancient Near East down to the time of Alexander the Great is garbled, but Ages in Chaos was his first full-length work on the subject.

His starting point was that the Exodus took place not, as orthodoxy has it, at some point during the Egyptian New Kingdom, but at the fall of the Middle Kingdom. He made heavy use of the concept of "ghost doubles": historical figures who were known by different names in two different sources (e.g. Egyptian and Greek) and were considered to be entirely different people living in different centuries, but who he proposed to be actually erroneously dated accounts of the same individuals and events.

First he claimed tha the Ipuwer Papyrus came from the beginning of Egypt's Second Intermediate Period, and he claimed that this was an Egyptian account of the Plagues of Egypt. He then identified Tutimaios as the Pharaoh of the Exodus (much earlier than any of the mainstream candidates, the Hyksos with the biblical Amalekites, the Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut with the Biblical Queen of Sheba, the land of Punt with Solomon's kingdom, Pharaoh Thutmose III with the Biblical King Shishak. He clamed that the Egyptian Amarna letters from the late 18th Dynasty describe events from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, from roughly the time of King Ahab.

Later works on ancient history

A second volume was due for publication shortly after this but was postponed. Instead it was followed in 1960 by Oedipus and Akhnaton, where he claime that the story of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhnaton was the origin of the Greek legend of Oedipus, and that Amenophis III was Laius, and Tutankhamun was Eteocles.

In the last two years of his life Velikovsky published a further two works on ancient history: Peoples of the Sea and Rameses II and His Time.

In Peoples of the Sea, Velikovsky deals with the final period of his reonstruction, the Persian invasions of Egypt. Manetho's 20th dynasty here becomes identified with the dynasties which ruled a newly independent Egypt in the early 4th century BCE, and Nectanebo I is a ghost double of Rameses III. Rameses fought invasions by Sea Peoples, including the "Peleset", conventionally identified with the Philistines. According to Velikovsky, the "Peleset" are actually the Persians and the other Sea Peoples are their Greek mercenaries. The 21st dynasty then becomes a line of priest-kings who ruled in the oases simultaneously with the Persians.

Statue of Rameses III in Luxor.

In Rameses II and His Time, Velikovsky identified each of the major 19th dynasty pharaohs with a corresponding pharaoh of the 26th dynasty. Thus, Rameses I becomes Necho I, Seti I becomes Psamtik I, Rameses II is Necho II, and Merneptah is Apries. In order to make these identifications work, Velikovsky claims that the Hittite Empire is an invention of modern historians, and the supposedly Hittite archaeological remains in modern Turkey are actually Chaldean i.e. Neo-Babylonian. The Hittite kings are held to be ghost doubles of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and therefore Rameses II's battle with the Hittites at Kadesh is identical to Necho's fight against Nebuchadrezzar II at Carchemish, Nabopolassar is Mursili II, Neriglissar is Muwatalli, Labashi-Marduk is Urhi-Teshup, and Nebuchadrezzar II is Hattusili III.

At the time of his death he considered that completing his reconstruction of ancient history would require a further two volumes: The Assyrian Conquest and The Dark Age of Greece; these were never published in English, but the manuscripts have long been available online at the Velikovsky archive. [2] In the former work, Velikovsky separated the 18th and 19th dynasties, specifically arguing that over a century separated Ay and Horemheb, conventionally regarded as his successor. Instead, he had the 22nd through 25th dynasties follow upon the earlier part of the 18th, leading down to the Assyrian invasions of the early 7th century BCE. The "great king" who crowned Horemheb was the Assyrian king.

Controversy and criticism

{expandd-section|date=July 2011}} Velikovsky's revised chronology has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and Egyptologists. It was claimed, starting with early reviewers, that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective.[3][4][5] In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at Brown University, discredited Velikovsky's use of Mesopotamian cuneiform sources.[6] Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack.[7] In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos series, the United Kingdom-based Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in Glasgow specifically to debate the revised chronology.[8] The ultimate conclusion of this work, by scholars including Peter James, John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and David Rohl, was that the Revised Chronology was untenable.[9]

While James credits Velikovsky with "point[ing] the way to a solution by challenging Egyptian chronology", he severely criticised the contents of Velikovsky's chronology as "disastrously extreme", producing "a rash of new problems far more severe than those it hoped to solve" and demonstrating that "Velikovsky understood little of archaeology and nothing of stratigraphy."[10]

References

  1. ^ Michael D. Lemonick/Gainesville (2005-05-24). "Science on the Fringe". Time magazine. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
  2. ^ The Immanuel Velikovsky Archive
  3. ^ Albright, William 1952. New York Herald Tribune Book Review April 20. Retelling the Near East's Ancient History. p. 6.
  4. ^ Kaempffert, Waldemar 1952. New York Times Book Review April 20. Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, and the Egypt of Exodus. p. 23.
  5. ^ Stiebing, Jr., William H. 1984. Cosmic Catastrophism, Chap. III, in Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-260-2. pp. 57-80.
  6. ^ see transcript in Aeon 1992, Vol.3 No.1, pp.103-5, and also http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vsachs.html
  7. ^ Ellenberger, Leroy 1992. Aeon 3 (1), section "Bonanza from Brown" in "Of Lessons, Legacies, and Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri (Part One)", pp. 88-90. "Velikovsky confronted a panel of four professors [at Brown University on March 15, 1965]: Leon N. Cooper (physics), Bruno J Giletti (geology), Charles Smiley (astronomy) and Abraham J. Sachs (history of mathematics) [who was substituting for Otto Neugebauer ], moderated by Henry Kucera (linguistics). In the event, Velikovsky debated the first three handily. He was stunned by Sachs whose address was both a rhetorical and substantive tour de force. Velikovsky's rebuttal began: 'Dr. Sachs threw so many accusations in that Philippic of his that I am at a difficulty to answer; but I invite Dr. Sachs to spend the hour and a half tomorrow at the meeting [at Diman House], and every one of you too, and point by point each of his statements will be proven wrong.' Unfortunately, Sachs did not show up the next day and Velikovsky did not even mention Sachs [according to the tape recording of the proceedings in the possession of Warner B. Sizemore who loaned it to Ellenberger March 31, 1979]. Curiously, Velikovsky's file for the Brown trip contains typed rebuttals to all the panelists except Sachs, for whom only partial, penciled notes exist--but later that year Velikovsky would reply to Kim J. Masters, a Princeton sophomore, within a week in The Daily Princetonian (Nov. 15, 1965) over a criticism of Oedipus and Akhnaton. Velikovsky's rebuttal to Masters was scathing, running the gamut from haggling over details to ad hominems.
  8. ^ "Ages in Chaos?'-Proceedings of the Residential Weekend Conference, Glasgow, 7th-9th April 1978" Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review Vol. VI, issue 1/2/3 84pp (1982)
  9. ^ Bimson, "Finding the Limits of Chronological Revision" in "Proceedings of the SIS Conference: Ages Still in Chaos" Chronology & Catastrophism Review 2003
  10. ^ http://www.centuries.co.uk/preface.htm The Preface from Centuries of Darkness Peter James

Further reading