A Conversation for Ask h2g2

How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 21

Noggin the Nog

I'm of the opinion that the similarities between Mithras and Christ are not coincidences, Taff, so I guess the answer to that one is yes smiley - winkeye

<>

That's a very difficult question to answer in an unbiased way, Gif, whichever side of the debate you take. Obviously for some people yes, for others no. I think yes.

<< As to what the chances of various coincidences being - like winning the lottery, the chances of any given coincidence (or any specific person winning) may be very low, but the chances of there being *some* coincidences (or *a* winner) can be high.>>

And I quoted three major coincidences in a short span of time - like winning the lottery three times, if you will, and all of them offering an explanation for things that are not explained by the standard chronology. And there are plenty of instances where the evidence is very difficult to fit into the standard chronology (eg The Tomb of Ahiram, which we mentioned on our last go round.)

I have to go out now, but I'll be back later to look at a few other points.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 22

Taff Agent of kaos

<>

what does the science say

carbon dating is now considered reliable what does that tell us of the coincedences??

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 23

Noggin the Nog

It tells us that 1 in 1000 chances turn up nine times out of ten smiley - winkeye

There are, of course, minor coincidences and major coincidences. That one of Rameses III's names is Nekht-Neb (Nectanebo) is perhaps a minor coincidence. That the sequence of alliances in Diodorus' account of the wars of Nectanebo should match those of Rameses III's account of his wars with the Peleset, and make sense of them as well, is a big coincidence. And co-coincidences are, of course, even more unlikely.

<< how much coincidence was required before we set aside the evidence that supports the conventional chronology?>>

How much do you want? smiley - smiley

<>

I know what you mean, though since the argument about Sais didn't refer to this period, the answer is it's irrelevant either way. And I wasn't going so far as to say that the Bible was an *accurate* description of events, I was rather trying to say that the end of dynasty 13 provides a context in which the origin of the story (including the conquest) makes sense in a way that it doesn't in dynasty 18. So, I don't necessarily agree with everything Vel says.

<>

Well, bad example of course, as none of the chronologies have dynasty 26 preceding dynasty 18, but actually, apart from Manetho we don't have any ancient texts that do this for the period in question. Apart from Manetho the dynastic sequence has to be gleaned from other sources, with varying degrees of deduction and conjecture, and the method used is usually to attempt to confirm what we "already know", rather than to test it in the scientific sense.

Carbon dating aside, what kind of thing would count as a prediction (for either chronology), and how well does the standard chronology fare? And yes, I do know that falsification of one is not proof of the other.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 24

Noggin the Nog

Still, a few predictions of a sort:

Although not an explicit prediction, it follows from Vel's chronology that a substantial community with a semitic culture would have existed in the eastern delta in the late Middle Kingdom. This has since been found at Tell el Daba/Avaris. Not enough to constitute proof, but a point in favour.

On the other hand - Vel predicted Avaris would be found at el-Arish, but this doesn't really impact the chronology.

For the future - Tell Nebi Mend will be found to be Riblah in the land of Hamath, and not Kadesh on Orontes, as currently thought (without the benefit of excavation).

Nineteenth dynasty remains in Syria-Palestine will continue to be found in dynasty 26 horizons. (See the tomb of Ahiram, and the Lachish ewer - both pottery, not scarabs - and possibly Tanis).

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 25

Giford

Hi Nog,

I was going to post a point-by-point rebuttal, but perhaps we're moving past that. Instead, I'll just make some general comments on Velikovsky's method, and why I think it is fundamentally flawed. (But be warned - I now have a 90%-written response I'm itching to post smiley - winkeye)

Velikovsky is very big-picture, very populist. But that's not how modern archaeology works. Modern archaeology is all about the details. Archaeologists spend whole careers painstakingly digging through layers of sediment, finding shards of pottery they can compare to other shards of pottery. A lot of their conclusions don't deal with the famous figures of history. They date solar barques by the tedious counting of tree-rings in the wood. They match up the names of manual labourers to construct genealogies. And along comes Velikovsky and says 'Oh no, you're all wrong - because one of Ramesses III's five names sounds a little like one of Nectanebo's five names, and also they both fought invaders from the east!' (I exaggerate for effect - but not too much.)

He's not interested in the details of Ramesses reign, or of Nectanebo's reign. He doesn't care whether Nectanebo ever fought a sea battle, or fought Libyans, or whether there is a difference in style between the architecture of the New Kingdom and the Late Period. He's purely interested in the 'showy' bits; Exodus, Hyksos, Kadesh.

Velikovsky uses the logic that 'if there is a problem with the standard chronology, I can make up any story I like and it is up to conventional archaeologists to prove me wrong - and I'm quite entitled to ignore some of their evidence if it doesn't fit with my theory'. And, of course, trying to explain the difference between the New Kingdom and the Late Period is difficult - whereas saying 'don't these names sound similar? Doesn't that sound a little bit like the Bible story?' is very easy, and convincing to an educated layman.

Put it this way: how much *direct* evidence is there for Velikovsky? How much evidence - for example - that Avaris is Sais, or that the 15th D Hyksos are not related to the 12 D Hyksos?

Or try another little game: suppose I said that the Second World War is merely a retelling of the First World War? After all, what are the chances of there being *two* wars, involving the whole world, each with Germany (plus allies) against Britain (plus allies)? Kaiser Wilhelm is clearly another name for Hitler. How does the conventional chronology expain the Treaty of Versailles, where Germany admits to causing WWI - in complete contradiction to the historical record of 1914, but matching exactly the historical record of 1939? What are the chances of two wars between Britain and Germany being fought in France, starting with setbacks for Britain, and being resolved when the USA enters the war on Britain's side? And so on - as long as we look only at the similarities, it is very easy to find parellels in history. But - and this is the crucial point - *without direct evidence, it is impossible to say that two events are likely related simply because there are parallels between them*.

Far too often, Vel's 'evidence' seems to be a mixture of points that don't really support either chronology, points that agree with either chronology, or evidence that simply doesn't stand up to examination; the 'Greek letters' being a prime example.

A good example of a prediction that - unlike finding Asiatic remains in the Middle Kingdom - distinguishes between Vel and Stan(dard Chronology) would be that Vel says that Setnakhte and Nepherites are the same person. Since Setnakht's tomb has been long known - KV14 in the Valley of the Kings - no separate tomb for Nepherites should be found. Stan, on the other hand, says that Nepherites' tomb should be out there (unless it has been destroyed).

Nepherites tomb was found in Mendes in the early 1990s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepherites_I

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 26

Taff Agent of kaos

<>

so using this method we should be able to cut the 100 years war down to a more managable number..........anyone fancy the 13 years war????

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 27

anhaga

'Velikovsky is very big-picture, very populist. But that's not how modern archaeology works. Modern archaeology is all about the details. Archaeologists spend whole careers painstakingly digging through layers of sediment, finding shards of pottery they can compare to other shards of pottery.'

smiley - laugh

That reminds me of an experience of my youth as a student (i.e. slave) working on the University of Alberta's dig in southern Italy. I had excavated a number of square metre plots, finding pot shards, wall plaster, shattered flue tiles, etc. when I got sent down the hill a bit to investigate an un-excavated spot that had showed up as a potential spot of interest on the magnetometer survey seven years earlier. I spent a week painstakingly digging through what amounted to a single layer which contained a jumble of bric-a-brac from Roman pottery to last year's busted teacup. The magnetometer had detected a spot on the hillside to which the rain had washed rubbish for about two thousand years.

My week of work provided the very useful information that there was no useful information to be had at that spot.smiley - laugh


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 28

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

<>

Post away.


<<'Oh no, you're all wrong - because one of Ramesses III's five names sounds a little like one of Nectanebo's five names, and also they both fought invaders from the east!' (I exaggerate for effect - but not too much.)>>

Up to that point I was actually with you, but this is actually a substantial exagerration.

<>

On the contrary, the question of Nectanebo's wars is obviously central. To see what Vel was saying remember this section comes after the sections on the Greek letters, the late tombs with 20th dynasty scarabs, and the discussion on the Great Harris Papyrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte#Papyrus_Harris so at this point Vel feels he has established a 4th century time for Rameses III. The important points that follow are that Nectanebo left no record of his war with the Persians, but that Diodorus of Sicily recounts the events in his history, and that the only extant record of Rameses' wars is his - there are no others. Vel compares the two accounts and claims that they are the same. First the Peleset/Persians, the Greeks/Peoples of the Sea and the Egyptians are allies against the Libyans, then the Greeks/Peoples of the Sea and Egyptians are allies against the Persians/Peleset, and finally the Egyptians defeat the combined forces of the Greeks/Peoples of the Sea and Peleset/Persians in a land and sea battle.

In addition Vel claims to show that the identifications of Nekht-Nebef and Nekht-Hor-Heb with Nectanebos I and II, made primarily on the basis of the similarity of names, is erroneous, and that both of these were functionaries under the Persian satrap Arsames.

On architecture compare particularly the pylons of the temples of Medinet Habu (20d), Khonsu (21d) and Edfu (Ptolemaic). The similarity of the first two is to be expected in both chronologies, of course, but the similarity of Edfu to the other two is not.

So to amend your story slightly - One of Kaiser Wilhelm's well attested other names is Hitlero. The record of World War I exists only in the German version, that of World War II only in the history of a Frenchman. There is no Treaty of Versailles (unless your powers of analogy are a lot better than mine).

Remember that at the moment we aren't discussing whether Vel was right or not, only the point at which you think he makes an unrealistic leap.

Noggin




How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 29

Giford

Hi Nog,

OK, you asked for it smiley - smiley

>What are the chances that, looking for a connection between the 20th dynasty and the Greco-Persian period to complete his reconstuction, Vel would find an archaeological report describing Greek letters on the backs of tiles from a temple of Rameses III?

As already discussed, these 'Greek letters' are almost certainly nothing of the sort - indeed, they could equally be described as 'Roman or English letters'. Take enough tiles with random identifying scratches on the back, and a few will resemble letters. And from memory, we are talking about a couple of dozen (tops) 'letters' out of several thousand marked tiles.
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/grktiles.html

So the answer to the question is, if he's prepared to accept that kind of 'evidence', it's almost certain he could find a link between any 2 periods he chose.

smiley - book

>What are the chances that the Great Harris Papyrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte#Papyrus_Harris would describe a situation of foreign rule before the beginning of the dynasty that is still a puzzle to the standard chronology, but fits the Persian period before Nepherites (alter ego of Setnakht in Vel's chronology)?

Well, it doesn't. It's generally taken as describing the infighting that lead to the downfall of the 19th Dynasty (it describes a divided nation and 'rebels' against the Pharaoh; it's not at all clear that it is talking about an external conquest). The description is so vague ('The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of towns') that it could apply to almost any of the intermediate periods. The only phrase that could remotely refer to an external invasion is 'overthrown from without', and is likely a reference to the Asiatic followers of Chancellor Bey, who looted tombs after Twosret's death, as described on the Elephantine Stele. The only foreigners mentioned are 'Syrians', which would fit with Bey's Asiatics, but not an invasion by the Persians. And it can only apply to Nepherites if we airbrush Amyrtaeus (who ruled between the Persians and Nepherites) out of history. Nepherites did not expel foreign invaders; he rebelled against an existing Egyptian ruler who had *already* expelled the Persians.

And then there is the minor, teensy-weensy problem that Setnakhte has long been known to have been buried in the Valley of the Kings (specifically, in tomb KV14: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV14 ). Nepherites, on the other hand, is now known to have been buried in Mendes: http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nepherites/nepherites_i.html . If, according to Vel, they are the same person, why are they buried in different places?

(As an interesting aside: KV14 was finally redecorated in the name of Seti II. This is very strange, as Seti II preceded both its occupants under both the standard and Velikovskian chronologies - correct me if I'm wrong about Velikovsky.)

But on top of that - Egypt has had struggles, both internal and external, countless times throughout its history. What would make Vel think that this is tied to the 29th Dynasty specifically? Why not the 3rd, or the mid-11th, or the 18th, or the 26th?

smiley - book

>And what are the chances that Diodorus' description of the wars of Nectanebo I (alter ego of Rameses III) would make sense of the shifting alliances of Peleset, Sea Peoples and Egyptians in the inscriptions of Rameses III, which are currently entirely unexplained? And what are the chances of three coincidences like that in a brief period? No wonder some of us got confused.

Again, the chances of finding a 'coincidence' are high, provided you are prepared to simply discard contradictory evidence and look only at the similarities, such as Ramesses III being the successor to Setnakhte, but Nepherites and Nectanebo being separated by the entire (albeit short-lived) 29th Dynasty - 3 Pharaohs, and at least 13 years.

>one of Rameses III's names is Nekht-Neb (Nectanebo) is perhaps a minor coincidence. That the sequence of alliances in Diodorus' account of the wars of Nectanebo should match those of Rameses III's account of his wars with the Peleset, and make sense of them as well, is a big coincidence.

When all Pharaohs had five names, drawn from a fairly standard 'pool' of stock phrases, it's hardly coincidence that one matches. It's even less of a coincidence if we allow a little 'flex' in the names so that similar names are classed as identical. But how to explain, under Vel's chronology, the difference in the remaining four names of each Pharaoh? This is the kind of 'cherry-picking' evidence that no archaeologist is going to take seriously.

When we look at the commonly used names, we find Ramesses III to be Usermaatre-meryamun Ramesse-hekaiunu (throne name and birth name), whereas Nectanebo is Kheper-Ka-re Nakhtnebef (again, throne name then birth name). How does one Pharaoh have two birth names? Vel is silent.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramessesiii.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nectanebo1.htm

As to the 'major coincidence' of the matching alliances - again, this simply doesn't seem to be the case. Nectanebo was allied to the various Greek city-states, defending against the mighty Persian empire (attacking from the West by sea). The Greeks then switched sides and allied to the Persians; then fell out with them, allowing the Egyptians to regroup.

Ramesses III was attacked by the loosely-allied 'Sea Peoples' (from the East by sea) and, separately, by the Libyans (from the West by land). (Yes, I know Vel equates the Persians with the 'Peleset / Sea Peoples', but aside from the slight similarity of name he really has no evidence to support this. And either way, Ramesses III has no involvement with the Greeks.)

Ramesses fought major sea battles; Nectanebo didn't (he fought invaders *from* the sea; he didn't fight them *at* sea). Ramesses struggled with environmental disaster and drought; Nectanebo didn't. Nectanebo had complex alliances with the Greeks; Ramesses had none. Where exactly is the 'major coincidence' here? smiley - erm

smiley - book

>The Tomb of Ahiram

Skipping this, because I don't remember it too well - but acknowledging that I am skipping it!

smiley - book

>apart from Manetho we don't have any ancient texts that do this for the period in question. Apart from Manetho the dynastic sequence has to be gleaned from other sources, with varying degrees of deduction and conjecture, and the method used is usually to attempt to confirm what we "already know", rather than to test it in the scientific sense.

The Turin King List runs to the middle of this period, concluding with Ramesses II. The Abydos King List also runs to the 19th Dynasty. And although these are the only comprehensive lists of Pharaohs we have, we do have more partial lists covering at least part of this period, such as the Saqqara Tablet. In addition, we can piece together a chronology (that largely supports Manetho, with a few exceptions) from archaeological evidence - Pharaohs often listed their parentage on their temples and tombs. Again, Vel has to set aside archaeological evidence that puts 'simultaneous' (under his system) dynasties apart from each other, such as the genealogies of builders that I linked to earlier.

And I don't see where you're getting the idea that this is done 'to support what we already know rather than to test in the scientific sense'. Other than that the conclusions don't support Vel, what evidence is there for that claim?

smiley - book

>Carbon dating aside, what kind of thing would count as a prediction (for either chronology), and how well does the standard chronology fare?

See my note earlier, that 20D Pharaohs should have burials distinct from 29D Pharaohs. Vel says they're the same people, and so can't possibly have 2 burials. Conventional chronology says they're separate and we could - at least potentially - find burials for both.

>Although not an explicit prediction, it follows from Vel's chronology that a substantial community with a semitic culture would have existed in the eastern delta in the late Middle Kingdom. This has since been found at Tell el Daba/Avaris.

Trouble is, that's also a 'prediction' of the standard chronology. At best, you can't use it as evidence to support one over the other. And remember that Vel also 'predicts' that this community ought to be distinct from the Hyksos, whereas they were actually called Hyksos by the Egyptians of the time.

smiley - book

>There is no Treaty of Versailles (unless your powers of analogy are a lot better than mine).

OK, you're stretching the analogy further than I intended, but for the record I was thinking of the Harris papyrus when writing about the Treaty of Versailles. And I realise this wasn't what you meant, but - if we only did have records of the two wars from one side each, would we be justified in assuming they were actually the same war? In this case, clearly not, since we know they are two separate wars. So that doesn't really help your case that we should assume the two (?) Egyptian wars are really one, does it?

smiley - book

>On architecture compare particularly the pylons of the temples of Medinet Habu (20d), Khonsu (21d) and Edfu (Ptolemaic). The similarity of the first two is to be expected in both chronologies, of course, but the similarity of Edfu to the other two is not.

Not sure what you mean by this. Khonsu is a God, not a location - he had a famous santuary within the temple complex at Karnak, one gate built during the 20D (by Ramesses III, who also built Medinet Habu); another gate was built in a very different style during the Greek period (and is one of my favourite Egyptian ruins, really nice painted carvings on the underneath and a little off the main tour-group trails smiley - smiley). But generally, the Greek / Ptolemaic rulers deliberately imitated the New Kingdom style, which makes Edfu unsurprising architecturally. Unless you're claiming that the New Kingdom Pharaohs were actually Greek, this 'Greeks imitate Egyptians' explanation is the same under both chronologies.

However, there are also clear Greek influences in the Ptolemaic ruins, such as the zodiac as Esna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esna

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 30

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

<< And from memory, we are talking about a couple of dozen (tops) 'letters' out of several thousand marked tiles.>>

To be honest, I haven't found anything in which the numbers are sufficiently specific to mount a tight statistical argument one way or the other. I suspect you may be right. On the other hand there are also the Setnakht and Rameses VI scarabs found in tombs which the excavators described as being similar to burials in Ptolemaic times, including at Alexandria.

<< It's generally taken as describing the infighting that lead to the downfall of the 19th Dynasty>>

Which is because the 19th dynasty immediately precedes the 20th, which is fair enough, but is there anything in the text that makes this identification plain? Also note that further down Bay is explicitly excluded as a candidate for Irsu (also Arsu), so we have no definite candidate for him. The text also speaks of empty years (years without a king), after which Irsu assumes power. According to Vel he is Arsames, the satrap of Syria, who was the effective ruler during the second half of the Persian occupation, and certainly did plenty of plundering.

<< If, according to Vel, they are the same person, why are they buried in different places?>> Okay, you got me there, though in fairness to Vel this happened after the books were written - and possibly after he died, not sure of the date.

<<(As an interesting aside: KV14 was finally redecorated in the name of Seti II. This is very strange, as Seti II preceded both its occupants under both the standard and Velikovskian chronologies - correct me if I'm wrong about Velikovsky.)>>

No, you're right. That's definitely an odd one.

Have to stop for now, but will be back.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 31

Noggin the Nog

Brief aside on the Tomb of Ahiram at Byblos.

The key problem is that the tomb contains both material dateable to the 13th century (primarily an alabaster vase with cartouches of Rameses II, probably a funerary gift), and 7th century Cypriote pottery. If the tomb is 13th century how did the 7th century pottery get in there? If 7th century, where did the 13th century material come from?

As well as this, there were two inscriptions, one at the entrance to the tomb, the other on the sarcophagus itself, in Phoenician alphabetic characters. This came as something of a surprise, as up to that time the oldest known alphabetic writing was the Mesha Stele, 400 years later. Moreover, the form of the letters was similar to the inscriptions of the later Phoenician kings, Itobaal and Etobaal, judged on epigraphic grounds to be late 9th century, but on historical grounds to be late 10th century (the inscriptions were on statues of Shoshenk I and Osorkon I), suggesting that alphabetic writing appeared earlier than first thought, but then hardly changed for at least 300 years.

For the record, all the revised chronologies place the early Libyan kings in the late 9th century, and the age of Ahiram's tomb has never been settled.

According to Vel, the tomb is of course 7th century, which fits the pottery finds. I don't know how well it fits the epigraphic data, although I'm sure someone, somewhere must have compared the Ahiram letters with the Mesha letters and Hezekiah letters, but I haven't found anything online.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 32

Giford

Hi Nog,

A brief response to your brief response on Bay:

>is there anything in the text that makes this identification plain?

No. But note that this also applies to everything Vel claims - the text doesn't mention Arsames or Persians either (it does mention (a) Syrian/s). As I said earlier, the text is so vague that it could apply to almost any period of Egyptian history - which is why Vel is wrong to use it as evidence for a specific period.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 33

Giford

btw - I'm not likely to be around for the next week or so...

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 34

Effers;England.


Oh that's a shame smiley - winkeye

Go for it in the sunshine..or wherever you'll be.


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 35

Noggin the Nog

Have a good break, Gif

In the meantime, it seems we have a difference of interpretation here. IMO, despite a frustrating lack of detail, the Papyrus gives us a clear seequence of events that doesn't match what we know of the end of the 19th dynasty. First, there is an invasion, "the country was overthrown from without". Then a period of lawlessness and absence of central authority ("they had no chief mouth") that lasts "for many years", followed by "empty years" (the meaning of this is certainly subject to interpretation. Possibly kingless years, but not provably so.) Finally, *after* all this, the country is subject to the "chieftainship" of Irsu (which can also be written 'Arsa'). Arsa does at least bear "a passing resemblance" to Arsames, the Persian satrap. He was satrap of Syria, as well as Egypt, and his letters to his Egyptian subordinates are written in Aramaic. He may well have been referred to as a Syrian.

This question of names could have a post of its own, I think.

The "airbrushing" of Amyrteus would not be surprising. I think we can agree that the purpose of the papyrus was to legitimise the succession of Ramses IV (in Vel, Tachos), and mentioning the pharaoh who Nepherites had slain prior to usurping the throne may not have been seen as helpful.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 36

Taff Agent of kaos

<< If the tomb is 13th century how did the 7th century pottery get in there? If 7th century, where did the 13th century material come from?>>

saw a documentary a while back, possibly chanel 5, that suggeted that the preithood was responable for plundering old tombs and that the treaures were recycled into other tombs as treasure i a finite comodity

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 37

Noggin the Nog

So you'd opt for 7th century, Taff? Which puts you in a minority of one (or two, including Velikovsky). Yes, tombs were almost always robbed, but for personal enrichment rather than recycling smiley - winkeye
And six hundred years is a long time to keep something by for a handy burial.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 38

Taff Agent of kaos


i am a little confused by which way time is running here in ancient egypt............bloody pyramids............all that effort just to sharpen a few razor bladessmiley - erm

if the artifact hasn't been recycled then the pyramids work and things travel backward in time????smiley - tardissmiley - winkeye

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 39

Giford

Hi Nog,

Sorry I've been away so long - just trying to get back to grips with this now.

So, we have the Tomb of Ahiram and the Harris Papyrus.

Since (I think) we're discussing where Vel went wrong, rather than whether he was right, let's say for the moment that both these things are what you / Vel say they are: the Harris Papyrus fits with the start of the 29D and not with the start of the 20D, and the Tomb of Ahiram contains an inextricable mixture of 13th and 7th Century materials. Or we can talk more generally about how anomalies should be handled in archaeology.

We can agree (especially with Ahiram) that we have something puzzling under the conventional chronology. I would say that Vel's error comes when he decides that the 'easy option' is to throw out the entire chronology to accommodate the anomalies. The trouble is that by doing that, he introduces more problems than he solves.

(For instance: if the Harris Papyrus fits with 29D and *not* with 20D, how can 20D and 29D be the same time? And if we are contracting the timescale by c. 800 years to make the start of 20D match the start of 29D, how can we also be contracting it by c. 500 years (max - only 300 years if the conventional dating of Ahiram is accepted) to make Ramesses II contemporary with the 7th Century, as per your / Vel's interpretation of the Ahiram finds?)

Further alarm bells should ring when the next-best supporting evidence he can produce is the 'Greek letters' - this is a stretch indeed.

So I would say that Vel's errors are threefold:

* He's too quick to leap to 'anomolies mean the standard interpretation is wrong' - as opposed to 'anomalies are things we don't understand'. Much / most of his evidence is so vague about dates that he cannot possibly draw firm dating conclusions from it.

* Related to the above, he fails to address the direct evidence that the standard chronology is at least roughly correct, e.g. the workers' genealogies. It's this that eventually caused him to be discredited in the eyes of most archaeologists.

* His revised system doesn't really make any sense - one piece of evidence indicates (according to him) a reduction of a certain length of time, another a completely different reduction (or, to put it another way, that at least 3 Dynasties need to be conflated).

Not to mention the fact that his only real reason for believing any of this seems to be a heavy reliance on the Bible as a historical source...

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 40

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

Sorry I haven't had time to reply, but I'm *really* busy this month. But I promise I'll write something soon.

Noggin


Key: Complain about this post