A Conversation for Ask h2g2

How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 61

Noggin the Nog

<>

Leaving aside that Vel had identified the Hyksos and the Amalekites previously to this, we do know that the Israelites first encountered the Amalakites in the Sinai, and in Samuel 15 7-8 it says that Saul "smote them from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, which is over against Egypt" so a southern location does seem to be indicated. Moreover, if the Amalakites were a bedouin tribe, the reference to a city of Amalek is a little odd. It's true that the king James version gives "valley", but the Hebrew original "nakhal" means the bed of a river (okay, that's according to Vel, but he was Jewish and a Hebrew scholar, so would probably know).

Half agree on One - but the use of the indefinite pronoun instead of "I" or "his majesty" still needs explaining.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 62

Giford

Hi Nog,

Even quicker:
>Vel also cites Josephus, "Against Apion I, 156" saying "Under King Ithobaal, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years", but I can't find it online.

The ref is wrong; it should be Against Apion 1, 21:
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/apion-1.htm

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 63

Giford

>the Hebrew original "nakhal" means the bed of a river (okay, that's according to Vel, but he was Jewish and a Hebrew scholar, so would probably know).

Every translation I can find disagrees with Vel here:
http://bible.cc/1_samuel/14-4.htm

I can't find any word similar to 'nakhal' in the section of text I am thinking of, so perhaps I'm looking at the wrong verse?:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=14&t=KJV#4

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 64

Noggin the Nog

Thanks for the correction, but you found the quote I meant.

The second reference is 1 Samuel 15, 5

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=15&v=1&t=KJV#conc/5

The word as translated by google has a number of meanings, including valley, but also river or wadi.

Hope that helps

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 65

Giford

Hi Nog,

>Whoever the pharaoh at Quarquar was, he was an ally of Ahab of Israel (among others), which we know from Shalmaneser's inscriptions, and it's hard to see how his this event could be also be contemporary with Asa.

OK. 'Standard' date of Qarqar: 853BC.
SC dates of Ahab: roughly 870-850BC.
SC dates of Asa: c910-870BC.
Indeed, Ahab is described in the Bible as becoming king in the 38th year (of 41) of Asa's reign.
So yep, according to the Bible these two rulers overlapped only at the start of Ahab's reign, whereas Qarqar was right at the end of Ahab's reign.

Therefore if you've got a convincing reason that Asa was contemporary with Qarqar, there is a definite problem with the Biblical chronology. That would in turn seem to rule Zerah (who fought Asa) out as a candidate for the Pharaoh of Qarqar. (If, indeed, Egypt fought as Qarqar at all - this is far from clear from Shalmaneser's inscription; having noted that uncertainty, I'll proceed on the assumption that they did.)

By a simple matching of SC dates, Qarqar would seem to fall in the reign of Osorkon II and Asa/Zerah in the reign of Osorkon I, and it is entirely plausible that Zerah was Osorkon I (though why he would be described as a 'Cushite' is a mystery). It is equally plausible that Zerah was not an Ethiopian (Cushite) at all, but a Babylonian (Kassite) or (according to Wiki) an Arab of some unknown minor tribe with a name of the form K-S-T, and therefore nothing to do with Osorkon or any other Pharaoh.

There are a myriad of possibilities here, and while I confess I can't see any single explanation that is obviously the single, undoubted answer, I can't see any reason to revolutionise the whole of Egyptian dating either.

>In 1910 a jar with cartouches of Osorkon II was found in the ruins of a palace of Samaria [...]

If this was the only evidence that Osorkon II (SC dates c.870-835 BC) and Ahab (870-850, as above) were contemporaries, this might be a problem. But we know from other evidence that they ruled at roughly the same times. For instance, we have evidence of Osorkon sending tribute to Assyria following the Battle of Qarqar, which puts his contemporary with Shalmaneser III, and therefore ties him into the Asyrrian dating scheme and ultimately the Babylonian exile.

Again, if this was an assumption based on the SC when archaeologists first came up with it, it would seem to be a fulfilled prediction.

In light of this, and further evidence (such as the genealogical tying of Osorkon to other Pharaohs and High Priests of around this time), it seems we can be pretty confident at least with regards to his approximate date. (I'd need to do quite a lot of work to put together an entire genealogy and check that every relationship is supported by primary evidence; although this might make an interesting project if/when I have more free time (no time soon!) I'm going by the confident proclamations of Wikipedia and other web sources on this smiley - smiley.)

So: while there is considerable uncertainty around some aspects of the history here (notably who, if anyone, Zerah was) there is no convincing reason to look outside the SC, and good reason to think the SC is at least roughly accurate.

As I've noted before, the infrequeny of postings here combined with my lack of expertise in the subject mean I do tend to lose track of the thread of some of these arguments. If you think I've contradicted myself(*) or that I've missed an obvious point, please explain it to me slowly and simply... actually, it might be helpful if we could focus on a single point until we reach agreement on it... maybe even something 'positive' in favour of the SC that I come up with...

>The second reference is 1 Samuel 15, 5

OK, thanks. So now I can clearly see that Samuel was beseiging Amalekites (we're not told specifically where the 'city of Amalek' was, but he smote them 'from Havilah until thou comest to Shur', i.e. somewhere in Arabia to somewhere in Sinai). Ahmose fought the Hyksos in a riverbed at Avaris, in the Nile delta - so aside from the dry riverbed (which is a common seasonal phenomenon in Middle-Eastern deserts; I've wandered along a few myself smiley - winkeye) the only link here is Vel's insistence that the Amalekites are the Hyksos - a point few agree with.

Gif smiley - geek

(*)OK, I admit I kind of backtracked on Osorkon II being a plausible candidate for Zerah...


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 66

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif.

Fascinating and thought provoking stuff, as always.

<>

That's my feeling, too, although I have a reservation about "a single point" simply because so much of the interpretation is context, especially in an obscure and difficult period like the third intermediate.

This is why I proposed that we start with the proposition that the equation of Sheshonk and Shishak looks a good bet, but isn't strong enough to stand completely alone (you may think this is unnecessarily sceptical, but it allows us some exploration space). Furthermore, the history of the Libyan period has had to be reconstructed, sometimes from small and context dependent clues, and on the assumption that we have at least a couple of fixed points to start from (ie Shishak, at the beginning, and the date of the end of the Libyan period, in 715BC, give or take a couple of years). We think we've got it pretty much right, but there's enough residual uncertainty that confirmation by cross dating with the Bible and the Assyrian records in particular would still be welcome. Does that sound reasonable?

So far, we've looked at Zerah the Ethiopian, the Battle of Quarquar, and Pharaoh So as possible points of contact, but we seem to have drawn a blank. (Ok, Pharaoh So is agreed to be a Libyan pharaoh in both SC and Vel, with oSOrkon IV as the most widely accepted candidate in the SC, but with some votes for one of the SOsenks) One factual correction from your last post is that the King of Musri who payed tribute to Shalmaneser is not named, so we still can't tie him to Osorkon II, and the only external cross reference we've found so far for this monarch indicates a later date than can be fitted into the SC.

I still have to write a post on epigraphy, but I think the above describes "the state of play", and gives us a platform to work from. I look forward to the next round.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 67

Noggin the Nog

Okay, going to have a bash at epigraphy and the development of the alphabet.

Prior to the discovery of Ahiram's tomb, the oldest known inscription in the Phoenician/Hebrew alphabetic script was that of the Mesha Stele, which can be dated with some confidence to around 850-840 BC from the Bible, with cross reference to the Assyrian annals. The Hezekiah letters can be dated to the last decade of the 8th century BC, on the same basis.

The discovery of the Ahiram inscription (actually written by his son Ittobaal) in 1922, and generally dated to the 13th century BC because of the vases of Ramses II found in the tomb, came as something of a surprise, but the dating seemed unavoidable on the archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, some epigraphists disagreed,because of the similarity of the Ahiram script to the inscriptions of Abibaal and Elibaal written on the bases of statues of Shoshenk I and Osorkon I. The letters of these inscriptions were generally considered to be intermediate between Mesha and Hezekiah, and to have been added to the statues at a later date, since Shoshenk and Osorkon themselves were earlier than Mesha. Even after redating the A & E inscriptions to the actual times of S & O, at the cost of introducing anomalies in the development of the script (some characteristics of individual letters disappearing in Mesha, and reappearing in Hezekiah), the epigraphists were unwilling to concede that there could be 400 years between the Ahiram inscriptions and the A & E inscriptions (because of their similarity), and opted for around 1100 BC for Ahiram, even though none of the contents of the tomb supported this date.

There is also the problem of when the Greek alphabet derived from the Phoenician alphabet. According to the Greeks themselves this happened around the middle of the 9th century, about the time of Mesha, but because the earliest known Greek inscriptions were from around 700 BC (now about 740 BC, following the discovery of the Dipylon inscription), some scholars thought the date must be later. Comparisons of the scripts gave equivocal results. Some scholars (eg Carpenter) found the greatest similarity with the letters of Hezekiah, others (eg Ullmann) with the scripts predating Mesha, although they conceded that the absence of Greek writing between 1200 and 700 was a problem for this theory.

AFAIK these disputes have not been satisfactorily resolved.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 68

Giford

Hi Nog,

Rather than respond directly to your points - most of which I kind of feel we've been through before - I'd like to take myself up on the idea I proposed smiley - smiley of 'going on the offensive' and presenting some positive evidence against Vel and in favour of the Standard Chronology.

I've tried to keep this simple by sticking to 3 main points, but even so the sheer weight of evidence means this is quite long - sorry!

Central to Vel's 'Revised Chronology' is the idea that the 19th Dyn *is* the 26th Dyn - the two are the same individuals described differently - and that the 19th Dyn did not follow on from the 18th Dyn. As a consequence, he deduces / needs to believe that the Hittite Empire did not exist, and was a description of the Chaldean / Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Let's take each of those points in turn, and see how close we can come to refuting Vel.

1) The 19th Dyn followed the 18th Dyn.

The last Pharaoh of D18 was Horemheb, though Vel lumps him in with D19 (the breaks between Dynasties are a bit arbitrary anyway, so I have no problem with that).

If we can establish from primary evidence that Ay was succeeded by Horemheb, we have tied Horemheb into the 18th Dyn; since Vel doesn't dispute Horemheb's link to D19 (it is well documented that his Vizier Paramesse became Ramesses I), we would then have a direct link between the 18th and 19th Dyns, that Vel would not be able to explain.

Bizarrely, the best evidence that Horemheb followed Ay is Horemheb's destruction of Ay's monuments. Ay's tomb and most of his monuments have been defaced. This sits neatly with Horemheb not being Ay's chosen successor (a certain Nakhtmin had that honour) and his grievance against anyone associated with the Amarna period. The smoking gun is Ay's morturary temple; Horemheb has had Ay's cartouche erased and replaced with his own in every instance bar one, which seems to have been overlooked. Thus we have two Pharaohs clearly named on one temple; it is very difficult to see why Horemheb should have 'latched onto' Ay in this way if (at least) the entire 22nd - 25th dynasties separated them.

I would guess that this is part of the reason that later Vel-inspired revisionists such as David Rohl have dropped this idea, and accept that the 19th Dyn followed the 18th.

2) The 19th Dynasty is not the 26th Dynasty.

There's a lot of ground to cover here, much of which we have already been over, so I will simply pick one example. First, here's an overview of how the two Dynasties line up in the two systems.

The Amarna period should come just before Dyn 19 (and therefore before Dyn 26 according to Vel), and this was a major theme through the early 19D Pharoahs, yet there is no reference to any religious upheaval prior to Dyn 26.
Nekauba, of the 26th Dyn, doesn't fit into Vel's system, and is erased from history (along with Tefnakht II, whose existence is doubted by conventional achaeologists also)
Ramesses I becomes Necho I
Seti I becomes Psamtik I
Ramesses II is Necho II
Vel skips Psamtik II for now, since there is no match at this point in Dyn 18
Merneptah is Apries (this is the parallel I will focus on)

So far so good, but now even the slight parallels Vel has been able to find start to break down:

Seti II is presumably Psamtik II (who Vel skipped earlier; if so, Psamtik II and Apries are reversed under Vel's system)
Amenmesse is presumably Amasis II
Siptah is presumably Psamtik III
And Queen Twosret is not accounted for at all, since we've run out of D26 Pharaohs. Although her reign was short, it is well attested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twosret#Monuments_and_Inscriptions whereas it's equally clearly attested that Psamtik III was defeated by the Persians, and did not have an Egyptian successor.

I have picked a random pairing from the list to examine; this is a comparision that Vel makes directly, not one I have assumed follows from his logic.

Merneptah vs Apries:

Merneptah ruled for 10 years, Apries for 19.

Merneptah was a 13th son, and ruled initially from Pi-Ramesses, later from Memphis. Apries ruled from Sais; I can't find details on his siblings. Merneptah was notably elderly when he assumed the throne (70-ish), but again I can't find any comparative data for Apries.

They did both campaign in Palestine, but whereas Merneptah pilaged the whole place (as recorded on his famous Stela) and specifically fought against the Hebrews, Apries went in to defend Jerusalem from the Babylonians and got his bottom spanked.

Apries was also defeated by the Greeks in Libya - again, Merneptah did fight in Libya, but scored a resounding victory over the Sea Peoples. (Vel therefore needs to equate the Greeks with the Sea Peoples since Mer and Apr were otherwise fighting different opponents, but let's slide over that for now - Vel makes his case, others disagree, I'll go with Vel for now simply so as not to widen the debate).

Perhaps most tellingly of all, Apries was buried in Sais (which sadly means we don't have his mummy) whereas Merneptah's mummy has ben recovered from the Valley of the Kings, near Thebes.

Apries died in exile after a battle with his eventual successor, Amasis II; this raises two problems for Vel, firstly that because he has Apries out of order, his successor should have been Psamtik II; secondly that Merneptah's successors fought among themselves but didn't fight Merneptah, who consequently never went into exile.

Both built temples at Memphis (i.e. there are two temples there, one built by Apries and the other by Merneptah: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/memphis/palace.html and http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/memphis/palaces/merenptah.html / http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Memphis_palace_and_temple_of_Merenptah). I can't think of any other example of a Pharaoh building two temples in the same city, certainly not putting different names on each of them.

Speaking of names, the two Pharaohs don't match here either:
Horus name: Wahib vs Kanakht Haiemmaat
Nebty name: Nebkhepesh vs Iribauertaentjemhu
Golden Falcon name: Swadjtawy vs Nebsenedjaashefit
Prenomen: Haaibra vs Baenre
Nomen: Wahibre (Apries is the Greek version) vs Merenptah
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/chronology/wahibre.html
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/chronology/merenptah.html

Even with Vel's 'flexibility' on names, it's hard to make out a match here.

3) The Neo-Babylonian Empire was not the Hittite Empire.

Vel seems to have acknowledged that this was a weak point in his argument, and was preparing a book on the subject (among many other things) when he died. Vel needs these to be the same empire since Ramesses II fought the Hittites and Necho II fought the Chaldeans; since Vel is saying that Ram is Nech, it follows that the Hittites are the Chaldeans. (Let's skip over the different outcomes of the battles, Ramesses' score-draw vs. Necho's crushing defeat, and the fact that Qarqar and Carchemish - the locations of the two battles - are hundreds of kms apart: http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/images/qarmap.jpg.) The truth is that, aside from each having a border with Egypt and a general 'middle-eastern-ish-ness' to their culture, the two have little in common.

They both used the Sumerian Cuneform alphabet, but in very different ways, reflecting their different langauges. The Hittites ruled a substantial part of modern Turkey, the Chaldeans never did. The Chaldeans ruled Babylon (indeed, it was their capital; hence their more modern name, the Neo-Babylonians) and Ninevah; aside from raiding expeditions (as Wiki puts it: 'for reasons that are still extremely unclear, Mursili I marched roughly 500 miles from Aleppo to Babylon, sacked it, and then promptly returned home, never to return.'), the Hittites never got further southeast than Mari, ruling from Hattusa. By comparison, the Chaldeans didn't get much further northwest than Carchemish, meaning the two empires had little geographical overlap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hittite_Kingdom.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Babylonian_Empire.png)

Their articstic styles, while related, are also distinctly different; compare a Hittite sphinx (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Hattusa.liongate.jpg) with a Chaldean one (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9845298-ancient-chaldean-man-lion-from-babylon.php)

The Hittites probably invaded from Europe, displacing a people called the Hattians. The Neo-Babylonians were natives of the Middle-East, who grew organically from the Middle Babylonian Empire, following the split from the Assyrians.

There are even more chronological problems, in that the Hittites at one point sacked Babylon (and this is crucial for mid-East dating). This simply makes no sense if the Hittites *were* Babylonians, 'neo' or otherwise. Note that this occurred during the 'old Babylonian' period, the best part of a milennium before the Neo-Babylonians.

See also http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=272693 , especially Post 13.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 69

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

So much there that it may take me some time to reply.

A couple of mistakes/typos?

<> should presumably be dynasty 19

<< (Let's skip over the different outcomes of the battles, Ramesses' score-draw vs. Necho's crushing defeat, and the fact that Qarqar and Carchemish - the locations of the two battles - are hundreds of kms apart:>> The first one should be Kadesh, generally believed to be Tell Nebi Mend, although this has yet to be confirmed by excavation, and the layout of the site doesn't fit Rameses plan of the battle. In Necho's day it was probably Riblah in the land of Hamath (checked this on googlemaps - the nearest village is still called Riblah, and its not far from the main city of Hamath.)

Just to round up the last section before we move on. If we take the Abibaal and Elibaal inscriptions at face value this would place Shoshenk I and Osorkon I in the 8th century, along with Osorkon II, and leaves us with no cross reference (after Shishak) between the Libyan kings of the 9th century, and the history of other peoples of the Middle East. This is certainly enough to raise doubts about the SC of the Libyan period.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 70

Giford

Sorry, yes, my slip on both of those. But Riblah is quite close (~50km going by Google Maps) to Qarqar, so my point stands; neither is close to Carchemish.

As I said before, I can't really comment on the Abibaal / Elibaal inscriptions since I can't find anything much about them.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 71

Noggin the Nog

Yes. But if Tell Nebi Mend is Riblah, headquarters of both Ramesses II and Necho II, then it can't also be Kadesh, as Rameses marched from Riblah to the battle, so we in fact don't know the location of Kadesh.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 72

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

I was going to write something about Horemhab, which I will, but since I've got onto the subject of the location of Kadesh, I'm going to start by trying to resolve a dispute we left unfininished last time about the timing of events in the early part of Rameses II's reign, and whether these match with those of Necho.

IIRC, apart from the location of the main battle of the war, in year 5, there was a disagreement about the dates of the battle at Megiddo (Vel requires year 2, Wiki gives year 4 (probable), and the resumption of Rameses campaign after Kadesh (Wiki year 7, Vel year 8). There were also some doubts about the later course of the campaign (partly due to shortage of information), and the length of Necho's reign.

The second doubt is easiest to deal with. Rameses' own inscription gives year 8 http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/ramesisII_inscriptions.htm

Year 4 is given because Rameses erected a stele near Beirut in year 4, but he has another stele there erected year 2. Wiki later says this was probably erected in year 10, but gives no reason for thinking this (there is actually a third stele too, but it's too weathered for the date to be read). The year 4 therefore seems to be conjectural, and year 2 at least equally probable.

One could also mention that the fact that Rameses year 8 campaign started in Ashkelon and Jerusalem, rather than Northern Syria suggests that Kadesh, like Carchemish was an Egyptian defeat, rather than a draw.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 73

Noggin the Nog

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/merenptah.htm

"Merenptah (also hetep-her-maat, and commonly also called Merneptah)"

The 't', I am told, is silent, resulting in something like "Hephrema", or Apries or Hophra.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 74

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

Sorry I've been such a long time. Busy, busy, busy.

Reasons why Horemhab might have destroyed Ay's inscriptions under the Velikovskian scheme are rather speculative (like quite a lot of stuff in this rather obscure period, for both chronologies) especially as Vel didn't get into much detail before he died. I'll try to get into more detail on it later, but Vel's belief is that it had to do with dynastic succession (through the female line, as was normal in the 18D). Although you say "it is very difficult to see why Horemheb should have 'latched onto' Ay in this way if (at least) the entire 22nd - 25th dynasties separated them", such a succession would probably have been from Tutankhamun (or possibly a close relative), and Ay would have been regarded as a usurper. In the revisionist schemes it must be remembered that the 22 dynasty is much shorter, and in both standard and revised chronologies dynasties 23 and 24 are parallel with the late 22nd. And as we shall see the proto 26 dynasty also overlaps with the 25th, so only 125 - 130 years would need to have elapsed, not an impossibly long time.

In the meantime for some of Vel's evidence for Haremhab in the late 8th/early 7th centuries http://www.varchive.org/tac/hararch.htm

The first one does seem to create a "bottleneck" for Vel in the late 22nd dynasty, as he identifies Pharaoh So as Shoshenk, and the fourth is admittedly speculative, but between them there does appear to be something not explained by the standard chronology.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 75

Taff Agent of kaos


is this all about shoe horning the bible into well documented egyptian history???

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 76

Noggin the Nog

I can see where you're coming from, Taff, but the short answer is no. In fact, the revisionists would argue that the problem is that Biblical history, together with the histories of other peoples, is already shoehorned into well-documented, but incorrectly reconstructed, Egyptian history. The most spectacular evidence for this doesn't come from the Bible at all, but shows itself in the so-called Dark Ages of Greece and Anatolia.

To take the case of Greece, its history can be divided into two parts, the later Classical Greece, traced back to around 750BC, and the earlier Mykenean Greek civilisation which ends about 1200BC, with a dark age with no real history separating the two. The chronology of Classical Greece is pretty much fixed by tracing it back from well-attested material, and isn't being challenged. The chronology of Mykenean Greece, however, is fixed by cross-dating with Egyptian history, which the revisionists argue has been greatly extended. Reduce the age of Egyptian history and you would also reduce the age of Mykenean Greece, and this dark age would disappear.

As far as the Bible is concerned, the problem is rather different. Here we have an earlier period that is essentially mythological (eg the Flood), and a later period that we can establish as historical (although not necessarily accurate in detail) by cross reference with, especially, Assyrian history, which takes us back at least to 853BC, and probably a generation earlier. In between we have a period whose historical/mythological mix is uncertain. The revisionists generally rate it as essentially historical back to the Exodus, where standard chronologists would be much less convinced about that. But it's the uncertainties that make it interesting.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 77

Giford

I agree with what Nog says above (though there is a strong fundie element in Vel's followers who have obvious reasons for suporting it, and Vel does treat the Bible as reliable in areas where other archaeologists question it).

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on Greek Dark Ages kind of punches a hole through the above argument though (Vel is out of date here); almost worth getting the book given as a reference.

Almost. smiley - smiley

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 78

Taff Agent of kaos

<>

what about carbon dating, are there any atrifacts dated to this dark age????

if you make the dark age disapear, do these artifacts dissapear aswell??

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 79

Giford

The short answer is yes, Egyptian mummies have been dated, and the results clash with Vel's chronology but match the standard one.

As far as I'm concerned, Nog and I are discussing whether Vel ever had good reason to propose his system, rather than whether it still stands in the face of more recent evidence. (Nog may disagree smiley - winkeye)

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 80

Noggin the Nog

<> Taff

<> Gif

I think Taff was asking about Greek artifacts for the Greek dark age, Gif. And the short answer is hardly any. There's a little pottery from the later part of the dark age, but writing and building both stop for five hundred years, and there are generally few signs of human occupation in either Greece or Anatolia, compared with the flourishing civilisations before and after. Such artifacts as there are could easily be accommodated in a history with no dark age. Even reading the Wiki article alone, it's clear that its first sentence is misleading.

Noggin


Key: Complain about this post