A Conversation for Ask h2g2

How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 81

Taff Agent of kaos



<>

well if you have a clash between whats realy real and what might be real i think the argument is moot

vel does not stand up to scrutiny so is not a valid theory, just an unproven hypothesis

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 82

Giford

Hi Nog,

Sorry, but I think your sources are out of date on this. We now have quite a bit of material from the Greek dark ages. From later in the same Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages#Dark_Age_culture
(I'm mostly talking about the 2nd para onwards.)

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 83

Giford

Hi Taff,

Yes, for me there's an interesting philosophical point about when a theory is too 'out there' to even be seriously considered, but I don't think there's anything much left to be said about the truth-value of the theory.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 84

Taff Agent of kaos


does vel tie in to the 10,000 BC pyramids/atlantis theory??

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 85

Noggin the Nog

No. Some individuals may make such ties, but it doesn't come from Velikovsky himself. Needless to say, I don't make any such tie myself.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 86

Noggin the Nog

<>

I'm trying to approach things in a spirit of impartial discussion. "A good reason to propose his system" presumably requires a slightly lower level of proof, than showing it to be correct, and would specifically exclude more recent discoveries, though they should be included in any general discussion.

So...

<>

The article gives me the impression that the author is trying to give the impression that the Dark Ages are now "business as usual" in an archaeological sense ("an accident of discovery"), but this really isn't true. The paragraph preceding the one you cite shows that there is still a substantial gap, and throughout there is no writing, no building, no wall painting, a much reduced population etc.

In fact, the existence of a dark age of greece (and Anatolia) was not even suspected until the the discovery of Mykenean pottery at El Amarna forced the redating of Mykenae which created it. There was no "accident of discovery", since Geometric ware was already known; according to E:A: Gardner “fragments of geometrical vases . . . have been found on various sites in Greece together with late examples of Mycenaean pottery.” This includes finds at Troy and Tiryns (excavated by Dorpfeld, who contested that the Geometric ware was therefore of the second millennium).

Moreover, comparison of the Lion Gate of Mykenae and the Phrygian lion gates of the 9th and 8th centuries, shows a similarity that makes it unlikely that they are separated by three or four hundred years with no monumental building.

Such enigmas are, in fact, common, and would certainly justify the suspicion that the Dark Ages (whose causes are still not understood) are an artifact of Egyptian chronology.

The Greeks themselves, of course, seemed unaware of any dark age, or any gap between the time of Troy and the time of Homer.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 87

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

<>

Well, what would make a theory too 'out there'? You've mentioned Vel's reliance on the Bible, by which I *think* you mean his use of the Exodus as a chronological anchor point, since for the rest his use of it isn't that dissimilar to conventional chronologists, even though he identifies a few people differently - albeit in a way that makes sense within his chronology.

Or do you just mean that his chronology is radically different from the accepted version, and consequently unfamiliar. That is, is it just unbelievable that historical scholarship could have got things so badly wrong?

Is there something about the chronology itself that is inherently unbelievable?

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 88

Giford

Hi Nog,

For me, it's about evidence. It seems that the evidence for Vel's theory is pretty thin, and gets thinner on inspection. It fails to make testable predictions - instead, discovery after discovery has had to be 'explained away' by the historical revisionists, to the extent that even short-timescale Egyptologists such as David Rohl have abandoned much of it.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 89

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

Of course it's about the evidence, but this doesn't seem as clear cut as you make out, and when it comes to explaining evidence away, standard chronologists don't do too badly either. It's a commonplace, for example, that datable Late Bronze age Egyptian artifacts are regularly found in Iron Age deposits in Syria-Palestine. We are told that they are heirlooms or copies, but how do we know? The answer is that we know because they regularly turn up in the "wrong" strata. Apart from the inherent unlikelihood of people keeping such things for many hundreds of years, or making copies of the scarabs of centuries dead pharaohs, the argument is both circular and ad hoc, which, since we are talking philosophy, makes it highly unsatisfactory. Among such artifacts we find the Rameses II pottery in the destruction level at Lachish,and in Ahiram's tomb with its seventh century pottery, which we are told was brought into the tomb by robbers, in blatant contravention of the regulations of the Thieves' Guild. Explanation or explaining away?

If these artifacts are actually in their proper places, one thing we might predict would be found would be Hittite remains datable to the same period. Of course, if we did, we might explain them (away), as at Gordium, by suggesting that the builders of the subsequent city carefully removed all traces of the real archaeological layer, and replaced them with material containing Hittite remains brought in from some unknown elsewhere. The explanation is both hugely unlikely, and demands that we give credence to a remarkable coincidence.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 90

Taff Agent of kaos

<>

maybe the guy was a collector of antiquities?????

its time to start worrying when iron age artifacts turn up in bronz age deposits

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 91

Giford

Hi Nog, Taff,

Or it may simply have been that Palestine was technologically ahead of Egypt at the time, and was in the Iron Age while the Egyptian Bronze Age had yet to end.

Wikipedia gives the dates of the Palestinian Iron Age as starting in 1200 BC, while the Egyptian Bronze Age (synonymous with the New Kingdom) did not end until 1069 BC. Both of those dates are supported by radiometric data (though I am not clear on how strong the radiometric dating was at the time that Vel was writing).

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 92

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif, Taff

The transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (like the transition from 18D to 19D) is partly a matter of taste and convenience of nomenclature, and is based on pottery, not on the use of metals. Many writers consider the Egyptian Iron Age to begin midway through the 20D, about 1150. And technological change doesn't really explain 18D and 19D artifacts (15th to 13th century) appearing in 9th to 6th century deposits in Palestine. In the archaeology this misplacement problem is ubiquitous - from Mykenae to Phrygia, from Cyprus to Ugarit, artistic and archaeological styles disappear and reappear after a gap of centuries. So, that was funny about the collectors, Taff smiley - ok but doesn't really get to grips with the scale of the problem.

Gif. When Velikovsky started writing (Ages in Chaos was published in 1952) radiometric dating was in its infancy, so results were patchy. Vel died in 1979.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 93

Giford

Hi Nogg,

>technological change doesn't really explain 18D and 19D artifacts (15th to 13th century) appearing in 9th to 6th century deposits in Palestine. In the archaeology this misplacement problem is ubiquitous - from Mykenae to Phrygia, from Cyprus to Ugarit, artistic and archaeological styles disappear and reappear after a gap of centuries.

>If that were true, it would indeed be a comprehensive blow against the standard chronology - indeed, it would be difficult to see how the SC ever maintained its position.

But I don't think it is true. For instance, the Wikipedia page on Mycenae notes that the late bronze is indeed associated with an Egyptian scarab - from Queen Tiye, conventionally dated to just after 1400 BC, which is a good match for late bronze Mycenae. Since the architecture at Mycenae has similarities to that from all of Greece at the period, this would indicate a 14th C date for late bronze Greece in general.

The cyclopean palace at Mycenae was then burned, but again the Wikipedia entry mentions continued habitation and evolving pottery styles, leading up to the (brief) revival - which was an entirely different, Hellenistic style.

Where is Vel to fit all this 'dark ages' pottery? How does he account for the 'sudden' (by his scheme) shift from cyclopean to hellenistic architecture?

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 94

Taff Agent of kaos

<>

i thought it was based on technology and use of calender??

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 95

Noggin the Nog

A natural mistake to make, Taff, given the names Bronze Age and Iron Age, and originally, a couple of hundred years ago when the names were coined, that was what they were intended to describe, but there was such a long period of time when both were in common use that the terms came to be used to denote archaeological sequences of pottery styles, or assemblages of pottery styles. The Bronze Age is divided into early, middle and late periods, each of which is divided into I, II, and III, and further subdivided into A, B and C (all in the standard chronology), and the Iron Age is divided into Iron I and Iron II, with further subdivisions. The period Gif and I are discussing runs from the end of the Middle Bronze onwards.

And the colander theory has proved to be full of holes.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 96

Noggin the Nog

That should have read - the end of Middle Bronze II onwards.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 97

Taff Agent of kaos


is this around the time of the sack of troy??

smiley - bat


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 98

Noggin the Nog

It's in the period, Taff. The Mykenean civilisation which Gif and I have been talking about is the Bronze Age civilisation of Greece, named after its principle city, Mykenae, in the south of Greece. The late Bronze phase (Mykenae III) runs in the standard chronology roughly from 1500 BC to 1200 BC, with a further period of decline to perhaps 1100 BC.

The fall of Troy, a city in Asia Minor near the entrance to the Bosporus, and therefore controlling the trade routes to the Black Sea, is dated to about 1235 BC, near the end of the period. As Gif has said, the dates for the Mykenaen are derived from cross-reference to the Egyptian chronology. This is certain because of the Mykenean IIIA and IIIB pottery found at Tell-el-Amarna, the capital city of the heretic pharaoh Akhnaton (about 1370-1350), which was only occupied for about 15 years, and fixes the date of the Mykenean IIIA/B transition at around 1370. Any chronology, revised or standard has to have the same date for this transition and Akhnaton, whatever that date is thought to be.

The problem is this. Before the discovery of Tell-el-Amarna in about 1880, the Mykenean civilisation was thought to immediately precede the classical age in Greece, that is, Mykenean III was thought to end around 700 BC, not 1200 BC. It's redating to conform to the Egyptian chronology opened up a 500 year gap in Greek history (which became known as the dark age of Greece, but also encompasses most of Asia Minor), with little or nothing to fill it. Gif has been arguing that we now have archaeological remains to fill the gap, I would argue that the very few remains have been stretched to cover a gap that's much too big for them, and that remains from either end of the Dark Age actually appear in the same strata, or with no obvious gap between them, and that the dark age is an artifact of our interpretations. If this is right then the Mykenean age needs to be restored to its former place, and because the relation between Mykenae and Akhnaton is fixed, the Egyptian history would have to be reduced to match.

I think that's a fair summary of the position.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 99

Noggin the Nog

http://www.360cities.net/image/arslantas-lionstone-phrygia-turkey#337.40,-13.80,70.0

http://www.google.es/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Mycenae_lion_gate_detail_dsc06384.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mycenae_lion_gate_detail_dsc06384.jpg&h=1944&w=2592&sz=2093&tbnid=S-jO89MSbgA5CM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMycenae%2Blion%2Bgate&zoom=1&q=Mycenae+lion+gate&usg=__ZiDmDrfVx5ENo2-Dr7DR6U3R2kw=&sa=X&ei=nMX8TKGQGpO08QPsn6ydDA&ved=0CBoQ9QEwAA

Exhibit 1 Top picture is from Phrygia (Asia Minor) and is 8th century. The second picture is from Mykenae, and is said to be 13th century. You may notice a resemblance.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 100

anhaga

and this one is from the 20th century: http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/barking.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/essex_ob.html&usg=__y8_UAhfw0kJuZjbRWj3Mpp3HDew=&h=331&w=374&sz=33&hl=en&start=20&zoom=1&tbnid=VeybP8zIM6YwvM:&tbnh=108&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlions%2Brampant%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1229%26bih%3D518%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C454&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=266&vpy=158&dur=4&hovh=211&hovw=239&tx=175&ty=91&ei=SfP8TLD9DpSNnQeJzJXICg&oei=QvP8TNmxFsiEnQebz5TICg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:20&biw=1229&bih=518

smiley - winkeye


Key: Complain about this post