Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2008:1 Click here for cost
[this and all following issues contain Steve Mitchell’s section ‘Medieval Europe:Dating and Recent Developments’]
Setting the Record Straight: Misrepresentation of Velikovsky’s Ideas on the Ice Age, Axis Shift and Venus Catastrophe, by Charles Ginenthal
It is now over 50 years since Velikovsky wrote Earth in Upheaval, but still his critics seem unable to represent his thesis accurately! This leads to misrepresentations and unjustified criticism of Velikovsky’s work and, hence, anyone who supports it in any detail. A recent example is Michael Oard’s Frozen in Time. Amongst other catastrophist works, the author, a creationist, discusses Velikovsky’s Earth in Upheaval …… He states:
Velikovsky and Ginenthal suggest that a sudden shift of the axis of the earth to vertical took place as Mars or Venus passed close to the earth. This caused the Ice Age to end. [3].
This point is clearly in error. Velikovsky (and I, following him), did not claim that either Venus or Mars ended the Ice Age (which in the orthodox scheme is dated to c. 10,000 years ago). Although we both suggest the Ice Age ended with a catastrophe, we did not give the extraterrestrial cause for that event. …………..
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2008:2 Click here for cost
Ynysek Syllan, by Phillip Clapham
The Isles of Scilly form an archipelago of small islands 28 miles south west of the tip of the Cornish peninsular. Six of them are inhabited by around two thousand people, but the rest are merely rocky islets – around 140 of them in total [1].The Cornish language name ‘Ynsek Syllan’ reflects close ties that may go all the way back to the Neolithic period ………………….. Some years ago I became interested in when, exactly, the ocean may have drowned the Isles of Scilly, after reading somewhere that it may have happened as recently as the late Roman/early Anglo Saxon era (4th to 6th centuries AD) [3]. This appeared to tie in with evidence of rising sea-levels all around the coasts of Britain and Ireland, as well as the lands on the other side of the North Sea basin. …………………….
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2008:3 Click here for cost
[no ‘articles’ in this issue. Other contents]_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2009:1 For cost click here For cost click here For cost click here Click here for cost
[no ‘articles’ in this issue. Other contents]___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2009:2 Click here for cost
Preserving Velikovsky’s Identification of Thutmose III With ‘Shishak’, by John Horrocks
Following the publication in 1952 of Immanuel Velikovsky’s book, Ages in Chaos, many historians saw the need for a radical revision in the chronology of the ancient Near East. Most agreed that the identification of the biblical king Shishak (who invaded Judah in king Rehoboam’s 5th year) with a known Egyptian pharaoh was central to the solution, for this would tie Egyptian chronology to biblical chronology. Certain authors’ work, which formerly demonstrated so many links of the Bible with Velikovsky’s ‘Revised Chronology’ and, later, with the ‘Glasgow Chronology’ [1], then retracted much of their evidence [2]. The revision of dates along cannot identify one person with another, but I would maintain, along with others [3], that much of the archaeological and other evidence formerly presented in support of the ‘Revised’ and ‘Glasgow’ chronologies is basically sound and still valid. The entirely separate problem, of how to accommodate the later dynasties (which the ‘Glasgow Chronlology’ group failed to do), are to be found in additional papers which, it is hoped, will be published shortly. ………………………..
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2009:3 Click here for cost
Phantom Periods and Retrocalculation, by Gunnar Heinsohn
Nearly two decades ago I withdrew from Velikovsky’s identification of the Mitanni as 9th century BC Medes. I accepted his identification of Mitanni and Medes, but rejected his reliance on biblical chronology, which forced him to accept two Medish Empires; one in the 9th and the second one in the 7-6th century BC. ………………………….. By placing the Mitanni in the 7-6th century, where the Medes had been dated historically ever since antiquity, this powerful nation was eventually furnished with a rich archaeology, i.e., that attributed to the Mitanni [1]. …………………………….. As the Mitannian kings are known to have been contemporary with Egypt’s Amarna period, this period, of course, had then to move, together with the Mitanni=Medes. This allowed for identifying the rise of Aziru the Amurru …………………..
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2010:1 Click here for cost
[2 issues a year 1010 onward]The el-Amarna Period: 800 or 750 BC?, by Sjef van Asten
Applying Velikovsky’s scenario for the el-Amarna period, a number of anomalies seem to disappear from conventional history, although a 150 year gap was introduced by him between the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th dynasty, whose kings, he claimed, were the same as those of the 26th dynasty. Some archaeological finds, many of which are presented here, were initially dated on the basis of conventional Egyptian, biblical, and/or Assyrian history. However, they also indicate that cultural achievements from the mid-9th century BC (the time of the el-Amarna period in Ages in Chaos) also occur, or are similar to, the ones found in the 8th century and beginning of the 7th century BC (the start of the 26th dynasty in conventional chronology). The data indicate that, besides a reduction of five to six centuries for the Egyptian history, an additional reduction of about 150 years is needed for a better synchronisation of events and cultural achievements. If correct, the el-Amarna period might well be datable to the 8th or 7th century BC. ……………
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sargon II and Sennacherib, by Damien Mackey
My realisation that Sargon II was the same person as his presumed ‘son’, Sennacherib, came gradually, after having first considered, contrary to the conventional view of things, that there must have been a fairly substantial co-regency between them and that neo-Assyrian history would need to undergo a fair degree of alteration. The respective accounts of Sargon and Sennacherib are provided for comparison. …………………..
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology & Catastrophism WORKSHOP 2010:2 Click here for cost
The Years of Babylonian Darkness, by Nick Thom
Egyptologists such as David Rohl [1] have worked hard to correct the history of ancient Egypt. Pierce Furlong [2] and Bernard Newgrosh [3] have recently carried out a similar exercise for ancient Iraq. In this article I present further evidence for a significant shortening of the history of Babylon, a solution not unlike that proposed by Newgrosh, but differing in significant details. It is the view of almost all Assyriologists that back to the year of Adad-nirari’s coronation in 911 BC plus or minus a year perhaps, Assyrian history is very well known indeed [4] ….. Babylonian history is much less well-known, being chiefly reliant on ‘Babylonian King List A’ and ………..However, before 911 BC the trail goes cold. The king lists continue back in time – but should they be believed? ……………………………………………………..
___________________________________________________________________________________________