Lloyd wrote:* Were the tells growing vertically, or horizontally, or both? Are clay bricks the same as mud bricks? Did each generation of houses start at the same time? Did each generation start with the same floors as the previous generation, or did they put a new floor of bricks on the older floors? If so, why?
They grew more vertically than horizontally. Although those bricks are usually made of clay, they are not burned but dried, so “mud brick” might actually be a better word than what I used in my translation. The people broke down the houses and the rubble was used as floor of the next generation of buildings. That of course did not happen everywhere at the same time but on average the Tells grew symmetrically. We are talking here about a lifespan of a house of only a few years.
Lloyd wrote:* Hey, are you saying that I have absurd ideas or beliefs? You say I ask you to believe something, but I wasn't asking you to believe anything; I was describing how I think layers are deposited. And I'm glad you quoted Ginenthal's theory of how they're deposited, at least on some tells. Isn't it possible for some of the tells to be occupied for a time, then abandoned for a time, and then occupied again much later? And why wouldn't that account for missing layers? And why wouldn't erosion result in some or many artifacts ending up in earlier or later layers?
I'm trying to make you understand into what logical, technical and scientific idiosyncrasies you are buying into if you follow the standard chronology or people who largely buy into it as for example by their own admission Cardona and Cochrane.
The point Ginenthal is trying to make and which you are missing again and again, is, that an abandonment of a Tell is visible in it's stratification if it actually happened. And again: erosion would be visible if it would have been a factor in forming the Tell.
TeF 87 TX at Tell el-Farain is in my opinion the best example available to show the problems with the conventional approach. There is no abandonment visible between the layers of the 3rd and the 26th dynasty and yet conventional chronology has nearly 2000 years between those dynasties. More so there is continuity between those two dynasties which is puzzling without end to scholars of Egyptology. Layers of the Middle and New Kingdom which are supposed to be in between are nowhere to be found on the whole site of nearly a square mile. As the excavators claim they had to go to a neighboring Tell to find some artifacts of that period. But the time periods can only be in parallel to what is at Tell el-Farain because of the continuous cultural layering without hiatus. That is what simple logic demands.
Lloyd wrote:* Ev said Velikovsky's book, Ages in Chaos, was very poorly researched. Heinsohn and others have taken some of Velikovsky's poorly researched ideas from WiC and AiC and apparently added many more erroneous ideas.
What for example has been taken from those books is the general idea of the conventional chronology being badly in need of fixing. People used different methods to achieve that goal. I tried to describe Heinsohn's method which is based on archeology, stratigraphy and technological development. Ginenthal describes the background in his summary in “PP I, p. 529-537”, while the book itself is full of references supporting the points given here as conclusion:
David Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and Ev Cochrane, who have been either unsupportive or deeply critical of these greatly lowered chronologies, have raised the issue of convergence and cross-reference of evidence from numerous sources with regard to Venus having been observed as a “great comet” in ancient times. Ev Cochrane asks the pertinent question: “rather than confront the issue of recurring anomalies [critics] descend into a swamp of marginal details ...” As Cochrane himself has argued:
“The mark of a sound theory is how many anomalies and unexplained problems it can handle without introducing a host of new problems requiring ad hoc solutions. While I do think it is possible that Heinsohn’s historical reconstruction answers a few anomalies, it seems clear that his theory raises more problems than it solves ... Heinsohn’s reconstruction cannot be made to square with the historical record.” (Cochrane, “Heinsohn’s Ancient ‘History' ”, last page, AEON V:4 1999)
But that is precisely the point. The historical record in terms of the established chronology cannot be made to square with the scientific and technological facts. These are indeed the real facts! Heinsohn’s theory exhibits all the marks of a sound theory because of the many scientific and technological anomalies and unexplained problems it does handle without introducing a host of ad hoc solutions. In reality, it is the established chronology which raises more of these problems than it solves. Some of these anomalous problems in fact have stood for over a century while others have come to light only in the past several decades without a hint of them being resolved.
To paraphrase Talbott, and to some extent Cochrane and Cardona: In all this there is a fundamental issue of logic. How does one properly weight the lines of evidence, the repeated convergence of science in the forms of astronomy and geology, technology, stratigraphy, radiocarbon and pottery dating, as well as tin faience and tin bronze evidence supported by iron to cut diorite etc., pointing to an extremely short chronology for ancient Near Eastern civilizations? Having had many opportunities to muse over the way the experts skirt these issues, I am convinced the real question never enters their minds. Until one asks the question, How does one explain all these various forms of evidence that contradict conventional chronology? [E]ven the most obvious evidence will be something else; it will be seen through numerous ad hoc hypotheses or reckless dismissal of facts that contradict that chronology and therefore are not taken seriously.
Once the critics of the chronologies of Heinsohn, Rose, Sweeney, and Velikovsky resort to unbridled, unproven, improvable, or disproven explanations, they are left with nothing in the way of scientific or technological evidence to account for these convergences.
In truth, virtually all of the respected authorities and critics look for ad hoc explanations and references, because no one could seriously believe that such dramatic scientific, technical, stratigraphical, etc. facts could dominate as evidence for the chronology of the ancient world with such a strong link to history.
[….]
Given the nature of all these converging forms of evidence, the sheer scale of it is stunning; and one wonders how the Egyptologists could have dealt with these convergences without a crash course in science, technology, etc. Historians and archaeologists, rather than accepting all these forms of evidence that so clearly corroborate that ancient Near Eastern chronology demands a great shortening, have steadfastly clung to Manethon’s erroneous long outline.
At what point, then, do so many forms of converging evidence from science and technology become worthy of pursuing? Is it really possible that so much converging evidence of a physical nature, which all points to a much shortened chronology, is in error? Better yet, can historically interpreted data override scientific and technological facts?
The problem is that science and technology have been given short shrift and have played a secondary role in the interpretation of ancient chronology, when in reality, as the arbiters of truth, scientific and technological data should weigh as the most important and final determinants in this area of research. But as we have seen, this has not occurred. Radiocarbon dating is a scandal with respect to its use and abuse in determining chronological truth. Indeed, the only evidence acceptable to historians and archaeologists wedded to the conventional chronology is that which supports that paradigm. Is it any wonder that the scientific and technological evidence has been dealt with by these advocates of conventional chronology by nothing but unproven, and improvable, invented hypotheses as outlined repeatedly in this book?
Until scientists and technologists such as Schoch, Dayton, and Rose, stand up to these promulgators of ad hoc inventions and demand that historians accept the real facts which their fields have produced, history will remain outside the realm of reality. As Oswald Spengler, who so well understood the nature of historical research, said in no uncertain terms, “Historical writing is fiction.” The Dutch historian Johan Huizinga expressed a similar view with great profundity: “History is the intellectual form in which culture decides for itself the meaning of the past.”
History will remain fiction as long as historians fail to accept that they must be guided by the facts of science and technology. So long as they fail to demand that these facts are the alpha and omega of chronology, so long as they fail to fully take these methodologies into their professional considerations, they will never be able to show what actually happened in the ancient past. There is no history without chronology. We will never understand the truth about the past until history is buttressed by, and not contradicted by, science.
John Dayton cited Benjamin Disraeli, “To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step to knowledge.” In his “Epilogue” Dayton concludes (“Minerals Metals Glazing & Man”, p. 468):
“One of the most astonishing things in the writing of this book has been to find, time and time again, that statements of archaeological fact had absolutely no basis in reality. A classic example was the ‘fixed’ Sothic date for Sesostris III, the anchor point of chronology. Yet for three-quarters of a century, myths have been perpetuated, while the foundations have hardly ever been questioned. We have moved from the position of Bishop Ussher, who stated that the world was created in 4004 B.C., and the rabid opponents of Darwin into yet another ossified situation where no one has had the courage to point out ‘that the king has no clothes on’ ... How can ‘scholars’ postulate a Bronze Age without the slightest investigation into the occurrence of tin and other minerals? ... Today we do not burn Savoranola and Huss at the stake, we consign them to oblivion ... The universities today are not places of mental adventure, but dull workhouses of conformity.”
[…]
On the basis of the scientific and technological evidence, the established chronology has “no basis in reality”, meaning it is fiction. As fiction it has undoubtedly been a great success, as history a monumental failure. To paraphrase Voltaire’s “The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire,” it is clear that the long historical chronology of the ancient Near East is neither long, nor historical, nor a chronology, although it may “last for a thousand years.”
[…]
What makes the short chronology superior to that of the long established one is what makes a good scientific theory superior to another. It is the concept of “Occam’s Razor” sometimes known as the “simplicity postulate.” When two hypotheses are in conflict with one another, scientists provisionally choose that which they judge to be simpler, based on the supposition that simpler theory which explains more evidence with less ad hoc or associative theories is most likely to explain the facts. The famous dictum of Occam’s Razor is entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or “entities [or pluralities] are not to be multiplied without necessity.”
[…]
As stated above, Occam’s Razor is used by objective scientists and should be used by historians as well when antithetical theories are involved. In this regard it has been shown that this principle of science indicates that the short chronology, even now at its fairly early inception, fits well with this concept.
On a personal note, I do not follow Ginenthal in his opinion of the usefulness of radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology and astronomical retrocalculation. Ginenthal is too uncritical of those methods which have not only quantitative but massive qualitative issues which make then unusable for any chronological work.
Contrary to Heinsohn's approach, Cardona and Cochrane are following more or less the traditional historical way of thinking. And so they have to ignore the full barrage of problems contained within this approach. The methods are completely at odds and discussion between the groups has shown to be more or less fruitless. You either get the method or you don't. Once you get it there is rarely a turning back and historical arguments become more or less secondary. They belong to a realm which is easy fakeable. This might explain at least a little why Heinsohn at some point no longer bothered with hearing arguments based solely on documents. The thinking is simply incompatible in my opinion.
When Heinsohn first presented his ideas on Mesopotamia in the mid-eighties it contained an error (the so called Sargonides error) that was fixed in 1989. Cardona among others has been credited for pointing this error out. The error happened because Heinsohn
did not follow his own method in this instance. It did
not happen because of his method. Correcting that error and following the method duty-fully has been enormously fruitful since then. In 2005/2006 another correction was applied to the schema because new digging information became available. The Old Assyrians were moved slightly up to a stratigraphic position just above the Old Akkadians.
In July 1999 Cardona and Cochrane issued their allegations against Heinsohn in AEON. Prior and during this happened a discussion on
Kroniatalk documented by Ginenthal in PP I, p 305–308 that shares some light what was going on during that time. Dwardu Cardona was maintaining in this discussion that Heinsohn identified the “Sumerians” with the “Scythians” in one of his publications. The reference in question was from AEON I:2, p 41 (1988):
“17) The mysteriously long-lived and treacherous Quti at the end of the 'Akkadian' empire are the treacherous Scythians at Nineveh at the end of the Assyrian Empire.
18) The apparently unique vassal graves at Ur are typical graves for Scythian princes. As co-conquerors of the south, on the side of the Assyrians, the Scythians gain ruling positions and consequently also the appropriate burial places.”
Clearly Heinsohn is not identifying the Scythians with the ‘Sumerians’ here but with their Quti vassals. But Cardona was unwilling or unable to retract his statement. In this context Clark Whelton wrote (PP I, p. 308):
“Dwardu, your conduct here is shameless. Gunnar Heinsohn has NEVER believed the ‘Sumerians to have been Scythians’ to use your words. Only the most twisted logic could reach such a conclusion.”
Heinsohn's current (2009) thinking about the Quti as Scythians can be found here:
http://www.2009-kandersteg.q-conference ... e-2009.pdf
Ginenthal then continues to study the topic of that discussion in great detail. He refutes point by point what Cardona wrote on the subject in “The Two Sargons and Their Successors (Part II)” AEON I:5. As shown by Ginenthal, Cardona often argues
ex cathedra solely on his authority without citation (e.g. p. 329). More so on the question of the bearded Scythians he was able to show (p. 345) that Cardona knew very well that Scythians were not necessarily bearded. In his conclusion in PP I he writes (p. 545):
What, too, of Cardona’s failure to report evidence in the same books he used to attack Heinsohn? Surely spreading disinformation is yet another indicator that Kuhn’s thesis is correct. While Cardona saw clear pictures of Scythians without beards in various places in the reference he cited, he never breathed a word that these contradictory facts were there.
So in effect Ginenthal showed Cardona to be engaged in roughly the same type of misconduct he was accusing Heinsohn and Ginenthal of.
Lloyd wrote:* We have not been just waving our hands. I've put considerable effort into finding why Ev, Dwardu et al disagree with Heinsohn, and into discussing it here. Ev, Dwardu et al put much more effort into checking Heinsohn's and Ginenthal's sources and explaining why their revised chronology is wrong.
* The reason Heinsohn doesn't go away is apparently because his supporters don't bother to check his sources. Ted, do you actually believe that Ev and Dwardu are lying, when they say he and Ginenthal misquote sources and Heinsohn leaves out layers in his illustrations of Middle East stratigraphy?
I'm sure, if you have spend so much time as you say on this, you have made notes. Please present your evidence. I will have a look at that. I think that will be the most efficient approach, especially in the light of what has been just presented above.
Lloyd wrote:* Heinsohn's redating of Abraham would put Moses, King David and others well after 500 BC.
What is your problem with this? Are you aware that the persons and cities described in the Bible belonging to Ancient Israel have lost but all of their strata and are considered fictitious by current Israelian archeology? Take for example a look at Finkelstein/Silverman “The Bible Unearthed”. Can you guess what happens when you apply the short chronology instead?
Lloyd wrote:* Heinsohn and Ginenthal seem to be amateurs who are not careful researchers.
If you say so ... from Wikipedia (
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_Heinsohn):
Gunnar Heinsohn is a German sociologist and economist. […] Since 1984, he has been a tenured professor at the University of Bremen, where he heads the Raphael-Lemkin Institut[e] for Comparative Genocide Research named for Raphael Lemkin. His list of publications includes almost 700 scholarly articles [number based on a list from 2007;
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=ht ... 5+22:25:22], conference presentations, and books. His research has been focused on developing new theories regarding the history and theory of civilization.
I might add that he holds a double PhD and is now retired. Surely looks like an amateur to me …
Lloyd wrote:* Ted, I posted Ev's refutation of Heinsohn last week or so. Ev did what you say the archeologists couldn't do. He found layers that Heinsohn claimed should not be there according to Heinsohn's chronology.
And I showed you that Ev did not get Heinsohn's reconstruction right and therefore pulled a straw-man. What he describes is compatible with Heinsohn's reconstruction.
I really wonder why Dwardu Cardona and Ev Cochrane spend so much time and effort telling people
what not to read. What are they hiding?
