Revising Ancient Chronology

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:16 pm

* Ted, who can tell us what Heinsohn's evidence is for redating ancient history? I read Ev's reasons why he's wrong about Darius = Hammurabi and about Mitanni = Medes and a few others. Is there someone who can debate in a friendly way with Ev or someone? I mainly just want to know if there's any sensible evidence. Does he or someone have lists of findings from actual stratigraphic records that prove anything? I'd like to see what stratigraphy actually shows.

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tholden » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:00 pm

Lloyd wrote:* Ted, who can tell us what Heinsohn's evidence is for redating ancient history? I read Ev's reasons why he's wrong about Darius = Hammurabi and about Mitanni = Medes and a few others. Is there someone who can debate in a friendly way with Ev or someone? I mainly just want to know if there's any sensible evidence. Does he or someone have lists of findings from actual stratigraphic records that prove anything? I'd like to see what stratigraphy actually shows.
I only know three or four people who might qualify for that sort of thing, let me ask around a bit and see if I can get any of them interested. It might take a week or so if it's possible at all...

One thing I do know is that Heinsohn and Ginenthal are talking about a more radical shortening of chronologies than Velikovsky was or than the Thunderbolts crowd is comfortable with and my money is clearly with Ginenthal and Heinsohn if I have to bet the thing.

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by nick c » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:25 am

hi Lloyd,
Heinsohn published in Kronos and Aeon during the 80's and 90's. His book on the phantom empire commonly known as the "Sumerians" was published only in German (to the best of my knowledge), much of this evidence appeared in the aforementioned Aeon series (in English.) I was very impressed at the time and still am today. Those that have published in support of the general Heinsohn framework, include Charles Ginenthal, Lynn Rose, Emmett Sweeney, and Clark Whelton.
I have read Ginenthals exhaustive work "Pillars of the Past" (V1 and V2, with another forthcoming), he deals with the criticisms of Cochrane and Cardona over hundreds of pages and in more detail than the casual reader can probably swallow. Ginenthal builds the case bit by bit presenting evidence from a variety disciplines, but always giving priority to stratigraphy. This is in contrast to conventional history which tries to force fit stratigraphy into a preexisting timescale derived at a desktop and based on a "not open to debate" Egyptian chronology, giving rise to a series of anomalies, conundrums, and anachronisms. I find the case presented by Ginenthal to be very impressive.
Emmet Sweeney's books are less exhaustive, but much easier reading, perhaps better for the more casual reader looking for an overview of the Heinsohn inspired reconstruction. (He also has a very interesting book on Atlantis, which shows how that legend fits into the Heinsohn timescale.)

Nick
Last edited by nick c on Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: correction to book title

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tholden » Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:26 pm

nick c wrote:Emmet Sweeney's[/maskurl] books are less exhaustive, but much easier reading, perhaps better for the more casual reader looking for an overview of the Heinsohn inspired reconstruction. (He also has a very interesting book on Atlantis, which shows how that legend fits into the Heinsohn timescale.)

Nick
I thought the case Sweeney made for equating the Biblical Joseph with Imhotep was pretty much air-tight, and there is the following consideration...

"Joseph" does not appear to have been any sort of a normal Israelite/Hebrew name. It appears just the one time in the OT and then again with Jesus' father Joseph, so you assume it's a borrowed name/word of some sort.

As transliterations go, very little would be required for "Hotep" to become "Joseph". Just a thought...

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tholden » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:23 am

Lloyd wrote:* Ted, who can tell us what Heinsohn's evidence is for redating ancient history? I read Ev's reasons why he's wrong about Darius = Hammurabi and about Mitanni = Medes and a few others. Is there someone who can debate in a friendly way with Ev or someone? I mainly just want to know if there's any sensible evidence. Does he or someone have lists of findings from actual stratigraphic records that prove anything? I'd like to see what stratigraphy actually shows.
No takers so far. For the time being, Gunnar indicates that these two websites are the best intro to his works:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/e ... _found.htm
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/m ... ssyria.htm

Again there actually was a case in which adversaries set out to debunk Heinsohn by producing a strata layer which they assumed would be there and easy to find, and it was not there, if I can find that item I'll post it.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tayga » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:26 am

tholden wrote:As transliterations go, very little would be required for "Hotep" to become "Joseph". Just a thought...
Ted, my first thought when I saw the comparison was exactly that.

Your analysis also prompted me to wonder how many other Old Testament names occur just once. I'd hazard it would be a majority. If you looked at a history of England, for example, you'd find numerous Richards, Henrys and Williams, for example. Even prior to 1066 there are duplicated Harolds, Edmunds, etc.. This suggests to me that later people were named during their lifetime and after earlier people. In contrast, in the Old Testament (and hence in the earlier myths from which it derived), all the personae were named after they are supposed to have existed and were deliberately given unique names. How else would it happen that significant characters didn't just happen to have the same name as each other more often?
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by tholden » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:18 am

tayga wrote:
tholden wrote:As transliterations go, very little would be required for "Hotep" to become "Joseph". Just a thought...
Ted, my first thought when I saw the comparison was exactly that.
Like I say, Sweeney's case appeared to me to be airtight and I haven't seen anything since which might change that estimate. The problem is that you seem to be talking about making 1800 years worth of something or other just disappear and a lot of people's nervous systems can't handle that.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:42 pm

Much Conventional Chronology Is Accurate
* Ted, this seems to disprove a lot of Heinsohn's work: from http://saturniancosmology.org/files/coc ... ations.txt.
How ... can we arrive at a secure means for dating a particular king or civilization? - For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, one of the most famous kings of all antiquity, singled out in the Old Testament for his cruelty and for leading the Jews away into captivity (II Kings 25:1-21). Nebuchadnezzar's relative place in history is securely attested by the numerous documents that have come down to us from this period. The so-called canon of Ptolemy, for example, provides a complete list of kings from the time of Nabonassar (746 BCE) to Antonius Pius (138-161 AD). There Nebuchadnezzar appears as the 16th king of Babylon after Nabonassar.

[Agreement Among Several Historical Documents]
As various scholars have documented, the accuracy of Ptolemy's canon can be confirmed at every step and in great detail. In a masterful summary of the available evidence, Carl Olaf Jonsson showed that a variety of king lists, chronicles, economic transactions, and astronomical documents from ancient Babylon and elsewhere all serve to confirm the reign-lengths of the kings from Nebuchadnezzar's time until the time of Alexander the Great (see C. O. Jonsson, "The Foundations of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology," Chronology and Catastrophism Review 9, pp. 14-23). Thus, the Uruk king list, various business documents, and Berossus all agree with Ptolemy that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for a period of 43 years (See Jonsson's argument). Most interesting, perhaps, is a stele written by Nabonidus' mother, the latter being a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar's, which likewise credits the Neo-Babylonian king with a reign of 43 years. In short, working strictly from the abundant historical documents from the Neo-Babylonian and succeeding periods, it is possible to count backwards from the time of Alexander the Great (330 BCE) to the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Employing such methods, historians have dated this king to 604-561 BCE (see also R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 12 where various ancient documents are listed which serve to date the beginning and ending of Nebuchadnezzar's reign).

[Astronomical Retrocalculation]
But how can we be certain that Nebuchadnezzar truly lived 2600 years before present? Would not errors and discrepancies in the chronology of subsequent periods, such as the Dark Ages of Europe during the Middle Ages, conspire to displace the Babylonian king in time? - It is here that astronomical retrocalculations, properly employed, can be a powerful tool in reconstructing the fundamental benchmarks of ancient chronology.

… [T]here are hundreds of astronomical diaries from ancient Babylon which have been recovered from various digs (over 1200, in fact), some of which include detailed astronomical observations that provide a map of how the skies looked during that period. - For our purposes here, let's consider a diary from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. [A description of planetary positions is mentioned.]

… [T]hese astronomical observations are sufficiently detailed that modern astronomers can reconstruct the positions of the respective planets against the background stars with some precision. Most important, however, is the fact that this particular arrangement of the planets and stars will not repeat itself for many millennia, if ever
… Astronomical retrocalculations provide a ready means of securing an absolute date for a particular king or civilization should sufficiently accurate astronomical information be available. If the celestial order described by Nebuchadnezzar's royal astronomers is unique to that period -- and it is -- the odds are literally astronomical that astronomers' computer-aided retrocalculations would produce the very date (567 BCE) otherwise assigned this ruler by historians working solely with the historical records. Even more improbable are the odds that the respective reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Artaxerxes I, Alexander the Great and various other kings mentioned in these documents would likewise conform with the very order and dates deduced by historians. Impossible in fact.

moses
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by moses » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:54 am

http://volker-doormann.org/asssky.htm
"Here, the Mesopotamian planet watcher is instructed to subtract four days to get the right date for Venus. This may appear to be in error, but it isn't. The 2.4-day correction applies to a solar calendar and the Mesopotamians kept their calendar by the moon. Because the moon arrived 1.6 days late, Venus configurations recurred four days early, and the Neo-Babylonian astronomers adjusted their predictions."
I checked this so it seems to me that Venus was in it's present orbit in 600 BC. However Venus was likely still somewhat cometary then:

"The pure torch that flares in the sky, the heavenly light shining bright like the day, the great queen of heaven, Inanna, I will hail ... Of her majesty, of her greatness, of her exceeding dignity of her brilliant coming forth in the evening sky of her flaring in the sky - a pure torch - of her standing in the sky like the sun and the moon, known by all lands from south to north of the greatness of the holy one of heaven to the lady I will sing."

tablets of Ammizaduga:
"If on the 25th of Tammuz Venus disappeared in the west, for 7 days remaining absent in the sky, and on the 2nd of Ab Venus was seen in the east, there will be rains in the land; desolation will be wrought. (year8)"
Seems to me to indicate that a Venus-Earth conjunction, whilst Earth was closest to the Sun in it's elliptical orbit, would produce electrical interaction between Venus and Earth with dire consequences. And Venus was near it's present orbit because of the 8 year cycle. Whether we can believe the 1600 BC date is another matter, but it seems ok.
Mo

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by nick c » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:30 pm

Lloyd,
Sorry for the belated reply. This is in response to your post of Friday, September 9, 2011 on this thread.
Lloyd wrote:Much Conventional Chronology Is Accurate
This statement is imhop, absurd. You really need to read Ginenthal, Heinsohn, and Sweeney...if not all, how about at least one book from one of them?
Reading Cochrane's criticism and not reading Ginenthal who spends over a hundred pages answering these issues in excruciating detail and then turns them around to support the shortenend chronology....perhaps the question should be, why has Cochrane not answered Ginenthal?
Also I would recommend the Appendix to Peoples of the Sea by Immanuel Velikovsky, I do not see how anyone could believe that "Much [of] Conventional Chronology Is Accurate" after reading this scathing critique. The problem is Velikovsky demolished conventional chronology but never completed the picture of how it should be reconstructed. But Heinsohn did, by outlining the correct framework.
Lloyd wrote: * Ted, this seems to disprove a lot of Heinsohn's work: from http://saturniancosmology.org/files/coc ... ations.txt.
How ... can we arrive at a secure means for dating a particular king or civilization? - For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, one of the most famous kings of all antiquity, singled out in the Old Testament for his cruelty and for leading the Jews away into captivity (II Kings 25:1-21). Nebuchadnezzar's relative place in history is securely attested by the numerous documents that have come down to us from this period. The so-called canon of Ptolemy, for example, provides a complete list of kings from the time of Nabonassar (746 BCE) to Antonius Pius (138-161 AD). There Nebuchadnezzar appears as the 16th king of Babylon after Nabonassar.

[Agreement Among Several Historical Documents]
As various scholars have documented, the accuracy of Ptolemy's canon can be confirmed at every step and in great detail. In a masterful summary of the available evidence, Carl Olaf Jonsson showed that a variety of king lists, chronicles, economic transactions, and astronomical documents from ancient Babylon and elsewhere all serve to confirm the reign-lengths of the kings from Nebuchadnezzar's time until the time of Alexander the Great (see C. O. Jonsson, "The Foundations of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology," Chronology and Catastrophism Review 9, pp. 14-23). Thus, the Uruk king list, various business documents, and Berossus all agree with Ptolemy that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for a period of 43 years (See Jonsson's argument). Most interesting, perhaps, is a stele written by Nabonidus' mother, the latter being a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar's, which likewise credits the Neo-Babylonian king with a reign of 43 years. In short, working strictly from the abundant historical documents from the Neo-Babylonian and succeeding periods, it is possible to count backwards from the time of Alexander the Great (330 BCE) to the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Employing such methods, historians have dated this king to 604-561 BCE (see also R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 12 where various ancient documents are listed which serve to date the beginning and ending of Nebuchadnezzar's reign).

[Astronomical Retrocalculation]
But how can we be certain that Nebuchadnezzar truly lived 2600 years before present? Would not errors and discrepancies in the chronology of subsequent periods, such as the Dark Ages of Europe during the Middle Ages, conspire to displace the Babylonian king in time? - It is here that astronomical retrocalculations, properly employed, can be a powerful tool in reconstructing the fundamental benchmarks of ancient chronology.

… [T]here are hundreds of astronomical diaries from ancient Babylon which have been recovered from various digs (over 1200, in fact), some of which include detailed astronomical observations that provide a map of how the skies looked during that period. - For our purposes here, let's consider a diary from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. [A description of planetary positions is mentioned.]

… [T]hese astronomical observations are sufficiently detailed that modern astronomers can reconstruct the positions of the respective planets against the background stars with some precision. Most important, however, is the fact that this particular arrangement of the planets and stars will not repeat itself for many millennia, if ever
… Astronomical retrocalculations provide a ready means of securing an absolute date for a particular king or civilization should sufficiently accurate astronomical information be available. If the celestial order described by Nebuchadnezzar's royal astronomers is unique to that period -- and it is -- the odds are literally astronomical that astronomers' computer-aided retrocalculations would produce the very date (567 BCE) otherwise assigned this ruler by historians working solely with the historical records. Even more improbable are the odds that the respective reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Artaxerxes I, Alexander the Great and various other kings mentioned in these documents would likewise conform with the very order and dates deduced by historians. Impossible in fact.
Keep in mind that my response here is but a short summary, this issue is far beyond the scope of the limited format of this board. The issue is dealt with in detail in Pillars of the Past, v1 and v2.
------------------------------------------------------
Cochrane's critique appears to pinpoint the reign of Nebuchanezzar into a specific time slot, however the issue is more complicated than he let's on. Cochrane writes as if there was only one king named "Nebuchadnezzar." That is far from the true situation, there were two major Nebuchadnezzar's and several minor ones! The ancient Babylonians/Chaldeans did not distinguish them by assigning a Roman numeral behind their name, that is an invention of modern historians. All of these kings were named simply, Nebuchadnezzar, which means "Nebo protect your servant." Think of a "King George" without a numeral. And yes, one of the Nebuchadnezzar's can be fixed in time by astronomical retrocalculation, but that is not the (of Biblical fame) Nebuchadnezzar to which Cochrane is attempting to fix in time. So basically, there is a biblical story of a Chaldean king named Nebuchadnezzar and Cochrane refers to astronomical data on a tablet that refers to a King Nebuchadnezzar...but what he does not tell you is that there were several kings named Nebuchadnezzar and there is no way of knowing if this is a tablet from the reign of the famous Nebuchadnezzar or one of his namesakes. This does not in any way disprove Heinsohn's chronology. Actually, if you read Ginenthal you will see that the astronomical tablets reference to Nebuchadnezzar fits in quite nicely with Heinsohn's chronology.
See:
Pillars of the Past, vol I, p484, by Charles Ginenthal
and
Pillars of the Past, vol II, pp 209-215, by Charles Ginenthal

Lloyd, the issue is complex and not sure to be resolved soon. I would recommend, for starters, that you read something by Sweeney to ease you into this new outlook. Any one of them would be a good start, but I would especially recommend The Pyramid Age.

Nick

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:03 am

* Thanks for the info, Nick. Please fill in more details.
* I don't have time to read many outside sources. Are there any of these books available at the library? I don't want to spend money on them myself.
* I'm not convinced either way yet myself. Ev's article on Nebuchadnezzar et al sounded persuasive, but now I don't know if his Nebu reference was to the famous one or not. He seems to have been referring to the one who reigned for 43 years, which several historical documents also referred to, so it still seems persuasive.
* Do you actually believe that Hamurabbi was Darius, as Heinsohn claimed? Ev's arguments against such identifications seemed very plausible to me. And do you believe Abraham lived in the first millennium BC at the time of Darius? That seems extremely absurd offhand.
* I think I also read that Heinsohn supports Fomenko's theories, that Jesus lived about a thousand years later than claimed and that includes the Roman Empire too and everything connected to it. Now that really sounds absurd and I've read that it's unfounded.
* So what about all of that? Don't be stingy mentioning major claims by Heinsohn et al.

evcochrane
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by evcochrane » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:41 am

I was just referred to this site, which I have never heard of before. I would be happy to participate in the discussion, but have no idea how to do so. Thus this will be something of a test-post to see what becomes of it before spending too much time researching or formatting my response. I see that Nick has questioned my critique of Heinsohn and Ginenthal, which has appeared in print in Aeon and can be found on my web site at www.maverickscience.com
That is certainly his right. The careful reader will note that he does not provide an iota of evidence in support of his claim that I have erred in my judgment that Ginenthal's pronouncements are utter fantasy. Nick refers the readers to Sweeney. Sweeney's claims, amazingly, make Ginenthal's claims seem almost responsible by comparison. I would refer interested readers to Carl Jonsson's very informed and polite discussion of the theses of Heinsohn, Ginenthal, and Rose in the latest installment of the SIS Workshop. As Jonsson shows in no uncertain terms,
the claims of these three pseudo-scholars are not only blatantly inaccurate, they are incompatible with each other! For the record, I have offered a 30 page response to Ginenthal's latest book, which I have yet to publish. If anyone is interested in reading this critique, they can write me privately at ev.cochrane@gmail.com and I will be happy to send them a copy. Or, if there is interest, I would be happy to publish it online if someone could refer me to a proper forum for such a discussion. Thanks much in advance.
How ... can we arrive at a secure means for dating a particular king or civilization? - For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, one of the most famous kings of all antiquity, singled out in the Old Testament for his cruelty and for leading the Jews away into captivity (II Kings 25:1-21). Nebuchadnezzar's relative place in history is securely attested by the numerous documents that have come down to us from this period. The so-called canon of Ptolemy, for example, provides a complete list of kings from the time of Nabonassar (746 BCE) to Antonius Pius (138-161 AD). There Nebuchadnezzar appears as the 16th king of Babylon after Nabonassar.

[Agreement Among Several Historical Documents]
As various scholars have documented, the accuracy of Ptolemy's canon can be confirmed at every step and in great detail. In a masterful summary of the available evidence, Carl Olaf Jonsson showed that a variety of king lists, chronicles, economic transactions, and astronomical documents from ancient Babylon and elsewhere all serve to confirm the reign-lengths of the kings from Nebuchadnezzar's time until the time of Alexander the Great (see C. O. Jonsson, "The Foundations of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology," Chronology and Catastrophism Review 9, pp. 14-23). Thus, the Uruk king list, various business documents, and Berossus all agree with Ptolemy that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for a period of 43 years (See Jonsson's argument). Most interesting, perhaps, is a stele written by Nabonidus' mother, the latter being a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar's, which likewise credits the Neo-Babylonian king with a reign of 43 years. In short, working strictly from the abundant historical documents from the Neo-Babylonian and succeeding periods, it is possible to count backwards from the time of Alexander the Great (330 BCE) to the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Employing such methods, historians have dated this king to 604-561 BCE (see also R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 12 where various ancient documents are listed which serve to date the beginning and ending of Nebuchadnezzar's reign).

[Astronomical Retrocalculation]
But how can we be certain that Nebuchadnezzar truly lived 2600 years before present? Would not errors and discrepancies in the chronology of subsequent periods, such as the Dark Ages of Europe during the Middle Ages, conspire to displace the Babylonian king in time? - It is here that astronomical retrocalculations, properly employed, can be a powerful tool in reconstructing the fundamental benchmarks of ancient chronology.

… [T]here are hundreds of astronomical diaries from ancient Babylon which have been recovered from various digs (over 1200, in fact), some of which include detailed astronomical observations that provide a map of how the skies looked during that period. - For our purposes here, let's consider a diary from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. [A description of planetary positions is mentioned.]

… [T]hese astronomical observations are sufficiently detailed that modern astronomers can reconstruct the positions of the respective planets against the background stars with some precision. Most important, however, is the fact that this particular arrangement of the planets and stars will not repeat itself for many millennia, if ever
… Astronomical retrocalculations provide a ready means of securing an absolute date for a particular king or civilization should sufficiently accurate astronomical information be available. If the celestial order described by Nebuchadnezzar's royal astronomers is unique to that period -- and it is -- the odds are literally astronomical that astronomers' computer-aided retrocalculations would produce the very date (567 BCE) otherwise assigned this ruler by historians working solely with the historical records. Even more improbable are the odds that the respective reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Artaxerxes I, Alexander the Great and various other kings mentioned in these documents would likewise conform with the very order and dates deduced by historians. Impossible in fact.
[/quote]Keep in mind that my response here is but a short summary, this issue is far beyond the scope of the limited format of this board. The issue is dealt with in detail in Pillars of the Past, v1 and v2.
------------------------------------------------------
Cochrane's critique appears to pinpoint the reign of Nebuchanezzar into a specific time slot, however the issue is more complicated than he let's on. Cochrane writes as if there was only one king named "Nebuchadnezzar." That is far from the true situation, there were two major Nebuchadnezzar's and several minor ones! The ancient Babylonians/Chaldeans did not distinguish them by assigning a Roman numeral behind their name, that is an invention of modern historians. All of these kings were named simply, Nebuchadnezzar, which means "Nebo protect your servant." Think of a "King George" without a numeral. And yes, one of the Nebuchadnezzar's can be fixed in time by astronomical retrocalculation, but that is not the (of Biblical fame) Nebuchadnezzar to which Cochrane is attempting to fix in time. So basically, there is a biblical story of a Chaldean king named Nebuchadnezzar and Cochrane refers to astronomical data on a tablet that refers to a King Nebuchadnezzar...but what he does not tell you is that there were several kings named Nebuchadnezzar and there is no way of knowing if this is a tablet from the reign of the famous Nebuchadnezzar or one of his namesakes. This does not in any way disprove Heinsohn's chronology. Actually, if you read Ginenthal you will see that the astronomical tablets reference to Nebuchadnezzar fits in quite nicely with Heinsohn's chronology.
See:
Pillars of the Past, vol I, p484, by Charles Ginenthal
and
Pillars of the Past, vol II, pp 209-215, by Charles Ginenthal

Lloyd, the issue is complex and not sure to be resolved soon. I would recommend, for starters, that you read something by Sweeney to ease you into this new outlook. Any one of them would be a good start, but I would especially recommend The Pyramid Age.

Nick[/quote]

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by nick c » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:44 am

Ev,
the claims of these three pseudo-scholars are not only blatantly inaccurate, they are incompatible with each other!
It is difficult to get any of the supporters of a revised chronology to respond on this thread when they know that they are being labeled as "pseudo" right from the start. I have read much of your work and take it very seriously, though some mainstream friends have used that very same description toward you and your work.... I know better.
Name calling gets us nowhere.

My own opinion is that ancient chronology as taught in history classes today is just plain wrong. The reasoning of Velikovsky's attack in the appendix of "People's of the Sea" is very convincing. His reconstruction to replace the standard chronology was incomplete with gaps that are difficult to reconcile.
A few questions:
In your view,
1.Does the evidence shows that mainstream chronology (of ancient civilization) is basically correct and no major revision is necessary? If not, then do you subscribe to any of the revisions (or parts thereof) that have been proposed?
2. Did the period of planetary adjustment of the solar system and the resulting catastrophes experienced by humans all take place in pre history? or put another way, were there global catastrophes after the accepted 3r M bce date for the beginning of historical times?

moses
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by moses » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:39 pm

Ev - have you read 'Moses in the hieroglyphs' by Grant Berkley, which is the work of Wilson and Blackett. Here is a googlebooks preview:
http://books.google.com/books?id=N7mj2N ... &q&f=false

This seems like a breakthrough to me, and I'm keen to get the views of the EU experts.
Mo

gwtw382
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by gwtw382 » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:56 pm

Hello nick

Up above you mentioned that "Nebuchadnezzar" was a descriptive title of sorts and was attributed to more than just one. I "Thank you" for that information.

Its along the same lines as the term "Jesus"...referrencing back to messiah / mashiah. "Jesus" also was a title of sorts referrencing back to a 'king in waiting'. In the older versions of bibles, one can see this Barabbas character being named Jesus Barabbas. Again, the "Jesus" meaning a 'king in waiting'. ( Jesus Barabbas and a Jesus the Christ ). 'Bar' means literally 'son of'..and 'abbas' of course meaning 'father'.

These 'kings in waiting' of course are descriptives of the 2 Pillars of Jachin & Boaz holding up the Arch of Shalom...much the same way the Egyptians regarded the concept of Ma'at.

But thats another story but, I see how there can be more than one going by the name of Nebuchadnezzar.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests