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
venn
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by venn » Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:22 am

Understanding Heinsohn's work

My goal with this posting is to make Heinsohn's method clear. In the process you can decide for yourself if Ev Cochrane has refuted anything regarding Heinsohn. Let's start with a quote from the English summary of Heinsohn's “Die Sumerer gab es nicht”:
For two decades this author has been suggesting that certain empires of the Ancient Near East did not really exist, and should therefore be removed from modern textbooks. At the same time realms and empires well-known since antiquity should be restored to the place they once held in the history and chronology of the ancient world.

The logical basis for this proposal is that in order for great empires and civilizations that appear in modern textbooks to be accepted as genuine there must be evidence of their existence in the archaeological layers of the earth. If textbook empires are without such layers, then there are two possibilities: (1) these empires should disappear from the pages of modern textbooks; (2) the existence of these empires must be affirmed by using archaeological layers that are currently assigned to other empires, thus causing these latter empires to disappear.
The author prefers a conservative solution, i.e. possibility (2). Otherwise we would have to throw out teachings and empires that have dominated historical writings for two and a half millennia. We would have to punish thus countless authors of antiquity – Jews, Greeks, Romans and Armenians –by calling them liars, without being able to explain why, in their own time, they had no doubt that the realms described by them were real. Despite their rather quarrelsome dispositions they were united in agreement about the imperial succession of Early Assyrians, Medes (with Chaldeans and Scythians), Persians and Macedonians starting – quite in tune with proven Chinese chronology –after -1000.
The following is taken straight from some of Heinsohn's presentation slides, hence the missing prose:
Ancient Greek (Roman, Armenian etc.) historiography has known a sequence of pre-Hellenistic periods and empires that is seen as completely refuted by modern scholarship because 200 years of excavations did not produce archaeological strata for these empires. This may be exemplified for Assyria:

-330: Hellenism (later Parthians) (with strata in Assyria)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-550: Persian satrapy Athura for 1st world empire (no strata in Assyria)
-620: Media in Assyria (1st Indo-Aryan empire) (no strata in Assyria)
-750: Ninos-Assyria as mankind‘s 1st empire (no strata in Assyria)
-1150: Beginning of high culture in Assyria (no strata in Assyria)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Earlier than -1150: Stone Age (no stone age strata at such a late age)
Each of the rows that are shown represent the stratigraphical layers and how they are dated by mainstream and down below by Heinsohn. Between Hellenism and the Stone Age we see usually three or four main stratigraphical layers, not more.
The bewilderment of modern scholars regarding the incompetence of their ancient colleagues grew exponentially after they had understood that they were not only shameless enough to invent empires for which there are no strata but – with the exception of Hellenism – were also entirely ignorant of the empires whose strata have been found in the last two centuries:

-330: Hellenism (later Parthians) (with strata in Assyria)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1300: Middle to Late Assyrians (with strata in Assyria)
-1550: Mitanni in Assyria (1st Indo-Aryan empire) (with strata in Assyria)
-2350: Naram Sin-Assyria as mankind‘s 1st empire (with strata in Assyria)
-3000: Beginning of high culture in Assyria (with strata in Assyria)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Earlier than -3000: Stone Age (with strata in Assyria)

Heinsohn‘s reconciliation of ancient and modern scholarship:

The author claims (since 1987) that both groups of scholars got it right. However, they adhere to different dating schemes. Only for Hellenism both schools apply the same ancient Greek date of -330. For earlier periods modern scholars have taken resort to questionable methods that are outlined below:

-330: Hellenism (later Parthians): Ancient Greek dates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1300: Middle to Late Assyrians: Sothic and Biblical dates
-1550: Mitanni in Assyria: Sothic dates
-2350: Naram Sin-Assyria: Abraham Biblical dates
-3000: Beginning of high culture: Counting back from Biblical Dates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Earlier than -3000: Stone Age: Counting back from Biblical Dates
Heinsohn is stating that Assyrian history as related to us by ancient sources (Greek, Hebrew, Roman, ...) does not conform to the current mainstream view of history. The stratigraphical layers are conventionally dated to be much older than what has been passed down to us from ancient writers. This results in the empires of the ancient historians not showing up in the stratigraphy and empires of the 2nd and 3rd millenium, that were unknown to the ancient historians, taking their place.
Heinsohn‘s solution for Ancient Assyria:

- 330: Hellenism (later Parthians) = -330 Hellenism (later Parthians)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1300: Middle to Late Assyrians = -550 Assyria under Persia
-1550: Mitanni in Assyria = -620 Media in Assyria
-2350: Naram Sin-Assyria = -750 Ninos-Assyria
-3000: Beginning of high culture = -1150 Early urban Assyria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Earlier than -3000: Stone Age: = Earlier than -1150: Stone Age
The first column shows the mainstream dates for the stratigraphical layers, the second one is Heinsohn's dating based on the position and thickness of the layer.
However, the Greek dates (-1150 to -330) too must be taken with a grain of salt. They may not fit absolute dates once it will be possible to calculate them. Yet, the Greeks got the periods and empires right.

Modern scholars got their archeology right but stumbled by applying Bible-fundamentalism and pseudo-astronomical retro-calculations. Once they have abandoned such measures they will be able to honor their colleagues of the past working under much harder conditions.
So if one brings down the dates to Heinsohn's then the stratigraphical layers conform to the testimony of the ancients, and the "ghost" empires disappear. How can you do that? It is all based on two simple rules of archeology-founded historiography:
  • 1. rule: If two strata are lying on top of each other without hiatus then there is a direct historic connection between those two strata
    2. rule: If two sites contain strata from the same time then also the strata lying hiatus free below and above those strata belong to the same epoch
Those rules above are two simple rules that immediately appeal to common sense. Applying them yields the following result for other regions (just two examples):

Southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia):
(http://www.chrono-rekonstruktion.de/wp- ... mpires.pdf)
Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Macedonians / Parthians; Greek (from -300)
Found: Macedonians and (later) Parthians (from -300)
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes
Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

1st Pre-Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Akhaemenid Satrapy Babylonia, Mardoi (tribe of Cyrus); Greek (from -550)
Found: Old to Late Babylonians (-2000/-550). Gap to -300; Biblical Deportation of Judah (Late Babylon.); Sothic pseudo-astronomy (Middle-Babyl.-Cassites); Biblical Abraham genealogy (Martu=Old Babylon)
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!
Did ancient Greeks know empires? Supposedly no

2nd Pre-Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Chaldeans (908 settlements); Greek (from -700)
Found: URIII-”Sumerians” (Kalam in [their] own language; -2100); Biblical Abraham genealogy for “Sumerians”
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!
Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly no

Searched for: Interregnum of Scythians (known for vassal graves) under Madyas; Greek (from -650)
Found: Qutheans (Guti) with General Madga (-3rd mill.); Vassal graves of Ur; Counted back from Biblical Abraham genealogy
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!
Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly no

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Early Chaldaeans (cradle of civil.); Greek (from -800)
Found: Early “Sumer” (Kalam, cradle of civilization, -3000); Counted back from Biblical Abraham genealogy
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high!
Did ancient Greeks know civilization? Supposedly no
Iran (Susa, Perseopolis):
(http://www.chrono-rekonstruktion.de/wp- ... mpires.pdf)
Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Macedonians / Parthians; Greek (from -300)
Found: Macedonians and (later) Parthians (from -300)
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes
Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

1st Pre-Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Akhaemenids; Greek (from -550)
Found: Akhaemenids (from -550)
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? Yes
Did ancient Greeks know empire? Yes

2nd Pre-Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Medes under Cyaxares; Greek (from -700)
Found: “Elamites” under Kutuk-Inshushinak; then gap; Sothic pseudo-astronomy
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high
Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly no

3rd Pre-Hellenistic strata group:
Searched for: Assyrians as 1st Great Power in control of Media; Ninos (greatest), Sharakos (last king); Greek (from -800)
Found: Old-Elamites under Akkad as 1st Great Power (-2300) in control of Media; Naram-Sin (greatest), Sharkalisharri (last king); Counted back from Biblical Abraham to Naram Sin
Do dates fit stratigraphic depth? No, too high
Did ancient Greeks know empire? Supposedly no
The same can be done for other regions. How does Heinsohn arrive at those conclusions? The important part is to carefully read the reports on site-digs. Archaeologists are trained not to plainly write down what they see or find, but to already interpret it for example in the context of a given chronology. They do not check the chronology against their finds. If the chronology requires a hiatus they put it in, even if it is not really there. It then becomes a pseudo-hiatus. A real archaeological hiatus instead is usually visible by aeolian layers, it shows on worn down remains, on complete cultural discontinuities at a site, etc.

Charles Ginenthal explains the situation very well in “Pillars of the Past II”, p. 43-44:
There are two forms of stratigraphical research that must first be distinguished from one another before one can properly determine the chronology of the ancient world. There is a fundamental difference between geological stratigraphy and historical–archaeological stratigraphy. Geological stratigraphy is based on a well understood scientific process. When an ancient city, town, or village was abandoned in Mesopotamia and never resettled or, after being abandoned for a long period the same site was resettled, a geological process occurs that leaves clear-cut evidence to show what happened. Once a place has been abandoned, the wind blows sand, soil, etc., into the streets and the ruins of the buildings of the first settlers that were left standing. These materials, called Aeolian or wind-blown layers, are a rather clear geological marker that tells a geologist that the site was abandoned. When it rains – as it does in Mesopotamia during the winter season – the mud brick walls still standing above these Aeolian deposits slump and flow down over these wind-blown materials, sealing them in place. Erosion does play a part in this process but it is negligible because once the mud-brick walls flow as mud over the Aeolian deposits, desert weeds grow on the mounds of these settlements and protect the mound, or "tell", from further erosion. Even after thousands of years of abandonment, the ancient city, town, or village mounds of Mesopotamia have not been weathered by sandstorms or eroded away. Aeolian layers are fundamental scientific proof that a site has been abandoned.

Historical, archaeological stratigraphy is not based on this geological marker but rather on markers of a very different nature. These markers are the various artifacts: pottery, tools, metals, architectural forms, etc., that are left at a site by different cultures one above the other. By interpreting the level or stratum in an ancient mound where these ancient relics are found, archaeologists determine the sequence of the cultures, which is the stratum at the bottom of the mound. Above that in different strata are the relics of the cultures that came afterwards. The archaeological stratigraphical interpretation of the chronology of these ancient sites is not as clear-cut as stratigraphical geology but an interpretation of what the forms of these ancient relics are and at what level or stratum in the mound they are found would be instructive.

If the chronology of ancient Mesopotamia is 3000 to 4500 years long, as the historians claim, then the settlement gaps at certain sites will be hundreds or even a thousand years or more in length and must be reflected by Aeolian layers as evidence of any assumed settlement gap. If on the other hand, the chronology of the ancient Near East is only around 850 or so years in length, as Heinsohn claims, then none of these civilizations could have been separated from another by 700, 800, to over 1000 years. These civilizations would largely have overlapped one another almost continuously and thus their stratigraphy would rarely show longtime settlement gaps. Under the chronology Heinsohn posits, these cultures would tend to be found one directly above the other without Aeolian layers separating them.

Usually, the bottom strata are older than those above them. But where there is immediate overlap of civilizations we encounter a further problem. The conquering society may employ the artisans of the subjugated one to produce pottery, jewelry, temples, etc., for them as well as using their own artisans to do the same. This creates a somewhat subjective interpretation to the archaeological stratigraphy which cannot be tested and falsified by scientific tests. Therefore, the evidence of geological stratigraphy, because it is based on science and can be tested and falsified, must override historical-archaeological stratigraphy because it is based on interpretations that may be false. Forensic historical evidence comes before interpretive historical-archaeological evidence! Only after the geological stratigraphy has been presented can the archaeological stratigraphy come into play, in order to interpret the chronology, and not the other way round. An archaeological analysis only becomes acceptable after it is validated and underpinned by geological stratigraphy.
If we now look for example at the above mentioned (by Ev/Lloyd) site Mari we find directly below the Hellenistic/Parthian strata without archaeological hiatus the Old-Babylonian and then Cassites strata (Heinsohn: Assyrerkönige gleich Perserherrscher!, p. 41 (1996)). If you read the Mari text that Ev/Lloyd quoted between the lines you recognize that there is no real Middle-Assyrian layer, just one building assigned to this “layer” in the outskirts of the dig is mentioned in the quote and a necropolis. Mari has a Middle-Assyrian necropolis but no corresponding city. The Old-Babylonian city has no necropolis (Heinsohn: Maris Chronologie; in Vorzeit-Frühzeit-Gegenwart 1/1992, p. 11-17). At other sites (Brak or Hamadiyah) the Middle-Assyrian layer is found directly under the Hellenistic/Parthian strata without archaeological hiatus (Heinsohn: Assyrerkönige gleich Perserherrscher!, p. 40 (1996)). What does this tell us about Old-Babylonians and Middle-Assyrians if we follow the rules given above? Heinsohn sees the Middle-Assyrians in one layer with the Old Babylonians and both before the Sargonides. They all belong to the same “Persian” layer and as Hamadiyah shows the Middle-Assyrians existed in parallel with Old Babylonians as well as the Sargonides. There is no problem with a Middle-Assyrian necropolis build into the ruins of an Old Babylonian palace.

And why do we not find the Persians themselves directly at those sites under the Hellenism?

Again Ginenthal (PP II, p. 44):
With respect to the Persians, it is also important to note a further distinction. The Persians ruled over a vast empire and therefore they could not and did not occupy every city, town, or village. Rather, they generally, at first, permitted the original rulers, who had surrendered to them, to act on their behalf as their agents. Only here and there did they station military and political overseers of their own people who were entrusted with carrying out the duties of running their empire.
Another claim of Ev is that in Heinsohn's reconstruction it is impossible to find Neo-Babylonians above Old Babylonians, as it is the case in the city of Babylon itself. But again Ev does not get the full picture, Heinsohn states Old-Babylonian = Middle-Babylonian = Neo-(Late-)Babylonian (eg. “Die Sumerer gab es nicht”, p. 61 (22007). Those groups belong to the same main stratigraphic layer. Finding a Neo-Babylonian palace over Old-Babylonian layers is entirely possible.

Is Heinsohn's method really invalidated by what Ev/Lloyd writes? Is he refuted? I don't think so, instead the method of primarily using geographical and archaeological layers and evidence produces the following results for Mesopotamia (quoted from the English summary of “Die Sumerer gab es nicht”):
(A) The dimensions of the Achaemenid Empire remain in the textbooks. They are well-known in the cuneiform literature pars pro toto under the name of the martial and metallurgically competent Persian tribe of the Mardians/Amardians. They are thus the Old Babylonian and/or Middle Assyrian Martu/Amorites who didn’t enter our history books until the late l9th century. Their great kings are really Old to Late Babylonian and/or Middle to Late Assyrian throne names for the Persian rulers of Persia’s two richest provinces – Babylon and Assyria.

(B) The first Indo-Aryan empire of the horse-breeding Medes can be identified in the layers of the Mitanni and the “Old Assyrians” (imperial dimension) and the post-Akkadian Elamites (Iran proper). These powers were only admitted to the history books in the 19th century. Cyaxares, despoiler of Assur, and Shaushatra, despoiler of Ashur, are one and the same Medish Cyaxares. Shamsi Addad, the Amorite from Ekallatum, as well as Kutik-Inshushinak, the King of the four Quarters emerging from Susa, are additional identities of Cyaxares. The Scythians under Madyas as allies of the Medes and Chaldeans against Sharakos likewise return to the history books. The Qutheans (Guti) under Madga, who were admitted to history books in the late 19th century as allies of the “Sumerians” and Elamites against Sharkali-sharri, disappear. The vassal graves of Ur, a unique feature in the entire history of Babylonia, belong to the brief interregnum of Scythians well known for that type of burial.

(C) Chaldea as “the cradle of civilization” returns to the textbooks. To Chaldea are given the archaeological layers that not until 1868 began to be called “Sumer”. In its own cuneiform the country is never called “Sumer” but Kalam. There[fore] “Sumer” disappears from the books.

(D) The Ninos and/or Nimrod Assyrians as the first empire builders of history get the layers of the Old-Akkadians, who got those layers in a 19th century transfer. In Egypt, the empire Assyrians were known as the Great Hyksos. The first Akkadian “world ruler” Naram Sin (= Egyptian Narmer), a great hunter, supplies the empirical basis for Ninos of the Greeks and/or Nimrod of the Hebrews, a “great hunter before the Lord”.
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.

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

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:54 pm

Venn said, quoting Heinsohn, I guess: 1. rule: If two strata are lying on top of each other without hiatus then there is a direct historic connection between those two strata
* That's obviously only sometimes true. It's not true when no sediment is laid down for a long time. After all, it requires that the ground be in a lowland for sediment to accumulate there. When it's on higher ground, sediment tends to wash away. And the rule is not true when strata were intentionally removed by kings and others, as Ev said often is attested to in historical documents.
* Heinsohn remains refuted, as I see it. You ignore the proofs.

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 » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:47 am

Lloyd wrote:
Venn said, quoting Heinsohn, I guess: 1. rule: If two strata are lying on top of each other without hiatus then there is a direct historic connection between those two strata
* That's obviously only sometimes true. It's not true when no sediment is laid down for a long time. After all, it requires that the ground be in a lowland for sediment to accumulate there. When it's on higher ground, sediment tends to wash away. And the rule is not true when strata were intentionally removed by kings and others, as Ev said often is attested to in historical documents.
The issues raised by Lloyd are addressed by Ginenthal in his Pillars of the Past, Vol II, section titled "Geological Stratigraphy vs. Archaeological Stratigraphy" pp 42-59. I urge that anyone who is interested in more detail, should refer to that work. In this post we shall deal with the issue of missing strata, and whether the civilization that is missing simply had it's strata removed, whether by human or natural processes. Obviously this has profound implications for not only Heinsohn's revision of chronology, but also for the validity of the stratigraphical/forensic approach. By implication it also acknowledges that the mainstream Cambridge A H view does not conform to the stratigraphy, so Cochrane has to establish a mechanism that can account for missing layers. Ginenthal shows that there is no justification for assuming that the absence of evidence for the presence of a civilization was due to its' total removal, whether by natural erosive or human intervention.
Ginenthal wrote:Cochrane gives three explanations for why Persian strata are missing where they should be found.
(1)After the Persians the numerous mounds were abandoned and never resettled, and the Persian stratum was the topmost and was exposed to the dangers of denudation.
How do we know that this is a fact? What evidence have Stern or Cochrane presented other than this unsupported ex cathedra assertion that what they present is a valid, scientific fact? They have provided no examples for this denudation process nor any scientific evidence as support. What is meant by "denudation"? Did people loot and denude these sites? Were they denuded by erosion? Or did they just become denuded?
Ginenthal goes on to cite several archaeological sites in Anatolia where the topmost layer shows no sign of this alleged denudifying process.
Ginenthal wrote:If this was the case in Palestine, surely it would occur at other permanently abandoned topmost sites as well. But this is not the case. For example, the end of the so-called Early Bronze Age in Anatolia saw a catastrophic destruction and permanent abandonment of numerous settlements. Yet the fact is, the topmost layers of these were not "denuded" by looting or erosion; they fully survived:
"In the Konya plain [of Anatolia] every town site of the EB2 [Early Bronze 2] period shows signs of conflagration mostly followed by desertion which is neatly dated on each site." footnote 69
Why weren't all those topmost sites "denuded" of every shard of pottery, of eroded away by wind and rain, or looted away? We are specifically informed that the relics at each site are "neatly dated." How can this be if after being permanently abandoned, denudation processes were at work? This shows that a double standard of inference is being used to explain the evidence. In Palestine and elsewhere denudation (whatever that is) did work on the Persian topmost strata, but in Anatolia, the topmost layers failed to respond to denudation processes. Cochrane cannot have it both ways, having denudation work in Palestine but then not working in Anatolia.
The work of mainstream historians Georges Roux and H. W. F Saggs who are both quoted, contradict Cochrane's position:
Roux wrote:Some sites, it is true, were abandoned early and for ever. ... It is not difficult to imagine what took place then: windbourne sand and earth piled up against the remaining walls and filled in the streets and every hollow, while rainwater smoothed off the surface of the heaped-up ruins, spreading debris over a large area and planing the flanks [of the mound]. Slowly but inexorably, the town took its present shape: that of a rounded, more or less regular ruin-mound... a tell."
Also:
Saggs wrote:When...[Mesopotamian] settlements became depopulated, soil deposits laid down by the frequent dust storms which blast Iraq would gradually cover the ruins of most buildings and in time build up the top of the mound to a more or less level or smoothly curving surface with only the remains of the ziggarut or any other exceptionally tall building projecting above the general level of such a tell [which] are sprinkled all over Mesopotamia.
No experts assert that erosive or human action will remove an entire layer from these mounds (tells). The irony is that these two mainstream advocates of conventional chronology do not support Cochrane's explanation of missing layers, even though Roux is used by Cochrane as one of his sources. On the contrary the mainstream experts make no such assertion. So, explaining the absence of a layer, that conventional chronology says should be there, by asserting that it was removed (human or natural action) is nothing more than a means to avoid the uncomfortable truth that Heinsohn's assertions are substantiated by stratigraphy. This is a case of creating an ad hoc situation to explain an uncomfortable anomaly.
Ginethal's response is detailed and extensive, dealing with facts and a scientific approach to stratigraphy. He distinguishes between Geological and Archaeological Stratigraphy.
Ginenthal wrote:Geological Stratigraphy is based on a well understood scientific process. When an ancient city, town, or village was abandoned......a geological process occurs that leaves clear cut evidence to show what happened........the wind blows sand, soil, etc., into the streets and the ruins..... These materials, called Aeolian or wind blown layers, are a rather clear geological marker that tells a geologist that the site was abandoned. When it rains - as it does in Mesopotamia during the winter season- the mud brick walls still standing above these Aeolian deposits slump and flow down over these wind-blown materials, sealing them in place.....desert weeds grow on the mounds of these settlements and protect the mound, or "tell", from further erosion. Even after thousands of years of abandonment, the....mounds of Mesopotamia have not been weathered by sandstorms or eroded away......
Historical, archaeological stratigraphy is not based on this geological marker but rather by markers of a very different nature. These markers are the various artifacts: pottery, tools, metals, architectural forms, etc.
Ginenthal summarizes his criticism of Cochrane's 1st of three points (we will deal with the other two later) with:
Ginenthal wrote:This material objection to what Cochrane puts forth may be embarrassing for him, so that he takes a long hard look at what his defense of the established chronology actually requires at these sites. The denudation concept is absurd and Cochrane has not raised a scintilla of scientific-geological stratigraphy to refute Heinsohn. To accept Cochrane's concept requires selectivity that demands miracles
Lloyd wrote:Heinsohn remains refuted, as I see it. You ignore the proofs.
Au contraire! You accuse Venn of ignoring the "proofs" yet you have not read any of the published material that refutes these alleged "proofs."

venn
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by venn » Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:16 am

Venn said, quoting Heinsohn, I guess: 1. rule: If two strata are lying on top of each other without hiatus then there is a direct historic connection between those two strata
It is my translation of a German text of Heinsohn, so I did not want to make it an official quote.
* That's obviously only sometimes true. It's not true when no sediment is laid down for a long time. After all, it requires that the ground be in a lowland for sediment to accumulate there. When it's on higher ground, sediment tends to wash away. And the rule is not true when strata were intentionally removed by kings and others, as Ev said often is attested to in historical documents.
I think you are missing the point of cultural layers versus natural sedimentation. Cultural layering behaves differently. They call the sites “Tell” for a reason …

Regarding the removal of strata: Depending on the amount of time you want to remove, this means that you have to remove several meters of gravel, stones, bricks, artifacts, ... from a complete Tell and then disintegrate the rubble completely so that it can not be found anymore. But be careful not to remove too much! That would show! Then clean the remains carefully with a toothbrush. Fix the remaining layers where the basement of the removed strata cut into with the original stones/bricks in a way that it does not show. Finally start over using the technology of the remaining strata so that it looks like a continuous development while forgetting the technical advancements of the removed strata (sometimes up to 2000 years).
* Heinsohn remains refuted, as I see it. You ignore the proofs.
I showed on examples that Ev either did not understand Heinsohn's reconstruction or is intentionally claiming something about Heinsohn's reconstruction which is not true and then refutes that claim. I don't know yet what it is. Either way this is called in my opinion “pulling a straw-man argument”. I do not know who he is refuting, but it isn't Heinsohn.
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.

venn
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by venn » Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:52 am

To further support my argument, here is a little quiz on Egyptian chronology:

In the following link you will find an example of the conventional chronology if you do not know it by heart:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... chronology

The main textbook periods are:
  • * Early Dynastic Period of Egypt
    * Old Kingdom
    * First Intermediate Period
    * Middle Kingdom of Egypt
    * Second Intermediate Period
    * New Kingdom of Egypt
    * Third Intermediate Period
    * Late Period of Ancient Egypt
Now let's take a look at one of the Egyptian stratigraphies at Tell el-Fara'in in the Nile delta. From 1983 until 1989 digs were executed under the direction of Thomas von der Way at the western edge of the Tell. Yearly DAIK (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo) digs at the site continue to the present day.

Image

I want to direct your attention to the digging site TeF 87 TX, here visible in an outtake from the previous image:

Image

The special situation with this dig becomes more clear if we look at the following comparative chart of different digs on this site:

Image

While the other digs show clay layers, aeolian layers or debris, to the right at TeF 87 TX follows on a layer of sterile sand only culture layer upon culture layer without interruption. No destruction layer, no layers showing abandonment, no debris, just cultural layers.

Only four main layers were found at TeF 87 TX:
  • * Late pre- and early-history of Lower Egypt (SpVg)
    * Predynastic (P)
    * Early Dynastic Period of Egypt (with Old Kingdom) (FD)
    * Late Period of Ancient Egypt (SpZt)
In TeF 87 TX debris of the Old Kingdom vanishes from West to East looking at the north profile of the dig. This means: despite the debris that layer VI represents, culture layers are continuous in TeF 87 TX.

Image

Layer (Schicht) VI is the layer of the Old Kingdom. Clearly visible is the direct continuation of layer V into layer VII on the east side. In all, 13 construction phases can be identified.
Von der Way writes: “At the dig north of Sechmawy all four main culture layers visible on the western edge of Tell el-Fara'in were detected in continually stratified culture layers.” [Way 1997, 59, translation by author of this quiz]
Now to the quiz question:

What does the stratigraphy of TeF 87 TX mean for the chronological placement of the Middle- and New Kingdom of Egypt?
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.

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

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:58 pm

Nick said: explaining the absence of a layer, that conventional chronology says should be there, by asserting that it was removed (human or natural action) is nothing more than a means to avoid the uncomfortable truth that Heinsohn's assertions are substantiated by stratigraphy. This is a case of creating an ad hoc situation to explain an uncomfortable anomaly.
* I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but I haven't heard conventional chronologists say that missing layers should be there. If you've seen rock strata, or their images, or illustrations, you may have noticed that some layers come to an end, while others above and below keep going some distance farther. And new layers start at various depths. It's like throwing a bunch of pieces of paper of large and small sizes on the floor. If you make a "roadcut" through the layers of randomly laid papers, each one can start and end in different places. There are "missing layers" all over the place. There's no reason to expect all of the layers of soil to be present at all sites. Windblown sand and soil and rainwater sediments don't make even layers all over an entire continent. They only make patches of layers that are thin at the edges and thickest toward their middles and they probably vary greatly in size. A brief wind or rain storm would make a layer over a small area. A heavy wind or rain storm would make a layer over a larger area. And they make each layer wherever the storm occurs, rather than over an entire region or continent etc. On average high ground will erode away rather than accumulate more layers.
* Here are some examples:
Archeological strata:
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/t ... Strata.jpg
Image
Rock strata:
http://netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-ga ... sRange.jpg
Image
* Ev's paper that I quoted from recently here shows that several of Heinsohn's statements were clearly false and Ev said that Heinsohn never answers questions about those.

venn
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by venn » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:41 am

Quiz answer:

[The pictures in the question part of the quiz http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =60#p57288 came from a book of Thomas von der Way cited in the literature-section, pages 49, 55 and 124.]

Regarding Middle- and New Kingdom von der Way writes the following:
“Layers of the 2. Mil., especially from the Middle- and New Kingdom were nowhere to be found already while drilling. Also in the digs this time frame was nowhere to be found.” [Way 1997, p. 56, translation by author of this quiz]
Von der Way is confronted here with a contradiction between what he found and what he was supposed to find. At least he documents the dig situation correctly, which is not always the case. But when faced with this contradiction in the end his belief in the predefined chronology schema supersedes his professional archaeological knowledge. So he writes:
“It is hardly conceivable that the long time frame between the Old Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period is not represented in the otherwise complete settlement history of Tell el-Fara'in. Against an hiatus throughout the New Kingdom especially documents weigh in heavily.” [Way 1997, p. 87, translation by author of this quiz].
Von der Way nearly gets it here. But only almost. For 20 years now they are still looking for layers of the Middle- and New Kingdom at Tell el-Fara'in. Every year you can find more or less the same statement in the communications of the DAIK. But the stratigraphy of TeF 87 TX clearly shows for everybody to see that there is no room for those layers. None what so ever! It can never be. It is impossible! They can only be placed in parallel to the existing continuous layers and so can those missing kingdoms. And if you think that the Middle- and New Kingdom stratigraphic layers could have been removed cleanly from the whole (!) site (with bulldozers and toothbrushes perhaps?) this would still show as a cultural discontinuity in the layering, but it doesn't show (see next paragraph). Of course some artifacts from both missing kingdoms have been found near the site but no stratigraphic layers. At others sites (e.g. Tell el-Daba) only a few miles away layers of the New-Kingdom are visible, but the layers of other periods are missing.

Basically TeF 87 TX shows the Egyptian dynastic history on the timescale to be more or less comprised of the length of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 26th dynasty. It is followed by the Persian and Hellenistic period. The possible length of Egyptian dynastic history is severely limited by this find. Other places in Egypt might show different dynasties, but never ever will they show all of them in a direct layering. It is no longer possible because of the stratigraphy of Tell el-Fara'in. Those finds are compatible with the reconstruction of Heinsohn and Illig initially published in 1990. It becomes quite understandable with this schema why the 26th dynasty takes so much from the 3rd (Wann lebten die Pharaonen?, p. 174-175). In fact it is totally natural that they look to their immediate predecessors.

In my opinion you are looking at the smoking gun of Egyptian Chronology Revisionism. The bullet pierces the heart of the Cambridge Chronology of Egypt and in falling down it takes with it the conventional chronologies of Mesopotamia, Israel, Greek, … but that is another story.

Literature

* Heinsohn, Gunnar / Illig, Heribert (62010): Wann lebten die Pharaonen? Archäologische und technologische Grundlagen für eine Neuschreibung der Geschichte Ägyptens und der übrigen Welt; Gräfelfing
* Otte, Andreas (2006): Tell el-Fara’in. Ausgrabungen des DAIK im Niltal; in Zeitensprünge 18 (3), 537-546
* Way, Thomas von der (1997): Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 83 - Tell el-Fara'in - Buto I. Ergebnisse zum frühen Kontext. Kampagnen der Jahre 1983-1989, Mainz
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.

venn
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by venn » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:10 pm

Lloyd wrote:* Ev's paper that I quoted from recently here shows that several of Heinsohn's statements were clearly false and Ev said that Heinsohn never answers questions about those.
I've demonstrated above with Mari and Babylon on two examples that what Ev wrote and supposedly refuted is something other than Heinsohn's position which is not that hard to get to and to understand.

In the 23 years after the publication of "Die Sumerer gab es nicht" (1988) (THE SUMERIANS NEVER EXISTED) Heinsohn has published more than a hundred articles and monographs on Ancient Near Eastern chronology. All critiques known to him were addressed individually or pars pro toto - mostly but by far not entirely in German. One should not try to sell one's incapacity to read as Heinsohn's reluctance to write.

The following is a schema taken from http://www.chrono-rekonstruktion.de/wp- ... axares.pdf and extended:

Image
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.

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

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:29 pm

Pro-Heinsohn
Venn said: For 20 years now they are still looking for layers of the Middle- and New Kingdom at Tell el-Fara'in. Every year you can find more or less the same statement in the communications of the DAIK. But the stratigraphy of TeF 87 TX clearly shows for everybody to see that there is no room for those layers. None what so ever! It can never be. It is impossible! They can only be placed in parallel to the existing continuous layers and so can those missing kingdoms. And if you think that the Middle- and New Kingdom stratigraphic layers could have been removed cleanly from the whole (!) site (with bulldozers and toothbrushes perhaps?) this would still show as a cultural discontinuity in the layering, but it doesn't show (see next paragraph). Of course some artifacts from both missing kingdoms have been found near the site but no stratigraphic layers. At others sites (e.g. Tell el-Daba) only a few miles away layers of the New-Kingdom are visible, but the layers of other periods are missing.
Anti-Heinsohn
* As I explained last time, it's not logical to expect any soil layer to extend over a very large area, because wind and precipitation generally only move sediments to small areas. Note the image above again. If I read it correctly, this tell or hill consists of numerous layers that were apparently deposited in small patches. Each patch was deposited at a different time. When archeologists look for a layer from a certain period, I don't imagine they think it has to be there. They simply hope it will be, so they might find something they're interested in. Not all sites are located on flood plains where it flooded every year. So they can't expect to find any particular layer. When there is no sediment being deposited, artifacts from several years or generations or centuries would be found in the same layer. Artifacts can also be washed out of one layer into another. Animals can move some artifacts from one place to another. So can humans.

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

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:30 pm

Cardona vs. Heinsohn
* This is from 2005.
CARDONA: Archaeologists are the ones best suited to study archaeological stratigraphy, just as geologists are the ones best suited to study geological stratigraphy. Which is not to say that neither of them are above being wrong. But, interpretations aside, the archaeological layers, like the geological ones, are there for all to see. Now just as in geology, archaeological strata are seldom as streamlined as Heinsohn would have us believe. What with so many man-caused destructions, to say nothing of ones caused by natural disasters; the leveling of ruins in order to rebuild anew; plus the erosional nature of the environment once a site is abandoned - it all results in intrusions and heaven knows how much mix-up of artifacts . To look at Heinsohn's stratigraphical tables, one would think nothing of the sort ever transpired. Besides, the strata in most Near Eastern archaeological sites often number more than what Heinsohn usually shows, and he is thus left to account for the additional ones. But he never mentions this. I have yet to see him present us with a bona fide cross-sectional view of the strata he deals with. ... [C]heck the original records.
QUESTION: I must carefully examine Ginenthal’s comments on this and his citations ? not easily done I suspect.
CARDONA: Ginenthal cannot even read correctly. What's worse is that Heinsohn has been caught quoting Ginenthal's misquotations, which means that he is ready to grasp at any straw without checking the references for himself. What this also indicates, of course, is that in some cases Heinsohn himself is ignorant of the historical details concerned. But I can add worse because Heinsohn, too, is very often guilty of misquoting others and/or putting words into other authors' mouths. Having checked quite a few of the references and quotations that he cites, I find that he can be quite glib - and that's putting it kindly.
COMMENT: It took me ... years to finally consider Earth in Upheaval as having some merit.
CARDONA: EARTH IN UPHEAVAL has a lot of merit. Much more than WORLDS IN COLLISION.
COMMENT: I thought Heinsohn’s argument was that the ancients knew of the [C]haldeans but no one the Sumerians,
CARDONA: Whereas ancient writers did not mention "Sumerians," they did mention "Sumer." One cannot have Sumer without Sumerians.
COMMENT: [y]et there is abundant archaeological evidence for Sumerions but none for the [C]haldeans.
CARDONA: This has been mainly due to Classical Greek writers who were in the habit of alluding to Mesopotamian indigenes as Chaldeans, especially when it came to Mesopotamian astronomers and astrologers. But it's really more complex than that....
Dwardu
Experts vs. Amateurs
* Cardona is someone whom I consider to be a careful and knowledgeable researcher. He said he actually checked many of Heinsohn's references and found that Heinsohn often misquoted sources. He also stated that Heinsohn often leaves out strata in illustrations that were in the original and he never found an accurate stratigraphic illustration by Heinsohn. Ev Cochrane is also a careful researcher, I believe. I think he and Dwardu are experts, having read them for many years, since the 1980s. Heinsohn and Ginenthal seem to be amateurs who are not careful researchers. The people here who support them seem not to check Heinsohn's and Ginenthal's sources, the way Dwardu and Ev have done.
Velikovsky, an Amateur
* Dwardu said Velikovsky's book, Earth in Upheaval, was much better researched than Worlds in Collision. 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. Heinsohn's redating of Abraham would put Moses, King David and others well after 500 BC.
Conclusion
* Dwardu and Ev et al are not afraid to buck convention. They both accept the Saturn Theory, which is even more unconventional than Velikovsky was prepared to accept. Dwardu and Ev accept that ancient history from, I think, about 2,000 BC needs to be down-dated, somewhat, but not history more recent than that. My judgment remains that Dwardu and Ev are right, that Heinsohn et al are wrong in their redatings.

venn
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by venn » Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:13 pm

Lloyd wrote:As I explained last time, it's not logical to expect any soil layer to extend over a very large area, because wind and precipitation generally only move sediments to small areas. Note the image above again. If I read it correctly, this tell or hill consists of numerous layers that were apparently deposited in small patches. Each patch was deposited at a different time. When archeologists look for a layer from a certain period, I don't imagine they think it has to be there. They simply hope it will be, so they might find something they're interested in. Not all sites are located on flood plains where it flooded every year. So they can't expect to find any particular layer. When there is no sediment being deposited, artifacts from several years or generations or centuries would be found in the same layer. Artifacts can also be washed out of one layer into another. Animals can move some artifacts from one place to another. So can humans.
It is not a good idea to compare a neolithic site in Peru with a Tell in Mesopotamia or Egypt. They have not much in common. Also you seem not to see or understand the difference between natural layers and cultural/urban layering. Tell el-Farain is situated in the Nile Delta, which means it is a flat area, the size is roughly a square mile. Not much erosion possible because of the flatness. The underground is a sand dune which gave it a slightly higher elevation and a secure position. Floods are of course possible and show in some digs on the western site of the Tell but not in TeF 87 TX.

On Tells people build their houses with clay bricks. After a few years the house is torn down, the remains become the floor of the next generation of houses. This way the Tells were growing year after year where people build their houses. Because people tend to use walkable streets the process happens all over the Tell, not in small patches. This process also preserves the remains of older ages. If a Tell becomes abandoned, a process kicks in that nick c already cited from Ginenthal's PP II, p. 43 in a condensed version. I will do it here again for clarity:
When an ancient city, town, or village was abandoned......a geological process occurs that leaves clear cut evidence to show what happened........the wind blows sand, soil, etc., into the streets and the ruins..... These materials, called Aeolian or wind blown layers, are a rather clear geological marker that tells a geologist that the site was abandoned. When it rains - as it does in Mesopotamia during the winter season- the mud brick walls still standing above these Aeolian deposits slump and flow down over these wind-blown materials, sealing them in place.....desert weeds grow on the mounds of these settlements and protect the mound, or "tell", from further erosion. Even after thousands of years of abandonment, the....mounds of Mesopotamia have not been weathered by sandstorms or eroded away......
From this it should be very clear that the process does not happen on Tells as you describe it. You ask us here to believe that on a nearly flat area of roughly a square mile, nature and/or people removed cultural layers with surgical precision and without leaving any hint or proof whatsoever that they did it. And as it is the case with Tell el-Farain they forgot all history in between and reconnected seamlessly with their history from nearly 2000 years before. This is absurd beyond description.

I would have to call Cambridge Chronology a major conspiracy theory!
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.

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 » Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:35 pm

Lloyd wrote:Velikovsky, an Amateur
* Dwardu said Velikovsky's book, Earth in Upheaval, was much better researched than Worlds in Collision. 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.
These are curious comments on Velikovsky.
Certainly, errors were made, but are we not throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Besides, if it were not for the amateurish and shoddy scholarship of Worlds In Collision, Dwardu and Ev would have no subject for their many books and articles. Since both of their bodies of work were inspired by Velikovsky.
I believe the correct description of Velikovsky's work is "seminal."

Nick

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by starbiter » Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:53 pm

Lloyd wrote,
[...]
QUESTION: I must carefully examine Ginenthal’s comments on this and his citations ? not easily done I suspect.
CARDONA: Ginenthal cannot even read correctly. What's worse is that Heinsohn has been caught quoting Ginenthal's misquotations, which means that he is ready to grasp at any straw without checking the references for himself. What this also indicates, of course, is that in some cases Heinsohn himself is ignorant of the historical details concerned. But I can add worse because Heinsohn, too, is very often guilty of misquoting others and/or putting words into other authors' mouths. Having checked quite a few of the references and quotations that he cites, I find that he can be quite glib - and that's putting it kindly.

Me again,
The comments about Heinshon and Ginenthal are grounds for moderation, IMHO. To attack people in such a vitriolic manner, without a single detail is an embarrassment to the Thunderbolts Forum. The phrase character assassination comes to mind.


I have no problem with spirited debate. But attacking people for misquotes without pointing out the misquotes is abusive IMHO. How can the victim defend themselves? If this tactic is allowed, the abuse potential is large.


.

Lloyd said,
[...]

Conclusion
* Dwardu and Ev et al are not afraid to buck convention. They both accept the Saturn Theory, which is even more unconventional than Velikovsky was prepared to accept. Dwardu and Ev accept that ancient history from, I think, about 2,000 BC needs to be down-dated, somewhat, but not history more recent than that. My judgment remains that Dwardu and Ev are right, that Heinsohn et al are wrong in their redatings.

me again,

Lloyd, for You to declare a winner without reading both sides amazes me. This includes the Saturn Theory. You were provided a link to Dr Velikovsky's version, but admitted You never bothered to read it. You mentioned this on the forum. Maybe you've read Dr V's version since.

michael steinbacher
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

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

Re: Revising Ancient Chronology

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:22 pm

Michael
Michael S. said: The comments about Heinshon and Ginenthal are grounds for moderation, IMHO. To attack people in such a vitriolic manner, without a single detail is an embarrassment to the Thunderbolts Forum. The phrase character assassination comes to mind. - I have no problem with spirited debate. But attacking people for misquotes without pointing out the misquotes is abusive IMHO. How can the victim defend themselves? If this tactic is allowed, the abuse potential is large.
* Michael, I don't understand your concern. If Dwardu read Heinsohn's and Ginenthal's references and found that they both misquoted their sources and that Heinsohn never seemed to give accurate illustrations of soil strata, by leaving some out etc, what's wrong with him mentioning that? Obviously it would not be fair to Dwardu to insist that he provide proof of his statement from 2005, since he's very busy writing his books, although it should be reasonable to ask for a few examples of proof. You're free to ask him for those yourself, aren't you? I've already provided such proof from Ev and that doesn't satisfy you either. Describing Dwardu's statements as character assassination sounds kind of like character assassination. Asking the moderators to suppress his statements seems a bit odd, since he's a member of the Thunderbolts team.
Lloyd, for You to declare a winner without reading both sides amazes me. This includes the Saturn Theory.
* I also don't understand why it bothers you that I give my opinions about such things. You don't need to be concerned that my opinion will prevent yours from being aired. I listen to both sides when I hear someone quote or paraphrase the other side, if I have time and it's worded clearly enough and brief enough for me.
Nick
* After I mentioned Dwardu's and Ev's opinions of Velikovsky's relatively poor scholarship in composing Ages in Chaos and Worlds in Collision, but not for Earth in Upheaval, which Dwardu said was rather well done, Nick said:
These are curious comments on Velikovsky. Certainly, errors were made, but are we not throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Besides, if it were not for the amateurish and shoddy scholarship of Worlds In Collision, Dwardu and Ev would have no subject for their many books and articles. Since both of their bodies of work were inspired by Velikovsky. I believe the correct description of Velikovsky's work is "seminal."
* I and, I think, they agree that Velikovsky's work was seminal, but his scholarship was not so good for two of those three books. I'm sure he's probably their hero, as well as mine. But we should not imagine our heroes to be more perfect than they are or were.
Venn
Venn said: It is not a good idea to compare a neolithic site in Peru with a Tell in Mesopotamia or Egypt. They have not much in common.
* I had described how I think layers are deposited usually in small areas, rather than large areas and that image showed pretty clearly what I had described. That's why I used the image. When you look for images on the net, you often have to settle for ones that aren't perfect.
Also you seem not to see or understand the difference between natural layers and cultural/urban layering.
* I'm learning as I read and discuss. I know much more than I did when I started this thread.
Tell el-Farain is situated in the Nile Delta, which means it is a flat area, the size is roughly a square mile. Not much erosion possible because of the flatness. The underground is a sand dune which gave it a slightly higher elevation and a secure position. Floods are of course possible and show in some digs on the western site of the Tell but not in TeF 87 TX. - On Tells people build their houses with clay bricks. After a few years the house is torn down, the remains become the floor of the next generation of houses. This way the Tells were growing year after year where people build their houses.
* 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?
Because people tend to use walkable streets the process happens all over the Tell, not in small patches. This process also preserves the remains of older ages. If a Tell becomes abandoned, a process kicks in that nick c already cited from Ginenthal's PP II, p. 43 in a condensed version. I will do it here again for clarity:
When an ancient city, town, or village was abandoned......a geological process occurs that leaves clear cut evidence to show what happened........the wind blows sand, soil, etc., into the streets and the ruins..... These materials, called Aeolian or wind blown layers, are a rather clear geological marker that tells a geologist that the site was abandoned.
* Shouldn't it say archeologist, instead of geologist?
When it rains - as it does in Mesopotamia during the winter season- the mud brick walls still standing above these Aeolian deposits slump and flow down over these wind-blown materials, sealing them in place.....desert weeds grow on the mounds of these settlements and protect the mound, or "tell", from further erosion. Even after thousands of years of abandonment, the....mounds of Mesopotamia have not been weathered by sandstorms or eroded away......
* Who was Ginenthal quoting or referencing?
From this it should be very clear that the process does not happen on Tells as you describe it. You ask us here to believe that on a nearly flat area of roughly a square mile, nature and/or people removed cultural layers with surgical precision and without leaving any hint or proof whatsoever that they did it. And as it is the case with Tell el-Farain they forgot all history in between and reconnected seamlessly with their history from nearly 2000 years before. This is absurd beyond description.
* 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?
Conclusion
* What amazes me is that you folks have such a low opinion of Ev's, Dwardu's and others' expertise. Do any of you folks regard yourselves as experts? And do yous regard Heinsohn as more of an expert than Ev, Dwardu et al? If so, why?

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 » Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:44 pm

hi Lloyd,
Who was Ginenthal quoting or referencing?
I thought I made that clear in my post (third from the top of this page):
nick c wrote:The work of mainstream historians Georges Roux and H. W. F Saggs who are both quoted, contradict Cochrane's position:
Roux wrote:When an ancient city, town, or village was abandoned......a geological process occurs that leaves clear cut evidence to show what happened........the wind blows sand, soil, etc., into the streets and the ruins..... These materials, called Aeolian or wind blown layers, are a rather clear geological marker that tells a geologist that the site was abandoned.
Also:
Saggs wrote:When...[Mesopotamian] settlements became depopulated, soil deposits laid down by the frequent dust storms which blast Iraq would gradually cover the ruins of most buildings and in time build up the top of the mound to a more or less level or smoothly curving surface with only the remains of the ziggarut or any other exceptionally tall building projecting above the general level of such a tell [which] are sprinkled all over Mesopotamia.
No experts assert that erosive or human action will remove an entire layer from these mounds (tells). The irony is that these two mainstream advocates of conventional chronology do not support Cochrane's explanation of missing layers, even though Roux is used by Cochrane as one of his sources.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests