Lloyd" wrote:1. Which of these authors' views do you favor? a. Immanuel Velikovsky, b. Lynn Rose, c. Emmett(?) Sweeney, d. Charles Ginenthal, e. Gunnar Heinsohn, f. Gary Gilligan, g. John Ackerman?
Velikovsky effectively dismantled conventional ancient history in the Supplement to "People's of the Sea", his adherence to biblical chronology prevented him from reaching the logical conclusion of his chronological work. It is important to remember that most of Velikovsky's reconstruction is still valid in the short chronology. V maintained that 2nd M BC history contained a duplication of the 1st M BC history. Heinsohn went a step further and resolved the dilemma that stumped V, and showed that not only was history duplicated but it was actually triplicated.
Rose, Ginenthal, Sweeney, and Heinsohn have some minor differences, but they are more alike than they are different. I have spent many hours reading Ginenthal's "Pillars of the Past" series of 4 volumes, and would strongly recommend that anyone interested in this subject obtain Vol. I and give it a look. It is loaded with anomalies and historical anachronisms that are resolved by the short chronology. It is the best place to get the short chronology all in one place, actually 3 volumes. As a caveat you will need some familiarity with the mainstream historical edifice. (The 4th volume has to do with Stonehenge and other megalithic circles in Great Britain and Europe.)
The key point of the short chronology is that it is based upon stratigraphy and literary references are considered secondary sources. Furthermore there is a falsifiability that becomes readily apparent, in that Heinsohn et. al. can easily be shown to be wrong if certain stratigraphic conditions are found. And in fact, the conventionally taught ancient history is actually falsified by stratigraphy and the revised shortened chronology is supported. There are several stunning examples, which I can get into.
I am not familiar with the chronologies of Gilligan and Acherman.
2. Isn't Heinsohn's chronology even lower than Velikovsky's? Didn't Velikovsky lower Egyptian chronology by c. 500 years? And doesn't Heinsohn lower it c. 1,000 years?
Yes, Heinsohn has history (writing) beginning all around the world (Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Indus Valley, and Mesoamerica) at roughly the same time, after 1500 BC, probably closer to 1200 BC. That was the time when humans recovered from a series of immense planetary catastrophes, which no doubt included the Deluge and following effects. The solar system was still not in the present order, but the threat of world destruction had mostly passed.
Velikovsky has the Old Kingdom of Egypt and Sumeria of Mesopotamia being 3rd M BC civilizations. But these supposed 3rd M BC civilizations (according to Heinsohn, Sweeney, Rose, and Ginenthal) came much later and were 1st M BC societies.
Before 1500 BC humans lived in tribal villages with little or no ability to write. But most of that time was repeated destructions that came from the sky and survival and ritual human sacrifice to appease the planet gods was the preoccupation of humans.
3. Do you believe Venus was a comet in c. 1450 BC and made a close encounter with Earth then during the Exodus and c. 1400 BC at the time of Joshua, as Velikovsky concluded?
The disastrous encounters between the Earth and Venus (which appeared as a world threatening comet) were an ongoing process, The worst encounter took place before civilization was invented by humans, but there were one or more encounters as Venus became an inner planet. The period between 1500 and 1100 BC probably had periods of tumult.
4. Do you believe Mars came close to Earth and the Moon several times c. 700 BC, as Velikovsky also concluded?
Yes. between 900 and 700 BC.
5. Do you believe Venus, Mars & Earth were satellites of Saturn following Saturn in a line from the outer solar system and that Saturn flared up as a nova, causing the Great Flood on Earth, some time before the Exodus?
Yes, and Venus was probably fissioned from Saturn/Kronos, although i don't discount the possibility that it came from an encounter between Saturn/Kronos and Jupiter/Zeus, causing some confusion over which gave birth to Venus. Also, it has been pointed out to me by Ted Holden, Venus is in the Jupiter group ( Venus, Mercury, and our Moon) of planets, in that its axis of rotation is close to being perpendicular to the ecliptic. While Mars, Neptune, and Earth at around 24 degrees are in the Saturn group. Uranus is on its side and must have been involved in some way in the theomachy, although it would be quite the coincidence if the planet we know as "Uranus" was actually the Uranus/Ouranos of myth. Anyway, those were events that took place in prehistory.
The Exodus event was probably in the 8th or 9th C BC during one of the Mars encounters.
6. Do you believe Abraham lived before the Exodus and witnessed the cataclysm that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea?
Abraham would have to have lived multiple generations before the Exodus. I don't know if he witnessed the destruction of S and G although that is the story. It is difficult to tell when in the OT myth turns into history. I don't doubt that Abraham may represent someone of great importance during the beginning of Near East civilization. He seems to be developed as a character which may indicate he was a real person. Sometimes in tales hoary with age, a single person can represent an entire group of people. But I have no argument there, either way.
There is no doubt that Abraham must have engaged in that seemingly reprehensible practice of blood sacrifice as Egyptian (and Israelite) civilization was one of the first to eliminate this traumatically induced practice, Keep in mind that human sacrifice remained in parts of the world until recent times (because history is not that old). Some North and South American tribes continued the practice well into the time of European contact.
7. Do you believe that Venus erupted from Jupiter's Great Red Spot, as John Ackerman figures?
I don't know. But the GRS is certainly some sort of enormous scar, is it not? Actually it was Velikovsky who wrote (in WIC) that the GRS was where Venus erupted from Jupiter.
8. Did you know that both Cardona and Talbott independently (before they got acquainted, I think) looked for evidence that Venus came close to Earth at the time of the Exodus, but didn't find any?
I did not know that. But as I stated above, I think that Venus was more or less tamed by the time the Exodus took place, and the planetary agent was Mars.
I talked with Talbott on the phone concerning a forum matter around 2009 (?) and after that matter was taken care of, I asked him about catastrophes in historical times and he seemed to be non committal to either side, preferring to not get involved in the chronology debate. I respect that.
Cardona found evidence that a great comet came close to Earth at that time, but he said it wasn't Venus. I think they also looked for and failed to find evidence of encounters with Mars c. 700 BC, but I don't recall where they may have said so. I think they both concluded that Earth's encounters with Venus and Mars occurred quite a few centuries before the Exodus. I think Cardona thought those occurred about 5,000 years ago when the Saturn Configuration broke up.
As far as Cardona is concerned there is no doubt in my mind that he had a personal animus against Velikovsky, and an hard to understand desire for acceptance by mainstream science and history.
In Ginenthal's Pillars he deals extensively and ably handles Cardona's criticisms. In one instance, Cardona took the position that the Egyptians could have obtained iron from meteorites, yet meteoric iron is not conducive to making tools, and furthermore iron and steel objects can be determined to be of meteoric origin by the nickel content. There is no evidence of the use of meteoric iron for anything other than jewelry (beads) or sacred objects.
9. What are the main evidences you know of for the low chronology of Heinsohn?
Where do I begin? The evidence is overwhelming. It is the parallel of Black Holes and Dark Matter. It does not matter how much evidence is presented, the PTB will not accept it and it is only going to happen as the old guard dies out and new people took over. There are a thousand little things. Like Old Kingdom (3rd M BC) texts mentioning the Hannebut people. Now the hieroglyph expression for Hannebut in latter Egypt is translated as "Greece." Yet that is impossible for the Old Kingdom by over a 1000 years. So when Egyptologists encounter an Old Kingdom reference to the Hannebut people they translate it as some unknown people, but when they encounter this name in a mid 1st M Egyptian text it is translated as "Greek."
I am planning, time permitting, to make a post on the NIAMI board concerning the attempt by several German academic colleagues of Professor Heinsohn to falsify his chronology by examining the stratigraphy of a Syrian ruins named Tell Munbaqa. And after the stratigraphy was examined by a neutral geologist with no horse in the race, those colleagues wrote a formal letter to Heinsohn admitting that the stratigraphy of Tell Munbaqa supported Heinsohn's chronology and was contrary to what was expected by accepted chronology. This case alone is a falsification of conventional chronology! Similar results were obtained for Tell el daba (aka Avaris, the Hyksos city in Egypt).
[quote=Lloyd"]1. Which of these authors' views do you favor? a. Immanuel Velikovsky, b. Lynn Rose, c. Emmett(?) Sweeney, d. Charles Ginenthal, e. Gunnar Heinsohn, f. Gary Gilligan, g. John Ackerman?[/quote]
Velikovsky effectively dismantled conventional ancient history in the Supplement to "People's of the Sea", his adherence to biblical chronology prevented him from reaching the logical conclusion of his chronological work. It is important to remember that most of Velikovsky's reconstruction is still valid in the short chronology. V maintained that 2nd M BC history contained a duplication of the 1st M BC history. Heinsohn went a step further and resolved the dilemma that stumped V, and showed that not only was history duplicated but it was actually triplicated.
Rose, Ginenthal, Sweeney, and Heinsohn have some minor differences, but they are more alike than they are different. I have spent many hours reading Ginenthal's "Pillars of the Past" series of 4 volumes, and would strongly recommend that anyone interested in this subject obtain Vol. I and give it a look. It is loaded with anomalies and historical anachronisms that are resolved by the short chronology. It is the best place to get the short chronology all in one place, actually 3 volumes. As a caveat you will need some familiarity with the mainstream historical edifice. (The 4th volume has to do with Stonehenge and other megalithic circles in Great Britain and Europe.)
The key point of the short chronology is that it is based upon stratigraphy and literary references are considered secondary sources. Furthermore there is a falsifiability that becomes readily apparent, in that Heinsohn et. al. can easily be shown to be wrong if certain stratigraphic conditions are found. And in fact, the conventionally taught ancient history is actually falsified by stratigraphy and the revised shortened chronology is supported. There are several stunning examples, which I can get into.
I am not familiar with the chronologies of Gilligan and Acherman.
[quote]2. Isn't Heinsohn's chronology even lower than Velikovsky's? Didn't Velikovsky lower Egyptian chronology by c. 500 years? And doesn't Heinsohn lower it c. 1,000 years?[/quote]
Yes, Heinsohn has history (writing) beginning all around the world (Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Indus Valley, and Mesoamerica) at roughly the same time, after 1500 BC, probably closer to 1200 BC. That was the time when humans recovered from a series of immense planetary catastrophes, which no doubt included the Deluge and following effects. The solar system was still not in the present order, but the threat of world destruction had mostly passed.
Velikovsky has the Old Kingdom of Egypt and Sumeria of Mesopotamia being 3rd M BC civilizations. But these supposed 3rd M BC civilizations (according to Heinsohn, Sweeney, Rose, and Ginenthal) came much later and were 1st M BC societies.
Before 1500 BC humans lived in tribal villages with little or no ability to write. But most of that time was repeated destructions that came from the sky and survival and ritual human sacrifice to appease the planet gods was the preoccupation of humans.
[quote]3. Do you believe Venus was a comet in c. 1450 BC and made a close encounter with Earth then during the Exodus and c. 1400 BC at the time of Joshua, as Velikovsky concluded?[/quote]
The disastrous encounters between the Earth and Venus (which appeared as a world threatening comet) were an ongoing process, The worst encounter took place before civilization was invented by humans, but there were one or more encounters as Venus became an inner planet. The period between 1500 and 1100 BC probably had periods of tumult.
[quote]4. Do you believe Mars came close to Earth and the Moon several times c. 700 BC, as Velikovsky also concluded?[/quote]
Yes. between 900 and 700 BC.
[quote]5. Do you believe Venus, Mars & Earth were satellites of Saturn following Saturn in a line from the outer solar system and that Saturn flared up as a nova, causing the Great Flood on Earth, some time before the Exodus? [/quote]
Yes, and Venus was probably fissioned from Saturn/Kronos, although i don't discount the possibility that it came from an encounter between Saturn/Kronos and Jupiter/Zeus, causing some confusion over which gave birth to Venus. Also, it has been pointed out to me by Ted Holden, Venus is in the Jupiter group ( Venus, Mercury, and our Moon) of planets, in that its axis of rotation is close to being perpendicular to the ecliptic. While Mars, Neptune, and Earth at around 24 degrees are in the Saturn group. Uranus is on its side and must have been involved in some way in the theomachy, although it would be quite the coincidence if the planet we know as "Uranus" was actually the Uranus/Ouranos of myth. Anyway, those were events that took place in prehistory.
The Exodus event was probably in the 8th or 9th C BC during one of the Mars encounters.
[quote]6. Do you believe Abraham lived before the Exodus and witnessed the cataclysm that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea? [/quote]
Abraham would have to have lived multiple generations before the Exodus. I don't know if he witnessed the destruction of S and G although that is the story. It is difficult to tell when in the OT myth turns into history. I don't doubt that Abraham may represent someone of great importance during the beginning of Near East civilization. He seems to be developed as a character which may indicate he was a real person. Sometimes in tales hoary with age, a single person can represent an entire group of people. But I have no argument there, either way.
There is no doubt that Abraham must have engaged in that seemingly reprehensible practice of blood sacrifice as Egyptian (and Israelite) civilization was one of the first to eliminate this traumatically induced practice, Keep in mind that human sacrifice remained in parts of the world until recent times (because history is not that old). Some North and South American tribes continued the practice well into the time of European contact.
[quote]7. Do you believe that Venus erupted from Jupiter's Great Red Spot, as John Ackerman figures?[/quote]
I don't know. But the GRS is certainly some sort of enormous scar, is it not? Actually it was Velikovsky who wrote (in WIC) that the GRS was where Venus erupted from Jupiter.
[quote]8. Did you know that both Cardona and Talbott independently (before they got acquainted, I think) looked for evidence that Venus came close to Earth at the time of the Exodus, but didn't find any? [/quote] I did not know that. But as I stated above, I think that Venus was more or less tamed by the time the Exodus took place, and the planetary agent was Mars.
I talked with Talbott on the phone concerning a forum matter around 2009 (?) and after that matter was taken care of, I asked him about catastrophes in historical times and he seemed to be non committal to either side, preferring to not get involved in the chronology debate. I respect that.
[quote]Cardona found evidence that a great comet came close to Earth at that time, but he said it wasn't Venus. I think they also looked for and failed to find evidence of encounters with Mars c. 700 BC, but I don't recall where they may have said so. I think they both concluded that Earth's encounters with Venus and Mars occurred quite a few centuries before the Exodus. I think Cardona thought those occurred about 5,000 years ago when the Saturn Configuration broke up.[/quote]
As far as Cardona is concerned there is no doubt in my mind that he had a personal animus against Velikovsky, and an hard to understand desire for acceptance by mainstream science and history.
In Ginenthal's Pillars he deals extensively and ably handles Cardona's criticisms. In one instance, Cardona took the position that the Egyptians could have obtained iron from meteorites, yet meteoric iron is not conducive to making tools, and furthermore iron and steel objects can be determined to be of meteoric origin by the nickel content. There is no evidence of the use of meteoric iron for anything other than jewelry (beads) or sacred objects.
[quote]9. What are the main evidences you know of for the low chronology of Heinsohn?[/quote]
Where do I begin? The evidence is overwhelming. It is the parallel of Black Holes and Dark Matter. It does not matter how much evidence is presented, the PTB will not accept it and it is only going to happen as the old guard dies out and new people took over. There are a thousand little things. Like Old Kingdom (3rd M BC) texts mentioning the Hannebut people. Now the hieroglyph expression for Hannebut in latter Egypt is translated as "Greece." Yet that is impossible for the Old Kingdom by over a 1000 years. So when Egyptologists encounter an Old Kingdom reference to the Hannebut people they translate it as some unknown people, but when they encounter this name in a mid 1st M Egyptian text it is translated as "Greek."
I am planning, time permitting, to make a post on the NIAMI board concerning the attempt by several German academic colleagues of Professor Heinsohn to falsify his chronology by examining the stratigraphy of a Syrian ruins named Tell Munbaqa. And after the stratigraphy was examined by a neutral geologist with no horse in the race, those colleagues wrote a formal letter to Heinsohn admitting that the stratigraphy of Tell Munbaqa supported Heinsohn's chronology and was contrary to what was expected by accepted chronology. This case alone is a falsification of conventional chronology! Similar results were obtained for Tell el daba (aka Avaris, the Hyksos city in Egypt).