reading

Contents

Revisiting Velikovsky Part One

Aitchison Introduction and Links

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Stratigraphy

The Hittite Problem

Biblical History is Solid and Believable

Gold Standard Chronology

Pi-ha-Khiroth

Saul, Velikovsky’S Hero

The Times of Saul, David, Solomon and Shishak

Elhanan, David and Saul

The Queen of Sheba

The Land of Punt

Thutmose III; A Different Perspective

Thutmose III, LB I or LB IIA

So, Who or What Is Shishak?

Was Zerah the Ethiopian Also Amenhotep II?

So; Who Was Zerah?

Oedipus and Thebes

The el-Amarna Letters

Were Amenhotep III and Akhenaten Correct to Change Gods?

Sapalulme

The Enigma that is Haremhab

Which Harmais, if any, was Haremhab?

The Egyptian Widow’s Letter

Anysis of Herodotus

Seti, Ramesses II and Nebuchadnezzar

The Israeli Stele and Yanoam

Further Faults with “Ramses II and His Time”

A Hittite Revision

Hatti, Egypt and the City of Ugarit

Dynasties XIX and XXVI – A Table

Ramesses III and His Time

Stratigraphy and the Placement of Dynasty XX

Assuruballit: Canonical or Non-Canonical?

The Venus Tablets of Ammisaduqa (?)

The Mosaic Israelite Calendar and the Sabbath

Egyptian Planetary Calendars

The Calendar

On the Orientation of Ancient Temples and Other Anomalies

In Conclusion

Revisiting Velikovsky Part Two

Dedication

Acknowledgements

A New Approach to Egyptian History

Assyria: Is the Conventional Profile Believable?

Thiele’s Assyrian Reliance

Dynastic Dating Incongruities

Attempts at the Relativity of Various Chronologies

Chariot and War Evolution

The Pelusium and Jerusalem (?) Incidents

That Other XVIIIth Dynasty

The Ethiopians and Dynasty XXVI

Hatti, Egypt and the City of Ugarit

Hurri-Mitanni-Urartu

Mitanni and Media

Carthage; Her Link with Tyre, Troy, Rome and Egypt

Jericho, Samaria and Carthage

Dilmun

Kaska, Cimmerians, Umman Manda and or the Scythians??

Amenhotep the Fifth and Sethos the Third

The Babylonian Co-regency Answer—Kadashman Harbe

The Kassite Problem

The Kassite Problem Revisited

The Links between Dynasties XXI and XXII

Dynasties XXII and XXIII

ZET: Herodotus Vindicated

Dynasties XVIII, XIX, XX and XXI

The Apis Bull Burials

The Dynastic Power Bases

Finite Egyptian History

Dynasty XXI and The Priest Kings

The Bubastite Portal

The Berlin (Memphite) and Louvre Genealogies

The Old Testament Book of Judith

Mita of Mushki

Whither 631?

In Conclusion

REVISITING VELIKOVSKY, Part One of Two

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY (1895 – 1979) AN ASSESSMENT.

This setting of the chronological scene and the audit of Velikovsky’s basic points is mostly the work of Eric Aitchison, retired Health Industry Chief Executive Officer, of Newcastle, Australia. He has no qualifications in history, archaeology or related fields.

His interests in Velikovsky’s chronological and catastrophic theories go back to 1964. Since then his beliefs have changed with the remorse that Velikovsky was so close to getting it right.

The sections within this part of a two-part set deal with perceived errors made by Velikovsky in his pioneering attempt to reduce Egyptian and related histories.

Stratigraphy is the very basis of the problem. Artefact allocations change formats and thus the chronology.

The Hittite Problem. This is a work in its entirety by my Canadian friend, Alan Montgomery. As it is already in the Public Domain I resisted thoughts of copying in toto and referenced the work instead. It is here inserted as it gives reasons why Velikovsky’s basic premise has a firm foundation.

Biblical History is Solid and Believable; Here it is intended that Velikovsky’s use of Biblical dates can be seen as well founded. Biblical historical dates, Thiele adjusted, are strong enough to demand a re-think of latter day Assyrian history, e.g., the date of the Fall of Samaria.

Gold Standard Chronology. This is another aspect of the previous offering.

Biblical Reign Lengths for the Divided Monarchy. This is a tabulated appraisal of the adjustments to Thiele’s masterly work.

El Arish and its identification problems is quoted with permission from the work of Donald Mills, Ashley Guise

Saul, Velikovsky’s Hero. This section argues that there is no way that Saul could be involved at Avaris.

The Chronology of Saul, David and Solomon. Here we seek to get these reigns into perspective with their various stories.

Elhanan, David and Saul. Primarily a discussion on the theory of David Rohl that Elhanan was David.

The Queen of Sheba; this is a criticism of the theory that Hatshepsut was this queen, that she visited Solomon and the land of Punt.

Thutmose III: A Different Perspective. This section looks at Velikovsky’s intention to see Thutmose as Shishak and the greatest conqueror Egypt spawned.

So who or what was Shishak. This is an attempt to provide a different slant on this enigma.

Was Zerah the Ethiopian also Amenhotep II? This is another vital support theory for Velikovsky. The data surrounding the known activities of Amenhotep are investigated to see if the theory claimed as basic by Velikovsky, will stand scrutiny.

So, who was Zerah? As with the Shishak question there has to be another slant to this person.

Oedipus and Thebes, also The Epigoni (The after Born); Velikovsky’s basic theory (and some observations by others) in his book, “Oedipus and Akhenaten” is appraised against its intention.

The El-Amarna Letters; here it can be shown that both Velikovsky and David Rohl have used the chronological data in these letters badly. The individual sections of Velikovsky’s arguments in “Ages in Chaos” are examined against Moran’s edition of the el-Amarna letters.

The Enigma that is Haremhab; Haremhab is another hero of Velikovsky. Unfortunately I believe that Velikovsky misplaces him in relation to the rest of Dynasty XVIII. This offering tries to argue for a better placement.

Which Harmais, if any, was Haremhab? Whilst this is not a proper piece for this part, it follows logically from the previous so its inclusion seems justified.

Anysis of Herodotus; again not a plank of Velikovsky but its inclusion here seems to support the placement of Haremhab who was linked to Akhenaten and the Ethiopians.

The Egyptian Widow’s Letter; Velikovsky believes this widow was that of Taharka. This section argues otherwise.

Seti, Ramesses and Nebuchadrezzar; A severe criticism is here offered against the theories offered in “Ramses II and His Time”.

The Israeli Stela and Yanoam; Included here because it reflects a different perspective.

Further Faults with “Ramses II and His Time”. The title is sufficient description.

The Nine Hittite Points; Continuing with the point that Velikovsky has things wrong I here deal with the arguments of Barry Curnock, (Bristol, England) that these nine points support the case made by Velikovsky. In closing I offer my nine points that I see as supportive of my theory.

Dynasties XIX and XXVI – A Table; A presentation of these two dynasties that Velikovsky sees as alter egos, whereas they seem better viewed as concurrent.

Ramesses III and His Time; This is an intended pun on the earlier work on Ramesses II and here-in we try to argue that Ramesses III is not Nectanebo of Dynasty XXX and is dated according to Josephus’ time line.

Assuruballit: Canonical or Non Canonical? As this person figures so much in “Ages in Chaos” this section tries to continue the argument that there has to be another person called Assuruballit.

The Conventional Link between Dynasties XXI and XXII; included because Velikovsky alludes to the weak link that holds these two dynasties together. His effort to defuse Orthodoxy’s claim is not strong enough and this offering tries to bolster his arguments, but with minimal success.

Moses, The Israelite Calendar and the Sabbath

Egyptian Planetary Calendars

The Calendar

Orientations of Ancient Temples; again it is argued that Velikovsky was SLIGHTLY amiss in this theory of changing year lengths. Here in these four articles we try to bolster his view that catastrophes altered the year length in steps and also possibly the declination of the Earth vis-à-vis the Sun.

In Conclusion; a wrap up of salient points which appear to need attention by those interested in chronology

Here I have used the excellent scholarship and data that has been discovered by all those who have preceded me. I would record my debt especially to Dale Murphie, thence John Crowe, Barry Curnock, Alan Montgomery, Lester Mitcham and John Lascelles and those other revisionists who have dabbled in this field and whose works are available on the British SIS CD-ROM publication. I chose however to see the data they presented in a new perspective even though they, and others quoted, may have moved away from their earlier positions. The reasoning behind this policy is that, at the time of publication, the thought processes involved in arriving at whatever decision or outcome, were reasonable at the time.

“We will never solve the problems of outer space whilst ever we are ill prepared to accept ideas destined to solve some of the problems within our inner space”.

Dale Murphie.

DEDICATION

To my parents.

To my Father who encouraged me to ask critical questions concerning “received opinion”.

To my Mother who encouraged me to find my own answers to those questions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first debt of gratitude for assistance and general support must go to my wife, Therese for putting up with seemingly endless hours of mess around tables and desks. This has not been a fast research project and her forbearance over these many years just has to be acknowledged.

Secondly I must give credit to my friend and mentor and long-suffering fellow Velikovskian, Dale Murphie. Whilst over the years I have drifted away from the hard line of dedication to Velikovsky’s theories Dale has continued to enthuse me to see their merit. It is because of our lasting friendship and commitment to a search for accuracy that we have continued co-operation but with different agendas. I wish him well in explaining his ideas on the process of Ancient Near Eastern History.

The support given to me by the Editors, staff and fellow members of the British Society for Interdisciplinary Studies has been greatly valued over the years. To Alasdair Beal, the recently retired Editor has to go my special thanks for his patience in those early days of horrendous word skills. He and many others always made me welcome at British Conferences, and me a mere colonial.

Birgit Liesching, my Belgian friend has been such a solid support She has unflinchingly sought out foreign texts on my behalf, read them and transmitted the basis of the data I sought. I could not have done most of this without her help.

The North American contingent, Dwardu Cardona, Ev Cochrane, David Talbot, Charles Ginenthal and many more have responded to enquiries and suggestions with such good graces that they deserve an honourable mention. Their friendship at Conferences was greatly appreciated.

And lastly Lester Mitcham, Alan Montgomery, Barry Curnock, John Crowe, Phillip Clapham and John Lascelles; late onto my scene but of inestimable support as they challenged me over certain issues that I was prepared to ignore, hoping they would go away.

I am in their debt.

J. Eric Aitchison. Lambton North, Australia.
ericaitch1@gmail.com