J. Eric Aitchison - Revisiting Velikovsky: An Audit of an Innovative Revisionist Attempt

To find out more about this book or to contact the author, please visit:
www.vividpublishing.com.au/revisitingvelikovsky

Copyright 2016 J. Eric Aitchison

ISBN: 978-1-925515-94-7 (eBook)

Published by Vivid Publishing

P.O. Box 948, Fremantle Western Australia 6959

www.vividpublishing.com.au

eBook conversion and distribution by Fontaine Publishing Group, Australia

www.fontaine.com.au

Revised 3rd edition. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

REVISITING VELIKOVSKY, Part One of Two

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY (1895 1979) AN ASSESSMENT.

This setting of the chronological scene and the audit of Velikovskys 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 Velikovskys 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 Velikovskys basic premise has a firm foundation.

Biblical History is Solid and Believable; Here it is intended that Velikovskys 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 Thieles masterly work.

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

Saul, Velikovskys 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 Velikovskys 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); Velikovskys 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 Velikovskys arguments in Ages in Chaos are examined against Morans 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 Widows 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 Orthodoxys 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--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.