Advice on Intoxication
Ancient Explosion Reports
Annals of Addiction
Some Atheist Questions
Can We Agree on these?
Critique of A New Earth
Dead Broke Dads
Faith in Biblical Codes
John the Baptist
The Brothers Karamazov
How the World Will End
Importance of Catastrophism
Importance of Discussion
Kahlil Gibran on Law
Euhemerism & Catastrophe
EU/Catastrophe & Philosophy
Thoughts on Meditation
Model for Visions & Dreams
Some Pertinent Parables
Perspective on Myth
Questions Better than Answers
The Road to Saturn Thesis
Sex Bias in Medicine Practice
Spiritual versus Material
Symbolism of Human Body
Tobacco Corruption in AMA
Toxic Metals & Criminality
Unity Agreement Outline
The Velikovsky Debate
Unity Church Letter
The Velikovsky Affair Journals
What is a Prophet?
actually, any mention of the humourous sides of all this (the dating
quagmire) is also
semi-spurious. If the available information is as bad as I
suggest..., the situation is more or less, culturally tragic. It
remains odd that pro-Velikovskians seem not to perceive
the ironies of this. The evolutionists burst
ecclesiastical immutability in geology, the catastrophists attempt to
burst assumptions of geological gradualism. Cosmology
becomes highly mathematical, mankind sets foot on the moon
and sends probes to Mars and beyond... but Prehistory remains
enigmatic; ignorance seems to win. - Dan Bymes, The Velikovsky
Debate: Finding a Date for Exodus, 1997
The Velikovsky Debate:
Finding a Date for Exodus
Dan Bymes, freelance writer in Australia
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:18:41 +-1000
Subject: Exodus article
THIS article aims to point out that while-ever the views of Immanuel
Velikovsky remain controversial, this is partly due to
methodological problems that remain unresolved. Worse, these
unresolved problems bear on many different disciplines, which is a
good reason to ask multi-disciplinarians to suggest a useful
multi-discipline. The genius does not yet seem to exist,
allowing us to resolve disparate information usefully...
Nevertheless, interesting questions arise: especially, what sort of
methodological approaches could be used to ease
controversy? One requirement would seem to be a reliable set of dates
for the period 3000BC to about 500BC, and not just for Egypt
and the Middle east. No such reliable set of dates exists, as
far as I can find. The problem becomes worse if one imagines
that whatever evidence is to hand, is actually crucial.
Some cultural and some psychological points might be helpful. It seems
that the Velikovsky debate is very much shrouded in the
mythologies which help form the Judaeo-Christian tradition,
and heavily reliant on the Mosaic Chronology. It might be
helpful if efforts were made to compile data which makes
arguments less reliant on the Mosaic Chronology, that is, to
mount argument using data which is cross-cultural. One way to do
this, in the sense of cultural history, might be to pay renewed
attention to the Seven Great Wonders of the Ancient
World, which might distract attention from its current major focus
in the Velikovskian debate–Egypt.
I want to begin otherwise by making some psychological points, then to
broach some historical situations relevant to the original or
post-publication Velikovskian controversy, and later to
outline a method I use for research in history, which I call
Firstly, the psychological points... At least to the mid-1970s (I first
noticed the Velikovsky controversy in the early 1970s)
there was one approach given in the psychology of human creativity,
which emphasised convergent versus divergent thinking.
Creative people–inventors, artists and so on–were taken
to be divergent thinkers, while more conformist or
non-creative people were taken to be convergent thinkers. The convergent
thinkers, of course, are more interested in consensus
than in controversy, in fanciful notions, or in new ways of
looking at things; while divergent thinkers have a hard time
convincing others their new-found outlook is useful.
To say the least, Velikovsky remained a divergent thinker. As a
psychiatrist/psychologist, Velikovsky diverged greatly from Sigmund
Freud and Carl Jung (who also diverged markedly from each
other). As a scholar concerned with the history of the Jewish
religion, as an Egyptologist, Velikovsky was divergent in attitude
and approach. As a afficionado of myths in religion,
mythology in general, as a commentator on celestial mechanics,
or planetology, cosmology, (or whatever we call it),
Velikovsky remained divergent.
That may be
well and good for an independent thinker, which Velikovsky
certainly was. But what to do next? It seems to me that it
remains a problem that both the critics and defenders of
"Velikovskian positions" have achieved little by way of consensus
in finding ways to disagree usefully. More
particularly, the defenders of Velikovskian positions could have–and I
believe should have–conducted their research with a view
to making their information–their vindications of
Velikovskian positions–more convergent.
By that I
mean, the defenders of Velikovskian positions could have taken
some relatively simple steps to codify various information
they believe vindicates the basic theses outlined by
Velikovsky. What seems to have happened is that positions, theories,
contributing information have all become, and remained,
more fruitlessly divergent since the 1950's–doing little good
to any position one might adopt.
I will illustrate some problems resulting from poor methodology
with material found in some allegedly
unexceptional histories, providing a fairly simple,
straightforward set of examples. As the reader will find, what goes here
as history–basic Egyptology, Jewish history, Bible history,
some Mediterranean history and so on–should perhaps be rendered
as "history". Now, please consider the following ...One of
Velikovsky's original points of departure was the problem of
finding a historical date for the Exodus of Moses from Egypt.
Perhaps, Velikovsky felt exercised by Sigmund Freud's
proposition, that the "heretic monotheist" pharaoh of Egypt, Akhenaten,
had influenced Moses' views on the deity. (Some scholars
take Moses to have been a henotheist, rather than a
monotheist). In 1996 was published a book with the alarming proposition
that Akhenaten WAS Moses! [Laurence Gardner, The Bloodline
of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed.
Shaftesbury, Dorset, Element, 1996., or Brisbane, Jacaranda Wiley, 1996.]
Here, one need not believe Gardner, who makes various other provocative
propositions... Including, that Jesus Christ had progeny,
and that as earlier claimed in a now notorious book, The Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, his
siblings, and his own children, mingled their blood in what became
the royal families of Europe. Gardner claims that such
descendants live today, and genealogically, his argument would seem
to carry much weight, certainly from around 800 AD.
In particular, the histories of the aristocracies of the United
Kingdom, France, Germany and Austria would be greatly involved in
proving such claims. Not only that, but a great deal of
legend ranged around the histories of more orthodox Judaism,
Christianity, Freemasonry (and the history of the Templars),
plus the Arthurian-Camelot legend, has been produced by
apologists for this bloodline, and a great deal of other
cultural material would also need to be discussed.
The religious aspects of the Velikovskian debate would become entangled
in the kinds of arguments that Gardner would provoke.
Velikovsky was, perhaps, an old style catastrophist, wondering
about the Biblical legend of a great flood. As such, he tried to
take on the "modern" geological gradualists. That resembles a
mostly scientific argument, but as we know, Velikovsky
finally invoked a wide range of mythic and quasi-religious
material as he searched for "proof".
The problem that Gardner causes–if we believe him, as
historians–is that he brings into reasonably accessible timeframes,
and within the body we presently have of Jewish history,
the entire genealogy (to the present day) of the notable
figures whose views, or editorial interventions in sacred
writings, would be called into question if one were to become
involved in discussing such issues. Plus a great deal of cultural commentary.
Gardner's work (if we believe it) does a great deal to collapse
Western history from Year One (when BC or BCE changed to AD [Anno
Domini, The Year of Our Lord] in Western history) into a kind
of underground conspiracy theory. The Velikovsky debate
seems helpless before the terms of this conspiracy theory,
because Velikovsky's original departure points were created
from his curiosity about Jewish reports on a great flood,
Moses' Exodus and various strange happenings–and the rest we
know about if we have read Velikovsky.
And so, if
we believe Gardner's book, and/or, if we believe Velikovsky,
and even worse, if we also believe that Gardner is correct in
saying that Moses was Akhenaten–an Akhenaten escaping
harrassment in Egypt–then the present-day scientific
arguments about Velikovskian propositions falls into a
revised disposition, because the cultural dimension has also
changed dramatically, across nearly three thousand years of recorded
history. The number of methodological questions which might
arise are enormous. (And in fact, matters remain far simpler
if we assume that Jesus Christ had no progeny, because
then his non-existent progeny and their non-existent descendants
cannot have had the kinds of problems and political
interests that Gardner claims they had.)
Some of what Velikovsky challenged was beliefs about cosmology,
and how one might think about linkages between the cosmos, the
role of the deity, the life of human beings and the
management of human society. Today, we cannot think about such issues
without also thinking of the theory of evolution, Big Bang
theory, and a great deal of material the ancients could not
have begun to imagine with any efficiency.
So having said that the methodological problems are enormous, and that
participants in the Velikovskian debate prefer not to recognise
this, I now want to return to a consideration of one of
Velikovsky's original problems–when on earth did Moses depart
Egypt? Not why did Moses escape Egypt, not how, with no questions
about how the Egyptian pyramids were built, or why–or the
dating of the Sphinx–but a simple historical-type question
about just one man–Moses–when?
Imagine that between the years 1250BC and 1230BC (roughly), you have a
satellite view of events occurring around the eastern
Mediterranean, around the mouth of the Nile, present- day Israel
or Palestine, the Fertile Crescent, and down the coast of
the red Sea, with an eye kept on Mecca. This is what many
books–including Velikovsky's–might tell us...
Personally, I find the resulting scenario, or, scenarios, largely
unbelievable! As Velikovsky himself found, there is little
agreement found in dates often given for Egyptian history
vis-a-vis Jewish history. It is difficult to find an acceptable
date for the Exodus of Moses and the Jews from Egypt, but
matters fall basically into timeframes for two basic
dates, and earlier (around 1450BC) and a later date (about
1250BC). (The date sought overall, I'll refer to from now on as,
the Exodus date).
Basically, dates given in books for Exodus cross a timeframe of four
centuries if not longer. The generally preferred date (the later
date) seems to be circa 1250BC. Various sets of dates,
provided by different methodological approaches, can be laced in
various ways over this ladder of two-four centuries, although,
very unsatisfyingly, as follows (and I'll assume that all
readers feel they already know their basic "Bible history")
1440BC - The Encyclopedia Britannica suggests an early date of Exodus,
based on 480 years elapsing from Exodus to Solomon building
his temple. This might make Exodus about 1440BC, in the time of
Tuthmosis III. Then, the petty kingdoms of Moab and Edom
were not yet settled.
The destruction of the cities that Bible history might claim were
captured by the Jews might have occurred about 1250BC, not 1400BC.
And for example, 1413BC, Prince Tuthmosis is promised he will be king (as
Tuthmosis IV) if he frees sand from the Great Sphinx at
Giza. [Mellersh] By 1394BC-1384BC [Aldred] Tuthmosis IV reigned
in Egypt with Queen Mutemwiya. He made efforts to uncover the
giant image of the god Re-Herakhte, the god of Lower
Egypt, from the sands that engulfed his great Sphinx at Giza.
But for an unsatisfying unspecified time, Egypt was occupied by a
little-known invader people known as the Hyksos. The Hyksos
among other affronts offended the Egyptians since they worshipped
Set, who in the Egyptian pantheon was a figure of evil. It
appears that after the expulsion of the Hyksos, the Egyptians
were further affronted by their heretic, monotheist pharaoh,
Akhenaten. Amenhotep III is dated about 1402BC. [The date is
from Tapsell]. Amenhotep IV or Akhenaten was influential
about 1364BC-1347BC. [Tapsell].
By about 1355BC, it is possible that Akhenaten puts his wife Nefertiti
away in disgrace. [Mellersh]. However, dates simply will not
behave themselves–for in ranging around even in Egyptology,
we find that Tutankhamun, reigning somewhat after Akhenaten,
died in 1350BC. (And in one of Velikovsky's own redatings
of Egyptian history, Tutankhamun died in 835BC!). As we find
from material on Velikovsky's own career, he had earlier on
become preoccupied in redating Egyptian history–later on he
became interested in cosmology (or,
Catastrophism). Even in the context of ordinary Bible history, Exodus
dates spread around 1450BC or 1250BC, with no adequate explanation
for events in the misbehaving 200-year period.
In 1486BC, Thutmose III of Egypt defeated the Hyskos in the famous
battle of the Megiddo Pass. [Packer et al]. But we note that Packer
says the people known as the Habiru were not the Hebrew, as
the Hebrew did not call themselves the Hebrew. Meanwhile,
writings by Cyril Aldred and others suggest that perhaps,
the Egyptians expelled the Hyksos by about 1530BC? (Here, with
the Egyptians under the command of Pharaoh Amosis (Ahmose),
who had begun his reign about 1552BC, this Ahmose being a
nephew of Kamose). To expel the Hyksos, it was necessary
to ruin Avaris (such ruination ought to produce an
archaeologically verifiable date?).
By the time they ousted the Hyksos, the Egyptians had adopted and
probably improved the Hyksos' military technology, the earlier
superiority of which was one reason the Hyksos had overrun
Egypt. With this success, Ahmose (Amosis) then went for
Palestine. Ahmose also took areas from the Nubians (Kushites)
and shored up his southern borders near the Second Cataract of
the Nile. Ahmose' Queen was Ahmose-Nefertiti.
Whether the above information about the mysterious Hyksos is accurate or
inaccurate, it gives us some dates, reliable or not. If we
move down the ladder of a timeframe, we might, depending
on whom we read, find that the Hyksos were pacified by Egypt in
Canaan between 1550BC and 1450BC. If any suggestion
is made in this part of the timeframe, for an Exodus
date, it may have been that prior to escaping, Moses took
advantage of widespread instability? It would then follow that the
Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus will be found
within this timeframe, which gives us the earlier Exodus date,
But does it have to do with anything at all, that one date provided
for the explosion of the island of Thera [a date given by
Friedrich] is 1500BC-1470BC? And that the explosion of Thera
(also known as, Kalliste, also, Santorini) devastated
civilisation on Crete? So, one might wonder if the events referred to
above happened in coincidental timeframes? (The Greeks are
thought by some writers to have come to Crete about 1450BC).
The Great Flood. Thera now called Santorini, 60 miles north of
Crete, called Thera after the first Greek commander to set foot
on her after the disaster, it had earlier been called
Kalliste, "the most beautiful island".
It was circular, had a 5000 feet high peak, now a lagoon eight miles wide,
200 fathoms deep, so deep, no ship can now anchor there.
Thera's people used eye make-up, and had indoor plumbing,
1000 years before birth of Rome. About 30,000 people lived on
the island, which had a town called Akrotire. According
to Freidrich, about 1500BC, Thera suffered probably the most
violent explosion in all human history, which destroyed
32 square miles of Thera, four times the area blown away by
Krakatoa. Debris covered 115,000 square miles, and a tidal wave
some 200-300 feet high hit Crete "at 100 miles per hour".
1450BC: Thera blows up. [Mellersh, Friedrich]. Thera's tidal wave hit
Crete about 1500BC-1470BC. (?)But the second collapse of the
Minoan palaces was in 1450BC, and only Knossos on Crete survived
that catastrophe. [Friedrich]. Mainland Greeks came to Knossos
about 1450BC [Friedrich]. Ian Wilson thinks Tuthmosis
III was the Pharaoh resident on the delta at the times Moses
departed. His throne had been usurped by Hatshepsut
due to the youth of Tuthmosis III. [Ian Wilson on Exodus].
Wilson says Hatshepsut's reign began well but ended "in
mysterious disgrace for her and her first minister Senenmut".
About 1494BC-1482, Tuthmosis I reigns in Egypt. Tuthmosis II reigned
from 1494BC. [Tapsell, Aldred]. Queen Hatshepsut (Ma'kare
Hashepsowe), 1490BC-1468BC. 1488BC, Hatshepsut establishes
herself as a Pharaoh (Mellersh]. 1488BC-1469BC, Hatshepsut
decides on internal progress, not foreign adventures;
her favourite is Senenmut. [Mellersh].
The supposition arises that once Thera had erupted, and after fire from
earthquakes or volcanoes, there arose a tsunami or tidal wave
which may have had something to do with the drowning of
an Egyptian army bogged in the Reed Sea? But did any
explosion of Thera account for destruction on Crete? This is unsure.
Did Theran activity help arouse the plagues of Egypt? And
all this 25 years either side of 1450BC?
The Theran explosion was perhaps the biggest natural upheaval in the
known history of the day. Wilson cites an inscription from
Hatshepsut's time, about an allowing of some immigrants
(abomination of the gods) to depart, whence the earth swallowed
their footsteps. Goedicke has translated a reference to a
directive of Nun, the primeval water, father of fathers. Was the
collapse of Thera the fall of Atlantis? Was the tsunami was
reason for the Deucalion or Ogyges floods on Greece?
(The Mediterranean is tideless, and the early Church fathers
believed that the Greek floods occurred at the time of Moses'
Exodus). Wilson continues, Hatshepsut's reign began well but
ended "in mysterious disgrace for her and her first minister
Senenmut". Wilson adds, that possibly, Senenmut was blamed for
chaos on the delta, and halfway through his own reign,
Tuthmosis III ordered an obliteration of any memory of Hatshepsut'.
Friedrich mentions Velikovsky and cataclysms of about 1500BC, with an
idea that a destruction of a sinful world became represented
as the end of a golden age during which man and animal
spoke to each other and helped each other in the needs of
survival. [Here, perhaps man and animal spoke to each other in ways
suggested in Joseph Campbell's book, The Way of the Animal
Powers? But one doubts it].
Within this earlier-date timeframe, the figure emerges of the only female
Pharaoh (although a co-regent), Hatshepsut
(1437BC-1458BC) [Ian Wilson's dating], possibly as a Pharaoh of the
Oppression? Or possibly, Thuthmose III, bearing in mind that
Hatshepsut had usurped the throne of Tuthmosis III due to his youth.
But none of this is entirely satisfactory, either, as
considered history, or even as a set of dates. Packer et al, editors
perhaps to be seen as Protestant Christian
fundamentalists, date Moses from about 1526BC to 1406BC, with an Exodus
date about 1446BC, or, in the time of Tuthmosis III (plus
Hatshepsut?). This might make Moses aged about age 80 when
confronting Pharaoh in 1446BC? This might make Moses aged five in
1521BC? Packer has Moses born at the time when the Egyptians
drove out the Hyksos, 1486BC. A suggested date for Moses
fleeing into the wilderness after killing an Egyptian slave
driver is about 1446BC. But according to Packer et al, 1235BC was
about the time of writing of the book of Joshua, which
scarcely computes well. According to Encyclopedia Judaica,
Joshua became a Jewish leader in 1190BC.
Moving along... to the later date for the Exodus, around
1250BC-1230BC. If the earlier date becomes complicated by mention of
Hatshepsut, and after her, mention of the heretic Akhenaten,
the later date is vexed by an incoherent history of the Sea
Peoples, whom Velikovsky also wrote about as he searched
for coherence amid Chaos and Catastrophism.
1280BC: The Encyclopaedia Of Judaism, with the same editor as the
Encyclopaedia Judaica, gives Merneptah (1224BC-1204BC) as a possible
Pharaoh of Exodus. The Israelites had been slaves for 430
years. Here, an Exodus date might be 1280BC? The
Encyclopedia Britannica suggests 1290BC might be a useful Exodus
date, but admits this date conflicts with some
archaeological evidence. This would make the oppressive Pharaoh,
Seti I (1318BC-1304BC) and the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Ramses II
By such dates, Moses might have demanded his people be let go sometime
between 1308BC and 1216BC, which is hardly useful as a date. But
say, 1290BC-1224BC? Hence, the Oppression of the Jews might
have begun about 1350BC (which of course, by virtue of the
earlier dates given above, is well after the Exodus!).
Merneptah (1212BC- 1202BC), son of Ramses II, made ruthless raids on
Palestine, and desolated Israel. He was perhaps the Pharaoh of
Exodus, making Ramses II the Pharaoh of Oppression. The
Britannica sees the Sea Peoples as active, bothering Egypt, in
the reign of Merneptah (1236BC-1223BC); he was a 13th son of
Ramses II. In about 1177BC, Ramses III defeated the Sea
Peoples. [Mellersh]. Merneptah (reigned 1224BC-1214BC) boasted,
"Israel lies desolate, its seed is no more... All the lands in
their entirety are at peace, Everyone who was a nomad has been
curbed by King Merneptah.: [Josephine Bacon and Martin
Gilbert, The Illustrated Atlas Of Jewish Civilization. Australia.
Houghton Mifflin. 1990; Tapsell - Ramses II 1289BC and
Merneptah in 1224BC]. This information might provide an Exodus date
Mercea Eliade [The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York, Macmillan,
1987] suggests that Moses lived in the C13thBC, dates
uncertain, noting that a quest for the historical Moses is futile.
This book has no date for Joshua either, but that has
apparently not stopped archaeological research on the supposed
site of Jericho. (Meanwhile, as an example, in early 1997, of
how bad dating systems can be, we can quote (from 1997 email)
a Californian named Sanders, who claims that Merneptah,
fourth king of the Nineteenth Dynasty (and the only Egyptian
king known to have captured Gezer, according to Sanders)
was the father-in-law of Solomon.
This is interesting, since the Jewish writings comprising the Old
Testament mention only two or three Pharaohs, in neither case
mentioning the name of the Pharaoh in question. It is said, that
Solomon married "a daughter of Pharaoh". So if Sanders
believes that Merneptah was Solomon's father-in-law, how can he
account for the internal consistency of other dating
systems which might make Merneptah the Pharaoh of the Exodus?
Sanders does little more than provide a case of a USA- style
Christian doing battle with Egyptologists–but less than
entertainingly, and less than convincingly. Sanders' means of
giving "proof" for assertions relies on little more, finally,
than a feeling based on faith, that one has won a game of
snakes and ladders on unreliable timelines created by insecure historians.
And as some historians might have it, the Sea Peoples invaded Egypt in
Merneptah's 5th regnal year, about 1231BC. He was first
invaded by Libyans and Sea Peoples from Anatolia who had gone to
Libya in search of homes. But there is apparently no reliable,
specific Egyptian tradition on which king it was, who
composed in his fifth year a stele associating Israelite people with
the people of Canaan. Such a dating would give little time
for 40 years wandering in the desert
[Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible].
Now, by some available dates, the Hyksos afflicted the Egyptians
around 1700BC-1500BC. Some American Protestant Bible scholars
prefer a birthdate for Moses around 1526BC. If we are to believe
biblical genealogies, one can range forward or backward in
time to find approximate dates for Abraham (socio-political
upheavals around Ur about 2100BC?). Abraham and Terah
probably left Ur after an invasion of Mesopotamia from the West by
the Amorites. Were these possibly Amorites from Canaan,
Amorites who invaded about 2000BC? [Bacon, Atlas]. The Hebrews
settled in Egypt about 1800BC, possibly.
Some historians feel the Hebrews fled into Egypt before the Hyksos
arrived. The Hyksos conquered Egypt about 1650BC, and remained in
power there for 200 years. [Bacon, Atlas]. Bacon suggests
Ramses II as a Pharaoh of Oppression or Exodus, and Josephus
the Jewish historian who died about 100AD, dated the Egyptian
revolt against the Hyksos at 1550BC. [But Bacon's Atlas deems
Josephus' view unlikely].Perhaps, the problem of the dating
of Moses begins with Joseph? If we assume that Joseph went
into Egypt in about 1850BC-1800BC (by Bimson's redating as
noted in Wilson] or, 1650BC and the Jews were enslaved
for 430 years after that, then their enslavement ceased
about 1420BC, 1395BC or 1220BC?
Dr John Bimson has dated Joseph's time in Egypt about the time of
Sesostris III (1878BC-1841BC), near a time when there was an erratic
flooding of the Nile. Joseph was possibly an
administrator at Avaris/Pi-Ramesses, and so then the Israelites
would have been on the Nile delta for 430 years. This might
give an Exodus date about 1420BC? [Wilson].
of course, a great deal of other historical or
archaeological information which provides dates for events in other
cultures besides the Egyptians–or what became, Hebrew or Jewish
culture. It is possible to find that things become worse,
instead of better, more so with the dates around 1250BC.
Here is various information which could easily surround an
Exodus date of about 1250BC, not from Egypt, but from
Greece, or, Troy.
We find in
Wood's book on Troy, that Iphigenia was sacrificed about
1250BC as part of the prelude to the Greek expedition against
Troy. By or after 1300BC, the Egyptians had been bothered by
the largely unspecified "Sea People", or, the Sea Raiders, on
whom Velikovsky wrote as he searched for coherent dates.
around 1300BC, a rebuilding of Pylos? When was the first
destruction of Thebes? When was the greatest period of Mycenaean
building–1300BC-1250BC? Wood says that after 1300BC,
Mycenaean society was under stress. Wood tends to date the fall of
Troy about 1260BC, which fits with some chronology gained from
Hittite letters. And possibly with information on the reign
of Hattusilis III, when Hittite relations with the kingdom of
Ahhiyawa (Greeks) were becoming hostile. One date for the
Trojan War is 1250BC-1240BC [Mellersh].
Archaeologically, the Troy that the Greek poet Homer wrote about was
Troy VI, which had its phase of life around 1375BC to 1250BC.
The island of Lesbos was close, and Lesbos was sacked
around 1250BC (Homer suggests, by Achilles). One god-figure for
Lesbos was the Bronze-Age god, Smintheus, a powerful
inflictor and averter of plague: the Greeks at Troy had prayed
to him for relief.
date, 1250BC. The Encyclopedia Britannica says an early date
of Exodus could be based on 480 years elapsing from Exodus to
Solomon's building his temple. Such dating could make Exodus
about 1440BC, in the time of Tuthmosis III. But would such
a dating give the destruction of the cities the Jews
claimed to have captured as occurring about 1250BC, not
1400BC?About 1250BC: The Greeks sought commercial advantage at the
entrance of the Black Sea. [Mellersh].
suggests that from 3600BC, Troy had been established by Neolithic
settlers, from Kum Tepe by the Dardenelles. Troy was destined to
be sacked at least nine times. By 2200BC, Troy was a royal
citadel. When did the Greeks lay it to siege? Some 164 places
settled by Greeks sent troops to wage war on Troy, according
to listings given by the Greek poet, Homer. About 1300BC,
Hittite tablets clearly refer to the Achaeans and their King,
Agamemnon; some writers suggest that the pattern of Greek
places that sent ships to Troy corresponds closely to
then-settled areas now rediscovered by archaeology.
large scale grain cargoes were sent from Ugarit to Hittite
country, due to a famine. About 1250BC, Hittites were in danger
of being swept away by the Sea People. The Philistines
were one of the Sea Peoples invading Palestine and they gave
areas of Palestine their name. The Philistines settled on
the coast, and then spread inland, using iron weapons,
but new pottery, as they adopted Canaanite culture. About
1250BC poste, the Philistines settled at Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, in
one small strip [Bacon, Atlas]. About 1250BC, there was an
actual earthquake at Troy. [Wood]. Problems continue. Mosaic Law
was revealed in about 1350BC (an early date?) but this
conflicts with the history of the Sea Peoples. [Bacon, Atlas].
People apparently had many different origins and were on the move
around 1250BC, due to unclear economic and social pressures.
It appears that Dorians, Aeolians and Ionians moved into Greece
and the Aegean Islands. They probably destroyed the
Mycenaeans and drove them east. Thraco-Phrygians were driven into
Anatolia, later to bring down the Hittites. Some homeless
peoples swept south to the coasts of Asia Minor and Syria,
burning and looting as they went, until they were stopped by
Ramses III, in 1174BC on the borders of Egypt.
we find from a rock relief, a god of a Mesopotamian area,
Sharruma, holds his steward-king, Tudhaliys in his embrace;
this relief also has ideograms. We find in his book on the
Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral
Mind, that a psychologist, Jaynes, has the Trojan War in
actuality about 1230 BC, and that by then, the disaster of the
eruption destroying Atlantis had destroyed the
civilisations supported by "bicameralism". One result: neighbour
was to invade neighbour. Migrations went into Ionia and further
south. Was there a dramatic change in religious
sensibility, from benign to something more fearsome, and what caused it?
1230BC, has Tukulti-Ninurta I, tyrant of Assyria, with a
stone altar dramatically different, for he kneels in
supplication before his god–who is represented by an empty throne. The
old god has gone; the bicameral tradition has broken
down. Tukulti is Nimrod in the Old Testament and King Ninos in
Greek Myths. Nimrod had contact with some of the descendants
of Noah's sons (?); and in the Bible, Nimrod or Nimrod's
father was the first "mighty man" after the great flood.
scholars feel that the Iliad had been transmitted in the oral
tradition by Greek bards by about 1230BC, when
contemporary Hittite tablets allow inferences to be made about
cross-correspondences. (But it remains difficult to follow the history of
Greek literacy-illiteracy, and I have read one
recently-publishing, recently-translating English classics scholar who
skips over several centuries of Greek illiteracy prior to
Homer in just one unsatisfying sentence).
near one "late date" for Exodus, and this give the conquest of
Canaan about 1235BC. Some evidence exists here concerning
some destruction of Canaanite cities. Here, one could dwell
on books attempting to give a track for the Jews' progress
from Egypt to Jericho. However, patterns of any interest
are rather disturbed here, of course, by Salibi's
controversial view that Moses and the Jews quite simply forgot their way
home, and ended in an area foreign to them, when they had
originally come from areas south of Mecca, on the south-west
coasts of the Arabian Red Sea. [Salibi, The Bible Came From
date for Joshua conquering Canaan is about 1400BC, while
Joshua dies in 1380BC. [Packer et al]. But how did the
newly-arriving Israelites continue to avoid the armies of Tuthmosis
III and his son, Amenhopis II, who also was warlike? Or, did it
happen that the Israelites prevailed while the unwarlike
Akhenaten (1353BC-1335BC) was preoccupied with heresies,
the timeframe 1250BC-1200BC elsewhere in the world?
Choga Zambil, near Susa, in Iran, remnants of Elamite city of
Dur-Untash, founded 13thC BC. Vast scale but never completed.
Several palaces and a ziggurat. Use of glass and glazes.
Tichitt, earliest evidence for farming on southern fringes of
Sahara Desert, Neolithic sites here. Southern Muritania.
Fishing, cattle, goats, hunting, wild grasses gathered.
Pottery in use, stone axes. From about 1000BC, decrease in
rain dried the lakes, so fishing impossible. Moreclimatic
deterioration in 700BC.
1100BC, An-Yang, site in China of last capital of the Shang
Dynasty. Palaces, mudbricks, workshops, immense tombs.
Oracle bones and ritual vessels. Jade objects. By 1200BC, a
general move east into Anatolia by the tribes known as Sea
People, who brought the downfall of the Hittites. There was a
succeeding Dark Ages. (Does this have anything to do with the
so-called illiteracy of the Greeks about the same time?).
Jaynes has Shang Chinese royal tombs with slaughtered
retinues and animals, rather as in Mesopotamia. Tuchman
dates the fall of Priam's Troy as near the end of the Bronze Age,
around 1200BC. Greece at this time had mercantile and
maritime ambitions. By 1200BC were Mycenaean times in Greece,
when Agamemnon, son of Atreus, was King of Mycenae in the citadel
with the Lion gate, just south of Corinth.
says some violent cause at about the time of the fall of Troy,
but probably over a longer period, ended the primacy of Mycenae
and the literate polities of Knossus at Crete, with which it
was linked, and there followed a 200-year shadowy void called
"the Greek Dark Ages", when written language seems to have
vanished completely, although the oral tradition kept the stories
of the heroes alive (there was some recovery of
civilisation when the Dorians arrived). The Iliad had 16,000 lines and
the Odyssey had 12,000 lines.
Jaynes has fragments of the later Epic of Gilgamesh on some
Hittite and Hurrian fragments, although a more usual date for
these fragments is about 1700BC. Jaynes notes the
"de-bicameralised" changes as including the injection of
subjectivity. There arose questions such as: what arises in the human
heart? It would be some time before history was invented as
a matter of inquiring, independently of the actions of
the Gods: what does the human agency accomplish? (Herodotus,
the father of history).
1200BC: destruction of Troy VIh. The Sea People invasions
were active between 1210Bc to 1180 BC. According to yet another
book, the Sea Peoples were from Crete, and were repulsed by
Ramses III by about 1190BC.
Greece was overrun by the Dorians, who settled the Peloponnese
Medes, the Indo-Aryans, settled in the west and north of
the Iranian plateau, with a capital at Hamadan.
Much of Iran emerged into history with the advent of the
Mannaeans and the Indo-Aryan Medes and Persians, who then played a
dominant role in the Near East.
the voyages of Odysseus (Ulysses) about 1000BC to 800 BC, a
journey of deviousness, following the breakdown of the
bicameral mind after the loss of Atlantis. Following this, subjective
consciousness took root in Greece. Of course, asking what
happened to Atlantis, or where it was, by this time is
problems may also lie near the ambit of the
Velikovskian controversy? The question of the invention of literacy?
Packer et al convey a legend that Egyptian political prisoners
in Central Sinai invented an alphabet, at Serabit el-Khadem,
using proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. An idea of an alphabet
spread north to Canaan. Evidence exists at Ugarit.
1500BC, appeared the dark side of the All-mother in Malta, at
Hal Tarxien; a seven-foot goddess, obesely pregnant. The blood
of victims was caught in a deep vessel which was symbolic of
the divine vagina [Miles].
1500BC: First Mycenaean influences on Crete, arrival of second
script, Linear B. A form of Greek, imported from the Greek
mainland. After the destruction of Knossos about 1500BC, probably
from an earthquake at Thera. Here, Velikovsky has a comet, or,
Venus as a rogue planet, causing a catastrophe, and Moses
crossing the Reed Sea in 1484BC. But, some say, Knossos remained
occupied until 1375BC.
the above is satisfactory, whether or not one is concerned
with vindicating Velokovskian-type scenarios, of rogue
planets roving the sky under which humanity lived, delivering
terror, or not. If rogue planets roved the sky, one can see few
reasons why it would not be mentioned or alluded to in
mythologies around the world. And who knows, if rogue planets had
upset Earth, perhaps that is one reason legends of a Great
Flood are in fact worldwide–and unexplained as well? ***I
gathered the truncated notes and conflicting dates mentioned
above, and many more, some years ago, almost by accident.
Exodus date of about 1250BC-1230BC intrigued me the most, since
accumulating dates and their various sorts of
corroborating data made the following scenario–that about the same
time as the Exodus, the Greeks subdued Troy–various islands in
the Mediterranean may have blown up, humanity may or may not
have produced or lost literacy, the Sea People bothered
Egypt–and none of any such correspondences of events is
especially clear in the world's encyclopedias. I concluded
that whether Velikovskian scenarios are correct or not,
information remains in a mess. This is why I find it strange
that Velikovskians, or their enemies, have not yet codified
their information on corrobatory information arising near or far
from Egypt–from as far away as China or South America.
as with the views of Protestant Bible historians from the US
(Packer et al), that a respectable motive exists to tie
Bible history to the findings of modern archaeology. The
information arising from any such Bible scholars' experiments
in world history, or pre-history, ought to be reliable
enough for us to gradually link research information arising
from one area in other areas of research.
of hypotheses could then be linked up, but one would
imagine, information concerning dates would tighten up usefully.
But little of this seems to happen usefully, and if anything,
opinions become more and more divergent. Here, I cannot see
it is necessarily relevant that one ought to be up-to-date on
the state of the Velikovskian debate or on the state of
any other debate. It is plain that information simply will not
behave itself. Any scholar or pseudo-scholar can arrange
information as they please, then disparage almost anyone
else's information. They can do this with information created or
used within the confines of almost any discipline–Egyptology
or comparative religion or archaeology, carbon dating,
whatever–and get away with it, because information for
rebuttal is also unreliable.
seem to have improved little since 1950, when Velikovsky
was first wishing to publish. And of course, cultural
critique is a good deal more complex than simply trying to
find sets of historical dates that harmonise.
presently, all that one can do is recommend that those interested
produce a basic and relevant chronology, and insert into that
chronology, all relevant corroborative information, notes on
all relevant disputes about methodological rigour, so that those
interested can at least try to narrow the
timeframe(s) we could apply to the Velikovskian debate(s). All I can say
about what I have found, is that allegedly relevant dates drawn
from a wide range of books on a wide range of topics,
simply do not add up. What I can't understand is why so few
people seem to notice how badly the dates behave. It does not
seem reasonable, and therefore, I regard the
Velikovskian debates as remaining–to put it bluntly–unreasonable.
Simultaneity as a Method in Historical Research
does simultaneity work as a method of research in history? It
becomes useful for sifting through competing theories,
but can be time-consuming to apply. Firstly, one has to throw a
net wide enough to embrace all competing theories, and in
practice, this involves treating a timeframe somewhat larger than
the data relevant to the competing theories.
also suggests that apart from gathering a wider spread of
debates, one also has a better chance of catching not dates,
but themes which might be less then suitable for attachment
to mere dates. Then, one establishes a cast of characters,
who may be influenced by old themes, or produce their own
new themes. Then begins the slow creep through each year of the
timeframe, revisiting each character's biography, assessing
how their actions or themes interact and influence each other.
"Simultaneity" is a matter of constant digging, which I developed
as a way of linking the early European history of Australia
to world maritime history, from 1786-1788 (which has resulted in
many surprising findings, some of which are now published,
some of which are being refined). When I last re-read books
by Velikovsky, I simply applied my method of
simultaneity–and ended up entirely unsatisfied.
seems to have used a method resembling
simultaneity, at least sometimes. [See Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval.
London, Abacus, 1973. First published in 1956, pp. 241ff].
Velikovsky noted, claims of 1948 by Claude Schaeffer about
unexplained and probably simultaneously occurring disasters
in separately settled areas; that the dating for Exodus
remained an unsolved problem, a simultaneity of Egyptian
and Jewish history, Mediterranean and Cretan history, perhaps
referring to the explosion of Thera. But Velikovsky simply did
not cast a net widely enough, neither in time, nor
geographically–not if he was wishing to treat matters allegedly
afflicting the entire planet and its skies. If anything,
he cast his net in the heavens, where proof is hardest to
find, what is now being called archaeo-astronomy.
simply do not believe Velikovsky when he says, that 600-700
years have disappeared from historical timetables–because it
remains so difficult to prove whether such centuries
disappeared before or after any claimed Velikovskian
generation of concern with dates is found in Merrill C.
Tenney, (Ed.), The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House,
1963. This book was published when the Velikovskian controversy
was young, and it anyway reflects a state of knowledge
and timelines independent of Velikovsky's own views on dating
Zondervan dictionary gives us the following sorts of
information: Moses was born circa 1520BC. An early date for Exodus is
circa 1440bc, although some scholars date the Exodus as late as
1225BC. (A bibliography on various dates can be found in
Samuel C. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks. New York,
Harper, 1960., pp. 47-49). Abraham's coming to Egypt in this book
is dated about 2000-1970BC. The Hyksos were driven out in
1580BC. If the Exodus date of about 1440BC is accepted, Thuthmose
III is Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Hatshepsut becomes
Moses' protectress. Here, Ahmose I would be the "pharaoh
who knew not Joseph". The breakdown of Egyptian control in
Palestine when Ahkenaten reigned might help explain the Hebrew
another set of dates, one Pharaoh of Exodus would be Seti I
(131BC-1292BC), and Ramses II is either Pharaoh of Oppression
or of Exodus. Solomon meanwhile died 930BC; he was the second
son of David and Bathsheba, and third and last king of United
Israel. Solomon reigned in the time of King Hiram of Tyre, as is
noted in a chronology within the Old Testament record on
Solomon's reign. Do we find an acceptable date for the Queen
of Sheba? Solomon's temple was dedicated in Solomon's
11th regnal year, 950BC. And from all this it would appear that
scholars–and Christian believers–had
chronological problems before Velikovsky began his research.
The more a
date for Exodus, or anything else, floats like a leaf in a
lake of four centuries of time, sometimes prior to
Velikovskian catastrophes, the worse it looks for Velikovsky's theses, in
respect of any stupendous and widespread "cosmic upheavals"
and registration of upheavals in mythologies. What any people
saw from Egypt, or Palestine, ought to have been visible
from South America, Australia, Russia and China, from Britain,
Scandinavia, southern Africa, Japan–whether the
"information" is scientifically verifiable, or whether it is information
arising from myths, folktales, any retrospective literary
account, anthropological studies, or archaeological artefacts.
the Velikovskian debate perhaps remain culture-bound, tied too
tightly to mythological and cultural material, even scientific
material (such as mathematics) which arose around the
Mediterranean, such that the participants in the debate can't see
out? I rather suspect this.
in the Western World, the Velikovsky debate provides
all too much room for argument between Evolutionists and
Creationists, both of whom are influenced by a sense of history
dominated by the Mosaic Chronology. So here one might ask: are
there any ways out of the cage of the tensions existing in
relations between Evolutionists and Creationists?
one follows the Mosaic Chronology for orthodox religious
reasons or not, it remains odd that forty years after
Velikovsky published, neither his friends nor his opponents
have succeeded in resolving differences in various sorts of
history... differences which mean that if we want to find a date
for Exodus, or anything we can associate with Exodus as
an event-in-time, we fail, since we have two main timeframes
to use, and we have to make a choice–between one date before
the theorized Velikovskian catastrophe, and one date during
or after the catastrophe.
(February-April 1997), there is on the Internet an impressive
site which would be useful for researches relevant to more
mytho-poetic aspects of the Velikovskian debate (my own areas
scepticism remains. I doubt if anyone could read all the books
noted on this site, or imbibe other information referred to
on this site, and develop a chronology that would enable
useful hypotheses to be drawn in a way such that inter-disciplinary studies would produce information which became
self-reinforcing as to the conclusions one might reasonably draw. The
information resulting, I predict, would remain excessively
contradictory. (At least, one feels duty-bound to declare
that if the emperor is wearing no clothes, then, ergo, he must be
naked–but it does depend, which emperor does one mean? I
mean: the emperor of discussions that become
today's technology, there are few reasons why those
interested could not maintain and regularly update
chronological material relevant to the Velikovskian debate. I look
forward to the day such an Internet site can be seen–the
information presented ought to be quite entertaining across a
actually, any mention of the humourous sides of all this is also
semi-spurious. If the available information is as bad as I
suggest above, the situation is more or less, culturally tragic. It
remains odd that pro-Velikovskians seem not to perceive
the ironies of this. The evolutionists burst
ecclesiastical immutability in geology, the catastrophists attempt to
burst assumptions of geological gradualism. Cosmology
becomes highly mathematical, mankind sets foot on the moon
and sends probes to Mars and beyond... but Prehistory remains
enigmatic; ignorance seems to win.
problematical, that the world-wide spread of mythology
concerning a world-wide, Great Flood, although unproven
and undated, remains generally acceptable when seen in more
purely literary terms.
in both scientific and historical terms, claims exist that
rogue planets roved the skies and disturbed humanity's
pristine equanimity–also unproven and poorly dated. The
evidence concerning catastrophes due to rogue planets
however is not acceptable, since the problems are not perceived
to have been world-wide, and the controversy itself is not
widely accepted–and cannot be proved to have had world-wide
effect–not as far as science, history or mythology
to be missing, then, in the Velikovskian debates, is a
perception of how problematical the overall situation remains,
that is actually useful.
Byrnes, Freelance Writer (Australia)
version of this article was written February-8 April, 1997 (See
Date for Exodus - A Basic Bibliography
Aldred, Akhenaten: King of Egypt. London, Thames and Hudson,
Aldred, Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt: A New Study. London,
Abacus, 1972 Edn.
Attenborough, The First Eden: The Mediterranean World and Man.
London, Collins-BBC, 1987.
Bacon and Martin Gilbert, The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish
Civilization. Australia, Houghton Mifflin, 1990.
Bass, A History of Seafaring. London, Thames and Hudson,
Brome, Jung: Man and Myth. London, Macmillan, 1978.
Bruce, The End of Atlantis: New Lights on an Old Legend. London,
Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Charles, The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford at the
Clarendon Press. First published, 1913.
Campbell, The Way of the Animal Powers: A Historical Atlas of
World Mythology. Vol. 1. London, Times Books, 1984.
Campbell, The Masks of the Gods. (Series).
Cirlot, (translated from the Spanish by Jack Sage), A Dictionary
of Symbols. New York, Philosophical Library, 1962.
Cloud, Oasis in Space: Earth History from the Beginning.
New York, Norton, 1988.
Daniel, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London,
Mercea Eliade, The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York, Macmillan,
Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House, 1971.
Forrester-Brown, The Two Creation Stories in Genesis: A Study of
their Symbolism. London, Shambhala, 1974.
Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. London,
Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote The Bible? New York, Harper and
Row, 1989 Edn.
Friedrich, The End of the World: A History. New York, Coward,
McCann and Geoghegan, 1982.
Furneaux, Ancient Mysteries: Mysteries of Time and Space.
London, Futura Publications Ltd., 1976.
Gardner, The Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of
Jesus Revealed. Shaftesbury, Dorset, Element, 1996 or
Brisbane, Jacaranda Wiley, 1996.
Gaskell, Dictionary of All Scriptures and Myths: A Classic
Reference Guide to the Sacred Language of the Religions
of the World. New York, Avenel Books, 1981.
D. Ginsburg, The Essenes: Their History and Doctrines.
New York, Samuel Weiser Inc., 1974. With a companion
essay in the same volume, The Kabbalah: Its Doctrines,
Development and Literature.
Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary
Introduction. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1987.
Graves, The Greek Myths. Two Vols. Ringwood, Victoria, Penguin
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. New York, Abingdon Press,
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral
Mind. Citation mislaid.
Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections. London, Random House,
Jung, (Editor), (and M. L. von Franz, Joseph L. Henderson,
Jolande Jacobi and Aniela Jaffe), Man and his Symbols.
New York, Dell Publishing Co., 1973.
Keller, The Bible as History: Archaeologists show the Truth of
the Old Testament. Sydney, Lion Book, 1989.
Lemesurier, The Great Pyramid Decoded. Element, Brisbane,
Queensland, 1996. First published in Great Britain in 1977.
The Route of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.
London, Edward Arnold and Co., 1938.
H. E. L.
Mellersh, Chronology Of The Ancient World, 10,000BC to AD 799.
? Barrie and Jenkins, Communica Europa, 1976.
Michell, City of Revelation. ?
Michell, The View over Atlantis. London, Abacus, 1984.
Michell, The Flying Saucer Vision: The Holy Grail Restored.
London, Abacus, 1974.
Millard, James K. Hoffmeir, David W. Baker, (Eds), Faith,
Tradition and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near
Eastern Context. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbraus, 1994.
Miles, The Women's History of the World. London, Michael
Munitz, (Ed), Theories of the Universe: From Babylonian
Myth to Modern Science. London, Free Press, Macmillan,
1957. With essays on or by Socrates, Kepler, etc.
Newman, (Ed.), The World Of Mathematics: A Small Library of
the Literature of Mathematics from A'h-Mose the Scribe to
Albert Einstein. US, Tempus, 1956.
Noorbergen, The Ark File. London, New English Library, 1974.
Packer, Merrill C. Tenney, William White Jnr, (Eds.),
Almanac. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1980.
Pfeiffer, Egypt and the Exodus. Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Baker Bookhouse, 1964.
Clare Prophet, Forbidden Mysteries of Enoch: The Untold
Story of Men and Angels. Malibu, California, Summit University
Rowley, Moses and Monotheism, in From Moses to Qumran: Studies in
the Old Testament. London, Lutterworth Press, 1963.
Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain: The Romance of Science. London, Hodder and
Kamal Salibi, The Bible Came From Arabia: Radical
Reinterpretations of Old Testament Geography. London, Pan, 1987. First
published in 1985.
Sander, The Sea People: Warriors of the Ancient
Mediterranean, 1250-1150. London, Thames and Hudson, 1978.
Severin, The Jason Voyage. Century-Hutchinson. early 1980s.
Spence, The Encyclopedia of the Occult. London, Bracken Books,
Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable. Basic Books,
Suares, The Cipher of Genesis: The Original Code of the Qabala as
Applied to the Scriptures. New York, Shambala
Publications/Bantam Books, 1973. [On letter-number
combinations in the Hebrew alphabet]
(a British UFO researcher), Atlantis and the Lost Lands.
London, Aldus, 1976.
Tapsell, Monarchs, Rulers, Dynasties and Kingdoms of the World.
London, Thames and Hudson, 1983.
Tenney, (Ed.), The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House,
Thomas, Archaeology and Old Testament Study: Jubilee Volume of
the Society for Old Testament Study, 1917-1967. Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1967.
Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision. London, Abacus, 1972.
Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval. London, Abacus, 1973. First
Wendt, I Looked for Adam: The Story of Man's Search for his
Ancestors. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1955. Translated
from the German by James Cleugh.
Iman Wilkens, Where Troy Once Stood. London, Rider, 1990. (Devoted to
an idea that the battle for Troy was conducted France
Gardner Wilkinson, The Ancient Egyptians: Their Life and
Customs. London, Studio Editions, (Reprinted) 1990.
The Exodus Enigma. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
Wood, In Search of the Trojan War. London, BBC, 1985.
< Finding a
date for Exodus - Notes by Dan Byrnes Finis >