IF I SEEK US
Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

Intelligent, reasonable men of good will SHOULD be able to agree on things that matter.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Reading Sequence, and Article Synopses

Miscellaneous Articles

Advice on Intoxication
Ancient Explosion Reports
Ancient Scholastics
Anecdotes
Annals of Addiction
Some Atheist Questions
Can We Agree on these?
Constructive Criticism
Critical Issues
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
Telepathic Ability
Some Pertinent Parables
Personal Experience
Perspective on Myth
Questions Better than Answers
The Road to Saturn Thesis
Sacred Writings
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
Some Conclusions
The Velikovsky Affair Journals
What is a Prophet?
Video-lecture links

But 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
Last edited: 02/17/2020

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:18:41 +-1000

Subject: Exodus article 

  http://www.bec.com.au/armidale/dbyrnes/db.html

SECTION 1

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 "simultaneity".

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.

SECTION 2

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?

SECTION 3

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, around 1450BC.

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.

SECTION 4

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 (1304BC-1237BC).

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 of 1280BC-1250BC?

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].

SECTION 5

There is, 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.

Was there, 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.

About a 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].

Wood 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.

By 1250BC, 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].

The Sea 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.

By 1250BC, 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?

Jaynes, in 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.

Modern 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).

SECTION 6

1275BC is 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 Arabia].

1400BC: One 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, and Armarna?

SECTION 7

What about the timeframe 1250BC-1200BC elsewhere in the world?

1300BC: 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.

1200BC: Dar 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.

1200BC to 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?).

By 1200BC, 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.

Tuchman 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.

By 1200BC, 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).

By about 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.

1120BC: Greece was overrun by the Dorians, who settled the Peloponnese and Crete.

1000BC: The Medes, the Indo-Aryans, settled in the west and north of the Iranian plateau, with a capital at Hamadan.

1000BC: 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.

Jaynes has 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 exhausting.

SECTION 8

But more problems may also lie near the ambit of the Velikovskian controversy? The question of the invention of literacy?

1500BC: 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.

Also about 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].

Also 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.

SECTION 9

Little of 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.

The later 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.

I imagine, 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.

Any variety 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.

Matters 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.

So 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.

SECTION 10

On Simultaneity as a Method in Historical Research

So, how 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.

Doing this 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.

Velikovsky 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.

Finally, I 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 catastrophe!

An earlier 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 problems.

This 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 conquest there.

But by 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.

So, does 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.

Certainly, 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?

And whether 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.

Now, (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 of interest):

http://members.aol.com/areaoasis/Reviews/pythagoras.html

But my 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 unnecessarily divergent–Velikovsky).

Still, with 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 multi-disciplinary front.

But 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.

It remains 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.

Meanwhile, 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 can demonstrate.

What seems to be missing, then, in the Velikovskian debates, is a perception of how problematical the overall situation remains, that is actually useful.

<Finis>

 Dan Byrnes, Freelance Writer (Australia)

http://www.bec.com.au/armidale/dbyrnes/db.html

This version of this article was written February-8 April, 1997 (See bibliography below)

Finding a Date for Exodus - A Basic Bibliography

Cyril Aldred, Akhenaten: King of Egypt. London, Thames and Hudson, 1988.

Cyril Aldred, Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt: A New Study. London, Abacus, 1972 Edn.

David Attenborough, The First Eden: The Mediterranean World and Man. London, Collins-BBC, 1987.

Josephine Bacon and Martin Gilbert, The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization. Australia, Houghton Mifflin, 1990.

George F. Bass, A History of Seafaring. London, Thames and Hudson, 1972.

Vincent Brome, Jung: Man and Myth. London, Macmillan, 1978.

J. V. Bruce, The End of Atlantis: New Lights on an Old Legend. London, Thames and Hudson, 1969.

R. H. Charles, The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford at the Clarendon Press. First published, 1913.

Joseph Campbell, The Way of the Animal Powers: A Historical Atlas of World Mythology. Vol. 1. London, Times Books, 1984.

Joseph Campbell, The Masks of the Gods. (Series).

J. E. Cirlot, (translated from the Spanish by Jack Sage), A Dictionary of Symbols. New York, Philosophical Library, 1962.

Preston Cloud, Oasis in Space: Earth History from the Beginning. New York, Norton, 1988.

Glyn Daniel, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London, Macmillan, 1978.

Mercea Eliade, The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York, Macmillan, 1987.

Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House, 1971.

James S. Forrester-Brown, The Two Creation Stories in Genesis: A Study of their Symbolism. London, Shambhala, 1974.

J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. London, Macmillan, 1970.

Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote The Bible? New York, Harper and Row, 1989 Edn.

Otto Friedrich, The End of the World: A History. New York, Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1982.

Rupert Furneaux, Ancient Mysteries: Mysteries of Time and Space. London, Futura Publications Ltd., 1976.

Laurence Gardner, The Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed. Shaftesbury, Dorset, Element, 1996 or Brisbane, Jacaranda Wiley, 1996.

G. A. 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.

Christian 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.

Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1987.

Robert Graves, The Greek Myths. Two Vols. Ringwood, Victoria, Penguin Books, 1977.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. New York, Abingdon Press, 1962.

Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Citation mislaid.

Carl G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections. London, Random House, 1961-1963.

Carl G. 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.

Werner Keller, The Bible as History: Archaeologists show the Truth of the Old Testament. Sydney, Lion Book, 1989.

Peter Lemesurier, The Great Pyramid Decoded. Element, Brisbane, Queensland, 1996. First published in Great Britain in 1977. Revised, 1996.

A. Lucas, 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.

John Michell, City of Revelation. ?

John Michell, The View over Atlantis. London, Abacus, 1984.

John Michell, The Flying Saucer Vision: The Holy Grail Restored. London, Abacus, 1974.

A. R. 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.

Rosalind Miles, The Women's History of the World. London, Michael Joseph, 1988.

Milton K. 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.

James R. 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.

Rene Noorbergen, The Ark File. London, New English Library, 1974.

J. I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney, William White Jnr, (Eds.), The Bible Almanac. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1980.

Charles F. Pfeiffer, Egypt and the Exodus. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Bookhouse, 1964.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Forbidden Mysteries of Enoch: The Untold Story of Men and Angels. Malibu, California, Summit University Press. 1977.

H. H. 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 Stoughton, 1979.

Kamal Salibi, The Bible Came From Arabia: Radical Reinterpretations of Old Testament Geography. London, Pan, 1987. First published in 1985.

Nancy K. Sander, The Sea People: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 1250-1150. London, Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Tim Severin, The Jason Voyage. Century-Hutchinson. early 1980s.

Lewis Spence, The Encyclopedia of the Occult. London, Bracken Books, 1988.

Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable. Basic Books, Circa 1981.

Carlo 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]

Roy Stenman (a British UFO researcher), Atlantis and the Lost Lands. London, Aldus, 1976.

R. F. Tapsell, Monarchs, Rulers, Dynasties and Kingdoms of the World. London, Thames and Hudson, 1983.

Merrill C. Tenney, (Ed.), The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1963.

D. Winton Thomas, Archaeology and Old Testament Study: Jubilee Volume of the Society for Old Testament Study, 1917-1967. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967.

Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision. London, Abacus, 1972.

Immanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval. London, Abacus, 1973. First published, 1956.

Herbert 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 versus England.)

Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, The Ancient Egyptians: Their Life and Customs. London, Studio Editions, (Reprinted) 1990.

Ian Wilson, The Exodus Enigma. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985.

Michael Wood, In Search of the Trojan War. London, BBC, 1985.

< Finding a date for Exodus - Notes by Dan Byrnes Finis >

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey