Velikovsky's Sources
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
The purpose of this posting is to announce the availability of a new on-line resource for Velikovskian studies ("Velikovsky's Sources") at http://donmillion8.wix.com/velikovskyssources, and to explain the reasons for it.
In recent and forthcoming issues of the C&C Review, I have been presenting a series of papers examining Velikovsky's uses of his sources in the Ages In Chaos series. Their origin lay several years ago, in an on-line discussion in the New Chronology forum, in which I sought to defend aspects of Velikovsky's chronology, and as part of that endeavour bought an original edition of Naville & Griffith's Mound of the Jew. I was disturbed to find how thoroughly Velikovsky had misrepresented the El Arish shrine inscription, to the extent of even (in seven instances) significantly altering the actual wording of the text.
That was the first of three circumstances which led, ultimately, to my C&C papers and this posting. A year or so later, I attempted to write an essay defending Velikovsky's "Hatshepsut/Queen of Sheba" equation against the allegations made in David Lorton's paper, "Hatshepsut, the Queen of Sheba, and Immanuel Velikovsky" (http://reocities.com/Athens/academy/1326/hatshepsut.html). I found that, despite his claiming that he would cite Velikovsky's "relevant passages in full" so as to "escape the frequent complain on the part of Velikovksy’s supporters that his critics misrepresent or misquote him", the earlier sections of Lorton's paper did indeed misrepresent him at several points. There were also numerous weaknesses in the early part of that argument. For example, to support the idea that the Queen of Sheba came from Yemen and not from Egypt, he wrote that, "as a glance at a map will show, ... the southwest corner of Arabia, which is only a little to the east of due south from Israel, [is] a more likely origin for the 'queen of the South' than Egypt, which is decidedly to the southwest". Lorton should have looked; a glance at a map showed me that Thebes (longitude 32.6° E) is less than 3° from due south of Jerusalem (35.2° E), whereas Taiz (44.0° E), very close to "the southwest corner of Arabia", is "decidedly" to the southeast of Israel by almost 9°.
However, my essay fell apart when I reached the section in which Lorton discusses Velikovsky's use of Hatshepsut's Deir el Bahari inscriptions. Obtaining a library copy of Breasted's Records, Vol 2, I found that Lorton was correct in his allegations that Velikovksy had severely misquoted the inscriptions. There were no actual changes of Breasted's wording, but very significant omissions. I tried to find justifications for these (I'd put a lot of work into the essay so far), but eventually abandoned the work as hopeless.
My faith in Velikovsky's scholarly integrity was disturbed by these realisations (I could hardly call them "discoveries"), but the mass of evidence gathered by the unfortunate Eddie Schorr ("Israel Isaacson") left me still convinced that a 500-year anomaly in ancient chronology remained to be explained. At this juncture, Eric Aitchison, who is dedicated to a similar Velikovskian revision rather than the 250- or 350-year revisions of James and Rohl, invited me to join his email group. In a discussion of what seemed to be one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for a major chronological displacement, I was led to find, via the Internet, the sources that Velikovsky used in his discussion of the supposed "Greek tiles of Ramses III"--and found that there, too, he had manipulated his quotations to make it appear that his sources were saying things they had not in fact said, and that there too he had suppressed without discussion important information--especially a perfectly reasonable explanation for the Greek-letter tiles, not involving chronological revision, a reason which I later found was accepted by Eddie Schorr.
At a later stage, I found that Velikovsky had similarly misused (or possibly seriously misunderstood) his sources in relation to the identity of Nectanebo I, and to the PRST wars of Ramses III. First, however, in the context of a long series of exchanges on the El Arish shrine, I undertook to find and investigate the sources for his "Arabian Amalekites" theories in the same volume of Ages In Chaos, which led in turn to investigation of his use of the Biblical accounts of the Amalekites. I found that he had seriously abused his sources in both those cases, especially in the case of the Islamic sources--discoveries which resulted in my first two C&C papers.
My papers on the Greek-letter tiles, Ramses II, Nectanebo I, and other topics are yet to be written. However, the purpose of this posting is not to start a discussion on these matters (though members are welcome, of course, to follow up on what I've written above), but to announce the commencement of a major work in trying to assemble into one place as many as possible of Velikovsky's sources for the Ages In Chaos series. It will be a long labour which may never be completed, involving not only transcriptions of English from old, faded publications, but the transcription also of hieroglyphs, and translations from Latin, German, and French. However, the work has been begun, and the results can be seen at the web site. All are welcome to browse the works so far uploaded, which consist of pdf files with Prefaces by myself. The sources uploaded so far are a patchwork relating to various chapters of Ages In Chaos and Peoples of the Sea, with more to come as time permits.
Share and enjoy!
-- Don Mills
In recent and forthcoming issues of the C&C Review, I have been presenting a series of papers examining Velikovsky's uses of his sources in the Ages In Chaos series. Their origin lay several years ago, in an on-line discussion in the New Chronology forum, in which I sought to defend aspects of Velikovsky's chronology, and as part of that endeavour bought an original edition of Naville & Griffith's Mound of the Jew. I was disturbed to find how thoroughly Velikovsky had misrepresented the El Arish shrine inscription, to the extent of even (in seven instances) significantly altering the actual wording of the text.
That was the first of three circumstances which led, ultimately, to my C&C papers and this posting. A year or so later, I attempted to write an essay defending Velikovsky's "Hatshepsut/Queen of Sheba" equation against the allegations made in David Lorton's paper, "Hatshepsut, the Queen of Sheba, and Immanuel Velikovsky" (http://reocities.com/Athens/academy/1326/hatshepsut.html). I found that, despite his claiming that he would cite Velikovsky's "relevant passages in full" so as to "escape the frequent complain on the part of Velikovksy’s supporters that his critics misrepresent or misquote him", the earlier sections of Lorton's paper did indeed misrepresent him at several points. There were also numerous weaknesses in the early part of that argument. For example, to support the idea that the Queen of Sheba came from Yemen and not from Egypt, he wrote that, "as a glance at a map will show, ... the southwest corner of Arabia, which is only a little to the east of due south from Israel, [is] a more likely origin for the 'queen of the South' than Egypt, which is decidedly to the southwest". Lorton should have looked; a glance at a map showed me that Thebes (longitude 32.6° E) is less than 3° from due south of Jerusalem (35.2° E), whereas Taiz (44.0° E), very close to "the southwest corner of Arabia", is "decidedly" to the southeast of Israel by almost 9°.
However, my essay fell apart when I reached the section in which Lorton discusses Velikovsky's use of Hatshepsut's Deir el Bahari inscriptions. Obtaining a library copy of Breasted's Records, Vol 2, I found that Lorton was correct in his allegations that Velikovksy had severely misquoted the inscriptions. There were no actual changes of Breasted's wording, but very significant omissions. I tried to find justifications for these (I'd put a lot of work into the essay so far), but eventually abandoned the work as hopeless.
My faith in Velikovsky's scholarly integrity was disturbed by these realisations (I could hardly call them "discoveries"), but the mass of evidence gathered by the unfortunate Eddie Schorr ("Israel Isaacson") left me still convinced that a 500-year anomaly in ancient chronology remained to be explained. At this juncture, Eric Aitchison, who is dedicated to a similar Velikovskian revision rather than the 250- or 350-year revisions of James and Rohl, invited me to join his email group. In a discussion of what seemed to be one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for a major chronological displacement, I was led to find, via the Internet, the sources that Velikovsky used in his discussion of the supposed "Greek tiles of Ramses III"--and found that there, too, he had manipulated his quotations to make it appear that his sources were saying things they had not in fact said, and that there too he had suppressed without discussion important information--especially a perfectly reasonable explanation for the Greek-letter tiles, not involving chronological revision, a reason which I later found was accepted by Eddie Schorr.
At a later stage, I found that Velikovsky had similarly misused (or possibly seriously misunderstood) his sources in relation to the identity of Nectanebo I, and to the PRST wars of Ramses III. First, however, in the context of a long series of exchanges on the El Arish shrine, I undertook to find and investigate the sources for his "Arabian Amalekites" theories in the same volume of Ages In Chaos, which led in turn to investigation of his use of the Biblical accounts of the Amalekites. I found that he had seriously abused his sources in both those cases, especially in the case of the Islamic sources--discoveries which resulted in my first two C&C papers.
My papers on the Greek-letter tiles, Ramses II, Nectanebo I, and other topics are yet to be written. However, the purpose of this posting is not to start a discussion on these matters (though members are welcome, of course, to follow up on what I've written above), but to announce the commencement of a major work in trying to assemble into one place as many as possible of Velikovsky's sources for the Ages In Chaos series. It will be a long labour which may never be completed, involving not only transcriptions of English from old, faded publications, but the transcription also of hieroglyphs, and translations from Latin, German, and French. However, the work has been begun, and the results can be seen at the web site. All are welcome to browse the works so far uploaded, which consist of pdf files with Prefaces by myself. The sources uploaded so far are a patchwork relating to various chapters of Ages In Chaos and Peoples of the Sea, with more to come as time permits.
Share and enjoy!
-- Don Mills