The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material.
All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.


Postby John » Tue 09 Feb 2016 1:12 pm

In Support of Velikovsky

I am surprised and disappointed at the apparent absence in SIS ranks (a Society formed to expound his ideas) of any recognition of the wholesale incorporation of Velikovsky's interpretation of catastrophe theory, wandering bodies, colliding bodies, the birth of planets, etc. by conventional science. Almost every day some pundit 'introduces' the 'new' idea that all is not as was thought and that catastrophe rules! Never even a mention of Velikovsky or even of his successors. Over the past ten years or so much effort has been spent 'proving' him wrong in details (no man is ever completely right) and (virtually) nothing said in support of his astonishing pioneering interpretation of matters both cosmological and historical.

Right or wrong, he opened forever doors to progressive radical thinking that had been bolted shut by hidebound conventional 'philosophy' (certainly not science!).

Even in the SIS, with its widely publicised theories of chronology, it seems that despite criticizing and 'proving' him wrong, the critics cannot agree (even among themselves) which itself demonstrates the huge difficulties such research faces.

Again, without the input of such a great, courageous and tenacious personality, even if flawed, these foibles of historical record would most probably have remained unconsidered by any beyond a very few left crying unheard in an intellectual wilderness.

The level of interest and effort he displayed in researching his sources (so many) is remarkable, involving as it did, the interpretation of ancient language, customs, myth and ideology, yet again opening closed (or forgotten) doors to understanding. Much has been learned by those checking and sometimes correcting those sources.

The inspiration engendered by the life and works of this great man deserve the unstinted respect of every thinker, including those who think him completely wrong. Not the first catastrophist, he was the first mythologist in that he recognised widespread myths as reflections of true events. Indeed, I think it was the 'pillar of fire by night' Bible story, mentioned worldwide, that ignited his own burning interest in solving its mystery.

Perhaps someone more 'with it' than my now ancient self, could write a full article bringing the now rampant clash between Velikovskian catastrophe theory and the dying conventional nonsense into a clearer perspective.

John Kalber
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Re:Another Word On Velikovsky

Postby John » Sun 14 Feb 2016 11:46 pm

In adding to my moan about SIS members failing to note the outrageous claims of conventional scientists to have recently discovered what Velikovsky had already published way back in 1950 and thereafter, I have come across an earlier comment I wrote way back on
Wednesday, 30 November 2011 !!

I am very concerned at the continuous derogation and marginalisation of the work and ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky, to me, the greatest original thinker since Albert Einstein.
My views are tempered by the belief that, in the history of our world, no original thinker has ever proved to be absolutely right. We must accept them, warts and all. They have been for political reasons, so far, almost exclusively men. The politics of history have deliberately excluded the gentler sex and created a psychology, even among women, that supported and enforced a blind and stupid arrogance common to the male sex.
The fallacy of this convention is now daily exposed and has, hopefully, fallen into irrecoverable decay.
Nonetheless, the academic sport of stealing the ideas of a great man, whatever his flaws, then using them to promote ideas that parallel but cast doubt upon the veracity of the originator, seems particularly in the case of Velikovsky, to have been organised to create a spurious, large and lucrative ‘anti Velikovsky’ marketplace.
His interpretation of history, of physical changes in geology, the conflict among the planets, the rich and fertile subject of Myth, which we now know as ancient history, all these have been twisted, reinvented and otherwise used by his traducers.
I make my position clear. I have not studied his work in great depth though I have read his principal works. I have also read much of the opponents and ‘improvers’ ideas.
The difference is that – in the absence of final prove – I find Velikovsky’s ideas, in the main, more convincing, more consistent with physical and mythological evidence than the conclusions of the revisionists. Many of these latter conclusions seem to reflect the ideas of what many now see as the outmoded and fundamentally flawed character of so called standard science. Many seeming impossibilities in his geology are the clearly possible, even probable, effects of gigantic electrical force. Either way their formation is now seen as the result of catastrophic events.
For those, like myself, who credit ancient mythology as a remarkably accurate record of past events, (even though their original ancient interpretation must have reflected the intellectual and scientific limitations of their time), it seems probable, to the point of certainty, that the legends and activities of planets, illustrate episodes of actual, physically visible events, however subsequently interpreted.
If the ancients claim they saw Venus born of Jupiter, then behave as a ‘hairy’ comet, then that is what happened! If such prestigious and calamitous events did not happen then there would be no reason to credit any serious importance whatsoever to the other ‘myths’, so carefully, so fondly preserved by dedicated historians and among the common people.
Much tripe has been published and discussed in the Society as to Velikovsky’s ‘take’ on ancient history. Books have been written, films made in an effort to ‘prove’ new alternative chronologies. All have signally failed to be accepted. Curiously, that is not necessarily because they are wrong. They suffer from the same frailty that afflicted Velikovsky – the absence of proof.
I will identify one famous ‘spin off’, the ideas of Dwardu Cardona. He credits Velikovsky with correctly identifying myth with history, but disputes his other ideas. Recognising the myths about the close visibility of Saturn and its place as an ‘alternative’ Sun, he has constructed a planetary system that (necessarily) includes an Earth that revolved around Saturn and was life supporting.
He proposes that this minor solar system migrated from the disintegrating Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and, over the course of hundreds of thousand, possibly millions of years was finally attracted to and captured by our Sun.
Where would he and the 'revisionists' be without the new, thinking impetus, generated at a high level by the perhaps flawed genius Velikovsky?
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Re: Velikovsky

Postby ericaitch » Mon 20 Feb 2017 3:26 am

Hi John,
Belatedly I have come across your plea to honour the works of Velikovsky.
Unfortunately bolstering Velikovsky requires an unshakeable belief that he was correct in most instances.

After forty five years of delving I had come to the conclusion that as a "door opener" he was first class. But as a user of data, he was a mess.

He built a chronology on four pillars but on close investigations, and drawing on all available evidence his pillars become pillows for dreaming.

Saul cannot have been at Avaris, Hatshepsut never went to Punt, Thutmose cannot be Shishak nor was Amenhotep II the Zerah from the Bible.

So strongly did I believe that he erred that after those forty five years I paid good money to have an ebook on line to address his errors.

It can be found by Googling VELIKOVSKY REVISITED.

My faith in the man as a "door opener" was / is so strong that I chose to seek out a better alternative to those el Amarna years.

I despair that he was so close to correct and I trust that my efforts may yet see his claim to excise 600 odd years from Egyptian history upheld.

First though we need to get a stable Egyptian history and a stable Biblical history. My wrestling with Biblical History has convinced me that Thiele's handling of data is far better than the alternatives, Ussher, Anstey, Tetley, Panin etc. What I've seen of some INERRANCY CLAIMS causes there to be gaps in the divided monarchy king periods. Such gaps are never alluded to in the Biblical Story. Thus I favour Thiele but see the Fall of Samaria circa 709 BC by following the extra Biblical data given us by Josephus.

It is Assyrian History that is wrong, not the Biblical. Velikovsky should have realised this.

We need revisit him,

Posts: 14
Joined: Sat 22 Dec 2012 11:00 pm

Re: Velikovsky

Postby donmillion » Fri 24 Feb 2017 11:11 am

Dear John,

I must echo Eric Aitchison's comments, while commiserating with your distress. It echoes my own feelings from around 20 years ago when I received an original copy of the Naville and Griffith volume containing the full text of the el-Arish shrine inscription, and found how grievously Velikovsky had distorted the text, to the point of outright falsification of no fewer than six "quotations". I assumed that this was a one-off problem, but five years later I was able to read the full text of Hatshepsut's Punt Reliefs in Breasted, and read the alternative translation and view the full set of photos published by Naville, and found that there, too, Velikovsky had distorted the words of the text, and even "faked" an important image that doesn't actually exist.

Eric Aitchison referred to Saul's not being present at Avaris. For a full account, see his book; but briefly, Velikovsky was misled here by an over-eager interpretation of his chosen source text, Breasted, who peculiarly chose to translate the simple Egyptian passive voice using the construction "one". He used the same construction in translating a text of Thutmose III, but Velikovsky did not dare suggest that that meant that the King of Israel assisted Thutmose in the conquest of Retenu! But Velikovsky also glossed over the indications in the Egyptian text of a naval battle as well as land engagements at Avaris--details which made his equation of Avaris with the "Amalekite city" of Saul impossible.

I still accept the need for substantial chronological revision, and must credit Velikovsky with having awakened my interest and presented an amount of valuable evidence amongst all the misquotations and obfuscations; but I must agree with the conclusions of the Glasgow Conference, that his historical reconstruction cannot be made to work.

Don Keith Mills
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue 19 Aug 2014 3:16 pm

Re: Velikovsky

Postby John » Tue 28 Feb 2017 1:09 pm

Hello DON
Thanks for your comments. On the face of it there appears to be a strong case that the great man may have given way to human weakness. I, at the moment, have no spare time to research these accusations and as the old chap is no longer with us, there is no rush! However I am a steady and (so far!) loyal supporter. In my own mind, I major in logical analysis tempered by experience of the many (often near incredible) quirks of human nature.

I respect the approach, despite massive and deeply wounding opposition, taken by Velikovsky, however he would not be the first great man to falter in his stride.

BUT... There is always a ‘but’! This was a man of wide education and stoic determination, a founder of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a qualified psychiatrist, a consummate teacher and student, virtually unparalleled in the meticulous supporting of his ideas with detailed references.

This is a history applicable in its public quality to the very few.

For him to deliberately lie about the content of his sources bespeaks some sort of mental breakdown. There is nothing in his behaviour in the decades since WIC to indicate this - absolutely nothing. Mayhap I am blind and cannot see but you wouldn’t think so by reading my posts etc (no books as yet!), so it is in the personal certainty of my own sanity, that (subject to further study!) I will liken this unlikely Velikovsky to a man who gives to another a primed and loaded gun and a copy of his sources and says if you can prove me a liar - shoot me! Completely cuckoo!

Not even an utter fool would tell you precisely where to find absolute proof of his guilt. I know of no other writer who referenced his work in such meticulous detail.

I say, (again and again), IF there is error and it is very clear that some think there is there must surely be some other, rational, explanation. Obviously his attitude was one of deep commitment to his (then unique) interpretation of worldwide catastrophic events, but whilst I recognise history throws up the most amazing people, I know of not one who openly leads you directly to his faults and failings. Not even one.

Speaking, as I am, from a standpoint that presently lacks my own concrete research, it has always been that until Velikovsky, ancient history was an apparently settled matter. He exposed this fallacy in dramatic fashion. It follows therefore that all ‘sources’ would be flawed in some measure.

Perhaps, reinterpreting sources by reference to his new conclusions meant he should put them in a more ‘correct’ light. He was, it should be remembered, an intensely busy man. Weeks, months even years, spent finding, reading, understanding and critically reviewing information.

Could it not be that, under such pressure, he may have convinced himself that his re-interpretation of others words had become a truth to him.

Wrong - yes, but deliberate falsehood - No.

As by now you might have guessed (!) I am keen to honour the memory of the greatest man of our time. I will be deeply disappointed if Velikovsky turns out to be so critically flawed. If so, he will join the ranks of pretty well everyone else!
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Re: Velikovsky

Postby ericaitch » Thu 02 Mar 2017 3:02 am

Hi John,

I must agree that Velikovsky was a trail blazer extra ordinaire but my own research has unfortunately shown many blemishes.

I was introduced to Velikovsky in the 1960's and was hooked. HOWEVER, it soon became apparent that there were structural errors in his chronology.

These perceived errors led me a merry chase as I, aka Don Mills, probed the references used by Velikovsky. My resources documents include SIS Review and Workshop, Thoth, Pensee, Kronos and Aeon plus access by letter and emails to my peers who appear so often in those journals.

I applied my accountancy skills to do an audit of his proofs within his major pillars, especially those dealing with the Amarna Letters.

The shock was palpable. Obvious detail was left out of the argument. Application of this "extra" data changed the thrust of his intent.

Thus I thank him for opening those doors and letting in more light, I thank him for the concept of removing 600 years of Dark Ages.

But I cannot forgive him for ignoring and or subverting the evidence before him,

Posts: 14
Joined: Sat 22 Dec 2012 11:00 pm

Re: Velikovsky

Postby ericaitch » Fri 24 Mar 2017 1:24 am

The Placement of Dynasty XXII

With some fanfare in “Ages in Chaos” Velikovsky finishes his Dynasty XVIII with Pharaoh Ay, arguing that Akhenaten and the period of el Amarna is in the times of the Biblical king Ahab and, by default, introduces the Libyan Dynasties from circa 830 BC.
There are few dates in “Ages in Chaos” but what there are limits our investigation.
We are indebted to John Holbrook Jnr. who created a spreadsheet in the centrefold of Pensee IV, Number 3, 1973. From investigating “Ages in Chaos” I have determined that certain dates are there correctly given in Thiele’s Biblical manner. For instance King David is given at 1000 BC and controls the start date of Pharaoh Ahmose, circa 1000 BC.
In his Conclusion Velikovsky lays his cards on the table by linking David with Ahmose and Amenhotep I. He also twice (pages 329 and 339) tells us that Akhenaten is contemporary with the Biblical King Ahab. As King Ahab begins his reign circa 880 BC (Thiele) and finishes circa 858 BC then such span should cover the reign of Akhenaten. Velikovsky, at least from page 308 links the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III with characters from the el Amarna letters. Velikovsky gives the start date of Shalmaneser III as -858. Thus we can be assured that it is within the times of Shalmaneser III that the el Amarna correspondence occurs.
Orthodox start dates for David and Ahab are 1016 and 880 BC respectively, a period lapse of 136 years.
Reading from Holbrook’s centrefold based on given Velikovsky dates David is circa 1000 and Ahab circa 865 BC, a period lapse of 135 years. We can change David into Ahmose and Ahab into Akhenaten for those statements. Ahmose, linked to David, commences circa 1000 BC radical but 1550 BC if we follow Grimal from this www site ... hmose.html . That same WWW site will give the start date of Akhenaten as 1360 BC. That site does not seem to favour the co regency question.
We are now perplexed as two ranges are before us; 1000 BC less 865 BC or 135 yrs till Ahab and 1550 BC less1350 BC or two hundred years (200) till Akhenaten for persons alleged to be contemporary.
There is no argument that I can find in “Ages in Chaos” where this anomaly of a shortening by sixty-five years (65) is explained.
This period for Dynasty XVIII (Ahmose to Ay) is “confirmed” by Holbrook where he ceases Pharaoh Ay at 830 BC and immediately commences Dynasty XXII. Again, no explanation is given for selecting 830 BC as the start date of Dynasty XXII.
But some help is at hand. In two accepted SIS articles are arguments placing Thutmose III as Shishak in either 925 BC (Thiele) or 982 BC (Montgomery). The date of 982 BC relies on the extended Ussher type dates that extend Biblical History by some sixty years. Getting some relativity into these dates requires an appeal to Convention (Grimal) for Egyptian sequences. Grimal starts Thutmose III in 1458 BC and ends Amenhotep III in 1352 BC, a period lapse of 106 years. Both pharaohs are deemed LB IIA.
According to Holbrook Velikovsky starts Thutmose III in 925 BC and commences Akhenaten circa 850 BC; a period lapse of but seventy-five years (75 years) encompassing Amenhotep III and erasing thirty years at one fell swoop. Again no argument is presented.
Our interest is piqued when we consider the authority invested in Table 3 of Alan Montgomery from SIS 2014. There, whilst dealing with the strata data details of Beth Shan, we are told that in 982 BC Thutmose III was Shishak and that in 875 BC (Ussher dating) there commenced Dynasty XXII, which, according to Velikovsky was the last year of Pharaoh Ay. The period lapse was one hundred and seven (107) years.
Grimal has the start of Thutmose III in 1458 BC and the end of Amenhotep III at 1352 BC, a period lapse of one hundred and six (106) years. Are not these two periods close to the same period and has not Table 3 confirmed that Amenhotep III is correctly placed to finish one hundred and six years after the beginning of the reign of Thutmose III? Is not the period lapse between 982 – 875 radical close to being the same as 1458 – 1352?
This requires that one hundred and six years after the Shishak event in 926 BC that Amenhotep ceased to reign. Thus his death is computed at 820 BC. He is followed by Akhenaten, Smenkhare, Tutankhamun and Ay, roughly twenty years according to my count and finishing XVIII in 800 BC but not according to Velikovsky.
Thus Dynasty XVIII ran on for thirty six years whilst running concurrently with early Dynasty XXII.
No parallelism is given for this situation, thus, imho, it negates the placement of these worthies. There has to be a better alternative. Velikovsky and with him John Holbrook Jnr., has it wrong.

Eric A, December 2016
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat 22 Dec 2012 11:00 pm

Re: Velikovsky

Postby ericaitch » Thu 27 Apr 2017 5:18 am

Dynasty XXII Anomalies

Whilst dealing with “Egypt – the Centre of the Problem”, pp 220 – 261, James [1] et al specifically dealt with Libyan artefacts outside Egypt [2]. After some pages of text readers are presented with Table 10.3 which lists ten specific finds with this proviso:
“List of principal 22nd and 23rd dynasty finds outside of Egypt which have independently dated contexts. The dates given are the earliest allowed by the local archaeological evidence; those for the Byblos statues follow [the claims of] Wallenfels (1983)”[3]
The dates for the ten dynastic personnel are conventional following the agreed date for the start of XXII in 945 BC. Thus the “movement” from “conventional” to “indicated” is relatively large. Some given shifts are 945 – 925 BC to circa 800 BC for Byblos, 874 – 850 BC to circa mid 8th for Samaria or circa 700 BC, Spain and 773 – 767 BC to circa 720 BC, for Carthage.
In a much later set of correspondences James [4] et al said that they now followed Brunet [5]. That situation will result in this Table.

Dyn XXII Oxford Dyn XXII Brunet Dyn XXII yrs Africanus James
Shoshenq I 945 924 Shoshenq I 836 815 Sesonchis 21 836 815 800 BC
Osorkon I 924 889 Osorkon I 815 800 Osorthon 15 815 800 Early 8th
Takelot I 889 874 Takelot I 800 793 Three Others 25 800 775
Osorkon II, 874 850 Os II, T II & Sh III 793 769 Takelot II 13 775 762 Mid 8th
Takelot II 850 825 Tak II & Shosh III 769 750 700 BC
Shoshenq III 825 773 Shoshenq III 750 720 Three Others 42 762 720 720 BC
Pamai 773 767 Pamai 720 714 720 BC
Overall 178 122 116

We now return to the specifics of Table 10.3 from “Centuries of Darkness”, page 253. The pharaohs there mentioned include Shoshenq I, Osorkon I, Osorkon II, Takeloth II, Shoshenq III and Pimay, aka Pamay.
Appraising the shifts claimed by James and using these newly accepted dates one is enthralled by these situations.
The Oxford History’s Dynastic members incorporate Osorkon IV immediately after Shoshenq III but places Pamai before Shoshenq III. The overlaps earlier found to cause the co regencies of Osorkon II, Takelot II and Shoshenq III surely require that Pamai must follow Shoshenq III; does not the Apis’ data require this?
The last Libyan burial of an Apis’ bull is under Shoshenq V whom we see as a possibility for Susinku from Assyrian invasion times which must perforce be after 681 BC. Does this require that Osorkon IV has to be later than Shoshenq V? The Oxford thinks so. According to Holbrook, Velikovsky never dates Osorkon IV but does appear to place Shoshenq III circa 750 BC. James, “Centuries of Darkness”, at page 304, questions the existence of an Osorkon IV and argues that he was Osorkon III. As our revision places Osorkon III circa 720 for Carthage, 700 BC for Spain, well might we be tempted now to claim the cross link between Haremhab and an Osorkon but letting him be Osorkon III following James.
We must never forget that Velikovsky also saw the start of Dynasty XXII from 836 BC [6] though no references were given
J. Eric Aitchison, North Lambton, Australia
1. James, Peter, “Centuries of Darkness”, Jonathan Cape, London, 1991
2. Ibid., pages 247 ff
3. The Bibliography directs readers to Wallenfels, R., 1983, “Redating the Byblian Inscriptions”, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 15, 79 – 118
4. Peter James confirmed in an email that he now followed Rupert L Chapman III; citing, “Putting Sheshonq I in His Place”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 141, 1 (2009), 4 – 17. Thus James’ date for the start of XXII is 836 BC
5. ... s_TIP.html Brunet, Jean-Frederic, “The XXIInd and XXVth Dynasties Apis Burial Conundrum”, Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF), Vol. 10, page 31 or see electronic posting.
6. Holbrook John, Jnr, Notes concerning the Outline of History, Centrefold, Pensee IV, No 3, 1973
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat 22 Dec 2012 11:00 pm

Re: Velikovsky

Postby ericaitch » Fri 01 Sep 2017 5:28 am

This question of Dynasty XXII and its start date has received renewed interest by the publication of

SOLOMON and SHISHAK, Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology.

The proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, March 2011,

edited by Peter James, Peter van der Veen and assisted by Robert Porter,

Its worth the investment,

ERIC A, September 2017
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat 22 Dec 2012 11:00 pm

Re: Velikovsky's sources - a possible resolution

Postby John » Sat 03 Feb 2018 11:05 pm

Since outset, I have been very unhappy with the references to [indisputable] evidence that suggests that a great and original thinker, Immanuel Velikovsky had stooped to altering sources that he then referred to and published. It makes no sense – none at all.
Velikovsky always trod the path of reason and honesty.
This then demands an alternative solution. I had pretty well always assumed that he must have had a helper or two. I have been very reluctant to air this view as it blames others who must remain unnamed and undefended. I had hoped that some concrete information would surface but - unsurprisingly - none has. This leaves some questions unanswered.
The depth and variety of his references, particularly in obscure languages, is unequalled. The time and effort involved were gargantuan! This man was intensely occupied in different studies and had a remarkable level of active involvement. How he did all that alone completely baffled me. And - made me wonder!
Now, some 50-60 years later, puzzling misquotations have been discovered throwing some of his work into question.
I do not doubt the research that has uncovered these quite amazing distortions. Interestingly, these questionable sources are principally in English, making fewer demands on a helper.
It is my belief that he must indeed have had help. With such research, one cannot rely on memory alone. Notes must be made – piles of them. More time, more labour. Collating all that information and relating it to particular parts opinion his written work was an onerous full-time task.
Velikovsky simply must have been helped!
This man presents as a very proud and fiercely determined character. He was absolute in his sense of personal responsibility, well aware of the opposition his work was facing. So, as do many writers, he ensured that any criticism would fall on his shoulders alone. A worthy and honourable posture.
The ‘helper’ must have been someone who had his complete trust and probably affection. I believe this unknown assistant altered ‘quotations’ in the mistaken belief that he, Velikovsky, [already under absolutely tremendous pressure] needed to be bolstered up and morally supported by seemingly authoritative source material.
I have an opinion as to the helper/s identity, but nothing in the way of proof.
I realise that my conclusion could be interpreted as wishful thinking, but despite colossal pressure and insulting rejection by the scientific community [well prior to publication!] he still went ahead, with a prominent, unaltered and detailed source list. He would surely have fully expected both his sources and interpretations to be challenged. The scientific community already long hostile to both him and his work, could easily have engaged [at no cost!] some lackey to check them.
Even Velikovsky did not anticipate that they would be so arrogant they would check no reference, no conclusion. They had raged wildly at his temerity in challenging conventional astronomy, bringing pressure by refusing to allow him space in scientific publications. I simply do not, cannot believe that it is reasonable to believe that such a man would undermine his own Herculean efforts, let alone do it in such a stupidly well-documented fashion!
That this factor bespeaks the work [interference] by some other could hardly be plainer.
I rest my case!
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests