Forum

More About Chronology
In Response To: A Word About Chronology ()

Here is a website with many articles regarding revised chronology:
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html

In that site, I emphasize this three writings, although all of them (nearly a hundred) are very interesting:
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Bennett1.html
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Bennett2.html
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Bennett3.html

I dont say that chronological revision is not required or wrong, but I think that all chronological reconstitution would have to be based on entirely verified events to be completely exact and precise. For example, Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies are based on Ptolomeus and Berosus king-lists, that have many astronomical notes which are presently verified by modern Astronomy (therefore we know that Year 6 of Shalmeneser III (Battle of Karkak against King Ahab and others Canaanite kings) can be dated with a great degree of certainty in 853 BC). Not having exactly references for earlier periods is a problem, so Rohl & James works and their claims are very valuable, if not exact. Personally, I think that continuously quoting Velikousky and trusting his works seem to me very little serious (his historical model claims a kind of movement for planets which is absolutely impossible from laws of Physics. It is said that Carl Sagan, the renowned astronomer, said once: Velikousky tells about History and Astronomy, I am not historian but astronomer, and say that Velikouskys claims on Astronomy are completely erroneous, and a historian replied him And I am historian, not astronomer, and I say that his historical claims are erroneous as well), however he could be right in a few points and be valuable in these ones, but is necessary to manage his work very carefully.

-scar

Responses To This Message

Minimalist vs Maximalist