Minimalist vs Maximalist
In Response To: More About Chronology ()


In the conventional chronology, whenever there is doubt whether two kings or dynasties are contemporary or not, it is generally assumed that they were not. This is the safe choice, but it does not reflect reality very well. The conventional chronology can be dismissed on this basis alone. Nature (including human nature) abhors a vacuum. Therefore, we ought to expect that kings and their dynasties almost always had rivals who were standing ready to supplant them and even actively working to accomplish their downfall.

I visit the "Waste of Time" forum every now and then. There is a lot of very good discussion and information, however the participants are only open to very minor adjustments (a few years up or down) to the conventional chronology. They are certainly entitled to hold this position and there is no point in trying to convince them to do otherwise. The brave and sacrifical work of Velikovsky, Rohl and James has actually served to innoculate academia against any fundamental change. Moreover, as long as this solidarity in academia remains, serious consideration of revised chronologies cannot happen, including my own.