Chronology Revisionism chronoligical dating

Is chronology revisionism now outdated?

Is chronology revisionism, the investigation to try to get a correct date line for history, now past its sell by date, is it now outdated?

Various ancient civilisations history do not seem to co-ordinate well, with gaps, Dark Ages, and seemingly repetition of rulers and events.

Old and new findings can seem to not fit in or contradict previous standard chronology. Why is this?

Could our history be out of date?

Chronological Revisionism chronology revisionist

Many wondrous things happen when historical perspective is distorted. In order to understand the scope of the displacements in the history of the ancient world, one must try to conceive of the chaos which would result if a survey of Europe and America were written in which the history of the British Isles were some six hundred years out of line, so that in Europe and America the year would be 1941 while in Britain it would be 1341.

As Columbus discovered America in 1492, the Churchill of 1341 could not have visited this country, but must have visited some other land – the scholars would be divided in their opinion as to the whereabouts of that land – and met its chief. Another, chief, not Franklin Delano Roosevelt of Washington, would live in history as cosigner of a charter with Churchill of Britain in 1341.

But as American records would speak of Churchill who crossed the ocean in the early forties of the twentieth century, British history would also have a Churchill II, six hundred years, after the first one.

Cromwell would also be doubled by the same process. He would have to live three hundred years before Churchill I and also three hundred years after him, or three hundred years before Churchill II.

The First World War would be fought twice, as would the Second, The First World War, in its second variant, would follow the Second World War, In its first variant, by five and three quarter centuries.

By the same token, the development of the Constitution, the cultural life, the progress of technology and the arts, would appear in chaotic distortion.
Ages In Chaos Volume I: A reconstruction of ancient history from the Exodus To King Akhnaton | Immanuel Velikovsky

Does it really matter if there are dating errors in very old history? Does it effect our modern understanding of what happened and when it happened?

Do we need a revised chronology, do we need a new chronology?

Chronological Revisionism

Chronology Revisionism chronoligical dating

Immanuel Velikovsky, one of the main dating revisionists, also helped inspire the Electric Universe theory. The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) was set up in the 1970’s to discuss and investigate his theories, including his Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval.

The Revision of Ancient History – A Perspective by P John Crowe on the SIS site is a detailed explanation with links to the history of how we got our standard chronology and chronology revisionism alternatives.

It was found that ‘The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage’ (also known as the ‘Papyrus Ipuwer’), a text considered to be from the end of the Old Kingdom by some, but from the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt by Velikovsky and others, appeared to tell of the same events as the disasters and plagues that befell Egypt at the time of the Exodus – although the end of the Middle Kingdom was supposed to have existed several hundred years prior to the biblical date for the Exodus.

However, when events so similar in detail are found, but in each people’s past they appear to be hundreds of years apart, then we should consider whether the orthodox dating is correct.
SIS Introduction: Chronology | Society for Interdisciplinary Studies

Most of us assume that we know precisely when historical events occurred in ancient history- after all, encyclopedias and textbooks list, year by year, the reigns of various kings and the dates of various battles. In reality, however, the situation is far murkier than this. In fact, the entire edifice of ancient chronology is built upon the reconstructed chronology of Egyptian civilization. All other civilizations are “keyed” into Egyptian history.

… The backbone of any revisionist chronology must be the destruction of Egypt. The basic outline of Egyptian history by mainstream historians is as follows:
1. Old Kingdom
2. First Dark Age
3. Middle Kingdom
4. Second Dark Age
5. New Kingdom
6. Sack of Thebes

As you can see, there are two dark ages here. Revisionists such as Donovan Courville have argued that the Old and Middle Kingdoms actually ran parallel to each other, and that the two dark ages ought to be identified.
An Introduction to Chronological Revisionism | Pravoslavie

Effects of wrong history dates and order?

Any large errors in the correct dating of our history can also create cultural and technological ages in chaos. Carrying on with Immanuel Velikovsky’s introduction he says:

By the same token, the development of the Constitution, the cultural life, the progress of technology and the arts, would appear in chaotic distortion.

Newton in England would become an early forerunner of Copernicus instead of following him. Joan of Arc would revive the old traditions of the suffragettes of the post-Victorian days; she would be burned twice with an interval of six hundred years between; or, with the growing confusion of history, she would have to return to die stake a few centuries from today to suffer her death again.

In the case presented, not only the history of the British Isles would be doubled and distorted, but also the history of the entire world. Difficulties would, of course, arise, but they would be swept away as oddities.

Complicated theories would be proposed and discussed, and if accepted, they would establish themselves as new, strong obstacles to a correct perception of past history.

Ancient history is distorted in this very manner. Because of the disruption of synchronism, many figures on the historical scene are “ghosts’* or “halves” and “doubles.” Events are often duplicates; many battles are shadows; many speeches are echoes; many treaties are copies; even some empires are phantoms.

The primary error can be found in Egyptian history; because of retardation, the history of Egypt was taken out of real contact with the histories of other peoples.
Ages In Chaos Volume I: From the Exodus To King Akhnaton | Immanuel Velikovsky

Revised and New Chronology

The controversy over the chronology of Ancient Egypt has not entirely gone away. The Egyptologist David Rohl has put forward his own revised chronology; Peter James has also put forward a revised chronology similar though not quite identical to Rohl’s in Centuries of Darkness. Although they share some common ground with Velikovsky in terms of their criticisms of the orthodox chronology there are some important differences.

In particular, these recent revisionists consider that the chronology of the Ancient Near East becomes “fixed” with the conquests of the Assyrians in the 7th century BCE, i.e. at this point the history of the Ancient Near East becomes sufficiently well established that the orthodox view cannot be questioned. Velikovsky would have disagreed, he carried his revisionism down into the Late Period in Ancient Egyptian history, and considered that the history of the Ancient Near East only becomes “fixed” with the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BCE. John J. Bimson’s book Redating the Exodus is based on a similar chronological revision.

More recently Emmet Sweeney, an adept of Velikovsky, has launched a series of books named Ages in Alignment. These generally accept the synchronisms and character identifications proposed by Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos. More specifically, in Empire of Thebes, Sweeney has presented an in-depth defence of such pivotal identifications as Hatshepsut = Queen of Sheba and Thutmose III = Shishak. But he differs from Velikovsky in bringing all of these characters down into the seventh century BC, to be in line with stratigraphic evidence presented by Gunnar Heinsohn.
Other chronological revisions inspired by Velikovsky – Ages in Chaos | The Velikovsky Encyclopedia

Immanuel Velikovsky chronology revision debunked? Velikovsky still colliding by Leroy Ellenberger.

A number of suggestions for alternatives to the consensus on the conventional chronology have been presented during the 20th century:

  • The Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky as postulated in his Ages in Chaos series.
  • The chronology of Donovan Courville as described in The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications.
  • The Glasgow Chronology formulated by members of Velikovsky’s Society for Interdisciplinary Studies in 1978.
  • The Centuries of Darkness (1991) model by Peter James et al. “would move the end of the Egyptian New Kingdom from 1070 BC to around 825 BC”, and lower all earlier dates with it, due to miscalculations of the Third Intermediate Period.
  • The New Chronology of David Rohl, as described in his Test of Time series.

Alternative chronologies – Egyptian chronology | wikipedia

List of some chronology revisionist writers:

List of chronological revised sites.

Immanuel Velikovsky related historical revisionism books

Revisiting Velikovsky: An Audit of an Innovative Revisionist Attempt by J Eric Aitchison. Subjects covered and investigated in the ebook include:

  • Was Zerah the Ethiopian also Amenhotep II?
  • The El-Amarna Letters
  • The Enigma that is Haremhab
  • The Egyptian Widow’s Letter
  • The Conventional Link between Dynasties XXI and XXII
  • Moses, The Israelite Calendar and the Sabbath
  • Egyptian Planetary Calendars

You can review and read Revisiting Velikovsky on Scribd and on that page it also includes a review from the publisher.