What do you think?
Rate this book
Ages in Chaos #2
Peoples of the Sea : A Reconstruction of Ancient History-A Continuation of the Ages in Chaos Series
The Sea Peoples were a confederacy of seafaring raiders of the second millennium BC who sailed into the eastern Mediterranean, caused political unrest, and attempted to enter or control Egyptian territory during the late 19th dynasty and especially during Year 8 of Ramesses III of the 20th Dynasty.
The Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah explicitly refers to them by the term "the foreign-countries (or 'peoples']) of the sea" (Egyptian n3 ḫ3s.wt n<.t> p3 ym) in his Great Karnak Inscription. Although some scholars believe that they invaded Cyprus, Hatti and the Levant, this hypothesis is disputed.
The Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah explicitly refers to them by the term "the foreign-countries (or 'peoples']) of the sea" (Egyptian n3 ḫ3s.wt n<.t> p3 ym) in his Great Karnak Inscription. Although some scholars believe that they invaded Cyprus, Hatti and the Levant, this hypothesis is disputed.
261 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1977
About the author
Immanuel Velikovsky
84 books131 followersImmanuel Velikovsky was a Russian-born American independent scholar, best known as the author of a number of controversial books reinterpreting the events of ancient history, in particular the US bestseller Worlds in Collision, published in 1950. Earlier, he played a role in the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, and was a respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.
His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Bible) to argue that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. In positioning Velikovsky among catastrophists including Hans Bellamy, Ignatius Donnelly, and Johann Gottlieb Radlof[2], the British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier noted ". . . Velikovsky is not so much the first of the new catastrophists . . . ; he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to mediaeval times and probably earlier." Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics. He also proposed a revised chronology for ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel and other cultures of the ancient Near East. The revised chronology aimed at explaining the so-called "dark age" of the eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1100 – 750 BCE) and reconciling biblical history with mainstream archeology and Egyptian chronology.
In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community. Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia. The controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair".
His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Bible) to argue that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. In positioning Velikovsky among catastrophists including Hans Bellamy, Ignatius Donnelly, and Johann Gottlieb Radlof[2], the British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier noted ". . . Velikovsky is not so much the first of the new catastrophists . . . ; he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to mediaeval times and probably earlier." Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics. He also proposed a revised chronology for ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel and other cultures of the ancient Near East. The revised chronology aimed at explaining the so-called "dark age" of the eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1100 – 750 BCE) and reconciling biblical history with mainstream archeology and Egyptian chronology.
In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community. Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia. The controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
Read
April 25, 2024Peoples of the Sea by Immanuel Velikovsky
Date: 25 April 2024
Rating: hmmmm
Velikovsky narrates events from the Persian conquest of Egypt to the Hellenistic/Ptolemaic age, only there seems to be something funky going on with the accepted Ancient Egyptian historical chronology, which seems to be out by about 800 years.
Velikovsky starts off by trying to identify who the infamous and mysterious 12th century B.C. (i.e. end of the Bronze Age) "Sea People" of Pharaoh Ramses III's inscriptions were and were they came from. Examining various available Egyptian inscriptions, Hebrew/Biblical inscription, Greek and other ancient texts, bas-reliefs, and other archaeological evidence, Velikovsky makes a compelling case for identifying the "Sea People" as groups of 4th century B.C. Greek fighters (sometimes mercenaries) and Persian armed forces (i.e. the Peleset/Pereset) that Ramses III (known as Pharaoh Nectanebo to the Greeks such as Diodorus) defeated. What the inscriptions and bas-reliefs on Ramses III's mortuary temple illustrate is actually the 4th century B.C. wars between the Greeks (Peoples of the Seas being a generic name for the conglomeration of tribes made up of Aegean peoples i.e Peoples of the Isles, and specifically the Athenians) and the Persians, and the part that Egypt played in it. Egypt at that point had been invaded by the Persians, who also made use of Greek mercenaries. With six to eight centuries of historical discrepancy, Velikovsky then attempts to consolidate the Egyptian dynasties to the textual and archaeological evidence. An interesting appendix is provided that discusses how the currently accepted chronology was reached and why it isn't up to snuff.
However! I don't know very much about Ancient Egyptian history, nor am I an expert in Near East or Aegean archaeology, so I can't tell if Velikovsky is on to something, if he is mis-interpretting findings, or if history just has a habit of repeating itself and the available evidence and clues just look similar. Velikovsky's other books apparently provide more information and revision of Near Eastern historical chronology (the Hittites are apparently just Chaldeans?), so I may have a look at those if I ever find them. It should also be noted that this book was published in 1977, so new archaeological finds have been made and new studies produced in the last half decade. It would be incredibly helpful if someone who is an expert on Egyptian, Aegean and Near Eastern archaeology and history, could dissect Velikovsky's hypotheses honestly (with minimal pre-conceived notions) and let us know if the man is mistaken or has a point.
Provides food for thought.
Date: 25 April 2024
Rating: hmmmm
Velikovsky narrates events from the Persian conquest of Egypt to the Hellenistic/Ptolemaic age, only there seems to be something funky going on with the accepted Ancient Egyptian historical chronology, which seems to be out by about 800 years.
Velikovsky starts off by trying to identify who the infamous and mysterious 12th century B.C. (i.e. end of the Bronze Age) "Sea People" of Pharaoh Ramses III's inscriptions were and were they came from. Examining various available Egyptian inscriptions, Hebrew/Biblical inscription, Greek and other ancient texts, bas-reliefs, and other archaeological evidence, Velikovsky makes a compelling case for identifying the "Sea People" as groups of 4th century B.C. Greek fighters (sometimes mercenaries) and Persian armed forces (i.e. the Peleset/Pereset) that Ramses III (known as Pharaoh Nectanebo to the Greeks such as Diodorus) defeated. What the inscriptions and bas-reliefs on Ramses III's mortuary temple illustrate is actually the 4th century B.C. wars between the Greeks (Peoples of the Seas being a generic name for the conglomeration of tribes made up of Aegean peoples i.e Peoples of the Isles, and specifically the Athenians) and the Persians, and the part that Egypt played in it. Egypt at that point had been invaded by the Persians, who also made use of Greek mercenaries. With six to eight centuries of historical discrepancy, Velikovsky then attempts to consolidate the Egyptian dynasties to the textual and archaeological evidence. An interesting appendix is provided that discusses how the currently accepted chronology was reached and why it isn't up to snuff.
However! I don't know very much about Ancient Egyptian history, nor am I an expert in Near East or Aegean archaeology, so I can't tell if Velikovsky is on to something, if he is mis-interpretting findings, or if history just has a habit of repeating itself and the available evidence and clues just look similar. Velikovsky's other books apparently provide more information and revision of Near Eastern historical chronology (the Hittites are apparently just Chaldeans?), so I may have a look at those if I ever find them. It should also be noted that this book was published in 1977, so new archaeological finds have been made and new studies produced in the last half decade. It would be incredibly helpful if someone who is an expert on Egyptian, Aegean and Near Eastern archaeology and history, could dissect Velikovsky's hypotheses honestly (with minimal pre-conceived notions) and let us know if the man is mistaken or has a point.
Provides food for thought.
August 8, 2015
Immanuel Velikovsky is probably best known for his 'Worlds in Collision' theory, or the theory that the planetary paths of the members of the solar system have not always been fixed, and that these variations explain phenomena in Earth's history, such as the record of the deluge in Genesis. He also rather well-known for the 'Velikovsky Affair', in which Velikovsky received such condemnation from mainstream scientists for his outlier theories that Carl Sagan felt compelled to take his fellow scientists to task for their rancor. Although Sagan shielded Velikovsky to an extent, in Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science, he also examined aspects of Velikovsky's theories in a rational and respectful manner, and effectively (to my mind at least) dismantled them.
PEOPLES OF THE SEA is part of series of books (The Ages in Chaos Series), which outline another concept, not wholly distinct from the World's in Collision ideas, where Velikovsky presents his argument for why he believed mainstream history had dropped the ball when it came to accurately dating the extreme past--figures who are recorded as having lived in the 12th century B. C. E. were, according to Velikovsky, actually alter egos of figures associated with the 4th B. C. E. Thus, the mysterious 'Peoples of the Sea', whom Ramses the III repelled, but who were instrumental in the general Bronze-Age collapse circa 1180, were actually a combination of Persians and Greeks whom Nectanebo I is credited with defeating 800 years later.
To make his claims, Velikovsky looks at archeological anomalies and the historical records for support, and I should make it clear at this point that I am in no way qualified to judge the accuracy of Velikovsky's assertions. In fact, to someone of my experience, which is to say very little concerning this time period, PEOPLES OF THE SEA sounds no more or no less convincing than any other explanation of the historical record. I can't read hieroglyphics, would not be able to interpret carbon dating results even if I had them in front of me, and I really only have a hazy understanding of the personages and cultures of the time that Velikovsky is examining. About all I can really say that I know for sure is that mainstream historians and scientists consider Velikovsky an outlier at best, and a crank at worst.
And honestly, that was the attitude with which I approached PEOPLES OF THE SEA--as sort of contempt prior to investigation. While I'm still in no position to judge Velikovsky as an historian, I did learn a few things--both tangible and intangible--while reading his theories. First, and probably most important, is that Velikovsky amply illustrated to me the depth of my own ignorance in this period, and sparked an interest to read more--whether that be mainstream accounts or others. Accurate in his interpretations or not, Velikovsky illuminates some very obscure (to me) nooks and crannies of history to find his support, nooks and crannies I suspect many mainstream historians gloss over--especially if those shadowy corners don't always square with the accepted version of events. Again, that doesn't mean to me that the mainstream is wrong or Velikovsky right--the fact is, I don't know enough to say, but it is interesting, nonetheless.
The second thing I learned, concomitant with the first, is that my lack of knowledge in this area leaves me susceptible to accepting whatever the 'authority' tells me is so--Velikovsky is rather convincing in his treatise, which make me realize that when dealing with such ancient artifacts, so much of it is left open to interpretation. That the majority interpret it one way, and outsiders interpret it another, and that both pick and choose the arguments and evidence they wish to present leaves me with a healthy dose of skepticism for the whole process.
The last thing I thought of after finishing Velikovsky's version of events was that if I had had more knowledge of this time, PEOPLES OF THE SEA would have been even MORE convincing. In fact, I think one could know a great deal about this time, and Velikovsky would look more and more appealing. Only after reaching some sort of tipping point would V. begin to pale, a point where one's own personal experience would lead one into direct conflict with V.'s interpretations, if ever.
PEOPLES OF THE SEA is not too difficult a read, though I would not call it easy, either. It is certainly not popular history, nor even narrative history, though there is some of that in there. It is an examination of the historical record and archeological discoveries, and can sometimes cross into tediousness--a necessary tediousness, I believe, if V. is going to get is point across, but still tedious. As I mentioned before, at least some sketchy understanding of the Egyptian dynasties, Greek and Persian interaction, and Alexander's activities will be of enormous benefit when approaching this book, and the more familiar you are with this history will make PEOPLES OF THE SEA that much easier to digest. As to the accuracy of V.'s ideas, that isn't for me to judge. I think he brings up points that deserve a serious response, which I'm sure is also out there somewhere, though have not been publicized as highly as some of V.'s more sensationalistic claims.
Those readers who are naturally suspicious of the mainstream will probably be drawn to Velikovsky, and I too am glad I read the book. While the ideas I took away from it in the end were not necessarily those that V. may have intended, I still think of it as enlightening.
PEOPLES OF THE SEA is part of series of books (The Ages in Chaos Series), which outline another concept, not wholly distinct from the World's in Collision ideas, where Velikovsky presents his argument for why he believed mainstream history had dropped the ball when it came to accurately dating the extreme past--figures who are recorded as having lived in the 12th century B. C. E. were, according to Velikovsky, actually alter egos of figures associated with the 4th B. C. E. Thus, the mysterious 'Peoples of the Sea', whom Ramses the III repelled, but who were instrumental in the general Bronze-Age collapse circa 1180, were actually a combination of Persians and Greeks whom Nectanebo I is credited with defeating 800 years later.
To make his claims, Velikovsky looks at archeological anomalies and the historical records for support, and I should make it clear at this point that I am in no way qualified to judge the accuracy of Velikovsky's assertions. In fact, to someone of my experience, which is to say very little concerning this time period, PEOPLES OF THE SEA sounds no more or no less convincing than any other explanation of the historical record. I can't read hieroglyphics, would not be able to interpret carbon dating results even if I had them in front of me, and I really only have a hazy understanding of the personages and cultures of the time that Velikovsky is examining. About all I can really say that I know for sure is that mainstream historians and scientists consider Velikovsky an outlier at best, and a crank at worst.
And honestly, that was the attitude with which I approached PEOPLES OF THE SEA--as sort of contempt prior to investigation. While I'm still in no position to judge Velikovsky as an historian, I did learn a few things--both tangible and intangible--while reading his theories. First, and probably most important, is that Velikovsky amply illustrated to me the depth of my own ignorance in this period, and sparked an interest to read more--whether that be mainstream accounts or others. Accurate in his interpretations or not, Velikovsky illuminates some very obscure (to me) nooks and crannies of history to find his support, nooks and crannies I suspect many mainstream historians gloss over--especially if those shadowy corners don't always square with the accepted version of events. Again, that doesn't mean to me that the mainstream is wrong or Velikovsky right--the fact is, I don't know enough to say, but it is interesting, nonetheless.
The second thing I learned, concomitant with the first, is that my lack of knowledge in this area leaves me susceptible to accepting whatever the 'authority' tells me is so--Velikovsky is rather convincing in his treatise, which make me realize that when dealing with such ancient artifacts, so much of it is left open to interpretation. That the majority interpret it one way, and outsiders interpret it another, and that both pick and choose the arguments and evidence they wish to present leaves me with a healthy dose of skepticism for the whole process.
The last thing I thought of after finishing Velikovsky's version of events was that if I had had more knowledge of this time, PEOPLES OF THE SEA would have been even MORE convincing. In fact, I think one could know a great deal about this time, and Velikovsky would look more and more appealing. Only after reaching some sort of tipping point would V. begin to pale, a point where one's own personal experience would lead one into direct conflict with V.'s interpretations, if ever.
PEOPLES OF THE SEA is not too difficult a read, though I would not call it easy, either. It is certainly not popular history, nor even narrative history, though there is some of that in there. It is an examination of the historical record and archeological discoveries, and can sometimes cross into tediousness--a necessary tediousness, I believe, if V. is going to get is point across, but still tedious. As I mentioned before, at least some sketchy understanding of the Egyptian dynasties, Greek and Persian interaction, and Alexander's activities will be of enormous benefit when approaching this book, and the more familiar you are with this history will make PEOPLES OF THE SEA that much easier to digest. As to the accuracy of V.'s ideas, that isn't for me to judge. I think he brings up points that deserve a serious response, which I'm sure is also out there somewhere, though have not been publicized as highly as some of V.'s more sensationalistic claims.
Those readers who are naturally suspicious of the mainstream will probably be drawn to Velikovsky, and I too am glad I read the book. While the ideas I took away from it in the end were not necessarily those that V. may have intended, I still think of it as enlightening.
January 8, 2012
Students of Ramses III have to deal with a high incidence of anachronisms. The most blatant may be Ramses III's palace, littered with tiles. The tiles show on the front the identifiers of Ramses III, who was estimated to have flourished circa 1200 BC. The back is signed with impressions in the tiles by the workmen who made the tiles, using Greek letters, some of which letters were not invented until at least 750 BC.
Two excavators exploring a graveyard together wrote their joint paper about their season. Based on standard date indicators, one excavator assigned the graveyard with certainty to the time of Ramses III. The other assigned it with equal certainty to at least the period of Greek domination, 4th century BC or later.
In AGES OF CHAOS Velikovsky gave us the early end of the arch of his revision of the Middle Eastern timeline. In PEOPLES OF THE SEA he gives us the late end of his arch, building supports on both ends for the repaired timeline. He no longer has Jewish records to compare with, but he does have the Greek writers. Descriptions of Ramses III's campaign against invading foreigners match detail by detail with the campaign of Nectanebo I described by Greek writers, supposedly eight centuries later.
Details of armor and weapons on Ramses III's memorial walls match the innovations in weapons and the shifting alliances described by Greek writers from centuries later. Memorial buildings from so-called Twenty-First Dynasty kings are found to be built on top of deposits from later dynasties. The great names in Egyptology simply express their bafflement.
Starting with Ramses III, Velikovsky combs through the evidence of Egypt's first millennium BC and the ancient Greek writers, and rearranges them in a way that makes sense. For example, the Twenty-First Dynasty is discovered to have been a line of priest-princes who guarded the Egyptian outposts under the Persian occupation.
The appendices include useful items such as a table of the whole revised Middle Eastern timeline from 550 to 235 BC, an analysis of Manetho's framework of the dynasties and kings, a demolition of Egyptian star dating, and the significance of festivals of Venus.
Throughout, the book – and the rest of the series – is notable for its incisive logic and vast base of knowledge.
Two excavators exploring a graveyard together wrote their joint paper about their season. Based on standard date indicators, one excavator assigned the graveyard with certainty to the time of Ramses III. The other assigned it with equal certainty to at least the period of Greek domination, 4th century BC or later.
In AGES OF CHAOS Velikovsky gave us the early end of the arch of his revision of the Middle Eastern timeline. In PEOPLES OF THE SEA he gives us the late end of his arch, building supports on both ends for the repaired timeline. He no longer has Jewish records to compare with, but he does have the Greek writers. Descriptions of Ramses III's campaign against invading foreigners match detail by detail with the campaign of Nectanebo I described by Greek writers, supposedly eight centuries later.
Details of armor and weapons on Ramses III's memorial walls match the innovations in weapons and the shifting alliances described by Greek writers from centuries later. Memorial buildings from so-called Twenty-First Dynasty kings are found to be built on top of deposits from later dynasties. The great names in Egyptology simply express their bafflement.
Starting with Ramses III, Velikovsky combs through the evidence of Egypt's first millennium BC and the ancient Greek writers, and rearranges them in a way that makes sense. For example, the Twenty-First Dynasty is discovered to have been a line of priest-princes who guarded the Egyptian outposts under the Persian occupation.
The appendices include useful items such as a table of the whole revised Middle Eastern timeline from 550 to 235 BC, an analysis of Manetho's framework of the dynasties and kings, a demolition of Egyptian star dating, and the significance of festivals of Venus.
Throughout, the book – and the rest of the series – is notable for its incisive logic and vast base of knowledge.
November 10, 2014
Stands Manetho's time line on its head. Places Ramesid dynasty 800 years later using written records from Greece and Persia. I think the guy is hard to argue with. Really enjoyed the book.
April 4, 2016
peoples of the sea - 4/4/16
published 1977 - Immanuel Velikovsky
Having read World's In Collision, in the late 70's, I was familiar with Velikovsky's approach to geological and archaeological dilemmas. I thought that some of his ideas regarding planetoid collisions were not physically practical for planetoid survival or for biological survival, particularly in the short term. However the origins of his ideas stemmed from anomalies in the geological and archaeological record that were at least interesting to ponder.
With regard to the Peoples of the Sea, this is a topic that several books have been written about, and the subject crops up in most Middle-Eastern historical research, even where that research focuses on other specific issues such as maritime archaeology. Usually, the case is stated the there is no single agreement on what happened in the Mediterranean around 1200 BCE.
From that perspective I thought that Velikovsky's ideas would be worth a look when I came across this book. Without doing any corroborative research, I think that his central idea for this book may have legitimate historical significance. I'm sure that he has been attacked fairly severely from classical researchers who deride his time-line of events, but that doesn't make the book any less interesting to read.
What really hurts this text, is that it needed a good editorial reorganization before being published. Every page is a discourse of details in minutia. Significant points are repetitively drilled in. In my case, reading this was like watching a CSI team investigate a very old cold case, where every detail clue is hashed and re-hashed, and some (many) of the clues may have been mis-recorded originally, lost, or misapplied for explanations years ago. If the presentation could have been organized from the top down to present a time-line by historical event, with the main characters clearly detailed, and the significance explained just once, it would have helped the reader (me at least). Follow that with the jumble of investigative details regarding unrelated pieces, missing pieces, mis-interpretations by prior historians so that the reader is aware of the difficulty of confirmed results. One significant problem of this investigative process are the sources themselves, with time-lines and major players names drawn from extant customs and traditions. Naturally, what may be the same detail description from two different sources appears to conflict or be unrelated.
In this attempt to retranslate facts from varied sources, Velikovsky probably couldn't avoid some repetition, and had to continually pick up threads here and there to be woven together. The final solution wasn't as clear to me as the image and story line that Velikovsky saw clearly to himself. This ended up making this small text a huge effort to trod through. Wondering about the accuracy of all the footnoted sources also dragged the storyline down.
So while worth reading, only dedicated historians of pre-year 0 history in Egypt, the Middle East, and Greece will find this an interesting and invigorating read.
published 1977 - Immanuel Velikovsky
Having read World's In Collision, in the late 70's, I was familiar with Velikovsky's approach to geological and archaeological dilemmas. I thought that some of his ideas regarding planetoid collisions were not physically practical for planetoid survival or for biological survival, particularly in the short term. However the origins of his ideas stemmed from anomalies in the geological and archaeological record that were at least interesting to ponder.
With regard to the Peoples of the Sea, this is a topic that several books have been written about, and the subject crops up in most Middle-Eastern historical research, even where that research focuses on other specific issues such as maritime archaeology. Usually, the case is stated the there is no single agreement on what happened in the Mediterranean around 1200 BCE.
From that perspective I thought that Velikovsky's ideas would be worth a look when I came across this book. Without doing any corroborative research, I think that his central idea for this book may have legitimate historical significance. I'm sure that he has been attacked fairly severely from classical researchers who deride his time-line of events, but that doesn't make the book any less interesting to read.
What really hurts this text, is that it needed a good editorial reorganization before being published. Every page is a discourse of details in minutia. Significant points are repetitively drilled in. In my case, reading this was like watching a CSI team investigate a very old cold case, where every detail clue is hashed and re-hashed, and some (many) of the clues may have been mis-recorded originally, lost, or misapplied for explanations years ago. If the presentation could have been organized from the top down to present a time-line by historical event, with the main characters clearly detailed, and the significance explained just once, it would have helped the reader (me at least). Follow that with the jumble of investigative details regarding unrelated pieces, missing pieces, mis-interpretations by prior historians so that the reader is aware of the difficulty of confirmed results. One significant problem of this investigative process are the sources themselves, with time-lines and major players names drawn from extant customs and traditions. Naturally, what may be the same detail description from two different sources appears to conflict or be unrelated.
In this attempt to retranslate facts from varied sources, Velikovsky probably couldn't avoid some repetition, and had to continually pick up threads here and there to be woven together. The final solution wasn't as clear to me as the image and story line that Velikovsky saw clearly to himself. This ended up making this small text a huge effort to trod through. Wondering about the accuracy of all the footnoted sources also dragged the storyline down.
So while worth reading, only dedicated historians of pre-year 0 history in Egypt, the Middle East, and Greece will find this an interesting and invigorating read.
March 16, 2017
An embodiment of pseudoscience, Velikovsky has cherry picked a grab bag of interpretive challenges to mainstream chronology which he uses to prop up his biblical beliefs. Some of the challenges were based on genuine weaknesses in the mainstream construction, but together these weaknesses do not point to his own conclusions. His 'Bed of Procustes' ignores the huge body of evidence which does not fit his hypothesis, and stretches into place the tentative observations he makes so that they fit his thesis. Recommended to students of middle-eastern history as an example of how religious views can shape hypotheses.
January 7, 2022
So I can't recommend this unless you have a pretty strong interest in ancient history. I thought it was all a bit boring, but with lots of interesting material sprinkled in. It's also interesting just b/c Velikovsky's ideas are so big and so controversial.
If you haven't read any Velikovsky, I would just say start with Worlds in Collision or Earth in Upheaval. They are fascinating and hard to put down.
If you haven't read any Velikovsky, I would just say start with Worlds in Collision or Earth in Upheaval. They are fascinating and hard to put down.
May 4, 2012
Compelling reading as always. It would have been fascinating for Velikovsky to have included the Chinese and Polynesian as a 'peoples of the sea', or in a further sequel in the 'Ages in Chaos' series.
December 2, 2010
A great read. The author is the pioneer of the atypical type of history. Very interesting ideas and concepts.
December 22, 2014
HARD READ BUT LOTS OF INFO
January 13, 2024
Love Velikovsky. Great alternative histories acurate to historical evidence.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews