Gunnar Heinsohn: Exodus

David and Israel‘s “United Monarchy” provide the most popular targets for the erasure of time-honored personalities and entities from our history books.

Nevertheless, archaeological layers consistent with “Yishai“ and “David“ (alphabetical Hebrew) are present in Jerusalem’s period of the Mitanni when “Jishua“ and “Dadua“ (Amarna cuneiform) tried to take the city.

However, the David presence in these layers has so far remained unrecognized by academe, because both defenders and debunkers of David use Bible dates that place him in the 11th/10th century BCE, whereas the Mitanni are pseudo-astronomically dated to the 14th century (see in detail Heinsohn 2018).

Since both factions insist on their respective non-scientific dating methods, they exclude a third – stratigraphic — option and thus perpetuate the stalemate.

For the same reason, eliminating the Hebrew EXODUS from history books is almost as popular as obliterating David.

At Joshua’s Biblical date (1406 BCE), debunkers say, Jericho was a “small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified [and] [t]here was also no sign of a destruction“ (Finkelstein/Silberman 2002, 77 ff.).

However, no one doubts the destruction of a massively walled Jericho in the 16th century BCE.

Gnashing their teeth, the Bible faithful also believe in this pseudo-astronomical date, which comes way too early for them.

Therefore, the “tumbling down” of Jericho‘s walls in the 16th century BCE does not fit into the context of an EXODUS around 1400 BCE.

Scholarly deletion of personae and events from the Bible, thus, always follows the same pattern.

Non-Biblical dating for archaeological finds and strata –– such as pseudo-astronomic Sothic retro-calculation for the Amarna-period (Heinsohn 2005) –– is compared with Bible-based dating of Biblical stories.

If the non-Biblical dating of the archaeological stratum –– e.g., 1550/1500 BCE for the smashing of Jericho’s “massive stone revetment“ (Kenyon 1957, 213 ff.) –– does not match the Bible date of Joshua’s wall-story (1406 BCE) because it suffers from an “absence of archaeological data“ (Jacobs 2000, 691), the Biblical story is denounced as a mere phantasy.

This is logical because the findings of archaeology are hard evidence, while the Biblical books are only texts whose composition cannot be reliably reconstructed.

Nevertheless, both dates –– 1550 and 1406 BCE –– are declared sacrosanct and written in all innocence one after the other in the chronologies.

The deletion procedure has bizarre features, because both the “scientific” and the Biblical dating can be wrong.

The date chosen as true, therefore, results from a decision-making process that cannot help but settle for an erroneous view.

Notwithstanding this unscientific approach, the deleted Biblical stories contain information whose selection and composition require explanation.

Why are the eliminated personalities, examples given, named Yishai and David, but not Simon and Nathan?

Why do they fight for a supposedly non-existent Jerusalem instead of a Damascus or Ugarit?

These questions are answered only partially, or not at all (but see Winzeler 2017).

No attempts are made to match the strata found in the ground and the names found therein (on clay tablets, seals, vessels, etc.) with Biblical stories.

In this stratigraphic method, the Biblical dating is left aside for the time being.

Instead, the question is asked whether Biblical stories can produce a meaningful narrative by comparing them to differently, i.e., non-Biblically dated strata.

Bible fundamentalists must reject such an approach because they are convinced their dates are God-given.

They hinder research just as much as archaeologists, who derive their truth from a preference for one of two or, as we will see, even more errors.

The search for strata that fit the Biblical stories inevitably leads to a re-dating of the Bible stories and mostly also of the archaeological layers.

But we will see (in continuation of Heinsohn 2018) that meaningful narratives arise as long as only fictitious time is deleted, while the substance of the historical traditions is preserved.

Most of all, the EXODUS-researchers are confused that the Jebusites must be fought for over 400 Biblical years until they are defeated by David (somewhere between 1005 and 999 BCE) after the first attacks by Joshua around 1406 BCE.

The possibility that the Joshua stories and the David stories are different reports about the same events is considered absurd, because 400 Biblical years lie between the two heroes.

The view that the reports of the Egyptian rule and expulsion of the Old-Akkadians in the 22nd century BCE and then again of the Hyksos in the 16th century BCE are Exodus-reports, too, is considered even more bizarre, because they are dated up to 1200 years before David’s conquest of Jebus/Jersualem.

The Old-Akkadians, the most powerful empire of their time, left no traces in Magan (=Egypt), though Naram Sin boasted about his victory and even named the powerful enemy: “Magan he smote and Mani [Menes], Lord of Magan“ (Albright 1920, 89).

The baffled researchers, therefore, believe that the term Magan is always to be translated as Egypt, but in the 23rd/22nd century BCE must have meant something else.

Oman with no such important ruler is one candidate.

Equally baffling is the fact that the Hyksos, whose rule over Egypt is not in doubt, employed, in the 17th/16th century (Heinsohn 1991), the 23rd/22nd century cuneiform alphabet as well the very characteristic weapons (e.g., scimitars) of the old Akkadians.

Nobody understands why the Hyksos were using weapons that had been obsolete for 600 years.

Scholars have no idea that they are dealing with one and the same world power: i.e. Old-Akkadians = Hyksos.

That power is dated once by Bible fundamentalism (via Abraham and Nimrod) and once by pseudo-astronomical retro-calculations.

Researchers can only find traces of one of the “two” empires because in reality the two empires are one and the same.

[Click on the image to view to at a larger scale]

The first world empire from the historiography of the ancient Greeks is mysteriously without physical traces, too.

It is the realm of the pre-Medish Assyrians with Ninos –– matching Old-Akkadians and Hyksos with his conquest of Egypt –– as “the first with outstanding deeds“ (Ctesias as preserved in Diodorus Siculus 2, 1: 4).

In reality, the remains of the Old-Akkadians and/or the pre-Mitanni Hyksos provide the hard evidence of this very empire.

Since the Old-Akkadians are dated via Abraham, but the Mitanni are dated pseudo-astronomically, they do not seem to follow each other directly –– like Hyksos and Mitanni.

Stratigraphically, however, in Mesopotamia the finds of the Mitanni (from c. 1500 BCE) lie directly on the finds of the Old-Akkadians (up to c. 2200 BCE; see in detail Heinsohn/Illig 1997, 362 ff).

[Click on the image to view to at a larger scale]

Stunned by this immediate Old-Akkadian>Mitanni sequence, the excavators were forced to push between their strata an archaeological blank of some 700 years, although the necessary physical evidence (drifts, forests, snail shells etc.) were not found anywhere.

So the Old-Akkadians are just as immediately pre-Mitannias the Hyksos.

The shattering of Jericho’s “massive stone revetment“ at the end of the Hyksos period (c. “1550“ BCE pseudo-astronomically) is thus parallel to the catastrophic end of the Old-Akkadians (c. “2150“ BCE Bible fundamentalist date).

The dates of the two catastrophes, of course, do not correspond to the biblical date of the Exodus (around 1400 BCE).

That is why they are being ignored for its explanation.

Stratigraphically, however, they are among the most striking events to which the contents –– like “thunderstorms of hail and fire“ or the “darkness for three days“ (Exodus 9: 13-35; 10: 21-29) –– of the EXODUS narratives fit.

The following stratigraphic overview, therefore, has to present them side by side.

[Click on the image to view to at a larger scale]

The EXODUS is therefore a consequence of the catastrophically weakened and then militarily defeated empire of the Old-Akkadians == pre-Mitanni Hyksos == pre-Medish Assyrians.

This mighty empire also lost its power over Egypt (Magan).

Old-Akkadian warriors (recruited in the empire’s realms in the Levant, Meopotamia and Anatolia etc.) who were not killed by the Egyptians had no choice but to flee to Israel.

Only the most skilful and physically fit were able to escape.

They were still strong militarily and were desperately and violently looking for new homes.

Therefore they were described, in the letters to the post-Hyksos court in Amarna (in the time of the Mitanni=Medes), as “migrants“, “rebels“, “raiders“ or “outlaws“, i.e. as “Habiru“.

The Akkadian/Hyksos conquest of Egypt had to come from Israel for geographical reasons.

Therefore, native people from Israel will have been among the invaders.

In this respect, the expulsion from Egypt is also a return to the land of ancestors of the conquerors.

Can we now say that the EXODUS took place around the 620s BCE, when Cyaxares of Ecbatana (in Greek), Great King of the Medes (identical with Shaushatra of Washukanni [in cuneiform], Great King of the Mitanni {Heinsohn 2006}), began his government?

Nearly, but not exactly!

Also in the period of 600 to 1 BCE there is fictitious time (cf. Heinsohn 2018).

It remains true, however, that the EXODUS is one of the real events during the time when the Medes took power in the Ancient Near East.

Jericho’s crumbling walls at the end of the Hyksos are Joshua’s tumbling walls of the EXODUS in the time of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Lord’s Angel, when both heroes had to fight against the Jebusites.

[ For a more precise Exodus date before present, the fictitious seven centuries from the 1st millennium CE must also be subtracted ( see )]

Wondrously round numbers for the sojourn in Egypt, such as 400 years (Genesis 15:13) or 430 years (Exodus 12:40, 41), belong to the realm of magic and/or were intended to postulate a historical headstart at a time when this could not yet be checked archaeologically.

This may belong to the time of the Greek version of the Torah (Septuagint; 2nd c. BCE) when, in Egyptian Alexandria, powerful Greeks argued with intimidated Jews about whether Moses came before Homer or vice versa.

Most of the dating of the Bible before Hellenism is untenable.

But this pious numerology must not result in the substance of the incorrectly-dated stories also being thrown away.

Many Biblical stories about politics and disasters allow a more precise reconstruction of the past.

We need them urgently, as much for a reliable historiography of Israel as for a correct understanding of the history of the rest of the world.

A rough overview of the near and far neighbours of the EXODUS events shall conclude this text.

[Click on the image to view to at a larger scale]


-Albright, W. F. (1920), “Menes and Naram-Sin“, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 6, no. 2, 89-98

-Assmann, J. (2014), From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press; View in Google Books

-Dever, (2001), What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Aracheology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids/Michigan & Cambridge/UK: William B. Eerdmans

-Finkelstein, I., Silberman, N. A. (2002), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York: Touchstone

-Heinsohn, G. (1991), “Who were the Hyksos?”, in Organizing Committee/ S. Curto et al., ed., Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia etc. Abstracts of Papers, Turin: Organizing Secretariat, 208-209

-Heinsohn, G. (1996), Assyrerkönige gleich Perserherrscher: Die Assyrienfunde bestätigen das Achämenidenreich [Assyrian Great kings as alter egos of Persian Great Kings. The Assyrian finds confirm the imperial dimensions of the Akhaemenids], München-Gräfelfing: Mantis

-Heinsohn, G. (2005), “Phantom Periods and Astronomical Retro-calculation”, lecture at the Toronto-Meeting, June 20-30, Toronto/Onatrio, ms.

-Heinsohn, G. (2006), “Cyaxares: Media’s Great King in Egypt, Assyria & Iran“;

-Heinsohn, G. (2007), Die Sumerer gab es nicht: Von den Phantom-Imperien der Lehrbücher zur wirklichen Epochenabfolge in der “Zivilisationswiege” Südmesopotamien, 2nd ed. (19881), Gräfelfing: Mantis

-Heinsohn, G. (2018), “Enigmas of 3000 to 300 BC“,

-Heinsohn, G., Illig, H. (1997), Wann lebten die Pharaonen?, 2nd edition, Gräfelfing: Mantis

-Jacobs, P.F. (2000), “Jericho“, in D.N. Freedman, A.C. Myers, eds., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Amsterdam: AUP, 689-691

-Kenyon, K. (1957), Digging up Jericho, New York: Praeger
-Schaeffer, C.F. (1948), Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de L‘ Asie occidentale, Oxford: Oxforf University Press

-Landström, B. (1970), Die Schiffe der Pharaonen: Altägyptische Schiffsbaukunft von 4000 bis 600 v. Chr., München: Bertelsmann

-Weiss, H. et al. (1993), “The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization”, Science, vol. 261 (5124), 995–1004

-Winzeler, P. (2017), Der „Mescha-Stein“: Die unerkannte hebräische Inschrift Davids? [20091],

Editorial Assistance

Thanks go to Clark Whelton (New York/NY) and Tim Cullen (Malaga/Spain).

Gallery | This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Gunnar Heinsohn: Exodus

  1. An interesting read with data to be studied. But about dates I beg to disagree. Here below I supply some info, based on the table at end of piece, starting from bottom. Evidence is from the Med (in links)

    End of Uruk period 3200bce. Event Piora Oscillation, but it was more than a climate change; it was a disastrous tectonic event with tectonic ‘microplate’ rotation in the Med. That event has left quite a few markers in proxies. More than that obliquity was ~14.5deg (it is measurable today). The change in obliquity came in ~2345bce (Dodwell), but the event itself is recorded in a modification in a Calendar (source of info). Obliquity started being measured and recorded around 1100bce (which is before 950bce). See here:

    Evidence shows the start of a decline around 3000bce, evident from major abandonment of sites and works of rebuilding to new orientation aborted . Evident is a first major exodus of survivors. Evidence also of mass burials from Med; and elsewhere. At ~2200bce (resulting from 2345 event) second major civilsations collapse, plus second exodus.

    Sumerian is not a Semitic tongue (Akkadian is). I raise this point to lead to another matter. Man does not come upon knowledge without showing an ‘audit trail’ of how it was obtained. There is no evidence of how base 60 numbers, plus 360 circle division were obtained. It was elsewhere; see here :

    Post Holocene max things quietened but even so some dates appear to coincide with times of distress (1650bce) coinciding with the Eddy cycle (no explanation known here). Pre 3200bce there are also historical markers that are corroborated by various proxies. It appears that development in science, be it astronomy or agro-genetic (wheat, figs,) had a normal long-time lazy early slope.

    • The biggest problem is chronology.

      The existing one is a derivation of the Abrahamic scheme that during the 19th century was asserted to be Creation at 4004 BC etc. Many people to this day accept this – biblical fundamentalism.

      1832 CE and Lyell published Principles of Geology and shifted Creation 20 million years into the past by eliminating catastrophes and reinterpeting the Old Testmanet as literatur and not history.

      The discover of radioactivity led to further chronological expansion and the unfounded belief that uranium 238 was formed at the time of the accretion of the solar system

      Biblical fundamentalists, of the liberal camp, require absolute dating schemes. All the published dates fit into this system and as Gunnar has frequently pointed to, after Velikovsky, human history has been stretched to its present state. Exodus at 620 BC fits the stratigraphy but mainstream Exodus dating complies with OT or Abrahamic dates.

      Retrocalculation using astronomical data is only valid till 1582 CE when the Gregorian system was put in place. Before that no one really knows, in a technical sense, and a different calendar method is needed, in that we rank strata on the superposition principle. Strata overlying earlier strata are by definition younger, and the overlain, older. Assigning numbers to them is simply an intellectual distraction to facilitate soothsaying or forecasting, as if the past could be forecast in the first place.

      So the 11,800 years BP for the last Ice Age is simply numerology, especially if the ground truth, as shown in the Garzweiler open cut coal mine has Roman water infrastructure buried under Miocene and younger sediments. This archaeological fact puts the Pleistocene event as 610 CE (Tim’s Arab Horizon, and my RTE, Roman Termination Event).

      Radiometric dating is BS. Radiogenic decay rates depend on the strength of the ambient electric field whether nuclear particles escape from the nucleus or not. Ralph Juergens wrote on this topic in an addendum to his Gentry Polonium paper. If radioactivty is not a constant process then its suitablity as a dating technique collapses. The Russians have published data confirming this for the decay of Pu209, plutionium, that decays irregularly with the moon’s gravitational effect.

      • Retrocalculation is, BTW, reverse forecasting and just as specious as future forecasting. Forecasting only works if the physical phenomena is linear. If it is cyclic or non-linear, forecasting is impossible, backwards or forwards.

  2. Yry says:

    @Gunnar Heinsohn
    In retrospect, it is likely this 1962 pope would have sent you an invitation to the Vatican!

    Fascinating work, thank you again.

    Pope John XXIII in 1962:
    ” we hold onto false, ancient standards and bar the results of the positive sciences, archaeology, anthropology, geology and the results of the newly found first Sumerian Bible (Ur, 1954 Dr. S. N. Kramer: Paralel Biblia, 1956) which reveals and explains everything clearly.

    Nobody understands this backward and by now extinct Old Testament based fuss which is none other than the stolen and rewritten fragments of ancient traditions of a historically vanished people (Sumer, Parthian, Chaldean, Babilonian, Egyptian) and altered history.

    In other words we are bound by some antiquated Judaism even though we are satisfied with Christ the Son of God…” – Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II, July 1st, 1962.


    @melitamegalithic & all readers:

    1- My overal impression as an “artificial” resident of South America is that I have great difficulties at reconciling the timelines put forward by the West (Europe) & Middle East to those I FEEL are right for South-North Americas and Mesoamerica.

    I feel more comfortable with the dates proposed by G. Heinsohn which are seemingly nearer to reality here, however I’ll bear in mind your remarks which provide another approach.

    2- I edited this piece below for shortness from a rich PDF about one Arctic people.
    It shows several differences between the West and them.

    — Summary of the Legends from northwestern Alaska Kauweramiut oral traditions. —

    The First People enjoyed a very warm weather from a nearby Sun all year round and never had to invent tools since everything was at hand’s reach and did without clothing.
    They were wide-mouthed large brown people with bigger eyes then.

    A period of strong earthquakes ensued with mountains rising, the ground sinking and new lakes.
    It forced this people to invent tools, equipments, clothes and to unite to confront these events.

    And unexpectedly one day the Sun came close behind the full Moon and this configuration lasted three days spreading cold and freezing to death animals and plants leaving only four Families of humans after this First Disaster.

    Their houses were half in the ground and the upper part was covered with earth and were really warm. Some Eskimos learned to build homes from the ants.

    The Second Disaster came.
    It was a terrible flood and all the land was covered with water.
    Only three families survived.

    Beeueoak said: “We must build a raft of logs. It must be big enough so waves of the storms will not reach on top of it. It has to stand a high sea. This raft will be our only safe place for a long time.”

    All the earth was swallowed up by water.
    There were no mountains.
    The people could see no land anywhere.
    After many months the rain stopped.

    Beeueoak and the others saw a rainbow, something they had never seen before.
    If more and more of the earth appears it will mean the flood will leave.

    The Eskimos began to spread all over, people began to speak different dialects of the Eskimo language.

    Aungayoukuksuk said: “This part of the earth will change as the northwest part of the country moves farther and farther away from the sun. Now we all can see that the sun is close to this part of the earth. There will come a cold time and snow.”

    Three times the shaking of the ground passed under his feet.
    Then he heard a roaring and a loud rumble.
    He looked back and saw that the great mountain was blowing up.
    A great spear of fire was coming from the top of the mountain.
    Red hot coals flowed around and down the mountain from the top.
    Everything was blazing all around it.

    After the Third Disaster, there were only a few people.
    The ancestors said that only seven Kauweramiut people were left and stayed mostly in Imuruk Basin.
    The ancestors’ stories do not tell about any troubles with the Siberians.
    They say sometime after Kauwerak was built, the wars began.

    Even though the Siberians caused a lot of trouble and sometimes many people were killed, there were no more Disasters until 1917 when the terrible sicknesses began to kill so many of the Eskimo people when the first big ships of the whalers and gold miners came, this was the Fourth Disaster.

    People of Kauwerak: Legends of the Northern Eskimo (1973), by William A. Oquilluk, contrib. by Laurel L. Bland (HTML at Alaska Pacific University Press.

    Chapter One:

  3. @Yry; and others:
    Tks for the link, interesting link/story – worth dissecting. The are many flood myths and these have been collected and compared. Many ancient people have their own flood myth and these are told from their perspective depending where their homeland was. ‘Flat-landers’ like the Sumerians built boats (or ziggurats to rise above the waters). Others sought mountains, eg Plato’s timaeus. In the latter the Egyptians say their land was never effected by floods. Hence no flood myth.

    Two fundamental questions are: When did it happen? What was the primary cause?
    Speculative dates may be way off the mark. But when unconnected sources begin to coincide on dates the uncertainty begins to diminish. The dates given in my above post come from a host of unconnected sources from papers whose authors had no idea where it might lead in my research. There are ice cores; sea sediment; C14 in archaeology; dendrochronology : mathematical analysis in the case of Dodwell and repeated by others. And the list and the correlations are growing.
    What is/was the cause? In the case of floods, disastrous tsunamis happen, but that is a secondary effect to a primary cause. The greatest tsunami that is global can result from an Earth tilt change, and here the evidence is rare, but exists and is unmistakable. (And it would explain many other issues in ‘abrupt climate change’ that do not seem to have an answer anywhere).

    Re the first part, besides SN Kramer read also CH Gordon “Homer and the Bible”. There is an apt expression applicable there: “Seek and thou shall find”. J Bronowski would add ” — worship what is known but to question it”. Especially if the evidence (and logic) say otherwise.

  4. Gunnar Heinsohn says:

    Gunnar Heinsohn
    (Comment on melitamegalithic (above): “About dates I beg to disagree”).


    In China, the Bronze Age traditionally began in 841 BCE with the Gonghe Regency. The date of 841 BC fits relatively well with the beginning of the ancient Greek epoch sequence Nino-Assyrians>Medes>Akhaemenids>Macedonians (Ctesias, Herodotus etc.).

    But today no one understands why China had to complete, between 841 and 500 BCE, the same periodical sequence from a Bronze Age to an Iron Age as Egypt or the Ancient Near East. The Iron Age began there as early as 1200 BCE, i.e. 2000 years after their Bronze Age in 3200 BCE.

    China, so it appears, had insisted at the beginning of its Bronze Age in 841 BCE, to ignore the 350 years of progress in Western iron technology. The Chinese did not want, we must assume, to forego their own Bronze Age. Still, they were not against imitation. After all, they replicated the western sequence of epochs –– first bronze and then iron –– strictly. They even passed through their Bronze Age in graded periods (like early, late). But instead of using 2000 years (3200 to 1200 BCE) like the Ancient Near East, China was content with just 350 years of Bronze Age stages (841 to 500 BCE). After 500 BCE the country finally began with iron. This was, by now, a delay of 700 years against 1200 BCE in the Ancient Near East.

    How could the Chinese dare to insist on such a retardation? After all, they could have limited their Bronze Age, let us say, to 50 years, and then go straight to iron. But they preferred to double the 350-year iron-delay to 700 years (1200-500 BCE). Were the Chinese simply capricious or even insane?

    China today does not like having started the Bronze Age 2350 years too late (841 BCE instead of 3200 BCE in the Ancient Near East). After all, Afghanistan already began with the Bronze Age in 3000 BCE. Why would the ancient Chinese have wanted to stay millennia behind this immediate neighbour?

    In 1996 China finally got tired of having had started high culture so extremely late. The CPC launched the “Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project” (
    200 experts set to work and reported to the party leadership in November 2000 that China’s high culture had already begun in 2070 BCE. This was achieved by a Xia Dynasty whose 17 kings had held power until 1600 BCE. 19 kings of an earlier Shang Dynasty had managed just as well between 1600 and 1300 BCE. A late Shang Dynasty then added another 10 kings between 1300 and 1046 BC. Moreover, there followed 10 lords of a Western Zhou Dynasty between 1046 and 841 BCE, after which the well-known Zhou dynasty under King Gonghe would continue as before in 841 BCE.

    Several critics have pointed out that there is no evidence for imperial rulers all over China in the 3rd and 2nd millennium. The miracle of chronology stretching was achieved by sequencing simultaneously reigning regional princes. After all, nobody even tried to present an excavation site in which all these new imperial dynasties are super-imposed upon each other stratigraphically.

    The fatal mistake in extending the Chinese chronology was Beijing’s conviction that the chronologies of the Ancient Near East follow scientific criteria, but not, as in reality, a mixture of Bible fundamentalism and pseudo-astronomy. They had trusted the archaeologists and historians of Europe and North-America. It is rare to be seduced into a stupidity because one considers a much greater stupidity to be eternal truth. But that is exactly what happened in China.

    Since the chronologies of China and Korea run in tandem, North, but not South Korea, followed the Chinese chronology extension smoothly. When, according to China’s specifications, the history textbooks were rewritten by Seoul as well, scholars protested. After all, the layers per konwn site had not increased by a single millimeter:
    “According to the new books, the Bronze Age began on the Korean Peninsula between 2000-1500 B.C. Textbooks currently in use say that the Bronze Age began in about 1000 B.C. […] Some scholars, however, have raised objections to the revisions. Professor Song Ho-jeong of Korea National University of Education said […] the contents of textbooks should be strictly based on historical records. Dr. Oh Gang-won of the Northeast Asian History Foundation said that it would raise a controversy to declare the beginning of the Bronze Age as falling between 2000 B.C. and 1500 B.C. […] ‘It is very dangerous to react to China’s distorted nationalism in the same spirit. It is necessary to conduct more balanced research about the ancient history of Northeast Asia, including northeast China, the Korean peninsula, and Japan,‘ said Dr. Oh“ (

    On page 13 of “Enigmas of 3000 to 300 BC” (
    the stratigraphies of six major cities of the Ancient Near East show that the necessary layers for the supposedly many centuries longer chronology are just as missing as in East Asia.

    If East Asia one day makes such impressive progress in historical chronology as in artificial intelligence, the region could become an avant-garde in the creation of a scientific chronology for the entire world. For them it would be easy, because with the date of 841 BCE they have a reasonable starting point.

    • Carsten says:

      Its the old trick once more flogged.
      In Sweden the line of kings began with Odin – the line of kings begin with Eric no. 8 around 990 CE though who were the previous seven!
      The Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain also used to begin the royal lineages in the pantheon of their deities.
      Cassiodor and Jordanes made up the Goths a suitable long lineage beginning with the gods.
      Saxo Grammaticus wrote a looong Danish history extending the royal line into the mists of the unknown and doubling the no of known kings several times.
      Nothing new but an odd thing to do in 1996.

  5. In reply to comment by Profs Gunnar Heinsohn one (I) can understand the existence of disparate and conflicting dating, not only on the Chinese example (of which I am ill informed) but also in several other areas of history where assumption of yesteryear are today in direct conflict with evidence as it is being understood.

    My expressed disagreement on dates is based rather on accumulation of evidence that can be dated with some confidence, that is free from historical fiddling and political motives; that comes from multiple and unrelated sources; and mainly related to events that have left an indelible imprint geologically. Above all they are (some) scientifically and mathematically unquestionably sound.

    This may sound disagreeable to many, but no matter. In subjects that I have taken an interest I found the history was based on factual matters but obfuscated to absurdity. I mention one specific example because it illustrates all. A link to it is here:

    For as long as this has been studied it was a cultic structure (the purpose of which was supposedly the result of human ignorance). It is the culmination of long centuries of development. My research told me it is a calendar, an excellent final development of centuries (as proven via a host of proxies) of technical evolution. Technically it is simplicity itself. Reliably dated by others and self to around 3000bce. The crux of the matter is that it works, it still works, and I tested it to predict the solstice day and hour in advance. Present general knowledge tells that predicting the solstice cannot be done (apart from NASA calc), yet I did it with a small model. The maths is easy to understand; no rocket science.

    Yet go back to the earliest of any of the established histories, it is nowhere. 4000 years plus of scientific void. History is missing centuries of human evolution. Yet instances of wide diffusion and human movement is evident.

    Subject change: one small comment on stratigraphy. No professional here, only a conviction that layers of habitation are not always clear, especially when habitation was intensive and continuous. My early home was a complete mix of 3000 year of habitation. The modern lies, and is similar to, and is built and integrated into the old. But rarely is it at all evident.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.