November 12, 1979

Mr. Malcolm Lowery, Editor
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review
11 Adcott Road
Acklam
Middlesbrough
Cleveland TS5 7ER
England

Dear Mr. Lowery:

This is a rather belated reply to your letter of August 9th.

The fact that the Glasgow chronologists may admire Velikovsky for stirring up the waters and challenging the conventional chronology does not change the other fact (the one to which I was referring) that the Glasgow chronologists do “entirely reject” Velikovsky’s revised chronology for the post-Theban periods. They deny that Haremhab was a contemporary of Sennacherib, that Ramses II was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, and that Ramses III was a contemporary of Plato. They leave nothing of the post-Theban revised chronology intact. And they do leave much of the conventional chronology intact, such as the conventional placement of Haremhab at the end of the eighteenth dynasty. If you feel that it is needed, however, I would not object to adding the words, “part of the revised chronology that is covered by the”, between the words “the” and “three” of line one of paragraph two, to prevent any misunderstanding such as yours.

Of course the Glasgow chronologists think that the post-Theban part of the revised chronology does not work. To say that they reject it because they think that it does not work is very nearly tautologous, almost like saying that it’s wrong because it’s wrong. This does not even begin to get into their reasons. Their reasons are unclear, as I proceeded to explain in the rest of paragraph two and in the subsequent paragraphs.

I see little similarity between the work of the Glasgow chronologists and some of your characterizations of that work. You speak of how they “are feeling their way one obstacle at a time, and a good many difficulties still remain”; you also speak of “interim findings and tentative partial models”. Is that really how you would describe the tone of James’ review of Ramses II and His Time? There is hardly anything very tentative about James’ rejection of some of the main theses of that book.

I do indeed “expect to get away with saying, “The Glasgow chronologists have already provided us with numerous instances of their uncritical acceptance of theory-laden ‘data’ that have been offered by the (conventional chronology,” without giving a single one of these instances in evidence” . The instances are readily available for anyone who wishes to look at what has been written so far.

The last paragraph of my letter avoids any mention of MacKie, Cardona, or others, but I think that it does indeed have a “place in the present discussion” . I see the present discussion mainly in terms of evenhandedness and consistency. If it is open season on Velikovsky, what’s wrong with a few shots at one of the founders of the S.I.S.? (I do admit that the word “the” in line one of my last paragraph should be “some,” and I request that you make that change.) Readers will see the point of my allusion, even though the dramatis personae are left unnamed.

On the same general subject, but with reference to a different document (your own cover letter to KRONOS that accompanied your joint letter with James), I would like to comment on your reference to “a false impression of Dr. Euan MacKie which is apparently prevalent in North America” and on your remark that “MacKie would go the same way as Atwater (and no doubt equally painfully) if he declared in the specialist press his willingness to entertain Velikovsky’s ideas—a problem which Bimson also had.” I know of no Velikovskian who wants to see any other Velikovskian “go the same way as Atwater.” There are some people who have found it necessary to pursue their academic careers under their own names and to publish their Velikovskian writings under pseudonyms. Even in their “orthodox” work, however, they say nothing that is incompatible with Velikovsky’s theory. I have never heard any criticism of such people. Perhaps that is the course that MacKie and Bimson and any others in that predicament should follow. But they cannot expect to have It both ways. Insofar as they continue to publish those portions of the establishment line that are incompatible with Velikovsky’s theories, they will inevitably be attacked by Velikovskians.

Sincerely,

Lynn E. Rose
Professor of Philosophy

LER:mf

P.S. This letter, like yours, is not intended for publication (at least, not in the twentieth century, say, though it is to be hoped that many such letters as ours may eventually be published as items of minor historical interest). But I have no objection to your sharing this letter with anyone who you think might be interested in it.

BALDY HALL BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14260 TEL. (716) 636-2444