By nameBy date

June 3, 1955

Dear Dr. Hayes:

Following our conversation earlier in the spring I have mailed you a copy of “Ages in Chaos,” vol. 1. My intention in doing so was to give you the opportunity to judge for yourself my method and evidences in offering a reconstructed time table of ancient history. Although you have agreed to submit to a radiocarbon test a few samples dating from the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties, if a scholar representing some scientific institution should support my request—and we had in mind Professor Pfeiffer—I thought it proper that first you should know my published volume.

If you have turned to the pages 26-31 and compared the passages from the Papyrus Ipuwer in Gardiner’s translation and from the King James version of Exodus, Chs. 7-12, you, most probably, became interested in the rest of the book. The entire work is built on collation of texts, in conventional chronology regularly separated by over five centuries. The second volume of the work is presently in galleys. It covers the time from the end of the 18th Dynasty to the advent of Alexander.

In case you have not yet found incentive strong enough to familiarize yourself with the first volume of “Ages,” the attached here photostat of a letter by Etienne Drioton—with his immediate reaction as expressed upon reading the first volume—may still induce you to follow his example.

I assume also that you have received a letter from Miss H. Dukas, secretary to the late Einstein. Since November 1953 Einstein spent many hours in discussing with me various aspects of my theories; at our last meeting, on April 8th, he was very emphatic in his desire to help me that a radio-carbon test should be performed to check on my chronology.

As promised, I enclose a letter from Professor Pfeiffer of the Semitic Museum of Harvard University. Since 1942 he closely followed the progress of my work on ancient history, and also read it in manuscript, in the first draft, in interim versions, and in its final form. Excerpts from his letters and statements, authorized by him, were printed on the dust jacket when the first volume was published in 1952. Yet he must not be considered as siding with me in my reconstruction.

Finally I enclose here a short chapter from the second volume of “Ages,” dealing with the stele of Maunier. Should you be interested to see how I bring my reconstruction to conclusion, I would gladly let you see the second volume in page proofs.

As to the tests, I would suggest that three objects, one dating from the 18th Dynasty, the second from the 19th Dynasty, and the third from the 20th Dynasty, all as far as possible excluding the chance of “contamination” should be subjected to radiocarbon analysis. As you know, this method of dating may be not as secure for absolute dates as it is for relative dating. Therefore I would ask the inclusion of some object of the Ethiopian (or Libyan) period in Egypt: For the control purpose an object of the Ethiopian period would be very good, since there is no disagreement in my scheme as to the dating of this period when compared with the conventional scheme.

Finally I lodge with you a statement of what I expect as a result of the required tests.

  Faithfully yours,
  Immanuel Velikovsky

P.S. It would be very desirable, if permissible, for complete objectivity, that the laboratory should know the samples as 1, 2, 3, and 4, and their dating from the 18th-20th dynasties should be known presently only to you and your colleagues in the Museum.

By nameBy date