For about a century now, or perhaps longer, there has existed a feeling amongst both professional historians and the general public that the ancient world or ancient civilization was privy to some great secret which, if widely known, would have profound consequences for all mankind. In the past fifty years this feeling has crystallized into a general belief amongst large sections of the population that the ancient civilizations had knowledge of arcane wisdom and lost technologies, technologies with which they raised some of the most iconic monuments on the planet.
Others have gone even further than this and insist that beings from other worlds visited our planet in ancient times and communicated this secret knowledge to our ancestors.
The truth, however, is perhaps even more dramatic. The fact is, between three and four thousand years ago the ancient world was struck by a series of cosmic catastrophes involving other bodies in the solar system, catastrophes which inflicted devastation upon the earth; yet the memory of these events has been effaced from the textbooks by a fictitious chronology which has utterly distorted the histories of the ancient civilizations and caused all kinds of problems for academics.
Over the past century archaeological investigation has revealed abundant evidence for these cataclysms, but attempts to make sense of the data have been stymied by an absurd chronology which was established in the 16th century, long before the age of scientific rigour. Consider for example the evidence from Mesopotamia (Iraq). The discovery by Leonard Woolley of a 3 (10 feet) meter-deep layer of waterborne silt or mud underneath the Early Dynastic settlement of Ur in Lower Mesopotamia was heralded at the time (1932) as dramatic confirmation of the biblical tale of the Universal Deluge. A flood-deposit three and a half meters deep, it was reasoned, must have been the signature of a truly catastrophic event, and must have left its mark all over the Land of the Two Rivers and beyond.
In the years following this historic find, however, enthusiasm dimmed as archaeologists claimed that no evidence for this event could be found outside of Mesopotamia. The Flood of Ur, it was said, had left its mark throughout the Land of the Two Rivers - particularly in the south - but nowhere else.
Yet the catastrophe unearthed by Woolley did in fact leave its signature far beyond Mesopotamia; indeed its effects are visible throughout the earth. The problem is that the cataclysms and deluges detected elsewhere were dated differently to that of Mesopotamia, with the result that a simultaneous event experienced throughout the earth was transformed into a series of supposedly local events that happened at different times and epochs.
Consider for example this event's impact on Syria. During the 1940s French archaeologist Claude Schaeffer conducted a series of excavations at the Syrian port of Ugarit, modern Ras Shamra. Underneath what he termed the strata of the Middle Bronze Age he found a four-meter deep destruction layer composed of what he described as calcined or hardened ash. Beneath this level, Schaeffer uncovered the remains of what he described as the Early Bronze Age in Syria. The destruction layer and the event which caused it was therefore dated by Schaeffer to circa 2200 B.C. - the date normally given for the end of the Early Bronze Age in the Middle East. (See Schaeffer’s Stratigraphee et chronologie de l’Asie occidentale (1948))
On the face of it then Schaeffer's "great fire" of Ugarit had nothing to do with the 'Great Flood' of Ur - an event dated by Leonard Woolley to circa 3300 B.C. - a thousand years before the destruction of Ugarit. Owing to the fact that dates and terminologies are rarely questioned by researchers, it has therefore entered the textbooks that a local flood in Lower Mesopotamia destroyed Ur around 3300 B.C. and a great fire in northern Syria destroyed Ugarit a thousand years later. However, closer examination reveals a striking flaw in the narrative. The culture destroyed by the 'fire' at Ugarit (which must surely have been the result of massive vulcanism), which Schaeffer assigned to the last phase of the Early Bronze Age, produced a distinctive form of hand-made pottery known as 'Ubaid - precisely the same type of pottery associated with the 'Chalcolithic' culture overwhelmed by the Flood at Ur. So, in Ur, 'Ubaid pottery and culture was dated to 3300 B.C. and called Chalcolithic, whilst in Ugarit 'Ubaid pottery and culture was dated to 2300 B.C. and called late Early Bronze Age. Furthermore, the cultures which appeared above the destruction-layers in both regions, named Khirbet-Kerak in Syria and Jamdat-Nasr (or Uruk) in Mesopotamia, also displayed striking affinities; though these too are separated in the textbooks by a thousand years.
In fact, subsequent experience showed that there was roughly a thousand-year discrepancy in the dating and classification of cultures and pottery styles between Mesopotamia on the one hand and Syria/Palestine on the other - a fact illustrated very clearly by James Kaplan in 1971. Kaplan showed, for example, that the pottery of the Akkadian epoch in Mesopotamia - dated to circa 2300 B.C. - is identical to that of the Hyksos epoch in Syria/Palestine - where however it is dated to c. 1600 B.C. (This means, among other things, that the Akkadians and Hyksos were one and the same people; which implies, by itself, a complete rewrite of history).
It would seem certain then that the cataclysmic 'fire' (or whatever it was) that left a 4-meter (13 foot) destruction layer in Syria occurred simultaneously with the flood which left a 3-meter (10 foot) destruction later in Lower Mesopotamia. The two events then were evidently local manifestations of a cataclysmic upheaval which affected the entire globe. And, as Schaeffer himself made clear, the signature of this and other lesser cataclysms is observed throughout the Levant - clearly the imprint of a global catastrophes.
These events, as Immanuel Velikovsky pointed out, are explicitly referred to in all ancient mythologies (eg. Atlantis story, Flood legend, Tower legend etc), though they have now been ‘reinterpreted’ as allegory or localised incidents by scholars who have been effectively blinded by a fictitious chronology.