On 2002-07-12 15:46, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
Concerning David Rohl and his New Chronology: Nebularain is pretty much on the mark about how other chronologies would be affected if the Egyptian was proved to be off. Rohl is by no means the only scientist involved in this.
Rohl's book, A Test of Time
in the original UK edition, Pharoahs and Kings
in the US edition (but currently OOP), goes into much greater detail than either the TV special based on it (natch) or his website Nunki.net
, although his website contains some updated info for those who already have the book.
Another, even better source because it covers the fallout regarding most Mediterranean civilisations where the chronology is based on the Egyptian, is Peter James' Centuries of Darkness
website (unfortunately, his book, also Centuries of Darkness
, is Special Order but if you don't mind waiting it's a great resource on this specific topic). James, like Rohl, is not
a Biblical scholar or archaelogist; he covers the Israelite chronology as only one of many that have been artificially extended due to being forced to match an Egyptian chronology that is single-sourced on the priest Manetho's Pharoanic list. James' work shows that nearly all of the ANE and other Mediterranean cultures of the Late Bronze Age and thereabouts have to have "dark ages", generally on the rough order of two centuries worth, interpolated into their timelines not because of any evidence, but because that's the only way to make their chronologies line up with Manetho's. James then proposes that the real solution isn't to extend everybody else's timeline by two centuries, but to find the "unnecessary" two centuries (not necessarily in a single block) to cut out of Manetho.
The most reasonable general solution is that not all of the Egyptian dynasties were non-overlapping; also, individual Pharoahs had overlapping reigns at times, generally by raising a son to co-Pharoah before his father's death. It is known, and accepted in the concensus chronology, that this did
happen from time to time; the extent of Rohl's and James' "revisionism" is to point out that it probably happened more often than the archaeologic Old Guard are willing as yet to accept.
Another site that deals with this is Jim Reilly's Displaced Dynasties
. Likewise, P. John Crowe's Revision of Ancient History
Needless to say, not all of these archaeologists agree on exactly when
to cut out the roughly two centuries from Manetho. Most accept the proposition that more than one block, totalling ~200 years, is likely to be the solution, rather than a single occurrence.
All in all, this is not simply a "lone voice crying in the wilderness" issue any more: too many good, young archaeologists from different backgrounds (Egyptology, Mycenaean, and yes, Biblical) are seeing that this is a real problem and needs to be addressed. As is normal for a (I hate the phrase, but I'll use it here anyway) paradigm shift
, the Old Guard is resisting any change in the accepted concensus chronology, but it's becoming more and more obvious that they're "phlogiston" archaeologists as far as this particular point goes.
And, having the point of view that I have, I do want to point out: Many archaeologists who deal, directly or indirectly, with the archaeology of the Levant, do not accept that the Bible is an inspired Scripture, and at the same time insist that Manetho's Pharoanic list, which for the vast majority of its timeline is only vaguely supported by any other evidence (and not always even that), cannot be tampered with. It is, as they say, to laugh. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
The (dig we must) Curtmudgeon