On 2002-07-15 18:11, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
On 2002-07-14 21:02, samsara15 wrote:
I CAN'T BUY THOSE ARGUMENTS. SORRY.
Hmm, okay, but just saying that doesn't establish that the arguments are in error.
I could go into more detail about what the arguments, pro and con, actually are, but then this isn't Bad Archaeology, is it? I've put the links in my previous post just so that those who are interested in the topic can go read the arguments for themselves (and although I didn't put any links directly for the "Establishment" position, all the sources I did link to have complete bibliographies). Pointless, and disruptive, for me to go into more detail here.
Nebularain, as for your comment about whether everything Rohl presented is correct, I would tend to agree with you. Reading Rohl, I found his presentation style (you can tell the book was written with the TV production in mind [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] ) sometimes got in the way of his arguments, and a few at the end of the book actually impressed me as being a bit "too good", even while I truly would like to believe them. Nevertheless, his point about the ~200y problem being an Egyptian chronology problem is amply demonstrated by James' work, who got to that same point from a totally different direction, and then went surveying all through the Middle/Late Bronze Age Med cultures and found the problem replicated. In fact, it was reading James' tome (not too bad a description of it: it's weighty
both in size and content) that really convinced me about the scope of the problem. Rohl touches on just the Egyptian and Biblical chronologies (which, unfortunately, has left him open to some criticism from the anti-Bible crowd, although reading him shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's certainly not a Biblical literalist, and he came to this problem completely through Egyptological questions, and only later discovered that his proposed solution also solved some Biblical chrono questions). James shows that the problem is very much more wide spread, with evidence from MBA/LBA Spain, Sardinia, Italy, Sicily, Libya, Balkans, Greece, Anatolia (Hittites as well as others, such as Lydians), Syria, Phoenicia, Nubia, as well as Egypt and Israel--and even Assyria and other Mesopotamian cultures where the chronology is only partially based on the Egyptian.
Chronology in archaeology, just like dating in geology/paleontology, has always been a thorny problem. It has to be, by its very nature; stamping everything "(c) 2002" or "Made in Sumer 5000 BC" is a strictly modern phenomenon. The fact that the chronologies are being debated is not, therefore, much of a surprise; the fact that the concensus chronology has gone essentially unchallenged for as long as it has is the real surprise.
The (but then, I supposed I'm dating myself) Curtmudgeon