Jump to content

New Chronology (Rohl): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rd232 (talk | contribs)
54,863 edits
David Rohl (talk | contribs)
358 edits
→‎Rohl's New Chronology: Expanding with academic quotes and correcting
Line 34: Line 34:
Prior to the 1995 publication of ''A Test of Time'', [[Thomas L. Thompson]], a [[theologian]] associated with the [[The Copenhagen School (theology)|Copenhagen School]], had insisted that any attempt to write history based on a direct integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources was "not only dubious but wholly ludicrous".<ref name="st131002"/> Rohl explained his view on the issue in the ''Lost Testament'' (2007): "Is the Old Testament history or myth? The only way to answer that question is to investigate the biblical stories using the archaeological evidence, combined with a study of the ancient texts of the civilisations which had a role to play in the Bible story. But this has to be done with an open mind. In my view the biblical text – just like any other ancient document – should be treated as a potentially reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise."<ref>''The Lost Testament'', p. 3</ref> Rohl had previously remarked in the 1995 ''A Test of Time'' that he "did not originally set out to challenge our current understanding of the Old Testament narratives. This has come about simply because of the need to explore the ramifications of my TIP [Egyptian Third Intermediate Period] research. I have no religious axe to grind – I am simply an historian in search of some historical truth."<ref>''A Test of Time'', p.11</ref>
Prior to the 1995 publication of ''A Test of Time'', [[Thomas L. Thompson]], a [[theologian]] associated with the [[The Copenhagen School (theology)|Copenhagen School]], had insisted that any attempt to write history based on a direct integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources was "not only dubious but wholly ludicrous".<ref name="st131002"/> Rohl explained his view on the issue in the ''Lost Testament'' (2007): "Is the Old Testament history or myth? The only way to answer that question is to investigate the biblical stories using the archaeological evidence, combined with a study of the ancient texts of the civilisations which had a role to play in the Bible story. But this has to be done with an open mind. In my view the biblical text – just like any other ancient document – should be treated as a potentially reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise."<ref>''The Lost Testament'', p. 3</ref> Rohl had previously remarked in the 1995 ''A Test of Time'' that he "did not originally set out to challenge our current understanding of the Old Testament narratives. This has come about simply because of the need to explore the ramifications of my TIP [Egyptian Third Intermediate Period] research. I have no religious axe to grind – I am simply an historian in search of some historical truth."<ref>''A Test of Time'', p.11</ref>


Rohl's redating is based on criticism of three of the four arguments which he considers are the foundations of the conventional Egyptian chronology:
Rohl's redating is based on criticism of three of the four arguments which he considers are the original foundations of the conventional chronology for the Egyptian New Kingdom:


* He claims that the identification of "[[Shishaq]] ['Shishak'], King of Egypt" ([[Books of Kings|1 Kings]] 14:25f; [[Books of Chronicles|2 Chronicles]] 12:2-9) with [[Shoshenq I]], first proposed by [[Jean-François Champollion]], is based on incorrect conclusions. Rohl argues instead that Shishaq should be identified with [[Ramesses II]], which would move the date of Ramesses' reign forward some 300 years.
* He claims that the identification of "[[Shishaq]] ['Shishak'], King of Egypt" ([[Books of Kings|1 Kings]] 14:25f; [[Books of Chronicles|2 Chronicles]] 12:2-9) with [[Shoshenq I]], first proposed by [[Jean-François Champollion]], is based on incorrect conclusions. Rohl argues instead that Shishaq should be identified with [[Ramesses II]], which would move the date of Ramesses' reign forward some 300 years.


* He claims that the record in the [[Ebers papyrus]] of the [[Sothic cycle|rising of Sirius]] in the ninth [[regnal year]] of [[Amenhotep I]], which supposedly fixes the year to either [[1542 BC]] or [[1517 BC]], is misread, and instead should be understood as evidence for a reform in the Egyptian Calendar.
* Rohl also claims that the record in the [[Ebers papyrus]] of the [[Sothic cycle|rising of Sirius]] in the ninth [[regnal year]] of [[Amenhotep I]], which supposedly fixes that year to either [[1542 BC]] or [[1517 BC]], has been misread, and instead should be understood as evidence for a reform in the Egyptian calendar. This negative view of Papyrus Ebers is exemplified by Professor Jürgen von Beckerath who is of the opinion that "The calendar on the verso of the Ebers Medical Papyrus is by now so disputed that we must ask ourselves whether we really possess a sure basis for the chronology of this period of Egyptian history which is, after all, of the greatest importance for fixing the sequence of historical events, as well as for neighbouring countries".<ref>Becherath, J. von, in Helk, W. (ed.) Abstracts for the 'High, Middle or Low? International Colloquium on Chronology held at Schloss Haindorf (1990), p. 5</ref> Professor Wolfgang Helck concludes that "We therefore think it is safer to start from the regnal dates rather than from interpretations of real or supposed Sirius (Sothic) or New Moon dates".<ref>Helck, W. in Helk, W. (ed.) Abstracts for the 'High, Middle or Low? International Colloquium on Chronology held at Schloss Haindorf (1990), p. 21</ref>


* Papyrus Leiden I.350, which dates to the 52nd year of Ramesses II, records lunar observations that place that year of Ramesses' reign in one of 1278, 1253, 1228 or 1203 BC. Having questioned the value of the Ebers Papyrus, Rohl argues that since these lunar observations are accurate every twenty-five years, they could also indicate dates 300 years later.
* Papyrus Leiden I.350, which dates to the 52nd year of Ramesses II, records a lunar observation which places that year of Ramesses' reign in one of 1278, 1253, 1228 or 1203 BC within the date range of the conventional chronology. Having questioned the value of the Ebers Papyrus, Rohl argues that, since the lunar cycle repeats itself every twenty-five years, it is only useful for fine tuning a chronology and could equally apply to dates 300 years later as in the New Chronology.

Thus, in Rohl's opinion, none of these three 'foundations' of the conventional Egyptian chronology are secure, leaving the sacking of Thebes by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in 664 BC as the earliest fixed date in Egyptian history.


===Evidence adduced===
===Evidence adduced===

Revision as of 19:27, 30 August 2009

The New Chronology is an alternative Chronology of the ancient Near East developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl, beginning with A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History in 1995. It contradicts mainstream Egyptology by proposing a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, in particular by redating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties, lowering conventional dates up to 350 years.

Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows him to identify many of the main characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archaeological finds. The New Chronology has been disseminated in popular media but "most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."[1]

Conventional Egyptian chronology

Main articles: Egyptian chronology and Biblical chronology
Further information: Chronology of the Ancient Near East

Establishing a chronology for the ancient Near East relies on using a combination of various ancient King lists and searching for chronological synchronism with events whose dates are known. This is complicated by the fact that the ancient Egyptians used no single system of dating, and that the length of their reigns is often not accurately known, especially where interregnums or coregencies are involved.

The fact that no single ancient source provides a complete list of rulers makes matters worse, and a single ancient source (such as Manetho's history of Egypt) can even contradict itself by coming to us only through a variety of intermediary sources.

There are four main pieces of evidence - chronlogical synchronisms - on which the conventional Egyptian chronology rests.[citation needed]

  • Papyrus Leiden I.350, which dates to the 52nd year of Ramesses II, records lunar observations that place that year of Ramesses' reign in one of 1278, 1253, 1228 or 1203 BC.

Rohl's New Chronology

Chart comparing the chronology models

David Rohl's published works A Test of Time (1995), Legend (1998), The Lost Testament (2002), and The Lords of Avaris (2007) set forth Rohl's theories for redating the major civilisations of the ancient world. A Test of Time proposes a down-dating, by several centuries, of the Egyptian New Kingdom, thus requiring a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt. Rohl asserts that this would permit scholars to identify some of the major events in the Old Testament with events in the archaeological record, and identify some of the well-known biblical characters with historical figures who appear in contemporary ancient texts. Lowering the Egyptian dates also dramatically effects the dating of dependent chronologies, such as that currently employed for the Greek 'Heroic Age' of the Late Bronze Age, removing the Greek Dark Age and lowering the dates of the Trojan War to within a couple of generations of a 9th-century-BC Homer and his most famous composition - The Iliad.

Rejecting the Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky and the Glasgow Chronology presented at the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies' 1978 'Ages in Chaos' conference, the New Chronology lowers the Egyptian dates (established within the traditional chronology) by up to 350 years at points prior to the universally accepted fixed date of 664 BC for the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal.

Prior to the 1995 publication of A Test of Time, Thomas L. Thompson, a theologian associated with the Copenhagen School, had insisted that any attempt to write history based on a direct integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources was "not only dubious but wholly ludicrous".[2] Rohl explained his view on the issue in the Lost Testament (2007): "Is the Old Testament history or myth? The only way to answer that question is to investigate the biblical stories using the archaeological evidence, combined with a study of the ancient texts of the civilisations which had a role to play in the Bible story. But this has to be done with an open mind. In my view the biblical text – just like any other ancient document – should be treated as a potentially reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise."[3] Rohl had previously remarked in the 1995 A Test of Time that he "did not originally set out to challenge our current understanding of the Old Testament narratives. This has come about simply because of the need to explore the ramifications of my TIP [Egyptian Third Intermediate Period] research. I have no religious axe to grind – I am simply an historian in search of some historical truth."[4]

Rohl's redating is based on criticism of three of the four arguments which he considers are the original foundations of the conventional chronology for the Egyptian New Kingdom:

  • Rohl also claims that the record in the Ebers papyrus of the rising of Sirius in the ninth regnal year of Amenhotep I, which supposedly fixes that year to either 1542 BC or 1517 BC, has been misread, and instead should be understood as evidence for a reform in the Egyptian calendar. This negative view of Papyrus Ebers is exemplified by Professor Jürgen von Beckerath who is of the opinion that "The calendar on the verso of the Ebers Medical Papyrus is by now so disputed that we must ask ourselves whether we really possess a sure basis for the chronology of this period of Egyptian history which is, after all, of the greatest importance for fixing the sequence of historical events, as well as for neighbouring countries".[5] Professor Wolfgang Helck concludes that "We therefore think it is safer to start from the regnal dates rather than from interpretations of real or supposed Sirius (Sothic) or New Moon dates".[6]
  • Papyrus Leiden I.350, which dates to the 52nd year of Ramesses II, records a lunar observation which places that year of Ramesses' reign in one of 1278, 1253, 1228 or 1203 BC within the date range of the conventional chronology. Having questioned the value of the Ebers Papyrus, Rohl argues that, since the lunar cycle repeats itself every twenty-five years, it is only useful for fine tuning a chronology and could equally apply to dates 300 years later as in the New Chronology.

Thus, in Rohl's opinion, none of these three 'foundations' of the conventional Egyptian chronology are secure, leaving the sacking of Thebes by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in 664 BC as the earliest fixed date in Egyptian history.

Evidence adduced

Rohl bases his revised chronology (the New Chronology) on his interpretation of numerous archeological finds and genealogical records from Egypt. For example:

  • Rohl notes that no Apis bull burials are recorded in the Lesser Vaults at Saqqara for the 21st and early 22nd dynasties of Egypt. He also argues that the reburial sequence of the mummies of the New Kingdom pharaohs in the Royal Cache (TT 320) indicates that these two dynasties were contemporary (thus explaining why there are insufficient Apis burials for the period). Rohl finds confirmation of this scenario of parallel dynasties in the royal burial ground at Tanis where it appears that the tomb of Osorkon II of the 22nd Dynasty was built before that of Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty. In Rohl's view this can only be explained if the two dynasties were contemporary.
  • Rohl offers inscriptions that list three non-royal genealogies which, when one attributes 20 to 23 years to a generation, show, according to Rohl, that Ramesses II flourished in the 10th century BC as Rohl advocates. In the conventional chronology, all three genealogies would be missing seven generations. He also argues that there are no genealogies that confirm the conventional dates for Ramesses II in the 13th century BC.
  • One of Rohl's methods is the use of archaeo-astronomy, which he employs to fix the date of a near-sunset solar eclipse during the reign of Amenhotep IV and observed from the city of Ugarit. Based on his calculations, using computer astronomy programs, Rohl asserts that the only time when this eclipse could have occurred during the whole second millennium BC was on 9 May 1012 BCE. This is approximately 350 years later than the conventional dates for Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) (1353-1334 BC).
  • Rohl's dates for Amenemhat III of the 12th Dynasty in the 17th century BC, has found support in the work of astronomer David Lappin whose research finds matches for a sequence of 37 out of 39 lunar month lengths recorded in 12th Dynasty contracts. The conventional chronology, on the other hand, matches at best 21. According to Lappin, this pattern provides "startling" support for Rohl's chronology.[2]

Shishaq

Comparison by David Rohl of (first line) the name Sysw (the hypocoristicon of Ramesses II) as it would have been written using 13th to 10th century Proto-Hebrew signs, and (second line) the biblical name Shyshk as it would have been written using 9th to 7th-century Early Hebrew signs. The signs are taken from pottery inscriptions dating to those periods (namely the Lachish VI ostracon and the Izbet Sartah abcedary).

Most Egyptologists accept Shishaq as an alternative name for Shoshenq I.[7][8][9] Rohl disputes that Shoshenq's military activity fits the biblical account of Shishaq on the grounds that the two kings' campaigns are completely different and Jerusalem does not appear in the Shoshenq inscription as a subjected town.[10] He also points out that Ramesses did campaign against Israel and that he had a short form of his formal name which was in use in Palestine.[11] That name was Sysw, whilst early Hebrew did not distinguish between S and SH, so the biblical name may have originally been Sysq. Rohl has also argued that the qoph ending may be a later misreading of the early sign for waw which in the 10th century was identical to the 7th century sign for qoph. Thus 7th century Sysq may have been a mistaken later reading of 10th century Sysw.[12]

The theory that Ramesses II (hypocoristicon 'Sysa'), rather than Shoshenk I, should be identified with the biblical Shishak is not widely accepted..[13]

It should be noted that one scholar, Kevin Wilson, agrees only partially with David Rohl. Wilson accepts that there is a mismatch between the triumphal relief of Shoshenq I and the biblical description of King Shishak. However, he does not think that this discrepancy gives sufficient reason for doubting the identification of Shoshenq I with King Shishak of the Bible. Wilson writes about Shoshenk's inscription, "Contrary to previous studies, which have interpreted the relief as a celebration of his Palestine campaign, neither the triumphal relief nor any of its elements can be utilized as a source for historical data about that campaign. … the triumphal relief can unfortunately play no role in the reconstruction of Shoshenq’s campaign."[14]

However, Wilson's view is not supported by Kenneth Kitchen who states: "That the great topographical list of Shoshenq I at Karnak is a document of the greatest possible value for the history and nature of his campaign against Judah and Israel is now clearly established beyond all dispute, thanks to the labours expended on that list by a series of scholars. However, the composition and interpretation of the list still require further examination and clarification".[15] Other leading scholars who have studied the campaign relief point out that it is indeed a unique list of subjected towns and not a copy of an earlier campaign by a more celebrated pharaoh.[16][17][18][19] This originality makes it far more likely that it is a true representation of cities and locations brought under Egyptian control by the military activities of Shoshenk I.

Implications

Redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Qadesh and revise the linked chronology of Hittite history, it would also require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 911 BC. Given a dependence of Hittite chronology on Egyptian chronology[20], a lowering of Egyptian dates would result in a lowering of the end of the Hittite New Kingdom and a resulting reduction (or complete removal) of the Anatolian Dark Age.[21]

Rohl identifies Labaya, a ruler of the central hill country of Israel/Palestine whose activities are documented in the Amarna Letters, with King Saul, and identifies King David with Dadua ('Tadua'), also mentioned in Amarna Letter EA256. Saul and Labaya, for example, share the same demise - "both die in battle - against a coalition of city states from the coastal plain - on or near Mount Gilboa, both as a result of betrayal."[2] Both have a surviving son whose name translates as 'Man of Baal'. The New Chronology also places King Solomon in the wealthy Late Bronze Age, rather than in the relatively impoverished Early Iron Age, as in the conventional chronology. Rohl and other[who?] "New Chronology researchers" contend that this certainly fits better with the Old Testament description of Solomon's wealth.[2]

Identifications

Rohl identifies:

Rohl's revised chronology of Pharaohs

Dates proposed by Rohl for various Egyptian monarchs:

Reception

In Egyptology

The New Chronology has not been accepted by Egyptologists[22], who continue to work with the conventional chronology or small variations of it. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis '100% nonsense'[23]. Academic discussions on the New Chronology have largely not taken place in mainstream Egyptological or archaeological journals. Most discussions are to be found in the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences' Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1985 - 2006),[24] which specialised in the chronological issues generally neglected in mainstream Egyptology.[25]

Bennett (1996)[22] notes that besides academic debate on problems with the conventional chronology, mostly associated with the Thera eruption, a "far deeper challenge ... has been mounted in the public arena." The history of this challenge to mainstream consensus outside of academic debate originates with the 1991 Centuries of Darkness by Peter James, together with Rohl, co-founder of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences. Centuries of Darkness postulated 250 years of non-existent "phantom time" in the conventional chronology based on an archaeological "Dark Age".[26]

In 1995 Rohl published his version of the New Chronology, in the best-selling book A Test of Time, accompanied by a 1995 Channel 4 three-part series Pharaohs and Kings - A Biblical Quest. A Test of Time takes up the general scenario presented by James, adding many details omitted in 1991, including the "dramatic results" pertaining to Biblical chronology. Whilst the New Chronology has not been accepted in academia, it has been widely disseminated to the public since the 1990s via Rohl's best-selling[27] books and a 1995 Channel 4 television documentary, aired in the USA in 1996 on The Learning Channel. Berthoud (2008) contrasts the "near-unanimous" rejection of Rohl's theories in Egyptology with the "sensational effect" his books, combined with the television series, had on the general public.[28]

Because of the sensational claims, the publication in popular media, and the earlier association of both James and Rohl with Velikovskian groups, the reaction of some leading figures from the academic establishment has been very hostile. Kenneth Kitchen presented a "savage review" of Centuries of Darkness in the Times Literary Supplement, and the British Museum banned A Test of Time from its museum store.[29] Bennett (1996), while rejecting Rohl's thesis, suggests that such out-of-hand rejection may be premature in Rohl's case, since "there is a world of difference between [Rohl's] intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter James" since, unlike similar published "popular radicalisms", "Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material".

Professor Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College, London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, states "An extreme low chronology has been proposed recently by a group devoted to revising the absolute chronology of the Mediterranean and Western Asia: P. James et al., Centuries of Darkness, London, 1991; similar, though slightly diverging revisions, are upheld by another group, too, and partly published in the journal Ancient Chronology Forum. The hub for the dating of other cultures is Egypt, so much of the work of both groups focuses on Egyptian evidence. Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework presented in these volumes, but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."[1]

By evangelicals

Rohl’s theories, as they relate to biblical interpretation (specifically synchronizing archaeological evidence with events and personalities described in the Old Testament) have received considerable attention in evangelical and creationist circles. Some Bible literalists have embraced Rohl's findings as confirmation of the historicity of the biblical narrative. Others have been vehemently opposed to Rohl's chronological revision and the apparent biblical synchronisms that result, referring to fellow evangelical Christian, Kenneth Kitchen, as an authoritative critic of Rohl’s work.

In December 1999 the Dutch language internet journal Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie ("Bible, History and Archaeology") devoted space to a debate about Rohl's New Chronology. According to evangelical scholar, J.G. van der Land, editor of the journal, Rohl's time-line resolves some archaeological anomalies surrounding ancient Egypt, but creates conflicts with other areas that make it untenable.[30] His arguments were then countered by Peter van der Veen and Robert Porter.[31][32] In the final article in the issue, van der Land identified some new issues for Rohl's chronology arising from recent finds in Assyrian letters.[33] A detailed response to that article was made by Bernard Newgrosh but was not published by van der Land.[citation needed] That material is now available in Newgrosh’s volume on Mesopotamian chronology ‘Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia’ published in 2007.[34]

Literature

  • Newgrosh, Bernard (2007). Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia. Leicester: Troubador Publishing. ISBN 9781906221621.
  • Rohl, David (1998). Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation. London: Century. ISBN 071267747X.
  • Rohl, David (2007). The Lords of Avaris: Uncovering the Legendary Origins of Western Civilisation. London: Century. ISBN 0712677623.
  • Rohl, David (2002). The Lost Testament: From Eden to Exile - The Five-Thousand-Year history of the People of the Bible. London: Century. ISBN 0712669930. Published in paperback as Rohl, David (2003). From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible. London: Arrow Books Ltd. ISBN 0099415666.
  • Rohl, David (1995). A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History. London: Century. ISBN 0712659137. Published in the U.S. as Rohl, David (1995). Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0517703157.
  • Van der Veen, Peter (2004). Biblische Archäologie Am Scheideweg?: Für und Wider einer Neudatierung archäologischer Epochen im alttestamentlichen Palästina. Holzgerlingen, Germany: Haenssler-Verlag GmbH. ISBN 9783775138512. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Kuhrt, Amélie. 'The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC, Volume I (Routledge History of the Ancient World series, London & New York, 1995), p. 14.
  2. ^ a b c d The Sunday Times, 13 October 2002, How myth became history
  3. ^ The Lost Testament, p. 3
  4. ^ A Test of Time, p.11
  5. ^ Becherath, J. von, in Helk, W. (ed.) Abstracts for the 'High, Middle or Low? International Colloquium on Chronology held at Schloss Haindorf (1990), p. 5
  6. ^ Helck, W. in Helk, W. (ed.) Abstracts for the 'High, Middle or Low? International Colloquium on Chronology held at Schloss Haindorf (1990), p. 21
  7. ^ Ash, Paul S. David, Solomon and Egypt Continuum International Publishing Group - Sheffie (1 Nov 1999) ISBN 978-1841270210 pp.30-31
  8. ^ Coogan, Michael David The Oxford History of the Biblical World Oxford Paperbacks; New edition (26 Jul 2001) ISBN 978-0195139372 p. 175
  9. ^ Wilson, Kevin A The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine Mohr Siebeck 2005 ISBN 978-3161482700 p.1
  10. ^ A Test of Time, pp. 122-27.
  11. ^ The Lost Testament, pp. 389-96.
  12. ^ David Rohl, Shoshenk, Shishak and Shysha, accessed 7 August 2009
  13. ^ Grisanti, Michael A; Davd M. Howard Giving the Sense Kregel Academic & Professional (1 April 2004) ISBN 978-0825428920 p.193 [1]
  14. ^ Wilson, Kevin A. (2005). The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine. Mohr Siebeck. p. 65. ISBN 3161482700.
  15. ^ Kichen, Kenneth A. (1973). The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. Aris & Phillips. p. 432. ISBN 0 85668 001. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
  16. ^ Noth, M. (1938). ZDPV 61. p. 277-304.
  17. ^ Albright, W. F. (1937/39). Archiv für Orientfoschung 12. p. 385-86. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  18. ^ Mazar, B. (1957). VTS 4. p. 57-66.
  19. ^ Aharoni, Y. (1966). The Land of the Bible. p. 283-90.
  20. ^ Burney, Charles Allen (2004). Historical dictionary of the Hittites. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810849364, 9780810849365. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  21. ^ The Lords of Avaris, Chapter 17.
  22. ^ a b Bennett, Chris. "Temporal Fugues", Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies XIII (1996). Available at [2]
  23. ^ Kitchen, Kenneth (2003). "Egyptian interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II". In Dever, William G. (ed.). Symbiosis, symbolism, and the power of the past: Canaan, ancient Israel, and their neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Seymour Gitin. Eisenbrauns. p. 122. ISBN 1575060817, 9781575060811. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  24. ^ ISIS archive, Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum
  25. ^ Sturt W. Manning in Classical Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2 (1997), pp. 438-439 - "Chronology and dating in academic archaeology and ancient history are subjects avidly practised by a few, regarded as a necessary but comprehensively boring evil by the majority. As with public transport, we all need the timetable in order to travel, but we have no desire to learn about the workings of the necessary trains, buses, tracks, roads, stations, connections, and so on. Moreover, the study of chronology is unpleasant, detailed, and difficult, and lacks intellectual status and élan. It is like engineering, or surgery. Thus, where possible, the academic establishment likes to find some study on chronology to be effectively definitive, and the agreed 'text': other, higher, work can then be attended to. E. Meyer's study of 1892 on Herodotos' chronology thus remains a basis for current study for Greek history; J. A. Brinkman's work on Kassite chronology (article 1970, book 1976) remains effectively definitive; and so on. It is only when some iconoclast, or outsider, challenges the whole structure, tries to 'beat the boffins', that general academic attention returns to chronology (e.g. Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness, 1991, David Rohl, A Test of Time, 1995).")
  26. ^ "In a special review issue of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal these proposals were roundly rejected by experts in all disciplines in Old World archaeology, a result virtually assured by the failure of the authors to present more than an outline restructuring for Egyptian chronology." Bennett (1996:2)
  27. ^ A Test of Time stayed at no. 2 on the Sunday Times bestseller list for eight weeks in 1995; Legend stayed in the top ten for nine weeks in 1998. David Rohl, David's CV[unreliable source?]
  28. ^ Berthoud, J-M. Creation Bible Et Science, 2008, ISBN 9782825138878, 244f.
  29. ^ http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503
  30. ^ van der Land, J.G. (2000) "Pharaohs and the Bible: David Rohl's chronology untenable", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  31. ^ van der Veen, P.G. (2000) "Is Rohl's Chronology inaccurate? A reply to BGA'," Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  32. ^ Porter, R.M. (2000) "'Did the Philistines settle in Canaan around 1200 BC?", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  33. ^ van der Land, J.G. (2000), "Conclusive evidence against Rohl's proposed New Chronology: An Assyrian chancellor's archive", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  34. ^ Newgrosh, B. "Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia" (Matador, ISBN 978-1905221-621, Leicester, 2007)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Chronology_(Rohl)&oldid=310937179"