Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:27, 26 August 2009

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (August 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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 has not been accepted in Egyptology.

Conventional Egyptian chronology

This section may contain material not related to the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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.

• The record in the Ebers papyrus of the rising of Sirius in the ninth regnal year of Amenhotep I, which fixes the year to either 1542 BC or 1517 BC.

• 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.

• The identification of "Shishaq , King of Egypt" (1 Kings 14:25f; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9) with Shoshenq I (reign 943 - 922 BC), first proposed by Jean-François Champollion.

• the invasion of Egypt and sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal in 664 BCE during the reign of Taharqa.

Rohl's New Chronology

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.

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

• He claims that the identification of "Shishaq , King of Egypt" (1 Kings 14:25f; 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 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.

• 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.

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 which was 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 Amenothep 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.

Shishaq

Most Egyptologists accept Shishaq as an alternative name for Shoshenq I. 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. 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. 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.

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

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."

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". 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. 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

According to Rohl, 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, 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.

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, 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." 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 "New Chronology researchers" contend that this certainly fits better with the Old Testament description of Solomon's wealth.

Identifications

Rohl identifies:

• Amraphel (Genesis 14) with Amar-Sin, king of Kish in Sumer (1834-1825 BC/BCE by Rohl's chronology).
• Tidal, King of Goyim/King of Nations (Genesis 14), with Tishdal, Hurrian ruler from the Zagros mountains.
• Amenemhat III with the Pharaoh of Joseph, and Joseph with the Vizier of Amenemhat III.
• The "new king who did not know Joseph" in Exodus 1:8 is identified by Rohl with either Sobekhotep III or Neferhotep I.
• Neferhotep I with the adoptive grandfather of Moses.
• Khanefere Sebekhotep IV, brother and successor of Neferhotep, with Khenephres, the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled to Midian.
• The Pharaoh of the Exodus with Tutimaios, known also as Dudimose.
• Ibni, Middle Bronze Age ruler of Hazor, with Jabin, king of Hazor in Joshua 11:10.
• Akish or Achish, king of Gath, is identified with Šuwardata, King of Gath in the Amarna letters. Akish is believed to be a shortened form of the Hurrian name Akishimige, "the Sun God has given." Shuwardata is an Indo-European name meaning "the Sun God has given."
• Aziru of the Amarna Letters is identified with Hadadezer, Syrian king in II Samuel.
• Labaya, a ruler in the Amarna Letters, with King Saul.
• King David with Dadua in Amarna Letter EA256.
• Mutbaal, writer of the letter, is identified with Ishbaal (aka Ishbosheth). The two names have exactly the same meaning: "Man of Baal." Following the death of his father (Labaya/Saul), Mutbaal/Ishbaal moved his center to Transjordan.
• Benemina, also mentioned in EA256, is identified by Rohl with Baanah, Israelite chieftain in II Samuel 4, who would later betray and assassinate Ishbosheth.
• Yishuya, also mentioned in EA256, is identified with Jesse (Ishai in Hebrew), father of David.
• Ayab, the subject of EA 256, is held to be the same as the Biblical Yoav (English "Joab").
• Horemheb is identified with the Pharaoh who destroyed Gezer and later gave it to Solomon, together with one of his daughters as a wife. When Horemhab took Gezer he was not yet the ruler, but was acting under Tutankhamun. However, he became Pharaoh not long after, and Tutankhamun died too young to have left any marriageable daughters.
• Ramses II (hypocoristicon = Shysha) with Shishak in the Bible.
• Sheshi, a Hyksos ruler, with Sheshai, a ruler of Hebron descended from Anak (Joshua 15:13-15).
• Io of the Line of Inachus with Queen Ahhotep of the 17th Dynasty of Egypt at Waset
• Cadmus of Thebes with Cadmus in the line of Pelasgian rulers of Crete
• Inachus with Anak-idbu Khyan of the Greater Hyksos
• Auserre Apepi of the Greater Hyksos with Epaphus
• Cush, son of biblical Ham with Meskiagkasher of the First Dynasty of Uruk

Rohl's revised chronology of Pharaohs

Dates proposed by Rohl for various Egyptian monarchs:

• Wegaf : 1632-1630 BCE
• Dudimose : 1450-1446 BCE. the Exodus took place in 1447 BCE in Rohl's chronology.
• Ahmose I : 1194-1170 BCE. The end of the Hyksos rule at Awaris took place in 1183 BCE, according to Rohl.
• Amenhotep I : 1170-1150 BCE
• Ramses II : 944-878 BCE

Reception

Rohl's theories have not been accepted by Egyptologists, 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'. Thomas L. Thompson, a biblical minimalist, has insisted that any attempt to write history based on a direct integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources is "not only dubious but wholly ludicrous".

In December 1999 the Dutch language journal Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie ("Bible, History and Archaeology") devoted space to a debate about Rohl's New Chronology. According to 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. His arguments were countered by Peter van der Veen and Robert Porter. In the final article in the issue, van der Land identified some new issues for Rohl's chronology arising from recent finds from Assyrian letters.

Bennett (1996) 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".

Rohl's 1995 A Test of Time combined with the 1995 Channel 4 three-part-series Pharaohs and Kings - A Biblical Quest, takes up the general scenario presented by James, adding many details omitted in 1991, including the "dramatic results" pertaining to Biblical chronology. The New Chronology has not been accepted in Egyptology but has been widely disseminated to the public since the 1990s via Rohl's best-selling books and a 1995 Channel 4 television documentary, aired in the USA in 1996 on The Learning Channel.

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 the academic establishment was 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. 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 intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter James" since, unlike similar published "popular radicalisms", "Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material".

Rohl's theories, because of their apparent support for Biblical literalism, have also been noted in creationist literature. Thus, 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.

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

• Phantom time hypothesis
• New Chronology (Fomenko)

References

1. ^ The Sunday Times, 13 October 2002, How myth became history
2. Ash, Paul S. David, Solomon and Egypt Continuum International Publishing Group - Sheffie (1 Nov 1999) ISBN 978-1841270210 pp.30-31
3. Coogan, Michael David The Oxford History of the Biblical World Oxford Paperbacks; New edition (26 Jul 2001) ISBN 978-0195139372 p. 175
4. Wilson, Kevin A The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine Mohr Siebeck 2005 ISBN 978-3161482700 p.1
5. A Test of Time, pp. 122-27.
6. The Lost Testament, pp. 389-96.
7. David Rohl, Shoshenk, Shishak and Shysha, accessed 7 August 2009
8. Grisanti, Michael A; Davd M. Howard Giving the Sense Kregel Academic & Professional (1 April 2004) ISBN 978-0825428920 p.193
9. Wilson, Kevin A. (2005). The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine. Mohr Siebeck. p. 65. ISBN 3161482700.
10. 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)
11. Noth, M. (1938). ZDPV 61. p. 277-304.
12. Albright, W. F. (1937/39). Archiv für Orientfoschung 12. p. 385-86. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
13. Mazar, B. (1957). VTS 4. p. 57-66.
14. Aharoni, Y. (1966). The Land of the Bible. p. 283-90.
15. 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)
16. The Lords of Avaris, Chapter 17.
17. ^ Bennett, Chris. "Temporal Fugues", Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies XIII (1996). Available at
18. 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)
19. van der Land, J.G. (2000) "Pharaohs and the Bible: David Rohl's chronology untenable", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
20. van der Veen, P.G. (2000) "Is Rohl's Chronology inaccurate? A reply to BGA'," Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
21. Porter, R.M. (2000) "'Did the Philistines settle in Canaan around 1200 BC?", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
22. 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
23. "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)
24. 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
25. Jean-Marc Berthoud, Creation Bible Et Science, 2008, ISBN 9782825138878, 244f.

External links

• David Rohl's official web site
• A Test of Time Home Page
• Official David Rohl discussion forum
• Review of A Test of Time (originally published in KMT)
• ISIS - Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum
• The Revision of Ancient History - A Perspective
• Rohl at Catastrophism.com
• "Some Anomalies in David Rohl's Chronological Re-dating of Archaeological Time Periods and His Attempted Synchronizations with Biblical Scenarios"

• Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest from August 2009
• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view disputes from August 2009
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from August 2009
• Egyptology
• Chronology
• Historical revisionism