Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)/Archive 1

Top

The current article is obscenely biased and full of false facts and hearsay.

David Rohl is an archeologist and historian specialising in ancient Egypt.

His books A Test of Time (1995) and Legend (1998) elaborate upon the proposals for a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, and less radical revisions of the chronologies of Israel and Mesopotamia. These allow scholars to identify many of the main characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archeological finds.

The first of these books, A Test of Time explores possible links between archeology and the books of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. The sequel Legend extends this to Genesis. A Test of Time was published in the USA under the title Kings and Pharoahs.

These claims remain controversial, despite even the suggested changes to the Egyptian chronology being relatively mild compared to some others that have also been seriously suggested.

The Revised Chronology is the prime concern of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Studies (ISIS). Building upon the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky, the Revised Chronology puts the dates on the Traditional Chronologies Based upon Egypt out by up to 300 years at points prior to the universally accepted fixed date of 664 BC for the sacking of Thebes by Asshurbanipal.

The Prime opponent to the Revised Chronology has always been Professor Kenneth Kitchen formerly of Liverpool University. Kitchen is the last surviving expert in Conventional Egyptian Chronology and it is thus he, along with archaeologists who are non-experts in chronology who blindly support him, who are the "professionals", "academics" and "experts" referred to in writings which atempt to defraud the Revised Chronology. Kitchen's major objection is to the identification of the Biblical Pharoah Shishak as a Hebrew familiar form transcription of of Rameses instead of an attempt to transcribe Shoshenk. Thus Middle and Near eastern archaeology has become divided into two schools those who support Kitchen and those in favor of a scrutinous and careful revision of certain 'facts' established more than a century ago.

For a list of some heated opinions against Rohl's work see [1]

The current lack of experts in the field other than Kitchen is the main reason that his iconoclastic and establishment upsetting doctoral thesis, of which his first book A Test of Time was a popular account of, has as of yet not been accepted. Instead the traditional dating given in the Bible for the events discussed is suggested to be inaccurate while many of the connections drawn by David are retained with the conventional Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronologies.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 February 2004 (UTC)

Brief Biography

Ever since the time he first visited Egyptian Archaeological sites at the age of ten, Rohl has been a dilligent enquirer after Egypt's past -even during his years in the music industry following his completion of a Photography course in 1970 to allow him to more accurately research and document evidence first-hand from Egyptian sites being lost to the elements. In 1988 he was accepted by University College London and was soon awarded the prestigious W.F. Masom History Research Scholarship by the University of London as well as being awarded his Degree in Ancient History and Egyptology. He has since become Britain's highest profile Egyptologist. He is the Honorary President of the Sussex Egyptology Society (SES) and editor of the scholastic periodicals Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF) and the Eastern Desert Survey Report. He excavated important sites in Syria for the London 'Institute of Archaeology during the 1990s and is currently Co-Field Director of the Eastern Desert Survey in Egypt.

How are my changes "obscenely biased and full of false facts and hearsay"? -- llywrch 17:06, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Since Zestauferov has not seen fit to explain his point of view, & it appears that we are headed for a possible edit war, I have placed this article on the NPOV list. I hope someone will help prevent this result. -- llywrch 18:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have explained by editing out those parts I thought were weasle-ish considering your stance on Talk:Sea PeoplesZestauferov 02:24, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The identification of "Shishak, King of Egypt" (1 Kings 14:25f; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9), first proposed by Jean-François Champollion, is solely based on incorrect conclusions." This offers no explanation of why these conclusions are supposed to be incorrect, which is all the more important considering the burden of proof is on the unorthodox theory. Mustafaa 07:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, Rohl cites lingusitic problems with just how the name "Shoshenq" can be transliterated into שִׁישַׁק (appearing in the KJV as "Shishak"), as well as just how the inscription celebrating Shoshenq's victory should be interpreted. I was very brief with this point because I wasn't sure just how relevant it was to this article; I went into more detail about Rohl's argument at the article Shoshenq I. Sometimes we must insist our readers follow the hyperlinks we provide. -- llywrch 01:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just took a look at that article; if that's all he's got, then "solely based on incorrect conclusions" is a massive exaggeration, and should be removed.

"In reality "y-w-d-h-m-l-k" should be read as "Yadhamelek" meaning "the Monument of the King", which is a monument in northern Israel, and not of the King of Judah.)" Maybe so, but that would equally imply an invasion of Judah to get there.

"Rohl has further argued that Shishak does not properly equate to how the Egyptian name Sheshonq would have been spelled by the contemporary Hebrews" is just silly. As any Semitic linguist knows, n always disappears before a consonant in Hebrew, and the k in Hebrew Shishak is actually a q, just like in Sheshonq.

Mustafaa 09:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, these are the points I understood from reading his book -- & I will admit that having read it, I was left unsatisfied by Rohl's arguments. (One thing I didn't see how I could add to this article without clearly being NPOV is that Pharoahs and Kings is marred by a number of minor errors that a competant fact-checker should have caught; while this fact doesn't necessarily invalidate his theories, it did weaken my willingness to trust his research.) And because I admit I'm crticial of what he wrote, I'd rather give him a break here, for purposes of NPOV; perhaps he has more substantial arguments in his other books or published articles, which I do not have access to.

Note, I'm not disagreeing with your points, Mustafaa; Rohl disputes an identification that has been accepted for over a hundred years, & does not explain why it had been accepted until now -- save for a nod towards "force of habit". I am attempting to fairly explain what he writes, so that the reader can form their own conclusions. -- llywrch 17:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure that giving him a break is really necessary - if the evidence contradicts someone, we shouldn't be too worries about saying so. But yeah, I suppose the question should really be taken up by someone more expert in the field. Still, I think I'll edit that particular sentence. Mustafaa 20:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, please read one of the earlier versions of the page in the history prior to 03:24, 4 Feb 2004. You will see that the current version tries to undermine the seriousness of Rohl's work by oversimplifying the data to give an inaccurate representation, and tries to portray Rohl as an overenthusiastic amateur who dithered around with the music industry and photography before returning to a child-like interest in the subject stemming from a boat-ride. It is a horrendously negative bias, but such points stand out in sharp contrast to his prestigeous qualifications as an Egyptologist. You can see that the plan worked since it has tainted even your opinion of the work before even reading Rohl's work. I recommend reading the test of time you will find that to your surprise it actually makes some very good points. The end result is not that Rohl is the be-all and end all anfd that he has all the answers but that there are very strong grounds for a re-evaluation of the current orthodox egyptian chronology and the other ancient chronologies which are anchored around it. I have not touched much of the article since 03:24, 4 Feb 2004 (despite the above bait into an edit conflict dated 18:47, 15 Feb 2004) because I realised it would be a matter of attacking the author's evangelical faith which I have never had any intention of doing. I have nothing against evangelicals and believe that there is plenty of evidence to corroborate certain stories in the bible if only they would allow a slightly less rigid interpretation. Zestauferov 03:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be able to judge his overall argument, especially not without having read his book! But his point about the identification of Sheshonq seems to me to fall within an area I do know about, and seems highly unlikely. Possibly the Sheshonq article misrepresents him; if so, what does he really say? - Mustafaa 17:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To mention Rohl made a living as a professional musician & sound engineer undermines his reputation? I never thought that, & neither does Rohl himself, for he not only frequently mentions this on the author's bio of his books, but proudly details it on his webpage (from which I drew the information). And Rohl himself mentions his interest in Egypt began as a child not only on his webpage, but also in his book -- which, despite my lack of belief in Rohl's theories, is a fact that makes him human in my eyes.

Perhaps you should read what is actually written, & not what you think was written, Zestauferov. -- llywrch 19:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well maybe (but any brief look at the biography I wrote 08:11, 27 Dec 2003 will answer best whether I know anything about his life or not), and perhaps you should read what people actually write in their messages and deal with those issues instead of angling the subject slightly. Whoever made you a mediator? For both of Our own healths Llywrch I recommend that neither of us actually make any direct comments to each other ever again. Please notice that I did not direct my last messages towards you, so why do you feel the need to direct any messages to me? If you don't reply to this posting I will take it you agree on a permanent cease-fire. Thankyou. Zestauferov 00:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I read the article with an open mind, and thought that it was quite balanced. If anything it seems to be overly sympathetic to a minority view. Josh Cherry 00:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

three of four arguments?

If Rohl disputes "three of four" arguments for the traditional chronology, what is the fourth? Ben Standeven 04:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Acording to Rohl, the fourth argument or basis for the traditional chronology was the sack of Thebes by the Assyrians in 664 BC -- which is a date Rohl immediately admits is correct in his book, then goes on to attack the other three arguments. I omitted mention of this argument because it is irrelevant to his larger thesis.

Rohl oversimplifies the case for traditional chronology: there are far more points & arguments that support the current outline, some stronger than others, some that serve as building blocks in a larger edifice. Further, Rohl's attack on Sothic dating appears to a case of beating a dead horse: for example, Donald Redford set forth an argument for dating the beginning of the reign of Ramesses II that ignores any Sothic evidence & bases his dating by using on one hand synchronisms between Ramesses, his contemporary Hittite kings, and the Assyrians these kings exchanged letters with, & on the other the evidence of Papyrus Leiden I.350 to help narrow down the date.

I could go further into detail about this, but as you can see I've been accused of being hostile to Rohl & his ideas. Frankly, I have some admiration for the man (unlike many musicians, he managed to release an album, then realized he needed a better way of earning a living so he figured out how to become a sound engineer); I just don't agree with his theories. (And much worse has been written about them.) But by encountering them, I have been forced to understand something about the underlying structure that resulted with the current consensus for Egyptian chronology -- which means I obviously found some value in them. -- llywrch 06:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

By the way, ISIS has now wound itself up. It was originally set up to be an Institute for/of the SIS, but was more or less turned into a David Rohl fan club. With Rohl now leaving the country, they seem to have decided to call it a day.--feline1 14:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's the story about Rohl leaving the UK (which I assume is what you mean by "the country")? Can you update the article about this? -- llywrch 04:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that I'd heard he was planning to live outside the UK for a while... moving to Spain, was it? Not that it's really any of my business! I was just making the point that ISIS is no more. By the way, "The Revised Chronology" was Velikovsky's scheme (worked on from the 1940s...) - ISIS's baby was the "New Chronology", which was developed from the "Glasgow Chronolgy" which Peter James, John Bimson et al were working on (named after the SIS' 1978 Glasgow Conference). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 December 2004

This is just the sort of misinformation and biased reporting which makes Wikipedia a dangerous place to look for accurate information. ISIS was never a David Rohl fan club - that is ridiculous. Rohl contributed just three articles/papers to the Institute's Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (ten volumes) and gave four lectures to ISIS in fifteen years. Other contributors to the JACF included Professors Nicolas Coldstream (University College London), Peter Warren (Bristol University), Peter Janosi (Insitute for Egyptology, Vienna), Mike Baillie (Belfast University), John Ray (Cambridge University); Drs Bill Manley (Glasgow Museum), Jonathan Tubb (British Museum), John Bimson (Trinity College, Bristol), Toby Wilkinson (Cambridge University), Elsayed Hegazy (Karnak), Vronwy Hankey (UCL), Eric Uphill (UCL), Jack Ogden (Cambridge University), Peter Parr (Institute of Archaeology, London), Mohamed Ibrahim Aly (Cairo) and Aidan Dodson (Bristol University). Amongst many speakers at ISIS meatings were Professors Manfred Bietak (Director of the Austrian Archaeological Mission in Cairo), Hans Goedicke (Brown University) and Alan Lloyd (Swansea University and Chairman of the EES academic committee). I do not think that any of these excellent scholars and academics would regard themselves as members of a David Rohl 'fan club'. David Rohl 10:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

'New Chronology' or 'New Egyptian Chronology'?

I notice "Itinerant" has renamed references to the "New Chronology" as the "New Egyptian Chronology". Do you have a reference to where Rohl introduces this terminology? As far back as 1983, Rohl & James referred to their scheme as the 'new chonology' in SIS publications (SIS Workshop, I believe)--feline1 12:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing Itinerant was trying to fix the name collision created by the link to New Chronology (which refers to something entirely unrelated to Ancient Egypt). But if you want to write the article about Rohl's "New Chronology", I'm willing to defend your choice to call it whatever you want & change the link to that title. And I honestly doubt anyone will object. -- llywrch 04:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's scarcely "my choice" - it's the name Rohl & James gave to their own chronology. If anyone can provide a reference to an article which calls it something different, then fair enough! Otherwise it's just an error. I won't be writing any articles on the New Chronology though as it's not something I'm very knowledgeable on.--feline1 06:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, Feline1, I for one wouldn't have been able to suspect you weren't very knowledgeable about the topic. And it is probably something that need sto be added to Wikipedia.

As for the name, would something like New Chronology (Glasgow) be more accurate? We need some way to differentiate Rohl's theories from Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko -- Rohl treats the historical evidence with far more respect than Fomenko (to put it mildly). --llywrch 21:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed the article about Fomenko into New Chronology (Fomenko) and created a disambiguation page at New Chronology. At the moment it only contains links to the Fomenko's theory and to (yet nonexistent) New Chronology (Glasgow).

BTW, I don't know how accurate it is to refer to Rohl's theory as "Glasgow". Maybe it's better to create two articles, at New Chronology (Glasgow) and New Chronology (Rohl), and explain that one of them is derived from the other. Is it possible to do without duplicating too much material? --Itinerant 00:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I only know a bit about this stuff because of my interest in Immanuel Velikovsky (I help to run the SIS, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, which was set in 1974 up to evaluate his & others wacky ideas in a non-hysterical way) - Rohl's work derives directly from Velikovsky's controversial "Revised Chronology" published in his "Ages in Chaos" book of 1952. A group of scholars in Britain in the mid-to-late 70s (Peter James, Jon Bimson, Geoffrey Gammon et al) rejected some of Velikovsky's ideas but retained a lot of them, producing the SIS "Glasgow Chronology" - James, Rohl et al then further revised this into what they always called the "New Chronology". The only places these ideas were ever published tended to be SIS journals (SIS Review & SIS Workshop)... as the 80s progressed, the SIS set up "ISIS", which was supposed to be an Institute for the SIS, but turned into more of a David Rohl Appreciation Society from what I can gather - it published its own "Journal of the Ancient History Forum" I think it was called - a lot of Rohl's stuff was published there, and he got a nice glossy hardback book out with James too, but then there's been a rift between James and Rohl...... Rohl has seemingly moved beyond these small society journals (ISIS has now folded) into glossy books and TV series. As far as I know, though, he still refers to his work as "The New Chronology". That's kinda my sketchy overview of the geneology and politics behind Rohl's work, but I don't really know much about the actual New Chronology itself, I couldn't write about it beyond to say who dreamt it up! --feline1 21:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Failed Good Article

There are no references and no picture of the person in question. joturner 14:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

image added - I might get a chance to add some referenced soon :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Failed second application for Good Article

Fails on points 2 and 3 of Good article criteria. There are no references or citations on this page at all, where did all this info come from and how can it be verified? Some statements about David Rohl's oppinions, and no citations again.

Some important information about the man himself is missing. What was his date of birth? Where was he born? Where does he live? Is he retired? Is he still living?

Some other, minor, issues that I found included:

• no fair use rationale on the image, and no mention of original source of the image. And the image has no description on the image page itself.
• Some refrences to some related terms (for example Glasgow Chronology and Eastern Desert Survey Report) have no wikipedia pages associated with them, and this article does not give much hints as to what they are. For instance in the case of the Eastern Desert Survey Report - is it a popular magazine, a scientific journal, some local publication, or something else? With his book A Test of Time what is it generally written on?

I hope this helps to improve your article.--Konstable 07:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lords of Avaris

According to [2], this book is expected in February 2, 2007. DFH 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that last year it had a different date. Let's hope so. Even though here in Texas it'll probably never come out. TuckerResearch 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Glasgow Chronology = New Chronology, or not?

New Chronology (Glasgow) has been moved to Glasgow Chronology, as suggested on the talk page of that page. However, this article says "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". If the the actual are different entities, I hope somebody can correct the mistake and move the article back. // Konvalj 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NO. New Chronology != Glasgow Chronology Cush (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rohl Yahoo mail groups

This is becoming silly: one person removes the link to these 2 mailling lists, another adds them back. While I don't have any strong feeling one way or the other about them, this has been going back & forth like this for over 6 months now, & I think it's time people start discussing their inclusion instead of prolonging this slow-motion edit war. -- llywrch 04:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've been told when I tried to use a mailing list as an external link that I couldn't, I've started a discussion at the Talk Page of WP:LINKS.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DavidRohl promo.jpg

Image:DavidRohl promo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)