Rohl (was: yrw$lym)
peter_kirk at sil.org
peter_kirk at sil.org
Tue Sep 28 19:20:39 EDT 1999
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Rohl (was: yrw$lym)
Author: <mc2499 at mclink.it> at Internet
Date: 27/09/1999 14:22
One thing for sure Peter, you're adamantly not going to read any mainline
Egyptological material, are you?...
PK: I am happy to read mainline Egyptological material. What do you
recommend? Bear in mind that I also have to buy almost everything I read,
and that (as I freely admit) this is not my main area of expertise but a
..You continue to sustain the Rohlian conjecture on thin air and at the
same time show no knowledge of what the status quo is or why it is...
PK: I do have some knowledge of what the status quo is and why. Maybe not
enough. I am open to learn more.
..It is normal to ask why should we bother about materials outside the
main currents and believe me Rohl is perceived as so far out of the main
currents that his work has been ignored by most people in the field, with
the exception of Kitchen who is against the stuff.
>>Once again you're demonstrating that you haven't read the book.
>First demonstrate that there is some reason to read it.
>PK: You don't have to read the book if you don't want to, but I would
>have thought that the danger of being made to look ridiculous in this
>forum would be enough reason to read the book before commenting on it
>at such length.
You are putting forward (as it seemed Dave was) support for this
PK: No name calling please.
..that requires throwing out almost every date in all ANE fields before the
Assyrian period. I have shown you some of the modern indications that
indicate relatively safe correspondences of dating that tie Amenhotep III to
the same period as Ashur-uballit, Akhnaten to Burnaburiash, Ramses II with
Shalmaneser I, Shattuara II of Khanigalbat and Hattusilis III of Hatti, all
based principally on Assyrian data and compared with other cultures. This is
the status quo which you seem oblivious of. I have little interest in Rohl
or his book, but I'm horrified that anyone could take it seriously and know
so little about Egyptology. This I "would have thought" left one open to
"the danger of being made to look ridiculous in this forum".
PK: Since you won't read Rohl's book, I can hardly expect you to know
that he is far from oblivious to these data (though he admits that
Assyria is outside his main area of expertise). In his Appendix E he
makes the following correspondences:
Amenhotep III not to Ashur-uballit son of Eriba-Adad (1362-1327) but
to another Ashur-uballit (son of Ashur-nadin-ahhe, according to the
Amarna letter) who is Ashur[u]ba[lit] in the limmum for 1007 in the
Tudhaliyas IV not to Shalmaneser I (1272-1243) but to Shalmaneser III
(858-828) (but no mention of Rameses II, whom Rohl dates slightly
earlier, c.932-866), also not to Tukulti-Ninurta I (1242-1206) but to
Tukulti-Ninurta II (890-884).
Hattusilis III not to Adad-nirari I (1304-1273) but to Adad-nirari II
Akhenaten to Burnaburiash, Shattuara II to Hattusilis III are not
Think about it. You want to pit some popular work aimed specifically at
selling to a religious readership, ie in no sense facing a critical peer
analysis, that shows no interest in the physical culture of the nations
whose centuries are to be cancelled.
PK: I am not trying to pit Rohl's work against anything. I am merely
asking that its arguments be given the consideration that they deserve
rather than ridiculed without being read.
>>Your comments make it clear that you're operating from secondary
>The majority of my comments are based on Egyptian sources. When you date
>Ramses II three hundred years later, what happens to all those internal
>Egyptian events on record from the time of Ramses II down to Osorkon II?
>PK: For an answer, see Rohl's book.
Why don't you read Grimal or Redford or Kitchen (on 3rd Int. Period) or any
of the scholars in the field and tell me why you prefer Rohl to them. You
are simply doing the same lazy trick of Dave. I can't defend myself, but
you have to read the book anyway. Golly, Peter, I ask for some evidence for
a misrepresentation of the 3rd Intermediate in reflection of the evidence
that exists for it in the status quo and you can't do it...
PK: I have proposed to you a whole book full of evidence (plus lots of
other articles referred to). And you refuse to read it! On the other
hand I am quite happy to read the books you suggest, time and money
There are too few pages in Rohl's book to justify a serious analysis of the
PK: Rohl's book has 425 large pages, including a 6 page small print
bibliography and 8 pages of small print notes and references. That's
quite a lot of material to get started on. When you have digested
that, come back for more.
Would you read the Jesus in India books?...
PK: Maybe not, but I would not dare to comment on them unless I had
>PK: Rohl doesn't deal with this one, except that he obviously doesn't
>identify the Philistines with the Sea People.
How many didn't Rohl deal with? Naturally, it wouldn't be conducive to his
conjecture when the Sea Peoples left archaeological remains that are quite
datable all around the eastern Mediterranean (hell, let's blow Greek
archaeology while we're at it).
PK: Though Rohl doesn't deal with the questions in detail, I think he
also wants to shift the Mycenean period in Greece rather later and cut
down the length of the Dark Age linked with the Sea Peoples very
considerably. Are these Sea Peoples archaeological remains datable
absolutely, or only relative to one another? And can we be sure that
the same style found in two very different places indicates close
synchronism rather than migration?
>Do the late bronze destruction levels of Palestinian cities such as Jericho
>now thought to be from the time when the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt
>get redated or do we start looking for some other cause in some other time
>period? What about the Thutmosid destruction of Megiddo? Redated or a new
>PK: But for this one, read the book!
Questions are difficult for you to answer.
PK: OK, I'll summarise Rohl's answer:
Destruction of MB Jericho was by Joshua c.1410
(cf. end of Hyksos rule in Avaris c.1183 - Rohl seems to make the
Hyksos Canaanites driven out of Palestine by Joshua)
No walled city of Jericho during LB
LB IIA building at Jericho is from David's reign cf. 2 Samuel 10
LB IIB village built by Hiel of Bethel c.850 (1 Kings 16:34)
Rohl considers Megiddo data only from Late Bronze and Iron Age.
Thutmose I-III would all be in 12th century, late Judges by Rohl's
reckoning, and he would probably see no need to find a new culprit.
OK, let's admit that you show no knowledge of Egyptian, Syrian, Hittite,
Babylonian or Assyrian history outside Rohl's potted version.
PK: I admit that my knowledge is far from complete, but it does come
from other potted versions such as Bright's "History of Israel".
>Think about all the phantom kinglists that we have around the ANE that must
>be collapsed by three hundred years. This means for all those countries
>from Mesopotamia to Egypt. The Egyptian records are quite valuable because,
>due to the relative tranquility in Egypt thanks to its isolation, quite a
>lot of information has come down to us, including good indications as to
>the lengths of the reigns of many kings, royal jubilees, events from
>specific years. You can add them up yourself and count backwards. As I said
>in the previous post, mindboggling.
>PK: For an answer, see Rohl's book.
(Telling someone to see a book often means that one is unable to give an
argument themselves. I have done the footwork, ie done some research, to
give some indications of what bases there are for the accepted chronology.
I would expect you to repay the courtesy, if you have something to say.)
PK: All I have to say is, give Rohl a fair hearing. This is his
theory, not mine. He has done the footwork and gives well argued
answers to many of your questions.
We are talking about all over the ANE. I append a table of contents. Where
does he deal with anything of the profundity necessary to take on the
earth-shattering claims he is trying to purvey in this book of seemingly
PK: I could give you page numbers if you like, but they're not much
use if you don't have the book.
..Where are the peer group publications?...
PK: As I said, Rohl gives an extensive bibliography and refers to
several other scholars who support parts of his theory e.g. John
Bimson re Jericho.
More information about the b-hebrew