Rohl (Peter)

peter_kirk at peter_kirk at
Mon Sep 27 12:00:58 EDT 1999

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Rohl (Peter)
Author:  <mc2499 at> at Internet
Date:    26/09/1999 18:30

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your post.


>I do want to defend Rohl against the charge that he has ignored the 
>account of Sheshonq I's campaign in Palestine. He looks in detail at a 
>list of cities attacked which is on "the Bubastite Portal" on "the 
>southern outer wall of the hypostyle hall at Karnak".

There are very few of the 60 odd that are still clear enough to read!

PK: Rohl (p.126) reads 35 out of 55 (excluding the introduction) and 
points out that most of the unreadable names are in the context of 
groups of names in Galilee and Gilead. Of course he can't be sure.


I have given a fair amount of raw data on the subject in previous posts 
already, Peter. I was hoping to get some shreds of raw data from Dave, and 
I hope to get some from you.

PK: Sorry, but I don't have my own raw data. I can tell you where you 
can find a lot of it, but then you'll complain that I'm saying "read 
the book" again!



I'll leave you with a few more bits of raw data.

There was a letter amongst the Amarna cache from a king of Assyria called 
Ashur-uballit I. This king was four generations before the Assyian king, 
Shamaneser I, who was responsible for bringing an end to the Mitannian 
kingdom, Khanigalbat, thus bringing Assyria into direct contact with Egypt. 
This was the reason why the Hittites (Hattusilis III) and the Egyptians 
(Ramses II) entered into a treaty (a copy of which was found in both Egypt 
and Hatti). Now this Shalmaneser I is *25 generations* before Shalmaneser 
III, the king who fought in the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. Give 20 years 
per generation and we go back 500 years, but as we have some 
correspondences between the rulers of various kingdoms it allows us to see 
that in certain periods there were more Assyrian kings than would normally 
follow, so it's not hard to accept the 420 year figure provided in the 
status quo. If Shalmaneser I is 420 years before Shamaneser I then it 
follows that Ramses II is also of that period, ie circa 1270 BCE. (You can 
probably find all information in any university level foundation text for 
Assyrian history.)

PK: This is not raw data. In the Amarna letter Ashur-uballit sertainly 
did not give himself the regnal number I! But he did name his father, 
Ashur-nadin-ahhe, whereas the Assyrian king list gives Ashur-uballit 
I's father's name as Eriba-Adad. So, very likely a different person. 
Reference: you know where, p.396. Read the whole of Appendix E for 
Rohl's view on Assyrian chronology. But he doesn't seem to mention the 
Battle of Qarqar. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say 
about that one.

By the way, your argument above is circular. The reason why you chose 
420 years rather than 500 can only be to fit into the accepted period 
of Rameses II. So it is hardly surprising that you come up with the 
answer Rameses II. I'm not really trying to fit your 25 generations 
into about 100 years (though the conventional chronology apparently 
fits 36 pharaohs of the 13th dynasty into 138 years), but it does show 
how easy it is to slip into precisely those methods of fixing 
correspondences for which Rohl can easily be criticised.

Peter Kirk

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list