Rohl (Peter)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Sep 27 15:22:29 EDT 1999


>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!

Why don't you look at a few conventional books before you go for the fringe
material?

>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! 

Why clutch at straws: the I was courtesy.

>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. 

Well, if you or Rohl looked just that little bit further you would have
seen that Ashur-uballit's grandfather was called Ashur-nadin-akhe (II).
When a king slept with his fathers it was no necrophilic orgy, it was
normal to refer to an ancestor as a father. This is just closing an eye to
what you don't want to see!

>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.

There are too many things that don't seem to have been thought about. But
most people who would buy the book wouldn't know that much about Egyptian
or Assyrian history. Why not try a serious Assyriologist like Mario
Liverani, who has no axe to grind, instead of relying on this tour guide.

>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. 

You miss the point, 500 years was not circular, but you must split hairs
for this unpardonable time-out-of-joint stuff. Five hundred years is a
guesstimate which comes from the twenty-five reigns between the two
Shalmanesers and as a rough figure it points directly to the right basic era.

>So it is hardly surprising that you come up with the 
>answer Rameses II. 

You're the one who has created a false circularity. I merely compared the
500 years with the current status quo to show that the status quo is quite
likely. It is more direct and obvious than specious eclipse calculations
and fudging naff linguistic arguments.

>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.

It just shows that you simply must read something more dependable than what
you are reading for you show no knowledge of either period or desire to
look at the evidence for the status quo before deciding for Rohl's
conjecture. Such decisions are not made in a vacuum as you would seem to
want them. There is the comparison with other cultures -- early Assyrian
chronology is compared with Babylon and Elam. But you give no indication of
understanding the way these things are done in the status quo.

You should definitely read standard materials on the subject before getting
into spin-offs.


Cheers,


Ian





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list