Chronology (was : Rohl)
peter_kirk at sil.org
peter_kirk at sil.org
Thu Sep 30 13:18:02 EDT 1999
Thank you for your contribution. I have answered you separately re
Centuries in Darkness. Rohl does look at C-14 dating and
dendrochronology, and basically rejects them as unreliable. I think he
is too quick in doing this, but I am not an expert. Rohl also has
unanswered questions (and admits it) re correspondences with Assyria.
As for your second question, it comes down to: Why should Rohl seek
for truth? The best answer is "because it's there"! As a scholar and
Egyptologist, or would-be scholar and Egyptologist, he has found
inconsistencies in the conventional chronological framework and has
tried (as part of a research programme together with others) to solve
these inconsistencies. Whether he has succeeded or not is a question
for his peers, though it seems they are not taking him too seriously
because they have too much invested in the status quo.
Then the third question. Rohl can hardly be blamed for the marketing
strategy of his publishers and/or other booksellers. That
advertisement is still on the web, I found it yesterday. But the main
question is, why did the British Museum "ban" his book, i.e.
presumably choose not to sell it? (It has not been rejected by the
British Library!) Perhaps simply because its approach is too popular.
More likely because the Egyptologists of the BM do not accept Rohl's
theories, again perhaps because they have too much invested in the
status quo. Or perhaps they were pressurised by those who throw names
like "Velikovsky" around, when Rohl's theories have little to do with
Velikovsky. Who knows? Try asking the BM. I don't think it
unreasonable for them to choose to sell the books which correspond to
the theories presented in their museum, so as not to confuse their
visitors. On the other hand, that should not be taken as indication
that any other book is unscientific.
On the other hand, I have no patience with those who try to impose
censorship in the name of scholarship. True scholarship should have
nothing to fear from fringe theories, it should be prepared to answer
them in a rational way and accept for proper academic investigation
any points which cannot be convincingly repudiated immediately. On
this basis Rohl's arguments certainly require proper academic
investigation rather than attempted censorship.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Chronology (was : Rohl)
Author: <binger.hougaard at get2net.dk> at Internet
Date: 29/09/1999 02:38
Please pardon my bursting in from lurkdom.
And please pardon my (probably) stupid question :
More information about the b-hebrew