Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Rohl (was: yrw$lym)
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    25/09/1999 12:03

<snip>
>
>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.

>Your comments make it clear that you're operating from secondary 
>sources.

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.

<snip>

Why did I bother to give that information in the previous post, Dave? You 
remember, regarding the Hittites, the Kassites, the Philistines and the 
Assyrians. The Hittite destruction is relatable to Greece, as are the 
Philistines. The Kassites are relatable to a period prior to the rise of 
the Assyrians for whom we have a long chronological order of kings prior to 
Shalmaneser III. Osorkon II is relatable to Shalmaneser. No circle, Dave. 
That's just your wannabe analysis, following Rohl.

PK: For a discussion of this difficulty, see Rohl's book.

<snip>

Let's use the Assyrian period as a peg to hang things on. We know for 
example that Qarqar was in 853 BCE. How many generations of Assyrian kings 
were there before Shamaneser III came to the throne? The first 
Neo-Assyrians were co-eval with the last Kassites, so how many after 
Burnaburiash II? Give'em at least twenty years a pop and how long have you 
got? That's approximately when Burnaburiash corresponded with Akhnaten.

PK: For an answer, see Rohl's book.

It is unthinkable to deal with the problem Rohl creates in a vacuum. We 
must look at the full range of implications. His conjecture if it had any 
substance would mean a total restructuring of history, economy, archaeology 
and sociology of the entire ANE.

>I repeat: go read the
>book and can the uninformed name-calling.

I repeat, go read some history. And don't just give apology for the 
unsubstantiated Rohl conjecturing. I would like to see some reasoned 
argument by a person championing a position,

PK: That's just what Rohl's book is

 instead of the old "go read the book" fudge.

PK: so what's so wrong with reading it?

<snip>

Why did you ignore four out of five examples I gave? Nice hardcore 
archaeological evidence for the Sea Peoples' wake of destruction from the 
Aegean down to Egypt datable to the twelfth century. That is science, but 
you ignore it.

PK: Maybe Dave did for brevity, but Rohl doesn't. Read his book!

>It's obvious you have your
>mind made up and won't let it be clouded by something as 
>revolutionary as an honest reading of the book.
I'm not railing, though it might salve your sensibilities that I were. The 
boring "go read the book" approach I've had to suffer for so many years 
when people want to push their hobby-horses.

Stop shooting from the hip and think: if Osorkon II, the great grandson of 
Sheshonq I, sent troops to fight against Shalmaneser III at Qarqar in 853 
BCE, that would place his great grandfather about 80 years before that. 
Qarqar does not depend on Egypt for its dating.

PK: I don't think Rohl answers this one, but how secure is your "if"?

Think about what it takes for pottery sequences, such as those established 
for the Aegean and Mesopotamia, to be out by hundreds of years. Where did 
all the extra pottery come from at the late end? If you want to redate 
Ramses III away from the twelfth century you also have to redate the 
Philistine arrival to the new time and with it all the pottery that shows 
their presence in Palestine, and that entails all the Aegean pottery to 
which it is related.

PK: Rohl doesn't deal with this one, except that he obviously doesn't 
identify the Philistines with the Sea People.

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 
culprit sought?

PK: But for this one, read the book!

According to accounts from Ramses II Egypt attempted for half a century to 
regain control of northern Syrian in his struggles with Hatti, yet if we 
redate these struggles three centuries later, this is right when the 
Aramaean states of Syria were building there power bases, in what was 
thought to have been a power vacuum at the demise of Hatti and the eclipse 
of Egypt.

PK: For an answer, see Rohl's book. Anyway, whae better place to build 
a power base than in a power vacuum?

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.

<snip>