The Four Pillars of Egyptian Chronology

[Jezz]

This is a long-awaited and long-promised look at the "New Chronology" (hereafter NC, as opposed to CC for Conventional Chronology) proposed by David Rohl in "Pharoahs and Kings" (aka "A Test of Time") and Peter James et al in Centuries of Darkness. Apologies if there have been other in-depth threads on this, but I wanted to start fresh with chsalvia.

Let me get one thing straight: From my reading of these books it would appear to me that none of these authors are Biblical inerrantists. Naturally it is true that they have gathered a following from such people, but they themselves don't seem to have an agenda to support the Bible other than as an ancient historian should. For example, in his 434 page book, James devotes only 41 pages to Biblical chronology in a single chapter entitled "Biblical chronology without Egypt". The rest is about other ANE civilisations. Similarly, Rohl in his sequel to Pharoahs and Kings ("Legend") buys into the idea that the Hebrew God YHWH was an imported Canaanite God called El. So we can put to rest the claims of "fundamentalist bias" right from the outset. Their only goal is to come up with a chronology that makes better sense of the available evidence (including Egyptian).

As to the chronologies themselves: the two authors take slightly different approaches, but share some common features. Rohl's book is more concerned with the relationship with Biblical and Egyptian history, and looks at this in some detail without considering much else. James' book, on the other hand, spends only a chapter on the Bible but a lot more time looking at other civilisations. He finds a series of chronological problems in all these areas that eventually trace their source back to a supposedly faulty Egyptian chronology.

In this thread, I think it is important to remember that when constructing an ancient history, you're building on a foundation. If one of the foundational pillars of a chronology is moved, this can undermine the entire picture of the history built up. This possibility needs to be born in mind. I think that quite often what happens in debates of this type is that a person will continue to argue from conclusions that depended on that pillar long after the pillar has been removed. They thus beg the question without realising it, because they are relying on conclusions that in turn relied on evidence which has since been disproven. This needs to be born in mind. An example, James recounts such a case here:

In a 'critique' of CoD Egyptologist Professor Frank Yurco (1993, 10) claimed that we had overlooked "an important synchronism". He stated that at the battle of Karkar (Syria) in 853 BC, Pharaoh Osorkon II of Egypt contributed 1,000 troops to fight king Shalmaneser III of Assyria. If that were the case, our redating of Osorkon II to the 8th century would be impossible. However, Yurco seems to be unaware of what a synchronism means. A synchronism between two individuals requires that two names are given. The Assyrian texts of Shalmaneser III do indeed refer to an Egyptian contingent at the battle of Karkar. But they do not name the Pharaoh who sent them. Yurco has simply supplied that name, probably by reference to the chronological tables in Kitchen's book.

Now, I have no real reason to doubt the veracity of the above account, however even if the above is not entirely true it still serves as a useful illustration of the principle I am talking about. The identity of the Egyptian Pharoah that Yurco was using was based on Kitchen's chronology and not on the Assyrian texts themselves, therefore this is not a genuine synchronism. Given that the identity of this king is dependent on the CC itself, it begs the question to use it in evidence against a challenge to the CC.

So for people who wish to argue against the NC in this thread, don't be surprised if I keep asking questions. For example, if I say "Israel was a force in Palestine in 1400 BC" and you retort with "That's impossible! Palestine was an Egyptian province at that time!", then I will want to see the raw evidence for how this dating came apart. Because it is very possible that, because the pillar is moved, the evidence that once disproved my statment is no longer valid. This might be tricky, as most of us here don't have access to primary sources, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to have any meaningful discussion on the matter.

With that methodological issue out of the way, let me now move on to some of the concrete arguments. One of the main arguments used by all revisionists (including Velikovsians) is that the Egyptian chronology is propped up by four main "pillars":

1. The sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal (664 BC).
2. Identifying Pharoah Shoshenq I with the Biblical Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25-26 (925 BC). This sets the beginning of the 22nd dynasty to 945 BC.
3. Using the Sothic dating system and the Ebers papyrus to date the accession of Ahmose to 1550 BC.
4. The accession of Ramesses II in 1279 BC based on a lunar date.

During this period in question, there is a dearth of monuments and missing reign lengths for some pharoahs. Egyptologists use the above synchronisms to "fill in the gaps" by guessing reign lengths for the unknown kings (called "dead reckoning"). The problem is, of course, that if the dates at either end of the period are incorrect, then the reign lengths will need to be stretched or compressed beyond what they should be. An example of this is Pharoah Takeloth, who Kenneth Kitchen assigns a reign of 14-15 years - despite the fact that he left no dated monumental evidence. Well, I suppose that it's possible that he was simply an unassuming leader - however, this is also the kind of thing we would expect to see if the reign lengths had to be artificially lengthened in order to fill in an artificially long gap...

It is the position of the revisionists (or at least, Rohl and James - the ones in question in this post) that synchronism 1 is valid. However, they discard the other three. They argue that this mistake sets the accession of Shoshenq I too early, which artifically lengthens the period between the end of the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) and the start of the 22nd dynasty. This, of course, would solve the problem of Takeloth and his buddies not having any monumental evidence.

Let me now address each of these in turn. I'll address them in a slightly different order to above for convenience.

Firstly, #3 - the Sothic dating system. This is pretty easy to dismiss. Since the work of James et al, Sothic dating has been discredited as a good means of dating. On the surface of it it was always going to be a flimsy way of dating - it works on a 1461 year cycle, and assumes that the Egyptians made no corrections to it during that cycle as the rising of Sothis gradually became out of sync with the solar year and the seasons. Rohl quotes Manfred Bietak (Professorin "A Test of Time" (p137):

The framework of regnal dates from the monuments together with the genealogical data has become so secure that it is possible from safe fixed points to calculate backwards with tolerable uncertanties. The chronology of the New Kingdom therefore no longer depends on the Sothis-date of the Year 9 of Amenhotep I, which is insecure and should not be used any more.

As this quote shows, Bietak still holds to the CC, though he acknowledges that the Sothic dating cannot be used to support it.

So it seems that Egyptologists no longer use the Sothic dating system. That pillar has been knocked out.

Secondly, #4 - Now this is a lunar date, but since the lunar cycle repeats every 25 years, it can't be used as a pillar by itself. It can only be used to "fine tune" an existing framework that is broadly correct. Thus, this pillar actually depends on the veracity of pillars 2 and 3. If they fall, then this one falls with it.

Finally, #2 - the most complicated one. This pillar has been assumed since the time of Champillion 1828. On the surface, this seemed like a good match: "Shoshenq" and "Shishak" seem closely related, and according to Shoshenq campaigned in Palestine. Moreover, according to his campaign list, Judea is actually listed as one of the destinations.

However, the similarity is superficial. Look a little closer and things start to fall apart:
1. It has been conclusively shown that Champillion misread Shoshenq's campaign list. It did not say "Judea the Kingdom", but "Monument of the King".
2. An examination of Shoshenq's campaign shows that he avoided Judea and definitely avoided Jerusalem. His main attack was into the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This leads to two problems:
2a. The "Shishak" recorded in the Bible is supposed to have attacked Judea and specifically Jerusalem, not Israel.
2b. According to the Bible, Jeroboam fled to be under the protection of Shishak when Solomon wanted to kill him. It would seem odd that Shishak would later reverse his attitude and attack him when he was king of the Northern Kingdom (though granted not impossible), and the Bible certainly doesn't record that he attacked the Northern Kingdom.
3. Equating Shishak with Shoshenq breaks an even stronger synchronism with the Phonecian kingdom. There is monumental evidence that shows that the successive kings of Byblos Abibaal, Yehimilk and Elibaal are contemporaries with Shoshenk I and Osorkon I. The CC breaks this synchronism.
4. Even from a purely literary point of view, the name similarity is not as close as it at first seems. Egyptian "sh" is usually transliterated into "s" when transliterating into a Semitic tongue, and vice-versa. For example, Shoshenq is transliterated as "Susink" in a contemporary Akkadian document (as an example of the opposite, Egyptian Askelan = Hebrew Ashkelon). Moreover, of the few monuments to Shoshenq that have been found in Palestine, the "n" is never dropped from his name. Thus, "Shoshenq" would be most likely be transliterated as "Sisank" in Hebrew.

Putting all this together, it becomes pretty obvious that the link with Shishak=Shoshenq is pretty weak. I think perhaps the strongest point is the fact that the Bible does not mention Shishak attacking the Northern Kingdom. That requires that we postulate the rather absurd situation where the Bible got the name of the pharoah right, but got the target of his campaign wrong. This pillar falls.

And because the TIP and the New Kingdom is dated relative to this synchronism, it means that the whole TIP dating is rather shaky - and with it, the whole Egyptian chronology. Unless the CC has some other pillars that I am unaware of and that Rohl/James haven't dealt with, then there are no remaining pillars supporting the absolute Egyptian chronology before the sacking of Thebes.

An aside: who was Shoshenq? Does the Bible mention him, given that he campaigned in the Northern Kingdom? Well, there is a reference to a pharoah who campaigned in the Northern Kingdom in the Bible: the "Saviour" who came to rid the Northern Kingdom of the invading Arameans (2 Kings 13:1-7). This is not an unexpected action of an Egyptian pharoah if the kingdoms of Palestine were vassal states of Egypt. I understand that the identity of this pharoah is a problem that has always perplexed scholars of the CC. Having cast off the old Shishak=Shoshenq synchronism, Rohl postulates that the "Saviour" pharoah in question was Shoshenq. Although the passage in 2 Kings does not mention the pharoah by name, given that Shoshenq campaigned in the same area, it seems a good match. As an added bonus, identifying Shoshenq with this "Saviour" also restores the synchronism with the Phonecian kings I mentioned in 3 above, as well as fitting well with the rest of Rohl's NC. Rohl goes into more detail about this match, but I will leave it at this overview level for now.

Well, that should give us enough to start with. Fire away!

[Vorkosigan]

Jezz, David Rohl is widely regard, charitably, as wrong. Search the ANE discussion archives for Rohl. Here is one thread I found:

"4. Even from a purely literary point of view, the name similarity is not as close as it at first seems. Egyptian "sh" is usually transliterated into "s" when transliterating into a Semitic tongue, and vice-versa. For example, Shoshenq is transliterated as "Susink" in a contemporary Akkadian document (as an example of the opposite, Egyptian Askelan = Hebrew Ashkelon). Moreover, of the few monuments to Shoshenq that have been found in Palestine, the "n" is never dropped from his name. Thus, "Shoshenq" would be most likely be transliterated as "Sisank" in Hebrew."

Alas, "never" is a dangerous word to use with human beings. There's a discussion of this very problem here:
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ry/006127.html

"Even if normally (perhaps in 98% of all known cases?!) Egyptian s was
rendered in 1st Mill BC WS epigraphy as s (samekh), we do have a few (if
only very few) cases where this seems not to be the case:

The name Qad-besh found on a 8th cent. BC Samaria Ostracon (1:5) is believed
by most scholars (no exaggeration) to be Egyptian Qad-bes "the god Bes has
formed" (or the like). The name Anmash (also Samaria Ostracon) (currently
interpreted differently) was originally translated by Egyptologist J. D.
Griffith (see JNES 12:4 (1953)) and Biblical Archaeologist W. F. Albright
(AJSL 41 (1925)) as a derivation from Egyptian Anmes, "Offspring of An
(deity)" or the like. The name Qesem (found in Ptolemaic texts) is believed
to be by some to be the original version of Hebrew Goshen, etc."

Follow the thread, there is some interesting stuff there. Like:

"With all due respect (and I do respect much of the research you are doing,
Peter), this "Shishak=Ramesses" equation has to be put aside. Some of us
have spent a long time listening to this point of view and it just doesn't
make sense. Search the archives for all the arguments. Among the strongest
is that Syro-Palestinean archaeology clearly demonstrates that the Egyptian
bastions at Megiddo & Beth Shan fell around the time of Ramesses VI-VIII.
The Philistine expansion into central Palestine was also contemporary with
these events(at least to the extent that we can identify bichrome
Philistine pots with the people).

If the New Chronologists take the biblical stories about the United Kingdom
seriously (and they do), where were the Egyptians during the
Philistine-Israelite wars, and how could Solomon have appointed governors,
and re-built Megiddo, Hazor and other centres while the Egyptians were still
there? And why would the Pharaoh have needed to march into territory which
was already his anyway? And so on and on."

And then this reply to the above, which is interesting in that it at least regards Rohl charitably:

This question has been also dealt with several times before. As seems clear
in many cases the Egyptians did not station large garrisons in Palestine -
especially not in Central Palestine i.e. the heart land of Biblical Israel -
but at traditional garrison cities such as at Deir el Balah near Gaza, at T.
Fara (S), at Ashdod (and nearby Tel Mor) Jaffa, Aphek, Beth Shean and in
Syria e.g. at Kumudi. In other more remote parts of this region they mainly
acted through intermediary local mayors and their city state armies, who
would not be described as Egyptians but as "Philistines" or "Amorites" or
"Canaanites" by their Israelite hillcountry neighbours. If according to the
CoD model Merenptah was Solomon`s father-in-law (he indeed took Gezer - note
that the reference to Israel in the Israel-Stela is part of a final stanza
that may in fact record the major military achievements of his predecessors
Sethi I and Ramesses II as for intance Donald Redford has argued), then
Solomon and Merenptah must have worked out some treaty (as is clear from the
biblical account). Merenptah`s short reign was followed by a period of
inner-political turbulences and even if some contacts with Palestine and
Trans-Jordan seem to have been maintained by Sethi II and Tawosret, it seems
unlikely that the Egyptians continued to be the all powerful masters of the
region, especially so as Ramesses III seems to have tried to aggresively
reconquer the coastal region as well as parts of the hill country - as
cogently argued by Robert Drews. The Egyptian bastions such as Megiddo and
Beth Shean (the ones you named above) surely were put again under control of
the Egyptian masters at this time as Jeroboam was Shishak`s vassal. All this
fits the biblical evidence. Surelly all this is reinterpetation of the
existing evidence and much of it may be very speculative but not necessarily
unworkable, at least not on the basis of the arguments we are dealing with
here. Other more important arguments re the overall chronology of Egypt and
last but not least Mesopotamia - must be dealt with primarily to show if the
conventional chronology can be lowered this radically!"

Read that last sentence carefully....

Anyway, good luck. Be sure to read all the replies because one guys sounds intelligent and right only to have the next one rip him to shreds. ALso, sort the messages by thread so you can follow it more easily -- it is a very long thread.

Vorkosigan

[Jezz]

Jezz, David Rohl is widely regard, charitably, as wrong.

Yes, I am aware of that. What I want to know is if this reputation is deserved, or if this is another "plate tektonics" episode (where the establishment got it wrong, and the minority were right).

Going beyond opinions and into arguments, of the few counters to the revisionists' work with which I am familiar, they all seem to fall into the trap of the inadvertent circular dependence I mentioned in my opening post. Yurco's blunder being an example.

Alas, "never" is a dangerous word to use with human beings.

Read more carefully. I never () used the the word "never" in relation to the "s->sh" and "sh->s" equation. I said that, of the monuments of Shoshenq I we have in Palestine, the "n" is never omitted from his name. According to Rohl there aren't many such monuments, so he's not overstating the case.

Regarding the "s->sh" equation (which is what your linked post addresses), I only spoke in terms of "usually", "mostly" and "probably" - not in terms of absolutes like "never".

There's a discussion of this very problem here:
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ry/006127.html

Actually, this link has more to do with legitimising the Ramesses=Shishak equation, and not to do with how Shoshenq's name would be represented in a Semitic tongue. It is thus skipping ahead a little bit, though some is relevant to what I have written so far.

"Even if normally (perhaps in 98% of all known cases?!) Egyptian s was
rendered in 1st Mill BC WS epigraphy as s (samekh),

That is interesting - if Egyptian "s" was normally transliterated as Semitic "s", then that would indeed dampen my argument a little. This is something that I perhaps need to research from primary sources, seeing as how there seems to be conflicting assertions flying around.

But even if the above argument is true, my argument does still carry some weight, because we still have the fact that Shoshenq was transliterated as "Susink" in Akkadian. This gives us reason to expect that it would be transliterated similarly in neighbouring Semitic languages.

we do have a few (if only very few) cases where this seems not to be the case:

The name Qad-besh found on a 8th cent. BC Samaria Ostracon (1:5) is believed
by most scholars (no exaggeration) to be Egyptian Qad-bes "the god Bes has
formed" (or the like). The name Anmash (also Samaria Ostracon) (currently
interpreted differently) was originally translated by Egyptologist J. D.
Griffith (see JNES 12:4 (1953)) and Biblical Archaeologist W. F. Albright
(AJSL 41 (1925)) as a derivation from Egyptian Anmes, "Offspring of An
(deity)" or the like. The name Qesem (found in Ptolemaic texts) is believed
to be by some to be the original version of Hebrew Goshen, etc.

"

Add "Shoshenq-Susink" to that list as well. All this serves to reinforce my point: ie, that Shoshenq and Shishak may not be as lingusitically similar as it would appear.

Follow the thread, there is some interesting stuff there. Like:

I think I will.

"With all due respect (and I do respect much of the research you are doing,
Peter), this "Shishak=Ramesses" equation has to be put aside. Some of us
have spent a long time listening to this point of view and it just doesn't
make sense. Search the archives for all the arguments. Among the strongest
is that Syro-Palestinean archaeology clearly demonstrates that the Egyptian
bastions at Megiddo & Beth Shan fell around the time of Ramesses VI-VIII.
The Philistine expansion into central Palestine was also contemporary with
these events(at least to the extent that we can identify bichrome
Philistine pots with the people).

I don't know enough about this particular objection, but again this could be one of those inadvertently circular arguments. It is hard to judge with such a summary description of the problem. Though the superficiality displayed in the next section gives me cause to consider the veracity of the above suspect.

If the New Chronologists take the biblical stories about the United Kingdom
seriously (and they do), where were the Egyptians during the
Philistine-Israelite wars, and how could Solomon have appointed governors,
and re-built Megiddo, Hazor and other centres while the Egyptians were still
there? And why would the Pharaoh have needed to march into territory which
was already his anyway? And so on and on."

Now, I'm admittedly not an expert Egyptologist, but this strikes me as a rather silly objection. We have known examples in history where nations governed themselves more-or-less autonomously under the rule of another nation - Rome being a prime example. Under such a scheme, it would not be unreasonable to expect that Solomon would have the autonomy (or perhaps delegated authority) to appoint governors and rebuild cities.

As for the question "why would the Pharoah have needed to march into territory which was already his anyway?", well - I will ask another question to rebutt this one simply: "why would Vespasian have to march into territory which was already his anyway?" (ie, Judea and Jerusalem in the Roman-Jewish war of AD 66-74). I think my counter-scenario shows that there is nothing historically implausible about the Pharoah needing to march into territory that is already his. Rebellions happen, and when they do emporers have march in and squash it - even if it's "their" territory.

And then this reply to the above, which is interesting in that it at least regards Rohl charitably:

This question has been also dealt with several times before. As seems clear
in many cases the Egyptians did not station large garrisons in Palestine -
especially not in Central Palestine i.e. the heart land of Biblical Israel -
but at traditional garrison cities such as at Deir el Balah near Gaza, at T.
Fara (S), at Ashdod (and nearby Tel Mor) Jaffa, Aphek, Beth Shean and in
Syria e.g. at Kumudi. In other more remote parts of this region they mainly
acted through intermediary local mayors and their city state armies, who
would not be described as Egyptians but as "Philistines" or "Amorites" or
"Canaanites" by their Israelite hillcountry neighbours. If according to the
CoD model Merenptah was Solomon`s father-in-law (he indeed took Gezer - note
that the reference to Israel in the Israel-Stela is part of a final stanza
that may in fact record the major military achievements of his predecessors
Sethi I and Ramesses II as for intance Donald Redford has argued), then
Solomon and Merenptah must have worked out some treaty (as is clear from the
biblical account). Merenptah`s short reign was followed by a period of
inner-political turbulences and even if some contacts with Palestine and
Trans-Jordan seem to have been maintained by Sethi II and Tawosret, it seems
unlikely that the Egyptians continued to be the all powerful masters of the
region, especially so as Ramesses III seems to have tried to aggresively
reconquer the coastal region as well as parts of the hill country - as
cogently argued by Robert Drews. The Egyptian bastions such as Megiddo and
Beth Shean (the ones you named above) surely were put again under control of
the Egyptian masters at this time as Jeroboam was Shishak`s vassal. All this
fits the biblical evidence. Surelly all this is reinterpetation of the
existing evidence and much of it may be very speculative but not necessarily
unworkable, at least not on the basis of the arguments we are dealing with
here. Other more important arguments re the overall chronology of Egypt and
last but not least Mesopotamia - must be dealt with primarily to show if the
conventional chronology can be lowered this radically!"

Interesting - not too much different from the answer I offered above.

Read that last sentence carefully....

Yes, Mesopotamian chronology is commonly touted as being independently dated of Egyptian and offering corroboration. However, as Yurco's example shows, some of that inadvertent circularity might be coming into play here. Anyway, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it might be easiest if we stick to the four pillars for now.

Anyway, good luck. Be sure to read all the replies because one guys sounds intelligent and right only to have the next one rip him to shreds. ALso, sort the messages by thread so you can follow it more easily -- it is a very long thread.

Cool, thanks for the input.

[chsalvia]

Okay, here comes my definitive Rohl refutation. This is pretty long.

Their only goal is to come up with a chronology that makes better sense of the available evidence (including Egyptian).

Jezz, I’m not going to waste too much of your time talking about biases and such, but since you brought it up, I might as well tell you that I’m pretty sure Rohl is basically a Biblical apologist incognito. A marketing agent of his seems to admit as much, as you can see in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...1&postcount=49. Furthermore, all of his books seem to take a particular interest in the Bible, and put more weight on Biblical testimony than anything else, i.e. Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, The Lost Testament, In Search of Eden, etc. Compare these sort of sensationalist titles with the normal publications released by Egyptologists who have no significant ideological axe to grind, such as The Reign of Thutmose IV, by Betsy Bryan, or Ramesside Inscriptions, Translations: Merenptah and the Late Nineteenth Dynasty, by Kenneth Kitchen. Rohl seems to only be interested in how Egyptian history interacts with the Bible, and he always argues in favor of Biblical historicity. Thus, he is not, in any true sense, an Egyptologist. Has he ever published anything that does not argue in favor of Biblical historicity, but rather only talks about Egyptian history? I mean, look at the sort of absurd sensationalism that Rohl promotes: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/

Regardless, I will take your advice about scholars and bias, and attack the arguments, rather than the person.

But first, a brief word about the New Chronology. Rohl/James takes advantage of the obscurity of the Third Intermediate Period, however, the strongest disproof against the NC comes in the form of general archeological and historical observations about ANE and Mediterranean history, as well as synchronisms with Assyrian chronology. When Rohl’s revisions are put into effect, there does not seem to be a single nation in the Ancient Near East or Mediterranean region whose history does not become chaotically incongruent when juxtaposed with the history of its neighbor.

I will put forward some general arguments to demonstrate why Rohl’s chronology does not work, but first, I will address the arguments you put forward in defense of Rohl. As I suspected, they point out minor problems, while ignoring the larger whole, and focus on things like Sirius and lunar dating which are really useless anyway, and are rarely used anymore to establish a chronology.

In this thread, I think it is important to remember that when constructing an ancient history, you're building on a foundation. If one of the foundational pillars of a chronology is moved, this can undermine the entire picture of the history built up.

Yes, I realize that. I'm not going to be arguing anything circular here. But, what you need to understand is that the claim that everything relies on Egyptian history is exaggerated. Assyrian history is completely independent, and can be used as an anchor point for Egyptian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Palestinian history.

Now, I have no real reason to doubt the veracity of the above account, however even if the above is not entirely true it still serves as a useful illustration of the principle I am talking about. The identity of the Egyptian Pharoah that Yurco was using was based on Kitchen's chronology and not on the Assyrian texts themselves, therefore this is not a genuine synchronism. Given that the identity of this king is dependent on the CC itself, it begs the question to use it in evidence against a challenge to the CC.

Right. Yurco made a bad argument there. He probably forgot that Shalmaneser III’s account does not name the Pharaoh. Often, the Assyrian records do name the Pharaoh when they refer to Egypt.

So for people who wish to argue against the NC in this thread, don't be surprised if I keep asking questions. For example, if I say "Israel was a force in Palestine in 1400 BC" and you retort with "That's impossible! Palestine was an Egyptian province at that time!", then I will want to see the raw evidence for how this dating came apart. Because it is very possible that, because the pillar is moved, the evidence that once disproved my statment is no longer valid. This might be tricky, as most of us here don't have access to primary sources, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to have any meaningful discussion on the matter.

Well, I actually have access to a lot of the primary sources, so I will show you how you can arrive at the standard chronology using raw evidence. But first, let me respond to your arguments.

1. The sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal (664 BC).
2. Identifying Pharoah Shoshenq I with the Biblical Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25-26 (925 BC). This sets the beginning of the 22nd dynasty to 945 BC.
3. Using the Sothic dating system and the Ebers papyrus to date the accession of Ahmose to 1550 BC.
4. The accession of Ramesses II in 1279 BC based on a lunar date.

Hmm…there’s some significant synchronizations missing here, which I’ll get to later.

During this period in question, there is a dearth of monuments and missing reign lengths for some pharoahs. Egyptologists use the above synchronisms to "fill in the gaps" by guessing reign lengths for the unknown kings (called "dead reckoning"). The problem is, of course, that if the dates at either end of the period are incorrect, then the reign lengths will need to be stretched or compressed beyond what they should be. An example of this is Pharoah Takeloth, who Kenneth Kitchen assigns a reign of 14-15 years - despite the fact that he left no dated monumental evidence. Well, I suppose that it's possible that he was simply an unassuming leader - however, this is also the kind of thing we would expect to see if the reign lengths had to be artificially lengthened in order to fill in an artificially long gap...

For every single Pharaoh of the 3rd intermediate period? You are correct that there is a lot less monumental evidence for the 3rd intermediate period, and it should also be noted that this period is one of the most difficult, and confusing times in history for modern historians, but it is still possible to construct a chronology. Kitchen doesn’t just pull the number 14-15 years out of the sky. There are ten Pharaoh’s for the 22nd dynasty, the last three apparently contemporaneous with the 23rd dynasty. The lengths of reigns are based on Manetho, as well as the highest regnal year known from inscriptions. There is uncertainty about Osorkon I, Takelot I, and Osorkon IV, but unless you arbitrarily postulate that each of these ruled for a very brief period of time, there’s not much room to reduce the chronology here.

Other sources include the Piye (Pianchi) stele from Nubia, which records the conquest of the Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es, the “Chronicle of Prince Osorkon”, various Theban biographies, a stele from Sheshonk I in Megiddo, and references to the Egyptian kings in the Assyrian annals.

It is the position of the revisionists (or at least, Rohl and James - the ones in question in this post) that synchronism 1 is valid.

Really? Well, if Rohl accepts that the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal should be dated to 664 B.C., then his chronology is doomed. I’ll explain why after responding to your other arguments about the 3rd intermediate period.

However, they discard the other three. They argue that this mistake sets the accession of Shoshenq I too early, which artifically lengthens the period between the end of the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) and the start of the 22nd dynasty. This, of course, would solve the problem of Takeloth and his buddies not having any monumental evidence.

Why is that a problem? The entire 3rd intermediate period is rather sketchy, and Takelot I is not the only Pharaoh for whom we lack monumental evidence. There are many dark phases in history and although it may be tempting to try to fill in the gaps in any way possible, the fact is that sometimes there’s simply not a lot of information that survives. Comparably little monuments are known from any of the 3rd intermediate period kings, even Sheshonq I, who was the most influential and famous. We don’t even know where he was buried.

Here’s what we know about the 3rd intermediate period, from the original sources:

In the 21st dynasty, a family descended from one “Sheshonq, the great chief of Meshwesh” from Lybia, had control of the priesthood in Bubastis. In the 22nd dynasty, Sheshonq I managed to gain control of the kingship somehow. We know this from an oracle recorded at Thebes. We also know, from the available documents, that Sheshonq consolidated power, appointed his son to the position of high priest of Amun, and was strong enough to invade Palestine. For Sheshonq’s dynasty, Manetho combined with monumental evidence gives us the following kings: Sheshonq I, Osorkon I, Sheshonq II, Takelot I, Osorkon II, Takelot II, Sheshonq III. Most of these kings are attested by the monuments. This dynasty lasted approximately 120 years, according to Manetho, and this can be partially confirmed by the length of years given on some of the inscriptions, although modern historians extend it to about 170 years due to monumental evidence.

Now, there is no reason to doubt these lengths of reign, or the existence of these kings, since there is nothing remarkable about it, and these lengths of reign are consistent with the stability and relative prosperity which we know Egypt enjoyed in this period according to the inscriptions. Sheshonq’s dynasty was able to supply the Syrian coalition with 1,000 troops for the battle of Qarqar. We also find Osorkon’s name inscribed on many alabaster vases from Samaria. We know that Osorkon II ruled for at least 29 years, from an inscription on a shrine in Bubastis, further confirming Manetho’s numbers here. All in all, the impression is one of relative stability and peace under the new Lybian rulers for Sheshonq’s dynasty. So, there is no reason to doubt the length of dynasty 22.

Now we know from the “chronicle of Prince Osorkon” that civil war broke out in Egypt after Sheshonq’s dynasty, and the political fragmentation became worse until finally, the Napatan conquerors from Nubia unified Egypt again. The Napatan conquerors are very well attested, and we know they were considerably powerful. Taharqa (mentioned in Isaiah and 2 Kings as Tirhaka) was powerful enough to take on Ashur-banipal of Assyria. (Although obviously he failed.) Manetho combined with monumental evidence gives us, for the Napatan dynasty, seven rulers, Alara, Kashta, Piye, Shabako, Shebitku, Taharqa, and Tantamani. We know from the stele of Piye that all of Egypt was conquered and put under Nubian control. Again, there is no reason to doubt the lengths of reign given here by the monuments, which give us 83 years of independent control from Piye to Taharqa. (The last king, Tantamani, was more of a rebel leader than a king.) Now, since you obviously accept the date given for Ashurbanipal of Assyria, we can safely date Taharqa and Tantamani to the reign of Ashurbanipal since we know from Ashurbanipal’s annals that he defeated Taharqa in 664 B.C. Therefore, we can safely say that the 25th dynasty extends back to 747 B.C., by adding up the lengths of reigns for Piye, Shabako, Shebitku, and Taharqa.

Thus, the only period left for Rohl to play around with is dynasties 23 and 24, since there is no reason to doubt that dynasty 22 lasted for 120-170 years, and there is even less reason to doubt that dynasty 25 lasted for 83 years. (Notice, I’m being kind here by not counting the reigns of the first two kings of dynasty 25, Alara and Kashta, since this is before Piye’s total conquest, thus making it possible that these two kings ruled contemporaneously with dynasty 24.) So between the end of Sheshonq’s dynasty which lasted 172 years (dynasty 22) and the Napatan conquest by Piye which gives us the 83 year long dynasty 25, we have 8 rulers in dynasty 23, and 2 rulers in dynasty 24. Since this is after the events depicted in “the Chronicle of Osorkon”, we are on very shaky grounds here, since Egypt was politically fragmented into various dynasties which must have ruled contemporaneously in most cases. A man named Pedubast, the first ruler of dynasty 23, made a bid for the throne during the reign of Sheshonq III, the last sole ruler of the 22nd dynasty. From then on, Egypt is severely fragmented, and there seems to be two or three Pharaohs ruling simultaneously. This only gets more complicated when a family at Sais makes a bid for the throne, which starts dynasty 24.

So basically, between Sheshonq III and Piye we have 8 successive Pharaohs from dynasty 23, 2 successive Pharaoh’s from dynasty 24, and 3 Pharaohs who continued the line of dynasty 22. But we can discount dynasty 24 and the leftovers from dynasty 22 for the purposes of chronology, since they may have been contemporary with dynasty 23, and I will simply grant you that they were for the sake of argument. (I believe they probably were anyway.)

Rohl needs to get rid of 350 years, correct? He can’t reasonably get rid of the 120-170 year dynasty 22, and he certainly can’t touch dynasty 25 which is 83 years at least. So that’s 205-255 years already. The standard chronology, which compensates for Manetho’s failure to realize that dynasty 23 and 24 were contemporary, gives us 103 years between Pedubast, the first king of dynasty 23, and Piye’s conquest. Now, what exactly does Rohl/James plan to do with all these kings, in order to make his chronology work? How many ad-hoc coregencies is he going to have to invent?

Firstly, #3 - the Sothic dating system. This is pretty easy to dismiss. Since the work of James et al, Sothic dating has been discredited as a good means of dating…As this quote shows, Bietak still holds to the CC, though he acknowledges that the Sothic dating cannot be used to support it.

So it seems that Egyptologists no longer use the Sothic dating system. That pillar has been knocked out.

I never paid much attention to the Sothic dating system, so I won’t really comment on this too much. I’ll simply concede this point here, since the Sothic dating system is not of much use to me.

Secondly, #4 - Now this is a lunar date, but since the lunar cycle repeats every 25 years, it can't be used as a pillar by itself. It can only be used to "fine tune" an existing framework that is broadly correct. Thus, this pillar actually depends on the veracity of pillars 2 and 3. If they fall, then this one falls with it.

Again, the lunar dating system is not of much use to me either, so I concede this point as well for now. However, I will mention a lunar date later as corroboration, after arriving at the same date using different means.

Finally, #2 - the most complicated one. This pillar has been assumed since the time of Champillion 1828. On the surface, this seemed like a good match: "Shoshenq" and "Shishak" seem closely related, and according to Shoshenq campaigned in Palestine. Moreover, according to his campaign list, Judea is actually listed as one of the destinations.

Right.

However, the similarity is superficial. Look a little closer and things start to fall apart:
1. It has been conclusively shown that Champillion misread Shoshenq's campaign list. It did not say "Judea the Kingdom", but "Monument of the King".
2. An examination of Shoshenq's campaign shows that he avoided Judea and definitely avoided Jerusalem. His main attack was into the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This leads to two problems:
2a. The "Shishak" recorded in the Bible is supposed to have attacked Judea and specifically Jerusalem, not Israel.

The problem with Sheshonq’s stele is that it is difficult to create an exact itinerary for the conquest. These are the cities/places he claims to have conquered: Adummim, Aijalon, Aruna, Arzawa, Assyria (yes, seriously Assyria!), Beth-Anath, Beth-Horon, Beth-Olam, Beth-Shan, Beth-Tappuah, Emeq, Gibeon, Ham, “Hand of the King”, Hapharaim, Hatti, Jordan, Kadesh, Mahanaim, Megiddo, Migdol, Mittani, Naharin, Negeb, Rabbah, Raphia, Rehob, Shankhar, Shasu, Shunem, Socho, Taanach, Tunip, and Yehem.

Now, Socoh is only a bit southwest of Jerusalem, and Aijalon is less than 20 miles northwest of Jerusalem. So this shows at least, that Shoshenq’s campaign took him near Jerusalem. And do you really expect he would have missed Jerusalem? Yes, I admit it is anomalous that Jerusalem goes unmentioned, but, the problem is, this list of names is neither hear nor there. Rabbah, for example, is all the way east of the Jordan, Negeb is south of Judah, Megiddo is in Northern Israel. How do we construct an itinerary with this confusing information? Moreover, he mentions Assyria and Mitanni. Obviously, Sheshonq did not conquer Assyria or Mitanni. To quote from Egyptologist John Wilson:

It is disappointing to find that the Egyptian texts do not enlarge our understanding of his campaign in Palestine in a sense which constitutes a real addition to the biblical account. To be sure, he has left us a listing of the Palestinian and Syrian towns which he claimed to have conquered, and this list may be reconstructed into a kind of itinerary. There is, however, no narrative account of the campaign by the pharaoh. The references in his inscription to “tribute of the land of Syria” or to his victories over the “Asiatics of distant foreign countries” are vague and generalized. How unhistorical his large claims were is clear from a statement to the pharaoh by the god Amon: “I have subjugated for thee the Asiatics of the armies of Mitanni.” Mitanni as a nation had ceased to exist at least four centuries earlier.”

Note that this reference to Mitanni is just as bizarre under Rohl’s chronology. It’s possible that Sheshonq was using this term in some vague, regional way, similar to how the Assyrians used the term “Hatti” to refer to the West in general, but it’s even more likely that Sheshonq was just making exaggerated claims for propagandistic purposes. After all, he begins his stele by claiming he has conquered the traditional “Nine Bows”, a stereotyped phrase going back thousands of years which refers to Egypt’s enemies. However, we know he did have some influence on Megiddo, since there was a stele bearing his name discovered there.

Thus, although the lack of reference to Jerusalem is admittedly anomalous, we can be sure Shishak is Sheshonq I because he is the only Pharaoh that could historically fit into this situation. He invaded Palestine, his conquests took him within the vicinity of Jerusalem, and his name is sufficiently similar for identification. Finally, the Sheshonq stele is not historically reliable enough to construct a solid itinerary.

2b. According to the Bible, Jeroboam fled to be under the protection of Shishak when Solomon wanted to kill him. It would seem odd that Shishak would later reverse his attitude and attack him when he was king of the Northern Kingdom (though granted not impossible), and the Bible certainly doesn't record that he attacked the Northern Kingdom.

Why? It seems very likely actually. Sheshonq took advantage of the political split between Israel and Judah – this allowed him an opportunity to move into Palestine. It would be a very good chance for the new Lybian Pharaoh to achieve the same glory that his ancestors did.

Besides, you could simply make the same argument against Ramses II, whom Rohl identifies with Shishak. According to Ramses's annals, he attacked various cities in Northern Israel such as Merom, and Beth-Anath.

3. Equating Shishak with Shoshenq breaks an even stronger synchronism with the Phonecian kingdom. There is monumental evidence that shows that the successive kings of Byblos Abibaal, Yehimilk and Elibaal are contemporaries with Shoshenk I and Osorkon I. The CC breaks this synchronism.

The CC does not break this Phoenician synchronism. Shipitbaal, the son of Elibaal, is referenced in the Assyrian annals, so he is contemporary with Tiglath-Pileser III, who reigned 744-727 B.C. (That date is not open to question, since we both agree Ashur-banipal sacked Thebes in 664 B.C.) A statue of Sheshonq was dedicated to Abibaal, and a statue of Osorkon is dedicated to Elibaal. If we count backwards from Shipitbaal, we find that this synchronizes perfectly with Sheshonq IV, and his son Osorkon III.

4. Even from a purely literary point of view, the name similarity is not as close as it at first seems. Egyptian "sh" is usually transliterated into "s" when transliterating into a Semitic tongue, and vice-versa. For example, Shoshenq is transliterated as "Susink" in a contemporary Akkadian document (as an example of the opposite, Egyptian Askelan = Hebrew Ashkelon). Moreover, of the few monuments to Shoshenq that have been found in Palestine, the "n" is never dropped from his name. Thus, "Shoshenq" would be most likely be transliterated as "Sisank" in Hebrew.

Well, firstly, Sheshonq is a Lybian word, and not an Egyptian word. But anyway, this substitution of “s” for “sh” does not seem to always be the case. For example, in Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, Semitic name sounds seem to be preserved, such as Shamashtu and Apra-Reshpu.

Additionally, Sheshonk on Egyptian monuments is written as “sh-sh-n-k”, but it is also written as “sh-sh-k”, without the “n.” However, to be fair, you are correct that in Akkadian, the “n” is always there, and it is spelled “Su-si-in-qu.” However, your comment about the monuments to Sheshonq in Palestine is misleading. As far as I know, there is only one monument that has Sheshonq’s name on it in Palestine – the one from Megiddo. True, this has the “n” in it, but your comment implies that this is a ubiquitous phenomenon. We know, at least, that in Egypt, Sheshonq could be spelled without the “n.”

It should be noted, however, that Rohl’s identification of Shisak with Rameses also requires the arbitrary addition of a letter, whereas it is not completely arbitrary to drop the “N”, because at least the Egyptian monuments attest to that, and Sheshonk’s name rarely occurs in Palestine. Rohl says that “Shisha” is an acceptable transliteration of the Egyptian nickname for Ramses, “Sysw.” Whether or not this really is an acceptable transliteration is questionable. But even if it is, Rohl has to add on a K to make “Shisha” into “Shishak.” He does this, apparently, by saying that the additional “K” was a play on words, meant to turn Ramses’s name into the Hebrew equivalent of “assaulter.” Never mind, of course, that Sheshonq’s real name has a K in it, regardless of any Hebrew pun. And never mind, of course, that this is just a guess, based on nothing. No Hebrews ever played with the names of Necho, Hophra, Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, or Nebuchadnezzar. What is the precedent for this “play on words” theory?

Additionally, 2 Chronicles 12:3 reports that Shishak had an army composed of Libyans, Sukkites and Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es. While it’s possible that Rameses may have had a large Lybian contingent in his army, it is more likely that Sheshonq would, obviously. There does not seem to be any evidence of foreign soldiers in the Egyptian army in the inscriptions of Rameses II.

Putting all this together, it becomes pretty obvious that the link with Shishak=Shoshenq is pretty weak. I think perhaps the strongest point is the fact that the Bible does not mention Shishak attacking the Northern Kingdom. That requires that we postulate the rather absurd situation where the Bible got the name of the pharoah right, but got the target of his campaign wrong. This pillar falls.

The pillar stands. Shishak must be Sheshonq for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it is linguistically a very close match, besides the fact that the “n” is dropped. Secondly, Sheshonq I is the only Pharaoh that could work historically here. Identifying Shishak with Ramses II, or even Rameses III seriously disrupts Egyptian/Palestinian chronology.

And because the TIP and the New Kingdom is dated relative to this synchronism, it means that the whole TIP dating is rather shaky - and with it, the whole Egyptian chronology. Unless the CC has some other pillars that I am unaware of and that Rohl/James haven't dealt with, then there are no remaining pillars supporting the absolute Egyptian chronology before the sacking of Thebes.

I’ll get to this below.

An aside: who was Shoshenq? Does the Bible mention him, given that he campaigned in the Northern Kingdom? Well, there is a reference to a pharoah who campaigned in the Northern Kingdom in the Bible: the "Saviour" who came to rid the Northern Kingdom of the invading Arameans (2 Kings 13:1-7). This is not an unexpected action of an Egyptian pharoah if the kingdoms of Palestine were vassal states of Egypt. I understand that the identity of this pharoah is a problem that has always perplexed scholars of the CC. Having cast off the old Shishak=Shoshenq synchronism, Rohl postulates that the "Saviour" pharoah in question was Shoshenq. Although the passage in 2 Kings does not mention the pharoah by name, given that Shoshenq campaigned in the same area, it seems a good match. As an added bonus, identifying Shoshenq with this "Saviour" also restores the synchronism with the Phonecian kings I mentioned in 3 above, as well as fitting well with the rest of Rohl's NC. Rohl goes into more detail about this match, but I will leave it at this overview level for now.

Well, I’ve dealt with the Phoenician synchronism already. As for 2 Kings 13:1-7, this is an extremely tenuous inference. Firstly, you’re being misleading here, but obviously not intentionally. The Bible does not say that any Pharaoh campaigned in the Northern Kingdom at this time. All it gives us is this vague comment:

2 Kings 13:4-6

Then Jehoahaz sought the LORD's favor, and the LORD listened to him, for he saw how severely the king of Aram was oppressing Israel. The LORD provided a deliverer for Israel, and they escaped from the power of Aram. So the Israelites lived in their own homes as they had before.

This does not say anything about a Pharaoh. Besides, what kind of “savior” would Sheshonq be? His armies supposedly marauded through Palestine, and he sacked quite a few Judean and Northern Israelite cities.

So who was this savior? Well, honestly, I’m not sure, but it seems to me the most likely candidate is Shamshi-Adad V of Assyria. Starting with Ashur-nasirpal II, the Assyrians began expanding westward, and their campaigns usually took them through Aram, to the Mediterranean. The famous stele that depicts King Jehu bowing down to Shalmaneser III of Assyria is testament to how far west these campaigns carried the influence of the Assyrian king at this time. Jehoahaz ruled after king Jehu, and Shamshi-Adad V of Assyria was king during his lifetime. Certainly, if Hazael of Aram started oppressing Israel, Shamshi-Adad V would be very quick to intervene, especially if Jehoahaz was paying tribute. This exact scenario definitely occurred during Isaiah’s time, when King Ahaz requested aid from Tiglath-Pileser III against king Rezin of Aram. Tiglath-Pileser instantly came and destroyed Damascus.

However, to be fair, I’ve searched through the Assyrian annals and no campaign to Aram is recorded for Shamshi-Adad V. He did, however, lay siege to Babylon, incidentally. However, it is certainly no stretch to say that Shamshi-Adad V would have campaigned in Syria (Aram), since his father Shalmaneser III did extensively, and there is documentary evidence that his successor Adad-nirari remained active west of the Euphrates as well. So, although I don’t have direct evidence here, it is certainly more plausible historically that the Assyrians, who were constantly meddling in Levantine affairs throughout the 9th, 8th and 7th centuries, would have saved Israel from Hazael. This certainly happened other times, and Assyria often campaigned in Syria. It is, to say the least, extraordinarily more likely than an Egyptian invasion. The Bible is silent on any activity from Egypt from the reign of King Asa of Judah all the way until King Hoshea. But the Assyrian annals are rife with references to affairs between the Levant and Assyria. And of course, I might add that the reason the Bible is silent on Egyptian affairs for so long, is because Egypt was in the 3rd intermediate period, when it was relatively weak, and often struggling with internal problems.

[chsalvia]

Well, that should give us enough to start with. Fire away!

I can understand why some of Rohl’s arguments might convince you Jezz, but I think if you were more interested in Egyptian history, and you decided to read more literature that supports the mainstream chronology, as well as the original source documents themselves, you would soon realize that Rohl’s chronology simply does not work.

Now, I’ve defended my position against your arguments, however, the arguments you’ve offered sort of take the spotlight away from the main issues. Even if, for example, Rameses’s nickname is a better match for “Shishak” than Sheshonq, (which it isn’t), it still wouldn’t matter. That bit of positive evidence would be overridden by the enormous problems inherent in Rohl’s revision.

Rohl’s chronology is so hopelessly defective that it can be attacked from just about any historical angle. We could discuss why it doesn’t work with Greek history, Babylonian history, Hittite history, Assyrian history, Palestinian history, etc. I’ll start by giving you some examples. If you can somehow successfully refute these, I’ll provide more. I’ll start with Assyrian history, since it’s the most obvious.

Assyrian History

I’m not going to bother explaining why it is certain that Ashur-banipal sacked Thebes in 664 B.C., since you don’t dispute it. So, taking that as a given, we have five Assyrian King Lists, and lammu lists, (which are lists of important officials), which list all the Assyrian Kings going back to the Old Assyrian period, with a few gaps. They are generally reliable back through the Middle Assyrian period. In fact, the Assyrian King Lists are one of the most useful historical documents for the ancient world, ever. We find they consistently match external evidence when possible. Thus, Tiglath-Pileser III (Tukulti-apil-Esharra) ruled 18 years, Ashur-nirari ruled 10 years, etc. Obviously, we have to be wary with any historical documents of such antiquity, but so far, there is no reason not to trust these king lists.

You can probably find an Assyrian chronology online, but since you’re probably more interested in the original Assyrian text, you can find it on page 565-567 of James Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, or in SAA (State Archives of Assyria) Volume XI.

From Ashur-banipal’s annals, specifically, from the Rassam Cylinder, we know that he attacked Thebes during his second campaign:

In my second campaign I marched directly against Egypt and Nubia…(snip)…He saw my mighty battle array approaching, left Thebes and fled to Kipkipi. Upon a trust-inspiring oracle from Ishtar, I, myself, conquered the town completely.

If we use the Assyrian King List to count backwards, starting from Ashur-banipal’s fourth regnal year when he sacked Thebes, which we both agree was 664 B.C., we count backwards to Esarhaddon, ruling in 680 B.C., and then backwards further to Sennacherib ruling in 704 B.C., and then backwards to Sargon, ruling in 721 B.C. and so on and so on, back through the Middle Assyrian period to the reign of Eriba-Adad ruling in 1392 B.C. The list goes on even further back in time after that, back to Shamshi-Adad I of the Old Assyrian period.

It should be noted that there are minor discrepencies, as is expected, between the 5 King lists. For example, one list gives a reign of 15 years for Shamshi-Adad III, but another gives a reign of 16 years. The only major variation is in the reign of Ashur-dan I, where one list gives a reign of 46 years, and another gives a reign of 36 years. So, as you can see, the lists are fairly stable and unanimous in their lengths of reigns.

So, starting from the reign of Ashur-banipal and counting backwards through the list, we have numerous anchor points that we can use to synchronize the rulers of other nations with a particular Assyrian king, and thus a year on the Gregorian calendar. Now, all we need are some synchronisms with Egyptian history. Surely enough, Ashur-uballit I wrote letters to Pharaoh Akhenaten. These letter are to be found in the collection of letters from Tel El-Amarna. So, if we count backwards starting from Ashur-banipal using the Assyrian King List, we arrive at the date of 1365 B.C. for Ashur-uballit I. Thus Akhenaten must obviously have reigned during 1365 B.C., as the CC says he did, since he was contemporary with Ashur-Uballit.

As you probably know, the collection of letters found at Tel El-Amarna (the old city of Ahketaten founded by Akhenaten, and abandoned after his reign) mostly date to the reign of Akhenaten.

“The archive begins about the thirtieth year of Amenophis III and extends no later than the first year or so of Tutankhamun, at which time the court abandoned the site of Ahketaten.” – “The Amarna Letters”, William Moran, pg xxxiv

Thus, we read, in EA 15 (page 38):

Say to the King of Egypt: Thus Assur-Uballit, the king of Assyria. For you, your household, for your country, for your chariots and your troops, may all go well.

So Ashur-Uballit sent a letter to Akhenaten, (or possibly Amenhotep III, or Tutankhamun.) And again in EA 16 we read:

Say to Napkhororia, King of Egypt, my brother: Thus Assur-Uballit, king of Assyria, Great King, your brother.

In this case, the letter is definitely to Akhenaten, and not Amenhotep III or Tutankhamun. Napkhororia refers to Akhenaten Nefer-khepru-re.

Thus, Ashur-Uballit was contemporary with Akhenaten, and so Akhenaten reigned in the mid 14th century. Now, what can Rohl say to this? I assume he’d try to find another Ashur-Uballit. But the only other Ashur-Uballit reigned after the fall of Nineveh, in 611-609 B.C., much later than Rohl wants to date Akhenaten. What possibly can Rohl say to this? I don’t know…but I’m sure he’ll cook up some wacky excuse.

It doesn’t end there, however. We get another synchronism from the Babylonian King Lists, which are synchronized with the Assyrian King Lists in a document called “The Synchronistic Chronicle.” (ANET, pg 272) The Babylonian King Burnaburiash (Burra-Buriyash) was contemporary with the Assyrian King Assur-Uballit, according to the Synchronistic Chronicle. And what do you know, we have multiple letters from Burnaburiash to Ahkenaten: EA 6, EA 7, EA 8, EA 9, EA 10, EA 11, EA 12, EA 14. This confirms the accuracy of the “Synchronistic Chronicle” and the Assyrian King List, plus, it gives us confirmation that Akhenaten was contemporary with Burnaburiash, who in turn was a contemporary of Ashur-uballit I of Assyria, who reigned from 1363 to 1328 B.C. according to the Assyrian King List.

There are many other synchronisms. For example, we know that Ramses II was a contemporary of Hattusilis III because of the treaty he made with him:

The regulations which the Great Prince of Hatti, Hattusilis, the powerful, the son of Mursilis, the Great Prince of Hatti, the powerful, the son of the son of Suppiluliumas, the Great Prince of Hatti, the powerful…(snip)…Now since Muwatallis the Great Prince of Hatti, my brother, went in pursuit of his fate, and Hattusilis sat as Great Prince of Hatti upon the throne of his father, behold, I have come to be with Ramses Meri-Amon, the great ruler of Egypt, for we are together in our peace and our brotherhood.

-ANET, pg 201

This definitely refers to Hattusilis III, since his genealogy is given. As I’m sure you know, Ramses Meri-Amon, (Ramses II), during his long reign, fought with Muwatallis at the battle of Qadesh, and signed a treaty with his brother, Hattusilis. We know from the Hittite King Lists that one Urhi-Teshub ruled between Muwatallis and Hattusilis. Thus, Urhi-Teshub is a contemporary of Ramses II. We also know that this same Urhi-Teshub (there is only one king by this name) wrote letters to Shalmaneser I of Assyria. Thus, Shalmaneser I was a contemporary of Urhi-Teshub, and hence, a contemporary of Ramses II. And, again, if we count backwards from Ashur-banipal, we arrive at 1274-1245 B.C. for Shalmaneser I. Thus, Ramses II lived in the 13th century.

I will also point out that this corresponds with the traditional lunar date given for the acession of Ramses II, 1279 B.C.

And just in case you're wondering, there is no Assyrian king by the name of Shalmaneser who would be a contemporary of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, as Rohl requires for Ramses II.

One more synchronism: We know that Hattusilis III’s son, Tudhaliya IV, wrote letters to Tukulti-Ninurta of Assyria. These letters were discovered in the Hittite archives at Bogazkoy. And, according to the Assyrian King List, Shalmaneser I of Assyria, a contemporary of Urhi-Teshub and Ramses II, was succeeded by Tukulti-Ninurta. And again, counting backwards from our agreed starting point of 664 B.C., we arrive at the year 1244 B.C. for Tukulti-Ninurta. Thus, the Hittite King Tudhaliya IV ruled in 1244 B.C., and since his father, Hattusilis III was a contemporary of Ramses II, as we know from the treaty, this gives us further confirmation that Ramses ruled in the 13th century. So here is yet another verification of the reliability of the Assyrian King List and the CC.

Finally, even if Rohl could somehow argue that the lengths of reigns given in the Assyrian King List are unreliable, he still has to accept that Ashur-banipal reigned during 664 B.C., and Ashur-Uballit I was a contemporary of Akhenaten. But how does Rohl plan to fit all the Assyrian Kings between Ashur-Uballit I and Ashur-banipal into the approximately 400 years he allows here? There are at least 42 kings listed in the Assyrian King List for this period, reigning for a total of 739 years. So far, there is nothing to show that these figures are unreliable. And remember, most of these kings are synchronized with Babylonian Kings in the Synchronistic Chronicle, which also matches the Babylonian king lists. Thus, we have multiple independent sources confirming the reliability of these lists. Rohl basically needs to erase 350 years of Assyrian and Babylonian history. How can he justifiably do this? How many arbitrary coregencies or whatever is he going to need to invent to pull that off?

Conclusion

Basically, the only "pillar" you've managed to knock down here is Sothic dating, which I wouldn't use anyway. There is so much documentary evidence from Assyria and Egypt that it is easy to create synchronisms solely based on the texts.

But the Assyrian King lists are just the tip of the iceberg here. Rohl’s chronology cannot account for Hittite history, Greek history, and Palestinian history. I still have not heard, for example, how Rohl explains having Saul and David contemporary with the 18th dynasty. How does Rohl imagine that David was able to defeat the Philistines and create a powerful independent state in Palestine, when Palestine was an Egyptian province during this dynasty, controlled by Egyptian garrisons, as is testified to by the Amarna letters, the Taanach letters, and the Egyptian annals?

The Philistines present another problem. According to Egyptian records, they first appear on the historical scene during the reign of Ramses III, when marauding hordes from the Aegean region attack Egypt. The Philistines later settled in Palestine, but Rohl’s chronology causes severe archeological and historical problems for the Philistine settlement.

And of course, dating Ramses II as a contemporary of Rehoboam forces us to redate the battle of Qadesh, which in turn completely offsets Hittite history, and disrupts numerous synchronisms with Mitanni and Assyria.

These are just some other major problems with Rohl’s revisions. For now, we can focus on the Assyrian King Lists. If you somehow manage to refute that, there are many other problems with Rohl’s chronology I can refer to in detail.

[chsalvia]

I just wanted to amend post #4 by pointing out that I shouldn't have said that you implied that Sheshonq's name was ubiquitous in Palestine. You were careful to point out there were few instances. Although, as far as I know, there is only one.

[learning]

Kinda off, but chsalvia, have you done any study of the more recent ancient history of Egypt? Especially the Coptics? What were your sources if you did? Why were they allowed to continue as christians when the Muslims took over Egypt?

[Jezz]

I just wanted to amend post #4 by pointing out that I shouldn't have said that you implied that Sheshonq's name was ubiquitous in Palestine. You were careful to point out there were few instances. Although, as far as I know, there is only one.

Thanks for that - I'll have to remember to take that complaint out of my draft. It'll take a little while, but it will happen. Most of the response you have given is anticipated.

It might help me in my response by quickly telling me what your main source is for the TIP dating? I was guessing Kitchen?

[Jezz]

Kinda off, but chsalvia, have you done any study of the more recent ancient history of Egypt? Especially the Coptics? What were your sources if you did? Why were they allowed to continue as christians when the Muslims took over Egypt?

You're right, this is kinda off, and that's not really ancient history but the middle ages.

A quick answer: For the most part, Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to remain Christians and Jews in pretty much all the lands that they conquered - not just the Copts. It was only really the polytheists who they forced to "convert or die" - Christians and Jews were treated as second-class citizens (having to pay tribute), but were still allowed to practice their religion (they were afforded respect as monotheists). Oppression gradually increased as time went on, but it was not too severe in the early days.

If you want to know any more, please start a new thread on it in one of the history forums - as this is not relevant to this thread or even this forum.

[chsalvia]

It might help me in my response by quickly telling me what your main source is for the TIP dating? I was guessing Kitchen?

Actually, I didn't use Kitchen here. I know he is somewhat of an authority on the TIP these days, but I avoided him like the plague here, since he was very vocal against Rohl. I read Kitchen's book "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt" a few months ago, but in putting together my response I based most of it on as many of the primary sources I had available to me, to avoid any circularity.

For the original texts I used Volume 4 of James Breasted's "Ancient Record's of Egypt", especially for Sheshonq's stele. For the general historical outline, and other original texts, I used Chapter 12 of the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, (that chapter was written by John Taylor), and also Amelie Kuhrt's, The Ancient Near East Vol II. But the quote from John Wilson came from ANET. For the 23rd and 24th dynasties I used "The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon" by R. A. Caminos, which provides the text and commentary. For the Napatan rulers I used "The Black Pharaohs", by Robert Morkot, which includes a lot of the original texts from the monuments.

I also totally forgot to mention the Apis Stele - which is another source for the chronology of the 22nd dynasty.

[learning]

You're right, this is kinda off, and that's not really ancient history but the middle ages.

A quick answer: For the most part, Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to remain Christians and Jews in pretty much all the lands that they conquered - not just the Copts. It was only really the polytheists who they forced to "convert or die" - Christians and Jews were treated as second-class citizens (having to pay tribute), but were still allowed to practice their religion (they were afforded respect as monotheists). Oppression gradually increased as time went on, but it was not too severe in the early days.

If you want to know any more, please start a new thread on it in one of the history forums - as this is not relevant to this thread or even this forum.

sorry to get off, but back on topic. I do not know if all of what Rohl says is true or not, I doubt his Armana letters interpretation of things, but I do believe he has found some things very helpful in the proof of the children of Israel in Egypt. One, is that there is a canal, that to this day!, is called the canal or river of Joseph (or Yousef) in the northern part of Egypt, and the palace that he (Rohl) found there, seems to fit what would be one for someone with Joseph's background. One with twelve pillars, representing the 12 sons of Jacob. Two apartment add ons, for his two sons, and the statue that Rohl has fitted to Joseph, fits Joseph too, in that it is one with light coloured skin pigment, red hair, and a throw stick which would represent a foreign ruler, not an Egyptian one. And where they found this statue, there is evidence that the body was taken out of it hastily. Not like some regular thievery of tombs.

[Jezz]

Jezz, I’m not going to waste too much of your time talking about biases and such, but since you brought it up, I might as well tell you that I’m pretty sure Rohl is basically a Biblical apologist incognito.

Ok.

A marketing agent of his seems to admit as much, as you can see in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...1&postcount=49.

It seems rather clear to me from the context that what she meant is that Rohl is a conservative historian when it comes to the Bible - ie, someone who doesn't treat the Bible as pimarily mythological. In other words, someone more like Kitchen, and less like Finkelstein. I didn't get the impression that "conservative Christian" was meant.

Furthermore, all of his books seem to take a particular interest in the Bible, and put more weight on Biblical testimony than anything else, i.e. Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, The Lost Testament, In Search of Eden, etc. Compare these sort of sensationalist titles with the normal publications released by Egyptologists who have no significant ideological axe to grind, such as The Reign of Thutmose IV, by Betsy Bryan, or Ramesside Inscriptions, Translations: Merenptah and the Late Nineteenth Dynasty, by Kenneth Kitchen.

So sue the man for showing a little creativity in his titles???

Rohl seems to only be interested in how Egyptian history interacts with the Bible, and he always argues in favor of Biblical historicity. Thus, he is not, in any true sense, an Egyptologist. Has he ever published anything that does not argue in favor of Biblical historicity, but rather only talks about Egyptian history?

So one can't be an Egyptologist if one concentrates on Egypt's relationship to a neighbouring civilisation? Oh well, if you don't want to call him an Egyptologist, that's fine. Call him an entymologist if you want - it doesn't change his arguments much.

I mean, look at the sort of absurd sensationalism that Rohl promotes: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/

Oh come now. I don't think it's fair to pin this on Rohl - that's not site's not even authored by him! There are anti-Rohl sites that are just as sensationalistic (one of them called the Waste of Time web site).

What about James et al? Are they crypto-apologists as well?

Regardless, I will take your advice about scholars and bias, and attack the arguments, rather than the person.

Very good.

But first, a brief word about the New Chronology. Rohl/James takes advantage of the obscurity of the Third Intermediate Period, however, the strongest disproof against the NC comes in the form of general archeological and historical observations about ANE and Mediterranean history, as well as synchronisms with Assyrian chronology.

As you know, the revisionists deny that the Assyrian chronology is properly independent of Egypt's. We'll get to that.

When Rohl’s revisions are put into effect, there does not seem to be a single nation in the Ancient Near East or Mediterranean region whose history does not become chaotically incongruent when juxtaposed with the history of its neighbor.

Well, that's why I spent a great deal of time talking about circular reasoning. If revisionists are correct, then it means for a long time archaeologists have been interpreting their evidence to fit in the framework of a false chronologies. Change the framework and of course things are going to get out of place, until all the evidence has been reinterpreted.

That's what makes definitive rebuttal/proof of chronologies difficult. There is so much data to consider, and there will inevitably be difficulties in any reconstruction. You can't rebut a chronology by pointing out one or two inconsistencies. Which is also why it should send up warning bells when people are adhering dogmatically to any given chronology.

I will put forward some general arguments to demonstrate why Rohl’s chronology does not work, but first, I will address the arguments you put forward in defense of Rohl. As I suspected, they point out minor problems, while ignoring the larger whole, and focus on things like Sirius and lunar dating which are really useless anyway, and are rarely used anymore to establish a chronology.

Well, whether or not they are minor problems depends on how much they were relied upon to set the chronology we have now.

Also, you should note that revisionists can make the same claim about critics of their chronologies - ie, they point out minor problems while ignoring the larger whole. As I pointed out above, there are going to be problems with any chronology - the question is "which one is better overall?"

Yes, I realize that. I'm not going to be arguing anything circular here.

Well of course noone sets out to argue in a circle.

But, what you need to understand is that the claim that everything relies on Egyptian history is exaggerated. Assyrian history is completely independent, and can be used as an anchor point for Egyptian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Palestinian history.

I understand that is the conventional position. I understand revisionists disagree. I'm not quite sure who to believe at this point. But no matter, we'll get to that.

Right. Yurco made a bad argument there. He probably forgot that Shalmaneser III’s account does not name the Pharaoh. Often, the Assyrian records do name the Pharaoh when they refer to Egypt.

Yes, and it is the position of revisionists that in such cases where Pharoahs are named, the dating of the Assyrian document is actually dependent on the Egyptian chronology.

Well, I actually have access to a lot of the primary sources, so I will show you how you can arrive at the standard chronology using raw evidence.

Cool, that will help.

...however, this is also the kind of thing we would expect to see if the reign lengths had to be artificially lengthened in order to fill in an artificially long gap...

For every single Pharaoh of the 3rd intermediate period?

No, not necessarily. There is also the possibility of co-regency. I'll get to this later.

Manetho is also more reliable for the 3rd intermediate period than for former periods, since it is closer in time to when he was writing. His information checks out with external evidence. Manetho knew, for example, that the Lybian chief kings held power in Bubastis.

True, but then it's not just the reign lengths that are problematic with Manetho. There is confusion as to whether or not the kings in Manetho's list were supposed to have reigned successively in all instances. As I understand it, they are largely assumed to be successive by Kitchen. However, it was noted as long ago as Julius Africanus and Eusebius (two extant secondary sources for Manetho, whose original works, to my knowledge, have been lost) that Manetho's lists were confusing in this regard.

Other sources include the Piye (Pianchi) stele from Nubia, which records the conquest of the Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es, the “Chronicle of Prince Osorkon”, various Theban biographies, a stele from Sheshonk I in Megiddo, and references to the Egyptian kings in the Assyrian annals.

That is useful to know. I happen to know a little bit (not much) about the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, and will be referring to it later.

They argue that this mistake sets the accession of Shoshenq I too early, which artifically lengthens the period between the end of the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) and the start of the 22nd dynasty. This, of course, would solve the problem of Takeloth and his buddies not having any monumental evidence.

Why is that a problem? The entire 3rd intermediate period is rather sketchy, and Takelot I is not the only Pharaoh for whom we lack monumental evidence. There are many dark phases in history and although it may be tempting to try to fill in the gaps in any way possible, the fact is that sometimes there’s simply not a lot of information that survives. Comparably little monuments are known from any of the 3rd intermediate period kings, even Sheshonq I, who was the most influential and famous. We don’t even know where he was buried.

That's not an argument - that's an excuse. I grant that it is a plausible excuse, however despite what Kitchen erroneously claims, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Another plausible explanation for the lack of evidence is that the period has been stretched beyond what it should be.

[snip - interesting overview, I'll cover possible problems below]

Rohl needs to get rid of 350 years, correct?

Yep. Alternatively, James et al need to get rid of 250 years.

He can’t reasonably get rid of the 172 year dynasty 22, and he certainly can’t touch dynasty 25 which is 83 years at least. So that’s 255 years already.

Neither Rohl nor James propose to modify D25. I'll get to D22 below.

The standard chronology, which compensates for Manetho’s failure to realize that dynasty 23 and 24 were contemporary, gives us 103 years between Pedubast, the first king of dynasty 23, and Piye’s conquest.

It is good that you recognise Manetho failed to recognise coregency. I will get to this below.

Now, what exactly does Rohl/James plan to do with all these kings, in order to make his chronology work? How many ad-hoc coregencies is he going to have to invent?

I'll get to evidence for co-regencies later... but first: You ask "how many ad-hoc coregencies are they going to have to invent?" Well, I submit that this question can be equally turned around to the conventional chronologists. "How many ad-hoc successions are the CCers going to have to invent in order to stretch the chronology to fit their synchronism with Shishak?" The assumption of successive reigns for all of these dynasties (correct me if I am wrong) relies on Manetho's recording them as such. However, we know that Manetho is unreliable on this score due to proven mistakes elsewhere in this period. You yourself (and the CC) acknowledge that there were overlaps between D22/D23 and D23/D24. What evidence do we have, apart from Manetho, that these dynasties were all successive? It seems to me that here you've (rather arbitrarily) assumed that the burden of proof lies with those proposing co-regency

Now, on to the evidence for the over-stretched dynasties...

Some of the weaker evidence for coregencies:
1. Greek historians (eg, Herodotus) record that there was a "dodecarchy" of 12 kings ruling as a coalition before Psamtik I reunited Egypt.
2. Assyrian records claim that when Assurbanipal invaded Egypt it was being ruled by no less than 20 kings.

These tend to show that coregency was widespread during this period. It seems that Egypt was more a loose federation of states rather than a united nation. I think that the evidence is such that poly-archy (coregency) should be assumed by default, unless there is evidence for monarchy.

The first evidence comes from "The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon". Basically, it states that Prince Osorkon (High Priest of Amun and son of Takeloth II) is none other than Osorkon III. This conclusion is one that had already been reached before Kitchen's chronology (James cites Baer, 1973), but Kitchen discarded it. Why? Because he insisted on successive reigns for Takeloth II and Shoshenq III, which meant that there is no way that the two Osorkons could have been the same person (too far apart in time - he would have been too old during his reign as Pharoah). Why did he insist on successive reigns? In order to stretch out the TIP to make it long enough to support the Shishak=Shoshenq equation! But throw away this requirement, and look at the evidence for High Priest of Amun Osorkon (HPA Osorkon) and Osorkon III being the same person:

Firstly, in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, there are records of HPA Osorkon giving gifts at the temple of Amun in years 11-24 of Talekoth II's reign, and from 22-29 of his successor Shoshenq III's reign. Talekoth died in his 26th year. Why are there no gifts from the period 1-21 of Shoshenq III's reign? Admittedly this is an argument from silence (though I would say it's a fairly significant silence), but it gets better:

Osorkon III's father is actually unknown but his mother is Karoma F known as Merytmut III
Prince Osorkon is son of Takelot II, his mother is Karomat D known as Merytmut II
Osorkon III's wife is called Tentsai. Prince Osorkon's is Tent[...] part of the name lost.
Both have a daughter called Shepenupet.
That alone sets enough alarm bells ringing I should think.

The above is quoted from here, which is by the author of the Waste of Time website - an ideological opponent of Rohl! At the beginning of his article he notes that this position is supported by other Egyptologists (he cites Beckerath, Dodson and Aston). He goes on to show how Kitchen's misdating of Osorkon has had a knock-on effect leading to other errors in his chronology (that's the problem with building chronologies - errors tend to propagate).

So right there, we have the potential for a co-regency of Takeloth II and Shoshenq III of perhaps as much as 21 years. This makes feasible again the natural identification of HPA Osorkon with Osorkon III. It also immediately reduces the length of the "incompressible" 21st dynasty by 12%.

On to the next set of evidence: you mentioned in another post the Apis bulls. You quite rightly point out that these are useful for building a chronology of the period. There are no Apis bulls for the 21st and early 22nd dynasties (according to the conventional chronology) - a period lasting some 210 years. There should have been about twelve of them (based on an average lifespan of 18 years). Given the regularity of the burials before and after this period, it would seem that this is a pretty loud silence. It would be well explained if there was a large overlap between the 21st and 22nd dynasties.

Next: Genealogies. According to James (in turn quoting the results of Bierbrier), there are only two genealogies that span the period from the 19th/20th to the 22nd Dynasties. These are the Genealogy of Ankhefenkhons and the "Memphite Genealogy". Ankhefenkhons was a contemporary of Osorkon I, and his genealogy goes back 9 generations to a guy named Ipuy, who was a priest during Merneptah's reign (or his immediate successor). That's a period of 300 years under the CC. Bierbrier normally allows 25 years per generation, so that would be rougly 225 years for the 9 generations. Because of the discrepancy, Bierbrier posits that there are 3-4 generations missing. For similar reasons, Kitchen proposes that there were 6-7 entries omitted from the Mephite Genealogy by copyists. Of course, both of these observations fit quite well with the idea that the CC has too much time assigned to this period, with the added benefit that arbitrary missing generations have to be postulated.

The Inhapi cache: There is a burial cache originally prepared for Queen Inhapi. Many bodies of important Pharoahs of the 18th and 19th dynasties were reinterred there in order to beat tomb raiders. The tomb was sealed in year 10 of Siamun (penultimate ruler of the 21st dynasty) with the reinterrment of Seti I. But in the tomb we also find the mummy of one Djedptahefankh, who was buried in year 11 of Shoshenq I. Under the CC, this is some 34 years after the tomb was sealed. There is no evidence of any other tampering between then and its rediscovery in the 19th century. Under the CC, they have had to postulate that this tomb - this secret tomb, being the final resting place of some famous pharoahs - was reopened just this once to bury a single priest (at the risk of exposing its existence to tomb robbers). This is made all the more implausible by the fact that there were four coffins interred in the corridor leading to the main tomb (Seti I's being the last of them), while Djedptahefankh's coffin was interred deep in the tomb. The corridor was simply not wide enough for Djed's coffin to fit past Seti et al's coffins. Obviously one could come up with some sort of explanation for this in the CC (it's always possible to explain away evidence), but the most straightforward reading of this evidence is that Djedptahefankh was buried before Seti I was reinterred there - and thus that year 11 of Shoshenq I (D22) must come before year 10 of Siamun (D21). And most likely, some time before. Hence, we have strong positive evidence of a co-regency here (to back up the "silence" arguments above).

The Royal Tombs of San: In summary, there were a bunch of tombs excavated. The construction of tombs I and III indicated that tomb III must have been built after I. However, tomb I was the tomb of Osorkon II, whereas tomb III was the tomb of Psusennes I. Yet in the CC, Osorkon II died 141 years after Psusennes I. The evidence from these tombs would tend to suggest that Osorkon II and Psusennes were near contemporaries.

James and Rohl bring forth a lot more evidence, but I thought that would do for now.

I never paid much attention to the Sothic dating system, so I won’t really comment on this too much. I’ll simply concede this point here, since the Sothic dating system is not of much use to me.

That's fair enough - most Egyptologists have abandoned this method of dating too. But the fact is that until fairly recently, the Sothic dating system was a major lynchpin in Egyptian chronology. Egyptologists stopped using it when people like James and Rohl started to point out the flaws in it. But don't you consider it just a little bit suspicious that, despite the fact that this Sothic date is no longer used to date the chronology (indeed, some go as far to say that the Ebers papyrus has nothing to do with Sothis anyway), it still happens to fit the current chronology? It seems to me that there are one of two possible explanations:

1. It is an amazing coincidence.
2. It fits because the earlier chronologies were built up trying to make it fit.

At the very least, it makes the chronology suspicious in my view. Granted, it might just be a coincidence - but it seems more that it came to be that way by design - ie, by Egyptologists trying to make it fit.

Again, the lunar dating system is not of much use to me either, so I concede this point as well.

Ok.

The problem with Sheshonq’s stele is that it is difficult to create an exact itinerary for the conquest.

This is just an excuse that CCers have to make up to explain away the lack of fit between the camapaigns of Shoshenq and of Shishak.

These are the cities/places he claims to have conquered: Adummim, Aijalon, Aruna, Arzawa, Assyria (yes, seriously Assyria!), Beth-Anath, Beth-Horon, Beth-Olam, Beth-Shan, Beth-Tappuah, Emeq, Gibeon, Ham, “Hand of the King”, Hapharaim, Hatti, Jordan, Kadesh, Mahanaim, Megiddo, Migdol, Mittani, Naharin, Negeb, Rabbah, Raphia, Rehob, Shankhar, Shasu, Shunem, Socho, Taanach, Tunip, and Yehem.

Hmm, the list that Rohl works from does not have Mittani or Assyria on it. Do you have a primary source for that?

Now, Socoh is only a bit southwest of Jerusalem, and Aijalon is less than 20 miles northwest of Jerusalem. So this shows at least, that Shoshenq’s campaign took him near Jerusalem. And do you really expect he would have missed Jerusalem? Yes, I admit it is anomalous that Jerusalem goes unmentioned, but, the problem is, this list of names is neither hear nor there. Rabbah, for example, is all the way east of the Jordan, Negeb is south of Judah, Megiddo is in Northern Israel.

The problem is worse than just missing Jerusalem from the itinerary. According to 2 Chronicles, Rehoboam fortified 15 cities, which Shishak took. Of these cities, only Aijalon is mentioned in Shoshenq's itinerary.

Note that this reference to Mitanni is just as bizarre under Rohl’s chronology. It’s possible that Sheshonq was using this term in some vague, regional way, similar to how the Assyrians used the term “Hatti” to refer to the West in general, but it’s even more likely that Sheshonq was just making exaggerated claims for propagandistic purposes.

Sheshonq claims to have conquered a nation that no longer existed, and you think this was propaganda? Surely your first explanation is much more likely - ie, that "Mittani" was being used in a regional way?

Thus, although the lack of reference to Jerusalem is admittedly anomalous, we can be sure Shishak is Sheshonq I because he is the only Pharaoh that could historically fit into this situation.

And this is the circular reasoning that you said you weren't going to do...

Why? It seems very likely actually. Sheshonq took advantage of the political split between Israel and Judah – this allowed him an opportunity to move into Palestine. It would be a very good chance for the new Lybian Pharaoh to achieve the same glory that his ancestors did.

If that were Sheshonq's purpose for invading, then it would seem odd that he apparently avoided Judah for the most part.

Besides, you could simply make the same argument against Ramses II, whom Rohl identifies with Shishak. According to Ramses's annals, he attacked various cities in Northern Israel such as Merom, and Beth-Anath.

Interesting. But you're jumping the gun a little here. It could be Ramesses III, I haven't really decided yet.

The CC does not break this Phoenician synchronism. Shipitbaal, the son of Elibaal, is referenced in the Assyrian annals, so he is contemporary with Tiglath-Pileser III, who reigned 744-727 B.C. (That date is not open to question, since we both agree Ashur-banipal sacked Thebes in 664 B.C.) A statue of Sheshonq was dedicated to Abibaal, and a statue of Osorkon is dedicated to Elibaal. If we count backwards from Shipitbaal, we find that this synchronizes perfectly with Sheshonq IV, and his son Osorkon III.

Sheshonq IV? Who was that? I thought Shoshenq III was the predecessor of Osorkon III? (Also note from above that it would seem Osorkon III actually the son of Talekoth I, not Sheshonq III.)

But aside from that... that is an interesting alternative. In all the discussions I've read, they insisted that the Byblos synchronism was specifically with Shoshenq I and Osorkon I. I'm not sure why this insistence. On the surface of it, there seems no reason why your suggested synchronism couldn't apply. Maybe there was a prenomen that doesn't match.

Well, firstly, Sheshonq is a Lybian word, and not an Egyptian word. But anyway, this substitution of “s” for “sh” does not seem to always be the case. For example, in Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, Semitic name sounds seem to be preserved, such as Shamashtu and Apra-Reshpu.

True, it does not always seem to be the case. But it does seem to be the case for Sheshonq, and for Ramesses. For example, the full name of Ramesses II was:

Usermaatre-setepenre Ramessu-meryamun

The Hittites transliterated this as:

Washmuaria-shatepnaria Riamashesha-maiamana

Additionally, Sheshonk on Egyptian monuments is written as “sh-sh-n-k”, but it is also written as “sh-sh-k”, without the “n.” However, to be fair, you are correct that in Akkadian, the “n” is always there, and it is spelled “Su-si-in-qu.

You complain about the "arbitrary" adding of a letter - why does the Akkadian have a "u" on the end?

However, your comment about the monuments to Sheshonq in Palestine is misleading. As far as I know, there is only one monument that has Sheshonq’s name on it in Palestine – the one from Megiddo. True, this has the “n” in it, but your comment implies that this is a ubiquitous phenomenon. We know, at least, that in Egypt, Sheshonq could be spelled without the “n.”

You've already acknowledged that this complaint stemmed from a misreading of my post, so no further comment is necessary.

It should be noted, however, that Rohl’s identification of Shisak with Rameses also requires the arbitrary addition of a letter, whereas it is not completely arbitrary to drop the “N”, because at least the Egyptian monuments attest to that, and Sheshonk’s name rarely occurs in Palestine. Rohl says that “Shisha” is an acceptable transliteration of the Egyptian nickname for Ramses, “Sysw.” Whether or not this really is an acceptable transliteration is questionable. But even if it is, Rohl has to add on a K to make “Shisha” into “Shishak.”

According to this site, there are inscriptions of Ramesses III's name which was "susekh".

He does this, apparently, by saying that the additional “K” was a play on words, meant to turn Ramses’s name into the Hebrew equivalent of “assaulter.” Never mind, of course, that Sheshonq’s real name has a K in it, regardless of any Hebrew pun. And never mind, of course, that this is just a guess, based on nothing. No Hebrews ever played with the names of Necho, Hophra, Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, or Nebuchadnezzar. What is the precedent for this “play on words” theory?

You might be wrong about the name Nebuchadnezzar. JPH has in his article on Daniel:

An even more interesting (and amusing) explanation for this spelling "problem," however, has been proposed by van Selms [Gold.Dan, 4n]. The "correct" -rezzar spelling is a Hebrew adaptation from the original Akkadian version, nabu-kudurru-usur, which means, "Nabu protect(s) the eldest son" (Nabu being a Babylonian god). The -nezzar spelling used in the OT may be an adaptation from a malicious reference made by Jewish opposition groups, nabu-kudanu-usur - which translates, "Nabu protect(s) the mule" !!! The "misspelling" could very well have been an intentional polemical device!

Judges 3:8 speaks of a king called "Cushan-Rishathaim", which when translated is "twice-wicked Cushan" or perhaps "twice-wicked Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]e". This sounds more like a name the Hebrews made up than a name that a king would have.

There are apparently some other Jewish legends where kings have had their names altered for polemical effect, but the book "Legends of the Jews" (by A Ginsberg) which my secondary source refers to went out of print in 1938, so I can't look at it for myself.

Additionally, 12 Chronicles 12:3 reports that Shishak had an army composed of Libyans, Sukkites and Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es. While it’s possible that Rameses may have had a large Lybian contingent in his army, it is more likely that Sheshonq would, obviously. There does not seem to be any evidence of foreign soldiers in the Egyptian army in the inscriptions of Rameses II.

Yes, but given that the army also had Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es and Sukkites, this point is neither here nor there. This point might carry more some force if the army was said to be predominantly Libyan.

Well, I’ve dealt with the Phoenician synchronism already. As for 2 Kings 13:1-7, this is an extremely tenuous inference. Firstly, you’re being misleading here, but obviously not intentionally. The Bible does not say that any Pharaoh campaigned in the Northern Kingdom at this time.

My bad. Sorry. (Just to be sure: this was my bad - not Rohl's. He does speculate that Shoshenq may be this saviour, but does not make the mistake I did in claiming that the Bible speaks explicitly of an Egyptian Pharoah here.)

Besides, what kind of “savior” would Sheshonq be? His armies supposedly marauded through Palestine, and he sacked quite a few Judean and Northern Israelite cities.

Did he sack them? Or just pass through them/re-conquer them? I don't know, all Rohl talks about is the list of cities in Shoshenq's stele. I've seen one person suggest it could be a list of the cities who were paying tribute to him.

So who was this savior?

It doesn't really matter. It was an off-topic thing. I grant that the CC can find a potential candidate for this one - it's just that none immediately suggests itself (as you have acknowledged). I only have one comment to make:

So, although I don’t have direct evidence here, it is certainly more plausible historically that the Assyrians, who were constantly meddling in Levantine affairs throughout the 9th, 8th and 7th centuries, would have saved Israel from Hazael. This certainly happened other times, and Assyria often campaigned there. It is, to say the least, extraordinarily more likely than an Egyptian invasion. The Bible is silent on any activity from Egypt from the reign of King Asa of Judah all the way until King Hoshea. But the Assyrian annals are rife with references to affairs between the Levant and Assyria. And of course, I might add that the reason the Bible is silent on Egyptian affairs for so long, is because Egypt was in the 3rd intermediate period, when it was relatively weak, and often struggling with internal problems.

Well, the Biblical silence here is at least some evidence here in favour of the CC, but not particularly strong evidence as it is a fairly weak silence. Apart from that, your assertion "it is historically more likely that the Assyrians were the "saviour" than the Egyptians" - well, this relies on the same-old begged question in context. If the revised chronology is correct, then an Egyptian saviour such as Shoshenq become historically just as plausible as an Assyrian one.

[WebToaster]

A quick answer: For the most part, Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to remain Christians and Jews in pretty much all the lands that they conquered - not just the Copts. It was only really the polytheists who they forced to "convert or die" - Christians and Jews were treated as second-class citizens (having to pay tribute), but were still allowed to practice their religion (they were afforded respect as monotheists). Oppression gradually increased as time went on, but it was not too severe in the early days.

Uhhh, no. I was impressed with the discussion in this thread with the nuances of Egyptian and Assyrian pronuciations of 's' or 'sh' until this post. Muslims (to this day) consider Christians as polytheists. If you lack the ability to understand this point, read the translated transcript of the terrorists beheading of Nick Berg, in which it is proclaimed to kill the polytheists whereever you find them. (This includes Christians)

While the 'trinity' in its subtleness is considered 'monotheistic' in the Christian culture, it is widely considered polytheistic in the rest of the world.

To truly answer the original question requires an exploration of the prophet Mohammed's declarations of 'people of the book' who believed in a common heritage with Abraham, and are thus protected. Yet Christians are declared 'polytheistic' even in Mohammed's writings.

There is ONLY one God.

[Jezz]

Uhhh, no. I was impressed with the discussion in this thread with the nuances of Egyptian and Assyrian pronuciations of 's' or 'sh' until this post.

I fail to see how a single mistake can render the entire rest of the thread completely unimpressive? Was there anything else that you found wrong with what I wrote?

Muslims (to this day) consider Christians as polytheists. If you lack the ability to understand this point, read the translated transcript of the terrorists beheading of Nick Berg, in which it is proclaimed to kill the polytheists whereever you find them. (This includes Christians)

"If I lack the ability to understand this point..."? To what do I owe this fine display of condescension? You never thought of simply pointing out my error? When I corrected you on your statement that the Roman Church created the Biblical canon, did I display such condescension towards you? If so, I am sorry.

While the 'trinity' in its subtleness is considered 'monotheistic' in the Christian culture, it is widely considered polytheistic in the rest of the world.

That may well be the case, but that is not something I wish to be discussed in this thread..

To truly answer the original question requires an exploration of the prophet Mohammed's declarations of 'people of the book' who believed in a common heritage with Abraham, and are thus protected. Yet Christians are declared 'polytheistic' even in Mohammed's writings.

Yes, that is true. My mistake - I did actually know that it was true, but as I said was only offering an overview and perhaps wasn't as careful with it as I should have been. Christians and Jews were "people of the Book" and were treated with greater respect than the pagans.

[chsalvia]

Hi Jezz,

The problem with discussing the Third Intermediate Period is that anything you argue here is going to be questionable – and of course, anything I argue will also be questionable. It is a very confusing, difficult time period. But you don’t seem to appreciate that the real problems with Rohl’s chronology are not in the TIP. I’m sure Rohl spends a great deal of time talking about the mysteries and anomalies in the TIP, but his focusing on them obscures the overwhelming difficulties that one must deal with apart from the TIP, if the TIP is shortened as Rohl proposes.

Again, we could talk all day about who was who and which Takelot did what in the TIP, but the fact is, it’s clear for other reasons that Shishak has got to be Sheshonq I, and the TIP cannot be reduced by the magnitude Rohl proposes. Again, the most obvious reason is the Assyrian annals. You dismiss this with vague comments about uncertainty and circularity, but I clearly explained how you can use the Assyrian annals to independently verify the conventional chronology in post #5.

The TIP is where Rohl is going to seem strongest – and naturally that’s what he’s going to focus on. The obscurity of this period is sufficient enough for any revisionist to attempt to play around with the dating. But we can’t ignore the glaring problem which is the Assyrian king lists.

So one can't be an Egyptologist if one concentrates on Egypt's relationship to a neighbouring civilisation? Oh well, if you don't want to call him an Egyptologist, that's fine. Call him an entymologist if you want - it doesn't change his arguments much.

Well…okay. Honestly, I can’t reasonably defend my opinion regarding Rohl’s potential biases, so I will simply concede this point to you. However, I do recall that you wrote somewhere that you would suspect someone was biased if they continued to hold to an obviously invalid argument even after it was discredited. Since I believe this is precisely what Rohl is doing, I can conclude either he is biased towards a falsehood for some reason, or he is just dull-minded. Since I don’t believe he is dull-minded, I can only conclude the former. But, I will simply concede this point to you, since it really isn’t very important, and I can’t very well prove it anyway.

What about James et al? Are they crypto-apologists as well?

I really don’t know much about James. Is there anyone else besides James and Rohl that subscribe to this theory?

As you know, the revisionists deny that the Assyrian chronology is properly independent of Egypt's. We'll get to that.

Yeah, I have heard this claim before, but nobody seems to be able to back it up. The revisionists would probably deny that Chinese chronology is independent of Egypt. I wonder if Klingon chronology is also dependent upon the Egyptians?

How are the Assyrian lists in anyway dependent upon Egyptian chronology for dating? On what basis is that possible? This doesn’t seem like a debatable issue. I explained in post #5 how Assyrian chronology is independent. We simply have king lists that give us lengths of reigns. Please explain to me how is this in anyway reliant on Egyptian chronology?

The only way you could say it is reliant upon Egyptian chronology is by pointing out that we use Ashur-banipal’s sacking of Thebes as a starting point. But, since this date isn’t questioned by revisionists, what does it matter? Secondly, we don’t even have to use the sacking of Thebes as a starting point, although it is very convenient. We could use any universally accepted starting point, such as, for example, the assassination of Caesar in 44 B.C. From there, we could count backwards from the Roman consuls, the Macedonian monarchs, back to Alexander, back through the Persian Kings, back to Cyrus, back to the Neo-Babylonian Kings, (Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, etc.), and then arrive at Ashur-banipal that way, and then use the Assyrian King Lists to count backwards from there. It’s totally independent of Egypt. Basically, we can calculate the date of any Assyrian King, by starting from Julius Caesar, and using Roman, Greek, Persian, and Babylonian records to get to Ashurbanipal, and then counting backwards from there using the Assyrian king lists.

And if you still question this, then remember that Mesopotamian history has an absolute date, which has nothing to do with Egypt: June 15th, 763 B.C., which is when a total eclipse was recorded in the 10th year of Ashur-dan III. This confirms the accuracy of the Assyrian King Lists, since if you counted backwards from Ashurbanipal, you would get to 763 B.C. for Ashur-dan III. And furthermore, it gives us another convenient absolute date which we can use to count backwards using the length of reigns given in these lists. And the fact is, Akhenaton was a contemporary of Ashur-Uballit I. That means Akhenaton reigned ca. 1360 B.C. So Rohl is wrong.

And I mentioned three other synchronisms in post #5 (which I updated to include more information). The idea that everything is dependent on Egyptian chronology is an obvious falsehood that can be quite easily exposed.

That's what makes definitive rebuttal/proof of chronologies difficult. There is so much data to consider, and there will inevitably be difficulties in any reconstruction. You can't rebut a chronology by pointing out one or two inconsistencies. Which is also why it should send up warning bells when people are adhering dogmatically to any given chronology.

Rohl obviously wants to make it seem like his opponents are adhering dogmatically to a given chronology, as if to imply they are irrationally stubborn or something, but in reality, nobody is against the idea of a revision. What people are objecting to is Rohl’s particular revision, because it is obviously unworkable for various reasons.

Also, you should note that revisionists can make the same claim about critics of their chronologies - ie, they point out minor problems while ignoring the larger whole. As I pointed out above, there are going to be problems with any chronology - the question is "which one is better overall?"

True, I realize that. And I believe the bulk of the evidence falls overwhelming on the side of the CC, and against Rohl.

I understand that is the conventional position. I understand revisionists disagree. I'm not quite sure who to believe at this point. But no matter, we'll get to that.

Well, in order to figure out who to believe, all you need to do is examine the facts. Forget this whole argument for a moment, and just look up the relevant facts. Assyrian history is determined using the Assyrian King Lists, which give us lengths of reigns for each king, and which are synchronized with the Babylonian kings. Anybody can get access to these lists by simply going to the library or the bookstore. (Try eisenbrauns.com – an invaluable resource - if you’re interested.) Learn how the lists are used to determine dating. It’s very simple and intuitive. You don’t need to trust Rohl or his detractors – you can simply learn how it works yourself.

Yes, and it is the position of revisionists that in such cases where Pharoahs are named, the dating of the Assyrian document is actually dependent on the Egyptian chronology.

I don’t know how the revisionists maintain this position. It’s plain for everyone to see how this works: Remember, 664 B.C. is an absolute date, right? You seem to agree on that at least, and so does Rohl, apparently. So…as I explained in my previous post, you can just use the lengths of reigns given in the Assyrian lists to count backwards from 664 B.C., to arrive at an approximate date for any Assyrian King. Then, if that Assyrian King interacted in anyway with an Egyptian Pharaoh, we can date the Pharaoh as well. It’s fairly simple to see how the Assyrian King Lists can be used independently of Egypt. The Gregorian calendar date is always determined using the Assyrian data, not the Egyptian data. So how in any possible way could you argue that the Assyrian documents are dependent on Egyptian chronology? That’s just plain false.

In fact, it is the Egyptian chronology which is dependent upon the Assyrian chronology for a Gregorian calendar date, unless you rely on older methods like Sothic dating.

True, but then it's not just the reign lengths that are problematic with Manetho. There is confusion as to whether or not the kings in Manetho's list were supposed to have reigned successively in all instances. As I understand it, they are largely assumed to be successive by Kitchen. However, it was noted as long ago as Julius Africanus and Eusebius (two extant secondary sources for Manetho, whose original works, to my knowledge, have been lost) that Manetho's lists were confusing in this regard.

Yes Manetho is confusing, and the three sources we have for Manetho sometimes contradict each other. However, the standard chronology includes a great deal of coregencies. Manetho was unaware, for example, that the 24th dynasty was contemporary with the 23rd. However, the standard chronology takes this into account. Manetho is used as little as possible, and is mainly only used as a complimentary source, but not a primary source.

That's not an argument - that's an excuse. I grant that it is a plausible excuse, however despite what Kitchen erroneously claims, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Another plausible explanation for the lack of evidence is that the period has been stretched beyond what it should be.

Nobody needs to make excuses for dark ages, or a lack of historical information, especially when we would expect there to be a lack of information, i.e. in times of political chaos, like the Third Intermediate Period. We know this period was rife with dynastic wars and uprisings, from the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, and the Piye stele. So we should expect that this period would be lacking in records, just like the First Intermediate Period, or the centuries in Europe after the fall of Rome.

In fact, the First Intermediate Period is even less well documented than the Third. Nobody knows exactly who was ruling Egypt during the 9th and 10th dynasties. All we have are questionable lists from Manetho. The Third Intermediate Period, in fact, is better documented than many periods in history.

Anyway, a lack of historical information is rarely a good argument. That’s why I consistently chide other skeptics for complaining about a lack of external evidence for the Exodus, or King David, or such things.

I'll get to evidence for co-regencies later... but first: You ask "how many ad-hoc coregencies are they going to have to invent?" Well, I submit that this question can be equally turned around to the conventional chronologists. "How many ad-hoc successions are the CCers going to have to invent in order to stretch the chronology to fit their synchronism with Shishak?"

When you “turn around” this question and throw it back at the conventional chronologists, the question looses a significant amount of polemical force. I mean, successions are not ad hoc. They’re standard. The default assumption would be a normal succession, unless there was evidence to the contrary. Co-regencies in Egypt generally occurred only when there was political fragmentation. And remember, we’re not talking about father-son co-regencies, we’re talking about separate dynasties ruling in Egypt at the same time. Now, this would only happen during a period of political fragmentation and civil war. Since there is no evidence that Egypt was fragmented during the reigns of Sheshonq I through Takelot II, (dynasty 22), then by default we assume normal successions, not co-regencies, unless there is reason to do so. (And sometimes there is.) In fact, it is pretty clear that during Dynasty 22, Egypt was not divided, since we know it was relatively prosperous at this time, and powerful enough at least to invade Palestine.

The assumption of successive reigns for all of these dynasties (correct me if I am wrong) relies on Manetho's recording them as such. However, we know that Manetho is unreliable on this score due to proven mistakes elsewhere in this period. You yourself (and the CC) acknowledge that there were overlaps between D22/D23 and D23/D24. What evidence do we have, apart from Manetho, that these dynasties were all successive? It seems to me that here you've (rather arbitrarily) assumed that the burden of proof lies with those proposing co-regency.

Well, Manetho is only a starting point for the 3rd intermediate period. We know that the 22nd dynasty was prosperous based on monumental evidence. There is no evidence of political fragmentation during the 22nd dynasty, until after the reign of Takelot II.

We know from the “Chronicle of Prince Osorkon”, that during the reign of Takelot II, Pedubast made a bid for the throne, and Egypt deteriorated into chaos. Then we know from the Piye stele, and other sources, that conquerors from Cush reunited Egypt, and ushered in the 25th dynasty (which Rohl doesn’t question you say.) Again, there is no evidence of political fragmentation during the 25th dynasty, and in fact evidence against it, (Piye’s stele, Ashur-banipal’s annals). Thus, again, the only time there could have been coregencies would be during the end of the 22nd, and the 23rd and 24th dynasties. And indeed, the standard chronology accounts for this. Even with all of these coregencies, we still get approximately 100 years for dynasty 23/24 from the monumental evidence.

Greek historians (eg, Herodotus) record that there was a "dodecarchy" of 12 kings ruling as a coalition before Psamtik I reunited Egypt.

This argument, if it is intended to show how Egypt was severely fragmented during the TIP, is extremely misleading. There may have been various rulers during the Assyrian interregnum before dynasty 26, (begun by Psamtik I) but that is irrelevant since it would not affect the chronology of the TIP in any way, nor does it have any bearing on Egyptian politics before the Assyrian invasion.

Dynasty 25 was brought to an end when the Assyrians invaded Egypt and dethroned the Nubian Pharaoh. Now, from the Assyrian annals, there is only one Pharaoh mentioned – Taharqo. Esharhaddon mentions him as his only foe in his annals. (ANET, pg 293)

Esarhaddon placed a man named Necho, (the grandfather of the Biblical Necho) in power in Sais. But by the time of Ashur-banipal, the son of Esarhaddon, we find that Taharqo was still fighting against Egypt:

In my first campaign I marched against Egypt and Ethiopia. Tirhakah king of Egypt and Nubia, whom Esharhaddon, king of Assyria, my father, had defeated and in whose country had ruled, this same Tirhaka forgot the might of Ashur, Ishtar, and the other great gods, and put his trust in his own power.

So, Ashur-banipal conquered Egypt, bringing an end to the 25th dynasty, by defeating Taharqo, the sole ruler of Egypt. After that followed a period of Assyrian domination.

Now, Pharaoh Psamtek united Egypt by throwing off the Assyrian yoke. In fact, Pharaoh Psamtek was the son of Necho, who was installed by the Assyrian King.

And I, Ashurbanipal, inclined towards friendliness, had mercy upon Necho, my own servant, whom Esarhaddon, my father, had made king in Kar-Belmatate. His son Nabushezibanni I made king in Athribis.

Necho was installed as king by the Assyrians, but Necho’s son, Psamtek, rebelled against Assyria, and gained independence for Egypt, thus beginning the 26th dynasty. Now, this “dodecarchy” of kings which Herodotus was referring to, was probably the various kings appointed by the Assyrians during the brief period of Assyrian rule, who formed a coalition against the Assyrians, led by Psamtek. This has nothing to do with the 25th dynasty, or the Third Intermediate Period really. Psamtek ruled during the Late Period, not the TIP. Thus, Rohl’s argument is misleading here.

Assyrian records claim that when Assurbanipal invaded Egypt it was being ruled by no less than 20 kings.

Firstly, when Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt, it had already been conquered by Esarhaddon, his son, so these “20 kings” were either a rebellious coalition, or the Assyrian-appointed Egyptian governors:

From the town of Ishhupri as far as Memphis, his royal residence, a distance of 15 days, I fought daily without interruption, very bloody battles against Tirhakah, king of Egypt and Ethiopia, the one accursed by the great gods. (snip) All Ethiopians I deported from Egypt – leaving not even one to do homage. Everywhere in Egypt, I appointed new kings, governors, officers, harbor overseers, officials and administrative personnel. I installed regular sacrificial dues for Ashur and the other great gods, my lords, for all time. I imposed upon them tribute due to me as their overlord, to be paid annually without ceasing.

So Esarhaddon conquered Egypt. Thus, when Ashurbanipal, the son of Esarhaddon, invaded Egypt, it was to quash a rebellion which had broken out. So, obviously these “20 kings” were not the remnant of some TIP dynasty. Most likely, these “kings” were Assyrian appointed governors.

In fact, Rohl is probably referencing this passage in Ashurbanipal’s annals:

Necho, king of Memphis and Sais, Sharruladari, king of Si’nu, Pshanhuru, king of Nathu, Pakruru, king of Pishaptu, Bukkunanni’pi, king of Athribis, Nahke, king of Haninshi, Putubishti, king of Tanis, Unamunu, king of Nathu, Harsiaeshu, king of Sabnuti, Buaimi, king of Pitinti, Shishak, king of Busiris, Tabnahti, king of Punubu, Bukkananni’pi king of Ahni, Iptihardeshu, king of Pihattihurunpiki, Nahtihuruansini, king of Pishabdi’a, Bukurnipi, king of Pahnuti, Siha, king of Siut, Lamentu, king of Himuni, Ishpimatu, king of Taini, Mantimanhe, king of Thebes, these kings, governors and regents whom my own father had appointed in Egypt and who had left their offices in the face of the uprising of Tirhakah and had scattered into the open country, I reinstalled in their offices and in their former seats of office.

-ANET pg 294

So all of these “kings” were appointed as governors and regents by Esarhaddon, when he invaded Egypt. But when Esarhaddon first invaded Egypt the only native king was Taharqo! (Well, not really native – he was Ethiopian, but you understand.) So of course there was going to be around 20 kings when Ashurbanipal invaded. His own son appointed these kings! And these were not Pharaohs, as in legitimate Pharaohs of ruling dynasties – they were Assyrian-appointed governors.

Now, Rohl obviously must know this, and yet he is making this misleading argument, to try and show how politically fragmented Egypt was. What does that lead you to think about Rohl’s intentions here?

These tend to show that coregency was widespread during this period. It seems that Egypt was more a loose federation of states rather than a united nation. I think that the evidence is such that poly-archy (coregency) should be assumed by default, unless there is evidence for monarchy.

It’s not that simple. The evidence shows that most of dynasties 22 and 25 were normal dynasties during which Egypt was ruled by a single monarch. In fact, dynasty 22 was particularly prosperous, as we know from the huge quantities of gold and other items that Osorkon I donated to the Temple.

Dynasties 23 and 24 brought political fragmentation, as we know from the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, and so we can say that the Pharaohs of these dynasties were contemporary with one another.

However, again, we know from the Piye stele, that the Napatan conquerors from Cush united Egypt, and we know from the annals of Esarhaddon that when Assyria invaded Egypt, (towards the end of the 25th dynasty), Pharaoh Taharqo was the sole ruler. It was not until after Esarhaddon invaded, and appointed various governors and kings, that Egypt was ruled by multiple “kings”. Of course, you can’t say that Egypt was really politically fragmented at this point, since all these kings were under the hegemony of Esarhaddon.

So here’s the timeline:

Dynasty 22: Begins with Sheshonq I, no evidence of political fragmentation.

Dynasty 23: Pedubast makes bid for throne. Egypt splits between the last rulers of dynasty 22, and the dynasty of Pedubast.

Dynasty 24: Egypt further split when Saite rulers make another bid for the throne, ruling contemporary with Dynasty 23, and last rulers of Dynasty 22.

Dynasty 25: Piye, the Nubian, conquers all of Egypt. Egypt united under one Pharaoh and one dynasty again.

Assyrian interregnum: Esarhaddon invades, deposes Taharqo, and sets up various Egyptian governors who are sometimes referred to as “kings.” Then, Taharqo rebels, and Ashurbanipal, Esarhaddon’s son, invades Egypt again and defeats Taharqo, and appoints more governors. One of the governors he happens to appoint is Necho.

Dynasty 26: Necho’s son, Psamtek I, throws off the Assyrian yoke and reunites Egypt under a single ruler.

The first evidence comes from "The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon". Basically, it states that Prince Osorkon (High Priest of Amun and son of Takeloth II) is none other than Osorkon III. This conclusion is one that had already been reached before Kitchen's chronology (James cites Baer, 1973), but Kitchen discarded it. Why? Because he insisted on successive reigns for Takeloth II and Shoshenq III, which meant that there is no way that the two Osorkons could have been the same person (too far apart in time - he would have been too old during his reign as Pharoah). Why did he insist on successive reigns? In order to stretch out the TIP to make it long enough to support the Shishak=Shoshenq equation! But throw away this requirement, and look at the evidence for High Priest of Amun Osorkon (HPA Osorkon) and Osorkon III being the same person:

Well, of course Kitchen would postulate successive reigns for Takelot II and Sheshonq III. The “Chronicle of Prince Osorkon” testifies to this, from an inscription that lists Osorkon’s offerings:

List of all the benefactions which I did for them for the first time, from the year 11 under the majesty of Takelot, to the year 28 under the majesty of Sheshonq.

Firstly, in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, there are records of HPA Osorkon giving gifts at the temple of Amun in years 11-24 of Talekoth II's reign, and from 22-29 of his successor Shoshenq III's reign. Talekoth died in his 26th year. Why are there no gifts from the period 1-21 of Shoshenq III's reign?

The inscriptions mention Prince Osorkon the High Priest in year 25 of Takelot II, and year 22 of Sheshonk III, (Meri-amon-Sibasti-Sheshonk-Nuterkekon). But in year 6 of Sheshonk III, the High Priest of Amon at Thebes is mentioned as one Harsiese. This means that Harsiese seized the priesthood and replaced Prince Osorkon, but Osorkon later regained the priesthood somehow. (This would be consistent with Osorkon’s story of leaving Thebes during the civil war and returning later.) Of course, this also explains the lack of gifts from Osorkon for most of Sheshonk III’s reign – but I doubt Rohl bothered to tell you that.

James Breasted writes: We know that Takelot II’s son, Osorkon, was High Priest of Amon the years 11, 12 and 15 of Takelot II, and 22, 26, 28, and 29 of Sheshonk III. Hence the High Priest Harsiese must have displaced Osorkon for a time, as explained below.

And of course, if Osorkon III was the same person as the High Priest Osorkon, then that means that Pedubast would have been contemporary with an earlier ruler of dynasty 22, (unless you postulate yet more coregencies) but The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon makes it clear that civil war broke out (as a result of Pedubast) during the reign of Takelot II, who preceded Sheshonq III.

Admittedly this is an argument from silence (though I would say it's a fairly significant silence),

You know, it seems that most of Rohl’s case is based on silence. He must have gone to the same school as Earl Doherty.

Osorkon III's father is actually unknown but his mother is Karoma F known as Merytmut III
Prince Osorkon is son of Takelot II, his mother is Karomat D known as Merytmut II
Osorkon III's wife is called Tentsai. Prince Osorkon's is Tent[...] part of the name lost.
Both have a daughter called Shepenupet.
That alone sets enough alarm bells ringing I should think.

Hmm…I’ve looked through the texts for Osorkon III (which are few) and the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, and I can’t seem to verify this. However, I did find that Osorkon III had a wife named Karoatjet and Tentsai. But I can’t find the names of Prince Osorkon’s wife or daughter. As for Karomat/Keroma for royal wives, this name was so common anyway that it’s not that remarkable.

By the way, just to remind you, this same article also says:

“However there can be no overall shortening of the TIP without a redating of Assyria because of the synchronism between Burnburiash and Ashur-uballit I.”

And there are other synchronisms as well, which I pointed out in post #5. That’s a bit more significant than vague anomalies or arguments from silence regarding the TIP.

So right there, we have the potential for a co-regency of Takeloth II and Shoshenq III of perhaps as much as 21 years. This makes feasible again the natural identification of HPA Osorkon with Osorkon III. It also immediately reduces the length of the "incompressible" 21st dynasty by 12%.

Even if I conceded that, it wouldn’t help much. Anyway, your first argument for a coregency between Takelot II and Sheshonq III is pretty much refuted, however, your second argument involving the various identical names of kin is more difficult, if it is true. However, I cannot verify this argument. I can’t find the names of Prince Osorkon’s wife or daughter anywhere in the Chronicles of Prince Osorkon. Anyway, as I pointed out above, this identification would bring chronological problems of its own.

On to the next set of evidence: you mentioned in another post the Apis bulls. You quite rightly point out that these are useful for building a chronology of the period. There are no Apis bulls for the 21st and early 22nd dynasties (according to the conventional chronology) - a period lasting some 210 years. There should have been about twelve of them (based on an average lifespan of 18 years). Given the regularity of the burials before and after this period, it would seem that this is a pretty loud silence. It would be well explained if there was a large overlap between the 21st and 22nd dynasties.

Even if the 21st and 22nd dynasties were contemporary, the mystery would still exist, it would just be for a smaller amount of time. There are no Apis burials from the reign of Ramses XI until Osorkon II. If the 21st and 22nd dynasty were combined, it would still mean there were no Apis burials from the reign of Sheshonq I/Smendes I, until Osorkon II/Amenemope. So even with Rohl’s revision, the mystery still exists; it’s just for a shorter time period. Is this really that compelling to you?

Secondly, Sheshonk I ordered a platform to be built for mummifying an Apis bull. But no Apis bulls have been found for his reign. Thus, we know at least that lack of archeological evidence for Apis bulls in the Serapeum does not mean that the practice did not continue.

Additionally, Smendes, the first Pharaoh of the 21st dynasty, discontinued the tradition of being buried in the Valley of the Kings. And it so happens that Smendes is also the first Pharaoh where we see a lack of Apis bulls. So it’s quite plausible that he also changed the location of the Apis bull burial from the Serapeum to elsewhere. Osorkon II then later brought back the tradition of burying the bull in the Serapeum for some reason. Suffice it to say, a lack of archeological evidence for a traditional ritual during a time of major political changes (shifts of power to Thebes, Libyans gaining the throne, etc.) is hardly compelling.

Anyway, how could there be an overlap between the 21st and 22nd dynasties? The 22nd dynasty kings ruled in Tanis, and so did the 21st dynasty kings. The information for the 21st dynasty comes mostly from the priestly genealogies starting with Herihor at Thebes which synchronize with the kings in Tanis. But they do not correspond to names that we would be familiar with from the 22nd dynasty. They correspond to names like Nesubenebded, and Siamun. They do not refer to Sheshonk, or Osorkon, or any Lybian names. That is obviously because Sheshonk and his dynasty had not yet become rulers in Tanis. Why does Rohl ignore such obvious things? This seems to be typical of Rohl. He points out an anomaly in the TIP, but then doesn't seem to realize that his own solution is incompatible with other evidence.

And of course, the high priests had different names during the reigns of the 22nd dynasty and 21st dynasty kings.

Next: Genealogies. According to James (in turn quoting the results of Bierbrier), there are only two genealogies that span the period from the 19th/20th to the 22nd Dynasties.

Oh really…well, then I suppose you believe it’s not justified when Biblical apologists invent arbitrary missing generations in the genealogies of Jesus or Moses.

And of course, if Kitchen has to invent arbitrary missing generations, James has to invent arbitrary coregencies! It's far more likely that generations would be skipped or forgotten (as they often are in Biblical genealogies), than entire contemporary dynasties would be unnoticed by modern archeologists, or that two different dynasties would rule at the same time in the same city! (And never refer to one another either!)

Besides, Bierbrier doesn’t need to postulate 3-4 generations missing, he can just assume that some generations lasted longer than others. Again, these minor discrepancies are hardly compelling compared to the evidence against Rohl.

My response is continued in the next post...