Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Saturday, December 31, 2011

1100 Year Old Mayan Ruins in North Georgia

Submitted by our allied blog, Global Warming and Terraforming Terra:

Posted: 30 Dec 2011 12:01 AM PST

There was ample indication of prehistoric intrusions along the Gulf coast and a Mayan Colony is not only plausible but very likely if not even more common place than presently understood. Such a colony would almost certainly gave aimed to bring a population of around a thousand as quickly as feasible in order to fully organize agriculture and to over awe local populations.

Linking it to the Mayan collapse is presently premature.  More likely it was an expression of Mayan expansion.

I have seen comparable tales of other such colonies that include Mediterranean and Chinese sources, both of which are plausible because of climatic conditions.  All were too far from homelands to receive continuous support and ultimately settled into the indigenous background until the modern era.

It is a story that needs to be better studied and resolved.  I particularly note that Bronze Age global commerce provided further opportunity for such colonization and intermarriage that extended through a two thousand years with a hot spot running from say 1600 BCE through 1159 BCE.

1,100-year-old Mayan ruins found in North Georgia

By David Ferguson

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Archaeologists have discovered the ruins of an ancient Mayan city in the mountains of North Georgia believed to be at least 1,100 years old. According to Richard Thornton at, the ruins are reportedly what remains of a city built by Mayans fleeing wars, volcanic eruptions, droughts and famine.

In 1999, University of Georgia archeologist Mark Williams led an expedition to investigate the Kenimer Mound, a large, five-sided pyramid built in approximately 900 A.D. in the foothills of Georgia ’s tallest mountain, Brasstown Bald. Many local residents has assumed for years that the pyramid was just another wooded hill, but in fact it was a structure built on an existing hill in a method common to Mayans living in Central America as well as to Southeastern Native American tribes.

Speculation has abounded for years as to what could have happened to the people who lived in the great Meso-American societies of the first century. Some historians believed that they simply died out in plagues and food shortages, but others have long speculated about the possibility of mass migration to other regions.

When evidence began to turn up of Mayan connections to the Georgia site, South African archeologist Johannes Loubser brought teams to the site who took soil samples and analyzed pottery shards which dated the site and indicated that it had been inhabited for many decades approximately 1000 years ago. The people who settled there were known as Itza Maya, a word that carried over into the Cherokee language of the region.

The city that is being uncovered there is believed to have been called Yupaha, which Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto searched for unsuccessfully in 1540. So far, archeologists have unearthed “at least 154 stone masonry walls for agricultural terraces, plus evidence of a sophisticated irrigation system and ruins of several other stone structures.” Much more may still be hidden underground.

The find is particularly relevant in that it establishes specific links between the culture of Southeastern Native Americans and ancient Mayans. According to Thornton , it may be the “most important archeological discovery in recent times.”

UPDATE: Raw Story contacted another UGA Scientist, Dr. B. T. Thomas of the Department of Environmental Science, who indicated that, while it is unlikely that the Mayan people migrated en masse from Central America to settle in what is now the United States, he refused to characterize Thornton’s conclusions as “wrong,” stating that it is entirely possible that some Mayans and their descendants migrated north, bringing Mayan building and agricultural techniques to the Southeastern U.S. as they integrated with the existing indigenous people there.
David Ferguson

David Ferguson is a writer and radio producer living in Athens, Georgia. He hosts two shows for Georgia Public Broadcasting and has blogged at and elsewhere. He is currently working on a book.
--More importantly, this seems to be a direct link between the Mayas of Yucatan and the section of "Moundbuilders" known as the Temple Mound or Mississippian Culture.
Best Wishes, Dale D.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Guest Blogger Jayasree Saranathan

Jayasree sent a copy of this to me about a week ago and gave me permission to reprint it here. Unfortunately my computer has not been cooperating lately and I tried to cut and paste it three times, but failed to get everything in the article posted. Today was the fourth time, and it worked.  Initially, I was interested in the mention of the Wooly Mammoths in Southern Siberia which he indicated (Airavatha Varsha, below) But also I was interested in several other matters including the fact that Charles Hapgood had mentioned the Veddic peoples had originally come from a polar region in an appendix to Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. And actually there is a theory that the Uralic languages of Russia and Central Asia are related to the Dravidians of Southern India, and the Veda people there. And if that was not enough it is a well-known fact that the Southern Siberian Scythians or Sakas and the "White Huns"settled widely in NW India at about the time of the Roman Empire and subsequently moved back North again with a culture much influenced by India and using an Indian alphabet and artistic styles, and recolonized up into Turkestan, Mongolia and even the Lake Baikhal region. So the peoples in these areas were not unknown to each other in ancient times. And so I shall let Jayasree have his say on the matter now.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Why ban Gita when Russia has a Vedic past?

Have ever the Russians searched for their roots? This question came into my mind when I read the reports of the case in a Siberian court seeking a ban on Bhagawad Gita on the grounds that it is an extremist- literature. It is ironical that a country which has had a very long past in Vedic living until the 8th century AD should have completely forgotten its past and its roots and given room for controversies such as the one that is seen now. Compared to them we in India seem to fare better in retaining the memory of our past and retrieving whatever is possible.

I wish the day comes soon when Russians start digging their vast stretches in Siberia and find out that their past goes upto 40,000 years backwards and they were more Vedik  than anyone at that time! I may sound absurd, but that is the inference from numerous narrations in Hindu scriptures – now supported by genetic studies. 

Starting from the distant past, the entire Eurasian continent was divided into 3 regions according to Mahabharatha. 

The huge circle in the above diagram shows the extent of “Sudharshana Dweepa” where the rule of Sanatan Dharma was in place.
It had Bharath in the South (rectangle area in the bottom of this picture) with
Hemakuta or Himalayas in its northern limits,
an intermediary Ilavarsha to the north of Himalayas (noted in dark red square in the middle) and
a vast Airavatha varsha in extreme north of the Sudharshana dweepa.

Most of Russia is covered by Airavatha varsha.
Airavatha is the name of the elephant of Indra, the titular king of the Devas.
The Deva territory is close to the North pole where there was sunlight continuously for 6 months and darkness continuously for 6 months.  The elephant, Airavatha  in all probability was the Woolly mammoth which became extinct about 10,000 years ago. 

This time period coincides with the last time we hear about Indra form our scriptures. It was when Indra and Devas lost their lands and were dispersed. Indra’s son was caught and imprisoned by Surapadma who belonged to the Southern most part of the world. 

From the accounts of Skanda purana, we come to know that Skanda secured the release of Indra’s son, Jayantha and killed Sura padma.  Skanda described in this purana coincides with Ugra kumara born to Meenakshi and Sundareswara who started the first Sangam assemblage in the South-Madurai (Then-Madurai) in Deep South about 11,000 years ago. The details of how this figure was arrived at would require another post and hence I am proceeding with the current topic. Those who read Tamil can read the details in my Tamil blog. 

The above classification of Eurasia existed 10,000 years ago. Before the last glaciation, the territory near north pole was very much habitable. The locations called Amaravathy, capital city of Devas and Uttar Kuru existed in Siberia

Uttar kuru means the land of Kuru (a clan) settled in the North. They were the early settlers much before Mahabharatha times (which was about 5000 years ago.) The men and women of that territory were said to have led a free life and mingled with each other as they wished. The probable reason could have been procreation which was minimal owing to climatic conditions that existed there. 

The route to Uttarkuru and Deva territories is explained in Valmiki Ramayana through the narration of Shugreeva who detailed the places to be seen and searched to find out Seetha  in the north of Bharath. (Valmiki Ramayana -4-43) Once having crossed the vast Himalayas, he describes a pure-water  lake called Vaikhanas where sages used to do penance. This coincides with Lake Baikal.

He also describes the presence of a river in the north of this lake called Shailodha which had very cold waters. The sages used to cross this river at a place using the woods of a tree called Keechaka which makes sound like bamboo when wind blows. This coincides with river Angara. 

                                                    River Angara.
Today there is a place called Kichera in Baikal – resembling Keechaka -  which is crossed using the woods of a tree. 

According to Ramayana description, Uttar Kuru was in the North of Vaikhanas (Lake Baikal). Sages like Yajnavalkya spent their vanaprastha days near Vaikhanas.  This area was habitable before the last glaciation and it has been proved by Milankovitch cycles that  heat and cold were experienced in extreme North and Extreme South of the earth alternatingly,  once in 41,000 years.

Not only Vaikhanas (Baikal) the entire region of Russia had the presence e of Rishis (sages). There is an opinion that the name Russia was derived from Rishi varsha.  There is a mention of Rishi varsha in scriptures which goes well with this region. The presence of Devas  in this part of the globe in a distant past had attracted  sages to this place. We have a number of references in Puranas of sages going to the Deva territory. Perhaps their overwhelming presence gave the name Rishi varsha which later became Russia.
There is yet another root to the name Russia as being derived from the olden name of Volga river. Volga was called as  ‘rasa’ or ‘rosa’. People think that it is derived from the Persian word ‘rana’ or ‘ra’. But this word ‘rasa’ is a straight Sanskrit word meaning essence, juice, nectar, elixir, soup, love, the finest part of anything and so on. This name perfectly fits with the river of fine water quality From the river’s name Rasa, the name Russia was derived.  

Volga’s tributary is called  as ‘Oka’. People connect it with the Latin Aqua which means water, whereas the root word Apa ins again a straight Sanskrit word meaning the same. From Apa comes ‘aapa-saras’ the  waterway and from that ‘apsaras’ the beautiful girls who enjoy playing in the aapa-saras. This region of Russia was identified with Apsaras women. Menaka, Urvasi, Thiloththama etc were all apsara women who were known to have seduced men. 

Another tributary of Volga is known by a name which is very familiar to any Hindu. It is river ‘Moksha’ which means salvation in Sanskrit.  There is another tributary nearer to this Moksha called as “Mokswa”. Moscow got its name from Mokswa because of its location on the banks of this river!

Moksha is also the name of an old language spoken in this area. Today not many speak this language. But the customs of the people who spoke Moksha language are Vedic – in that they had worshiped Indra  and Vayu!! 

A strong connection to Vedism was recently unearthed in Siberia near Kazaksthan.  Nearly  20 sites have been found out to have housed circular habitations resembling Vedic life. 

An important site is the one in Arkaim which is located in the confluence of two rivers called Karakanga and Utya-kanga. These names sound like Ganga!

It was a practice in ancient times to name the major river of a region as Ganga and the major mountain peak as Meru. We find Meru and Ganga in many land forms (varshas) in the narration of Sanjaya in Bheeshma parva. The interesting g information is that the local people think these rivers are sacred and have healing properties. This perhaps led to the naming of these rivers as Ganga.  One must know that people of Bharath and the sages were globetrotting from times immemorial. The location of Uttar kuru as well as the location of important cities in the four directions of earth were mentioned in Surya Siddhantha and later repeated by Bhaskaracharya in Siddhantha Shiromani. 

Arkaim has all the trappings of a Vedic system. The name itself sounds like Arka, the name of the Sun. Arka, the sun has healing properties. There is a tree called Arka which is used in Ayurvedic medicine .
The Arkaim site contains swastika signs and other symbols of Vedic rites. Swastika is derived from the word swasth which means getting healed. This site is dated at 4500 BP

Details of this site can be read here.

This site falls in the route described in Mahabharatha. 

In the following picture, Lahore was the kingdom of Lava, son of Rama.
Peshawar was the kingdom of Pushkalavathy ruled by Pushkala, son of Bharatha.
These two cities were established during the reign of Rama, the son of Dasaratha. These cities are in the route to Kekaya, today’s Kazaksthan which was the maternal land of Kaikeyi, mother of Bhratha. One has to cross river Chakshus to reach Kekaya.  This river is now known as Oxus . It is shown in blue colour in this picture. 

After crossing Oxus, there are 2 routes. The right side route takes to Arkaim (Chelyabinsk Oblast).
Further east from Arkaim takes one to Uttar Kuru.

Arjuna took the route to Uttar Kuru from Samara in this picture. 

The left side route after crossing Oxus takes one to Samara which was known as Sthree Rajya in Hindu texts and as Straya Maina today!

From Sthree Rajya (samara) Moscow can be reached.

Sthree Rajya is a frequent name seen in our scriptures.
It was dominated by women – due to which it got the name Sthree Rajya – the land of women or dominated by women.  They were supposed to seduce men and lead a free life. 

Varaha mihira has mentioned this place as one of the countries surrounding Bharatha varsha. 

Vatsyanana also has mentioned about Sthree Rajya in the context of “Grama naari vishayam” where he has said that the women of Sthree Rajya  were free to have sex with a any man they liked. 

Bhattasmin , the commentator for Artha sastra also has talked about SthreRajya as a country abounding in luxurious artilces and happiness.  

In Mahabharatha also, the name of this place is mentioned. The king of this country called ‘Srungi’ attended a Swayamvar (self choice of groom) in Kalinga.  

Much later in history, the Kashmiri king, Lalithaadhitya Muthapeeda of Karkoda lineage  (AD 724 to AD 760) conquered Sthree Rajya and established there a temple for Narahari (Vishnu). This information can be found in Raja Tarangini of Kalhana.  After winning Sthree Rajya he went to Uttar Kuru. This king did not yield to the  lure of the beauty of the women of SthreeRajya and hence earned a name “Indriyakraaman”. 

His grand son, Jayapeeda also had gone to Sthree Rajya and established his rule.

What is of interest to us is the discovery of a statue of Vishnu in Staraya Maina (in Samara)

Pic courtesy from the following link uploaded by a Russian woman.

This statue was dated at 8th century AD, the same period when Lalithadhitya Mukthapeeda established a Vishnu temple in Sthree Rajya.  From this it can be known that today’s Straya Maina was the Sthree Rajya of olden days.

The following picture shows the different places through which the  people of ancient Bharat traveled to Russia and Uttar Kuru.

With all these Vedic connections, it is sad to note that Russians have not yet woken up to their past.
The names of Russians also  bear resemblance to Vedik names mentioned so far.
 Kurushev is a common name in that country, reminding Uttra Kuru connection. 

The name of the Russian  President Medvedev has two names resembling Vedic connection Dev and Ved!
Paramacharya of Kanchi brought to our notice that Russians indeed followed Vedic ways. In Vedic way of expressing one’s place, the method is to express the biggest unit and the go in steps to the smaller units. That is, if one were to express one’s location, one has to mention the country, then state, then the city and so on. This method is still followed in Russia. This is the method followed in Sankalpa mantras in all Vedik rituals – but forgotten in material life by us.

Before ending this post let me tell about Lopamudra, the wife of sage Agasthya was said to have belonged to Uttra Kuru. She had penned a few verses in Rig Veda which are of the nature of pangs of separation of a love-struck lady. The name Lopamudra sounds like a familiar name of Russia of today – Ludmila which means ‘lover of people’. It is no wonder that Agasthya was suspicious of Lopamudra’s fidelity which is narrated in the commentary to Tholkappiyam in Tamil by Nacchinaarkiniyar. 

With so much of Vedik connection to Russia, it is laughable that they are scared of Bhagawad Gita!

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Ages in Chaos

Velikovsky Ages in Chaos Revised Ancient Egyptian Chronology.

(David Rohl revision of Egyptian Chronolgy from Wikipedia at Left)

 Message Number 407 at Bonze Age World Diffusion Yahoo Group, Sept.11, 2009
"I had not said anything about this until now, but the book The Cosmic Serpent is about comet/meteor strikes upon the Earth in prehistory and it is a serious, scientific (popular) book. Along the way, the subject of Velikovsky is mentioned of course, and the authors introduce the astonishing information that Astronomical dating indicates that Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos reconstruction of Egyptian chronology might be closer to reality than our generally-accepted model found in the textbooks. Their Table 8 on page 236 of the book simply takes a standard Egyptian chronological chart and indicates some of their revised dates alongside the normally-accepted ones.
I mention this here because while I was without a computer, I was going through L. L. Waddell's Egyptian History, Its Sumerian Origin& Real Chronology, and Sumerian Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphics (Originally published in 1930) Waddell was rejected in the long run because his chronological correlations were not accepted and today are in disfavor because of his frequent use of the term "Aryans" for Indo-Europeans (Standard usage at the time) Waddell says, among other things, that Sargon the Great was father of Menes, first Pharaoh of Egypt, himself the same as Minos of the Minoan tradition, and the kings also recorded traditionally in Indian epics (along with long lists of their ancestors and successors.) The standard chronology will have none of that and separates Menes and Sargon by some 500 years at least.
Only by using the revised Sothic-calendar absolute dates, they do come out at about the same time and so give credence to Waddell's statements. Waddell also states that the Sumerians explored and set up trading depots from Sumer to Egypt and thence as far in North Africa as Mauretania, and then along the Atlantic via Spain to the British Isles. Waddell says Minos or Menes died in Ireland while on an expedition to inspect the mines of the "Tin Islands"and left a version of a Hieroglyphic inscription in Ireland at about the time of his death (The inscription is illustrated and deciphered in the book) Waddell also says that the names of the Sumerian monarchs are represented on Indus valley seals in a script recognisably used around Sumeria..
Which is absolutely fantastic: but Verrill goes further with the theory and identifies Sumerian inscriptions on both North and South America indicating the presence of Scouting expeditions sent out by Sargon and his heirs.
Best Wishes, Dale D.
PS, this is going to play havoc with ALL of the usual history books and in fact also makes a number of supposed "Radiocarbon dating errors" completely disappear

Table 8 of The Cosmic Serpent mentioned in the above posting indicates that the Egyptian Old Kingdom ran from 2196 BC to 1687 BC as drawn from a first Sothic cycle date of 2313 BC and as opposed to the conventional dates of 2664 to 2155 BC: their Middle Kingdom runs from 1594 to 1318 BC instead of the conventional 2052 to 1786 BC:  Their New Kingdom began 1086 BC instead of the conventional 1554 BC, dating the reign of Amenhotep I to 1077 BC instead of 1545, and this is based on an astromomical date because the calendar switched to a measurable lunar calendar at the time: the 30th year of Ramses II is 834 BC instead of 1272 because it marks the beginning of a second Sothic calendar cycle; And by their reconing the Tanite dynasty ran up to 512 BC instead of 950 BC. Some of this is in agreement with Velikovsky, some of it is at variance because they prefer to keep the standard succession of dynasties while changing the dates alone rather than the accepted history so much. This is following the research of Parker (Parker, R.A., 1950, "The Calendars of Ancient Egypt," Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization no. 26, University of Chicago Press, Chicago)

I was inspired to reprint this information owing to my recent mention of The Queen of Sheba on this blog, and one of my correspondants hinted that he accepted Velikovsky's identification of Sheba as Hatshepsut. Indeed, Napier and Clube speak with favor on that partiocular identification when they were discussing Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos revision (on page 256 of The Cosmic Serpent) There is some implication that Hatshepsut ruled over both Ethiopia and Southern Arabia at the time (by a friendly annexation) and that all claims could be neatly tied together by assuming that part was so. At this point we are more interested in the big picture, and some of the big picture makes sense this way, but some of the crosscultural connections will mean that a lot of our history books shall have to be rewritten for that period. For one thing, this indicates that the explosion of the Thera volcano was in the 1300s BC and not 1500s or even 1700s as usually given.

For my own opinions, I feel that a more moderate view should be sought for most of the length of Egyptian history but in some cases we are indeed looking at revisions of from 300 up to 500 years or more; however I see no reason why we should insist that all the necessary revisions should be of the same or similar length. I also favour David Rohl's revision as stated below, but not in all of its details and in particular I disagree with his identification for Ramses II. Velikovsky might be right on that point, I do not know for certain. This also has a bearing on the dates of the Peoples of the Sea and the Phaethon incident, two things that I am keenly interested in. Currently, I am not committed on the matter. However, it also seems that Velikovsky was right as to the non-existance of the Dark Ages of Greece and the general recentness of the Egyptian New Kingdom.       Best Wishes, Dale D.
Ages in Chaos is a book by the controversial writer Immanuel Velikovsky, first published by Doubleday in 1952, which put forward a major revision of the history of the Ancient Near East, claiming that the histories of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Israel are five centuries out of step. He followed this with a number of other works where he attempted to complete his reconstruction of ancient history, collectively known as the Ages in Chaos series.
Velikovsky's work has been harshly criticised, including by fellow chronological revisionists such as Peter James. In 1984 fringe science expert Henry H. Bauer wrote Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, which Time described as "the definitive treatise debunking Immanuel Velikovsky".
Velikovsky's revised chronology has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and Egyptologists. It was claimed, starting with early reviewers, that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective.[3][4][5] In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at Brown University, discredited Velikovsky's use of Mesopotamian cuneiform sources.[6] Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack.[7] In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos series, the United Kingdom-based Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in Glasgow specifically to debate the revised chronology.[8] The ultimate conclusion of this work, by scholars including Peter James, John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and David Rohl, was that the Revised Chronology was untenable.[9]
David Rohl, in his own revised chronology, agrees that the Exodus must be dated to the collapse of the Middle Kingdom, and that Tutimaios is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, but otherwise there are few points of contact between the Velikovsky and Rohl chronologies.
While James credits Velikovsky with "point[ing] the way to a solution by challenging Egyptian chronology", he severely criticised the contents of Velikovsky's chronology as "disastrously extreme", producing "a rash of new problems far more severe than those it hoped to solve" and demonstrating that "Velikovsky understood little of archaeology and nothing of stratigraphy."[10]
Bauer accuses Velikovsky of dogmatically asserting interpretations which are at best possible, and gives several examples from Ages in Chaos.
Peter James is a British author and historian specialising in ancient history and archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean region. He graduated in ancient history and archeology at the University of Birmingham (England) and does postgraduate research at University College London.
James has advanced several controversial theories about the chronology of Mediterranean civilizations, the Middle East, and Egypt. His theories are not generally accepted by mainstream historians or Egyptologists.
In his best known work, Centuries of Darkness, he challenges the traditional chronology of mainstream archaeology. In particular, he advances the idea that the Greek Dark Ages never occurred, arising solely from a misreading of key elements of Egyptian history. This theory is in part a revision of Immanuel Velikovsky's Revised Chronology. Ongoing criticism and discussion of the evidence is listed on the authors' own website.[1]
In The Sunken Kingdom: The Atlantis Mystery Solved, James hypothesizes about the location of Atlantis. By first claiming that references to mythological Tartarus by Plato were in fact meant to identify a Lydian king by the name of Tantalus, he goes on to identify Atlantis with a hypothetical lost temple city called Tantalis, corresponding to modern-day Manisa in Turkey.
[This last theory is complete bunkum. Plato never mentioned Tartarus as being the same as Atlantis and every identification along the four-step chain of reidentifications of the same term is questionable.]

New Chronology is the term used to describe an alternative Chronology of the ancient Near East developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl and other researchers[1] beginning with A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History in 1995. It contradicts mainstream Egyptology by proposing a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, in particular by redating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties, lowering conventional dates up to 350 years. Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows him to identify some of the characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archaeological finds.
The New Chronology, one of several proposed radical revisions of the conventional chronology, has not been accepted in academic Egyptology, where the conventional chronology or small variations of it remain standard.[2] Professor Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College, London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, notes that "Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework[...], but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."[3] Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, one of the leading experts on Biblical History and the author of the standard work on the conventional chronology of the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period, the period most directly affected by the New Chronology's redating of the 19th to 25th dynasties

David Rohl's published works A Test of Time (1995), Legend (1998), The Lost Testament (2002), and The Lords of Avaris (2007) set forth Rohl's theories for redating the major civilisations of the ancient world. A Test of Time proposes a down-dating (bringing closer to the present), by several centuries, of the Egyptian New Kingdom, thus requiring a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt. Rohl asserts that this would permit scholars to identify some of the major events in the Old Testament with events in the archaeological record, and identify some of the well-known biblical characters with historical figures who appear in contemporary ancient texts. Lowering the Egyptian dates also dramatically effects the dating of dependent chronologies, such as that currently employed for the Greek "Heroic Age" of the Late Bronze Age, removing the Greek Dark Age and lowering the dates of the Trojan War to within a couple of generations of a 9th-century-BC Homer and his most famous composition: The Iliad.
Rejecting the Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky and the Glasgow Chronology presented at the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies's 1978 "Ages in Chaos" conference, the New Chronology lowers the Egyptian dates (established within the traditional chronology) by up to 350 years at points prior to the universally accepted fixed date of 664 BC for the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal.
Prior to the 1995 publication of A Test of Time, Thomas L. Thompson, a theologian associated with the Copenhagen School, had insisted that any attempt to write history based on a direct integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources was "not only dubious but wholly ludicrous".[4] Rohl explained his view on the issue in The Lost Testament (2007): "Is the Old Testament history or myth? The only way to answer that question is to investigate the biblical stories using the archaeological evidence, combined with a study of the ancient texts of the civilisations which had a role to play in the Bible story. But this has to be done with an open mind. In my view the biblical text – just like any other ancient document – should be treated as a potentially reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise."[5] Rohl had previously remarked in A Test of Time (1995) that he "did not originally set out to challenge our current understanding of the Old Testament narratives. This has come about simply because of the need to explore the ramifications of my TIP [Egyptian Third Intermediate Period] research. I have no religious axe to grind – I am simply an historian in search of some historical truth."[6]
Rohl's redating is based on criticism of three of the four arguments which he considers are the original foundations of the conventional chronology for the Egyptian New Kingdom:
  • He asserts that the identification of "Shishaq [Shishak], King of Egypt" (1 Kings 14:25f; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9) with Shoshenq I, first proposed by Jean-François Champollion, is based on incorrect conclusions. Rohl argues instead that Shishaq should be identified with Ramesses II (probably pronounced Riamashisha), which would move the date of Ramesses' reign forward some 300 years.
  • Rohl also asserts that the record in the Ebers papyrus of the rising of Sirius in the ninth regnal year of Amenhotep I, which is used in conventional chronology to fix that year to either 1542 BC or 1517 BC, has been misread, and instead should be understood as evidence for a reform in the Egyptian calendar. This negative view of Papyrus Ebers is exemplified in a statement by Professor Jürgen von Beckerath who is of the opinion that "The calendar on the verso of the Ebers Medical Papyrus is by now so disputed that we must ask ourselves whether we really possess a sure basis for the chronology of this period of Egyptian history which is, after all, of the greatest importance for fixing the sequence of historical events, as well as for neighbouring countries".[7] Professor Wolfgang Helck concludes that "We therefore think it is safer to start from the regnal dates rather than from interpretations of real or supposed Sirius (Sothic) or New Moon dates".[8]
  • Papyrus Leiden I.350, which dates to the 52nd year of Ramesses II, records a lunar observation which places that year of Ramesses' reign in one of 1278, 1253, 1228 or 1203 BC within the date-range of the conventional chronology. Having questioned the value of the Ebers Papyrus, Rohl argues that, since the lunar cycle repeats itself every twenty-five years, it is only useful for fine tuning a chronology and could equally apply to dates 300 years later as in the New Chronology.
Thus, Rohl is of the opinion that none of these three foundations of the conventional Egyptian chronology are secure, and that the sacking of Thebes by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in 664 BC is the earliest fixed date in Egyptian history.

Evidence adduced

Rohl bases his revised chronology (the New Chronology) on his interpretation of numerous archeological finds and genealogical records from Egypt. For example:
  • Rohl notes that no Apis bull burials are recorded in the Lesser Vaults at Saqqara for the 21st and early 22nd dynasties of Egypt. He also argues that the reburial sequence of the mummies of the New Kingdom pharaohs in the Royal Cache (TT 320) indicates that these two dynasties were contemporary (thus explaining why there are insufficient Apis burials for the period). Rohl finds confirmation of this scenario of parallel dynasties in the royal burial ground at Tanis where it appears that the tomb of Osorkon II of the 22nd Dynasty was built before that of Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty. In Rohl's view this can only be explained if the two dynasties were contemporary.
  • Rohl offers inscriptions that list three non-royal genealogies which, when one attributes 20 to 23 years to a generation, show, according to Rohl, that Ramesses II flourished in the 10th century BC as Rohl advocates. In the conventional chronology, all three genealogies would be missing seven generations. He also argues that there are no genealogies that confirm the conventional dates for Ramesses II in the 13th century BC.
  • One of Rohl's methods is the use of archaeo-astronomy, which he employs to fix the date of a near-sunset solar eclipse during the reign of Amenhotep IV and observed from the city of Ugarit. Based on calculations, using computer astronomy programs, Rohl asserts that the only time when this eclipse could have occurred during the whole second millennium BC was on 9 May 1012 BCE. This is approximately 350 years later than the conventional dates for Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) (1353-1334 BC).
  • Rohl's dates for Amenemhat III of the 12th Dynasty in the 17th century BC, has found support in the work of astronomer David Lappin whose research finds matches for a sequence of 37 out of 39 lunar month lengths recorded in 12th Dynasty contracts. The conventional chronology, on the other hand, matches at best 21. According to Lappin, this pattern provides "startling" support for Rohl's chronology.[4]


Comparison by David Rohl of (first line) the name Sysw (the hypocoristicon of Ramesses II) as it would have been written using 13th to 10th century Proto-Hebrew signs, and (second line) the biblical name Shyshk as it would have been written using 9th to 7th-century Early Hebrew signs. The signs are taken from pottery inscriptions dating to those periods (namely the Lachish VI ostracon and the Izbet Sartah abcedary).
Most Egyptologists accept Shishaq as an alternative name for Shoshenq I.[9][10][11] Rohl disputes that Shoshenq's military activity fits the biblical account of Shishaq on the grounds that the two kings' campaigns are completely different and Jerusalem does not appear in the Shoshenq inscription as a subjected town.[12] He also points out that Ramesses did campaign against Israel and that he had a short form of his formal name which was in use in Palestine.[13] That name was Sysw, whilst early Hebrew did not distinguish between S and SH, so the biblical name may have originally been Sysq. Rohl has also argued that the qoph ending may be a later misreading of the early sign for waw which in the 10th century was identical to the 7th century sign for qoph. Thus 7th century Sysq may have been a mistaken later reading of 10th century Sysw.[14]
The theory that Ramesses II (hypocoristicon 'Sysa'), rather than Shoshenq I, should be identified with the biblical Shishak is not widely accepted.[15] On the other hand, there are several scholars (Bimson, Hornung, Furlong, etc.) who do question the reliance of Egyptian chronology on such a crucial identification as that of Shoshenq with Shishaq. Rohl argues that, on methodological grounds, the internal Egyptian chronology of the Third Intermediate Period should not be dependent on a biblical date to establish the foundation date of the 22nd Dynasty.
Dr. Pierce Furlong challenges Kitchen's dismissal of the lack of historical correspondence between the campaigns of Shoshenq and Shishaq raised by both Rohl and Dr John Bimson:
Kitchen dismisses the apparent discrepancy between the Shoshenq I campaign itinerary and the Old Testament (OT) account of Shishak’s activities as ‘frivolous and exaggerated’. … he argues that since Shoshenq’s topographical list is incomplete, Jerusalem (and presumably every other important fortified town in Judah) may have been lost in a lacuna. However, the attention paid by numerous scholars to the fact that not a single highland Judean town appears in the Karnak list would indicate that this matter is hardly frivolous or exaggerated.[16]
It should also be noted that one scholar, Kevin Wilson, agrees only partially with David Rohl. Wilson accepts that there is a mismatch between the triumphal relief of Shoshenq I and the biblical description of King Shishak. However, he does not think that this discrepancy gives sufficient reason for doubting the identification of Shoshenq I with King Shishak of the Bible. Wilson writes about Shoshenq's inscription, "Contrary to previous studies, which have interpreted the relief as a celebration of his Palestine campaign, neither the triumphal relief nor any of its elements can be utilized as a source for historical data about that campaign. … the triumphal relief can unfortunately play no role in the reconstruction of Shoshenq’s campaign."[17]
However, Wilson's view is not supported by Kenneth Kitchen who states: "That the great topographical list of Shoshenq I at Karnak is a document of the greatest possible value for the history and nature of his campaign against Judah and Israel is now clearly established beyond all dispute, thanks to the labours expended on that list by a series of scholars. However, the composition and interpretation of the list still require further examination and clarification".[18] Other leading scholars who have studied the campaign relief point out that it is indeed a unique list of subjected towns and not a copy of an earlier campaign by a more celebrated pharaoh.[19][20][21][22] This originality makes it far more likely that it is a true representation of cities and locations brought under Egyptian control by the military activities of Shoshenq I.

Implications of the New Chronology

The implications of a radical down-dating of the conventional Egyptian chronology, such as that proposed by Rohl and other revisionists, are complex and wide-ranging. The New Chronology affects the historical disciplines of Old Testament studies, Levantine archaeology, Aegean and Anatolian archaeology and Classical studies, whilst raising major issues concerning Mesopotamian chronology and its links with both Egypt and Anatolia.

Implications for Egypt and her Neighbours

Redating the reign of Ramesses II to three centuries later than that given by the conventional chronology would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Kadesh and revise the linked chronology of Hittite history, it would also require a revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 911 BC. Given the dependence of Hittite chronology on Egyptian chronology,[23] a lowering of Egyptian dates would result in a lowering of the end of the Hittite New Kingdom and a resulting reduction (or complete removal) of the Anatolian Dark Age.[24]
During the Amarna period, a chronological synchronism between Egypt and Assyria is attested through the correspondence of Pharaoh Akhenaten and a King Ashuruballit. In the conventional chronology, this Ashuruballit is identified with Ashuruballit I of the early Middle Assyrian period, whilst the New Chronology has proposed the addition of an otherwise unknown Ashuruballit "II" during the Middle Assyrian "dark age" as the author of the Amarna letters. New Chronologist Bernard Newgrosh argues that such a hypothesis is plausible because the Ashuruballit of the Amarna letter gives a different name for his father than is given for Ashuruballit I in the Assyrian King List, and that the historical setting recorded in the annals of the early Middle Assyrian ruler differs from information gleaned from the Amarna correspondent’s letters.[25] Given that the Ashuruballit I synchronism with Akhenaten has become the crucial link between Egyptian and Mesopotamian history in recent years, this issue is a key area of focus and dispute.[26]

Implications for the Old Testament

As explained above, the New Chronology, rejects the identification of Shoshenq I with the biblical Shishaq,[27] and instead offers Ramesses II (also known by his nickname "Sysa") as the real historical figure behind the Shishaq narrative.
Rohl identifies Labaya, a ruler of the central hill country of Israel/Palestine whose activities are documented in the Amarna Letters, with King Saul, and identifies King David with Dadua ("Tadua"), also mentioned in Amarna Letter EA256. Saul and Labaya share the same demise - "both die in battle - against a coalition of city states from the coastal plain - on or near Mount Gilboa, both as a result of betrayal."[4] Both also have a surviving son whose name translates as "Man of Baal."
The New Chronology places King Solomon at the end of the wealthy Late Bronze Age, rather than in the relatively impoverished Early Iron Age, as in the conventional chronology.[dubious ] Rohl and other New Chronology researchers contend that this fits better with the Old Testament description of Solomon's wealth.[4]
Furthermore, Rohl shifts the Israelite Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age (from the Egyptian 19th Dynasty to the 13th Dynasty and Hyksos period). Rohl claims that this solves many of the problems associated with the historicity issue of the biblical narratives. He makes use of the archaeological reports from Tell ed-Daba (ancient Avaris), in the Egyptian eastern delta, which show that a large Semitic-speaking population lived there during the 13th Dynasty. These people were culturally similar to the population of Middle-Bronze-Age (MB IIA) Palestine. Rohl identifies these Semites as the people upon whom the biblical tradition of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt was subsequently based.
Towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age (late MB IIB) archaeologists have revealed a series of city destructions which John Bimson and Rohl have argued correspond closely to the cities attacked by the Israelite tribes in the Joshua narrative.[28] Most importantly, the heavily fortified city of Jericho was destroyed and abandoned at this time. On the other hand, there was no city of Jericho in existence at the end of the Late Bronze Age, drawing William Dever to conclude that, “Joshua destroyed a city that wasn’t even there”.[29] Rohl claims that it is this lack of archaeological evidence to confirm biblical events in the Late Bronze Age which lies behind modern scholarly skepticism over the reliability of the Old Testament narratives before the Divided Monarchy period. He gives the example of Israeli professor of archaeology, Ze'ev Herzog, who caused an uproar in Israel and abroad when he gave voice to the "fairly widespread" view held amongst his colleagues that “there had been no Exodus from Egypt, no invasion by Joshua and that the Israelites had developed slowly and were originally Canaanites,"[30] concluding that the Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest was “a history that never happened.”[30] However, Rohl contends that the New Chronology, with the shift of the Exodus and Conquest events to the Middle Bronze Age, removes the principal reason for that widespread academic skepticism.

 Identifications in the New Chronology

Personal identifications

Rohl identifies:
  • Nebkaure Khety IV (16th Pharaoh of the 10th Dynasty) with the Pharaoh who had dealings with Abraham.
  • Amraphel (Genesis 14) with Amar-Sin, king of Kish in Sumer (1834-1825 BC/BCE by Rohl's chronology).
  • Tidal (Bible), King of Goyim/King of Nations (Genesis 14), with Tishdal, Hurrian ruler from the Zagros mountains.
  • Zariku, governor of Ashur, with king Arioch of Ellasar.
  • Kutir-Lagamar of Elam with Chedorlaomer of Elam.
  • Amenemhat III with the Pharaoh of Joseph, and Joseph with the Vizier of Amenemhat III.
  • The "new king who did not know Joseph" in Exodus 1:8 is identified by Rohl with Sobekhotep III.
  • Neferhotep I with the adoptive grandfather of Moses.
  • Khanefere Sebekhotep IV, brother and successor of Neferhotep, with Khenephres, the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled to Midian.
  • The Pharaoh of the Exodus with Tutimaios, known also as Dudimose.
  • Ibni, Middle Bronze Age ruler of Hazor, with Jabin, king of Hazor in Joshua 11:10.
  • Akish or Achish, king of Gath, is identified with Šuwardata, King of Gath in the Amarna letters. Akish is believed to be a shortened form of the Hurrian name Akishimige, "the Sun God has given." Shuwardata is an Indo-European name meaning "the Sun God has given."
  • Aziru of the Amarna Letters is identified with Hadadezer, Syrian king in II Samuel.
  • Labaya, a ruler in the Amarna Letters, with King Saul.
  • King David with Dadua in Amarna Letter EA256.
  • Mutbaal, writer of the letter, is identified with Ishbaal (aka Ishbosheth). The two names have exactly the same meaning: "Man of Baal." Following the death of his father (Labaya/Saul), Mutbaal/Ishbaal moved his center to Transjordan.
  • "The Sons of Labaya," in the Amarna Letters (EA 250), with Mutbaal/Ishbaal and David/Dadua, the latter being the son-in-law of Labaya/Shaul.
  • Benemina, also mentioned in EA256, is identified by Rohl with Baanah, Israelite chieftain in II Samuel 4, who would later betray and assassinate Ishbosheth.
  • Yishuya, also mentioned in EA256, is identified with Jesse (Ishai in Hebrew), father of David.
  • Ayab, the subject of EA 256, is held to be the same as the Biblical Yoav (English "Joab").
  • Lupakku ("Man of Pakku"), Aramean army commander in the Amarna Letters, with Shobach ("He of Pakku"[citation needed]), Aramean army commander in the Bible.
  • Nefertiti with Neferneferuaten and with Smenkhkare.
  • Horemheb is identified with the Pharaoh who destroyed Gezer and later gave it to Solomon, together with one of his daughters as a wife. When Horemhab took Gezer he was not yet the ruler, but was acting under Tutankhamun. However, he became Pharaoh not long after, and Tutankhamun died too young to have left any marriageable daughters.
  • Ramses II (hypocoristicon = Shysha) with Shishaq in the Bible.
  • Irsu the Syrian, who took over control of Egypt according to the Harris Papyrus, with Arza, Master of the Palace of Israel according to I Kings 16:8-10.
  • Sheshi, a Hyksos ruler, with Sheshai, a ruler of Hebron descended from Anak (Joshua 15:13-15).
  • Io of the Line of Inachus with Queen Ahhotep of the 17th Dynasty of Egypt at Waset
  • Cadmus of Thebes with Cadmus in the line of Pelasgian rulers of Crete
  • Inachus with Anak-idbu Khyan of the Greater Hyksos
  • Auserre Apepi of the Greater Hyksos with Epaphus
  • Cush, son of biblical Ham with Meskiagkasher of the First Dynasty of Uruk
  • Nimrod, son of biblical Cush with Enmerkar ('Enmer the Hunter') of the First Dynasty of Uruk

Geographical identifications

Rohl, in addition to his chronology, also has some geographical ideas that are different from the conventional notions. These include:
  • The Garden of Eden, according to Rohl, was located in what is now northwestern Iran, between Lake Urmia and the Caspian Sea.[31]
  • The Tower of Babel, according to Rohl, was built in the ancient Sumerian capital of Eridu.[32]
  • The site of the ancient city of Sodom is "a little over 100 metres beneath the surface of the Dead Sea," a few kilometers south-by-southeast from En-Gedi.[33]
  • The Amalekites defeated by King Saul were not the ones living in the Negev and/or the Sinai, but a northern branch of this people, "in the territory of Ephraim, on the highlands of Amalek" - or, in an alternative translation "in the Land of Ephraim, the mountains of the Amalekites" (Judges 12:15). This is supported by the report that, immediately following his destruction of the Amalekites, "Saul went to Carmel and set up a monument" (I Samuel 15:12). Once Saul is removed from the Negev and the Sinai, "Saul's kingdom as described in the Bible is precisely the area ruled over by Labaya according to the el-Amarna letters."[34]

Rohl's revised chronology of Pharaohs

Dates proposed by Rohl for various Egyptian monarchs, all dates BCE (NC=New Chronology, OC=Orthodox/conventional Chronology):

NameNotesNC fromNC toOC fromOC to
Khety IVPharaoh whom Abraham visited18761847
Abraham in Egypt1853
Amenemhat I1800177019851956
Amenemhat III1682163718311786
Joseph appointed vizier1670
Sobekhotep IIIEnslaved the Israelites15681563
Sobekhotep IVMoses fled from him15301508
DudimoseThe Exodus took place in 1447 in Rohl's chronology14501446
ShalekFirst of the major Hyksos rulers12981279
Ahmose IThe end of the Hyksos rule at Avaris took place in 1183 , according to Rohl1194117015501525
Amenhotep I1170115015251504
Amenhotep IV Akhenaten1022100713521336
Ugarit Eclipse1012
Ramesses II94387712791213
Battle of Qadesh939
Shoshenq I823803945924
Shoshenq II765762


In Egyptology

Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology,[2] continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense."'.[35] By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework. Professor Eric Hornung acknowledges that "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations."[36] Academic debate on the New Chronology, however, has largely not taken place in Egyptological or archaeological journals. Most discussions are to be found in the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences' Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1985–2006),[37] which specialised in the chronological issues generally neglected in mainstream Egyptology.[38]
Chris Bennett (1996)[2] notes that besides academic debate on problems with the conventional chronology, such as those associated with the Thera eruption, a "far deeper challenge ... has been mounted in the public arena." The history of this challenge to mainstream consensus outside of academic debate originates with the 1991 Centuries of Darkness by Peter James, together with Rohl, co-founder of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences. Centuries of Darkness postulated 250 years of non-existent "phantom time" in the conventional chronology based on an archaeological "Dark Age".[39]
Given the specialist nature of Egyptian chronology, most academics defer to Kenneth Kitchen for the counter arguments against the New Chronology. Kitchen's main criticisms have focussed on Rohl's Third Intermediate Period revision which proposes an overlap between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties. In particular Kitchen challenges the validity of the chronological anomalies raised by Rohl, questioning whether they are true anomalies and offering his own explanations for the apparent problems raised by Rohl. Kitchen accuses New Chronologists of being obsessed with trying to close gaps in the archaeological record by lowering the dating. However, in his 2007 PhD thesis, 'Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600 – 700 BC)', published by Melbourne University, Department of History,[40] Dr Pierce Furlong raises an objection to this general criticism:
Kitchen answers such points as these [on the NC TIP anomalies] by making the general argument that a gap in our knowledge does not equate to a gap in antiquity. That is, the original evidence that might have resolved these anomalies has either not yet been unearthed, or else it has already been irretrievably destroyed. While this may be a perfectly understandable position to take, nevertheless, current research has to address the evidence as it now stands, and to try and resolve the anomalies that currently exist.
Furlong goes on to address the specific counter-arguments offered by Kitchen in his dismissal of the TIP anomalies raised by Rohl and other revisionists. First he deals with the issue of the tomb of the 22nd Dynasty king Osorkon II at Tanis, apparently having been built before the tomb of the 21st Dynasty king Akheperre Psusennes. Kitchen suggests that Osorkon usurped the tomb of an earlier 21st Dynasty king (possibly Smendes) of which no trace of the original occupant survives by way of artefacts or wall inscriptions. Furlong responds:
... some of the accompanying arguments presented by Kitchen do not appear particularly convincing. For example, regarding the arrangement of tombs occupied by Psusennes I and Osorkon II, Kitchen notes how Pharaoh Amenemope came to later occupy the chamber originally prepared for the wife of his predecessor, Psusennes I, eliminating every trace of her ‘effects’ in the process. But to compare a chamber belonging to a queen with a whole tomb belonging to a king is not really to compare like with like. A king’s presence is far more likely to permeate the whole tomb, while this queen’s effects, even accepting that she had actually been buried in the chamber reserved for her, may well have been restricted to just her coffin and a few accompanying funerary objects.
Furlong then addresses the issue of the missing Apis bulls from the 21st Dynasty, supporting Rohl's contention that this is a clear-cut archaeological anomaly which requires an explanation:
Similarly, regarding the lack of Apis bull evidence from the entire 21st Dynasty, Kitchen notes how no Apis bulls have been found from the time of their first mention during the 1st Dynasty until their actual appearance under Amenophis III of the 18th Dynasty; and he playfully asks if this absence of bulls should not also lead one to collapse sixteen centuries of Egyptian history to eliminate this artifactual gap? But, once again, this is hardly a fair comparison: nobody knows where these earlier Apis bulls may have been buried, or indeed how. On the other hand, the absence of 21st Dynasty burials constitutes a clear gap in an otherwise well defined archaeological sequence.
On the genealogies of the early TIP, Furlong makes the following argument, based on his own research into the period, which again takes issue with Kitchen and supports Rohl's revision:
Kitchen has also argued that the unbroken series of High Priests of Amun in Thebes, together with the genealogies of other noble families, allow for no significant shortening of the conventional chronology, and that to deny this evidence and argue for genealogical gaps is no better than a ‘baseless illusion’. However … what is currently seen as possibly the principal objection against overlapping the 21st and 22nd Dynasties, namely, this genealogical data, actually provides the basis upon which to argue for just such an overlap; as well as, I would argue, the evidence for unravelling the true chronology for this whole period.
Finally, Dr Furlong insists that, in his view, "there are no serious obstacles to overlapping the whole of the 21st Dynasty with the 22nd Dynasty, thereby dramatically reducing the duration of the TIP."
Grouping all radical revisions of Egyptian chronology together without distinction, Hornung, in his Introduction to the Handbook of Ancient Egyptian Chronology, makes the following statement:
We will always be exposed to such attempts, but they could only be taken seriously if not only the arbitrary dynasties and rulers, but also their contexts, could be displaced.... In the absence of such proofs we can hardly be expected to "refute" such claims, or even to respond in any fashion ... It is thus neither arrogance nor ill-will that leads the academic community to neglect these efforts which frequently lead to irritation and distrust outside of professional circles (and are often undertaken with the encouragement of the media). These attempts usually require a rather lofty disrespect of the most elementary sources and facts and thus do not merit discussion. We will therefore avoid discussion of such issues in our handbook, restricting ourselves to those hypotheses and discussions which are based on the sources.[41]
Bennett (1996), whilst not accepting Rohl's thesis, suggests that such out-of-hand rejection may be inappropriate in Rohl's case, since "there is a world of difference between [Rohl's] intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter James" since, unlike "popular radicalisms" such as those of Velikovsky, Bauval or Hancock, "Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material."
Professor Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College, London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, states:
An extreme low chronology has been proposed recently by a group devoted to revising the absolute chronology of the Mediterranean and Western Asia: P. James et al., Centuries of Darkness, London, 1991; similar, though slightly diverging revisions, are upheld by another group, too, and partly published in the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum. The hub for the dating of other cultures is Egypt, so much of the work of both groups focuses on Egyptian evidence. Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework presented in these volumes, but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination.[3]

Scientific counter-evidence

The Rohl's chronology was sharply criticized as no longer tenable in early 2010 after the release of a radiocarbon date study for artifacts linked to specific pharaohs' reigns. However, if correct, the same study would also refute portions of the Old Chronology with findings that would push the dates for several kings earlier.[42] Regardless, proponents of the New Chronology have since noted several problems with the radiocarbon dating itself, including reliance on questionable and unpublished tree-ring data (dendrochronology) for calibration and use of assumptions about the sequence and lengths of Egyptian reigns.[43]

In popular media

In 1995 Rohl published his version of the New Chronology, in the best-selling book A Test of Time, accompanied by a 1995 Channel 4 three-part series Pharaohs and Kings - A Biblical Quest. A Test of Time takes up the general scenario presented by James, adding many details omitted in 1991, including the "dramatic results" pertaining to Biblical chronology. Whilst the New Chronology has not been broadly accepted in academia, it has been widely disseminated to the public since the 1990s via Rohl's best-selling[44] books and a 1995 Channel 4 television documentary, aired in the USA in 1996 on The Learning Channel. Berthoud (2008) contrasts the "near-unanimous" rejection of Rohl's theories in Egyptology with the "sensational effect" his books, combined with the television series, had on the general public.[45]
The reaction of some leading figures from the academic establishment has been very hostile. Kenneth Kitchen presented a "savage review" of Centuries of Darkness in the Times Literary Supplement, and the British Museum banned A Test of Time from its museum store.[46]

By evangelicals

In December 1999 the Dutch language internet journal Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie (Bible, History and Archaeology) devoted space to a debate about Rohl's New Chronology. According to evangelical scholar, J.G. van der Land, editor of the journal, Rohl's time-line resolves some archaeological anomalies surrounding ancient Egypt, but creates conflicts with other areas that make it untenable.[47] His arguments were then countered by Peter van der Veen and Robert Porter.[48][49] In the final article in the issue, van der Land identified some new issues for Rohl's chronology arising from recent finds in Assyrian letters.[50] A detailed response to van der Land's criticisms has been published by Bernard Newgrosh in his volume on Mesopotamian chronology Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia published in 2007.[51]


  • Rohl, David (1995). A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History. London: Century. ISBN 0712659137.  Published in the U.S. as Rohl, David (1995). Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0517703157. 
  • Rohl, David (1998). Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation. London: Century. ISBN 071267747X. 
  • Rohl, David (2002). The Lost Testament: From Eden to Exile - The Five-Thousand-Year history of the People of the Bible. London: Century. ISBN 0712669930.  Published in paperback as Rohl, David (2003). From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible. London: Arrow Books Ltd. ISBN 0099415666. 
  • Van der Veen, Peter; Zerbst, Uwe (2004). Biblische Archäologie Am Scheideweg?: Für und Wider einer Neudatierung archäologischer Epochen im alttestamentlichen Palästina. Holzgerlingen, Germany: Haenssler-Verlag GmbH. ISBN 9783775138512. 
  • Rohl, David (2007). The Lords of Avaris: Uncovering the Legendary Origins of Western Civilisation. London: Century. ISBN 0712677623. 
  • Newgrosh, Bernard (2007). Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia. Leicester: Troubador Publishing. ISBN 9781906221621. 


  1. ^ David Rohl, The Lost Testament (published in the UK in 2002, republished as From Eden to Exile in the USA in 2009), p. 2.
  2. ^ a b c Bennett, Chris. "Temporal Fugues", Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies XIII (1996). Available at [1]
  3. ^ a b Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC, Volume I (Routledge History of the Ancient World series, London & New York, 1995), p. 14.
  4. ^ a b c d The Sunday Times, 13 October 2002, How myth became history
  5. ^ The Lost Testament, p. 3
  6. ^ A Test of Time, p. 11
  7. ^ Becherath, J. von, in Helk, W. (ed.) Abstracts for the 'High, Middle or Low? International Colloquium on Chronology held at Schloss Haindorf (1990), p. 5
  8. ^ Helck, W. in Helk, W. (ed.) Abstracts for the 'High, Middle or Low? International Colloquium on Chronology held at Schloss Haindorf (1990), p. 21
  9. ^ Ash, Paul S. David, Solomon and Egypt Continuum International Publishing Group - Sheffie (1 Nov 1999) ISBN 978-1841270210 pp. 30-31
  10. ^ Coogan, Michael David The Oxford History of the Biblical World Oxford Paperbacks; New edition (26 Jul 2001) ISBN 978-0195139372 p. 175
  11. ^ Wilson, Kevin A The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine Mohr Siebeck 2005 ISBN 978-3161482700 p.1
  12. ^ A Test of Time, pp. 122-27.
  13. ^ The Lost Testament, pp. 389-96.
  14. ^ David Rohl, Shoshenq, Shishak and Shysha, accessed 7 August 2009
  15. ^ Grisanti, Michael A; Davd M. Howard Giving the Sense Kregel Academic & Professional (1 April 2004) ISBN 978-0825428920 p.193 [2]
  16. ^ P. J. Furlong: Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600–700 BC), Gorgias Dissertations 46 (Gorgias Press, 2010), ISBN 978-1-60724-127-0, p. 16.
  17. ^ Wilson, Kevin A. (2005). The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine. Mohr Siebeck. p. 65. ISBN 3161482700. 
  18. ^ Kichen, Kenneth A. (1973). The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. Aris & Phillips. p. 432. ISBN 0 85668 001. 
  19. ^ Noth, M. (1938). ZDPV 61. pp. 277–304. 
  20. ^ Albright, W. F. (1937/39). Archiv für Orientfoschung 12. pp. 385–86. 
  21. ^ Mazar, B. (1957). VTS 4. pp. 57–66. 
  22. ^ Aharoni, Y. (1966). The Land of the Bible. pp. 283–90. 
  23. ^ Burney, Charles Allen (2004). Historical dictionary of the Hittites. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810849364, 9780810849365. 
  24. ^ The Lords of Avaris, Chapter 17.
  25. ^ Newgrosh, pp. 54-86.
  26. ^ Kitchen, Preface to the 2nd edition of TIPE.
  27. ^ Bimson.
  28. ^ John Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (Sheffield, 1978), and in JACF 2 [online at]; Rohl [A Test of Time, Chapter 14, pp. 299-325.
  29. ^
  30. ^ a b M. Sturgis, It Ain’t Necessarily So: Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past’ (Headlin, London, 2001), p. 7.
  31. ^ The Lost Testament, pp. 16-29.
  32. ^ The Lost Testament
  33. ^ The Lost Testament, pp. 120-124.
  34. ^ The Lost Testament, p. 318)
  35. ^ Kitchen, Kenneth (2003). "Egyptian interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II". In Dever, William G.. Symbiosis, symbolism, and the power of the past: Canaan, ancient Israel, and their neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Seymour Gitin. Eisenbrauns. p. 122. ISBN 1575060817, 9781575060811. 
  36. ^ Hornung, E. et al.: "Ancient Egyptian Chronology" (Handbook of Oriental Studies I, vol. 83, Brill, Leiden, 2006), p. 13.
  37. ^ ISIS archive, Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum.
  38. ^ Sturt W. Manning in Classical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (1997), pp. 438-439, in a non-Egyptological context:
    "Chronology and dating in academic archaeology and ancient history are subjects avidly practised by a few, regarded as a necessary but comprehensively boring evil by the majority. As with public transport, we all need the timetable in order to travel, but we have no desire to learn about the workings of the necessary trains, buses, tracks, roads, stations, connections, and so on. Moreover, the study of chronology is unpleasant, detailed, and difficult, and lacks intellectual status and élan. It is like engineering, or surgery. Thus, where possible, the academic establishment likes to find some study on chronology to be effectively definitive, and the agreed 'text': other, higher, work can then be attended to. E. Meyer's study of 1892 on Herodotos' chronology thus remains a basis for current study for Greek history; J. A. Brinkman's work on Kassite chronology (article 1970, book 1976) remains effectively definitive; and so on. It is only when some iconoclast, or outsider, challenges the whole structure, tries to 'beat the boffins', that general academic attention returns to chronology (e.g. Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness, 1991, David Rohl, A Test of Time, 1995)."
  39. ^ "In a special review issue of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal these proposals were roundly rejected by experts in all disciplines in Old World archaeology, a result virtually assured by the failure of the authors to present more than an outline restructuring for Egyptian chronology." Bennett (1996:2).
  40. ^ P. J. Furlong: Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600–700 BC), Gorgias Dissertations 46 (Gorgias Press, 2010), ISBN 978-1-60724-127-0.
  41. ^ Hornung, E. et al.: "Ancient Egyptian Chronology" (Handbook of Oriental Studies I, vol. 83, Brill, Leiden, 2006), p. 15.
  42. ^ Christopher Bronk Ramsey et al., Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science Vol. 328. no. 5985 (18 June 2010), pp. 1554 - 1557.
  43. ^ "Re: 'Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology' symposium" on Yahoo "NewChronology - David Rohl" discussion group, available at [3]
  44. ^ A Test of Time stayed in the top ten Sunday Times bestseller list for eight weeks in 1995 (from 17th September to 6th November, pp. 7-14).
  45. ^ Berthoud, J-M. Creation Bible Et Science, 2008, ISBN 9782825138878, 244f.
  46. ^ Alden Bass (2003), Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood?, Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, November 2003 - 23[11]:97-101
  47. ^ van der Land, J.G. (2000) "Pharaohs and the Bible: David Rohl's chronology untenable", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  48. ^ van der Veen, P.G. (2000) "Is Rohl's Chronology inaccurate? A reply to BGA'," Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  49. ^ Porter, R.M. (2000) "'Did the Philistines settle in Canaan around 1200 BC?", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  50. ^ van der Land, J.G. (2000), "Conclusive evidence against Rohl's proposed New Chronology: An Assyrian chancellor's archive", Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie, December 1999
  51. ^ Newgrosh, B. "Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia" (Matador, ISBN 978-1905221-621, Leicester, 2007)

External links