What is the true chronology of Ancient Egypt?

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,398
Italy, Lago Maggiore
And we should also move forwards into time the usage of war chariots and war horses.

Before of the arrival of the Hiksos Egyptian armies walked with donkeys to carry equipments. From that period on also Egyptians begun to deploy chariots on the battle field [about war horses their usage was anyway rare, Ramses II had some ranks of chivalry, but the units were more quick messengers than proper warriors]. This is the reason why to put the Exodus before of their arrival is not in agreement with the Biblical text [even if nothing impedes to think that the author was thinking to the Egyptian Army of his own time ... and he introduced an anachronism].

We've got a burial site with the mummy of a horse where some jars tell us that the animal got mummified during the reign of Thutmosis III [Horse Mummification in Ancient Egypt]. As we have seen C14 datation is in agreement with conventional chronology. So that the horse is from XV century BCE.

It's all evident that who wants to change chronology [because of the most different reasons] has to undermine C14 method. In similar cases I tend to listen to the majority of the scientists [I know physics a bit and my niece is a biologist, but it would take a long time to check the scientific works ...].
 
Jan 2015
954
England
And we should also move forwards into time the usage of war chariots and war horses.

Before of the arrival of the Hiksos Egyptian armies walked with donkeys to carry equipments. From that period on also Egyptians begun to deploy chariots on the battle field [about war horses their usage was anyway rare, Ramses II had some ranks of chivalry, but the units were more quick messengers than proper warriors]. This is the reason why to put the Exodus before of their arrival is not in agreement with the Biblical text [even if nothing impedes to think that the author was thinking to the Egyptian Army of his own time ... and he introduced an anachronism].
Absolutely, that’s a very good point! So putting the arrival of the Hyksos after the Exodus (like some revised chronologies have done) just doesn’t work.

From what I’ve seen so far, these revised chronologies just cause more problems than they solve.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,398
Italy, Lago Maggiore
All of those dates are at least two centuries too high. Read the book and you'll see.
I will read that book when James or Rohl will be able to submit to the attention of the academic world a persuading explanation why the temporal reference on the Ebers papyrus should be dismissed ... So far they haven't.
 
Jan 2015
954
England
I will read that book when James or Rohl will be able to submit to the attention of the academic world a persuading explanation why the temporal reference on the Ebers papyrus should be dismissed ... So far they haven't.
Could you expand on that reference?
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,027
Australia
The Ebers papurus was copied from earlier texts. It has no relevant temporal references.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,398
Italy, Lago Maggiore
The Ebers papurus was copied from earlier texts. It has no relevant temporal references.
It reports a datation. It's a kind of calendar, but the first line is a datation and in the datation there is a temporal connection between a year of reign of an Egyptian Sovereign and the day when Sothis appeared [this didn't happen always on the same day of the year, so that we can indicate a temporal range according to the possible points of observation of the phenomenon]. The content of the papyrus is totally irrelevant: it's a medical text ...
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,398
Italy, Lago Maggiore
For the ones who are interested to see what's on Ebers papyrus I've made this reconstruction. The hieroglyphic transcription is under the lines in hieratic. Note that I have inverted the sense of the hieratic lines to make them correspond with the sense of the hieroglyphics in the transcription.

ebers.JPG

We've got two lines which give a clear and direct temporal reference. The first one, which usually is the datation of the document, makes reference to a year of reign of a Sovereign [as usual]. The way the Cartouche of Djeserkare is introduced here is really common. The Sedge and the Bee introduced the so called "Throne Name" [we call it so in present time], one of the great names of a Monarch. In this case we've got "Djeserkare" which was the Throne Name of Amenhotep I.

The second line says that it's the year of the Festival, that it's the 3rd month of the season of Shemu and that it's the 9th day of that month. At the end it adds that Sopdet [Sirius] is rising.

This indications are enough to calculate where to put the Year 9 of Amenhotep I on the temporal line.

The problem is that Egypt was [and is] a long [North-South] country, so that according to the point of observation they would have seen Sirius rising on that day in different years. The temporal window is of some decades, not centuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,381
Coastal Florida
The vast majority of the book explains why the current chronology can't be right and their argument is more than convincing - it is patently obvious when all the evidence is laid out in one place.

If you don't bother or care to test the veracity of their claims, I imagine it does sound convincing. However, I find serious problems with their work. Some aspects of it are impossible or false all together. Some of it's implications also sound pretty far-fetched. For example, as Kitchen pointed out, this paradigm requires us to believe David carved out his kingdom in the middle of Ramses II's reign. I also have a serious issue with their methodology, something I'll return to momentarily.

The section that proposes a solution isn't as strong, but that isn't the main point of their work.

I imagine Peter James would be surprised to hear that. He seems pretty convinced that he's found the perfect solution.

The point is to demonstrate that considerable revision is needed and it most certainly is.
Just because their proposal for revising the chronology may not be correct, does not mean that no revision is required.

I haven't claimed that no revision is necessary. Essentially, all I've said is that none of these guys have brought forward sound & coherent theories sufficient to justify a revision as drastic as this. If they had the ability to formulate such a theory and develop sufficient evidence to rationally support it, I'd be willing to consider it. But it doesn't look to me like they're able to do so.

You are focusing on the least important part of their book, which is a classic deflection technique used by their detractors, most of whom haven't bothered to read the book either.
As in this case, the term "least" is often a subjective measure. I presume you're minimizing my objection to their attempt at trying to verify the historicity of the Old Testament. It appears to me that this is a central part of this entire effort. Everything from their goals and methodology to their conclusions are centrally focused on the Old Testament narrative. So, I would not describe this as the "least important" aspect of anything. As I previously asserted, I'm skeptical the book is significantly different from the synopsis so, I will again rely upon it. In the synopsis (pgs. 231 to 233), the authors lay out six points upon which their methodological approach is predicated. Essentially, this is a list of objections to other lines of evidence, declarations of how they wish to read evidence and arbitrary baselines they've decided to work from. In #3 (pg. 233), they claim the Old Testament "is agreed to be generally reliable as far back as the United Monarchy of the mid-tenth century." That's an outright falsehood and it's difficult to imagine the authors were unaware it was false when they wrote it. Given their position and the nature of their claims, it is reasonable to expect them to be well aware that there is no general agreement on whether the United Monarchy even existed, much less its temporal placement in history.

Further, in #6 (again, pg. 233), they double down on the reliability of the Old Testament as they appear to effectively claim it's more reliable than any other evidence they intended to consider as it relates to Palestinian history. In fact, they literally state they've applied the Old Testament narrative as a control on the archaeology:
Fixed points for the framework can be found by careful collation of archaeological materials with written records datable by sound historical chronologies. For example, from the tenth century onwards the Old Testament narrative can be used as a control on the archaeological dating of Palestine (see Table 2).

As far as controls go in science, this would mean they judged the veracity of the archaeology by whether it agreed with the OT narrative. In other words, it appears to me they're literally telling us here that they assumed the OT was factual (at least the part they're concerned with) and tried to find evidence to confirm it, just as I said earlier. To me, it seems far more appropriate to do this the other way around.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman
Jan 2015
954
England
And that’s all very ironic, because like I said in a previous post, the currently-accepted chronology actually works better with the Bible than the revised chronology. All the little details like the use of the term Pharaoh, the presence of chariots during the Exodus, and the prices for a slave at different moments in the Bible, all fit perfectly with the currently-accepted chronology. The revision really messes things up in terms of Biblical accuracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman