Temporal Fugues

PLACEDONLINEBYPERMISSIONOF
THEOCTAVIANSOCIETY
P.O.BOX75,DAGGETT,CA923270075
EMAIL:KTBERRANT@EARTHLINK.NET
TEMPORALFUGUES
ChrisBennettPhD,FAS,FSO
DavidM.Rohl: PharaohsandKings(Crown(NewYork),1996)$37.50
ArticlesintheJournaloftheAncientChronologyForum(JACF):1
TheEarlyThirdIntermediatePeriod,JACF3(1989/90)45
ATestofTime,JACF5(1991/92)30
(withM.Ibrahim)
ApisandtheSerapeum,JACF2(1988)6
1
The major features of Egyptian chronology as it is generally accepted today were rapidly established after
Champollionsdeciphermentofhieroglyphics.ThesurvivingfragmentsoftheEgyptianhistorianManethosupplied
akinglist,comprisedof30dynasties,whichwassupplementedandcorrectedfromseveralsimilarancientEgyptian
lists,suchastheRoyalTurinPapyrus,andthekinglistsofAbydosandSaqqara.Themonumentsoftheindividual
kingscouldbeplacedwithinthisframeworktoprovidemuchfinedetailofindividualreignlengths,periodsof
coregencyetc. Therelativechronologysoestablishedwasfarfrom complete,butcouldapparentlybetiedto
absolutedatesatseveralkeypoints,fromseveralastronomicalsynchronisms,andfromsynchronismsbetweenthe
EgyptiansequenceofkingsandsimilarlyconstructedsequencesforothercountriesoftheancientNearEast.These
includedthekingsofIsrael,throughtheidentificationofthebiblicalShishakasShoshenqIofthe22nddynasty,and
thekingsofancientAssyriaandBabylon.
Formostofthiscentury,workinthefieldhasconsistedofrefiningthismodelandtryingtofillinthemissing
pieces.Forexample,therewasadebateinthe1980sonthelocationforthesightingsoftheheliacalrisingofSothis
(Sirius),whichissignificantbecausetheansweraffectsthedatesofcertainrecordedobservationsofthisevent.
ThisdebateresultedpartlyinproposalsforloweringboththeendoftheMiddleKingdomandthestartoftheNew
Kingdom by three decades, and partly in a rejection by many of the validity of the claimed astronomical
synchronismwhichhadpreviouslygovernedthedateofthestartoftheNewKingdom.Asaresultofthesefine
tunings,thedateforthestartoftheEgyptianNewKingdomisnowsetbetween1570BCand1539BC,withthe
lowerdatebeingpreferred;itmayyetdriftdownafewdecades. Similaranalyseshavemovedtheaccessionof
RamsesIIfrom1304firstto1290andthento1279BC.However,whilesuchdebatesareintenselyfoughtbythe
specialistsinvolved,theunderlyingsequenceofeventshasneverbeenrevised:the18th,19th,20th,21stand22nd
dynastiesreignedinsuccession,whilethe23rd,24thandearly25thdynastiesoverlappedthelastpartofthe22nd.
Recently,thisbasicmodelhascomeunderchallengefromtwodirections.
Withtheadventof14Cdating,refinedbydendrochronological(treering)sequences,itisnowtheoreticallypossible
toprovidehighlyaccuratedatesforarchaeologicalsampleswhicharenotdependentonanyhistoricaldata.Byand
large,thesetechniqueshavebeenheldtoconfirmhistoricallybasedEgyptiandating,althoughdendrochronological
dateshaveinfacttendedtobeolderthanthehistoricalevidencesuggests. Thedateassignedtotheexplosive
eruptionoftheAegeanislandofThera(Santorini)bythesetechniqueshascreatedaparticularlysevereproblemin
thisregard.Accordingtothecurrentlyfavouredscientificanalysis,thiseruptionoccurredin1628BC.Arecently
publishedAnatoliantreeringsequencesupportsthisdate,whilealsosupportingtheconventionaldatingofthe
Amarnaperiodofthe18thdynastyinthelatterhalfofthe14thcenturyBC. 2However,therearecleartracesofthe
Theraeruptioninlevelsdatedtotheearly18thdynastyattheHyksoscapitalofAvaris,TellelDaba,andelsewhere.
Accordingtoconventionalarchaeologicalandhistoricalmeasures,thisplacesTherainthelate16thcenturyBC,a
centuryafterthedatepreferredbythedendrochronologicalevidence. IfTheraoccurredin1628thenthereisa
fundamentalerrorinourreconstructionofthe18thdynasty.Sincethisisoneofthebestdocumentedperiodsin
Egyptianhistory,thereseemstobenopossibilityoffindinganextracenturyinthehistoricalrecord,asthe1628
datewouldrequire;butnordoesthedendrochronologicalrecordadmitamajorvolcaniceventinthe16thcentury
BC.
Thiscontroversyhasalso,sofar,largelybeenconfinedtotheacademicestablishment.Afardeeperchallengeto
conventionalEgyptianchronologyhasbeenmountedinthepublicarena.Thisschoolofthoughthasattackedthe
ElectronicreprintofarticleappearinginJAMSXIII(1996)432
TEMPORALFUGUES
conventionalchronologyfromtheotherdirection:itarguesforaradicalcollapseoflaterEgyptianchronologybyup
to350years.
Thefirstsalvowasfiredin1991,withthepublicationof CenturiesofDarkness.3 Theauthorspointedoutthe
existence of archaeological dark ages throughout the Old World in the early Iron Age, noted that Old World
chronologieswereultimatelyderivedfromEgyptianchronology,andarguedthatEgyptianchronologymustbe
fundamentallyflawed. TheyproposedacompressionofEgyptianchronologyfortheThirdIntermediatePeriod
(dynasties2125)ofabout250years.Suchacompressionwouldhavetheeffectofeliminatingthedarkagesthat
werefelttobesotroublesome.Inaspecialreviewissueofthe CambridgeArchaeologicalJournaltheseproposals
wereroundlyrejectedbyexpertsinalldisciplinesinOldWorldarchaeology,aresultvirtuallyassuredbythefailure
oftheauthorstopresentmorethananoutlinerestructuringforEgyptianchronology.
Now,inthisbeautifullyproducedandlavishlyillustratedbook,andintheaccompanyingthreeparttelevisionseries,
DavidRohlhasreturnedtothecharge,thistimeprovidingmanyofthedetailsofEgyptianchronologymissingfrom
theearlierbook,andfocussingontheirimplicationsforlocatingBiblicalnarrativesinhistoricalandarchaeological
contexts.WhilesomeofhisproposalsforarevisedchronologyareverysimilartothoseofCenturiesofDarkness
(whichisnotsurprising,sinceRohlandJameswereinitiallycollaborators),healsoadvancesmanychronological
proposalsnotmadebytheearlierbook.TheserevisionshavesomedramaticresultsforBiblicalhistory.Rohlfinds
itpossibletoidentifyreferencestomanyBiblicalcharactersintheElAmarnaletters,includingDavidandSaul.
Moreover,hepresentsproposalsforidentifyingthestoriesofJosephandMosesintheEgyptianrecord: Joseph
becomesaviziertoAmenemhatIII,withanIsraelitesettlementaroundhispalaceatAreaFofTellelDaba;Moses
spenthisyouthfightingforSebekhotepIV;thecatastrophewhichoverwhelmedLevelGatTellelDabaistobe
identifiedwiththebiblicalPlaguesofEgypt;andExodusisalsodatedtothistime,withtheIsraelites,fleeingEgypt,
crossingpathswiththeinvadingHyksos.
Sensational claimssuchasthesedriveprofessional Egyptologistscrazy. Andwithgoodreason. Thepopular
bookshopsandthecablechannelsarefilledeveryyearwithworksofthelikesofRobertBauvalandGraham
Hancock,whojumptothemostspectacularandfarreachingconclusions,frequentlybasedontheslenderestof
evidence,muchofitmisunderstood,andusuallyaccompaniedbyswingeingrhetoricalattacksonthehidebound
Egyptologicalestablishmentwhoareheldtobeincapableofseeingtheobviouswisdomofthenewtheoriesbecause
oftheirpurblindandmustyacademicvision.Insuchcircumstances,itisnowonderthattheautomaticreactionof
manyprofessionalsistorejectthelatestpopularradicalismoutofhand.Simplybylaunchingtheirtheoriesthrough
thepopularmedia,RohlandJameshavemadethemselvesandtheirtheoriesappeartobenodifferentfromanyof
theseothers.
Moreover,neitherJamesnorRohlhavehelpedthemselvesbytheirassociationswiththedisciplesofthatarch
heresiarchofyesteryearImmanualVelikovsky. EventhoughbothdenyVelikovsky'stheories,bothhavefound
congenialintellectualhomesinVelikovskiangroupsandVelikovskianpublications,andRohlhasacceptedsomeof
Velikovsky'sobservationsinformulatinghisthesesonMosesandJoseph.Thissiniscompoundedbythefactthat
the"NewChronology"isadirectattackonKennethKitchen'sTheThirdIntermediatePeriodinEgypt,4whichis
widelyregardedasoneofthemajorintellectualachievementsofmodernEgyptology.Itisnotsurprising,then,that
Kitchen,inasavagereviewintheTimesLiterarySupplement,5condemnedtheauthorsofCenturiesofDarknessas
"sonsofVelikovsky"andconsignedthemtothesameoblivionastheiraccursedmaster.Nodoubttheauthoritiesat
theBritishMuseum,whohavebannedthisbookfromtheBMBookstore,feelmuchthesamewayaboutDavid
Rohl.
Suchareactionismisguided. Themessagemaybesensational,andRohlmayevenbecompletelywronginhis
theories,butthereisaworldofdifferencebetweenhisintellectualstandingandthatofVelikovsky,orevenPeter
James.RohlisatrainedEgyptologist,withadegreeinthesubjectandaPhDincourseofpreparationatUniversity
CollegeLondon,oneofthemostprestigiousEgyptologicaldepartmentsinBritain.Nordidthisbookappearoutof
theblue.HehasforseveralyearseditedandpublishedtheJournaloftheAncientChronologyForum,whichhas
presentednotonlyhisowntheories,butalsoarticlesofconsiderablemeritbymanymainstreamarchaeologists.Itis
evident,fromthepagesinthisbook,fromthearticlesinJACF,andfrompersonalexchanges,thatRohlhasa
considerablemasteryofhismaterial,andhasthoughtlonganddeepaboutit.Evenifthedebateisultimatelynot
resolvedinhisfavour,itisworthwhilebecauseitforcesareexaminationoflongheldassumptionsandofdifficult
problems.Thiscanonlybehealthyforthediscipline,andshouldbewelcomedforthisreason.
Having said that, there remains a significant obstacle in undertaking a fullscale critical review of the New
Chronology. AlthoughRohl hasgoneconsiderablyfurtherthanJamesindetailinghisproposedchronological
ElectronicreprintofarticleappearinginJAMSXIII(1996)432
POSTSCRIPTTOTEMPORALFUGUES
revisions,particularlyfordynasties21and22,therearemanyaspectsofEgyptianchronologyforwhichhehasnot
yetpublishedanewmodel,eitherinthisbookorinhisJACFarticles.
ThelateThirdIntermediatePerioddynasties23to25isbarelydiscussed.ItappearsthattheManethonian
dynasty23isseenasaDeltadynastysucceedingthe22ndandlastinguntilquitelateinthereignofPsamtekI.
Intermsofoverallchronology,thisisperhapsamootissue,sincedynasty23isseenbyallpartiesasbeing
contemporarywithexistingdynasties. IndeedaverysimilarmodelhasbeenproposedbyAnthonyLeahy,
without,however,requiringthatearlierchronologybecollapsed.6
ThekeystoneofRohl'schronologyistoidentifythecampaignofthebiblicalShishakinyear5ofRehoboamof
Judah,notwiththecampaignundertakenbyShoshenqIlateinhisreign,butwithonerecordedinyear8of
RamsesII.ThisplacestheaccessionofRamsesIIatc932BC,7while,onothergrounds,ShoshenqIisplacedat
c823BC.Underthisscheme,itisnecessarynotonlytomakethe21stand22nddynastiescontemporarybut
alsotoreducethedurationofthe19thand20thdynastiesafterSetiIfromabout200yearsto,atmost,alittle
overacentury. SinceRamsesIIreigned66years,RamsesIIIreigned31years,andRamsesXIreigned28
years,making125yearsbeforeanyoftheother13Ramessidkingsareevenconsidered,thiswouldbea
remarkablefeat. However,theonlyvaguehintRohlhaspublishedastohowitistobeaccomplishedisa
suggestionthatRamsesIXandRamsesXImighthavebeencontemporaries, 8 whichisclearlyinsufficient.
Perhapsinrecognitionofthedifficultyofthisproblem,severalother"NewChronology"solutionshavebeen
proposedforShishak'scampaign,includingyear53ofRamsesII,RamsesIIIorevenRamsesIX.9
InordertolowertheaccessionofAhmesfrom1539to1193(346years),whileonlyloweringthedeathof
Amenemhat III from the current lowest date of 1772 to 1645 (127 years) it is necessary to extend the
conventionallengthoftheSecondIntermediatePeriodby219years.Partofthissome50yearsisdoneby
givingearly13thdynastykingsaveragereignsof5years,abouttwicethelengthnormallyassumed. An
uncertainamount,perhaps1020years,comesfromextendingthereignofSebekhotepIVbeyondthedecade
normallyascribedtohim.However,theremaining150yearsorsocanonlycomeafterthereignofDudimose
thatis,attheendofthe13thandinthe17thdynasties.AlthoughRohlisaclosestudentoftheexcavationsat
TellelDaba,hehasnotdiscussedanyoftheEgyptianhistoricaldataonthechronologicalissuessurrounding
thisperiod.Frommyownstudiesofthissubject,Ihaverecentlyproposedachronologyforexactlythisperiod
whichfitswellwithconventionallowmodelfortheNewKingdomandthemiddleorhighmodels(butnotthe
low)fortheMiddleKingdom(i.e.IwouldsetthelengthoftheSecondIntermediatePeriodatabout250
years).10 Thesynchronismssuppliedbythedataare,inmyopinion,looseenoughthatthischronologywill
supportareductionofperhapsadecadeortwointhelateSecondIntermediatePeriod,andanextensionof
perhapsfourdecades.Butanextensionofacenturyandahalfissimplyoutofthequestion.
Inthebook,Rohlexcusessuchomissionsbytheneedtoconformwiththepublicationregulationssurrounding
LondonUniversityPhDs.InapostingtotheUseNetgroupsci.archaeology,heamplifiedthispoint,notingthathe
wasnotinformedoftheseregulationsuntilhisbookandtelevisiondealswerewelladvanced.Ineffect,heargued
thathewastrappedinasituationwherehewasforcedtopublishhisbookbeforehisacademicargumentscouldbe
properlyexamined.Despitethisexperience,hehasnowtakenanotherleaveofabsencefromhisPhDtowritea
secondbookandathirdisalsoplanned.Itappearsunlikelythattheseanalyseswillseethelightofdayforsome
time.
2
Perhapsthemostfarreachingclaiminthebook,madealsobyPeterJames,isthatthecurrentstandardchronology
leads to contradictions in interpreting the historical and archaeological evidence which are so severe that this
chronologymustberegardedasfatallyflawed,anddiscarded.Thisisaveryseriousclaim:itsaysthat,regardlessof
whetherRohl'sownproposalsarecorrect,somealternativeschememustbefoundtothecurrentchronology.These
argumentsrequirereview.
Threechronologicalanomaliesareclaimed.
ThefirstconcernstheApisBullsintheSerapeumatMemphis.ItiswellestablishedforthesecurelydatedSaite
andPtolemaicperiodsthattheaveragelifetimeofanApisBullis18years.However,fortheperiodbetweenthe
firstApisofRamsesIIandthatofPsamtekI(606yearsinconventionalchronology)theevidenceonlypermitsat
most23ApisBullstoberecognisedsufficientfor396years.Therearenosignsofanybullsforthe21stdynasty,
norindeedfortheearlyreignsofthe22nd.
PostscriptChrisBennett19972000Allrightsreserved
OneofKitchen'smajorcriticismsof CenturiesofDarkness istheallegedaversionoftheauthorstogapsinthe

evidence;indeedhecitesthisparticularargumentasaprimeexample. 11IfitwereonlyacaseofmissingApisBulls,
hewouldhaveapoint. MariettefoundevidenceforonehiddenApisburialofatleastthreebulls,notyetfully
excavated;theremaybeothers.Whatismuchmoretroublingisthatthereisnoapparentsignofanyactivityatall
intheSerapeumduringthisperiod,despitehighlevelsofactivityinboththeprecedingandsucceedingperiods.
Thisiscertainlyaphenomenonrequiringexplanation,andKitcheniswrongsimplytobrushitaside. However,
preciselybecauseitisagapintherecord,itisnotnecessarilyevidenceofafatalchronologicalflaw.Theremay
oncehavebeenevidenceof21stdynastyactivity.Ofapproximately1200stelaediscoveredintheSerapeum,only
268havebeenpublished,andnearly400stelae,fullyathirdofthosefound,weredestroyedbyfloodsintheBulaq
museuminCairolastcentury. Suchevidencemayyetbefound,eitherinthebasementoftheLouvre,orinthe
Serapeumitself.TheApisburialsmayhavebeenmovedforacenturyorso,toanewsetofchamberselsewherein
Saqqara,asDavidAstonhassuggested,12orevenfurther.ItmayberelevantthatthefirstsurvivingpostRamessid
Apisisdatedtoyear23ofOsorkonII,andthatthefirstknownroyaltombofthe22ndDynastyisthatwhichhis
motherqueenKapesbuiltforhimandhisfatherTakelothI.
The second "anomaly" concerns the famous cache of royal mummies found intomb TT320. Dockets onthe
mummycasesofSetiIandRamsesII,whichareknowntohavebeenfoundneartheentranceofTT320,describea
movementofthesecoffinsoutofthetombofSetiIon17PeretIVinyear10ofSiamunofthe21stdynasty,anda
secondmovementinvolvingthe kai ("highplace"or"hightrack")ofqueenInhapi,on20PeretIV,whichisthe
samedaythataninscriptionattheentranceofTT320recordstheburialoftheHighPriestofAmunPinudjemII.
However,themummylinenoftheSecondProphetofAmunDjedptahefankhAisdatedtoyear11ofShoshenqI.
SincehiscoffinresteddeepinthetombanditisphysicallyimpossibletogetitpastthecoffinofSetiI,Rohl
concludesthatShoshenqIreignedbeforeSiamunconventionally,theirpositionsarereversed.
An alternative, and chronologically far less drastic, solution to this problem has been proposed by Nicholas
Reeves.13 ReevespointedoutthatTT320cannotbethe kaiofInhapi,becauseInhapiherselfwasfoundnearthe
entrancetoTT320. Thus,theDjedptahefankhlinenshowsthatthemovementfromthe kai toTT320musthave
occurredatsomeundocumenteddateafteryear11ofShoshenqI. Indeed,afterinitiallydenyingit, 14 Rohlnow
acceptsthatTT320isnotthekai,thoughhestillplacesgreatemphasisonthephysicaldifficultiesofmanoeuvring
thecoffins.Thetruecruxofhiscaseisthathenowinterpretsthedocketstomeanthatthecoffinsrestedinthe kai
for only three days while awaiting interment in TT320, on the day of Pinudjem II's burial. However, this
interpretationisatvariancewiththatacceptedbyallotherEgyptologistssinceCerny, 15 namelythatittookthe
authorsofthedocketsthreedaystomovethemummiesfromthetombofSetiItothe kai,andthattheauthors
thoughtofthe kai asthefinalrestingplace,notaninterimstagingpost. Rohlhasnotjustifiedhisalternative
interpretation(norevenacknowledgedthatitisone).
Inthebook,RohlgivesnorecognitiontoReeves'proposal.Elsewhere,hehasobjectedtoitonthegroundsthatit
requirestoomanyassumptions.Inparticular,hepointstothelackofadocketforanymovementafter20PeretIV,
thedateoftheburialofPinudjemII.However,neitherInhapinorAmenhotepI,whoweremovedtoTT320onthe
samedayastheotherkingsunderallhypotheses,havedocketsfor20PeretIV,indicatingthattheywerenotmoved
onthatday.ItisalsotobenotedthatReeves'assumptions,betheyexcessiveornot(and,inthisreviewer'sopinion,
theyarenot)areentirelylocalinscope. Whenthealternativeproposalonthetableistojettisontheexisting
chronology,onemaywonderwhoismakingthelargerleapoffaith!
Thethird"anomaly"relatesprimarilytothenorthernwallofthetombofOsorkonIIatTanis.Forpartofitslength,
thiswallisimmediatelyadjacenttothesouthernwallofthetombofAkheperrePasebakhaenniut(conventionally,
PsusennesI),tothenorth,whichwasconventionallybuiltoveracenturyearlier.Atthepointsofcontact,thiswall
isasinglethickness;onboththeeastandwestsidesofthesepoints,thewallisofdoublethickness,withtheextra
layerbeingplacedontheoutside.Thus,thesouthernwallofthetombofPsusennesIappearstobeinsertedintopart
ofthenorthernwallofthetombofOsorkonII,withtheouterthicknessofthewallhavingbeingremoved,forthe
lengthofthesouthernwallofPsusennes'tomb,inordertoallowfortheextensionofthistombtothesouth.Rohl's
argumentisthatsuchastructurewouldordinarilyimplythatthetombofPsusenneswaslaterthanthatofOsorkon,
thoughinconventional chronologytheyareinreverseorder. Thisobservationcausedtheoriginal excavators,
MontetandLzine,considerabledifficulties.TheirsuggestionwasthatOsorkon'stombwasnotoriginaltohim,and
thatitsnorthernwallwasrebuiltforhim.
Of the three "anomalies" this is the one which has met with the most favourable response from professional
archaeologists,manyofwhomapparentlyagreethatnootherclearexplanationhasbeenprovided.Moreover,one
has to agree with Rohl that the interpretation made by Montet and Lzine makes very little sense, since the
inscriptionsontheinteriorfaceofthenorthernwallofOsorkon'stomb,andotherevidence,clearlyshowthatthe
tombwasconstructedforhimbyhismother.
Nevertheless,notallarchaeologistsagreewithRohl.JeanYoyotte,whocurrentlyholdstheconcessionforthesite,
argued,inaninterviewbrieflyexcerptedinthetelevisionserieswhichisnotreferredtointhebook,thatRohlmust
waitforanewsurveyofthetombinteriorstobecompletedbeforedrawinganyfinalconclusions.Rohlhimselfhas
argued that the alterations made to the interior of Psusennes' tomb to accommodate the burial of his general
Wendjebaendjed,resultinginthesouthwardextensionthatabutsOsorkon'stomb,supporthisargumentforapre
existingtombtothesouth.Adetailedplanofthetombinteriors,basedonMontetandLzine'swork,isreproduced
asFigure108ofRohl'sbook,whichallowsthisargumenttobefollowedindetail.Yetacloseexaminationofthe
interiorplanofOsorkon'stombasshowninthisplanunderscoresYoyotte'spoint.
Itisclearthatthetombwallsareindeedfrequentlyofdoublethickness. ThisissoforeverywallinPsusennes'
tomb,andforthewestwallandpartsoftheeastandnorthwallsofOsorkon'stomb.However,itisnottrueforthe
burialchamberofTakelothIandotherstructuresonthesouthsideofOsorkon'stomb,norisittrueforanyofthe
interiorwallsofthistomb.Moreover,exceptwheretheinnerthicknessisaliningofgranite(notably,thenorthand
southwallsofOsorkon'sownburialchamber),thereisnoreasontobelievethattheinterfacebetweeninnerand
outerwallsisaligned.Ifwetakeawaytheouterskin,asRohlargueshasbeendonehere,thenthenewexternalface
shouldfollowanirregularline.ButthatisnotwhattheMontet/Lzineplanshows.ThenorthernwallofOsorkon's
tombiscertainlyofsinglethickness,whereitabutsontothesouthernfaceofPsusennes',butitsoutsidefaceis
showntobealignedexactlyaswewouldexpectforafacingthatwasoriginallyintendedtobetheexteriorfaceof
thetomb.
Now,itmustbenotedthattheplanofMontetandLzineisnotfullyaccurateonthispoint:therearesomesignsof
suchdressing.16Inparticular,thestonesinOsorkon'stombattheeasternendoftheinsetsectionshownotchingto
accommodatethewallofPsusennes'tomb.But,wasthepreexistingwallshapedtoaccommodatenewstoneorwas
thenewstoneshapedtofitapreexistingwall?Commonsensesuggeststhelatter.Inordertoalignanirregular
intermediaryinterfaceonceithasbeenexposed,onemustfirstdressthestonealongthelengthofthatinterface.
Thisisanexpensiveactivity,andnotonelikelytobeundertakeniftheresultwasimmediatelygoingtobehidden
byanothertombwithanimmediatelyadjacentwall,unlessabsolutelynecessary.Infact,nosuchadjustmentsare
likelyunlesstheyimpactthestructureofthenewwall.Ifitisnecessarytomakeafitbetweentwosuchsurfaces,it
isatleastaslikelythatthestoneforthenewstructure,whichisfarmoremanoeuverable,willbedressedtofittothe
existingshape. However,itwilltakeverycloseexaminationtodeterminewhetherthedressingoccurredduring
constructionofOsorkon'stomboratalatertime.
WhenconsideringthehypothesisthatanouterskinhasbeenstrippedawayfromthenorthernwallofOsorkon's
tomb,itmustalsobenotedthatthedoublethicknessatthewesternendofthiswallisofadifferentcharactertomost
instancesofthisphenomenoninthetombcomplex. ThepointatwhichPsusennes'tombrecedestothenorth
coincideswiththemidpointontheinteriornorthsouthwallwithinOsorkon'stombthatmarkstheeasternboundary
ofhisburialchamber(acoincidence,incidentally,whichisdifficulttoexplainifPsusennes'tombwerebuiltlast).
TheentirewesternsectionofthenorthwallisthereforetheexternalfaceofthenorthwallofOsorkon'sburial
chamber.Theinteriorthicknessofthissectionisthegraniteliningofthischamber,andasnotedabovethisislikely
tobealignedontheinterfacetotheexteriorwallbecauseitisadifferenttypeofstone.Inaveryrealsense,virtually
theentireexteriornorthwallisofsinglethicknessstone.Onlyattheeasternend,neartheentranceandpasttheend
ofthesouthwallofPsusennes'tomb,isthereaprojectionfromthenorthwallwhichbreaksthispattern.
Thus,whileIhavenoexplanationforthisprojection,thepartofthewallthatactuallyadjoinsPsusennes'tombdoes
notparticularlysupportthetheorythatitisofearlierdate.
ThereisanotherfactorwhichMontet andLzinewereunabletoconsider. Southofthemainpassagewayin
Osorkon's tomb lies the burial chamber of a king Takeloth (in which, incidentally, all walls are of a single
thickness).MontetandLzineconsideredthistobeTakelothII,whowaslaterthanOsorkonII,butithassince
beenestablishedthatthisisthetombofOsorkon'sfather,TakelothI. 17Thusthejointtombformsasinglecomplex,
builtunderthedirectionofOsorkon'smotherqueenKapes,andofmuchmorecomplexdesignthanwouldbethe
caseifeachtombhadbeenbuiltatdifferenttimes.Thisbeingso,theremayhavebeenachangeofplannecessitated
bythepresenceofthemorenortherntomb.
Finally,onemaynotethatthedesignsofthetombsofOsorkonIIandAkheperrePsusennesarequitedifferentfrom
eachother,bothintheirlayoutandtheirconstruction.UnderRohl'schronology,thetwokingsarecontemporaries.
Whyisthisnotreflectedinthearchitectureoftheirtombs?
IwanttostressthattheissuehereisnotwhetherRohl'sexplanationsoranyparticularcounterexplanationsfor
Rohl'sthree"anomalies"arecorrect.Inmyownview,onlytheburialofDjedptahefankhAinTT320hasreceiveda
satisfactoryexplanationunderthe"conventional"chronology.Onecanevenconcede,forthesakeofargument,that
Rohl'sexplanationsmayinfactbecorrect,reservingonlytheconcessionthattheyhavenotbeenproven.Thepoint
isthatthereexist"conventional"explanationswhicharereasonableandeconomicalwiththeirassumptions,while
remainingconsistentwiththecurrentchronology.Theproblemsareallworthyofstudyandanalysis,butneither
alonenortogetherdothey force ustosolutionsinvolvingdrasticchronological revisions. Tothisextent,the
prejudicethatmuchoftheacademicestablishmenthasshownwithregardtoRohl'stheoriesiswellfounded:just
likeother"revisionist"theorists,Rohlhasleaptforaradicalconclusionwhenitisfarfromclearthatsuchsolutions
arenecessary.
Nevertheless,theproblemsarereal,andRohlisrighttopointthemout.Adeeperstudyofthemwouldcertainly
revealvaluableinsightsintothehistoryofthetime. Rohl'sownactivitiesindicatehowthiscanhappen. For
example,theSerapeumcreatesproblemsforRohl'sownscheme:evenifareductionof200yearsweregrantedon
thebasisofthe"missing"bulls,itwouldnotmeetthe350requiredforhischronology.Rohlproposestomeetthis
problembyanalysingsomeoftheallegedBullsoutofexistenceonthegroundsofinsufficientevidence.Moreover,
hemustdosowhilesimultaneouslysolvingtheproblemoftheBullsoftheearly22nddynasty,whicharemissing
undertheNewChronologyaswellasundertheconventionalscheme(unlesstheybethethreethatMariettesawbut
couldnotexcavate). Inviewofthecleargapintherecord,suchareanalysishasmerit,regardlessofwhose
chronologyiscorrect,andregardlessoftheoutcomeforthesequenceofApisBulls.
3
Itis,ofcourse,perfectlypossiblethatthestandardchronologyiswrong,eventhoughnofatallogicalcontradictions
haveasyetbeenfound.Rohlcorrectlypointsoutthatthesynchronismsonwhichthecurrentchronologyrestsare
fewinnumberandarenotwithoutdifficultiesofinterpretation.ThedatedSothicsightingwhichwasonceheldto
fixNewKingdomchronologyis,aswehaveseen,nowwidelydiscountedasnotbeingaSothicsightingatall. 18
ThelunarobservationswhichdatethereignsofRamsesIIandThutmosisIIIadmitmultiplesolutions,repeatedina
25yearcycle.AssuruballitofAssyriadoeshaveadifferentfatherintheAmarnaletters(AssurnadinahheII)from
thatgiventoAssuruballitIinthekinglists(EribaAdadI). 19 ThePalestiniancampaignofShoshenqIdoesnot
matchwellwiththeJudeancampaignofShishakdescribedintheBookofKings(thoughitmustbesaidatoncethat
Rohl'sproposedidentificationofthisastheMoabitecampaigninyear8ofRamsesIIisnobetter).Andcalibrated
14
Cdating,totheextentitcanbeappliedinEgypt,doesdivergefromhistoricallyderiveddatesthoughinthe
oppositedirectiontothatpreferredbyRohl.20Itissalutarytoberemindedofthesefacts.
Havingnotedthelimitationsofthebasicchronologicalsynchronisms,Rohlhaserectedanalternativechronology
basedonareinterpretationofmuchthesameevidenceasthestandardchronology.Inabriefreviewsuchasthisitis
notpossibletocritiquealltheargumentsthatarerelevanttothisthesis,rangingastheydofromarchaeoastronomy
toPalestinianarchaeologytodendrochronologytoBiblicalcriticismtoancientlinguisticstostatisticalanalysis,
evenhadIthenecessaryexpertise,andeventhoughsomeoftheseareassuchasthedifficultiesofapplyingthe
NewChronologytotheAssyriankinglistpresentmajor,ifnotinsuperable,objectionstothetheory.SinceRohl's
argumentsonEgyptiangenealogywillbeofparticularinteresttothereadersofthisjournal,Iwillfocusonthisarea
fortheremainderofthisarticle.
Rohlmakesuseofgenealogyforthreepurposes.First,heusesgenealogiestoestimatetime,basedonanassumed
averageintergenerationalinterval. Second,hearguesthatthegenealogicaldatasupportshiscasethatEgyptian
chronologymustbecompressed. Andfinally,histheoriesrequirethatanumberofgenealogiesheldtosupport
particularpointsoftheconventionalchronologymustbereexaminedtofittheNewChronology.
Whenusinggenealogiestoestimateperiodsoftime,Rohlusesanintergenerationalaverageof20years. Two
justificationsaregivenforthisnumber:theauthorityofitsusebyKitchenandbyMorrisBierbrier 21; andan
independentcalculationsuppliedbyRohlbasedontheregnalstatisticsforanumberofancientdynasties.Thefirst
observationissomewhatmisleading. WhileKitchenandBierbrierdidindeedusethisnumberforcalculational
purposes,Bierbrierconcludedthatanaveragegenerationalintervalof25yearswasmuchmoreappropriate.Inview
ofthisconclusion,itwouldbefairtouse25yearswhenestimatingtimefromgenealogiesundertheconventional
chronology.
Thesecondargument,presentedinRohl'sFigure407,isaremarkablepieceofwork.Essentially,hehastaken19
dynasticgroupswhoserelativechronologiesareheldtobereasonablysecure,tottedupthetotalamountoftimeand
thetotalnumberofkings,anddividedonebytheothertoarriveatanaveragereignlengthof16.75years.Thisis
thenincreasedto20years"toallowforoccasionalusurpationsandbrothersuccessions".
Asanestimateofanaverageintergenerationalinterval,thenumberofmethodologicalflawsinthisanalysisis
almosttoolargetocount. Thedynastieslistedincludefour(19thand20thdynasties,earlyAssyriankings,and
Babyloniankings)whosechronologiesaredirectlyaffectedbyRohl'sowntheories,andhencemustberemovedas
subjudice. TheBabyloniankingsbetweenSumuabiandSennacheribaretreatedasasingledynasty,asarethe
kingsofIsrael,eventhoughitiswelldocumentedthatmultipledynastiesareinvolvedineachcase,manyofwhich
consistedofonlyoneortwokings. ThelateArsacidkingsofIranareincludedeventhoughtheirgenealogyis
almostcompletelyunknown.DynastiesareincludedfromcompletelydifferentsocietiesEgyptian,Mesopotamian,
Judean,Greek,Iranianwithnoapparentrecognitionthatthemarriagecustomsofthesesocietieswereentirely
differentandthereforelikelytoresultindifferentagesformarriageandchildbirth.Notonlybrotherlysuccession
may occur but all sortsofjumpswithina familycan occur; indeed,the verydefinitionof what constitutesa
generationisathornyissuewhentherearesuchjumps,orwhen,aswiththePtolemiesinthisgroup,thereisa
significantamountofinbreeding.Norecognitionappearstoexistforthebiasingeffectsofdynastictermini:the
founderofadynastymayachievethethronelateinlife;thelastrulermaylosethethroneearlyinlife.Andsoon,
andsoon.
In an examination of the utility of oral genealogies for estimating intervals of time, the anthropologist David
Hennigeperformedagenerationalanalysison737welldocumenteddynastiesworldwide,resultinginadistribution
chartshowingdynasticaveragesrangingfrom 15to49years. 22 PartlyinreactiontoBierbrier'swork,Henige
providedasummaryofthisworktotheEgyptologicalcommunityinwhichhearguedthattheaveragecouldeasily
beevenlargerthanBierbrier's25years. Thiswork,whilenot specificallyfocussedonEgypt,ismuchmore
extensiveandmethodologicallyfarmoresoundthanRohl'seffort,anditiscuriousRohlhasmadenonoteofit.
SinceBierbrier'sworkwasundertakenintheconventionalchronologicalframework,andsincesimilarstudieshave
not, to the best of my knowledge, been carried out for the upper classes of the Egyptian populace in the
chronologicallysecureSaiteandPtolemaicperiods,theonlyreasonablyvalidcrosscheckonecaneasilymakeisto
estimate theintergenerational interval oftherulingdynasties themselves,based ontheirrelativereignlengths.
However,thereareveryfewdynastieswhichcanreasonablybeusedtoestablishsuchanintergenerationalinterval:
the12th,the18thfromThutmosisItoAkhenaten,the26thfromtheaccessionofPsamtekItothedeathofWahibre
(Apries),andthePtolemies.Othersareeithertoolittleknown,tooshorttoestablishavalidsample,or,asnoted
above,subjudice.Eventhe6thmustbediscountedowingtothetrulyexceptionalreignofPepiII(94years), 23and
onecouldarguethatthePtolemiesaremoreGreekthanEgyptian,thoughtheirenthusiasticpracticeofdynastic
incestsuggestsotherwise.TothesewemayaddthePtolemaicHighPriestsofMemphis,fromAmenherII(died217
BC) to Pedubastis IV (died 30 BC). Making allowances for uncertainties in chronology and the number of
generationsinvolved,onearrivesatthefollowingchart,whichclearlysupportsBierbrier'sandHenige'sarguments
forgenerationalaveragessignificantlyhigherthan20years. 24
Dynasty
Duration
Generations
Minimum
Maximum
12th
178213
78
22.25
30.5
18th(partial)
154190
22
27.1
26th(partial)
96
24
24
Ptolemies
275
910
27.5
30.6
PtolemaicHPMs
187
26.7
26.7
24.7
28.3
Average
*
Turning to the second line of argument, there are three genealogies which Rohl invokes to argue that the
genealogical data requires a lowering of the chronology. These are the genealogies of the Royal Architect
Khnemibre,theMemphiteHighpriests,andNespaherenhat,descendantofRoma,secondprophetofAmununder
RamsesII.ThefirstrelatestotheshorteningoftheThirdIntermediatePeriodaftertheaccessionofShoshenqI;the
lasttwototheallegedcontemperaneitybetweenthe21stand22nddynasties.Itisfurtherclaimedthatthereareno
genealogiesextantwhichcontradicttheproposedshorteningofthechronology.
The genealogy of Khnemibre is immediately suspect. It is carved on the walls of the quarry in the Wadi
Hammamat,alocationinwhichtheauthor'saccesstowrittengenealogicalsourcesislikelytohavebeenrather
limited,soonemustassumeitcomesfromtheauthor'smemorythatis,itisanoralcreation,inaliteratesociety.
Further,immediatelyprecedingtheauthor'sgreatgrandfatherweencounternolessthanfourrepetitionsofthe
doublet Nestefnut sonofTja(en)hebyu. Thelevel ofsuspicionthat theauthoriscompensatingforalapsein
memorymustbehigh.
ThegenealogyoftheMemphiteHighPriestspresentsspecialproblemswhichrequireanentirearticletothemselves,
andindeedDavidKelleyhasrecentlywrittenonefortheSociety.25Sufficeittosayherethatseveralportionsofthis
genealogypresentclearexamplesoferrors,aspointedoutbyKitchen. Further,asKelleyhasillustratedclearly,
thereisagoodcase,basedonindependentevidence,toarguethatseveralgenerationsaremissingintheportionof
thetablecoveringthe19thand20thdynasties,exactlyasonewouldexpectoncurrentchronologicalschemes.Rohl
hasinsteadchosentoacceptthatthisshortenedportionofthetableisreliable,implyingthatthe20thdynastymust
beshortenedaccordingly;indeed,itishismainpositiveevidenceforthisposition,which,aswehaveseenabove,is
highly problematic. The portion of the genealogy indicated to be contemporary to the 21st dynasty presents
difficultiesofadifferenttype,sinceitisnotclearwhich21stdynastykingsarebeingnamed.InRohl'sview,itcan
beinterpretedatfacevaluetoreconstructthe21stdynastyascontemporarytotheearly22nd.Iwilldiscussthis
argumentinmoredetailbelow.
ThethirdgenealogicalwitnessforRohl'sviewscomesfromthegenealogyofNespaherenhat,descendedfromIpuy,
sempriest of Merenptah and son of Roma, second prophet of Amun under Ramses II. This requires nine
generations from Ipuy, who on good grounds is a nearcontemporary of Merenptah (c12121202), to
Ankhefenkhons,sonofNespaherenhat,acontemporaryofOsorkonI(c920BC).OnRohl'sgenerationalaverageof
20years,therearefivegenerationsapparentlymissingfromthisgenealogy,andevenacceptingBierbrier'saverage
of25yearstherearetwo.However,thereisnoindependentdocumentationforthisbranchofthefamily,soitis
quitepossiblethatwehavehereasimplecaseofhaplography.
Norisittruethattherearenolonggenealogiessupportingthecurrentchronology.RobertRitner
hasrecentlypublisheda26generationgenealogyofBasa,ThirdProphetofHathoratDendera. 26
Thisgenealogyisinscribedonastatuethatislate22ndor23rddynastyinstyle,i.e.late9thor
8thcenturyBCintraditionalchronology. Itincludes,atgeneration7,theThebanHighPriest
Nebwenef,whowasappointedinyear1anddiedinyear12ofRamsesII. UsingBierbrier's
generationalestimateof25years,Basa'sfloruitshouldoccur19*25=475yearslater.Ifyear1
ofRamsesIIis1279,thenBasalivedc805,whichisexactlyasexpected.However,onRohl's
chronology(year8ofRamsesII=925BC)Basa'sfloruitisc460i.e.thePersianperiod.Even
usingRohl's20yearfigure,wearriveatadistanceof19*20=380yearsafterthefirstdecadeof
RamsesII.ThisstillplacesBasaatc550BC,whichislateSaiteonanybody'schronology.Both
datesarecompletelyincompatibleforthestyleofthestatue.
Inemaildiscussionofthisgenealogy,Rohlpointedouttomethatthelastfourgenerationsrepeatthenamesofthe
previousfourinthesameorder,whichsuggeststhatthegenealogymaybefourgenerationstoolong.Thereisno
grammaticalorstructuralindicationofabreakpointwhichwouldindicatethatanerroroftranscriptionmayhave
occurred. However,supposeweaccept thisproposedcorrectionforthesakeofargument. Onthetraditional
chronology,itreducestheintervalbetweenBasaandRamsesIIbyaboutacenturyperhapsbarelysufficientto
support the proposed contemperaneity between dynasties 21 and 22 but no more. On Rohl's chronology this
proposedcorrectionraisesBasa'sdatetoc630,stilllateinthereignofPsamtekIandafullgenerationafterUpper
Egypthadacceptedhisrulein656.Now,thearthistoryofthisperiodispoorlydocumented.Althoughdepictions
ofMontuemhat,MayorofThebesatthistime,showaclearstylistictransitiontowardsstylesofthelaterSaite
period,Montuemhatwasoneofthemostpowerfulmenofhisday,abletodrawonthebestsculptorsavailable.Itis
perfectlypossiblethatamereThirdProphetinnearbyDenderaatthattimewouldonlybeabletodrawontheskills
ofconservativecraftsmen,accountingforthearchaicstyleofthestatue.
Thus,byexploitingboththeduplicationofnamesandaweaknessinthearthistoricalrecord,itispossibletoargue
thattheBasagenealogymightbeconsistentwiththeNewChronology.Butthepointremainsthatitisprimafacie
evidenceagainsttheassertionthatthelonggenealogiesallpointtoashorteningoftheThirdIntermediatePeriod.
A deeper issue to consider here are the reasons these long genealogies exist, and their implications for their
reliability. Ritner pointed out that the examples we have are all products of the Libyan period or later, and
suggestedthattheycameintoexistenceinresponsetotheimportancethattheLibyansthemselves,productsofan
illiterate,tribalsociety,placedonsuchgenealogiesinordertoestablishclaimstoauthority.Ifthisthesisiscorrect,
anditseemsplausible,thenitimpliesthatthegenealogieswehavearetheresultofthegenealogicalresearchofthe
ancientEgyptiansthemselves.WhiletheEgyptianscertainlyhadaccesstomorerecordsthanwedotoday,thereis
noreasontobelievethattheirstandardsofresearchaccuracywereparticularlyhigh. Iftheprimaryreasonfor
researchwastodemonstratethatanEgyptianlinewasofgreaterantiquitythanaLibyanone,thenanyresultsforthe
periodprecedingtheriseofthe22nddynastyarelikelytohavebeenlesscarefullyresearchedthanthoseformore
recenttimes.Thus,alltheselonggenealogiesmustberegardedasindicativeoftheEgyptians'viewoftheirown
past,ratherthanasarecordofguaranteedaccuracy. Onlywherethegenealogiescanbecrosscheckedagainst
contemporaryrecords,orwheretheyrefertorecentgenerationsbeforetheauthor,shouldtheybeacceptedaslikely
tobehighlyreliable.Inpointoffact,onlyonecanbecrosscheckedforsignificantportionsofitslengththatof
theMemphitehighpriestsandaswehaveseenaboveitisclearlyproblematic.
4
Perhaps the only truly valid genealogical test for Rohl's theories is to examine the genealogies supplied and
supportedbycontemporaryevidence.Turningfinally,then,totheimplicationsofhistheoriesforthegenealogiesof
theThirdIntermediatePeriod,Iwillconsiderfourparticularproblems:thesuccessionorderofthe21stdynasty;the
ancestryofShoshenqI;theProphetsofAmunatThebes;andtheHighPriestsofPtahatMemphis.Althoughthese
issuesareconsideredinRohl'sJACFpapers,andnotinthebook,theyaresignificantelementsofhisproposed
reconstruction,andsomeritreviewhere.
*
*
*
*
*
*
While many aspects of the New Chronology are only presented in outline, a detailed reconstruction may be
extractedforthecoreperiodofthe21stand22nddynastiesbetweenthisbookandtheJACFpapers,whichis
summarisedinthefollowingtable.
NewChronology(Rohl)
2728
StandardChronology(Kitchen)
21stDynasty(Tanite)
HedjkheperreSmendes
10691043
HedjkheperreSmendes
855829
NeferkareAmenemnisu
10431039
TjetkheperreHarPsusennesI
828780
AkheperrePsusennesI
1039991
NeferkareAmenemnisu
783780
UsermaatreAmenemopet
991984
UsermaatreAmenemopet
779770
AkheperreOsorkon(Osochor)
984978
UsermaatreOsorkon(II)
769764
NetjerkheperreSiamun
978959
[NetjerkheperreSiamun]
(781769)
TjetkheperreHarPsusennesII
959945
AkheperrePsusennesII
763?754
Hedjheqa...rePsusennesIII
?754?740
22ndDynasty
HedjkheperreSheshonqI
945924
HedjkheperreSheshonqI
823802
SekhemkheperreOsorkonI
924889
SekhemkheperreOsorkonI
802787
[HeqakheperreShoshenqII]
890889
HedjkheperreTakelothI
787779
HedjkheperreTakelothI
889874
UsermaatreOsorkonII
785762
UsermaatreOsorkonII
874850
[HeqakheperreShoshenqII]
772769
[HedjkheperreHarsiesi]
870860
[HedjkheperreHarsiesi]
769765
HedjkheperreTakelothII
850825
[HedjkheperreTakelothII]
764739
UsermaatreShoshenqIII
825773
UsermaatreShoshenqIII
762723
UsermaatrePimai
773767
HedjkheperreSheshonq(Ib)
723710
AkheperreShoshenqV
767730
UsermaatrePimai
710705
AkheperreOsorkonIV
730715
AkheperreShoshenqV
705669?
Itwillbenotedthatthe22nddynastyisquitesimilarinthetworeconstructions.RohlreassignsOsorkonIVtothe
23rd, makes Shoshenq II a contemporary of Osorkon II, and, following Aston, places Takeloth II as a
contemporaneousThebanking,achangewhichisunderdebatewithintheconventionalarrangementinanycase.
Additionally,asecondkingHedjkheperreShoshenqisidentified,reigninglateinthedynasty,aproposalwhichhas
beenendorsedbythe"conventional"scholarAidanDodson,thoughheacceptsRohl'scaseonlyinpart. 29 Apart
fromtheseadjustments,Rohl'sreconstructiondiffersmostlyinreignlengthsfromtheconventionalarrangement.
ThemostsignificantchangeistheredatingofShoshenqIItolateinthereignofOsorkonII.Thisisthefirstoftwo
keystepsthatpermitthetwodynastiestobeplacedinparallel,sinceShoshenqwasthesonofakingOsorkon,and
thegrandson,byaprincessMaatkare,ofkingTjetkheperreHarPsusennes,conventionallyPsusennesIIofthe21st
dynasty.ThesecondkeystepistoswapthetwokingsPsusennes,sothatTjetkheperrebecomesPsusennesIand
AkheperrebecomesPsusennesII. Theremainingchangestothe21stdynastycomebyreturningthesuccession
ordertothatofManetho,andbyinterpretingthelistofkingsnamedonthegenealogyoftheMemphitehighpriests
withinthislight.
Isthisnewarrangementconsistentwiththecontemporaryevidence?
Wefirstconsiderthelasttwokings.TheMemphitegenealogynamesfoursuccessivegenerationsascontemporaries
ofthree21stdynastykings:Amenemnisu,Akheperre,andPsusennes(twice).InKitchen'sreconstruction,thelast
threereferencesareconsideredtobetoasingleking,AkheperrePsusennes(I),whoreignedfor4649yearsearlyin
thedynasty. Rohl,however,placesAkheperreasPsusennesII. AccordingtoManetho,thelastkingPsusennes
reignedfor15years,whichisnotsufficientforthreegenerations.SinceRohlacceptsManethoisaccurateforthe
21stdynasty,andsincetheMemphitegenealogyplacesakingAkheperrebeforeakingPsusennes,hehasadopted
theingenioussolutionofidentifyingAkheperrewithManetho's"Psinaches"(conventionallySiamun),exploitingthe
factthatnoonecanexplaintheoriginofthisname.Rohlarguesthat,bywhateverdistortionthenamecameinto
being,"Psinaches"iscloserto"AkheperrePasebakhaenniut"thatitistoanyelementof"NetjerkheperreSiamun".
Since "Psinaches" only reigned 9 years according to Manetho, the three generations of priests must be
accommodatedwithina24yearperiod.Thisisbarelypossible,ifoneassumesthatthefirstaccededinyear1of
Akheperre,andthatbothheandhissuccessorhadshortpontificatesoflittleoveradecade.
The last two generations are then contemporaries of a third king Psusennes. Evidence has been cited for a
PsusennesIII,butitisveryslight:areadinginthejournalsofGardinerWilkinsonofthename"Hedjheqa...re
Psusennes"inafragmentaryThebaninscriptionnowlost.HereRohlrunsintoasignificantproblem.Dodsonhas
recently located the relevant entry in Wilkinson's journals, and has shown that the "inscription" is a graffito
recordingtwopromotionsreceivedbyitsunknownauthorundertwodifferentlynamedkings. 30Thefirstoftheseis
akingHarPsusennes(i.e.TjetkheperrePsusennes)andthesecondakingHedjkheperre,whosenomenislost.In
boththeconventionalchronologyandinRohl's,heismostreasonablyidentifiedasShoshenqI.However,weare
nowleftwithabsolutelynoevidencefora"PsusennesIII"!
Rohl's displacement of Siamun is also problematic. In his view, Siamun becomes an honorary Theban king,
analogoustoPinudjemIorShoshenqII,andassuchisoutsidethelineof21stdynastykingsrecordedbyManetho.
YetSiamunisverydifferentfromtheseotherkings.Unliketheothers,hedidnotholdthetitleofHighPriestof
Amun.Unliketheothers,heusedhisownregnalyears.Unliketheothers,andmostcuriouslyforakingofUpper
Egypt,hebuiltnotonlyinMemphisbutinTanisitself.Further,whileSiamunhasnocleargenealogicalaffiliations
withanyoneintherecord,thepossibilityatleastexistsinthestandardchronologythathewasasonofOsochoror
Amenemope.IntheNewChronology,nosuchpossibilityexists.TheonlyroleforSiamunwhichmakessenseisto
10
regard him as sole king of a different line, dominant in Egypt immediately before Osorkon II (and possibly
explainingwhythereisnocontemporaryevidenceforTakelothI).
"Osochor"(Osorkon)isperhapstheleastknownofthe21stdynastykings.TheevidenceforAkheperrebeinghis
prenomeniscircumstantial,beingbasedonananalysisofthegenerationalintervalsimpliedbytwoconsecutive
recordsinthePriestlyAnnalsofKarnak. 31 InRohl'schronologythiscancertainlybeexplainedbyassigningthe
firstoftheserecordstoAkheperrePsusennes.Nevertheless,theseparateexistenceofafifthkingOsorkon,theson
ofakingsmotherMehtenweshkhetA,whowasnotthemotherofanyoftheotherknownkingsOsorkon,seems
assured from a genealogy analysed by Yoyotte. 32 Rohl's suggestion that Osochor is nothing but an avatar of
OsorkonIIcanonlybesustainedbysupposingthatMehtenweshkhetwashismotherinlaw.However,itmustalso
beadmittedthattheactualidentityofOsochorisnotcentraltoRohlsthesis,sinceMehtenweshkhetssonis,under
hisscheme,anearcontemporaryofOsorkonII.
Finally,thereistherelativepositionsofthetwokingsPsusennesIandAmenemnisu. Manethorecordsthemas
consecutive,rulinginthatorder,andRohlhasfollowedthisschema.Moreover,heacceptsthatthebowcapsfound
inthetombofAkheperrePsusennesnamingbothAkheperrePsusennes(II)andAmenemnisu,sidebyside,implya
closeconnectionbetweenthesekings,sothatAmenemnisumusthavereignedshortlybeforeAkheperrePsusennes.
However,healsoacceptsKitchen'sargumentthatPsusennesI(beheTjetkheperreorAkheperre)wascoregentatthe
end ofhisreignwithAmenemopet,whothereforesucceededhim directly. Toreconcilethesetwoviews,he
supposes that Amenemnisu was a coregent of Tjetkheperre Psusennes (I) late in his reign, but who had no
independentreignofhisown,beingsucceededbyAmenemopetbothascoregentandeventualheirtoTjetkheperre.
Inotherwords,hesupposesthatAmenemnisuhadnoindependentreignofhisownandyetthatManethocredited
himwithone.
ThusweseethatoneverypointRohl'sdetailedreconstructionrunsintodifficulties.Itmaywellbearguedthatthe
difficultiesarenotinsuperable,butthefactoftheirexistencedoesnotinspireconfidencethattheNewChronology
isanymorecapableofsolvingEgyptianhistoricalproblemsthantheold.
*
*
*
*
*
*
TheancestryofShoshenqIisconventionallyderivedfrom thesteleofPasenhor(B),whodiedinyear37of
ShoshenqV.ThissteleisusuallyinterpretedasgivingasinglelineofancestryforPasenhor,makinghimafifth
generationdescendantofNimlotC,sonofOsorkonII,andhiswifeTentshepehC.Theusualinterpretationthen
traces his ancestry through Takeloth I, Osorkon I, Shoshenq I, Nimlot A, Great Chief of Ma, and his wife
TentshepehA,andthenceafurtherfivegenerationstoacertainBuyuwawatheLibyan.
ThedifficultyforRohlliesinthefactthatMehtenweshetA,themotherofNimlotA,GreatChiefofMaand
grandmotherofShoshenqIinthisinterpretation,iscalledaking'smother.Aswehaveseen,Yoyottehaspointed
outthatthiscanonlybethelate21stdynastykingnamedbyManethoasOsochor.Thisisaconclusionwhich,in
the light of the usual interpretation of the Pasenhor stele, clearly places the bulk of the 21st dynasty in the
generationsprecedingShoshenqI,andisabsolutelydevastatingtoRohl'sthesis.
Rohl'sriposteistoreanalysetheexactlanguageofthePasenhorstele.Focussingontheduplicationofthename
pairNimlotandTentshepeh,hesuggeststhattheyareinfactonecouple.Hefurthernotesthatthesteledoesnot
explicitly say that Shoshenq I was son of Nimlot A, Great Chief of Ma. Traditionally, this interpretation is
supportedbecauseNimlotiscalled"God'sfather",atitlewhich,amongstotheruses,isusedtodescribethenon
rulinghumanfatherofthedivinepharaoh. However,"God'sfather"doesnothavetomeanthisitcansimply
denotepossessionofareligiousoffice.Exploitingsuchambiguities,Rohlarguesthattheancestrysplitsintotwo
lines:thatTentshepehA/CwasadaughterofOsorkonII,andherancestorswerelistedbacktoShoshenqI,andthat
NimlotA/CwasdescendedfromthelineoftheChiefsofMausuallyassociatedwithShoshenqI.Theneteffectof
thisisthatMehtenweshetbecomesagenerationalcontemporaryofOsorkonII,andherson,ifkingOsochorhebe
(for,aswehaveseen,Rohlclaims"Osochor"asanavatarofOsorkonII),nowbecomesevidencethatthe21stand
22nddynastieswerecontemporaries,exactlyasRohlrequires.
Thisdemonstrationisveryimpressiveinitsingenuity.Neverthelessitisnotcomplete,becauseitdoesnotaddress
thestrongancillaryevidenceadducedbyKitchentosupportvariousstagesofthegenealogy.Inparticular,thereis
independentevidencefortwoNimlots,one(NimlotA)thesonofaShoshenqChiefofMaandMehtenweshet,and
theother(NimlotC)thesonofOsorkonII.Rohlsargument,thatNimlotCwasnotthesonofOsorkonIIbuthis
soninlaw,theoreticallyallowshim toappeartohavetwodifferent fathers. But,NimlotCisnamedinan
inscriptionofyear16ofOsorkonII,holdingtitlessimilartothefirstNimlotonthePasenhorstele(butnotthetitle
11
"ChiefofMa"),andwithhisparentsbeingexplicitlynamedasOsorkonIIandDjedmutesankh(avariantofthe
MutudjankhesofPasenhor).33Rohlsindirectinterpretationthereforeseemsunlikely.
NimlotA,ChiefofMa,isnamedasthesonofShoshenq(A),ChiefofMaandMehtenweshet,onafunerarystele
erectedforhimbyhissonShoshenqB,alsoChiefofMa,whichunfortunatelyonlysurvivesinpart. 34 Thisis,
incidentally,amostinterestingdocument,becauseanunnamedkingofEgyptisshowntreatingNimlot'ssonas
virtuallyanequal.ItisalltoocrediblethatthestelecapturesShoshenqIonhiswaytothethronewithaweak21st
dynastypharaohSiamunorPsusennesIIactingashispuppet.OnRohl'sinterpretation,however,ShoshenqB
mustbeacontemporaryofShoshenqIII.Inwhichcase,inviewofthefragmentedstateofEgyptatthistime,why
didhenotclaimroyaltitles?Finally,thecorrectnessofthetraditionalPasenhorinterpretationisreinforcedfurther
byyetanotherstele,seenbyDaressybutnowlost,whichalsonamedaShoshenq,GreatChiefofMa,sonofNimlot,
Great Chief of Ma, and his wife Tentshepeh. 35 These would be Shoshenq B, Nimlot A and Tentshepeh A.
However,Tentshepehisnotakingsdaughter(asRohlshypothesisrequires)butadaughterofaGreatChiefof
Foreigners.
Thus,weseethatRohl'sattempttocombinethetwoNimlotsofthePasenhorsteleisnotfullysuccessful.Notonly
istheexistenceofNimlotC,sonofOsorkonII,welldocumented,butalsoNimlotA,ChiefofMa,sonofShoshenq
A,popsupindependentlyasthefatherofaShoshenq,ChiefofMa,whoisveryreasonablythesameasShoshenqI;
andfinallyhiswifeisexplicitlystatednottobeakingsdaughter.Now,onecanargueforinterpretationsofthis
datathatsupporttheNewChronology.Forexample,if,assuggestedabove,Siamunwerethedominantkinginthe
generation before Osorkon II then perhaps Takeloth I was only posthumously declared a king, and in reality
OsorkonIIwasonlya"greatchiefofforeigners"beforehisascenttothethrone.And,onemightidentifyShoshenq
BwithShoshenqIIIhimself,beforehisascent,andarguethattheunnamedkingishisdotinggrandfatherOsorkon
II.ButbothinterpretationsarespecialpleadingswhichassumethecorrectnessoftheNewChronology,whenthe
purposeoftheexerciseshouldbetodemonstrateitscorrectness,andbothrestentirelyontheproposedidentification
ofNimlotAwithNimlotC.Ratherthanbuildsuchanelaborateandunsupportednetworkofhypotheses,itseems
farsimplertoaccepttheconventionalexplanation,whichistoacceptPasenhoratfacevalue:henamesNimlotin
twoplacesbecausethereweretwoNimlots.
*
*
*
*
*
*
KitchenhasalreadycommentedontheimplicationsoftheNewChronologyfortheHighPriestsofAmunatThebes
in his review of Centuries of Darkness, noting that the genealogy for the postRamessid High Priests is well
established, in large part by the discoveries at TT320, and that Piankh, the first of these, is indubitably a
contemporaryofRamsesXI.36Further,thesuccessionofthesepriestsunderthe22nddynastycanalsobetracedin
somedetail,fromIuput,sonofShoshenqI,throughIuwelot,SmendesandShoshenq,sonsofOsorkonI,tothe
latter'ssonHarsiesiandhisson,whosenameismostlylostbutcouldbe(Pe)du(bast),andbeyond. IftheNew
ChronologyasproposedbyJameswerecorrect,thennotonlymustdynasties21and22becontemporary,both
erectingtombsandtemplesinTanisataboutthesametime,buttheremustalsobetwolinesofcontemporaryHigh
PriestsofAmuninThebes.
Rohlhasdevelopedanalternatemodelwhichavoidsmuchofthisproblem. Inthismodel,Iuputistreatedas
contemporarywiththe21stdynastyhighpriestsMasahertaandMenkheperre,butallthelater22nddynastyhigh
priestsarepusheddown,sothatthefatherofIuwelot,SmendesandShoshenqisidentifiedasOsorkonII,not
OsorkonI.SincebothShoshenqandHarsiesitookthetitleofking,althoughtheyseemnevertohaveoccupiedthe
throneinreality,thisschemealsoexplainstheoriginsofonelineoftheTheban23rddynasty,forHarsiesi'sson
becomesnoneotherthankingPedubast,thefirstofthisline.
Despitethisveryattractivefeature,onemustnotethattheNewChronologymodelisagainnotfullydeveloped.
Firstly,RohldoesnotcommentonKitchen'sargumentsforplacingIuwelotandSmendesIIIassonsofOsorkon
I rather than Osorkon II,37 though there is, perhaps, sufficient flexibility in this evidence to admit Rohl's
position.
Secondly,bymakingShoshenqIIasonofOsorkonIIratherthanOsorkonI,RohlhasshiftedShoshenqIIdown
twogenerations.Intheprocess,hehasintroducedagenerationaljumpwherenonehadpreviouslyexisted,for
Shoshenqsson,kingHarsiesi,isnowplacedinagenerationfollowinghisowndaughterIstweret,whomarried
HarsiesiC,FourthProphetofAmunandgreatgrandsonoftheHighPriestIuput,son(onbothchronologies)of
ShoshenqI.38
Thirdly,RohlhasnotsuccessfullydealtwiththeproblemofcontemporaryHighPriestsofAmunwithinthe
NewChronology. Hehasavoidedmaking21stHighPriestsentirelycontemporarywith22nddynastyHigh
12
PriestsofAmunonlytoprovidedualofficeholderswithintheconventional21stdynastyline,forhesees
PinudjemIIasacontemporaryofMenkheperre.
Fourthly,RohlproposestoidentifySmendesIII,sonofkingOsorkon(II),withSmendesII,namedona
braceletfoundinthetombofAkheperrePsusennesasasonoftheHighPriestMenkheperre;inRohl'sviewhe
wasasoninlawofMenkheperre.ThisidentificationiskeytoRohl'schronology.Otherwise,itisdifficultto
accepttheproposedcoregencybetweenMenkheperreandPinudjemII,forthereisthennoplacetoputanother
HighPriestofAmunwhowastrulyasonofMenkheperre.Alternatively,ifaSmendesIIistrulyaccordeda
shortpontificatebeforePinudjem,itisnotpossibletomakehimcontemporarywithAkheperrePsusennes,who
accededoveradecadelater.But,unequivocalevidenceofaSmendes,sonofMenkheperre,hasbeenfoundin
recentyears,naminghimas"majordomoofAmun",whichisclearlyconsistentwithhimbeinggroomedto
succeedhisfather.39
Finally,RohlmustexplainthepositionofIuputinhisownreconstruction,sinceheremainsacontemporaryof
the21stdynastyHighPriests. IuputisknowntohavebeenHighPriestofAmunatThebesinyear11of
ShoshenqI,becausehisnameappearsonthemummybandagesofDjedptahefankhAtheverysamepriest
whoseburialinTT320isallegedtobeevidenceforafatalflawinthecurrentscheme.AccordingtoRohl's
scheme,Iuput'spontificateisrecordedatatimewhenitappearsthattheHighPriestMasahertawasinoffice
andincontrol.Onemightsupposeatemporaryinterruptioninthatcontrolforreasonsunknown,butthen,how
isitthatIuputisattesteddeepintheheartoftheveryfamilyvaultoftherivalThebanfamily?
Thusweseethat,althoughRohlhaspartlyansweredKitchen'sobjection,hehasfailedtodosoinfull,includingin
whatisperhapsthemostimportantinstance,andthatthereareproblemswithRohl'sownreconstruction.
OnewaytotestwhethertheparallelismbetweenIuputandtheHighPriestsofthe21stdynastyisastructuralfeature
ofRohl'sthesis,orisinsteadjustaflukeduetopeculiarcircumstancessurroundingIuputwhicharenowlosttous,
istoexaminewhathappenstootherpostsintheThebantemplehierarchy.Ofthese,thebestknownistheposition
oftheFourthProphetofAmun.40ThelineofDjedkhonsefankhAdominatedthisofficefromthereignofOsorkonI
on,foratleastfivegenerations,havingsucceededafamilywhohadheldtheofficefortwoorthreegenerations,and
alsoboretheLibyantitleof"chiefoftheMahasun."Thus,theentire22nddynastyiscoveredforthisoffice.And
yetwealsohaveathreegenerationsequenceNespaherenmut/TjaneferA/Pinudjeminthesameoffice,withTjanefer
Abeingdatedtoyear40ofPsusennesI,andmarryingGautsoshen,thedaughterofMenkheperre,HighPriestof
Amun.IfMenkheperreis,asRohlalleges,acontemporaryofOsorkonIthenweareforcedtoplacetwofamiliesin
theofficeoftheFourthProphetofAmunatthesametime,foratleastthreegenerations.
ItappearsthattheparallelismisinherentinRohl'schronology:parallelroyallines,parallellinesofHighPriestsof
Amun,andparallellinesofFourthProphetsofAmun.
*
*
*
*
*
*
NoristhisphenomenonconfinedtoThebes. PerhapsthemostintriguingaspectofRohl'sreconstructionishis
proposal,notedabove,thatShoshenq,HighPriestofAmunandsometimeShoshenqII,wasasonofOsorkonII,
ratherthanOsorkonI.SinceShoshenqwascertainlythematernalgrandsonofkingTjetkheperrePsusennesofthe
21stdynasty,thisreconstructionapparentlyestablishesaneatnewsynchronismbetweenthetwodynastieswhich
reinforcestheircontemperaneitywithinhissystem.Moreover,asRohlpointedouttomeinemail,themotherof
ShoshenqII,Ma(at)kare,isnowseentobearanamewhichissimplyavariantofthatofOsorkonII'squeen,the
king'sdaughterKarama(at). TheidentityofthekingKarama'sfatherhasneverbeenclear. Onconventional
chronology,itismostlikelytobeShoshenqIIhimself.Thisnewsolution,onfirstglance,appearstobeinspired.
Yet,aswithNimlotChiefofMa,andtherevisedsequenceoftheHighPriestsofAmun,ittoocontainssomehidden
traps.
KaramaandOsorkonIIareknown,withabsolutecertainty,tohavebeentheparentsofthecrownprinceShoshenq
(D),HighPriestofPtahatMemphis. 41SinceShoshenq,HighPriestofAmun,isalmostcertainlytobeidentifiedas
ShoshenqII,inpartbecausehisnameiswrittenwithacartouche,wemusteithersupposethatOsorkonIIhadtwo
suchsonsShoshenqbyKarama,orthatthetwoShoshenqsarethesame.Sincetherearenootherexamplesinthis
periodofakinghavingtwosonswiththesamename,letalonetwosonsbythesamemotherwhobothhadclaimsto
thethrone,onemightpreferthetheorythatthetwoShoshenqswerethesame.Yet,inthiscase,howdoweexplain
theexistenceofafullyfurnishedtombforShoshenqDatMemphiswhichcontainednoreferencetohisother
positions,whilethemummyofShoshenqIIwasfoundatTanis?
Supposingthisproblemtoberesolvable,therearefurtherdifficulties.ThedescendantsofShoshenqDcanbetraced
through four generations of High Priests at Memphis: his son Takeloth, grandson Pediese, greatgrandsons
13
Peftjauawybast andHarsiesi,andthelatter'ssonAnkhefensekhmet. Thiscarriesthelinedowntothetimeof

Shoshenq V. Now, the 21st dynasty High Priests of Memphis are listed on the Memphite genealogy as
contemporariesof21stdynastykings,downtoPipiB,thegrandfatherofShedsunefertem,whoisknownfromother
sources to be a contemporary of a king Hedjkheperre Shoshenq. These are the titles of Shoshenq I, and so
Shedsunefertemisconventionallyseenasacontemporaryofthatking.Thisreconstructionprovidesaclassiclineal
successionfortheMemphiteHighPriests:Shedsunefertum'ssonShoshenqandgrandsonOsorkon,contemporaries
ofOsorkonIandTakelothI,becomethefinalHighPriestsofthisline,tobesucceededbyShoshenqD,sonof
OsorkonII,sonandsuccessortoTakelothI.
InRohl'sscheme,however,the21standearly22nddynastiesarecontemporary,andhenceHedjkheperreShoshenq
mustbemuchlaterthanShoshenqI;indeed,partlyonthebasisofthisgenealogy,Rohlarguesforasecondking
HedjkheperreShoshenq,sometimeafterShoshenqIII,whomhedubs"ShoshenqIb".Suchprenomenduplications
aregenerallyrecognisedtobecharacteristicoftheperiod:bothTakelothIandTakelothIIalsousedtheprenomen
Hedjkheperre,andbothOsorkonIIandOsorkonIIIusedtheprenomenUsermaatreSetepenamun.Asnotedabove,
thisproposalhasbeenendorsedbyDodson,whohasadducedadditionalevidence,anditmaywellbecorrect.Thus,
RohlclaimsthatShedsunefertemwasacontemporarynotofShoshenqIbutofShoshenqIb. 42 Theproblemwith
thisproposalisthattheMemphiteHighPriestsofthethreegenerationsprecedingShedsunefertemintheMemphite
genealogy,Pipi,AsakhetandAnkhefensekhmet,andthetwogenerationssucceedingShedsunefertem,nowbecome
contemporarywiththeMemphiteHighPriestShoshenqDandhisdescendants.
But this is not the end of the matter. As we have seen, the Memphite genealogy records that Asakhet A, a
contemporary of Amenemnisu, lived two generations after Neferrenpit, the last of four generations listed as
contemporaryofRamsesII,identifiedbyhisprenomen(Usermaatresetepenre),andthatthisfactisaprimarydatum
used by Rohl to show that the 20th dynasty lasted at most 60 years. However, under the New Chronology,
Amenemnisuisacoregent ofTjetkheperrePsusennes,accedinginyear46ofthelatter'sreign,andPsusennes
accededinyear22ofRamsesXI.Thismeansthatthis60yearperiodintheMemphitegenealogynotonlycovers
thelate19thand20thdynastiesbut30independentyearsofthereignofPsusennes.Thisisnotapossibilityevenin
theNewChronology.
Itisusuallybelievedthatahaplographyexistsatthispoint,andKelleyhasproposedareasonableexplanationof
this:43heidentifiesNeferrenpit,fatherofAsakhetA,notasthewelldocumentedcontemporaryofRamsesIIbutas
anotherwiseunknownhomonymwhowasacontemporaryofRamsesVII,whousedaverysimilarprenomen
(Usermaatre[meryamun]setepenre). Theconventionalchronologyworkswellunderthishypothesis. Now,one
couldinvokeexactlythesamehaplographyunderRohl'sscheme,andaperiodof60yearsfromRamsesVIIto
Amenemnisu is quite possible in his chronology. But this comes at the considerable cost of sacrificing the
Memphitegenealogyasanaccuraterecordprovingashort20thdynasty.
5
Simplyput,IthinkRohliswrong. Deadwrong. Magnificentlywrong. Thecharacteristicsofhisanalysisare
apparentfromthelastsection.Hehasdetailedandplausibleargumentstosupporthiscase,whichfrequentlyshow
greatingenuityintheirreinterpretationoftheevidence. Nevertheless,theseargumentsareusuallynotfollowed
throughtotheirlogicalconclusionbecausenotalltheevidenceisconsidered.Whenwefindthatplacingthe21st
and22nddynastiesinparallelresultsinparallelofficeholdersforalltheseniorbeneficesinthelandwhichweare
abletoexamine,itisapparentthatthereissomethingseriouslywrong.Andtheobvioussourceoferroristhethesis.
Thetwodynastieswere,afterall,consecutive.
Nevertheless,Rohldeservesattentionandrespect.Theissuesheraisesarealwaysworthyofexamination,and,as
withtheemergenceofShoshenqIb,haverealpotentialtoresultinnewperspectives,eveniftheydonot,intheend,
resultinchronologicalrevisions.SimilarremarksapplytopartsofthebookIhavenotreviewedhere.Forexample,
itwillbenosurprisethatIthinkthathisproposedchronologyforthestoryoftheSojourninEgypt,andhis
admittedlyspeculativeidentificationsofJosephandofMosesdonot,tomymind,bearanyweight. However,I
thinkhisargumentsforidentifyingthelateMiddleKingdomasthehistoricalcontextforthebiblicalnarrativeof
theseeventsareveryplausible,andarestronglyreinforcedbythediscoveriesatTellelDaba.Theyshouldnotbe
ignoredbyeitherEgyptologistsorbiblicalscholars.
Allinall,thisisabookwhichshouldbereadbyanyoneinterestedinthesubjectofEgyptianchronology.Those
familiarwiththesubjectwillfindaninformedchallengetoconventionalanalysis,onewhichforcesareviewofthe
basicmaterial.Thoseunversedinthesubjectshouldplanonreadingdeeplyandcarefullyinthescholarlyliterature
beforeacceptingitsconclusions.Caveatlector!
14
15
Istemkheb D = [HPA] ? Pinudjem II, HPA = Nesikhons A
Shoshenq, HPA
[Dynasty 22]
Maatkare B = OSORKON? OSORKON I
TJETKHEPERRE ? Psusennes III, HPA

HAR-PSUSENNES II
Tentamun A = [King] ? RAMSES XI
Nebseny
[King] ? PINUDJEM I
AMENEMOPET, HPT RamsesAnkhefenmut C
HPA = High Priest of Amun

HPT = High Priest of Amun (Tanis)
HPM = High Priest of Memphis
4PA = Fourth Prophet of Amun
DH = Devotee of Hathor
(G)CM = (Great) Chief of Ma
GH = Governor of Heracleoplis
Kings (actual or honorary) capitalised

Women italicised
Numbering generally follows Kitchen, except where two individuals
may have been combined, in which case prime notation is used
(e.g. Istemkheb C, Istemkheb C', Istemkheb C'')
Known connections by plain lines
Hypothesised connections by dotted lines
Independently confrmed connections bolded (Pasenhor stele only)
Marriage indicated by '='
Postulated identity indicated by ' '
Ofce whose holder is unnamed indicated within square brackets
CONVENTIONS FOR ALL FIGURES
SIAMUN
[King] ? OSORKON ? OSOCHOR
SHOSHENQ I ? Shoshenq B, GCM
Nimlot A, GCM = Tentsepeh A
Shoshenq A, GCM = Mehtenweshet A ? Mehtenweshet A'
Mutnodjmet ? [Queen] =? [King] ?AKHEPERRE = Mutnodjmet [King] ? PSUSENNES I

(Ramses-)PSUSENNES I, HPT
PINUDJEM I, HPA? [King, HPA]= Henttawy A , DH ?Henttawy Q, DH
MENKHEPERRE HPA = Istemkheb C' ? Istemkheb C

Tahent-Thuty
Wiay
AMENEMNISU
Hrere B ?= Piankh, HPA
Nodjmet = HERIHOR, HPA ?[King]
Tentamun B = SMENDES ? [King]
RAMSES XI
X = Hrere A
Figure1:The21stDynasty(ConventionalChronology)
16
Nimlot A, GCM = Tentsepeh A
Pasenhor B
SHOSHENQ V
Pamiu, CM ? PIMAI
Pasenhor A, GH = Ptahdedes
Hemptah B, GH = Iretiru
SHOSHENQ ? SHOSHENQ III
Hemptah A, GH = Tjankemit
Ptahudjankhef, GH = Tentsepeh D
Nimlot C, GH, HPA = Tentsepeh C
OSORKON II = Mutudjankhes Djedmutesankh
TAKELOTH I = Kapes
OSORKON I = Tashedkhons
Karoma A = SHOSHENQ I ? Shoshenq B, GCM
OSORKON? [King]
Mehtenweshet A' ? Mehtenweshet A = Shoshenq A, GCM [Great Chief of Foreigners]
Paihuti, GCM
Nebneshi, GCM
Mawasun, GCM
Buyuwawa
Figure3:ThePasenhorStele(ConventionalChronology)
17
SHOSHENQ V
Pamiu, CM ? PIMAI
SHOSHENQ ? SHOSHENQ Ib
Takeloth A
Osorkon A, HPM
Shoshenq C, HPM
SIAMUN
[King] ? TJETKHEPERRE
HAR-PSUSENNES I
Peftjauawybast, HPM
Ankhefensekhmet B, HPM
Harsiesi H, HPM
Pediesi, HPM
Tjesbastperu = Takeloth B, HPM
Shoshenq D, HPM ?Shoshenq, HPA
= (OSORKON II) = Karoma B ? Maatkare B
(TAKELOTH I)
(OSORKON I)
SHOSHENQ I
Contemporary Kings
Istemkheb G
Shedsunefertem, HPM = Mehtenweshet B
Ankhesefensekhmet A, HPM = Tapeshenese
Asakhet B, HPM
Pipi B, HPM
[HEDJHEQA....RE] PSUSENNES III
SHOSHENQ III
Harsiesi J, HPM
Pipi A, HPM ? Neterkheperre Meryptah
Asakhet A, HPM
Ptahemakhet B, HPM
Neferrenpit, HPM
[HEDJHEQA....RE] PSUSENNES III
AKHEPERRE [PSUSENNES II]
AMENEMNISU
(?RAMSES II/VII - TJETKHEPERRE HAR-PSUSENNES I)
USERMAATRE-SETEPENRE [RAMSES (II? VII?)]
Contemporary Kings
Figure8:HighPriestsofMemphis(NewChronology)
POSTSCRIPTTOTEMPORALFUGUES(JAMSXIII)
18
Sincethisarticlewaspublishedin1996,therehavebeensomenewpublicationsrelevanttoRohl'sthesisandthe
themesexploredinmyreview.44
LEO DEPUYDT has published two articles relevant to the theory of Sothic cycles underlying conventional
chronology.
1. Inthefirst,45hesurveyedtheevidenceavailablefromtextsdualdatedintwodifferentcalendarsovertheperiod
from473BCto237ADnearlyhalfaSothiccycle.HeconclusivelydemonstratedthattheEgyptiancivil
calendarwasunreformedovertheentireperiod,despiteatleastoneseriousattempttodoso. Thisgreatly
strengthensthecaseforbelievingthatthecivilcalendarwasneverreformedinearliertimes,whentherewere
nocompetingcalendarsofgreateraccuracyavailable,andsosupportsthetheoryofSothicdating.
1. Inthesecond,46hereviewedtheEberspapyrus,whichcontainsthepossibleSothicsynchronismforyear9of
AmenhotepI.Thisinterpretationofthepapyrushasbeenmuchquestionedrecently.Depuydtshowedthatitis
mostreasonablyunderstoodasasimplereadyreckonerforcorrelatinglunarmonthstothecivilcalendaratthis
time.SuchaninterpretationisconsistentwiththetheorythatthepapyrusdoesinfactrecordaSothicsighting.
KENNETHKITCHENhaspublishedarevisededitionof TIP,includinganewprefacesurveyingworkontheThird
Intermediate Period since 1986.47 Among other things, he draws attention to the effects of JansenWinkeln's
identificationoftheTanitetombHedjkheperreTakelothtoTakelothIratherthanTakelothII. 48 Thisallowsusto
reassignseveralinscriptionsfromTakelothIItoTakelothI. Isuggestedinmyreviewthatcertaindifficultiesin
Rohl'schronologycouldberesolvedbyexploitingtheinvisibilityofTakelothI.SinceTakelothIisnowbecoming
visible,thispossibilitynolongerexists.
Mostimportantlyforourpurposes,thisprefaceincludesabriefandacerbicreviewofthetheoriesdiscussedinmy
review,whichsuccinctlymakesmanyofthesamepoints. Kitchendoesaccepttheexistenceofasecondking
HedjkheperreShoshenq,butconcedesnothingelse. Inparticular,hedrawsattentiontoagraffitopublishedby
Spiegelbergin1921recordingthedescentofthefloodinyear1,3Akhet,day3ofMerenptah,andpointsoutthat
thisdatecannotpossiblylieinthefloodmonthsunderRohlschronology. 49
Rohlhashadthisgraffitoreexaminedinsitu,andcorrectsthereadingofthedatetoyear2,2Akhet,day3. 50Ifthe
floodrecessionoccurredonafixeddateeveryyear,thisdifferenceofamonthwouldhavetheeffectofadjustingthe
correlationofthecivilcalendartotheJuliancalendarby120years.
Additionally,Rohlhasraisedquestionsastotheactualeventrecordedbythegraffito.Henotesthatitsmostrecent
analysisbyJanssen51interpretstheverbhAiasusedinthisandsimilargraffititomeantoreturninthesenseof
returningtoinundation,andarguesthatthisisdirectlycontrarytotheestablishedmeaningoftheverbastogo
down.Thedifferenceisthedifferencebetweentherisingofthefloodanditsdescentfromthepointofmaximum,
twopointswhichareaboutamonthapartleadingtoanadditional120yearsinthecalendricalcorrelation.Thus,
Rohlarguesthatthegraffitoshowsinfactthattheconventionalchronologyis240yearsinerror.
Rohls forceful assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, Kitchen and Janssen do not in fact share the same
interpretationoftheverbhAiKitchenusesthesameinterpretationasRohldoes. 52 However,onemaynotethat
RohlhasgivennoconsiderationtoJanssensargumentsandprecedentsforusinghAiinthemoregeneralsenseof
return;norhasRohlconsideredhowtheworkmenhighinthehillsbehindDeirelBahriaresupposedtohave
knownonaparticulardaythatthatdaywastheheightoftheflood.Thisisaneventwhichcanonlybeestablished
inretrospect.
ThemajorpointthatRohlsdiscussionoverlooksisthattheeffectofthechangesheisproposingistoforcethe
nominalstartoftheflooddatebackwardsintimeagainstthecivilcalendar.Comparethethreeinterpretationsofthe
graffito:
Janssen:Startofinundationon3Akhet3
Kitchen:Startofdescenton3Akhet3,hencestartofinundationatthestartof2Akhet.
Rohl:Startofdescenton2Akhet3hencestartofinundationatthestartof1Akhet.
Inprinciple,eachofthesestepsforcesthecivilcalendarcloserintoalignmentwiththesolarcalendar,where1
Akhet1isthedateoftherisingofSirius,markingthestartofinundation.Ineffect,theyarepushingthenominal
dateforMerenptahbackwardsintime,closertothestartoftheSothiccyclec1320BC.Inotherwords,ifRohlis
19
completelycorrect,hehasindeedmovedthenominaldateofMerenptahbyupto240years,butinthewrong
directionforhisowntheories!
Toputitanotherway:supposeRohlschronologicaltheoriesandhisinterpretationsofthefloodgraffitowereboth
correct.HischronologyrequiresthedateofMerenptahtobeabout350yearslaterthanisconventionallysupposed.
Hisinterpretationofthegrafittorequiresthecivilcalendartobewellalignedwiththesolarcalendarinthereignof
Merenptah.ButinthereignofOsorkonIIIafloodeventisrecordedon3Peret22,somesixmonthsoutofphase
withthesolarcalendar.53Now,ifMerenptahscivilcalendarhadbeenleftunreformed(andassumingtheOsorkon
IIIeventtohaveoccurredclosetothemeandate),thefloodeventinhisreignshouldhavehappened,inRohls
chronology,some3monthsearlier,i.e.latein4Akhet.JamesandRohlhaveeachnotedthatthetheoryofSothic
cycleswouldbeinvalidatedifthecivilcalendarhadeverbeenreformed,sinceanysuchreformwouldmostlikely
notbeknowntous. Now,theonlywaytoreconciletheMerenptahgraffitoandtheOsorkoninscriptionwithin
RohlschronologyistosupposethatsuchareformdidinfactoccursometimeafterthereignofMerenptah.Butthe
reformwhichRohlrequiresinordertofitthefloodgraffitointohistheoryisnotonlyverysubstantial(acumulative
effectofabout3months)butalsoonewhichpushesthecivilcalendarevenfurtheroutofalignmentwiththesolar
yearthanitalreadyis.Suchareformisnotcredible.
Sincethedatesofthefloodcaneasilyvarybyseveralweeksfromyeartoyear,anadditionalquestionarises,which
Rohlhasnotdiscussedatall:theprecisionwithwhichflooddatacanbeusedtoestimateabsolutedates.Janssens
studywasbasedondatacollectedinthe19 thcenturybyWillcoxandCraig,butextensiverecordsalsoexistfrom
almosttheentireIslamicperiodfromtheCairoNilometer. 54Theserecordsinclude329actualorreasonablyinferred
recordsofthedateofplenitude,i.e.thedatethatthefloodreachedaheightsufficienttoinundatethefieldsand
guaranteeayearsharvest.Wemaynoteinpassingthatthisconceptofadateofplenitudeisexactlytheconcept
which underlies Janssens interpretation of the Merenptah graffito. The Gregorian equivalent of the date of
plenitudefellbetweenJuly17andOctober24overtheperiod1074to1888,withameandateofAugust17,
correspondingtoadateofAugust13atThebes,andastandarddeviationof12days.97%ofthedatesliewithinthe
periodJuly29toSeptember11,aperiodof45days.Thus,areasonableestimateoftheprecisionwithwhichaflood
daterecordedinthecivilcalendarcanbeusedtoestimateasolaryearis180years.
Inshort,thefloodgraffitiarenotsensitiveenoughtodiscriminatebetweendifferentmodelsoftheconventional
chronology.However,theyaresensitiveenoughtodiscriminatebetweenRohlschronologyandtheconventional
chronology, which are around 350 years apart at the time of Merenptah. And they favour the conventional
chronology.
Beforeleavingthistopic,itisnecessarytoaddressonepassingcommentmadeinRohlsresponse.Thiscommentis
nowstandardfareinNewChronologycirclesontheInternet,butitisacanard,andsorequiresrebuttal.Rohl
states(p46):
ItisinterestingtonotethatJanssendismissesanotherofSpiegelbergsoriginal1889textsasaNileflood
recordbecause:
His(Spiegelbergs)suggestionthatgraffito883isalsoaNilinschrift(Niletext),ashecallsthem,is
probablynotcorrectsince,asweshallseebelow(note.63),itsdatedoesnotsuitthatinterpretation.
Note63states:
Soitappearsthatgraffito883,ifW.SpiegelbergreadthedatecorrectlyasIIperet(ofyear4),cannotby
anymeansrefertothebeginningoftheinundation
Circularity abounds here. Texts are rejected by Janssen because they do not conform to chronological
expectations,thentheremainingfilteredtextsaresubsequentlyemployedbyKitchentoarguefortheaccuracy
oftheconventionalchronology.
Inotherwords,RohlisaccusingJanssenofrejectingavalidNilinschriftgraffitobecauseitsdatedoesnotmatch
his(Janssens)theory.Thisiscompletelyfalse.ExaminationofSpiegelbergsbookshowsthatthetextofTheban
graffito 883 is entirely lost except for the date. It is evident that Janssen was legitimately responding to
SpiegelbergsspeculationthatthemissingtextwasaNilinschrift. ItisalsoevidentthatRohl,whohasearlier
attackedJanssenandKitchenvigorouslyfornothavingpersonallyexaminedgraffito862 insitu,hasnoteven
botheredtolookatwhatSpiegelbergactuallyhadtosayaboutgraffito883.
PHILIPPE BRISSAUD,thechiefexcavatoratTanis,haspublishedaverydetailedrebuttalofRohlsanalysisofthe
Tanite royal tombs, whichmakes it clear that the archaeology of the site is far more complex than Rohl has
20
presentedittobe.55Thispaperincludesastudyofvariousissuesomittedinmyreview,suchasRohlsclaimsthat
thenorthernsideofPsusennesIstombwassqueezedbythepresenceofapylonbuiltbyOsorkonII. Healso
refutesRohlsimplicitassumptionthatacrampedtombstructurenecessarilyimpliestheneedtoavoidpreexisting
buildings,bypointingtoanumberofothertombsinthecomplexwhichareequallycrampedbutwerenotso
constrained.
OnthecentralfeatureofRohl'sargumenttheabuttingwallsbetweenPsusennesIstombandOsorkonIIshe
notes,asIdidinmyreview,thattheevidencepresentedbyRohlisnotofitselfsufficienttoallowonetodecide
whichtombwasbuiltfirst.Buthealsopresentsdetaileddata,whichIhadbeenunawareof,andwhichRohlhad
ignored,insupportoftheMontet/LzinehypothesisthatqueenKapestookoverandsubstantiallyrebuiltalarge
portionofapreexistingtombforhersonOsorkonII.Finally,henotesthattheremainsoftombVIIoftheTanis
complex,firstpublishedin1987butignoredbyRohl,partlyunderlietombI,thetombofOsorkonII.TombVII
wasthereforebuiltanddestroyedbeforeOsorkonIIstombwasbuilt. TheremainsoftombVIIincorporatea
limestonelinteltakenfromanevenearlierbuildingwhichclearlynamesAkheperrePsusennesI. 56Thissinglefact
issufficienttodemolishRohlsentirereconstruction.
Inresponse,RohlhasdisputedmanypointsofBrissaudsrebuttalofhisarguments.Wewillfocushereonlyonthe
criticalPsusenneslintel. TheessenceofRohlsresponseistonoteacommentbytheexpeditionsepigrapher
FRDRIQUEVONKNELthatthelintelwasonlypartlyclearedin1984and1985becausethelowerpartoftheblock
remainedburiedunderthecasementwalloftombII.SincetombIIisthetombadjacenttothatofOsorkonII,and
thedateofconstructionofthiscasementwallisnotpreciselyknown,Rohltriumphantlyconcludesthatthelintelin
questiondoesnotdisprovehischronology,andaccusesBrissaudofmisrepresentingthedata.Heconcludeswithan
alternatereconstruction,basedonthepresenceofushabtisofOsorkonIIintombVII,whichmakesthistomban
antechamberfortombI.57
InfactBrissaudandvonKnelarebothcorrect. Figure8inBrissaudsoriginalpublicationshowstheinterface
betweentombsIandII,andalsoclearlyshowstheremainsoftombVIIatthepointinquestionaspartlyunderlying
both.TheremainsoftombVIIareactuallyseparatedverticallyfromthewalloftombIIbyalayeroffill,butthey
directlyunderlietombI.58ThisfigureissimplyignoredinRohlsresponse.
Afterahiatusofseveralyears,inwhichISISevenconsidereddissolution,publicationofJACFhasresumed,with
JACF8in1999.ThisissuecontainstherebuttalsbyRohloftheKitchenandBrissaudcriticismsnotedabove.It
alsocontainsseveralotherarticlessupportingandopposingtheNewChronology. Ofparticularrelevancehere,
CARL JANSENWINKELN haspublishedabriefcritiqueofRohlsuseoflonggenealogies. 59 Hegivesreasonsfor
supposingthattwoofthekeygenealogiesusedbyRohlthegenealogyofKhnemibreinWadiHammamatandthe
genealogyoftheHighPriestsofMemphiscannotberegardedasreliable,notinginparticular,inthecaseofthe
former,thehighlyduplicativenatureofthegenealogy,anditsphysicalisolation,asInotedinmyreview;and,inthe
caseofthelatter,theshortgapbetweenRamsesIIandAmenemnisuwhichIalsodiscussed. Hefurthernotes
conflictswithcontemporaryevidenceforthereignsofAmenhotepIII,SetiIandRamsesII.Hedrawsattentionto
thegenealogyofBasa,whoseimportanceInotedabove,andonmuchthesamegrounds.Finally,henotesthatthe
Neseramungenealogy(whichIdidnotdiscuss)iscriticaltoestablishing22 nddynastychronologyandsummarises
how.
AbriefresponsebyBOBPORTER60arguesthatthestandardreconstructionoftheNeseramungenealogyalsocontains
problems,withoutsuggestinghowtoresolvethemintheNewChronology.Heasserts,withoutdemonstratingthe
fact, that other key genealogies used by Kitchen to support the standard chronology (such as the Nakhtefmut
genealogy)areinfactconsistentwithbothsystems. TheissuesraisedbytheBasagenealogyareignored. He
acceptsJansenWinkelnspoint,thatgenerationsearlierthanabout34generationsbeforetheauthorofalong
genealogiesarelikelytobesuspect,unlesssupportedbycontemporaryevidence,andturnsitaroundtocastdoubt
onthePasenhorgenealogy,ignoringnotonlyRohlsownanalysisofthisgenealogy(discussedinmyreview)but
alsothefactthattheearlygenerationsofPasenhorgivethegenealogyofkingsofEgyptofthedynastystillrulingin
Pasenhorsday.Thisgenealogymusthavebeenverywellknown:Porterscritiqueisanalogoustodismissinga
moderndescentfromEdwardIIIbecauseitincludesgenerationsfromthatkingbacktoHenryII!
TheNeseramungenealogyalsofiguresbrieflyinapaperby PETER JAMES,NIKOS KOKKINOS and I.J.THORPE
summarisingprogressintheargumentofCenturiesofDarknessasof1995.61 Thisgivesaslightlymoredetailed
discussiononthechronologyofthe21stdynastythanispresentedintheiroriginalbook,inwhichtheyarguethatthe
genealogicalandprosopographicalevidenceallowsittohaveaslittleastwogenerationsofindependentexistence.
21
Inparticular,achartispresentedshowingtheNeseramungenealogyinaformwhichallowstheauthorstoarguethat
Siamunofthe21stdynastymustbeacontemporaryofthe22 nddynastykingOsorkonI.However,thesupporting
analysisdevelopedbyJamesandRobertMorkotisasyetunpublished,andinparticularthereasoningdevelopedby
Kitchen62hasnotyetbeenpubliclyaddressed.InKitchensview,thebulkoftheNeseramungenealogymustbe
raisedbyagenerationfromthepositionshownbyJamesetal.,whichwouldallowtheconventionalchronologyto
proceed.
Noneofthesearticlesaddressedtheprimarygenealogicalissueraisedinmyreview:thattheNewChronology,if
correct,forcesparallelismintoallthemajorbeneficesinthelandwhichwecantraceindetail.
OneofthekeyproblemsfortheNewChronology,brieflyalludedtoearlyinmyreview,andnotaddressedinany
publicationatthattime,istheextremecompressionrequiredforthelate19 thand20thdynasties.Rohlhassuggested
thatRamsesIXandRamsesXImayhavereignedinparallel,andADTHIJSisnowpublishingaseriesofarticles
amplifyingandsupportingthisproposal.63Thecaseisveryinterestingandsuggestive,butatbestopensupagapof
onlytwodecadesinthecurrentchronology. Afarmoreseriousrevisionisrequiredbeforethisproblemcanbe
regardedassolvedfortheNewChronologists.
Rohlsproposalsonthematterarenowavailableonhiswebsite, www.nunki.net. Histheoryrequiresahighly
complexsuccessionwithasmanyasthreekingsreigninginparallel,apparentlyeitherascoregentsoraskingsofa
dividedEgypt.Iattempttosummarisetheseproposalsinthefollowingtable.
64
RamsesI
961959
SetiI
959940
RamsesII
940873
Amenmesse
873868
Setnakht
868866
SetiII
868862
RamsesIII
866835
Siptah
862856
Tausret
856855
RamsesXI
65
RamsesIX
835816
(wHm mswt
847817
829823)
Merenptah
885865
RamsesIV
856850
RamsesV
850847
RamsesVI
847841
RamsesVII
841836
RamsesVIII
836835
RamsesX
821813
Itwouldbepointlessandunfairtotrytocritiquethisreconstructionatthistime,sincetomyknowledgenoanalysis
orargumenthasasyetbeenofferedtosupportit.Iwillmerelynotethatthereissourcedatawhichgoesdirectly
againstit,e.g.theconventionalsuccessionfromRamsesIIItoRamsesIVisexplicitlyandunambiguouslyattested
intheDeirelMedinaworkjournalpTurin1949+1946.66
AdraftpaperbyDAVIDLAPPIN,currentlyavailableonRohlswebsiteandplannedforprintedpublicationinJACF
9,addressesanimportanttopicthatIdidnotmentioninmyoriginalreview. 67 ConventionaldatingoftheMiddle
KingdomisbasedonapredictedSothicrisinggiveninpBerlin10012,datedto4Peret16inyear7ofanunnamed
king,universallyacceptedtobeSenusertIII.Inaddition,pBerlin10056apparentlygivesaseriesof12consecutive
lunarobservationsinyears30and31ofanotherunnamedking,generallyagreedtobeAmenemhatIII,anda
numberofotherlunarobservationsareknownfromthesepapyri,foundatElLahunintheFayyum.pBerlin10056
certainlycontainsatleastoneerrorsinceonelunarmonthisrecordedasbeing31dayslong. Pastattemptsto
correlatepBerlin10012andthelunardatainpBerlin10056andelsewheretoobtainanabsolutedateforthesekings,
basedonSothicdatesderivedfrompBerlin10012,haveledtoresultsrequiringasignificantnumberoferrorsin
pBerlin10056.
22
Lappinhassoughttoaddresstheprobleminreverse,byconductinganexhaustivesearchoverthelunarmonthsin
theyears18991549,usingallpossibleinterpretationsoftheambiguitiesinthedata,tofindabestmatchforthe
observationsofpBerlin10056.Hisendresultistofindabestmatchat1649,whichisveryclosetothedateof1653
predictedbyRohlschronology.LappinconcludesthathehasindependentlyverifiedRohlsproposedchronology,
anddemonstratedthatsignificantcalendricalreformmustsubsequentlyhavetakenplace.
Thisexperimentispotentiallyasignificantcontributiontothedebate.However,initscurrentstateLappinswork
cannotbesaidtohaveconclusivelydemonstratedtheresultheclaims. Forastart,hispaperdoesnotcurrently
addressthemethodologicalissueofthebaselineprobabilityoffindingamatchbychanceforanyrandompatternof
datainanexhaustivesearchoverasufficientlylargechronologicalrange.SinceweknowpBerlin10056containsat
leastoneerror,itmaywellcontainmore,andnotallobservationalerrorpatternscanbedetectedjustbyexamination
ofthedata,sinceinmostcasestherewillbeaselfcorrectingdualerrorthenextmonth.Fortunately,theexistence
ofadetectableerrorthe31daymonthassuresusthatwearelookingatatleastonerunofatleastthree30day
months,whichdoessignificantlyreducethesearchspace.
Secondly,whenalltheavailablelunarobservationsaretakenintoaccount,itturnsoutonLappinsownaccountthat
1773isasgoodamatchas1649.Lappinjustifieshischoiceof1649over1773byassertingthatpBerlin10056is
thebestdatawehavebutthereisnoobviousreasontobelievethis,itjusthappenstobethelongestcontinuous
sequenceofobservationsknown.
Adateof1773isonly16yearsbelowthecurrentlowestSothicbasedchronology. Thischronology,inturn,is
based,notonlyontheassumptionthatSothicsightingsweremadeatElephantine,butalsoonaminimalreign
lengthSenusertIII(19years).But,thereisnowgoodevidencethatSenusertIIIreignedforatleast39years(further
suggestingthatthereignlengthof19yearsgiventoSenusertIIintheTurincanon,andassumedinrecentyearsto
bemisplacedfromSenusertIII,cannowberestoredtohim). 68 Further,thereisalsoconsiderabledoubtasto
whetheranycoregenciesoccurredinthe12 thdynasty.69Ifboththeseadjustmentsareaccepted,thecombinedeffect
istoadd20yearstothedistancebetweentheobservationsofpBerlin10056inyear30ofAmenemhatIIIandyear7
ofSenusertIII,thelikelydateofpBerlin10012,makingthisdistancenot42yearsbut62.IfpBerlin10056were
correctlydatedto1773,thiswouldbringthedateofpBerlin10012backto1835,whichiswithintherangeofdates
predictedbyassumingitcontainsSothicdata. 70 NotingthattheassignmentofpBerlin10012toSenusertIIIisan
indirectinferenceultimatelydependingonapaleographicalanalysis,onecouldevenargue(despitetheunanimous
opinionofscholarstothecontrary)thatthispapyrusshouldinfactbeassignedtoSenusertII,whichwouldraisethe
dateto1854comfortablywithintheSothicrange.
Iamnotarguingherethat1773isthecorrectdateforpBerlin10056.TheargumentspresentedbyWegnerfora
longcoregencybetweenSenusertIIIandAmenemhatIIIareveryplausible,thesouthernlocationthatwouldbe
requiredforaSothicsightinginyear7ofSenusertIIIunlikely,andthepossibilityofassigningpBerlin10012to
SenusertIIevenmoreremote.Further,suchadatecreatesotherproblemseithertheSecondIntermediatePeriod
mustbeshortenedbeyondanythingthatcouldbeacceptedascredible,orpEbersmustbediscardedasaSothic
sighting,loweringthedateoftheearlyNewKingdombyupto50years.Suchissueswouldneedtoberesolvedin
order toaccept thisdate. Mypoint here isonly that Lappin has not succeeded indisproving a Sothicbased
chronologyfortheMiddleKingdom.Buthischoiceofexperimentisveryvaluable,andhisresultsdeservetobe
subjecttoindependentanalysis.
STURT MANNING,acentralfigureinthedebateoverthedateoftheTheraeruption,hasnowpublishedamajor
contributionontheimplicationsofThera,andscientificdatingmethodsingeneral,forbronzeagechronology. 71His
centralthesisisthatTheraeruptedin1628,andthatthiscanbeaccommodatedwiththeceramicevidencefromTell
elDaba,arguedbyBietakandotherstofavouradatelateinthenextcentury,byareanalysisoftheceramic
chronology.Assuch,thebulkofthebookisnotdirectlyrelevanttotheissuesreviewedhere.However,Manning
contributesanexcellentandextendedappendixcriticallyreviewingthebasesofEgyptianchronologyandanalysing
thepointsofuncertaintywithinit.72Thissummaryshouldbereadbyanyoneseriouslyinterestedinunderstanding
theconventionalframework.
ManningalsoincludesabriefappendixentitledWhythestandardchronologiesareapproximatelycorrect,andwhy
radicalredatingsarethereforeincorrect. ThisisaimedmoreatPeterJamesetal.thanatRohl,whoManning
dismisses as unscientific on the grounds that he seeks to create reality for the Old Testament, an agenda
sometimesdescribedassecularfundamentalism.However,theargumentappliesequallytobothschools.The
fundamentaldatumusedisthedateofasampleofcargoorfirewoodtakenfromtheUluburunshipwreck,which
23
alsocontainedasomewhatworngoldscarabbearingthenameofNefertiti.Thiswooddatestoc1300BC,adate
entirely in line with conventional chronology. He further notes that this date fits in with a network of
dendrochronologicaland 14CdatesbeingestablishedacrossEuropeandtheMiddleEast. Againsttheobjection
frequentlyraisedbyNewChronologists,thatanysampleawkwardfortheirtheoriesisapieceofoldwood,which
heclearlyregardsasgenerallybeingsophistry,Manningnotesthatthisframeworkisalsosupportedbyshortlived
samplessuchasseeds.
Finally,oneshouldnotethatthetoneofdiscussionbetweenRohlandhisopponents,particularlyKitchenand
Brissaud,hasbecomehighlyacrimonious.Thediatribeisoftenquiteunpleasanttoread,onbothsides.Thisisvery
unfortunate.WhileIamquitecertainthatRohlsviewsarewrong,thediscussionisneverthelesshighlyworthwhile,
bothforthestudentofEgyptianchronology,inthatexposestheissuestoadegreenototherwiselikelytohappen,
and for the subject itself, because the debate can only sharpen our understandingof the bases of chronology.
Becausethisdebateisrapidlybecomingadialogueofthedeaf,itisbecomingincreasinglyunlikelythatthese
productivefeatureswillcontinuetoberealised.
24
1Availableat17perissuefromtheTreasurer,InternationalSocietyforInterdisciplinaryStudies(ISIS),c/127PorterRd,
Basingstoke,HantsRG224JT,UnitedKingdom.ReaderswishingtoobtainthisjournalshouldnotethatISISiscurrently
consideringdissolutionduetofundingproblemsandlossoflinkstotheacademicworld.Unlessotherwisenoted,
publicationscitedhereincanallbeobtainedthroughlargeuniversitylibraries.
2P.I.Kuniholmetal,AnatoliantreeringsandtheabsolutechronologyoftheeasternMediterranean,2220718BC,Nature
381(1996)780.
3P.Jamesetal,CenturiesofDarkness(London,1991).
4K.A.Kitchen,TheThirdIntermediatePeriodinEgypt(2nded.)(Warminster,1986),hereafterTIP.Arevisionofthis
editionhasjustbeenannounced,apparentlyincludingKitchen'sresponsetothetheoriesunderreview.
5Kitchen,BlindDating,TimesLiterarySupplement4598(17May1991)21
6A.Leahy,AppendixtoAbydosintheLibyanPeriodinA.Leahy(ed.)LibyaandEgyptc1300750BC,(London,1990)
177
7Rohl,alongwithKitchen,baseshimselfonthewidelyusedchronologydevelopedinE.R.Thiele,TheMysterious
NumbersoftheHebrewKings:aReconstructionoftheChronologyoftheKingdomsofIsraelandJudah(3rdedn,Grand
Rapids,1983).Foracritique,resultinginan8yearadjustmenttoRehoboam'sdate,seeJ.Hughes,SecretsoftheTimes:
MythandHistoryinBiblicalChronology(Sheffield,1990);IthankDavidRohlforpointingthisworkouttome.An
interestingresultofHughes'chronologyisthatRohl'sdateforRamsesIIisraisedto940BC,which,unlike932,isadatein
linewiththelunarsightingscurrentlyusedtodeterminehisaccession.
8RohlinM.Rowland(ed)ATestofTimeTheLondonDebate(Basingstoke,1996)(availablefromISIS)39f.
9RamsesIIyear53:S.J.Robinson,RehoboamYear5=RamessesYear8:IsitaGoodFit?JACF7(1994/5)85;
RamsesIII:James,opcit257;
RamsesIX:J.Goldberg,CenturiesofDarknessandEgyptianChronology:
AnotherLookDiscussionsinEgyptology(DE)33(1995)11.
10C.J.Bennett,BridgingtheSecondIntermediatePeriodJournalofAncientandMedievalStudies(JAMS)12(1995)1.
JAMSisavailablefromtheOctavianSociety,POBoxP,TorranceCA905080210,USA,atUS$30perissue.[2000
Update:theaddressoftheOctavianSocietyisnowP0Box75,Daggett,CA923270075;email:ktberrant@earthlink.net.]
11Kitchen,EgyptianChronology:ProblemorSolution?CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal(CAJ)1(1991)235.
12D.A.Aston,ReviewofCenturiesofDarkness,DE27(1993)101.
13C.N.Reeves,ValleyoftheKings:Thedeclineofaroyalnecropolis(London/NewYork1990),ch10.
14Rohl,SomeChronologicalConundrumsofthe21stDynastygyptenundLevante(&L)3(1992)133;cf.Pharaohs
andKings77ff.
15J.Cerny,StudiesintheChronologyoftheTwentyfirstDynastyJournalofEgyptianArchaeology(JEA)32(1946)24.
16Rohl,personalconversation,September1996.
17K.JansenWinkeln,ThronnameundBegrbnisTakelothsIVariaAegyptiaca(VA)3(1987)252.
18QuiteapartfromthefactthatonlyoneotherSothicsightingwithanagreedregnaldateexistsforpharaonictimes,itis
remarkablethatthevalidityoftheSothiccycleitselfhasnotbeensubjecttocloserexamination.Jamesrightlypointsout
(opcit228)thatanycalendricalreformwouldcompletelyinvalidatetheentiretheoryforestimatingdatespriortosuch
reform.SomeevidencesuggeststhattheEgyptiansdidexperimentwiththecalendar.Manetho(ed.W.G.Waddell
(London,1940)99)recordsthataHyksoskingreformedthecalendar,thoughthereformreportedisknowntocorrespondto
thecivilyearasitwaspracticedinearliertimes.ItisgenerallyagreedthatNewKingdompharaohsdatedtheirreignsby
theiraccessionanniversariesratherthanbythecalendricalNewYear,aswasthepracticeinothereras(A.H.Gardiner,
EgyptofthePharaohs(Oxford,1961)69ff).Perhapsthebestcrosscheckthatcanbemadeisthroughdatedfloodrecords,
whichoccuronfixeddates(withinfairlyloosebounds)intheGregoriancalendar.Rohlargues(AppendixD)thatonesuch
record,theinundationsteleofSebekhotepVIII,cannotbereconciledwithSothicderiveddatingundertheconventional
chronology,buthisanalysiscorrelatesthesteleagainsttheJuliancalendar,nottheGregorian.Whenthislattercorrectionis
takenintoaccount,thesteleisconsistentwithconventionalSothicderivedchronology,thoughtheconventionaldate(c1650
BC)isatthehighendofthepermissiblerange.SeeJ.Baines,TheInundationSteleofSebekhotpeVIIIActaOrientalia
(AcOr)36(1974)39.
19However,sincetheAssyriankinglistrecordsAssurnadinahheIIastheimmediatepredecessorofEribaAdadI,the
valueofthisobservationforjustifyinganadjustmentofseveralcenturiesinAssyrianchronology,tomatchtheproposed
reductionofEgyptianchronology,seemsslight.
20Inthelongrun,14Canddendrochronologicaldatingholdgreatpromiseastoolsforresolvingtheseconundrums.The
currenttrendsinthesefieldsareexactlyopposedtoRohl'stheories,whichfactresultsinRohllaunchingaheadonattack
againstthebasicmethodologyofthesetechniques.OnesuspectsthatRohlwilllosethisargument,buthisconcernsshould
beaddressed.Inparticular,thesuspicionheraisesofamethodologicalflawintheconstructionofthecriticalBelfast
chronologycanonlybefinallyresolvedwhenalltherawdatahasbeenpublished.Moreover,theconflictover
discrepanciesbetweenEgyptianchronologyandthedendrochronologicalrecordwillnotberesolveduntileachsideis
willingtotaketheotherseriously.TheEgyptologistsneedtoabsorbtheimplicationsofusingthescientificdataasanother
primaryrecord,andthedendrochronologistsneedtounderstandthehistoricaldatainmuchmoredepththantheycurrently
do.TherecentdiscussionsofNewKingdomchronologybyKuniholm(opcit782)andbytheleadingUK
dendrochronologistM.G.L.Baillie(ASliceThroughTime(London,1996)149ff)canonlybedescribedasnaiveinthe
extreme.
21M.L.Bierbrier,TheLateNewKingdominEgypt(c1300664BC): AGenealogicalandChronologicalInvestigation
(Warminster,1975)xvi,112f.
22D.Henige,TheChronologyofOralTradition:QuestforaChimera(Oxford,1974);idem,Generationcountingandlate
NewKingdomchronologyJEA67(1981)182.
23Onthepossibilitythatthisisanancienterrorfor64years,seeH.Goedicke,TheDeathofPepiIINeferkarecStudienzur
AltgyptischenKultur(SAK)15(1988)111.
24Sourcesareasfollows:
Minimum12thdynasty:
D.Franke,ZurChronologiedesMittlerenReiches(12.18.Dynastie)
Teil1:Die12.DynastieOrientalia(Or)57(1988)113
Maximum12thdynasty: Gardiner,opcit439
Minimum18thdynasty: C.Aldred,Akhenaten,KingofEgypt(London,1988)10
Maximum18thdynasty: E.F.Wente&C.C.VanSiclenIII,AChronologyoftheNew
KingdominJ.H.Johnson&E.F.Wente(eds.),Studiesin
HonorofGeorgeR.Hughes(Chicago,1977)217
26thdynasty:
Gardiner,opcit451
Ptolemaicdynasty:
P.Green,FromAlexandertoActium(Berkeley,1990)736f.
PtolemaicHPMs:
J.Quaegebeur,TheGenealogyoftheMemphiteHighPriestFamily
intheHellenisticPeriodinD.J.Crawfordetal,Studieson
PtolemaicMemphis(Louvain,1980)43
25D.H.Kelley,APriestlyFamilyofMemphisJAMS12(1995)25.
26R.K.Ritner,DenderiteTempleHierarchyandtheFamilyoftheThebanHighPriestNebwenef:BlockStatueOIM
10729inD.P.Silverberg(ed.)ForHisKa:EssaysOfferedinMemoryofKlausBaer(Chicago,1994)205.
27Kitchen,TIP465,467.Kingsnamedinsquarebracketsthus:[ShoshenqII]arebelievedtohavehadlesserauthorityin
someway,e.g.theywerecoregentsorthetitlewasanhonorificfortheHighPriestofAmunatThebes.Since1986,some
alternateproposalshavebeenmadewithinKitchen'sschemethataffectcertainpartsofthisarrangement.Seeinparticular
A.M.Dodson,PsusennesII,Revued'gyptologie(RdE)38(1987)49,arguingthatPsusenneswascontemporarywith
ShoshenqI,andAston,TakelothIIAKingofthe'ThebanTwentyThirdDynasty'?JEA75(1989)139,arguingthat
TakelothIIwasnotpartofthe22nddynastymainline(aviewalsoadoptedbyRohl).Also,Kitchen'sreconstructionofthe
early21stdynastyarenotuniversallyaccepted,seee.g.A.Niwinski,LepassagedelaXXelaXXIIedynastie:Chronologie
ethistoirepolitiqueBulletindel'institutfranaisd'archologieorientale(BIFAO)95(1995)329.However,thereisno
publisheddiscussionbyRohlonthisperiod.
28Dynasty21isdeducedprincipallyfromfigure7(p58)ofRohl'sarticleinJACF3(basedonsynchronisingyear33of
TjetkheperrePsusenneswithyear3ofOsorkonI),andDynasty22fromfigure403onp374ofPharaohsandKings.These
twotablesgiveonlyrelativedates.Absolutedatesarederivedbyapplyingthesetodatesstatedelsewhereinthebook.Any
errorsincalculationareentirelymyfault,notRohl's.DatesmarkedbyqueriesarebasedontheassumptionofKitchen's
reignlengthbeingapplicable,wherenoneisgivenbyRohl.Thetwotablesarenotentirelyconsistent,differingprincipally
inthereignlengthofTakelothIandtherelativeaccessiondateofOsorkonII;thusitisentirelypossiblethattheearlier
tablenolongerreflectsRohl'sviewsincertainaspectsofthe21stdynastyreconstruction.
29Dodson,AnewKingShoshenqconfirmed?GttingerMiszellen(GM)137(1993)53.CfMABonhme,Les
Chechanquides:Qui,combien?BulletindelaSocitFranaised'gyptologie(BSFE)134(1995)50.
30Dodson,PsusennesIIandShoshenqI,JEA79(1993)267.
31E.Young,SomeNotesontheChronologyandGenealogyoftheTwentyFirstDynasty,JournaloftheAmerican
ResearchCenterinEgypt(JARCE)2(1963)99.
32J.Yoyotte,OsorkonfilsdeMehytouskhe,unpharaonoubli?BSFE77/78(1976/77)39.
33TIP106;E.Iversen,TwoInscriptionsConcerningPrivateDonationstoTemples(Copenhagen,1941).
34TIP112;A.M.Blackman,TheStelaofShoshenk,GreatChiefoftheMeshweshJEA27(1941)83.
35TIP112;G.Daressy,LesparentsdeChchanqIerAnnalesdeServicedesAntiquitsdel'gypte(ASAE)16(1917)177.
36Kitchen,opcit(CAJ1).
37TIP219.
38TIP90,219.
39JCGoyon,UndalleauxnomsdeMenkheperr,filsdePinedjemI,d'IsetemkhebetdeSmends(CSX1305)Cahiersde
Karnak(CK)7(1982)275.
40TIP67,217,224,276f.
41TIP101,193;A.Badawi,DasGrabdesKronprinzenScheschonk,SohnesOsorkon'sII.undHohenpriestersvon
MemphisASAE54(1956)153.
42ThesourceevidencehasrecentlybeensubjectedtoanexhaustivesurveyandcritiqueinP.Pamminger,Das
'SchedsunefertemProblem'Chroniqued'gypte(CdE)69(1994)9.Pammingerconcludesthatthesourceevidencedoes
notsustainRohl'sproposal.
43Kelley,opcit29.
44TherehavealsobeenanumberofarticlespublishedonkeyaspectsofthechronologyoftheThirdIntermediatePeriod
whichareomittedfromconsiderationsincetheyarenotdirectlyrelevanttothetheoriesunderreview.Theseincludethe
articlebyGrahamHagens(ACriticalReviewofDeadReckoningfromthe21stDynasty,JARCE33(1996)153),arguing
thatthebasicdata,ifnotinterpretedwithinaSothicframework,canbereworkedtoallowasignificantreductioninthe
lengthofthisdynasty,andthewholedebatearisingfromCarlJansenWinkelnsimportantpaper(DasEndedesNeuen
Reiches,ZAS119(1992)22)arguingthatHerhorsucceededPiankhasHighPriestofAmunratherthanviceversa.
45L.Depuydt,OntheConsistencyoftheWanderingYearasBackboneofEgyptianChronologyJARCE32(1995)43.
46Depuydt,TheFunctionoftheEbersCalendarConcordanceOr65(1996)61.
47Kitchen,TheThirdIntermediatePeriodinEgypt(2ndreviseded.)(Warminster,1996),xivxlvi,hereafterTIPPreface.
Rohl'strialbytelevisionisdiscussedonppxliixlvi.
48TIPPreface,xxiii.
49TIPPreface,xlv;W.Spiegelberg,gyptischenundandereGraffitiausderthebanischenNekropolis(Heidelberg,1921)
no862,71andplate.
50D.M.Rohl,personalconversation,September1996.AfullpublicationofRohlsresponseonthispointisnowavailable
inRohl,KennethKitchensAtomBomb,JACF8(1999)43.
51J.J.Janssen,TheDaytheInundationBegan,JNES46(1987)129.
52Rohl,op.cit.46.CompareTIPPrefacexlv:Year1,3rdmonthofAkhet(=Inundation),day3,(on)thisdayofthe
descentmadebythewaterofthegreatinundation(under)KingofS&NEgypt,BaienreLPHwithJanssen,op.cit.132:
Therefore,thesentencecanonlyberenderedas:Thisdaythewaterreturned/cametoinundation.
53J.vonBeckerath,Chronologiedespharaonischengypten(Mainz,1997)52.Thisbookwillbecomeabasicreference
textonEgyptianchronology.
54WPopper,TheCairoNilometer:StudiesinIbnTaghriBirdi'sChroniclesofEgyptI(Berkeley/LosAngeles1951)Table
32,194ff.
55P.Brissaud,LemonstreduLochNess,estilndanslelacsacrduTanis?Bulletindelasocitfranaisedesfouillesde
Tanis(BSFFT)10(1996)3.IthankMaryGowoftheWilbourLibraryforprovidingmewithacopyofthisarticle.BSFFT
isavailableonlytomembersoftheSFFT,includingtheveryfewlibrarieswhicharemembers.Membershipapplications
forSFFTmaybeobtainedfromMJeanRougemont,SecretaryGeneraloftheSocit,1aveClaudeVellefaux,75475Paris
Cedex10,France.IthankFedericoRocchiforobtainingthesedetailsforme,andMRougemontforprovidingadditional
information.Membership,includingthecurrentissueofBSFFT,costs500FFperannum.BackissuesofBSFFTare
availabletomembers,foranadditional300FFperissue.
56Brissaud,LesfouillesdanslesecteurdelaNcropoleroyale(19841986)CahiersdeTanis(CdT)1(1987)7,esp.23(f).
AlinedrawingofthelintelinquestionisreproducedinF.vonKnel,NotespigraphiquesCdT1(1987)45,fig.2(a).Von
Knelcommentsthatthesurvivingdecorisconsistentwithahebsedscene,whichinhisviewplacestheblocktoyear30or
later.Thismaywellbethecase,thoughonemaynotethatseveralhebsedsareknownwithearlierdates,e.g.thoseof
MentuhotepIV(year2),Hatshepsut(year16)andOsorkonII(year22).
57Rohl,TheMonsterinPhilippeBrissaudsNightmares,JACF8(1999)50,esp.55;vonKnel,op.cit.46.
58Brissaud,op.cit.21,35(fig.8).
59C.JansenWinkeln,DatingtheBeginningofthe22ndDynasty,JACF8(1999)17.
60R.Porter,TheGenerationGame,JACF8(1999)26.
61P.Jamesetal.,MediterraneanChronologyinCrisisinM.S.Balmuth,R.H.Tykot(eds)SardinianandAegean
Chronology:TowardstheResolutionofRelativeandAbsoluteDatingintheMediterranean(Oxford,1998)29.Ithank
PeterJamesforprovidingmewithacopyofthisarticle.
62TIP206ff.
63A.Thijs,ReconsideringtheEndoftheTwentiethDynasty,part1:ThefishermanPnekhtemopeandthedateofBM
10054,GM167(1998)95;idem,ReconsideringtheEndoftheTwentiethDynasty,partII,GM170(1999)83;idem,
ReconsideringtheEndoftheTwentiethDynasty,partIII:SomeHithertoUnrecognisedDocumentsfromthewHm mswt,
GM173(1999)175;ReconsideringtheEndoftheTwentiethDynasty,partIV:TheHarshirefamilyasatestfortheshorter
chronology,GM175(2000)99.Atleasttwomorearticlesarepromisedinthisseries.
64RohlhasrevisedhisdatefortheaccessionofRamsesIIupwardsby8yearstotakeaccountofthecritiqueofThieles
biblicalchronologymadebyJ.Hughes,SecretsoftheTimes:MythandHistoryinBiblicalChronology(Sheffield,1990).
65ItisnotclearwhetherRamsesIXissupposedtohavesucceededRamsesIIIorRamsesVIII,sincebotharesupposedto
havediedin835inthisscheme.IhavearbitrarilymadehimasuccessorofRamsesIIIpendingfurtherinformation.
66QuotedinA.J.Peden,TheReignofRamsesIV(Warminster,1994)14.
67D.F.Lappin,TheDeclineandFallofSothicDating:elLahunlunartextsandtheastronomicaldatingofthe12th
Dynasty(http://www.nunki.net/PerRenput/Reaction/Lappin.html,2000)
68J.W.Wegner,TheNatureandChronologyoftheSenwosretIIIAmenemhatIIIRegnalSuccession:some
considerationsbasedonnewevidencefromthemortuarytempleofSenwosretIIIatAbydos.JNES55(1996)249.
69R.Delia,ANewLookatSomeOldDates:AReexaminationofTwelthDynastyDoubleDatedInscriptions,BES1
(1979)15;idem,DoubtsAboutDoubleDatesandCoregencies,BES4(1982)55.C.Obsomer,SsostrisIer:tude
chronologiqueethistoriquedurgne(Brussels,1995)35ff.,147ff..
70AssumingpBerlin10012tobeaSothicobservation,andassumingnoreformofthecivilcalendar,itsdatemustlieinthe
range1872(assuminganobservationatMemphis)to1830(assumingElephantine).
71S.W.Manning,ATestofTime:TheVolcanoofTheraandtheChronologyandHistoryoftheAegeanandEast
MediterraneanintheMidSecondMilleniumBC.(Oxford,1999).
72Thatbeingsaid,itisperhapsnotsurprisingthatsuchadetailedsurveyshouldcontaintheoccasionalerror.Forexample,
inrelationtomyownwork,Manningstates(op.cit.409n.1992)thatBennett(1995a)likewisefound>78years[forthe
17thDynasty],fromanabsoluteminimumof>57years,andprobably68years.Infact68yearsistheminimumsumof
knownregnallengths(afigurewhichshouldnowberevisedupto75givenRyholtslatestcollationoftheTurincanon),
andinmyviewtheprobablelengthofthedynastyisc125years.Norisitcorrecttostate(op.cit.111n.505)thatin
RyholtsviewtherewereprobablytwokingsTao;infactRyholtisfirmlyoftheopinionthattherewasonlyone.However,
suchminorerrorsontangentialpointsdonotsignificantlydetractfromthevalueofthesurvey.

Temporal Fugues

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Temporal Fugues

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PLACEDONLINEBYPERMISSIONOF

OneofKitchen'smajorcriticismsof CenturiesofDarkness istheallegedaversionoftheauthorstogapsinthe

Peftjauawybast andHarsiesi,andthelatter'ssonAnkhefensekhmet. Thiscarriesthelinedowntothetimeof

Istemkheb D = [HPA] ? Pinudjem II, HPA = Nesikhons A

Maatkare B = OSORKON? OSORKON I

TJETKHEPERRE ? Psusennes III, HPA

Tentamun A = [King] ? RAMSES XI

AMENEMOPET, HPT RamsesAnkhefenmut C

HPA = High Priest of Amun

Kings (actual or honorary) capitalised

CONVENTIONS FOR ALL FIGURES

[King] ? OSORKON ? OSOCHOR

SHOSHENQ I ? Shoshenq B, GCM

Nimlot A, GCM = Tentsepeh A

Shoshenq A, GCM = Mehtenweshet A ? Mehtenweshet A'

Mutnodjmet ? [Queen] =? [King] ?AKHEPERRE = Mutnodjmet [King] ? PSUSENNES I

PINUDJEM I, HPA? [King, HPA]= Henttawy A , DH ?Henttawy Q, DH

MENKHEPERRE HPA = Istemkheb C' ? Istemkheb C

Hrere B ?= Piankh, HPA

Nodjmet = HERIHOR, HPA ?[King]

Tentamun B = SMENDES ? [King]

Nimlot A, GCM = Tentsepeh A

SHOSHENQ ? SHOSHENQ III

Nimlot C, GH, HPA = Tentsepeh C

OSORKON II = Mutudjankhes Djedmutesankh

Karoma A = SHOSHENQ I ? Shoshenq B, GCM

Mehtenweshet A' ? Mehtenweshet A = Shoshenq A, GCM [Great Chief of Foreigners]

Tjesbastperu = Takeloth B, HPM

Shoshenq D, HPM ?Shoshenq, HPA

= (OSORKON II) = Karoma B ? Maatkare B

Shedsunefertem, HPM = Mehtenweshet B

Ankhesefensekhmet A, HPM = Tapeshenese

[HEDJHEQA....RE] PSUSENNES III

Pipi A, HPM ? Neterkheperre Meryptah

[HEDJHEQA....RE] PSUSENNES III

AKHEPERRE [PSUSENNES II]

(?RAMSES II/VII - TJETKHEPERRE HAR-PSUSENNES I)

USERMAATRE-SETEPENRE [RAMSES (II? VII?)]

Potrebbero piacerti anche