Temporal Fugues

7/24/2019 Temporal Fugues

1/28

PLACEDONLINEBYPERMISSIONOF

THEOCTAVIANSOCIETY

P.O. BOX75, DAGGETT, CA 92327-0075

E-MAIL: [email protected]

TEMPORALFUGUESChris Bennett PhD, FAS, FSO

David M. Rohl: Pharaohs and Kings(Crown (New York), 1996) $37.50

Articles in the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF):1

The Early Third Intermediate Period,JACF 3 (1989/90) 45

A Test of Time, JACF 5 (1991/92) 30

(with M. Ibrahim) Apis and the Serapeum, JACF 2 (1988) 6

1

The major features of Egyptian chronology as it is generally accepted today were rapidly established after

Champollions decipherment of hieroglyphics. The surviving fragments of the Egyptian historian Manetho supplied

a kinglist, comprised of 30 dynasties, which was supplemented and corrected from several similar ancient Egyptian

lists, such as the Royal Turin Papyrus, and the kinglists of Abydos and Saqqara. The monuments of the individual

kings could be placed within this framework to provide much fine detail of individual reign-lengths, periods of

coregency etc. The relative chronology so established was far from complete, but could apparently be tied toabsolute dates at several key points, from several astronomical synchronisms, and from synchronisms between the

Egyptian sequence of kings and similarly constructed sequences for other countries of the ancient Near East. These

included the kings of Israel, through the identification of the biblical Shishak as Shoshenq I of the 22nd dynasty, and

the kings of ancient Assyria and Babylon.

For most of this century, work in the field has consisted of refining this model and trying to fill in the missing

pieces. For example, there was a debate in the 1980s on the location for the sightings of the heliacal rising of Sothis

(Sirius), which is significant because the answer affects the dates of certain recorded observations of this event.

This debate resulted partly in proposals for lowering both the end of the Middle Kingdom and the start of the New

Kingdom by three decades, and partly in a rejection by many of the validity of the claimed astronomical

synchronism which had previously governed the date of the start of the New Kingdom. As a result of these fine

tunings, the date for the start of the Egyptian New Kingdom is now set between 1570 BC and 1539 BC, with the

lower date being preferred; it may yet drift down a few decades. Similar analyses have moved the accession of

Ramses II from 1304 first to 1290 and then to 1279 BC. However, while such debates are intensely fought by the

specialists involved, the underlying sequence of events has never been revised: the 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd

dynasties reigned in succession, while the 23rd, 24th and early 25th dynasties overlapped the last part of the 22nd.

Recently, this basic model has come under challenge from two directions.

With the advent of 14C dating, refined by dendrochronological (tree-ring) sequences, it is now theoretically possible

to provide highly accurate dates for archaeological samples which are not dependent on any historical data. By and

large, these techniques have been held to confirm historically-based Egyptian dating, although dendrochronological

dates have in fact tended to be older than the historical evidence suggests. The date assigned to the explosive

eruption of the Aegean island of Thera (Santorini) by these techniques has created a particularly severe problem in

this regard. According to the currently favoured scientific analysis, this eruption occurred in 1628 BC. A recently

published Anatolian tree ring sequence supports this date, while also supporting the conventional dating of the

Amarna period of the 18th dynasty in the latter half of the 14th century BC. 2 However, there are clear traces of the

Thera eruption in levels dated to the early 18th dynasty at the Hyksos capital of Avaris, Tell el-Daba, and elsewhere.According to conventional archaeological and historical measures, this places Thera in the late 16th century BC, a

century after the date preferred by the dendrochronological evidence. If Thera occurred in 1628 then there is a

fundamental error in our reconstruction of the 18th dynasty. Since this is one of the best documented periods in

Egyptian history, there seems to be no possibility of finding an extra century in the historical record, as the 1628

date would require; but nor does the dendrochronological record admit a major volcanic event in the 16th century

BC.

This controversy has also, so far, largely been confined to the academic establishment. A far deeper challenge to

conventional Egyptian chronology has been mounted in the public arena. This school of thought has attacked the

Electronic reprint of article appearing in JAMS XIII (1996) 4-32 1


2/28

TEMPORAL FUGUES

conventional chronology from the other direction: it argues for a radical collapse of later Egyptian chronology by up

to 350 years.

The first salvo was fired in 1991, with the publication of Centuries of Darkness.3 The authors pointed out the

existence of archaeological dark ages throughout the Old World in the early Iron Age, noted that Old World

chronologies were ultimately derived from Egyptian chronology, and argued that Egyptian chronology must be

fundamentally flawed. They proposed a compression of Egyptian chronology for the Third Intermediate Period

(dynasties 21-25) of about 250 years. Such a compression would have the effect of eliminating the dark ages that

were felt to be so troublesome. In a special review issue of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal these proposals

were roundly rejected by experts in all disciplines in Old World archaeology, a result virtually assured by the failureof the authors to present more than an outline restructuring for Egyptian chronology.

Now, in this beautifully produced and lavishly illustrated book, and in the accompanying three-part television series,

David Rohl has returned to the charge, this time providing many of the details of Egyptian chronology missing from

the earlier book, and focussing on their implications for locating Biblical narratives in historical and archaeological

contexts. While some of his proposals for a revised chronology are very similar to those of Centuries of Darkness

(which is not surprising, since Rohl and James were initially collaborators), he also advances many chronological

proposals not made by the earlier book. These revisions have some dramatic results for Biblical history. Rohl finds

it possible to identify references to many Biblical characters in the El-Amarna letters, including David and Saul.

Moreover, he presents proposals for identifying the stories of Joseph and Moses in the Egyptian record: Joseph

becomes a vizier to Amenemhat III, with an Israelite settlement around his palace at Area F of Tell el-Daba; Moses

spent his youth fighting for Sebekhotep IV; the catastrophe which overwhelmed Level G at Tell el-Daba is to be

identified with the biblical Plagues of Egypt; and Exodus is also dated to this time, with the Israelites, fleeing Egypt,crossing paths with the invading Hyksos.

Sensational claims such as these drive professional Egyptologists crazy. And with good reason. The popular

bookshops and the cable channels are filled every year with works of the likes of Robert Bauval and Graham

Hancock, who jump to the most spectacular and far-reaching conclusions, frequently based on the slenderest of

evidence, much of it misunderstood, and usually accompanied by swingeing rhetorical attacks on the hidebound

Egyptological establishment who are held to be incapable of seeing the obvious wisdom of the new theories because

of their purblind and musty academic vision. In such circumstances, it is no wonder that the automatic reaction of

many professionals is to reject the latest popular radicalism out of hand. Simply by launching their theories through

the popular media, Rohl and James have made themselves and their theories appear to be no different from any of

these others.

Moreover, neither James nor Rohl have helped themselves by their associations with the disciples of that arch-

heresiarch of yesteryear Immanual Velikovsky. Even though both deny Velikovsky's theories, both have foundcongenial intellectual homes in Velikovskian groups and Velikovskian publications, and Rohl has accepted some of

Velikovsky's observations in formulating his theses on Moses and Joseph. This sin is compounded by the fact that

the "New Chronology" is a direct attack on Kenneth Kitchen's The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt,4which is

widely regarded as one of the major intellectual achievements of modern Egyptology. It is not surprising, then, that

Kitchen, in a savage review in the Times Literary Supplement,5condemned the authors of Centuries of Darknessas

"sons of Velikovsky" and consigned them to the same oblivion as their accursed master. No doubt the authorities at

the British Museum, who have banned this book from the BM Bookstore, feel much the same way about David

Rohl.

Such a reaction is misguided. The message may be sensational, and Rohl may even be completely wrong in his

theories, but there is a world of difference between his intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter

James. Rohl is a trained Egyptologist, with a degree in the subject and a PhD in course of preparation at University

College London, one of the most prestigious Egyptological departments in Britain. Nor did this book appear out of

the blue. He has for several years edited and published the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum, which haspresented not only his own theories, but also articles of considerable merit by many mainstream archaeologists. It is

evident, from the pages in this book, from the articles in JACF, and from personal exchanges, that Rohl has a

considerable mastery of his material, and has thought long and deep about it. Even if the debate is ultimately not

resolved in his favour, it is worthwhile because it forces a re-examination of long-held assumptions and of difficult

problems. This can only be healthy for the discipline, and should be welcomed for this reason.

Having said that, there remains a significant obstacle in undertaking a full-scale critical review of the New

Chronology. Although Rohl has gone considerably further than James in detailing his proposed chronological

Electronic reprint of article appearing in JAMS XIII (1996) 4-32 2


3/28

POSTSCRIPT TO TEMPORAL FUGUES

revisions, particularly for dynasties 21 and 22, there are many aspects of Egyptian chronology for which he has not

yet published a new model, either in this book or in his JACF articles.

The late Third Intermediate Period dynasties 23 to 25 is barely discussed. It appears that the Manethonian

dynasty 23 is seen as a Delta dynasty succeeding the 22nd and lasting until quite late in the reign of Psamtek I.

In terms of overall chronology, this is perhaps a moot issue, since dynasty 23 is seen by all parties as being

contemporary with existing dynasties. Indeed a very similar model has been proposed by Anthony Leahy,

without, however, requiring that earlier chronology be collapsed.6

The keystone of Rohl's chronology is to identify the campaign of the biblical Shishak in year 5 of Rehoboam ofJudah, not with the campaign undertaken by Shoshenq I late in his reign, but with one recorded in year 8 of

Ramses II. This places the accession of Ramses II at c932 BC,7while, on other grounds, Shoshenq I is placed at

c823 BC. Under this scheme, it is necessary not only to make the 21st and 22nd dynasties contemporary but

also to reduce the duration of the 19th and 20th dynasties after Seti I from about 200 years to, at most, a little

over a century. Since Ramses II reigned 66 years, Ramses III reigned 31 years, and Ramses XI reigned 28

years, making 125 years before any of the other 13 Ramessid kings are even considered, this would be a

remarkable feat. However, the only vague hint Rohl has published as to how it is to be accomplished is a

suggestion that Ramses IX and Ramses XI might have been contemporaries, 8 which is clearly insufficient.

Perhaps in recognition of the difficulty of this problem, several other "New Chronology" solutions have been

proposed for Shishak's campaign, including year 53 of Ramses II, Ramses III or even Ramses IX.9

In order to lower the accession of Ahmes from 1539 to 1193 (346 years), while only lowering the death of

Amenemhat III from the current lowest date of 1772 to 1645 (127 years) it is necessary to extend the

conventional length of the Second Intermediate Period by 219 years. Part of this some 50 years is done by

giving early 13th dynasty kings average reigns of 5 years, about twice the length normally assumed. An

uncertain amount, perhaps 10-20 years, comes from extending the reign of Sebekhotep IV beyond the decade

normally ascribed to him. However, the remaining 150 years or so can only come after the reign of Dudimose

that is, at the end of the 13th and in the 17th dynasties. Although Rohl is a close student of the excavations at

Tell el-Daba, he has not discussed any of the Egyptian historical data on the chronological issues surrounding

this period. From my own studies of this subject, I have recently proposed a chronology for exactly this period

which fits well with conventional low model for the New Kingdom and the middle or high models (but not the

low) for the Middle Kingdom (i.e. I would set the length of the Second Intermediate Period at about 250

years).10 The synchronisms supplied by the data are, in my opinion, loose enough that this chronology will

support a reduction of perhaps a decade or two in the late Second Intermediate Period, and an extension of

perhaps four decades. But an extension of a century and a half is simply out of the question.

In the book, Rohl excuses such omissions by the need to conform with the publication regulations surroundingLondon University PhDs. In a posting to the UseNet group sci.archaeology, he amplified this point, noting that he

was not informed of these regulations until his book and television deals were well advanced. In effect, he argued

that he was trapped in a situation where he was forced to publish his book before his academic arguments could be

properly examined. Despite this experience, he has now taken another leave of absence from his PhD to write a

second book and a third is also planned. It appears unlikely that these analyses will see the light of day for some

time.

2

Perhaps the most far-reaching claim in the book, made also by Peter James, is that the current standard chronology

leads to contradictions in interpreting the historical and archaeological evidence which are so severe that this

chronology must be regarded as fatally flawed, and discarded. This is a very serious claim: it says that, regardless of

whether Rohl's own proposals are correct, some alternative scheme must be found to the current chronology. These

arguments require review.

Three chronological anomalies are claimed.

The first concerns the Apis Bulls in the Serapeum at Memphis. It is well established for the securely-dated Saite

and Ptolemaic periods that the average lifetime of an Apis Bull is 18 years. However, for the period between the

first Apis of Ramses II and that of Psamtek I (606 years in conventional chronology) the evidence only permits at

most 23 Apis Bulls to be recognised sufficient for 396 years. There are no signs of any bulls for the 21st dynasty,

nor indeed for the early reigns of the 22nd.

Postscript Chris Bennett 1997-2000 All rights reserved 3


4/28


One of Kitchen's major criticisms of Centuries of Darknessis the alleged aversion of the authors to gaps in the

evidence; indeed he cites this particular argument as a prime example.11 If it were only a case of missing Apis Bulls,

he would have a point. Mariette found evidence for one hidden Apis burial of at least three bulls, not yet fully

excavated; there may be others. What is much more troubling is that there is no apparent sign of any activity at all

in the Serapeum during this period, despite high levels of activity in both the preceding and succeeding periods.

This is certainly a phenomenon requiring explanation, and Kitchen is wrong simply to brush it aside. However,

precisely because it is a gap in the record, it is not necessarily evidence of a fatal chronological flaw. There may

once have been evidence of 21st dynasty activity. Of approximately 1200 stelae discovered in the Serapeum, only

268 have been published, and nearly 400 stelae, fully a third of those found, were destroyed by floods in the Bulaqmuseum in Cairo last century. Such evidence may yet be found, either in the basement of the Louvre, or in the

Serapeum itself. The Apis burials may have been moved for a century or so, to a new set of chambers elsewhere in

Saqqara, as David Aston has suggested,12or even further. It may be relevant that the first surviving post-Ramessid

Apis is dated to year 23 of Osorkon II, and that the first known royal tomb of the 22nd Dynasty is that which his

mother queen Kapes built for him and his father Takeloth I.

The second "anomaly" concerns the famous cache of royal mummies found in tomb TT320. Dockets on the

mummy cases of Seti I and Ramses II, which are known to have been found near the entrance of TT320, describe a

movement of these coffins out of the tomb of Seti I on 17 Peret IV in year 10 of Siamun of the 21st dynasty, and a

second movement involving the kai("high place" or "high track") of queen Inhapi, on 20 Peret IV, which is the

same day that an inscription at the entrance of TT320 records the burial of the High Priest of Amun Pinudjem II.

However, the mummy linen of the Second Prophet of Amun Djedptahefankh A is dated to year 11 of Shoshenq I.

Since his coffin rested deep in the tomb and it is physically impossible to get it past the coffin of Seti I, Rohlconcludes that Shoshenq I reigned before Siamun conventionally, their positions are reversed.

An alternative, and chronologically far less drastic, solution to this problem has been proposed by Nicholas

Reeves.13 Reeves pointed out that TT320 cannot be the kaiof Inhapi, because Inhapi herself was found near the

entrance to TT320. Thus, the Djedptahefankh linen shows that the movement from the kaito TT320 must have

occurred at some undocumented date after year 11 of Shoshenq I. Indeed, after initially denying it,14Rohl now

accepts that TT320 is not the kai, though he still places great emphasis on the physical difficulties of manoeuvring

the coffins. The true crux of his case is that he now interprets the dockets to mean that the coffins rested in the kai

for only three days while awaiting interment in TT320, on the day of Pinudjem II's burial. However, this

interpretation is at variance with that accepted by all other Egyptologists since Cerny, 15namely that it took the

authors of the dockets three days to move the mummies from the tomb of Seti I to the kai, and that the authors

thought of the kai as the final resting place, not an interim staging post. Rohl has not justified his alternative

interpretation (nor even acknowledged that it is one).

In the book, Rohl gives no recognition to Reeves' proposal. Elsewhere, he has objected to it on the grounds that it

requires too many assumptions. In particular, he points to the lack of a docket for any movement after 20 Peret IV,

the date of the burial of Pinudjem II. However, neither Inhapi nor Amenhotep I, who were moved to TT320 on the

same day as the other kings under all hypotheses, have dockets for 20 Peret IV, indicating that they were not moved

on that day. It is also to be noted that Reeves' assumptions, be they excessive or not (and, in this reviewer's opinion,

they are not) are entirely local in scope. When the alternative proposal on the table is to jettison the existing

chronology, one may wonder who is making the larger leap of faith!

The third "anomaly" relates primarily to the northern wall of the tomb of Osorkon II at Tanis. For part of its length,

this wall is immediately adjacent to the southern wall of the tomb of Akheperre Pasebakhaenniut (conventionally,

Psusennes I), to the north, which was conventionally built over a century earlier. At the points of contact, this wall

is a single thickness; on both the east and west sides of these points, the wall is of double thickness, with the extra

layer being placed on the outside. Thus, the southern wall of the tomb of Psusennes I appears to be inserted into part

of the northern wall of the tomb of Osorkon II, with the outer thickness of the wall having being removed, for thelength of the southern wall of Psusennes' tomb, in order to allow for the extension of this tomb to the south. Rohl's

argument is that such a structure would ordinarily imply that the tomb of Psusennes was later than that of Osorkon,

though in conventional chronology they are in reverse order. This observation caused the original excavators,

Montet and Lzine, considerable difficulties. Their suggestion was that Osorkon's tomb was not original to him, andthat its northern wall was rebuilt for him.

Of the three "anomalies" this is the one which has met with the most favourable response from professional

archaeologists, many of whom apparently agree that no other clear explanation has been provided. Moreover, one



5/28


has to agree with Rohl that the interpretation made by Montet and Lzine makes very little sense, since theinscriptions on the interior face of the northern wall of Osorkon's tomb, and other evidence, clearly show that the

tomb was constructed for him by his mother.

Nevertheless, not all archaeologists agree with Rohl. Jean Yoyotte, who currently holds the concession for the site,

argued, in an interview briefly excerpted in the television series which is not referred to in the book, that Rohl must

wait for a new survey of the tomb interiors to be completed before drawing any final conclusions. Rohl himself has

argued that the alterations made to the interior of Psusennes' tomb to accommodate the burial of his general

Wendjebaendjed, resulting in the southward extension that abuts Osorkon's tomb, support his argument for a pre-

existing tomb to the south. A detailed plan of the tomb interiors, based on Montet and Lzine's work, is reproducedas Figure 108 of Rohl's book, which allows this argument to be followed in detail. Yet a close examination of the

interior plan of Osorkon's tomb as shown in this plan underscores Yoyotte's point.

It is clear that the tomb walls are indeed frequently of double thickness. This is so for every wall in Psusennes'

tomb, and for the west wall and parts of the east and north walls of Osorkon's tomb. However, it is not true for the

burial chamber of Takeloth I and other structures on the south side of Osorkon's tomb, nor is it true for any of the

interior walls of this tomb. Moreover, except where the inner thickness is a lining of granite (notably, the north and

south walls of Osorkon's own burial chamber), there is no reason to believe that the interface between inner and

outer walls is aligned. If we take away the outer skin, as Rohl argues has been done here, then the new external face

should follow an irregular line. But that is not what the Montet/Lzine plan shows. The northern wall of Osorkon'stomb is certainly of single thickness, where it abuts onto the southern face of Psusennes', but its outside face is

shown to be aligned exactly as we would expect for a facing that was originally intended to be the exterior face of

the tomb.Now, it must be noted that the plan of Montet and Lzine is not fully accurate on this point: there are some signs ofsuch dressing.16 In particular, the stones in Osorkon's tomb at the eastern end of the inset section show notching to

accommodate the wall of Psusennes' tomb. But, was the pre-existing wall shaped to accommodate new stone or was

the new stone shaped to fit a pre-existing wall? Common sense suggests the latter. In order to align an irregular

intermediary interface once it has been exposed, one must first dress the stone along the length of that interface.

This is an expensive activity, and not one likely to be undertaken if the result was immediately going to be hidden

by another tomb with an immediately adjacent wall, unless absolutely necessary. In fact, no such adjustments are

likely unless they impact the structure of the new wall. If it is necessary to make a fit between two such surfaces, it

is at least as likely that the stone for the new structure, which is far more manoeuverable, will be dressed to fit to the

existing shape. However, it will take very close examination to determine whether the dressing occurred during

construction of Osorkon's tomb or at a later time.

When considering the hypothesis that an outer skin has been stripped away from the northern wall of Osorkon'stomb, it must also be noted that the double thickness at the western end of this wall is of a different character to most

instances of this phenomenon in the tomb complex. The point at which Psusennes' tomb recedes to the north

coincides with the midpoint on the interior north-south wall within Osorkon's tomb that marks the eastern boundary

of his burial chamber (a coincidence, incidentally, which is difficult to explain if Psusennes' tomb were built last).

The entire western section of the north wall is therefore the external face of the north wall of Osorkon's burial

chamber. The interior thickness of this section is the granite lining of this chamber, and as noted above this is likely

to be aligned on the interface to the exterior wall because it is a different type of stone. In a very real sense, virtually

the entire exterior north wall is of single thickness stone. Only at the eastern end, near the entrance and past the end

of the south wall of Psusennes' tomb, is there a projection from the north wall which breaks this pattern.

Thus, while I have no explanation for this projection, the part of the wall that actually adjoins Psusennes' tomb does

not particularly support the theory that it is of earlier date.

There is another factor which Montet and Lzine were unable to consider. South of the main passageway inOsorkon's tomb lies the burial chamber of a king Takeloth (in which, incidentally, all walls are of a single

thickness). Montet and Lzine considered this to be Takeloth II, who was later than Osorkon II, but it has sincebeen established that this is the tomb of Osorkon's father, Takeloth I. 17 Thus the joint tomb forms a single complex,

built under the direction of Osorkon's mother queen Kapes, and of much more complex design than would be the

case if each tomb had been built at different times. This being so, there may have been a change of plan necessitated

by the presence of the more northern tomb.



6/28


Finally, one may note that the designs of the tombs of Osorkon II and Akheperre Psusennes are quite different from

each other, both in their layout and their construction. Under Rohl's chronology, the two kings are contemporaries.

Why is this not reflected in the architecture of their tombs?

I want to stress that the issue here is not whether Rohl's explanations or any particular counter-explanations for

Rohl's three "anomalies" are correct. In my own view, only the burial of Djedptahefankh A in TT320 has received a

satisfactory explanation under the "conventional" chronology. One can even concede, for the sake of argument, that

Rohl's explanations may in fact be correct, reserving only the concession that they have not been proven. The point

is that there exist "conventional" explanations which are reasonable and economical with their assumptions, while

remaining consistent with the current chronology. The problems are all worthy of study and analysis, but neitheralone nor together do they force us to solutions involving drastic chronological revisions. To this extent, the

prejudice that much of the academic establishment has shown with regard to Rohl's theories is well-founded: just

like other "revisionist" theorists, Rohl has leapt for a radical conclusion when it is far from clear that such solutions

are necessary.

Nevertheless, the problems are real, and Rohl is right to point them out. A deeper study of them would certainly

reveal valuable insights into the history of the time. Rohl's own activities indicate how this can happen. For

example, the Serapeum creates problems for Rohl's own scheme: even if a reduction of 200 years were granted on

the basis of the "missing" bulls, it would not meet the 350 required for his chronology. Rohl proposes to meet this

problem by analysing some of the alleged Bulls out of existence on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Moreover,

he must do so while simultaneously solving the problem of the Bulls of the early 22nd dynasty, which are missing

under the New Chronology as well as under the conventional scheme (unless they be the three that Mariette saw but

could not excavate). In view of the clear gap in the record, such a reanalysis has merit, regardless of whosechronology is correct, and regardless of the outcome for the sequence of Apis Bulls.

3

It is, of course, perfectly possible that the standard chronology is wrong, even though no fatal logical contradictions

have as yet been found. Rohl correctly points out that the synchronisms on which the current chronology rests are

few in number and are not without difficulties of interpretation. The dated Sothic sighting which was once held to

fix New Kingdom chronology is, as we have seen, now widely discounted as not being a Sothic sighting at all. 18

The lunar observations which date the reigns of Ramses II and Thutmosis III admit multiple solutions, repeated in a

25-year cycle. Assur-uballit of Assyria does have a different father in the Amarna letters (Assur-nadin-ahhe II) from

that given to Assur-uballit I in the kinglists (Eriba-Adad I).19 The Palestinian campaign of Shoshenq I does not

match well with the Judean campaign of Shishak described in the Book of Kings (though it must be said at once that

Rohl's proposed identification of this as the Moabite campaign in year 8 of Ramses II is no better). And calibrated14C dating, to the extent it can be applied in Egypt, does diverge from historically derived dates though in theopposite direction to that preferred by Rohl.20 It is salutary to be reminded of these facts.

Having noted the limitations of the basic chronological synchronisms, Rohl has erected an alternative chronology

based on a reinterpretation of much the same evidence as the standard chronology. In a brief review such as this it is

not possible to critique all the arguments that are relevant to this thesis, ranging as they do from archaeoastronomy

to Palestinian archaeology to dendrochronology to Biblical criticism to ancient linguistics to statistical analysis,

even had I the necessary expertise, and even though some of these areas such as the difficulties of applying the

New Chronology to the Assyrian kinglist present major, if not insuperable, objections to the theory. Since Rohl's

arguments on Egyptian genealogy will be of particular interest to the readers of this journal, I will focus on this area

for the remainder of this article.

Rohl makes use of genealogy for three purposes. First, he uses genealogies to estimate time, based on an assumed

average inter-generational interval. Second, he argues that the genealogical data supports his case that Egyptian

chronology must be compressed. And finally, his theories require that a number of genealogies held to supportparticular points of the conventional chronology must be reexamined to fit the New Chronology.

When using genealogies to estimate periods of time, Rohl uses an intergenerational average of 20 years. Two

justifications are given for this number: the authority of its use by Kitchen and by Morris Bierbrier21; and an

independent calculation supplied by Rohl based on the regnal statistics for a number of ancient dynasties. The first

observation is somewhat misleading. While Kitchen and Bierbrier did indeed use this number for calculational

purposes, Bierbrier concluded that an average generational interval of 25 years was much more appropriate. In view

of this conclusion, it would be fair to use 25 years when estimating time from genealogies under the conventional

chronology.



7/28


The second argument, presented in Rohl's Figure 407, is a remarkable piece of work. Essentially, he has taken 19

dynastic groups whose relative chronologies are held to be reasonably secure, totted up the total amount of time and

the total number of kings, and divided one by the other to arrive at an average reign length of 16.75 years. This is

then increased to 20 years "to allow for occasional usurpations and brother successions".

As an estimate of an average intergenerational interval, the number of methodological flaws in this analysis is

almost too large to count. The dynasties listed include four (19th and 20th dynasties, early Assyrian kings, and

Babylonian kings) whose chronologies are directly affected by Rohl's own theories, and hence must be removed as

sub judice. The Babylonian kings between Sumu-abi and Sennacherib are treated as a single dynasty, as are the

kings of Israel, even though it is well-documented that multiple dynasties are involved in each case, many of whichconsisted of only one or two kings. The late Arsacid kings of Iran are included even though their genealogy is

almost completely unknown. Dynasties are included from completely different societies Egyptian, Mesopotamian,

Judean, Greek, Iranian with no apparent recognition that the marriage customs of these societies were entirely

different and therefore likely to result in different ages for marriage and childbirth. Not only brotherly succession

may occur but all sorts of jumps within a family can occur; indeed, the very definition of what constitutes a

generation is a thorny issue when there are such jumps, or when, as with the Ptolemies in this group, there is a

significant amount of inbreeding. No recognition appears to exist for the biasing effects of dynastic termini: the

founder of a dynasty may achieve the throne late in life; the last ruler may lose the throne early in life. And so on,

and so on.

In an examination of the utility of oral genealogies for estimating intervals of time, the anthropologist David

Hennige performed a generational analysis on 737 well-documented dynasties world wide, resulting in a distribution

chart showing dynastic averages ranging from 15 to 49 years.22

Partly in reaction to Bierbrier's work, Henigeprovided a summary of this work to the Egyptological community in which he argued that the average could easily

be even larger than Bierbrier's 25 years. This work, while not specifically focussed on Egypt, is much more

extensive and methodologically far more sound than Rohl's effort, and it is curious Rohl has made no note of it.

Since Bierbrier's work was undertaken in the conventional chronological framework, and since similar studies have

not, to the best of my knowledge, been carried out for the upper classes of the Egyptian populace in the

chronologically secure Saite and Ptolemaic periods, the only reasonably valid cross-check one can easily make is to

estimate the intergenerational interval of the ruling dynasties themselves, based on their relative reign-lengths.

However, there are very few dynasties which can reasonably be used to establish such an intergenerational interval:

the 12th, the 18th from Thutmosis I to Akhenaten, the 26th from the accession of Psamtek I to the death of Wahibre

(Apries), and the Ptolemies. Others are either too little known, too short to establish a valid sample, or, as noted

above, sub judice. Even the 6th must be discounted owing to the truly exceptional reign of Pepi II (94 years),23and

one could argue that the Ptolemies are more Greek than Egyptian, though their enthusiastic practice of dynastic

incest suggests otherwise. To these we may add the Ptolemaic High Priests of Memphis, from Amenher II (died 217

BC) to Pedubastis IV (died 30 BC). Making allowances for uncertainties in chronology and the number of

generations involved, one arrives at the following chart, which clearly supports Bierbrier's and Henige's arguments

for generational averages significantly higher than 20 years.24

Dynasty Duration Generations Minimum Maximum

12th 178-213 7-8 22.25 30.5

18th (partial) 154-190 7 22 27.1

26th (partial) 96 4 24 24

Ptolemies 275 9-10 27.5 30.6

Ptolemaic HPMs 187 7 26.7 26.7

Average 24.7 28.3

* * * * * *

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



8/28


Khnemibre, the Memphite High priests, and Nespaherenhat, descendant of Roma, second prophet of Amun under

Ramses II. The first relates to the shortening of the Third Intermediate Period after the accession of Shoshenq I; the

last two to the alleged contemperaneity between the 21st and 22nd dynasties. It is further claimed that there are no

genealogies extant which contradict the proposed shortening of the chronology.

The genealogy of Khnemibre is immediately suspect. It is carved on the walls of the quarry in the Wadi

Hammamat, a location in which the author's access to written genealogical sources is likely to have been rather

limited, so one must assume it comes from the author's memory that is, it is an oral creation, in a literate society.

Further, immediately preceding the author's great-grandfather we encounter no less than four repetitions of the

doublet Nestefnut son of Tja(en)hebyu. The level of suspicion that the author is compensating for a lapse inmemory must be high.

The genealogy of the Memphite High Priests presents special problems which require an entire article to themselves,

and indeed David Kelley has recently written one for the Society.25 Suffice it to say here that several portions of this

genealogy present clear examples of errors, as pointed out by Kitchen. Further, as Kelley has illustrated clearly,

there is a good case, based on independent evidence, to argue that several generations are missing in the portion of

the table covering the 19th and 20th dynasties, exactly as one would expect on current chronological schemes. Rohl

has instead chosen to accept that this shortened portion of the table is reliable, implying that the 20th dynasty must

be shortened accordingly; indeed, it is his main positive evidence for this position, which, as we have seen above, is

highly problematic. The portion of the genealogy indicated to be contemporary to the 21st dynasty presents

difficulties of a different type, since it is not clear which 21st dynasty kings are being named. In Rohl's view, it can

be interpreted at face value to reconstruct the 21st dynasty as contemporary to the early 22nd. I will discuss this

argument in more detail below.The third genealogical witness for Rohl's views comes from the genealogy of Nespaherenhat, descended from Ipuy,

sem-priest 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 near-contemporary of Merenptah (c1212-1202), to

Ankhefenkhons, son of Nespaherenhat, a contemporary of Osorkon I (c920 BC). On Rohl's generational average of

20 years, there are five generations apparently missing from this genealogy, and even accepting Bierbrier's average

of 25 years there are two. However, there is no independent documentation for this branch of the family, so it is

quite possible that we have here a simple case of haplography.

Nor is it true that there are no long genealogies supporting the current chronology. Robert Ritner

has recently published a 26-generation genealogy of Basa, Third Prophet of Hathor at Dendera. 26

This genealogy is inscribed on a statue that is late 22nd or 23rd dynasty in style, i.e. late 9th or

8th century BC in traditional chronology. It includes, at generation 7, the Theban High Priest

Nebwenef, who was appointed in year 1 and died in year 12 of Ramses II. Using Bierbrier's

generational estimate of 25 years, Basa's floruit should occur 19*25 = 475 years later. If year 1

of Ramses II is 1279, then Basa lived c805, which is exactly as expected. However, on Rohl's

chronology (year 8 of Ramses II = 925 BC) Basa's floruit is c460 i.e. the Persian period. Even

using Rohl's 20-year figure, we arrive at a distance of 19*20 = 380 years after the first decade of

Ramses II. This still places Basa at c550 BC, which is late Saite on anybody's chronology. Both

dates are completely incompatible for the style of the statue.

In email discussion of this genealogy, Rohl pointed out to me that the last four generations repeat the names of the

previous four in the same order, which suggests that the genealogy may be four generations too long. There is no

grammatical or structural indication of a breakpoint which would indicate that an error of transcription may have

occurred. However, suppose we accept this proposed correction for the sake of argument. On the traditional

chronology, it reduces the interval between Basa and Ramses II by about a century perhaps barely sufficient to

support the proposed contemperaneity between dynasties 21 and 22 but no more. On Rohl's chronology this

proposed correction raises Basa's date to c630, still late in the reign of Psamtek I and a full generation after Upper

Egypt had accepted his rule in 656. Now, the art history of this period is poorly documented. Although depictions

of Montuemhat, Mayor of Thebes at this time, show a clear stylistic transition towards styles of the later Saite

period, Montuemhat was one of the most powerful men of his day, able to draw on the best sculptors available. It is

perfectly possible that a mere Third Prophet in nearby Dendera at that time would only be able to draw on the skills

of conservative craftsmen, accounting for the archaic style of the statue.



9/28


Thus, by exploiting both the duplication of names and a weakness in the art-historical record, it is possible to argue

that the Basa genealogy might be consistent with the New Chronology. But the point remains that it is prima facie

evidence against the assertion that the long genealogies all point to a shortening of the Third Intermediate Period.

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

suggested that they came into existence in response to the importance that the Libyans themselves, products of an

illiterate, tribal society, placed on such genealogies in order to establish claims to authority. If this thesis is correct,

and it seems plausible, then it implies that the genealogies we have are the result of the genealogical research of the

ancient Egyptians themselves. While the Egyptians certainly had access to more records than we do today, there isno reason to believe that their standards of research accuracy were particularly high. If the primary reason for

research was to demonstrate that an Egyptian line was of greater antiquity than a Libyan one, then any results for the

period preceding the rise of the 22nd dynasty are likely to have been less carefully researched than those for more

recent times. Thus, all these long genealogies must be regarded as indicative of the Egyptians' view of their own

past, rather than as a record of guaranteed accuracy. Only where the genealogies can be cross-checked against

contemporary records, or where they refer to recent generations before the author, should they be accepted as likely

to be highly reliable. In point of fact, only one can be cross-checked for significant portions of its length that of

the Memphite high priests and as we have seen above it is clearly problematic.

4

Perhaps the only truly valid genealogical test for Rohl's theories is to examine the genealogies supplied and

supported by contemporary evidence. Turning finally, then, to the implications of his theories for the genealogies ofthe Third Intermediate Period, I will consider four particular problems: the succession order of the 21st dynasty; the

ancestry of Shoshenq I; the Prophets of Amun at Thebes; and the High Priests of Ptah at Memphis. Although these

issues are considered in Rohl's JACF papers, and not in the book, they are significant elements of his proposed

reconstruction, and so merit review here.

* * * * * *

While many aspects of the New Chronology are only presented in outline, a detailed reconstruction may be

extracted for the core period of the 21st and 22nd dynasties between this book and the JACF papers, which is

summarised in the following table.

2728Standard Chronology (Kitchen) New Chronology (Rohl)

21st Dynasty (Tanite)

Hedjkheperre Smendes 1069-1043 Hedjkheperre Smendes 855-829

Neferkare Amenemnisu 1043-1039 Tjetkheperre Har-Psusennes I 828-780

Akheperre Psusennes I 1039-991 Neferkare Amenemnisu 783-780

Usermaatre Amenemopet 991-984 Usermaatre Amenemopet 779-770

Akheperre Osorkon (Osochor) 984-978 Usermaatre Osorkon (II) 769-764

Netjerkheperre Siamun 978-959 [Netjerkheperre Siamun] (781-769)

Tjetkheperre Har-Psusennes II 959-945 Akheperre Psusennes II 763-?754

Hedjheqa...re Psusennes III ?754-?740

22nd Dynasty

Hedjkheperre Sheshonq I 945-924 Hedjkheperre Sheshonq I 823-802

Sekhemkheperre Osorkon I 924-889 Sekhemkheperre Osorkon I 802-787

[Heqakheperre Shoshenq II] 890-889 Hedjkheperre Takeloth I 787-779

Hedjkheperre Takeloth I 889-874 Usermaatre Osorkon II 785-762



10/28


Usermaatre Osorkon II 874-850 [Heqakheperre Shoshenq II] 772-769

[Hedjkheperre Harsiesi] 870-860 [Hedjkheperre Harsiesi] 769-765

Hedjkheperre Takeloth II 850-825 [Hedjkheperre Takeloth II] 764-739

Usermaatre Shoshenq III 825-773 Usermaatre Shoshenq III 762-723

Usermaatre Pimai 773-767 Hedjkheperre Sheshonq (Ib) 723-710

Akheperre Shoshenq V 767-730 Usermaatre Pimai 710-705

Akheperre Osorkon IV 730-715 Akheperre Shoshenq V 705-669?

It will be noted that the 22nd dynasty is quite similar in the two reconstructions. Rohl reassigns Osorkon IV to the

23rd, makes Shoshenq II a contemporary of Osorkon II, and, following Aston, places Takeloth II as a

contemporaneous Theban king, a change which is under debate within the conventional arrangement in any case.

Additionally, a second king Hedjkheperre Shoshenq is identified, reigning late in the dynasty, a proposal which has

been endorsed by the "conventional" scholar Aidan Dodson, though he accepts Rohl's case only in part. 29 Apart

from these adjustments, Rohl's reconstruction differs mostly in reign lengths from the conventional arrangement.

The most significant change is the redating of Shoshenq II to late in the reign of Osorkon II. This is the first of two

key steps that permit the two dynasties to be placed in parallel, since Shoshenq was the son of a king Osorkon, and

the grandson, by a princess Maatkare, of king Tjetkheperre Har-Psusennes, conventionally Psusennes II of the 21stdynasty. The second key step is to swap the two kings Psusennes, so that Tjetkheperre becomes Psusennes I and

Akheperre becomes Psusennes II. The remaining changes to the 21st dynasty come by returning the succession

order to that of Manetho, and by interpreting the list of kings named on the genealogy of the Memphite high priests

within this light.

Is this new arrangement consistent with the contemporary evidence?

We first consider the last two kings. The Memphite genealogy names four successive generations as contemporaries

of three 21st dynasty kings: Amenemnisu, Akheperre, and Psusennes (twice). In Kitchen's reconstruction, the last

three references are considered to be to a single king, Akheperre Psusennes (I), who reigned for 46-49 years early in

the dynasty. Rohl, however, places Akheperre as Psusennes II. According to Manetho, the last king Psusennes

reigned for 15 years, which is not sufficient for three generations. Since Rohl accepts Manetho is accurate for the

21st dynasty, and since the Memphite genealogy places a king Akheperre before a king Psusennes, he has adopted

the ingenious solution of identifying Akheperre with Manetho's "Psinaches" (conventionally Siamun), exploiting thefact that no-one can explain the origin of this name. Rohl argues that, by whatever distortion the name came into

being, "Psinaches" is closer to "Akheperre Pasebakhaenniut" that it is to any element of "Netjerkheperre Siamun".

Since "Psinaches" only reigned 9 years according to Manetho, the three generations of priests must be

accommodated within a 24 year period. This is barely possible, if one assumes that the first acceded in year 1 of

Akheperre, and that both he and his successor had short pontificates of little over a decade.

The last two generations are then contemporaries of a third king Psusennes. Evidence has been cited for a

Psusennes III, but it is very slight: a reading in the journals of Gardiner Wilkinson of the name "Hedjheqa...re

Psusennes" in a fragmentary Theban inscription now lost. Here Rohl runs into a significant problem. Dodson has

recently located the relevant entry in Wilkinson's journals, and has shown that the "inscription" is a graffito

recording two promotions received by its unknown author under two differently-named kings.30 The first of these is

a king Har-Psusennes (i.e. Tjetkheperre Psusennes) and the second a king Hedjkheperre, whose nomen is lost. In

both the conventional chronology and in Rohl's, he is most reasonably identified as Shoshenq I. However, we are

now left with absolutely no evidence for a "Psusennes III"!

Rohl's displacement of Siamun is also problematic. In his view, Siamun becomes an honorary Theban king,

analogous to Pinudjem I or Shoshenq II, and as such is outside the line of 21st dynasty kings recorded by Manetho.

Yet Siamun is very different from these other kings. Unlike the others, he did not hold the title of High Priest of

Amun. Unlike the others, he used his own regnal years. Unlike the others, and most curiously for a king of Upper

Egypt, he built not only in Memphis but in Tanis itself. Further, while Siamun has no clear genealogical affiliations

with anyone in the record, the possibility at least exists in the standard chronology that he was a son of Osochor or

Amenemope. In the New Chronology, no such possibility exists. The only role for Siamun which makes sense is to



11/28


regard him as sole king of a different line, dominant in Egypt immediately before Osorkon II (and possibly

explaining why there is no contemporary evidence for Takeloth I).

"Osochor" (Osorkon) is perhaps the least known of the 21st dynasty kings. The evidence for Akheperre being his

prenomen is circumstantial, being based on an analysis of the generational intervals implied by two consecutive

records in the Priestly Annals of Karnak. 31 In Rohl's chronology this can certainly be explained by assigning the

first of these records to Akheperre Psusennes. Nevertheless, the separate existence of a fifth king Osorkon, the son

of a kings mother Mehtenweshkhet A, who was not the mother of any of the other known kings Osorkon, seems

assured from a genealogy analysed by Yoyotte.32 Rohl's suggestion that Osochor is nothing but an avatar of

Osorkon II can only be sustained by supposing that Mehtenweshkhet was his mother-in-law. However, it must alsobe admitted that the actual identity of Osochor is not central to Rohls thesis, since Mehtenweshkhets son is, under

his scheme, a near-contemporary of Osorkon II.

Finally, there is the relative positions of the two kings Psusennes I and Amenemnisu. Manetho records them as

consecutive, ruling in that order, and Rohl has followed this schema. Moreover, he accepts that the bow-caps found

in the tomb of Akheperre Psusennes naming both Akheperre Psusennes (II) and Amenemnisu, side by side, imply a

close connection between these kings, so that Amenemnisu must have reigned shortly before Akheperre Psusennes.

However, he also accepts Kitchen's argument that Psusennes I (be he Tjetkheperre or Akheperre) was coregent at the

end of his reign with Amenemopet, who therefore succeeded him directly. To reconcile these two views, he

supposes that Amenemnisu was a coregent of Tjetkheperre Psusennes (I) late in his reign, but who had no

independent reign of his own, being succeeded by Amenemopet both as coregent and eventual heir to Tjetkheperre.

In other words, he supposes that Amenemnisu had no independent reign of his own and yet that Manetho credited

him with one.Thus we see that on every point Rohl's detailed reconstruction runs into difficulties. It may well be argued that the

difficulties are not insuperable, but the fact of their existence does not inspire confidence that the New Chronology

is any more capable of solving Egyptian historical problems than the old.

* * * * * *

The ancestry of Shoshenq I is conventionally derived from the stele of Pasenhor (B), who died in year 37 of

Shoshenq V. This stele is usually interpreted as giving a single line of ancestry for Pasenhor, making him a fifth

generation descendant of Nimlot C, son of Osorkon II, and his wife Tentshepeh C. The usual interpretation then

traces his ancestry through Takeloth I, Osorkon I, Shoshenq I, Nimlot A, Great Chief of Ma, and his wife

Tentshepeh A, and thence a further five generations to a certain Buyuwawa the Libyan.

The difficulty for Rohl lies in the fact that Mehtenweshet A, the mother of Nimlot A, Great Chief of Ma and

grandmother of Shoshenq I in this interpretation, is called a king's mother. As we have seen, Yoyotte has pointed

out that this can only be the late 21st dynasty king named by Manetho as Osochor. This is a conclusion which, inthe light of the usual interpretation of the Pasenhor stele, clearly places the bulk of the 21st dynasty in the

generations preceding Shoshenq I, and is absolutely devastating to Rohl's thesis.

Rohl's riposte is to reanalyse the exact language of the Pasenhor stele. Focussing on the duplication of the name-

pair Nimlot and Tentshepeh, he suggests that they are in fact one couple. He further notes that the stele does not

explicitly say that Shoshenq I was son of Nimlot A, Great Chief of Ma. Traditionally, this interpretation is

supported because Nimlot is called "God's father", a title which, amongst other uses, is used to describe the non-

ruling human father of the divine pharaoh. However, "God's father" does not have to mean this it can simply

denote possession of a religious office. Exploiting such ambiguities, Rohl argues that the ancestry splits into two

lines: that Tentshepeh A/C was a daughter of Osorkon II, and her ancestors were listed back to Shoshenq I, and that

Nimlot A/C was descended from the line of the Chiefs of Ma usually associated with Shoshenq I. The net effect of

this is that Mehtenweshet becomes a generational contemporary of Osorkon II, and her son, if king Osochor he be

(for, as we have seen, Rohl claims "Osochor" as an avatar of Osorkon II), now becomes evidence that the 21st and22nd dynasties were contemporaries, exactly as Rohl requires.

This demonstration is very impressive in its ingenuity. Nevertheless it is not complete, because it does not address

the strong ancillary evidence adduced by Kitchen to support various stages of the genealogy. In particular, there is

independent evidence for two Nimlots, one (Nimlot A) the son of a Shoshenq Chief of Ma and Mehtenweshet, and

the other (Nimlot C) the son of Osorkon II. Rohls argument, that Nimlot C was not the son of Osorkon II but his

son-in-law, theoretically allows him to appear to have two different fathers. But, Nimlot C is named in an

inscription of year 16 of Osorkon II, holding titles similar to the first Nimlot on the Pasenhor stele (but not the title



12/28


"Chief of Ma"), and with his parents being explicitly named as Osorkon II and Djedmutesankh (a variant of the

Mutudjankhes of Pasenhor).33 Rohls indirect interpretation therefore seems unlikely.

Nimlot A, Chief of Ma, is named as the son of Shoshenq (A), Chief of Ma and Mehtenweshet , on a funerary stele

erected for him by his son Shoshenq B, also Chief of Ma, which unfortunately only survives in part. 34 This is,

incidentally, a most interesting document, because an unnamed king of Egypt is shown treating Nimlot's son as

virtually an equal. It is all too credible that the stele captures Shoshenq I on his way to the throne with a weak 21st

dynasty pharaoh Siamun or Psusennes II acting as his puppet. On Rohl's interpretation, however, Shoshenq B

must be a contemporary of Shoshenq III. In which case, in view of the fragmented state of Egypt at this time, why

did he not claim royal titles? Finally, the correctness of the traditional Pasenhor interpretation is reinforced furtherby yet another stele, seen by Daressy but now lost, which also named a Shoshenq, Great Chief of Ma, son of Nimlot,

Great Chief of Ma, and his wife Tentshepeh. 35 These would be Shoshenq B, Nimlot A and Tentshepeh A.

However, Tentshepeh is not a kings daughter (as Rohls hypothesis requires) but a daughter of a Great Chief of

Foreigners.

Thus, we see that Rohl's attempt to combine the two Nimlots of the Pasenhor stele is not fully successful. Not only

is the existence of Nimlot C, son of Osorkon II, well-documented, but also Nimlot A, Chief of Ma, son of Shoshenq

A, pops up independently as the father of a Shoshenq, Chief of Ma, who is very reasonably the same as Shoshenq I;

and finally his wife is explicitly stated not to be a kings daughter. Now, one can argue for interpretations of this

data that support the New Chronology. For example, if, as suggested above, Siamun were the dominant king in the

generation before Osorkon II then perhaps Takeloth I was only posthumously declared a king, and in reality

Osorkon II was only a "great chief of foreigners" before his ascent to the throne. And, one might identify Shoshenq

B with Shoshenq III himself, before his ascent, and argue that the unnamed king is his doting grandfather OsorkonII. But both interpretations are special pleadings which assume the correctness of the New Chronology, when the

purpose of the exercise should be to demonstrate its correctness, and both rest entirely on the proposed identification

of Nimlot A with Nimlot C. Rather than build such an elaborate and unsupported network of hypotheses, it seems

far simpler to accept the conventional explanation, which is to accept Pasenhor at face value: he names Nimlot in

two places because there were two Nimlots.

* * * * * *

Kitchen has already commented on the implications of the New Chronology for the High Priests of Amun at Thebes

in his review of Centuries of Darkness, noting that the genealogy for the post-Ramessid High Priests is well

established, in large part by the discoveries at TT320, and that Piankh, the first of these, is indubitably a

contemporary of Ramses XI.36 Further, the succession of these priests under the 22nd dynasty can also be traced in

some detail, from Iuput, son of Shoshenq I, through Iuwelot, Smendes and Shoshenq, sons of Osorkon I, to the

latter's son Harsiesi and his son, whose name is mostly lost but could be (Pe)du(bast), and beyond. If the NewChronology as proposed by James were correct, then not only must dynasties 21 and 22 be contemporary, both

erecting tombs and temples in Tanis at about the same time, but there must also be two lines of contemporary High

Priests of Amun in Thebes.

Rohl has developed an alternate model which avoids much of this problem. In this model, Iuput is treated as

contemporary with the 21st dynasty high priests Masaherta and Menkheperre, but all the later 22nd dynasty high

priests are pushed down, so that the father of Iuwelot, Smendes and Shoshenq is identified as Osorkon II, not

Osorkon I. Since both Shoshenq and Harsiesi took the title of king, although they seem never to have occupied the

throne in reality, this scheme also explains the origins of one line of the Theban 23rd dynasty, for Harsiesi's son

becomes none other than king Pedubast, the first of this line.

Despite this very attractive feature, one must note that the New Chronology model is again not fully developed.

Firstly, Rohl does not comment on Kitchen's arguments for placing Iuwelot and Smendes III as sons of Osorkon

I rather than Osorkon II,37

though there is, perhaps, sufficient flexibility in this evidence to admit Rohl'sposition.

Secondly, by making Shoshenq II a son of Osorkon II rather than Osorkon I, Rohl has shifted Shoshenq II down

two generations. In the process, he has introduced a generational jump where none had previously existed, for

Shoshenqs son, king Harsiesi, is now placed in a generation following his own daughter Istweret, who married

Harsiesi C, Fourth Prophet of Amun and great-grandson of the High Priest Iuput, son (on both chronologies) of

Shoshenq I.38

Thirdly, Rohl has not successfully dealt with the problem of contemporary High Priests of Amun within the

New Chronology. He has avoided making 21st High Priests entirely contemporary with 22nd dynasty High



13/28


Priests of Amun only to provide dual office-holders within the conventional 21st dynasty line, for he sees

Pinudjem II as a contemporary of Menkheperre.

Fourthly, Rohl proposes to identify Smendes III, son of king Osorkon (II), with Smendes II, named on a

bracelet found in the tomb of Akheperre Psusennes as a son of the High Priest Menkheperre; in Rohl's view he

was a son-in-law of Menkheperre. This identification is key to Rohl's chronology. Otherwise, it is difficult to

accept the proposed coregency between Menkheperre and Pinudjem II, for there is then no place to put another

High Priest of Amun who was truly a son of Menkheperre. Alternatively, if a Smendes II is truly accorded a

short pontificate before Pinudjem, it is not possible to make him contemporary with Akheperre Psusennes, who

acceded over a decade later. But, unequivocal evidence of a Smendes, son of Menkheperre, has been found inrecent years, naming him as "majordomo of Amun", which is clearly consistent with him being groomed to

succeed his father.39

Finally, Rohl must explain the position of Iuput in his own reconstruction, since he remains a contemporary of

the 21st dynasty High Priests. Iuput is known to have been High Priest of Amun at Thebes in year 11 of

Shoshenq I, because his name appears on the mummy bandages of Djedptahefankh A the very same priest

whose burial in TT320 is alleged to be evidence for a fatal flaw in the current scheme. According to Rohl's

scheme, Iuput's pontificate is recorded at a time when it appears that the High Priest Masaherta was in office

and in control. One might suppose a temporary interruption in that control for reasons unknown, but then, how

is it that Iuput is attested deep in the heart of the very family vault of the rival Theban family?

Thus we see that, although Rohl has partly answered Kitchen's objection, he has failed to do so in full, including in

what is perhaps the most important instance, and that there are problems with Rohl's own reconstruction.

One way to test whether the parallelism between Iuput and the High Priests of the 21st dynasty is a structural feature

of Rohl's thesis, or is instead just a fluke due to peculiar circumstances surrounding Iuput which are now lost to us,

is to examine what happens to other posts in the Theban temple hierarchy. Of these, the best known is the position

of the Fourth Prophet of Amun.40 The line of Djedkhonsefankh A dominated this office from the reign of Osorkon I

on, for at least five generations, having succeeded a family who had held the office for two or three generations, and

also bore the Libyan title of "chief of the Mahasun." Thus, the entire 22nd dynasty is covered for this office. And

yet we also have a three-generation sequence Nespaherenmut/Tjanefer A/Pinudjem in the same office, with Tjanefer

A being dated to year 40 of Psusennes I, and marrying Gautsoshen, the daughter of Menkheperre, High Priest of

Amun. If Menkheperre is, as Rohl alleges, a contemporary of Osorkon I then we are forced to place two families in

the office of the Fourth Prophet of Amun at the same time, for at least three generations.

It appears that the parallelism is inherent in Rohl's chronology: parallel royal lines, parallel lines of High Priests of

Amun, and parallel lines of Fourth Prophets of Amun.

* * * * * *

Nor is this phenomenon confined to Thebes. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Rohl's reconstruction is his

proposal, noted above, that Shoshenq, High Priest of Amun and sometime Shoshenq II, was a son of Osorkon II,

rather than Osorkon I. Since Shoshenq was certainly the maternal grandson of king Tjetkheperre Psusennes of the

21st dynasty, this reconstruction apparently establishes a neat new synchronism between the two dynasties which

reinforces their contemperaneity within his system. Moreover, as Rohl pointed out to me in email, the mother of

Shoshenq II, Ma(at)-ka-re, is now seen to bear a name which is simply a variant of that of Osorkon II's queen, the

king's daughter Ka-ra-ma(at). The identity of the king Karama's father has never been clear. On conventional

chronology, it is most likely to be Shoshenq II himself. This new solution, on first glance, appears to be inspired.

Yet, as with Nimlot Chief of Ma, and the revised sequence of the High Priests of Amun, it too contains some hidden

traps.

Karama and Osorkon II are known, with absolute certainty, to have been the parents of the crown prince Shoshenq

(D), High Priest of Ptah at Memphis.41 Since Shoshenq, High Priest of Amun, is almost certainly to be identified asShoshenq II, in part because his name is written with a cartouche, we must either suppose that Osorkon II had two

such sons Shoshenq by Karama, or that the two Shoshenqs are the same. Since there are no other examples in this

period of a king having two sons with the same name, let alone two sons by the same mother who both had claims to

the throne, one might prefer the theory that the two Shoshenqs were the same. Yet, in this case, how do we explain

the existence of a fully furnished tomb for Shoshenq D at Memphis which contained no reference to his other

positions, while the mummy of Shoshenq II was found at Tanis?

Supposing this problem to be resolvable, there are further difficulties. The descendants of Shoshenq D can be traced

through four generations of High Priests at Memphis: his son Takeloth, grandson Pediese, great-grandsons



14/28


Peftjauawybast and Harsiesi, and the latter's son Ankhefensekhmet. This carries the line down to the time of

Shoshenq V. Now, the 21st dynasty High Priests of Memphis are listed on the Memphite genealogy as

contemporaries of 21st dynasty kings, down to Pipi B, the grandfather of Shedsunefertem, who is known from other

sources to be a contemporary of a king Hedjkheperre Shoshenq. These are the titles of Shoshenq I, and so

Shedsunefertem is conventionally seen as a contemporary of that king. This reconstruction provides a classic lineal

succession for the Memphite High Priests: Shedsunefertum's son Shoshenq and grandson Osorkon, contemporaries

of Osorkon I and Takeloth I, become the final High Priests of this line, to be succeeded by Shoshenq D, son of

Osorkon II, son and successor to Takeloth I.

In Rohl's scheme, however, the 21st and early 22nd dynasties are contemporary, and hence Hedjkheperre Shoshenqmust be much later than Shoshenq I; indeed, partly on the basis of this genealogy, Rohl argues for a second king

Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, some time after Shoshenq III, whom he dubs "Shoshenq Ib". Such prenomen duplications

are generally recognised to be characteristic of the period: both Takeloth I and Takeloth II also used the prenomen

Hedjkheperre, and both Osorkon II and Osorkon III used the prenomen Usermaatre Setepenamun. As noted above,

this proposal has been endorsed by Dodson, who has adduced additional evidence, and it may well be correct. Thus,

Rohl claims that Shedsunefertem was a contemporary not of Shoshenq I but of Shoshenq Ib. 42 The problem with

this proposal is that the Memphite High Priests of the three generations preceding Shedsunefertem in the Memphite

genealogy, Pipi, Asakhet and Ankhefensekhmet, and the two generations succeeding Shedsunefertem, now become

contemporary with the Memphite High Priest Shoshenq D and his descendants.

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

contemporary of Ramses II, identified by his prenomen (Usermaatre-setepenre), and that this fact is a primary datumused by Rohl to show that the 20th dynasty lasted at most 60 years. However, under the New Chronology,

Amenemnisu is a coregent of Tjetkheperre Psusennes, acceding in year 46 of the latter's reign, and Psusennes

acceded in year 22 of Ramses XI. This means that this 60 year period in the Memphite genealogy not only covers

the late 19th and 20th dynasties but 30 independent years of the reign of Psusennes. This is not a possibility even in

the New Chronology.

It is usually believed that a haplography exists at this point, and Kelley has proposed a reasonable explanation of

this:43 he identifies Neferrenpit, father of Asakhet A, not as the well-documented contemporary of Ramses II but as

an otherwise-unknown homonym who was a contemporary of Ramses VII, who used a very similar prenomen

(Usermaatre-[meryamun]-setepenre). The conventional chronology works well under this hypothesis. Now, one

could invoke exactly the same haplography under Rohl's scheme, and a period of 60 years from Ramses VII to

Amenemnisu is quite possible in his chronology. But this comes at the considerable cost of sacrificing the

Memphite genealogy as an accurate record proving a short 20th dynasty.

5

Simply put, I think Rohl is wrong. Dead wrong. Magnificently wrong. The characteristics of his analysis are

apparent from the last section. He has detailed and plausible arguments to support his case, which frequently show

great ingenuity in their reinterpretation of the evidence. Nevertheless, these arguments are usually not followed

through to their logical conclusion because not all the evidence is considered. When we find that placing the 21st

and 22nd dynasties in parallel results in parallel office-holders for all the senior benefices in the land which we are

able to examine, it is apparent that there is something seriously wrong. And the obvious source of error is the thesis.

The two dynasties were, after all, consecutive.

Nevertheless, Rohl deserves attention and respect. The issues he raises are always worthy of examination, and, as

with the emergence of Shoshenq Ib, have real potential to result in new perspectives, even if they do not, in the end,

result in chronological revisions. Similar remarks apply to parts of the book I have not reviewed here. For example,

it will be no surprise that I think that his proposed chronology for the story of the Sojourn in Egypt, and hisadmittedly speculative identifications of Joseph and of Moses do not, to my mind, bear any weight. However, I

think his arguments for identifying the late Middle Kingdom as the historical context for the biblical narrative of

these events are very plausible, and are strongly reinforced by the discoveries at Tell el-Daba. They should not be

ignored by either Egyptologists or biblical scholars.

All in all, this is a book which should be read by anyone interested in the subject of Egyptian chronology. Those

familiar with the subject will find an informed challenge to conventional analysis, one which forces a review of the

basic material. Those unversed in the subject should plan on reading deeply and carefully in the scholarly literature

before accepting its conclusions. Caveat lector!



15/28




16/28


X=HrereA

Nodjmet=HERIHOR,HPA

?[King]

HrereB?=Piankh,HPA

TentamunB=SMENDES?[King]

RAMSESXI A

MENEMNISU

TentamunA=[K

ing]?RAMSESXI

Nebseny

[King]?OSORKON?OSOCHOR

ShoshenqA,GCM=MehtenweshetA?M

ehtenweshetA'

NimlotA,GCM=TentsepehA

[Dynasty22]

SIAMUN

AKHEPERRE

(Ramses-)PSUSENNESI,HPT

R

amses-

Ank

hefenmutC

Shoshe

nq,HPA

IstemkhebD=[H

PA]?PinudjemII,HPA=NesikhonsA

MaatkareB=

OSORKON?OSORKONI

TJETKHEPERRE

HAR-PSUSENNESII

Mutnodjmet?[Queen]=?[King]

?

=Mutnodjmet

SHOSHENQI?ShoshenqB,GCM

Wiay

MENKHEPE

RREHPA=IstemkhebC'?IstemkhebC

?PsusennesIII,HPA

PINUDJEMI,HPA?[King,HPA]=HenttawyA,DH

?HenttawyQ,DH

[King]?PINUDJEMI

AMENEMOPET,HPT

[King]?PSUSENNESI

Figure1:The

21stDynasty(ConventionalChrono

logy)

CO

NVENTIONS

FORALLFIGURES

Kings(actualorhonorary)capitalised

Womenitalicised

NumberinggenerallyfollowsKitchen,exceptw

heretwoindividuals

mayhavebeencombined,inwhichcaseprime

notationisused

(e.g.IstemkhebC,IstemkhebC',Istem

khebC'')

Knownconnectionsbyplainlines

Hypothesisedconnectionsbydottedlines

Independentlyconfirmedconnectionsbolded(Pasenhorsteleonly)

Marriageindicatedby'='

Po

stulatedidentityindicatedby''

Officewhoseholderisunnamedindicatedwith

insquarebrackets

HPA=HighPriestofAmun

HPT=HighPriestofAmun(Tanis)

HPM=HighPriestofMemphis

4PA=FourthProphetofAmun

DH=DevoteeofHathor

(G)CM=(Great)ChiefofMa

GH=GovernorofHeracleoplis

Tahent-Thuty



17/28


OSORKON?

[King]

NimlotA,GCM=

TentsepehA

OSORKONI=Tashedkhons

TAKEL

OTHI=Kapes

OSORK

ONII=Mutudjankhes

Djedmutesankh

Karoma

A=SHOSHENQI?

ShoshenqB,G

CM

Paihuti,GCM

Nebneshi,GCM

Mawasun,GCM

Buyuwawa

Nim

lotC,GH,HPA

=TentsepehC

P

asenhorB

Ptahudjan

khef,GH=TentsepehD

Hempta

hA,GH=

Tjankemit

Pasenh

orA,GH=Ptahdedes

Hempta

hB,GH=Iretiru

SHOS

HENQ?SHOSHENQIII

Pamiu,CM?PIMAI

SHOSHENQV

F

igure3:ThePasenhorStele(Co

nventionalChronology) [G

reatChief

ofForeigners]

MehtenweshetA'?

Mehtenweshet

A

=

ShoshenqA,GCM



18/28


PipiA,HPM?NeterkheperreMeryptah

H

arsiesiJ,HPM

P

ipiB,HPM

A

sakhetB,HPM

AnkhesefensekhmetA,HPM

=

Tapeshenese

She

dsunefertem,HPM

=

MehtenweshetB

ShoshenqC,HPM

OsorkonA,HPM

T

akelothA

AMENEMNISU

AKHEPE

RRE[PSUSENNESII]

[HEDJHEQ

A....RE]PSUSENNESIII

[HEDJHEQ

A....RE]PSUSENNESIII

SIAMUN

SHOSHENQI

(OSORKONI)

(TAKELOTHI)

(OSORKONII) S

hoshenqD

,HPM

TakelothB,H

PM

Pediesi,HPM

HarsiesiH,HPM

Peftjauawybast,HPM

Ankhefensekh

metB,HPM

Iste

mkhebG

Tjesbastperu

=

=

=

Co

ntemporaryKings

ContemporaryKings

Figure8:H

ighPries

tso

fMemp

his(New

Chro

no

logy

)

SHOSHENQ?SHOSHENQIb

Pamiu

,CM?PIMAI

SHOSHENQV

SHOSH

ENQIII

?Shoshenq,HP

(?RAMSESII/VII-TJETKHEPERREHAR-PSUSENNESI)

USERMAATRE-S

ETEPENRE[RAMSES(II?VII?)]

N

eferrenpit,HPM

P

tahemakhetB,HPM

A

sakhetA,HPM

[K

ing]?TJETKHEPERRE

HAR-PSUSENNESI

Karoma

B?M

aatkareB

POSTSCRIPTTOTEMPORALFUGUES (JAMS XIII)



19/28


Since this article was published in 1996, there have been some new publications relevant to Rohl's thesis and the

themes explored in my review.44

LEO DEPUYDT has published two articles relevant to the theory of Sothic cycles underlying conventional

chronology.

1. In the first,45he surveyed the evidence available from texts dual-dated in two different calendars over the period

from 473 BC to 237 AD nearly half a Sothic cycle. He conclusively demonstrated that the Egyptian civil

calendar was unreformed over the entire period, despite at least one serious attempt to do so. This greatlystrengthens the case for believing that the civil calendar was never reformed in earlier times, when there were

no competing calendars of greater accuracy available, and so supports the theory of Sothic dating.

1. In the second,46he reviewed the Ebers papyrus, which contains the possible Sothic synchronism for year 9 of

Amenhotep I. This interpretation of the papyrus has been much questioned recently. Depuydt showed that it is

most reasonably understood as a simple ready reckoner for correlating lunar months to the civil calendar at this

time. Such an interpretation is consistent with the theory that the papyrus does in fact record a Sothic sighting.

KENNETHKITCHENhas published a revised edition of TIP, including a new preface surveying work on the Third

Intermediate Period since 1986.47 Among other things, he draws attention to the effects of Jansen-Winkeln's

identification of the Tanite tomb Hedjkheperre Takeloth to Takeloth I rather than Takeloth II. 48 This allows us to

reassign several inscriptions from Takeloth II to Takeloth I. I suggested in my review that certain difficulties in

Rohl's chronology could be resolved by exploiting the invisibility of Takeloth I. Since Takeloth I is now becomingvisible, this possibility no longer exists.

Most importantly for our purposes, this preface includes a brief and acerbic review of the theories discussed in my

review, which succinctly makes many of the same points. Kitchen does accept the existence of a second king

Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, but concedes nothing else. In particular, he draws attention to a graffito published by

Spiegelberg in 1921 recording the descent of the flood in year 1, 3 Akhet, day 3 of Merenptah, and points out that

this date cannot possibly lie in the flood months under Rohls chronology.49

Rohl has had this graffito reexamined in situ, and corrects the reading of the date to year 2, 2 Akhet, day 3. 50 If the

flood recession occurred on a fixed date every year, this difference of a month would have the effect of adjusting the

correlation of the civil calendar to the Julian calendar by 120 years.

Additionally, Rohl has raised questions as to the actual event recorded by the graffito. He notes that its most recent

analysis by Janssen51interprets the verb hAias used in this and similar graffiti to mean to return in the sense of

returning to inundation, and argues that this is directly contrary to the established meaning of the verb as to godown. The difference is the difference between the rising of the flood and its descent from the point of maximum,

two points which are about a month apart leading to an additional 120 years in the calendrical correlation. Thus,

Rohl argues that the graffito shows in fact that the conventional chronology is 240 years in error.

Rohls forceful assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, Kitchen and Janssen do not in fact share the same

interpretation of the verb hAi Kitchen uses the same interpretation as Rohl does.52 However, one may note that

Rohl has given no consideration to Janssens arguments and precedents for using hAiin the more general sense of

return; nor has Rohl considered how the workmen high in the hills behind Deir el-Bahri are supposed to have

known on a particular day that that day was the height of the flood. This is an event which can only be established

in retrospect.

The major point that Rohls discussion overlooks is that the effect of the changes he is proposing is to force the

nominal start of the flood date backwards in time against the civil calendar. Compare the three interpretations of the

graffito:

Janssen: Start of inundation on 3 Akhet 3

Kitchen: Start of descent on 3 Akhet 3, hence start of inundation at the start of 2 Akhet.

Rohl: Start of descent on 2 Akhet 3 hence start of inundation at the start of 1 Akhet.

In principle, each of these steps forces the civil calendar closer into alignment with the solar calendar, where 1

Akhet 1 is the date of the rising of Sirius, marking the start of inundation. In effect, they are pushing the nominal

date for Merenptah backwards in time, closer to the start of the Sothic cycle c1320 BC. In other words, if Rohl is



20/28


completely correct, he has indeed moved the nominal date of Merenptah by up to 240 years, but in the wrong

direction for his own theories!

To put it another way: suppose Rohls chronological theories and his interpretations of the flood graffito were both

correct. His chronology requires the date of Merenptah to be about 350 years later than is conventionally supposed.

His interpretation of the grafitto requires the civil calendar to be well aligned with the solar calendar in the reign of

Merenptah. But in the reign of Osorkon III a flood event is recorded on 3 Peret 22, some six months out of phase

with the solar calendar.53 Now, if Merenptahs civil calendar had been left unreformed (and assuming the Osorkon

III event to have occurred close to the mean date), the flood event in his reign should have happened, in Rohls

chronology, some 3 months earlier, i.e. late in 4 Akhet. James and Rohl have each noted that the theory of Sothiccycles would be invalidated if the civil calendar had ever been reformed, since any such reform would most likely

not be known to us. Now, the only way to reconcile the Merenptah graffito and the Osorkon inscription within

Rohls chronology is to suppose that such a reform did in fact occur some time after the reign of Merenptah. But the

reform which Rohl requires in order to fit the flood graffito into his theory is not only very substantial (a cumulative

effect of about 3 months) but also one which pushes the civil calendar even further out of alignment with the solar

year than it already is. Such a reform is not credible.

Since the dates of the flood can easily vary by several weeks from year to year, an additional question arises, which

Rohl has not discussed at all: the precision with which flood data can be used to estimate absolute dates. Janssens

study was based on data collected in the 19 thcentury by Willcox and Craig, but extensive records also exist from

almost the entire Islamic period from the Cairo Nilometer.54 These records include 329 actual or reasonably inferred

records of the date of plenitude, i.e. the date that the flood reached a height sufficient to inundate the fields and

guarantee a years harvest. We may note in passing that this concept of a date of plenitude is exa

Documents

Temporal Fugues