Talk:Glasgow Chronology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't believe this chronology was ever referred to as anything other than the "Glasgow Chronology" - calling the article the "New Chronology" (a later revision devised by Peter James & David Rohl) is just misleading and, well, wrong :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline1 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 23 March 2006

Rohl has never referred to his chronological framework as anything else but "New Chronology". And such equations as Hathepsut=Queen-of-Sheba or Thutmose3=Shishak are not part of Rohl's framework at all. Cush 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The New Chronology[edit]

I added a bit. I too believe that in chronology circles the chronology put forth at Glasgow is referred to as "the Glasgow Chronology" and that when someone says "the New Chronology" they mean Rohl's New Chronology. To refer to the ideas of James, et al., the phrase "James Chronology" is used. Perhaps some more New Chronologians (I made that up) can wholly update this article and David Rohl. I will always try to, but time is always fleeting. TuckerResearch 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it would be quite a good move to separate the Velikovsky stuff from what Rohl has come up with. Nobody in the New Chronology (Rohl) circles is identifying Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba. Cush 14:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

It is unclear if anyone (bar the author) takes this seriously. Judging from the article content alone, this appears to be a one-man crackpot theory with no notability in academia. The apparent obsession with Biblical identification appears to place this in the neighborhood of "flood archaeology" type pseudo-scholarship. If there is any credibility to this, the article doesn't make clear what it is. --dab (𒁳) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is no pseudo-scholarship, it is just serious scientific research that does not produce solutions that are convenient for the establishment. But the days of the conventional chronologies are numbered and the number of followers grows steadily. And what does the remark about biblical identifications mean? The entire conventional chronology of Egypt is based a 180-year-old identification of biblical Shishak with pharaoh Shoshenk for which there is in fact no apparent evidence except the superficial similarity of names.
I do support the merge of articles, because the New Chronology by Rohl is quite different from the Glasgow Chronology. Cush (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The Glasgow Chronology was no pseudo-scholarship! Quite the reverse: it was primarily an attempt to subject the Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky to some academic rigour rather than just to ridicule, and it pretty much succeeded in debunking it.--feline1 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Velikovsky is for shit. But Rohl tries to put together a chronology from scratch that actually fits the available data, much unlike the conventional chronology. Cush (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it wasn't really "from scratch", it was from taking Velikovsky's chronology to pieces, keeping the ideas that worked and replacing those that didn't.--feline1 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that by now the chronology by Rohl has nothing to do anymore with whatever Velikovsky did. And as I said, equations as Hathepsut=Queen-of-Sheba or Thutmose3=Shishak are not part of Rohl's framework at all.
There should be an article "New Chronology by Rohl" or a (big) section in the Rohl article. Cush (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, all I am saying is WP:RS. I am happy to believe you that "the number of followers grows steadily", but where are these people? Do they publish their endorsement anywhere in peer-reviewed Egyptological literature? The "references" section is very meagre, consisting of two publications by Rohl, one published by "New Ed edition", the other by "Century Publishing Co." and "Arrow Books Ltd". Please. That's not serious. Nor is bashing of the evil "establishment" stifling grand "scientific" breakthroughs, which is pretty much a red flag for WP:FRINGE. By the article's own admission, this is a product of the SIS, making the whole thing about as un-academic as it gets. If there are any favourable or even moderately negative reviews of this in academic literature, the burden is on you to cite them. The only Egyptologist the article is aware of having even condescended to address Rohl is Kenneth Kitchen, and he does not appear to think this is worth anyone's time. dab (𒁳) 07:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

eclipse[edit]

I don't know if Rohl's Akhenaten-Ugarit eclipse is even accepted, but his alleged claim that the only possible date in all of the 2nd millennium BC is 1012 is ludicrous. A brief scan of NASA's eclipse atlas gives a perfectly good candidate for a total eclipse in northern Egypt in 1338 BC, squat within Akhenaten's conventional rule. What's more, the 1012 eclipse is a rather poor candidate because it would have been visible at Ugarit only just before sunset.[1] The 1338 one otoh was visible during the afternoon.[2] Not a very promising grounds for shifting world history around for several centuries. Can we get some sort of citation this eclipse is at least accepted as a synchronism between Egypt and the Levant? dab (𒁳) 15:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I'm just reading Rohl's reasoning behind the date on this in Pharaohs and Kings (A Test of Time). Apparently the Ugarit Eclipse Tablet mentions that the eclipse happens "(at the) going down (of the) sun (goddess)". Rohl adds a note from C.B.F. Walker where he states "At first sight the text refers to an event occurring at sunset". I hope that helps answers the question. --Adrift* (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)