Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about discussion of David Rohl's ideas. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about discussion of David Rohl's ideas at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
| New Chronology (Rohl) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
| This article was nominated for merging with David Rohl - geographical theories on ca. November 21, 2009. The result of the discussion was Merge. |
Archives |
|---|
|
|
| Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Contents
Discussion[edit]
Since an editor has seen fit to tag this article, I'll get the (pointless) ball rolling. I disagree with the contention that this article lends undue weight to a subject and I am against merging it with Rohl's biographical article. Reasons? It's a theory that has seen some publicity, users might want to know more about it from Wikipedia, the article is sourced, and the article contains a whole section of criticism. I'm a Wikipedia inclusionist, and I see no reason to remove well-written articles because most experts disagree with the subject matter. I mean, I think ancient astronaut theories are a load of crap, but I'm not about to remove it because it gives undue weight to a crackpot theory, or put it all on Zecharia Sitchin's page. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am called the Rohl fanboy around here, but I have to say I have my troubles with Mr Rohl. He has not published anything to further substantiate the theory that he has put forward in "A Test of Time". He has published a number of books and expanded his revised chronology, but he has not presented comprehensive evidence to solidify his initial claims. He had said his reluctance to publish his material had to do with his pending PhD, but nothing has happened about that in the last 15 years. Also, if his theory had any merit, more egyptologists would be "defecting" to his side. I very much appreciate Mr Rohl for forcefully pointing out the essential (and I had thought obvious) flaws in the conventional chronology, but I have indeed become cautious about the New Chronology. Heck, I have written software to create a website and charts and tables, but Mr Rohl does not make it easy to take him seriously. Personally I find his attitude and temper rather irritating. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- As a non-Egyptologist the most farcical aspect of discussions about Rohl's chronology is how vehemently it is attacked by those who are quite happy maintaining at least three (High, Middle, and Low) sets of dates for much of their own sacred chronologies. While mainstream Egyptian chronology is in such a shambolic state you could equally argue for its removal on the grounds of disagreement by experts.TheMathemagician (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Furlong, Yahoo group[edit]
I removed the Yahoo group sourced statement and restored the earlier text in that section. As for Furlong, this is what I've just written on an user talk page: Looking at Furlong, why are we including him at all? Yes, his dissertation was published in the Gorgias Dissertations series, but I can see no evidence it was been taken seriously in the academic world. I think he fails WP:WEIGHT and we should not use him. His views aren't significant - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As I said, I can't find such sources discussing him. As an aside, I don't think getting a PhD makes you a scholar. I'm really sorry I didn't pay enough attention to this article as that should never have been allowed to stay and Rohl should never have added it. I've also removed the bit sourced to the Yahoo group and restored the original text that was in that section. I'm pretty clear in my mind that Furlong does not belong but I'll await a response before removing it. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Dougweller, I totally agree about the removal of the Yahoo group content. As to Furlong, I also did not see it was a Rohl addition. As I indicated on my user talkpage, I think we can rightfully prune Furlong to one sentence. Something like: "Pierce Furlong, in his dissertation on ancient Near Eastern chronology, supports some of the criticisms of Kitchen's chronology raised by Rohl and Bimson." Then cite that. It fits in with some of the other stuff, keeps a reliable source, but doesn't give undue weight. I believe you're right, it falls under WP:WEIGHT (not WP:Verifiability or WP:FRINGE, etc.). That's my two cents. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Tuckerresearch: Thanks. I'll admit I still have a problem - who is he other than someone who wrote a relevant PhD? If I read the article without knowing anything about the subject or Egyptology, I'd either wonder who in the world he was and be annoyed there was no description, or assume he was an Egypologist of the same stature of the others mentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other PhDs out there who say the opposite. Another question/issue - here's what Rohl added[2] and I've also done a search. I can't find that Furlong actually mentions Rohl. Now as this article is not about Kitchen nor is it about chronology in general (in the relevant area), but about Rohl's ideas, if he doesn't mention Rohl than it doesn't belong here. I'm sure David Rohl in editing this article didn't understand what we expect from sources.
- Well, if Furlong doesn't mention Rohl, I'd still argue a brief mention is acceptable as this article is about Rohl's chronology and criticism of the standard (Kitchenesque) model of the TIP. In that instance, I'd think a one sentence mention and citation is fine. If the consensus of other editors, you included, think it strays too far afield, and want to remove it. I'd buy the argument. I guess what Rohl was trying to say was, "Look, others agree with me on the fishiness of the Shoshenk=Shishak identification, so my theory holds water!" I think that's fine, but others might find that a stretch since it doesn't directly address Rohl's New Chronology. That's how I see both sides of the argument for Furlong's inclusion. So, if other editors want to chime in, please do so. To include or not to include, that is the question. (And I say, if we include, make it my one sentence job above.) TuckerResearch (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Dougweller: Furlong has Rohl's A Test of Time in the bibliography, but it seems his conclusions mostly differ from Rohl's. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- The “In Egyptology” section needs to give the reader an accurate picture of how Rohl’s theory has been received in mainstream scholarship. At present the section is giving the reader the impression that Ken Kitchen is an idiot, and that the conventional chronology is built on only the flimsiest of evidence. Furlong’s view represents that of only an extreme minority of scholars, and his argument is, in some ways, rather outrageous. Since Rohl’s reception in Egyptology has been overwhelmingly that of rejection the section on “In Egyptology” should be about the scholarly rejection of the new chronology. It would make much more sense if the section focused on Kitchen’s criticism of the new chronology rather than Furlong’s criticism of Kitchen. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay everybody, I think it's safe to say nobody else is going to comment! What is our consensus? I agree that the Furlong quotations should all be junked, my proposal is that it all be reduced down to one referenced paragraph and quotation. Might I suggest:
In Egyptology
Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology,[1] continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense."'.[2] By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework. Professor Eric Hornung acknowledges that "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations."[3] Academic debate on the New Chronology, however, has largely not taken place in Egyptological or archaeological journals. Most discussions are to be found in the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences' Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1985–2006),[4] which specialised in the chronological issues generally neglected in mainstream Egyptology.[5]
Chris Bennett (1996),[1] while saying "I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong" notes that besides academic debate on problems with the conventional chronology, such as those associated with the Thera eruption, a "far deeper challenge ... has been mounted in the public arena." The history of this challenge to mainstream consensus outside of academic debate originates with the 1991 Centuries of Darkness by Peter James, together with Rohl, co-founder of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences. Centuries of Darkness postulated 250 years of non-existent "phantom time" in the conventional chronology based on an archaeological "Dark Age".[6]
Given the specialist nature of Egyptian chronology, most academics defer to Kenneth Kitchen for the counter arguments against the New Chronology. Kitchen's main criticisms have focused on Rohl's Third Intermediate Period revision which proposes an overlap between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties. In particular Kitchen challenges the validity of the chronological anomalies raised by Rohl, questioning whether they are true anomalies and offering his own explanations for the apparent problems raised by Rohl. Kitchen accuses New Chronologists of being obsessed with trying to close gaps in the archaeological record by lowering the dating. However, in his 2007 Melbourne University PhD thesis, Pierce Furlong holds that "there are no serious obstacles to overlapping the whole of the 21st Dynasty with the 22nd Dynasty, thereby dramatically reducing the duration of the TIP."[7]
Grouping all radical revisions of Egyptian chronology together without distinction, Hornung, in his Introduction to the Handbook of Ancient Egyptian Chronology, makes the following statement:
We will always be exposed to such attempts, but they could only be taken seriously if not only the arbitrary dynasties and rulers, but also their contexts, could be displaced.... In the absence of such proofs we can hardly be expected to "refute" such claims, or even to respond in any fashion ... It is thus neither arrogance nor ill-will that leads the academic community to neglect these efforts which frequently lead to irritation and distrust outside of professional circles (and are often undertaken with the encouragement of the media). These attempts usually require a rather lofty disrespect of the most elementary sources and facts and thus do not merit discussion. We will therefore avoid discussion of such issues in our handbook, restricting ourselves to those hypotheses and discussions which are based on the sources.[8]
Bennett (1996), whilst not accepting Rohl's thesis, suggests that such out-of-hand rejection may be inappropriate in Rohl's case, since "there is a world of difference between [Rohl's] intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter James" since, unlike "popular radicalisms" such as those of Velikovsky, Bauval or Hancock, "Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material."
Professor Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College, London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, states:
An extreme low chronology has been proposed recently by a group devoted to revising the absolute chronology of the Mediterranean and Western Asia: P. James et al., Centuries of Darkness, London, 1991; similar, though slightly diverging revisions, are upheld by another group, too, and partly published in the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum. The hub for the dating of other cultures is Egypt, so much of the work of both groups focuses on Egyptian evidence. Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework presented in these volumes, but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination.[9]
References
- ^ a b Bennett, Chris. "Temporal Fugues", Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies XIII (1996). Available at[1].
- ^ Kitchen, Kenneth (2003). "Egyptian interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II". In Dever, William G. Symbiosis, symbolism, and the power of the past: Canaan, ancient Israel, and their neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Seymour Gitin. Eisenbrauns. pp. 113–132 [122]. ISBN 9781575060811.
- ^ Hornung, E. et al.: "Ancient Egyptian Chronology" (Handbook of Oriental Studies I, vol. 83, Brill, Leiden, 2006), p. 13.
- ^ ISIS archive, Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum.
- ^ Sturt W. Manning in Classical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (1997), pp. 438-439, in a non-Egyptological context:
"Chronology and dating in academic archaeology and ancient history are subjects avidly practised by a few, regarded as a necessary but comprehensively boring evil by the majority. As with public transport, we all need the timetable in order to travel, but we have no desire to learn about the workings of the necessary trains, buses, tracks, roads, stations, connections, and so on. Moreover, the study of chronology is unpleasant, detailed, and difficult, and lacks intellectual status and élan. It is like engineering, or surgery. Thus, where possible, the academic establishment likes to find some study on chronology to be effectively definitive, and the agreed 'text': other, higher, work can then be attended to. E. Meyer's study of 1892 on Herodotos' chronology thus remains a basis for current study for Greek history; J. A. Brinkman's work on Kassite chronology (article 1970, book 1976) remains effectively definitive; and so on. It is only when some iconoclast, or outsider, challenges the whole structure, tries to 'beat the boffins', that general academic attention returns to chronology (e.g. Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness, 1991, David Rohl, A Test of Time, 1995)."
- ^ "In a special review issue of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal these proposals were roundly rejected by experts in all disciplines in Old World archaeology, a result virtually assured by the failure of the authors to present more than an outline restructuring for Egyptian chronology." Bennett (1996:2).
- ^ Pierce J. Furlong, "Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600–700 BC)," Gorgias Dissertations 46 (Gorgias Press, 2010), ISBN 978-1-60724-127-0.
- ^ Hornung, E. et al.: "Ancient Egyptian Chronology" (Handbook of Oriental Studies I, vol. 83, Brill, Leiden, 2006), p. 15.
- ^ Kuhrt, Amélie. 'The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC, Volume I (Routledge History of the Ancient World series, London & New York, 1995), p. 14.
- What does everybody think? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not happy about using a PhD thesis that hasn't been picked up in other academic work - it doesn't have the significance we look for. WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". I can't see any justification for using Furlong, but maybe I'm missing something. Also remember that "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- So you're for removing the whole paragraph beginning "Given the specialist nature of Egyptian chronology..."? What about just this:
- I'm still not happy about using a PhD thesis that hasn't been picked up in other academic work - it doesn't have the significance we look for. WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". I can't see any justification for using Furlong, but maybe I'm missing something. Also remember that "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Chris Bennett (1996), while saying "I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong" notes that besides academic debate on problems with the conventional chronology, such as those associated with the Thera eruption, a "far deeper challenge ... has been mounted in the public arena."[1] The history of this challenge to mainstream consensus outside of academic debate originates with the 1991 Centuries of Darkness by Peter James, together with Rohl, co-founder of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences. Centuries of Darkness postulated 250 years of non-existent "phantom time" in the conventional chronology based on an archaeological "Dark Age".[2] Pierce Furlong holds that "there are no serious obstacles to overlapping the whole of the 21st Dynasty with the 22nd Dynasty, thereby dramatically reducing the duration of the TIP."[3]
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
biblearchaeology.orgwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ "In a special review issue of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal these proposals were roundly rejected by experts in all disciplines in Old World archaeology, a result virtually assured by the failure of the authors to present more than an outline restructuring for Egyptian chronology." Bennett (1996:2).
- ^ Pierce J. Furlong, "Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600–700 BC)," Gorgias Dissertations 46 (Gorgias Press, 2010), ISBN 978-1-60724-127-0.
- If you don't find that acceptable, I guess you've made the decision. I think a brief mention from a dissertation is fine, as WP:RS states, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised." If you want to put more emphasis on the sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature..." that's your prerogative. I still hold a brief citation is not violating WP:UNDUE, though the way it is in the article now is, I believe, violating WP:UNDUE. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since I've made my comments about uncited dissertations before more publicly at RSN, I'd be a hypocrite to retract them here. What I'd suggest is drop Furlong entirely, leaving all the rest - except for the paragraph discussing Kitchen. Even with Furlong gone, that really needs to be sourced directly to Kitchen (at the moment it's sourced to Furlong). I don't see any reason to get rid of anything else, and we should have Kitchen in here as well, just properly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't find that acceptable, I guess you've made the decision. I think a brief mention from a dissertation is fine, as WP:RS states, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised." If you want to put more emphasis on the sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature..." that's your prerogative. I still hold a brief citation is not violating WP:UNDUE, though the way it is in the article now is, I believe, violating WP:UNDUE. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems pretty clear that a consensus to remove Furlong has been reached so I have removed his quotes from the article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I guess, if you consider two a consensus. I was hoping User:Iry-Hor would make a suggestion. And I was hoping my suggestion would remove the offending "attacks" on Kitchen and keep a citation, but one is dead set against anything pro-Rohl and one doesn't like dissertations. So, whatever, fine by me... TuckerResearch (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Iry-Hor had already stated that he doesn’t “care in the least about David Rohl and his chronology” [[3]] so I didn’t anticipate him participating in this conversation. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care about Rohl's chronology but I care about Wikipedia's fairness and integrity. I agree that PhD theses, even published, are not necessarily authoritative sources, and may even be unrealiable, but so are other published materials. I don't quite see why Furlong should be removed all together, may be a simple footnote would suffice or something in the article mentioning that this was a PhD thesis and should be considered with caution. Thus I agree with @TuckerResearch, the attackes should be removed but Furlong should still be mentioned to preserve fairness, while it should be given a place that clearly reflects that his PhD is not the main reference in the domain. On the personal note, and to show that I have no conflict of interest, I believe that both Furlong and Rohl are dead wrong. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is Pierce Furlong even an Egyptologist? Or are we operating on the premise that anyone with a PhD in history can call themselves an Egyptologist for the purpose of the “In Egyptology” section? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Amélie Kuhrt is not an Egyptologist either. Easily fixed by changing "In Egyptology" to "In Academia". TuckerResearch (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea what Furlong is actually doing now? Having a PhD doesn't make you an academic. Obviously I'm not going to change my position on using his PhD as a source since as I've said, I'm on record as saying that WP:UNDUE means we need to show that a PhD or its author has some significance in the area. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- So we need to properly assess Furlong's academic standing. How do we do that? Has Furlong published other articles since he was awarded his PhD or did he move out of acamedia completely? Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did look a few days ago but found nothing. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- So we need to properly assess Furlong's academic standing. How do we do that? Has Furlong published other articles since he was awarded his PhD or did he move out of acamedia completely? Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Furlong purportedly got his degree from the University of Melbourne. [[4]] Macquarie University and Monash University are apparently the only Universities in Australia that offer Egyptology degrees. [[5]] University degree programs can change, but without additional information I think it’s safe to assume that Furlong isn’t an Egyptologist in the traditional sense.
I also cannot find anything that he has done since his dissertation. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Same here, I did not find any other publications and his PhD thesis was cited only once. I guess this is sufficient to say that his opinion cannot be given undue weight on wikipedia. I would therefore advocate his removal from the article, but would like to hear @TuckerResearch opinion on Furlong's academic standing. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't found anything he's done since his dissertation either. But a dissertation is scholarship, and WP:RS says they are reliable sources. I don't think one sentence and one citation violates WP:UNDUE, it's not as if readers won't understand the phrase "Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology..." that begins the section. But I've decided to just drop the issue entirely. So, no Furlong. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Removed "dubious" template[edit]
I removed the "dubious" template dated November 2011 which had this comment attached to it: "the conventional Egyptological chronology places king Solomon *anywhere*? Why would Egyptologists publish dates for Old Testament characters?" It is not dubious at all that the synchronization of Solomon's reign with the Late Bronze Age is an integral part of Rohl's theory. The mis-identification of the Biblical Shishaq character with the Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I forces Solomon to predate Shoshenq I by only a few years in the conventional chronology, since the Bible states that Shishaq defeated Israel in the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam and carried off the treasures of the Temple to Egypt. It's also not at all dubious that conventional chronology places Solomon in the Iron Age on the basis of this synchronization. Resynchronize by eliminating approximately 350 years of Egyptian pseudohistory as Rohl does, and equate Shishaq with Ramesses II, and Solomon ends up, not in the Iron Age any more, but back in the Late Bronze which Israelite archeology reveals to have been a much more prosperous time. Dlw20070716 (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- And I removed the bit about "conventional chronology" as ambiguous and unnecessary. Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
radiocarbon dating[edit]
I'm not expert on radiocarbon dating nor the new chronology so I'm not updating the main article.
But my understanding is the radiocarbon dating section in the main article is highly misleading. It states that the traditional chronology has been confirmed via radiocarbon dating.
That is highly misleading as radiocarbon dating is calibrated against key dates from the traditional Egyptian chronology. Thus radiocarbon dating can be used to confirm relative dates in the traditional Egyptian chronology, but in the absolute sense of saying an artifact is from 3000BC, that can't be done.
In fact the raw radiocarbon date of Egyptian artifacts understood to be from 3000 BC is roughly 4500 years ago. A 12% calibration curve is applied to adjust that to 5000 years ago (3000 BC). The calibration curve was developed specifically to cause that perfect alignment between radiocarbon dating and the traditional Egyptian chronology.
If the new chronology is correct, then the radiocarbon calibration curves will simply need to be updated to show the new dates. In the case of the above 4500 year old artifact, that would mean a smaller adjustment would be needed if it actually from 2600 BC (as an example).
Thus unadjusted (raw) radiocarbon dates actually agree far better with the new chronology than with old.
COI tag[edit]
Mainly because there's a lot of material he wrote still in the article.[6][7][8][9] Doug Weller talk 16:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, be bold and rewrite/replace the sections in question. I had thought this work had already been done years ago. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Too busy. Maybe after I'm off the Arbitration Commmittee, but this just isn't a high priority. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Circularity[edit]
Apparently the following reference was deemed worthy of stating that Rohl's assertions about Shishak = Ramesses II are not "widely accepted".
To quote:
"Rohl's theory, however, founders on the rather firm and well-accepted Egyptian chronology, and, therefore, has not met with wide acceptance amongst Egyptologists. In addition, his attempt to account for the biblical spelling of Shishak [...] is scarcely convincing, [...]"
With *no* references to any other-authored works ("See my note" indeed!).
So we have an assertion with a reference of the same assertion with no corroborating material. Rohl may well be wrong, but at least he doesn't leave dangling circular assertions as references in order to support his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.38.78 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class Ancient Egypt articles
- Unknown-importance Ancient Egypt articles
- C-Class history of science articles
- Unknown-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- C-Class Time articles
- Unknown-importance Time articles
- C-Class history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Unknown-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- Articles with connected contributors