| Man, Myth & Mayhem in Ancient History and the Sciences |
history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
|
Catastrophism.com
history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism |
|
| Sign-up | Log-in |
Introduction | Publications | More
|
Search results for: rohl in all categories
294 results found.
30 pages of results. 131. S.I.S. Spring Meeting, 1983 [Journals] [SIS Review]
... (conventionally 1200 BC) and that their earliest archaeological remains should be sought in Iron Age contexts. If the Philistines truly arrived at the end of the LBA, however, this would pose a grave problem for any variant of the revised chronology whether it be that of Velikovsky, Courville, the Glasgow model or the recently suggested James/Rohl version (SISW 5:2 , pp.12-22). In all these schemes, the time of King David - well known for his wars with the Philistines - is placed in the LBA, before the reign of Ramesses III and the accepted date of Philistine arrival. Moreover, the Old Testament indicates that the Philistines probably arrived ...
132. Letters [Journals] [SIS Workshop]
... August 1987 (c ) Martin Sieff, published by the Society for Historical Research.) Maybe Mr Sieff has changed his mind in the face of the mounting evidence in favour of the Heinsohn Reconstruction, although I have reason to believe he has favoured the latter position for some time. The letter following that of Lester Mitcham (by David Rohl) contains an impressive series of rebuttals to Emmet Sweeney, although I fancy that experience has taught me that what seems to pass for hard evidence often turns out to be merely a question of interpretation, depending on one's general orientation. However, it is interesting to note that in the case of the criticism of Sweeney's equation of Osorkon ...
133. A further synchronism between Palestine and Egypt [Journals] [SIS Review]
... 18th-20th) Dynasties and then work forward in time. The Third Intermediate Period has been a stumbling-block to every attempt to work this way. The correct procedure is to produce a workable alternative chronology for the TIP and then test it by working backwards. This method has produced the New Chronology in its two forms. The version developed by David Rohl probably involves the maximum possible compression of ancient chronology; the version of Peter James et al allows roughly an extra century between the 20th and 26th Dynasties, and may in the end prove more capable of resolving the outstanding difficulties [2 ]. In light of this it will be clear that in my view Michael Reade's comments above paper ...
134. SIS Study Group 17th June 2000 [Journals] [SIS Review]
... drought texts to make their selection, then retained the OT numbers and reduced the Egyptian chronology accordingly. Tony Chavasse said the duration of the Sojourn and Dynasties 6, 7 and 8 were the same and they were the same periods. He quoted Ginsberg in support and said the last king of D5 died in the middle of a famine. Rohl had placed the Sojourn during the Middle Kingdom, as by implication did Velikovsky. JC added that in the versions of Manetho the Sojourn was terminated by Tethmosis son of Misphragmuthosis (Josephus), Amos (Africanus) or Amosis (Eusebius) and according to Josephus the Asiatics then went off and conquered Canaan and built Jerusalem. Emmet Sweeney ...
135. Letters [Journals] [SIS Review]
... of Osorkons can be retained and the building anomaly explained away, e.g . Osorkon I builds all the courts and Osorkon II embellishes some parts. However, the immediate impression is that the architecture contradicts the conventional sequence, as at the Tanis tombs. Several other revisionists have noticed the Bubastis anomaly but have not followed it up. Rohl mentions it in Test of Time (p . 377). If Osorkon II, and presumably his successor Takelot II, can really be thus detached from their normal place in mid-Dynasty 22 and transferred to mid-Dynasty 21, then the new arrangement fits very nicely with the Apis bull sequence which runs straight from Ramesses XI to Osorkon II ( ...
136. Letters [Journals] [SIS Workshop]
... p. 239)" This statement is then followed by the Hyksos rulers. I could go on and on about a number of other appalling examples of Tony Rees' blatant manipulation of evidence, but I am sure that the pages of Workshop are worthy of better things. This sort of material gives chronological revisionism a bad name! David Rohl, Redhill, Surrey Catastrophes - ancient or modern?Dear Sir, Between January and April of 1941 - while Adolf Hitler was consolidating his hold over Europe and trying to terrorize the British into submission - and at the same time that Immanuel Velikovsky was conducting his research into ancient records in an effort to explain the origins of the raging ...
137. News from the Internet [Journals] [SIS Workshop]
... : A New Investigation." Van Seters' analysis was based on sound linguistic criteria and has never been refuted. His conclusions were reached quite independently of "Ages in Chaos." Van Seters was probably not even aware of Velikovsky's work. However, controversy over the chronology of Ancient Egypt has not entirely gone away. The Egyptologist David Rohl has put forward his own revised chronology; Peter James has also put forward a revised chronology similar though not quite identical to Rohl's in Centuries of Darkness. Although they share some common ground with Velikovsky in terms of their criticisms of the orthodox chronology there are some important differences. In particular, these recent revisionists consider that the chronology of ...
138. A Time of Pestilence and a Shaking of the Earth [Journals] [Catastrophism & Ancient History]
... ) period is marked by a series of site destructions in the Near East and Aegean during late dynasty XIX and again during dynasty XX. These are generally assumed to be due to human agency, and even the Glasgow chronologists favored the Assyrian wars for some of the site destruction. [2 ] Too, the new scheme of James and Rohl coincides with the campaigns of Assurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III (dynasty XX). If it should emerge, however, that pharaoh Shishak is Ramses III (reducing the revision still further), [3 ] human agency may have to be discarded completely and a Velikovskian remedy substituted. The biblical narrative is crammed with incidents involving unusual natural ...
139. Return to the Tippe Top [Journals] [SIS Review]
... article to the SIS Review since readers may well be familiar with the relevant Kronos communications and will, in any case, find the discussion of interest in its own right. The present submission is the first part of what is intended to be a two part paper. The present version has been modified in the light of comments from David Rohl and Michael Reade, and has a modified ending to that of the original and includes, in effect, an extended preview of Part Two. Prologue Contrary to numerous comments in Kronos, my tippe-top model of Earth reversals provides a perfect framework within which to set Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision scenario. It is wholly implied by that scenario; ...
140. Letters [Journals] [SIS Workshop]
... it is not strong support, merely being consistent with the thesis. To use that same Midrash to dispute the more likely equation of Thutmose III and Shishak is wholly unacceptable, unless, of course, the advocates of the New Chronology' wish to set the precedent that all Midrashic data is to be taken literally. In addition, David Rohl, in his defence of this misusage in Workshop (1989:1 , p. 25) makes certain statements which underline an apparent lack of understanding of the nature of Midrashic sources. Firstly, Esther Rabbah is not talmudic'; the Talmud is one thing and the Midrash another (although the former often quotes the latter). ...
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine Search took 0.040 seconds |
