Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 22, 2017, 10:19:48 AM

visitors since
june 16, 2005
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
31  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 02, 2007, 07:40:08 PM

where the following matches would apply:
14th Dynasty=Lesser Hyksos
not in chartTheban Dynasty A
15th Dynasty=Greater Hyksos
16th Dynastynot in chart
17th Dynasty=Theban Dynasty B

OK, it's not really the chronology after Rohl any more, it's rather what's in my database based on Rohl ...
32  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 02, 2007, 07:26:05 PM
Here are Ryholt's other SIP dynasties :

Ryholt's 14th Dynasty
Ryholt's 15th Dynasty

Ryholt's 16th Dynasty
Ryholt's 17th Dynasty

no dates are given for the Dynasty of Abydos
33  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 02, 2007, 05:54:20 PM
OK, here's a comparison of Ryholt's OC data and Rohl's NC data for the 13th Dynasty (same scale) :

I find it interesting that Ryholt moves the kings after Sobekhotep 7 to the end of Dynasty 16...

Btw, as you see, I can now create charts of dates that are not in the database... Smiley
34  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 01, 2007, 12:54:42 AM
Here are Kim Ryholt's dates for Dynasties 13-17: -

These dates may be useful to compare with the NC dates in the database and may have bearing on any future Rohlian SIP revision.
You mean to use the reign lengths?
Especially the dynasties 14 to 16 would be interesting, because what's in the database frankly is a mess. I wonder how I can make use of the data. Just use the dates as OC dates?
35  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 23, 2007, 09:58:11 AM
Not at all. I contribute gladly. Smiley
Thank you for that.

Don't worry about it. For what do I need to be paid back for? It's a hobby of mine and this forum has given me a wonderful opportunity to indulge myself.
Courage, mon ami. The information is on the 'net. It's just a question of some other interested party with something to contribute stumbling upon the site.
Well, then, I won't worry about it Wink

Why would they condescend to do something so menial? They have minutiae to pore over....  Wink
No kidding  Roll Eyes

Btw, >NC sources links list<
36  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 21, 2007, 11:25:03 PM
I haven't got it and, I understand, it's a limited print run. I've read what seems to be an outline he wrote in the Journal of Ancient Chronology Forum (available here).
Downloaded the PDF. Thanks for the link.

Am I not good enough for you!!!???  Angry lol
Certainly more than good enough (and probably better than I deserve), but unfortunately not as numerous as I would like. Smiley That's nothing against you, and I suppose that you might feel exploited by me since there are no other contributors so far. The contributions you have made are substantial, and thanks to you that the NC chronology of Egypt is almost complete. And all the other lists of dates you have provided I could never have assembled myself. But I feel I cannot give you back as much as you would deserve.
I am honestly frustrated by the lack of public participation around here. Especially since my dayjob exhausts my time and my brains so that even when I get home in the evening I have no energy left to contribute much to the website and forum. If there were more participants, then filling up the website would be far easier.

I'm not really sure as to why. The site itself has plenty of information and rates pretty highly on specific Google searches. I suppose that the remit of the site is a bit obscure for most punters (like most ancient history) and the "specialists" would tend to be far too "expert" to hob-nob with the likes of us.
Maybe I should write Mr Rohl an e-Mail... but really, those folks at the "official" Yahoo group don't come up with lists, maps and charts, do they?

For what it's worth, I think you're doing a brilliant job. Smiley
Thank you Wink
37  New Chronology Discussion / Mediterranean Chronology / Founders of Rome on: November 20, 2007, 08:18:18 PM
Archaeologists in Rome unveil grotto linked to mythical founder Romulus


Wow! Smiley
38  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 20, 2007, 08:06:30 PM
"Chronology at the Crossroads" ?
Is it worth reading?

Btw, why is it that nobody wants to join this forum? Am I doing something wrong?? Is the website still too empty? I mean, I am trying to build a platform for the NC and to offer material, but nobody seems to be interested, except you.  Cry
39  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 19, 2007, 10:07:45 PM
The Ramsses 2 & Shoshenk 1 correlations per OC do call for a suspension of disbelief, don't they? Rohl's model certainly has the edge in this respect.
I agree. But as I said, although the model seems sound, a new book to meet the criticism would be nice.

Here's the corresponding chart:

blue = Royal Architects
red = Genealogy of Nespaherenhat
green = kings
40  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 17, 2007, 11:07:06 PM
Well, I find the lack of output from Mr Rohl on pending iussues at least disturbing. I know that when he wrote A Test of Time, he was somewhat limited in what he was allowed to publish (iirr because of a dissertation that was still in review by his university), but that phase must be long over by now and he could well publish the exact results of his research, especially his findings about the TIP which is troubling us so much.
You have a good point. The lack of any further output from DR on the TIP doesn't exactly instill confidence in the NC. Interesting you should call him Mr. Rohl - I believe the dissertation was his doctoral thesis.
There is a lot of material about Rohl and about what he does, but not so much about the contents of his findings and theories. I wish there were someone to work out all the details of the Intermediate Periods.

Here's the list of royal architects from the Wadi Hammamat quarries (ToT p. 166)
NC yeararchitectsynchronism
936 bceRahotepearly Ramesses 2 (OC - c. 1270 BC)
916 bceBakenkhons
896 bceWedjakhons
876 bceNefermenu
856 bceMay
836 bce[name lost]
816 bcePepy
796 bceAmunherpamesha
776 bceHaremsafShoshenk 1 (OC - c. 935 BC)
756 bceMermer (?)
736 bceHarernsaf
716 bceTja(en)hebyu
696 bceNestefnut
676 bceTja(en)hebyu
656 bceNestefnut
636 bceTja(en)hebyu
616 bceNestefnut
596 bceTjaenhebyu
576 bceNestefnut
556 bceWahibre-teniborn late in reign of Psamtek 1 ?
536 bceAnkh-Psamtekborn in reign of Psamtek 2 ?
516 bceAhmose-saneitborn in reign of Amasis?
496 bceKhnemibreYear 26 Darius 1
41  General Discussion / Feedback, Forum & Site functions / Re: Away... on: November 15, 2007, 10:36:59 PM
OK, although I am still pretty busy, I will have all Fridays off until the end of the year Smiley
So on the weekends my attention will be on the forum and the website. Right now I am re-reading A Test of Time, and try to get into Rohl's case for a the restructuring of the TIP. I will also be looking at the Waste of Time website to see what material they have against it.
42  New Chronology Discussion / Mesopotamian Chronology / Babylonia material? on: November 09, 2007, 01:02:48 PM
43  General Discussion / Feedback, Forum & Site functions / Re: Away... on: November 05, 2007, 09:22:08 PM
I am still pretty busy at my day job and it is impossible for me to contribute anything substantial at the moment. I apologise for that.
Btw I am thinking about re-writing the Wikipedia article about the NC by Rohl. Any thoughts?
44  New Chronology Discussion / Ethiopian Chronology / Re: Lineage of Ethiopian Kings and Rulers on: October 26, 2007, 11:47:28 AM
Unfortunately, Cassiopeia was the wife of Cepheus, usually taken as the brother of Danaus and Aegyptus. As such, he would date to the late 17th/early 18th Dynasty time frame.
Which means that this Cassiopeia is definitely NOT the Kasiyope of the early somewhat fantastical Agdazyan Dynasty (just as you wrote in your post), and that the respective part of the Agdazyan Dynasty may in fact be a fabrication.
45  General Discussion / Feedback, Forum & Site functions / Re: Database corruption on: October 25, 2007, 08:28:26 PM
I told you that list was nothing but trouble! Wink
Oh yes, no kidding.
I have been troubled by the EKL for the last three years now, at least.
I am re-reading your post at http://forum.history-book.net/index.php?topic=4.msg121#msg121 . And as you do, I have long suspected that parts of the dynastic lists were just copied and appended at the beginning to gain some length to it and make it more ancient. The fact that this list comes from Ras Tafari while there seems to be no other reliable source to confirm anything it claims, has me in grave doubts about the accuracy of any part of it. I will see what I can make of your post. The Cassiopeia part has no chance of being nailed to any specific time frame, I suppose?... because a "Phoenician" realm in the Ethiopia region would fit with the Poen/Punites dwelling on both sides of the Bab-el-Mandab and the southern Erythrean/Red Sea, before they finally moved on to become the Phoenicians of the Mediterranean. What of interest does the mythology tell about the famous queen?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19

Login with username, password and session length
History-Book Forum | Powered by SMF 1.0.8.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.