Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 22, 2017, 10:21:05 AM

265611
visitors since
june 16, 2005
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19
16  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: FIP & Middle Kingdom on: March 12, 2008, 07:51:33 PM
Unfortunately I couldn't find much reliable information about this "Lamares" (Manetho) and what his egyptian name would be.
I understand that Lamares (or Ameres) is considered to be Amenemhet 3, believed to be a garbled version of his praenomen Nimaatre. I've also seen speculation linking the name with Moeris.
17  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 08, 2007, 02:18:00 AM
What about those Wegaf/Sobekhotep inconsistencies? I tend to follow the following interpretation rather than Rohl's or Ryholt 's and put Wegaf at the start of the 13th Dynasty A.

Quote from: Phouka
Some egyptologits believe that Sobekhotep I was the founder of the 13th Dynasty -- having been switched with Wegaf. However, he is clearly noted as pharaoh number 19 in thr Turin list, but some believe that other evidence makes it ovcious that he was interchanged with Wegaf, who then ruled about 40 years later. Sobekhotep I is the first male pharaoh to adopt the crocodile god, Sobek, into his name.
His name is also present on about a dozen monuments, plus a few mentioned in papyrii.
It is assumed that he is the son of Amenemhet IV of the 12th Dynasty. The queen Sobkenefru may have been his mother (as well as his aunt, as was common).
Sobekhotep I was followed by a pharaoh named Reniseneb, which means "The Name is Healthy", but nothing else is know about this king.
Well, though one could argue (as, presumably, Ryhold does) that the 13th Dynasty was hardly short of Sobekhoteps, I believe you're correct and prudent in supporting the consensus reading. I haven't seen any evidence in Rohl to suggest he has changed his opinion since "The Lost Testament" and now concurs with Ryholt so we should go with Wegaf as first king on this one.

Strange, in A Test of Time Rohl has conflicting charts on pages 340 and 411...
Really? What's the contradiction? (Sorry, can't find my copy.... Huh)
18  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 04, 2007, 06:40:31 PM
Whoa! Interesting comparison!
19  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 01, 2007, 05:19:47 PM
I would be cautious about some of it (Ryholt's sequence of kings in Dynasty 13 is slightly different from that used by Rohl and his tentative identifications for the first two kings of the Greater Hyksos also differ) but the dates given for the other dynasties could well be used as OC dates (as, to my knowledge, this is the most comprehensive attempt at providing dates for many of the kings that I've seen).
20  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: SIP + pre + post, the Hyksos period on: December 01, 2007, 12:03:00 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.
21  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 23, 2007, 03:05:33 AM
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.
Not at all. I contribute gladly. Smiley

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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
Why would they condescend to do something so menial? They have minutiae to pore over....  Wink
22  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 21, 2007, 06:57:07 PM
"Chronology at the Crossroads" ?
Is it worth reading?
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).

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
Am I not good enough for you!!!???  Angry lol

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.

For what it's worth, I think you're doing a brilliant job. Smiley
23  New Chronology Discussion / Mediterranean Chronology / Re: Kings of Rome on: November 21, 2007, 06:40:44 PM
Thanks for those Cush, interesting stuff.

I did a bit of reading about the religious rituals of Lupercale some years ago. Discoveries like these really elucidate the ancient texts. Brilliant stuff!
24  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 20, 2007, 07:00:15 PM
I agree. But as I said, although the model seems sound, a new book to meet the criticism would be nice.

Indeed. Or, at the very least, an article addressing point by point any OC acolyte's attempt at rubbishing Rohl's claims.

Btw, I understand that Rohl supporter Bernard Newgrosh has recently published a book addressing Kenneth Kitchen's assertion that Assyrian chronology provides support for the OC.
25  New Chronology Discussion / Egyptian and Levantine Chronology / Re: TIP & Late Period on: November 18, 2007, 03:56:26 PM
Here's the list of royal architces 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

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.
26  New Chronology Discussion / Ethiopian Chronology / Re: Lineage of Ethiopian Kings and Rulers on: October 26, 2007, 08:48:55 PM
Almost certainly so, I'm afraid.

Ooh, new options! Smiley
27  General Discussion / Feedback, Forum & Site functions / Re: Database corruption on: October 26, 2007, 03:02:39 AM
I've responded here.
28  New Chronology Discussion / Ethiopian Chronology / Re: Lineage of Ethiopian Kings and Rulers on: October 26, 2007, 03:01:51 AM
I told you that list was nothing but trouble! Wink
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?

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.
29  General Discussion / Feedback, Forum & Site functions / Re: Database corruption on: October 23, 2007, 05:15:52 PM
I told you that list was nothing but trouble! Wink
30  New Chronology Discussion / Ethiopian Chronology / Re: Lineage of Ethiopian Kings and Rulers on: October 23, 2007, 05:12:21 PM
Yes - he has Nehesi as the son of Sheshi and the Nubian princess Tauti.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19


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