[SunkenCiv]

Quibble — the entire conventional chronology of ancient Egypt wasn’t based on one person’s contention; that said, Rohl’s “Pharaohs and Kings” is an interesting introduction to some of the problems with the conventional chronology.

Also as PIF notes, trying to use the conventional chronology to date events in neighboring areas doesn’t yield productive results. The neighboring areas (including the Old Testament Israelite period) make a better set of timelines, which then can be used to straighten out the massive problems with the Egyptian chronology.

Thanks BenLurkin for the ping.

[PIF]

Civ,
I don't think that OT time lines will help with Archaic and early Old Egyptian Kingdom dating.

While the OT may help with New Kingdom dates, the rest is a total mess which cannot be resolved until Egypt grants open access to many sites now closed, allows dating samples to be taken out of country, and our current crop of Egyptologists take a serious look at sites which no one has looked at since the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

Then again this could well be a circular argument as much of what is considered New Kingdom and our understanding of Pharonic succession might depend on who did what to whom when in the Archaic and early Old Egyptian Kingdom.

[jps098]

I disagree. When Kenyon dated Jerico her work was taken as authoritative by so many working in the field, that an entirely, bible-rejecting, road was taken.

I have met too many working in various fields of science who do not question prior work, take it as accurate, and then build upon another's faulty foundation.