In any event, the classical chronological construction continues to have severe problems.
Thanks. Rohl’s work came out of the (failed) Glasgow Chronology, which also spawned the “Centuries of Darkness” book from Peter James et al. Back in early 2000, some comments I made on another forum:
[snip] David Rohl, part of the Glasgow School (which formed as a result of a convention about Velikovsky about 20 years ago) has two books out, and a third is coming soon. His Pharaohs and Kings also places the Exodus in the 13th Dynasty, and in fact even picks the same pharaoh as Dr V did (back in 1952!). Peter James et al, author of Centuries of Darkness, is also from the Glasgow School.
...Briefly, since Rohl comes to the same conclusion for the Exodus as Dr V, he has to reduce the length of the Hyksos period along the lines of the conventional view, but also has to squash dynasties subsequent to the 19th in order to make his system work. The era of the 18th and 19th dynasties (the real glory years of Egypt in a certain sense) have synchronisms with other places (such as Greece and Mesopotamia) that make it difficult for the timid to change them much.
In this regard Courville’s work with the Mesopotamian kingdoms really seems to shine... Rohl and James don’t seem to work with the problems there at all. They seem to think they can bail out the chronology by relying on the Mesopotamian chronology, forgetting apparently that it was developed dependent on the Egyptian chronology. [unsnip]
One minor correction, Velikovsky’s chronological framework was first published in outline form in 1945. :’)