Replies

One of *those* topics. Pushing back the date (this ssdd study agrees with earlier work in placing it mid-17 c BC) destroys the connection between the end of the Neopalatial civilization of the Minoans, ironically destroying the pretext for dreaming up the supereruption in the first place. [and this note of mine from 2001, different forum] Since the end of Akrotiri corresponds to Thutmose III (based on pottery forms common in the Aegean during his reign in Egypt), accepting the 17th c date for the eruption means rejection of Rohl's chronology (he puts Thutmose III's reign end in the 12th c). :') Peter James puts the eruption in the 14th c, and rejects the pottery evidence. Velikovsky paid no attention to the dating of Thera because it is a sideshow, but as Edwin Schorr pointed out, V accepted the conventional 16th c dating without much comment, but that it would have to be much later than that.

join or quit
view topics
view or post blog
bookmark
post new topic
subscribe

According to most of the articles listed for Tut 3 at Google the figure around 1479 to 1425 BC seems to be the most accepted, with the first 20 to 22 years as a co-regency with Queen Hatshepsut. He was 2 when his father died. I am not familiar with Rohl’s chronology, nor have I heard about anyone proposed the reign end in the 12thc. I have heard of Manetho’s chronology, and work by Brestead (which I will have to wait to study as it is past my bedtime).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_III

This link shows some of the complexities involved in sources and dating. https://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/manetho.html

Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History (#59 through #80)
The Sequence of Dynasties
... In the chapter dealing with the sack of the Temple of Jerusalem, it was demonstrated that the biblical Shishak, its plunderer, was Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the objects of his loot, depicted on the bas relief at Karnak, were identified as the vessels, utensils, and furniture of the Temple. His heir Amenhotep II was identified as the Biblical Zerah who invaded Palestine in the days of King Asa at the beginning of the ninth century. Thus they could not have been the Libyan kings Shoshenk and Osorkon. These Libyans reigned later, and the entire duration of that dynasty was shorter than is conventionally assumed. But we shall also show that Osorkon could not have reigned in the beginning of the ninth century and that Shoshenk could not have been the biblical Shishak because he was the Biblical Pharaoh So referred to in the Scriptures during the closing days of Samaria, in the time of King Hezekiah.
Pharaoh So (Shoshenk Hedjkheperre of the Libyan Dynasty)
The Libyans in Egypt
Kadesh in Judah
The Secret of Baalbek
(mostly reprised from Egyptian Amulet Bearing Name of Pharaoh Found in Soil from Temple Mount