David Rohl

[turanclancath]

  Were we should put David Rohl ?
In the Deviant Alternative  Fringe Box
Or in The  Classical Orthodox Box.
Or in the Middle Box.

In the Deviant Box are in my opinion Von Daeniken,Ron Whyat,Velikovsky ,Simcha Jacobovici etc.( people wihout a Doctorate in Archaelogy/Egyptology   as a  little criterium )

In the Classical Box great archeologists  mostly long standing Dr or Professors  like
Eric Cline ,Finkelstein, Hawass, Collins, Kitchen  and even Redford , the late Manfred Korfmann and much other German archaelogy Professors from Tuebingen university and nestor :)Manfred Bietak
just to name  some of the greatest.


Interesting question  .
Have a nice weekend
turanclancath:)

[notalent]

Here is one answer to the question:

It is not surprising, then, that Kitchen, in a savage review in the Times Literary Supplement,5 condemned the authors of Centuries of Darkness as "sons of Velikovsky" and consigned them to the same oblivion as their accursed master.  No doubt the authorities at the British Museum, who have banned this book from the BM Bookstore, feel much the same way about David Rohl.

Such a reaction is misguided.  The message may be sensational, and Rohl may even be completely wrong in his theories, but there is a world of difference between his intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter James.  Rohl is a trained Egyptologist, with a degree in the subject and a PhD in course of preparation at University College London, one of the most prestigious Egyptological departments in Britain.  Nor did this book appear out of the blue.  He has for several years edited and published the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum, which has presented not only his own theories, but also articles of considerable merit by many mainstream archaeologists.  It is evident, from the pages in this book, from the articles in JACF, and from personal exchanges, that Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material, and has thought long and deep about it.  Even if the debate is ultimately not resolved in his favour, it is worthwhile because it forces a re-examination of long-held assumptions and of difficult problems.  This can only be healthy for the discipline, and should be welcomed for this reason.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:j9zUxTwQMnkJ:www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd%3Ffile%3Dtemporalfugues.rtf+TT320+Rohl&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[turanclancath]

Please Name this mainstream Archaelogists  ? Cline   ,Hawass  Collins   Ushekinn , Kolb  , ??
( sources  without names its  )

And names from your great honoured universitys like Yale ,Harford,Berkley,Princeton,Cornell,  Brandeis  and other Ivy Leage ones.
I suppose these Professors arent all together ignorant in neglecting Rohl:)
Really noboddy of these professionals bothers to argue about  or with him.

According to Rohls  Bio in Wiki and others he  only studied 3 years  and stopped working on his DR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl

I didnt see a DR or Professor on his Books even not on the Lords of Avaris his most recent one.
So only 3 years academic dicipline !

I understand he isnt accepted by the Orthodox Academics
with long years  off university  study !

And I ordered his lords of Avaris ( a little sin for 17 Euro  mis 5 bottles of good rosee wine   )  Troy etc  because his downgrading chronology is against all
GErman University  great ACES  knowledge about Homer an Troy  so  its
They make Fleischwurst of his theorys
See
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/fachliteratur.html

Interesting in Germany he is ignored.
Can understand with all these Universitys like Tuebingen Heidelberg Berlin with long classical knowledge.

  So to conclude in a one liner  !!!
Please name these academics who accept Rohl !
In my academic science as an historian you have to name your sources!!!
Without naming at leats 10 famous Professors its ?



Turanclancath

[notalent]

Please Name this mainstream Archaelogists  ? Cline ,Hawass  Collins   Ushekinn , Kolb  , ?? ( sources  without names its  )

I linked the source document and quoted his name therefrom in the forum quote label.  If you open your eyes, you'll see the name and the link.

Without naming at leats 10 famous Professors its ?

Turanclancath

I provided an objective assessment from a Rohl critic.  I'm sorry such objective analysis is so disagreeable to you.

[turanclancath]

So please repeat this name    as is usual in an academic debate as you are asked  !
It is courtois in Europe were I live to do this !
little labour to type this mysterious name of this professor
Be so kind please 
 as is normal in holland .
And not 1 name please.
But I fear ?

And the article in the link is from 1996 in Rohls own Journal  and  we live now in 2009  .!!!
From an even non Dr Rohl!!!!
So an Amateur in academic language
Were are the international Harvord, Princeton etc names .
None !!!

[notalent]

So please repeat this name    as is usual in an academic debate as you are asked  !
It is courtois in Europe were I live to do this !
little labour to type this mysterious name of this professor
 as is normal in holland .
And not 1 name please.
But I fear ?

Just scroll up to my post.  It's right there after the words "Quote from:".  Or if you prefer, click the URL I provided at the bottom.  His name is at the top of the document on the linked page.

Good grief!

[turanclancath]

Be kind please give the name
i printed the article but dont see a name

only Chris Benett but that isnt a Archaelogists etc
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=chris+bennett+ph+dr&btnG=Zoeken&meta=

is normal between academic colleages.
Why so mysterious

[turanclancath]

Anno 2009!!!

My conclusion :
As no  multitude!!! of great Professors  of renowed universitys  International  pop up
we can put ( not even  Dr)  Rohl in the  deviant amateur Box.
But he is amusing
 

[notalent]

Be kind please give the name
i printed the article but dont see a name

only Chris Benett but that isnt a Archaelogists etc
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=chris+bennett+ph+dr&btnG=Zoeken&meta=

is normal between academic colleages.
Why so mysterious

So, you don't give any credit to anything said by Chris Bennett PHD, regarding David Rohl?  Is this what you're saying?  Chris Bennett doesn't know what he's talking about?

[turanclancath]

Thanks a lot Notalent    really !!!!! for the Bennet article ( and your postings)  in
Temporal Fuges.
I learn a lot and are facinated  its a whole new world and as a result i ordered the Lords of Avaris( even if i dont believe in Rohl )
Now as i,m not a native english speaker  perhaps my english understanding is  wrong ?
  because  as i cite the recomended article by you , the conclusion of Benett is  see the citate here under
 that
Rohl is wrong  but interesting.


And in the  postscript of the article  see paste here under  the same conclusion Rohl is wrong :

---The postscript--------

Finally, one should note that the tone of discussion between Rohl and his opponents, particularly Kitchen and Brissaud, has become highly acrimonious.  The diatribe is often quite unpleasant to read, on both sides.  This is very unfortunate.  While I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong, the discussion is nevertheless highly worthwhile, both for the student of Egyptian chronology, in that exposes the issues to a degree not otherwise likely to happen, and for the subject itself, because the debate can only sharpen our understanding of the bases of chronology.  Because this debate is rapidly becoming a dialogue of the deaf, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that these productive features will continue to be realised.

----------

The conclusion of the article

1   
Simply put, I think Rohl is wrong.  Dead wrong.  Magnificently wrong.  The characteristics of his analysis are apparent from the last section.  He has detailed and plausible arguments to support his case, which frequently show great ingenuity in their reinterpretation of the evidence.  Nevertheless, these arguments are usually not followed through to their logical conclusion because not all the evidence is considered.  When we find that placing the 21st and 22nd dynasties in parallel results in parallel office-holders for all the senior benefices in the land which we are able to examine, it is apparent that there is something seriously wrong.  And the obvious source of error is the thesis.  The two dynasties were, after all, consecutive. 
Nevertheless, Rohl deserves attention and respect.  The issues he raises are always worthy of examination, and, as

---------------
Is my english understanding wrong if i read in your recommended  article      that the  writer DR . Bennett doesnt believe Rohl???

here is the link for the article open it in PDF!

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:j9zUxTwQMnkJ:www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd%3Ffile%3Dtemporalfugues.rtf+TT320+Rohl&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a



Turanclancath:) have a nice weekend.  here its raining  in Holland

[notalent]

Thanks a lot Notalent    really !!!!! for the Bennet article ( and your postings)  in
Temporal Fuges.
I learn a lot and are facinated  its a whole new world and as a result i ordered the Lords of Avaris( even if i dont believe in Rohl )
Now as i,m not a native english speaker  perhaps my english understanding is  wrong ?
  because  as i cite the recomended article by you , the conclusion of Benett is  see the citate here under
 that
Rohl is wrong  but interesting.


And in the  postscript of the article  see paste here under  the same conclusion Rohl is wrong :

---The postscript--------

Finally, one should note that the tone of discussion between Rohl and his opponents, particularly Kitchen and Brissaud, has become highly acrimonious.  The diatribe is often quite unpleasant to read, on both sides.  This is very unfortunate.  While I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong, the discussion is nevertheless highly worthwhile, both for the student of Egyptian chronology, in that exposes the issues to a degree not otherwise likely to happen, and for the subject itself, because the debate can only sharpen our understanding of the bases of chronology.  Because this debate is rapidly becoming a dialogue of the deaf, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that these productive features will continue to be realised.

----------

The conclusion of the article

1   
Simply put, I think Rohl is wrong.  Dead wrong.  Magnificently wrong.  The characteristics of his analysis are apparent from the last section.  He has detailed and plausible arguments to support his case, which frequently show great ingenuity in their reinterpretation of the evidence.  Nevertheless, these arguments are usually not followed through to their logical conclusion because not all the evidence is considered.  When we find that placing the 21st and 22nd dynasties in parallel results in parallel office-holders for all the senior benefices in the land which we are able to examine, it is apparent that there is something seriously wrong.  And the obvious source of error is the thesis.  The two dynasties were, after all, consecutive. 
Nevertheless, Rohl deserves attention and respect.  The issues he raises are always worthy of examination, and, as

---------------
Is my english understanding wrong if i read in your recommended  article      that the  writer DR . Bennett doesnt believe Rohl???

here is the link for the article open it in PDF!

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:j9zUxTwQMnkJ:www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd%3Ffile%3Dtemporalfugues.rtf+TT320+Rohl&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a



Turanclancath:) have a nice weekend.  here its raining  in Holland

You are correct.  Bennett disagrees with Rohl's theses.  But he also does NOT put Rohl in the same category as the Velikovsky or the other lightweights.

This is why I quoted Bennett to answer your question, because he was a Rohl critic, not a Rohl supporter. 

I hope you understand this now. 

Regards!

[Irishman]

I would not put Rohl in the same category as Velikovsky, et al.

[Cami McCraw]

You may now order David Rohl's 'Pharaohs & Kings' and 'Myth or Reality' here: http://stretchproductions.com/RohlProducts.html
-and write to me at stretch @ swbell.net about 'Eden'.