MemberMarch 21, 2021 at 7:46 am
Some material in this article might be unsettling for those who buy into the idea that Egyptian Chronology is a settled matter. This is a paper that appears to have been published early 2013 or a bit earlier.
—The Chronology of Tell El-Daba: A Crucial Meeting Point of 14C Dating, Archaeology, and Egyptology in the 2nd Millennium BC—
The paper is freely available for viewing or download on at least several sites that I came across that had it.
I’ll post the abstract below. But carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology aren’t lining up. And they also appear to have difficulty lining up the eruption of Thera or Santorini as well with Egyptian findings. “This is surprising given the number of examined samples and the good quality of Thera pumice for use as abrasion material in workshops (Bietak 2012). Thus, 14C dates the Thera eruption about 100 yr earlier than the archaeological evidence linked to the Egyptian historical chronology.” AND “A similar disagreement of about 100 yr occurs between the 14C dates from the stratigraphic sequence of the Tell el-Daba (also written “el-Dabca” or “el-Dab’a”) excavation in the Nile Delta (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007), when the latter is linked to the Egyptian chronology. This difference has been discussed for several years, but never published, because the authors of this work had hoped that an explanation for the discrepancy would emerge.” Is that person cited with the name “Höflmayer” the same guy who told Tim “I’m very much against historical revisionism.” ?
It gets a bit confusing for me to follow but they are confused too. The paper does also discuss how the radiocarbon numbers had already undergone “calibration.” The paper appears to show raw numbers as well as some calibrated ones. Though I am a little bit scientifically proficient, lots of numbers and complex stuff kind of confuses me, unless I’ve got the information locked down in my mind. In any case this paper is worth being aware of when approached by people who say “we may be off a few years here or a few years there, but we are not off by centuries.” I put the key parts of the ABSTRACT below in Bold text that mentions the 120 year shift that they want to bring to people’s attention.
ABSTRACT. Radiocarbon dating at the Tell el-Daba site in the Nile Delta has created an enigma for many years. Despite great efforts, the difference of about 120 yr between the chronology based on 14C dates and the one based on archaeological
evidence linked to the Egyptian historical chronology has not been solved. In order to foster open discussions on this discrepancy, we present here the results of 40 14C accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements on short-lived plant material
assigned to 14 different phases of the Tell el-Daba excavation, spanning 600 yr (about 2000-1400 BC). On the one hand, the recently established agreement between 14C dates and dynastic Egypt (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010) makes it unlikely that the
problem lies in the 14C dates and/or the Egyptian historical chronology. On the other hand, the extensive archaeological evidence from Tell el-Daba linked to many different cultures in the eastern Mediterranean and to the Egyptian historical chronology provides strong evidence for an absolute chronology shifted by about 120 yr with respect to the 14C dates.
However also in the paper is a chart (Figure 3) that tries to lay out the evidence as they understand it. It is slightly confusing for me to look it (again perhaps they are confused in how they put the chart together) but we can see what appears to me to be some preliminary indicators that could match with some of the things David Rohl has said. There is a dotted line at one point across some of the dig locations of the city with the word “epidemic” which likely is what David Rohl was talking about in Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. Rohl described bodies thrown in graves. He had linked this to the plague of the first born males. Yet I’m not familiar enough with all this material myself to argue with scholars without just saying “David Rohl says…”
It appears that some short time after that “epidemic” another block (in Figure 3) starts on the left with a “Nehesi” and then a more recent Kingdom of Avaris and then followed with another block with Hyskos under that. I’m totally ignorant of all this. Is Nehesi and the Kingdom of Avaris predating the Hyksos? If Nehesi though is the first of the Hy…
(I have the internet why don’t I look it up?) Ok I looked on Wikipedia.
This article indicates Nehesy was not Hyksos but briefly ruled in a period of Egyptian governmental disintegration and was followed by other short lived rulers until the time of the Hyksos invasion. So this does seem to match well with David Rohl’s pattern of evidence that Tim Mahoney adopted. A plague followed by new regional weak ruler, followed by continued weakness, followed by Hyksos invasion. I’m not exactly seeing in the academic article earlier mentioned how a “Hiatus” (abandonment?) overlapped with the “epidemic.” The chart in the article has the word “Hiatus” below “epidemic.” [This is in the same time block, so perhaps they just didn’t format the box precisely. And the more recent dates are on the top.] If there was a “hiatus” in people there first … then who would have been left to suffer the “epidemic”? Maybe the epidemic caused the “Hiatus” coupled with the Israelites leaving. None of what I’m writing is proof… I’m just exploring and trying to independently verify what Tim put in his movie. At least it isn’t “proof” to me. With all of David Rohl’s critics having my ear, I need to verify things for myself. But this is slow process … learning little by little.