Understanding Egyptian chronology, by Tony High

Chronology | Towards a unified chronology | A new chronology

In general, the world of academia that includes Egyptologists and Historians, agree in principle to a generally accepted Egyptian/Biblical chronology, differing slightly on semantics.

However, in 1995 this established ‘Orthodox’ chronology underwent a revolutionary revision with the introduction of David Rohl’s book ‘Pharaohs and Kings: a Biblical Quest’ (1995a; it was first published in the UK as ‘A Test of Time: the Bible - from Myth to History’ [1995b]). David Rohl was convinced that there were fundamental errors within the conventional orthodox chronology. In the briefest of terms, Rohl purports to have produced a better correlation between the findings of archaeology and the Bible by revising Egyptian chronology and early Israelite history with the absolute Christological timescale.

As previously stated there are certain ‘Historical Pillars’ whose dates are indisputable and synchronise Israelite and Egyptian history:

	The sacking of Thebes in 664 BC by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal as punishment for a revolt led by Pharaoh Taharka of the 25th Dynasty of kings in Egypt. Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other sources make this a very firm date, fixing the history of Egypt after this time. This date is beyond contention.
	The identification of Pharaoh Shishak (who is recorded in I Kings 14:25,26 and II Chronicles 12:2-9 as having conquered Jerusalem when Rehoboam was king of Judah) with Pharaoh Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty.
	The Sothic date revealed in the Papyrus Ebers of 1517 B.C. as Year 9 of Amenhotep I.
	The astronomical dating (in Papyrus Leiden) placing Year 52 of Rameses II in exactly 1228 B.C., thus giving him an accession date of 1279.

Unfortunately, due to the complexities involved in evaluating the pros and cons of Rohl’s proposed theory, we are compelled, due to spatial reasons, to give but a short synopsis of David Rohl’s theory.

In essence, Rohl attempts to lower Egyptian chronology by several hundred years for the period before 664 BC. The sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal in 664 BC. is accepted as a fixed date by Rohl and becomes the starting point for his revised chronology. Rohl adjudges that Egyptian chronology before this date is unreliable and that due to Biblical synchronism, Egyptian chronology should be revised by shortening the 20th Dynasty and overlapping the 21st and 22nd Dynasties. Proposing that instead of following on from one another, they actually occurred partly simultaneously, requiring a shrinking down of the conventional dates by some 200 to 350 years.

Although Professor Heinrich Otten has called the current scholarly consensus a "rubber chronology", that could be stretched or shrunk by arbitrarily established lengths of co-regencies between rulers and even overlapping dynasties, the outlines and dates have not fluctuated very much in the last hundred years. This is a fact categorised by Biblical chronology, which remains unchanged since it is derived from synchronisms with Assyria in the Divided Kingdom period, and then calculated backwards using the internal chronological data of the Bible.

However, since the publishing of the “New Chronology”, some Egyptologist do admit that there may well be a case for a revision of Egyptian chronology. John Ray, Reader in Egyptology at Cambridge University, and Dr. Aidan Dodson - have intimated that Egyptian chronology could possibly be lowered by some fifty years - but no more. As already discussed, Assyrian eponyms provide an accurate source for cross-referencing Egyptian chronology, and as such have been used as evidence to disclaim and discredit Rohl’s New Chronology theory. A case in point is set out below concerning the reign of Ramesses II:

The Biblical pharaoh "Shishak" is identified by Rohl as Rameses II, rather than the Shoshenq I of conventional wisdom. This would place Ramesses II, the third ruler of the Nineteenth Dynasty, contemporary with 925 BC. Rameses II is the Biblical Shishak, if one is to believe the author's argument that Sese (SS, SSw, SSy or Sysw), a supposed nickname or hypocoristicon for that Egyptian king, as preserved for Rameses III in a cartouche at Medinat Habu, is equivalent to the Hebrew Shisha[k].

Using synchronism as a means of checking Rohl’s theory, we find glaring obvious discrepancies.

In Rohl's chronology, Hattusilis III ruled from about 925 to 859 BC, and his son Tuthalyas IV from 895 to 880 BC. As a consequence of Rohl's dating, Ramesses II ruled some 350 years later (i.e. 932-866 BC) than is generally accepted. Since Ramesses II corresponded with Hattusilis, the latter's reign, and that of his son, would have to be moved 350 years too.

Babu-ahu-iddina was a high Assyrian official under Adad-nirari I, Salmanassar I and Tukulti-ninurta I. As such, the datings of these kings must be moved 350 years onwards as well. They would have reigned, then, from around 950 to 850 BC. During these periods however other Assyrian kings were in power: Adad-nirari II, Tukulti-ninurta II and Salmanassar III, respectively, whose datings are firmly established.

It must be said that reaction to Rohl’s "New Chronology" was less than favourable, eliciting derision and even contempt from many in the academic world. For those however, that wish to study this somewhat difficult subject further, you should refer to these publications:

	Ancient Egyptian Chronology by Hornung, Krauss &Warburton, Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN 9004113851
	Professor Kenneth Kitchen’s seminal work ‘The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt’ ‘Warminster, ISBN 0856682985
	A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History by David M Rohl, published by Arrow Books Ltd; New Ed edition (5 April 2001) ISBN 0099416565

Return to the main chronology page >>