Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)#Merge

I'm not expert on radiocarbon dating nor the new chronology so I'm not updating the main article.

But my understanding is the radiocarbon dating section in the main article is highly misleading. It states that the traditional chronology has been confirmed via radiocarbon dating.

That is highly misleading as radiocarbon dating is calibrated against key dates from the traditional Egyptian chronology. Thus radiocarbon dating can be used to confirm relative dates in the traditional Egyptian chronology, but in the absolute sense of saying an artifact is from 3000BC, that can't be done.

In fact the raw radiocarbon date of Egyptian artifacts understood to be from 3000 BC is roughly 4500 years ago. A 12% calibration curve is applied to adjust that to 5000 years ago (3000 BC). The calibration curve was developed specifically to cause that perfect alignment between radiocarbon dating and the traditional Egyptian chronology.

If the new chronology is correct, then the radiocarbon calibration curves will simply need to be updated to show the new dates. In the case of the above 4500 year old artifact, that would mean a smaller adjustment would be needed if it actually from 2600 BC (as an example).

Thus unadjusted (raw) radiocarbon dates actually agree far better with the new chronology than with old.

Apparently the following reference was deemed worthy of stating that Rohl's assertions about Shishak = Ramesses II are not "widely accepted".

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=stMd0QV97IYC&pg=PA193&dq=Shishak+and+Sysw+David+Rohl&num=100&ei=KOd1SvaKKI_-ygTSzuz-Ag&client=firefox-a&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

To quote:

"Rohl's theory, however, founders on the rather firm and well-accepted Egyptian chronology, and, therefore, has not met with wide acceptance amongst Egyptologists. In addition, his attempt to account for the biblical spelling of Shishak [...] is scarcely convincing, [...]"

With *no* references to any other-authored works ("See my note" indeed!).

So we have an assertion with a reference of the same assertion with no corroborating material. Rohl may well be wrong, but at least he doesn't leave dangling circular assertions as references in order to support his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.38.78 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

:It not circular. It's only dangling in the sense that one has not checked his note on 1 Kings 14:25 in 1, 2 Kings by Patterson and Austel (9780310234951). It's very common for an author to refer back to earlier work of theirs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC).

By any measure the result of the malicious attempt to delete a person's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rohl was KEEP. Keep by MAJORITY and policy. But TWO PEOPLE chose redirect, so a person's article was deleted and merged to this article. It's a poor decision. Rohl met all notability guidelines and his article referenced other parts of his biography outside the New Chronology, like a band (Mandalaband). Yet, here we are. The administrator who took it upon himself to make the merge decision and perform the merger did no actual merging of the two distinct articles, just slapped a redirect on David Rohl and went on his merry way. A poor merge. Poor, poor, poor. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have opened a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#David_Rohl. Please comment if you'd like. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the David Rohl article needs to be improved and added to to make it more notable and differentiate it from the New Chronology article. Here is a start:

Here is a reference to David Rohl and his band Mandalaband in a history of prog rock: {{cite book | last=Romano | first=W. | title=Mountains Come Out of the Sky: The Illustrated History of Prog Rock | publisher=Backbeat Books | year=2010 | isbn=978-1-61713-375-6 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2lVMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT231 | access-date=2022-05-02}} Here in Italian book on "opera rock" and the concept album: {{cite book | last=Follero | first=D. | last2=Zoppo | first2=D. | title=Opera Rock: La storia del concept album | publisher=Hoepli | year=2018 | isbn=978-88-203-8492-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f61YDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT149 | language=it | access-date=2022-05-02}} That's just two real quick, outside his work on the New Chronology. On the subject of ancient history, biblical history, biblical chronology, and Egyptology, he is referenced in many books. Yes, often to bash his views on the New Chronology, but nevertheless, to discuss him. Here is a bit about his theory on the location of the Garden of Eden, which is a theory that does not rest on his alternative New Chronology: {{cite book | last=Weir | first=J. | title=In Search of Eden: The Course of an Obsession | publisher=Haus | series=Armchair Traveller Series | year=2007 | isbn=978-1-905791-07-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WGFtAAAAMAAJ | access-date=2022-05-02}} Outside his work on the New Chronology, which the DELETE voters and REDIRECT voters mistakenly claim is his only claim to notability, his work on pre-dynastic rock art in the Eastern Desert (east of the Nile) in Egypt (Rohl, David M., ed. [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/800621602 The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report]. Basingstoke, UK: Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 2000.) is well-cited by other, mainstream scholars, which contributes to his notability. See the Google Scholar citations here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6604976640384538213&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en. How is that for a start?

Thanks, TuckerResearch (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The "Radiocarbon dating" section only mentions research done in 2010, which contradicted Rohl's fringe theory, and ends there. I can't believe research producung absolute dates stopped 14-15 years ago. Other than the listing of Rohl's own 2015 book, there's not a single item on the page, including refs, more recent than 2010. Looks like a dead & buried topic, but to which the tombstone was forgotten. If I'm right, a closing word based on RS should be added. Arminden (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:I don't know whether mainstream scholars just kind of tired of Rohl, but something similar did happen with Immanuel Velikovsky and Barry Fell previously. AnonMoos (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems that YEC's also have issues with the NC. Might be worth a short section. Good luck. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC).