Lars Wilson
2008-01-18 00:20:02 UTC
David Rohl, as a key component in his arguments to try to lower the Amarna
Period some 363 years, uses a list of royal architects to help reduce some
of these years. Problem is, Rohl thinks this is a generation-by-generation
list, reduced to sons born on the average of 20 years apart to do this.
This is impractical on its face. But there are other issues.
It's possible if this was a genealogy list that it could simply be the
architects from this single family who served as royal architects but with
several generation gaps. That is, it could have passed on from father to
grandson, skipping a generation. Or there could have been an intervening
non-relative who served for a while before another was chosen from this
particular family. So that would affect a precise and consistent
chronology from the list.
The list could be subjective in other ways. Sort of like someone listing
all the Republican Presidents in a list. That's not the complete list of
American Presidents but it is the list of "related" presidents. Further, it
is not a genealogical list.
So the motivation behind the list has to be considered. My belief is that
it is either the complete list of royal architects, who may or may have not
been directly related to the architect to make the inscription and thus of
men who could have served various lengths of time, some maybe 40 or 50
years. OR, it is a list of this person's relatives who had the honor of
serving as royal architects, but is not a specific genealogy list.
To think that the variety of pharaohs automatically picked the next
generation of royal architect from the same family over several hundred
years is pushing it, or that there were no deaths or no sons born some
generations, etc, as normally happens. So this key point in Rohl's
argument is weak at most. But there's another problem.
YEAR 26 OF DARIUS: Another problem though is that this inscription clearly
is dated to year 26 of Darius. Rohl and others assign this to Darius I, but
Darius I only ruled for 6 years! His rulership was bumped up 30 years
during a conspiracy by the Persians in a claim that Xerxes had died at the
hands of his own son who was later killed by his brother, "Artaxerxes",
which was just the propaganda sent out since Artaxerxes was the new throne
name Xerxes had adopted and he was really the same king. This can be proven
historically and by the evidence at Persepolis.
However, the Persian Empire was huge and the second seat of government was
from Babylon, which is where the co-ruler ruled from. During the long reign
of Artaxerxes I (41 years) his son Darius would have been ruling from
Babylon and records show that his title was "king of Babylon." Egypt would
have come under the direct rule of Darius II. But other records from
Babylon show that they counted his rulership years from his co-rulership.
His sole-rulership years were only about 19-20 if we follow history. But
documents date past that for his rule. Thus year 26 of Darius would not be
an unusual reference for Darius II, in which case if he became sole ruler in
his 19th or 20th year would mean this was his 6th year of sole-rulership.
But anybody from Babylon or Canaan and down to Egypt would have assigned the
larger number for his rulership as king based upon when he became king of
Babylon.
Therefore, the text is not incorrect by reference to year 26 of Darius, only
it would be year 26 of Darius II and not Darius I. It's hard to make a
comparison of Darius I vs Darius II since Darius I never ruled 26 years, but
at the very least, you have a 41-year rule by Artaxerxes I between the two
kings, so Rohl's application is at least 41 years in error. That's probably
enough to displace his alignment of David and Akhenaten, etc.
But this is a major flaw as well in David's argument but also a clever
salesman trick. He aggressively avoids issues past 664 BC as part of his
argument. Thus he avoids the problems with the NB and Persian chronologies.
Not having to face them, he can maintain his redated Amarna Period without
serious direct challenge, even though this particular reference stretches
past the NB Period and into the Persian Period. So he's quite clever and
is running a very effective game, that is COMERCIALLY speaking.
Academically, there is hardly an opportunity to even look in his direction.
Lars Wilson
Period some 363 years, uses a list of royal architects to help reduce some
of these years. Problem is, Rohl thinks this is a generation-by-generation
list, reduced to sons born on the average of 20 years apart to do this.
This is impractical on its face. But there are other issues.
It's possible if this was a genealogy list that it could simply be the
architects from this single family who served as royal architects but with
several generation gaps. That is, it could have passed on from father to
grandson, skipping a generation. Or there could have been an intervening
non-relative who served for a while before another was chosen from this
particular family. So that would affect a precise and consistent
chronology from the list.
The list could be subjective in other ways. Sort of like someone listing
all the Republican Presidents in a list. That's not the complete list of
American Presidents but it is the list of "related" presidents. Further, it
is not a genealogical list.
So the motivation behind the list has to be considered. My belief is that
it is either the complete list of royal architects, who may or may have not
been directly related to the architect to make the inscription and thus of
men who could have served various lengths of time, some maybe 40 or 50
years. OR, it is a list of this person's relatives who had the honor of
serving as royal architects, but is not a specific genealogy list.
To think that the variety of pharaohs automatically picked the next
generation of royal architect from the same family over several hundred
years is pushing it, or that there were no deaths or no sons born some
generations, etc, as normally happens. So this key point in Rohl's
argument is weak at most. But there's another problem.
YEAR 26 OF DARIUS: Another problem though is that this inscription clearly
is dated to year 26 of Darius. Rohl and others assign this to Darius I, but
Darius I only ruled for 6 years! His rulership was bumped up 30 years
during a conspiracy by the Persians in a claim that Xerxes had died at the
hands of his own son who was later killed by his brother, "Artaxerxes",
which was just the propaganda sent out since Artaxerxes was the new throne
name Xerxes had adopted and he was really the same king. This can be proven
historically and by the evidence at Persepolis.
However, the Persian Empire was huge and the second seat of government was
from Babylon, which is where the co-ruler ruled from. During the long reign
of Artaxerxes I (41 years) his son Darius would have been ruling from
Babylon and records show that his title was "king of Babylon." Egypt would
have come under the direct rule of Darius II. But other records from
Babylon show that they counted his rulership years from his co-rulership.
His sole-rulership years were only about 19-20 if we follow history. But
documents date past that for his rule. Thus year 26 of Darius would not be
an unusual reference for Darius II, in which case if he became sole ruler in
his 19th or 20th year would mean this was his 6th year of sole-rulership.
But anybody from Babylon or Canaan and down to Egypt would have assigned the
larger number for his rulership as king based upon when he became king of
Babylon.
Therefore, the text is not incorrect by reference to year 26 of Darius, only
it would be year 26 of Darius II and not Darius I. It's hard to make a
comparison of Darius I vs Darius II since Darius I never ruled 26 years, but
at the very least, you have a 41-year rule by Artaxerxes I between the two
kings, so Rohl's application is at least 41 years in error. That's probably
enough to displace his alignment of David and Akhenaten, etc.
But this is a major flaw as well in David's argument but also a clever
salesman trick. He aggressively avoids issues past 664 BC as part of his
argument. Thus he avoids the problems with the NB and Persian chronologies.
Not having to face them, he can maintain his redated Amarna Period without
serious direct challenge, even though this particular reference stretches
past the NB Period and into the Persian Period. So he's quite clever and
is running a very effective game, that is COMERCIALLY speaking.
Academically, there is hardly an opportunity to even look in his direction.
Lars Wilson