On the Subject of 3 Phantom Centuries . . .

[On the Road]

This thread is inspired by the recent DU thread about a scholar who claims that there are 300 years too many in conventional accounts of medieval history:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x1399

Strangely enough, there are claims that 300 years of standard Egyptian history don't exist either. The scholar making the claim, David Rohl, argues that Egyptian dynasties and kings are presented chronologically, but in periods of upheaval the country was split and two dynasties ruled concurrently in upper and lower Egypt. The 21st and 22nd dynasties are normally counted as consecutive, but he believes they were parallel.

Some of Rohl's arguments are extremely detailed. He shows, for example, how a 22nd-dynasty tomb was modified in order to accommodate a 21st-dynasty burial. He uses records of a solar eclipse to redate the reign of Akhenaten by three centuries.

One reason the theory has generated so much excitement is that it turns the archeology of the Bible on its head. If you redate the kings and prophets by 300 years, suddenly everything matches and synchs up.

Unfortunately, Rohl seems to have taken down his personal website. But here are some links:

http://craigr.com/books/pharaohs.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl

His first book:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6K3J53SA4H&isbn=0609801309&itm=4

And a discussion group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/

Unlike the medieval theory, I personally found David Rohl's arguments to be at least as convincing as those of his detractors. And regardless of the truth, these kinds of controversies fascinate me.