David is doing a seminar in Luxor at the Sofitel. Most people have come from the UK and there are 3 from Luxor. I am just attending the lectures. Last night we had Dr Sabry talking about all the work of the SCA in Egypt and then David talking about his theories of Egyptian orgins. Not sure I agree but they were certainly interesting. Mansour Boraik made some very good points in response.
Hi Jane
ReplyDeleteDavid Rohl is nutcase and why did you not post any of Mansour Boraiks comments.
I have not publish anything of the lectures or the questions and answers because it was a paying occasion and I think that would be unfair.
ReplyDeleteHowever Mansour got a round of applause for his spirited, informed and erudite rebutal
David Rohl has made some interesting points about the problems of the ‘traditional dating’ – and clearly there are issues.
ReplyDeleteBUT his solutions are based around a 300-year shift that would align Amana with Biblical figures.
Unfortunately, as all dating is this period links from Egypt to Mesopotamia and all stations in-between, it screws up far too much archaeology to be taken seriously. In addition to treat the bible as history as he does also flies in the face of all but the most fundamentalist of scholarship.
The one thing that absolutely stuffs his argument is the early date for the Minoan Eruption, this can be scientifically dated to c.1640s.
It makes good TV, but nobody who sails on in the face of overwhelming evidence should be taken seriously, - but I bet they love him in the Bible belt!
Whatever his theories, David is an engaging speaker so I guess it was a good session. While it may be easy to criticise David's theories, I've never seen a convincing defence of the orthodox chronology. While it may not be out as much as David believes, it does include many assumptions. I wish we could find records of sightings of Halley's comet in the records as something like that would give fixed points.
ReplyDeleteKate
delusional thinking for profit is not archaeology
ReplyDeleteMost of Egyptology is speculation that is why it is an arts subject not a science. He said before he started that what he said was controversial and most people did not agree which I thought was very fair and honest. Personally whilst not agreeing with David on some of his conclusions (and I told him so) I found the lecture interesting and stimulating.
ReplyDelete