Talk:Egyptian chronology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Time Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

	Ancient Egypt Portal This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Egyptian chronology is in the state of a transition, in order to avoid using the word "mess".

This doesn't sound like the beginning of an NPOV encyclopedia article but like an essay. Should this be moved over to meta? -- JeLuF 21:05 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

It can use some NPOV, but I think it's a valid topic for the encyclopedia.

This entry, strange as it might sound, appears to be POV because it doesn't have enough materials. We need to add content explaning to show why Egyptian Chronology is such a debateable subject. This would include:

• Discussing the "traditional dates" for Ancient Egypt -- what Manetho, Herodotus, the Bible and others recorded up to AD 1800, when successful efforts were made to read the Ancient Egyptian Language.
• The chronology of Ancient Egypt as reconstructed from the inscriptions, but then explaning why scholars encountered problems with accepting these dates.
• Then rewrite the material here to show how radiocarbon datings and astronomical records have created a new chronology.

Hmm. Unfortunately, we need to adopt a set of dates for compatibility between entries -- for example, provide one year for the beginning of Ramses II's reign, instead of half a dozen scattered over the first decade of the 13th century BC. Perhaps Wikipedia may be forced to accept what is written in a standard authority like the Cambidge Ancient History for Ancient Egyptian History, while allowing contributors to set out reasons why other dates maybe/are clearly better. -- llywrch 19:50 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Agree that a standard chronology should be agreed and specified. For example, at the moment, we put Tutenkhamen in the 14th_century_BC, and don't even mention that this is controversial. That's not NPOV. The main thing we need to do to make it NPOV is to say what authority these entries are based on.

Of course we also want our material consistent. Assuming we make a reasonable choice of authority, that's probably the best we can do. In some ways it's more important to be transparent than to be right. It's also a lot easier!

IMO three related questions arise:

1. At what stage of acceptance do we start to also list dates from other proposed chronologies, at least as credible alternatives to our standard ones?
2. How do we do it, when that point is reached?
3. Just assuming that we're not to that point yet, either with the theories of Rohl, Velikovsky, or of many others such as Lisa Liel (whose essay On the Care and Feeding of Revision Hypotheses raises some very interesting questions), what should we be doing right now anyway to get ready for the possibility (IMO certainty) that it may happen some day?

One answer to question 3, of course, is that we need to answer questions 1 and 2.

Andrewa 21:02 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

An interesting summary of several competing Egyptian chronologies is at

http://www.geocities.com/qraal/genesis3.html

and despite the context in a site promoting particular opinions, the summary itself looks remarkably NPOV, IMO. At the very least, it clearly lists some of the contenders.

Our current Egyptian Chronology page needs a refactor along these lines IMO. We need to present the main contenders, both current and historical, with a brief summary of principle dates and the evidence normally quoted for and against each.

Perhaps more detailed dates and evidence could go into separate pages on the more interesting contenders. Some would prefer it all remain in this article instead I realise. I'd split it.

But at present the page is a bit daunting even to read IMO.

We could also identify which of the chronologies presented is the Wikipedia Standard to be used for year and century entries. That's also a bit controversial perhaps. Andrewa 20:55 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've put a "conventional" chronology (timeline) of the rulers of ancient Egypt as a new article at Conventional Egyptian chronology. This is not necessarily the best, it's just the one I had handy. Its main virtues are that it is complete and fairly recent, and comes from sources of good "conventional" pedigree. Its main vices are that there is a 60 year discrepancy in the middle of it owing to three different sources by two different authors being used, and that the taking of "low" dates from one of these sources seems to me to be arbitrary and verging on misquotation.

I've also become aware that there is an awful lot of discussion of Egyption chronology in existing articles, eg Seti I, much of it poorly attributed. In that article, two different chronologies are suggested, but no clue is given as to who might support one or the other of these different dates.

It seems to me that, as these dates are disputed, to supply any of them without saying who proposes them is POV. Ideally, we would link any disputed dates to an article describing the proposed timeline of which they are part, and saying who proposed it and on what grounds. That's ambitious. Anyway, the timeline I have put up is a start. Andrewa 10:39 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

A group of us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt have been discussing making radical changes to this & related pages. If you'd like to offer your opinion, join the conversation on the Talk page. -- llywrch 20:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page isn't looking so hot. I find this sentence particularly odd:

All these may mean that our encyclopaedias should consider shifting the orthodox dates of Akhenaton or Tutankhamun up by 164 years.

Given that Akhenaten was a contemporary of Burnaburiash II and Ashur-uballit I, I find it hard to see how this is conceivable. Is this just crank stuff? john k 18:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

I've cleaned up the sentence structure, but I noticed there are some people mentioned (as sources), yet there are no references to explain who they are. Brina700 20:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crackpot theories.

The article uses the predynastic kinglist of Z.A. Simon- is this guy a crank? I did some research on him, apparently he claims to have connected the Rongorongo script of Easter Island to the Indus Valley script. He's also written stuff on Atlantis. I notice that his list of predynastic Egyptian kings includes names that appear similar to the eponyms on the biblical Table of Nations in Genesis 10, such as Mizraim ("Masram" on Simon's list), Ludim ("Ludjim" on Simon's list), and Anakim ("Anqam" on Simon's list). It also cites Egyptian gods, such as Horus and Osiris, as historical kings. These names do not appear on any other Egyptian kinglist I know of. The section on kinglists that cites him also states Menes as reigning during the "first flood," mentions Noah, and generally just seems to be taking speculation, legend, and myth as fact.

The entire article seems a mess as well; whoever wrote it seems hell-bent on chronological revisionism. It claims the conventional chronology overlooks the contemporaneity of Akhenaten and Ashur-uballit I. This claim is false. Conventional chronlogy (see List of Pharaohs and Kings of Assyria) places Akhenaten at 1350-1334 BC, and Ashur-uballit I at 1365-1330 BC- clearly these kings are listed as contemporary by the conventional chronology.

The complaints against the conventional Sothic cycle dating imply that this system is obsolete; if this is so, why do recent books by professional Egyptologists, such as Oxford's recent history written in 2000, still use it? --Rob117 19:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, much of this article is crackpot nonsense. It might be best just to delete it all and begin anew - the corruption dates back to the original version of the article. john k 21:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm finally uploading an unfinished article I started about a year ago that would replace what's here. It still needs a lot of work, but I hope (& think) it offers a framework that we can all work with. Take a look at Egyptian chronology/temp, & edit the hell out of it. -- llywrch 20:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Thera volcanic eruption

An anon has added a paragraph about the Thera explosion, but neither the added info nor the linked article explains how this affects Egyptian Chronology? Does anyone know if this is a factor in chronological arguments, or is it just an entertaining irrelevancy? -- llywrch 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dating the Thera eruption accurately is CRITICAL for aligning the chronologies of the ancient Egyptians, Minoans, and Myceneans with each other. A correct date is absolutely central to Egyptology, re its relationship to other cultures. --70.171.38.69 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you povide any publications or authorities that assert this synchronism? Or is this your opinion? -- llywrch 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are asking for. The problem of the Thera/Santorini chronology is wellknown, and the info about it here already includes several links to prominent archeologists/egyptologists who refer to it. --70.171.38.69 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I wish this Thera chronology problem was already solved because the conflict in dating methods creates all kinds of "he is his own grandfather" scenarios that annoy when trying to interpret the sequence of events. --70.171.38.69 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard not to feel that you are evading my clearly expressed request. I asked for sources; you respond with handwaving, claiming that this is "wellknown", then point me to your external links. These reveal the following: (1) a webpage on the date of the Thera explosions (with an incidental mention of ancient Egypt); (2) an abstract of an article on ceramic typology (which only incidentally mentions the Thera explosion; but see below for other comments); (3) a review of a book that tries to use the Thera explosion to establish a chronology for the Eastern Mediterranean -- is the quote from the review (which, from what I read seems to be critical of the book) or the book? None of these links ties the Thera explosion to a specific event. Are there archeological sites in Egypt where a layer of ash from this eruption has been identified? Are there passages from Egyptian inscriptions or writings that have been interpretted as alluding to this eruption?

As for the paper on ceramic typology, I admit that this is one tool used to create a chronology, & that a discussion of typologies is needed on this page. However, a typology creates a relevant chronology of the form "A is older than B is older than C is older than etc." As the article on the Thera Foundation website notes, pottery found below a datable eruption can serve as a check in providing absolute dates for a typological series -- but it is not a synchronism. It only offers proof that certain pottery styles are older than the explosion. But how much older that could be -- well, that requires more evidence. -- llywrch 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) "A webpage on the date of the Thera explosions (with an incidental mention of ancient Egypt)" - which is the very study that gives the most authorative Radiocarbon date! This study is now the CONSENSUS of all scientists including radiocarbon specialists, geologists and vulcanists!!! They are the ones who oppose the conventional Egyptian Chronology.

(2a) "an abstract of an article on ceramic typology (which only incidentally mentions the Thera explosion)" - written by the most prominent Theran archeologists and which SUMMARIZES EXACTLY WHICH archeological remains are being used to establish the synchronisms between Egyptian and Minoan chronologies, and thereby the date of the eruption according to archeological evidence!

(2b) "I admit that this [source for Minoan-Egyptian ceramic synchronisms] is one tool used to create a chronology, & that a discussion of typologies is needed on this page". Yeah, exactly.

(2c) The Egyptian ceramics ARE a synchronism. They provide accurate dates, within a decade or so (roughly the same precision as C-14!). As the Thera Foundation makes clear: these Egyptian artifacts around Thera are, in fact, synchronous with Egypt because they are not a single piece in isolation, which leaves how and when it arrived in doubt. Rather, they are a whole seriation of numerous ceramics over a very long period of time, confirming active trade with Egypt and near CONTEMPORANEOUS acquisition. The arrival of the Egyptian ceramics cannot be more than about 25 years after when they were made in Egypt. The date of the eruption based on Egyptian ceramics is simply around 1530. (Nevertheless, the site details slight variations in possible dates, depending on "High" versus "Low" Chronology, or even the possibility of a slightly earlier date if ambiguous evidence from an isolated ceramic shard is admitted as evidence. Nevertheless, even these less-likely scenarios for interpreting the Egyptian chronology contradict the radiocarbon date, which is much earlier.)

(3) "a review of a book that tries to use the Thera explosion to establish a chronology for the Eastern Mediterranean" - written by one of the most prominent Egyptologists there are (Kitchen!) who is well known for defending the conventional Egyptian Chronology, and who is critiquing an important archeologist (Manning!) whose seminal work tries to resolve the problem of Thera's date and its SYNCHRONISMS by moving the Egyptian chronology earlier to agree with the C-14 date.

The links above are the authorative archeological sources. --70.171.38.69 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case, but your insistence upon them does not answer my questions. Do you you want to try again? -- llywrch 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, using Egyptian Chronology, the date of the Thera eruption to 1530 BCE is corroborated by the importation of Thera pumice (apparently for industrial use) in Avaris around 1500 BCE. These archeological dates are very strong. The fact that the Egyptian Chronology, itself, contradicts the radiocarbon dating is a big problem. --70.171.38.69 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first hint that you've provided me that the eruption of Thera might anchor anything in ancient Egyptian chronology. Are these blocks securely identified as having come from Thera? (if so, cites, please) Have they been placed in a specific dateable layer in the Avaris excavation sites? (if so, cites, please) I'm not disputing your dating of the Thera explosion; I'm just asking for something in Egyptian chronology that this explosion can be tied to -- with a reference so users of Wikipedia can verify this assertion. You appear either not to understand my question -- or prefer to simply ignore it. -- llywrch 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to wade into the middle of the argument, I just want to note that I have fixed up the reference formatting for the online Web links 70.171.38.69 mentions. Captmondo 04:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)