What are your thoughts on Bronze Age Collapse and its Chronology? Support Dr. Rohl and his work above and to support the channel look below! Check out our new store! teespring.com/stores/the-history-shop Get your SEA PEOPLES Mediterranean Tour Shirt Today! teespring.com/sea-peoples-mediterranean-tour Hittite Coffee Mug: teespring.com/HittiteEmpireMug SPQR Face Masks: spqr-emporium.com/collections/face-masks?aff=3 To support the channel, become a patron and make history matter! Patreon: www.patreon.com/the_study_of_antiquity_and_the_middle_ages Donate directly to paypal: paypal.me/nickbarksdale Enjoy history merchandise? Check out our affiliate link to spqr emporium! spqr-emporium.com?aff=3 *disclaimer, the link above is an affiliate link which means we will earn a generous commission from your magnificent purchase, just another way to help out the channel! join our community! facebook : facebook.com/thestudyofantiquityandthemiddleages/ twitter: twitter.com/nickbarksdale instagram: instagram.com/study_of_antiquity_middle_ages/ facebook group: facebook.com/groups/164050034145170/
I don't feel this guy is systematic nor gives a clear reference of what he's talking about. He doesn't seem to believe in radiocarbon dating apparently and gets everything from a quagmire of written sources mostly (but mixing a lot of things to fit into his rather obscure narrative, cherry-picking the evidence quite apparently). If you think outside of the paradigm, if you make bold "exceptional claims", it's good to ask: where is the evidence? And I feel that the inteviewer (i.e. you, Nick) is more concerned about being a good host than about being a good journalist and thus asking the very pertinent questions about the details of his alternative chronology and, notably, the evidence that could back that alternative scenario.
I'm no expert in dating but when I read about it, it seems like it is often proven circular manner. The artifacts (pottery mainly) confirm the radiocarbon dating, which in turn confirms the artifacts. Textual evidence seems to be accepted or rejected depending on whether it conforms to the accepted model. I like researchers who are willing to think outside the box, challenge the accepted paradigm, and endure ridicule. That is how progress is made. It doesn't mean Rohl is right, but it is an interesting alternative. I'll need to read more on the dating of this period. Thanks for the great interview.
Dr. Cline was my teacher in college! His ideas were inspiring for me to think about how the bible and the collapse of the bronze age fit together and how the bible was living history. Love this video
Interesting. This hypothesis is similar to one that collapses 700 years across the Roman, Byzantine, and Carolingian empires in the dark ages of the first millennium by aligning major catastrophic events in each. Given that the historical chronologies were constructed at least a millennium after the fact, Occam's Razor suggests a mistake in re-constructing the chronologies is more plausible than humanity "forgetting" everything for several centuries and then springing back to literacy.
I'm not convinced with the idea of the Homeric poems composed by one historic person called Homer (blind or otherwise), nor that they were written in the time of their creation (probably different for the Iliad and the Odyssey)
Good guest. You're redeeming yourself. A guest who disagrees with consensus who actually has credentials to do it and bringing the actual person who actually wrote the contradictory work to explain it themselves. Thumbs up.
I don't think Homor was blind in the normal context of literally lacking vision. I feel he was super near sighted and legally blind like me where you can barely distinguish things that aren't inches from your face without contacts or glasses like me. To people with good vision they'd consider me blind if I didn't have corrective lenses as I can only recognize people by their voices and the color of their clothing that day when I was a child who refused to wear glasses in public. Without lenses I can barely distinguish facial features farther than a foot away from me.
We have seen this before. Look around youtube and you will see that Rohl does not talk to academic audiences. He seems to only talk to audiences of religious believers.
🎉 and to think you have stuck with me after all this time! Feel free to shoot me an email if you have any suggestions / criticisms and or etc, appreciate your support!
Although it’s claimed by some that the revised chronology (removing the Dark Ages) makes a lot of Biblical accounts make a lot more sense, it actually causes chaos for the Bible. For example, it is known that the title ‘Pharaoh’ started to be used in Egyptian records that are traditionally dated to around 1500 BCE, and from that time until 1000 BCE it was used by itself, without the king’s personal name. That fits the Bible perfectly, because the books that were supposedly written by Moses (in c. 1500 BCE) consistently use the title ‘Pharaoh’, but never with the king’s personal name (yet the writer provides the names of numerous other kings of other nations). It is only in the time of Shishak’s invasion of Judah just after Solomon’s death (c. 1000 BCE) that the Bible uses ‘Pharaoh’ in conjunction with the king’s personal name (e.g. ‘Pharaoh Shishak’). This is a perfect fit for the naming conventions of the Egyptians at those different times. On the other hand, if we accept Rohl’s revisions, then the earliest Egyptian records using the title ‘Pharaoh’ date to centuries after Moses’ time, and the Bible’s use of the title in conjunction with Shishak’s personal name would be anachronistic. That’s just one example, but there are numerous other issues too, like the price of a slave at different time periods (20 shekels in the 18th century and 30 shekels in the 16th century), the anachronistic appearance of chariots in the Exodus account, the presence of Canaanite kings in Canaan long after the Israelites were said to have kicked them out, and so on. The currently accepted chronology, with the Bronze Age Collapse and the Dark Ages, is the only version which actually works with the Biblical information. Of course, many people do not believe in the Bible, but for those who do, this is worth noting.
I'm sorry, perhaps i don't understand. Even if we are fully aware of the way how pharaos hat been called in egypt, why should that have affected the writers of the bible? And, if you have read the bible, you will know, that the canaanites had not been driven out of the land totally.
Like Abraham's 'anachronistic' camels, perhaps chariots also hadn't begun to appear in Egyptian artwork when they were early in use in Egypt. We have to wait and see what the ground gives up for evidence. In pre-Hyksos Middle Kingdom Egypt there is evidence for chariotry despite no chariot depictions. The term Pharaoh wasn't in use yet? These aren't chaotic issues, I would argue, any more than pre-Flood Genesis uses post-Flood names to identify geographically where the Garden of Eden was. Raamses and Pithom also appear to be later names, with Avaris/Haware being the likely original name. The Bible doesn't need to give us the original names of everything and it often doesn't, like with the names Babel, Nimrod, (King) Saul, even perhaps Moses - names that match the things these ones are famous or notorious for. Bab-Ilu means Gate of God, whereas Babel means 'In the confusion'. The Hebrew Bible clearly makes a play on words. The original rebellious 'Babelites' certainly wouldn't have named their city something humiliating to themselves. I'm therefore not sure we need be worried about anachronisms in such ways. When certain words and names fall out of usage, the more current names are needed to identify things. Sometimes the Bible specifically says that a certain site or city is called X but it used to be called Y, and sometimes it doesn't bother. It's like how in Samuel it says Prophets were called Seers in those days, suggesting 'prophet' was a later term. Indeed, in the Tell Deir 'Alla' ie 'Balaam Inscription', it starts off saying 'Book of Balaam, son of Beor, the man who was a Seer of the Gods.' I've known about this inscription for some time but what I only discovered in the last year about it is that the terminology reflects religious ideologies of the Bronze Age and its language even resembles the Hebrew of the Book of Deuteronomy. The inscription itself is around 600 years after the events of Balaam's interference with the Israelites, but as it refers to a Book of Balaam, it's obviously a copy of a much older text for language reasons as noted also.
@@fiktivhistoriker345 Oh he knows his Bible very well. Caleb's quite the scholar himself but just hasn't been convinced of David Rohl's chronology yet, though he does accept much of the links to Israelites in the archaeology Mr Rohl has illuminated and identified.
Ten years fighting to take a small city is the bit that always got me. Obviously if you lay siege to a city you don't just lay siege to the front door and allow the inhabitants to bring supplies in through the back door. Philistines were probably people from Anitolia forced from their lands by war between the Mycenaeans and Hittites which probably rumbled on for ten years and caused the downfall of both of them. Bulk of the population couldn't read or write and everything was passed down by word of mouth, and we all know how that usually turns out.
@@MarkVrem siege of Troy was probably a small part of the ongoing conflict. As far as ongoing conflicts are concerned ten year's isn't particularly long. Thirty years war, 100 years war plus probably quite a few others.
If the economy and population had been wrecked recently, they would lack the capability to indulge in monumental building - like the Egyptians gave up building pyramids.
Any chance of an overall synopsis of the claims and counter claims regarding this dating discrepancy .....the positive and the problems with the 2 views? .......in one video???.....Sorry.....this stuff just makes my head swim.....I'm very adept at being confused all by myself......just be perhaps more clear to have it laid out side by side.
If you search David Rohl on you tube you will find some videos of him talking about the chronology in various contexts. He makes some really good points (see Shishak/Shoshenq issue) but imo he goes off the rails. Sadly, he is right that most scholars dismiss it without addressing the valid issues he brings up. Not much material really analyzing the issue from both sides of the argument. I'd like to see it too. Fascinating stuff.
thank you for another great video! however I can't agree with D.Rohl on his chronology because of the radiocarbon dating in greek cemeteries. On an historical point of view it could be a good hypothesis but archaological finds are totally against it.
That was also my thought. My understanding is that the archeology done at the site of Troy is pretty unequivocal: Troy was destroyed around the year 1200 BCE and wasn't much more than an abandoned ruin for the next century after that. It's an interesting take, though. He might be partially right in that the "dark age" wasn't as dark as everybody thinks... kind of like how the medieval "dark age" wasn't really as dark as everyone thinks.
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN these hypothesis are not convincing at all for historians or archaelogists. I'm not an expert on radiocarbon dating but, however it is necessary to calibrate the dating and ajust results, it is a really efficient method. People who tried to cut off centuries in the medieval times are often ideologically motivated (Fomenko is the best example: he jut propose a nationalist rewriting of history in favor to Russia and Orthodox Church). If you come in France you'll see on the field that these centuries are not an invention, I dig these sites all year long and trust me these centuries did occured. We can see it threw stratigraphy, threw art evolution ansd it's confirmed by all kind of absolute dating. In our present topic, the New chronology barely include the historical texts from Assyria which are well dated (threw stratigraphy, thermoluminescence, C14...) and Phrygian history neither. That's a problem.
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN I've seen the demonstration of copper saws with the help of sand being used to cut through stone (can't recall whether it was granite). Other methods involved heating the stone to make it easier to cut/break. Once you detatch yourself from modern conceptions of the use of man hours, its possible to understand how they did it. Tens of thousands of available workers for up to a decade or more.
The question is how we calibrated the measurements. If for instance a piece of wood found in Tutankhamen's tomb is used as calibration for dendrology and or c14 as we thought we had a good date on that, things go funky. No aliens need to be involved in any of that, just the wrong assumptions.
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN Sand, sticks, string and lots of rocks will do for building pyramids and henges. The Egyptians actually left a lot of evidence how they did things and their stone drills used a hollow copper tube and sand. The silica forms a very efficient grinding material. Do not confuse the lack of ingenuity of today's people with those of the past. When you don't waste time on social media you have time to spend on observing your environment and figure out how things work yourself.
Uh, no, that's not at all what David Rohl's finds reveal. His finds identify Joseph as Vizier Zatenaf pa'Ankhu in the days of Senusret III/Amenemhat III and beyond, with this 'Ankhu' Semite vizier called 'Overseer of the fields', admired by Egyptians and Semites, with the man's Syrian-Semite tribe settling in Goshen on virgin land. There're just so many synchronisms between the Bible and this period, with the Exodus coming in the time of Pharaoh Dudimose. After Egypt is devastated by the plagues, their king and army destroyed, Egypt is plunged into chaos for decades and the Hyksos invade 'without battle, because God had struck the Egyptians' says Manetho. One of the later Hyksos named Sheshi may even be the Sheshai the Israelite Caleb (I think) encounters in Canaan. But yes, Mr Rohl has the Exodus and Israelites in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom period, not the New Kingdom.
When it comes to Homer and the Trojan war Dr. David Rohl is underestimating/ignoring the ability of Oral History as well as traditional keepers of oral history ("bards" like Homer) to preserve a pretty accurate record of major events. Legends/Myths are to be able to preserve a fairly accurate (at least as accurate as the Iliad and Odyssey) for hundreds if not thousands of years. I mean the myths of native Australians mention land that has been under water for tens of thousands of years.
I agree that the dates are wrong. But I think Egypts late bronze age. Because they say the thera eruption was 150 years after our other data. Meaning the collapse was closer to 1250. But I'm not a professional
I'm just writing this before I forget, I'm early on in the video. At 2:30 ish there is a slide of a 400 yr shift, but we are talking about a 300 year shift. Is this just something pulled off the internet for there sake of something to look at, or something else? I like to give plausibility to the Trojan War and some impact on the collapse. I know there are a lot of arguments against that. Edit: shorter video than I thought, and the question still stands. I LOVE when you have this guy on! You should explore other chronologies!
Nah, we'd see some sort of Celtic cultural artifacts, such as urnfield type cemeteries. We do not. Also a name should appear in the records: Gael, Gallus or something like that and there is nothing. The Phoenicians were just Canaanites and they were vassals of Egypt at that time, the Egyptians would have known and said something about such a conspiracy not in the remote "their islands" but in the much more nearby "Retenu", "Djehy" or "Lebanon", in "our coasts". So all kinds of nope. However I suspect that the Shekelesh were maybe a type of "proto-Phoenicians" but unsure of where they were established (Cyprus maybe?)
Very interesting and quite revolutionary to an extend. I wonder if its not possible to date the BAC more precisely to to serveral archeological findings like pottery, burnt wood - whatsoever - there should be enough evidence for rather correct dating? What am i missing if this is disputed about 300 years being off?
Conventional version based on the Bible? That's nonsense no serious historian uses the Pentateuch to date anything not just because it includes people living centuries.
My question about his theory is 'Does it raise more questions than it answers?' When he first came up with the theory the answer to that question was yes and since then even more so. Effectively it would mean most of the series about the about the Bronze Age Collapse is wrong.
@@mrmr446 it is true, todays historians just stick to the dates establisht by early historians. You can't just dismiss this theory because it fits to a source you don't rely on.
i did not like the fact the name of Velikovsky and his time line theory and margin was not in this theory and your video...not only i would consider this essential but i would demand a total debunk of his thesis and all his points
Ancient Greek sources make a distinction between Eteocretans and Pelasgoi, both living in Crete along with others, notably Greeks proper. I'm not sure what this distinction refers to but, from other references that relate Pelasgoi also strongly to Thessaly, where the Rakhmani culture (derived from Dimini) existed until well into the Bronze Age (until cultural, but possibly not yet linguistic, assimilation by Mycenaean Greeks), I conclude that these were descendants of the invasion of c. 5000 BCE by a people originated in the Halafian culture of North Syria. These "Pelasgo-Tyrsenians" (as I usually call them to include not only the European termina branch but also the Anatolian one, which may have been important in Arzawa and Troade in the BA and shows some differences but a general identity nevertheless, and of course also Lemnians and Etruscans in the Iron Age) made a major impact in much of the Balcans, especially Thessaly, West and North Macedonia, East Albania and Serbia, but also penetrating in admixed form in parts of Hungary and Danubian Croatia and, for a time being, also influential in Bulgaria, from where they were driven out by a North to South Danubian-Vasconic re-expansion that produced the fascinating Karanovo-Gumelnita culture, who smelted bronze a thousand years before anyone else. They were also important in Anatolia but I know less details. When the Indoeuropeans invaded, maybe the Vasconics were the first impacted but eventually the Pelasgo-Tyrsenians were as well. As far as I can discern, only groups in the Aegean remained, notably Thessaly's Rakhmani culture, maybe Troy, surely Crete, which has eclectic influences from both the Balcans and Anatolia. Then came the Greeks (probably by boat from Montenegro) but the areas they took over (Southern and Central Greece) I don't think we can say were Pelasgian with any certainty. They may have held pockets of Vasconic remnants, unclear. In any case genetics seems to support three layers: first neolithic (Sardinian-like, which I call Vasconic), Vinca-Dimini invasion (Pelasgo-Tyrsenian, quite important in defining Anatolio-Balcanic genetics, and later also Italian) and Indoeuropean (Greek proper). The main marker of Pelasgo-Tyrsenians is Y-DNA haplogroup J2, absent in the other populations before the synthesis of Bronze Age SE Europe. This haplogroup (and other Aegean-like genetics) was carried eventually to Italy, notably Central Italy, and that's one of the reasons why I think Etruscans are Pelasgo-Tyrsenians (although from Asia Minor, probably somewhere near Troy) and that they made a genetic-demographic major impact in Italy (with their genetics later spread westwards also by the Romans, notably to Southern Spain, the colony Italo-Romans most intensely colonized without doubt, maybe making up 20% of the modern genetic pool). So the Peleset were a branch of this Pelasgo-Tyrsenian population, which was surely already established in Crete and some of which seem to have ended in SW Palestine with the Sea Peoples' great wave, forming the Philistines. Other Pelasgo-Tyrsenian Sea Peoples were surely the Teresh (Tyrsenoi or Etruscans) and maybe the Tjeker (Teucrians or Trojans). Other Sea Peoples of the great wave had other origins: Greek (Denesh = Danaoi), some Semitic pirates of likely Syro-Lebanese affinity (Shekelesh, later established in Sicily), Lycians (Lukka, a branch of Luwians), Sardinian (Sherden, only mentioned in the Delta invasion) and maybe pre-Indoeuropean South Italians (Weshesh = Ausones?, the Ausones are known from archaeology to have frequently raided Mycenaean Greece).
@@davidhollins870 I accept the current chronology because the vast majority of his peers accept it. I am neither researcher nor scientist, simply a person very interested in this time period. I do not throw stones, I simply do not accept his theory. It isn't even a theory, at best a hypothesis, and again, one not supported by the vast majority of his peers. Could that change in the fullness of time, of course it could, or it could simply fade away as many unproven ideas do. Either way, as a man of advanced age I will be long gone. I thank you for your response.
Makes more sense and explains a lot of possibilities, thank you for putting out so many different views, I enjoy a lot your channel it brings me so much fresh air and makes me understand better my life
I would like to suggest that there was a first trojan war - the "homeric" one - around 1200 BC, as the greeks dated it themselves. So the "Treasure of Priamos" that Schliemann found, was in the right stratum. The second trojan war then was around 900, when the sea people destroyed most of the bronzeage kingdoms. I would like to mention the books by Eberhard Zangger here and his reconstruction of the early trojan landscape.
Hal porter I have read some of Zangger’s earlier books, which I greatly admire, along with his (incidental) hypothesis re the identity of Atlantis. (That the original Egyptian sources in the sixth century-passed indirectly to Plato 200 odd years later, probably described A version of a Trojan war.). His speculations about land use and the complex uses of fresh water flushes to keep the harbor clear were absolutely fascinating. the Pylos Regional project which Zangger worked on early 1990’s had a similar, Less elaborate, system But in these earlier writings I don’t believe he challenged the original chronology. For the topics he was researching it might not have mattered much. He was slaying enough old lions as it was. He might have discussed the subject more in his later works which I have not read.
Why c. 900 BCE, which chronological reference do you use for that? My understanding is that the Mycenaean cities (save Athens) collapsed (were brutally looted) c. 1070 BCE, which is almost two centuries earlier (but also a century later than the famous Sea Peoples' wave). Then came the Dark Age of almost four centuries.
The idea is, that a time lapse in egyptian history is affecting the chronologies of most of the near eastern kingdoms, because it is held as a standard. Also other chronologies in the eastern mediteranean, including the mycenean can be affected, so that there wasn't necesseraly any dark ages. For sure there must have been a downfall of the elites, maybe because of the changing of climate, famine and/or war. And then other people of lower ranks might have come to power, like immigrants, craftsmen or merchants. I don't say that this really happened, but it's an intriguing idea that fits into Rohls theory.
@@fiktivhistoriker345 - But C14 what? We do have huge chronologies based on C14 (and other references incl. thermoluminiscence for pottery, etc.) True that in the LBA there's a flattening of the calibration curve that creates some uncertainty but even with that, the changes should not be that big or at least should be properly justified. Extraordinary claims require if not extraordinary evidence at least ordinary evidence of some weight. I just don't see it.
I watched this one not long after watching *The Bronze Age Collapse in the Bible* ruclips.net/video/VHlcn8uYcfo/видео.html and I wonder how the two timelines mesh together? One thing that does seem to concur is Rohl’s date for the Philistines, 1160-something BC, which seems to be unaffected by any differences in the chronology of the Pharaohs.
Check out the CenturiesofDarkness.com following the title of a 1991 volume of the same name. The six authors, starting with Peter James and Nikos Kokkinos ... and Colin Renfrew in sixth place were mostly then young scholars pointing o it many of the things that does Dr, Rohl. The website includes a bibliography (mostly with full downloaded texts of scholarly articles and book chapters, and conference proceedings discussing these issues up to the last couple of years. Some of these guys have gone on to suite distinguished careers. Some of these articles get down in the weeds a bit but most of it is understandable to a lay audience interested in these years. As a side note, even Greek estimates of the Trojan war placed it as low as the early 900s (980?), others as high as the 1200s BC. Manetho, preparing a history for the Ptolemies in 200BCE, more or less appears to have interpreted inconsistencies in the available to him records to arrive at the “correct” duration to the Trojan War (was ir 1170s. I forget his date) to arrive at his chronology. Starting in the late 19th century European archaeologists developed the conventional chronology following Manetho, then their best source. Also recall that even Manetho and his extracted king lists is known to us only in extracts found in later Hellenistic works. By now the conventional chronology has hardened a lot.. I haven’t read Rohl but I will. Read over the continuing debates section of the website also.
He's realistic about it because it also took a long time before the earth stopped being flat. People often don't like change even if the new ideas are better.
yrah, then he should be able to answer Dr. Finkelstein, who is an Israeli Jew, and he would be very interested in proving the bible correct, but as a scientist, he recognizes it isn't true... anyway, those religious groups pleasers just want money and fame, they have no commitment to science...
@@khadijaElAoufi Carbon dating is like all scientific measures in that you first have to calibrate your measure. So, you start with a known amount - of time represented by an object and its carbon decay in this case. However, if your known measure is wrong, then your new measurements will be out. www.labmate-online.com/news/news-and-views/5/breaking-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144
I'm siding with Dr. Rohl. Base on that there probably writings that translated one alphabet to another, bury somewhere that haven't been found yet. Also, I believed that they've gotten the date of the Trojan war that Humor wrote about wrong. Humor mention King Minus grandsons,( Cadmus sister Europa great-grandson) fought in the war. Which would been 19 or 18 century. Still, there could have been two or more Trojan wars, they assumed that was the Trojan war that Humor wrote about, instead of a early one. They should search for the battlefield of the battle that Plato mention that the Atlantians and Athenians fought, instead of searching for Atlantis itself. It would have to be where a large army that could be hold at bay from passing through a passes way that leads to Athens itself, that show a ancient landslide that bury both the Atlantian and Athenian armies Athens use to be a coastal city that was destroyed when Thera eruptive. Greek myth mention that Athens was a coastal city.
Not that you are mentioning the Atlantians, i would like to mention that they could not have been the same as the sea people. Why? Plato wrote that the egyptians said, that it were the Greeks (i use this term here in general) that stopped the Atlantians. But the sea people were finally stopped by the egyptians.
@@fiktivhistoriker345 Atlantians and the sea people are two different people. Both events were centuries apart from each other. Beside I've never mention the sea people. Plato wrote that the Atlantians had conquer Egypt and that the Athenians were the only one's left. While the Atlantians and Athenians were fighting, there were a large earthquake and both armies were shallow up into the Earth. In like manner, there was a great earthquake and Atlantis sunk under the sea. Doesn't mention if both events taken place at the same time or centuries apart. Also, there's no mention of Athens being destroy during bronze age collapse. It was destroyed by the effects of Thera volcano eruption. Also, there's no mention of anyone group of people from the Atlantic area being part of the sea people.
Maybe I fall victim to the tenets of the establishment now.. But what about the C14 dates? We have plently of those. What about the chronotypologies of the sub-mycenaean, proto-geometric and geometric pottery styles that have been well established, and not by any lack of evidence? So we are going to take some narative information from myths that are thousands of years old at face value.. I'm all for scrutinizing established theories, but this just sounds like sensationalism to me. We have one of the most detailed and precise chronologies in the Aegean for this time period which is still constantly being improved upon. But the changes involve some years, not hundreds of years.
Somebody needs to tell you that your head shouldn’t be centered in the frame, but at the top of the frame. Minor thing, but it’s more professional and looks a lot better.
What are your thoughts on Bronze Age Collapse and its Chronology? Support Dr. Rohl and his work above and to support the channel look below! Check out our new store! teespring.com/stores/the-history-shop
Get your SEA PEOPLES Mediterranean Tour Shirt Today!
teespring.com/sea-peoples-mediterranean-tour
Hittite Coffee Mug: teespring.com/HittiteEmpireMug
SPQR Face Masks:
spqr-emporium.com/collections/face-masks?aff=3
To support the channel, become a patron and make history matter!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/the_study_of_antiquity_and_the_middle_ages
Donate directly to paypal: paypal.me/nickbarksdale
Enjoy history merchandise? Check out our affiliate link to spqr emporium!
spqr-emporium.com?aff=3
*disclaimer, the link above is an affiliate link which means we will earn a generous commission from your magnificent purchase, just another way to help out the channel! join our community!
facebook :
facebook.com/thestudyofantiquityandthemiddleages/
twitter: twitter.com/nickbarksdale
instagram: instagram.com/study_of_antiquity_middle_ages/
facebook group: facebook.com/groups/164050034145170/
I don't feel this guy is systematic nor gives a clear reference of what he's talking about. He doesn't seem to believe in radiocarbon dating apparently and gets everything from a quagmire of written sources mostly (but mixing a lot of things to fit into his rather obscure narrative, cherry-picking the evidence quite apparently).
If you think outside of the paradigm, if you make bold "exceptional claims", it's good to ask: where is the evidence? And I feel that the inteviewer (i.e. you, Nick) is more concerned about being a good host than about being a good journalist and thus asking the very pertinent questions about the details of his alternative chronology and, notably, the evidence that could back that alternative scenario.
@@LuisAldamiz You're talking about a
@@hyksos74 - A book I'm not going to buy based on what I've seen in BOTH interviews. Sorry.
I always love Rohl and his explanations. This time he sounds convincing again. I wish his new chronology was more recognized
I'm no expert in dating but when I read about it, it seems like it is often proven circular manner. The artifacts (pottery mainly) confirm the radiocarbon dating, which in turn confirms the artifacts. Textual evidence seems to be accepted or rejected depending on whether it conforms to the accepted model. I like researchers who are willing to think outside the box, challenge the accepted paradigm, and endure ridicule. That is how progress is made. It doesn't mean Rohl is right, but it is an interesting alternative. I'll need to read more on the dating of this period. Thanks for the great interview.
i LOVE these counter ideas to what the BAC may or may not have been. lovely.
Dr. Cline was my teacher in college! His ideas were inspiring for me to think about how the bible and the collapse of the bronze age fit together and how the bible was living history. Love this video
Interesting. This hypothesis is similar to one that collapses 700 years across the Roman, Byzantine, and Carolingian empires in the dark ages of the first millennium by aligning major catastrophic events in each. Given that the historical chronologies were constructed at least a millennium after the fact, Occam's Razor suggests a mistake in re-constructing the chronologies is more plausible than humanity "forgetting" everything for several centuries and then springing back to literacy.
I'm not convinced with the idea of the Homeric poems composed by one historic person called Homer (blind or otherwise), nor that they were written in the time of their creation (probably different for the Iliad and the Odyssey)
Good guest. You're redeeming yourself. A guest who disagrees with consensus who actually has credentials to do it and bringing the actual person who actually wrote the contradictory work to explain it themselves. Thumbs up.
I don't think Homor was blind in the normal context of literally lacking vision. I feel he was super near sighted and legally blind like me where you can barely distinguish things that aren't inches from your face without contacts or glasses like me. To people with good vision they'd consider me blind if I didn't have corrective lenses as I can only recognize people by their voices and the color of their clothing that day when I was a child who refused to wear glasses in public. Without lenses I can barely distinguish facial features farther than a foot away from me.
It would be great if David Rohl and Eric Cline could have a debate
Actually, we did have a debate a few years ago, but unfortunately it wasn’t recorded. It was fun, though.
Superb episode. I watch regularly, and this one is great.
We have seen this before. Look around youtube and you will see that Rohl does not talk to academic audiences. He seems to only talk to audiences of religious believers.
Is anybody else listening?
I was one of you first subscribers. I think you had 5..now you have over 72k!! 👍😄
🎉 and to think you have stuck with me after all this time! Feel free to shoot me an email if you have any suggestions / criticisms and or etc, appreciate your support!
Shorten your intro movie and music especially on short videos. Your welcome.
I remember watching his 3 part series in the mid 90s
Although it’s claimed by some that the revised chronology (removing the Dark Ages) makes a lot of Biblical accounts make a lot more sense, it actually causes chaos for the Bible. For example, it is known that the title ‘Pharaoh’ started to be used in Egyptian records that are traditionally dated to around 1500 BCE, and from that time until 1000 BCE it was used by itself, without the king’s personal name.
That fits the Bible perfectly, because the books that were supposedly written by Moses (in c. 1500 BCE) consistently use the title ‘Pharaoh’, but never with the king’s personal name (yet the writer provides the names of numerous other kings of other nations). It is only in the time of Shishak’s invasion of Judah just after Solomon’s death (c. 1000 BCE) that the Bible uses ‘Pharaoh’ in conjunction with the king’s personal name (e.g. ‘Pharaoh Shishak’). This is a perfect fit for the naming conventions of the Egyptians at those different times.
On the other hand, if we accept Rohl’s revisions, then the earliest Egyptian records using the title ‘Pharaoh’ date to centuries after Moses’ time, and the Bible’s use of the title in conjunction with Shishak’s personal name would be anachronistic.
That’s just one example, but there are numerous other issues too, like the price of a slave at different time periods (20 shekels in the 18th century and 30 shekels in the 16th century), the anachronistic appearance of chariots in the Exodus account, the presence of Canaanite kings in Canaan long after the Israelites were said to have kicked them out, and so on. The currently accepted chronology, with the Bronze Age Collapse and the Dark Ages, is the only version which actually works with the Biblical information.
Of course, many people do not believe in the Bible, but for those who do, this is worth noting.
I'm sorry, perhaps i don't understand. Even if we are fully aware of the way how pharaos hat been called in egypt, why should that have affected the writers of the bible?
And, if you have read the bible, you will know, that the canaanites had not been driven out of the land totally.
Like Abraham's 'anachronistic' camels, perhaps chariots also hadn't begun to appear in Egyptian artwork when they were early in use in Egypt. We have to wait and see what the ground gives up for evidence. In pre-Hyksos Middle Kingdom Egypt there is evidence for chariotry despite no chariot depictions. The term Pharaoh wasn't in use yet? These aren't chaotic issues, I would argue, any more than pre-Flood Genesis uses post-Flood names to identify geographically where the Garden of Eden was. Raamses and Pithom also appear to be later names, with Avaris/Haware being the likely original name. The Bible doesn't need to give us the original names of everything and it often doesn't, like with the names Babel, Nimrod, (King) Saul, even perhaps Moses - names that match the things these ones are famous or notorious for.
Bab-Ilu means Gate of God, whereas Babel means 'In the confusion'. The Hebrew Bible clearly makes a play on words. The original rebellious 'Babelites' certainly wouldn't have named their city something humiliating to themselves.
I'm therefore not sure we need be worried about anachronisms in such ways. When certain words and names fall out of usage, the more current names are needed to identify things. Sometimes the Bible specifically says that a certain site or city is called X but it used to be called Y, and sometimes it doesn't bother. It's like how in Samuel it says Prophets were called Seers in those days, suggesting 'prophet' was a later term. Indeed, in the Tell Deir 'Alla' ie 'Balaam Inscription', it starts off saying 'Book of Balaam, son of Beor, the man who was a Seer of the Gods.' I've known about this inscription for some time but what I only discovered in the last year about it is that the terminology reflects religious ideologies of the Bronze Age and its language even resembles the Hebrew of the Book of Deuteronomy. The inscription itself is around 600 years after the events of Balaam's interference with the Israelites, but as it refers to a Book of Balaam, it's obviously a copy of a much older text for language reasons as noted also.
@@fiktivhistoriker345 Oh he knows his Bible very well. Caleb's quite the scholar himself but just hasn't been convinced of David Rohl's chronology yet, though he does accept much of the links to Israelites in the archaeology Mr Rohl has illuminated and identified.
Too short! I wish it was longer next time. 😁😁😁
Thank you Nick. And Nathan. I’m the guy that so appreciates the explanation in terms of “generations”. Fascinating!
Glad you enjoyed it! And we appreciate your shout out!
This is a very thought provoking theory.
Ten years fighting to take a small city is the bit that always got me. Obviously if you lay siege to a city you don't just lay siege to the front door and allow the inhabitants to bring supplies in through the back door. Philistines were probably people from Anitolia forced from their lands by war between the Mycenaeans and Hittites which probably rumbled on for ten years and caused the downfall of both of them. Bulk of the population couldn't read or write and everything was passed down by word of mouth, and we all know how that usually turns out.
Good point. If the timeline is reduced than suddenly the 10-year siege becomes more of a fact, spoken by Homer and not a myth spoken by Homer.
@@MarkVrem siege of Troy was probably a small part of the ongoing conflict. As far as ongoing conflicts are concerned ten year's isn't particularly long. Thirty years war, 100 years war plus probably quite a few others.
Dr. David Rohl is very close for his chronology timeline. IMO
I think this guy nailed it.
6:50 Good question... Maybe it'll take a modern day collapse for the truth of the bronze age collapse be accurately re-found and re-understood.
How does removing the Dark Age explain how they forgot hot to build like Myceanans?
If the economy and population had been wrecked recently, they would lack the capability to indulge in monumental building - like the Egyptians gave up building pyramids.
Any chance of an overall synopsis of the claims and counter claims regarding this dating discrepancy .....the positive and the problems with the 2 views? .......in one video???.....Sorry.....this stuff just makes my head swim.....I'm very adept at being confused all by myself......just be perhaps more clear to have it laid out side by side.
If you search David Rohl on you tube you will find some videos of him talking about the chronology in various contexts. He makes some really good points (see Shishak/Shoshenq issue) but imo he goes off the rails. Sadly, he is right that most scholars dismiss it without addressing the valid issues he brings up. Not much material really analyzing the issue from both sides of the argument. I'd like to see it too. Fascinating stuff.
David Stansbury ls
thank you for another great video! however I can't agree with D.Rohl on his chronology because of the radiocarbon dating in greek cemeteries. On an historical point of view it could be a good hypothesis but archaological finds are totally against it.
That was also my thought. My understanding is that the archeology done at the site of Troy is pretty unequivocal: Troy was destroyed around the year 1200 BCE and wasn't much more than an abandoned ruin for the next century after that.
It's an interesting take, though. He might be partially right in that the "dark age" wasn't as dark as everybody thinks... kind of like how the medieval "dark age" wasn't really as dark as everyone thinks.
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN these hypothesis are not convincing at all for historians or archaelogists. I'm not an expert on radiocarbon dating but, however it is necessary to calibrate the dating and ajust results, it is a really efficient method. People who tried to cut off centuries in the medieval times are often ideologically motivated (Fomenko is the best example: he jut propose a nationalist rewriting of history in favor to Russia and Orthodox Church). If you come in France you'll see on the field that these centuries are not an invention, I dig these sites all year long and trust me these centuries did occured. We can see it threw stratigraphy, threw art evolution ansd it's confirmed by all kind of absolute dating. In our present topic, the New chronology barely include the historical texts from Assyria which are well dated (threw stratigraphy, thermoluminescence, C14...) and Phrygian history neither. That's a problem.
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN I've seen the demonstration of copper saws with the help of sand being used to cut through stone (can't recall whether it was granite). Other methods involved heating the stone to make it easier to cut/break.
Once you detatch yourself from modern conceptions of the use of man hours, its possible to understand how they did it.
Tens of thousands of available workers for up to a decade or more.
The question is how we calibrated the measurements. If for instance a piece of wood found in Tutankhamen's tomb is used as calibration for dendrology and or c14 as we thought we had a good date on that, things go funky. No aliens need to be involved in any of that, just the wrong assumptions.
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN Sand, sticks, string and lots of rocks will do for building pyramids and henges. The Egyptians actually left a lot of evidence how they did things and their stone drills used a hollow copper tube and sand. The silica forms a very efficient grinding material. Do not confuse the lack of ingenuity of today's people with those of the past. When you don't waste time on social media you have time to spend on observing your environment and figure out how things work yourself.
Can this be chronology shift be applied to Sumerian, Indus, etc. cultures?
Yes.
I think Rohl has done it. It's broken wide open now! Hatshepsu was The Queen who pulled Moses from The River and Tutmose is The Exodus Pharaoh.
Uh, no, that's not at all what David Rohl's finds reveal. His finds identify Joseph as Vizier Zatenaf pa'Ankhu in the days of Senusret III/Amenemhat III and beyond, with this 'Ankhu' Semite vizier called 'Overseer of the fields', admired by Egyptians and Semites, with the man's Syrian-Semite tribe settling in Goshen on virgin land. There're just so many synchronisms between the Bible and this period, with the Exodus coming in the time of Pharaoh Dudimose. After Egypt is devastated by the plagues, their king and army destroyed, Egypt is plunged into chaos for decades and the Hyksos invade 'without battle, because God had struck the Egyptians' says Manetho. One of the later Hyksos named Sheshi may even be the Sheshai the Israelite Caleb (I think) encounters in Canaan. But yes, Mr Rohl has the Exodus and Israelites in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom period, not the New Kingdom.
When it comes to Homer and the Trojan war Dr. David Rohl is underestimating/ignoring the ability of Oral History as well as traditional keepers of oral history ("bards" like Homer) to preserve a pretty accurate record of major events. Legends/Myths are to be able to preserve a fairly accurate (at least as accurate as the Iliad and Odyssey) for hundreds if not thousands of years. I mean the myths of native Australians mention land that has been under water for tens of thousands of years.
Pretty much.
I agree that the dates are wrong. But I think Egypts late bronze age. Because they say the thera eruption was 150 years after our other data. Meaning the collapse was closer to 1250. But I'm not a professional
Could homer have been a resident of Troy?
I'm just writing this before I forget, I'm early on in the video. At 2:30 ish there is a slide of a 400 yr shift, but we are talking about a 300 year shift. Is this just something pulled off the internet for there sake of something to look at, or something else? I like to give plausibility to the Trojan War and some impact on the collapse. I know there are a lot of arguments against that.
Edit: shorter video than I thought, and the question still stands. I LOVE when you have this guy on! You should explore other chronologies!
400 years between the troyan war and Homer. With the new chronology it would only be 100 years.
@@niederrheiner8468 damn! Your right! I guess my head wasn't in the right place. Thank you!
Nah, we'd see some sort of Celtic cultural artifacts, such as urnfield type cemeteries. We do not. Also a name should appear in the records: Gael, Gallus or something like that and there is nothing. The Phoenicians were just Canaanites and they were vassals of Egypt at that time, the Egyptians would have known and said something about such a conspiracy not in the remote "their islands" but in the much more nearby "Retenu", "Djehy" or "Lebanon", in "our coasts". So all kinds of nope. However I suspect that the Shekelesh were maybe a type of "proto-Phoenicians" but unsure of where they were established (Cyprus maybe?)
Very interesting and quite revolutionary to an extend. I wonder if its not possible to date the BAC more precisely to to serveral archeological findings like pottery, burnt wood - whatsoever - there should be enough evidence for rather correct dating? What am i missing if this is disputed about 300 years being off?
Trying to make history fit the Bible doesn't have the best track record for accuracy.
So he concluded that his theory made sense because it made 'Biblical archaeology' work. That was my point.
Conventional version based on the Bible? That's nonsense no serious historian uses the Pentateuch to date anything not just because it includes people living centuries.
My question about his theory is 'Does it raise more questions than it answers?' When he first came up with the theory the answer to that question was yes and since then even more so. Effectively it would mean most of the series about the about the Bronze Age Collapse is wrong.
Apart from arguing that the bronze age collapse didn't happen along with a few centuries.
@@mrmr446 it is true, todays historians just stick to the dates establisht by early historians. You can't just dismiss this theory because it fits to a source you don't rely on.
i did not like the fact the name of Velikovsky and his time line theory and margin was not in this theory and your video...not only i would consider this essential but i would demand a total debunk of his thesis and all his points
WOW! So the end of the bronze age happened just before the rise of Assyria ?? WOW!
Hello there, Were the Pelasgoi (the Philistines) descendants of ''Eteocretan'' Greeks or of Indo-European Helenics (Yavan)??
Ancient Greek sources make a distinction between Eteocretans and Pelasgoi, both living in Crete along with others, notably Greeks proper. I'm not sure what this distinction refers to but, from other references that relate Pelasgoi also strongly to Thessaly, where the Rakhmani culture (derived from Dimini) existed until well into the Bronze Age (until cultural, but possibly not yet linguistic, assimilation by Mycenaean Greeks), I conclude that these were descendants of the invasion of c. 5000 BCE by a people originated in the Halafian culture of North Syria. These "Pelasgo-Tyrsenians" (as I usually call them to include not only the European termina branch but also the Anatolian one, which may have been important in Arzawa and Troade in the BA and shows some differences but a general identity nevertheless, and of course also Lemnians and Etruscans in the Iron Age) made a major impact in much of the Balcans, especially Thessaly, West and North Macedonia, East Albania and Serbia, but also penetrating in admixed form in parts of Hungary and Danubian Croatia and, for a time being, also influential in Bulgaria, from where they were driven out by a North to South Danubian-Vasconic re-expansion that produced the fascinating Karanovo-Gumelnita culture, who smelted bronze a thousand years before anyone else. They were also important in Anatolia but I know less details.
When the Indoeuropeans invaded, maybe the Vasconics were the first impacted but eventually the Pelasgo-Tyrsenians were as well. As far as I can discern, only groups in the Aegean remained, notably Thessaly's Rakhmani culture, maybe Troy, surely Crete, which has eclectic influences from both the Balcans and Anatolia. Then came the Greeks (probably by boat from Montenegro) but the areas they took over (Southern and Central Greece) I don't think we can say were Pelasgian with any certainty. They may have held pockets of Vasconic remnants, unclear.
In any case genetics seems to support three layers: first neolithic (Sardinian-like, which I call Vasconic), Vinca-Dimini invasion (Pelasgo-Tyrsenian, quite important in defining Anatolio-Balcanic genetics, and later also Italian) and Indoeuropean (Greek proper). The main marker of Pelasgo-Tyrsenians is Y-DNA haplogroup J2, absent in the other populations before the synthesis of Bronze Age SE Europe. This haplogroup (and other Aegean-like genetics) was carried eventually to Italy, notably Central Italy, and that's one of the reasons why I think Etruscans are Pelasgo-Tyrsenians (although from Asia Minor, probably somewhere near Troy) and that they made a genetic-demographic major impact in Italy (with their genetics later spread westwards also by the Romans, notably to Southern Spain, the colony Italo-Romans most intensely colonized without doubt, maybe making up 20% of the modern genetic pool).
So the Peleset were a branch of this Pelasgo-Tyrsenian population, which was surely already established in Crete and some of which seem to have ended in SW Palestine with the Sea Peoples' great wave, forming the Philistines. Other Pelasgo-Tyrsenian Sea Peoples were surely the Teresh (Tyrsenoi or Etruscans) and maybe the Tjeker (Teucrians or Trojans). Other Sea Peoples of the great wave had other origins: Greek (Denesh = Danaoi), some Semitic pirates of likely Syro-Lebanese affinity (Shekelesh, later established in Sicily), Lycians (Lukka, a branch of Luwians), Sardinian (Sherden, only mentioned in the Delta invasion) and maybe pre-Indoeuropean South Italians (Weshesh = Ausones?, the Ausones are known from archaeology to have frequently raided Mycenaean Greece).
@@LuisAldamiz wow, thanks.
I have heard Rohl present his case time and time again, and each time I am more convinced he is wrong...at least in terms of his timeline.
@@davidhollins870 I accept the current chronology because the vast majority of his peers accept it. I am neither researcher nor scientist, simply a person very interested in this time period. I do not throw stones, I simply do not accept his theory. It isn't even a theory, at best a hypothesis, and again, one not supported by the vast majority of his peers. Could that change in the fullness of time, of course it could, or it could simply fade away as many unproven ideas do. Either way, as a man of advanced age I will be long gone. I thank you for your response.
I'm a simple man, I see the bronze age, I click like
So do I...but this topic is not the typical one.
Makes more sense and explains a lot of possibilities, thank you for putting out so many different views, I enjoy a lot your channel it brings me so much fresh air and makes me understand better my life
He sounds so much like Sean Connery
He looks like him somewhat, although more lightbuild.
Maybe they're from the same area.
Rood has really taking Rohls theory and has gone further with it then anybody. Bible. ca has also now adopted new Rohl chronology
I would like to suggest that there was a first trojan war - the "homeric" one - around 1200 BC, as the greeks dated it themselves. So the "Treasure of Priamos" that Schliemann found, was in the right stratum. The second trojan war then was around 900, when the sea people destroyed most of the bronzeage kingdoms.
I would like to mention the books by Eberhard Zangger here and his reconstruction of the early trojan landscape.
Hal porter I have read some of Zangger’s earlier books, which I greatly admire, along with his (incidental) hypothesis re the identity of Atlantis. (That the original Egyptian sources in the sixth century-passed indirectly to Plato 200 odd years later, probably described A version of a Trojan war.). His speculations about land use and the complex uses of fresh water flushes to keep the harbor clear were absolutely fascinating. the Pylos Regional project which Zangger worked on early 1990’s had a similar, Less elaborate, system
But in these earlier writings I don’t believe he challenged the original chronology. For the topics he was researching it might not have mattered much. He was slaying enough old lions as it was. He might have discussed the subject more in his later works which I have not read.
Why c. 900 BCE, which chronological reference do you use for that? My understanding is that the Mycenaean cities (save Athens) collapsed (were brutally looted) c. 1070 BCE, which is almost two centuries earlier (but also a century later than the famous Sea Peoples' wave). Then came the Dark Age of almost four centuries.
Schlieman's treasure was found in Troy 1 or 2 layer. 1200 BC would be either Troy 6 or 7. It was not in the "Priam" layer no matter the dating scheme.
The idea is, that a time lapse in egyptian history is affecting the chronologies of most of the near eastern kingdoms, because it is held as a standard. Also other chronologies in the eastern mediteranean, including the mycenean can be affected, so that there wasn't necesseraly any dark ages. For sure there must have been a downfall of the elites, maybe because of the changing of climate, famine and/or war. And then other people of lower ranks might have come to power, like immigrants, craftsmen or merchants.
I don't say that this really happened, but it's an intriguing idea that fits into Rohls theory.
@@fiktivhistoriker345 - But C14 what? We do have huge chronologies based on C14 (and other references incl. thermoluminiscence for pottery, etc.) True that in the LBA there's a flattening of the calibration curve that creates some uncertainty but even with that, the changes should not be that big or at least should be properly justified. Extraordinary claims require if not extraordinary evidence at least ordinary evidence of some weight. I just don't see it.
Love this man! Thank you both!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I watched this one not long after watching *The Bronze Age Collapse in the Bible* ruclips.net/video/VHlcn8uYcfo/видео.html and I wonder how the two timelines mesh together?
One thing that does seem to concur is Rohl’s date for the Philistines, 1160-something BC, which seems to be unaffected by any differences in the chronology of the Pharaohs.
Check out the CenturiesofDarkness.com following the title of a 1991 volume of the same name. The six authors, starting with Peter James and Nikos Kokkinos ... and Colin Renfrew in sixth place were mostly then young scholars pointing o it many of the things that does Dr, Rohl. The website includes a bibliography (mostly with full downloaded texts of scholarly articles and book chapters, and conference proceedings discussing these issues up to the last couple of years. Some of these guys have gone on to suite distinguished careers. Some of these articles get down in the weeds a bit but most of it is understandable to a lay audience interested in these years. As a side note, even Greek estimates of the Trojan war placed it as low as the early 900s (980?), others as high as the 1200s BC. Manetho, preparing a history for the Ptolemies in 200BCE, more or less appears to have interpreted inconsistencies in the available to him records to arrive at the “correct” duration to the Trojan War (was ir 1170s. I forget his date) to arrive at his chronology. Starting in the late 19th century European archaeologists developed the conventional chronology following Manetho, then their best source. Also recall that even Manetho and his extracted king lists is known to us only in extracts found in later Hellenistic works. By now the conventional chronology has hardened a lot.. I haven’t read Rohl but I will. Read over the continuing debates section of the website also.
He's realistic about it because it also took a long time before the earth stopped being flat. People often don't like change even if the new ideas are better.
It's nice to hear alternative theories, academia needs more of this. That being said, his theories are not at all convincing.
biblical chronology? Phoenicians borrowing the alphabet from the Israelites?? wtf? :S
6:30 he exposes himself as somebody who wants to claim the Bible as historical fact
yrah, then he should be able to answer Dr. Finkelstein, who is an Israeli Jew, and he would be very interested in proving the bible correct, but as a scientist, he recognizes it isn't true... anyway, those religious groups pleasers just want money and fame, they have no commitment to science...
He makes a fool out of himself. Just another typical bible guy who twists to fit. Sad.
Occam's Razor at work!
Fascinating stuff, holy shit.
And what about carbon dating? Is that science to be denied?
Depends on calibration. If you set the calibration on a wrong date, you will get other false dates.
@@davidhollins2582 can you explain PLZ? The principe of datation?
@@khadijaElAoufi Carbon dating is like all scientific measures in that you first have to calibrate your measure. So, you start with a known amount - of time represented by an object and its carbon decay in this case. However, if your known measure is wrong, then your new measurements will be out. www.labmate-online.com/news/news-and-views/5/breaking-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144
I'm siding with Dr. Rohl. Base on that there probably writings that translated one alphabet to another, bury somewhere that haven't been found yet.
Also, I believed that they've gotten the date of the Trojan war that Humor wrote about wrong. Humor mention King Minus grandsons,( Cadmus sister Europa great-grandson) fought in the war. Which would been 19 or 18 century.
Still, there could have been two or more Trojan wars, they assumed that was the Trojan war that Humor wrote about, instead of a early one.
They should search for the battlefield of the battle that Plato mention that the Atlantians and Athenians fought, instead of searching for Atlantis itself. It would have to be where a large army that could be hold at bay from passing through a passes way that leads to Athens itself, that show a ancient landslide that bury both the Atlantian and Athenian armies Athens use to be a coastal city that was destroyed when Thera eruptive. Greek myth mention that Athens was a coastal city.
Not that you are mentioning the Atlantians, i would like to mention that they could not have been the same as the sea people. Why? Plato wrote that the egyptians said, that it were the Greeks (i use this term here in general) that stopped the Atlantians. But the sea people were finally stopped by the egyptians.
@@fiktivhistoriker345 Atlantians and the sea people are two different people. Both events were centuries apart from each other. Beside I've never mention the sea people. Plato wrote that the Atlantians had conquer Egypt and that the Athenians were the only one's left. While the Atlantians and Athenians were fighting, there were a large earthquake and both armies were shallow up into the Earth. In like manner, there was a great earthquake and Atlantis sunk under the sea. Doesn't mention if both events taken place at the same time or centuries apart. Also, there's no mention of Athens being destroy during bronze age collapse. It was destroyed by the effects of Thera volcano eruption. Also, there's no mention of anyone group of people from the Atlantic area being part of the sea people.
Maybe I fall victim to the tenets of the establishment now.. But what about the C14 dates? We have plently of those. What about the chronotypologies of the sub-mycenaean, proto-geometric and geometric pottery styles that have been well established, and not by any lack of evidence? So we are going to take some narative information from myths that are thousands of years old at face value.. I'm all for scrutinizing established theories, but this just sounds like sensationalism to me. We have one of the most detailed and precise chronologies in the Aegean for this time period which is still constantly being improved upon. But the changes involve some years, not hundreds of years.
Somebody needs to tell you that your head shouldn’t be centered in the frame, but at the top of the frame. Minor thing, but it’s more professional and looks a lot better.
When did Rohl get his PhD? I wasn't aware he'd done so.
I don't buy it.