In the November Slingshot (#212), there were two articles that refer to the debate about dating events in the Bronze Age. I found these interesting because of my own involvement in developing army lists in this period. The debates generated by the various theories are as complex as the arguments on rules interpretations in our hobby, albeit based on a wealth of academic activity. The dating of events is of some importance to us because it allows us to determine historical opponents, and the arms and armour of the contemporary armies.

The first article was written by Ian Russell Lowell, a long time contributor to Slingshot and a wargamer interested in the Bronze Age. His "Using the Bible as a Source" is a response to an earlier article of the same name in Slingshot 209. Russell Lowell makes reference to the dating of the Battle of Kadesh/Qadesh using three different chronologies. In the High Chronology, the battle occurs in 1301 BC, while in the Middle and Low Chronologies, Kadesh was fought in 1286 and 1275/74 respectively. All of which refer to revisions in the dating system that are widely accepted in academic circles. Dates have changed because of more recent discoveries by scholars and archaeologists. The chronological pegs for the New Kingdom include lunar dates for Thutmose III and Ramesses II. These have been used to calculate possible accession dates for these kings, the preferred option for Ramesses II having, over the years, ranged from 1304 BC, to 1290, and now to 1279, largely as a result in changes in perceptions of Assyrian history.

I was a little confused at this point because my copy of "The Encyclopaedia of Military History" by Dupuy and Dupuy (1970) places the battle in 1294, the WRG book "Armies of the Ancient Near East" (1984) states 1300 BC, and the Osprey book "New Kingdom Egypt" (1992) also states 1300 BC. Other references stated 1280, 1274 and 1268. So I did some more reading to discover more about dating in the Bronze Age.

Conventional Chronology

Conventional or orthodox chronology of the Bronze Age starts with efforts to use the Bible, and other religious and political documents to identify or discount events and locations throughout the Middle East. The development was accelerated in 1822, when Jean Francois Champollion deciphered the Hieroglyphic Code using the Rosetta Stone. Most of the history of this period is based on the cross-referencing of known events in Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite, Biblical and Babylonian history. The evidence is derived from written and archaeological material. Generally, archaeology has been able to use these writings to date the events of the Bronze Age. Scholars of those early years of the discipline of Egyptology tried to find biblical proofs in the newly readable ancient Egyptian records to identify Ramesses II with the Oppression and his successor, Merenptah, with the Exodus.

The following was supplied by Dennis Leventhal in private correspondence:

"What Christians refer to as the "Old Testament" is called the "Tanakh" by Jews. The word "Tanakh" is actually an acronym for the Hebrew names of three bodies of text, called respectively (a) "Torah," which consists of the first five books of the Bible (known in Christian literature as the "Pentateuch"), (b) "Nevi'im," which means the "Prophets" and includes "Judges" through "Malachi," and (c) "Kethuvim," which means the "Writings," and includes books like Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Esther, Lamentations, etc.

Biblical authorship is still hotly debated, but it is generally accepted (but not by right wing fundamentalists - either Christian or Jewish) to have been an accretion of several authors and redactors over a rather lengthy period. Most probably, the earliest books of the Torah are based on oral traditions that date from the time of the Patriarchs & the Exodus. I recently read a strong argument for (pre- or early- exilic) Jeremiah as redactor of Deuteronomy & Judges, and author of Kings I & II. The later Prophets were no doubt done during or post Babylonian exile. The later material, i.e., Kethuvim, apparently stretches into Maccabean, Hasmonean and early Christian times.

One thing stands out in modern research: So far, every advance in knowledge derived from archaeology in Israel seems to have substantiated the general accuracy of the Bible. Put more precisely, there has been no archaeological discovery (to my knowledge, so far) that has negated the validity of the historical aspects of the Bible. Naturally, the historicity of Esther & Daniel remains questionable. But these books are accepted as literary exercises, rather than history per se."

For most of the Old Testament, there is a good deal of archaeological evidence in the Middle East to corroborate the historical record e.g.: Moabite, Canaanite, Persian, Assyrian and Babylonian artefacts and excavations. This is not surprising as these neighbouring states had considerable interaction between them. So generally things were well and good as the Bible and Tanakh were proving to be useful guides for uncovering Bronze Age events. So there was a fairly standard chronology for many years, which has been periodically revised because of new information, much of which is based on the discovery of artefacts (particularly pottery) that can be dated with accuracy. This explains the various dates for the Battle of Kadesh.

Then along came psychologist, Immanuel Velikovsky, who held that the Egyptian Twenty-first Dynasty was contemporary with the Ptolemies, that Nectanebo I was really Ramesses III, and other theories. His ideas published in the books "Worlds in Collision" and "Ages in Chaos" in the 1950's reached a wide popular audience, although Velikovsky was neither an archaeologist nor a historian of the Bronze Age. His theories were dismissed by scholars, although he did have many supporters. One concession made by academics was that Velikovsky did point out problems in conventional chronology.

New Chronology

Recently, I purchased a copy of Nigel Stillman's "Chariot Wars", a supplement for Warhammer Ancient Battles. Stillman uses what he refers to as the New Chronology. He provides a brief but rather convincing argument for preferring this chronology over that of the conventional chronology. Stillman follows the dating system espoused in such books as "A Test of Time" by DM Rohl, published in the US as "Pharaohs And Kings: A Biblical Quest" (ISBN 0-517-70315-7) (check out the website - http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/) and "Centuries of Darkness" by P James et al. Unlike Velikovsky, Rohl is an Egyptologist and James et al have similar credentials. Using the revised dating system from Stillman, the Battle of Kadesh took place about 941 BC.

This brings me to the second Slingshot article entitled "The New Chronology" written by David Shepherd, who indicates that he indolently studied ancient history at university some 25 years ago. Shepherd was interested in the mention of a new chronology in Slingshot 207, published in January 2000. He decided to purchase a copy of "The Test of Time" and then read it twice before writing his article, which is critical of Rohl's theories. His article covers two topics; philosophical and detailed rejection of Rohl.

On the first topic, Shepherd considers that Rohl, while disagreeing with earlier Egyptologists, is still employing Egyptian history to date Biblical events. The major difference is that Rohl advances history by some 350 years.

Shepherd points out that Rohl does not use other ancient sources in his chronology, specifically the Assyrian kings. For example, evidence linking Egyptian and Assyrian rulers would require the redating of Assyrian history. At best Rohl addresses Assyrian chronology in an appendix, but not in detail.

Shepherd concludes by stating that Rohl was far too selective and made some creative translations in inscriptions. Rohl falls into the trap that if one looks hard enough, then you will find it.

Rohl's chronology represents another radical revision of the chronology of the ancient world. He has less radical views than Velikovsky and has endeavoured to substantiate his theories with accepted academic methodology. The impact on the status quo in archaeology and related fields may be significant as Stillman suggests (that the new chronology will replace the conventional chronology). The basis for numerous parallel dynasties in Egypt, Assyria and Babylon must still be more firmly demonstrated before Rohl's "New Chronology" will replace the conventional chronology. One of the experts consulted by Rohl is Egyptologist Dr. Kenneth Kitchen, who was interviewed in his Liverpool England home by Rohl on May 17, 1995. Kitchen was not at all happy with Rohl's finished product.

For most of the interview, Kitchen was demonstrating to Rohl why his theories are wrong and do not work. In particular, he provided evidence, which directly contradicted Rohl's views, including parallels in the Assyrian King List, the Assyrian Eponym List and the Babylonian King list and additional links to New Kingdom Egypt and Hatti. Kitchen contended that Rohl chose to ignore contradictory evidence from Kitchen and other scholars.

Professor Kitchen is widely regarded as the leading scholar of the Third Intermediate Period, and a critic of Velikovsky, Rohl, James and other supporters of new chronologies. Interested readers can learn more about his position by reading his "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC)".

The article by David Shepherd did not discuss "Centuries of Darkness" by P James et al, although it also questioned conventional chronology, specifically for the period 1200-700 BC. The authors discovered that they had a mutual scepticism of the claimed accuracy for the timetables of Old World archaeology. They combined their knowledge from different but related fields (specifically prehistoric Britain, Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece, biblical archaeology and Pharaonic Nubia), and began an in-depth investigation of the archaeological chronology of the entire ancient Mediterranean and Near East. Their efforts resulted in the conclusion that the Egyptian time-scale was incorrect and thus its use as a standard upon which to date Bronze Age events was wrong. The book examines the Mediterranean and Near East pointing out chronological anomalies during the period in question. The anomalies are mostly of the "dark age" type whereby civilisations disappear for a few hundred years and then reappear, often with somewhat similar cultural remains. Their timeline would alter history by several centuries - up to 250 years.

By the way, Rohl, James and others were part of an ad hoc group that questioned orthodox chronology in the 1980's, but disagreed on what should be used as a new chronology. The result was a split within the group and the production of two competing theories concerning the new chronology. Regardless of which chronology one uses, there is enough evidence to support several datings for Bronze Age events like the battle of Kadesh.

For lots of material on the "New Chronology", visit http://www.egroups.com/community/NewChronology and http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/chrono. and a site dedicated to James' book (http://www.centuries.co.uk/).

Other Theories

The debate does not end here, as there are a variety of other theories put forward for dating ancient events. Again reliance is on religious writings.

Between Joseph's death and Moses' birth, there is a void of information - we cannot determine the exact number of years between these two events unless we find another point of reference to work from. There is one Biblical date which we believe to be absolutely confirmed - one which gives us a firm basis on which to work backwards from. This is the destruction date of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC.

Edwin R. Thiele, in his book "The Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings" gives a most thorough evidence of the accuracy of this date by Babylonian records, which can be astronomically verified. In order to arrive at the date of the Exodus, the date of 586 BC was used and added to it were the years of the kings of Judah after Solomon. These years of reign totalled 345. (586 + 345 = 931).

This is the last year of Solomon's reign, 931 BC. Since Solomon reigned 40 years, this means his first year would have been 970 BC. Note that in counting years of reign, one must be sure and count the first year. To say he ruled from 971 to 931 is incorrect, even though you are adding 40 years to his last year of reign, 970. You must subtract one year from your total to take into account the first year.

With his first year of reign as 970 BC, this would place his fourth year at 966 BC, the year he began work on the temple. And it is from this date that the date of the Exodus can be calculated. "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord" (I Kings 6:1). The Biblical date of the Exodus is now established, the Hebrews came out of Egypt exactly 480 years before Solomon began work on the temple in 966 BC, or in 1446 BC. This is approximate.

In 1990, Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D. proposed a major adjustment to traditional Biblical chronology in his book "A New Approach to the Chronology of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel" (ISBN 0-9647665-0-7). He proposed that the "480" of 1 Kings 6:1 was originally "1,480" but the Hebrew letters corresponding to the "one thousand" were lost at an early stage of copying. If this proposition is applied the new Biblical date for the Exodus becomes ca. 2450 BC and prior Biblical events are similarly shifted. This change is radical; however, as one begins to examine the archaeology at the new dates, the harmony between Biblical and secular accounts is apparent. Egypt is struck by national disaster, effectively causing the collapse of the Old Kingdom at the end of the Sixth dynasty. The trail of the Israelites in the desert and remains of their encampment dating to this time period have been found.

The Bible is clear that Joshua and his army conquered a walled city at Jericho. It is immediately apparent that the two traditional dates for the conquest (ca. 1407 BC and ca.1250 BC) are in conflict with the archaeology of Jericho. However, the destruction layer at the new date, ca. 2407 BC, matches quite well with the Biblical record.

One would certainly expect to find the mark of this national disaster in the archaeological record of Egypt. Events of this sort are not difficult to locate archaeologically. However, at the traditional ca. 1447 BC date for the Exodus the opposite is found. Egypt is seen to be prospering. The year 1447 BC falls in the reign of Tuthmosis III or Amenophis II. Tuthmosis II was a warrior-pharaoh who built a great empire for Egypt, which reached to the Euphrates. Nor did the prosperity of the nation wane in the years following his death.

The "late date" for the Exodus fares no better. Merneptah, who succeeded his father, Ramesses II, left a record of his military success in Palestine in which he mentions that he decimated Israel. This single inscription guarantees that Israel was established as a nation in Palestine by the reign of Merneptah, forcing the date of the Exodus into the early part of the reign of Ramesses II at the latest. But, as with the "early date" above, there is no sign of anything, which could possibly correspond to the Biblical Exodus in the reign of this pharaoh or his immediate predecessors. Life carried on as usual in Egypt all through this time.

In contrast to the difficulties encountered by conventional dates, Aardsma's date for the Exodus, ca. 2450 BC, correlates very well with the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, and the chaos which followed in the First Intermediate Period.

It is also possible to date of the Exodus by using Sabbath cycles in combination with the astronomical rising of the star Sirius. Special computer calendar conversion programs were designed to make Biblical calendars from astronomy programs to achieve this. Below are listed the calendar and astronomical requisites.

According to Ezekiel, the Children of Israel reverted back to the Egyptian gods after they left Egypt (Ezek. 20:7-8). The main god of Egypt was the bull god named Apis. He was worshipped on the day the star Sirius rose, 19 July on the Julian calendar. This was called Thoth 1 in the Egyptian calendar. Moses took Israel out of the Egyptian calendar and instructed them to make Nisan (Abib) the first of the months (Exodus 12), however they soon reverted back to the Egyptian gods. Moses went up the mountain on the seventh day, i.e., on a Shabbat (Ex. 24:15). He stayed there for 40 days and when he returned he found them worshipping the bull god Apis. The two popular dates for the Exodus are 1312 BC (Seder Olam) and 1447 BC (secular). Neither of these dates fit the astronomical requirements of the Tanakh. Three sabbath cycles would suggest one year in 343 would fit by chance (7 x 7 x 7 = 343). If we add to this probability that the day of the golden calf and Sirius rising took place one out of 365 days within a solar year (19 July) we arrive at a probability figure of one in 125,195 years; this falls outside of the possible realm of years for the Exodus. This evidence demands 1461 BCE for the date of the Exodus.

Now by this stage in my research, I decided to quit. As Dennis said to me, I had opened a can of worms. It was interesting to discover more about the Bronze Age, although I have not been persuaded to adopt the timeline given by Stillman in his "Chariot Wars". I shall stick to the conventional chronology until such time as research clarifies more applicable dates for the many battles and other military events that are of interest to us.