Aspects of ancient Near Eastern chronology (c. 1600-700 BC)

• Main Author: FURLONG, PIERCE JAMES
• Format: Doctoral or Postdoctoral Thesis
• Language: English
• Published: 2008
• Subjects: chronology; chronological revision; ancient Near East; History; Egypt; Assyria; Babylonia; Mitanni/Hanigalbat; Hatti; Elam; Egyptian New Kingdom; Third Intermediate Period; High Priests of Amun; Shoshenq I; Manetho; relative chronology; absolute chronology; Bronze Age collapse; Dark Ages; El Amarna Letter 15; First Dynasty of Babylon; Kassites; Second Dynasty of Isin; Aramean invasions; historical realignment; Adad-nirari I/Tudhaliya II; Shalmaneser I/Shuppiluliuma I; Tukulti-Ninurta I/Murshili II; Tiglath-pileser I/Shuppiluliuma II; scientific dating; dendrochronology; radiocarbon dating; ice core analysis; dating controversies; LBA volcanic eruption on Thera/Santorini; Syro; Palestinian Iron Age; ‘high chronology’ versus ‘low chronology’ debate; methodology; Thomas Kuhn; Kuhnian epistemology; paradigm theory; Old Testament; biblical chronology; Exodus; Joshua; Judges; Samuel; Kings; Chronicles; chronological overlap; United Kingdom; Saul; David; Sea Peoples; High Priest Zadok; genealogy; divided monarchy; Shishak/Shoshenq identification; archaeology; Iron Age Canaan/Palestine stratigraphy; Babylon; ice core
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/39353

This document is formatted for double-sided printing, thus explaining the inclusion of some blank pages. © 2007 Dr. P.J. Furlong Contact email: [e-mail] The chronology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Near East is currently a topic of intense scholarly debate. The conventional/orthodox chronology for this period has been assembled over the past one-two centuries using information from King-lists, royal annals and administrative documents, primarily those from the Great Kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. This major enterprise has resulted in what can best be described as an extremely complex but little understood jigsaw puzzle composed of a multiplicity of loosely connected data. I argue in my thesis that this conventional chronology is fundamentally wrong, and that Egyptian New Kingdom (Memphite) dates should be lowered by 200 years to match historical actuality. This chronological adjustment is achieved in two stages: first, the removal of precisely 85 years of absolute Assyrian chronology from between the reigns of Shalmaneser II and Ashur-dan II; and second, the downward displacement of Egyptian Memphite dates relative to LBA Assyrian chronology by a further 115 years. Moreover, I rely upon Kuhnian epistemology to structure this alternate chronology so as to make it methodologically superior to the conventional chronology in terms of historical accuracy, precision, consistency and testability.