posted
From what I can gather Rohl presents many views mainstream archaeology currently does not hold, which doesn't necessarily make them inaccurate but much of what he proposes lies outside the concensus or majority of his peers.
A relevant meaningful review of Rohl is one that could be found in a magazine or journal featuring articles by others in his field who write critical examinations of each others works.
I can't seem to find any such reviews or anything by him in such publications on the defunct theory of a supposedly Asian in origin "dynastic race" for pharaonic Egypt.
Can somebody help me out?
Also who are the other credentialed specialist putting forth material tha would support Rohl?
Calabooz' Member # 18238
posted
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
people were talking about David Rohl earlier so I put up his essay "Dynastic Race" for reference (which sent jari into an emotional tail spin yet at the same time he referred to Ramses as a "mixed race mongrel".) Anyway jari aside, one of the earlier mentions of David Rohl was a 2008 thread posted by Djehuti
Walter Bryan Emery (2 July 1902 – 11 March 1971[1] was a British Egyptologist born in Liverpool, England. Before his career in Egyptology began, he was introduced into the study of marine engineering where he became an excellent draftsman, which resulted in the brilliantly executed line drawings that permeated his later published works on Egyptology.[2] With the exception of six years in the British Army during the Second World War, followed by four years in the Diplomatic Service at Cairo in Egypt, his entire life was devoted to the excavation of archaeological sites along the Nile Valley
Emery published a number of works, including:
* 1938 The Tomb of Hemaka, Cairo * 1939 Hor-aha, Cairo * 1949 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty I, Cairo * 1954 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty II, London * 1958 Great Tombs of the First Dyansty III, London * 1961 Archaic Egypt, Edinburgh * 1962 A Funerary Repast in an Egyptian Tomb of the Archaic Period, Leiden
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Thanks for the effort.
Waddell is an early 20th century sawbones with an Aryan bent.
Rice is an author of popular works.
Emery deceased in 1971.
This leaves us still without a word from contemorary archaeologists in support of Rohl or any who even give him consideration.
First brought to ES notice by Bass back in 2005, see Wengrow here who thinks of Rohl as little more than a self-promoting tour guide.
I assume there must be some positive peer review or citation of Rohl in some mainstream publication?
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
I mentioned Waddell and Rice earlier but deleted because they had no credible background in Egyptology or archeology. Walter Emery does but he died in 1971 so he's not contemporary. I have not read his work
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
That's what happens when you cut and paste a Wiki instead of doing your own self-initiated research.
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: That's what happens when you cut and paste a Wiki instead of doing your own self-initiated research.
^^^look at this guy criticizing a post which is no longer in the thread.
wikipedia is perfectly fine for obtaining leads which you then verify with other sources. Many of their entries are good enough to post as basic information, others are not. From wikipedia I got three names of authors who had written books on the topic. And it was true they did write books on the topic, so this was useful to know. Then in my biased opinion, I decided two of them were not worth mentioning.
Of course alTakruri would never use wikipedia even as a first step in getting leads on a topic.
his nose is too high in the air
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
and your head is too high up your ass
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: and your head is too high up your ass
yeah but your head is too low in your ass
the shit stays at the bottom
lioness productions
*let's be civilized and give the pyamidologists a chance to chime in
Jari the Smiter Member # 14451
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: \ (which sent jari into an emotional blah blah blah he referred to Ramses as a "mixed race mongrel".) blah blah blah
here is Jari's actual quote...
Ramses was probably a Mixed race Mongrel
It can go either way.
1) He depicted himself as a Nilotic African..
2) His features are found withing African Populations.
3)Learn how to comprehend..
P.S I fight fire with fire, keep talking and Ill do worse on your threads..
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Why bother with a lyingass?
By the way, the reason why I created a thread about Rohl is his idea that the timeline is actually older than most think. It is controversial yes but there is more debate about that than his "dynastic race" theory.
posted