Lords of Avaris
I know that David Rohl is not popular with academic archaeologists, but I've just finished reading his latest book, "The Lords of Avaris". In this, he attempts to incorporate several new questions into his 'New Chronology' theory:-
1) The origins and timescale of the Hyksos kings at Avaris in Egypt.
2) The origins of the Sea-Peoples
3) The Greek Dark Ages
4) The Origins of the Etruscans
5) The Foundations of Rome and its links with Troy
One notable feature of the book is that he deals (briefly) with some of the newer theories in archaeology and cultural history. For example, he mentions meeting Israel Finkelstein, whose work contradicts the Biblical literalist view of an Ancient Israelite conquest.
Finkelstein argues that there is no evidence of a sudden change of culture in the period of the destruction layer of Jericho and that the Israelite culture emerges seamlessly from the hill regions of Canaan. Rohl's argument is that the conquest was in fact, an historical event, but occured prior to the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt and the formation of the New Kingdom. He bases this on his dating of a scarab of Sheshi found in the final ruins of Jericho.
Rohl also mentions Martin Bernal's "Black Athena", which defends the "Classical Model" of the formation of Greek Civilisation against the Indian-European model, promoted by 19th century German scholars. Bernal defends the views of Herodotus and other classical authors that the origins of Greek Culture were in Egypt and Phoenicia.
Rohl however, rejects this by arguing that it was Egyptianised Hyksos, who settled in Greece after they had been driven out by Ahmose in the Egyptian "War of Liberation". The Hysksos he argues, were a combination of Northern Canannites (the lesser Hyksos) and Indo-European speakers from Anatolia, closely related to the Peleset/Philistines/Pelasgians. Retreating from Egypt, these formed the Philistine ruling class and also founded Cadmean Thebes in Greece.
The Sea Peoples, he argues were a combination of the Peleset, the Trusha (related to the Trojans) and other groups from Anatolia who went on to settle in Sardinia and Sicily. All of them, he claims, were being displaced by climatic changes in the 9th Century BC and pushed down into the Levant and Egypt.
He rejects the idea of a Greek Dark ages as a scholarly invention and suggests a transition of no more than 2 centuries between the Bronze Age and the Dorian invasions. Supporting this, he cites the temporary settlement of Karphi in the inhospitable Cretan mountains, which appears to have lasted only one generation and been a refuge of Minoan/Pelasgians fleeing the Dorian invaders. Spartan society also clearly shows elements of a recently arrived invading elite ruling over an indigenous helot class. These invasions and the subsequent population pressure in turn led to the Greek colonisation of the Mediterranean in the 8th Century BC.
Rohl firmly links the Etruscans with fleeing refugees from the Trojan War, suggesting that the hesitancy historians have had in confirming this fact, is that their chronology for the fall of Troy is out by around 3 centuries. Interestingly, recent DNA evidence appears to show quite convincingly that the Etruscans came from Lydia.
Rohl further argues that Rome's foundation by Aeneas after the Trojan war is not mythical but historical. Again, this is possible because he redates the chronology of the fall of Troy to the 9th century B.C, rather than the conventional 12th.
Obviously one of the key dating problems is the Thera eruption, to which he devotes Chapter 8, suggesting 3 eruptions, with the final one being around 1090 BC. This occurred during the reign of Thutmose III and is represented by the Dye 3 Greenland Ice Core.
Rohl's approach is to try to show that the histories in the Biblical, Homeric and Roman texts, while not being totally accurate, have more historical validity than archaeologists have been prepared to grant them. Hence history and myth are brought together. He may, or may not be right. Certainly, he provides a closely argued case and his conclusions are always clearly laid out and open to falisification. Whether you agree with him or not, his book is an entertaining and thought-provoking read.
© Alex Nichols 2008
