While I disagree with Fuzzy's contention that the relief depicts a sarcophagus lid, I think it somewhat unfair to bash David Rohl's credentials as an Egyptologist. Your remark that he "almost got a PhD" - while factually correct - belies a seemingly sneering sarcasm about a qualification that would not serve to strengthen Rohl's subject knowledge as an 'authority' on the matter had he gained it!
If this was not your tone, then I apologise.
Whilst not accepting Rohl's controversial "New Chronology" thesis, Chris Bennett argues that out-of-hand rejection by other academic Egyptologists like Kenneth Kitchen may be inappropriate in Rohl's case, since "there is a world of difference between [Rohl's] intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter James" since, unlike "popular radicalisms, Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material."
"Considerable mastery of his material" - high praise indeed for Rohl, by an orthodox Egyptologist who has also published on the chronology of the Ancient Egyptians.
I'm not getting involved in the spat between yourself and Fuzzy but there is no need to mock a person whose knowledge in the field is respected by his colleagues, even those who disagree with the way Rohl suggested shifting the traditional chronology by around 350 years.