ALAN MONTGOMERY
218 MCCURDY Dr.
KANATA, ON
CANADA K2L 2L6
ABSTRACT
The Revised Chronology (RC) in Part 1 placed the end of the
12th Dynasty at 1591, the Second Intermediate Period from 1591
to 1076 BC, the 18th Dynasty from 1086 to 868 BC and the 22nd
Dynasty from 871 to 730 BC. Historical and archaeological evidence
is shown to validate this construction. Stratigraphy in the Mediterranean,
which shows major chronological gaps in the Late Bronze/ Iron
Age boundary, demonstrates a need to advance the date of the Late
Bronze by 400 to 500 years. At Tell Brak evidence for a major
down dating of Amarna related strata places it in the Late Assyrian.
Further evidence to support the 18th Dynasty RC come from the
variety of connections of the Amarna letters to the Late Assyrian
period. The misdating of Amarna related artefacts to the Middle
Kassite era produces a double the Kassite artefacts and a void
of Late Babylonian ones - the so-called Mesopotamian "dark
age". This "dark age" disappears when the Amarna
related material is properly dated.
KEYWORDS: Amarna, Chronology, Exodus, Late Assyrian, Late Bronze, Iron Age, Velikovsky
INTRODUCTION
To take the Revised Chronology (RC) model (see Part 1) one
step further, we need to understand how the archaeological and
stratigraphic evidence fit the model. The Late Bronze Mycenaean
pottery, found in strata in 18th Dynasty Egypt, is a major chronological
marker for the entire Mediterranean region. What are the consequences
of moving this pottery 400 years on the timeline in the new RC/BIC
model? What happens to el-Amarna correspondents wrote the letters
to the late 18th Dynasty pharaohs? What happens to the Late Bronze
synchronisms with Mesopotamia? All dates are BC unless otherwise
noted.
The Late Bronze Era and stratigraphy
Petrie discovered Mycenaean pottery in 18th and 19th Dynasty
context. It was common before Petrie's discoveries to date the
end of the Mycenaean period to 800 to allow continuity and even
overlap with the Geometric period [James et al, p. 16]. Petrie
developed a new scheme based on Egyptian chronology. Torr, a Greek
archaeologist, strongly opposed it because the Late Bronze (LB)
chronology had to be retarded 500 years, leaving an unwanted blank
in Mediterranean strata and history. No people, buildings, texts,
weapons or pottery filled this void [Torr, 1892]. James et al.
gathered the archaeological evidence found since the great Petrie-Torr
debate. Their analysis showed that in Spain, Italy, Sicily, Greece,
Troy, Cyprus, and Palestine strata still have systematic voids
at the Late Bronze/Iron Age I boundary. The LB gaps are shown
in Table 1.
James concluded that these voids were caused by poor Egyptian chronology [James et al, p. 320]. He proposed to move the LB and the New Kingdom forward by 250 years. However, the voids are closer to 350 to 500 years in most places in agreement with the RC/BIC model. This restores a smooth cultural change in the stratigraphic record and refills the Late Bronze gaps first created by Petrie. Thus, a 400-year shift in the dating of stratigraphy demanded by the RC/BIC model not only fails to cause any major stratigraphic problems but even resolves problems of the current system.
The Amarna letters were an Egyptian diplomatic archive, found at el-Amarna near the Akhenaten's capital, Akhetaten. Amarna correspondents include the Hittites, the Mitanni and the Israelites. These lived during the time of the Mycenaean Greeks whose pottery (found at Aketaten), art, sculptures and writing is a major stratigraphic marker of the Late Bronze. In the RC model all these people and their art, ivory and architecture must have coexisted with the 10th/9th century Late Assyrians.
Between Late Bronze and Iron Age Hittites in Anatolia, there is a 400-year void. Akurgal, a leading Anatolian archaeologist, stated the problem thus "...it is striking that not only no Phrygian (remains) but no cultural remains of any sort have been found which belong to the period 1200 - 800 BC [Akurgal, 1962, p. 124]." Although, initially, archaeologists had dated the Hittites to 1100 - 800 [James, 1993, p. 137-38] clay tablets from Hattusas revealed the historical correspondence between the Hittite kings and 19th Dynasty Egyptian pharaohs. The dates were revised to 1600 -1200 [James, p. 115-19]. This created a problem. In Syria, similar hieroglyphics and art were discovered, the so-called Syro-Hittites. These had to be dated from the 11th to the 7th century due to their association with Late Assyrian deposits [James, p. 122]. Thus, there were two Hittite histories but one Hittite culture. In the RC model this duplication is resolved by moving the Imperial Hittites down into Akurgal's void. The Imperial Hittites of the Late Bronze era become coeval with the Syro-Hittites of the Late Assyrian era and this resolves the problem.
Table 1: CHRONOLOGICAL GAPS AT THE LATE BRONZE/IRON
AGE I BOUNDARY
| LOCATION | TYPE OF EVIDENCE | GAP IN YEARS | PAGE* |
| Italy | Late Apennine Ceramics | 300 | 33 |
| Sicily | LB/IA I Tombs | 550 | 36 |
| Aeolian Islands | LB/IA I Pottery | 500 | 40 |
| Malta | Pottery | 600 | 41 |
| Sardinia | Soldiers' Armour | 400-500 | 47 |
| Troy | Pottery | 250-400 | 62-63 |
| Greek\Levant | Ivories | 325 | 73 |
| Greek | Linear B/Earliest Alphabet | 400 | 82 |
| Greece/Cyprus | Bronzes | 400 | 80 |
| Greek | Pottery | 400 | 94,95 |
| Hittite | Art | 350 | 123 |
| Anatolia | Artifacts | 400 | 138 |
| Bogâzköy | Ceramics | 300 | 139 |
| Palestine | Pottery | 400 | 160 |
| Nubia | Tombs | 200 | 216 |
Archaeologists found a wall, called Herald's Wall, at the Late Assyrian level of Carchemish. Hogarth noted the strong similarity of the art of Herald's Wall to the Imperial Hittite art at Hattusas. Woolley even argued for Late Bronze dates for Herald's Wall claiming the iconography was derived from 15th and 14th century Mitanni [James, 1993, p. 126]. Here Mitanni influence is found in Late Assyrian context as required by the RC. Furthermore, according to RC, the Mitanni still existed in circa 850 RC. In an inscription of Shoshenq I, 851 RC, the god, Amon-Re, reminds Shoshenq of the Mitannian army that was given into his hand [Breasted, 1906, sec. 722.] The conventional view must claim a 450-year anachronism [Wilson, 1969b, p. 263]. Similarly, Phase 2 of the Kapara Palace at Tell Halaf was dated to 808 GAD. Phase 1, prior to the occupation of the Late Assyrians, was dated to 900 GAD. The sculptures in this phrase reflect Mitannian and Mycenaean art circa 1300 GAD [James, 1993, p.274-75].
Mycenaean ivories and ceramics are associated with the 18th Dynasty and the Amarna pharaohs. Yet, ivories found at Delos in a deposit with Geometric pottery circa 800, were judged on stylistic grounds to be Mycenaean. Kantor wrote, "When details of the animals on Delos and Mycenaeanizing Megiddo plaques are compared with those of north Syrian ivories and the Tell Halaf orthostats the patterning is seen to be well nigh identical despite the passage of three centuries without any known links [Kantor, 1956]." Mycenaean ivories (similar to Late Assyrian ivories) are found in a 10th and 9th century deposits.
During the excavation of Samaria, ivories were found inscribed in Hebrew at the level of Ahab's palace, 929 - 908 (BIC). Hebrew letters on these ivories match those on the stele of the Moabite king Mesha who rebelled after the death of king Ahab [Velikovsky, 1952, p327-332; Crowfoot and Crowfoot, p. 2]. Excavators noticed that these ivories showed strong Egyptian influence not of the 21st or 22nd Dynasty but the 18th Dynasty, particularly the time of Tutankhamun [Crowfoot p.67]. To explain the similarity in the ivories it was proposed that in Israel there was a revival of 500-year old Egyptian art forms [Loud, 1939, p. 9]. This explanation must be regarded as strange since the Egyptian dynasties of the 9th century show no such revival of art forms. Similar ivories were found in Megiddo in the context of a large number of Egyptian scarabs of 18th Dynasty pharaohs and were dated to the 15th and 14th centuries. Thus Amarna period ivories are found in the 10th century in Israel i.e. Late Assyrian. There is not only no conflict between Amarna art, ivory and sculpture and Late Assyrian deposits but their coexistence matches perfectly.
Amarna Writers Identities
Velikovsky identified the 5 most important kings who wrote
Amarna letters: Abdi-Ashirta, king of Damascus as Ben Hadad II,
Aziru assassin and successor of Abdi-Ashirta as Hazael, Abdi-Hiba
(Ebed Tov) king of Jerusalem as Jehosephat, Rib-Addi king of
Sumur as Ahab and King Mesha, the Habiru, as King Mesh of Moab.
He also identified two captains of King Abdi-Hiba: Addadani, a
son of Zuchru and Iahzibada as the captains of Jehosephat: Adnah,
son of Zichri and Jehozabad [Velikovsky, 1952, ff. 240; II Chr
17:14-19]. There is no space to debate the merits of these identifications.
I would only comment that Rib-Addi couldn't be Ahab for chronological
reasons. He may be Jehoram, as Velikovsky himself admits [Velikovsky,
1952, p.256].
Tell Brak
At Tell Brak, Oates, the excavator discovered six strata overlying
the Old Babylonian 1600 GAD. Level VI and VII contained Mitannian
ware and was dated to the 16th century. Level V and IV were dated
to the early 15th. Level III and II were dated to the 14th because
of the presence of cuneiform tablets of Artashumara and Tushratta
who were authors of Amarna letters. Level I was dated to the 13th
century [Oates, xxx]. This conforms to the generally accepted
dates and gives the superficial appearance of agreeing with the
evidence. A closer examination shows serious discrepancies.
In Level V there is Greyware paralleled at Nuzi Level II destruction [Oates, p. 66] which Stein proposed as "late fourteenth century" [Stein, xxx, 1989]. Red-edged bowls paralleled at nearby al-Rimah in 14th century [Oates, p. 73]. Finally there are some frit-headed nails [Oates p. 240] with parallel processes used on pendants in a Middle Assyrian (MA) grave in Assur circa 14th/13th century [Haller, 1954, p.144, Taf 34: a,f]. In Level II, there is a Neo-Assyrian geometric pattern Bowl 3, [p. 29, 236] whose earliest parallel is found in 9th century. According to these chronological markers, Level V ought to be 14th century, Level IV and III ought to be 13th to 11th and Level II ought to be 9th century. If, instead of the GAD, one uses Gasche's more recent Mesopotamian chronology, then Level VI must be late 15th century also and Level V, even more certainly, must be 14th century. But, it is extremely unreasonable to ascribe all Levels V to II to the 14th century. Something is seriously wrong.
Now all these chronological markers are according to Assyrian chronology. According to the RC model, the Egyptian dates require a 5-century down dating. There should be unavoidable clashes between the GAD Egyptian markers {shown in curly brackets} and the Assyrian ones (shown in round brackets). In Level VI (15th), a century past the end of the MB era, is glazed pottery parallel to Alalakh Level VI {17/16th} i.e. MB II. In Level V (14th) ovoid shaped grooved travertine vases {19/16th} are found, at least 2 centuries after the end of the MB II era,. Oates mentions that the frit-nail technique is also known from the MB in Levant [Oates, p. 117]. In Level IV (13/12th), there is a sheet metal disk, which has parallels in the MB II at Tell Mardikh {17/16th} [Oates, p. 118 (Reference given [Matthiae, 1981, p 220-21])]. Also there is a glazed vessel [Oates, p.117] and small stone statuettes [p. 106] parallel to Alalakh V {16/15th} century in fill under a Level IV house. In Level II (10/9th) there are ivory, parallel to Alalakh IV, and texts of Late Mitanni Kings Artashumara and Tushratta {14th}. At the bottom of Level Ib (9th) is a Mycenaean LHIIIA stirrup jar {14th}, 5 centuries earlier than its imputed Assyrian date. There is a clear pattern of chronological error from the Level VI down to Level I that can only be explained by a major shifting of the Egyptian chronology downward to the Assyrian dates.
The language of the letters found at Tell Brak is Middle Babylonian. If the Assyrian chronological markers are accepted then the Middle Babylonian Amarna letters must be 9th and display the characteristics of Late Assyrian epigraphy. Soden, an Assyriologist, admits that Amarna letters from northern Syria display "astonishing" Assyriansms. [Soden, W. 1986. Sumer. Vol. 42 p. 106]." Nor are these Assyrianisms restricted to Northern Syria. Moran notes the same thing about the Jerusalem letters [Moran, 1975]. Furthermore, some Kassite texts in Babylonia are assigned to the Amarna period because of their Middle Babylonian epigraphy. Gadd, referring to these tablets of the 'Middle Kassite' period, says, "But the salutations which follow this (the introduction) show a characteristic increase of formality over those of the Hammurabi period (17th century). One official, writing to another, adds after his name 'your brother' and the phrase 'be it well with you', which is ubiquitous in the "Amarna and Late Assyrian letters [Gadd, 1975, p.39]." (Italics added) These 'Middle Kassite' tablets have similar elements to the Late Assyrian letters because they, like the Amarna letters, belong to the 10th and 9th century. The Amarna letters themselves display style, idioms and Assyrianisms characteristic of the Late Assyrian period. Furthermore, these texts resemble Neo-Babylonian texts at Nippur, circa 755 - 612, Cole states "The terminology used to denote alliances in the letters from Nippur is remarkably similar to the language employed in the Aramaic texts ...in the letters of the el Amarna age [Cole, p. 27-8.].
Babylonia
The removal of the written material and seals from Late Babylonia
(11th to 8th centuries) to Middle Kassite Babylonia (15th to 12th)
causes a major archaeological problem. It appears that the Late
Babylonians had no written records. This problem is referred to
as the 'dark age' of Babylonia. Brinkman writes, "Babylonian
history of the first quarter of the first millennium maybe characterized
as a period of obscurity or 'dark age'. Little source material
has survived from these turbulent times [Brinkman, 1982, p.282-313;
James, 1993, p.279]." Brinkman's figure of 60 texts from
Babylonian 'dark age' is reduced to an abysmally small number
when one considers that the Luristan bronzes, representing half
the texts. These were apparently found not in Babylon but in the
Zagros Mountains. Cuneiform texts from other periods of Babylonian
history number in the thousands.
Is it possible that post-Kassite kings used Kassite names? At Dur Kurigalzu there was found a palace in Level I, which by tablets could be dated to late Kassite kings, Kudur Enlil and Marduk-apli-iddina. The construction used a new technique that used bricks vertically placed as well as horizontally. A nearby temple also used this new technique but the inscription claimed its founder was King Kurigalzu. But no Kassite King Kurigalzu reigned so late in the dynasty [Oates, J. 1979. Babylon. p.98]. At Nippur, a boundary stone of Nebuchadnezzar I, a post-Kassite king, was located beneath a 'Kassite' pavement [Armstrong]. The pavement can hardly be both post-Kassite and Kassite at the same time.
The difficulty in distinguishing Middle Kassite from Late Babylonian artefacts is not restricted to written records. The Luristan Bronzes demonstrate the point. James states, "Some of the bronzes, principally daggers, bear the names of Babylonian kings who are dated by conventional Mesopotamian chronology to between 1132 and 944 BC." However, because of the Kassite influence in the decorations, French chronologist Claude Schaeffer ascribed the bulk of the Luristan bronzes to 1500 -1200 BC [James, 1993, p.287]. Artefacts, historically dated to the period of the 'dark age' of Mesopotamia, are transferred to the Kassite period because their art corresponds to the art in strata dated by Middle Babylonian texts with Kassite royal names. Nor is Schaeffer's evaluation secure. The Late Assyrian influence on the art of these Bronzes has led others, like Ghirshman, to date these to the 8th century [James, p. 288]. The Luristan Bronzes are, like the Amarna letters, Late Assyrian.
The stratigraphy is also affected. The correlated material from Elam, Sumer and the Gulf has been likewise reassigned to the 14th century. Thus, the 'dark age' is spread there too. The problem is exemplified at Qal'at near Bahrain [James, p. 283]. There the Kassite stratum of the 12th century, Level IV, lie directly underneath the Neo-Babylonian of the 8th century, Level V. Either the people moved or the stratum has been misidentified. The latter appears to be true. The strata contains elements associated to the Kassite era by its dating to Amarna age artefacts.
Thus the kings of post-Kassite Babylonian dynasties imitated Kassite culture and adopted Kassite names. This is not uncommon in ancient history. The Libyans after they had conquered Egypt behaved just like Egyptian pharaohs. This has led to mistakenly dating the epigraphy, bronzes, art and cylinder seals to the Kassite era, leaving Babylonia with a "dark age". Once the artefacts similar to those of the Late Assyrian era are returned to 1st millennium Babylonian, the "dark" ages of Mesopotamia will disappear.
OBJECTIONS TO THE RC/BIC MODEL
Old El-Amarna Synchronisms with Mesopotamia
One objection to the proposed model is that Amarna period
Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash and Assur-uballit, king of Assyria,
are already identified as Burnaburiash II, a Kassite king, and
Assur-uballit I, King of Assyrian, dates independently to the
14th century. Unfortunately, this synchronism is just coincidental
and has hampered the uncovering of the true situation. The identification
Of Burnaburiash as a Kassite has great difficulties. Amarna Burnaburiash,
proclaimed himself to be a 'Great King', and claimed Assyrians
were his subjects (Letter 9). Burnaburiash II, the Kassite king,
never ruled over Assyria nor referred to himself as 'Great King'.
The identification of Amarna Assur-uballit has equal difficulties.
Assur-uballit's father (Amarna) was Assur-nadin-ahhe but no ancestor
of King Assur-uballit I of Assyria was known by that name. Furthermore,
Assuruballit's role as spoiler of Shuttarna II, the Mitanni King
is doubtful. The Mitanni king forced his vassals to pay him tribute
to give to an unnamed Assyrian king. . According to Roux "Without
shooting an arrow, Assur-uballit I not only freed his country
from the Mitanni domination but brought about the downfall of
the kingdom to which his fathers had paid tribute" [Roux,
G. p260]. History shows that Assur-uballit I was a vassal of
the Hurrians who ruled Nuzi and Arraphka only a few miles from
Ashur. His inscriptions never mentioned any tribute from Khanigalbat,
nor did he use the title 'Great King' or 'King of the Universe'
as his Amarna namesake did. Gadd has to admit that it is strange
history to receive rewards for rebellion -"the wealth, the
princes and even the territory of his former sovereign" -
instead of punishment [Gadd, 1975, p. 27].
Who, then, is Burnaburiash? The Burnaburiash of the el-Amarna letters ruled Babylon sometime in 910-880 RC. When Babylonian king, Nabu-apla-iddina, died about 910 BIC, his son, Marduk-zakir-shumi, ascended the throne. His brother Marduk-Bel-usate rebelled against him and he was forced to call on Shalmaneser III to help him. Shalmaneser defeated Marduk-Bel-usate and then "joined Babylonia and Assyria together". Thus, Shalmaneser III was the king of Babylon during the Amarna era. This agrees with Velikovsky's identification [Velikovsky, 1952]. Many kings who conquered foreign lands took another name. It is possible that Shalmaneser took the name Burnaburiash as king of Babylon. Shalmaneser III also took the titles 'Great King', 'King of the Universe' [Oppenheim, 1969a, p.233]. Thus he meets the conditions necessary for the Amarna king, Burnaburiash.
A seal of Kidin-Marduk, son of Sa-ilima-damqa, 'the Great Official of Burnaburiash', the 'King of All', was found in Mycenaean strata at Thebes Greece [Bacon, 1971, p.87]. This stratum is Mycenaean. Its Burnaburiash belongs to the Amarna era and per RC must be Shalmaneser III. Archaeologists found lapis lazuli and agate cylinder seals in the same strata [Platon, N. 1964. p.859-61]. The seals were classified as Mycenaean, Kassite/Babylonian of the 14th century and older Babylonian. One was classified as Mitannian and another was Syro-Hittite. According to the RC model, the Mitannian, Syro-Hittite and Mycenaean era is the 10th and 9th century but the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are dated to the 14th and 15th century. But, Sa-ilima-damqa is a very rare name. It is found in Assyria during only one reign, that of Assurnasirpal. He is the eponym for year 880 GAD. His son Kidin-Marduk is the same generation as Shalmaneser III. Thus, the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are not a product of 14th century Babylon but the 9th century.
In Shalmaneser's 6th year, he faced a coalition of forces headed by a commander named Biridri. The coalition included Aduni and Matinu-Baal and the Prince of Asu [Oppenheim, 1969a]. Velikovsky identifies Biridia in the Amarna period as the Commandant of Meggido. He notes a King Aduni mentioned in Letter 75; a Mut-Baal sender of Letter 255; and in Letter 150, Abimilki, King of Tyre, mentions Uzu [Velikovsky, 1952, pp. 310-11]. Hittite King, Suppilulimas I wrote a congratulatory letter to Pharaoh Tutankhamun who could be Saplel, King of Hattina, mentioned in Shalmaneser's annals [Oppenheim, 1969b] These Syrian rulers appear both in the Amarna letters and the 9th century annals of Shalmaneser III. Lastly, in Letter 55 to Akhenaten, Abimilki, king of Tyre, refers to himself three times as the "servant of Shalmatiata". The fall of Tyre to Shalmaneser in year 18, 897 BIC, agrees with the date of the Letter 155 in the reign of Akhenaten is 898-882 RC.
Burnaburiash's Amarna (Letter 9) complained of Egypt's reception of the Assyrian king because he had asked Egypt to stop trade with him in a prior letter [Oppenheim, 1967, p. 116]. Burnaburiash's claim that Assyrians were his subjects and his objection to Egypt's recognition of the Assyrians are consistent only if Assyria was in revolt against him at that time. It was led initially by Assur-danin-apli, son of Shalmaneser. Shalmaneser was forced to seek refuge in Babylon. After his death, his son, Shamsi-Adad V, fought for several years to quell the rebellion. During that time, a non-canonical Assur-uballit could have claimed the throne of Assyria, as 'King of All'.
Dynastic Order
The most obvious objection to the proposed model is that the
conventional order is supported by Manetho, several genealogies
and several king lists. According to Hoffmeier, "a true king-list
arranges names in proper historical order and provides the length
of the reign. Following this definition, the only Egyptian source
that meets these requirements is the Turin Canon." [Hoffmeier,
1997]. The Turin Canon contains the most exhaustive list of kings
from the 1st Dynasty to the 18th Dynasty. It does not, however,
cover the dynasties in dispute. The Abydos and Sakkara king lists
end in the 19th Dynasty. Unlike the Turin Canon, the Abydos and
Sakkara king lists are not complete lists. They omit the kings
of the FIP, SIP, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay. The
selective omission of kings and entire dynasties indicates that
the authors wished to hide embarrassing kings and eras of foreign
domination. It is then possible that the 19th Dynasty may have
wanted to omit the Libyan Dynasty also for the same reason. The
king lists are not helpful in verifying the Manetho's dynastic
order.
Manetho is supported by the Berlin genealogy. The Berlin genealogy lists almost 50 High Priests of Ptah from the Middle Kingdom to Third Intermediate Period. Some panels show the reign of the pharaoh in which the priest was inaugurated. Unfortunately, this genealogy claims that every High Priest was a son of the previous High Priest. Since we know that the Libyan pharaohs gave the appointment of the High Priest of Ptah to a new family in the middle of their dynasty this cannot be true. Thus, the Berlin genealogy is not a true genealogy. It has some other purpose and this fact limits its credibility for chronology and dynastic order. In the RC model, it belongs to the Greek period. During the Greek period there was nationalistic contention for the honour of the most ancient civilization. This may have been one instance of a chauvinistic claim. Manetho may have used the Berlin genealogy to order his dynastic history so that they may not be independent sources. Manetho must stand or fall with the archaeological and historic evidences.
Horemhab is supposedly the link between the 18th and 19th Dynasties. Velikovsky places him at the end of the Ethiopian era in league with an Assyrian king who appears on his tomb in Memphis, complete with translator [Velikovsky, 1979]. He destroyed or reused much of the material from Akhenaten and Tutankhamun but this does not mean that he did so immediately after their reigns. His cartouche appears on the tomb of a Shoshenq, "Crowned Prince, Chief Priest of Memphis, Son of King Osorkon, Lord of the Two Lands (pharaoh)", which was excavated in Saqqara by Badawi [Badawi, 1956]. He identified this Osorkon as Osorkon II but his identification would appear to be mistaken. Osorkon's cartouche does not contain the phrase "si-Bast" that usually adjoins the cartouche of Osorkon II nor does it contain "si-Ese" that usually adjoins the cartouche of Osorkon III. The wealth of the tomb would suggest Osorkon IV. Horemhab's cartouche is carved on the architrave, written on his shoulder with no attempt to erase it. Also, a picture on an outside wall shows a king performing a ritual dance. A cartouche of Seti-Merenptah, also of the 19th Dynasty, is still recognizable on the water flask in his right hand. Badawi assumed that these blocks had been reused from the 19th Dynasty tombs nearby [Badawi, p.160] but the Libyans would hardly have used a block with the image of Horemhab as an architrave. Thus Shoshenq, son of the last 22nd Dynasty pharaoh survived into the post-Libyan period. Horemhab was likely the pharaoh at the time of his death. Thus the 19th Dynasty did not succeed the 18th but rather the 25th.
Nor is the 19th Dynasty connection to the 20th Dynasty secure. The last two pharaohs of the 19th Dynasty in the conventional view were Amenmesse and a woman, Twosre. Setnakht of the 20th Dynasty succeeded her. After Setnakht's death, tomb workers in the Valley of the Kings began tunnelling into the rock to prepare his tomb. Accidentally, they broke into the tomb of Amenmesse [Grimal, 1992, p. 271]. The tomb workers' failure to know the position of Amenmesse 's tomb suggests that Setnakht's tomb workers were of a later generation. The Harris Papyrus confirms this inference. It was written at the end of the reign of Ramses III, son of Setnakht. He alluded to a time when every man had lost his rights. He praised Setnakht for restoring Egypt from the rule of a Syrian named Arsa. The conventional view knows of no foreign rulers at this time.
Velikovsky demonstrated that both 21st and 20th dynasties belonged to the Persian era [Velikovsky, 1977]. To his evidence I add the following. In Saqqara, archaeologists stumbled onto galleries of the Saite/Persian era [Bacon, 1971, p. 233]. Papyri of 5th -3rd century were found, together with a blue glass bearded cobra with a cartouche of Ramses X and furniture with a cartouche of Ramses IX, both of the 20th Dynasty. Are these heirlooms of obscure 11th century pharaohs or contemporary with papyri of the Persian era? Petrie, dated so-called false amphora vases at Nebesheh, a Greek military outpost established after Psammeticus in the 7th century. Torr challenged that these vases could belong to both the 12th/11th century of Dynasties 20 and 21 and the 7th of Dynasty 26. He stated, "In the first place, he (Petrie) ignores the fact that false-necked vases are represented in the tomb of Ramessu III, and must therefore, have been in use within about two centuries of the date when this particular vase (with an inscription of King Pinudjem of 21st Dynasty) was buried." [Torr, 1892, p. 270].
The 21st Dynasty is supposedly linked to the 22nd by a marriage. A statuette was found upon which was inscribed by a High Priest of Amon named Shoshenq Meryamun [Breasted, 1906]. He claimed to be the son of King Meryamun Osorkon and Maatkare, the daughter of King Pasibkenno. Conventionally, these are identified as Osorkon I of the 22nd Dynasty and Psusennes II, the last pharaoh of the 21st Dynasty. However, the High Priest Shoshenq could be the son of King Osorkon "The Elder" and Maatkare, daughter of Psusennes I, both of the 21st Dynasty. Furthermore, this Shoshenq could be identified as Heqakhepere Shoshenq II, who is buried in the 21st Dynasty tomb of King Psusennes in Tanis. The statuette does not securely connect the 21st to the Libyan Dynasty. Thus the 20th Dynasty's connection to the 22nd Dynasty must also be spurious.
Carbon-14 test also place the 20th Dynasty in the Persian era. Nakht, was a 20th Dynasty weaver in the funeral chapel of king User-Khau-Re, whose prenomen was Setnakht. An autopsy of the mummy was done in 1977 at the Royal Ontario Museum [Millet et al,]. A piece of the mummy wrappings from Nakht was sent to Dalhousie University for carbon-14 testing. In 1980, it was reported that DAL-350 registered a carbon-14 date of 345 bc which, when adjusted by the above curve, yields 390 BC.
Stratigraphy
The most significant objection to the proposed model is the
stratigraphic evidence of the 19th Dynasty. According to the conventional
view the Amarna period is LBIIA. It was followed by the LBIIB.
The tombs of the 19th Dynasty typically contain 13th century LBIIB
pottery, contrary to the expectation of the RC/BIC model.
Velikovsky supported this position with stratigraphic evidence from three locations, Tahpanhes, Lachish and Byblos [Velikovsky, 1978]. Psammetichus (663 - 610 GAD) granted Tahpanhes to his Greek and Carian mercenaries to dwell in. It was inhabited until the time of Amasis (569 -525). Petrie found much material from the 26th Dynasty there but none from the 20th to 25th. He also found a temple of Ramses II. At Lachish excavators found a temple founded by Amenhotep III that continued in use until the 19th Dynasty. It contained Israelite pottery of the 7th century. The stratum of the time Nebuchadnezzar, circa 590, contained the scarabs of Ramses II of the 13th century. The coincidence that 13th century strata contained 7th century pottery and 7th century strata contained 13th century scarabs was never explained. The city suffered two major conflagrations one during Ramses's and another during Nebuchadnezzar's era. At Byblos, the king Ahiram was buried in a coffin made by his son. His son's inscription was in Phoenician 8th or 7th century script as was the imported Cypriote pottery but the broken Egyptian vases and the coffin in the tomb came from the time of Ramses II. The LBIIB pottery associated with Ramses II is always associated with 7th century pottery.
James in his analyses examined Mycenaean sites. They all had
voids and debates associated with them. The application of James's
method to 19th Dynasty Asian sites reveals consistent 600-year
voids in the stratigraphic record. For example, Seti I and Ramses
II both mentioned the capture of Qatna in their wars against the
Hittites. Pfeiffer says that after they withdrew from Syria about
"1200, the site lay vacant for over half a millennium until
it experienced a brief revival in the first half of the sixth
century, " [Pfeiffer, 1966. p. 469]. Ugarit was a port city
on the Syrian coast opposite Cyprus and was under the rule of
Egypt in the Middle Kingdom as well as the New Kingdom. Curtis
states its post-19th Dynasty obscurity in these words, "Although
the history of Ugarit really comes to an end in the twelfth century,
In the seventh and sixth centuries the highest point in the Tell
was inhabited, as is shown by the remains of buildings and a small
cemetery of sarcophagi made of large stone slabs, which contain
iron spears, bronze brooches and alabaster flasks [Curtis, 1985,
p. 48]. There were no significant artefacts in between. Byblos
was Egypt's primary client state in Asia. Besides tomb of King
Ahiram (see above) Dunand found many steles that commemorated
Ramses's II victories in Syria. His assistant, Jedijian, would
write this observation, "The results of excavations at Byblos
have shown a curious fact which has been a source of discussion
among scholars. In the excavated area at Byblos there is a complete
absence of stratified levels of the Iron Age, that is the period
of 1200-600 BC." [Jedijian, 1986, p. 57]. During this period,
Byblos was supposedly a thriving commercial centre. Ramses and
Hattusilis III fought in the area of Alalakh. Smith in describing
the art of that era at Alalakh noted, "The lions belong to
the earliest stage of the type that lasted in Syria for six centuries
and closely resemble those, which guard the tomb of Ahiram of
Byblos [Smith, S. 1946. p. 46]. The sculpture of Alalakh exposes
a 600-year anomaly. In each cases LBIIB pottery is followed by
7th or 6th century strata.
CONCLUSIONS
The conventional views of the Amarna identities are dubious and
stem from historical coincidences of names 400 to 500 years earlier.
The real identities of the Amarna correspondence are to be found
in the 10th and 9th century rulers. Mitanni, Syrian, Hittite and
Mycenaean art, ivory and sculpture from the Amarna period are
found in the Late Assyrian, which the conventional chronology
can only handle by creating stratigraphic gaps. The RC/BIC returns
the Late Bronze /Mycenaean period to where the classical archaeologists
first placed it - circa 1200 - 800. This fully restores continuity.
Furthermore, all lesser down dating schemes experience severe problems. James's identifies the Torr/Petrie debate as the root of the Late Bronze/Iron Age problems but he has not restored the smooth stratigraphic and cultural change in the archaeological record [James, 1991, xxi; p. 16]. His Amarna period is moved only 250 years - 200 years short of the Late Assyrian kings who alone could have pressured the Mitanni from the East. He has no convincing correlations in the Amarna era. Lastly, he places the invasions of Seti I and Ramses II, who set up stelae and left a substantial garrison in Beth Shan, in the era of King David. Such an occupation is incongruous with the biblical record. Rohl's 350-year down dating do not resolve the problem. He equates Ramses II with Shishak. This moves Seti's invasion into the reign of Solomon. Neither do these schemes fit the gap at Jericho nor the requirements of the artefacts at Tell Brak. Lastly, they have no convincing identities for Burnaburiash nor Assur-uballit of the Amarna letters.
Table 2 summarizes the problems by region showing both the GAD and RC/BIC dates. A full vacuum 'dark age' has been created in the Mediterranean by consecutive strata dated by artefacts that by Egyptian chronology are 450 years apart. This creates a total lack of history or archaeological artefacts for those 450 years. These strata are consecutive in the RC/BIC. In Anatolia a repetition of the art and sculpture of the 'Hattusas' Hittites is seen in the works of the Syro-Hittites, 500 years later. In Palestine ivories and scarabs of the 18th Dynasty caused the experts to believe that the Israelites had become enamoured with 450-year-old relics. Strangely, this revival did not take place in Egypt. The RC/BIC model resolves these many chronological problems.
Table 2: PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY
| PROBLEM | PROVINCE | DATES | DESCRIPTION | EXAMPLE |
| Full Vacuum 'Dark age' |
Mediterranean | 1200/750 | Greek Mycenaean ceramics of 1200 followed by Greek Iron Age ceramics of 750 | Troy, Mycena |
| Repetition | Anatolia | 1200/750 | Imperial Hittite artefacts 14th - 13th century repeated in style, motifs in the 10th - 9th century of Syro-Hittite states | Hattusas |
| Revival of heirlooms | Palestine | 1450/880 | 18th Dynasty material found in layers relating to Divided Kingdom. | Samaria |
| Partial Vacuum 'Dark age' |
Babylonia, Elam, Ur, Arabia | 1400/850 | Babylonian has history from Assyrian records but lacks any ceramics, art and tablets in situ. Tablets with Late Assyria style of address assigned to (Amarna) Late Bronze GAD | Nippur |
The 'dark age' of Mesopotamia can be resolved by understanding that the Late Bronze elements in Mesopotamia are first millennium. The Luristan Bronzes, Middle Kassite art, Kassite administrative tablets with forms of address similar to Late Assyrian period should be redated to the 10th to 8th century. The corresponding Kassite, Mitanni and Hittite cylinder seals and pottery must also be restored. Once restored, these will be sufficient to eliminate the 'dark age' of Mesopotamia. It is very important to understand that the argument used above is based solely on Mesopotamian artefacts, history and tablets and comparisons to their Late Assyrian counterparts. It is a line of reasoning independent of the any Egyptian evidence presented in support of Velikovsky's scheme and thus is an independent confirmation of it.
REFERENCES
Albright, W.F. The Ostraca of Samaria, Ancient Near
Eastern Texts (Revised), Ed., J. Pritchard,1969, Princeton University
Press, N.J., p. 321
Armstrong, J.A., The Archaeology of Nippur from the Decline of the Kassite Kingdom, Ph.D. Thesis, 1989, University of Chicago.
Akurgal, E., The Art of the Hittites, 1962, London, Thames and Hudson.
Badawi, A., Das Grab des Kronenprinzen Scheschonk, Sohnes Osorkon II und Hohenpriester von Memphis, Annales du Service des Antiquités, Vol. 54, (1956), p. 159ff.
Bacon, E., Archaeology: Discoveries in the 1960's, 1971, Praeger Publishers, New York.
Breasted, J., Ancient Records of Egypt. 1906, Vol. IV, Russell & Russell, N.Y.
Brinkman, J.A., Babylonia 1000-748, Cambridge Ancient History III:1, 1982, Vol. III:1, pp. 282-313.
Cole, S., Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, 755-612 BC, State Archives of Assyria, Study IV, 1996, Helsinki, p. 27-8
Crowfoot, G. Crowfoot, J., Early Ivories of Samaria, 1938, Palestinian Exploration Fund. London. p. 2
Curtis, A., Cities of the Biblical World: Ugarit, 1985, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, p. 48.
Gadd, J., Assyria and Babylonia 1370-1300 BC, Cambridge Ancient History. II:2, 1975, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
Gasche, H., Armstrong, J.A., Cole, S.W. and Gurzadyan, V.G., Dating the fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-millennium Chronology, 1998, University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Grimal, N., A History of Ancient Egypt, 1992, Blackwell, Oxford, p. 271.
Hoffmeier, James K., King Lists, The Context of Scripture, W. Hallo and K. Younger,Jr. Editors, 1997, Leiden, N.Y., N.Y. , p. 68.
Herodotus. The Histories (Trans. Aubrey de Selincourt). Penguin Books. Harmondsworth.
James, P., et al., Centuries in Darkness, 1993, Rutgers University Press, Brunswick, N.J.
Jedijian, N., Byblos through the Ages, 1986, Beirut. Dar el-Machreq. p.57
Kantor, H., Syro-Palestinian Ivories. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956), p 153-174.
Loud, G., The Megiddo Ivories, 1939, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 9.
Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 BC. , 1990, Doubleday. New York.
Mercer, S.A.B., The Tell El Amarna tablets, 1939, MacMillan, Toronto
Millet, N.B., et al, Autopsy of an Egyptian Mummy, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 117, (1977), No. 5, p. 461-476.
Montgomery, A., Towards a Biblically Inerrant Chronology, Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, R. Walsh et al., Editors, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA., p. 395-406.
Moran, W.L., Unity and Diversity, Goedicke et al., Editors, 1975, p. 154.
Oppenheim, L., Letters from Mesopotamia, 1967, University of Chicago Press. Ill. p. 116 .
Oppenheim, L., The Fight against the Aramean Coalition. ANET (Revised), 1969a, p. 233. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press.
Oppenheim, L., Annalistic Report. ANET (Revised), 1969b, p. 277. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press.
Pfeiffer, C., The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, 1966, Baker Books. Grand Rapids. p. 469.
Platon, N. & Stassinopoulou-Touloupa, E., Oriental Seals from the Palace of Cadmus: Unique Discoveries in Boeotian Thebes, Illustrated London News, (1964).
Puchstein, O., Pseudohethitsche Kunst, 1890, Berlin, p. 13.
Reisner, G.A.; Fisher, C.S. and Lyon, D.G., Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-1910, 1924, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rohl, D., Pharaohs and Kings: a Biblical Quest, 1995, Crown Publishers. N.Y.
Rowe, A., Topography and history of Beth-Shan, 1930, University Press, Philadelphia, p. 26.
Roux, G. Iraq.
Soden, W, Sumer, Vol. 42 (1986), p. 106.
Torr, C., Aegean pottery in Egypt, The Academy, Vol. 42, (1892), No. 1064. p. 270.
Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, 1952, Doubleday & Co. Garden City, N.Y.
Velikovsky, I., Peoples of the Sea, 1977, Doubleday &Co., Garden City, N.Y.
Velikovsky, I., Ramses II and his Times, 1978, Doubleday &Co,
Garden City, N.Y.
.
Velikovsky, I., The Correct Placement of Horemhab in Egyptian
History, Kronos, Vol. 4, (1979), No 3, pp. 2-22.
Wilson, J. A., Campaign of Shoshenq I, ANET (3rd Edition), Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969, Princeton University Press. N.J.
Young, R.S., Gordion: Preliminary Report, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 59 (1956), p. 12.
Posted November 21, 2003.