By Alan Montgomery[1]
During the 19th century, Europeans came across certain
monuments at Yazilikaya. Yazilikaya is situated just outside Boghazkoi, the
site of ancient Hattusas. Hattusas was the ancient capital of the Hittite
Empire. At Yazilikaya are many rock carvings showing important figures of the
Hittite world. One such carving represents the assembling of two kings, each
holding their royal emblems together with their respective entourages. One is
dressed in a tight-fitting dress with a high conical cap and wore a beard. The
other is dressed in loose flowing robes with a square-turreted headdress and
has no beard. The headdress of the first resembled the well-known Phrygian
bonnet and the second resembled a Persian style crown. Two figures next to them
held symbols of a new moon and an eclipsed sun. These two were eventually
identified as late seventh century kings, Alyattes, the king of Lydia and
Cyaxares the king of the Medes. According to Herodotus [Histories I.74] these
two kings came to do battle. The eclipse was a sign from heaven - a bad omen for warring nations - so
the two were reconciled in a peace treaty due to the urging of the kings of
Babylon and Cilicia. This was sealed by the betrothal of the daughter of King
Alyattes to the son of Cyaxares. The date of the rock carving was thus set in
the late seventh century or the early sixth century.
The dress of the two figures certainly represents what we know of the
royal apparel of the seventh century. In addition, the regal weaponry displayed
was a club and battleaxe well known from Assyrian carvings of the same date.
Furthermore, these weapons appeared on Assyrian reliefs only as late as the
reign of Ashurbanipal (668-632 BC). Nearby, the ruins of Hattusas revealed
architecture of the palace area that resembled that of the Northwest Palace of
Nineveh built in the early seventh century by Sennacherib, King of Assyria.
[Barth, H. pp 128-157]. The dating of these carvings of Yazilikaya prior to the
seventh century would appear to be excluded.
The Assyrians also influenced the art of the ancient Hittites. An art
expert expressed his opinion after studying the rock carvings at Yazilikaya and
Boghazkoi that the Hittite art forms were the result of Assyrian innovations
that were introduced into Mesopotamia in the seventh and sixth centuries BC and
not before. The most prominent motifs of Hittite art belong to the seventh
century and were not present in the art of even the late eighth century BC. [Puchstein,
1890.] This too would seem to dictate the date of the New Hittite Empire to the
seventh century and not before.
This opinion was reversed because of the discovery of the archive of the
Hittites found at Boghazkoi in 1906 by Winckler. Thousands of Hittite clay
tablets were discovered. These tablets were in several languages including
Hittite, Nessian and cuneiform Babylonian. As the scholars deciphered these
texts they came across a peace treaty with an Egyptian Pharaoh named Ramesses
II, a mighty king of the 19th Dynasty. The existence of the treaty
was not news. The Egyptologists had found the Egyptian version of the treaty.
The two treaties were compared and found to be the same. The treaty could now
be firmly dated to the time of Ramesses II of Egypt, the thirteenth century BC,
over six hundred years earlier than had been suspected. This discovery touched
off a controversy. In the end the secure date of the treaty to the 21st
year of Ramesses reign was unavoidable. The Egyptian chronology was fixed to
within 25 years by pharaonic lists and confirmed by astronomy. The evidence
associating the New Hittite Empire to the seventh century was discounted.
The Hittite annals, however, continue to provide problems rather than
solve them. To start, the Hittite annals from the Boghazkoi archives showed
many similar features in style and expression to the Assyrian annals of the
seventh century. The tablets revealed a state of scientific knowledge that
rivalled the Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians. Hymns, literature, mythology and
prayers continued the trend in seventh century similarities with their
neighbours. Hittite civil law showed many of the advances that appeared in the
era of the Assyrian Empire. This produced some wonderment among Hittitologists,
that a civilization of the 14th and 13th century BC had
produced, in all that concerns science, law, literature, royal annals,
traditions and habits, a culture so closely resembling that of the “Assyrian
Empire of the eighth and seventh century BC and the Neo-Babylonian Empire of
the seventh and sixth centuries.” [Velikovsky, I. 1978] Still more puzzling was
the disappearance of all this in the century following the fall of the New
Hittite Empire and its duplication over the next six hundred years.
Then the Hittitologists found the annals of Mursilis II, recounted in a
text entitled the “Deeds of Suppiluliumas”. It revealed a trans-generational
struggle of the Hittites of Hattusas against Arzawa and Assuwa in the west and
Assyria in the east and Egypt in the south. In his seventh year Mursilis II
expected an Egyptian attack and asked his allies to report any movement of the
Egyptians in Nuhasse just south of Hittite territory. He promised
reinforcements if the Egyptians attacked. In his ninth year Mursilis II records
that the Assyrians retook Carchemish, a Hittite stronghold on the Euphrates
River. These events were unknown in the thirteenth century. The first mention
of Hittite soldiers in the Assyrian annals was the eleventh century under
Tiglath-Pileser I. The first capture of Carchemish in Assyrian history was not
recorded until Sargon II at the end of the eighth century. The Assyrians lost it and then
recaptured it late in the seventh century.
To the historians the taking of Carchemish as well as the apparent
alliance of Egypt with Assyria was all new information. No such alliance was
apparent in the thirteenth century. The only alliance of Egypt and Assyria is
recorded in II Kings 23:29; “While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt
went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria.”[2]
Pharaoh Necho later fought with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon at Carchemish.
He lost and Nebuchadnezzar advanced and took all Egyptians possessions in
southern Levant, including Judah. The pharaoh's help could not prevent the fall
of the last vestiges of Assyrian power. The Chaldeans, Babylonians and the
Medes finished off Nineveh, Assur and eventually the last outpost, Harran. The
participation of the Hittites is not mentioned[3].
The annals of Mursilis II had another unintended consequence. The rock
figures of Yazilikaya were studied and found to have the same cartouches and
the same style clothing as those of Mursilis and his successors, including
Hattusilis III who had made the treaty with Ramesses II of Egypt. They had to
be the same age. Dating Mursilis II to the thirteenth century put the royal
robed entourages with the symbols of the solar eclipse in their palms in the
same century. But the King of Lydia with his Phrygian bonnet and the King of
the Medes with his Persian tiara were unknown in the thirteenth century.
About the time that the archives of Boghazkoi were discovered, the city
of Gordion to the west was excavated. The Phrygian king named Gordias, the
father of Midas, had built Gordion. The Phrygians were among the allies of Troy
in the Trojan War and were well known to the Greeks. The Greeks preserved a
legend of the most famous Phrygian king, King Midas. The legend was that Midas
acquired the magic touch so that everything he touched turned to gold. This
talent backfired when he touched his daughter and turned her into gold much to
his chagrin. The legend aside, the Assyrians also knew of King Midas. In the
days of Sargon II, King Midas formed a coalition of Anatolian states and pushed
east into the area known today as Cilicia. The Assyrians who called him Mita,
King of the Mushki, perceived Midas as a threat.
At Gordion, the German excavators identified a stratum related to the
time of King Midas. The east-Greek pottery and terracotta were familiar to the
Greek archaeologists and dated the stratum to the eighth century. However, it
was pointed out that the site also contained Hittite pictographic
hieroglyphics. Since these hieroglyphics were associated with the New Hittite
Empire, which ended in the thirteenth century, the date of the stratum was put
in doubt. The east-Greek pottery of the Gordion stratum had also been found at
Boghazkoi and its chronological significance was also challenged.
After World War II, the Americans under Young continued the excavation
of Gordion. The top stratum was clearly identified as belonging to the time of
the Persians. The Persians under Cyrus the Great had battled the famous King
Croesus of Lydia. He had asked the soothsayers if he ought to attack the
Persian king. The soothsayer replied that if he attacked the Persians he would
destroy a great kingdom. He attacked only to lose and have his own kingdom
destroyed. This was in 548 BC. The third stratum was again identified as
belonging to the Phrygians and dated to the eighth century. The Phrygian
kingdom came to an end when the Cimmerians had attacked it, in 687 BC. This
left the second stratum sandwiched neatly between these two precise dates.
The second stratum turned out to be a conundrum. It contained a copious
amount of Hittite pottery and telltale pictographic hieroglyphics. Young was
faced with two obvious problems to explain. First, how had the clayey soil
containing the Hittite material found its way to Gordion and formed a
four-meter layer all over the Gordion. Young explained that the second stratum
had been imported by the Persians and placed over the existing Phrygian
layer. Young states, “For the
purposes of dating, the shards or layer of clay are of little use; they are
almost entirely Hittite.” The pottery was “a deposit already in the clay when
it was brought in from elsewhere to be laid down over the surface of the
Phrygian city mound. [Young, p. 12]
Young's explanation was dubious of several grounds. First, it fails to
address why the Persians would want to perform this task. In no other site did
any conquering power perform such a feat. It would take an immense amount of
manpower to transport such a layer from Hittite territory miles to the east. It
has no apparent advantage. Neither the positioning nor size of the deposit
makes any particular sense. What earthly purpose could such a procedure
accomplish?
Second, the original layer that belonged to the period 687 to 548 BC is
missing. Where did it go? Even if the Persians wanted some stratum removed for
construction, it would not be entirely missing. There would remain some areas
untouched. And where was the pottery and tools of the missing inhabitants? None
were found. The excavator could not imagine a circumstance to explain why the
Persians removed a layer, only that layer and that entire layer. He therefore
concluded that the site had been abandoned. This conclusion is also dubious.
When a city is abandoned dust and erosion accumulates a layer containing no
artefacts at all and removes some of the soil already present. A layer with no
contents mixed by erosion in some places with the previous layer is expected.
None was observed at Gordion. It is almost as if Cyrus the Great had conceived
some diabolical plot to confuse further archaeologists. Such an idea is
paranoid. One must conclude that either the Persians meticulously removed many
thousands of tons of the layer then present and replaced it with a Hittite
layer of equal proportions for a purpose not understood or that the whole
proposition is the result of poorly framed archaeological theory.
Such a conclusion puts the question of dating the New Hittite Empire
back in question. Gordion strata, read in the normal archaeological way, would
tell us that the New Hittite Empire rose following the chaos created by the
Cimmerians and the fall of King Midas and his Phrygian kingdom. That the
Hittites expanded to the west, took over Gordion and held Lydia and Assuwa in
check. Then, a century later, the Hittites fell under the power of the
Persians. That would again bring back the late seventh early sixth centuries as
the time of the New Hittite Empire. This must reflect back on the conclusions
reached by the archaeological investigators of Boghazkoi, the site of the
Hittite capital Hattusas.
Bittel and Gueterbock excavated the Hittite capital in the 1930's. The
top stratum, Level I, they found late Phrygian and post-Phrygian ceramics
together with Greek language inscriptions, evidence of the seventh and sixth
centuries. There were also Hittite seals. In the next stratum, Level II, they
found much Hittite pottery and Hittite seals with pictographic hieroglyphics of
the Hittite Empire. This was evidence of the thirteenth century. But there was
also east Greek pottery found in the houses of Level II. Among the thirteenth
century Hittite items there was pottery, which could not be dated earlier than
the eighth/seventh century. The
excavators concluded that the houses had been occupied in the eighth/seventh
century and that the occupants had kept the old thirteenth century pottery in
their homes as well as seventh century pottery. The excavators dated the strata
to the eighth/seventh century but were not clear why Phrygian related people
would keep the thirteenth century Hittite heirlooms; or why they kept nothing
that could be dated between the thirteenth and the seventh century? [Bittel & Gueterbock]
The confusion at Gordion and Boghazkoi played a role in interpreting the
excavations at Alisar. Alisar is a mound situated 50 miles southeast of
Boghazkoi. It was active during the Hittite era. In Period IV at Alisar, the
excavators found Hittite pictographic seals – the hallmark of the Hittite
Empire. They dated Alisar IV to the thirteenth century. This dating was made
despite the presence of Late Geometric pottery and Iron Age fibulae or buckles.
Furthermore, these particular buckles were well-advanced buckles not used until
the eighth century. It was further
pointed out to the excavators that some of the pottery when compared to the
pottery of Gordion had close affinities to the Phrygian pottery group and was
probably seventh century. The date of this stratum was shifted to the seventh
century according to the evidence. The excavators decided that the pictographic
Hittite seals belonged to a much later date and their connection to the Hittite
Empire was “rather questionable” [Von der Osten]
The dates of the stratum and those following were adjusted four hundred
years. This deprived the Hittites of their script and deprived the script of a
people who used them. The conclusion could not and did not stand. At first,
excavators had tried to separate the Hittite pictographic seals from the east
Greek and Phrygian pottery dates. This was awkward. Then, they had tried to
connect the Hittite pictographic hieroglyphic seals to the pottery and the
fibulae and separate them from the Empire. This was ridiculous. There was no
satisfying solution.
Eventually, more and more Hittite sites in Anatolia were excavated. In
each case, strata that could not be dated earlier than the eighth century
followed the Hittite stratum. This left a hole in the strata between 1200 BC,
the end of the Hittite Empire, and 750 BC, the beginning of the Phrygian
kingdom. The gap was systematic all over the Hittite territory. The eminent
Turkish archaeologist could say in the 1960's that there was a dark age in
central and southern Turkey “between 1200 BC and 750 BC in central Asia minor.”
[Akurgal, E.1961. Die Kunst Anatolians, Berlin, p. 7] Taken at face value this
means the total abandonment of the central plateau of Turkey, that was the
Hittite heartland for over 400 years. Neither the Hittites nor their enemies
came to inhabit the Hittite land. Such a disappearance cannot be accepted
without bringing the basic principles of stratigraphy into doubt. The problem,
however, is not the stratigraphy or the archaeologists. The real problem is the
unsynchronised state of the archaeological dating system, part of it dated by
Greek and Assyrian chronology and part dated to Egyptian chronology, without
the two systems being themselves synchronized.
Although no trace of the Hittite Empire can be found in central or
southern Anatolia after 1200 BC, it was not the end of the Hittite culture. To
the east of Hattusas across the mountains lay such cities as Tegarama, Marash
and Carchemish and such states as Samal and Commagene. They used the Hittite
pictographic script and displayed Hittite style in their monumental art. These
cities were not part of the empire but arose independently in the tenth or
ninth century. Nevertheless when the Assyrians invaded their collective
territory they banded together into a coalition.
The history of these states has been gleaned mostly from the records of
the Assyrians. The monumental art of these cities shows increasing Assyrian
influence with time but gives every indication of local indigenous city state
cultures. This speaks of local autonomy and development rather than centralized
control. It is inconsistent with the Hittite Empire with its vassal treaties
and international correspondence. In the conventional view these city-states
sprang from the Empire whereas history has shown that local autonomous states
tend to grow into centralized empires. The other anomaly stems from the fact
that the local Hittite city-states did not arise until over 300 years after the
fall of the Hittite Empire. How then was the Hittite tradition transmitted to
the Neo-Hittite states after such a long lapse in the Empire? Why was the
tradition not copied from the Hattusas exemplars rather than reverting to
something much more primitive? How is it that the imperial Hittites were so
advanced that only in the seventh century was the rest of the world able to
catch up to them? And, being that advanced what overcame them?
The largest and strongest of the Neo-Hittite states was Carchemish. It
is situated on the big bend in the Euphrates River. South of Carchemish the
Euphrates flows southeast to the Persian Gulf. North of Carchemish the
Euphrates bends back toward Mount Ararat.
Archaeologists anticipated that Carchemish would be continuously
occupied. This meant that it would
connect the Neo-Hittite states to the Hittite empire. They were disappointed.
Woolley excavated Carchemish. In the inner citadel he discovered a tomb
containing artefacts reminiscent of the Hittite Empire. The tomb was a
cremation burial and it yielded many small but significant objects. These
included gold beads, nails with golden heads, lapis lazuli, steatite and ivory.
There were also 39 figurines made of gold. Woolley noted the similarity of
these figurines to the rock carvings at Yazilikaya, just outside Hattusas. The
images of the gods and nobility were almost identical in respect of both
clothing and emblems. The chief god wore a long robe, carried a winged disk
above its head, and wore a conical headdress, open kilt and a caduceus-like
staff. A female figure wore a pleated skirt reaching to her feet. The soldiers
wore short kilts, pointed helmets and boots with curled up toes. The close
relationship to the Yazilikaya rock reliefs of the New Hittite Empire was
unmistakable. This should have been a triumph for Woolley. It was not. Instead
it was a great puzzle and produced a great debate.
The tomb that Woolley had opened was situated definitely in the stratum
designated to the late Neo-Assyrian Empire – i.e. it was a seventh
century grave. How was Woolley to explain the obvious 13th century look-alikes
as artefacts of the seventh century? One could not rewrite centuries of Assyrian
history. Could some family have held onto these treasured heirlooms for 600
years and then for some unknown reason buried them with a single relative? Or
could there have been a sudden revival of art from the Hittite Empire after 600
long years? Both these ideas seemed strange. The other peculiarity is the that
the imperial art appears to be closely related to the art of the Neo-Hittite
seventh century rather than the earlier Hittite art, such as the Lion Gate at
Malatya
Woolley decided that the items had to be imitations of imperial Hittite
art. Gueterbock disagreed, “Two possibilities offer themselves: either the
figurines were made before 1200 and handed down as heirlooms until they were
deposited in the tomb or they were made in the Late Hittite period but in a
style that survived the empire. Sir Leonard (Woolley) seems inclined to favour
the second. I would rather prefer the heirloom theory.” But Gueterbock had
absolutely no evidence connecting the royal family of the empire with that of
seventh century Carchemish [Gueterbock, 1954].
Another problem concerns the fortress. The Assyrian King, Shalmaneser
III, in the ninth century BC had Assyrian artists depict the fortress of the
Carchemish on the bronze gate at Balawat. The fortress walls had triangle
shaped tops. These tops are similar to those depicted by Ramesses II in his
account of his battle at “Kadesh” Kadesh here is the Semitic term for “holy
city or temple”. This is the same Ramesses II who made a treaty with the
Hittite King Hattusilis III in the 13th Century. But had the fortress's
appearance really remained unchanged in 400 years?
Woolley also excavated a wall called Herald's Wall. A relief on this
wall again showed a Hittite goddess. This goddess had an elaborate headdress
with a crown divided by the vertical grooves and joined halfway up by
cross-lines. Comparing this to a sculpture of a Hittite goddess at Yazilikaya,
Woolley observed a “striking resemballance” (sic) [Woolley, 1952]. Again
Woolley noticed a wall that was part of the latest Hittite structures of
Carchemish and at the same time an art style and iconography that was similar
to the imperial Hittites of the 13th century. Further along Herald's Wall was
King's Gate. The King's Gate sculptures showed clear signs that it was a much
later Neo-Hittite style and date. A Wall containing sculptures of the early
imperial style and at the same time sculptures of a later Neo-Hittite style was
self-contradictory.
Another feature of the Neo-Hittite cities like Carchemish is its use of
Hittite pictographic script.
By the end of the Hittite empire, the Hittites had almost stopped the
use of these pictographs and had increased their use of cuneiform. They used
this in writing in Babylonian, the diplomatic language, but also used Hattili
and Neshili languages. The Neo-Hittite states, as they were closer to
Mesopotamia were more likely to be influenced by Assyrian or Babylonian
cuneiform. However, they showed little sign of converting from pictographs to
cuneiform. Again the Neo-Hittites showed reversion to the ancient ways. Or did
they precede the modernization shown by the Hittites of Hattusas?
In the mountains to the north of Carchemish, lies Malatya. Delaporte
excavated Malatya. Delaporte uncovered Hittite monuments similar to those of
the imperial Hattusas. He first dated them to the 13th Century; this included
the famous Lion Gate. The lion's image has a round face, large feet and a
stylised mane represented by long curly lines or spirals. Art historian,
Frankfort and Hauffman agreed with Delaporte that the lion belonged to the late
stage of the Hittite Empire. Then a problem emerged. As the stratigraphy of Malatya became clearer, it was seen
that the stratum of the Lion gate immediately preceded that of the Assyrian
levels. The Assyrian levels began late in the 8th century and the Neo Hittite
Stratum of the Lion Gate had to be 8th century [Bossert, H. T. Altanatolian,
1942, Berlin, p.69].
The evidence from the Neo-Hittite states only illustrate further the
problems encountered in Anatolia. At Boghazkoi, the site of Hattusas, strangely
placed 7th century pottery emerged in the imperial Hittite stratum. At Alisar,
strangely placed 8th/7th century fibulae occurred in the imperial Hittite
stratum. At Gordion strangely placed Hittite pottery of the imperial Hittite
age appeared above the 7th Century Phrygian stratum. At the Neo-Hittite sites
the same correlation with the 8th and 7th century continued to baffle and
puzzle archaeologists, who were constantly in two minds and two dates, the 13th
and the 8th/7th century.
The
problems of the imperial Hittite archaeology and history can be summarized as
follows:
1.
The New Hittite Empire art of the Anatolia shows signs of Assyrian
influence of the 7th and 6th centuries.
2.
The Styles of writing used in the annals is similar to the style of 7th
century Assyrian kings.
3.
Legal proceedings have Assyrian equivalents in the 7th century.
4.
Scientific knowledge reflects the world of the Assyrian and Babylonian
cultures of the 8th to 6th centuries.
5.
Weaponry in the Hittite sculptures reflects the royal weaponry of the
7th century.
6.
Pottery of the 7th century occurs in New Hittite Empire strata.
7.
Anatolian stratigraphic dates and chronology contradict the historical
placement of the Hittite empire.
8.
The history contained in the imperial Hittite annals of Mursilis II
reflect Assyrian power that is 8th century or later.
9.
Hittite sites in Anatolia lack occupation between 1200 and 750 BC.
10. The Neo-Hittite
sites do not exhibit characteristics of offspring of an Imperial Hittite
influence.
What evidence caused the archaeologists to date the Hittite Empire to
the 13th century in complete defiance of all archaeological data and historical
data of the annals of Mursilis II? The sole reason for this date was the treaty
signed between Hattusilis III and Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty of Egypt.
Egyptian chronology places Ramesses II firmly in the thirteenth century. This
presupposes a complete and unquestionable confidence in Egyptian chronology. Is
such confidence justified?
The problems listed above stem from the conventional dating system. The
problematic dates are based partly on the Assyrian chronology and partly on the
pottery chronology of the Greek archaeologists. Can we be more confident in
Egyptian chronology than Assyrian chronology or Greek chronology? For Greek
pottery dating archaeologists date certain styles of pottery but they usually
agree within 25-50 years. Despite the occasional shifting of some dates, a
century of experience has produced results widely accepted among Greek
archaeologists. Assyriologists are extremely confident of dates back to 900 BC
to within a year. Dates for
Assuruballit I, circa 1325 BC rarely differ by more than 20 years.
The reason for this is not just the continuous king lists available to
Assyriologists. It is also the existence of Limmu listings. It was not the
custom of Assyrians to number years rather they named them. Limmus is the term
used for the names given each year in Assyria. The reign lengths of the various
kings can be verified by counting the number of Limmus given for a king’s reign
and crosschecked by identifying those Limmu names found on documents that
relate to his reign. In addition many kings left inscriptions with their
military exploits and their relationship to their forefathers. There is little
to suggest any errors in the 14th century above 20 years.
Biblical chronology is some help in verifying Assyrian dates. Although
some minor differences in dating appears among scholarly chronologies, the
biblical chronology can be reconciled to back to the accession of
Tiglath-Pileser III at 745 GAD[4]
and most would consider it possible to reconcile biblical chronology back to
the reign of Israelite King Ahab and Assyrian King Shalmaneser III who fought
each other a the battle of Qarqar in 853 GAD. There is no hope of moving
Assyrian dates to the degree suggested by the problems listed above. Its impact
on Babylonian history, biblical history and chronology would be prohibitive.
To fix the problems in Hittite history and archaeology, the events, art
and strata that date to the thirteenth century must be moved to the seventh
century. This requires that the treaty between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III
be moved to the seventh century. Within
the context of the Hittite material there is no Hittite chronology to offend
and the Assyrian and Greek dates generally agree on this date. Within the
Egyptian context this cannot be accomplished simply. Egyptologists are firm
about placing Ramesses II in the 13th century. They are certain of their dates
within 20 years just as the Assyriologists. There are no reigns of kings or
dynasties that can be reduced by 700 years.
In the early years of investigation the Egyptologists did not realize
that during the First Intermediate Period and the Second Intermediate Period
that the dynasties in Manetho's lists ruled in different regions of Egypt at
the same time. Once they realized that these dynasties ruled in parallel, the
dates of the dynastic period in Egypt were reduced by 2000 years. But the days
when such mistakes and corrections can produce large shifts are gone. To
suppose that paralleling dynasties for 600 years between the 19th Dynasty of
the thirteenth century and the 26th Dynasty of the seventh century is
realistically impossible. The Assyrians conquered Egypt in the seventh century.
Their opponents, the Ethiopians had controlled the Nile delta for the last
quarter of the eighth century and the Libyan Dynasties had controlled Egypt for
over a century before that. Synchronisms occur in the reigns of the Ethiopian
Taharka and King Hezekiah in the Bible and between Ethiopian monarch Shabataka
and Assyrian King Sargon II in the last decade of the eighth century.
There is, however, one possible solution to the problem of reducing the
date of the 19th Dynasty. That is to substitute it for the 26th Dynasty. This
scheme assumes that the Manetho was confused about the dynastic order. Under
this assumption he could have had two independent sources of information for
the 26th Dynasty and may have listed the same dynasty twice so that the seventh
century dynasty also appeared in the thirteenth century. Failing to recognize that the two
sources spoke of the same dynasty, he created two dynasties. Indeed, this was
the suggestion of Velikovsky [Velikovsky, 1978.]
Much of Velikovsky's case relied on identifying Necho II or Necos II of
the 26th Dynasty as the alter ego of Ramesses II. According to the Bible and
Greek historians such as Herodotus, Necho II was a powerful seventh century monarch
who fought Nebuchadnezzar, the Neo-Babylonian King of Babylon. At Carchemish
the two monarchs faced off and Nebuchadnezzar won and Necho II lost. Velikovsky
claimed that a Ramesside inscription entitled “Poem of Pentaur” was an exact
account of this battle from the Egyptian point of view. In the Egyptian version
the battle takes place at Kadesh. Kadesh is Hebrew for Holy Place or Holy City.
Egyptologists assert that this battle took place in southern Syria at Riblah.
Velikovsky demonstrated that Riblah, the modern Tell Nebi-Mend had neither the
required topography nor the required towns situated along the route to Kadesh.
Kadesh was one of the ancient names for Carchemish. Carchemish did have the
required topography and the correctly named towns along the approaching road.
Showing that both pharaohs attacked Carchemish was necessary but not sufficient
as proof that they were alter egos.
What would have been conclusive is to compare the Egyptian inscriptions
of Necho II to those of Ramesses II. Unfortunately, there are none. Though the
foreign conquests of a pharaoh of the 13th century BC are known from prolific
inscriptions that are found in every part of Egypt, the foreign conquests of a
just as mighty seventh century pharaoh are totally unknown in Egypt. Not a
single monument or papyrus has shed the slightest light on Necho's military
campaigns. This should puzzle Egyptologists. In contrast the Greeks, the
Israelites and the Babylonians all describe the battle that changed the balance
of power in their world on their watch. Not only are the inscriptions missing
but also the tomb and mummy of Necho II are missing; and not just the tomb of
Necho II but the tombs and mummies of all the 26th dynasty pharaohs. Yet not
even one tomb or mummy of the thirteenth century 19th Dynasty is missing. This
fact alone should have alerted Egyptologists of an error of major proportions.
What might account for this strange duality? Could it be that the two
pharaohs are the same person? Are the two dynasties the same dynasty with
different names? Are the accounts of Ramesses II the missing accounts of Necho
II? Are the stories of Necho II in foreign sources the reason that, except for
the Hittites, no mention of the great pharaoh Ramesses II has ever been found?
Velikovsky compared the campaigns of Ramesses II and Necho II in sequence.
First, according to both Egyptian and biblical sources, there was a Palestinian
Prince who interrupted a march northward at Megiddo. This prince (Josiah) was
shot with an arrow and died. The royal successor was captured and taken captive
to Riblah and from there to Egypt, never to be heard from again. The record of
the Bible concerning Necho II and the inscriptions of Ramesses II agreed in
detail [II Kings 23:29-34]. According to Egyptian sources and the Bible three
or four years later Pharaoh proceeded northward again to meet his archenemy at
Carchemish. The battle was lost and Pharaoh retreated. The enemy captured all
the territory between Egypt and Carchemish, including Jerusalem [Jeremiah 46].
Again the record of the Bible concerning Necho II and the story of Ramesses II
agreed in detail. Sixteen years later, Jerusalem was under attack by the
Chaldeans and Babylonians. The Egyptian army left Egypt and forced the
Chaldeans to break the siege. Yet, they returned quickly to continue the siege
[Jer 37:5-11]. It would appear that the Egyptians lost again and had to sue for
peace. Historians assume some kind of treaty was signed. Ramesses II, also
sixteen years after the battle of Carchemish entered into a treaty with his
archenemy, Hattusilis III. Again, within the same interval of time there came
about the same circumstances.
Both Ramesses II and Necho II encountered resistance at Megiddo and
killed the local prince and took a local prince hostage, fought and lost a
battle at Carchemish and made peace with the opposition sixteen years later.
Certainly history repeats itself. Coincidences do happen but there are here too
many details and coincidences to dismiss these ones. They provide a solid basis
to propose that Ramesses II and Necho II are one and the same person.
To further this proposal that Ramesses II and his treaty with Hattusilis
and its thirteenth century date must be shown to conflict with archaeological
data. Already it has been shown that a thirteenth century Hattusilis III
produces a number of significant problems for Hittite stratigraphy and art
historians and that apart from this treaty the Hittite Empire can be securely
dated to the seventh century without conflict. What then do archaeology and its
stratigraphy say about the 19th Dynasty?
Stratigraphy in Egypt plays a smaller role because much of Egypt is on
the fringe of the desert with its shifting sands and many of the monuments are
carved right into rock faces. Nevertheless some results in Egypt are puzzling.
Tell Nebesh lies a few miles from the site of Tanis. A statue and a temple
constructed by Ramesses II were discovered there. Pharaoh Amasis made a small
addition to it in the sixth century and left his inscription. Amasis also
allowed his Cypriot mercenaries to inhabit the town and many of their graves
have been uncovered. There were also graves from the time of Ramesses II. One
would expect that a town in the rich Nile delta would be populated for a
considerable time after Ramesses death and that their graves might also be
found. They are not. Nor are there any additions to the temple between the
thirteenth century and the sixth. It is a rare temple indeed that in the course
of 700 years does not require substantial repairs or the occasional addition.
Inscriptions of the pharaoh who did the repairs normally accompany such
repairs. The remains left by Ramesses II have had no inscriptions added by the
pharaohs of the years 1200 to 600 BC.
During the seventh century Psammetichus, father of Necho II, employed
Greek-speaking mercenaries. He gave them the town of Tahpenes or Daphnae to
live in. This town was situated near the mouth of the Pelusiac branch of the
Nile. The mercenaries’ job was to protect the border. Tahpenes is also mentioned
in the book of Jeremiah as having a royal palace and pavement [Jer 43:9]. The
site of Tahpenes is Tell Defenneh. Petrie, the excavator of Tell Defenneh,
found the Greek armour, tools and pottery of the seventh century. Petrie also
discovered a temple built in the time of Ramesses II and a statue initialled
with Ramesses II cartouche. This was rather unexpected as no material of other
dynasties was found nor any artefacts that predated the seventh century [Petrie
1888]. At Tell Maskhuta, the biblical Succoth, the excavator Holladay found the
next strata above the Hyksos strata was a stratum with 7th century
pottery. Yet, several statues of
Ramesses II are known from this location [Kitchen, 2003].
In the Levant, there are also places where artefacts of Ramesses II are
found. The most famous perhaps is the Tomb of Ahiram. The coffin of Ahiram is
inscribed with the words, “The coffin which Ithobaal, son of Ahiram, King of
Gwal (Byblos), made for his father...” The inscription is written in Hebrew script.
The date of the Hebrew script was difficult to determine but it is close to the
one carved in a water tunnel during the reign of Hezekiah about the end of the
eighth century. There was also Cypriot pottery found in the tomb dated to the
seventh century by Dussard. But the date of Ahiram tomb was disputed. As well
as 7th century Cypriot ware there was also a 13th vase with a cartouche of
Ramesses II. Furthermore, the style of the coffin was also 13th century. The
conflict between the two dates was never satisfactorily resolved. The one
assumption that was never tested was the chronological system. If Ramesses II
and Hattusilis III were placed in the seventh century the Ahiram tomb evidence
would totally be reconciled.
At Byblos several pieces of stone were discovered with the cartouche of
Ramesses II. Other Ramesses
carvings were found at the mouth of the Nahr el-Kelb river. A doorway was also found with Ramesses
II cartouche. As Byblos was always
allied to the Egyptians, this is not surprising. What is surprising is the revelation of one of the
archaeologists, Jedijian. She wrote, “The excavators were unable to perceive
any stratification of the Iron Age, a period which must have been a period of
great commercial activity. [Jedijian].” Thus the excavators were unable to
identify any stratum that could be dated between 1200 – 600 BC. That is, there was no stratum between
the end of the 19th Dynasty and the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
At Beth Shan, Ramesses II set up a stele dated to his ninth year. This
he set up next to one of his father Seti I. The content of the stele is not so
amazing as the context. The excavators found the stele in Stratum V. The
pottery of Stratum V was Iron II (900-600 BC). Stratum IV belongs to the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian era. Above this stratum III was clearly Hellenistic
Greek 4th Century. The excavators having found a thirteenth century stele in
Iron II postulated that somebody had “thrown it up” [Rowe, 1930]. That is,
somebody removed it from Stratum VII where it belonged chronology-wise and
replaced it in Stratum V. No historical accounts supported this view nor did
any physical evidence. But without such an assumption the excavators would be
forced to challenge the opinion of the Egyptologists and their chronology. This
exposes the crux of the problem. The raw data of archaeology is conformed to
Egyptian chronology by adding speculative assumptions that cannot be proven or
disproved. This avoids directly challenging Egyptian chronology so that the
thirteenth century dating of Ramesses II continues.
At Lachish at similar situation occurred. The excavator, Macalister,
found a temple. The temple was
rebuilt and repaired during the 18th Dynasty as attested by the scarab of
Amenhotep III in the foundation deposit. There was also 19th Dynasty material
found at this level but it was mixed in with Israelite pottery of Iron II. This
was explained as pottery intruded into the temple level from above by Israelite
burials.
At the citadel, the excavators discovered messages written on potsherds.
These potsherds came from Iron II pottery. The messages were from a nearby
fortress at Azekah. It became obvious that Lachish and Azekah were the last two
fortresses holding out against some hostile force. The citadel was also
severely burned as well as the city's walls. In Iron II, Lachish suffered two
known attacks: one by Sennacherib, King of Assyria and one by Nebuchadnezzar.
The excavators determined that this level belonged to the Babylonian
destruction, but before the final attack on Jerusalem at the beginning of the
sixth century.
Again, the excavators discovered anomalous finds. Among the debris of
the citadel and the gatehouse of the city were found scarabs of Ramesses II as
well as potsherds from the time of the 18th and 19th Dynasty. The excavators, knowing that the
destruction level dated to this sixth century had to explain the presence of
14th/13th century pottery in its ashes. They concluded that the Israelites in
their construction of the defences of Lachish had dug so deep that they had dug
up this extraneous material from a lower level. Again, the excavators had to
find an explanation or challenge the Egyptian chronology. Again, they made an
assumption not supported by history or physical evidence but which could
neither be proven nor disproved.
At Ugarit, the uppermost stratum is considered 13th/12th century, in the
time of Merenptah. The surface
level contains the object of various ages, the oldest of which dates to the
seventh century. Curtis states its post-19th Dynasty obscurity in these words,
"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, p. 48]”. There were no significant artefacts in between. Both
Seti and Ramesses mention Qatna as an important town occupied by Egyptian
forces. Yet after the end of the 13th/12th century stratum, Qatna is deserted
for 500 years until the seventh century
[Pfeiffer].
Alalakh fell into the hands of the Hittites during the reign of
Suppiluliumas 1380 - 1340 (GAD). During the twelfth century (GAD) the Hittite
Empire fell. Smith in describing the art at twelfth century Alalakh said
"Still more interesting are the sculptures belonging to the palace of this
period. 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 1946]. Is the six centuries of unchanging sculpture an anomaly of
Alalakh or is the date of Ramses II 600 years in error?
Thus at Byblos, Beth Shan, Lachish, Ugarit, Alalakh and Qatna there is
not one single stratum that dates from the latter 12th to the 8th century that
lies superimposed over a stratum containing artefacts of Seti I or Ramesses
II. Everywhere artefacts of
Ramesses II are found in Palestinian and Syrian either the stratum is dated to
Iron II or there is a hiatus of at least 500 years in the occupation of the
site that follows immediately thereafter. The proposal to shift the Ramesses II
and Hattusilis III to the seventh century fails to cause any stratification
problems in the Israel, Phoenicia or Syria. In fact, it would close “dark ages”
at many sites and resolve conflicts. Such a dating could have been proposed by
archaeologists were it not in direct opposition to the assured results of the
Egyptian chronologists.
According to Herodotus, the father of Necho II was Psammetichus. He was
appointed pharaoh by the Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal, but later revolted
against him. Ashurbanipal was forced to acknowledge Egyptian independence
because of his problems elsewhere. As a result Psammetichus invaded Israel. He
quickly, ran into an army of Scythians. He made peace with the Scythian king by
offering him the city of Beth Shan. The Scythian king accepted. After that time
it became known as Scythopolis, the city of the Scythians. It was still called
Scythopolis by Josephus in the first century A.D. Despite the many military
achievements of Psammetichus and Necho II not a single monument in Syria or
Palestine has been attributed to either pharaoh. Neither has a single scarab
been found there in Iron II strata. By identifying Psammetichus and Necho II of
the 26th Dynasty with Seti I and Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty the Velikovsky
scheme provides the missing seventh century monuments and scarabs.
The examination of Egyptian related archaeology and history has produced
the following problems:
1.
The date of Ramesses II and his treaty with Hattusilis is incompatible
with a range of seventh century chronological markers in the Hittite realm.
2.
In Egyptian towns known to be inhabited in the seventh and sixth century
there are unexplained gaps when no dynasty after the 19th and before the 26th
Dynasty leaves any temples, statues or inscriptions.
3.
There is a lack of monuments, stele and historical inscriptions or
papyri of the seventh century pharaohs of the 26th Dynasty in Egypt and in
particular Psammetichus and Necho II and Hophra.
4.
The tombs and mummies for all 26th Dynasty pharaohs are missing.
5.
In a tomb at Byblos, a thirteenth century style coffin was made and
inscribe by a seventh century Phoenician king in seventh century Hebrew script
while a Ramesses II cartouche was found imprinted on a piece of Late Bronze
pottery.
6.
Monuments of Seti I and Ramesses II are found in Iron II strata at
Lachish and Beth Shan.
7.
There are 600-year occupation gaps in cities with close links to Egypt,
such as Byblos, Qatna, and Ugarit.
8.
There is a lack of artefacts of the 26th Dynasty in the Iron II strata
of Palestine and Syria, which should date to the time of Psammetichus and Necho
II.
9.
There is no mention of Seti I and Ramesses II in the literature of
foreign countries, with the exception of the Hittites who made a treaty with
Ramesses II.
10. It is unexplained
why the locations, sequences and consequences of the battles Ramesses II and
Necho II are coincidental.
The problems found in Hittite land and those found in Egypt are
different and yet they are similar. In thirteenth century Hattusas, houses
contained seventh century Greek and Phrygian pottery. A thirteenth century vase
with Ramesses II cartouche is found in the tomb of Ahiram where there were
seventh century script and Cypriot pottery. Many centuries after the end of Hattusas, there developed a
new culture that evolved an art similar to that of Hattusas. Many centuries
after the end of the 19th Dynasty came a dynasty with amazingly similar
historical battles. At Hittite sites the strata dated to 1200 BC is followed by
eighth/seventh century strata. In the Levant, Ramesside controlled cities cease
to be populated after 1200 BC and are reoccupied only in the seventh/sixth century.
At Carchemish, a seventh century tomb contains gold figurines of the 13th
century. At Beth Shan and Lachish Iron II strata contains stele and scarabs of
the 13th century.
Thus thirteenth century objects appear in seventh century locations and
seventh century objects appear in thirteenth century venues. Gaps and dark ages
of 500-600 years occur in both realms. This cannot be a coincidence. The
problem here cannot be one of bias or incompetence or misunderstanding. The
flaw must be something basic and common to both the Hittites and the Egyptians.
What they have in common is a chronological system based on Egyptian dates
framed by the dynastic order of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of the third
century. The real problem is that the Egyptian chronological system is not
synchronized with the Assyrian, Greek or Biblical system. So when they come
together in the same site or venue there are anomalies. The Egyptians cannot
claim that theirs is the right system and all the others false, not at least
without appearing arrogant.
To fix the system the Egyptian chronology must be adjusted to agree with
Greek and Assyrian chronologies. The date of Ramesses II ought to be determined
from the date of Hattusilis III, which is to be based on Assyrian chronology
and Greek pottery dates. Then the anomalous dating of artefacts will no longer
be anomalous. The gaps and dark ages will closed and disappear. The Hittites
will have their first millennium origins and Assyrian influences restored. The
26th Dynasty will gain its tombs, mummies, inscriptions and history.
This brings us to the question of Haremhab. Is he to be placed last in
the 18th Dynasty as one translator of Manetho does? Or should he be placed
first in the 19th Dynasty? Several monuments show Seti and Ramesses II adoring
Haremhab and claiming descent from the royal 18th Dynasty monarchs. Armais is
the last name on Manetho's list of the 18th Dynasty rulers. This is part of
Manetho’s confusion. This has likely been the result of Manetho's
interpretation of the Abydos List. This is a list of cartouches of the
pharaohs. It shows Seti I and Ramesses II adoring their ancestors. These
include Haremhab and Amenhotep III, skipping over the last 4 kings of that
dynasty. After it proceeds back to the first ruler of the 18th Dynasty, it
omits the Second Intermediate Period kings. The omission of the foreign Second
Intermediate Period kings lessens the credibility of this monument. Did the
Ramessides omit other foreign dynasties?
This Armais of the 18th Dynasty is interpreted as the Haremhab of the
Ramesside monuments, although Armais ruled only 4 years and Haremhab ruled at
least 12. According to Eusebius the first ruler of the 26th Dynasty was Ammeris
the Ethiopian. This is the real Haremhab.
Haremhab has been included twice. Velikovsky pointed to a number of connections
between Haremhab and the Ethiopian period. First Haremhab is shown next to the
Ethiopian Prince Taharka, who would eventually become Pharaoh Taharka in 690
GAD. His cartouche was associated with the tomb of Petamenophis, an official in
the Ethiopian period.
The evidence of the most conclusive kind came from the tomb of Haremhab.
The tomb scenes show the career highlights of his life. At one point he is
appointed Army Commander-in-chief. The king appointing him is thought to be
Tut-Ankh-Amun. But it is not he. The name of the king has been chiselled out.
Furthermore, the king is a foreigner. He speaks to Haremhab through a
translator. The foreign king sits on horseback. This the Egyptian pharaohs did
not do. The artistic style of the drawing of the horse is Assyrian. Just like
the art style at Hattusas during the Empire showed signs of Assyrian influence
so did the time of Haremhab. Only in the late eighth or early seventh century
could such an Assyrian influence be explained.
If the 18th Dynasty immediately preceded Haremhab then a number of major
problems appear. How would they rule during an era of known Libyan rule? Libyan
rule occurred more than a century before the beginning of the Ethiopian
dynasty. An invasion of Thutmose III into Judah and his subsequent capture of
Syria would be an 9th century event and this would put him in conflict not just
with the Mitanni but also with the Assyrians. Also Pharaoh Shishak would become
a Hyksos pharaoh. However, there is no evidence that the Hyksos near the end of
their rule ever invaded Palestine or Syria. The only association of Haremhab
with Amarna is that his tomb contained some Amarna aged pottery. The Mycenaean
pottery of a style similar to the Amarna age pottery that was found in
Haremhab's tomb was likely stolen from the tombs of Akhetaten, Akhenaten's
capital. In Velikovsky's scheme there is a gap between the two dynasties. The
advancement of the 18th Dynasty in history is about 480 years. The advancement
of the reign of Haremhab is about 630 years leaving about 150 years in between.
The major objection raised by Velikovsky's critics has been the idea of
alter egos. The critics have been quick to dismiss this idea as though they
were not within legitimate methodology. However, had Velikovsky looked solely
at historical and archaeology material to conclude that Ramesses II was a
seventh century pharaoh, he would have left himself open to the criticism that
there was already a seventh century dynasty and no replacement dynasty was
needed.
The placement of Ramesses II in the seventh century requires either that
he ruled in parallel with Necho II in a different part of Egypt or that he
actually is Necho II. The former is easily refuted. The latter – no
matter how improbable – must be true because the former is impossible.
Thus the alter ego hypothesis is merely a logical extension of the proposition
that Ramesses II is a seventh century pharaoh. If one denies Velikovsky the
alter ego methodology, he is really denying that there is any evidence of a
seventh century Ramesses II. In which case, it should be easy to explain the
evidence cited above.
The fundamental basis of Velikovsky's claims lies in the incongruence of
Egyptian and Israelite history. To reconcile these histories was Velikovsky
aim. He claimed that this required a shift in the 18th Dynasty of 450-500 years
and a shift in the 19th dynasty of 630-660 years. The alter egos proposition is
an important one but a secondary one dependent on the historical incongruities
he presented.
Other revisionists have offered different models for reconciling
Egyptian chronology. The most widely published of these is James (Centuries
of Darkness) and Rohl (Pharaohs and Kings).
They each have their reasons for dismissing Velikovsky – none of
which stand detailed scrutiny. Refuting all these reasons would be a boring and
rather tedious process. Rather, let us examine their proposed model based on
the results of analysing the Hittite problem. If they have successfully solved
this problem then it is worth a closer look at their debunking of Velikovsky.
These results of the Hittite analysis demonstrate the inability of the James
and Rohl models to account for all the evidence. They both hold to the
integrity of the Manethonian dynastic order and this negates the flexibility
they need to explain the Hittite results. Their models conform only to Egyptian
data and fail to take Greek or Assyrian chronology into account in several
areas, including the Hittites. In other words, unless Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek
and Biblical chronologies are synchronized, the revision of history fails.
In Centuries of Darkness, James strategic goal is revealed in his
chapter on the Hittites. It is a bad misstep. He wants to connect the end of the
Empire with the Neo-Hittites states by reducing the chronology 250 years from
1200 to 950 GAD using a newly discovered king. Compared to his other chapters
the methodology and logic are sadly lacking. The proposed chronology is
connected somewhat to the Greek dates and thus to the Assyrian dates, but the
dates are not fully resolved.
An example is the treatment of the monuments of the dynasty of Suhis. He
cites the scholars who dated these monuments earlier than any other and accepts
this judgement. This judgement is based on the fact that the Suhis dynasty
monuments are closer to the imperial Hittites than any other. So the art
historians have tried to bring them as close to the date of the Hittites as
possible. James whole thesis is that these dates are flawed. If so the dates of
the Suhis monuments are also flawed and there is no point in adjusting the
Boghazkoi dates to them. Suhis dates cannot be corrected until after the
Hittite dates are corrected. This is
a circular flaw, where one bad date influences another, which influences the
first. However much his proposal reduces the Dark Age discrepancy it fails to
reconcile with Assyrian or any other chronology. Thus it is only a partial
solution.
James has no difficulty establishing that the problem is one of
stratigraphy and no difficulty assigning the cause to Egyptian chronology. In this he and Velikovsky are in
complete agreement. He establishes that the stratigraphic system leaves gaps
and “dark ages” between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. These gaps are in the
range of 250-600 years. James' first flaw is that he ignores his own data. The
stratigraphic gaps are between 250 to 600 years. However, the bulk of his gaps
are 350 to 500 years. Thus a 250-year advancement of the chronological system
still leaves large unexplained stratigraphic gaps.
James' second flaw is that he makes no distinction between a
stratigraphic gap and a chronological gap. For example, In the Hittite area of
Anatolia there is a stratigraphic gap of 450 years, 1200 – 750 BC. The date
1200 BC represents the orthodox date of the imperial Hittites. However, the
case argued above puts the Hittite Empire in the seventh century, a full
century after the Phrygian period. The chronological gap is 1200 to 600 GAD, or
600 years. Thus the chronological gap does not end at the stratigraphic gap.
James' linear advancement of 250 years of Late Bronze strata does nothing to
resolve the problems of the Hittite stratigraphy which is over 600 years in
size.
Rohl has attacked the problem from an entirely different perspective. He
accepted the Manethonian dynastic order and attempted to maximize the
compression of Egyptian chronology. He does succeed at synchronizing some
events with biblical chronology. He thus at least partially avoids fixing a broken
chronological system without matching to a new more reliable chronology.
However, closer scrutiny of these synchronisms leaves serious doubts concerning
their reality.
Rohl's placement of the Amarna letters in the days of Saul and David is
unconvincing. The conflict in Saul's time was Israel versus Philistia. The
whole tenure of the Amarna period is intrigue of several mischievous states,
mainly Damascus, vying for power under the nose of a stronger Egyptian
overlord. The main threat to the overlordship of Egyptian territories is the
Hittites. The biblical texts do not mention Egypt or Damascus as major players
in the time of Saul and David. Nor is there a mention of any Hittite superpower
in the time of Saul, although there is mention of Urriah the Hittite in the
acme of David's day. It is a mismatch of Amarna letters to place them in the
reign of Saul. David's foes after the Philistines were the Aramaeans. They did
not create havoc for him. He handled them very well. The Aramaeans did not
harass their neighbours; they had little money left after they had paid tribute
to the Israelites. It is a mismatch to place the Amarna letters in the context
of David's reign.
The mismatch continues into the next dynasty as Seti I invades Beth Shan
and sets up a stele in Beth Shan in the northern area of Israel in the middle
of Israel's most powerful times, during the reign of Solomon. While Solomon has
everybody building the Temple and his palace, an Egyptian army supposedly
invades and establishes a military post in the middle of Israel, which is still
there in the days of Ramesses II.
And what is the response of King Solomon, the richest and most powerful
king of that world at that time to this insufferable arrogance? We are expected
then to believe that Solomon gave neither diplomatic nor military response to
this. This is incredible. It never happened.
Rohl speculates that it is Haremhab that offers a marriage alliance with
Solomon and takes Gezer as a dowry for the bride. The evidence for this is
almost non-existent – a picture of Haremhab as Commander-in-chief
invading Palestine under Tutankhamun. And the evidence that Velikovsky adduced
to demonstrate that Haremhab was appointed by a foreign king is not mentioned.
Another synchronism is the pharaoh of the Exodus. The Exodus was an
unmitigated disaster. In a short period of time they lost their livestock,
their crops their stored wealth in the form of jewellery and their elite army
corps and their pharaoh. The change in Egyptian economics and power would have
been dramatic. According to Rohl the Exodus took place in the reign of
Dudimose. We know little of the reign of Dudimose, except that it was short.
Many very short-lived pharaohs preceded his reign. His dynasty was not powerful
and rich like one would expect of a pharaoh who controlled over 2 million
slaves. There is nothing to suggest that a major economic or political disaster
befell his reign. Nor is there any legendary material pointing to him as Moses
pharaoh. It too is a mismatch to the conditions described in the Bible.
Rohl's choice of Ramesses II as the Shishak seems right at first,
although the nickname Sessi does not fit the Biblical name Shishak despite his
eloquent pleas to make it so. There is substantive evidence that Ramesses II
controlled Israel and even took Jerusalem. However, Ramesses II also made a
treaty with Hittites' Hattusilis III. Rohl must place Hattusilis III in the
same reigns as he places Ramesses II – in the 10th century with King
Solomon and his son King Rehoboam. Unfortunately, the 10th century in Assyrian
history was a time of greatest weakness for Assyria. They could barely defend
their homeland. Thus they could not at this time be a threat to attack or take
Carchemish as stated in the annals of Mursilis II, Hattusilis III’s father. No
Assyrian king took Carchemish until Sargon II in the eighth century. Thus where
the Egyptian evidence may look good the proposal fails when evidence outside
Egypt is taken into account.
Furthermore, Ramesses II as Shishak poses another similar problem: the
Hittites themselves are not in evidence during the reign of Solomon in the
Bible. According to Rohl, this would be during the reign of Seti I. Seti sets up his stele and establishes
a military base at Beth Shan in order to defend Egypt against the Hittite
menace. But are the Hittites a menace? Solomon mentions the Hittites only as
distant trading partners. They are not an imperial threat. Only later when the
Syrians are attacking Samaria, do they appear to be a threat. The Aramaeans are
frightened away, thinking that the Israelites have hired the Kings of the
Egyptians and the Hittites [II Kings 7:6]. Here at last the Hittites and the
Egyptians are mentioned together in the Bible as imperial powers. This happened
during the Omride Dynasty, at which time the Amarna letters were first written
according to Velikovsky. Rohl's synchronism for Ramesses II is a mismatch. He
could have proposed that Ramesses II ruled in the time of the Omrides. That
would have synchronized Biblical history with Israel but then it undermines the
connection with the conquest of Judah.
Egyptian imperial power, Hittite imperial power, Assyrian imperial power
and the capture of Jerusalem only occur in the sixth century, which is where
Velikovsky placed him.
Thus the proposed models of the James and Rohl do not match the
historical and archaeological evidence as Velikovsky's model does. Velikovsky
may have bitten off too much as an outsider but he had the freedom to look at
things from a fresh point of view and produce a viable time line for ancient
history. The mistakes he has made along the way ought to be corrected but it
should also be acknowledged that his errors are not crucial to his original
proposal and do not deny his basic position.
Alan Montgomery © 24 January 2008
References
Akurgal, E.1961. Die Kunst Anatolians, Berlin, p. 7
Barth, H. 1859. Versuch einer eingehenden Erklaerung der
Felssculpturen von Boghazkoi in alten Kappadocien, Monatsberichte der
Koeniglichen Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaft, Berlin, pp 128-157]
Bittel, K. & Gueterbock, H., 1936, Boghazkoi, Abhandlung der
Preussichen Wissenschaft, Philosophien-historische Klasse 1935, Berlin.
Curtis, A. 1985. Cities of the biblical world: Ugarit. Eerdmans. Grand
Rapids. p. 48
Gueterbock, H., 1954. Carchemish, Journal of Near Eastern
Studies, ff. 113
Jedijian, N. Byblos
through the Ages, p.57
Kitchen, K., 2003, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids,
William Eerdmans Publishing, p.257
Petrie, W.W.F., Murray, A.S., Griffith,F.L. 1888. Tanis Pt II,
Nebesheh and Tahpenes, London
Pfeiffer, C. 1966. The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical
Archaeology. Baker Books. Grand Rapids. p. 469
Puchstein, O. 1890. Pseudohethitische Kunst, Berlin.
Rowe, A. 1930. Topography and History of Beth-Shean. University Press.
Philadelphia
Smith, S. 1946. Alalakh and chronology. Luzac and Company. London. p.
46
Velikovsky, I. 1978. Ramses II and His Times, New York,
Doubleday.
Von der Osten, 1930-1. Discoveries in Anatolia, Oriental
Institute, Chicago. Pp, 9-10
Woolley, Sir Leonard, 1952. Carchemish III, p187
Young, R.S., 1955. Gordion: Preliminary Report, 1955. American Journal of
Archaeology, Vol 59, p. 12
[1] Alan
circulated this ‘article’ privately to a few friends for comment. I thought so
much of certain parts of it that I requested permission for further exposure.
My reservations are to do with Alan’s support for the continuance of
Velikovsky’s identification of Ramesses II with Necho II as detailed in the
book, “Ramses II and His Time”. For the record I believe that the XIXth and XXVIth ran concurrently
for most of their respective histories and that XVIII, XIX and XX were
predominantly contiguous.
Alan’s
thoughts mirror those of another, as yet unpublished book by Barry Curnock.
Part of Barry’s thesis, that part linking Suppiluliumas with Tutankhamun,
appeared in SIS Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop 2007: 3, page 5. Barry
was one of the guest speakers at the SIS 2008 AGM.
[2] The King James’ version of this
verse has “went up against the king of Assyria”.
[3] Alan does not allude to the
presence of the Scythians. It seems by association of these incidents to these
times that the Scythians must be looked at as alter egos of the Hittites.
[4] “Generally Accepted Date”.