THIRD MILLENNIUM LIBRARY
|
|
THIRD MILLENNIUM LIBRARY |
|
|
ANCIENT HISTORY THE BIRTH OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY
THESES FOR
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ANCIENT HISTORY
FROM THE END
OF THE MIDDLE KINGDOM IN EGYPT BY
IMMANUEL
VELIKOVSKY
1945
INTRODUCTION
The written history of the
ancient world is composed without correct synchronization of the histories of
different peoples of antiquity: a discrepancy of about six hundred years exists
between the Hebrew and Egyptian histories as they are conventionally written;
since the histories of other peoples are synchronized both with the Hebrew and
the Egyptian past, they are completely distorted.
The ground plan for a redesigning
of ancient history was ready in its main features in the spring 1940. During
the years 1940-1944, I wrote and completed a Reconstruction of ancient history
from the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt to the advent of Alexander the
Great. Due to war conditions and their interference with the printing of
extensive scientific works, the publication of “Ages in Chaos” had to be
postponed. This short paper is intended to bring together in concise form most
of the innovations of my work; I present them in the form of theses; the
manifold proofs which underlie the Reconstruction and the numerous collations
of historical material are reserved for the work itself.
New York,
June 10, 1945.
I
1. Ancient History before the
advent of Alexander the Great is written in a chaotic manner. It is entirely
confused, and is a disarray of centuries, kingdoms and persons.
2. The cause of this confusion
lies in an incorrect representation of the Egyptian past; and since the history
of Egypt is chosen to serve for orientation in compiling the histories of other
peoples of antiquity, the histories of these other peoples are brought into
disorder as well. The error in Egyptian history consists of six to seven and,
in some places, eight centuries of retardation.
3. Histories of Palestine, Syria,
Babylonia, Assyria, Mycenae, Classical Greece, Chaldea, Phoenicia, and Caria,
are written in duplicate form, with the same events repeated after a period of
six or seven centuries. The confusion of centuries makes the life of many
personages double; descendants are transformed into ancestors, and entire
peoples and empires are invented.
4. The Egyptian and Jewish
histories, as they are written, are devoid of a single synchronism in a period
of many hundreds of years. Exodus, an event which concerns both peoples, is
presumably not mentioned in the Egyptian documents of the past. The
establishing of the time of the Exodus must help to synchronize the histories
of these two peoples.
5. The literal meaning of many
passages in the Scriptures which relate to the time of the Exodus, imply that
there was a great natural cataclysm of enormous dimensions.
6. The synchronous moment between
the Egyptian and Jewish histories can be established if the same catastrophe
can also be traced in Egyptian literature.
7. The Papyrus Ipuwer describes a natural catastrophe and not merely a
social revolution, as is supposed. A juxtaposition of many passages of this
papyrus (edited by A. Gardiner, under the name “Admonitions of an Egyptian
Sage”, 1909) with passages from the Scriptures dealing with the story of the
plagues and the escape from Egypt, proves that both sources describe the same
events.
8. The Papyrus Ipuwer comprises a text which originated shortly after the
close of the Middle Kingdom; the original text was written by an eyewitness to
the plagues and the Exodus.
9. The plagues were the
forerunners and aftermaths of a great cataclysm the nature of which will be discussed
in a work dealing with the natural history of the world. Earthquakes, eruptions
of volcanoes, changes of the sea profile, were some of the results of that
catastrophe.
10. The tenth plague, during
which the houses were struck down, was an earthquake. The clay huts of the
“dwellers of the marshes” suffered less than the structures of stone.
11. The “firstborn” (b’khorim) is erroneously used instead of the original
“chosen” (b’chorim), and the tenth plague originally
narrated the destruction of all the choice people among the Egyptians.
12. The naos (shrine) of el-Arish, now in the Museum of Ismailia, describes the plague of
darkness and the death of the pharaoh in a whirlpool. The place of the last
event is at Pi-Kharoti, which is Pi-ha-Kiroth of the Book of Exodus.
13. Tom-Taoui-Toth was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
14. The Exodus took place at the
close of the Middle Kingdom: the natural catastrophe caused the end of this
period in the history of Egypt. This was in the middle of the second millennium
before the present era.
15. The Israelites left Egypt a
few days before the invasion of the Hyksos (Amu).
II
16. The Israelites met the Hyksos
(Amu) on their way from Egypt. The Hyksos were the Amalekites.
17. The Arabic authors of the
Middle Ages related traditions which reflect actual historical events, about
the Amalekites who left Mekka amidst catastrophes and plagues, the invasion of Palestine and Egypt by the Amalekites, and the Amalekite pharaohs.
18. The catastrophes and plagues
of these traditions are part of the cataclysm which is described in the
Scriptures, the Papyrus Ipuwer, and the naos of el-Arish. The flood, which drowned many Amalekites who escaped from Arabia, was simultaneous with
the upheaval of the sea on the day of the Passage.
19. Because of the occupation of
southern Palestine (Negeb) by the Hyksos, the
Israelites escaping from Egypt were forced to roam in the desert. The Desert of
the Wanderings stretched deep into the Arab Peninsula.
20. The Hyksos stronghold Auaris was situated at the el-Arish of today. (Its other
names are Tharu and Rhinocorura).
21. Its builder Latis, mentioned in the Arabic sources, is identical with
the Hyksos King Salitis of Josephus-Manetho.
22. The Hyksos King whose name is
read Apop (I) is the Agog (I) of the Scriptures.
Similarly Apop II is the biblical Agog II.
23. Amalekite fortresses were built in Palestine. One of them was at Pirathon in Ephraim.
24. The Amalekites employed the same tactics in their devastating raids on Palestine and Egypt, choosing
the time before the harvest.
25. The process of the conquest
of Palestine by the Israelites was slowed down and reversed when the Canaanites
allied themselves with the Hyksos-Amalekites. The
wars of the Judges were intended to free the people from the yoke of the
Hyksos.
26. The cataclysm which caused a
migration of peoples brought the Philistines from Cyprus to the shores of
Palestine. They intermarried with the Amalekites and
produced a hybrid nation.
27. The Manethonian tradition about the later Hyksos Dynasty of a “Hellenic” origin reflects the
period when the Philistine element became rather dominant in the Amalekite Empire.
28. The “Amalekite city” which was captured by Saul was Auaris.
29. As the result of his victory
at Auaris, Saul freed Egypt and the entire Near East.
30. In the siege of Auaris, Saul was assisted by Kamose and Ahmose, the vassal princes of Thebes.
31. Manetho’s story about the
Hyksos leaving Auaris by agreement reflects the
scriptural incident concerning the Kenites leaving the
besieged Amalekite fortress.
32. The invasion of southern
Palestine by the escaping remnants of the Hyksos is reflected in I Samuel 30;
and their further destruction at Sheruhen, in the
Talmudic story of Joab’s war against the capital of
the Amalekites.
33. This last bastion of the Amalekites was probably on one of the rocks of Petra.
34. Manetho confused Sheruhen with Jerusalem, and the Israelites, the redeemers
of Egypt, with the Hyksos.
35. This confusion spread in the
Ptolemaic time and became the cause of the rise of anti-Semitism which, fed
from different channels, survived until today.
36. The period of the Wanderings
in the Desert, of Joshua, and of the Judges, corresponds to the time of Hyksos
domination in Egypt and the Near East. The period of the Hyksos lasted for more
than four hundred years. The archaeological findings of the Hyksos period in
Palestine appertain to the time of the Conquest and the Judges.
III
37. Two kingdoms rose on the
ruins of the Hyksos Empire: the kingdom of Israel under David, and the New
Kingdom of Egypt under the Eighteenth Dynasty. The beginnings of these two
dynasties are not separated by six centuries; they started simultaneously.
38. The Egyptian Queen Tahpenes, the sister-in-law of Hadad the Edomite, was a wife of Ahmose.
39. Thutmose I attacked Gezer of
the Philistines and gave it to Solomon, his son-in-law.
40. Queen Sheba is identical with
Queen Hatshepsu.
41. The information of Josephus
that the queen-guest ruled Egypt and Abyssinia, is correct.
42. The theories which place Punt
and God’s Land in either South Arabia or Africa are equally wrong. Hatshepsu’s expedition, pictured in the temple of Deir el Bahari near Thebes, went
to Palestine-Phoenicia.
43. By the time of the Old
Kingdom, Palestine was already known as God’s Land or Holy Land. The tribe of Menashe lived in Palestine already at the time of the Old
Kingdom in Egypt.
44. A preliminary expedition
dispatched by Hatshepsu to prepare the way for the
main expedition, was met by Peruha, the biblical Paruah, governor of Ezion-Geber.
45. The correction of the verses
I Kings 4, 16-17 which place Aloth in the domain of
the son of Paruah, is well founded.
46. Queen Hatshepsu participated personally in the main expedition to Ezion-Geber,
Jerusalem, and Phoenicia. Her intention was to see what she had known “by
hearsay” only.
47. The return voyage was made by
sea from the Palestinian shore to Thebes on the Nile, and a second fleet was
used. In the days of Hatshepsu there was no canal
connecting the Nile with the Red Sea.
48. Jewish officers in the
service of Solomon are portrayed on the walls of Deir El Bahari.
49. Exotic animals and plants,
including the algum-trees “never seen before”, which
Queen Hatshepsu received as gifts in God’s Land, had
been brought by the navy of Hiram and Solomon from Ophir.
They are seen in the pictures of the expedition.
50. Gifts were also presented to Hatshepsu by messengers of Hiram.
51. Solomon was not an obscure
prince, as he is often represented. The riches of his kingdom astounded the
Egyptians under their most magnificent monarch.
52. Silver-covered floors in the
Jerusalem of Solomon were an actual feature; such floors were also built in the
palaces of the viziers of Hatshepsu.
53. The architecture and
ordinances of the Temple of Solomon were copied in the Temple of Amon at Deir El Bahari. The plan of this
structure and its terraces can help in the reconstruction of the plan of the
Temple of Solomon.
54. The Songs of Mounting, which
are included among the Psalms, were sung by priests while ascending the
terraces.
55. The office of High Priest was
introduced into the Egyptian service in imitation of a similar post in the
service in Jerusalem. The word pontifex is derived ultimately from the word
Punt. The last word means Phoenicia.
56. The Abyssinian tradition
preserved the name of the Queen of the South as Makeda,
which is derived from the personal name of Hatshepsu (Make-Ra).
57. The Arabic claim that Queen
Sheba was their Queen Bilkis, is unfounded.
58. The traditional origin of
some Hebrew legends concerning Queen Sheba can be traced in the life and
appearance of Hatshepsu.
IV
59. Thutmose III is the
scriptural Shishak; he lived not during the
fifteenth, but during the latter part of the tenth and the beginning of the
ninth century.
60. Thutmose III refers in his
inscription in Karnak to the state of disagreement
and war among the Jewish tribes of Palestine after the death of Solomon.
61. The disintegration of the
empire of Solomon was planned for by Thutmose III and carried out by him. He
was also the author of the division of Palestine into two kingdoms.
62. Jeroboam, the first king of
the ten tribes, is pictured during his stay in Egypt on a bas-relief in Thebes,
together with a small son of his, as the prince of Dunip (Tunip), which is Dan.
63. Baalbek is the ancient Dan.
64. The list of the Palestinian
cities inscribed by Thutmose III in Karnak comprises
the names of the cities of Rehoboam in his fifth
year. The city-fortresses built or fortified by Rehoboam, Etam, Beth-Zur, Shocco, Gath, Ziph, and Adoraim, can be identified in their Egyptian transcription.
65. The chief fortress besieged
and captured before the Pharaoh came to Jerusalem, was Megiddo. Megiddo was
defended by Rehoboam personally, and he eluded
captivity when the fortress fell.
66. The city Kadesh,
the most important among the Palestinian cities, and the first in the list of
Thutmose III, is Jerusalem.
67. The submission of Rehoboam and the princes of the land, and their “becoming
servants” to the Pharaoh is described in the annals of Thutmose III.
68. The vessels and furniture of
the Temple of Solomon sacked by Thutmose III, are pictured on a bas-relief of Karnak. They can be seen in detail: altars, tables, candlesticks,
etc.
69. The ornaments of “a crown of
gold round about”, “buds among flowers” and “lily-work” described in the
Scriptures, are shown on the bas-relief.
70. The showbreads had a conical
form. The candlesticks had three branches on either side of the stem, or seven
branches 71. The copper covered doors and
chains of gold were actual features of the Temple of Solomon.
72. Golden chariots, like those
mentioned in the Song of Songs, were carried from Palestine as tribute, and are
pictured in the sepulchral chambers of Rekhmire, the
vizier of Thutmose III.
73. The theory about the supreme
artisanship of the Canaanites in the pre-Israelite period is without
foundation.
74. Jewish artists brought to
Egypt introduced their fine arts and influenced the aesthetic conceptions of
the Egyptians.
75. Animals and plants of
Palestine of the days of Rehoboam are pictured in the
temple of Karnak. They comprise the collections of
Solomon.
76. “Arzenu”
(our land), by which the Scriptures mean Palestine, was its name in the
Egyptian tongue (“Rezenu” ), a geographical
equivalent of the name “God’s Land”.
77. The name of Israel is found
in the annals of Thutmose III as that of a people bringing tribute. The
assertion that the name of Israel is met for the first and only time in the
inscription of Marneptah is wrong.
78. Rehoboam,
“the king of Kadesh”, is pictured on a bas-relief in
the tomb of Menkheperre in Thebes.
79. The people of Genubath in the inscription of Thutmose III, is the people
of the scriptural Genubath, son of Hadad the Edomite.
80. Sosenk,
the Pharaoh of the Libyan dynasty, was not Shishak of
the Scriptures.
V
81. Amenhotep II lived not in the fifteenth but in the ninth century, and was the scriptural Zerah.
82. The theory that the Ethiopian Zerah came from Arabia is wrong; equally wrong is the
theory that he is a mythological figure.
83. The battle of Ain-Reshet, referred to by Amenhotep II, is the battle of Mareshet-Gath, which was lost by Amenhotep II and won by Asa.
84. This intrusion of Amenhotep II-Zerah is also
narrated in the poem of Keret found in Ras Shamra.
85. The theory that Terah of the Poem, who invaded the south of Palestine with
millions of soldiers, is the father of Abraham, is wrong.
86. The Shemesh-Edom
of the war-annals of Amenhotep II is the Edomite city of Shapesh (Shemesh) referred to in the Poem of Keret.
87. In the days of Thutmose IV,
Palestine again became a protectorate of Egypt in fear of a menacing conquest
by Assurnasirpal (885-860), father of Shalmanassar.
88. Shishak mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts is Thutmose IV.
89. The texts found in Ras Shamra are not of the
fifteenth, but of the ninth century.
90. The close resemblance of the
texts of Ras Shamra with
diverse books of the Scriptures repudiates most of the assertions of the Bible
criticism (late origin of the texts), as well as the modern theory about the
Canaanite heritage in the Scriptures (early origin of the texts).
91. The theory that alphabetic
writing was perfected in the sixteenth century cannot be supported by the Ras Shamra texts of the ninth
century.
92. As the alphabetic writing of
Hebrew in cuneiform of Ras Shamra is contemporaneous with the stela of Mesha written in Hebrew alphabetic characters, the alphabet
most probably did not originate in Phoenicia but in Palestine.
93. The theory that the Ras Shamra texts contain mention
of Ionians, and of their city Didyme, is correct, but
it concerns the ninth century Ionians.
94. The Khar of the Egyptian and Ras Shamra texts were not Hurrites or Troglodytes, but Carians.
95. The statement by classical
authors that the Carians migrated from Crete is
corroborated by the name of Keret of the Ras Shamra texts.
96. The Khari (Cari) of the Scriptures were the Khar or Carians from Ras Shamra.
97. The Carian language is studied in the disguise of the Hurrian (or Hurrite) language. The reading of the cuneiform Khar can be helped by a comparative study of the Carian inscriptions in Greek letters found in Egypt.
98. The reading of Carian will contribute to the decipherment of the Cyprian
and Cretan hieroglyphics and may aid in reconstructing the early history of the
West.
99. The name of the city Ugarit (Ras Shamra) is probably the
equivalent of Euagoras, the Carian-Ionian
name of a number of Cyprian kings.
100. The name Nikmed of the Ras Shamra texts is
the Ionian-Carian name Nikomed(es).
101. The city of Ras Shamra was destroyed in the
days of the King Nikmed by Shalmanassar (in 856 B. C. E). Its destruction is recorded by Shalmanassar and the city is called “the city of Nikdem”. A
proclamation telling about the expulsion of Nikmed,
found in the city, refers to the same event.
102. It is highly probable that
King Nikmed (Nikdem) fled
to Greece, and that this man of learning there introduced alphabetic writing.
Therefore, he might have been Cadmos of the Greek
tradition.
103. Minoan inscriptions of the
Mycenaean Age may comprise alphabetic writings following in principle the
cuneiform alphabet of Ras Shamra Hebrew.
104. The vaults of the necropolis
of Ras Shamra and similar
vaults in Cyprus are contemporaneous, and not separated by six centuries.
105. The tombs of Enkomi on Cyprus, excavated by A. S. Murray in 1896, were
correctly assigned by him to the eighth-seventh century.
106. The time table of the Minoan
and Mycenean culture is distorted by almost six
hundred years, because it is dependent upon the wrong Egyptian chronology.
107. No “Dark Age” of six
centuries duration intervened in Greece between the Mycenaean Age and the
Ionian Age of the seventh century.
108. The large buildings and
fortifications of Mycenae and Tiryns in the Argive Plain date from the time of the Argive Tyrants, who
lived in the eighth century.
109. The Heraion of Olympia was built in the “Mycenaean” age, in the first millennium
110. The so-called Mycenaean ware
was mainly of Cypriote (Phoenician) manufacture. It dates from the tenth to the
sixth century.
111. The so-called Geometric ware
is not a later product than the Mycenaean ware; they were products of the same
age.
112. The entire archaeology of
the eastern Mediterranean, based upon the assumption that the Mycenaean culture
belongs to the fifteenth-thirteenth centuries, is built upon a misleading
principle.
VI
113. The el-Amarna Letters were
written not in the fifteenth-fourteenth century, but in the middle of the ninth
century.
114. Among the correspondents of Amenhotep III and Akhnaton are
biblical personages: Jehoshaphat (Abdi-Hiba), King of
Jerusalem; Ahab (Rib Addi), King of Samaria; Ben-Hadad (Abdi-Ashirta), King of
Damascus; Hazael (Azaru),
King of Damascus; Aman (Aman-appa),
Governor of Samaria; Adaja (Adaja), Adna (Adadanu), Amasia, son of Zihri (son of Zuhru), Jehozabad (Jahzibada), military governors of Jehoshaphat; Obadia, the chief of Jezreel; Obadia (Widia), a city governor
in Judea; the Great Lady of Shunem (Baalath Nesse); Naaman (Janhama), the captain of
Damascus; and others. Arza (Arzaja),
the courtier in Samaria, is referred to in a letter.
115. Mesha,
King of Moab, is often mentioned in the Letters by his name (Mesh). The
omission of the name of the rebel king by the translators of the Letters is not
warranted.
116. The King of Hatti, who for years invaded and harassed Syria, was Assurnasirpal and after him Shalmanassar.
117. The following correspondents
of Amenhotep and Akhnaton are known from the inscriptions of Shalmanassar; Adima, Prince of Siana and Irqata; Mut-Balu (Matinu-Bali), Prince of Arvad.
118. Burnaburias is the Babylonian name of Shalmanassar, and under
this name he corresponded with Amenhotep III and Akhnaton. In the Letters he is also referred to as Shalmajati.
119. The military chief who
opposed Shalmanassar at Karkar was the governor of MegiddoBiridri (Biridia), one of
the Pharaohs correspondents. The identification of Ben Hadad with Biridri is wrong.
120. Sumur of the Letters is Samaria; Gubia is Jezreel. The new residence of the king of Israel was named
in honor of his wife Jezebel.
121. Jarimuta or Rimuta of the Letters is Ramoth in Gilead; Sigati is Sukkoth; Ambi - Moab; Durnui - Edom; Rubuti - Raboth in Ammon; Kilti - vadi Kelt.
122. “Elippe”
in a number of el-Amarna Letters means “a man over a thousand” or a chief, and
not a “ship”. Several cities (Sumur being one of
them) are incorrectly located on the seashore because of the mention of “elippe”.
123. The scriptural penman also
confused “elippe”, the chief, with the same word
meaning a thousand, and thus a correction of the text is required in the story
of twenty-seven thousands killed by the wall of Aphek.
124. Ahab was faithful to the
Egyptian protectorate. Ben Hadad, supported by Shalmanassar, inspired Mesha to
revolt.
125. The capture of Ben Hadad and a covenant signed between him and the King of
Samaria are events also related in the Letters.
126. The sieges of Samaria, the
negotiation about sending Egyptian detachments, and the flight of the Syrians
at the spreading of a rumor about the arrival of the Egyptian troops, can also be
read in the Letters.
127. King Ahab was not killed at Ramoth in Gilead, but merely wounded. He survived
Jehoshaphat by two years. The version 2 Kings 3, 2 is erroneous, and the rival
version 2 Kings 1, 17 is correct.
128. Many events ascribed by the
Scriptures to Jehoram, son of Ahab, or to the
undefined “king of Israel”, happened in the days of Ahab. Ahab is the author of
more than sixty letters found in the el-Amarna collection.
129. Jehoram of Israel and Jehoram of Judea were probably one and
the same person, a son-in-law of Ahab.
130. The insurrection of Mesha took place during the life-time of Ahab, after the
defeat at Ramoth in Gilead.
131. The K-r-k-h (the capital) of
the Mesha Stela means
Samaria. The Moabites succeeded in entering Samaria. The Ophel of K-r-k-h is the Ophel of Samaria. The fall of
Samaria signified the “everlasting humiliation” and the “great indignation” in
the Scriptures and the Stela.
132. By “cuttings” of K-r-k-h,
the ivory work of the palace of Samaria is meant.
133. Samaria was the center of
the Egyptian administration in Palestine. Possessing and building it was the
privilege of the first among the chiefs.
134. Jehoshaphat’s position was
of comparative independence, as there was no permanent Egyptian governor in
Jerusalem. Adaja was the deputy over Edom and he was
subordinate to Jehoshaphat.
135. The expedition of three
kings against Moab preceded the invasion of Palestine by tribes of Transjordan
and Seir. The sequence in Josephus is wrong.
136. The invasion of the
Moabites, Ammonites, and the tribes of Seir is
described in the Letters. Khabiru means bandits.
137. The prayer of Jehoshaphat is
authentic, being similar in spirit and content to his letters addressed to the
Pharaoh.
138. The monotheism of
Jehoshaphat is proved by his letters. The notion that Akhnaton was a monotheist (“the first monotheist” ) is wrong.
139. The letters of Jehoshaphat’s
generals and city-chiefs substantiate the complaint of the scriptural writer
that idolatry was not eradicated in Judea in the days of Jehoshaphat.
140. The el-Amarna Letters
provide ample material for elucidation of the feudal system in Palestine in the
ninth century.
141. The failing of water
sources, the drought and the great famine of seven years duration in Israel are
described in many of the letters of the King of Samaria.
142. Ramoth in Gilead was a subject of rivalry because it was not afflicted by drought and
famine.
143. The existence of a Great
Lady of Sunem called Baalat Nesse (“Wonder occurred to her” ), throws a side-light
on the life and acts of Elisha.
144. The change in the attitude
of Janhama, the captain of Damascus, toward the King
of Samaria, throws another sidelight on the biblical narrative about Elisha.
145. The story about sending
assassins against Ahab and about his repeated escapes is also narrated in the
Letters.
146. The sickness of Ben Hadad, and his being killed while sick, is confirmed by the
Letters. Hazael, his murderer, was his son by a harem
woman.
147. The biblical dialogue of Hazael is truly transmitted, as his letters and letters
about him prove. In his writing, he used the very same expressions ascribed to
him in the Scriptures.
148. Hazael burnt the towns of Israel and occupied most of their land; this is verified by
the Letters.
149. Hazael,
after leaning toward Shalmanassar, was acknowledged
King of Damascus by Akhnaton on the condition that he
oppose Shalmanassar.
150. Shalmanassar’s inscriptions and the letters of Hazael (Azaru) give coordinated records about their war and other
conditions in Syria.
151. The theory of a Mizri kingdom in Syria is wrong. The soldiers of Mizri at Karkar were Egyptians. The gifts sent by the King
of Mizri to Shalmanassar are those enumerated by Akhnaton in his letter to the
King of Hatti.
152. Ahab, under pressure from Hazael, went to Beirut. He was not permitted by his brother
to return to Jezreel. He went from Beirut to Sidon,
to the family of his wife Jezebel. In his lifetime, rumors about his death were
spread, and they contributed to the confusion of later chronographers.
153. Sawardatta of the Letters was a prince of the Sodomites who lived at Vadi-Kelt.
154. Labaja of the Letters was a rebellious prince of Libna.
155. The letter addressed by Subliliuma to Hurria does not
belong to the el-Amarna collection. It was written in the seventh century and
addressed to Tirhaka-Hurria, the Ethiopian. It should
be a matter of further investigation, whether any other letters are wrongly
ascribed to the el-Amarna archive.
156. The ivories of Samaria of
the time of Ahab are not late imitations of the ivories of the time of Amenhotep III, Akhnaton and Tuthenkhamon, but are contemporaneous products.
VII
157. Between the Eighteenth and
the Nineteenth Dynasties there was a period of about 150 years, during which
Egypt was ruled by the Libyans and the Ethiopians (Twenty-second to
Twenty-fifth Dynasties).
158. The period of the Libyans in
Egypt lasted not over 200 years but about 100 years only, and its termination
is correctly fixed at the end of the eighth century.
159. The only period of ancient
Egypt which is correctly placed in time, is the short Ethiopian period. But
this retention of its proper place at the end of the eighth and the beginning
of the seventh century caused a still greater chaos in historiography;
generations which actually followed became progenitors, ancestors became
descendants.
160. Osorkon I was not Zerah of the Scriptures, nor did he invade
Palestine. Osorkon II was not a contemporary of Omri and Ahab.
161. Hebrew letters on the
statues of Osorkon and Sosenk made by the Phoenician kings Elibaal and Abibaal represent the characters of the eighth century, not
the tenth century.
162. The ostraca of Samaria were not written in the days of Ahab, but close to the end of the
kingdom of Israel, in the days of 163. Pharaoh So who received
gifts from Hoshea was Sosenk IV, and his bas-relief scene pictures this tribute. Sosenk regularly placed as I (first) was IV (last).
164. Osorkon,
the priest who caused a civil war and was expelled from Egypt, was the
historical prototype of Osarsiph of Manetho, whom he
wrongly identified with Moses.
165. After the battle of Eiteka, Egypt became a vassalage of Sennaherib.
166. Psammetich-Seti I, King of Egypt and an ally of the Ethiopians, was deposed by his brother Haremhab, who was in charge of the government during the
king’s absence because of the war. Haremhab went over
to the Assyrians. The legend about Harmais (Josephus-Manetho), who deceived his brother, is the story of Haremhab.
167. Haremhab was King of Egypt under Sennaherib, and in this
service made war against the Ethiopians. His laws were made on the Assyrian
model, as were also the punishments involved.
168. Harsiese,
the priest of Ammon at the end of the Libyan Dynasty, was the man who reared Haremhab.
169. Haremhab was expelled by Tirhaka, the Ethiopian, and probably
fled to Cyprus.
170. The 59th year of some
reckoning mentioned in a document 171. A cartouche of Haremhab on the inner wall of a sepulchral chamber cut in
the days of the Ethiopians, does not constitute an enigma.
VIII
172. The so-called Nineteenth and
Twenty-sixth Dynasties are substantially one and the same.
173. Ramses I is identical with, Necho 1. He was one of the viceroys under Essarhadon. After the death of Essarhadon,
when the viceroys took sides with Tirhaka the
Ethiopian and were killed by Assurbanipal, Ramses I, pardoned by the Assyrian
King, was installed by him as the king of Egypt.
174. Shamash Shum Ukin, King of Babylon, and brother of Assurbanipal, corresponded
with Tirhaka and allied himself with him.
175. Psammetich-Seti II, son of Ramses I, rose from vassal to the position of an ally of
Assurbanipal in his war against Shamash Shum Ukin.
176. Psammetich-Seti II (Seti the Great) repeatedly invaded northern
Palestine. He mentions smaller conflicts with Manasseh, referring to the latter
by his name.
177. The city Pekanon to which he laid siege and which he captured was a fortress-capital of Peka, King of Israel, who lived two generations earlier.
Being a capital, it was probably Samaria.
178. Beth-Shan-Scythopolis was the city where Seti met the vanguard of the Scythians. He occupied the city, as he reported on his stela found there.
179. Seti built a fortress on the Oronteg, at Tell Nebi Mend; it is Riblah of the
Scriptures.
180. Seti participated in the war in the valley of the Euphrates on the side of
Assurbanipal and against Nabopolassar. The Egyptian
army referred to by Nabopolassar in his annals was
that of Seti.
181. Greek soldiers sent by Gyges of Sardis to Egypt in the days of Seti became the first Greek settlers there.
IX
182. There was no Empire of the
Hittites in the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries. The archive found at Boghazkoi belongs in its larger part to the Neo-Babylonian
Empire of the seventh-sixth centuries.
183. These documents reflect the
political, religious and juridical activities of the Chaldeans.
184. In the seventh century the
Chaldeans were centered in Asia Minor, in an area bounded by the Black Sea, the
Euphrates, and the Halys.
185. The “Hittite” hieroglyphics
are the Chaldean script.
186. The presumed “Hittite” art
of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries is the Chaldean art of the seventh-sixth
centuries, and is coeval with and subsequent to late Phrygian art. The
bas-relief of Yasilikaya dates from the time of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire. Greek sculptures with “Hittite” (Chaldean) signs present
no problem, neither does the silence of Greek authors about the “Hittites” of
the “post-Empire” period.
187. The “Hittite” stela in the palace of Nebukhadnezar in Babylon is a contemporary Chaldean document. The lead tablets from Asaur with “Hittite” hieroglyphics, date from the last
centuries before the present era.
188. The succession of the kings
of the Neo-Babylonian Empire was: Nabopolassar, Nergilissar, Labash-Marduk, Nebukhadnezar, Evil Marduk, Nabonides. Berosus, according to
whom Nergilissar and his son followed Nebukhadnezar, is wrong.*
189. The treaties of Subliliumas with Azaru of
Damascus, with a patricide prince of Mitanni, and with the widow of Tirhaka, make plausible his identity with Shamash Shum Ukin. This would signify also that Nabopolassar was a son of Shamash Shum Ukin.
190. The people and the kingdom
of Mitanni did not “disappear” in the thirteenth century. Mitanni is another
name for Medes; the northwest part of Medes retained this name as Matiane (Herodotus).
191. Mursilis of the Boghazkoi texts (Merosar of the Egyptian texts), also known as Bijassili, is Nabopolassar of the Babylonian texts, Belesys of Diodorus or Bussalossor of Abydenos. Bel-shum-ishkun is another name of Nabopolassar.
192. The annals of Nabopolassar from his tenth until his seventeenth year (now
in the British Museum), can be supplemented by the “Hittite” annals of his from
the first to the tenth year (two variants) and from the nineteenth year on, as
they survived in the Boghazkoi archive.
193. The presence of the
Scythians (Umman-Manda) in Asia Minor, who in the
days of Essarhaddon arrived from behind the Caucasus,
is also reflected in the Boghazkoi texts dealing with
the Umman-Manda.
194. The Assyro-Egyptian
alliance against which Mursilis conducted a long war
in the valley of the Euphrates, was the alliance of Assurbanipal and Seti (see §180).
195. Assuruballit in Harran, against whom Mursilis marched, was the
younger brother of Assurbanipal.
196. The capture of Manassehand his release are recorded in the annals of Mursilis.
197. The Median prince and ally
of Mursilis-Nabopolassar was his brother-in-law,
known in the texts by the name of Mattiuza.
198. The sickness of Nabopolassar, his subsequent inability to head the army,
his invalid condition and his death, as described by Berosus,
find their confirmation in the report of Mursilis-Nabopolassar about the first and second strokes of paralysis that befell him.
199. Nergilissar who called himself son of Bel-shum-ishkun, King of Babylon, was a son of Nabopolassar.
He was the second son of Nabopolassar; his elder
brother died before being crowned.
200. Nergilissar followed the policy of his father in signing international protective treaties,
with Chaldea playing the part of the protector.
201. The name of one of his
allies, Alexandus (Alexandos)
of Wilusa, who came to Alasia (Cyprus), does not imply that the name Alexandos or Alexandros was already in use in the fourteenth century. (Alexandus of Wilusa might have
been identical with Alexandros, son of Akamas and father of Chytros, who
was connected with the city of Chitroi on Cyprus.)
202. The Aiavolos mentioned in the Boghazkoi texts and identified as Aioles, and connected in the texts with Lesbos, were the
colonists from Boeothia on Lesbos (Thukidides I, 12ff.). This process of migration is
reflected in the Boghazkoi texts.
203. Nebukhadnezar left an autobiography found among the Boghazkoi texts
(the autobiography of Hattusilis-Khetasar). Like
other documents of Boghazkoi it is incorrectly
ascribed to a period seven centuries earlier.
204. Nebukhadnezar was the third son of Nabopolassar. Of feeble health,
he was reared in a temple of Ishtar. When his elder brother died, he was given
the name of the deceased.
205. Nergilissar appointed Nebukhadnezar as chief of the army and
governor of Assyria. In this capacity he battled the Egyptians under Ramses II,
in the second year of the latter; in the fifth year of Ramses II,
raised to the station of King of Assyria, Nebukhadnezar again battled the Egyptians, at Kadesh-Carchemish.
X
206. Ramses II (of the Nineteenth
Dynasty) and Pharaoh-Necho (of the Twenty-sixth
Dynasty) of the Scriptures or Necos of Herodotus are
one and the same person.
207. The theories that make
Ramses II the Pharaoh of Oppression or the Exodus are wrong.
208. For nineteen years Ramses II
was in a state of war with Nebu-khadnezar.
209. The defeat of Josiah is
portrayed in a mural fragment, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
210. The tribute imposed upon
Judea and the imprisonment of Jehoahaz are referred
to on an obelisk of Tanis.
211. The first march of Necho-Ramses II toward the Euphrates is related on the
obelisk of Tanis and on the rock inscription of Nahr el Kalb near Beirut, written in his second year. The rock inscriptions of
Ramses II are not as old as that of Essarhadon on the
same rock.
212. The second campaign which
Ramses II led toward the Euphrates is narrated in his annals and in the Pentaur-poem and has a parallel record in Jeremiah 46.
213. The Shardana mercenaries were the people of Sardis (Lydians), and not of Sardinia.
214. The city Kadesh the Old of the battle was Carchemish.
215. The remnants of the fortifications
and the double moats of Kadesh-Carchemish pictured by
Ramses II are recognizable in situ.
216. Hieropolis the Old was situated on the site of Carchemish.
217. The river ‘N-r-t or ‘R-n-t
was the Egyptian name of the Euphrates.
218. Bab and Aranime mentioned by Ramses II in the course of
the battle are Bab and Arime on the road from Aleppo to Carchemish.
219. At the beginning of the
battle, Ramses II, with the division of Amon, was northwest of Carchemish; the
division of Re was between Sadjur and Carchemish; the
division of Ptah and Sutekh were south of Bab. The army of Re was driven northward away from its base, and,
together with the division of Amon, was thrown into the Euphrates.
220. After the defeat at
Carchemish, Ramses II lost dominion over Syria and Palestine for three years,
until the eighth year of Jehoiakim.
221. A fragment of a clay tablet,
dealing with the battle of Carchemish, is preserved in the archive of Boghazkoi.
222. Nebukhadnezar returned from the pursuit of Ramses II because he was accused before Nergilissar of intending to usurp the imperial crown.
223. The person of his accuser, Arma, a very aged relative, whom he ultimately put to
death, is intimated in the rabbinical literature and in the Fathers of the
Church as that of Hiram, King of Tyre, old relative and accuser of Nebukhadnezar.
224. Nergilissar exacted an oath from Nebukhadnezar that he would be
faithful to his son and heir, Labash-Marduk (Lamash or Labu in the Boghazkoi texts). After Nergilissar’s death. Nebukhadnezar crowned his nephew, but nine
months later, he arrested him. A letter of Nebukhadnezar (Hattusilis) to his minor nephew, containing a
denunciation, is preserved.
225. The repairs of the palace
and the temple of Ezagila in Babylon made by Nergilissar antedate those made by Nebukhadnezar.
226. The queen of Nebukhadnezar was a daughter of a priest of Ishtar. She was
not an Egyptian or Median princess, as related by early authors.
227. Nebukhadnezar became King of Babylon five years after Ramses II became King of Egypt.
228. In his ninth year Ramses II
occupied Askalon and the Philistine shore. Marching
through the valley of Jezreel, his troops reached
Beth Shan.
229. In the twelfth year of
Ramses II, Palestine was again subdued by Nebukhadnezar.
230. During the interval between
two sieges of Jerusalem in the days of Zedekiah, a treaty was concluded between
Ramses II and Nebukhadnezar; its text is extant.
231. Jewish fugitives in Egypt
were extradited in accordance with the treaty.
232. The “Fossae Temple” of Lachish was built in the days of Solomon and rebuilt in the days of
Jehoshaphat and Amenhotep III; the city was captured
by Sennaherib, and destroyed by Nebukhadnezar.
The “Fossae Temple”, burnt in the days of Ramses II,
and the city-walls, burnt in the days of Nebukhadnezar,
are remains of one and the same fire.
233. Nebukhadnezar did not invade Egypt. The only historical inscription which is ascribed to Nebukhadnezar and which deals with a march toward Egypt,
has a counterpart in the Marriage Stela of Ramses II.
234. Ramses II married a daughter
of Nebukhadnezar. The bas-relief of Abu-Simbel
portrays the visit of Nebukhadnezar bringing his
daughter to Ramses II.
235. “Bit-Niku”
outside the wall of Babylon was the palace built for Ramses II who used to
visit there.
236. Nebukhadnezar’s daughter had a palace at Daphneh-Tahpanhes.
237. Red baked bricks of the
Ramses period in Tahpanhes were an innovation
introduced from the Babylon of Nebukhadnezar.
238. The Bentresh Stela deals with the mental disease of the elder
daughter of Nebukhadnezar, and was written by the
priests of Khons a few decades thereafter. This
daughter was married to a prince of Damascus.
239. The paranoiac character of Nebukhadnezar is fully reflected by his autobiography and
other texts of Boghazkoi, notably dealing with
exorcisms. The biblical record about his suffering from nightmares and about
his mental disease is substantiated.
240. The tomb of Ahiram found at Bybios dates not
from the thirteenth century, but from about 600 B.C.E. The Cyprian pottery of
the end of the seventh century and the vases of Ramses II found in this grave
are contemporaneous.
241. Itobaal,
son of Ahiram, the builder of the tomb, was probably
the defender of Tyre against Nebukhadnezar, as
mentioned by Josephus.
242. The inscriptions of Ahiram’s tomb are of the same age as the ostraca of Lachish. The development of the Hebrew letters
went through a normal process without falling into archaisms.
243. The dispute as to whether
Ramses II or Necho built the canal connecting the
Mediterranean with the Red Sea, deals with a spurious problem.
244. Greek armor found in Daphneh (Daphnoi), as well as
iron tools and ingots, are coeval with the temple of Ramses II there, and are
products of the Greek mercenaries in the service of the pharaohs of the
Nineteenth (Twenty-sixth) Dynasty.
245. Tiles of buildings erected
by Ramses II (in Kantir) which have Greek letters on
the back, are products of Greek laborers in the service of the pharaoh. The
letters are genuine Greek letters of the sixth century.
XI
246. Pharaoh Marneptah is the biblical Hophra and Apries of the Greek authors. Marneptah was not the Pharaoh
of the Exodus, but the Pharaoh of the Exile. His royal name usually read Hotephirma, must be read Hophra-Mat.
247. That part of the population
of Palestine which escaped deportation to Babylon, went to Egypt, and this
migration through the fortress city of Takhu was
recorded by the officials of Marneptah.
248. The fortress and palace
station Takhu on the frontier, is the biblical Tahpanhes (Daphnoi).
249. The mention of Israel in the
“Israel Stela” of Marneptah as an unsettled people refers to their status of exiles.
250. Marneptah used metaphors similar to Jeremiah’s in describing the plight of Palestine and
Israel.
251. The incursion of Marneptah into Syria is echoed in Diodorus I, 68. This could have taken place during the mental illness of Nebukhadnezar.
252. The city Kaditis in Palestine, referred to by Herodotus, is Jerusalem, and not Gaza.
253. The Libyan campaign of Marneptah was caused by the migration of the Greeks to Cyrenae. It was not an archaic invasion of Hellenic peoples
in the thirteenth century, but the mass migration encouraged by the Pythian oracle and described by Herodotus (IV, 159).
254. Amasis deposed Marneptah. There were not seven centuries between Marneptah and Amasis; the latter was a general in the
service of the former. Amasis kept his prisoner for a while as co-ruler on the
throne.
255. The violent death of Apries-Marneptah at the hands of the assassins was caused
by a lethal wound of the head, as the perforation of the scull of his mummy ghows.
XII
256. The overthrow of Egypt,
which Ramses III referred to as having occurred a number of generations before
his own days, is the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in the year of Amasis’
death.
257. The Palestinian Irsa who taxed Egypt is Ezra, the scribe; he taxed Egypt in
accordance with the decree of Artaxerxes.**
258. Ramses III is identical with Nectanebo I of the Greek authors. He lived not in the
twelfth but in the fourth century.
259. In Herodotus there can be no
reference to Ramses III, because the historian lived before the pharaoh. The
history of Egypt by Herodotus, though defective in details, is more nearly
accurate than that of the later and modern historians, because he placed the
history of the Eighteenth, the Ethiopian, and the Nineteenth Dynasties in
fairly accurate order.
260. “Invasion of Egypt by the
archaic Greeks” in the twelfth century is a fallacy. The Greeks who
participated in the wars of Ramses III and who are shown as changing sides,
were at first soldiers of Chabrias, assisting Egypt,
and then troops of Iphicrates, opposing Ramses III.
261. Agesilaus, the King of
Sparta, had already arrived in Egypt in the days of 262. The Pereset,
with whom Ramses III was at war, were the Persians of Artaxerxes II under the
satrap Pharnambazus, and not the Philistines.
263. The war described by Ramses
III, and by Diodorus and other classical authors (the
war of Nectanebo 1), is one and the same war of 374
BCE
264. A camp was set up by Pharnambazus in Acco in
preparation for an attack against the Egypt of Ramses III.
265. A naval invasion against
Egypt was undertaken by forcing the Mendesian mouth
of the Nile, fortified by Ramses III.
266. Flame throwers were used on
the Persian ships forty years before their use by the Tyrians at the siege of Tyre by Alexander.
267. The Egyptian bas-reliefs of
the temple at Medinet Habu show Sidonian ships and Persian carriages comparable
to the pictures of ships and carriages on the Sidonian coins minted during the years of the invasion.
268. The bas-reliefs of Medinet Habu show the reform of Iphicrates in lengthening the swords and spears and
reducing the armor intended for defense.
269. The Jewish military colony
at Elephantine still existed in 374 BCE and participated in the defense of the
eastern border of Egypt. These professional soldiers were called Marienu by Ramses III, which is the Aramaic Marenu.
270. Semitic languages and the
Palestinian cult of Baal made headway in Egypt at the time of Ramses III.
271. The Greek letters of
classical form incised on the tiles of Ramses III during the process of
manufacture (found at Tell-el-Yahudieh in the Delta)
present no problem. They are Greek letters of the fourth century.
272. The inlay work and glazing
of the tiles of Ramses III are innovations introduced from Persia.
273. The hunting motifs in the
art of Ramses III were inspired by Assyrian and Persian bas-reliefs; some
motifs of the Greek art also made their influence felt in the murals of Ramses
III.
274. Other kings known by the
name of Ramses, from Ramses IV to Ramses XII, are identical with the kings of
the Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth Dynasties and their order of succession is
confused.
275. The papyrus of Wenamon describes the conditions in Syria during the late
Persian or early Greek times. In the days when the Testament of Naphtali was
composed, the Barakel Shipowners Company mentioned in this papyrus was still in existence and owned by a son of Barakel.
276. The so-called Twenty-first
Dynasty flourished not in the twelfth-eleventh century, but in the fifth-fourth
century; it was established by the Persians as a dynasty of priestly princes in
the oases of the Libyan desert for strategic purposes. It existed before,
during and after the Twentieth (Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth) Dynasty.
277. The so-called Stela of the Exiled is the Egyptian record of the visit of
Alexander the Great to the oracle of Amon in the oasis. The question about the
exiles refers to the exiles from Chios; the question about the punishment of
the murderers refers to the murderers of Philip.
278. The narration of Greek and
Latin authors concerning this visit of Alexander is historical and true in many
details; such is, e. g., the episode of the priest applying the word “son” to
Alexander, or the oracle’s manner of answering questions by nodding.
XIII
279. The history of the ancient
world, confused for a period of over one thousand years, reaches the end of its
confusion with the time of Alexander the Great. Since then it is rendered in a
synchronized form.***
280. The problem of the beginning
of the Iron Age in diverse countries is confused by wrong chronology. The Iron
Age developed simultaneously in Egypt and Palestine.
281. The often made assumption
that the royal signs (scarabs with cartouches) of the Egyptian kings do not
present a valid argument for the time valuation of the strata in which they are
found, is erroneous. In most cases they were neither heirlooms deposited at a
later date, nor late counterfeits, but genuine gems as old as the strata in
which they are found.
282. Archaeological work in the
Near East is misled by the erroneous chronology of Egypt. In the excavations where
the strata were carefully distinguished, as in Beth Shan, no strata of the
Israelite period above the stratum of Rames II could
be found.
283. The astronomical computation
of chronology made by calculation of the Sothic periods is entirely arbitrary in
many aspects. The Egyptian New Year followed the planet Isis, which is Venus,
and not Sirius. The Canopus Decree of the priests of Ptolemy III Euergetes was concerned with the transfer of the New Year
from the heliacal rising of Venus to a date regulated by the rising of Sirius
(Sothis).
284. After the end of the Middle
Kingdom, a change in cosmic scenery caused a reform in the calendar. During the
time of the Libyan Dynasty (between the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties)
another change was made in the calendar.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||