Pharaohs and the Bible. David Rohl's chronology untenable

In the accepted chronology of ancient Egypt the 21st dynasty ran from 1069 to 945 B.C. and the 22nd from 945 to 715 B.C.. In the view of David Rohl however this is not correct: the phara­ohs from the 21st dynasty, who reig­ned during 124 years, were contemporaries of those from the 22nd dynasty. The beginning of the 22nd dynasty is moved by Rohl some 150 years, while he shortens the period of the 22th dynasty. The overall result is that the whole 19th dynasty, which included pharaoh Rames­ses II, is moved forward some 350 years.

Some Egyptian pharaohs fought battles against kings of other countries, wrote letters to them, or married their daughters. Such events linked the history of Egypt to that of Assyria, Babylon and the Hittite empire on more than one occasion. Any shift in ancient Egyptian chronology will therefore have far-reaching consequences for the ancient history of the whole Near East before 664 B.C.. If Rohl's view were cor­rect the ancient Near Eas­tern history would have to be rewritten.

There is concensus of opinion about dating the Egyptian histo­ry from 715 B.C. onwards. The pharaohs of the 25th dynasty, who came from Nubia, ruled over Egypt starting from 715 B.C.. One of them was Tirhakah or Taharqa (690-664 B.C.) who is mentioned in 2 Kings 19:9. In 701 B.C., when he was still a prince, Tirha­kah was the general of the Nubian-Egyptian army that came to the assistance of king Hizkiah and his Philistine allies, who were threate­ned by the Assyrian army of Sanhe­rib.

Consequences

The big shifts proposed by Rohl would lead to apparent soluti­ons to a few problems, but would give rise also to insoluble problems concerning the history of Israel and Biblical data.

Pharaoh Seti I (1294-1279 B.C.), the father of Ramesses II, would become a contemporary of king Solomon (972-931 B.C.) and would have led his army through the latter's kingdom several times, capturing cities on his way.

The Late Bronze period too would be moved forward some 350 years, to end around 850 B.C. The Philistines settled in Ashkelon and Ashdod only after Late Bronze. The proposed new chronology would place this event about a century after king Solomon, despite the fact that both cities had already been inhabited for over a century before Solomon (1 Sam.6:17).

In order to gain support for his theory, Rohl interviewed the well-known egyptologist prof. dr. K.A. Kitchen. During the inter­view, which took no less than seven hours, prof. Kitchen drew the attention to genealogical evidence that proved the incorrectness of Rohl's theory beyond any doubt.

However, in the TV documentary "Pharaohs and the Bible" that followed, many of prof. Kitchen's arguments were not mentioned. All the impor­tant informa­tion he had brought forward was reduced to no more than a three minutes' account of lesser points.1

It will be demonstrated in the article below that Rohl's theory is incompa­tible with data from ancient inscripti­ons and the results of archaeological re­search.

The reasons for the new Chronology

Rohl bases his proposition that the 22nd dynasty was simulta­neous with the 21st on three points.

1. During the 21st and the beginning of the 22nd dynasties no tombs were made for sacred Apis bulls in the Serapeum.

In the Serapeum and Saqqara, the large cemetary near Memphis, are the tombs were the sacred Apis bulls, worshiped in Memp­his, were buried after being mummified. Priestly stelas show the year of reign of the pharaoh when a particular bull was buried. The inscriptions on thes stelas are an impor­tant source of chronological evidence. An uninterrupted series of buried Apis bulls from the 30th year of Ramesses II (c.1250 B.C.) to Ramesses XI (1098-1069 B.C.), the last pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, is available. No Apis tombs have been found that rela­te to the pharaohs of the 21st dynasty and the first three of the 22nd dynasty. Apis tombs reappea­red in 852 B.C. and remained in use till the rise of the Roman Empire. The interim period without Apis tombs might be an indication that the phara­ohs in question ruled together with other pharaohs, and should there­fore not take up space of their own in Egyptian chrono­logy.

2. The mysterious burial of a priest mummy from the 22nd dynasty of phara­ohs in a crypt that was sealed during the 21st dynasty

On July 5 1881 a crypt containing 40 mummies was opened in Deir l-Bahri, close to the famous funeral temple of pharaoh Hatshepsut. Among the mummies were those of the pharaohs Tuthmosis III, Seti I and Ramesses II. They had been brought to safety by priests during the burial of the high priest Pinodjem II, in order to prevent them from being violated by robbers. According to an inscription the hiding place was sealed in the 10th year of reign of pharaoh Siamun (969 B.C.).

The same hiding place also contained the mummy of priest Djed-ptah-ef-ankh. An inscription revealed that he was buried in the 11th year of pharaoh Sheshonk I (935 B.C.). In the accep­ted chronology this was 34 years after the sealing of the crypt. Notes that were made when the mummies were taken out of the crypt and transferred to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, suggest that the shrine of the priest was found in the back of the crypt. The obvious explanation seems to be that Sheshonk I, the first pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty, ruled before Siamun, the last pharaoh but one of the 21st dynasty.

3. Pharaoh Osorkon II, who belonged to the 22nd dynasty, was buried in Tanis in a tomb that was older than the adjacent crypt which contained the tombs of pharaohs Psoennes I and Amenemope of the 21st dynasty.

In the accepted chronology Osorkon II died 141 years after Psoennes I: Psoennes' funeral is dated to 991 B.C., and Osor­kon's to 850 B.C. Here too the accepted dates for the pharaohs of the 21st and 22nd dynasties seem to be incorrect.

Solutions to the problems

The above three points do not immediately present proof that the accepted Egyptian chronology is incorrect. The peculiar observations can be explai­ned in a rational way.

1. The missing Apis bulls

No tombs of Apis bulls buried in the Serapeum between 1080 and 852 B.C. have been found. There is evidence however that an Apis bull was mummified during that period. An inscription states that the high priest of the Ptah temple in Memphis, where the Apis bull was venerated, had a new table made for embalming sacred Apis bulls during the reign of Sheshonk I (945-921 B.C.). At least one Apis bull must therefore have been mummified under Sheshonk I, but no tomb of it has been found in the Serapeum.2

Under pharaoh Ramesses XI (1098-1069 B.C.), the last pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, an Apis bull was ceremonially buried. Any evidence of Apis bulls being buried in the Serapeum in the next (21th) dynasty is lacking. Smendes (1069-1043 B.C.), the first pharaoh of this dynasty, established his new capitol in Tanis, in the north-east of the Nile delta. He also broke with the age-old tradition of burying the deceased pharaohs in caves in the Valley of the Kings, near Thebes in the south of Egypt. Tombs of 21st dynasty pharaohs were placed in modestly decorated crypts in the temple area of Tanis. Very likely one of these pharaohs also introduced a diffe­rent place for the burial of Apis bulls.

In 852 B.C., the 23rd year of Osorkon II - he was the fourth pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty - again an Apis bull was buried in a tomb in the Serapeum, and from then on the old tradition was restored, as shown by inscriptions on stelas.3

2. The later burial of a mummy in the sealed crypt in Deir el‑Bahri

There are two other possible explanations, beside the one mentioned above, for the fact that the mummy of a priest from the 22nd dynasty has been found in a crypt that was sealed during the 21st dynasty.

First: the crypt could have been reopened afterwards for the burial of another mummy.

Second: when the contents of the crypt were removed in 1881, this had to be done in a hurry so as to bring the mummies into safety as quickly as possi­ble. As a result the location where the coffin of Djed-ptah-ef-ankh had been found may easily have been stated erroneously.

3. The age of the crypt containing the tomb of pharaoh Osor­kon II

Crypt no.I (see figure), where the tomb of Osorkon II was found, was built earlier than no.III north of no.I, where pharaohs were buried who lived earlier than Osorkon II. It is easy to see that parts of crypt no.I, which already existed, were cut away to make room for the south wall of crypt no.III when the latter was under construction. In this more recent crypt no.III were the tombs of pharaohs Psoennes I (died 991 B.C.) and Amenemope (died 984 B.C.). In the accepted chronolo­gy they lived well before Osorkon II (died 850 B.C.).

Most rational explanation for the findings is that crypt I was originally built for the burial of pharao Smendes (died 1043 B.C.) and that Osorkon II nearly 200 years later had ordered it emptied to obtain a crypt for his family members. The place where the tomb of Smendes was brought to is not known. Crypt I appeared to contain the tombs of Osorkon II, his son and successor Takelot II (850-825 B.C.), and prince Hamakht, another son, who had died early; in addition a tomb that probably contained pharaoh Shoshenk V and a tomb of an uniden­tified pharaoh. Takelot II was buried in a coffin that had already been used in the Middle Kingdom (before 1800 B.C.). His tomb was in the ante-room of his father's crypt.

The period of the 22nd dynasty

Sheshonk I (945-924 B.C.), the first pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty, is almost unanimously identified with pharaoh Shishak who launched a campain against Palestine during king Rehabeam of Judah. Rohl rejects this identification. He thinks that Sheshonk I did not ascend the throne until about 800 B.C. However moving the start of the 22nd dynasty towards 800 B.C. would produce an irresolvable problem. The nine generations of the 22nd dynasty would have to be pressed together in about 85 years, since the 22nd dynasty ended in 715 B.C..

The order of the pharaohs and the number of generations in the 22nd dynasty have been established beyond question with the aid of data on stelas in the Serapeum and other inscriptions. One chronological key text is an inscrip­tion in a stela of the priest Pasenhor, concerning the burial of an Apis bull in the 37th year of a certain pharaoh Usimare Sheshonk. Here Pasenhor presents a genealogy of the first four pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty.4A statue of the Nile god moreover bears an inscrip­tion concerning a high priest by the name of Shoshenk, son of pharaoh Sekhem-kheper-re Osorkon "whose mother is Maatkare, king's daughter of Har-Psoennes". The high priest Sheshonk therefore was a son of Osorkon I. Har-Psoennes is pharaoh Psoennes II, and his daughter, the last pharaoh of the 21st dynasty, mar­ried Osorkon I, son of Sheshonk I, the first pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty.5

The possible duration of the 22nd dynasty

The ten pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty ruled from 945 till 715 B.C. Together they comprised nine generations, which is in perfect agreement with a period of 230 years. The number of years attributed to the reign of a pharaoh of this dynasty in most cases is the highest number known of in­scriptions. Never­theless an uncertainty exists about the years of reign of Osorkon I, Takelot I and Osorkon IV, so that the total span of the 22nd dynasty might be reduced by 40 years at most, to about 190 years.

According to Rohl the 22nd dynasty started about 800 B.C. It came to an end in 715 B.C., so the complete dynasty of nine generations and at least 190 years would have to be pressed together in a mere 85 years.

The 23rd dynasty

From 818 B.C., the eighth year of his reign, Sheshonk III was accompanied as pharaoh by his younger brother Pedubast.6 The latter established the 23rd dynasty, which ran simultaneously with the last four pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty, in Leontopo­lis or Taremu. In this city, located in the centre of the Egyptian delta, a bronze hinge was found with on it the name of pharaoh Iuput I, a son of Pedubast.7

In 728 B.C. the Nubian pharaoh Pianch, who had taken control over southern Egypt, marched against fout pharaohs who ruled simultaneously in the middle and north of Egypt and who had formed an alliance. Pianch gained a victory over them, and following this campaign he withdrew to Nubia.

An inscription on a stela erected in the Nubian capital Napata during Pianch's 21st year of reign (727 B.C.) describes his victory over the four pharaohs. One pharaoh mentioned is Osorkon who reigned in Ro-nefer, the eastern part of the delta. The pharaoh meant here cannot have been Osorkon III of the 23rd dynasty, since he had his residence in Leontopolis, in the middle of the delta. Another mentioned on the stela is Iuput of Taremu (Leontopolis). This pharaoh belonged to the 23rd dynasty.8 The Osorkon on Pianch's stela must have been Osorkon IV, the last pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty.

Pianch died in 716 B.C. and was succeeded by his brother Shabako, who conquered northern Egypt in 715 B.C. He was the first pharaoh of the 25th dynasty and the first to rule over all Egypt. The 22nd and 23rd dynasties both ended in 715 B.C.

Highpriests in Karnak

We know the names and the order of appearance of all high priests of the Amon temple in Karnak for the 21st dynasty. Herihor was high priest by the end of the reign of Ramesses XI, the last pharaoh of the 20th dynasty. Herihor's successor was his son Pianch (1074-1070 B.C.), who in his turn was succeeded by his son Pinodjem I. Next came six successive high priests covering three generations. In most cases an inscrip­tion tells us under which pharaoh and in which year of his reign a new high priest was instal­led.9

The same applies to the high priests who were in power under the first seven pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty. The uninterrup­ted succession of high priests during the 21st dynasty leaves no room for inserting high priests from the 22nd dynasty of pharaohs. The men who were high priests during the 21st dyna­sty were different from those who were in office under the first seven pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty.

Thes facts make it impossible for the two dynasties to have the same dates.

Shishak's campaign

Shishak launched a campaign against Canaan in the fifth year of king Reha­beam of Judah (925 B.C.). In 1 Kings 14:25-28 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9 only the attack on Judah is mentioned, as the authors were only interrested in the history of this kingdom. Shishak is almost unanimously identified with Shes­honk I. The Egyptian name Sheshonk and Hebrew Shishak are linguis­tical equivalents.

In the opinion of David Rohl, they were not the same men, because the report on Sheshonk's campaign does not match the Biblical report on Shis­hak's campaign. Shoshenk had his cam­paign against Canaan depicted on a wall of the Bubastis gate in the Amon temple at Karnak. The captured cities were depic­ted as prisoners, each having an oval on his body with the name of a city. The total number of captured cities and for­tresses so depicted was about 150. Within the lines many city names have become illegible, but the line of city names refer­ring to the area of Jerusalem - including, e.g., Ayalon, Beth-Horon and Gibeon - is completely legible; Jerusalem is lacking however.

Does this fact prove that Shoshenk I and Shishak were diffe­rent persons? By no means. In fact, Jerusalem was not captured by Shishak. Shoshenk's report enumerates dozens of Judean fortresses in the Negev, as well as the Judean cities Gezer, Ayalon, Beth-Horon and Gibeon. Seeing that numerous fortres­ses and cities in his kingdom were taken, Rehabeam decided to give in to Shishak's demand and pay tribu­te. He handed over all the gold and silver from the store­houses of the temple and his palace, in order that Shis­hak would change his mind and not besiege Jerusalem.

After Rehabeam's repentance the profet Shemaiah brought him the following message from God: "Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured on Jerusalem through Shishak" (2 Chron.12:7). This is clear evidence that Shoshenk I did not capture Jerusalem. He correctly omitted Jerusalem from his list of captured cities.

Did Ramesses II capture Jerusalem?

According to Rohl, pharaoh Shishak from the Bible was Ramesses II. In the proposed new chronology Ramesses II would have reig­ned from 932 to 866 B.C. The campaign he made in his eighth year would be Shishak's campaign descri­bed in the Bible. The report on Ramesses' campaign includes, e.g., the taking of Shalem, which must have been Jerusalem in Rohl's view.

The facts are howevere that the taking of Shalem in Ramesses' report is preceded by Merom and that the other cities mentio­ned are Kerep, in the mountains of Beth-Anath, Akko, Kana and Yenoam. The geographic context clearly locates the city of Shalem in Galilee. Indeed the aim of the cam­paign was to subject a few rebellious cities in Galilee. Ramesses II then proceeded further to the north and captured the cities Dapur and Tunip, both lying west of Hamath on the middle course of the river Orontes in western Syria.10

Pharaoh Seti I, the father of Ramesses II, would have reig­ned, by the new chronology, from 947 to 932 B.C. In the first year of his reign he made a campaign to Canaan and had a stela erected in Beth-Sean, which stated that the govenor of Hamath had taken Beth-Sean and, assisted by the city of Pella, had surrounded Rehob, a city south of Beth-Sean. Egyptian armed forces captured Hamath, Beth-Sean and Yenoam.11

On another stela, erected in Beth-Sean in the second or third year of Seti I, it is stated that he fought against Habiru. Thereafter he restored Egyptian rule in Damascus and Kumidi, a city in the Beqaa valley between the Libanon and Antilibanon mountains. On his way back to Beth-Sean he had a stela erected in Tell-es-Shihab, south-west of Asteroth-Quarnaim.12

If the new chronology would be correct, then Seti I would have made his campaigns during the reign of Salomo and would have taken cities from him.

Comsequences for other countries

If the reign of Ramesses II would be shifted some 350 years, then this would have to apply also to the kings of Assyria, Babylon and the Hittite empire, because of their numerous contacts with Ramesses II.

Ramesses II fought against the army of Hittite king Muwatallis II (c. 1295-1272 B.C.) near Kadesh, a city on the Orontes, in 1275 B.C. After the death of Muwatallis his son Mursilis III came in power, but seven years later his oncle Hattusilis III (c. 1265-1235 B.C.), a younger brother of Muwatallis II, took power and exiled Mursilis from the court. Hattusilis allied him­self to king Kadashman-Turgu of Babylon. Mursilis fled to Egypt in the 18th year of Ramesses II (1262 B.C.). Hattusilis requested extradition of his nephew, but Ramesses refused. Kadahman-Turgu of Babylon broke off relations with Egypt and proposed that Hattusilis and he should march together against Egypt; which Hattusilis refused. This caused a serious crisis. Ramesses II mobilized his army and marched to the north of Canaan. In memory of this he had a stela erected in Beth-Sean in early 1261 B.C.13

Hattu­silis started peace negotiations, and in the 21st year of Ramesses II (1259 B.C.) the two made peace. After this, Rames­ses II wrote numerous letters to Hattusilis. In the 34th year of Ramesses II the peace treaty was sealed by a marriage between him and a daughter of Hattusilis III.14

These facts are stated both in Egyptian inscriptions and on clay tablets found in Hattusas, the capital of the Hittite empire.

A son of Hattusilis III wrote a letter to the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1235-1198 B.C.). The letter states that Mursilis III had written a letter to Salmanassar I of Assyria, Tukulti-Ninurta's father.15

Kadashman-Turgu of Babylon corres­ponded with Hattusilis III, and the latter wrote to Kadash­man‑Enlil, the successor of Kadahman-Turgu.16

Apparently the histories of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and the Hittite empire were closely interconnected. A 350 years' shift in Egyptian chronology would inevitably cause a simular shift in the dates of the kings of the other states. If we examen the consequences of such a shift it will simply show to be impossible.

Assyrian chronology

For the Assyrian chronology a 300 years' shift of all data would mean that a period of hundreds of years would vanish from history. The proposed new chronology would imply that Adadnirari I had reigned from 950 to 918 B.C., his son Salma­nassar I from 918 to 888 B.C., and the latter's son Tukulti-Ninurta I from 888 to 851 B.C. They were contemporaries of Ramesses II. After Tukulti-Ninurta I an 80 years' period of weakening followed, in which seven kings appeared. A few of them ruled at the same time and the length of reign of some of these kings is not certain.

This period was followed by a remarkable recovery of Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser I (1116-1077 B.C.), who reigned for 39 years and organized numerous campaigns. The period of weaken­ing that occurred previous to his reign cannot possibly be compressed to less than 30 years. Tiglath-Pileser I would thus have reigned from 820 to 780 B.C. It has firmly been establis­hed however that Assyria was ruled by other kings then. There is no doubt about Assyrian chronology as from 912 B.C..

Adadnirari II (912-891 B.C.) started to reign in that year. His father, Assurdan II, had reigned from 935 to 912 B.C. From 935 B.C. Assyria was ruled by other kings than the new chrono­logy would suggest.

Assyrian chronology from 912 B.C.

From 912 B.C. Assyrian chronology is certain, thanks to 'lim­mu' lists, which for each year state the name of the highest-ranking official (limmu) in Assyria, sometimes together with an impor­tant event that took place at the same time. The limmu lists known run from 911 through 631 B.C. The lists can be dated with the aid of the Canon of Ptolemaeus (second centu­ry A.D.), and coincide with dates from the Canon between 747 and 631 B.C..17

The Canon begins with the dates of the kings who ruled over Babylon as from 747 B.C. Among them were some Assyrian kings too, for instance Sargon II. In his 'Almagest', Ptolemaeus presents 80 astronomical data, such as solar and lunar eclip­ses, in connection with the year of reign of the respective king.

Backward calculation has proved that Ptolemaeus' statements are correct.18 At the tenth year of Assurdan II a limmu list states that a solar eclipse occurred in the month Shivan (May/June). On account of Canon data the tenth year of Assur­dan III was dated to 763 B.C., and a solar eclipse did actual­ly occur in Mesopotamia on 15th June, 763 B.C..

Rohl' proposed new chronology leaves no room for the Assyrian kings Salma­nassar I, Tukulti-Ninurta I and Tiglath-Pileser I, who together covered a period of 106 years. In the years attributed to them by the new chronology Assyria was ruled by other kings. From Tiglath-Pileser I till Assurdan II the Assyrian royal list names nine other kings, for whom no room is left. Most of them were succeeded by their sons; at least there were six genera­tions of kings, who in the official chronology ruled from 1077 to 935 B.C., i.e. 142 years. This period could perhaps be reduced to a minimum of 130 years. In all, the new chronology fails to fill in a period of 270 years for Assyria.

The Amarna Letters

The Amarna letters too are redated by Rohl. Clay tablets containing the letters were found in Tell el-Amarna in Middle Egypt, the ruins of Egypt's capital Achet Aton at the time of pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Achnaton, 1353-1337 B.C.). The letters, about 380 in all, had been sent to the pharaoh by kings of large kingdoms in the Near East and by governors of cities in Can­aan, Phoenicia and Syria, which were under Egyptian rule.

Amenhotep IV also had letters from the last years of his father transferred to Achet Aton. Some letters were addressed to Amenhotep III, others to Amenhotep IV and a few probably to Tutanchamon. Almost all Amarna letters were written in Assyri­an-Babylonian (Akkadian), the international diploma­tic langua­ge of the 14th century B.C..

The Amarna letters include those sent from some 20 cities in Canaan. In many letters the pharaoh was asked for help, as cities were being threate­ned by 'Habiru' or by collaborating governors of other cities. The letters are believed to have been written between c. 1360 and 1335 B.C..

In Rohl's proposed new chronology Amenhotep IV was pharaoh from 1006 to 990 B.C. and the Amarna letters were written between 1015 and 990, i.e. during the last years of king Saul (1042-1011 B.C.) and the first half of the reign of David (1011-971 B.C.).

Labayu identical with King Saul?

A few Armarna letters were written by Labayu, governor of Shichem, who ruled over a vast area in the hills north of Jerusalem. Saul ruled over approximately the same area and was therefore, in the view of Rohl, exactly the same man. However, what Labayu wrote to pharaoh Amenhotep III clearly shows that the equation cannot be valid.

In the first of Labayu's letters we know (no. 252), he defended himself against complaints of other city rulers about him.20 Labayu admitted that he had invaded Gezer. He wrote he didn't know that his son collaborated with the Habiru (letter no. 254). Labayu captured cities that were under protection of the pharaoh, and he besieged Megiddo. Abdi-Heba, governor of Jerusalem, complained that Labayu had given the entire region of Shichem to the Habiru (letter no. 289). The pharaoh finally ordered some city rulers to take Labayu prisoner and bring him to Egypt.

Biridiya, governor of Megiddo, wrote to the pharaoh that Zurata, governor of Akko, was to take Labayu, once he was captured, to Akko and from there by ship to Egypt. However, Labayu payed Zurata bribe money and was released (letter no. 245). Later Labayu was killed by citizens of Gina, probably the city of Beth-Hagan (Jenin) in the northern part of the central hill coun­try. This was reported to Balu-Ur.Sag by Labayu's two sons. Balu-Ur.Sag informed the pharaoh that Labayu's two sons continued to invade the coun­try, and asked him to send a high official to Biryawaza, king of Damascus, and order the latter to take armed action against Labayu's sons (letter no. 250).

The picture of both Labayu and the situation in Canaan that is drawn in the Amarna letters is totally different from what is reported in the Bible about king Saul and the situation in Israel under his rule. Labayu was governor of Shichem, whereas Saul lived in the vicinity of Gibeon. Labayu was killed by citizens of Gina, Saul committed suicide after being defeated by the Philistines at the foot of the Gilboa mountains (1 Sam. 31:4). Three of his four sons died in the same battle (1 Sam. 31:2). Several let­ters dating from after Labayu's death speak about his two sons who collaborated with the Habiru and gave them pieces of land (letter no. 287).

Mut-Balu, one of Labayu's sons, was governor of Pella (letter no. 255). After Saul's death his only son alive, Ishboset, became king in Mahanaim (2 Sam. 2:8). Biridiya wrote that the sons of Labayu had offered money to the Habiru in order that they would wage war against him (letter no. 246). Thus, more than one letter shows that two sons of Labayu played a role after his death.

Under pharaoh Amenhotep IV Egyptian high officials were stati­oned in Can­aan. However, when Saul was king, the situation was completely different. The Amarna letters don't mention the Philistines, whereas Saul had to fight the Philistines throu­ghout his reign (1 Sam. 14:52).

Results of excavations

Excavated strata are usually dated on the basis of pottery and other ob­jects present. In the case of Egyptian objects dating is dependent on Egyptian chronology. In Rohl's proposed new chronology this means that the archaeological eras are shifted about 350 years, so that Late Bronze lasted from about 1150 to 850 B.C. The data of the Israelite kings however remain un­changed, and this leads to unsoluble problems, as will be shown below.

Hazor

The last Canaanite city of Hazor was destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze era, in about 1200 B.C.. A minor part of Hazor was located on the tell, above a large lower town. The youn­gest Canaanite stratum in this lower town is stratum 1a, from the 13th century B.C.; the previous stratum, 1b, dates from the 14th century B.C. Canaanite religious objects found in the two strata prove that both belonged to the Canaanite period.

In the city of stratum 1b a temple was built, and after the destruction of the city it was built again (stratum 1a). In the temple an altar was found having a cross within a circle, symbol of the Canaanite storm god, on one side. Parts of a statue having the same symbol on its breast were found outside the temple.21

The youngest Canaanite stratum in the upper town is stratum XIII, dating from the same time as stratum 1a in the lower town. Stratum XIII too was destroyed at the end of Late Bron­ze. On top of this stratum there are two younger strata which contain remnants of small Israelite villages (strata XII and XI). These two are covered by a younger stratum in which remnants of the first Israelite city have been found; it was reinforced all around by a heavy wall which is dated back to the times of king Solomon (972-931 B.C.), who ordered Hazor rebuilt (1 Kings 9:15).22

Following the new chrono­logy howe­ver Hazor would have remained a Canaan­ite city till about 850 B.C. and would not have been rebuilt under king Solo­mon.

Megiddo

In the remains of stratum VII B in Megiddo a plinth of a bronze statue of Ramesses VI (1143-1136 B.C.) has been disco­vered. It must have been buried there shortly before the city of stratum VII A was destroyed.23 Everywhere else the Iron Age had already begun, but in Canaanite cities Late Bronze culture still continued to exist together with Iron I for about half a century.24

The statue plinth and objects of Egyptian origin found in stratum VII A show that Megiddo, in the accepted chronology, was under Egyptian rule till about 1140 B.C. In the proposed new chronology Megiddo would have remained under Egyptian rule till about 840 B.C., and could never have been rebuilt by king Solomon as it is stated in 1 Kings 9:15.

Dor

Dor was a Canaanite city till the end of Late Bronze. In the early 12th century B.C. it was captured by the Tjeker (or Sikels), who belonged to the Sea Peoples and were related to the Philistines.25 In stratum XII (c.1180-1050 B.C.) the same type of pottery was found that was also excavated from Philis­tine cities, but other types of pottery were found as well.

The Tjeker formed no more than a small part of the total population.26 The city of the Tjeker was destroyed by a major conflagration, judging by a thick ash layer found directly below stratum XI.

In about 1050 the city was probably captured by Phoenicians, who settled in Dor in the second half of the 11th century B.C. Pottery found in strata IX, X and XI (c. 1050-1000 B.C.) indi­cates that the majority of the population then was made up by Phoenicians.27

In about 1000 B.C. the city was captured by king David and turned into an Israelite city (stratum VIII). A travel report of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian official, informs us that Dor was ruled by Tjeker (or Sikels) until the arrival of the Phoenicians. Wen-Amon was sent to Byblos in the 23rd year of Ramesses XI (1075 B.C.) to buy cedar wood for the construc­tion of a sacred ship for the god Amon. Wen-Amon first sailed to Dor, where the Tjeker were in power. Here he was robbed of his money by one of the sailors, who then jumped overboard. The king of Dor refused his cooperation in catching the thief.­28

The proposed new chronology dates Ramesses XI to c.830-800 B.C. In that period there would still have been Tjeker kings in Dor. The next 50 years would have been a Phoenician period, so that Dor would not have turned into an Israelite city until about 750 B.C. However, Dor and surroundings were an Israelite district under a governor already in Solomon's days (1Kings 4:11).

Ashkelon and Asdod

In Ashkelon the excavation stratum dating from the end of the Late Bronze period contains no trace of Philistine pottery. The last Canaanite stratum in Ashkelon (XIV) dates back to the time previous to pharaoh Ramesses III (1184-1153 B.C.). It was destroyed some 20 years earlier. Then follows a stratum (XIII B) from the early reign of Ramesses III, where the first Philistine pottery appears.29

Ashdod very likely was inhabited by a small group of Philisti­nes already before Ramesses III.30

Ramesses III fought against the Sea Peoples, including the Philistines, in the east of the Egyptian delta in 1177 B.C., his eighth year of reign. He had this battle depicted on a wall in the temple at Medinet Habu.

In the new chronology Ramesses III would have been pharaoh from about 850 B.C. The Philistines, then, would not have settled in Ashkelon and Ashdod until that same year, whereas it is known from the Bible that these cities were already inhabited by Philistines in the days of Samuel, 200 years earlier (1 Sam. 6:17).

Conclusion

Still other results of excavatiions could be presented here to demonstrate that moving the dates of the Egyptian archaeologi­cal periods some 350 years is an impossibility. The evidence produced will however be sufficient. Rohl's propositi­on that the accepted Egyptian chronology is not correct - implying that excavations so far have not provided a firm scientific basis for the Biblical account of Israel's earliest history - proves to be unte­nable.

The accepted chronology still leaves room for changes, but inscrip­tions, astronomical data and a number of synchro­nisms between the histories of Egypt and other Near Eastern coun­tries will necessarily restrict any change to no more than a small refine­ment.

J.G. van der Land
 

Notes

1. G. Byers, Pharaohs and Kings Confused. David Rohl's New Chronology, Bible and Spade 10, 1997, 2/3, p. 50-52.

2. K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C., Warminster 1973, p. 291.

3. Idem, p. 201, 325.

4. Idem, p. 100.

5. Idem, p. 60.

6. Idem, p. 129-130, p. 134-135.

7. Idem, p. 129.

8. Idem, p. 129, p. 363-368.

9. Idem, p. 10-28.

10. K.A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant. The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt, Warminster 1952, p. 68.

11. J.B. Pritchard, ANET, Princeton 1969, p. 253.

12. Kitchen, Ramesses a.w, p. 21-22.

13. Idem, p. 73-74.

14. Idem, p. 75.

15. H. Otten, Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 12, 1978, p. 67-68.

16. O.R. Gurney, The Hittites, Harmondsworth 1990, p. 29-30.

17. G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, Harmondsworth 1992, p. 25.

18. E.R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand rapids 1977, p. 70-71.

19. Idem, p. 69.

20. W.L. Moran, Les lettres d' El-Amarna. Correspondence diplomatique, Paris 1987.

21. Y. Yadin, Hazor, NEAEHL, vol. 2, p. 597-599.

22. Idem, p. 599-601.

23. G.I. Davies, Megiddo, Cambridge 1986, p. 68.

24. Idem, p. 70-72; A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10.000-586 B.C., Jerusalem 1990, p. 269, 290, 298.

25. E. Stern, Phoenicians, Sikils and Israelites in the Light of recent Excavations at Tel Dor, in: E. Lipin­ski, Phoenicia and the Bible, Studia Phoenicia XI, Leuven 1991, p. 85-89.

26. E. Stem, The Many Masters of Dor, I, When the Canaan­ites became Sailors, Bar 19, 1993, p. 29-30.

27. Stern, Phoenicians, a.w., p. 91-92.

28. Pritchard, ANET, a.w., p. 25-29.; Y Aharoni, The Land of the Bible. A historical Geography, Philadelphia 1979, p. 269.

29. L.E. Stager, Ashkelon, NEAEHL, vol. 1, p. 103, 107.

30. M. Dothan, Ashdod, NEAEHL, vol. 1, p. 96; Mazar a.w., p. 307-308.

Last update: August 4, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BGA

Articles

Discussion

Feedback

About BGA

Links

Dutch (Nederlands)

Copyright © 2000 Stichting Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie

....

Taken from: http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/echroroh.

The connection between St Elijah and the Carmelites

 

In Rome, in the Basilica of St. Peter, we find statues of the founders of many Religious Orders. Under the statue of Elijah we read: “The entire Carmelite Order erected [this statue] to it’s founder”.

Elijah is not the founder of the Order in a historical sense. However in the biblical story of Elijah we find all the foundation stones on which the Traditions and Spirit of Carmel are built. He is the prophet of prayer and the true worship of God. He is single minded in his “zeal” for God. He is sent by God to do God’s work. He must depend upon God for everything. He experiences God in stillness and silence. In the new testament story of the transfiguration Elijah is a witness before all of us to the true identity of Jesus. Carmelites from the beginning have felt called to live in the “spirit and power” of Elijah.

....

Taken from: http://www.carmelitevocation.ie/traditionDetail.php?The-connection-between-St-Elijah-and-the-Carmelites-2

Sirach Praises Prophet Elisha [Eliseus]



Sirach Chapter 48

....

12 Elias it was, who was covered with a whirlwind: and Eliseus was filled with his spirit: whilst he lived, he was not moved with the presence of any prince, neither could any bring him into subjection.

13 No word could overcome him; and after his death his body prophesied.

14 He did wonders in his life, and at his death were his works marvellous.

15 For all this the people repented not, neither departed they from their sins, till they were spoiled and carried out of their land, and were scattered through all the earth: yet there remained a small people, and a ruler in the house of David:

16 Of whom some did that which was pleasing to God, and some multiplied sins.

....

Story of Naboth's Vineyard Perceivable in Shakespeare's Macbeth

Taken from: http://home.ptd.net/~msteen/benintende_macbeth.htm

....

Shakespeare's primary source of inspiration for Macbeth came from Holinshed's Chronicles; however, he altered history and many aspects of the story fictionalized to gain the interest and favor of King James. Shakespeare's secondary source, inspiring many details of the tragedy, was the Christian Bible. Adding an interesting human element to Macbeth was the interaction between Macbeth and his wife, Lady Macbeth. Despite, and perhaps because of his genius, Shakespeare did not create his characters and their interactions without drawing from an outside source, notably the Bible. One of the similarities between these works can be traced from Macbeth and his �fiendlike� lady back to Ahab and Jezebel. In the book of Kings, Ahab desires the vineyard of Naboth. At the urging of his wife, Jezebel, the two frame Naboth, having him stoned to death in order to seize his lands. In comparison, Macbeth desires the throne of Scotland. Just as Jezebel urged Ahab, Lady Macbeth schemes and encourages a treasonous plot to allow her husband to assume the power he craves (Burgess 87-88). Following the acquisition of their desired ends, (Ahab�s vineyards of Naboth, and Macbeth�s crown of Scotland), both men are haunted by similar prophetic truths. The Lord told Elijah to warn Ahab that �In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood� The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel�(1 Kings 22:19, 23). Macbeth realizes himself that ��blood will have blood./Stones have been known to speak./Augurs and understood relations have�/Brought forth�The secret�st man of blood� (3.4.125). Both men are doomed to pay for their misdeeds from the time they are committed, and they realize their eventual demise. Ahab is killed and left for �the dogs� as Naboth was, and Macbeth is aware that the murders of Duncan and Banquo will only lead to more bloodshed, ending with his own. In the action following both stories remain true to the foreshadowing. Ahab is betrayed in battle, and Macbeth is murdered by his own Scotsmen. As Jezebel, once a strong female figure, was hurled from her chamber window; Lady Macbeth who also began her story as a strong influence over Macbeth ends her own life by hurling herself from a window (Burgess 90).

 ....



The Fiery Prophet Elijah

Sirach 48

Elijah

1 Then there arose the fiery prophet Elijah, whose words blazed like a torch.2 He brought a famine on the people, and many of them died because of his persistence.3 Speaking in the name of the Lord, he kept the rain from coming, and on three occasions he called down fire.4 Elijah, your miracles were marvelous! No one else can boast of such deeds!5 In the name of the Most High, you brought a dead man back to life.6 You brought a famous king down to sickness and death.7 At Sinai you heard the Lord rebuke you and declare his determination to punish his enemies.8 You anointed a king to be the instrument of that punishment, and a prophet to take your place.9 You were taken up to heaven in a fiery whirlwind, a chariot drawn by fiery horses.10 The scripture says that you are ready to appear at the designated time,[a] to cool God's anger before it breaks out in fury; that you

will bring parents and children together again, and restore the tribes of Israel.11 Fortunate are those who live to see you come, as well as those who have already died in love, for we too shall live.[b]

Elisha

12 When Elijah was hidden by the whirlwind, Elisha was filled with his spirit. As long as he lived, he was not afraid of rulers, and they could not make him do as they wished.13 Nothing was too hard for him. Even when he was dead, his body worked a miracle.14 In life and in death he performed amazing miracles.

15 But in spite of all this, the people did not abandon their sinful ways until they were taken from their land as prisoners and scattered all over the world. This left the nation few in number, but those who remained were still ruled by the descendants of David.16 Some of the people did what was pleasing to the Lord, but others committed sin after sin.

....



El Amarna [Akhetaten]

 

by

Jimmy Dunn

What we call Amarna, or el-Amarna today was the city of Akhetaten (The Horizon of the Aten). It was created by Egypt's heretic king, Akhenaten for his revolutionary religion that worshiped Aten during the Amarna Period.

The ancient capital of Akhetaten lies some 365 miles south of Cairo in a natural amphitheater between inhospitable cliffs. This narrow opening exists for some twelve kilometers along the Nile River and has a half rounded depth of about five kilometers.

This is the place where, in about the fifth year of the king's reign, we are told that by divine inspiration, Akhenaten build his capital.

The History of Discovery

The site was unknown to the European travelers other than its name, which was a village called Et Til el-Amarna. Early visitors misunderstood its name, so it became to be known as Tell el-Amarna, though there are not a single tell, or great mound marking the ancient site.

Even though John Gardner Wilkinson initially investigated the site in 1824, and soon returned with James Burton to further examine the tombs located at el-Amarna, they had at that time no idea of the its significance. It was only during this general time frame that Champollion made his initial discoveries on Egyptian writing, and so the two early explorers were unable to read the names and inscriptions they encountered on this expedition. In fact, they identified the site as Roman Alabastronopolis from a nearby alabaster quarry.

Later, Robert Hay investigated the site not only examining all the open tombs, but clearing others from beneath extensive drifts of sand. However, as was the work of Wilkinson and Burton before him, was never published. Others would also come to el-Amarna, and would also fell to publish their work, though most of their efforts are available in various museums today.

Nevertheless, due to the unique decorations in the tombs at el-Amarna, many showing the activities of the royal family not in the formal attitudes of worship repeated so often in other tombs, but in intimate and vivid detail as human beings engaged in everyday domestic affairs, scholars continued to visit the site. There was also a prevailing mystery. In fact, because of the depictions that we know understand represent Akhenaten and Nefertiti, these early explorers wondered whether this was not the home of two queens, because of the almost feminine physique of the king.

Even as the ability to read hieroglyphics spread amongst the early Egyptologists, discovering the nature of this site remained elusive. So thoroughly had the ancient Egyptians, aided afterwards by the early Christians, destroyed this place that it was not easy to find an intact cartouche bearing the name of the king or queen for whom it was built. Even when they did find cartouches, they were larger than those of other pharaohs, and surrounded by a double border. Furthermore, the signs within these were complex and difficult to interpret, but were evidently the same as those which accompanied a representation of the Sun god, Re-Horakhty found on a few monuments elsewhere.

It was finally Richard Lepsius, a disciple of Champollion and doubtless the foremost Egyptologists of his day, who came to el-Amarna to record inscriptions and take paper squeezes of the reliefs and afterwards, publish his work. This work allowed scholars to finally make advances in their understanding of the city and its king, who they initially read as Khuenaten. Now, more than a century of study has given us this king's correct name, Akhenaten, as well as revealing many of the mysteries that once surrounded the site.

The General Area

The plan of the area of el-Amarna

Located on the eastern side of the Nile River, El-Amarna, like all other ancient Egyptian capitals, was made up of temples, government establishments, utilitarian facilities such as grain silos and bakeries, palaces and common mudbrick homes, several necropolises, as well as a number of zoos, gardens and other public buildings. In fact, the scope of this city is somewhat amazing if one considers that it was founded in about 1350 BC [AMAIC: we would date this some 500 years later] and abandoned only some twenty years later. The population of the city has been estimated to have been between twenty and fifty thousand inhabitants.

The area of the city and its surrounding property was fixed by copies of decrees carved on fourteen tablets embedded in the cliffs on either side of the river. Hence, these stone slabs are known by Egyptologists as boundary stelae. They not only encompass the city itself, but also fields and villages on the west bank. The most impressive of these today is Stela U, which measures about 7.6 meters from top to bottom and occupies almost the entire height of the cliff in a little bay to the north of the entrance to the Royal Wadi. At the base of this Stela on both sides are the remains of a group of carved statues of the Royal Family.

These stelae give a vivid account of the king's selection and dedication of the site for his capital, following instructions from his father Aten when he illuminated a certain spot on the desert at sunrise. Much of the western side of the area, including houses, harbors and the main palace of the king, was obscured under the modern cultivation. However, there are a large number of structures that have been preserved in the desert to the east, and in general, most of the layout is discernable from foundations.

The area is divided into suburbs, with the so-called "central city" housing the Royal Palace and The Great Temple (The Per-Aten), as well as various buildings archaeologists have labeled official (police, taxes...). It is here in one such building, the 'records office', that the Amarna Letters were found by a peasant woman. This area of Amarna was completely excavated in the 1930s. The other residential areas consist of the North City or Suburb, the Main or South City, and the worker's village.

The central City was apparently carefully planned, while the other residential zones where not. In these other areas, the spaces between the earliest large houses was gradually filled up with smaller clusters of homes.

The Central City

There was an ancient road that led in from the north to the Central City, which took an identical path to the modern road of today. It is the central city that the scenes in the North Tombs depict, though the layout of this part of the area requires time and patience to follow now due to decay. Within a generation of Akhenaten's reign, most of the building material was removed, leaving mud brickwork that is now mostly gone.

The chronology of the buildings here can be fairly well determined. The Chapel in the Great Temple and the royal estate were built first, followed closely between year six and nine by the temenos wall of the Great Temple and its sanctuary, replacing the earlier chapel. The palace was begun but never completed.

The main street here is the Royal Road which is a modern name. It comes from the south and passes through the old South City moving into the Central City between the official palace and the royal estate, where it is spanned by a bridge and broadens into a square in front of the entrance facade of the Great Temple. To the east runs the West Road, continuing the High Priest Street of the South City and passing by the Records Office and stopping at the temple magazines.

Layout of the Central City

The city was dissected by two east-west streets that met the West road. The southern one stretches between the king's house and the small temple and then the records office and the clerks' houses to the south and reaches the army headquarters. The second street passes to the north of the royal estate along the southern side of the magazines. This entire district was deserted in the third year of Tutankhamun's reign.

The Temples

Here, we find the Great Aten Temple as well the Small Aten Temple. Temples at Amarna are considerably different then most cult temples of ancient Egypt. They were, of course, solar temples, with the essential elements consisting of a small obelisk on a high base and an altar. Though solar temples had been built during the Old Kingdom, the worship of the Aten did not require the equipment and architectural elements found in these older establishments, with the exception of the altar. There was no need for a naos because there is no deity to be sheltered.

However, some temple elements are essential. These attributes include a general rectangular plan enclosed within a tremenos wall which is symmetrically about a longitudinal axis and orientation with the facade facing the west. There are also the pylons as entrance fronts to courts together with a circuitous entrance to conceal the interior from the eyes of the uninitiated. There must also be a slaughter court, the altar and trees flanking the entrance approach. Most of these features, which had been characteristic of Egyptian Temples since Archaic Period, could not easily be absent even at Amarna.

The most basic element of an Aten temple is the altar, to which a ramp or stairway ascends from the west in the middle of the court, surrounded by a temenos wall. The altar platform could occasionally be surrounded by a wall and fronted with a porch. Some also could be abutted by four ramps oriented toward the cardinal points. The altar was usually surrounded by rows of offering tables. The court housing the altar could also be preceded by another court or more.

The Great Temple of the Aten

The Great Aten Temple is on the northern edge of the Central City. It is partly covered over by the modern cemetery of el-Till. The enclosure wall for this temple extended back from the modern road for some 750 meters, and is now represented by a low, straight ridge. Within, the sanctuary was very similar to that in the Small Aten Temple and is marked by a group of isolated rubble heaps near the back.

Bakeries

There is a long, low mound to the south of the temple running east-west with visible broken pottery. This pottery is actually broken bread moulds, and the line marks the site of the central bakeries.

The Bridge

At the end of this ridge is the massive foundations for a bridge that crossed the so called Royal Road in front of the King's House by means of brick piers. There remains some ancient timbers that once bound the brickwork together. On the far side of the road was the Great Palace, consisting of a complex of courts and halls of which only foundations remain.

The Small Temple of the Aten

In recent years, some consolidation and restoration has been carried out at the Small Aten Temple. This included the erection of a replica column. A prominent brick enclosure wall also remains, which was once strengthened by towers on the outside. There are brick pylons at the entrance, and others which subdivided the interior of this building. In the back of the temple stood the sanctuary originally built of limestone and sandstone.

This temple had a foundation layer of gypsum that is now covered over by sand. However, modern stone blocks have been laid atop the sand in order to provide the basic outlines of this temple.

A circular walk beginning at the middle of the north side of this small temple's enclosure wall reveals other parts of the Central City. There is a tall ridge of sand and some rubble that runs northward from across the street through the middle of a small palace built of mud brick. Known as the King's House, it probably accommodated the Royal Family on their visits from their North Palace. Behind the King's House and the Small Aten Temple (further from the Nile River) were a group of government buildings built of mud brick. This is actually where the famous Amarna Letters were discovered by a peasant lady in 1888.

The Main City Sometimes Known as the South Suburb

Southwards from the Small Aten Temple is The Main City, which was the principal residential area of the ancient city that ran south to the vicinity of the modern village of el-Hagg Qandil. It was the part of the city occupied by the most important people (other than the king), including the vizier Nakht, the high priest Panehsy, the priest Pawah, General Ramose, the architect Manekhtawitf and the sculptor Tuthmosis (Thutmose). Probably connected to this quarter was a river temple, still in use under Ramesses III and even later through perhaps the 26th Dynasty.

It was probably laid out just after the Central City. There is a platform here built in order to allow visitors to view the interior of one of the private houses which has been cleared and repaired in recent years. Though probably a senior official, the owner of the house is unknown. Here, there are also the ruins of grain silos.

Further south, roughly half way between el-Hagg Qandil and the desert edge of the site on the edge of the Main City, the famous bust of Nefertiti was discovered in Thutmose's workshop.

Elsewhere the city has grown up, as cities will, in an irregular haphazard way, as citizens erected buildings where they felt it was convenient. Some suggest Akhenaten lacked the resources to control the rapid growth of his new city and regulate its plan (other Egyptian cities are much more carefully laid out).

North Suburb

The North Suburb is separated from the Central City by a depression. It was apparently dominantly inhabited by essentially a middle-class including a strong mercantile component. It was not begun until the middle of Akhenaten's reign and was abruptly abandoned, apparently at the end of his reign. Afterwards, apparently the houses were re-inhabited by those who could not afford to travel back to Thebes after the end of the Amarna Period.

There were large estates built here initially between the West and East roads, and subsequently middle class houses and slums which apparently even blocked the streets were added.

The North Palace (Palace of Nefertiti)

Still further north is the North Palace that the locals call "The Palace of Nefertiti" (Kasr Nefertiti). This was a self contained residence built along three sides of a long open space, which itself was divided by a wall and pylon. The residential part had gardens and reception rooms with columns along its rear. In the northeast corner is the most famous part of this residence, consisting of a garden court. A central chamber on the north side, known as the "Green Room", was painted with a continuous frieze representing the natural life of the marshes. Each room has a window from which the sunk central garden could be viewed. In recent years, the walls have been somewhat restored and some of the missing column bases have been replaced with modern replicas. There were animal pens further to the west on the north side and also a court containing three solar altars, of which nothing now exits but their foundations. This palace was probably originally built for one of Akhenaten's major queens, but was later converted for use by Princess Meritaten.

The North City

Farther to the north where the cultivation ends at the cliffs there is also a North City, which was a separate residential area that served a major palace known as the North Riverside Palace. The palace itself is located just north of the residential area. This was probably the main residence for Akhenaten's family. Most of this is now gone, but there is a length of a massive brick enclosure wall pierced by a huge gateway at the palace.

The Desert Altars

On the road to the North Tombs, one passes a watchmen's house, and a short distance to the west and north of this lie the remains of three large mud-brick solar altars in the form of square platforms with ramps that are known as the Desert Altars. The northernmost of these had four ramps of well-rammed sand and probably an altar in the center.

The Necropolises

The necropolis consists of more than twenty-five tombs facing the base of the cliff front that is located on the east side of the desert plain, which reaches a height of about eighty-five meters and south of the Royal Wadi Six tombs are located at the north side near Darb El-Malik and known as the North Tombs. These were probably tombs owned by fairly high officials, while nineteen more tombs are located in the south and known as the South Tombs. These southern tombs were owned by a mix of officials.

These tombs are built to be highly complicated to ensure that they are protected from thieves. Most of them start with an open court that leads to three chambers. Within these chambers there are papyrus columns that meet in the rear end. There a statue of the dead would have been placed looking toward the entrance.

The North Tombs were once encroached upon by an ancient Coptic Christian settlement, and groups of little stone huts on the hillside below the tombs belong to these people, who converted tomb number six into a Church. From these tombs, there is an excellent view of the valley below.

The South Tombs are the larger of the two groups of tombs. They are cut into the flanks of a low plateau in front of a major break in the cliffs, where the rock is of poor quality. However, here one finds tomb number 25 which was built for the "God's Father", Ay, who would later become pharaoh. Though often not as imposing as the tombs in the north, they do have their charm, as well as more variety. On the other hand, many of the South Tombs contain little or no decoration and some had barely been started before the city was abandoned. Some of these tombs were also used for later burials, and amongst them are pot shards mostly dating from between the 25th and 30th Dynasty.

The Workers (or Eastern) Village

To the east in a little valley on the south side of a low plateau that runs out from the base of the cliffs between the Royal Wadi and the southern tombs there is an interesting settlement dubbed "the workmen's village". It is a walled enclosure of very regular houses along several parallel streets. Archaeologists believed it housed workers working on the rock tombs nearby (which, incidentally, though built for the royalty and courtiers, were mostly never occupied). However, this walled town had a guard house at the only exit, and it seems more likely to have been to keep the workers in than anything out (the main city was protected by no such wall, for the whole site, including the workmen's village, is enclosed by high cliffs).

The Royal Tomb

The Royal Tomb built for Akhenaten lies in a narrow side valley leading off of the Royal Wadi some six kilometers form its mouth. Its basic design and proportions are not unlike those of the royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings on the West Bank at Thebes (modern Luxor). However, it was intended for several people, including the king, a princes and probably Queen Tiy so there are additional burial chambers. There is also an unfinished annex that may have been intended for Nefertiti. Here, the quality of the rock is poor, and so the decorations of the tomb were cut into a thin layer of gypsum plaster. Hence, most of the decorations have not survived and most of what is left is in the chambers of princess Meketaten.

Other Ruins

At Kom el-Nana, south of the main city and east of the modern village of el-Hagg Qandil is an enclosure thought to have surrounded another of Akhenaten's sun temples. Recent excavations have revealed brick ceremonial buildings and the foundations of two stone shrines. The northern side was occupied by a Christian monastery during the 5th and 6th centuries, AD. There is also far south of the city an unusual cult center known as the Maru-Aten. While it has completely disappeared under the cultivated land, this appears to have been a special function cult structure. Amarna is unique in Egypt. Even cities built up by foreign rulers did not suffer its fate. It was established most probably from scratch, and appears to have been completely abandoned a short time after Akhenaten's death. Today, considerable research continues at this location that should eventually uncover more of the secrets of the most interesting pharaoh's reign.

References:

Title	Author	Date	Publisher	Reference Number
Akhenaten: King of Egypt	Aldred, Cyril	1988	Thames and Hudson Ltd	ISBN 0-500-27621-8
Amarna Letters	Forbes, Dennis C.	1991	KMT Communications	ISBN 1-879388-03-0
Art and History of Egypt	Carpiceci, Alberto Carlo	2001	Bonechi	ISBN 88-8029-086-x
Chronicle of the Pharaohs (The Reign-By-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt)	Clayton, Peter A.	1994	Thames and Hudson Ltd	ISBN 0-500-05074-0
Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many	Hornung, Erik	1971	Cornell University Press	ISBN 0-8014-8384-0
Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, The	Shaw, Ian; Nicholson, Paul	1995	Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers	ISBN 0-8109-3225-3
Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, A	Hart, George	1986	Routledge	ISBN 0-415-05909-7
Egyptian Religion	Morenz, Siegfried	1973	Cornell University Press	ISBN 0-8014-8029-9
Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo	Tiradritti, Francesco, Editor	1999	Harry N. Abrams, Inc.	ISBN 0-8109-3276-8
History of Ancient Egypt, A	Grimal, Nicolas	1988	Blackwell	None Stated
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, The	Shaw, Ian	2000	Oxford University Press	ISBN 0-19-815034-2
Private Lives of the Pharaohs, The	Tyldesley, Joyce	2000	TV Books, L.L.C.	ISBN 1-57500-154-3
Thebes in Egypt: A Guide to the Tombs and Temples of Ancient Luxor	Strudwick, Nigel & Helen	1999	Cornell University Press	ISBN 0 8014 8616 5
Tutankhamun (His Tomb and Its Treasures)	Edwards, I. E. S.	1977	Metropolitan Museum of Art; Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.	ISBN 0-394-41170-6

....


Taken from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amarna.htm

Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky

In answer to a reader's comment on Velikovsky:

.... I think [Velikovsky] is appreciated because he thought of the idea of re-jigging the Egyptian chronology but seems to be rather crazy overall. Sounds as though these fellows are wise to distance themselves from him. ....

I wrote:

Distancing Oneself

from Velikovsky

by 
 

Damien F. Mackey
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

…. the point of this little article is that revisionists, even if now they have adopted quite a different system, owe their beginning to Immanuel Velikovsky. For whatever reason, God allowed him, and him only, a man who may not even have believed in God, to be the one to determine that 18th dynasty Egyptian history needed to be brought down the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us get one thing very clear. The revision of ancient history as pursued by groups such as the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (UK) and Catastrophism and Ancient History (Los Angeles, CA), and now by many other individuals and groups using various forms of social media, would never have seen the light of day but for the efforts of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian Jew. Even Dr. Courville’s worthy early effort, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, I & II (Loma Linda Ca, 1971), though largely an original contribution, based itself on Velikovsky’s important 500-year shift of the 18th Egyptian dynasty to the time of the kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon).

Here I am interested only in Velikovsky’s historical revision, not his scientific interpretations, which involve some dramatic planetary catastrophism supposedly affecting the biblical Exodus and the destruction of Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000. These, which I do not personally favour, make for some terrific reading, nevertheless, and would be exciting movie viewing.

Whilst some still follow Velikovsky slavishly, both his history and his science, it was the UK branch, including some very talented individuals, who, as early as the late 70’s, tended to watch critically his historical outputs, finally rebelling outright - as well they should, I think - when confronted with his location of the 19th Egyptian (Ramesside) dynasty: Ramses II and His Time and Peoples of the Sea.

But it needs to be noted that, until that time, the UK revisionists were ‘Velikovskian’ in their acceptance of the important 500-year downward shift of Egyptian history, with the talented ‘Glasgow School’ slightly modifying Velikovsky (as we shall read) and bringing the revision to something of a peak. From that happy moment in time it has generally been a free-fall down the mountain.

So the point of this little article is that revisionists, even if now they have adopted quite a different system, owe their beginning to Immanuel Velikovsky. For whatever reason, God allowed him, and him only, a man who may not even have believed in God, to be the one to determine that 18th dynasty Egyptian history needed to be brought down the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries.

But the UK (in particular) revisionists, aware that Velikovsky was regarded with contempt by the conventional scholars, whose system they themselves were completely undermining - though perhaps also seeking some academic respectability - and aware that Velikovsky’s latter phase revision, e.g. the 19th dynasty of Egypt, was archaeologically untenable (though loyal Velikovskians have clung to it), sought to distance themselves from Velikovsky completely, they hardly at all, or at least very scarcely, even mentioning him in their later books and publications. And when they did mention him, they laughed him off as a “wayward polymath”, or “maverick”. Now, whilst these epithets can be appropriate in the right context, they are mean and miserable when revisionists fail to admit their owing a debt to Velikovsky.

The most arrogant example of this, which is not only unjust to Velikovsky but which demeans all those others who have put a lot of effort into a revision of ancient history - as well as the writings of ‘Creationists’ - was this piece in the flyleaf introducing David Rohl’s The Lost Testament (Century, 2002) as if the revision recognizing the over-extension of chronology by modern researchers had begun with him in 1995 (forgetting Velikovsky’s beginnings in the 1940’s):

The earliest part of the bible is recognised as the foundation-stone of three great religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – yet over the last century archaeologists and historians have signally failed to find any evidence to confirm the events described in the ‘book of books’. As a consequence, many scholars took the view that the Old Testament was little more than a work or fiction. The testimony of biblical history had, in effect, been lost.

Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl, burst onto the scene with a new theory. He suggested that modern researchers had constructed an artificially long chronology for the ancient world - a false time-line which had dislocated the Old Testament events from their real historical setting. The alternative ‘New Chronology’ - first published in A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History - created a world-wide sensation and was fiercely resisted by the more conservative elements within academia. Seven years on, however, the chronological reconstruction has developed apace and numerous new discoveries have been made.

Now, in his new book, The Lost Testament, David Rohl reveals the entire story of the Children of Yahweh - set in its true historical context. An astounding number of references in the literature of neighbouring civilizations are shown to synchronise with the Old Testament accounts, confirming events which had previously been dismissed as mythical. In addition, this contemporary literature - combined with the archaeological record - reveals new information and new stories about personalities such as Enoch, Noah, Nimrod, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Sau1, David and Solomon.

The Bible has at last been recovered from the ruins of the ancient past as the ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘who’ are explained - throwing unforeseen and fascinating new light on the world's most treasured book.

[End of quote]

Rohl was one of those more talented and qualified UK revisionists, along with Dr. John Bimson and Peter James, the latter two being an integral part of the ‘Glasgow School’ which included Martin Sieff. Rohl is a brilliant presenter and good writer and his books are sumptuously and colourfully presented. And I strongly recommend his account of Nimrod in Chapter Four of The Lost Testament. And I also recommend, for its work of exposing the conventional chronology and archaeology, but not for its rebuilding efforts, Peter James’s (et al.) Centuries of Darkness, which has become something of a classic. But I personally believe that the so-called ‘New Chronology’ of Rohl, somewhat similar to James’s, which has come to dominate the revision, lying halfway between convention and Velikovsky, fails at virtually every point despite the optimistic advertisements. It is far inferior to Courville’s and Sieff’s respective revisions, with Sieff tending to persevere with the promising ‘Glasgow’ line, but with modifications of his own.

Sieff, in fact, adopted the perfect approach to Velikovsky, by building upon his solid foundations, but also, in the best ‘Glasgow’ fashion, modifying where there were problems, and rejecting outright Velikovsky’s glaring mistakes. He even wrote by far the best account of the psychology of Velikovsky (who was a psychiatrist), the fascinating “Velikovsky and His Heroes” (SIS Review, vol. v, no. 4, 1980/81, pp. 112-120).

I, in my 1993 university thesis,

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background

(accessible at: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5973)

once again paid my dues to this amazing and enigmatic scholar, Velikovsky, right at the beginning in my Preface (but in many other places as well).

‘You are the glory of Jerusalem!

You are the great pride of Israel!

You are the highest honour of our race!’

(Judith 15:9)

Preface

This thesis, as it stands, would most definitely never have seen the light of day had it not been for my having come across, in the early 1980’s, the revised historical systems of Drs. Immanuel Velikovsky and Donovan Courville (published between the early 1950’s to 1970’s), with their proposed radical lowering of the important 18th Egyptian dynasty by 500 years on the time scale, and their subsequent stratigraphical realignments. After that, the work was continued in the U.S. and Canada with some genuine developments, and certain necessary modifications, by the contributors to Pensée, founded by David Talbott - a journal important for, amongst other things, its scholarly treatment of Sothic dating, including specialized pieces by Velikovsky - and Kronos, edited by Professor Lewis M. Greenberg, and spanning thirteen years (1975-1988), with its highly important contributions towards bringing art history into a proper perspective. The Associate Editor of Kronos, Ev Cochrane, would go on (since 1988) to publish the important journal Aeon, still functioning today, with its relevant publications in history, comparative mythology, and archaeoastronomy; whilst Dwardu Cardona, the founder of the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, would become Aeon’s senior editor. The Los Angeles based journal of the later 1970’s and early 1980’s, Catastrophism & Ancient History, edited by Marvin Luckerman, featured some useful and wide-ranging contributions - particularly of an historical nature - from both the U.S. and the U.K.

In the U.K, the Velikovskian-based (initially, at least) revision was championed especially by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, particularly by what became known as the ‘Glasgow School’, in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, some of whose modifications of Velikovsky I think have been highly impressive.

There have also arisen, in the more recent decades, certain fine individual contributions of a multidisciplinary (or transdisciplinary) nature from members of some of the abovementioned journals and/or schools, who may have decided to branch out on their own and develop their idiosyncratic systems of revision.

Overall, I have endeavoured to take into account what I consider to be the best and most historically plausible contributions of this growing body of scholarship, always with due acknowledgement, and to synthesise these, as far as possible, into a coherent whole: historical, stratigraphical (including art history) and archaeo-astronomical.

Apart from the absolute chronological factor of the Velikovskian (taken up by Courville) downward shift in time of 500 years, as referred to above, there is another more specific aspect of Velikovsky’s revision upon which I shall be most heavily dependent throughout chiefly VOLUME ONE of this thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background. I refer to Velikovsky’s identification - one formerly approved and supported by competent revisionists from the ‘Glasgow School’ - of two successive ‘Amorite’ kings in the el-Amarna correspondence (conventionally dated to the C14th BC) with successive ‘Syrian’ (biblical) kings of the C9th BC: namely, Velikovsky’s identification of el-Amarna’s Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad [I] and Hazael.

Whilst, on the one hand, fully embracing this particular cross-identification by Velikovsky of these two ‘Syrian’ kings (i.e. their el-Amarna and C9th BC alter egos) - with the added support of the ‘Glasgow School’ - I shall, however, also be significantly expanding them:

(i) by tracing their origins back to foreign immigrants (‘Indo-Europeans’) to the region, and

(ii) by even further multi-identifying them.

It will in fact be owing to the results obtained from my filling out of these two kings that I shall be able to, as I see it, propose a solution to ‘The Assuruballit Problem’: that is, the historical bottleneck that has arisen, particularly in neo-Assyrian chronology, due to Velikovsky’s re-locating of el-Amarna’s “king of Assyria”, Assuruballit, to the precise time of the mid-C9th BC king of Assyria, Shalmaneser III. But these two ‘Syrian’ kings will be, despite their major importance in the context of any Velikovskian-based revision, serving in this thesis mainly as a firm and well-established starting-point for my attempted reconstruction of the background to the era of Hezekiah. ….

[End of quote]

The bottom line?

Out of a sense of justice - give credit where credit is due.

Easter 2012 (“He is risen!”)