Pharaoh Merenptah and The Later 19th Dynasty History

Pharaoh Mereneptah
Toward the End of the 19th/26th Dynasty

The 19th Dynasty
The reign of Merneptah/Hophra/Apries
The Lybian Conflict
The Cyrenean Thorn of Pharaoh Merneptah
The Israel Stele
Grain or Seed?
Other Textual Hints Placing Merneptah into Later Period Times

Comparing Two Independent Sources
Who Destroyed Boghazkoi?
Comparing the Ending of the 19th Dynasty and 26th Dynasty
Bridging the Time from the End of the 19th/26th to the 20th Dynasty
The 21st Dynasty
Persian Letters
Apis Bulls

The reign of Merneptah/Hophra/Apries

Ramses II's successor was Pharaoh Merneptah whose throne name was Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae. `Hotphirmae' should be repaired to read `hophramae'. The letter `t' in `hotep' (beloved) was not sounded just like in `Amenhotep' as compared to `Amenophis' in Greek. This way `Hotphir' was transliterated `Hophra' in Hebrew and `Apries' in Greek. Jeremiah said of this pharaoh:

"Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will give Pharaoh-hophra king of
Egypt into the hands of his enemies ... as I gave Zedekiah king
of Judah into the hand of ... his enemy."Jeremiah 44:30.

According to both, Herodotus and Jeremiah Hophra/Apries followed Ramses II closely but Herodotus has Psammis in between for 6 years. [0100]

Since we date Necho II/Ramses II from 605-569 followed by Merneptah/Hophra how could Jeremiah refer to Hophra who was no primary king at the time of the fall of Jerusalem?

Young's Concordance states it this way:

"Pharaoh Hophra, priest of the sun. A king of Egypt whose overthrow by Nebuchadnezzar was foretold by Jeremiah the prophet. BC 570. Herodotus reports his death by a rival king [or a general], Amasis."

Perhaps one full year or else a number of months close to a year before Merneptah became ruler, Jeremiah must have penned the above words in Jeremiah 44:30. By that time it must have been clear to him that Hophra/Apries/Merenptah was the new king in waiting and projected the demise of this new king and compared it to the demise of Zedekiah some 17 years before. It stands to reason as the end of the life of Ramses II was approaching people may have been aware that whatever was the illness afflicting Ramses would in time be the cause of his death and a new ruler was chosen for a smooth transition - this new ruler was Hophra/Apries/Merenptah.

Since the campaign against Kadesh is dated to the 5th year of Ramses II, counting from his date as sole ruler after the death of his father, but the overall length of his reign would often include the coreign with Seti perhaps in classical, oriental fashion of exaggerating, and an effort to impress. In other words, he could date his regnal years in two different ways, a method not unknown from ancient times.

The Papyrus Anastasis III dates from the 3rd year of Merneptah and describes the Egyptians as possessing strategic places in the highlands of southern Palestine; it also tells of the arrival of a military commander at `Sile', coming from "the Wells of Merenptah-hotphima'e which are in the hills." [0200]

This 3rd year of his sole rule would be about 566 BC, Egypt was at this time not challenged from the northern countries. Nebuchadnezzar was getting close toward the end of his life. It is entirely possible that Egyptian troops felt save in setting themselves up in the region.

The evidence for Merneptah's Palestinian ventures come from Karnak where Frank Yurko found the cartouche of Amenmesse (Amasis II, about 558-525 BC) superimposed over that of Ramses II and his again superimposed by Seti II (Psammetichus II, for 6 months in 525 BC ) The battle scene of Kadesh/Carchemish carved by the artists of Ramses II also was replaced by those of Merneptah/Hophra against Ashkelon by plastering over those of Ramses II and carving his own there. But the most telling detail of the covered up battle scene of Ramses II are the remaining wavy lines indicating water which Amasis and Seti II did not destroy in their changeover.

These wavy lines represent the river against whose shoreline the Egyptian troops were pushed which was a significant barrier to their escape. It hardly fits the description of the Orontes but is well suited for the wide Euphrates river. These recurring wavy line patterns representing water in the `kadesh' scenes of Ramses II in our opinion stand for a larger body of water than the Orontes ever had. That is why it impressed the Egyptians so much to keep representing it. [0300 ]

As can be imagined F. Yurko's article was not without a challenger. Anson Rainey wanted to call the inhabitants defending Ashkelon Canaanites instead of Israelites. In Yurko's reply he defends his identification of the defenders as more likely to be Israelites. We would remind the reader that during all of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah Israel was in Exile in Babylon and their land was occupied largely by a mix of Arabs, Syrians and many other peoples, they were neither Canaanites nor Israelites. Their appearance is a typical appearance which fit many populations at this time in the Middle Eastern countries. The men have beards, they wear head bands and clothing reaching to their feet held together with a girdle. The hair do is similar to the style shown on the king of Hatti, Hattsulis/Nebuchadnezzar.
The lingering question we may have is, if these changes in the cartouches from Merneptah to Amenmesse to Seti II was really instigated by these kings, why are they so faint and not deeper carvings? Could these be just changes made by others at later times without the involvement of these rulers at all? Perhaps we should allow the possibility that Yurko's claim of these changes made by these kings is not unfalsifiable. On the other hand, it was not the kings themselves who took hammer and chisels into their hand. Reliefs such as these were made by workmen who may have just been too disinterested to do a more permanent job. If they are contemporary changes they may represent chronological interdependencies, if not, chronological conclusions should perhaps not be based on them.
The other observation we should mention is that the nomen of Amenmesse shown in the article by Frank Yurko does not feature the double

sign but instead employs

. Similarly in the case of the nomen of Seti II the changeover leaves out the commonly seen

. The particular kings may still be meant since it is not uncommon that cartouches use some variant glyphs or even leave out a glyph.(?) On the other hand could it also open up the possiblity that other individuals are meant.(?)

Question: If Merneptah was Hophra wouldn't that bring disorder into the intricately laid out pottery schemes and excavation layers in Palestine?
Answer: Yes, it would. But as we try to bring out elsewhere, we regard much of the Canaanite period as belonging to Israel. Everything has to be moved forward in time and some layers may need to be revised. Basically, the archaeology of Palestine is a maze and we acknowledge it is not a pleasant task to wade through it all this late in the history of the study of archaeology but we believe it could be done. Already there were heard voices pointing out that the so-called Philistine centers or cities do not seem to have the mass of the type of pottery ascribed to them as one would expect. We believe much of the Philistine pottery belongs to Greek/Seti the Great times and that the Mycenaean Age ran concurrently with the Geometric Age and even outexisted it. [0400][See `The Greek Age in the Shadows of Egyptian Chronology' under Submenu]

The Libyan Conflict

According to estimates Cyrene was supposed to have been founded by Greek speaking settlers ca. 630 BC. The archaeology of this area is written up mostly by Italian and French archaeologists. But the 4th century history of this region is rarely even mentioned owing to the preponderance of ruins from the later periods. While the architectural and cultic aspects are frequently discussed its military history of the 4th century is rarely referred to.

The rule of Hophra was overshadowed with his conflict with the Libyans. We read, "When the Lybians began their attacks on Egypt from the west, they did not confine themselves to the route along the coast which was fortified and garrisoned by Ramses II, but proceeded over the routes in the interior. ... The enemy started by cutting off the oasis of Farafra and reached the `Mountains of the Oasis', as it is mentioned in the text of the campaign." [0500]

However there were two Libyan peoples by this time, 1) those of Greek descent and 2) native Libyans. According to Herodotus the native Libyans sided with Merneptah/Apries for their land was being taken by foreigners but at some point also sided with the Cyrenians.

"During the time of Battus, the founder of Cyrene, who ruled there for forty years, and of his son Arcesilaus, who ruled for sixteen, the number of people in the town remained equal to that of the original settlers, but under the rule of its third king - known as Battus the Fortunate - an oracle delivered at Delphi was the cause of a great rush amongst the Greeks generally to join the colony. For the people of Cyrene themselves were offering land to new settlers, and the oracle declared that whoever came to delightful Libya after the land was parceled out should one day regret it.
In this way the population of the place greatly increased, and it began to encroach upon the territory of its neighbors. Its expansion continued, until the Libyans under their king, Adicran, in resentment at their loss of territory and the domineering attitude of Cyrene, dispatched an embassy to Egypt and put themselves at the disposal of the Egyptian king Apries, who collected a strong force and sent it against Cyrene." [0600]

The relationship between the native Libyans and the Cyrenes was both, one of allegiance and one of resentment, for Herodotus states that the native Libyans and the Greek immigrants were also allied together. We read a few sentences later, that, after the quarrel between Arcesilaus and his brothers "... they (the brothers of Arcesilaus) persuaded the Libyans to withdraw their allegiance from Cyrene." [0700]

Therefore the allegiance between the Libyans and Cyrenians was in effect during the heat of the conflict between themselves and Merneptah/Apries and when we read the inscriptions of Merneptah his Libyan enemies must have included both and he did not differentiate between them exactly. This information then seems to support the history as presented by Velikovsky on the conflict between Merneptah and the Libyans being that of Apries against the Greek immigrants of Cyrenaica and their Libyan allies.

And so we read in the records of Merneptah about the Libyans acting together with the Cyrenians in this more recently discovered inscription:

"Regnal year 5, second month of summer, one came to say to His
Majesty: `The vile chief of the Libyans ... and every foreign
land which is with him are penetrating to transgress the
boundaries of Egypt.' Then His Majesty ordered [his] army to
rise up against them." [0800]

The great Karnak inscription enumerates Mernaptah's enemies probably headed by the Lybien chief Meryey, the son of Dedy:

"Akwash, Tursha, Luku, the Sherden and the Shekelesh, the Northerners coming from every land." [0900]

The Europeans coming from Sardinia were recognized in these names:

Etruscans (Teresh)
Sardinians (Sherden, Sardan) later explained as people from Sardis
Lycians (Luka)
Sicilians (Shekelesh)

All these came into Cyrenaica (eastern Lybia) and participated in the invasion of Egypt by the Aryan peoples of the 13th century according to conventional chronology. This was a sensation in the 1860's when first read. The participation of Europeans in these wars was a strange and remarkable fact. It became a matter of major importance for the entire field of Hellenic studies. Greek sources knew nothing of an invasion of Egypt by the Hellenic or any other people in the 13th century. So how are we going to explain the presence of these people in the 13th century in Libya? How can we understand Herodotus, who inferred that

a)

b)
c)

Apries (565-541 BC) was the first Egyptian to battle against the Greeks (Cyrene's). [1000]
Psammetich (666-555 BC) was the first to admit Greek freebooters to Egyptian soil, taking them into his service. [1100]
before Psammetich the Egyptians had not known the Greeks. [1200]

The reference to the invaders coming from the northern region of the Mediterrean Sea and its islands in the inscriptions of Merneptah and references to the Sardan warriors in still earlier documents - those of Seti I and Ramses II - frustrated every attempt at explanation and confused Hellenistic studies. It confused Hellenistic studies to such an extent that scholars at first refused to believe that such an interpretation of the Egyptian texts could be correct. [1300]

... but little by little they came to see the necessity of revising their accepted notions. The earlier skepticism was forgotten and out of repetition grew conviction, and now the books dealing with the Helladic or Hellenistic ages contain records of "the first appearance of European peoples" in the documents of world history.

It was now considered that the history of early Greece was illuminated by written material of contemporaneous Egyptians; and that what Herodotus and Thucydides did not know had become an open book. Here we have it again, ancient non-Egyptian sources had to bear the brunt of the blame. Those portions in which these two historians talk about the arrival of Greeks in Egypt were now regarded as false, just like the Bible had to bear criticism of this sort, so now these Greek historians, and why? - Because of a false Egyptian chronology.

But there is another important aspect to the list of the enemies of Merneptah. If he lived in fact in the 12 century BC as conventional chronology has it, then why are the `Plst' or `Prst' so well known from Ramses III documents not among them? These had been read to refer to the Philistines. Why then were the Philistines not on the list of his enemies? They should have been if he lived in the age assigned to him.

In revised view that omission is as it should be because we have already seen that the `Plst' or `Prst' are the Persians and not at all the Philistines. The reason the Persians are not on the list of his enemies is of course that the Persian empire had not yet happened. It did not begin until 538 when Cyrus conquered Babylon and for Egypt until 525 BC when Cambyses invaded the land on the Nile. Here then we have a case where the lack of a name is an indication that the age assigned to him by conventional historians is the wrong age.

The Cyrenean Thorn for Merneptah/Apries

Libya was a thorn in Merneptah's side. He went with his army:

a)
b)
c)

"to overthrow the land of Libya."
"The Libyans plotted evil things to do them in Egypt." Karnak inscriptions
The chief of Libya came to invade the Walls-of-the-Sovereign-Memphis.
[Israel stele]

More Sources to consider:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

The Karnak inscription,
the Cairo column, (there is also a Cairo stela no. 34025)
the Arthribis stele,
the inscription from Heliopoils,
and the Israel stele (Merenptsh stele) describe this war with the Libyans but apparently only its opening stages.

Merneptah wrote:

"The boasts which he [the chief of Libya] uttered, have come to naught,"

...but the war was not over when these memoirs were cut in stone. Every inscription that contains any historical material from the time of Merneptah is concerned with the Libyan campaign. In his 5th year he was able to block the route of the Libyans who had crossed the border, and even to put the Libyan advance guard to flight; still his victory was achieved by a defensive war.

b)

c)

The Cairo column says in the name of a god:

"I cause that thou cut down the chiefs of Libya whose invasion thou
hast turned back." [1400]

In the usual bombastic style the Athribis stele records that

"the families of Libya are scattered upon the dykes like mice, and
the pharaoh is seizing among them like a hawk." [1500]

Before this battle the Libyans had already succeeded in occupying Egyptian territory and capturing booty, and that is what is meant by the figurative expression ...

"Deliver him [the chief of Libya] into the hand of Merneptah, that
he may make him disgorge what he has swallowed, like a crocodile."

At that moment the prospects for an Egyptian victory were good. The Pharaoh counted the circumcised phali of the invaders, which were loaded upon asses and brought from the field of battle to his capital.

"Every old man says to his son: Alas for Libya."

Yet the Libyan chief succeeded in retreating unharmed.

"The wretched fallen chief of Libya fled by favor of night alone."

The conflict was not over; the invasion of the Libyans and the attempts to repulse them grew into a prolonged war with fluctuating success. In later years Merneptah had less reason to commemorate his military triumphs. He did not reveal what the outcome of these protracted campaigns were. The pharaoh wrote of himself that he was appointed to be the doom of the Libyans; but in matters of fate only the outcome counts. He also did not explain what later on happened to the northern Mediterranean troops, the mention of which threw the established historical schemes into confusion in the 1910's.

To find an answer to this question we shall now compare the content of the quoted inscriptions of Merneptah with the historical treatment of Apries by Herodotus:

"Apries sent a great host against Cyrene and suffered a great defeat." [1600]

All this took place in the 6th century and it was caused by the migration of Greeks to eastern Libya also called Cyrene. These migrations triggered hostilities:

"During the lifetime of Battus, the founder of Cyrene... an oracle
delivered at Delphi was the cause of a great rush among the Greeks
generally to join the colony [in Cyrene]. For the people of Cyrene
themselves were offering land to new settlers, and the oracle
declared that whoever came to delightful Libya after the land was
parceled out should one day regret it.
In this way the population of the place greatly increased , and it
began to encroach upon the territory of its neighbors. Its expansion
continued, until the Libyans under their king, Adrican, in resentment
at their loss of territory and the domineering attitude of Cyrene
dispatched an embassy to Egypt and put themselves at the disposal
of the Egyptian king Apries..."
Soon the new settlers came into a conflict with the neighboring population and Egypt became involved in the conflict.

"Apries, who collected a strong force sent it against Cyrene. The
Cyreneans took the field and, marching to the `Well of Thestis in
Irsa', engaged and defeated the Egyptian army. This severe defeat
- so severe that few of them returned home alive - was doubtless
due to the fact that the Egyptians had had no previous experience
of Greek fighting and were not prepared to treat it seriously.
Apries' subjects blamed him personally for this disastrous campaign,
and it was the reason for their rebellion against him." [1700]

Merneptah-Apries memorialized his victories in the early stages of the Libyan campaign in a number of inscriptions, of which five still exist. But the wretched ending he would not and could not supply. But Herodotus described it.

Sword of Merneptah The Egyptian army on the Libyan front mutinied. Apries sent Amasis (Ahmose), the general, to win over the rebels. Instead, Amasis himself was persuaded by the army to become king. Apries sent his vizier to arrest Amasis, and through him Amasis replied that he would come with his men. Apries cut off the nose and ears of his vizier for bringing this message. Because of this deed the people of the capital^* became hostile to the king, Apries had to fight his own army, and he could not depend on his own bodyguard of Carians and Ionians, descendants of the mercenaries settled in Egypt by Seti, also known as Psammetich, and Ramses II, also known as Necho.

The cartouche of Merneptah/Hophra/Apries on a sword from Ugarit/Ras Shamra. There exists no cartouche of Pharaoh Apries, only one of who is thought to be Apries and Merneptah's, whom we identify with Apries. How did a sword of Merneptah get to Ugarit? Several scenarios could be cited. It could have been an object of trade, booty from mercenary soldiers passing through and so on. The time frame is the same explaining how a vase with a cartouche of Ramses II got into the tomb of Ahiram. [1800]

"Apries armed his mercenaries (a body of 30,000 Carians and Ionians,
who were with him at Sais, where his palace was - a large and noteworthy
building), and advanced to the attack, the Egyptians under Amasis marching
to meet them. The two forces encountered one another at Momemphis, and
prepared for the coming battle." [1900]

This battle took place at Memphis and Apries was defeated. This was the end of the long war. The Libyan campaign was ill fated for Merneptah-Apries.

Amasis captured Apries and kept him in his palace; but the people clamored for his life and he was strangled by the mob. [2000]

Jeremiah's prophecy in Jeremiah 44:30 that Pharaoh Hophra would be given into the hands of his enemies, as Zedekiah, king of Judah, was given into the hands of his enemy, was fulfilled.

Amasis, who had not ill treated his prisoner of royal clothes and his crown, paid him royal honor after his death; the body was embalmed and placed in a burial vault.

In the skull of the mummy of Merneptah is a round hole made by a sharp, pointed instrument. To explain this injury it was thought that a surgical operation had been performed on Merneptah's head during his lifetime, or that it was made after his death. But this hole is apparently the result of the mortal wound at the hands of his assassins. [2100]

The mystery over the presence of the north Mediterranean immigrants in eastern Libya has been explained. They were the new settlers of Cyrene, who came from all parts of the Greek world.

The notion that white Aryan people were present in Libya and Egypt in the 13th century BC is false. It was the 6th century. From the battle of Kadesh/Carchemish to the end of Merneptah/Apries less than 50 years passed. Merneptah's general Amasis was king for an unconfirmed 40 or 43 years from about 568 to 525 BC. Part of these years may have been as general under his king. He was followed by Psammetich II who reigned only for 6 months.

143 years later the 20th Dynasty came to power under Nectanebo I/Ramses III. During these 143 years, in 525 BC, Egypt was conquered by Cambyses, a Persian king, atrocities were committed against the Egyptian king and the population and Egypt was from now on administered by Persian satraps. Little else is known about Amasis except that he admired the Greeks and opened for them the swampy seacoast where Alexandria was built eventually.

The Israel Stele

In 28 horizontal lines the pertinent text reads:

"One comes and goes with singing, and there is no lamentation of mourning people. The towns are settled again anew; as for the one that ploweth his harvest, he shall eat it. Re has turned himself to Egypt; he was born, destined to be the protector, the King Merneptah ... the Sun, driving away the storm which was Egypt, allowing Egypt to see the rays of the sun, removing the mountain of copper from the neck of the people... `The kings are overthrown, saying: SALEM! Not one holds up his head among the Nine Bows. Wasted is Tehenu, Kheta is pacified, plundered is Pekanan, with every evil, carried off is Askalon, seized upon is Gezer, Yenoam is made as a thing not existing.
Israel [-s-r-'-r] is desolated, his seed is not, Palestine has become a widow for Egypt.[2150] All lands are united, they are pacified, everyone that is turbulent is bound by King Merneptah, life like Re, every day."

Here are the hieroglyphic characters for `Israel' found in horizontal line 27 out of 28 lines as best as we could discern them. It appears the two palm fonds stand for the letter `i', the door bolt for `s', the open mouth for `r', the stylized hawk for `a', the eye for seeing (perhaps the in conjunction with the following desolation), the hooked sprout may be a reference to vanishing time or desolation. [2200]

Possible renditions of the hieroglyphic name for Israel may be found in the following sources: (Based on Simon's `Topographical Lists' and leaving out the theophoric `el' part.)
1. Thutmose III, Great Temple of Amon at Karnak, List IV, No. 10, p. 126

`iss(w)r'; Favored conventional reading is `Assur' because of a double `s' sound.
2. Thutmose III, List XVII, No. 14

`isr'.
3. Seti I Rock-Temple of Wadi Abbad, List XVII, No. 4: `i-s-r', p. 147

`isr'.
4. Ramses II's Temple at Abydos, List XXV, No. 8: p. 162

`isr'.

The spirit in which this stele was written makes it clear the author is looking back at difficult times for Egypt. They were subjugated, probably even forced to produce certain quantities of goods like copper. We ask, which difficulties were there in 1200 BC, during the 19th dynasty, for Egypt? It becomes apparent that the difficulties arose because of warfare. But warfare on Israel in 1200 BC? What was the reason for the assertion that this stele is a document concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Palestine as some historians argued? Was it because he was a pharaoh who despoiled Palestine? History does not know of any such event, it only knows of a disaster which overtook the Egyptians. If the vague line means that the Israelites were vanquished by Merneptah, then it would be proof against and not for the identification of Merneptah with the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Another chronological problem used against the Velikovskian revision is that `since the stele deals with the defeat of the Libyans in Merneptah's 5th year, it cannot be dated earlier than 564 BC by Velikovsky. This is 23 years after the fall of Jerusalem, and one may question whether the event would be celebrated at this late date.' [2300]

In our response we like to point out that in our opinion if Merneptah can recall a time for Egypt were an oppressive `mountain of copper' had to be paid in tribute and which he wanted `removed from the neck of the people', why not recalling events from 23 years before? Who was the `mountain of copper' paid too? The Babylonians, or the Assyrians? How far back does Merneptah look in his stele?

Grain or Seed?

Other historians like Peter James want to translate "...his seed is not" as referring to `grain' suggesting it refers to a dry season in the days of King David [2.Samuel 21:1]. In doing so he does not mention that foreign enemies [i.e. Merneptah invading Israel and destroying the fields - a decidedly Hyksos tactic- not a New Kingdom one] were not on the mind of David as to the cause of the famine but the deeds of King Saul were.

A) The phrase in question occurs also in the annals of Pharaoh Ramses III.

"Live the Good God, Montu, when he goes forth, beautiful upon the steed, charging into hundreds of thousands, mighty in valor, stretching the [bow] and shooting the arrows wither he will, fighting ..... piercing with sharp horns, overthrowing the Temeh, slain in their places in heaps before his horses, causing that they cease their opposition in their land, whose sword has overthrown their seed by the might of his father, Amon, in all lands together, Lord of the Two Lands, Ramses III." [2400]

"... I laid low the land of Temeh, their seed is not." [2500]

B) References to `seed' occur also in numerous biblical passages some of which we shall just present without quoting from them. Artaxerxes sends the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem. According to the `Almagast Canon' of the Greek historian, geographer & astronomer Ptolemy, Artaxerxes became king in the 248th year of the Canon, that is in between Dec. 17th, 465 - Dec. 17th, 464 BC. From Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1 & Ezra 7:7-9 we learn that Artax. became king between the 5th and 9th month of the Jewish year, that is in the Fall of 464 BC.

Gen. 3:15; 9:9; 13:15; 16:10; Many more are found.

The important point to remember is that seed often refers to generations of people as the Egyptian inscriptions of Ramses III and Bible passages show. In reading grain Peter James ignores the Jeremiah textual parallels, Egyptian parallels and the prevalent oriental penchant for flowery speech and drawing from images of nature in describing events. It was the devastation caused by the Babylonian invasion of Israel, a neighboring country which never waged war with Egypt, that prompted the author of the Israel stele to comment as he did. We must remember this was in the middle of their 70 year captivity which lasted from 606-536 BC. The land formerly inhabited by the Israelites was still referred to as `Israel', even though other peoples were living in its borders at the time. The end of their 70 year captivity did not come until 536 BC. In revised view Merneptah/Hophra/Apries reigned from 569-558 BC. [2550]

Other textual hints placing Ramses III into late period times.

The city of Pekanon is not included in the detailed list of cities in the book of Joshua. Why? Because it belongs into the time of king Pekah of Israel (752-732 BC) and yet its name is found in the stele.

The stele compares the secure position of Egypt with the desolation in Palestine. It is the same idea expressed in:

a)
b)

Jeremiah 44:2,6,14,22;
Jeremiah 47:1 & 5:

"...against the Philistines, before that Pharaoh
smote Gaza...Baldness is come upon Gaza, Ashkelon
is cut off with the remnant of their valley..."

These words remind us of the stele where it says:

"... carried off is Askelon, seized upon is Gezer."

That the Israel Stele is not mere poetic propaganda seems to be underscored by the Amada inscription calling Merenptah "the reducer of Gezer". [2600] Similarly the destruction of the Palestinian countryside and cities was then not the work of the Egyptian army, who must have regarded these towns as their traditional outposts since Amarna times, but must have been the work of the Hittite/Babylonians.

In revised history Merneptah [Hophra, Apries] ruled from about 580-568 BC, the period of coregency with Ramses II, and sole from ca. 568/69-558 BC. The stele describes the situation as it existed in Palestine following the Babylonian campaigns into the region. The same period, the same events moved Merneptah and Jeremiah to use similar expressions in describing what happened.

Comparing two Independent Sources

Merneptah Stele
"plundered is Pekanan"
"carried off is Askalon"
"seized upon is Gezer
"Israel is desolated"
"his seed is not"
"All lands are united, they are pacified"
"Palestine has become a widow for Egypt"

Jeremiah's References
"to spoil all the Philistines...from Tyrus and Zidon"
"Askelon is cut off with the remnants of their valley"
"Baldness is come upon Gaza"
"all the cities of Judah...they are a desolation"
"save thee ... and thy seed from the land of ... captivity"
"therefore is your land a desolation"
"and let their wives be ... widows"Jeremiah 18:21
"How deserted lies the city ... How like a widow is she, who once was great among the nations." Lamentations 1:1

One question that may arise, `How can the so-called Israel stele be of close to the middle of the 6th century when `Israel' had been destroyed and the Ten Tribes vanished in and after 722 BC?' In asking that question some try to make this argument a vehicle to challenge our chronology of the 19th Dynasty. We meet this challenge by pointing out how often the label `Israel' is still being used by the remaining representatives of the 12 tribes, the descendants of Judah and Benjamin (the Jews), and also by representatives and kings of foreign governments after 722 BC. A check in a concordance may convince you that despite the demise of the 10 tribes in 722 BC the remaining members of those people, the Jews, thought of themselves as Israel. The book of Ezra, Nehemia, Jeremiah, Daniel and all the prophets after 722 BC still refer to themselves as either or both, Jews and Israel:

"And the elders of the Jews builded ... And the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication .... And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity..." Ezra 6:14, 16, 21.

"And the king [Nebuchadnezzar] spake unto Ashpenaz the master of the eunuchs ... bring certain of the children of Israel ..." Daniel 1:3.

The evidence here presented is of a nature which shows the foundations of the currently accepted chronology of Egypt and the surrounding nations is out of sync with real history by many centuries.

The government of Merenptah

The government of Merenptah included a fan bearer named Amenemope [2660].

The nation of Israel

The historicity of Israel as a nation is inseparably tied to:

a correct understanding on how and when the Pentateuch was written, and

following a correct chronology of Israel itself and the nations surrounding it.

The first point we address in our paper on the The Toledoth of Genesis and in Tracing the hand of Moses in Genesis. These papers should put to rest the Graf-Wellhausen minimalistic view that "the Israelite nation may have been formed out of Canaanite highland herdsmen" [2670] as hoplessly out of date.

The second point we present in the various papers on this website which anyone in the Internet community may view at their own leisure. Some key markers may have changed a bit, as for instance the new material presented in our account of the Exodus. It is obvious that conventional chronology is incapable of presenting true history and that their `pillars' of history,

The Sothic based chronology,
The dependence on Manetho, which still underlies conventional chronology

The error of having Ramses III fight the Philistines

are weak, outdated and refuted.

Who Destroyed Boghazkoi

Elsewhere another chronological misunderstanding must be corrected. This has to do with who ruined the Hittite capital of Boghazkoi which is blamed on the mythical Sea Peoples in 1200 BC by conventional historians. But it was Croesus, son of Gyges, king of Lydia ... with his capital in Sardis who burned and ruined Boghazkoi in 546 BC.

"Croesus ... began the war. When he reached the river Halys, he
crossed it by the existing bridges ... When the army was over the
river and had reached the district called Pteria in Cappadocia
(Pteria is the strongest place here and lies more or less in line
with Sinope on the Black Sea), Croesus encamped and began to
devastate the crops of the Syrians land. He captured the town,
enslaved the inhabitants, and took all of the neighboring settlements." [2700]

Scholars agree that Pteria occupies the place of the old capital of Boghazkoi-Hattusha. [2800]

"The identification had already been made by Texier in 1834."

It was the very capital from which Mursilis, son of Suppiluliumas, less than 80 years earlier planned and then executed the conquest of Babylon and established the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

The destruction of Boghazkoi by Croesus can be read about in the archaeological report:

"Clear signs of disaster have been found everywhere in the royal
citadel. Not a single building was spared and the surface of the
streets and open squares was found covered with thick layers of
charred wood and mud bricks reddened by fire." [2900]

After this conquest Croesus reigned supreme in Anatolia only a few months longer. Cyrus, emerging from Anshan in Media, invaded Asia Minor and in the same year, 546 BC, he took Sardis and carried Croesus away to accompany him on his further war exploits as a prisoner. Only 14 years later, in 539 BC Babylon fell after a night of visions and feasting, in the palace built by Nebuchadnezzar for his descendants for eternity.

So a lot of history happened in such a short time span. If this account does not get the blood of historians pumped up, I don't know what would.

During this time the age of Croesus ended, Amasis ruled over Egypt just a little longer - the Persian period for Egypt began just a few months after the death of Amasis.

Amasis, Seti II and the End of the 19th Dynasty

Seti II, Userkheperure-setepenre, is conventionally dated from about 1199-1193 BC. We presented already the account of the reign of Merneptah and how Amasis became king and not Seti II, son of Merneptah. For some 40-43 years Amasis reigned. After he passed away Seti II had some influence for about 6 months before the Persians invaded Egypt. It appears that Set II is often confused with Sethos of the three brothers. The monumental evidence on Seti II is practically non-existent.

For this reason his period offers a pluthora of theoretical suppositions about the dynastic sequence and all those rulers of whom we have only a vague understanding tend to be pressed into his time. Historians than shore up their favorite scenarios as best they can by making many think they know what they are talking about. What are the sources for the ancestors of the Pharaohs of the 20th Dynasty which are supposed to have succeeded the 19th Dynasty? The only ancestor of Ramses III attested to is his father Setnakht. No link can be made between the 19th and 20th Dynasty from inscriptions of this king. What about the small temple of Seti II at Karnak? A description of the art work inside is sometimes interpreted that Bay was an official of Seti II or was it Sethos of the three brothers? [3000] Next historians interpreted that either Setnakht or Ramses III changed the figure of Bay into that of a crown prince to support the claims of the 20th Dynasty kings to be legitimate successors of Seti II. One document we find sometimes cited is a list of ancestors found at Medinet Habu of the time of Ramses III where it is said that Seti II was the immediate ancestor of Setnakht.

In 1912 there appeared an article describing two bronze swords which were found in Egypt. It was thought one was found at `Zagazig' (Bubastis) and judged to be of northern-European manufacture, the other was reportedly found at Tell-Firaun in the Delta and bears the cartouche of Sethos II just underneath the handle. Straight edged swords (`sf't')

were not part of the equipment of Egyptian soldiers and are therefore regarded imports. But we showed already a sword with the cartouche of Merneptah on its blade. In our opinion these swords testify to the closeness of the Greek period to these kings. The source of fine fighting hardware was certainly known and available to them.

Which Seti was the one who overwrote monumental inscriptions by Ramses II?

How many Seti's were there? Convention has a Seti III, which we believe was king who reigned for six months at the end of the 19th Dynasty and who made those changes on the monuments of Ramses II. In revised view the 6 month `reign' of Seti II/III came to an end in 525 BC as a result of the Persian invasion. Setnakht/Achoris ruled from 393-380 BC. We see that over 130 years intervened between these two rulers. Not only does chancellor Bay belong to the time of the three brothers, the confusion between Sethos of the three brothers, Seti I and Seti II is what distorts the true time of these rulers. The personalities which belong into the time of the three brothers are: Ramses-Siptah, Merneptah-Siptah, Twosert (Tausert), Sethos/Seti, Armais/Horemheb, chancellor Bey or Bay. We are talking about the years between 722-688 BC.

The reliefs on the walls of the Second Court of the Temple of Medinet Habu are usually interpreted to represent the procession of royal statues. The sequence of the name standards of this procession are then interpreted to reflect actual dynastic sequences. We are not aware that such sequences have been found on other monuments. According to the description the sequence is as follows:

1. Merenptah, 2. Sethos II, 3. Setnakht, 4. Amenmesse, 5. Siptah, 6. Queen Twosre, (7. missing is the usurper Irsu, who ruled 20 years).

Interpreters then reason that "The position of Amenmesse is still somewhat problematic but there is little doubt that he has to be intercalated between Merenptah and Sethos II in view of the evidence afforded by the succession of the contemporary viziers. Pinhasy and Pensakhmet were the incumbents in years 7 and 8 of Merenptah. The Pra

emhab of years 5 and 6 of Sethos II was replaced by Hori later in year 1 of Siptah and the latter continued to hold office into the earlier 20th Dynasty. Between Pinhasy and Pra

emhab, the vizierate for a time at least must have been in the hands of that Amenmose who was discharged by the `Mose' of Papyrus Salt 124. As Cerny has pointed out, this dismissal could only have been affected by a Pharaoh, and the Mose in question is almost certainly Amenmesse." [3100]

Intercalating Amenmesse, where does that leave the supposed sequence found at Medinet Habu? Does that mean that the sequence at Medinet Habu may be based on other criteria then dynastic sequence? Could these names just represent Ramses III most favorite predecessors? Perhaps rulers from whose time period rich treasures were given to him by those who opened their graves? From the El Amarna literature we know that rich presents could get the attention of kings and anyone else without fail.

Comparing the Ending of the 19th Dynasty and 26th Dynasty
See also `Harmhab' and `Seti'

In Revised View the 19th and 26th Dynasty were the same

The Conventional 19th Dynasty Ending

The Conventional 26th Dynasty Ending

In revised view the 19th/26th Dynasty ended with Pharaoh Amasis as prophezied by Jeremiah about Pharaoh Hophra and described by Herodotus on the death of Apries.

In conventional view the 19th Dynasty ended with Twosre (or Tausert).
Some claim that a possible reference to a temple of the conventional Seti II [Userkheperure-setepenre] in the western tempel complex of Thebes exists. 3200] They also claim that for the conventional Amenmesse [Menmire-setepenre] a Theban graffito, no. 321, makes a reference. [3300]

In conventional View the 26th Dynasty ended with Psammetichus (or Psammecherites) III who is given six months by Manetho as quoted in the translation of Africanus but is omitted in the translation of Eusebius.

For the discussion on reign lengths and other correlations see texts on this website.

Sethos II/Ps.II never actually became king.

In revised view the 19th Dynasty should end with the conventional Sethos II and Amenmesse but according to Alan Gardiner ends with Twosert who belongs into the time of `The Three Brothers', Ramses-Siptah, Sethos, and Armais (Harmhab) from about 720 - 688 BC.

Authors like Alan Gardiner in his `Egypt of the Pharaohs' use the same name for two of these kings calling them `Siptah', omitting to say if they mean Ramses-Siptah or Merneptah-Siptah.

In revised view Psammetichus II corresponds to Sethos II who never became king. Psammetichus III was also just a prince and not a king. We tend to think that the conventional Seti III,rarely mentioned, was the 6 month reigning Seti II.

Alan Gardiner also uses the names of Ammeris the Ethiopian, Stephanites and Nechepsos found in the various versions of Manetho at the beginning for his 26th Dynasty. How these individuals are to be categorized is not clear and they are best not taken as markers in dynastic sequences.

The Persian Period in Egypt

Understanding Iraq in the Light of Ancient History (?)

The Medes and the Persians overthrew Babylon. Medo-Persia was a dual kingdom, first the stronger Median branch, then the Persian, under Cyrus and his successors. �chylus, the Greek poet, who lived in the time of Persia, wrote:

"Asia's brave host,
A Mede first led. The virtue of his son
Fixed firm the empire....
... Cyrus third, by fortune graced,
Adorned the throne."[�schylus, `Pers�']
Xenophon said of Cyrus the Persian:

"He was able to extend the fear of himself over so great a part of the world that he astonished all, and no one attempted anything against him." [3500]

The Persian period in Egypt, just like the conquest by the Assyrians, arrived suddenly. Cambyses and his sizeable army came, devastated and brought the pharaonic royal house to an end. He did not arrive with quantities of pottery and Persian implements for archaeologists to find today spread out over all of Egypt. Archaeologically speaking then, looking for a Persian period layer during excavations is a rare find. When Persian era artifacts are found most likely this would be from late Persian times. Sir Flinders Petrie remarks in his `Naukratis':

"Roughly speaking, I should suppose level 220 is of about 650 BC, 250 of 600 BC, 285 of 550 BC, and 330 of 520 BC. The data for such an estimate are that the town and temple was probably founded by Psamtik I., judging by the history of the site in general and the earlieness of some of the dedicatory pottery; that the Polemarchos vase can hardly be put later than 600 BC; that the terra-cotta archaic heads are not likely as late as 550 BC; that the glazed figures are akin to those of the scarab factory destroyed in 570 BC, and hence are not later than about 550 BC; that the Phanes vase is about 530 BC; and that the brilliant incised ware with black figures on a buff ground is far from being the latest black figured, and would not be likely to be after the Persian conquest 520 BC, and as nothing later is found, it probably closes the series of dedications in the troubles of the Persian war. Having these probable indications, which are in good agreement with the interval of the strata, we can hardly do wrong in accepting the scale above." [3600]

Unlike the Greeks, the Persians were not known for producing vast quantities of pottery for sale abroad. Any pottery or artifact attributed to them ought to be carefully examined. No doubt interpreting were strata began and/or ended was hardly a very scientific procedure.

The Persian presence in Egypt was largely confined to "... three garrisons were maintained in Egypt at that time, one in the city of Elephantine against the Ethiopians, another in the Pelusiac Daphnae, against the Syrians and Arabians, and a third, against the Libyans, in Marea. (The very same posts are to this day occupied by the Persians, whose forces are in garrison both in Daphnae and in Elephantine.)" [3700]

But the conquerors probably did not set up an effective system of collecting annual tribute until about 470 BC when Arsames began to organize matters. Even then goods largely went one way, out of Egypt to Persia with little exchange. Persian garrisons also were in coastal northern Palestine, the Negev - the approaches toward Egypt. From there they kept a careful eye on the goings on inside their tribute producing state.

Important:
1. The number of seated kings (and those of whom we have records of) of the 19th and 26th Dynasty match - both had 5 kings with a remaining prince at the end. The temple described as of Seti II is a very small building. To use that temple as proof that the conventional Seti II was a seated king seems rather arbitrary.
2. The wide difference in the reign length of Seti the Great plus Ramses II as compared to Psammetichus I and Necho II is due to the remaining monuments of Seti the Great which mention as highest date his year 11 and giving a long reign to his son Ramses II. We believe that Ramses II usurped the reign length of his father and that the number of years when added up agree sufficiently.
3. The highest monumental date says in essence that a king ruled at least for that many years but may not necessarily mean that he did not reign for additional time afterwards.
4. Amenmesse's reign length is not stated but should be between 40-43 years.
5. Amasis was Amenmesse and reigned sole from 558 - 526 BC but since he was the general under Merneptah/Apries included the 10 years of Apries in his total making it about 40-43 years.
6. The ancients were often uncertain about reign lengths because living in various parts of the country their local rulers dictated their lifes more so than a distant king even though he may have been the higher authority.
7. The names Nechos, Psammetichus, Hophra and Apries are known to us only from Greek and Hebrew sources. They do not occur on Egyptian monuments except perhaps the recently found name Necharomes. Modern historians set down and chose from names found on the monuments of the 6th century BC those which they thought to be good candidates for these kings mentioned. We show that the names they chose were Egyptian officials during Persian times and no kings.
8. Egyptian monuments will never reveal the stories of Pharaoh Psammetichus, Necho, Apries and Amasis apart from those of Seti the Great, Ramses II, Merneptah and Amenmesse since they were the same people.
9. Why Herodotus credits Seti and Necho with only a short reign we don't know but must have something to do with inaccurate source material available to him. The important point to notice is that the overall length of the 19th and 26th dynasty is remarkably close.

Bridging the time from the end of the 19th/26th Dynasty to the 20th Dynasty

1. The 20th Dynasty did not follow the 19th/26th directly. After Cambyses invaded Egypt in 525 BC, the Persian satrap Arsames administered the affairs in Egypt through his selected Egyptian perfunctories. These officials were chosen by modern historians to represent the Egyptian counterparts to the Greek 26th Dynasty.
2. As a result of the high tribute and taxations of the working people in Egypt Ianarus led an uprising during the years from 463-454 BC. He very likely was Ramses XI for it would have taken someone with good enough credentials like royal lineage and access to state funds to warrant the support of Greece in sending navy vessels to the aid of Egypt.
3. In about 424-420 BC the 21st Dynasty priest Herihor came to fame, followed by Paiankh, Psusennes I, Peinuzem I, Menkheperre, Peinuzem II, Psusennes II and Si-Amon. These influential priests lived at the same time as the kings of the 28th and 20th Dynasties.
4. Next Nepherites and Amyrteos, the latter being the sole member of the 28th Dynasty, rebelled against the Persians. Of these Amyrteos caused much trouble and costly losses to the Persians.
5. When Nepherites died Acoris became king. This Acoris we identify with Setnakht whose son Nectanebo I, an army officer, made himself king after the death of his father and became known as Ramses III of the 20th Dynasty. More details about these personalities may be found in the second part of our paper on the 21st Dynasty.
6. The years from at least 525 BC to the reign of Ramses III/Nectanebo I (about 370 BC) are the long years of turbulence and strife described in the Harris Papyrus. [3800]
7. From the inscriptions of Setnakht/Acoris we gather that he had high regard for Greek traditions and utilized some of their mythology in his carvings.
[Do a search for `Setnhnakht relief carvings' to see the door lintel to the tomb of Sethnakht showing him as a mummy flanked by Anubis (Hermes) and Osiris (Dionysus). http://www.memphis.edu/egypt/westbank]

Close toward the end of Pharaonic Egypt reigned Ramses III, the last mighty warrior, who took on the great empires of his days and won the conflict for his people.

The Transition after the End of the 19th Dynasty

The conventional view of the transition from the 19th to the next historical period (20th Dynasty) is presented in a series of articles in:

1. W. Helck, ZDMG 105 (1953), pp. 39-52;
2. J. von Beckerath, ZDMG 106 (1956), pp. 241-251;
3. A.H.Gardiner, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology - JEA, 40 (1954), pp. 40ff;
4. id., JEA, 44 (1958), pp. 12-22;
5. von Beckerath, JEA, 48 (1962), pp. 70-74;
6. C. Aldred, JEA, 49 (1963), pp. 41-48;
7. J. Vandier, Rd�, 23 (1971), pp. 165-191;

The Revised Account of the Ending of the 19th Dynasty

In revised view the last king of the 19th Dynasty was the short period of Psammetich II. Just a few months after his demise, Cambyses came to Egypt. Proceeding to the south, he found the [Jewish] temple of Elephantine already build. [Sachan, `Aramaeische Papyri & Ostraka', p. 21; dates from 407 BC] This papyrus also states that the temple of Elephantine at the southern border of Egypt was left intact by Cambyses but later destroyed by a mob. Cambyses claimed his mother was a daughter of Apries whom Cyrus had married. He considered Amasis an usurper and ordered everything destroyed that carried his name. In this part we shall concentrate on Amenmesse, Seti II and Seti III.

What we know about Amenmesse

In conventional view Seti II damaged the inscriptions, wall reliefs and images of Amenmesses but according to revised view much of it was done by the agents of Cambyses. As a result of this destruction we know very little about this last king of the 19th Dynasty even though his rule had lasted for over 40 years, from about 579 if he had a co-reign of about 10 years and sole from about 569-526 BC. In conventional view he reigned anywhere from 1202 - 1199 BC and/or 1203 - 1200 BC, a mere 4 years.

Amenmesse was the general who came out victorious during Merenptah's war against the Lybians resulting in the imprisonment of Merenptah/Hophra/Apries and his eventuel death by the mob. According to data, his Egyptian name was probably `Heqa-waset', `Fashioned by Amun, Ruler of Thebes'. His throne name was `Men-mi-re Setep-en-re', meaning `Eternal like Re, Chosen by Re'.

Since Seti II's name has been written over the name of Amenmesses in several Theban locations, it is generally believed that Seti II succeeded him. Still others believe that Amenmesses usurped Seti II in the middle of Seti II's reign, sometime between years three and five of his rule, which would seem more probable then him ruling after Seti II. It is also possible that Amenmesses only ruled the southern parts of Egypt during Seti IIs reign. If this is true, he may have been a vizier over Nubia named Messui during the time of Merneptah, but this theory has recently been called into question. There has even been speculation that a queen Ti'a, supposed mother of Saptah, the penultimate ruler of the dynasty, may have been a wife of Amenmeses, thus making him the father of the successor to Sety II as part of a rival dynastic branch.

It should also be noted that Amenmesses usurped a number of preexisting monuments himself, and though we now believe that tomb KV 10 in the Valley of the Kings was originally begun by this king, little other building work exists. Inscriptions bearing his name are mostly only found in Upper Egyptian sites, primarily in the Theban region and in Nubia. These include inscriptions at Karnak, a dedication inscription at the small temple at Medinet Habu, an inscriptions at a chapel at Deir el Medina and a stela found at Buhen. Perhaps as many as six quartzite statues originally placed along the axis of the hypostyle hall in the Amun Temple at Karnak are thought to be his, though these were also usurped (in the name of Seti II). However, one of these statues thought to belong to Amenmesses has an inscription bearing the title, "the Great Royal Wife" Takhat, lending support to the argument that she actually was his wife. Amenmesses was also, among others, responsible for restoration work on a barque shrine dating from Thutmose III that stands before a small temple at Tod.

The Tomb of Amenmesses (KV 10)

Amenmesses' tomb cannot be visited as it is being excavated, and unless some sort of amazing recovery process is discovered, it may never be a popular tourist attraction. The tomb, located in the Valley of the Kings on the West Bank at Luxor (ancient Thebes) is quite incomplete, and most of its decorations have been destroyed.

Notes & References

[0100] Herodotus, Book II, Sec. 161; For images of the `Merneptah Museum' see KMT, Spring 2003, Vol. 14, p. 29.
[0200] See Caminos, `Late Egyptian Miscellanies', p. 108; and Wilson, `Journal of a Frontier Official', ANET, p. 258 and n.6.
[0300] Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), Sep/Oct 1990.
[0400] See `The Greek Age in the Shadows of Egyptian Chronology' under Submenu.
[0500] Ahmed Fakhri, `Bahriyah and Farafra', NY, 1974, p. 61.
[0600] Herodotus, Book IV, Sec. 159.
[0700] Ibid.
[0800] H.Bakry, `The Discovery of a Temple of Merneptah at On', Aegyptus, LIII (1973), p.7.
[0900] Alan R. Schulman, `The Great Historical Inscriptions of Merneptah at Karnak' in JARCE, Vol. XXIV, 1987, p. 21-34; Also Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 574.
[1000] Herodotus, Bk. II, Sec. 161.
[1100] Ibid.,Sec. 152-154.
[1200] Ibid., Sec. 152.
[1300] See Hall, `The Oldest Civilization of Greece' (London and Philadelphia, 1903), pp. xxvii, 96, 173, 220.
[1400] Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 594.
[1500] Ibid., Sec. 598ff.
[1600] Herodotus, Bk. II, Sec. 161.
[1700] Herodotus, Bk. IV, Sec. 159.
[1800] Frank Goddio had a view of the feet of a statue published bearing the name of Merneptah underneath the water at the location of Alexandria which is now removed.
[1900] Herodotus, Bk. II, Sec. 163.
[2000] Ibid., Sec. 169.
[2100] G. Elliot Smith, `The Royal Mummies', Catalogue general des Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee de Caire (Cairo, 1912), p. 68. James Harris and Kent Weeks, `X-raying the Pharaohs', New York, 1973, p.157.
[2150] For a discussion on the Kharu and the hieroglyphics for Israel see Anson Rainey in BAR, Mar 1992, p. 73-74. States the hieroglyphics for Israel denote an ethnic group, not a city state. Importantly he states, "The status of the chariot warrior and the maintenance of chariot forces, not to mention the need for training and logistics to support a chariot force, were hardly commensurate with Israelite social structure until the age of the monarchy." To us this supports this particular comment of Rainey that Merenptah belongs into the time of the monarchy, albeit late, and not the Exodus, or any pre-monarchy period.
[2200] See BAR, Sep/Oct 1990, p. 27; E.A.W.Budge, `An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary', Vol. I, Sec. 143, b; `Israar'.
[2300] Bimson, `An Eighth-Century Date for Merenptah', SIS Review, Vol. III, No. 2 (Autumn, 1978), p. 57.
[2400] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 50.
[2500] Ibid., Sec. 58.
[2550] The long held differences of opinion among the so-called minimalists and maximalists included also disagreements with the `Israel Stele'. The debate on the origins of Israel in Canaan, the conquest under Joshua, etc., had been marginalized because of their theological and ideological composition by historians like Ahlstrom, Lemche and Thompson for example. However, these same scholars take very serious the Egyptian military campaign with the Libyans as related in this Stele, despite its theological and ideological dimensions. The Stele's hieroglyphic text tells us that a great `wonder has happened' [BREA, III, Sec. 612] that led to Merenptah's victory. Egyptologists treat the segment of the stela on the Libyan war as historical despite the mention of a `wonder' or `miracle'. The same treatment does not extent to the Biblical account when divine intervention is reported in connection with the Israelites' departure from Egypt or in the Joshua narratives. This double standard by evolutionistic scholars of ancient history was called by Fischer, the "fallacy of statistical special pleading" that "occurs whenever an investigator applies a double standard of inference or interpretation to his evidence - one standard to evidence which sustains his generalizations and another to evidence which contradicts it." (D. H. Fischer, Historians Fallacies, p. 110; BAR, Mar 1995, p. 22.).
[2600] Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 273.
[2660] Itamar Singer, Merneptah's Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of the Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine.. in ASOR Bulletin, No. 269, Feb 1988, p. 1-10.; Papyrus Anastasi III v. 1:9.
[2670] Maynard Maidman, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob meet Newton, Darwin and Wellhausen in BAR, May/June 2006, p. 58-64. The stance publicized in BAR underscores the need for a new magazine on Biblical Archaeology with a governing board that is not oriented toward conventional chronology.
[2700] Herodotus Bk. I, Sec. 76.
[2800] See W.M.Ramsey, `Historical Geography of Asia Minor' (1890), pp. 33f. J.Garstang, `The Land of the Hittites' (1910), pp. 32f, 197. Kurt Bittel, `Hattusha, Capital of the Hittites' (1970), pp. 155-156]
[2900] Bittle, `Hattusha', p. 90.
[3000] a) Seti II - User-kheperu-Ra mer Amen, Userkhepereru-setepenre; Siptah - Akhenre-setepenre.
b) Others theorize that Ramses-Siptah changed his name to Merneptah-Siptah.
[3100] C.Aldred, `The Parentage of King Siptah' in JEA, Vol. 49, 1963, p. 43.
[3300] B.J. Haring, `Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Mortuary Temples in Western Thebes', Leiden, 1997, p. 423, Appendiz 1. (See also the Temple of Amon-Re at http://2terres.hautesavoie.net//kegypte/texte/karnai50.html
[3400] K. Kitchen, `Rameside Inscriptions IV', 238, 8.
[3500] Xenophon, `The Cyrop�dia', Book 1, chapter 1.
[3600] W.M.F.Petrie, `Naukratis', p. 19.
[3700] Herodotus, Bk. II, Sec. 30; See also the papyrii from Wadi Daliyeh which seem to indicate that the people in Samaria were dating documents there to the last two Persian kings at least. ]
[3800] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 398.

Crawl out of this tomb

Above

Below

Submenu