In conventional chronology Seti I (our Seti II, the Great) is dated from 1294-1279 BC, a mere 15 years, in revised view from about 663-609 BC. A number of relief carvings from Seti have survived representing his campaigns against the Shasu(Arabs) and Syria, as well as campaigns against the Libyans and Hittites/Chaldeans. During the reign of this king in Egypt there was deep apostasy and religious confusion in Jerusalem. The years of the Jewish Exile were fast approaching. Theirs was the age of images as exemplified by the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, the golden image in the plain of Dura [Daniel 3] and the many images of Ramses II as both kings dreamed of being empire builders.

Seti the Great on his way through Palestine. "And in the 2nd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, and he was troubled in his spirit by them, and could not sleep."
"Thou, oh king, sawest, and behold a great image ... with a head of fine gold, his breast and arms of fine silver, his belly and thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay." Daniel 2:1, 31-33.

"If the greatness of an Egyptian Pharaoh be measured by the size and number of the monuments remaining to perpetuate his memory, Sethos's son and successor Ramses II would have to be adjudged the equal, or even the superior, of the proudest pyramid builders."
[120]

"Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image whose height was three score cubits and the width six cubits (60 x 6 cubites or about 90 x 9 feet); he set it up in the plain of Dura ..." [Daniel 3:1]
Could it be that this large, free standing image or pedestal with an image at the top was directly inspired by his knowledge of Necho/Ramses' II many images of himself in Egypt? To our knowledge no other Chaldean/Babylonian king before him had ever done so but Herodotus reported that in the days of Cyrus, that is just after the Babylonian empire became his, there was a solid golden statue or image of a man 15 feet high. [130]

The Babylonian Archaeological Gap in and around Jerusalem/Judah.
Archaeologists have been surprised not to find plenty of Babylonian artifacts from the time of Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Judah and his dealings with Ramses II/Necho. Do large invading armies leave artifacts behind to trace their presence? While there may be some small items lost during the march of large armies, these may be also found by people later searching for anything these armies left behind. Many times archaeologists find metal arrow tips but no such finds were made around Jerusalem from this time period until more recently [135]. This seems to agree with the view that Jerusalem was not besieged by Nebuchadnezzar but was taken quite easily. Nevertheless his troops destroyed at least the first Temple and took the population into a 70 years captivity. Babylonian presence at Jerusalem was at one time scant or wanting, not so anymore today. Assyrian presence in the area has long been evidenced by constructions, like the `open-court-design', an Assyrian stamp and cylinder seal and pottery vessels assumed to be Assyrian because the type was found at Nimrud and all of this was found at Dor. In revised view any archaeological finds from the time of Ramses II and later 19th Dynasty pharaohs, as well as finds of the Hittite/Babylonian/Chaldean King Hattusa/Nebuchadnezzar would fall into this same time frame. [150]

Wesr-ma-Re, Ramesses al-Akbar, Ramses II - the Great

The Far Flung Empire of Ramses II

From his apparent hometown of Piramesse [200] the activities of Ramses extended in the south from Nubia to the borders with Libya as the recent discovery of the remains of a limestone chapel adjacent to a miltary garrison and kitchen at Zawiyet Umm Al-Rakham located near Marsa Matruh on the western most coast of Egypt show. To the north Ramses short lived influence extended up to Jerablus/Carchemish, the land of the Hittite/Chaldeans, the place of which was first rediscovered in 1912 by Leonard Wooley and his assistant, T.E. Laurence, the later Lawrence of Arabia. [220] .

The Early Years of Ramses the Great
The earlier years of Ramses, especially the years of his more official functions with his father, are usually deduced from the names he used. According to the `Kuban Stela' Ramses had already some authority over a detachment of `a group of people', usually understood to be troops. We think it is a mistake to always think of prince/king relations strictly as coregencies. Each father-son relationship [400] was different, but that the length of the reign of Ramses could be figured by him inclusive or non-inclusive for the years of his father.

The `400 Jahr Stele' as a chronological helpful source:

Ramses honored his father in various ways more so than the kings before him did their fathers. In our oppinion that fits better a long life of growing up together than the time allotted to Seti today. [KMT, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 51; See small limestone stela in sunk relief depicting the juvenile Ramses following his father, King Seti I. The cartouche is that of Seti, there is not yet a cartouche of his son shown. Both hold implements of their status in their hand. Also Time-Life Books: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile, Alexandria, VA 1993, p. 6; The full page image shown is the youthful Ramses in profile seated on a low cushion assuming a pensive posture with his right hand touching his lips. He still has the side lock of youth and wears the diadem with the royal cobra. The cartouche contains his royal name.]

We read in his inscriptions: "... He gave me the land while I was in the egg ... when I was installed as eldest son, as hereditary prince upon the throne of Keb." [Ibid., Sec. 267] Ramses was the `eldest/oldest' son of Seti, who had him crowned while he was still alive. However, the above citation seems to indicate that he did not become sole ruler after at least a number of his brothers were born, `eldest son', suggesting that he was not a child himself anymore - probably in his early to mid-twenties when he became pharaoh.

After all any extension of Seti's reign beyond 11 years is only based on personal views. Basically it appears improbable that a king, of the stature of Seti, the many campaigns he conducted and perhaps even wars he fought, would not have sought for a coregent in case of his demise. The fact that Ramses went on distant military campaigns very early in his reign seems to indicate that he had military training and the backing of the leading officers for some time before he became pharaoh, succeeding his father. We know that one of his commanders on the Western Front was a man named Nebre. It is from his first campaign that we find the only written words of Ramses II quoted through his messengers outside the borders of Egypt. [KMT, Vol. 15, Fall 2004, p. 28.]

"What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not." [2.Chronikles 35:21]

He seems to come across as a king who had wished no ill on Judah just like he does later on when he roots for them in the peace treaty with Hattusilis/Nebuchadnezzar. But he also recalls events in `Retenu' when he had it written:

Abu Simbel Temple

"... When his majesty arrives in the countries, he overthrows myriads; he desolates them. He has - Retenu, slaying their chiefs." "... his mighty sword, slaying `H'-rw', wasting Retenu (`Rtnw'), which his sword overthrew." [`Records', Vol. III, Sec. 451, 457; Breasted translated `hrw' as `Kharu', Max Müller as `Haru' ; For a drawn image what the temple of Abu Simbel looked like in 1815 see P. Usick, `William John Bankes' in KMT, Vol. 14, p. 65-(66)-69.]

"He smote the chiefs of the Retennu with his valiant sword." [E. Naville, `Bubastis', p. 39]

Even so some exaggeration is discernible in such statements, that he had some successes in `Retenu/ Rezenu/ Palestine/ Israel' is not without reason and so the Judean king Josiah died at the hand of an Egyptian archer about 609/608 BC. In the first part of the above quotation, the hyphen after `He has' is there in the original and Breasted does not explain it. He mentions a `possible lacuna' 2 sentences back but not in the here quoted sentence. Therefore it may be that the reason for the hyphen is there in the original or we assume that there was a separation in the hieroglyphics due to a picture carving and the sentence continues on the other side of the picture. It appears he wrote `He has Retenu ...', a phrase however not repeated elsewhere.

After the death of Josiah the nobility attempted to enthrone Jehoahaz but Pharahoh chose his brother Eliakim to be the next king changing his name to Jehoiakim. A tribute of 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold was levied upon the country and Jehoahaz was exiled to Egypt where he died, 2.Kings 23:34; 2.Chronicles 36:4; Jeremiah 22:10-12.

Three Periods when Jews, Israelites and Judahites Settled in Egypt

1. The 35 year period of unrest from the time of the Syrian-Ephraimite War of 735 BC until the siege of Jersualem in 701 BC.
   
2. The middle of the 7th century BC when Manasseh joined Egypt in an attempt to throw Assyrian rule over his kingdom.
   
3. the ca. 30 year period between the crowning of Jehoiakim in 609 BC and the escape to Egypt led by Johanan b. Kareah after the assassination of the governor Gedaliah b. Ahikam, Jeremiah 41-43.

Community Formations and Urbanization in the New Kingdom Period

The period described as the centralized New Kingdom Period experienced large increases in populations as a whole. Primarily these centered around Memphis, Tanis, Herakleopolis and Thebes. These immigrants formed tight knit communities which provided skilled workers in textiles, glass making, translators, scribes, seamen, merchants and mercenaries.

Elephantine and Ramses II

According to information Ramses II artifacts were also found at Elephantine. Among these are:

1. the upper part of a colossal granite statue of Ramses holding the flail and crook, the royal insignia, and wearing the double crown. It comes from the temple of Khnum on the Island of Elephantine. [T.G.H. James, `Ramses II', p. 125, British Museum EA67]
   
2. Anukis, "lady of Elephantine", one of the cataract deities, suckles Ramses II, who is not shown as a child. He is "the Great King, lord of the Two Lands". [Ibid., p. 272]
   
3. Blocks of the time of Ramses II were found at Elephantine. [Friedrich Junge, `Elephantine XI. Funde und Bauteile', 1.-7. Kampagne, 1969-1976. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 49. Mainz, 1987]
   
4. In a poem of the Battle of Kadesh we find this line, "I have erected thee high pylons and stood up their tall flagpoles, I have brought to thee obelisks of Elephantine, where I myself was the burden bearer!" [Translated from the German, "Ich habe dir hohe Pylone erbaut und dir selber ihre Flaggenmasten aufgestellt, ich habe dir Obelisken aus Elephantine gebracht, wobei ich selber den Steinträger spielte!";

Conclusion: We believe this evidence is eloquent enough that during the time of Ramses II/Necho the Elephantine Island was a place of much activity and fits the background of its history attributed to the 26th Dynasty already in 19th Dynasty times.

Chance Discoveries of Artifacts

Found in the 1990's from the time of Ramses II, perhaps when he was on his way to Kadesh/Jerablus/Carchemish, a carnelian scarab, issued to honor Thutmosis III, was found just north of Mt. Ebal located between Samaria and Shechem. The scarab shows deeply engraved at the top a salamander, Egyptian symbol of abundance, and on the damaged left side a kneeling bow man whose weapon has the unintentional appearance of the modern letter `B'. On the right side is the cartouche of Thutmose III.

Ramses - the Exodus and the canal

Years ago when the discipline of archaeology first began, Ramses II was regarded by most as the pharaoh under whom the Israelites worked as slave laborers constructing his edifices. The fact that many bricks were found in the delta area stamped with his name further contributed in identifying Ramses II [800] as the pharaoh of the Exodus.

The Israelites built the treasure city of Pi-Ramses. No doubt besides being brick layers many Israelites were skilled in most other trades for they had a period of economic successes giving rise to jealousy of the natives. At first glance Ramses II did seem to be a likely candidate for this role. However, he never claimed to have forced any foreign nation into slave labor. There is no hint that would cause us to place the Israelites into Egypt at his time and there are no inscriptions to support it. But most of all there is no indication whatsoever that a devastating event like the Ten Plagues and the Exodus, resulting in the destruction of his army occurred during his life time or any of the pharaohs before him, of the 18th dynasty. We have their mummies. Most of them died at a mature age. Historical evidence was found which states that Ramses II had built a canal to connect the Mediterranean with the Red Sea. Since Herodotus credits pharaoh Necho with this feat a discussion ensued on who was the first to build this canal. This Greek author on History, never talks about a Pharaoh named Ramses since they called him Necho. Furthermore, the recent discovery of the likely site where the Persian army perished in 525 BC, tends to vindicate Herodotus and points to the doubters as uninformed. Modern historians argued against Herodotus' statement [900].

In the end it was concluded that Ramses II built the canal and that Necho (Gr. Nexa, Septuag. 2.Chr. 36:4; Jer. 26:2) finished what Ramses had begun. As a result of this, all the inscriptions of Egypt were searched to find out who this pharaoh Necho actually was, for this name is known only from Greek and Hebrew sources. The winner was one Nekau-Wehemibre [1000] of whom precious little is known and there is no solid evidence that he ever was an enthroned king. The only cartouche of Wehemibre does look rather mediocre for a famous warrior king he was supposed to have been. He does not claim any great deeds we would expect if he in fact was Pharaoh Necho of the book of Jeremiah. We just can't believe this identification represents the king who won a war far away from the borders of his country against a bonified, large city, while no hard proof exists for famous King Ramses II to have won his campaign against little Riblah.[1100]

E.W.Budge wrote: "He [Necho] gave orders for fleets of triremes to be built for him, both in the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. In order to give these vessels the opportunity of being employed in both seas, he conceived of connecting them by means of a canal, which he intended to join the old canal that was already in existence in the days of Ramses II." [1200]

When archaeologists therefore found the Hittite (Chaldean) version of the peace treaty between Ramses II [3000] and Hattusas at Bogazkoi in a surprisingly late strata, it was not an inversion of the strata but an indication that he really did live at that time. [3200] The Akkadian version of this peace treaty was signed by Hattusilis, son of Mursilis, grandson of Subbiluliumas. So many times archaeologists will explore a stratum of a later epoch and then come unexpectedly upon an Egyptian artifact of a much earlier pharaoh and either date the whole layer to that period or else explain it away by calling it intrusive or some such thing when instead it represents a check on their data proving their Egyptian chronology to be unreliable. This has happened over and over again.[3400]

There was a difficulty of a stratigraphic nature: the remains among which the tablets were found indicated a much more recent period than the age of these documents. But the existence of the treaty with Ramses II precluded even a consideration of the conflicting data, and a chronological place in accord with the time of Ramses II was allotted to Hattusilis, the king of Hatti, and to the entire period. [3600] Other famous debates among leading scholars as a result of disagreements on Egyptian chronology were those of R. Dussaud and W. Spiegelberg.[3800]

There were disagreements among art experts and epigraphists, historians and all of them. Usually these disagreements were of a time span of around 500 - 600 years. Also note instances of bewilderment among archaeologists when chronologically irreconcilable discoveries were made as for example the many victory stela of Ramses II found in Syria after the discovery of the tomb of Ahiram.[4000] And so it was that we read, "The results of excavations at Byblos have shown a curious fact which has been a source of discussion among scholars. In the excavated area at Byblos there is a complete absence of stratified levels of the Iron Age, that is the period of 1200-600 BC."[4200] During this period, Byblos was supposedly a thriving commercial center.

How is it that the Greek authors from Homer to Herodotus to Strabo, all of them natives of Asia Minor, never heard of the Hittites but described the land where the monuments were found as that of the Chaldeans?[4400] And why do Greek sculptures with Persian motifs found in Arslan Tash have Hittite signs on them? Or better, why would coins of the Commogene kings on the western side of the Euphrates be minted with "Hittite" royal titles, and this in the days of emperor Vespasian, when the Hittite empire was supposed to have been dead for 1300 years, and no Greek or Roman ever heard of their existence? But the Chaldeans, especially as a class of priests, as Greek and Roman authors testify, were still present in Commogene and in Asia Minor till at least 100 AD.[4600]

These and other striking facts should prepare us to read about the Hittites with much more caution.

Conclusions: Retrogression of cultural achievements, the `Dark Age' of Greece and Anatolia were the result of dependence on conventional Egyptian chronology which we find in need to be dramatically revised.[4800]

The Battle of Kadesh For more click Here!

Why did Ramses march upon `Kadesh/Carchemish'? The last Assyrian king Assuruballit (II) (611-605 BC) was put under siege by Nebuchadnezzar in Niniveh before the city was destroyed by 606 BC and the Assyrian empire came to an end.[4802] Ramses probably planned to attack Carchemish to give indirect aid to the Assyrian king.

Located on the west bank of the Euphrates River Ramses thought he needed to encircle the city Qadesh/Carchemish only from the north, west and south since the river was a natural barrier toward the east. However, the king of the city was prepared and his army waited outside the walls for the advancing but now widely separated Egyptian troops. Why Ramses proceeded on this march knowing full well that his army was not in a position to be at the ready in their pre-planned attack locations is nothing short of amazing and not easily explained in either the conventional or revised account. So it happened then that the initiative of the battle was assumed by his enemy and Ramses never regained a strategic advantage but fled leaving his troops behind to fend for themselves.

They are:            Kadesh () = Carchaemish, Jerablus on the
			    / 20 miles          Euphrates  (p-r-n-t)
	         Shabtuna () = Hierapolis of today Vol. III, Sec. 310
	                  / ~15 miles
	       Arinama  () = Arima Vol. III, Sec. 310
	                / ~10 miles
	          Baw () = Al Bab of today, Vol. III, Sec. 340.  For a map see also

              A.H. Sayce, `Notes on an Unexplored District in Northern Syria' in

                     Proceedings of Bibl. Arch., June 14, 1911, p. 172.

"The intensive nature of this political deliberation is further demonstrated by the continuation of the pictorial record. According to it, the main decision of the staff meeting was the dispatch of the `vizier to hurry on the army of His Majesty as they marched on the road to the south of the town of Shabtuna so as to bring them to where His Majesty was.' Once the precarious situation of Ramesses II with the army corps of Amun became apparent, the urgent assembly of the entire force was the next logical step. It was divided into four brigades, which moved separately. For logistical reasons, especially questions of quartering and supply, but also for the purpose of `pacification', I have previously argued that it is likely that the advance covered both sides of the Orontes. [Of course that is conventional speculation.] ... This suggests that the brigades moved in a day's distance ..." [5000]

Next Goedicke's conclusions, based on a faulty geographical location, bring out his concerns how the 2,500 Hittite chariots, manned with 3 soldiers pulled by 2 horses could cross a ford quickly enough to confront Ramses. As our drawing shows, where red signifies the Egyptian and blue the Hittite forces, he may not have crossed a river bed at all, eliminating that concern.
[Drawing based on a book published in 1754. Alexander Drummond, `Travels ... as Far as the Banks of the Euphrates', (London, 1754); the map is reproduced in Maspero's `History of Egypt', and the insert in Hogarth, `Carchemish', Plt. 1, p. 4]

Carchemish was a center of the Chaldean/Babylonian world in the late 7th century BC. We know Carchemish was a center of Chaldean culture just from the fact that Nebuchadnezzar repulsed here the Egyptian attack of Pharaoh Necho in 609 BC. In revised view Hattusilis was another name for Nebuchadnezzar and Necho for Ramses II.

The majestic Euphrates River, truly a significant barrier to the escape of Ramesses troops. Both, the Euphrates and Sadjur Creek surrounded Carchemish on 2 or e sides, a situation not found at Riblah. Modern historians arbitrary choice of calling the people who inhabited these regions at that time `Hittites' is false in revised view.
The Hittites of the Bible have nothing to do with the Hittites of Yazilikaya/Boghazkoi/Carchemish.

The outcome of the battle was a defeat for Ramses. Similar to an Egyptian relief showing the king clutching Nubian, Libyan, and Syrian prisoners by their hair, Ramses wields an ax to dispatch them. Egyptian reliefs, like a limestone fragment from Memphis, proclaim only victories, never defeats. Such painted propaganda had the undeviating purpose to ensure loyalty and inspire fear. Such are the marks of despotism. [5190]

After the defeat of Ramses, textual evidence seems to indicate that even his royal wife, presumably Neferure, had accompanied him to battle. [5200] And so it was that the British archaeological team including Leonard Wooley found a fragment of a stone mace bearing the cartouche of Ramses II inside of Carchemish.

"The Lower Palace bordered the broad road that led to the Water-Gate and the Euphrates bank. Its facade, looking approximately south, faced on but was not quite parallel with the Herald's Wall and its prolongation past the `Hilani' to the Water-Gate, so that at the western end the distance from the Palace front to the Herald's Wall was a little more than 63 meters, a wide open space which we may imagine to have been the ceremonial center of the town. The Palace, or the part of it which concerns us, was built in terraces up the slope of the Acropolis mound; but just before the Herald's Wall turned to make the King's Gate, a great wing of the Palace (the Temple) ran out over the flat ground at the mound's foot leaving between it and the Herald's Wall a roadway 15 meters wide. Against this wing the lower terrace wall of the Palace was broken by a monumental staircase which led up the slope to the building on the top of the Acropolis. The main part, the Upper Palace, now totally destroyed, presumably stood upon the mound's summit. ... Certainly there were found here, between the stairs and the Water-Gate, numerous fragments of sculpture; most of them were in the `Water-Gate' style or in that of the Herald's Wall, so that the passage from the river to the Palace stairs may well have been adorned on either side with reliefs of the Middle Hittite period. Amongst the very few objects other than sculptured or inscribed fragments found here were a stone mace-head bearing the cartouche of one of the Ramessides, probably Ramses II and part of a terra-cotta cone or cylinder inscribed in Hittite hieroglyphics; both would probably have come from a palace or official building." [Hogarth, Thompson & Wooley, `Carchemish', Part III, p. 158, 159. Pt. 71c.]

While Ramses artifacts were found at Carchemish, none were found at Riblah. At Carchemish [5300] the troops of Nebuchadnezzar pursued the fleeing Egyptians and entered into Judea. Because the Jewish zealots, still trusting in the might of pharaoh, their country and Jerusalem, were now doomed. The Hittite/Chaldean troops made Riblah into their fortress and center of administration.

We shall discuss more of the content of the peace treaty between Ramses II and Hattusilis whose purpose it was to make an end of hostilities between their two lands. The name of one of the two legates is given in the treaty text itself:

"Copy of the silver tablet, which the great chief of Kheta, Khetasar (H-t-s-r) caused to be brought to Pharaoh, L.P.H., by the head of his messenger, Terteseb (T-r-ty-s-bw), and his messenger, Ramose, to crave peace from the majesty of Ramses II, the Bull of rulers, making his boundary as far as he desires in every land."[5400]

Necharomes/Netjerwymes, chief of staff for Ramses II

Recently the tomb of the chief of staff of Ramses II was found in a tomb near Saqqara with his name and image in situ. The name `Necharomes (`nTr.w-ms' going by sound') itself, now also written as `Necheruymes' or `Netjerwymes' in French (the basic consonants `nchrms' remain the same), seems intriguing. The French variant in spelling using `tj/Netje' is not really unlike `ch/Neche' in transliteration. What is more important is to find the hieroglyphics for the name and consider how the Greeks would transliterate his name turning it into `Nekau' or `Neco'. However, it could be that the Greeks borrowed the word (Niku) from the Assyrian Annals of Assurbanipal. The discoverer, Alain Zivie', wrote, "Inside the tomb we found the envoy's name inscribed on the walls, though its exact spelling remains unclear." [National Geographic, October 2002, p. 29]

Could it be made up of `Necha' like in `Necho' and `romes' like in `ramse(s)', `Necharomes' or `Nech(a)Ramose', see here? (presumed glyphs) According to Gaballah Ali Gaballah: "He could have been a member of a delegation sent by Ramses II to the Hittites to conclude a peace treaty." - Gaballah also said "Necharomes was also an administrative supervisor of the area of Memphis and of the Treasury."

Did the chief of staff name himself after the king under whom he served using his Egyptian and Greek name? Apparently before this treaty was concluded, his name was `Ramose', toward the end of his life he changed it to `Necharomes', including the name of his pharaoh as the Greeks and Hebrews called him. As the excellent diplomat of his king he certainly had the right to give himself a name recognizable world wide in his days. If so, that would be a wonderful confirmation of our point that Ramses II was Pharaoh Necho of the Greek and Hebrew authors. The least piece of information we learn from the tomb of Necharomes would be that the name `Necho' was in use in the days of Ramses II. Even if the names of Ramses himself do not contain the part `Neco', one of his officials apparently did. We recall that Seti the Great/Psammetichus, father of Ramses II/Necho II [5500] was an admirer of the Greeks.

Other officials in the days of Ramses II included `Pa-ur', the well known governor of Thebes whose name was found in the tomb of Ramses at Deir-el-Medinet (Thebes). We must also remember KV5, the burial place of at least two and perhaps as many as eleven sons of Ramses II. [5550]

Part of the responsibility of websites on archaeology may be to safeguard information which could become lost especially if it is of this nature.

The `American Society of Oriental Research', Summer 2000 Vol. 50, Number 2 said it this way:

"Statues of a pharaoh thought to be Ramses II and an ancient cow goddess, their colors intact, have been discovered in a hidden chamber at a necropolis south of Cairo. The meter-high statue of the king and the taller sculpture of Hathor, goddess of love and happiness and guardian of cemeteries, were found in a sealed room beneath the Saqqara funeral chapel of Ramses II chief treasurer, Necheruymes." [Source: Agency France Press, June 10, 2000 (emphasize ours); www.asor.org/pubs/news/50_2.pdf]
In the beginning more websites carried this news item, today information about this find is dwindling. We have the images which were then provided. Such a discovery should be published and discussed, however, instead it seems to be put under the shelf. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. We regard the original announcement as free of preconceived ideas.

The fact that the name Necho/Necharomes is now attested from the time of Ramses II together with the fact that the name of feather crown wearing soldiers of the time of Ramses III as represented at Medinet Habu was Prstt/Peresett indicates that Ramses II was indeed Pharaoh Necho and Ramses III was fighting the Persians rather than the Philistines. We believe these twin facts demolish conventional chronology for those who are able to read.

Was one of the chiefs of Nebuchadnezzar this Terteseb whose name we read above? Presumably this `Terteseb' would have been the counterpart to Ramose.

The names of Nebuchadnezzar's chiefs are: Nergal-Sharezer, Sarsechim, Rabsaris. Was Terteseb one of them? [5600]

The treaty has an "oath and curse" clause. `Gods' of many places are invoked to keep vigilance over the treaty and to punish those who would violate it. More importantly for our purposes in the list of these local gods and goddesses, the goddess of Tyre is followed by the `goddess of Dan.' But in the days before the conquest of Dan by the Danites, in the time of the judges, that place was called `Laish', [5700] and it was Jeroboam who built a temple there. The name of a place called Dan in a treaty of RamsesII, presumably of the first half of the 13th century BC, sounds like an anachronism.[5800]

What is here interpreted as Tyre is presumably `D y-y-t-hy-r- ry' [5900] and Dan is `D-y-n --' or `D-n---- nw-ty'. The reading of Breasted appears to be forced, placing this treaty into its correct time frame allows for a reading of Tyre and Dan.

Conventional authors claim that a special corps known as the `Naharin' turned the battle in Ramses' favor. The `Naharin' were an elite archery detachment of perhaps around 200 troops. At any rate they were too small a force to turn the battle into a victory. What they did do is give Ramses enough time to flee the tightening noose of the enclosing Babylonian/ Chaldean/Hittites. A far cry from an Egyptian victory.

The object of this comparison is that these 9 parallels as found in the Egyptian account and in the Bible represent grid points which in the kind of events, their chronological order, timing and outcomes are unique points which never repeated themselves in history and therefore pin down the time of Ramses II into the 7th/6th century. Not only are these 9 points sufficient evidence but also the close chronological correlation and interlocking reigns of Ramses II, Nebuchadnezzar and King Jehoiakim of Judah demand the same need to revise ancient history and bring Ramses II into the time of Jeremiah.

1. The faint outline of the pointing hand can be seen, it stands phonetically often for the letter `d', [W.V. Davis, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, p. 31.]
   
2. The rectangular brick is intended here.
   
3. The crown can be seen quite readily.
   
4. The upside down arrow or pointer can be recognized.

Because of this written evidence from the monuments of Ramses II (Budge says, `a district in Syria situation unknown', he transliterated `Qetshu'. Better it is `Qodesh,' a known location.), the Fortress of Carchemich is the city of Kadesh where his army engaged the forces of Hattusilis/Nebuchadnezzar of the Hittite/Babylonian/Chaldean Empire. There never was a battle on the banks of the Orontes River.

Post script: We would like to emphasize that the conventional `Kadesh' on the Orontos River has never revealed any relevant information to the actions between Ramses II and his counterpart Hattusilis, which could not be interpreted any other way. That is so because the action took place near Carchemish, at least there was found a maze club bearing the name of one of the Ramese, probably that of Ramses II for there is no reason to assume that the other Rameses had contact with Carchemish. Displacing Ramses II into a wrong century wrecked havoc with ancient history, in particular the participants of these battles. The Peace Treaty, which must have been known to Ramses Chief of Staff Necharomes, represents an agreement between Nebuchadnezzar/Hattusilis and Ramses II/ Necho toward the end of the 7th century BC written in the writing of the Babylonian Chaldeans of Anatolia, the Hatti, not Hittites.

Another Official of Ramses II [5902]

Rahotep, Ambassador Royal to the Chetta/Kheta

Many years ago a damaged Egyptian statue was dug up in the neighborhood of Norwood, in the county of Surrey, England. How it got there is not stated but this statue represents a dignitary of the court of Ramses II, seated in a chair. "The figure holds upon its knees, between its two hands, a large cartouche containing the name of the Great Rameses, Ramessu Amenmeri. Below this we are informed that the statue is that of the `High Judge and Prefect Rahotep', director of the festivals of his Lord [the king].
We next have the important notice that he was `Ambassador Royal to the land of Kheta'.
The name of Rahotep's son was `...nnu-meri'. His duties lay in the `House of Life', a part of the great `Temple of Ptah'.
On the right side his mother, `Suten Hat', is named. She was the `President of the college of the chorists of Anheru'."
On the left side is pictured his sister, by the name of Hunrei, `President of the college of the god Hersefit'.
On the backside two personages are represented kneeling before a table of offerings. One of these is "his brother, the first prophet of Aman", Amsu-mesu. The other is his father the "Great Craftsman of Ptah", that is the High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, Pa-nutar-hen." [P. Le Page Renouf, An Ambassador Royal of Ramses the Great in PSBA, Vol. XIV, June 1892, p. 163-165]

The Thebes tomb of a scribe of Ramses II, Dhwtjme, and his wife Isis, a songstress, was excavated by a Hungarian team.

What was the name of the king the Babylonians fought according to their records?

Ca. 1878 Babylonian tablets were offered for sale to the British Museum containing some historically useful data. We read: ".... [ummanisu A-ma-] a-su sar Misir iphir-ma ...." translated as, "[his army Ama]sis king of Misir collected and ...." [T.H. Pinches, A New Fragment of the History of Nebuchadnezzar III' in TSBA, Vol. VII, Jan. 1881, p. 210-225.]

When this fragment was first interpreted conventional chronology assumed that the ending `asu' was part of the name of pharaoh `Amasis' of the 26th Dynasty. In revised view this same ending `asu' or `es' or `as' could just the same be the last syllable for `Ramesses', Pharaoh Ramesses II.

The Treatment of Refugees

At the end of the 6th century BC Egyptian pharaonic period presence has been verified during more recent excavations at Ashkelon. Archaeologists concluded that in Ashkelon there must have been an Egyptian enclave in the inner city's winery based on finds made there. These finds included 1. an abalone jewelry box with 9 small amulets, 2. Seven bronze bottles (situlae). Ashkelon was destroyed in 604 BC by the Babylonians. But the defeat of Egypt at Carchemish ended their presence also in Ashkelon. And so it is that historians sometimes wonder if Ramses II account of the destruction of Ashkelon is more propaganda than fact. The question, `Even if there is a revolt, would one lay to waste a city?', may occur. Why the Hittite Treaty at Karnak is right next to the conquest of Ashkelon is another question.

Now that hostilities had ended, Syria and Palestine were no longer under the influence of Egypt. This is in agreement with the scriptural data. The major part of the treaty is given over to the treatment of political refugees. The paragraphs were written in a reciprocal manner; it is apparent that it was the great king of Hatti who was interested in the provisions for extradition of the political enemies of the Chaldeans. A special paragraph in the treaty deals with Syrian (Palestinian) fugitives:

"Now if subjects of the great chief of Kheta transgress against him ... I will come after their punishment to Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt ... to cause that Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, shall be silent ... and he shall turn them back again to the great chief of Kheta."[6000]

This is an extradition treaty requiring the return of any refugees to the king of Hatti. Please note now, it was only a short time before this that a similar accord had existed between the pharaoh and the king of Jerusalem. The prophet Uriah had fled from the sight of Jehoiakim to Egypt.

"And Jehoiakim the king sent men into Egypt ... and they fetched forth Uriah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king." Jeremiah 26:22-23.

Now, 10 or 15 years later, the population of Palestine and Edom were once again fleeing into Egypt from the sight of the approaching Chaldeans.

Jeremiah foretold that these refugees would be removed from Egypt.

"...none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain." Jeremiah 44:14.

The following provision of the treaty was a fulfillment of what Jeremiah had foretold only a few years before.

"[If] one or two people flee .. and they come to the land of Egypt in order to change allegiance, then User-Ma'at Re, Chosen-of-Re, the great ruler of Egypt, shall not tolerate them, but he shall cause that they be brought back to the great chieftain of Hatti."[6050]

It was the fate of Jeremiah that against his will he became a fugitive in Egypt when the last remnants of Judah decided to migrate there.

Jeremiah 41:17: "And they departed .. to go to enter into Egypt,
Jeremiah 41:18: "Because of the Chaldeans for they were afraid of them ..."

The Talmud has preserved the story of the end of Jeremiah and those who forced him to go to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar took the fugitives out of Egypt to Chaldea. This he did by virtue of the treaty he had concluded with Ramses II. [6100]

This treaty contained a paragraph calling for humane treatment of the fugitives who were handed over.

"If people flee from the land of Hatti ... and they come to User-Ma'at Re, the great ruler of Egypt ... [and] they be brought back to the great chieftain of Hatti, [then] the great chieftain of Hatti shall not [arraign their] crimes against them and one shall not destroy his [house], his woman or his children, and one shall not slay him nor shall one trespass against his ears, against his eyes, his mouth, or his legs, ..."[6150]

Ramses found it necessary to include this humanitarian provision in the treaty for the protection of the unfortunates who he was now obliged to hand over. For it was Nebuchadnezzar who had killed the children of Zedekiah and put his eyes out.[6200]

Ezekiel 23:23: "The Babylonians, and all the Chaldeans ..."
Ezekiel 23:25: "... they shall take away thy nose and thine ears..."

The treaty's provision dealt with an actual situation. It casts additional light on the story of martyrdom as told in the Bible: the story of mutilated prisoners, slaughtered children, and deportations; and the story of these few who escaped from the horrors of torture, of their flight to Egypt, and of the long arm that reached out for the refugees into the land of their asylum. Does any of this sound familiar to events happening in our own days? But as far as the revised chronology is concerned it represents a glorious crowning stone to make history truly come alive.

Herodotus was right when he says that thousands of Egyptians died when they tried to build a canal to the Red Sea. He used his own people for his projects. But by placing Ramses II and all the other pharaohs into wrong time slots the history of those years became very distorted resulting mainly in the abandonment of the scriptural accounts as trustworthy. Regarding the arrangement of the dynasties of Manetho as being successive in nature invited disaster for the chronological order of the history we here discuss. Ramses II [Necho] was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar also known as Hattusilis whose father was Mursilis known also as Nabonidus. The Hittite Empire is that of the Chaldeans and Ramses II war against Kadesh [holy city] is the same war that pharaoh Necho waged against the holy city of Carchemish were young general Nebuchadnezzar opposed and routed him.

Ramses II was followed by Merneptah.[6250] He was the one who had the so-called Israel stele made in which he mentions Israel, the country that was just laid waste by the conquest of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore is the language of this stele reminiscent of the language of the book of Jeremiah, because the time period is the same.

The art of the 19th dynasty agrees with such a placement. The evidence found in the tomb of Ahiram and several other locations agrees with it and so on.

Nebuchadnezzar Visits Ramses II - The Evidence

The evidence here presented is subtle but persuasive. Only by an impossible chance could the soon following correlation have happened by some other means we cannot understand today.

The scenario now presented could hardly be conceived of any better by a writer of fiction. But what is being told now is not fiction but nonfiction. In this part we shall compare the following sources:

a. The Brick-kiln and the Glazed Tiles
b. The single tablet of Nebuchadnezzar of historical value
c. The so-called Marriage stele of Ramses II
d. The Bas-Relief from the Rock Temple of Abu-Simble in Nubia
e. The Evidence from Excavations at Daphnae, Tell Defenneh of today
f. The Beth-Nikki Building Inscription at Babylon
g. The Evidence from Excavations of the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon

a) The Brick-kiln and the Glazed Tiles

Jeremiah we learned was taken to Egypt by his own people,

"So they came into the land of Egypt ... even to Tah-pan-hes (Daphnae in Greek)." Jeremiah 43:7.

When in exile in Egypt, Jeremiah, in a symbolic act, took stones and hid them:

"... in the clay of the brick-kiln, which is at the entry of Pharaoh's [6300] house in Tah-pen-hes, in the sight of the men of Judah." Jeremiah 43:8.

With his people from Judah witnessing this act it was to be a prophecy:

"And [Jeremiah] said unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold I will send and take Nebuchad-nezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them." Jeremiah 43:10.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon..." Ezekiel 29:19.

Was this prophecy ever fulfilled? Most Bible commentators say no, in fact none can present good evidence for this event. No one can point to any evidence indicating that Nebuchadnezzar ever `invaded' Egypt to set up his royal pavilion there. Others, even today, misunderstand these texts, not realizing their prophetic character and construe out of these statements that Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt and was defeated in bloody battles. It is clear that the quote from the Book of Ezekiel talks about it as a future event like it does about other events, in a prophetic manner. It hadn't happened yet. Arabic sources may contribute to a mis-representation of the actual historicity of a Babylonian/Egyptian engagement. We believe that those interpreting the statements of the Babylonian Tablet 78 and the Biblical references [see below] in such a way to mean that a bloody battle took place do so without sufficient evidence.

"Whether Nebuchadnezzar ever invaded Egypt we do not know."[6350]

In connection with his visit to Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar mentions `Putu-Yaman' which means the colony of the Greeks. The Hebrew name for this colony of Greek soldiers in Egypt was Tahpanheth.

It was located just south of the eastern most, Pelusian mouth of the Nile. [6400] It had a royal palace according to Jeremiah and also was a fortress:

"... at the entry of Pharaoh's house..." Jeremiah 43:9.

This was Daphnae or Tell Defenneh and housed Greek soldiers in the 7th and 6th centuries to protect the Palestinian side of the border of Egypt.

"The Egyptians had guard-posts in various parts of the country: one at Elephantine against the Ethiopians, one at Daphnae at Pelusium against the Arabians and Assyrians one at Marea to keep a watch on the Libyans." [6450]

Excavations at Daphnae revealed large numbers of Greek scale armor, tools, and wares. [6500] Foundation stones of a temple of Ramses II bearing his cartouches. Daphnae was supposed to have been built in the time of the 26th dynasty in about 664 BC and existed until about 565 BC. To find remains of a temple of Ramses II there was completely unexpected.

Flinders Petrie was the excavator and was impressed by reddish kiln-baked bricks found at Tell Defenneh and the neighboring village of Nebesheh. The building material in Egypt had always been stone and mud bricks. To find kiln-baked bricks was very unusual in the eyes of Petrie. He also found a statue bearing the name of Ramses II at the same location. He opened a few tombs. Right away the first tomb revealed the time of its origin.

"The earliest tomb opened, was one built of red baked bricks, No. 35, almost at the extreme east of the cemetery. It had been much disturbed and broken up in early times ... This tomb was of `Pa-mer-kau', according to the two limestone ushabti found in it; and from a statue found in the temple, representing `Merenptah', son of `Pa-mer-kau', and bearing the cartouche of Ramses II, it may be dated to the 19th dynasty. The style of the two ushabti also exactly accords with that period; and some fragments of wrought granite found in the tomb again agreed to a Ramesside period. The employment of red brick in this tomb, and in the next, which is also Ramesside, is of great importance. Hitherto I had never seen any red brick in Egypt of earlier times than the Constantine period; and it appeared to be a test of that age. Now we see from these cases ... that baked brick was introduced in the Ramesside times in the Delta." [6550]

Also in Tahpanheth (Daphnae) the archaeologists excavated the foundations of a structure built of kiln-baked bricks.

"The earliest remains found here are a part of the foundation of a building of red bricks." Ibid. p.47.

As these bricks were identical to those of the tombs, the conclusion was drawn that some buildings had been erected in the time of the Ramessides.

It is very important to note this fact:

The baked bricks were not discovered in Egypt of an earlier age than the time of the Ramessides, or of an age following that of the Ramessides; they reappear only in the time of the Christian emperor Constantine (about 320 AD).

We must ask, from where did this short lived innovation come to Egypt?

R. Koldewey, the excavator of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, wrote on the first page of his account:

"Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt the palace of his father, replacing the walls of mud brick by walls of baked brick."

Describing the characteristic features of the buildings of Nebuchadnezzar, the excavator of Babylon repeatedly stressed the `well baked, reddish Nebuchadnezzar-bricks,' and Nebuchadnezzar himself refers to them time and again in his building inscriptions.[6600]

Conclusion: According to the several lines of evidence which tend to place Ramses II into the time of king Nebuchadnezzar and Jeremiah, which we discussed already, this evidence of the baked bricks, supports that nicely.

b) The Single Tablet of Nebuchadnezzar of Historical Value
Nebuchadnezzar in cuneiform:
See: Source

Thousands of clay bricks inscribed with the prayers of Nebuchadnezzar have been found but comparatively very few tablets containing historically valuable content. Only one single, mutilated fragment of a tablet attributed to him has any historical significant content. The tablet left much room for interpretation.

"The kings, the allies of his power and -- his general and his hired soldiers -- he spoke unto. To his soldiers -- who were before -- at the way of -- In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon -- the king of Egypt came up to do battle [?] and ---es, the king of Egypt -- and -- of the city of Putu-Jaman [6650] -- far away regions which are in the sea -- numerous which were in Egypt -- arms and horses -- he called to -- he trusted." [6700]

Ever since this fragment was published it has been interpreted to be an allusion to a military invasion of Egypt in his 37th year. Of the name of the pharaoh there remained only the last part, ---es or ---as.

This reconstruction was made:

"The only name of a king of Egypt of this period which ends with ---as [---es] is Ahmes or Amasis." [6750]

"This tablet is remarkable for the fact that it is the only historical tablet which we have from this epoch. That the king chose a small clay tablet whereon to record his conquest of the Egyptian and Mediterranean alliance is most surprising and demands explanation." [6800]

Langdon thought that this inscription was a royal letter.

But there exists no evidence in Egyptian, Hebrew or Greek sources that Nebuchadnezzar actually invaded Egypt. Even though the prophecy is there and Nebuchadnezzar was able to remove the Jewish refugees from Egypt to Babylon, we don't know that he came there in might and power.

A more critical reading of the inscription suggests, that "this inscription used to be misunderstood as a reference to an invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar." [6850]

The expedition appears to have been a peaceful one, even though infantry and cavalry accompanied the king. What then is the meaning of these broken sentences?

1. after a speech delivered before his nobles and his army the king went to Egypt
   
2. he was accompanied by mounted and foot soldiers
   
3. a pharaoh whose name ends with ---es is mentioned
   
4. also mentioned is the city of the Greek mercenaries in Egypt-Putu-Jaman (Yaman).

To discover what the `invasion' of Nebuchadnezzar of Egypt most likely was all about, read on.

c) The so-called Marriage Stele of Ramses II

In synchronized history we have here Nebuchadnezzar/Hattusilis visiting Ramses II. In the 34th year of Ramses II, Hattusilis came to Egypt to visit the pharaoh and give him a daughter for a wife. He also wanted to see the wonders of that country. The `Marriage Stele' records that the king of Kheta gathered his army and his nobles, and:

"Then spake the chief of the land of Kheta to his [army] and his nobles..." [6900]

He explained to them the advantages and disadvantages of giving his daughter to be the wife of this pharaoh.

"His majesty received the [word] - - [in] the palace, with joy of heart. ... When he heard such strange and unexpected matters." [6950]

"His army came, their limbs being sound, and they were long in stride...The daughter of the great chief of Kheta marched in front of the army...of his majesty in following her. They were as regulars; they ate and they drank not fighting face to face-- between them..." [7000]

d) The Bas-Relief of the Rock Temple of Abu-Simble in Nubia

This marriage took place in the 34th year of Ramses II which was the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. A bas-relief on a rock temple from Abu-Simble shows the king of Hatti bringing his daughter to Ramses II. She stands before her father; he raises his arms with open hands in an expression of a respectful greeting. His face is clean shaven and he has a large taft of hair falling down from his neck under a tall, cone shaped headdress which looks like a bishop's miter and is a Phrygian cap. [See Kenneth Kitchen's `Pharaoh Triumphant', p. 94 for a newer image.]

Compare this image of the king of Hatti with the remaining silhouette of the only known representation of Nebuchadnezzar on a rock relief found at Wadi Brissa in Lebanon. Even though his figure is weathered and worn away we still can make out his Phrygian cap and his tuft of hair.

"His headdress is like the miter of a bishop." [7050]

The story of Tia

Archaeologists identify Tia as one of two sisters to Ramses II whose husband reportedly also had the name of Tia.

Most of the latest information on Tia and her tomb complex comes from evidence found in the 1980's. Archaeologists encountered two surprises in the tomb:

1. Most unexpected was the base of a small pyramid found in the rear courtyard.
   
2. A burial shaft underneath the stones of the forecourt led to a serious of chambers belonging to `Iurudef', a loyal retainer of the princes. The original burial had been burned, but over the charred remains they found 75 intact and mostly undisturbed burials, many of them children. This cache dates from the very late Ramesside period. Always speaking here of conventional dating, archaeologists thought of this as a far earlier date than anticipated since most other intrusive materials at Saqqara date from Late Dynastic, or even Graeco-Roman times.

These last remarks we need to let sink in and ask us what does that information point to? In revised view late Ramesside is the 5th century BC, much closer to Graeco-Roman times and explaining these discoveries much better in our opinion than conventional chronology can ever hope to do.

To put it another way, 860 years (1190-330 BC) separate the end of the 19th Dynasty from Graeco-Roman times in conventional view, in revised view it is 230 years, the stretch of time between about 560-330 BC.

Food for Thought
Scratch all we ever heard about history. Are we to believe that big Ramses II led a mighty four division army against little Riblah and that little Necho led a mighty four division army against the big capital city of Carchemish and that both were beaten but Necho was too meek, forgetful or for some reason unable or unwilling to cut his mighty deeds into stone while Ramses II had a feast doing so? While history books will state that the name of Psammetichus, Necho or Nectanebo were found in various places we must understand the names being found are not these names but the names of those, historians chose to represent them. This way a person by the name of `Wahibre' was chosen to represent Psammetichus I, our Seti the Great. Who was `Wanhibre'? - For many years Ramses II was seen as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as that king who proudly said, "Who is Jehovah, that I should hearken unto His voice to let Israel go? . . . I will not let Israel go." (Ex. 5:2) Ever since such voices represent the voice of denial of the existence of God, voices which we find repeated during the French Revolution, a time which has some peculiar similarities to our time in America today. Voices which do not know the amazing grace of God.

What else can we say? After it is all said and done, `Use traditional, conventional ancient history of the Bible lands with caution.'

Recent archaeological discoveries in Israel

Personal excavated possessions found at Arad of authentic Israelite personalities include: Eliashib, son of Ehiyahu, whose Hebrew inscription on scarab shaped seals read, `Belonging to Eliashib'. They are said to belong to stratum VI of 605-595 BC. Among the written evidence were supply vouchers, inventory lists and military orders. No immediate chronological conclusions could be drawn from this information to date but it may be helpful to keep these finds in mind. [BAR, Mar/Apr 1987, p. 36-39]

During excavations of the `Philistine' city of Ekron (Tel Miqne) in 1995, archaeologists found a golden cobra measuring 8 inches (20.7 cm) from its head to the tip of its curled tail. It was made of more than 18 carat gold and weighs about one ounce (12.64 grams). There is no writing on the snake just crude parallel lines in the area of its enlarged throat. The palace in which the snake was discovered is built in Neo-Assyrian style. But the golden cobra was apparently placed there during Egypt's short rule, beginning about 630 B.C.E., and ending abruptly when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon vanquished Ekron during his campaign to defeat Philistia, 16 years before conquering Jerusalem in 586 BC. [BAR, Jan/Feb 1996, p. 28]
In revised view this puts it into the time of Seti the Great or the early years of Ramses II.

Carved relief in wall of palace complex at Carchemish / Jerablus-Carchemish had a long history reaching back to pre-Chaldean/Babylonian times. Like many other cities it was built and rebuilt after destructions as for instance that by Sargon II in 717 BC [Isaiah 10:9].

[100] Bulletin de l'Institut d'Archaeologie Orientale au Cairo. Ramses reigned, according to Manetho, for 1 year and 4 months. This is confirmed by a stele dated to his 2nd year (Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 248; The titles Gardiner quotes stem partly from the days of Harmab's employment as scribe: `Superintendent of Horses', `Fortress-Commander', `Superintendent of the River Mouths', `Commander of the Army of the Lord of Two Lands', `Deputy of the King in Upper and Lower Egypt'). The length of his (Ramses I) reign can be determined from the Assyrian documents: It began ca. 665 BC when he was installed by Assurbanipal, and ended in ~664/663 with his assassination by Tandamane.
[120] Sir Alan Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 255.
[130] Herodotus, Bk. I, Sec. 183.
[135] Babylonian arrow heads were found at Jerusalem. See BAR, 2000 Year old tower found, p. 38-40-41.
[150] Ephraim Stern, `The Babylonian Gap', BAR Nov/Dec 2000, pp. 45-51; Additional publications are referred to in the article's list of references.
[200] See Time-Life Books: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile, Alexandria, VA, p. 32]
[220] David Hogarth, archaeologist and T.E. Lawrence, who was by 1911/1912 the assistant of Leonard Wooley when they rediscovered the site of Carchmish, purchased in 1878 from the land owner. See `The Adventure of Archaeology', 1985, p. 184.
[400] For an image of Seti the Great and Ramses II together see `KMT' Winter 1999-2000, p. 511.
[500] K.A. Kitchen, `Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists', Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 5-12.; See also A. Wiedemann, `A Forgotten Prince' in PSBA, Nov. 1889, p. 258-261. Wiedemann argues that RII counted his years not from his birth but from his real kingship on the basis that Ramses is called prince, not king and that no buildings are dated in a double reign of Seti I. To this we may reply that these assumptions are based on the conventional length of reign for Seti I. If he reigned much longer than 13 years the assumptions may also come out differently.
[800] Conventionally dated to 1292 - 1230 BC. Both, Ramses and Nebuchadnezzar are known for producing stamped bricks many of which bear their name.
[900] Alan B. Lloyd, Necho and the Red Sea in Egyptian Archaeology, 1977, p. 142-155. While the author affirms such activities under Pharaoh Necho, he makes no comparison in his detailed account with Ramses II time, probably since in conventional view, there should be none. (Septuagint Vol. II: pharaoh = `phara'; Necho = `Nexa', Did the Septuagint authors know the name Necharomes?; See Ieremias 26:2, p. 697)
[1000] James H.Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Vol. IV, Sec. 977, 979.
[1100] A thin basalt fragment showing what appears to be a royal figure holding a staff and mace with the legs of a bird at the bottom of a cartouche was reportedly found at Sidon. This relic was taken as evidence that Necho - Wehemibre was in Syria to wage war. We would like to remind our readers that Wehemibre is not the only personality who exhibits a bird at that spot in his name ring. The bird in question is the little chicken chick which also appears in the name ring of the 4th dynasty, Snefru and Khufu, the 5th dynasty Sahure and Menkauhor, the 12th dynasty Amenemhet IV, the 19th dynasty Ramses I/ Menpehtyre, the 25th dynasty Taharqa and the cartouche for the Persian king Darius I. While the actual drawing of the basalt relic does not show a little chicks leg but more that of a rapture bird, the kind which appears in the name ring of the 21st dynasty Herihor, these possible candidates were apparently not considered. [F.L. Griffith, The god Set of Ramessu II and an Egypto-Syrian deity - A relic of Pharaoh Necho from Phoenicia in PSBA, January, 1894, p. 87-91.] Please note the legs of a chick and rapture bird are shown on the right of the same relic's opposite side. The comparison seems to rule out the legs of a chick in the royal name ring entirely as long as their is room for the tail. Comment: With such tenuous information the biblical and Greek Pharaoh Necho was linked to Wehemibre, links which we note are hardly worth a second glance.
[1200] Of course this is the authors interpretative conclusion.
Compare E.A.W.Budge, "A History of Egypt", Vol. VI, p. 219.
See also K. Sethe, "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens", Vol. II (1902), p. 23; cf. Posener in "Chronique d'Egypte", Vol. XIII (1938), pp. 259-273.
[1400] Herodotus, "The Histories", Book II, par. 158, p. 145. Additional support that the 19th Dynasty belongs in Greek times comes also from the `baggy style' clothing which has been found in relief carvings dated to the 19th dynasty in Egypt and has been compared to such fashions shown among Greek and Cretan seals. Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2, 1914, p. 31.
[1600] Please note that it was Darius who finished the canal about 80 years later.
[1800] George Hart of the British Museum said in reviewing a book by R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier entitled, `The Demography of Roman Egypt', (Cambridge University Press, 1994). The review can be found in `Egyptian Archaeology 6', (1995). - `The authors analyse 300 census returns surviving on papyri dating to the first three centuries AD, and concerning families, lodgers and slaves (who comprise 11% of the census population). A few statistics will give an idea of the value of this book. At birth, the life expectancy for a female was 22 years, with only one-fifth surviving from their teens into their sixties. Males had a higher life expectancy of 25 years.
[2000] A.Götze, `Das Hethiter-Reich', in `Der Alte Orient', XXVII, 2, (Leipzig,1928), p.44. "Annalen treten zuerst in Boghazkoi auf, und die Ähnlichkeit in Stil und Ausdrucksweise zwischen den hethitischen und assyrischen Werken ist so groß, daß man ohne die Annahme eines Zusammenhangs garnicht auskommt."
Translation: "Annals appear first in Boghazkoi and the similarities in style and expression between the Hittite and Assyrian documents are so great that we cannot but conclude there is a connection between the two."
Also H. Güterbock, `Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200', Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, XLIV (1938), p. 45.
[2200] Ibid. p. 45.
[2400] G. Contenau, `Ce que nous savons des Hittites', Revue historique, Vol. CL-XXXVI, (1939), p. 15. "Apres les Hittites, commence l'empire assyrien, dont les moeurs tegmoignet par rapport a eux d'une veritable regression."
[2600] William Wright wrote in "Empire of the Hittites", (London, 1886) p.55:
[2800]12) The city of `Kadesh' was not alongside the Orontos (Grk: `Thapsakos) River in Lebanon since this river was called Typhon and did not receive the name `Orontos' until the 4th century BC. Kadesh was alongside the `n-r-t' or `p-n-r-t' river which stands for `Puratu' (Babylonian) or `Prat' (Hebrew) referring to the Euphrates River, one of whose main tributaries derives from the slopes of Mt. Ararat. About the conventional site of `Qadesh' var. `Kadesh' on the Orontes ` and conventional views about Ramses II supposed war here, Jonathan Tubb was able to give a special insight into the archaeology of this historically very significant site, as he had worked there as Assistant Director with Peter Parr in the 1970s for some 10 years.... Tell Nebi Mend was first identified as the site of the battle of Qadesh (1289 BC) between the armies of Rameses II of Egypt and the Hittite king Muwatallis (Nebukadnezzar), by the PEF's Charles Warren in the late 19th century. However, Jonathan informed the group that in all his time at the site, he didn't excavate a single arrowhead or detect any destruction debris that would indicate a mighty battle there.
[3000] Usermare Setep-nere, son of Menmare=royal name of Ramses II, son of Seti, grandson of Ramses I.
[3200] The early investigators were Hugo Winckler and Makridi-Bey. A detailed report of the excavations was never published. Preliminary reports appeared in "Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientalgesellschaft", No. 35 (1907), and in "Orientalische Literaturzeitung", IX (1906), pp. 621-634.
[3400] Pierre Montet, "Byblos et l'Egypte", Quatre Campagnes de Fouilles a Gebel (1921-1924), Paris, 1928, ch. IV.
[3600] R. Dussaud, a leading French orientalist in "Syria", Vol. V (1924),p. 104.
[3800] R. Dussaud, "Les Inscriptions pheniciennes du tombeau d'Ahiram, roi de Byblos", Syria, Revue d'art oriental at d'archeologie, V(1924), pp. 143-144.
Also W. Spiegelberg, "Zur Datierung der Ahiram-Inschrift von Byblos", Orientalische Literaturzeitung, XXIX (1926), p. 237.
Sidney Smith, "Alalakh and Chronology", (London, 1940), p. 46.
A.H. Gardner, "Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund", 1939, p. 112.
W.F. Albright in "The Aegean and the Near East", studies presented to Hetty Goldman, 1956, p. 159. Albright's earlier treatment of the subject is found in "Journal of the American Oriental Society", LXVII,1947, pp.154f 4)
[4000] Maurice Dunand, "Fouilles de Byblos", I (1937), pp. 53, 54, 56, 93, 339. See also Here!
[4200] Nina Jidejian, she was Dunand's pupil and assistant, in "Byblos Through the Ages", 1986, p. 57 (UCD: DS 89B9 J53 c.1).
[4400] Herodotus, `The Histories', Bk. I, Sec. 178-183.
[4600] Vespasian reigned from 69 - 79 AD. Herodotus, `Histories', Bk. I, Sec. 181, 182.
[4800] E. Akurgal, "Die Kunst Anatoliens", (Berlin, 1961). H. Frankfort, "The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient", (Baltimore, 1954), pp.164-166.
H.G. Güterbock, "Carchemish", "Journal of Near-Eastern Studies", 1954, pp. 113ff.
[4802] On the Fall of Niniveh see D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria,' Vol. II, Sect. 1166ff.; pp. 417ff.
[5000] H. Goedicke, `The Battle of Kadesh - A Reassessment', in `Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache', p. 86; British archaeologists excavated around `Jerablus Tahtani' about 1998. For the report see: http://www.arcl.ed.ac.uk/arch/jerablus/jerahome.html; For an image of the younger Lawrence of Arabia and a report on excavations at Carchemish see: a) `The Adventure of Archaeology', p. 184; a) http://www.castle-hill-press.com/teweb/NPG/part2/052.htm] Ramses II regiment of Amun was based at Tell el-Borg, the latter of which may be either the 2nd (`The Dwelling of the Lion')or 3rd (`The Migdol of Menmaatre') fort on `The Ways of Horus' route toward Palestine.. [Egyptian Archaeology, 2003, p. 189, 196.]
[5190] See National Geographic, Vol. 179. No. 4, apr. 1991, p. 5.
[5200] "Arrival of the ... of Pharaoh, L.H.P., at ... the mother of the royal children, together with the ... of the divine mother ... fleeing to the west [side] of the camp ... before the foe." [Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 332] The name of one of the wifes of Ramses II was Neferure (TJH James, Nefertari), another was Meryt-Amun (2nd wife) and `Bent-Anath', whose name is found on a 10 m colossal statue of the king. [Bonechi, Art and History of Egypt, 1997, p. 44.] Cut off from his southern approaches to Carchemish Ramses, his entourage and at least part of his remaining troops followed the geographical terrain leading west to north in their effort to get away. Later they approached the coast before turning south. It is quite possible that the king and his court fled by ship while his troops continued by land.
It is of interest to observe how frequently statues of Ramses II and even his queen(s) are found in Egypt itself quite close to the surface in a country were dust storms are relatively frequent. Compared to Palestine, were layers assigned to his dynasty are often quite deep that is astonishing; it should tell us that the conditions and events in Palestine in ages past are quite different and we should not assume that we can interpret layers correctly. It helps us to realize that the age of Ramses II is not as ancient as supposed.
[5300] British Museum Tablet, BM#21946 - "In the 21st year the king of Akkad stayed on his own land, Nebuchadnezzar his eldest son ... mustered [the Babylonian army] and took command of his troops; he ... crossed the (Euphrates) river [to go] against the Egyptian army which lay in Carchemish ... fought with each other and the Egyptian army withdrew before him."
This crossing of the Euphrates must have occurred to position his troops before the battle.[The quote is from an e-mail source rather then Thiele. Thiele, E., `The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,' p. 184.]
The Euphrates is described as being often 300 to 400 yards wide between Jerablus (Carchemish) and the chiefly Kurdish beehive constructed, treeless village of Tel Ahmar (Ahuni's capital Til-Barsip), a site explored by D.G. Hogarth, 14 miles downstream from Jerablus. In the summer it flows about 2 miles an hour, in the winter and spring flood time nearly twice as fast. [See R. C. Thompson in PSBA, `Tel-Barsip, Its Cuneiform Inscriptions,' Feb. 14, 1914, p. 66-67-71. The article states that terns and ibis (kelinak in Turkish) of Birejik fly past in the area. The villages attracted them because of `Hittie' and a few cuneiform inscriptions. These inscriptions show that it was `Kar-Sulmanuasarid', a name given by Shalmaneser II for Til-Barsip. ]
[5400] James Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Vol. III, Sec. 372. The funerary stela of Ramose can be seen in KMT, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 55. We also have a boundary stone ascribed to a Nebuchadnezzar I.; See: `Wycliffe Historical Geography', p. 24.
[5500] Since Ramses I should be Necho I and Ramses II, Necho II.
[5550] Egyptian Archaeology, No. 4, 1994, p. 25. For the hieroglyphic name of R. II oldest son `Amon-her-khepeshef' see BAR, Jul/AUg 1995, p. 22. For a full page color image of the carved cedar wood sarcophagus of Ramses II see Alan Millard, How Reliable Is the Exodus in BAR, Jul 2000, p. 54; on p. 56 is the image of the rearing lion with Ashurbanipal. See our view on the Exodus.
[5600] Jeremiah 39:3.
[5700] Judges 18:29. For the reader: Pagan gods and goddesses are Satanic inventions and to occupy oneself with these aside from understanding only history should not be entertained for there are dangers, these human inventions are forbidden by the Creator God who alone is worthy of our worship.
[5800] Breasted, `Records', III, Sec. 386, Breasted does not give Tyre or Dan. But Breasted gives it as `the god of Zeyethekhrer'.
[5900] James Breasted `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 381.
[5902] The shown Egyptian (partial?) inscription found at Hazor is said to denote the title of an important official (vizier?), surmised of the time of Ramses II. Which bird signs are shown is a bit uncertain. The top one could be a chick, except it shows a tail. Finding this artifact could mean that Hazor was connected with Egypt in some way in the days of Ramses II. and King Nebuchadnezzar in revised view. [BAR, Vol. 32, Mar 2006, p. 37.]
[6000] James Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Vol.III, Sec.389.
[6050] John D. Smith, "Ramses II: A Chronological Structure for His Reign", (Baltimore, 1973), p. 116.
[6100] See, The Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, I, 19a; Sedar Olam 26. See Ginzberg, "Legends", Vol. VI, p. 399, n.42.
[6150] Vol. III, Sec. 390. Schmidt, "Ramses", p. 118.
[6200] 2.Kings 25:7.
[6250] Merneptah (coreigned with Ra.II from about 582 BC, sole reign from 569-562) and is Apries of the Greek authors and Hophra of the scriptures.
[6300] Necho/Ramses II.
[6350] Hugo Winckler, `The History of Babylonia and Assyria', (New York, 1907), p.318.
[6400] The ancient Nile branches are: 1.Canopic 2.Rosetta 3.Sebennytic 4.Mendesian 5.Saitic (Tanitic) 6.Pelusian. Today remain only two. There is also evidence that the capitals of Sais and Tanis were the same and there never was a capital on the western Nile branches.
[6450] Herodotus, Book II, Sec. 30.
[6500] Petrie, `Nebesheh and Defenneh', p.78, Pt. XXXVII 19, 19a, 19b.
[6550] Ibid. p. 18, 19.
[6600] R. Koldeway, `Die Königsburgen von Babylon', (Leipzig, 1931), I.
[6650] Yaman means `Greek' in Babylonian.
[6700] Cuneiform tablet British Museum 78-10-15, 22, 37 and 38; Cf. Langdon, `Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire', p. 182.
T.G. Pinches, `A New Fragment of the History of Nebuchadnezzar', `Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology', Vol. 7, 188D (1882), pp. 210-225.
[6750] Ibid. p. 216. Amasis ruled from about 568 - 526 BC.
[6800] Langdon, `Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire', p. 183.
[6850] H.R.Hall, `The Ancient History of the Near East', p. 547.
[6900] James Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Sec. 419.
[6950] Ibid. Sec. 421 (last part) & 422 (first part).
[7000] Ibid. Sec. 424.; See Elmar Edel, `Der geplante Besuch Hattusilis III in Ägypten', `Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientalgesellschaft', 92 (1960), pp. 16-20.
[7050] F.H.Weissbach, `Die Inschriften Nebukhadnezars II im Wadi Brissa und am Nahr-el-Kelb', (Leipzig, 1906), p.3.
[7100] Petrie, `Nebesheh and Defenneh', p. 51.
[7150] Naharaim or Mesopotamia.
[7200] Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 434.
[7250] R.Koldewey, `Die Königsburgen von Babylon', Vol. I, p. 63-64. See also Eckhard Unger, `Babylon' - Die Heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier', (1931), pp. 159ff.
[7300] Luckenbill, `American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures', XXXVII (April, 1921), p. 195.
[7330] For an image of the shallow cartouche of Merneptah underneath the sunk-relief cartouche of Ramses II. on that red-granite column, consult KMT, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2010, p. 72.
[7350] M.I. Moursi, `Die Hohenpriester des Sonnengottes von der Frühzeit Ägyptens bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches I', MÄS 26, 1972, pp. 159ff.
[7400] Cmpr. Wofgang Helck, `Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches I', 1961, 124ff.; Breasted, `Ancient Records', Vol. V (Indices)(1962), p. 80ff.
[7450] The article claims here, "With exception of the El Amarna Period." The time of the `heretic' king Amenophis IV/Akhenaten.
[7500] M.I. Moursi & M. Balboush, `Funde aus dem Tempel Ramses II. im Tell el-Hisn bei Heliopolis' in Mitteilungen des DAI, Band 31, 1975, p. 85-91, Tafeln 29-31; Featuring numerous drawn inscriptions and photos.
[7550] Trans. by C.Aldred in `Akhenaten', (1968), p.102. Cf.K.A.Kitchen, `Rameside Inscriptions', (1969), Vol.II, pp.323-26. For a discussion of the question of coregency between Ramses II and Seti see Schmidt, Ramses II, Ch.V, `The Coregency', pp.154-64.
[7600] Jeremiah 44:30; For the source of the 34th year click Here. [7650] Herodotus, III, 103, and Africanus' version of Manetho give 45 years as the length of Amasis' reign; but Eusebius and the Armenian version of Eusebius allot only 42 years to Amasis.
[7670] Herodotus, Book II,169, 172.
[7700] According to conventional chronology Ramses II reigned 67 years plus 2 or 20 months? The 67 years plus 2 monthes calculation seems to stem from the writings of Manetho who gives Ramses 66 years plus 2 months. In the Papyrus Harris Ramses III mentions the 67 years of Ramses II in the course of a dedication in which he juxtaposes his own achievements within just 4 years to those of Ramses II in 67 years: "And thou shalt be pleased with the land of Egypt ... thou shalt double for me the long duration of King Ramses II ... for more are the mighty deeds and benefactions which I do ... than those things which King Ramses II did for thee in his 67 years." [Sec. 471] Conceivably these 67 years could also refer to his total life span. Others like P. Gurob uses the dates "year 67, I Akhet 18" and "year 1, II Akhet 19" a few lines apart, so implying that Ramses' death came in between. See also Hornung. The basis for a 10th month opinion we do not know. In revised view the number of months at the end are inconclusive to his chronology. Since we don't know the exact year in which Ramses as infant was made co-ruler with his father, we don't know how many of the years of Seti I Ramses counted as his but they may have been some 27 years making 636 BC, half of Seti's reign, the start of his co-regency. There exists also a hieratic label found on a jar from the tomb of Apy at Thebes of the 50th year of Ramses II. See Bryant G. Wood, Egyptian Amphorae in BA, June 1987, p. 75-(77)-83. We cannot rule out that Ramses was proud and used the maximum years he could muster to state the length of his reign.
See also Ramses' II obelisk at Luxor in Ancient Egypt, Oct/Nov 2004, p. 33; the Paris obelisk on p. 35.
[7750] 2.Chronicles 36:2-4.
[7800] Jeremiah 46:2.
[7850] Poem of Pentaur.
[7900] Jeremiah 25:1. For an image of the damaged cuneiform clay tablet relating the accession of Nebuchadnezzar and his capture of Jerusalem see `Wycliffe Historical Geography', p. 30.
[7950] 2.Kings 23:29
[8000] There is a discrepancy between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 - in the latter Nebuchadnezzar is called king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim. For Nebuchadnezzar's later claims to have been the legitimate king of Babylon immediately following the death of Nabopolassar. [See E.R Thiele, `The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings', 1965]
[8050] 2.Kings 24:1.
[8100] According to archaeologists Sir Flinders Petrie and Maspero.
[8150] 2.Kings 24:12.
[8200] 2.Kings 24:8.
[8250] Jeremiah 37:5; 2.Ki. 24:7. Jer. 37:11 shows that no battle took place between Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt during the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. - See also the `Shalem block' which shows the outline of a fortress facade carved in shallow relief and, down the center, the vertical column of text which reads, "The town which the king plundered in Year 8 - Shalem." Source: D. Rohl, `Pharaohs and Kings', p. 5. - This may have been in consequence and after the initial attack by Nebuchadnezzar, ca. 606 BC, therefore year 8 for Ramses II may be 598 BC or thereabouts considering his coreign/military education with Seti I. - It also depends on the correctness of the reading and identity of Shalem with Jerusalem, which sounds tempting to use.
[8300] Jeremiah 34:11.
[8350] 2.Kings 25:1.
[8400] 2.Kings 25:1;
[8450] Jeremiah 39:1.
[8500] Ez.24:1.
[8550] Since the 10th year of Zedekiah was the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar - Jer.32:1.
[8600] His first march to the north.
[8650] When the peace treaty was signed. See also: The Assuan stele
[8700] Which occurred on his first march of the pharaoh to the north.
[8750] 2.Kings 23:31.
[8800] The renewal of the siege.
[8850] If the Israelites left Egypt in the days of Merneptah.
[8900] If the Israelites left Egypt before the beginning of the 19th Dynasty.