Lastly, we may consider that the mortuary temple of Medinet Habu is the best preserved complex at Thebes; we think that is the case because it did not survive the destructions of the Assyrians and the Persians under Cambyses, but was erected much later. [1200]

As V already observed, it appears that Ramses III referred to this camp when he wrote:

"They set up a camp in one place in Amor [Syria]." [2600]

As others already pointed out:

"Ramses III's inscriptions specifically mention the towns and orchards of the `Plst' - which stands clearly against the idea that they were all new arrivals from elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Many `Plst' must have already been settled in southern Palestine. These points, originally stressed by Alessandra Nibbi (1975), have since been echoed in the work of other scholars including Peter James (in numerous lectures and in an unfinished postgraduate thesis of the early 1980's), Phoenician archaeologist Patricia Bikai (1992) and classicist Bob Drews (1993, 52-3)." [2700]

We have no reason to believe that these same scholars probed the situation in the revised context presented at this website. But they make this fact into somewhat of an anchor point for the correctness of their interpretation. In their thinking, since the `plst' were not new arrivals, they must have been the Philistines. Of course the Persians were not new arrivals either in 374 BC. Persian armies had come and gone for many years. But in this particular campaign against Egypt, with the Persians under their leading general Pharnabazus, they were spending years for their preparation to return the income from Egypt to the Persian crown.[ It is no wonder they had occupied towns and planted orchards. These many military personal had to live on something.

But if the 20th Dynasty reigned in the 12th century BC, who could these foreigners have been?

What about the floral capitals and broken lintels of Nectanebo over doorways at Philae? They are supposed to demonstrate his Late Period affinity. Again, his `contractors' were not the same as those of Ramses III and their style was one chosen based on criteria we really cannot fully analyze as to its period today.

What can we learn from the tomb of Paser, the mayor of Thebes, in the days of Ramses III?

The name Paser we know already from the days of Ramses II who had a vizier by that same name. First we want to find the hieroglyphic name of Paser which is not separately pointed out in the source but which is closely associated with the word for mayor, `mer nu-t' and deceased, `m3-hrw'. There is no indication that this Paser was anything else than a mayor. [4800]

Also note the horned helmet from Enkomi and shown in Pamela Garber (See #5). [5200] This figure was dated to the 12th century BC precisely because of the correlation to the sea battle images at Medinet Habu and, we say, the Greek warriors depicted there.

Another feature of the artists rendition of the troops of Ramses II and those pictured by Ramses III at Medinet Habu seems intriguing. Taking a good look at the soldier in the very left image and how his facial features are rendered and comparing them to the one from Ramses II carvings, they seem to have the same or similar facial characteristics, the shape itself, the way the hold their chin up with lips tightly closed, their neck and proud outlook to a distant point. Perhaps this is an indication that both artists illustrate troops originating from the same region, the old Lydian kingdom.

[See also our file on the 26th Dynasty]

Several monuments survived to our days from the time of Nekht-hor-heb and Nekht-nebef, who had been assigned to be Nectanebo I and Nekht-nebef who is said to be Nectanebo II. Significantly enough E.Naville introduces a chapter in one of his books as follows:

"It is in the hypostyle hall, near the entrance of the hall of Nekhthorheb, that we meet with all the monuments of this (the 20th) dynasty."[5600]

The significance of Naville's statement is the close association of Nekhthorheb of the 5th century BC, the conventional shoe in for Nectanebo I of the 30th Dynasty when Naville wrote this in 1891, with the supposedly 12th century BC Ramses III. But we know that Nekhthorheb oversaw the affairs in Egypt for the Persian satrap Arsames. He was no seated king. The monuments of Nekhthorheb were there before those of Ramses III.

The disturbing fact was that neither one of them, Nekhthorheb and Nekht-nebef, mentioned in their many inscriptions anything about the wars that both of them were supposed to have carried on. Nectanebo I's wars against Artaxerxes III before he was defeated in the final campaign. Their inscriptions are vainglorious, and therefore in the absence of any reference to war exploits crowned by victories seemed enigmatic. In view of the many inscriptions left by them it could not be claimed that only by chance did their many building and donation inscriptions survive while the monuments dedicated to the conduct of the wars and the memorials to their triumphs all perished. Yet, for lack of better choices, the identifications were made.

Then early in the 20th century W.Spiegelberg, a German Egyptologist, found reason to rearrange the identifications and Nekht-nebef was pronounced to have been Nectanebo I and vice versa. We shall ask, who were these two?

Nectanebo ruled from 376 - 361 BC when the particular Arsames, who resided in Babylon, was the Persian satrap overseeing affairs in Egypt. His business affairs were huge. Cuneiform tablets from the time of Darius II (~413/412 BC) show that on one day a transaction involving 1809 heads of cattle took place. [This Arsames is not the same we discuss next but a later one and probably the private name of Artaxerxes II (404-358 BC) himself.]

In 1932 L.Borchardt purchased in Cairo a leather pouch full of leather scrolls. These scrolls were letters from Arsames, the satrap, to his administrator in Egypt by the name of Psamshek and another named Nekht-hor, both Egyptians. It was a surprise to learn that Aramaic was the official language for this kind of correspondence at the time.[5700]

The letters show that Psamshek preceded Nekht-hor in his post. Arsames writes with a haughty attitude toward his plenipotentiaries in Egypt. They deal mainly with exacting tribute and even more with personal land and serf properties of Arsames and his cohorts. We learn from these letters that property was unceremoniously confiscated and added to Arsames possessions. People from everywhere were made bondsmen and marked with his brand, this way becoming his possession.

Of Arsames we can justly say what Ramses III said of Arsa, the foreigner who, many years after the overthrow of Egypt "from without", following which event there was no native ruler in the country, "was with them as chief." Everything points to Arsames, the satrap and writer of the Aramaic letters as being Arsa of the Harris Papyrus who "set the whole land tributary before him" and "plundered their possessions." The ending `mes' means son and could easily be dropped by the Egyptians.

Psamshek [about 445 BC, Psammetich] was the one who send grain boats to Athens. It is quite certain this was done with the knowledge of Arsames. In 407 BC Nekht-hor-heb deplored the death of his master Psamshek. These two fixed dates help us to disentangle a number of problems.

Bas-reliefs exist which show in parallel Nekht-nebef and Psamshek and therefore these two must have been contemporaries functioning under Arsames. Perhaps one was the governor and the other the chief treasurer; or one in the north and the other in the south.

Underwater evidence speaks for itself
Franck Goddio just recently announced his discoveries in the ancient city of Herakleion, or its Egyptian name of `Rahinet', located now some 4 miles off shore of the Canopus side of the Nile Delta and 20-30 feet under water. The most impressive find so far seems to have been the ca. 2 meter tall, intact stela described to be of Nectanebo I in which he levied a 10% tax on the Greek `gods' for an Egyptian temple. When we are told that this stela is of Nectanebo I we understand that to mean that the name of Nekht-nebef was found on it. If that is true why did he not also brag about his successful war against the Libyans, Persians and Greeks? There is every reason to believe that taking on these enemies was not a small affair one could easily forget about. Just recall the wars the Greeks and Persians fought with each other. But the monuments of Nekht-nebef are silent on any of these events. The stone found by the F. Goddio team of divers would have made a wonderful canvass to glorify the mighty deeds of Nekht-nebef/Nectanebo. But so far all his inscriptions remain silent for he did not fight these wars. The story is already told in the annals of Ramses III and how he fought the Peoples of the Sea, meaning those who often came by sea from the Greek islands and the city states of the coast of Asia Minor. The story of Pharnabazus and how he commandeered ships of the Phoenician coastal towns speaks for itself on how some of his troops were transported.

The Temple of Umm Ebeida

Many years ago Minutoli visited and described the temple of Umm-Ebeida in the Siwa Oasis where he noticed two cartouches which he reproduced in his book of drawings. The significance of these cartouches is that they bring together a 21st Dynasty character with a supposed 30th Dynasty potentate. [5800]

More Recent Excavations and the time of Ramses III

In conventional history "the destruction of the last Late Bronze Age city of Hazor, stratum XIII, was fixed at 1230 BC by Ygael Yadin (1972) on the basis of imported Mycenaean ware belonging to the Mycenaean IIIB period. This date has also been taken over by A.Furumark (1941), who equated the end of the reign of Ramses II in 1234 BC with the end of the Mycenaean IIIB wares. This equation, however, is inaccurate. In Ugarit in the last Bronze Age layer a sword was found that carried the cartouche of Merneptah, whose reign lasted until 1204 or 1203 BC (conventional dates); Mycenaean IIIB ware has been found in abundance in this layer. The use of Mycenaean IIIB ware is therefore proven until about 1200 BC." [6200]

In revised history Merneptah is pharaoh Hophra of Jeremiah and Apries of the Greek historians. He was co-ruler at the end of Ramses II reign from 585 - 568 BC. For this reason we know that Mycenaean wares were in use much longer than archaeologists suspect. It also means that the neat layers established must be moved forward in time by some 600 - 700 years. Scholars may claim that this cannot be done because then all cross referencing would be impossible. That is probably true. But we must remember that this vast structure of assigning metal ages and pottery schemes has been established by modern scholars and is based on erroneous Egyptian dates and is therefore only propagating its own intricate error system. For more on this history click Here.

Ramses III was not Pharaoh Shishak

Of all the scenarious we now also have to address this one of Peter James who insists that Ramses III was the pharaoh who sacked the temple of Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam. It appears he feels this needs to be so since Palestinian stratigraphical considerations require that. What is our response? Palestinian stratigraphy is one thing, what we need to consider is the stratigraphical evidence from Egypt itself as to the time of Ramses III. We should be very careful when evaluating Palestinian stratigraphy since that can have many more unexpected twists and turns than we might suspect. But please let us not make Ramses III/Nectanebo I into a 10th century figure after all the evidence we presented to the contrary. We do not believe that those who defend this view use better judgment or skill in discerning layers of dirt than anyone else. For those following the disagreements between Kenneth Kitchens and Peter James will understand that neither of these two have an edge on historical insights. We believe that our evidence thus far provided is forceful enough to withstand their claims. It is not enough to reposition kings, one also has to explain who in Egypt was Psammetichus, Neko, Nectanebo and so on. Even though historians like to claim they have shown that already, it is a rather insufficient, flimsy construction they have to offer on these accounts. Ramses III has been firmly tied into late Greek times by

1. the tiles with Greek letters,
2. the mentioning of `denyens', `atica' and `pereset',
3. the architecture of the Medinet Habu and Khonsu temples,
4. Greek/Hebrew words used in his inscriptions,
5. the explanations of his war reliefs as compared to the account of Diodorus,
6. an example of a horned helmet, though not attested to from Greece itself, but close enough in time and space compared to conventional grounds for regarding the Philistines as contemporaries to Ramses III.

Palestinian stratigraphy, confused as it is more often than not, has to be subservient to these parameters.

For the Archaeological Evidence at Megiddo click Here

Are we then to assume that Megiddo existed clear into the 4th century BC? Is there any evidence which would preclude that possibility? The valley of Megiddo was referred to in the days of Josiah (640-609 BC). [2.Chronicles 35:22]

The Evidence from El Ahwat

Quite recently Israeli archaeologists excavated an Iron Age site which reportedly had only one stratum. We read:

"Another curious - but helpful -characteristic of the site was that the settlement had only one stratum. ... In a large building, we call the `governor's house', ... the most significant find made inside the house was a scarab with the royal name of Ramses III ... The pottery and architecture found at el-Ahwat indicated the site was inhabited for only a short time - about 50 years, from 1220 to 1170 BC, give or take 10 years." [6600]

More recently we read:

"Our city wall was analyzed at many points along its perimeter, including the 200 foot strip in area C (the domestic quarter). In all the houses that we inspected, the floors that abutted the city wall and integrated the wall into the structure of the house yielded pottery, jewels, scarabs and other objects that came entirely from Iron I (this is conv. dated by the author to 1200-1000 BC)." 6700] (For additional info click Here.)

These 50 years were of course calculated on the basis of conventional dates for Ramses III whose scarab was found inside a building. Pottery finds include a) hill-country Israelite pottery, b) pithoi, c) large, rough, undecorated vessels, d) plains (Canaanite) pottery and e) more Egyptian scarabs of the 19th dynasty. [6800]

"But not one painted Canaanite sherd turned up. Nor did a single sherd imported wares (Mycenaean or Cypriote). These locally produced and imported wares are found in almost every contemporaneous site in the Levant. Why not here?" [6900]

But the strangest discovery was that the architecture resembled nothing found in Israel before but had features known from Nuragic sites on the island of Sardinia. The author then wonders:

"The pottery and architecture found at el-Ahwat indicated the site was inhabited for only a short time - about 50 years ... We could see that whoever built the site did so on virgin soil. Once abandoned the site was never again occupied, apart from some agricultural activity in Late Roman and early Byzantine periods. This early abandonment did not make sense. Approximately 200,000 cubic feet of stones were used for the wall alone. People don't generally invest in a huge fortification project, use it for 50 years, then leave and never come back. How to account for the short occupation of a settlement that had required such a great effort to build?" [7000]

In revised view the site was not occupied for 50 years but more like 170-200 years from the time of the 19th/26th dynasty to somewhere in or just after the time of Ramses III (379-361 BC). This chronology also demonstrates the problem of the dating by pot sherds examples of which have been assigned to wrong time periods which are the cause for so much confusion in Israelite archaeology. Of course we do not expect Canaanite and/or Mycenaean artifacts to turn up in quantities in the revised time frame of el-Ahwat.

However the Sardinian correlation with the site assuming there are no such architectural features attested in other regions like Persia, regions which had contact with Israel between the years we assign, seems to suggest that people from this island had migrated to Israel in the wake of the Babylonian exile and established themselves there until they decided to pack up their belongings and move out, leaving hardly a trace of their implements or artifacts. If this was a regular town or a military city we don't know. A beautiful ivory ibex head testified to trade with Egypt and a stone incised with a soldier testifies to the military connection of the town. A black stone cylinder seal and a deity wearing a high Anatolian tiara presented a Hittite/Chaldean connection not surprising in revised view. [7100]

The Evidence at Gezer

"At Tell el-Fara [7500] South Petrie excavated a large mud-brick fortress that also seems to have been erected by the Egyptian administration. Its history is not clear, but it appears that it continued to serve the Philistines in the later part of the Iron Age I. The cemeteries adjacent to the mound are of great importance for the study of the Late Bronze - Iron Age transition. Cemetery 900 contains a series of solitary burials, rock-cut tombs with stepped dromos, and a burial chamber with broad benches. The finds in these tombs include many vessels made in the Late Bronze Age tradition but no Mycenaean or Cypriote imports. Scarabs of Ramses III, Ramses IV, and perhaps Ramses VIII were found, thus dating the cemetery to the final days of Egyptian rule in Canaan."

"Stratum VI at Lachish provides a good example of the cultural sequence of the first half of the 12th century. This stratum follows stratum VII and Fosse Temple III, in which Cypriote and Mycenaean imports appeared, and has been dated to the 20th Dynasty, on the basis of the discovery of a bronze object bearing the cartouche of Ramses III. Votive bowls bearing hieratic inscriptions, similar to those found at Tel Sera'[7600], are dated to the same time, as is a tomb containing a clay anthropoid coffin inscribed in Egyptian hieratic script, which probably belonged to an Egyptian official. The temple found in Area P at Lachish resembles a temple of the same period at Beth Shean; both contain many Egyptian elements." [7700] Click also Here for the following paragraph! The authors comparison of the Sea-Peoples headress bands with those shown on anthropoid coffins implies that the Persians burried their dead in such clay coffins.]

Undoubtedly this inscription echoes the Punt expedition of Queen Hatshepsut which stood out in the memory of all Egyptians as it was carved in the walls of her mortuary temple at Deir el Bahari. Ramses III had an insatiable appetite for grand display and wanting to have all these famous events happen to him too, even if only in his poetic dreaming. If this account represents real events may be debatable. Coming from Egypt there were 2 seas which according to our geographical knowledge could be described as `great seas',

1. the Mediterranean Sea and
2. the Red Sea.

If the Mediterranean Sea is meant, where could the inverted river be? The only sizable rivers flowing from the north to the south would be in Asia Minor, i.e. the Ceyhan River flowing into the Gulf of Iskunderun, or its western neighbor, the Seyhan River.

The Orontes River also flows for a short distance in a south-western direction just before entering the Sea, but its doubtful that was impressive enough to refer to it in this way.

The other often quoted choice is the Euphrates River, by way of the Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. This choice certainly is possible. God's-Land and Punt then would be their new trading partner in that region.

Besides the Euphrates it could also be the Indus River in Pakistan, which is not any further to travel to than the Euphrates River coming from Egypt, provided a ship would leave the coast.

With Greece being a center of civilization, their only rivers flowing south are the Nestos, Struma and Axios Rivers. How significant a river they then were is doubtful.

In Italy we have the Garigliano and Tiber Rivers, again not really major bodies of water either.

Looking down the African coast, there are the Dschuba, Tana, Ruaha, Sambasi and Limpopo Rivers. Of these the last two are major rivers. Certainly they could be a choice just as well as the other rivers mentioned.

Lastly, we shall consider the Jordan River. The problem with that choice is that the Jordan is not a major river either and does not flow into the Gulf of Aqaba but into the Great Dead Sea.

Perhaps then we should reconsider what the meaning of `the great sea of the inverted water' could be. May be the inverted water is not a good translation, perhaps it is an Egyptianism and means `deep water' letting Ramses send his galleys across the Great Green Sea to a Palestinian port. After all standing on an Egyptian beach, the waves come from the north, or northerly directions, giving rise to the appearance that its water flows in the opposite direction of the Nile. No doubt that would be the best, sensible solution to such a passage. Certainly Punt/Israel/Palestine was at a distance which ships could navigate safely even at that time with a safe return. Or is Ramses III account just a way to express his dreams?

Summary

This then is the scenario of the history as presented in the revised version of chronology in a nutshell. It represents a natural evolution of the historical data available to us and leaves the scriptural account intact. The only thing it does not leave intact is the history of these nations as represented by modern historians who, unfortunately, had selected a wrong starting point for their historical account probably as the result of some of the ideas having been entertained by them as described at the beginning of this summary.

Once decided on and written about in books, taught to students and then finding evidence that in a strange way seemed to support their viewpoints, [as for example Shishak and So, one being Thutmoses, the other pharaoh Shoshenk in the revised view but both being Shoshenks in the conventional view [7900] their theory eventually was pronounced irrefutable fact. Dissenting scholars were themselves helpless in voicing caution and for the lack of a better explanation acquiesced eventually to the majority view.

[0100] It appears that the conventional 31 years attributed to Ramses III include the reign of his predecessor Setnakht/Achoris (393-380 BC). In revised view his reign endured from 379-361 BC.
[0500] In the Pyramid Texts `bu' has been thought to mean metal and some theorize that it means `copper' in particular amd that `hmt' was the humble metal-workers term for copper later (or at some point in time?) also including bronze. The Edfu Texts are said to show that `r-wy' and `r-hmt' are later period terms for silver. [Alessandra Nibbi, `Some Remarks on Copper' in JARCE, Vol. XIV, 1977, p. 59-65.]
[0600] Landels, L.G.; `Engineering in the Ancient World', Clarke, Irwin and Company, 1980; Information from -http://www.mri.on.ca/steel.html.
[0700] See (http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php3?mediakey=xu2nhqg2zp).
[0800] Waldbaum, `The First Archaeological Appearance of Iron', pp. 75-77.
[0900] S. Vinson, `The Earliest Representations of Brailed Sails', JARCE, Vol. XXX 1993, p. 133-150.
[1000] See `Bibl.Archaeology' BA, Sept. 1985, p. 165.
[1100] For more see, H. Goedicke, The Harem Conspiracy against Ramses III, in JEA, Vol. 49, 1963, p. 71-92.
[1200] U. Hölscher, `Medinet Habu: Ausgrabungen des Oriental Institute der Universität Chicago: Ein Vorbericht.', Leipzig, 1933: J.C.Hinrichs.; U. Hölscher, `The Excavation of Medinet Habu', I: General Plans and Views. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; U. Hölscher, `The Excavation of Medinet Habu', V, 1954: Post-Ramessid Remains. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[1300] N.K. Sandars, `The Sea Peoples', p. 165; The above relief carving based drawing of the `Prst' prisoner of war can be seen in W. Wreszinski's, `Atlas zur Altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte', (Dec. 4, 1931).
[1400] Herodotus, Bk. VII, Sec. 92.
[1500] A.H. Layard, `Monuments of Niniveh', Vol. II, p. 33.
[1600] Olmstead, `History of Assyria', p. 306.
[1700] BAR, Sep/Oct 1990, p. 29; Mar/Apr 1991, p. 26.
[1800] See a) E. Naville, `The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias', Egyptian
Exploration Fund, 1887 (1890), pp. 6-7; See also, T. Hayter Lewis, Some Remarks made in Tel-elYahoudee' in PSBA, Feb 1880, p. 31-34.
b) F.L. Griffith, `The Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh', The Mound of the Jew, p. 41.
c) Mahmud Hamza, `Excavations of the Department of Antiquities at Qantir, 928',
d) `Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte', XXX (Cairo, 1930), p.58.
[1900] Louis Spieler, `Les Scenes de chasse assyriennes et egyptiennes', Recuell de travaux relatifs a la philologie et l'archeolgie egyptiennes et assyriennes, Vol. 40 (1923), pp. 158-176.
[2000] KMT, Fall 1999, p. 64-67.
[2100] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 403.
[2200] Ibid., Sec. 219.
[2300] Ibid., Sec. 270.
[2400] BAR, Nov/Dec 1991, p. 46.
[2500] Diodorus, Vol. XV, Sec. 5.
[2600] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 64; See also Pritchard, `Records', Pl. 95; showing R. III on a relief at Medinet Habu attacking a walled fortress in Amor manned by Syrian lancers.
[2700] From the website at http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm, p. 12-13.
[2800] Diodorus, Book XV, Sec. 29.
[2900] Ibid., p. 29.
[3000] Ibid. pp. 41, 49, 90, 91.
[3100] See H. Gauthier, `Les Royce', p. 166, 167, 169; E.A.Wallis Budge, `The Book of the Kings of Egypt", (London, 1908), Vol. II, p. 1. Name Plates.
[3200] An epitaph in the tomb of Petosiris. See G.Lefebvre, `Le Tombeau de Petosiris', (1924), Vol. I, p. 3f. Olmstead, `History of Persia', (Chicago, 1948), p. 441.
[3300] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 64.
[3400] Ibid., Sec. 77.
[3500] Ibid.
[3600] Ibid.
[3700] Ibid.
[3800] Ibid., Sec. 81.
[3900] J. Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 77.
[4000] Breasted, `Records', IV, Sec. 97.
[4100] Ibid., Sec. 188.
[4200] Ibid., Sec. 189.
[4300] Ibid., Sec. 207.
[4400] Ibid., Sec. 225, Pl. 14b.
[4500] Ibid., Sec. 237, Pl. 17a.
[4600] J.A.Wilson, `The Language of the Historical Texts Commemorating Ramses III', Medinet Habu Studies, 1928-29, (Chicago, 1930), p. 32.
[4700] See also the fragment of an Egyptian green porcelain vase found at the end of the south trench 29 at Gezer bearing the name of Ramses III. R.A.S. MacAlister, `The Excavation of Gezer', Vol. II, London, 1912, p. 235-236. MacAlister erroneously attributes the sherd to Ramses II. Inspection will show the beholder that the cartouche is that of Ramses III. The sherd was found among Classical Period examples of figures and figurines in Terra Cotta supporting, in our view, that Ramses III belongs in Greek times.
[4800] Siegfried Schott, (transl. by E. Hauser), `Wall Scenes from the Mortuary Chapel of the Mayor Paser at Medinet Habu', Chicago University Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 30, 1957.
[4900] Right side image: `The Cambridge Ancient History', Plates to Vol. VII, Part 1.
[5000] The Lydian division were the Shardana, Sherden or Sardana, people from the vicinity of their capital of Sardis in Lydia, Asia Minor.
[5100] R. Zahn in Sir W.M. Ramsay, `Anatolian Studies', Manchester 1923, p. 451, Plate XIV, 2.
[5200] Pamela Garber, `The Museums of Cyprus' im BA, Vol. 52, DEc. 1989, p. 175. This helmet has long horns but otherwise looks quite like those of the Sea Peoples helmets. Check also on Crawford H. Greenwalt & Ann M. Haywoodz, A Helmet of the 6th Century from Sardis in ASOR, Feb 1992, p. 1-31. Shown is also a helmet wearing man from Golgoi, Cyprus; a medieval Spangenheim type from Baldenheim im Alsace, Germany; a Graeco-Persian worn stele depicting a horseman with helmet (worn) in stone with a crest.
[5240] For a B&W image of an ancient, three pronged battering ram of a ship found at Atlit, south of Haifa, see BA, Sep/Oct 1984, p. 8.
[5300] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, The Great Papyrus Harris, Sec. 211.
[5400] Edgerton & Wilson, `Historical Records of Ramses III'. On the Maruannu/ maryannu, see also Michael Heltzer, The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit, Wiesbaden, 1982. According to the author he calculated/ estimated there were about 230 persons in this group whose `profession' could be inherited, p. 111-112.
[5500] See F.K.Kienitz, `Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende', (Berlin, 1953)]
[5600] E.Naville, `Bubastis', p. 45.
[5700] See A.T.Olmstead, `History of the Persian Empire', (Chicago, 1948),pp.116-117; Also the letters from Ezra 4:7 to and from Artaxerxes were written in Aramaic (Syriac).
[5800] H.C.Minutoli, `Reise zum Tempel des Jupiter Ammon in der Lybischen Wüste', (Berlin, 1824). [5900] Ahmed Fakhri, `Siwa Oasis', p. 100; p.167-168 in 1990 edition.
[6000] Ibid., ed. 1990.
[6100] A. Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 453 He reads Nekhtharehbe.
[6200] Biblical Archaeologist, "Conquest or Settlement", by Volkmar Fritz, Vol. 50, No.2, June 1987, p.87.
[6300] BAR, May/June 1998, p. 41 and May/June 2000, p. 56.
[6400] Carolyn Higginbotham, `The Egyptianizing of Canaan', Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol.24, No.3, May/June 1998, p. 41.
[6500] Ibid. p. 88.
[6600] A. Zertal in BAR, `Philistine Kin Found in Early Israel', May/June 2002, p. 18ff.; Archaeologists found that El-Ahwat, located 9 miles east of Caesarea in the territory of Manassah, was surrounded by a 13 feet wide and 33 feet high wall. [BAR, Jan 1996, p. 44. & BAR, May 2002, p. 18-31,60-61;] The low city gate seems to indicate that enemies like the Assyrians, which caused in Palestine strong fortifications to be build, were not around. We would place this town in the 5th to 4th century BC, Persian times. To compare the square towers of this site with round towers, corbelled domes and the use of lintels with constructions of Sardinia seems arbitrary.
[6700] A. Zertal in BAR, `Sticking to the Facts', Mar/Apr 2004, p. 23. [6800] Ibid., BAR, 2002.
[6900] Ibid., 2002, p. 23.
[7000] Ibid.
[7100] For a more recent exchange see I. Finkelstein, `Just another Israelite Village' in Israel Exploration Journal, May/Jun2 2003 and A. Zertal's reply, `Sticking to Facts' in BAR, Mar/Apr 2004, p. 22-23.
[7200] Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987, p. 89.
[7300] D.Ussishkin, `Lachish Key to the Israelite Conquest', BAR, Jan/Feb 1987, p. 20.
[7400] Ibid, p. 36.
[7500] Tell el-Farah South is located ca. 9 miles south of Gerar (but a little more inland) which is 18 miles south of Gezer. Tell el-Farah North is located near Shechem.
[7600] The Tel Sera hieratic inscription on a bowl reads: b3^a "which [....(southern)]^(b) of regnal year 22 (+x) record ^(c) grain measured in the first (?) quadruple hk t making 460 sacks." [Ibid., p. 262, Fig. 8.1]
[7700] A. Ben-Tor, `The Archaeology of Ancient Israel', 1992, p. 262.
[7800] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 407.
[7900] It is untanable to suggest that Shoshenk can be transliterated as both, Shishak and So.
[8000} Alessandra Nibbi, `The Sea Peoples and Egypt', Noyes Press, 1975.
[8100] Trude and Moshe Dothan, `People of the Sea', New York, 1992.