Some Detailed Evidence from Egypt Against Velikovsky's Revised Chronology and a Defense by CIAS for the same!

by
GEOFFREY GAMMON, defense by CIAS
Geoffry Gammon CIAS Response
The Introductory part is not reproduced here until a later time since we wanted to address the main points first.
The XVIIIth Dynasty, during which the village was founded [1], provides only slight evidence about the community. Only a handful of tombs in the vicinity of the site are known to date from that period and they are small and badly damaged. It is likely that the inhabitants belonging to the reign of Horemheb, the last ruler of the XVIIIth Dynasty, began to enlarge and refurbish earlier tombs so that they are no longer recognisable. Presumably statements using phrases like `likely' means it could also be unlikely since we don't really know.
The Chief Workman Neferhotep is the earliest known member of a family which spans the whole of the XIXth Dynasty. His generation is also the first to provide detailed information about the village.

Neferhotep's career began under Horemheb as is shown by the inscription on an offering table from Deir el-Medineh where he is called "chief-workman of the Lord of the Two Lands [Djeser-kheper-Ra']."
[Jaroslav Cerný, JEA 15 (1929), p. 251. Also Bruyère: Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el-Medineh 1923-1924 (1925), p. 45 & pl. 12] 		I would like to advance two explanations the first of which convention uses as the more likely but a chance remains the second may also be possible:

1) The Hieroglyphics, if we can rely on the drawing, said to be reading Horemheb are partial and show three signs characteristic for Horemheb. These 3 signs are:

1. the sun disk,
2. the scarab beetle,
3. the outstretched arm/hand.

Therefore this offering table appears to be a contemporary object of Horemheb and this particular Neferhotep.

2) The Hieroglyphics could also read Psusennes (II) if one of the signs is not the outstretched arm holding a plant but the curved sign similar to that found on crowns of pharaohs. At this time I am not sure of the phonetic value of that sign.
3) Offering tables, memorials, ushabtis, etc. can also have been used post-mortem in a memorial ceremony and therefore may not always be contemporary evidences. Memorial services can be held for the life time of the person(s) who had a relationship with the deceased and therefore can last for decades.

The second choice would only be possible if the sign was hard to read and a guess made it into the arm. But we have no information as to its physical appearance of the offering-table. Nevertheless we should mention this just in case someone could verify it.

If Psusennes was a candidate, that would mean that this Neferhotep could have been a later descendant of the Neferhotep whose name was found in Egypt using revised dates for Psusennes II (between ca. 320-300 BC, just before Si Amon but his time is not definitely known.) Convention also has a Psusennes III whose cartouche is not known. By an outside chance, if such an individual existed his name could match the 3 signs on the offering table better than Psusennes II(?). So we see, we still may have to be on guard as to other possibilities.

In joining anciently mentioned individuals from various artifactual sources which were not found together and hale from a wide range of locations caution is indicated for we know that ancient Egyptians often named a child after a grandfather or grandmother. How the conventional chronology collides with their scheme to bridge Ramses II and III is shown by the following:

"Question: Is the mayor of Year 8 the same as the mayor of Yr 3 of Ramses IV? Mayor Amenmose was maternal uncle to Amenemipet and therefore brother of Nefertiry.

Nefertiry was the maternal granddaughter of the high priest Bakenkhons and his wife Meretseger. Therefore her brother, mayor Amenmose, must be a grandson of Bakenkhons and Meretseger. The name Meretseger was found in the tomb of Ramses II and this Bakenkhons must be the celebrated high priest Bakenkhons of Ramses II. time.

Year 8 problem: Time between RII and RIII assumed to be about 30 yrs. Adding years of Merenptah, Amenmesse, SetiII, Siptah and Twosert (10+4+6+8+2=30 years) +7 or 17 yrs of RII and 31 yrs of RIII, mayor Amenmose would be between 71-81 yrs of age in yr 3 of RIV. Year 8 cannot refer to reign of RV. so mayor Amenmose would have to survive to a theoretical 89 to 99 yrs of age, unlikely but possible. Therefore the mayor Amenmose of Year 8 must be distinguished from the mayor Amenmose of year 3 of Ramses IV and his presence cannot be used to date the graffito 1860a more exactly."

This chronological setup therefore may hide some further problems and it seems to us, we should not solely rely on this construction.
He (Neferhotep) is also known to have survived well into the early years of Ramesses II's reign, when his son Nebnefer was old enough to be a workman.
[M. Bierbrier: The Late New Kingdom in Egypt, (Warminster, 1975), p. 21.] 		Of the Neferhotep of the time of Amenhotep III it is said he was the, `Oberster Schreiber des Amun Viehaufseher (Chief scribe of Amun and overseer of cattle)'; of the Neferhotep of the time of Horemheb it is said he was a , `Priester und Wahrsager (Priest and prophet/fortune teller)'. So, was this Neferhotep the same person? [From: http://www.manetho.de/nekropolen/theben/graeber.htm]

Their functions, according to this information, seem to me to be dissimilar unless he changed courier like, we believe, Horemheb did.
The Neferhotep family seems to have been on good terms with the Scribe of the Necropolis Ramose, since both Neferhotep and his son Nebnefer are shown in the decoration of Ramose's tomb.
[Bruyère, op. cit., p. 62 for tomb of Ramose.] 		later
The Scribe Ramose is well attested from dated ostraca, and from these it can be shown that his career was spent between the 5th and 38th years of the reign of Ramesses II.
[Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 122, n. 10.] 		In our revision Ramses' II. sole reign lasted for some 39 years, 609-569 BC.

But we need the source data on this ostraca. There was a Ramose in the days of Ramses II, not a unique name though, he may have been Necharomas or at least acquainted with him.
Nebnefer succeeded his father as Chief Workman, and probably survived until the 66th year of an unnamed pharaoh, who, because of his very high regnal date, must be Ramesses II.
[Cerný, loc. cit., p. 252.] 		`probably', may be `un-probably'?
In that year Nebnefer's son, named Neferhotep after his paternal grandfather, took over the office of Chief Workman. An ostracon dated to the 2nd year of the reign of Merenptah names Neferhotep* in office [Cerný: Ostraca hiératiques (Catalogue général du Musée du Caire), No. 25573, and Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 122, n. 18], and he appears again in the census list of workmen of the first year of Seti II.
[Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 22] 		There appears to have been a number of years (8?) Merenptah later would regard as a period of coreign. We read: "It happened .......... he [assumed] the throne of Horus, he was appointed to preserve the folk alive, he has arisen as king to protect the people. There was might in him to do it, because of ........ in ....... Meber, the choicest of his bowmen were mustered, his chariotry was brought up from every side, his scouts were in ........... ." [Breasted, Records, Vol. III, Sec. 578]

Judging by the words `appointed', `he has arisen' such a period of corule with his famous father, which existing inscriptions of Merenptah do not seem to mention, could be quite possible. If that is so the 2nd year could fall in the time of his coreign too.

*)Provided the reading of `Neferhotep' is plain and not based on assumptions.
But when the next surviving census list was compiled in Seti II's 5th year, a new man named Paneb had appeared as Chief Workman. The 5th year of Seti II may indicate co-functions with his predecessor prior to his demise.
The disappearance of Neferhotep during the reign of Seti II and the seizing of his office seems to have been only one deed in the criminal career of Paneb. It is from the famous Salt Papyrus that we learn something of the character of Paneb and the activities in which he was involved. The Salt Papyrus is a petition drawn up by Neferhotep's younger brother, Amennakht, enumerating the crimes of Paneb and listing the names of his accomplices.
[On the relationships of the Neferhotep family members, see Cerný, op. cit. note 2, pp. 251-253, and Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 122, n. 19]
Since the office of Chief Workman had become hereditary at this time, Amennakht felt that he had the first right to his brother's position. Paneb, however, seems to have been a rich man, and it is stated in the papyrus that he gave five servants of Amennakht's father (Nebnefer) to the Vizier, and by means of this bribe secured his office.
[Pap. Salt 124 (B.M.10055), I.3. See JEA 15 (1929), p.244 & pl. XLII]

His other crimes included beating up workmen who were on night-shift, insulting the Vizier, making false oaths, stealing tools from the village supply, threatening to murder one of his foremen called Hay, robbing tombs, and various sexual offenses, which were also indulged in by his henchmen, who included his son A'apahte. Paneb also seems to have instigated a personal vendetta against the whole Neferhotep family, of which his murder was most probably a part.

[*!* Image: Photo: One side of a reconstructed ostracon from Deir el-Medineh (Cairo 25521) Cerný , J., Quelques ostraca hiératiques inédits de Thèbes au Musée du Caire, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte 27 (1927), 183-210. Transcription, translation and commentary of O. Cairo 25521, 25556, 25559 and 25608. ]

The Salt Papyrus, which provides us with this glimpse of village life, was published in 1929 by JAROSLAV CERNY. Cerný was one of the first scholars to recognise the importance of material from Deir el-Medineh, and his contribution to our understanding of the Egyptian language and its palaeography is enormous.

After a lifetime's study of this material he had an insight into the workings of the Egyptian mind which inspired many of his writings. 		`A lifetime's study', that indicates to me that it was not easily transliterated, much less translated, and its meaning not that cut and dry but must have included much theory.
His interpretation of the Salt Papyrus placed its composition at the very end of the XIXth Dynasty or the earliest years of the XXth.
We can see from inscriptions published since that time that the career of Paneb can be traced from the 66th year of Ramesses II to the 6th year of Ramesses III.
[Cairo Ostracon 25237 (for Yr. 66 of Ramesses II) and Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 23 (for Yr. 6 of Ramesses III)] 		This scenario I have not yet investigated enough with revised dates in mind. One would have to critically analyze the texts themselves if they actually name Paneb and either of the Ramesses together on the inscriptions, a scenario I have at this time difficulty to envision since it would be so unique. Another explanation could be that as a workman Paneb referred to something constructed during the reign of Ramses II in order to make a point on what he needed to do during his constructions for Ramses III. So, unless the text is well preserved and readable and leaves no room for other explanations this conventional scenario is not fixed yet. I really doubt that such a link can be made between Ramses II & III.

While I do have a copy of Cairo Ostracon 25235 I have not yet been able to obtain `O Cairo 25237'. If O Cairo 25235 is a guide at all these ostraca are very damaged with partial lines and comments on choices of hieroglyphic/hieratic signs. To find complete names and years in there in complete sentences or lines of thought, would be more than amazing. So overall the chronological significance of these sources seems often to be overstated. Without the scrutinizing agreement of a revisionist I would not put stock in these assertions by Egyptologists.
Amennakht too is known from dated ostraca, from the reigns of Seti II, Amenmesse, Siptah and possibly Ramesses III. Ostraca are pieces of sherds with cryptic writing. The question is, did Amennakht sign his name to all these sherds or was it based on style to attribute them to him?
In order to place these people correctly within this period, it is necessary to date the Salt Papyrus properly. Fortunately, it seems to have been successful in its main aim, to remove Paneb from office as retribution for his crimes, so it is highly likely that it dates from the end of his term of office. From as late as the 29th year of Ramesses III we have an ostracon on which a son of Paneb refers to an investigation of his father carried out by the Vizier Hori.
[JEA 15 (1929), p. 256]
The vizier of Upper Egypt was the chairman of the Great Qenbet, or High Court in Thebes, as well as Governor of Upper Egypt, and it was his duty to hear all cases brought before the law.
[N. de G. Davies: The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes (New York, 1943), I, pp.88-94; and J. H. Breasted: Ancient Records of Egypt II, secs. 671ff]

The succession of viziers is fairly well known at this period, and Hori was in office from the 1st year of the reign of Siptah until the early part of Ramesses III's reign.
[Weill: `Die Wesire des Pharaonenreiches' (Strasbourg, 1908), pp. 109-111 & 113] 		I doubt the accuracy and/or reliability of this statement on the span of time for Hori very much. It implies easy interpretation of these sources which I do not agree with.

In the revision the time from Ramses II (609-569) to Siptah (Seti II Merenptah) (525) would be in the range from ca. 70-40 years.

However, if the Siptah of the three brothers is meant, the spread of years is from ca. 720 (Siptah) to 375 BC (Ramses III). Of course Hori could not have lived that long. In Velikovsky's chronology there was a Ramses-Siptah (1 year), Twosre (3?), Merneptah-Siptah (6), and the brothers Sethos andArmais/Horemheb who opposed each other. These Egyptian native rulers bridge the time from the end of the 22nd Dynasty to the Ethiopian when the Assyrians influenced things. Their span of time could be spoken of as an `Intermediate Period'. `Hori' does not sound as a unique name and there must have been a number of men bearing that name.

For more info click here.

I am unable to find a copy of Weill's book, `Die Wesire des Pharaonenreiches' here but am trying to get copies from the University Library of Heidelberg.
Another ostracon dated to the 6th year of an unnamed king mentions on one side the killing of a Chief Workman, and on the other the name of the Vizier Hori. [Cerný: Ostraca, N.L., No.697]
It is of course impossible to prove beyond doubt that both sides of this ostracon are contemporary, but the handwriting on both sides is similar and may belong to the same scribe. ...ok
Since Paneb is named as Chief Workman in an inscription dated in the 8th year of Queen Tawosret, [Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 123, n. 31], the last ruler of the XIXth Dynasty,
and Setnakht survived only two years on the throne, the king whose 6th year has just been mentioned must in all probability be Ramesses III.
It therefore seems likely that Paneb was tried for his offenses in the 6th year of Ramesses III, and that the Vizier Hori was not as susceptible to bribes as was his predecessor under Seti II since Paneb and his son A'apahte have both vanished from the records when the next lists of workmen are seen, dating from the 11th year of Ramesses III. In that year, the office of Chief Workman has passed into another family.
[*!* image: Both sides of an ostracon from Deir el-Medineh (Cairo Museum Catalogue No. 25678)]
The new Chief Workman was a man named Nekhemmut. He is first attested as a workman in the first year of the reign of King Amenmesse, and he is seen again in the reign of Siptah.
[Ibid, p. 32]
Nekhemmut was old enough to have had a son, Khons, who is mentioned among the offenders in the Salt Papyrus. But Khons must have been cleared of all charges, since he followed his father in office as Chief Workman in the 16th year of Ramesses III.
[Papyrus Deir el-Medineh 26, in Allam: Ostraca, No.271, pp. 297-301 & pl. 92, 1. 9]
Nekhemmut is known to have lived under Ramesses III from a number of other sources, among which is an important stele from Deir el-Medineh dated by Ramesses III's cartouche.
[For the stela see Bruyère, Meret Seger, p. 14; for its importance in identifying this Nekhemmut, see Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 32]
It is possible by means of the complex data from Deir el-Medineh to trace the family of Nekhemmut back to its earliest recorded member: `complex data' indicates they are not beyond a reasonable doubt? In these kind of analysis data are usually fitted toward one outcome and not written in comparative form.
...the well-known workman Sennedjem, son of Khabekhnet, whose tomb, No. 1 in the Theban necropolis, is well-preserved and one of the most beautifully decorated of all the Deir el Medineh tombs.
[Tomb No. 1: see P.M. I, i (1960), pp. 1-5 & plan on p. 2] 		.........ok
Sennedjem began his career as a workman under either Horemheb or Ramesses I, since his sons Khabekhnet and Khons are attested as workmen early in the reign of Ramesses II. In the revision the start of his time in office would be more likely under Seti (I) the Great.
The tomb of the Scribe of the Necropolis Ramose, whose historical importance we have encountered above, provides another useful link in that Sennedjem's two sons, Khabekhnet and Khons, appear in its decoration [Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 30. 21], which we know dates to before the 38th year of Ramesses II.
In Sennedjem's own tomb, Khons's children, that is to say Sennedjem's grandchildren, are depicted as young men, so Sennedjem must have begun his career at the earliest possible date - under Horemheb, and he must have been a contemporary of the first Neferhotep. Khons is mentioned in the 40th year of Ramesses II [Cerný and Gardiner: Ostraca, pl. LXXXIV 1.10 ], when he was a very old man, and his son and grandson, Nekhemmut and another Khons respectively, are listed under Merenptah.
[Bierbrier, op. cit., p. 32] 		This scenario can also be entirely explained using revised chronological data and present no proof either way.
The Nekhemmut who was appointed Chief Workman after the demise of Paneb must have been the son of the second Khons since he is shown with his father in the first year of Amenmesse, as mentioned above.

[*!* image: Painting in the tomb of Pashedu at Deir el-Medineh, showing the generations of the owner's family, with his father shown as an elderly, white-haired man at top right]

Cerný's statement about the dating of the Salt Papyrus, made in 1929, has been borne out by a great body of literature unpublished at that time, and some of it then still undiscovered.
The intrigues surrounding Paneb's tenure of office link him inextricably with the closing years of the XIXth Dynasty and the beginning of the XXth. The Salt Papyrus is not translated without restorations. Sometimes sign groups are inserted to finish a sentence which either seem too long or too short for the space they are supposed to fit in. That leaves an uneasy chance for error. Of the word `P3 hrwi' Cerny says: `It is hardly a foreign enemy, for this would presuppose an occupation of Thebes by a hostile army; rather a personal enemy of Neferhotep is alluded to, and perhaps Peneb is meant after all, in which case Neferhotep might be one of the men who are stated to have been killed by Peneb.'

On the other hand if a foreign enemy (Persians?) was meant how would that affect the interpretation of the papyrus? Well, then Neferhotep would have been killed by foreign enemies or their representatives and not by Paneb. Other then that it does not seem to affect the meaning of the text a whole lot. It appears of this word for `enemy(ies)' only the first glyph of a crouching man with raised arms survived.
The families of Neferhotep, his younger brother Amennakht who takes up the case in the courts, and of Nekhemmut, who replaces Paneb as Chief Workman, are all well-documented in the literature from Deir el-Medineh, and the incidents in which the family members took part are dated through their lives according to which ruler was on the throne at the time.
Individuals are not known once only: they appear on hundreds of ostraca and papyri often referring to identical events and situations.
The 67-year-long reign of Ramesses II enables a number of texts containing only dates without royal names to be attributed to him when they exceed the known limits of all other rulers of the period. In the revision Seti I and Amasis reigned for a longer time than Ramses II but that is not well documented. Nevertheless, I would want to keep that in mind. Ramses usurped the reignal years of his father especially during his later reign. Ramses II makes statements like [Vol. III, Sec. 259]: "I have done things according to [his] doing. I repeat for thee monuments in the necropolis, I double offerings for thy ka." "He repeated the restoration of the monuments of his father, which are in the cemetery, making his name live, etc. ... erecting the ruins in the seat of his father..." He finished constructions of former kings and his father (Sec. 260, 262).
Even though these references relate to the gods, the kings and thereby Seti I were also gods, and while the inscriptions mention gods by name, they, in a double application, also relate to the real god person of his father. Ramses II inscriptions relate frequently to his father whom he apparently held in high regard and we should not be surprised that, when Ramses finished constructions his father had begun, he also considered it his right to usurp the regnal years of his father as his own.
And the earliest members of these two families, Neferhotep and Sennedjem (the former in particular), link the reign of Horemheb and the XVIIIth Dynasty with the reigns of the XIXth Dynasty, without any intervening years. See above comments on Seti II.
A similar condition can be observed in the transition from the XIXth to the XXth Dynasty. If an interregnum had occurred then, the workmen first attested under Ramesses II, Merenptah and Seti II would all have been extremely old men by the time they ended their lives in the later years of Ramesses III. [For arguments against an interregnum, see Bierbrier, op. cit., p.28]. If the hundred years proposed by Dr Velikovsky had taken place, none of them would have been alive at all. Disagree to this link since at the end of it all they have to introduce a 2nd individual to make it all fit. That tells me that something may be out of line and even though a name like `Neferhotep' is mentioned in various sources, we cannot be always sure it is the same person and not a son, grandson or cousin, etc.
On page 81 of Peoples of the Sea Dr Velikovsky states of the Ramesside rulers following Ramesses III that "it is ... generally agreed that no link is known between [them]". This is an inaccurate statement for Velikovsky states, "It is, however, generally agreed that no link is known between Ramses III and VIII and those who go under the names Ramses IX to XI, and that therefore there is no evidence of their following the line from Ramses III to Ramses VIII." p. 81.

In other words, no link could so far be made between RIII-VIII to RIX-XI. The break is between VIII and IX and in fact M.L.Bierbrier does also not provide information for such a link in his article `A Second High Priest Ramessesnakht?', JEA 58, p. 195.
Numerous pieces of evidence show, however, that these kings were linked in various ways. In the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology for 1972, Dr. Kitchen published an article entitled "Ramesses VII and the Twentieth Dynasty", in which he showed, by a masterly treatment of all the available textual evidence, the true relationships of the kings of the XXth Dynasty (excluding Setnakht).
[K. A. Kitchen in JEA 58 (1972), pp. 182-194] 		The links cover the time from Ramses III to VIII, not after. Any of these articles are not without assumptions on the part of the author.
In the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu there is preserved a scene showing a procession of princes, all of whom were sons or grandsons of Ramesses III. [JEA 58 (1972), pp. 182-5. ] Above each one the successive rulers from Ramesses IV to Ramesses VIII have added their cartouches as they ascended the throne. Dr. Velikovsky's assertion that "there is no evidence of their following the line from Ramesses III to Ramesses VIII" is thus false, especially since we possess a door-jamb from Deir el-Medineh on which Ramesses VII, in a dedication to his royal predecessor, names Ramesses VI in that role as his father.
[Bruyère, op. cit. note 2, p. 92, sec. 6] 		See above, Velikovsky does not deny the relations from RIII to VIII. The author of this article misunderstood his statement.
Ramesses V is glossed over by Dr Velikovsky, even though a number of important documents date from his reign, including the famous Wilbour Papyrus, which records four consecutive surveys of fields between the Fayyûm and the modern town of el-Minyeh, about ninety miles along the river.
Ramesses VII and VIII, who Dr Velikovsky says "were mere pretenders who left no marks in history except for their claims to the throne," are both monumentally attested. Ramesses VII reigned for at least seven years and dedicated temples at Tanis and Heliopolis, and his position as son and successor of Ramesses VI has been demonstrated by Dr Kitchen.
Ramesses VIII is known to have reigned for at least one year from a graffito in the tomb of Kyenebu at Thebes [Tomb No. 113: see P.M. I, i (1960), pp. 230-231. For the reign of Ramesses VIII see also Berlin stela 2081 of Hori, from Abydos], and he was probably a half-brother of Ramesses VI.
All the Ramesside rulers are known from documents from Deir el-Medineh, and they all have great importance in the economic history of Egypt during the late New Kingdom.
The reigns of Ramesses IX, X and XI are known from the documents referring to workmen's strikes, and Ramesses XI is well attested in the dated papyri recording trials of certain workmen and officials for offences connected with tomb robbery. The author fails to address the issue: can these rulers (IX-XI) be linked to the family tree of Ramses III? Velikovsky states they cannot be linked and I haven't seen any paper yet able to do so.
With this in mind, we shall now turn to some of the Egyptian texts used by Dr Velikovsky to support his view on Egyptian chronology. One of these is the letter of Wermai. This papyrus has just received a full and distinguished treatment by RICARDO CAMINOS, which was published last year under the title A Tale of Woe.
[Ricardo Caminos: A Tale of Woe (Oxford, 1977). The official designation of the text is Papyrus Pushkin I, B. 127.E]

Wermai's letter is undated but it was found in a jar together with two other very important documents, one of which was the account of Wenamun's voyage to Byblos. We shall return to that below. Wermai addresses his letter to his friend, who is a royal scribe at the Court (not necessarily at Herakleopolis [For the significance of Herakleopolis in this text see Caminos, op. cit., p13], as Dr Velikovsky says it was), and asks him to petition a certain benefactor, who remains unnamed throughout the text. Wermai is living in the Khargah Oasis, and he describes a village whose inhabitants are terrorised by the rule of an unscrupulous mayor, whose private army marauds the local countryside. The letter is a description of an impoverished and misruled country district. 		Unless we know where this `court' and the village was it is difficult to come to conclusions.
However, the reason for these conditions is not, as Dr Velikovsky asserts, the arrival in Egypt of the tyrant Cambyses, king of Persia. No foreigner is mentioned in the text. The text may be ambiguous at this point but civil strife can be related to events happening in more distant locations due to lack of supplies and/or for other related reasons.

Therefore we believe foreign influence cannot be ruled out entirely.
The troubles related by Wermai are descriptive of a civil disturbance from which the King has just emerged victorious, not an international invasion. See above: Unless of course these disturbances were the result of a distant foreign invasion due to supply problems etc.
A wider knowledge of Egyptian literature shows that the saviour whom Wermai begs his friend at court to petition on his behalf is none other than the Pharaoh himself, who is known universally throughout Egyptian literature as "the good god". Of course problems caused by foreigners can make the local rulers appear as `good' in comparison. Therefore this reasoning is applicable to many scenarios.
The connotations of such a title regarding the King's immanent beneficence are obvious. The study of Egyptian palaeography is no longer in its infancy. Caminos has given a long list of individual peculiarities among the hieratic signs of Wermai's letter that point, in his opinion, to a date at the beginning of the XXIInd Dynasty. We are not contesting that but we remain cautious nevertheless. For research without criticism is often subject to later criticism. Many times on issues of this nature the last word may still be outstanding. Therefore, conventionalists and revisionists have to be continually on guard.
The text we have is a copy of the original, and it is clear from the style of the handwriting that all three documents found in this cache were copied by the same scribe. Such statements on paleographic issues by one scholar would have more validity when others agree to his results as long as they are not doing so only for reasons of unity among themselves. But it may be `clear' from the standpoint of this one scholar.
In order to give further credence to Caminos' dating on calligraphic grounds, we must consider the site of the text's discovery and then the story of Wenamun. El-Hibeh is situated in Middle Egypt and seems to have served as a boundary between north and south. Shoshenq I and Osorkon I, the first two rulers of the XXIInd Dynasty, are known to have built a fortress with a temple dedicated to the local god, Amun-of-the-crag, and these are the earliest large-scale constructions so far revealed by excavation at the site. ok
The reason for depositing these documents in the archive of El-Hibeh is unknown, but it is certain that the town served an important administrative purpose at this time.
[A. H. Gardiner: Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1961), pp. 330 - 333. See also Kitchen: The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (Warminster, 1972), p. 248, n. 32] 		ok
The story of Wenamun is the only one of the three texts to bear a date, which is given as "Year 5, 4th month of summer, Day 6" and belongs to the new era known as the "Repetition of Births" or, in Egyptian whm msw.t.
[Papyrus Moscow 120. See Korostovtsev: Puteshestvye Un-amuna v Bibl (Moscow, 1960) and H. Goedicke: The Report of Wenamun (Johns Hopkins U.P., 1975). Hieroglyphic transcription of the text in fun in Gardiner's Late-Egyptian Stories (Brussels, 1932).] 		ok
Five references occur on papyri from Thebes to this new system of dating, and a number of graffiti at Deir el-Medineh are dated by it. Sources?
The clue to its meaning is to be found in two notes written on the back of the Abbott Papyrus listing culprits charged with tomb robbery. These are both dated "Year 1, 1st month of inundation, Day 2, corresponding to Year 19" [Abbott dockets: T. E. Peet: Great Tomb Robberies ... I, pp. 128-9, 131ff.] The hand is that of a late Ramesside scribe, the list of tomb robbers is known to belong to the reign of Ramesses XI, and he is the only ruler known to have survived nineteen years on the throne at this period. Where is the clue to `Reptition of Births?' Inundation, how is that related to `Repetition of Births'?
A link is therefore established between the voyage of Wenamun, the new era, Repetition of Births, and the reign of Ramesses XI, who was the last ruler of the XXth Dynasty. Wenamun must have set out in the 23rd year of Ramesses XI if the above reasoning is correct. Thus the historical importance of the new era is emerging.

[*!* image: A page from the letter of Wermai, showing the excellent state of preservation of much of the text] 		Local farming communities, no doubt, would interpret such new concepts in their own way which may differ from what those understand who are connected to foreign affairs in the capital.(?)
The later years of the XXth Dynasty were a period of feverish activity in the Theban necropolis. The scandals involving officials high up in the government connected with the violation of royal burials are well known. ok
In the Valley of the Kings desperate attempts were being made to secure the burials of the venerated Empire Pharaohs, and each successive rewrapping of the mummies and renewal of their battered funerary equipment was noted on dockets on the wooden coffins. ok
Notes on the coffins of Seti I and Ramesses II state that they were reburied under the High Priest of Amun, Herihor, and the date given is Year 6 of the new era.
[Kitchen, op. cit., sec. 210 (p. 252)] 		But the ruler is not named and so it depends which chronology one follows in determining candidates for the application of Year 6.
Herihor's accession to the High-Priesthood was accompanied by oracles proclaiming Amun's blessing and the god's promise of a long term of office, and these are recorded on stelae at Karnak dated by the cartouches of Ramesses XI.
[Ibid, §209 & n. 33.] 		Our revision brings these Herihor and Ramses XI together.
Herihor is known to have been High Priest for only six years despite the holy blessing, and his son and successor in office, Payankh, is shown in a relief at Karnak dedicating the new barque of Amun in the seventh year of the Repetition of Births.
[Goedicke, op. cit., pp. 6-7.] 		The seventh year of which potentate? What if the potentate was a foreign king?
Presumably, it was for the timber to construct this new barque that Wenamun set out for Byblos two years before. It seems very likely that the whm msw.t was an era inaugurated by Herihor to date events falling within the period of his High-Priesthood and the kingship of Upper Egypt which he announced when he took office.
[Herihor's "kingship" appears only on the walls of the temples at Karnak, however, and on the family's funerary equipment. In ordinary administrative documents he remains High Priest, Vizier, Viceroy (Nubia), but never King. See Kitchen, op. cit. note 31, sec. 210 with nn. 41 &42.] 		ok
Wenamun presented his credentials to King Smendes in Tanis, demonstrating that although Ramesses XI was still alive he functioned only as nominal head of state.

A firm historical link is made between the era, Repetition of Births, the reign of Ramesses XI and the beginning of the XXIst Dynasty under Smendes. 		Can't see a problem with this at this time.
Dr Velikovsky's proposal that the XXIst Dynasty began at about the time of the beginning of the XXXth Dynasty therefore cannot rely on historical evidence for support. The 21st Dynasty began during the time of Arsames, the Persian satrap. Ramses IX and XI belong before and in the time of Herihor, long before Ramses III.
Two further epigraphic considerations demonstrate that Dr Velikovsky's views are not based on any first-hand knowledge of the Egyptian language. Rather, they result from his acceptance of old and outdated translations, archaeologists' mistakes and an inadequate knowledge of the Egyptological bibliography. Any book may experience these situations including conventional books.
On pages 88-89 of Peoples of the Sea, we read that Ramesses III can be identified with Nectanebo I of the XXXth Dynasty on the grounds that they both share the same title: Nectaneb or Nekht-a-neb, recorded by BUDGE in 1908. Also recorded by Gauthier.
Budge's copy of Ramesses III's titles is inaccurate. This has been widely appreciated since 1963, when the Oriental Institute of Chicago published the correct versions of all Ramesses III's titles, with translations, as a result of their survey of the Medinet Habu temple complex. But why are you not documenting the more accurate source of this statement?

I take exception to this and present the names of Ramses III here and of Si-Amon here.
The title nekhi-'a / neb khepesh, meaning "strong arm; possessor of power", used by Ramesses III, could not possibly be confused with the totally different name of the pharaoh Nectanebo II, Nakht'ranebef when examined in its original version. I disagree that it is totally different. However, one conventional `Nectanebo' is Nekhthorheb whose name is totally different from `Nekh(t)aneb'/Ramses IV.
The individuality of both these rulers and the length of time which really elapsed between them are demonstrated by numerous observations. But where are the records of the Persian satraps in Egypt? That is the issue which then also needs to be answered if convention was right.
Among them is the architecture of the two reigns, which Dr Velikovsky examines. Ramesses III is well known for his temples at Karnak and Medinet Habu. These belong emphatically to the tradition of New Kingdom building, while Nectanebo I's surviving monuments at Philae and Luxor contain elements unknown before the Late Period, such as complex floral column capitals and broken lintels over doorways. Disagree, they emphatically belong to the tastes and preferences of their builders and whose architecture they wanted to imitate.
One last inscription may be cited to show that the revised chronology cannot stand up to the scrutiny advised in the opening of this paper. This is on the walls of the tomb of [hieroglyphics] in the Siwa Oasis. The decoration of the tomb is completely in keeping with styles derived from the strong Hellenistic influence present in Egypt during the last four centuries BC, as Dr Velikovsky reads in AHMED FAKHRY's account of the tomb.
[A. Fakhry: The Oases of Egypt, Vol. I: Siwa Oasis (Cairo, 1973), pp. 190-206 with figs. 70-81.]

The plates reproduced by Dr Velikovsky from Fakhry display these "Greek" features very well. But to suggest that this is a royal tomb is to leap over most of the available material without making any pertinent observations at all. 		Yes, Velikovsky should have been more thoroughly on this.

But where he failed to document we are trying to fill the gap and here it is!
The view that it belonged to the Pharaoh Siamun of the XXIst Dynasty ignores all that we know about that king, and shows that Dr Velikovsky has read only Fakhry's English text and not the Egyptian in the decoration shown in the plates. Siamun is the most fully documented of all the rulers of the XXIst Dynasty, and inscriptions from both Upper Egypt and the Delta enable us to see the activities of individuals who lived during his reign.
[Kitchen, op. cit. note 31, sec. 232 - 6.] 		In reality, however, the time of Si-Amon is very poorly documented by way of his monuments, images, constructions and inscriptions. They don't exist today except for scant inscriptions of his name.
The opening years of Siamun's reign are marked by documents which tell of the breath of scandal hanging over the administrators of the estates of Amun at Thebes. These are the few pitiful sources dating to the time of Si Amon by. But what else has convention to offer? Reading about the 21st Dynasty, more often then not, the gilded funerary mask of Psusennes comes up, the Book of the Dead but very little or nothing on Si-Amon. And he was supposed to have been alive in the days of King Solomon.
Year 10 of Siamun's reign saw drastic upheavals in the Theban necropolis, when the bodies of the revered Amunhotep I, Ramesses I, Ramesses II and Seti I were removed for the last time and lodged with thirty other bodies of the royal families of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties in the tomb of Psusenes III at Deir el-Bahri. This indicates late period times.

Martin Sieff asks the question already posed by J. Korbach: `If, according to Velikovsky, Si-Amon lived almost 500 years later, in early Ptolemaic times, why were not the Twenty-sixth Saite Dynasty, and later local rulers, also included, as Joshua Korbach has pointed out?' [Joshua Korbach, "Dirkzwager's Revision Questioned." C&AH, V:2, 95-102]

The answer to this question escaped Mr. Sieff for the 26th Dynasty kings are the same as the 19th Dynasty and they were also in this tomb.
Siamun also built on a large scale at Tanis and Heliopolis, and at Memphis he inaugurated a temple with over half-a-dozen stone columns and doorways dedicated to Amun, Lord of Lapis-lazuli. The evidence at Tanis and Heliopolis we shall collect and present later. Half a dozen are 6 columns. Well, not bad, not good.
This structure was supervised by the veteran High Priest of Ptah in Memphis, Pipi, who had adopted the prenomen of Siamun Netcherkheperre-Meryptah, in honour of, his sovereign. Siamun was a pharaoh who ruled from his capital at Tanis, with the full titulary of a King of Upper and Lower Egypt; he was not a "priest king", as Dr Velikovsky describes him. While Siamun does not overtly hold royal regalia, he has pictured himself overshadowed by the hovering vulture indicating royal status. To better appreciate his career we might have to be more discerning and consider a more unusual royal/political arrangement for him. We know that Alexander visited Siwa. That should underscores the importance of the oasis perhaps mostly because of its oracle, perhaps also for other reasons not well understood today.
The man shown in the decoration of the Siwa Oasis tomb did not possess the same name as the Pharaoh Siamun. Fakhry has read the hieroglyphic group [hieroglyphics] as Si-amon, providing the vowel a to aid modern pronunciation.

When written vertically [Fakhry, op. cit., fig. 70.], the name is clearly seen to be formed of two distinct groups,[hieroglyphics] and [hieroglyphics], and nowhere is there a determinative indicating that it is the name of the god Amun incorporated into the name. The most common form of the name of the Pharaoh Siamun is written [hieroglyphics] [**)], with the prefix nsw "king" and the name of the god Amun placed first in the cartouche in keeping with the practice of honorific transposition. The obvious conclusion is that these are the names of two very distinct individuals, whose names have different meanings.

[*!* Image: photos: Left: Mortuary Temple of Ramesses at Medinet Habu: the columns on the south side of the first court and part of the second pylon. Right: the first court of the Temple of Isis at Philae. The floral capitals and general style of this Late-Ptolemaic temple demonstrate none of the similarities with the buildings of Ramesses III implied in Velikovsky's superficial assessment of Egyptian architecture] 		Well, similar arguments could be made on the names of other kings which we know where one king, i.e. Ramses II.
References:
**)For various forms of the titulary and name of Siamun, see H. Gauthier: Livre des Rois ... III, pp. 294-7. The widespread provenances of this king's inscriptions demonstrate the extent of his rule over all Egypt: for Memphis see Petrie and Walker: Memphis, I (1909), pl.XXXI & p.l2; Memphis, II, pl.XIX & p.18; for Tanis see Petrie: Tanis, II, pp. 12 & 29; and pl. VIII, No. 146; for Karnak see Legrain in Rec. Trav. XXII (1900), p. 61, No. 33; for burials of High Priests at Western Thebes see Daressy in Revue archéologique (1896) I, pp. 77-79 and Ann. Serv. VIII (1907), p. 35.

Various abbreviated writings occur, especially on scarabs: see Hall: ... Scarabs in the British Museum I, pp. 239-240, Nos. 2381-2394 also Newberry: Scarabs, pl. XXXVI, No. 34, and PSBA XXII (1900), pl. VII, No. 131 and XXIII (1901), p. 25; never do we read [*!* Image hieroglyphics]. The use of [hieroglyphics] for [hieroglyphics] s3 also occurs: see B.M. 1470, from Memphis.
The manipulation of dynasties undertaken by Dr Velikovsky overlooks the continuity of archaeological and linguistic development which finds comfortable accommodation within the framework of the existing chronology. Indeed, many of the developments in art and architecture can be used to build up a picture corroborating the historical sequence which Dr Velikovsky seeks to overthrow.

His own proposals find little support from the detailed data available for study in the field of Egyptology, because they display blatantly the shortcomings which I hope I have outlined in this paper. In recent years the treatment given to Egyptian history by a number of scholars has changed dramatically some of the previously poorly-charted areas, such as the First Intermediate Period and the late New Kingdom and subsequent periods. If every scrap of available evidence indicates that a reappraisal of the history of ancient Egypt is necessary, then there is no reason to refuse to alter our views quite drastically. Dr Velikovsky's proposals are not presented in a way which is sufficiently convincing, however, and cannot expect the acceptance of the majority of Egyptologists.

[*!* image: The avenue of sphinxes leading to the temple of Ramesses II at Luxor and erected by Nectanebo I] 		In the same way Mr. Gammon studiosly avoids the crux of the problem and that is the `plst'/`prst' issue. We think we have shown fairly well that these `plst'/`prst' were the Persians and not Philistines. For details click Here! Along the same line of thought the art of Ramses III also betrays ties to Persian art motifs and these again probably influence from earlier kings as we show Here!

Did Sir Flinders Petrie miss the boat?
For details click Here!

Michael Jones and "Peoples of the Sea": Some clarifying comments. In his paper, Michael Jones appears to have misunderstood the arguments put forward by Dr Velikovsky in Peoples of the Sea on three important matters. This has led him in each case to set up a straw man and knock him down, by taking the author to task for something he has not written.

First, Mr Jones quotes Dr Velikovsky as claiming on page 81 of Peoples of the Sea that "it is ... generally agreed that no link is known" between Ramesses III and the Ramesside rulers following him and, moreover, that "there is no evidence for their following the line from Ramses IV to Ramses VIII." He then proceeds to give evidence for links between Ramesses III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII as though Velikovsky had argued against them. But what Velikovsky actually wrote was: "It is, however, generally agreed that no link is known between Ramses III to VIII and those who go under the names of Ramses IX to XI, and that therefore there is no evidence of their following the line from Ramses III to Ramses VIII." (My italics)

Secondly, Jones devotes considerable space to establishing the links between Ramesses XI, who is generally regarded as the last ruler of Dynasty XX, and the first rulers of Dynasty XXI, the High Priest of Amun Herihor and Nesubanebded (Smendes) at Tanis. These are fully accepted by Dr Velikovsky, whose main difference with the conventional view is that he places Ramesses IX and XI before rather than after Ramesses III to VIII.

Finally, Jones implies that Dr Velikovsky claimed in Peoples of the Sea that the pharaoh known as Usima're'-meriamun Ramesses (III) was identical to the Nekhtnebef who is usually identified with the ruler known as Nectanebo (I) from Book XV of DIODORUS SICULUS' The Historical Library. However, while Velikovsky argues that the pharaoh known from the monuments as Ramesses III was identical to Nectanebo (I) of Diodorus, he claims on pp. 88-98 of Peoples of the Sea that the Nekhtnebef and Nekhthorheb of the monuments were not, as commonly supposed, Nectanebo I and II of Dynasty XXX, but local rulers, pekidas, who flourished under the authority of the Persian satrap Arsames during the second half of the 5th century BC.

While the author tries to valiantly debunk Velikovsky, he as well as other conventionally oriented historians do not address the issue of where the records of their `Nectanebo I & II' are which relate to their successful battles against the foreign invaders of Egypt.

This may still be a work in progress!
Crawl out of this tomb Submenu