Ramses II Re-Dated by Byblite Evidence

by

Damien F. Mackey

Whilst the conventional Sothic chronology would have pharaoh Ramses II, “the Great”,

occupying almost the entire C13th BC, the evidence would set him 500 years later than that.

 
 

The long-reigning Ramses (Rameses) II (66-67 years), often thought to have been the biblical Pharaoh of the Exodus, actually belongs to c. 800 BC according to the findings of my university thesis,

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background
 

http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

 

In arriving at this conclusion, the Byblite evidence was crucial.
 

King Ahiram of Byblos

Dr Immanuel Velikovsky, who had wisely rejected the Sothic system, and its consequent chronology for Ramses II, had tried his hand at re-locating this important 19^thdynasty pharaoh in his controversial book, Ramses II and His Time (Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1978). And, whilst I had to reject - e.g., on archaeological grounds - his late placement of Ramses II as a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar II, I was struck by Velikovsky’s compelling evidence for a later date (than conventionally) for the pharaoh based upon epigraphical evidence. I wrote about it as follows (Volume 1, Ch. 11, pp. 292-294):

Velikovsky had shown that Hebrew inscriptions pertaining to Ramses II, and also to [pharaoh] Shoshenq I, fall in a writing style that can be firmly dated stylistically between c. 850 BC and c. 700 BC (the time of Hezekiah). Now this is the very era within which, according to the Ramesside and TIP [Third Intermediate Period] model that I am - and shall be in the case of Shoshenq I -developing, that Ramses II, c. 843-776 BC must have belonged!

In his chapter [iii] “The Tomb of King Ahiram” … Velikovsky had provided strong evidence from inscriptions at the entrance to the tomb, and on the sarcophagus, of this king of Byblos, suggesting the need for a much later than conventional dating of Ramses II.

Pierre Montet he wrote, digging at Byblos in 1921, had discovered the tomb of one king Ahiram (Hiram) that his son, Ithobaal (Ethbaal), had prepared for him. A short Hebrew inscription was cut into the southern wall of the shaft leading into the burial chamber:

“Attention! Behold, thou shalt come to grief below here!”

Velikovsky told of the Ramesside connection with this Ahiram [p. 81]:

Near the entrance to the burial chamber several fragments of an alabaster vase were found, and one of them bore the name and royal nomen of Ramses II. Another fragment, also of alabaster, with Ramses II’s cartouche was in the chamber .... The scholars had to decide on the time in which King Ahiram lived. The Phoenician inscriptions on the sarcophagus did not reveal it. Montet ... assigned the tomb to the time of Ramses II, thus to the thirteenth century. He subscribed to the view that all the objects in the tomb, the Cyprian vases included, were of the time of Ramses II. But the age of the Cyprian pottery was claimed by other scholars to be that of the seventh century. Dussaud, a leading French orientalist, agreed that the tomb dated from the thirteenth century, the time of Ramses II, but he insisted that the Cyprian ware was of the seventh century.

Dussaud had concluded, based on obvious signs of intrusion and violation of the tomb,

that, in the C7th BC, tomb robbers had broken in and left pottery of their own age.

Velikovsky’s response to this was [pp. 82-83]:

Even if it were possible to explain the presence of the Cyprian vessels in the tomb of Ahiram as the work of thieves, there was something in the tomb that could not be attributed to the looters: the inscriptions. An inscription in Hebrew letters at the entrance warns against any sacrilegious act and invokes a curse on any king, soldier, or other person who should disturb the peace of the sepulchre. The other inscription, on the sarcophagus, says that a king, whose name is read Ithobaal and who speaks in the first person, built the sarcophagus for his father, Ahiram, king of Gwal (Byblos). The two inscriptions are carved in the same characters and are of one age. If the tomb was prepared in the days of Ramses II the inscriptions were written in his time. But inscriptions in Hebrew characters in the time of Ramses II, in the thirteenth century, were quite unexpected.

Velikovsky went on to tell of a hotly waged dispute ensuing upon Montet’s discovery that had not by then been concluded, and, in the process, he revealed the closeness in time between Ramses II, the Libyan dynasty, and, indeed, king Hezekiah of Judah [p. 83]:

On one side were the archaeologists, who regarded the archaeological proofs of the origin of the tomb under the Nineteenth Dynasty, or in the thirteenth century BC, as conclusive. On the other side were the epigraphists, who would not concede that the inscriptions of Ahiram’s tomb were of a period as early as the thirteenth century; they found a close similarity between these characters and the characters inscribed by Abibaal and Elibaal, Phoenician kings, on statues of their patrons, the pharaohs of the Libyan Dynasty, Shoshenq and Osorkon respectively, presumably of the tenth to the ninth centuries.

From the time the inscribed statues of Shoshenq and Osorkon came to the notice of scientists until the discovery of Ahiram’s tomb, the dedications on these statues in the names of Abibaal and Elibaal were supposed not to have been contemporaneous with the statues themselves: the letters of the dedication were intermediate between the Mesha stele letters of about -850 and the Hezekiah letters chiselled into the rock wall of a water conduit of the Shiloah spring near Jerusalem, of about -700, and must have been written between these two time points. ....

This epigraphical evidence, along with a perceived similarity between the great triumph scene of Shoshenq I at Karnak and that of Merenptah at Karnak … might perhaps suggest a far closer proximity in time between Shoshenq I and both Ramses II and his son, Merenptah, than is allowable by the conventional chronology, which has both the 20th and 21st dynasties (a span of about two to three centuries) separating Shoshenq I from these two 19th dynasty pharaohs.

Velikovsky’s observation on the archaeological dilemma presented by Ahiram’s tomb was as follows [ibid.]:

According to the conventional chronology, Ahiram, being a contemporary of Ramses II, must have lived and died almost four centuries before Shoshenq and Osorkon. In four centuries a script must have undergone considerable change. But there were no marked changes in the characters from the time of Ahiram to that of

Abibaal and Elibaal.

[End of quotes]

I returned to the Byblite evidence later on in this same chapter, in which I attempted further to re-align the above-mentioned kings of Byblos with the Ramessides, and with the TIP pharaohs Shoshenq I and Osorkon I (pp. 325-326):

The Byblite Succession

A strong reason why revisionists tend to have both Shoshenq I and his son, Osorkon I, ruling prior to the 730’s - hence militating against any possibility of revising Shoshenq I

from convention’s [biblical] ‘Shishak’ [king of Egypt] to [biblical] ‘So’ [king of Egypt], in about 725 BC - is due to their interpretation of the known connection between these 22nd dynasty pharaohs [Shoshenq I and Osorkon I] and the kings of Byblos thought to be prior to Tiglath-pileser III. I give here first of all Dirkzwager’s explanation of all this [A. Dirkzwager, ‘Pharaoh So and the Libyan Dynasty’, C and AH, vol. iii, pt., 1, p. 22-23]:

Now we will turn to more evidence on the times of Sheshonq [Shoshenq] I and Osorkon I. Statues of these pharaohs were used by kings of Byblos in Phoenicia in order to dedicate them to Baalat, the goddess of Byblos. The inscriptions of the Phoenician kings are made by Abibaal (statue of Sheshonq I) and by Elibaal (statue of Osorkon I). Elibaal is a son of Yehimilk; of Abibaal no father’s name is known. Moscati made him the predecessor of Yehimilk, whereas Albright put him between Yehimilk and Elibaal. Abibaal and Elibaal are made contemporaries of the pharaohs of the statues they used. .... For our purpose it is not very important where we place Abibaal. About Elibaal we know more: he had a son called Shipitbaal. So we have three generations of kings of Byblos: Yehimilk, Elibaal, and Shipitbaal. Abibaal must have lived somewhere before Elibaal. ....

In the annals of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III we read, in the account of the year 739, about King Sibitti-bi’li of Byblos! This Sibitti-bi’li, who is of course identical to Shipitbaal, was the son of Elibaal, the contemporary of Osorkon I.

A connection between Shipitbaal, son of Elibaal, and the Byblite king, Sibitti-bi’li,contemporary of Tiglath-pileser III, allowable according to Dirkzwager’s chronology, is one of course that cannot possibly be made in the context of the conventional scheme, according to which the Sibitti-bi’li of Tiglath-pileser’s time must be a Shipitbaal II.

From information such as Dirkzwager’s, revisionists arrive at a Byblite succession somewhat along the lines of this one given by Rohl [D. Rohl, ‘The Bubasite Portal: Evidence Against Velikovsky’s Placement of Ramesses II in the Late 7th Century’, SIS Review, vol. viii, 1986, p. 34]: … “Zikarbaal (14? years); Abibaal (14? years); Yehimilk (8? years) Elibaal (30? years) Shipitbaal (25? years)”, with the last Byblite king here being the one contemporaneous with Tiglath-pileser III. Rohl does not include in his sequence Ahiram of Byblos, whose tomb I discussed archaeologically, in a Velikovskian context, on pp. 292-294. Furthermore, not all revisionists would agree with Rohl’s view that the Byblite king, Zakar-baal [Rohl’s ‘Zikarbaal’], whom Wenamun would visit in his famous adventure, had actually preceded these other kings. (For my discussion of the era of Wenamun and Zakar-baal, see Chapter 12, 7).

If indeed, not only Shoshenq I’s, but even Osorkon I’s, contact with Byblos belonged before Tiglath-pileser III’s encounter with Sibitti-bi’li [Shipitbaal] of Byblos, in aproximately the 730’s BC, then this would definitely seem to negate the Velikovsky-based view (that I myself have also long favoured) that Shoshenq I, father of Osorkon I, could have been ‘King So of Egypt’, due to the very tight and seemingly impossible chronology (as explained by Dirkzwager above) that would require Shoshenq I as ‘So’ at c. 730 BC, but his son, Osorkon I, still before c. 739 BC. And thus we have found Sieff [M. Sieff, 1986, ‘The Libyans in Egypt: Resolving the Third Intermediate Period’, C and AH, vol. viii, 1986, pp. 29-39], who does accept the basic Byblite synchronization with the Libyan pharaohs as outlined by Dirkzwager, logically (in Sieff’s context) locating Shoshenq I to an era about half a century earlier than ‘So’. Similarly, Rohl has placed Shoshenq I and Osorkon I much earlier than the era of Tiglath-pileser III, and has instead designated Shoshenq III - as separate from Shoshenq I - as biblical‘So’. I shall be returning to this in Chapter 12, 1.

I then concluded regarding this difficult subject:

The Byblite succession in relation to the chronology of the 22nd dynasty (and its presumed link with the Old Testament for those who equate Shoshenq I with ‘So’) is certainly a problem with which I, too, have had to grapple. But with my re-dating now of Shoshenq I to c. 800 BC, then there is plenty of chronological space for he and his son, Osorkon I (still to be considered) to have reigned before Tiglath-pileser III, an older contemporary of Hezekiah.

Ramses III and Christopher Columbus

October 13, 2014

Before Columbus:

How Africans Brought Civilization to America

by GARIKAI CHENGU

 

On Monday, America’s government offices, businesses, and banks all grind to a halt in order to commemorate Columbus Day. In schools up and down the country, little children are taught that a heroic Italian explorer discovered America, and various events and parades are held to celebrate the occasion.

It has now become common knowledge amongst academics that Christopher Columbus clearly did not discover America, not least because is it impossible to discover a people and a continent that was already there and thriving with culture. One can only wonder how Columbus could have discovered America when people were watching him from America’s shores?

Contrary to popular belief, African American history did not start with slavery in the New World. An overwhelming body of new evidence is emerging which proves that Africans had frequently sailed across the Atlantic to the Americas, thousands of years before Columbus and indeed before Christ. The great ancient civilizations of Egypt and West Africa traveled to the Americas, contributing immensely to early American civilization by importing the art of pyramid building, political systems and religious practices as well as mathematics, writing and a sophisticated calendar.

The strongest evidence of African presence in America before Columbus comes from the pen of Columbus himself. In 1920, a renowned American historian and linguist, Leo Weiner of Harvard University, in his book, Africa and the Discovery of America, explained how Columbus noted in his journal that Native Americans had confirmed that “black skinned people had come from the south-east in boats, trading in gold-tipped spears.”

One of the first documented instances of Africans sailing and settling in the Americas were black Egyptians led by King Ramses III, during the 19th dynasty in 1292 BC [sic]. In fact, in 445 BC, the Greek historian Herodotus wrote of the Ancient Egyptian pharaohs’ great seafaring and navigational skills. Further concrete evidence, noted by Dr. Imhotep and largely ignored by Euro-centric archaeologists, includes “Egyptian artifacts found across North America from the Algonquin writings on the East Coast to the artifacts and Egyptian place names in the Grand Canyon.”

In 1311 AD, another major wave of African exploration to the New World was led by King Abubakari II, the ruler of the fourteenth century Mali Empire, which was larger than the Holy Roman Empire. The king sent out 200 ships of men, and 200 ships of trade material, crops, animals, cloth and crucially African knowledge of astronomy, religion and the arts.

African explorers crossing the vast Atlantic waters in primitive boats may seem unlikely, or perhaps, far fetched to some. Such incredible nautical achievements are not as daunting as they seem, given that numerous successful modern attempts have illustrated that without an oar, rudder or sail ancient African boats, including the “dug-out,” would certainly have been able to cross the vast ocean in a matter of weeks.

As time allows us to drift further and further away from the “European age of exploration” and we move beyond an age of racial intellectual prejudice, historians are beginning to recognize that Africans were skilled navigators long before Europeans, contrary to popular belief.

Of course, some Western historians continue to refute this fact because, consciously or unconsciously, they are still hanging on to the 19th-century notion that seafaring was a European monopoly.

After all, history will tell you that seafaring is the quintessential European achievement, the single endeavor of which Europeans are awfully proud. Seafaring allowed Europe to conquer the world. The notion that black Africans braved the roaring waters of the Atlantic Ocean and beat Europeans to the New World threatens a historically white sense of ownership over the seas.

When most people think about ancient Mexico, the first civilizations that come to mind are the Incas, Aztecs and the Maya. However, during the early 1940′s archeologists uncovered a civilization known as the Olmecs of 1200 BC, which pre-dated any other advanced civilization in the Americas.

The Olmec civilization, which was of African origin and dominated by Africans, was the first significant civilization in Mesoamerica and the Mother Culture of Mexico.

Olmecs are perhaps best known for the carved colossal heads found in Central Mexico, that exhibit an unmistakably African Negroid appearance. Ancient African historian Professor Van Sertima has illustrated how Olmecs were the first Mesoamerican civilization to use a written language, sophisticated astronomy, arts and mathematics and they built the first cities in Mexico, all of which greatly influenced the Mayans and subsequent civilizations in the Americas. “There is not the slightest doubt that all later civilizations in [Mexico and Central America], rest ultimately on an Olmec base,” once remarked Michael Coe, a leading historian on Mexico.

Africans clearly played an intricate role in the Olmec Empire’s rise and that African influence peaked during the same period that ancient Black Egyptian culture ascended in Africa.

A clear indicator of pre-Columbus African trans-Atlantic travel is the recent archeological findings of narcotics native to America in Ancient Egyptian mummies, which have astounded contemporary historians. German toxicologist, Svetla Balabanova, reported findings of cocaine and nicotine in ancient Egyptian mummies. These substances are known to only be derived from American plants. South American cocaine from Erythroxylon coca and nicotine from Nicotiana tabacum. Such compounds could only have been introduced to Ancient Egyptian culture through trade with Americans.

Similarities across early American and African religions also indicate significant cross-cultural contact. The Mayans, Aztecs and Incas all worshipped black gods and the surviving portraits of the black deities are revealing. For instance, ancient portraits of the Quetzalcoatl, a messiah serpent god, and Ek-ahua, the god of war, are unquestionably Negro with dark skin and wooly hair. Why would native Americans venerate images so unmistakably African if they had never seen them before? Numerous wall paintings in caves in Juxtlahuaca depict the famous ancient Egyptian “opening of the mouth” and cross libation rituals. All these religious similarities are too large and occur far too often to be mere coincidences.

Professor Everett Borders notes another very important indication of African presence, which is the nature of early American pyramids. Pyramid construction is highly specialized. Ancient Egypt progressed from the original stepped pyramid of Djosser, to the more sophisticated finished product at Giza. However, at La Venta in Mexico, the Olmecs made a fully finished pyramid, with no signs of progressive learning. Olmecian and Egyptian pyramids were both placed on the same north-south axis and had strikingly similar construction methods. Tellingly, all of these pyramids also served the same dual purpose, tomb and temple.

Ancient trans-Atlantic similarities in botany, religion and pyramid building constitute but a fraction of the signs of African influence in ancient America. Other indicators include, astronomy, art, writing systems, flora and fauna.

Historically, the African people have been exceptional explorers and purveyors of culture across the world. Throughout all of these travels, African explorers have not had a history of starting devastating wars on the people they met. The greatest threat towards Africa having a glorious future is her people’s ignorance of Africa’s glorious past.

Pre-Columbus civilization in the Americas had its foundation built by Africans and developed by the ingenuity of Native Americans. Sadly, America, in post-Columbus times, was founded on the genocide of the indigenous Americans, built on the backs of African slaves and continues to run on the exploitation of workers at home and abroad.

Clearly, Africans helped “civilize” America well before Europeans “discovered” America, and well before Europeans claim to have civilized Africa. The growing body of evidence is now becoming simply too loud to ignore. It’s about time education policy makers reexamine their school curriculums to adjust for America’s long pre-Columbus history.

Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com

"Is Jehoash actually responsible for “Hezekiah’s” Tunnel?"

Taken from: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/hezekiah%E2%80%99s-tunnel-reexamined/

....

The dates assigned the Siloam Inscription and Jerusalem tunnels are questioned

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff• 08/23/2013

**Click here to visit the Hezekiah’s Tunnel scholar’s study page.**

A young boy wades through Hezekiah’s Tunnel, the most famous of the Jerusalem tunnels. The image brings to mind the discovery of the Siloam Inscription—located at the southern end of Hezekiah’s Tunnel—by a youth in 1880.

Hezekiah’s Tunnel, part of Jerusalem’s water system, is located under the City of David. It connects the Gihon Spring—Jerusalem’s fresh water supply—with the Siloam Pool. According to 2 Chronicles 32:2–4 and 2 Kings 20:20, this tunnel was dug during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah to prepare Jerusalem for the imminent attack of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib. In the Bible, Hezekiah redirected the water through old and newly dug Jerusalem tunnels. However, many have wondered if Hezekiah’s Tunnel was actually dug by Hezekiah at the end of the eighth century B.C.E. (Iron Age II). In the September/October 2013 issue of BAR, editor Hershel Shanks reviews the evidence for the dating of the Jerusalem tunnels in “Will King Hezekiah Be Dislodged from His Tunnel?”
The first argument for re-dating the tunnel concerns the Siloam Inscription. Found at the southern end of Hezekiah’s Tunnel, the Siloam Inscription recounts how the men digging the tunnel worked in two directions—one from the north, the other from the south—and met in the middle. The Siloam Inscription does not name Hezekiah or Sennacherib I, the Sennacherib in the Bible, which would simplify matters. While most scholars attribute the Siloam Inscription to the Iron Age II, John Rogerson and Philip Davies argue that it is actually Hasmonean, which raises the question: Which period is a better fit for the Siloam Inscription?

As described in the Siloam Inscription, Hezekiah’s Tunnel was dug by two teams, who worked in opposite directions and met in the middle, to prepare for the invasion of Sennacherib. In the Bible, this impressive feat is detailed in 2 Chronicles 32:2–4.

The second argument concerns the amount of time it would have taken to dig Hezekiah’s Tunnel. Based on the type of rock in Jerusalem tunnels, geologists Amihai Sneh, Eyal Shalev and Ram Weinberger contend that Hezekiah’s Tunnel could have been hewn in no less than four years. Did Hezekiah have time to dig the tunnel before the arrival of Sennacherib? In the Bible, it does not specify the amount of time between the threat of attack and the siege itself, but Assyrian records shed light on the matter. (In the Bible History Daily web-exclusive discussion Regarding Recent Suggestions Redating the Siloam Tunnel, leading archaeologists Aren Maeir and Jeffrey Chadwick propose that Hezekiah had ample time to construct the tunnel during the revolt against Assyria.)
The final argument hinges on the relationship of the various channels of the water system in Jerusalem. Tunnels were dug in very different periods, ranging from the Middle Bronze Age to the Second Temple period.
Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, who have excavated the City of David near the Gihon Spring extensively, believe that the starting point of Hezekiah’s Tunnel was Tunnel IV, which is connected to the Round Chamber of the Rock-cut Pool. At the entrance to Tunnel IV from the Rock-cut Pool there is a place that had been smoothed for a plaque. The similarity between this plaque and the Siloam Inscription supports the idea that Tunnel IV marked the beginning of Hezekiah’s Tunnel, just as the Siloam Inscription marked its end.

---

Ronny Reich’s Excavating the City of David is the definitive book on the City of David, the oldest part of Jerusalem. Find out more about the Siloam Tunnel, Warren’s Shaft system, Siloam Inscription, Theodotos Inscription and Pool of Siloam in this must-read publication.

---

In Jerusalem, tunnels—numerous and crisscrossing—of the water system are difficult to keep straight, but through their excavations in the subterranean levels of the City of David, Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron have mapped out the Jerusalem tunnels. The Siloam, or Hezekiah’s, Tunnel connects to the Gihon Spring via Tunnel VI. Reich and Shukron believe that the starting point of Hezekiah’s Tunnel was in Tunnel IV.

A house built on top of rubble fill, which blocked the entrance to Tunnel IV, was found in the Round Chamber. Some of the pottery in the fill under the house dates to the late ninth–early eighth century B.C.E. (Iron Age IIa)—which predates the time of Hezekiah by nearly a hundred years. Based on this pottery, Reich and Shukron date the house to the late ninth or early eighth century B.C.E. as well. According to the rules of deposition, Tunnel IV and Hezekiah’s Tunnel had to predate this house since debris underneath the house were used to block Tunnel IV. Additionally, if the two channels had not been dug, water would have continued to flow into the Rock-cut Pool, and the house would have been underwater. On this basis, Reich and Shukron argue that Tunnel IV and Hezekiah’s Tunnel must have been constructed by one of Hezekiah’s predecessors, dating as early as the time of King Jehoash (835–801 B.C.E.)—a century before Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E.
Is Jehoash actually responsible for “Hezekiah’s” Tunnel?

BAS Library Members: Read Hershel Shanks’s full article “Will King Hezekiah Be Dislodged from His Tunnel?” by
BAR as it appears in the September/October 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

No archaeological evidence to support Ramses II as Pharaoh of Exodus: Ron Beeri

Rare sarcophagus, Egyptian scarab found in Israel

By DANIEL ESTRIN April 9, 2014 2:29 PM

Content preferences

.

View gallery

• 
  .

. ….

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli archaeologists have unearthed a rare sarcophagus featuring a slender face and a scarab ring inscribed with the name of an Egyptian pharaoh, Israel’s Antiquities Authority said Wednesday.

The mystery man whose skeleton was found inside the sarcophagus was most likely a local Canaanite official in the service of ancient Egypt, Israeli archaeologists believe, shining a light on a period when pharaohs governed the region.

“This is a really beautiful face, very serene,” said Edwin van den Brink, an Egyptologist and archaeologist with Israel’s government antiquities authority. “It’s very appealing.”

Van den Brink said archaeologists dug at Tel Shadud, an archaeological mound in the Jezreel Valley, from December until last month. The archaeologists first uncovered the foot of the sarcophagus and took about three weeks to work their way up the coffin. Only on one of the excavation’s last days did they brush away the dirt to uncover the carved face.

The lid of the clay sarcophagus is shattered, but the sculpted face remains nearly intact. It features graceful eyebrows, almond-shaped eyes, a long nose and plump lips. Ears are separated from the face, and long-fingered hands are depicted as if the dead man’s arms were crossed atop his chest, in a typical Egyptian burial pose.

Experts last found such a sarcophagus about a half a century ago in Deir al Balah in the Gaza Strip, where some 50 similar coffins were dug up, mostly by grave robbers, van den Brink said. Some of them greet visitors today at the entrance to the archaeology wing at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Dozens were previously found in Beit Shean in Israel’s north.

View gallery

This undated photo released by Israel’s Antiquities Authority shows a scarab seal ring  …

Found alongside the new sarcophagus was a scarab seal ring encased in gold, carved with the name of Pharaoh Seti I, who ruled ancient Egypt in the 13th century BC. Seti I conquered the area of today’s Israel in the first year of his reign, in order to secure Egyptian trade routes and collect taxes for Egypt, said archaeologist Ron Beeri, who participated in the dig. The man buried in the sarcophagus might have been a tax collector for the pharaoh, Beeri said.

Seti I was the father of Ramses II, often identified as the pharaoh in the biblical story of the Israelite exodus, though Beeri said there is no historical evidence to support that.

DNA tests may be conducted to determine if the man in the sarcophagus was Canaanite or Egyptian, Beeri said.

The recent archaeological discovery, like most in Israel, came by happenstance. Israel’s natural gas company called in archaeologists to survey the territory before laying down a pipeline. Van den Brink said the Antiquities Authority excavated only a small, 5-by-5 meter (16-by-16 foot) area, but that was enough to find the sarcophagus, the scarab and four other human remains.

Van den Brink said the site likely was a large cemetery, with other sarcophagi likely waiting to be found in future digs.

“It’s just a small window that we opened,” he said.

….

Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/rare-sarcophagus-egyptian-scarab-found-israel-143008407.html

Mithrandir Writes: "Where I differ from Velikovsky".



I agree with the basic pillars of Immanuel Velikovsky’s Egyptian  chronology (Middle Kingdom Exodus with the Hyksos invading some time  after the Red Sea incident, Thuthmosis III as Shishak, El Amarna era  during the divided Kingdom, Ramses II as Necho, Ramses III as Nectenbos  of Diodorus with the Prstt being the Persian Empire and Sea Peoples as  Ionian Greeks).  I don’t agree with his weird theories about the planets though.

Rohl I don’t agree with on Egyptian chronology, but I  like his identification of Enmerkar with Nimrod and Eridu with Babel and have written my own study on that subject.
I do want to discus some of the details of Velikovsky and his contemporary supporters’ model I disagree with.
On the Hyksos Amalekites connection which I’ve touched on elsewhere I just want to say I feel it’s not that simple.  The Hyksos were many tribes  of Asiatic peoples.  They included the Amalekites and possibly other  Edomite tribes (I think the king remembered by Greek myth as Belus was  an Edomite King connected in some way to Bela son of Beor of Genesis  36:32&33), I think they had a Midianite aspect too (Hor II of the  13th Dynasty I think was the Midanite king Hur mentioned in The Bible).  Archaeology clearly shows they had an Amorite aspect at all.
The most prominent is Hatshepsut as the Queen of Sheba.  If she was an  Egyptian queen The Bible wouldn’t have obscured that, it dealt with  Solomon’s interactions with Egypt unambiguously both before and after  this.  Also since Tuthmosis I must be the Pharaoh who’s daughter Solomon married, Hatshepsut was her Sister.  If this Queen was Solomon’s sister in law that wouldn’t been overlooked.
Yeshua calls her the “Queen of The South” in Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31.  And then Daniel 11 is cited where the “King of The South” is consistently Egypt.  South in Biblical geography is south of Israel/Jerusalem, in the context of Alexander’s successors  only Ptolemy is south of Israel, and Egypt was the core of his Kingdom  but not all of it.
There are three Shebas on the Table of  Nations, Two in Genesis 10 and another being Abrahamic.  The two in  Genesis 10 are one Hamitic/Cushite and the other Semitic/Joktanite.  But in both I Kings 10 and II Chronicles 11 the Queen of Sheba narrative is linked to Ophir another Joktanite name.  And the other two Shebas are  virtually inseparable from the Dedan who is their brother, but no Dedan  is alluded to here.
Serious Archaeologists all know that Sheba  was the name of a Kingdom in southern Arabia, modern Yemen.  ( Israel  Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman,David and Solomon: In Search of the  Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition p. 167).   The Saba that was a capital of Nubia/Ethiopia didn’t appears till very  late, Meroë was their Capital until after the fall of the 25th Dynasty  (When Nubia ruled Egypt).  The Cushite Sheba of Genesis 10 I believe  settled in Ancient India where he was deified as Shiva and his rather  Ramaah as Rama an avatar of Vishnu.
I do believe the Ark of the  Covenant came to Ethiopia.  But the Menelik legend is propaganda created by the Christian Auxomite kings to give them a Biblical lineage.  I  believe Graham Hancock and Bob Cornuke’s theory for how it got there.   First being at Elephantine island from sometime after King Manasseh’s  reign of terror to the time of Cambyses.
The Arabic traditions of Balqis/Bilqis/Bilquis did exist in Pre-Islamic times (Mohammed didn’t  really come up with much of anything new) and so have good reason to be  viewed as more Ancient and Valid then the purely invented Ethiopian  legend.
I do believe Hatshepsut probably visited Solomon also.   The Bible says many rulers come to visit Solomon and witness his Wisdom.  The Queen of Sheba is singled out NOT because she’s the most important by secular standards, but because she became a Saved individual, so  Yeshua cited her as such.
So I do agree that Punt was an Egyptian name for Canaan/Israel.  And I don’t think the similarity between  Make-Ra (A name of Hatshepsut) and Makeda (The name of the Queen of  Sheba in the Ethiopian traditions) is a coincidence.  I think various  Egytpian Jews, first at Elephantine and then latter in Alexandria and  the Onias colony, drew the same false conclusion and began giving her  that name.  And this may have influenced Josephus who was very familiar  with Alexandrian Jewish traditions.
El Amarna period.
I  agree with Velikovsky’s on Jehoshaphat as Ebed-Tov/Abdi-Heba King of  Jerusalem and Mesha King of Moab with the Mesh of the Amarna letters.   The Amarna letters also lsit 3 of the Captains of Jehoshaphat from II  Chronicles 17:14-19.  Addudani/Addadani=Adna and Ada-danu mentioned by  Shalmaneser in 825 BC, “Son of Zuchru” = “son of Zichri”,  Iahzibada=Iehozabad/Jehozabad.
And I agree about the Habiru being bandits or mercenaries, not an ethnic term.
But his identity for Ahab is very problematic.  Gubla is the Amarna letters name for Byblos not Jezreel.  So Rib-Addi/Rib-Hadda was not Israelite.
Labaya I feel is logically is Ahab, (or whoever the Northern Kingdom ruler was at the time).  The whole Jezebel-Nefertiti connection suggested by  SpecialtyInterests I don’t like however.
Velikovsky’s references to “Sodomites” is really weird, he’s unaware that that is a reference to Sodom only in English.
Velikovsky did NOT believe in the infallibility of Scripture.  Which of course is  an assumption many critics of revised chronology make about all revised  chronologists.  This fact about him is most apparent in the part of Age  sin Chaos about the Death of Ahab.  He basis it on what he saw as a  contradiction between this verse.
II Kings 1:17 “So he died  according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram  reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of  Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.”
And these two verses.
II Kings 3:1 “Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in  Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned  twelve years.”
II Kings 8:16 “And in the fifth year of Joram the  son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah,  Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign.”
There is no contradiction here however, he’d know this if he’d studied  Ussher’s chronology.  Jehoshaphat made his son a co ruler for the latter years of his reign, this is why the 18th year of Jehoshaphat can also  be the second year of Jehoram.
As for the fact that Ahab did  Repent after Elijah rebuked him over the Naboth business.  That was  negated when Ahab sinned again believing the False Prophets over  Micaiah.
But Velikovsky creates a whole convoluted theory that Ahab survived the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and lived another 9 years.
Mesha of Moab’s rebellion was right after Israel’s defeat at Ramoth-Gilead,  Velikovsky sees the Moabite stone documenting this event as saying it  was in the Middle of Ahab’s reign, not after he died.  First off the  stone sounds like he’s relating a Prophesy made by a Prophet of Chemosh, who’s Prophecy may have came true not not completely accurately.  But  also if it was made immediately at the start of the rebellion he may not have heard of Ahab’s death yet.
Regardless of those arguments,  not all readings of the Mesha Stele even agree with the one Velikovsky  used to support his theory.
The Denyen of the Greek Islands
I said I agreed about the Prstt being the Persian Empire and Sea Peoples  as Ionian Greeks.  But his Identity of the “Peoples of the Islands” the  Denyen as Athens I think is silly.  The Denyen are also in the Amarna  letters where they are in northern Syria, very northern, by the modern  Turkish border.  Associated with Hammath.  Their also identified with  Adana is Cilicia.
“And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion’s whelp: he shall leap from Bashan.” Deuteronomy 33:22
The Tribe of Dan originally settled north of the Philistine Lands, around  the port city of Joppa/Jaffa modern Tel-Aviv.  The books of Joshua and  Judges both record events when Danites left their allotted land traveled north conquered a city and renamed it Dan.
“And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called  Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father.” Joshua 19:47
The Judges 18 account, where the City is Laish, is often assumed to be the  same event.  There are however several differences between the two  accounts:
1. In the Book of Joshua the  children of Dan had received an inheritance in the south but it was  insufficient for them and so they went to fight against Leshem. In  Judges though the Danites were in the region of Zorah and Eshtaol (in  the south) they had yet not taken possession of their own.
2. In  Judges, at least at first, only six hundred went forth after receiving  the report of a reconnoitering mission: on the other hand, the Book of   Joshua may be understood to say that all (or nearly all) of Dan went to  fight.
3. In the Book of Joshua the city taken is called Leshem:  In Judges the city is called LAISH. Some Commentators have tried to  state that “Leshem” and “Laish” are different forms of the same word but “leshem” in Hebrew is a type of precious stone (maybe amber) while  “laish” means a young male lion.
The Joshua account refers to the Dan that is frequently used as an idiom of the Northern Border of the  Kingdom, where Jeroboam built one of his Idols, and which on the map of  modern Israel is in the Golan heights on the Syrian border.
The  Judges event is clearly much further north.  They encountered Sidonians, but those Sidonians are also implied to be far from home.  Laish is  also know as Luash and the Danites who migrated there became known as  Dananu.
The king of Sma’al in the valley north of ASI (Orontes  embouchemont) on the edge of LUASH (LIASH) called himself “KING of the  DANIM” i.e. of the Danes of Dan. The Danes (Dananu) also controlled the  neighbouring area of Cilicia and at one stage their capital was Adana by Tarsis of Cilicia and their suzerainity reached as far north as  Karatepe. A bi-lingual inscription of theirs found at Karatepe employs a Phoenician type of Hebrew and a version of Hittite. Branches of the  Hittites in Anatolia neighboured the Dananu of Cilicia. This northern  portion of Dan is referred to variously as Dananu, Danau, Denye, Denyen, Danuna.
Above I’ve borrowed a great deal from Britam’s “Dan and the Serpent Way” study.  I don’t agree with all of Britam’s premise  obviously, or any other form of British Israelism, but Dan does have a  unique history.
Secular scholars agree on connecting the Denyen  to the Tribe of Dan, you can read about it on Wikipedia’s Denyen and Dan pages.  But the sequence is reverses, they believe the Denyen traveled  south.  This supports their attempts to claim that the various Tribes of Israel didn’t even really have a common origin.  Traditional chronology makes that argument easy for them but still doesn’t make the Biblical  picture impossible.  But revised chronology makes it indisputable which  Dan came first.
The connection they have to Greece, and the Danoi of Greek mythology is Biblically alluded to in Ezekiel 27.
 

….

Taken from: http://mithrandironchronology.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/where-i-differ-from-velikovsky.html

Damien Mackey (AMAIC) Comments:

Congratulations on your sincere effort to work out a revised chronology. Obviously you have put a lot of thought into it.
Re Hatshepsut, I would like to refer you to my:
 

“Why Hatshepsut can be the ‘Queen of Sheba’.”

http://www.academia.edu/3689991/Why_Hatshepsut_can_be_the_Queen_of_Sheba

 

The problem that I have found with revisionists who discard the Velikovskian connection here is that they are unable to find in their schemes a substitute great woman for her. After all, she is famous enough to have been recalled again in the New Testament.

You will run into some awful archaeological problems, I think, when following Velikovsky in separating the 18th dynasty from the 19th.

 

Regards

….