Velikovsky and those ‘Peleset’

by

Damien F. Mackey

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even many revisionist scholars consider that Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky made a massive error in his bold attempt to locate the ‘Sea Peoples’ - at the time of the 20^th Dynasty pharaoh, Ramses III - as late as the Persian period.

But was Velikovsky right, nevertheless, in his opinion about the similarity between the Peleset ‘Sea Peoples’ and the Pereset (Persians) mentioned on the Decree of Canopus?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

Dr. Velikovsky’s everlasting contribution to ancient history was, in my opinion, to recognise that the highly important Eighteenth Dynasty, which saw the commencement of Egypt’s so-called ‘New Kingdom’, had begun at the same approximate time as the United Kingdom of Israel (kings Saul, David and Solomon). This meant that the conventional estimation of the mid-C16th BC for the beginning of the reign of the first Eighteenth Dynasty ruler, pharaoh Ahmose, must now be lowered by some 500 years, to the mid-C11th BC.

Velikovsky had also recognised that the Sothic based mathematico-astronomical system upon which Egyptian chronology had been erected was an entirely flawed system.

Much of what Velikovsky discovered within his new paradigm has served as a solid foundation for my own historical reconstructions.

Far less successful was he, though, when attempting to ‘squeeze’ the remaining New Kingdom dynasties, Nineteenth and Twentieth, into what was now, by conventional comparison, a greatly reduced chronological space. Velikovsky was, of course, clever enough to engineer a ‘solution’ to such a difficulty. But it unfortunately appears to have been a ‘solution’ as artificial and archaeologically impossible as was the conventional system that he was seeking to overhaul. He, completely disregarding archaeological, geographical and genealogical fact, (i) wrenched the Nineteenth Dynasty right away from the Eighteenth, and (ii) pitched the Twentieth Dynasty down into the Persian era. His expediency of identifying the formerly (conventional) C12th BC Peleset (usually identified as Philistines), belonging to the ‘Sea Peoples’, with the C4th BC Pereset (usually identified as Persians) of the Canopus Decree, was a case of taking revisionism to an unrealistic extreme.

However, as we are going to find, there is good evidence to suggest that pharaoh Ramses III, and hence the ‘Sea Peoples’, did belong to an era significantly later than the C12th BC - but definitely not as late as the C4th BC.  

Many of the more able revisionist scholars who had been keenly following Velikovsky’s early revision, particularly his Ages in Chaos, I (1952), and Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960), would fairly smartly reject his Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty efforts, Peoples of the Sea (1977), and Ramses II and his Time (1978). And I, too, felt it necessary in my university thesis:

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

to show the impossibility of Velikovsky’s later reconstructions. Archaeologically, for Velikovsky, these were a disaster. And, genealogically, they left Egyptian officials running into an unrealistically old age.

However, there were also embarrassing problems here for the conventional system. This is apparent from the following section of my thesis in which I also allude to the important findings of Dr. Donovan Courville, who wrote The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, I-II (1971). Thus I wrote (thesis, Volume One, beginning on p. 351):

More Genealogical and Art-Historical Anomalies

On a genealogical note, Courville has made a telling point in regard to what had appeared to be the following severe genealogical problem with the current chronological setting of Ramses III in relation to the early 19th dynasty: ….

The case of Bokenkonsu, the architect under Seti I, presents another anomaly, by current views, which is eliminated by the altered placements …. Bokenkonsu

lived to have his statue carved under Rameses III …. By current views, Bokenkonsu must have lived at least to an age of 118 years … even if the “many years” of the Harris Papyrus are limited to the brief reign of Siptah as proposed by Petrie. The more time that is allotted to this “many years” only makes the necessary age of Bokenkonsu more and more improbable.

Bierbrier had also included treatment of Bokenkonsu and his family amongst his case

studies (“The Bakenkhons Family” ….). And here, once again, we encounter the apparently extreme age of an Egyptian official even when minimal conventional date

estimates are used. There is no stretch at all, though, with my arrangement that has

Ramses III a slightly later contemporary of Seti I.

But what might appear to be a significant difficulty for the conventional chronology becomes a complete impossibility in Velikovsky’s context, as already argued. More positively for Velikovsky, both he … and Courville … had rightly insisted upon a dating much later than that conventionally given for Ramses III on the basis of Greek

writing on the backs of Ramses III’s building tiles. I take here Courville’s very brief account of it, beginning with his quoting of Petrie:

“… A subject of much difficulty in the earlier accounts of the objects was the marking of “Greek letters” on the backs of many of the tiles; but as we know that such signs were used long before the XXth dynasty, they only show that foreigners were employed as workmen in making these tiles”.

About which Courville then commented: …. “The difficulty with this explanation is that it does not explain the use of Greek letters centuries before the Greeks adopted the

alphabet …. Hence the dating of Rameses III in the 11th century is a gross anachronism”. With Ramses III re-located to about the mid C8th BC though - and given also the influx during his reign of ‘Sea Peoples’, likely including Greeks - then the ‘anachronism’ readily dissolves.

Whether or not my own efforts to fit the Twentieth Dynasty into the new scheme of things turns out to be realistic, I believe (naturally) that it is certainly more so than the conventional system. And I give archaeological reasons for this conviction also in my thesis.

Now, based upon the following, I have no doubts whatsoever that my estimation for the era of Ramses III is far more realistic, at least, than was Velikovsky’s:

Velikovsky had brought some surprising evidence in support of his sensational view that Ramses III had actually belonged as late as the Persian period, with his identification of the Peleset arm of the ‘Sea Peoples’ - generally considered to indicate Philistines – as Persians. …. This Velikovsky did through comparisons between the Peleset, as shown on Ramses III’s Medinet Habu reliefs, and depictions of Persians for instance at Persepolis, both revealing a distinctive crown-like headgear. And he also compared Ramses III’s references to the Peleset to the naming of Persians as P-r-s-tt (Pereset) in the C3rd BC Decree of Canopus.

Continuing with the thesis:

My explanation though for this undeniable similarity would be, not that Ramses III had belonged to the classical Persian era, but that the ‘Indo-European’ Persians were related to the waves of immigrants, hence to the Mitannians (who may therefore connect with the Medes), but perhaps to the Philistines in particular. These ‘Indo Europeans’ had, as we read in Chapter 2, gradually progressed from Anatolia in a south-easterly direction. Eventually we find for instance Kurigalzu [II], set up on the throne of Babylon by the ‘Mitannian’ Assuruballit, conquering Elam (Persia) and ruling there for a time…..

So, though Velikovsky had pitched Ramses III and his Peleset (‘Sea Peoples’) opponents eight centuries too late (by conventional estimate), or about four centuries too late (my estimate), he may have been right insofar as he had perceived a visual and ethnic connection between the Peleset and the Pereset (Persians).

M. Jones would come to light with some telling genealogical evidence against Velikovsky’s radical later New Kingdom revision (‘Some Detailed Evidence from Egypt Against Velikovsky’s Revised Chronology’, SIS Review, vol. vi, nos. 1-3, Glasgow Conference, 1978, p. 29). I told of this in my thesis (p. 353):

Jones has I believe produced some solid genealogical or bureaucratic evidence for why Velikovsky’s late location of Ramses III to the Persian era is impossible. …. The career of the Chief Workman Paneb for instance, according to the Salt Papyrus, “can be traced from the 66th year of Ramesses II to the 6th year of Ramesses III”, Jones has written. …. This, a span in conventional terms of a bit over thirty years (c. 1212-1180 BC), is most reasonable. But Velikovsky’s span for Workman Paneb, with Ramses III located by him to the Persian era, would be biologically impossible. And the same applies to the situation of other workmen (e.g. Neferhotep and Sennedjem) investigated by Jones, following Bierbrier, the connections of which workmen are between the 18th and 19th dynasties that Velikovsky had also well separated. Thus Jones can rightly conclude in this instance: ….

… the earliest members of these two families, Neferhotep and Sennedjem …. link the reign of Horemheb and the XVIIIth Dynasty with the reigns of the XIXth Dynasty, without any intervening years. 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 …. If the hundred years proposed by Dr Velikovsky had taken place, none of them would have been alive at all.

[End of quotes]

Obviously a satisfactory revision has to be fully cohesive - easier said than done, of course. And Velikovsky and Courville, being pioneers, could be excused for many of their mistakes. Still, though Velikovsky may have been wrong in his chronological estimation of the Peleset, he may still have made a useful point about them.

Danite Migrations To Europe



Taken from:

http://www.israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/other_exodus

....

Whether it was their original intention or not, the Danaan sailed their ships north to the secluded bay of Argos in the Greek Peloponnesus. The Encyclopedia Judaica  (5:1257) quotes a leading Israeli archaeologist, Y. Yadin, who states, “...there is a close relationship between the tribe of Dan and the tribe of Danaoi whose members were clearly seafarers.” This encyclopedia also tells us, “the name Dan should be regarded as a short form of Dan(ann)iel or the like.” (5:1255) Again the connection with the Greek Danaan is unmistakable. Dr. Robert Latham, one of the most respected 19th century authorities, firmly stated that the Danaan of Greece were the Israelite Tribe of Dan. In his Ethnology of Europe, Latham commented, “Neither do I think that the eponymus [i.e., founder] of the Argive [Greek] Danai was other than that of the Israelite tribe of Dan; only we are so used to confine ourselves to the soil of Palestine in our consideration of the history of the Israelites, that we... ignore the share they may have taken in the ordinary history of the world.” (p. 137)

Archaeologist Dr. Cyrus Gordon states that they later sailed from Greece to other European coastlands, including Ireland and Denmark. In his book Before Columbus, Gordon relates, “A group of Sea People bore the name of ‘ Dan.’ The Bible tells how a segment of the seafaring (Judges 5:17) Danites [were part of] the tribal system of ancient Israel... The Danites were widespread. Cyprus was called Ia-Dnan ‘The Island of Dan(an).’ The same people were called Danuna, and under this name they appear as rulers of the Plain of Adana in Cilicia. Greek tradition has their eponymous ancestor, Danaos Dan), migrating from the Nile delta to Greece...”(p.108) Note that the Israelites did in fact emigrate from Egypt. Cyrus Gordon added, “Virgil also designated the Greeks as “Danai.” Bold scholars see the influence of the Danites in Irish folk lore... and in the name of Danmark (‘Denmark’): the land of Dan...”(p. 111)

There is indeed strong evidence that the Danaan of Ireland, Cornwall and Scotland, the Danaan of Greece and Italy, as well as the Danes of Denmark, were Israelites of the tribe of Dan. W. Ewart Gladstone in Juventus Mundi states that the Tuatha de Danaan of Ireland came from the Danaan of Greece. The similarity of name would itself seem conclusive; but is there other evidence that these two groups of Danaan were related? Dr. H.R. Hall, in The Civilization of Greece In The Bronze Age, stated concerning the Greeks of the age of Homer, “Athenian funerary lekythoi [painted vases] give us coppery-red or brown hair side by side with dark-brown or black, and generally fair complexions, resembling a certain Irish Celtic type.” Keating’s History of Ireland says, “The Dannans were a people of great learning, they had overmuch gold and silver… they left Greece after a battle with the Assyrians, and for fear of falling into the hands of the Assyrians came to Norway and Denmark (Dannemark) and thence passed over to Ireland.” (p.40) The Annals of Ireland by the Four Masters explains, “The colony called Tuatha-de-Dannan conquered the Firbolgs and became Masters of Ireland… were highly skilled in architecture and other arts from their long residence in Greece and intercourse with the Phoenicians.” (p.121) They have left their names in many places; we find Dannonia, Caledonia, and Donaghadee in the Lough of Belfast. We can see by now it is no coincidence that the early Greeks resembled the Irish Celts, because the Tuatha de Danaan of early Ireland descended from Greek “Danaan” colonists who sailed westward in search of new lands.

            These Danaan colonists did indeed settle in Denmark, which name means, ‘Dan’s Mark’ or ‘Dan’s Land.’ In ancient times, Denmark was settled by a tribe called the “Dani,” according to early Roman historian, Procopius (fifth century, A.D.), who recorded that the Dani were a group of tribes inhabiting the Danish peninsula. (VI.xv.1-6) That these were part of the Hebrew tribe of Dan may be seen in the fact mentioned previously that Biblical Dan was called, “Dani-el or Dananniel,” a variation of ‘Dani’ or ‘Danaan.’

....

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.