h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That's okay, so have I. Just bump it so I can find it easier.

Noggin

Like this.

It's a pity this seems to have fallen by the wayaside.

Yes, sorry. Seriously, I just have way too much going on right now.

Hoping things will calm down sometime soon...

Gif

bump

Since this thread seems to have fallen into disuse I'm going to use it to make notes on some aspects of the debate. If anyone does read this feel free to comment.

Although I know it falls outside the topic of whether Velikovsky's chronology was reasonable at the time or not, as the discipline was still at the interesting possibility stage of development at the time that Ages in Chaos was published in 1952, I want first to say a few words about radiocarbon dating. Please note that I'm not disputing the basic science of this, only in its method of application. It's now known that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere is not a constant, and that raw data needs to be calibrated by other methods, and, ultimately, calibrations have to be checked against "objects of known date." The problem for us is that, even in the most modern and accurate techniques, as is admitted here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10345875 , the "objects of known date" are from Egypt, dated according to the standard chronology. Obviously (science 101) these calibrated results cannot then be used to check the correctness of the original known dates, and even when other methods such as dendrochronology are employed, these "known dates" are still the ultimate test of whether the method "works". And the raw dates for Egyptian objects are still consistently lower than those for other timelines (although admittedly not low enough for Vel).

Still, there's always the archaeology. Presumably as exemplified by our ability to use Egyptian objects found in other countries to cross-check, at least approximately, various time lines. Well, not quite. According to the Cambridge Ancient History (bastion of chronological orthodoxy) "Datable objects such as royal scarabs in the Palestinian towns of the late Bronze Age are regrettably unreliable...Even when the find spot is reasonably precise, it is often clear that either the scarab was an heirloom, or was a later copy of a scarab of a powerful king." ie the datable objects are found in younger strata than those expected. The two explanations offered are both ad hoc, as there is no independent evidence for either of them. Nor is it only scarabs. We have already mentioned the Tomb of Ahiram, and even more damning is the Lachish ewer, a pot inscribed with the cartouches of Rameses II found in the 586 BC destruction layer at Lachish. Could this really be a 700 year old heirloom (along with other late 18th and 19th dynasty objects)? Or if the cartouches are copied, why and where from?

Note that in both cases the Egyptian objects are or appear more recent than the SC suggests.

Still, independently dated and attested historical events are sure to provide a link between timelines, aren't they? Well, see post 157 for the connections between the SC Libyan dynasty (22nd) and the contemporary Assyrian and Biblical histories (these two agree pretty well). Oh look, there aren't any.

Could there possibly be an elephant in the room?

Noggin

Hi Nog,

I really don't have time to get sucked back into this debate... but I think you have misunderstood that article on radiocarbon dating.

For starters, the calibration dates are not reliant exclusively on the Standard Chronology (if they were, these new measures could hardly come up with corrections to the accepted dates, could they?). They also use alternate dating methods, such as dendrochronology (i.e. counting tree rings).

The remainder I think we have covered at some length...

Gif

so anyone feel able to make a summary then?

Sure.

My summary : The standard chronology is a crock.
Gif's summary : Velikovsky's reconstruction is a crock.

Real problem is we all too often seem to be talking at cross purposes. For instance, I reposted this <> as a belated response to Gif's post 15 <>

Which seems to have missed my point.

And this one (originally post 157) <>

Which was never addressed at all.

And I'm pretty sure Gif feels the same about my response to some things he's said.

Noggin

Homily Number Two.

I've often noticed in discussions that people seem to be under the impression that Velikovsky's reconstruction is something of a random hodge-podge of "oddities" culled from the standard chronology, cobbled together for the purpose of proving that the bible contains a genuine and largely accurate history of the Jewish people. Now, I'll concede that this was indeed his main purpose, and I think that people are right to be wary on those grounds, but it doesn't prove that his reconstruction was wrong, and the evidence presented should be examined on its merits. If this is done, it becomes clear that, regardless of whether he was right or wrong, his reconstruction is much more systematic than that, and that the "oddities" fall naturally into it in away that doesn't appear like coincidence.

It should be added here that chronological reconstruction is nothing new. In the late 19th century the discoveries of Mycenean IIIB ware at Akhet-Aten (Tel el-Amarna) and the copy of the treaty between Rameses II and Hattusilis at Boghazkoy resulted in a radical upward revision of the age of the Mycenean Greeks and the Hittite empire that created a hitherto unsuspected "Dark Age" that encompassed Greece and Anatolia, and was solely justified by the standard chronology of Egypt. One of the effects of Velikovsky's revision (and those of Rohl and James) is that this dark age disappears, and the histories of these countries can once more be reunited into a continuous whole.

The reconstruction begins with the identification of the time of the Exodus with the end of the Egyptian 13th dynasty and Middle Kingdom. I won't go into the parallels until a later date, but to illustrate the non-random nature of the reconstruction, if Velikovsky is right about the relative date, then the Hyksos who ruled Egypt in the Second Intermediate period can be identified as the biblical Amalakites. We should therefore expect parallels between what we know about the Hyksos, and what we know about the Amalakites, and especially we should be able to draw parallels between the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in the time of Ahmose, and the end of the Amalakites in the time of Saul. Following this the histories of the two countries can be compared (the united monarchy and the divided monarchy in Palestine, and the Egyptian 18th dynasty from Ahmose on, down to the end of the dynasty in about 830 BC).

But now there appears to be a far more difficult problem. From here on, allowing for the shortening of the Libyan 22nd dynasty, Egypt's history is tied in place by its connections to the Assyrian annals, and then to the works of the Greek historians and the Persian period, but we still have three dynasties, the 19th, 20th and 21st, unaccounted for, and the first two of these are rich with their own histories, inscriptions, and records of foreign wars. Where can we find a place for Rameses II, Rameses III and other major kings in the late period of Egyptian history?

But there are some pointers. Rameses II and other 19th dynasty pharaohs left extensive records of a long war with the Hittites, a people from beyond Syria. In his year 5 he fought a major battle with them in the north of Syria. Rameses III of the 20th dynasty left an extensive record of his war with the Pereset and a coalition of the Peoples of the Sea, a tale of shifting alliances and eventual triumph in a battle on the borders of Egypt. Necho II, of the 26th dynasty, also fought a long war with an enemy from beyond Syria (the Babylonians), including a major battle to the north of Syria in his year 5. Strangely, however, he left no record of this war, or any of his building projects, which we only know of from other sources. Nectanebo I of the 30th dynasty, meanwhile, fought a war of shifting alliances against the Persians and a coalition of Greek mercenaries, finally triumphing in a battle on the very borders of Egypt. Strangely, however, he left no record of this war, which we know of only from other sources. These coincidences pointed Velikovsky in the direction of his final reconstruction, and form a context for interpreting archaeological records and insciptions.

Noggin

I hope the previous post has cleared up this misconception (which is a misconception even if we grant that Vel was wrong).
<< His revised system doesn't really make any sense - one piece of evidence indicates (according to him) a reduction of a certain length of time, another a completely different reduction (or, to put it another way, that at least 3 Dynasties need to be conflated)... For instance: if the Harris Papyrus fits with 29D and *not* with 20D, how can 20D and 29D be the same time? And if we are contracting the timescale by c. 800 years to make the start of 20D match the start of 29D, how can we also be contracting it by c. 500 years (max - only 300 years if the conventional dating of Ahiram is accepted) to make Ramesses II contemporary with the 7th Century, as per your / Vel's interpretation of the Ahiram finds?)>>

As you can see, the reason for this is quite simple. In the SC the 18th, 19th and 20th dynasties are immediately consecutive. In Vel, they aren't; the 18th dynasty is reduced in time, but not changed in sequence; the 19th and 20th follow the pattern of the late dynasties of which they are duplicates. The Harris Papyrus indicates there should be a gap between the 19th dynasty and the 20th in the SC, but there isn't. In Vel, however, this gap falls out of the structure of the reconstruction, and corresponds to the 27th (Persian) dynasty. Actually, only 2 dynasties need to be conflated with later ones, the 19th and 20th (the 21st has a more complicated resolution).



<>

An even better prediction would be that all the the 20D and 29/30D tombs would be duplicated, but so far that hasn't happened. Vel predicts that, but clearly we are left with an anomaly in Vel's system. So in the meantime a speculative resolution of that anomaly that Vel didn't make (on account of being dead), but which I think is plausible, and if true, would remove this as an objection (though, admittedly, being a speculation, it doesn't prove that they are the same). Both Nepherites and Setnakht have highest known regnal dates of year 4, and as far as we know died of natural causes. Wiki speculates that Setnakht may well have been elderly when he came to the throne, and this would seem reasonable for Nepherites, too. They/he would be presumably have been prominent people even before accession, so by that time he/they would already have had a tomb prepared for himself – this would be Nepherites' tomb in his home town of Mendes. On coming to the throne, however, he would have wanted a tomb in the Valley of the Kings. For this he appropriated an existing tomb and prepared it in his throne name of Setnakht. This would also explain why there aren't two mummies.

Noggin

<>

Well, I guess it depends what you mean by a prediction when dealing with the past.

But some logical consequences of the 20th and 29th/30th dynasties being the same.

There will only be one sequence of tombs and, especially, mummies. This has thrown up one anomaly, already explained, but otherwise the prediction holds good.

Material from the Greco-Persian period will appear in the same strata as 20th dynasty material.

Before we revisit the question of the Greek letters from in a palace of Rameses III it may be worthwhile to quote the opinion of the archaeologists of the tiles on which they were found. "This work strikingly reminds us of Persian art, both modern and antique. In Persia it seems to have been made on a larger scale than in Egypt." The usual contention that the marks that resemble no less than nine different Greek letters are random doesn't square with the above quote, or with the heiroglyphs found on the backs of other tiles, or the absence of runes, numerals, sanskrit letters etc
In the cemetary nearby were tombss that the archaeologists easily recognised as belonging to Ptolemaic times. In a few of the graves were found scarabs with the names of Setnakht, Rameses III and Rameses VI. Also found was Cypriot flask pottery, which was claimed as evidence both for a 12th century date for the tombs (paintings of similar pottery were found in the tomb of Rameses III), and for a late date for the tombs (similar pottery had been found in the Greek military colony at Nebesheh, founded no earlier than the 7th century).

The war records of Rameses III will bear a close resemblance to the account of Nectanebo I's war with the Persians left to us by Diodorus (but not mentioned by Nectanebo).

In both cases the sequence of events is the same. First the Egyptians, Peleset (Pereset-Persians) and the Peoples of the Sea (Greek mercenaries) are allies against the Libyans. Then the Egyptians and PoftS are allies against the Pereset, and finally the Egyptians win a major victory against the Pereset in alliance with the PoftS.

And, of course, although it's not a logical consequence, one of Rameses III's names is Nektaneb.

That all these things could be a mere coincidence is, as they say, a stretch.

An interesting intellectual exercise would be a little "reverse engineering". Imagine we live in a world in which the real history of the Ancient East is more or less our standard chronology, but due to a monumental misunderstanding the standard chronology is that of Velikovsky. A reconstruction has been proposed that puts this right. But what is its primary rationale? For the 20th/29th dynasty how is it justified that all these kings are in fact two different kings? That the Greek letters are just random marks? That the Pereset are in fact 12th century Philistines? And so on.

Noggin

Bump

Hi Gif

Replying to what was said on the Dawkins thread.

"So in other words, *if* the Hyksos invasion happened, and *if* it is connected to the Ipuwer disaster, and *if* the Hyksos were Semitic... then we simply assume that the earlier Semitic peoples in Egypt must have been those of the Exodus? It doesn't seem a strong line of argument to me."

Well, certainly there are some *ifs*, but they could be turned around. *If* the Hyksos invasion didn't happen - but we have two written accounts saying that it did, which is about as good as it gets in terms of confirmation this far back in time - *if* it is connected to the Ipuwer disaster - the dates match exactly, so why should we assume otherwise - *if* the Hyksos were Semitic - it's generally accepted that they were, and if they weren't that would only strengthen the argument that the earlier group of Semites were not Hyksos, which suits me more than you...

The real question seems to be "What happened to the original Semitic group at Avaris? Were they assimilated, or did they leave and go elsewhere?" Can we find any other records that would help answer this question? And since the answer seems to be that we have a record that is consistent with the situation we are looking at, do we have a reason other than prejudice for disregarding that record?

>It is therefore a fairly surprising coincidence that just 250-300 years earlier than this date [...] Egypt was indeed devastated by some disaster.
"On the other hand, Egypt was also devastated by a disaster 400 years later than this date, and 700 years earlier than this date, and on many other occasions. And those are just the ones major enough to disrupt (but not destroy) the Dynastic system."

On a point of order, there was no Dynastic system. The Dynasties are from Manetho, or possibly Africanus and Eusebius, since the earlier Josephus doesn't mention them.
The earlier disaster I presume was the First Intermediate, and the later one Akhnaton? If so, we have no evidence for a settled and substantial Semitic population at Avaris at either of those times (or even a city of Avaris), or anywhere else in Egypt.

>It is an even more surprising coincidence to find a settled Semitic population in the right place in Egypt.

"Again, not particularly. Semites were very common in the region, and several Semitic peoples had been conquered (and presumably enslaved) by the Egyptians by this point. Basically everything east of mid-Sinai (including, for instance, the Assyrians, Babylonians and Chaldeans and their descendants) falls into that broad group. The only surprising thing to me would be if the two groups that we know of were the only Semites in Egypt around that time"

See above. The groups you mention were never conquered or enslaved.

Probably the question cannot be resolved satisfactorily solely by reference to the moment of the disaster itself. So more later.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

>*If* the Hyksos invasion didn't happen - but we have two written accounts saying that it did, which is about as good as it gets in terms of confirmation this far back in time

But neither is anything approaching contemporaneous. We also have multiple good sources to indicate a less violent transition.

>*if* it is connected to the Ipuwer disaster - the dates match exactly, so why should we assume otherwise

AFAIK Ipuwer contains no dates - the dates are *assumed* on the basis of the best fit with established events... which is exactly the kind of thing you have been arguing against

>*if* the Hyksos were Semitic - it's generally accepted that they were, and if they weren't that would only strengthen the argument that the earlier group of Semites were not Hyksos, which suits me more than you...

Well, OK, fair enough!

>On a point of order, there was no Dynastic system. The Dynasties are from Manetho,

OK, I was unclear. The disasters were significant enough to disrupt the unity of the Two Kingdoms of Egypt - there were multiple simultaneous 'Pharaohs'. I think that most comentators would go further and say that the rule of law largely broke down, but even if not, my point is that there were significant disasters at multiple times during Egypt's history - a country dependent on the weather (and regular Nile floods) is always going to be in that situation.

>The earlier disaster I presume was the First Intermediate, and the later one Akhnaton?

I was just looking at the breaks between the Old, Middle, New and Late Kingdoms - not Ankhenaton / Amarna (which I wouldn't count as a 'disaster' particularly). Yes, we have no evidence for Avaris at this time - but Ipuwer doesn't mention Avaris.

>The groups you mention were never conquered or enslaved.

No, but other Semitic peoples were. I mentioned those groups only because they are well-known non-Hebrew Semitic peoples. My point is that 'Semitic Peoples' pretty much describes anyone from the immediate east of Egypt throughout its history, so it's no surprise that a group of them should be found living in a city in eastern Egypt.

>more later

Look forward to it, though I don't guarantee I'll reply promptly - or at all . Any comment on the points I raised re mismatches between the 'echoed' Dynasties?

Gif

>We also have multiple good sources to indicate a less violent transition.

Actually, that's a very misleading explanation of the point I am trying to make - I blame the fact it's late at night. Which is also why I'm not going to correct it now...

Gif

>*If* the Hyksos invasion didn't happen - but we have two written accounts saying that it did, which is about as good as it gets in terms of confirmation this far back in time

"But neither is anything approaching contemporaneous. We also have multiple good sources to indicate a less violent transition."

Well, for sure, Manetho is much later, though he obviously had earlier sources for his history, which still provides the framework of the standard chronology. The sequence 13th dynasty - Hyksos dynasties - 18th dynasty is followed by both the SC and Velikovsky, so I'm guessing your doubt is about whether the disaster and the subsequent invasion are real?

>*if* it is connected to the Ipuwer disaster - the dates match exactly, so why should we assume otherwise

AFAIK Ipuwer contains no dates - the dates are *assumed* on the basis of the best fit with established events... which is exactly the kind of thing you have been arguing against.

Now I'm feeling misunderstood The work of van Seters (definitely *not* a Velikovskian) in the sixties placed Ipuwer at the end of the 13th dynasty on linguistic grounds. Given that it also agrees with Manetho, I'm not sure what the objection is.

In addition we have the hearth burials at Avaris, just before the arrival of the Hyksos (or at least the beginning of their rule), and the contemporary collapse of Middle Minoan II on Crete.

Resolution of the invasion/peaceful settlement question will rely on "what happened next", I think.

>The earlier disaster I presume was the First Intermediate, and the later one Akhnaton?

I was just looking at the breaks between the Old, Middle, New and Late Kingdoms - not Ankhenaton / Amarna (which I wouldn't count as a 'disaster' particularly). Yes, we have no evidence for Avaris at this time - but Ipuwer doesn't mention Avaris.

I wasn't sure about that, since AFAIK there was no particular disaster at the beginning of the Third Intermediate, and it has been suggested that Egypt suffered a plague or a famine at the time of Akhnaton.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

>The work of van Seters (definitely *not* a Velikovskian) in the sixties placed Ipuwer at the end of the 13th dynasty on linguistic grounds. Given that it also agrees with Manetho, I'm not sure what the objection is.

I don't have any particular objection to the dating of the Ipuwer disaster per se - my point is that Vel seems to rely on conventional dating only when it suits him. For instance, does he accept the standard interpretation of the 'linguistic evidence' when it comes to - say - whether texts from the reign of Ramesses II are contemporaneous with texts from the reign of Necho II? I have no idea what the specifics of that evidence are, but I'm going to take a stab and say that they are not close matches at all. Yet if Vel is prepared to throw out one half of the linguistic data simply because it doesn't fit with his theory, how can he simultaneously say that the same type of dating strongly bolsters his theory when it does fit?

I am making quite a few assumptions about what the evidence says and what Vel says in there, so please correct me if I am misrepresenting him or the evidence - but if not, wouldn't this would be the kind of argument that would justify 'standard Egyptologists' in not taking him too seriously?

Did you have any response to the list of mismatches I gave on the other thread between the biographies of Pharaohs that Vel claims were 'echoes', i.e. the same people under different names? E.g. Ramesses I being the same person as Necho I according to Vel, but Ramesses I being of non-Royal birth whereas Necho I was the son of Pharaoh Tefnakht II, etc?

Gif

Hi Gif

I have to admit that I'm not too sure how the style of 19th and 26th dynasty texts compares, but the matching of these two dynasties is possibly the most complex, but I'm going to start with that. However, the relationships between the late 19th dynasty kings, and the transitions between the 24th, 25th and 26th dynasties are not well understood in the SC, and Velikovsky's work relating to these was still in draft form when he died, so I'm going to approach this by a comparison of the pharaohs Rameses II and Necho II. We should remember here that the first part of Vel's reconstruction didn't leave him with any other alternative to regarding the 19th and 26th dynasties as the same, so any close similarities appearing where Vel expected them are a potential problem for the SC, as they would be non-random.

That said, we'll start with what is Vel's biggest problem here - the wildly different reign lengths of Rameses and Necho, for which I can only point in the direction of a possible solution. The key is the reign length of Seti, for whom we have evidence for both a short reign (highest regnal year) and a long reign (the 55 years given in Manetho, obviously very close to the 54 years of Psammetich) as you've already pointed out yourself. In his inscriptions Rameses says that his father made him joint king when he was still an infant, and Rameses' mummy doesn't show the age that it should if he was joint king for a long time, and then pharaoh in his own right for 66 years, so his 66 years could well include the period of joint kingship (possibly as much as 40 years if Seti's highest regnal year date represents *his* solo kingship).

Now the similarities.

1. Both kings fought a protracted war with an enemy whose home territory was beyond Syria. Both kings fought a battle at Megiddo, in which a Canaanite prince was killed, in the early part of their reign (year 2 for Necho, and year 2 or year 4 for Rameses, depending on your source).
2. Both kings had their headquarters at Riblah, and both met with a defeat in northern Syria in year 5 of their reign (Rameses at "Kadesh" and Necho at Carchemish).
3. The war dragged on for a long time in both cases, and Egypt lost control of the northern Syrian provinces.
4. Rameses II left detailed records of his campaigns, and much else besides, as well as more statues and memorials than any other pharaoh. Necho, on the other hand, has left us just 4 small inscriptions of a religious nature in the name Nekau-Wehimbre (who can't be confirmed as Necho because of the lack of historical information, the identification being made solely on the basis of the similarity of the names - something you've frequently taken Vel to task for). The reason for this lack is usually attributed to the destruction of Necho's monuments by Psamtik II, though such a complete destruction, with no evidence for it left behind, seems unlikely. Moreover Herodotus, writing a hundred years later, says that Necho left more monuments than any other pharaoh.
5. The Lachish ewer, found in the 586 BC destruction layer at Lachish, bears the cartouches of Rameses II.
6. The tomb of Ahiram (which we have spoken of before), contains Cypriote pottery from the 7th century, and funerary gifts with the cartouches of Rameses II.
7. Both kings are credited with the building of a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea. The town apparently built for the workers on the canal is Iron Age (Necho), but the statues flanking the entrance to the canal from the Nile are of Rameses.
8. The Greek colony at Daphnae was founded under the auspices of Psammetich. The Egyptian temple there, however, belongs to Rameses II

I think that's enough to be going on with.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

Doesn't look like you've actually addressed any of the points I raised. You've restated some of Vel's evidence in favour of his theory, which we've looked at before. But you haven't addressed Necho I vs Ram I, or Seti vs Psamtik I.

Still, moving on to what you have said...

>In his inscriptions Rameses says that his father made him joint king when he was still an infant, and Rameses' mummy doesn't show the age that it should if he was joint king for a long time

Not quite sure what you mean by this... Ram II's mummy shows a number of signs of advanced age, such as crippling arthritis. What evidence do you have that Ram was not of the age we would expect? Everything I can find would be consistent with a 90-year-old male.

Nor does the co-regency idea have much to support it - it is widely regarded as self-aggrandisement by Ram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti_I#The_alleged_coregency_of_Seti_I
If you are proposing a very long co-regency, you would have to address further problematic evidence - the statues begun in year 9 of Seti but completed by Ram II, the abundance of Ram II statues and complete lack of any 'late' statues of Seti (above Year 9, despite being common before that.)

Do you have anything to say on the discrepancies between the Pharaohs I mentioned?

Gif