Anyone out there up to date on the continuing discussion/argument about "fixing" the many problems with dating Egyptian dynasties? I'm particularly interested in the 26th dynasty...
Certainly Dave.
Anything specific you had in mind?
Uh oh.
The major problems with Egyptian chronology, and the various alternate chronologies proposed, are concentrated on periods earlier than Dynasty XXVI (the Saitic dynasty). I'm not aware of any major dating issues with XXVI, though some events may be uncertain within a few years.
Patrick holds an individual view that identifies Dyn XXVI with one of the earlier dynasties, arguing for duplication. This is not widely accepted within academia. However, I am not sure whether this view actually impacts the generally accepted dates for Dyn XXVI itself or its individual rulers or events.
Edit: You might find http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/5088/1/Boast07MPhil.pdf, "An analysis of Egypt's foreign policy during the Saite period", useful; it does mention dating uncertainties for some particular events.
Thanks for the point Duncan, I'll read it directly.
I'm in a friendly discussion with a chappie who holds that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 564 BC and laid waste to the entire country to such a degree that Egypt was desolate for 50 or so years.
I freely admit that beyond fielding a 15mm Saite Egyptian army just because of the cool option of masses of Reg D MI archers coupled with Greek hoplites I am clueless on the topic and, short of spending weeks researching it all thought I'd ask you guys....
Problem seems to be that gap in the army list from 525BC to 404 BC and I'm told the forty-four year rule of Ahmose-sa-Neith is in there somewhere...
My antagonist is of the opinion that Amasis' reign should move forward 121 years, overlapping the end of the 27th dynasty, dragging the earlier Saite kings and Taharka along with it and dutifully drawing dynasties 22 through 24 in their wake.
I have been vaguely aware of some sort of ongoing (like for maybe a couple of hundred years?) and apparently heated discussion of things dynastic Egyptian-wise but I fear it is mostly jibberish to me and beg to be enlightened by those wiser in the ways of Egyptology than this old cowboy...
Quote from: Dave Beatty on October 05, 2017, 05:12:29 AM
Problem seems to be that gap in the army list from 525BC to 404 BC and I'm told the forty-four year rule of Ahmose-sa-Neith is in there somewhere...
525-404 is the First Persian Period, also known as 27th dynasty, when Egypt was part of the Achaemenid Empire and ruled by a Persian satrap.
Neither I nor Wikipedia know of a pharaoh Ahmose-sa-Neith, tho they later mentions a courtier of that name under the 26th dynasty pharaoh Ahmose (Amasis) II, who was apparently important enough to be mentioned in 30th dynasty texts (mid-4th century BC).
Sounds like this:
http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/displaced_dynasties_chapter_10_-_amasis__the_greeks.pdf
Be warned - for some reason Egyptian chronology attracts more than its fair share of individuals who claim to have solved all problems and be the sole discoverers of some true chronology which uniquely fits the facts. Such individuals generally find that the vast majority of those working in the field dismiss their ideas - which serves only to strengthen, rather than weaken, their certainty that they are right (see under 'Galileo fallacy'). Keep that in mind as you read this stuff.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 05, 2017, 05:38:32 AM
Quote from: Dave Beatty on October 05, 2017, 05:12:29 AM
Problem seems to be that gap in the army list from 525BC to 404 BC and I'm told the forty-four year rule of Ahmose-sa-Neith is in there somewhere...
525-404 is the First Persian Period, also known as 27th dynasty, when Egypt was part of the Achaemenid Empire and ruled by a Persian satrap.
There are quite substantial rebellions in that period, of course, notably Inaros who had Athenian help. Ideally he would be covered by any set of army lists which aims at near-universality, though I don't know without checking whether he is.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 05, 2017, 05:38:32 AM
Quote from: Dave Beatty on October 05, 2017, 05:12:29 AM
Problem seems to be that gap in the army list from 525BC to 404 BC and I'm told the forty-four year rule of Ahmose-sa-Neith is in there somewhere...
525-404 is the First Persian Period, also known as 27th dynasty, when Egypt was part of the Achaemenid Empire and ruled by a Persian satrap.
Neither I nor Wikipedia know of a pharaoh Ahmose-sa-Neith ...
Look at the royal titulary of 'Amasis II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amasis_II)'.
Quote from: Dave Beatty on October 05, 2017, 05:12:29 AM
I have been vaguely aware of some sort of ongoing (like for maybe a couple of hundred years?) and apparently heated discussion of things dynastic Egyptian-wise but I fear it is mostly jibberish to me and beg to be enlightened by those wiser in the ways of Egyptology than this old cowboy...
Dave, I may be able to shed some light on the dynastic problem.
Around the start of the 20th century Egyptologists had Manetho's scheme of 31 Dynasties from the supposed beginnings of Egypt under Menes until Alexander's conquest. They had various reign lengths tramsmitted by Josephus, Eusebius and Africanus, but these did not entirely match up and they had only summaries (e.g. Ninth and Tenth Dynasties, eighteen Heracleopolitans) for some periods.
It should be noted that prior to Manetho the Egyptians had never assigned numbers to their dynasties or, for that matter, split their rulers into dynasties. What they had were lists of kings and, in some cases, their notable deeds, as is evident from Herodotus' account of what the priests told him about Egyptian history or, more accurately, what he noted down about the history of the New Kingdom, dismissing anything previous as of no account.
Early European Egyptologists thus had a scheme (Manetho) but no dates on which to pin it, apart from an end date (332 BC, Alexander's liberation of Egypt). By working backwards they could attempt to put reasonably firm dates on the dynasties Manetho gives as:
31st (Persians, 343-32 BC)
30th (Native pharaohs, c.395-343 BC)
29th (Native rebels, c.460 BC)
28th (Native rebels, c.485 BC)
27th (Persians, 525 to approx 395 BC)
26th Native pharaohs, 663-525 BC
This much was reasonably firm, as it could be fixed with reference to dates from other cultures by mutually shared events (notab ly conquests and liberations of Egypt covered by Greek historians). What was less clear was the identity of the actual pharaohs involved, because Greek historians give names like (for the '26th' Dynasty of 663-525 BC):
Psammetichus
Necho
Psammis
Apries
Amasis
Psamennitus
and equating these with the names on any Egyptian royal monument defeated Egyptologists (they did eventually dragoon up a number of unlikely-looking characters, e.g. a Psamshek for Psammetichus, a Wahabra for Apries, etc. but the monumental deeds of these fellows fell far short of those they were attributed by Greek historians and Hebrew accounts).
This led to a problem: as soon as the supply of Greek accounts dried up, so did the supply of reliable dates. Hebrew accounts might have helped, only there seemed to be no correspondence between Hebrew and Egyptian history once one went back beyond the Greek sources.
And nobody could make any sense of the pharaohs of Herodotus.
Egyptologists were thus left with a lot of unknowns. They had a plenitude of royal mummies* and inscriptions to slot into dynasties, and they had dynasties to slot into timelines. What they sought was an anchor stone to which they could moor their drifting timeline and work the nebulous dynasties into some form of temporal shape.
*
Although rather fewer than they might have obtained without the invention of the railway, given the tendency of locomotive operators in Egypt to use mummies for fuel.
The talisman sought was the dating of the so-called Sothic Cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle), which was said to have taken 1,461 years. it is a measure of just how adrift any scheme of Egyptian chronology was that in the early 20th century the 'long' chronology (two Sothic Cycles from the 'Era of Menophres' to Censorinus'
De Natali Liber mention of AD 140) was competing with the 'short chronology' (one Sothic Cycle from same to same). In any event, the 'Era of Menophres' mentioned by Censorinus became the holy grail of Egyptologists, who searched for anyone named 'Menophres' in order to put him in 1321 BC.
They did not however feel they had an open choice: Menoferre of the Hyksos was rejected in favour of MenmaatRa of the 19th Dynasty, a pharaoh we know as Seti I. The most promising candidate was rejected in favour of the least promising, and ever since then Egyptology has failed to correspond to dates of other civilisations which are not themselves derived from Egyptology.
The Sothic Cycle problem is discussed here (http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/Histapp1.html), a page which also contains a few notes on alternative histories (without any particular conclusion except that Egyptology is a lot more tenuous than its practitioners admit).
Attempting to place Seti I in 1321 BC was fatal for any understanding of Egyptian history, let alone any timescale. If you are genuinely interested as to why, I suggest contacting me privately, as certain gentlemen here seem to dislike mention of the subject on this forum.
I'm not aware that anyone dislikes this or any other subject, though it's fair to say that in this case there is a danger of veering into territory best avoided - the page referenced above is on 'faithweb', its author is author of 'A Biblical Interpretation of World History', and a few moments spent Googling 'problems with Egyptian chronology' will show that, on the internet at least, Egyptian chronology is as much a religious issue as a historical one. The general advice (which I'm sure Dave is perfectly aware of already) is that the internet (and the type of publishing that preceded the internet) can be a great source of disinformation as well as information, and the best starting point for someone new to the field is usually to become familiar with the consensus view before becoming embroiled with the alternatives. Not that I have any particular reading to recommend I'm afraid, it's not my period. It's just a general caveat lector - there are some delusional cranks out there among the unacknowledged geniuses.
Quote from: RichT on October 05, 2017, 09:47:42 AM
Be warned - for some reason Egyptian chronology attracts more than its fair share of individuals who claim to have solved all problems and be the sole discoverers of some true chronology which uniquely fits the facts.
Having been in this particular field, I can attest to the truth of this statement.
Quote from: RichT on October 05, 2017, 12:32:52 PM
The general advice (which I'm sure Dave is perfectly aware of already) is that the internet (and the type of publishing that preceded the internet) can be a great source of disinformation as well as information, and the best starting point for someone new to the field is usually to become familiar with the consensus view before becoming embroiled with the alternatives. Not that I have any particular reading to recommend I'm afraid, it's not my period. It's just a general caveat lector - there are some delusional cranks out there among the unacknowledged geniuses.
In my experience, the only way to separate wheat from chaff is to go through the evidence for oneself. Part of the problem is that often people get something right, something else wrong and cannot seem to tell the difference. Only by looking at it oneself and seriously questioning how it all hangs together does any coherent system emerge. To say this takes time and effort is an understatement, so best to be very interested.
For any who want a relatively painless rundown of the conventional chronology of Egypt, try the Wikipedia entry for Egyptian Chronology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology). This is an outline, and allows you to hyperlink individual dynasties until you get bored or bemused doing so. It is in any case a good idea to become familiar with the conventional chronology as this provides a good basis for general familiarisation and allows easier description of how it became scrambled.
QuoteI'm not aware that anyone dislikes this or any other subject, though it's fair to say that in this case there is a danger of veering into territory best avoided - the page referenced above is on 'faithweb', its author is author of 'A Biblical Interpretation of World History', and a few moments spent Googling 'problems with Egyptian chronology' will show that, on the internet at least, Egyptian chronology is as much a religious issue as a historical one.
One reason why Christians tend to favour non-conventional chronologies is that under the conventional chronology there is no link-up between the Bible and the chronology of Egypt as it stands (well, there is
one, but it is a false link*) and hence the Bible is cast into disrepute as a historical source. This in itself has serious ramifications for Hebrew history (not to mention present-day Middle Eastern politics, a subject perhaps best avoided on this forum). Intriguingly, under Velikovsky's chronology the Bible is largely rehabilitated as a good historical source.
*
A Sheshonk of the Libyan Dynasty is assumed to be the 'Shishak' of 1 Kings 14:25. In fact he is the 'So' of 2 Kings 17:4.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 05, 2017, 07:06:49 PM*A Sheshonk of the Libyan Dynasty is assumed to be the 'Shishak' of 1 Kings 14:25. In fact he is the 'So' of 2 Kings 17:4.
Ah, the endearingly casual way that some people use the word "fact" ...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 05, 2017, 07:06:49 PM
Intriguingly, under Velikovsky's chronology the Bible is largely rehabilitated as a good historical source.
I wondered if anyone would bring Velikovsky into the discussion.... was he the dude who started this whole 'problem'? I have a vague recollection of some argument about dating dynasties between French and British archaeologists back in the 1920s or 1930s but my memory gets fuzzy that far back... But didn't Vellly get hung up on the 19th and 20th dynasties having nowhere to move when he moved the 18th dynasty from the 16th-14th centuries to the 11th-9th? So I hear anyway. I really know nothing at all about it...
He mentioned the V word...
Velikovsky was the originator of the Othismos Interpretation - the theory that all hoplite battles were decided by the timely intervention of an army of Atlantaeans who, on horseback, wielding lances, formed on an 18" frontage and organised in files, would pass through enemy formations like a knife through butter, thus proving the historical reliability of biblical accounts and the veracity, in all circumstances, of Herodotus. The Greeks left statues on Mars to commemorate these events, thus indisputably corroborating Velikovsky's work. Or am I misremembering?
Or for a closer approximation to fact, you could read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
Quote from: Dave Beatty on October 06, 2017, 03:29:05 AM
So I hear anyway. I really know nothing at all about it...
Don't worry Dave, Patrick is a Velikovsky devotee - he'll soon have you sorted :)
Quote from: RichT on October 06, 2017, 09:25:08 AM
Velikovsky was the originator of the Othismos Interpretation - the theory that all hoplite battles were decided by the timely intervention of an army of Atlantaeans who, on horseback, wielding lances, formed on an 18" frontage and organised in files, would pass through enemy formations like a knife through butter, thus proving the historical reliability of biblical accounts and the veracity, in all circumstances, of Herodotus. The Greeks left statues on Mars to commemorate these events, thus indisputably corroborating Velikovsky's work. Or am I misremembering?
No, just misrepresenting.
I am tempted to say this facetious flippancy is quite up to the usual standard of interpretation I would expect from certain quarters, but that could be taken as personal (and is actually inaccurate; I expect better) so I shall instead say it is preferable to research with an open mind than to scoff from the heights of a straddled preconception.
And since that last sentence does not actually contribute any more to the subject in hand, I shall just confirm that
Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2017, 09:30:30 AM
Don't worry Dave, Patrick is a Velikovsky devotee - he'll soon have you sorted :)
Anthony is right.
I don't think I'm misremembering or misrepresenting, but am misattributing since those are Patrick's ideas, not Velikovsky's, and aside from facetiously running them together into one (it was an attempt at humour, but I hadn't appreciated the degree of sensitivity - duly noted), I do not think any of them misrepresent his views, as frequently expressed on this forum.
The vast majority of researchers come to different conclusions than Patrick and Velikovsky. One possible reason for this is that they all have closed minds and are bound by preconceptions, and Patrick and Velikovsky alone do not. Another is that Patrick and Velikovsky are wrong. Take your pick.
Or to repeat what I said earlier in this thread - "Uh oh".
If that was an attempt at humour, Richard, I would hate to see an attempt at denigration.
Quote from: RichT on October 06, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
The vast majority of researchers come to different conclusions than Patrick and Velikovsky.
Which makes one wonder why Velikovsky, the most brilliant archaeological mind of his era, should come to different conclusions. As I mentioned earlier, the only way to sort out the matter is to look into it for oneself.
Quote from: Dave Beatty on October 06, 2017, 03:29:05 AM
I wondered if anyone would bring Velikovsky into the discussion.... was he the dude who started this whole 'problem'?
Well, not quite, the problems were there to begin with, hence the repeated and heated, if publicly muted, discussions between different dating factions and the despair of ever matching up Egyptian and Biblical chronologies. Velikovsky was however the first to propose a radical new solution to the existing problems of Egyptology, namely that Manetho's list of New Kingdom dynasties needed cutting and pasting to snip out c.600 years of unintentionally duplicated history as opposed to being accepted as an integral whole.
Since Velikovsky, there have been some who as an alternative try running various dynasties together as contemporaries in an attempt to achieve dating reconciliations, but this approach, to cut a long story short, does not work. Other alternative chronologies are handicapped by attempting to keep the 18th and 19th Dynasties consecutive but this, like the 'standard' chronology, causes irreconcilable problems with surrounding civilisations.
Quote
But didn't Vellly get hung up on the 19th and 20th dynasties having nowhere to move when he moved the 18th dynasty from the 16th-14th centuries to the 11th-9th?
Again, not quite: he was quite happy about the 19th Dynasty being in 663-525 BC (being the Egyptian side of the so-called '26th Dynasty' known from Greek and Hebrew sources but lacking representation in Egyptian monuments) and similarly the 20th Dynasty being in c.395-343 BC (the Egyptian side of the so-called '30th Dynasty' known from Greek historians) and he published a book on each. Where he had difficulties was in the 8th century BC with the Trojan War and the Libyans, where he could not quite get the timescale to match up. There were a number of reasons for this, the main one being that he was looking at the wrong anchor date (747 BC instead of 807 BC) for the end of the Trojan War and was misdating Horemheb by at least 30 years through believing he was contemporary with Sennacherib instead of being the successor to Takelot II.
Velikovsky's basic premise, that the 18th Dynasty was directly followed by the Libyans, and the subsequent Ethiopians directly by the 19th Dynasty, holds - and holds very well indeed. It allowed me to identify each and every one of Herodotus' pharaohs once I learned that they were mentioned in sequence. This was a very useful independent check as Velikovsky had no idea who most of them were and could not have deliberately aligned his chronology to coincide with Herodotus. Another valuable independent check is the emergence of several 7th-6th century BC characters in Herodotus in the 'Hittite' archives.
Velikovsky's original premise, that the Exodus took place at the end of the Middle Kingdom, is sustained by Manfred Bietak's excavations at Tell el-Daba, which he thought was Avaris but which seems rather to be the city of Ramses in Goshen (Avaris is described in sources as being on the Nakhal Mizraim, Egypt's traditional boundary), which turned up a Syro-Canaanitic population of increasing size and extent living side by side with Egyptian officials during the 12th and 13th Dynasties. Velikovsky never pinpointed the historical Joseph but Donovan Courville did, finding him in the powerful vizier Mentuhotep under Senusert I, whose powers and titles struck JH Breasted as unusually extensive. Mentuhotep described himself as 'the Amu', i.e. the foreigner. Ameny, nomarch of the Oryx under Senusert I, records 'years of famine' during the reign (one of the three famines noted in Middle Kingdom records and the only one with correspondences to Genesis 40). There is also a tomb painting of Knhumhotep of Menet-Khufu dating to the same reign depicting the arrival of a Semitic family in striped multicoloured garments, with the legend: "Sha-ab*, chieftain of the hill country."
*
A ring subsequently discovered at Tell el Daba had a better Egyptian rendering of Jacob.
Once one starts looking in the right places, confirmation flows.
Quote
Which makes one wonder why Velikovsky, the most brilliant archaeological mind of his era, should come to different conclusions.
I don't intend to get into a discussion of Velikovsky's theories as I've not studied them in detail. But I do know that part of the controversy is he wasn't any type of archaeologist, geologist or planetary scientist but a psychiatrist and psychoanalist. It would probably be a good idea to stick to the facts of his theories on Egypt here and potentially consider other alternative chronologies which his work proved a catalyst for, like David Rohl. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl)
However, I'm afraid that, except to reveal that Egyptian chronology is a mess, we'll establish very little sound knowledge and suffer the problem that Velikovsky is to his fans an anti-establishment hero and guru and to his opponents a pseudo-scientific charlatan, which makes objective discussion of his work difficult.
QuoteIf that was an attempt at humour, Richard, I would hate to see an attempt at denigration.
Oh I could do that Patrick, but as it too would consist chiefly of quoting your ideas there might not be much apparent difference, I agree, other than of intent.
QuoteAs I mentioned earlier, the only way to sort out the matter is to look into it for oneself.
Most admirable, and I'm sure you are happy with the conclusions you have come to. However, why then do you report these conclusions back to us at length, since then we are not finding out for ourselves, but are being asked to take your word for it - and why is this any better than taking Velikovsky's, or Rohl's, or Ellenberger's, or Kitchen's, word for it? We have no more reason to trust or be convinced by your findings than we do by theirs - considerably less in fact, since on this forum we are regularly witness to your methodology, your use of evidence and your judgement, none of which (to be frank) inspire great confidence in your conclusions. Where Velikovsky is concerned I agree with your apparent premise - let everyone so inclined investigate in quiet isolation and draw their own conclusions, and not write lengthy posts on this forum in defence of them, or attempt to convince others of their rightness. As that should include me, I will shut up now.
Quote from: RichT on October 07, 2017, 11:26:24 AM
However, why then do you report these conclusions back to us at length, since then we are not finding out for ourselves, but are being asked to take your word for it - and why is this any better than taking Velikovsky's, or Rohl's, or Ellenberger's, or Kitchen's, word for it?
Why indeed?
Simply that I wish to draw attention to the fact that Velikovsky's chronology (as minutely tweaked by Waterson) actually solves chronological problems and such new evidence as emerges is supportive of it. This suggests, at least to me, that good old Immanuel got something right.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 07, 2017, 10:13:13 AM
Quote
Which makes one wonder why Velikovsky, the most brilliant archaeological mind of his era, should come to different conclusions.
I don't intend to get into a discussion of Velikovsky's theories as I've not studied them in detail. But I do know that part of the controversy is he wasn't any type of archaeologist, geologist or planetary scientist but a psychiatrist and psychoanalist.
Which is known as playing the man, not the ball. ;) My standpoint is that it does not matter if he qualified in babycare or knitting provided his conclusions are useful.
Quote
It would probably be a good idea to stick to the facts of his theories on Egypt here and potentially consider other alternative chronologies which his work proved a catalyst for, like David Rohl. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl)
By all means. David is very good, and might have cracked the remaining problems if he had not belonged to the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies, which managed to shoot themselves in the foot in 1978 by taking a 19th Dynasty-produced record that depicted the 19th Dynasty as following the 18th at face value.
Quote
However, I'm afraid that, except to reveal that Egyptian chronology is a mess, we'll establish very little sound knowledge and suffer the problem that Velikovsky is to his fans an anti-establishment hero and guru and to his opponents a pseudo-scientific charlatan, which makes objective discussion of his work difficult.
If we can leave aside those particular viewpoints and just look at what his work solves (and, to be fair, anything it does not), and why there is a problem that needs solving in the first place, we might indeed get somewhere.
So where should we begin?
QuoteWhich is known as playing the man, not the ball. ;)
Not really, just balancing the hype. :)
Quote
My standpoint is that it does not matter if he qualified in babycare or knitting provided his conclusions are useful.
And others, as you know, have more faith in academically grounded work. Velikovsky was clearly an intellegent man but he wasn't trained in what he spoke about and he placed himself outside the academic mainstream. Simply context, not an attack.
Anyway, having made my caveat, I'll leave you kemetophiles to it.
I am minded to recall a slingshot from Phil sabin reviewing a book on, I think it was, grancus, where the untrained author had made a horrific misinterpretation of something because he was unaware of any of the historiography, and had then gone to print with a case that was demonstrably wrong.
And that waterloo new perspectives bloke, whose book was riddled with references to his forthcoming unpublished new book as evidence for his groundbreaking new perspectives.
Those who denigrate academic training tend to also denigrate the scientific method, relying on faith in others taking their word for it, because they have so little else to support what they say.
I imagine most of them also avoid flying in case the earth proves to not be round and they hurt me off the edge.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 08, 2017, 10:08:35 AM
Velikovsky was clearly an intelligent man but he wasn't trained in what he spoke about and he placed himself outside the academic mainstream. Simply context, not an attack.
Fair enough. And yet he made sense out of material which tied others in knots, and from what I can see studied it in greater breadth and depth than most if not all of the academic mainstreamers.
The crux of the matter is not, however, his qualifications but rather the essential question:
does his reconstruction stand up to testing? And, for that matter, what do I mean by 'testing'?
There are three tests I regard as critical.
1) If the Exodus took place at the end of the Middle Kingdom, it requires a flourishing Hebrew population in the north-eastern province of Ramses during the latter part of the Middle Kingdom. Do we find this?
2) If he is correct about the 19th Dynasty we know from Egyptian records being the same as the 26th Dynasty we know of from Greek and Hebrew records, then the contemporary 'Hittite' Empire must also belong to the 7th-6th centuries BC, which means the events in its archives must reflect those of the 7th-6th centuries BC. Do they?
3) Herodotus drew his Book II history of Egypt from pre-Manetho Egyptian sources. What is the sequence of dynasties in Herodotus, i.e. does it accord with the Velikovskyan sequence or not?
Why these particular tests? They all cover
critical historical material that Velikovsky never examined, and therefore are outside the scope of his published interpretations. The requisite criteria are also clear: to validate Velikovsky, there must be a significant Syro-Canaanitic population in north-eastern Egypt during the 12th-13th Dynasties
and there must be a reflection of 7th-6th century BC historical events in the 'Hittite' archives. Herodotus' sequence of dynasties also needs to come down clearly on the side of Velikovskian chronology.
The virtue of these tests is that they are completely independent of any written opinion or conclusion published by Velikovsky. Any evidence they provide is 'untainted' by Velikovskian 'propaganda'.
QuoteAnyway, having made my caveat, I'll leave you kemetophiles to it.
And I shall see if anyone has anything to say about the above test criteria.
Quote from: Mark G on October 08, 2017, 12:50:53 PM
Those who denigrate academic training tend to also denigrate the scientific method, relying on faith in others taking their word for it, because they have so little else to support what they say.
I shall let Robert Gascoyne-Cecil answer this one.
"No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense." (Letter to Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 15 June 1877)
Michael Gove said the same thing.
And we can prove he was lying through his teeth.
Quote from: Mark G on October 09, 2017, 08:56:04 AM
Michael Gove said the same thing.
And we can prove he was lying through his teeth.
Let's at least keep the current politics out of it, please!
Agreed, Duncan.
Well, golly.
I had no idea I was opening the proverbial can of worms...
In order to avoid revealing my colonial-ness, and to avoid opening yet another can of worms (and the catfish ain't bitin' on worms this time o' year so no sense wasting perfectly good worms), I must admit I had to google who that Gove guy is...
Thanks for all the intraheadquarters banter as we used to say. I have lots to chew on.
Dave
Quote from: RichT on October 06, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
I don't think I'm misremembering or misrepresenting, but am misattributing since those are Patrick's ideas, not Velikovsky's, and aside from facetiously running them together into one (it was an attempt at humour, but I hadn't appreciated the degree of sensitivity - duly noted), I do not think any of them misrepresent his views, as frequently expressed on this forum.
You might also just be referring to something completely different, viz. the Macedonian cavalry wedge. Another rich pasture for forum bunfights.
Quote from: RichT on October 06, 2017, 11:42:21 AMThe vast majority of researchers come to different conclusions than Patrick and Velikovsky. One possible reason for this is that they all have closed minds and are bound by preconceptions, and Patrick and Velikovsky alone do not. Another is that Patrick and Velikovsky are wrong. Take your pick.
My own experience with academic consensus when delving into the cavalry wedge and - especially - into Roman line relief was an eye-opener on just how plain wrong academic consensus can be. Obviously I don't say it is always wrong, but sometimes it can be, and spectacularly so.
Quote from: RichT on October 06, 2017, 11:42:21 AMOr to repeat what I said earlier in this thread - "Uh oh".
Nah. How about "Once more into the breach, dear friends."
QuoteNah. How about "Once more into the breach, dear friends."
It often feels like
Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 31, 2017, 10:48:10 AM
QuoteNah. How about "Once more into the breach, dear friends."
It often feels like Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest.
Or maybe "The Guard dies but never surrenders"?
Depends of course on who the Guard is. ;)
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie.
Quote from: RichT on October 31, 2017, 12:28:54 PM
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie.
Mot de Cambronne!Anyway, is this to be an aphorisms thread or a discussion thread on problems with Egyptian dynasties?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 31, 2017, 05:57:58 PM
Quote from: RichT on October 31, 2017, 12:28:54 PM
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie.
Mot de Cambronne!
Anyway, is this to be an aphorisms thread or a discussion thread on problems with Egyptian dynasties?
All yours Patrick. :)
How complex is the topic, i.e. can we do justice to it in a single thread?
We're looking at incomplete primary sources, but can one stitch together a sufficiently coherent picture from them that fits everything in and doesn't do violence to any source? How probable is the final mosaic? By 'probable' I mean that the picture may completely account for the sources, but how much objective certitude does it have?
For the Knife Through Butter thesis, for example, I would say it offers the most complete explanation of the sources but - since no source directly describes the technique of a cavalry wedge charging infantry - it remains at a level a little below moral certitude. For the file-gap Line Relief hypothesis the certitude is much higher since the principal source, Livy,
does describe the mechanism of one line taking over from another. The Latin just has to be properly understood.
It is striking that the two most vociferous defenders of their own theories are also the two who denigrate academic research.
Quote from: Mark G on October 31, 2017, 06:45:30 PM
It is striking that the two most vociferous defenders of their own theories are also the two who denigrate academic research.
Which puts us in good company (http://www.medicaldaily.com/mad-scientist-6-scientists-who-were-dismissed-crazy-only-be-proven-right-years-later-362010).
Rather more to the point: nobody can denigrate solid academic research. Proven facts are proven facts. Academic
consensus built on dubious foundations is however another matter. I'll stick my nose right in and say that the theory of evolution is an academic consensus that doesn't last five minutes in the hands of a serious geneticist (http://programmingoflife.com/the-facts/) - but that's another topic entirely.*
*As a PS I would be quite happy to accept evolution as true if it was proved as such, but at the very least a hypothesis must account for all the facts and evolution doesn't do that by a long stretch.
Not surprised by that at all.
Would you care for the trifecta on climate change?
Quote from: Mark G on October 31, 2017, 06:45:30 PM
It is striking that the two most vociferous defenders of their own theories are also the two who denigrate academic research.
For the record, not academic research
per se but falsely-held academic conclusions and shaky research methods.
[Moderator mode] Mark, please start playing the ball rather than the man. If you have anything substantive to say about the problems concerning Egyptian dynasties, please say it. If you want to argue generally that received academic opinion is always correct (even when it disagrees with itself), or whatever your actual point is, please do it in a new thread specifically for that topic.
Quote from: Mark G on October 31, 2017, 07:51:14 PM
Would you care for the trifecta on climate change?
Not on this forum, please. Past climate change, fine. Current fashionable theory about current climate change, no thank you. There are plenty of other places where that can be discussed.
I also suggest we not get dragged into discussing the theory of evolution, at least not here. [/Moderator mode]
That will do.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 01, 2017, 08:01:42 AM
I also suggest we not get dragged into discussing the theory of evolution, at least not here. [/Moderator mode]
Agreed. :)
Surely the nature of the ; theory, attempted destruction, new theory process is that a theory can be held to be true as long as it is neither dusproved or can be held to be the best of the theories available. We are very unlikely to get a new source on Chaironea and wedge cavalry units, so we are free to choose whichever story looks most in accord with the direct evidence and other evidence from the time that accords with the facts on the ground. Consensus is not proof, thouh it is very useful if we want to build upon the individual action to illuminate others, such as how Alexander got to Porus , or won at the Granicus, or how other Hellenistic cavalry performed.
As to Evolution, it is continuously being refined by discovery and it is very difficult to see some other coherent theory replacing it, though it could happen when a spaceship lands and the little grey chaps get out and explain that all along it was them doing genetic engineering 101.
Roy
If there is a moderator on this forum perhaps he could do his job and shut down inflammatory off topic nonsense like Justin's. I also suggest that some posts are well into the territory of 'bringing the society into disrepute'. Some stricter moderating (or a better moderator) is needed.
More to the point, this thread has already died a natural and well-deserved death. Can it please be left alone? Nothing whatever is to be gained from this zombie thread, and it will only cause discord. Please, there are other better things to talk (or even argue) about. Move along, people.
I agree that we leave topics like evolution well alone (it was unwise of me to introduce it) if for no other reason than that they do not pertain to the SoA field of interest. However the dating of the Egyptian dynasties does pertain and it's an interesting subject. I think we are free on a forum to advance hypotheses that do not coincide with the most commonly held opinions of academia provided we can supply some evidence to support them.
Could we please stick to the old barrack room rule of "no religion, no politics" or a version thereof? I realise we all carry our political and religious views in our intellectual responses to questions, but overtly raising current political or religious controversies here should be a no-no.
On the subject of advancing hypotheses, I'm OK with that, but I don't think it is well served by anti-academic framing. Yes, academics can be wrong. But they usually have studied the evidence in more depth than many of us, so their views shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
Quote from: RichT on November 01, 2017, 08:50:50 AM
If there is a moderator on this forum perhaps he could do his job and shut down inflammatory off topic nonsense like Justin's.
[Moderator mode] Duly done, albeit while being off topic it was not nonsense, but on the topic of 'inflammatory off topic nonsense' please avoid introducing sarcastic references to other topics into threads not dealing with those topics. Otherwise there will be significant moderator pruning all round.
Regarding the status of this thread, it is live for as long as there are problems with Egyptian dynasties. While the dynasties themselves are deceased, problems with chronology remain very much alive. [/Moderator mode]
Quote from: Erpingham on November 01, 2017, 10:39:32 AM
Could we please stick to the old barrack room rule of "no religion, no politics" or a version thereof? I realise we all carry our political and religious views in our intellectual responses to questions, but overtly raising current political or religious controversies here should be a no-no.
Indeed.
Quote
On the subject of advancing hypotheses, I'm OK with that, but I don't think it is well served by anti-academic framing. Yes, academics can be wrong. But they usually have studied the evidence in more depth than many of us, so their views shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
And they are not. However, it may be that many of us are unaware of the problems they have created for themselves in the field of Egyptian chronology, or the solutions to those problems. One not-too-prominent but relatively simple example is the Tomb of Ahiram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahiram_sarcophagus) in Byblos, Phoenicia.
Observe:
"
Associated items dating to the Late Bronze Age either support an early dating, in the 13th century BC or attest the reuse of an early shaft tomb in the 11th century BC."
"
The rendering of figures and the design of the throne and a table show strong Assyrian influences."
"
The formulas [sic] of the inscription were immediately recognised as literary in nature, and the assured cutting of the archaic letters suggested to Charles Torrey a form of writing already in common use. A 10th-century BC date for the inscription has become widely accepted."
So what is the date of the tomb? 13th century BC? 11th century? 10th century? Is Ahiram a contemporary of the 19th Dynasty, the 20th Dynasty or the Libyans?
Let us take a look behind the scenes to when the tomb was first excavated under Pierre Montet in 1921-3.
The tomb consisted of a shaft leading to a burial chamber, evidently already looted in a bygone age, which held three sarcophagi, one ornate, with an inscription in Hebrew characters which identified the occupant as a King Ahiram, while the other two were plain. Near the entrance to the burial chamber fragments of an alabaster vase bearing the name of Ramses II was found. A further alabaster fragment found within the tomb also bore Ramses II's name. Also found was an ivory plaque which leading French orientalist Rene Dussaud (more famous for his part in the Glozel controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glozel), a sort of archaeological Dreyfus case) thought may have been Mycenaean.
What troubled the archaeologists was that they also found Cyprian pottery of what looked very much like 7th century style. Montet wanted to classify everything as 13th century BC nd contemporary with Ramses II. Dussaud agreed on this as the age of the tomb, but insisted on a 7th century BC date for the Cyprian pottery.
The matter was patched over by assuming that 7th century BC thieves had brought Cyprian pottery into the tomb and left it there, despite this being a unique putative
modus operandi for thieves. This left just the problem of the inscriptions.
Why were they a problem? Because they were in Hebrew, and Hebrew inscriptions had no business being in a Phoenician tomb of the 13th century BC. The problem did not stop there: the script resembled that used by more recent Phoenician kings, Alibaal and Elibaal, who were tied in with the Libyan Dynasty which in conventional reckoning ruled from c.946-720 BC, in other words a good four centuries after Ahiram's supposed tie-in with Ramses II. Furthermore, the Hebrew script shows similarities with that of the Mesha stele (c.840 BC) and the inscription of Hezekiah in the Jerusalem Shiloa spring water conduit (c.700 BC). Epigraphists pointed out that over four centuries there would have been considerable changes in the script, hence the inscriptions could not have been composed prior to c.1000 BC.
Cue a slow-burning argument that lasted for decades. To cap it all, Ahiram's sarcophagus was found on stylistic grounds to be similar to a Sidonian sarcophagus of the fourth century.
So - was Ahiram's tomb cut in the 13th century BC, the 10th century BC or the 7th century BC? And was he a contemporary of Ramses II?
QuoteSo - was Ahiram's tomb cut in the 13th century BC, the 10th century BC or the 7th century BC? And was he a contemporary of Ramses II?
I'm missing something here. Why should he be a contemporary of Ramesses II? This is not archaeology of a sealed context. The tomb has been robbed and reused, apparently, so why should the Ahiram sarcophagus be assumed contemporary with fragments of alabaster with the name of Ramesses on? They could be from the earlier use, they could have been reused when the tomb was reused, they could even have been introduced from elsewhere, either at the time of reuse or in the proposed 7th century looting. We are also dealing with an excavation of the first quarter of the 20th century - not an era universally acclaimed for its technical abilities - so subtleties in deposition that could have answered the question may have been missed.
I suspect the Ramesses question has become attached by those involved in Egyptian dating issues searching the literature for potential support for their theories, rather than from mainstream archaeology.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 01, 2017, 12:37:18 PM
QuoteSo - was Ahiram's tomb cut in the 13th century BC, the 10th century BC or the 7th century BC? And was he a contemporary of Ramses II?
I'm missing something here. Why should he be a contemporary of Ramesses II? This is not archaeology of a sealed context. The tomb has been robbed and reused, apparently, so why should the Ahiram sarcophagus be assumed contemporary with fragments of alabaster with the name of Ramesses on?
And your good self was not the first to ask this particular question. However Pierre Montet, the excavator, decided that the vase fragments dated the tomb and that was that, as far as he was concerned. Dussaud proposed that the Cyprian 7th century ware had been introduced by thieves. The epigraphists wondered if thieves had in fact brought in the vases with the cartouches of Ramses II. Neither side stopped to think why thieves would wish to carry vases or pottery
into a tomb.
QuoteThey could be from the earlier use, they could have been reused when the tomb was reused
The tomb shows no signs of re-use, but the theory is that someone scraped up a couple of old vases with Ramses II's name on them to add to a 10th century BC burial (why they did not use the more pervasive and plentiful contemporary Libyan Dynasty material should have been considered).
Quotethey could even have been introduced from elsewhere, either at the time of reuse or in the proposed 7th century looting.
Again, the idea of thieves actually stocking a tomb with vases in any era boggles the imagination.
Quote
We are also dealing with an excavation of the first quarter of the 20th century - not an era universally acclaimed for its technical abilities - so subtleties in deposition that could have answered the question may have been missed.
Montet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Montet) was a highly respected archeologist, and definitely not the smash-and-grab variety. His cataloguing of finds and his technique served as models for the future. While technique has been much refined since his day, his was good enough.
Quote
I suspect the Ramesses question has become attached by those involved in Egyptian dating issues searching the literature for potential support for their theories, rather than from mainstream archaeology.
It was present from the beginning, as I have attempted to make clear. The excavator (Montet) himself regarded it as conclusive for the dating of the tomb. Yet this associative dating produced problems which linger to this day.
QuoteAgain, the idea of thieves actually stocking a tomb with vases in any era boggles the imagination.
You are making the assumption that "introduction" means stocking. Your report suggested you had alabaster fragments, not whole vases. In a disturbed context all manner of crap can get in. In fact, the only thing that can't get in is stuff younger than the latest disturbance.
Apologies on the reuse thing. It is very difficult not to assume reuse if you have a 13th century tomb and a 10th century sarcophagus but I see now that you are assuming no firm date for the tomb cutting, just throwing out possible dates.
Anyway, I'll let those more interested in Near Eastern archaeology take this one up. But, if Dave is to get an answer, I think you need to pitch things at a more macro level rather than one find at a time.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 01, 2017, 01:29:38 PM
QuoteAgain, the idea of thieves actually stocking a tomb with vases in any era boggles the imagination.
You are making the assumption that "introduction" means stocking. Your report suggested you had alabaster fragments, not whole vases. In a disturbed context all manner of crap can get in. In fact, the only thing that can't get in is stuff younger than the latest disturbance.
Yes, alabaster vase fragments, two of which bore the name of Ramses II, were found at the entrance to the burial chamber and a further fragment in the tomb. The context was not 'disturbed' apart from the one thiefly intrusion of an unspecified century BC, as during ongoing Byblos excavations commencing in 1921 the entryway was first revealed on 16th February 1922 by a landslide on the seaward slope of the site and the tomb excavated thereafter. This is presumably why Montet did not write off the vase material as intrusive but instead used it as the basis for his dating.
The same landslide revealed further tombs, including one (Tomb I) datable to the 12th Dynasty from mortuary gifts carrying the name of Amenemhet III.
When Montet moved on, Dussaud (Maurice
fils, not Rene
pere) took over, and found further objects bearing the name of Ramses II in the same stratigraphic context. He also found parts of a large doorway or portal bearing Ramses II's cartouches. Ramses II's rock carvings at Nahr-el-Kelb (next to those of Ashurbanipal) are not far away. All of this was considered to reinforce the Ramses II connection.
QuoteIn a disturbed context all manner of crap can get in.
But apparently none did: no coprolites featured in the excavation report. ;)
QuoteApologies on the reuse thing. It is very difficult not to assume reuse if you have a 13th century tomb and a 10th century sarcophagus but I see now that you are assuming no firm date for the tomb cutting, just throwing out possible dates.
No apology needed: it is a natural assumption and an aspect which needed to be considered. I offered the differing dates which have been posited by historians following the conventional chronology in line with their specialisations. I can provide a firm date, or at least date range within 10-12 years, but do not wish to impose as we are discussing problems rather than solutions.
Quote
Anyway, I'll let those more interested in Near Eastern archaeology take this one up. But, if Dave is to get an answer, I think you need to pitch things at a more macro level rather than one find at a time.
Taking a general and wide-ranging view is all very well, and ultimately necessary, but all too often the devil is in the details. This particular item was simply to demonstrate that there are problems under the existing chronology, and apparently irreconcilable ones at that. There are more I would happily describe (including the stratigraphy of Byblos itself, as revealed by the excavations). However as Dave was the thread originator it makes sense to let him decide how far he wishes the subject to be taken.
QuoteWhen Montet moved on, Dussaud (Maurice fils, not Rene pere) took over, and found further objects bearing the name of Ramses II in the same stratigraphic context.
Ok, so material from the same site of an earlier period to the tomb exists. Someone cuts through this to create a tomb in the 10th century and backfills (the core dating here has to be the thing too big for redeposition - the sarcophagus). Then someone loots this tomb, cutting through the same early deposits, then someone backfills again (or it fills with debris from the site due to natural processes). Regardless of anything else Patrick, your Ramesses fragments can't be said to be in an undisturbed context :) You're not going to convince anyone with even basic archaeological training on this one.
I do hope though you can move on to the bigger stuff, though.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 01, 2017, 03:45:15 PM
Regardless of anything else Patrick, your Ramesses fragments can't be said to be in an undisturbed context :) You're not going to convince anyone with even basic archaeological training on this one.
Not even Montet?
Quote
I do hope though you can move on to the bigger stuff, though.
How big would you like? :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 01, 2017, 03:50:59 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on November 01, 2017, 03:45:15 PM
Regardless of anything else Patrick, your Ramesses fragments can't be said to be in an undisturbed context :) You're not going to convince anyone with even basic archaeological training on this one.
Not even Montet?
Unfair to Montet. He clearly didn't have the dating info on the sarcophagus.
Quote
I do hope though you can move on to the bigger stuff, though.
How big would you like? :)
[/quote]
Well, Dave asked (lest we have all forgotten)
Quote
Anyone out there up to date on the continuing discussion/argument about "fixing" the many problems with dating Egyptian dynasties? I'm particularly interested in the 26th dynasty...
So, he is looking for something about the 26th dynasty. Ramesses II is usually said to be 19th dynasty, unless you've moved him (he said, tempting fate).
Quote from: Erpingham on November 01, 2017, 04:15:45 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 01, 2017, 03:50:59 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on November 01, 2017, 03:45:15 PM
Regardless of anything else Patrick, your Ramesses fragments can't be said to be in an undisturbed context :) You're not going to convince anyone with even basic archaeological training on this one.
Not even Montet?
Unfair to Montet. He clearly didn't have the dating info on the sarcophagus.
Well, he thought he did: as far as he was concerned, everything, 7th century BC Cyprian ware included, belonged to the time of Ramses II and the 13th century. Epigraphers and (naturally) people who thought the 7th century Cyprian pottery was 7th century had occasion to disagree. Montet was pretty influential and hence although the balance of opinion shifted toward a younger date as time went on, a school of thought had already arisen that the inscriptions in the tomb (one on the sarcophagus and one in the southern wall of the shaft) were the earliest form of Hebrew writing, that they belonged to the 13th century BC and hence Phoenicians were using a Hebrew script before the Hebrews.
There was a problem with this: comparison with the Mesha stele, known to be dated to c.840 BC, revealed that the letters in Ahiram's tomb corresponded more closely with seventh century Hebrew usage than with the 9th century Mesha stele. The letter Heth has three cross-strokes in 7th century BC Hebrew and two on the Mesha stele. In Ahiram's tomb Heth has three cross-strokes.
And, as we have seen, there were further problems with the tomb contents. Montet would not hear of them, but they persisted, including of course the stylistic and artistic features of the sarcophagus itself. To this day minds are not entirely made up and bets are hedged over several centuries.
Quote
Well, Dave asked (lest we have all forgotten)
Quote
Anyone out there up to date on the continuing discussion/argument about "fixing" the many problems with dating Egyptian dynasties? I'm particularly interested in the 26th dynasty...
So, he is looking for something about the 26th dynasty. Ramesses II is usually said to be 19th dynasty, unless you've moved him (he said, tempting fate).
Our good friend Herodotus gives us our best information on the 26th Dynasty. Begun by the short-lived (664-664 BC) Necho I, it continued as follows:
664-610 BC Psammetichus
610-595 BC Necho (II), who campaigned mightily in the Fertile Crescent, took Kadytis and lost at Carchemish
595-589 BC Psammis
589-570 BC Apries, noted for his Libyan campaign, also campaigned in the Holy Land
570-526 BC Amasis, successful long reign despite a question over his right to the throne; corpse abused by the Persians
526-525 BC Psammenitus (killed leading an attempted revolt against the Persians)
This dynasty was contempory with the meteoric Neo-Babylonian Empire and Amasis and Psammenitus were contemporaries of the Median monarchs Cyrus and Cambyses. Of these pharaohs, Necho II was particularly noted for his campaigns in which he captured the great city of Kadytis. Apries conducted at least one significant campaign against enemies in Libya before being supplanted by Amasis.
Curiously enough, none of them left any records of any of their campaigns. At least, this is true if they were who Egyptologists think they are. Well, there is one very brief record by Ahmose sa-Neith, the Egyptologists' choice for Amasis of one campaign: he refers to 'Greeks in the northland' and fighting around a river. But of the forays into the Fertile Crescent and for that matter Libya, not a word.
None of them seem to have built any major palaces or temples, either. They just left a few statues and the odd commemorative inscription.
So where does the 19th Dynasty fit in?
664 BC Ramses I (reigned less than one year, just like Necho of the Greek sources)
664-610 BC Seti I (a longer reign than hitherto assumed, but some of it appears to have been shared in a co-regency with Ramses II, who seems to have taken to adding his co-regency years to the duration of his sole years)
510-585 BC Ramses II (campaigned mightily, took Kadesh - then lost it, an event which saw much special pleading on his part)
585-579 BC Siptah (short-lived)
579-570 BC Merneptah (or Merenptah; campaigned in the Holy Land and Libya)
570-526 BC Amenmesse (the enigma of the dynasty, right to the throne unclear; most of his buildings and statues are heavily vandalised)
526-525 BC Seti II (led a revolt against 'the great enemy, Bey' but did not long survive it)
Overall, this is a remarkably good fit (try it with any other dynasty and you will see what I mean). There are a few 'wiggle details' which must be mentioned.
1) Herodotus gives the reign of Psammetichus as 54 years and Necho II as 16 years. Ramses II is generally regarded as having reigned much longer than 16 years, while Seti's reign is considered to have been 15-16 years long (although Manetho assigns him 55 years, a remarkably close match for the 54 years of Herodotus' Psammetichus).
Psammetichus' time on the throne included an extended period of joint rule with 11 other kings, which ended when he a) fulfilled an oracle and b) as a result, had to fight his co-kings, fortuitously being able to enlist foreign mercenaries (much like Seti and Ramses enlisting Sherden as part of their army). While we are not given a date for the beginning of his sole rule, we do know that he began as an Assyrian nominee (nowadays we would say a 'puppet') and if we look at the fortunes of Assyria in the period 664-610 BC, we may note the coincidence between the Assyrian disintegration c.631-626 BC and the 16-year reign Egyptologists allow Seti (626-610 BC is 16 years).
An inscription of Ramses II states that while he was 'a child in his lap' his father ordered: "Crown him as king that I may see his qualities while I am still living". This points to a co-regency, and if Ramses later counted the years of his co-regency as part of his reign (and given his apparent vanity in other matters, it is tempting to think that he did so) he would have amassed a considerable length of reign by the time he was 30 or 40 years old.
2) Apries/Merneptah has an apparently significant reign discrepancy: Merneptah is assigned 10 years (more accurately, 10 plus an unknown coregency period) while Apries is given 25 years. Herodotus does not state whether any part of the time he assigns to Apries' reign includes the time when he was a 'guest' of his successor Amasis, but one would assume not, leaving a 15-year coregency as the most likely resolution of the matter. This is the most significant 'wiggle' required for the 19th Dynasty to occupy the period 664-525 BC, but it is by no means an impossible one. (One might point out that Herodotus deems Apries to be the son of Psammis (Siptah) while Merneptah was the son of Ramses II, or described himself as such - I do not view this as a history-breaking discrepancy.)
The modest records of Siptah and Seti II are consistent with the short and uneventful in one case, unsuccessful in the other, reigns of Psammis and Psammenitus.
The 19th Dynasty thus fits surprisingly well into the 26th Dynasty slot. The question is, of course, how this affects the rest of Egyptian chronology: it is sustainable, or have we merely achieved an apparent fit through a lucky coincidence, and will things spring back into conventional shape when other dynasties are considered, together with their relationship with the outside world?
And if we move Ramses II into the Necho II slot, the 'Hittite Empire', indissolubly connected with him by the treaty between Ramses and Hattusilis found both in Egypt and Anatolia, has to move with him, into the period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
Curiously enough, this actually solves the major mysteries of 'Hittite' geography and identifies the more enigmatic figures, e.g. Ahhiyawa, Piyamaradus and Tawagalawas. Arzawa, Kizzuwatna and the Seha River Land drop into place; I shall go into more detail if anyone is interested.
Raising our sights above a single dynasty, the key matter at issue is whether the Manethonian sequence of 18th-19th-20th-21st-22nd-23rd-24th-25th-26th-27th-28th-29th-30th dynasties is correct, or whether the Velikovskian sequence of 18th-22nd-23rd-24th-25th-19th-27th-28th-29th-20th solves the problems endemic to the former (or whether both are wrong and there is another solution).
The conventional dating results in huge problems with stratigraphy in Asia Minor. At Gordium, the excavators dug through the Persian layer and found the Hittite layer. Digging through the Hittite layer, they found the Phrygian layer (9th-7th centuries BC). This caused major bafflement and bizarre theories about the Persians removing the Neo-Babylonian layer and replacing it with a Hittite layer dug up from somewhere (which would require remarkable stratigraphic perception on the part of the Persians, not to mention an enormous amount of labour to no apparent purpose).
There are similar problems in Phoenicia. Montet's excavation of Byblos, continued by Dussand, revealed that there were no strata between the time of Ramses II and c.600 BC. (This may have been one of the reasons behind Montet's 13th century date for Ahiram's tomb.)
These stratigraphic problems vanish if Ramses II was in fact Necho II and the 19th Dynasty fits in the 26th Dynasty slot. But how do we prise it apart from the 18th Dynasty, and with what effect on the remainder of New Kingdom chronology?
The key individual in the whole scheme is the pharaoh known as Horemheb. He is supposed (under conventional dating) to have been a contemporary of Tutankhamun, but this creates a problem: when Tutankhamun died, everyone who was anyone sent gifts to join the wealth of material placed in Tutankhamun's tomb, but - and this is a genuine puzzle to Egyptologists - there is nothing whatsoever from Horemheb. Horemheb is then supposed to have gone on to succeed Ay and been the transitional figure between the 18th and 19th Dynasties. For this, we have the evidence of the Abydos Stone (created, significantly, by the 19th Dynasty) but nothing else.
So who was Horemheb, who worshipped Aton in his youth and the traditional deities of Egypt when he came to reign? Who was this short-lived pharaoh who reopened the traditional temples, was most concerned to bring justice to those he ruled, and whose daughter predeceased him? Who was this pharaoh, most respected by Egyptians, who styled himself Maa-kheru, the Justified?