Problems with Egyptian Dynasties

[Patrick Waterson]

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]

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.

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 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, 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?

[Erpingham]

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?

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

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.

They 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).

they 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.

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 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.

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.

[Erpingham]

Again, 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

Again, 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.

In a disturbed context all manner of crap can get in.

But apparently none did: no coprolites featured in the excavation report.

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.

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

I do hope though you can move on to the bigger stuff, though.

How big would you like?

[Erpingham]

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.

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)

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).

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

Well, Dave asked (lest we have all forgotten)

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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?