Problems with Egyptian Dynasties

[Patrick Waterson]

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

Don't worry Dave, Patrick is a Velikovsky devotee - he'll soon have you sorted

Anthony is right.

[RichT]

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".

[Patrick Waterson]

If that was an attempt at humour, Richard, I would hate to see an attempt at denigration.

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.

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

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. 

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.

[RichT]

If 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.

As 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

[Erpingham]

Which is known as playing the man, not the ball.  

Not really, just balancing the hype.

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. 

[Mark G]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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'.

Anyway, 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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)

[Mark G]

Michael Gove said the same thing.

And we can prove he was lying through his teeth.

[Duncan Head]

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!

[Patrick Waterson]

Agreed, Duncan.

[Dave Beatty]

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

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

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.

Or to repeat what I said earlier in this thread - "Uh oh".

Nah. How about "Once more into the breach, dear friends."