The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications

T H E N I L E VA L L E Y Lake Moeris :z Elephantine. ..,., ' THE EXODUS PROBLEM and its Ramifications A Critical Examination of the Chronological Relationships Between Israel and the Contemporary Peoples of Antiquity by Donovan A. Courville 37 16 34 7 3 Chapters Chronological Charts Tables Plates Maps More than 700 pages Challenge Books Loma Linda, California Library of Congress Catalog Card Number Copyright, 1971, by Donovan A. Courville. All rights reserved. Printed in th~ United States of America The text of these volumes was justified by computer and typeset by photocomposition by Stationers Corporation and printed by El Camino Press. Donovan A. Courville, B. Th., B.A., M.A., Ph.D. About the Author Donovan Courville trained early in life for" the ministry, completing his studies to the B. Th. degree in 1922 from Andrews University Subsequent developments were such as to lead into the teaching profession, additional studies leading to the B.A. degree from the same institution in 1931. One of his major interests was the field of Archaeology, but again developments dictated the alternate field of Chemistry as his teaching major. The M.A. degree in Chemistry was from Indiana University in 1934 and the Ph.D. degree was from Washington University in 1945. He taught at Pacific Union Collt,)ge between the years 1935 and 1949, at which . time he joined the staff in Bio~cheinistry of the School of Medicine at Loma Linda {Jniversity, ,which posit.ion was retain~d until retirement with emeritus standing in 1970: lfo; bent in the direction of library over laboratory investigation resulte.d from a recognition of an unusual organizational ability, a further factor being the limitations of available research fonds and facilities. His .principal work has been the participation with Dr. Bruce Halstead over a period of seven years ill the production of a threevolume exhaustive monograph entitled The Poisonous and Venomous Marine Animals of the World, the sections on chemistry having been assigned to him. The study involved the summarizing and systematizing the world literature from this area of rese~rch . The project was. sponsored b,y the United States Army, Navy aind Air Force. The work was published in classical form by the United States Government P~ess during the years 1963 to 1970 (Library of Congress number 65-60000). The production .of The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications represents a critical examination of the available materials from that area of Archaeology related to problems of chronological correlation with Biblical history, a study that extended over a period of more than fifteen years. DEDICATION These volumes are dedicated to my loving wife, Bernice, and to my three wonderful daughters, Donna (Mrs. Albert Patt). Verna (Mrs. Turney Hitler), and Carol (Mrs. Elton Morel). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the development of the chronological reconstruction outlined in these volumes, I am first deeply indebted to the numerous archaeologists who, by an incomprehensible amount of dedicated labor, have provided the facts on which the deductions in this work have been made. While I have differed signif~cantly from the popular views on the interpretation of these facts, it remains true that there can be no interpretation until the facts have been made available. I am also indebted to my wife, Bernice, and to my daughter, Verna, for their invaluable assistaooe in various aspects of the developments. During the early phases of the investigatio~s. my daughter did much of the research, and pointed out to me a number of areas which, from her wide reading in the field, reflected the need for a reconsideration of the chronology of antiquity. With an insuperable patience, my wife has given freely of her time and effort in typing much of the numerous drafts which the manuscript has undergone, adjusting her life as necessary to meet the condition~ for the production of this work. My sincere thanks to the many readers who have contributed constructive criticisms. At best, the wide range of materials necessarily incorporated under the volume title, do not make easy reading, yet included in the group to which the work is directed are many whose background in these areas is limited to some degree. A deep obligatfon is recognized to Mrs. Madelynn Hald~ man and K. E. H. Richards for their editorial aid and suggestions to the end of ameliorating this situation as far as possible. The continued interest in this project by my brother, the late Dr. Cyril B. Courville, has been a source of profound encouragement in the many vicissitudes encountered in the progress of this book. TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I · Chapter Page I The Scriptural Accounts of the Exodus and Related Events 1 II The Date of the Exodus in Israelite Chronology 6 III Difficulties in Locating the Exodus Background Within the Limits of Bible Chronology 16 IV The XIXth Dynasty Exodus TheorY.: Its Advantages and Weaknesses 40 V Further Difficulties in Archaeological Interpretation from the Era of the Conquest 61 VI Archaeological Difficulties Disappear with a Redating of Early Bronze IV 77 VII The Outlines of a New Chronology Emerge 100 VIII The Contribution of the Hebrews to Ancient Culture 105 IX Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus? 116 X Joseph and His Famine in the Egyptian Inscriptions 133 XI Egypt in the Pre-Famine Period (Part I) 162 XII Egypt in the Pre-Famine Period (Part 11) 186 XUl,, The Chronology of the XIIth Dynasty 211 XIV Problems. Related to the Hyksos 227 XV~ '.Jhe Enigma of Manetho' s Xlth Dynasty 242 ~yi: 's~iS.~ au<fthe Sa.eking of Solomon's Temple 252 XVII Problems Related to the Composition of Manetho' s XVII Ith and XIX th Dynasties 279 XVIII The Background to Egypt's Loss of Independ- 300 ence ·)UX The Relation Between Archaeological Interpreta. tioo and Evaluation of Scripture 326 VJII LIST OF TABLES Volume I I Chronological Data for the Period from the Exodus to Solomon II The Kings of Egypt During the Period Covered by Various Theories Relative to the Dates of Exodus III The Archaeological Ages IV The Early Egyptian Kings of the. Sothis List 10 22 79 120 V Comparison of the Names of the Ramessides of the Sothis List with Those of the XXth Dynasty 120 · VI Kings of the Early XII Ith Dynasty According to the Turin Papyrus (after Brugsch) VII The Kings of Dynasties I, II, and III VIII Kings of the IVth Dynasty; Kings of the VthDynasty IX The Sothis List Compared with Manetho for Dynasty V x Kings of the Early Theban List with Suggested Identifications 126 167 189 200 203 XI Source Variations on XIIth Dynasty Chronology 214 XII Interpretations of Data for Dynasty XII by Petrie and Breasted 215 XIII Comparison of Previously Available Data on Dynasty XII with Data from the Sothis List 216 XIV Summary of Data on the XVIII th and XIXth Egyptian Dynasties 256 xv The Kings of Dynasty XXII I 303 XVI The Sons of Rameses III as Given by the Medinet Habu Inscription 309 XVII The Kings of Dynasty XXI 312 XVIII The Kings of Dynasty XXII 318 XIX The Genealogy of Horpasen as Interpreted by Petrie ·ix 321 LIST OF FIGURES Volume I 1. A Suggested Chronology for the 480-Year Period 14 2. General Outline of the Egyptian Dynasties in Relation to Israelite History by the Revised Dating of Early Bronze 104 3. Scriptural Incidents Correlated with the Chronology of Dynasties XII and XIII 151 4. The Time Relationships Between the Various Dynasties of the Old Kingdom 169 5. Comparative Chronologies of Dynasties I and III 184 6. The Chronology of Dynasty IV 193 7. The Chronology of Dynasty V 201 8. A suggested Synthesis of the Chronology of Dynasty II Set Against the Background for Dynasties IV and V 204 9. Comparison of Old Testament and Egyptian Chronologies for the Era of Dynasty XII 10. The Chronology of the Early XVIIIth Dynasty 223 268 11. The Chronology of the XVIIIth Dynasty Kings from Amenhotep III to Rameses II 275 12. The Time Relationships by the Proposed Chronological Revision Between the Late Egyptian Dynasties and the Fixed Chronology of Assyria 302 LIST OF PLATES Volume I Front Map The Nile Valley Plate I Mummies of the Pharaohs Credited by Various Theories as the Pharaoh of the Exodus The Step Pyramid of Zoser Plate II Plate III The Palermo Stone Inscription Plate IV The Horpasen Geneological Inscription Map Palestine 37 173 207 320 Back XI ABBREVIATIONS TO REFERENCES CITED A-AP Albright, W. F., The Archaeology of Palestine. Penguin Books, 1960. AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Albright, W. F., Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. Supplement to Young's Analytical Con- A-RDBL cordance, 1955. BA B-AB B-AKA The Biblical Archaeologist. Barton, George, Archaeology and the Bible, 4th ed., 1925 . Budge, E. A. W., Annals of the Kings of Assy- ria. B-ARE ·BASOR B-BEC B-BK B-EUP B-HE B-HH BH-SA B-N B-SKC B-TT CH. C-SEI Breasted, J. H., Ancient Records of Egypt. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.' Budge, E. A. W., Books on Chaldea and Egypt. Budge, E. A. W., Book of the Kings of Egypt. Brugsch-Bey, Henry, Egypt Under the Pharaohs. Translation by Philip Smith, 2nd ed., 1881. Breasted,]. H., A History of Egypt, 1954. Botsford, G. W., Hellenic History, 1939. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E., Science in Archaeology (revised, 1969 ). Budge, E. A. W., The Nile, 1910. Baikie,]., The Sea Kings of Crete, 1913. Blegen, C. W., Troy and the Trojans, 1963. Classical Handbook (Appleton-Century, 1962) Crowfoot, ]. W., and G. M., Samaria-Sebas- ·te-Early Ivories. CKS-SB C-GUA C-HP e-sa :01iBGA Crowfoot, J. W., Kenyon, K. M., .and Sukenik, E. L., Samaria-Sebas.te-The Buildings. Cook, R. M., The Greeks until Alexander, 1962. Ceram, C. W., Hands 010 thie Past, 1966. Ceram, C. W., The StNJ'tet of tlie Hittites, 1956. Demargne, P., The Birth of Greek Art, Translation by Gilbert and Emmons, 1964. Pa~idson, D., The Great Pyramid, 8th ed., 1940: ·Pi~,. D~, Writmg, 1962 XU!r: Emery, W. B., Archaic Egypt. Penguin Books, 1961. E-COWA Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 1954. Elgood, P. G., The Later Dynasties of Egypt, E-LDE 1951. Edwards, I. E. S., The Pyramids of Egypt, PeliE-PE can Books, 1955. Edgerton, W. F., The Thutmosid Succession, E-TS 1933. F-ABH Free, J. P., Archaeology and Bible History, 1954. Finegan, J., Light from the Ancient Past, 1969. F-LAP Gordon, Cyrus, Before the Bible, 1962. G-BB Gardner, A., Egyptian Grammer, 3rd ed. G-EG Gurney, C. R., The Hittites. Penguin Books, G-H 1954. G-NHOTL Gordon, Cyrus H., New Horizons in Old Testament Literature, 1960. Glueck, N., The Other Side of Jordan, 1940. G-OSJ G-PM Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mirsin, 1953. G-RD Glueck, N., Rivers in the Desert, 1960. Garstang, J., The Story of Jericho, 1948. G-SJ deGrazia, A., (ed.), The Velikovsky Affair, deG-VA 1966. Gordon, Cyrus H., The World of the Old TesG-WOT tament, 1958. Hoyle, F., Frontiers of Astronomy, 1955. H-FA H-H Herodotus, Histories, Translated by DeSelincourt. H-I Homer, The Iliad. Penguin Books. H-P Harden, D., The Phoenicians, 1963. Hutchinson, R. W., Prehistoric Crete. Pelican H-PC Books, 1962. Horn, S. H., Records of the Past Illuminate the H-RPIB Bible, 1963. HRS-CE Hayes, W. C., Rowton, M. B., and Stubbings, F. H., Chronology of Egypt .... Josephus, F., Ago.inst ApiOfl. Supplement .to JJ-AA AJ. Jqsephus, F., Antiq:uitie$ of .the Jews. TranslaJ-AJ tion by Whis~on. E-AE ~m JNES K-AHL K-BH K-DJ K-G K-RCE K-SAP L-ARAB L-EA L-EHPA L-RD M-CEP M-HE M-P M-SEC N-HI 0-VVPW journal of Near Eastern Studies. Kenyon, K. M., Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960. Keller, W., The Bible as History, 1964. Kenyon, K., Digging up Jericho, 1957. Kitto, H. D. F., The Greeks. Pelican Books. Kantor, H. ]., The Relative Chronology of Egypt (in E-COWA), 1954. Kitchen, K. A., Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs, 1926. Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia; 1926. Lloyd, S., Early Anatolia. Penguin Books, 1965. Lloyd, S., Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia. Libby, W. F., f{adiocarbon Dating. Phoenix Series, 1965. Macalister, R. A. S., A Century of Excavation in Palestine, 1925. · Maspero, G., History of Egypt. Macalister, R. A. S., The Philistines, 1911 (reprint, 1965 ). MacNaughton, D., A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology, 1932. Noth, M., A History of Israel, 1960. Odom, R. L., Vettius Valens and the Planetary Week. P-ANEP. P-ANET P-CAE P-CAEM P-EI P-EOT P-G P-HE P-PE P-PI Pritchard, J. B., The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 1954. Pritchard, J. B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 1955. Poole, R. S., The Chronology of Ancient Egypt, 1851. Perkins, A. L.; The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. No. 25 of Studies in An- cient Oriental Civilization. Petrie, F., Egypt and Israel, 1923. Peet, T. E., Egypt and the Old Testament, 1923. Pritchard,}. B., Gibeon, 1962. Petrie, F., A History of Egypt, 7th ed., 1912. Petrie, F., Prehistoric Egypt, 1920. Piggott, S., Prehistoric India, 1961. XIV R-AM R-CH R-EH R-HAE R-HBA R-FJJ SD ABC SDABD S-DCA Rawlinson, G., Ancient Monarchies, 4th ed., 1897. Rollin, Charles, Cyclopedia of History, 1883. ' Rawlinson, G., The Egypt of Herodotus, 1924. Rawlinson, G., History of Ancient Egypt, 1880. Rogers, R. W., History of Babylonia and Assyria, 6th ed., 1915. Rowley, H. H., From Joseph to Joshua, 1950. · Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Seyffert, 0., Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, 1956. S-DGRBM Smith, W., (ed), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1849-50. Seele, K. C., The Coregency of Rameses II S-CRS with Seti I. No. 19 of Studies in Ancient OrienSci. Amer. S-RP S-SCCAO T-HPW T-MNHK U-AOT V-AC V-EU V-FEA V-WC W-BA W-DP W-FK W-HP W-M tal Civilization. Scientific American Sayce, A. H., (ed.), Records of the Past. New Series. Schaeffer, C. F. A., Stratigraphie Comparee et Chronologie . ... , 1948." Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War. Edited in translation by Richard Livingstone. Thiele, E. R., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 1931. Unger, M. F., Archaeology and the Old Testament, 3rd ed., 1960. Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, 1952. Velikovsky, I., Earth in Upheaval, 1955. Vandier, ]., La Famine Dans L'EgyptAncienne, 1936. Velikovsky, I., Worlds in Collision, 1952. Wright, G. E., Biblical Archaeology, 1957. Woolley, L., Digging up the Past. Penguin Books, 1953. Woolley, L., A Forgotten Kingdom. Penguin Books. 1953. Weigall, A., A History of the Pharaohs, 1927. Manetho, Translated by Waddel, 1956. xv WM-GF W-RD W-RFMK W-S W-SHAE W-AE W-WST Y-AC Whitcomb, J. C., and Morris, H. M., The Genesis Flood, 1961. Willis, E. H., Radiocarbon Dating, Chap. 2 in BH-SA. Winlock, H. E., Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom, 1917. Wright, G. E., Shechem, 1965. Weigell, A., A Short History of Ancient Egypt, 1935. Wheeler, M., Archaeology from the Earth. Penguin Books, 1961. White, A. D., The Warfare of Science with Theology, 1955 reprint. Young, R., Analytical Concordance. XVI FOREWORD This work is not the result of an overnight dream. It is rather the result of fifteen years of investigation into the problems, the aims, and the premises of the discipline known as Biblical archaeology. The study had its origin when certain statements of the Biblical archaeologists were pointed out which appeared to contradict the clear statements of Scripture. This source had long been regarded by the author as historically reliable. In the course of investigations into the bases for these apparent contradictions, the reports of Miss Kenyon's work at Jericho began to appear. These reports indicated a necessary redating of the fallen walls at Jericho, which had long been accepted by archaeologists and Biblical scholars alike as those of the Biblical story of Joshua. These more recent investigations called for a dating of these walls at the end of the Early Bronze Age, an era which had been assigned a date before the beginning of the 20th century B.C. By this altered dating, these walls could not be thus identified, and there was nothing of significance to be found on the mound site to indicate occupation at any time between the 15th and 12th centuries. This era encompasses the dates for the Exodus and the Conquest by both the more commonly accepted dates for these events. About this time in the author's investigations, Velikovsky came out with his volume presenting evidence interpreted to indicate that the chronology of Egypt had been set too far back on the time scale by a plurality of centuries. If this evidence could be confirmed, it would follow that the necessary redating of these walls was not the result of a misidentification of the walls, but rather has resulted- from an error in the date to be attributed to the end of Early Bronze. Of particular interest was the explanation offered by Velikovsky for the presumed chronological error in the placement of the Exodus incident in Egyptian history, which error was regarded as but a reflection of a grossly expanded chronology of Egypt. It was his contention that part of the inscriptive material of certain ancient kings was, at times, being credited to a given king and at other times to a king of the same name but ruling at a much later date. The result was a series of "double kings" and "half kings." While a number of the contentions of Velikovsky, rejected by scholars at the time, have been confirmed by later investigations, the XVII validity of this explanation for a presumed chronological error amounting to a plurality of centuries remained unconfirmed. Yet certain of the evidences offered in support of the altered chronological structure .were quite convincing, and the proposed revision provided solutions to a number of major difficulties that characterize the traditional views. On the other hand, it has not been demonstrated that the evidence of either Scripture or archaeology for the periods before and after that encompassed by his thesis (from the Exodus through the Amarna Period) can be fitted sa~isfac­ torily into this altered structure. The same shortcoming holds for areas of the ancient world other than Egypt. Yet such a demonstration is an essential prerequisite to the recognition of many of his other contentions as credible. The writer spent perhaps a year or more in attempts to determine whether or not this concept of "double kings" and "half kings" represented a feasible basis for explaining the condensation of Egyptian chronology necessary to meet his other contentions. While the author would have welcomed a positive result from such a study (since the proposed chronological shift would have provided at least a tentative basis for retention of the identity of the fallen walls at Jericho as those of the conquest under Joshua), it could only be concluded that such an explanation was out of the question. If the chronological shift proposed by Velikovsky has any factual basis, the error in the current views must be shown to have a totally different explanation. Having been convinced on this point, the magnitude of the task confronting any one who would attempt to propose a credible altered chronology involving a condensation of this magnitude was becoming increasingly apparent. The discrepancy in temis of Bible chronology is of the magnitude of more than 600 years at the time of the Conquest and no les5 than 600 years at the time of the Exodus. To merit any serious ctinsideration, such an altered chronological structure must retain all of the well-established synchronisms between the kings of other nations which have 'been used to support tne current views, and if any of these are rejected, it must be shown ·why these are open fo reasonable question. The if!finite Bits of data from archaeology should fit into the alj~ed Strut!tur'e Withom appret!iable flaw. This demand holds :atit alone: :for ~he area of Egypt, but also for all of the other 1 MU nations of antiquity that left any data resembling a basis for a chronology. All of this must he done without introducing any other significant difficulties in the nature of inconsistencies, incongruities, or anachronistic situations. If it is true that the current views are in error by any such figure, then a corrected structure should eliminate at large the unsolved problems and apparent anachronisms in the current views, in addition to being free of any newly introduced problems of significance. Still further, if it is true that the current views are not providing the proper background for the incidents of Old Testament history, then the background should show notably better agreement with the information provided in Scripture. And this criterion holds not alone for the era between the Exodus and the Amama period, but for the entire history of Egypt and Palestine. There is also to be considered the various dating methods that have been used to arrive at the traditional views. If it is true that these views are in error by a figure of more than 600 years, it would follow that these dating methods are invalid, or at least that they do not provide dependable dates within the necessary degree of approximation for making a clear decision between two chronologies differing by such a magnitude. Except as a reasonable basis can be shown for querying the validity of these methods, little is to he gained by proposing an alteration in the chronology of Egypt for the limited period between the Exodus and the Amarna Period. In the face of the requirements to he met by any proposal for a severe alteration in the traditional views, it is not difficult to understand the reticence of scholars to give serious consideration to such an approach to the problem of archaeology. It would seem that even those scholars who, like the writer, continue to regard Scripture as a dependable historical source have manifest an extreme reticence in the direction of serious consideration of such an approach to the problems which are peculiar to their beliefs. At this point in his investigation, the writer faced a dilemma. He was convinced that the necessary condensation of ancient chronology could not be attained on the assumption of "double kings" and "half kings"; he was equally convinced that Scripture is a reliable historical source and that archaeological interpretations in actual contradiction to this source represent erroneous deductions from obscure XIX or inadequate data. He was also convinced that a number of the critical interpretations of archaeology were in contradiction to Scripture in some of its larger aspects, and not merely on minor details, and that these discrepancies could not be divorced from chronological problems. This latter concept was not new or unique with the author, as indicated by the continued division of opinion among scholars as to the proper setting of the incident of the Exodus in Egyptian history. The only avenue that appeared to remain open and which left any room at all for these convictions was that which hypothesized, in the face of the magnitude of the task of demonstration, that gross errors in chronology were involved as a source and cause of these major problems, but that the cause and nature of the errors remained unrecognized. It was to the investigation of this remaining possibility that this study was directed. It is not the purpose here to preview the results of this long-co,ntinued investigation. Suffice it to say that the exciting developments from this research comprise the content of this two-volume work entitled The Exodus Problem and Its Ramification. The material is not presented in the order in which the concepts were developed, but in an order considered most readily followed by the reader. No apologies are offered for the inclusion of some material that may be of primary interest to those who wish to look deeper into the problems under consideration. The Author xx CHAPTER I· THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNTS OF THE EXODUS AND RELATED EVENTS Before launching into a discussion of the numerous problems related to the Exodus, we pause briefly to review the pertinent points in the Scriptural accounts of this and related events. No attempt is made here to evaluate either the reliability or credibility of these accounts. It is intended only to note the salient points in Scripture that are crucial to the later discussions as a basis for determining the nature and extent of deviations by the conventional interpretations of archaeological data. I. The Exodus Event Foretold The Scriptural narrative of the Exodus has its beginning in the promise of Jehovah to Abram centuries earlier. The lan.d of Canaan, then occupied by the Canaanites and other peoples, was promised to the descendants of Abraham as a possession. It is evident that immediate possession of the land was not intended since Abraham was told: 1 Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance.... But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. II. The Famine of Joseph's Time The sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of this promise stands as one of the most interesting stories in Scripture. To Abram was born in his old age a son, Isaac, through whom the promise was to be fulfilled. To Isaac was born Jacob and to Jacob twelve sons, the next youngest of whom was Joseph, his father's favorite. The older brothers out of envy sold Joseph as a slave to a group of passing Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt and in turn sold him as a slave to Potiphar, the captain of the king's guard. Joseph, then only seventeen years of age, 2 served his master faithfully but was eventually cast into prison on a false charge by the wife of his master. There he remained two full years. 3 At the end of this time the king had a very disturbing dream 2 THE EXODUS PROBLEM whieh his wise men were unable to interpret. The king's attention was directed to Joseph who had previously interpreted dreams of certain imprisoned officers of the king, which interpretations had come to pass as he had predicted. Joseph was brought from prison to interpret the dream as an omen of a coming prolonged famine which was to last seven years, but which was to be preceded by seven years of plenty. The king believed the interpretation as given by Joseph and appointed him as his vizier, second only to himself in the kingdom. 4 Under the guidance of Joseph, food was stored during the seven years of plenty against the coming famine. With the comfo.g of the famine, which reached into the land of Canaan, Joseph's father (Jacob), unaware of his son's elevated position in Egypt, sent ten of his eleven remaining sons into Egypt to buy corn. In the course of events, Joseph made himself known to his brothers who had sold him into slavery and invited them to return to Canaan and bring their father and the remainder of the family to Egypt to spend the remaining years of famine. During the famine, food was sold to the Egyptians for money, then in trade for their cattle, and finally in trade for their lands; so that at the end of the famine all the real property of Egypt had been transferred from the people to the pharoah, and the Egyptians were subsequently required to pay one-fifth of their income and produce to the king in return for the lease of the lands which had previously been their own. 5 Joseph and his family and their descendants were provided freely from the storehouses during the famine and at its end were not required to pay this fifth to the king. 6 Thus Joseph and his descendants occupied an enviable position compared to that of the native Egyptians. 7 III. Israel Reduced to Slavery In the course of time, a king arose "who knew not Joseph," or perhaps did not choose to recognize the contribution that Joseph had made to the salvation of Egypt. Fearing lest the multiplying Israelites would rise and join some invading army, they were degraded to the lot of slaves. 8 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNTS 3 wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raameses. This period of slavery must have lasted more than 80 years for Moses was born in this background and was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus. 9 As the story goes, Moses, born of Hebrew parents, was taken into the king's palace to be brought up by the daughter of the pharaoh, 10 and was evidently in line to succeed the pharaoh on the throne. However, his position was jeopardized by his taking the side of one of his oppressed brethren and killing an Egyptian taskmaster. Moses was then forced to flee to Midian where he remained for forty years. 11 IV. Egypt Ruined Economically At the end of forty years, Jehovah appeared to Moses and bade him return to Egypt and deliver his people, Israel, from their afflictions. Reticent at first, Moses finally accepted the assignment and, at the hand of God, ten ruinous plagues were brought upon Egypt because the pharaoh refused to grant permission for Israel to go three days' journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to their God. The series of plagues, which appeared and ceased in turn at the command of Moses, brought an increasing degree of ruin to Egypt. The pharaoh in his stubborness refused to recognize the God of Israel and remained adamant in his refusal to let Israel go. With the appearance of the seventh plague of hail, which destroyed such crops as had sprung from the ground and which had evidently also destroyed many of the cattle, pharaoh' s counselors turned against him and chided him saying: 12 How long shall this man be a snare unto us? Let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God; knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed? The pharaoh remained obdurate, and three more plagues followed to complete the ruin. Locusts came in swarms to eat every green leaf that was left from the hail or that had sprung up since the plague of hail. An intense darkness followed and finally the destruction of the first-born of Egypt from the peasant to the palace of the king. With the tenth and last of the plagues, the pharaoh all but drove the Israelites out of Egypt. 13 4 THE EXODUS PROBLEM And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he. and all his servants. and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel, and go serve the Lord as ye have said. . . . And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men. Before the Israelites left Egypt, they "borrowed from the Egyptians" jewels of silver and jewels of gold and raiment, and the Egyptians were now ready to give them whatever they asked. 14 And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them· such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians. Thus was {ulfilled the promise of Jehovah centuries before, that they should come out "with great substance" and at the same time the economic ruin of Egypt was completed. Not only had their crops and cattle been destroyed, and the free labor of perhaps a million people suddenly vanished, but the very reserve that might have served in the recuperation from the disaster was also gone. V. Egypt Ruined Militarily When it became apparent that Israel had no intention of returning to Egypt after three days, the pharaoh, seeing his complete economic ruin, decided to gather his armies and pursue .the Israelites with the aim of forcing their return to slavery and the recovery of the enormous treasures which had been taken out of Egypt. 15 And he [pharaoh] made ready his chariot, and took his people [armies} with him: and he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. The Israelites were overtaken at the borders of the Red Sea16 at a point where escape seemed no longer possible. Jehovah caused the waters of the sea to part miraculously, permitting the Israelites to pass over on dry ground. When the armies of pharaoh presumed to follow, the waters returned bringing complete destruction to the pursuing armies so that not a man lived to return to tell the story. 17 Ap.d the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemeiil, and all the host of Pharaoh that· came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one ol them. THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNTS 5 Egypt had been ruined economically. She was now ruined politically and militarily. Egypt was left without a. ruler and without chariots or a protecting army. 18 VI. Israel Occupies Palestine Because of the unbelief and rebellion of the liberated slaves, Jehovah was displeased with his people and permitted them to wander for forty years in the wilderness, and their children of the next generation only were permitted to enter the promised land under the leadership of Joshua. After a miraculous stopping of the waters of the Jordan River, Israel passed this barrier without incident and began the task of conquest. The walls of the critical fortifications of Jericho fell miraculously at the blast of the trumpets and the shouts of the people, and the city was put to the torch. 19 One after another of the cities of Canaan fell to the Israelites. Some were destroyed; others were spared as subsequent occupation sites. After a campaign of about six years, the land was divided among the tribes by lot. 20 The conquest had not been completed however. Residues of the original inhabitants were permitted to remain in the land to try the people whether they would obey Jehovah or not. These, because of the disobedience of the people, were later used by Jehovah to oppress his people and turn them back to their allegiance to himself. During the entire period between the Exodus and the organization of Israel as a kingdom in the days of Saul, Egypt is not mentioned in Scripture except with reference to past events. The narrative thus leaves Egypt in political and economic eclipse during this extended period. Notes and References (!)Gen. 15:13. (2) Gen. 37:2. (3) Gen. 41:1 (4) Gen. 41:39-44. (5) Gen. 47:23-26. (6) Gen. 47:22 (margin), 27. (7) Gen. 47:6, II, 27. (8) Ex. 1:14, 11. (9) Cf. Deut. 34:7; Ex. 16:35, and Josh. 5:6. ( 10) Ex. 2:10. (11) Ex. 2:11-15; Acts 7:23ff. (12) 10:7. (13) Ex. 12:30, 31, 33. (14) El<. 12:36. Ex. 12:36. (15) Ex. 14:6, 7. (16) Ex. 14:9. The Hebrew at this point has also been translated as "Sea of Weeds" or "Sea of Reeds" (Y-AC on Red Sea). It has been suggested that the body of water here referred to is not that now known as the Red Sea but is rather an arm of the Mediterranean Sea. The identity of this body of water is not critical to the presertt discussion. (17) Ex. 14:28; see also Ex. 15:5, 19; Ps. 136: 15. (18) The discovery of the mummies of the various pharaohs supposed to have been the pharaoh of the Exodus has led some to deny that Scripture teaches that the pharaoh of the Exodus lost his life in the Exodus incident. See Chap. lll, Sect. IX for a discussion of this problem. (19) Josh. 6: l, 2, 18-24. (20) Cf. Num. 14:38 and Josh. 14:7, 10. CHAPTER II THE DATE OF THE EXODUS IN ISRAELITE CHRONOLOGY With the pertinent points related to the Exodus and associated events before us, it next becomes of importance to determine the limits within which the Exodus event may be placed on the B. C. time scale, based on references from the Sacred Writings only. For the immediate discussion, an exact setting of the event is quite unnecessary since our purpose here is only to determine the limits within which the event must find its proper background in terms of Egyptian history if we are to consider Old Testament chronology as dependable. Opinions based on considerations outside the Scriptural accounts are thus disregarded for the time being. Observed deviations from these limits may then be regarded as errors in Scripture, or errors in the interpretation of Scripture, or errors in human reasoning. Unlike the problem of setting the date for Mena, the first Egyptian king, on· which opinions have differed by more than 3000 years, 1 the limits of interpretation of Old Testament chronology with reference to the Exodus date are relatively narrow.· The limits of opinion which· would appear to be acceptable within the concept of a dependability of these writings chronologically are included in the time era from the late seventeenth century to the mid-fifteenth century B.C., a variation of less than 200 years. While dates for ·the Exodus have been suggested between these extremes, critical Bible scholars, for the most part, are divided into two groups, the difference of opinion resting on variant interpretations of the statements in I Kings 6: I and Acts 13:19, 20. The record in I Kings. was presumably written by the religious chronographer at the time and reads: .And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of brael were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month, that he began to buikl the house of the Lord. The record of Acts was written by Luke and provides for us the words of Paul in a speech made to the people of Antioch. Paul, a Hebrew scholar, is reviewing the past history THE DA TE OF THE EXODUS 7 of the Jews. The KJV renders his .comments on the era in question in the words: And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. The chronological data for the era from the Exodus to the fou~th year of Solomon is given in Table I with Scriptural references. Examination of these figures will make it apparent that it is quite impossible that the elapsed time from the Exodus to the fourth year of the reign of Solomon was 480 years, if at the same time the period of the rule of the Judges was 450 years. The 480-year period must include in addition to the period of the Judges, the forty years in the wilderness/ a period of six years for the initial phase of the conquest, 3 a period between the Conquest and the first judge which is not defined in Scripture but which Josephus gives as 18 years, 4 the 40-year reigns of Saul5 and David, 6 and three years into the reign of Solomon. About 330 years is thus the maximum that can logically be allowed of the 480 years for the period of the Judges. This is 120 years short of the period as given to this era in the KJV rendering of Acts 13:20. Yet it is quite anomalous that either Paul or the chronographer of I Kings should make an error of more than 100 years in this matter, for both could be expected to have an unerring knowledge of the past history of Israel. Since Paul is speaking extemporaneously, one might allow for some degree of approximation, but the qualification hardly allows for a deviation of more than a full century. The logical solutions to the problem within a plausible retention of these figures as of chronological value would lie in assuming a copyist error, the nature of which may be recognized and corrected, a mistranslation of one verse or the other, or a failure to properly comprehend what each writer meant by his statement. Herein lie the bases for the difference of opinion among Bible scholars on the date to be attributed to the Exodus. This situation has given rise to two interpretations, each with variations, which may be referred to as the long and short chronolog\es for the era of the Judges. 8 THE EXODUS PROBLEM 1. The Long Chronology One group of scholars, representing a minority opinion, would harmonize these two records by assuming that the 480 years of I Kings 6:1 do not refer to elapsed time. Various alternate interpretaions have been devised in this direction. One such would assume that the 480 years do not include the various periods during which Israel was under the domination of foreign peoples. This interpretation is defended as allowable since during these periods of oppression, the people were living in disobedience to the commands of Jehovah and hence the periods of oppression are not included since these are not part of the history of God's chosen people. 7 This interpretation must presume that the chronographer of the Book of Kings recognized such a principle of computing time periods, an assumption which some might have difficulty in conceding since there is no other example in Scripture of the use of such a premise. A serious question may also be raised as to the validity of the necessary assumption that the one responsible for keeping these records would record such qualified data without indicating the qualification, if this principle were not one in general use. However, suppose that this explanation is tentatively granted as possible within the acceptable limits of Scriptural interpretation. Reference to Table I shows that the summation of the rules of the various judges, exclusive of Samuel whose period of rule is not stated in Scripture, yields a figure of 339 years. The corresponding summation of the periods of oppression is 111 years. The sum of the two figures is just 450 years. It might be reasoned that Paul's 450-year period is thus composed, but such a conclusion is not altogether logical. The eight-year period of oppression by Cushan preceded the period of the Judges and should not be included in the 450 years while the rule of the last judge, Samuel, is not included as it should be. One might, in order to bypass this discrepancy, eliminate the eight years of oppression by Cushan as belonging to the post-Joshua era and include twelve years of judgeship for Samuel on the basis of the statement of Josephus11 to the effect that Samuel ruled 30 years, 18 of which extended into the reign of Saul. This yields a figure of 454 years which is still reasonable in the light of the obvious approximation in THE DA TE OF THE EXODUS 9 Paul's statement. A number of other schemes have been devised in line with the general concept of a long chronology for the era of the Judges, each with its own assumptions in support of details. Each of these in turn must be considered as speculative since there are no unequivocal bases in Scripture in support of the assumptions involved. The most that can be hoped for from such speculation is to show that the longer chronology of the Judges is not at notable variance with the information provided in Scripture. Within this limitation, we may concur that such interpretations are worthy of consideration. In so doing, we are not granting that such schemes represent the most reasonable interpretations of Bible chronology. If, on the other hand, such an interpretation leads us to a relatively complete solution to the related problems, while the short chronology leads to confusion, there would be little by way of choice but to accept the long chronology. II. The Short Chronology A second group of scholars, representing a majority opinion, take the 480 years of I Kings 6:1 as true elapsed time and explain the apparent discrepancy in the KJV rendering of Acts 13:20 as rising from an unfortunate selection fr9m variant readings of the verse as found in other manuscripts. Textual evidence favors the reading as given in the RSV which reads: 9 . . . he gave them their land as an inheritance for about four hundred fifty years. And after that he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. If this be taken as the correct rendering of the statement as originally given by Paul, the 450-year period falls before the time of the Exodus and not during the period of the Judges. Since the period as given is obviously approximate, it may be taken as that from the promise to Abraham to the entrance of Israel into the land of Canaan. During this time, the land was theirs only as a prom1sed inheritance and not in actuality. Paul. also gives the length of the period from the promise to the giving of the law at Sinai, just following the Exodus, as 430 years. 10 The two statements are now consistent providing confirmation for the correctness of the RSV rendering. The approximate period of 450 THE EXODUS PROBLEM 10 years is then more exactly 470 years by addition of the 40 years in the wilderness to the 430. An alternate method used to attain harmony between I Kings 6: l and Acts 13:20 would recognize Moses and Joshua as belonging to the period of the Judges. This interpretaion has been deemed reasonable since these two leaders acted in the capacity of judges. 11 This interpretation, however, would not appear to be permissible within the rendering of either the KJV or the RSV. 12 TABLE I Chronological Data for the P&iod from the Exodus to Solomon PostExodus era Wilderness wandering 40 yrs Joshua's Conquest 6 yrs To the death of J,o~hua 20 yrs 18 yrs.•• Post-Joshua era Rule of Othniel, peace Moabite oppression Ehud' s judgeship, peace Canaanite oppression Rule of Deborah, peace Midianite oppression Rule of Gideon, peace Rule of Abimelech Rule of Tola Rule of Jair Philistine and Ammonite oppression Rule of Jephthat Rule of Ibzan Rule of Elon Rule of Abdon Philistine oppression Rule of Samson Rule of Eli Rule of Samuel Reign of Saul Reign of David Into reign of Solomon Era of the Judges Era Periods of of the Oppression Kings Num. 14:33 Josh. 14:7f . Totals References 8 yrs 0 00 40 yrs 18 yrs 80 yrs" 00 20 yrs 40 yrs 7 yrs 40 yrs 3 yrs 23 yrs 22 yrs 18 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 10 yrs 8 yrs 40 yrs 20 yrs 40 yrs ? 339 +? 111 Jd . 3:8 Ju~. 3:11 Jdg. 3:14 Jdg. 3:30 Jdg. 4:3 Jdg. 5:31 Jdg. 6:1 Jdg. 8:28 Jdg. 9:22 Jdg. 10:2 Jdg. 10:3 Jdg. 10:7 Jdg. 12:7 Jdg. 12:8 Jdg. 12:11 Jdg. 12:14 Jdg. 13:1 Jdg. 15:20 I Sam. 4:18 I Sam. 7: 15 40 yrs Acts 13:21 40 yrs I Kings 2:11 3 yrs I Kings 6:1 83 'The length of the period from the end of the Conquest to the death of Joshua is not given in Scripture. Josephus gives the period as 20 yrs (J-AJ, Bk. V, chap. l, par. 28). "Josephus gives this period as 18 yrs. It would seem that the period reaches to the time of the first judge, and hence includes the 8-year period of the oppression under C11shan. Ibid., Jlk. VI, chap. 5, par. 4. .. 'Sham/gar is recorded to have judged Israel following Ehud, but no data are provided relative to the duration of his rule (Jdg. 3:31). THE DATE OF THE EXODUS 11 By any thesis that accepts the 480-years of I Kings 6: 1 as true elapsed time, the date for the Exodus may be calculated by moving backward in time 480 years from the date for the fourth year of Solomon. The most recent refinement of this date places the fourth year of Solomon in the year 967-966 B. C. leading us by the Jewish calendar to the year 1445 B.C. for the Exodus dateY For reasons that will become apparent as we proceed, the short chronology is here accepted as the more defensible interpretation of Bible chronology. In order to avoid all problems that might rise from the acceptance of this date as absolute, we shall take this date as a very close approximation in the discussions that follow. There remains the problem of demonstrating that the chronology of the period of the Judges can be fitted satisfactorily into the short chronology. III. The Periods of the judges not Necessarily Consecutive Reference to Table I shows that if the period of the judges is to be compressed into a period of about 330 years, which is the approximate maximum allowable fraction of the 480 years, the periods involved must have overlapped to some degree. The details provided in the Books of Judges and Samuel leave room for assuming considerable parallelism, some of which represented contemporary rule of judges, others which represented parallelism of judgeship and oppression. The judges came from various places in the geography of Israel and there was no common capital from which they ruled. Othniel, the first judge, was from the tribe of J udah 1 ~ on the south; Tola was from the tribe of Issachar15 on the north; Samson was from the tribe of Dan, 16 while Elon was from the tribe of Zebulon, 17 both on the north; Deborah, 18 Samuel, 19 and Abdon 20 were from the tribe of Ephraim in central Palestine. There is thus no necessity for presuming that each of these ruled over the entire territory of Israel except as so indicated, and hence no necessity for presuming that the line ruled altogether in succession. Neither were the oppressions over Israel over the entire nation. The most notable of these is the last 40..year oppression under the Philistines; yet the territory actually occupied by the Philistines at that time would seem not to have been in excess of perhaps ten per cent of the total. It is not 12 THE EXODUS PROBLEM at all improbable that one section of the country was under foreign domination while another section was under the rule of a judge. The Ammonite oppression evidently involved primarily the territory east of Jordan,2 1 while both Eli and Samson judged Israel during the period of oppression by the Philistines. 22 Unless we presume that the judges did not count the periods of their rule under oppression as part of the period attributed to them, some overlapping must be assumed. It is certain that Samuel continued to rule as judge many years after the annointing of Saul for it was he who annointed the subsequent king, David, 2'3 an incident that could not have occurred significantly earlier than the 25th year of Saul's reign. The Scriptures tell us that Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life, yet he lived more than half way through the reign of Saul. 24 IV. A Suggested Chronology of the Late judges With these figures in mind, it is possible to arrive at a credible chronology of the period of the judges within the limits of the short chronology. No claim is made that this is the only credible scheme that might be devised. The critical area of the structure is that from Jephthah to Saul. Jephthah stated that 300 years had elapsed from the conquest of Heshbon under Joshua to his own day. 25 Since the figure is a round number, it is evident that the figure was intended to be only approximate. It is here assumed that the actual period was closer to 290 years and this figure is here used in setting up the tentative chronology of Figure 1. On the late end of the 480-year period, we must allow 3 years in the reign of Solomon, 40 years for David, and 40 years tor Saul. With the 40 years between the Exodus and the Conquest, 413 of the 480 years have been accounted for. This leaves 67 years for the period from the victory over the Ammonites by Jephthah to the reign of Saul. Reference to Table I shows that the periods remaining to be accounted for are: The rule of Jephthah The rule of Ibzan The rule of Elon The rule of Abdon The Philistine oppression The rule of Samson 'Ttre-raie of Eti 6 years 6 years IO years 8 years 40 years 20years 40years THE DATE OF THE EXODUS 13 To these must be added the 20-year period of I Sam. 7:2 and any part of Samuel's judgeship prior to the reign of ·Saul not included in this 20-year period. 26 These periods need not be considered as having followed in sequence. In fact, Scripture provides indications that this was not the case. Samson's entire life falls within the period of Philistine oppression. 2; The last half of Eli's rule was contemporary with the first half of the 40-year Philistine domination. 28 It is not clear from Scripture whether Samuel's judgeship began with the death of Eli or after the 20 years of I Samuel 7:2. It is assumed here that his rule began with the final victory over the Philistines, 29 and that the judgeship of Samson falls in the 20-year interim of I Samuel 7:2 though a different position might be assumed without affecting the credibility of the structure. There is thus room in the account for presuming that all or part of the period involving the rules of Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon falls within the rule of Eli and the 20-year period of I Samuel 7:2. Jephthah brought to an end the 18-year oppression by the Ammonites:iu There is no mention of deliverance at this time from the contemporary oppression by the Philistines. It may be assumed that the 18 and 40 year oppressions by the Philistines were in succession, or even that the 18 year period is included in the 40 years. The only clue provided by Scripture as to the length of Samuel's rule prior to the annointing of Saul is that he was an old man at the time of Saul's annointing'i 1 and hence must have been very old at the time of David's annointing.'12 Further parallelism prior to the rule· of Jephthah must also be assumed. However, we have no suggestions in Scripture as to where in the history of the Judges these parallel rules occurred. ...... ~ Figure 1. A Suggested Chronology of the 480-Year Period 1100 1200 B.G. I ("") 0 ::s n V> .-r c c.. E ID ::r i 0 ::I .-r ::r Ill ::r 0 < ID -s .-r J 0 ~ ,<;!_ A T I < ..... B A. B. G. D. E. F. G. H. J. K. L. 1000 I I H D E I -s n c K L .-r ..... 0 ::I 0 I -I> F .-r G ::r fl) -! L ID A ~ ID ID °' 480 years extending back to the Exodus date c. 1445 B.G. IQ ..... The· approximate 300-year period refined to an assumed 290 years. ::I V> The 18-year oppression by the Ammonites and Philistines. The 40-year oppression by the Philistines assumed to be in sequence to the 18-year oppression. The 40-year rule of Eli, the last of which paralleled the first half of the 40-year oppression. The 20-year period between the death of Eli and the end of the Philistine oppression. The subsequent period of judgeship by Samuel reaching more than half way through the reign of Saul. The 40-year reign of Saul. The 40-year reign of David. The three and a fraction years into the reign of Solomon. The rule of Samson. ...-3 ::i:: tri trj >< 0 t:I c:::: \J:J '"Cj :::0 0 o::l rtrj ~ THE DATE OF THE EXODUS Note~ 1.5 and Refrr1..•nces ( 11 Sugg(·sted datr-s hy earlier historians rang<ld from .5Hfii {Champollion~Cigea<:) to :2:350 B.C. \WHkinsonl. A mon• recent d<1te now widely accepted plact•s :Vleua at c. 28.50 B.C. 12) Num. 1-1.:3:3. 1:3'; Cf. josh. 1-1:7, IO. 141 Josh. 24::31: J-Aj, Bk VI, chap. 5, par. -!. (31 \cts i:1:3l. See SDABC, \'ol. II, pp. l.3!-3:3 for discussion of the problem of Saul's reign. (61 !I Sam. 5:4. !i) Pt·rsonal communication. 181 J-A], Bk \'!,chap. 1:), par. 5. (9) See SDABC on Acts W:20: also page 10 of the same volume for the significance of "textual «vidence favors the reading." 1101 Cal. ,3:17. (!!)Personal communhttion. I 121 Since the Kj\' gives the 450 vears as after the division by lot which cannot include Moses and only part of Joshua's rule. Yet by the RSV, thP .J.50 years is that p<"riod. during which the land was theirs only as an inheritance and thus ends before tht' period of the Judges. (1:3) T-MNHK. (141 Set' Num. 13:6 when· the brother of Othniel (Caleb) is said to be from the trilw of Judah; cf. josh. 15:17. ( 151 Jdg. 10: I. i 16) Jdg. 13:2, 24, 2.5. ( 17) Jdg. 1::u I. (18) Jdg. 4:5. (191 I Sam. l: I, 2, 20. (20) Jud. 12: 13. (21 J Jdg. l L (22) jdg. 13: l; 15:20: I Sam. 4:1 13. (2,3) I Sam. 16:2, 11-13. (24) I Sam. 7: J.j; 16: 1:3. Since David was 30 years old at his accession (II Sam ..5:4), and since he was hut a boy at the time of his annointing, this must have Leen about 20 years into the reign of Saul. (2.5) Jdg. 11:26. (261 i.e .. any time that may have elapsed between I Sam. 7:2 and 8: I. (2il Cf. Jdg. 13:5: 14:4. and 16:30. (281 Cf. I Sam. 4: 18; 7:2, 13, Since Eli judged 40 vears, and since the 40-year oppression under the Philistines did not end until 20 years after the death of Eli. it follows that tht• first half of this 40 y<:ars was under the judgeship of Eli. (29) l Sam. 7:2. (30) Jdg. lO:i, 8; 11 ::32. (31) I Sam. 8:1-4 12:2. (S2) See note 24. CHAPTER III DIFFICULTIES IN LOCATING THE EXODUS BACKGROUND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY With the Exodus event placed by Old Testament chronology within the era between the late 17th and mid-15th centuries, it would seem that the problem of locating the ever:it in Egyptian history should present no particular difficulty. On the other hand, one might approach the problem with the hope that Egyptian history might help us to decide which of the previously discussed chronologies is correct, since the criteria for placing the event are severe if the Biblical accounts are to be considered as completely historical. Granting a historical dependability in the Old Testament accounts, the point of the Exodus should be marked by some unconcealable crisis in Egypt, both economically and politically. This point should be followed by several centuries of notably decreased political power as indicated by the severity of the catastrophe in connection with the Exodus, and by the absence of any post-Exodus mention of Egypt in the Scriptures until the time of Solomon. The point of the Exodus should follow by not more than a century, and probably by much less, the appearance of a king whose name was Rameses, and this king should provide evidence of having been a great builder using brick, specifically so in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites lived. The Exodus event should be preceded by a record of an extended famine in Egypt in proper time relation to the Exodus incident to confirm the presence of the Israelites in Egypt in the first place. In Palestine, the event should be followed shortly by archaeological evidence of a rapid conquest of the territory to be attributed to the Israelites under Joshua. These evidences could be expected to be revealed by the appearance of a new type of pottery (culture) which extended from Megiddo on the north into the Negeb area on the south. This same era should reveal a sedentary occupation of the territories of Edom and Moab as indicated by the refusal of their kings to perrn~t the Israelites to pass through their ter- BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 17 ritories peacefully and by the mention of cities in the Scriptural accounts. On the other hand, it is not to be expected that there will be any evidence of a change in culture in these areas since the Israelites did not occupy the territories of Edom and Moab throughout the subsequent periods of the judges and the monarchy. There should be evidence at this point for the fallen walls of Jericho by other than human causes. Essentially coincident in ti::ne with this disaster, the site of Ai should reveal a complete destruction, which was to remain a "heap forever''. If there are to be found any evidences of the Hittites in Palestine, these should cease at the point of the Conquest, since the Hittites were then driven out of this area and permitted to find a new home. While this list is by no means complete, it is adequate to lay before the reader some of the minimal finds to be expected from the archaeological investigations in Egypt and in Palestine, if Scripture is to be taken as historically reliable, even in its major aspects. Other examples will be introduced as the discussion proceeds. Once the point of the Exodus and the Conquest are located by a satisfactory agreement with Scripture on these incidents, one could synchronize the histories of Egypt and Palestine at these points and expect to arrive at a chronology for the entire ancient world whose dates would be largely a matter of ,refinement. This has proved to be anything but the case. Within the limits of the framework of current opinion, there is no point in Egyptian history between the late 17th and 15th centuries as imposed by Bible chronology and the traditional chronology of Egypt that even .approaches these specifications at a distance. To be sure one can find in Egyptian history points that are marked by a precipitous eclipse of power but these do not fall between the limits imposed by Bible chronology. One can find records of severe famine in Egypt. Two such inscriptions suggest that the coming of the famine was known in advance as stated of the famine of Joseph's time, but these cannot be dated in the expected time position relative to current placements of the Exodus. There is no evidence to indicate that any XVIIIth Dynasty king did any significant building in the eastern Delta region occupied by the Israelites as demanded by the XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the Exodus, and no evidence that the Hyk- THE EXODUS PROBLEM 18 sos of the 17th or 16th century did any significant building at all. A vast building program did occur in this area under Rameses II of the XIXth Dynasty, but this is too late to be included within the limits of Bible chronology for the era of the Oppression. Kings by the name of Rameses are familiar in Egyptian history, but these kings are far out of line with the interval between the 17th and 15th .centuries. Perhaps the most surprising of all is the apparent complete absence of any Egyptian records from this era to indicate that there ever were any Israelites in Egypt, either as slaves or as free men, or that there ever was such an event as the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, to say nothing of the absence of any indication of catastrophe or crisis such as must have accom. panied the Exodus event as described in Scripture. While there are evidences of destruction in Palestine throughout this era, these evidences are spread over a prolonged period and do not reflect a conquest within a relatively short period of time as is to be expected from the Scriptural account of the Conquest. Fallen walls at the site of Jericho have been found, apparently toppled by an earthquake, but the associated pottery is dated many centuries earlier than the date attributed to the Conquest by any current theory. The remains of the destruction of the site identified as Ai from its location have also been found. 1 The pottery indicates a date in the same general era as the fallen walls at Jericho to agree with Scripture, 1• but this date is again separated by centuries from the Biblical date for the Conquest. According to Glueck, 2 the era assigned to the Conquest in the XVIIIth Dynasty reveals no sedentary occupation of Edom and Moab in cities who could have said "yes" or "no" to a request by the Israelites for passage through the land. Settlement in Edom and Moab within cities did not begin short of c. 1250 B.C. in terms of the traditional chronology. These and other observations have forced the placement of the Exodus down in the 13th century, leaving far too short an era for the Judges to allow for any satisfactory degree of dependability of the Scriptural accounts for this era. The Hittites, who are placed in southern Palestine by Scripture, do not belong in Palestine at all. Archaeology places the Hittites far to the north in the area of Asia Minor with no evidence, in terms of popular views, BACKGROUND TO_ TJIE EXODUS 19 that they ever occupied so much as a square foot of land later occupied by the Israelites. While this list of discrepancies could be multiplied, the examples provided should be adequate to serve as a basis for recognizing that there are but two logical approaches to the solution of the problems of archaeology as related to Scripture. One is to abandon the concept that Scripture has the degree of reliability historically to be expected if these writings are what they_ claim to be. This is the direction taken by scholars generally in evaluating Scripture as a compilation of myths and legends. The other is to recognize that there is something fundamentally in error with the traditional views relative to the chronology of Egypt, and hence with the chronologies of those nations and peoples whose history is tied to that of Egypt .. Xhis is the a1ternative accepted in the production of this work. While it is true that a few of the difficulties are alleviated by the theory which places the Exodus in the late 17th or 16th centuries, such a move does not provide anything resembling a complete solution. and other difficulties are introduced that are of equal magnitude. If this placement even approached such a solution, it might serve as a working hypothesis, but even this is not the case, the problems rising from this placement being as large as those from the XVIIIth Dynasty placement. I. The Fact of the Exodus Confirmed In the face of these difficulties, there might be a tempta, tion to drop the entire Biblical account as having no historical value whatever, and to conclude that the israelites never were in Egypt, that there never was any such incident as the Exodus and hence no need to recognize such an incident as the conquest of the territory of Palestine by the Israelites. This position has not been deemed possible, even by those who do not regard Scripture as a dependable historical source, or who would define history in such a manner as to include myth and legend as history. Three reasons may be noted. Firstly, if Scripture is deleted completely as a historical source, ·there is no basis left for even a beginning for the really meaningful interpretation of the archaeology of Palestine. Secondly; the Exodus and ~s­ sociated events were simply too deeply rooted in the later 20 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Scriptural writings and in the writings of historical commentators of antiquity to allow such a total disregard of these records. And thirdly, a number of points related to the Exodus have been convincingly confirmed. There are, for example, a number of evidences to indicate that the Israelites were influenced by Egyptian culture to a degree not otherwise explainable than by an extended sojourn in Egypt. If they were in Egypt for a period of time and later occupied Palestine, then there must have been some sort of an Exodus out of Egypt and some sort of a conquest of Palestine. A number of names of persons mentioned in Scripture of this era are not Hebrew in origin but are clearly Egyptian. Wright commented thus on this point: 3 ... Moses, an abbreviation of a longer name, is from an Egyptian verb meaning "to bear, beget." The same verbal element occurs in such Egyptian names as Thutmose and Rameses, the first syllables of which are god-names while the remainder indicates that the god is the begetter of the person named. Other Levite names apparently acquired from the Egyptian language are Phinehas, Hophni; Pashur, and perhaps Hur and Merari. The name of Joseph is still to be found on maps of Egypt, having been applied to a canal that is regarded by the populace as having been built by Joseph of Scripture.~ The Biblical narratives refer to the land of Goshen where the Israelites dwelt as the land of Rameses. 5 This name is applied to one of the two treasure cities which the Israelites. built for the pharaoh under slavery. 6 The name Rameses is a familiar one in Egyptian history having been taken by a long line of rulers of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties, the second of the line being commonly regarded as the builder of the cities of Raamses and Pithom of the Scriptural account. Sites believed to represent the ruins of these cities have been located by archaeologists in the eastern delta region. In the ruins of the city identified as Pi-Rameses, the name of king Rameses II appears in profusion. The name of the second store city, Pithom, means "House of Thom." Thom is recognized as the name of one of the Egyptian gods. The Egyptian inscriptions tell of a famine of extended duration for which preparations were made in advance and for which the accumulated food was distributed to the peo- BACKGHOUND TO THE EXODU:s 21 ple during the crisis period. 7 This would seem to provide the Egyptian counterpart of the story of the famine of Joseph's day. At least, no method of predicting famines in advance by the Egyptians has come to light otherwise. Thus while the placement of the Exodus in its proper background in Egyptian history remains a critical problem, the fact of the existence of Israel in Egypt for a significant period of time can hardly be denied. The evidences are adequate for precluding the assumption that the entire story of the Exodus is fictitious. II. Confirmation of the Conquest Once the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt is accepted as fact, there is no alternative to also recognizing some sort of an Exodus out of Egypt and some sort of a conquest of Palestine. On this basis alone, scholars have felt compelled to accept also th.e Conquest as a fact. The Scriptures are very specific in providing the details of this conquest. In fact, if one drops out of early Scripture those parts dealing with the Exodus and the subsequent Conquest, there is so little left that there is no significant reason for even · regarding . the material as legendary. Archaeology has provided evidence that is regarded by most scholars as convincing that such a conquest occurred. Not a single expression of doubt has been met by the writer on this point though there is a wide difference of opinion as to the date to be attributed to this incident and to the details relative to its accomplishment. One difficulty lies in the evidence that the destructions in Palestine assigned to what is regarded as the general era of the Conquest cannot be confined within the short period allotted to the initial phase of the incident as described in Scripture. 8 The destructions helong to a prolonged period which spans the era from Thutmose III to Rameses II and later. This is a period of about 150 years. To be sure, there was a later and more gradual phase of the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine, but Scripture certainly pictures the major cities of Palestine ii.s havmg been taken during a brief period not in excess of six years. 9 it is thus not the matter of the factual nature of the Scriptural records relative to the Exodus and the Conquest which provide the problems to be dealt with in this work; it 22 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Table II The Kings of Egypt During the Period Covered by Various Theories Relative to the Date of the Exodus The period of the late XIII th Dynasty and the Hyksos era 1778-1580° The subsequent kings, to Rameses III, in the order given by Manetho with the commonly assigned identifications with names from the monuments are:• AmQSis (Ahmose) Chebron (unidentified) Ammenophis (Amenhotep I) Miphres (Hatshepsut) _ _(Thutmose II). 1501-1447" Misphragmuthosis (Thutmose III) Tuthmosis (Thutmose IV) Amenophis (Amenhotep II) Orus (Amenhotep III) Alternate kings by the Achencheres (not recognized monuments by monuments) Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton) Athoris (" ) Sakere Cencheres ( " ) Tutenkhamon Acherres (" ) Eye Cherres ( 11 ) Armais (Harmhab) Seti I _ _(Rameses I) 1292-1225 Ramesses (Rameses II) Ammenophis (Merneptah) 4 antikings Rameses III 0 'The dates for the end of the Hyksos era and for the early kings of Dynasty XVIII are regarded as astronomically fixed. However, see Vol. II, Chap. IV for a criticism of the premises on which this dating method rests. ••Manet ho's figures for reign· lengths obviously represent some degree of overlapping, not always defined by the monuments. Breasted's figures have been criticized in that he takes the minimal figure as indicated by the latest extant inscription. Hence the figures given ·above should be taken as approximate assignments in terms of current chronological views. is rather the problem of satisfactorily harmonizing the details of these accounts with the available archaeological data and of locating the proper background for these events in Egyptian history. The latter phase of the problem is thus inseparably related to that of reconciling the chronologies of Egypt and Israel, and of identifying the pharaohs referred to but which are not specifically named. The Biblical mention of the name Rameses in connection with the building of the treasure cities under slavery suggests that the pharaoh of the Oppression had this name. Even this assumption is questioned by many scholars, and must be denied by those who hold to an Exodus between the 17th and 15th centuries as required by the long and short chronologies of the judges respectively. BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 23 The kings of Egypt currently assigned dates within the period encompassed by the suggested dates for the Exodus are given in Table II. The suggested placements are (I) at an unspecified date in the Hyksos period, (2) at the end of the reign of Thutmose III (or early in the reign of Amenhotep II), (3) in the reign of Rames es II and (4) a less defensible date in the reign of Rameses III. 10 III. Problems in the XVIllth Dynasty Exodus Theory Reference to Table II shows that the date c. 1445 B.C. as assigned to the Exodus by the XVIIIth Dynasty setting of this incident, belongs to the early reign of Amenhotep II, or if one allows for a possible error of half a decade in the figures, the date might be set at· or near the end of the reign of Thutmose III. Difficulties of gigantic proportions rise from the placement of the Exodus in either of these positions. Thutmose Ill was undoubtedly the most powerful ruler who ever occupied the throne of Egypt. During his reign, the Egyptian empire was expanded to reach the widest limits ever attained during its long history and included all of the area now known as Palestine and specifically all of the territory conquered . by Joshua some forty years later. 11 , 12 ... This battle at last enabled Thutmose to do what he had been fighting ten years to attain, for he himself now crossed the Euphrates into Mitanni and set up his boundary tablet on the east side, an achievement of which none of his fathers could boast. Thutmose III reached the Euphrates River, which was the natural boundary of the Egyptian Empire at its greatest extent. Egypt held some degree of control of this area for 150 years or more after the reign of Thutmose III, probably not continuously nor in the sense of military occupation, but as a tributary which was for no long time immune from trouble except as the tribute imposed was paid. This control was sufficient to make quite incredible a joint control by both Egypt and Israel during the period of the judges without evidence of military conflicts. Yet the Scriptures are entirely silent as to any such conflict between Joshua or his successors and the Egyptians; nor is there the remotest sort of hint from the period of the judges of any contact whatever between Israel and Egypt. Israel was repeatedly oppressed by neighboring peoples during this time but never 24 THE EXODUS PROBLEM is Egypt mentioned as being in any way related to these conflicts. The situation presents an anomaly which cannot be disregarded. How could the rising power of Israel under Joshua conquer such a large slice of the Egyptian empire without any evidence of such a conquest appearing in either the Egyptian or Hebrew records? How could Israel hold this territory for several centuries without any military conflict between the two nations? This anomaly is only the beginning of difficulties. According to Scripture, the pharaoh of the Exodus had his palace in the Delta region, not far removed from the laboring Israelites. This situation had existed from the time of Moses' birth as evidenced by the finding of the child Moses in the bulrushes by the king's daughter. 1'3 Thutmose III and his successors all had their capitals, and of necessity their palaces, far to the south of the Delta at Thebes. 14 Inscriptions of a profuse nature are extant from the reign of Thutmose III, but there is not the remotest sort of hint of any severe economic or political crisis at this time as is to be expected from the incidents associated with the Exodus as noted in Scripture. It was a time of unparallelled prosperity. The coffers of Egypt were filled to the brim with the booty of numerous successful wars and the tribute and loot from the conquered peoples. The prosperity to which Egypt rose under Thutmose III continued unabated into the reign of his successor Amenhotep II. 15 There is no room in this era for the experience of the Exodus as related in Scriptur.e. While Thutmose III did extensive building, this construction was not in brick as stated of the building by the Israelites under slavery. The use of brick had long since been replaced by stone secured from quarries along the Nile River.16 Nor was his building program in t_he eastern Delta region where the cities of Pi-Thom and Pi-Rameses have been located. It is certain that neither Thutmose III nor Amenhotep Ii nor any other king of Dynasty XVIII had anything to do with the construction of these cities. This conclusion is brought to our attention in a most convincing manner by Wright. 17 Now the point which must be stressed is this: if the Israelites worked in labor battalions on the construction of the city of Rameses, it must have been during the reign of Rameses II (1290-1224 B.C.). BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 25 and perhaps that of his father, but not before. Previously when the identification of this city was still in doubt, many scholars have believed that the "store cities" of Ex. 1: 11 might have been built earlier, perhaps under Queen Hatshepsut or Pharaoh Thutmose III just before and after 1500 B.C. and that the writer of Ex. 1:11 was merely giving us the later name of the city of Rameses and not the earlier name. Taking their cue from the statement in I Kings 6:1 that the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, these scholars came to the conclusion that the Exodus took place about 1440 B.C. or just before. Now that the site of Rameses has been located at Tanis, we are forced to conclude that this figure must be explained in another way .... We now know that if there is any historical value at all to the story-city tradition in Exodus (and there is no reason to doubt its reliability) then Israelites must have been in Egypt at least during the early part of the reign of Rameses II. After much digging at Tanis by the archaeologists Mariette, Petrie, and Montet, not a single object of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty hds been found there. [Emphasis ours.] While the evidence referred to by Wright is negative, nevertheless the complete absence of any evidence of building by any of the XVIIIth Dynasty kings in the area of PiRameses must be accepted as indicating that the Exodus and the previous period of oppression could not have occurred during the era of this dynasty. The era immediately preceding the Exodus should reveal unmistakable evidence of a large building program in this area that by no means could be concealed from archaeologists. The theory of an Exodus in the era of Thutmose III or of Amenhotep II does not provide the proper background in the preceding period for the enslavement of the Israelites. The king commonly credited with the building of the city of Pi-Rameses (Rameses II), on the basis of the appearance of his name in profusion among the ruins, did not begin his long reign of 66 years for more than 150 years after the death of Thutmose Ill. Since the store-cites were certainly built many years before the Exodus, the placement of the Oppression during or prior to the reign of Thutmose III is a century and a half or more out of line with this construction by Rameses II. Is one really adhering to Scripture as reliable history by accepting the 480 years of I Kings 6: 1 and accepting also a setting for the Exodus and the Oppression in an era that is a complete blank as far as providing any evidence of a building program in the Delta region? 26 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Since Moses was born under slavery and since he was 80 years old at the Exodus, IH the initiation of slavery must have ·been this long at least before the Exodus. This would call for an extension of the period of slavery and of rule from the Delta region back through the reign of Queen Hatshepsut and well into the reign of her predecessors. None of these monarchs ruled from the Delta area; none did any signific;ant building there; and what should be of further concern is that all indications point to Queen Hatshepsut as one whose last thought or wish was to conquer or control other peoples. She was a peaceful soul whose primary ambition was to beautify her capital. 19 ... If we have spent some space on her buildings and expeditions, it has been because she was a woman, in an age when warfare was impossible for her sex, and great achievements could only be hers in the arts and enterprises of peace. Thutmose III as her coregent was irked for the 22 years of this coregency because of her total disinclination as first ruler to undertake anything resembling a military expedition. Nor is there any significant support, beyond the demands of the current views on the Exodus placement, for the proposed identification of Hatshepsut with the fostermother of Moses. There is nothing in the Scriptural account to indicate that this daughter of the pharaoh ever became a queen-ruler of Egypt. No· suggestion of a famine inscription in Egypt has appeared that can be properly related in time to an Exodus in the mid-XVIIIth Dynasty. We do not lack for extant famine references among the Egyptian inscriptions. 20 This was one type of situation that received repeated notice in the inscriptions. Of these numerous references to famine, there are two which may be regarded as meeting the specifications of Joseph's famine. Both suggest that the coming of the famine was known in advance and that preparations were made in advance to meet the crisis. One of these two is specifically dated in the early Xllth Dynasty, far out of line with the time of Joseph in terms of an XVIIIth Dynasty Exodus. The dating of tne other has been a matter of disagreement among scholars but is certainly not to be dated in the era of Joseph in terms of current views on the chronology of Egypt. These famine records will be considered BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 27 in a later chapter where it will be shown that both inscriptions belong to the era of Joseph when the Exodus is set in a proper background of Egyptian history. 21 In a further attempt to show some link between the histories of Egypt and Israel that would support the placement of the Exodus in the XVIII th Dynasty, attention has been called to the group of inscriptions known as the Amarna Letters. A more complete discussion of the significance of these .letters must be left for a later discussion. 22 It is noted here only that the letters represent the correspondence between certain Egyptian kings of the XVIII th Dynasty with various foreign rulers and persons in official capacity. The letters have been interpreted to refer to the conquest under Joshua by a group known as tlie 'Apiru who have been presumed to be the· invading Hebrews. Most scholars now recognize that any identification of the 'Apiru with the Hebrews must be qualified so severely as not to provide any support for the placement of the Exodus in this era. The 'Apiru were not an ethnic group as were the Hebrews; their military activity extended far outside the territory of Palestine; often they are local citizens or hired mercenaries which the Hebrews were not, and the dates to be assigned to the letters is too late to refer to the conquest of Palestine under Joshua. Furthermore, the same term is used to refer to people in Egypt much later than this and also in Assyria under conditions that cannot possibly refer to the Hebrews. Recourse to these inscriptions to support a dating of the Exodus in the XVIIIth Dynasty must be considered as a lost cause. About the only thing of significance that can now be said in favor of the XVIIlth Dynasty placement of the Exodus is that it retains the most logical placement of the incident on the B.C. time scale in terms of Old Testament chronology. IV. Difficulties in the Placement of the Exodus in the Hyksos Era It was earlier noted that by the long chronology of the Judges, the Exodus could have occurred as early as the late seventeenth century. While the interpretation of Scripture which leads to this earlier date is not as defensible as for the date 1445 B.C., it was admitted that if such a dating provided a genuine solution of the problem of the Exodus, 28 THE EXODUS PROBLEM serious consideration should be given to this longer chronology. The. era is that of the late Hyksos period. The reasons why this placement of the Exodus does not provide a satisfactory solution to the Exodus problem are noted briefly. This thesis does provide a better explanation for the absence of Egyptian references to the Israelites and the Exodus since the period is one of extreme paucity of inscriptions of any kind. It is quite probable that the Hyksos had not mastered the art of hieroglyphic writing. Such meager independence as may have been retained by the Egyptians during this period of darkness did not leave them in a position for making permanent inscriptions. Absence of indications of crisis at the time of the Exodus may also be accounted for since Egypt at this time was at such a low ebb that the further crisis might not be apparent in the era immediately following. Ho,wever, it would seem that such support as might be gleaned from the elimination of these difficulties would be short-lived in the face of the problem of explaining the control of Palestine by Thutmose III during the period of the Judges, with no evidence or record of such in Scripture which has pictured in such detail the incursions and dominations by other peoples. Of equally serious import against this thesis is the fact that the evidence points uniformly to the Hyksos as a most unproductive people, their remains being represented only by a few scarabs (charms). The few fortifications attributed to the Hyksos may be questioned on valid grounds. 23 It is inconceivable that the Biblical picture of Israelite slavery and their construction labors belong to the Hyksos era. The theory also suffers, in common with the XVIIIth Dynasty theory by an absence of any famine record that can be dated in proper time relation to this placement of the Exodus, and which meets the detail of Joseph's famine. This placement also. shares with the XVII Ith Dynasty theory the anomalies in the archaeology of Jericho, and Ai, and still other archaeological difficulties to be introduced as the discussion proceeds. V. Attempts to Account for Discrepancies Defended When in the process of arriving at truth, one finds himself facing discrepancies for which no immediate explanations are at hand, it is good scientific procedure to investi- BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 29 gate every possible avenue to find satisfactory explanations for the anomalous data before finally concluding that the approach is fundamentally wrong. It· may be supposed that solutions to many problems have been lost because investigators have abandoned their approach before such a thorough search has been made. There is, however, a point, be it ever so indefinite, beyond which .it becomes futile to expect to find a solution by some preconceived approach. One gauges the location of this point by the amount and significance of data which are contradictory to the premises on which the approach is made. Sometimes a single contradictory fact, well-established, is sufficient basis for realizing that one has reached this point in his investigations. At other times, the problem may be so complex and has so many facets that one may suppose that any given bit of datum may appear to be contradictory to the assumptions when it really is not, but appears so only because all the factors are not understood or because certain vital information is not available. Even in such a case, the continued multiplication of contradictory data must eventually lead one to abandon the assumptions as in error if his investigations are to merit recognition as scientific and not merely as wishful thinking. The setting up of a chronology of the ancient world falls into the category of an exceedingly complex problem. For this reason, there is every defense for following every possible avenue of explanation to its end before abandonment of the assumptions on which the approach has been made. The writer thus has no criticism for the various attempts on the part of scholars to seek explanations for discrepancies. On the other hand, a premature abandonment of an hypothetical solution to a problem is not the only danger in the process of arriving at truth. An even larger possibility for gross error may result if one becomes so enamored with his proposed or accepted theories that he fails to recognize the point where his explanations for anomalies represent only wishful thinking. Or a large possibility for self-deception may arise when one convinces himself that his solution is correct because it agrees with one or more other theories which in themselves remain unproven, or which stand on precarious premises, while his final conclusion remains contradicted by the facts. Strange as it may seem, there are 30 THE EXODUS PROBLEM several examples in critical areas where it has been reasoned that because each of two theories is contradicted by the same fact, the evidence does not. stand against either theory. 24 Such situations should provide the clue that both theories are in error. It is the opinion of the writer that the point has long since been passed when the possibility should be recognized that these numerous discrepancies are due to fallacies in certain fundamental premises on which the interpretations of archaeology are being made. In due time, the fallacies in three such premises will be noted. The purpose here is to make a critical examination of the more widely entertained explanations offered to account for anomalies which appear from the placement of the Exodus in the XVIIIth Dynasty or in the Hyksos period. As previously noted, these points represent the limits allowable on the basis of acceptance of Bible chronology for the era involved. A discussion of the XIXth Dynasty placement which falls outside these limits, is left for a later chapter. VI. Why no Evidences of Crisis in Egypt at the Time of the Exodus? The gamut of suggested explanations for this anomaly which would seem to have their origin within some degree of confidence in Scripture may be incorporated in three hypotheses. These are (1) that the Scriptures do not really demand recognition of such a crisis, (2) that the Egyptians were. too proud to admit the humiliating experience and elected to suppress the making of any records of the inci. dents, and (3) that such records as may have been made have not survived or have not as yet been discovered. These three hypotheses are so interrelated that they may be evaluated as a unit. If the details of the accounts of the plagues, the borrowing from the Egyptians by the Israelites to the point of ruin, the loss of perhaps a million slaves on whom the Egyptians depended for their labor, the debacle at the Red Sea, and other facets of the Exodus story have a factual basis, then how can one presume within the concept of a historical Scripture that there was no crisis in Egypt at this time? The probl~m here is not to those who do not accept Scripture as a reliable historical source; it is to those who profess to believe that the Exodus account as described in BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 31 Scripture is factual. It is this group who cannot rationally take shelter under the hypothesis that · Scripture does not demand recognition of such a crisis. At least one scholar has recognized that one of these factors standing alone would have been adequate to produce an unconcealable crisis in Egyptian history. 2·; ... whereas, if the numbers of the emigrants were nearly 2,000,000, which is a legitimate deduction from Exodus 12:37, the movement was one which would have shaken Egypt to its very foundation, and which, even if it had failed to be recorded in one of the numerous monuments which have survived in Egypt, would at any rate have left some unmistakable impression on Egyptian history. The population of Egypt at that time has. been estimated at not more than 8,000,000. 26 This would mean the sudden loss of about one-fourth of the population, about half of which may have represented slave. labor. What shall we say then when to this near total loss of the labor force are added the other factors contributing to the catastrophe? The real problem here is not whether the Egyptians recorded the incident or whether or not such inscriptions have been found. The real question is whether the Exodus as recorded in Scripture could have occurred without leaving an unmistakable crisis in Egypt which could not under any circumstance be concealed from future generations. When the force of this single objection is .recognized, the inconsistency in retaining the concept of an Exodus in the reign of Thutmose III, or Amenhotep II of the XVIIIth Dynasty, stands out in bold relief. There are two additional factors that must be considered. Even if this crisis was of much less significance than that indicated in Scripture, there is every reason to believe that this would have been the signal for revolt on the part of the tributary peoples of the empire. History is replete with examples of this sequence. The tribute paying peoples waited and watched generation after generation for the occurrence of any such incident that would serve as a signal for an attempted revolt. Often, this required no more than the death of the king or evidence of a lesser degree of concern on the part of the ruling king. 27 If the Exodus incident had any resemblance to the description given in Scripture, it could be expected that Egypt would at that time suffer the loss of any empire under her domination. Such an attempt 32 THE EXODUS PROBLEM did occur on the death of Thutmose III. The very fact that Amehotep II was able to quell this revolt indicates clearly that there was no serious interruption in the military might of Egypt during the decade supposed to encompass the incident of the Exodus. The prosperity and power in Egypt attained by Thutmose III passed into the reign of Amenhotep with no hint of diminution. When Jehovah told Abraham of the Exodus experience more than 400 years before it occurred, the incident was stated to come as a judgment on Egypt. The entire experience was designed to demonstrate to the Egyptians the helplessness of their gods to deliver them from the power of the God of the Israelites. 28 ... and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will 1 judge .... . . . I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians ... with great judgments. . . . and against all the gods of Egypt will I execute judgment: I am the Lord. Scripture does not bear out the concept that when a nation became the subject of divine judgment, the results were to be compared to a mild slap on the wrist. God had been most longsuffering toward these ancient peoples. 29 ... but in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full . .But when a people became ripe for judgment, the punishment was such as to bring that nation to humility in the . dust. According to the Exodus account, Egypt had been guilty of a century or more of cruelty and abuse of God's people. Egypt had had a demonstration of the power of the Israelite's God in the famine experience of Joseph. The pharaoh of the Exodus was given ten opportunities to redeem the behavior of the Egyptians toward the Israelites. With the continued refusal to recognize the God of Israel, ten judgments of increasing destructiveness came upon Egypt and its people, eventually reaching a climax in the debacle at the Red Sea. Against this background, can one rationally presume that the judgments on Egypt had no more significant effect on the subsequent history than the absence of inscriptions over a period of half a decade or so? If one is to ret:iin Scripture as anything resembling history, BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 33 logic would suggest that the incident be set against a background of sudden and extended eclipse of power in Egypt. The XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the incident does not provide any such background. VII. Explanations Offered for the Anomaly of Rameses II An explanation is also needed to account for the discrepancy in time for the appearance of Rameses II as the builder of the cities of Pi-Rameses and Pithom as related to the Exodus incident. To the proponents of the XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the incident, the problem becomes one of showing that it was not Rameses II who built these cities under Israelite slave labor, in spite of the appearance of his name in profusion among the ruins of these cities, and in spite of the complete absence of construction in the eastern Delta region by any XVIIIth Dynasty king. 30 As disconcerting as this phase of the anomaly is, the problem does not end here. According to Scripture, the land of Goshen was known to the Hebrews as the land of Rameses back at the time of the descent of Jacob and his sons into Egypt,31 indicating that this name did not have its origin with the Pharaoh of the Oppression. An interesting hypothesis has been suggested to account for this anomaly, though it is difficult to see how this explanation should appeal to one who hopes to attain a credible agreement of archaeology with a historical Scripture. The hypothesis presumes that the Exodus account was not reduced to writing until very late in Israelite history. It is further presumed that the one who eventually wrote up the story recognized that Rameses II utilized slave labor in the construction of Pi-Rameses at a much later date than the Exodus, at which time the entire area was inseparably linked with the name of Rameses. Hence he read this later background back into the incident of the Oppression, a situation that existed centuries before any Rameses ever sat on the throne of Egypt. Breasted held to some such hypothesis. 32 . . . Ramses himself was one of the gods of the city. Through these cities and Ramses' other great enterprises in this region the central portion of the eastern Delta became known as "the land of Ramses," a name so completely identified with the region that Hebrew tradition 34 THE EXODUS PROBLEM read it back into the days of Joseph and his kindred, before any Ramses had ever sat on the throne. As weak as the explanation is for the purpose intended, it has no significance at all as a support for the XVIIIth Dynasty theory of the Exodus. We are still left without a rational suggestion as to the identify of the pharaoh of the Oppression who carried out this extensive building program in brick in the Delta region under slave labor in the era of the XVIIIth Dynasty. A second theory· designed to .account for the anomaly of Rameses II assumes that the cities of Pi-Thom and Pi-Rameses were indeed built by slave labor of the Israelites. but that the original name of the city thus built was not Rameses, this name having been inserted by a later copyist to bring the document up to date in terms of a name adopted much later. This theory, if acceptable, would eliminate the necessity of presuming that the builder of the store:-cities had the name Rameses. He could have had any one of the numerous names to be found in the various king lists. In support of this possibility, we are pointed to a number of examples in Scripture where a later name for a city is given, evidently having been inserted by a later copyist. The difficulty with this theory is that in each of the several cases, the original name of the city is also given, 33 thus providing strong evidence that copyists did not take such liberties without indicating a relationship to the original wording. We may logically conclude that when such an earlier name is not given, such assumptions of alteration are nothing more than assumptions. More significantly, this theory, like the previous one, collapses of its own weight and leaves us with problems as large as the original. It fails to suggest the name of any Egyptian king by whatever name, who could have been the builder of this earlier city. Since the theory is commonly used by the proponents of the XVIIIth Dynasty placement of the Exodus, it is necessary to identify this unnamed king as Thutmose III or one of his predecessors of the early XVIIIth Dynasty. But there is no evidence that any of these kings did any significant building in the Delta region.'34 A challenge is here offered to any historian or any Bible scholar to suggest the name of any Egyptian king prior to BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 35 Rameses II who could be rationally identified as the builder of these cities under Israelite slave labor on the basis of archaeological evidence, and whose reign, by the traditional chronology of Egypt, falls within the limits of rational interpretation of Old Testament chronology. VIII. What is to be Done with the Account of Joseph's Fam.ine? If the Exodus accounts have a basis which has any resemblance to fact, the problem of the Exodus cannot be divorced from the famine of Joseph's time, which incident stands as the key to the very presence of the Hebrews in Egypt. The only attempt that has come to the attention of the writer relative to suggesting a famine record that meets the specifications of the time of Joseph is that proposed many years ago by the historian Brugsch."5 The famine record to which he refers is by one Bebi or Beba, who left an inscription in his tomb which tells of a prolonged famine for which preparation was made in advance. The pertinent part of the inscription reads: "I collected corn as a friend of the haroest god. I was watchful at the time of sowing. And when famine arose lasting many years, I distributed com to the city each year of the famine." Brugsch dated this tomb inscription in the XVIIth Dynasty on the basis that the tomb was located on a slope north of a group of tombs that belonged to this dynasty. Brugsch held to a variation of the XIXth Dynasty theory of the Exodus which placed the event in the reign of Merneptah whom he dated c. 1300 B.C. He also held to the concept that the period from Joseph to the Exodus was 430 years which would then date the famine c. 1730 B. C. More recent views, based on the Sothic dating method, have placed Merneptah c. 1200 B.C. Since the expulsion of the Hyksos is fixed by the same dating method to 1580 B.C., 430 years earlier than Merneptah, we are still left in the general era of the XVIIth Dynasty. The same situation results if we allow but 215 years for the interval from the famine to the Exodus,. as is done by other scholars, and the Exodus is set late in the reign of Thutmose III. Thus while views on the chronology of Egypt have changed notably since Brugsch wrote, the matter .of identification of the famine of Beba 36 THE EXODUS PROBLEM with that·of Joseph's .time remains pertinent. The conclusion of Brugsch on the date to ,be assigned to the tomb of Beba is now open to severe. objections. In a later chapter, 36 it wilr be shown that Scripture. is .· internally consistent only when it is recognized that .the interval from the famine to the Exodu's was 215 years rather than 430 years. The famine inscription of Beba is thus not in proper time relation to the Exodus ih the XIXth Dynasty as believ~d by Brugsch. Since the pronouncement of Brugsch, other scholars have had opportunity to examine the tomb of Beba and near~by 'tombs, and have concluded that the. tombs farther up the slope do not belong to the' same era as those below; which are ofthe XVIIth Dynasty'. Vandier refers to the conc111sion of Tyler, with which he agreed, that the tomb· of Beba was much more· ancient than the others:3; A date in the XIIIth Dy.n asty ~as suggested. .. . . The use of thi.s famine record toprovide a famine in the expected position for .the famine of Joseph · by the placementof the Exodus in either the XVII Ith Dynasty or inth~ Hyk'sos era is out of the question; just as it is by the XIXth Dynasty theory. This phase of the problem remains a· blank as is so clearly indicated .by the absence 'o f any more reee11t attempts to refer to a .famine inscription whiCh could conceivably be dated in the time of Joseph. If there were. a dearth of famine inscriptions in Egypt, one might presume that no record of the famine is extant The multiplicity of such records38 makes such a supposition illogical, particular~ ly in view of the unusual severity of the famine of Joseph. IX. Did the Pharaoh of the Exodus Lose his Life in the Red Sea? This .question has. taken on a degree of importance with the discovery of the mummies of Thutmose III and of Am~ enhotep II, as well as the mummies of the pharoahs nominated to this .honor in the XIXth Dynasty (Plate I). A number of,·devices have been offered to avoid the implications of the statements in Scripture. Some have attempted to meet the problem by assuming that the pharaoh did not accompany his armies on this pursuit, an assumption contradicted by Ex. 14:8. Others would assume that while he accompanied his armies, ·· he did not · enter the sea basin and commanded his armies from the ·shore line and was thus BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS Amenhotep II Thutmose III Rameses II Plate I. Mummies of the Pharaohs Credited by Various Theories as the Pharaoh of the Exodus 37 38 THE EXODUS PROBLEM not destroyed with his armies. Just how these commands were given without a loud speaker or how it was done in darkness39 is not explained; furthermore, it makes an absofote coward of the pharaoh, which the pharaohs were not. Extant inscriptions are available40 telling of the heroic exploits of the pharoahs as they led their armies into battle. Nor is the theory of a recovery of the body with a return to Egypt for burial any more logical since there was no one left of the Egyptian army to return it 41 and certainly the Israelites did not return it. If the story as provided in Scripture has any resemblance to fact, then certainly the Egyptians remaining in Egypt had enough problems of their own w.ithout sending out a search party to see what had happened to the army that had left Egypt at least a week before.42 The boldest of the attempts to explain the appearance of the mummies of the various pharaohs nominated as the pharaoh of the Exodus is that which asserts that Scripture does not teach that the pharoah lost his life at this time. It is difficult to see how any one can read the verses in question and come out with a different conclusion than that this is the intended meaning. David, a subsequent Biblical writer, so understood the account. 4; To be sure, the word in the Hebrew in the statement by David is translated "overthrew" or "overwhelmed," but it is the same word that is used in Exodus 14:27 in referring to the complete destruction of the armies of the pharaoh. 44 White, one of the earlier modern scholars, preferred to reject the account on the basis that it did not agree with the "monuments," a statement which should be corrected to read that it does not agree with the popular interpretations of the monuments. 45 ... These modern researches have also shown that some of the most important features in the legends [sic] can not possibly be reconciled with the records of the monuments; for example, that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was certainly not overwhelmed in the Red Sea. At least, White's position is consistent with his general belief relative to the evaluation of Scripture. There is no consistent explanation for this discrepancy within the framework of current views on ancient chronology if we are to retain a confidence in Scripture as truly historical rather than as a conflation of myths and legends. BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS 39 Notes and References (1) These points are discussed in greater detail in Chap. V, Sect. V; Vol. II, Chap. V, Sect. 11. (la) Josh. 8:1, 2. (2) G-OSJ, p. 146. (3) W-BA, p. 53. (4) Cited in K-BH, p. 86. (5) Gen. 47:11. (6) Ex. 1:11. (7) See quot. of ref. 35; refs. 3 and 5, Chap. X. (8) K-AHL, pp. 207-12; Chap. IV, Sect. 10. (9) Cp. Josh. 12:17-24; 10:40-42; 11:23. (10) See note at end of Table II relative to the uncertainty of these dates. (11) B-HE, p. 303. (12) G-WOT, p. 69. (13) Ex. 2:1-10. (14) In the light of the absence of any construction in the area of Pi-Rameses by any XVIllth Dynasty king, the suggestive evidence that certain of these kings may have made renovations of individual structures in this area (M-HE, Vol. IV, p. 370) or that one or more of these kings may have had a temporary presence in the area (Heick, cited in K-SAP, p. Sn) is hardly adequate for meeting the specifications of Scripture. (15l B-HE, pp. 323-332; see text after ref. 27. (16) The Xllth Dynasty kings built almost entirely in brick. With the revival of building after the Hyksos era, stone replaced brick almost entirely. The notable exception was in the building program of Rameses II. (17) W-BA. p. 60. (18) Ex. 7:7. (19) B-HE, p. 282; see also M-HE. Vol. IV, p. 372. (20) Vandier lists no less than 36 references to famine conditions in the Egyptian inscriptions. Undoubtedly some of these may refer to the· same famine; others were local, and still others are not specific. Nevertheless, the repeated references to famine conditions makes anomalous a view which supposes that the most severe of famines should go unmentioned (V-FEA). (21) Chap. X; Chap. XIII, Sect. XI. (22) Vol. II, Chap. XVII, Sects. XJII, XIV. (23) Vol. II, Chap. V, Sect. IX. (24) See R-FJJ, p. 20 for.a classical example. (25) P-EOT, pp. 105-106. (26) B-N, p. 302. (27) See K-AHL, p. 283; B-HE, p. 323 as examples of numerous references to this rather invariable sequence. (28) Gen. 15:13,14; Ex. 7:4; 12:12. (29) Gen. 15:16. (30) See quot. ref. 17. (31) Gen. 47:11. (32) B-HE, 443. (33) For examples, see Gen. 28:19; Josh. 15:15; Jdg. 1:23. (34) See quot. ref. 17 and re. 14a. (35) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 304. (36) Chap. IV, Sect. V. (37) V-FEA, p. 18. A translation of the pertinent statements are provided as ref. 7, Chap. X. (38) See note of ref. 20. (39) Ex. 14:20. (40) See B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 370; Vol. II, p. 54 for evidence that neither Thutmose III nor Rameses II were cowards. {41) Ex. 14:28. (42) Since the Israelites had a three-day start, and it would require this much or more time for the Egyptians to have become aware that the armies were in difficulty, it could well have been much longer than this before there was any concern about the delay in returning. It is unlikely that any one from Egypt traced the movement of the army and recovered the body. (43) Ps. 136:14, 15. (44) Y-AC. (45) W-SWT, Vol. II, p. 375 (reprint). r.· CHAPTER IV THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY: ITS ADVANTAGES AND WEAKNESSES The XIXth Dynasty theory of the Exodus is the older of the two more popular concepts. This is to be expected since it finds its basis in the name Raamses as one of the two treasure-cities built by the Israelites under slave labor. During the earlier phases of modern archaeology, the identification of Rameses II as the builder of these cities was not hampered by chronologicaJ difficulties. The abandonment of this placement by many conservative Bible scholars re. suited when these major chronological difficulties later became apparent. The revised placement in the XVIIIth Dyna sty seemed to be provided adequate support by Garstang' s dating of the fallen walls of Jericho in the era c. 1400 B.C. on the basis of pottery types related by him in time with the destruction of the city. This theory of the Exodus continues to find its major support among scholars who lean toward a conservative interpretation of the Old Testament. However, the question remains without a satisfactory answer as to why the chronology based on I Kings 6:l should be regarded as more sacred than what appears to be an obvious synchronism between Rameses II and the era of the Oppression. As will be seen by reference to Table II, the XIXth Dynasty placement moves the Exodus event forward on the time scale by about 150 years, the more exact figure depending on just where in the reign of Rameses II the event is presumed to have occurred. I. Evidences Favoring a XIXth Dynasty Exodus There are three major difficulties in the XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the Exodus that are presumed to be eliminated by the XIXth Dynasty placement. The first of these is the complete absence of any evidence of a significant building program in the eastern Delta region by any XVIIIth Dynasty king. It is essential.ly certain that neither Thutmose III nor Amenhotep II engaged in any significant construction in this area 1 and the same may be said of Queen Hatshepsut and her predecessors. Yet the reigns of these rulers carry THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 41 us back more than seventy-five years into what must be presumed to be the period of the Oppression. Rameses II, on the other hand, leaves a multiplicity of evidences of extended construction in this area. The ruins of the city of PiRameses in this area carry his name in profusion. A second line of evidence favoring the XIXth Dynasty placement is to be seen in the Biblical references 2 that indicate a close proximity of the king's palace to the area of the laboring Israelite slaves. The capital of the XVIIIth Dynasty kings was at Thebes, far to the south of the Delta region and at a point that can not possibly be made to meet this specification of the Scriptural account. With the construction of Pi-Rameses, this city became the capital of Rameses II, though part of the governmental offices may still have been located at Heliopolis, at ·the southern border of the Delta, but still within range of an expanding Israelite population. Thirdly, since one of the store cities had the name Raamses, the suggestion is strong that the reigning king had this name. If we include southwestern Asia as an additional source of information, still further evidence has been noted. According to Glueck, extensive investigation in the territory of Edom and Moab indicate that there was no sedentary occupation in cities of this area at ·the time of Thutmose III or Amenhotep II where the Exodus is placed by the XVIIIth Dynasty theory, and hence there could have been no organized government with a king who could have said "yes" or "no" to the request of the Israelites for passage through the territory. 3 It becomes impossible, therefore, in the light of all this new archaeological evidence, particularly when studied in connection with the deposits of historical memory contained in the Bible, to escape the conclusion that the particular Exodus of the Israelites through southern Transjordan could not have taken place before the 13th century B.C. It will be recalled that the Israelites begged the Edomites and Moabites in vain for permission to travel through these kingdoms on their way to the Promised Land. The Israelites were compelled to go around them, and finally force their way westward to the Jordan on the north side of the Amon, which at that ·time was part of the territory of Sihon; king of the Amorites. Had the Exodus through southern Transjordan taken place before the 13th century B.C., the Israelites would have found neither Edomite nor Moabite kingdoms well organized and well fortified, whose rulers could have given or withheld permission to go through their territories. 42 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Yet Scripture refers to a number of important cities in this area at the time of the Conquest. -1 A further basis for preference for the later date has been claimed. Among the ruins of the destructions which have been associated with the Conquest have been found imitations of the so-called Mycenaean type pottery.·; The originals of this pottery continued to be imported into Palestine until c. 1250 B.C. by current chronological views, indicating that most of the destructions to be observed in this area belong archaeologically to a date later than the cessation of importation of this pottery type. II. Chronological Difficulties in the XIXth Dynasty Placement of the Exodus While the XIXth Dynasty placement of the Exodus appears at first glance to eliminate several major difficulties confronting the XVIIIth Dynasty placement, it is not to be inferred that this setting of the incident is free of major difficulties. Not the least of these is the large discrepancy with Bible chronology. Under no circumstance is it possible to harmonize this placement with even the short chronology of the Judges which has its basis in the 480-year period between the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon. 1; In order to regard Rameses II as the pharaoh of the Oppression, the Exodus must be set more than 150 years later than the date calculated from the extablished dates for Solomon.' This placement reduces the period allowable for the Judges by a similar period. This is not permissible within the limits of a straightforward interpretation of Bible chronology. According to Scripture, three hundred years elapsed between the Conquest and the rule of Jephthah, 8 and Jephthah was not at all one of the last of the Judges. Any recognition of Rameses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus leaves a scant 200 years for the total period of the Judges. The 300-year period of Jephthah may be taken as an approximation since it is a round number, but hardly the kind of an approximation that permits cutting the figure in half. III. Difficulties in a More Exact Setting of the Exodus in the Reign of Rameses 11 It is to be· noted clearly that the proposed synchronism THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 43 between Rameses II and the building of the treasure-cities is related to the period of Israelite enslavement and not to the Exodus. This period of slavery, according to Scripture, began at least 80 years before the Exodus, since Moses was born under slavery and was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus. 9 We cannot be certain that the building of these cities was the first assignment. to the enslaved people, but neither is it reasonable to suppose that the cities were built during the late years before the Exodus, since a significant period of time must have been involved in these construction works .. If Rameses II used the recently constructed city as his capital, a date other than very early in his reign would be highly improbable. But if the construction is set early in the reign, then most of the period of enslavement belongs to the era of the kings preceding Rameses II, none of whom did any building in the Delta and none of whom ruled from this area. Hence the period prior to Rameses II does not meet the specifications of Scripture any better than the XVIIIth Dynasty setting. Since the slavery background is in the Delta region, not alone at the Exodus, but from the time of Moses' birth, 10 a continued residence by a s~ries of kings ruling from this area is required to meet these specifications. Of the predecessors of Rameses II, one does not meet a builder of any significance until the time of Amenhotep IV, and his building was certainly not in the Delta region. 11 As highly improbable as is the placement of this construction in the later years of Rameses II, it is precluded by other evidence. Merneptah, his successor, left an inscription, dated in his 5th year, indicating the presence of Israel in Canaan at that time. Not only so, the background in Palestine described in the inscription precludes any recent coming of the Israelites into the territory. The inscription is of sufficient import to permit reproduction in part: 12 The kings are overthrown saying "Salem!" Not one holds up his head among the nine nations of the bow. Wasted is Tehenu, · The Hittite Land is pacified, Plundered is the Canaan, with every evil, Carried off is Askalon, Seized upon is Gezer, 44 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Yenoam is made as a thing not existing. Israel is desolated, her seed is not, Palestine has become a [defenseless] widow for Egypt, All lands are united, they are pacified; Every one that is turbulent is bound by king Merneptah. Most scholars would probably admit that Merneptah may have stated what was but an empty boast in crediting to himself this unification of the territory of Palestine. Certainly there is no inscriptive evidence otherwise to indicate any such military accomplishment on the part of Merneptah, and the unstable conditions prevailing in Egypt during his reign would seem certainly to preclude any such campaign. This leaves ro9m for supposing that the embarrassment•to Israel at this time may have been brought about by some other nation. Even if this interpretation is. allowed, there is no point in Israelite history following the Conquest when such a situation is indicated in Scripture until the incident of the oppression by Cushan. 13 Israel, up to this time, enjoyed relative peace and prosperity after the initial phase and was either the victor in her military movements or was at peace. It follows that the Exodus must be set no less than 75 years before the 5th year of Merneptah, which point is earlier than the reign of Rameses II, thus eliminating him as the pharaoh of the Oppression. While it remains true that Rameses II carried out extensive construction work in brick in the Delta region, the final proof is lacking that this construction was carried out under Israelite slavery. It is extremely doubtful that the placement of the Exodus in the XIXth Dynasty has any genuine advantage over the placement in the XVIIIth Dynasty. The conflict of opinion continues because neither of these placements provides the proper background for the various incidents related to the Exodus. An Exodus in the early reign of Rameses II shares with the XYIIIth Dynasty setting the absence of the expected crisis in Egypt. While the background in the later reign of Rameses II is obscure, this obscurity is not of long duration and was followed by later interference in Asia by the Egyptian kings, a situation which is in itself anomalous. On this basis, it has been suggested that the Exodus be moved still farther forward- into the reign of Rameses III to attain the proper background. 138 This would reduce still more the al- THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 45 ready unduly abbreviated period for the Judges and is in direct contradiction to the inscription of Memeptah. The XIXth Dynasty placement of the Exodus shares with the XVIIIth Dynasty setting the problems at Jericho and at Ai. 14 Neither is the change in culture, expected at the point of the Conquest, indicated archaeologically in the era of Rameses II in any more distinct manner than for the period a century and a half earlier. 15 Serious questions may be raised to the interpretations of the archaeology of Transjordan which have led to the deduction that the Conquest could not have occurred earlier than the mid-13th century. 16 No famine inscription is available in proper position to this setting of the Exodus, thus sharing this difficulty with the earlier placement. 17 The difficulty rising from the Biblical mention of the area of Israelite occupation as the Land of Rameses at the time of the Descent characterizes both theories. In a previous chapter, the procedure of seeking explanations to difficulties before abandoning the premises on which a tlieory has been based was defended as scientifically desirable. 18 This defense holds true equally for the XIXth Dynasty theory of the Exodus. It was, however, also pointed out that the continued multiplication of data which are contradictory to a theory, or which require the use of explanations that do not explain, should prompt the investigator to scrutinize most rigidly the validity of the premises on which his theories are based. We then examine the principal explanations that have been offered to account for the difficulties in the XIXth Dynasty Exodus theory. IV. Explaining Away the Imporl of M emeptah' s Inscription There is perhaps no single extra-Biblical literary source from ancient times for which a satisfactory interpretation is more needed than for the inscription of Merneptah if the XIXth Dynasty theory of the Exodus is to merit the acceptance that has been given to it. This is the earliest known example of the mention of Israel in the secular inscriptions of Egypt, yet it stands to. contradict the XIXth Dynasty Exodus theory and to deter its proponents from setting even an approximate date in the reign of Rameses II when the Exodus incident could have occurred. 46 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The writer has met but a single softly spoken suggestion as to just how the import of this inscription is to be circumvented, and this one is far from being convincing. This explanation assumes that perhaps Merneptah is not referring to a military devastation of Israel. 19 However, the other statements in the inscription clearly refer to political situations, and the basis remains obscure for considering the reference to the desolation of Israel as something different than political, i.e., perhaps as an agricultural desolation! It is a bit difficult to understand just how a deficient crop would make Palestine a '.'widow for Egypt" or to understand why such a condition would warrant the inclusion of Palestine among the "turbulent" areas which now became "bound by king Merneptah." V. Explanations for Chronological Difficulties Explanations designed to account for the chronological difficulties that rise from the placement of the Exodus as late as the XIXth Dynasty call attention to certain genealogical data from Scripture. It is claimed that these data incicate a much shorter period for the Judges than is allowable by the acceptance of the 480 years of I Kings 6: 1 or the 300-year period of Jephthah. Most notable is the genealogy of Judah, son of Jacob, who came into Egypt with his family at the time of the Descent. This genealogy is given in Genesis 46:11, 12; Numbers 26:19-22; I Chronicles 2:3ff.; Ruth 4: 18-22; Mathew 1 and Luke 3. It is not to be expected thi:tt the partial genealogies of Genesis 46 and Numbers 26 would give data to the era of the Israelite monarchy. The other four give the sequence of descendants of Judah as:. Phares, Hezron, (A)ram, Aminadab, Naason, Salmon (Salma), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David, the father of Solomon. Since Hezron, grandson of Judah, was born before th~ Descent, 20 the period from the Descent to the time of Solomon is covered by the names in the list from Hezron to David inclusive. This period is 695 years if we accept the 480 years of .I Kings 6: 1 and a period of 215 years from the Descent to the Exodus, or 910 years if the Sojourn is taken as 430 years. If the genealogies as given are complete, these figures require 70 or 90 years to a generation respectively, figures which may properly be regarded as out of the ques- THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 47 tion. Rowley used this situation to argue that the period of the Judges was much shorter than that suggested by the reading of I Kings 6: 1.2 1 Rowley, however, reasoned on the basis that the period of the Sojourn was 430 years and expressed difficulty in understanding why Bible scholars regard the 480 and 430-year periods with such sanctity while not giving due consideration to the anomalous evidence of genealogies. However, he does not show reason for difficulty when the period of Sojourn is limited to 215. years as understood by Paul, 22 and when the post-Exodus genealogy is recognized as incomplete. Evidence will now be introduced to show that the genealogical data may be fitted very reasonably into a chronology that allows but 215 years for the Sojourn. Evidence is at hand to show that all the later genealogies of Judah omit names representing the generations from about the time of the Conquest to Boaz, the · great-grandfather of David. The number of such omitted generations may be calculated to· fall between 10 and 15. Matthew gives Boaz as of the line of Rahab. 23 Aaron, the brother of Moses, married the sister of Naason, 24 evidently before the Exodus. This Naason (Naashon) was a leader in thet tribe of Judah just following the Exodus. 23 That this is the same Naashon is clear since he is the son of Aminadab of the genealogical list while the wife of Aaron was daughter of the same man. Salmon (Salma) is the son of Naashon and hence belongs to the generation after the Exodus, i.e., to the era of the Conquest. But so also does Rahab belong to this same era. 26 When Matthew states that Salmon begat Booz (Boaz) of Rachab, we may unerstand this to mean that Boaz was of the line of Salmon through Rahab. The inference is that Salmon married Rahab after the conquest of Jericho. In any case, it is obvious that the genealogies of Judah, as given by Matthew and Luke, omit all the descendants of the line between Salmon and Boaz, and the other genealogies should be interpreted in the same manner. The interval is about 325 years. If one allows an average generation to be about one-third of a century, the number of missing names is 10. If one allows as few as 22 years to a generation, the number is 15. The e:;act number is not vital 48 THE EXODUS PROBLEM to the discussion. The obvious conclusion is that there is no rational basis for invoking Scripture to support a theory of the Exodus which demands a radical shortening of the era of the Judges. The number of generations from the Descent to the Exodus in the line of Judah is five. Since we do not know the age of Naason at the Exodus, a period of 215 years for the Sojourn is reasonable, and more so since Naason was probably about the age of Moses and Aaron at the time. 27 VI. Was the Exodus an Insignificant Event? There is nothing more obvious than that the Exodus, as described in Scripture, together with associated events, represented incidents of major consequence which ~ould not have occurred without leaving an unmistakable effect on the histories of both Israel and Egypt. 28 That the incidents did leave such an indelible impression on the Israelites is clearly revealed in Scripture. 29 The absence of any detectable crisis revealed by the Egyptian sources at either of the points proposed for the Exodus calls for a rejection of much of the Scriptural story as "polish" that has accumulated prior to reduction of the accounts to writing. 30 ... We must therefore be prepared to reject as later embellishment much of the story as it appears in the Book of Exodus, and to imagine the actual event as of much more humble nature. As for the numbers of the Israelites we cannot for a moment entertain a belief in the two millions suggested by Ex. 12:37. It is incredible that the vast people could have maintained themselves in the desert between Egypt and Canaan for the forty years demanded by tradition, and extremely doubtful, in the light of modern experience, whether they could even have made the direct march from Egypt to Kadesh. Since it is rather universally agreed that it is not possible to reject the fact of the Exodus, explanations are needed (I ) for reducing the number of escapees to a relatively small number, and (2) for reducing the size of the pursuing army to one whose loss would not be critical to the subsequent history of Egypt, and (3) to provide an explanation for the plagues that leaves room for the escape of the unarmed and enslaved Israelites without producing a simultaneous crisis in Egypt. Vit How Many People were Involved in the Exodus? The hist.orian Petrie seems to have been one of the prin- THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 49 cipal proponents of the theory that the number of escapees at the Exodus was a relatively small number.'31 By translating the word given as "thousands" in our English versions as "families," he makes the record read "600 families" instead of "600,000 adult males." On this basis he estimates that the total number of Israelites who left Egypt at this time was not in excess of 5,500 persons. This deduction appears to be generally accepted among scholars and particularly among the proponents of the XIXth Dynasty placement of the Exodus. The statement that 40,000 men of war, from two and one-half tribes only;'32 went to the attack of Jericho a few years later seems not to have been taken into account in the formulation of this theory. In support of this altered translation, we are pointed to the numbering of the first-born at Sinai, at which time it was found that this number amounted to 22,273. 33 It is claimed that this figure is incompatable with a population of two million or more. Petrie also failed to note that the dedication of the first-born here under consideration was not effective until after the 10th plague in which the first-born of Egypt lost their lives. The reference in question'34 tells of a change in plan for the dedication of the first-born of all Israel as a token of their deliverance, to the dedication of the single tribe of Levi. '15 When thus understood, the number 22,273 first-born in all Israel is consistent only when a population of' this magnitude is recognized. Petrie' s proposal to translate the Hebrew word rendered "thousands" in our English versions as "families" is untenable. This point has been given due consideration by Hebrew scholars who find no basis whatever for such a translation.'36 It has also been argued that the land of Goshen could not have accommodated such a number of persons, the total population of Egypt at that time having been estimated as not in excess of 8,000,000.3' But there is no valid reason for supposing that Israel remained entirely confined to the area assigned them at the Descent, even if it is granted that the limits of this area could be defined (and if cannot be thus defined). 38 It is also proposed that if the figure of 600,000 men above the age of 20 were factual, Israel could have overcome the Egyptians at the Red Sea by sheer weight of numbers. 39 50 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ... If the figures in the b~ok of Numbers, therefore, really represented the actual number involved in the Exodus, the Israelite army [sic] 600,000 warriors [sic) should have been able to overcome anything which the Pharaoh put into the field by sheer weight of numbers! Unfortunate for this thesis, the Israelites at this time did not constitute an army, and it would be pure speculation to presume that there was a single weapon of war in the entire multitude. 40 If sheer weight of numbers without arms could have solved the problem, they could have successfully rebelled while in Egypt. It is ~o be noted that the fear of the pharaoh in enslaving the Israelites was not that they would rise in armed rebellion but that they would join an invading army (which could provide them with weapons). 41 It is further claimed that it would not have been possible for such a large number of people to have passed from Egypt to Palestine across the desert, even by a direct route, to say nothing of successful passage by the indirect route described in Scripture. Such claims defeat their own purpose since they leave difficulties as large as the original. Except as one recognizes the miraculous provision of food and water for the migrants and their cattle, it would have been equally impossible for even a group of 5,000 to have survived such a journey. Glueck, who is perhaps more familiar with this territory .than any other, felt compelled to conclude that even Abraham with his company, not exceeding . 318 people, could not have made this direct journey from Palestine to Egypt and return with his cattle, except at a time when there was a sedentary occupation of the territory by a people who had solved the problems of water supply. According to Glueck, such a sedentary occupation of the Negeb existed only from the 21st to the 18th centuries B.C. So sure was Glueck of the impossibility of making the journey at any other time that he allowed only one of two possible conclusions. 42 ... Either the Age of Abraham coincides with the Middle Bronze I period between the twenty-first and nineteenth centuries B.C. or the entire sage dealing with the Patriarch must be dismissed, so far as its historical value is concerned, from scientific considerations. Archaeology reveals that the territory of the Negeb was not occupied by a sedentary population at any time between the mid-18th Dynasty and the end of the reign of THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 51 Rameses II. If it would have been impossible for Abraham with his company of 318 people and their cattle to have made this direct journey from Palestine to Egypt and return, except as there was a sedentary occupation of the area, then certainly it would have been less possible for a group of 5,000 with their cattle to have made the journey by the indirect route. Even if there had been a sedentary occupation at the time of the Exodus, the problem is not solved. It mµst be understood that the Israelites retained their organization during this period and were not scattered over the territory to distribute the problems of food and water among many villages. At any given stopping place, the village people would be expected to provide for the entire multitude and their cattle. -l!J Except as one accepts the story as it reads, including the miraculous provision of food and water, nothing at all is provided to bridge the gap between the impossible and the actual passage by reducing the number of escapees to a figure of about 5,000. Furthermore, any such reduction of the number only magnifies the incredibility of this smaller group successfully conquering the area of Palestine, with its numerous walled cities, which was only possible with Divine aid even with the larger number. The dilemma in which historians find themselves at this point, and the impossibility of extricating themselves in a credible manner, lies in the necessary recognition of the Sojourn in Egypt and the necessary recognition of the passage and eventual conquest of Palestine, while rejecting as "polish" all of the details that make these necessary conclusions credible. The wrtier is very much aware that the very interpretation of Scripture that makes these conclusions possible is most distasteful to the majority of scholars who accept the tradition concept of Scriptural origin. Yet nowhere is it more clearly apparent that the rational choice here is not between accepting the numbers of Scripture at their face value or of reducing them to what may seem more "manageable proportions." The choice is ·between accepting Scripture for what it claims to be or rejecting these claims. If the claims are accepted, the difficulties disappear; if they are rejected, one may as well dismiss the stories of Scripture as having any historical significance, including the supposed "historical kernel." 52 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The figures of Scripture relative to the number of emigrants leaving Egypt remain internally consistent. The census of the Israelites was taken twice between the Exodus and the Conquest, and the figures from the two are consistent. So also are the references to partial numberings. The figure of 600,000 adult males leaving Egypt is not at all inconsistent with the shorter period of 215 years for the Sojourn. This allows for eight generations. The Exodus account emphasizes that the Israelites were unusually prolific during this period:'~ The number of males entering Egypt was 66. Counting Joseph and his two sons, we have a potential starting figure of 69 families. An assumption of an average of eight children per family is not inconsistent with the statement of an unusually rapid increase. A simple calculation will show that multiplication to a population between two and three million in eight generations is not at all improbable. Nor is the figure of eight generations in contradiction to the prediction to Abraham that his descendants would return in the fourth generation. The prediction may be taken to mean that the fourth generation would still be well represented at the time. Moses himself belonged to only the third of these four generations. VIII. How Large was the Pursuing Egyptian Army? Since the loss of the complete army of Egypt would certainly have been a severe political catastrophe which would be clearly discernable in the subsequent history of Egypt, and since such a crisis is not apparent at the points supposed to represent the setting of the Exodus in Egyptian history, the acceptance of these theories demands a reduction in the size of this army to dimensions that are at notable odds with the Scriptural suggestions. To be sure, the number in the army is not stated but we are told that: 1·5 . . . he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt and captains over every one of them. Neither are we told how many warriors were under the direction of each chariot, but from other sources we learn that the ratio of .warriors to chariots was not a small one. In a later invasion of Palestine at the time of king Asa, the total army was composed of one million soldiers, the force THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 53 of chariotry but 300. 46 It is of course, not necessary to presume that this ratio was constant for all military engagements, but certainly there is no basis for presuming that the army accompanying double this number of chariots was only a "task force." The army is repeatedly spoken of as an "host." Since the eastern Delta region represented the most vulnerable point of attack on Egypt, there is no reason for presuming that any major part of the available army would be stationed in positions which would make then unavailable for this pursuit. The purpose of the pursuit was not to destroy the fleeing Israelites but to force their return to slavery along with the treasures which the Israelites took with them.•• This aim could be realized only by frightening them by display of Egyptian power. The Israelites at this time were not an armed people as supposed by Wright. In spite of their numbers, they were in no position to face an armed army. Certainly the pharaoh was fully aware that his purpose would not be fulfilled by sending a mere task force to pursue the Israelites. Since his purpose was fulfilled in frightening the fleeing migrants, •s the story makes sense only when it is recognized that the pursuing army represented the full might of Egypt. The pharaoh had just lost ten embarrassing engagements against but two men (and their God). Therefore, even if it were possible to reduce the number of escapees to a figure of a few thousand, nothing short of sheer stupidity could have led the pharaoh to attempt to drive this people back into Egypt with a small fraction of his army. IX. Were the Plagues the Result of not-too-unusual Weather or Seasonal Conditions? A further difficulty of no mean proportions is encountered in attempts to retain a historical kernel of any significance in the story of the plagues. In order to reduce the crisis to be expected to one that produced no discernable ruffle on .the history of Egypt, ·it has been theorized that the plagues were nothing more than the phenomena to be expected to follow a not-too-infrequent series of weather conditions, or perhaps that they resulted from a series of seasonal changes in Egypt. •9 54 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The order of the plagues was the natural order of such troubles on a lesser scale in the Egyptian seasons, as was pointed out long ago. The river turned to blood, with the fish dying, was the unwholesome stagnant Nile just at the lowest before the inundation, when it is red and swarming with organisms. The Egyptians have to resort to wells and cisterns at this time in the earlier part of June. The frogs abound after the inundation has come in July. The plagues of insects, murrain, and boils belong to the hot summer and damp unwholesome autumn. The hail and rain came in January. This is closely fixed by the effect on the crops .... The locusts come in the spring, over the green crops about February. The sand storms bring a thick darkness that may be felt in March, at the break of the hot winds. And the last plague, the death of the first-born; was at the Exodus in April. It is inconceivable to suppose that the pharaoh would relinquish his position on the basis of seasonal or changing weather conditions with which he was altogether familiar. If there is any factual basis at all in the account, it requires recognition that the Israelites marched out of Egypt unhindred by the Egyptian armies after the pharaoh had been convinced, as completely as any man could be convinced, that he was not dealing with a series of incidents which could be thus explained. Are we to presume that the pharaoh and his counselors were so stupid as to not be able to recognize the timed sequence of these plagues at the command of Moses? X. Does the Tradition Theory Provide Solutions to the Problems Related to the Exodus? Proponents of the XIXth Dynasty placement of the Exodus have largely abandoned the possibility or necessity of harmonizing the details of the early Hebrew narratives with their theories. 50 Rather the "tradition theory" has been invoked to bridge the gap resulting from the discrepancies. Scholars have been attempting to provide solutions to the problems of archaeology on the basis of this approach for a century and more. If during this time we had been led to an internally consistent picture of the history of the ancient world aside from the details provided by Scripture, there would be some basis for regarding this theory as having some degree of factual basis. One could then' disregard the details of Scripture that demand a dire crisis in Egypt at the time of the Exodus and bypass such details as the nature and significance of the plagues, the number of escapees, the size of the pursuing army, the destruction of the THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 55 Egyptian armies in the Red Sea, the death of the Exodus pharaoh in the Red Sea debacle, and the 40-years' wilderness wandering with miraculous provision of food and drink for the multitude. One might then suppose that the remaining problems are of such little significance that the problem of the Exodus and related incidents had .been rather completely elucidated. But this is not the case. Having liberated their thinking from all requirements that might result from regarding Scripture as dependable history, they are left with problems of gigantic proportions that have no necessary relation to Scripture, yet for which explanations bordering on the incredible must be invoked to evade their import. When this tradition concept was first introduced, it was presumed by many that it would not be necessary to apply the concept · except in a relatively few minor details while still retaining a large "historical kernel" on which subsequent developments could be utilized. On the basis of this view, a large fraction of the Christian body sold out their faith in an unerring Scripture with the belief that no compromise of its religious message was necessary. With further developments, it has become more and more apparent that we have been led into the acceptance of views which .reduce this "historical kernel" to near the vanishing point. It is no longer a matter of rejecting certain minor details of Scripture. It is rather a matter of rejecting such vast sections of these accounts, that what is left has little or no value either historically or religiously. The XIXth Dynasty placement of the Exodus was rejected in favor of the XVIIIth Dynasty setting by some scholars in a betief that this placement offered a notably better possibility of retaining a faith in the historical reliability of Scripture. However, the bases on which this hope rested have been rather throughly shattered by the exposure of the error of Garstang' s dating of the fallen walls at Jericho in the scheme of the Archaeological Ages and by the discovery that there is no evidence whatever that any XVIIIth Dynasty king did any construction in the Delta region where the Israelites dwelt. Thus many of the adherents to this placement have similarly taken refuge under the tradition theory. The few that have not, appear to remain unaware of the inconsistency of their position or are entertaining what must 56 THE EXODUS PROBLEM be a vain hope that some further discovery will bring order out of chaos and provide solutions to the numerous· difficulties within the framework of current opinion. The ultimate havoc that is wrought with Scripture by application of the tradition theory is nowhere better illustrated than in the now widely accepted theory of a split Exodus. XI. The Split Exodus Theory It has become apparent to a number of scholars that nei- ther of the two popular theories relative to the placement of the Exodus will ever provide a satisfactory explanation of the archaeological and Biblical data. As long ago as 1948, Rowley commented:.51 ... For it is safe to say that there will never be any general agreement on the chronological problems which lie. at the base of our inquiry. As a recent writer says, "the story of the Exodus has become, more than ever before, on~ of the most vexing historico-Biblical problems that confront us today." Subsequent developments have only emphasized the truth of this suspicion. Proposed' solutions to this impasse have been almost totally in the direction of casting more and more doubt on the reliability of Scripture as a dependable historical .source. Some scholars would meet the situation by denying that chronology is of any significant import. Most, however, recognize that the problems are inseparable from chronology and that these cannot be adequately dealt with, except from the standpoint of the time relations involved. These problems are not limited to the Exodus incident. If we turn to the archaeology of Palestine to provide clarification of our difficulties, we find only additional bases for complicating the confusion. These are. considered in detail in the next chapter. One problem only is noted here. According to Scripture, the major phases of the Conquest were completed in about six years:'l2 Archaeologists are able to point to evidences of widespread destruction of cities in Palestine throughout the period assigned to this incident by both placements of the Exodus, i.e., 1400-1200 B.C. While it is true that there was a subsequent and more gradual occupation of certain sites, these were the exceptions; in Joshua 15, over one hundred 9ities are named as taken during this early phase, many of which were large enough to have THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 57 smaller associated villages about them. It is futile to suppose that the destruction of cities over this period of 200 years represent this gradual extension of the occupation. The very fact that it is not feasible to confine the destructions of the initial phase to a period that fits either placement of the Exodus has led many scholars to accept some form of the Split-Exodus theory. Scholars are so widely separated in their attempts to provide the details for this concept that it is impossible to describe any individual theory that incorporates even the major details. The fact thar the general concept has a growing acceptance, in spite of the uncompromisable differences of opinion on the details, only emphasizes the magnitude of the pressure from the evidence to deviate from recognition of any unit conquest. 53 . . . Any simple view of the 15th century Exodus of all the tribes under Moses and Joshua is out of the question . . . . On the other hand, any simple view of the 13th century Exodus of all the tribes is equally out of the question. In reality the problem is extremely complex:, and any attempt to reduce it to simplicity is inadequate. Some scholars have preferred to believe that some of the families of the sons of Jacob never went into Egypt in the first place; others assume that part of the Israelites returned to Canaan after the crisis of the famine. The Scriptures, however, picture all of the sons of Jacob as entering Egypt at the time of the Descent, except Joseph who was already there. 54 All the tribes took part in the Exodus under Moses; 55 all the tribes participated in the wilderness experiences;56 all participated in the Conquest, and all received their inheritance at the same time. 57 The acceptance of any form of a split Exodus theory must relegate to the level of unhistorical traditions all details based on these circumstances. This encompasses no mean fraction of the total writings bearing on the subject of the Exodus and related events. 58 It is, however, generally accepted by scholars that the Old Testament account is a conflation of different ancient sources. A theory that has gained acceptance from a number of scholars is that there is evidence in the biblical account that not all the tribes which make up the subsequent nation took part in the Exodus. This school of thought holds that the religious significance of the Exodus was such that in the 58 THE EXODUS PROBLEM course of time, all the tribes came to believe that their ancestors took part in it. Such a theory has many attractions, particularly since it goes far to reconcile the biblical account with the other historical records .and with archaeological evidence. This thesis leaves us with the problem of deciding which of the tribes returned to Canaan after the famine and which remained in Egypt. Here difficulties of considerable magnitude are introduced. 59 One scholar would presume that the tribes. represented by the sons of Rachel retµrned to Canaan after the famine while those represented by the sons of .Leah remained to participate in the later Exodus. Another points out that such a division is impossible. One would divide. the Exodus .of. the sons of Leah into two different Exodii; still another would regard the Israelites as having come into Palestine in a series of invasions referred to as "waves." One would make Joshua antedate Moses to suppm::t his theory. Still another presumed that Judah did not belong to. the Israelite' tribes at all until a later time. Rowley cites the theory of Toffteen thus: 59• ... Toffteen ... argued for a double entry into Egypt and a double Exodus .... He claimed that only the first was known to J, E, and D, while the second was known to P, and that surprisingly enough each Exodus was preceded by a similar oppression and produced leaders with similar names. This improbable thesis is not sustained by convincing arguments, and it has found no other adherents. Its author confesses his belief "that the Hexateuchal stories of the Exodus are reliable even to the most minute details, except where the later compiler of the documents has misunderstood and changed his· material, and where the copyists of later ages have miscopied the text or annotated it with their own explanations. The Bible, we are convinced, in dealing with the Ex<;>dus, is absolutely historical, in the best sense of the word, and trustworthy in its evidence, even to details, contrary to the usual modern hypothesis." It is hard to see how the writer can claim in the same breath that the evidence of the Bible is both garbled and completely trustworthy. Rowley came up with a construction which would place Jacob in the Amarna period where the XVIIIth Dynasty now has the Conquest. 60 Although Rowley was extended the honor of presenting his views as one of the Schweich Lectures of the British Academy in 1948, we find no evidence that he was able to convert any contemporary scholar to his views. In persuing these numerous theories, one quickly gets the impression that the Split-Exodus theory, in any of its forms, THE XIXth DYNASTY EXODUS THEORY 59 holds out no hope of providing a satisfactory solution to the Exodus problem. Since this concept had its birth in a recognition that neither of the two popular views of the Exodus could ever provide such a solution, some one should get the suspicion that we have been led into a blind alley as a result of some major errors of reasoning. Logic would suggest that scholars make it their first business to re-examine the various premises on which current views rest to determine just where they have turned aside from acceptable scientific procedures to unsound theories. We are reminded of the comments of Ceram relative to a similar situation in Hittite archaeology which had led to a structure characterized by 200 missing years that could not be accounted for. Ceram wrote: 61 Now that the enigma has been explained the solution seems simple enough. Yet it remains astonishing that no one thought of subjecting the established chronology of events in Asia Minor to a searching criticism. Surely someone should have guessed, even if he had not been able to prove it at once, that what had gone wrong was the whole system of dating. Surely it should have occurred to someone that a people's history cannot stop dead for two hundred years. We are now on the far side of an analogous problem in Egyptian chronology. Is it not equally strange here also that some scholar should not have been led to suspicion that the whole trouble lies in the acceptance of invald dating methods? A critical examination of the dating methods that have been used in arriving at the present state of affairs is reserved for a subsequent volume. Our first task is that of showing that the gross confusion which characterizes the present situation relative to the Exodus carries over in magnified form into the problems related to the Conquest. Notes and References p. 60; see Chap. III, rt>f. 17 for quot.; see R-FJJ, p. 24-26. (2) Ex. 2: 1-10. (3) COS}, p. 146. (4) Num. 21: 11, 16, 19, 20; 22:36-39; 2.'3:28. (5) R·FJJ, 15. (6) See Fig. I. (7) (1) W-BA, r.· See Table II. (8) Jdg. 11:26. (9) Cf. ref. 2 with Ex. 7:7. (10) See re. 2. (II) Amenhotep IV built the city of el Amarna which must have heen a very large c>ne since it is recorded that 80,000 of the occupants of Thebes followed him thert' on establishing this site as his capital; undoubtedly there were still others from other cities. (12) B-HE. p. 470. (13) See Table II; Josh. 23:1: 24:31. (l3a) B-BEC, Vol. Xlll, p. 148. (l4)Chap. V. (15)A claim has be-en made that a mor<" distinct brt'ak has been observed al this point than for the era of Thutmose Ill (R·FJJ, p. 14); however the l'vidence is e¥idently so slight that others seem not to have used it as a support for this later date for the Exodus. See quot. ref. 3 of Chap. V. (16) S..-e Chap. XV, Vol. II. (17) See Chap. Ill, Sect. VIII. (18) ibid., Sect. V. (19) P·HE, Vol. Ill, p. 114; ARDBL. p. 8. (20) Gen 46:12. (21) R-FJJ. pp. 70ff. (22) See Chap. X. Sect. Ul for evidence for a duration of only 215 years for the Sojourn. (23) Matt. 1:5. (24) Ex: 6:23. (25) Num. 1:7. {26) ' Josh. 6:23. (27) Since Aaron married th<' sister of Naashon; see ref. 24. (28) Chap. Ill. Sect. 60 THE EXODUS· PROBLEM VI; see quot. ref. 39 of this chapter. (29) Ex. 15; Ps. 71; i36:10-15. (30) P-EOT, p. 106; see also W-BA; p. 66. (31) Ibid., p. 67. (32) Josh. 4:12, 13. (33) Num. 3:40-43. (34) Ibid. (35) Cf.. ref. 33 with Ex. 13:2, 3. (36) See ref. 31: (37) Ibid.; B-N, p. 301. (38) W-BA, p. 56. (39) Ibid., p. 66. (40) Ex. 14;14. (41) Ex. 1:10. (42) G-RD, p. 68 (43). For evidence that the Israelites had cattle of their own, see Ex. 9:19; 20:10; Lev. 1:2; Num. 3:41; 31:9. (44) Ex. 1:7. (45) Ex. 14:7. (46) II Chron. 14.9. (47) Ex. 14:5. (48) Ex. 14: 10. (49) P-EI, pp. 35, 36. (50)KAHL, pp. 208, 211; see ref. 58; see ref. 5 of Chap. V for quot. (51) R-FJJ, p. 1. (52) Cf. Josh. 14:7, 10. (53) R-FJJ, pp. 12, 109. (54) Gen. 46:7ff. (55) Num. I. (56) Num. 26. (57) Ibid.; Josh. 15ff. (58) K-AHL., p. 208. (59) These various views have been reviewed by Rowley (RFJJ, p. 4n) (59&) Ibid., p. 6n. (60) Ibid., Lecture iii, pp. 109ff. (61) C-SH, p. 131. CHAPTERV FURTHER DIFFICULTIES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION FROM THE ERA OF THE CONQUEST The inconsistencies, anomalies, and anachronisms which plague all efforts to find a basis for harmony between Scriptural accounts related to the Exodus and the conven-: tional chronology of Egypt are not unique. Difficulties of an insurmountable nature, or which demand incredible explanations, continue to appear as one attempts to explain the archaeological observations in Palestine against the background provided by the currently proposed placements of the Exodus in Egyptian history. I. The Dating of Joshua's Conquest Notable among such difficulties of archaeological interpretation are the numerous anomalies which rise from attempts to find the proper background for the conquest under Joshua in the era following any of the points in Egyptian history suggested for the Exodus by popular views. If it has not been possible to decide in an unequivocal manner whether the Exodus is to be dated in the late Hyksos era, or in the reign of Thutmose III, or of Ramese.s II, it would seem that we have every right to expect that observations from the archaeology of Palestine should settle this question beyond dispute. Even if one, in his own thinking, can reduce the incident of the Exodus to such insignifi".' cance as to leave no discernible ruffle on the political and economic.al life of Egypt, it would seem rather naive to presume that Israel conquered the land of Palestine 40 years later without leaving indisputable evidences of such a conquest and occupation of the tei;ritory, for it is out of the question to deny the evidences indicating that Israel spent a prolonged period in Egypt and later occupied the territory of Palestine. 1 One might thus approach the problem with the expectation that archaeological investigation in Palestine would settle this problem and provide us not only the proper setting for the Conquest, but also, by simple calculation, the proper date for the Exodus. Unfortunately, this result has not 62 THE EXODUS PROBLEM been attained. Some archaeologists, probably representing a majority opinion, are sure that the necessary evidences of the Conquest cannot be dated· earlier than the mid-13th century B.C., which era is in line with the dating of the Exodus in the reign of Rameses II. Other scholars, particularly those who attempt to hold to the general correctness of Old Testament chronology, are equally certain that the evidences of the Conquest belong in the so-called Amarna period in the reigns of Amehotep III and Amehotep IV, which dates are supposedly in line with a setting of the Exodus in the late reign of Thutmose III or the early reign of Amehotep II. As one examines the available evidences on which such deductions are based, it is apparent that neither of these eras provide the proper setting for the conquest of Canaan under Joshua. These deductions depend heavily for their support on the supposed setting of the Exodus in each case. These are first-rate examples of basing deductions on unproven hypotheses, which in themselves are susceptible to severe question, and then clinging dogmatically to the deductions in the face of still further anachronistic situations that result. In both cases, it is necessary to interpret the archaeological evidences in Palestine in direct contradiction to the very rules which are otherwise recognized as providing evidence for such a conquest and occupation of a territory by a new people. Evidences of extensive destruction of cities in Palestine may be pointed to which are datable throughout the period from the reign of Thutmose III to that of Rameses II, as is to be expected for the era of the Conquest. But contrary to what one could expect, the destructions were not followed . by a change in culture. The recognition of this principle of · archaeological interpretation is expressed by Sir Leonard Woolley: 2 . . . But suppose the excavator comes upon a "burnt stratum.': A patch of ashes may result from mere accident and mean nothing; ashes spread overthe greater part of a site and accompanied with the marks of burning on walls tells of the destruction of the town. Supposing that in the stratum above the ashes there appeared new forms of pottery having no kinship with what has gone before; this implies foreign influence,· and, .taken in conjmwtion with the evidence of destruction, pointsto foreign conquest.... FURTHER DIFFICULTIES 63 The inconsistency of the archaeological picture which confronts us from attempts to place the Conquest in the era of either the XVIIIth or XIXth Dynasties is brought to our attention by Miss Kenyon in language which cannot be misunderstood. Since Miss Kenyon, as an archaeologist in the Palestine area, continues to regard this era as that of the Conquest, in spite of the anomalous situation which results, the force of her words need not be underestimated, nor do they leave any appreciable leeway ·for the reb;ntion of the concept that Scripture provides us with dependable details if it is true that the Conquest is properly positioned at any time between the end of the reign of Thutmose III and the mid-point in the reign of Rameses II. Referring to the entire period from the end of Middle Bronze I through Late Bronze (currently dated c. 1900-1200 B.C. 3 ), Miss Kenyon writes:~ ... With Canaanite Phoenicia, the ties which were established about 1900 B.C. were permanent, and on the evidence of the pottery we can say that the same basic culture grew up in an area stretching from Ras Shamra in the north to the desert fringes of Palestine in the south. Moreover, the culture now introduced into Palestine was to have a very long life. In spite of the fact that a series of events took place of major political importance, there is no cultural break until at least 1200 B.C. These political events we know of on literary evidence [sic] for we are now in a period in which written history can suppliment (but by no means replace) archaeology. Archaeology can show a recognizable progression of artifacts such as pottery, and can show that towns suffered a succession of destructions, but after these destructions the old culture was re-established. In an attempt to account for this anomaly as it pertains to the setting of the Conquest c. 1250 B.C., Miss Kenyon followed the popular view which assumes that the invading Hebrews had no culture of their own over the entire period of their residency in Palestine.• In defense of this deduction, she wrote: ... This must be the case wherever within the period 1400-1200 B.C. one puts the arrival of the Israelites, for there is no complete break within the period. Evidence of destruction does exist, but it does not yet tell a coherent story. The complete havoc that this thesis makes of Scripture is the topic of a subsequent chapter. 6 By "complete break.. , Miss· Kenyon means that there is no time between 1400 and 64 THE EXODUS PROBLEM 1200 B.C. (by current datings) in the archaeological observations in Palestine where one finds the appearance of the new types of pottery to be expected of a conquest and occupation by a new people. It would seem that it is this situation that has been a major factor in giving birth to the Split Exodus theory, or its alternate which assumes that part of the Israelite tribes never went into Egypt and that the returning tribes were simply adopting the culture of those that had remained there. The ultimate question is whether or not there is any genuine demand for such violent deviations from Scripture or whether in the last analysis it is not the Scriptures that are in error but rather the theories which have been devised to substitute for them. The writer holds that there is available a most rational interpretation of Palestinian archaeological data which eliminates the need for thus discounting the dependability of the Scriptural accounts. If this interpretation strips from these theories the very need for their existence, then so much the worse for the theories. Aside from this general anachronism with Scripture by these placements of the Conquest, a number of specific anachronisms are also very much apparent. II. The Archaeological Enigma at Jericho The site of ancient Jericho has been one of unusual interest to archaeologists and students of Old Testament history. The site of the city has been recognized from the time of Old Rome and has been a point of interest to tourists and travelers from that time to the present. This interest rises in part from the unique nature of the information provided in Scripture relative to the history of the site. This information should make readily possible the confirmation or disconfirmation of the Scriptu'I'al account. Since this site was selected as the first target of conquest by the invading Israelites under Joshua, it may be presumed that it represented one of the more important fortifications protecting the area from possible invasion from the east. The account of the conquest of Jericho represents the first Scriptural mention of this city. According to the story, two spies were sent on ahead of the invading armies to spy out the fortification. The spies were harbored by Rahab, a .:Fesident of Jericho, who hid them on the roof of her resi- FURTHER DIFFICULTIES 65 dence and arranged for their escape after dark by letting them down over the wall of the city. Because of her deed, she and her household were spared at the time of the destruction of the city. As the story goes, Joshua marched his armies around the city daily for six days without any move even suggestive of an attempt to storm its huge fortifications. On the seventh day, the armies marched about the city seven successive times in silence. At the completion of the seventh circuit, the priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and the walls fell flat so that the people marched in over the fallen walls and took the city. 7 Its inhabitants were totally destroyed, save Rahab and her family, and the city was burned with fire. 8 It can hardly be presumed that the walls fell due to the blast of the trumpets and the shouts of the people. If there is any factual basis for the story, the fall of the walls was miraculous in the sense that Jehovah timed its destruction by means of natural forces with the blast of the trumpets and the shouts of the people. The city of Jericho at this time was placed under a curse. 9 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho; he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. These statements have been interpreted to predict that the one who would rebuild the wall would do so at the cost of the lives of his two sons. The verse is thus translated in the RSV and was so interpreted by Josephus. 10 The prediction was fulfilled at the time of Ahab when the wall was rebuilt by Hiel the Bethelite. 11 The site of Jericho, or an adjoining site, must have been occupied after the destruction by Joshua and before the rebuilding of the wall by Hiel, as indicated by subsequent mention of the city in Scripture. 12 We are not told how long the results of Hiel' s reconstruction lasted. The possibility remains that the construction never proceeded past the erection of the walls. Granting the factual nature of the account, the archaeological investigations at this site should show evidence of (I) city walls destroyed violently as by an earthquake, the evidences of which would be sufficiently unique to warrant THE EXODUS PROBLEM 66 use as a solid synchronism, (2) destruction of the city inside these walls by fire, (3) a considerable period of nonoccupation of the site, (4) possible limited evidence of occupation of an unwalled city or in a nearby area and (5) city walls constructed many centuries later. . The first modern investigations of the site were made by Warren in 1868. This work was not carried far enough to provide finds of particular interest. The work was resumed by two German workers, Sellin and Watzinger, in 1907. The reports of this work, which appeared in 1913, told of the finding of a series of walls around the summit of the mound which showed evidence of having been destroyed by an earthquake and which were regarded by the investigators as those which fell at the time of the Conquest. 13 A stone revetment was observed from a much later date which was regarded as that built by Hiel. In the years that followed, the technique of archaeological investigation, and what were regarded as more scientific methods of dating by means of pottery, were developed. Once again in 1930, a further attempt at investigation of the site was undertaken under the direction of John Garstang and continued over a period of six years. 14 Among the finds by Garstang was the discovery of the double line of walls around the city which had been thrown down violently, apparently by earthquake, and which Garstang positively regarded as those destroyed at the time of Joshua. The bricks of the walls had been thrown down the sides of the slope of the mound, and the outer wall base had been tilted outward, giving further indication that the destruction had been a violent one by natural causes. The conclusion of Garstang was challenged on the basis that the tilted foundations could have been caused by undermining as a means of securing entrance to the city. Garstang returned to the site and checked this possibility by a critical examination of the footings of the walls and reported that no evidences of such undermining were apparent. 15 The burned debris inside the city were in places as much as two feet deep. Garstang was able to distinguish layers representing four different cities on the site which he designated A, B, C, and D. The upper one, designated D, was regarded as the one enclosed by the fallen walls. On the basis of the absence of FURTHER DIFFICULTIES 67 Mycenaean type pottery, Garstang dated the fall of these walls about 1400-1385 B.C. This is the era of Joshua's conquest as calculated on the basis of the 480 year period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon's reign. III. Chronological Difficulties Arise from Garstang' s Dating The conclusions of Garstang were the only reasonable ones that could have been made based on the acceptance of the historical reliability of the Joshua account. These walls, felled by natural forces, and the burned debris inside them, met the specifications of the Joshua story, and there were no others that did. However, the dating of the walls in the era 1400-1385 B.C. raised problems of considerable magnitude. Investigations at the site of Pi-Rameses in Egypt had failed to reveal any finds at all to indicate that any king of the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty had done any building in this area, 16 thus casting doubt on the thesis that the Exodus could have occurred during the era of this Dynasty. Another pillar which had been used to support the XVIIIth Dynasty theory was also on the verge of collapse. The Amarna letters had mentioned a group of people called 'Apiru whom some scholars had made quivalent to the Hebrews, and the letters were interpreted to tell of an invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews at the time of these letters dated to the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV. A closer examination of the letters, however, led one after another of the scholars to challenge this identity 17 and to even reject the concept that the letters pictured any invasion at all. The 'Apiru were evidently citizens of certain city-states and were not invaders, and the area involved included territory, far to the north of Palestine, which was not included in the territory conquered by the Israelites. With the XVIIIth Dynasty theory deprived of two of its vital supports, and with the further difficulty of having to account for the building of the city of Rameses long before Rameses II whose name appeared in profusion in the. ruins of the city, the possibility remained that Garstang had misinterpreted the evidence on which he had based his dating of the fallen walls c. 1400-1385 B.C. Archaeologically speaking, the difference between this date and that demanded by the XIXth Dynasty placement of the Exodus 68 THE EXODUS PROBLEM was not large, but it was too large to live with in comfort. More information was needed. It should be noted, however, that the additional information sought was not information which would corroborate or nullify the identification of these walls. This point was so abundantly clear that there was no serious question raised to challenge the conclusion of Sellin, Watzinger, and later, Garstang. The question had only to do with the dating of these walls. Did they belong to the era 1400-1385 B.C., which dates were in line with the theory of an XVIIIth Dynasty Exodus, or did they fall in the era 1250-1235 B. C., which dates were in line with the XIXth Dynasty Exodus theory? On this point, Albright indicated that he oscillated in his thinking 18 ... in a no-man's land between the extreme of Garstang (about 1400 B.C.) and Vincent (about 1250 B.C.), without being able to accept the former because of positive evidence a,gainst it or the latter because of admittedly indecisive negative evidence. More information was needed, but the information needed had only to do with the dating of these walls, not their identity. IV. Recent Investigations at Jericho by Miss Kenyon Following the second world war, a further attempt at the elucidation of this unsolved problem of Jericho was undertaken. The venture was sponsored by the American School of Oriental Research at Jerusalem and the British School of Archaeology. The work was placed under the supervision of Miss Kathleen Kenyon. One of the primary aims was to settle, if possible, the question of the date of the fallen walls. The reports from these investigations, which continued over a period of years, have been most disconcerting. A more critical examination of the pottery in association with those walls showed that they did not belong to the Late Bronze Age which included Garstang' s City D, dated c. 1400 B.C. The pottery in association with those walls belonged to the end of Early Bronze, which py the conventional dating of the Archaeological Ages, called for dating in the 21st century B.C., more than 600 years earlier than dates previowily suggested for the Conquest. Since it was impossil>le to move the date for the Conquest back to this early FURTHER DIFFICULTIES 69 era, there seemed to be no other alternative but to reject the identification of these walls as those which fell at the time of Joshua, and this in spite of the fact that there were no other walls which met the criteria of the Scriptural accounts. Even more disconcerting was the find that there were no remains on the site which could be dated as late as the time of Joshua. The anomaly was explained on the basis that the archaeological remains of this later era must have been washed down the sides of the mound by rain. 19 ... Yet the most surprising and discouraging result of the work so far has been the discovery that virtually nothing remains at the site from the period 1500-1200 B.C. The mound has suffered such extensive denudation that almost all remains later than the 3rd millennium B.C. have disappeared from its top. The two walls which surrounded. the summit of the old city, which Garstang ascribed to his "City D" and which he believed were destroyed by earthquake and fire in Joshua's time, were discovered to date from the 3rd millennium .... The movement of Garstang' s walls back into the 21st century also raised large problems. Over most of the Jericho mound summit, one digs immediately into debris belonging to the Early Bronze Age, all later levels having disappeared. It was not possible to deny that the site had been inhabited later for Middle Bronze Age defenses were clearly observable on the sides of the mound. 20 Also, an examination of the graves from the near-by cemetery revealed scarabs from as late as Amenhotep 111/ 1 currently dated c. 1375 B.C., yet there was no evidence of such occupation on the mound proper. The most recent wall on the slope of the mound was of Middle Bronze Age construction and was presumed to have been destroyed by the Egyptians as they pursued the Hyksos on their expulsion from Egypt about 1580 B.C., several centuries before the presumed date of the Conquest. 22 Where then are the walls destroyed at the time of Joshua? Where are the debris of the enclosed city which had at that time been destroyed by fire? Where are the remains of the wall built by Hiel, and where are the remnants of the subsequent occupation? It was hardly credible to presume that the remnants of the massive walls and of the destroyed city had been lugged away in baskets to some distant site. It seemed the only explanation must lie in the assumption that the top of the mound had been denuded by wind and 70 THE EXODUS PROBLEM rain. 23 If this were the case, then the evidences of the debris should be apparent · on the sides and at the foot of the mound. Investigations failed to reveal any such evidences. It was necessary to assume that the very bricks from these walls had disintegrated into soil which was no longer distinguishable from the soil of the mound itself. But there were bricks from the earlier walls that had been thrown down the sides of the mound which had somehow survived any such disintegration process. And even if such an assumption were tenable, where are the remnants of the more durable pottery which could be expected to have also been washed from the top of the mound? Wright commented on this problem thus :24 ... It is unfortunate, though true, that these results antiquate most of the recent treatments of the problem of the conquest of Canaan. We now have to say that we know practically nothing from an archaeological point of view, regarding Joshua's conquest of Jericho. The evidence is too scanty for us to know when it was or the nature of the city conquered. An inference would be that whatever was there at the time was not the imposing city which we had previously envisioned from earlier excavations. The radical denudation of the site and the failure to find the expected materials washed down the slopes of the mound are very puzzling facts indeed. If the settlement there in Joshua'·s time had a fortification wall at all, it would almost have to have been a re-use of the last Middle Bronze Age bastion, though of such re-use there is no evidence. [Emphasis ours.] Evidence of this magnitude, unfettered by preconceived opinions, should provide an immediate suspicion that errors in. dating have been made and that the debris on the Jericho mound has been mis-correlated with true Palestinian chronology, having been set too far back on the time scale by many centuries. V. Archaeological Difficulties at Ai After the destruction of Jericho, Joshua turned his attention to the city of Ai which lay just to the east of Bethel in the hill country. 2·; Archaeological investigations at this site indicated that up to the time of its destruction at the end of Early Bronze, the city had been a flourishing one, associated with what must have been one of the truly great fortresses in Canaan. The city at this time had a population of some 12~000 inhabitants. 26 The city of Ai has a peculiar interest archaeologically, be- FURTHER DIFFICULTIES 71 cause, according to the Joshua account, the fortress was totally and finally destroyed at the time of the Conquest. 27 And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day. Hence, if the approximate date for this destruction can be ascertained, it should settle once and for all the date for Joshua's conquest of Canaan, and by simple calculation the date of the Exodus. In full agreement with the Biblical account, it was found that the ruins of Ai represented a total destruction after which it was never rebuilt, 2i• and in further agreement, the destruction belongs to the same era as the fallen walls of Jericho. 28 But the date in both cases is set more than six centuries earlier than the dates currently defended for the Conquest. Furthermore, if the destruction in the 21st century was final, then where are the evidences of the destruction of the city by Joshua? A number of attempts have been made to account for this anomaly, most of which assume errors in the Biblical account. 28• The problem of Ai is more complex. That city is said by the archaeologists to have been destroyed fong before the earliest date suggested for the Israelite incursion, and to have lain in ruins from ·circa 2000 to circa 1200 B.C. The story of its capture by Joshua is therefore dismissed by some writers as fictitious, or as the transfer to Joshua of the ancient story of its destruction long before his day, or even as the reflection back to Joshua's day of events of much more recent occurrence. Some writers have preferred to follow a harmonizing path, and have suggested that there has been confusion between Ai and the neighboring Bethel, which was perhaps built to take the place of the anciently destroyed ruin, or that the natural strength of the position of Ai may have made it a temporary stronghold in the time of Joshua. A further suggestion is that the identification of Et Tell with Ai is not secure. New light may yet be shed by further excavations on this site, but meanwhile, since the case of Ai is an equal embarrassment to every view of the Exodus, and cannot be integrated at present into any synthesis of Biblical and non-Biblical material, it must be left out of account. A more recent examination of the ruins at the site EtTell, long recognized as the ancient site of Ai, was sponsored by the American Schools of Oriental Research in conjunction with several theological seminaries and the Harvard Semitic Museum. The investigation was conducted during the period 1964-1969 and the reports of the latest work appeared in the Research Bulletin.~ The purpose of 72 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the investigation was to determine if there remained any observable basis for altering the current view as to the identification of the site as that of ancient Ai, and to secure such data as could be obtained relative to the history of the site. The investigation extended to other near-by areas that had been suggested as alternate possibilities for identification of Ai. Most promising of such was the mound known as Khirbet Khudriya, located about two and one-half kilometers east of et-Tell and previously suggested by Guerin as a possible site of Ai. A series of tombs in the nearby Wadi were also examined for possible dating in the critical period in question. Of the earlier· suggested explanations for the discrepancy in time between the final end of the site of et-Tell and the suggested dates for the Conquest, the only one that did not require a compromise on the dependability of Scripture, was that which assumed an error of identification of the site. This possibility now seems to have been eliminated. Callaway ·commented: '30 ... It can be noted here that neither Khudriya nor the associated tombs in the Wadi Asas yielded evidence that suggests identification of Khudriya with biblical Ai. Perhaps the most significant result of the 1966 excavations is the accumulation of evidence that support the identification of et-Tell with biblical 'Ai, and requires a reexamination of the biblical conquest of 'Ai related in Joshua 8:i-29. My study of the problem ... leads to the conclusion that the biblical conquest of 'Ai was a conquest of the small, unfortified Iron Age I village on the acropolis of et-Tell, and that it probably occurred in the twelfth century B. C. It is to be noted, however, that the identification of the destruction in. Iron I as that by Joshua is also in contradiction to Scripture, thus leaving no explanation for the discrepancy that does not do violence to the integrity of Scripture. This later city of Iron I was an unwalled city; the city destroyed by Joshua was a walled city as indicated by the reference to a. city gate.'31 This later city was a small one; the city destroyed by Joshua had a population of 12,000. The fact that the site was chosen as the second target for conquest indicates that. the site was ::ln important one and not a mere village. Would Joshua have sent an army of 3:0,000 against 'Ai if it had been but a small village ?=i 2 What should be even more disconcerting is the necessary dating FURTHER DIFFICULTIES 73 of this destruction in the 12th century, a date which is too late by either of the presumed placements of the Conquest. It would seem, nevertheless, that there are some who continue to cling to the view that et-Tell cannot be the site of Ai, since it involves such gross contradictions of Scripture, and hence Ai must be represented by some mound not, as yet, even suggested as a possibility for identification.'3'3 At the same time, recognition of the mass of accumulating .evidence pointing to major errors in dating is summarily declined. VI. The Unsolved Enigma of the Hittites Until recent times, the extra-Biblical sources had provided not a scrap of information relative to the people known in Scripture as the Hittites. More recent knowledge of a people known as the Hittites resulted from the deciphering of certain strange inscriptions found in the area of Asia Minor. This led to the identification of the authors of these inscriptions as the Kheta of the Egyptian inscriptions, the Hatti of the Assyrian inscriptions, and the Hittites of Scripture. According to Scripture, the beginnings of the Hittites in Palestine reach back at least to the time of Abraham's migration into Palestine. Following his arrival, Abraham was promised that the territory occupied by the Hittites, among other peoples, would become the inheritance of his descendants. '34 On the death of Sarah, his wife, Abraham purchased a cave from the Hittites as a burial site.'30 The promise of occupation was repeated to Moses at Sinai'36 and again to Joshua who was told that Israel was to occupy all the land of the Hittites:36• That the Hittites were to be driven out of the land rather than annihilated is clear from Scripture.'1' That the Hittites did succeed in migrating to a new area at the time of the Conquest follows from the story of the later destruction of the city of Bethel during the era of the Judges. 38 Any reference to the Hittites from acchaelogy later than the Conquest, and from territory outside of Palestine, should then be linked to the Hittites after the Conquest. Prior to the decipherment of the Hittite mscriptions, the higher critics had denied emphatically the very existence of the people referred to in Scripture as the Hittites. With the recognition that the inscriptions found in Asia Minor were 74 THE EXODUS PROBLEM of Hittite origin, the archaeology of this people became a subject of major interest. But as the history of this people became better understood, it also became apparent that the Hittites of archaeology never occupied any territory in Palestine. 39 ... Moreover, the preceding outline of Hittite history will have shown that before the reign of Suppiluliumas there was no Hittite state south of the Taurus; that the Syrian vassal states of the Hittite Empire were confined to the area north of Kadesh on the Orontes; and that, although Hittite armies reached Damascus, they never entered Palestine itself. Of the neo-Hittite states, there was none ~outh of Hamath, and the latter did not include any part of Palestine within its territories, being separated from it by the Aramean kingdom of Damascus. It is fMther apparent that the Hittites of archaeology came into Asia Minor from Eruope, not from Palestine. 39a There is no way of knowing by what name this people called themselves prior to this migration from Europe into Asia Minor. The evident fact is that this European race conquered a people of Asia Minor who had the name Hittites and absorbed their culture and their name .. The name Hittite was thus derivative by the Hittites of archaeology. The name belonged to the people they conquered. 40 The historical "Land of Hatti", as we know it in the second millen· ium B.C., was a state, later an empire, created by kings ruling from this mountain fastness. This kingdom and its official language have become known as "Hittite'', and the name must now be accepted. But the "Hittite" language was not indigenous in Asia Minor, and the name ~f Hatti was given to the country by an earlier people of the land whom we call Hattians. The Indo-European Hittite language was superimposed on the non-Indo-European Hattian by an invading people .... The obvious interpretation of this situation should recognize that the conquered Hittites were the Hittites of Scripture, not the conquerors. The conquered Hittites were the Hittites who were driven out of Palestine at the time of the Conquest and who had migrated northward into Asia Minor to find a new home, only to be shortly conquered and absorbed by the migrating race from Europe. The awkward situation observed archaeologically gave rise to a serious anachronism. ~ 1 We now have to deal with the paradoxicaJ. fact that, whereas the Hittites appear in the Old Testament as a Palestinian tribe, increasing FURTHER DIFFICULTIES 75 knowledge of the history of the ancient people of Hatti has led us even farther from Palestine, until their homeland has been discovered in the heart of the Anatolian plateau .... The presence of the Hittites in Palestine before the Israelite conquest [sic] thus presents a curious problem. So far from explaining it, all our accumulated knowledge of the people of Hatti has only made it more perplexing.... A synchronism between the late Hittite king, Muwatallis by name, with Rameses II (who had been assigned a date regarded as fixed at c. 1293-1227 B. C. ), left no choice but to date the fall of the Hittite empire at the hands of the Sea Peoples later than this (c. 1200 B.C.)42 But strangely, the Hittite culture must be recognized as persisting for another 500 years, and it was not until c. 725-700 B. C. that the last of the Hittite city-states was absorbed by the Assyrians. This situation gave rise to a second anachronism. 4'1 As we climbed back to the expedition's camp, we talked about the mystery of this strange survival of a cultural form ... a form that had never become a great characteristic style, and that had nevertheless gone on influencing the art of the region for a good five hundred years.... At this point there is a great gap in our knowledge of history. Those 500 years between 1200 B.C. when Hattusas was burned and the Hittite empire collapsed, and about 700 B.C. when the last Hittite city-states were absorbed by the Assyrian Empire, are at present quite obscure to us. It is very rare indeed for an empire to break down while its culture goes on persisting - on a provincial level, but still persisting - for 500 years among isolated racial groups surrounded by extremely different peoples and exposed to numerous alien cultural influences. As will be noted in further detail later, the Assyrian inscriptions continue to refer to Hittite kings with armies under them for many centuries after the date assigned to the collapse of the Hittite empire by the Sea Peoples. 44 The indication is clear that the Hittites were more than an abstract persisting culture during this 500 years. It is of further interest to note that a similar inexplicable gap in Greek history is assumed to have existed at this same time. These and other anachronisms will be reconsidered against an altered background in subsequent chapters. Against the background provided by an erroneous chronology of Egypt, the problem of the Hittites remains an unsolved enigma. 43 (I) See Chap. III. Notes and References Sect. II; P-EOT, p. 106. (2) W-DP. p. 75. (3) A-AP, p. 84. (4) K-AHL. p. 162. (5) lbld., p. 209. (6) See Chap. VIII. (7) josh. 6:20. (8) vs. 24. (9) vs. 26. (10) J·AJ, Bk. V. 76 THE EXODUS PROBLEM C~ap. 1, par. 8. (11} I Kings 16:34. (12) II Sam, 10:5. (13) B~, Vol. XV.I, No. 3; G-SJ, Chap. V, W-BA, p. 78. (14) Ibid. (15) G-SJ, pp. 136, 137. (16) W BA, p. 60, see quot. of ref. 17, Chap. Ill. (17) Ibid., p. 75; K-AHL, p. 207; F-LAP, p. 106: R-FJJ, p. 4lff.; P-EOT, p. 120; BA, Vol. VIII, p. 48. (18) A~AP, 1956 ed., p. 38. (19) W-BA, p. 79. (20) BA, Vol. XVI, p. 56. (21) F-LAP, p. 133: R-FJJ, p. 16n; G-SJ, p. 120. (22) BA, Vol. XVI, pp 48, 58; A-AP, p. 87. (23) BA, Vol. XVI, pp.58, 61: A-RDBL, p. 36: A-AP, p. 109. (24) BA, Vol. XVI, p. 67. (25) Josh. 7:2. (26) Josh. 8:25. (27) vs. 28. (27a) BA, Vol. XXVIII, p. 28: cf. ref. 30. (28) Cf. KAHL, p. 115 with par. 2 p. 134. (28a) R-FJJ, p. 19. (29) BASOR, No. 196, pp 2ff. (30) Ibid., p. 5. (31) Josh. 8:31. (32) Josh. 8:3. (33) Personal communication. (:,W) Gen. 15:18-20. (35) Gen. 49:30. (36) Ex. 23:28. (36a) Josh. 1:4. (37) Ex. 23:28. (38) Jdg. 1:23. (39) G-H, P'· 59. (39a) An alternate view would recognize the Hittites as coming into this area from the northeast rather than from Europe. It is also migration, rather than conquest. These alternate concepts do not affect the conclusions here reached relative to the eventual fate of the culture of the Hitties of Scripture. See L-EHPA, Chap. II. (40) G-H, pp. 17, 18. (41) See ref. 39. (42) C-SH, p. 260: B-BE, p. 559, 423ff. (43) C-SH, p. 239. (44) L-ARAB, Vol. II. (45) G-H, pp. 60-62. Various attempts have been proposed to meet this anachronism, none of which has any sig_nificant archaeological support: some are "ingeneous," but most are incredible and clearly reflect abortive attempts to retain current opinion in the face of very clear evidence against it. CHAPTER VI ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULT.IES DISAPPEAR WITH A REDATING OF EARLY BRONZE IV In previous chapters, a number of notable anomalies in the interpretation of archaeological observations in Palestine and in Egypt have been pointed out. The list is by no means exhaustive, and its length will be increased in the course of subsequent discussions in this work. Prominent among those noted thus far are the synchronistic failures at Jericho and 'Ai, and the failure of popular interpretations to provide proper backgrounds for the Exodus, the Oppression, the Conquest, the era of the Judges, the Famine of Joseph, and for the total history of the Hittites. It will now be shown that these and other anomalies disappear in total with a single and simple revision of the date assigned to the end of the era now known as Early Bronze IV. Early Bronze IV 1 is regarded as ending somewhat coincident with the end of Dynasty VI in Egypt, and with this placement as an approximation the writer has no conflict. It must be remembered however, that the Archaeological Ages have been defined in terms of the archaeology of Palestine and not of Egypt. There is no ultimate proof that the major disturbance in Egypt at the end of Dynasty VI was the same as the cause for the major change in culture in Palestine. In line with the contention in this work that it is the accepted chronolgy of Egypt that is in gross error as set against the B. C. time scale, the date assigned to the end of Dynasty VI is thus in gross error, and this error is reflected in a similar error in the dating of the end of Early Bronze. It sometimes happens that an inconsistency becomes apparent by the consistency of the errors introduced by it. We are dealing here with such a situation. The fact that so many of the anomalies in the archaeologies of Egypt and of Palestine are provided ready solutions by one and the same alteration in the traditional scheme of dating provides a most reasonable basis for subjecting to a critical scrutiny the methods that have been used to arrive at this inconsistent structure. In order for the reader, who may not be familiar with the origin and development of concepts related 78 THE EXODUS PROBLEM to the so-called Archaeological Ages, to understand the nature of the error that has occurred in the dating of the end of Early Bronze, we digress briefly to review this material. I. The Origin of the Scheme of the Archaeological Ages In dealing with the problems related to man's past history, it has been convenient to divide the period of his existence into epochs. While man is popularly believed to have had a long period of evolutionary development, our present interest begins with the point where man is presumed to have first manifested the necessary degree of intelligence to · make weapons and tools. It is not strange that these epochs were named after the materials used in making such artifacts. One thus meets such terms as the Stone Age, the Chalcolithic Age (a term used to refer to the combined use of stone and copper), the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. An outline of the approximate dates popularly assigned to these various epochs is provided in Table III. It should be noted that for most of these periods, no one attempts to assign anything resembling. exact dates, and hence there will be found variations in their use by various authors. It would seem that at the time these terms were adopted, the concept was entertained that there were more or less sharp lines of demarcation marking the changes from the use of one material to the next. Whatever may have been the. situation, it is now abundantly clear that the transitions from the use of one material to the next were gradual and prolonged and certainly not uniform in time over any extended territory. Stone was used in making weapons long after the introduction of copper and continues to be used among the less civilized peoples into the present era. Copper weapons have been found in the era recognized as the Bronze Age, 3 and strangely, there is little or no evidence of the use of bronze in Palestine during the 1000-year period attributed to Early Bronze. 4 It is thus apparent that one cannot date objects in debris layers solely by the materials used in their construction, and it is little wonder that continued attempts to do so lead to anomalies and anachronisms. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 79 II. Revision of the Significance to be Attached to the Archaeological Ages lt would have been less confusing if, with the realization . that age cannot be determined on the basis of the materials used in making tools or weapons, a new system had been introduced to refer to the epochs of man's past history. However, as in many other cases, terms once introduced are difficult to abandon. The alternative has been that of tacitly TABLE III The Archaeological Ages Archaeological Age Mesolithic and Neolithic Chalcolithic Early Bronze I Approximate Conventional Dates . 10,000-5,000 B.C. 5,000-3,300 3,300-2,800 Early Bronze II 2,800-2,500 Early Bronze III Early Bronze IV (E.B. IIIB) Intermediate Middle Bronze I Middle Bronze IIA Middle Bronze IIB 2,500-? Middle Bronze IIC Late Bronze I Late Bronze IIA Late Bronze IIB Iron I 1,600-1,550 1,550-1,480 1,480-1,300 1,300-1,200 1,200-900 Iron II Iron III ?" ?" 2,000-1,900 1,900-1,780 1, 780-1,600 900-600 600-300 Egyptian or Palestine Contemporary Predynastic in Egypt Predynastic in Egypt" Late Predynastic into Dynasty I Late Dynasty I through Dynasty II The pyramid age Dynasty VI in Egypt Dynasties VII to XI Early Xllth Dynasty Late Xllth Dynasty Dynasty XIII into Hy ksos period Late Hyksos period Early XVIIIth Dynasty Middle XVIIIth Dynasty The Amarna age Era of the Judges and United Monarchy.of Israel Divided Monarchy of Israel Egypt under the Babylonians and Persians 'Some historians date Mena and the beginning of the dynastic period in Egypt at c. 3,300 B.C., others as late as 2850 B.C. with the subsequent dynasties attributed accordingly. It is recognized that significant deviations of opinion exist among scholars on these dates. Notable are the differences in dates attributed to late Early Bronze and the following Intermediate. A considerable difference of opinion has also existed as to the date to be attributed to the beginning of Iron I. Since these Ages have been' defined in terms of changes in culture in Palestine, not in Egypt, it is at once apparent why difficulties rise in defining these in terms of Egyptian dynasties. 80 THE EXODUS PROBLEM rev1smg the significance to· be attached to these terms. There would seem to remain in the thinking of some the idea that the only revision necessary is to think of these ages as representing the principal material used in making artifacts in a given period. This concept is not practical, since the shifts in the use of materials were not uniform in different locatlites, and since, more frequently than otherwise, it is not possible to make unequivocal conclusions as to the identity of the principal material used at a given date from the examination of limited areas. Hr The Archaeological Ages Tied to the Pottery Dating Scheme Early in the century, Sir Flinders Petrie attempted to place the scheme of the Archaeological Ages on a more secure basis by tying to it the various epochs as marked by changes in characteristic pottery types of the age. This concept was based on the observation that as one digs downward into a mound representing previous habitation, he finds changes in the characteristic pottery.· Sometimes these changes appear suddenly above evidences of destruction indicating a conquest and occupation of the area by a new · people. 5 In other cases, the change is gradual with no suggestion of destruction, indicating a process of development by the same people. 6 At still other times, there i\5 evidence of destruction unaccompanied by any notable change in pottery design, suggesting destruction by natural causes or possibly by civil war, or possibly as a result of conquest not followed by occupation by the conquering people. The most unique case, and hence the most susceptible to unmistakable identification, would be the appearance of destruction by obvious natural causes but still followed by an occupation by a new people. This would indicate an invasion by a new people following a serious collapse of power due to a severe natural calamity. By distingµishing between the various types of pottery in the order of their appearance, one is provided with a sequence which represents the historical sequence in reverse order. It was Petrie' s contention that once such a system of pottery dating .is recognized, a tool is at our disposal for dating debris layers of antiquity with some degree of precision. In order to increase the value of the scheme, these ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 81 changes in pottery types were tied to the Archaeological Ages. Since these larger epochs were commonly characterized by several changes in pottery design, these were subdivided into shorter eras using such terms as Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, and Late Bronze. These, as needed, were further subdivided into still shorter eras, i.e., Early Bronze I, II, III, and IV. Each of these subdivisions was defined in terms of the pottery types in vogue. IV. Limitations in the Use of the Pottery Dating Scheme No one questions the contemporaneity of archaeological levels in mounds of the same general area that contain the same type of pottery. And if in these seve'ral mounds, there is a general cessation of this pottery type, above evidences of destruction, and the appearance of new types, no one is going to question the interpretation that these sites were conquered at or about the same time, followed by occupation of the sites by the conquerors. But this is not the same as establishing a chronology. A sequence is not a chronology' except as various points in the sequence can be correlated in indisputable manner with a system of measuring time by years, i.e., the B.C. time scale. This concept is axiomatic and is recognized, at least theoretically, by every intelligent worker in the field. Granting the general correctness of the order in this pottery sequence, and that the sequence has not been unduly expanded oy the insertion of pottery types from other mounds into the sequence as found in a given mound, this does not provide us with actual, or even with necessarily approximate dates. If dates are to be assigned to these levels in terms of years from any convenient starting date, it is absolutely imperative that some independent method shall be available for assigning unequivocal dates on this time scale to the various pottery types in the sequence. What method, then, is available to us for making these unequivocal time correlations? It is on the answer provided to this question that the validity or nonvalidtity of current views on the chronology of the ancient world rest. V. The Archaeology of Palestine Does Not Provide Its Own Chronology Insofar as Bible chronolgoy has been established (back to 82 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the era of Solomon at least), the simplest solution to this problem would be the discovery, in well-defined archaeological strata of Palestinian mounds, of written inscriptions giving the name of some clearly identifiable Israelite king. With several such finds, one could then outline in a general way the dates to be attributed to these various levels representing the era of the Israelite Monarchy. A starting point would then be available for interpreting observations above, below, and between these fixed points. Unfortunately, no such written inscriptions have been found in any Palestinian mound site, and it is not until a very late date that coins or other dbjects can be dated in an unequivocal manner. Miss Kenyon states the situation succinctly thus:k Between the two wars a reasonably complete and accurate knowledge of the sequence of pottery forms of Palestine was built up. But a sequence is not a chronology. Chronology in Palestine cannot stand on its own feet until one is dealing with a relatively late epoch. These statements are but another way of saying that the entire assemblage of archaeological interpretation for the early period of Palestine cannot stand on its .own feet and is totally dep~ndant on independent evidence for support. This situation holds true whether or not one accepts what may now be recognized as a straight-forward Biblical chronology back at least as far as the entrance of Abraham into the area of Canaan. 9 Biblical chronology provides no basis for dating these pottery types in the absence of inscriptive evidence in specific strata and datable to the reign of a specific king. There are some who believe that such correlations bel'.ween archaeological interpretations and incidents of Scripture can be made in a satisfactory manner irrespective of the availability of a chronology based ·an a calendrical time scale. Most, however, recognize that such an approach is not at all satisfactory. Were this not the thinking of scholars generally, there would not have been the extensive efforts to devise methods for specifying dates in antiquity by such a system. Attempts to express elapsed time on the basis of rate of change of culture must forever remain unsatisfactory, since the rate of change of one phase of culture is not necessarily the s~ as the rate of change of another phase, and rafe of change of no phase can be expressed in terms of ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 83 calendar years. 10 The Archaeological Ages are defined in terms of change of culture, and it should be self-evident that these cannot be directly converted into elapsed time or to calendar dates, even as approximations. Meaningful interpretations of archaeology are thus inseparable from the availability of some system for expressing elapsed time and for measuring it in terms of years. The B.C. time scale has long been employed as a means of expressing elapsed time of antiquity, and there is no good reason for confusing the situation by the introduction of a different system. The remaining problem is then that of providing an unequivocal method for assigning calendrical dates to the pottery types making up the pottery sequence index. It is generally believed among scholars that this has been accomplished with a sufficient degree of precision to permit regarding as fixed the general outlines of ancient chronology as currently held. rna Whether or not this belief is basically sound depends on the validity of the methods that have been used in arriving at it. It is the validity of these methods that is here challenged by the proposed solution which dates the end of Early Bronze more than 600 years later than the now accepted date. There are only three ways by which the requirements for making unquestionable correlations between these index pottery types and a calendrical time scale can be met and none of the methods used meet these requirements. These are (1) by the availability of a dependable chronology of a nation of antiquity which can be unequivocally correlated with the various pottery types making up this pottery index or (2) by the devising of an unequivocal method of measuring elapsed time in antiquity (or providing dates for specific incidents of antiquity in terms of a calendrical time scale) or (3) by demonstrating that there is a completely satisfactory agreement between a theoretical chronology and archaeological observations for incidents mentioned in the ancient literature (not excluding Scripture) that could be expected to be revealed archaeologically, while retaining an internal consistency and a consistency between the various peoples of antiquity concerned. There is no unequivocal chronology of antiquity that can be correlated with these pottery types in Palestine in an un- 84 THE EXODUS PROBLEM equivocal manner. 11 There is no available method for measuring elapsed time in antiquity or for providing unequivocal dates for the various pottery types making up the pottery sequence index. VI. Archaeological Interpretations in Palestine Are Tied to Current Views on Egyptian Chronology It is very much , true that no written inscriptions have been found in ; definable stratum of any Palestinian mound site which would permit dating of that stratum in terms of Bible chronology for the Hebrew kings. Without such, it is not possible to date these strata directly from information derived from Palestine archaeology, as so clearly stated by Miss Kenyon. Yet the Archaeological Ages are defined in terms of cultural (pottery) changes in Palestine. The resulting awkward situation could be alleviated if, and only if, these strata can be unequivocally dated indirectly through the chronology of an adjacent area, and this is possible only if such a chronology has been unequivocally established. That the dates currently assigned to these pottery types depend on a presumed established chronology of Egypt is a universally recognized fact which is r~vealed by quotations like the following: i:i ... and though the chronology of the various kings of Judah and Israel can now be fixed within close limits, this is only because their reigns can at certain points be linked with Egypt. . , . In particular, he [Petrie] succeeded in giving rough absolute dates [sic] to several of his pottery periods by identifying certain wares with wares already found in datable [sic) Egyptian burials. Since Egyptian chronology is now fixed [sic) within a decade or two for the entire period included in this chapter [Middle and Late Bronze, 21st to 12th century] our dates are approximately certain [sic] wherever we can establish a good correlation ·with Egyptian cultural history. Thanks to scarabs and inscriptional evidence this is guite possible [sic]. For example, tombs 'I and II of Byblos [in Phoenicia] ... were contemporary [sic) with Amenemes III and IV respectively and must [sic] accordingly be dated toward the end of the nineteenth century B.C. As indicated by the above quotations, a number of finds have been made in Palestine '01: in neighboring Phoenicia) that are of Egyptian origin and which can be correlated, at least in approximate fashion, with an Egyptian king or dynasty. Most of these finds, however, are not from definable ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 85 strata but are rather from sources undefinable chronologically such as tombs, refuse dumps, or unstratified soil. Even the few cases where the finds are from definable strata, the information provided is limited by the unproven assumption that the correlated Egyptian king did not rule significantly earlier than the era represented by the stratum containing the item. There is no way of telling how much time elapsed between the production of the item in Egypt and its deposit in the stratum where found. Thus an earlier undefinable date for the stratum always remains possible. More significant, as far as providing a date on the calendrical system for such finds is concerned, is the fact, which should be recognized by scholars but which seems not to be generally recognized, that the currently accepted chronological structure of Egypt is theoretical and not factual or fixed as presumed in the above quotations. 1'3 Actually, there is far better evidence for accepting the chronology of Scripture in a straight-forward manner than is true of Egyptian chronology. But in any case, if the deductions are to be regarded as having a scientific value, the starting chronology must be recognized as theoretical, with elevation to the level of reasonable certainty depending on the freedom from major difficulties in the archaeological interpretations that result from the application of the theory. Under no circumstance can the current situation be considered as having attained any such elevation. The numerous anachronisms, enigmas, and unsolved problems reveal clearly the nonfixity of Egyptian chronology. The fact, as will be demonstrated, that these critical requirements are met by a proposed solution based on Scriptural chronology, tentatively taken as theoretical, stands to confirm the general reliability of Bible chronology and the necessity for redating the Archaeological Ages together with the dates to be assigned to the various pottery types making up the pottery index scheme. The writer is fully aware of the existence of solid synchronisms between Israel and both Egypt and Assyria for the period of the late 8th century and later providing dates for Dynasties XXV and XXVI that may be regarded as fixed within narrow limits. Further evidence will be introduced later 14 for the fixation also of Dynasties XXI II and XXIV to the positions currently assigned to them with close approxi- THE EXODUS PROBLEM 86 mation. Hence the chronology of the unit composed of Dynasties XXIII to XXVI is accepted as currently held with but minor alterations. However, for the period earlier than this, and for dynasties with numbers below XXIII, it is contended that there is no unequivocal basis within current concepts for fixing the dates in Egyptian history in terms of the B.C. time scale or in terms of Biblical history. the situation now stands, the current views rest almost totally on the assumed validity of the results from C-14 dating, on the so-called Sothic dating scheme, and on the unproven assumption of a necessary sequence in the Egyptian dynasties as now arranged. The reasons why these dating methods cannot be depended upon for providing a basis for a chronology are presented in a subsequent volume. 1:; It is not feasible to digress at this point to discuss the fallacies in the remaining supports for current views. It is only stated at this time that the approach to the problem used in this work is that of setting the unique incidents of Biblical history against their proper backgrounds in Egyptian history, then setting up a tentative chronology that meets the demands of these synchronisms. If the resulting structure leaves us in utter confusion, then failure to solve the problems at hand must be admitted. If, on the other hand, the facts of archaeology at large can be shown to fit into this structure with the elimination of these numerous inconsistencies and anachronisms, then a realistic basis has been provided for a solution, as well as a basis for recognizing that Biblical chronology is dependable. The resulting altered chronological structure should then be evaluated, not alone because it provides the proper background for the incidents of Scripture that could be expected to be identifiable by archaeological observations, but because at the same time there are eliminated a host of difficulties not related to Scripture, and because solutions are provided to numerous problems which remain enigmatic in terms of current views. The first task to be undertaken is that of showing that the problems of the Exodus, the Oppression, the Conquest, and problems related to the chronology of the Hittites, and of the background for the era of the Judges are provided solutions by one and the same simple expedient of redating the point now known as the end of Early Bronze. In due As ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 87 time, discussion of solutions to other problems, some related to Scripture others unrelated, will be introduced. VII. Another Look at the Archaeology of Jericho The pottery associated with the walls identified by Sellin and W atzinger, and later by Garstang, as those that fell at the time of Joshua's conquest, clearly belongs to the late Early Bronze period. This is, then, the era just before this destruction of the site. The evidences of violent destruction are readily apparent in the tilting of the very foundations of those walls, in the manner in which the bricks were thrown doi'n the sides of the slope, and in the evidences of violent burning of the enclosed city. These evidences of destruction bv violent and natural means coincide with the evidences of a.conquest of the entire territory of Palestine by a new people, evidences that encompass every town in Palestine thus far investigated. No more unique incident could be hoped for as an anchor point for properly correlating the archaeology of this area with its true history - unique because the incident belongs in the category of a general invasion following a natural catastrophe'li and followed by evidences of occupation of the entire territory by a new people - and even further unique because of the peculiar nature of the destruction at Jericho. Freed of the pressure of. the conventional views, this is clearly to be identified as the point of the Conquest. What a notable contrast between the multiplicity of supporting evidences for this placement and the numerous synchronistic failures that result from attempts to place this event in the era of either the XVIIIth or XIXth Egyptian Dynasties! We let Miss Kenyon, who supervised the most recent investigations at the site of Jericho, tell us about this situation which so clearly confirms our contentions. 1 ~ The final end of the Early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze Age walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks, and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the waHs has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed for all the finds show an absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shmos this same break. [Emphasis ours.] This clearly identifiable break in the culture of the entire 88 THE EXODUS PROBLEM area is that to be expected at the time of the Conquest. And incidentally, this is the earliest such total occupation of the territory by a single people which is revealed archaeologically, and Scripture indicates that this territory had not previously been occupied by any single people. 18 When this situation is linked unequivocally with the destruction of the walls of Jericho by natural catastrophe and a destruction of the enclosed city in a manner to confirm the Scriptural details, the evidence becomes overwhelming except as one is bound by preconceived opinions to the contrary. This is the point of the Conquest. The evident haste in erecting the last of these protective walls reflects in an amazing manner the fear of the people of Jericho at the rumors of the approach of the armies of Israel. As formidable as were the defenses already prepared, there was a hasty effort to strengthen these fortifications. Rahab spoke to the spies whom she entertained thus: 19 ... I know that the Lord hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side of Jordan .... And as soon as we heard these things our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man because of you.... The identification of the invaders at the end of Early Bronze IV as the Israelites is further evidenced by the tribal organization of the invaders. Miss Kenyon describes five different burial customs to be found in the environs of Jericho in the era following this destruction. Of these diverse burial customs she wrote. 20 ... the most satisfactory explanation seems to be that the difference in burial customs is due to a tribal organization. It is interesting to find that at two other sites, Tell Ajjul [Gaza] in the south and Megiddo in the north, there is evidence of a similar organization. It is common knowledge that the invading Israelites were divided into tribes which, according to Scripture, maintained their identity throughout their sojourn in Egypt, and which represented the divisions of the conquered territory following the Conquest. It is not improbable that a closer study of these graves may provide the identity of the vari- ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 89 ous Israelite tribes to which the various burial customs belonged. The situation that developed at the Jericho site following its destruction which so clearly meets the Scriptural specifications, is described by Miss Kenyon. 21 As has already been described, the latest of the Early Bronze Age town walls at Jericho was destroyed by fire. With this destruction, town life there came to an end for a space of several hundred years [sic]. Newcomers, who were presumably the authors of the destruction, settled in considerable numbers in the area, but they did not build for themselves a walled town. They spread all down the slopes of the mound and over a considerable part of the adjoining hillside. But on the town mound the only evidence of the earlier stages of their occupation is a considerable spread of their characteristic pottery, mingled with household debris. Similarly, on the adjacent hillside, occupation debris and pottery is found, but no structures. It was only after the ditch of the Early Bronze Age town had silted up to a depth of 2.50 meters that the first structures appear. The new-comers therefore were essentially nomads. They destroyed existing towns, but did not create their own. The debris found on the site does not provide written inscriptions to identify the invaders. Nevertheless, there are several details which certainly fit into the picture of Israelite identification. There is the evident avoidance of occupation of the mound site proper reflecting the curse that had been placed on it. The absence of anything resembling permanent dwellings reflects a temporary encampment, but not necessarily occupation by nomads. The large amount of debris interpreted as evidence of occupation by nomads over a period of several hundred years should be interpreted to reflect occupation by a very dense population for a relatively short period of time (five or six years in this case). Evidently the mound proper and the ditch referred to were used as dumping grounds by this large but temporary encampment. If the question be raised as to what so many of the Israelites were doing in the environs of Jericho after its destruction, an excellent explanation is at hand. The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh received their inheritance on the east of Jordan."~ They were, however, not permitted to settle down to permanent living following the conquest of this fraction of the territory. They were instructed rather to leave their women and children in the 90 THE EXODUS PROBLEM land of their future inheritance while the men of war crossed the Jordan with the other tribes to assist in the completion of the conquest. 2'1 Even if no mention of such had been made in Scripture, it would be necessary to presume that a similar situation followed the fall of Jericho. We can hardly presume that the women and children of the remaining tribes followed the' men of war during this five or six years. Scripture points out that such an encampment was set up a short distance from Jericho which was given the name Gilgal. 2 ~ During the course of the Conquest, the men of war returned periodically to this encampment. 2:; Objection has ·been raised to the recognition of the temporary settlements on the slopes of the Jericho mound and in the surrounding hills as Israelite in origin. 2'; The objection has. as its basis the Scriptural statements that indicate an encampment at Gilgal, not at Jericho. Several details require consideration here. The site of Gilgal was but a short distance from Jericho. This encampII)ent may well have included over a million people when the men of war were away and as many as two million when they returned periodically to the camp. This camp must have covered a very extensive area. It must also be ·reconized that with the crossing of Jordan, manna as a source of food was no longer provided. 27 From this point on, the Israelites were dependent on their own efforts for food. The men of war evidently lived off the land as they moved about, but those at the encampment must secure their sustenance from the surroun.ding area. It may be assumed that for the first season · those at the camp were able to sustain their needs from the crops of the displaced peoples. For the next few years they had to grow their own crops, both for themselves and for their cattle. To provide food for such a multitude, it would have been necessary to expand the area of occupation significantly. In so doing, it could be expected that they would take advantage of natural water sources. Such a water source was available at the Jericho site. 28 There is thus every probability that the encampment, originally set up a few ,miles from Jericho, expanded to include sub-encampments, one of which was at Jericho. It is thus not surprising to find Scripture referring to the headquarters as at Gilgal, even though such expansion had occurred. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 91 The new pottery that appears at this point was characterized by rims made for the first time in Palestine on a "fast wheel." 29 In the period following, the fast wheel was used also in shaping the lower body part of the pottery.'30 It was thus the Israelites who introduced this innovation in the making of pottery. Some of the pottery is also characterized by its remarkably thin walls, though the ware was brittle and not well fired. 31 This situation reflects the inherent skill of the new people in spite of their previous nomadic existence. A further innovation appearing at this time is the use of bronze in the making of weapons, an innovation also to be credited to the Israelites. VIII. The Israelites in the Early Middle Bronze The changes in culture that appear at the end of this period of temporary dwelling were so notable that Miss Kenyon concluded that these represented a still later invasion by another people whom she considered to be the Canaanites. 31 • The further cultural change that occurred at the end of what is called the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze should, however, be attributed to the Israelites when they were finally able to abandon their nomadic life and settle down to their promised inheritance, now utilizing their inherent ingenuity and abilities in the direction of creating a culture of their own. This situation had not been possible to them during their years of slavery or during the years of wilderness wandering. The duration of this archaeological phase was relatively brief. While this concept of archaeological interpretation is a deviation from popular opinion, it is not without support, particularly when set against the altered background. It is to be expected that this Intermediate period would not be apparent generally in Palestine but rather in a more diffuse form elsewhere than in the Jericho area. And this is exactly the situation that is revealed archaeologically. The evidence of this archaeological phase, other than at Jericho, is so meager that many scholars have preferred to disregard it entirely. By this view, Middle Bronze is made to follow the end of Early Bronze immediately.'32 However, Palestine was at that time in the throes of tribal upheaval, and there was much destruction and abandonment of towns. Until re- 92 THE EXODUS PROBLEM cently, this first phase of Middle Bronze Age was one of the leastknown times in the early archaeological history of Palestine. Though discovered by Watzinger at Jericho (where it was erroneously labelled "Late Canaanite") in 1908, this pottery was commonly neglected by archaeologists, most of whom assumed that Middle Bronze II pottery of the Hyksos period [sic] had been immediately preceded by Early Bronze.... It is scarcely accidental that this phase scarcely appears at all in the stratigraphic picture of Megiddo and Beth-shan, and that it was equally lacking in the lower strata of the mounds of the Shephelah. The more diffuse evidences of this archaeological phase at a few sites other than Jericho may be explained on the basis that these were used also as temporary encampments by the moving armies of Israel, as for example at Beit Mirsim. 33 When evidences of the new pottery appear more widely in Palestine, at the end of this brief transition period, they are sparse in Transjordan, and this again is exactly what is to be expected from this altered chronological setting. The two and one-half tribes that accepted this territory as their inheritance chose to live a more nomadic life:34 The areas of southern Transjordan were not· occupied by the Israelites at this time, and no cultural change should be expected to appear in Edom or Moab. A failure to recognize that Early Bronze did not end in southern Transjordan coincident with its end west of Jordan may constitute a large factor in a gross misinterpretation of the chronology of this area.'15 Additional evidence indicating that the occupants of Palestine at this time continue to be the Israelites is to be seen in the coincidence of the territory occupied according to archaeological evidence, with that occupied by the Israelites, according to the Biblical record, and by the coincidence of the length of the period of their occupation.'16 ... and on the evidence of the pottery we can say that the same basic culture grew up in an area stretching from Ras Shamra in the north to the desert fringes of Palestine in the south. Moreover, the culture now introduced into Palestine was to have a very long life. ln spite of the fact that a series of events took place of major political importance, there is no cultural break until at least 1200 B.C. [sic] .... Archaeology can show a recognizable progression of artifacts such as pottery, and can show that towns suffered a succession of destructions, but after these destructions the old culture was re-established. Since the end of Early Bronze is traditionally dated just ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTTES 93 earlier than 2000 B.C., the period of this culture had a duration estimated at 800+ years when it was recognized that it continued to 1200 B.C. But this is a very satisfactory estimate for the length of the period from the Conquest to the final loss of independence of the Israelites. It is only the placement on the B.C. time scale that is out of line. The preponderance of the evidence for the new culture introduced at this time permitted the deduction that a "numerous people" were involved. 37 This observation is in agreement with the census figures for the Israelites provided by the Scriptural accounts. The new culture was a high level. Archaeologists, who looked for evidences of Israelite culture in the era some six to eight centuries later, found no satisfactory basis for distinguishing between the supposed culture of the Israelites and that of the Canaanites whom they displaced, except for the callapse of the cultural level of the previous occupants. 38 This sudden deterioration should be related to the era of Assyrian domination when only the poor and unskilled were left in the land. In contrast to this uncomplimentary evaluation of early Hebrew culture, necessitated by the current but erroneous dating of the Conquest, archaeology provides a notably different picture of the culture of the· early Hebrews when set against the background of early Middle Bronze. 39 IX. The New Culture Shows a Definite Egyptian Influence It would seem strange if, after living in Egypt for generations, the escaping Israelites would be uninfluenced by their Egyptian environment, particularly in the early phases of their settlement in Canaan. This Egyptian influence is seen unmistakably in the early culture following the end of the Early Bronze Age. Referring to the Palestinian culture of Middle Bronze, Albright commented thus: 40 ... We are reduced to conjecture about the sources of the wealth of Hyksos Palestine [sic], but our guesses can scarcely be appreciably wrong. It is only reasonable to suppose that the flourishing commerce of the age was mainly responsible; Palestine had become a high road of trade between Africa and Asia. But the preponderance of weapons and ornaments made in Egypt, or made after Egyptian models, suggests that much of the wealth was brought back to Palestine by warriors who had fought in Egypt on behalf of the Hyksos. It is commonly believed among modern scholars that the 94 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Hyksos actually occupied Palestine at this time as part of a vast empire which had extended its territory to include Egypt during Middle Bronze. By this thesis, the wealth and flourishing commerce of Palestine is attributed to the Hyksos. Unfortunate for this concept is the clearly substantiated fact that the Hyksos in Egypt were anything but a productive or commercial people. They produced nothing of value or of interest to other peoples and were evidently content to supply their needs from the productions of the Egyptian populace who were under their domination~ It is thus an anachronism to suppose that the wealth and flourishing commerce in Palestine at this time should be credited to the Hyksos. It would seem that Albright, followed by a few others, has recognized this anamalous situation and credits the evidence of prosperity and flourishing commerce to mercenary soldiers, hired by the Hyksos, as a means of avoiding this glaring anachronism. As will be more apparent as the discussion proceeds, the occupants of Palestine at this time were neither the Hyksos nor their hired mercenaries; they were the Israelites. The preponderance of weapons of Egyptian design at this time were those which the Israelites gathered from the dead Egyptians following the debacle at the Red Sea as stated by Josephus. 41 On the next day Moses gathered together the weapons of the Egyptians which were brought of the Hebrews by the current of the sea, and the force of the winds resisting it; and he conjectured that this · also happend by Divine Providence, that so they might not be destitute of weapons. The wealth and ornaments of Egyptian origin may then be taken to represent, in part, that which the Israelites "borrowed" from the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus. 42 Additonal wealth undoubtedly accrued to them from the spoils of the war with the kings on the east of Jordan. 4'1 This situation is in direct contrast to the rather complete absence in Palestine of an Egyptian influence following the placement of the Exodus in the reign of Rameses II. While an Egyptian influence is to be seen in Phoenicia from the time of Amenhotep III, where the Conquest must be placed by the XVIIlth Dynasty placement of the Exodus, this influence is not pronounced in the areas occupied by Israel. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 95 X. Anomalies in Hittite Chronology Eliminated With the dating of the conquest of the Biblical Hittites in Asia Minor by the European race shortly after 1400 B.C., to agree with the immediate post-Conquest period and the expulsion of the Hittites from Palestine, their final demise at the hands of the Sea Peoples falls some seven centuries later in the reign of Memeptah or slightly later, c. 700 B.C. This revised dating is in agreement with the Assyrian inscriptions which continue to refer to the Hittites as a people with armies and chariots capable of warring with the Assyrians. The Hittites of this later era had kirigs over them. To be sure, the significance of these inscriptions has been glossed over by interpreting the repeated expression "land of the Hittites" as referring to Syria. 43• It is true that the Hittites did make incursions into the territory of Syria, but they never penetrated beyond Damascus. 44 Certainly the land of Syria is not equivalent to the land of the Hittites whose territory was to the north of Syria. Tiglathpileser tells of bringing the land of Hatti "in its entirety" under his· sway and refers to the ruling king of the "Great Hatti." 45 The date is some time after HOO H.C., long after the fall of the empire of the Hittites by traditional views. The designation is hardly one to be attributed to a mere surviving abstract culture. 46 As late as the mid-9th century, Shalmaneser III makes reference to the conquest of fortified cities of the Hittites. 17 This same king refers to "kings of Hatti" as distinguished from the king of Damascus in Syria, 18 indicating that the land of Hatti is not the same as the land of Syria. Tiglathpileser I refers to Carchemish in the land of Hatti, 49 a site certainly not in Syria but in the territory known to have belonged to the Hittites. Attempts to meet these anachronisms by supposing a Hittite empire without a culture, followed by a surviving culture without a militarily organized people, is but indicative of the lengths to which faulty human reasoning can go once the more secure bases for arriving at sound conclusions have been rejected.. In a later volume, 50 it will be shown that this presumed survival of Hittite culture actually belongs to that phase of Hittite history after the fall of the so-called Old Kingdom in· the reign of Mursilis I. The date, however, is not in the 17th or 16th century B.C. but belongs to a date c. 1230 B.C. 96 THE EXODUS PROBLEM There are other evidences that the Hittites of archaeology had their origin in Asia Minor at a much later date than the 20th or 19th century. A Hittite inscription tells us that Anittas, an early Hittite king, received among other objects as tribute an iron throne. 51 Anittas is popularly dated in the 19th century B.C. 52 This is 800 years before the recognized introduction of iron at the beginning of the Iron Age and 500 years before the mention of iron in Scripture. 5'3 If the object had been a small one, it might be presumed that the iron 'Yas of meteorite origin, but this is hardly a reasonable supposition for an iron throne. 54 ... The statement that Anittas received among the tribute from Puruskhanda such large objects as a sceptre and a throne certainly looks like an anachronism. With the redating of the end of Early Bronze, Hittite chronology must also be moved forward on the time scale by the same amount of time to bring the date for this iron throne into line with the first Scriptural mention of iron. 55 While this is still more than a century earlier than the beginning of the so-called Iron Age as now dated, there is every reason to believe that iron was in limited use this early and that archaeologists are wrong in assuming its introduction first in the so-called Iron Age. Evidently this early use of iron wa~ as a treasured metal, which was rare compared with bronze or even with gold, as indicated by the acceptability of an iron throne as tribute by Anittas. Apparently iron did not come into anything resembling common use until the era of the later kings of Israel. The debris layers in Palestine containing iron objects and popularly d1;J.ted in the era of the late judges, should be recognized as belonging to this later era. The difficulty, in part, is due to the tendency of iron to rust away with the passage of time so that only objects protected from moisture and oxidizing agents, or very large objects could be expected to have survived to the present time. Consternation reigned in the camp of the archaeologists with the sensational announcement by Forrer56 that he had found in the Hittite texts references to the Homeric Achaeans of Mycenaea in Greece, and to particular persons such as Atreus, Eteocles and Andreus. Another reference was to one Alaksandus, which name has a striking resem- ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 97 blance to Alexandres, the prince of Troy at the time of its destruction, popularly dated 1180 B.C., later than the end of the Hittite empire. We are in no position to make a pronouncement on these identifications presumed by Forrer. It can only be stated that by the altered chronology of the Hittites, the appearance of these names does not represent an anachronism; it is to be expected that the Hittites of this later period would have contact with the Achaeans and other related peoples. The paradox noted by Gurney57 is thus only the inevitable product rising from the acceptance of a grossly erroneous chronology of Egypt. XI. The Background to the Era of the judges The period following the end of Dynasty VI meets the specifications of Scripture for the period following the Exodus and the Conquest, both in Egypt and in Palestine. Egypt at this time dropped into an era of deep darkness and eclipse with little information indeed to represent the passing years of oblivion. Breasted described the situation after the end of Dynasty VI thus: 58 The internal struggle [sic} which caused the fall of the Old Kingdom developed at last into a convulsion, in which the destructive forces were for a time completely triumphant. Exactly when and by whom the ruin was wrought is not now determinable, but the magnificent mortuary works of the greatest of the Old Kingdom monarchs fell victims to a carnival of destruction in which many of them were annihilated. . . . The nation was totally disorganized. From the scaiity notes of Manetho it would appear than an oligarchy, possibly representing an attempt of the nobles to set up their joint rule, assumed control for a brief time at Memphis. Manetho calls them the Seventh Dynasty. He follows them with the Eighth of Memphite kings, who are but the lingering shadow of ancient Memphite power. Their names as preserved in the Abydos list show that they regarded the Sixth Dynasty as their ancestors, but none of the pyramids has ever been found, nor have we been able to date any tombs of the local nobility in this dark age. Brugsch puts it this way: 59 Egyptian history after Nofer-ka-ra is involved in deep darkness, which conceals even the slightest vestiges of the existence of the kings whose mere names have been preserved to us on the walls of Abydos and Sakkarah, names without deeds, sound without substance, just like the inscriptions of the tombs of insignificant men unknown to fame. Thus is explained the complete absence in Scripture of the mention of Egypt during the period of the Judges, and the problems relative to the conquest of Palestine by the Israel- 98 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ites without interference from Egypt are eliminated. XII. Other Peoples Migrated Out of Palestine at the End of Early Bronze According to Scripture, it was not alone the Hittites who were to be displaced by the incoming Israelites. If the proposed redating of the Conquest is correct, then there should be evidences of the settlement of other peoples in areas outside Palestine that previously had resided within this territory. The Phoenicians who settled along the northern coast of the Mediterranean refer to themselves as the Canaanites, 60 a people also displaced from Palestine by the Israelites. The Mitannians appear to be a re'mnant of one branch of the Hurrians who similarly dwelt in Palestine previously. 61 The Amorites were in the Palestine area from the time of Abraham. They were displaced at the time of the Conquest and appear in the area north of Palestine as the Amurru, a name associated with the Amorites. 62 A consistent picture results from the recognition that Early Bronze represents the era just prio.r to the conquest of Joshua and the following transition period is that of the Conquest itself. . This placement of the Conquest also eliminates any necessity for questioning Scripture in the matter of whether or not the pharaoh of the Exodus lost his life in the Red Sea debacle, or of questioning the reality of the loss of Egyptian prestige that must have followed the Exodus as described in Scripture. The identity of the pharaoh of the Exodus becomes the topic of a subsequent chapter in which it will be shown that this pharaoh did not even leave a tomb, or at least none has even been discovered among the royal tombs of Egypt. It will be possible also to show clearly the identity of the pharaoh of the Oppression whose name was Rameses and who carried out an extensive building program in brick in th~ eastern Delta region where the Israelites lived. A famine inscription appears which can be dated almost exactly at the point required by Old Testament chronology relative to the Exodus, dated c. 1445 B.C., and a multiplicity of confirmatory evidence for the proposed setting of the Exodus will be introduced. At this point, we are content to note that the same shift in dating of the end of Early Bronze which provides solu- ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES 99 tions to the anomalies at Jericho, and at Ai, as well as providing a ready solution to the enigmas of Hittite chronology, also provides the proper setting for the events of the Exodus, the Conquest, and the era of the Judges. The very consistency of the inconsistency in the conventional views thus points the way to the solutions for the numerous problems of ancient chronology otherwise. Notes and References (I) A-AP, p .. 77. (2) K-AHL, pp. 121-22; A-AP, pp. 65, 66. (3) K-AHL, pp. 135-36. (4) See ref. 2. (5) Quot. of ref. 2, Chap. V. (6) Ibid. (7) Quot. of ref. 8. (8) K-AHL, p. 32. (9) Based on the establishment of the 4th year of Solomon oy Thiele (T-MNHK). and the periods of I Kings 6:1 and Gal. 3:17. (10) See comments by Johnson (quoted in Vol. II, Chap. III, Sect. JV). (IOa) See quot. of ref. 12. (II) See ref. IO. (12) K-AHL, p. 33; A-AP, pp. 29, 84. (13) This chronology cannot be rationally regarded as fixed so long as there are major anachronisms that result from its acceptance. (14) See Chap. XVIII, Sect. Ill. (15) Vol. II, Chaps. III, IV. (16) See Sect. III. (17) K-AHL, p. 134. (18) Gen. 15:18-21. (19) Josh. 2:9-11. (20) K-AHL, pp. 141, I43. (21} Ibid., p. 137. (22) Josh. l: 13, 14. (23) Ibid. (24) Josh. 4:19; 5: IO. (25) Josh. 9:6; 10:6. (26) Personal communication. (27) Josh. 5: II. 12. (28) K-DJ, p. 25. (29) K-AHL, p. 136. (30) Ibid. (31) Ibid. (Sia) Ibid., p. 162. (32) A-AP. pp. 80, 82. (33) Vol. II, Chap. VI, Sect. IX. (34) Num. 32:1-5. (35) i.e .. the conclusions of Glueck on the age of Abraham and the Exodus. (36) K-AHL, p. 162. (37) Ibid., p. 157. (38) See quots. 11-14, Chap. VIII. (39) See quots. of ref. 30, Chap. VIII. (40) A-AP, p. 87. (41) J-AJ, Bk II, Chap. XVI, par. 6. (42) Ex. 12:36. (43) Num. 31:32-34. (43a) See L-ARAB, Vol. 1, par. 771; Vol. II, par. 4 etc. (44) See quot. of ref. 39, Chap. V. (45) L-ARAB, Vol. I, pars. 306, 307; Sargon used the same expression (Vol. II, par. 96). (46) Chap. V, quot. of ref. 43. (47) L-ARAB, Vol. I, par. 559. (48) Ibid., par. 563. (49) Ibid., par. 239. (50) Vol. II, Chap. XVII. (51) See quot. of ref. 54. (52) C-SH, p. 257. (53) Num. 35:16; Oeut. 3:11. (54) G-H, p. 20. (55) See ref. 53; the era is that of the Conquest {c. 1400 B.C.). (56) G-H, PP· IO, 46. (57) See quot. of ref. 41, Chap. V. (58) B-HE; p. 147. (59) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 127. (60) K-AHL, p. 192; H-P, pp. 21, 22; (61) F-LAP, pp. 145, 146. (62) BA, Vol. VI, p. 2. CHAPTER VII THE OUTLINES OF A NEW CHRONOLOGY EMERGE In the preceding chapters we have shown how numerous archaeological difficulties and historical anomalies disappear with the simple and single alteration in the dating of the end of Early Bronze. This revision calls for the moving of this date forward on the B.C. time scale from shortly before 2000 B. C. to a point coincident with the conquest of Canaan under Joshua (c. 1400 B.C.). When the necessity of this single alteration of dates in antiquity is recognized, there begins to emerge the general outlines of a revised chronology of Egypt and of al, other nations of antiquity whose chronology is tied to that of Egypt. This general structure which emerges is not one of choice; it is a structure that is forced upon us. In order to retain the well-established time relations of ancient history, there is little room indeed left for choice. Either the almost infinite bits of information available to us must fit satisfactorily into this general structure or it must be conceded that we are in error in presuming the necessity for this redating of Early Bronze. The general outline of Egyptian chronology to which we are driven may be developed from a relatively few well-established facts as given below. The general outline of the resulting structure is shown diagramatically in Figure 2. I. Bases for the Revised Chronology of Egypt The factors which fix in approximate fashion the general time relationships between Manetho' s Egyptian Dynasties, once the necessity for the redating of Early Bronze is recognized, may be summarized as follows: 1. The several synchronisms which are available between Israel and Egypt from the time of Hezekiah and onward make it imperative that we recognize Egyptian Dynasties XXIV to XXVI as finding their positions on the time scale after the fall of Israel in 721 B.C. and before the fall of Egypt to the Persians in 525 B. C. as currently held. 2. If Early Bronze IV is to be moved forward on the time scale to coincide with Joshua's conquest, then so also must A NEW CHRONOLOGY EMERGES 101 Egyptian chronology be moved forward by a corresponding period since the Archaeological Ages are tied to Egyptian chronology indirectly. Since the Hittites of Asia Minor, whose chronology is also tied to Egyptian chronology, came to their end shortly after the rule of Rames~s II of Dynasty XIX, and had their beginning at the time of Joshua's conquest, giving them a period of duration of about 700 years, it follows that the reign of Rameses II must end about 700 years after the Conquest. This takes us to the approximate point of the fall of Israel to the Assyrians and to the begin"' ning of the sequence represented by Dynasties XX.IV to XXVI. Hence Dynasty XIX takes its logical position just prior to Dynasty XX.IV. 3. The sequence of Dynasties XVIII and XIX covers a period of some 350 years. Hence Dynasty XVIII must begin approximately 350 years before the fall of Israel or about the time of the beginning of the Kingdom of Israel under Saul. 4. The XVIIIth Dynasty was preceded by the dark period of Hyksos domination of Egypt known as the IInd Intermediate, and must then fall just prior to the beginning of Israel as a kingdom and hence is the period of the Judges. Since we have been driven to the conclusion that the period of the Judges falls in the dark period following Dynasty VI, and known as the 1st Intermediate, we have no other choice but to recognize these two dark periods as one and the same, both representing the period of Hyksos domination. 5. But this can be true only if Dynasty XII and most of Dynasty XIII were contemporary with Dynasty VI since the invasion of the Hyksos clearly belongs near the end of Dynasty XIII. The so-called Middle Kingdom of Egypt thus never had an existence as such and is but a creation of modern historians resulting from an erroneous interpretation of Manetho' s dynasties. The Old kingdom, represented by Dynasties I to VI, was separated from the New Kingdom under the XVIIIth Dynasty only by the period of Hyksos domination. This dark period then includes not only Dynasties XIV to XVII as traditionally held, but also includes Dynasties VII to X. 6. If ·Dynasty VI was parallel to Dynasty XII, then the Pyramid era of Dynasties III to V must have just preceded Dynasty XII as well as Dynasty VI. 102 THE EXODUS P_ROBLEM 7. Since there is no indication pointing to any sole position of Dynasty II in the Archaeological Ages, and since Dynasties I and II both ruled from the same capital (Thinis) and hence probably in succession, it follows that Dynasty II was roughly parallel to the Pyramid Age and was preceded only by the First Egyptian Dynasty. 8. The time period of Egypt's history until its fall to the Persians is thus approximately filled by Dynasties I, IV, V, XII, the Hyksos period, Dynasties XVIII, XIX, and XXIV to XXVI. All other dynasties must then find their proper positions parallel to, or contemporary with, these dynasties. II. The Demands of the Revision This altered chronological structure is not one of choice. It is one that is thrust upon us if we are to retain the various synchronisms used for its support and one which had its origin in the premise that the end of Early Bronze has been dated many centuries too early in terms of Israelite history. The chances are infinitely remote that the mass of data available to us from antiquity can be fitted satisfactorily into this altered structure and that this structure shall still be in error. We shall not be satisfied to erect an hypothetical structure on this foundaion which is characterized by numerous anomalies, internal inconsistencies and anachronisms such as characterize the traditional scheme. If we can do no better than this, the problem might better be left unsolved. We have been led to make this alteration in the dating because it leads us to a solution of so many archaeological problems, and because we believe that such a move is justified on the basis that the conventional scheme is the result of attempting to force the available data into a preconceived theory of man's past which 'is erroneous. To alter this structure by being obliged to force the same data into the mold of an alternate philosophy to yield a structure which is equally anomalous does not constitute a worthy approach to the problem. Not only must the data from Egyptian and Palestinian chronology continue to fit into this structure with the continued elimination of difficulties which plague the currently accepted scheme, so also must the chronologies of the other nations of the ancient world fit into this structure with the continued solution to enigmatic situations. It must also be A NEW CHJ~.ONOLOGY .EMERGES 103 shown that the Archaeological Ages themselves can be further condensed by a period of some 600 years. That all this can be done becomes the exciting development of this work. The numerous demands on the structure are not only possible; in many cases the data drop into place automatically to yield a history of the ancient world which is internally consistent and which confirms the accuracy of the Scriptures ·as an historical document. In the process, numerous important synchronisms, not previously recognized, appear as confirmatory evidence of the general correctness of the resulting structure. The Scriptural accounts are not a conflation of myths and legends, nor are they a mere step in the evolutionary development of man's religious instincts. They are as historical as anything to be found anywhere among the secular inscriptions of antiquity, and in total these records are far more reliable. It is left to the reader to judge to what degree we have been able to meet these drastic claims. Surely there are some scholarly minds in the field of archaeology who are capable of weighing evidence unpressured by preconceived opinion. Error does not become truth because it is hoary with age. ...... ~ Figure· 2. General Outline of the Egyptian Dynasties in Relation to Israelite History by the Revised Dating of Early Bronze IV - 2300 B.C. 12100 . h' 11900 c E - l 1500 11700 I Patriarchs d Hvk . 11300 11100 I 1700 ...., Era of the Judaes Israelite Monarchv Israel in Ee. ---- I Dynasties I and II 1900 J:'l'.j :x Qynasties XIV-XVII 0 Dynasties XVIII ,XI> Qynasties III-V D. VI ID. XX-XXIII Dvnasties VII-X I Dynasty XII -· - ::c J:'l'.j ID. XXIV-XXVI c (fl '"O ::xJ 0 0:1 t""' J:'l'.j ~ I Dvnastv XIII t:::J - - - -- Showing in approximate manner the chronology whi_ch results from the movement of the end of Early Bronze IV to coincide with the conquest of Joshua. The reader is cautioned against inferring that the proposed revision accepts a sequence arrangement of Dynasties XVIII to XXIII as held by current opinion. CHAPTER VIII THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE HEBREWS TO ANCIENT CULTURE Not the least of the problems involved in the establishment of a correct chronology of the ancient world, and one which should be of vital interest to the Jewish people, is the matter of the· nature and extent of the contribution of the ancient Hebrews to world culture. If the Old Testament accounts are to be taken at anything resembling their face value, one gets the impression that the ancient Hebrews were among the leaders in intellectual development, culture, and morality. 1 While the Israelites, and even their kings, often fell far below the standards represented by their own code of laws, the existence of such high standards permits the assumption that then, as now, there would be a distinct difference between the Israelites and their pagan neighbors. Certainly this expectation is reflected in the notable superiority of the Hebrew literature over that of their contemporaries. 2 One measure of culture is the knowledge of the art of writing. Repeated references to the use of writing by the early Hebrews are to be found in the Scriptures from the time of the Exodus and onward. s Some scholars have attempted to picture the Israelites who came out of Egypt as a motley throng of barbarians who were little above the animals in their cultural level. For example: 4 Thus we must conceive of the movement of the Hebrew tribes from their semi-nomadic existence into the settled areas of urban and agrarian activity, as a movement of uncultured "barbarians" into the scenes of self-conscious civilization. The people of Israel were never productive in the arts and refinements. . . . These they but imperfectly absorbed from their neighbors .... Actually, neither their former extended lot as slaves nor their nomadic life in the wilderness following the Exodus necessarily demands such an evaluation of Hebrew culture. As slaves, they represented the working class, and as the working class, it may be presumed that they had the "know how" for doing things. Undoubtedly, not all of the Israelites represented skilled labor, any more than all Americans do now. Nevertheless, the fact that they were able to con- 106 THE EXODUS PROBLEM struct the tabernacle and its furnishings in the wilderness under the most severe sort of handic;aps indicates that no insignificant fraction of them were skilled in the various arts. 5 The Hebrews attributed their position intellectually and culturally to the avowed blessing of Jehovah, 6 who had chosen them to be his special representatives in giving a knowledge of the true God to the peoples of the world. They believed that the information given them by Moses, and which set them apart as distinct from their pagan contemporaries, came to them from their God, Moses serving only as an intermediate. 7 One may look askance at the· validity of these beliefs. To do so, however, only magnifies the problem of explaining the early Hebrew possession, as "barbarians," of information relative to the handling of communicable diseases and certain information relative to their dietary practices. Some of this information has been corroborated as scientifically valid only in modern times. Whatever may be said about the failures of the ancient Hebrews as individuals in living up to the standards represented by their own code of laws, it remains a fact that there was a distinct and recognizable difference in morality between the Hebrews and the Canaanites. 8 This sexual emphasis of Canaanite religion was certainly extreme and at its worst could only have appealed to the baser aspects of man. Religion as commonly practiced in Canaan, therefore, must have been a i:ather sordid and degrading business, when judged by our standards . . And so, it seems, it appeared to religious circles of Israel. The height of the promised prosperity, which was to be theirs on condition of obedience to the. commands of Jehovah, came in the reign of Solomon, whose wisdom and wealth were matters of envy and curiosity on the part of the contemporary kings. Representatives came from afar to determine the secret of his prosperity and the happiness of his people. 9 This was as intended, and represented the designed plan of Jehovah for his chosen people. As the Gentiles discovered the secret of the Hebrews' prosperity, and elected to accept the God of the Hebrews, these were to be adopted into the Hebrew nation and were eligible to receive the promised blessings. 10 HEBREW CULTURE 107 I. Archaeology Arrives at a Different Picture of Early Hebrew Culture Archaeology has, however, come to quite a different conclusion relative to the level of ancient Hebrew culture, and of the extent of the contribution of the Hebrews to the world culture of their time. The current concepts on this point are reflected in the comments of a number of writers.11 It is no exaggeration to say that throughout the long centuries the native inhabitants of Palestine do not appear to have made a single contribution of any kind whatsoever to material civilization. It was perhaps the most unprogressive country on the face ·Of the earth. Its entire culture was derivative. If we are to judge from what excavators have discovered, we must conclude that Israel had few, if any, artists engaged in the making of beautiful objects for art's sake. Artistic interests were employed in the utilitarian crafts, particularly in the weaving and dying, ceramic and perhaps metalurgical industries. Ceramic experiments in modelling a varity of figures are to be found, but they rarely possess artistic merit. ... The contents of the strata of accumulation [from the period of the Judges] indicate that at this time there was a sudden collapse of Palestinian culture. Never very high, it had attained to a respectable elevation just before. But now it does not decline; it smashes. As a result of the Israelite settlement in Canaan, the civilization of the country, such as it was, was effaced, and had to be painfully built up again with the help of the cultured Philistines. . . .From the Biblical account we should have gathered that between the Israelites and the Canaanites there was a great gulf fixed, in language, in theology, and in general morality. But now we know that there was singularly little difference between the two peoples. With the Conquest set by popular theories in the era 1400-1250 B.C., the evidences for the earliest cultural level of the Hebrews in Canaan should be apparent in Palestinian debris from the Late Bronze IIA and IIB, for which dates 1480-1300 are commonly ascribed. 12 An early historian commenting on the archaeological evidence of this period wrote: 13 ... The archaeological discoveries . . . in Palestine have hardly shed as much light as had been hoped upon the ancient culture of Palestine. An important result to the historian is the fact that no difference can be traced in the town-strata between what is Canaanite and what is Hebrew. The cultures were indistinguishable as probably, in reality the peoples were also. 108 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Since this conclusion was at variance with what should be expected at a point representing the conquest and occupation of the territory by a new people, others have attempted to qualify this statement. However, the qualifications contribute nothing at all to the concept that the Hebrews had a higher level of culture than did the pagans whom they displaced. If there is any difference to be detected between the cultures of the peoples as revealed by the archaeology of Late Bronze IIA and IIB, this difference is altogether in the direction of a lower level of culture. Speaking of this presumedly early Israelite culture, Wright commented: 14 ... Nomads with little knowledge of the arts of sedentary life, they were ill-acquainted with many of the things which had been well known to their predecessors in this region. The contrast between these towns [those of the Canaanites] and those built by the early Israelites i~ very marked indeed. Between 1200 and 1000 B.C. the hill country, for the first time in its history, became dotted with towns, indicating a great increase in the number of people living there (in other words, witnessing to the Israelite settlement). Several of these towns have been excavated. . . . The civilization to which their ruins testify is very different .from that of the Canaanite cities. Houses, where found, were anything but well built, and they possessed none of the refinements of the Canaanite buildings. Stones had been gathered and built into walls with no attempt to draft them to fit. . . . Smaller stones were used to fill up the chinks. Little eviden<..'tl of town planning is observable from the remains. House .walls run hither and yon without apparent rhyme or reason. In fact, the average house is much poorer than that of the average Canaanite peasant. II. On the Origin of the Hebrew Religious Rites and Beliefs From the Biblical accounts, one would conclude that the knowledge of God had almost vanished from the earth at the time of the call of Abraham's family out of Ur of the Chaldees. i.; With the subsequent command to Abraham at Haran, a designed plan was revealed to Abraham to make of Abraham's descendants a great nation 16 through whom all families of the earth were to be blessed. This blessing was related to the responsibility of these descendants to keep alive the knowledge of Jehovah. The plan was to permit the seed of Abraham to experience a prolonged period of affliction, after which they were to be delivered by a mighty hand in such fashion that they would be convinced of the power of Jehovah over all the gods of the earth. 17 HEBREW CULTURE 109 After the extended period of slavery in Egypt, many of the Israelites had all but forgotten Abraham's God and his commandments. This follows from the early act of Moses in calling the Israelites to a reform in their worship of Jehovah, including a re-institution of Sabbath observance. 18 On the other hand, there must have been some who had retained their faith, even under slavery, as is indicated by their ready acceptance of Moses' message of coming deliverance. 19 The deliverance at the Exodus was accompanied by physical phenomena of a most frightening nature which impressed the Israelites so deeply that these were matters of discussion for many generations. 20 The sa:me must have been true of the appearance and disappearance of the plagues at the command of Moses. That even these experiences were inadequate for maintaining a confidence on the part of many is evident from their repeated rebellion which eventually led to the decree that the generation of the Exodus was to perish in the wilderness. 21 According to the subsequent accounts, the detail of the religious rites and practices of the Hebrews, including the extended code of laws governing their everyday lives, had its origin in a revelation to Moses through Jehovah. Archaeology, however, provides quite a different picture of the origin of the Hebrew religion and practices. The basis for this revised concept comes from Canaanite inscriptions found at Ugarit in Phoenicia. These inscriptions were associated with a culture, which by current chronological views, antedates the conquest of Joshua. If these inscriptions have been correctly dated relative to the Conquest, it is difficult to maintain the position that the religion of the Hebrews had such a divine origin. From these inscriptions, it is apparent that a significant part of the ritual practiced by the Hebrews was also used by the pagan Canaanites in their worship. 22 If the evidences pointing to this state of affairs antedates the Conquest and the entrance of Israel into Canaan, then how can it be claimed that these rites had the origin claimed for them in Scripture? Even the name of the Hebrews' God appears repeatedly in the Canaanite inscriptions from Ugarit. But if the pagan Canaanites worshiped El" before the Hebrews came into Palestine, then how is it to be presumed that the knowledge 110 THE EXODUS PROBLEM of "El" by the Hebrews was a matter of revelation through Moses? The essential difference between the beliefs of the two peoples regarding "El" was that to the Hebrews he was the only God, while to the Canaanites he was but one of · many gods, However, even the use of the term to refer to a single god appears in the Ugarit inscriptions dated prior to the time of Moses. 24 ... Tht> name of God in the Old Testament whir.h is used more commonly than any other except "Yaweh" is "Elohim" a plural word also used to mean "gods" though when used of Yaweh it certll.inly meant the one deity. It is now recognized that this word used to designate one god was thus used in Canaan before it was in Israel. ... At Ras Shamra [Ugarit] he [Dagan] was apparently considered the son of El, and father of Baal ... A coincidence of the content of these Canaanite inscriptions with the Hebrew Scripture has been shown to exist at many points. 24 Some scholars have made a most extended study of such similarities and present to us a long list of expressions and concepts which are regarded as demonstrating an unquestionable influence of one literature on the other. 25 The cumulative evidence for the ultimately Canaanite origin of Psalm 29 is therefore overwhelming. . . . The formal elements of Hebrew poetry are largely borrowed from the Canaanites. Yet, for all this, the highly developed culture of Canaan had many good features and Israelite civilization and literature were profoundly indebted to it. The poems of Ugarit contain a great many passages which remind us of corresponding passages in the Bible; the very wording is often nearly identical. There are numerous quotations from Canaanite mythological poems, especially in the exilic Isaiah (14:12-14 etc.).... Some parts of Proverbs (e.g., chap. 9) may now be traced back to Canaanite models which have strongly affected both language and style. While it may be presumed that many of these similarities between Hebrew and Canaanite literature are more imaginary than real, it would seem that the evidences of actual influence of one literature on the other would be difficult to deny. The question that remains unanswered is "Who copied whom?" The answer to this question depends in total on whether or not the Ugarit inscriptions antedate the time of the C<)rtesponding writings in Scripture. By the proposed chronological revision, the dates for the literature in question should be moved forward on the time scale by half HEBREW CULTURE 111 a millennium or more. When this is done, the significant examples of apparent influence will be found to be susceptible to quite a different interpretation as to "who copied whom?" III. On the Origin of Hebrew Writing According to Old Testament history, Israel had a knowledge of writing at the time of the Exodus. The Decalogue was written on tables of stone; the other manifold laws were written in a book. 26 Moses was commanded to record in a book the incident of the Amalekite attempt to withstand the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. 27 Moses, on other occasions, made written records. 28 Archaeology, however, has arrived at a different conclusion. The origin of Hebrew writing is credited to Canaanite Phoenicia, 29 since the Ugarit texts were written with alphabet characters like those used by the Hebrews. If these texts have been correctly dated prior to the time of Moses, then it is difficult to presume that alphabet writing was an invention of the Hebrews or that the Hebrews had a knowledge of writing prior to the entrance into Palestine. The Higher Criticism long maintained that Moses could not have written the books attributed to him since it was believed that there was no knowledge of writing this early. With the discovery of the Ugarit inscriptions, given dates prior to the time of Moses, this theory was of necessity abandoned. In its place, there followed quickly the theory which presumes that the Biblical accounts were not reduced to writing until a much later time. But this theory does not explain the repeated references to writing in the early Scriptures. If the Hebrews possessed a knowledge of writing when they came into Palestine, what reason can be given as to why these "traditions" should remain in unwritten form for such a prolonged period of time? IV. Current Concepts on Hebrew Culture Reversed by a Redating of Early Bronze In previous sections, 10 it has been pointed out that the anomalies in the archaeology of Jericho, of Ai, and in Hittite chronolgoy, as well as those associated with the Exodus and related events, disappear with a redating of the end of Early Bronze to coincide with the beginning of the con- 112 THE EXODUS PROBLEM quest under Joshua. This is equivalent to dating the dividing line between Early and Middle Bronze in c. 1400 B.C. instead of c. 2000 B.C. or earlier. But if this is done, the dates for the Ugarit inscriptions must be similarly moved forward on the time scale by a corresponding period of time. These inscriptions thus belong to an era after the time of Moses by many centuries. By this thesis, any evidences in these inscriptions which must be interpreted as an influence of one people on the other should be recognized as an influence of Hebrew culture on that of the Canaanites, and not vice versa. By this revised dating of the Ugarit inscriptions, it was the Canaanites who borrowed the Hebrew alphabet from the incoming Israelites. It was the Canaanites who adopted some of the religious rites from the Israelites. It was the Canaanites who adopted some of the characteristics and concepts from the Hebrew literature. Furthermore, the decline in cultural level, presumed to represent that at the time of Israel's entrance into Canaan, belongs rather down in the era of the Assyrian conquest and the Babylonian captivity. At that time, Israelite power and influence was at its nadir, and it may be presumed that this situation was reflected in a sudden drop in the cultural level of the people. If one wishes to get a glimpse of what Israelite culture was like in terms of the revised chronological structure, he should look at the debris which belongs to early Middle Bronze when the Israelites had opportunity to settle down in their new home and utilize their inherent abilities as the ·situation provided opportunity. The picture is quite the reverse of that forced upon us by the conventional dating of the Conquest. Miss Kenyon has described in some detail the culture to be observed at various Palestine sites for the era of early Middle Bronze. 31 From these descriptions, a few striking statements are here reproduced. The new pottery which appears is in very striking contrast to that of the preceding period. For the first time in Palestine it was entirely made on a fast wheel. . . . The new vessels are as well made as at any time in Palestine history. The new groups brought with them other new developments in addition to wheel-made pottery. The most important of these was the use of Bronze for weap0ns, ... and it is consistently in groups associated with the new kind of pottery that bronze first appears. At Tell Beit Mirsim.... The plan of only two houses could be iden- HEBREW CULTURE 113 tified. Both were substantial, with a main hall in which the roof was supported by a central line of posts .... with smaller adjoining rooms. The pottery of the period is exceptionally fine .... At Megiddo there is a complicated succession of building periods .... Early in the sequence comes a very fine town wall. ... and is a most impressive example of the town walls of this period. This phase can be taken as representative of the fully developed culture of Canaanite [sic] Palestine, a culture of prosperous city states. Against the background of the revised chronology, the ancient Hebrews were far from being a cipher culturally. It was the Hebrews who introduced the use of bronze into Palestine; it was the Hebrews who introduced the use of the fast wheel in making pottery; it was the Hebrews who introduced the high level of culture to be observed in Palestine at the beginning of Middle Bronze and which was never exceeded; it was the Hebrews who introduced the use of drainage systems and the use of cisterns as a means of preserving water from the rainy season; it was the Hebrews who introduced improvements in the architecture of dwellings and defense walls; it was very probably the Hebrews who introduced the technique for obtaining iron from its ores in quantity. These and other contributions to the culture of Middle Bronze in Palestine should be credited to the Hebrews and not to their pagan contemporaries, the Canaanites or the Amorites. However, all this is true only if it is possible to erect a satisfactory chronological structure of the ancient world on the foundations laid by a redating of the end of Early Bronze to c. 1400 B.C., some 600 years later than dates currently attributed to this change of culture. This is an exceedingly large IF. While it has already been shown that a number of large problems in archaeology are provided solutions by this alteration, this is only a start. It must also be shown that every significant synchronism which has been used to support the conventional structure is either illfounded or else that it continues to hold for the revised structure; it must be shown that the almost infinite bits of information gleaned arqhaeologically can be rationally interpreted against this revised background; it must be shown that all of the chronologies of other ancient nations can be revised as necessary to fit into this revised scheme; it must be shown that the various methods of dating that have 114 THE EXODUS PROBLEM been used in arriving at the presently accepted structure are not valid, including the so-called astronomical dating methods. And finally, it must be explained why most scholars in the field for the last half century and more have fallen into the same errors of fallacious reasoning without being able to recognize the nature of their mistakes which have led them to the currently accepted views. Even the more devout of the Bible scholars, continuously faced with embarrassment in attempting to maintain their positions, have faltered in the face of such a task. Nor has the task become any more inviting in the light of the shortcomings of the previous attempts made in this direction. Hence it is not to be considered a matter for surpise if the reader at this point regards as utterly fantastic the claims of the author that all this can be done. Not only is this possible, it can be done with the continued elimination of numerous additional difficulties characterizing the conventional structure and with the appearance of a number of noteworthy synchronisms that have not been previously recognized. The writer does not ask the reader to accept these claims per se. He only asks that the reader follow carefully and critically the developments outlined in the subsequent chapters of this work, evaluating for himself the evidences which are presented in support of a revised chronology of Egypt which agrees with Bible chronology and with Bible history without an appreciable flaw. Because of the limitations of space in a single volume, a discussion of the chronologies of Assyria, Chaldea, Greece, and other areas are left for a subsequent volume. Also left for inclusion in the second volume is a critical examination of the dating methods used in dating archaeological finds, and a look at the archaeology. of a number of other ·sites in Palestine and. elsewhere that have been presumed to provide evidence in support of current concepts. Notes and References (I) See refs . .J, 11-1-1 for the opposite view based on current interpretations. (2) Gordon puts it this way: "Qualitatively, the Bible is far and away the outstandinp; product of the ancient Near East" (G-NHOTL. p. 91. Regardless of one's evaluation of Scripturt', this statement cannot he successfully controverted. (3l See refs. 26-28. (4) W-BA, p. 70. (5) Ex. 3l:Jff. t6) Deut. 4:5. 6; 7:12ff.; 28:lff. (i) Ex. 4:29-31. (8l W-B:\. p. 112; see also G-WOT, p. 99. (9) The incident of the visit of the Que<:>n of Sheba was the outstandin11: example of record (I Kings 10: 19). (10) Isa. 56:5ff. (11) M-CEP. p. 210; BA, Vol. XVIII, p. 78; M-CEP. p. 16.J; Ibid., p. 161. See also A-AP, p. 99 and quots. of refs. 13. 14. (12) Table Ill. (13) The quotation is from Hall HEBREW CULTURE 115 in his Ancient History of the Near East, cited in W-BA, p. 88. (14) W-BA, pp. 88, 89. (15) Gen. 11:31-12:3; cf. J-AJ, Bk. I, Chap. Vil, par. I. (16) Gen. I2:2; 15:5. (17) Ex. 4:30; 6:1, 6, 7; 12:12; Deut. 4:25-40. (18) The charge of pharaoh that Moses was making the people rest from their burdens (Ex. 5:4,5) clearly indicates that Moses had instituted a "strike" among the slaves by getting them to refuse to work on Sabbath. The word here translated "rest" is derived from .th<t word "sabbath." The passage could well be translated "ye make them sabbatize" (or keep Sabbath). See Y-AC under "rest." (19) Ex. 4:29-31. (20) Ps. 77:16-20; cf. Ps. 18:8ff.; see quots. of refs. 27, 28, Chap. IX. (21) Num. 14:22-29. (22) W-BA, pp. 116, 140. (23)' Ibid., p. 109. (24) Barton (B-AB, pp. 452ff.) has gathered a large number of such parallelisms. See also W-BA, p. 106ff.; G-BB, Chap. IV. (25) BA, Vol. VIII, p. 54; Ibid., p. 55; A-RDBL, p. 34 (26) Deut. 31:24. (27) Ex. 17:14. (28) Ex. 34:27; Num. 17:2; Deut. 6:9; 10:2; 27:3, 8; 31:19. (29) D-W, p. 1~5f.; A-AP, p. 101; BA, Vol. VIII, p. 45f. (30) Chap. VI. (31) K-AHL, p. 163; Ibid., p. 164; Ibid., p. 176; Ibid. CHAPTER IX WHO WAS THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS? It has been shown that the redating of the end of Early Bronze IV to coincide approximately with the beginning of the conquest of Palestine under Joshua provides the proper setting for the Exodus and for the Conquest. The chronology which emerges places the Exodus at the end of the Vlth Egyptian Dynasty, which point is marked by a sudden eclipse of power. The structure to which we are driven by this alteration demands that the dark period following Dynasty VI must be the same as that which follows the Hyksos invasion in the late XIIIth Dynasty, and hence the cause of the eclipse in the two cases must be the same, i.e., the conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos. If this is true, then Dynasties VI, XII, and Xlll must have been more or less contemporaneous, and thP. Pharaoh of the Exodus should find his position near the end of Dynasty Vl or XII, or late in Dynasty XIII. The appearance of the king we seek in one of these positions will stand to confirm the general correctness of the redating of Early Bronze IV. I. The Anomaly of Rameses II as the Key to the Problem In demonstrating that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is a king of the late XIIIth Dynasty, we take, as the point of departure from the traditional views the simple and plain account of Scripture which tells us that the cities of Pi-Thom and Raamses were built by Israelite slave labor during the period of Israelite oppression prior to the Exodus, which period must have lasted in excess of 80 years, since Moses was born under slavery and was eighty years old at the Exodus. The city of Pi-Rameses is now well-known from the Egyptian inscriptions, and as the name implies, it may be supposed that the city was built by a king who had the name Rameses. The ruins of the city believed to be that constructed by Israelite slave labor have been located in the eastern Delta region of Egypt, which area represented the location of .Israelite habitation during their sojourn. The City was subsequently known as Tanis, and there is evidence that this was also the site of the city and fortification THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 117 of Auaris, which served as the last stronghold of the Hyksos at the time of their expulsion from Egypt. The building of this city is generally credited to Rameses II of the XIXth Dynasty. As noted previously, this king is far out of line chronologically with' the details provided in Scripture which would place the Exodus event at a date not significantly later than 1445 B.C. At this point, we face an unmistakable anomaly. Either Rameses II was not the builder of the Scriptural Raamses, or else Rameses II has been misdated on the B. C. time scale, or Pi-Rameses is not the Raamses of Scripture, or the Scriptural accounts are not reliable. As will be demonstrated with the unfolding of a reconstruction of ancient chronology, Rameses II has been misdated on the B.C. time scale, and he was not the builder of the. city of Raamses constructed by the Israelites under slave labor. II. Rameses II Cannot be Proved the Builder of Raamses of Scripture In attempting to outline the. evidence leading· to these conclusions, we note first that the assumption that Rameses II was the builder of the Raamses of the Exodus record do_es not rest on any demonstrable evidence. This should be clear from the fact that if this assumption could be proved, there would be no room at all left for alternate theories relative to the placement of the Exodus. The very fact that the proponents of the XIXth Dynasty placement of the Exodus have not claimed any such proof in contesting the XVIIIth Dynasty placement indicates that this assumption cannot be proved in any unquestionable manner. What then are the bases on which this assumption rests? These are three in number. Firstly, the name of the city suggests that a king by the name of Rameses was the founder of the Raamses of Scripture; secondly, it has been presumed that there is no other king than Rameses II who, bearing this particular name, could conceivably be given this credit; and thirdly, the name Rameses II occurs in profusion among the ruins of the city of Pi-Rameses. These arguments might be considered as conclusive if such led us to a credible solution to the Exodus problem. Since this has not been the case, there is good reason for critically scrutinizing these bases on which this identification rests. 118 THE EXODUS PROBLEM It should be noted first that there were numerous Egyptian rulers by the name of Rameses; and secondly that the assumption which supposes that no other of these Ramessides than Rameses II can be considered as the builder of PiRameses rests heavily on the traditional chronology of Egypt, which, if in error, leaves room for presuming that all other possibilities have not been exhausted; and thirdly, we may raise the question as to the validity of the asumption which supposes that the Pi-Rameses of late Egyptian history is the Raamses of the Exodus record; and finally, it may be noted that the name of Rameses II is also to be found on structures from .one end of Egypt to the other, which fact gives every indication that this name has been added after chiselling out the original name. Rameses II was not necessarily the builder of all the monuments which bear his name. In the light of these considerations, the proof is incomplete that Rameses II was the builder of the city Raamses of the Exodus record. Even if it is granted that the site of Pi-Rameses is that of the Raamses of Scripture it does not necessarily follow that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Oppression. As pointed out by Wright, the original city which occupied this site was probably destroyed by Ahmose at the time the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt. 1 The subsequent structure may be regarded as but a renovation of the earlier city, at which time the name of Rameses II was inscribed so profusely on the restored structures.. There is thus reasonable basis for the assumption that the city of Raamses, as built by the Israelites, was constructed much earlier than the time of Rameses II and even earlier than the expulsion of the Hyksos at the time of Ahmose.· Ill. Rameses I was not the First Egyptian King to Bear .this Name The Egyptian rulers, now recognized, who bore the name Rameses or some recognizable derivation of this name, include Rameses I, who reigned less than two years and shortly preceded Rameses II, Rameses II himself, and the 10-12 kings which make up the XXth Dynasty. Of the latter group, only Rameses II was a significant ruler, and even he bore only the title of a local prince rather than that of a full ruler of ~gypt. Rameses Ill and his successors are out of the THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 119 question as far as identification as the Pharaoh of the Oppression since their date is impossibly late. Rameses I is equally unacceptable in this position because of his very short reign. If Rameses II was not the Rameses of Scripture, then it is apparant that we must look for this ruler among the earlier kings of Egypt. It is not at all impossible or even improbable that the king we seek is better kriown by another name, for these kings frequently had a multiplicity of names, and the pharaohs were commonly known among foreign peoples by names other than their throne names. The builder of the store-city of Raamses may have had this name as his personal name or as a family name. We then examine the available sources for an earlier king who had an alternate name in the form of Rameses and who left a record of extensive building operations in the eastern Delta region. In making such a search, we logically turn first to the various king lists of ancient Egypt. Eight of the nine extant king lists of Egypt are silent as far as providing any hint of the existence of such a king. One, however, i.e., the king list of the Book of Sothis, contains the name, not only of one such king but lists a group of not less than six kings who bore names related to that of Rameses. These are to be found as numbers 18-24 in this list, the early part of which is provided as Table IV. This line of Ramessides is traditionally regarded as a partial duplication of the line of later Ramessides of Dynasty XX which has been misplaced in this list. 2 This assumption has been deemed credible in the light of other cases of obvious misplacement in the list.'3 It will be noted that one of these Ramessides carries a dual name which does not coincide with the name of any one of the XXth Dynasty kings; neither do the reign lengths provide a basis for presuming that these are to be thus identified.'1• In our search for an earlier king by the name of Rameses who meets the criteria of the Pharaoh of the Oppression, we focus our attention on this group of names. It next becomes a matter of importance to determine, if possible, just when this line of Ramessides ruled in Egypt, assuming for the time being that we are correct in rejecting the traditional identification of these kings with those of the XXth Dynasty, and assuming that these kings are properly placed with reference to other kings in the list. Fortunately, THE EXODUS PROBLEM 120 TABLE IV The Early Egyptian Kings of the Sothis List No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5,6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Name Reign Mestraim (Menes) 35 Kourodes 63 Aristarchus 34 Spanius 36 Two kings unrecorded 72 Osirophis 23 Sesonchosis 49 Amenemes 29 Amas is 2 Ace'sephthres 13 Anchoreus 9 Armiyses 4 12 Chamois Miamus 14 Amesesis 65 Uses 50 Rames es 29 Rames(s )omenes 15 Usimares 31 Ramesseseos 23 Ramessameno 19 Ramesse Iubasse 39 No. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Name Reign Rameses, son of U aphres 29 Koncharis 5 Silites 19 Bainon 44 Apachnas 16 Aphophis 61 Set hos 50 Certos 44 Aseth 20 Amosis (Tethmosis) 26 Chebron 13 Amemphis 15 Amenses 11 Misphragmuthosis 16 Misphres 23 Tuthmosis 39 Amenophthis 34 Orus 48 Achencheres 25 Athoris 29 Chencheres 26 Acherres 8 Armaeus (Danaus) 9 TABLEV Comparison of the Names of the Ramessides of the Sothis List with those of the XXth Dynasty• Ramessides of Dynasties XIX and XX Rameses I Rameses II Rameses IJI Rameses IV Rameses V Rameses VI Rameses VII-IX Rameses X Rameses XI Rameses XII 0 Ramessides of the Sothis List 11 67 31 6 4 5? 1 each? 19 6 27 Rameses · Ramessomenes Usimare Ramesseseos Ramessameno Ramesse Iubasse Ramesse, son of Uaphres 29 15 31 23 19 39 29 In a subsequent chapter (Xlll). the identities of these Ramessides of the Sothis List as kings of Dynasty XII will be shown. Into this position, the reign lengths as given can be correlated with the data from the monuments without a flaw. THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 121 this is not a difficult task. Kings numbered 33-45 in the list are the familiar names of the kings of the XVIIIth Dynasty, as readily identified by comparison with the names of the kings of this dynasty as given by the transcribers of Manetho. 4 Just preceding these are the recognized names of the early Hyksos kings, a single name, Koncharis, standing bet·ween the end of the Ramesside line and the beginning of the Hyksos line. We conclude that. this line of Ramessides preceded the ·Hyksos era. The king list of Sothis is obviously incomplete, as is indicated by the omission of the names of the late Hyksos kings and the kings of the Xlllth, XIVth, and XVIIth Dynasties. Thus, while our assumptions lead us to conclude that these early Ramessides preceded the Hyksos dynasties (XV and XVI), the data are still insufficient to determine whether they immediately preceded the Hyksos, or whether perhaps still other unnamed kings ruled in the interim. We find an answer to this question by bringing to bear the details as provided in Scripture. If we are correct in our assumption that the Rameses of the Oppression is to be found in this list of early Ramessides, then we should be able to note a point in this immediate era which meets the criteria of the Exodus account. This point should be marked by a precipitous drop in political powet in Egypt from a position of prosperity and influence, and this eclipse should last for a number of centuries. This situation is found at the point of the Hyksos invasion. Egypt at this time, dropped out of sight as a political power, and for an extended period was not even in control of her own destiny. On the basis of the multiplicity of synchronisms indicating that the Conquest should properly be set at the end of Earlv. Bronze IV, it was concluded that the Exodus occurred at the point of the fall of the Old Kingdom, approximately marked by the end of Dynasty VI. This point is marked by a similar eclipse of power in Egypt which lasted for a pluralitv of centuries. 3 On the basis of the demands of the redati~g of the end of Early Bronze, it was necessary to recognize both these periods as one and the same. The appearance of this line of Ramessides just before the Hyksos kings and in proper position for id~ntification with the pharaoh of the Oppression provides confirmation of this general structure. 122 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The question may be legitimately raised as to how this concept is to be made to fit into the sequence of the Archaeological Ages, since we are forced to regard the dynasties as overlapping or parallel to a considerable degree, while the Archaeological Ages remain a sequence. It would be an impractical digression to provide a complete answer to this question until the evidences for such overlapping and parallelism of dynasties have been presented. The provision of this background constitutes one aim and content of this volume. Problems relative to the realignment of the Archaeological Ages will be discussed in detail in Volume II of this work. Without attempting to present the evidence here, it is only stated that a gross error has been made in presuming that Dynasty XII belongs to the period currently defined as Middle Bronze II (or Middle Bronze I as defined by some scholars). Our primary concern here is that of demonstrating that there is no need for, and no genuine basis for, regarding the line of Ramessides of the Sothis list as other than in proper position relative to the era of Hyksos domination. IV. Koncharis as the Pharoah of the Exodus We thus place our finger tentatively on the name Koncharis (No. 24 of the Sothis list), the sole ruler between this Ramesside line and the Hyksos era, as the pharaoh of the Exodus. A number of indep~ndent data now serve to confirm this identification and position of the Exodus pharaoh. Eusebius left a note in his work indicating that the pharaoh of the Exodus had the name Cencheres whom he identified as the Cencheres of the XVIIlth Dvnastv. 6 This conclusion of Eusebius was challenged some· five ·centuries later by Syncellus~ on the basis that there was no supporting evidence for such a conclusion. Cencheres is obviouslv the same· nar:ne as Koncharis, since there is no soft sound ~f "c" in the Greek, and since the vowel sounds can be transliterated from Egyptian to Greek at best only as approxima-. tions. It would seem that Eusebius did have some vague evidence for his conclusion, but made a wrong identification with a king by the same name in a later dynasty. Further confirmation is to be seen in the otherwise enigmatic record of Josephus which states that the Hyksos took over Egypt without a battle.~ Such a conquest of Egypt is THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 123 anomalous except as we visualize the Hyksos invasion against the background of an Egypt recently incapacitated by some catastrophe such as that of the Exodus and associated incidents. In a later connection, it will be shown that the conditions that followed the Hyksos invasion were just those to be expected from this sequence of events. It was a period of extended misery for the Egyptians for many ye·ars; Egypt remained in an unstable condition during which period the Hyksos wantonly destroyed the art, the architecture, and the monuments of the earlier kings and desecrated thei_r temples without reserve. The meager. wealth left in Egypt was largely confiscated by the Hyksos who had no inclination to produce anything for themselves. Still further confirmation of the correctness of this placement of the Exodus is to be found in the solution to the long-standing problem of the duration of the Hyksos period. Josephus gave the length of this period as 511 years, 9 though it may be supposed that this figure, like so many others of the ancient writings, was obtained by summation of reigns and need not represent true elapsed time. 10 Other figures, however, suggest a period not in large deviation from that given by Josephus. 11 This problem of the duration of the Hyksos period has attained a point of major significance since the acceptance of the so-called Sothic dating method. From considerations based on this method of dating, the end of Dynasty XII has been fixed at c. 1788 B.C., while the beginning of Dynasty XVIII was similarly fixed at c. 1580 B.C. This left only about 208 years between the close of the Xllth and the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Into this brief period must be squeezed the numerous kings of the eariy XIIIth Dynasty, the Hyksos era, and some brief period to be allotted to Dynasty XVII, which included the war of liberation. This arrangement was simply more than some historians could mentally surround, and it was demanded that a complete extra Sothic period of 1460 years be inserted to make the period 1668 years instead of 208 years in length. This seemed unnecessarily long for the events involved and with the death of Petrie, the principal supporter of the long chronology, the conflagration died down, and the short chronology has been adopted among scholars in spite of the 124 THE EXODUS PROBLEM large improbability that the interim could have been so brief as 208 years. By the placement of the Exodus in terms of the altered chronology, the period of the Hyksos is to be defined as that from the Exodus to the resurrection of power in Egypt as inferred by the Biblical accounts. Egypt is thus first mentioned as a power in the time of Solomon, 480 years after the Exodus. If 50 years are allowed for Egypt to recuperate after driving out the Hyksos, the period of domination may be taken as about 430 years, which figure is in excellent agreement with Manetho, who ascribes 250 (or 284) years to the XVth Dynasty and an additional 190 years to the later Hyksos rulers of Dynasty XVI. 12 This figure represents a period long enough to include reasonably the events involved and yet not so unreasonably long as demanded by Petrie' s long chronlogy. This placement of the Exodus has thus led us to a more credible and more realistic period for the Hyksos era. A discussion of the fallacies in the Sothic dating method which led to the acceptance of this unduly abbreviated period is reserved for a later volume. This placement of the Exodus also provides us with a reasonable explanation for the apparent anomaly in the statement of Genesis 47:11 which reads: And Joseph placed his father and his brethern, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded. It is evident from this statement that kings named Rameses ruled, not only during the period of oppression, but back as far as the time of Joseph, some 215 years before the Exodus. The summation of the reigns of the kings from Koncharis back to the first of these Ramessides totals 190 years. 1" This takes us well back into the era of Joseph. As will be shown later, rna there were t\vo other kings who preceded the first of these Ramessides in the Sothic list who very probably also had the name Rameses. A further statement by Josephus represents. an anachronism when the Exodus is dated in the XVIIIth Dvnastv or later, but is clarified by the placement at the ti~e o( the Hyksos inv.asion. Reference is to the statement that the Israelites built pyramids for the Egyptians durin~ the period of slavery. 11 Pyramids as tombs were in vogue in the time of THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 125 the Xllth and Xlllth Dynasties, but were long since obsolete in the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty and later. This anachronism has long been recognized but no explanation for it has been forthcoming other than to presume that the statement is an error. 15 The proposed setting o_f the Exodus coincident with the Hyksos invasion was based on the assumption that the Ramesside line of t:he Sothis list just preceded the Hyksos invasion, .and that the Sothis list at this point is in proper order. This assumption is conti:ary to popular opinion which makes this line of kings identical to the later Ramessides of the XXth Dynasty but misplaced in the list by the unknown author. 16 Evidence is now introduced confirming the correctness of the Sothis list order at this point. The Hyksos invasion is placed by modern historians in the late Xlllth Dynasty,. Earlier proposals had set it at the beginning of this dynasty, but evidence produced by Brugsch indicated that such a placement was out of the question. Brugsch wrote: 17 As we have already remarked, the kings who immediately followed the Pharaohs of the Twelfth Dynasty in the kingdom were still in full possession of Upper and Lower Egypt. For a long time the opinion was prevalent, that the Thirteenth Dynasty marked the exact epoch of the invasion of the foreigners, so that these latter must have already gained a firm footing in the Egyptian low country, or at least on its eastern frontier. In opposition to this, however, we have the well-established fact that several kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, and not only those who were first in order of time, enjoyed in the Delta ... perfect leisure and quiet to erect monuments, the remains of which have been preserved to the present time and their magnitude and style do not at all point to their having been hastily constructed. In the days of their authors and their erection peaceful times must have prevailed, and nothing warrants the notion of a foreign occupation by the side of native kings .... The fact is established beyond doubt that this sudden attack of the foreigners must have taken place towards the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty. If our reasoning is correct thus far, there is a hope that the name of Koncharis as the pharaoh of the Exodus will appear in others of the ·king lists well into the era of the Xlllth Dynasty kings. Since we do not know the length of the era involved as yet, it is not possible to predict accurately the expected position of this king. It is, however, to be presumed that if Brugsch is correct in his deductions, 126 THE EXODUS PROBLEM TABLE VI Kings of the Early XIIIth Dynasty According to the Turin Papyrus (after Brugsch) Ra-Khu-taui (Sebekhotep I) Sokhemkara Ra-Amenemhet I Sehotapabra I Aufni Sankhabra 7. Smenkara 8. Sehotepabra II 9....... kara 10. One or two names destroyed 11. Notemabra 12. Ra Sebekhotep II 13. Ran-(sen)-eb 14. Autuabra I 15. Setef.... ra 16. Ra Sokhemkhutaui (Sebekhotep III) 17. Rauser..... . 18. Smonkhkara Mermesha 19...... kara 20. . ... user-Ser 21. Ra Sokhem (suttaui) Sebekhotep IV) 22. Khasesheshra N oferhotep 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 23. Ra-Sahathor 24. Khanofe"a (Sebekhotep V) 25. Khakara? 26. Khaankhra (Sebekhotep VI) 27. Khahotepra (Sebekhotep VII) 28. Uahabra Aaab 29. Mernofe"a Ai 30. Merhotepra 31. Sankhnefra Utu 32. Mersokhermra Anran 33. Suthara..... ura 34-57 Names for the most part are destroyed totally or partially 58. Nahasi-(ra) 59. Khakherura 60. Nebef-autura 61. Sehibra 62. Mertefara 63. Sutkara 64. N ebtefara 65. Ra-Uben II 66£. Many of the remaining names are unreadable. Italicized names are regarded as of special significance in the development of this work. Kings numbered 27 and onward for which reign lengths are readable have short reigns, ranging from less than one year to five years. The exceptions are kings numbered 28 and 29 with reigns of 10 and 13 years respectively. Since it is highly probable that more than one of these princes ruled in the same specific period of years, the possibility is entertained that the Exodus event may well have fallen during the reign of other rulers than Kha-ankh-ra (No. 26). For example, Josephus places the incident in the reign of one Dudimos, who may be one of the princes of this list. See Chapter XIII, Section IX for confirmation of this placement of Dudimos. then the kings of the early dynasty had periods of rule which were quite normal. The lengths of rule for many of the later rulers of the dynasty are provided by the Turin Papyrus, which is in readable condition at this point. At the point in the list which marks the end of the line of Sebekhoteps, the reigns of the subsequent kings are very short, often 'being but a year or two. It would appear that at this · point, something must have occurred in Egypt to upset the THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 127 smooth sequence of political affairs. The name we seek should then appear in this list at about this point, since such a rapid turn-over of rulers indicates some unstable situation. While more kings follow this point in the list than precede it, the short lengths of reigns place this critical situation late in Dynasty XIII as hypothesized by Brugsch. In fact, this is the approximate point selected by several scholars as the point of the Hyksos invasion. The name Koncharis is a Greek transliteration of an Egyptian name. Reversing the rules by which Egyptian names are transliterated into Greek, we are led from the Greek name Koncharis back .to the original Egyptian name Ka-ankh-ra. This name appears among the names of the XIIIth Dynasty kings on the Table of Karnak. Brugsch located this name, and by comparison of the briefer Karnak list with the more complete Turin list, he concluded that Kaankh-ra was to be identified as Sebekhotep VI of the Turin list. Ik Other historians have suggested an identity with Sebekhotep V or IV. 19 This variation of opinion is not as serious as might seem, for there is also a difference of opinion as to the numbering of these Sebekhoteps. Following the name of Sebekhotep VI is the llne of kings, previously referred to, who had but brief reigns. We may assume with assurance that Ka-ankh-ra, as one of the late Sebekhoteps of the XIIIth Dynasty, falls in the expected position relative to the Hyksos invasion, and is to be identified as the Koncharis of the Sothis list, where he is also the last king before the Hyksos invasion. We are at the same time provided with potent evidence that the order of the kings of the Sothis list at this point is correct, and that the preceding line of Ramessides represents a line of kings who belong to the Oppression era. In this list of Ramessides, we should then find one who meets the Scriptural requirements as the builder of the citv of Pi-Rameses. Since the oth~r king lists give no hint of kings by the name of Rameses in this era, we must presume that these kings are identical to well-known kings under other names. In a later chapter, 20 · we shall identify these Ramessides in terms of their more familiar names and point out in unmistakable fashion the Ramesside who meets the specifications of the Oppression account as the builder of the original city under Israelite slave labor. 128 THE EXODUS PROBLEM V. The Placement of the Exodus at the Time of the Hyksos Invasion Not New The writer is not the first to have suggested that the Hyksos invasion marks the point of the Exodus. A similar concept was envisioned by Immanuel Velikovsky, 21 who arrived at this conclusion from quite a different approach than that here presented. This took the form of an attempt to link numerous legendary phenomena with the incidents of the Exodus and the "long day" of Joshua's time. The writer concurs, on the basis of Scriptural statements, 22 that the Exodus incident was accompanied by natural phenomena of a most frightening nature, .for which adequate explanations have not been previously forthcoming. The writer cannot pass judgment on the explanations offered by Velikovsky; he is, nevertheless, convinced that the descriptions provided in Scripture are best explained by an astronmical cause. He believes also that Veli.kovsky should be credited with the first serious attempt to point out that there is no genuine possibility of arriving at any credible harmony between Old Testament historv and current views, and that the solution lies iri the dire~tion of a complete reconstruction of the chronlogy of the ancient world. With a number of the deductions of Velikovsky, the writer is in general agreement; with others he is at notable variance. His placement of the Exodus is accepted; it follows that the eras of the Oppression, the Conquest, and of the Judges then fall into their proper positions. He agrees that the Hyksos have been correctly identified as the Amalekites of Scripture, and that the absence of the expected repercussions of the expelled Hyksos on Palestine is explained by the near annihilation of this people by Saul. The evidence is overwhelming that the Shishak of Scripture should be identified as Thutmose III. With the acceptance of these premises, there is no alternative but to recognize the necessity for a radical shortening of the chronology of Egypt. The writer, however, is convinced that there is a more credible and more convincing manner in which this shortening is to be attained than that proposed by Velikovsky, which may have been a large factor in incurring the wrath of the archaeologists and historians. This shortening of the THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 129 chronology is more credibly attained by a recognition of a more extensive parellelism of Mantho' s dynasties than has been previously recognized. 22. VI. Egyptian.Accounts of Incidents Related to the Exodus The eras of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties proposed by modern theories have failed to provide a single document of any kind to even suggest that such an event as the Exodus occurred within these limits. With the placement of the event at the time of the Hyksos invasion in quite a different era, the question naturally rises as to whether this altered setting provides any suggestion that this is the proper background for the Exodus. Archaeological evidence from this dark age is rare indeed compared to the numerous inscriptions available from the time of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties. Hence the appearance of any such inscriptions fror:p this era relative to the point in question are of more than ordinary significance. Two striking inscriptions from what we now choose to call the immediate post-Exodus era have been pointed out by Velikovsky,2'3 and his presentations are here reviewed. VII. The lpuwer Papyrus This papyrus, found near Memphis in Egypt, is now housed in the museum at Leiden in the Netherlands. The document was written in a type of writing used by the scribes and is not like the Egyptian hieroglyphics commonly to be found on ancient Egyptian inscriptions. The papyrus is evidently a copy of a much older document which, from its style and content, has been dated by the authorities in about the Xllth Dynasty. 24 About half of the document is in such damaged condition that it is unreadable. The meaning of the papyrus content has been an enigma since its discovery in the early 19th century. It has been variously interpreted as a set of proverbs and axioms, a philosophic treatise, a collection of riddles, a prophecy of doom, and as the admonitions of a sage. It seems that the message of the document was originally presented to the king, and the one point that is abundantly clear is that a dire catastrophe in Egypt is portrayed. Gardiner was convinced that the inter- 130 THE EXODUS PROBLEM nal evidence pointed to an historical basis for the situation described. 2; The most recent interpretation of this strange document is that by Velikovsky who, from its content and its recognized origin in the general era of the Exodus as placed at the time of the Hyksos invasion, regarded the account as that of an eye-witness to the catastrophe which came upon Egypt at the time of. the Exodus and more specifically at the time of the ten plagues. Such an interpretation would, of course, be ridiculous with the Exodus placed many centuries later. Against the altered background provided by a reconstructed chronology, this interpretation takes on a meaning which one can hardly fail to recognize. One notes reference, not only to plague in general, but specifically to the plague of the water becoming as blood, the plague of hail, the plague on the cattle, the destruction of crops, darkness, .and of the death of the first-born. And through it all, runs a distinguishable thread picturing a situation of dire calamity, evidently accompanied by natural phenomena of a most frightening nature. Brief phrases from the translation by Gardiner as quoted by Velikovsky 26 are reproduced below. "Forsooth, the land turns as does a potter's wheel "The towns are destroyed, upper Egypt has become dry (wastes) "All is ruin "The residence is overturned in a minute "Years of noise. There is no end of noise "Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere "This is our water! This is our happiness! "Trees are destroyed "No fruit nor herbs are found "Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire "Lower Egypt weeps. The entire palace is without revenues "Forsooth, that has perished which yesterday was seen. The land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of flax. "All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan. "Behold cattle are left to stray, and there is none to gather them together. "Each man fetches for himself those that are branded with his name "The land is not light "Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets ,:'The prison is ruined ''·He that places his· brother in the ground is everywhere "It is groaning that is throughout the land, mingled with lamentations THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 131 "A foreign tribe from abroad has come to Egypt "What has happened? - though it is to cause the Asiatics to know the condition of the land." With this document properly placed at the time immediately following the Exodus, it is difficult to fail to see its author as a witness to the experience at the time of the ten plagues or to recognize that the plagues were followed by an invasion by a foreign people, against whom Egypt was powerless to protect itself. VIII. The Scriptural Accounts of Catastrophe at the Exodus The Scriptures are in complete accord with the lpuwer papyrus inscription in picturing the incidents associated with the Exodus as acconipanied by natural phenomena of a most frightening nature. 27 The waters saw thee, 0 God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid, the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water; the skies sent out a sound; thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thunder was in the heaven; the lightnings. lightened the world; the earth trembled and shook. Thy way is in the sea and thy path in the great waters, by the hand of Moses and Aaron. There can be no question but that the situation described above belongs to the time of the Exodus. The language of the eighteenth Psalm is so near like that of Psalm 77 that it is difficult to conclude otherwise than that David is here referring also to the same experience. 28 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also and came down: and darkness was under his feet. ... He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. At the brightness that was before· him his thick clouds passed, hail stones and coals of fire. The Lord also thundred in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire. Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfitted them. Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, 0 Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils. IX. The Ermitage Papyrus The Ermitage papyrus is now preserved in the museum at Leningrad. This inscription also tells of a time when 132 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Egypt was exposed to some terrific catastrophe. One sees here again a reference to the situation that occurred at the time of the Exodus. The inscription in part reads: 29 "The land is utterly perished and nought remains. Perished is this land .... The sun is veiled and shines not in the sight of men. None can live when the sun is veiled by clouds .... " "The river is dry (even the river) of Egypt." "The earth is fallen into misery ... Bedouins pervade the land. For foes are in the East [side of sunrising] and Asiatics shall descend into Egypt." "The beasts of the desert shall drink from the rivers of Egypt. ... This land shall be in perturbation.... " "I show thee the land upside down, happened that which never (yet) had happened .... " "Men laugh with the laughter of pain. None there is who weepeth because of death." "None knoweth that midday is there; his [sun's J shadow is not discerned. . . ." Evidently the darkness of the 9th plague was a phenomenon which continued intermittently and locally throughout the experience of the Exodus and afterward as reflected in the Ermitatage Papyrus inscription and in the statements of ' Exodus 13:21, 22; 14:20. And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of c;loud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night. He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people .... And it [the pillar of cloud]came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these so that the one came not near the other all the night. Notes and References (I) W-BA, p. 60. (2) W-M, p. 225n. (3) Kings numbered 59-61 of this list are obvious mis- placements from the !st Dynasty. (3a) See Table V. (4 I See Table XIV. (5) Chap. \'I, Section VII. (6) See note after the name Chanceres in Eusebius' translation of Manetho (W-M. p. Jl5). The note reads: .. About this time Moses led the Jews in their march out of Egypt."' (ii Syncellus adds: "Eusebius alone places in this reign the Exodus of Israel under Moses, althou~h no argument supports him, but all his predecessors hold to a contrary view as he testifies.' (8) J-AA, Bk. I, par. 14. (9) See ref. 8. (10) See Chap. XVII, Sect. XII for example, (II) See text of ref. 12. (12) W-M, p .. 93. ( 13) See Table IV. (13a/ Chap. XIII, Table XIII. Amenemhet I and Sesostris I are not included in the Sothis list (Sect. II). (14) J·AJ, Bk. II, Chap. IX, par. 1. (15) See note of editor on ref. 14. (16) See text of refs. 3, 4. (17) B-EUP, Vol. II, p. 211, (18) Ibid., (19) P-HE, Vol. I. p. 218; B-BEC, Vol. XXXlll, p. 76. (20) Chap. XIII. (21) V-AC; .V-WC. (22) See quots. of refs. 27, 28. (22a) See Foreward (23) V-AC, pp. 22ff. (24) Ibid., pp. 45ff.; B-HE, p. 204, (25) Cited in V-AC, p. 24. (26) Ibid., pp. 24ff. (27) Ps. 77:1618. (28) Ps. 18:7, 8, 12·15. (29) Cited in V-AC, p. 46. CHAPTERX JOSEPH AND HIS FAMINE IN THE EGYPTIAN INSCRIPTIONS In demonstrating the coincidence in the histories of Israel and Egypt for the pre-Exodus era, we shall attempt to avoid the mistake which has apparently occurred- in setting up the traditional chronology of Egypt, i.e., that of using names as the .primary basis for synchronisms. Such synchronisms are subject to considerable possibility of error on the basis that Egyptian kings and other important official~ frequently took on a variety of names, . some of which may have been in honor of notable ancestors of the same name, thus leaving open the possibility of confusion with personages of an entirely different era. Rather, as was done in the case of the Exodus, we shall take an event as the anchor point of synchronism which, in the light of its rarity, is least likely to find a confusing counterpart in an adjoining era. Fortunately, an ideal event for this purpose is to be found in an extended famine which stands as the central point in the story of Joseph. I. The Rarity of Extended Famines in Egypt The rarity of famines in the Nile Valley which extended over a period of years is noted by Phillip Smith, editor and translator of Brugsch' s Egypt Under the Pharaohs. Smith noted that: 1 ... Great famines in Egypt are extremely rare, because they require a succession of very low inundations. Brugsch himself was also quite aware of the uniqueness of extended famines in the Nile Valley, for he wrote: 2 ... Now since famines succeeding one another on account of deficiency of water in the overflowing of tile Nile are of the very greatest rarity, and history knows and mentions only one example, namely, the seven years' famine under the Pharaoh of Joseph.... We may thus be assured that the appearance of an inscription dealing with an extended famine which meets the specifications of the Scriptures relative to the famine of Joseph and which may be dated within the era of a few centuries priot to the Hyksos invasion, must refer to the famine of Joseph's time. 134 THE EXODUS PROBLEM II. The Famine Record of the Reign of Sesostris I Sesostris I was the second king of the Xllth Dynasty. A famine inscription from the reign of this king appears in the tomb of one Ameni who dates the record in the 25th year of his own official capacity and in the 43rd year of the reign of king Sesostris I under whom he served. The famine may then be dated at some point in the last 27 years of the reign of this king since he reigned 45 years in total. The translation of the original account. of this famine is provided to us by Brugsch, and that part of the lengthy inscription which is of interest here reads:'3 ... No child of the poor did I afflict; no widow did I oppress; no landowner did I displace; no herdsmen did I drive away; from no small farmer did I take away his men for my own works. No one was unhappy in my days, not even in the years of famine. For I had tilled all the fields of the name of Mah, up to its southern and northern frontiers. Thus I prolonged the life of its inhabitants and preserved the food which it produced. No hungry man was in it. I distributed equally to the widow as to the married woman. I did not prefer the great to the humble in all that I gave away. [Emphasis ours.] This inscription meets the· criteria for the famine of Joseph' s time in three major aspects. The famine lasted a plurality of years; preparation was made in advance to meet the famine by the gathering of food, and this food was distributed during the years of famine. Since the details are so strikingly like those provided in the Scriptures for the famine of Joseph, it would seem strange if historians had not considered the possibility of such an identity. The comments of Brugsch on this inscription are hence of more than common interest. He wrote: 4 The concluding words of this inscription, in which Ameni sings his own praises, have given rise to the idea that they contain an allusion to the sojourn of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt and to the seven years of famine under his administration. But two reasons especially tell against this supposition, which would recognize in Usertasen I the Pharaoh of Joseph. First" there is the difference in time, which cannot be made to agree with the days of Joseph, and next, still more, the indisputable fact that, in other inscriptions ... years of famine are mentioned which thoroughly correspond as to facts and time with the Biblical account. .... It is quite apparent that the reasons given by Brugsch for rejecting the identification of the famine of Ameni' s inscriP"" THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 135 tion with that of the Scriptural Joseph are based on the acceptance of the traditional chronlogy of Egypt which would require a famine during the late Hyksos period or in the earlv XVIIIth Dvnasty. A famine in the early XIIth Dynasty mu;t then be c~nsidered as far out of line with the expected position for the era of Joseph. When, however, the Exodus is placed at the only point in Egyptian history which meets the specifications of the Exodus story, there is no discrepancy in the matter of time when Sesostris I (Usertasen I) is made contemporary with Joseph. Hence Brugsch' s first objection does not hold. It must be admitted that there is another reference to extended famine in the Egyptian inscriptions. It is presumed that Brugsch had primary reference to the famine inscription of Beba (Bebi), which was found in the tomb of this personage, since it is this inscription which he later quotes in support of a famine in the XVIIth Dynasty. That part of the inscription of Beba referring to an extended famine reads:·; I collected corn as a friend of the harvest god. I was watchful at the time of sowing. And when the famine arose lasting many years, I distributed corn to the city each year of the famine. Brugsch comments as follows on this inscription in support of his dating in the era of the XVIIth Dynasty as demanded by the popular theories of the Exodus: 6 Not the smallest doubt can be raised as to whether the last words of the inscription relate to an historical fact or not; to something definite, or to something only general. However strongly we may be inclined to recognize a general way of speaking in the narrative of Ameni where "years of famine" are spoken of, just as strongly does the context of the present statement compel us to refer this record of "a famine lasting many years" to an epoch historically defined. Now since famines succeeding one another on account of deficiency of water in the overflowing of the Nile are of the very greatest rarity, and history knows and mentions only one example, namely, the seven years' famine under the Pharaoh of Joseph; - since Baba (or, if one prefers to say, the Babas, for the most part the contemporaries of the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties) lived and worked under the native king RaSekenen Taa III in the ancient city of El-Kab about the same times in which Joseph exercised his office under one of the Hyksos kings; there remains for a satisfactory conclusion but one fair inference: that the "many years of famine" in the days of Baba must exactly correspond to the seven years of famine under Joseph's Pharaoh, who was one of the Shepherd Kings [sic]. 136 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Brugsch' s error in presuming that this inscription is to be dated in the XVIIth Dynasty under King Sekenenra was later pointed out by Vandier, who commented on the dating of this inscription in the following words7 (as translated from the French). The second te;ict is found in another tomb of El Kah, quite near to the afore mentioned one. Brugsch dates this tomb in the XVIIth Dynasty, but gives no reason for his choice. At El Kah, the most ancient tombs are located high on the slope to the north. This is the case with that of Sebek-Nakht and that of Bebi, with which we are here concerned and which I believe can be dated. impartially in the Xlllth Dynasty. If it was of the XVIIth Dynasty, it would be located much lower, near the tomb of Ahmose and that of Paheri. Tylor, in his introduction to the tomb of Sebek-Nakht, spoke incidentally of the tomb of Bebi, and stated that the two tombs are very much more ancient than all the others which he also regarded as contemporaneous. It is thus clear that the second objection offered by Brugsch for the rejection of the identity of the famine of Ameni with that of Joseph's time also fails to hold, for the inscription of Bebi on which Brugsch depended to provide a famine record as demanded by the traditional theories of the Exodus had obviously been misdated by him and properly belongs to a much earlier era. With the recognition that the famine inscription of Bebi belongs to a much earlier era than Dynasty XVII, which was estimated to be that of Dynasty XIII, it follows from the rarity of extended famines in the Nile Valley that the famine of Bebi is quite the same famine as that of Ameni' s inscription and is properly to be dated in the era of the early Xlllth Dynasty which must have been contemporary with the early Xllth. While it is true that there are other inscriptions referring to famine in Egypt, those of Bebi and Ameni are the only ones which have been suggested as that of Joseph's time and the only ones which meet the general criteria of the Scriptural account. Further evidence of a most striking nature will be presented in a later connection8 in support of this conclusion of identity of the famine of Bebi with that of Joseph's time, but properly dated contemporary with the reign of Sesostris I. The full weight of this important conclusion will become more apparent as the revised chronology is unfolded to show that still another important famine record focuses on THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 137 this same era, though no details are given in the inscription which might provide such identification independently. 9 As the situation now stands, there is no other theory of the placement of the Exodus which provides evidence of an extended famine at a date which can be rationally regarded as belonging to the era of Joseph. With the exposure of the misdating of Bebi' s famine record by Vandier, this critical point in the traditional views has remained a blank. The question rises as to whether Ameni or Bebi are to be identified as the Joseph of the Biblical story. Both Bebi and Ameni had different positions relative to the royal house than did Joseph. These men were but princes over their local nomes, while Joseph occupied a position second only to the king, which position would be that of vizier to the king. Since there were many such local rulers over small territories, reference to the same famine by more than one of these is not at all surprising. III. The Date of Joseph's Famine The expected date for this incident will depend on the date one elects to assign to the Exodus, and the length of time covered by the sojourn of Israel in Egypt. With the Exodus variously placed between c. 1250 B.C. and 1450 B.C., and opinions on the length of the sojourn in Egypt differing from less than 215 years (c. 150 years) to over 430 years, we should expect a record of this famine to appear at some point between 1450 and 1880 B.C. By current views on Egyptian chronology, these limits reach from late in the XIIth Dynasty to the end of the reign of Thutmose III of Dynasty XVIII. It might be hoped that a clear-cut Egyptian inscription referring to an extended famine between these points might help us to decide between the two more commonly proposed dates for the Exodus, and between the 430 and 215 year period for the sojourn in Egypt. Certainly, there is no extant record of a famine in the late XIIth Dynasty, nor at any point in the XVIIIth. One might presume that, due to the paucity of inscriptions, the absence of such a record does not preclude the possibility that such a famine did occur during the Hyksos period. The writer has indicated his reasons for believing that the 1445 date for the Exodus is the most defensible in terms of 138 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Bible chronology. 10 Evidence is now introduced to show that the period of sojourn in Egypt was not 430 years but one-half this figure, a point over which many Bible scholars have long stumbled, resulting in an inability to satisfactorily cope with the problems of Bible chronology. Rowley has reviewed the Biblical evidence which makes the concept of a 430-year sojourn in Egypt most inconsistent. 11 From this evidence, the single case of the genealogy of Moses is selected as adequate for the present discussion. The genealogy from Levi to Moses includes the sequence Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses. Kohath was born before the Descent into Egypt, 12 though he had no male children at this time. The period from the Descent to the Exodus is thus spanned by the sum of the years represented by ( 1) the period from the Descent to the birth of Amram, (2) the age of Amram at the birth of Moses, and (3) the age of Moses at the Exodus. The latter figure is stated to have been 80 years. 11 If the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, then the first two of the above periods must span 350 years. This is quite impossible. One might conclude that the sojourn occupied a much shorter period than 430 years, or that the genealogy of Moses as given is incomplete, other generations having been omitted in the biblical accounts. The latter explanation, adopted by Whitman, 1 ~ should not be dismissed without consideration since we do have examples in Scripture to indicate that more remote descendants are .at times referred to as sons, and that the word begat is sometimes used to refer to such more remote descendants. Rowley, 15 however, has shown convincingly that to invoke this explanation in the case of Moses' genealogy leads to "nonsense." The remaining conclusions are that the verse in Exodus 12:40 is either being misinterpreted or that the 430-year figure is unreliable. Before assuming the latter to be true, attention should be given to an alternate interpretation which has long been before scholars but which has not been given the consideration it deserves. The statement on which a sojourn in Egypt of 430 years rests is that found in Exodus 12:40 which-in the KJV reads: Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four .hundred and thirty years. THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 139 Admittedly, standing alone, the popular interpretation of the statement might be regarded as the only logical one. However, Scripture should be allowed to interpret itself, and when this is done, it is very much in evidence that this is not the meaning intended by the statement. Paul, a Hebrew scholar of repute, recognized that the four hundred thirty year period began with the promise to Abraham and not with the Descent into Egypt. Paul interprets the chronology of the period thus: 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. It is thus the period from the promise to Abraham until the giving of the law at Sinai which is spanned by this 430-year period. The period of the sojourn in Egypt was a much shorter period as indicated that the seed of Abraham was to return to the land of promise in the fourth generation. 17 . The length of the period from the promise to Abraham until the Descent may be calculated from figures provided in Scripture as 215 years, 18 leaving 215 years for the sojourn in Egypt. In this same message to Abraham, a four hundred year period is introduced as the length of time that his seed would be afflicted in a land that was not theirs. 19 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years. The four hundred years thus spans more than the sojourn in Egypt proper. It rather includes the time during which the land was theirs only by promise and during which the descendants of Abraham were to be afflicted by others .. Since the affliction ended with the Exodus, the four hundred and the four hundred thirty years end essentially at the same time. Hence the four hundred years must begin thirty years after the promise. Since Abraham was seventy five years of age when he came into Canaan 20 from the east, and was one hundred years old at the birth of Isaac, 21 the four hundred years began about the time Isaac was five years old. 140 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Some scholars have supposed that the period of affliction began with the incidents of Genesis 21: 19, when Ishmael appears as a competitor with Isaac for the heirship. This may well be the case. The essential point, however, is not to be able to associate the beginning of this period with a specific incident but rather to recognize that the period of affliction began back in the time of Abraham and not with the Descent. Actually, the affliction in Egypt did not begin with the Descent but only with the rise of the king "who knew not Joseph". 22 That the "sojourn" also began back in the time of Abraham is clear from the statement in Hebrews 11:9 which reads: By faith he [Abraham] sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the sarp.e promise. Others of the ancients than Paul thus understood the 430-year sojourn. The translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek have added. a phrase to make clear the meaning of Exodus 12:40 as they understood it. The Septuagint reading of the verse is: The sojourning of the children and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land_ of Egypt. ... Josephus, as a Hebrew scholar of antiquity, thus understood the verse: 2'1 They left Egypt in the month.Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt. This is the only interpretation possible which is in agreement with Bible teaching. From the specific affliction in Egypt, the descendants of Abraham were to be released in the fourth generation. This is impossible if the sojourn in Egypt is taken to be four hundred thirty years. The promise is consistent with a sojourn in Egypt of 215 years. Moses himself was only the third of these four generations. 21 The statement is not specific as to when in the fourth generation this was .to occur. The evident meaning is that the fourth gener~tion would still be well-represented. In this light, there is no controversy between the promise and a sojourn of 215 yea::-s in Egypt, as can be calculated from the Old Testament account. · THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 141 If then it can be shown that a record of an extended famine appears in the Egyptian inscriptions at a point which falls some 215 years prior to the Exodus, this interpretation is confirmed. At the same time, we have further confirmation of the reliability of the chronology of I Kings 6: 1 and of the general correctness of the thesis that the Exodus occurred late in the Xlllth Dynasty, which dynasty was roughly parallel with the Xllth We proceed to show that this is the case. IV. Joseph as Vizier to Sesostris I Our reasoning has now led us into a situation which demands that we recognize in the vizier of Sesostris I the person of Joseph of the Scriptures. The term vizier is one which is applied to the second man in the kingdom next to the king. When Joseph was elevated from his recent prison experience to take over the responsibility of preparing for the coming famine, the position given him, as clearly described, is that of vizier. Pharaoh said to Joseph at that time: 25 Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled; only in the throne will I be greater than thou. The vizier of Sesostris I, who occupied this position second only to the king, is perhaps the most famili;ir figure in the Egyptian records of the many who held this office through the era of the Pharaohs. This fact makes possible a rather critical scrutiny of this identification which is demanded by the proposed reconstruction. The vizier of Sesostris I was known to the Egyptians as Mentuhotep. The extraordinary powers which were granted to Mentuhotep are clearly those also granted to Joseph. The vizier to the king of Egypt had powers which were great, irrespective of which one is under consideration, but the powers granted specifically to our Mentuhotep were so strikingly great that Breasted was prompted to comment on this point in the following words: 26 ... When he [the vizier] also held the office of chief treasurer, as did the powerful vizier Mentuhotep under Sesostris I, the account which he could give of himself . . . read like the declaration of the king's powers. 142 THE EXODUS PROBLEM This is quite the same ed in Scripture. 27 pictur~ of Joseph's authority as stat- . . . See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him; Bow the knee; ar.d he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. . Speaking of Mentuhotep, Brugsch commented: 2~ In a word, our Mentuhotep, who was also invested with several priestly dignities, and was Pharaoh's treasurer, appears as the alter ego of the king. "When he arrived, the great personages bowed down before him at the outer door of the royal palace." [Emphasis ours.] An examination of the inscriptions relative to Mentuhotep, which gave rise to the remarkable statements of Breasted, shows us that Mentuhotep carried, among others, the following titles: 2~ "Vizier, Chief Judge, Overseer of the Double Granary, Chief Treasurer, Governor of the Royal Castle, Wearer of the Royal Seal, Chief of all the works of the King, Hereditary Prince, Pilot of the People, Giver of Good-Sustaining Alive the People, Count, Sole Companion, Favorite of the King." Not before nor after the time of Sesostris I was there ever a man occupying this position who could claim such a list of titles. We compare these with the titles ascribed to Joseph in Scripture where he is "Lord of the Land," 30 "Father of Pharaoh;"'31 "Lord of all his House,"'32 and "Ruler throughout the Land of Egypt."'3'1 Since the recognition of Mentuhotep as Joseph was farthest from the mind of Breasted in making these comments on the powers of Mentuhotep, there is no call to underestimate the significance of these words which· so clearly show that Joseph of the Bible meets in a most remarkable manner the powers of the vizier of Sesostris I of the famine record. V. Joseph Builds an Irrigation Canal An incident is recorded for us from the early Xllth Dynasty, which cannot be dated in any exact manner, but which finds its logical place in the era just "before the famine .. It is generally presumed that the incident is to be referred to the time of Amenemhet I or Jlis son Sesostris 1:24 THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 143 There are indications that the work was not completed until later in the dynasty, though perhaps these later references may have to do with renovation procedures. Reference is here made to the initiation of a vast project which had for its purpose the increasing of the available irrigation water and expanding the tillable soil of the Nile Valley. An artificial canal was dug which ran parallel to the Nile northward to permit the flood waters of the Nile to flow into a natural basin. When the flood state was past, the impounded waters could be returned to the Nile by means of a second shorter canal. Examination of the remnants of this svstem indicates that it could well have doubled the tillable ~oil of the Nile Valley through which it passed. This canal which served to turn the waters of the Nile into this natural basin is still known to this day among the natives as the Canal of Joseph, and is so named: on modern maps.'13 Since by the traditional chronology of Egypt the early Xllth Dynasty is far out of line with the time of Joseph, it has been necessary to presume that the name of Joseph ascribed to this canal does not refer. to the patriarch Joseph but to some later person,'36 possibly of Mohammedan ancestry. In the light of the present reconstruction, there is no valid reason for presuming otherwise than that the builder of this canal was the Joseph of Scripture as held by t.he native populace. What better reason can be imagined for the instigation of such a project than the anticipation of an extended and grievous famine? And who can we imagine to have been more astute than Joseph in recognizing the possibilities of such a system as a factor in ameliorating the disastrous effects to be expected from the coming crisis. The confidence which the Pharaoh placed in the wisdom of Joseph was not without reason. 37 The pyramid of Teta (first king of Dynasty VI) is called by the local populace The Prison Pyramid, because local tradition says that it is built near the ruiris of the prison where Joseph the patriarch was confined. The pyramid is located near Sakkarah, just south of the Delta in a likely area for such imprisonment. The era of Teta by the revision is just after the famine. s;. VI. Israel Reduced to Slavery It would seem difficult enough for a fiction ~riter to de- 144 THE EXODUS PROBLEM vise a reasonable sequence of events to bridge the gap between Joseph, as the most powerful vizier who ever occupied this elevated office, and the enslavement of his descendants by a nation which owed to him its very existence. The details of this transition are not provided to us in Scripture. If we have not been in error in the proposed placement of the Exodus and of Joseph's famine, we may hope that the Egyptian inscriptions will fill out some of the details of this incomplete picture. As strange as that story must be, we find ample evidence of the correctness of the Biblical accounts among the bits of information to be · gleaned from the era of the Egyptian kings subsequent to Sesostris I. According to the Genesis account, 38 food was sold to the Egyptians for money during the first year of famine. During the second year, the people paid for the food with their cattle and herds. In return for food for the remaining years of famine, the Egyptians sold their lands to the Pharaoh, so that after the famine, the people occupied their lands and held their cattle as a lease from the king for which they paid into the king's treasury one-fifth of their increase. The single exception to this law was in the case of the princes'1'1 who did not sell their lands to the king but received from the king an allotment of food with,out sacrifice of their possessions. It is further stated that the Israelites did not lose their possessions during the famine, for "they had possessions therein and grew and multiplied exceedingly.··· This could only mean that Joseph carried the rank of a prince in addition to serving as vizier to the king. This is in agreement with the inscription, noted previously, which ascribes the title of "Hereditary Prince" to Mentuhotep whom we have identified as Joseph. The term "prince" is one that is commonly met in the inscriptions of this period and refers to one who was governor of a local area. Joseph was then a governor over a nome in addition to his numerous responsibilities as vizier. This arrangement was evidently not too unusual, for Breasted states that the high 40 . . . office of vizier brought with it the rank of Prince and Count and in some instances he ruled a nome. We may suppose that the area thus governed by Joseph included at lea~t the land of Goshen, where his people had settled. THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 145 Since Joseph was thus classed among the princes of Egypt, it follows without question that at the end of the seven years of famine, the Israelites were in a far more desirable position than were the Egyptians themselves, except for the few who like Israel were of the immediate family of a prince. They owned their own land; they owned their own cattle; they owned their own homes, and they did not pay one-fifth of their produce and increase of cattle and crops to the king. They lived and thrived in the choicest area of all Egypt. Is it any wonder that, in the years that followed, Israel multiplied exceedingly, not only in descendants but also in their possessions. Israel became a very rich people compared to the lot of the natives, and with the expressed blessing of Jehovah, it may be presumed that . . they far outstripped even the families and possessions of the other local princes. It would seem certain that this situation was a source of envy, jealousy, and hatred on the part of the native people, and it may be presumed that it required hardly more than a single generation for the Egyptians to forget the reasons why Israel thus prospered, whife they, as native Egyptians, were little more than servants to the king. Josephus describes just this sort of situation as resulting from the famine experience. 41 . . . They also became very ill-affected towards the Hebrews, as touched with envy at their prosperity; for when they saw how the nation of the Israelites fluorished, and were become eminent alr!!ady in plenty of wealth, which they had acquired by their virtue and natural love of labour, they thought their increase was to their own detriment. And having, in length of time, forgotten the benefits they had received from Joseph, particularly the crown being now come into another family, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; ... This, then, was the situation that continued through the remainder of the reign of Sesostris I and into the reign of the unnamed king "who knew not Joseph" and under whom Israel was degraded to slavery. We are not told in Scripture whether or not Joseph continued to act as vizier to subsequent kings or whether any of his descendants followed him as Hereditary Prince. In any case, it is clear that he continued to live throughout the reigns of Sesostris I, Amenemhet II, and into the reign of Sesostris II. This follows by simple calculation of the lengths of the reigns of 146 THE EXODUS PROBLEM these kings as compared to .the life span of Joseph who lived to the age of 110. 1 ~ VII. Sesostris III as the Pharaoh of the Oppression The first king who could logically be considered as the king who "knew not Joseph'· would be Sesostris II I. The evidence provided by the archaeology of Egypt pointing to Sesostris II I as the first of the Pharaohs of the Oppression, and as the one responsible for reducing Israel to the lot of slaves, is so striking that it can hardly be regarded as coincidental. In the reign of this king, changes were made in the governmental policies of Egypt which had been in force for perhaps one hundred years or more, and the nature of these changes is just that which would be expected to result in such a demotion of the descendants of Joseph. During the period preceding Sesostris III, Egypt had existed as a feudal system, and historians speak of this period as the "feudal age." 4'3 Under this arrangement, the territory of Egypt was divided into numerous local areas called names, over each of which was a prince or governor. He was not a servant of the Pharaoh and was permitted to rule undisturbed so long as he contributed his allotted quota to the king's treasury and perhaps to the army in case of need. In view of the local power possessed by these local princes, it is no wonder that they were at times referred to as king; ~3· for they were veritable kings over their own limited area. Under the reign of Sesostris III, this situation was changed. For the most part, these local princes were · stripped of their power and stripped of their excessive possessions. For the first time in a hundred years or more, Egypt was now under the immediate and direct dictatorship of the pharoah. While it seems evident that some of these princes were utilized in the new organization, and while some of them may have been placed as sub-rulers over territories even larger than their original nome, they no longer carried the independent power and authority that was once theirs. With this change in policy, it may be presumed that the Israelites likewise lost their favored position along with their wealth and excessive possessions, and in this act they were reduced to the level of the ordinary Egyptian citizen. THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 147 By this time Israel had multiplied so greatly compared to the families of the other princes that the Pharaoh was confronted with a special problem relative to this prolific people. It seems he dared not stop at this point for fear that this multitude, deprived of their special favored position, would elect to join an invading enemy against Egypt. Hence, after consultation with his officers, he elected to degrade this people still further to the lot of slaves.-1' And he said unto his people, Behold the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join unto our enemies, arid fight against us, and so get them up out of the land . . . therefore they did set over then taskmasters .... What a day of rejoicing that must have been for the Egyptians who had smarted so long under their lot as citizen servants to the king, while their foreign neighbors had risen to unprecedented heights of prosperity. From this time on, we find no more of the tombs of these princes. nor of the prolific inscriptions which they had previously left. Their power was not but a token of that once wielded by this favored group. Egypt was now consolidated under the powerful king Sesostris III. Breasted covers this transition in the following brief statements:'5 For thirty eight years, Sesostris III continued his vigorous rule of a kingdom which now embraced a thousand miles of Nile Valley. He had succeeded in suppressing the feudal nobles [princes]; and their tombs, as at Beni-Hasan and Bersheh, now disappear.... VIII. "And They Built for Pharaoh the Cities of Pi-Thom and Raamses" There is no lack of evidence that during the reign of Sesostris III, and of his successor Amenemhet III, an enormous building program was carried out 45 which could not have been accomplished except by means of slave labor. Unlike the structures of the huge building program in the Pyramid Age, and again unlike that which occurred later in the XVIIIth Dynasty, this building was of brick and not of stone. 47 The Biblical account states that " . . . they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter and in brick." 48 Josephus states that the Israelites built pyramids for the Egyptians. 49 All save one of the Xllth Dynasty Kings 148 THE EXODUS PROBLEM used brick in the construction of their pyramids. 50 The center of- this building program of Sesostris III, and of his successor Amenemhet III, was in the Delta region of the Nile, and more specifically, in the eastern Delta region, which in- · eluded the very area that comprised the land of Goshen. It is in this area that the cities of Pi-Rameses and Pi-Thom have been located. As previously noted, most of the extant remains of Pi-Rameses are credited to Rameses II of a much later date and represent rennovations carried out by this later king. 50a The extant remains of the construction under the Xllth Dynasty kings is recognized by archaelogists as representing but a mere fraction of the original, the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the XIXth Dynasty kings. 50" In spite of all this, sufficient evidence remains to indicate that the era of Sesostris III and of his successor was characterized by one of the most extensive building programs in all of Egyptian history . . . . Throughout the land the evidences of this prosperity under Amenemhet Ill and his predecessors still survive in the traces of their extensive building enterprises, although these have so suffered from the rebuilding under the Empire that they are but a tithe of what was once to be seen. Moreover, the vandalism of the Nineteenth Dynasty, especially under Rameses II, obliterated priceless records of the Middle Kingdom by the most reckless appropriation of its monuments as building material. . . . Amenemhet III erected the great brick wall around the ancient capital of El Kah which still stands, as the only city wall of such age now surviving in a condition so nearly intact. ... All the Delta cities of all ages, as we have so often mentioned, have perished, and but little survives to testify to the activity of these kings there, but in the eastern part, especially at Tanis and Bubastis, ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities. . . . In the Eleventh Dynasty the Theban kings had already returned to the original material of the royal tomb and built their unpretentious pyramids of brick. Amenemhet I followed their example in the erecWm of his pyramid at Lisht; the core was of brick masonry and the monument was then protected by casing masonry of limestone .... The custom was continued by all the kings of the dynasty with one exception. Their pyramids are scattered from the mouth of the Fayum northward to Dashur, just south of Memphis. Sesotris III meets the specifications of the oppressor of Israel, and we may safely presume that it was he or his immediate successor under whom the original cities of Pi- THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 149 Thom and Raamses were built. With the pharaohs of the famine and of the Oppression identified as kings of Dynasty XII, it follows that the list of Ramessides in the· Sothis list are but alternate names for Xllth Dynasty kings. This poiiit will be confirmed as the discussion proceeds. 5ck· In this later connection, it will also be shown that, in agreement with the statement of Josephus, ;;od there was a change in family at the accession of Sesostris I II and that he was not the son of Sesostris II as currently held. IX. The Supposed Demotion of Mentuhotep A monumental inscription set up near the southern borders of Egypt's dominion under the XII th Dynasty kings has been discovered. This inscription has been interpreted as telling us that the powerful vizier Mentuhotep was demoted and debased from his exalted position prior to his death. 01 With the identification of Mentuhotep with Joseph of Scripture, this inscription takes on a new significance. As far as may be presumed from these accounts, it was not Joseph who was debased but rather his descendants after his death. It is on this inscription that are to be found in part the numerous titles of Mentuhotep as the powerful vizier of the pharaoh. The inscription carries what was once a carved portrait of Mentuhotep, but this was later defaced so that, of the head, only the topmost part remains. In the upper relief behind the king is the carved figure of a hawk-headed deity, very crudely done and of much poorer workmanship than the rest of the inscription. A close examination shows that this figure was cut across the head and shoulders of a previous figure, which fact, when related to the accompanying inscription, convinced Breasted that it had reference to no other than Mentuhotep. 52 This unusual inscription, with its obvious defacement of the profile of Mentuhotep, has been interpreted to indicate the demotion· and debasement of this all-powerful vizier. In the light of the present discussion, it would appear more likely that this defacement of the monument was done by Sesostris III on his expedition into this area after the death of Joseph. 5'1 His hatred of the Israelites, whom he had enslaved, was so deep that he did not want to be reminded of the service which Mentuhotep had rendered to Egypt and 150 THE EXODUS PROBLEM used this method of erasing the memory of this man who had done so much for the nation,. · X. The Xllth Dynasty Ends Before the Exodus At Jlis death, Amenemhet III was succeeded by Amenemhet IV, who ruled but nine years. Following Amenemhet IV, the rule passed to a woman ruler who took the throne name Sebek-nefru-re, a name which, like so many of the XIIIth Dynasty princes, honors the crocodile god, Sebek. 0' This situation suggests that there was no male heir to the throne. With her death, after a brief reign of four years, the dynasty, according to Manetho, came to its end. That Sebek-nefru-re died before the Exodus is abundantly clear if we grant the general correctness of the identity of the famine under Sesostris I with that of Joseph's time. The period from the beginning of this famine to the Exodus was 217 years as previously calculated. 54• The XII th Dynasty, according to the Turin king list, had a duration of 213 years. 55 Since the famine did not begin before the 18th year of Sesostris I, 55• it follows that not more than about 185 years of Israel's 215-year sojourn in Egypt can be accounted for within the period of the Xllth Dynasty. The dynasty must then have come to its end some 30 years before the Exodus. In a later connection, 55b, this figure will be refined to 34 years. XI. The Time Relationship Between Dynasties XII and XIII According to the traditional chronology, Dynasty XIII follows Dynasty XII in sequence. There is no evidence to support this conclusion beyond the premises on which the chronological structure has been erected. This arrangement has long been a thorn in the credibility of the resulting chronology. The end of Dynasty XII is regarded as astronomically fixed to the date 1788 B. C., while the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty has been similarly fixed to a date 1580 B.C., leaving but 208 years for Dynasties XIII to XVII inclusive. Dynasty XIV at Xois is logically given its position contemporary with the Hyksos Dynasties XV and XVI: this line of rulers evidently representing the remnants of a legitimate line of Egyptian kings that survived the Hyksos conquest. This same situation may hold also for the very late Figure 3 Scriptural Incidents Correlated with the Chronology of Dynasties XII and XIII l 20 yrs °" <g. II) :::s ~. :::s tCl 0 -i) .... w . I\) t I .,, J 0 s E p ~ ...... :::s Ill >< ..... ..... .-j I _l~-~ I M 0 s E s I '" ~ . 217 years ,~ - - -1 :::s a. M Yufni (Joseph) 1 ~ 0 -i) ~· {l from the beginning of the tfamine to ti e Exodus 3: V> ~ VY'<: I IT! ):. 0 ~ 110 I 7 3: -i) H 1 I 1 213 years of Dynasty XII by the Turin papyrus J' '< II) Ill l I ::r :::s ..... Ill "' :; ~ 3: x ..... 0 ...... V> ____, ,t. Chene res M '"TJ ;:i... s::..... z IT! M x 0 Cl 'Tl '--< 0 0 c:;; M CFl "Ci (/) II) XII I th Dynasty pri nc~ ~ Ra-au-ab ::r: "' Ka-ankh-re Vertical arrows represent synchronisms recognized in the developing chronology of Dynasty XII and Dynasty XIII. Synchronisms with Egyptian kings are intended to be only approximate. For a more exact chronology for Dynasty XII, ~ee Figure 9. ::r: _, ~ ..... Ql ,_, 152 THE EXODUS PROBLEM kings of Dynasty XIII. The writer, however, has noted evi- . dence to suggest that the Xlllth Dynasty kings represented only selected princes that ruled over their respective nomes during this era of feudal government and hence do not necessarily represent a succession of rulers at all. In other words, an exact time relation between the individual names in the Turin List is not necessarily the same as that to be deduced from a continuous sequence of rulers, The difficulty in the currently accepted view lies in the large improbability that these numerous kings of the XIIIth Dynasty can be squeezed into this 208 year period after due allowance has been made for the Hyksos Dynasties and at least a short period for Dynasty XVII. Even if the early XIIIth Dynasty is condensed into a period of 100 years, as is traditionally done, this leaves an incredibly short period for the two Hyksos Dynasties and would allow only an average of about 4 years for each of the first 25 kings on a sequence basis. Such a situation would suggest one of anarchy or near anarchy for which there is no evidence at all.3 6 Efforts to meet this anomaly have depended heavily on the statement of Herodotus to the effect that Egypt was divided between 12 rulers. 57 The statement appears to refer to the time during which the "labyrinth" was being constructed and which some believe to have been built by Amenemhep III. However, for such an origin there is no unequivocal evidence, and the fact that later writers indicate that the structure was a sort of central building with official space for officers of each of the 27 nomes, suggests an origin earlier in the dynasty when the feudal system was in vogue. At that time, there existed a situation which involved a plurality of rulers which, by the interpretation here proposed, were represented by the princes of the XIIIth Dynasty. While historians in general seem not to have grasped the necessity for such an interpretation of the composition of Dynasty XIII, one occasionally notes a comment suggesting the entertainment of some such a concept. Winlock, for example, wrote thus: 58 There are more names of rulers of ancient Egypt for the period from the 13th to the 16th dynasties than there are for all the history of the Nile Valley before this time. This in spite of the fact that the fom: dynasties lasted very little more than two centuries. . . . No great re- THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 153 duction can be made in these innumerable names and the most drastic cutting to eliminate possible duplications still leaves the vast majority of these kings in the period. The only possible explanation of this state of affairs must be that Egypt was split up into innumerable petty kingdoms, aptly described by the Jew Artapanus of the Ist century B.C. who wrote that King Chenephres was ruler of the regions above Memphis, for there were at that time many kings in Egypt. King Chenephres is clearly to be identified as king number 24 of the Turin list of XIIIth Dynasty kings, the Egyptian equi:valent being Ka-nefer-re:;11 Occasion will rise for later reference to this ruler. While Winlock recognized the "state of affairs" in Egypt in the early XIIIth Dynasty, he did not grasp the concept that these many contemporary kings were but the feudal lords of the Xllth Dynasty. A relationship between Dynasties XIII and XII is to be seen in the tendency of the XIIIth Dynasty princes to take names in honor of the crocodile god, Sebek, just as did Sebek-nefru-re, the last ruler of Dynasty XII. It appears then that at the end of the Xllth Dynasty, in the absence of any male heir to the throne, the rule passed into the hands of one of the more powerful princes of the XIIIth Dynasty, and this situation held until the time of the Exodus, at which point·· the Hyksos took over the primary control of Egypt, some of these Xllth Dynasty rulers continuing to retain some degree of authority under the Hyksos. In a later connection, evidence will be introduced to confirm this concept and to define exactly the point in the Xlllth Dynasty where this shift occurred. 59• XII. Joseph as One of the Early Xlllth Dynasty Princes Since Mentuhotep, whom we have identified as Joseph, was a prince of a nome, and since he occupied a most exalted position as vizier at the same time, it would be strange if the name of Joseph did not appear among the names of the Xlllth Dynasty princes as provided by the Turin king list (Table VI). With a degree of expectancy, we then scan this early list carefully in search of a name that could be construed as an Egyptianized form of the name Joseph. Our eye quickly falls on the fifth name in the list which Brugsch transliterates as Aufni 60 but which Breasted gives as Yufni. 61 Breasted comments on this name in the following words: 62 154 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ... The succession may have lasted during four reigns when it was suddenly interrupted, and the list of Turin records as the fifth king ... one Yufni, a name which does not display the royal form showing that at this point the usurper ... had again triumphed. Such an interpretation may be considered logical if these rulers were actually the primary rulers of Egypt. In the light of the present reconstruction, this name is capable of anoth~r interpretation. If these rulers are but princes, then this foriegn name would suggest one who was able to merit the position of a prince in spite of his foreign origin, and we immediately think of the i'ise of the Hebrew Joseph to an even more exalted position than prince. Since this name occurs early in the list, we have a further suggestion that this name belongs to an era contemporary with an early king of the XII th Dynasty. Is there a reasonable basis for presuming that the name Yufni is an Egyptianized form of the Hebrew name Joseph? One might at first glance conclude that there is no more than a mere resemblance. But in view of the position of the name in the list relative to the chronlogical structure to which we have been forced on the basis of provision of proper backgrounds to other details of Scripture, even this resemblance cannot be disregarded without consideration. Those familiar with the rules for transliteration of Egyptian hieroglyphic names into English, recognize that it is possible to even approximate the original pronunciation only when the names have been transliterated into another language by the ancients who were familiar with the pronunciation of these names. 6'l Fortunately, Manetho provides us with such transliterations of many of these names into Greek. Once the sounds represented by the various hieroglyphs are determined from the Greek names, it becomes possible to transfer these sounds to the pronunciation of other names from the hieroglyphs. However in doing so, problems of a degree of uncertainty are encountered at almost every turn, so that one can be sure of these pronunciations even as approximations, only in certain cases. 6~ One notes, for example, that the name Sesostris has been transliterated variously to yield such names as Usertasen, Usertsen, Senwosert, Sesusri, Sesonchis and still others, all based on the same hieroglyphs for the same king. The point to which attention is here called is that, for THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 15.5 some reason as yet not entirely clarified,,;:; the symbol transliterated bv the Greeks in some cases as the sound of "n" is at other ti~es transliterated as the sound of "s." For example, the symbol for the ''s" .sound in Sesostris is given the "n" sound in the alternate name Sesonchis or Senwosert. Weigall gives us a number of other examples of this apparent freedom of interchange of the transliteration of this symbol as either "s" or "n."i;r; Since the name Yufni belongs to the same era as Sesostris, there is a reasonable probability that this name also should be read as Yufsi rather than Yufni; or perhaps one should say that the original pronunciation of this name could just as well have been closer to Yufsi than Yufni. It is further well-illustrated that the Egyptian scribes were not too particular at times about the order in which the hieroglyphs were used in representing proper names. It is on this basis that the hieroglyphs for Sesostris I have been transliterated as Senwosert or as Usertasen. Other examples of such reversals are prevalent. Hence there would be nothing unusual if the symbols transliterated as Yufsi could just as well be transliterated as Yusif, a satisfactory equivalent of Yusef or Joseph. The correctness of the identification of Yufni with Joseph of Scripture becomes even more apparent when the subsequent names in the Turin list are examined. The king numbered 24 in the list has the prenomen Kha-nefer-re. This name has been transliterated into Greek as Kenephres. There is an extant legend that the foster-father of Moses had the name Chenephres. 67 Professor Wiedemann calls attention to the similarity of the prenomen of Sebek-hotep III, Kha-nefer-re, to the name Chenephres, a king whose wife Merrhis, according to a legend, reared Moses, the great lawgiver of Israel. The coincidence of the name Chenephres with Ka-neferre of the Turin list has long since been pointed out. It was impossible, however, to accept this identity, since Chenephres of the Turin list is far out of line with the supposed background of Moses in Egyptian history. Buf if Yufni is Joseph, and if Koncharis is the pharaoh of the Exodus, then Ka-nefer-re is not out of line to be thus identified. The contemporaneity of Dynasty XIII with Dynasty XII is further evidenced by the provision of a solution to anoth- 156 THE EXODUS PROBLEM er unsolved problem. In the royal tomb of Ra-au-ab 67• was found a coffer of canopic jars still sealed with the clay impression reading Ra-en~Maat, a name recognized as an alternate of Amenemhet Ill. Attempts to explain this fact on the basis of a sequence of Dynasty XIII following Dynasty XII led to a difference of opinion noted by Petrie. 68 . . . If the seal be held to prove that Amenemhat III sealed up the funeral objects, we then require to introduce Hor [the personal name of Ra-au-ab] into the Xllth dynasty, and place him as a coregent son of Amenemhat III, who died during his father's reign. The difficult) lies in supposing that such a person should altogether have escaped Rotice in the many monuments of that king which we know. On the other view, this king is the Ra-au-ab named in the Turin papyrus, 13th king of the XIIIth dynasty; but the seal has to be accounted for. In an attempt to explain how the seal of Amenemhet III was used to seal jars that belong to an era a century or more later, Petrie presumed on the possibility that a later king of Dynasty XIII assumed the name of Amenemhet III and that the seal impression is that of this later unknown king. While similar .names were used by two kings in Dynasty XIII, these both are earlier in the list, and not later, than the name Ra-au-ab; hence it was still necessary to assume that this king represented a king totally unknown to the monuments. 69 ... We know so little about that age that it is far easier to grant an unknown king Ra-en-Maat then, than to grant an unknown coregent in the XIIth dynasty.... The difficulty is immediately eliminated when it is recognized that Dynasty XIII represented but a series of selected princes in the feudal system of the XIIth Dynasty era. Even with the abolishment of the feudal system as such under Sesostris III, some of the more favored continued to hold offices of high responsibility in the government that followed. As indicated by the chart of Figure 3, there is. no difficulty at all in assuming that this Ra-au-ab, as 13th in the Turin list, belonged to the era of Amenemhet III. Still further confirmation of the contemporaneity of Dynasty XIII with Dynasty XII is to be seen in the provision ofthe proper background for the story of Moses. THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 157 XIII. The Background of Moses in Egyptian Chronology Granting the previously calculated period between the end of Dynasty XII and the Exodus as approximately 30 years, the birth of Moses falls in the reign of Amenemhet III who is then to be identified as the pharaoh who made the edict calling for the destruction of all the male Hebrew children to be born after that time. 70 The daughter of phara0h, who found the child Moses hidden among the bulrushes, was then the daughter of Amenemhet III. This daughter must have married Chenephres in order for this prince to become the foster-father of Moses as by the extant tradition. Since Chenephres is not one of the XIIth Dynasty kings, it follows that he never attained a rank above a prince, which title he obtained by marriage into the royal · family. It was this daughter who became the woman ruler, Sebek-nefru-re, last of the XIIth Dynasty rulers.7 1 The brief period of her reign suggests that she was quite old at the time. We may presume that if Moses had not of necessity fled Egypt, he would have become the reigning pharaoh on the death of Amenemhet IV, who also had but a brief reign. This possibility will be better envisioned from the chart of Figure 9, which provides in a more detailed manner the chronology of Dynasty XII. After 40 years in Midian, Moses was called to return to Egypt to deliver Israel. At that time, Moses was informed that .. all the men are dead that sought thy life." This would be true, since the Xllth Dynasty had come to its end some 30 years earlier. It must be supposed that Chenephres was dead also, or it would not have been necessary for his wife to have assumed rule in the dynasty. XIV. An Enlarged Concept of Manetho's Dynasties Needed The recognition of the rulers of the XIIIth Dynasty as princes over local nomes, or at least as important officials or sub-rulers in the government worthy of the appelation "kings," provides us with a deeper insight into what Manetho regarded as comprising a dynasty. It was evidently not outside his thinking to give the names of the main line of kings as composing one dynasty and then to return on the 158 THE EXODUS PROBLEM time scale to pick up a line of secondary rulers as a distinct dynasty. Not only so, he did not hesitate to label these secondary rulers as kings. The application of this title to a secondary ruler seems not to have been out of line with the general understanding of the significance of the title at that time. This is indicated by the statement of Artapanus previously noted. ' 2 The term ''king" may then be applied to a secondary ruler within the limitations recognized by Manetho, and a dynasty may not necessarily represent a line of primary rulers at all, but only a contemporary line of sub-rulers who perhaps had a completely satisfactory understanding with the primary pharaoh as to the limitations of authority. It would seem that herein lies a major factor in the acceptance of an erroneous and grossly expanded chronology of Egypt. A recognition of this factor could be expected to elucidate many of the anomalies and inconsistencies to be found in the presently accepted structure. It should be noted as a further example, that the rulers of the XXth Dynasty carried only the title of "prince." The most notable ruler of the dynasty was Rameses III who carried no more pretentious title than "Haq An" (Prince of An or Heliopolis). 73 If the most notable of the line was only a local ruler, then certainly the other insignificant Ramessides of the dynasty were deserving of no greater rank, and as such, this dynasty should not be allotted time on the B. C. scale separate from the primary dynasty under which they must have served. The manner in which such an altered interpretation of this dynasty fits into the altered chronological scheme is provided in a subsequent chapter.' 4 Notes and References (I) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 305 n. (2) Ibid., p. 305. (3) Ibid., p. 158. (4) Ibid. (5) Ibid,, p. 304. (6) Ibid. (7) V-FEA, p. 18. (8) See chap. XII, Sect. XI. (9) Ibid. (IO) See Chap. II. (11) R-FJJ, pp. 66££. (12) Gen. 46:11. (13) Ex. 7:7. (14) WM-CF, p. 478 n. However, recent publications suggest that at least some of the Presbyterian scholars have adopted this alternate concept. (15} R-FJJ, p. 73. (16) Gal. 3:16, 17. (17) Gen. 15:16. (18) Cf. Gen. 12:4; 21:5; 25:26 and 47:9. (19) Gen. 15:13. (20) See ref. 18. (21) Ibid. (22) This must have been about 75 yea!5 after the descent. Cf. Gen. 41:46 and 50:26. (23) J·AJ, Bk. II, Chap. XV, par. 2. (24) See bo<ly of text of ref. 12. (25) Gen. 41:39. (26) B-HE, p. 166. (27) Gen. 41:41-43. (28) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 162; R·HAE, Vol. II, p. 83; cf. Gen. 41:43. (29) B-ARE, Vol. I, pars. 531, 533. (30) Gen. 41:41. (31) Gen. 45:8. (32) Gen. 41:40. (33) Gen. 41:43; 45:26. (34) Breasted regarded this en· terprise as initiated by earlier rulers and completed in the time of Amenemhet Ill (B-HE, p. 193). (35) K-BH, p. 86; W·SHAE, p. 83. (36) W-HP, Vol. II, p. 112. However, in his shorter work, Weigall entertains the probability that Joseph participated in this construction. Since he 4oes no.t recognize the earlier origin of the project, he places Joseph in the reign of Amenem· het III (W-SHAE, p. 83). (37) See quot. ref. 25. (37a) B-N, p. 478. (38) Gen. 47:13£. (39) See marJtinal readin)! of Gen. 47:22. (40) B-HE. p. 166. (41) J·AJ, Bk. II, Chap. IX, oar 1. 142) THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 159 See chart of Fig. 9. (43) Breasted entitles his Chap. IX dealing with this period as The Feudal Age. (43a) See quot. ref. 58. (44) Ex. 1:9-11. (45) B-HE, p. 189. (46) Ibid., pp. 189-200. (47) Ibid., pp. 196, 198. (48) Ex. 1:14. (49) See ref. 41. (50) B-HE, p. 198. (50a) see quot. ref. 17, Chap. lll. (50b) B-HE, pp. 195; 197; 198. Rawlinson (R-HAE, Vol. I, p. 295) quotes Lenormant as writing, ·• ... the works constructed by Amenemhet III were as vast as those of the fourth dynasty and considerably more useful. ... " (50c) see Chap. XIII, Sect. 11. (50d) See quot. ref. 41. (51) B-HE, p. 181. (52) B-ARE, V9l. I, par. 514; see also ref. 51. (53) See B-HE, p. 184 for reference to this campaign. (54) The close relationship between the kings of Dynasty XII and the princes of Dynasty XIII is indicated by this use of the same god Sebek in names and by the transfer of power to Dynasty XIII without incident on the death of Sebeknefrure (B-EUP, p. 198). (54a) See ref. 18. (55) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 147. (.55a) Since Ameni assisted in the preparation for the famine, and since he served under Sesostris I for 25 vears, and since he died in the 43rd year of Sesostris I. (55b) Chap. XIII, Sect. VIII, text of ref. 19. (56) B-EUP, Vol, I, p. 211; see ref. 17, Chap. IX for quotation of these statements. (57) WSHAE, p. 88. (58) W-RFMK, p. 93; see also B-BEC, Vol. XI, p. 81. (59) See Table VJ of Chap. IX. (59a) See ref. 55b. (60) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 214. (61) B-HE, p. 211. (62) Ibid. (63) G-EG, pp. 75, 76. (64) Ibid. (65) W-HP, p. 48 suggests an· explanation for this odd situation but this explanation seems not to have won any general acceptance. (66) Ibid. (67) B-BEC, Vol. XI, p. 100. (67a) P-HE, Vol. I addenda, p. xxxi. (68) Ibid.; see Table VI, and note here also the heedom in reversing the order of the hieroglyphs. (69) Ibid. (70) Ex. 1:15, 16. (71) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 198. See Chap. XIII, Sect. VII for another f>OSsibility that follows from this relationship. (72) See quot. of ref. 58. (73) This point is considered in further detail in Chap. xvm. (74) chap. xvm A Note to the Reader Chapters XI and XII of this volume are designed to accomplish two major objectives in the subsequent development of the altered chronology of Egypt. The first is to demonstrate that the dynasties of Egypt prior to Dynasty XII can be satisfactorily compressed into an abbreviated period to yield a chronology which can be encompassed by Bible chronology from the Dispersion to the Descent of Israel into Egypt. The second objective is to provide the necessary links between the end of Dynasties II and V and the early phase of Dynasty XII as shown in Figure 2. Since these views are in such wide deviation from the currently accepted views, and since current views are here challenged as to their validity, it is deemed imperative that the evidences in support of this altered structure shall be presented in some detail. This has been done in Chapters XI and XII of this volume. The layman may find it rather difficult to follow these evidences, particularly. in certain areas. In order for the layman to obtain a general picture of the developments without a critical reading of these chapters, a brief summary ·is provided, giving references to the more detailed discussion, to permit further involvement in specific areas as desired. It is suggested that one read the introductory paragraphs of Chapter XI as an introduction to the summary and then note the section titles as a basis for subsequent reference. 160 THE EXODUS PROBLEM A Summary of the Materials of Chapters XI and XII It will be recalled, from the reading of previous chapters, that the key to the proposed solution was the recognition that the Ramessides of the Sothis King List (Table IV) were not duplications of the Ramessides of Dynasty XX, misplaced in the list by its author as currently held. Rather, they are to be identified as kings of Dynasty XII, this dynasty providing the proper background to the incidents of the Descent, the Famine of Joseph, and the Oppression. While the Sothis king list has been regarded as of no significant va:lue in chronological studies due to its incompleteness and the use of variant names for many of the kings, the writer finds that when the basis for the selection of the kings whose names appear in the list is understood, it continues to provide data of critical value in the elucidation of the chronology of the early dynasties. The list is interpreted by the author .as having been designed to omit the names of secondary and subsidiary kings and dynasties whose periods fall within the periods of other kings and dynasties. The summation of the reign lengths thus represent true elapsed time, as a close approximation, though the definition of what was included in the reign length differs at times from that used by the author of the Turin king list. The current view which recognizes that Dynasty III followed Dynasty II in sequence is here challenged as insecure and invalid (See Figure 4 for the realignment of these early dynasties, and see Section VIII for the evidences on which the realignment is based). It is thus not to be expected that the names of the kings of Dynasties II and III will appear in the Sothis list. An initial basis for recognizing that the First Intermediate (encompassing the periods of Dynasties VII to X or XI) is the same as the so-called Second Intermediate (encompassing the Hyksos period, Dynasties XIV and XVII as contemporary with the Hyksos period) was provided in Chapter VII, (4). Confirmatory evidence is presented in Chapters XIII, XIV, and XV to substantiate this view. Granting the correctness of this altered concept, it is not to be expected that the .names of kings of any of these parallel dynasties will appear in the Sothis list. THE FAMINE OF JOSEPH 161 The fact that we are led fo solutions of so many problems of chronology, most of which have no relation to Scripture, provides a basis for recognizing the general correctness of this design in composing the Sothis list. It fs the application of this premise that leads .to the internal chronologies of Dynasties I, IV, and Vas shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7. The resulting structures are then confirmed by the appearance of a number of new synchronisms, and the provision of bases for establishing in approximate manner the internal chronologies of Dynasties II and III. Critical to this latter phase of the development is the setting of the date for the usurpation of the rule of Dynasty· IV by U serkaf and his triplet brothers in the 30th year of Menkaure (See Fig. 6), and the appearance of evidence that at the same time, the rule of Dynasty II was .also usurped to provide a synchronism between the 30th year of Menkaure and the beginning of the reign of Nephercheres (See Fig. 8). Reference to Figure 8 shows also that Dynasties II and V ended at approximately the same time. Further confirmation for the structure appears as a synchronism between the reigns of the last king of each dynasty. This takes the form of a severe famine, and the proximity of the date of this famine falls so close to that deduced for the Famine of Joseph, that a basis is provided for linking in an approximate manner the end of these two dynasties with Dynasty XII (See Figure 2). It follows that Dynasties II and V then continued into the period of Dynasty XII to the extent of about one-half century. This unexpected circumstance provides the clue to the establishment of the internal chronology of Dynasty XII, clarifying a number of situations that have been more or less enigmatic as otherwise viewed from the available data. Not the least of the accomplishments resulting from a recognition of this altered structure is the provision of a heavily reduced period for the early Egyptian dynasties, which, together with the 600-year reduction resulting from the redating of the end of Early Bronze, yields a chronology that fits rather exactly .into the structure that results from a straight forward interpretation of the figures and data provided in Scripture (See Chapter XII, Sect. IX, par. 5 and note of reference 15 at the end of the chapter). CHAPTER XI EGYPT IN THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (Part I) In proceeding to set up a revised chronology for the early Egyptian dynasties that may logically be fitted into the structure based on the placement of the Famine of Joseph's time in the early Xllth Dynasty, we take our clues from the numerous anomalies and inconsistencies to be found in the traditional structure as held a few decades ago. The interrelationships between Egypt and the Old Testament characters of the pre-famine era are too few and, for the most part, insufficiently unique to provide a solid basis for synchronizing the two histories. A more rational approach would seem to be that of showing that when these anomalies and inconsistencies are properly considered, we are led to a chronology that is very much in line with that of the Old Testament. Early historians were obliged to disregard these unlikely situations that characterized the structure as then envisioned, and which had been devised to meet the concepts of a high antiquity of civilization in the Nile Valley. Since the available data from this early period are heavily limited, it was possible to disregard these anomalies on the basis that no claims were being made for a rigidly correct chronology. It was assumed that these difficulties would clarify themselves automatically, if and when further data became available, and refuge was taken under the generally held opinion that while the concept of an extreme antiquity of civilization in Egypt was the only tenable one, based on the premises of geological reasoning, the details must continue to be recognized as subject to further revision within this concept. Budge commented more than half a century ago: 1 On early Egyptian chronology opinion was hopelessly divided, the principal reason being that many investigators attempted to confine the whole period of Egyptian dynastic history within the limits assigned to Old Testament history by the impossible system of Archbishop Usher. Those who did this lost sight of the fact that they were not allowing sufficient time for the rise and growth and development of Egyptian civilization, and they wrote as if they thought that the wonderfully advanced state at which the religion, and art, and sculpture, and architecture, and education, and government of ancient THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 163 Egypt had arrived at the beginning of the IVth Dynasty had been reached after the lapse of a few centuries. No system of chronology which may at present be devised can be accurate in the modern acceptation of the term, and none can ever, with truth, pretend to be approximately so, except in respect of isolated periods of time of relatively limited duration. But the system which will have the best chance of survival, and at the same time be the most correct, seems, judging by the evidence before us, to be that which will take into due consideration the .extreme antiquity of civilization of one kind and another in the Valley of the Nile, and which will not be fettered by views based upon opinions of those who would limit the existence of the civilization of Egypt to a period of about 8000 years. [Emphasis ours.] These assumptions of Budge, which became almost universally accepted during the next few decades, have not been confirmed by subsequent developments. The now widely accepted view, which places Mena at a date which fifty years ago was considered impossibly late, is one that is demanded if there is to be any pretense of interpreting the available data in a manner that can be considered defensible. Mena is now variously assigned dates in the e~a 33002850 B.C. These dates are 2000-2500 years later than the dates envisioned by Budge and some others, and 1000-1500 years later than dates proposed by the more conservative group. All of this excess time must be deducted from the period that was assigned to the first eleven of Manetho' s dynasties, since, traditionally, the XIIth Dynasty continues to be regarded as astronomically fixed to the era 2000-1788 B.C. This leaves only about 1300 years for the first eleven dynasties by the more liberal views, but only 850 years by the shorter chronology proposed by Scharff, a view that appears to have a growing acceptance. An unqualified acceptance of the conclusions of Scharff is not here inferred; however, the writer contends that any view that takes into consideration all the information now available must confine the era of the first six dynasties to a period not in excess of 750 years and more probably within a period of seven centuries. The point of digression from popular opinion is in the manner in which these dynasties are to be compressed into such a brief period of time. Summation of data provided by Manetho yields a figure of about 1500 years for the first six dynasties. Previous attempts to reduce this figure have been uniformly in the direction of retaining the concept of a sequence arrangement 164 THE EXODUS PROBLEM of the early dynasties based on a presumed demand by the Palermo Stone inscription, though no detailed suggestion of how this is to be done on such a basis has come to the attention of the writer. I. The Task Here Undertaken The responsibility is here assumed for demonstrationg (1) that the evidence cited in support of the sequence arrangement of Dynasties II and III is not unequivocal and is subject to severe criticism; (2) that there are a number of very significant ·evidences to indicate that the end of Dynasty II was far separated in time from the beginning of Dynasty III, and that Dynasty III was contemporary with late Dynasty I; (3) that there is an alternate and reasonable interpretation of the Palermo Stone inscription that does not demand the presumed sequence supposedly proved by this source; (4) that the resulting alternate chronology provides a far more satisfactory basis for the necessary reduction of the period to be allotted to Dynasties I to. VI than is conceivably possible within the concept of a sequence arrangement; and (5) that the necessity for challenging the validity and correctness of the figures given in the various sources is virtually eliminated. The evidences to be cited in support of the above propositions overlap to such a degree that it is not feasible to consider these in a strictly (1 ), (2), (3), (4), (5) order. The degree to which the above claims are met must be evaluated in terms of the entire picture that results from a recognition of the evidences presented. II. The Source Materials The data on the kings of Dynasties I to III as provided by the principal sources are summarized as Table VII. It should be recognized that the only sources which assign these kings to specific dynasties are the transcribers of Manetho (Africanus and Eusebius). Because of its damaged condition, the Turin list provides very limited information; the Karnak list does not give the kings in order and hence has little or no value for chronological purposes. In addition to the sources ineluded in Table VII, The Palermo Stone inscription and· the list of kings of Thebes by Appolodorus through Syncellus require recognition as sources. THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 165 III. An Altered Evaluation of Source Materials - Current views on early Egyptian chronology rest heavily on deductions from the Palermo Stone inscription. Actuallyf this is one of the more uncertain sources2 and one of the most difficult to interpret in terms of certainty of deductions and should not be given primary consideration as standing against other more readily interpretable sources. On the other hand, popular evaluation has tossed aside the Sothis list and the list of Appolodorus as of no chronological value because of their incompleteness. Most certainly, these sources are incomplete, but all ancient sources are incomplete in one sense or another, and no one of these standing alone provides a basis for establishing a certain chronology of early Egypt. These sources in total have even a limited value only because the nature of the limitations have come to be recognized. When the limitations of the Sothis list and the list of Appolodorus are similarly recognized, these also provide data of vital significance to the clarification of chronological problems of early Egyptian history. Most certainly the list of Appolodorus is incomplete. It is stated to include only the kings from Thebes. This obviously does not mean that these kings necessarily ruled from Thebes, since the early names in the list are clearly those of the 1st Dynasty ruling from Thinis. The first five kings of this list are generally recognized as kings of Dynasty I. Since Dynasty II ruled also from Thinis, it would be expected that the subsequent names are those of Dynasty II. A reasonable identification of the next seven may be made in the light of the subsequent developments. Most certainly, the Sothis list is incomplete, but it is not promiscuously incomplete. It is incomplete in that it does not contain the names of kings whose reigns were included within the periods of reign of other kings, and it omits entire dynasties which ruled contemporaneously with another dynasty. This interpretation can be shown to hold explicitly through Dynasty XII and into the Hyksos era, at which point the available information for continuing on this basis had been lost. Such an interpretation, of course, would have been totally inconceivable to early scholars who believed that the one immovable fact was that Egypt had had 166 THE EXODUS PROBLEM an extremely high antiquity. 3 By the altered chronology here defended, this means that the Sothis list does not include the names of any kings of Dynasties II, III, VI to XI, and XIII, as well as kings within other dynasties whose period of rule was encompassed by that of another king. IV. The Presumed Sequence of Dynasties II and III Challenged The relative positions assigned to the kings whose names are italicized in Table VII are critical to the concept of a presumed sequence of Dynasties II and III. It is the positions assigned to these names in the list that are here challenged. It is contended that Zazay, is not only the same person as Zazati but is also the sam~ person as Beby and that this king belongs to the decadent phase of Dynasty II rather than to the early phase of Dynasty III. On the other hand, Khasekhem, who is believed by some including the writer to be the same person as Khasekhemui, cannot be assigned an unequivocal position in late Dynasty II, and his proposed identification with a king of this dynasty is without adequate. foundation. That the position assigned to Khasekhem depends on the assumed sequence, rather than provides any evidence for the sequence, is clear from the following quotations. 4 Assuming Kha-sekhem' s identity with Manetho' s eighth king, ... . . . The workmanship [of the sculptures of Khasekhemui] is well advanced and the resemblance in style and execution to the sculptured work of the early Third Dynasty is so obvious that its date, at the end of the Second Dynasty, cannot be questioned [sic]. But this deduced position for Khasekhemui can be questioned except as it can be proved that Dynasty III followed Dynasty II in sequence. Otherwise, this king can be logically placed at the beginning of Dynasty III which may be quite remote in time from the end of Dynasty IL Actually, Budge proposed an identification of this Khasekhemui with the first king of Dynasty II, 5 not the last, which position is not far removed from the beginnings of Dynasty III by the proposed reconstruction of the chronology. Petrie also recognized the possible necessity for assigning him a position at the beginning of Dynasty III. 6 '. ... It is even possible that this king [Khasekhem] and the next [Khasekhemui] really belong to the following dynasty, ... THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 167 TABLE VII The Kings of Dynasties I, II, and III Dynasty 1 African us 62 yrs Menes 57 yrs Athothis 31 yrs Ken ken es 23 yrs Uenephes Usabhaidos 20 yrs 26. yrs Mie idos Semempses HI yrs 26 yrs Bieneches Eusebius Sothis List Menes 60 yrs Menes Athothis 27 yrs Kourodes Kenkenes 39 yrs Uenephes 42 yrs Aristarchus 20 yrs Spanios Usaphais Niebais 26 yrs unnamed Sememfuses 18 yrs unnamed Ubient es 26 yrs Monumen ts 35 Aha-Men 6 Zer-Ta Zet-Ath 34 Ua:dji 36 Udimu Merbapa 72 Shemsu Qa-Sen Dynasty II African us Boethos Kaiechos Binothris Tl as Sethenes Chaires Nepherchers Sesochris Cheneres 38 39 47 17 41 17 25 48 30 Aydos Bezau Ka-Kau Baneteren Uaznes Senda Sakkarah Neter-bau Ka-Kau Baneteru Uaznes Send Turin Send Neterka Neferkasekru Hezef ... Monuments Hotep-ahaui Ra-Neb Neteren Perabsen Send Ka-Ra Khasekhem Khasekhemui Dynasty III African us Nekherofes Tosorthros Turis Mesokhris Soufis Tosertasis Akhes Kerferes Sephuris Abydos/Sakharah Turin Zazay Zazati Be by Nebka Zesersa Zeserteta Sezes Neferkara Sneferu Monuments Sa-nekht-Nebka Neter-khet Zeser Huni Sneferu The evidence that this Khasekhemui was the progenitor of Dynasty III is here accepted; the conclusion that this provides any basis for assigning this king a position in late Dynasty II is rejected as an unwarranted assumption. It is this critical point that lacks confirmation and to which a multiplicity of evidences are contradictory and anachronistic. In evaluating the evidence in this conflict of opinion, it must be remembered that Manetho is the only source of in- 168 THE EXODUS PROBLEM , formation we have for placing the individual kings in specific dynasties; yet Manetho does not include this name in any dynasty. If this person (or persons) is to be recognized as an actual king, he must be identified with some king that Manetho gives under a different name. Such evidence the writer proposes to introduce in due time. V. Definition of the Alternate View Here Proposed It is the contention -0f the writer that Dynasties I to IV did not rule· in numerical sequence, and that Dynasties III to V were roughly contemporary with Dynasties I and II, Dynasty III having had its origin as an off-shoot from Dynasty I about one century later than the unification of Egypt under Mena. It is his further contention that Dynasty I represented the major authority in Egypt during the period encompassed by the rise and existence of Dynasty III, but that by the end of Dynasty I, the major authority had shifted to the north, Dynasty II being subserv~ent to the kings of Dynasties IV and V. Evidence will be presented to indicate that Dynasty IV overlapped the period of Dynasty V for a period of over 30 years. The approximate chronology envisioned is represented diagramatically in Figure 4, where the heavier lines represent the major authority, while the lighter lines represent a secondary power. Popular opinion has assumed that once Egypt was united under Mena, the country continued to exist as a united kingdom for the total subsequent period of its existence, except for the perfod of Hyksos domination. By the alternate thesis here defended, this unification lasted hardly more than a century, at which time the Hird Dynasty had its rise under conditions to be noted below. VI. An Initial Basis for the Altered Interpretation An initial basis for this altered view is to be found in the writings of Eusebius. To be sure, Eusebius cannot be regarded as a final authority; nevertheless, he was nearly two millenniums closer to the era in question than are current scholars, and if his statements are provided significant support from other sources, these should not be swept aside with a wave of the hand. Eusebius wrote: 7 Figure 4 The Time Relationships Between the Various Dynasties of the Old Kingdom ...., ::I: J:%j ~ ~ J:%j Dynasty I I. Dynasty II __ _ ~ ~ zJ:%j ~ Dynasty III J:%j ~ 0 l;:j Dynasty IV .......... ~ Dynasty V Heavy lines represent the primary rule in Egypt; the li~hter lines a secondary line of rulers. ....... ~ 170 THE EXODUS PROBLEM But if the number of years is still in excess, it must be supposed that perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the sa.me time; for they say that the rulers were kings of This [Thinis], of Memphis, of Sais of Ethiopia, and of other places at the same time. Admittedly, these statements would be more authoritative if Eusebius had given the source of his information. It is not intended to draw more from these statements than an indication of the belief on the part of some of the ancients in the contemporaneity of certain of the early Egyptian dynasties and that the sites of Thinis and Memphis served as capitals for the reigning kings when such a division of rule prevailed. Dynasties · I and II ruled from Thiriis; Dynasties III and IV ruled from Memphis. Hence, whatever the basis on which his statements rest, they must refer to the period here under consideration. A degree of confirmation of the statements of Eusebius is to be seen in the well-known fact that, while Dynasty II followed Dynasty I at Thinis, the kings of Dynasty II left virtually nothing to indicate that they represented anything more than a subservient line of rulers. So meager is this evidence for the existence of the kings of Dynasty II that the sequence of the so-called Archaeological Ages may be reasonably encompassed by leaving Dynasties II and III out of the picture entirely. VII. Eight Lines of Evidence Pointing to the Contemporaneity of Dynasties I and III A significant amount of evidence is at hand to indicate a contemporaneity of Dynasty III with late Dynasty I. These evidences have not been given the consideration they deserve, because of the pressures rising from the unwarranted interpretaion of the Palermo Stone inscription and from a misinterpretation of the significance of the royal insignia of the Egyptian kings. The evidences to be presented can be more readily followed by continued reference to Table VII. 1. The tomb of Khasekhemui is totally different from those of the kings of Dynasty II, providing a strong suggestion that he does not belong to the era of late Dynasty II as currently placed. 8 His tomb [that of Khasekhemui) differs entirely from all the others [of Dynasty II) THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 171 Yet there is convincing evidence that he was the progenitor of the kingly line of Dynasty III.9 The place of Khasekhemui is suggested by the presence of a seal of Hapenmaat [Nemathap of Emery], who seems to have been the queen-mother of the Hird dynasty; ... . . . Like his predecessor of the early First Dynasty, Kha-sekhemui appears to have adopted the political strategy of marriage with a northern princess, and his queen seems to have been Nemathap who, according to a jar-sealing from Abydos, bore the title "the king-bearing mother." 2. The monuments of Khasekhem reveal a mastery of workmanship un:paralleled in Dynasty II but which compares favorably with the more sophisticated art at the beginning of the pyramid age of Dynasties III and IV. 10 ... the art of these figures [statues of Khasekhem] shows a complete mastery of sculpture, the face being more delicately modelled than al,most any later work. 3. The placement of Khasekhem at the end of Dynasty II is not defensible and is based on the demands of an assumed sequence of Dynasties II and III, an assumption that has not been established. II 4. The ceramics of the early Illrd Dynasty are like those of Dynasty I and reveal characteristics not encountered at any time in Dynasty II. The suggestion is again strong that the long period of Dynasty II did not separate Dynasty III from Dynasty I. The writing of Dynasty III also reveals characteristics of Dynasty I, hardly to be expected if a period of centuries separated the two dynasties. 12 Some scarabs bear the name Nebka [referring to the first king of Dynasty III] and others Ra-nebka, which is the form of the king's name in the Saqqara list. All of these are very simple work, and some have an early form of the Ka sign with loops instead of hands. They are mostly of blue or green pottery like the early amulets of the first dynasty. 5. Manetho records that Uenephes (4th king of Dynasty I) built pyramids near Kochome (near Sakkarah). This is an anachronism with Dynasty I separated from the beginning of the pyramid age by a matter of centuries. It is so clearly an anachronism that the implication of the statement must be rejected in order to retain the sequence arrangement between Dynasties II and III. 13 172 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ... In any case "pyramids" are probably a misunderstanding for . some other.form of building· of this age. The earliest reference ·to a pyramid otherwise is the step pyramid built by Zoser (Zeser or Zesersa of Table VU; Plate . I( se.concl king of py11asty . III). ·With the beginning of Dy- . nasty Ills.e t as showri. in Figure 4, Zoser was a contempo~ rary 9f Manetho's tJ enephes . • The step pyramid · of . Zoser and tb.e pyramid of U enephes are then from the same .gen~ era.I era and were erected in the same general area. 14 . : . It. has often been declared that the. famous. Step Pyramid at S~k~ kara was includ~d among . the buildings whiqh At.a [Uenephes).is s:iid . to have built, but it is now known that this pyramid was built . by Tcheser [Ze~er], a kinf of the -Illrd Dynasty> · · ·' : The ,era is ·that .just preceding the py~amid age. The anach~ ·. ronisni disappears ..: ' · · ., · · .: . . ~ . ·, . . . 6. Confirming the contemporaneity of Zoser with Ueriephes - ~re. the references to severe famine in the reigns both kings. By the altered chroriology, these are references to ~me and . the .same famine ~n.d . provide .a ha.sis .·for. an .,ap~ :· proximate·synchronism' between the two dyriastie.S. 15 · · • · ' ·· of . : . In his reign[Uenephes'] .a gr~at famine siezed Egypt . , ...·.· . · ...• Wh:it.is apparently his [Zoser's] Horus name is given by the now. famm1s Stele.9fthe.Famine, . . . · 7. Brief.annals on the Palermo Ston~ refer to' event·~ the reign ·o f some ·1st l)ynasty . king, whose name w~s e\ri~ dently giv~n on the · no~Iongef extant part of the dama:g.e'q > inscription. On the basis of· records of similar incidents Ort . jar-:sealings from the reign of Udimu (Usaphaidos, successor: to U enephes ), it has beeri logically · concluded that the· an~ nals. of _the re.igrt of this king. 16 . .\ . ib are . . . Numerous .inscribed labels on jaMealings· give records of ~vents some ohvhich.appear to be repeated in·the year list concerning an unknown king on th~ Palermo Stone, and we may perhaps conciude·that these short historical r.ecords ... refer to the reign of Udimu.. The chief events of fourteen years are recorded and from their position on the sfone it w9uld appear ,that they belong to the latter half of the reigri. ' '• ' One of these annals . indicates clearly a divided rule' in . Egypt at that time, with different ; kings ruling conternporaneously. 11 · · · THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 173 174 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ... the "Appearance of the King of Upper Egypt and the Appearance of the King of Lower Egypt. ... " The statement is again an anacrhonism by the concept of a sequence arrangement of the dynasties. By the altered chronology, the anachronism disappears. The evidences for a divided rule in Egypt, beginning, not long after the unification by Mena, are so thoroughly convincing as to lead to a candid admission of the evidence in spite of the retention of the concept of a sequence in the dynastic rule. 18 But it was a dual monarchy and, so soon after the unification, the individuality of the two states of the North and South was more marked than in later times. In fact there appear to have been two separate administrations united only under the throne. While it is entirely possible, and altogether probable, that there was a completely satisfactory understanding between the two administrators, it is only the sequence concept that prevents recognition that the administrators represented kings of two different dynasties. The inscription from the Palermo Stone does not allow that there was but a single king. The background for this redivision of Egypt "so soon after the unification" is also provided by the extant inscriptions. 8. The inscriptions of Khasekhem, now recognized as the progenitor of Dynasty III, record a conflict between the Thinites in southern Egypt and a people of the north, who are identified only as "northern enemies." It has been suggested unconvincingly that these "northern enemies" were the Libyans who were attempting an invasion of the Delta. 19 ... Around the bases of both statues {of Khasekhem] is a row of contorted human figures representing slain enemies and on the front is inscribed "Northern enemies 47,209." ... It has been suggested that the "northern enemies" were the Libyans who had invaded the Delta, but we must not overlook the possibility of internal insurrection in Lower Egypt. As inferred by the above quotation, this identification of the .. northern enemies" .as invading Libyans has not proved altogether acceptable in the light of the associated monumental evidence. These inscriptions picture clearly a religious war between the followers of the god Horus in south- THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 175 ern Egypt and the followers of the god Set in Northern . Egypt.20 ... The impression gained from this admittedly limited evidence is that Kha-sekhem was a ruler of the Thinite family of Upper Egypt who restored unity of the Nile valley after the religious wars between the followers of Horus and Set which had probably divided the country since the reign of Perabsen [sic] . . . . The union, therefore, of the two tribes of Horus and Set worshipers was a special work of this. king [Kliasekhemui]; ... The fact that prevents an unqualified recognition of this war, as a war between the Egyptians of the north and the Egyptians of the south, over the acceptability of the god Set as an equal to the god Horus, is the absence of any evidence, whatever, of such difficulty at the end of Dynasty 11.21 At this age [end of Dynasty II] Egypt was fairly consolidated, and. these [northern enemies] can hardly be of the Nile valley; nor are they likely to be Sinaites, as such are not termed northern; so probably these were a body of Libyans invading the Delta, and thus enemies in the north. From the objections to this interpretation noted above, it is obviously the concept of a sequence between Dynasties II and III that stands as the point of pressure for retention of this less probable interpretation. With the altered chronology, the difficulty disappears. It is not to be expected that this war would be reflected in difficulty between the North and the South at the end of Dynasty II. This war came to a peaceful settlement, which involved the recognition of both Horus and Set as acceptable recipients of Egyptian worship. Peace was attained through the efforts of Kha-sekhem, the alternate name Khasekhemui ha¥iilg been assumed at the time of the attainment of such peace. This is suggested by the meanings of the two names and the subsequent appearance of the insigne of the hawk wearing the crowns of both the North and the South in conjunction with the king's name. 22 The struggle between the followers of Horus and Set had come to an end and his name Khtiekhemui, "The appearnce of the Two Powers" is added to by his fuller name "The two gods in him are at peace." On the numerous jar-sealings, the king's Ka name is always surmounted by the Hawk and the Set animal, a further indication that some form of unity on equal terms had been achieved. 176 THE EXODUS PROBLEM But such a settlement on anything resembling equ.al terms not only suggests, but strongly infers, that at this time there was instituted a secondary seat of government in the north. It is the writer's contention that this was the origin of Manetho's lllrd Dynasty, but the background is not at the end of Dynasty II; it is rather to be identified with the evidences of a dual monarchy appea~ing late in Dynasty I. It is to this time that the Palermo Stone inscription refers. VIII. Dynasty III as an Off-shoot from Dynasty I That Khasekhem belonged to the line of Thinite kings of Upper Egypt (southern Egypt) is clear from his statues, which show him wearing the White Crown of Upper Egypt. But if he were a Thinite king, then why did not Manetho include him in his king list? If the evidence is accepted that Khasekhem was a progenitor of Dynasty III, then the conclusion can hardly be avoided that Dynasty III had its origin in the person of a Thinite king. But this does not neces. sarily prove that he was a king of Dynasty II, as currently held; Dynasty I was also a Thinite dynasty. By the altered chronology, if Khasekhem was a Thinite king at all, he was one of the kings of Dynasty I. It follows that the failure to locate this king chronologically in a satisfactory manner has resulted from his placement in the wrong dynasty. If then, evidence is at hand pointing to the identity of Khasekhem as a king of Dynasty I, the proposed contemporaneity of Dynasty III with Dynasty I is provided further strong support. In the tomb inscriptions of Uadji (Uenephes of Manetho ), there appears repeatedly the name of Sekhem Ka in a context that indicates clearly that he was either the king himself or an important personage in the government. 2'1 ... A certain Sekhem Ka appears to have been an important official at this time and his name appears frequently with that of the king on objects found in the Sakkara monument. The frequency of the name of this Sekhem Ka is such as to leave a strong suspicion that the tomb is his and not that of Uadji. However, the improbability of a nobleman having a tomb far superior to that of the king prevented a recogni- THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 177 tion of Sekhem Ka as being an actual king of Egypt, a conclusion that is otherwise quite obvious. 2aa The great tomb, No. 3504 at Sakkara ... would appear to be his [Uadji's] northern burial, although the frequence of the name of the great official (sic] Sekhem Ka on objects found in it make it a possibility that the tomb is his and not the king's. However, it is almost impossible to -imagine that a nobleman, no matter how great, should have a tomb far superior to that of his master; ... A point 9f major importance must not be overlooked in dealing with these facts. This tomb, containing the names of both Uadji and Sekhem Ka, is located at Sakkarah in northern Egypt; yet U adji (Manetho' s U enephes) was king in southern Egypt, and it may be thus concluded that this Sekhem Ka was also from southern Egypt. The question that be_gs for an answer is: what situation prevailed that led to the construction of a tomb in northern Egypt by a king and his high official who belonged to southern Egypt? This critical question is provided an immediate and logical answer when it is recognized that this Sekhem Ka is a king of Dynasty I at Thinis in southern Egypt and is the same person as Kha-sekhem who was the founder of Dynasty III in the north and the one who initiated and brought to a satisfactory conclµsion the religious war between the peoples of the North and the peoples of the South. The obvious conclusion is that this Sekhem Ka was the · king of the tomb inscription and that Uadji, whose name appears to be secondary, was at that time only the coregent and heir apparent. The only conclusion permissable within this concept is that this Sekhem Ka was the predecessor of Uadji in Dynasty I. This was none other than Manetho's Kenkenes (See Table VII). If we are correct, then Kenkenes, Sekhem Ka, Kha-Sekhem, and Kha-sekhemui were names fot one and the same person, the first being a Greek transcription of the Egyptian name, and the latter having been adopted with the peaceful conclusion of the war. The progenitor of the kingly line of Dynasty III was thus a king of Dynasty I, and Dynasty III was an off-shoot from Dynasty I, having its origin in the peaceful culmination of the religious war. This: interpretation makes sense and explains why a king of southern Egypt has his name appearing so frequently in a tomb of northern Egypt. The tomb at Sakkarah is not that of Uadji; it is that of Sekhem 178 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Ka (Kenkenes) of southern Egypt. The possibility is large that Sekhem Ka was actually buried in this tomb and that his presence in the north was required to the time of his death. Uadji, however, evidently returned to serve as king of Upper Egypt (southern Egypt) when this work of organization was completed. It was thus Kenkenes of Dynasty I who was the progenitor of Dynasty III and who rightfully wore the crown of Upper Egypt. The first king recognized by Manetho as of Dynasty III was Necherophes (See Figure V). As will be apparent as the .discussion proceeds, this situation also explains the difference of opinion on the part of the transcribers ·of Manetho for the length of the reign of Kenkenes. Africanus recognizes his reign tff the beginning of this war, while Eusebius recognizes his reign as continuing to the time of his death eight years later. IX. On the Identification of Sekhem Ka with Kha-Sekhem In identifying Sekhem Ka with Kha-sekhem, Ka of the former name is not being equated with Kha of the latter. The hieroglyphs in the two cases are unmistakably different and undoubtedly were pronounced differently, though it is rather naive to suppose that this difference can be exactly expressed in terms of the 20th century American alphabetical sounds or that the hieroglyphs were vocalized in a wide. ly different manner. The identification of the two names rests in part on the presence of the hieroglyphs for Sekhem in both names, though it is recognized that, standing alone, this is not an adequate basis for establishing an identity. More significant is the fact that the identification leads to a reasonable and consistent picture, clarifying the enigmas that characterize the c:urrent interpretatiop on the basis of a sequence arrangement of the dynasties. Furthermore, it is not difficult to recognize Manetho's name Kenkenes as a Greek transliteration of the name Sekhem Ka or Kha-sekhcm. The frequency of reversal of sounds in such transliterations allows that Kenkenes could have been derived from either of the two names. And if the afore-mentioned interchange of the sounds of "s" and "n"~ 1 is recognized, such a transliteration is altogether reasonable and certainly no less defensible THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 179 than numerous other attempts at reversing the Greek names back to possible Egyptian originals. X. On the Significance of the Insignia of Egyptian Kings It appears that most of the Egyptian kings assumed no less than five names, though in many cases inscriptions illustrating .all five of the names for a given king are not extant. These were (1) the Horus name, (2) the Nebti name, (3) the Golden Horus name, (4) the Suten Bat name, and (5) the son of Ra name. Each of these names was associated with a symbol (or symbols) related directly or indirectly to one of the Egyptian gods or to some religious concept. Thus the Horus name has the symbol of the hawk, representing the god Horus; the Nebti name has the vulture, a symbol of the goddess of the city of Nekhebit; the son of Ra name has the symbol of the sun for the sun god Ra. These symbols were evidently used as a claim of appointment by the gods and that the king was indeed a ''.son of the gods." These symbols were commonly associated with other insignia. Thus the sheaf of the Su ten Bat name is read "King of the South" and the hornet as "King of the North." A similar concept is evident in the Horus name by the fact that the hawk wears the crown which is a composite of the crowns of the kings of the South and of the North. Other insignia may well have had some similar significance. The use of these various names and insignia by most of the kings of Egypt has been taken to mean that the bearer was the sole ruler of Egypt, and that he was the exclusive ruler. over both territories. This interpretation was one factor that led early scholars to regard as fact the sequence arrangement of Manetho' s dynasties without exception, based on the reasoning that two contemporary kings could not both be kings of the North and of the Sputh. While some disconcerting facts have come to light to cast considerable doubt on the correctness of this interpretation, the premise continues to be used as a basis for maintaining the sequence arrangement in the face of an increasing ·array of anomalous data. It is apparent, for example, that Manetho' s Dynasty XXI at Tanis was contemporary with .another line of Kings at 180 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Thebes, both lines using the insignia as kings of the Soutn and of the North. 2° Furthermore, the early concept of a sequence arrangement of the dynasties "without exception" 21i has been dealt a death blow by the now universally recog~ nized contemporaneity of Dynasty XIV with late Dynasty XIII and with the Hyksos dynasties XV and XVI, a situation not at all apparent from Manetho' s list. The credibility of the chronology of early Egypt as developed in this and the succeeding chapter depends on the validity of the premise that these insignia have been misinterpreted when taken to mean that the bearer was sole ruler over the entire territory of Egypt. A significant amount of data has been presented, and more will be presented, to indicate a parallelism of rule by the kings of Dynasty III with those of late Dynasty I, and if this was the actual situation, then Dynasty II was contemporary with Dynasty IV and probably with Dynasty V. This chronology has served to eliminate a number of anachronisms and anomalies and to provide rational solutions to a number of otherwise unsolved 'problems. But if this chronology has any semblance to fact, then these insignia were never intended to mean that the .bearer ruled exclusively over all of Egypt. The misinterpretation of this use of titles lies in a failure to understand that these various names and the associated insignia had their origin in the religious concepts of the Egyptians. Thus there is basis for interpretating them in terms of their religious views. We do not know whether or not the unification of Egypt under Mena also had such a religious origin, but this is not out of the question. In any case, the insignia of the sheaf and the hornet ·were used by Mena and by the subsequent kings of Dynasty I, the other symbolisms having been introduced only at a later time. The insigne of the hawk wearing the crowns of both the north and the south was first used by Zoser, 2nd king of Dynasty III. By the altered chronology, his reign followed shortly the religious war between the North and the South. It is thus reasonable to suppose that the insigne was designed to mean only a recognition by the bearer that the worship of both Set and Horus was acceptable. As the worship of still other gods was introduced, the insigne would simply mean that the king recognized these gods also, or THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 181 that he claimed to hold his position by permission of these various gods. Scholars have now ha.cl more than a full century to devise an interpretation of ancient history based on this concept of a necessary sequence and have failed to arrive at a structure that is free of major anachronisms and anomalies. Is it not time to re-examine the validity of this questionable premise and to seriously entertain solutions to the problems of ancient history that are not bound by it? The writer suggests that this sequence premise be replaced by the premise that Manetho' s dynasties need not be regarded as having ruled in sequence except as unequivocal evidence is at hand to link the end of one dynasty with the beginning of the next. Pertinent here is the fact that the solution proposed in this work does not involve a promiscuous jumbling of dynasties. In each case where a parallelism is required, the evidence of a sequence is lacking or questionable. It is hardly to be regarded as a mere coincidence that the same shift that served as the basis for the proposed chronological revision permits the rejection of sequence at the very points where the evidence for sequence is missing. XI. The Chronology of M anetho' s First Dynasty The chronological data for Dynasty I as given by Africanus, Eusebius, and the Sothis author are provided in Table VII. These data can be fitted into a consistent chronological structure with but a single major correction. Africanus gives Athothis a reign of 57 years; Eusebius gives him but 27 years. Eusebius' figure should be corrected to 57 to agree with Africanus. A minor discrepancy of two years exists between the figures of Africanus and Eusebius for the reign of Mena. Since the Theban list also gives the figure as 62 years in agreement with Africanus, and since Afrkanus appears in other cases to be the more reliable of the two, the figure 62 is taken as the more probable. The remaining apparent discrepancies between the various sources may be explained on the basis of difference in definition of reign length. The manner iri which these data are incorporated into a single consistent chronology is shown diagramatically in Figure 5. The 35 years for the reign of Mena as given by the Sothis author, in contrast to the 62 years by Africanus, is taken as 182 THE EXODUS PROBLEM that patt of Mena' s reign after the unification only, while Africanus is giving his total reign. The two are thus. synchronized at the end of Mena' s reign. Mena was followed by Athothis with a reign of 57 years (the 27 of Eusebius being corrected to 57 as noted above). Africanus recognizes a reign of 31 years for Kenkenes; Eusebius gives him 39. Since Kenkenes moved his sphere of operation and tomb to the north with the religious war, we would place this event at the end of the 31 years, the last 8 years added by Eusebius thus representing this period of war and subsequent reorganization in the north. Eusebius is thus recognizing Kenkenes as ruler in the south during this 8 years, while Africanus credits this 8 years to both Ke:rikenes and Uenephes. Africanus attributes to Uenephes a reign of 23 years, followed by Usaphaidos for 20 years. Eusebius recognizes a reign of 42 years for Uenephes and 20 for Usaphais. The 20 years of Usaphais by Ellsebius is thus the same as the last 20 years of Uenephes. Eusebius is thus giving the total reign of Uenephes, while Africanus is giving him only the period from his appointment as coregent to the appointment of his coregent in turn. The Sothis author gives the three kings following Mena reigns of 63, 34, and 36 years respectively, totalling 133 years. While the figures differ slightly from both Africanus and Eusebius, the sum of the three reigns is virtually the same as for the period covered by the four kings of Africanus and Eusebius (131 years), the slight discrepancy being explainable on the basis of a difference in the handling of fractional years. The Sothis author is thus omitting Usaphais. The omission agrees with and confirms the premise previously proposed 2~ as the basis on which the list was composed, i.e., that the Sothis author is not including the names of. kings whose periods have been otherwise included. The names Aristarchus and Spanios are clearly Greek names and not transliterations of Egyptian names. The explanation for these substitutions is not now apparent. The last three kings of the dynasty and the·lengths of the reigns attributed to them are the same in the transcriptions of Africanus and Eusebius, the total period amounting to 72 years. The Sothis author covers the same period with two ur:i,named kings· in 70 years, the slight discrepancy again being explainable on the basis of a difference in the manner THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 183 of handling fractional years. The third of these three kings evidently had a reign that was entirely included within the periods of the other two. The Sothis list thus provides a chronology that synchronizes with that by Africanus and Eusebius (1) at the end of the reign of Mena, (2) again at the end of the total reign of Uenephes, and (3) at the end of the dynasty. XII. The Chronology of Dyna,sty Ill The chronology of the Hird Dynasty may now be set against the background provided by this interpretation of the chronology of Dynasty I. Sekhem Ka or Kha-sekhem is given a position in line with the reign of Kenkenes. Necherophes begins his reign with the end of the war in the 31st year of the reign of Kenkenes. He reigned 28 years and was followed by Zoser who reigned 29 years. The reign of Zoser (Tosorthros) of Dynasty III was thus contemporary in part with the reign of Uenephes of Dynasty I, thus meeting the synchronism of the famine recorded in both reigns. Africanus lists seven additional kings of Dynasty III. Eusebius recognizes only six and adds a note that these did nothing worthy of mention; he does not provide their names. Since Dynasty III was contemporary with Dynasty l, it is not to be expected that the Sothis list will include any recognition of the kings of this ·dynasty as by the afore mentioned premise on the composition of the list. While the final proof cannot be provided at this point, subsequent developments indicate that Dynasty III came to its end at ·a point not significantly removed from the end of Dynasty I. These six or seven additional kings thus had their periods of reign ~ithin the 56 years, or therabouts, following the reign of Zoser. Of these six or seven kings, the monuments recognize only the last two under the names Huni and Sneferu, who are evidently to be identified as the Sephuris and Kerpheres of Africanus. Interestingly, these two kings are given a c9mbined reign of j~1st 56 years. The other four or five thus ruled entirely within the rei~ns of these last two, and the absence of any monumental evidence of their rei~ns is in agreement with this deduction. Thus, Dynasties I and III evidently came to their end. at approximately the same time, at which point, we m~y believe that, with the reinstitution of order at the end of this dark period in both the ....... Figure S. Comparative Chronologies of Dynasties I and III 30 years I 11\ccording to "fri canus l'\ccording to Eusebius I I Mena 62 I Kenkenes 31 Usaaha I ;,.inc: Ueneohes 20 Miebidos Smemnc:"'" 23 Bieneches 72 Kenkenes 39 Mena 60 I I Athothis 57 I ~ . I I Us aoh a is 20 Ueneohes 42 I Mena 35 Kuorodes 63 Aristarchus 34 Snanios 36 Niebais, Semempses, Ubienthes 72 III Sekhem Ka :>< ~ 0 o::i t"" Two unnamed kings Dynasty tr1 tr1 0 C1 een Athothis 57 (cor.) According to the Sothis List '"".] ::I:: Zoser 29 Necheroph es 28 7 insignificant kings trj ~ THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (I) 185 north and the south, the recognized power in Egypt was represented by the rising power of Dynasty IV, the subsequent rulers in the south representing only contemporary and subservient rulers, who left nothing more than their names to posterity. The elapsed time from the unification under Mena to the end of Dynasty I and the beginning of Dynasty IV was thus approximately 237 years, a figure to become significant in the course of subsequent developments. Notes and References (1) B-BEC, Vol. IX, pp. 3, 4. (2) See Chap. XII, Sect. XII and Plate III. (3) See quot of ref. I. (4) E-AE, pp. 101, 102. (5) B-BEC, Vol. IX, pp. 206-09. (6) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 27. • (7) W-M, p. 9. (8) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 28 see also E-AE, p. 101. (9) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 28; E-AE, p. 103. (10) See ref. 6; see also E-AE, p. 99. (11) See quot. of ref. l; ref. 9. (12) P-HE, p. 30. (13) Ibid., p. 19." (14) B-BEC, Vol. IX, p. 193. (15) W-M, p. 29; B-BEC, Vol. IX, p. 217. (16) E-AE, pp. 73, 74. (17) Ibid. ('18) Ibid., p. 105. (19) Ibid., p. 99. (20) Ibtd., p. 100; cp. p. 98, P-HE, Vol. I, p. 28. (21) P-HE, Vol. l, p. 27. (22) E-AE, p. 101. (23) Ibid., p. 70. (23a) Ibid., p. 71. (24) See Chap. X, Sect. XII. (25) B-BEC, Vol. XXIV, pp. 20ff. (26) P-HE, Vol. I, addenda xxx. (27) See Sect. III. CHAPTER XII EGYPT IN THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (Part II) Granting the contemporaneity of Dynasty III with late Dynasty I as developed in the preceding chapter, it is to be expected that further evidenc~ for the correctness of this thesis will appear in the subsequent period. This evidence should point to a contemporaneity between Dynasty II and Dynasty IV, with a large probability that the parallelism will extend to a continued contemporaneity between late Dynasty H and Dynasty V. The appearance of such evidence will provide further confirmation for the correctness of the concepts developed in the previous chapter. · Such evidence is at hand and comes from a variety of independent directions. It will be shown (1) that the names in the Sothis list following those of Dynasty I are the names of the kings of Dynasty IV, followed by the names of kings of Dynasty V. This circumstance provides support for the previously sta.ted premise that the early Sothis king list does not include the names of kings of parallel dynasties. It will be shown (2) that the period.s of Dynasty IV and Dynasty V must be heavily abbreviated from the figures obtained by summation of Manetho' s figures, and that this necessary abbreviation is provided a far more logical basis by this interpretation than is possible by the sequence arrangement of his dynasties. It will be shown (3) that when the power of Dynasty IV was usurped by the founding king of Dynasty V, the power of the parallel Dynasty II was usurped also, a king of Dynasty V ruling in the line of Dynasty II for a period ·of about 25 years, thus providing a synchronism between the two dynasties. It will be shown (4) that a unique incident occurred near the end of Dynasties II and V to provide· an approximate synchronism for the ends of these two dynasties. (5) In due time, the uncertainties relative to the Palermo Stone inscription will be reviewed, which make unwarranted the deduction that the early Egyptian dynasties ruled in sequence, as currently held. For purposes of reference, Manetho' s names of the kings of Dynasties IV and V, together with the proposed identities of these names with those given on the monuments and THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 187 the Sothis list and data on the lengths of the reigns, are provided in Table VIII. The kings of the Theban king list and the proposed identifications of these names with names provided by Manetho and the monuments are provided as Table X. I. Evidences Demanding a Drastic Reduction in the Time Period of Dynasty IV Ra-skhem.-kha 1 left an inscription in his tomb giving the names of the kings with whom he professes to have been attached. The kings were Khafra, Menkaure, and Shepseskaf of the IVth Dynasty, and Userkaf and Sahura of the Vth Dynasty (Table VIII, Column II). Excluding the kings at the extremes of the list .of Ra-skhem-kha, the interval amount.s to 154 years by the figures of Manetho for the same sequence of kings. If we allow 20 additional years for Ra-skhem-kha to arrive at sufficient maturity for service and even a brief period of service under the first and last kings under whom he served, this person would have of necessity attained an age of about 180 years. The more obvious solution to this anomaly is in the recognition that these kings did not reign in sequence by Manetho' s figures, and that their reigns must have overlapped considerably. Yet after reduction of the period as far as has seemed at all possible within the limits of current chronological views, scholars are still left with too long an interval for the lifespan of Ra-skhem-kha. Mertitefs 2 was the queen of Sneferu (last king of Dynasty III; Table VII), who lived to be a favorite of Khufu and of Khafra (2nd and 3rd kings of Dynasty IV). The summation of the two intervening reigns by Manetho' s figures is 92 years. Even if we allow that Saris (Ist king of Manetho' s Dynasty IV; Table VIII, Column I) was in reality the progenitor of the dynasty, and that his period belongs to the decadent phase. of Dynasty III, Mertitefs must have lived at least from birth to maturity under the reign of Sneferu, throughout the reign of Khufu, and into the reign of Khafra. If these kings reignea in sequence, by Manetho' s figures, Mertitefs was more than 110 years old when Khufu died. This may not have been impossible, though it is highly improbable that a woman llO years old would be a favorite of the young king Khafra. The more probable expla- 188 THE EXODUS PROBLEM nation is that the reign of Khafra overlapped the long reign of Khufu by many years, this overlapping of reigns representing one factor in the necessary reduction of the period to be allotted to the dynasty. A further gross chronological anomaly rises from the content of the Westcar Papyrus inscription. In this document, one meets what has been called "The Tales of the Magician." The story is regarded as impossible from the standpoint of the chronology. However, the tale is completely reasonable chronologically when the necessary condensation of the elapsed time of the dynasty is recognized. Petrie recounts for us the gist of the tale:'3 ... Hordadef, the son of Khufu, is represented as introducing an ancient magician named Dedi, who tells Khufu that the eldest of the three children, yet to be born, shall deliver to him certain documents he desires. Then the birth of the children is described, and the goddesses name them by punning names, - User-ref, Sah-ra, and Kakau, imitating the names of the first three kings of the Vth Dynasty. The goddesses also declare of each that it is a king who shall reign over all the land. They then make crowns, and leave them in the house; and a sound of royal festivity emanates from the royal emblems. A maid-servant out of jealousy starts to tell king Khufu of these new claimants, and the tale is here broken off. The confusion of dates in supposing Kaka to be born in the reign of Khufu is obvious, but yet there is no reason to discredit the basis of the tale. The essential points of importance are that these three kings of the Vth dynasty are supplanters, of whom Dedi prophesies to Khufu, "Thy son shall reign, and thy son's son, and then one of them"; that these supplanters are born of the .wife of a priest of Ra; who conceives these triplets by Ra; and that the god has promised the mother that they shall reign, and that the eldest . of them shall be high priest in Heliopolis. It is to be noted that Petrie does not attempt to evade as historical the incident of the usurpation of the throne of Dynasty IV by the first kings of Dynasty V, and on this point he is followed by scholars generally. It is the chronology of the portrayal that is questioned and not the incident of the usurpation. Chrobologically, the impossible part of the tale lies in the incredibly long period of time that must be allowed between Khufu and the first king of Dynasty V if the dynasties and their kings are regarded as having reigned in sequence by Manetho' s figures. By such a chronology, it is quite inconceivable that triplets born under Khufu grew to maturity to present to him certain documents and then continued to live and become successive THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (U) 189 kings of the Vth Dynasty. An age of more than 200 years would be required for this to be factual. If this tale stood alone in suggesting such an impossible situation, it might be disregarded without further comment on the basis that after all, it was only a "tale." Accompanied as it is by the chronological anomaly in the inscription of Ra-skhem-kha, the problem is not so readily disposed of. TABLE VIII The Kings of the IVth Dynasty Author's Identification Manet ho Soris Sufis I Sufis II Menkheres Rhatoises Bikheris Seberkheres Tham ft his Monuments 29y. 63 66 63 25 22 7 9 Shaaru Khufu Khafra Menkaura Radedf Shepseskaf Aimhetep Sakkarah and Abydos King Lists Khufu Khafra Menkaura Radedf Shepseskaf <if Names in the Sothis List Osirophis 25y. Sesonchosis 49 Amenemes 29 Amas is 2 Akesephthres 13 Anchoreus · 9 Arimyses 4 Kings of the Vth Dynasty Userkheres Sefres Neferkheres Siseres Kheres Rhathures Menkheres Tankheres Onnos Userkaf Sahura 20 Neferkara (Kakaa) 7 Shepseskara (Suhtes) 20 Neferfra (Akauhor) 44• Raenuser (An) g• 44• Dedkara (Assa) 33 Unas 28 l.'3 Userkaf Sahura Neferakara Chamois Miamus 12 14 Amesesis 65 Uses 50 Shepseskara Neferfra Raenuser Menkauhor Dadkara Unas "Th<' Turin Papyrus is readable at this point and gives reigns of 8. 28, and 30 years respectively. . II. Application of the Adopted Premise for the Interpretation of the Sothis List to the Chronology of Dynasty IV There is a general agreement among scholars that Sneferu of Dynasty III was followed by Khufu of Dyna~ty IV. 190 THE EXODUS PROBLEM This follows from the absence of any mention of another king between these two in the inscription relating to Queen Mertitefs. We may assume that Soris of Manetho (Shaaru of the monuments; Table VIII, Columns I, II) belongs to the decadent phase of Dynasty III, and should not be allotted time apart from that credited to Dynasty III. Granting the correctness of the premise stated in the previous chapter for the interpretation of the Sothis king list,' it follows that the first king in this list, after the two unnamed kings at the end of Dynasty I, should be identified with Khufu. The Sothis author knew this king by the name Osirophis. Final proof of this identification and of the identifications of the subsequent names in the list with the kings of the monuments must be deferred until a discussion of the chronology and composition of Dynasty V has been introduced. 3 Tentatively the subsequent names in order are identified with the kings of Dynasty IV as shown in Table VIII, Column I. The discrepancies in the reign lengths between Manetho and the Sothis author are interpreted in the same manner as was done for the kings of Dynasty I. A problem rises in the identification of Shepseskaf of the monuments with a ·king in Manetho' s list. Reference to Table VIII reveals an extra king at this point in Manetho' s list for whom no monumental support has been found. The unanswered question is whether Shepsesk~f of the monuments- is the same person as Manetho' s Bikheris or whether he is the same person as Seberkheres. Both identities have been suggested with no final proof for either. The altered chronology, which recognizes a parallelism behveen Dynasties IV and II, provides a most reasonable solution to this problem. The position taken here is that Shepseskaf of the monuments and of the Abydos list is the same person as Seberkheres of Manetho, and that Bikheris of Manetho has a different identity, which will become apparent as the discussion proceeds. When thus interpreted, the kings of Dynasty IV may be equated, as shown in Table VIII. Application of the,.premise adopted for the interpretation of the Sothis list then yields the chronology as shown in Figure 6. The variant names for each krug are given in the order of (1) the Sothis name, (2) Manetho's name, and (.'3) the name as it appears on the monuments. The full lines on the chart of Figure 6 represent the reign lengths given .in THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 191 the Sothis list; the added broken lines indicate the additiQnal years included by Manetho to make up the total reign. The monuments do not provide reign lengths. By this chronology, the total period of Dynasty IV was encompassed by the sole reigns of Khufu and Khafra,. and the total reign of Menkaure; the remaining kings had reigns that fell entirely within the reign of Menkaure. The total for the dynastic period was thus 135 years, excluding Soris (Shaaru) who may have been a progenitor of the dynasty but who belongs to the era of the decadent phase of Dynasty III. Examination of the chart of Figure 6 reveals, however, that even this drastic reduction .in the period of the dynasty does not provide a satsifactory solution to the problems that rise from the inscriptions of Ra-skhem-kha and the Westcar Papyrus. If it is allowed that Userkaf had grown to any degree of maturity prior to the death of Khufu, in order to meet the specification that he delivered to the king certain documents, he would have been about 85 years old at the end of the reign of Menkaure, even by the abbreviated chronology. Since Userkaf reigned 28 years in Dynasty V (Manetho), his age would have been about 113 at death. If his triplet usurper brothers ruled in sequence after him, the solution becomes more and more improbable. Yet the inscription of Ra-skhem-kha prevents any total disregard of the anomaly. III. A Proposed Solution to the Enigma There is no single inscription extant to provide a com"." plete solution to this enigma or to prove the correctness of the solution to be proposed. There are, however, a series of evidences at our disposal that, when interpreted in line with the afore stated premises, lead us to a consistent and relatively complete solution to the chronological problems· under consideration. Evidence will be presented supporting the following solution. (1) The usurpation of Dynasty IV by Userkaf did not occur at the end of the 63-year reign of Menkaure, but rather in his 30th year at the accession of Rhatoises (Figure 6). (2) Evidence will be presented to indicate that this Rhatoises was none other. than Userkaf the usurper. (3) At the time of this usurpation, Userkaf was not king of an .established dynasty; but was only a citizen of the Memphis area. (4) With the usurpation, Userkaf permitted 192 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Menkaure to continue to rule as a figurehead throughout the subsequent years of reign attributed to him by Manetho, thus Menkaure continued to maintain some degree of rule for nearly a decade beyond the death of Userkaf. (5) Userkaf ruled at Memphis over the territory of Dynasty IV for two years only, during which time he set up an independent dynasty (V) at Elephantine, where he ruled for the last 26 of his 28-year reign. (6) The reigns of the usurper triplets were not in succession; rather, they all began their reigns at approximately the same time, each ruling over a different territory. Sahura (second of the triplets) assumed control at Memphis when Userkaf moved to Elephantine; Nephercheres (Kakaa) usurped the power of Dynasty II at about this same time. (7) Sahura ruled at Memphis for 13 years, then he also moved to Elephantine to become coregent to Userkaf, occupying this position for another 13 or 14 years. (8) Bikheris of Manetho in Dynasty IV is then the same person as Sahura. (9) When Sahura moved to Elephantine, his position was taken over by Shepseskaf, who is the same person as Manetho' s Seberkheres and who represented an ephemoral restitution of the line of Menkaure. (IO) Manetho is giving the total periods of control in both dynasties, while the Sothis author has divided the periods of i:ule between the two dynasties on the afore-mentioned premise that he does not credit the same period of rule to more than a single king. The evidences supporting the critical assumptions of the proposed solution will now be presented. The bases for others of the assumptions follow rather automatically from these. IV. The Usurpation of Dynasty II by Nepherkheres (Kakaa), one of the Triplets From a geographic standpoint, it would be difficult to 3:Void the conclusion that such a usurpation occurred, even in the absence of confirming evidence, since it follows automatically with the recognition of the parallelism between Dynasties II and IV. Dynasty IV ruled from Memphis in the north; Dynasty V ruled from Elephantine about 150 miles still farther south than Thinis, the capital of Dynasty II. It would be difficult to conceive of Elephantine kings c~ntrolling the territory of Memphis in the north without also .CRntrolling the territory of Dynasty II, lying between THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 193 Figure 6 The Chronology of Dynasty IV t 25 years .__ '-----1 =--- -_-_ _ _ J Osirophis 23; Khufu 63; Sufis I -----------f- - -} Amenemes 29; Menkheres 63; Menkaure Sesonchosis 49; Khafra 66; Sufi s II ------. -- - - - - .. ---------1- - - - - - ~ Amasis 2; Rhatoises 25; Radedf; Userkaf Akesephthres 13; Bikheris. 22; Sahura, Sefres, Byeres - .,... - - -- - - ------·--- Anchoreus 9; Seberkheres 7; Shepseskaf ArimYses 4; Thamfthis 9; Aimhetep -- .... - - -- ~----------------1 Life-span of Userkaf c. 85 yrs. _ _!.. i_fe-span of Ra-skhem-kha c. 65 194 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Memphis and Elephantine. That such a usurpation did occur is confirmed by the appearance of the name Nepherkheres in the list of kings of Dynasty II. i; According to the developing chronology, the position of this king in the list falls in line with the incident of the usurpation of Dynasty IV by Userkaf. This position will become more apparent with the subsequent discussion of the chronology of Dynasty II. V. Dating the Usurpation in the 30th Year of M enkaure Evidence is also at hand to indicate that some untoward incident occurred during the reign of Menkaure which prompted him to abandon his uncompleted burial pyramid and to construct a second pyramid. 7 This incident must have been early enough in his reign to permit completion of this second structure. It will be recalled that a similar situation occurred in the reign of Kenkenes of Dynasty I.~ In that case, tlie explanation was apparent. Kenkenes became engaged in the religious war with the north, requiring his attention there during the late portion of his reign. The logical inference is that it was the usurpation of his throne by Userkaf that prompted Menkaure to make a similar move. This assumption is confirmed (1) by the solution provided to the enigma of the Westcar Papyrus inscription, (2) by the fact that the adopted premises for the interpretation of the Sothis list continue to hold for the resulting chronology, and (3) by the evidence to be presented indicating that Rhatoises of Manetho' s IV th Dynasty is the same person as Userkaf. The most probable point in the reign of Menkaure for the placement of this· incident of the usurpation is after the 29 years of Menkaure (Amenemes of the Sothis author), since he is limiting the period of reign for the individual kings to that part not credited otherwise. This placement reduces by another 33-34 years the length of the period from Khufu to the beginning of the reign of Userkaf, thus providing a chronology well within the area of possibility in terms of the specifications· of the Westcar Papyrus inscription. Even if we allow that Userkaf was 20 years old at the death of Khufu, his age at the usurpation would have been less than 60, and with 28 years of subsequent rule, his age THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 195 at death would have been less than 90, a figure quite within reason (See bottom of Figure 6). VI. On the Identification of Manetho's Rhatoises with Vserkaf and of Bikheris with Sahura The chronological structure thus far developed virtually demands that we recognize Manetho' s Rhatoises, who follows Menkaure in his list, as the same person as Userkaf. While there is not the faintest resemblance between the names, this is no evidence per se against the proposed identification, since Egyptian kings commonly had a variety of names. The basis for· the identification is to be found. in the Theban king list. As previously noted, the first five of the kings in this list are clearly to be identified with kings of Dynasty I. 9 Since Dynasty I ruled from Thinis, not from Thebes, the list title suggests that kings of southern Egypt compose the list. It is to be expected that kings numbered 6 and onward will then be kings of Dynasty II, also ruling from Thinis. 10 The correctness of this assumption will be more apparent with the subsequent discussion of the chronology of Dynasty II. 11 At this point, it will only be noted that kings numbered 6 to 12 in this list are here identified as the kings of Dynasty II, and that Chnubos or Gneuros, the 12th in the list, is to be identified with Cheneres, the last king of Manetho' s Dynasty II, based upon the similarity of the names. Since Dynasties III and IV ruled from northern Egypt, it is not to be expected that the names of these kings will appear in the list. But Elephantine is in southern Egypt, and we may expect that the names following the name Chnubos will pick up the list with the kings of Dynasty V. The 13th king has the name Rayosis who then should be identified with Userkaf. Biyres, the 14th name, is then that of Sahura. But these names are quite obViously but different renderings of the names Rhatoises and Bikheris, the two names following Menkaure in Manetho' s Dynasty IV and occupying the positions demanded by the developing chronology . for the usurper kings, Userkaf and Sahura. 12 If this evidence falls short of absolute proof for the correctness of the developing structure, still further confirmation may be seen in the subsequent names in the Sothis list for Dynasty V. The names in the Sothis list being identified with those of Man- 196 THE EXODUS PROBLEM etho as indicated in Table VIII, the next two names (Chamois and Mia~us) should then be alternate names for Userkaf and Sahura also. But Manetho' s name for Sahura in Dynasty V is rendered Sefres, while the Sothis name coinciding in position with Bikheris, the alternate name of Sahura, is given as Akesephthres, the resemblance being too close to explain by mere coincidence. VII. Filling in the Details Referring to Table VIII and the chart of Figure 6, the figures may now be consistently interpreted to mean that the 28 years attributed to Userkheres (Userkaf) by Manetho as king of Dynasty V represent his total period of rule and is composed of: 2 years at Memphis under the name Amasis 12 years of sole rule at Elephantine under the name Chamois 14 additional years at Elephantine with Miamus (Sahura) as coregent The same 28 years at Memphis is then composed thus: 2 years of usurped rule by U serkaf as Amas is 13 years rule by Akesephthres (Sahura) 9 years of rule by Anchoreus (Shepseskaf) 4 years of rule by Ariymses (Thamfthis). The last 26 of this 28 years at Memphis was then thus composed: 12 years of sole rule by Chaomis (Userkaf) 14 additional years of rule with Sahura as his coregent, both evidently dying at about the same time. VIII. The Inscription of Ra-skhem-kha Related to the Altered Chronology Against the background of the proposed solution, the problem of the lifespan of Ra-skhem-kha finds a ready solution. Ra-skhem-kha professes to have been attached to the kings from Khafra to Sahura inclusive. If the length of the period was the only consideration, this could have been reasonably encompassed by as short a period as 35 years, as can be calculated from Figure 6. The larger problem, however, is related to the order in which the names of these kings are given in this inscription, i.e., Khafra, Menkaure, Shepseskaf, Userkaf, and Sahura. By the chronology of Fig- THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 197 ure 6, and from the king list of Manetho, the reigns of two additional kings separate Menkaure from Shepseskaf (Sebercheres), resulting in the order: Khafra, Menkaure, Userkaf, Sahura, and Shepseskaf. The inscription of Ptah-shepses, 1'1 son-in-law of Shepseskaf, on the other hand, suggests the same order as that in the inscription of Ra-skhem-kha. The latter inscription, standing alone, might be explained readily on the basis that Shepseskaf was in no sense a king at the time of his participation in tutoring of his son-in-law. Or it is entirely possible that Ra-skhem-kha and Menkaure recognized Shepseskaf as his coregent at this earlier time but that Manetho did not. It is not improbable that there could have been a difference of opinion as to whether the coregent to a figure-head king merited recognition as a king. Manetho may have regarded Shepseskaf as meriting such recognition only after Sahura had left the area and moved to Elphantine. The order of the kings would thus depend on an individual opinion as to when Shepseskaf took on a ruling capacity. Was it prior to the usurpation, at the usurpation, or only after Sahura moved to Elephantine? · IX. The Chronology of Dynasty V Further confirmation of the general correctness of the proposed solution to the problems of Dynasty IV may now be recognized by the continued application of the stated premise relative to the interpretation of the Sothis list. iSa Proposed identifications of Chamois and Miamus of the Sothis list with Userkaf and Sahura of the monuments and with Userkheres and Sefres of Manetho (Table VIII) have been previously introduced. 13b The 12 years credited to Chamois (Userkheres) by the Sothis author then represents the sole reign of this king at Elephantine and does not include the 2 years credited to him in Dynasty IV under the name Amasis, nor does it include the 14 years credited to Miamus (Sahura, Sefres) as his coregent during this time (Fig. 7). The subsequent kings in the Sothis list should then be .identified with subsequent kings of Manetho's Dynasty V. The next two names in the Sothis list are those of Amesesis, credited with 65 years of reign, and Uses, credited with 50 years (Table IX). Uses is obviously to be identified with 198 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Onnos of Manetho and with Unas of the monuments, this being another example of the frequently observed interchange of the sounds of "s" and "n" in transliteration. 1• Since U nas was the last king of Dynasty V, it follows that the period of Dynasty V after the death of Chamois and Miamus was encompassed by the reigns of Uses and Amesesis and amounts to 115 years. The other names in Manetho' s list of Vth Dynasty kings must then find their places satisfactorily within the periods of the reigns of the four kings given in the Sothis list (see Table VIII). Amesesis precedes Unas, and, by his long reign, must be either Tancheres or Rathures of Manetho (Table VIII). The latter identificatiop is here regarded as preferable. Since Rathures is credited with only 44 years by Manetho, and since he is preceded by Cheres with 20 years, we may assume that the Sothis list credits Rathures with all of the years of the reign of Cheres to make up the total. to 65. Hence, the reign of Cheres dQe.s not enter into a chronology based on elapsed time. Nephercheres of Manetho is recognized as the alternate name of the third of the usurper triplets of the Westcar papyrus inscription, 1 ~· ?-nd since his name appears at the proper point in the chronology of Dynasty II (Fig. 8), it is not to be expected that the name would be included in the Sothis list which omits the names of the kings of Dynasty II. Since the usurpation of Dynasty II by Nephercheres probably coincided with the usurpation of Dynasty V by Userkheres, and since this occurred in the 30th year of Menkaure, 14b it follows that the 20 or 25 years credited to Nephercheres was contemporary with· the reigns of the other two of the triplet brothers. Since Menkaure of Dynasty IV continued to live for 33 years after the usurpation, he outlived all three of the triplets by about 9 years. The name Menkheres occurs again in Manetho's Dynasty V (Table VIII) and is credited with 9 years. Menkheres of Dynasty V is then the same person as Menkheres of Dynasty IV, and hence these 9 years are also accounted for otherwise. Siseres of Manetho' s Dynasty V reigned 7 years. Since his name is between those of Cher~s and Nephercheres, he belongs in this same period following t.he usurpation, and may be tentatively identified with Se- THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 199 bercheres (Shepseskaf) of Manetho, who is also credited with 7 years of reign. The only name remaining to be accounted for is that of Tancheres. This king is known from the monuments as Dadkara who has the alternate name of Assa. He is also known to· have been a contemporary of Unas. t4c While it is not possible to define the beginning and ending of his reign, hi~ period was certainly contemporary with those of U nas and Amesesis and should not be assigned time separate from that of other kings. The total dynastic period to the end of Dynasty V may then be calculated as having been 479± X years where X represents any minor discrepancy from the difference in time between the end of Dynasty I and the beginning of Dynasty IV. 13 X. The Chronology of Dynasty II The line of kings of the Ilnd Dynasty should now find a satisfactory place in the interval approximated by the periods of Dynasties IV and V as previously developed. Unfortunately, we do not have the advantage of the Sothis list for comparison, since it is not including kings or dynasties whose periods are encompassed by the periods of other kings or dynasties. The name~ in the list of Manetho for Dynasty II are not as securely identifiable as for Dynasties IV and V. While the figures for the reign lengths may well have had some. basis in fact, the manner in which these were computed remains· more obscure. It is nevertheless possible to attain a semblance of agreement with Manetho with a still further confirmation of the general structm:e developed for Dynasties IV and V. Of significant value to this end is the Theban king list. The names of the first 14 kings in the Theban list are given in Table X including suggested identifications with Manetho' s kings. The first 5 are recognized by scholars generally as the kings of Dynasty I with some omissions. 16 Since the capital of Dynasty II continued to be at Thinis, it is to be expected that the kings following those of Dynasty I in this list will be those of Dynasty II. By similarity of names, Stoichos (No. 7) in the list is the same king as Manetho' s Kaiechos (Choos, Cechous ), and if so, then Moncheiri (No. 6) is Boethos, first king of Dynasty II. Chnubos (Gneuros, No. 12) is then to be identified as Cheneres, last 200 THE EXODUS PROBLEM TABLE IX The Sothis List Compared with Manetho for Dynasty V Kings of the Sothis List Chamois 12 yrs. Miamus 14 yrs. Amesesis 65 yrs. Uses 50 yrs. Manetho' s Kings Through Africanus Usercheres Sephres Nephercheres Siseres Cheres Rathures Mencheres Tancheres Onnus 28 }'TS. 13 yrs. 20 yrs. 7 yrs. 20 yrs. 44 yrs. 9 yrs. 44 yrs. 33 yrs. king of the dynasty, also on the basis of similarity of names. The kings between Stoichos and Chnubos should then be identified with the remaining kings of Manetho' s llnd Dynasty kings as best can be done: The identifications of the kings of Dynasties IV and V will be of great assistance to this end. · It is not to be expected that Nephercheres of Manetho' s list will appear in the Theban list, since he is a usurper of Memphite origin. Comparision of the two lists indicates that Manetho still has an extra king which is not included in the Theban list. This would be the Chaires whom Nephercheres appointed as his coregent in Dynasty II and who was thus also not of Theban origin. Tentatively, we identify Gesormies with Binothris of Manetho, Mares with Tlas and Anoyphis with Sethenes. Sirius is then the same king as Sesochris and, as noted previously, Chnubos is the same as Cheneres. As also noted previously, 17 the next two names are Rayosis and Biyres whom we have identified as the coregents of Usercheres in Dynasty IV following the usurpation, Rathothis and Bikheris by name. These then evidently had an origin in southern Egypt, since their names are Rayosis and Biyres whom we have identified as the coregents of Usercheres in Dynasty IV following the usurpation, Rathothis and Bikheris by name. These then evidently had an ~origin in southern Egypt, since their names appear in the Theban list. /\. suggested chronology of .the dynasty based on these id,entifications is provided in Figure 8. It is to be noted that Figure 7. The Chronology of Dynasty V I 30 vears . l T I l • IT1 115 years ~ ::s c.. ~ _., 0 ~ ::s Chamoi ; . (Rhatc ises-Userkaf, Usercheres) Nephercheres (c ~ both Dynasties II and V) Amesesis (Rathures plus Chaires) __ ._...._._ Mencheres D-IV, V -------- < ~ ~ a: ztr1 ~ -ti 26 years ) Ill ( Q" overlap with D.-IV tr1 I 0 0 0 Ill ~ < tr1 Uses-Onnus-Unas 0.. ~ ( ""C ""C IT1 ::s 0 tr1 SlJ Ill Miamus I Byeres-Sahura-Sefres-Akesephthres) ~ = - ,.-... 106 years --- --- Tancheres-Assa ) --- --- l:-0 0 ...... 202 THE EX.ODDS PROBLEM the accuracy of the details in this chronology are not· critical to the calculation of elapsed time for the early Egyptian dynasties, since this period is determined from the chro- . rtologies of Dynasties I, IV, and V. However, a degree of confirmation of the general structure is provided by the identity of elapsed time from the beginning of Dynasty II to the point of usurpation, as marked by the beginning of Dynasty IV to the same point in Dynasty IV. The calculations yield 100 and 101 years repectively. This in turn provides evidence that Dynasty I ended essentially at the same time as the end of Dynasty III and the beginning of Dynasty IV. The reasoning leading to this suggested chronology is as follows: Manetho gives Boethus a reign of 38 years; the Theban list gives him 79. This may be an error for 39, since a reign of 79 years would be very unlikely. However, if there were some factual basis for this longer reign, these extra years could be considered as belonging to the previous period of deterioration in Dynasty I. Dynasty II is thus given a beginning with the first of the 38 years credited to Boethos by Manetho. Manetho gives Kaiechos 39 years; the Theban list gives Stoichos only si~. This six years is taken as the sole reign of Stoichos, the other 33 years having been as coregent to Boethos. Manetho gives Binothris 47 years of reign; the Theban list gives Gosormes 30 years. It is assumed that at the end of. 30 years; Binothris took on Tlas as coregent who served in this capacity 17 years, at the end of this time he became first ruler with Sethenes as his coregent. The 26 years credited to Mares (as the alternate name for Tlas) thus ends at the point of the usurpation. The period from the end of Dyna~ty I to the usurpation of Dynasty II was thus 100 years. Nephercheres, the usurper evidently permitted Sethenes to rule as figurehead. His total reign of 41 years, credited to him by Manetho, thus extended past the death of Nephercheres. On the death of Nephercheres Sesochris ruled for 48 years, followed by Cheneres with 30 years (or .22 years as given by the The ban list where the name. is given as Gneuros or Chnubos ). While Manetlio ends his IInd Dy~asty with Cheneres, the Abydos list has 1 an additional king Zazay. 19 The Turin list renders the name THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 203 TABLEX Kings of the Early Theban List with Suggested Identifications Theban King List Menes Athothes Athothes II 62 years 59 years 32 years Miabaes Pemphos 19 years 18 years Moncheiri Stoichos Gosormies Mares Anoyphis 79 years 6 years 30 years 26 years 20 years Sirius Chnubos (Gneuros) 18 years 22 years Rayos is Biyres 13 years 10 years Manetho' s King List Dynasty I Mena 60 or 62 years Athothis 57 years Kenkenes 31 years Uenephes 23 years 20 years Usabhaidos Mie idos 26years Semempses 18 years Bieneches 26 years Dynasty II Boethos 38 years Kaiechos 39 years Binothris 47 years Tl as 17 years Sethenes 41 years 17 years Chaires N ephercheres 25 years 48 years Sesochris 30 years Cheneres (Ratoises in D.IV) (Bicheris in D.IV) Dynasty V Userkheres Sefres 28 years 13 years as Zazati and the Sakkarah list gives it as Beby. Evidence is now introduced to indicate that this Zazay or Beby was a contemporary of Unas of Dynasty V, the two dynasties ending at approximately at the same time and extended into the era of Dynasty XII by about one-half century. XL. The Famine Synchronism in the Reigns of Unas and Zazay That the reign of Unas was marred by a severe famine is portrayed by the now famous famine inscription of this king. The inscription is a pictorial one and contains little by way of explanitory information. However, the protruding ribs of the victims cannot be, and has not been, misinterpreted. Egypt experienced a severe famine in the reign of Unas, But there was ~lso a severe famine in the era of Zazay, or Beby, as the name is given in the Sakkarah list. The inscription was found in the tomb of Beby (Bebi, Seba), and the position of the tomb among the royal tombs indicates that this Bebi was certainly of the royal line. Yet N> Figure 8. A Suggested Synthesis of the Chronology of Dynasty II Set Against the Background for Dynasties IV and V 20 yrs .i I I I I l I I c Boethos 38 ~. ::::s ~. ::::s 391 '§' i -1) ~ ~ ::c: ~ ~ trl < 0 0 Mares 26 I Tlas 18 Anoyphi s 20 _ 30 h C eneres Sesochris 48 Sethenes 41 100 years in Dynasty II ) 100 years in Dynasty IV ) m ::::s c. Ill c..c: .... : Ill I« ____ _ ~ 1:%1 x ~· l,azay L Beby__ n 'i:! :;- 0 to :::0 :g,.... 141 years of Dynasty V ~ • , t"" 1:%1 ~ Ill ~ 18 . . S1 r1 us I CD Ill 0 -1) ::::s 121 ::l( 0 ~ 1- - - - ~ ~ ~ g' Kai echoS" Stai chos 6 -------Gosonnies 30IBinothris 47 I I !:i ~ OJ I m ::::s · c.. Ill Momchei ri 79 I ~ I Menkaure 29 -or 6J ~J I < NepherchE res 25 Chai ret 17 Unas 33 or 50 THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II) 205 there is no indication whatever of any other king by this name, except the appearance of the name in the Sakkarah list, where he is given a position between Dynasties II and III. The fallacy of placing this king in the era immediately preceding Dynasty III has· been previously introduced, as well as the error in presuming that Dynasties II and III followed in sequence. In a preceding chapter, 20 the famine inscription of Bebi was ~ho'wn to meet the specifications for the famine of Joseph and hence should be identified with the famine in the reign of Sesostris I of Dynasty XI I. If this inscription of Bebi belongs to the decadent phase of Dynasty II and is still to be identified with that in the reigD of Seostris I, then we are forced to the conclusion that dynasties II and V extended past the beginning of Dynasty XII and into the era of Sesostris I. This attempt to alter the early chronology of Egypt thus stands or falls with the feasibility of tying the structure thus far developed to that of the Xllth Dynasty in a manner that is totally consistent. The resulting structure will ·be so "far removed from anything previously suggested that the chances are exceedingly remote that these two structures shall fit together in a manner to yield a consistent panorama of the history of Egypt, except as the developed structure is correct, at least in its larger aspects. The next chapter is devoted to a demonstration that this can be done with an exactness that does not allow for any significant deviation. Yet the demands are so specific that it cannot be rationally concluded that the agreement is one of mere coincidence. But before this evidence is introduced, we must make good the earlier promise to point out the reasons why the Palermo Stone inscription cannot logically be taken as evidence for a sequence arrangement of Dynasties II and Ill. XII. A Critical Evaluation of the Significance of the Palermo Stone Inscription The document now known as the Palermo Stone Inscription is a fragment of an original that carries, on both sides, a series of annals of certain of the early Egyptian kings (See Plate III). The top row of the entries includes the names of kings assumed to be those who ruled in Egypt prior to the 206 THE EXODUS PROBLEM unification under Mena, though the names remain unconfirmed by any other source. 20• The only other names that appear on the extant fragment are those of Neteren (identi- · fied as Baneteren of the Ahydos list and as Binothris of Manetho), 3rd 5ing ·of · Dynasty II, Sneferu (last king of Dynasty III), Spepseskaf of Dynasty IV, and Userkaf of Dynasty V. The inscription is currently taken as proof that at the time of its creation, the author had at his disposal not only the names of all the kings from · the very beginnings of Egyptian history, but also a record of a ·significant event within each year of each king's reign. If one takes the hum" ber of years for this interim from the suriuriation of Marietho~ s figures. for the kings ruling during this pe~iod; the original inscription would of necessity have carried over 15Q0 entries, of which little more than 100- remain Ori the two sides ·of the fragment. Since the names Neteren, Snef·eru, Shepseskaf; arid Userkaf belonged to successive dynasties (II, III, IV, and V), it has been further claimed th:it the inscription provides proof that these dynasties ruled ill nurrierieal _seqlience.' · The chronology _of the early Egyptian dynasties, developed in ~his vol um~\ stands or Jalls with the,valfdi,ty or notk validity .of ..the premise . that these early dynasti~s did .not' rule in sequence, and that _byn;asty III had its origin about on~ centl1{)'. .after the ·unification tinder Mena and ended essentially qJincident with the .e nd of pynasty L hi support of this altered 'chroriolog,y, .amass of evidence .has been preserit'ed which has provided solutions to a significant number of difficulties that are in,herent with the acceptance of the concept of a· d,ynastic sequence. ' theqtiestioris before us then 'h;ive , to do- with the validity of the. Claims '. that . are made' relative · to · the 'interpretati<:iri of · this · document . and the conclusions that _h ave been drawn fr'om the document on the .bases of these starting premises. Are these premises so axiomatic that they take precedence over the array of contradict,ory and incorisistentdata th~t result from this interpretation? · · Every other extant document containing lists of Egyptian kings must be, of necessity, interpreted in a qualifie:d manner from .that which appears on first examination. Is the as THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (II ) P-late III. The Palermo Stone Inscription 207 208 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Palermo Stone inscription an exception to this general observation? Of the extant lists, that of Manetho appears to provide the most convincing evidence of such a sequence arrangement, yet today every scholar worthy of the name must recognize that this premise does not hold without exception. No one presumes that Dynasty XV followed Dynasty XIV, and a degree of overlapping of dynasties is apparent in several areas of Egypt's history. Actually, of the four names that appear on the fragment, the sequence of the last three (Sneferu, Shepseskaf, and Userkaf) is retained by the proposed revision. By this revision, Sneferu, last king of Dynasty III, shortly precedes Neteren, if this king is correctly identified as Binothris of Manetho, and the identification is not here questioned. However, the name Neteren on the inscription is the only example of the name being inscribed between the rows of annals, suggesting that this name was later inserted by some one who believed, rightly or in error, that the annals were those of this king. Another possibility is that the names in line 1 are not those of the pre-dynastic kings, but are rather alternate names for kings in the dark period at the end of Dynasty I. In such a case, all the names on this fragment belong to a relatively brief period, not of significantly longer duration than a century. There is no ultimate proof, nor supporting evidence, that the original of this inscription contained yearly annals· of every king beginning with the predynastic period info the era of Dynasty Y There are numerous questions relative to the origin and previous history of this inscription for which answers are needed before any final interpretation is possible. Who was the author of the inscription? What was his purpose in making the inscription? What limitations were of necessity imposed in its production? Can we be sure that the author had written documents before him as authentic source materials? What was the size and shape of the original, complete inscription? Why are the annals generally confined to a narrow space while on the reverse side in row 2, the entire space across the fragment deals with an incident of no greater significance than taking the census of the sheep? Was the approach purely a religious one? The incidents recorded appear in the main to have little significance other THE PRE-FAMINE PERIOD (ll) 209 than religious. If the intent was to provide an annal for each king and for each year of his rdgn, then what was the pr<1cedure when reigns overlapped'? If the period of these dynasties must be heavily reduced, then certainly a significant degree of overlapping and parallelism of reigns must have occurred. Of the other extant king lists of Egypt, is there even one that can be taken as a precedent for presuming that, standing albne, it provides a basis for arriving at a final chronology? In the absence of such, what basis remains for the assertion that this small fragment provides final proof that the early dynasties ruled in sequence, or that at the time of its creation a complete set of annals for every king up to that time was available to the inscriber? The known history of this inscription does not help us in arriving at satisfactory answers to these many questions. The fragment was discovered lying neglected in the corner of a courtyard in Palermo, Italy. There is not a semblance of a clue as to who brought it there or from whence he obtained it. The fragment is about 17 inches high and 9 inches broad and is now in the museum at Palermo. The significance of the inscription has been a matter of debate since its discovery. Attempts to deduce the size and shape of the original continue to be matters of disagreement and speculation. The number of possible solutions may well be in the thousands, with the chances remote that any given solution is correct. MacN aughton concluded that the inscription is not susceptible to a solution, except as such is based on the astronomical evidence in the annals. By astronomical evidence, he is referring to the frequent reference to certain feasts. Assuming that the intervals between the feasts represented the periods of the planetary cycles, a date for Mena was deduced as c. 5715 B.C. 21 That the inscription does not contain astronomical evidence permitting this assignment for the date of Mena is now apparent in the necessary movement of this date down in the late 4th millennium or earlv 3rd. T.he writer does .not claim to be able to provide answers to these many questions. He only insists that any interpretation of this document on the basis of available information is highly speculative. Evaluation of any specific interpretation should be made on the basis of the consistency of the chronological structure to which it leads. 210 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Not1•s and ReforNl<.'t'S .'34. (!3) lbul.., p. 69. (·U Chap. XI. Sect. Ill. par. 3. t5) This Chap. Sect. IX. (61 See Table X. (71 P-HE, Vol. I. pp. 55, .5fi. (81 Chap. XI. S1-ct. Vil and VIII. (9) Chap. XI, S1·ct. Ill; this Chap., Tahl1• X. (IO) Tabl1· X. ( 111 S1-ct. X. ( 12) Table VIII. (1!3) P-HE. Vol. I. pp. 64, 6.'5. (!!la) Chap. XI. Sect. Ill. ( 13hl St•l:ts. II, Ill. ( 14) Chap. X, Sect. XII; Chap. XI. Sect. IX. ( !4a) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 61!. ( 14bl St-ct. \'. (I-kl P-HE, Vol. I, p.85. (15) The fi)l:ure of 479 years frnm th1• unification 11nd1•r !'.fona to the end of Dyr1asty V recn)l:nizes the 62 years credited to Mena as indudinl( 27 yt•ars of rult• in divided Egypt prior to the unification, that Dynasties I and Ill ended at appro,imatdy th1• samt• time, and that Ovnasty [\' of Manetho extended into th!' era of Dvnasty V to a point 9 yt'ars after tht' dt>ath of th1· last of the triplt>t usurpers. The period is mad!' up of 238 y1·ars for Dynasty I, 135 years for O,,nasty JV to the t•nd of the rt•ign of Mencheres. and 106 years additional for Dynasty V. If it is further recognized that the !33 years credited to Unas hy Manetho reaches only to the point of tht• Famine of Joseph; the period from the unification to the famint• was 462 years. Sin,~· the Exodus occurred 215 years after thE' beginning of tht' famine. the period from tht' unifit"ation to the Exodus was 677 years. yielding a date for the unification 2122 B.C. This figure becomes of importance in a later connection (Vol. II, Chaps. IX and X. ( 16) Cf. names in Table X with thoSf of Manetho"s Dynasty I llf Table VII. (17) Sect. VI and Table X. (18) Chap. XI, Sect. XI. (19) See Table Vil. (20) Chap. X. Sect. II, pa.r. 8. (20a) P-HE, Vol. !, p. 13. (21) M-SEC. p. 49. (I I P-HE. Vol. !, p. 72. (21 /bid .. p . s,.,. CHAPTER XIII THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE XIITH DYNASTY Following the name Uses (Unas) in the Sothis list, is the line of Ramessides (Table IV) who are in turn followed bv Koncharis, the king previously identified as the pharaoh ;f the Exodus. 1 On the basis that it was possible to show excellent synchronism between the Scriptures for the era from Jo~eph to the Exodus and the kings of the Xllth Dynasty, these Ramessides were identified as the kings of Dynasty XII, thus meeting the obvious specification of Exodus 1: 11 to the effect that the pharaoh of the Oppression had the name Ra meses. Since l' ses of the Sot his iist is followed bv this line of Ramessides, it follows that the Xllth Dynasty followed Dynasty V and must then have been parallel to Dynasty VI which also followed Dynasty \'. Before it is possibk to ducidatt• clearly the time relationships involved, it will he IH:.'cessary to digress briefly and consider the traditional views on the chronology of this dynasty. A chronological chart shmving the time relationships between the kings of this dynasty, based on a reconsideration of the available data, is provided in Figure 9. The discrepancies between the figures on this chart and the popular assignments of reign kngths to the kings are explained in the discussions that follow. I. The Traditional Chronology of the Xllth Dynn.'>ty One meets statements to the effect that the chronology of the XI Ith Dynasty is known with a greatt•r degree of precision than for anv of the othf•r dvnasties. ~ Such statements are not to be tak~·n as meaning that tht• details of the chronology haw all been clarified with no questions remaining to bt• answered. There is no single sour<.-e of information that provides the details for the chronology of this era. Such a structure must be synthesized from the figures from several sourt~es, some of which are in disagreement and some missing or unrt•adahlt• in critical areas. The monuments provide us with only the datt•s of the latest inscription in the reigns of the various kings and thus provide only the minimal period of reign, the point where the king started counting his reign often bein~ left to conjecture. The Turin 212 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Papyrus is damaged somewhat at this point so that certain crucial figures are either missillg or unreadable. The document does, however, provide a figure of 213 and a fraction years for the total dynastic period. This figure is generally accepted as representing true elapsed time and is so used in setting up the gross chronology of Egypt, the chronology within the dynasty being adjusted as best can be done to meet this figure. Manetho' s total for the dynasty is 245 years, a figure that evidently was obtained by summation of the periods for the individual reigns irrespective of coregencies. If we have been correct in the premise adopted for the interpretation of the early Sothis list, 2• we may expect that this source may also prove of critical importance in establishing the internal chronology for the dynasty. By the same token, if the Sothis figures do provide the clarification for this chronology, the premise proposed for the interpretation of this list takes on a significance approximating fact. Petrie has provided us with a summary of the available data for this dynasty'1 which stands as the starting point for attempts on the part of others to fill in the missing details as best can be conjectured. Authorities, however, have not been in agreement as to the manner in which this is to be done. The summary of Petrie is reproduced in Table XII. These data will serve also as the starting point for the present attempt to clarify the remaining obscure figures. Short dashes in Table XI indicate figures that are missing or unreadable in the source named. Figures in parentheses indicate presumed missing figures for which the enclosed figures represent attempts to deduce the original figures. The italicized figures of Table XII represent points of disagreement between Petrie and Breasted in atten:ipts to fill in the missing figures to make up the total of 213 years as given in the Turin Papyris. There would seem to be no large question as to the identifications of the kings of this dynasty in the various sources, though the names differ from one source to another. The principal difficulties of chronological import have their origin in the missing or unreadable figures of Manetho' s list and the Turin list, and in the harmonizing of both sources with the monuments which give only the year in the reign for the latest known inscription. XIITH DYNASTY CHRONOLOGY 213 II. An Alternate Interpretation of the Data of Dynasty XII According to the premise adopted for the interpretation of the Sothis list,' a premise which has served for the solution of numerous problems in the chronologies of the earlier dynasties, the Sothis list is not crediting the same regnal years to more than a single king, either in the same or in a parallel dynasty. It is thus to be expected that the list will not include the· kings of Dynasty VI, or of XIII at least for the duration of Dynasty XII. If this premise has been correct, we may expect that its co.ntinued application will continue to provide further solutions to obscurities in Dynasty XII. If we have been in error, it may be expected that we shall be quickly led into confusion. On the basis of the identification of the famine of the inscriptions of Unas and of Bebi with the famine of Joseph, 4" it follows that Dynasty V and the decadent phase of Dynasty II reached into the era of Dynasty XII by about one-half century. 4h The basis for the conclusion that Dynasty XII followed Dynasty V was found in the appearance of the line of Ramesside kings of the Sothis list following the name Unas, last king of Dynasty V. It is thus not to be expected that the Sothis list will include the name of either Amenemhet I or Sesostris I, whose.· combined reigns amount to little over half a century, and· which were then contemporary with the late kings of Dynasty V already included in the Sothis list. The first of the Ramessides of the Sothis list should then be identified with the third king of Dynasty XII, namely, Amenemhet IL It is thus entirely possible that the name Rameses had its origin at least as early as Sesostris I and possibly with Amenemhet I, thus providing a basis for the statement in Gen. 47:11 indicating that the land of Goshen was called the land of Rameses and that the ruling king had this name at that time. If .we now place in parallel columns the data for the kings of Dynasty XII as found on the monuments, in Manetho' s list, in the Turin list, ancl in the Sothis list, we arrive at the data comparison shown in Table XIII. Since the monuments, in some cases, indicate the length of the period of coregency, this table is .designed to show the break- . down of the total reigns as given by Manetho into figures 214 THE EXODUS PROBLEM representing sole reigns and coregencies. Brackets are used to show the harmony between the figures in the various sources. Figures in parentheses represent coregencies indicated by the monuments but not stated quantitatively. Underlined figures represent points of previous obscurity that are now clarified by recognition of the figures in the Sothis list. The figures followed by "insert" are figures not given in the source but which have been inserted only for the purpose of showing the resulting harmony produced by recognition of the Sothic figures. It will be noted that the Sothis list includes the name of one king, Usimare, not included by Manetho and not mentioned in any other source. As will appear with the developing discussion, Usimare was a prince who served as coregent son of Sesostris II but who died before his father, thus never becoming a primary ruler, It is this unusual situation, not previously recognized, that stands as the critical factor in the clarification of the chronology of the dynasty. Examination of the data of Table XIII suggests at first glance that there is no semblance of agreement between the figures in the Sothis list and those of the other sources. This is to be expected as far as the figures of Manetho and the monuments are concerned, since the Sothis list figures are based on a different concept of computing reigns. It would seem, however, that there should be some sort of agreement with the Turin list, since this ·source also evidently represents true elapsed time as does the Sothis list. TABLE XI Source Variations on Xllth Dynasty Chronology Manetho's Names Monumental List Names Ameneme S-Hetep-abra Coregency with Sesostris I Sesonkhosis Kheper-ka-ra Coregency with Amenemhet II Amenemes Nub-kau-ra Coregency with Sesostris II Sesostris Kha-kheperOra Lakheres Kha-kau-ra Ammeres Maa-kheru-ra Maat-en-ra Ammenemes Skern!ofris SebE-k-nefru-ra Total for the dyn.asty Monument Names Lengths of reigns Manetho Turin Monuments Amenemhet l 16 (1 )9 20 Sesostris l 46 4,5 Amenemhet ll 38 32 2+ 30 3+ lO 26 IO Sesostris ll Sesostris Ill Amenemhet Ill Amenemhet IV Seheknefru-ra 4 (2or3)9 3(8) 4(4or8) 9y 3m 27d Sy !Om l4d 246 213+ 48 (3)8 (4)8 8 44 6 XIITH DYNASTY CHRONOLOGY 215 TABLE XII Interpretations of Data for Dynasty XII by Petrie and Breasted" King Amenemhet I Sesostris I Amenemhet II Sesostris II Sesostris III Amenemhet III Amenemhet IV Sebeknefrure Total elapsed time for the dynasty•• Reign Length Assigned by Petrie" Reign Length Assigned by Breasted" 20 years 42 years 32 years 29 years 38 years 44 years 9 years 4 years 20 vears 42 vears 32 vears 19 years 38 vears 48 years 9 vears 4 years 212 years 218 years "Based onJears of reign to the coregency of the next ruler. ••compare to 213+ years as given by the Turin Papyrus. If, however, we tentatively assume that Manetho' s figure for the reign of Sesostris II (48 years) includes the reigns of both Ramesomenes (Sesostris II) and Usimare of the Sothis list, who never became primary ruler, and assume that Amenemhet IV was not recognized in the Sothis list, with the time credited to subsequent rulers, then a semblance of harmony is restored. The figures for the individual reigns will now be discussed in turn. III. Amenemhet I Since Manetho is obviously giving total reigns for the kings, we should conclude that the 16 years allotted to Amenemhet I represents his total reign and not his sole reign as assumed by Breasted and Petrie (Table XII). Since the coregency with the son is known to have been 10 years, h1s sole reign is then 6 years, which figure is to be compared to the 9 years of the Turin list. The assumption of Petrie and Breasted in raising this figure to 19 or 20 years of sole reign to correspond with the monuments is unwarranted, and when the other figures for the dynasty are clarified, neither is there any demand for this extra time to make up the 213 years· of the Turin list. It may be supposed that there was some obscurity relative to the point of the beginning of the reign of Amenemhet I to allow opinions of either 6 or 9 years of sole reign. Since the Turin figure represents elapsed time within. the 213 year period, and since THE EXODUS PROBLEM 216 TABLE XIII Comparison of Previously Available Data on Dynasty XII with Data from the Sothis List Monument Name Sothis Equivalent Amenemhet I Turin Total Minimal Reigns Reigns Papyrus Sothis (Manetho) (Monuments) Figures Data 16 Coregency 46 < Sesostris I Coregency Amenemhet II Rames es Coregency 48 Usimare (~8 Coregency Amenemhet III Ramessemeno Amenemhet IV ~ insert (9) <-7 45<->1"mt( 45' ~"~ 0 (29+) {4_)9 15 Sebeknefrure Ramese Iugasz 31 '""~'I '"" (2) 25H-l{~3 ~ (11) (~~ I ~29(+) insert(31) Coregency Sesostris III Ramessesos > 9 29+~ 38 Coregency Sesostris II Ramesomenes lr3l:J 2D 43+ 6+ l'1 ['«I 9+ ~ -3+ 39(+) Total for Dynasty 246 215 213 Total as given 245 213+ 213+ XIITH DYNASTY CHRONOLOGY 217 the figure for Sesostris I in the Turin list agrees with Manetho' s figure and that of the monuments for total reign, the Turin figure 9 is correct as it stands and does not require or permit the insertion of the figure 1 to make it read 19. We have no controversy with the monuments in attributing 20 years to Amenemhet I. It is oqly contended that of the 213-vear total as calculated bv the Turin list, Amenemhet I shou'ld be credited with only. 9 years. The figure 9 is thus inserted in parentheses in the Sothis column of Table XIII only to show the correct summation for the dynasty when the remaining figures are clarified. JV. Sesostris I Manetho credits Sesostris I with 46 years of reign, which figure is in agreement with the monuments when coregencies with father and son are included, and in agreement with the Turin list which is then crediting to this king the coregencies with both father and son, neither coregency having been credited otherwise. Since the figure in the Turin list is 46 as compared to 45 by Manetho and the monuments, we assume that the more exact figure was 45 and a fraction years, and insert this figure also into the column for the Sothis list, again solely for the purpose of later calculation for the period of .the dynasty. V. Amenemhet II Manetho' s 38 years for Amenemhet II could be expected to include the coregencies with father and son, since his figures generally provide total reigns. This suggests a coregency of 5 and a fraction years as coregency. Breasted allows only 3 years for this coregency but Petrie recognized that this figure was minimal and gives it as "three or more." 5 Hence, the allowance of 5 and a fraction years to bring the monuments into agreement with Manetho calls for no unwarranted suppositions, and still leaves the Sothis list in exact agreement with the sole reign of Amenemhet II, i.e., 29+ years calculated by subtracting the 8+ years of coregency with father and son from the 38 years total of Manetho. The 29 years of the Sothis list (king No. 18 of Table IV) is refined to 29+ in the Sothis column of Table XIII. 218 THE EXODUS PROBLEM VI. Sesostris II and Sesostris Ill The striking discrepancy between the latest monumental inscription of Sesostris II (10th year) and the total figure as· given by Manetho (48 years) indicates that there was something unusual in the situation at this point. Both Petrie and Breasted regarded the figure of Manetho as erroneous and disregard it, hypothesizing figures of 29 or 19 years respectively from coregency to coregency. 6 With this digression from the inscriptional evidence, we must disagree. The continued interpretation of the Sothis list previously adopted provides a most reasonable solution to the problem without compromising the inscriptional evidence. The Sothis list gives Sesostris II (Ramessameno of Table IV) 15 years. This figure is in exact agreement with the monuments calculated from the year of the latest dated inscription plus the 5-year coregency not credited to Amenemhet II. As noted previously, the Sothis list credits 31 years to Usimare who was evidently the son and coregent of Sesostris II. The period then to be assigned to Sesostris II until the death of Usimare is 46 years. Manetho credits Sesostris II with 48 years. Usimare, then, died two years before his father and never became a primary ruler, thus explaining the absence of this name in the other lists. Under this situation, it would be expected that Sesostris II would appoint a substitute coregent. But as will appear from the subsequent discussion, Sesostris II had no other living sons at this time, and Usimare had no sons. Hence the newly appointed coregent was evidently the grandson of a brother of Sesostris II. This grandson served out the two remaining years to the death of Sesostris II, and then acceded to the throne as Sesostris III. A coregency generally is recognized between Sesostris II and Sesostris III, but no figure for the length of the coregency is otherwise known. The figure 2 is then inserted into the Sothis list column and into the column for the monuments (Table XIII). The assumption of the existence of this extra king who is not recognized by the monuments may seem unwarranted. The ~ncept is provided support from four directions. The first is the provision of a reasonable solution to the wide discrepancy between Manetho and the monuments on the reign length of Sesostris II without assuming error in the XIITH DYNASTY CHRONOLOGY 219 Manetho record. It is highly improbable that Sesostris II reigned 35 years as sole ruler after his latest inscription. It was evidently this unlikely situation that led both Petrie and Breasted to disregard .Manetho' s figure and to hypothesize figures of 29 and 19 years respectively. Secondly, this arrangement ameliorates a longstanding difficulty of major proportions in the traditional chronology of this dynasty. The long reigns attributed to the sequence of kings starting with Sesostris I must presume improbably long ages to the later kings or else that the coregen:t in several cases was not the eldest son. 7 The latter assumption is not impossible but was contrary to custom. If Sesostris III was a grandson of a brother of Sesostris II, an additional generation not previously recognized is provided, thus eliminating this diffi- · culty. Thirdly, by the. altered chronology, Sesostris III was the king who introduced the period of Israelite oppression and who reduced the Israelites to the level of slaves. According to Scripture, this king is stated to be a king who "knew not Joseph." Josephus indicates that at -this time there was a break in the royal line.H And finally, it appears that the death of the older son and heir apparent before the death of the father was not unique to the reign of Sesostris II. The discovery of the mummy of a prince (Ewibre) who did not become king, in the tomb of Amenemhet III, evidently represents another example. 9 Sesostris III, in line with custom, would count his reign as beginning about 2 years before the death of Sesostris IL On this basis, his latest monument, in his 26th year, may be regarded as in agreement with the Sothis list which allows this king 23 years (Table IV), presumably not crediting him with the two-year period of coregency following the death of Usimare. The missing figure 3 of the Turin list should then be regarded as having read 23 and not 38 as assumed by both Petrie and Breasted. If the total for the dynasty as calculated by Manetho (245 years) from his own figures is to be retained, the figure 8 for Sesostris III and for Amenemhet III must have originally ·represented figures in the high thirties and high forties. The simplest way to meet this obvious discrepancy is to presume that a missing· figure has been lost before each 8, and that these figures originally read 38 and 48, though not necessarily in this order. Both Petrie and Breasted consid- 220 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ered the figure for Sesostris II should be .'38. With this conclusion, the writer concurs. However, it is necessary to assume an as yet unrecognized coregency between Sesostris III and Amenemhet III to bring the 25 of the latest inscription of Sesostris III into line with the 38 of Manetho. The length of this coregency is not vital to the revised chronology and is assumed only to yield harmony between Manetho and the monuments, since it is unlikely that this king would rule as sole ruler 11 years after his latest inscription. VII. From Amenemhet III to the End of the Dynasty If the 8 of Manetho for Sesostris III properly represents an original 38,. there is no basis for avoiding the conclusion that the 8 for Amenemhet III was originally 48. This interpretation is necessary to bring Manetho' s total to the 245 years which he assigns to the dynasty. Breasted so interpreted this figure. Petrie was compelled to disregard this logical conclusion and adopt the reign length of 44 years based on the date for the latest known monument, his figures otherwise already necessitating a total figure in excess of 213. We follow the more logical conclusion of Breasted and recognize the period for Ameneinhet III as 48 years total. The Turin document gives a figure 4, and we may assume a missing 8 to agree with Manetho. The Sothis list provides a figure 19 for Amenemhet III, a figure that seems to be at irreconcilable variance with Manetho and the monuments. However, it is to be noted that the sum of the remaining reigns by the Sothis list are in satisfactory agreement with the sum for the same period by the Turin papyrus, and even more exactly so if we regard the 19 and 39 year reigns as 19 and a fraction and 39 and a fraction respectively. The suggestion is that one king has not been recognized by the Sothis list, and the actual time has been redistributed between Amenemhet III and Sebeknefrure. The basis for this redistribution is not now apparent. It may mean nothing more than that the frustrated Sebeknefrure simply claimed this amount of reign and the claim was recognized in the Sothis list. The possibility also remains that Sebeknefrure, as an oldest daughter, was appointed as coregent in the 19th year of Amenemhet III in the absence· of any sons, or perhaps in the absence of any son of sufficient age to be recognized as tbe heir ap- XIITH DYNASTY CHRONOLOGY 221 parent. 9" At the time of the death of Amenemhet III, it may have been that the throne was usurped by such a son who had matured in the meantime (or possibly by a grandson as assumed by Petrie), 10 and that Sebeknefrure had to wait until the death of this usurper before she became full ruler. By this time she was an old lady, as indicated by calculation and by her brief reign of less than four years. Still another explanation may be considered. It was pointed out in a previous chapter 11 that this Sebeknefrure was probably the foster-mother of Moses, who placed faith in the adoptecl Hebrew child found in the bulrushes, and raised him as her own son, only to have him flee Egypt after killing the Egyptian on behalf of the Hebrew slaves. Sebeknefrure evidently married Chenephres, a prince of Dynasty XIII, since, by an extant legend, Chenephres was the foster-father of Moses. 12 Can it be possible that Amenemhet IV was Moses, who had been groomed as coregent for 9 years prior to his flight? Reference to the chronological chart of Figure. 9 shows that the end of the reign of · Amenemhet IV coincides remarkably close to the point of Moses' flight from Egypt. Of further interest is the fact that, of the kings of Dynasty XII, the tombs of all have been discov.ered except for that of Amenemhet IV. 12• While these concepts represent speculation, such a situation would certainly give an emphatic meaning to the words of Paul who wrote: 1'1 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.... VIII. From the End of Dynasty XII to the Exodus Since the Xllth Dynasty, by the Turin list, had a duration of 213 years, and since, by the inscription of Ameni, 14 the famine must have occurred within the last 27 years of the reign of Sesostris I, 15 and since the period from the beginning of the famine to the Exodus was 217 years, 16 it follows that Dynasty XII came to its end about 30 years before the Exodus. Since Dynasty XIII was contemporaneous with the Xllth, and since Koncharis of the Exodus belongs to the XIIIth, it can only be concluded that the rule passed to some prominent member of the Xlllth Dynasty princes at the end of Dynasty XII. The interpretation of the Sothis 222 THE F.XODUS PROBLEM list as given previously 17 leaves one king between the end of Dynasty. XII and Koncharis. This king had the name Ramesse (Table· IV) and is said to have been the son of Uaphres. 18 The reigns of this king and of Koncharis thus make up the period between the end of Dynasty XII and the Exodus. The reigns attributed to these kings are 29 and 5 years respectively. Hence, we conclude that the Exodus occurred 34 years after the end of Dynasty XII. 19 The insertion of the statement in the Sothis list that this Ramesse was the son of Uaphres provides a basis for presuming that he was not of the line of the previously ruling king. Otherwise, it would not have been necessary to state his parentage. The appearance of the name Uaphres in the Turin list of Dynasty XIII in this general position stands to confirm the conclusion and correctness of the proposed structure, 21i which calls for a change of family at this point. A name does appear in this general position in the Turin list of Dynasty XIII which Brugsch has transcribed as Uahabra Aaah, a name readily recognized as the original Egyptian name from which Uaphres was obtained. Brugsch places the name second after Kha-ankh-ra (Table VI); Petrie places him fourth following Ka-ankh-ra. 21 The slight discrepancy from the expected position might be explained on the basis that this Uah-ab-ra was a son or grandson of Uaphres of the Sothis list. However, more probable is the concept that the Turin list does not represent a consecutive line of ·princes, since a number of these may have served contemporaneously. In such i:I. case, the actual order is not one of great significance - it is only the general position in the list. Based on these developments, the chronology of Dynasty XIII and its relation to the Exodus and to the previously developed chronology for Dynasties I to V is shown diagramatically in Figure 9. The agreement of the Sothis figures for elapsed time with the Turin Figure of 213 years is seen by the summation of the figures in the Sothis Column of Table XIII. Examination of the diagram of Figure 9 shows that the famine inscription of Ameni fits into the structure without a flaw. By Scriptural chronology, the famine began 217 years before the Exodus. The date based on an Exodus· date 1445 B.C. is 1662 B.C. It lasted until 1655 B.C.-Allowing S4 years between the Exodus and the end of Figure 9. Comparison of Old Testament and Egyptian Chronologies for the Era of Dynasty XII !1sso B. c. 1640 l2n .. ~~ I J 0 , ' s E .,, 1600 I p I :;: I I 1520 I I l H 110 I 1480 I ~-1 I 217 years from beginninq of the famine to the Exodus ' I "' l9 Sesostris I 45 )C 29 Sesostris II 48 II Ses. I II Amenemhet I r;:;f Amenemhet II I 48 JAmeni 25 I ____ l_J_ ---- 1- - Koncharis " Ramesse 2 9 - - - -- -- ~ z > VJ I W. :-J ·- L ti 0 0 Amenemhet ~-=~1=c Unas of D-V rO >< ..... ::c: ...., ,.., Beb.l of decadent D-II - ~ ::z I- .114% 1 rMoses in Eavot !Moses in Midi• 213 years of Dynasty XII (Turin Papyrus) l"J:> ·- 1560 I (') ::r: ~ z 0 l' D y N A s T y VI Diagram showing the time relationships between the Egyptian kings of the Xllth Dynasty and Old Testament chronology for the period from Joseph to the Exodus. See Figure 3 for previously introduced synchronisms between Scriptural incidents and Dynasties XII and XIII. 0 ~ Nl N) c.o 224 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Dynasty XII, the death of Ameni in the 43rd year of Sesostris I falls in the year 1640 B.C. Ameni served 25 years. Hence his service began in 1665 B.C. This was about three years before the famine began. These calculations leave room for a minor error due to the uncertainty in the matter of handling fractional years. The signlficant but not previously recognized assumptions necessary for thus correlating the Sothis list data with the data from other sources are: (1) Amenemhet I should be credited with only 9 years of sole reign of the 213 total as given by the Turin·Papyrus; (2) the wide discrepancy between Manetho and the monuments for the reign of Sesostris II should be accounted for by the presenc of a ruler (Usimare of the Sothis list) who became coregent to Sesostris II in his 15th or 16th year, yet died two years before his father, the substitute coregent and heir apparent being of another family, possibly the grand-son of a brother of Sesostris II, and (3) Amenemhet IV, for reasons which can only be spectulative at this time, is not recognized in the Sothis list, the time of the last three kings having been distributed between Amenemhet III and Sebeknefrure. The geography of the proposed chronological revision remains consistent throughout. Dynasty VI, according to Manetho, had its origin at Memphis, though it is evident that the activities of the Vlth Dynasty kings were, for the most part, much farther to the south. 22 Dynasty XII is stated to have had its origin at Thebes, 23 but the monuments indicate that early in the dynasty the capital was moved to Ithtowe, 24 a few miles south of the Delta region. This location is not far from the area included in the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled, and it may be presumed that long before the Exodus, they had multiplied to the point of occupying the territory this far south and west, at least in the capacity of slaves. The structure as developed is thus in agreement with the Scriptural detail that Moses was born under slavery at a point not far removed from the king's palace. 25 The previous discussion 26 has introduced the evidence that Sesostris III clearly meets the Scriptural specifications of the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and the builder of the cities of Raarnses and Pithom was either Sesostris III or more probably his successor Amenernhet III. This building program was in brick, and this king had the alternate XIITH DYNASTY CHRONOLOGY 225 name of Rameses to agree with the statements of Exodus 1:11. IX. A Synchronism Between Dynasties VI and XIII A number of synchronisms- have been pointed out between Dynasty XII, as the proper background for the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, and the princes of Dynasty XIII. A synchronism is also available between late Dynasty VI and the Hykso~ invasion at the time of the Exodus, placed in late Dynasty XIII. Josephus states that the Hyksos invaded Egypt at a time when the ruling king had the name Timaus (Tutimaus ). 2; The Egyptian name appears to most closely resemble the name Dudimes. This name does not appear among the names of Egyptian kings in the king lists. However, it may well belong in the era of the XIIlth Dynasty when a number of princes ruled as subrulers. 2n This name has been found on a single scarab, the style of which suggested a date in the era of the Xth Dynasty. 29 The name has also been found on a scene at Gebelen, leading one scholar to assign him a position in the Hyksos era of Dynasty XVI. 30 Hayes et al. 31 place him in the Hyl<sos era of Dynasty XIII at the point of the loss of independence by the Xlllth Dynasty rulers . . . . . this date also marking the defeat of the Egyptian king Tutimaios (Dudimose I) and the end of the independent regime of the Thirteenth Dynasty, though not apparently the end of the dynasty itself. But this point, in the thinking of some scholars, represents the point of the Hyksos invasion and, by the thesis here defended, the Exodus incident also. The single occurrence of this name which provides a solid basis for his placement in terms of Egyptian chronology is the appearance of the name with writing which also carries the name of Pepi 11. 32 Pepi II was the last significant king of Dynasty VI. With the Hyksos invasion set at the beginning of the IInd Intermediate in Egypt, it was obviously impossible by current views to recognize Pepi II as belonging to an era reaching to the Hyksos era, and so the information was relegated to the limbo of conflicting evidence. With the 1st intermediate identified as the same era as the llnd Intermediate, the end of Dynasty VI reaches to the general era of the end of Dynasty XII and the incident of the Exodus, coincident with the Hyksos invasion. It is thus altogether probable that Du- 226 THE EXODUS PROBLEM dimes as a contemporary of Pepi H continued his official capacity to the point of the Hyksos era. There are other evidences that Dynasty VI was contemporary with Dynasty XII and that the so-called Ist and Ilnd Intermediates were one and the same. There are good reasons for believing that king Khyan belongs to the lst Intermediate,31 yet there are equally good, or better, reasons for assigning a position in the Ilnd Intermediate.'\! Since the name has turned up on a lid of an alabastron in the Palace of Minos at Knossos in Crete, this later position seems virtually certain. An identity of Khyan with the Hyksos king Staan of Manetho 1;; and with Iannas of Josephusrn is considered plausible. By the revised chronology, there is no conflict here. He could belong to the Hyksos period and also to the Ist Intermediate. Still further problems related to the Hyksos and the anomalies that have resulted from the adoption of current views are considered in the next chapter. Notes and References ( 1) Char.. IX, Sect. IV. (2) See P·HE, Vol. I. p. I45 for example. (2a) Chap. XI, 5"ct. III. (3) See re. 2a. (4) lbtd. (.ta) Chap. X, Sect. II, pars. 8. 9. (4b) See Fig. 8. (5) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 146. (6) Ibid.; see Table XII. (7) P-HE. p. 198. (8) J-AJ, Bk. II, Chap. IX, par. I; see quot. of ref. 4I, Chap. X. (9) B-HE. p. 208. (9a) Or possibly Ewibre, whose mummy was found in the coffin .of Amenhotep I\', was the missing heir apparent to Amenhotep III. (IO) See ref. 7. (II) Chap. X, Sect. XIII. (I2) Chap. X, quot. of ref. 67. (12a) B-HE, p. I98. (13) Heb. 11:24, 25. (I4) See quot. of ref. 3, Chap. X. (I5) Since Ameni's inscription is a tomb inscription dated in the 43rd year of the 45-year reign of Sesostris I after a period of 25 years of service. (16) See calculations of Chap. X, Sect. III. (17) See ref. 2a. (18) W-M, p. 237; see Table IV. (19) Thus meeting the earlier commitment in this work to refine a previous approximate figure of c. 30 years (Chap. X, Sect. XI). (20) See Table VI, king No. 28. (21) P-HE, p. 206. (22) B-HE, pp. 132-35. (23) W-M, p. 6i; Diospolis is another name for Thebes. (24) B-HE, p. 157. (25) Ex. 2. (26) Chap. X, Sect. VII. (27) J-AA, Bk. I, par. 14. (28) Chap. X, Sect. XL (29) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 245. (30) Ibid. (31) HRS-CE, p. 13. (32) See ref. 29. (33) P-HE, Vol. l, pp. 119, 237, 238. (34) Ibid. (35) P-HE, Vol. I, addenda, xxxv. (36) see ref. 2i. CHAPTER XIV PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS At some point in the late XIII th Dynasty, 1 Egypt was overrun by a people of low culture who were able to conquer the land and hold its proud population under domination for a period variously estimated at from 100 to over 1600 years. 2 This people were known to Josephus as the Hyksos, which name he interpreted to mean King Shepherds. This interpretation of the name was emphatically defended by early scholars.'3 At the present moment, we emphatically affirm the complete agreement of the name of the Hyksos in the Manethonian tradition with the supposed Egyptian compound word Hak-Shaus, that is, "king of the Arabs," or "king of the shepherds." ... Evidently on the basis of seeing a large difficulty in recognizing Arab kings as controlling a vast empire on two continents, current scholars have preferred an interpretation suggesting "Ruler of Countries." 4 The available data on the Hyksos are not in agreement. It is thus not surprising that the Hyksos and their era present to historians and archaeologists a number of problems for which convincing answers have not been forthcoming. The identity of the Hyksos represents· an enigma of longstanding. The length. of the period of their domination has been a matter of wide difference of opinion. The eventual expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt introduces problems for which unequivocal answers are not available. Problems rise with reference to the effects of the expulsion of this numerous people on the subsequent history of Palestine. While the evidence points to an occupation of most of the Nile Valley by the Hyksos for some extended period of time, strangely, the burial evidences believed to be of Hyksos origin are limited almost exclusively to the earthen camp at Tell el Yehudiyeh. I. Josephus on the Hyksos Our primary source of information with reference to the Hyksos is the ancient historian Josephus, 3 who states that he is quoting Manetho. He describes the Hyksos as an ignoble race who came into Egypt from the east and subdued the 228 THE EXODUS PROBLEM country without a battle. This incident curred in the reign of one Timaus. 6 The barous people who wantonly destroyed destruction. Quoting Manetho, Josephus is said to have oc~ Hyksos were a barfor the pleasure of wrote: ... There was a king of ours whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts ... and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a blJ:ttle with them. So when they had gotten those that governed us under their power, they afterwards burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods and used all the inhabitants after a most .barbarous manner; nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery .... And these six [kings] were the first rulers among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, arid were very desirous gradually to destroy them to the very roots. The identity of the Hyksos had already been lost when Josephus wrote., for he identifies the Hyksos with his own people the Jews, and their expulsion from Egypt with the incident of the Exodus. It is difficult to believe that Josephus was actually thus confused since it is clear from his larger work that he was thoroughly familiar with the background of the entrance of the Hebrews into Egypt and with the circumstances of their leaving. It is more probable that he is quoting Manetho on these views in order to controvert the writings of Apion who had evidently drawn his concepts from the same source. Josephus refers to an opinion held by some in his day that the Hyksos were of Arabian origin. He gives the period of their domination of Egypt as 511 years. This figure may be harmonized with Manetho if it is recognized that his Dynasty XVI ruled throughout this period (518 years) while Dynasty XV as a parallel dynasty ruled 250 (or 284) years.' However, in any case, it would seem that these figures were obtained by summation of reigns and do not necessarily represent true elapsed time. These figures have no resemblance to the deductions of modern scholars based on other considerations. Eventually, a prolonged war was waged against the Hyksos by the Egyptians during which time the Hyksos were. gradually driven northward and confined within a previously prepared fortification at Auaris in the eastern Delta region. This fortification was large enough to shelter the en- PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS 229 tire population of some 240,000 men of war besides women and children. The city was besieged by an army of 480,000 Egyptian warriors, but according to Josephus, this army was unable to dislodge the Hyksos, and the siege ended in a treaty which promised no harm to them if they would agree to leave the country in peace. This arrangement was accepted, and the HykSos set out to find a new home. Josephus states that they moved northward into Palestine and built for themselves the city of Jerusalem. This account by Josephus is at notable variance with the inscription of Aahmes, M an army general at the time of the expulsion. According to the account by Aahmes, the city of Auaris was taken, and the Egyptians pursued the fleeing Hyksos to the town of Sharuhen, in southern Palestine, where they had taken refuge. The stated building of Jerusalem at this time is an .obvious error by Josephus and may represent confusion between Sharuhen and Jerusalem. A considerable number of problems related to the Hyksos are clarified by the revised chronology which places the Hyksos invasion immediately following the incident of the Exodus. 9 Some of these problems have been introduced in previous chapters. Still further evidence in support of the dating will now be introduced. II. On the Identity of the Hyksos A number of theories have been proposed for the identity of the race known to Josephus as the Hyksos. This name is not otherwise known in the ancient literature. It is virtually axiomatic that the Hyksos did have an identity with a people well-known by another name to the ancients. It is inconceivable that a people so insignificant as not to have had a known identity with a people known by another name to the ancients could have conquered Egypt and held it under their domination for an extended period of time. In the absence of any evidence for such a known identity, Budge elected to regard them as merely a coalition of des~ ert tribes from the Sinai area. 1° Certainly, the identification with the Jews as given by Josephus is out of the question. {\.s previously noted, he refers to a then current belief that they were Arabians, .an identity suggested by their name as equivlent to "King. Shepherds," Eusebius (through Syncellus) suggested a Phoenician origin.11 Queen Hatshepsut, 230 THE EXODUS PROBLEM more than half a century after the expulsion, referred to them as the Amu. 12 This name is also found in a papyrus inscription containing a tale dealing with a Hyksos king, Apepy. This term has also been applied to the Amorites, but the name evidently had a wider application than to this people alone. Most of the suggested identifications of the Hyksos proposed by modern scholars represent speculation with little by way of factual support. The single notable exception is that which identifies the Hyksos with the Biblical Amalekites.1'i Velikovsky has produced evidence from the Arabian legends that not only suggests, but claims, this identification. These legends are in agreement with the current opinion in the time of Josephus that the Hyksos were of Arabian origin, and in agreement with the more obvious interpretation of the name Hyksos as King Shepherds. The Scriptures indicate that this territory, prior to the Exodus and Conquest, was occupied by the Amelekites. 14 The Hebrews in their escape from Egypt, met the oncoming hordes of the Amelekites who attempted to interfere with the movement of the escapees in the opposite direction. 15 This concept is also in agreement with the frequently observed evidences of gross migrations of peoples following wide-spread natural catastrophe. 16 That the Hyksos were a numerous people is indicated by the fact that they attempted to make war on the hosts of Israel. Since both peoples had their origin in the same era, 17 it is to be expected that their numbers would be of the same order as for the Israelites. For this act of interference, the Amelekites were marked for eventual annihilation which was to be so complete that the memory of them would be forgotten. IH And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. It is most unusual for a people of any significance to lose their identity, yet the Hyksos had lost their identity by the time Manetho wrote. Pertinent to the correctness of this identification is the evident disappearance of the Hyksos foHowing their expulsion from Egypt. The prophetic war of extermination was committed to Saul, whose reign, by the PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS 231 revision, falls coincident with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Samuel the prophet spoke thus to Saul: 19 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Arnalek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not. ... The basis for the 400-year delay irr meting out this retribution is at once apparent. To have undertaken this task prior to .their expulsion from their fortified positions would have required an invasion of Egypt. With this war of extermination set to coincide with the expulsion, the Hyksos were stopped in their tracks in their attempt to enter the area of Palestine. Thus is explained the absence of the expected repercussion on Palestine of their expulsion from Egypt. III. The Problem of the Length .of Hyksos Domination For a solution to the problem of the length of the period of Hyksos domination, see Chapter IX, Section IV. IV. The Presumed Repercussion of the Expulsion on the Subsequent History of Palestine Once the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt into the Sinai territory is accepted as an historical fact (and no informed person rejects this concept), there would seem. to be little by way of choice but to assume that they entered the territory of Palestine. 20 In about 1580 B.C. [sic), the one hundred and fifty years of domination of Egypt by the Asiatic Hyksos came to an end with their expulsion by the first kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty. This event had a twofold repercussion on Palestine. In the first place, the expelled groups were thrown back on Palestine. Some or even the majority, must have settled there. But strangely, the expected evidence of this incursion by a host of foreign people into Palestine is lacking. 21 ... One would have expected them to have brought a considerable amount of Egyptian culture, for just as in Palestine the invaders, as we have seen, adopted . the native Semitic culture, so in Egypt they became to a large extent Egyptianized; but of this there is no great archaeological evidence . . . . To the mixture the coming of the Hyksos chieftains added little. From the material remains one would never deduce the setting up of a 232 THE EXODUS PROBLEM new ruling class with its alien Hurrian elements,. if it were not for the appearance of the new type of fortification. This strange situation is provided an immediate solution when it is recognized that the Hyksos (as Amalekites) did not enter Palestine at this time; they were all but annihilated by the armies of the Israelites under Saul. V. The Anomaly of the Hyksos Empire The new type fortification, referred to in the above quotation, which appeared in Palestine at this time, and on the appearance of which the concept of the entrance of the Hyksos into Palestine largely rests, consisted of a sloping re. vetment on the sides of the mound site, covered with hard plaster. At the top of the revetment, a wall was commonly built as a further protective measure. Such fortifications have been found at various sites in Palestine, including Jericho, Duweir, Tell Jarish, Tell Ajjul, Tell Fara, 22 and at still other sites in a less impressive form. The same type fortification has also been observed at two locations in Egypt. The more imposing example is at Tell el Yehudiyeh, located just north of the modern city of Cairo and at the southern tip of the triangle representing the Delta region of Egypt. These examples of this type fortification in Egypt, dated to the general era of the Hyksos period, have led to the theory that this fortification was of Hyksos origin. Since similar fortifications have been observed in Palestine and dated to the same general period, it was further theorized that these are also of Hyksos origin. It was then but a single additional step to conclude that the Hyksos controlled an empire reaching from the Euphrates to the southern .reaches of the Nile. 2'3 ... The Hyksos ruled an. empire, not merely an Egyptian kingdom. They chose as their capital the city of Avaris in the Delta from which to govern their holdings on two continents . . . . Scarabs of the Hyksos rulers have been turned up by the excavators in· southern Palestine. Meager as these data are, one cannot contemplate them without seeing conjured up before him the vision of a vanished empire which once stretched from the Euphrates to the first cataract of the Nile, an empire of which all other evidence has perished.... .Since the Hittites were known to occupy territory to the north of Palestine at this time, an identity of the Hyksos PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS 233 with the Hittites has been entertained. But since it is certain that the armies of the Hittites of archaeology never entered the territory of Palestine, 24 it has been difficult to account for their control of not only Palestine but also of Egypt. To presume, on the basis of such limited evidence, that a people who cannot even be identified by name, ruled an empire of dimensions comparable to the empires of Assyria, Babylon, and Greece is incredible. Even more serious to the credibility of this theory is the complete disparity between the conditions in Egypt during the period of Hyksos domination as compared to the situation in Palestine if both territories were under the rule of the same kings. VI. The Anomaly of the High Level of Culture and Prosperity in Palestine During the Hyksos Period To be sure, the available data on the Hyksos is meager, but from this meager data there is no conclusion more obvious than that the Hyksos were a people of low culture, a race of vandals who destroyed for the pleasure of destruction, a people who wreaked havoc with the monuments, the temples, and the cities of Egypt, yet a people who produced so little themselves that there remains no basis for identifying this race. 2·5 ... The invaders, now generally called the Hyksos, . . . left so few monuments in Egypt that even their nationality is still a matter of much difference of opinion; ... "I [Hatshepsut of Dynasty XVIII] have restored that which was ruins; I have raised up that which was unfinished. Since the Asiatics were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland, and the barbarians were in the midst of them (the people of the Northland), overthrowing that which had been made, while they ruled in ignorance of Re." But strangely, this same period in Palestine represents the zenith of prosperity, wealth, productivity, and trade. 26 ... It now appears that one of the greatest times in the history of the city [Shechem] was the period known as the "Hyksos Age," between 1700 and 1550 B.C. That was the time when foreigners, mostly from Palestine and Syria [sic] with the aid of the horse and chariot as a new weapon of war (sic] were able to conquer Egypt and establish a great and very prosperous empire . . . . This was a time of great local prosperity; the number of settlements and tombs increased steadily, and the luxurious funerary appointments of Middle Bronze II B-C exceed anything else known in the history of the country. We are reduced to conjecture about the sources of the wealth of Hyksos Palestine, but our gue8ses can scarcely 234 THE EXODUS PROBLEM . be appreciably wrong. It is only reasonable [sic] to suppose that the flourishing commerce of the age was mainly responsible; Palestine had become a high road of trade between Africa and Asia. But the preponderance of weapons and ornaments made in Egypt, or made. after Egyptian models, suggests that much of the wealth was brought back to Palestine by warriors who had fought in Egypt on behalf of the Hyksos. [Emphasis ours.] Unfortunately for this "guess," the Hyksos produced nothing of trade value in Egypt, and it is inconceivable to suppose that the high degree of prosperity in Palestine for the Hyksos era was due to their efforts or ingenuity, or even to the presence or control of the area by the Hyksos. Nor has it been explained why peoples whose territory had just been ravaged by the Hyksos should elect to fight on behalf of the Hyksos in Egypt. VII. Who Constructed the Fortification at Tell el Yehudiyeh It is here contended that this entire theory of a Hyksos control of any territory outside Egypt by the Hyksos during the period of their domination of Egypt (with the possible exception of the Arabian desert from which they came) is an imaginary concept 27 resulting from the demands of an erroneous chronology of Egypt that is offset from true Palestinian history by more than half a millennium. Since this theory finds its central support in the appearance of similar type fortification structures both in Egypt and in Palestine, it becomes a matter of importance to re-examine this theory of origin in the light of the proposed revision of Egyptian chronology. · By this revision, the period of Israelite slavery in Egypt just preceded the period of Hyksos domination, and the two periods followed in succession. It is important to note that there were no written inscriptions found in the graves associated with the fortification at Tell el Yehudideh to allow an unequivocal correlation of date with either Palestinian history or the reign of any specific Egyptian king, nor was there any unequivocal evidence to warrant the conclusion that this structure was even constructed during the Hyksos period. The identity as Hyksos was based on the belief that the site was the same as that of the Hyksos stronghold at Avaris mentioned by Josephus. 28 PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS 235 The age of the Hyksos has been lighted by the discovery of an immense earthen camp at Tell el Yehudiyeh.... The position seems to agree with that of their chief camI? of Avaris. This identity of location was later found to be. incorrect; the site of Avaris was found to be far to the east of Tell el Yehudiyeh though the assumption of identity as of Hyksos origin was retained. The finding in Palestine of similar fortifications, as well as similar black incised pottery and scarabs like the ·items found in the graves associated with the fortification, does provide a strong suggestion that these had an origin by a peoP,le once in Egypt who later occupied the territory of Palestine. This was unequivocally true of the ·Israelites, but any deduction that this was true of the Hyksos is pure supposition - supposition that is open to the most severe sort of criticism. · The scarabs found ill the graves were assumed to be of Hyksos origin on the basis of the assumed Hyksos origin of the fortification, and these scarabs were then assumed to serve as index scarabs for identifying scarabs of Hyksos origin found elsewhere, as in Palestine. 29 · ... Graves of this age were found near and in the camp; and the connection of the styles of scarabs and of black incised pottery gave a basis for the classifying of the Hyksos scarabs by style. Actually, there are exceedingly few scarabs that can be identified as of Hyksos origin on the basis of the names inscribed on them.'10 Of the actual remains there are but very few belonging to the Hyksos kings, and those only of Apepa I and II . . . . Several scarabs [five are shown] with the throne name [of Apepa I] are known, some of them very rude and blundered. Of the 28 names found on scarabs and credited to the Hyksos by Petrie,'31 14 contain the name of the sun god Ra of the Egyptians, though Hatshepset states that the Hyksos lived in ignorance of Ra. 32 Seven names are clearly those of kings of the IXth or XIIIth Dynasties; two contain the name of Jacob, and none save those of Apepa are names that -can be unequivocally equated with Hyksos kings as given by Manetho. On the basis of using these scarabs found in the graves at Tell el Yehudideh as index items, the numerous scarabs found in Palestine have been deduced as of Hyksos origin. 236 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Many of these carry the names of Xllth Dynasty kings, prominent among the names being that of Sesostris l.'1'3 This was the king under whom Joseph served as vizier and the one king whom the Israelites would have held in high es, teem. The fortification at Tell el Yehudideh should be recognized as a structure built by the Israelites under slave labor. The associated graves are then Israelite, and the black incised pottery and the contained scarabs are rather index items for identifying Israelite origin. The similar items found in Palestine were then brought there by the Israelites. The similar fortifications in Palestine are then of Israelite origin, but not necessarily of Israelite invention since a similar fortification is found far to the north in Hittite territory.'i. VIII. Numerous Graves in Egypt Without an Identity; No Graves for the Hyksos A problem relative to the Hyksos to which little attention seems to have been given concerns the· paucity of evidence of Hyksos graves in Egypt. The graves thu~ far presumed to be of Hyksos origin are confined almost in their entirety to the previously noted cemetery in connection with the fortification at Tell el Yehudideh. But these cannot be proved to be of Hyksos origin, and an identification as Israelite presents a far more consistent interpretation. The general absence of the graves of the Hyksos as a numerous people · remains an enigma. That the Hyksos did control all of Egypt following their invasion is clearly stated by Josephus and clearly confirmed by archaeology.'35 ... At length they made one of themselves king, whose name was , Salatis; he also lived at Memphis and made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that were most proper for them . . . . That the Hyksos suzerainty under the great kings extended over the whole land, is shown by the lintel of Apepa I, found as far south as Gebelen; and by the building in red granite of the same king, showing control of the Aswan quarries. The fact that the war of expulsion required clearing the Hyksos out of southern Egypt and gradually forcing them into the Delta fortification indicates further this widespread occupation. PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS 237 During the last decade of the 19th century, a series of cemeteries were discovered widespread over Egypt which represented a people who were clearly not Egyptian.'1" The bodies in the graves were not mummified. Sometimes the bodies had been dismembered before burial, but when entire, they were always resting on their left sides with their knees drawn up on a level with their chins and their hands raised to their faces. They were always found facing the west with the head to the south and the feet to the north. These graves were found in many parts of Egypt, and the large number of graves did not permit the conclusion that they represented an isolated group of settlers or that they represented an unimportant section of the population. Nor could they represent the graves of an army, since there were as many graves of women as of men. The only evidence of Egyptian influence was the style of earthenware which appeared. '37 ... to be copied from the well-known forms of the Early Empire -· the adoption of forms being due to imitation and not to learning from ancient Egyptians, all the copies being made by hand, and not on the wheel like the originals. [Emphasis ours.] Some of the graves were found to have intruded into Egyptian burials of the Vlth Dynasty and earlier. 37• Petrie was one of the foremost scholars to examine these · graves, and in one season alone some 3,000 were investigated. From such an examination, Petrie arrived at certain conclusions, some of which were accepted by his contemporaries; on others there was much opposition. From the evidences of low culture and the intrusion of some of the grave.s into burials of the Vlth Dynasty, and from the crude nature of the imitations of Egyptian earthenware, Petrie logically concluded that these were the graves of the people who had been responsible for the fall of the Old Kingdom at the end of Dynasty VI. Amelineau had also examined some of these graves and became a promin.ent proponent of a different theory on the origin of these graves. In his opinion, these graves were predynastic in origin. A period of disagreement and debate followed. The disagreement was eventually settled, even to the satisfaction of Petrie, by the entrance of M. }; de Morgan, a geologist and mining engineer, into the conflict.')J; 238 THE EXODUS PROBLEM At this period of doubt and uncertainty great light was thrown upon the predynastic ethnography of Egypt and the origin of Egyptian civilization by M. J. de Morgan, whose training as a scientific geologist and mining engineer qualified him to decide many questions on these subjects which were quite outside the competence of Egyptologists, and whose extensive excavations at Nakada enabled him to speak on the subjects under discussion with peculiar authority. The grounds on which de Morgan (as a geologist) based his conclusions are most interesting.'39 The net result of all this proved [sic] that the Egyptians and the "New Race" did not live side by side, and that they did not occupy the country at the same time; for had there been communication between them, the more civilized race would have transmitted to the less civilized a great number of its manners and customs; and the results of its industrial arts, and the use of Egyptian objects would have been adopted by the race with the inferior civilization. This being so, one of the two peoples must have preceded the other in the country of Egypt, and the first occupaant could be none other than Professor Petrie's "New Race" because, in spi~e of its less advanced degree of civilization, it had borrowed nothing from the more advanced Egyptians. Having thus proved [sic] the great antiquity of the "New Race," M. de Morgan went on to show that the period assigned by Professor Petrie for their existence in Egypt was an impossible one, for at the end of the Early Empire Egypt was highly civilized, and its armies had advanced far into Western Asia and the Eastern Sudan, and its kings were ruling over large tracts of country; how, then, could a semi-barbarous people like those which formed the "New Race," who were armed with flint weapons only, invade Egypt, and expel or massacre the whole of the population of the country without leaving any trace of it behind? It is to be carefully noted from the above quotations that the interpretations offered by de Morgan were geological interpretations, not archaeological interpretations. On the basis of the low culture, apparent age, and the apparent absence of influence by a higher civilization, de Morgan tossed aside the evidences of intrusion of some of the graves into burials of the Vltp Dynasty and earlier and thus "proved" the graves of the New Race to have been predynastic. Then, having thus "proved" this point, he concludes that the period assigned to the graves by Petrie. on the basis of such intrusion was an impossible one. An archaeological interpretation not only permits, but demamds, the assignment of these graves to the period following the fall of the OI<l Kingdom at the end of Dynasty VI. The question that should be considered is why the New PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS 239 Race was so slightly influenced by the contemporary higher civilization. The altered chronology provides a most reasonable answer to this question to replace the incredible explanation of de Morgan which assumes that the New Race must have slaughtered the entire population of Egypt with· out leaving a trace. By the altered chronology, the First Intermediate was the same period as the Second Interm~diate, both representing the period. of Hyksos domination. The New Race are thus the Hyksos and their widespread graves are the missing graves of the Hyksos. That the Hyksos kept themselves aloof from the culture of the Egyptians, particularly during the early part of the period of their domination, is abundantly clear. Their primary concern was not that of absorbing the culture of the conquered but to destroy it. This interpretation has been· objected to on the grounds that the graves contained no scarabs! But scarabs are a reflection of Egyptian culture, not Hyksos. Must we believe that the Hyksos manifested an immunity to Egyptian culture during this early stage, and at the same time made it one of their first moves to make scarabs? · Breasted had no choice left but to consider the downfall of the Old Kingdom as the result of e.n "internal struggle." But since the subsequent kings (Dynasties VII and VIII) claimed a relation to the kings of the Vlth Dynasty,- it is difficult to understand why they should carry out such a violent program of vandalism and ·destruction on the accomplishments of their own predecessors. ~0 One sees in the description of events at the end of the Old Kingdom a strange similarity to the vandalism of the Hyksos period. But of course the traditional chronology did not permit even a fleeting consideration of such an identity, much less any consideration of an identity of the graves of the New Race with those of the Hyksos. IX. The Problem of the. Hyksos Scarabs Repeated warnings have been voiced by various scholars relative to the erroneo1.1s conclusions that may readily result from attempts to use scarabs as a basis for dating. The uncertainty of conclusions based on this method of dating is due in part to the fact that these scarabs were often treasured as keepsakes for generations and not infrequently re- THE EXODUS PROBLEM 240 produced by later generations. Cases are known where scarabs of a much later era have been introduced into tombs of a much earlier date. ·11 ... Every Palestinian and Egyptian archaeologist knows that scarabs are not good evidence, since they were handed down as keepsakes and charms and were widely imitated even centuries later. . . . Petrie dated [tomb] 552 in the thirteenth century because it contained an Egyptian scarab which bore the name of Pharaoh Rameses II fcG. 1290-1224). Yet more than one Palestinian archaeologist has gotten into difficulty in trying to date discoveries by royal scarabs from Egypt. The reason is that scarabs were often preserved for generations as heirlooms.... Consequently the presence of a scarab of Rameses II does. not date a tomb except to indicate that it is probably not earlier than his reign . . . . lt mmt not be forgotten that evidence from scarab styles is usually regarded as the most fallacious type of cultural evidence. Thus Budge says: "When a scarab is found bound up in a mummy the date of which can be ascertained from the inscriptions upon it, that scarab can be used with advantage a5 an authority by which to compare other scarabs; when, however, a scarab is dug up with a lot of miscellaneous stuff it is of little value for the purpose of comparison. From the lowest depths of the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasty tombs at Aswan, scarabs have been dug up which could not have been a day older than the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, if as old." The only basis for presuming that this rule of interpretation can be disregarded in dealing with the scarabs in archaeological levels in Palestine and belonging to Middle Bronze, the era associated with the Hyksos occupation of . Ecypt, . is their prevalence and widespread area of occurr~nce. But this is explainable in terms of occupation of this · ~ritory by a people .who were once in Egypt. It does not wovtde an identity for this people. 1n the. absence of signifi~t aQcompanying items of trade otherwise, there is no ~uivocal ·basis fo,, ielentiying this people other than by the oons:istency of the results that follow from a pro~ i~entificaHon. . T~ anomalous situation that results from regarding this as the iHyksos, or as any pee>ple relab~d ~o the ;f{yk·ifc;lsi;bee.:t ~nt@'Ci out~ 4 1'> On the other hand; the un• -d~,Pf~Y~~ :el.,,s~·i1-ra~J:>ea\d:gg to;e narrrl!' Sews"; J ~o~ *· •h-19i,J~~ e. ,.famiM"·M-~iti~•. lsraelttes' b~}d bl .. ;dJ::!ID~es.;4• :ns .time Israelites,; not th.e 'W• ·~:~hM~~ab&iato~J?al'1stiae.'*2 ca PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS 241 ... The most ancient object of this period up to the present found at Ras Shamra, a necklace of beads of cornaline, carries the cartouch of Sesostris I, who according to the short chronology reigned between 1970 and 1936. The scarabs with the name of this same pharaoh have been found at Beit Mirsim, Megiddo, Gezer. Beth Shan, Lachish, and Gaza in Palestine where they constitute also the most ancient objects of Egyptian origin thus far dated. [Translation.] The finding of scarabs in Egypt bearing the name of Jacob 43 points in the same direction. Those found in Palestine may be considered as treasured items by the Israelites from a former age or as items that formed part of the treasure pressed upon the Israelites by the Egyptians when they left Egypt. 44 It is not necessary tQ assume that these scarabs were made by the Israelites though it is not impossible that this may be true in individual cases. Since this new type fortification has been observed at Carchemish in Hittite territory much farther to the north, it may be deduced that this type fortification was derivative by both the Egyptians · · and the Israelites. Notes and References (I) The specific king in whose reign the Hyksos invasion occurred has not been identified with certainty; however, the general er11 within Dynasty XIII has been defined within rela· lively narrow limits. While about as many names follow this ~nt as precede. it, the shortness of the later reigns leaves the incident late in the dynasty. (2) Petrie was the principal proponent of •the long chronol?ID"· The short chronology, now generally accepted, allows but 208 years between the end of Dynasty XII. and the beginning Of Dynasty XVIII. This is .generally divided to allocate about 100·.years each to late Dynasty Xlll and the Hyksos period, with the remaining brief period allotted to Dynasty XVII. However, s0me prominent scholars continue to hold to a period af about 150 years for the H;yksos period (see quot. Qf ref. 20; G-RD, p. 108). (3) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 265; B-BEC, Vol. XI, p. 138. (4) Breasted-<iefended such a concept (B-HE, p. 217; see also K-AHL, P·. 182; B·AB, p. 28). (5) J-AA, Blc l, par. 14. (6) S·ee Chap. XIII, Sect. IX for further detail on Dudimos. (7) W-M, pp. 91-93. (8) Petrie giv~ a tramls,tion of this account (P-HE, Vol. II, pp. 17-19). (9) Chap. IX. (10)-B-N, p. 38. (llY W-M, p. 05. (12) See ref. 8. (13) Velikovsky proposed such an identifiQation (V-AC, CAAP· (Hl Ex. 17:8f.; Num. 13:29. (15) Ex. I7:9ff. (16.) See Vol. II, Ghaps. VI, XVI, and »VU for other examples. {17} Amalek, the father .,f the Amalekite& was a.s:an~ of Ji;sau lw T-. aconenbine (Gen. 36:12). (18) Ex. 17:14. (19) I Sam. 15:2 3. (ZQ) K-AHL, p. 195. (21) Ibui.; fliitt., p. 1:98. (22) Ibid., .p. 180. (23) G-:WOT, p. 66; B-HE,. p. 21a (24l Chap. v, s . ect.. v. l.~. qu~.o·.t .. of ref. 39.. (25) BcHE, pp. 214, 21?; see also P-HE, Vol. II, p. 19 for an alt~ t~ll.l!'ion of~ i!1$oription by Hatshepsut; See also' quot. of ref. 5. (2t>) ~A. Vol. XX. P-' 81: A"A~ p. 8't ~' / See q;ilot. of ref. 23; see also V~, 11. Qhap, V, Sect.-~ (2/i) P-.HE,,Ve>li. l, . adaeni;la,~ .. {29) Ibid.. (00.) Ibid., pp. 240, ~· (31) Ibid., addend,a, ~· W2) Seeind'quot. ohef. 25)8al See qlijll\. 1>hi. 42. (~) K.,AHL, p. l~ ($51. MA;~ I, Jl!llT. l'/lll ptfi;ill!, ••,Jy. ~ B-BEC, Vol. IX, pp. 7ff. ~37} Ib1d., p. 24. (S7a) B-BE(:, Vol. lX, PP-· ~,,.2i;. :.,,,p, 21. (S9) lbtd., p: 29! {40) See Chap. VI, qaot: Of ref. 58.•{ll) •BA; Vol.'lft'\l-'.M; Ui•p:'li6', M·SE<;;, p, ~7!l, (41a) Sect$. IV, V, (~) H·PCt\O* p. ~· (43} S"' ;£, $~. (~).E~. ~~\~• l,l6. · m CHAPTER XV THE ENIGMA OF MANETHO'S Xlth DYNASTY From the beginnings of modern attempts to unravel the history and chronology of ancient Egypt, the problem of the composition and placement of Manetho' s XI th Dynasty has defied satisfactory solution. The view that Manetho' s dynasties ruled in sequence, except for the parallelism now recognized for the late Xlllth, XIVth, and the Hyksos Dynasties, demands that Dynasty XI shall precede Dynasty XII. In support of this dynastic sequence are data which cannot be disregarded and which indicate that Dynasty XII had its rise with the rulers that belong to Manetho' s Dynasty x1. 1 On the other hand, accumulating evidence is at hand that points to a position irt the Hyksos period subsequent to Dynasty XII for certain kings that have been assigned to Dynasty XI. This position is probably not far removed from the beginning of Dynasty XVIII. 2 The discrepancy would find a ready solution if it could be shown that an error has been made in assuming that all the kings carrying the names Antef or Mentuhotep belong to Dynasty XI, and if it were recognized that some of these names properly belong· to the Hyksos period following Dynasty XII. Since, by the revision proposed in this work, Dynasties VII to X belong also to the Hyksos period,$ the enigma is clarified if it can be shown !'hat many of these kings carrying tire names Antef or Me'ntuhotep belong to Dynasties IX or X rather tiO Mmetho' s Ji)yna!ty XI. Whtie siUeh a solutio~ has beef:li · entertained· by a few seholars, this concept has not been g¢terally accepted. ActuaHy~ ;dtis solution to tk~ problem is not susceptible to raijorud ., : ' Di.lwn exce?t it'is als<J re(!ogDized that Dynasties 111~~;~ ''.tC!::"rn~. ~rk$cS\~#otJ, fuc~Iowi"'g Dy:q:~sw ltn in~,& ~~,ne: T~~;~aJ:t~ion ~ ~~,iziag ·a; . . .. · . ings wii~k aimes An1•f1a;nd Menttlbe-~l' folfoWing ~~sty xn is .tb~t it must. presume two lines of .! '.'t~ilar ~> s.epar~~; ;i:tt time f>y s~ral · · '·o~··@Mt~·~ tb•··~ man .fa.· ·· · i !"•:J,eYl',~f!l;°'4l~~:t'~ ..llMl·""'""'J.J..L-"'.~ ·:~, -~. b.··"l~· . n,m:,, ... ,., ·. ,~~,pt1aa: l.··. ·. '·hi....· -.rng: !i11>tS. ENIGMA OF MANETHO'S XIth DYNASTY 243 The entire problem takes on a new significance against the background of the proposed revision of Egyptian chronolo- gy. One of the clues leadiag to this proposed revision was the recognition that a similar premise had been made relative to the line of Ramessides of the Sothis list, Since this list of Ramessides was not in a ~sition to be properly asso. . ciated with the known line of Ramessides of Dynasties XIX and' XX, it was presumed that the names were misplaced in · the list. 3a With the demonstration ln this work that numet~ ous problems· in the current views are provided ready isolutiions when these Rarnessides are retained in the p(>sUion given them in the list, 4 the quest~on may now be properly raised as to the validity of the reaspns' offered for rej,ecting the concept that some of these Antefs and Mentuhotep were separated from· others by several centuries. I. Information Derived from the KingL~ts The Sothis ·list, which has been of such gseat value in un~ ravelling many problems of chronol()gy otherwi:Se, is of no valU€ here, since it does not provide the names oftJite,Jtings of Dynasty XI or the names of the· Icings contempor~ wiith the Hyksos rulelS of Dynasties XV and. XVI. .:Manetho, through both Africanus and Eusebius tells 'US tlr$t Dyr.LQSty XI was composed of "16 kings of Diospolis [or Tll.ebes} who reigned for 43 years" but d0es not gi\.le the naime5 of these · kings. 0 Both transcribers, however, carry the further com.. ment that "in succession. to these [16 kings}. Amm~a~mes ruled for ·16 years." There is a universal agreement among scholars that Ammenemes is to be identified as AQilenemhet I; tke first king of Dynasty XU. J;l;J,i~ c08du$io~ is placed ott1:.t.be .~el of ~ntial .. certainty, ~ JJM~ ~Wbers ~t Ammemh~ 1 fflOO) th@ list.0€1:~~ XII~•'Dy~,,m~ and begin the dynasty with Sescmdltes~. (Sesostris r.vlt.9 is sta.t.ed to. he. the . s.en ~{ Amme~~es. ·Ti.~. ~ tMis .'be'·~ tie ;remaining 1~ioa. but that J)'}ln~ty. K~ ·as ·m~ .,n by,.u~t~, ·b~s ~i-~y!~£(>11~v~~. ·.,~.~Ii*~ ~ti0$:-~ ~j-s.'MQetJ\ld;'~~~~::..' .l}t~:r.-.,~,lt~·~}e)possiiblet~~·~:1~-~,t~~·~· i " . "::: . . 244 THE EXODUS PROBLEM names of only 6 kings of. Dynasty XI in contrast to the 16 stated by Manetho. 6 Petrie explained the discrepancy by aSr suming that Manetho' s record had been corrupted, and that the 16 for the number of kings has been confused in copying with the 16 years for the reign of Ammenemes, the proper figure more probably having been 6. In this explanation, Petrie seems to have been joined by other scholars. Since the Turin list is evidently complete, it would seem that some such explanation must be entertained if the names in the list are being properly identified as belonging to Dynasty XI. On the other hand, the number of known kings with names Antef and Mentuhotep is certainly larger than six. Petrie himself lists nine such in making up the composition of Dynasty XI,. assuming that the first three were usurpers who were not recognized by the king lists. The problem is magnified by the relatively short period (43 years) allotted to the• Dynasty. Since Manetho's figures for the period of the dynasties were obviously obtained by simple addition of reigns without regard to overlapping or parallelism, there remains the possibility that the elapsed time for the dynasty may have been even shorter than 43 years. It is now recognized that the feudal form of government of Dynasty XII had its beginnings in Dynasty XI.' Hence, it is not at all out of the question that a degree of parallelism of rule characterized the period preceding Dynasty XII. Other scholars have preferred to believe that it is the figure 43 that has been corrupted and should perhaps read .146 or even some larger figuire. 8 This interpretation cannot be avoided if one is going to make any pretense of induding all the knewn kings by the name Antef or Mentuhotep i:"' DYn~y XI .as a sequence; Mentuhotep III, as a single kbi.g, rEiigned for 46 years or more. 9 MacNaughton, rn fol1-mg Weipll an.di Winlook, 11 thought harmony could be .restored by. regarding Dynasty XI as a split dynasty with ,,..ce~;·~t~ ~ the north 'and ift. t~ south, only oM dhd~· of w.niek was· recognized by the king' list authors, who .,~.the l'li#lm~'''o si'f, or fo,~r. ln the light of the nurn1 i , . 0A1~5.~1illlf>,;W 1 ~ w~b ~1or 1 tM1othet" o,i.:tb~~ '· ·~~~~~.~ .' s~.,.·.....'~.~.' h~.·~.~t:.,v~~f~~~' ~(t~ .~ • ~~d. b: '· ~-~~~~w,:re~w.s[:wel.Olei~··•~ ,,n;,tb~the~·eofu · • ecb~ig~coulld. have'am~.nted ~'.£~.(,'". \!1"~,, .~\, ~,o", '"'.lf'¥t" , ~ ,,} · . <1.· , . e. , ·1· .'· i ENIGMA OF MANETHO'S Xlth DYNASTY 245 to only 43 years. The necessity for abbreviating the period o.f Dynasties I to XI, as noted in an earlier chapter, 12 is also against the concept that Dynasty XI occupied any extended period of time. The Karnak king list gives four kings carrying the names Antef or Mentuhotep. Unfortunately the list provides little from which unequivocal conclusions can be drawn, sinee these four names are not in the position expected for either Dynasty X~ or the Hyksos period. Rather the names fall between otlier names clearly belonging to Dynasties V an,d VI. 1'1 The suggestion is strong that the author of the Karn~k list did not intend to give the kings in the order of thek reigns. As early as 1851, Poole, following the evidence presented by Wilkinson, identified these four kings in the Karnak list as Heracleopolite in origin.'~ The Heracleopolite dy~tie~, according to Manetho, are Dynasties IX and X, but II;Qt XI; the latter is stated to be from Thebes. On this basis, "PqoJe placed these Antefs and Mentuhoteps in Dynasty IX, a' position which, of course, does not clarify their positi9n be~ tween Dynasties V and VI in the Karnak list. Interestingly, Poole had also arrived at thie same conclusion . defended in this work, i.e., that the Hyksos took over Egypt ·at the enq of Dynasty VI. 15 By this chronological structure, Dynasty IX does belong to the Hyksos period, thus agreeing with other evidence pointing to the existence of a line of kil'!gs with names Antef and Mentuhotep in this era. Much information pertinent to the problem now available, was .not known .at the time Poole wrote. It is thus of significance .to nPte that his clearly stated conclusion is in agreement with the roQre Fecently discovered evidences that point so clearly/to the exis,. tence in the Hyksos era of kings bearing tqesctntUUll:es and that these names need not be id~ntified as .kings of Dynasty Xl. 16 .... With her [Queen Nitolwi'et th. SiJcth Dynarty,en~l.i; t~ Sh~ .lten;l:s, [H yksos I, who had latezy .i111Nam Egypt, takiQg Mempl~ whiidn .~hey ~o,ntin4~ tp ~old fo~ more than .two cen~l;l>'rieji1.,, . . .. .J have already mentioned the fact e.f ·Sif 'cGamdner ,.laavtng found a. prgof t~t the :[Gags of ~ Nfiptef 'A ·~fQ~ad hl ~.'he, c~am~~ q~ ~~. ~~~~i.·~'~.; t'.·. !,,~~ iti!isf.~l Mdlllf·lll~ ~UU~illlifg~--M, , tnro k compos\til>'» (){ Jrh~h tl~ . - . .,<i>f:J;lfe ~~·'!::~ • THE EXODUS PROBLEM god of Sebennytus, and also doubtless of Heracleoyolis, ent~rs; and this proves that these six Kings belong to a Heracleopolite Dynasty, which can only be the Ninth ... . . . With respect to the Tenth Dynasty, Africanus and Euseoius entirely agree in the number of its Kings, and the duration of their rule. Most probably this Dynasty ended at the time of the great Shepherdwar of expulsion. Steindorf£ also recognized the difficulties involved in presuming that all the Antefs and Mentuhoteps must be included in Dynasty XI and proposed that some of these belonged to Dynasty XIII. 17 His conclusion was based on the appearance of the name Ameni in the list of Xlllth Dynasty Princes. Ameni also carried the name Antef. 18 Petrie objected to this arrangement on the basis that it was not permitted by the king lists. However, this objection has its origin in the assumption of a sequence arrangement of the dynruities. When viewed objectively against the mass of data present~ in this, and in a subsequent volume, in opposition to snch a sequence arrangement, the .arguments based on Petrie' s premise lose their weight. The .proposal of Steindorf£ is probably much closer to the truth than most scholars .ha'W'e believed. While Steindorff s placement of these kings in Dynasty XIII is questionable, he was certainly correct in his belief that some of these kings befong to a period subse_qu~t to Dynasty XII. ·II. Further Evidence That the Antefs and of DyMSties IX and X Belong to the Hyhsos Period ,:W'hat then is this evidence which so dearly points to BiYndes. IK aind »·as propel' J»~ce for some of these ~te&' a:ml Mentu'hoteps, and what is the evidence that ~-~-~'ill theH~Vl'era readhing to the ~ ~Ulingli of'Dynasty XVHI? This evidence is re~..!b~·;~d@t~.· ~ it is ~ntended tha:t it provides ~tenit supP<>rt lor die correctness of the proposed revision, I~·- ~mPf,lll"~tiS ~rof ·~nasties VJ .,, .JU; ··ire,~~ pmod"*Wllow~:. beMl, rims making Men~hoteps t- ... · · · · ·a ~~:n·a'~~·irlriif'· *1d'S~rf<t1nfer.. '' ' '•'' ,'"!' ~ ',""; , '~~ "·. ; ENIGMA OF MANETHO'S Xlth DYNASTY 247 progenitors of Ahmose, the first king of Dynasty XVIII. These statements were omitted in the translation of the French work into German. The editor of the translation of the German work into English noted the omission. Recognizing that the statements-.were "too important to be suppressed,"20 he proceeded to reproduce them as a two-page note under the heading: On the Probable Genealogical Succession of the Eleventh, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Theban Dynasties. Quoting Brugsch, the editor wrote: 21 "In studying the monq.ments whose origin goes back to the epoch ·of the first king of this illustrious dynasty (the Seventeenth}, we perceive a fact which is well to note, in or~er to form a just 'idea concerning the royal family from which sprang the founders of the great Egyptian emr,ire of the Amenophs [Amenhoteps] and the Thutmes [Thutmoses]. "According to the indications supplied by the family pedigrees in several tombs, and by the texts engraved or paimed on certain pbjee,tjs of a sepulchral nature, the ancestor of the royal faQJ.~ly in q:uesijoo w~ worshiped in the person of the old Pharaoh Mentuhotep of the ~­ enth dynasty, ... The transmission of the pure hlOod of Mentubotep to the king Amosis (Aahmes) of the Eighteenth Dynasty ~as ma(je by the hereditary princess Aames-Nof~rtari . .. who roamed the said king. and whose issue was regarded as the legitimate r~ of the Pharaohs .of the house of Mentuhotep. Besides N ofertari, . . . another contemporazy princess, bearing the name of Aah-hotep, tbe wife of king Karnes, and probably the mother of king Aahmes, enjoyed a very marked Veneration on the part of the Egyptians, who regarded her, next to Nofertltti, as the ancestress of the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty." After referrihg to the discovery of the coffin of quee;n Aah-hotep, the editor continued to quote Brugsch as fol~ lows: 22 "If we enquire from the vertical inscription (on the ci>ffm.-li'd}' ~ 11ame of the personage whose relics were contained in th~ coft'Ur, we .see ... that these remains are thqse of 'the clrlej royal C0111Sort wko ~ received the fa1?:01Jr of the white crown, Aah-h<;>tep. tbe ever-liv•: Our coffin then contained the mummy of a queen" ·and Dr. Bru~1 proceeds to show from this title, 'Vhich was ip special u'Se tinder tbe Eleventh Dynasty, from the ·pre'Valence of the ·~,·~-ho00p, for~ and w~en in~ .,,,~jeSp~JjJ~~~~·~ .b!a~ of the .emQ.leins .~ ~~Qi(,~ ..witbm, ~d of tqe le}Vels. it coQ'.ta~ to the.. ; tthe ·~~•dynasty, how sl;rt)i:i,g ~ ~ a prltlti' queen ·~~Jmtiep ta tile tmM ·.•• ~l& \Eleven other hand,!ail the: oibjeets ·~ in tBe . · ~£ ~~... i;Qt-0{+~t...~ ~e.l,~:t\ ; '~ J ,4 , ,·.;:,'""'~.lilllifll •. ~,of.~ ,v;:1;.~· r(l_,, ~·, 248 THE EXODUS PROBLEM inference is irresistible, that the queen Aah-hotep, who was buried in this coffin, was the contemporary of Karnes, and closely connected with Aahmes, and that the indications pointing to the Eleventh Dynasty only prove the reversion under the Seventeenth and the beginning of the Eighteenth to the art of the Eleventh. In the light of the previous discussion, the errors of both Brugsch :and the editor, in commenting on the remarks of Brugsch, become apparent. Bound in their thinking by the accepted dynastic arrangement as a sequence, and by the belief that all the Antefs must belong to Dynasty XI, the presence of a queen who was an immediate progenitor of Ahmose of Dynasty XVIII in a coffin which was indistinguishable in ·its appurtenances from those attributed to Dynasty XI, represented an enigma not readily explainable. Since the evidence relative to the time position of the coffin the era of Ahmose could not be controverted, the editor saw no other possible explanation than to assume a reversion in the XVIIIth Dynasty to the art of the Xlth. The difficulty lies in a misidentification of the composition of Dyq:asty XI. Some of the Antef kings now placed in Dynasty XI belong to the Heracleopolite Dynasty IX or X, as so clearly demonstrated by Wilkinson many years ago. Among these misplaced Antefs are those whose coffins resemble so closely, in their style and content, the coffin of the queen progenitor of Ahmose, first king of Dynasty XVIII. By the proposed revision, these dynasties belong to the Hyksos period, reaching probably to within a decade of the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty. There is thus no reason why this evidence should be either disregarded or suppressed, or to assume an improbable reversion to the art of the Xlth Dynasty. But with the presumed dynastic sequer1~ IX-X-XI placed prior to Dynasty XII, merely movU,g thes~ kings back into Dynasty IX or X does not explain tJ,e enigma. Tbe situation is clarified when, and only when, .it,~ turtber recognized that Dynasties IX and X belong to t.he ftybos~~rafollowin~ Dynasty XII. There was a break in ~ . titifu~ri~al sequence of Minetho' s dynasties between .. ' . X ana''Dyil.asty XI, JYYnasty Xl as envision~d by :.·1 ~; p:F@petli~~~ pxli?r i.Q :Qyn.a.$ly" XII; wl;>ile .. . ·~~:•H,!tQ: ~ ~1~d!S: 0~ti ~,end of Dynast¥ ,~JI ··.~ ,~)'.'.~~' ,~e,~~;~~siti~ of•;Man. ~,. · · 11 J:eri\'ruirs~' iltisebre: If ti.ere' is any e:dant ENIGMA OF MANETHO'S Xlth DYNASTY 249 evidence from these kings, this should be sought in the half century period preceding the beginning of Dynasty XII, which was contemporary with Dynasty V. This interpretation is confirmed from several directions. In the course of excavations in the area of Heracleopolis by Neville and Petrie (1904), nothing was found on the site dating earlier than the Xllth Dynasty. 2'1 This observation is anomalous if these Heracleopolite Dynasties are given a po.. sition prior to Dynasty XII. By the· proposed revision, it is not to be expected that anything would be found at this site earlier than Dynasty XII. . King Khyan has been assigned to the Hyksos pe~iod. Petrie objected to such a. placement, since his scaFabs indicate that he belongs to either Dynasty VI or IX. 24 By the pr°"' posed revision, there is no anomaly here. Dynasty JX belongs to the Hyksos period, and Dynasty VI reaches to this era. To avoid this difficulty, it has been proposed that Khyan is to be identified with Manetho' s Staan of Uynast:y XV. Perhaps this identification is correct, but it does netexplain the evidence for his placement in or following Dyn~~ ty VI. Petrie classified the tombs at Denderah into eight groups which he designated by letters A to H, according to the sequence of style of the sculpture, form of the tomb, position of the tomb, and cont_ents of the tomb.2.; He assigned the earliest group; (A) to the era of Dynasties III and IV; the last four groups (E-H) were assigned to Dynasty XI. Petrie recognized the unsatisfactory nature of his assignments, since "it is unsatisfactory to have class E, with such names as Antef and Mentuhotep, separated by F and G from class H in which the names of the Eleventh Dynasty rule again." The names occurring in tombs of classes F and G are dearly those of Dynasty XIII. By the suggested revision, Dynas~ ty XIII does separate Dynasties V and IX, ·and the'gr~.p sequence as observed by Petrie is the actual time sequence. Newberry examined a scarab iXlscribed "The R()¥a1 $on; Antefa." MacNaughton ·cites him as commenting trhYttS ~n this scarab. 2tt · "From the style of the ~ufting and back of this scarat I s~~;J :he inclined to recognize in this Antefa one of the princes of ~he' in~~ ·d•~~··-..l· b.....,.;. · «w ~L.-"f'L•....._~_.L ..tSe'\F€!11l<E!e9i~u: ., · i.L ,n...-;'-"""'""""~ ,..,...,..p$:iuu' .,,..,een nmLG<;iLu•·,anu' :Wey~'"-~ , ~ 4 ~e oft,M,El~.t1lii. Dya~ty... i"IJ?cih?~;~, ti1¥ff, 250 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Newberry is, then, quite correct in his analysis, though it cuts directly across the premise that rulers of the same name cannot be separated by several centuries. This Antefa is evidently one of the kings (or princes) of Dynasty IX or X which belong to the same era as late Dynasty XIII. An inscription of a decree, dated in the third year of Antef V, was found on the doorway of the tomb of Usertasen 1.27 Usertasen I of Dynasty XII follows Antef V (of Dynasty XI according to current views) by a full century, perhaps more. The anomaly introduced by this find is at once apparent. What credible explanation is to be offered foe the placement of an inscription on the qoor of a tomb of a king who ruled a century or more later than the incidents to which the inscription refers? Petrie would explain the anomaly by assuming that the decree must have been a copy of a much earlier original. But this does not clarify the anomaly. If Antefa V is an Xlth Dynasty king properly placed preceding Dynasty XII, what significance would be attached to a copy of a decree originally written so long ago? While the decree is anathema against one Teta and his heirs as temple officials, it is extremely doubtful if the situation giving rise to the decree was of current interest this long after the pronouncement. Against a background of the late Hyksos era, when the Egyptians were in the process of driving the Hyksos northward, the anathema on this Teta for harboring enemies in the temple suggests that he was collaborating with the Hyksos, either by force or by · che>ie@, t@ protect them against the pursuing Egyptians. The placement of the decree on the door of the tomb of Userta~n: I, long since deadi may ha,ve been only a matter of convet»ence, though other reas0ns may have been involved whiieb are not a,ppaffi"at at this tim(IJ •. ..Tbe type scarab belong.ing to \this Antef V is that of Dy~ VU or VUI.t& ENIGMA OF MANETHO'S XITH DYNASTY 251 ties IX and X, where the line of Antefs should be properly placed. While it may not be possible at this time to assign unequivocal positions to every king or prince with the name Antef or Mentuhotep, the evidence is clear-cut that demands recognition of a line o"f kings in the Hyksos period who carried these names and who do not. belong tct Man~ etho's Dynasty XI. No suggestion of a solutiop to the;enig~ ma has been offered that harmonizes .so clearly with the available information as that which reeogni,zes th,ese kings as belonging to Dynasty IX or X, properly plaoed in the Hyksos period. Notes and Referen;ees (1) Since.the dynasty is followed by the reign of Amenhote1;> I; see W-M, pp. 6:}, 65. (2) BEUP, Vol. I, pp. 314, 315. (3) See Fig. 2. (Sa) W-M, l225n. ~4) Chap. IX, Sect$. lVf. (5:Y ref. 1. (6) P-HE, Vol. I, p._ 123: (7) See chapte~ •itle o t;:hap. lX, IJ.B:E, p. 157. (8} ~-~ p. 8; M-SEC, p. 135. It IS said that the Turm fapyrus gives the Xfth [)ynaSty a perldd''M more than 160 years. (9) An inscriptiQI! of .Mentuhotep III is dated in~ -t<6~·~<~;. 1 ~ reign; hence he ruled at least this long (P-HE, Vol. I, p. 140). (10) M-SEC, PP:· 133, 137. (H) W-BHAE, p. 61; W-RFMK, p. 8. (12) Cha,p. XII, Sect. I. (13} M~EC, see TI!li& r»· liia.~M~ P-CAE, pp. 136-38. (15) Ibid. (16) Ibtd. (17) Cited in P-HE, Vol. I, addea~ xxv. (l~) ~ EUP; Vol. I, p. 217n. (19) Ibfd., pp. 314, 315. (20) lbul. (21) lbtd. (22) Ibid. (25) 11'-N, ip. 5118. ($4) P-HE, Vol. I, pp. 119, 238. (25) Cited in M-SEC, pp. 168, 164. (2,6} Un&., p. J64. (2'7) P· l:IE, Vol. I, p. 136. (28) Ibid., p. 137. ·r s.e CHAPTER XVI SHISHAK AND THE SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE It is in the era of the later Egyptian dynasties where any proposed revision of Egyptian chronology meets its acid test. If the reconstruction here proposed is to merit any consideration of validity, it must be shown that the era covered by Dynasties XVIII and onward can be satisfactorily condensed by some 400 years 1 to offset the redating of Early Bronze centuries too early. Not only so, this condensation should continue to result in the elimination of chronological difficulties which characterize the traditional structure. The demands on any proposed revision of this magnitude are enormous and have 'been considered so large as to make unworthy of consitleration any suggestion of such a solution to the numerous difficulties that characterize the traditional views. Can the proposed revision stand up under such a crucial test? The writer is fully confident that it can. The presumed impossibility of the task only emphasizes the erroneous nature of the premises on which current views rest. A previous attempt to erect a chronology of the later Egyptian dynasties on a similar premise carried the reader tbliough the Amarna Period of the late XVIIIth Dynasty. 2 With the majm synchronisms and identifications proposed ie; this earlier attempt, the present writer concurs, at least in. the larger aspects.'i The eventual general acceptance of S$me such abbreviated chronology of Egypt and of the andent .:w-0rld wust inevitably be recognized if archaeology is to retain a worthy place among the sciences as distin~-~ed from mere sd~ntism. The primary difference. of opinion· on the part of the writer is not with the proposed ~te~ cl]JfQnofpgy of Egypt for the period from the Exodµs to"~1,i\marna feriQd. I.t is rath~r. tb,e prem~e which was ~ .. e!£plain.cthe cause fe.r the g:eneal acceptance of the .~ views which must be considered as inadequate sup··~ f:t- sueh an altered chro°'°"ogy. It was not convincingly . ·. •· t~,·~a,~MiP~ ·Elf· a ii>rtmise i£4n ··~,Hf~ ·kif<> ,~, ~t~it umt t¥ cli~ool:ogy ,10£ the later 6-*' SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE ·253 and earlier history of Egypt and of the other major peoples of the ancient world. . It is here contended that a far better an:d far more consistent and defensible basis for explaining this universal myopia among archaeologists anQ, historians is to be ~een in the acceptance of a series of unp~ven starting premises on which the entire chronological structure of the ancient world has been erected. While some of these· premises rest in tum on. still other unproven premises, the fundame:atal premises in question may be limited to three. (1) The first is the concept that ManetQ.o' s dynasties were intended to represent a sequence arrangement for the entire. period of Egyptian history. The fallacy of the dog,m.atic assertions made by earlier scholars to this .effeet5 has of neces.:sity, long since been abandoned on the .basis ·of the QOW universal recognition of extensive parallelism of ayna6a85 during the Hyksos period. Yet the concept oLilbe ~s~ retention of such a sequence for all the Qthers..is S() 'Vigor.. ously defnded that any attempt to tamper widl:dm sequence as a means of alleviating difficulties is regarded. . as scientific heresy. . · (2) The reason for this unyielding retentio11 of ·the sequence arrangement of the remaining dynasties is to he seen in the second of these unfounded premises; which assumes a reliability above question in the clatin8 methods that have been used to support such a structure. 6 The so-called Sothic dating method is found wanting or·UDprova:hlie on every one of its supporting premises. 7 The results of ;the carbon-14 dating method continue to depend on . faotots wlaich have as yet JiWt, been evaluated,. and tilie met.had ·~ best ean yeHd only roughly a:piproximate· results.&:,Under oonditions· which fall slmPt of th~i 8est;·· t~. ites.,i~ .JDayi1~ wQ1itRless as far as providing ariy S<>nd basiS on wbDr:to erect a chl"onology,9 though en~gh sada Wita mtgM·.~ b}y ~e. to distinguish betweeaa :the mo11e pt'ehit~ d i 'dte less probable of tw~. ohn:m~.st~~,,~.1 by a p~~aJity of.~.u~ies, ~, , ,,, . . . . •. .· ·. : · , . .,.L · (3)'\ll"he thira'nlJiCfia~gfi£1is~e of;d;iiff~QltJ' ·~ .• ~ •··tJim.iifUaiBfie(i\, ~~ •·1-l'uD.ifI~l~!ilf ... .. · ··emt~:,r'~~·~·~· • • ' : .· .. . ,,, . . !=~~~,~~..:~ ... ~a~.:. , , :i.. ~ ~e~, "~~ '1.. • ~~,.,~~·.'~'.~:{',<~··."·· , ,• • .. ,, ···· ··.··· 254 THE EXODUS PROBLEM tation of archaeological observations, while tacitly defining history in such a manner as to include myths and legends, 11 thus leaving the door open, as an assumed allowable scientifre procedure, to disregard any bothersome passages in Scripture and at the same time accepting archaeological interpretations in gross contradiction to Scripture. The recognition on the unreliability of any ofthese three faulty starting premises could eventually lead an unprejudiced scholar to a recognition of the other two. The approach here has been to demonstrate that when the fallacy of the first of the above premises is recognized, it is possible to devise a very reasonable arid consistent chronology of Egypt and of the ancient world which is not bound to the results from these dating methods and which, at the same time, does not require a disregard of the details provided in SCripture. In the study thus far, breaks .have· been recognized between Dynasties II and III and between Dynasties X and XI. In both cases, 'the evidence for su.ch a sequence is lacking, and in both cases, recognition of the break leads to solutions for a significant number of problems. In order to evahlate without prejudioe the attempt to make such a umoostratk>n relative to the late history of Egypt, the reader should keep in mind the various difficulties that conftont us in the aceeptance of the eon:vtmtional scheme for tins en. If there were no problems, there would be no need iJr a ·~vision. Since some may have forgotten that these ~~exist, and since others may be unaware of their ~,enee;· thiese. wiU ·be ·reviewed brieay. As an aid to fol~ ~·slohsequent discussion mme readily,. the. avail,~~. :data.~ ~ies :I.VIII and.XIX ue ~.hl·.Oolar~.fmm in ;r~ Xil-:V. Them~ in 1~111, these data maj· ·be fitted illJ!to. tb.e revised chl'~ogi­ ~~ 8'1flehranbes. the.,:begmoiog .o,f Dywi:sty ,._m.~i'••·w• of Saul !(!)Jl· the·:Ama~lcites "'f Scripmre. 1J •. _.clJi !-~··~·~'~··~~-·g:J~.''1 :, SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 255 can be equated satisfactorily with those of the monuments. A number of difficulties arise with attempts to make unequivocal identifications in all cases. The second king of Dynasty XVIII as listed by Manetho, carries the name Chebron (Cl},ebros ). It has been genaally presumed that Amenophis, the third king in the list, is Amenhotep I of the monuments on the basis of similarity of names. The monuments, however, fail to reveal any king between A,hmose and Amenhotep I who can be satisfactorily identified as the Chebron of Manetho, leaving this kmg without monumental support. i\messes of Manetho is stated by Josephus to haye been a woman. This can be no other U!han Q~n llatshepsut .of the monuments, since there was no other. woxnan ruler in this era. This identificatiop must recognize a reversed. order by Manetho for Amesses and Mephres. Mephres is t~ presumably identical to Thutmose I or Thutmo~ Uipf, J:he monuments. The former identification seems generally accepted. Since the next king, Misphragmuthosis, is clearly Thutmose Ill, this leaves no name in Manetho' s list for Thutmose II. Identification of Thutmose 11 with Chehron as a misplaced name has been entertained. .Others have seen in the name Misphragmuthosis a synthetic· name oomposed of Mephres and Thmosis to suggest that the riame may have represented two kings (Thutmose II arid Thutmose III). Thmosis of Marietho would seem to be Thutmose IV of the monuments, but if so, the name is reversed in order with that of Amenophis as Amenhot~p 11;· The identificatien of Orus of Manetho with Amenhotep: III is logical but has been questioned. Problems related to the identifications of others of Manetho' s kiiigs wiU he introduced subseqoo~t­ ly. II. The Feud of the Thutmosides The monumental .evi~ce has been :i:Dt~reted t~ tel.-~~ ~t a long drawn-out feud existed -~~)l 1h.u~.;g a_ts~J?S ... 'Jh_tm.•d. T_.-. ~u..bnose Ill, .~ul·.··. t.tµi -~a s~tu-.'.~-~ - -·.•..;l_.' ·. :,,,';r~. ~ not perm~ assigmnent of reign len~ U> ~ ~'· tfaf;, r•TS. Som~ Jl~,e ooqs~d~,,,t:• fre11td t~ .,., a ••._ ~~<~o~,~"~,r~~~,,•1:f" ~K' Llt~ :te-inst~t~~t' ~~' ~~;:::J,\!:'>' ' , , ·· 256 THE EXODUS PROBLEM other historian, rn however, on more critical examination of the same evidence, has concluded that no such extraordinary situation existed and that there was a normal succession of rulers, though not necessarily to the liking of all concerned. Manetho gives no hint of any such unusual sit- · uation. Breasted meets the difficulty by allowing 54 years of reign to Thutmose III, as claimed by his monuments, but indudes in this 54 years all of the reigns of Thutmose II and Hatshepsut, with no attempt to divide the time among the individual rulers. 14 III. The Succession to Amenhotep III Following Amenhotep III, the monuments give Akhnaton, otherwise known as Amenhotep IV, as successor. He in turn was followed by the brief reigns of three kings; namely, ·Tutenkhamon, Sakere, and Eye. Manetho does not recognize any of these four kings and gives as the successors to Amenhotep III a line of five kings through the daughter of TABLE XIV Summary of the Data on the XVIIlth and XIXth Egyptian Dynasties · · J\&aeliho through Manetbo through Eusebius Africanus Am<!s C'hebros Aiaenophthis Alllemsis Mi$aphris Misphragmuthosis 11\iatmosis A.m<moprus :,.rres °"1:lf ~\· M~es Ahilesis ~ Manetho through Josephus 25 Amosis 25 Tethmosis 13 Chehros 24 Amenophis 22 13 Mip'hres 26 Misphragmuthosis 9 Thutmosis 31 Amenophis 37 Orus 32 Aeiiencheres 6 Afhoris 12 Cenchetes · 13 ChehroA 21 Amenophis Amesses 12. Mephres Mephramu· 26 thosis 9 Thmosis 31 Amenophis 36 Orus 12 Acencheres 39 Rathothis 16 AcencM>res 8 Acehcheres 5 Armais Rameses 12 Acher~a 5 Armais 1 Rameses Arnenophis ~.!OX Sethos 40 A.ili.menemnt's 26 1'worts 25 9 30 10 8 10 36 5 12 I 9 0 12 5 12 3 l 4 1 4 68 Rameses 66 40 Amenophis 19. Nodvn:r~I¢·• 55 Sethos . Armais? ...,lihen'!'••t~is Monuments 25y !Om 1.~ 0 2.0 7 21 9 12 9 ? Ahmose Amenhotep l Thutmose I Thutmose II Hatshepsut Thutmose Ill Amenhotep 11 Thutmose IV Amenhotep Ill Amenhotep IV Tutenkhamen ~ere 22· lo+ 30+ ? ? 54 26+ 8+ 86+ 17+ ? ? E\'e H armhab l!arneses I Seti I 2 'Rarneses II 6 Mt>meptah ,? 34+ S<'ti 11 brief 0 l+ 8+ 67 8+ ~ Ammenmeses Tausen Siptah '·,t? ? ,' ,, ~ , ~:~!Mau~ art>·fr.Jq, the 11\test.dllted lnscri~tldrt ·~-ed l!,tJht'.k. . SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 257 Amenhotep, who was known to him as Achencheres. Since the time relationships between the two lines are not known a point of uncertainty is introduced into the chronology at this point. The line through Achencheres merges years later with the line of Akhnaton in the person of Armais, who is undoubtedly correctly identified with Harmhab of the monuments. 1.; The difficulty in this interpretation lies in the brief reign of four and a fraction years attributed to this king by Manetho, while the monuments suggest a reign of 34 years or more. It has been presumed that Harmhab counted his reign as beginning at the time of Eye, under whom he evidently served as general. IV. The Problem of the Composition of Dynasty XIX The monuments have been interpreted to tell us that the successors of Harmhab were Rameses I, Seti I, Rameses II, Merneptah, and Seti II (in this order). Seti II was followed by a group of brief reigns by persons whom some consider to have been usurpers. Petrie, however, considered these as two sons (Amenmeses and Siptah) and a daughter (Tausert) of Seti II. rn If the names of Manetho' s kings have been correctly equated with the monumental names, then Rameses II and Merneptah belong to his Dynasty XVIII. Since Seti I precedes Rameses II by the monuments, this would seem to require that we recognize Seti I as also belonging to Dynasty XVIII. Yet Manetho makes him the founder of Dynasty XIX, by which arrangement, Raineses II and Merneptah do not belong to Dynasty XIX as currently held; rather, Dynasty XIX was a relatively brief offshoot from Dynasty XVIII at the time of Seti I. Admittedly, Manetho's composition of these two dynasties is confusing. Modern historians have chosen to disregard Manetho at this point and to make up the composition of the two dynasties on the basis of the monumental data. It may appear at first glance that such a rearrangement does not affect the chronology and hence is defe~si:ble .ol'l the basis that the data on the reigns of-the various kings\i!fe being retained. However, as will appear as the discussion proceeds, this innocent-appearing move has been t:he ~us~ bf no end of difficulty as far as arriving. at a·consi~e:nt pitlt hrre of the inter-relations involved. 1'he'm.ove·'was/unwar~· ritneed and has served only to obscure fl:re ''cbtBnQif6~f;~t'\iit 258 THE EXODUS PROBLEM critical point. A large factor in the difficulty lies in the resulting misidentification of the later kings of Manetho' s XIXth Dynasty. V. On the Identity of $ethos and Armais of Josephus At the point in Josephus' account where one would expect to find the name of Merneptah's successor, Seti II, we are introduced to two brothers, whom Josephus calls Sethos and Armais. Since Sethos is the Greek transcription of the name Seti, it would be expected that this is Seti II. There are, however, major objections to such an identification. The accomplishments of this Sethos cannot logically be attributed to the insignificant rule of Seti II. r; The identity of the brother of Sethos, Armais by name, also · presents a problem. If this Armais is the same as the Armais introduced earlier in the list, under whom the lines through Acencheres and Akhnaton merged, and who is identical to Harmhab, then this Sethos, as his brother, belongs back in the era of Harmhab and should be identified as Seti I, not Seti II. Certainly the accomplishments of this Sethos are more reasonably those of the more competent Seti I. But if this Sethos is Seti I, then why does Josephus introduce him following Merneptah, nearly one hundred years out of line? The problem of the identity of these brothers has been a point of long uncertainty, and there would seem to be no general agreement among historians on this point. The problem is commonly bypassed on the assumption that this · portion of Josephus' account is fictitious. VI. The Anachronism of Sheshonk I Sheshonk I does not belong to the era of Dynasty XVIII or XIX. He is the first king of Dynasty XXII. He is introduced here because by traditional views he is placed in the era which has been assigned by the revision to Dynasty XVIII. Sheshonk I is currently regarded as the Shishak of' Scripture who sacked Solomon's temple in the time of Rehoboam, king of Judah. If this Sheshonk I actually belongs to the time of Rehoboam, then the revised chronology here deiended cannot be other. than in gross error. If,, on the other hand, the revisions here suggested are even approximately correct, then the placement of Sheshonk I in the era of Jlehohoam is an anachronism, and the presence of this SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 259 king in an era centuries out of line with his proper position should be expected to introduce difficulties of a major nature. That major difficulties do rise from the traditional placement of Sheshonk I is a universally recognized fact. The Scriptural account reads:18 And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of king Rehoboam Shi-· shak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots, and threescore thou.sand horsemen: and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubims, the Sukkiims, and the Ethiopians. And he took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah, and came to Jerusalem .... So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; and he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made. The bases for the proposed identification of Shishak of this record with Sheshonk I of the XXIInd Egyptian Dynasty are four in number. These are: (1) the name Shishak is regarded as a satisfactory and equivalent rendering for Sheshonk; (2) this king falls at the proper time by the traditional chronlogy of Egypt; (3) there is no other king within many years of Sheshonk I by this chronology who could conceivably have been strong enough to make such an invasion; and (4) Sheshonk I leaves an inscription suggesting some sort of military excursion into Palestine. The first of these bases has no necessary significance, since Egyptian kings had a variety of names and were often known in other countries by names which bore no resemblance to their throne hames. The s~cond basis has no significance if the traditional chronology of Egypt is in error, and the third depends on the second. The fourth stands on a most insecure foundation which has been repeatedly pointed out by various scholars. The identification of Shishak as Sheshonk I may be regarded as resulting from the demands of the traditional views, rather tpan providing any evidence in support of them. The record left by Sheshonk is vague in its meaning and provides no details beyond a pictoriaf inscription and ·a list of cities, which are presumed to have been'·conquered by this king. The list of cities has been queried as representing the results of any military conquest, since it has the earmarks of having been copied from some previous list that 260 THE EXODUS PROBLEM may have represented nothing more than a delineation of the area subject to some earlier king. The vagueness. and uncertainty of the significance of this inscription has been the subject of comment by a number of writers. A few of theses comments are here reproduced. 19 ... The list makes a brave show, and is remarkable for the number of names composing it: in comparision with those of Thutmose III, it is disappointing, and one sees at a glance how inferior, even in its triumph, the Egypt of the XXIlnd Dynasty was to that of the XVIIIth. The one great event of the reign was the Syrian campaign, the triumph of which is figured on the south outside wall of the great temple of Karnak. Unfortunately the figure of the king was never carved; but only his heap of captives of Syrian physiognomy, and the giant figure of Amen and the lesser figure of Thebes, holding captive more than 150 places. The names do not extend far north, and the whole expedition seems to have been limited to Judea and Samaria. It is of little use to study the lists as seriously as we have done those of the xvn1th Dynasty. The ground covered is but small, and the form of the lists is corrupt, as the names and places have been divided into convenient portions to fit into the town ovals, and some names are repeated. M'aspero supposes that the lists may be copied from the frontier deliniation of the kingdom of Judah which submitted to Sheshenk. Probably the names are those of places which were tributary, or the bounds of the subject land, rather than records of actual fights, like the lists of Tahutmes III. The speech, with which the divine Amon of Thebes accompanies his delivery of the conquered cities to his beloved son Shashanq I. contains not the slightest indication from which we might construct a background of facts for the names of the conquered peoples, or for the historical events connected with them. The whole representation, in accordance with the general pattern of Egyptian temple-pictures, is a mere skeleton without flesh and blood, which, as usual, gives the enquirer more to guess at than to understand . . . . Jerusalem is not among the cities recorded on the Pharaoh's temple at Karnak as having been taken by him .... However, territory far to the north of Palestine was described in terms which bv Shishak's (Sheshonk l's} time .had long been obsolete and consequently cast considerable doubt on the verity of the Egyptian king's other claims. The last of the above quotations confirms the misdating of Sheshonk I and his dynasty too early, in terms of Bible history, when identified with the Shishak of Scripture. The meager information to be drawn from this inscription, so obscure in its interpretation, does not fneet the specificati<>ns of the Scriptural account for the invasion of Shishak md the sacking of Solomon's temple. There is no mention of loot, yet the sacking of Solomon's temple and treasure SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 261 house undoubtedly represented one of the most outstanding collections of art in gold and silver ever to be taken by a conquering king. 20 The list of names is properly questioned as representing conquered cities, as stated of the invasion of Shishak, and the name of Jerusalem, the site of Solomon's temple, is not even on,,the list. The historian Rawlinson early pointed out that. the name Sheshonk, and the names of his successors (Osorkon and Takeloth), are not Egyptian names at all, but are rather of Assyrian origin. 21 Brugsch refers us to inscriptions found on Egyptian soil which tell us clearly that an Assyrian monarch, known to the author of the inscription as Nimrod, marched his armies into Egypt, evidently to conquer the country, and met unexpected death on foreign soil. 22 He was buried in Egypt, and his son Sheshonk became the first ruler of the XXIInd Dynasty of Egypt. 23 Assyrian inscriptions from the time of Assurbanipal (668-626 B. C. ), some 300 years after the time of Solomon, tell of a conquest. of Egypt and of the setting up of local Assyrian rulers in the principal cities of Egypt. 24 In the list of these local dynasts are to be found the names of Sheshonk, Pedubast, Tefnekht, Auput, and others of Assyrian origin. It should be clear that Sheshonk and his dynasty are of Assyrian origin· and that this dynasty does not belong to the era of Rehoboam, but rather to an era more than two centuries later, when the .Assyrians were in actual control of Egypt. . The in~cription of Sheshonk I thus refers to the late period of the divided monarchy of Israel after the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria, a.nd to the period when the kingdom of Judah is known to have been harassed by the Assyrians. In view of the nature of the inscription of Sheshonk I, the verity of the list as representing conquered cities may properly be questioned, though Assyria at this later time did have some degree of control over Palestine from the mid-8th century, 25 which control extended far to the north of Palestine, 26 th us allowing the interpretation that the list represented the boundary of such control. Rawlinson referred to the anachronism that results from regarding Sheshonk and his dynasty as contemporary with the era of Rehoboam. 27 He wrote: 262 THE EXODUS PROBLEM It is very remarkable that exactly in this interval of darkness, when Assyria would seem, from the failure both of buildings and records, to have been especially and exceptionally weak, occurs the first appearance of her having extended her influence beyond Syria, into the great and ancient monarchy of Egypt. In the twenty-second Egyptian dynasty, which began with Sheshonk I or Shishak [sic], the contemporary of Solomon, about B.C. 990, Assyrian names appear for the first time in the Egyptian dynastic lists. It has been supposed from this circumstance that the entire twenty-second dynasty, together with that which succeeded it, was Assyrian; but the condition of Assyria at the time renders such a hypothesis most improbable. In order to explain this anachronism, Rawlinson supposed that either Assyrian representatives in Egypt married into the royal Egyptian families, giving Assyrian names to their off-spring who eventually became kings, or that women of the Assyrian representatives married into the royal line giving Assyrian names to their children who eventually established themselves on the throne of Egypt. Rawlinson evidently recognized the weakness of his own explanation for he adds: 28 ... Either of these suppositions is more probable than the establishment in Egypt of a dynasty really Assyrian at a time of extraordinary weakness and depression. Were it not for the pressure of demands by the conventional chronological scheme, this anachronism would suggest that Dynasty XXII belongs to a period much later than the time of Rehoboam and that there is something radically wrong with a structure which would date this dynasty in the 10th century B. C. With the necessary rejection· of the Assyrian origin of this dynasty in the face of the obvious Assyrian origin of the names, there rises the necessity of some alternate theory to account for this odd situation. This dynasty is now commonly called the Libyan dynasty, indicating a belief that Sheshonk and his line were of Libyan origin. The insipient nature of the evidence offered in support of this theory has been referred to by Petrie. Since Petrie seems to have accepted this unlikely theory in spite of its improbability, his comments are of more than usual interest. Referring to the inscription of Horpasen, in which the geneology of one Sheshonk is given, 29 he wrote: 30 Now it is mainly on the name Tahen here that the theory of the Libyan origin of the dynasty has been based, though Renouf long ago rendered the word as "splendid" or "great" rather than as referring to SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 263 the Tahennu Libyans. If, however, this person, as we have seen, was not the ancestor of the dyna5ty, but only the remote ancestor of a man named Sheshenk, the meaning of his name is of no importance historically, whichever way it is interpreted. The dynastic-names are essentially eastern, and not western. Sheshenq is Shushanqu, "a man of Shushan" or Susa, a name known on Babylonian tablets. . . . In the face of the obvious meaning of the chief name of the dynasty - "the man of Susa" - we must look to some Babylonian or Persian adventurer in the service of the Tanite kings for the source of the dynasty. We are thus no less than logical and reasonable in concluding that the proposed synchonism. between Sheshonk I and Shishak of Scripture rests on a most insecure foundation and, save for the demands of the conventional' structure, it is not able to stand on its own feet. So sure have historians been about the general correctness of this chronological structure, in spite of this and other major weaknesses, that no serious thought has been given to the probability that Sheshonk and his dynasty belong to the period when Assyrian rulers of this name are known to have been in positions of authority in Egypt. The manner in which the XXIInd Dynasty fits into this era of Assyrian military occupation of Egypt will be considered in a subsequent chapter.'11 VII. The Anomaly of Osorkon A still further potent objection to this proposed synchronism between Sheshonk I and Shishak is to be seen in the anomaly which follows in the reign of Osorkon I. Shortly after the sacking of the temple under Rehoboam, king Asa of Judah was attacked by Zerah, the Ethiopian, with an army of a million men. The Scriptural account reads:'12 And there came out against them [Asa's army] Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Meresha.... So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar; and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not rec~ver themselves: for they were destroyed before the Lord and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil. And they smote all the cities round about Gerar; for the fear of the Lord came upon them.... If it was Sheshonk I who sacked Solomon's temple, then it must have been his successor, Osorkon I, who invaded Judah and fought against Asa with an army of a million 264 THE EXODUS PROBLEM men. But Osorkon I was an insignificant ruler who, from all available evidence, never marched a dozen men across the isthmus into Palestine, to say nothing of raising an army of a million soldiers. Attempts to avoid this anomaly without denying the identification of Sheshonk with Shishak have taken the direction of assuming that Zerah was an Arabian prince and not an Egyptian at all. This explanation is weak indeed, for it is quite preposterous that any Arabian prince of this time could have raised such an army of invasion. Petrie commented on this high degree of improbability and raised stilI other objection to it. After noting that the earlier theory, which identified Zerah with Osorkon, had been dropped by most scholars as untenable, he wrote: 33 ... There are, however, solid grounds for taking this as an Egyptian invasion. (1) After the defeat they fled towards Egypt, not eastward toward Arabia, and the cities round Gerar belonging to the invaders were plundered. Gerar was on the road to Egypt south of Gaza, and it is highly probable that after Shishak' s victory the Egyptians had kept frontier towns in Palestine. This would not accord with an Arabian invasion. (2) The invaders were Cushim .and Lubim or Libyans and this could only be the case in an Egyptian army. While there is no tenable alternative to regarding this invasion as Egyptian, neither is it possible to identify any king following Sheshonk I as powerful enough to raise an army of invasion. The proposed synchronism between Sheshonk I and Shishak of Scripture has thus led us into. an impasse. The invading army under Zerah could not have been an Egyptian army, since there was no king in the era following Sheshonk I who could conceivably have raised such an army for invasion of Asia. And yet the army must have been Egypitan, since no other army could have been composed of Cushim and Libyans. The reasonable conclusion is, again, that Sheshonk and his dynasty have been misplaced and do not belong to the time of Rehoboam. To admit this obvious conclusion is to admit that the accepted chronological structure of the ancient world is in gross error, the errors being of such magnitude as to call for a complete reconstruction with a rejection of the dating methods that have been used in arriving at this accepted structure. This is the conclusion to which we have been repeatedly directed from the numerous other synchronistic SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 265 failures already noted pertaining to the time of the Exodus, the Conquest, and other related incidents. To this abundant evidence, much more will be added as the discussion proceeds. We turn then from a rehearsal of the anachronisms and anomalies which characterize the accepted views to the problem of demonstrating that the available data can be satisfactorily fitted into the revised structure, which recognizes Dynasty XVIII as having had its beinning at the time of the war of Saul with the Amalekites, identified with the Hyksos of Egyptian history. VIII. Thutmose III as the Shishak of Scripture If the chronological structure that has begun to emerge on the basis of previo_us considerations is even approximate- . ly correct, then the. king who sacked Solomon's temple should follow the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty by a time period quite identical to that from shortly after the mid-reign of Saul to the 5th year of Rehoboam. 33• This period is readily calculable from Biblical data as approximately 100 years. 34 While the chronology of the XVII Ith Dynasty has not been finally settled in all its details, the general structure does not permit recognition of any other king than Thutmose III as reigning at the time demanded. The end of the one-hundred year period must fall at some point early in the sole reign of this king with no possibility of condensing the chronology to allow consideration of his successor, Amenhotep II, and with no possibility of considering his predecessor, Queen Hatshepsut, as meeting the Scriptural specifications, since she had no inclination whatever in the direction of military conquest. If Thutmose III fails to meet the criteria of the Scriptural account, there is no alternative to admitting that our reasoning has led to an incredible situation and is therefore in error in spite of the many evidences in support of the altered chronology. In notable contrast to the failure of Sheshonk I to meet the criteria for identification as Shishak of Scripture, Thutmose III meets these demands in a most remarkable man. ner, as has been pointed out by Velikovsky. 35 It was during his reign that the New Kingdom in Egypt rose to the pinnacle of its power. His empire included not only the territory of Palestine but encompassed also essentially all the ter- 266 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ritory east and north to the Euphrates River. 36 Toward the end of his long and successful military career, Thutmose III had an extended inscription made of his accomplishments. He gives not only the list of the cities conquered in Palestine and Syria but provides us also with a pictorial summary of the loot which he had taken. One may trace in this pictorial inscription item after item mentioned in Scripture as having been part of the content of Solomon's temple and of his treasure house. 37 Not only does Thutmose III satisfactorily meet the specifications required for identification as the Shishak of Scripture, but his successor, Amenhotep II, may also be logically identified as the Zerah who invaded Asia with an army of a million men in the time of Asa some 30 years later. In a later section, it will be shown how these incidents fit rather exactly into the chronology as developed on the basis of the previous considerations. IX, A Revised Chronology for the XVlllth and XIXth Dynasties The traditional interpretation of the data for Dynasties XVIII and XIX (Table XIV) has its roots deeply fixed in certain presumed time relationships that have been derived from calculations based on the so-called Sothic dating method. Relieved of the pressure provided by this method, 37• the available data will now be interpreted in terms of the altered premises previously noted. The following deviations from the conventional views are pertinent. (1) Chebron is here recognized as the same king as Amenhotep I of the monuments, 38 and his successor, Amenophis, is identified as Thutmose I. These are the identifications to be expected on the basis of Marietho' s order, and these identifications eliminate the difficulties of explaining Chebron as an unidentifiable king with no monumental support, while lacking a king in Manetho' s list to be identified as Thutmose II. The mere similarity, or even equivalence, of the names Amenophis and Amenhotep may not, logically, be recognized as an adequate basis, underthe circumstances, to warrant an identification. These kings often had a number of names, one of which may well have been taken after the name of the father (or father-in-law in this case). Thut- SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 267 mose I could very reasonably have been known to Manetho by the name Amenophis. (2) It follows from this identification that Mephres of Manetho is Thutmose II and not Thutmose I. (3) The more exact figures of Josephus for the reigns of the kings are taken to represent the period of reign to the time of appointment of the coregent as distinguished from the monumental data which commonly represent the total period of reign or the period from the beginning of coregency to the latest ·dated inscription. The figures of Josephus agree in the main with those of Manetho; except that he gives the reign lengths to the nearest month. (4) The composjtion of Dynasty XIX as given by Manetho is retained in preference to the modern revision. The two dynasties as composed by Manetho did not rule in succession; rather, Dynasty XIX was an offshoot from Dynasty XVIII at the time of Seti I. When thus interpreted, the data of Josephus to the reign of Amenhotep III (Orus of Manetho) lead us to the structure shown diagramatically in Figure 10. On the same time scale, Biblical chronology from Saul to Asa is given in parallel. Solid lines are used to represent the figures of Josephus and dotted lines to represent additional time claimed by certain kings, based on the date of their latest inscriptions. Ahmose and Chebron (Amenhotep I) evidently reigned without coregents. Hence, the figures of Josephus represent total reigns. The inscriptions of Thutmose l (Amenophis) indicate a reign of more than 30 years, while Josephus credits him with only 20 years and 7 months. By interpreting the figure of Jospehus as in (3) above, it is apparent that Thutmose · I appointed his coregent in his 21st year. This coregent may well have been his son, Thutmose II Mephres. It has, however, been sugge~ted with reason that this appointment was to his more experienced older daughter, Hatsheps.ut, who was shortly married to her brother, the coregency thus passing to her husband..,brother. Such a situation would account for the reversal of the order of the names by Manetho' s ·transcribers, even though all of the ·21 + years credited ·to her follow the death of her husbandbrother (See Figure 10). Thutmose II is assigned a reign of 12 years and 9 months by Josephus. This takes us to a date 33 Yea!s and 4 months t-0 O'l 00 Figure 10. The Chronology of the Early XVIIIth Dynasty 1050 B.C 20 vrs. I 1010 I 970 I l 930 890- I I 850 I I l"TI ::s 0. Saul 40 al Cl> ..... ..... ::s ::s ::s (Q 3: 0 ::s -ti ....... PJ 0 -s (/I n -s :::r '< PJ Cl> ...... PJ (/I ...... - (/I 0 • 2::: PJ >< -s < ...... :c: ...... -'· ..... M- :::r al Cl> M(Q :::r ...... Cl> ::s (/I)::> 3 PJ PJ c: :::l ...... MCl> 0. David 40 PJ c: (Q ...... Ahmose 25y, Amenhotep I Rehoboarr 18 w~ln --4m.Tethmosis ~t-!h!:.Psut 2lv .9m. ~ ln 5 13 --- RThutmose I 20y. 7 m. ~ - -------- III 25y. ~ 0 PJ ::s (/I _T!!_u~~~ N ~ MCl> (/I Thutmose II ~2y. (I) A PJ :::r - (/I ....... ::s < PJ ..... (/I )::> ::s (/I PJ - (/I -ti 2::: ~::s PJ -s :::r 0 :::l lOm. __ 9m II _--f 30y. 10m. 8m. ~~- tr:! ~ 0 t:J c CfJ '"i:l 1--1 t:P ....... ...... ~ r trJ 3:: me;boteo Thutmose IV 9y. ~ :.-r: 0 M- l~~~hotep Cl> ""'...... I Asa 42 C:"lnmnm 4() ln 0 -ti 36y. 5m. Ill SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 269 after Thutmose I began his reign. Since Thutmose I has a monument dated in his 30th year, his total reign was more than this. A degree of uncertainty thus exists as to whether or not Thutmose I outlived his son. The inscription of Ineni ';8" refers to the successive deaths of two kings by the name of Thutmose, who reigned prior to Thutmose III and hence must be Thutmose I and Thutmose II, but the inscription is obscure as to which is which, and hence this question is not provided an unequivocal answer. Chronological harmony can be reasonably attained within either view by adjusting the date for the war of Saul by about two years and leaving a slight leeway for discrepancy between the actual date of this war and the beginning of the reign of Ahmose. Since the view that Thutmose I outlived his son by two or three years appears to provide answers to further problems, this view is tentatively adopted here. Certainly both were dead at the time of the accession of Hatshepsut. '38h By this view, it will be necessary to add about two years to the summation of Josephus' figures to retain a correct measure of elapsed time. Hatshepsut evidently took on Thutmose III (probably a nephew) as her coregent at the time of her accession. The monuments credit Thutmose III with 54 years. However, he is evidently claiming as part of his reign all the period of that of Hatshepsut. When Hatshepsut' s reign of 21 years and 9 months is added to the 25 years and 10 months credited to him by Josephus, 47 years and 10 months of the 54 are accounted for. Hence we conclude that Thutmose III appointed a coregent late in his 48th year. This coregent was probably Amenhotep II, who thus served as coregent a little more than six years to the death of Thutmose III. On the death of Thutmose III, it could be expected that Amenhotep II would appoint his coregent. This would be in the person of Thutmose IV, who according to Josephus reigned but 9 years and 8 months. Thutmose IV thus died long before his father. On the death of Thutmose IV, it could be expected that Amenhotep II would appoint a substitute coregent who would then be Amenhotep III. This king is credited with 36 years and 6 months of reign, which figure is essentially that of his latest monument. It might seem that at this time the plan of appointing a coregent at the time of accessi&n t• full kingship was discontinued. There are, however, good 270 THE EXODUS PROBLEM reasons for believing that this is not the explanation for the agreement of Josephus' figure with that of the monuments. Before considering this situation further, we digress to observe that the Scriptural synchronisms fit into the resulting structure in a remarkable manner. X. Synchronisms with Old Testament Chronology By the proposed chronological revision, Saul's war with the Amalekites was, for practical purposes, coincident with the expulsion of the Hyksos and the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty under Ahmose. This may be deduced as having occurred in about the 25th or 26th year of Saul's reign. :]lie By the chronology of Thiele, this was about 10261025 B.C. as a close approximation. While this date may require a slight refinement;18" we take it as a tentative basis for developing the subsequent chronolpgy. · The elapsed time from the war of Saul to the sacking of Solomon's temple in the 5th year of Rehoboam is thus 99 years as a close approximation. 38•· The period from Saul's war to the 15th year of Asa, when Palestine was invaded by Zerah, is then about 129 years. 39 The corresponding period from the beginning of Dynasty XVIII to the beginning of the sole reign of Thutrnose III by the structure of Figure 10 is 95 years. •0 We should then look for the invasion of Asia by Thutmose III, which culminated in the sacking of the temple, in about the 4th year of Thutmose III. Some 29 years later, we should find the evidence of an invasion of Asia by Amenhotep II. During the early years of sole reign, Thutrnose III made almost annual incursions into Asia. •1 Most of these, however, are clearly into the territory north of Palestine, with no reference to any occupation of territory that can be recognized as belonging to southern Palestine. In the course of the invasion of the second year of his sole reign, the city of Megiddo, in northern Palestine, capitulated after a siege. 42 It is tempting to think that from this victory, ·Thutmose proceeded southward in the same year into Palestine, eventually reaching Jerusalem. From the inscription dealing with this incident, however, it appears that following the capitulatio.n of Megiddo, 43 the armies returned to Egypt with the plunder from this expedition. The possibility remains that part of the plunder from this expedition may SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 271 have come from the house built by Solomon in Lebanon. 44 The campaign of the next year has been taken by scholars to involve Syria also. The annals of the invasions of the third and fourth years ~ontain statements to suggest that Palestine was involved, though not necessarily to the exclusion of the more northern territory. As part of the plunder from the third campaign, mention is made of "gold dishes which could not be measured," suggestin~ loot from the temple. 45 The annal of the fourth campaign mentions as part of the plunder, a large collection of plants from the land of Retennu. 46 Scripture specifically mentions that Solomon imported exotic plants including almug trees. 46a The territory involved in these incursions is frequently referred to as the land of Retennu, a term sometimes used without qualification; at other times it is qualified as Upper Retennu. The writer takes exception to the assumption that the term without qualification refers to Syria or that Upper Retennu refers to the hill country of southern Palestine. The only certain basis for defining the territories referred to by these terms would be by unequivocal identification of the sites whose location can be established. Rarely is this possible. We would thus identify the campaigns of the third and fourth years as having led to the eventual sacking of Solomon's temple. That it was Thutmose III and not Sheshonk I who is to be identified as the Shishak of Scripture is confirmed by the pictorial part of the lengthy inscription on the walls of the Karnak temple, which pictures ma_!ly of. the it~m.~- _of plunder taken by Thutmose III. 47 The identity of the campaign in which each item was taken is not provided, though in many cases the number of each particular item is given as well as the identity of the metal of which each was composed. In this inscription may be traced many of the objects known to have been in either the temple or in Solomon's treasure house. Of particular interest are the cones of gold, of silver, and of malachite which bear the identification . "white bread" and which evidently represented the "shew bread" of the temple ceremony. Among the items one may also note 300 gold. shields (for which even the number agrees with Scripture), 48 100 basins of gold,48a the tools and implements used in the temple service, the six-branched candlestick, 48b th~ frequ~nt use of the lotus___!Ilotif_ in decora- 272 THE EXODUS PROBLEM tion, 4 ~" the golden chains, 4& 1 the copper doors,4s" other candlesticks, •~r jars of annointing oil, an altar of gold with an inscription reading "The Great Altar" 48~. and in it all, the complete absence of any item in the form of a god or idol. The era assigned to Sheshonk I. is archaeologically char- . acterized by destruction of many cities in Palestine. This destruction is attributed to Sheshonk I as the· Biblical Shishak. Yet Scripture says nothing about any such destruction of cities at this time. Josephus noted specifically that the cities opened their gates to Shishak without a battle. 49 And he [Shishak] took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah, and he came to Jerusalem . . . . Now therefore when he fell upon the country of the Hebrews, he took the strongest cities of Rehoboam' s kingdom without fighting; and when he had put garrisons in them, he came last of all to Jerusalem .... So when Shishak. had taken the city (Jerusalem] withQut fighting, because Rehoboam· was afraid, and received him into it, yet did not Shishak stand to the covenants he had made, but he spoiled the temple .... By the proposed chronological revision, this destruction in the early Iron Age does not belong to the time of Rehoboam. It belongs to the era of the Assyrian incursions into Palestine in the 8th and 7th centuries. It is this error that has forced acceptance of the concept that the golden age of Palestine was the era of Hyksos occupation, the collapse of the culture being attributed to the Israelites and the gradual recuperation being credited to the Philistines. This grotesque interpretation is even more apparent when the archaeologies of the individual sites of Palestine are examined. Moving ahead on the time scale by 29 years takes us to the 15th year of king Asa when Palestine was in.vaded by a huge army under Amen}:iotep II, the successor of Thutmose III. By the interpretation of Josephus' data as defined by (3) in a previous section, we are now in the 9th year of the total reign of this king or in the third year of his sole reign, since he had a coregency with his father of six and a frac, tion years. Three inscriptions are extant dealing .with the wars of Amenhotep II in Asia. The more informative one was found at Memphis and is the only one dealing with both invasions of this king. The first of these two is dated in his 7th year SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 273 (first year of his sole reign), and the other is in his ninth year (third year of his sole reign):;o Of the two stelae found at Amada and at Elephantine respectively, the Amada stele is an account of the celebration for the campaign of his third year, which is referred to as his first campaign. Now it was known that Amenhotep had a coregency with his father, but the length of coregency could not be established; it may have been as short as one year or as long as 11 years. The reference in the Amada stele to the first campaign in his third year did not make sense, and even the translators of the inscription were puzzled:; 1 ... The translator finds it impossible to reconcile the dates in these stelae. The Memphis stela places the first campaign in Amen-hotep Il's 7th year, the second in his 9th year. The Amada stela below is dated in his 3rd year, to record a celebration in Egypt after the return from the first campaign! ·Furthermore, it is understood that Amenhotep was coregent with his father, Thutmose III, for a minimum of l year and up to a possible 11 years. A possible reconciliation would be that the 7th year after the coregency began was the 3rd year of his sole reign. The difficulty finds a ready and logical solution if a coregency of 6+ years is recognized between Amenhotep II and his father Thutmose UL But this is just the length of the, coregency that is demanded by the interpretation which recognizes that the remaining 47 years and 7 months of the 54 years credited to Thutmose III by the monuments is composed of the 21 years and 9 months, also credited to Hatshepsut, and the 25 years and 10 months credited to Thutmose III by Josephus. The first campaign was thus in the 7th year from the beginning of coregency, which was his first year of sole reign. The celebration for this campaign was in the 3rd year of his sole reign, the second campaign then beginning later in the same year. According to Scripture, there was peace in Palstine for the ten years prior to this invasion and· for the twenty years following lt. 52 An examination of the annals of Thutmose llI, 5'i indicates that he did not invade Asia during the last twelve years of his reign; neither did Amenhotep II make any further attempt at invasion of Asia after the ignominious rout experienced in the 9th of his 31 years of rule. 5 ~ 274 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Of the remainder of his [Amenhotep Il's] reign we know nothing; twenty years of peaceful administration appear to. have glided by, intimating that the Egyptian yoke was not too heavily pressed upon Asia. The reign of Amenhotep III, successor to Amenhotep II after the death of Thutmose IV, may be calculated as ending in the year 852 B.C., based on the tentative and approximate dating for Saul's war with the Amalekites and the beginning of Dynasty XVIII in 1025 B.C. The remaining question is whether the inscription of the invas.ion in the 9th year provides any clue that would enable us to identify the invasion as that at the time of Asa. If one is expecting to find in the inscriptions an admission of the rout of his army before the smaller army of Asa, this is an empty hope. No Egypitan king ever admitted defeat of his armies. If we are to find any such clue, it must be found by reading between the lines or from the associated circumstances. Perhaps the best evidence we have is the simple fact that Amenhotep II did not make any further attempt at such invasion after that of his 9th year. When Thutmose III made a successful invasion of Asia in his first year, he followed with a series of subsequent invasions. Amenhotep II followed that in his seventh year (involving territory to the north of Palestine) with that in his ninth year, but there were no further attempts. What better explanation than a rout of his armies in the attempt of the 9th year?·54• XI. From Amenhotep III to Harmhab As previously noted, Amenhotep III is credited with 36 years and 5 months of reign by Josephus, which figure is in essential agreement with the monuments for the date of his latest inscription. One might conclude that Amenhotep III did not appoint a coregent during his lifetime: The monuments, however, indicate that he did appoint his son Amenhotep IV, otherwise known as Akhnaton, as his coregent. The discrepancy is evidently to be explained in another manner. Akhnaton was a religious heretic who introduced a new religious philosophy in Egypt and became so engrossed in his new religion that he permitted the empire of Thutmose III to slip through his fingers without apparent effort to prevent it. Because of the religious and political chaos in- Figure 11, The Chronology of the XVIIIth Dynasty Kings from Amenhotep III to Rameses II 860 B.C I 820 840 ·- 10 years I I 800 I I I I I [f) > I n -z ~ Akhnaton 17 - 0 Tutenkhamen, Smenkere, ctnd Eye c. 25 0 --- ~ A-I I I 1_e~ , ~ 'Tj I (locally) in Dvnastv XIX Acencheres 12y. lm -D-XIX cont. -- Rathothis 9 ' ~cencheres 12v.5m @Rameses Acencheres 12y. 3m, ---------__ Armais Seti I D-XVII I ~ Harmh~b ____ - ~ I (fl 0 L' 0 :;.:: 0 z (fl I >-3 trj ~ '-cl L' tTl NJ -1 C.11 276 THE EXODUS PROBLEM troduced by Akhnaton, he was hated by his people, even as a memory. Evidently Josephus, in line with the thinking of the Egyptians in general, credited Amenhotep III with his entire reign as if there had been rlo coregent. This interpretation of Manetho is confirmed by the complete absence of the name of Akhnaton in his king list. According to the monuments, Akhnaton was followed by the brief reigns of Tutenkhamen, Sakere, and Eye, the lengths of whose reigns are not known. Manetho does not recognize any of these successors of Akhnaton, and in their pl'aces he provides the names of an alternate line of rulers through Achencheres, the daughter of Amenhotep III and sister of A,khnaton. This line of rulers merges with that through Akhnaton, after some 45 years, in the person of Armais, who is clearly to be identified as Harmhab of the monuments. 53 The period from Achencheres to Harmhab inclusive, according to the figures of Josephus, is just a month or two short of 50 years. Hence, if it can be determined when in th~ rule of Amenhotep III Achencheres began her rule, the figures for elapsed time remain intact. Since Josephus allows Amenhotep. III the full period of his reign with no recognition of Akhnaton, it would seem that he would logically begin the rule of Achencheres with the death of Amenhotep III. It will be noted by reference to Table XIV that Eusebius allows Achencheres a.,period of 12 years, while Africanus credits her with 32 years. The discrepancy is 20 years. Examination of the chart of Figure 10 shows that it was very close to twenty years from the death of Amenhotep II to the death of Amenhotep III. We may conclude that African us credits. her with a reign b~ginning with the death of Amenhotep II, while Eusebius and Josephus credit her with a reign only from the death of Amenhotep lll. Thus again, the interpretation placed on the figures of Josephus is confirmed. There is some question as to when Akhnaton began his coregency. Evidence points to the probability that he was too young to assume responsibilities at the death of Amenhotep II and was not placed in this position until about the 31st year of his father's reign. This may also have been the year of his marriage. 56 The monuments indicate that he reigned· 17 years or more. The date for the beginning of his reign and the length of this reign are not important to the SACKING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE 277 chronology per se, since the problem of elapsed time is covered by the alternate line of rulers through Achencheres. These figures, however, do have a significance in fixing the dates for the so-called Amarna period, so named because Akhnaton b.uilt the city pf Akhetaton as a new site for his capital and as the center of his new religion. The period is of importance also from the standpoint of the "Amarna Letters" which represent correspondence between Akhnaton (and his father) with various kings and officials of other territories to provide an assumed series of synchronisms which are regarded as providing final prqof of the chronological structure as currently held. The letters have also been used by the proponents of the XVIIIth Dynasty dating of the Exodus as evidence for the correctness of this dating. The problems related to the Amarna Letters and their interpretation will be taken up again following the discussion of Assyrian chronology in a later volume. This delay is necessary, since the interpretation of these letters is inseparably related to the chronology of Assyria. Notes and References (I) The discrepancy at this time was nearer to 400 years, rather than the 600 years at the Conquest, since the period allotted currently, and marked by the end of Dynasty XII and the beginning of Dynasty XVlll, is about 200 years shorter than that from the Exodus to the time of Saul's war. (2) V-AC. (3) The author accepts th~ conclusions of Velikovsky on the placement of the Exodus essentially coincident with the Hyksos invasion, the identity of the Hyksos as the Biblical Amalekites, the virtual annihilation of the Hyksos as the Amalekites by Saul, the identity of Thutmose III as the Shishak of Scriptur!J, and the dating of the Amama Letters in the 9th century rather than in the 14th century. (4) This premise is stated in detail in the introduction to V-AC, pp. xxi-xxiv. (5) See P-HE, Vol. I, addenda xxx, and W-WST, Vol. I, p. 265 (reprint, 1955) for statements to this effect. (6) The assumed fixity of the dates for Dynasty XII and XVIII depend on the validity of the so-called Sothic dating method; the current. views on the antiquity of Egypt depend on the interpretations of carbon-14 dating. (7) The fallacies in this dating method are discussed in Chap. III of Vol. II. (8) Ibid., Chap. III of Volume 11. (9) Such a situation holds for the entire period prior to Dynasty XVIII and to a lesser degree for the subsequent period. (9a) For example, a series of such data for the XV!llth Dynasty and onward might provide convincing evidence favoring the shorter chronology here defended, though it is doubtful if such data could be used for providing anything resembling exact dates (deG-VA, p. 41). (10) Some historians and archaeologists make no attempt to conceal their interpretations as starting where the Higher Criticsim leaves off. Others refer to agreement with Scripture without qualifying their statements to indicate that they are referring to Scripture as altered and evaluated by the Higher Criticism. Some few retain a confidence in the historicitv of Scripture to be expected from its internal claims of origin and are bravely (but. ineffectuafly, in the writers opinion) attempting to show some degree of harmony with archaeological interpretations. (11) Webster includes such a usage of the term, though this is not what is generally understood by the work "history" or "historical." To avoid confusion, the writer has used the terms "historically dependable" or "historically reliable" in the evaluation of Scripture taken as it reads. It is true that the majority of examples of proposed confirmation of Scripture by archaeology retain a degree of truth if reference is to . Scripture defined as myth and legend, but few indeed have a confirmatory value for a Scripture taken as factually dependable as it reads. (12) See Fig. 10. (13) E-TS. (14) B-HE, p. 599. (15) Harrrihab is thus rather universally recognized. See Fig. 11. (16) P-HE, Vol. Ill, p. 120. (17) Petrie puts it this way: ", .. not a single important event can be put down to his reign." (P-HE, Vol. Ill, p. 123). (18) II Chron. 12:2-4,9. (19) M-HE. Vol. VI, p. 418; P-HE, Vol. III, 278 THE EXODUS PROBLEM p. 2.'33; B-EUP. Vol. ll. p. 211!; BA, Vol. IV, p. 15. (201 See II Chron. 9: 13, J.5, 20, 22-24. (2I) R-AM, Vol. II, p. 82; see also P-HE, Vol. Ill, pp. 2:31, 232. (22) B-EUP: Vol. II, pp. 208ff. provides a transcription of this remarkable document. (23) Jbjd., p. 212, par. :3, (24) Ibid., pp. 267ff. A transcription of this list is given in P-HE, Vol. lll, p. 299. The list is given .under the h~ading of Dynasty XXV. By the revision, Dynasty XXV reaches into the period encompassed by Dynasty XXII (See Fig. XII). The very presence of these names in documents from the era of Dynasty XXV confirms this as the era of Dynasty XXII. (25) II Kings 15:29: 18:14. (26) See the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser (745-727 B.C.) in L-ARAB, Vol. I, pp. 269ff. (27) R-AM, Vol. JI, pp. 81. 82. (28) Ibid. (29) See Plate IV for reproduction of this inscription. See Chap. XVlll, Sect. Vlll for discussion of this inscription. (30) P-HE, Vol. Ill, pp. 231, 232. (31) Chap. XVIlL (32) II Chron. 14:9, 12-14. (33) P-HE, Vol. lll, pp. 242, 243. (33a) See ref. 12. (34) The intervening periods are c. 15 years remaining in the reign of Saul, 40 years each for David and Solomon, and 4 and a fraction yars into the reign of Rehoboam. (35) V-AC, Chap. IV. (36) See quots. of ref. 13, Chap. Ill. (37) V-AC, Plates VII and VIII. (37a) See ref. 7. (38) See Table XIV. (38a) The significance of this inscription is discussed by Edgerton (E-TS, pp. !ff.). (38b) Ibid., p. 43. (38<:) One may arrive at this figure as a close approximation by comparison of the statements to be founil in the following texts: I Sam. 15:1,2; 16:1, 10-13; II Sam. 5:4; I Sam. I7:15ff.; 17:56; 18:17. (38d) See preceding section for recognition of a possible necessary .adjustment and for the manner in which this can be attained without affecting the chronology. (38e) See ref. 34. (39) 99+ years to the sacking of the temple, 12+ further years in the reign of Rheoboam, 3 years for Abijam and 14+ years into the reign of Asa. (40) See Figure 10. The assumption here is that Thutmose I outlived his son by about 2 years. (41) These annals are summarized by Petrie (P-HE, Vol. II, p. lOOff.). (42) Ibid., pp. 104££. (43) Ibid. The siege of MeJ!:iddo lasted 7 months, and since a new camJ>aiJ!:n was initiated the following year, it is hardly logical to presume that the conquest of all Palestine belonj!;s to this same campaign (P-ANET, p. 237a, note 38. (44) I Kings 7:2: 10:7. (45) P-HE, Vol. II, P. 112. (46) Ibid., p. 101. (46a) II Chron. 9:ll. (47) V-AC, pp. I55ff.; (Plates VII and VIII). (48) I Kings 10:17. (48a) II Chron. 4:8, 11. (48b) Ex. 25:33. Many, of the items prepared for the earlier tabernacle were evidently moved into the temple of Solomon. (4&) I Kings 7:26 refers to this motif in decoration as lilies. (48d) I Kings 6:21. (48e) II Chron. 4:9. See Cruden's concordance for a mistaken rendering of this terrn as "brass." (48£) I Kings 7:49; 11 Chron. 28:15. (48g) Ex. 30:1, 3. See note of ref. 48b. (49) 11 Chron. 12:4;J-AJ, Bk. VIII, Chaf.. X, j)llr. 2. (50) P-ANET, p. 245££. (51) Ibid., note 1. (52) II Chron. 14:1; 15:19. (53) See re. 41. (54) PHE, Vol. It, p. 157. (54a) Amenhotep H boasts in his inscription of having brought much loot from this campaign. This is not impossible, since he may have obtained this from the cities to the south which were previously controlled by Egypt, but which were lost to Egypt at this time (II Chron. 14:12-14. (55) See Figure 11. (56) P-HE, Vol. II, p. 208. · CHAPTER XVII PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S XVIIIth AND XIXth DYNASTIES That some degree of confusion exists in the transcriptions of Manetho's late XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties is beyond ql1estion. Whether this confusion had its origin in the thinking of Manetho, or whether it has resulted from the inability of the transcribers of Manetho to correctly reproduce his thinking, has not been so obvious. We may entertain a hope that this confusion will be clarified to a significant degree when re-examined against the bacgkground provided by the altered chronology. I . Confusion in the Transcriptions of Manetho's XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties Both Africanus and Eusebius give Sethos as the founder of Dynasty XIX. 1 Since neither includes Seti I in the list of XVIIIth Dynasty kings, and since Seti I certainly deserved a position among the Egyptian kings of this era, the currently recognized identification of this Sethos with Seti I is also beyond question. Seti I was the son of Rameses I and the father of Rameses II, both being recognized kings of this era. It is thus to be expected that Seti I was also a king of the same dvnasty, and there is evidence Jo indicate that his reign did, fall .in the interim between the reigns of Rameses I and Rameses II. The problem is then one of explaining why both transcribers of Manetho agree that he was the founder of a new dynasty. Josephus does not list these kings by dynasties. Nevertheless, he also omits any reference to Seti I between Rameses I and Rameses II. The suggestion is thus strong, irrespective of what seems to be an anomaly, that it was Manetho who regarded Seti I as the founder of a new dynasty· distinct from that which included Rameses I and Rameses II. A further difficulty rises from the apparent inclusion of Rameses II and his successor Merneptah (Amenophath or Amenophthes of Africanus or Amenophis or Amenephthis of Eusebius) in both dynasties XVIII and XIX. Did Manetho regard these kings as belonging to both dynasties, or is this an error of confusion on the part of the transcribers, and if 280 THE EXODUS PROBLEM . it is an error, then do these kings belong in Dynasty. XVIII or in Dynasty XIX? II. The Composition of Dynasty XIX Revised by Modem Scholars In view of the obvious confusion in the composition of these two dynasties, modern scholars have elected to bypass this question without providing a final answer. The obscurity has been met by a reconstitution of the two dynasties in terms of the family relationships known to have existed between Seti I, Rameses I, and Rameses II. By this reconstitution, Harmhab (Armais) is made the founder of Dynasty XIX, and the dynasty is composed of the sequence: Harmhab, Rameses I, Seti I, Rameses II, Merneptah, and the four "antikings" that followed Merneptah, i.e., Seti II, Am~nmeses, Siptah, and Tausert, as indicated by the monuments. This recomposition is thus based on the assumption that the error has been in the inclusion of Armais (Harmhab), Rameses I, Rameses II, and Merneptah in Dynasty XVIII when they should have been included only in Dynasty XIX. Of the four insignificant rulers following Merneptah, some have regarded these, except Seti II, a:s usurpers. Petrie, however, regarded two of these (Amenmeses and Siptah) as sons of Seti II, and Tausert as his daughter. Brugsch preferred to ignore the last three. Petrie attempted to establish the order of the reigns of these last four on the basis of ·tomb evidence. However, this provides at best only the order of death and not necessarily the order of accession, particularly since there seems to be evidence that there was some degree of parallelism of rule in this obscure period following Merneptah. III. The Failure of the Reconstitution to Provide Solutions to Problems The revision of the composition of Dynasties XVIII and XIX as made by modern scholars has not provided an. altogether satisfactory solution to related problems. One difficulty has long been recognized. According to the Harris Pa~ pyrus inscription, Rameses Ill, first king of Dynasty XX, was the son of one Setnakht, who succeeded in reorganizing the government from a long-developing situation of anarchy or near anarchy which is stated to have prevailed for COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 281 "many years. " 2 One incident in this extended period of anarchy was the rise of the Syrian Aziru (Irsu), who succeeded in setting up a system of taxation over the Egyptians. In view of the very brief period which can be logically assigned to the reigns of the last four kings in the sequence noted above, Petrie felt compelled to confine this "many years" to the brief reign of Siptah while he was feuding with his sister over a usurped throne. 3 Breasted, by allowing Merneptah only 10 and a fraction years, as against the 19 (or 40) attributed to him by the transcribers of Manetho, was able to squeeze in a 5-year period for this "many years" after the reigns of these last four kings of the dynasty.• Rowton, by selecting the higher of two possible dates for the accession of the Assyrian king, Ninurta-apil-eker, finds a basis that satisfies him for moving the accession date for Rameses II back to 1304 B.C. from the long-accepted date 1290 B.C., 0 thus providing a little more leeway for this unsettled period. However, Hornung, on the basis of other data, is equally certain that the date 1290 must be retained. r; Hornung, followed by Heick and von Beckerath, has preferred to meet the troublesome passage by denying the very existence of this Irsu. These various efforts only ernphasize the pressure of the time-squeeze that results from the statement in the Harris Papyrus inscription. While major objections have been raised to each of the attempts to either lengthen the chronology or to alter the significance of the Harris Papyrus inscription, these will not be reviewed here. It is rather the aim to show that there is an alternate solution to the problem at hand which, in the writer's opinion, is more reasonable and which is not subject to these various objections. Not only so, we are at the same time provided solutions to other major problems which are not solved by disregarding the written sources or by extending the period of Dynasty XIX backward. IV. Problems Relative to Greek History An additional problem of considerable magnitude has risen in the course of clarification of the time relationships between certain events in Greek history and associated incidents in Egyptian history. In his recent classical work on the Birth and Development of Greek Art, Demargne found it unsatisfactory to trace this development independent of 282 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Greek chronology. Yet ill attempting to deal with Greek chronology as related to Egyptian history, it became apparent that certain incidents in Greek history were in the wrong time order to agree with the associated events in Egyptian history. More specifically, it was the Dorian invasion of Greek history that served as the obvious springboard that gave the impetus to the migration of the Sea Peoples.k In t.he course of this migration, the land of the Hittites was overrun, thus bringing to :rn end the Hittite power. The migration continued southward and came to a climax with an attempted invasion of Egypt. The active phase of the Dorian invasion has been assigned a date c. 1100 B.C. in Greek history. Whether the Sea Peoples participated in the attempted invasion of Egypt in association with the Libyans in the 5th year of Merneptah (c. 1220 B. C.) as held by some, 9 or whether the incident belongs only to the 8th year of Rameses III (c. 1190 B.C.) is not a·matter of importance to the problem. Certainly the initiation of this movement from Greece and environs must have been significantly earlier than the climax represented by the invasion of Egypt. The question is: how could a movement initiated in Greece and environs c. llOO B.C. reach its climax in Egypt in 1190 B.C. (or earlier)?9-• Demargne does not provide a clear explanation of this anomaly. It is not clear whether he is invoking the legendary nature of the Greek sources as a basis for obscuring the time relationship between these two incidents or whether he is attempting to convince himself that the earlier and totally unsuccessful attempt at invasion of the Peloponnesus by Hyllus (c. 1200 B.C.)was adequate to serve as the cause of the migration of the Sea Peoples. Neither of these approaches represents a feasible solution to this glaring anachronism. While the Greek sources may be recognized as legendary, these events were altogether too deeply rooted in the thinking and writing of the later Greeks to allow ignoring the stated time relationship between them. A century ago, it was popular belief that the Greek legends had no historical value. The investigations at Troy have changed all that. Kitto, in commenting on this complete change of thinking wrote: 10 This is the outstanding example of the general reliability of the tradition - in the Greek world: parallels elsewhere are not hard to find. COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 283 Sometimes legends have been corroborated to an almost absurd degree. In proposing a solution that retains the reversed sequence of events in Greece, a full century apart in the face of the numerous interrelations recorded in the Greek legends, is resorting to a procedure that is even less than hypothetical. Such a reversal is totally out of the question. But so also is the concept that the abortive duel between Hyllus. and Echymus was an incident of sufficient significance to serve as· the initiating factor for the migration of the Sea Peoples. The significant and successful phase of the Dorian invasion did not occur until well over half a century later. According to the statements of Herodotus and Thucydides, a full century elapsed between these two incidents. 11 While this figure may be somewhat in excess of that demanded by the genealogies involved, it is out of the question to reduce this figure sufficiently to allow recognition of any cause-result relationship between the Dorian invasion and the migration of the Sea Peoples. Nor is there anything at all to be gained by supposing that "Two momentous events ... · came in quick succession; the migration of the sea peoples and the Dorian invasion." 11 " No matter how quick the succession, the order of the incidents is still wrong. V. A Defense for the Retention of Manetho' s View of Dynasty XIX Actually, it is the Egyptian sources that provide the pressure leading to the expression of such an indefensible solution to a major problem. It is here contended that these difficulties, and others to be introduced as the discussion proceeds, are eliminated at ·1arge when it is recognized that the true nature of the confusion on the part of Manetho's transcribers remained unrecognized in the modern revision of the composition of Manetho's XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties. There is an alternate interpretation of Manetho for this era which retains in total the sequence of the kings in que5tion as given by the monuments, but which is based on a different premise relative to the nature of the confusion by Manetho' s transcribers, and which results in quite a different composition and chronology for these dynasties. In the modern reorganization of the composition of these dynasties, it was tacitly assumed that the error of Manetho 284 THE EXODUS PROBLEM (or of his transcribers) lay in the inclusion of the names of Rameses II and Merneptah in both Dynasties, when they should have been given positions in Dynasty XIX only .. The alternate interpretation, here proposed, assumes the reverse to have been true, i.e., these names properly belong in the line of XVIIlth Dynasty kings and should be deleted from the XIXth Dynasty line as erroneous repetitions. Josephus, on the other hand, when interpreted in terms of his own comments, represents a correct representation of the situation as it actually existe\i and as probably understood by Manetho. 12 When thus understood, Seti I was the founder of Manetho' s XIXth Dynasty just as he gives it. The dynasty was composed of three (possibly four) kings. It was but a brief offshoot from Dynasty XVIII at the time of Seti I and came to its end long before the end of Dynasty XVIII as envisioned by Manetho. This dynasty, as will appear, ruled locally over a limited area in the Delta region, undoubtedly with a completely satisfactory understanding with the ruling king of Dynasty XVIII. Dynasty XIX thus did not represent a total rule over all of Egypt, as has been assumed, and the situations related to the dynasty did not hold for all of Egypt. We may disagree with Manetho on the wisdom of such an arrangement of the dynasties, but this is the way he saw it, and thete is little to be gained and much has been lost by the modern alteration. VI. On the Identification of Thuoris of the Era of the Fall of Troy The critical point of difference between this interpretaion of Manetho and the traditional view is in the recognition that Manetho' s dynasties do not necessarily require a chronological sequence between each dynasty and the next as consecutively numbered. The net result in this case is the recognition that the Ammenemnes and Thuoris of Manetho' s XIXth Dynasty are not the same kings as the Amenmeses and Thuoris who, according to the monuments, follow Merneptah. They rather follow the reign of Seti I,· not Seti II, and thus belong to the era of Seti a full century earlier than their current placement. The basis for rejecting the identifications with similar names following Merneptah is so obvious that ·it is some- COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 285 what astonishing that the popular views have survived so long. The Thuoris of Manetho' s XIXth Dynasty was a man and is clearly stated to have been the husband of Alcandra who was known to Homer of the Greeks as Polybus of th~ era of the fall of Troy. 13 The Thuoris identifiable as Tausert of the era following Merneptah, on the other hand, was a woman and sister to Siptah. That Petrie accepted the concept that it was Tausert who belonged' to the era of the fall of Troy, in spite of the difference in sex, is clear from his statement; "It is stated that the fall of Troy was in her time ... ,'' 14 and other scholars seem to have tacitly accepted this identification (or at least the conclusions based on such), thus providing a date c. 1180 for the fall of Troy. Others have attempted to avoid this obvious anomaly by identifying this Thuoris of the monuments with Siptah, brother of Tausert, instead of with Tausert herself, a concept that has no support beyond the embarrassment resulting from the anomaly. While scholars generally have regarded the Sothis king list as a document having no chronological value, the writer has found much in the list to make it worthy of more serious consideration. It would seem that the design in the composition of the early list was abandoned at the end of Dynasty XVIII of Manetho, possibly because the complexity of the situation made it impractical to continue on this basis. There are, nevertheless, values to be found even in the latter part of the list. The list gives two kings by the name Thuoris. The first follows the name Merneptah and hence should be identified with the Tausert of the monuments who followed Merneptah. The other follows the name Certos (who should be identified with Seti I, as suggested by Waddell). 15 It is this latter Thuoris in the list who is identified as the Polybus of Homer and the husband of Alcandra. There is thus no confusion here. There were two kings by the name Thuoris and two kings by the name Ammenemes (or its equivalent). But it is the Thuoris of the time of Seti I who belongs to the era of the fall of Troy, not the one who follows Merneptah. The incident of the fall of Troy should thus be equated with the era of Seti I and not with the era following Merneptah. A full century separates these two eras. This movement of the era of the fall of Troy back to the era of Seti I 286 THE EXODUS PROBLEM now leaves the Dorian Invasion and the migration of the Sea Peoples in their proper order, which allows the obvious deduction that it was the Dorian invasion (half a century or more after the fall of Troy) that served as the initiating factor in the migration of the Sea Peoples, culminating in an invasion of Egypt in the time of Merneptah or Rameses III. This is shown clearly in Figure 4, of Chapter XVI in Volume II. The introduction of this Thuoris in the list after Merneptah and the four antikings was then prompted by the same factor that led Jo~ephus to follow the same pattern. Vil. Problems in Josephus' Account Clarified Several statements in the account by Josephus have defied satisfactory explanations in· terms of current chronological views. These are now re-examined in the light of the revised chronology. After listing the Egyptian kings from Ahmose, first king of Dynasty XVIII, to Amenophis (clearly to be identified as Merneptah, since he follows Rameses II), Josephus adds: 16 ... after him (Merneptah], ... came Sethosis and Rameses.... Josephus then proceeds to rehearse the details of the incident of the appointment by Sethothis of his brother Armais to be deputy over Egypt while he (Sethosis) made extensive ·military expeditions into foreign territories. Armais, in the absence of his brother, usurped his throne. Sethosis, on receiving word of the situation, returned to Egypt and banished his brother. Josephus then identifies this Sethosis and Armais as the brothers who also had the names Egyptus and Danaus. · From the reading of this account, one might assume that Josephus regarded these brothers as belonging to the era following Merneptah. On this basis, some have presumed that this Sethosis was Seti II (of the monuments) who followed Merneptah. When it became apparent that this identification was hardly credible, since the exploits of this Sethosis could not reasonably be credited to the insignific.ant and virtually unknown Seti II, the tendency was to relegate this story to the realm of fiction and to disregard it. However, it is perfectly clear that Josephus recognized that these two brothers belonged to the era preceding the COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 287 reign of Rameses II and not to the era following Memeptah. In stating that Sethothis and Armais came after Merneptah, he obviously meant only that these names followed that of Merneptah in the list from which he was drawing his information. While this source may have been other than Manetho who did ·not give the kings by dynasties, it is quite possible that Manetho was his source and that Josephus understood clearly that his Dynasty XIX did not follow Dynasty XVIII in sequence. In any case, Josephus followed the n;ames of the XVIIIth Dynasty to its end which is marked according to Manetho, by the reign of Merneptah, then returned on the time scale to the era of Seti I to intro, duce the story related to Dynasty XIX as Manetho envisioned it. If we let Josephus interpret his own statements, this interpretation is unavoidable. In another connection, 17 referring to this same incident, Josephus states that following the expulsion of Armais (Hermeus) by Sethos (Sethothis), Rhampses, son of Sethos, reigned for 66 years. Rhampses is clearly Rameses II by the unusual length of the reign, which agrees with other sources. This Sethos or Sethosis must then be recognized as the father and predecessor of Rameses II who, by the monuments, is stated to have been Seti I. Any possible basis for confusion here is eliminated by the repeated identification of this Hermeus and Sethos as the same persons otherwise known as Danaus and Egyptus. Now Josephus had introduced a king earlier in his list by the name of Arrnais, 18 who, by the ord-er in the list, reigned just before Rameses I. According to the monuments, Rameses I was preceded by Harmhab. But if the Armais of the usurpation incident belongs to the era of Seti I, then this · Armais is the same person as Harmhab. Seti I and Harmhab were thus brothers. Seti I was the son of Rameses I; then so also was Harmhab the son of Rameses I. We have here the peculiar situation of the reign of one son of Rameses I (Harmhab) preceding his father on the throne, while his successor was another son of Rameses I (Seti I). Some very unusual situation thus existed at this point in the history of Egypt. The situation suggests that Rameses I, though an old man, was an opportunist who was able to step into an emergency situation, but continued only little more than 288 THE EXODUS PROBLEM a year before giving way to another son, probably as a result of death. The identifications, as noted, are clearly confirmed by the monuments. The exploits of Josephus' Sethothis agree explicity with those of Seti I. 19 While Petrie, and others among recent scholars, have considered the possible identity of Armais with Harmhab, this identification has not been generally accepted. There is, however, good evidence from the monuments that Hannhab was behaving in a manner to endanger the throne of some king, making him a likely subject for banishment, but the modern reorganization of the composition of Dynasties XVIII and XIX ma:de it quite impossible to recognize that this king was none other· than his own brother, Seti I. The door jambs of the tomb of Harmhab at Memphis carry a fantastic list of self-assumed titles which led Breasted to comment: 20 ... Such titles no officer under the king had ever born. Under what ruler he thus served is not certain, but whoever he was such power in the hands of a subject must necessarily have endangered his throne. Harmhab was now the real pow.er of the throne.... The transcribers of Manetho were thus correct in attributing to this Armais (Harmhab) the alternate name of Danaus, but these, other than Josephus, were in error in attributing to Rameses 11 the alternate name of Egyptus. The name should have been attributed to Seti I. Both ancients and moderns have mistakenly presumed that this was the ·same Danaus who fled to Greece and usurped the throne of the Argives as by the Greek legends. The Danaus and Egyptus of the Greek legends belong to a period a full century .or more earlier than the fall of Troy. Without a basis for clarification of the identifications of these persons, it is not surprising that these data from Josephus have been disregarded or evaluated as fiction. The probable reason fot the assignment to Seti I and Harmhab of alternate names the same as persons a century (two centuries by popular ·views) earlier will be noted in a later volume. 21 VIII. Clarification Qf the Reigns of Harmhab, Rameses I, and Seti I From the available information, we may now piece together some of the details leading to the unusual circumstance of the father (Rameses I) reigning briefly after the COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 289 reign of one son and followed by the reign of another son. The background to this odd situation had its beginning with the death of Amenhotep III. At that time, his son, Akhnaton became king. As is common knowledge, Akhnaton became more interested in his new concepts of religion than in handling the affairs of government and introduced deviations that brought upon him the hatred of subsequent generations. After a reign of perhaps 17 years (part of which may have been as coregent to his father), he was followed in turn by the brief reigns of Smenkare, Tutenkhamen, and Eye. So speak the monuments. Manetho, however, probably in sympathy with popular opinion that had not entirely died out to his day, did not recognize Akhnaton and his successors as legitimate kings and has presented to us instead a line of kings through Achencheres (Acherres), daughter of Amehotep III. The reigns of these five kings encompass a period of almost exactly 50 years, 22 the last of the group being Armais or Harmhab, who is credited with 4 years and 1 month by Josephus. The monuments indicate a much longer reign for Harmhab. The figure of Josephus is nevertheless confirmed by the other transcribers of Manetho. The possible explanation for the discrepancy is that Harmhab began his career as an army general under one of the kings following Akhnaton and is claiming all the intervening time as part of his reign. The brief reign attributed to him by Manetho should then be interpreted to mean that Harmhab did not become primary ruler of Egypt until the death of his predecessor, Achencheres, and that any claim for a longer reign by his monuments represented a more limited authority under the jurisdiction of earlier rulers. It may not be possible to define that authority in any exact sense, though certain logical assumptions may be made as the discussion proceeds. It is noted here only that since the tomb of Harmhab · was at Memphis, Zl this limited authority may be presumed to have been located in the general area of the Delta region. The transcribers of Manetho attribute to Seti I a reign considerably longer than that suggested by the date of his latest monument in his 9th year. On the basis of the evidence previously introduced, Seti I was the brother of Harmhab from whom, according to Josephus, Harmhab 290 THE EXODUS PROBLEM usurped the throne while Seti was engaged in extensive military operations. This incident then also belongs to the era before the 4-year reign of Harmhab and thus falls in the obscure era following the reign of Eye. Seti I thus also had his rise to power during this period, and this rise evidently resulted from his successful military campaigns into foreign areas. The picture that emerges is that the usurpation by Harmhab of the throne of Seti I, was at first only a usurpation of this local and limited authority in lower Egypt, and not a usurpation of the first rulership in Egypt. It was evidently during this time that Achencheres III died, and Harmhab was then also able to usurp the throne of the deceased king, thus becoming the primary ruler of Egypt. The four years attributed to him by Manetho then represent only the time between his successful usurpation of the throne of Achencheres and his banishment from Egypt by Seti I. Thus when Seti I returned to Egypt and banished his brother, he not only regained his previous local authority in the Delta region, but at the same time he also became primary ruler of Egypt. For reasons not known, but probably because he was not yet ready to abandon his military career on such short notice, the rulership was given to his aging father, Rameses I. After little more than a year, Rameses .died and Seti I took over the throne in person. The 8 and a fraction years of reign by Seti I then represented only that part of his official rule after the death of Rameses I. The question of the coregency of Rameses II with Seti I has long been a matter of debate. Except for the fact that Rameses II seems to count his reign from the time of the death of Seti I, it is tempting to assume that Seti I took on his young son Rameses II almost immediately on his accession to full rulership of Egypt. Seele has defended such a thesis, 2 ~ and this may well be true in spite of any evidence suggesting that Rameses II did not begin to count the years of his reign until the death of Seti I. The situation envisioned by the writer is that Manetho regarded his Dynasty XIX as having its origin with Seti I, not as full ruler of Egypt, but as a local authority in the Delta region from about the time of the reign of Eye. The unidentified names in Manetho's XIXth Dynasty also belong back in this period. While Harmhab may have held COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 291 some degree of authority back in this same period, Manetho did not recognize him as a king until the time of his usurpation of the throne of Achencheres. Thuoris of the era of the fall of Troy was but one of these local rulers in the Delta, and evidence from the Greek legends (to be considered in a later connection)25 supports this view. It would appear that his 7-year rule there did not begin before the point where Seti I became full ruler of Egypt. Against this background, it is not difficult to understand the problem confronting Manetho in his attempt to arrange the kings of Egypt by dynasties. Under these circumstances, where was Seti I to be given a position in the line of Egyptian kings? If Manetho had elected to disregard the offshoot line founded bv Seti I, he could have placed him between Rameses I and Rameses II in Dynasty XVIII. But Manetho evidently considered these rulers as deserving recognition fully as much as the princes of Dynasty XIII or of Dynasty XX. Whet.her we agree with Manetho in the wisdom of his arrangement is beside the point. If any shortcoming is to be recognized for Manetho' s arrangement, the writer would define this as a failure to recognize Seti I also as a king in the XVIIIth Dynasty line. IX. The Many Chaotic Years of the Harris Papyrus With Dynasty XIX ending at a point not far removed from the accession of Rameses II, the many chaotic years of the Harris Papyrus and of the era following Dynasty XIX, should then find their proper background following the end of the alternately dated Dynasty XIX, and not after the antikings following Merneptah. Since Dynasty XIX represented a line of local rulers in the Delta region, it may be reasonably assumed that this situation of developing anarchy also was a local situation in the Delta region and did not necessarily represent a situation characterizing all of Egypt. Our reasoning has thus forced us into a situation which must recognize that this period of chaos and anarchy in the Delta region belongs in the reign of Rameses II. While Rameses II was undoubtedly one of the great kings of Egypt, the late years of his long reign provided the factors that could be expected to lead to severe deterioration. This was the rather invariable result when a king had an unusually long reign. 26 That the late reign of Rameses II 292 THE EXODUS PROBLEM was no exception to this rule has been deduced by a number of scholars from the meager information available from this period. 27 ... It seems then that a long period of gradual decline occupied the greater part of this much boasted reign. The later years of Ramessu had been a time of gradual decay; and the ever-pressing western tribes had been quietly settling on the edges of the Nile Valley.... . . . Yet still the old king lived on. He had lost the vitality for aggressive rule. The Libyans and the maritime peoples allied with them, Lycians, Sardinians and the Aegean races whom he had once swept from his coasts or impressed into the service of his army now entered the western Delta with impunity. . . . It was thus the Rameses of the latter half of his reign, whose influence was most potent, and in a day when Egypt should have been girding her loins and husbanding her resources for a struggle involving her very existence, she was relinquishing her sword to mercenary strangers and lavishing her wealth upon temples already too richly en· dowed for the economic safety of the state. Since the significant inscriptions of Rameses II virtually ceased with the 40th year of this 66-year reign, 28 there is ample room in the late portion of the reign for the years of decay, deterioration, and developing anarchy described in the Harris Papyrus. X. Confirmation for the Developing Chronology in the Inscription of M emeptah By the developing chronology, Amenhotep III died in the year 852-851 B.C. 28" Since the period from the death of Amenhotep III to the banishment of Harmhab was just 50 years, this incident occurred in the year 802-801 B.C. Rameses I reigned one and a fraction years, and Seti reigned eight and a fraction years. Allowing 10 years for the tw9 reigns, Rameses II acceded to the throne in 792-791 B.C. This date may now be confirmed with an accuracy that hardly allows that the developments to this point are to be explained by mere coincidence. Merneptah left an inscription referring to Israel dated in the 5th year of his reign. The pertinent part of this inscription has been reproduced previously. 29 The inscription not only indicates that Israel was already in Palestine at this time, but it also pictures Israel as in dire trouble, providing evi- COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 293 dence of the erroneous nature of the placement of the Exodus during the reign of Rameses IL To avoid the obvious implication of the difficulty rising from reference to Israel in this inscription, it has been hypothesized that Merneptah is referring to an agricultural disaster. That the remaining part of the inscription refers to political situations is beyond question. Hence the interpretation of the difficulty in Israel as anything other than political is something less than convincing. The full implication of the inscription becomes transparently clear when set against the background of the revised chronology. From the above figures, it may be calculated that the 5th year of Meneptah falls in the year 721 B.C. But this is the established date for the fall of Isra,el to the Assyrians. Hence, the factor that eliminated Israel as posing any problem to Egypt was loss of independence on the part of the northern kingdom of Israel. XI. The Problem of the 400th-year Anniversary Inscription of Rameses II Early in the reign of Rameses II, the king had an inscription made as a 400th-year anniversary memorial of some unstated incident which must have been of sufficient significance to the Egyptians to .warrant such recognition.'30 The problem of identifying that incident has been an unsolved enigma to historians since the discovery of the inscription. By current chronological views, Rameses II began his reign in 1292 B. C. Calculating backwards 400 years leads one to the date 1692 B.C. for the unknown incident. Since, by the same chronology, the expulsion of the Hyksos occurred in the year 1580 B.C. and since their enslavement had lasted for no less than a century, the incident in question must have occurred at about the time of the Hyksos invasion. This is a most unlikely era for the occurrence of any incident which the Egyptians would have any desire to memorialize with an inscription. The conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos was one incident the Egyptians would most want to forget. The name of the king ruling at the time is given in the inscription as Set-aa-pehti-nubti, a name that has been abbreviated to King Nub for- convenience. This name has been of no assistance at all for confirming even· the era of the incident in question. 294 THE EXODUS PROBLEM With the elucidation of the proper chronological relation between Dynasties XVIII and XIX another ancient reference may now be brought to bear on the problem which leads to a clear-cut solution. Reference is to the statement of Josephus that 393 years separated the expulsion of the Hyksos and the banishment of Armais (Harmhab).'31 ... Now, from his days [Tethmosis at the expulsion of the Hyksos], the reigns of the intermediate kings, according to Manetho, amounted to three hundred and ninty-three years, as he says himself, till the two brothers Sethos and Hermeus; the one of whom, Sethos, was called by that other name Egyptus, and the other, Hermeus, by that of Danaus. He also says that Sethos cast the other out of Egypt. ... These are the .same statements used earlier to clarify the identities of Josephus' Sethos •and Armais as Seti I and Harmhab. When these brothers are assigned the positions given by Josephus, the 393 years span the period from the expulsion of the Hyksos to the banishment of Harmhab. But the incident of the banishment was. hardly more than a decade before the accession of Rameses II. It is thus appar~ ent that the 393 years of Josephus and the 400 years of Rameses II had the same beginning, and this beginning was not marked by the conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos, but rather by their expulsion. This makes sense. The expulsion of the Hyksos was an incident to which the Egyptians could look back with satisfaction and one which merited the .making of an anniversary inscription. The difficulty in recognizing this interpretation is the fact that it was not 400 years between the expulsion of the Hyksos and the accession of Rameses II. It was probably even short of 300 years. The question that demands an answer is: why should Rameses II make a 400th-year inscription less than 300 years after the incident he was commemorating? · Except as there is at hand a reasonable answer to this question, the deduction is for nought in spite of the logic of the reasoning which appears to support it. Actually, the explanation for what appears to be an impossible situation is quite simple. Josephus states that this 393 years was calculated by adding together the reigns of the intervening kings. 32 The figures used in the summation are stated to have been taken from Manetho. If the beginnings of the 393 and 400-year periods were the same, then COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 295 the 400 years must have been calculated in the same manner. Unfortunately, we do not know just what figures were used in this calculation. The summation of the reigns for this period as given by the transcribers of Manetho yields a figure of only about 264 years. To this might be added an additional 45 years for the reign of Seti I in Dynasty XIX which, by the revision, belongs to this period, but the total remains some 80 years short of the figure 393. An explanation for the remaining discrepacy may be assumed to have resulted from the fact that Manetho commonly gives total reigns for his kings, while the figures of the transcribers evidently represent what was believe.cl to be sole reigns. It is to be noted, for example, that the transcribers of Mantho credit Hatshepsut and Thu.tmose III with reigns of 22+ and 25+ years respectively, while the monuments claim total reigns of 35+ and 54+ years. Thus while it may not be possible to define exactly what figures were used in these calculations, we may assume. that data were available to Rameses II, and to Josephus centuries later, for summing correctly the total reigns of the intervening kings. This interpretation is susceptible to the sort of confirmation that should leave the deductions on the level of virtual certainty. If this solution is correct, then the king who should be identified with the Set-aa-pehti-nubti of the inscription of Rameses II should be Ahmose I, who ruled following the expulsion of the Hyksos. These kings had several names, and among those of Ahmose I is his Suten Bat name Ra-neb-pehti. 33 The essential differences between this name and Set-aa-pehti-nubti are in the name ·of the god (Ra instead of Set) and in the order of the hieroglyphs, both differences being commonly met in Egyptian names. Other similar time periods of the ancient inscriptions have also been used as bases for setting up chronologies on the assumption· that these represent true elapsed time. 34 Since a number of such usages have been found to lead to results not otherwise supported by available information, this situation should provide a clue to the nature of the errors that have been introduced by such assumptions. Evidently the ancients, other than the Hebrews, had little or no concern about elapsed time as such, and the summation 296 THE EXODUS PROBLEM of total reigns to express time between two incidents met every need of their thinking. XII. On the Identificati9n of King So of II Kings 17:4 It is recorded in Scripture that King Hoshea (732-722 B.C.), who was at the time paying tribute to Assyria, conspired against Assyria and solicited help from the king of Egypt. The king of Egypt at this time was known to the Biblical writer as king So. In retaliation for this move, the king of Assyria besieged Samaria, capital of Israel, and with its fall, the independent monarchy of Israel came to its end. S3a Against him [Hoshea] came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents. And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year; therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria.... No king of Egypt is known by the name of So, and the . identity of this king by a more familiar name has remained an enigma. The recognition that Pul of II Kings 15: 19 was the same person as Tiglathpileser of II Kings 15:29 leaves a basis for assuming that So was but an abbreviated form of the king's real name. But in persuing the possible identifications in terms of popular chronology, there is no king in this era whose name could be regarded as giving rise to the abbreviated name So. By the altered background, it is possible to synchronize Assyrian, Biblical, and Egyptian chronology in a rather exact manner to yield a most satisfactory identification of king So. Shalmaneser reigned from 727 to 722 B.C. His successor, Sargon, reigned from 722 to 705 B.C. The fall of Samaria is stated ·in the Assyrian inscriptions to have been in the first year of Sargon, though the siege of Samaria began under Shalmaneser. Since the fall of Samaria occurred in the year 722-721 B.C., the three-year siege which brought it about must have begun in the year 725-724 B.C. This siege was preceded by a movement of the Assyrian armies "throughout all the land." If we allow one year more for this move- COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 297 ment, Shalmaneser' s invasion began in the year 726-725 B. C. Since it was Shalmaneser who found conspiracy in Hoshea because of his appeal to So for aid, this could not have been earlier than 727 B.C., since this was the beginning year of his reign. Hence King So must be the king reigning in· Egypt at some point in the period 727-725 B. C. Who then was the king reigning in Egypt within these narrow limits? Reference to Figure 14 shows that the reign of Rameses II came to its end in the year 726-725 B.C. Hence King So is Rameses I1 at the very end of the long period of deterioration late in his reign. It is no surprise then that Hoshea received no help from his appeal to Egypt for aid against Assyria. If, then, it can be shown that Rameses II had an alternate name from which the name So can be reasonably derived as an abbreviation, further confirmation is provided for the correctness of the developing structure and also for the high degree of accuracy in the Biblical accounts chronologically. Examination of the alternate names of Rameses II shows that his Suten Bat name was Ra-user-Maat-Sotepen-Ra, which name Petrie accepted as the throne name of Rameses IP from among some 75 names recognized for this king.'16 With such a name it is not surprising that the Bible writer used an abbreviated form, and there is no difficulty in recognizing the origin of the abbreviated name So. XIII. On the Identification of the Sesostris of Herodotus While Herodotus was considerably short of being the most reliable of the ancient historians, he does leave us a brief record that now makes sense in terms of the altered chronology, but which, by popular views, has been generally relegated to the realm of mythology. Reference is to the sequence of three kings of Egypt whom he knew as Sesostris, Pheron, and Proteus. 37 Pheron was the son of Sesostris, but his successor, Proteus, was evidently not of the royal line and was either a usurper or an appointee. Herodotus identifies this Proteus as the king of Egypt who was ruling at the time when Helen of Greece and her husband Menelaus visited Egypt after the end of the Trojan war. This war had its origin in the elopement of Helen with Paris of Troy. According to the Greek legends, in the 298 THE EXODUS PROBLEM course of their flight from Menelaus, Helen and her abductor were forced by a storm into an arm of the Nile where they were apprehended, and Helen was restored to her rightful husban_d by the ruling king, Proteus. After the close of the war, Helen visited Egypt again, this fime accompanied by Menelaus. This incident occurred while this same king was ruling. The Sothis list refers to this latter incident and identifies the ruling king by the name Thuoris.'38 That this is the Thuoris of Manetho' s XIXth Dynasty is clear, since both Manetho and the Sothis list identify this Thuoris as the same person as Polybus, husband of Alcandra of the era of the fall of Troy.'39 Hence, the Thuoris of Manetho' s XIXth Dynasty is none other than the Proteus of Herodotus. Since Proteus was preceded by Pheron, while Thuoris was preceded by Ammenemnes, then Pheron of Herodotus is the same person as Ammenemnes of Manetho' s Dynasty XIX. This Pheron was the son and successor of the Sesostris of Herodotus. Ammenemnes was the successor to Seti I. Therefore, this Sesostris of Herodotus is to be identified as Seti I, and Ammenemnes is the son of Seti I and was thus a brother of Rameses II. While the identification of this Sesostris I with Seti I has been previously suggested, 40 the difficulties by popular chronology have been so great that it has generally been deemed wiser to dispose of the entire problem by relegating the statements of Herodotus to the level of mythol. ogy or misinformation. Hpwever, the accomplishments of this Sesotris, as given by Herodotus, agree well with the accomplishments of Seti I, and while a degree of exaggeration may be recognized, the identification is nevertheless clear. The background to the account is in the era of the fall of Troy. The date, however, is not in the 12th or 13th century B. C. These incidents belong within the period between the banishment of Harmhab and a point early in the reign of Rameses II, which position should be recognized as the era of the fall of Troy. Further consideration of this problem will be introduced in a subsequent volume. 41 Notes and References (I) W-M, pp. 149, 151. (2} See quot. of ref. 8, Chap. XVlll for comments on this inscrip· lion. (Sa) Ibid. (4) B-HE, p. 600. (5) Rowton in JNES, Vol. XIX, No. 1 (1960). (6 )faik COMPOSITION OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES 299 Hornung: Agyptologische Abhandlungen, Vol. II, Chap. XII (1964); cited by Horn, JNES, Vol. XXV, No. 4 (1966). (7) Ibid. (8) D-BGA, p. 282; c_p. H-PC, Chap. XII. (9) See P-HE, Vol. Ill, pp. 110 ff. for discussion of the identifications of the participants in this invasion. (9a) See Vol. II, Chap. XVI for discussion of other difficulties in the chronology of Greece rising from this problem. (10) K-G, p. 17. (11) T-PW, Bk. I, par. 12; cited in D-GBA, pp. 282, 283. (Ila) D-GBA, p. 283. (l2) Evidences for this interpretation of Manetho are developed in subsequent sections. (13) See ref. 1. (14) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 129.' (15) W-M, p. 245n. (16) J-AA, Bk. 1, par. 15. (17) Ibid., par. 26; see quot. of.ref. 31. (18) See ref. 16. (19) P-HE, Vol. Ill, pp. 12££. (20) B-HE, pp. 399, 400. (21) Vol. II, Chap. XVI, Sect. X. (22) The summation of the reigns is 49 years, 10 months. The same figures are given by Africanus. (23) P-HE, Vol. II, p. 247. (24) SCRS. (25) When Helen and Paris were apprehended, the problem was referred to a ruling king at Memphis (see Sect. Xlll). (26) A further notable example is the fall of the Old Kingdom after the long reign of Pepi 11, who lived to an age of 100 years. (27) P-HE, Vol. III, pp. 72, 108; B-HE, pp. '462, 463. (28) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 39. (28a) See Chap. XVI, Sect. X, following quot. of ref. 54. (29) Chap. IV, quot. of ref. 12. (30) P-HE, Vol. Ill, p. 74. (31) See ref. 17. (32) See quot. of ref. 17; also par. 16 where it is even more clearly stated that the figure was obtained by summation of reigns. (33) B-BK, Vol. I, p. 106. (3Sa) II Kings 17:3f. (34) See B-BEC, Vol. IX, pp. 153f. for examp!e. (35) P-HE, Vol. Ill, .p. 28; see also_ref. ~· (36) B-BIC, Vol. I, l'P· 165-176. (37) H-H, pp. 142-145. (38) W-M, p. 245, king No. 58. (39) Il:ild.; W-M, P. 140. (40) M-.SEC, p. 44. !41) Vol. II, Chap. XVI, Sect. VII. · CHAPTER XVIII THE BACKGROUND TO EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE That Egypt, in the period of her late dynasties, was controlled by the Ethiopians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians is a universally recognized fact. That the inscriptions of this era, as numerous as they are, do not provide us with the necessary details to yield a clear picture of the events leading to this eventual loss of independence is perhaps not strange. The Egyptians, in common with other ancient peoples, were not inclined to indulge in inscriptions telling of their huftliliating experiences under the domination of other peoples. If the accepted chronology of Egypt for this period is in error, as must be the case if the proposed reconstruction of the chronology of the earlier eras is even approximately correct, then it must also be supposed that the picture before us is more blurred and out of focus than is actually necessary. If this is, in part, the explanation for the obscurity in the history of this era, it may be expected that this distorted picture will be brought into better focus when the later Egyptian dynasties are placed in their proper time positions relative to each other. On the other hand, if the fundamental premises oil which this proposed revision is based are faulty, then it may be expected that we shall be led into ·utter confusion in attempting to condense the era of the later dynasties by several centuries. By current views, the period from the mid-8th century to the fall of Egypt _to the Persians in 525 B. C. is rather completely spanned by the sequence of dynasties represented by the numbers XX.III, XX.IV, XXV, and XX.VI. The several synchronisms of the late kings of Israel and Judah· with the kings of late Egyptian history serve to fix the positions of Dynasties XX.V and XX.VI in their proper time relations. With but mi.nor alterations, the currently recognized sequence of Dynasties XXIII to XXVI is retained as a unit in the altered chronology. If this alteration has any resemblance to fact, then Dynasties XX to XX.III must find their places coritemporary with other dynasties, since Dynasty XVIII as reconstructed takes us down to c. 700 B.C., and EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 301 there is no more room on the time scale for other dynasties representing the sole government of Egypt. The discrepancy between current views and the proposed revision amounted to 600 years or more at the end of the Early Bronze. Part of this discrepancy has been absorbed by confining the obscure period of Dynasty XIII and the Hyksos era to about two centuries, a figure which a few years ago was regarded as impossibly low, but which historians have had to live ~ith because "it just has to be that way." The remaining ·discrepancy amounts to something over 400 years. The periods now allotted to Dynasties XX to XXIII are approximately 100, 130, 200, and 40 years respectively. If these dynasties find satisfactory places parallel to other dynasties, the gap may be considered as closed by the proposed revision. · However, the problems involved cannot be considered as solved merely by introducing evidence in support of such contemporaneity. This must be done without the introduction of significant difficulties and, as with the earlier dynasties, a valid expectancy may be entertained that there will be a coincident appearance of new synchronims and the alleviation of the anomalous situations that characterize current views. The structure that results from fusing the accepted sequence of Dynasties XXIII to 'XXVI onto the revised structure developed thus far is represented in an approximate manner by the chart of Figure 12. The problem before us is one of demonstrating that the known facts relative to Dynasties XX to XXIII can be rationally harmonized with a structure that gives these dynasties positions contemporary with others of late Egyptian history. I. Dating the Beginning of Dynasty XXIII Breasted dated the beginning of Dynasty XXIII c. 745 B. C. 1 Petrie dated it a decade earlier in 755 B. C. 2 However, a statement in the transcription of Manetho by Africanus through Syncellus places the celebration of the first Olympic festival in the reign of Petubast, the first king of Dynasty XXIII. 3 This festival had its origin at a date otherwise fixed at 776 B. C. '1" indicating that the dynasty had a beginning at least this early. The time pressure of the dynasties popularly regarded as preceding Dynasty XXIII does not VJ Figure 12. The Time Relationships by the Proposed Chronological Revision Between the Late Egyptian Dynasties and the Fixed Chronology of Assyria 780 B.C. JO .yrs .I 760 I I rn 740 - . -l- -. - I ! --r Rameses II 793-726 B.C Dynasty XVIII (revised composition) 720 I - [ 0 N> 700 :=:J ( I 680 I I I I ' I ..., 'lo-xxrr { Merneptah 10 yrs. :r:: rr: Petubast Dynasty XXIII Osortho IPsammus _ _ _ _ Setnakht as Zet - - Rames es-II I 31 yrs. Dynasty XX trl x R-XI 0 v R-VI II R-IX Rameses X ------ c Cf; '"O ~ Dynasty XXI Ti 1ath i1 eser Assyria at Thebes Iat Tanis S-V Saroon Hrior Nusebenended I Pinozem I Pasebkeno Esarhaddon Sennacherib i -] 0 o::i r rr: ~ EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE .303 logically permit a date this early. With the elimination of this time squeeze by the revised chronological structure, Dynasty XXIII is permitted a beginning this early and, since other difficulties rise from setting the beginning earlier than this, we may suppose that Africanus' statement should be interpreted to mean that the dynasty began in the same year as this first celebration. II. Problems on the Composi~ion of M anetho' s Dynasty XXIII According to Manetho through Eusebius, this dynasty was composed of three kings; Africanus adds a fourth by the name of Zet. The transcriptions of Manetho by the two transcribers are shown in Table XV.• Table XV Kings of Dynasty XXIII through Africanus Petubates Osorcho Psammus Zet Kings of Dynasty XXIII through Euseqius 40 years 8 years 10 years 31 years Petubastes Osorthon Psammus 25 years 9 years 10 years No satisfactory identification of Zet of African us has been proposed. 5 No monumental evidence for Psammus has been noted. The failure to provide satisfactory identifications of these two kings, along with only incidental reference to the others, provides a strong suggestion that the kings of this dynasty did not represent the total rule of Egypt and that these are but relatively insignificant rulers whose reigns were contemporary with the era of another dynasty. The dynasty has been given a position following that of Dynasty XXII which also contains a king by the name of Osorthon. By virtue of the assignment of Dynasty XXII as Libyan, 6 this dynasty is regarded as a continuation of Dynasty XXII. The two transcriptions of Manetho have been currently harmonized by assuming that Africanus is crediting Petubast with the total or near total duration of the dynasty at 40 or 44 years; that Osorcho ruled 8 and a fraction years and that the reigns of the kings of the dynasty overlapped to such a degree as to leave the total period for the dynasty limited to 40 or 44 years. Zet may then have ruled independent of the other members for a brief period at its end, though vir- 304 THE EXODUS PROBLEM tually all of his 31-years in official capacity were contemporary with the jurisdiction of the other kings of the dynasty. No significant deviation from these assumptions on the internal chronology of the dynasty is required by the proposed revision. As with the assigned Libyan origin of Dynasty XXII, the presumed Libyan origin of Dynasty XXIII is also rejected. The further deviation from popular views is in the time relations to others of the late dynasties. In the necessary fusion of the unit composed of Dynasties XXIII to XXVI to the structure developed for the early dynasties, it is demanded that Dynasty XXIII shall follow the end of the reconstitutued and re-positioned Dynasty XIX, which ended long before the close of Dynasty XVIII .. By this arrangement Dynasty XXIII falls in its entirety within the late reign of Rameses II. The background for the dynasty is in the Delta region and does not represent a situation characterizing all of Egypt. III. Dynasty XXIll as Related to Dynasty XX Manetho' s Dynasty XX, which must now find its place also parallel to another dynasty, fits neatly immediately following the end of Dynasty XXIII, thus providing a new synchronism to establish the time position between the two dynasties. The .progenitor of the XXth Dynasty was Setnakht, father of Rameses III, 1st king of Dynasty XX. According to the Harris Papyrus inscription, 7 Setnakht was able to restore order after a period of political chaos that had lasted for "many years." We would thus identify this Setnakht as the ephemoral and otherwise unidentified Zet who ruled locally in the Delta region during much of the period of Dynasty XXIII, and who comes briefly into prominence as the restorer of an orderly condition culminating in the establishment of his son Rameses III as the founder of Dynasty XX. The correctness of this position relative to Rameses III may now be confirmed from several directions. Rameses III and the other members of Dynasty XX were obviously not sole rulers over all of Egypt, but held only local authority in the Delta region. This follows from the fact that }j.e, and two others of the dynasty, carried the title Haq An (Prince of An or Heliopolis). Rameses III was by far the most outstanding ruler of the dynasty and if he was but a local prince or governor at Heliopolis, then it is quite EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 305 anomalous to regard, as is commonly done, the lesser insignificant members of the dynasty as sole rulers over all Egypt. The latter part of .the reign of Rameses II provides the proper background for Dynasty XXIII. It is the predecessor of Dynasty XX and of the period of chaos in the Delta region described in the Harris Papyrus inscription. Moreover, the cause for this decadence is to be seen clearly in the general conditions prevalent in the late reign of Rameses II. As previously noted, the significant inscriptions of Rameses II ceased almost totally in about ·his 40th year. This leaves a period of some 27 years in the latter part of his reign for this era of developing decay in the Delta. The description in the Harris Papyrus for the period preceding Dynasty XX parallels that described in other sources for the conditions that prevailed during the period of Dynasty XXIII. This parallelism is clearly revealed by comparing the comments of Petrie on the Harris Papyrus. and the comments of Breasted on the situation during Dynasty XXIII. These comm~nts are provided below for comparison. 8 , 9 The only account of this reign [Setnakht' s] is in the retrospective glorification of his father .by Rameses III, at the end of his reign. In that he gives a very dark picture of the state of Egypt during the last few reigns, while Tausert and her brothers, were quarreltirig at Thebes. In the Harris papyrus, p. 75, we read "The land of Egypt was overthrown. Every man was his own guide; they had· no superiors. From the abundant years of the past we have come to other times. The land of Egypt was in chiefships and in princedoms; each killed the other among noble and mean. Other times came to pass after that; in years of scarcity Asiru, a Syrian, was to them as chieftain. He made the whole land tributary to himself alone. He joined his companions with him, and seized their property .... When the gods turned again tO peace, rule was restored to earth in its proper manner. They established their son, ... as prince of the whole land, ... Setnekht .... " [Emphasis ours.] . One of these Delta lords, named Pedubast . . . gained the dominant position among his rivals ... and founded a new house known to Manetho as the Twenty Third Dynasty . . . Pedubast gained Thebes and held it until his twenty thitd year, although from his fourteenth year he was obliged to share its control with king Yewepet, a dynast of the eastern Delta. A late Demotic papyrus in Vienna contains a folk-t~le [sic] which significantly reveals the unsettled conditions of the time among the turbulant dynasts, whom, like Yewepet, Pedubast was unable to control. It narrates the course of a long and serious feud between Kaamenhotep, the dynast of Mendes in the Delta, and Pemou, the mercenary commander in Heliopolis. The occasion of the quarrel is 306 THE. EXODUS PROBLEM the seizure of a valuable coat-of-mail by Kaamenhotep, and Pedubast is unable to prevent wide-spread hostilities among the Delta dynasts, as they pronounce for one or the other of the contending principals. Under Pedubast's successor, Osorkon III, the power of the dominant house rapidly waned until there was at last an independent lord or petty ldng in every city of the Delta and up the river as far as Hermopolis. We are acquainted with the names of eighteen of these dynasts, whose struggles among themselves now led to the total dissolution of the Egyptian state. The land again resolved itself into those small and local political units of which it had consisted in prehistoric days .... Its power was completely paralyzed. .... [Emphasis ours.] The Harris Papyrus inscription brings to our attention the rise of one Aziru (Irsu) during this chaotic situation who succeeded in establishing a system of taxation on the Egyptians. With the proposed setting of Dynasty XXIII, the demand for recognizing this Aziru as one of the kings of Dynasty XXIII is inescapaole. We would identify him as the Osortho of Manetho (Osorthon through Eusebius and of the Sothis list). The consonant sounds are the same in both names. The essential difference is in the Greek ending of the name Osorthon, which is not 'present in the name Aziru. Aziru is said to have been a Syrian. The popular concept that Osorthon and his dynasty were successors of Dynasty XXII is thus an error. The error is confirmed by the reversed order of the kings of Dynasties XXII and XXIII in the Sothis list, which is the correct order. The enigmatic Psammus is then probably to be identified as the Pemou of the Demotic Papyrus. 10 By this time-relation between Dynasties XXIII and XX as developed, Rameses III of Dynasty XX must have ruled contemporarily with Merneptah, of the dynasty here defined as late XVIII, for a significant fraction of his reign. 11 Since both kings leave inscriptions telling of an invasion of the Libyans in the 5th year of the reign of each, it is tempting to regard these as one and the same invasion and that both reigns began in the year of the death of Rameses II (726 B.C. by the revision). 12 While an exact coincidence of the beginning of the two reigns is not imperative by this revision, there is a degree of support for such coincidence, as a close approximation, both at this point and at the points of synchronims to be introduced in due time. If we allow a beginning of Dynasty XXIII in 776 B.C., to meet "the statement of Africanus, and recognize a duration of 44 EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 307 years for the dynasty, the dynasty ended in 732 B.C. This allows six years to the death of Rameses II for the reorganization of the government under Zet prior to the beginning of Dynasty XX. As previously noted, the beginning of the reign of Merneptah in the year 726 B. C. is provided remarkable confirmation from the inclusion of a reference to Israel in the inscription of his 5th year. Reference is to the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in the year 722-721 B. C. That the reign of Rameses III belongs to a much later date than that currently assigned is confirmed by the appearance of Greek writing on the backs of building tiles bearing his name. 13 ... A subject of much difficulty in the earlier accounts of the objects was the marking of "Greek letters" on the backs of many of the tiles; but as we now know that such signs were used long before the XXth dynasty, they only show that foreigners were employed as workmen in making these tiles. The difficulty with this explanation is that it does not explain the use of Greek letters centuries before the Greeks adopted this alphabet. i.i Hence, the dating of Rameses III in the 11th century is a gross anachronism. The setting of Dynasty XXIII between the end of Manetho' s Dynasty XIX and Dynasty XX eliminates entirely the time squeeze for the "many years" of chaos described in the Harris Papyrus. Reference has been made previously 14• to the disagreements among scholars on how this anomaly is to be explained. By the altered chronology of Figure 12, there was ample time during the period of Dynasty XXIII for the developments described in the Harris Papyrus inscription. During this dynasty, the prevailing conditions paralleled those described in the inscription. The case of Bokenkonsu, the architect under Seti I, presents another anomaly, by current views, which is eliminated by the altered placements of Dynasties XX and XXIII. Bokenkonsu lived to have his statue carved under Rameses III. 1·5 By current views, Bokenkonsu must have lived at least to an age of 118 years, 16 even if the "many years" of the · Harris Papyrus are limited to the brief reign of Siptah as proposed by Petrie. The more time that is allotted to this "many years" only makes the necessary age of Bokenkonsu more and more improbable. By the revision, Rameses III was not separated from Seti I by the reigns of Merneptah 308 THE EXODUS PROBLEM and the "antikings" that followed, but only by the reign of Rameses II. The age of Bokenkonsu at death need not have been greater than that of Rameses II. IV. Dynasty XX The XXth Dynasty of Manetho is universally recognized as composed of a line of Ramessides, who have been assigned numbers ranging from III to XII, representing the supposed order of rule, starting with Rameses III as the founder of the dynasty. Manetho does not give the names of the kings of this dynasty and the Sothis list omits them entirely. Manetho states only that the dynasty was composed of 12 kings of Thebes. This statement need not be taken to indicate that they reigned from Thebes; rather, they were of Theban origin. 17 ... Manetho divided his list of kings into dynasties, with the name of the locality from which each family originated. Strangely, these rulers are popularly regarded as representing the total government of Egypt, though, as previously noted, the most outstanding of the group (Rameses III) never claimed to be more than a local prince at Heliopolis. The general acceptance of this anomalous concept may be traced to the demands of the premise of a sequence arrangement of the dynasties, and to the necessity of retaining such a sequence to fill the gap created by dating the end of Early Bronze centuries too early on the B.C. time scale. Rameses III was Prince of An or Heliopolis (On of Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20). The site was located at the southern tip of the Delta. Evidently these Ramessides were but local governors which would perhaps correspond to the present . mayor of a city. The purpose here is to place this group of Ramessid~s in their proper time relation to Dynasty XXI and to place the individual periods of rule in proper time relation to each other as far a~ available information permits. Beyond Manetho' s statement of the composition and origin of Dynasty XX, the primary source of information is the inscription at Medinet Habu, which provides a list of names that evidently represent the sons of Rameses III. The content of this inscription is reproduced from Petrie as Table XVI. 18 The names after the first five are not in cartouches. Petrie explained this ,situation by assuming that the inscription EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 309 was made at a time when only four (or five) of the sons of Rameses III had appointments as "king." 19 The obviously intended sense of the sons of Ramesu III are there shown, had come to the throne down to the But there is no evidence that the throne.... list at Medinet Habu is that the marking by cartouches such as time of carving the inscription. Qthers did not come to the The two sons whose names follow that of Rameses VIII died prior to appointment. The next name is not identifiable with any of the Ramessides known from the monuments. The last three names are those of Rameses now numbered X, XI, and XII. There is no name in the list that can under any circumstance be identified as Rameses IX. 20 That there remained a degree of uncertainty in the interpretation of this inscription is indicated by Petrie' s further comment. 21 . . . the names fall in so well with those of the later kings that we must seriously consider this position. . . . The list of princes and their later positions seem to be as follows .... [Emphasis ours.] The deductions of Petrie on the identifications of the names in this list are logical, though some difficulties remain. The number of Ramessides recognized is 10, and this number can be extended to 11 if Setnakht, father of Rameses III, is included. This is still one short of the number TABLE XVI The sons of Rameses III as given on the M~dinet Habu Inscription and their presumed later positions List of Princes on the inscription• Cartouche Cartouche Cartouche Cartouche Cartouche Pa-ra-her-amif Mentu-herkhepshef Rameses, mery Atmu Rameses-kha-em-uas Rameses-Amen-her-khepshef Rameses Mery-Amen 0 Later identification Rameses (IV) Ra-maat-neb, mer-Amen (Rameses VI) Rameses, At Amen, neter-heq-uas (R-VII) Rameses Set her khepsh ef (R-V?) 0 Ra user maat, Akhen amen (R-VIII) Eldest son who died early Second heir, who died early Mery Atmu Rameses-kha-em-uas (R-X) Rameses-Amen-her-khepshef (R-XI) Rameses, Mery-Amen (R-XII) "The names in cartouches indicate that these had become kings prior to the making of this in· scription, and their identities with Ramessides now recognized as kings of Dynasty XX is confirmed, except in the case of R-V, whose name resembles that of Rameses V; however, as seen from the list, such an identification leaves the name in the wrong order. 310 THE EXODUS PROBLEM given by Manetho as comprising the dynasty and two names short if Setnakht .is given his proper place in Dynasty XXIII. Brugsch added another Ramesside between the kings now numbered XI and XII to make the number up to ll. 22 However, an inscription relative to this additional Ram-. esside suggests a background late in the Ramesside dynasty, but at the same time, it is dated in the 25th year of an unnamed king. Since this king appears to refer to Rameses II, then dead for more than a century by popular opinion, the inclusion of this Ramesside in the list raises more questions than it answers, and the tendency has been to leave it out of consideration. 23 No notice has here been taken of the Ramessu on the stele of the possessed princess, who used to be called R. XII., thus leaving the present R. XII. to be R. XIII.; it has long been agreed that the stele is a pious fraud, romancing on the history of R. II., and therefore has no place in the later Ramesside history. Except for the pressure of the necessary expansion of the chronology to fill the gap in Egyptian history created by the unwarranted expansion of the early dynasties, these difficulties could have been eliminated with a relatively simple and logical alteration in the interpretation of Manetho. In his attempt to make theses Ramessides represent a sequence rule, Petrie reasoned thus: 24 ... R.IV., R.VI., R.VII., R.VIII. certainly came in that order, as they were the successive sons of R.111., who are shown with their cartouches thus at Medinet Habu. R.V. came before R.VI., as the latter usurped his tomb, leaving the earlier name visible. Of RIX, a vase was found with one of R.X. in an Apis burial under R.X.; he is therefore before R.X., and presumably next before him. The name of R.XI. appears on the baotc. of a papyrus of R.X., and is therefore probably later; but ostraka of R.XI. were found in the filling of the entrance of the tomb of R.X., a fact that has been explained as being due to refilling of the entrance after inspection of the tomb of R.X., during the inquiry by R.XI .... R.XII. must come last, as he was much managed by Herhor, who succeeded him as founding the XXIst dynasty of priest kings. The above statements reveal so clearly the pressure on modern scholars to interpret not only the dynasties as a sequence, but also to interpret the reigns within the dynasties as in sequence. Freed of the pressure to expand the chronology for this era as far as possible to fill up the time space, an alternate and more defensible interpretation of the Ramesside dynasty is in order. By the altered chronolo- EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 311 gy, these Ramessides did not rule in sequence, but rather represented a fragmentation of the Delta authority on the death of Rameses III. Some of these sons of Rameses III were evidently already serving in minor official capacities under their father, and, on the death of the king, these either usurped the authority of their local areas or were given such appointments in proper order, the former concept probably being the correct one. The Ramessides who became kings on the death of Rameses III are those whose names appear in cartouches; this inscription then had its origin as one means of establishing .their claims for control. The others followed shortly so that all or most of these Ramessides exercised local authority that began nearly simultaneously at or shortly after the death of Rameses Ill. The evidence noted by Petrie from tomb evidence thus has no significance at all relative to setting up the internal chronology of the dynasty. Since Rameses VII also had the title Haq An, as did his father, 2.iu he must have taken over the authority at Heliopolis. Rameses VII could hardly have maintained his authority significantly more than a single year, 24 b and since Rameses XII also had this title, he then followed Rameses VII. Of the others, only Rameses X and XII still retained any authority, even locally, after the lapse of about 6 years from the death of Rameses III. By this interpretation, the known synchronisms may be retained in total and without the necessity of recognizing a period of more than a century for the duration of this dynasty. There is no difficulty at all in the fact that Amenophthis, father of Hrior, who was first of the priest kings, married the daughter of Rameses VI, 2.i,. while Hrior "managed" Rameses XII. 20 Nor is there any difficulty in recognizing that Rameses X, as a young prince, was tutored under the son of the high priest Amenhotep. 26 The very short reigns of most of these Ramessides and the death of two of the· sons of Rameses III prior to the death of their father suggests that they were well along in years at the death of Rameses III. Alternately, it is possible that even the limited authority of these Ramessides was quickly taken over by the high priests so that it was not death that marked the end of these reigns. 2; In any case, it may be logically assumed that the rise to power on the part of the 312 THE EXODUS PROBLEM high priests had its origin in the late reign of Rameses III with the rise of Hrior thus falling, for the most part, within the reign of this king. V. Dynasty XXI The era of Dynasty XXI has been described· as the most complex period of Egyptian history. 28 A line of kings of priestly origin ruled from Thebes contemporaneously with a second line ruling at Tanis. Manetho recognized only the kingly line at Tanis. Tanis is in the Delta region and hence this line represented the continuation of the fragmented government characterizing the brief Ramesside period. Such information as is available relative to the priestly line at Thebes is from the meager monumental inscriptions extant. The available data on the composition of the two lines are given in Table XVI1 29 without any intended inference of synchronisms or identities between the names on the same horizontal line, except as 'indicated. TABLEXVIl The Kings of Dynasty XXI Kings at Tanis According to Manetho Smendes, 26 yrs. Psusennes, 41 or 46 yrs. Nepherkheres, 4 yrs. Amenophthis, 8 yrs. Osochor, 6 yrs. Psinaches, 9 yrs. Pseusennes II, 14 or 35 yrs. Kings at Tanis from monumental data = Nesibadadu (Nesebenebded) · = Pasebkhanu No mention = Amenemapt = Siamen No mention = Pasebkhanu Kings at Thebes Hrior Piankh Pinezem I Menkheperra Nesibanebdadu Pinezem II Pasebkhanu Data for several approximate synchronims between kings of the two lines are extant.'10 The only one of these that is defined exactly is that which synchronizes the XVIth year of Siamen with the death of Pinezem II. Even here, difficulties rise, since Manetho attributes only 6 years to Osochor· who is clearly Siamen of the monuments. Petrie felt compelled to assume that Manetho' s figure for Siamen is in error and that he should be credited with 26 years. The failure of the monuments to refer to some of the names provided by Manetho leaves a degree of uncertainty as to just how these figures should be interpreted. The probability is large that Siamen is claiming all the periods of the reigns of Amenophthis and of Nepherkheres, the latter name not even appearing on the monuments. By this inter- EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 313 pretation, Siamen ruled 19 years, only 6 of which were independent of the others. It is therefore the third of this last 6 years that is to be synchronized with the death of Pinezem. The concept that. the reign lengths claimed by some of the priest-kings at Thebes represent sole and sequence reigns is even less secure. Petrie attempted to set up an internal chronology of the dynasty: While he characterized his scheme as consistent'11 (after the single emendation of increasing to 26 years the reign of Siamen), he evidently recognized that his scheme was still hypothetical. 32 It does not seem at all safe to attempt, with our present knowledge, to build up a more definite scheme. The scheme did require recognition of an accession to the priesthood in one case at an age of 50 with death at 91. 33 While this is not impossible, it is unlikely and suggests an undue expansion of the period. In the partial chronological chart of Figure 12, it is assumed that the reign · of Hrior began at Thebes during the late reign of Rameses III. The figures of Manetho are retained for the kings at Tanis; however, the reigns of Nepherkheres and Amenophthis are regarded as part of the 19-year reign of Osochor (Siamen) to make up the years required by the above noted synchronism. By the same token, the reign of Psusennes is regarded as including all of the reign of Psinaches, the shorter figure for his total reign being the more probable. No attempt is made to provide an internal chronology for the reigns of the high priest-kings at Thebes. The net result is a somewhat shortened period for Dynasty XXI which ends in obscurity. VI. Dynasties XXIV and XXV The internal chronology of Dynasty XXV is also obscure, though it is apparent from the monuments that the dynasty was of Ethiopian origin· and had its rise during the obscure period of Dynasty XXIII. Dynasty XXIV was but a brief interlude in the period of Dynasty XXV during the brief reign of a single king. The Egyptian king Tirhaka of II Kings 19:9 belongs to this dynasty, the latter part of his reign falling in the era of the Assyrian incursions into the territory of Egypt. 34 Though there is only limited information available 314 THE EXODUS PROBLEM for this dynasty, there is no call to alter the deductions currently recognized in order to allow recognition of the altered structure proposed in this work. The priricipal devia, tion from popular views is the recognition that the Assyrian presence in Egypt at this time is represented by the XXIInd Dynasty, and that the incidents referred to in Section V above, preceded the founding of Dynasty XXII in the year 669 B.C. The very late years of Tirhaka (Taharka) may have reached into the era of Dynasty XXII, these late years having been taken up in dodging the Assyrians. VII. Dynasty XXII The first king of Dynasty XXII was Sheshonk I, traditionally identified with the Biblical Shishak who sacked Solomon's temple in the 5th year of Rehoboam (927-926 B.C. according to Thiele). The fallacy of this identification has been discussed in an earlier chapter. 35 The insipient nature of the identification of this dynasty as of Libyan origin was also noted. Freed of the pressures rising from an unnecessarily expanded chronology of Egypt and from the faulty premise which requires a sequence in the dynasties, Dynasty XXII, with the clearly Assyrian names of its kings, belongs to the era when Assyrian armies are known to have been on Egyptian soil. At this time Assyria is known to have held at least a degree of control in Egypt. 'This was in the 7th century B.C. and not in the 10th at the time of Rehobaom. Since the control of Egypt by Assyria at this later time was certainly not a total control, a basis is provided for recognizing that Dynasty XXII did not represent the sole government of Egypt and that this dynasty also ruled contemporaneously with another dynasty, either with or without the consent of the Assyrians. With Dynasties XX and XXI set chronologically as shown in Figure 12, based on evidences previously introduced, 36 · Dynasty XXII now drops into place in a satsfactory manner. The evidence leading to a dating of the beginning of this dynasty in the early 7th century will now be introduced. Egypt had been invaded by an Assyrian army under Esarhaddon (681-669). The invasion was successful to the point of setting up governors in the various cities of Egypt, par- EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 315 ticularly in the critical northern area. With this organization, the Assyrian armies were withdrawn. But, no sooner had the armies left than plans were initiated for a revolt under Taharka (Tirhakah of Scripture) of the Ethiopian XXVth Dynasty. On receiving word of the revolt against the appointed governors, Esarhaddon again set his armies on the march toward Egypt, but in the course of the march, he died. 37-39 The result was that the Delta kinglets, who had sworn allegiance to the Ninevite, immediately plotted with Taharka for the resumption of his rule in Lower Egypt, which he thereupon assumed without much delay on the withdrawal of the Assyrian army . . . . Esarhaddon was thus forced to begin his work over again; but in 668 B.C., while on the march to resume operations in Egypt, he died. With but slight delay the campaign was continued by his son, Assurbanipal, who placed one of his commanders in charge of the expedition. The forbodings of Esarhaddon had been well founded. On his way to Egypt he fell sick, and on the tenth day of Marcheshwan, in the year 668 he died. A lengthy inscription was found on Egyptian soil telling of the presence of an Assyrian king who had come to Egypt to examine the tomb of his son who had died in Egypt;'° The name of the son is transliterated as Namareth, a name which Brugsch regarded as the equivalent of Nimrod. The father of this Nimrod had the name Pallashnes or Pallashnisu. He had an Egyptian wife by the name of Mehtenusekh, indicating that prior to this time, the Assyrians had been on good terms with the ruling kings of Egypt. Reference to Figure 12 indicates that at that time, at least northern Egypt was under the fragmented rule of the Ramessides, though the high priests at Tannis were attempting to take over this residual authority. On the death of N amareth, son of Pallashnes, the Egyptian mother wished to have her son buried in Egypt. When the father later came to Egypt to examine the tomb, he found it uncared for and in shambles. Evidently the Egyptians were not too eager to spend either time or funds in taking care of the tomb of an Assyrian king, an attitude which would be particularly true of the high priests. The efforts to supplant the Ramessides 41 had evidently been sufficiently successful to have banished them and their sup·porters to the Oasis. With the reconquest of Egypt under 316 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the commander of Assurbanipal, the son of this N amareth was installed as the king of Egypt. His name was Shesh.onk, who thus became the first king of the XXIInd Dynasty. This name was taken after the name of his grandfather, Pallashnes, who also had the name of Sheshonk. It is thus clear that the XXIInd Dynasty did have an Assyrian origin and not a Libyan origin as has been popularly held. Brugsch commented on this inscription thus: 42 My respected colleagues in science will, I think, readily admit that in spite of its very ruinous and .injured state, this inscription is one of the most remarkable, and, I will add, one of the most surprising, ever found on Egyptian soil. Who could have expected such direct evidence of the presence of an Assyrian great king in the Valley of the Nile, while the monuments had obstinately suppressed all information of the fact? We can only suppose that the Egyptians, after the departure of their Assyrian great kings, carefully destroyed all of their monuments, and that the one we have quoted only escaped the same fate because it was used as a convenient block to work into some building in the cemetery of Abydos. In evaluating these statements by Brugsch, it must be understood that he, along with all of his colleagues, accepted the presumed synchronism between Sheshonk I, founder of Dynasty XXII, with Shishak of Scripture at the time of Rehoboam in the 10th century. The surprise referred to by Brugsch was then not based on the statements telling of the presence of an Assyrian king in Egypt. The presence of Assyrian armies in Egypt under the direction of Assurbanipal of Assyria in the 7th century was a matter of general information. The surprise was that such an incident occurred in the 10th century. At that time, Assyria had no great kings 403 and no Assyrian king of that era had made any sort of a military campaign, even into adjacent territories, to say nothing of making a military invasion of Egypt. When this fact became .fully apparent, the evidence presented by Brugsch was recognized as so impossible against a 10th century background that the Assyrian origin of Dynasty XXII was rejected in favor of the theory of a Libyan origin. Yet, the only time in the long history of Egypt when the Valley of the Nile was the victim of an invasion by Assyrian armies was in the 7th century. While the accounts of the banishment of the Rarnessides, as an incident in the developing situation, have not come EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 317 down to us, an inscription is extant making it clear that this banishment was brought about under the reign of the high priest king, Pinozem I (See Fig. 12). 44 According to this inscription dated in the 25th year of Pinozem, there is brought to our attention a move on the part of Menkheperre, son of Pinozem and chief ot the army, to recall the Ramessides from their ba:nishment. The record takes the form of a petition to the gods for permission to make such a recall. It is further apparent from the inscription that the banishment had been brought about in the first place by permission of the gods (whatever the form of such a consent may have been); hence the return could be accomplished only by a reversal of the decision by the gods. It may be assumed, and indicated in the inscription, that a petition for such a reversal must have been most embarrassing to the high priests. Quoting from the inscription as translated by Brugsch: 4·; " ... And the general in chief of the army, Menkheper-ra went in to Amon-ra the king of the gods. He worshipped him much with many prayers, and set before him offering of all sorts of good things. Then the high priest of Amon-ra, Menkheper-ra added the words: .. ! 'O thou my good lord! There is a talk and it is repeated (by the people)' ... 'O thou my good lord! This talk of the people is a complaint on account of thy anger for them.' ... 'Mayest thou (feel pity for) the servants whom thou hast banished to the Oasis, that they may be brought back to Egypt!' Then the great god gave full assent to him." When this recall from banishment to the Oasis is set against the background of the revised chronology, further light is shed on the cause for this recall. According to the inscription, this change of heart on the part of the high priests resulted from the clamoring of the people which must have been most vocal to drive the high priests and the military to seek the gods for a reversal of the banishment order. But why were the people clamoring for this recall? By the chronological chart of Figure 12, the time is in the era of the late reign of Esarhaddon who had once invaded Egypt. The results of this first invasion had not been permanent and the kinglets of the Delta had rebelled against the Assyrian imposition as soon as the armies had been withdrawn. But now there were rumors that the Assyrian armies were again on the march to Egypt. 318 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Since Assyrian kings had consumated marriages with daughters of the Ramessides, 46 it is not difficult to understand why the Assyrians had a deep interest in their fate. Evidently the armies of Assyria had left Egypt following the first invasion believing that the situation had been stabilized, but when it became apparent that this was not the· case, the aim of the second invasion was not alone that of aiding the banished Ramessides but to conquer Egypt. 47 While this aim was never totally realized, it is evident that a considerable degree of control was attained under the continued military occupation under Ashurbanipal. The composition of Dynasty XXII was obscure, even at the time Manetho wrote. The only kings he gives by name are those of Sheshonk (obviously Sheshonk I), Osorkon (undoubtedly Osorkon I) and Takelot, who has been identified as Takelot I, but who is more probably to be identified as Takelot II, since the three kings following Osorkon I are unnamed by Manetho, suggesting that they were subrulers on a different level of authority than the kings named. Further evidence that the Takelot of Manetho is Takelot II of the monuments will be presented in a subsequent paragraph. Eventually, the names of nine kings with Assyrian names have been found on monumental remnants to provide the basis for the data of Table XVIII. The data from Manetho are given in a parallel column. 48 TABLE XVIII The Kings of Dynasty XXII° Kings Sheshonk (I)" Osorkon (I) Takelot (I) Osorkon (II) Sheshonk (II) Takelot (II) Sheshonk (III) Pamay Sheshonk '(IV) H!f,estlear of reign not on e monuments 21 years 36 years 25 years 28 years 0 years 15 years 53 years 4 years 37 years Eings recognized Reign Length byManetho byManetho Sheshonk Osorkon unnamed unnamed unnamed Takelot unnamed unnamed unnamed 21 years 15 years 25 or 29 years 13 years 42 years •After Petrie (P·HE, Vol. III, p. 228). ~owever, the names are given after the more. familiar renderings of Breasted. The numbers in parentheses following the names are modern assign· ments to indicate an assumed order of the kings by the same name. EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 319 The order of the kings as deduced from the monuments are here accepted, except that the three unnamed kings between Osorkon I and Takelot II are recognized as having ruled within the periods of Sheshonk I, Osorkon I, and Takelot II. Osorkon I was evidently a coregent to Sheshonk, and the 36 years claimed by the monuments include the 21 years credited to Sheshonk I and the 15 years of sole reign ·credited to him by Manetho. Besides the suggestive evidence of Manetho, who evidently regarded these three unnamed kings as ruling on a different level than the others, supporting evidence for their rule parallel to the periods assigned to Sheshonk I and Osorkon I is available from the monuments. Take!ot I was so insignificant as a ruler that the meager data relative to him were long held to belong to Takelot II. ~9 Since Sheshonk II is given zero years of reign, it is evident that he either did not reign at all or reigned less than a year. 50 The only one of the three who has significant monumental support is Osorkon II and the evidence for this king indicates a contemporaneity with Sheshonk I and Osorkon 1:3 1 VIII. The Horpasen Genealogy The only inscriptive evidence that has come to the attention of the writer which might be considered as standing against this altered interpretation and redating of Dynasty XXII is the inscription known as the Genealogy of Horpasen. Even this inscription is not susceptible to any unequivocal interpretation to such an end. It is introduced here because Petrie proposed an interpretation of the document which is at variance with the proposed placement of Dynasty XXII in the revised chronology. Petrie admitted .; 2 that the document is not altogether reliable and that some degree of "emendation" is necessary if it is to be used for chronological purposes. The inscription is dated in the 25th year of a king by the name of Sheshonk, who is assumed to be Sheshonk IV of Table XVIII. This is the same inscription introduced in a previous chapter in connection with its use as a support for the concept of a Libyan origin of Dynasty XXII.5'3 The claim rests on the name Tahenbuyuana (Q) in Table XIX which shows a possible relation to the term Tehenu as equivalent to the Libyans. 320 EXODUS PROBLEM Plate IV. The Horpasen Geneological Inscription EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 321 TABLE XIX The Genealogy of Horpasen as Interpreted by Petrie Q. Tahenbuyuana P. 0. N. M. Mauasa K. Sheshonk· I + Karamat (k) Nebnesha J. Osorkon I + Tashedkhonsu (j) Pathut H. Takelot I + Sheps (h) Sheshonk + Mehtenusekh (m) G. Osorkon II + Muthenzankhs (g) F. =L. Namareth + Thentspeh (f +I) E. Ptah-hezankhf + l:hentspeh (e) D. Ptah-hon+ Zaenkakemt (d) c. Horpasen + Petpetdudus (c) B. Ptah-hon + Mertiru (b) A. Horpasen (author of inscription) The inscription is reproduced as Plate IV. The English letters inserted among the hieroglyphs are those introduced by Petrie to show the location of the various names in the genealogy. Capital letters indicate the male parent; small letters indicate the female parent. The letters are repeated in the right margin for greater ease of location. These same letters are used in Table XIX which is a reproduction of Petrie' s proposed interpretation of the ancestral line. The interpretation of this document by Petrie assumes that M is the same person as G on the basis of the similarity of names for the female parent. He assumes that F and L, both with the name N amareth, are the same person, that K is Sheshonk I, J is Osorkon I, and H is Takelot 1, to agree with the order of the named kings by Manetho (See Table XVIII). The problems introduced by this inscription pertain to ( l) the validity of the name Tahenbuyuana (Q) as providing a basis for the Libyan origin of the dynasty, (2) the identification of certain of the names in the list with kings of Dynasty XXII, (3) the placement of Dynasty XXII in proper time-relation to other dynasties of Egypt, and (4) the length of the period to be assigned to Dynasty XXII. The latter problem is particularly pertinent to the proposed revision, since there is not room for a period of 200 years or more, as currently allotted to the dynasty, during the period of Assyrian control from the time of Assurbanipai. The incipient nature of the evidence drawn from this inscription, as a support for a Libyan origin of the dynasty, has been previously noted. 0 • the use of such highly equivocal evidence only emphasizes the magnitude of the anachronism which calls for such an origin. 322 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Of primary importance in the identification of certain names in the inscription is the obvious fact that the name Sheshonk (M), who has an Egyptian wife Mehtenusekh, is the same person mentioned in the previously noted inscription55 in which he has the alternate name Pallashnes. It was this Pallashnes who visited the tomb of his son, Namareth, who had died and was buried in Egypt. Namareth (L) is then the same as the son of this Pallashnes. The son of Namareth, also named Sheshonk, who became the first king of Dynasty XXII, is then to be identified as Sheshonk. (K) of the Horpason document. On the basis that the inscription does not state specifically that K was the son of L, Petrie took the liberty of altering the sequence, placing K one generation after Q, evidently to give a stronger support for the Libyan origin of the dynasty~ This was possible only by a rejection of the obvious interpretation of the inscriptions noted by Burgsch relative to the sequence, Sheshonk (Pallashnes), Namareth, Sheshonk I. This sequence is here retained with a return of the name of Sheshonl< (K) to a position below (L) as his son. Osorkon I (J) also takes his proper position by the sequence as given by Horpason, since it is known that Osorkon I was the son of Sheshonk I. Reference to the list of Manetho for Dynasty XXII, (Table XVIII), reveals that he attributes 21 years of reign to Sheshonk I in agreement with the monuments . .However, he allots only 15 to Osorkon I while Osorkon claims 36. It is evident that he is claiming all of the reign of Sheshonk I, providing a basis for the concept that Sheshonk I took on his son as coregent from the time of his accession. Assuming an age of Osorkon I of at least 20 at this time, Sheshonk (M) must have had a great grandson of this age at death. While this calls for an age of Sheshonk (M) well over 80, the situation is not out of the question. The next generation in the line of Horpasen has the name Takelot, and since the next king in Manetho' s list has this same name, we may assume that this is the same Takelot as that in the Horpasen list. However, there is no evidence that this Takelot .(I) was the son of Osorkon L The altered interpretation here presented assumes that he was not a son of Osorkon I and that this is one of the major errors made by Horpasen. 56 We do not know the ancestry of this Takelot I. EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 323 We may assume that he was appointed by Osorkon I, or even by Sheshonk I, to head a subsidiary line of rulers, possibly governing the territory farther south. By this interpretation, the three unnamed kings of Manetho following the name of 'Osorkon I are the kings named Takelot I, Osorkon II and Sheshonk II. Evidence that the·se kings ruled contemporary with Sheshonk I and Osorkon II is indicated by an inscription referring to what must be the same wars as those of Sheshonk I and Osorkon I. 57 ... This seems to show that the wars of Sheshenq and Uasarkon I were imitated later on [in the reign of Osorkon II]. Wars are not imitated; these are the same wars by virtue. of this parallel rule. Osorkon II is known to have had a son who also had the name Namareth (N emart of Petrie). He is then Namareth (F) of the Horpasen document and his position following Osorkon II is correct. Since the line represented by Takelot I, Osorkon II and Namareth is not a genealogical sequence in the line of Osorkon I, and since Takelot I may have had sons or even grandsons living at that time he was appointe'd by Sheshonk I as a subsidiary king, it is not impossible that the reign of Osorkon II ended significantly before that of Takelot II, leaving as few as four generations to be accounted for after the reign of Takelot II. Since it is known that Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (681669) died in the course of a march of his armies to Egypt;5 ~ it is tempting to identify this Namareth who died in Egypt as Esarhaddon, a concept earlier entertained by the writer, but now abandoned. Nevertheless, Sheshonk (M) known alternately as-Pallashnes (by transliteration through the Egyptian language) refers to himself as a king of Assyria. Hence he must have been of the royal family, though not necessarily the primary ruler. It was common in antiquity for princes to refer to themselves as kings. 59 As previously noted, the background for the presence of Assyrian royalty in .Egypt fits best into the period between the two invasions of Sennacherib. Following the first invasion, a considerable number of persons were appointed as governors over local areas. 60 This Namareth, son of Pallashnes, was evidently one of these local rulers. · 324 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Reference to Figure 12 shows that the era of Pallashnes is that of Sennacherib. If our deductions are correct, then this name Pallashnes (or its Assyrian equivalent) might be found· in the eponym list of Sennacherib. Examination of the eponym list of this king 61 shows that the year 699 B.C., sixth year of Sennacherib, was named after the governor of a territory identified by Luckenbill as Kurban. The name of this governor is given as Bel-sharani, a name from which the Egyptian rendering Pallashnes or Pallashnisu could readily · have been derived. The purpose of the second invasion by Esarhaddon was then to come to the itid of the banished Ramessides as deduced by Brugsch, but also to stabilize the situation rising from the revolt of the Egyptians, an accomplishment now requiring a conquest of Egypt. The period is thus shortly after the last of the Ramesside reigns. Reference to Figure 12 shows that the period in question was that of the death of Esarhaddon. Hence we may date the beginning of Dynasty XXII c. 668 B.C. as a very close approximation. On the basis of previously noted consideration, Osorkon I then died c. 632 B.C. with the 13 year reign of Takelot II ending c. 619 B.C. With the reigns of Takelot I (H), Osorkon II (G) and Namareth (F) placed parallel to the reigns of Sheshonk I, Osorkbn II and Takelot II, there remain only four, or at most five, generations to account for after c. 619 B.C., assuming that the remaining names actually represent a sequence of generations. Such an assumption may be questioned on the basis of the repetition of the name Thentspeh in the female series, and the repetiion of the name Ptahhon in the male line. The three unnamed kings at the end of Manetho' s list belong in this period, which can hardly extend past the year 525 B.C. when Egypt fell to the Persians. Even if these reigns are considered as a sequence, the sum of the reigns is 94 years, a period which fits neatly between 619 and 525 B. C. Hoipasen states that he prepared his· inscription in the 25th year of a king by the name Sheshonk. This . would then be Sheshonk IV and his 25th year would be the tlie inscripyear 537 ·s.C. This alternate "interpretation tion calls for deletion of one of the subsequent names in the list as not representing an additional· generation. The interpretation proposed by Petrie required a similar deletion of of EGYPT'S LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE 325 names62 as representing generations, and the repetition of names in the list may provide the basis for such an assumption. That the reigns of the~e last three kings represent a period of rapid decadence in Assyrian control is indicated by the fact that Necho II made an invasion of Assyrian territory as far as Carchemish in the year 608 B.C. 6·1 This would have been impossible if Assyria had held any sort of control of the Delta region this late. . Notes and References (I) B-HE, p. 601. (2) P-HE, Vol. III p. 261. (3) The note reads: ''In his reign the Olympic festival was first celebrated." W-M, p. 163. (Sa) Ibid., p. 16ln. (4) Ibid., pp. 161, 163. (5) PHE, Vol. III, p. 266; see also ref. 3a. for a proposed explanation that is not at all convincing. (6) Chap. XVI, Sect. VI, par. 10 following ref. 28. (7) See quot. ref. 8. (8) P-HE, Vol. III, pp. 134, 136. (9) B-HE, p. 536: (10) See quot. ref. 9 for mention of this Pemou. (11) See Fig. 12. Interestingly, both Memeptah and Rameses III are credited with the same Hymn of the Nile (P-HE, Vol. III, p. 150). (12) Ibid., pp. 108, 147. The year 726, as the first year of Memeptah, results from the synchronism of the stele of his 5th year referring to Israel which is in this thesis interpreted to refer to the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in the year 722-721 B.C. (Chap. XVII, Sect. X). (13) P-HE, p. 160. (14) Adoption of the alphabet of the Phoenicians by the Greeks is recognized as havipg occurred c. 800 B.C. (W-BA, p. 87). (l4a) Chap. XVIII, Sect. III, par. 2. (15) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 166 with ref. to p. 92. (16) Ibid. (17) E-AE, p. 24. (18) PHE, Vol. III, p. 139. (19) Ibid. (20) P-HE, pp. 177, 178. (21) See ref. 18. (22) B-EUP, p. 191. (23) P-HE, Vol. lll, p. 141. This is the Rameses XII of Brugsc_h. (24) Ibid., pp. 1$7, 138. (24a) Ibid., p. 172. (24b) Ibid., p. 137. (24c) Ibid., p. 196. (25) Ibid., p. 138. (26) Ibid., p. 179. (27) Sect. VU following ref. 41. (28) P-HE, Vol. III; p. 188. (29) W-M, p. 157;. P-HE, Vol. III, pp. 192, 194. (30) Ibid., p. 193. (31) Ibid., pp. 192-5. (32) Ibid., p. 195. (33) Ibid., pp. 194, 195. (34) Ibid., pp. 297, 298. (36) Chap. XVI, Sect. VI. (36) Sects. III, V. (37) B-HE, p. 556. (38) Ibid. (39) R-HBA, Vol. II, p. 423. (40) B-EUP, Vol. II, pp. 208ff; Brugsch gives a translation of this inscription. (41) Sect. IV, last par. (42) B-EUP, Vol. II, pp. 2llff. (43) R-AM, Vol. II, p. 81; see Chap. XVI, quot. of ref. 27. (44) See ref. 45. (45) B-EUP, Vol. II, pp. 203ff. (46) Ibid., p. 215. -(47) Ibid.,,. 206. (48) W-M, pp. 159, 161; P-HE, Vol. III, p. 228. (49) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 244. (50) Ibi ., p. 253. (51) Ibid., p. 251. (52) Ibid., pp. 229, 231. (53) Chap. XVI, Sect. VI., quot. of ref. 30. (54) See ref. 53. (55) B-EUP, Vol. II, pp. 208ff; this is the inscription of ref. 42. (56) The inscription of Horpasen is the only basis for this assumed relationship between Osorkon I and Takelot I and this source is admitted to be in need of emendation. See P-HE, Vol. III, pp. 229, 231, 244. (58) See quot. of. refs. 38, 39. (59) Note the examples of the Xlllth and XXth Dynasties. (60) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 298. (61) 1.,-ARAB, Vol. II, p. 438. (62) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 231. (63) II Chron. 36:20; II Kings 23:29. CHAPTER XIX THE RELATION BETWEEN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE In the opinion of any particular scholar, both the magnitude of the Exodus problem and the nature of its solution will depend heavily on his views on interpretation of Scripture. On one end of the range of views is the "tradition concept." The basic assumption of the tradition theory is that the Old Testament documents were not reduced to writing until long after the incidents which they describe. It is presumed that during the interim between the incidents and their reduction to writing, the accounts were passed on by oral transmission from one generation to the next until they became legendary reminiscences which may well have had an historical basis, but whose details need not be regarded as having any necessary historical value. The written forms of these stories as they have come down to us are referred to as "traditions" or "legends," while the presumed fanciful deviations from fact accumulated in the process of oral transmission have been referred to as "polish." If in the process of oral transmission details were introduced which modern scholars regard as purely fictitious, the tradition is placed in the category of a "saga." If the story is built around the heroic deeds of its central character, it may be classified as an" epic." The tradition theory is most popular with the group of scholars who do not believe that these legends have any particular significance religiously for the modern world. Some variation of the theory has, nevertheless, been regarded as acceptable by some who retain the concept of a divine origin of these writings and who believe that they do have a genuine religious significance for all generations. This concept is possible since the theory, per se, does not deal with origins, bu,t only with the subsequent history to the point of reductioo to writing. It should be obvious, however, that a quite different historical value of these writings will be entertained by those who adhere to one or the other of these philosophies. To those who have no sympathy with the concept of a continued interference of a Su- EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE 327 preme Being in the affairs of men, as is found continuously in Scripture, any and all suggestion of such in the tradition is of necessity regarded as fictitious and thus has no necessary historical value., Since many of the Old Testament stories have such a background, and since many others are also of an epic nature, ample room is left in the thinking of this group for regarding essentially all, or any part of these stories, at the discretion of the individual, as something to be clearly distinguished from history dependable in all its details. If one accepts the tradition theory, but retains a confidence in a divine origin of these accounts and in their religious message, he will be less inclined to propose or accept archaeological interpretations which tend to destroy what he regards a,s the intent of Scripture for modern rrian .. Among the scholarly group working in this area of investigation may be found those with widely differing degrees of confidence in these writings. There is another group who hold that the Scriptures are the veritable message of God to his intelligent creation. This creation was sudden, and the created subjects were highly intelligent beings who reflected the wisdom of their Creator who was capable of bringing them into being. This group accepts the claims of Scripture that it is the message of God to his creation through the agents of prophets who, from the time of Moses, reduced the messages given to them to writing. By this view, that part of Scripture dealing with earlier incidents was not the result of traditional memory, but resulted from an unerring revelation to man through the prophets. It is further believed that the same God that gave these messages also protected them down through the ages from that degree of contamination that would render them undependable. It can be expected that this group will, in the very nature of their belief, have a greater degree of confidence in the reliability of these accounts .than is possible within any form of the tradition theory. There will also be a notably greater reticence to accept archaeological· interpretations that contradict any clear statement of Scripture. There are still others who are attempting to retain a confidence in the religious message of Scripture in some form or other, while regarding the "accumulated polish" as making up such a large fraction of the writings that they cannot 328 THE EXODUS PROBLEM be depended upon historically, except as the individual statements can be verified by archaeology or at least as such can be shmyn not to be contradictory to the popular interpretations of archaeology. The individual's evaluation of Scripture in terms of their historical worth will thus depend on which of the above philosophies (or modification thereof) is entertained. Many scholars would be reticent to admit that their interpretations of archaeology are influenced by their philosophy regarding the value of Scripture as history. Yet this is inescapably true. Ordinarily, one does not need to read very far into a published work in this area to become aware of the guiding philosophy of the author. Often this can be found on the first page. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove or disprove the correctness of any one of these philosophies over another in the sense that a geometric theorem can be proved. One may theorize that there is no God or that God is dead, and he may note evidences that satisfy him that his deductions are valid But these same evidences may seem quite peurile to others who see in the proposed evidences only an indication that the teachings of Scripture are distasteful to the individual or that he has failed to recognize the revealed nature of God's plan and destiny for his creation. One individual may see in the variant versions of Scripture a basis for believing that the errors introduced by the recopying of the original documents are so many and so significant that no confidence is to be placed in the extant Scriptures as we know them. But another who is equally intelligent sees in the remarkable agreement between manuscripts copied a full millennium apart the protection by a Divine hand of the message they contain. One. individual sees in the large number of gross errors made by the proponents of the tradition theory, evidence that this concept does not provide a practical basis for the interpretation of archaeology. He reasons that to reduce Scripture to the level of myth and legend, then interpret the obscure evidences of archaeology in terms of this altered document and consider the case closed against the reliability of Scripture because of the discrepancies that result, is but reasoning in a circle. To another, the necessary· repeated abandonment of concepts once regarded as certain is but a normal part of the evolution of man's de- EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE 329 velopment; and he is not at all embarrassed by his mistakes or those of his colleagues. What then is the effect to be expected from this situation in the matter of attempting to reconstruct the history of the ancient world on the b_asis of archaeological observations? The opening statement of this chapter cannot be successfully controverted. Both the magnitude of the Exodus problem and the nature of the accepted solution will depend heavily on one's views relative to the evaluation placed on Scripture· as an historical source. One who regards Scripture as something quite different from dependable history, or who defines history to include myth and legend as a basis for disregarding troublesome details, sees no particular problem when his interpretations of archaeology are contradicted by Scripture. He need only assume that this particular area of Scripture is "polish'.·, that has been added in the course of prolonged oral transmission and his problem is solved to his entire satisfaction. To such an investigator, problems of significance rise only when his interpretations of archaeology differ sharply from those of a colleague, who may hold to quite the same philosophy, but who has quite a different opinion as to just which details of Scripture are to be regarded as "polish" and which are to be retained as part of the "historical kernel." Or problems may arise when an interpretation regarded as certain is contradicted by the obvious interpretation of a later find, the entire problem having no particular relation to Scriptural teaching. Faced with such problems, one would have to be more than human to remain uninfluenced by the philosophy that guides his thinking. There is no intent here to suggest that there are no problems of interpretation on the part of those who are more intent on interpreting archaeology within the limits imposed by Scripture regarded as historically reliable. But it is naive indeed to suppose that truth can be approached more closely by a procedure that allows the investigator to disregard at will the written source materials as a basis for interpreting the far more obscure archaeological evidence. For the last half century and more, the published interpretations of archaeology have been largely dominated by investigators who have held to some form or other of the tradition thevry. Yet having liberated their thinking from any binding 330 THE EXODUS PROBLEM obligation to accept the details of Scripture as history, the resulting structure remains characterized by numerous anomalies, anachronisms, internal inconsistencies, and situations that require highly improbable explanations for their retention. In the earlier phases of archaeological development, the concept was widely held that the chronological structure of the ancient world could be satisfactorily solved if just a few of the "unsavory" teachings of Scripture were eliminated from consideration. Among these were the short chronology, the concept of the miraculous interference of a Divine power in the affairs of men, the high ages attributed to the early Biblical characters, and the death of the Exodus pharaoh in the Red Sea. in the course of the passing years, more recent archaeological finds have called for rejection of larger and larger areas of Scripture until there is an astonishingly small fraction of the Old Testament accounts that is left as a factual "kernel." With these developments, those who have tried to maintain a confidence in the historicity of Scripture are finding it more and more difficult to defend their position within the framework of popular chronological views. Strangely, at the same time, the figures for the antiquity of Egypt have had to be lowered further and further, with no release from the pressure for still further reductions, until the popular concepts are beginning to feel the pressure of the time sque~ze. It is here contended that the reason for this situation is not because Scripture is not dependable as history; it is rather because scholars who have believed in Scripture as history have been attempting to alter the interpretations of archaeology, while retaining the foundations provided for them by those who do not believe in Scripture as dependable history. The difficulty lies in a failure to critically examine the validity of these foundations of which the popular views rest. It has been contended in this work that it is the very foundations of this structure that are invalid, and these foundations are not susceptible to a mere patching up job. Except as these foundations are repudiated and different foundations are laid on valid premises, it will never be possible to provide a consistent interpretation of archaeology. EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE 331 Views on the origin of Scripture belong to the category of philosophy, absolute proofs of the variant views not being possible, notwithstanding the inferences of the Higher Crit' icism to the contrary. This is not neces$.arily true for the evaluation of scientific premises. The premises on which the current methods of archaeological interpretation rest are capable of evaluation. And when thus evaluated by the same standards as ate used for the evaluation of premises in the sciences that deal with data in a more precise manner, these premises are found to be exceedingly faulty. The premises on which the so-called Sothic dating method rests are unsound; there remain factors in the C-14 dating method that have not been quantitatively evaluated, thus leaving the results from this method open to severe question; the concept of a sequence of Manetho' s dynasties depends on the current views on ancient chronology rather than providing any support for it; and some of the methods used to arrive at certain of the critical deductions of the Higher Criticism have been demonstrated to be without value or significance. Deprived of these premises, any interpretation of the obscure evidences of archaeology can be evaluated only in terms of its internal consistency and freedom from anachronistic situations. The aim of the first volume of this work has been to demonstrate that the difficulties inherent in the current interpretations are alleviated in virtual totality by a structure that has not been bound by these faulty premises. The fact that the resulting structure, at the same time, provides the proper backgrounds for the various incidents of Scripture which could be expected to be revealed archaeologically, provides a confirmation (not proof) of the accuracy of Scripture as history. The task undertaken remains incomplete. It must be shown that the chronologies of the other peoples of the ancient world can also be altered in such a manner as to satisfactorily be fitted into this revised structure. It must also be shown in detail why the dating methods in current use are invalid. There remains also the examination of the archaeology of other sites in Palestine which should provide evidence in confirmation or contradiction to the thesis here defended . These aims constitute the topics of the subsequent volume of this work. PALESTINE Haw am ·Megiddo • Taanach ,Beth Shan Samaria • • She chem Jabbok Bethel • , Gezer Jericho Jerusalem• Gath .Lachi sh .. Gaza 6 •Hebron Beit Mirsim , Gerar? ·•Beersheba Ai R. T H E N I L E VAL L E Y Lake Moeris -I Thebes :z Elephantine. 'rr1 THE EXODUS PROBLEM and its Ramifications A Critical Examination of the Chronological Relationships Between Israel and the Contemporary Peoples of Antiquity by Donovan A. Courville 37 16 34 7 3 Chapters Chronological Charts Tables Plates Maps More than 700 pages Challenge Books Loma Linda, California Library of Congress Catalog Card Number Copyright, 1971, by Donovan A. Courville. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America II TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume II Chapter Page I Are the Foundations of Archaeological Science Secure? 1 II What Happens to Synchronisms Used to Support Current Views? 7 III Limitations of Carbon-14 Dating 29 IV Limitations of the Astronomical Dating Methods 48 V The Placement of Dynasty XII in the Archaeological ~~ 00 VI Natural Catastrophe and Archaeological Synchronism VII Archaeological Evidences of the Dispe~sion from Babel 120 141 VIII Archaeology and the Duration of the Predynastic Period 153 IX The Predicament in Archaeological Interpretations 172 at Shechem x Confusion in the Archaeology of Megiddo 188 XI Who Was the Pharaoh Who Gave Solomon a City 204 Site? XII Synchronizing the Archaeology of Samaria with Scripture 213 XIII Scripture, Archaeology, and the Philistines 223 XIV Problems in the Archaeology of Hazor 239 xv Transjordan and the Negeb 249 XVI Problems in the Chronology of Ancient Greece 267 XVII The Era of Hammurabi and Related Problems in Assyrian and Chaldean Chronologies 288 XVIII On the Comparative Evaluation of Two Proposed 327 Chronological Structures Ill LIST OF TABLES Volume II I II III IV Censorinus' Data on the Beginning of a Sothic Period 57 Sed-Festival Celebration Records of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynastie~ 74 Data Derived from the Revised Interpretation of Sed-Festivals 80 Current Identifications of Occupational Levels at Megiddo Compared to Identifications by the Chronological Revision 196 v Lineage of Heracles and the Spartan Line of 280 Kings VI The Lineage of Belus 283 The Lineage of Deucalion 284 The Line of Macedonian Kings 286 A The Assyrian Kings from 933 B.C. 292 B Assyrian Kings from Adasi to Assur Dan I 294 c The Kings of the Hittites 297 D Kings of the First Dynasty at Babylon 300 E The Kings of Assyria Whose Names Precede Those of Adasi and His "Nobody" Predecessors 302 F A Synthesis of the Kassite Dynasty 310 G The Descendants of Abraham 325 VII VIII IV LIST OF FIGURES Volume II 1. Sed-Festival Celebrations in the Early XVIIIth Dynasty 81 2. Showing the Manner in Which the Writer Sets the Chronologies of Egypt and Palestine-j and the Archaeological Subdivisions into the Altered Chronological Structure 3. Palestine-Transjordan-Sinai (map) 4. Showing the Shift in Order of Incidents by the Revised Chronology (Fall of Troy - Dorian Invasion - Invasion of Sea Peoples) 137 250 276 5. The Approximate Chronology of the Kings of Mesopotamia and the Hittites in Terms of the Proposed Revision v 308 LIST OF PLATES Volume II I II III Painting of a Semitic Family Entering Egypt 17 Section of Inscription from Ur Showing the Use of the Chariot 17 The Polychrome Fresco from Ghassul VI 170 ABBREVIATIONS TO REFERENCES CITED A-AP Albright, W. F., The Archaeology of Palestine. Penguin Books, 1960. AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Albright, W. F., Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. Supplement to Young's Analytic.al Con- A-RDBL cordance, 1955. BA B-AB B-AKA The Biblical Archaeologist. Barton, George, Archaeology and the Bible, 4th ed., 1925 Budge, E. A. W., Annals of the Kings of Assy- ria. B-ARE BASOR B-BEC B-BK B-EUP B-HE B-HH BH-SA B-N B-SKC B-TT CH C-SEI Breasted, J. H., Ancient Records of Egypt. Bulletin of the ·American Schools of Oriental Research. Budge, E. A. W., Books on Chaldea and Egypt. Budge, E. A. W., Book of the Kings of Egypt. - Brugsch-Bey, Henry, Egypt Under the Pharaohs. Translation by Philip Smith, 2nd ·ed., 1881. . Breasted, J. H., A History of Egypt, 1954. Botsford, G. W., Hellenic History, 1939. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E., Science in Archaeology (revised, 1969). Budge, E. A. W., The Nile, 1910. Baikie, J., The Sea Kings of Crete, 1913. ' Blegen, C. W., Troy and the Trojans, 1963. Classical Handbook (Appleton-Century, 1962) Crowfoot, J. W., and G. M., Samaria-Sebas- te-Early Ivories. CKS-SB C-GUA C-HP C-SH D-BGA D-GP D-W Crowfoot, J. W., Kenyon, K. M., and Sukenik, E. L., Samaria-Sebaste-The Buildings. Cook, R. M., The Greeks until Alexander, 1962. Ceram, C. W., Hands on the Past, 1966. · Ceram, C. W., The Secret of the Hittites, 1956. Demargne, P., The Birth of Greek Art, Translation by Gilbert and Emmons, 1964. Davidson, D., The Great Pyramid, 8th ed., 1940. Diringer, D., Writing, 1962 VII Emery, W. B., Archaic Egypt. Penguin Books, 1961. E-COWA Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 1954. Elgood, P. G., The Later Dynasties of Egypt, E-LDE 1951. Edwards, I. E. S., The Pyramids of Egypt, PeliE-PE can Books, 1955. E-TS Edgerton, W. F., The Thutmosid Succession, 1933. F-ABH Free, J. P., Archaeology and Bible History, 1954. F-LAP Finegan, J., Light from the Ancient Past, 1969. G-BB Gordon, Cyrus, Before the Bible, 1962. Gardner, A., Egyptian Grammer, 3rd ed. G-EG Gurney, C. R., The Hittites. Penguin Books, G-H 1954. G-NHOTL Gordon, Cyrus H., New Horizons in Old Testament Literature, 1960. Glueck, N., The Other Side of Jordan, 1940. G-OSJ G-PM Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mirsin, 1953: G-RD Glueck, N., Rivers in the Desert, 1960. Garstang, J., The Story of Jericho, 1948. G-SJ deG-VA deGrazia, A., (ed.), The Velikovsky Affair, 1966. G-WOT Gordon, Cyrus H., The World of the Old Testament, 1958. H-FA Hoyle, F., Frontiers of Astronomy, 195.5. H-H Herodotus, Histories, Translated by DeSelincourt. H-I Homer, The Iliad. Penguin Books. H-P Harden, D., The Phoenicians, 1963. H-PC Hutchinson, R. W., Prehistoric Crete. Pelican Books, 1962. H-RPIB Horn, S. H., Records of the Past Illuminate the Bible, 1963. HRS-CE Hayes, W. C., Rowton, M. B., and Stubbings, F. H., Chronology of Egypt . ... J-AA Josephus, F., Against Apion. Supplement to JE-AE AJ. J-AJ Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews. Translation by Whiston. VIII JNES K-AHL K-BH K-OJ K-G K-RCE K-SAP L-ARAB L-EA L-EHPA L-RD M-CEP M-HE M-P M-SEC N-HI 0-VVPW P-ANEP P-ANET P-CAE P-CAEM P-EI P-EOT P-G P-HE P-PE P-PI journal of Near Eastern Studies. Kenyon, K. M., Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960. Keller, W., The Bible as History, 1964. Kenyon, K., Digging up Jericho, 1957. Kitto, H. 0. F., The Greeks. Pelican Books. Kantor, H. J., The Relative Chronology of Egypt (in E-COWA), 1954. Kitchen, K. A., Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs, 1926. Luckenbill, 0. 0., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1926. Lloyd, S., Early Anatolia. Penguin Books, 1965. Lloyd, S., Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia. Libby, W. F., Radiocarbon Dating. Phoenix Series, 1965. Macalister, R. A. S., A Century of Excavation in Palestine, 1925. Maspero, G., History of Egypt. Macalister, R. A. S., The Philistines, 1911 (reprint, 1965). MacNaughton, 0., A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology, 1932. Noth, M., A History of Israel, 1960. Odom, R. L., Vettius Valens and the Planetary Week. Pritchard, J. B., The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 1954. Pritchard, J. B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 1955. Poole, R. S., The Chronology of Ancient Egypt, 1851. Perkins, A. L., The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. No. 25 of Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Petrie, F., Egypt and Israel, 1923. Peet, T. E., Egypt and the Old Testament, 1923. Pritchard, J. B., Gibeon, 1962. Petrie, F., A History of Egypt, 7th ed., 1912. Petrie, F., Prehistoric Egypt, 1920. Piggott, S., Prehistoric India, 1961. IX R-FJJ Rawlinson, G., Ancient Monarchies, 4th ed., 1897. Rollin. Charles, Cyclopedia of History, 188.'3. Rawlinson, G., The Egypt of Herodotus, 1924. Rawlinson, G., History of Ancient Egypt, 1880. Rogers, R. W., History of Babylonia and Assyria; 6th ed., 1915. Rowley, H. H., From Joseph to Joshua, 1950. SD ABC SDABD S-DCA Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Seyffert, 0., Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, R-.\;-,.1 R-CH R-.EH R-HAE R-HBA 1956. S-DGRBM Smith, W., (ed), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1849-50. S-CRS Seele, K. C., The Coregency of Rameses II with Seti I. No. 19 of Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Sci. Amer. Scientific American S-RP Sayce, A. H., (ed.), Records of the Past. New S-SCCAO T-HPW T-MNHK .U-AOT V-AC V-EU V-FEA V-WC W-BA W-DP W-FK W-HP W-M Series. Schaeffer, C. F. A., Stratigraphie Compatee et Chronologie . .. ., 1948. Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War. Edited in translation by Richard Livingstone. Thiele, E. R., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 1931. Unger, M. F., Archaeology and the Old Testament, 3rd ed., 1960. Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, 1952. Velikovsky, I., Ear~h in Upheaval, 1955. Vandier, J., La Famine Dans L'Egypt Ancienne, 1936. Velikovsky, I., Worlds in Collision, 1952. Wright, G. E., Biblical Archaeology, 1957. Woolley, L., Digging up the Past. Penguin Books, 1953. Woolley, L., A Forgotten Kingdom. Penguin Books, 1953. Weigall, A., A History of the Pharaohs, 1927. Manetho, Translated by Waddel, 1956. x WM-GF \iVhitcomb, J. C., and Morris, H. M., The Gen- esis Flood, 1961. W-RD Willis, E. H., Radiocarbon Dating, Chap .. 2 in BH-SA. W-RFMK W-S W-SHAE W-AE W-WST Y-AC Winlock, H. E., Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom, 1917. Wright, G. E., Shechem, 1965. Weigel!, A., A Short History of Ancient Egypt, 1935. Wheeler, M., Archaeology from the Earth. Penguin Books, 1961. White, A. D., The Warfare of Science with Theology, 1955 reprint Young, R., Analytical Concordance. XI CHAPTER I ARE THE FOUNDATIONS OF ARGHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE SECURE? In a previous volume, the evidence has been presented pointing to the commitment of gross errors in the interpretation of archaeological observations in Palestine and in Egypt, leading us to an erroneous and highly exaggerated chronology of the dynastic period of the ancient world. These errors may be traced to the dating of the era now known as Early Bronze too far back on the time scale by 600 years or more. The more exact figure for the magnitude of this error depends on the date assigned to the end of the Early Bronze Age in the scheme of the Archaeological Ages. Since the dates assigned to the archaeological strata in Palestine, subsequent to the beginning of the Hellenistic Period (331 B.C. ), are fixed by numerous discoveries of datable coins and written inscriptions, this 600+ years of unwarranted chronological expansion belongs to the time period between the end of Early Bronze and the beginning of the Hellenistic period. So certain have scholars been that a mistake of this magnitude could not possibly have occurred without its prompt detection on the part of one or more colleagues, that suggested solutions to the problems of archaeology which lie outside the general framework of current opinion have not been given serious consideration. . Actually, there is nothing at all incredible in recognizing the possibility of mass scholarship making fundamental errors of such magnitude. The past history of scientific development is replete with examples of the failure of a near total scholarship to recognize error or to perceive truth. The concept of the germ origin of disease, now universally accepted; was hotly contested and debated at length before its general acceptance, because it represented a wide deviation from popular opinion. Mendeleef s law, which now stands as the fundamental basis for the modern concepts of atomic structure, was publicly ridiculed by scholars when first proposed. Almost from the time of the discovery of argon and related gases, it has been universally believed that these gases do not form compounds with other ele- 2 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ments; hence the connotation as inert gases. Only- recently has the erroneous nature of this assumption been demonstrated. Repeatedly, the conclusions of the Higher Criticism have had to be abandoned in the face of later discoveries, pointing to the use of faulty premises and faulty reasoning in arriving at conclusions. Nor has Archaeology been free from making such errors. A few decades ago, it was almost the universal belief that dynastic Egypt reached back into the era of the 5th or 6th millennium B. C., and the opinion was well fixed that the period of dynastic Egypt could not be squeezed into a period as short as 3,000 years. Yet today, even the most liberal of scholars must allow a figure lower than this. Even though archaeological investigations had been carried out at the Jericho site for more than half a century, it was recently necessary to revise the date for the pottery associated with the fallen walls at this site. During investigations at Pithom in Egypt, it was noted that some of the bricks were made with straw; others without straw. This was quickly taken as evidence of Israelite construction on the basis of the account in Exodus 5, only to find later that bricks with and without straw are to be found in constructions far separated in time and area from Israelite occupation. Stables were found at the site of Megiddo which were assigned an identity as of Solomonic origin regarded as unequivocal, only to find later that the stables belonged to an era notably later than that assigned archaeologically to Solomon. The identification of the massive temple at Shechem as that of the story of Abimelech was regarded over a period of years as a "must" only to find later that the date necessarily assigned to this structure was centuries earlier than that assigned archaeologically to the era of Abimelech. In bold statements that left no room for any alternate interpretation, evidence of a local flood in Mesopotamia was publicized widely as the "discovery of Noah's flood." That this identification was ·premature is now recognized by all but the most gullible. The Amarna Letters were first pronounced frauds when examined by scholars. It was not until many of these priceless inscriptions were lost or destroyed that their true value was recognized. - The list of· such errors could be extended to great length and who knows how many others continue to remain unrec- . ARE THE FOUNDATIONS SECURE? 3 ognized. It would seem that it is part of human nature to elevate current views of scientific investigations to a figurative position on a pedestal, as if a general agreement placed these conclusions above the susceptibility to further question or revision, yet even brilliant scholars continue to belong in the category of human beings. Research workers in areas much more susceptible to arriving at factual conclusions than is possible in the more obscure area of archaeology, recognize that first guesses are far more apt to be wrong than right. This process of guessing at the interpretation of facts (hypothesizing) is a legitimate phase of scientific investigation. It is the inability to distinguish the difference between an unproven guess and a scientifically demonstrated fact that labels one as unscientific in his thinking. Evidently some investigators in the field of archaeology seem to believe that the establishment of the interpretations to be placed on archaeological observations may be accomplished by totally different and far less rigid process than that required in other scientific disciplines. The use of such expressions as "we now know," "it is certain," "without doubt," "it is widely believed," to refer to unproven guesses, does not constitute a satisfactory method for elevating these guesses to the realm of valid conclusions. Characterized as are the current views on the interpretations of archaeology by numerous anachronisms, inconsistencies, and anomalies, it cannot be safely con9luded that the chronology of Egypt as now accepted is no longer susceptible to even major corrections. So long as the dating methods used in arriving at these guesses are in themselves subject to large questions as to their validity, statements of this type represent only what has been appropriately referred to as "begging the question." Archaeology is anything hut an exact science. The vast majority of archaeological finds taken alone are capable of numerous interpretations. It is only when all related finds are taken into consideration that final and unequivocal conclusions are at all possible. But we do not possess at the present time anything approaching the total information that archaeological investigations may reveal. Only a minor fraction of Palestine has been examined archaeologically and the territory to the east of Jordan has been largely limited to surface examination. The same limitations holq fqr 4 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia, Crete, and other vital areas. While scholars generally recognize these limitations of the available data, the opinion is nevertheless deeply fixed that no solution that lies outside the general framework of current opinion is worthy of serious consideration. The. premise is solidly rejected that there is any possibility that scholars in total could make errors of such magnitude as to call for a re-examination of the very foundations on which the discipline of archaeology rests. Furthermore, the door has been effectively closed to the publication of any suggested solution to archaeological problems in scientific journals that even suggest such a starting premise. Efforts to point out errors by means of private publications usually remain unread by those who could benefit most from them, and if read, they are commonly given the "silent treatment" as unworthy of the effort required to refute the evidence, or are brushed aside as representing only an unintelligent and prejudiced approach to the solution of imaginary problems. Evidence is not totally lacking that some scholars, unable to meet the challenge of such proposed solutions, do not care to jeopardize their positions professionally by even suggesting that such a solution merits serious consideration. Or again, they may read far enough into a thesis to find what are regarded as a few minor objections, and shutting their eyes to the numerous major difficulties in current views, may prefer to remain silent until such a time as one of higher reputation in the field indicates otherwise. In a previous volume, the chronological discrepancies between. current views on Egyptian chronology and Bible history were critically reviewed and an alternate chronology of Egypt proposed which removes the vast majority of these discrepancies and internal inconsistencies. The purpose of the present volume is to examine critically the validity of the dating methods used to arrive at current views, and to show that the archaeology of Palestine and of other areas of the ancient world can be more rationally interpreted in terms of this altered chronology than is possible against the background provided by current views on Egyptian chronology. No claim is made that there are no problems remaining. Certainly, certain premises commonly regarded as above ARE THE FOUNDATIONS SECURE? 5 question require a re-examination of their validity. It is contended that the number and magnitude of the remaining problems is small compared to those that result from the currently accepted views. Not only so, we are pointed clearly in the proper direction for the solutions to the remaining problems when further information becomes available. It may be expected that some will interpret the content of this and a previous volume as an attempt to undermine and depreciate the work of archaeologists and historians; no such intent or aim is entertained. There remains no question whatever in the mind of the author as to the enormity of the task that has been undertaken or to the loyalty and devotion of this group to their task. His conflict is with the interpretations that have been placed on archaeological finds and with what he regards as an unwarranted relegation of Scripture to the level of myth and legend as a starting premise for such interpretations. This volume, as was also true of the previous volume, is directed to those who have a large stake in the correct interpretations of the archaeological finds in Palestine. While the matters with which we deal may be of passing interest only to many, the stakes are high on the part of those who have a vital interest in the question of the historical reliability and origin of the Old Testament Scriptures. This group should include the vast multitude encompassed by membership in the various Christian bodies and the large number of persons of the Jewish faith. It is to the Scriptures that Christians look for the background of development of Christianity and its proper significance to the world today, and it is to these same writings that the Jews must look for information relative to their own past and for the basis of their beliefs, which have set them apart as a distinct people, both racially and religiously. Certainly those who think that the Scriptures represent only a conflation of myths, legends, and traditions of highly limited value historically, should be interested in a critical examination of the evidence which is presumed to demand such an .evaluation of these writings. Scholars on either side of the controversy over the origin of Scripture should find the developments of unusual interest. The eviderice and arguments presented in this volume are in support of, and in further confirmation of, the general correctness of the revised chronology of Egypt as o.ut- 6 THE EXOOUS PROBLEM lined in Volume I of this series. An outl'ine of the altered chronology is provided as Figure 2 of Volume I. The principal points of deviation from current views are: (1) Dynasties I and II are regarded as roughly contemporary with Dynasties III to V, though the latter sequence had a beginning about one century later than the beginning of Dynasty I. (2) Dynasties VI and XIII are given positions roughly contemporary with Dynasty XII, thus eliminating completely the so-called First Intermediate as a creation of modern. historians. (3) Dynasties VII to X thus fall in the Hyksos period (the so-called Second Intermediate) .paralleling Dynasty XIV and the Hyksos dynasties XV and XVI, (4) The Hyksos period is expanded froin about one century as currently held to over four centuries to agree with the period between the Exodus and the establishment of the Israelite Monarchy under Saul. (5) Manetho's arrangement of Dynasties XVIII and XIX is retained which recognizes Dynasty XIX as an offshoot from Dynasty XVIII at the time of Seti I, in contrast to the modern rearrangement of Manetho which makes a sequence of these two dynasties. (6) Dynasty XXIII is made contemporary with late Dynasty XVIII and follows Dynasty XIX. (7) The order of Dynasties XXII and XXIII is reversed to agree with the order as given in the Sothis king list. (8) Dynasties XX to XXII are made parallel to Dynasties XXIV to XXVI. These alterations call for a complete revision of the dates to be attributed to all the Egyptian dynasties except Dynasties XXIII to XXVI inclu. sive. The approximate revised dates are as shown in Figure 2, Vol. I. Current views regard all of the Egyptian dynasties as having ruled in sequence, except that late Dynasty XIII and all of Dynasty XIV are recognized as having ruled contemporary with the Hyksos Dynasties XV and XVI. CHAPTER II WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS USED TO SUPPORT CURRENT VIEWS? In the course of the last century, numerous works have appeared presenting archaeological evidences which are purported to confirm in an astonishing manner the historicity of the Biblical accounts. A question naturally rises as to what happens to all this evidence if it is true that the chronology of ancient Egypt must be altered by some six centuries from the dates currently accepted. Does the evidence stand to witness to error of reasoning leading to the proposed revision, or will a critical examination of this evidence reveal that the valid fraction is retained by the revision and only the insecure. evidence requires rejection? Are we going to be obliged to disregard well-established synchronisms in order to provide some semblance of support for a revised structure, or will such an examination reveal that many of these synchronisms, regarded as well-established, are but the offspring of the popular chronology itself rather than providing any support for it? It is exceedingly difficult to believe that such a critical examination of this material will not provide some clear indications in one direction or the other. In evaluating the answers to be provided to these questions, two facts should be kept clearly in mind. The first is that it is not Bible chronology that is being altered by the proposed revision; it is Egyptian chronology and the chronologies of the other ancient nations whose chronologies depend on the correctness of Egyptian chronology. As will appear, the kingly line of Assyria does not require significant alteration back as far as the i4th century B.C. The line of known Chaldean kings is tied solidly to the Assyrian line back this far and is also accepted withour appreciable qualification by the revision. It is rather the proposed synchronisms between Egypt or Palestine with Assyria or Chaldea prior to c. 900 B.C. that are rejected as insecure. The second point to be remembered is that the writer has freely admitted in a previous volume 1 that except as the proposed revision eliminates at large the anachronisms and inconsistencies in the current views without introducing other seri.,. THE EXODUS PROBLEM 8 ous difficulties, nothing of genuine significance has been attained by it. To merely suggest :a different chronology based on a different philosophy but presenting no clear-cut advantages in terms of freedom of major difficulties, is hardly to be regarded as a worthwhile contribution. But by the same token, if such a revision, based on an alternate approach and an alternate philosophy, does eliminate these major difficulties at large without the introduction of others, then the revision stands to confirm the general correctness of the altered approach and of the altered philosophy. With the general outlines of this revision now before us (Figure 2, Vol. I), it is possible to classify the synchronisms used to support the currently accepted structure into three groups. These are (I) synchronisms that continue to hold for the revision and which thus require no further discussion here, (2) proposed synchronisms that were once accepted as supports f01;, current views, but which have more recently been abandoned or severely qualified by scholars generally on the basis of subsequent information that has come to light and, (3) proposed synchronisms which are still' regarded as supports for current views but which can be shown to be either insecure or without chronological significance. I. Synchronisms that Continue to Hold for the Revision A comparison of the revised chronological structure (Figure 2, Vol. I) with the conventional structure shows that the proposed revision does not shift significantly the positions assigned to Dynasties XXIII to XXVI by current views. And since the chronology of Israel has not been altered, any and all genuine synchronisms between Israel and Egy.pt for this period are retained by the revision and require no further discussion here. The same holds true for synchronisms between Israel and late. Assyria and Chaldea after the mid 9th century and onward since the chronologies of these nations, subsequent to the 14 century, have not been significantly altered. II. Proposed Synchronims Necessarily Abandoned A partial list of synchronisms earlier regarded as supports for the current chronological structure of Egypt,. but which have had to be abandoned, or severely qualified on the basis of information appearing later, has been provided in a WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 9 previous volume. Still others will be shown to belong to this category as the archaeologies of the various sites in Palestine are re-examined in subsequent chapters. 2 The very necessity of abandonment of so many synchronisms, once regarded as solid, should provide a strong suggestion that current views do not necessarily represent something akin to fact. III. Insecure Synchronisms Previously Considered Of the insecure synchronisms, the fallacies of those related to the incidents of the Exodus, the Oppression, and the Conquest have been considered in a previous volume. Further confirmation of the insecurity of these will appear also with the re-examination .of the archaeology of Palestine sites in subsequent chapters of this volume. So also has the fallacy of the proposed identity of Shishak of Scripture with Sheshonk I of Dynasty XXII been noted. 3 Facts that contradict this proposed identity have been presented in the XVIIIth chapter of the previous volume of this work. Of the synchronistic supports suggested for the current chronological structure of Egypt, and yet to be considered, .those based on the Amarna Letters are regarded as meriting consideration. An adequate 'discussion of this material presupposes a consideration of the chronology of Assyria and is considered in a subsequent chapter dealing with the chronology of Assyria. 4 The remaining proposed synchronisms, that can be considered to advantage under the chapter title, belong to the category of proposals having no real chronological significance or having no secure basis. It would seem to be popularly believed that there exists a long list of proposed synchronisms prior to the mid 8th century which stand to confirm the Bible as history and which also provide support for the correctness of the traditional chronology of the ancient world. This is anything but the case. The writer contends that there is not a single incident in Bible history prior to the 9th century B.C. that can be unequivocally synchronized with the history of Egypt within the .framework of current views on ancient chronology, and which could be expected to be revealed by archaeological investigation. The single proposed synchronism of significance that falls between the beginning of the 9th century THE EXODUS PROBLEM IO and the beginning of Dynasty XXIII in Egypt has been retained only by forcing it into a mold that does not otherwise fit.·; In making this claim,: the author wishes to be clearly understood that reference is to synchronisms based on written accounts of the same incident in Scripture and in the Egyptian inscriptions, or synchronisms based on an incident recorded in the writings of one people which can be confirmed unequivocally by the archeaology of another people. Synchronisms that fit satisfactorily into either structure lie outside the limits of this claim as do also those whose archaeological support depends rather entirely on the accepted chronological structure itself. It is fully recognized that many cases of valid synchronism can be established which relate in approximate manner the remains from one Palestinian mound level to the remains in a specific level of another mound, or even with a specific foreign culture, or with the reign of a specific dynasty or king. The former have no significance at all to the problems before us" and the latter have no significance except as the foreign culture, or dynasty, or king can be dated unequivocally in terms of Bible chronology. It is the validity of the dates assigned to the Egyptian kings, popularly regarded as having been satisfactorily demonstrated, that are here challenged, a challenge that is based on the fact that the assumed correlations leave numerous anachronisms of intolerable proportions. IV. Chronological.Correlations Based on Situations With No Unique Qualities This type correlation might be termed a "situation synchronism" though there is a reasonable question as to as a synchronism. whether such should be referred" to at Any proposed time equation based on similarity of conditions can be regarded as secure if, and only if, the situation is sufficiently unique to reasonably eliminate other possibilities of interpretation. Such similarities may well have a value in confirming a synchronism that has been established as relatively secure by independent means, and particularly so if several such can be brought to bear. But certainly to 1est the full·t»eight, or even the·major weight., of a hypothetical structure on such evidence, when the more umque bases fO'l synchrooism are left as anachronisms, is all WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 11 not a satisfactory method of arriving at truth. It is the writer's contention that this is exactly the situation that has resulted from current attempts to prop up a sagging traditional chronology of Egypt by means of this type of evidence. With even the Greek legends exhonorated as having at least a kernel of historical value, 6 it has not proved popular, even among those who reject the internal claims of Scripture as to their origin, to reduce them to a level notably below that of those legends. To avoid such drastic devaluation .in the face of mounting archaeological evidence that requires interpretation in contradiction to Scripture, props of any kind are welcomed that can be used as a basis for retention of some degree of confidence in these writings as an alternative to eliminating them entirely from consideration. Sooner or later, the real crux of the problem should become apparent to all. It is. a vain hope to expect that archaeology, interpreted in terms of the popularly accepted premises, can ever be harmonized with Scripture regarded as historically reliable. Most scholars are quite aware of this fact and have abandoned any expectation that this can be accomplished; some have felt quite free to belittle su<::h efforts. It is the few who are clinging desparately to such a hope, in the face of an impasse of increasing magnitude, who must either demonstrate a quite different interpretation of archaeology as acceptable, or compromise their faith in a Scripture that can be considered as historically reliable. While it is true that many writers have used this type of correlation as a basis for confirming Scripture, there is usually a reticence to refer to such evidence as synchronisms, yet the inclusion of such materials under titles dealing with confirmation of Scripture infers such a supposition.' Sometimes there is a guarded inference to this effect; in other cases it is only stated that the evidence suggests .that a similar incident or situation of Scripture could have occurred or might be thus related. The mere fact that situations similar to those described in Scripture are found in the secular inscriptions of antiquity, falls far short of providing a confirmation of Scripture as historically reliable. While a degree bf interest may surround evidence that certain incidents of Scripture could have occurred, it is far more critical to know that they did occur as written. It is in the era of the early history of Palestine where convincing 12 THE EXODUS PROBLEM synchronisms are needed to confirm the historicity of Scripture, and it is in this era where such are totally lacking in terms of the currently accepted interpretations of archaeology, and where virtually nothing of significance is offered to us on which to base a solid belief in the historicity of the accounts of early Scripture. Certainly these early accounts do not lack for unique incidents that could be expected to be revealed archaeologically. This situation suggests strongly that there are but two defensible approaches to the solutions of problems related to the archaeology of the ancient world. One is that taken by· scholars generally who disclaim any necessity for agreement between Scripture and the interpretations of archaeology; the other is that adopted by the writer, i.e., that of demonstrating that it is the interpretations of archaeology that a:re in gross error rather than Scripture. The writer regards himself as belonging to that small group of conservatives who place an implicit confidence in the historicity of these writings. He is nevertheless frank to state that if his faith had to rest on such evidence as is provided by these proposed situation correlations, this faith could be easily shaken, for he finds nothing of significance in these popular works designed to confirm the early Scripture as history. By early history is here meant all Scripture that deals with incidents prior to about the beginning of the 9th century B. C. The astonishing situation is that skeptics of the Bible as ·history have not been more vocal in challenging the use of this type of evidence as a basis for confirming the historicity of Scripture. The reasons for this are not readily defined though a few intelligent guesses should not be out of place. One is the tacitly accepted definition of history as "a narrative of events connected with a real or imaginary object, person or career; a tale.... " 1• By this definition, legends and myths become history. In this sense, a treatise on the topic Bible as History may be taken to mean Bible as myth and legend. Commonly, writers in this area have not defined the term history as used by them, and one can· only deduce, rightly or wrongly, from the contents of the work what definition is to be understood. It is for this reason that the present· writer has repeatedly used the terms reliable htstory or dependable history as a basis for distinction from myths, fables, and legends. WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 13 Another reason for the virtual absence of challenge of the use of these proposed correlations of situations with no unique qualities is perhaps the recognition that this material is quite inoccuous to popular views and does not merit the effort for rebuttal, or perhaps the evidence, such as it is, is welcomed as a means of obscuring the true degree to which Scripture must inevitably be rejected if these feeble props are removed. A total abandonment of Scripture as an historical source would represent an exceedingly severe blow to the entire discipline of Archaeology. V. Some Examples of the Use of Ubiquitous Situations It will not be possible to mention every such situation in this brief treatise that has been used to infer a confirmation of Scripture in terms of the current chronological views. Reference to a number of these that have been more widely used should suffice to convince the thoughtful reader that the nature of these is such as to provide no solid evidence at all to warrant the use of this material, except as the purpose is only to support Bible as history, so defined as to include myths, fables, and legends. We begin a brief rehearsal with the discovery of a painting in the tomb of Knumhotep from the reign of Sesostris II of Dynasty XII (Plate I)B The painting shows foreign-loQking figures wearing a different type of clothing than that worn by the Egyptians, thus allowing the deduction that they represent foreigners. The people were a fair-skinned race with sharper features than those of the Egyptians. They are identified in the accompanying inscription as sand-dwellers, suggesting that they lived in the desert area. Their leader was named Abishai (or Ibsha), clearly a Semitic name. When first discovered, the painting was regarded as representing the brothers of Joseph coming to Egypt to buy corn. 9 When it became apparent that the era of Sesostris II could not be satisfactorily synchronized with the descent of Jacob into Egypt, other interpretations have been proposed. One writer considers it no less than a fact that the picture belongs to the time of Abraham: 10 and if it does not actually picture Abraham's visit to Egypt to escape famine, it at least provides us with a correct concept of how Abraham looked when he went into Egypt. 14 THE EXODUS PROBLEM But we enquire, how does this writer know that the painting dates from the time of Abraham. With differences of opinion among scholars for the date of the Exodus ranging from c. 1275 B.C. or later to 1612 B.C. pr earlier, and with opinions on the length of the period from Abraham to the Exodus varying from about 400 years to well over 600 years, on what basis is it possible to state as fact that the era of Abraham falls early in the Xllth Dynasty? If Abraham cannot be placed in Egyptian history with any more precision that within half a millennium, then what basis do we have for even hypothesizing an identity of this painting with Abraham's visit to Egypt, or how do we know that Abraham had any resemblance to the people pictured in this painting? How do we know that this painting is any more closely related in time to Abraham than was the discovery of America related to the era of World War II? It should be noted that the nature of the incident pictured has no unique qualitie.s, either in time or in detail. Are we to presume that the entrance of Abraham or of Jacob and his sons into Egypt were incidents unparalleled in the course of half a millennium of Egyptian history? We are clearly dealing here with evidence which has no value at all, either for corroborating Bible history, or for providing any basis for the assumption that current views represent a correct correlation of archaeological observations in either Egypt or Palestine with true Israelite history. The most that can be drawn from this painting is that foreigners of Semitic origin, but not otherwise identifiable, at a time not definable on the B. C. time scale, were permitted entrance into Egypt. The actual evidence indicates that this group did not come from Palestine but rather from the desert area to the east of Egypt. 11 But of what significance is this as far as confirming the historicity of the Old Testament? Another story widely referred to under titles suggesting confirmation of Scripture as history is that to be found in the lengthy inscription of Sinuhe in the reign of Sesostris I, early in Dynasty XII. 12 It seems that for reasons not stated in the inscription, Sinuhe was obliged to flee Egypt, eventually finding a temporary home with a bedouin tribe in the territory of Phoenicia. Sinuhe gives us a detailed account of his adventures and of his eventual return to Egypt WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 15 with honor. If it is a fact that the painting from the tomb of Knumhotep belongs to the time of Abnlham, then, of course it is also a fact that Sinuhe belongs to about the same era since both inscriptions are from the early Xllth Dynasty. So reasons one writer. rn ... For we now know that the Egyptian had written a factual account of Canaan at about the time that Abraham migrated there. And just how do we know this to be a fact? We may suppose that since the author of this interpretation is using the story to confirm Scripture, the bases given for the conclusions are the best that are available. Hence it is with some astonishment to find that the conclusion is based on a correlation of a statement in the inscription to the effect that the land where Sinuhe dwelt was a "fine country where wheat, barley, vines, and fig trees grow" with the statement in Scripture that the land of promise was "a good land, a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees." 13a But we ask in all seriousness: what chronological significance is to be attached to this similarity of description? The territory is not the same in the two cases. And what is there· unique chronologically about the growing of wheat and barley, and vines and fig trees? To attach any particular significance to the story of Sinuhe as confirming Biblical history or in correlating Biblical history with that of Egypt is unthinkable, Sinuhe lived in a tent as a nomad. This might be taken to indicate that the country was sparsely settled at the time, but this is not a necessary conclusion. Certainly there were cities in Phoenicia at this time since Sinuhe states that he went to the city of Byblos. Sinuhe lived as a nomad by choice and not from necessity due to the absence of cities. He also indicates that there were other Egyptians living there at the time. Neither is this situation unique. There is no way of proving that this was not true throughout the history of Phoenicia. Nor do the unstable conditions pictured in the. account have any chronological value as far as setting these incidents in the period of the judges. 1 ~ Scholars commonly place the descent of Jacob into Egypt iri the Hyksos periOd. 15 The Scripture statement that the Egyptians held shepherds in disrepute 16 is taken as confirmation of this placement, since the Hyksos, like the sons of Jacob, were also shepherds and would not erbject to the in- 16 THE EXODUS PROBLEM coming Israelites as shepherds. However, this is not the only reasonable interpretation of this detail. Certainly the Egyptians possessed both sheep and cattle of their own 17 and we are not told the reason for this prejudice when they were themselves shepherds on a smaller scale. Perhaps the reason was geographical since the problem seems to have been solved by occupation of a specific area; 18 or it may have been the competition of large scale ownership that was the source of the friction . Whatever the cause, the detail is not adequate for correlating the Descent with the Hyksos period chronologically. Still another situation commonly used to confirm the Hyksos period as that of the Descent is the detail of granting to Joseph the king's second chariot at the time of his elevation to the position of vizier. 19 It is claimed that chariots were not known in Egypt prior to the Hyksos era and that it was the Hyksos who introduced the use of the chariot into Egypt. If these premises are correct, then Joseph must have been in Egypt at the time of, or after the rule of the Hyksos. Actually, these premises are not at all factual; they are speculative and hypothetical, b_ased on the am?earance at about this time of· a new type of forti'fication. Since a new type of fortification is a natural sequence to a new type of weapon of warfare, it is assumed that this new weapon was the chariot first used by the Hyksos. This premise is not accepted by all scholars and evidence has been presented in contradiction to this interpretation. Reference to this evidence is noted elsewhere in this treatise. 20 It is quite true that there are no earlier extant references to the use of the chariot in Egypt prior to the XVIllth Dynasty, but this does not prove that there were no chariots earlier than this, nor does it prove that there were no references to the chariot before this time. It is not scientifically permissible to draw conclusions from an absence of available data.2 1 Certainly chariots were known elsewhere before this. A pictorial inscription discovered at Tell Halaf (in Mesopotamia), belonging to the predynastic period, shows a chariot with an eight-spoked wheel carrying a man. 2 1• . . . Among the other technical developments of the time appears to have been ... what, if its usual interpretation is correct, is the earliest known picture of a chariot. The chariot has great eight-spoked wheels and carries a man. WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? Plate I. Painting of a Semitic Family Entering Egypt (from the tomb of Knumhotep at Beni-Hasan) which has been variously interpreted as of Jacob and his sons entering Egypt, of Abraham and his caravan entering Egypt, or as merely illustrating what Abraham's caravan looked like. Plate II. Section of Inscription from Ur Showing the Use of the Chariot and Dated Earlier Than the Hyksos Period 17 -18 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The chariot is mentioned in the Mari Letters, currently dated, c. 1800 B.C., thus antedating the Hyksos invasion.21b ... This interesting letter proves that horse-drawn chariots were already known about 1800 B.C. in Asia Minor and Syria. This agrees with the evidence of the Cappadocian Tablets and of the early Hittite texts, which shows that horses were coming into use for military purposes as early as about 1900 B.C. A pictorial inscription from Ur of Chaldea is also extant showing horse-drawn chariots and dated this early or earlier. 22 The apparent absence of reference to the chariot in Egyptian inscriptions may mean nothing more than their non use in warfare prior to the XVIIIth Dynasty, this being the subject of most Egyptian inscriptions where such mention could be expected. There is every reason to believe that chariots were used only as a royal conveyance for an extended period of time prior to their use in war. The comments of Albright on this situation as it probably existed in the XII th Dynasty are most reasonable. 2·1 ... horse-drawn chariots were still very rare and probably rather slow, compared to their speed two or three centuries later. The inference in the Biblical story is that the chariot was not in common use at the time of Joseph. The suggestion is that it was a real honor for an official to have a chariot in which to ride and that the king may have had only two chariots, or perhaps that these two represented a notably advanced design not otherwise paralleled in Egypt at that time. Certainly, one need presume the existence of no more ·than two chariots for the story to have a satisfactory setting long before the Hyksos invasion. If the concept can be seriously entertained that a multiplicity of centuries were required to make some slight change in the design or decoration on a piece of pottery or arrowhead, one's credulity should not be strectched to the breaking point to recognize that the first chariots in Egypt, as elsewhere, were not used as war vehicles, or that a significant period of time elapsed between the production of the first chariots and their even- · tual use in warfare. On the other hand, there is something strangely anomalous in the concept that the Hyksos should be credited with the invention of the chariot when they were so completely nonproductive in the arts otherwise. WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 19 Actually, direct evidence that the Hyksos ever used or possessed a single chariot is totally missing. The Hyksos produced no inscriptions of any kind. The entire concept of Hyksos possession of chariots is unfounded supposition. 24 ... By this time [era of the Hyksos invasfon] horse-drawn chariotry had been introduced as the most important instrument of warfare, and we must picture the northern hordes as sweeping through Palestine and Egypt in swift chariots.... [Emphasis ours.] It has not even been demonstrated that the Hyksos came from any northern territory. 2·; The identification of the occupants of Palestine as Hyksos during or before or after the Hyksos control of Egypt is anachronistic. 26 Many other examples of the use of situations that are anything but unique as bases for .correlation in time are to be found in a variety of popular volumes designed to corroborate the Bible as history. 27 While some of this material may have a value in a qualitative sense, none of these examples provide any thing resembling a chronogical synchronism, and none provides any worth-while contribution to the problem of a truly historical Scripture as distinguished from a proposed compilation of myths and legends. A vaguely inferred connection between Moses and the era of Sargon of Akkad is made on the basis of similarity of the inscription of Sargon with the story of Moses as an infant having been hid in the bulrushes of the Nile. Another inferred connection links Akhnaton of Dynasty XVIII with Moses' era on the basis of the monotheistic beliefs of both; another would link Moses with the era of Hammurabi on the basis that the code of Hammurabi has a number of parallels with the Mosaic code; still another would identify Hatshepsut of Dynasty XVIII as the foster mother of Moses on the basis that the rule of Egypt by a woman was rare, though Scripture says nothing at all to the effect that this particular daughter of the king ever became a .ruler of · Egypt. Even if the fo.ster mother of Moses was only the wife of a king, it may be assumed that virtually every king . of Egypt had his queen. One writer would reject the concept that the pharaoh of the E.xodus lost his life in the Red Sea to make room for Amenhotep II as this pharaoh, while noting in support of this identification that the successor of Amenhotep was not 20 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the eldest son, thus supposedly confirming Scripture in stating that the eldest son of the pharaoh died in the 10th plague. Another supposes that the king "who knew not Joseph" must be the first king of a new dynasty, though we are left to guess just why this is a necessary conclusion. A . number of cases involve references to certain customs noted both in Scripture and in the secular inscriptions. But what evidence do we have to indicate the period of duration of these customs to permit such usage of this type of evidence for chronological purposes? The most that can be deducted from this type evidence is that the writer was familiar with these customs. Even a novel, with no inferred basis in fact, may make very accurate references to prevailing customs. Why prolong the rehearsal? The writer would suggest as a guiding principle that the use of such materials, as bases for establishing correlation in time between the histories of Israel and her contemporaries, be delayed until such time as more unique details of the accounts are met by the proposed placements. When two histories have been thus properly correlated in time, it may be expected that there will be evidences of this type to confirm the correctness of the correlations. In the face of the serious anachronisms that result from the current views on these placements, it cannot be said that these more unique details have been thus satisfactorily met. Nothing short of this procedure permits a rational recognition that Scripture has been demonstrated as historically reliable as distinguished from myth, fable, and legend. VI. Proposed Synchronisms Based on Similarity of Names Another type of synchronism used widely to correlate the traditional chronology of Egypt with Biblical history depends on a presumed identity of persons with the same or similar names. The classical example of this is the identification of the Biblical Shishak, who sacked Solomon's temple, with Sheshonk I of Dynasty XXll. The fallacy of this proposed synchronism, and the anachronisms that result from its acceptance, have been discussed in detail in an earlier volume. 28 Further discussion here is limited to a reply to an objection offered against the alternate identification of Shishak with Thutmose Ill, who is known to have made WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 21 a conquest of Palestine. It has been claimed that this identification is impossible, since all five of the names of Thutmose III are known, and none of these is even remotely equivalent to the name Shishak. The five names are: (1) the Horus name, (2) the Nebti name, (3) the Golden Horus name, (4) the Suten Bat name, and (5) the son of Re name. The unstated premise on which this objection rests could be stated thus: no Egyptian king could have, or ever did have, names other than these five or readily recognizable deviations of one of these five. It is this unstated premise which the writer challenges as invalid and not without repeated exceptions. The number of such exceptions in the era of the XVIIIth Dynasty alone is adequate to indicate that Egyptian kings were not necessarily limited to these five names. Josephus 29 lists the names of the kings of this dynasty, and in several cases the names are totally unlike any one of these five names. Chebron remains unidentifiable as a name otherwise known for any XVIIIth Dynasty king. Amesses is certainly an alternate name for Hatshepsut, but it is not one of her five names. Orus of Josephus would seem to be Amenhotep III, though none of his five names would suggest such an identification. Herodotus refers to Egyptian kings known to the Greeks by names unknown to the Egyptian inscriptions. Evidently, the Egyptian kings were commonly known in other countries by names other than any of these five. This may explain the occurrence in Scripture of the names Zerah'30 and So, 31 names not otherwise known in the Egyptian king lists. The Scriptural reference to an Assyrian king known to the Bible writer as Pul32 was long regarded as in error since no such king was known. Later, the name was found to be an alternate of Tiglathpileser.'3'3 There is thus no valid reason for rejecting the identification of Shishak of Scripture with Thutmose III if he meets the specifications otherwise, particularly when such specifications include some that are exceed. . ingly unique. Another example of error: that may arise from attempts at synchronism based on similarity of names, while by-passing more significant evidence, is that which presumed to make Abraham a contemporary of Hammurabi of Babylon. 34 The basis for the proposed synchronism was the Scriptural account in Genesis 14 of the battle of the four eastern kings 22 THE EXODUS PROBLEM against the five kings of Sodom, Gomorah, Admah, Zegoin, and Zoar. The first of the eastern kings has the name Amraphael, a name which was identified with Hammurabi on the basis of a similar sequence of consonant sounds in the two names. At that time, Hammurabi was dated c. 2300 B.C. Abraham was thus given a similar date, though this position was indefensible in terms of Bible chronology. 34• A second king having the name Arioch was equated with Eriaku of the cuneiform inscriptions. A third king bears the name Chedorlaomer, which name was taken as the equivalent of the Elamite name Kudurlagamer. While this latter name is not known in the cuneiform inscriptions, similar names are known. For example, Kudurmabug, king of Larsa, is known to have been a contemporary of Hammurabi. Since Chedorlaomer is stated to have been king of Elam, it was supposed that Chedoraomer is the same person as Kudurmabug. The evidence seemed conclusive that Abraham belonged to the era of Hammurabi. With the passage of time, it was found necessary to periodically resurrect Hammurabi from his position c. 2300 B.C. and move him by increments down to his present precarious position c. 1728 B. C., this date still being a matter of controversy. 35 Unfortunately the date 1728 for Abraham does not fit well into any theory for the placement of the Exodus, unless we make exception for the theory which would regard as futile the assignment of Abraham to any particular era. A further difficulty has risen in the meantime when philologists have had opportunity to scrutinize more closely the proposed identification of the names Amraphael and Chedorlaomer with the cuneiform names Hammurabi and Kudurmabug. Apparently the identities do not appear nearly as convincing now as they did at first glance. 96 It appears that most scholars have now abandoned, or at least de-emphasized, these proposed equivalents, though some continue to regard them as essentially equivalent to fact. When Jose~p was sold into Egypt he is said to have married Asenath, daughter of Potipherah. 3; The name Asenath is rare in Egyptian inscriptions until the XVIII th Dynasty, 38 while the name Potophar, as well as the name give to Joseph (Zaphnath-paaneah), is not known until the XXIInd Dynasty. 39 Does this provide evidence that Joseph was a WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 23 contemporary of Solomon? More defensible is the deduction that names do not necessarily belong to any specific era and cannot be used with safety to date their owners, except as the identity can be unequivocally established otherwise. The presumed fixity of tlie broad outlines of ancient chronology can be traced to a failure to recognize the fallacy of certain proposed synchronisms .based on names at th~ expense of disregarding the anomalies introduced in the process. This is the type error that has been made in presuming that the Ramessides of the Sothis king list must be a duplication of the line of Ramessides of Dynasty XX, though they are far out of line with Dynasty XX, and the reign lengths do not agree with those of the later kings. 40 The name Sesostris is common in. the XII th Dynasty, but it is not unique to that dynasty; Seti I also was known by this name. 41 The Amarna Letters have long been regarded as fixed chronologically to the early 14th century, based on the assumption that the name Assuruballit and associated Kassite names must refer to persons with these names iri the 14th century. But the name Assuruballit continues to appear among the names of Assyrian kings down to the very end of Assyrian history. 42 What should be more disconcerting is. the fact that the stated ancestry of Assuruballit of the 14th century does not agree with the stated ancestry of Assuruballit of the Amarna Letters. 4'i The same type of error is involved in the presumed identification of the Habiru of the Amarna Letters with the invading Hebrews 44 at the time of Joshua and in the identification of Rameses II as the pharaoah of the Oppression. 45 It should be apparent that even if it can be proved beyond question that two names from different sources are identical, this still does not prove that the names belong ~to the same person or even to the same era. As in Scripture, so secular inscriptions commonly identify personages by only one of his names. Can we safely assume that the same name was not used by more than a single person in any given era or that the same name was not used by persons in different eras? To be· sure, in some cases, additional information is available to make unequivocal identification possible, but in the absence of such, it would seem just good judgement to use a maximum of caution in using names as 24 THE EXODUS PROBLEM a basis for critical synchronims, at least until the more solid bases for synchronism have been shown to hold, and even more so when such proposed identifications introduce serious anomalies and anachronisms. An attempt has been made in this treatise to hold to this principle and to use such evidence only after proposed synchronisms have been established by more secure evidence. VII. Synchronisms Based on Insecure Identifications of Archaeological Finds In the last analysis, it must be admitted that the total synchronizing of the histories of Egypt and of Palestine is based on the presumed correctness of interpretations given to certain critical archaeological observations in Palestine. The entire question of the acceptability or nonacceptability of the views which make up the discipline known as Biblical Archaeology depends on the validity of the assumed correctness of these interpretations. If the contentions of the writer are correct, then virtually all of the archaeological material from Palestine in afl.y way related to chronological problems is being erroneously interpreted, because of misinterpretation of a few critical observations. The descriptive phases of the reports, of course, remain intact, as· do also certain qualitative data confirming the existence of certain peoples and places mentioned in Scripture and in other extra-Biblical sources. So also the identifications of archaeological destructions and constructions for the Hellenistic era and later may be regarded as properly correlated with the written sources. It is here contended that for the era earlier than the Hellenistic period there has been an increased degree of error in the proposed chronological assignments so that by the time of the end of the Israelite monarchy, there ls little indeed that has been correctly placed in its proper historical background. It is not uritil very late in Palestinian history that the chronological assignments become unequivocal. 46 ... Chronology in Palestine cannot stand on its own (eet until one is dealing with a relatively late epoch. There are many factors that have contributed to an erroneous interpretation of the archaeological observations in Palestine. Fundamental among the causes were the accept- WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 25 ance of the conclusions of the Higher Criticism as the starting point for the making of interpretations, and the placement of an unmerited confidence in the dating methods that have been used to arrive at these interpretations. If scholars had kept their minds open on the evaluation of these unproven premises, the other factors would no doubt have taken care of themselves in the course of developments, in spite of the enormoas difficulties to be surmounted. Having committed themselves irreversibly to these premises as equivalent to fact, scholars find that the difficulties of making correct deductions are of such magnitude that their combined wisdom is inadequate to surmount them. A brief review of some of the major difficulties may help one to understand why gross errors were not only pos-: sible but inevitable. 1. The vast majority of archaeological observations at Palestinian mounds do not provide per se any information whatever that is of value for establishing a chronology. The remains of a city wall or dwelling or other. structure, a pavement, a fortification, the ruins of what.might have been a temple - these and similar finds could be interpreted to fit. into. several, or even many, chronological schemes, with no secure basis. for controverting any .one of them. 2. In no case have the ruins of a destroyed Palestinian city of the era in question been found to contain. any written information relative to the identity of the authors of the destruction. The observations otherwise provide no more than vague hints as to such identification, reducing efforts at interpretation to speculation based entirely on the assumed correctness of previous interpretations made on the same sort of obscure evidence. .3. The same holds true for observed reconstructions. 4. In no case during the era of the monarchy has the name of the ruling king been found, which would provide a basis for correlating any stratum with Biblical history. 5. Tomb· objects and scarabs cannot be used rationally to provide even relative dates, since the objects found in the tombs, even if inscribed, do not necessarily belong to the time of the burial, and scarabs are universally recognized 26 THE EXODUS PROBLEM among scholars as the poorest sort of evidence to this end. 47 6. Apparent age may be a most deceptive factor on which to assign even relative dates. 7. The thickness of a stratum deposit has no necessary · relation to the length of the period represented. 4 ~ A ·thin stratum of nonoccupation might represent a decade or a millennium. 8. There is no verified standard by which destructions . and recon~tructions can. be correlated with true history of the temtory,- and the written history, other. than Scripture, for the area of Palestine is exceedingly limited. Such a standard would take the form of .at least a single mound occupied throughout the era in question whose strata could be identified unequivocally, either by correlation with written .sources or otherwise. If such were . available, then the corresponding strata in other mounds could be correlated on the basis of similarity of culture. But there is no siich standard mound, and even if there were, this would not provide dates for the incidents of Scripture, except as a chronology in years had been es. tablished by independent means. · 9. It is becoming more and more evident that not one of the proposed dating methods provides an unequivocal .· basis for dating archaeological finds in terms of the B. C. time scale, either directly or indirectly. 49 This holds true for the era prior to t~at marking the beginning of the period when dependable astronomical data are available. 10. Only in exceptional cases can pottery types (culture) · associated with a destruction or reconstruction be identified in terms of the people who used the pottery. The principal exceptions are in the case of foreign potteries or when the same territory was occupied by the same people for such a long period of time that chronological er. rors do not vitiate the identification. But in the latter case, the changes in the pottery during the prolonged period may be so gradual and minor that it is not possible to assign even relative dates within the period more accurately than plus or minus a century. Wooley described the situation as foTiows:S-O I have talked of the "date" of Jemdet Nasr; it was a loose expression and perhaps I ought to retract it, certainly not to let it pass WHAT HAPPENS TO SYNCHRONISMS? 27 without a warning. The archaeologist can re-create a great deal of human history; he can bear witness to its vicissitudes, trace the progress of civilization, define the life of a city or of a nation by periods arranged in true historical sequence; but in the absence of written records, he cannot fix dates. We are always l:>eing asked "When did such and such an event happen?" We may know very well at what point in a sequ~nce it occurred, but we cannot expre~s our answer in terms of years. There is no empirical method of attaining such knowledge. The stratification of the soil of an ancient site does not go by mathematical progression; if each of the first three feet represents a hundred years, it does not follow that ten feet equal a thousand; they may stand for 400 or 3,000 years. The archaeologist may for his convenience talk in round numbers, but he is not really thinking in numbers at all, and if asked for dates he can only reply that he does not know. As we pass back, then, from history, which depends largely on written records, to pre-history, the archaeologist's peculiar sphere, we have to accept periods instead of dates, and racial movements instead of the exploits of individuals; it is an impressionist picture painted with a broader brush, but it is not necessarily less true. While these remarks were made with primary reference to the prehistoric period, commonly made equivalent to the predynastic period, the principles apply fo any era where there are no written inscriptions to guide in the interpretations, and this is true of the Palestine. area down. to a very late date. 31 11. The least questionable type of archaeological evidence would be the cases of widespread destruction correlatable with a single incident. The reason why such evidence is less questionable is the fact that these were far more rare than destructions of individual cities and hence represent more unique incidents in the history of the territory. But Scripture is virtually the only source we have for the early history of Palestine which is adequate for making intelligent inferences as to correlation with history. When scholars accepted the premise that deviations of archaeological interpretation from data provided in Scripture are not necessarily matters of concern, they deprived themselves of the one source that could have served to prevent gross misinterpretations. As a result, the widespread destruction at the end of Early Bronze with its clear-cut change of culture is without identification that is more than guess~work, while that at the end of Late Bronze with no change of culture is erroneously correlat- 28 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ed with the conquest by the Israelites where such a change of.culture should be apparent. Faced with these many difficulties as sources of potential error in attempts to correlate archaeological observations with the incidents of Scripture, the real question to be answered is not, How could it be possible for a total scholarship to make errors of the magnitude called for by the proposed revision? The question is rather, What chance was there for avoiding making errors of this magnitude? As an inevitable result of the existing situation, Biblical Archaeology,. which might have been a most valuable science, has allowed itself to deteriorate to the level of Scientism whose deductions have little significance beyond leaving a record of beliefs for the perusal of subsequent generations. The chances of making correct deductions on the basis of the accepted starting premises are virtually zero for the period prior to the 9th century B.C., with little better chance for the era of the next four centuries. In the remaining chapters of this volume, additional evidence will be presented in support of this contention. Notes and References (1) Vol. I, Chap. Vll, Sect. 11. (2) See Chaps. IX-XIV. (3) Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Sect. VI. (4) Chap. XVll, Sects. XIV-XVI. (5) Reference is to the synchronism based on the founding of Samaria. See Chai?· XII. (6) B-TT, pp. 18ff.; K-G, pp. 16ff. (7) See bibliography of F-ABH, p. 360. (7a) Websters New International Dictionary. This, however, is not the only or even the most commonly understood definition of the term. (8) B-AB, p. 28. K-BH, pp. 69ff.; U-AOT, p. 129; P-EOT, pp. 60ff. (9) Cited in B-AB, p. 28. (10) K-BH, p. 66. (11) Since they are said to be sand dwellers. (12) K-BH, p. 55; B-AB, p. 123; see ibid., pp. 334-5 for a translation of this tale. (13) K-BH, p. 59. (l3a) See ref. 13; Deut. 8:8. (14) K-BH, p. 59£. (15) Ibid., p. 89. (16) Gen. 46:34. (17) Gen. 47:17; the original Hebrew word here translated flocks is the same as that in Gen. 46:32 (Y-AC). (18) Gen. 46:34; 47:6. (19) Gen. 41:43; K-BH, p. 86. (20) KAHL, p. 181. (21) BASOR, No. 77, p. 31. (2la) F-LAP, p. 17. (2lb) BASOR, No. 77, p. 31. (22) Plate 11. (23) A-AP, p. 205. (24) Ibid., p. 86. (25) U-AOT, p. 144, citing W-RFMK. (26) Vol. I, Chap. XIV. (27) See ref. 7. (28) See ref, 3. (29) J-AA, Bk. I, par. 15. (30) 11 Chron. 14:9. (31) 11 Kings 17:4. For identities of Zerah and So, see Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Sect. VII; Chap. XVII, Sect. XII. (32) See SDABC on I Chron. 5:26 for explanation of the apparent distinction between Tiglathpileser and Pul. (33) See Ref. 32. (34) B-BA, pp. 320 ff.; P-EOT, pp. 49-52; R-HBA, Vol. II, pp. 83, 84. (34a) See Chap. XVII on the placement of Hammurabi. (35) Basor, No. 77, p. 25; No. 79, p. 36; No. 99, p. 10; No. 126, p. 20; No. 146, p. 20. See also F-ABH, p. 3$, note 54; F-LAP, p. 57, note 5. (36) F-ABH. p. 57, note 20; B-AB, p. 320. (37) Gen. 41:45, 50. (38) B-AB, p. 34. (39) Ibid. (40) Vol. I, Table V. (41) Ibid., Chap. XVII, Sect. XIII. (42) L-ARAB, Vol. II, p. 442. (43) Ibid., Vol. I, par. 58. (44) B-AB, pp. 204, 207; F-LAP, pp. 69. 70; F-ABH, pp. 136, 137; U-AOT, pp. 125, 145; K-AHL, pp. 193, 206-7, 213. (45) Vol. !, Chap. IV, Sect. Ill. (46) K-AHL, p. 32. (47) E-LDE, p. 16: M-SEC,f.. 380; Vol. I, Chap. XIV, Sect. IX; this volume, Chap. V, Sects. IX. XV. (48) See quot. of re. 50. (49) See Chaps. III, IV. (50) W-DP, pp. 78, 79. (51) See quot. of ref. 46. CHAPTER III LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING The carbon-14 method of dating was introduced by Dr. Willard Libby in 1948. The astute mind of this investigator recognized the possibility that the radioactive carbon to be found in materials which were part of once living organisms might be used to provide an approximate measure of elapsed time between the death of the organism and the present. The basis for such determinations is to be found in the origin and peculiar behaviour of Carbon-14 particles (atoms) as distinguished from normal carbon atoms which are given the label Carbon-12. For convenience we designate these two forms of carbon as C-14 and C-12 respectively. I. Origin of C-14 Atoms It is now common knowledge that this earth is being continuously bombarded from every direction in space by tiny positively charged particles known as cosmic rays. Some of these particles are residues of hydrogen atoms which have lost a negative charge (electron) to form units which have been designated protons. Others are residues of helium atoms which have lost two electrons. These charged particles have their origin in the explosive phenomena which occur in the surface of the sun and the numerous stars of the cosmic universe. When such explosions occur, many such particles are ejected beyond the attractive force of the parent star and begin their long journey through space until they come within the attractive force of another star or one of its satellites. Many of these charged particles come to us from outer space after long journeys from distant stars, though the more important source, as far as this earth is concerned, is from our sun. When one of the helium residues from outer space collides with a nitrogen atom of our atmosphere, the atom may explode, yielding secondary cosmic rays designated as neutrons. Collision of one of these neutrons with another atom of nitrogen in the atmosphere may result in changes in the nucleus of the atom, converting it to a new atom having the properties of carbon atoms. These newly-formed carbon atoms differ from ordinary carbon atoms in two 30 THE EXODUS PROBLEM major respects. They have weights like nitrogen atoms and are one-sixth heavier than ordinary carbon atoms. Since the relative weight of ordinary carbon atoms is 12, these newlyformed carbon atoms have a corresponding weight of 14. Hence the term C-14. These C-14 atoms also differ from normal C-12 atoms in that they are radioactive. By this is meant that the atoms disintegrate spontaneously at a rate which is peculiar and unique to C-14 atoms. In this process of disintegrative decay, C-14 atoms revert to their original identity as nitrogen atoms and at the same time release an electron. The emission of this electron is detectable by the use of proper instruments. It is the measurement of the rate of emission of these elctrons that forms the basis for the C-14 method of dating. Some C-14 atoms are very short-lived and disintegrate almost as soon as formed. Others have varying lives, some retaining their identity for hundreds and even thousands of years before disintegration occurs. The factor that determines the life-span of individual C-14 atoms is .not known, and hence it is not possible to predict whether a given atom will exist for a fraction of a· second or for a period measured in days, years, or millenniums. It is clear, however, that in dealing with large rnnnbers· of atoms in a statistical manner, one-half of these will decay in a period of about 5,600 years. Half ·of those remaining will disintegrate in the next 5,600 years, etc. This period of 5,600 years is called the half-life of C-14 atoms. II. Rate of C-14 Disintegration as a Measure of Age When C-14 atoms are formed in the atmosphere, they rapidly unite chemically with oxygen to become part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide of the air. These radioactive particles of carbon dioxide diffuse through the atmosphere, and many are eventually utilized by plants in the process of photosynthesis along with ordinary carbon dioxide. Some of these plants will be eaten by animals, and the radioactive particles are thus incorporated into animal tissues. When death occurs, either to the plant or to the animal, the inter~hange of C-14 atoms with the surrounding non-living world is presumed to cease, 1 and from this point on, the radioactive decay proceeds according to the time scale previously mentioned. It is then theoretically possible to calcu- LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DA TING 31 late the elapsed time since the organism died by means of the half-life figure and the rate at which the remaining C-14 atoms ar~ disintegrating at the present time. The measurement of the present rate of decay is accomplished by means of an instrument known- as a nuclear radiation counter. With proper associated electronic equipment, the number of such disintegrations occurring over any desired period of time may be automatically counted and recorded. In order to use this p·heonomenon as a basis for dating any person or event of the past, it is first necessary to have a sample of once living material which -can unquestibnably be correlated in time with the person or -event whose. age is to be determined. Wood or charcoal from· an ancient structure is. a common starting material. The time measurement in this case represents the time the tree was cut down to the present and not the time from its incorporation into some structure or ofits burning. However, since the method is commonly not more accurate than· within about a century, this possible difference is often disregarded. · · Ill. Inherent Limitations of the C-14 Dating Method In considering the limitations of the use of the C-14 dating method, distinction should be made between errors inherent in the method and for which the limits of error may be defined, at least in an. approximate manner, and errors which are due to factors as yet not sufficiently well understood to permit evaluation of the limits of error. Perhaps the most significant source of error of the first type is the limitation of the radiation counter efficiency. This shortcoming can be ameliorated to a degree by extending the normal measurement time (24-48 hours) to a much longer period, such as a month or more, or by taking an average of several determinations on the same sample. The practicability of these alternates is, however, limited by the necessary tying up of expensive equipment for longer periods of time and by the cost of skilled help. In recognition of this limitation, the calculated ages from the determination are accompanied in the reports by an expression defining the probable limits of error. For example, an age may be given as X years + Y years with a probability factor of 2 out of 3. This means that the chances are 2 out of 3 that the calculated age X does not deviate from the 32 THE EXODUS PROBLEM true age by more than Y years. To increase the probability factor to near certainty, the value of Y must be correspondingly increased. However, unless otherwise indicated, these stated ages have not allowed for any of the several other possible sources of error, which as yet have not been adequately evaluated. Deviations in results from determinations made on different portions of the same sample may exceed the value of Y, indicating ·the existence of factors not yet understood or evaluated and which have not been taken into account in the reported results. One such factor is the degree of uncertainty in the figure used for the half-life of C-14. While values have been·reported2 froin 7200 to 4700 years, the internationally accepted range falls between 5598 and 5538 years. However, more recently reported values continue to· appear indicating a necessary recognition of a larger range of possibility. A value 5730+ 40 years appears to have considerable support. 3 For datesin the era 2000 B.C., the additional correction from .. this factor would be 160 years. The fundamental .difficulty. in accepting without qualification the calculated.ages from C-14 measurements is the fact that there still remain possible sources of error that fall in the unknown and unevaluated categories. While the following ·comments were· made :several years.ago,. their pertinence to the problem ·remains.~ In order that a technique or discipline may be useful in scientific work, its limits must be known and understood, but the limits of usefulness of the radiocarbon age determinations are not yet known or understood. No one seriously proposes that all the determined dates are without error, but we do riot know how many of them are in error - 25 %? 50 %? 75 %? And we do not know which dates are in error, or by what amounts, or why? IV. Attempts at Evaluating the Validity of the Met hod Since there are a number of factors involved in the use of the method that cannot be evaluated at the present time, and since some of the assumptions on which the validity of the method are based have not been established beyond question, it is required of such a newly proposed method that its validity be checked prior to an unqualified acceptance of the results obtained by it. This would require a comparison of known ages of samples with the results ob- LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING 33 tained from C-14 measurements on the same samples. Such samples should be well distributed over the entire era for which the method is to be used. When the method was first devised, it was believed that such samples of known age were readily available for such a check back as far as 30,000 years. It was somewhat of a shock to discoyer that this was not the case:5 Available samples of usable material from antiquity whose dates were then regarded as established were rare indeed. In the mean time, even those few thought to be thus established with close approximation must now be returned to the "uncertain" category. The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years. We had thought initially that we would be able to get samples all along the curve back to 30,000 years, put the points in, and then our work would be finished. You read books and find statements that such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known; in fact, it is at about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last historical date of any real certainty has been established. Unfortunately, it is now apparent that even this date for the beginnings of the historical era is not at all certain. The commonly accepted dates (3300-3000 B. C.) were obtained by reduction of the previously suggested dates in the 6th and 7th millenniums B.C., under the pressure of results from C-14 dating on samples from the era of Dynasty I. This reduction was feasible by revising the previous estimations on rates of change of culture and progress, 6 and hence is not a date that has any significance in the direction of confirming the C-14 method. Furthermore, evidence has been presented by Scharff, and is being accepted by an increasing number of scholars, that the date for the unification of Egypt under Mena should be reduced to c. 2800 B. C. As has been shown in the discussions of this work, a far more consistent chronology results when this date is moved forward by still another 600 years. Since the date for the beginning of the first dynasty in Egypt cannot be logically regarded as even approaching certainty, neither can any of the later dates be so regarded until one reaches the period where unqualified confirmation is at hand. While various archaeologists have expressed a recognition of the insecure basis on which these early dates rest, and on 34 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the insecure nature of the supposed confirmation by C-14 dating, these dates continue to be used as unqualified evidence in support of current views on ancient chronology. Dr. Libby's recent revision of his earlier work includes a chapter on the significance of radiocarbon dates. 7 The comments in this chapter by Frederick Johnson are based on a report on the Program to Aid in Development of the Method of Dating. Since the program was designed to aid in the development of the method, we may safely assume that the comments on the difficulties and insecurity of the method will not be overemphasized. It is thus of considerable interest and significance to note that Dr. Johnson recognized clearly the msecurity of the ancient dates proposed by archaeologists and historians based on estimated rates of change of culture and progress. He further recognized the nonusability of such dates as a basis for confirming the reliability of the C-14 dating results, except as these have been confirmed by an independent method. The tree-ring dating method was suggested as such a reliable and independent method. From this chapter by Dr. Johnson, we quote: 8 . . . Historical data, that is, measurements of time based upon a calendrical system and dependable written ethnohistoric record, appear to be directly comparable with the results of the radiocarbon method as expressed in number of years before the present. In other words, dates in both systems are referable to a single method of counting time. This Is Mt true of geological and archaeological measurements, except in relatioely rare instances. Measurements of time in these fields are inferred from pr0cesses, the rates of change or progress of which are not constan~ and which are, as yet, quite unpredictable. There is no known stan~t.d rate for any one of these processes, and measurements of time 'for one process are invariably relatioe to rates of progress in other processes. It should be quite clear that inferred or relatioe dates of this lcind and chrOMlogical frameworks made up of them are not standards of sufficient pr~cision for judging in detail the oalidity of the radiocarbon. It is a matter of historical record that archaeological sequences which have not been controlled by some method of counting time, such as tree-ring dating, have been assigned longer or shorter periods of time as various opinions waxed and waned in popularity, or as new data were presented. Similarly, in geology several· different chronologies for the Pleistocene are variously based and have reputable proponents who are fully cognizant of both the strength and weakness of their position. In oiew of this it is oboious that conclusions regarding the validity or error in a single date or a sequence of radiocarbon dates must be dracvn with em-eme care. LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING 35 . . . The second kind. of problem in archaeology is more frequently concerned with later cultural material found in situations having physical characteristics which are almost wholly due to the fact of human occupation. In such locations stratification is present, but it is frequently impossible to identify it. Consequently, archaeologists augment scarce, definite stratigraphic data with inferences from internal evidence, such as the evolution of .~tyles of pottery, changes in the form of tools, the shape of houses, etc. The resulting chronological framework is of course very insecure and is recognized as such by any reputable archaeologist. The use of such must strain the credulity of investigators in allied fields, especially those in possession of more precise data. [Emphasis ours.] While Dr. Johnson proposes the tree-ring dating method as a secure and independent means of confirming dates (or a dating method), recent finds indicate that not even this method can be considered as yielding data usable for the establishment of dates. It is now recognized that under proper conditions a tree may elaborate more than a single ring in a year, three or four rings in a year not being uncommon. Trees growing on a slope where the water runs off rapidly to give a repetition of wet and dry periods may show a multiplicity of rings in a single year; even two sides of the same tree may reveal different numbers of rings. 9 Extended investigations have been conducted in the direction of substantiating the premises on which the C-14 dating method rests. Certainly great strides have been made in refining the experimental method. The arguments presented by Dr. Johnson are convincing to the end that the inferred dates of archaeologists cannot be used as evidence that the data from C-14 measurements are other than valid. But by the same token, neither can these dates be used to confirm the method. Whatever confirmation of the method may be provided by data from materials of more recent date (within the stated limits of probable error), the method remains unconfirmed by the data provided by either archaeology or geology. As for the degree of confirmation provided by the deductive methods, 10 it is here contended that there still remain unevaluated factors that may require gross corrections in the interpretation of C-14 data. On this basis, it is further contended that there are no data, either from the inferred dates of archaeologists or from the C-14 dating method that provide any valid basis for challenging .the altered chronological structure proposed in this 36 THE EXODUS PROBLEM work. This altered structure should be evaluated on its own merits as revealed by its internal consistency and by the ·large number of problems in the conventional views that are provided solutions by it. V. The Effects of Decrease in the Earth's Magnetic Field on the Interpretation of C-14 Data The earth is a huge magnet with its poles not distantly located from the poles of the axis of rotation. Being a magnet, there· exists a magnetic field about the earth just as for the artificial magnet, and the laws describing the behaviour of a small magnet apply on a larger scale to the earth. A magnet will deflect the movement of a charged body entering into its field of activity. This is readily demonstrated by fastening a charged pith ball on a thread and bringing the suspended ball into the magnetic field. The cosmic rays responsible for C-14 formation are charged particles in rapid motion. When they approach the earth's magnetic field, they are similarly deflected from their previous direction of motion. As a result, many of these particles that were moving toward the earth will be deflected so that they never enter the earth's atmosphere. The fraction thus sufficiently deflected depends on the strength of the earth's magnetic field. Hence any change in the magnitude of this factor over the period of usage of the C-14 dating method will yield C-14 age determinations different from the results to be obtained if this factor is taken into consideration. i0a If such a change in the magnitude of the magnetic field were in the direction of an increase, a failure to consider this factor will yield age values that are too low; if the change has been in the direction of a decrease, then calculations as currently done will yield exaggerated ages. It is now known that the strength of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing over the past centuries. The decrease observed for the period of the last 100 years amounts to about five per cent; 11 the decrease from Roman times was found to amount variably from 35-65 per cent. 12 The method of determination is relatively simple. Some clays of LIMIT ATIO NS OF CARBON-14 DATING 37 which ancient bricks were made contain magnetizable particles. If the bricks were made by heating to the proper temperature, followed by cooling, these particles would align themselves along the lines of magnetic force of the earth and form a magnet whose strength is related to that of the strength of the earth's magnetic field at that specific point. If such bricks are reheated today, the magnetism is lost, but on cooling the magnetizable particles again realign themselves in the direction of the lines of magnetic force to form a new magnet whose strength is now related to that of the present strength of the earth's field. A comparison of the two results will indicate any change in the strength of the magnetic field over the interim between the two measurements. Calculations have been made as to the extent of the necessary correction in ages determined by the C-14 method which have not taken this factor into consideration. Such calculations indicate a needed correction of some -250 years on reported ages for materials from the time of Christ. t 3 For materials from the era 1000 B. C., the correction increases to -500 years and for the era 2000 B.C., the correction amounts to a full millennium'. Such a correction, if additive to the inherent error in the method, can be very significant. Discrepancies on materials of known age for the Christian era may be explainable in part on the basis of failing to take this factor into consideration. On the other hand, if the inherent error is compensatory to the error due to the change in the earth's magnetic field, the age calculation for the Christian era may well approach a correct value, thus explaining the apparent agreement with known ages by many analyses. The difficulty in assigning values to samples of unknown age is that it is not possible to tell whether the two sources of error are additive or compensatory. When one adds to this uncertainty the possible error due to uncertainty on the length of the half-life period for C-14, it is not difficult to envision total errors on m:;iterial from the early dynastic period amounting to well over a millennium, with little room left indeed for explicit confidence in the ages provided for materials from the preChristian era except as these may, by compensation of errors, be shown by independent data to approach a correct age. 38 THE EXODUS PROBLEM VI. Changes in the Atmospheric Content of Carbon Dioxide as a Factor in Interpreting C-14 Data A fundamental assumption on which the C-14 method of dating rests is that the specific activity of C-14 (the number of disintegrations per minute per gram of pure carbon) 14 has not changed significantly over the period of the last 30,000 years or so. The specific activity of C-14 could be considered as having changed if (l) the rate of C-14 formation had changed, (2) if the rate of C-14 disintegration had changed (i.e., if the half life had varied), or (3) if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere had changed. While the rate of influx of cosmic rays does fluxuate with solar conditions, it may be supposed that the periodic explosions on the surface of the sun have not significantly affected the average rate of C-14 formation, 15 and the assumption that the rate of disintegration pf C-14 has not changed may be accepted as at least a tentative conclusion. The possibility of changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is quite another problem. If samples had been available over the period to which the C-14 dating method has been applied and it had been found from analysis of such samples that known ages agreed with the ages calculated from the experimental data, it would then have been reasonable to conclude that this factor had not been disturbed in a manner or degree that would warrant questioning the validity of the method. In the absence of such samples of known age as a check, Dr. Libby and associates recognized the necessity of corroborating this assumption of . constancy by other means. Direct experimental evidence was, of course, not attainable. Hence extensive efforts have been made to confirm this fundamental assumption by deduction methods. 16 To arrive at any sort of conclusion, it was necessary to attempt evaluations of the numerous factors that could result in such a change in the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere. Such factors include the rate of use of carbon dioxide by total plant life, the rate of formation ·by total animal life, the rate of production by combustion of organic · materials both by controlled and uncontrolled processes, the rates of formation and decomposition of carbonate minerals, and the problem of equilibrium between atmospheric and LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING 39 sea-water carbonate. On the basis of calculations based on deductions relative to these various factors, it was concluded that this factor had not changed significantly during historic times though possible changes in the prehistoric period were considered as not eliminated. 17 . . .. Considering the matter empirically, we are apparently justified in saying that, whatever the reasons, the s,>ecific activity of living matter has not changed significantly in historic times, and the problem resolves itself into consideration of possible variations restricted to the prehistoric period encompassed by the radiocarbon dating method. There are convincing evidences indicating that the. carbon dioxide content of the atm9sphere has not been constant through the past ages. is The larger question, as recognized in the above quotation, is whether this situation has existed at any time during the historic period to which the· C-14 dating method has been applied or whether it belongs in its entirety to an earlier period of this earth's existence. VII. Some Considerations Regarding the Carbon Dioxide Shift Based on Scripture It is assumed that the author of the above quotation is using the terms "historic" and "prehistoric periods" as essentially equivalent to the terms "dynastic" and "predynastic periods." If this is what is meant, then we are inclined to agree that any major changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide belong primarily to the prehistoric era; however, we believe that the change occurred at no long period of time prior to the beginning of the dynastic period and that its effects may well have continued into the dynastic period in. a continually decreasing degree. These concepts rise from deductions from Scripture taken as it reads and from evidences of other extensive changes currently assigned to the late geological ages. Deductions made on the basis of the philosophy of uniformitarianism, which philosophy is in direct antipathy to Scdpture, tacitly assume that this is the only approach to the solution of scientific problems meriting consideration. On this basis, no room is left for questioning the conclusion that recognizes a period supposedly measured in a multiplicity of millenniums b~tween the beginning of the socalled Mesolithic and the dynastic period, with another half million years for the Palaeolithic. In terms of the comments 40 THE EXODUS PROBLEM by Dr. Johnson (quot. 8), it is here held that these figures for the duration of the period in question represent an extreme example of deduction on the basis of inferred rates of change of culture and progress. It is incredible to suppose that it required a multiplicity of millenniums for man to encompass the observed progress over this period. If man had the know-how to make a scythe and an arrowhead (for food "gathering"), he was also intelligent enough to make rapid progress into a program of food "raising." The intelligence was there; at most it was only a matter of climate that delayed progress. The assumption that the ice age continued for a period of half a million years or so is another example of gross error in estimating rate of ·change. Rate of change here depends on conditions, and without a knowledge of those conditions, estimates are mere guesses based on one's starting philosophy. Dr. Johnson continued: 19 ... In geology, some but by no means all criticisms of the radiocarbon dates are based upon inferences concerning the behaviour of the presently nonexistent ice sheet. There is no way of proving or disproving assumptions concerning the speed of advance or retreat of the ice, the degree of precision of a varve record and its correlation with the calendar, or the significance of the modification in the vegetation. Has any one who holds to the view that such long periods were required for minor degrees of cultural progress ever tried to make an arrowhead out of flint, even given all the advantage of modern hand tools? It is absurd to presume that once the art of making an arrowhead was known, that · it took a multiplicity of centuries to learn the art of food production, or to learn how to make some slight change in the style or decoration of a pot. . Such changes could have occurred over night. The factors that determined the rate of progress from the beginnings of the so-called Mesolithic to the historic period as deduced from Scripture are to be quite differently identified than in terms of a developing intelligence at an imperceptibly slow rate. As with the faulty estimation of rate of change of prog- · ress culturally, so also the rate of change of physical conditions has been grossly underestimated as a result of failure to recognize a world-wide catastrophe separating the Paleolithic from the Mesolithic. Recognition of the factual nature of the Biblical account of the Noachian flood provides an LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING 41 explanation for a relatively rapid change in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. The relatively sudden appearance of vast volumes of water on the surface of the earth that were not in previous equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide would represent an immense factor in producing a large decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide in a relatively short period. of time. 20 So also a drop of even a few degrees in the average temperature of this water would be a further large factor in the same direction. 21 At the same time, an explanation is provided for the failure to discover any cultural connection between Paleolithic man and Mesolithic cultures. 22 By this thesis, most evidences of Paleolithic life should be associated with the destruction at the time of the Genesis flood. These deductions from Scripture provide solutions to numerous problems. Some of these are discussed in another chapter of this work, 23 where the problem of the rapid formation of early mound sites is considered. We are interested here in the solutions provided to problems relative to the C-.14 dating method. In the early efforts to. belittle the nature of the incident of the_· Noachian flood; the Higher Criticism has read into the. flood story that which.is not.there,_and has disregarded the statements that are there. Much has been made of the impossibility of enough rain falling to cover the entire earth with water above the highest mountains. This deduction; we grant. But Scripture does not say that all the waters of the Flood resulted from falling rain. It states that the "fountains of the great deep were broken up," 2• and we may take this to mean that· prior to the Flood, most of the flood waters existed as subterranean water. Furthermore, there is no basis for the supposition that the antediluvian geography was characterized by mountains with heights like those that now exist. 20 Evidently these subterranean waters circulated through a vast system of caverns of which those at Carlsbad may be extant remnants, others having collapsed by the added pressure of the new waters on the surface. That some different system for providing moisture to vegetation was present in the antediluvian world is confirmed by the statement of Scripture that there was no rain during this period as we now know rain. 26 42 THE EXODUS PROBLEM There is no reason for supposing that this subterranean water supply was previously in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide, and without carbon dioxide in the water, there would be no significant amount of carbonate in the water since calcium carbonate (as the main source) is virtually insoluble in water. When these waters poured forth onto the surface of the earth as flood waters, an immediate process of equilibration with atmospheric carbon dioxide began and with the dissolving of carbon dioxide, carbonate minerals would attain a .degree of solubility, these processes continuing until a hew equilibrium had been established. While the initial phase of these changes may well have oc- · curred during the actual period of the Flood, equilibrium may well have required a matter of several centuries, possibly extending into the historic period. By this. premise, the errors in dates provided by C-14 .data will be maximum for · the era between the Flood and historic period.. Since dates based on assumed rates of change can be in gross error, it is not outside logical reasoning to assume a far shorter predynastic period than that assumed by popular view~. VIII. On the Expected Effects on Climate from a Higher · Atmospheric Content of Carbon Dioxide That even minor changes in the carbon dioxide of the at. mosphere have a detectable effect on climate has long been recognized. The principle was first stated in 1861 by the British Physicist John Tyndall and has been succinctly stated thus: 27 ... He [Tyndall] attributed the climatic temperature-changes to variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the theory, carbon dioxide molecules in the air absorb infrared radiation. The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun's energy to the earth. But the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the-invisible infrared region of the spectrum. This radiation is most intense at wavelengths very close to the principal absorption band (13-17 microns) of the carbon dioxide spectrum.... Because the carbon dioxide blanket prevents its [infrared radiation] escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the atmosphere .... Thus throughout most of the atmosphere carbon dioxide is the main factor determining changes in the radiation flux. This principle of a "green-house" effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been of primary interest to inves- LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING 43 tigators from the standpoint of minor changes that might result from increased commercialism and increased destruction of forests. Interest here is extended to the evidence pointing to a once notably warmer climate on the earth than now. From the same treatise as that providing the quotation above, we read further. 28 The present capacity of plants to consume carbon dioxide in photosynthesis gives us an interesting clue to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in bygone ages. Plants are almost perfectly adapted to the spectral range and intensity of the light they receive, yet they grow far more rapidly and luxuriantly in an atmosphere that contains five to 10 times the present carbon dioxide concentration; in fact, florists sometimes release tankfuls of carbon dioxide in green-houses to promote plant growth. The present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere must therefore be unusually low. These facts were interpreted to tell us that the earth's climate was warmer during most of geologic time and contained a much higher percentage of carbon dioxide. This conclusion is reasonable, except for the assumptions relative to the interpretation of the · past history of the world in terms of the so-called geologic ages. The same facts may be interpreted in terms of the catastrophe theory which recognizes the flood_ of Noah as the upsettirig and sudden factor · to be dealt with. By this theory, this much higher concentration of carbon dioxide was the natural condition that existed from pole to pole in the antediluvian world. If we grant that this world had far less by way of surface water than now, and that the arrangement was such as to provide water and air currents from the tropical regions into the polar regions to yield a near-equivalent temperature in all regions, we have the necessary conditions to provide such a climate. But if this was true, then this situation should be revealed archaeologically or geologically by the evidence of tropical or subtropical plant life in the polar regions. IX. The Problem of a Once Tropical Climate in the Polar Regions The discovery of fossils of tropical plants in the polar regions has long been a matter of puzzlement for which popular views have not provided any satisfactory explanation. One theory assumes that the land and water masses of the earth are slowly floating about on a liquid or semiliquid 44 THE EXODUS PROBLEM core, and that areas now at. the equator were once at the poles and vice versa. 29 Another theory would assume that the axis of the earth's rotation is now differently aligned relative to the sun than was true at some former age. Both these theories have been thoroughly examined by astronomers and physicists, who find such explanations incredible. Though the theory of drifting continents has been resurrected of late, the purpose has been to support the theory that the land masses of the Americas were at one time united with the land masses of Europe and Africa. Such a theory; if provable (which it is not) would have no bearing on the problem of climate at the poles. The astronomer Hoyle has commented on these theories thus: 30 How then could this [the warm climate at the poles] have happened? Not I think through the continents floating around on the surface of the Earth, being sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. How a continent composed of rock some 35 kilometers thick could contrive to move about is something that has never been explained, and until some plausible reason is offered in its support, we need scarcely take the notion of "drifting continents" at all seriously. Nor can we accept the idea that the Earth's axis of rot€ltion, the axis that determines the climatic zones, was differently aligned in the past than it is now.... The tilt of the axis of rotation cannot have altered by any appreciable margin since the time of formation of the Earth. The reason why the concept of floating continents as an explanation of the tropical climate at the poles is totally out of the question is the fact that the equatorial diameter of the .earth is 27 miles greater than the polar diameter. For any shift between the polar and equatorial regions to occur, this entire bulge of 13.5 miles in thickness around the earth must somehow have been transferred from what are now the polar regions to what is now the equatorial region. This concept hardly fits into the frame of uniformitarianism. Hoyle preferred the alternate explanation that the earth may have turned relative to its axis of rotation much as a lump of soft butter would shift relative to its axis on a rotating skewer. Hoyle recognized, however, the this theory still leaves unexplained how such a reorientation might happen to an earth that is anything but soft. How much more credible is the concept that this situation of a tropical climate in the polar regions was the direct result of a notably higher concentration of carbon dioxide LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING 45 in the atmosphere, probably associated with a more efficient system of water and air currents to shift much of the equatorial heat into the polar regions to make possible a near-equitable climate over the entire earth! While there may well have been seasonal changes in the polar regions, these may well have been no greater than in the pleasantly temperate regions at the present time. X. Other Severe Changes to Be Associated with the Flood By the thesis outlined above, the geological evidences of other severe changes now placed at the juncture of the Paleolithic with the Mesolithic also belong to the Flood era. These evidences are provided a more satisfactory position following the catastrophe of the Flood than is possible within the framework of uniformitariansim. A very significant fact to be associated with the· shift in the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is the observation forcing the conclusion that mountain formation must be delayed to the very end of the geological ages. Reference is to the observation that geologic strata containing fossils of the very youngest order have been found on the tops of mountains. This observation is even more significant in the light of the fact that geologists would prefer to recognize mountain formation as a gradual process, occurring throughout much of the period of the geologic ages. The placement of this phenomenon very late in geologic time indicates that changes of cataclysmic magnitude were involved. The paucity of comment on this point in the geologic discussions suggests that it is not a topic for welcomed discussion. By the alternate approach, much of the phenomena of mountain formation resulted from erosion during the period of subsidence of the Flood waters, and at the same time an explanation of the evidences of violent water action is provided. Such rapid erosion could be expected to have occurred as the water flowed into the depressions resulting from the collapse of vast areas that previously held subterranean water. Thus the extremely broken surface of the ocean bottoms, as has been recently observed, iS explained. However, mountain formation cannot be explained solely on the basis of erosion. The observed tilting of strata over large areas indicates that this process involved enormous fracturing of the earth's surface, accom- 46 THE EXODUS PROBLEM panied by widespread volcanic action. The failure to find any cultural connection between Paleolithic man and Mesolithic man provides further evidence that the two were separated by a world-wide catastrophe. The shift in atmospheric carbon dioxide to the present composition was not sudden; but neither did it occur gradually over a period of many millenniums. It may have taken several centuries for a new equilibirum between water and atmospheric content of carbon dioxide to be established. During the late stages of this period of change, the seasonal changes could be expected to become more and more severe. It is quite possible that in the border-line areas between those of permanent ice and those of more temperate regions, there were periodic releases from the more severe climatic conditions. The recurrent "ice ages" should be thus interpreted. These changes, as pointed out by Johnson, 31 are changes that cannot be converted to a calendrical system. It would appear that one factor in the climatic change following the Flood was a much heavier rainfall than is now known on the earth. '32 The C-14 data on coral deposits provide a further confirmation of the general picture. Coral represents the skeletal · remains of ocean creatures that lived a sedentary life in waters suitable to their growth, thus forming continuous deposits of skeletal remains. Coral is largely made up of calcium carbonate, and since this material was once living, it is susceptible to C-14 analysis. As such determinations are made on samples starting with the more recent deposits and proceding to the older formations, the assigned ages retreat to values of c. 10,000 years, at which point the values remain essentially constant (within the sensitivity of the method of anlysis) for all but the very oldest samples, which then again are remnants of the antediluvian world. The value c. 10,000 provides a clue to the approximate error in ages by C-14 data from materials that died at the time of the flood. Notes and References ( l) This is one of the fundamental assumptions of the C-14 dating method which has been questioned as to its validity (BH-SA, p. 47). (2) L-RD, p. 35. (3) Ibid., p. x. The difference amounts to about 4 !)er cent. (4) Cited in WM-GF, p. 372. (5) See ref. 4. (6) See quot. of ref. 8. (7) Chap. V. (8) Ibid., pp. 143, 147. (9) For further data on this critical point, see articles by Glueck and associates (Bot. Rev., Vol. 7, pp. 649-713; Vol. 21, pp. 245-365; Endeavor, Vol. 22. pp. 9-13. (10) Details for this series of deductions are given in L-RD, Chap. II; see also LIMITATIONS OF CARBON-14 DATING 47 \'l'illis in B!!-SA. Chap. II. ( 10a) Ubb; leave' a note of rf'cognition of this factor in th<• addenda ( L-RD. p. ix), but there is no indication that any need for correction of dates is r~cog­ nizcd ti 11 Sci . .-\mer., Vol. 198. p. 47. (12) Ibid., Vol. 196. p. 64. (13) Nature, Vol. 176, p. 227. \ l-l) L-RD. p. 10 (graph). This is another of the more controversial assumptions of the C-14 datini< method BH-SA, p. 47). (15) L-RD. p. II. (16) Ibid., Chap. II; BH-SA, Chap. II. !17) L-RD, p. 33. (18) Sci. Amer., July 1959, pp. 41-47; Amer. Sci., Vol. 44, pp. 320-2!). (19) L-RD, p. 148. (20) Since water dissolves many times as much as the atmospheric concentra-tion; see ref. 18. (21 i As pointed out by Pearl (M.A. Thesis). (22) K-AHL, p. 36. (23) See Chap. \'Ill of this volume. (24) Gen. 7: 11. •. (25) By popular views, mountain formation belongs very late in the geolo~ical ages. The phenomenon is commonly explained on the basis of water erosion, which may be very true in many cases. However, the evidence of violent disturbance in the strata by extreme tilting makes it incredible to regard this as the only factor involved. The finding of fossils, belonging'to the very young .geological ages, on the''tops of mountains makes it imperative to place this phenomenon this late. The subsidence of the Flood waters and the expected geologic disturbances from the redistribution of pressure provide a satisfactory explanation of these observations. (26) Gen. 2:6. (27) See ref. 18. (28) Ibid. (29) H-FA, p. 12.. (30) Ibid., pp. 12, 13. (31) See quot. of ref. 8. (32) See ref. 22. CHAPTER IV LIMITATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMICAL DATING METHODS The problems involved in setting up a credible chronology of the ancient world are immense. This fact is indicated by the failure of any of the twenty or more outstanding historians of the last half-century to propose a chronology which would be generally acceptable to his associates. 1 At times, the discrepancies in the opinions of these various authorities are so marked as to make one question the possibility that a credible chronology of the ancient world will ever be produced. In any case, the problem is sufficiently complex to make desirable the use of any and all tools which can be devised to assist in arriving at results as close as possible to truth. But in so doing, it must always be kept in mind that the use of tools which are not valid can well result in conclusions which only serve to obscure the truth. It must not be forgotten that the task of historians is not to create history. The events of history have occurred, and there is nothing that can be done to change the time relationships between these events by· a single minute. The task is rather that of unraveling the confused records which have come down to us, and when this task has been done correctly, it is axiomatic that it should not be necessary to apologize for inconsistencies and anomalies at every turn of events. To be sure, allowance must be made for the often unreliable records left us by the ancients, who failed to distinguish between facts and fiction or between truth and their own opinions. To be sure, our lack of complete information may leave events in one area which cannot be unquestionably related to contemporary events in adjoining areas. But it may be expected that insofar as information ls- available, a correct chronology of the ancient world will show a discernable harmony at every point where it is possible .to check and ~ill certainly be free of major synchronistic failures. I. Dating Historical Events from Eclipse Data One of the tools which has commonly been employed to assist in arriving at the traditional structure of ancient chro.- LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 49 nology is the dating of events by means of coincident astronomical phenomena. While most of us are not sufficiently versed in the science of astronomy to understand how the calculations are made, we accept the predictions of astronomers when we are told that on such a date and at such an exact time of day, an eclipse will b~gin which will be observed as total in a certain specified area. So exact are these calculations that large sums of money and much effort are expended in locating suitable optical equipment at the most desirable point for observation of the phenomenon, and this is done with complete confidence that only the weather can interfere with the observations as planned. This is possible because of the unerring motion of the heavenly bodies and the validity of the methods of calculating the relative motions. Just as future eclipses can be predicted for a given time and for a given location, so also it is possible to calculate backwards and determine the exact time and location of eclipses of the past. Hence, if a record of antiquity associates an eclipse with some specific historical event or with some specific year of a king's reign, it is then theoretically possible to date that event in terms of the present calendar or of any other calendar which has a proven relationship to the presently used calendar. It might be expected that with such a tool at our disposal, the last difficulties in setting up the broad and general outlines of the chronology of the ancient world would be removed. This has obviously not been the case, or there would be no major chronological problems left unsolved. The failure of eclipse data to provide the expected unquestionable structure results primarily from the paucity of satisfactory eclipse records from these early eras, for if the. information obtained from such records is to be of any genuine value in problems of chronology, certain limiting critera must be met. It is. not commonly possible to define, for any given case, the exact minimal data which must be available. If certain data are missing or inaccurate, then other data must be more exactly known. · In the first place, it must be known whether the eclipse record refers to an eclipse of the sun or of the moon, for an eclipse of the sun would not necessarily be visible at the same place or on the same date as an eclipse of the moon. 50 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The practical difficulty here is not so much a matter of knowing whether a given record refers to one or the other as in knowing for sure whether a given record refers to an eclipse at all for some of these early inscriptions are vague indeed. As an example of such, we take the inscription from the time of Takelot II of the XXIInd Egyptian Dynasty which reads: 2 "When now had arrived the 15th year, the month Mesorii, the 25th day, under the reign of his father ... the heaven could not be distinguished, the moon was eclipsed (literally was horrible), for a sign of the (coming) events in tMs land; as it also happened, for enemies ... invaded with war the southern and northern districts (of Egypt)." The historian Brugsch was very positive in interpreting this inscription as referring to a total eclipse of the moon, and others have joined him in this opinion. 3 It must be admitted, however, that the inscription does not say so, and other authorities have objected to such an interpretation. 4 We have here a case of vagueness which does not permit any unequivocal interpretation from the internal evidence, and any conclusions on the dating of Takeloth II based on this inscription must be considered as questionable. Manetho records a similar case in the reign of N echerophes of Dynasty III. He notes that:'; ... In his reign the Libyans revolted against Egypt and when the moon waxed beyond reckoning, they surrendered in terror. This reference might be to the moon coming out of full eclipse, but it is also possible that some other phenomenon is referred to, or that Manetho misinterpreted the data before him from which he was quoting. 6 It should be apparent that such references are quite useless as a basis for providing data for chronological purposes. Just as it is possible to calculate the exact time and area of observation of a future eclipse, by the same token, in order for an eclipse record of the past to be dated exactly and with certainty, it is necessary that the eclipse record tell us the position of the observer and the time of the day at which the eclipse occurred. It may also be important to know whether the eclipse was partial or total. In the absence of such complete data, it is readily possible that an LIMITATIONS OF DA TING METHODS 51 eclipse record might be confused· with quite a different actual eclipse, unless the associated incident can be closely dated by independent means, for it is elementary that an eclipse observed as total in one area will be visible only as partial in areas not too far distant. Furthermore, a total or near total eclipse may be observed in almost any general area of the earth's surface over a period of one hundred years or less. It follows that an eclipse record which fails to provide sufficient data, or which is associated with an historical event which cannot be dated closely by independent means, may be quite useless as far as providing a basis for refining the date of the event in question. The possibility also remains that the associated event has been misdated due to an erroneous interpretation of the evidence. In such a case, the eclipse record could well serve to introduce confusion instead of eliminating or clarifying it. Since the eclipse records of antiquity, more often than not, fail to provide exact data on these crucial points, the method of dating historical events on this basis resolves itself to . one which is of value .only in refining dates which are already closely approximated with a considerable degree of certainty. As an example of the confusion which might arise from attempts to date events by means of eclipse data, we take the case of the Great Eclipse of the Assyrian records. This eclipse occurred in the 10th year of the reign of the Assyri.: an king, Assur Dan III, and the record has traditionally been interpreted to refer to a total eclipse calculated to have been visible in the vicinity of Ninevah in 763 B.C. 7 On the basis of this interpretation, the 10th year of the reign of Assur Dan III has been set straddling this date and the adjoining chronology of Assyria has been set in turn to meet this dating. However, some scholars have seen difficulties rising from this dating of Assur Dari III, and have proposed that the eclipse record does not refer to the total eclipse of 763 B. C., but rather to a partial eclipse visible in the same area in 791 B. G. 8 The very fact that it is possible for scholars to juggle eclipse data in this fashion should indicate to us clearly that the incomplete data provided by these anci~nt referefices make them susceptible to more 52 THE EXODUS PROBLEM than a single interpretation and that the data may be made to fit into more than a single chronological structure. 9 While these limitations on the usefulness of eclipse data hold for individual eclipse records, it should be noted that a· record of a series of eclipses in sequence may serve as its own check. Such a series of eclipses was set up in the second century B.C., representing eclipses during the era from 721 to 491 B.C. 10 This series of eclipses has been found by calculation to match in unequivocal fashion the series of eclipses visible in this area over the period noted. With the numerous synchronisms between Biblical history and the histories of Egypt and Assyria for this era, the chronology of antiquity after the 8th century B. C. may be regarded as firmly established, the remaining problems having to do largely with refinement of certain dates. This question of immediate interest here has reference to the number of eclipse records prior to 763 B. C. which may be regarded as unequivocably datable by means of calculations backwards in time. In answer to this question, it must be candidly admitted that there is not a single eclipse record of antiquity prior to 763 B. C. which can be thus characterized, if one grants that there is no reasonable question on the dating of the Great Assyrian Eclipse. 11 Thus a method which theoretically might have served as a powerful tool in setting up the broad outlines of ancient chronology is reduced to one whose sole value has been that of refining a few dates in the era of the 8th century B. C. and later where there is rather abundant independent supporting evidence for the chronology. II. Meyer's Theory of Historical Dating from Sothic Data In addition to eclipse records,· other types of astronomical data have been used in attempts to date ancient historical events or eras. Most notable of these is the use of the socalled Sothic period. 12 The Sothic theory presumes that the Egyptians used a calendar year of 365 days, without interruption, as far back as the Vth Dynasty or earlier. Since the true solar year is more exactly 365 V4 days, the New Year of such a calendar would wander backward through the seasons at the rate of one day every four years. Thus in 4 x 365 or 1460 years, the New Year's Day would return to its original position with reference to the seasons. This is the LIMITATIONS OF DA TING METHODS 53 Sothic period. The theory of Sothic dating further presumes that the Egyptians had, by observations, determined the length of this period by noting the time required for a given star (Sothis) to appear on the horizon at sunrise on New Year's Day after its similar previous appearance 1460 years earlier, and that the Egyptians had used this 1460 year period as a sort of long range calendar. Thus if an historical event is dated by its position in the Sothic cycle, it becomes ·theoretically possible to calculate the corresponding date on the B. C. time scale, providing the date for the beginning of any Sothic cycle is known. This concept of using the Sothic period as a basis for dating historical events of the ancient world was first proposed. by Lepsius (1810-1884), but the development of the method belongs to later workers (Mahler, Borchardt, Meyer, and Weill). Meyer is commonly credited with the specific statement of the theories involved. From calculations based on these theories, Meyer pointed to the year 4240 B. C. as the earliest fixed date of ancient history. 13 This date was purported to be the date for the introduction of the Sothic calendar in Egypt. Since other thousands of years must be hypothesized for the Egyptian to make the necessary observations to initiate the calendar, we are led far back into a presumed antiquity of civilization in the Nile Valley. The history of this theory since its inception has been a checkered one indeed. The opinions of authorities on its validity have varied from complete rejection of the concept as providing any basis whatever for dating ancient events through a tacit acceptance in the face of much contradictory evidence, · to a position of complete domination of the thinking of historians in a superlative manner. 1 ~ As one looks backward in retrospect on the history of this concept of Sothic dating, and more specifically to the conclusion of Meyer that the Egyptians introduced a calendar in Egypt in the year 4240 B. C. based· on this concept, one should be led to ·appreciate that modern historians are not at all immune to making mistakes of a .major nature, and that human reasoning falls far short of being able to cope with the problems of ancient chronology once separated from the fundamental source of truth .. We are reminded of the ridicule which has been so freely heaped upon Ussher, the Biblical chronologist of some 54 THE EXODUS PROBLEM three centuries ago, who made the error. of imposing unsound theories onto what was otherwise a brilliant piece of work. Realizing that Bible chronology logically led him to a date approximating 4000 B.C. for Creation, he theorized that the elapsed time from Creation to the appearance of the promised Messiah must be exactly 4000 years. Noting that the birth of Christ had, in error, been placed four years too late, he set the date for Creation in exact fashion as having occurred in 4004 B. C. For this bit of unsound supposition, the chronology of Ussher, so long accepted, has been the butt of ridicule during the last century or more by those who reject the historicity of the early chapters of the Bible, not because this chronology is so far out of line with that provided by the Scriptures, but because he presumed to thus exactly set a date for which there was only an unsound theoretical basis. It has been tacitly assumed by modern scholars that errors of this type and magnitude are no longer possible because of man's improved grasp of the principles of logic and reasoning. The error of Meyer in setting the date 4240 B.C. as the date for the presumed introduction of the Sothic calendar in Egypt represents a mistake of far greater proportions than that made by Ussh er and this in spite of the three centuries advantage in time. 14a While a number of prominent authorities have rejected the theories of Meyer and his associates as providing any reliable basis for the dating of ancient _historical events, it remains a fact that these theories have continued to dominate the traditional structure of ancient chronology. It is thus in order to re-examine critically the theories and assumptions on which this method of dating is based. In order for the calculations of Meyer; and related conclusions based on the Sothic method of dating, to be worthy of credence, the following points should be shown to stand on solid ground: (1) The date for the beginning of some Sothic period must be known with certainty; (2) The identity of the star, Sothis, which ancients used to mark the Sothic period, must be known with certainty; (3) The calculations involved must be valid; (4) It must be clear that the Egyptians used the Sothic cycle in the manner presumed by the theory; (5) It must be known that the calendar of Egypt remained unchanged, both in the length of the yea:r and in LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 55 the position of the months of the year, over the peribd in question; (6) The references from the ancient records, used to support the theory, and conclusions based upon this theory, must be sufficiently clear as to permit but a single interpretation; (7) The applica_tion of the theory to the problems of historical dating must not lead us into anomalous situations; (8) All of the data available relating events to the Sothic period should fit satisfactorily into the theory. While a .failure to establish any one of these points should be regarded as placing the theory on other than solid grounds, it is here proposed to show that the theory is found wanting on every one of these major points. The date for the beginning of a Sothic period is not known with certainty; the identification of the star, Sothis, with Sirius cannot be unquestionably established, and evidence is at hand which is definitely contradictory to this conclusion of identity; the calculations used are not valid; it is quite out of the question that the Egyptians used the Sothic period in the manner assumed by the theory; there is abundant evidence that the Egyptian calendar did not remain unchanged during the period in question; the ancient records fail to provide a single inscription which can be unequivocally interpreted to support this theory of dating; the application of the t~eory has led us into a chronology which, at best, can only be evaluated as uncertain and characterized by altogether too many anachronisms to be regarded as even approximately correct. It should be carefully noted that in the report of the Program to Aid in the Development of the C-14 dating method, it was pointed out that when judged by scientific standards worthy of the name, the ancient dates proposed by archaeologists and historians remain hypothetical. 14h These dates, which are tightly bound to the Sothic dating scheme, were regarded as having no value at all for evaluating the data from C-14 analyses, except as individual cases can be confirmed by an independent and unequivocal method. The only suggestion of such a suitable method for confirmation was by means of tree ring data. 140 But even this method has now been shown to provide only questionable data. 14d The Sothic dating method was not even mentioned as providing any such method for arriving at unequivocal dates. Thus while the C-14 and tree ring dating methods fall short of providing 56 THE EXODUS PROBLEM dependable dates, the dates derived by application of the Sothic method should be recognized as far less worthy of confidence. III. The Beginning Date of a Sothic Period and the Identity of Sothis with Sirius Remain Uncertain The commonly accepted date for the beginning of a Sothic period is 139-143 A.D. According to Meyer's theory, this means that the star Sothis (Sirius), rose coincident with the sun on the Egyptian New Year's Day of this year. This date rests on the .statement of Censorious, a Roman historian who states that a Sothic period began just one hundred years before the time of his writing. Since the B.C.-A.D. method of expressing dates had not yet been introduced, Censorious gave the date of his· writing in terms of various periods of elapsed time from earlier historical events or eras. These data are summarized below, together with the accepted dates for the incidents and the calculated date for the writing by Censorious in each case. 15 . Some of the data given by Censorious are not exact, since they are based on eras rather than on specific dates. If we interpret each as meaning the beginning of the era mentioned, then the data are not in agreement. It would seem obvious that if these data are to be used to determine the date at which Censorinus wrote, such use must be on the basis of selection from conflicting figures. If we grant the current view that the most probable date is approximately 240 A.O. for Censorious, then Sothic periods began in 140 A.D., 1320 B.C., 2780 B.C., and 4240 B.C., the latter being the one which Meyer considered as represetnting the introduction of the Sothic calendar in Egypt. The question here is perhaps not so much in terms of the exact date for Censorious' writing as it is of the reliability of his record in the first place. The writings of antiquity contain numerous such statements and calculations, many of which must be regarded as erroneous opinions or conclusions based on inadequate data. The acceptance of this particular one, while rejecting so many of the others, requires substantiation in the form of directing us to a consistent and rational chronology of Egypt. The simple observation that Censorious seems to have been confused in the matter LIMIT ATIO NS OF DATING METHODS 57 TABLE I Censorinus' Data on the B'eginning of a Sothic Period Calculated date Censorinus dates himself Accepted date for Censorinus 1040 years from the Olympiad era • 776 B.C. 264A.D. 896 years from the founding of Rome 753 B.C. 143A.D. 283 years from Parilibus 986 years from Nabonassar's era 746 B.C. 240A.D. 562 years from Philippi 357 B.C. 205A.D. 265 years from Agustus 28B.C. 237 A.D. of the elapsed time from events he himself selected, suggests that his calculations are hardly to be considered as fully reliable. The statement of Censorinus is commonly regarded as corroborated by the statement of Theon, an ancient astronomer of Alexander, who said that 1605 years had elapsed between the era of king Menophres and the era of Diocletian. 16 The era of Diocletian is rather firmly fixed as beginning in 284 A.O. This provides the date 1321 for Menophres, which date coincides satisfactorily with the· date 1320 for the beginning of a Sothic period as calculated from the interpretation of Censorinus, which places his writing in 240 A.D. and the beginning of a Sothic period in 140 A.D. As one becomes aware of the degree of confusion which .existed among the ancient writers relative to their own past, it would seem almost ·certain that Th eon did not possess information which would permit him to place the date 1320 B.C. in the reign of any particular king with certainty. We have here then only a situation where two statements, each uncertain in its interpretation and in its validity, provide a questionable corroboration of each other. It would seem strange, if astronomers are able to calculate backward in time and date eclipses centuries before Christ, that they would not be able to calculate back and determine whether or not the star, Sirius, was on the horizon at sunrise in Egypt on the Egyptian New Year's Day in the year 140 A.O. Actually, this calculation has been made, but one sees these data quoted with apparent reticence. The calculation was made by the astronomer Poole over one hundred years ago and was corroborated for correctness by the Astronomer Royal of London. 17 The calculations show that Sirius was not on the horizon coincident with the 58 TUE EXODUS PROBLEM rising sun on this day. It was 1 hour and 16 minutes above the horizon at Thebes and slightly less than this at Memphis. We are thus faced with a curious anomaly. What shall we conclude? Are we to presume that the astronomers did not know how to make these calculations? Shall we conclude that Censorinus did not know that of which he spoke so glibly, or that his calculations were in error or possibly based on the same erroneous data used by Theon? Or is it possible that the statement of Theon is being mis-interpreted? Is it possible that it was not Sirius which is the star to be identified as Sothis? Or shall we conclude that the beginning of the Sothic period was marked by a position of Siruis which was 1 hour and 16 minutes above the horizon at sunrise? Is it possible that historians have misdated Censorinus? Or is there a possibility that Censorinus is quite correct in his dating, but that historians are mistaken about the significance of this period and in the manner in which it was used by the ancients? The obvious conclusion is that there is something radically wrong with the reasoning and the calculations which have led to the placement of the Sothic cycle beginning in 140 A.D. This point alone may be regarded as sufficient basis for a disagreement among the authorities as to the date to be assigned to the beginning of this period and for the difference of opinion as to the reliance which should be placed on the use of this period for dating purposes. The historian Budge wrote in a most skeptical manner on this point: 18 ... It must be remembered that, as said above, very little reliance is to be placed on any calculations of this kind in attempting to formulate an exact chronology, especially as authorities, both ancient and modem, are not agreed as to the exact date in the second century of our era when the Sothic period ended on which they based their calculations. Actually the extent of the disagreement in the matter of the date for the beginning of a Sothic period is not limited to an exact fixing of this date in the second century of our era. The astronomer Lockyer fixed the date for the beginning. of the cycle in the year 269 B.C., some 409 years earlier than that deduced by historians from Censorious. Lock- . yer built up a chronology of the XVIIIth and other dynasties with dates set some 400 years earlier than the ones now LIMITATIONS. OF DATING METHODS 59 so familiar for these dynasties based on Censorious. MacNaughton set up a chronology based on the supposition that Sothis was not Sirius, but Spica, as a way around the difficulty. 19 The question might be raised as to what happens if one of the alternate dates is taken for Censorinus and the beginning of the Sothic period is adjusted to this date. The answer is simple but disastrous. For if we do not take the statement of Censorious as is traditionally done, then the statement of Theon does not corroborate Censorious, and we have a shaky basis indeed for the entire concept of Sothic dating. The same holds true if we try to adjust this date to that when Sirius was actually on the horizon at sunrise on the Egyptia.n New Year's Day. There would seem. to be little by way of alternative. We must either accept this traditional interpretation of Censorious in spite of the anomalies involved or admit that some gross errors have been made in the presumed fixation of the dates for the Xllth and XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasties. IV. Calculations Based on the Sothic Theory Are Invalid Since Meyer first outlined his theories which form the bases of astronomical dating by the Sothic method, astronomers have had occasion to scrutinize the reasoning leading to Meyer's conclusions and have not been highly impressed. The Sothic theory as proposed by Meyer presumes that the Egyptians had determined by observation the length of the Sothic period and had used it subsequently as a long range calendar. This conclusion now seems to be quite out of the question. The trouble lies in part in the fact .that the true solar year is not exactly 3651.4 days, but is some 12 minutes short of this. A simple calculation, using the correct year length, shows that the true Sothic period is not 1460 years in length but 1507 years long. 20 The astronomers point out that during this time, the sun itself will move among the stars, and this motion is in· a direction such as to partly offset the discrepancy between 1460 and 1507 years. The remaining discrepancy may be considered as sufficiently small so that the Egyptains would not detect the difference in a single Sothic period since four solar years are required for the vague year to deviate by a single day. However, the difference would certainly be apparent on the second Sothic 60 THE EXODUS PROBLEM rising and would represent an embarrassing amount of error by the third one. Since it had been assumed that the whole concept was adopted by the Egyptians as a result of obser- . vations, 21 it becomes apparent that any calendar thus set up in 4240 B.C. would be obsolete by 1322 B.C., two Sothic periods later. Since we have no reference from antiquity giving the beginning of any period prior to 1322 (assuming that Theon is referring to such), we are confronted with a presumed calendar already obsolete at the time of the first suggestion of such a beginning. It is thus quite out of the question that the Sothic period was used in the way presumed by Meyer, and his supposed date for the introduction of a calendar based on the Sothic cycle remains hanging in mid-air without a shadow of foundation. V. The Egypitan Calendar Has Not Been Fixed Throughout the Period During Which Sothic Dating Methods Are Employed The utilization of Sothic data for historical dating must presume that there was no change in the calendar of Egypt during the period to which the method is applied. Even after the disposition of Meyer's theory relative to the introduction of a Sothic calendar in 4240 B.C., the use of the method must still presume that no alterations in the calendar occurred between the Xllth Dynasty and the time of Censorious which involved the length of the calendar year or the position of the months in the year. A single such alteration in this interim would invalidate all calculations and conclusions from this dating method for periods prior to such change. Actually there are a number of evidences that indicate changes in the Egyptian calendar after the time of the XII th Dynasty. A note appended to the name of King Aseth, one of the late Hyksos kings, whose name appears in the Sothis king list, reads: 22 This king added the 5 intercalary days to the year: in his reign, they say, the Egyptian year became a year of 365 days, being previously reckoned as 360 days only. Another .version of Manetho credits this same calendar alteration to the Hyksos king, Saites, at an earlier date. 2'3 These two records are not necessarily contradictory, since the two kings may have introduced the change in different LIMITATIONS OF DA TING METHODS 61 parts of Egypt in the two cases. The question of the reliability of the note is pertinent. As previously noted, these inserted notes may represent opinions or calculations based on inadequte evidence, just as may be supposed for the calculation of Censorinus. The· question of the reliability of this note must be decided on its own merits. It has been suggested that the note has no significance, since it is otherwise known that the 365 day year was in use back as far as the Vth Dynasty. But this is no evidence against the authenticity or reliability of the note, for the calendar could have been changed from 365 days to 360 days at the time the Hyksos took over Egypt and then returned to the 365 day year at the time of Aseth. Certainly it is not illogical to suppose that the Hyksos brought their own calendar with theni when they took over the control of Egypt. Even if this 360 day calendar had a very short life, this would be sufficient to completely ruin the validity of any calculations based on a presumed fixed calendar. While the point in question may not be capable of proof or disproof at this time, the note must be considered as casting doubt on the validity of any chronology which is based on the assumption of a fixed calendar. In view of the anomalous chronology which .has resulted from the application of the Sothic theory, it would seem that the simplest explanation lies in the probability of error in this assumption of an unaltered calendar in Egypt through the period from 2000 B.C. to 140 A.D. There is also considerable evidence to indicate that the first month of the Egyptian calendar did not remain unaltered during this period. By the year 721 B.C., and probably as early as 851 B.C., the month Thoth was the first month of the Egyptian calendar. 24 From inscriptions dealing with New Year ceremonies of an earlier era, Brugsch deduced that the month Hathor was the first month of the year at this earlier period. 23 The Ebers papyrus definitely gives the month Merikhet as the first month of the year. 26 In the· XXth Dynasty, Hathor is the 4th month and Mesorii is the first. 2• · The ease with which the calendar could be altered is indicated by the fact that both Amenhotep III and Rameses II altered the sequence of the so-called Sed Festivals. These rulers were dictators, and there .is no reason to presume that 62 THE EXODUS PROBLEM if one of them decided to make New Year's Day coincide with his birthday, or for some other insignificant reason, elected to alter the calendar, he might not do so to meet his whims. In anticipation of the Julian calendar adopted many years later, Ptolemy III introdMced a true solar calendar of 365 1/4 days (probably in the year 235 B. C. ). While it is not posslble to relate all these various calendars to each other or to the present calendar, it would seem futile to hope to set up a valid chronology of Egypt based on the assumption that the calendar was not altered during the period from the XIIth Dynasty to the 3rd century A.D. 28 With the numerous inconsistencies and anachronisms in the chronology to which we have been led, it would seem that some one should have guessed that the difficulty lies in the· extreme improbability of this premise on which the Sothic dating method rests. VI. Ancient Inscriptions Used to Support the Sothic Theory are Vague There are perhaps five principal ancient records which have been used in attempts to fix certain dates or events or eras in the Sothic period. Besides these; there are perhaps this many more which have an equal right to such consideration but which are commonly disregarded because they do not fit satisfactorily into the scheme which has resulted from the acceptance of the others: Not a single one of these references can be regarded as providing unequivocal dates. The first example to be noted is the statement previously referred to from Theon, pointing to the year 1320 as the date for the era of Menophres and presumed to indicate that a Sothic period began in this year. As noted above, the use of this statement depends for confirmation on the selection of the date 240 A.D. chosen from several possible dates derivable from the data provided by Censorious. There is considerable doubt that the statement of Theon can be depended upon as factual. 29 Disconcerting also is the fact that no king of Egypt is elsewhere known by the nanie Menophres, and hence his identity remains uncertain. If. we follow the recognized rules for transliterating Greek names back to Egyptian, we arrive at the Egyptian name Mennefer-re. There are two kings in Egypt who had names sufficiently close to this to merit such tentative identification. LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 63 The first is a name transliterated as Menoffirre, belonging to a Hyksos king. But the Hyksos era is far out of line by the traditional chronology to allow placement of this king in the year l.'320 B.C., the last of the Hyksos kings having ended his rule by 1580 B.C. Second vote should go to Menoffire Ai of the XIIIth Dynasty, but this king is even farther out of line with the year 1320 and hence likewise cannot be seriously considered. We might give a third vote to Merneptah of the XIXth Dynasty, though this name is hardly the equivalent of Menophres. He falls closer to the desired date, but is still some 70 years out of line. Petrie suggested an identity to Rameses I, since he carried an alternate name of Men-peh-re, a name which again is hardly the counterpart of Menophres, but which has resemblance. Petrie' s suggestion has been generally accepted, not because of any convincing evidence, but rather because Rameses I falls within the era for which it has seemed logically possible to synchronize Egyptian history with later synchronims retained. Certainly nothing but the demand of the theory would give such credence to this proposed identity. If the theory proves anything at all, it proves that the year 1322 B.C. should fall during the period of Hyksos domination. a Petrie attempted to date the reign of Mer-en-re, a king of the VIth Dynasty, by the Sothic method, from an inscription by one of his officials named Una. 30 Una tells us in his inscription that he had been sent by the king to t~e quarry at Het-nub to secure large stones to be used in providing altars for religious offerings. After securing the stones, he floated them down the river on a barge to Memphis, arriving in the month Epiphi when, according to the inscription, there was no water over the sandbars. In spite of this difficulty, he succeeded in bringing the barge to shore and unloading his stone. Petrie concluded from this situation that the end of flood season in that era occurred in the month Epiphi. On the basis of the calculated shift of the end of the flood season from its normal position in the seasons, it was calculated that king Mer-en-re reigned about 3350 B.C. (or one Sothic period earlier by the long chronology), with an allowable error of perhaps a hundred years in either direction. 64 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Budge recognized the insecure basis on which Petrie' s calculation rested. He comments:'11 What Una narrates may show that the month of Epiphi was considerably out of place in the year when he went to Het-nub, but the possibility of deducing any date for the reigning king from this circumstance is too remote to be seriously entertained for a moment. The skepticism of Budge on Petrie' s conclusion has been fully born out by subsequent developments in the field of Egyptian chronology. In the course of the last several decades, there has been an increasing tendency to accept the conclusion of Scharff that Mena, the first king of Egypt, must be moved to a date in the era of c. 2800 B.C. This date is some 400 years later than the latest date deduced for Mer-en-re of Dynasty VI, a situation which is of course impossible. One might argue that Mer-en-re of Dynasty VI should then be moved one full Sothic Period later than his placement by the short chronology and date him in the era of 1900 B.C. But this is not permissable, since this period is already assigned to the XII th Dynasty by the same method of Sothic reckoning. We have heard no suggestion, other than our own, that the Vlth Dynasty should be made contemporary with the Xllth. Or it might be argued that Una's arrival at Memphis was at the beginning of the flood season, before the waters had risen to cover the sandbars. This hardly makes sense either, for then Una's trip up the river with his barge must be placed during the dry season, and this in tum puts his quarrying work in the hot summer season, when quarrying was deliberately avoided because of the difficulties involved. The obvious conclusion would be that this inscription, like all others used to the same end, provides no basis whatever for dating the 'reign of Mer-en-re. The .Egyptologist, Ebers, discovered a papyrus dated on the reverse side as of the 9th day of the II th month in the 9th year of king Zeserkare. 32 Ebers identified Zeserkare as Amenhotep I of the XVIIIth Dynasty, a conclusion which was hotly contested for a period prior to its general acceptance, since other kings were also known by this same name. The papyrus contains. data in the form of a calendar of months, which· has been used as the basis of Sothic reckoning for the dating of Amenhotep I. The data, however, raised difficulties, since the calendar specifically refers to LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 65 the month of Menkhet as the first month of the year, rather than Thoth, which was certainly the first month a few centuries later. The explanations offered to account for this discrepancy have, to say the least, not been very credible, and a recognition of a need f9r a simpler explanation has been voiced. 33 By assuming that the calendar meant Thoth when it read Menkhet, a date was calculated for Amenhotep I in the 16th century as demanded by the traditional chronology . An inscription presumed to have been produced under Thtitmose III states that a Sothic rising took place on the 28th day of the third month of the season of innundation (i.e., the 11th month of the year). 34 However, the inscription does not state the name of the king nor the year of his reign. It is ascribed to Thutmose III on the basis of the appearance of this name on another fragment presumed to be from the same inscription, but found at some distance from it. The astronomer Torr commented on the worthlessness of this inscription to prove anything, since the inscription may have been produced by any one of the successors of Thutmose III. · Perhaps the most important inscription on which Meyer based his calculations is presented by what are known as the Kahoun Papyrii. This series of papyrii inscriptions were discovered by Borchardt in 1899, one fragment of which contains a reference to a Sothic rising which stands as the key record for Meyer's Sothic theory. The record is addressed to a priest by the name of Pepihotep and is dated in the 7th year of the reign of Sesostris III of Dynasty XII. That part of the record of primary interest here reads: 35 "You ought to know that the rising of Sothis takes place on the 16th of the 8th month. Announce it to the priests of the town of Sekem-Usertesen and of Anubis on the mountain and of Suchos. . . and have this letter filed in the temple record." Assuming that the "rising of Sothis" of this inscription refers to the coincident rising of Sothis with the sun (although calculations do not support this concept for the marking of the beginning of a Sothic period in the time of Censorinus ), and assuming that Sothis is the star now known as Sirius (which assumption is not corroborated by astronomical calculations for the Sothic beginning in 140 66 THE EXODUS PROBLEM A.D. ), and assuming that the calendar involved in this inscription was for a vague year of 365 days which was not altered between this time and the time of Censorinus (which assumption would seem certainly to be in error), and assuming that the 8th month of this calendar was the same as the 8th month of the calendar at the time of Censorius, (which assumption must certainly be in error), it is calculated that the 7th year of Sesostris III fell in the era 1876-1872 B.C. Since the internal chronology of the Xllth Dynasty has been established with some degree of certainty, the era for the dynasty is thus regarded as fixed in the era approximated by the dates 2000-1787 B.C. These dates, as an approximation, are rather universally accepted among historians as marking the limits of Dynasty XII. The reliability of this conclusion is no greater than that of the assumptions on which it· is based. The least that can be said is that there are no less than three other interpreta'tions for this inscription which are reasonable. The first of these assumes that, since the calendar of Egypt was not fixed from the time of the XIIth Dynasty, all possibility of connecting the calendar of this inscription with that on which Censorinus· based his statement is lost, and even if the Sothic period was utilized by the Egyptians in the manner presumed, there remains no basis for dating events by this method. The second explanation presumes that the Egyptians, even at this early date used a true solar calendar · of 365114 days. 36 By this thesis, the expression "You ought to know that the rising of Sothis takes place," does not mean that the priest should know this because of recorded observations over the past period of 1460 years, but rather that he should have known this because it occurred at this same time every year. The third interpretation would presume that the star, Sothis, is not Sirius, since this star was not on the horizon at sunrise in Egypt on New Year's Day in 140 A.D. This theory was adopted by MacNaughton, who built up a complicated astronomical basis for his chronology based on the identification of Sothis as Spica. 37 The author of this work holds to the view that, whatever the interpretation of Sothic data which may eventually be substantiated as correct, there is, nevertheless, very good reason for believing that the Egyptians, as early as the early IVth Dynasty, used a true solar calendar of 365114 days LIMITATIONS OF.DATING METHODS 67 which could be regarded as fixed in the same sense that our pres.ent calendar is fixed, i.e., it was periodically corrected to take care of the accumulated discrepancies. Even if a second migrating .calendar was simultaneously in use for certain purposes, the references are too vague to permit the use of such as a basis for establishing a chronology. This deduction should be apparent, since none of the premises on which this theory of dating rests can be regarded as having been established. The inescapable evidence that the Egyptians of the IVth Dynasty had a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy sufficient to calculate the exact length of the year is presented in a subsequent secti.ori of this chapter. 38 When one sees the significance of these alternate possibilities for interpreting ·the inscription of the Kahoun papyrii, there is no particular difficulty in realizing that there were ample grounds for the rejection of the theory of Sothic dating by Brugsch and other astute authorities, who simply could not see in it any solid basis for providing a $ystem of dating, and more specifically, as far back as the Xllth Dynasty. It would seem that historians in general who understand the full import of the objections raised to the validity of this theory must admit that it is not possible to date events by this method as far back as the time of Sesostris Ill. There are some, however, who believe that when data are used in conjunction with data relative to a second cycle, such as that of the moon, then it is possible to date events back this far with a degree of exactness and certainty. Hence the assumptions on which such a belief rests require critical scrutiny. The principles at point are very simple. If an event can be pinned down in two independent cycles, the chronological conclusions rest on a more secure foundation than when a single cycle is used. However, it must be apparent that the use of a very .short cycle, such as that of the moon, to confirm dates derived by use of a much longer cycle, such as the Sothic cycle, has· some very large inherent weaknesses. The cycle of the moon will repeat itself so many times in the course of one Sothic cycle that any given lunar data can be made to fit satisfactorily into the Sothic period at a considerable number of points. Hence, unless the date for the incident involved is known approximately and with cer- 68 THE EXODUS PROBLEM tainty from independent data, it is very possible that any proposed confirmation may be only wishful thinking. The most that could be expected of this method is the determi- . ·nation of the most logical date within a relatively narrow era which provides the best harmony between lunar and Sothic data. If this narrow era has not been established with certainty, the conclusions reached are quite worthless as confirmation of a chronology. VII. Sothic Vating Has Led to an Incredible Chronology Not the least of the reasons for rejecting the Sothic method of dating is that it has led historians to adopt an incredible chronology of Egypt. If we accept the Sothic datings for the XVIIlth Dynasty as demanded by the identification of Menophres with Rameses I and accept the most questionable datings based on the Ebers papyrus, then the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty is fixed at a date which cannot be far removed from 1580 B.C.'39 By the sa,me token, if we accept the dating of Sesostris III as calculated fr6m Sothic data found in the Kahoun papyrii, the end of the Xllth Dynasty is fixed at a date not far removed from 1788 B. C. 40 This leaves a period which cannot be in any considerable excess of 210 years from the end of Dynasty XII to the beginning of Dynasty XVIII. Into this brief period must be squeezed all the reigns of the kings of the Xlllth Dynasty prior to the Hyksos invasion (probably some 26 or more in number), followed by the total period of Hyksos domination and a brief period for the XVIIth DY.nasty. At the time of the proposal of the fixation of the chronologies of the Xllth Dynasties, there was strenuous objection to the resulting structure. Petrie pointed out that on the basis of the data then available, tihe only rational conclusion would involve the insertion of an extra, full Sothic period of 1460 years into this interim. The comments of Petrie on this question are of sufficient importance to reproduce them here in part: 41 ... The question in debate is in which cycle the XIIth Dynasty occurred; does it end at 1786 B.C. or 3246 B.C.? Or, as it is agreed the XVIIlth dynasty began in 1580, were there 206 or 1666 years between the XIIth and XVIIIth dynasties? The advocates of the short period claim that there are not enough monuments known to fill more than two centuries. Yet we have remains of at least seventeen kings of the XIIIth dyn!lSty, and every year adds to their number, which on an av- LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 69 erage of 7 years each is 120 years. The Hyksos age is now fairly defined, and requires us to recognize at least ten important reigns, besides the probability of a large number more, and 150 years would be a low estimate for what is already well known. And at least 10 years must be allowed in the XVIIth dynastv. Thus 280 vears is covered bv reigns which are evident, while we ign"ore the prob~bility that we only know yet the minor part of the rulers in this very dark and confused period. To compress this into two centuries seems impossible. The advocates of the longer period consider that the evidence of changes in the art, the language, and the burial customs show that much more than two centuries had passed, and that this fully balances the supposed scantiness of monuments as historical material. Subsequent developments have shown that it is equally impossible to insert an extra Sothic period between Dynasties XII and XVIII as proposed by Petrie, since it is now apparent that the date of Mena must be moved to a date later than that which would result for the end of Dynasty XII. However, the increasing amount of data from this era, between Dynasties XII and XVIII, make it necessary to leave room, not only for the 17 kings known when Petrie wrote, but for not less than 26 such kings in Dynasty XIII prior to the Hyksos iilvasion.42 · As a result of the disagreement among historians on this point, two theories were held by various authorities known as the long and the short chronologies for the Hyksos era. Petrie was the principal proponent of the long chronology. Many historians were not primarily chronology conscious, and the remainder of those who were (Breasted, Meyer, and Weill) leaned toward the short chronology. With the death of Petrie, and the loss of the principal supporter of the long chronology, the short chronology has become generally accepted along with the chronology of later Egypt which results from this 208 year squeeze. A summary of the diverse opinions held by various authorities at the time is provided by MacNaughton. He writes: 43 Breasted, accepting Meyer's arguments, drew up an elaborate chronology based on the minimum lengths of reign of the kings and Dynasties as shown from the monuments. On reading his chronology one is left with the impression that he regards a minimum date as likely to be the correct probability.... It is therefore strange that so able a scholar as Breasted should have stumbled into the same type of pitfall. Nevertheless his chronological discussions are very valuable provided it is kept in mind that what he really is demonstrating are the minimal dates, not the probable dates. 70 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Petrie, with a knowledge of the practical difficulties in the way of Meyer's theory, proposed an extra Sothic cycle between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties, but this, though ingenious, is untenable wifh Sirius as Sothis. . . . What Petrie emphasized, however, wa,s the complete incompatibility of Meyer's theory with the archaeological evidence and the evidence of the King Lists. But as the outstanding Egyptologists with a chronological bent ... were three in favour of a form of "short" chronology and one in favour of a "long" chronology, it is perhaps not surprising that those who had not time to study the chronological problem for themselves gave their vote for the "short" chronology. Budge, however, refused to accept the "short" chronology and later, Hall thought he would effect a compromise by choosing a date for the Twelfth Dynasty intermediate between that of Meyer and of Petrie. He regarded the changes in art between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties as unlikely to have occupied so short an interval as 200 years or so long an interval as 1600-1700, and he entirely abandoned the Sothiac cycle as a clue to the period elapsed. Petrie has now also abandoned the Sothiac cycle and substituted a theory that the dates of the Twelfth Dynasty were quoted in terms of a seasonal calendar. On cultural grounds, more particularly basing his conclusions on the variations in the types- of Hyksos scarabs recently discovered by him, he now estimates the interval at about 800 years. Baikie, who has evidently made a special study of the artistic side of Egyptian life, thinks that arguments based on estimates of length of time for a change to have taken place in the arts of a nation are based on a slender foundation and that on cultural grounds a "long" chronology is just as likely to be right as a "short" chronology. Weigall favours a short chronology but is evidently conscious that to a reader new to the subject the crushing of the Thirteenth. Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Dynasties into two or three hundred years will appear somewhat ridiculous. He therefore excuses himself by explaining that "of course the most important argument in favour of the arrangement is that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Dynasties have got to be fitted into a period between the astronomically fixed date of the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty and the rise of the Seventeenth." As the Twelfth Dynasty is not astronomically fixed where he thinks it is the necessity for the squeezing of the evidence aisappears. My own view (MacNaughton's] based principally on astronomical evidence, calendrical evidence, the evidence of the King Lists, and synchronims with Babylonia, is that the interval from the end of the Twelfth Dynasty to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty was somewhat less than 1500 years. It should be noted that the reason why Breasted set up his chronology in terms of minimal reigns of the kings of Dynasties XVIII and XIX was because he was forced to do so to squeeze these dynasties into the period in such a fashion as to retain certain synchronims which had long been LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 71 accepted. While MacNaughton is unquestionably correct in his criticism of Breasted in this interpretation of the monumental data, it must be recognized that there is little by way of alternative if the )imitations imposed by the Sothic method are accepted. The important thing to keep in mind is that the acceptance of either the long or the short chronology based on the fixation of dates by the Sothic dating method leads us to an incredible structure. Petrie' s long chronology provides an untenably long period between the two dynasties, as he himself must have eventually recognized. The short chronology forces us to squeeze this period · into an incredibly short space. With the acceptance of the short chronology by historians in general, the problem has become one of dividing this 208 year period between Dynasties XIII, XVII, and the Hyksos period in some sort of a credible manner. The tendency seems to be to allow about 10 years for Dynasty XVII and divide the remaining time between the kings of Dynasty XIII and the Hyksos period. Neither of these·allottments is credible.· Even granting but 26 kings of Dynasty XIII before the Hyksos conquest only provides an average of four years reign for each .. Elsewhere, 'such a condition would be interpreted unequivocally as a period of chaos approaching anarchy with a rapid tum-over of rulers. Yet the archaeological evidence indicates that no such conditions prevailed during this period.~ 4 Some of these rulers must have had very normal periods of reign with time to erect imposing monuments with no indication of haste. Nor is it any more credibly possible to squeeze the Hyk.sos period into a 100 year period now than it was when Petrie pointed out the impossible nature of such an arrangement. Manetho allows 250 (or 284) years for Dynasty XV alone, giving the length of reign for each of its kings. Following this was a less well defined period of Dynasty XVI which may well have involved a divided reign between two or several kings at one time. To squeeze these two dynasties · into a period of 100 years has no resemblance to the interpretation of Manetho' s dynasties otherwise. Miss Kenyon allowed 150 years for the Hyksos. 45 This is still insufficient for the era and reduces the period for Dynasty XIII to a still more incredible value. 72 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Were it not for the pressure of the presumed fixation of dates by the Sothic dating method, no historian would presume such a short period for this era on the basis of data otherwise available. VIII. Not All Data Relative to the Sothic Cycle Fit into Meyer's Theory If the interpretations of Meyer are correct, then all of the data which may be brought to bear on this problem should fit satisfactorily into the Sothic theory. This is far from the case. As of the present rrioment, there are far more data pertinent to the question which do not fit into the theory than there are which do apparently fit. The record of Theon as related to Menophres and his identification to Rameses I has already been introduced. The collapse of the earlier interpretations relative to Una have also been referred to. The historian Brugsch called attention to two references to Sothic risings which were studied in detail by the astronomer Lockyer. 46 On the basis of one of these, Lockyer concluded that a Sothic period began in the year 269-270 B.C., which conclusion is at variance with the statement of Censorinus by some 409 years. In the reign of Osorkon II of Dynasty XXII, there was an unusually high Nile, which resulted in a flood of the temple of Osirus. 17 The flood is dated as occurring on Tybi 12, which in the year 876 B.C. (ascribed to Osorkon II), was "extraordinarily early" as calculated by Petrie; King Pankhi I of the XX:Vth Dynasty examined the fortifications near Memphis and noted that "the water came up to the road below the walls, and that ships were moored there." 48 The date would coincide with our April, at which time the Nile was at low level. To by-pass this anomaly, it has been supposed that some sort of a system of dams had been used to retain the water at high level during the dry season. While Theon is commonly credited with supporting the concept that a Sothic period began in 1321 B. C. in the era of Menephres, He also leaves a clear statement to the effect that a Sothic period began in the 5th year of the reign of Augustus (B.C. 26). 4aa · · ... Now this period. of 1460 years, commenced from a certain time, terminated in the fifth year of the reign of Augustus; so, from this last epoch, the Egyptians began all over again to find themselves every year one quarter of a day in advance. LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 73 Later in his discourse, Theon again reiterated this concept: " ... we have said that the return of the coincidence of the year of Alexandria with that of Egypt occurred five years after the beginning of the reign of Augustus." ' Unless we are permitted to conclude that there was more than one way of defining the beginning of a Sothic period, it is. difficult to see how these statements can be harmonized with an interpretation of Theon which places the beginning of such a period in 1321 B. C. If we allow that there is more than one way of defining what was meant by the beginning of a Sothic period, then none of these references to such can, with certainty, be used for chronological purposes, and in neith~r case can we resort to Theon a·s an au, thority as far as defining a date for the beginning of such a Sothic period. IX. The Sed Festivals and Sothic Dating Records of the celebration of the so-called Sed Festival are extant, in vague form, from the earliest historical era of Egypt. More definite references have been noted in inscriptions from the Vlth and Xllth Dvnasties. However, it is not until the XVIIIth Dynasty that s~ch references become sufficiently frequent for use in chronological dating. A series of such records are available beginning with the 9th year of the reign of Amenhotep I reaching to the second year of the reign of Merneptah. Four of these records give the year of the king's reign and the calendar date on which the festival was celebrated. Others give the calendar date, but not the year of the king's reign, and still others give the year of the king's reign but not the calendar date. The available data are summarized in Table II. ~9 A variety of interpretations have been proposed on the possible significance that was attached by the Egyptian kings to_ his festival. Since the feast came to be known as the Thirty-year Festival, some have presumed that the occasion was the 30th year of the king's reign. The fact that Amenhotep III and Rameses II celebrated the occasion in the 30th year of their reigns gives support to this concept. Others have objected to this interpretation, since other kings celebrated the occasion earlier in the reign, and in some cases, this was done by kings who never reached the 30th year of reign. Hatshepsut observed the occasion in her 74 THE EXODUS PROBLEM 16th year and Merneptah in his second year. Tutenkamen leaves a Sed Festival record in his tomb, and it is certain that he reigned but a very few years. A variant of this con~ cept proposes that the thirty years was counted from the time of accession as coregent or perhaps at the time of selection as the heir apparent, which may have been at birth. ;o Celebrations in the reign of Tutenkamen and in the 2nd year of Mernaptah would appear to contradict this interpretation. A different interpretation .has been presumed by Petrie and accepted by other historians:' 1 By this thesis, the celebration of the feast was related to Sothic risings and occurred with each succeeding appearance of the new moon on the same day (night) when Sothis rose coincident with the rising sun. Presuming that a vague year of 365 days was in use, this situation could be expected to occur at intervals of 27 or 30 years. If a given rising occurred on the occasion of a new moon, the Sothic rising 27 years later would occur about 1 day later than the new moon but if 30 years later, about one day earlier than new moon. 52 Hence if the periods were alternated between 27 and 30 years, the coincidence would remain approximately intact throughout the period involved. It will be noted from the data of Table II that the celebrations in the reigns of Thutmose I, Hatshepsut, and Thutmose III were .each just seven days later than the previous occurrence providing a basis for this interpretation of the significance .of the Sed Festival, since the vague year deviates from the true solar year at the rate of one day in TABLE II Sed Festival Celebration Records of the XVIII th King Regnal Year Amenhotep I 9th Thutmose I unknown Hatshepsut 16th Thutmose III 33rd Amenhotep II unknown Amenhotep II unknown 30th, 36th Amenhotep III Rameses II 30th and at 3yr. intervals Seti I unknown Merneptah 2nd and XIXth Dynasties Calendar Date 9th of 11th month 14th of 11th month 21st of 11th month 28th of 11th month 7th of 12th month 14th of 12th month undated undated undated 29th of 1st month LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 75 four years. While several feasts must be presumed to have occurred for which no references are extant, it would seem that the celebration in the second year of Merneptah on the 29th of the first month continues to follow the pattern observable from the earlier data, which suggest that each succeeding occasion came seven days later in the vague year at intervals which averaged 28 years. If this concept is correct, then the festival is tied to the Sothic period and may be regarded as providing additional data in support of the Sothic dating method. There are, however, a number of weaknesses in this interpretation which cannot be ignored. In the first place, the feast was known as the Thirty-year Festival, and such a title can be related to this interpretation only with reservations. Secondly, the festival ·of Thutmose I was only five days earlier than that of Amenhotep I, and that of Amenhotep II was nine days later than that of Thutmose III. These data indicate that either the feast was not celebrated on the occasion of the new moon or that the interval in the first case was only 20 years, while that in the latter was· 36 years, thus providing two exceptions to the interpretation in the sequence of five celebrations. Thirdly, it is apparent from the extant inscriptions of Amenhotep III and Rameses II that these rulers celebrated the occasion at intervals of 3 or 6 years, and such celebrations could not possibly have been at a coincidence of a new moon with a Sothic rising. It is also necessary to assume that Sed Festivals were celebrated in the reigns of Amenhotep IV, Seti I, Rameses I, and early in the reign of Rameses II in order to provide enough 28 year periods to span the period involved. For these occasions, there is no monumental support. Finally, authorities are not agreed on the chronology through this era, and hence the dating of the second year of Merneptah cannot be stated with certainty to be in agreement with the proposed extrapolation of.this series to indude his celebration. In spite of these many weaknesses, Petrie was of the opinion that these data constituted virtual proof of tht:> correctness of the accepted scheme of Egyptian chronology. He wrote::; 1 ... But in any case, the general agreement of these dates deduced from the festivals with those of the lengths of the reigns, gives security to the chronology; it shows that in [the] future we shall probably only deal with rectifications of a few years. . . . 76 THE EXODUS PROBLEM It thus becomes of importance to re-examine these data in the light of the revised chronology of Egypt. In the setting up of this revised scheme, we have not only violated irreparably the traditional views on the interpretation of Sothic data, but we have also condensed the period involved in this series of festivals by some 65 years, which has yielded a period roo short for the required number of occasions at 28 year intervals.-; 4 The interpretation of Petrie is thus out of the question by the revised scheme, except perhaps as some rather awkward assumptions are invoked. A careful examination of the available data leads us to believe that the Sed Festival was originally designed to be exactly what should be logically inferred from the connotation as a Thirty-year Festival. This thirty years, however, was not measured as beginning with accession to either coregency of reign, but only by age. The king celebrated the occasion if, at the age of thirty, he was a ruling monarch, and celebrated it at 30 year intervals thereafter so long as he reigned. Thus a king who began to reign before he was thirty and reigned until he was sixty or more would celebrate two Sed Festivals. Kings who died short of the age of thirty would thus not have such a celebration, and kings who began their reign after the age of thirty and died before the age of sixty would likewise have no occasion for a celebration. This original significance was, however, violated by Amenhotep III and by Rameses II, who celebrated the feast at intervals of six or three years. Amenhotep II also celebrated the feast on two occasions for which the regnal years are not stated. There is a possibility that it was Amenhotep II who first deviated from the traditional custom, since he reigned only a few months over thirty years. That it was age which stood as the original basis for the celebration of the Sed Festival is strongly suggested in some of the inscriptions. On the occasion of the festival in the 33rd year of Thutmose III, a million Sothic cycles (long life) were wished for the king. 55 On the occasion in the reign of Seti I, it is said of the king: 56 "Thou art renewed and thou beginnest again, thou becomest young like the infant moon god; thou growest up again (like) him from season to season like Nun at the beginning of his time: Thou (renewest) thy births by repeating the Sed-feast." LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 77 This inscription indicates that the feast was held on the occasion of the new moon, which was taken as the symbol of a renewed birth, thus the significance of the alternate connotation as the Thirty-year feast is at once apparent, since the moon had such a re;birth approximately every thirty days. This explains the progression of the feast if we simply assume that the new moon occasion was celebrated at a specific season of the year, and there is thus no genuine reason for associating the occasion with the rising of Sothis. This interpretation does not demand any fixed number of occasions during the time interval involved, since the celebrations were not at any fixed interval of time. If this interpretation is applied to the revised chronology of Egypt for this period as represented in a previous volume by Figures 9 to 11, recognizing .the deviation from the traditional custom by Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III, and Rameses II, one may arrive at the data as provided in Table III. The chronological positions for the various datable celebrations in the critical era of the early XVIIIth Dynasty are there indicated. Starting with the most solidly dated feast, i.e., that of the 33rd year of Thutmose III, it is deduced that Thutmose III was 60 years old at this time. 3; As proposed .by Petrie, the earlier celebration, in his third year, was probably coincident with that in the 16th year of Hatshepsut. 58 Thutmose III was thus 49 years old when he became first ruler and 27 years of age at the accession of Hatshepsut as first ruler. Hatshepsut in turn was 44 years old at the time of her accession as first ruler and thus 60 years old at the time of her celebration of the festival in her 16th year. These data help us to understand the confused situation which was precipitated at this time and which led some historians to erroneously presume that the appointment of Hatshepsut as coregent led to an extended "feud among the Thutmosides. " 60 A closer scrutiny .of the inscriptions led Edgerton to reject this concept. 61 At the time of appointment of Hatshepsut as coregent, her father (Thutmose I) was already an old man of about 65 years. 62 Since neither · Ahmose or Amenhotep I utilized a coregent, we may suppose that the initiation of this practice by Thutmose I was a move of necessity, due to his failing health at an advanced age. At this time, his oldest living son, Thutmose II was THE EXODUS PROBLEM 78 about 44 years of age. Hence the decision facing Thutmose I was between the appointment of his sickly son63 as coregent or his more promising but younger daughter. Whether. in wisdom or otherwise, it seems to have been his decision to give the appointment to his daughter, whom he then married to his eldest son, thus passing the appointment to his son under the guidance of his wife sister. 64 This move may have been in anticipation that his sickly son would not live long. This turned out to be the case when Thutmose II died about two years before his father. 65 This may be the explanation of the concept of a return of Thutmose to the throne briefly before his death. At the time Thutmose I died, Thutmose III as son of Thutmose Il, 66 was 27 years old and old enough to take over the responsibilities of the government. However, with both Thutmose I and Thutmose II now dead, Hatshepsut had no inclintion to surrender the throne to her nephew, who then had no choice but to accept the offer of coregency and silently smart under his restricted ambitions for a full 21 years until the death of Hatshepsut at· 67. By this time, Thutmose III was getting highly impatient and lost no time in marshalling an army and beginning the extended program of conquest, which included the sacking of Solomon's temple and the submission of Judah and Israel. Like Thutmose I, Thutmose III did not appoint a coregent until old age made the move imperative. Not until six years before his death at 81 did he appoint his oldest living son ( (Amenhotep II) as his coregent. Amenhotep II celebrated the Sed Festival twice during his reign. Since he reigned slightly less than 31 years by a few months, we may presume that he was just under 30 at the time of succession and died just after his 60th birthday. However, such an interpretation requires improbable assumptions in the genealogy, and it becomes more probable that Amenhotep II celebrated the first occasion at the age of 60, after a reign of about 10 years, and the second at the occasion of his 30th year of reign at about the age of 80, thus introducing a deviation in the original plan. These figures leave room for regarding the births of Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep III, when the father was about 22 years old, as an average. 6' LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 79 Thutmose IV was then about 35 at accession and 45 at death and thus did not have a Sed Festival celebration, and no record of such has been found. Amenhotep III was then about 24 at accession aud 61 ~t death. These figures are in excellent agreement with his Sed Festival celebrations in his 30th an.d 36th years of reign as evidenced by his inscriptions. The first of these was at the age of 54 in his 30th year of reign and the second at the age of 60, shortly before his death. The expected celebration in the 6th year of his reign at the age of 30 is without monumental support, but this is no proof that the Sed Festival was not then celebrated. These interpretations are in line with the evidences from the mummies which show that Thutmose III and Amenhotep II were old men at death, while Thutmose II was only of middle age. At the death of Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III became first ruler and evidently had no son old enough at the time for assuming those governmental responsibilities expected of a coregent. Since Amenhotep IV reigned 17 years and was still a young man at death, we may presume that he was taken on as coregent long before maturity thus explaining, in part, why his greatest accomplishment was the introduction of a heretical religion for which he was hated by subsequent generations. No Sed Festival record is extant from this reign, and the king evidE:lntly died before 30 years of age or else was totally disinterested in the ceremonies connected with the state religion. The next Sed record is from the tomb of Tutenkamen, suggesting that he celebrated the occasion shortly before death at the age of 30. An undated inscription from the reign of Seti I indicates that he also celebrated the festival, but the absencre of a regnal year brings to an end the possibility of any chronological interpretation. Our only choice is thus to move down to the dated celebration in the 2nd year of the reign of Merneptah and calculate backwards as far as data permit. This celebration was evidently at the age of 60, and this conclusion is in agreement with the conclusion of Petrie that Merneptah was appointed as heir-apparent (but not as coregent) in the 55th year of Rameses II. Since Rameses II reigned for another 12 years, Merneptah was 46 at this time and his appointment evidently resulted from the previous death of the older sons.'18 THE EXODUS PROBLEM 80 TABLE III Data Derived from the Revised Interpretation of Sed Festivals• Age of Father at Birth of Heir Ageat Accession Amenhotep I Thutmose I Thutmose II Hatshepsut Thutmose III Amenhotep II 19 22 32 29 24 51 45 44 44 49 50 Thutmose IV Amenhotep III 20 21 35 25 Amenhotep IV Tutenkhamen Harmhab Seti I Rameses II 41 12 Merneptah 26 King 19 46 Age and Regnal Year at Sed Festival · Age at Death' 60 in 9th year record undated no sed record 60 in 16th year 60 in 33rd year Sed records not dated. Assumed 60 in 10th year no Sed record 30th year of reign; 36th year of reign at age of 60 No Sed record tomb record no Sed record Sed record not dated 30th year of reign; 60 in 4lst year; other celebrations irrational 60 in 2nd year 64 78 53 67 82 80 45 61 ·· 29 31 86 •Data are approximate only and are based on the revised chronology of Egypt as shown diagramaticall~ in Fi~ure 10 of Volume I. Dates are intended to show that the Sed Festival data are reasona le wit in the limits imJl<lSed_b_y !he.altered chronology_!'ll<I jn line witb.!!c!Li!l~r:. . pretation of the significance of this festival which assumes that tlie original plan was 1'.'elebration at the age of 30 if the king were reigning at this age, and every 30th year thereafter as long as he rei_11;ned. · as Rameses II celebrated the .fea.st .in his .. 30th year; Cfict Amenhotep II and Amenhotep III, in deviation from the original plan, and then at intervals of three years thereafter. This somewhat irregular practice prevents the establishment of more exact data relative to the reign of Rameses II. If it is assumed that he was about 20 years old at accession, the celebration in his 4lst year would then be the celebration at the age of 60, thus refining the age at accession to 19. This would suggest that either the reign of Seti I was not greatly in excess of 30 years or else that he married later in life. The apparent old age of his father, Rameses I, at death would seem to indicate that the latter was more probably the case. This would agree with his apparent interest in extended military expeditions during the early part of his reign. There would appear to be no data available which Figure 1. Sed-Festival Celebrations in the Early XVIIIth Dynasty 20 vrs. -...., l' -z Amenhoteo I Thutmose ~ > ...., TMtmose II 0 Hatsheosut r.ri s Thutmose I II Amenhote~ II 0 s "rj s 0 Thutmose IV Amenhotep .!.~ __I ~- ~ > ...., z - GJ ~ Showing how the Sed-festival data can be fitted into the revised chronology based on the alternate interpretation of the significance as a celebration at 30 years of age if the king was reigning at this age and every 30 years thereafter so long as he reigned. Total horizontal lines represent life span Thin horizontal lines represent years to accession Heavy horizontal lines represent sole reigns · Dotted lines represent coreg:enci es S represents points of Sed-festiva1· celebration. Those not datable not shown. ~ ...., ::i:: 0 0 r.ri 00 ....... 82 THE EXODUS PROBLEM cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of the revised interpretation of the Sed Festival which would make its original significance that of a celebration when the reigning king reached 30 years of age, and every 30 years thereafter, recognizing innovations in the original plan by Amenhotep II and Amnhotep III. X. The Egyptians of the IVth Dynasty Had the Know-how for Correcting Their Calendar to an Exact Solar Year The Sothic theory of dating has as its fundamental basis the belief that the Egyptians of early antiquity were not adequately versed in the mathematics of astronomy to permit a knowledgeable correction of their calendar in order to prevent the seasons from becoming displaced in the year. The current views on the chronology of Egypt are tightly bound to certain vague inscriptions which have been interpreted to indicate such a migration of the seasons. While it remains true that, to date, no inscription has been found stating explicitly that any such correction was made, this is no proof that such correction was not made. It is not scientificallv feasible to use what we do not know as a support for. the validity of deductions that cannot stand on their own feet otherwise. On the other hand, evidence has long been available to indicate that the Egyptians back as far as the IVth Dynasty did have the know-how and the necessary information for making such adjustments in their calendar . .If they had such knowledge, it is only reasonable to assume that this knowledge was used to make these corrections. This evidence does not preclude per se the possibility that such knowledge was lost during the subsequent centuries; however it is highly improbable that once the correction system was in use the mechanics of the correction would be lost. The vagueness of the evidence used to support the hypothesis of an uncorrected calendar as the sole calendar of Egypt does not warrant the use of such an hypothesis for "fixing" the chronology of ancient Egypt. The data in question are capable of an alternate interpretation that does not require recognition of such a wandering calendar. It is first to be noted that the Egyptian seasons were named as the Season of Sowing, the Season of Harvesting, and the Season of Inundation. It is most unlikely that these LIMITATIONS OF DATING METHODS 83 names would be retained through a period of 1460 years, making it necessary to refer to the actual Season .of Inundation as the Season of Sowing. More credible is the assumption that a correction system had already been devised and adopted before the seasons were given these names. Secondly, as pointed out by Davidson,(;~ the various refer~ ences to sowing, harvesting, and quarrying through the era of the first .twelve dynasties, which also refer to the month of the year, indicate that there is no necessity for supposing a shift of the seasons in the calendar year of months. It is true that such data can be made to fit into more than a single calendrical interpretation; hence undue weight should not be attached to such data. Nevertheless, any credible chronology should be able to show a reasonable degree of harmony with such references. It is to be noted also that early Scripture refers to the year as composed of 12 months of 30 days each,7° with no indication of any correction even to the extent of adding 5 intercalary days. Yet without such. correction, the seasons would have migrated backward through the year at the rate of 51.4 days per year to give a cycle of only 70 years rather than 1460 years. The existence of such a situation is even more incredible than would have been the case in Egypt. Other evidence from Scripture indicates that the calendar must have been corrected in spite of the absence of reference to such correction. This follows from the fact that the various feasts of the ancient Hebrews were related to both the seasons and to the calendar months. For example: 71 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord.... · The context indicates clearly that this was to be an annual festival; yet if the seasons had been migrating through the year, it would have required hardly a decade before the harvest would· not have been in the seventh month at all. We do not know just how this correction was made in early Biblical times; we do know how it was done in post-Biblical times, 72 and the very fact that the Jews this late did correct their calendar to maintain a proper relation between feast days and the seasons reflects such a practice at least from the time of Moses. THE EXODUS PROBLEM 84 Even more significant is the inescapable nature of the evidence now available to indicate that the· Egyptians of the IVth Dynasty had a sufficient knowledge of the sciences of mathematics and astronomy to permit a -determination of the length of the solar year in days and a decimal fraction of a day with an accuracy comparable to that of modern times.'1 Furthermore, this evidence points to a year in this early era quite identical in length to the period of revolution of the earth about the sun as measured in modern times. This information has been available to scholars from the 1920's. These data refute u~equivocally the concept that the ancien.t Egyptians this early did not have the know-how for correcting the calendar so that the seasons would retain their positions within the calendar year. The data under consideration were obtained by an extended and detailed examination of the Great Pyramid of Khufu, first king of the 4th Dynasty. These investigations began back in the 17th century and later attracted the interest of such scholars as Sir John Herschel, EQgland' s foremost astronomer of the early 19th century, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Smyth, Astronomer Royal of Scotland, William Petrie (later to become Sir Flinders Petrie), and others. Unfortunately, Smyth, having a strong religious bent, made the mistake of imposing unsound theories upon what was otherwise a valuable contribution, thus bringing the entir~ project into disrepute among many scholars. He proposed that the measurements of the various passages in the structure had a prophetic significance covering thousands of years of history reaching into modern times. The theory was based on a belief that each inch in the passageway represented a year of prophetic history. Some scholars, however, ·were not so readily dissuaded, and the investigations were continued to the point where solid conclusions could be drawn from the data. The investigations had been prompted by statements made by certain of the ancient Greeks testifying that the perimeter of the base of the pyramid was intended to measure half a minute of longitude, i.e., that 480 times the length of one side was equal to a geographic degree on the earth's surface. Scholars looked askance at such statements, since they inferred that the designers of the pyramid must have known, not LIMITATIONS OF DA TING METHODS 85 only that the earth was round, but also the length of its circumference. With the determination of the length of a degree longitude in modern times, it became possible to check the validity of these statements, provided the length of the base of one side of the pyramid could be accurately meas• ured. Early work on the making of such measurements in an exact manner was hampered by the fact that the base of the pyramid had been buried in sand and debris over the centuries, making the base of the structure inaccessible. The best that could be done was to measure the side at the lowest possible level and estimate from the adjacent ground level the increment to be added for the inaccessible part. Such procedures gave results which were regarded as in sufficiently close agreement with the statements by the early Greeks to warrant continuing the investigations of the pyramid. Another ancient source had indicated that the Greek unit of length known as the stadium was supposed to be equal to 1/600 th of a geographical degree. It was known otherwise thafl:he stadium was equivalent to 185 French meters. In the course of measurements, it was found that as near as could be determined, the slant height of the pyramid was 185 meters or one stadium, thus providing further evidence that the dimensions of the structure were indeed related to the circumference of the earth. It was further observed that the perimeter of the structure at the base was related to its vertical height as the radius of a circle is to its circumference indicating that the designers of the structure were familiar with the constant now designated as 11 . From these and other observations was born the hypothesis that the Great Pyramid was designed to be a scale model of the northern hemisphere. The missing factor that would serve to add body to the hypothesis was the nature of the unit of length that had been employed by the. designers in determining the size of the structure.· Even though the pyramid was a massive structure, it was but a mere speck in terms of the size of the earth. Hence if it was designed to be drawn to scale in terms of the earth's circumference, there must have been used some easily expressible ratio in reducing the length of the circumference of the earth to tl~e dimensions of the pyramid. But without a knowledge of the 86 THE EXODUS PROBLEM unit used, that ratio remained enigmatic and the hypothesis remained an hypothesis. This situation led to a search of the ancient writings for references to units of length. One such was the afore mentioned stadium. But since the other measurements were not simple multiples or fractions of this unit, there must have been some smaller unit used. The astronomer, Herschel, had pointed out that the only reliable basis for a standard of measure related to the earth was the polar axis of the earth. This had been recently determined to be 500,500,000 British inches. If the inch were but 1/1000 longer than the British inch, this figure would reduce to the round number 500,000,000. The possibility was entertained that this fraction of the inch could have been lost in the course of the centuries since it was first used as a unit. Herschel pointed out further that 50 such inches would be exactly equal to one ten-millionth of the polar axis and that 25 such units would make a convenient cubit of 25.025 British inches. In the mean time, John Taylor, editor of the London Observer, had noted that if the daily rotation of the earth on its axis is divided into the orbit of one revolution of the earth about the sun, one obtains this same figure of 25.025. His calculations were initiated on the hunch that possibly the designers of the pyramid had thus arrived at their unit, and had then incorporated this factor of the length of the solar year into the measurements of the structure. If Taylor's hunch was correct, then one side of the base of the pyramid measured in cubits of 25.025 British inches, should be exactly equal to the number of days in a year, i.e., 365.2422 days by modern computations. But up to this point, it had not been possible to get an exact measurement of the base, due to the accumulated sand and debris that had buried the base of the structure. In 1924, the German Institute in Cairo undertook the task of clearing the rubble from the base to make possible an exact measurement. A professional surveyor was engaged to make the measurements which now could be made with an accuracy of a few millimeters, not only for the base, but also for the slant height and the verticle height. The results revealed that the best previous determinations had been very close to correct and that the deductions were absolute- LIMITATIONS OF DA TING METHODS 87 ly correct. The possibility that the observed relations were incorporated by chance is infinitely remote. Thus has been proved as completely as anything can be proved that the designers .,of the Great Pyramid knew that the earth was round; they knew the circumference of the earth with an astonishing accuracy; they 'knew that the earth was flattened at the poles; they were well acquainted with the constant ratio 'It b and they knew the length of the year with an accuracy comparable to that in modern times. As a result of other investigations on the descending passage, it is appjrent that they knew also that the earth is tilted on its axis to the extent of about 23 lh degrees and that this tilt causes the seasons; they knew also that the earth's celestial north pole dE!scribes a slow circle around the pole of the ecliptic causing the precession of the equinoxes. And it is out of the question to suppose that the ancient Greeks of a later time made their statements on the basis of any experimental knowledge, since this information was unknown at the time of these Greek comments. Yet scholars had had no indiCation of the existence of any ancient civilization that had a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy that would permit the designing of such a structure based on these dimensions. Just as the ancient inscriptions provided the clues leading to these investigations and the eventual solution to the problem, so also the ancient writings provide the answer to the question of where the Egyptians obtained this information. Shortly after arriving in Canaan from Chaldea, Abraham found it necessary because of a famine in Canaan, to migrate into Egypt. Referring to this man Abraham, Josephus wrote: 74 ... He was a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in. his opinions; for which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had,· and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God; ... This his opinion was derive.cl from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea, as well as those that happen to the sun, the moon, and all the heavenly bodies.... . . . He [Abraham] communicated to them [the Egyptians] arithmetic, and he delivered to them the science· of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning.... 88 THE EXODUS PROBLEM By the altered chronology defended in this work, the 4th dynasty began with what must have been an approximately simultaneous end to Dynasties I and III. The date for the beginning of the reign of Khufu, first king of Dynasty IV, was calculated on the basis of the setting of the Exodus '34 years after the end of Dynasty XI I and the periods of the dynasties encompassing the period back to Khufu. The date falls in the year 1885 B.C. By Biblical chronology, Abraham entered Canaan in 1875 B.C. Khufu then began to reign about 10 years before the migration of Abraham into Canaan. Since the migration into Egypt occurjed almost immediately after his entering Canaan, Abraham was in Egypt in the 10th year of Khufu. A building stone was found in the pyramid inscribed with the cartouch of Khufu, followed by the figure 17, which was interpreted to indicate that this particular stone was either quarried or set into the structure in the 17th year of this king. It is reasonable to suppose that 7 years elapsed from the time of Abraham's entrance into Egypt until the setting (or quarrying) of this particular stone. Needless to say, such an origin of this information to the Egyptians would be met with no greater enthusiasm by modern scholars than was the conclusion of Taylor who saw no other possibility than that the Egyptians obtained their information from God under inspiration. That it was obtained by inspiration - possibly, that it was the Egyptians who were thus inspired - no; the inspiration, if any, was through one, who like the prophets of old, had access to the ear of God. 0 Notes and References (1) M-SEC, p. 1. (2) B-EUP, Vol. II, p. 226. (3) Ibid. (4) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 255. (5) See note after the name Necherophes in Africanus' transcription of Manetho for Dynasty III (WM, p. 41). (6) Petrie suggested this explanation (P-HE, Vol. I, p. 30). (7) See Chap. XVII foruse of this eclipse in establishing early Assyrian chronology. (8) The author does not subscribe to this opinion of error in dating this eclipse. (9) See M-SEC, p. 352 for an example of the difficulties involved in attempting to date eclipses as early as the 14th century. (10) TMNHK, p. 218. (11) See ref. 8. (12) For discussions of the Sothic theory and its basis, see MSEC, p. 27; B-BEC, y9_l. IX, pp. 148f.; Ibid.,.Vol. XXIII, pp. xiv ff. (13) Referred to in C-SH, p. 145; B-HE, p. 32. (14) A reproduction of a summary of the reactions of various scholars to this theory is giv,:n as a quotation in ref. 43. (!4a) This concept of Meyer relative to the introduction of the Egyptian calendar in 4240 B.C. is now repudiated by scholars, thougli the application of the theory to the era of the XII th Dynasty and onward is retained. (14b) See quot. of ref. 8, Chap. !IL (14c) See ref. 14a. (14d) See ref. 9 of Chap. Ill. (15) M-SEC, p. 323. (16) Ibid., p. 234. (17) P-CAE, pp. 30, 31. (18) B-BEC, Vol. IX, p. 151. (19) M-SEC, p-p. 28, 31. (20) Referred to in M-SEC, p. 150. See note Rt bottom of page 148 in B-BEC, Vol. IX. (21) Because of the collpase of this concept of the presumed use of the Sothic period by the Egyp- LIMIT ATIO NS OF DA TING METHODS 89 tians, there has been a recent shift in thinking to the premise that the Egyptians determined the length of the period by observations of the dates for the high Nile level over a period of years. (22) See note after this name in the Sothis list (W-M, p. 241). (23) Ibid., p. 99. (24) MSEC. p. 249. (25) Ibid., p. 28. (26) Ibid., p. 193. (27) Ibid., p. 266. (28) See Ibid., p. 30 for summary of probable calendar changes. (29) Ibid., p. 234. (30) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 95. (31) BBEC, Vol. IX, p. 153. (32) M-SEC, p. 192f. (33) Ibid., p. 194 has a reference to Weill on this point. (34) B-BEC, Vol. XXIII, p.L of introduction. (35) M-SEC, pp. 146f. (36) D-GP, Chap. I. (Si) M-SEC. p. 28. (38) See ·ref. 36. (39) This date, as a dose approximation, is virtually universally accepted. (40) Ibid. (41) P-HE, Vol. I, addenda, pp. xvii, xviii. (42) See Chap. IX, quot. of ref. 17, and Chap. XIV (Vol. I) on the placement of the Hyksos invasion in Dynasty XIII. (43) M-SEC, pp. 9, 10. (44) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 211. (45) K-AHL. p. 195. (46) Referred to in B-BEC, Vol. lX, p. 148. (4i) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 251. (48) Ibid., p. 274. (48a) Theon of Alexandria, op. cit., 1:30; cited by Odom in 0-VVPW (Andrews Univ. Seminary Studies, 1965), p. 120. (49) M-SEC. p. 195; P-HE, Vol. II, p. 32. (50) Breasted held some such opinion (B-HE, p. ·39), (51) P-HE, Vol. II. pp. 30ff. (52) Calculated from data provided in M-SEC, p. 196. (53) P-HE, Vol. II, p. 33, 34. (54) By the revision, the period from Ahmose to Memeptah is 325 years, compared to 380 years by current views. Cf. Figs. 10-12 of Vol. I. (55) P-HE, Vol. II, p. 31. (56) M-SEC, p. 195. (57) Since he could not have been 30 years of age in his 33rd year of reign. (58) P-PE, Vol. II, p. 32. The acceptance of this coincidence of Seel Festival celebrations is not vital to the reasoning employed. However, since this concept does not raise problems, it is used as the basis of calculations here. (59) This age for Thutmose Ill at the time of accession is higher than most previous suggestions, but we find no data to preclude this conclusion. (60) B-HE, p. 266. Note the chapter heading. (61) See monograph, E-TS. (62). Fig. I. (63) P-HE, Vol. II, p. 76; his mummy indicates that he was not healthy. (64) Some have entertained the possibility that Thutmose III was the son of Thutmose I. Edgerton concluded that he was the son of Thutmose II, which view is here accepted. (65) Assumed on the basis of data provided in Table XIV, Vol. I, and applied in Fig. IO. The assumption is con~ firmed by the subsequent chronology. (66) E-TS, p. 42. (67) See Fig. I. (68) These figures are in essential agreement with Petrie (P-HE, Vol. Ill, p. 107). (60) D-GP. (70) Cf. Gen. 7:11 and 8:3, 4. (il) Lev. 23:39. (72) See SDABC, Vol. IX, "Calendar, Jewish." (73) The developments in these investigations were reviewed by Tomkins (winter issue, 1971, of Horizon from which the subsequent details are gleaned). See also R-EH, p. 3. (74) J-AJ, Bk. I, Chap. VII, par. l; Ibid .. Chap. VIII. par. 3. CHAPTERV THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES In the course of the developments outlined in the previous phases of this work, numerous problems have been provided solutions when it is recognied that the archaeology of Palestine is currently being interpreted against a background offset from true history by more than 600 years. The· proper· background for· the incident of the Exodus is to be found at. the end of Early Bronze, currently assigned a position at the end of Dynasty VI in Egypt, 1 with the Conquest set 40 years· later. Other evidence has indicated a placement of the Exodus .incident late in Dynasty XIII, shortly after the close of Dynasty XII. 2 These placements require a recognition that Dynasties VI, XII, and XIII were roughly ·parallel in time and .that, contrary to popular· opinton, Dynasty XII did not-follow Dynasty VI after an interval variously defined .\l.S 50:to 200+ years. Since Dynasty VI clearly belongs in the. late Early Bronze Age, it follows that Dynasty XII and ear.ly Dynasty XIII also belOng to late · Early Bronze and not in Middle Bronze as is currently held. The position of Dynasty· XII in the Archaeofogical Ages thus becomes a matter of critical importance in the evaluation of this altered chronology. If it is a proven fact that the beginning of Dynasty XII belongs in the era. of . Middle Bronze, then no other conclusion is possible than the placement of Manetho' s Dynasties VII to XI between Dynasties VI and XII as is currently done. There would then be no choice but to dismiss the contentions of this work in spite of the numerous problems that are provided solutions by this altered chronology. In other words, the proposed revision here defended stands or falls with the nonvalidity or validity of the evidence that has been used to support the placement of Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze. By the same token, if it can be shown that the evidence used for such support has been misinterpreted and that the interpretation is open to severe question, then the large number of solutions to problems provided should be recognized as confirming the general correctness of the altered structure. The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that the THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 91 evidence used to support this placement of Dynasty XII is not solid and that the popular interpretati<Jn of this evidence is highly questionable. The faulty interpretation of this evidence depends on premises that have not been proved, and which in fact requlre violation of the very rules on which the science of archaeology rests. Our task then falls into four categories: (1) to review briefly the numerous problems that are inherent in the current views but which are provided satisfactory solutions by the revision, (2) to point out the fallacies in the current interpretations of the evidence purported to provide the basis for placement of Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze, (3) to provide an altered and rational interpretation of these evidences within the framework provided by the revision, and (4) to show how and why it has been possible for scholars to avoid the implications of these numerous discrepancies. I. The Incongruous Background Provided by Current Views for Incidents Recorded in Scripture The examples noted here have been treated In greater detail in other sections of this work. They are gathered together here to emphasize the magnitude of the array of evidence and as a review basis for the subsequent discussion. This review becomes of importance for the proper evaluation of the claims made to the effect that there are no significant discrepancies between Scripture as it reads and archaeology as popularly interpreted. 3 Such claims are, of course, true for the facts of archaeology; they are misleading if reference is to the interpretations placed on these facts. Vast sections of Scripture must be compromised if the currently accepted interpretations of archaeology are taken at face value. If one starts with the premise that the interpretations of archaeology are above question, even in their larger aspects, and then interprets Scripture in line with these interpretations, how ·could it be otherwise than that there would be no apparent discrepancies of significance. This would be analagous to measuring a given fixed length with a rule that defines a foot as equal to six inches, then insisting that there is no discrepancy between the determined length and the rule used. The discrepancy is rather with the genuine rule which defines the foot as equal to twelve inches. 92 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Biblical archaeology does not claim to interpret its observations in terms of Scripture. 4 It is rather evaluating Scripture in terms of the interpretations placed on archaeological observations. The apparent discrepancies are then taken as evidence that the meaning of Scripture must be modified, and once modified to fit the interpretations, there are then no serious discrepancies between the two. Statements to the effect that one does not have to sacrifice his faith in the historicity of Scripture in accepting these interpretations of archaeology are, to say the least, misleading. As of the present moment, these discrepancies are so numerous and of such magnitude that they. stand to challenge the very foundations of Christian beliefs that have their basis in Scriptural teachings. 5 How could it be otherwise, since these interpretations are based on the premises provided by the Higher Criticism? In fairness to readers, these claims of agreement should be accompanied by a qualification that the term Scripture is used to refer to Scripture as modified in its meaning and significance by the Higher Criticism and not to Scripture as it reads. II. Anachronistic Backgrounds Related to the Conquest Under Joshua While the placement of the Conquest by current views reveals widespread destruction in Palestine archaeologically, as is to be expected from the Biblical account, the destructions of individual sites are invariably followed by a revival of the same pottery types as were in previous use. 6 This situation is in contradiction to the reasonable expectation of the appearance of a new culture at the point of the conquest of a territory followed by subsequent occupation by the conquerors.; Furthermore; these destructions do not represent a unified conquest within the brief period stated in Scripture. They are rather spread over a period of a century and a half or more. If one proposes to interpret the Amarna Letters to represent this conquest, as is commonly done by proponents of the XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the Exodus, he is faced also with the fact that these letters pres~ ent a picture of coincident political difficulty over widely separated areas, some of which even extended into territory never occupied by the Israelites, and not to a unified effort toward the conquest of one city at a time as indicated in THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 93 Scripture. Specifically, the destruction currently associated with the Israelite conquest of the site of Lachish is separated by many years from destructions of other sites similarly associated while Scripture states that the site was taken during the brief initial phase of the Conquest. 8 The absence of the expected evidence of a new culture at the point assigned archaeologically to the Conquest has demanded in turn the concept that the Hebrews had no culture of their own. 9 It must be presumed that their culture throughout their occupation of Palestine was totally derivative from the heathen whom they displaced. This derived culture must include their religion, their literature, their use of writing, and their architectural and ceramic designs. Such a conclusion is incongruous in the face of Scriptural references to the use of writing prior to the Conquest and a clearly expressed origin of their religion and literature in a totally different manner. While archaeology reveals that the destruction at Ai and at Jericho belong to a common era as stated in .Scripture, 10 these destructions are dated some 600 years earlier than any possible date- based on Scripture. 11 This fact is of unusual interest and significance, since these walls were universally recognized as those that fell at the time of the Conquest, that is, until elucidation of the relative chronology based on the accepted starting premises demanded a backward movement in time to the end of the Early Bronze Age. 12 It appears that, with the recent investigations at Ai, all explanations for the anachronism relative to the date of its final destruction have been eliminated, except as an inaccuracy in the Scriptural account is recognized. 13 According to Glueck, there was no sedentary occupation of southern Transjordan at the time attributed to the Conquest by the XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the Exodus. 14 Yet Scripture refers to a number of cities as being in this area at that tiine. 15 This situation has been used as a support for the XIXth Dynasty placement of this incident, though such a setting results in a necessary severe accomodation in the chronology of the era of the Judges. 16 Against the XVIIIth Dynasty setting are .the serious anomalies that follow from the presumed identification of the Habiru of the Amarna Letters with the invading Hebrews. 17 94 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Archaeology has the Philistines appearing in the area south of Palestine for the first time in conjunction with the invasion of the Sea Peoples (c. 1200 B.C. by popular views.). This is contrary to Scripture, which indicates the presence of the Philistines in the territory from the time of Abraham.18 III. The Anachronistic Background to the Era of the Oppression With the two current concepts entertained on the placement of the Exodus, there are two backgrounds to be considered for the Oppression. Each has its own unique discrepancies with Scripture; in addition there are other anachronisms that are common to both. Scripture indicates · a large building program under Israelite slave labor, including the building of the cities Pithom and Raamses. 19 No evidences of any significant building program in the Delta region, where the Israelites dwelt, have been found that can be attributed to any XVIIIth Dynasty king. 20 Scripture also places the king's palace in close proximity to the enslaved Israelites. 21 This location of the palace and capital continued from the time of the birth of Moses to the time of his flight to Midian 40 years later and was not a mere tempQrary arrangement, as some have assumed as a basis for bypassing this anachronism. 22 No king of the XVIIIth Dynasty had his palace or capital in this area. Uniformly, these kings ruled from sites far to the south. 23 It is a further anachronism to suppose that the period of the Oppression encompassed the reign of Hatshepsut, predecessor of Thutmose III. Hatshepsut was a peaceful soul whose primary ambition was the beautification of her capital at Thebes. 24 Thutmose III, as her coregent, waited impatiently for 22 years for her rule to end so that he could initiate his program of foreign conquest, an ambition for which Hatshepsut had no foclination whatever. While these anachronisms in the setting of the Oppression in the XVIIIth Dynasty appear to be eliminated by the XIXth l)ynasty placement, this is not altogether true. Merneptah' s inscription demands a recognition of the prese:pce of the Israelites in Palestine by the 5th year of his reign, 25 eliminating the earlier proposed identification of this king as the pharaoh of the Exodus. Since all other state_ments in THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 95 this inscription deal with political problems, the attempt to make an agricultural disaster out of the statement "her seed is not," relative to Israel, gives rise to an incongruity of no mean proportions. Yet, to recognize that this statement should also be interpreted as having a p()litical implication calls for a Conquest significantly more than 40 years prior to the 5th year of Merneptah26 and of necessity takes us back at least into the very early years of Rameses II, and more probably earlier, for the incident of the Exodus. This in turn demands an initiation of the enslavement of Israel many years before the reign of Rameses II and a placement of the era of the Oppression· during the reigns of the weak predecessors of Rameses II, none of whom was a builder of any significance. None of these predecessors of Rameses II, save perhaps · Seti I, maintained a capital in the Delta area, and Seti I was not a· builder; his interests were almost altogether in .the direction of foreign conquest. Certainly one can hardly envision the Oppression as either initiated by, or encompassed by the reign of Amenhotep IV (Akhnaten) who had his capital at his newly built city of Akhetaten at el Amarna and whose interest was deeply rooted 'in his new religion. IV. The Anachronistip Background to the Incident of the Exodus. Both current placements of the Exodus suffer in being set against a background that does not provide the evidence of crisis ill Egypt to be expected from. the details provided in Scripture. 27 To avoid the implications of the expected crisis, it has been necessary to make severe alterations in the Scriptural accounts relative to the number of escapees and the significance of the plagues and of the debacle at the Red Sea. As devious as are the proposed accomodations, these do not provide anything resembling satisfactory explanations for the discrepancies. The reduction of the number of escapees· to "more manageable proportions" 28 does not explain· how even ·this reduced number could make their way to Palestine by the route described in Scripture. 29 The reduction of the significance of the plagues to the level of origin in a series of incidents resulting from not too-.unusual weather conditions30 does not explain the unhindered release of the unarmed slaves while the pharaoh had an army 96 Tl:JE EXODUS PROBLEM at his disposal, and makes the pharaoh a very stupid individual except as he recognized clearly the appearance and disappearance of the plagues at the command of Moses: To reduce the pursuing Egyptian army to a mere task force does not explain why the phara,oh did not use his more complete army to prevent their escape in the first place. Even if there had been far less by way of catastrophe to Egypt than that indicated by the Scriptural account, the incident of the Exodus could be expected to have been the signal for revolt on the part of the tribute paying peoples, resulting in a loss of the Egyptian Empire at this time.'11 There is no adequate evidence to reveal even a minor crisis in Egypt at the points now mominated as the background for the Exodus. V. The Anomalous Background to the Incident of the Descent The incident of the descent of the Israelites from Palestine into Egypt is commonly placed in the Hyksos era preceding Dynasty XVIII. This may be considered as feasible chronologically by either placement This is possible since the proponents of the XVIIIth Dynasty setting commonly recognize a period of only 215 years of sojourn in Egypt, while the proponents of the XIXth Dynasty setting either take this period as 430 years or place no confidence in the Scripture figures. In any case, the Hyksos period is anachronistic to the incident of the Descent in terms of the data provided by Scripture. It has been claimed that the Hyksos era does provide a proper background for the Descent, since the Hyksos were shepherds and would have no prejudice toward the Israelite migrants who were also shepherds. The Egyptians on the other hand, held shepherds in disrepute.'12 Admittedly the verses in Genesis 46:31 to 47:6 suggest such an interpretation, but this is not a necessary interpretation. The verses also suggest that it was the area of settlement that was the crucial detail, and that the objection could be alleviated by the selection of the area of Goshen for occupation. While it is not stated what the factors were that would make their settlement in Goshen satisfactory in spite of this prejudice, the assumption that a Hyksos king would have any particular regard for the opinions of the Egyptians is highly improbable. · THE PLACEMENT QF DYNASTY XII 97 The f~ct that the pharaoah of the Exodus, who was certainly an Egyptian, was willing to suggest a solution to another problem involving what the Egyptian people regarded as an abomination,~ without respect to their wishes (Ex. 8:26) indicates that such prejudices were matters of secondary importance. It is further suggested in the story that it was not the ownership of sheep that was the point of prejudice, since the Egyptians in general owned their own sheep. :i.~ Evidently it was the occupation as shepherds that was the matter of prejudice; for what reasons, we are not told. In any case, the story does not require recognition that the Descent occurred under a Hyksos king. The background by current views is also anomalous with reference to the. famine phase of the account. References ~o famine are profuse in the Egyptian inscriptions. 34 Two of these references mention an extended famine for which preparation was made in advance, the accumulated food having been distributed to the people during the famine. 35 Yet no famine inscription can be dated even approximately in a proper position relative to the proposed dates for the Exodus. Neither can it be reasonably supposed that the Script\lre narrative is an adaptation of- the Egyptian, since the Egyptians had no means of predicting famines in order to prepare for such in advance. Neither .can· it be presumed that the Egyptian references are a reflection of the Israelite incident, since by current views these inscriptions of famine antedate the positions assigned to the Descent. By the chronological revision, both these references to famine fall into line relative to the position of the Exodus. 36 VI. Anachronistic Backgrounds for Incidents During the Period of the judges The XIXth Dynasty setting of the Exodus leaves a highly abbreviated period for the Judges which is at gross odds with Scripture. 37 The XVIIlth Dynasty setting shares with the XIXth Dynasty setting the necessity of recognizing a date late in the era of the Judges for the coming of the Philistines into the area south of Palestine, since there is no evidence of Philistine pottery in this area until the end of Middle Bronze: 38 This is contradictory to Scripture, which indicates the . presence of Philistines in this area from the 98 THE EXODUS PROBLEM time of the Exodus, the Conquest, and even back to the time of Abraham. 39 On further examination of the chronology involved, the massive temple at Shechem, which had been regarded as certainly that mentioned in the story of Abimelech, required movement back in time by a plurality of centuries. 40 This move is similar to that necessitated by a re-examination of the evidence at Jericho. The altered interpretation left only a few pits containing debris and charcoal to represen~ the destruction of the temple and of the entire city · that contained it. 41 While it is clear from Scripture that Israel occupied the site of Megiddo following the victory of Deborah and Barak, 42 there is no evidence of such occupation archaeologically short of the last years before the . reign of Saul. 4'3 While the Philistines certainly occupied Beth Shan at the time of Saul, H no indication of Philistine pottery was found this early at this site and so meager an amount at neighboring Megiddo that an occupation cannot be inferred. 45 Still other discrepancies at other sites are of such a nature that a brief review is not feasible here; these have been noted under proper headings elsewhere in this work. VII. Anachronisms from the Era of the M onarachy of Israel The anachronism involved in the identification of Shishak of Scripture with Sheshonk of Dynasty XXII and of Scriptural Zerah with Osorkon of the same dynasty have been previously noted. 46 Scripture tells us that Jeroboam rebuilt the city of Shechem. 4; Archaeologically, this rebuilding is represented by current interpretations as nothing more than a mere patching up job of certain limited portions of the walls of the city. 48 At Megiddo, the stables earlier assigned to Solomon with certainty on the basis of I Kings 10:26, on further investigation, required abandonment of this view; the stables belonged to a later era. 49 This and similar necessary abandonments of interpretations once regarded as certain, illustrate the questionable nature of proposed synchronims based on situations that are in no sense unique, while leaving the more unique incidents as. anachronisms. It could be expected that in this general era, most any king would have had stables and chariots at this important ~efense site.· THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 99 \'III. Anachronisms Not Primarily Related to Incidents of Scripture If the only anachronisms of archaeological interpretation were those related to· incidents referred to in Scripture, there might be some basis for the current belief that it is Scripture that is not reliable in its accounts. But this is far from the actual situation. The accepted chronology of Egypt leaves us with a significant number of anachronisms not particularly related to Scripture, some of which are so obvious that the attempts at explanation only emphasize the magnitude of the difficulties.· IX. The Anachronism of the Hyksos Empire In the opinion o.f the writer, one of the most inexcusable errors in the interpretations of archaeology is that which has · envisioned a Hyksos empire encompassing all of Egypt, all of western Asia, and reaching into Transjordan and the area of Mesopotamia and even into the islands of the Mediterranean. Such an empire would compare favorably with any of· the other recognized empires of antiquity, including those of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece and would certainly be more extensive than anything ever controlled by Egypt or the Hittites. Yet the extant evidence supporting this concept of a vast Hyksos empire is limited to a number of scarabs found in Palestine, of questionable Hyksos origin or identity, and a few items carrying the name of Khyan who is believed to have been a Hyksos king, but whose name does not appear in Manetho' s list of Hyksos kings. This latter list of evidences includes five scarabs, two cylinder seals, a small carved lion (too large to carry in one's pocket!) found at Bagdad, a vase lid found in Crete, and the lower part of a broken statue found at Bubastis in northern Egypt. 50 Differing from all other empires of antiquity, all other evidences for the existence of this hypothetical empire have disappeared. It is on the appearance of this name Khyan on these items upon which· the Hyksos origin of these items depends. 51 Yet the style of the scarabs bearing this name is that from the era of the Vlth and IXth Dynasties, and not from the Hyksos era as currently defined. 52 Now, both of these types [of scarab decoration] are common on the of Pepy [Dynasty VI], and also in those of Maa-ab-!3- of the sca~abs 100 THE EXODUS PROBLEM IXth dynasty. But, on the other hand, not a single scarab of the Xllth, or later dynasties, is known with such designs. It is therefore impossible to assign this king [Khyan] to the Hyksos period as was supposed at first. This Khyan has the title Heq Setu (Prince of the Hills), suggesting that he was a chieftain of the desert tribes of the east. In anv case, he makes no claim to have ever been a king of Egypt, though as noted above, certain items bearing his name have been found in Egypt. While other evidences have been pointed to as of Hyksos origin, these do not carry inscriptions to verify such an origin, and the proposed identifications are purely speculative. All other evidences than those noted above for this hypothetical empire have strangely vanished. 53 ... Meagre as these data are, one cannot contemplate them without seeing conjured up before him the vision of a vanished empire which once stretched from the Euphrates to the first cataract of the Nile, an empire of which all other evidence has perished .... Breasted (author of the above quotation) is not alone in recognizing the ephemoral and visionary nature of this empire. Albright commented thus: 5 ~ ... By this time horse-drawn chariotry had been introduced as the most important instrument of warfare, and we must picture the northern hordes [Hyksos] as sweeping through Palestine and Egypt in swift chariots, with footmen playing a strictly subordinate role. [Emphasis ours.] Now, no intelligent person is going to presume to create an empire out of these meager evidences. Since this concept seems to have been accepted by the scholarly (intelligent) world rather universally, it will be necessary for us to look behind the curtain for the real reasons why the existence of such an ephemoral and unrealistic empire has been so widely accepted without reservation. In so doing, we find that the real basis for this unrealistic conclusion is the pressure of a series of unproven and unprovable hypotheses which have never merited the confidence that has been placed in them. Of these uninscribed and questionable evidences, the one· that has evidently influenced the thinking of scholars to the greatest degree is the appearance in Palestine and elsewhere of a new type of fortification. 55 THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 101 ... To the mixture the coming of the Hyksos chieftains added little. From the material remains one would never deduce the setting up of a new ruling class, with its alien Hurrian elements, if it were not for the appearance of the new type of fortification. Not all scholars have been willing to accept the appearance of this new type of fortification as indicating that the invaders swept through Palestine and Egypt in swift chariots as hypothesized by Albright, even though new fortification types may well reflect the introduction of a new type of warfare. 56 Such an entirely new system of defence must certainly have been introduced from outside. It must also reflect new conditions of warfare, for it is axiomatic in military history that new systems of defense are the sequel to the appearance of new methods of attack. It does not seem possible to identify these new methods of attack either as chariot warfare, for there is· no satisfactory evidence of the use of chariots in . this area until the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty, or of the use of archery, for bronze arrowheads are not found in Palestine until the late Bronze Age. The identification of this new type of fortification as of Hyksos origin is based on the identification· as Hyksos of this same type defense in Egypt at Tell el Yehudiyeh in the southern Delta region. 57 The clue to the problem lies in the fact that this type of defence is not confined to Palestine. To the south, at Tell el Yehudiyeh in the Egyptian Delta, a great plaster-faced sand bank, still 41 feet high, surrounds an area of more than 23 acres. . . The same types of defence can be traced even farther north [of Palestine] at places like Carchemish. It would seem that the method of defense came south to Palestine and Egypt, and we may with some certainty [sic] ascribe its introduction to the Hyksos who secured control over northern Egypt c. 1730 B.C. The original basis for this identification as Hyksos was the further supposition that the site of Tell el Yehudiyeh was the same as the chief camp of the Hyksos at Avaris, a site otherwise clearly to be associated with the stronghold of their last stand before their expulsion from Egypt and from which they are recqgnized as having ruled over Egypt.:;~ The age of the Hyksos has been lighted by the discovery of an immense earthen camp at Tell el Yehudiyeh which shows that they were unacquainted with ·either stone or timber construction, and trusted to archery for defence. The position seems to agree with that of their chief camp at Avaris. 102 THE EXODUS PROBLEM This basis for identification became unacceptable with the discovery that Tell el Yehudiyeh was not the same as the site of the Hyksos camp at Avaris; this was later· found to be located far to the east of Tell el Yehudiyeh and to be the same site that was later rebuilt by Rameses II as his capital.-59 It is of significance also to note that the camp at Avaris did not have this type of fortification. In spite of the evident error in equating the fortification at Tell el Yehudiyeh with the stronghold at Avaris, the identification of the fortification as of Hyksos origin was retained. This Hyksos origin was carried over to the identification of the nearby graves and this in turn provided the basis for accepting the pottery and scarabs in the graves as index items for identiying similar pottery and scarabs found elsewhere.';o ... Graves of this age were found near and in the camp; and the connection of the styles of scarabs and of black incised pottery gave a basis for the classifying of the ~yksos scarabs by style. Since similar fortifications, similar pottery, and similar scarabs were found at several sites in Palestine, these were also identified as of Hyksos. origin, thus apparently confirming the hypothesis of a Hyksos occupation of this territory, though the scarabs bearing the name Khyan and also regarded as of Hyksos origin were not of the same design. The finds of the small carved and inscribed lion at Bagdad and the inscribed vase lid in Crete were then taken as evidence that this occupation must have included these distant areas also, and we have "conjured" up before us the vision of a vanished empire, an empire for which all other evidence has strangely vanished. This situation provides an impressive illustration of the lengths to which even brilliant scholarship can go when a theory is based on a sequence of other theories, having forgotten that the initial theory in the series was never established as a basis for sound archaeological interpretation. As is to be expected, the weak supports for this concept of a Hyksos empire give rise to some very large questions for which we are not provided credible answers .. If this fortification at Tell el Yehudiyeh is of Hyksos origin, then who did the enormous amount of actual labor involved in the construction of this huge mound 40 feet high and covering an area of 23 acres? Are we to believe that the Hyksos THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 103 themselves performed this labor? With the evidence that the Hyksos were all but totally nonproductive otherwise, it is difficult to conceive of the Hyksos undertaking any such project. Or did they· enslave the Egyptians to do this labor? If so, then the associated graves should also be identified as Egyptian, which they clearly are not. And what is to be done with the violent anachronism that rises from the rec·ognized extremes of cultural level in Palestine in contrast to that in Egypt for the same period if both represent Hyksos control?61 The period of Hyksos domination in Egypt represented the nadir of the entire dynastic period. In Palestine, this same era represents the acme of culture, trade, and prosperity. . That other unwarranted assumptions have had their origins as corollaries of the popular concept of a Hyksos empire is abundantly clear. There is no proof at all that the Hyksos invented or used the chariot as a weapon of war. Yet this assumption has been used as evidence that the Scriptural reference to chariots from the time of Joseph must ·be interpreted to indicate that the era is that of the Hyksos. It has been simply assumed that the Hyksos must have had some unusual weapon to successfully invade Egypt. The Hyksos left no inscriptions of any kind, and the few of Egyptian origin referring back to this period make no mention of chariots. The entire concept of a position of Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze has this supposition of a Hyksos empire as one of its major supports. The remaining evidence thus erroneously interpreted will be considered in due time. 62 The problems of where the Hyksos came from and what became of them after their, expulsion from Egypt have not been provided satisfactory solutions within the framework of current views. This picture, horribly blurred and out of focus, is totally clarified by the chronological revision proposed in this work which recognizes this fortification at Tell el Yehudiyeh as of Israelite origin under slave labor (though not necessarily of· Israelite invention). The near~by graves are then also those of Israelites who died as ·slaves in the course of construction. The black ..incised pottery in the graves, f~up.d also in .. Palestines'3 in the subsequent era is but the remnant of the· pottery ·carried there by the Israelites. The scarabs in the 104 THE EXODUS PROBLEM graves, found also throughout Palestine, were either scarabs treasured by the Israelites from their period of sojourn, or were part of the materials pressed upon them by the Egyptians to hasten their departure. 64 This interpretation is confirmed by the appearance of several scarabs of Sesostris I65 with whom the Israelites were on the best of terms, since it was he who ruled at the time of the famine. Still others carry the name of Jacob. 66 The prosperity in Palestine is not to be credited to the Hyksos, but to the lsraelitesY It was the Israelites who introduced the use of the fast wheel in making pottery; it was the Israelites who introduced the use of bronze and the production of iron in quantity. The sudden rise in cultural level at this time is also to be credited to the Israelites. The time is centuries before the use of writing in Phoenicia by the Canaanites or the appearance in their literature of concepts suggesting a relation to Israelite literature. If there was any copying of culture, it was the heathen neighbors who copied the more advanced culture of the Israelites, not vice versa. A number of other problems are provided answers in the more complete discussion of Chapter XVI of Volume I. X. Anachronisms.Related to the Proposed Identification· of $heshonk I with Shishak of Scripture The identification of Sheshonk I of Dynasty XXII with the Shishak of Scripture who sacked Solomon's temple (c. 934 B.C.) is popularly regarded as a synchronism - a synchronism so obvious that it has served as an apparently impassible obstacle to any attempt to alter the chronology of Egypt for the period of late Egyptian history. Actually, this is not a synchronism; it is an anachronism - an anachronism not alone with Scripture, but even more so with Assyrian history. At the same time, there are introduced by its acceptance gross inconsistencies in the resulting history of Egypt. The proposed evidence of an invasion of Palestine by Sheshonk I is wholly inadequate to meet the specifications of Scripture. Details in the inscription of Sheshonk I clearly belong to a period long since in the past when related to the history of Palestine for the time of Asa, during whose reign. the invasion of Shishak occurred. 68 Sheshon:k is an As- THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 105 syrian name, as are also the names of the other kings of this dynasty. 69 Yet at the time of the sacking of Solomon's temple, Assyria was at its nadir of power and influence. It is preposterous that Assyria could at that time provide kings to the throne of Egypt. 70 To avoid the implications of this obvious fact, Dynasty XXII has been assigned a Libyan origin, in spite of the obvious Assyrian origin of the names of its kings. 71 This concept is supported only by the most trivial sort of evidence. 72 But for the era some three centuries later, there is abundant evidence of the occupation and partial control of Egypt by the Assyrians. Some of the same Assyrian names from the era of Dynasty XXII appear in inscriptions of this later era. 7'3 That this later era is the proper position for Dynasty XXII is confirmed by inscriptions from both Egypt and Assyria to the effect that Assyrian armies were in at least partial control of Egypt and that Assyrian governors had been placed in the important cities. The identification of Sheshonk I with Shishak of Scripture demands that we also recognize Osorkon 1, his successor, as the Zerah of Scripture, who invaded Palestine in the reign of Asa of Judah with a million men. 75 Yet Osorkon I was even less able to raise an invading army than was Sheshonk l. It is extremely doubtful if Osorkon. I ever marched a dozen men of war across the isthmus, to say nothing of raising a large army of invasion. To evade the implications of this anachronsim, it has been assumed that this Zerah was not at the head of an Egyptian army, but rather of an Arabian army. The details of Scripture simply do not permit any such assumption. 7'; Some destruction of cities is revealed archaeologically in Palestine for the period assigned to Sheshonk I. Scripture, however, says nothing about destruction of cities at this time, and strongly infers that it was only the temple at Jerusalem that was the victim of destruction. 77 Josephus, in agreement with the Scriptural inference, states specifically that Shishak did not destroy these cities; rather, they were spared by opening the gates without a battle. 7 ~ If it had been necessary for Shishak to lay siege to these numerous cities, the invasion would have required a succession of annual invasions prior to the arrival at Jerusalem. Neither Scripture nor the inscription of Sheshouk I provides any suggestion of such a prolonged war. THE EXODUS PROBLEM 106 By the proposed revision, this incident occurred during the reign of Thutmose Ill of Dynasty XVIII. Positive evidence for recognizing in Thutmose III the Shishak of Scdpture is extant in the pictorial inscription of this king. This inscription pictures item after item belonging to the loot taken from Solomon's temple and from his treasure house.' 9 Among these items are the 300 shields of gold, even the number agreeing with the figure given in Scripture, the six branched golden candlestick, the altar of incense, the showbread, the priestly garments, and a variety of other items. The similarity of names carries no weight in the face of this evidence. It is quite evident that the kings of Egypt were often known in other countries (particularly Palestine and Greece) by names that have little or no resemblance to the Egyptian names. 80 XI. Anachronisms Between Greece and Egypt The anachronism rising from recognizing. the first appearance of the Philistines in the area of southern Palestine at the time of the invasion of E!=!:ypt by .the Sea Peoples shortly after the reign. of Rameses II (currently dated 1225-1200 B.C.) has. been noted previously. 81 This situation is an even more serious anachronism in relation to Greek history. The migration of the Sea Peoples froin Greece and the surrounding territories had its origin in the invasion of southern Greece by the Dorians from northern Greece (c. HOO B. C. )x 2 The anachronism here is that of having a cause follow its result by a full century. 83 The anachronism in the order of these incidents is removed by the revision which retains the composition and relative placement of Manetho' s Dynasty XIX as an offshoot from Dynasty XVIII at the time of Seti I, 84 in contrast to the current view which has these two dynasties ruling in succession. The dates, however, would remain anachronistic, except as it is also recognized that the unexplainable hiatus in Greek history (ll-8th cenh}.ries) is but a necessary creation of modern scholars to meet the demands of an otherwise erroneous chronology. The hiatus is nonexistent, and the incidents now dated several centuries before the Dorian fovasion should be moved forward to fill this gap. 8 .; This is permissible and rational, since .there are no known incidents or historical personages known to belong to this THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 107 "dark period." This same gap appears in the currently accepted chronology of the Hittites86 and appears repeatedly in the interpretations of the archaeology of a number of other sites. s; Strangely, Aeneas appears as a character in Virgil as a contemporary ~of Dido and the founding of Carthage in the 8th century, though he belongs to the Trojan war era, dated c. ll80 B.C. To evade the implications of this anachronism, it has been presumed that the writer had deliberately taken characters from two. eras separated by centuries and placed them in the same account to make a good story. 88 A further glaring anachronism appears with the discovery in Egypt of Greek writing which archaeologists date centuries before there is any evidence of its use in Greece, 89 indicating that Egyptian history is also offset from true Greek history by a multiplicity of centuries: XII. Anachronisms Involving the Hittites Hittite history is tied to Egyptian history by several clearcut synchronisms. 90 If it is true, as claimed in this work, that Egyptian chronology has been set too far back on the B.C. time scale in terms of Palestinian history, then so also is this true of Hittite chronology. This erroneous correlation with Palestinian history should then be reflected by serious anachronisms between the Hittites and Palestine. If. we are . correct in labelling the proposed identity of Sheshonk I of Egypt with Shishak of Scripture as an anachronism, further anachronisms should appear between the Hittites and Assyria. The final end of the Hittite kingdom and the fall of the last of the city states to the Assyrians can be synchronized approximately, but with certainty, to the end of the reign of Rameses II (c. 1225 B.C. by current views). 91 Yet the Assyrian inscriptions continue to refer to the land of the Hittites and to the Hittites as a people with kings over them and with armies of military importance half a millennium after 1200 B.C. as defined by late Palestine chronology. 92 In this late era, unequivocal synchronisms appear between Egypt and Assyria and between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Assyria to make a recognition of the continuation of Hittite culture into this late era inescapable. Among the Hittite kings mentioned in the late Assyrian inscriptions is the name of Suppiluliumas who was defeated in battle by 108 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Shalmaneser III (858-824 B. C. ). 93 Suppiluliumas is currently dated in the 14th century B.C. to meet the synchronism with Tutenkhamen of Egypt. 9 ~ To maintain a Hittite chronology synchronized with Egyptian chronology, it is necessary to assume an inexplain- · able gap of half a millennium between the fall of the last of the Hittite city-states and the survival of Hittite culture to the end of the 8th century. 95 This gap encompasses the period of a similar unexplained gap in the history of Greece96 and of assumed archaeological gaps in a number of other sites. The Hittites of archaeology have their home far to the north in Asia Minor, and there is no evidence of their ever having occupied any territory in southern Palestine where Scripture places the Hittites. This perplexing discrepancy97 is provided a total and simple solution by the altered chronological structure. The Hittites of Asia Minor are a people who came there from Europe and absorbed the remnants of the Biblical Hittites who were driven out of Palestine at the time of the conquest under Joshua. 98 XIII. The Anachronisms of the 400-year Inscription Rameses II left an inscription, written very early in his reign (1290-1223 B.C. by current views), commemorating some unstated incident 400 years earlier. 99 The 400 years of this inscriptien has been interpreted as elapsed time, taking us back into the Hyksos era as the background for the un~ stated incident. Nothing could be more anomalous than the selection of an obscure incident during the period of domination of Egypt by the Hyksos as a basis for defining dates in the subsequent history of Egypt. When this 400 years is interpreted in the same manner as is necessary for many other such references to ancient time periods, i.e., as representing simply a summation of intervening reigns without consideration of overlapping or parallelism, 100 the figure 400 takes us back to the very era of the driving of the Hyksos out of Egypt. While this holds true for the revised chronology, an abbreviation of the period is involved which is not possible within the framework of current views. 101 The incident of driving the Hyksos out of Egypt was one that could well be used as an ·incident to which subsequent dates could be related. THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 109 The name of the king ruling in Egypt at the beginning of this 400-year period is stated in the inscription to be Set-aapehti-nubti. The Suten Bat name of Ahmose I, the first king of Egypt following the expulsion of the Hyksos, was Ra-neb-pehti. 102 The essential differences between the two names are in the name of the god (Ra instead of Set) and a variation in the order of the hieroglyphs, a situation noted commonly in the transliteration of Egyptian names. This identification makes sense and is but one of numerous other confirmations of the altered structure. XIV. The Anachronisms Related to Manetho's Xlth Dynasty The XIth Dynasty, as envisioned by Manetho, must have preceded the Xllth, since the first king of Dynasty XII (Amenemhet I) is clearly the offspring of an Xlth Dynasty ruler. Manetho does not provide the names of the kings that constituted his Dynasty XI; he states only that the dynasty was composed of 16 kings of Thebes who reigned 43 years. The large number of kings in this brief period suggests that these were a group of local rulers which constituted the beginnings of the feudal system that characterizes Dynasty XII. This concept has not been seriously entertained by modern scholars. The supposition that these kings ruled in sequence ha.s required recognition that either the number of kings in the dynasty must be reduced, or the period of the dynasty increased significantly, or both. Solutions in all three directions have been proposed. An increase in the period has been regarded as allowable, since one of the kings assigned to this dynasty reigned more than 43 years. ill:l However, other evidence points to the necessity of reducing the period of the early dynasties rather than expanding it. The kings that modern historians have assigned to this dynasty are, in part, of Heracleopolite origin, not of Theban origin as stated by Manetho. 10'1" It was Manet ho's Dynasties IX and X that had their origin at Heracleopolis, w:31i suggesting that at least some of these kings assigned to Dynasty XII actually belong to Dynasty IX or X. Confirmation of this situation is provided by the evidence that Dynasties IX and X reached to the very beginning of Dynasty XVIII. Obviously, it would be absurd to recognize 110 THE EXODUS PROBLEM. this evidence for positioning Dynasties IX and X and at the same time maintain the concept of a sequence arrangement of Manetho's dvnasties. This distrublng evidence was omitted from the tra:nslation of Brugsch's work from French to German, an omission noted by the editor of the English translation. Believing that this evidence "should not be suppressed," he included a summary of this evidence as an appended note. 1°'30 By the proposed revision, Dynasties IX and X do belong to the Hyksos era, and there is no need to suppress these data. Further confirmation of this position of Dynasties IX and X in the Hyksos period following Dynasty XII may be seen in the evidence of a Hyksos origin of Khyan w:3c1 whose scarabs are nevertheless certainly of the era of Dynasty VI or IX. As will appear in subsequent sections, it is this same revision that brings order out of chaos on the problem of the placement of Dynasty XII in Early Bronze rather than in Middle Bronze, since now Dynasty XII precedes both the First and Second Intermediates as quite the same period. While there are many other problems provided solutions by the revision, which have been noted in other chapters of this work, it is not feasible to extend this review. Those that have been noted· provide adequate evidence that the chronology of Egypt is in need of gross alteration - an alteration that is rational only when the premise of a sequence for Manetho' s dynasties is rejected and when dating methods used to arrive at current views are recognized as invalid. We turn then to a re-examination of the evidence from Byblos and Cyprus purported to confirm the position of Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze. XV. A Re-examination of the Evidence from Byblos Purporting to Position Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze While the relation between these numerous anachronisms and anomalies and the proper position to be assigned to Dynasty XII in the Archaeological Ages may not be readily apparent in all cases, these should be recognizable as providing evidence that Dynasty XII has been set too far back on the B. C. time scale. It follows from this that the starting premise of a sequence arrangement of Manetho' s dynasties is invalid. The fact that these numerous difficulties are provided a virtually total solution by the proposed rev.ision pro- THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 111 vides adequate basis for presuming that the evidence purported to thus fix the position of Dynasty XII has been misinterpreted. A re-examination of this evidence is thus in order. The Archaeological ~Ages have been defined in terms of cultural changes that have· been observed in Palestine, not in Egypt. These cultural changes are not, for the most part, reflected in the archaeology of Egypt. 10 • Egypt throws scorn on these assumed periods .... Hence, in the very nature of the case, it is not possible to place Dynasty XII, or any other dynasty of Egypt, in its proper position in the Archaeological Ages from evidence to be found in Egypt. This will be possible only by the indirect method of establishing this position by correlation of the archaeology of Egypt with· that of Palestine or with that of an area that in turn can be correlated with that of Palestine. This is the manner in. which such a placement is presumed to have been deduced. If this deduction is solid and unequivocal, then there is .no further room for argument with current views. If the deduction can he shown to be subject to severe question, then there is no final proof for the current placement of Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze. as has been· done traditionally. Without such unequivocal ~vi­ dence, the co:ncept rests its full weight on the demands of ·the currently accepted chronology. Since it is this chronology that is here challenged, these demands cannot be used . to meet this challenge. The larger probability is that the chronology is in error and that alterations of this structure which reject the sequence premise for Manetbo' s Dynasties are not "out of bounds" for serious consideration. Ehrich candidly admits that the evidence on which this placement rests is not "high}vr satisfactory." io.; ... The synchronization of the First Intermediate period with the Middle Bronze I of Syria and Palestine is not established by specific archaeological correlations. These periods fall into place opposite each other merely as the suc~essors of the Old Kingdom and the Early Bronze period. The sequence between the First Intermediate and Middle Bronze I, noted. in the above quotation, is not altered by the proposed .revison; hence, the evidence supporting the sequence does riot favor the current view over the proposed 112 THE EXODUS PROBLEM revlSlon. The contention here is that Middle Bronze I also follows Dynasty XII as a contemporary of Dynasty VI. Ehrich continues: '°6 ... Middle Kingdom materials [of Dynasty XII] do not provide any such direct and highly satisfactory Syro-Palestinian correlations as do the Old Kingdom finds. In fact, the synchronisms of the Twelfth Dynasty with the Middle Bronze IIA period must be substantiated by discoveries outside of Egypt, such as the Byblos tombs and the temple dated by the names of the Twelfth Dynasty Pharaohs Amenemhet III and IV and by the circumstance that the following Middle Bronze IIB period is again directly correlated with Egypt. Here, then, is a candid admission that except as the evidence from Byblos is unequivocal, there is no final proof for the positioning of Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze IIA, since the correlation between Middle Bronze IIB with Egypt is also retained by the proposed revision. That the dates assigned to the Archaeological Ages in Palestine for the era in question depend on the presumed fixity of dates in Egyptian chronology . is beyond dispute. Albright freely aqmits this fact and notes further that the dates to be assign~d to the era of Middle Bronze depend on certain finds at Byblos in Syria. The evidences referred to are defined as the discoveries of tombs numbered I and II at Byblos and discovered by Montet. 1.07 Since Egyptian chronology is now fixed [sic] within a decade or two for the entire period included in this chapter [dealing with correlation of the Archaeological Ages between Palestine and Egypt], our dates are approximately certain wherever we can establish a good correlation with Egyptian cultural history. Thanks to scarabs and inscriptional evidence, this is quite possible. For example, Tombs I and II of By:blos, discovered by Pierre Montet, were contemporary with Amenemmes III and IV, respectively, and must [sic} accordingly be dated towards the end of the nineteenth century B.C. The pottery which they contain is in general similar to (and often identical with) our Palestinian Middle Bronze IIA, though there are a few divergent forms. Albright does not state the reasons why he regards this evidence from Byblos as providing a "good" correlation between Palestine and Egypt, and neither does Ehrich give his reasons for regarding this indirect evidence as something less than entirely satisfactory. Nevertheless, all of the evidence given in both cases may be questioned on salient grounds as not providing any final proof that Dynasty XI I THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 113 belongs to the era defined in Palestine as Middle Bronze. The unsatisfactory nature of this evidence as proof becomes apparent with the recognition that it may be interpreted in an even more credible manner by the altered chronology here defended. Not only so, this can be done by adhering more closely to the accepted rules of archaeological interpretation than does the popular interpretation. It is somewhat surprising that a scholar as astute as Albright should appeal to the use of scarabs as a means of defending a chronology, particularly so when the point in question rests on such a precarious foundation otherwise. The sterile nature of such evidence has been repeatedly pointed out by various investigators. 108 The reasons are that scarabs may have been. treasured as keepsakes long after the era represented by their origin, and because evidence is at hand to indicate that these were frequently reproduced by later generations. It is not at all apparent why this rule can be rationally disregarded here to provide a support for a concept that cannot stand on its own feet otherwise. An alternate and more credible explanation for the finds of these scarabs of Dynasty XII in Palestine associated with items belonging to Middle Bronze has been previously presented. 109 So also have .been noted the anachronisms that result from the acceptance of this popular interpretation. · The remaining evidence to be dealt with is represented by the items found in Tombs I and II at Byblos and inscribed with the names of Amenemhet III and IV of late Dynasty XII, which tombs also contained pottery similar to, and often identical with pottery from Palestine belonging to Albright' s Middle Bronze II (See note 109 for an alternate designation of this same period as Middle Bronze I). Does this evidence prove that Dynasty XII belongs to the period defined by Albright as Middle Bronze II? It is extremely doubtful if any scholar in the field would answer this question with an unqualified affirmative. It may be presumed that it is this situation that led Ehrich to refer to the evidence as other than "highly satisfactory." 110 · The reasons are obvious. Items found in ancient tombs do not necessarily belong to the same era as that of the bu.rial. As with scarabs, these items may ·represent keepsakes treasured by the deceased during his lifetime. If one. ! could be sure that the treasured items. had an origin during 114 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the life span of the deceased, it would be possible to conclude that the items did not antedate the burial by more than a single life span. But more commonly than otherwise, this cannot be proved. In many known cases the items represent a collection from generations back in time. The presence of pottery like that of Middle Bronze II in Palestinian tombs permits the deduction as probable that the burial occurred in Middle Bronze II. But this does not prove that the items inscribed with the names of XIIth Dynasty kings belong to Middle Bronze II, anq hence does not prove that Amenemhet III or IV ruled in that era. The evidence of the "foundation jar" containing numerous small items of XIIth Dynasty origin, found below the pavement which separates the Middle Bronze temple at Byblos from the preceding period, is even more questionable in regard to providing evidence for a placement of Dynasty XII in Middle Bronze. 111 It is this temple to which Albright and Ehrich refer as datable to Dynasty XII on the basis of correlation with the tombs containing items inscribed with the names of Xllth Dynasty kings. 111 The pavement is separated from the ruins of the catastrophe at Byblos at the end of Early Bronze by a "fill" composed of soil which contained materials from elsewhere on the mound. The fill was evidently for the purpose of covering the ruins in preparation for the subsequent reconstruction. The jar of items rests in the ashes of the destruction. The small items it contained resembled others found in the fill outside the jar which were associated with items inscribed with XII th .Dynasty names. While an ideQ.tification of a Xllth Dynasty origin of these items is admissiable, this does not prove that Dynasty XII belongs to the era represented by the temple construction above the pavement. To allow such an interpretation as feasible, it has been hypothesized that this jar was placed under the pavement in the bed of ashes at the time the temple was constructed, perhaps as a "foundation offering." It is just as reasonable, if not more so, to recogriize that these items were gathered fron'f .the ruins of the previous era. This concept is indicated by -the unfinished nature of some of the items, suggesting that· 'produ-ction was interrupted by the catastrophe at the eooof Early Bronze. . THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 115 In terms of the proposed revision, the only interim between the end of Early Bronze and the beginning of Middle Bronze in Palestine and Syrophoenicia is represented by the 40-year period between the ,Exodus and the Conquest, during which time the site of Byblos remained in ruins. The Hyksos period representing the Second Intermediate in Egypt (but which by the revision is the same as the First Intermediate.) is not otherwise reflected archaeologically in this area. This is the period of Israelite occupation during the period o.f the Judges. The new occupants at Byblos in Middle Bronze are thus peoples who migrated into this area from Palestine or elsewhere at, or after, the conquest of Palestine under Joshua. There are no data from Byblos that do not fit satisfactorily into this altered interpretation. XVI. A Re-examination of the Archaeological Evidence from Ugarit and from Cyprus Certain finds at U garit (Ras Shamra) on the mainland, and on the island of Cyprus, opposite Ugarit and some 60 miles off the Mediterranean coast, have been interpreted as confirming the deductions derived from the finds at Byblos. A re-examination of this evidence confirms the alternate structure as defended in this work. The purported, but inadequate, confirmation again depends on the unproved assumption of a sequence arrangement of Manetho' s dynasties. This material was summarized by Schaeffer in his 1948 production 11 '3 and is briefly reviewed here. The definitions of the limits of the Archaeological Ages, as understood by Schaeffer, have required modification in the light of more 1recent studies, though scholars continue to differ in the use of the terms to be applied to the sub-periods of this critical era, thus introducing a degree of confusion. In the opinion of the writer, this confusion has been a major factor in the continued life of current concepts on "borrowed time." In the course of early investigations at Ras Shamra, a type of characteristic red pottery was found in the form of milk bowls. On the basis of these early observations, this pottery was given a period of usage c. 3000-2000 B.C. In terms of Egyptian chronqlogy, this period would begin at some indefinite point in the Old Kingdom prior to Dynasty VI and reach to the beginning of Dynasty XII, thus including what had been termed the First Intermediate. In the 116 THE EXODUS PROBLEM course of later investigations by Schaeffer and collaborators (19:3.Sf.), sherds of this pottery from the mainland were noted to be identical to examples of this same ceramic found in numerous tombs on the island of Cyprus. On the basis of these later investigations, Schaeffer felt compelled to reduce the period of usage of the pottery to the period c. 2600-2000 B.C., which period would be approximately that from the beginning of Dynasty VI to the beginning of Dynasty XII. Certain of his colleagues, however, were unwilling to accept this reduced period for the life of the pottery usage. During the third campaign at Ras Shamra under Schaeffer, sherds of vases made of this same red ceramic were found in stratified beds assigned to Middle Bronze I (early Dynasty XII of Schaeffer) and reaching to the earliest phase of Middle Bronze II (late Dynasty XII of Schaeffer). On the basis of these finds, Schaeffer felt .compelled to reduce his dates for the use of this pottery still further. 11 ~ We have since ascertained that this reduction for the duration of use of the red pottery has surprised certain of our colleagues to the point of leading them to bypass in silence our thesis, while continuing to hold to other results of our Cypriot researches. We are obliged to return here to the question and regret having to aggravate the disagreement. In fact, from the new discoveries, we have since been convinced that the proposed reduction of 1936 was insuffic,ient. [Translation.) This time it was not only the beginning date that was lowered, but also the ending date. On the basis of the find of sherds in strata of Middle Bronze I (then fixed to the era of early Dynasty XII), the period of duration was reduced to c. 2300-1800 B.C., a period considered by Schaeffer as reaching from near the end of Dynsty VI to near the end of Dynasty XII. However, since the sherds of vases were found only in Middle Bronze strata,· it was concluded that the importation of the vases to the mainland was limited to the shorter period c. 2100-1800 B.C., especially since no evidence had been found at Ras Shamra of sherds of these vases, the earlier examples having been milkbowls. The evidence thus far noted provides no basis at all for recognizing any of this red lustrous pottery as belonging to the era of Dynasty XII; the deductions were based on their appearance in levels assigned to Dynasty XII by current views. An unequivocal proof of the use of this pottery in THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 117 the era of dynasty XII and also its belonging to Middle Bronze would require the find of remnants of the pottery in Middle Bronze levels and associated with items that could be unequivocally dated to the era of Dynasty XII in the same stratum. No such evidence had been observed. Evidence was at hand, from examination of tombs in Cyprus, indicating the use of this pottery in Dynasty XII, but since this evidence was from tombs and not from stratified layers, this evidence did not provide the proof that the tombs belonged to Middle Bronze. Usage of the pottery in the era of Dynasty XII was suggested by the presence in many of the tombs of a type of earthenware bead characteristic of beads found also in some tombs that clearly belonged to Early Bronze and were datable to the era prior to Dynasty XII in Egypt. It was thus necessary to conclude, without supporting evidence from Egypt, that this type bead had its origin in Dynasty XI, a conclusion 'of extremely doubtful nature, since virtually nothing is known of the culture of the era of Dvnastv XI. Certain of the tombs in· Cyprus containing the red pottery were also found to contain a foreign pottery type regarded as of Aegean origin), similar to samples having been observed in Egyptian tombs carrying the cartouch of Amenemhet II (early Dynasty XII). However, since the same tomb contained also a vase of Cretan origin from the era of Early Minoan III (Early Bronze III), the evidence actually pointed to a position for Dynasty XU in Early Bronze, not in Middle Bronze. The entire problem is clarified when it is recognized that Dynasty XII belongs to the era of Early Bronze, not Middle Bronze, and was roughly contemporary with Dynasty VI. The beads of Xllth Dynasty origin then do not require this questionable recognition of an origin prior to Dynasty XII. It is to be expected that the same pottery will be found under conditions suggesting an era in the Old Kingdom (Dynasty VI) and also under conditions suggesting the era of Dynasty XII, since both are the same period. As pointed out in Chapter VI, what is being called the First lntermedi. ate (Early Bronze III of Schaeffer) may well represent the brief period between the Exodus (at the end of Dynasty VI) and the Conquest 40 years later. The appearance of sherds of the vases at Ras Shamra in strata of Middle Bronze like 118 THE EXODUS PROBLEM those from tombs containing beads of Xllth Dynasty origin are then simply samples of the pottery taken to the mainland in the course of migrations following the catastrophe to this entire area at the end of Dynasty VI. Notes and References (1) Vol. I, Chap. VI. (2) Ibid., Chap. IX. (3) See A-RDBL, p. 6 for example; Vol. I, Chap. XIX. (4) lbid., Chap. V; Chap. VIII, quot. of ref. 8a; W-BA, pp. 18, 19, 25, 27. (5) Vol. I, Chap. XIX, par. 11. (6) Vol. I, Chap. V, quot. of ref. -I; K-AHL, p. 162. (7) W-DP, p. 75. See quot. of ref. 2 of Chap. V, Vol. I; see K-AHL, p. 134. see quote of ref. 17 of Chap. VI, Vol. I and W-BA, p. 83 for contrasting situation at the end of Early Bronze where the Conquest is placed by the proposed chronological revision. (8) See Josh. 11:23 for statement of the general completeness of the initial phase; see A-AP, p. 108 and W-BA, pp. 81, 82 on the archaeological data of Lachish attributed to the Conquest in terms of the XlXth Dynasty setting. By the XVl!th Dynasty setting. the discrepancy is still greater. Miss Kenyon seems reticent to accept some of these destructions as of Israelite origin (K-AHL, pp. 212f). (9) Vol. I, Chap. VIII. (10) See K-AHL, pp. 115, 134 for setting these two incidents in the same era, as indicated in Scripture (Josh. 7:2). (11) Vol. I, Chap. V, Sect. IV. (12) lbid., Sect.s. II, Ill; Chap. VI, Sects. VI-VIII, X. (13) Ibid., Chap. V, quot. of ref. 30; BASOR. No. 198. p. 10. Some seem to be still !(rasping at straws in a belief that the site has been misidentified (personal communication). (14) Vol. I, Chap. IV, quots. of refs. 3, 42. (15) Num. 2l:llff. (16) Vol. l, Chap. IV, Sect. II. ( 17) Vol. I, Chap. Ill, Sect. Ill, par. 10. (18) Sect. XI of this chapter; par. 1 of Chap. XIII. (19) Ex. 1:11. (20) Vol. I, Chap. Ill, quot. of ref. 17. (21) Ex. 2:1-9. (22) Personal communication. For examples of supposed bases for such an explanation. see K-SAP. p. 8n; MHE, Vol. IV, pp. 370, 370n. (23) See ref. 20; the temples, monuments, and inscriptions of these kings are uniformly farther south; B-HE, Chaps. XIV-XVII. (24) Ibid., p. 282. (2.5) \'ol. I, Chap. I\', Sect. II!: (26) Ibid., Sect. IV. (27) Vol. I, Chap. IV. Sects. VI-VIII. (28) Ibid., quots. of refs. 30, 39. (29) Ibid., Sect. Vil. (30) Ibid .. Sect: IX. (31) K-AHL. p. 283; B-HE, p. 323; G-H. p. 33. (32) Gen. 46:34. (33) Gen. 47:17. (34) Vandier (\'-FDEA) has collected these various references. (35) Vol. I. Chap. X, quots. of refs. 3, 5. (36') Ibid., Sects. Ill, IV; see Fig. 9. (37) Vol. I, Chap. I\', Sect. II. (38) Sect. XI of this chapter. See also Chap. Xlll. (39) Gen. 21:34; the Philistines are still there at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 13:1il; see W-BA. p. 40 as an example of relegating such troublesome passages to the categorv of "polish" added in the course of oral transmission. (40) Chap. IX. (41) W-S, p. I02. (42) Jdg. 4:23, 24; 5: 19; Chap. X (this volume). (43) Ibid., quot. of ref. 1:3. (44) I Sam. 31:10. (45) Chap. XIII, Sect. \'Ill. (46) Vol. I, Chap. XVI; Sect. X of this chapter. (47) I Kings 12:25. (48) Chap. IX. quot. of ref. 52. (49) Chap. X, Sects. Vl, VII!. (50) B-HE, p. 218. (51) Ibid. (52) P-HE, Vol. I, p. 119. (53) See ref. 50. (54) A-AP. p. 86. (55) K·AHL, p. 193. (56) Ibid., p. 181. (57) Ibid., p. 182. 1%) P-HE, Vol. I, addenda, p. xxxiv. (59) W-BA, p..58. (60) See ref. 58. (61) Vol. I, Chap. XI\', Sect. VI. (62) Sects. XV, XVI (this chapter). (63) See quot. of ref. 60; K-AHL, p. 136; A·AP, p. 94. (64) Ex. 12:36. (65) Vol. I, Chap. XIV, quot. of ref. 42. (66) See P-HE, Vol. I, addenda, p. xxxv where the name is given as Yaqab-el. (67) Vol. I. Chap. XIV, Sect. VI. (68) Vol. I, Chap. XVI, quot. of ref. 19. (69) Ibid., quot. of ref. 29. (70) See ref. 68. (71) B-HE, Chap. XXV. (72) Cp. Vol. I, Chap. XVI, quot. of ref. 30 with Chap. XVIII, Sect. VIII. (73) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 299. (74) Vol. I. Chap. XVIII, Sect. VII. (75) II Chron. 14:1,9. (76) P-HE, \'ol. III. pp. 242, 243. (77) II Chron. 12:1-4. (78) J-AJ, Bk. VIII, Chap. X, par. 2. (79) Vol. I. Chap. XVI. ref. 25. (80) A number of XVlllth Dynasty kings have names in the Greek which have no resemblance to the Egyptian names. Pul of Scripture (II Kings 15: 19; I Chron. 5:26) is the s.ame king as Tiglathpileser of the Assyrian inscriptions. No kings of Egypt are known by the names Zerah (II Chron. 14:9) or So (II Kings 17:4); see Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Sect. \'Ill; Sects. XII. XIII of Chap. XVll for identifications of these kings by the revision. (81) Sect. VI (this chapter); see also Chap. XIII. (82) Chap. XVI, Sect. VI. (83) Ibid., Sect. VIII; Vol. I. Chap. XVII. Sect. IV. (84) See Fig. 4. (85) Vol. I, Chap. XVII, Sect. IV. (861 Vol. I, Chap. V, Sect. VI, quot. of ref. 43. (87) At Beth Shan (F-ABH, p. 8), at Abu Hawam (K·AHL, p. 30-I; BASOR. No. 124, p. 21), at Gezer (K-AHL, p. 276), at Shechem (BA, Vol. XX, p. 97), at Alalakh (WFK, pp. 166, 167), in Transjordan (G-OSJ, p. 21; BASOR, No. 68, p. 25), at Troy (B-TT, p. 32), at Me!(iddo (B-AB, p. 105), in Anatolia (L-EA. p. 13). at Alsihar (Ibid .• p. 1921, at Hebron (BA, Vol. XXVII!, p. 32), in the Negeb (BASOR, No. 1-19, p. 10), at Tell Jemmeh (B-AB. p. 103), etc. (88) R-CH, Vol. I, p. 264. (89) P-HE, Vol. Ill, p. 160. (901 By the synchronism of the war of Rameses II with the Hittites in the reign of Muwatallis (C-SH, p. 260). (91) Ibid.; see quot. of ref. 43, Chap. V, Vol. I. (921 L-ARAB, Vol. I, pp. 2QOff. provides translations of annals of Shalmaneser III which contain a number of such references. (931 Ibid .. par. 599. (94) C-SH, p. 259. (95) See ref. 86. (96) See ref. 87. (97) Vol. I, Chap. V. quot. of r.. f. 4!. (981 Vol. I, Chap. VI; Sect. X. (99) Vol. I, Chap. XVII, Sect. XI. ( 100) As is apparent in the periods for the Egyptian dynasties as assigned by Manetho. A number of such time periods once interpreted as elapsed time have had to be abandoned. ( 101) Vol. I. Chap. XVI, Sect. XI. 1102) THE PLACEMENT OF DYNASTY XII 119 B-BK. Vol. I, p. 106. (103) Antef IV is given a reign of c. 50 years (P-HE, Vol. I, p. 134). (10Sa) W-M, p. 63. (103b) Ibid., pp. 61, 63. (103c) B-EUP, Vol. I, pp. 3J4, 315; Vol. 1, Chap. XV. quots. of refs. 20, 22. (103d) Sect. IX, quot. of ref. 52 (this chapter). (104) B-EUP, Vol. I, p. 32. (105) E-COWA, p. 19. (106) Ibid. (107) A-AP, p. 84. ( 108) See Vol. I, Chap. XIV, Sect. X for quots. (109) Ibid. (109a) See K-AHL, p. 166n for statement of correlation. (110) See ref. 105. (111) S-SCCAO, Sects. 150££., pp. 334ff. (114) Ibid., Sect. 149, par. 5. CHAPTER VI NATURAL CATASTROPHE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM From time immemorial, this planet has been the victim of disasters of more or less local nature from natural causes. Such incidents would have no value in archaeological interpretation or as a chronological reference except as ancient mention of them is extant as a basis for providing historical correlation. On the other hand, both archaeology and ancient written sources have revealed data indicating that the ancient world has at times been the victim of more widespread disasters from natural causes which must be placed in quite a different category from that of purely local .concern. Principal among the natural causes of these more violent disasters are earthquakes and floods. These more general catastrophes have a far greater potential value in chronological studies, since their rarity and uniqueness provide a basis for more specific identification with an historical era. A number of such unusual disasters are in evidence in ancient historic times. Scripture mentions one such as an earthquake that occurred in the reign of Uzziah (Azariah), king of Judah.; The fact that the incident was mentioned by a later Bible writer . some three centuries after the incident, referring to it as "the earthquake," 2 indicates that the incident was so unusual for the entire era that the populace at this later time was still familiar with the details. Schaeffer has noted archaeological evidence of general destructions by earthquake which affected much of the area of Asia Minor, Syria, and Phoenicia, with evidences of destruction extending as far south as southern Palestine. 3 One of these was also of such unique nature as to lead Schaeffer to refer to it repeatedly as "the earthquake." The island of Crete has been the victim of a series of disastrous earthquakes, one such being so violent as to destroy all but a remnant of the culture of the island, possibly due in part to subsequent tidal waves that swept over much of the island. 4 From this disaster, Crete dtd not recover for a multiplicity of centuries. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 121 The archaeolqgy of Greece has revealed a disaster that destroyed virtually all of the cities of this area. 5 Since this territory is known to have been the victim of repeated disasters from natural causes, assignment of the cause to a violent earthquake is a reasonable assumption. There are also references in the legendary sources of Greece to two violent floods that destroyed much of the territory. One of these was the flood of Deucalion' s time, a flood so extensive in its results that Deucalion and his wife, according to the legend, thought themselves the sole survivors of the disaster. In Egypt, ruins of numerous massive structures remain which show evidence of having been thrown down by an earthquake. Sµch an earthquake is presumed to have occurred in the reign of Akhnaton of Dynasty XVIII in the socalled Amarna Age. 6 There are, however, no known extant inscriptions that refer to any such catastrophe from natural causes during this reign. The destruction is attributed by some to vandalism, by others to an as yet unidentified cause. The end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt was marked by violent destruction. This destruction is equated with the end of the Early Bronze Age which is marked archaeologically throughout Palestine and the territory to the north by extensive destruction of cities. 7 In this case the identification of the cause as of natural occurrence or at the hands of man is not always so clearly indicated, though the extensiveness of the destruction suggests a natural cause as the ultimate factor. The question to be considered is whether more than one of these general disasters represent the results of a common cause which affected much larger areas than has been supposed. Could it be possible that such an actual coincidence has been obscured by a miscorrelation of the chronologies of different areas? According to the altered chronological structure introduced in this work, the chronology of Egypt has been miscorrelated .with the history of Palestine by a discrepancy amounting to 600 years or more at the time of the Exodus.~ The numerous problems provided solutions by a correction of this error leaves open the probability that other similar cases have occurred, resulting in obscuring the time relationships between these disasters. 122 THE EXODUS PROBLEM If this has been the case, then it may be expected that when these miscorrelations have been corrected, some of these general catastrophes will be found to have been coin~ cident. This circumstance will then provide still further confirmation of the general correctness of the revision. It is proposed to show in this chapter that when the chronologies of antiquity are adjusted to the evidences provided by this altered structure, most of the more violent catastrophes of antiquity will be found to belong to one or the other of two relatively narrow time periods, suggesting that there were two natural catastrophes or sequences of catastrophes of historical antiquity that stand out above all the others. We begin this task by noting the available data relative to the earthquake that occurred in the reign of U zziah, king of Judah. I. The Earthquake in the Reign of Uzziah This earthquake is referred to by the prophet Amos who dates the incident two years after the beginning of his prophetic ministry.!). The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. According to Thiele' s chronology, 10 U zziah reigned from 790-739 B.C.; Jeroboam reigned from 793 to 753 B.C. Since both Uzziah and Jeroboam were reigning two years before the earthquake, 11 it follows that the incident belongs within the interval between 790 and 751 B.C. The prophet Zechariah referred to this incident some three centuries later, 12 using language which indicates that the quake was still a matter of general knowledge among the populace after this extended period of time. The reference also provides a clue to the severity of the disaster. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah .... Josephus associates the earthquake incident with the incidents recorded in II Chronicles 26:16 relative to Uzziah. 1'1 ... In the mean time a great earthquake shook the ground, and a rent was made in the temple, and the bright rays of the sun shone ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 123 through it, and fell upon the king's face, insomuch that the leprosy siezed upon him immediately. And before the city, at a place called Eroge, half the mountain broke off from the rest on the west and rolled· itself four furlongs, and stood still at the east mountain till the roads, as well as the king's gardens, were spoiled by the obstrucHon. At this time U zziah was obliged to relegate his kingly powers to his son Jotham as his coregent since, as a leper, he was not permitted to mingle with other people. 1 ~ And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord: and Jotham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land. Since both Uzziah and Jeroboam were reigning two years before the earthquake and since the latest date for Jeroboam was 753 B.C., and since by Thiele's chronology based on independent evidence, 1"5 Jotham became coregent in 750 B.C., it follows that the earthquake occurred in the year 751-750 B.C. According to Hebrew sources, 16 Isaiah began his. ministry on the day following the earthquake. The contents of his message in the opening chapters of the book bearing his name should be read against this background, the results of the catastrophe being still fresh before the very eyes of the people to whom these words were first orally addressed. From these early chapters, the following statements are gleaned. 17 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire .... For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen .... . . . The hills. did tremble, and their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets. Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Evidently the disaster resulted in a heavy loss of both life and property in Jerusalem, and damage to the cities was experienced throughout the territory. The destructions referred to by Isaiah have been commonly attributed by commentators to invasions by the Assyrians on the basis of Isaiah 1:7 which, in the KJV, reads "your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers." However, the marginal reading and the rendering in other versions do not support this rendering. There is no indication 124 THE EXODUS PROBLEM in the Assyrian inscriptions of inroads by Assyrian armies into southern Palestine prior to the third year of Tiglathpileser (742 B.C. ), eight years after the earthquake; 1 ~ and there is certainly no basis for presuming such destruction · at Jerusalem by the Assyrians even at this date as stated by Isaiah. Clearly, the earthquake in the reign of Uzziah wa:s not like the ordinary earthquake whose effects are limited in severity to a relatively small distance from its epicenter. By the revised chronology, the era of Uzziah belongs to the late Late Bronze period; a more exact position in terms of the archaeological ages is not feasible, due to the obscurity and possible overlapping of the end of Late Bronze as related to the beginning of Iron I. rn II. The Catastrophe on the Island of Crete in Late Late Bronze An exceedingly severe catastrophe befell the island of Crete also in late Late Bronze. 2° Crete lies in the Mediterranean Sea about one hundred miles off the southern tip of Greece. The disaster was so sudden and so widespread over the island that gradual decadence into virtual oblivian followed gradually during the subsequent years. Hutchinson commented on the situation thus: 21 Minoan power terminated in a sudden and widespread but rather mysterious disaster. At Knosos Evans found abundant evidences of the destructions of the Palace of Minos by fire, and of its systematic looting, but very few human bones. If its inhabitants were not carried off wholesale into captivity, they must have had time to escape. Moreover the Minoan culture did not vanish overnight like the Minoan empire. After an interval refugees of the same race and religion apparently, and indeed with the same culture but on a much lower standard, began to squat and even build shrines in the ruins of the palaces and villas of the princes and nobles. It is possible that the upper classes were nearly wiped out by the great disaster, but it is clear that a large number of the common people must have survived. But what was the cause of this catastrophe, which was not confined to Knosos but seems to have been experienced all over the island? ... Was it caused by a foreign invasion, by internal revolutions, or by natural causes such as earthquakes and floods (which curiously often cause fires as well)? Following the above statements, Hutchinson discusses the various theories that have been proposed as the cause of the disaster. While some few scholars adhere to the concept of ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 125 an invasion as the cause, it would seem that most are convinced that the destruction was caused by a violent earthquake probably followed by violent tidal waves engulfing much of the island. The palace section of the island (with its more well-to-do populace) was evidently first destroyed by the quake, the ruin having been completed by tidal waves which did not reach the higher levels where the less affluent population lived. The inciqent was dated by Evans c. 1400-1375 B.C. on the basis of finds of painted pottery in the reconstruction period similar to pottery found in the ruins of the city of Akhetaton, capital of the heretic Akhnaton in Egypt. 22 This city is presumed to have been destroyed shortly after the death of Akhnaton. 23 By this assumption, the city had a total life of hardly more than a decade after the death of its founder. The period is that of the so-called Amarna Age. The currently accepted dates for Akhnaton are c. 1375-1358 B.C. (Breasted); by the revised chronology the corresponding dates are c. 857-840 B.c. 2~ But the earthquake of Uzziah's reign was 751-750 B.C., a century later than this. 25 If the catastrophe is the same as that in the reign of Uzziah and of the same origin, then the dates must be the same. If this is the case, then there should be some simple explanation for the discrepancy of some 600 years. Five hundred years of this are accounted for by the revised chronology itself. There remains to be explained, or accounted for, the remaining discrepancy between the dates for the Amarna period by the revision and the date of the earthquake. It is commonly stated that the site of Akhetaton was abandoned soon after the death of Akhnaton and was shortly thereafter destroyed. It is inferred from this assumption that the pottery found in the ruins of the city, which was similar to that in the recuperation period at Knosos, provides proof that the disaster to Crete belongs to the Amarna Period. Hutchinson continues: 26 A lucky chance enabled. Evans to date this disaster with considerable . accuracy. Painted pottery of the type found in the reoccupation period at Knosos was found in Egypt in the city of Akhetaten at Tell-elAmarna founded by the heretic Pharaoh Akh-en-aten and abandoned after his death. Such pottery mu.st [sic] therefore be dated between 1375 and 1350 B.C., and even though we now know that this. pottery is a Mycenaean not Late Minoan fabric, this does not affect the cbro- 126 THE EXODUS PROBLEM nology [sic], since the same Mycenaean pottery is found at Knosos in strata immediately on top of the debris from the great fire. [Emphasis ours.] Such statements of abandonment of the site after the death of Akhnaton can not be taken to mean that evidence is at hand to indicate that the city was totally abandoned and destroyed at that time. Such a construction is incredible. When Akhnaton built this new city as his capital and location of his palace, he was followed there in residence by some 80,000 of his disciples solely from Thebes and evidently by an even larger number from other sites in Egypt. 27 The city must have been a very large one. The question is, why should this large number of people abandon the city as their residence simply because Akhenaton had died? The city was abandoned only in the sense that subsequent kings tended to move their capital back to Thebes, though evidently Sakere and Tutenkhamen as his successors continued to rule from this city for some time, 28 even though Tutenkhamen did not follow Akhenaton in his religious views. There is thus no reason to believe otherwise that than the populace at large remained there for an extended period of time before the site was completely abandoned. Budge gave the subsequent city a duration defined only as "less than a century." 29 But a century of later occupation is more than adequate to allow a date for the occurrence of this particular pottery type in the ruins of the city as late as 750 B. C. In the first place, the pottery found in the reoccupation period at Knosos was not of Egyptian origin; it was of Mycenaean origin30 (from Greece), the Mycenaean period continuing to the Dorian invasion, popularly dated c. 1100 B.C., but c. 750 B.C. by the revision. The specimens found in Crete did not necessarily come from Egypt; more probable is the deduction that the specimens at both locations came directly from Greece. Actually, it cannot be established just when this particular type of Mycenaean pottery ceased to be produced in Greece, but irre · spective of the date for cessation of production, individual specimens may have survived for an extended period before appearing at either location. A primary factor that evidently stands in the way of recognition of the later date (c. 750 B.C.) for the Dorian Invasion and for this type of Mycenaean pottery is the dogged ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 127 retention of this 300-year gap in the history of Greece, a gap for which there are no historic details to encompass the assumed hiatus. This interpretation necessitates separating the Dorian invasion from this catastrophe in Crete by this same 300 years, even when placed in the Amarna period. But the popular placement of the Dorian invasion c. HOO B.C. is in difficulty from considerations qmte independent of the dating of this catastrophe. While the date 1100 B.C. for· the Dorian invasion is 250 years later than the catastrophe set in the Amarna _age at c. 1350 B.C., even this late date does not provide the proper background for the incident. Homer (8th century) speaks of Dorians in Crete in connection with his descriptions relating to the era of the Trojan war (c. 1180 popularly; c. 788 by the revision) in language which agrees with the situation in the 8th century, but remains an unexplained anachronism against a 12th century background. Referring to the references in Homer, Hutchinson commented: 31 _ These lines might seem appropriate to the time when Homer wrote (? the eighth century B.C. ), but look strange as a description of Crete before the Trojan war. Does Homer's description refer to Crete in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., or were there really Dorians in Crete in 1200 B.C. or earlier? Strabo, in citing the passage from the Odyssey [of Homer], also quotes a note on it by the historian Staphylos, who stated that the Dorians were in the east [of Crete], ... while the remainder (the Achaeans and Pelasgians) . . . held the plains. When it is understood that both Homer and the Dorian invasion, as well as the Trojan war and this late catastrophe to Crete, all belong to the 8th century, these and numerous other difficulties are· provided a simple solution. The appearance of Dorians in Crete a few decades before the Dorian invasion is not improbable, since there were undoubtedly migrations occurring at this time on a lesser scale. The difficulty lies in having to account for their presence there two centuries or more before the invasion and against a totally anomalous background. · That the earthquake occurred during the period of Homer is suggested by the lines quoted by Evans. 32 Evans aptly quoted a line of Homer to the effect that "the Earthshaker delighteth in bulls" and suggested that the Minoan king had decided that this. area should not be rebuilt but remain sacred to the "earthshaker" and had sacrificed bulls there to Poseidon the god of earthquakes, or to whatever Minoan god was the equivalent of Poseidon. 128 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Ill. The Catastrophe in Late Late Bronze in Syrophonicia and Asia Minor Schaeffer has noted evidences of widespread destruction by earthquake throughout the area of Syria, Phoenicia, and Asia Minor in late Late Bronze. 33 Again the catastrophe was sufficiently unique in its general nature to permit refere.nce to it by Schaeffer as "the earthquake."'34 The date assigned is c. 1365 B.C., a date so close to that assigned to the catastrophe in Crete as to warrant consideration of a possible identical origin. Strangely, while quoting from the Amarna Letters in support of this dating, Schaeffer evidently did not agree with other scholars who assign the difficulties described in the letters to political causes and not to earthquakes. Schaeffer wrote: 35 "Ugarit, the city of the king, has been destroyed by the fire; the half of the city has been burned, the other half is no longer there." Such is the message of Abimilki, king of Tyre to Amenophis IV referring to the catastrophe which had ravaged U garit at a date between 1370 and 1360 before our era, a date which, for convenience we have fixed about 1365. Our observations made of the ruins of level I, (2 of Ras Shamra or Late Ugarit, 1450-1365) have confirmed that the city was partially destroyed by a disastrous earthquake accompanied perhaps by one of those violent tidal waves so feared on the Syrian coast and from which the port in particular had suffered damage. [Translation.] ' That the difficulties at Ugarit in the Amarna period were of political origin is beyond question. 36 That the destruction observed by Schaeffer at Ugarit was the result of an earthquake can hardly be contested, since the destruction by the same obvious origin appears at a number of other sites in the area investigated. 37 Our investigation has permitted us to establish that on the occasion of this quake, other urban centers in Syria and in Palestine had undergone damage to the same extent (Atchana, Beit Mirsim, Jericho, Megiddo, Bethshemish, Abu Huwam, Lachish, Beth Shan, el Hessi, Taanak and Askalon). The catastrophe had struck also the villages on the coast of Asia Minor such as Tarsus. Troy had been equally shaken in the mid XIVth century [sic], also Bqghaskeuy in the interiOr of the area. [Translation.] The difficulty that gives rise to the difference of opinion lies in the·fact that here, as in Crete, the time is not that of the Amarna period, but belongs rather to an era about one century later. The widespread area of the catastrophe,. then, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 129 ties it to that in Palestine and in Crete at a date which we have assigned to the 8th century. 37• The developing picture, when brought into focus, thus reveals a single ultra-violent catastrophe, which, in its tremendous proportions, ravaged the territory from southern Palestine to the far western reaches of Asia Minor, including even the island of Crete. IV. The Catastrophe in Late Late Bronze in Greece It is. quite inconceivable that a catastrophe of these dimensions was not also disastrous to the territory of Greece. And Greece did not escape. The fact of this catastrophe in Greece is obscured by the near-coincidental invasion of southern Greece by the Dorians, to whom the destruction is generally attributed. With a better focusing of the picture to clarify the details, it is far more p:robable that it was not the Dorians who destroyed in virtual totality the cities of Greece. The Dorians only took advantage of the destruction and the prostrated condition of the country as the point of their invasion. This explains why the invasion could be so sudden and so completely successful, and it explains why the immediate subsequent period is so devoid of historical evidence.ss-13 . . . . With the Mycenaean civilization we were almost on the threshold of historical times, yet now we are plunged into a proto;historic epoch which seems almost a complete blank. To describe it as the "Homeric period" is absurd; Homer's world corresponds either to the Mycenaean or to the Archaic period, surely not to the.interval between them. To describe it as the Geometric period is more correct, but tantamount to confessing that our knowledge of it remains purely archaeological. The Aeolian and Ionian Migrations were, strictly, movements extending over a long period of time. The Dorian Invasion, however, was another matter. It was abrupt and especially violent, and affected most of Greece. . . . In the other direction, these genealogies peter out two generations after the Trojan War, which would bring us to the traditional date of the Dorian invasion, about 1100, at which time (as excavation has shown) all existing cities on the mainland were destroyed. Let us now turn to the archaeological evidence. This tells us the same story everywhere, a story of widespread destruction. Mycenae and Tiryns, whose fabulous wealth made them the chief targets of the barbarians, [sic] were so completely devasted that the sites were only sparsely re-occupied, the palaces never rebuilt. Asia Minor, however, shared the same fate of Mycenaean Greece. . . . Cyprus and· Ras Shamra were ravaged at the same 1$0 THE EXODUS PROBLEM time. . . . Ras Shamra never recovered. Sites in almost every part of Syria and Palestine were devastated, but most survived after a fashion . . . . Other conquerors, the Dorians, came down from north-central Greece, this time not as successful adventurers siezing or harrying small kingdoms, but a destroying flood of men, making a sudden end · of a long civilization, and beginning a Dark Age, three centuries of chaos, after which Classical Greece begins to emerge. The assignment of this destruction to the Dorians leaves to be explained why the Dorians should so thoroughly destroy the cities of Greece in total, which area was to be that of their own later habitation. How much more logical the attribution of this total destruction as part of the same catastrophe that wreaked havoc from Palestine to Crete in the same era? V. The Catastrophe in Egypt While an earthquake has been dated in Egypt during the reign of Akhnaton of the Amarna Age, this deduction does not rest on any direct evidence but is rather by association of the disaster in Crete with the reign of Akhnaton on the basis of the similar Mycenaean pottery in the reoccupation period as that found in the ruins of the city of Akhetaton. H Our date for this catastrophe falls in the mid-reign of Rameses II, a century later. While there are no known references to this catastrophe to Egypt at this time, the background is that expected to characterize such a disaster. By the revised chronology, the catastrophe occurred in about the 42nd year of this reign. Rameses II left no significant inscriptions after this date. 45 The era is one of deterioration in Egypt and was characterized by the movement of foreign peoples onto Egyptian soil without significant moves to prevent it; this is the era described in the Harris Papyrus as one of chaos and anarchy. 46 It is possible that a more specific setting of this earthquake in the history of Egypt might be obtainable by noting the latest inscriptions on ruins of the earthquake. It is highly improbable that kings would make inscriptions on the ruins of temples. VI. What was the Cause of This Widespread Catastrophe? In attempting to deal with these evidences of catastrophe as separate and unrelated incidents widely separated in time, it has not been possible to recognize the magnitude of ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 131 the disaster or to reach agreement on the problem of the probable causes. When it is apparent that the destructions reached from Egypt through Palestine, Syria, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, Greece, and Crete, the deduction that becomes clearly apparent is that a c;.ause must be sought with a sufficient potential for producing destruction over such an extended area. Certainly this was no ordinary earthquake. The single factor clearly recognizable as having such potential for destruction was the eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera, just off the coast from the southern tip of Greece. In fact, this cause has been entertained as one of several possibilities for the origin of the catastrophe that befell Crete, •7 though there seems to have been no recognition that this same cause should be attributed to the destructions throughout Asia Minor, Syrophoenicia, and Palestine as coincident phenomena. The magnitude of the eruption on Thera is almost beyond comprehension. The crater left from the eruption has an area of 83 square kilometers (30 square miles) and the eruption left .a hole some 2000 feet deep. •s The next most violent eruption, based on the size of the crater, was that at Krakatoa in 1884 which left a crater about 8 square miles by comparison. This latter quake produced tidal waves nearly 100 feet high and produced a known loss of life of some 36,000 people. Thera remains buried under volcanic ash to a depth of over 90 feet in places. There is evidence to indicate that at that time, much that was previously land area sank beneath the ocean, either from the violence of the eruption or from the sheer weight of the volcanic residues that fell following the eruption. Certainly this eruption was adequate to have produced this widespread disaster by virtue of the quake itself and by the resulting tidal action that must have followed. Velikovsky attempted to link certain of these. early disasters with .astronomic causes. •9 That such may have been an ultimate factor is not necessarily to be eliminated by a recognition of the eruption of Thera as the immediate cause. ·The flood of Deucalion, occurring about two centuries earlier, may well have been the result of an earlier and less extensive eruption of the same or of another volcano whose crater now lies below sea level. This flood is said to have 132 THE EXODUS PROBLEM occurred in the reign of Thutmose III (950-896 B.C. by the revision). VII. Catastrophe in the General Era of Late Early Bronze Schaeffer has reviewed the evidences of two widespread catastrophes that occu.rred in the Near East during the era of late Early Bronze and the period following. 50 The first of these he dated in the era 2400-2300; the second in the era 2100-2000 B.C. Since the dates of Schaeffer were intended to be only approximate, we take these as c. 2350 and 2050 B.C. respectively. Since his dates relative to the archaeological ages are not altogether in agreement with those given by other investigators, it is more feasible here to deal with these two catastrophes in their relation to each other, and in relation to the fall of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, dated approximately to the end of Dynasty VI. This point is commonly equated with the end of Early Bronze III, though Schaeffer has it set at the end of Early Bronze 11:; 1 The problem is thus complicated by this and further variation in designations for the sub-periods that follow. The archaeological ages were originally defined in terms of Palestinian archaeology, not in terms of Egyptian history. An awkward situation thus rises from attempts to correlate the chronologies of eras outside Palestine with Palestinian history by this system. Two additional factors enter into the problem. The actual point of the end of Dynasty VI in Egypt is obscure. While some would end it with the end of the reign of Pepi II, the reigns of several additional kings are recognized by others. There is also the unproved assumption that the fall of the Old Kingdom had the same cause as the numerous evidences of destruction and unrest to be observed in this same general era in western Asia from Anatolia to southern Palestine. If the perturbations noted by Schaeffer are translated to incidents of Israelite history in terms of the altered chronology, it is then possible to define these dates in a relatively exact manner. We tentatively accept as a close approximation the coincidence of the earliest of these two perturbations with the end of Dynasty VI in Egypt. But the date is c. 1445 B.C., not 2350 B.C. This correlation is allowable in terms of the chronological revision by virtue of recognizing that the so-called First Intermediate that follows the end of ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 133 Early Bronze has quite the same beginning as the Second Intermediate, both representing the point of the Hyksos invasion and both representing the point of the Exodus fo Israelite history. 51 " The second of these perturbations, by this same thesis, belongs to the era of the conquest of Palestine under Joshua. The date is thus c. 1400 B.C. and not 2050 B.C., and the interval between the two is not 200-400 years, as as- · sumed by Schaeffer, but only 40 years. The second perturbation thus does not mark the end of either the First or Second Intermediate. 52 This period of Hyksos control of Egypt continues on for another three· centuries. It is this unrecognized circumstance that is apparently at the root of the confusion that results from attempts to define the subperiods of the era in terms of the archaeological ages, and at the same time correlate these periods with Egyptian history. The confusion as to the point where Dynasty XII belongs in the scheme is also related to this problem. 5'1 1he generally accepted date for the beginning of Dynasty XII is c. 2000 B. C. However, one notes an extreme reticence among scholars to provide a point in the scheme of the archaeological ages for the beginning of this dynasty. Albright has dated late Dynasty XII in the roughly defined period 19th-18th centuries, but has elected to designate the . preceding period, where one would expect to locate the beginning of Dynasty XII, as a "composite" stratum, which does not distinguish clearly between Middle Bronze I and the preceding period. 54 Miss Kenyon would end Early Bronze at the end of Dynasty VI and define Early BronzeMiddle Bronze Intermediate as approximately coincident with the First Intermediate, 55 which would then begin Dynasty XII about at the beginning of Middle Bronze I. Schaeffer would begin his Middle Bronze c. 2100, thus . making the first century of Middle Bronze fall in the First Intermediate, the latter part extending into the era of Dynasty XII. 56 Miss Kenyon would begin Middle Bronze I not earlier. than 2000, less definitely at 1900 + 50 years. 57 . The aim of the following sections is to present an altered interpretation of the evidences reviewed by Schaeffer for the era under consideration. This interpretation will be set .against the altered background of the proposed revision. In 134 THE EXODUS PROBLEM so doing, a number of.significant details are noted to confirm the altered interpretation. VIII. The Specific Catastrophe at the End of Schaeffer's Early Bronze II At a time which cannot be far removed from the end of Dynasty VI, western Asia experienced a "perturbation," the effects of which reached from Troy in western Anatolia through the intervening territory to such distant areas as Egypt and Persia. 58 While the territory of Greece was undoubtedly also affected, the· civilization of this earlier era has been so thoroughly destroyed by subsequent disasters as to make impossible any assignment of particular observations to any specific destruction. The problem of the cause of this catastrophe would naturally become a topic of discussion among the investigators. Evidences of earthquake at Troy, at Tarsus, and at a few other sites are clear enough. However, the perturbation is usually reflected at more distant sites by evidence of conflagration, or by evidence of occupation of sites by a new people, or by abandonment of old sites or the founding of new ones. 39 Yet it is apparent that earthquakes can cause conflagrations, and structures not solidly constructed could be shaken down and burned without apparent evidence of earthquake otherwise. The concept was entertained seriously by the investigators, and by Schaeffer, that the ultimate cause was an earthquake of unusual violence or a series of such earthquakes, followed by extensive migrations of peoples from north to south. 60 Evidences of such migrations were everywhere apparent. That such tend to occur following natural catastrophe is a well-observed fact. That the destruction was sudden and complete in west Anatolia is indicated by the fact that the previous occupants were either totally destroyed, or those that escaped left the area under circumstances that did not permit them taking even their treasured belongings. As a result, the newcomers were able to take over the wealth of the former occupants, and the fol- . lowing period in this area was characterized as one of a high level of wealth and prosperity. As Schaeffer has put it, they were able to turn the catastrophe to their own profit. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 135 But this was not the case in the area farther east. Here the reoccupation period is represented by a meager population compared to the former, a population with a notably lower level of culture and prosperity. In many cases, they elected to establish new sites rather than clear away the worthless debris from the ·destroyed sites. We quote briefly (in translation) from Schaeffer. 61 What was the nature of the event or the events which caused these severe. destructions in several of the principal cities of Anatolia such as Troy; Alaca, Tarsus, Alishar, as well as in Syria, such as Ras Shamra Ugarit, Qalaat-er-Rouse, Byblos, Chagar Bazar, Tell Brak, Tepe Gawar and in many of the cities of Palestine; the events which were responsible also for the fall of the Ancient Empire in Egypt, of destructions in Cyprus, in Mesopotamia, of the events which have finally had repercussions even in Persia and in the countries of the Caucasus? As for the magnitude of the catastrophe, it could not have been inferior to that which brought an end, about 1200, to the civilization of Late Bronze in all the areas of West Asia and beyond, and of which the invasions of the Peoples of the North and of the Sea were probably but one episode amplified by the information at which we have arrived principally from Egyptian sources . . . . It seems also that this element [new comers at Ugarit] was numerically of little importance and that the occupation of the site after the fire was less dense than that before the catastrophe. Some analogous observations have been reported from Qafaat-er-Rouss, from Rama, and from Chagar Bazar in Syria, from Beit Mirsim, from Jericho and from Gaza in Palestine. It is probable that natural causes have contributed and even released this pressure from the north to the south. The observations of Schliemann at Troy and those of the Turkish Mission at Alaca Huyuk, make necessary the conclusion that disastrous earthquakes had at that time shaken vast regions of Anatolia. When these observations are equated with the incident of the Exodus and associated events as described in Scripture, and dated by the revision at the time assigned to this catac;trophe, the picutre comes into clearer focus. From the Scriptural account we may deduce that the catastrophe which came upon Egypt at this time and which led to the plagues and to the subsequent developments was indeed a dire catastrophe associated with phenomena that were altogeher different from anything Egypt had ever experienced previously. While there were earthquakes involved62 which continued over an extended period of time, 6~ this catastrophe was more than, and different from, an earthquake of 136 THE EXODUS PROBLEM even vast proportions. The accompanying phenomena included severe hail storms mingled \\'.ith fire,CH which may account for the widespread evidences· of conflagration over vast areas outside Egypt. 65 There were prolonged thunderings and lightnings of a most frightening nature with terrific rain storms and thick clouds and unusual darkness. rrn The bed of the River Nile became dry,r;• as if some catastrophe farther south had temporarily shunted the waters into a different channel. The disaster was accompanied by extensive loss of life to humans and to cattle. 68 There is no necessity for concluding that these phenomena were limited to the area of Egypt, and the extension of the same calamity to widespread regions which archaeologically reveal the effects provides a basis for at least hypothesizing the nature of the cause. Velikovsky has attempted to associate some of these early catastrophes to causes of astronomical origin. While our information does not permit us to be specific in the assignments, an astronomical cause would seem to be the most reasonable cause for explaining the unusual manifestations. If the Israelites had migrated directly into Palestine, as planned, they no doubt would have found the occupation of the territory a relatively simple problem, just as did the migrants from the north. As it was, 40 years elapsed between the Exodus and the eventual occupation. This 40 years gave opportunity for the new inhabitants to rebuild their cities after a fashion, and establish themselves more firmly in their new home, thus requiring a more difficult conquest of the territory. Just how much of the destruction observed in Palestine resulted from the siege of cities by the armies of Israel and how much may have been the result of the earthquakes cannot be determined except for the specific cases noted in Scripture, i.e., at Jericho. A point of passing interest is to be seen in the prophetic words relative to the eventual occupation of this territory by the descendants of Abraham as compared to the actual situation as it existed at the time of the Conquest. At the time of the promise, the entire territory was evidently occupied by the Amorites. ' 0 At the time of the Conquest, there are a number of peoples occupying the territory. 71 We may look then to the migrations that took place 40 years earlier for the change in the occupants. That these various peoples Figure 2. Showing the Manner in Which the Varient Definitions of the Archaeological Subdivisions are Related to the Altered Chronological Structure for -- --- -·- ( 40 yrs. ) . ... ID. VI . - ~ I -- -- - First and Second Intermediates Israel in Palestine to 25th vear of Saul ' ' ::I: 0 - j 34 yrs (") Schaeffer's EB-II EB-III .Wri qht' s EB-II I EB-IV 1 > t'.%1 (") 0 Gl. > L' ' .... , L' .D. XII .D. XIII > :::t3 ' D:t_nasties VII, VIII, IX, X, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII but not in this order ' ., Albright's en --< z (") -- MB- Kenyon's I EB-MB i!nter Beit Mirsim Strata MB-I IA MB-IIB MB-I MB-II MB-IIC ::i:: ~ z en ~ J I H G 61 F E D >-' c.:i -l 138 THE EXODUS PROBLEM may have been more or less related is suggested by their origin in a common territory to the north. When these peoples were driven out of the territory at the time of the Conquest, moving northward, they were but returning to the general area from which they came. IX. Problems Related to the Intermediate Periods In previous phases of the developing concepts relative to the proposed chronological revision, a necessary premise has been that the so-called First and Second Intermediates in Egypt represent the same time period, both encompassing the era of Hyksos domination of Egypt. During this time, Palestine was not occupied by the Hyksos as currently believed; it was occupied by the Israelites. The question that naturally arises is, how can these intermediates represent the period of Hyksos occupation of Egypt lasting some four centuries by the revision, if the intermediate period between the two catastrophes and following the end of Dynasty VI was only 40 years? This is a reasonable question and deserves a credible and clear-cut answer. We are dealing here with several periods that have been referred to as "intermediate periods." But at no time have we taken the position that all of these are exact equivalents. Some of these, the writer has introduced; others have been introduced by scholarly opinions, and unfortunately, scholars have not agreed among themselves on the definition of these periods. It is thus not only a question of clarifying the relationships between these periods, but also one of equating, as best can be done, the variant terms used to refer to the same or approximately the same period. And finally, each of these must be related to the scheme of the Archaeological Ages. The interrelations as viewed by the writer are shown in Figure 2. X. The Catastrophe Dated by Schaeffer c. 2050 B.C. The disaster dated by Schaeffer c. 2050 B. C. involved somewhat the same territory as that involved in. the first perturbation. The date by the revision is c. 1405 B.C. and represents incidents related to the conquest of Palestine under Joshua. The date is 40 years after the Exodus and some 74 years after the end of Dynasty XII, since Dynasty XII by this altered structure ended 34 years before the Exodus. The more sparce population that migrated into Pales- ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNCHRONISM 139 tine following the earlier disaster had had sufficient time during the interim to rebuild their cities after a fashion, and to establish themselves in the new territory. The archaeology of Bi:.it Mirsim and certain other sites reflect this dual catastrophe clearly with its variant shifts in culture. 72 Stratum J at Beit Mirsim belongs to Early Bronze and represents the sparce occupation prior to the first catastrophe. Strata I and H above this are separated from J by a layer of ashes representing the catastrophe at the time of the Exodus. Stratum G is in turn separated from H by another layer of ashes representing the conquest of the site by Joshua, or by the effects of the earthquake of the second perturbation. That the occupants consisted partly of survivors from the catastrophe and partly of the new migrants is indicated by the mixed pottery of this period. Stratum G is then Israelite. This stratum was divided by the investigators into two sub-periods of which the later one had by far the longer duration. G2 may then be taken to represent a temporary occupation of the site by the armies of Joshua during the Conquest as well as representing the corresponding period at Jericho designated as Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Intermediate by Kenyon and others. This deduction is ·confirmed to a degree by the observation of pottery in G2 like that in Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Transition at Jericho. An indirect correlation through the finds in the lower phase of Middle Bronze by Ory, at a site probably to be identified as Biblical Aphek, may also be recognized. 73 In the corresponding stratum containing the same characteristic pottery was found a scarab identified as of Dynasty XIII. By the altered structure, the Exodus occurred at a time when the rule of Egypt had been transferred to one of the more powerful feudal lords of Dynasty XIII, when there was no available heir to the throne in Dynasty XII. Hence, the point in question does belong to the era of Dynasty XII. The ultimate cause of the second disaster, at least in the area of Anatolia, was again an earthquake or series of earthquakes. The disaster is indicated at Tarsus by walls tilted to a 45 degree angle, revealing the violence of the quake. Evidences of the quake are indicated over much of the area of Anatolia. At the time of this disaster, the wealthy and pros- 140 THE EXODUS PROBLEM perous occupants from the time of the preceding disaster now disappear. Schaeffer commented:" These observations are corroborated by the facts in the corresponding levels at Tarsus. In level III ... the beds comprising the ruins of buildings of which the walls are in part cracked and inclined up to 45 degrees from the vertical. Illustrated by the abundance and the richness of the movable items of the royal tombs, the brilliant civilization at Alaca Huyuk becomes somber in a sudden catastrophe. According to the observations of the Turkish investigators, the cause was a new earthquake or a series of seismic shocks of particular violence. Even the subterranean caves have been damaged. [Translation.] Notes and References (1) See quots. of refs. 8, 11, IS. (2) See quot. of ref. 12. (3) This voluminous material has been summarized by Schaeffer in S-SCCAO, Sects. 224-6, pp. 534-543. (4) H-PC, pp. 300ff. (5) K-G. p. 18. (6) See Sect. V. (7) B-HE. p. 147; see Sect. VIII. (8) See Fig. 2, Vol. I. (9) Amos 1:1 (10) T-MNHK, p. 187. (11) See ref. 9. (12) Zech. 14:5. (13) J-AJ, Bk. IX, Chap. X. par. 4. (14) II Chron. 26:21. (15) T-MNHK, Chap. 6. (16) Seder Odam 20, cited in V-WC, p. 212n. (17) Isa. 1:7; 3:8; 5:25; 1:9. (18) L-ARAB, Vol. I, pars. 761, 769, 770. (19) The delineation between Late Bronze and Iron I is given variant dates, depending on the area in question. See A-AP, p. 110 for statement of the gradual beginnings of this era. (20) This is the catastrophe of ref. 4. (21) H-PC, p. 300. (22) Ibid. (23) Ibid.; B-N, p. 557; W-SHAE, p. 159. (24) Vol. I, Fig. 11. (25) See text of ref. 15. (26) H-PC, p. 300. (27) W-SHAE, p. 149. (28) BHE, p. 392. (29) B-N, p. 557. (30) H-PC, p. 300. (31) Ibid., p. 318. (32) Ibid., p. 198. (33) See ref. 3. (34) S-SCCAO, pp. 72, 129, 164, etc. (35) Ibid., p. 560. (36) One has only to scan these letters to be aware of this fact. (37) See ref. 35. (37a) See Sect. II (this chapter). (38) D-BGA, p. 281. (39) B-HH, p. 30. (40) K-G, p. 18. (41) D-BGA, p. 283. (42) Ibid., p. 284. (43) K-G, p. 24. (44) See ref. 30. (45) P-HE, Vol. III, pp. 39, 72. (46) Vol. I, Chap. XVIII, quots. of refs. 8, 9. (47) H-PC, p. 301. (48) Ibid., p. 302. (49) V-WC. (50) See ref. 3. (51) Ibid., Tables, pp. 39, 72, etc. (5la) See Fig. 2 of Vol. I; Fig. 2, this volume. (52) See ref. 5la. (53) This problem has been considered in detail in Chapter V where its position in late Early Brome is defended. (54) A-AP, p. 84. (55) K-AHL, p. 136. (56) See Fig. 2. (57) p. 169, though on p. 170 the later date. 1850, is taken. This is some 60 years before the end of Dynasty XII, and it is admitted that there is no basis for the establishment of more exact dates. (58) See quot. of ref. 61. (59) Ibid. (60) Ibid. (6I) S-SCCAO, pp. 535-537. (62) Ps. 18:11-15; 77:16-20. (63) See Vol. I, Chap. IX, quot. of ref. 26. (64) Ps. 18:12, 13. (65) See quot. of ref. 59. (66) Ps. 18:7, 9, 11. (67) Vol. I, Chap. IX, quot. of ref. 29. (68) We can only assume the degree of damage of life and property from the earlier plagues; the account of the 10th plague is more specific. See quot. of ref. 27, Chap. IX, Vol. l. (69) V-AC. (70) Gen. 15:16. (71) Deut. 7:1. (72) ASOR Annual, Vol. XVII, Chaps. II, III; see Fig. 2. (73) Ibid. (74) S-CCAO, p. 540. CHAPTER VII ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES OF THE DISPERSION FROM BABEL The only incidents mentioned in Scripture for the period between the Flood and the migration of Abraham into Canaan are related to the Dispersion from Babel coincident with the confusion of tongues. 1 These accounts are commonly. scouted by scholars as presenting only a later adaptation of a supposedly earlier legendary account of Babylonian origin. A translation of the Babylonian inscription in question is provided by Sayce and reads in part: 2 " ... Babylon corruptly to sin went and small and great mingled on the mound ... Their (work) all day they founded, to their stronghold in the night entirely an end he made. In his anger also the secret· counsel he poured out to scatter (abroad) his face he set, he gave a command to make strange their speech. . . . Violently they wept for Babylon... very much they wept." In the process of developing the revised chronology of Egypt prior to the XVIIIth Dynasty, the details of which have been provided in an earlier volume, it was possible to identify clearly (1) the point of the Exodus in the reign of Koncharis of Dynasty XHI and coincident with the Hyksos invasion,'3 (2) the period of Israelite oppression under the reigns of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III of Dynasty XII, 4 and (3) the famine of Joseph in the reign of Sesostris 15 in the same dynasty. For the development of the chronology of the period prior to the Xllth Dynasty, it was necessary to depend almost entirely on the Egyptian inscriptions, 6 since there are no events recorded in Scripture for the period between the Dispersion and the Famine which could be expected to be clearly confirmed archaeologically. It was shown, however, that when the information gleaned from the Egyptian inscriptions, beginning with Mena, is recognized as having a chronological value, we are led to a structure which is not at significant odds with a strict interpretation of the Scriptural figures. The concept was current among the ancients that Mena, the first king of Egypt, was none other than Mizraim of the Genesis record, who migrated into the Nile Valley at the time of the Dispersion.~ 142 THE EXODUS PROBLEM " ... Mestraim was. indeed the founder of the Egyptian race; and from him the first Egyptian dynasty must be held to spring." This is the logical conclusion to be derived from the Biblical accounts of the origin of nations. Furthermore, this concept was fixed in the subsequent literature of the Hebrews. In the Hebrew, the name for Egypt is Mestraim, a name which is clearly derived from Mizraim, the son of Ham. Josephus commented on the relation between Mizraim and the Egyptians thus: 9 ... The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestraeans. Whether Mena is recognized as the same person as Mizraim of Scripture, or whether he is regarded as a near descendant of Mizraim, is not important here beyond the proper setting of this incident at a date not far removed from the incident of the Genesis Flood. Of vital importance is the recognition that the Dispersion was not an incident that occurred millenniums back in the predynastic period. It is intended here to demonstrate that the Dispersion incident occurred about 27 years before the unification of Egypt under Mena. There is thus every probability that Mena was indeed the same person as Mizraim, the grandson of Noah. The period between the Flood and the Dispersion is not one to be measured in millenniums or even in a multiplicity of centuries. While it may not be possible to define the length of that period in an exact manner, it will be shown that there is no demand for assuming a period in excess of 200 years and that a period of 25-45 years shorter than this is entirely probable. · A somewhat vague clue to the chronology of the Dispersion incident is provided in the Genesis account which reads: 10 And unto Eber were born two sons; the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided. This statement has been interpreted to refer to the division that occurred at the time of the Dispersion. It is possible that the reference relates to a division among the people relative to a retention or rejection of a recognition of the God of Noah. If the latter is the correct meaning, then a THE DISPERSION FROM BABEL 143 period of half a century or more is allowable between the birth of Peleg (born 101 years after the Flood) 11 and the incident of the Dispersion. This deduction is in satisfactory agreement with the conclusion reached in Chapter XIV of a previous volume 12 to the. effect that the period from the unification of Egypt under Mena to the end of Dynasty V (not far removed from the famine of Joseph's time) was about 479 years. The problems before us are (1) that of showing that there are evidences for the Dispersion incident shortly before the unification of Egypt under Mena and (2) that what is known archaeologically for the period prior to this can be accounted for within a period not in significant excess of one and one-half centuries. If our confidence in the reliability of Scripture for the statements under consideration has not been misplaced, we· should then find indisputable archaeological evidence of a dispersion of peoples from Mesopotamia into Egypt, and into the neighboring territories, at a point shortly before the unification of Egypt under Mena. This migration should be clearly revealed in the territories of Syria, Palestine, and even into Asia Minor, since migrating peoples from Mesopotamia would of necessity pass through the territories of Syria and Palestine, some undoubtedly electing to settle in the alternate direction of Asia Minor. Such a migration must certainly have resulted in cultural change or a series of cultural changes at sites along the route to Egypt, each people being subject to displacement by the next wave of migrants. The historical era in Palestine and Egypt has been divided into epochs, each marked by major cultural changes. Such a widespread cultural change marks the beginning of what is called the Early Bronze Age, dated in terms of Egyptian history in the late prehistoric period, just prior to the First Dynasty in Egypt. 1'3 ... Moreover it is possible to date each phase according to Egyptian dynastic chronology: Early Bronze I . . . was contemporary with the latest predynastic period in Egypt. . .. While historians have no basis for providing a figure, in years, prior to the beginning of dynastic history for the beginning of Early Bronze I, it should be clear that we are dealing with a point late in the predynastic era in placing the Dispersion coincident with the migration of Mizraim 144 THE EXODUS PROBLEM into Egypt, since Egypt must have existed for a period of years in a divided state prior to this unification. That there did occur at this point an intensive migration of peoples into Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Asia Minor and even into the Aegean Islands is witnessed by archaeology in an· unequivocal manner. Furthermore, this migration of peoples is recognized as having had its origin in Mesopotamia. I. The Era of Mena Correlated in Time with Mesopotamian History Fortunately for the problem at hand, there is no difficulty at all in the matter of correlation of the late predynastic period ·in Egypt with Mesopotamian history. It is only necessary to determine the point in Mesopotamian archaeology marked by the beginning of Early Bronze I. If we find this point marked by a notable migration out of Mesopotamia into the surrounding areas including Egypt, we may consider that we are again on solid ground in the further development of the chronology of the entire ancient world. The beginning of Early Bronze I in the late predynasttc period of Egypt is tied in unmistakable fashion to Mesopotamian history for the period known as }emdet Nasr. This culture is so named for the site at which it was first discovered archaeologically. In substantiation of the recognition of this correlation by modern scholars, we refer to the statements of Albright. 14 In the transitional period which led from Late Cha/eolithic into Early Bronze I, ... may be placed Stages VII-V /IV on the eastern slope of Megiddo. This phase must be interpolated between Beth-shan XV and XIII, and corresponds to Stratum XIX on the Megiddo mound proper. In Stage V, were discovered a number of sherds impressed before baking by cylinder seals With animal and floral designs. They were first attributed by Frankfort to the Early Dynastic I or II of Mesopotamia, but in 1945 Dunand published some thirty similar impressions from the lowest level of Byblus which have altered the picture. There can be no question that Dunand is substantially right in correlating them with the ]emdet Nasr period in Mesopotamis, [Emphasis ours.] Thus evidence from Megiddo and Byblus provides us with a bas~s for correlating the beginnings of Early Bronze I in Egypt with the Jemdet Nasr culture of Mesopotamia. Not only so, the evidence pins the correlation to a narrow peri- THE DISPERSION FROM BABEL 145 od in the history of Mesopotamia, since the Jemdet Nasr culture had but a brief existence. 1.; ... and in t~e probably rather short ]emdet Nasr period, we find a characteristic ware with designs in black and plum red. This phase is recognizable at Ur, at Uruk (II-III), Gawra (VII-VIII), Uqair (II-IV), and other sites, and the Uruk innovations of writing and seal-making were developed. It is to be noted that, as in Egypt, so in Mesopotamia the Jemdet Nasr era marks the beginnings of dynastic history. Hence the point marks a widespread trend toward nationalism, as is to be expected to follow the Dispersion incident. Of this era, Pig got wrote: 16 ... We king-lists years for lowed by are now approaching so near to the recorded history and of Mesopotamia that we can give an approximate date in the Jemdet Nasr - about 3000 B.C. [sic] - for it was folthe period of the Early Dynasties .... The correlation of the beginning of Early Bronze I with the Dispersion from Babel becomes reasonably complete if evidence is at hand to indicate that the short-lived Jemdet Nasr culture of Mesopotamia and other contemporary cultures became scattered over the area of the then known world. II. Evidences of the Dispersion.from Mesopotamia at the Beginning of Early Bronze If one can but free his thinking from the strangle-hold of popular opinion, the evidences become overwhelming that the beginning of Early Bronze I marks the point of the Dispersion as recorded in the Scriptural accounts. The magnitude of the migration of cultures at this point has been such as to call forth expressions of some astonishment on the part of scholars. Since, as far as the writer is aware, not a single one of these scholars has entertained the slightest recognition of this migration as that of the Genesis account, there is no call to depreciate the weight of the evidence before us. Continuing the statements noted above, Albright wrote: 17 ... Towards the end of the fourth millennium [sic] there must have been an exceedingly intensive transfusion of culture going on in the Near and Middle East. Syria and Palestine naturally became the cultural intermediaries through which Mesopotamian influences streamed into Egypt in the period just before the First Dynasty, as has been demonstrated particularly by Frankfort and Scharff. [Emphasis ours.] 146 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Here then, at the very point demanded. by our reasoning, are to be found the evidences of migrations of peoples out of Mesopotamia throu~h Syria and Palestine into Egypt, migrations so extensive as to have had no parallel in ancient times, with the possible exception of the migrations into and out of Palestine at the point of Joshua's conquest. III. Evidences of the Dispersion into Palestine The existence of known settlements in Palestine prior to Early Bronze is limited to a very few sites. Notable are the settlements at Mt. Carmel, at Jericho, at Megiddo, and at Beth Shan. Garstang commented as follows on the evidences to be noted at this time at the site of Jericho: 18 ... but danger began to loom ahead when the expansion and activities of distant societies resulted in repeated movements of people from their settlements in search of new homes beyond their borders. The chief driving power for these migrations seems to have originated in Southern Babylonia.... It follows that all of the new settlements which had their beginnings at the time of this "transfusion of cultures" represent peoples who either migrated out of Mesopotamia at the time of the Dispersion or else who had been displaced by these migrations and in turn were obliged to seek new living quarters. It is thus of interest to note the large number of settlements in Palestine which had their origins at this time. Garstang continued: 19 ... In short, we may regard the Prehistoric Period as having ended, and the history of Jericho as beginning, with this dated epoch. In Palestine many great Canaanite cities have been shown by archaeological discoveries to date their origins from rhese times, such as Hazor, Taanak and Megiddo on the north-eastern trade route, and Shechem, Beeroth and Jerusalem in the hill country to -the south; and probably the same is true of most of the cities of the plains. The new world now enfolded Jericho, where also a complete change of civilization, coupled with signs of destruction of the previous settlement, argues a change of race. The general increase of population throughout the country involved a division of lands between the different city groups as well as protection for their flocks .... . . . and there can be little doubt but that the new city [Jericho] was founded and fortified by a people migrating either from further north in response to pressure from beyond, or from Mesopotamia itself. This widespread infusion of new peoples into Palestine is marked by the beginning of what Miss Kenyon calls the "Proto-Urban Period. " 20 It was the direct result of this info- THE DISPERSION FROM BABEL 147 sion by numerous new peoples that led to the city-state organization that followed, and which must have represented the history of Palestine throughout the Early Bronze Age, reaching to, or nearly to, the point of the Conquest. Miss Kenyon commented on the different types of pottery which appear in Palestine at this time. 21 So far, we have mainly discu.ssed the different elements in terms of different groups of pottery types. Acculumated archaeological experience has shown that a distinctive group of pottery types in fact is the evidence, sometimes the only evidence, which survives of a distinctive group of people. Therefore we can translate our A, B, and C pottery types into three groups of people who appear in Palestine at this time. They come in as independent groups, as the Jericho evidence shows, and as they penetrate into the country some of them intermingle.... Unfortunately, the homeland of none of these groups can be satisfactorily identified, since we cannot point to the same pottery elsewhere. But there is little doubt that eventually we shall be able to do so.... IV. Evidences of the Dispersion in Syria Three adjacent sites in the north-western corner of Syria were excavated by Sir Leonard Wooley between 1936 and 1949. 22 The principal site, now known as Atchana," was identified by written records as the ancient site of Alalakh, a town mentioned but once otherwise in known ancient inscriptions. It was found that the archaeology of the three sites, Tell esh Sheikh, Tabarah, and Atchana represented a historical sequence, the history of each site coming to a close with the beginning of the next with but sufficient overlapping of the pottery types to establish the sequence. The various levels could be associated with Mesopotamian history by means of seals and pottery types. The upper levels at Tabarah indicated that: 2'1 ... Tabarah had been suddenly deserted and its site had been left uninhabited for nearly a thousand years. The pottery fragments showed that this desertion coincided with the incoming of the new race which built a new town for itself at Atchana, a race that enjoyed the free use of metal and turned its clay vessels on the potter's wheel; it was before this formidable invader that the Khirbet Karak people, ignorant savages in comparison, fled to the south and east. · The pottery in level XIV at Atchana was found to be contemporary with Jemdet Nasr culture, 24 and was thus contemporary with the Dispersion from Mesopotamia. 148 THE. EXODUS PROBLEM ... This would accord with the evidence of Atchana, where level XIV (the third occupation-level after Tabarah) is contemporary with the "Jemdet Nasr" period .... The fact that the upper levels at Tabarah and the three lower levels at Atchana reveal evidences of the extensive migrations of this period suggests that there occurred at some sites a rapid series of cultural changes which reflect waves of migratory peoples, each displaced by the next. It is to be noted 25 that the migratory period involved more than a single level also at Megiddo and Bethshan. The suggestion is that the incident of the Dispersion was not one that occurred over night. It evidently represented a series of movements in sequence over perhaps a period of several years. This point is of major significance in the interpretation of the predynastic evidence in Egypt. 26 V. Evidences of the Dispersion in Egypt Archaeologically, there is no fact more thoroughly established than that there was a series of migrations of peoples into the valley of the Nile just prior to the beginning of the dynastic period. 27 Immediately prior to the beginning of the dynastic period, Egypt existed under a divided rule. This follows from the fact that Mena unified the government under a single king. Dynastic history in Egypt begins with this unification.· But unification presupposes that there was a divided rule to be unified. Eusebius (by Lepsius) states that the reign of Mena was preceded by the reigns of 10 kings of This (Thinis). 28 Strangely, historians would have these 10 kings reign in sequence. 29 But if the kings before the dynastic period ruled in sequence, then from what was Egypt unified under Mena? The statement of Eusebills that the IO kings were of Thinis does not necessarily demand a sequence of kings ruling at Thinis; more probably reference is to the site of origin of the 10 kings. 30 Manetho divided his list of kings into dynasties, with the name of the locality from which each family originated. It may be presumed that Mena himself was one of these · ten local kings and that, as the unifier of Egypt, he continued to rule at Thinis, the capital city of Dynasty I. This interpretation does not preclude the possibility that there THE DISPERSION FROM BABEL 149 were still other local kings in Egypt at the time who had their origin at some other site than Thinis. These predynastic kings should thus be recognized as leaders of clans that migrated into Egypt as part of the Dispersion movement. The Elamite influence observed in Egypt in the course of this series of migrations is thus provided an explanation. 11 The probability is also large that the Libyans were also of Mesopotamian origin, soi:ne settling on the northern coast of Africa, while others mingled with the peoples entering the Nile Valley.'32 The Egyptian influence at Jericho and other sites in Palestine may have had a similar origin and does not necessarily indicate trade between Egypt and Palestine this early, as has been assumed by some. 3 '3 VI. Evidences of the Dispersion in Anatolia Asia Minor is divided naturally into two parts by the Taurus Mountain range, which traverses the territory from south-west to north-east. That part of Asia Minor to the north and west of the Taurus Mountains is known as Anatolia. Archaeology reveals that there were no settlements in Anatolia prior to the transition between Chalcolithic and Early Bronze, though flints have been found in this area from the Paleolithic (which is here regarded as antediluvian). '3.i Attempts to determine the origin of the first settlements in Anatolia did not provide conclusive answers.'15 With these first settlements appearing at the very time when elsewhere are to be noted the evidences of intensive transfusion of cultures from Mesopotamia, these settlements should also be recognized as part of the movement of peoples at the time of the Dispersion. The fact that some of the evidences point to an origin in the Aegean Islands need be no cause for surprise. The probabilities are large that the Taurus Range continued to represent a barrier to peoples seeking a new home, and this Aegean influence in early Anatolia may well represent only an entrance into the territory by the "back door." It is again to be noted that the Dispersion incident may well have encompassed a period of several years, so that some of these peoples may well have settled first in the Aegean Islands and later moved to the mainland; or possibly the reverse is true, that peoples from the mainland moved into the islands. 150 THE EXODUS PROBLEM VII. The Origin of the Pre-Dispersion Inhabitants of Palestine and Elsewhere One might assume from the brief Scriptural account that all the people who survived the Flood, together with any descendants born in the meantime took part in the migra-. tion into Mesopotamia. This is an inference beyond that which is stated. The account reads: 36 And as men migrated in the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. The early Scriptures are a most incomplete record, and it may be presumed, on the basis of subsequent developments, that this migration irito Mesopotamia was more or less limited in. terms of the total but small population, and that the Biblical account deals with this group in preference to those who did not thus migrate into this area, because this people included the ancestors of Abraham who is the central character of the subsequent account. There is nothing in Scripture to preclude the recognition of settlements elsewhere, as in Palestine and Syria. While it is generally believed that the earliest home of civilized man was in Mesopotamia, the actual difference in time between the first settlement at Hassuna in Mesopotamia (now recognized as the oldest) and at Jericho become relatively insignificant. Certainly, there are ample archaeological evidences to indicate that Jericho, and probably a few other sites, were occupied for a significant period of time prior to the Dispersion. These settlements, wherever found, may then usually represent the descendants of those who did not migrate into the Mesopotamian Valley. VIII. On the Population at the Time of the Dispersion A difficulty may rise in the thinking of those accustomed to believe that the predynastic period is one to be measured in millenniums. The period allowable by a strict interpretation of the Biblical figures for the period between the Flood and the Dispersion can hardly exceed 200 years and may well require inclusion within a period of c. 155 years. 37 Is even the maximum allowable period of 200 years adequate for a multiplication of the population to meet the specifica- · tions of tJ;ie Biblical account and to also encompass archaeological evidence that may be brought to bear on the prob- THE DISPERSION FROM BABEL 151 !em? In any case, the record notes specifically an unusual rate of multiplication in population following the Flood. 18 While the rate of multiplication can only be estimated, it is not unreasonable to assume that each married couple during this period had an average of 12 offspring over a period of 155 years encompassing six generations. The population at the end of this period would then approach half a million, and this figure may be taken as minimal in view of the long ages of this early people and the longer period of virility. But even this figure is probably adequate to account for any archaeological evidence that comes down to us from the period prior to the beginning of Early Bronze. The archaeological evidences from this early period indicate very small communities. For example, Troy I was settled after the Dispersion; Troy II, its successor, was a settlement only about 100 yards in diameter 3s. Troy I was then even smaller and· evidently not the first settlement in the area, since a still smaller settlement was found a short distance away. The group who migrated to this area were then comprised of but a few families. In the cemetery at Alaja were found only 13 graves, even though this represented a succession of several occupation levels. 39 Because of the paucity of burial evidence, it was presumed that these burials included only those of the royalty. While a degree of wealth was suggested, the appertinences provided no basis for presuming a royal origin. The group that settled at Jericho at the time of the Dispersion occupied an area only 100 by 250 yards, 40 the total area hardly equaling that of an ordinary city block of today. The displaced settlement was evidently much smaller; yet the site of Jericho seems to have been one of the larger settlements in Palestine during this period. The number of burials found at Mount Carmel throughout the entire Neolithic period was only 60, 41 a figure which hardly reflects a duration to be measured in a multiplicity of millenniums as held currently. A number of cemeteries in Egypt from this early era have been investigated, and in spite of the fact that some of the burials belong to the postunification period, the number of burials in any one cemetery rarely exceeded one hundred, and more often the number was between 15 and 50. 42 Even if we multiply the number of known settlements from this era by a factor of a hun- 152 THE EXODUS PROBLEM dred or more, these can still all be accounted for with a total population of half a million. As will be noted in a later chapter, 43 the period from the Dispersion to the Unification was only some 27 years in length, allowing for an additional generation, but by this time the population could have been three million instead of one-half million. The total picutre is then one that favors such a short period, in contrast to popular opinion which would allow time for multiplication of the population over a period of a multiplicity of millenniums. The problem of the elevated mound sites of the predynastic period will be considered in the next chapter. In this same chapter, the fallacy in the deductions of Petrie, de Morgan, and others which demanded a minimum of 10,000 years for the predynastic period, will be noted. Notes and References (1) Gen. 11. (2) S-RP (old series), Vol. VII, pp. 131, 132. (3) Vol. I, Chap. IX, Sect. IV. (4) Ibid., Chap. X. (5) Ibid. (6) Ibid., Chaps. XI, XII. (7) Ibid. (8) W-M, p. 9; Gen. 10:6; both names are from the same root (U-AOT, p. 84). Even scholars who retain some degree of confidence in the reliability of the Genesis account, tend to regard the Dispersion as an ~vent that occurred far back in the prehistoric era. In the light of the developments outlined in this and a previous volume, this view represents a premature and unnecessary compromise of Scripture. (9) J·AJ, Bk. I, Chap. VI, par. 2. (10) Gen. 10:25. (11) Gen. 11:10-16. (12) Vol. I, Chap. XII, Sect. IX. (13) A-AP, P. 21, (14 Ibid. (15) P-Pl, p. 56. (16) Ibid. (17) See ref. 13. (18) G-SJ, p. 75. (19) 'Ibid., pp. 76, 77. (20) K-AHL, Chap. IV title. (21) Ibid., p. 97. (22) W-FK is a report on these investigations. (23) Ibid., p. 36. (24) Ibid., p. 35. (25) Ibid.; see also quot. of ref. 14 where several archaeological stages at Megiddo are from this same transition period. (26) See Chap. VIII. (27) See quot. of ref. 17. (28) Cited in P-HE, Vol. I. p. 1. (29) Ibid., p. 2. (80) E-EA, p. 24. (31) P-PE, p. 49. (32) Ibid., p. 47. (33) A-AP, p. 72. (34) LEA, pp. 53, 59. (35) Ibid. (36) Gen. 11: (RSV). (37) Chap. VIII, Sect. VII. (38) See ref. 36. (38a) B-T, p. 60. (39) L-EA, p. 37. (40) G-SJ, p. 77. (41) K-AHL, p. 37. (42) Petrie (P-HE, Chap. I) h81 summarized these various investigations of Egyptian cemeteries and provides data from each. (43) Vol. I, Chap. XI. CHAPTER VIII ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE DURATION OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD Paleolithic man was separated from the subsequent phases of his history by a world-wide catastrophe. This is evidenced by the fact that not a single significant link has been found to tie Paleolithic man with Mesolithic man who is presumed to follow. The closest ties are evidently to be found at Mount Carmel. On the seaward side of the mountain are a number of caves showing human occupation over "tens of thousands of years during the Paleolithic period~' [sic]. The flint industry of Mesolithic man does not seem to be derived from any upper, known Paleolithic culture. 1 A more detailed consideration of Paeolithic man must be left for a subsequent work. We are interested here in demonstrating that the evidences of man in Palestine from Mesolithic to the dynastic era are not at demonstrable odds with the thesis that this entire era may be encompassed within a relatively brief period of time, t e., not in excess ·of two centuries. This view is, of course, at gross odds with the popular concept which supposes that several millenniums must be allowed for the period in question. The currently accepted views find their basis in the principle of uniformitarianism which is fundamentally and philosophically at odds with the concept of a universal catastrophe as recorded in the Genesis account of the Noachian Flood. The view is here held that it was the Noachian Flood that separated the Paleolithic from the Mesolithic that followed. While the initial phase of the Flood lasted only about one year, there must have been .a significant period of time after this when the climatic conditions were totally different from those which preceded the catastrophe. It is 'not claimed here that the period in question can be proved to have been of brief duration. It is claimed that there is no genuine demand apart from the starting philosophy that we accept the view that the period encompasses a multiplicity of millenniums. The evidence can be rationally fitted into a structure which recognizes a notably different climatic situation during this period - a period to be measured in decades, not millenniums. 154 THE EXODUS PROBLEM I. Limitations of Evidence for Predynastic Palestine As noted in the previous chapter, the end of the Chalcolithic Age and its emergence into Early Bronze is marked by an influx of Mesopotamian influence into Egypt, Palestine, and Anatolia, which influx we take to represent the result of the Dispersion from Babel as described in the Genesis account. This incident belongs to the period of the Jemdet Nasr culture in Mesopotamia, and the point is marked archaeologically by Stratum XIX on the Megiddo mound proper. 2 While it might appear desirable to trace the predynastic period of Palestine back in time from evidences on the Megiddo site, this is not feasible, since occupation of the site does not encompass the entire period. The most complete sequence of cultures are to be found on the site of Jericho. The Chalcolithic Age, which is presumed to be the connecting link between Neolithic and the dynastic period, is not represented at Jericho, however:~ It is thus presumed that this represents an era of nonoccupation at Jericho and must be inserted into the sequence of cultures found at Jericho.; These developments [sequence of cultures for the period under consideration] cannot be paralleled at any other site in Palestine or elsewhere. The history ot the development of the settlement in Palestine has therefore so far been illustrated from Jericho alone. II. The Predynastic Period at Jericho Since this predynastic sequence from Mesolithic through Neolithic is illustrated only at Jericho, any evidence that truly demands a recognition of several millenniums duration for this period should appear in the archaeology of this site. The archaeological finds at Jericho down to bedrock have been reviewed by Miss Kenyon in her recent works. 5 It may be presumed that she has included any and all details pertinent to the point in question, since she was an active archaeologist at this site. A summary based on her work of the finds pertinent to the chronology of the site is here reviewed. 6 Excavations to bedrock at the Jericho site revealed that the limestone composing it was covered by about one foot of clay which had been removed over an extended area to provide a foundation for a building structure on the rock formation. At one end of this excavated area, a substantial DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 155 wall of stones enclosed an area about 10 by 20 feet. Since the structure was unlike any dwelling remains observed, it was ·presumed that this structure represented some sort of sanctuary. Interestingly, two large blocks of stone in the wall of the structure had holes bored through them to a depth of some two and ~me-half feet, an accomplishment somewhat surprising for the level of culture presumed to characterize this early period. The structure had eventually been burned; charcoal from the wooden beams in the roof yielded a date by the C-14 method 7,800 B.C. ± 210 years. The bases for the total rejection of this date and others subsequently referred to are presented in a previous chapter. 7 At another small area on the site, it was found that a deposit of some 13 feet of clay existed between bed-rock and the so-called Natufian culture. This 13 feet of clay revealed no signs of a solid structure and no evidences of the use of pottery. The clay deposit was made up of a large number of mud floors, one above the other, each bounded with slight bumps which were regarded as remnants of walls of the hut-like mud structures. Only above this were evidences found of solid houses. . The remains of the more solid dwellings of the subsequent period were enclosed by a wall, suggesting danger from depradations by either man or wild beast. At one point on the wall, and extant to a height of some 30 feet, were found the remains of a stone tower built against the inside of the wall. The whole comprised "an amazing bit of architecture" for the era involved. Within this wall could be observed a sequence of three successive phases of dwellings whose combined period of life would seem to approximate that of the wall itself. The upper of these three building phases had been burned, and C-14 analysis of the charcoal from the beams gave a date 6850 B.C. ± 210 years. This culture was regarded as about 1000 years later than the stone sanctuary and 2000 years earlier than the earliest known village elsewhere in Palestine. From the similarity of flints and harpoons, this culture was correlated with the lower N atufian at Megiddo. Evidences of severe erosion by water appeared in the upper levels of this culture, apparently representing a period of non-occupation following abandonment of the site. The length of this · period of erosion could not be deter- THE EXODUS PROBLEM 156 mined and "may have been a matter of years or of centuries." Above this evidence of erosion, a new culture appeared which was still characterized by an absence of pottery. This culture was distinguished in name from its predecessor by designating it Pre-pottery Neolithic B. The flint artifacts would identify the people as the Tahunians, who had had a prior nomadic existence elsewhere but who now settled on the abandoned Jericho site. The culture could be distinguished archaeologically by the new type of architecture which must have been developed prior to occupation of this area but which has. not been discovered elsewhere as yet. While no pottery of this people has been found on the Jericho site, vessels of limestone "finely worked and carefully finished" were in use. The first settlement by this people had no defensive wall about it, and the dwellings extended down the sides of the mound, indicating an increase in population over Pre-pottery Neolithic A. A succession of 10 house levels could be traced at one point. At some time during the succession, a wall seems to have been built. At another point, 19 successive building stages were traced. In the 16th phase from the bottom, charcoal residues were obtained which gave a C-14 date 6250 B.C. ± 200 years, which date is another half millennium later than that attributed to Pre-pottery Neolithic A. At still another point, 26 building stages were traced, and the 9th from the bottom gave a date 5850 ± 160 years. The end of Pre-pottery Neolithic B was also marked by severe erosion, the length of the period involved being again undeterminable. The culture that followed brought the art of pottery-making with them, but the cultural level otherwise represents a marked retrogression. This people lived in pits cut into the ruins of the earlier town, a type of life otherwise known in the Chalcolithic period near Beersheba. To this culture, Miss Kenyon gave the name Pottery Neolithic A. The origin of the culture is known only in terms of a few pottery fragments at various localities in Palestine, suggesting a wide distribution but a small population. The subsequent culture, called Pottery Neolithic B, built their primitive huts in the pits dug out by their predecessors. The break in the culture at this point 'is not sharp. The pottery is more refined, but continues to ~e mixed with that DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 157 of the preceding culture. Pottery like that of the new culture had been found also at Sha' ar ha Golan, just south of the Sea of Galile~. At Jericho, Early Bronze follows Pottery Neolithic B. As noted previously, the so-called Halafian culture from Tell Halaf in Mesopotamia and the Ghassulian culture from east of the Jordan Valley are regarded by some scholars as necessarily inserted in the time sequence between Pottery Neolithic B and Early Bronze. The period between Neolithic and Early Bronze is known as Chalcolithic, a name designed to indicate the combined use of copper and stone. There are no evidences for the use of copper at Jericho or elsewhere in Palestine at this time. The archaeological sequence to be accounted for may be summarized as follows: 1. The stone sanctuary resting on bed-rock. 2. The numerous floors beginning on bed-rock, each evidently representing the remains of mud hut dwellings and making up in total some 13 feet of clay. 3. Three successive building phases of a more solid type and included within the duration of the earliest wall. 4. Evidences of severe erosion for an undeterminable period. 5. Successive building levels ranging in number from 10 to 26 and belonging to Pre-pottery Neolithic B. 6. Further evidences of erosion over an undeterminable period. 7. The pit dwellings of Pottery Neolithic A. 8. The extension of Pottery Neolithic A into Pottery Neolithic B, with huts built in the pits carved out by the previous people. 9. Allowance for the Chalcolithic period, presumed to require insertion between the end of Pottery Neolithic B and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. III. An Alternate Interpretation of the Archaeology of Early Jericho The currently accepted interpretation of the archaeology of early Jericho, as at other sites, is based on the uniformitarian concept which does not recognize a climate any different than now and which would assign to each of the successive mud huts and numerous subsequent structures duration~ up to 50. or _100 years each:_ By the ~temate thesis 158 THE EXODUS PROBLEM here defended, the period is that immediately following the Noachian Flood, during which time the conditions must have been notably different from those in later times. This period must have been characterized by severe earthquakes and geological disturbances involving a gradual sinking of the ocean bottoms or, what amounts to the same thing, the rise of land levels in mountain formation. Such changes must certainly have left the surface of the earth dotted with numerous internal lakes and seas, some of which remain to this day, others having lost their waters in whole or in part by schisms in the elevated areas which served to confine them. Abundant geological evidence is at hand to indicate that such a situation existed in the prehistoric era with which we are dealing. These evidences will be interpreted differently, depending on one's philosophy. By the uniformitarian concept, the changes involved were gradual and extended over a period to be measured in a multiplicity of millenniums, thus requiring assignments of 50 to 100 years or more for the duration of the individual structures. In terms of the philosophy which accepts the Scriptural accounts of the Noachian Flood as historical, this series of changes occurred over a relatively brief period of time. In order to avoid the introduction of concepts of controversial nature that are not pertinent to the problem, the length of this period is taken to have been less than two centuries, though the writer believes that the period could be reduced by another half century without significant damage to the thesis. A number of evidences are at hand to indicate that the early prehistoric geography was characterized by the existence of numerous inland seas that have since disappeared. At the time of Herodotus, a legend was extant8 to the effect that at the time of Mena' s migration into Egypt, much of northern Africa was a vast sea, the waters of which have since been emptied into the Mediterranean, leaving behind a land that is now desert, except for that part which comprises the Nile Valley and the Delta region of the Nile. There is also an extant legend that in ancient times the Gulf of Aqabah, a branch of the Red Sea, extended some 33 kilometers north of the present shore line. 9 This legend has been discounted as having any factual basis since there are no evidences that the shores of the Red Sea have dropped DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 159 significantly during the past 3,500 years. 20 This may be quite true. The conditions to which we refer antedate this point by another 700 years by the shortest possible interpretation of Bible chronology. Thomas points out evidence of an internal lake anciently existing in what is now the desert of Arabia. 11 The Great Salt Lake of Utah represents clearly the remnants of such an internal Sea on this continent, having an original shore line thousands of feet higher than the level of the present lake. The entire Mississippi Valley has had a similar history. The existence of these numerous inland seas could be expected to serve as a source of a much heavier average rainfall than is common to these areas at the present time. With the gradual elevation of the average temperature, commonly associated with the disappearance of the ice age, it is quite possible that this rainfall was more severe than anything known on the earth at the present time. Evidences are at hand to substantiate the concept of a much heavier rainfall throughout the area of Asia than now exists. Piggot refers to the observations of Sir Aurel Stein, who examined extensively the early evidences of man in Baluchistan and India. Piggot commented: 12 ... The abundant evidence of ancient occupation in the Baluchi hills or the Indus plain implies less exacting climatic conditions in the past than at present, and, though historical evidence implies that by the time of Alexander conditions in Baluchistan approximated to those of today, yet ... thert: is good evidence for a heavier rainfall, and extensive forests in the Indus valley in ancient times. It is less easy to find evidence of the former climate of Baluchistan than it is for the Indus Valley. Today the territories of Makran, Kharan and Jhalawan in South Baluchistan, which contain a large number of prehistoric settlements are very sparseley populated (not more than two persons to the square mile in Kharan), and this population is partly migratory. In his explorations in Baluchistan these problems of climate and population were, of course, much before Sir Aurel Stein's eyes, and he was able to identify a large series of artifical stone-built dams and terraces known locally in Jhalawan as gabarbands, clearly designed to aid the irrigation of fields. The date of these is unknown but, as Stein remarks, they must reflect not only climatic conditions with a greater rainfall, but also a large population to provide the necessary labour for their construction .... Even though the age and culture of these works are still unknown, their presence is important in indjcating greater rainfall in antiquity, and it is by no means improbable that they do, in fact, date back to the prehistoric occupation of the Baluchi Hills. 160 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The observations of Stein would seem to eliminate anv possibility that the conditions described belong back at th~ end of the Ice Age when the population was exceedingly scant, since they indicate a· significant population. A date · toward the end of the prehistoric period is more likely. At that time, the rains had decreased notably, but were still ample to provide water for irrigation if impounded during the rainy season. Albright and others have expressed wonder at just when climatic changes could have existed to allow for occupation of such sites as Ghassul, far out in the desert plain east of Jordan. 1'3 It would be interesting to know just what were the changes in climate which led to the abandonment of sites like Ghassul, situated far out in the Jordan plain where the soil could not be irrigated without prohibitve effort. It seems reasonably certain that there were more lateral streams flowing into the Jordan then than there are today.... It is stated in Scripture that prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the era of Abraham, this area at the south end of the Dead Sea was well watered . . . like as the Garden of the Lord. 14 This area is still a fertile one, though now it requires irrigation to be utilized. Evidently, a condition of adequate rain continued to exist for several centuries after the beginning of the dynastic period. A heavier rainfall in the desert region of Egypt is indicated by the numerous finds of flints over this area. 15 Since the winter rains at Jericho are still severe at times, 16 as compared to the all but total absence of rain in the Baluchistan Hills, it may be logically concluded that Jericho, in this predynastic period, was exposed to torential rains of exceeding violence. It was this sort of climate that man faced when he first decended from the mountainous region after the Flood. Under these conditions, the mud shelters revealed archaeologically at Jericho in the Neolithic period could be expected to have had an exceedingly short period of use, possibly requiring rebuilding more than once a year. Ceram commented on the instability of adobe dwellings in Anatolia under conditions of "sparse rain." i; ... The buildings which make up these villages are still constructed of bricks of unfired clay - bricks which crumble under the baking sun and slowly dissolve under the sparse rain.... Such adobe houses seldom last more than twenty years. DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 161 If such dwellings rarely have a life of 20 years in the relatively dry climate of modern times, it is doubtful if similar mud dwellings at Jericho and elsewhere would survive a single season under conditions of heavy rainfall. The mud used in these structures was not baked as in later times, and once used, 'the disintegrated bricks cannot be reused again. 18 The only choice is to level off the ground as best can be done and rebuild, using new clay. Thus was the tell built up rapidly from these frequent rebuilding procedures.19 ... The growth of these tells is particularly characteristic of those areas in which the local building material was mud-brick, for a destroyed building of mud-brick disintegrates into mud again, which cannot be used again in the same way that stone from a building can be. The growth of the tell is therefore more rapid. The instability of even sun-dried brick under conditions of heavy rain has been reported by various investigators. Glueck writes of his experience in the area of the southern reaches of the Red Sea. 20 ... In April, 1940, a terrific rain~ and hail-storm literally washed half of the mud-brick village [Aqabah] away. Many of the mud-brick walls simply dissolved .... Small wonder that such bricks go to pieces during the first heavy rain! Garstang describes the actual situation at Jericho in modern times. He pointed out that an additional factor· may have served to give a very short life to the early mud dwellings on this site. Water from the spring evidently seeped upward continuously to add to the destructive effects of the rain. He wrote:i 1 Even before the Neolithic settlement a part of the original channel [water spring] seems already to have become covered, as the earliest floors of occupation within the excavated area were based upon a wet deposit, the traces of which rose through successive floor levels to a height of 12 or 15 feet. This ·may explain to some extent why the eaTlier buildings are found to have been frequently rebuilt. . . . It is true that mud-bricks, such as were used throughout the life history of Jericho, were peculiarly liable to decay .. .. Sometimes too, in winter, rain falls very heavily, so that unless the outer walls were protected from the elements, they w~uld be liable to perish. [Emphasis ours.] When these facts are given due consideration, a quite different interpretation of the archaeology of early Jericho becomes most reasonable. The 13 feet of clay representing 162 THE EXODUS PROBLEM numerous floors, each showing evidence of the meager remains of mud dwellings, need not be taken to represent in total a period of time in excess of a very few years, probably not more than a decade, and possibly significantly less, if the violent rains required a rebuilding more than once a year. Allowances of a life of 30-100 years for mud houses 22 has thus resulted in a grossly and unnecessarily expanded chronology for this area. Since this series of mud floors was found in one small area only, it is probable that this area represented the. total population and that the era is the same as that of the life of the "sanctuary," which was probably a united effort to keep any kind of a roof over their heads during the period when their individual dwellings were being washed out as fast as rebuilt. The failure to use stone more liberally for dwellings evidently resulted from the necessity of having to carry such materials from a distance. Even in later times, it was only the foundations of the walls that were constructed of stone. Since mud was of necessity used to seal the spaces between the wood beams of the ceiling, it may be presumed that even this stone building did not provide an efficient shelter from the heavy rains. The destruction by fire may then be attributed to attempts to use fire within as a source of heat. The three successive building phases within the duration of the early wall may then be presumed to belong to the same period when these conditions prevailed. The observation that the three building phases were eventually washed in to fill much of the wall enclosure reveals the continuation of these untoward circumstances against which the new inhabitants were but little more successful in their competition with the elements. The 26 successive building levels of Pre-pottery Neolithic B then represent the attempts of a new population to succeed where the previous population had failed, and evidently with not much better success. The life of the dwellings may have been somewhat longer than those of the previous phase, but there is certainly no valid reason for supposing a usage for a multiplicity of years. While these are described as "more solid structures," it is not ta be inferred that these were all-stone structures, There is a possibility that more stone was used; also it is possible that the occupants had learned how to make brick of somewhat longer DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 163 life. The rapidity of the succession of reconstruction is attested by comparision of the C-14 data. While the actual dates derived from the data have no necessary meaning, the relative dates may have. At the point where there were 19 successive building stages, the 16th from the bottom (or fourth from the top) gave a date 6250 B.C. ± 200 years; at the point revealing 26 such phases in sequence, the 9th from the bottom (18th from the top) gave a date 5850 ± 160 years: Since the lowest structure in both cases undoubtedly had contemporary origins by the new population, the date for the structure 9th from the bottom is of later date than that in the 16th from the bottom. Even if one takes the latest possible date in one case and the earliest in the other to provide some sort of sense to the figures, it still remains obvious that the building phases were in such rapid succession as to indicate no appreciable time lapse throughout the entire sequence. An even shorter period may be assumed for Pottery N eolithic A. The pit dwellings of this people suggest that the climatic problem at this time included a necessary protection from violent winds as well as rain. A similar brief period may logically be assigned to Pottery Neolithic B which followed the new occupants building their mud-huts in the pits dug out by the preceding culture. While it is, of course, not possible to assign any actual period of time to represent each of these phases or their combination, there is no genuine basis for presuming otherwise than that the entire predynastic period at Jericho, from Mesolithic to the beginning of Early Bronze, encompassed more than a relatively brief period of time; certainly two centuries is abundantly adequate. IV. The Predynastic Period in Egypt Perhaps the second most important basis on which the concept of a long duration for the predynastic period rests is that which has resulted from the investigation of a series of some 1400 graves from cemeteries scattered over the Nile Valley. These graves were examined by several different groups of investigators, the reports of which were summarized by Petrie in his work on Prehistoric Egypt. 2'1 Each grave was assigned to one of 50 groups, depending on the relative amounts of certain types of pottery found ip 164 THE EXODUS PROBLEM each grave. For example, graves containing a small amount of type A, a large amount of type B, and a :small amount of type C were regarded as earlier than one containing a small amount of B, a large amount of C, and the beginnings of D. Each of the 50 groups, at the end of the process of assignment, contained the same number of graves, but did not necessarily represent equal periods of elasped time. Granting the validity of the method as a basis for assigning relative dates (which the author does not grant), Petrie thus had .a sequence of graves in approximate chronolocal order of the groups. But a sequence is not a chronology. 23• Except as it was possible to assign· time periods to each of the 50 groups iQ the series, the entire sequence might represent a decade or a plurality of millenniums. On the basis of the "geological time scale" (however this scale may be defined), Petrie concluded that each of his divisions represented some 50 years of elapsed time on an average, thus giving his prehistoric period a duration of 2500 to 4500 years. At that time, the dynastic period was believed to have extended back into the 6th or 7th millennium; hence, the predynastic period was given a beginning c. 10,000 B.c. 2 ~ It appears, then, only reasonable [sic] to grant the evidence of the numbers of graves as dating the prehistoric graves to 8000 to 10,000 B.C. To be asked to end them with the 1st dynasty at 5,500 B.C. is as late as we can ask geology to grant, and we may well put the beginning of that age at 8,000 to 10,000 B.C. In any case, the suppositions which would bring the 1st dynasty to 3400 B.C. and crowd the prehistoric into a few centuries before that, would seem to be quite irreconcilable with the geologic scales of time action. Interestingly, scholars now take a date c .. 3300 B.C. as maximum for the beginning of the dynastic period, with a lower date (c. 2800 B.C.) being accepted by a number ·of scholars. What was impossible in the thinking of Petrie for the dynastic period is now the accepted view, but scholars continue to cling to his interpretations of the predynastic period as if these figures were all but inviolate. Why should this obscurely defined geologic time scale represent a correct basis for measurement of this period? The data from these graves are susceptible to a totally different interpretation. At other sites, the evidence of a rapid series of changes in culture were noted to have occurred during the period of the Dispersion, which may well have extended over a period of several years. During these DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 165 migrations there was much by way of intermingling of groups, as indicated by the intermingling of cultures. Certainly the migrations into Egypt must have been exposed to the same influences that caused such mingling elsewhere. The variations in the amounts of various pottery types may then mean nothing mo!e than the degree of mingling of the participants in the migration. There is no necessity for regarding his 50 groups as having any chronological significance whatever; the fusion of cultures may have continued through the life span of the migrants. V. The Predynastic Period in Mesopotamis The archaeology of the predynastic period in Mesopotamia provides a composite picture of a number of cultures existing side by side. The correlation between the various levels at different sites has been worked out in considerable detail for the mounds investigated. 24" As in Palestine, however, the number of such mounds investigated represents but a small fraction of the total. That other cultures did exist contemporary with those already recognized follows from the inability to trace any of the three major pottery types appearing in Palestine at the end of Neolithic to their Mesopotamian origin, though it is clear that they have their origin in this area. 25 The time relationships between these various cultures, as now recognized, are provided by Piggot. 26 While these relationships are evidently well-established, the time periods to be allotted to the various cultures remain a matter of conjecture. The extended periods assigned to these cultures would appear again to have been deduced on the basis of the "geological time scale," rather than from any evidence archaeologically. We are interested here primarily in any contribution that the archaeology of Mesopotamia might provide in support of one chronological thesis or the other. Such evidence as is at hand parallels that noted from the investigations at the site of Jericho. There is the same evidence of a paucity of population for the earliest phases of occupation; these are commonly represented only by campfires. There are the same high mounds with indication of the same method of formation, i.e., the procedure of constructing one series of dwellings on the ruins of the preceding structures after sim- 166 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ply leveling off the ruins and using new mud for each subsequent structure. There is also the same evidence of a heavy rainfall, which could be expected to result in a very short period of use for the structures, thus causing a rapid elevation of the mound. There is thus no solid archaeological basis for presuming an antiquity of the predynastic period in Mesopotamia significantly different from that deduced for Jericho. VI. The Prehistoric Era in Asia Minor The most ancient site thus far investigated in Asia Minor is the mound known as Yumuk Tepe, located some two miles inland from the modern seaport of Mirsin. Mirsin is located on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, near its most north-eastern reaches. The mound comprises an area of about 12 acres and attained a height of some 80 feet as a result of the successive levels of construction. As the mound rose in height, its area decreased until, at its summit, it is only about 2 acres in extent. The mound has been investigated through some 33 occupation levels in a small sounding of probably less than 200 square feet. This dig reached to the watertable with still other occupational deposits below this. 26" The dynastic era begins with Level XI below the surface level, taken as Level I. The prehistoric era thus comprises the Levels from XII down to XXXIII and whatever is below the water level and not investigated. Level XII has been equated in time with the earliest levels at Troy and hence, by the altered interpretation, represents the approximate point of the Dispersion. The levels from below water level through Level XXXIII and up to Level XXIII are classed as Neolithic; Levels XXIII to XII are classed as Chalcolithic. However, since Chalcolithic is not known in Palestine, these levels should be recognized as a late phase of Neolithic at Jericho. The depth of the mound height encompassed by Levels XXIII down to water level is about 30 feet. Evidence is at hand to indicate that here, as at Jericho, these early occupation levels were built up rapidly and followed each other in rapid succession. The pottery throughout this 30 feet is relatively homogeneous, a situation hardly reasonable for a period of a millennium or more, as currently held, but very under- DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 167 standable when this 30 feet of accumulation is taken to represent a period ot one, or perhaps two at the most, generations. 2; In any case the deposits representing neolithic occupation on this attained the astonishing height of nearly 10 meters; and though they illustrate definite stages of cultural progress as they rise, their main characteristics are relatively homogeneous. sit~ This 30 feet of rise in the mound included only 9 levels and about twice this number of floors. That these floors, as at Jericho, had a short duration is indicated by the archaeological evidence. There is evidence of the same heavy rainfall and of the same necessity for frequent reconstruction. Unlike the early structures at Jericho, the walls were commonly constructed of stone to a height of about one meter, evidently indicating a more ready availability of this material. However, unless one wishes to assume that the structures were used only for sitting or lying down, it must be presumed that the walls above one meter in height were also constructed of mud as at Jericho. But this only emphasizes the probable short life of the structures. The number of building levels is much less (9 for the ~O foot rise), but this suggests only that it was the foundations that did not require as frequent reconstruction as did the mud walls above. 28 ... There was no trace of mortar in setting the stones: "dry walling" seems to have been the method of building throughout all these low Levels, a fact which is surprising at first sight, as the use of clay for pottery-making was already understood. Coqsideration suggests, however, that in a climate subject to heavy winter rainstorms, a wall built "dry" with stones solidly placed in equilibrium and then packed superfic_ially would probably prove more durable than one built with thin rounded stones set in mud, which, however tenacious, would inevit.ably melt away when exposed to driving rain for any length of time. The very fact that the occupants had the know-how for making pottery, but did not use this knowledge in the erecting of these foundations suggests that. conditions did not permit taking this type of precaution. More solid houses, as at Jericho, do not: appear until later levels (Level XXVI being the first), and even these continued to be constructed by means of dry-walling. A gradual diminution of the severity of the cltmate is indicated, just as in the later phases of the predynastic period at Jericho. 168 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Levels XXIV to XII may be roughly correlated with the period of Pottery Neolithic A and B at Jericho and less precisely with the era of the constructions of the gabarbands in Jhalawan when the rain was still adequate for impounding water during the rainy season, but late enough for the development of a sizable population. The evidence of similarity of conditions at Jericho, in Mesopotamia, and at Mirsin in Anatolia, together with the fact that the entire period of the predynastic may be traced in the archaeology of Jericho, permits the deduction that the evidence at Mirsin may also be interpreted within the limits imposed by an allowance of not more than two centuries. VII. Anomalies in the View That the Predynastic Period Had a Duration Measured in Millenniums On the negative side of. this problem is the fact that the view which supposes that this dynastic period is measured in a plurality of millenniums is characterized by some anomalous situations. On the basis of results from C-14 dating, a difference of a full millennium was deduced between the sanctuary on bedrock at Jericho and the appearance of the Pre-pottery Neolithic culture. An additional thousands years was assumed between this and the inventions of pottery by the Pottery Neolithic group. Yet these earliest occupants were able to bore a hole in stone to a depth of two and one-half feet, and shortly thereafter, build a tower that represented "an amazing bit of architecture" for the era involved. Even the Pre-pottery Neolithic people possessed vessels of limestone "finely worked and carefully finished." At Ghassul, dated half a millennium back into the Chalcolithic Period, was found a highly intricate fresco painting (See Plate III) which was recognized as an accomplishment not matched at any time during the succeeding millenniums. Commenting on this find, Albright wrote. 2~ ... It is a striking fact that the art of painting elaborate geometric designs reached a higher pitch of achievement in the 4th millennium (sic) in Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia than ·it did for thousands of years thereafter. The writer has gleaned a host of expressions of surprise, astonishment, and amazement at the cultural level revealed by the productions of these early peoples. How much more credible is the view that the major factor determining rate DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 169 of progress was not "geologic time" required to evolve a mental or physical competence, but rather the untoward climatic conditions with which man had to contend. The abilities were there from the very beginnings of Mesolithic man, who should be recognized as descending immediately from the sons of Noah. The production of more massive works awaited primarily the necessary multiplication of the population for their undertaking. The predictions of Budge, written some 65 years ago, based on thjs concept of estimating elapsed time by the demands of the "geologic time scale," are of major significance in this connection. It is suggested that the quotation from Budge, as given in a previous · volume,'30 be reread against the background of the comments here made. His predictions of the survival of chronological deductions based on such reasoning have not materialized. It is high time that the geologic time scale be abandoned (as a basis for estimating the duration of the early phases of man's history) in favor of the more realistic view provided in Scripture. Another large factor that has contributed to the highly inflated chronology of Egypt, both dynastic and predynastic, is the deep.:.rooted tendency on the part of scholars to give first preference to concepts that recognize kings, dynasties, and cultures as representing sequences. Miss Kenyon, though an avid disciple of current philosophical views, leaves the following words of caution:'31 ... In trying to fit into place the cultures these communities represent, we should learn a lesson from the progress of research in European prehistory. Earlier European scholars tried to place each culture observed into a regular sequence. Now it is recognized that many cultures represent regional developments, and several may have existed side by side. The older sequence method tended to produce very inflated chronologies, which have had to be considerably reduced now that the picture has become more coherent. This we should bear in mind in trying to piece together the jigsaw puzzle which our present state of knowledge in Palestine represents, and in fact some of the new pieces of the jigsaw which almost every year emerge from the ground do suggest that the whole· picture will eventually portray a number of groups of people livfog side by side each with their own distinctive culture, but with just enough links with other groups to suggest contemporaneity. 170 THE EXODU,S PROBLEM j .. . ,,, • .. . . : : ~:~·t~) a=-·· illtl!lUUt~\----: .,, ;/ : . . . . . .l\\\Utmmm ,, , . : ;. ,H'\ ..•••••··= ·~ ' o. .. · ~ Plate III . The Polychrome Fresco from Ghassul • DURATION OF PREDYNASTIC PERIOD 171 While a good start has been made in this direction in the recognition of the parallelism of culture at various sites in Mesopotamia, undoubtedly, with further investigations still other cultures will appear which also belong parallel to one or more of these, but for which there may be no clear evidence of such contemporaneity. Not only so, the figures for the duration of these cultures again represent estimations based on:the geologic time scale when there is no final evidence to contradict actual periods of far shorter duration. That the lesson suggested by Miss Kenyon has not been well..:learned is indicated by the insistence of some that a full millennium must be inserted between the end of Neolithic at J~richo and the beginning of Early Bronze to make room for the Chalcolithic period observed at Ghassul, M.ersin, and elsewhere. The fact that the use of copper is not indicated archaeologically in Palestine for the entire period of Early Bronze makes si.ich . a supposition totally unnecessary. chalcolithic is but a loc~l phase at ·specific sites, falllng entirely within the period of Neolithic and possibly extending into' .Early Bronze. •of Palestine. · ... · - ) ' Notes and References (1) K-AHL, p. 36. (2) A-AP, p. 71. (3) K-AHL, p. 68. (4) Ibid., p. 56. (5) K-DJ; K'AHL. (6) K-AHL, p. 39ff. (7) Chap. III. (8) H, H , p. 104. (9) C-OSJ. p. 90. (JO) Ibid., pp. 89, 90. (11) Cited in V-EU, p. 95. (12) P-Pl, pp. 67-70. (13)A-AP, p. 6S , (14) Gen. 13:10. (15) P-PE, p. 46. (16) K-AHL, p. 39. '(17) C-SH, p. 6. (18) K-AHL, p. 31. (19) Ibtd., pp. 30, 31. (20) BASOR, No. 79, p. 12. (21) C-SJ, pp. 57, 58; '(22) W-FK, pp. 25, 84. (23) P-PE, pp. 1-3. (23a) K-AHL, p. 32. (24) P-PE, p. 5. (24a) The bases for these time relationships between these various cultures are provided in P-CAEM . (25) K-AHL, p. 97. (26) See correlation chart of P-Pl, p. 65. (26a) C-PM, p. 11. (27) Ibid. (28) Ibid., p . .J4. T.he deduction is based on the similar evidences of heavy rain, rapid growth of the mound : and the instability of the dwellings on exposure to the elements. (29) A-AP, p. 67 . . (30) B-BEC, Vol. · IX, pp. 3, 4; quot of ref. I, Chap. XI, Vol. I. (31) K-AHL, p. 69. CHAPTER IX THE PREDICAMENT IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS AT SHECHEM The archaeological problems at Jericho and at Ai have been considered in a previous volume, 1 as have also the problems relative to the placement of a number of incidents of Israelite history in the chronology of Egypt. A number of other sites in Palestine represent major problems of archaeological interpretation. Notable among these are the problems rising from the archaeology of Shechem. 2 Numerous problems still defy convenient solution, among them Jeri· cho, Ai and Shechem. Attention is thus turned to the site of ancient Shechem to determine the nature of the difficulties there. If these difficulties are also provided ready solutions by the same chronological revision that has provided solutions to the many problems introduced in a previous volume, then we have still further evidence in support of the general correctness of the proposed revision of Egyptian chronology as outlined in Volume I. 3 I. Geography The ancient site of Shechem lies about 40 miles north of Jerusalem in the southern part of the territory assigned to the half tribe of Manasseh.~ It is very near the center of Palestine from east to west and from north to south. This location and its position in the valley between two mountains made it an excellent location for a capital. The location was selected by Jeroboam, the first king of Israel following the division of the monarchy. II. Shechem in Scripture to the Time of the Conquest While the town of Shechem is mentioned from the time of Abraham and Jacob, 5 no information from these early references is provided in Scripture which would enable us to fix archaeological finds in terms of Old Testament history beyond the fact that the site was occupied in the time of the patriarchs. At that time, the town may have been a relatively small village occupying but a fraction of the area late:r covered by the walled city. Strangely, the accoµnts of INTERPRETATIONS AT SCHECHEM 173 the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in the Book of Joshua are silent about any conquest of Shechem; the name does not appear in the lists of conquered cities, a point of significance in the later discussion. This situation is commonly interpreted to indicate that the area was already in the hands of either earlier Israelite migrants into the territory or in the hands of friendly peoples who did not interfere with the conquest.,; Shortly after the initial phase of the Conquest, the Israelites assembled at a point near this site without any indication, in the record, of interference on the part of the local inhabitants.' This situation has been interpreted as support for the theory of a split Exodus and of a gradual conquest over an extended period of time, in contrast to the rapid initial phase of the conquest of the. territory as indicated in Scripture.' The fallacy in this assumption will become apparent as the discussion proceeds. III. Abimelech's Destruction of Shechem The earliest incident recorded in Scripture, that is of significant assistance in unraveling the confused interpretation of the archaeology of the site, belongs to the late period of the judges in the rule of Abimelech. "The details of this story are recorded in Judges 9 and are not reviewed here other than to note that Abimelech laid siege to the city when the citizens revolted from his rule in a belated protest against his act of murdering all save one of his 70 brothers in order to usurp the judgeship. At this time, the city was completely destroyed.'1 And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, a11d slew the people that were therein, and beat down the city, and sowed it with salt. From other portions of the record, we are told that the city was protected militarily by a wall, access to the city being through a city gate. Unlike the stone or brick construction used in city walls, the gates must be made of wooden beams to permit their opening and closing. The fortifications of the city also included defense towers. Since the wooden gates were the most vulnerable part· of the defense system, such defense towers ~ommonly were constructed in the area of the city gate to provide a .vantage 174 THE EXODUS PROBLEM point for defense of the entrance. In the Shechem story, the men to whom were given the responsibility of defense of the gate by means of the tower fortifications are referred to as "the men of the tower." w When. it became apparent that the defenders were no longer able to hold the defense tower against Abimelech and his attackers, they took refuge in what is called "an hold of the house of the god Berith," 11 an expression which has served as the basis for interpretation of the archaeology of the site. We are not told whether this point of refuge was associated with the tower or whether it was even inside the city. Logic would suggest that since escape from the city at this time could be so readily prevented by the attackers at the gate, this hold must have been within the city and associated with the temple of this god. This concept was shared generally by the investigators. This deduction was apparently confirmed by the discovery of the remains of a massive temple-like structure within the city wall. 12 The walls of this structure were nearly 17 feet thick at the foundation and obviously represented a defense structure comparable to' that of the wall of the city, but on a smaller scale. So obvious was this identification with the "hold" mentioned in Scripture that it was regarded as a "must." 1'1 IV. King jeroboam I Rebuilds the City Jeroboam I was the first king of the northern kingdom of · Israel following the division of the monarchy on the death of Solomon. Thiele dates the reign of this king 931-910 B.C. The chronology of the judges cannot be so accurately fixed for the rule of Abimelech. 14 However, it is relatively certain that the date cannot be earlier than about 1200 B.C., and a date in the era of 1150 B. C. would seem more probable. More recent dates have been suggested. The city destroyed by Abimelech thus lay in ruins for about two centuries from the time of Abimelech to its rebuilding by Jeroboam, who made it his capital. It has been inferred from the reading of I Kings 14:7 that Jeroboam moved his capital ·from Shechem to near-by Tirzah during his reign. This is not improbable and, if correct, might be revealed archaeologically by evidence of· deterioration in the importance of the site of Shechem following this rebuilding. 14" INTERPRETATIONS AT SCHECHEM 175 V. The Later History of Shechem The Assyrian armies ravaged much of the territory of Israel in the 8th century B. C., culminating in the capture of the capital, then located at nearby Samaria. 1·' The fate of Shechem at this time is not stated in Scripture, and Josephus adds nothing to shed forther light on the question. The city was certainly inhabited at the time of Jeremiah after the fall of Judah to the Babylonians at the beginning of the 6th century. 10 It is possible that archaeology might provide information as to whether the conquest by Assyria or by Babylonia resulted in the destruction of the city. VI. Shechem in the Extra-Biblical Texts Several ancient extra-Biblical texts are believed to refer to the city of Shechem though serious questions may be raised to each of these identifications. Since certain archaeological interpretations hinge on the validity of the assumptions involved, these texts are noted briefly. One of the earliest of these is of Egyptian origin and belongs to a collection known as the Execration Texts. 1' These brief inscriptions, made on figurines or vases, carry the names of certain Asiatic sites which were presumably under the domination of Egypt at the time. These names are accompanied by what is thought to be a magical formula for bringing to naught any rebellious uprising at the given site. This was accomplished by breaking the vase or figurine while repeating the magical incantation. At least, this is the manner in which the inscriptions are interpreted. 18 These texts have been variously dated from the 21st to the 19th centuries B.C. By the currently accepted views on the chronology of Egypt, the era is that of the XUth or, less probably, the XIth Dynasty. There remains considerable question as to whether the name on one of these figurines is that of Shechem. 19 The name has been vocalized variously as Skimi, Skammi, Sakamami, or Sakmemi. Even if the questionable identification is granted, the inscriptions provide no information which could be confirmed archaeologically beyond the occupation of the site at the time of the XIIth Dynasty. A second text, believed to refer to Shechem, and from about the same era as the Execration Texts, is found in the Khu-Sebek inscription from the reign of Sesostris III of Dy- 176 THE EXODUS PROBLEM nasty XII. The significant portion of the inscription has been thus translated: 20 His majesty proceeded northward to overthrow the Asiatics. His majesty reached a foreign country of which the name was Sekmen. His majesty took the right direction in proceeding to the Residence of life, prosperity, and health. Then Sekmen fell, together with the wretched Retenu. It would appear that the Retenu of this inscription (a territory as well as a people) belong to the territory of western Asia, probably within the area included by Palestine and Syrophoenicia. Any more exact location remains a matter of speculation and debate. There are also philological difficulties in recognizing Sekmen as the Egyptian equivalent of Shechem. 21 ... The philological difficulties in the way of identification are very great.... The name does not occur in the city lists of either Thutmose III or Sheshonk I. The absence of the name is regarded as "remarkable" by one commentator. 22 The Amarna Letters (currently dated in the 14th century B.C., but in the 9th century by the proposed revision) contain a single reference to a site transliterated as Shakmi which is believed to have reference to Shechem. 23 Again the identification remains questionable. In the face of these uncertainties, it must be admitted that the extra-Biblical sources do not provide very significant data of value for interpreting the archaeology of the site. The reference of Josephus to the destruction of the site by Hyrcanus (c. 100 B.C.) provides a solid starting point, but this is of little or no value in settling the debatable problems in the interpretation of the earlier archaeology of the site. VII. The Archaeological Examination of the Shechem Site The early investigations at Shechem up to the year 1934 were under the direction of German workers of whom Sellin was the leading figure. 24 The site then lay dormant until 1956 when a joint group from Drew University and McCormick Theological Seminary resumed investigations. Work by this group continued through the years 1956-61. The results of these investigations were duly reported in issues of INTERPRETATIONS AT SCHECHEM 177 The Biblical Archaeologist and in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. These reports were followed by a volume entitled Shechem by G. E. Wright, Director of the campaigns. The pertinent archaeological observations at the site are here reviewed. VIII. Observations from the Hellenistic Period Observations by the early German workers and confirmed by the Drew-McCormick group revealed that the upper levels at the Shechem site belonged to the Hellenistic period and later (331 B.C. and later). This was evidenced by the pottery types and by the discovery of a number of datable coins from this era. The debris from the final destruction of the city by Hyrcanus (c. 100 B. C.) were clearly discernable. 2·' IX. The Presumed 400-year Gap Preceeding the Hellenistic Period Sellin reported finding immediately below the Hellenistic levels, occupational strata from the Iron Age which, in line with accepted dates provided by the pottery dating scheme, he regarded as Israelite. The Drew-McCormick group confirmed these finds from Iron I and, following current opinion, assigned these strata to the era of the Israelite Monarchy ending c. 721 B.C. No remains were found to fill the gap between the fall of Israel and the Hellenistic period four centuries later. 26 ... Thus far in the two seasons we have found no clear evidence of any occupational debris at Shechem between the eighth and fourth centuries B.C. This situation continued to hold to the end of the investigations as indicated in the 1963 report. 27 Thus an occupation gap must be assumed at Shechem for these four centuries between 721 and c. 330 B. C. Yet Scripture indicates that Shechem was occupied after the fall of Jerusalem in the early 6th century. 28 That there came certain from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, even fourscore men, having their beards shaven, and their clothes rent ... The discrepancy has been explained on the basis that the men referred to by Jeremiah were making a nostalgic visit to a city that no longer existed. 29 178 THE EXODUS PROBLEM From the time of Samaria's fall until the fourth centurv, then, Shechem was not a great city. Jeremiah's reference to men fr~m Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria who fell victim to Ishmael's brutality (Jer. 41:5) doubtless refers to pilgrims coming from a nostalgic visit to once-proud cities now hardly worthy of their great names of yore. X. The Massive Temple On the western part of the mound site, Sellin discovered the remains of a massive structure measuring 68 by 84 feet with walls 17 feet thick at their foundations. Sellin regarded the structure as having served as a temple. Others disagreed:~0 What possible reason could be supposed for constructing a temple with walls 17 feet thick? Scripture provided a reasonable answer. This was the structure referred to in the story of Abimelech as the "hold of the house of the god Berith," to which the men of the tower fled when they were no longer able to hold the tower against the besiegers of the city. Further evidence of this identification was seen in the discovery of a similar structure at Megiddo which, from its archaeological stratum, was given a life between 1400 and 1200 B.C., the latter date approximating an acceptable date for the Abimelech story. In spite of the objections raised to the identification of the structure as a temple, Wright noted convincing evidence for the correctness of this position, and with this position, the writer concurs. 31 Consequently, there seems to be no need for further quibbling. The evidence from the court shows that two sacred standing stones and an altar are almost as old as the building itself. It is therefore a temple, and was originally built as a temple. However, continued investigation called for a revision of the date for the origin of the temple at Shechem to the era 1650-1600 B.C., a date later refined to c. 1650 B.C. This was the same date given to the building of the city gFi.te on the east of the city. Since the date falls in the period of Hyksos domination of Egypt by current views, the general belief that the Hyksos also governed an empire including all of Palestine, led to an attribution of the origin of these structures to the Hyksos.·u The date for the destruction of the temple could not be ascertained from any evidence from the temple area, but logic associated the destruction with ·that by Abimelech according to the Scriptural account.33 INTERPRETATIONS AT SCHECHEM 179 ... When the temple was destroyed or abandoned could not be determined with certainty, but nothing indicates that the destruction did not take place in the time of Abimelek as Judges 9 suggests. An alternate interpretation was expressed by Bull, field superintendent at the temple area, following the 1960 campaign.34 ... This massive structure [Temple I) was destroyed at a date which cannot be accurately fixed from the evidence available within the temple, but which probably coincided with the general destruction of the city attested at the East Gate and in Fields III and VIII, about 1550 B.C. The date suggested by Bull was obviously too early to permit identification of the destruction of the temple as that by Abimelech; actually the date is three hundred years before the Conquest in terms of the more popular setting of the Exodus. It is to be noted that the difference of opinion among the investigators was not confined to the problem of whether or not the structure was a temple; the difference of opinion now had to do with whether or not this structure was that of the Abimelech story At the time of the first campaign, Wright as director, regarded such an ·identification as unequivocal, evidently based on the remarkable agreement with Scripture and the absence of any other destruction or structural remains that could reasonably be thus identified. 35 · This structure, some 2lm. long by 26m. wide, had walls ca. 5.30 m. thick, the thickness of a city fortification; it must surely have been the temple of ha' al berlt . . . mentioned in the Abimelech story. This conviction was retained by Wright as late as 1961 following the 1960 campaign, for he then wrote: 36 The temple on the city's western side, together with its immediate surroundings, is referred to as Field V. This great stfllcture, which must certainly be identified with the "house of Baal-berith" ... was completely unearthed by Sellin in 1926. The crux of the problem then lies with the proper dating of the destruction of this massive structure, which so neatly meets the specifications of the Abimelech story. Do the archaeological observations at Shechem permit a dating of the destruction of this structure in the 12th century, to agree with a necessary dating of Abimelech, or do the observations demand a dating in the 16th century, as proposed by 180 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Bull? If the latter is the case, then an identification of the structure as that destroyed by Abimelech is out of the question, at least within the framework of current views on ancient chronology. As admitted by both Wright and .Bull, there was no evidence within the temple to provide an answer to this question. The evidence must be derived from the findings at the East Gate.'37 · XI. The Violent Destruction of the East Gate Area The area of the East Gate was chosen by the DrewMcCormick group for investigation in the First Campaign in the summer of 1956. :37• Digging in the area of the south tower, archaeologists soon encountered pottery sherds and below them found evidence of burning. The pottery associated with this burning permitted an approximate date c. 800 B.C. (by current views) and hence belonged to a much later period than the violent destruction at the time of Abimelech. This burning was attributed to the Arameans on the basis of II Kings 13:3, 22, though the verses make no mention of any destruction of cities. These verses read: And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Sy~ia, and into the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael, all their days. But Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. The origin of this phase of the tower was thus attributed to Jeroboam I (931-910), who is recorded as having rebuilt the city.'18 Further digging revealed evidence of an earlier and more violent destruction of the tower. In the report of the first campaign, Wright commented: 39 ... The tower was violently destroyed and the guardroom filled with burned brick, charcoal, broken jars, dishes and rubbing stones for grinding grain, pestles and the bones of at least three different people, all mixed in wild disorder so that little could be pieced back together again. The pottery dates from the period called "Middle Bronze UC;" it is clear that the destruction was a very violent one and the evidence points to the Egyptians as the cause. It is thus clear that Wright recognized that the violent destruction of the tower occurred in Middle Bronze IIC, datable by current chronological views in the 16th century B.C., and thus could not represent the destruction of the city by Abimelech. The question that remained unanswered was whether or not the massive temple structure was de- INTERPRETATIO NS AT SCHECHEM 181 stroyed at the same time as this violent destruction of the area of the East Gate. In the course of the 1957 campaign, evidence was obtained of violent destruction by burning in two other areas (Field I and Field III). 40 But this still did not prove that the destruction of the massive temple was part of this destruction in the 16th century. The possibility remained that the massive temple survived this 16th century destruction and remained in use until the era of Abimelech. But if this assumption were to be considered permissible, then there should be archaeological evidence of an additional and later destruction between Middle Bronze IIC, in the 16th century, and the much later destruction c. 800 B.C. 41 After all, the Abimelech story emphasizes the total and complete destruction of the city with only incidental mention of the burning of the roof over the heads of the people who had gathered in the hold for refuge. 42 If the massive temple survived the violent destruction of the 16th century, it is most difficult to assume that the later total destruction of the city by Abimelech, including that of the massive temple, was any less violent than that in the 16th century. Certainly such a destruction should at least be clearly marked archaeologically. Since the end of Middle Bronze IIC had been assigned a date c. 1550 B.C., this additional evidence of destruction should appear late in Late Bronze or in Early Iron, since the transition to Iron I is given an approximate date c. 1200 B.C. Wright and others of the investigators held out to the close of the investigations for associating the destruction of the massive temple with Abimelech' s time, 43 evidently in the belief that a further examination and more thorough study of the reports would confirm, or at least leave open, the possibility that this massive structure survived the 16th century destruction. That others of the group disagreed is indicated by the report from Locus 3 on the site. 44 ... In Locus S, for example, there were at last five LB earth floor levels, one below the other, ... Above this series of floors there were SO ems. of gray clay with bits of charcoal, plaster and brick, but such traces of burning were much too slight to attest any violent or general destruction at the end of LB. . . . Furthermore, there is 110 evidence whatever of a violent·distrubance in the 13th or 12th centuries, such as is found in southern sites and at Razor in Galilee. [Emphasis ours.} THE EXODUS PROBLEM The same peaceful transition is found in the only other areas on the site where these strata have so far come to light (Fields III and VI). A similar situation was observed in th~ area of the East Gate. 45 182 ... The Late Bronze city once ruled by Lab' aya [sic] and his sons never suffered a destruction as did Lachish, Bethel, and Hazor. Rather there is a smooth and apparently peaceful transtion from the Late Bronze Age to the pre-Philistine Iron Age (Iron IA). This is especially apparent in one of the guard rooms of the late Bronze East Gate. Here we found five levels [compare with quotation of reference 44] of late Bronze floors superseded, without an intervening destruction layer, by no less than fourteen superimposed Iron I floors. [Emphasis ours.] Certainly these fourteen superimposed floors of Iron I take us far enough into the Iron Age to allow the conclusion that there are no indications of any significant destruction of the site that can be equated with the total destruction of the city at the time of Abimelech. However, there were other data that seemed to leave the door slightly ajar, at least sufficiently to allow for a compromise solution. XII. The Granary and the Intermediate Temple In the course of the earlier investigations by Sellin and colleagues, the remains of a later structure were found above (and hence later in time) the remains of the massive temple .. The pottery in association with this structure permitted a date for its destruction c. 800 B.C. This allowed, in tum, an assignment of origin by Jeroboam I as part of his reconstruction program and use of the site for his capital. 46 However, it became apparent that the structure was very probably used as a granary, which, in the absence of any evidence of a palatial structure during the life of the building, left the interpretation notably short of convincing. At the time of this discovery of the granary, no evidence was observed to indicate occupation of the site between the destruction of the massive temple and the construction of the granary. In the report of the 1960 campaign, Bull described the discovery of the remains of a hitherto unsuspected. temple above those of the massive temple, but below those of the granary. 47 The foundations of this intermediate structure, which apparently had also been used as a temple, sat in earth which contained Late Bronze pottery indir.ating an origin in La~e Bronze. INTERPRET ATIO NS AT SCHECHEM 183 While the walls of the granary were being removed and examined, it became evident that there were remains of the walls of another structure directly below them but above the Middle Bronze temple walls. These walls beneath the granary. . . . sat in earth which contained Late Bronze pottery. This discovery demonstrated rather conclusively that the massive Middle Bronze temple did not survive to the time of Abimelech. The massive temple must have come to its end prior to the erection of this intermediate temple which still belongs to Late Bronze. Thus the door was closed to the retention of the identification. of the massive temple with that of the story of Abimelech. But at the same time it opened slightly .another door. Perhaps it was this intermediate temple that should be identified with the story of Abimelech. Cambell associated the discovery with observations made elsewhere on the· mound and commented in the 1960 report as follows: 48 . . . At the highest point was a thick layer of Iron I debris; like the other. remains fr.om this period found now at four places on the mound, ... this debris contains pottery closely associated in type with that of Late Bronze and no Philistine pottery at all. This is a very important datum because of the light it throws upon the events described in Judges 9. The attempt of Abimelech to establish himself as ki11g centers around Shechem, where he received support from those of the temple of Baalberith (9:4) and "the house of Millo" (the house of the "fill" and now certainly shown to be the same building - 9:6). Later, enmity developed between the Shechemites and Abimelech, and in this part of the narrative Abimelech is reported to have destroyed the people of Shechem and finally their last-ditch stand in the "tower" (9:46ff. ), still another reference to the main temple-citadel building whose investigation is described by Professor Bull below. Now it appears that we have mounting evidence for placing these events early in the Iron I period, probably in the first half of the twelfth century; after this period, there is no evidence of occupation before that of the ninth century or thereabouts. Here, then, is the first external evidence bearing directly on a date in the chaotic period of the Judges. [Emphasis ours.] This is the general position adopted by Wright in his volume appearing after the close of the investigations and entitled Shechem. The writer is unaware of the degree to which Wright recognized the extremely fragile nature of this revised interpretation. Statements in the foreword to his volume suggest that he was not altogether happy with the turn of events which required the acceptance of this in- 184 THE EXODUS PROBLEM terpretation which would make this intermediate temple · the one belonging to the city destroyed by Abimelech. 49 ... In this area we can seldom work with certainties. Instead, it is necessary to construct hypotheses which always possess greater or lesser degrees of probability. The truth in them rests upon their ability to interpret and hold together a variety of disparate data, but new information at any moment may make it necessary to change a given hypothesis, or cause a scholar to express it somewhat differently. It is to be hoped that the fresh hypotheses set forth herein will be found by readers to have been put together with care, or, if at any point found weak or unacceptable, will stimulate further consideration of the problems and perhaps fresh answers. Wright summarized his altered position in a few brief paragraphs from which we quote: 50 That Temple 2b was destroyed is indicated by the fact that the cella of the temple was disturbed by numerous pits dug through the last floor, some of them going deep into the fill below the lowest of the floors. All were filled with gray-black earth taken from occupational debris, and all were sealed over by the thick cement floor of the Israelite warehouse [granary]. Hence it is quite certain that the pits were dug after the temple's destruction and before the erection of the Israelite building. The latter, as we shall see, could not have been built before the second half of the ninth century. In the pits_ there was a great deal of carbon and quantities of Iron IA (ca. twelfth century) pottery. The logical conclusion is that the charcoal and quantities of twelfthcentury pottery found in these pits must have come from a twelfthcentury destruction of the city. XIII. Weaknesses in· the Interpretatioo While some of the deductions from the observations seem reasonable against the background provided by popular chronology, others are open to severe question, the reason being that the chronological background is not correct. The intermediate temple does not provide the evidence to be expected of a "hold" that would serve as a refuge for the people, as is true of the massive structure. There is a grave question whether the observations permit the conclusion that there was a total destruction of the city at this time as stated in Scripture. A previous conclusion, based on observations at the East Gate, was that the Late Bronze city never suffered a destruction.51 Certainly one of the first places where such a total destruction would be apparent would be in the towers, yet in the south tower there was observed an uninterrupted sequence of floors beginning in INTERPRET ATIO NS AT SCHECH EM 185 Late Bronze and extending deep into Iron I, providing evidence that the Late Bronze city was not thus destroyed. Of far greater significance is the absence of any significant evidence for the rebuilding of the city by Jeroboam. Certainly, if he used the city as his capital, there should be more evidence of this than the granary. The report relative to this problem read~ as follows: 52 Regarding the repair of the city's fortification by Jeroboam I (ca. 920 B.C.; I Kings 12:25), only the following can be said. (A) Such evidence as was discovered in 1957 simply confirmed our interpretation of 1956 of the repair of the south guardroom in the East Gate, Field Areas 3 and 4, particularly on the basis of I.3, Locus 1. (B) The new data of 1957 showed that the repair was nothing more than a patching which otherwise simply made use of the LB-Iron I reconstruction described above. It represents very poor workmanship that easily crumbles away when exposed to the weather. (C) this repair was also visible on the north side of the gate (See Plan), where the same poor earthfilled wall had been erected on top of the main MB tower wall as it ran east-west, connecting the two entries of the gate. The period of the Israelite Divided Monarchy is represented at the East Gate only by two isolated pockets of pottery dating mainly from the 9th-8th centuries B.C. These were found in a lime-filled layer which formed the fill of a shoddy repair along the east wall of the LB-Iron I construction, and which underlay a rough buttress thrown up to support a shaky corner of the building. This, supporting the stronger evidence [sic] found in 1956, is all we have thus far for Jeroboam's" building" of the city.[Emphassis ours.] XIV. Wright Was Right in His Earlier Writing When these problems are viewed against the background provided by the proposed revision in Egyptian chronology, there is no necessity at all for deviating from the conclusions regarded by Wright as a must in the earlier phases of the investigations at Shechem. 53 The same revision that provided solutions to the problems of the Exodus, the Conquest, the Oppression, the Famine of Joseph, the problems at Jericho and at Ai, the problems related to the Hittites and to numerous others, also provides a most reasonable solution to the problems at Shechem. Most certainly, the massive temple is to be identified with that of the Abimelech story which served as the "hold of the house of the god Berith," which identification was regarded as obvious and above question when the structure was first discovered. Bull was also correct in associating the destruction of this temple with the evidences of a violent THE EXODUS PROBLEM 186 destruction of the city and its fortifications at the East Gate, and assigning this destruction to the era of Middle Bronze II C, as is so clearly- evidenced by the associated pottery sherds. The date however is not 1600-1550 B.C. When it is recognized that the proper background for the Conquest belongs to the end of Early Bronze, then this destruction in Middle Bronze II C is to be correlated with the period of the late judges, and this is where the story of Abimelech is found in Scripture. The rebuilt city to be attributed to Jeroboam then includes the intermediate temple and the rebuilt towers at the East Gate. This is the city referred to by Toombs in his report. 54 ... After the Egyptian [sic] destruction, a complete rebuilding job was required and walls and guardrooms went up on a new line of defense. Although neither as massive nor as well made as their predecessors, they were nevertheless the result [of] a strong, highly organized community effort. . .. The stratification in the guard-rooms of the East Gate shows a striking continuity between the Late Bronze and the Israelite [sic] occupation. Pottery types changed gradually with no conspicuous breaks and there was no evidence of violent destruction. [Emphasis ours.] The destruction of the intermediate temple which belongs to this city is of Iron IA. It is this city for which Wright's theory must assume a violent destruction to be attributed to Abimelech. The absence of any evidence of such later destruction may be explained on the basis that the city was abandoned (either suddenly or gradually) when Jeroboam moved his capital to Tirzah.-;5 It could be expected under these circumstances that anything usable in the city by way of building materials would be salvaged for other structures; hence, the evidence of debris of the city was far short of that to be expected from a violent destruction. 56 The hiatus in the occupation of the site revealed archaeologically between the violent destruction and the rebuilding is that between the time of Abimelech and that of Jeroboam I. The assumed 400-year gap in the occupation between the Israelite period and the Hellenistic era is then largely closed. What has been called Israelite is Israelite of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian periods. A further problem is provided a tentative solution. Scripture does not record the conquest of Shechem at the time INTERPRETATIO NS AT SCHECHEM 187 of Joshua. The earliest remains thus far noted on the site have been dated c. 1800 B. C. s; The date by the revision is c. 1400 B.C. These finds are then of Israelite origin indicating that the site was not more than locally occupied, by a limited population, at the time of Joshua and required no conquest. More comprehensive investigation of the site may reveal evidences of such a minor occupation. The city was evidently rebuilt by the Israelites as one of the cities of refuge. Notes and References (1) Vol. I, Chaps. V and VI. (2) W-BA, p. 83. (3) Se~ Fig. 2, Vol. I. (4) The site is also.near Samaria, the capital site of Ahab. (5) Gen. 12:6; 33:18. (6) R-FJJ, p. 3; K-AHL, p. !os; BA, Vol. XX, p. 13; Ibid., Vol. XXVI, p. 11. This concept constitutes the basis for the. "split Exodus'" theory. See ref. 8. (7) Josh. 24:1. (8) Vol. I, Chap. IV, Sect. XI. (9) Jdg. 9:45. (10) Ibid., vs. 46. (11) Ibid. (12) BASOR, No. 144, p. 9; see quots. of refs. 34-36. (13) Ibid. (14) Vol. I, Chap. II. (14a) See last paragraph of 'this chapter. (15) II Kings 17:5ff. (16) Jer. 41:5. (17) Translations of some of these texts are given in P-ANET, pp. 328f. (18) A-AP, p. 83. (19) BA, Vol. XX, pp. 3,4. (20) Ibid. (21) P-EOT, p. 40. (22) BA, Vol. XX, p. 4. (23) P-ANET, p. 489, Let. 289; SDABD, article "'Shechem."' (24) This early work was reviewed by Wright (BA, Vo); XX. pp. 20ff. ). (25) This destruction is referred to by Josephus (J-AJ, Bk. XIII, Chap. 9, par: I). (26) BASOR, No. 148, p. 24. (27) BA, Vol. XXVI, p. 25. (28) See ref. 16. (29) Ibid. (30) W-S, p. 8lf. (31) Ibid., p. 87. (32) Vol. I. Chap. XIV, Sect. V; BASOR, No. 148, p. 17; BA, Vol. XXVI, p. 15. (33) BA, Vol. XX, p. 95. (34) BASOR, No. 161, p. 32. (35) Ibid., No. 144, p. 9. (36) B~SOR, No. 161, p. 13. (37) See quots. of refs. 33, 34. (37a) BA, Vol. XX, p. 29. (38) 1 Kin11:s 12:25. (39) BA. Vol. XX, p. 32. (40) BASOR, No. 148, p. 17. (41) See Sect. X. (42) Jdg. 9:49. (43) See quot. of ref. 37. (44) BASOR, No. 148, p. 22. (45) BA, Vol. XXVI, p. 10. (46) BA, Vol. XX, p. 25. (47) BA, Vol. XXIII, p. 114. (48) Ibid., pp. 106f. (49) W-S, p. xiv. (50) Ibid., pp. 101, 102. (51) See quots. of refs. 44, 45. (52) BASOR, No. 148, p. 23; BA, VOL. XX, p. 103. (53) See quot. of ref. 35. (54) BA, Vol. XX, p. 96. (55) Based on the suggestion in I Kin11:s 14:17. (56) See quot. of ref. 48. (57) See ref. 24. CHAPTERX CONFUSION IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGID DO The ancient site of Megiddo was one of the more important fortresses of ancient Palestine. It was located at the foot of the Carmel Ridge and occupied a critical position for the domination of the Plain of. Esdralon in northern Palestine. Main roads passed through the site from Babylon in the east and from Egypt in the south. Military possession of the site has been the goal of nations of the East from antiquity to the present time. During the earlier phases of archaeological investigations, the identity of the site of Megiddo remained in doubt. Subsequent investigations at Tell el-Mutessellim made it apparent beyond further question that this was the site of ancient Megiddo. The top of the tell occupies an area of some thirteen acres and represents one of the more thoroughly excavated sites of Palestine at the present time. I. The Biblical History of Megiddo The fortress of Megiddo was certainly in existence at the time of Joshua's conquest. While it was not part of the territory actually occupied at that time, it is listed among the cities vanquished, and, at some unstated time later, the Canaanite occupants were put under "tribute." 1 Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but did not utterly drive them out. The point at which the Israelites took over the site for their own occupation has been a matter of difference of opinion among Bible scholars. From the account in Judges 4:2, the Canaanites were able, after the death of Ehud (the second judge), to assert their independence, and a second conquest was necessary under the judgeship of Barak. 2 And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Kanaan, that reigned at Hazor. So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel. And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 189 and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan .. This critical battle was fought near Megiddo, 3 though it is not specifically stated that Megiddo was repossessed from the Canaanites at this time. However, since Razor, from which Jabin ruled, was located in this general area, and since the battle was. fought near Megiddo, this is a logical inference. Israel controlled Megiddo in the time of Solomon, for it is recorded that he rebuilt the city as part of his refortification program. 4 The subsequent references to Megiddo in the times of Ahaziah and Josiah5 provide no information of archaeological import beyond the fact of the occupation of the site through the era of the divided monarchy of Israel. II. Megiddo in the Extra-Biblical Sources The capture of the city of Megiddo by Thutmose III is described in a pictorial inscription engraved on the walls of the temple of Karnak. The name of the city also appears in the city list of Sheshonk I. This king of Dynasty XXII, by current views, is identified with the Shishak of Scripture who plundered Solomon's temple in the reign of Rehoboam. The anachronisms that rise from this identification have been introduced in detail in a previous volume. 6 A Stele of Seti I, found at near-by Beth Shan, suggests the occupation of the site by this Egyptian king,; though strangely nothing comparable has been found at the more critical site of Megiddo. III. The Controversy Over the Date for Israelite Occupation of Megiddo Critical among the difficulties in the interpretation of the archaeology of Megiddo is the problem of locating the· point in Israelite history when the site was first completely occupied by the Hebrews. It is to be expected that this point would be marked archaeologically by evidence of a change ·of culture as revealed by the appearance of new pottery types. It is apparent from the reading of Joshua 17: 13, as previously noted, that the Canaanites were permitted to occupy the site for some unstated period of time after the first phase of the Conquest. It is ge!lerally conced- THE EXODUS PROBLEM 190 ed that complete occupation occurred at the. time of the victory of Barak as recorded in Judges 4. Albright, however, in his early thinking, did not follow this view,~ noting that the Biblical account does not specifically state that this was the case. Among those who accepted this as the point of the first Israelite occupation, opinion was further divided as to when in the period of the Judges the story of Barak' s victory belongs. It was generally understood, from the position of Barak as 4th in the line of judges, that this was relatively early in the period. Engberg, however, has pointed out evidence which he regarded as demanding that this first occupation of Megiddo by the Israelites belongs much later~ A date just prior to the reign of Saul (1050) was suggested. Sa The controversy has its basis in archaeological observations at Megiddo. Albright had argued for a position for the initial Israelite occupation between Strata VII and VI, giving the incident a date c. 1125 B.C., a date consistent with the popular dating of the Conquest c. 1225 B.C. His conclusion was based on the appearance of a particular type of pottery, well represented in Stratum VI, but only sparsely so in Stratum VII. Engberg, however, has pointed out that this position was not tenable, and that the supposed break in culture between Strata VII and VI was not nearly as pronounced as had been first supposed, being represented by only a single new pottery form. A more significant cultural break occurs between Strata VI and V, and at this point there is also evidence of catastrophe. 9 ... There was, in other words, an extensive, not a minor, break in cultural development at this point which calls for explanation. IV. The Dilemma With the initial occupation of Israel at Megiddo set between Strata VII and VI and dated c. 1125 by Albright, there remained about 75 years of the era of the Judges for the incidents subsequent to the rule of Barak and prior to the establishment of the Monarchy under Saul. With the supposed necessity of recognizing the occupation between Strata VI and V, this date must be moved forward by about another half century, thus bringing the rule of Barak down to just before the reign of Saul. This places the rule of ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 191 Barak contemporary with that of Samuel and half a century or more into the era of the incursions by the Philistines. 10 Evidently Albright recognized the difficulties involved in such a late placement and had expressed the opinion that it was not necessary for Megiddo to have been occupied by the Israelites after th~ defeat of the Canaanites under Barak, since there is nothing in Scripture to require it. With the presumed necessity for movement of this incident forward by another half century, this phase of the problem was- magnified, and one might expect that it would be followed by a general rejection of the concept of occupation following this victory. However, Engberg saw no other point in the written history of Megiddo or in the archaeology of the site for such placement and held out for recognition of the occupation following this victory. 11 Fully aware of the Canaanite nature of Megiddo VI Professor Albright has indicated in a letter that it would not have been necessary for Megiddo VI to have been occupied by the Israelites after Sisera' s defeat, since there is nothing in Israelite tradition to require it. To the writer [Engberg] there seems every reason to believe that the Israelites occupied Tanaach and Megiddo after Barak's victory, unless we regard the Song of Deborah as a grossly exaggerated account of a trivial incident. This view, we may believe, would find favor with few .... Evidently, the presentation of these arguments were sufficiently convincing to cause Albright to abandon his previous position and follow Engberg in placing the victory of Israel over the Canaanites archaeologically between Strata VI and V. 12 In short, I [Albright] am strongly inclined to accept Engberg' s chronological modification of my original position. Thus while the archaeological evidence as traditionally interpreted favors slightly the placement of the first Israelite occupation of Megiddo between Strata VI and V, the Biblical evidence virtually demands recognition of occupation following the victory under Barak. To accept both lines of evidence, the victory of Barak, 4th in the line of the judges, must be moved down just prior to the reign of Saul and contemporary with the judgeship of Samuel, the last of the judges. While Albright felt compelled by the evidence of archaeology to acquiesce to the reasoning of Engberg, he recognized that it woutd not be easy to defend the chrono- 192 THE EXODUS PROBLEM logical placement of the incident this late in the history of Israel. 11 · ... If he [Engberg] is right about dating this battle between strata VI and V, we shall have to lower its date to after .cir. 1100 B.C., since we can hardly place the fall of Megiddo VI less than a generation after that of Megiddo VII on any theory and since Megiddo VII may not have fallen until well along in the third quarter of the twelfth century. If the events commemorated in the Song of Deborah must be dated somewhere in the early eleventh century, the career of Shamgar of Beth-anath, who defeated the Philistines, must be correlated with the phase of Philistine expansion which culminated in the Battle of Shiloh (cir. 1050) rather than with the earlier movement as I have hitherto inferred. The Song of Deborah and the following careers of Gideon and Jephthah then fall between 1100 and 1050, while the brief reign of Abimelech in Western Manasseh may come down to the last years before Saul's accession to the throne. This telescoping of events does somewhat upset our usual views, but there is no serious historical objection.... Wright, on the other hand, did not go along with the arguments of Engberg and preferred to interpret both Strata VI and V as of Canaanite origin; Judges 1:28 was then interpreted to refer to Israel becoming strong down in the time of David. 14 ... As far as the archaeological contents of the two strata are concerned, it seems to this writer that no convincing argument can be made as to when Israel actually took over the control of the city.... In addition, from the Biblical record we infer that the dominant population in any case was Canaanite, since it is said that Israel did not drive out the inhabitants but put them to taskwork ... when the nation was strong enough (in the tenth century under David and Solomon) ... Thus both Cities YI and V were probably Canaanite in reality, and the only reason for dating the Song between VII and VI, instead of between VI and V, is that the date of the interval between the latter is much too late, being near the time of Saul. The problem cannot be divorced from 'the results of th~ more recent excavations at Shechem. 15 The massive temple, whose identification with that of the Abimelech story of Judges 9 was earlier regarded as a "must," on later investigation required movement back into the 16th century. This unexpected development forced a shift of opinion on the identification of the temple of the Abimelech story to an identification with the less pretentious, intermediate temple whose foundations lay between those of the massive temple and the granary of the 8th century. 16 The foundations of ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 193 this intermediate structure rested in soil containing Late Bronze pottery, but no Philistine pottery at all. The period of use of this structure was thus assigned to what was called pre-Philistine Iron I. 17 But as pointed out by Albright, 18 and reasonably deduced from the sequence order of the judges in Scripture, Abimelech must follow Barak wherever Barak is placed. If it is necessary to move Barak down to the era just before the reign of Saul to meet the archaeological demands for recognition of the point of first occupation of the site by the Israelites, then Barak is half a century deep into the Philistine era is. 'How then can Abimelech be in pre-Philistine Iron I and following Barak? Difficulty thus rises from any interpretation that one may wish to accept, but the one position that is totally out of the question is that which would identify this intermediate temple as that of the Abimelech story and then place Barak down just prior to the era of Saul. But if the interpretation of Wright as to the identity of this intermediate structure is not accepted, then there is nothing on the Shechem site to represent the destruction of the city by Abimelech. If the massive temple is taken as that of the Abimelech story, then either Abimelech belongs in the 16th century, two or three centuries before the Conquest, or else Middle Bronze II C has been misdated on the B. C. time scale by a plurality of centuries. If it is recognized that the Israelites occupied Megiddo after the victory under Barak, which deduction is difficult to avoid, though Wright has chosen this way out of the dilemma, then the shift in expected culture should be revealed between Strata VII and VI, rather than between VI and V. But at this point, the archaeological evidence for a shift in culture is virtually nil. Movement of the point forward to a position between VI and V does little to alleviate this difficulty and at the same time introduces the anachronism previously noted. The situation is somewhat comparable to that of the creation of the split-Exodus theory to account for the insoluble discrepancies at the time of the Conquest The theory is in such violent contradiction to Scripture as to require rejection of vast sections of these records as having any historical value, and at the same time the theory is utterly indefensible, as indicated by the fact that no one has been able to suggest reasonable details to fit into. the theory. The Bibli- 194 THE EXODUS PROBLEM cal accounts relative to Megiddo are not merely "somewhat upset" " by the interpretation of Engberg; the accounts are completely nullified. The nature of the error involved is clarified as the archaeology of Megiddo is traced through its more complete history. When the data are then set against the background provided by the revised chronology, the entire picture is brought into clear focus. V. The Archaeology of Megiddo Reveals a Sequence of Twenty Cities Early archaeological investigations at Megiddo were made by German workers between the years 1903 and 1905. Work was later resumed by Fisher, Guy, and Loud, beginning in 1925 and extending to 1939. The ambitious plan was entertained of excavating the entire mound layer by layer. However, the task turned out to be more involved than anticipated, and, after removal of the top four strata, it was necessary to confine further excavations to more limited areas. Four sections were selected for more complete examination. These were identified as AA in the northern part of the site near the city gate, BB in the eastern sector of the site where the first stables had been discovered, CC at the south, and DD in an effort to join AA and BB. CC was soon abandoned, and DD was not completed. AA was excavated through Stratum XIII. Only at BB was the excavation carried to bedrock. At this point, evidence for a sequence of twenty successive cities was observed. These were numbered by Roman numerals from I to XX, Stratum I representing the surface layer. More complete reports than those in the Biblical Archaeologist appeared subsequently under the titles "Megiddo I" and "Megiddo II." The journal reports were brought up to date in 1950. 19 Due to difficulties that arose from attempts to interpret certain data attributed to the time of Solomon, a brief excavation wa:s carried out by Yadin in 1960 in an attempt to clarify what seemed to have been a misinterpretation of previous observations. A report of this later investigation appeared in 1960. 19• VI. On the Identification of Megiddo Levels as of 1950 While scholars were not altogether agreed on the dates to be assigned to the various levels at the Megiddo site, the ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 195 approximate dates representing general and approximate opinion as held in 1950 are outlined in Table IV. In the same Table are given the interpretations of the present writer based on the proposed chronological structure. It will be nf.>ted that the lower strata were given positions in terms ot the Arcaehological Ages rather than in terms of known historical incidents or kings. There would seem to be little question in the matter of associating the observed pottery with these epochs, since the epochs were defined in terms of these _pottery types in the first place. Stratum IX was the lowest level for which identification was suggested in terms of any particular king. This stratum was attributed to Thutmose Ill. 20 The identification was based largely on finds of scarabs and other objects dated to the era of this king in a stratum at near-by Beth Shan, the pottery of the stratum. corresponding in type with that of Stratum VIII at Megiddo. This identification was ·taken as · the key for tracing the strata above and below; the assignments suggested were based on presumed correlations with incidents to be noted in the written historical records. In Level IV were found the remains of two stable complexes consisting of stalls that could have housed perhaps as many as 500 horse~. These were quickly related to the Biblical references telling of the numerous horses and chariots which formed part of the defense system of Solomon, who is stated to have rebuilt Megiddo 21 and to have stationed chariots in certain unnamed cities. 22 With Stratum IV identified as that of the era of Solomon, it was more or less a matter of formality to identify Stratum V with the time of David and VI from the time of Saul. These assignments seemed to be confirmed by the presence of a foreign type of pottery in Strata VI and VII, which was regarded by some as of Philistine origin, since the Philistines were known to have occupied near-by Beth Shan at the time of the death of Saul. 23 Strangely, however, no pottery has been found at Beth Shan from the corresponding stratum that can be so identified. 24 Since Stratum VIII had been .used as the key level and assigned to the era of Thutmose III, Stratum VII must then encompass the intermediate period to the time of Saul. Strata I to III were taken to represent the period of Assyri- ...... TABLE IV Level No. r II III IV IVB-VA v VI VII-IX x XI-XII XIII-XIV Current Identifications of Occupation Levels at Megiddo Compared to Identifications by the Chronological Revision• Contemporary Era by the Revision Contemporary Era by Current Views Babylonian and Persian occupation Ass)'Uan occupation Assyrian occupation 9th-8th century Era of Solomon, Jilter moved to the era of Ahab Israelite occupation under David Philistine phase of Iron I; late judges and era of Saul Late Bronze; c. 1580-1100 B.C. Includes era of Dynasties XVIII to XX inclusive Late Middle Bronze; Early D-XVIII Middle Bronze JIB xv Middle Bronze llA, Middle Bronze I, hiatus XVI-XVII XVIII XIX Early Bronze IV (IIIB) c. 2500-1950 Early Bronze II; Dynasty If. Early Bronze I; Predynastic into Dynasty I Chalcolithic; Predynastic xx •Definitions of these levels are at best only approximate. Persian occupation Babylonian occupation Assyrian occupation Assyrian occupation Assyrian occupation Philistines and Assyrians competing for Israelite ter- · ritory Israelite era after fall of northern kingdom ~ i-i ::r::· trj ~ 0 ti d Vl Israelite monarchy City built by Solomon and conquered by Thutmose III Late judges, David and Saul Early judges Late Joshua era; hiatus confined to period between Exodus and Conquest Descent to Joshua Era of Abraham Dispersion era Predispersion l"d ::x:i 0 o::i t"" trj a:· ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 197 an and Persian occupation to the final destruction of the site dated c. 400 B. C. Several objects datable in terms of Egyptian history were found in Stratum VII. 2·5 These included an ivory pen-case, carrying the names of Rameses III, and the base of a statue inscribed with the name of Rameses VI. These finds suggested that Stratum VII continued at least to the time of this latter king, who had been given a date c. 1150 B.C. A fragment inscribed with the name of Sheshonk I was found in the dump during the earlier excavations. Since these earlier excavations did not penetrate lower than Stratum IV, it probably belonged to one of these upper strata, and since Sheshonk I was regarded as the same as Shishak of Scripture who sacked Solomon's temple, it would intuitively be assigned to Stratum IV, though this could not be stated as fact. VII. Too Many City Gates While the assignment of the identities to the various strata at Megiddo seemed logical in many ways, embarrassing difficulties were nevertheless apparent as the reports of the investigations were critically examined. A principal point of difficulty was related to the observed gate system of Strata V to III. We let Wright present the problem to us as viewed in 1950. 26 Above the V gate and the road leading up to it there was discovered the finest fortified gateway yet found in early Palestine. The excavators attribute it to Stratum IV and believe it to be Salamonie, which it certainly is . ... It is the gate of the fine Salamonie city-wall previously discovered in the southern and eastern quarters. Yet if it belongs to Stratum IV proper, then we have one gate too many in the strata of Israelite Megiddo. The reason is as follows: in Stratum III (ca. 780-733 B.C.) the gate was composed of two parallel sets of piers, forming a double entry-way. Immediately below it was the foundation of another gate with three pairs of piers, forming a triple entry-way. This is also attributed to Stratum III, but to do so the excavators must assume that it never actually came into use, being replaced by the double gate immediately after it was erected. This now appears as an unnecessarily awkward point of view. It would be much simpler to assume that the triple gate actually belongs to the preceding Stratum IV, now dated from the end of the tenth century to the end of the ninth. This means that the newly discovered gateway with four sets of piers and four entry-ways could be placed in Stratum VA-IVB of the tenth century. If so, then the whole fortification system, including the city-wall, previously attributed to Stratum IV, is actulally from Stratum VA-IVB. [Emphasis ours.] 198 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The solution to the problem proposed by Wright, and earlier by Albright, presumes an additional stratum between V and IV which has been designated VA-IVB. This added stratum is thus composed of the upper phase of V and the lower phase of IV. Looking back on this problem a decade later, Yadin commented. 2• Another fact connected with the problem of the solid wall at Megiddo created great difficulties for the excavators and for all who studied the Megiddo report. At the southern part of the mound, east of the southern complex of stables, the excavators discovered a huge palatial building constructed of ashlar blocks. This building, which was obviously Israelite, nevertheless lay in part immediately beneath the solid "Solomonic" wall. Furthermore another building . . . of the same level, west of the palatial building, was shown to be covered partly by the stables. The excavators attributed the stables and the solid wall to Stratum IV, while the palace and building 1482 were attributed to a newly-named Stratum IVB - the designation "V" having already been taken up by another stratum. Since the solid wall and stables had been attributed to Solomon, the lonely palace or fort had to be attributed either to David or to an early Solornonic phase; both alternatives allowed for the belief that Solomon himself tore down this fine building in order to build the city wall, the stables, etc. In spite· of the brilliant and ceaseless efforts of Albright and Wright, who have introduced considerable clarity into the complex problems of the Megiddo stratigraphy (particularly by showing that the remains of VA are ~~ fact part of the IVB city), the above difficulty remained. Either the lonely fort was built by David (for which there is no Biblical support) or by Solomon himself, who in either case was "accused" of demolishing one of the finest buildings of Israelite Megiddo for no apparent reason. VIII. Yadin Reinvestigates the Megiddo Site It was these difficulties of interpretation that led Yadin to carry out a further brief investigation at the Megiddo site in 1960. In the course of the intervening years, the suspicion had grown that a mistake had been made in attributing the city-wall of Stratum IV to Solomon, and that an as yet, undiscovered wall should exist beneath this solid wall that should properly be attributed to this king. This suspicion was born of discoveries at Hazor which revealed a wall also from this same era. This wall, however, was of casemate construction and thus differed from the solid wall at Megiddo. Reference to the previous reports of Macallister at Gezei: revealed a similar casemate wall from this same period. Since Gezer is mentioned along with Hazor and Megiddo as having been rebuilt by Solomon, 2$ it seemed strange ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 199 that the wall at Megiddo, lying geographically between Hazor and Gezer, should be of different construction if all three were of the same Solomonic origin. It is unnecessary to review the details of the interesting report by Yadin dealing with the further investigations at Megiddo. 29 Suffice it to say that remnants of a casemate type wall were found to exist at the expected position, thus tying to a common origin the three walls at Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor, though this did not prove that any of the walls were of Solomonic origin. Several other conclusions naturally followed from the assumption of a common Solomonic origin of the three walls. The palace, which had previously seemed to represent an isolated unit in an undefended city, must be considered as part of the city represented by VA-IVB and defended by the same casemate wall. This city must then also be attributed to Solomon, in view of the improbability that such a city was constructed by David and in the light of the similarity of wall structure for the corresponding strata at Hazor and at Gezer. This conclusion in turn necessitated a reversal of the earlier conclusion that the stable complexes and the solid wall were of Solomonic origin, since these structures must belong to a later era. The more recent view is to assign these an origin by Ahab on the basis that the Assyrian inscriptions state that this king had 2000 chariots as part of his defense force, though no mention is made of their location at Megiddo. The shift in interpretation necessitated by these later discoveries at Megiddo emphasizes the importance of avoiding conclusions that regard current views as infallible pronouncements with which Scripture must be brought into line. These interpretations of archaeology are but tentative theories which are subject to whatever revisions are needed to provide a consistent interpretation for the total archaeology of Palestine. The repeated necessity of reversal of views once regarded as '.' certain"'io should provide adequate basis for serious consideration of the thesis of this work, i.e., that the numerous synchronistic failures should rather be recognized as indicating that there is something fundamentally wrong with the premises on which the entire discipline of archaeology is based. 200 THE EXODUS PROBLEM IX. An Alternate Interpretation of the Archaeology of Megiddo By the proposed chronological revision, it was not Sheshonk I of Dynasty XXII who sacked Solomon's temple .in the reign of Rehoboam. It was Thutmose III. Granting this construction, the archaeological evidence for the era of Solomon should be found in strata represented by an era some two and one-half centuries before Sheshonk I. Solomon thus precedes rather than follows this king. By current views, Solomon is assigned to the era of the Iron Age. By the revision, he belongs to the era of early Late Bronze or late Middle Bronze. The strata assigned to this era at Megiddo are those numbered X to VII. Stratum X provides the proper background for the era of Solomon. Quoting from Wright relative to this and adjacent strata, we read: 31 Strata XII-X belong for the most part to Middle Bronze IIB and C [the end of Middle Bronze], dating approximately from the end of the eighteenth to the end of the sixteenth century [sic]. Stratum XII presents a new town plan, but reuses and doubles the brick wall of the preceding age. In Stratum X, it is thought, a new fortification system was erected, of which the gate was found. It was built of hewn stone, carefully fitted together on the face with the .interior filled with rubble and dirt. The city gate of Stratum X continued in use through Strata IX-VII, which cover the Late Bronze Age, beginning about 1300 B.C. [sic] or slightly before and ending about 1150 B.C. in the first part of the Iron Age. The palace of the kings of the city was just inside the gate in the northern quarter (area AA). It was built and rebuilt in the successive strata from X through VIIA when it was finally destroyed. It extended some one hundred eighty feet along the perimeter of the mound, and in size must have rivaled that of Solomon later built [sic] in Jerusalem. [Emphasis ours.] With Stratum X identified as that rebuilt or refortified by Solomon, Stratum IX is that occupied by Thutmose III (Shishak). Since the palace and the wall of this city continued in use throughout Late Bronze, 32 the destruction of City VIIA is that by the Assyrians. By this interpretation, Thutmose III did not destroy the city at the time of his conquest,'33 and there is no inference in Scripture or elsewhere that the city was destroyed by Shishak; Josephus states specifically that the cities of Judah surrendered to Shishak without fighting. 33a ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 201 With the era of Solomon correlated with Stratum X, it is possible to correlate the archaeology of earlier Megiddo with the Scriptural accounts with a considerable degree of probability. Since the site of Megiddo is a critical one from the standpoint of defeq~e of the area, it would seem strange if occupation of this site began appreciably later than the point of the Dispersion. It may be reasonably assumed that at that time there was competition among the migrating peoples for the choicest locations. Referring to the diffusion that occurred at the point identified with the Dispersion, Garstang wrote:'34 In Palestine many great Canaanite cities have been shown by archaeological discoveries to date their origins from these times such as Hazor, Taanak and Megiddo .... We would thus identify Cities XX and XIX as having their origin at this time. The site was taken by the Israelites, but not occupied at the time of the Conquest. It was occupied at some later time, the definition of which has been a matter of debate, since none of the suggested points meet the specifications of Scripture. By the revised structure, this point should be found shortly after the point marking the Conquest as set at the end of Early Bronze. The proper background for this incident appears in Stratum XV, dated to the end of Middle Bronze I. If Israel conquered the site at the time of the Conquest, but did not completely occupy it till later, it would be expected that there would be a mixture of pottery types at this point. The evidence for such a strange and unexpected situation is brought to our attention in the following statements.'3•5 The situation in Palestine at the end of the third millennium is very curious. Every Early Bronze Age city thus far excavated was evidently destroyed between the twenty-sixth and twenty-third centuries [sic], so that we do not have a clear picture of what was going on in the years before 2000 B.C. [sic). A brief revival of Early Bronze Age traditions in pottery occurred in Middle Bronze I, twenty-first and twentieth centuries B.C. [sic] .... Megiddo was resettled at this time, . . . The excavators include this material in Stratum XV which is dominated by the entirely new ceramic culture of Middle Bronze II, though in none of the find-spots as published were the two types of pottery mixed together. This shift from a mixed pottery involving a revival of Early Bronze to a stratum completely dominated by the new ce- 202 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ramie is just that to be expected from the details provided in Scripture. The era that follows has been aptly called the Golden Age of Megiddo. This is the era of the newly settled Israelites after this occupation and reaches to the time · of Solomon. Here, again, we get a correct picture of the culture and abilites of the Israelites as contrasted to that of their heathen contemporaries. The picture is quite the reverse of that which follows from the placement of Israelite occupation down in the Iron Age. 35• Since the palace and city wall of Stratum X reach to the time of the destruction of City VII, 35b it follows that the city rebuilt by. Solomon lasted throughout the era of the northern kingdom of Israel and into the era of the late kingdom of Judah. This follows from the findings of items from as late as the time of Rameses VI in Stratum VII. Rameses VI, by the revision,· is given a date early in the seventh century.'36 While Tiglathpileser III of Assyria conquered this site, the city was evidently not destroyed, since it continued to be used as the center of control of this territory by the Assyrians. The destruction . of City VII thus belongs to the seventh century. This destruction may well have been by the Assyrians even at this late data, since it appears that Josiah of Judah had regained some sort of control of the site.'37 The stables first attributed to Solomon and later to Ahab belong to the era of Assyrian control, and the same may be said about the matching gates at Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor. It is, of course,' complimentary to Solomon to give him the credit for these gates, but after all, Solomon was not the author per se of every worth-while project in Palestine. Certainly by the time of the Assyrian occupancy, the techniques for producing such structures were known. A further anomaly is concurrently eliminated by this revised interpretation. By current views, the entire era of Israelite occupation together with all subsequent history at Megiddo must be included in Strata V to I. By the revision, this same period includes Strata XV to I with but five strata attributed to the era of lesser significance in the history of Palestine. This is certainly a more realistic interpretation. Notes and References (1) Josh. 17:11-13; see also Jdg. 1:27. The word tribute in these verses evidently does not convey the correct meaning; the Canaanites were rather permitted to retain residence at Me- ARCHAEOLOGY OF MEGIDDO 203 gicklo provided they agreed to a lot as laborers for the Israelites (SDABC on Jdg. 1:28) (2) Jdg. 4:2, 23, 24. (3) Jdg. 5:19. (4) I Kings 9:15. (5) II Kings 9:27: 23:29. (61 Vol. I, Chap. X\'l. Seet. VJ. (7) K-AHL, p. 219. (8) See quot. of ref. 11. (Sa) BA. Vol. IV, p. 12. (9) BASOR, No. 78, p. 5. (101 I Sam. 4:1: 7:14. (Ill BASOR, No. 78, p. 6. (12) Ibid., p. 9. (13) Ibid., p. 8. (14) BA, Vol. XIII, p. 38. (1.5) W-S; see Chap. IX of this volume. (16) Chap. IX, Sect. XII. (17) Ibid. ( 18) See quot. of ref. 13. (18a) See texts of ref. 10. (19) BA, Vol. XIII, No. 2. ( 19a) BA, Vol. XXIII. No. 2. (201 BA, Vol. XIII, p. 34. (21 I Ibid .. p. 40; see ref. 4: I Kings 10:26. (221 II Chron. 1:14. (23) I Sam. 31:9, 10. (24) ~,AHL, p. 229, 231. (25) BASOR, No. 78, p. 8. (26) BA, Vol. XIII, p. 42, 43. (27) Ibid., Vol. XXIII, p. 63. (28) See ref. 4. (29) See ref. 19a. (30) See quot. of re . 26 where the identification of the solid wall and associated stable complexes were stated to be certain, yet required abandonment later. Other examples are the abandonment of the massive temple as that of the Abimelech story, the abandonment of the identification of the fallen walls at Jericho as those of the Joshua story. Still others that should be abandoned remain, as yet, unrecognized (See Chap. XII on Samaria). (31) BA, Vol. Xlll, p. 34. (32) See 2nd quot. of ref. 31. (33) B-HE. pp. 291, 292. (33a) J-AJ, Bk. VIII, Chap. X, par. 2. (34) G-SJ, p. 76. (35) BA, Vol. XIII, pp. 31, 32. (35a) See Chap. VIII of Vol. I. (35b) See 'JUOt of ref. 35. (36) See Vol. I, Fig. 12. (37) II Kinizs 23:29. f CHAPTER XI WHO WAS THE PHARAOH WHO GAVE SOLOMON A CITY SITE? According to Scripture, an unnamed pharaoh liberated the city of Gezer from the Canaanites and gave the city site to Solomon as a present to his recently acquired Egyptian wife. 1 The site was used for the construction of a new city for this wife as a consequence of this act. 2 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon built Gezer.... Attempts to identify this pharaoah within the framework of current opinion give rise to some serious problems. Since the identity of Sheshonk I with Shishak of Scripture, who sacked Solomon's temple in the 5th year of Rehoboam, is a fixed synchronism in popular thinking, and since the incident in question clearly belongs in the early reign of Solomon, there is little choice but to assume an identity of this king with one of the late rulers of the XXIst Dynasty. The XXIst Dynasty is represented by two lines of kings, one composed of high priests ruling from Thebes, the second ruling from Tanis, in the Delta region. 2a The former line died out in obscurity prior to any date that can be correlated with the reign of Solomon. 2b Of the line at Tanis, the last king was Pasebkheno, who reigned 35 years. He was preceded by Psinaches for 9 years and Osochor (Osorkon, Siamen) for six years. 20 This is as far back into the dynasty as one can logically go and still be within the reign of Solomon based on the presumed identity of Shishak with Sheshonk I. Pasebkheno arid Siamen seem to be the most popular nominees for this identity. If there was any time after the end of Dynasty XVIII when military incursions deep into Palestine by an Egyptian king is incongruous, this was in the era of the XXIst Dynasty. The kings of the dynasty were for the most part nonentities who left so little by way of accomplishment that it is extremely doubtful if their names would ever have been included among the kings were it not that Manetho included SOLOMON A CITY SITE 205 them. Pasebkheno I built an enormous wall, some 80 feet thick, around the temple at Tanis as a defense measure. 2d While it is not clear who his supposed enemies were, the work indicates clearly that he was on the defensive. Nothing is known of his successor and virtually nothing of the next king. This briI)gs us to the series composed of Siamen, Psinnaches, and Pasebkheno II. Of these, nothing is known of Psinnaches and virtually nothing of Pasebkheno II. Siamen is the best known. He built a temple at Tanis and · made a few minor items of repair or addition inscribed with his cartouche. Not one of these kings leaves a scrap of evidence ·to indicate that he ·could have undertaken the conquest of a walled city deep in Palestine to provide a site for a new city for a daughter, supposedly Solomon's recently acquired wife. In this chapter we shall take another look at this problem against the background provided by the proposed chronological revision. I. Gezer in Scripture At the time of the taking of Lachish by Joshua, Haram, king of Gezer, came with his army to aid in the ·defense of Lachish.'3 Evidently Haram recognized that if Lachish fell to the Israelites, it would not be long before he would have to meet the same armies in defense of his own city, a possibility that was notably less desirable as a location for a confrontation. The additional help provided by Horam, however, did not save Lachish; the city was quickly taken and destroyed along with its occupants. 3• The conquest of Gezer is not mentioned specifically in Scripture. It may be presumed that with the loss of the defending army, the city fell easy prey to the Israelites. Even granting that the city was surrounded by a defense wall, it would only be necessary to surround the city and wait for capitulation, since it had no army of defense. But a different picture is suggested by the Scriptural account which reads: 4 However, they did not. drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: so the Canaanites have dwelt in the midst of Ephraim to this day but have become slaves to do forced labor. It was not an uncommon practice of invading armies to treat the occupants of cities differently if they capitulated 206 THE EXODUS PROBLEM without a battle. It would seem that in this case the choice was to capitulate without a batte and accept the lot of slaves to the Israelites or suffer anihilation if they elected to obstruct the attempt to take the city. It has been inferred that the Israelites were unable to take the city or that they did not have free access to the city when occupied by the Canaanites as slaves. It is difficult to see how the Israelites could exact forced labor from the Canaanites except as they had access at will to the city. It is quite possible that at subsequent times the Canaanites were able to attain some degree of independence, just as Edom and Moab were eventually able to revolt from Israelite control. 5 This would seem to have been the situation when the ruling Egyptian pharaoh at t.he time of Solomon drove out the Canaanites from the city, burned it, and gave the liberated site to Solomon as a present to his recently acquired Egyptian wife. On the other hand, it would appear the the Israelites occupied Gezer at the time of the war of David with the Philistines at Gezer, 6 since the reference is a running account of the wars of David with his enemies. It could be hoped that archaeology of the site might provide information to clarify some of these obscure points. II. Extra-Biblical References to Gezer Most of the extra-Biblical references purported to refer to Gezer may be logically queried. In some cases the identity of the site referred to cannot be unequivocally established as applying to Gezer in southern Ephraim. An example is the inscription of Tiglathpileser III showing a siege of a walled city, the name of which has been transliterated as Gazru.; ... So some city of Gazru is the subject of the relief; the problem knowing if our Gezer is the one. Just as there were several "Gaths" and "Socohs" there may have been more than one Gezer. In other cases, it is the interpretation of the intended meaning that remains open to question; in still others. no information is provided which allows correlation with archaeological observations. Merneptah' s inscription8 contains the expression "seized upon is .Gezer." This inscription has been taken as providing proof that Merneptah invaded Palestine and conquered SOLOMON A CITY SITE 207 Gezer. Such a deduction is taking very much for granted since he left no inscription to substantiate any such military invasion of Asia. By the revised structure, his inscription is but a reflection of the <lisaster to Israel when the Assyrians invaded this territory, resulting in the eventual fall of Samaria and the northern monarchy of Israel. 9 Thutmose III left an inscribed relief on the wall of the Karnak temple showing stylized prisoners identified by the name· of the town of their origin. 10 One of the names could refer to Gezer. At least there is nothing anomalous in recognizing that Thutmose III may have taken this city, since he is the one king who can be unequivocally recognized as having marched his armies through central Palestine. By the revision, this was at the time of the sacking of the temple of Solomon. Granting the identification of Shishak of Scripture with Thutrnose III, as defended in this work, the evidence is against the view that his invasion resulted in the destruction of cities. However, the incident of the conquest and destruction of this city by the pharaoh who gave a daughter to Solomon as a wife, precedes the invasion by Thutmose III, and the site may well have been among the cities surrendering to him. 11 The name of the site claimed to have been conquered by Thutmose IV has far less support for identification with Gezer. The Gezer calendar. inscription has a degree of interest, but has no bearing on chronological problems. The interpretations of the references to the site in the Amarna Letters 12 are conjectural, and even if the conjectures were correct, the assigned background depends on the validity of the dating of these letters, a matter that is challenged in this work. 1'3 III. Archaeological Investigations at Gezer The early investigations at the site of Gezer were by Macalister at the opening of the century (1902-1909). The site is one of the largest thus far excavated in Palestine. In spite of the small crew used in the excavations, some 18 of the 27 acres of the site wer~ examined, revealing a number of important finds. In the very nature of the case, his methods did not measure up to those developed from experience over the subsequent decades. It is thus difficult or impossible to assign his finds to any specific archaeological level. 208 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Thus much of the potential value of his work has been lost. 14 ... In Palestine the greater part of the major excavations before the First World War on the sites such as Gezer, Samaria and Jericho cannot be relied upon, and much revision is required of the results of the excavations between the two wars .... . . . Gezer was also excavated many years ago, and the finds cannot be satisfactorily interpreted. The tragedy of the Gezer excavations is simply that a mass of rich material was unwittingly torn out of historical context and published in such a way as to make it largely useless for historical reconstruction. The brief excavations by Rowe in 1934 yielded nothing of ful".ther significance. Excavations on a more rigorous scale were conducted during the years 1964-1966 by a DrewMcCormick-ASOR group. 15 In a limited area (Field I), the excavations were conducted down to the remains of Middle Bronze IIA. From this early era was discovered a massive wall some 50 feet in thickness, this being the largest stone structure ever found in Palestine. The wall was examined to a height of 13 feet without reaching its foundations. The unexplained "puzzle" was why this wall should have been abandoned so soon after its construction. It was perfectly clear, however, that the site was one of the most strongly fortified in all of Palestine at this time. Stratum 7 in Field I was assigned to the 15th century and revealed evidences of massive destruction. 16 In Field I, Stratum 7, belonging to the 15th century B.C. [sic], is of interest chiefly for its evidence of a massive destruction. In Area 3 [of Field I] more than three feet of destruction debris - a jumble of fallen stones, burned mudbrick, and ashes "'.""" overlay the smashed pottery on the floors. To whom is the violent destruction of Stratum 7 to be attributed? Egyptian records indicate that either Thutmosis III in 1468 B.C. or Thutmosis IV at the end of that century may be the culprit. A final determination will probably have to await the recovery of more material from this level elsewhere on the mound. The rebuilt city of Stratum 6 and 5 provided a "fine terra cotta Astarte Plaque," in the familiar Egyptianizing style. 1; Strata 4 and 3 were assigned to the 12th and 11th centuries on the basis of the presence of Philistine pottery, thus associating these levels with the Philistine occupation of this 'territory at the time of the late judges and in the reign of Saul. While a gap in the occupation between the 11th and SOLOMON A CITY SITE 209 2nd centuries was indicated at Field I, this gap was narrowed in Field II by observations of meager evidences attributed to the 7 /6th centuries. Thus by the traditional chronology, the area of Field I was not occupied during the period of Solomon\rebuilt city. The destruction by the unnamed Egyptian pharaoah was identified with Stratum 6 of Field II (not to be correlated with Stratum 7 in Field I, belonging to a distinctly later date). 1 ~ Overlying the scorched earthen floors of Stratum 7 was a dramatic destruction level - black ash, chunks of charred timbers, calcined plaster, tumbled stones and mudbrick debris - reaching a depth of twenty inches. Since the pottery from these levels is mid-10th century B.C.[sic] in date, it is highly likely that in this debris we have vivid evidence of the destruction of the Egyptian Pharaoh, probably Siamun (ca. 960-930) who according to I Kings 9:15, 16 "went up and captured Gezer and burnt it with fire" before presenting the city to Solomon as his daughter's dowry when he gave her in marriage to the Israelite king. The assignment of the rebuilt city above this as that rebuilt by Solomon was a matter of course. IV. An Altered Interpretation of the Archaeology of Gezer On first reading, it might appear that the case has been completely closed in favor of identifying the evidence of Stratum 6 in Field II as that destroyed by the Egyptian king who presented the site to Solomon free of encum-. brance by the Canaanites. However, before closing the book on the problem, the archaeology of the. site for the period assigned to the era of Solomon by the altered chronology should be noted. Since, by the revision; the chronological error by current views is about one-half millennium, and since Solomon belongs to the mid 10th century, the archaeological stratum we seek would now be assigned to the 15th century. This is the date attributed to Stratum 7 of Field I, excavation in Field II not having reached to this point. The report of the finds in Stratum 7 of Field I are provided in the quotation of reference 16. The archaeology of Gezer thus reveals two different strata, several centuries apart, both of which reveal evidences of massive destruction by fire and both of which were followed by a reconstruction of the city. If a correct decision is to be made as to which of these two represents the era of Solomon and the destruction by the Egyptian pharaoh, it 210 THE EXODUS PROBLEM must be made in terms of evidence other than the evidences of massive destruction by burning and the subsequent reconstruction. It is thus imperative that we look carefully at the additional evidence before arriving at a final conclusion. We look first at the additional evidence purported to substantiate the identification of the destruction of Stratum 6 in Field II as that by the Egyptian pharaoh. 18" Certainly the appearance of Philistine pottery in the strata above 6 and its absence in strata below 6 does not constitute any such confirmation of this identification, since the Philistines again come into prominence in this territory during and after the reign of Tiglathpileser III. isb When the evidence is reduced to its simplest terms, it is apparent that the identification rests virtually its entire weight on the correlation of the pottery and wall construction with that assumed to be from the Solomonic era at other sites. For example, Scripture indicates that Solomon rebuilt or refortified Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer. At the first two sites named, city walls· have been found of casemate construction apparently by the same author. Since by current opinion, the strata belong to the general era of Solomon, this pottery and this type wall construction are taken as index items to locate the era of Solomon wherever they are found. But this type wall construction and associated pottery was never proved to have been of Solomonic origin. This is an assumption based on still other unproved assumptions. Other finds at Shechem regarded as certainly of Solomonic origin, on further investigation required redating at a later period. 19 How can we be certain that further investigations at Gezer and at these other sites may not also reveal a requirement of similar movement to a later date, particularly when the proper backgrounds to the Exodus, the Conquest, the Dispersion, the Famine of Joseph, the Descent, etc. all require a similar later dating in terms of Egyptian history? While it is complimentary to Solomon to attribute to him everything of significance from this general era, it is a somewhat broad view to assume that Solomon was the only person in this entire era that was capable of such productions. · In any case, are we not also asked to believe that these productions were not the result of any wisdom on Sol- SOLOMON A CITY SITE 211 omon' s part and that he merely copied from his "culturally superior neighbors" 20 the Phoenicians? If the Phoenicians also had some very competent designers and construction workers among them, then why not the Assyrians also, to whom we would attribute these casemate walls on the basis of a movement forward on the time scale by a plurality of centuries? · ~. Up to a point, the investigations at Gezer had not revealed the expected casemate walls to correlate with those at Megiddo and Hazor. Then the confused reports of Macalister were re-examined, and, with "brilliant intuition," it was noted that elements in the plans drawn by Macalister for a structure identified by him as a Maccabean Castle of the 2nd century were in reality parts of the Solomonic gate and casemate wall to be expected of the Solomonic era at Gezer, 21 and were therefore to be dated seven centuries earlier. Further excavation in Area I of Field II revealed the remains of a wall of casemate construction, associated with pottery characteristic elsewhere of strata assigned to the era of Solomon, though the excavations were not carried out which would demonstrate any connection with the wall of Macalister, .yet one seemed to be a continuation of the other. Even if it is eventually proved to be the case, does this prove that the destruction of Stratum 6 in Field II was that by the Egyptian pharaoh? Or does it suggest that the date for these other casemate walls should also be moved forward on the time scale? Field I was hardly in excess of a hundred feet from Field II, where this wall was discovered, and is directly adjacent to the gate system. 22 Yet strangely, in Field I, there was found no evidence of occupation of the site between the 10th and 5th centuries, which era would include that of Solomon. On the other side of the question is the report of the finding, in the rebuilt city after the destruction of the city of Stratum 7 in Field II, of a terra cotta plaque showing a nude goddess with ringlets of hair, like the familiar Egyptianizing style worn by the Egyptian goddess Hathor. For a . city built by Solomon for an Egyptian wife, this is the expected type of item to be found. To this evidence must be added the entire weight of the numerous problems that are provided solutions in terms of the proposed revision. The 212 THE EXODUS PROBLEM presumed gap in the occupation of the site is thus largely closed, just as it is in the case of the inexplainable gaps in the chronologies of Greece, the Hittites, and at numerous other sites and areas. 22a Reference to the chronological chart of Figure 10, Volume I, shows that the ruling king at this time was Thutmose I. While there is no extant inscription stating that Thutmose I gave a daughter to Solomon as a wife, the evidence does show that he was able to muster an army that reached the Euphrates River and was a king who, without question, had the ability to make the conquest of Gezer, evidently with the permission of Solomon to move his armies through the territory of Judah to accomplish this purpose. This background is in direct contrast to that of the impotent kings of Dynasty XXL The massive wall, 50 feet thick, was then that which fortified the city at the time of the Conquest. This explains the absence of any reference in Scripture to the conquest of this particular site. It was probably not necessary to conquer it; the population evidently capitulated without a conquest after the destruction of the army at Lachish. The puzzle of why such a fortified site should be abandoned may then be explained on the basis that the occupants were moved elsewhere, perhaps as small labor groups, as a means of preventing any attempt at revolt. Notes and References (1) I Kings 9:16. (2) V. 17. (2a) P-HE, Vol. III, p. 186. (2b) Ibid., p. 219. (2c) Ibid., p. 192. (2d) Ibid., p. 221. (3) Josh. 10:33. (Sa) Ibid., v. 32. (4) Josh. 16:10 (RSV). (5) II Kings 1:1. (6) I Chron. 20:4. (7) BA, Vol. XXX, p. 43. (8) The pertinent part of this inscription is quoted as ref. 12 in Chap. IV, Vol. I. (9) Vol. I, Chap. XVII, Sect. X. (10) See pictures in P-ANEP, Nos. 312, 313. (11) Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Sect. VIII. (12) BA, Vol. XXX, pp. 62ff. (13) Chap. XVII, Sects. XIV, XV. (14) K-AHL, pp. 31, ll7; BA, Vol. XXX, p. 51. (15) Reported in BA, Vol. XXX, No. 2. (16) Ibid .. p. 58. (17) Ibid. (18) Ibid., p. 60. (18a) Ibid., Table, p. 60 gives the dating of this level. (ISb) II Chron. 28:18; L-ARAB, Vol. I, pars. 779, 801, 815. (19) Chap. X, quot. of ref. 26. (20) W-BA, p. 140: quot. of ref. 22, Vol. I, Chap. VII. (21) BA, Vol. XXX, p. 60. (22) Based on map scale, Ibid., p. 50. (22a) A list of these with references is given as ref. 87 of Chap. V. CHAPTER XII SYNCHRONIZING THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SAMARIA WITH SCRIPTURE There is probably no incident in all Bible history that is regarded as more solidly synchronized with archaeological evidences than is the case of the building of the city of Samaria by Omri, king of Israel (dated by Thiele 885-876 . B.C.). I. Samaria in Scripture The name Samaria is used in Scripture to refer to the city both from the time it was built by Omri and to its subsequent history. The term is also used to refer to the territory containing this city. Often reference is to the entire territory of the northern monarchy of Israel as distinguished from the southern monarchy of Judah. The meaning of the term in each Scriptural usage is apparent from the context. Hence we may neglect this larger group of references and confine our attention to the few referenc~s to the city of Samaria. These can be further reduced by neglecting those that contain no information pertinent to the problems here under consideration. The city known by the name Samaria has its origin, according to Scripture, in the building of the city by Omri. This building began in the 6th year of his 12-year reign. The Scriptural reference reads: 1 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah. And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria. Ahab, successor to Omri, used the city as his capital and built there his palace, which is designated in Scripture as an "ivory house." 2 The problem of the meaning of this designation has been duly considered by others. While the use of ivory in the decoration of the contained furniture is altogether propable, 3 the alternate assumption that the carved ivory was used in the decoration of the wall panels appears to be more probable, 4 this deduction being based on the abundance of the remnants of these ivories found on the site. 5 214 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The citv of Samaria was taken bv the Assvrians under Shalmane~er V (727-722) or by Sarg~n II (722~705), after a siege of three years.ti At that time, 27,290 of the population, probably representing the more well-to-do, the more skilled and the more influential, were removed from the area. 7 The city was rebuilt'by Sargon and repopulated with foreigners imported from Babylon and Persia.~ It is stated further that at this time the ruling king of Egypt was known to the Biblical writer as King So, 9 a name whose identiy has long been a matter of debate and speculation, since no king of Egypt is known by this name otherwise. In another connection, we have identified King So as Rameses II. 10 In any case, the statement indicates that Egypt was exceedingly weak at this time and that Assyria held some degree of control over this territory, since it is also stated that So was imprisoned .by the Assyrians. t1 That Egypt was being harassed by the armies of Sargon is confirmed from his inscriptions. 12 The territory of Samaria (though the city is not specifically mentioned), was reoccupied by the Israelites at some point during the next century, since King Josaih of Judah (639-608 B.C.) extended a marked influence into this territory.1'1 It follows that the Assyrian hold on the territory, after the fall of Samaria, was not permanently solid, a situation that apparently held for the territory to the north, which was also formerly under Assyrian control. 14 The many references to the pagan worship in this era under the influence of Ahab are of doubtfui significance from a chronological standpoint, since this situation continued over a long period of time and over a wide area. II. Samaria in the Extra-Biblical Sources Josephus rehearses the story of the building and fall of Samaria and provides a few details not noted in Scripture. 15 Samaria is mentioned in several inscriptions of Sargon, 16 some of which suggest attempts at revolt on the part of the Israelites. Later references are extant from as late as the time of Alexander the Great, but these are not pertinent to the problems here under consideration. The s.ite mentioned in the Amarna Letters as Tsumura and which has been identified with Samaria 17 more probably refers to the site of Simyra in Phoenicia, such a city also being mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, and both sources indicate a loca- ARCHAEOLOGY OF SAMARIA 215 tion on the sea coast, is which detail is not true of Samaria. The finds in the palace of Sargon of ivories, matching those from the ruins at the Samaria site, 19 indicate clearly that the palace of Ahab was stripped of most of these ivory decorations and carried to Assyria. The finds of similar pieces of carved ivory at Arstan Tash in Syria indicates at least an origin in the same workshop, though the examples found there probably did not constitute any part of the decoration of Ahab's palace. III. Expectations for Synchronism from the Archaeology of Samaria It has been inferred from the Scriptural account that the city built by Omri was on a site not previously occupied, though admittedly the account does not say so. If this assumption is correct, then the lowest city to be observed from an archaeological examination of the site should be readily identifiable as that built by Omri. The pottery in association with that city could then be dated to the era of Omri' s reign, and this pottery could then be used as an index type for dating levels in other mounds of Palestine containing similar pottery. ~ 0 With levels in a number of sites thus fixed, it should be possible to more convincingly assign dates to the levels above and below this index level. With such a solid synchronism between Scripture and archaeology, it would seem that the proof of the general correctness of the currently accepted chronological structure of the ancient world could be considered as virtually settled, at least back to the incident of the Exodus. If it is conceded that these correlations have been made in an unequivocal manner, the problem might then be considered as closed in favor of the current views and against any and all proposals which call for severe alteration of this structure. But the writer does not concede this premise. With the numerous anachronims and anomalies to which attention has been called in this work, the question must logically be regarded as still open to debate as to whether or riot the era of the origin of Samaria has been properly correlated with the corresponding era of other Palestinian sites. IV. Difficulties in the Archaeology of Samaria The site of Samaria has been an exceedingly difficult one to investigate archaeologically and even more difficult to 216 THE EXODUS PROBLEM interpret. A number of factors have contributed to this situation. One large difficulty was reported by the investigators. 21 The site is still occupied and used for agricultural purposes. Permission to do any digging at all was on the basis of outright purchase of the land or conditfonal on leaving the area investigated in its original condition at the conclusion of the dig. Since the former choice was not feasible, the method was employed of digging and initial cut, then transferring the soil of an adjacent cut back into the trench made for the first, etc., finally filling the last cut with the soil removed from the first one. This procedure left no possibility of re-examination of the previous cuts, as might be desirable, for comparison with the observations from the subsequent cuts. However, the extreme care used in recording observations may well ·have been adequate to offset this disadvantage. A further difficulty has resulted from the repeated building and rebuilding on the site for many centuries, and from the sinking of building foundations deep into the earlier strata. In still later times, the area has been used for agricultural purposes with the soil having been plowed and replowed many times until the items have been so thoroughly mixed that it is impossible to assign the finds to any particular stratum. 22 It must be recalled that Samaria was a major city of Palestine during the late Hellenistic, Roman and even Byzantine periods. Architects of those ages built so well that the stratification below their structures was generally destroyed. The partial remains of the Israelite palace were discovered in the "basement" or rather within the foundations of the Temple of Augustus on the western summit. Consequently, the disentagling of the stratigraphy of the site has been a most difficult task. We have not succeeded in identifying even the foundations of the house (palace of Ahab) itself. For more than 1200 years after the reign of Ahab, the summit of the hill where the ivories were found, was the center of one of the greatest cities in Palestine. It is now given over to agriculture but for many centuries it was a busy residential quarter in which houses were built and destroyed and rebuilt again. A little of the yeat enclosure walls has survived, but in the wide area which has been examined between those walls, we have not recovered the pian of a single house belonging to the Israelite or Hellenistic period. We have found a number of foundations and even a few walls which can be' assigned to early period or sub-periods, but the first plans sufficiently coherent to make any sense date from the Roman period. ARCHAEOLOGY OF SAMARIA 217 ... In the same context (as for some of the ivory pieces) there were remains of charred wood, part of an unworked tusk or tusks, some midden rubbish, such as animal bones, burnt olive stones and a pomegranate husk which came presumably from a broken refuse pit. The artefacts included man~. Israelite potsherds, some glass and paste insets, like those still in position on some of the ivories, a neo-Babylonian seal and a Philisto-Arabian coin. The position of any single fragment in debris of this mixed description is not of much significance; the soil has been turned over too often. V. Archaeological Investigations at Samaria Investigations of the Samaria site were begun in 1908 b)' a Harvard University group, then expanded shortly to include support from the Hebrew University at Jerusalem, the Palestine Exploration Fund, the British Academy, and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. The work, under the direction of J. W. Crowfoot, continued at intervals to the year 1935. The reports of the excavations by Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik were published in three volumes dealing with buildings, ivories, and objects respec· tively.. The excavations included an extensive examination of much of the area on the summit of the mound which had been the site of the "ivory house" of Ahab and evidently the site of the palace of Omri before him. A "cut" was made across the summit of the mound, interrupted at points to avoid movement of trees or other objects. This cut, at· specified points, extended to the lowest evidences of traces of occupation. In the area of the palace were found numerous remnants of ivory pieces, defining unequivocally the area as that of Ahab's palace. The palace area had been enclosed by a casemated wall for defense and by a second outer wall, the superstructures having been completely removed. The foundations of the walls had been laid in tren.ches cut into the rock, every stone having been subsequently removed for use in later building operations. These trenches permitted following the plan of the wall structures . The evidence for the stratigraphical data was obtained from three limited areas, none of which appear to have represented an area of dwellings. 23 Evidence of a much earlier occupation, in Early Bronze I, was observed in certain pockets in the rock surface. Above this, but below the floor 218 THE EXODUS PROBLEM which represented the first coherent plan of building, were found pottery sherds, "believed to be of Iron I,"~ 4 and what appeared to be remnants of two walls. A sequence of six building periods were observed, of which the upper two may have represented a single stratum. The lower two periods (I and II) were attributed to the era of Omri and Ahab, the second having ended in violence, either by earthquake or conquest. VI. Interpretations of the Archaeological Evidence The observations from the excavations were interpreted in the reports as recognizing no occupation of the site prior to the construction by Omri, except for the minor evidence of occupation many centuries earlier in Early Bronze. The pottery sherds found beneath the floor of the first coherent building plan, and regarded as of Iron I, were considered as part of the fill, brought there from elsewhere on the mound prior to construction on this particular area. By this interpretation, these sherds belonged to the era of the earliest construction. Building Period I was thus assigned to Omri and Building Period II to Ahab. Since it was not feasible to consider builders tearing down a wall in order to replace it with a more poorly constructed wall, the destruction at the end of Period II was interpreted as resulting from either an earthquake or a conquest. No specific date or cause was otherwise suggested. The same basis for interpretation used for the sherds below Building Period I was used to associate. sherds below successive floors marking building periods, i.e., that the pottery of each period was ,that of the building period above it. This plan was defended by Miss Kenyon thus: 2·; At Samaria, the filling overlying any one floor is almost invariably the make-up imported for the floor above. The succession common in a brick-built town, of an occupation layer overlying the floors, succeeded by a-destruction level above which the new floors are laid, is not found, since stone walls do not produce continual deposits in the way that mud brick ones do. It is therefore only the pottery of the period of construction that can safely be associated with a building, and not that of the succeeding period of occupation. All the stratified pottery comes from beneath the floors associated with the various walls. · ARCHAEOLOGY OF SAMARIA 219 VII. The Interpretations Queried Following a scrutiny of the reports of the investigations at Samaria, several scholars concurred in the opinion that the suggested interpretations of the archaeology of the Samaria site should be ''reconsidered. The principle point of question was the validity of the premise used in associating the sherds with the building periods. The alternate interpretation by Wright, Albright, and others would associate the various building walls with the sherds found above the floor which defined the construction of that period. By this interpretation, the sherds found below the floor of the lowest coherent building plan belongs prior to the reign of Omri; it would follow that Omri did not builti his city on virgin soil not previously occupied. Wright commented on this point with erriphasis: 26 When Omri purchased Samaria, he was not buying an empty hill, but a hill with a small village on it. Admittedly, Scripture does not state that he bought an empty hill, and there is nothing more than a mere suggestion that this was the case. This question must find its answer in a correct interpretation of the archaeological evidence. Of far greater importance, however, is the effect that this altered view has on the proposed synchronizing of the earliest evidence of occupation on the site with the era of Omri and the effect that it may or may not have on the interpretation of the subsequent building periods. Wright admitted that this deduction was not based on any observations of structure that could be dated earlier than those attributed to Omri, but rather on the necessary earlier dating of the sherds found below the floor of the lowest coherent building level, and the greater abundance of the pottery remnants above this floor than below it. 27 The dating of these building phases is derived from an analysis of the pottery on the understandable assumption that the earliest extensive deposit would belong with Period I from the time of Omri. Objection was also raised to the inclusion of Building Periods I, II, arid III in such a brief period of time as 35 years. However, the major argument against the intepretation in the reports was the observation by several scholars, who examined the reports, that the sherds found beneath 220 THE EXODUS PROBLEM this lowest floor were like those which had been previously dated significantly earlier than the time of Omri. 28 While Wright suggested dates in the tenth century, Albright contended that some of these pottery remnants reached back into the thirteenth century. 2a Here and there one may make a few observations. The collared rim of a stone-jar shown in Fig. 1: 16 (p. 100) was carefully examined by the writer at the time of its discovery; it was well worn along the edges, showing that it had been knocking about on the surface for some time. At all events, it must date from not later than the eleventh century. A few similar bits, as well as some cooking pot rims, may easily .go back to the period of the Judges, when a small village may have stood somewhere on the site. Albright also voiced the view that:'30 ... another campaign at Samaria, digging with the Wheeler-Kenyon method in the· residential area, is imperatively needed in order to clear up minor subsisting differences of opinion. Archaeology can advance only by putting tentative stratigraphic results to experimental test, not once but repeatedly. It is thus apparent that certain critical data needed to provide clear answers to problems in the archaeology of Samaria are not yet available. An examination of the residential area may well indicate that the prevalence of this pottery type reaching back into the thirteenth century is considerably greater than suggested by the meager evidence from the court area. Since this is the case, the writer would suggest a third interpretation which he believes has greater support from the available data than either the interpretation of the investigators or of those who have later examined the reports. VIII. An Alternate Interpretation of the Archaeology of Samaria There is another line of evidence in the reports which seems not to have been taken into consideration. Reference is to the type of masonry observed in the stones that must have comprised part of the foundations of the walls which surrounded the palace area. This masonry is stated to have been "distinctive and rare."'31 Hence this distinctive type of masonry should also be correlated with its datable use elsewhere. The characteristics which make the masonry distinctive are described in the reports of the investigators. Of the ARCHAEOLOGY OF SAMARIA 221 other known examples of this masonry type, that at Tyre and at Beth Shan are stated to be undatable, but that at Ugarit (Ras Shamra) is dated to the thirteenth century. 32 The earliest example [of this type masonry] occurs in some walls in the top stratum of Ugarit (Ras Shmra) in the far north of Syria. The stratum is called Proto-Phoenician by Dr. Schaeffer and it is assigned to the thirteenth century . ... these buildings were constructed mainly of rubble but the rubble rested on a footing or socle of squared stones exactly like those at Samaria or Megiddo .... [Emphasis ours.] Except . for the .pressure of certain concepts regarded as unalterably settled, but for which actual proof to this end has never been presented, the logical deduction here is that both this lowest pottery type and the walls of the structures of Building Period I belong to what is defined by the currently accepted chronological views as the era of the thirteenth-twelfth centuries. A mass of evidence has been produced in this work to indicate that this chronology is in gross error, the magnitude of the error at the time of the Exodus amounting to somewhat more than six centuries. This has been reduced to somewhat over four centuries by a further error which allows but two centuries between Dynasties XII and XVIII, when the period is actually more than four centuries in duration. The era of the thirteenth century, by popular views, is then actually the ninth, having been miscorrelated with the corresponding levels in other mounds as indicated. above. Hence the identity of the lowest building period is that of the time of Omri. Building Period II is then that of Ahab. Since the siege of Samaria by Benhadad of Syria was a failure, 33 there is no ultimate reason for not allowing that the palace of Ahab survived to the fall of the city to the Assyrians. Subsequent periods, then belong to the period after the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians, thus explaining the more extensive changes in pottery styles34 without limiting Periods I, II, and III to the brief period suggested in the reports of the investigators. Miss Kenyon was then correct in assigning the pottery below the floor of the Omri building phase to the same era as that of the structures of Period I. There is thus no need to assume that Omri built on an occupied hill, the evidences for occupation in Early Bronze having ended centuries before this. 222 THE EXODUS PROBLEM This interpretation recognizes the same alteration in the traditional chronology of Egypt that also permits the retention of the fallen walls at Jericho as those of the Joshua account, the same that places the final end of Ai in the era of the Conquest as indicated in Scripture, the same that permits the retention of the identification of the massive temple at Shechem as that of the Abimelech story, the same that provides the proper backgrounds to the incidents of the Exodus, the Oppression, the Conquest, the Descent, and the Famine of Joseph, and the same that has provided solutions to numerous other problems, many of which are not related to Scripture. Notes and References (I) I Kings 16:23, 24. (2) II Kings 17:5-7. (3) K-AHL, p. 206. (4) C-SEI, p. l. (51 Ibid., p. 2. (6) See n•f. 2. (7) L-ARAB, Vol. II, par. 4. Evidently the last year of Shalmaneser \' was the first year of Sargon. Sargon claims the credit for this conquest, though most of the siege was in the reign of Shalmaneser. (8) Josephus locates the Cutha of II Kings 17:24 in Persia (J-AJ, Bk IX, Chap. XIV, par. 1 ). (9) See ref. 2. (10) See Vol. I, Chap. XVI!, Sect. XII for a proposed identification of So. (11) See ref. 2. (12) L-ARAB, Vol. I!, pars. 55, 80, 92, etc. (W) II Chnm. 34:1-6. (14) See L-ARAB, Vol. I!, pars. 4ff. for claims of Sargon relative to his conquests. (15) See ref. 8. (16) See ref. 14. (17) V-AC, Chap. VI. (18) L-ARAB, Vol. I, par. iiO; Letter CLXI given in P-HE, Vol. II, p. 290; see Ibid., p. 320 for identification of Tsumura with Simyra. (19) CKS-SB, p. 3. (20) K-AHL, p. 262. (21) See ref. 19. (22) BASOR, No. 155, Ibid. p. 17; C-SI, p. 2; Ibid. (23) BASOR. No. 155. p. 18; see 2nd quot. of ref. 22. (24) BASOR, No. 155, p. 18 (citing Kenyon). (25) Kenyon, cited by Wright, BASOR, No. 155, p. 21. (26) BA, Vol. XXII, p. 77. (27) BASOR, No. 155, p. 19. (28) Ibid., p. 20. (29) Ibid., No. 150, p. 22. (30) Ibid., p. 23. (31) CKS-SB, p. 6. (32) Ibid. (33) I Kings, 20:lff. (34) BASOR, No. 155, p. 20. CHAPTER XIII SCRIPTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND THE PHILISTINES The Philistines represent a further gross engima in the problem of correlating the archaeology of Palestine with the histories of the occupants of this territory. The problem is complicated by the existence of a number of peoples who were culturally related to the Philistines, but who were nevertheless sufficiently distinct from them to have been recognized as separate peoples by the ancients, though such distinction does not seem to have been made by the Bible writers. I. The Philistines in Early Scripture According to the table of the nations as given in Genesis 10, the Philistines are the descendants of Philistim in the line of Casluhim, son of Mizraim, ancestor of the Egyptians. Since the Philistines are stated to have come from Caphtor, 1 which is undoubtedly correctly· identified as Crete, 2 they would certainly be closely related to the Caphtorims, who are also of the line of Mizraim 3 and who, from their name, also must have settled in Crete (Caphtor) and have given the island its ancient name. Scripture records the presence of the Philistines in the territory just to the south of Palestine from the time of Abraham. At this time, they may not have comprised a vast population, but neither were they an insignificant people, since they had a king over them (Abimelech) and his people (armies) are referred to as a host. At the time of the Exodus, the Philistines continued to occupy this same ter;itory, as evidenced by the routing of the escaping Israelites to avoid passing through Philistine territory, though this was the more direct route:; II. The Philistines in Scripture for the Post-Exodus Period The ·Philistines appear as a fully settled and organized people in the area south of Palestine at the time of the conquest under Joshua. 6 At that time, the people were ruled by five lords or kings, each ruling over a city state. They also appear among the oppressors of Israel during the period of the Judges; the earliest mention is at the time of Shamgar.' 224 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Even at this time, the Philistines were evidentlv not a vast population, since the slaughter of 600 of them is represented as a significant victory. After an interval of somewhat less than 300 years, the Philistines had become sufficiently powerful to dominate the Israelites8 , at least locally. From this time on through the era of the monarchy, we find periodic mention of the Philistines, who continue to occupy territory on the southern border of Israel; at times they are even within Israelite territory. That their power was intermittantly broken is indicated by the stated results of the wars with the Israelites at the time of Samuel, 10 at the time of David, 11 in the reign of Uzziah, 12 and in the reign of Hezekiah. 1'3 Pertinent to the problems to be dealt with is the appearance of the Philistines along the northern coastal region of Israel in the area of Megiddo and Beth Shan at the time of Saul, 14 as well as in their more commonly recognized home in the south.· To have maintained their presence in territories thus far separated suggests that they controlled the coast between these territories, either by land or by sea or both. The Philistines continued to occupy the territory in the south into the reign of Ahaz (735-715 B. C. ). 10 Ahaz was king of Judah at the time of the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians (721 B.C. ). Since the Assyrians already were harassing the southern kingdom of Judah also, the Philistines would appear to have been competing with the Assyrians for the diminishing Israelite territory. Such a situation could be expected to be a source of difficulty between the Assyrians and the Philistines. It is apparent from the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser of Assyria and of his successor, Sargon, 16 that untoward relations did exist at this time between these two peoples. The Philistines continued to be the object of prophetic denunciation by the prophets after the fall of Judah, 17 indicating that they continued to have at least a nuisance capacity long after the fall of the southern kingdom. The Philistines came to their final end under the reign of one of the kings of the XXVIth Egyptian Dynasty. 18 However, the Assyrians, or possibly the Babylonians, cannot be denied a possible part in their demise. · THE PHILISTINES 225 III. Current Views on the Origin of the Philistines in Palestine While Scripture indicates the presence of the Philistines in Palestine from the time of Abraham, this concept is generally rejected by archaeologists. This latter view is based on the absence of recognized archaeological evidence for such occupation prior ·to the incident of the invasion of Egypt by the Sea Peoples in the reign of Rameses III (c. 1200 B.C. by current views), or possibly a few years earlier in the reign of Merneptah. This invasion was a failure and the remnants of the abortive attempt were thrown back on Palestine and Syria. · These invaders, known as the Sea Peoples, represented a mixture of races who had origins in the islands of the Mediterranean, including Cyprus, Crete, and the islands of the Aegean Sea near Greece. However, some of the names indicate a possible origin in Greece or in southwest Asia Minor. The inscription of Rameses 111 19 mentions peoples by the names Palusathu (generally identified with the Philistines), the Shakalaha, the Sherdanu, the Zakkaru, the Ashwaka (thought by some to refer to the Achaeans of Greece), and the Danaus (whom Gordon would identify with the Danites of the tribe of Dan on the basis of Judges 5:17, but whom most scholars take to be one of the several peoples related culturally to the Philistines). The Egyptian list provides the names of ten different peoples who comprised the invaders. On the basis of the appearance of a new type of pottery in the area occupied by the Philistines following the at., tempted invasion, and in the absence of any earlier recognized evidence of the Philistines in Palestine, the new occupants are identified with the Philistines of Scripture in the time of the late judges. This view, of necessity, must reject the earlier references to the Philistines in Scripture. Wright would explain this discrepancy by assuming that a later writer was bringing the account up to date in terms of the later occupation. 20 ... Another example [of modernizing Scripture] is the mention of the Philistines as living along the southern coast of Palestine. . . . but we now know that the settlement of the Philistines did not occur until five or six hundred years later ... Later Hebrews were simply bringing the stories up to date, and what modem teller of tales does not do the same? 226 THE EXODUS PROBLEM This explanation falls somewhat short of being convincing, since Scripture gives the very name of the ruling king in this earlier era. This popular view of the origin of the Philistines in Palestine is here summarily rejected, not alone along because of the contradiction with Scripture, but also because of the significant number of anomalies and anachronisms that result from its acceptance. These will now be reviewed. IV. The New Pottery appearing in the Territory of the Philistines is not of Cretan Origin It is not the intent here to introduce problems relative to the chronology of Crete. These are considered in another chapter of this work. 21 The archaeology of Crete; however, yields most damaging evidence for the view that these invaders and their culture came from Crete; hence it becomes necessary to refer to one phase of Cretan history. Using the popularly accepted dates, the following facts are to be noted. 22 The dates by the proposed revision will be five to six hundred years later. The sea power and culture of Crete reached its zenith in the period dated c. 1500-1400 B.C. During this century, Crete represented the major sea power of the ancient world, and produced some of the most beautiful and elaborately decorated pottery known anciently. 2'3 About 1400 B.C. Crete was the victim of an overwhelming catastrophe from which neither its power nor its culture ever recovered. The nature of this catastrophe is still a matter of debate among scholars. Many, including the writer, believe that this disaster was of the nature of a violent earthquake; others think it was due to an invasion by a barbarous people. 2• The evidence indicates that the same culture survived the catastrophe but underwent a steep decline, so that by 1200 B. C. the power and culture of Crete was at its nadir, the residual culture being but a crude remnant of its predecessors. If the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt at this time came from Crete under these conditions, then how could they suddenly be ;in full possession of a high level of pottery culture as indicated by the appearance of this new pottery type in southern Palestine? This new pottery is stated to be on a higher level than that used by the occupants prior to THE PHILISTINES 227 this (as compared to the pottery in the level below it), and on a higher level than that used by the surrounding peoples. The anachronism that results from supposing that this pottery had a Cretan origin was recognized by Baikie who commented: 25 . . . But the remaining tribes [mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions] are in all probabnlty Cretans, fragments of the old Minoan Empire which had collapsed two centuries before, and was now gradually becoming disintegrated under the continued pressure from the north. . . . There remain the Pulosathu, who are, almost beyond question, . the Philistines, so well known to us from their connection with the rise of the Hebrew monarchy. The Hebrew tradition brought the Philistines from Kaphtor, and Kaphtor is plainly nothing else than the Egyptian Kefti, or Keftiu. In the Philistines, then, we have the last organized remnant of the old Minoan sea-power. Thrown back from the frontier of Egypt by the victory of Rameses III., they established themselves on the maritime plain of Palestine.... But all the same the Philistine was an anachronism, a survival from an older world. · An examination of the new pottery that appeared in Philistia at the time of this attempted invasion of Egypt, and comparison of it with that used in Crete at this time, and prior to this for two centuries, provides no basis for presuming that this new pottery is of Cretan origin. The appearance of a culture on a high level from a people almost devoid of any culture is an anachronism that cannot be so readily dismissed in the evaluation of the popular view of the origin of the Philistines in Palestine. V. This New Pottery in Philistia Is of Aegean Origin A comparison of this pottery with that of the Aegean area for this and the preceding era leaves no room for doubt on this point. While this pottery found its way to Cyprus and even to the mainland to the north, its origin may be traced unequivocally to the Aegean Islands and the immediate area. Miss Kenyon commented thus on this pottery: 26 There is, however, one class of archaeological material which may reasonably be associated with the newcomers. This is a type of pottery entirely new to Palestine [sic], decorated with elaborate patterns. The most characteristic elements in the decoration are metopes enclosing stylized birds, very often with back-turned head, friezes of spirals, and groups of interlocking semicircles. The form of the vessels and the elements in the decoration all have their origins in the Late Helladic ceramic art of the Aegean. [Emphasis ours.] · 228 THE EXODUS PROBLEM But if this pottery is of Aegean origin, and not Cretan then it is most inconsistent to identify the pottery as Philistine on the basis of the Scriptural statements to the effect that the Philistines came from Crete. And if it is not Philistine, then what basis is there for presuming that this pottery provides any evidence at all that this is the date for the first appearance of the Philistines in Palestine? To be sure, it remains possible, though not demonstrated, that this pottery is Philistine of Aegean origin. But if shelter is to be taken under this possibility, then consistency would require that not only the early Scriptural references be rejected, but also the later references which so clearly portray a Cretan origin of the Philistines. 27 It is to be noted that Miss Kenyon recognized the insecurity of the proposed identification of this pottery as Philistine. 28 It cannot of course be accepted without question that this pottery is necessarily associated with the Philistines, but the evidence does seem to be strongly in favour of this ascription. Scholars generally, however, proceed with their deductions on the basis that this identification is altogether above question. The predicament in the archaeology of Shechem is in part due to the acceptance of this identification and of the deductions that naturally follow from it. VI. The Philistines Could Not Have Made Up More than a Minor Fraction of the Invaders With the Egyptian lists mentioning some 10 different peoples involved in this attempted invasion of Egypt, it is futile to presume that any one of these made up a major fraction of the total. They were a conglomerate of peoples caught up in a migratory movement who had one aim in common, i.e., that of finding a new place to live. Furthermore, it is not at all improbable that the Philistines who did take part in the invasion were from a previous occupation in southern Palestine. This concept is in agreement with Scripture which indicates an occupation of this territory by the Philistines long before this incident. Since it is known that this migrating people came from the north, and overran the territory of the Hittites before moving further south, they must have made the move southward along the coast and through Philistine territory, or by boat, which THE PHILISTINES 229 some seem to have done. Nothing would be more reasonable that to assume that some of the inhabitants of the Philistine area would join the invasion movement into Egypt. It is rather absurd to presume that a remnant of this one minority group, surviving the abortive invasion attempt, represented what Scripture refers to as the Philistines of the time of Saul and onward, as must be assumed by the popular views. The Philistines at the time of Saul occupied the site of Beth Shan, 29 and it is difficult to see how they could ·have occupied this site without also occupying the neighboring site of Megiddo. Yet no trace of this pottery was found at Beth Shan and so little at Megiddo that it can hardly be interpreted as representing occupation. The same anachronism is found at other sites where this pottery could be expected to occur by the popular interpretations:io ... No evidence of the Philistines, for instance, has been found at Tell DuWeir [Lachish, c. 15 miles south and east of the Philistine site of Askelon] and very little at the neighbouring Tell Hesi, but too much weight cannot at present be given to this suggestion since it is not quite certain whether either site was occuped at this period. Farther north, there is no trace of the typical pottery at Dor, in spite of the fact that there is a literary evidence that it was occupied by the Sakkala, one of the kindred tribes of the Peoples of the Sea. Similarly, there is no trace of it at Tell Abu Hawam, at the foot of Mount Carmel, while, as has already been mentioned, at Megiddo there is a small amount, probably as a result of trade. At >Beth·shan, though it was certainly a Philistine city in the 11th century in the time of Saul, there is none at all. Actually, the archaeological investigations of Philistine sites to date has been so meager that it is not possible even to define the extent of the use of this new pottery type. The primary evidence is from the single site of Askelon:i 1 There a single cut was made in the mound, based on the appearance of samples of the pottery fragments appearing on a face of a cliff. The cut revealed a layer of ashes half a meter thick32 with sherds of the new pottery appearing above it. Below the ashes were found remnants of the pottery used by th~ previous population which exhibited a cosmopolitan origin, consisting of fragments of Mycenaean origin, some of Egyptian origin, and some of Cypriot origin. Most of it appears to have b'een like that used by the surrounding peoples. Only scattered samples of the new pot- 230 THE EXODUS PROBLEM tery have been found in the hill country of southern Palestine. The Migration of the Philistines from Caph tor Did Not Occurc.1200 B.C. The migration of the Philistines from Caphtor mentioned in Scripture occurred much earlier than the invasion of the Sea Peoples, even when erroneously dated six hundred years too early. The incident is mentioned three times in Scripture. The references in Amos 9:7 and Jer. 47:4 indicate that the incident was in the past at the time of writing, but do not give any specific information as to when it occurred. The reference to the incident in connection with the migration of Israel out of Egypt suggests that it was not an event of recent occurrence. A much earlier reference to the incident is found in Deuteronomy 2:23. Moses is reviewing the incidents between the Exodus and the preparation for the crossing of Jordan. After referring to the conquest of the land of Ammon by the descendants of Lot and the occupation of Edom by the descendants of Esau, it is stated that the territory previously occupied by the "A vims" was conquered by the Caphtorims who had migrated from Caphtor. And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead. Hazerim of this statement may well be Hazor in the north of Palestine, while Azzah would appear to be Gaza. The territory thus defined is in satisfactory agreement with that occupied by the Biblical Philistines at the time of Saul and during the period of the judges. With the mention in Scripture of Philistines in Palestine from the time of Abraham, the incident of the migration from Caphtor belongs earlier than Abraham. To correlate the first occupation of the Philistines in Palestine with the migration of the Sea Peoples is thus a gross and obvious misinterpretation of Scripture. The difficulties in the interpretation of the archaeology of Shechem and of Megiddo can be traced directly to the acceptance of this erroneous concept relative to the Philistines. If one expects to find evidence of the earliest occupation of the Philistines in Palestine, he should look into the archaeology of Early Bronze, 33 not that just preceding Iron I. THE PHILISTINES 231 VIII. The Culture of the Sea Peoples in the Era of the Late judges The problem of tracing the culture of the Sea Peoples backward in time is frought with difficulties, not the least of which is the fact that these peoples may not have had a single culture. On the other hand, the evidences of their intermingling during the course of their history offers some hope of success if we are willing to recognize that we are tracing a general culture of a variety of peoples and not a culture of some single group. The new pottery found at Askelon at the opening of Iron I, and correlated with the invasion of the Sea Peoples, was identified as of Aegean origin.'14 A similar, but not identical, pottery has been found in the territory north of Palestine belonging to the much earlier era of late middle Bronze.'3·; By popular views, this is prior to the Israelite occupation of Palestine. By the altered chronology, this is the period of the late judges and the er.a of Saul. The "new pottery" found at Askelon at the beginning of Iron I then belongs to the era c. 700 B.C. and not 1200 B.C., and so also does the incident of the invasion of the Sea peoples. If this pottery had an origin with the Sea Peoples (and this inference seems reasonable enough), then it is a culture of the Sea Peoples of Aegean origin in the era following the fall of Israel to the Assyrians (721 B.C.) At that time, Scripture refers to the encroachments of the Philistines into Israelite territory.'36 As a result of an alliance between the peoples of western Asia and Egypt, Sennacherib of Assyria (705-681) marched his armies into Philistine territory and "punished Askelon." 37 This punishment evidently involved destruction of the city, and this destruction may be recognized as that revealed archaeologically just prior to the occupation of this site by the Sea Peoples.'1k This interpretation accounts also for the further detail that this new pottery found above the destruction at Askelon is rare at Megiddo and entirely missing at Beth Shan. There is no indication that the Philistines occupied this northern territory in 700 B.C. That the similar pottery of late Middle Bronze, occurring both in the north and in the south, is related to the culture found only ih the south at the later date is apparent from ~. 232 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the descriptions of the two cultures. Of this earlier culture, which should be dated to the time of Saul, Miss Kenyon commented: 39 The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery (fig. 47). The decoration is bichr?me, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a "Union jack" pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine . . . Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis ours.] Drawings of typical examples of this pottery show the same stylized bird with back-turned head that characterized the pottery centuries later at Askelon. •o That the pottery is that of the Sea Peoples is evident in both cases. That the invaders of Egypt were not composed in total of the same group as the previous inhabitants south of Palestine is indicated by the newness of the pottery appearing at this time and by the fact that the Egyptian inscriptions refer to some 10 different peoples as included in this invasion. The anachronisms and anomalies in the current views on the intrepretation of this invasion and its effects on Palestine are replaced by a consistent picture, and one that is in agreement with the background provided by Scripture for the later era in the very late 8th century B.C. or in the very early part of the 7th century. It would seem, however, that the Bible writers did not always clearly distinguish between the various groups composing the so-called Sea Peoples as did the Egyptians. Further confirmation for the identification of the culture. at Megiddo for the earlier era as of Biblical Philistine origin is to be seen in the archaeology of the site of Alalakh. Alalakh was located on the shore of the Mediterranean at its most . northeast protrusion. The archaeology of this site makes it possible to trace this culture one step farther back in time. THE PHILISTINES 233 IX. The Culture of Level VI at Alalakh Is Related to ·rhat of the Philistines A series of investigations were carried out by Sir Leonard Woolley (1936-1939) at a site in northern Syria now known as Atchana, but which anciently was known as Alalakh. These investigations revealed seventeen archaeological levels of occupation; the fourteenth (from the top) contained pottery of the Jemdet Nasr type. In a previous chapter; 41 the evidence was noted which . correlates this culture of Mesopotamia with the beginning of the dynastic period in both Meso·potamia and .Egypt. The culture is thus synchronized with the beginnings of Early Bronze. By the altered chronology, this point marks the beginning of .the Dispersion from Babel into the surrounding territories. We thus synchronize Level XIV at Alalakh with the incident of the Dispersion. We find no basis for controversy with Woolley in his synchronizing Levels XIII and XII with the early dynastic period if we do not attempt to be_ more specific than this. The same may be said with reference to his assignment of Level IX to the era of the Third Dynasty at Ur, this date, by the revision, falling in the approximate era of Joseph of Scripture. 41 • A solid synchronism is at hand to correlate Level VII at Alalakh with the era of Hammurabi of the First Dynasty at Babylon, whose date by the revision is approximately that of the Conquest. The basis for this synchronism is found in the Mari Letters where it is stated that 42 " ... there are ten or fifteen kings who follow Hammurabi of Babylon and ten or fifteen who follow Rim-sin of Larsa but twenty kfogs follow Yarim-Lim of Yamkhad.'' Investigations at Alalakh revealed numerous tablets inscribed in cuneiform, most of which are by the third of the three kings of the dynasty, Yarim~Lim by ·name. He was the son of the first king of the dynasty, who had the name Hammurabi, and who is believed to have been the brother of Hammurabi in Babylon. Since the First Dynasty at Babylon was of Amorite origin, then so also was the YarimLim dynasty of Amorite origin. In the reports by Woolley, he indicates the find at Alalakh of two characteristic pottery types which were designated as "White-Slip milk bowls" and "Base-Ring Ware." THE EXODUS PROBLEM As the digging proceeded downward, he found that such types of pottery were plentiful in Level VI, all but disappeared in Level VII, and then reappeared in ail levels from VIII to XVI. Level VII, which did not contain the pottery, \vas the level containing the inscribed tablets of the YarimLim dynasty. The obvious conclusion was that the people of Yarim-Lim (Amorites) had conquered this city and probably also the surrounding territory, ruling it for a period estimated to have been about .50 years. At the end of this time, the original inhabitants were able to reconquer the site and reoccupy it. We are interested here in the identity of this people from whom the city of Alalakh was taken and who were able after about 50 years to reoccupy the site. In attempting to identify this people, Woolley recognized difficulties in the background provided by his own interpretation and dating. The royal buildings had been burned so thoroughly that 4'1 ... even in the core of the thick walls the mud-bricks were bright red and crumbling; the wall plaster, a mixture of mud and lime, had been vitrified and the basalt wall-slabs were not only cracked but in some cases actually melted; it had also been systematically plundered. The indications pointed to a violent overthrow of the regime, yet only five skeletons were found in the guard chamber and only two others in other rooms. The evidence pointed unmistakably to a surprise attack. The question unanswered was whether the attack had been carried out by a foreign people or by a local rebellion. Neither case seemed to fit the situation, though in choosing between the two improbabilities, Woolley regarded a local rebellion as the least implausible. 44 ... If the military works were garrisoned by "foreign" troops from Aleppo and the eastern provinces of the kingdom, an attack on them would necessarily have followed on the capture of the royal palace, and king Niqme-epuch is not likely to have relied on locally-recruited soldiery. On the other hand the theory of the town's destruction at some time bt•tween 1750 and 17.'30 B.C. [sic] by an enemy from outside presents certain difficulties, for Aleppo, the chief city of the kingdom of which Alalakh formed part, continued to enjoy its "great Kingship" long after 1700 B.C. It is true that it was a time of change and of those movements of peoples which every now and then interrupted the history of the Middle East, ... but we cannot definitely attribute the fall of Niqme-epuch to any such great event. On the whole, a local rebellion seems most plausible ... THE PHILISTINES 235 But this theory hardly provides an adequate explanation for the relatively total shift in culture within the city at the time the Yarim-Lim dynasty took over, and the notable revival of this earlier culture following the fall of the dynasty. What then was this culture like that was interrupted for a period of about 50 years by the Yarim-Lim dynasty, and what is the background provided by the altered chronology? We let Woolley tell us about the culture. 45 ... We do indeed know extremely little about the Level VI buildings. It is to the pottery that we must look for information about Level VI, and the pottery can tell us a good deal. On the one hand we have what I have called the ... nationalist rivival" of the traditional painted ware which had been suppressed under the late regime, and some examples of this are perfect replicas of the old both in form and in decoration, but as time goes on, there appear modifications of the long-established types - instead of the isolated and static figures of birds or animals tqese become active and are combined in running scenes surrounding the whole pot without the interruption of the triglyph-like partitions which were once the rule ... For the first time we get a polychrome decoration in red and black paint on ~ buff surface, and the design includes not only birds but the "Union jack" motive which is specially characteristic of contemporary Palestine . ... [Emphasis ours.] As one examines this pottery description, he will be struck with the notable similarities of decoration found on the pottery at Megiddo for the era of Philistine occupation in the time of Saul. 46 There is the same use of red and black paint, the similar use of birds as a decoration motif, and the same use of the "Union Jack." If one is willing to grant the cultural relationship between this pottery at Alalakh from Levels XVI to VIII, and again in Level VI, with that in late Middle Bronze at Megiddo, he can do no less than recognize that this characteristic pottery at Alalakh is also that of some branch of the Sea Peoples and that it was this people who were temporarily conquered by the Yarim Lim dynasty. But such an admission is also an admission that some branch of the Sea Peoples occupied this territory long before the Conquest, reaching back into the era which must be recognized as that of the time of Abraham. To be sure, the Philistines of the time of Abraham in Scripture belong to the area of southern Palestine; this is not an anachronism in terms of a people made up of a multiplicity of branches. · 236 THE EXODUS PROBLEM In making this identification, it should be noted that we are not saying that this pottery is specifically Philistine. It is only intended to demonstrate that the people who made this pottery, and who were tentatively displaced by the Yarim-Lim dynasty belonged to this group of peoples who, because of their close relationships, have been called ~he Sea Peoples, of which the Philistines were one branch. The era of the Yarim-Lim dynasty is the general era of the Exodus-Conquest. It is possible that these Amorites migrated northward as a result of the widespread destruction from natural causes at the time of the Exodus, 47 or the migration may have been the result of the driving of peoples out of Palestine at the time of Joshua. In any case, the evidence now points, not to a local ·rebellion as surmised by Woolley, but to a conquest by a new people. Since this culture can be traced back to the point of the Dispersion or thereabouts, we may suppose that the Philistines and the Caphtorims of Scripture migrated to Crete prior to the Dispersion and were among those who did not move eastward into Mesopotamia. The writer entertains the probability that what is now the island of Crete was then attatched to the mainland, and this situation may have continued until after these peoples had migrated again to what is now the mainland along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. X. The Sea Peoples of Crete With the evidences thus far noted before us, we are now in a position to examine the archaeological reports from Crete for evidences of the early occupation of this site by the Caphtorim (who are either identical to the Philistines of later Scripture or are closely related to them culturally). We now have at least an approximate idea of the nature of the culture for which we are looking, since the culture at Alalakh can be traced, with modifications, back to the point of the Dispersion. While it has not been possible to correlate the early Archaeological Ages in Crete with those in Palestine with any degree of precision, we can hardly be wrong in recognizing the earliest occupants of Crete as the people who represented the beginnings of the people later known in Scripture as the Philistines, by virtue of the stated origin .of the Philis- THE PHILISTINES 237 tines in Crete. This concept holds regardless of the name that may be applied to this early era by scholars. The only site at which Cretan archaeology has been examined for its earliest occupants is at the site of the palace at Knosos. •s At this site deep test pits wei'e dug into the earlier occupation levels. If there is any archaeological evidence available from Crete for thi~ earliest period, it should then be found from the archaeology of these test pits. The pottery found there is described by Dr. Furness, who is cited by Hutchinson. 49 "Dr. Furness divides the Early Neolithic I fabrics into (a) coarse unburnished ware and (b) fine burnished ware, only differing from the former in that the pot walls are thinner, the clay better mixed, and the burnish more carefully executed. The surface colour is usually black, but examples also· occur of red, buff or yellow; sometimes brilliant red or orange, and sometimes highly variegated sherds·." A relation was observed between the decoration of some of this pottery from early Neolithic I in Crete with that at the site of Alalakh, though the observations .was interpreted inversely, i.e., that the similarity was due to an influence of the Alalakh culture on that of Crete. Continuing to cite Dr. Furness, Hutchinson commented: 50 Dr. Furness justly observes that "as the pottery of the late Neolithic phases seems to have developed at Knosos without a break, it is to the earliest that one must look for evidence of origin of foreign connections," and she therefore stresses the importance of a small group with plastic decoration that seems mainly confined to the Early Neolithic I levels, consisting of rows of pellets immediately under the rim (paralleled on burnished pottery of Chalcolithic [predynastic] date from Gullucek in the Alaca [Alalakh] district of Asia Minor). [Emphasis ours.] While the Archaeological Ages of early Crete cannot with certainty be correlated with the corresponding eras on the mainland, it would seem that Chalcolithic on the mainland is later than Early Neolithic in Crete; hence any influence of one culture on the other is more probably an influence of early Cretan culture on that of the mainland. This is in agreement with Scripture to the effect that the Philistines migrated from Crete to what is now the mainland at some point prior to the time of Abraham. The problem of the origin of the Philistines was discussed as a topic of the Schweich Lectures in 1911 by Macalister. In the absence of later treatises on the subject, this material 238 THE EXODUS PROBLEM was reprinted in 1965 to make it more readily available to scholars. While Macalister recognized the data presumed to be adverse to a Cretan origin, it was his unequivocal conclusion that this origin was as near a certainty as was possible to attain. 51 Notes and References Jer. 47:4. (2) See quot. of ref. 25. (3) Gen. 10:13, 14. (4) Gen. 21:32-34. (5) Ex. 13:17. (6) Josh. 13:2,3. (7) Jdg. 3:31. (8) Jdg. 13:1. (9) I Sam. 7:14; II Kings 18:8; II Chron. 28:18. (10) I S.am. 7:14. (11) II Sam. 5:25. (12) II Chron. 26:6, 7. (13) II Kings 18:8. (14) I Sam. 31:8-10. (15) II Chron. 28:18. (16.) L-ARAB, Vol. I, pars. 801, 815; Vol. II, par. 55. (17) Jer. 47:4; Eze. 25:15, 16. (18) Jer. 47:1-5; 46:2. (19) P-HE,- VoL III, pp. 150ff. (20) W-BA, p. 40. (21} Chap. VI, Sect. II. (22) H-PC, Chap. XI. (23) Ibid., pp. 172, 185, gives reproductions of designs of.Cretan pottery of Middle Minoan; see also Plate 18 (following p. 192). (24) Ibid., pp. 300ff.; see ref. 21. (25) B-SKC, pp. 166, 169. (26) K-AHL, p. 223. (27) See Sect. VII for teKts. (28) K-AHL, p. 224. (29) I Sam. 31:11, 12. (30) K-AHL, p. 231. (31) Ibid., p. 224. (32) Ibid. (33) See Table III. (34) See quot. of ref. 26. (35) See drawing, K-AHL, p. 199 showing decoration motif of bird with back-turned head. (36) See ref. 15. (37) B-HE, p. 551. (38) See ref. 28. (39) K-AHL, p. 200. (40) .See note 35. (41) Chap. VII. (4la) See Fig. 5. (42) Cited in W-FK, p. 65. (43) Ibid., p. 80. (44) Ibid., p. 81. (45) Ibid., p. 86. (46) See quot. of ref. 39. (47) Chap. VI, Sects. VII, VIII. (48) H-PC, p. 46. (49) Ibid., p. 47. (50) Ibid. (51) M-P, pp. 9, JO. (1) CHAPTER XIV PROBLEMS IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HAZOR In the light of the Qbvious difficulties in the interpretation of the archaeology of Jericho and of Ai, and the coincident solutions which result from a redating of the end of Early Bronze, the question was directed to a prominent authority in the field of Biblical Archaeology as to why no consideration had been given to the possibility that the difficulties lay in misdating the debris layers in Palestine mounds rather than in Biblical errors or unreliability of the Scriptural accounts. In reply to this question, it was freely admitted that such an approach might provide solutions to the difficulties at .Jericho and at Ai, but that this was not the case at Biblical Razor. It thus becomes of interest to take another look at the archaeology of Razor to determine whether the popular interpretations of the archaeology of the site are as conclusive as a support for popular opinion as has been assumed. I. Razor in the Biblical Accounts The history of Razor provides us with certain basic information which. may serve in arriving at correct dates for Palestinian chronology. Razor is first mentioned during the early years of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. When the king of Razor heard of the victories of the Israelites, he allied himself with a number of neighboring kings, and Joshua met the united armies in battle. 1 And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Razor before time was the head of all those kingdoms. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left' to breath: and he burnt Hazor with fire. The next mention of Razor is in the days of the early Judges. Israel had been taken captive by Jabin, king of Canaan, then reigning from the city of Razor. 2 Obviously the city must have been rebuilt after the destruction by Joshua and subsequently lost to the Israelites, necessitating a reconquest at the time of Deborah and Barak. It is not stated in Scripture what the fate of the city was at that time. Josephus states that the city was overthrown to its foundations.'1 240 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Hazor is next mentioned in the days of Solomon, at which time the city was rebuilt. This may have been from a delapidated condition, since more than four centuries had elapsed since the reconquest under Deborah and Barak. Toward the end of the history of the northern kingdom of Israel in the days of Pekah, Tiglathpileser (732 B.C.) captured the city and carried its inhabitants capitve to Assyria. 4 Again, it is not stated what the fate of the city was at that time. Since the city was destroyed at the time of Nebuchadnezzar some 150 years later, it must be assumed that the city was spared by Tiglathpileser or else that it was rebuilt before the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The detail of the destru.ction by Nebuchadnezzar is not given as an historical account. However, the prophet Jeremiah prophecied of its destruction in these words: 5 Concerning Kedar and concerning the kingdoms of Hazor, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon shall smite, thus saith the Lord .... And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and desolation forever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it. We may thus sum up the known history of Hazor as far as incidents which might be verified by archaeological observation. (1) It was a very important city in northern Palestine before the time of Joshua; (2) Joshua conquered the city and burned it with fire; (3) Israel lost the city to the Canaanites, and a second conquest was necessary in the days of Deborah and Barak. Hence the city must have been rebuilt after the destruction by Joshua. If we may accept the statements of Josephus, the city was destroyed to its foundations at that time; (4) the city was rebuilt in the days of Solomon, possibly from a grossly deteriorated condition; (5) the city was captured by Tiglathpileser (c. 732 B.C.), the fate of the city being unknown; (6) the city met a total and final destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in the 7th century B.C. II. Archaeological Investigations at Razor by Garstang Garstang began archaeologcal investigations .on the site of ancient Hazor in 1928 with the explicit purpose of attempting to find data which would aid in the establishment of the data for the Exodus and the Conquest. 'carstang' s results. were not published in detail. It was, however, his immovable conclusion that the history of the large city had ARCHAEOLOGY OF HAZOR 241 come to its final end during the era of the 14th century B.C. 6 This conclusion was at variance with the more popular placement of the Exodus in the XIX th Dynasty (13th century B. C. ). The discrepancy was not large, but too large to ignore. The conclusion of Garstang seems to have been based primarily on the apparent absence of so-called Mykenean type pottery on the Hazor site. This type of pottery is considered to have been first imported into Palestine from Greece sometime after 1400 B.C. and to have ceased about one and one-half centuries later. III. Later Investigations on the Plateau Enclosure at Hazor The excavations of the Hazor site were resumed by Yadin and his staff in 1955 and continued through four seasons.' Excavations were made at several locations on the site, but; for purposes of the present discussion, these may be re-. duced to two more general areas. One of these was on the mound proper; the other was on the extensive plateau enclosure to the adjacent area north of the mound and at a somewhat lower level than the mound itself. The history of the two areas, as revealed by the archaeology of the site, was not the same for the two areas. The investigations were made with the specific aim of proving or disproving the conclusion of Garstang which was so definitely out of line with the traditional placement of the Conquest in the 13th century. These investigators found that the debris just one meter below the surface over the area of the plateau enclosure showed the remains of well-built homes with drainage systems, and that the city was abundantly represented by Mykenean type pottery. Since this type pottery had been dated to the era c. 1400-1250 B.C., it was concluded that this city must be similarly dated and hence represented the city destroyed by Joshua. Since the city must be given a reasonable period of existence prior to its destruction, a date in the 13th century was deduced, ·contrary to the conclusion reached by Garstang. Beneath the ruins of this city were found the remains of several earlier cities reaching back into the era of Middle Bronze II (the Hyksos era), the lowest one having been "efficiently destroyed by fire. "H Yadin commented on this series of cities found on the plateau enclosure. 9 242 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ... Firstly, it appeared that the whole area, just one meter below the surface, was occupied by a well-built city with houses and drainage systems. Secondly - and to our surprise - we found the floors of these houses littered with Mykenean pottery as well as many other vessels and objects of local make, all dating back to the late phase of the Late Bronze Age, i.e., the 13th century B.C.! In other.words here was definite proof [sic] that the last city in the big enclosure met its end about the same time as the actual conquest of the country by Joshua, according to the date given by most scholars .... Another important conclusion from this area· is the fact that below the stratum of the 13th century B.C., we discovered several layers containing earlier cities ranging from Middle Bronze II (the so-called Hyksos period of the 16th and 17th centuries) down to the Late Bronze I in the 15th century .... IV. Yadin's Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Plateau Enclosure The upper city wi.th its well-built houses and drainage systems was identified as that destroyed by the Israelites under Joshua and must then be credited to a Canaanite origin. Assuming that the era of the Mykenean type pottery has been correctly dated at c. 1400-1250, this is a logical deduction from the standpoint of dating, and if supportable would virtually eliminate from further consideration the XVIIIth Dynasty background for the Conquest. However, the correctness of this dating of the Mykenean era is here challenged, along with the date assigned in the interpretation of Palestinian archaeology as a whole. No mention was made in the reports that this city was destroyed by fire, as stated in the Biblical account, and since efficient destruction by fire is stated for the lowest city in the enclosure, 9• we assume that such evidence was missing in the ruins of the upper city. If so, then this city does not meet the specifications of the Biblical account for the destruction by the Israelites; even if this city was destroyed by burning, this does not prove that it was the city destroyed by the Israelites. The two cities below were also credited to the Canaanites and, from the associated pottery, were dated from the Hyksos era, ending c. 1580 B.C. by current views. If Yadin is correct in his assignment of these two lower cities to the Hyksos era, then the proposal1° to recognize either of these cities as that destroyed by the Israelites in terms of a Conquest set in the era c. 1400 B.C. is out of the question. ARCHAEOLOGY OF HAZOR 243 V. A Variant Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Cities Found in the Plateau Enclosure The assignment of the city with well-built homes and drainage systems to the •Canaanites may be taken as quite the same sort of error that has been made in presuming, on the basis of current correlations of Palestine levels with the B.C. time scale, that it was the cultural level in Palestine at the time of the entrance of the Israelites that dropped precipitously, 10• the Canaanites having had a cultural level never attained by the incoming Israelites. When the archaeology of the site has been correctly correlated with true Palestinian history, the reverse is true. By the proposed revision, the Mykenean period belongs to the era c. 950-800 B.C., and the upper·city is then that built by Solomon. Its destruction is then that by Tiglathpileser c. 732 B. C. The lower cities are then from the pre-Solomonic era, and, granting the assignment to the Hyksos era as correct, these belong to the era of the Judges. It is tempting to identify the lowest city on the plateau enclosure, which was "efficiently destroyed by fire," as that destroyed by Joshua to meet the Scriptural account of such destruction. However, if this city has been correctly placed in the scheme of the Archaeological Ages, there are difficulties in such an identification. The pottery associated with this burned city is stated to belong to Middle Bronze II; the destruction by Joshua, on the other hand, should be associated with pottery from late Early Bronze. However, the possibility of misdating the associated pottery is not necessary eliminated in view of the necessary redating of the pottery in association with the fallen walls at Jericho, even after many decades of previous investigations on the site. There is also the necessary redating of the pottery in association with the massive temple at Shechem in the light of subsequent investigations. In the absence of such evidence at the present time, the city levels at Hazor are here tentatively interpreted in line with tl1e reports, but against the background provided by the altered chronological structure. It follows from such an interpretation that the constructions on the plateau enclosure belong to the post-Conquest era in total. If there are any evidences to be found at Hazor 244 THE EXODUS PROBLEM for the incident of the Conquest; these must be found on the mound proper. VI. The Archaeology of the Mound Site Investigations were carried out at several points on the mound site. With the fourth season of investigation, an attempt was made to trace the history of the site from its beginnings to the Hellenistic era. ioh The evidence pointed to a sequence of 21 cities during this period. At no single area of the mound was the evidence for the entire series observed. However, by correlation of the levels at the various areas (particularly those designated A and B), such a sequence could be reasonably established. The assignments of dates were made on the basis of the accepted dates for the various pottery types of the "pottery dating sequence." Some specific finds were made which apparently confirmed the general correctness of these assignments. However, as has been previously noted, this dating scheme provides only relative dates, except as unequivocal dates can be assigned to these various pottery types. 11 It is the validity of these assigned dates that is here challenged. Since this is the case, there would be little gained by challenging each of the identifications individually. VII. An Altered Identification of the 21 Cities at Razor A reinterpretation of the critical phases of the series of cities at Hazor in terms of the revised chronology may be attained by the following reasoning. As we proceed, evidences for the general correctness of this altered interpretation will appear. A readily recognizable pottery type known as Khirbet Kerak ware appears in the cities designated as XX and XIX of the series discovered on the mound site, 12 as distinguished from the plateau enclosure. This same type pottery has also been found far to the north of Hazor at the site of Tabara."3 This pottery appeared as a "new type" in Level IV of the seven levels found on the Tabara site and continued into Level I. The upper levels at Tabara were followed by the lower levels at the near-by site of Alalakh (Atchana), with only sufficient evidences from the upper level at Tabara to establish the sequence of occupation of the two ARCHAEOLOGY OF HAZOR 245 sites. The third level from the bottom at Alalakh has pottery of the ]emdet Nasr type from Mesopotamia, 14 and represents the point of the Dispersion as noted in a previous chapter. i.; Hence the Khirbet Kerak w.are in this northern area, now found at m9re than 50 sites, 16 belongs to the immediate predynastic period. I ts presence through four successive levels at Tabara was taken to indicate that the pottery had a long life in this area.'; . J'he same pottery appears later at a number of sites in northern Palestine, including Hazor, 18 where it appears suddenly with no previous history in this area and hence represents an incursion of a new people from this northern area into the Hazor area 183 ... In Palestine it [Khirbet Kerak Ware} has been found on a number of sites. It appears fully developed and has no previous history in that country; generally it occurs immediately above a stratum, the buildings of which have been destroyed by fire .... This unusual circumstance of a general appearance above evidences of burning is capable of a vari~ty of interpretations. It has been assumed that these destructions by fire were at the hands of the Kherbit Kerak people who slaughtered the population in total, burned their cities, and took over the city sites. 19 However, as noted in a previous chapter, 20 a general destruction of cities by burning resulted at the time of the widespread evidences of disaster in this area by earthquake, as described by Schaeffer. Schaeffer dated two such catastrophes at c. 2400 and c. 2200 B. C. 21 By the proposed revision, these two catastrophes occurred at the time of the Exodus and of the Conquest repectively, and the period between the two was only 40 years, not 200 years. 22 We would thus identify this general burning of cities in this area at this time with the unusual phenomena that occurred at the time of the Exodus, the Scriptural account mentioning the strange phenomenon of hail mingled with fire. 224 · There is no reason to believe that these manifestations were limited .to the area of Egypt, since the evidences of the catastrophe reach from the island of Crete, through Greece, Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, and into Egypt. By this interpretation, the Kherbit Kerak people were among those who migrated from the north into this more 246 THE EXODUS PROBLEM southern territory following the first of these two catastrophes. 2'3 Since their pottery appears at Hazor as a new type in City XX and extends into City XIX of the Hazor mound, these two cities belong to the interval between the Exodus and the Conquest, and the evidences of the Conquest should be sought between City XIX and City XVIII. The general correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the logical identifications of the subsequent cities in terms of the positions assigned in the Archaeological Ages and from the accounts of finds in the various cities in the reports of Yadin. 23a City XVIII is said to be uniquely characterized by the presence of an abundance of pottery, but no buildings. 24 It will be recalled that this same situation existed at the Jericho site following the incursion of the Israelites, and was interpreted to represent the camp of the Israelites during the period of conquest. 25 Evidently, the armies of Israel also occupied the Hazor site, after its destruction, as a temporary camp during the period of the conquest of this northern territory. Cities XVII and XVI belong to Middle Bronze II and are thus to be correlated with cities IV and III in the plateau enclosure. By the revision, this is the period of the judges. City XVII may then represent the first occupation by the Israelites after the Conquest, and city XVI that reoccupied by the Canaanites. 25• City XV was that reoccupied by the Israelites after the reconquest. 25b City XV was correlated with Level II in the plateau enclosure. 26 Since city III on the plateau was "efficiently burned with fire," this city probably coincided with the era of City XVI on the mound proper. The date, however, is not in the 16th century, but in the 14th century. City XIV was from the Amarna Age. 27 By the revision, the date is in the mid-9th century. 28 Hence, there was a long gap in the occupation of the mound site from the era of the late judges until the 9th century. This period encompasses the era of Solomon, to whom we have credited the building of City I in the plateau enclosure. The picture now comes into focus. When Solomon built the city of Hazor, this was not a building of the city located on the mound; it was a rebuilding of the city on the plateau; which probably represented the principal site of occupation by the Israelites from the time of their first occupation. ARCHAEOLOGY OF HAZOR 247 During the period of the use of Solomon's city, the mound area was virtually uninhabited. Solomon's city was the one that was destroyed by Tiglathpileser, c. 732 B. C. The debris one meter deep, above the ruins of Solomon's city on the plateau, represents the total occupation of this are,?.. subsequent to this Assyrian conquest. This debris was not described by the investigators by levels. On the mound site, the era from Solomon to the Amarna period is .represented by the virtual hiatus of occupation between Cities XV and XIV. Level III on the mound was described as of notably poorer culture. 29 This would agree with the situation following the Assyrian conquest when the more well-to-do and the more capable had been removed from the territory and replaced by foreigners. 30 While Levels X to VIII were described as "thin" and not even represented in Area A, 31 Cities VII to X were, nevertheless, attributed to the era of Solomon on the basis of the presence of a casemate wall, this type having been attributed to him at other locations. 32 We have assigned an Assyrian origin to all of these casemate walls; the similarity of construction may point to a common origin, but it does not follow per se that this origin was by · Solomon. Levels I to VII all belong to Iron I or later, and, by the revision, all belong to to the Assyrian period or later. The thin layers of Levels VIII to XI would then be relatable to the century following the Amarna period. The earlier date for these top levels (in contrast to the dates assigned by Yadin) is confirmed by the appearance in Level VI of column capitals of "proto-Aeolic" or "ionic" style. This type capital belongs to the 6th century, not to the l::lth. We may assume that it was this awkward situation that led Yadin to refer to the capitals as proto-Aeolic. The writer finds no basis whatever for assigning dates this early to this type of architectural decoration. 33 The early Ionic style, in the middle and later sixth century, is much less uniform than the Doric.... The terrific destru.ction of the citadel in Area B below the Persian citadel was clearly the result of an enemy attack and not an earthquake.'34 It should be attributed to the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in the 7th century, and not to 248 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the era of Pekah and the destruction by Tiglathpileser. The inscription LPQH33 could refer to a person by the name Pekah, though this is not necessarily the case, and even if provable, this would not establish that this Pekah was of the Israelite line of kings. The evidence of earthquake in Level III is then not that of the time of Jeroboam II and Uzziah; it is much later than that. The same sort of insecurity characterizes the inscription YRB as the equivalent of Jeroboam in Level III. This YRB is the son of Elmatan;'16 Jeroboam II was the son of Joash.'17 Granting the reading of YRB as Jeroboam, this is not king Jeroboam under any circumstance,· and the name provides no basis for dating City III to the time of Jeroboam. Notes and References (1) Josh. 11:10, 11. (2) Jdg. 4:2. (3) J·AJ, Bk. V, Chap. V, par. 4. (4) See ref. 29. (5) Jer. 49:28. (6) Cited in BA, Vol. XIX, p. 5. (7) Ibid .. p. 6. (8) Ibid, Vol. XX, p. 44. (9) Ibid., Vol. XIX, Pl'· 9, 10. (9a) Ibid. (10) H-RPIB. p. 31. (!Oa) Vol. I, Chap. Vlll, Sect. I. (!Ob) BA. Vol. XXll. (II) K-AHL, p. 32. (I2) BA. Vol. XXII, p. 18. (13) W-FK, pp. 31. 34, 35. (14) Ibid. (15) Chap. VII. (16) W-FK, p. 32. (17) Ibid. (18) W-FK. p. 31. (18a) See ref. I2. (19) Ibid. (20) Chap. VI, Sect. VIII. (21) Ibid., Sects. VII, VIII. (22) Ibid. (22a) See quot. of ref. 28, Vol. I. Chap. IX. (23) See ref. 21. (23a) See ref. lOb. (24) See ref. 12. (25) Vol. I, Chap. VJ, Sect. VII. (25a) Josh. 11:10, 11. (25b) Jdg. 4:2. (26) BA, Vol. XXII, p. 17.. (27) Ibid., p. 14. (28) Vol. I. Chap. XVI, Sect. XI: Vol. II, Chap. XVII, Sects. XIV-XVI. (29) BA, Vol. XXII. p. 14. (30) II Kings 15:29; 16:4-6. (31) BA, Vol. XXII, p. 12. (32) i.e., at Megiddo and Gezer. None of these casemate walls are labelled for such an identification. They are so identified by the demands of the accepted chronology. It cannot be assumed that Solomon was the only person in over half a millennium who was capable of making such a structure. By the revision, these are of Assyrian origin, as indicated by their appearance at sites outside Palestine. (33) C-GUA, p. 112. (34) BA, Vol. XX, p. 37. (35) Ibid., p. 40. (36) See ref. 34. (37) II Kings 14:27. CHAPTER XV TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB As the name implies, Transjordan is the territory east of the River Jordan, not commonly included in the term Palestine. 1 Its northern limit is the River Yarmuk and the southern limit an ill-defined line running eastward from the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqabah, which is the eastern arm of the Red Sea. The Jordan River ends with the Dead Sea. This sea may be considered as a below-sea-level prolongation of the geological fault through which the Jordan · River flows. This fault continues from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the Gulf 9f Aqabah in what is known as the Wadi el-Arabah, which forms the eastern boundary of the Negeb and the western boundary of the ancient territory of Edom. That part of Transjordan directly east of the Dead Sea comprised the territory of ancient Moab, while the Amorites occupied the fertile area to the east of the River Jordan proper. This area approximates that known in Scripture as the Land of Gilead which became the inheritance of the tribes of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh. As one travels eastward from the fault embodying the Sea of Galilee, the River Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi el-Arabah, the land becomes increasingly desert. The Ammonities occupied territory in this more desert region east of Moab. The area between the two arms of the Red Sea is known as the Sinai Peninsula. This region extends northward to meet the Mediterranean Sea, the rainfall increasing somewhat as one proceeds northward, though the territory continues to be semidesert. The Negeb is the V-shaped section between the Sinai territory and the western border of Edom as marked by the Wadi el-Arabah. The history of Transjordan and the .N egeb is quite different from. that of Palestine. This is particularly true of the territories of the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites; the differen~es, ·however, carry over also into the territories of the Amorites and the Negeb. Glueck may be logical in regarding the Negeb as part of Palestine, but because of the differences historically and archaeologically, it is deemed desirable here to treat these areas separately. 250 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Figure 3 Palestine-Transjordan-Sinai Area SYRIA Mediterranean Sea ; - ... \ NEGEB , " '~ \ .... ~ -:- .... ....._ AMMON '·- EDOM - / \ \ SINAI PENINSULA - I ......... -- ---...... TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 251 I. The Edomites The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, twin brother of Jacob, father of the Israelites. The development of the Edomite people was thus contemporaneous with that of the Israelites. At the time the Israelites approached the land of promise, a request was lodged with the king of Edom to pass through his territory peaceably. 2 This request was denied. Since the Edomites were kinsmen of the Israelites, they were not permitted to attempt this passage by force, and were obliged to skirt the territory of Edom on the east along the border of the desert. 2a Since the Edornites had a king over them at this time, an organized people is indicated who were able, if necessary, to resist such passage. Since local areas were under the sub-rule of dukes, 3 the existence of cities as the units of such local government can hardly be denied. While cities in Edom are not specifically named in Scripture, the existence of such is confirmed by mention of specific cities in the adjoining area of Moab.~ Some three and one-half centuries after the Conquest, king Saul warred with the Edomites, 5 but there is no indication of Israelite occupation of Edomite territory at this time. Saul's wars were designed to free Israel from any fur- , ther interference by those peoples who had proved to be their enemies during the period of the judges. In the reign of David, Edom was made a tributary of Israel and garrisons were placed throughout the area. 6 Neither was the territory occupied by the Israelites at this time. This arrangement, initiated by David, still existed at the time of Jehosaphat (872-848 B.C. ), since at that time the territory was still ruled by a deputy.' It was not until the reign of Joram (852-841 B.C.) that Edom again became strong enough to revolt from Judah. 8 Jeremiah 9 and Ezekiel 10 . prophecied of the destruction of Edom and Moab, thus indicating a continuance of this people into the 6th century. It may be inferred that Assyria had some degree of control over Edom in the years that followed the fall of the northern kingdom of· Israel. Some further control by Syria is indicated by the recorded "recovery" of Elath on the Red Sea from t.he Jews in the reign of Pekah, one of the last kings of the northern kingdom of Israel. 11 The history of Edom becomes of fundamental importance in arriving at a 252 THE EXODUS PROBLEM proper interpretation of the archaeology of the territory of the Edomites. II. The Moabites The Moabites were the descendants of Lot through his older daughter. 12 As with the Edomites, so it was with the Moabites; the migrating Israelites were obliged to skfrt their territory on the east along the fringe of the desert. 13 At this time, Balak was king of the Moabites. A number of city names appear in the Scriptural account indicating a sedentary population at the time of the Conquest. 1• Prior to the Israelite passage, the northern section of Moabite territory, as far south as the River Arnon, had been wrested from the Moabites by the Amorites, who occupied the territory to the north. 13 The passage of the Israelites westward from the desert region into Palestine was through this territory formerly Moabite, but then controlled by the Amorites. This territory later became the inheritance of the tribe of Reuben. Under the judgeship of Ehud, the Israelites won a notable battle against the Moabites, 16 but there was no attempt at that time to invade or occupy the territory. The independence of Moab continued into the era of Ruth. At least this is strongly inferred by the selection of Moabite wives, rather than Israelite wives, by the sons of Naomi. 1' Ruth married Boaz who, through this marriage, became the great grandfather of David. 18 The time is thus that of the late judges. Saul fought against Moab as he did against Edom, rn and David conquered Moab, destroying many of the inhabitan_ts and placing the others under servitude as he had done with the .Edomites. 20 In neither case was the territory of Moab occupied by the Israelites. The tributary status of Moab continued until after the time of Ahab when the Moabites rebelled against Israel2 1 (c. 850 B.C. ). The Moabites also became the object of prophetic destruction. III. The Ammonites The Ammomtes were the descendants of Lot through his younger daughter. 22 While the relations between the Ammonites and the Israelites are repeatedly referred to in Scripture, 2'1 so little is known archaeologically about the TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 253 Ammonites that the incidents involved are not such as to be relatable to archaeological observations. Thus while their history is interesting, any further consideration is omitted here. IV. The Amorites The origin and early history of the Amorites is obscure. It appears from Scriptural references that many of the peoples occupying territory west of Jordan were of Amorite origin. This would seem to be the inference in the statement of Ezekiel 24 in ascribing to Jerusalem an Amorite father. The Gibeonites are stated to have been Amorites. 25 In the promise of later inheritance of this land, the occupants ar~ referred to as Amorites. 26 Thus while Sihon, king of the Amorites of the Conquest story, has his capital at Heshbon27 in territory taken from the Moabites, it would appear that a number of the peoples on the west of Jordan were branches of the Amorites. This concept is further confirmed by the fact that the pottery of Early Bronze is the same on both. sides of Jordan, particularly in the north. Interest here is in the Amorites who occupied the territories on the east of Jordan, a territory that became the inheritance of the two and one-half tribes. This entire territory occupied by the Amorites in Transjordan was conquered by the Israelites prior to the crossing of Jordan. At this time, the cities of the area were destroyed, sixty of which were walled cities, 28 a destruction that should be readily observable archaeologically. V. The Negeb The various texts in Scripture which refer to the territory to the south of Palestine identify it as the "south" or the "south country." The word in the Hebrew is negeb, and these references may be traced in Young's Analytical Concordance by means of this term. Interest here is primarily with reference to the peoples who are said to have occupied this territory. From such references, it is apparent that this was the .home of the Amalekites29 , of the Canaanites, 30 of the Jeremeelites,'11 of the Kenites,'n of the Cherethites, 33 of the Calebites34 and certain of the tribe of Judah. 35 It is also clear from Scripture that this area of the Negeb was part of the land promised to the Israelites, 36 supporting the 254 THE EXODUS PROBLEM contention of Glueck that" the Negeb should be considered as part of Palestine. This territory is of interest from the standpoint of its traversal by Abraham and his cattle at the time of the famine shortly after his arrival in Canaan from the east.'37 At this time Abraham was very rich in cattle which he must have taken with him into Egypt and again on his return. 18 the reference has been queried on the basis of the difficulties that would be encountered in traversing this arid region with large herds of cattle.'39 It was in this area also that the Israelites spent most of their 40 years of wandering prior to the Conquest. Following the Conquest, certain tribes related to the Israelites elected to live in this area. 40 It is on this basis that Glueck has considered the N egeb as part of Palestine. Archaeology reveals that the area was populated by a people in Middle Bronze I who had mastered the problem of a water supply. 41 It was populated again centuries later by the Nabataeans. 42 VI. Current Views on the Interpretation of Archaeology in Transjordan and the Negeb Much of the archaeological investigation in these areas has been done by Glueck and by Albright. Because of the unfavorable climate (and perhaps lack of adequate funds), the efforts have been largely confined to surface examination. On the basis of such a cursory examination of the areas, Glueck came to the conclusion that there had been two, and only two, eras of sedentary occupation of Transjordan in historical times. The first of these was the Early Bronze civilization, assumed by Glueck to have ended with the end of the Early Bronze Age west of Jordan. The second began with· the beginning of the Iron Age. It was presumed that between these two, a gap in sedentary occupation encompassed the entire periods of Middle and Late Bronze. By current views, this is the period from about the time of Abraham to the beginning of the Israelite monarchy. 4'3 For the present, it has been possible to esta.blish the presence of two outstanding civilizations in the explored part of Transjordan during its early history. The one is the early Bronze Age civilization. The other is the Iron Age civilization. Between these there was a gap in the history of permanent sedentary occupation, lasting from about the end of the TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 255 20th to the beginning of the 13th century B.C., another gap extended from about the end of the 6th to the beginning of the 3rd century. While the investigations represented only a surface examination of the pottery types to be found by traversing this area from end to end, Glueck defended his conclusions as above question on the basis that it was possible to arrive at similar conclusions, "relative to the limits of occupation, by examination of the pottery sherds to be found by walking up and down the sides of a mound site, without actual excavation of the mound. To illustrate this claim, he referred to the case of the examination of the mound of Tell Beit Mirsim by Albright. 44 A number of years ago, while undertaking an archaeological surveyexpedition through southern Palestine, William F. Albright came across an ancient mound, mentioned above, called Tell Beit Mirsim. Climbing up and down the slopes of the mound, he collected hundreds of fragments of pottery which belonged to all the layers of ruined villages contained within it, and on the basis of these surface finds alone came to the conclusions that the site had been inhabited from about 2000 to about 600 B.C. Thereafter, commencing in 1928, four successive years of excavations were carried out there under his direction. On the basis of the great quantity. of archaeological materials of all kinds obtained in the long and wearisome .and most carefully conducted excttvations, Albright came to the conclusion that his first estimate of the total history of the occupation of the site was mistaken. No, Tell Beit Mirsim had not been inhabited from 2000 to 600 B.C. It had been inhabited from 2200 to 586 B.C. In other words, the conclusions he had arrived at on the basis of mere surface pottery finds were in general completely corroborated by the results of the actual excavations. They were merely made more exact. Since the pottery found in Transjordan, and belonging to the Early Bronze civilization, was quite the same as that found west of Jordan for the same period (particularly in the north), it was concluded that this Early Bronze civilization represented a group of peoples sufficiently closely related to have used a common type of pottery. 45 This conclusion is in agreement with Scripture which pictures the Amorites as occupying territory on both sides of Jordan. The conclusion must, of course, be qualified to recognize locally different cultures in Palestine such as the distinctive Khirbet Karak ware found near the Sea of Galilee. By the same token, the limitations of the investigations in Transjordan must leave room for the possible presence of similar locally used types not as yet discovered. 256 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The widespread destruction observed at the end of Early Bronze was, by this view, considered as that which resulted from the conquest of Transjordan by Chedorlaomer and his allies, as recorded in Genesis 14. 46 The situation in the Negeb was found to be quite different. The evidences of a sedentary occupation there belonged to Middle Bronze I, with no evidence of such occupation in Early Bronze. Believing that it would have been impossible for Abraham to have traversed the territory from Palestine to Egypt across the Negeb with his cattle and possessions at a time when the problem of water had not been solved by a sedentary occupancy of the area, Glueck concluded that Abraham's journey to Egypt, to escape famine in Palestine, must belong to the era of Middle Bronze I. 4 ~ ... Either the Age of Abraham coincides with the Middle Bronze I period between the twenty-first and nineteenth centuries B.C. or the entire saga dealing with the Patriarch must be dismissed, so far as its historical value is concerned, from sicentific considerations. A further problem related to the interpretation of the archaeology of Transjordan has been called to the attention of scholars by Glueck. The refusal of the Edomites and the Moabites to grant the request . of the Israelites to pass through their territory on their way to the promised land indicates an organized government in these territories with a sedentary population living in cities. If the territory at that time had been occupied only by nomadic tribes, there would have been no one capable of saying "yes" or "no" to this request, and there would have been no more reason for lodging such a request than for passage through the Negeb. Since the evidence of sedentary occupation after the long gap of non-sedentary occupation began c. 1300 B.C., Glueck concluded that the Israelite passage must have occurred in Iron I. 48 It becomes impossible, therefore, in the light of all this new archaeological evidence, particularly when studied in connection with the deposits of historical memory contained in the Bible, to escape the conclusion that the particular Exodus of the Israelites through southern Transjordan could not have taken place before the 13th century B.C. It will be recalled that the Israelites begged the Edomites and Moabites in vain for permission to travel through these kingdoms on their way to the Promised Land. The Israelites were compelled to go around them and finally force their way westward to the Jordan on the north TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 257 side of the Amon, which at that time was part of the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites. Had the Exodus through southern Transjordan taken place before the 13th century B.C., the Israelites would have found neither Edomite nor Moabite kingdoms, well organized and well fortified, whose ru~rs could have given or withheld permission to go through the territories. If the reasoning of Glueck here is valid, this would leave the placement of the Exodus in the XVIIIth Dynasty indefensible. This, in turn, leaves the field open to the proponents of the XIXth Dynasty placement, in spite of the numerous objections that may be raised to this placement. Glueck recognized a further correlation of archaeology with Scripture in the discovery of a considerable number of remnants of ancient copper smelting sites along the geological faults reaching from the south end of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqabah. 49 Essentially all of the pottery found in conjunction with these sites is from Iron I. By current views, this is the era of the Israelite monarchy, and the smelting sites were attribllted to Solomon, who is stated in Scripture to have used large amounts of copper in his construction program. Further observations at a site, believed to be that of Ezion-geber, appeared to confirm these conclusions. The problems relative to. the site of Eziongeber are considered in a subsequent section of this chapter. VII. Some Large Objections to the Conclusions of Glueck It would · seem that there are a significant number of scholars who are not altogether pleased with the conclusions of Glueck. Part of this objection has :risen from an expressed greater degree of confidence in Scripture than many scholars are willing to admit, though Glueck has placed himself on record as following the popular view that the stories of Scripture were· not reduced to writing until a much later time and hence are of legendary origin. Glueck would attribute the accuracy of Scripture on so many details to an "amazing historical memory" on the part of later writers. 49a The conclusion of Glueck relative to the necessity of a sedentary occupation in the Negeb at the time of Abraham's journey from Palestine to Egypt does not provide a solution to the problem. If there was a famine at this time in Palestine, then the effects of any draught leading to 258 THE EXODUS PROBLEM a famine would be even more severely felt in the Negeb. If the water supplies in Palestine were limited to the point resulting in a critical water supply, then certainly any occupants of the Negeb, who had made possible only a border-line living, were not going to welcome Abraham with his large herds of cattle to share these meager and dwindling water supplies. They would be trying desperately, perhaps already in vain, to meet their own needs without taking on the problems of migrants with their herds. If this journey was not possible at a time of nonsedentary occupation, it was not possible otherwise. The conclusion of Glueck is also based on a belief that there has been no change in climatic conditions from the time of Abraham; yet Scripture states specifically that the territory south of the Dead Sea was well-watered, a description that hardly holds at the present time.:; 0 If this migration had been made at a time when there was no sedentary occupation, then it is possible that Abraham had unchallenged access to the water sources, meager as they may have been. If one allows that the same God who called Abraham out of Mesopotamia into Palestine, and who promised this territory to his descendants, was able to lead Abraham to the water needed on this journey, there is no problem. If one denies this factor of divine leadership, then the problems throughout the story from Abraham to the settlement of Israel in Palestine are insurmountable. It is then not alone the story of Abraham's journey to Egypt that should be dismissed from scientific consideration; it is the entire content of early Scripture that requires such dismissal. The attribution of the destructions in Transjordan at the end of Early Bronze to the conquest of the territory by Chedlorlaomer and his allies is out of the question. These destructions extend throughout the territory of Palestine as well and even throughout the territory to the north of Palestine. The details provided in Scripture do not allow for the inclusion of any such-extended area of conquest. In the opinion of the writer, the most serious error that has been made is that which concludes that there was no sedentary occupation in Transjordan throughout the eras of Middle and Late Bronze. This conclusion is based on the supposition that Early .Bronze ended in Transjordan at the TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 259 same time that it ended on the west of Jordan. There is no proof for this supposition. The definitions of the limits of the Archaeological Ages are based on major changes in culture. There are no facts that require a change in the occupants of Transjordan at the time of the major change in Palestine. Certainly the Israelites did not occupy the territories of Edom and Moab at any time during their history, and even the later Assyrian control of this territory did not result in an occupation by the Assyrians. · If the same people that conquered Palestine at the end of Early Bronze did not also occupy Edom and Moab, then there is no reason for supposing that Early Bronze ended in these territories at the end of Early Bronze in Palestine. A failure to recognize such a situation would lead to an interpretation of the archaeology of these areas as representing a gap in sedentary occupation - a gap that had no factual existence. Or, if there was an actual gap in sedentary occupation of part of Transjordan, it would appear logical from the archaeological evidence to assume that this was true of the entire area. In a subsequent section;·; 1 it will be shown that when the Archaeological Ages are set in the background provided by the chronological revision, the proper interpretations of the archaeology of Transjordan come into clear focus. At the end of Early Bronze, as marked by the change in culture in Palestine, northern Transjordan was settled by a nonsedentary population, while no change in the identity of the occupants of Edom and Moab occurred then or at any time for many centuries afterward. VIII. The Problems at Ezion-geber In addition to the above objections to the conclusions of Glueck, still larger problems rise relative to the interpretations of the archaeological finds at Ezion-geber. There are a number of references in Scripture dealing with the territory of the Negeb. These inch1de mention of three incidents at Ezion-geber and a fourth at Elath. The Israelites camped at Ezion-geber in t-heir journeys to the promised land. 02 Judging from the sequence of camp sites, this was shortly before they turned east to skirt the territories of Edom and Moab. The major point of interest in these references, other than reference to camping at the site, is the reference to Elath as 260 THE EXODUS PROBLEM a near-by site, but one distinclty different from that of Ezion-geber. Solomon constructed a navy of ships at Ezion-geber and harbored them off shore in the Red Sea:53 This must have been the Gulf of Aqabah, which is the east arm of the Red Sea (See Fig. 3). A similar attempt was made by Jeho11haphat at this same site (872-848). 54 A further comment is provided to the effect that there was no king in Edom at this time, a deputy serving as king. This was evidently a continuance of the situation from the time of David, who had placed garrisons throughout the land of Edom;;5 a situation that prevailed till the rebellion under Joram, son of Ahab56 (852-841). An occupation of this territory by the Syrians at the time of Ahaz (735-716 B.C.) is indicated by the "recovery" of Elath by Syria and the ejection of the Jews from the site. 56a The location of the site of Ezion-geber has long been a matter of uncertainty. Early investigators had looked for it some 30 kilometers inland from the present gulf coast on the basis of an extant legend. The legend is to the effect that the ancient city of Ezion-geber had been the victim of a violent catastrophe in whieh the city was buried with rocks and soil that had washed down the hills in a torrential storm. 56b Such an inland location must presume that the Gulf of Aqabah extended this far north from its present shore line to allow the Scriptural statements that the site was located on the Red Sea. The depression occupied by this northern extension must then have been filled in with drifting sand during the course of the centuries. Fritz Frank had suggested, however, that the low mound near the northern extremity of the present gulf of Aqabah concealed the remains of the ancient site of Ezion-geber. Rejecting the legend as a "fairy tale" and following the suggestion of Frank, excavations were conducted on this mound by an expedition sponsored by the American School of Oriental Research. As a result of these excavations, the investigators concurred with the suggestion of Frank that this site should be identified as that of the ancient site of Ezion-geber. 57 The principal evidences for such an identification were given as: (1) The Scriptural statements indicating a position of the site on the shores of. the Red Sea at the time of Solo- TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 261 mon and of Jehoshaphat, (2) the absence ot evidence that the shore line had changed at any time since the 6th century B.C. or of any climatic change or change of water level at any time hack to the 15th century, (3) the finding of copper mines,.,. in the area just to the north of the site, which were equated with Scriptural references to the use of large amounts of copper by Solomon, (4) the finding of pottery fragments at the site like those found also at the copper mines, (5) the discovery of a large structure·.oat the site which from its design was believed to have been used as a smelting plant for the mined copper, and (6) the discovery in the oldest city on the site of a three doored gate like one found at Carcherrlish in Hittite territory, like one found at Megiddo and believed to have had a Solomonic origin, and like the gate found at Lachish also assigned a Solomonic origin. 58 However, there were also anomalous finds to be considered. The oldest city at the site was found to be no older than the time of Solomon (by the popular chronology) and hence the site could not have been that at which the Israelites camped. 59 There was no evidence of any near-by city that could be identified with the Biblical Elath. 60 The shore at this point is not at all favorable for the harboring of ships, and there was no evidence that any docks had ever been con.structed th~re, 61 thus raising .~ question as to how either Solomon or Jehoshaphat could have harbored a navy at this point under present conditiom. These observations were evidently not considered as standing against the identification of the site as Eziongeber. The legend of an earlier protrusion of the gulf was disposed of by assuming it to have no more validity than a fairy tale. 62 The failure to find the associated site of Elath was taken care of by assuming that the oldest city on the site was the Ezion-geber of the time of Solomon, while one of the later cities at the same site took the name of Elath. 63 The absence of any evidences of occupation prior to tbe time of Solomon were bypassed by assuming that the Scriptural account means only that the Israelites stopped at a place which later became the site of Ezion-geber. 64 The unfavorable, if not impossible, usability of the coast at this point as a harbor for boats was avoided _by assuming that 262 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the boats were but small dhows, which were anchored off shore. 65 The initial surprise from the location of the site in such an unfavorable place, from the standpoint of the severe wind and sand storms that frequent the area, was dispensed with on a closer examination of the large structure within the city which was regarded as a large smelting plant. 66 The structure revealed two rows of carefully constructed apertures in the walls which "could only be flues." Since temperatures requiring some provision of an air blast would be needed to yield the conditions for smelting copper from chrysocolla ores, it was presumed that these flues were designed to make use of the violent winds as a means of providing the air blast necessary to obtain the needed high temperatures. Thus what had at first seemed to be a rather stupidly selected site for the town now became the product of the great wisdom of Solomon. 67 On more critical examination, these proofs for dating the earliest city on this site as that from the time of Solomon have one by one lost their validity. Later re-examination of these "flues" indicated in unmistakable fashion that they were not flues and had never been thus used. 6~ They were the holes left from the ceiling beams when the structure had later been destroyed. It is to the credit of Glueck that he had the courage to admit the earlier mistake in identification. However, one sees in his later report a large tendency to cling to certain corollaries of the early interpretations that depended heavily on this earlier but erroneous identification. It is not feasible to dismiss the difficulty resulting from the now impossible use of the shore line for harboring boats by assuming that these were small craft that could be anchored off shore. Scripture stated that the boats were used to sail to Ophir for gold and that expert seamen were needed to sail the ships. 69 While the location of Ophir is not known with certainty, it could not hav,e .been very close to the site of Ezion-geber, since there are no gold fields in this area. Locations as far as India and East or South Africa have been suggested. In any case, the corresponding ships con- . structed by Jehoshaphat were built to make the voyage to Tarshish,7° a site that was very probably located on the TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 263 coast of what is now Spain. Such voyages were not made in small boats. The difficulty rising from the absence of any city on the site earlier than that attributed to Solomon, but which should be dated much later, remains as an anachronism with the Biblical stai:ement that the Israelites camped at this site at the time of their entrance into Palestine. So also the anachronism with Scripture remains relative to the statement that Elath was not the same site as Ezion-geber, but was a near-by site. The pottery at the site may well tie the date of the site to the neighboring mines to the north, but this provides no basis at all for dating the site to the time of Solomon. Evidently Glueck himself was not totally convinced of the identification of the site following the re-investigations.' 1 ... If Tell el-Kheleifeh is not in all finality to be identified with Ezion-geber: Elath, then it must be considered a fortified industrial maritime storage and caravanserai center for both. Data obtained from the three subsequent cities constructed in turn on the site of the oldest city may provide valuable clues. City IV, the most recent, is clearly from the 4th or 3rd century. In City III were found fragments of jars inscribed in Minaean script. The Minaeans belong to the period from the 6th to the 4th centuri~s. With the collapse of the evidence of a Solomonic origin for City I, this city should be assigned to an Assyrian origin in the 8th or 7th century. It is, of course, complimentary to Solomon, but the assumption that he was the only man in the course of half a millennium who was capable of the accomplishments attributed to him is not an obvious deduction. While the concept may be unpopular among investigators, the writer would seem to have a greater confidence than some in the Ezion-geber legend and would propose that the search for the site of an earlier Ezion-geber be reinstigated in the area suggested by the legend. The violent winds in the area may be considered as an adequate factor for the filling in of the depression of the gulf with sand back as far as the original site. The same explanation may hold for the .problem of the location of the site of the · crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites. There is no necessity for supposing that there has been any significant change in the climate of this area back to 600 B. C., or that 26-1 THE EXODUS PROBLEM there has been any significant change in the water levd, for this lt'gend to have a factual basis. 72 IX. An Alternate Interpretation of the Archaeology of Transjordan and the Negeb By the revised chronology, the end of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine is marked by the incidents of the Exodus and the Conquest. The destructions of cities in Palestine at the time of these incidents, only forty years apart, may not be distinguishable in all cases. The continuation of the evidences of destruction to the north of Palestine mav be accounted for by the natural catastrophe at the tim~ of the Exodus 71 or possibly in part by the peoples migrating out of Palestine at the time of the Conquest. This destruction of cities is evident also in northern Transjordan and represents the destruction of these cities by the Israelites. 74 Any destruction of cities in this area at the time of the conquest by Chedorlaomer and his allies belong to an era centuries earlier than this in Early Bronze. The necessary assumption that this conquest included extensive territory of Palestine west of Jordan is provided no support by the Scriptural details. It could be expected that these cities were much smaller then than at the time of Joshua, and the materials mav have been reused in reconstruction to make this evide~ce obscure. Middle Bronze I, by the altered interpretation, represents the culture of the Israelites after the Conquest, when they had opportunity to settle down in their new inheritance and utilize their inherent abilities. 75 At this time, the area of the Negeb was also occupied by certain tribes who preferred this type of life and who were then responsible for solving the problem of water supply at least to the point of meeting their needs as a seminomadic people.76 The culture at this time is the same as that for the territory to the north for the same period,77 indicating that this occupation was an expansion of Israelite occupation: The territories of Edom and Moab were not occupied by the Israelites at the time of the Conquest, and no change in culture is to be expected. Since the Archaeological Ages have been defined in terms of major cultural changes, it follows that Early Bronze in Edom and Moab continued without interruption at least to the time of David and possi- TRANSJORDAN AND THE NEGEB 265 bly even later. The apparent gap in the sedentary occupation of this territory has thus resulted from a failure to recognize this difference in the history of the area from that of Palestine in the correlation of periods between the two areas. In recognizing a,. sedentary occupation in Edom and Moab in Iron I, Iron I is given a beginning about a century earlier than is given for Iron I in the territory west of Jordan. In Transjordan, the assigned date is c. 1300 B.C.; 78 in Palestine the date is c. 1200 B. C. or later. 79 By the revised chronology, the dates are in the 9th and 8th centuries respectively. What is regarded as a resumption of sedentary life in Edom and Moab thus belongs to about the time of the rebellion of these territories against Israel in the mid9th century. 80 The period just prior to this, suggesting a nonsedentary occupation, may be accounted for on the basis of the notable diminution of occupants resulting from the destruction of a large part of the population in the wars of David. 81 In one case, this involved all of the male population; in another, two-thirds of the population. Since these incidents left primarily or totally a female population, there would be little or no evidence of political organization. The territory of northern Transjordan was occupied following the Conquest, but the occupation was by the two and one-half tribes who chose this territory because it fitted into their occupation as herdsmen. Their mode of life was thus largely nonsedentary .. While it is stated that the people occupied some of the rebuilt cities, there are too many unknown factors to attempt to define what meager cultural evidences could be expected to be revealed archaeologically. The writer suspects that there might well be some meager evidences of a semi-sedentary occupation of some of these sites. However, there is a real danger in interpreting the significance of such meager evidence as occupation when it may represent only "trade" or a temporary residence of a few people from another territory. Probably most of the cultural evidences of the Israelite tribes in this area are scattered over the wide expanse of the territory as local camp .sites. The infrequency of mound sites in Transjordan with the near-complete absence of stratified deposits can be expected to make it very difficult to make unequivocal_ chronological assignments. 82 Z66 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Notes and Reff!rences (l) See accompanying map. (2) Num. 20:14ff. (2a) An alternate route has been suggested which would re-::ognize that the Israelites skirted Edom on the we~t. continuing north along the eastern side of the Dead Sea to a point just south of the northern border of Moab, then moved eastward to the desert fringes before the eventual thrust westward through the territory of the Arnorite kings. While suggested many years ago, this concept seems not to have won any 11:eneral acceptance. (3) Ex. 15:15. (4) Num. 22:36, 39; 23:28; 21:20. (5) I Sam. 14:47. (6) II Sam. 8:12, 14. (7) I Kings 22:47, 48. (8) II Kings 8:20. (9) Jer. 49:17. (10) Eze. 25:12-14. (11) II Kings 16:6. (12) Gen. 19:36, 37. (l3) Nurn. 2l:ll; see also note of ref. 2a (14) See · ref. 4. (15) Num. 21:13, 26. (16) Jdg. 3:15, 28-30. (17) Ruth 1:1-4. (18) Ruth 4:17, 21. 22. (l9) See ref. 5. (20) II Sam. 8:2. (21) II Kings 1:1. (22) See ref. 12. (23) Jdg. ll:4ff.; II Sam. 10:11; 12:29-31. (24) Eze. 16:3. (25) II Sam. 21:2. (26) Gen. 15:16. (27) Num. 21:26. (28) Deut. 3:3, 4. (29) Num. 13:29; I Sam. 30:1. (30) Num. 21:1; 33:40. (31) I Sam. 27:10. (32) Ibid. (33) I Sam. 30:14. (34) Ibid. (35) Ibid. (36) Num. 34:3, 4; Deut. 1:7. (37) Gen. l2:9; 13:1, 2. (38) Gen. 13: l, 3. (39) G-RD, p. 67. (40) See refs. 31-34. (41) See quot. of ref. 47. (42) G-RD, Chap. VI. (43) G-OSJ, pp. 21, 149. (44) Ibid., p. 20. (45) G-OSJ, p. 145. (46) Ibid., p. 114; G-RD, pp. 71-73. (47) G-RD, p. 68. (48) G-OSJ, p. 146. (49) Ibid., Chap. III. (49a) GFID,·p. xi; see also p. 71; G-OSJ, p. 114. (50) Gen. 13:10; see.SDABD, article "Zoar" for probable location of this site. (51) Sect. IX. (52) Num. 33:35, 36: Deut. 2:8. (53) I Kinii:s 9:26. (54) l Kings. 22:48. (55) II Sam. 8:.14. (56) II Kings .8:20, 21. (56a) See ref. 11. {56b) G-OSJ, p. 90. (57) Ibid., pp. 91, 92. (58) Ibid., pp. 101, 103. (59) Num. 33:35: G-OSJ, pp. 94, 99, 104. The lowest city at this site was dated from the era of Solomon. (60) I Kings 9:26; G-OSJ, p. 113. (61) C-HP, p. 307. The legend of Ezion-geber included reference to many ships being harbored there when the site was located farther inland (G-OSJ, p. 90). (62) Ibid. (63) Ibid., p. 113. (64) Ibid., p. 104. (65) See ref. 61. (66) G-OSJ, pp. 92, 94. (67) Ibid., p. 99. (68) BA, Vol. XXVIII, p. 73. (69) I Kings 9:26, 27. (70) See ref. 54. (71) See ref. 68, p. 71. (72) Glueck has used such evidence to support his interpretations of the archaeology of Transjordan and the Negeb (BASOR, No. 109, p. 15; G-RD, pp. x, 7, 16, etc.). However, the chronological revision makes the date to which he refers susceptible ·to an entirely different interpretation. This results from the popular dates having been set centuries too early. What he is calling 1500 B.C. is actually only 900 B.C., and his deduction relative to climate and water level of the Red Sea may well be true for 900 B.C., but not necessarily true of the era of the Exodus. See Chap. VII for clear-cut evidences of gross climatic changes, the effects of which may well have continued to this later era to some degree. (73) See Chap. VI, Sects. VII, VIII. (74) Deut. 3:1-6. (75) Vol. I, Chap. VI, Sect. VI!I. (76) See ref. 4. (77) G-RD, p. 69. (78) G-OSJ, p. 125. (79) A-AP, p. 112. (80) II Kings 8:20£. (81) I Kinii:s 11: 14-16; II Sam. 8:2. (82) G-OSJ, p. 21. CHAPTER XVI PROBLEMS IN THE CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT GREECE Admittedly, the chronology of Greece for the critical era under consideration in this ~treatise has not been established as solidly as has the corresponding chronology of Assyria. However, a chronology back as far as the mid-8th century has been established with close approximation and with relative certainty. With this as a basis, it is possible to clarify a number of critical points in the earlier chronology to the point of revealing the nature of the errors that have been made in the development of the traditional structure. I. The Discovery of Legendary Troy and Its Effect on Popular Opinion Prior to the archaeological excavations at Troy (18701890), scholars generally regarded the ancient Greek writings as pure myth without historical significance. 1 Until late in the 19th century, many serious orthodox classical scholars, especially in Germany and on the Continent; believed that the Homeric poems dealing with the incidents related to the fall of Troy were altogether products of poetic imagination with no basis in realtity. On the basis of this premise, it was considered "useless and foolish" to look for an actual physical site of Troy. A basis for such a conclusion was at hand from the productions of Homer and of later Greek writers. The actions of men were mingled with those of the gods, and in many other ways the stories reflected a legendary or mythical origin. On the other hand, there were many detailed references to the city of Troy which suggested that Homer was writing about a real location and about real events. Even among the few who entertained the possibility that there might be much in the writings of Homer that represented actual events and places, there was no agreement on such a major item as the location of this site. It was not until the excavations by Schliemann at the mound now known as Hissarlik that there was a change in the thinking among scholars relative to the historical value of Homer's writings. 2 In 1868, Schliemann had identified 268 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the mound of Balli Dagh as the site of Troy, but after some brief observations, he concluded that the site did not satisfactorily meet the ~pecifications given by Homer. The first digging at Hissarlik was by Frank Calvert, who owned part of the hill that composed the mound. After brief digging, he was convinced of the identity of the site as that of ancient Troy and convinced Schliemann of his conclusion. As a result, Schliemann decided to excavate the mound on a large scale. The farther the excavations were carried, the more obvious was the correctness of this deduction. In fact, the evidences were so convincing that Schliemann was able to convince scholars, many against their will, that the mound of Hissarlik was indeed the extant remains of the ancient sit1e of Homer's Troy. However, it also became apparent that the site of Troy at the time of Homer, and even more so the Troy of which he wrote, was considerably less pretentious than suggested by his descriptions. Confirmation of a number of details provided by Homer were observed archaeologically, but the exaggerations also became more and more obvious.'1 From these observations was born the concept that many generations had passed between Homer and the Troy of which he wrote, and that his information had been passed on orally for an extended period of time prior to reduction to writing. Hence the introduction of the concept of "tradition" to express the presumed evolution of historical facts to form the legendary and mythical accounts of the later Greek writers. According to this thesis, that which may have had a genuine historical basis became a garbled mixture of fact and unbridled imagination. The details of Schliemann's investigations have been described by other writers 4 and need not be repeated here. The same may be said of the details in Homer's works, which have permitted a rather unequivocal identification of the site of Troy, and of the various evidences of exaggeration or of specifications not corroborated by archaeology. Interest here is rather in the shift in thinking on the part of scholars re;ulting from these investigations. Most scholars now seem willing to admit that even passages from the legends which on first reading might be regarded as purely mythical, may have. had some "kernel of historical truth" in them. ·The extent of this reversal of thought can best be ap- THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 269 preciated by persuing some of the subsequent attempts to find such a historical basis for the myths. There still rem~ins a difference of opinion, however, relative to how far one can rationally go in attempts to find historical interpretations to the legends. It suffices here to note that most scholars at the present time are probably willing to admit that, in the main, the characters mentioned in the Greek myths had a real existence, though some might hesitate in expressing an unqualified belief that such characters as Heracles or Lycurgus were other than fictitious. One may explain the inferences that some of these characters were born of the gods by assuming that this was but a less offensive way of stating that they were of illegitimate birth or that their parentage was unknown; So also the references to conversion of certain humans to animals may well have been but a deliberately ambiguous way of indicating that there was no use looking further for these among the living human race, possibly because they were victims of an unpublicized murder. It is the present writer's conviction that while these myths clearly present backgrounds of fanciful details, the characters not only had a real existence, but also the time and genealogical relations as given are ,factual. Thus while it may not be possible to set up a chronology of this era on the basis of such source materials, an approximate floating chronology can be devised which requires no improbable time relations or life spans. Examples of lineages of certain of these characters are provided as Tables V-VIII in this chapter. II. The Current Dating of the Legendary Age of Greece While some scholars might be reticent to admit any serious chronological value for these numerous statements of contemporaneity and genealogical relationships, the era includes reference also to certain incidents that are now universally recognized as of historical occurrence. Among these is the Trojan war, which culminated in the fall of Troy. Homer's Iliad has. its background in a late phase of this war. 5 Recognized also is the incident of the invasion of southern Greece by a northern people known as the Dorians. 270 THE EXODUS PROBLEM The incident of the Trojan war is mentioned in both Greek and Egyptian writings to provide a svnchronism between the two chronologies . In the Egyptian· references, the Trojan war is given a background in the XIXth Dvnastv. Africanus and Eusebius have identical appended notes fo"tlowing the name Thuoris of this dynasty to the effect that the fall of Troy occurred during the rule of this king." Thuoris, who in Homer is called Polybus, husband of Alcandra, and in whose time Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years. While these notes may have been added by the transcribers of Manetho, the fact that the notes are identical in both transcriptions suggests that they formed part of Manetho' s original document. The Sothis king list has a note appended to this same name stating that after the close of the war, Menelaus and his restored wife, Helen, visited Egypt during the rule of this same Th uoris. 7 With Egyptian chronology regarded as "fixed" within about a decade for this dynasty, a date c. 1180 B. C. has been assigned to the fall of Troy. However, some scholars have preferred a date as early as 1209 B.C.' Ill. This Dating Must Recognize a 300-Year Hiatus in Greek History Greek chronology is not solidly fixed until one reaches the era of the mid-6th century B.C. However, from this point, the chronology can be traced back in time by means of the Spartan and Macedonian kings (Tables V and VIII) to a date that cannot be far removed from the mid-8th century. According to the later writer, Thucydides, the Dorian invasion occurred 80 years after the fall of Troy. 8 At this point, Greek history becomes a blank. For the period between this invasion and the Spartan kings, whose lines can be traced back to c. 750 B.C., there are no written sources, legendary or otherwise, to provide reference to any event, or any king, or any person, who lived during this hiatus of some three centuries. It is as if the entire population of Greece began a Rip van Winkle-type sleep, only to wake up 300 years later but, still having a common knowledge of incidents that occurred before the long sleep. Yet the two sides of the hiatus are characterized by different customs, THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 271 and different outlines of territories occupied by the peoples, and by other differences in various phases of Greek living. Since the earliest kings of the Spartan lines belong to the era of the Dorian invasion, prior to the hiatus, while others can be traced back to the point marking the end of the hiatus, it is necessary to assume that this 300-year break encompassed the reigns Of unknown Spartan kings during this 300-year priod or that the line was broken and reinstated at the end of this period. 10 The cause of the break must then be recognized as the Dorian invasion or incidents related to the Dorian invasion. Modern discussions on the chronology of Greece are replete with reforences to this unexplainable gap. Quotations of several such containing comments of additional interest are here reproduced. 11 ... The Dorian tribe called the Hylleis claimed that their name was derived from Hyllus, the son of Heracles. The Dorian invasion marks the end of the Mycenaean civilization and begins the so-called Dark Ages of Greece, a period of some 300 years during which extensive changes occurred in many aspects of Greek life. Between the Greece of such legends as those which we have been considering and the Greece of the earliest historic period there has always been a great gulf of darkness. . . . And in the interval no one could say how many generations, concerning which, and their conditions and developments, there was nothing but blank ignorance. The ending of the Mycenaen civilization, at the close of the Bronze Age, came in an age of general unrest, m'.igrations and invasions. The relative stability of the Late Bronze Age was shattered, and a chaotic period began for which we have no reliable dates or facts to go on. Whereas the history of the Ancient East proceeds without a break [sic] after a relatively brief spell of violent destruction, the phase of Greek history extending from about 1200-1150 to 750 B.C. is, as observed in the previous chapter, one of the most obscure in all ancient history. There is no means of reducing this long hiatus .... With the Mycenaean civilization we were almost on the threshold of historical times, yet now we are plunged into a protohistoric epoch which seems almost a complete blank. To describe it as the "Homeric period" is absurd; Homer's world corresponds either to the Mycenaen or to the Archaic period, surely not to the interval between them. To describe it as the Geometric period is more correct, but tantamount to confessing that our knowledge of it remains purely archaeological. In dealing with the concluding phase of the Dark Age, we must remember that the chronology of the Archaic period still rests entirely on the dates given by Thucydides for the founding of the Greek colonies in Sicily and also on a few sporadic dates, sometimes belatedly attested, assigned by tradition to the founding of other colonies in Italy and on the Black Sea. There has been much discussion of these tradi- 272 THE EXODUS PROBLEM tional dates and they have been queried, but in the end we are bound to fall back on them for there is nothing else to go on. It is because Thucydides dates the founding of Syracuse to 735-734 B.C. th.at the transitional phase between Geometric and Orientalizing art, the socalled Subgeometric found on the earliest levels at Syracuse, is assigned to the second half of the 8th century. It is because Selirius, founded in 625 B.C. according to Thucydides, has yielded no ProtoCorinthian and only Corinthian ware, that the transition from one to the other is held to have taken place previously to 625. IV. The Assumed 300-Year Gap in Greek History Is Nonexistent The necessity for assuming such an improbable gap in Greek history should have served as an adequate basis for suspecting that there was something grossly and radically wrong with a chronology of the ancient world that had demanded recognition of any such blank. The accumulating evidence for a similar gap in the histories and occupation of so many other areas for approximately the same period should have been recognized· as an adequate basis for initiating a critical scrutiny of the validity of the premises that had led to such a structure. 12 At the present time, there are numerous lines of evidence indicating that there never was any such gap in Greek history, and that the legendary period should be moved forward to fill all but a mere fraction of this hiatus. The picture that emerges is one that recognizes the Dorian invasion (and events related to that time) 1'1 as the immediate cause of the severe changes to be observed in the many phases of Greek life for the period following this invasion. The more significant of these evidences will now be reviewed. V. The Improbability of Any Such Historical Gap First in the list of such evidences, we note the exceedingly remote possibility for the existence of any such blank in Greek history. History is a record of incidents, and incidents require people as participants. One might conceive of a gap in a chronology following a disaster of such magnitude as to wipe out the entire population, but even then history teaches us that other peoples would certainly move into the area short of 300 years. The disaster to this area at the time of Deucalion' s flood was evidently on a much greater scale than was the Dorian invasion. Yet legends are extant for the immediately fol- THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 273 lowing period. Names of persons are noted in the legends that can hardly belong more than a single generation after the catastrophe. How then are we to logically account for the absence of even a legendary recollection of incidents and names over a period of .'300 years, yet belonging to an era much closer to the later writers? It is inconceivable that a line of Spartan rulers continued to rule throughout this interval with no knowledge of such rule on the part of later writers. It is equally inconceivable that the line could have been broken so near its beginning and then reinstated 300 years later. This hypothetical gap has its origin in the unwarranted expansion of Egyptian chronology. When this error is corrected, to meet the altered structure described in this work, there is no need for such an improbable hypothesis. VI. The Genealogy of Alexander the Great On one occasion, it was demanded of Alexander the Great that he be able to trace his ancestry back to the preTrojan war heroes. 14 This he was able to do to the .complete satisfaction of those making the demand. As far as we know, there is no extant record of the genealogy used by Alexander at that time (336-323 B. C. ). However, the very fact that he was able to do so indicates clearlv that in his day the names of persons were known which .spanned the entire period back to Heracles. If such was true of the ancestry of Alexander, it must ha.ve been true of others also. 14• VII. Evidences that the Fall of Troy Belongs to the 8th Century, Not to the 12th Philo-Byblius, according to Stephen, considered Semiramis contemporary to or slightly prior to the Trojan war. i.; The Semiramis of history was the mother and coregent of Adad Nirari of Assyria (805-752 B. C. ). 16 Since the coregency was at the beginning of the reign and slightly before the fall of Troy, this evidence dates the incident in the early 8th century and not in the 12th, as is currently done. The anachronism that res.ults from this early date has been explained on the assumption that this Semiramis was a god or a mythical character of an earlier date and is not the mother of Adad Narari III. The writer finds it exceedingly difficult to seriously entertain such an explanation. Why should 274 THE EXODUS PROBLEM an ancient writer synchronize an incident like the fall of Troy with a god or a mythical person that had no specific life span? The ancient writer, Virgil, makes Aeneas of the Trojan war era a contemporary of Dido, the sister of Pygmalion, a Phoenician king of the mid-9th century. This date is a. full three centuries later than the date attributed to the fall of Troy traditionally. The anachronism has been explained by presuming that Virgil is taking characters from widely different eras and placing them in the same story as an example of poetic licence. 17 Virgil has made a great alteration in this history, by supposing that Aeneas, his hero, was contemporary with Dido, though there was an interval of near three centuries between the one and the other; the era of building of Carthage being fixed three hundred years later than the the destruction of Troy. This liberty is very excusable in a poet, who is not tied to the scrupulous accuracy of a historian. One can only comment that by the unbridled use of such reasoning as a means of bypassing anachronisms, one could find "scientific" support for essentially any chronology that he might choose to devise. Philistus placed the fall of Troy 37 years after the founding of Carthage. 1H Justin and Orosius agree in placing the founding of Carthage 72 years before the founding of Rome. 19 The date for the founding of Rome is now set at 753 B.C., 20 thus yielding a date 825 B.C. for the founding of Carthage by the statements of Justin and Orosius. The fall of Troy then occurred in 788 by the statement of Philistus. This date is in excellent agreement with the less definite statement of Philo-Byblius, who placed the event shortly after 800 B.C. This date, 788 B.C., falls very close to that. deduced for this incident by totally independent means .. 20a VIII. The Anachronism of the Time Relation Between the Dorian Invasion and the Migration of the Sea Peoples A severe anachronism rises from the traditional views .of the chronology of Greece relative to the time relation between the Dorian invasion and the migrations of the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples made an attempt to invade Egypt int.he reign of Rameses III (currently dated c. 1200 B.C.). 21 Some scholars believe that this was a second attempt, the THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 275 having occurred in the 5th year of the reign of Merneptah, some 15-20 years earlier. 22 In any case, it is now apparent that this invasion was but a late episode in the migrations set in motion by the Dorian invasion. In his recent classical volume entitled The Birth of Greek Art, Demargne found it impossible to develop the topic of Greek art apart from 'Greek chronology. Yet in attempting to correlate these developments with Greek chronology, he ran into the problem of the time relations involved between the incidents mentioned above. It was obvious to him that the migrations of the Sea Peoples were set off by the invasion of southern Greece by the Dorians, forcing the former occupants, (joined by occupants of the islands) to migrate to new quarters. The migrating hordes moved through southern Asia Minor, overran the Hittite territory of Anatolia, then moved southward along the Mediterranean coast. The attempted invasion of Egypt was then but a culminat~ ing episode in the course of this migration. In recognition of the order of events, Demargne wrote: 2'1 It was undoubtedly the Dorian invasion of mainland Greece that forced the pre-Hellenes to take to the sea. Thus we come up against the Dorian problem, and here Greek tradition is our only source of in· formation. This historical tradition of the Dorian invasion is mingled with the legend of the Return of the Herakleidae. Cook recognizes this same cause and effect sequence,2• as have also other scholars. The problem then is one of explaining how a cause could follow a result by nearly a full century. Demargne does not provide a clear solution to this anomaly. Eventually, he was obliged to resort to the assumption that Homer as a poet, was not bound to a strict chronology and took advantage of his freedom to relate the incidents in time in any manner he chose. "3 Here a preliminary question arises: have the Homeric poems an historical value and, if so, what age or period do they purport to represent? Homer of course is not an historian but an epic poet who takes what liberties he pleases with chronology and geography, the propor· tions he gives to an event, the way he accounts for an action do not necessarily correspond to reality. Yet the order of these incidents is deeply rooted in the writings of the later Greek historians. A more fundamental question calls for an answer: Is the repeated resort to such ~ -1 O"l Figure 4. Showing the Shift in Order of Incidents by the Revised Chronology (Fall of Troy-Dorian Invasion-Invasion of Sea Peoples) Dvnastv XVIII Conventional Chronology Dynasty XIX Fall of Troy {Thuori s, c. 1180 B.C.) ~ Dvnastv XX Dorian ' Invasion (Rameses II c. Invasion I of Sea Peoples (Rameses III, c. 1200 B.C. " Dori an Invasion (c. 1100 B.C.) Wrong Order/ Dvnastv XVI II Revised Chronology Dynasty XIX Fall of Troyt (Thuoris, c. 788 B.C.) >--3 Dynasty XX ,50 Invasion lof Sea Peoples (Rameses III B.C.~700 B.C.) Correct Order ::r: tr:I tr:I x 0 t:1 cen '"ti !:tJ 0 o::J t""' !Tl ~ THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 277 explanations really necessary. or are these situations but additional anachronisms to be added to an already long list which results from a recognition as "fixed" of a grossly erroneous chronology of Egypt? The answer is neither obscure nor evasive. When these problems are set against the background provided by the proposed revision, .these~ problems, along with the many previously introduced, find simple and credible solutions. To be sure, the rejection of the 300-year gap in Greek history does not provide a complete answer. The critical incidents remain in the wrong order. But fundamental to the proposed revision is also the recognition that a mistake has been made in the modern revision of the content and position of Manetho' s XIXth Dynasty. 21; When it is recognized that Dyuasty XIX did not follow Dynasty XVIII but was an off-shoot from it at the time of Seti I, and when it is recog• nized that the synchronisms between Egypt and Greece belong to the era of this position of Dynasty XIX, then the order of these incidents is reversed, It is this same restoration that provides the date for the fall of Troy c. 790 B.C., which agrees with the calculations based on other statements from the ancient Greek writings. The difference between the two views is indicated by the chart of Figure 4. IX. Dating Homer The dating of Homer in Greek chronoiogy has been a problem of longstanding. Even the ancients were not agreed on his· placement, the dates varying over a period of 400 years. Crates and Eratosthenes thought he must belong to a period not later than a century after the Trojan war. 27 Aristotle and Aristarchus placed him contemporary with the Ionian invasion (shortly following the Dorian invasion); Appolodorus dated him 240 years after the Trojan war; Porphurius 275 years after, the Parian marble 277 years after and. Herodotus 400 years after. Theopompus . made him contemporary with the Lydian king Gyges (716-678 ). Hellanicus places him in the 12th century, based on the high improbability that he could write so vividly of the sites and incidents related to the era of the Trojan war. Yet if one elects such an early date to meet this enigma, he is only faced with another that is equally incredible. It is inconceivable that Homer could have conceived in his mind and 278 THE EXODUS PROBLEM executed such extensive works without the assistance of writing; yet writing appeared in Greece only in the late 9th century. 28 Kitto considered the figure of Herodotus as most nearly correct. 29 Homer refers to the "coming of Tlepolemus" a descendant of Heracles to the Island of Rhodes, suggesting that his time is after the return of the Heraclidae. 30 However, the statement has been regarded as an insertion by a later writer. Apparently, there is no convincing statement in the writings of Homer to provide a solid clue to this position in Greek chronology. He writes vividly of sites and incidents related to the era of the Trojan war, but many of the indications of background belong to a much later period. It is not the purpose here to discuss at length the many intricacies which have left the dating of Homer an unsolved problem. It is rather to note that by the altered chronological structure defended in this work, this problem also has a simple and credible solution. The 300-year gap is nonexistent, except for perhaps a brief period during the recuperation from the catastrophe to Greece at the time of the Dorian invasion. At this time, most of the cities of Greece were destroyed, 31 and it has been generally assumed that this was the work of the invading Dorians. In a previous chapter, 32 it has been shown that a far more probable cause was a severe earthquake that brought ruin to wide areas even outside of Greece. The only remaining question is whether the Dorians took advantage of the catastrophe of the earthquake to invade the Peloponnesus, or whether this occurred after . the invasion. In any case, this explains the evident gross chang~s that appear with the recuperation from the disaster without presuming this long hiatus in Greek history. The era of the return of the Heraeclidae followed shortly the fall of the site of Troy. This resulted in the establishment of the dual line of kings at Sparta, who then represent a continuous line down to the time of Ariston (560-510 B.C.) and to Anaxandrides, his contemporary. There is no call for the necessary but highly improbable assumption that this line was broken for a period of 300 years with no names to fill the gap, only to be restored 300 years later. 32• By this structure, Homer could have belonged to the actual period of the Trojan war, though it is not improbable that he obtained his information from others who were alto- THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 279 gether familiar with the details of that era and who were still alive when he wrote. Homer belongs to an era when writing was in current use, having been introduced half a century or more before his dav. Manv of the relative dates assigned to Homer by the a~cients thus do not represent significant errors or discrep~ncies other than this same error of placing the fall of Troy back too far in time. This could well be explained on the basis of the great disaster that befell Greece at the time of the Dorian invasion, which left these relationships vague in the minds of later writers. We would then date Homer in the era following the Dorian invasion and, without attempting to be more exact, give him a position early in the second half of the 8th century B.C. The principal data to be considered by this dating of Homer is the problem. of the archaeological evidence. Demargne places him in the so-called Geometric period, szb a term used to define a new type of pottery which appears primarily in Crete and in Asia Minor, but of which samples are also found at several sites in Greece. The questions to be answered in this connection are: How long did this period of use of geometric pottery last, and does it necessarily represent an era independent of the use- of Mykenaean or Archaic art? In answer to these questions, we can only rest the case on the comments of others. From the review of Demargne on this point, 31 we can only conclude that the available evidence does not provide clear answers. However, certain scholars have entertained the concept that the Geometric Period was not a period outside the limits of the Mykenaean and Archaic period.a• The style precedes what has been called Orientalizing styles and shows some evidence of having been of Dorian origin. 13 There are many regional styles, the most prominent having been found in Crete and in Asia Minor. Data obtained from excavations gave rise to much by way of debate and disagreement. Dorpfeld was the princiapl advocate of the view that the Geometric styles were not an intermediate between Mykenaean and Archaic styles. The styles show evidence of an influence outside of Greece; some have seen what is regarded as a renaissance from the Mykenaean period, but influenced by the art of Phoenicia. From such evaluations, the writer would predict that if further obser- 280 THE EXODUS PROBLEM TABLEV Lineage of Heracles and the Spartan Lines of Kings Heracles Hyllus Cleodemus Aristomachus Father of Hyllus Father of Cleodemus Father of Aristomachus Father of Aristodemus & Temenus of the Dorian inyasion Aristodemus Procles, son of Aristodemus and Eurysthenes, son of Aristodemus founder of the line of the and founder of the Agid line Europontidae Agis, son of Eurysthenes Sous, colleague of Agis Eurypon, son or grandson of Procles Agesilaus, son of Doryssus Archelaus, son of Agesilaus Eunomus, father of Polydectes Polydectes, son of Eunomus Charilaus, son of Polydectes Nicander, son of Charilaus Theopompus, son of Nicander Zeuxidamus, grandson of Theopompus Anaxidamus, son of Zeuxidamus Archidamus, son of Anaxidamus Agesicles· Ariston, son of Agesicles and contemporary Teleclus, son of Archelaus Alcamenes, son of Teleclus Eurycrates, I of Anasander, son of Eurycrates Eurycrates II, grandson of Eurycrates I Leon, son of Eurycrates II Anaxandrides, grandson of Eurocrates II These genealogies may be traced through the articles under the various names as provided in the Dictionary by Smith (S-DGRBM of reference abbreviation list). While a few of the interrelations are missing, these can be set in by common synchronisms. The writer places no confidence in the figures assigned these kings by the ancients as representing elapsed time or accuracy. Procles and Eurysthenes clearly belong to the era after the Dorian invasion, begun under Aristomachus. The names below the blanks belong to the era of recovery. Hence the assumed $00-year gap must be placed at the break represented by the blanks. This may represent a brief period of recovery with a duration not more than a decade or two, and certainly not 300 years. vations prove anything at all, they will corroborate the view that the so-called Geometric art had its origin in a mixture of influences, including that of the Mykenaean period (which was not 300 years in the past, but only a matter of a decade or two) together with Phoenician influence from peoples who moved into the area from other areas to fill the occupational gap that resulted from the Dorian invasion and the violent earthquake that destroyed the cities of Greece. THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 281 X. Clarification of the Problem of Danaus and Aegyptus The problem of Danaus and Aegyptus was introduced in an earlier volume.'36 The problem is now more susceptible to a complete solution in the light of the more detailed consideration of the chronology of the legendary age of Greece. In his list of kings of Dynasties XVIII and XIX, Josephus introduces the names of two kings, Sethosis and· Armais by name, who were brothers. 36• According to Josephus, Sethosis left his kingdom in the hands of his brother who, in his brother's absence, usurped the throne. On hearing of his brother's act, Sethosis returned to Egypt, recovered his throne, and banished his .brother from Egypt. Josephus, quoting Manetho, says that "Sethosis was himself called Aegyptus, as was his brother Armais called Danaus." According to the Greek legends, Danaus and Aegyptus were the twin sons of Belus, who in turn was a twin brother of Agenor. 37 It has been presumed by some that the Danaus of Josephus is the same person as Danaus (the son of Belus) who had a twin brother, Aegyptus. This identification is out of the question by any chronology or thesis, except as one presumes complete confusion of the interrelationships between the characters noted in the Greek legends. The lineage of this Belus may also be traced to the era of the Trojan war~ 8 (see Table VI). By this genealogy, Danaus and Aegyptus, sons of Belus, were of the 8th generation prior to the war and hence were probably born prior to the flood of Deucalion. This was well over a century before the era of Seti I (who is identified in the revision with this Sethosis of Josephus) and still another century earlier if this Sethosis is identified as Seti II. It is not at all anachronistic that Belus and his two sons belong to the era before the flood of Deucalion, since they did not live in Greece; they lived in Egypt, in spite of their Greek origin. The following statements are from a modern review of the pertinent legends:i9 ... According to the common story he [Danaus] was a native of Chemnis, in the Thebais in Upper Egypt, and migrated from thence to Greece. (Herod. ii, 91). Belus had given Danaus Libya, while Aegyptus had obtained Arabia. Danaus had reason to think that the sons of his brother were plotting against him, and in fear or on the advice of an oracle (Eustath. ad Hom. p. 37), induced him to build a large ship and to embark with his <laughers .... AtJugos a dispute arose between Da- 282 THE EXODUS PROBLEM naus and Gelanor about the government, and after many discussions the people deferred the decision of the question to the next day. At its dawn, a wolf rushed among the cattle and killed one of the oxen. This occurrence was to the Argives an event which seemed to announce to them in what manner the dispute should terminate, and Danaus was accordingly made king of Argos. From the legends, we gather that at the time Danaus .migrated to Greece, the king of the Argives had the name Gelanor. Nothing seems to be known about the origin of this Gelanor other than that there was an apparent blank in the history of Argos before him. We learn also from the legends that Agenor, brother of Belus, also migrated out of Egypt through Palestine into Phoenicia where he became king of this area. Since there were 8 further generations between Belus and the Trojan war, and since there is no name among the Phoenician kings as given by Josephus who could be equated with Agenor, it follows that the migrations of Belus and Agenor into Greece must have followed shortly the flood of Deucalion. By this time, Belus and Agenor had grandchildren of marriageable age. Hence the number of new generations to be accounted for prior to the Trojan war is but six. This alleviates the chronological squeeze which would result from presuming that Belus and Agenor were born in Greece after the flood. This explanation places the usurpation of the Argive throne from Gelanor by Danaus 'in the same general era as that of Agenor, twin brother of Belus. We thus make bold to suggest that the Gelanor from whom Danaus usurped the Argive throne was none other than his uncle Agenor who had migrated to Greece earlier. This explains why Danaus selected Argos as the destination of his flight from Egypt and explains at the same time the assignment of the names Danaus and Aegyptus to the brothers Sethosis and Armais. The Egyptians were evidently aware of this previous history of these twin brothers and the flight from Egypt of one of them under the pressure of a brother. Both incidents also contained the factor of a usurped throne. Recognizing the similarity in the two cases, Sethosis and Armais were given the "nicknames" Danaus and Aegyptus. XI. The Flood of Deucalion The incident of the flood of Deucalion is of interest in this connection because it is also mentioned in both Greek THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 283 . TABLE VI The Lineage of Belus• Bel us Danaus & Aegyptus Lynceus Abas Acrisus Danae Perseus Sthenelus Eurystheus Twin brother of Agenor Twin sons of Belus ..Only surviving son of Danaus Son of Lynceus Son of Ahas Daughter of Acrisus Son of Danae Son of Perseus Son of Sthenelus and contemporary of Hyllus, son of Heracles. Heracles lived one generation before the Trojan war. "This lineage may be traced by reference to the individual names in S-DGRBM. and Egyptian literature. The single reference relating the incident to Egyptian history is the note following the name of Misphragmuthosis of Manetho' s Dynasty XVIII, stating that the incident occurred in this reign. 40 This Misphragmuthosis is taken to be the same king known on the monuments as Thutmose (III), whose monuments claim a reign of 54 years, which figure obviously includes all the reign of Hatshepsut. He is currently dated 1501-1447 B.C., based on . the Sothic dating method. 41 According to the Greek legends, Deucalion was the son of Prometheus (not to be confused with the son of Minos of Crete, who had the same name). 41 • Deucalion and his wife believed themselves to be the only survivors of a flood that inundated the land. That such a catastrophe occurred is confirmed by the fact that while the descendants of Deucalion can be traced to the era of the Trojan war, his ancestry cannot be traced beyond the name of his father, though several other characters of the legendary age can also be traced back to about this same point. Deucalion was the father of Orestheus, Amphictyon, and Hellen, the descendants of the latter to the Trojan war, spanning seven generations (Table VII). The seventh generation is represented by Glaucus who died in the war, evidently as a young man, since he left no known descendants. The dating of the incident of the flood is of interest, first in providing an approximate date related to the fall of 284 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Troy, and secondly as confirmation of the altered chronology of Egypt, which recognizes a much shorter period between the reign of Thutmose Ill and the Trojan war than is conceivably possible by current views. By current views, the period from the flood of Deucalion, dated at some point in the reign of Thutmose III, would have a duration between 320 years (1501-1180) and 238 years (1447-1209), with a minimal period of 270 years being more probable. Even the minimal figure requires recognition of 34 years as an average generation. By the altered chronology, the maximum figure is 162 years (based on a date 952 for the beginning of the reign of Thutmose III and reaching to 790 B.C. for the fall of Troy). This allows the reasonable figure of 23 years to a generation, leaving a margin above what might be regarded as minimal for a generation. While, admittedly, one cannot put an absolute confidence in the statement of Africanus, the statement is at least not anachronistic to the altered chronology. TABLE VII The Lineage of Deucalion Deucalion Hellen Aeolus Sisyphus Glaucus Belleropheron Hippolocus Glaucus Contemporary of Thutmose III after Africanus Died in the Trojan war, evidently as a young man XII. An Unwarranted Expansion ofGreek Chronology from Alexander to the Trojan Heroes When Alexander was required to produce a genealogy back to the Trojan war heroes, he was able to present such a genealogy back to Heracles. 42 This was probably through Caranus, the founder of the Macedonian line of kings of which Alexander the Great was a late king. A number of statements appear in the writings of the ancient Greeks dealing with time periods defined in terms of the number of intervening generations. These would seem . to be far more reliable for chronological purposes than the widely divergent views among the ancients on the matter of elapsed THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 285 time between certain persons or incidents. For if Alexander was able to produce a complete genealogy back to Heracles, then it may be assumed that others were able to do the same thing. According to the Parian Marble inscription, confirmed by statements by Theopompus and Euphorus,4 3 Pheidon, brother of Caranus, was the eleventh generation from Heracles. The line of Macedonian kings from Alexander back to its founder Caranus is known in its entirety, though the lengths of many of the reigns are not known. The names of these kings are provided in Table VIII. The number of kings for this period is 17. However, it is known that Archelaus was an illegitimate descendant and that Pausanius and Areopus II-Orestes were also not of the line of Alexander. The legitimate genealogy of Alexander may be traced around these names, since it is known that Amyntas II was the nephew of Perdicas IJ,H and hence of the same generation as a son would have been. The number of generations from Alexander to Caranus inclusive is thus 14. Of the eleven generations from Heracles to Caranus, that of Caranus is included in the 14 noted above. Hence, if we calculate from an estimated date when Heracles was c. 22 years old to the date when Alexander the Great was 22 years old, the period is spanned by 23 generations. By the popular chronology, these 23 generations encompass the period from an estimated date 1240 B.C. for the 22nd year of Heracles to 334 B.C., when Alexander was 22 years of age. In round numbers, the period is 900 years. This demands 39 years for an average generation, which figure is far too high and out of the question; The same period as calculated by the revised chronology is spanned by the date c. 845 to 334 B.C., or 500 years in round numbers. The average generation was then 22 years, a figure which is very acceptable, since an age of 20 was regarded by the Greeks as satisfactory for marriage, and since our figures are approximations. Using this same average figure for a generation, Caranus would be 22 years of age c. 620 B. C. This figure is con. firmed by Herodotus' statement that Pheidon, brother of Caranus, was father of Leocedes, one of the many suitors for the· hand of Agaristus, daughter of Cleisthenes of Sicyon. 45 It has been calculated that Cleisthenes could not have died· earlier than 582. 45 On this basis and the known 286 THE EXODUS PROBLEM incidents of his career, he is given a career span c. 625-582. Pheidon has been assigned dates reaching from c. 600 to c. 900, with a date 750 B.C. being regarded as most probable. The date, like so many others of the ancients expressed in years, is too high by well over a century. TABLE VIII The Line of Macedonian Kings Kings Relationship Caranus Coen us Thurimas Perdiccas I Argaeus Philippus I Aeropus I Alcetas Amyntas I Alexander I Perdiccas II Founder of the line Son of Caranus Son of Coenus Son of Thurimas Son of Perdiccas I Son of Argaeus Son of Philippus I Son of Aeropus I Son of Alcetas Son of Amyntas I Son of Alexander I, brother of Philippus who is father of Amyntas II Illegitimate son of Perdiccas II Of the line of Archelaus; Aeropus was guardian of Orestes. Of the illegitimate line Son of Philippus, brother of Perdiccas II Son of Amyntas II Son of Perdiccas III Archelaus Areopus II-Orestes Pausanius Amyntas II Perdiccas III Alexander Generation No. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 XIII. Synchronizing the Histories of Greece and Rome According to legend, Rome was founded by Romulus, a twin brother of Remus. The accepted date is 753 B. C. 47 Of the legends dealing with the founding of Rome, some are of Greek origin and some are of Roman origin. These contradict each other, preventing a synchronism that would be vital to clarifying the problems of Greek chronology. The Greek legends, for the most part, identify Romulus as the son, or more commonly, the grandson of Aeneas of the Trojan war era. 48 This would agree with the proposed revision which places the fall of Troy c. 790 B. C. The legends of Roman origin, on the other hand, indicate that Romulus was but · a distant descendant of Aeneas. 49 This concept THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREECE 287 might be interpreted to favor the popular view which recognizes a 300-year gap between the Trojan war and the founding of Rome. All of these legends have an origin later than 753 B. C., and the one thing that is apparent is that the ancient writers were not clear on the chronology of the past history of their peoples. Notes and References . (I) K-G, pp. 16ff.; B-SKC, pp. 4ff. (2) B-TT, Chap. 2: B-SKC, Chaps. 11, III. (3) See refs. I, 2. (4) For examples, see refs. l, 2; H-l, p. xi. (5) H-1, p. viii. (6) W-M, pp. 149, 151. (7) Ibid., p. 245. (8) D-BGA, Table, p. 22. (9) T-PW, p. 40; cited in D-BGA, p. 282. (10) See Table V. (11) CH, "Dorians;" B-SKC, p. 19; D-BGA, p. 281; Ibid., p. 280. (12) See Chap. V, note of ref. 87. (13) See Sect. VIII with references given. (14) B-HH, p. 240. (14a) A later Alexander was able similarly to proye his lineage back to the legendary era (R-CH, Vol. III, p. 50). (15) R-AM, Vol. I, p. 149n. (16) L-ARAB, Vol. I, p. 260. (17) R-CH, p. 264. (18) SDGRBM, "Dido." (19) Ibid. (20) C-H, "Romulus." (20a) A date c. 790 B.C. for the fall of Troy may be derived from the date 852 B.C. for the end of the reign of Amenhotep III (Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Sect. IX, P!lr. 3 ). The period for the reigns of the subsequent kings to the banishment of Harmhab is 50 years. He was followed by the 1 year reign of Rameses l, the 5 years by Amenmeses and much of the 7 years of Thuoris in whose reign the fall of Troy occurred, leading to a date c. 790 for the fall of Troy. (21) P-HE, Vol. lll, p~ 150. (22)B-HE, p. 464. Not all scholars admit the participation of the Sea Peoples in the reign of Merneptah. (23) D-BGA, p. 282. (24) C-GUA, p. 23. (25) D-BGA, p. 265. (26) Vol. l, Chap. XVII, Sects. II, Ill. (27) See "Homerus" in S-DGRBM for this and subsequent data. (28) W-BA, p. 87; see 3rd quot. of ref. 11. (29) K-G, p. 44. (30) D-BGA, p. 283. (31) CH, "Dorians;" C-GUA, p. 20; D-BGA, pp. 283, 284; B-HH, p. 30. At this time all the existing cities on the mainland of Greece were destroyed (K-G, p. 18). (32) Chap. VI. See ref. 30 for recognition that this same catastrophe extended over a far wider area than Greece. (32a) This same anomaly exists relative to the· evident continuation of the celebration of the Olympic games through this period. These games were considered anciently as having been instituted by Heracles prior to this assumed hiatus, yet the celebration appears rather immediately following this assumed break, In the era of Lycurgus (S-DCA, "Olympian Games"). Lycurgus was the brother of Polydectes (CH, "Lycurgus"), who belongs to the period after the hiatus (Table V). (32b) D-BGA, p. 281; see quot. of ref. 11).· (33) Ibid., p. 270ff. (34) Ibid., p. 271. (35) Ibid. (36) Vol. I, Chap. XVII, Sect. VII. (36a) J-AA, Bk. I, par. 15. (37) S-DGRBM, "Danaus." (38) Ibid., by tracing the names throuii;h the series given in Table VI. (39) See ref. 37. (40) W-M, p. 113. (41) See Chap. IV for a refutation of the validity Qf this dating method. (4la) CH, "Deucalion." (42) See ref. 14. (43) S-DGRBM, "Pheidon." (44) Ibid., "Amyntas." (45) See ref. 43. (46) Ibid., "Cleisthenes." (47) CH, "Romulus." (48) S-DGRBM, "Romulus." (49) Ibid. CHAPTER XVII THE ERA OF HAMMURABI AND RELATED PROBLEMS IN ASSYRIAN AND CHALDEAN CHRONOLOGIES So far in this work, attention has been largely directed toward showing that there is a chronology of Egypt which not only can be satisfactorily encompassed within the shortest possible interpretation of Scriptural chronology, but which is also internallv consistent and which eliminates a large number of the difficulties now confronting historians and archaeologists. A number of these solved problems are related to the provision of the proper backgrounds for unique incidents in Biblical history such as the Exodus, the Conquest, the Oppression, the Descent, the Famine of Joseph, the fallen walls at Jericho, the final end of the walled city at Ai, the destruction of the city of Shechem by Abimelech, the origin of the city built by Omri, the conquest of Gezer by an unnamed Egyptian pharaoh, the sacking of Solomon's temple, Asa's war with the Egyptian armies, the fall of Israel to the Assyrians, the Dispersion, as well as provision of the proper background for the origin of the Philistines in Palestine. But many other problems provided solutions by the same alteration are quite unrelated to Scripture. The fact that solutions are provided to problems of both types by the same alteration in Egyptian chronology places this proposed chronological revision in a position to compete with the popular views as one meriting the serious consideration of the scholarly world. If this revised chronological structure is even approximately correct, it is demanded that the chronologies of Assyria and Chaldea shall also be provided a satisfactory background in terms of this revision. The case may even be stated more strongly. If this revision is even approximately correct, it may be expected also that the setting of the chronologies of Assyria and Chaldea against this revised background will result in the appearance of new and significant synchronisms. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that these demands and expectations are met, in some cases in a most surprising manner. THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 289 I. The Problem of Dating Hammurabi Few problems of ancient chronology have been the topic of more extensive debate among scholars than the dates to be ascribed to the Babylonian king Hammurabi and his dynasty, now known as the First Dynasty at Babylon. The dates in the 23rd century B.C., attributed to this king by earlier historians, have had to be periodically reduced so that now he holds a precarious position in the late 18th century, with differences of opinion still amounting to near.ly a century. With Hammurabi floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea, it was not possible to arrive at solid concepts relative to the chronology of Assyria. The earlier dates attributed to Hammurabi had to be abandoned with the appearance of a synchronism between Hammurabi and Samsi-Adad I of Assyria, apparently fixed in the late 18th century B.C. by the more recently discovered Khorsabad king list. However, problems of no mean proportions remain as enigmas. II. The Problem of the Kassite Dynasty With the end of the Kassite dynasty necessarily fixed to the approximate date 1180 B.C., there is a notable deficiency in time after the end of the First Dynasty at Babylon (variouslv dated from c. 1600 to c. 1535 B.C.) for the subsequent history .of the Kassites. The Kassite dynasty is assigned a duration of 576 years by the Babylonign king list A, yet no such period of time is available for the dynasty after 1600 B.C. Attempts to set the reigns of the known Kassite kings within the reduced period available, while retaining the known synchronisms otherwise, have not been altogether satisfactory. An alternate proposal, which has not been generally accepted, would recognize that the Kassite dynasty overlapped the period of the First Dynasty at Babylon, back at least as early as the reign of Hammurabi. Ill. The Problem of the Antiquity of Assyria Early historians regarded Chaldea as having an antiquity equivalent to that attributed to Egypt, going back into the 5th or 6th millennium B.C. With the compelling influence of data from radiocarbon dating, the historic era of Egypt has been severely trimmed to a proposed beginning between 3300 and 2800 B. C. Some scholars believe that the 290 THE EXODUS PROBLEM ultimate in reduction in dates for the beginning of the historic period in Egypt has been reached, while others candidly admit that even these dates cannot be considered as secure. With this reduction in the antiquity of dynastic Egypt, there has been, of necessity, a corresponding reduction in the presumed antiquity of the dynastic period in Mesopotamia, since both are .recognized as having begun at approximately the same time, i.e., at the beginning of the Early Bronze age. 1 It is not dear from the reading of Genesis 10:8-12 whether Assyria had its beginnings at the time of Nimrod, 'grandson of Noah, or whether the migration of Assur from Chaldea and the building of Ninevah was at a later time. It is to be noted that an association of this Assur with the Asshurim, descendants of Abraham,2 is not to be eliminated per se, since the Genesis account was evidently written by Moses while he was in Midian, and in either case, he is writing of past events. The more recently discovered Khorsabad list provides the names of 24 kings for whom there is no other extant mention. Seventeen of these are stated to have ruled from tents, indicating a beginning of organized rule in Assyria at a time when the population was sparse. This problem will be introduced again in the light of subsequent developments to be presented in this chapter. IV. The Problem of the Hitties as Related to Assyrian Chronology As noted in a previous volume,'1 there are serious anachronisms that result from the popular dating of the beginnings of the Hittites in Anatolia about the beginning of the 19th century B.C. The dating of their demise at the hands of the Sea Peoples, dated c. 1200 B.C., leaves an incredible gap of 500 years between the end of the Hittite empire and the eventual disappearance of Hittite culture. 4 During this "blank" interval, the Assyrian inscriptions continue to refer to the Hittites as an organized people with kings over them and with armies capable of waging war with neighboring peoples. 5 Even the names of some of these Hittite kings are given in the Assyrian inscriptions. These data provide a strong suggestion that all is not well with the currently accepted placement of the Hittite era on the B. C. time scale. THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 291 V. Problems Related to the Correlation of Assyrian and Philistine Histories According to Scripture, the Assyrians and the Philistines were competing for occupation of the diminishing territory controlled by the,Israelites in the 8th century B.C. While the Philistines appear to have come out second best in this conflict with the Assyrians, it is nevertheless clear that the Philistines represented a people to be dealt with in the area south of Palestine during this period of Assyrian encroachments into Israelite territory. Yet the archaeological evidences of the Philistines in this territory are being currently dated in the time of Saul, with no indication of their presence in this area in the era currently assigned archaeologically to the 8th century and later. 5• VCAnachronisms Between Assyrian and Egyptian Chronologies The severe anachronims that result from the proposed identification of Shishak of Scripture with Sheshonk I of Dynasty XXII have been discussed in detail6 and need not be reviewed here. These and numerous other anachronisms were eliminated with the recognition that Dynasty XXII was indeed Assyrian in origin, as indicated by the Assyrian origin of the.· names of the kings. 7 The dynasty belongs in the 7th century B. C., when the Assyrian armies are known to have been on Egyptian soil. Note: From this point in the discussions of this chapter, reference to individual kings will be made by such a designation as No. 112A, which is to be taken as reference to the king number 112 in Table A. VII. The Solid Basis on Which Late Assyrian Chronology Rests The chronology for the later period of Assyrian history (933 B. C. and later) has remained essentially fixed for the last. half-century and more. The kings of this era are wellknown by name, and the lengths of the individual reigns are fixed with a high degree of accuracy and certainty. The chronological structure is established by the Canon of Ptolemy, the Assyrian Canon, and the extant Eponym lists of the kings. The Assyrian kings followed the practice of naming each year of reign after the king himself, or after one of his important officials, or after some significant incident in 292 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the year of his reign. These "eponym" lists thus provide a check on the number of years of reign to be credited to each king. The correctness of the deductions from these various sources is further confirmed bv the record of the Great Eclipse, which can be dated with .reasonable certaintv in the year 763 B.C. This eclipse is stated to have occurred in the 10th year of the reign of Assur-dan (No. 106A), whose reign may be thus synchronized with· the B. C. time scale as having belonged to the years 772-755 B.C. The dates of the other reigns may then be calculated from the date for Assur-dan III by means of data on the lengths of the reigns of .the individual kings. The kings of this phase of Assyrian history are given as Table A. These dates are here accepted without reservation. TABLE A The Assyrian Kings from 933 B. C. 98." 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. Assur-dan II Adad-nerari II Tukulti-Ninurta II Assur-nasir-pal Shalmaneser Ill Shamsi-Adad V Adad-ilerari Ill Shalmaneser IV Assur-dan I II Assur-nerari V 934-912 B.C. 911-891 890-884 883-859 958-824 823-811 810-783 782-773 772-755 754-745 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. Tiglath-pileser III Shalmaneser V Sargon II Sennacherib Esarhaddon Assur-bani-pal Assur-etil-ilana Sin-sumu-liser Sin-arra-iskun Assur-uballit II 744-727 726-722 721-705 704-681 680-669 668-633 632-629 ? 62:3-612 6ll- "The numbers preceding the names of the kin11:s are the numbers of the kings which preceded · the king according to the more complete king list discovered at Khorsabad. The Roman numerals foll9wiu11:·the names are of modern creation and represent the accepted order of reign of several kings who had the same name. VIII. The Early Development ·of the Conventional Chronology of Assyria Prior to 933 B.C. An approximate chronology of Assyria for the era prior to 933 B.C. was developed by early Assyriologists by allowing some set reign length as an average for the reigns not otherwise known, but which were known, or believed, to have followed in sequence. The resulting structure was then adjusted to meet two time intervals referred to by Sennacherib (No. UlA) and to meet a presumed synchronism be- THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 293 tween Assur-uballit (No. 73B) and the Amarna Letters. Sennacherib stated that a period of 418 years had elasped between Tiglathpileser I (No. 87B) and his own time, and that 600 years had elapsed from the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (No. 78B) to his own time. 8 Early historians tended to place explicit confidence in the validity of such statements as representing true elapsed time, and the developing chronology was securely bound to them. 9 Based on the assumption that the 'Apiru of the Amarna Letters were the invading Hebrews, 10 and that the Assur-uballit of these letters was the 14th century Assyrian king by this name, the proponents of the XVIIIth Dynasty theory of the Exodus assumed a date for Assur-uballit c. 1400 B.C. to agree with an Exodus dated in 1445 B.C. However, calculations based on the Khorsabad list yields dates for this Assur-uballit which are too late (1362-1327) to agree with any phase of the Conquest within the lifetime of Joshua. A more careful scrutiny of these letters has convinced most scholars that they do not picture an invasion, 11 the disturbances mentioned rising from the actions of certain rebellious groups within the territory. Any identification of the 'Apiru with the Hebrews must be so severely qualified as to provide no support for an XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the Exodus. ua The dating of Assur~uballit does not permit the interpretation of Sennacherib's 600-year period as elapsed time, except as a rough approximation. This situation should provide the necessary clue for deducing that these time periods of the ancients are not to be taken as necessary expressions of elapsed time, except as this can be otherwise confirmed. 12 A chronology is not necessarily correct simply because one or more of these time periods can be fitted into the proposed structure. While many of the dates previously attributed to the early As~yrian kings have since been found to be in gross error, king lists had nevertheless been devised which have sho~n a surprising agreement with the sequence provided by the Khorsabad list. Such a list was compiled by Meissner many years ago. 1'3 That part of the list encompassing the period from 933 B.C. back to King Adasi (No. 47B), and corrected by the Khorsabad list, is provided as Table B. The more familiar names of certain of the kings as given in 294 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Scripture are retained. The renderings given by Poebel are favored in cases of wide discrepancy. The dates are calculated from the reign lengths as given in the Khorsabad list. These calculations indicate a date for Adasi in 1648 B.C., a date to which reference will be made in a later connection, relating it to a new synchronism which appea.rs with the subsequent developments. While the careful comparison of the data in this list with other available data led Poebel to recognize a few minor discrepancies, these dates back to Adasi are here accepted within the limitations recognized. TABLEB Assyrian Kings from Adasi to Assur Dan II (Synthesized from Synchronistic Chronicle, Meissner's list, and Corrected to the Khorsabad List) 47. Adasi 48. Bel-bani 49. Shabai (Labaiiu) 50. Sharma-Adad 51. Gimil-Sin (En-tar-Sin) 52. Zimzai (Bazzaiiu) 53. Lullai 54. Shi-Ninua (Su-Ninua) 55. Sharma-A dad (II) 56. Erishu (Ill) 57. Shamsi-Adad (II) 58. lsme-Dagan (II) 59. Shamshi-Adad (Ill) 60. Assur-.nirari 61. Puzur-Assur (Ill) 62. Enlil-nasir (I) 63. Nur-ili 64. Assur-saduni 65. Assur-rabi (I) 66. Assur-nadin-ahhe 67. Enlil-nasir (!) 68. Assur-nirari (II) 69. Assur-bel-nishesu 70. Assur-rim-nishesu 71. Assur-nadin-ahi (II) 72. Eriba-Adad I 1648B.C. 1647-1638 1637-1621 1620-1609 1608-1597 1596-1569 1568-1563 1562-1549 1548-1546 1545-1533 1532-1527 1526-1511 1510-1495 1494-1469 1468-1455 1454-1442 1441-1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1423-1417 1416-1408 1407-1400 1399-1390 1389-1363 73. Assurr-uballit (I) 74. Enlil-nirari 75. Arik-den-ili 76. Adad-nirari (I) 77. Shalmaneser (I) 78. Tukulti-Urta (I) 79. Assur-nadinpapli 80. Assur-nirari (III) 81. Enlil-kudur-usur 82. Urta-apal-Ekur (l) 83. Assur-dan (I) 84. Urta-tukulti-Assur 85. Mutakkil-Nusku 86. Assur-resh-ishi (I) 87. Tiglath-pileser (l) 88. Urta-apal ekur (II) 89. Assur-bel-kala (I) 90. Eriba-Adad (II) 91. Shamshi-Adad (IV) 92. Assur-nasir-appli 93. Shalmaneser (11) 94. Assur-nirari (IV) 95. Assur-rabi (II) 96. Assur-resh-ishi 97. Tiglathpileser (II) 1362-1327 1326-1317 1316-1305 1304-1273 1272-1243 1242-1206 1205-1203 1202-1197 1196-1192 1191-1179 1178-1133 -1133 1133 1132-ll15 1114-1076 1075-1074 1073-1056 1055-1054 1053-1050 1049-1031 1030-1019 1018-1015 1012-972 971-967 966-935 IX. The Khorsabad King LiSt This list of Assyrian kings was discovered at Khorsabad in the course of investigations conducted during the season THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 295 1932-33 by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The responsibility for the publication of the detailed report was assigned to A. Poebel; the report appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies of July 1942. The list includes the names of forty-six kings before that of Adasi (No. 47B ). The first 17 of these are said to have ruled from tents, leading us". back into an era which would appear to have been· characterized by a sparse and non-sedentary population. This suggests that these names belong indeed to the very beginnings of Assyrian history, a point of later significance in attempting to establish its origin in terms of Biblical history. X. Synchronizing Assyrian and Hittite Chronologies In a previous volume, 1 ~ the basis was outlined for setting the Exodus in the reign of Koncharis, a late king of Dynasty XIII, some 34 years after the close of Dynasty XII. Evidently, at the end of Dynasty XII, one of the more powerful princes of Dynasty XIII took over the throne without difficulty and after two reigns, the incident of the Exodus occurred. This incident was set coincident with the invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos. Some 40 years later, the Israelites conquered the territory of Palestine under Joshua. Among the displaced peoples were the Hittites. The Hittites were driven out of Palestine at that time, but were permitted to find a. new home for themselves. This they did by migrating northward into the territory now known as Anatolia in Asia Minor, where the home of the Hittites has been discovered archaeologically. However, the Hittites of archaeology were an Inda-European race, coming into this territory from the west and not from Palestine to the south. The Hittites of archaeology should then be recognized as this race which absorbed the culture and the name of the Hittites, who had been driven out of Palestine at the time of the Conquest. 13 The writer contends that the failure of modern scholars to recognize this relationship between the Hittites of ar-chaeology and the Hittites of Scripture from the time of the Conquest represents a fundamental error that has prevented the attainment of a consistent solution to the problems in 296 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the chronology of Mesopotamia. It is the recognition of this situation that stands as the key to the solution to the problems here defined. We do not know how long the Hittites from Palestine lived in Asia Minor prior to their absorption by the European race. The establishment of the length of the period is not cri'tical·to the developing chronological structure. Whether we regard this incident as having occurred rather immediately after the banishment from Palestine, or after a period of 50 years or more, this only alters the average length of reign to be assigned to the first seven of the Hittite kings, these reign lengths not being known. At this point in the line of Hittite kings, a synchronism is available for tying together the chronologies of the Hittite and Assyrian lines of kings through the medium of the Chaldean kings. The evidence is interpreted by the writer to indicate that this period, between the expulsion of the Hittites from Palestine and the subsequent absorption by this western race, was not in excess of 50 years. Current views on Hittite chronology place the beginnings of this people in Asia Minor at about the opening of the 19th century. This dating, as an approximation, was based on the number of kings in the known line of Hittite rulers and the well-established synchronism between the Hittite king, Muwatallis (No. 25C), and Rameses II, dated 12931227. 10 The Hittites were thus given a period of about seven centuries. With Egyptian chronology set too far back on the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries, the period assigned to the Hittites was thus also set back too far by a similar period of time. While the anachronisms with Assyrian history that resulted from this setting must have been recognized by early scholars, the difficulties evidently appeared minor compared with the difficulties that would result from moving the date for Rameses II foreward on the time scale by a plurality of centuries. Individual scholars were thus left with their own ingenuity to find a way around these anchronisms in whatever manner seemed least incredible. These anachronisms have been previously introduced.17 Evidence is now introduced in support of the view that the Hittites of archaeology are not the Hittites of the Conquest era, and that the people now known as the Hittites THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 297 belong to the post-Conquest era. Among the Assyrian references to Hittite kings is one by Tiglath-pileser (No. 87B; 1114-1076 B.C.) which states that he invaded the territory of the Hittites at a time when the reigning king had the name Ilu-Teshup. 18 The date is nearly a century later than the date currently attributed to the absorption of the last of ~,. TABLE c• The Kings of the Hittites King No. Name 1. Pitkhanus 2. Anittas 3. Tudhaliyas 4. Pusarrumas 5. Labarnas 6. Hattusilus 7. Mursilis I 8. Hantilis I 9. Zidantas I 10. Ammunas 11. Huzziyas 12. Telipinus 13. Alluwannas 14. Hantilis II 15. Zidantas II 16. H uzaiyas II 17. Tudhaliyas II 18. Anuwandas I 19. Hattusilis II 20. Tudhaliyas Ill 21. Arnuwandis II 22. Suppiluliumas I 23. Arnuwandis III 24. Mursilis II 25. Muwatallis 26. Urti Teshub 27. Hattusilis II 28. Taddaliyas 29. Arnuwandas II 30. Suppiluliumas II Conventional Dates (approx) Synchronisms Revised Dates 1400 1900 B.C. 1740-1710 1710-1680 1680-1650 1650-1620 1620-1590 1590-1560 1560-1550 1550-1530 1530-1525 1525-1500 1500-1490 1490-1480 1480-1470 1470-1460 1460-1440 1440-1420 1420-1400 1400-1385 1385-1375 1375-1335 1335-1334 J3.S4-1306 1306-1282 1282-1275 1275-1250 1250-1220 1220-1190 1190- Conquers Babylon 1265 Conquered by Tiglath-pileser 1110 War with Shalmaneser III 825 ijattle with Rameses II 786 Daughter marries Rameses II Hittite empire ends with the invasion by the Sea Peoples 700 "The king list and the con~entional dates are from Ceram, SeC1'et of the Hittites. These lengths of reigns, as approximations, are deduced from the meager evidences of accomplishment. The dates are based on the currently accepted dates in Egyptian chronology for Rameses II, and the accepted dates for the First Dynasty at Babylon~ 298 THE EXODUS PROBLEM the city states by the Assyrians. It is thus of considerable interest to see what happens to this anachronism, and to the entire chronology of the peoples of Mesopotamia, when the Hittites are given an origin in Asia Minor following the conquest under Joshua. While we do not know the lengths of the reigns of the individual Hittite kings, we do know their names and the order of their reigns for the most part. By allowing an average reign of 16-20 years, as is commonly done for estimating the period encompassed by a consecutive line of kings otherwise, there is room for 12-15 kings to the point of this conquest of the Hittites by Tiglath-pileser. If our reasoning has been correct, we· should expect to find, at this approximate point, evidence in the Hittite inscriptions to confirm this invasion. As we examine the list of Hittite kings (Table C), we come to the name Telipinus (No. 12C). The name has a strange resemblance to that of Ilu-Teshup, who was reigning at the time of the conquest by Tiglath-pileser, the difference in the names being in the order of the consonant sounds, such deviation of order not being uncommon in the transliteration of names. The identification of Telipinus with Ilu-Teshup is neatly confirmed by the Hittite inscriptions. In the reign of Telipinus, the Old Kingdom of the Hitties came to its end, only to be revived after an obscure period involving the reigns of several ephemeral kings. Gurney commented on the situation thus: 19 Telipinus is usually regarded as the last king of the Old Kingdom. From the middle of his reign, the historical sources fail and the names of his immediate successors cannot be stated with certainty. This obscure period fills the interval between Telipinus and Tudhaliyas II [Nos. 12-l 7C], the founder of a new dynasty and first king of the empire. It was thus Tiglath-piieser I who was responsible for bringing to an end the Old Kingdom of the Hittites. Current views, of course, did not permit association of this disaster with the inscription of Tiglath-pileser I, whose reign was dated a full century after the date attributed to the end of the empire! A second Assyrian reference provides still further confirmation of the correctness of the necessary movement of Hittite chronology forward by half a millennium or more. THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 299 Shalmaneser III (No. 102A; 858-824 B.C.) warred against a coalition of kings, one of whom was a Hittite king by the name Supilulme, 20 a name which cannot be mistaken for the Suppiluliumas (No. 22C) of the Hittite list, but currently dated c. 1375 B.C. rather than in the 9th century. These later dates in the 9tll· century fall in the Amarna period by the chronological revision here proposed. In later sections of this chapter, 21 it will be shown that the Amarna period does not belong to the 14th century, but rather to the era of Shalmaneser. III in the mid-9th century. The problems that rise from the presence of the name Assur-uballit and the names of certain Kassite kiags in the Amarna L.etters are also considered in a later section. ' XI. Synchronizing Chaldean Chronology with Hittite Chronology With Hittite chronology set approximately, (See Fig. 5) it is now possible to set also in approximate manner the date for the end of the First Dynasty at Babylon. This dynasty came to its end as the result of a bold conquest by the Hittite king, M ursilis I (No. 7C ). 22 M ursilis was murdered shortly after his return from this engagement; hence we may, for practical purposes, synchronize the end of the reign of Mursilis I with the end of the First Dynasty at Babylon. This synchronism is mentioned in both the Hittite and Assyrian inscriptions and is universally recognized by scholars. By virtue of the movement of the Hittite chronology forward on the time scale in agreement with Bible histo-. ry, the chronology of the First Dynasty at Babylon must also be moved forward in a similar manner (see Fig. 5 ). Assuming that a period of about 50 years elapsed between the migration of the Biblical Hittites into Asia Minor and their absorption by the new race, as has been done in the chart of Figure 5, and allowing the commonly accepted range of 16 to 20 years as an average for a series of reigns within a dynasty, the end of the reign of Mursilis I may be synchronized with the end of the First Dynasty at Babylon at c. 1230 B.C., a date which at this point is recognized as approximate. This date is confirmed as an approximation on the basis of synchronisms to be noted later. The First Dynasty at Babylon had a duration of 305 years, based on the summation of the n~ig;ns as given in Table D. However, it is 300 THE EXODUS PROBLEM known from the eponym list of Hammurabi that his reign was 43 years. While there may have been a factual basis for the figure 55, use of the shorter period gives a more exact figure for the period of the dynasty, which then may be calculated to have begun c. 1523 B. C. The reign of Hammurabi then falls in the period c. 1411-1368 B.C., the reign, for the most part, falling after the beginning of the Conquest. XII. Synchronizing the Early Assyrian Chronology with That of the First Dynasty of Babylon As noted in a previous section of this chapter, the line of Assyrian kings can be traced, by means of the Khorsabad list, back to a king by the name of Adasi, who, from the lengths of the reigns provided, is given a date 1648 B.C., which date is here accepted within the minor possible deviations noted by Poebel. Adasi is preceded in the list by the names of forty-six kings,2'1 twenty-four of which are not known from anv other source, and the first seventeen of which are stated. to have ruled from tents, taking us back to an era of Assyrian hi~tory when the occupation of Assyria TABLED Kings of the First Dynasty at Babylon a King Length of Reigns 15 years 35 years 2. Sumulail 14 years 3. Sahu, his son 18 years 4. Apil-Sin, his son 30 years 5. Sumubalit, his son 6. Hammurabi, his son 55 years 7. Samsuiluna, his son 35 years 25 years 8. Ebishum, his son 25 years 9. Ammiditana 22 years 10. Ammisaduga 11. Samsuditana 31 years I. Sumuabu Currently Assigned Dates Assigned dates vary with dates assigned to Hammurabi. Most now in 18th century B.C. •According to the Babylonian King List B. Revised Dates 1570-1555 1455-1400 1296-1265 THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 301 was represented by nomadic tribes. The current fnterpretation of the Khorsabad list recognizes these forty-six kings as having ruled in sequence prior to the reign of Adasi. While the dates for most of these forty-six kings are unknown, an estimate, based on a~erage reign length, leads to a probable period of over half a millennium for the last thirty of the kings, even assuming that the others who ruled from tents were but contemporary rulers of small groups or tribes. With this concept the writer deviates from popular opinion. While this list of forty~six kings undoubtedly had its beginning earlier than the reign of Adasi, the later kings of the list must have ruled contemporarily with the line of kings following Adasi. ·· This follows from the recognition that the Hittite kings should be given a position in the post-Conquest era. Since the synchronism between the end of the First Dynasty at Babylon and the end of the reign of the Hittite king, Mursilis, is well-established, it follows that the kings of the First Dynasty at Babylon must be moved forward on the time scale by a time period commensurate with the movement of the Hittite kings. And since there are also two well-established synchronisms between the First Dynasty at Babylon and this line of· early Assyrian kings, then this Assyrian line must be similarly moved forward on the time scale. But in moving this entire unit forward, there is no alternative to recognizing that this early Assyrian line must have been contemporary in part with the Assyrian line through Adasi (see Fig. 5). If this concept is correct, it calls for a break in the line of Assyrian kings with the name of Adasi. There is clear evidence of such a break in the king list itself. Adasi is given a rule of zero years and was preceded by the reigns of five others, also given zero years of reign, all of whom are said to have been "sons of nobodies." 24 An unstable situation is clearly indicated just before the year 1648 B.C., a point of major significance in the subsequent developments. One of the synchronisms tying the early line of Assyrian kings to the First Dynasty at Babylon is that between Ilusumma (No. 32E) of the former line with Samuabu, (ID) first king of the First Dynasty at Babylon (see Fig. 5). The other is between .Samsi-Adad (No. 39E) and Hammurabi (No. 6D ). 23 Thus, even though only a few of the Assyrian kings have known reign lengths, it is still possible to syn- THE EXODUS PROBLEM 302 chronize the line from Ilu-summa to Samsi-Adad with that from Samuabu to Hammurabi in an approximate manner. There are then thirty-one kings of Assyria before Ilu-summa to account for prior to the beginning of the First Dynasty at Babylon. Even if it is allowed that the first seventeen of these ruled contemporaneously as rulers of small tribes, there are still fourteen others. Of these early kings, those numbered 16 to 27 represent a father-son sequence, a point that must be considered in providing even an approximate date for the beginnings of Assyria. It might be argued that if Assyria had been ruled by a dual line of kings during this period that this situation TABLEE The Kings of Assyria Whose Names Precede Those of Adasi and his "Nobody" Predecessors 0 1. Tudia 22. Iakmesi, son of Ilu-Mer 2. Adamu 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3. Iangi 4. Kitlamu 5. Harharu 6. Mandaru 7. Imsu 8. Harsu 9. Didanu 10. Hanu. 11. Zuabu 12. Nuabu 13. Abazu 14. Tillu 15. Asarah 16. Uspia 17. Apiasal, son of Uspia 18. Halu, son of Apiasal 19. Samanu, son of Halu 20. Ha(i)ianu, son of Samanu 21. Ilu-Mer, son of Ha(i)ianu Iakmeni, son of Iakmesi Iazkur-ilu, son of Iakmeni Ilu-kapkapi, son of Iazkur-ilu Aminu, son of Ilu-kapkapi Sulili, son of Aminu Kikkia Akia Puzur-Assur 31. Sallim-ahhe, son of Puzur-Assur 32. Illusumma, son of Sallim-ahhe 33. Erisu, son of Ilusumma 34. Ikunu, son of Erisu 35. Sarru-kin, son of Ikunu 36. Puzur-Assur, son of Sarro-kin 37. Naram-Sin, son of Puzur-Assur 38. Erisu, son of Naram-Sin 39. Samsi-Adad, son of Ilu-kapkapi 40. Isme-Dagan, son of Samsi-Adad 41. Assur-dugul, son of a "nobody" °Following the early king list from Khorsabad as given by Poebel. 26 THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 303 would be clearly revealed by extant inscriptions indicating synchronisms between the two lines. Admittedly, there are no such extant references. However, this does not prove that such a situation did not exist. The fallacy of the deduction requiring such evidence is apparent from the fact that there are no known inscriptions of any kind from the kings of the line of Adasi ·prior to the era of Samsi-Adad (No. 59B), and such meager materials for the subsequent kings as not to warrant any such conclusion. 27 ... As of Adasi and Belubani, so also of their successors, Libaiiu, Sarma-Adad I, En-tar-Sin, Bazaiiu, Lullaiiu, Su-ninua, Sarma-Adad II, Erisu III, Samsi Adad II and Isme-Dagan II, we have to date no personal or contemporaneous inscriptions, nor is, as far as our present material goes, any reference to them found in later texts. Historically, therefore, the 127-year period represented by these ten kings (16381511 B. C.) still is a blank for us apart from the few facts that can be . gathered from the king list itself. Thus while there is no inscriptive evidence to tie these two lines to a common period, this arrangement does indicate a continuous organized government throughout the period without necessitating the assumption of a· historical blank. 28 Evidently, it was this alternate line that represented the primary rule in Assyria during this period, the line of Adasi coming graduallly to the front, but becoming predominant only after the end of this primary line. The first really significant king of the line of Adasi was probably Assur-uballit (No. 73B). The slight folding of the late dynasty, as shown in Figure 5, is made to meet the evidence that the reigns of SamsiAdad and Naram-Sin were contemporary, at least for some fraction of the reigns. 29 This is possible, since Samsi-Adad is not a son of his predecessor (See Table E), his father, Ilukapkapi certainly not being the same person as the king by this name earlier in the list. Poebel regarded these two (or three) kings as constituting a different dynasty than that of Erisu. The manner in which the kings preceding· Ilusumrila of the synchronism are given their positions in the chronology will be considered in a later section of this chapter.'lo XIII. Synchroniziing the Dynasty at Uruk with the Dynasty of Adasi The document known as the Synchronistic Chronicle 30• provides the name of the king of Assyria who ruled contem- 304 THE EXODUS PROBLEM porary with the reigns of the kings at U ruk. The list begins with Adasi. It may be deduced from the damaged beginning of the list that his contemporary at Uruk was Damiqilishu or Damqiili of the Babylonian king list. In this latter source, there were two kings of Uruk who preceded Damqiili, and since Adasi had a reign of less than a year, the first three kings at Uruk would appear to antedate the year 1648 for Adasi. The very high number of years credited to the kings suggests that these reigns must have overlapped considerably, and this is confirmed in terms of the revised chronology by the fact that the period from Adasi to Eaga, last king at Uruk, contemporary of Erishu (No. 56B), could not have exceeded a century by more than a very few years (see Figure 5). XIV. Synchroriizing the Dynasties at lsin and at Larsa with the First Dynasty at Babylon The end of the dynasty at Larsa can be synchronized to the early reign of s'amsuiluna (No. 7D) of the First Dynasty at Babylon. Hammurabi, his predecessor, had conquered Rim Sin, last king at Larsa,'11 evidently permitting him to rule under some unstated arrangement. On the death of Hammurabi, Rim-Sin rebelled, making a second conquest necessary by Samsuiluna. 32 The names and lengths of reigns of the kings at Larsa are known for the most part, permitting an approximate duration for the dynasty of 265 years. The date for the beginning of the reign of Samsuiluna was set at c. 1368 B.C., ·based on the dating of the end of the dynasty with the end of the reign of Mursilis of the Hittites, which date was of necessity approximate. Based on the acceptance of this date as approximate, the beginning of the dynasty at Larsa belongs to the date c. 1630 B.C., a date that falls in the same era as the beginning of the dynasty of Adasi. The dynasty at Larsa and the parallel dynasty at lsin are recognized as having had their rise shortly after the fall of the Illrd Dynasty at Ur (see Figure 5). 3'1 ~V. The Over-all Deviation from Popular Views ,., Resulting from the Redating of the Hittites A cursory review of the section headings of this chapter will make it apparent that the over-all change from popular THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 305 views that results from the redating of the Hyksos to a postConquest period in agreement with Biblical history, is the movement of a large unit of the history of antiquity forward on the time scale by a plurality of centuries. This unit includes not only the dynasties of Egypt with numbers below XXIII, but also the placement of the Hittites, the corresponding movement af the First Dynasty at Babylon, the dynasties at lsin and at Larsa, and the line of Assyrian kings in the Khorsabad list preceding the name of Adasi. When this is done, we arrive at a chronology for the related peoples of antiquity as shown in Figure 5. With this movement, there is also necessitated the similar movement of the dynasty at Ur and all the other dynasties of Chaldea preceding the dynasty of Ur, a move that involves the entire problem of the antiquity of Assyria and Chaldea. The manner in which these early Chaldean dynasties are related to each other has never been satisfactorily elucidated, and no . attempt will be made to do so here, other than to point out the necessity of assigning a beginning to the dynastic history of Chaldea not significantly different from that derived for Egypt, i.e., at the beginning of Early Bronze correlated with the incident of the Dispersion incident of Scripture, dated c. 2150 B.C. The primary error that has been made in setting up the traditional chronological structure of the ancient world may thus be traced to the failure of scholars to recognize the misplacement of the Hittites of archaeology in the history of antiquity. It remains true that the Hittite problem entered the field some time later than the setting up of the general outlines of the traditional chronology. However, it seems astonishing that with the increasing number of anachronistic situations that have resulted with, or subsequent to, the entrance of the Hittite problem, that this would not have suggested the desirability of a careful re-examination of the fundamental premises on which the structure had been erected. The general correctness of the proposed structure pertaining to the territory of Mesopotamia may now be confirmed from a number of directions, several of which will now be introduced. A mere criticism that the final structure may require subsequent modification or that it upsets certain long-held but unproved theories is an insufficient basis for 306 THE EXODUS PROBLEM its rejection. It is a structure that is not easily shaken. It is hardly to be expected that an investigation deviating so far from popular views will be without a flaw. We proceed to the review of further material in support of this altered chronological structure. XVI. The Problem of the Kassite Dynasty At the very center of the problems relative to the chronology of the peoples of Mesopotamia, is that of the Kassites and their time-relation to their contemporaries. The origin of this people is obscure, and their language does not seem to be of any assistance in the solution of the problem, since it is not related to either the Semitic or the Inda-European group.'34 It has been suggested that the Kassites were of Hittite stock, though such a relation remains speculative. A relation to the Cossaeans has also been entertained, though this does not. help either, since the origin of the Cossaeans is equally obscure. In view of what must be considered a relatively sudden appearance of the Kassites in Babylonian territory and in the absence of any evidence of a conquest, it has been proposed that the Kassites did not come into this territory directly from their original home. An intermediate residence in the area of the Persian Gulf has been suggested. The absence of any inscriptive evidence of a conquest of the territory of Babylonia by the Kassites has led to the further assumption that their presence resulted from a gradual migration into the territory.'"; ... It is indeed unlikely that the conquest of Babylon was achieved by a definitely organized army, led by, a commander who proposed making himself a king of Babylon, while still continuing to reign in his. own country. It is rather the migration of a strong, fresh people which here confronts us. This people is called the Kasshu .... Since the Kassite kings appear as kings of Babylonia ruling from the site of the city of Babylon, following the fall of the First Dynasty at Babylon, this migration and expansion must be recognized as having occurred during the period of the First Dynasty at Babylon. However, inscriptive evidence that cannot be ignored points to the conquest of Babylon by the Hittites as the cause of the demise of this dynasty, and not to a conquest by the Kassites. This leaves THE ERA OF HAl\'IMURABI 307 the problems of how and why the Kassites took over from the Hittites. Chronological problems must also be considered. The Babylonian king list gives the Kassite dynasty, with its thirty-six kings, a duration of 576 years. Since the line of Kassite kings appears to exhaust itself in the early reign of Assur-dan (No. 8.3B, c. 1175 B. C. ), the length of time from the end of the First Dynasty at Babylon (currently dated variously between 1600 and 1535 B.C.) to the end of the Kassite regime, does not leave room for any period approaching 576 years. Yet the known names of the Kassite kings approaches closely the stated number of thirty-six. Actually, it has long since been believed that this figure must be rejected by any possible solution to the problem.% ... It has become increasingly clear that the Third Dynasty [that of the Kassites} cannot have lasted nearly as long as the 576% years attributed to it by King-list A. However, if it is allowed that the figure was obtained in the same manner as were the dynastic periods of Manetho, i.e., by summation of reigns irrespective of parallelism or overlapping, the figure may well have a basis in fact. According to the Synchronistic Chronicle, there were eight Kassite kings who began their rule within the very brief (6year) reign of Samsi-Adad. 3' This Samsi-Adad must be the same as king No. 57 in the Khorsabad list, since he is followed by Isme-Dagan and another king by the name of Samsi-Adad. If it is recognized that these eight kings ruled a divided territory contemporaneously and that their local rules extended past the point of a united rule by Burnaburiash by normal periods of 15-20 years, this alone could account for the major fraction of this discrepancy. There is further evidence of parallel rules by several of these kings at the end of the dynasty. Reference to Figure 5, shows that the elapsed time for the dynasty was about 400 years. Correctly interpreted, this 576 years does not require rejection. An attempt at a solution to the chronology of this era was presented in 1940. 38 This was shortly before the appearance of the report of Poebel on the Khorsabad list.'39 The attempt is of particular interest, not because it settled the problems, or that its views are generally accepted, but rather because 308 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Key to Figure 5 The numbers on the chart refer to the numbers of the kings in the various accompanying tables. The kings of the two Assyrian dynasties and of the First Dynasty at Babylon are given space in proportion to their reported reign lengths. Preference has been given to the data from the eponym list of Hammurabi over the longer reign length given in the king list. The first seven of the Hittite kings, whose reigns are not known, are given an average reign of sixteen years; the time for the subsequent kings being adjusted to meet the synchronism between Telipinus and Tiglathpileser. The reign lengths of the Kassite kings (which are not known) are adjusted to meet the synchronisms with the Assyrian kings as given in the Synchronous Chronicle, the Synchronous History and the Babylonian King List A. . The slight folding of the Assyrian list is made to meet the synchronisms between Naram-Sin and Samsi-Adad. The two kings before Damqiili in the dynasty at Uruk evidently belong to the pre-famine period, the kings from Damqiili onward being synchronizable with the kings of Assyria as shown. Names not given on the chart are considered as not pertinent to the problems dealt with, or cannot be given dates that have a significant value to these problems. A synchronism was noted many years ago by Rawlinson (R-AM, Vol. II, p. 171) between Gurguna, a king at Larsa, and Samsi-Adad of Assyria. This synchronism was of necessity abandoned with the acceptance of the Khorsabad list as a sequence, but reappears with the revision. His father, Isme-Dagan, is then probably the king at lsin who must have ruled there about the same time. The kings of early Assyria, including those who ruled from tents and the father-son sequence from Uspia (No. 16E) to Ilu-summa must fit into the period from the second marriage of Abraham to the reign of Ilu-summa who is synchronized with Samuabu, first king of the First Dynasty at Babylon. Some parallelism of rule must be recognized. The vertical lines represent synchronisms. Th.e new synchronisms by the revised structure are those between the Hittites and Assyria, between the Hittites and Bible chronology, between the famine of Ibbi-Sin with the famine of Joseph and the reappearance of the synchronism between Gurgana and Samsi-Adad. The structure clarifies the time positions related to contemporaneity of kings of this dynasty with the First Dynasty at Babylon. While the dynasty is made to end at the time of Assur-dan by the Babylonian king list, it is clear from the Synchronistic Chronical that Kassite kings contiqued to reign with some degree of control after this. THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 309 the suggested solution reveals so Clearly the weaknesses in th~ popular dating of the XIIth Dynasty of Egypt, the era of the Hittites, and, in view of the weaknesses noted above, the desirability of recognizing that the dynasty of Adasi did not represent the sole rulli, or even the primary rule of Assyria. To meet the difficulties.. rising from evidence in the Cappadocian tablets, a gap in the Assyrian records was hypothesized from the end of the reign of Isme-dagan (No. 40E) to the reign of Assur-nirari (No. 60), who was dated 1555, 40 though the Khorsabad data yields a date 60 years later than this. The Kassite dynasty was given an origin in this gap. Reference to Figure 5 shows· that this latter deduction was correct, but the assumed gap resulted from a failure to recognize that this is the period of the dynasty of Adasi, for which there is a blank as far as inscriptive evidence is concerned, but it is not a blank in the chronology. This is the period of the contemporary line of kings. The principal sources of information on the Kassites from a chronological standpoint are ( 1) the Baylonian king list. (2) the Synchronistic Chronicle, and (3) the Synchronous History document. Data from other sources, of course, cannot be disregarded, even though indirect. The data on the Kassites from these three sources have been synthesized in Table F to yield a near-complete list of the Kassite kings. In this synthesis, popular opinion has been disregarded in favor of the data provided relative to the stated Assyrian contemporaries of these kings. In the remaining cases, it has been possible to deduce with a high degree of probability the identity of the contemporary Assyrian king. These points are specifically noted in the table. It will be noted from this table that the Babylonian king list gives the names of the first five Kassite kings, at which point there is a lacuna estimated to represent about 15 lines. When the list is resumed, the names of the next five are damaged or partly damaged, though the reign lengths of four of the five are given. The Synchronistic Chronicle gives the names of the first eleven (with a single omission), then follows a lacuna, considered as representing but a single missing line. However, the next name in the list is a contem"porary of an Assyrian king who reigned a century and a half later! The Synchronous History document begins with a lacuna, the first king included in the readable por- THE EXODUS PROBLEM 310 TABLEF A Synthesis of the Kassite Dynasty Data from tbe SC" Data&omtbe ULA" Gandash (16 ) Data from The SH" Gandush Agum[ Kashtiliashu 0 Agum(l2) Kashtiliashi (22) Ushshi(S) Abirattash Tazzigurumash... Erisu (No. 56B) Samsi-Adad Abirattash Tazzigurumash Harbashipalc Tiptakzi Agum II Bumaburiash Kashtiliashu Ulamburiash ,, ,, j ..•. (26) ,, .•.. (18) ICadash... (... ) Karindas . Bumaburiash ----+ .J----.• ..•.(22+)(identityassumed) Karamurodas Nazibugas Kurigalzu Nazimurndas Kudur... (6) Shagarakti (13) Kashtiliash(S) Kashtiliash Ellilnadimhuml( 1.5) Enlilnadinshumi Kadashman-Harbe(l.5) Ka ..... . Adadnadinshurni (6) Adad.... . Zababa. .. . Enlilnadin.. . 576 years 9 months, Isme-Dagan (No. 58B) Samsi-Adad Assur-nirari Puzur-Assur(No. 61B) Enlil-nasir Nur-ili Assur-saduni Enlil-naSir Assur-nirari Assurbelnisesu Assurrimnisesu Assur-nadin-ahhe Eriba-Adad (No. 72B) Assur-uballit ,, Enlil-nirari Arik-den-ili Adad-nirari Shalmaneser (assumed) Tukulti-Ninurta " " (stated) Assumadinapli ,, Assur-nirari Enlilkudurusur ,, ,, Melishipalc (15) Mardukaplaiddin(lS) Assyrian Contemporaries N inurta-apil-ekur ,, M.. ish. pak ..... aplaiddin Zababa... .... nadin... Samma-sum-iddin Assur-dan (No. SSB) " 36kings.... "Babylon king list; SyBCbfODistic Chronicle; Synchronous History. SC and SH give Assyrian C011temporaries. Numbers in ( ) in BKLA are reign lengths. Some scholars do not include Gaadush as Kassite and regard Agum 1 as the first king. . ... indicates omissions or unreadable portions. When the unreadable parts can he assumed with certainty, these are not shown. tion being a contemporary of Assur-bel-nisesu (No. 69B; 1416-1408 B.C.). The synthesized list accounts for thirtyone of the 36 kings stated to compose the dynasty. Two other names may belong in the list just prior to Karindas of the Synchronous History. The others, when found, should THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 311 fit satisfactorily into this arrangement, either by insertion or parallelism. Any final solution to the Kassite problem cannot disregard the evidence that the Kassites were an organized people with armies back as far as the reign of Samsuiluna (7D, successor to Hammurabi) and in the reign of Hammurabi. The ninth year of Samsuiluna is.. named in his eponym list by reference to the Kassite army. 41 Evidence has been referred to by Rogers indicating an attempted invasion of Babylonia by the Kassites in the reign of Hammurabi. 42 Neither of these situations fits well against the background of popular opinion which places the first Kassite king after the fall of the First Dynasty at Babylon. The assumption that the Kassite name "Karduniash" has been correctly equated with the entire territory of Babylonia is here queried. The earliest reference which suggests that Kassite kings ruled from the city of .Babylon js that from the reign of Tukulti•(Nin)urta (78B). 43 This Assyrian king (dated 1242-1206 B.C.) battled with the Kassite king, Kashtiliash (see Table F), and the battle involved the de:struction of the walls of Babylon and the removal of the Babylonian god (Marduk) from: the city. From this time on, the territory of the Kassites is referred to as Karduniash. Luckenbill, in his compendium of the Assyrian i.nscriptions, places the name Babylonia in ·parenthesis after each usage of the name. While this may be entirely defensible, the data do not warrant the conclusion as unequivocal that Kardunish of the previous period had reference to the same territory as that of all of Babylonia or Chaldea. The alternate probability is that Kardunish of the earlier references is either one of several divisions of the territory· of Babylonia, or that it was a separate territory to be distinguished from Babylonia. In the latter possibility, it would be quite possible that the Kassite territory was under the control of Babylonian kings. It was not at all unusual for a dominating country to allow its tributaries to be ruled under their own kings. Hence in either case, there is no valid reason for rejecting the concept that the line of early Kassite kings ruled contemporarily with the kings of the First Dynasty at Babylon. It is also possible that the Kassites during this time were an independent people and that the Babylonian kings tolerated their independent rule, be- 312 THE EXODUS PROBLEM cause they served as a buffer between themselves and the Assyrians. Such a situation· would explain the fact that the eventual difficulties of the Kassites were with the Assyrians. That the Kassites were long able to maintain a peaceable co-existence with the Assyrians is indicated by the fact that border disputes were amicably settled as late as the reign of Assur-bel-nisesu (No. 69B; 1416-1408 B.C.).H This situation also indicates that, even at this late period, the pressure for room for the population was not great. It was evidently the aspirations of subsequent kings in the direction of controlling an empire that eventually led to wars of conquest. In Babylonia these aspirations matured with Hammurabi; in Assyria it appears still later. The fact that the Kassites were able to assume control at the site of Babylon, with the fall of the First Dynasty, which had been ruling from that site, suggests that they had been on good terms with the Amorite dynasty, and the transition to the Kassite control may have been no more of a disturbance than that when the princes of the Xlllth Dynasty in Egypt assumed control at the end of Dynasty XII. 45 The point of importance is that, against the background provided by the revised chronological structure, there is no need to assume that the Kassites did not have kings until after the fall of the Amorite dynasty at Baylon. XVII. The Background to the Rise of the Several New Dynasties During the Last Half of the Seventeenth Century The developing situation, in terms of the revised chronology shown in Figure 5, reveals that prior to the mid-seventeenth century, the organized governments in the area of Mesopotamia were limited to the Hird Dynasty at Ur (in Chaldea), the beginnings of the dynasty at Uruk (in Chaldea), and the beginnings of the Assyrian kings from a line just emerging from a government conducted from tents of nomadic tribes. In the year 1648, a second line of Assyrian rulers follows from the attempts at organization by a series of "nobodies" with no royal ancestry. The Hird Dynasty at Ur comes to what must have been a near-coincident end, followed, within perhaps a decade, by the rise of-the dynasties at Isin and Larsa in Chaldea, and shortly thereafter by the Amorite dynasty (First Dynasty at Babylon) and by the THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 313 Kassite dynasty. These latter peoples must. have begun their migrations into this area a significant period of time prior to the organization of governments with kings over them, since in neither case is there any evidence of a necessary conquest.from an earlier people, Since the territory of Chaldea had a known occupation prior to these migrations reaching back to the earliest known settlements of man, 46 it would seem that sufficient time had elapsed to provide a vast population in this area. Yet the Amorites and the Kassites seem to be moving into an almost empty territory. The suggestion is that some event occurred shortly before this which resulted in the decimation of a large fraction of the previous population. When the era in question is set against the background of the situation in Egyp~ and in Palestine by this same chronology, an explanation for this unexpected state of affairs is provided. The Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt occurred in the year 1445 B.C. The Israelites had come into Egypt from Palestine two hundred fifteen years before this under conditions of a severe famine - a famine so severe that after two years it was necessary for Jacob to send his sons into Egypt to secure substenance. Egypt had been spared the worst effects of the famine by the previous preparation under Joseph. The preparations involved the utmost use of every bit of cultivatable land with the storage of the excess of the production during "seven years of plenty." As part of this conservation program, a canal was dug parallel to the Nile, the remnants of which are still recognized as having had the potential of doubling the productions of crops in Egypt. To this day that canal is known as the "Canal of Joseph," and its construction is ascribed by the populace to the patriarch Joseph. 47 It may be deduced that at the end of the seven years of disastrous famine, most of the population of Palestine had either died of starvation or had migrated to areas much farther north. Since the effects of the famine were such as to extend from the head-waters of the Jordan to the headwaters of the Nile, some 3,000 miles farther south, it can only be concluded that the effects of this famine disaster extended also into the area of Mesopotamia. This famine ended in the year 1655 B.C. The date, by the Khorsabad list, for Adasi is 1648. He was preceded by a series of 314 THE EXODUS PROBLEM "nobodies" who had evidently made unsuccessful attempts at the reorganization of the country. The Amorites and the Kassites, organized governments within about a century. The migrations of the Amorites and the Kassites into this territory must have begun in this same period of recuperation from the effects of the famine disaster. If, then, there is inscriptive evidence of a famine about this time in the Euphrates valley, the picture comes into clear focus. Such a famine record comes from the reign of Ibbi-Sin, last king of the Hird Dynasty at Ur. 48 Whether the government represented by the dynasty at Ur survived the disaster, as did the dynasty at Uruk, only to be taken over in its weakened state by the Elamites, or whether the government was totally disintegrated by the disaster is beside the point. The chronology of Mesopotamia confirms the correctness of Bible chronology relative to the famine in the time of Joseph, and confirms the proper placement of the Hittites in the post-Conquest era. XVIII. The Kassite Names in the Amama Letters Perhaps the strongest adhesive that has been used to hold the popular chronological structure together is the reference in the A.mama Letters to certain Kassite and· Assyrian kings. This series of documents has been introduced in a previous volume, 49 where it was promised to return to this topic after the problem of Assyrian and Chaldean chronologies had been considered. These letters represent the correspondence of various foreign kings and persons of official prominence with E;gyptian kings. The recipients of many of the letters. were the kings of Egypt whose names are currently identified as Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton) of Dynasty XVIII. While other kings of Egypt had throne names the same or very similar to these, 30 certain details in the letters appear to substantiate these identifications, in spite of the difficulties involved in the transliteration of cuneiform names into Egyptian. 50a The throne name of Amenhotep III, which we render as Neb-maatra, was variously vocalized by the cuneiform scribes as Nimmuria, Nammuria, Nimutriya, or Mitnmuria; these variations show how little exactness can be expected in cuneiform versions of names. THE ERA OF HAMI\1URABI .'31.5 Most of the letters, however, art' addressed onlv "To the King." It has been assumed that Amenhotep II I a~d Amenhotep IV were nevertheless the recipients of these letters also, an assumption that is not so clearly demonstrated in the content of the letters. The impersonal address suggests that some·of these letters belong in the obscure period after the death of Amenhotep IV, during which time even the ancient contemporaries seem to have been confused as to just who was responsible for the rule of Egypt.:; The more prominent of the names in the letters that have served as the basis for dating them in the 14th century B. C. are the Kassite names Burraburiash (Burnaburiash) and Kuri-galzu, and the Assyrian name Assur-uballit. The Kassite names are assumed to belong to the kings of the same names as those of the Kassite dynasty (Table F), and the name Assur-uballit is assumed to be that of the Assyrian king of this name in the 14th century (No. 73B). These identifications are vital as major supports for the traditional structure of the chronology of the ancient world. It is no great exaggeration to state that the total chronological structure deduced from the popular interpretations of archaeology rests heavily, either directly or indirectly, on the assum~d identifications of these names and on the assumed identification of Shishak of Scripture with Sheshonk I of Dynasty XXII. Elimination of these proposed identifications would leave this chronology hanging by an exceedingly fragile thread of evidence. But converselv it is vita1 to the altered structure defended in this work to. recognize that these identifications do not rest on solid evidence. It may be stated categorically that the altered chronological structure here proposed stands or falls with the nonvalidity or validity of these assumptions of identification. The fallacy in the proposed identification of Shishak of Scripture with Sheshonk I has been treated in detail in previou.s sections of this work.;:< It is of interest to note that even though these letters are interpreted quite differently by proponents of the XVIIIth Dynasty setting of the Exodus than by the proponents of the XIXth Dynasty setting, both groups hold to the view that the letters support their particular view. By the XVIIIth Dynasty theory, ·these letters belortg to the post-Exodus period and are interpreted to present a Canaanite view of the Conquest. By the 1 316 THE EXODUS PROBLEM XIXth Dynasty theory, these letters belong to the pre-Exodus period by about a century, and are interpreted in a manner which rejects the concept that the letters picture an invasion of any kind. By the altered chronological structure here proposed, these letters do not belong to either period. They belong to the era of the mid-9th century. The Assyrian background is that in the reign of Shalmaneser III (No. 102A); the background in Biblical history is in the era of Ahab and later. This is the placement defended by Velikovsky. 53 While some of his detailed interpretations remain to be confirmed, the general placement is correct, except possibly for a failure to recognize· that some of these letters may extend into a period later than the reign of Amenhotep IV. Our first task is to point out the insecure basis on which rest the popular identifications of Assur-uballit with the king of this name in the 14th century, and of the Kassite names in the letters with Kassite kings of the same era. As for Assur-uballit, his stated genealogy in the letters does not agree with the genealogy of the 14th century Assyrian king by this name. This discrepancy has long since been recognized and succinctly stated by Luckenbill. 54 ASsur-uballit (ca. 1380 B.C.) of Assyria has long been known from the Synchronous History... as the father of Muballitat-Sheru, wife of the Kassite king Burna-buriash and mother of Karahardash (Karaindash).... In the second of the two letters Assur-uballit wrote to Amenhophis IV of Egypt. ... he refers to "the time when Assurnadin-ahe, his father, wrote to Egypt." The word "father" may here have the meaning "ancestor," as often in the Assyrian texts, but even so our difficulties are not all cleared up. In the texts given below, Assur-uballit does not include Assur-nadin-ahe among his ancestors, although he carries his line back six generations. With the placement of these letters in the reign of Shalmaneser III, we would identify this Assur-uballit as the prince son of Shalmaneser III, who evidently died before his father, thus never becoming a primary ruler in Assyria, but who could, nevertheless, refer to himself as a king of Assyria within the ethics of that day. The evidence for this deduction is to be found in the eponym list of Shalmaneser IIl.55 Usually the first year of the king's reign was named after himself in the eponym list. But in this case, the first name is rendered Sharru-baltu-nishe, a name that has all the earmarks of being the equivalent of Assur-uballit. Since THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 31i the name precedes that of the king, the best possible explanation is the recognition of this person as the king's son and heir apparent to the throne. As for the Kassite names in the letters, there is little question but that the names are the same as those of Burna-buriash and Kuri-galzu, Kassite kings of the 14th century. But it does not necessarily follow that they are the same persons or even refer to persons of that era. The insecurity· of attempting to provide dates on the basis of names has been previously noted:;" A special caution is pertinent against regarding such identifications on the basis of names when such identifications lead to anachronistic situations. Names do not necessarily belong to a given era in any absolute sense. This is clearly the case here, since Kassite names continue to appear in the Assyrian inscriptions to the time of Shalmaneser III and later, with evidence that Kassites continued to hold positions of governmental responsibility:37 While it is not possible to put our finger on these particular names in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, the continued appearance of Kassite names in the inscrfptions does not permit an identification of these names per se with Kassite kings in the 14th century. Tiglathpileser III mentions a city by the name of Kurigalzu 5 ~ indicating the then current use of the name. On the other hand, there is evidence that such identification is a mistake. Kuri-galzu of the letters is the father of Burraburiash. ssa Yet in the Kassite list, the king by this name ruled after Burraburiash and not immediately after, but sixty years after. 59 To avoid the implication of this anachronism, it has been supposed that there were two Kassite kings by this name. Possibly so, but this is arguing from what we do not know, and the assumption stands on no more solid ground than that which places this Kuri-galzu in the time of Shalmanezer III. While Burraburiash of the 14th century married the daughter of Assur-uballit, 60 his reign preceded that of Assur-uballit. 61 There is also a chronological difficulty in the daughter of Akhnaton being the wife of the son of Burnaburiash. Akhnaton, (Amenhotep IV) had no daughters of marriageable age at that time. 62 The anomalies resulting from the placement of these letters in the era of the Conquest have been repeatedly pointed out. 5'1 The letters do not picture an invasion. The politi- 318 THE EXODUS PROBLEM cal difficulties described resulted from the rebellious actions on the part of certain of the local governors of the area under pressure from peoples farther north, evidently to be identified with the Hittites. While such a situation is anomalous in the 9th century by popular views, it is not anomalous when the Hittites are given their proper position in the post-Conquest period. Except for a few questionable interpretations, the area involved is to the north of Palestine - an area never occupied by the Israelites, or at best, the difficulties extend only into the very northern part of Palestine. A satisfactory basis for this involvement in northern Palestine is pictured in Scripture as existing in the mid-9th century. 64 In those days [in the reign of Jehu, 841-814 B.C.] the Lord began to cut Israel short; and Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel. Against this background, the difficulties resulted from the incursions 0f· the Hittites from the north into the territory of the city states of Syria and Phoenicia. As the territory ruled by a local governor was taken or threatened, he in turn attempted to meet the situation by trying to take territory from another. The eventual squeeze resulted in incursions into Israelite territory, a situation indicated by the statement above from Scripture. There remains the problem relative to the assumed extension of the difficulties into the area of southern Palestine a~d particularly those related to the cities of the Philistines. The vagueness and paucity of information provided by the letters may not yield a total or unequivocal solution to this problem. However, a few observations may be made. In order to maintain what appears to be a logical sequence of the letters in terms of the developments described, it has been supposed that certain of the persons mentioned in the letters moved from the northern area of trouble to southern Palestine to participate in the difficul~ ties there, only to return to the northern area later. 63 This should be recognized as a very awkward interpretation, particularly in view of the fact that there ate no unequivocal evidences of difficulty in the area in between. The identification of a site mentioned in the letters as Shechem re- THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 319 mains highly questionable. A more rational view would recognize the possibility that these sites supposed to be in southern Palestine are also being misidentified. In view of the large difficulties of transliterating cuneiform names into English equivalents, how can we be .certain that there were not cities in this northern area to which these names could apply equally well or better. There were undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of sites in this northern area whose names are not recorded in any extant inscription. How can we be certain that these names are being properly identified with sites in southern Palestine. i;i; Perhaps the name on which the greatest dependence is placed is that transliterated as l' rusalim or Burusalim and identified With Jerusalem. But even in this case, how can we be sure that there was no city in this northern area with a name that could be thus transliterated? There is a reference to a site in this general area translltered as Ulisum,r;7 which transliteration is. not further away from Urusalim than are many of the other proposed identifications. Any relation between the difficulties in the area of the Philistine cities with those to the north of Palestine remains speculative. A possible contemporaneity is possible but not unequivocal. The cessation of these letters with the death of Akhnaton appears to rest on the assumption that the city of Akhetaton was destroved on the death of Akhnaton. If this could be proved, it ·would suggest that since the letters were found in the ruins of the city, they must belong to the era preceding the destruction. But this has not been proved. ·A continued occupation of the site for a period approaching a century after Akhnaton is not out of the question. 67• Why should a· dty· so recently built be destroyed simply because Akhnaton had died. When the citv was built, Akhnaton was followed there by some 80,000 ~esidents of Thebesu' and undoubtedly by many others from other Jocalities. Must we believe that with the death of Akhnaton these 80,000 deserted the city and moved back to Thebes? The closing of the Amarna period and of the Amarna correspondence with the death of Akhnaton is an unwarranted assumption. The possibility that such difficulties as may be clearly demonstrated to belong to southern Palestine may belong to a significantly later period has not been eliminated. 320 THE EXODUS PROBLEM XIX. Confirmation of the Late Dates for the Amarna Letters from Phoenician Chronology Further confirmation for the dating of the Amarna Letters in the mid-9th century rather than in the 14th, and of their continuation significantly later than the death of Amenhotep IV, is to be seen in ,the chronology of the kings of Phoenicia as provided by Josephus. 69 Josephus is citing the ancient works of Dius (History of the Phoenicians) and of Meander, who is stated to have given the principal acts of each of the Tyrian (Phoenician) kings. According to the data provided from these sources, the building of Carthage occurred in the 7th year of Pygmalion, and the construction of the temple, begun in the 4th year of Solomon according to Scripture, was coincident with the 12th year of Hiram, king of Phoenicia. We are thus provided with an exact synchronism between Phoenician and Biblical chronology. It is further stated that it was 143 years from the 12th year of Hiram to the 7th year of Pygmalion. The names of the intervening kings are given with their reign lengths as follows:· Hiram, 34 years; Baleazarus, 7 years; Abdastartus, 9 years; 4 usurper kings as sons of the nurse of Abdastartus, the eldest of whom reigned 12 years; Astartus, 12 years; Aserymus, 9 years; Pheles (usurper), 8 months; Ithobalus, 32 years; Badezorus, 6 years; Matgenus, 9 years; Pygmalion, 47 years. The correctness of these figures is confirmed by the appearance of the name Ithobalus in the list at a proper date to meet the synchronism of Scripture which states that Ahab married the daughter of this Ithobalus (Ethbaal).;o By the now fixed date for the 4th year of Solomon by Thiele at 967-966 B.C., it may be calculated that the reign of Pygmalion began in 831 B.C. with the founding of Carthage, dated 824 B.C. This· incident resulted from the flight of Pygmalion's sister, Dido. This sister was still alive when Aeneas of the immediate post-Trojan war era visited Carthage after the war.; 1 This latter synchronism stands to refute the popular view which places the Trojan war in the 12th or 13th century B.C. Calculating backward from the dates for Pygmalion, Ithobalus reigned from 878-853. These dates agree with those for Ahab by Thiele's chronology (874-853) and partic- THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 321 ularly so, since Ithobalus must have been ruling at the time of this marriage, which in turn must have been early in the reign of Ahab. With the Amarna period moved forward on the time scale by the revision so that the reign of Amenhotep IV of the Amarna Letters falls in the era c. 857-840 B.C.,' 2 the letters addressed to this king fall in the period prior to the reign of Pygmalion. Since most of the letters are addressed only "To the King," who is not named, and since the letters so addressed belong to the period of trouble, it is deduced that these letters belong after the death of Amenhotep and during the reign of Pygmalion, .or possibly in the reign of Matgenus, his predecessor. This deduction is provided a degree of confirmation from several directions. In Letter No. CLXX (of Petrie }"3 addressed "To the King", it is stated that the people of Dunip had been appealing to Egypt for help for 20 years. Since the trouble may well have started even before this, it may have spanned a period of 25 years after the death of Amenhotep IV, reaching to as late as 815 B.C. Letters numbered CLXXVIII and CLXXXIII are from the king of Tyre (Phoenicia). Petrie gives these letters under the subheading, Abimilki of Tyre in Trouble. If we are correct in our deductions, then Abimilki is the same person as Pygmalion. An examination of the two names reveals that both have the same consonant sequence BML or the equivalent PML. This is hardly a mere coincidence in view of the independent basis on which the deduction was made. The equivalence is as close as many of the other deduced equivalences for names in the letters. 13a XX. The Habiru-Hebrew Problem The Amarna Letters•• refer repeatedly to a people known by a name variously transliterated as 'Apiru, Habiru, Khapiru, or Khabiru. Since the letters suggest a prolonged political disruption, and since the letters must be assigned to the 14th century by popular views on chronology, it could be expected that a first hyp9thesis would equate this people with the· invading Hebrews under Joshua. A more careful scrutiny of these letters has, however, convinced most scholars that the difficulties described are of local origin and do not picture an invasiort. The picture is rather that of 322 THE EXODUS PROBLEM a group of mercenaries, who have joined with certain rebellious local groups, selling or volunteering their services to various local governors who seem to be attempting to extend their territory of occupation at the expense of their neighbors. The movement seems to be under the pressure of incursions into this territory by a people from the north who appear to be the Hittites. The letters to the Egyptian king are in the nature of pleas by certain of the local governors for aid in the form of supplies, food, and military help-pleas that fell on "deaf ears" with no forthcoming assistance. Each writer emphasizes his own loyalty as a subject of the Egyptian king and charges his opponents with disloyalty. The incongruities which rise from this initial identification of the 'Apiru with the Hebrews are now so many and so great that this equivalence is now virtually universally rejected, or at least so severely .qualified as to make unthinkable any connection between the disturbances pictured in the letters and the Hebrew invasion. A number of statements to this effect by various scholars are reproduced below. 75-78 The Khabiru of the Tell el-Am_ama correspondence, who act in cooperation with the rebels against the Pharaoh's authority, used to be regularly identified with the Hebrews and adduced as proof . that the Israelite conquest of Palestine took place in the 14th or even in the 15th century. Particularly since the first World War, however, evidence has accumulated to the effect that the word in question (1) is rather to be read Khapiru, (2) was in use all over the Orient in the second millennium B.C., and (3) designated men of any and every nationality.... ·But the severest blow of all was dealt to the igentification of the Khabiru with the Hebrews by the discovery at Ugarit of partly parallel Accadian and Ugaritic lists of towns of the kingdom of Ugarit. For the town which is called ''Khalb of the Khapiru" in Accadian is called "Khalb of the 'apinm" (not 'ibriyyim [ = "Hebrews"] or the like) in Ugaritic. . ·.. Unlike the Hurri, the Habiru, in the opinion of most scholars, cannot be reconized as an ethnic group, since no characteristic names can be associated with them. Nor can they be recognized as following some definite occupation, for sometimes they are apparently professional soldiers, sometimes they are labourers, and sometimes slaves. The only common characteristic is that they are foreigners .... In the first place, it is clear that in the Amarna age we have small groups of people acting simultaneously in different parts of the country, .and not the united army that the book of Joshua brings before us. . . . Some of the letters plead for a garrison of fifty to be sent for their protection. This would scarcely suffice for defence against a force THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 323 of more that half a million men of military age, and by whatever specious devices the Biblical numbers are reduced to what might seem more manageable proportions, they could not be brought down to anything against which a force of 50 men would appear adequte .... Even if the Biblical numbers are dismissed as wholly unreal, and it is recognized that the company that came out of Egypt was only a small one, it is 'still impossible to relate the Biblical picture of a united group acting under a single leader with the pattern of the Amama correspondence . . . . A number of the letters complain about the trouble from a people called Hapiru ... a word connected in some way with "Hebrew". . . . Many scholars in the past have interpreted these letters to mean that a great invasion from the desert was taking place, an invasion to be connected in some way with the Hebrew conquest of Palestine. . . . Recent students of the letters, however, claim that there is within them no evidence whatever of an invasion. The 'Apiru are considered in the letters as "bandits" or lawless gangs, a number of them, at least, ill-paid mercenaries who were joined by an increasing number of the people from the oppressed population. In addition, the term is applied by local kings to neighboring kings and their armies who are siezing land and towns. The king of Byblos, for example. . . assumes that anyone who takes his land is an enemy of the Pharaoh.... It is impossible therefore, to see any evidence of a great invasion or to connect the disturbances with the Israelite entry into Palestine, because the •Apiru were already within the land and were not new invaders. The letters nowhere contain reference to an invasion; the attackers labelled 'A piru were the people of other city-states. XXI. The Problem of the Antiquity of Assyria Based on a sequence interpretation of the Khorsabad king list, Poebel entertained the possiblity that the Assyrian history began in the remote past, though less ancient than the dynastic era for Egypt and Chaldea.79 He also recognized as a reasonable possibility that the early names in the list did not necessarily represent a sequence. The first seventeen of these kings are stated to have ruled from tents, 80 indicating a time when the area was more or less nomadic. Scripture suggests81 that Assyria derived its name from that of Asshur, who is stated to have migrated from Chaldea into the territory of Assyria. While Scripture is not clear in stating when this migration occurred, the statement makes sense with the context when it is assumed that this was at a notably later time than the era of Nimrod, the beginning of whose kingdom was "Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar." It has been sug- 324 THE EXODUS PROBLEM gested on this basis that this Asshur may have been the progenitor of the Asshurim mentioned in the genealogy of Abraham by his second wife Keturah. 82 Poebel entertained such a possibility. 83 Tentatively granting such an origin, it could be expected that some of the names of the descendants of Abraham would appear in this list of seventeen kings who ruled from tents. By comparison of the early names in the Khorsabad list (Table G) with those in the genealogy of Abraham, (Table E) we find a number of very reasonable name equivalents. There is the name Asarah (No. 15), which could be the equivalent of Asshur; there is the name Uspia (No. 16), which could be the son of Abraham given as Ishbak; there is the name Zuaba (No. 11 ), which could be Sheba, the grandson of Abraham; there is the name Didanu (No. 9), who could be Dedan, the grandson of Abraham, and by an equation less apparent than the preceding, but still possible, there is the name Adamu (No. 2) which could be Medan, son of Abraham, and of Mandaru (No. 6),), who could be Midian, the son of Abraham. It is possible to check the feasibility of such an origin of these early kings of the Khorsabad list in terms of the chronological data provided in Scripture. The Exodus occurred in the year 1445 B.C. 84 Abraham entered Canaan from Chaldea 430 years before this, 85 in the year 1875. At that time he was 75 years old, 86 and his wife Sarai was ten years his junior. 87 Sarai died at the age of 127. 88 This was then sixty-two years after the entrance into Canaan or in the year 1813 B.C. Allowing 3 years for remarriage of Abraham and the birth of Jokshan, this son was born in 1810 B. C. Allowing 90 years for a great grandson to reach maturity (22 years estimated), the migration of Asshurim into Assyria was c. 1720 B. C. The name Uspia (No. 16) begins a line of rulers in father-son sequence which continues for eleven generations. Since Ushbak, here identified with Uspia, was the son of Abraham, we must suppose that Asshur migrated into this · territory with his ancestors of mature age back to the sons of Abraham. Uspia, as a son of Abraham, was then about 66 years old at the time of this migration. Aspiasal (No. 17 ), said to be the son of Uspia, and Halu, his son, represent these two generations. We thus have nine additional gener- THE ERA OF HAMMURABI 325 ations to recognize. Allowing these 200 years, we are taken to a date c. 1520 B. C. for the end of this line. Since there is a break in the line at this point, (see Table G) we may suppose that the further kings to Ilusumma of the synchronism with the First Dynasty at Babylon were contemporary with this line through the lineage of Abraham. A date for Ilusumma c. 1520 is not at all improbable by the arrangement of Figure 5 based on these premises. A recognition of an origin of these early rulers of Assyria in the immediate descendants of Abraham is thus feasible within the limits of a strict interpretation of Bible chronology, though this has not been proved. The major weight of evidence is found in the appearance of these several names in the Khorsabad list which can be reasonably equated with the names provided in Scripture for the genealogy of Abraham. TABLEG The Descendants of Abraham Zimran Sheba Asshurim Abraham Medan Midian Jokshan fshbak · Shuah Dedan Letushim Leummim Notes and References (I) See quots. of refs. 14-16 of Chap. VII. (2) Gen. 25:1-3. (3) Vol. I, Chap. V, Sect. VI. (4) Ibid., quot. of ref. 43. (5) Ibid., Sect. XII. (5a) Chap. XIII of this volume. (6) Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Sect. VI; this volume, Chap. V, Sect. X. (7) Vol. I, Chap. XVIII, Sect. VII. (8) Cited in B-BE, Vol. IX, p. 155; see also JNES, Vol. I (1942), opposite,p. 289 for attempts to fit others of these time periods into the current views. (9) See refs. 8. (10) See Sect. XX of this chapter. (11) See ref. 10. (lla) See quots. of refs. 75-78. (12) See Vol. I, Chap. XVII, Sect. XI, Sect. XI for example of difficulty rising from assumption that. these time periods represent elapsed time. (13) Reproduced in L·ARAB, Vol. II, p. 439. (14) Vol. I, Chap. IX, Sect. JV. (15) Vol. I, Chap. VI, Sect. X. (16) C-SH, pp. 257ff. gives this chronology with synchronisms. (17) Ibid.; Vol. I, Chap. V, Sect. VI; this volume, Chap. V, Sect. XII. (18) L-ARAB, Vol. I, pars. 292, 306. (19) G-H, p. 25. (20) P-ANET, p. 277. (21) Sects. XIV-XVI. (22) See ref. 16. G-H, p. 23. (23) See Table E for the names of 40 of these kings. The other six are said to have been" sons of nobodies." (24) P-ANET, p. 272f.; the data in Table F, column designated SC, are from this document. (25) Ibid., p. 267; BA, Vol. XI, p. 10. (26) JNES, Vol. II, pp. 85ff. (27) Ibid., p. 470. (28) These assumed prolonged blanks can be regarded as suspect, since it is a well-established fact that when a territory becomes so defenseless as to have no history, another people will move in to fill the gap. (29) JNES, Vol. I, p. 285. (30) Sect. XXL (30a) See ref. 24. (31) P-ANET, p. 267 citing the Sargon Chronicle. (32) Ibid. (33) R-HBA, p. 61. (34) Ibid., pp. 99ff. (35) Ibid., p. 99. (36) BASOR, No. 77, p. 28. (37) These are the kings from Agum I to 326 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Agum II inclusive as given in Table F under the column designated SC, which list must also include the omitted Ushshi of the Babylonian king list. (38) By Albright, BASOR, No. 77, pp. 20-30. (39) The report on the Khorsabad list appeared in 1942. (40) See ref. 38, Table p. 29. (41) P-ANET, p. 271. (42) R-HBA, Vol. !, p. 93. (43) L-ARAB, Vol. I, pars. 140, 141, 145. (44) S-RP, Vol. .IV, p. 27 (citing the Synchronous History document). (45) Vol. I, Chap. X, Sect. Ill. (46) This volume, Chap. VIII, Sect. V. (47) Vol. I, Chap. X, Sect. V. (48) See discussion under subheading .. Third Dynasty at Ur" in Babylonia and Assyria," Encyc. Brit. (1959 ed.). (49) Vol. I, Chap. III, Sect. III, par. 10. (50) For examples; Rameses VI had the name MaatNeb-Re, quite identical to that of Amenhotep III, and Rameses X has the name Nefer-ka.-re, from which such a name as Naphkuri could have been derived (P-HE, Vol. III, pp. 172, 178). (50a) P·HE, Vol. II, p. 268. (51) As indicated by the omission of the names for Amenhotep IV and his successors following Amenhotep III. (52) Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Sects. VI, VII; Chap. XVlll, Sect. VII. (53) V-AC, Chap. VJ, (54) L-ARAB, Vol. J, par. 58. (55) Ibid., Vol. II, p. 431 (par. tl98). (56) Chap. II, Sect. VI. (57) L-ARAB, Vol. I, pars. 565, 649; Vol. II, pars. 97, 98, 102 etc. (58) Ibid., Vol. I, par. 764. (58a) Letter XX (P-HE, Vol. II, p. 276). (59) See Table F. (60) S-RP, Vol. IV, p. 27, citing the Synchronous History document; see quot. of ref. 54. (61) Since, according to the Synchronous History, he began to reign when Assur-nadin-ahe was king of Assyria (see Table F). This king preceded Eriba-Adad on the chart of Fig. 5. (62) PHE, Vol. II, p. 275. (63) See quots. of refs. 75-78. (64) II Kings 10:32. (65) P-HE, Vol. II, p. 308. (66) See Chap. IX, Sect. VJ. (67) P-ANET, p. 268. (67a) Budge allowed a period somewhat short of a century (B-N, p. 557). (68) W-SHAE, p. 149. (69) J·AA, Bk. J, pars. 17, 18. (70) l Kings 16:31. (71) Chap. XVI, Sect. VII. (72) Vol. I, Fig. 11. (73) P-HE, Vol. II, pp. 292£. (73a) For example, deriving Jeroboam from JBM. (74) Many of these letters are reproduced by Petrie with introductory remarks (Ibid., pp. 259ff. ). See also B-AB, pp. 402ff. (75) BA, Vol. vm. p. 48. (76) K-AHL, p. 183. (77) R-FJJ, p. 4lf. (78) W-BA, p. 75. (79) JNES, Vol. J, pp. 255f. (80) Ibid., p. 252. (81) Gen. 10:11. (82) See ref. 2. (83) See ref. 79. (84) Based on the 480 years of J Kings 6:1 and Thiele's date for the 4th year of Solomon. (85) Gal. 3:16, 17. (86) Gen. 12:4. (87) Gen. 17:17. (88) Gen. 23:1. · CHAPTER XVIII ON THE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TWO PROPOSED CHRONOLOGICAL STRUCTURES The fundamental problem with which we are dealing in this work is one of a comparative evaluation of a proposed gross chronological revision with traditional concepts of long-standing. If a valid comparison of evaluation could be made on the basis of majority opinion, the scales would be rapidly and emphatically tipped in favor of current opinion. However, history has demonstrated clearly that such a criterion does not represent a valid basis for evaluation of opposing concepts, and neither does error become truth simply because it has been so regarded for an extended period of time. Except as valid criteria are recognized for making such a comparative evaluation, there is little hope of arriving at a conclusion that is scientifically sound. The problems of archaeology differ from those of the more exact sciences in that the starting data, more often than otherwise, are not susceptible to anything resembling an unequivocal interpretation chronologically. If a more completely documented history of the ancient peoples were available as a . basis for interpretation of archaeological finds, the problems might well be largely confined to refinement of certain dates falling between two well-established and not widely separated dates. The known history of the major nations of antiquity from the 9th century B.C. and onward is not at all complete; nevertheless, sufficient data are available to establish certain areas of chronology in an unequivocal manner. Such is the case in correlating the chronologies of Assyria and Egypt with that of Palestine for the late Israelite era. Or if even a single precise and unequivocal method of dating archaeological finds were at our disposal, such a chronology might be established to the point where remaining questions had to do only with minor details. Certainly such a reliable method would provide a basis for quickly deciding between the proposed revision and the traditional structure. For the period prior to the 8th century B.C., no such dating method has been devised, 1 and the unreliability of the methods that have been used is becoming more and more apparent. 328 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Even if the inscriptional material for this earlier era contained a few more critical and unequivocal synchronisms between the kings of different nations, a decision between the two views would be readily apparent. Such a series of synchronisms is extant between Chaldea and Assyria to tie the two histories together in rigid fashion for the period covered. However, even here the correlation is relative and not absolute. Unfortunately, the mention of foreign kings by clearly identifiable names in the local inscriptions for this earlier era is meager indeed. A few such are extant between Egy.pt and the Hittites to tie the chronologies of these two peoples together at the time of Rameses II, but this does not provide dates on the B. C. time scale for the chronology of either area. The same is true of the rare reference usable as synchronism between Hittite and Chaldean history. Or, if we had a more certain basis for knowing the extent to which the figures assigned to the reigns of ancient kings represent true elapsed time, without inclusion of coregencies and parallel reigns, this would be a very significant factor in clarifying the problems of .ancient chronology. Of similar help would be the various time periods between kings or incidents mentioned in the ancient inscriptions, if these could be depended upon to represent elapsed time. So many of these figures are becoming increasingly apparent as not representing elapsed time that their use has introduced more by way of confusion than clarification. While Scripture refers to incidents in the earlier history of Egypt, it is not until very late in Israelite history that the pharaohs mentioned are identified by name. This has left the problem of identifying these unnamed kings as best can be done on the basis of the more obscure evidences of archaeology. An element that has introduced much difficulty is the fact that often the foreign kings were known in other lands by names that bear little or no resemblance to their Egyptian names. There seems to be little hope that these situations will be altered significantly at any time in the near future. The only course open is that of deciding on the most valid criteria that can be used under the circumstances for a comparative . evaluation of the merits of the opposition views. The following suggestions are proposed as guidelines in such a relative evaluation. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION 329 I. All but a very small fraction of archaeological observations could be satisfactorily fitted into more than a single chronological structure. More specifically, the vast majority of these data could be fitted with a degree of reason into either the traditional or revised structure. Without attempting to define this fraction of archaeological observations, it may be stated as a principle that data which may be fitted equally well into two opposing views has no value in substantiating either view over the other. 2. · It is rather the extent of the data that fit .into one structure but not the other, or which fit distinctly better into one structure as compared to the other, that should serve in such comparative evaluation. Of two proposed schemes, that which is in notably lesser difficulty with the more readily interpretable inscriptive evidence and with those few archaeological observations not susceptible to ready agreement with both schemes more closely approaches the truth. 3. If a chronological scheme rests much of its weight on unproven premises and is in repeated difficulty with the inscriptional evidence or with archaeological observations susceptible to unequivocal interpretation, this structure cannot be rationally considered as more than hypothetical. In no sense of the word is it to be regarded as fixed beyond the necessity of major revision. On the other hand, the multiplication of such difficulties should provide the clue that major. alterations will continue to be required if the scheme is to merit any semblance of credibility. In the list of unproven premises are those which assume a reliability for the C-14 and Sothic dating methods. The traditional chronological structure rests very heavily on a series of such unproven premises and is in just such difficulty with the more readily interpretable data as has been pointed out in this work. Not the least of these is the tacit premise that Manetho' s dynasties must be held to represent a numerical sequence, except for the deviations now. recognized. Wh~ile no one is going to contend for a · permiscuous arrangement of these dynasties, room should be left for serious consideration of proposals which recognize breaks in this sequence at points where unequivocal proof of a sequence is lacking. 330 THE EXODUS PROBLEM 4. While rules without exception are the exception, nevertheless a chronological structure based on archaeological interpretations which require frequent and critical deviations from the rules of interpretation of archaeological observations should be regarded as suspect. The more frequently such deviations are required, the less confidence is to be placed in the structure. 5. Perhaps the most flagrant deviations from the rules required to maintain a credence in the traditional scheme are (1) the use of scarabs and tomb objects as a basis for dating critical areas in the structure which do not have satisfactory support otherwise2 and (2) the disregard of the absence of the expected cultural change at the conquest and occupation of Palestine by the Israelites.'1 Such evidence might well be missing in the case of conquest .without occupation, or from a minor· infiltration, but it is incredible that we be asked to believe that the Israelites took possession, with occupation, of the numerous cities and villages of the area when in no case has any significant evidence for a change in culture been observed at the levels attributed to the Conquest. 6. A correct chronology should yield a consistent historical picture of the interrelatfons between all the peoples involved. A proposed synchronism between only two peoples when three are inseparably involved, leaving an anachronistic situation with the third, is not a true synchro- . nism; it is an anachronism. While the absence of complete information may leave blank spaces in the picture, this is quite a different matter than inconsistency. In the writ'.'" er' s opinion, the concepts of a Hyksos empire;' of a Libyan origin of Dynasty XXIl, 5 and the proposed identification of Sheshonk I with Shishak of Scripture should be· recognized as wholly incongruous and inconsistent with the facts. A similar evaluation should be recognized for the entire approach used in attempts to correlate Scripture with archaeology on the basis of trivia and situations that have no unique qualities, while neglecting the details of a more unique nature. 6 7. The necessity for recognizing extended gaps in the history of an area should serve as a clue for suspecting that the chronology has been unduly expanded. If such extended gaps appear at several widely separated areas, the COMPARATIVE EVALUATION 331 probability of such undue expansion is magnified to the point of requiring a critical re-examination of the validity of the premises on which the structure has been erected. The extended gap of many centuries in the histories of Greece' and of the Hittites,~ as well as at numerous individual sites in Palestine and elsewhere, is an example of the point in question. 8. The problem of the relative historical value of ancient wdtten sources cannot be disregarded. It might be argued that the proposed revision rests on the assumed his:. torical reliability of Scripture, an assumption that cannot be proved. However, this holds even more firmly for the popular evaluation of Scripture which is assumed by the Higher Criticism and which is accepted without question as a premise for archaeological interpretation. Hence in both cases, the p·roblem reverts to one of basic philoso:.. phy, 9 and one approach cannot be considered less reasonable than the other, except as one approach leads to a notably less consistent structure otherwise. The writer has freely admitted that to propose an alternate structure that is no I11ore consistent that the traditio:r;ial views, but differing only in a different starting philosophical premise, would not constitute a worthy contribution to the problems of archaeology. 10 On the other hand, it is to be noted carefully that it is not alone the problems related to Scripture that are provided solutions by the proposed revision. Numerous problems are clarified that have no relation to the· evaluation of Scripture per se. It is also to be noted that while it may not· be possible to prove that Scripture is altogether dependable history, it has been demonstrated clearly that the methods used by the Higher Criticism are not valid and that the deductions based on these methods do not have any necessary significance. 11 In Conclusion This altered interpretation of archaeology as applied to the chronology of the ancient world is offered with an expectancy that its reception by scholars generally will be notably short of enthusiastic. This could be deduced, if for no other reason, from the similar reception that has been given to previous proposals that have required a major shift THE EXODUS PROBLEM in the current thinking. In spite of this situation, it is also offered with the belief that among this large group, there will be some who will recognize the potential advantages of the general outlines of the proposed revision and the validity of the evidences produced to support it. There is a further hope that among these few there will be some who have the courage to express such an opinion. The altered interpretation is offered also to that large group of individuals who have maintained the belief that Scripture is what it claims to be. Perhaps most of these are quite unaware of the difficulties involved in maintaining a defensible position within the framework of popular opinion. But sooner or later, the problem must be faced by the Christian world as a whole, and it is better to have the answers in advance. There may be many others who once had a firm confidence in Scripture but who have lost that faith under the pressure of popular sicentific opinion. To these, this thesis is offered with a hope that such a faith may be restored. To the Jewish people, the thesis is offered in refutation of the archaeological .interpretation which tends to make the ancient Hebrews a cultural nonentity which made no significant contribution to ancient cultural development. The modern Jews are the descendants of an ancient people who were the elite of their era, as evidenced by their literature, their moral code, their understanding of health principals, and their authorship of invaluable cultural innovations. 332 far It is recognized that there are many who have at least a cursory knowledge of the difficulties involved in attempting to defend their faith in the face of the situation that results from the acceptance of popular interpretations of archaeological evidence. There are many who are attempting to maintain a confidence in Scripture by taking shelter under the often stated claim that it is not necessary for Scripture to be historically reliable for its religious message to be retained. This concept is totally fallacious. If these writings are not reliable historically, they have no more genuine reli-. gious import than does the Koran, or the writings of Hinduism, or Confucianism. The religious message of Scripture is inseparable from its historical reliability. The relative impotency of modem Christiantiy as practiced by many may COMPARATIVE EVALUATION 333 be traced directly to a premature compromise of theology with scientific opinion. THE END Notes and References (I) See Chaps. III and IV. (2) See Chap. V., Sect. IX. (3) Vol. I, Chap. V, VI~ (4) Vol. I, Cha11. XIV; this volume, Chap. V, Sect. IX. (5) Ibid., Chaps. XVI, XVII. (6) Ibid., Chap. II. (7) Ibid., Chap. XVl. (8} See ref. 3; Chap. V, Sect. IX. (9) Ibid., Chap. XIX. (IO) lblt:l., Chap. VI, Sect. II. ( 11) The assumed validity of the methods of the Higher Criticism was put to a "test in a court trial in a case· of claimed plagiarism. The reports of the developments in the case were published in the Sunday School Times of January 21 and 28, 1933 and reviewed by G. M. Price in his work Modem Dl$cooeries Which Help Us Believe. INDEX ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE INDEX EB., MB., and LB. refer to Early, Middle and Late Bronze respectively. D- is followed by a Roman number and is read Dynasty. Ds. is then Dynasties. R- is followed by a Roman number and is read Rameses. AA. is the abbreviation for Archaeological Ages. Other abbreviations used only in a specific entry are noted in the entry titles. Al PROBLEM Expected basis as a synchronism with the Conquest, 1:18. Difficulties in the archaeology of, 1:7If. Dating of too early for such synchron!sm, 1:18, 45, 91; Il:93. The problem of identity of the site now settled, 1:7lf.; 11:93. Only remaining interpretation possible is contradictory to Scripture, 1:72:11:93. AMALEKITES (A) Area of occupation, 1:230. Identification as the Hyksos, 1:300f. Saul's war with the A. correlated with the expulsion of the Hyksos, I :232,304. See also under HYKSOS. AMARNA LETTERS Dated in the time of Amenhotep IV, 1:277. Basis for current dating in .the 14th century, 11:314. Revised dating of Amenhotep IV, 1:274, Fig. 11. Evidence against the current dating, 11:93, 314ff. Evidence for dating in the 9th century, 11:314ff. .Letters do not indicate a conquest, 11:322£. Misidentification of Assyrian and Kassite names in, 11:314f. Confirmation of the later date from Phoenician chronology, II:320. See also under'APIRU-HEBREW PROBLEM. ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO THE CHRONOLOGIES OF ASSYRIA AND CHALDEA Anomaly of the Kassites (see under KASSITES). Anachronism with the Hittites (see under HITTITES). On the origin of Assyria (see under ASSYRIA). ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO THE CONQUEST (C) Main phase of the C. brief, 1:56. Archaeology does not reveal a unit C.• Il:93. No change of culture following the destructions attributed to the C., 1:48, 72f.; 11:91. Absence of change of culture requires the assumption that the Hebrews had no' culture, 1:63; 11:94. The enigma at Ai (See under AI). The enigma of the fallen walls at Jericho, 1:45, 64£., 87. The enigma of the 1st occupation of Megiddo by the Israelites, 11:221£. The theory· of denudation of the Jericho mound fails to explain the enigma, 1:70. No interference by Egypt at the C., 1:23.. The A. of Memeptah's inscription, 1:43f. The A. of the first appearanee of the Philistines following the C., 11:94. ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO THE DESCENT (D) AND THE ERA OF JOSEPH (J) A. of the placement of D. in the Hyksos era, 11:96. D. as rela:ted to the famine of J. (see under FAMINE OF D D as related to the Hyksos (see under HYKSOS). The land of Goshen known as the land of Ram~ at the D., I:33, 45. On the origin of the Canal of J., 1:142. Anomaly of the Hyksos origin of chariots, II:l5f. Attempt to INDEX 335 account for the land of Rameses at the D., I:33f. Weakness of the explanations, I :33f. ANACHRONISMS, ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO THE EXODUS (E) J)ifficulty in dating E. in the reign of R-II, 1:42£. R-II too late for an E. in the XIXth Dynasty, I: 18, 25, 33. No crisis in Egypt at E. (see under E-CRISIS). Anomaly of the death of the E. pharaoh at the E., 1:36£., 98, Plate I. Placement of both the Oppression and the E. in the reign of R-II not consistent, I:42f. No evidence of revolt against Egypt at the E., 1:3£. Enigma of the Ipuwer papyrus, 1:129. Enigma of the Ermitage papyrus, I: 13lf. The problem of chariots at the E. (see under CHARIOTS). Genealogical difficulties not real, I :46f., .138f. On the split-E. theory, I :56. Dudimos (Tutimaus) at the time of the E., 1:225. Neither of the popular placements of E. provides the background for E. as given in Scripture, 1:57. How explain an E. in the reign of such a powerful king as Thutmose III or Amenhotep II? 1:23. Why conservative scholars abandoned the XIXth Dynasty placement of the E., l:6lf. ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO GREEK (G) HISTORY G. writing in Egypt long before it appears in Greece, I :307. The enigma of dating Homer, 11:277£. The wrong order of events in G. history as related to Egypt, 1:281; II:106, 317. On the identifications of Danaus and Egyptus 1:286, II:281. The 300-year gap in G. history, II:106, 270f. No G. history to correlate with the geometric period, II:271. The A. of dating the fall of Troy in the 12th century, Il:316. ANACHRONISMS, ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO THE HITTITES. See under HITTITES ANACHRONISMS, ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO THE HYKSOS See under HYKSOS ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATED TO THE INTERNAL CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT On the dating of the Hittites, !:73, 95; Il:l07. The A. of the iron throne of Anittas, I:96. On the use of royal insignia, I:l79. XIth Dynasty kings in the Hyksos era, 1:245. Hyksos scarabs with names of Xllth Dynasty kings, l:235f. The many years of chaos of the Harris papyrus, I:305. The enigma of the Ipuwer papyrus, 1:129. The enigma of the Ermitage papyrus, I: 131. The anomaly of the life span of Bokenkonsu, 1:307. The anomaly of the life span of Mertitefs, 1:187. The chronological anomaly in the Tale of the Magician, l: 187. The enigma of a second Rameses in the era of Rameses, II, 1:310. Local princes assumed to be full rulers of all Egypt, I: 152f., 308. On the dating of Dynasty XXII, 1:314. The jar-sealing of a XIIIth Dynasty king by Amenemhet III, 1:156. A king of the Hyksos era contemporary with Pepi II of D-VI, 1:225. Evidences of Hyksos in the First Intermediate, II:79f.; llO. Many local rulers with no central government, I:l52f. The A. of pyramids in the Ist Dynasty, 1:171. On the assumed sequence of Dynasties II and Ill, l:l66f. The A. of Shesh- 336 THE EXODUS PROBLEM onk I as Shishak of Scripture, I:257f.; 11:104. The A. of the assumed Libyan origin of Dynasty XXII, I:262, 32lf. The undue expansion of the early dynasties, I:l87. Failure to find a famine record from the era of Joseph, 1:136. The Hyksos period too short, l:l23f., Il:68. The enigma of Manetho's XIth Dynasty, I:242f. The anomaly of Osorkon I, I:263; Il:l05. The anomaly of the tomb sequence at Dendarah, I:282. . ANACHRONISMS, ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATIVE TO ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS The problem of supplies in the desert, I:49. The Ezion-geber problem, 11:260. On the assumed necessity of a sedentary occupation of Edom and Moab, I:50. Route of the migration not pertinent here, 1:5, n-16. On the number of Israelites in the wilderness, I:48f. ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATIVE TO THE ERAS OF THE JUDGES (J) AND THE MONARCHY (M) The enigma of the massive temple at Shechem, 11:178, 184. The A. of the identification of Shishak of Scripture with Sheshonk I, 1:258; ll:l04f. The anomaly of Osorkon I, 1:263, 273; 11:105. The A. of the first appearance of the Philistines in Palestine, Il:223, 225f. The A. of the low culture in Palestine attributed to the Israelites, 11:9S. The A. of the high level of culture in Palestine attributed to the Hyksos, 1:9Sf. On the origin of the Philistines, ll:225. On the conquest of Gezer by a pharaoh of Dynasty XXI, 11:204, 209. The A. of Assyrian kings in Egypt in the 10th century, I:258, 314. The anomaly of the assumed Libyan origin of Dynasty, XXII, I:262, 321. The anomaly of the rebuilding of Shechem by Jeroboam, Il:l74, 185. On the identification of Manetho's Sethos and Armais, I:286; Il:281. On the identification of Herodotus' Sesostris, I:297. The stables at Megiddo not of Solomonic origin, II :200. The A. at Eziongeber, 11:259. On the identification of Zerah of Scripture, I:263f. Too short a period for the J. by the XIXth Dynasty theory of the Exodus, 11:97. Ionic chapters at Megiddo centuries before the Ionic era, I:286. On the first Israelite occupation of Megiddo, 11:98. Disregard of the Philistines in Palestine in the 8th century, ll:224f. No interference by the Egyptians with the Israelites during the era of the J., 1:24. The misplacement of the monarchy of Israel in the Iron age, 1:272. On the identification of So of Scripture, I:296. ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATIVE TO THE OPPRESSION (O) The A. in the placement of 0. in the reign of Hatshepsut, 1:26. The A. in the placement of 0. in the reign of Akhnaton, 11:95. The A. in the placement of 0. in the reign of Rameses II (see under EXODUS). No building program in the Delta in D-XVIII, 1:24. Misidentification of Hatshepsut as the foster-mother of Moses, I:26. No proof that R-11 was the builder of Rameses of Scripture, 1:17. Enigma of Merneptah's inscription, I:45f., 292. No king of D-XVIII with palace in the Delta, 1:24; 11:94. Israelites built pyramids for the Egyptians, 1:124f. The anomaly of the short period for early D-XIII, I:I23f. No kings in XVIIIth D. by name of Rameses. INDEX 337 ANACHRONISMS (A), ANOMALIES, AND ENIGMAS RELATIVE TO THE PHILISTINES (P) The anomaly of the first appearance of the P. in Palestine after the Conquest, 11:106, 223-25. No P. recognized in Southern Palestine in the 8th century and later, 11:224f. Contradiction with Scripture on the point of migration from Crete, 11:230. Anomaly of the high level of culture of the P. pottery compared to that of Crete for the same period, 11:227. The chronological A. relative to the P. at Shechem and the first occupation of Megiddo by the Israelites, 11:192£. See also under PHILISTINES. ANTIQUITY PROBLEM In Asia Minor, 11:166f. In Mesopotamia, 11:165. In Egypt, II:l63f. At Jericho, II:l54f. In Palestine, II:l54. Early views on, II:l57f., "163f. Failure of early predictions relative to, I:l62; II:l64. On the rapid growth of ancient mounds, 11:159£. Error in identification of the 'predynastic' graves, I:l63f. Climate in the predynastic period, II:l57-160. On the high level of intelligence in the predynastic and early dynastic periods, 11:82, 167. The placement of the Dispersion of Scripture, 11:14lf. On the length of the predynastic period, II:l53f. 'APIRU-HEBREW EQUATION Weaknesses iri the presumed equation, 1:27, 67; II:321. Invalid as evidence for placement of the Conquest, 1:37. Comments on evaluation, I:27; II:322. See under AMARNA LETTERS. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES (AA), GENERAL Origin of concept, 1:78. Approximate dates assigned to the AA., I:79. Revision of the significance of AA., 1:79f. Dates for the AA. tied to the pottery dating scheme, 1:80. Relation to the proposed chronological revision, l:Chap. V. No basis for placement of Dynasties II and III in AA., 1:170. AA. based on cultural changes in Palestine, not Egypt, I: 84. Yet dates in Palestine are tied to those of Egypt, 1:84. Difficulties in defining the AA., 1:78f. The AA. as related to scarab evidence (see under SCARABS). Bases for subdivisions of AA., I:81. No immediate basis for correlation of AA. with Egyptian history, 11:111. No sharp lines marking these epochs, 1:78. Interpretation of cultural changes, 1:80£. Limitations of use of AA., 1:8lf. Recognition of need for reallignment of AA., I:l22. See listings following for more specific references. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES: THE BRONZE AGE D-XII belongs to late EB. not MB., 11:90f. Revision of dates for EB. to end with the Conquest, 1:88. Israel in MB., 1:91, 97. Israel in LB., Il:llOf. No bronze in Palestine during EB., 1:78. MB-I of Kenyon same as MB. II of Albright, II:ll9, n-109a. Earthquakes at the end of EB., Il:l32. Basis for correlating the end of EB. with the end of D-VI, 1:77. Basis for subdivisions, 1:82f. Absence of data for plac. ing D-II and D-Ill in EB., 1:102, 170. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES: THE INTERMEDIATE PERIODS Miss Kep.yon's EB.-MB. as the Conquest period, 1:91. First and Second Intermediates the same period, 1:101, 121; II:7, 90. Evidence for identity of the two intermediates, 1:101 (4); See also Chap. XIV. 338 THE EXODUS PROBLEM On the attempted correlation of various intermediates of different writers, 11:161, Fig. 2. As related to the Hyksos problem (see under HYKSOS). ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES: THE IRON AGE (IA) IA. begins at about the beginning of the Israelite monarchy by current views, 1:79. Dates vary with location, 1:96; Il:265. IA. by the revision begins at about the end of the northern Israelite monarchy, 11:186. A pre-Philistine IA. introduced to take care of problems at Shechem, 11:182. Iron mentioned in Scripture long before IA., 1:96. IA. misdated on the basis of the first wide use of iron, 1:96. Relation to dating the first entrance of the Philistines into Palestine, ll:225f. IA belongs largely to the era of control by Assyria, B.abylonia and Persia, 1:271; 11:27£. Introduction of iron a gradual process, 1:96. Misinterpretation of the general destruction at the beginning of the IA as that at the Conquest, 1:27, 62; Table III, p. 79, 83. Most archaeological interpretation is in error due to misdating of these epochs, 11:24f. The anachronism of the iron throne of Anittas, 1:96. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES: MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC PERIODS See under ANTIQUITY PROBLEM. ARCHAEOLOGICAL (A) INTERPRETATIONS (I) A. observations subject to various I., II:3. I. not necessarily factual, II:3f. Are the foundations of Al. secure? Il:l. Rule of I. with cultural change, 1:62, sOf. On the transliteration of Egyptian and cuneiform names, I:l22, 154f, 198; ll:314. An enlarged concept of the I. of Manetho's dynasties needed, 1:157£. Manetho's dynasties not necessarily in sequence, I:l57f, 166, 24lf. Archaeology not able to provide its own chronology, 1:81; Il:24f. MB. archaeology in Palestine is Israelite, not Hyksos, I:91. Reasons for mis-I. of archaeology in Palestine, Il:24f. On I. of predynastic Jericho (see under ANTIQUITY PROBLEM). For archaeology of various sites, see under site names. On the use of scarabs for Al, (see under SCARABS). On the use of tomb objects for Al, (see under BURIAL CUSTOMS). Examples of disregard of rules for AI, 1:57f. Mis-I. of Philistine evidence in Iron I as of the time of Saul, ll:225f. Misuse of pottery dating scheme for arriving at absolute dates, 1:84. Some suggested rules for AI, II:24f. Mis-I. of destruction at beginning of Iron I as that at the Conquest, ll:306. Most archaeological observations in Palestine have been misdated, II:24. Assumption that current I. are secure is fallacious, Il:3f. Al. for Palestine tied to current views on Egyptian chronology, 1:84. Lesser rulers often took the title of king, I:l58f. See also under RULES OF INTERPRETATION. ASSYRIA See under CHRONOLOGY, ASSYRIA, and under ANACHRONISMS, ASSYRIA. ASTRONOMICAL DATING Discussion of methods, II :48f. Limitations and weaknesses of methods, ll:48f. Why eclipse dating falls short of its potential, Il:48f. , Egyptian chronology tied to the Sothic dating method, I: 123£. Anachronisms resulting fmm such dating, 1:123£. Sed festivals and INDEX 339 Sothic dating, Il:75f. A re-interpretation of Sed festival data, II:75f. Sothic dating as related to the Hyksos period, I: 109. Fallacies in the Sothic dating method (see under SOTHIC DATING). Egypt had the know-how for maintaining a corrected calendar, II:82f. See also under SOTHIC DATING. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY (BA) BA. does not claim to foterpret archaeological observations in terms of Scripture; it is rather interpreting Scripture in terms of its interpretations of the more obscure evidence of archaeology, II.:91. BURIAL CUSTOMS (B) AND IDENTIFICATIONS (I) Mis-I. of B. at Tell el Yehudiyeh, I:234. Tomb objects misleading as 'dating evidence, I:25, 84. The misdating of tombs at Byblos a source of error in dating D-XII, II: llOf. Dating of tombs in Palestine or Syrophoenicia in terms of Egyptian objects does not provide other than relative dates, II: 111. Mis-L of graves in Egypt as pre-dynastic, II:l63f. Tribal B. at Jericho in MB. I are Israelite, I:88f. BYBLOS (B) Mis-dating of D-XII in the archaeological ages based on tomb evidence at B., II:llOf. CALENDARS (C) Sothic dating method as related to C., II:54f. Method of Hebrews for correcting their C., II:83. The Egyptians had the know-how for ~rrecting their C. from earliest times, II:81. CANAANITES See under PHOENICIANS. CARBON-14 DATING Scientific basis for, II:29f. Certain basic premises unproved 11:3lf. Weaknesses and limitations of use of, 11:31£. Attempts at evaluation of, Il:32f. Data from prehistoric Jericho, II:l55f. Data particularly uncertain for the earlier era, Il:34. No established dates prior to the 8th century B.C. to serve as a check of the validity of the method, II:35f. Need for correction of dates on basis of change of the strength of the earth's magnetic field, Il:36. Need for correction of dates on basis of change in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, 11:38. Change in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere an explanation for climatic changes, II:42f. CHALDEA See under CHRONOLOGY. See under KASSITES. CHARIOTS (C) Assumption of Hyksos origin in Egypt, II:l6. Anomaly of Hyksos origin of, 1:232f; 11:16f. Evidence of use elsewhere long before the Hyksos, II: 16f, 100. Assumption of Hyksos origin has no factual support, I:232; Il:lOlf C. at time of Joseph not an anachronism, Il:l6f, Plate II. Earliest C. not war C., Il:l6. CHRONOLOGY (C) OF ASSYRIA (A) Date for fall of Israel to A. known, I :293. Correlation with the 5th year of Merneptah, 1:332. Problem of Samaria as related to C. of A., 11:214. Undue expansion of C. by unwarranted interpretation of the Khorsabad list, U:30lf., Fig. 5. C. of A. accepted for kings from Adasi onward, II:294. Established synchronisms with Israel retained 340 THE EXODUS PROBLEM by the revision, 11:292. Anachronism of Sheshonk l of D-XXII corrected, 1:264; II:l04. On the probable origin of A. in the descendants of Abraham, II:323. The Khorsabad king list, II:294. Correlation of C. of A. with Hittite C, Il:295. Correlation of C. of A. with First Dynasty at Babylon, Il:300. Correlation of C. of A. with C. of early Chaldea, Il:300f., 324. Correlation of C. of A. with dynasties at Isin and Larsa, II:304. Correlation of C. of A. with dynasty at Uruk, 11:303f. A. origin of D-XXII, I:254f., 313f. C. of A. back to 14th century accepted by revision, Il:8, 291, 294. On deviation of revision from current views, Il:301. The anachronisms in the identification of Shishak, see under SHISHAK. The problem of Samaria as related to C. of A., Il:249f. Memeptah's inscription as basis for correlation with Egyptian C; 1:332. Evidence for undue expansion of the A. period, 11:302. A. control of Palestine at opening of the Iron Age, 1:272. CHRONOLOGY (C) OF CHALDEA The problem of dating Hammurabi, 11:21, 289. Revised dating of Hammurabi, II:299f. Correlation of C. of Chaldea with Hittite C, 11:299. Correlation of C. of Chaldea with Assyrian C, 11:300. Correlation of C. of Chaldea with Kassite dynasty 11:306£. C. of dynasty at Uruk, II:30Sf. C. of First Dynasty at Babylon, 11:300, Table D. C. of dynasties at lsin and Larsa, Il:304. See also under ANACHRONISMS. CHRONOLOGY (C) OF EGYPT (E): cor. = correlation C. of D-1, I:l8If. C. of D-II, 1:199. C. of D-III, 1:183. C. of D-lV, 1:187. C. of D-V, 1:197. C. of D-XII, 1:211. C. of D-XVIII and DXIX, 1:264. C. of D-XX to D-XXV, 1:300£. C. of E. cor. with period of judges, 1:124. C. of E. cor. with the Descent and era of Joseph, 1:137. G. of E. cor. with the Exodus, 1:132f. C. of E. c~r. with the Conquest, 1:100. C. of E. CQr. with the Dispersion, 11:144f. On the nonfixity of current views on the C. of E. 1:83, 85; 11:26, 112£. Basis for assumed fixity of C. of E. 1:123f. Suggested bases for evaluating the ·revision of C. of E. Il:327. Current views never satisfactorily CQrrelated with the B.C. time scale, 1:85, 253; see Chaps. III and IV for fallacies of dating methods. Misidentification of kings of D-XI, 1:244£. The Sothis list as a basis for clarifying the C. of early E, 1:165. Outlines of a new C. of E. emerge, l:lOOf. A sequence is not a chronology, 1:81. Bases for general structure of .revised C. of E., l:HlOf. 1st and 2nd Intermediates of E..C. the same, 1:101, 121; II:7, 90. The pyramid age just precedes D-XII, l:ll5f, 280. Long and short C. of the Hyksos period, 1:123f; U:68f. D-XII ends before the Exodus, 1:150. E.C. to the Persian period encompassed by Ds. I, IV, XII, the Hyksos period, Ds. XVIII and XXIII-XXVI, 1:102. Placement of D-XII in MB. insecure, II:llOf. Breasted's C. criticized, 11:70. Sothic datings for E.C. insecure, II:54f. Evidence of break between D-II and D-III, 1:170. Evidence for break between D-X and D-XI, l:246f. D-XIX an offshoot from D-XVIII, 1:264. The modem reromposition of Ds. XVIII and XIX unnecessary, 1:280, 283. The many years of chaos of the Harris papyrus, 1:305. Demands of the revised C, Foreword; 1:102, 112; Il:7, 90. Changes in C. by the revision, l:lOOf; Il:6f. Significance of Manetho's dynasties, 1:157, 30$. INDEX 341 Misinterpretation of meaning of royal ms1gma, I:l79. C. of Ds. XXIII to XXVI accepted by the revision, I:86, 300; II:7. Time relationships between D-XII and D-XIII, I:l50f. Eight lines of evidence pointing to a contemporaneity between D-I and D-III, 1:170. Ds. VII to X belong in the Hyksos period, I:IQJ, 246. D-XXIII falls in the late reign of R-11, I:303, Fig. 12. Correlation of C. of E. with the era from the Exodus to Solomon, I:22lf, Fig. 9; 268, Fig. 10. On the contemporaneity of D-XII, D-VI and D-XIII, I:lOl, 150, 204. CHRONOLOGY (C) OF GREECE (G) The 300-year gap in the C. of G., 1:75; Il:270f. The C. of the Macedonian kings, II:286. The C. of the Spartan kings, Il:280. The fall of Troy related to C. of G., Il:273. The Dorian invasion related to C. of G., II:274f. Clarification of identities of Dana.us and Egyptus, I:286; II:281. The genealogy of Alexander the Great, Il:273. On the dating of Homer, II:277. On the lineage of Heracles, II:280; On the lineage of Belus, II:283. The flood of Deucalion, II:282f. See also under ANACHRONISMS, TIME PERIODS and GAPS. Incidents in C. of G. in wrong order to agree with current views on the same incidents in the Egyptian inscriptions, II:274. CHRONOLOGY OF THE HITTITES See under HITTITES. See under ANACHRONISMS ... RELATED TO THE HITTITES. CHRONOLOGY, REVISED See under REVISION OF ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY. CHRONOLOGY (C) OF SCRIPTURE Limits for placement of the Exodus, 1:6f. The 480 years of I Kings 6: 1, I:6f. The 450 years of Acts 13:20, I:7. Difficulty in harmonizing these two periods, I!7f. The long and short chronologies of the judges, 1:8£. Chronological data for the period of the judges, 1:10£. Suggested C. for the period of the judges, 1:10, Table I. The 215 years from the Descent to the Exodus, 1:138. CLIMATE(C) Claims of no change in C. for last 3000 years, 11:266, n-72. C. in predynastic ei:a, II: 156f. Discrepancy of claims with Scripture, II: 156 -59. On legends of seas in which is now land area, II:l58. Evidence for salubrious C. in the polar regions explained, II:43f. Effect of change of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on C., 11:43f. CONQUEST (C) UNDER JOSHUA (J) Expected evidence for C., 1:61, 65. Fact of C. confirmed by archaeology, I:21. Dating of C. by popular views, I:22, Table II. Anomalous background for C. by popularly assigned dates, 1:62£. Basis for revised dating of C, at the end of EB, 1:87f. Atte.mpts to correlate C. with the Amarna Period (See under AMAl.!\.NA LETTERS). Destruction of cities alone not adequate evidence for C. under J., 1:6lf. Disregard of rule for change of culture at C., 1:45, 63, 105f; Il:82. Peoples migrate out of Palestine at C., 1:98. Correlation of C. with fallen walls at Jericho, 1:18, 87f. Correlation gf C. with destruction at Ai, I: 18, 45, 71; II :93. On. the origin of Israelite weapons, 1:93£. See also under ANACHRONISMS ... RELATED TO THE CONQUEST. 342 THE EXODUS PROBLEM CRETE(C) Correlation of the chronology of C. with that of Greece and Anatolia, 11:124, 129. Correlation of the chronology of C. with that of Palestine and Egypt, II: 124, 130. Da~ing the migration of the Philistines from C., II:230. The catastrophe in C. in LB correlated with t.he earthquake of Uzziah, ll:l24f. The Philistine occupation dated to the time of Saul did not come from C., 11:226. CYPRUS (C) Correlation of the chronology of C. with that on the mainland, II:ll5f. Data from C. confirms the placement of D-XII in EB, ll:ll5f. DATING (D) METHODS Assumed rate of change not a valid basis for estimating elapsed time, II:34f. D. of Palestine mound levels by correlation with Egypt is based on the invalid assumption of a fixed chronology of Egypt, I :84. Why the pottery D. scheme provides only relative dates, 1:86. The revised chronology rejects the currently used D. methods as either invalid or insufficiently accurate, Foreword. The use of natural catastrophe as a basis for synchronism, ll:Chap. VI. See also under ASTRONOMICAL DATING, C-14 DATING, TREE-RING DATING, GAPS, TIME PERIODS, SCARABS and BURIAL CUSTOMS. DESCENT OF ISRAEL INTO EGYPT (D) The questionable value of evidence used to support the placement of D. in the Hyksos era, 1:47, 137. D. tied immovably to the incident of Joseph's famine, Il:96L The genealogy of Judah from D. to the Exodus, 1:46. The problem of the 4th generation of Gen. 15: 14, 1:140. Anachronism in the current placement of D., Il:96f. DESSERT PASSAGE (DP) Route of not pertinent to the present problems, 1:5, n-16. Glueck's argument for placement in MB., 1:50. Answer to Glueck's view, 1:51. The manna problem, 1:51. The number of escapees in the wilderness, 1:49. The Ezion-geber problem (see under EZION-GEBER). The problem of a sedative population in Edom and Moab at the DP. (see under EDOM-MOAB). DISPERSION (D) Evidence for D. in Palestine, 11:146. Evidence for in Anatolia, Il:l49. Evidence for in Egypt, Il:l48. Evidence for in Syrophoenicia II:l47. Correlation with the Jemdet Nasr era of Mesopotamia,· 11:144. On the chronology of the D. according to Scr·ipture, II:l42. Pertinence of Gen. 10:25 to the problem, Il:323f. Mizraim, grandson of Noah, still alive at D., II:l47. Correlation of D. with the period immediately prior to the unification of Egypt under Mena, 11:142. Length of the pre-D. period back to the Flood, II: 153£. Evidence against the assumption of a multiplicity of millenniums between the Flood and the D., Il:l5lf, 167£. EARTHQUAKES (E) Limitations of E. as basis for bhronological correlation, II: 120. The major E. of antiquity, ll:l22. The E. in the reign of Uzziah as basis for synchronism, Il:l20-22. The E. in Crete, 11:120-24. The E. in Greece, Il:l20, 129. The E. in Egypt, II:l20, 130. The E. in Anatol- INDEX 343 ia, Il:l28f. No unequivocal evidence for the assumed E. in the reign of Akhnaton or Tutenkhamen, II: 130. EDOM-MOAB PROBLEM Related to the- Conquest problem, 1:18. Glueck's deduced background at the Conquest, I:41; Il:251, 254. Possible error ip Glueck's reasoning, 11:251. Edom and Moab in Scripture, 11:25lf. EGYPT(E) See also under CHRONOLOGY ... EGYPT, ANACHRONISMS . . . EGYPT, DESCENT, EXODUS, OPPRESSION, and IDENTIFICATIONS. Map of E., see inside front cover. E. in eclipse during the period of the judges, 1:5, 23, 97. EB. ends with the end of D-VI in E., 1:77. Population of E. at the Exodus, I:31. On the identity of the site of Pi-Rameses, 1:116. R-11 not the builder of Pi-Rameses, I: 117. E. ruined economically at the Exodus, I :3. E. ruined militarily at the Exodus, I:4. EXODUS (E), CRISIS AT TIME OF The E. a significant event, I:l6, 24. On the number of escapees at E., I:30f, 48. Size of the pursuing army, 1:52; ll:95f. Were the plagues due to seasonal or weather changes? I:53f. Plagues in the Ipuwer inscription, I:l29. Problem of the death of the E. pharaoh in the Red Sea, 1:36. E. as a divine act of judgement, I:32. E. according to Scripture, l:Chap. I, 131. Egypt ruined economically at E., 1:3. Egypt ruined militarily at E., I:4. Attempts to account for absence of crisis at E., 1:30. Absence of expected loss of empire, 1:31, 96. Anomaly of discovery of mummies of E. pharaoh, 1:36, Plate I. No crisis at XVIIl-D setting of E., I:24. No adequate crisis at XIX-D setting of E., 1:44. See under ANACHRONISMS ..... EXODUS (E), DATING PROBLEMS Limitations for dating by Bible. chronology, I:6. D-XII ends before the E., I:l50. Problems in the XVIIlth-D setting, 1:23£. Problems in the XIXth-D setting, 1:42f. Why conservative Bible scholars rejected the XIXth D placement, 1:40. Evidences favoring the XIXth-D setting, 1:40f. Placement in late D-XIII by the revision, 1:125. The split-E. theory, 1:56£, 64. The chronology of Egypt for the era spanned by various placements of E., 1:122, Table II. Anomaly of R-11 as the key to the E. problem, 1:116. R-11 not provable as the builder of Pi-Rameses, 1:117. Basis for assumed origin of Pi-Rameses by R-11, 1:117f. R-1 not the first.king to bear this name, 1:118. Placement 0£ E. at the Hyksos invasion not new, 1:128. Necessary placement of E. by the emerging revision, I: 101. Identification of the· E. pharaoh, 1:122f. Name of the E. pharaoh in the Sothis list, 1:127. Name of the E. pharaoh in the Turin list, 1:127. Name of the E. pharaoh in the Karnak list, 1:127. Identification. by the alternate name of Sebekhotep VI, 1:127. Problems of dating E. in the Hyksos era, I:27. Scriptural demands for background of E., 1:18. No famine inscription properly related to E. by either XVIII-D or XIX-D placement, 1:26. XIX-D placement leaves too short a period for the judges, 1:40. R-11 can't be both the pharaoh of E. and of the Oppression, 1:42f. Difficulties raised by Merneptah's inscription, 1:43. 344 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Placement in reign of R-III even less acceptable, 1:44. See also under ANACHRONISMS ... EXODUS (E), GENERAL Events leading to E. according to Scripture, I:lf. The fact of E. confirmed, 1:19. E. in Egyptian souces, I:l30f. Scriptural demands for background of E., I:l6f. Demands not met by popular placements, I:l7f. Demands met by the revision, I:Chap. VI. See under CHRONOLOGY and ANACHRONISMS. EZION-GEBER Problem of, 11:259. FAMINE OF JOSEPH (F) As expected basis for synchronism, I: 17, 20£. Egyptian counterpart in inscriptions, 1:21, 134f. Absence of reference to a famine in proper time relation to Exodus, I:26; 11:97. Egyptian references to extended famine out of line with popular placements of Exodus, I:45, 134f. The inscription of Ameni, I: 134. The inscription of Be bi, I: 135. Brugsch's error in dating the inscription of Bebi, 1:135. Dating the F. by the revision, 1:137f. The famine of Zazay of D-II same as famine of Bebi, 1:136, 203f. Famine of Unas of D-V same as F., I:203. Sesostris I as the pharaoh under whom Joseph served, I:l42. See also under JOSEPH. FLOODS Flood of Deucalion, II:283f. Flood in time of Osorkon II an anachronism by dates derived by use of the Sothic method, 11:72. The Noachian flood, 11:153, 158f. As related to climate change, II:I58f. See also under C-14 DATING. GAPS IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SEQUENCE The. 500-year gap in the history of the Hittites, 1:75. The 300-year gap in the history of Greece, Il:l06f, 270f. The 400-year gap in the occupation of Shechem, II:l77. References to other gaps in the occupation of various Palestinian sites, II:ll8, n-87. As a basis for suspicion of error in chronology due to unwarranted expansion, Il:330f. GENEALOGY (C) The G. of Judah from the Descent to the Exodus, 1:46£, 137£. The G. of Judah from the Exodus to Solomon, I:46f. The G. of Levi from the Descent to the Exodus, l:l37f. The G. of Macedonian kings as a basis for approximate fixation of Greek chronology back to the mid8th century, II :286. The G. of the Spartan kings; the 300-year gap in the sequence of, 11:280. The G. of Heracles to the Dorian invasion, II:280. G. as a better measure of elapsed time than the ancient references to time periods, 11:284. On the average length of a generation, 11:285. The G. of Horpasen as related to the chronology of D-XXII, 11:319f. GEZER(G) Identification of the Egyptian king who conquered G. and gave the site to Solomon as a dowry for his Egyptian wife, II:240f. Inadequacy of current views on this identification, II:205. An altered identification as Thutmose I, II:212. Armies of G. destroyed at the time of the fall of Lachish, 11:20.S. No reference to conquest of G. at the INDEX 345 Conquest, 11:205. Apparent anomaly explained by the revision, II:206. GILGAL As camp of IsraeHtes during the Conquest, 1:89f. On the necessary recognition of expansion of this camp area, 1:90. Evidences of Israelite occupation at Jericho during the Conquest, 1:90. Evidences of Israelite encampment at Beit Mirsim, 11:238. Evidences of Israelite encampment at Razor, Il:246. GREECE See under CHRONOLOGY . . . GREECE, TROY, GAPS, GENEALOGIES, FLOODS, WRITING, IDENTIFICATIONS , ANACHRONISMS ... GREECE. HAMMURABI (H) Problem of dating H., 11:289, 300. Failure of-proposed correlation of H. with Chedorlaomer in time of Abraham, Il:22. Dating of H. by the revision in the general era of the Exodus-Conquest, Il:300. Correlation with the reign of his brother at Alalakh, Il:283. Background to the rise of the First D. at Babylon, II:312f. as the first king of the dynasty with visions of an empire, Il:312. Synchronism of H. with Samsi-Adad of Assyria, II:302. Synchronism of H. with RimSin at Larsa, Il:304. HAZOR(H) Problems in the archaeology of H., II:239f. Popular interpretation of the archaeology of the mound site at H., 11:244. Popular interpre- · tation of the archaeology of the plateau area at H., Il:242. Interpretation of the archaeology of H. by the revision, 11:243. Anachronism of the I_onic style chapter of the 6th century in a level assigned to the 9th century, II:247. Level XIII at H. assigned to the Amarna Period and later, II:246. The city rebuilt by Solomon, 11:247. H. at the Dispersion, II:244f. H. at the Conquest, II:245f. HEBREW(H)CULTURE(C) The necessary low evaluation of H. C. by popular views, I:l05f; 11:93. Popular views reversed by the revision, I:l03, lllf. Origin of H. religious rites and beliefs, I: 108. Origin of writing, I: 111. Other contributions to ancient C. by the H., I:9lf, ll3f. H. C. represented in Palestine by the archaeology of MB, not Iron I, I:91; Il:27f. The era of the monarchy represented by LB. of D-XVIII, 11:246. The graves at Tell el Yehudiyeh are Israelite, not Hyksos, I:233f. The expected Egyptian influence on LB. C. missing, 1:94. C. at Jericho following the fall of the city walls is Israelite, I:87f. The low C. of Iron . I may be Israelite from the Assyrian and Babylonian eras, 1:112. HEBRON Area occupied by the Biblical Hittites, 1:84; cf. Gen. 23:2 with ref. 35, Chap. 2. See under HITTITES for anachronism of origin etc. HERODOTUS . . On the kings of Manetho's D-XIX, 1:297. On Egyptian Delta under water at the time of Mena, 11:158. HIGHER CRITICISM (HC) . Incongruous backgrounds provided for Scriptural incidents by HC. approach to archaeological interpretation, II:9lf, 331. Failure of the »· 346 . THE EXODUS PROBLEM tradition theory to explain anachronisms, 1:54. Relation of HC to the problem of Biblical Shishak, 1:260. Recognition as the starting point for the interpretation of archaeology, 1:277, n. 10; II:24f. Scholars sacrifice Scripture as it reads to meet archaeological interpretations, 1:63, 72; II:l90f. HC. approach prevents recognition of the true background for the Philistines, II:225. The unscientific nature of the HC. approach to archaeology, Il:91. The historical kernel of the tra-. dition theory now approaching the vanishing point, 1:55. The failure of the HC. denial of the existence of the Hittites, I:73f. Why archaeologists cannot discard Scripture completely, II: 13. History defined to include myths and legends, II:l2. HITTITES (H) The enigma of the H., 1:93, 95; II:107. Correlation of the history of the H. with that of Chaldea, II:299. Expected relation to the Conquest, 1:17. Anachronism eliminated by the revision, 1:95. The 500year gap in H. chronology, 1:75. Correlation of the H. with Egyptian history at the tim~ of R-II, l:95f; 11:107. End of the Old H. Kingdom in the reign of Telipinus, II:298. H. of archaeology not the H. of Scripture from the time of the Conquest, 1:73. Anachronism of the iron throne of Anittas, 1:96. Anachronisms with Assyrian inscriptions, I:95. Anachronisms with the observations of Forrer, I:96f. Land of the H. not Syria as assumed, 1:95. On the identity of the H. of archaeology, l:84f. H. in Palestine from the time of Abraham, 1:73. HOMER See under CHRONOLOGY ... GREECE. HYKSOS (H) Length of period of H. domination of Egypt, 1:123f; II:68f. Beginning of the H. period in late D-XIII, 1:125. Identity of the H., 1:229. Josephus on the H., 1:227. Expected repercussion in Palestine on expulsion of the H. missing, 1:231. Anomaly explained by the revision, 1:232. The anachronism of the H. empire, II:99. Anachronism of the high cultural level in Palestine during the H. period in Egypt, 1:28, 232, 271. Who built the fortification at Tell el Yehudiyeh, 1:234. Problem of the missing H. graves, 1:236; II:ll9f. Problem of the.H. scarabs, I:239f; II:99f. Evidence of the Exodus at the H. invasion, 1:122£. Expulsion of the H. correlated with the war of Saul on the Amalekites, 1:231, 270. H. as vandals, not inventors or producers, 1:228; 11:19. No evidence that the H. introduced the chariot into Egypt, 1:232. Evidence of H. in Egypt during both 1st and 2nd intermediates, 1:224£, 235, 249; ll:99f. Anomaly in the tomb contents at Dendara, l :249. IDENTIFICATIONS Abbreviations used in this entry: (mostly new by the revision) AL. Amarna Letters; HP. Harris papyrus; SL. Sothis list; ThL. Theban list; Her. Herodotus; TL. Turin List; S. Scripture; M. Manetho; Mon. Monuments; Jos. Josephus; SaL. Sakkarah list. (See under INSCRIPTIONS for references to these sources). Zet of M's D-XXIII as Setnakht of HP., 1:303, Fig. 12. Aziru of HP. as Osorthon of D-XXIII, 1:305. Koncharis of SL. as the Exodus INDEX 347 pharaoh, 1:122. Sebekhotep VI of TL. as Koncharis of the SL., 1:127. Sesostris III of the Mon. as the pharaoh of the Oppression, I: 147. Sesostris III or Amenemhet III as the builder of Pi-Rameses, 1:147. The Ramessides of the SL. as kings of D-XII, I: 119f, 213. Sesostris I as the pharaoh under whom Josepb served, I:l34f. Joseph of Scripture as the builder of the canal of Joseph, I: 142. Yufni of the TL. as Joseph of S., I: 133. Mentuhotep, vizier of Sesostris I, as Joseph of S, I: 14 lf. Chenephres of the legend as foster-father of Moses, I: 155. Chenephres of the legend as Ka-nefer-re of the TL., 1:155. Sebeknefrure as the foster-mother of Moses, I: 157. Amenemhet IV as possibly the same person as Moses, 1:221. Armais (Danaus) of Jos. as Harmhab of the Mon., 1:287. Danaus of Jos. not the same person as Danaus of the Greek legends, 11:281. Sethos of Jos. as Seti I of the Mon., I:325f. Sesostris of Her. as Seti I, 1:297. Pheron of Her. as Amenemnes of D-XIX, 1:297. Proteus of Her. as Thuoris of D-XIX, 1:297. Onnos of SL. as Unas of the Mon., 1:197. Assur-uballit of the AL. as Sharubalti-nishu of the eponym list of Shalmaneser, 11:316. Ilu-Teshup of the Hittite list as Telipinus of the Assyrian inscription, II:298f. Dudimos of TL. as Tutimaeus of Jos., 1:225-28. Usimare of the SL. as prince son of Sesostris II, 1:218. Chebron of M. and Jos. as Amenhotep I, 1:255. The Hyksos as the Amalekites of S., I:230f. The Mitanians as the Hurrians of S., 1:98. Abimilki of the AL. as Pygmalion of Tyre, II :320f. Agenor of the Greek sources as Gelanor of the Egyptian sources, 11:327. Phoenicians as the post-Conquest Canaanites, 1:98. Sesostris III as the pharaoh who 'knew not Joseph,' 1:146. Thutmose HI as Shishak of S., 1:265. Zerah of S. as Amenhotep II, 1:263. So of S. as Rameses II, 1:296. Sheshonk I of D-XXII as a son of Assyrian royalty, 1:321. Zazay of the Abydos list as Bebi of SaL. and as Bebi of the famine inscription, I:202f. Rathures of D-V as Amesesis of SL., 1:198. Sirius of ThL as Sesochris of M., 1:203. Rayosis of ThL as Userkaf of M., 1:196. Nephercheres of D-II as Nephercheres of D-V, 1:194. Chaires of D-II as Cheres of D-V, 1:199. Rhatoises of D-IV as Rayosis of ThL., 1:196. Biyres of ThL. as Bicheris of D-IV, I: 196. Chnubos (Gneuros) of ThL. as Cheneres of D-II, I: 199. Stoichos of ThL as Kaiechos of D-ll, 1:202. Ka-Sekhem of the Mon. as Kenkenes of D-I, 1:177. Ka-Sekhem of the Mon. as Sekhem Kha of the Mon., 1:177f. Siseres of D-V as Sebercheres (Shepseskaf), l:l98f. Osirophis of the SL. as Khufu of D-IV, 1:190. Sesochris of the SL. as Khafra. of D-IV, I: 188, 190. Menkaure of D-IV as Menkeuhor of D-V and as Anchoreus of the SL., 1:192, 198. Marres of D-II (ThL.) as Tlas of M., 1:201. Pemou of the HP. as Psamus of D-XXIII, 1:306. INSCRIPTIONS Of Merneptah about Israel, l:43f, 45, 292. Palermo Stone, l:l64f, 205. Harris papyrus, 1:305. Ermitage papyrus, !:131. Manetho's transcribers. See LIST OF TABLES. The famine inscription of Ameni, 1:134. The famine inscription of Bebi, 1:135. The Ipuwer papyrus, 1:130. The inscription of Ptah-shepses, 1:197. The Mari Letters, II :233, 16. The Amarna Letters, II :365-73. The Synchronous History document, Il:Table D. The Synchronistic Chronicle, II:Table D. The 348 THE EXODUS PROBLEM Turin kirig list, I:l26. The Khorsabad king list, Il:344; Tables A, B, and E. The early Sothis list, 1:120. The Babylonian king list, (A), Il:353, Table F. The Theban king list, 1:165, 201. The inscription of Imeni, 1:267. The inscription of Sinuhe, II: 14. The inscription at Medinet Habu, 1:309. Horpasen's genealogy, 1:319£. The Khu-Sebek inscription, 11:175. Inscriptions with reference to Sothic dating, Il:62f. The Kahun papyrii, II:65. Ebers papyrus, Il:64. The 400-year inscription of Rameses I, I:293. JERICHO (J) The fallen walls at J. as expected basis for synchronism, I: 17, 87. The enigma of the fallen walls at J., Foreward; I:66f. Garstang's dating of the fallen walls, 1:66. Albright's oscillating view, 1:68. Recent investigations by Miss Kenyon demand a redating of the walls at J., 1:68. Difficulty in a D-XVIII placement, 1;68f.; Il:93. Difficulty in a D-XIX placement, 1:45, .II:93. Revised dating of these walls, 1:87£. Evidence of correlation with the Conquest, I:87f. Israelite camp at J. after the fall of the city, 1:89f. The predynastic period at J., ll:l8lf. Nothing on the J. mound from the time of the Conquest as dated popularly, Foreword; 1:68£. Theory of denudation of the mound fails to explain the absence of the expected pottery on the sides and at the foot of the mound, 1:70. JOSEPH (J) The famine of J. See under FAMINE OF JOSEPH. J. as visier to Sesostris I, 1:141. J. builds an irrigation canal, I:l42. Demotion of J. after his death, 1:149. J. as prince of D-XIII, 1:153. No proof for placement of J. in Hyksos era, 11:96. Elimination of the anachronism of the Descent in the Hyksos era, 1:33, 124. J. as Mentuhotep of the Egyptian inscriptions, I: 14 lf. JOSEPHUS (J) J. on the Hyksos conquest of Egypt without a battle, 1:122f. J. on the XVIIlth D. kings, 1:256. J. on the Danaus-Egyptus problem, 1:286. J. on the Sethos-Armais problem, I:286. J. on the gathering of weapons by the Israelites from the bodies of the Egyptians after the Red Sea debacle, I:94. J. on Israelites building pyramids for the . Egyptians, 1:124. J. on the Hyksos as vandals, I:227f. J. on the strained relations between Israelites and Egyptians after the famine, I:l45. J. on Abraham teaching the Egyptians mathematics and astronomy, Il:87. J. on the destruction of Hazor after the conquest by Deborah and Barak 11:240. J. on the Phoenician kings, 11:320. J. on the break in the kingly line by the 'king who knew not Joseph,' 1:219. The 393 -year period of J. has the same beginning as the 400year period of R-Il, I:294. J. on no destruction of cities during the invasion of Palestine by Shishak, 1:272. JUDGES (J) Rules of the J. not necessarily consecutive, 1:11. Suggested chronology of the J., I:l2, Fig. I. Proper background for the J. in Egyptian history, I:97. Anomalous background by current views, 11:115. Anomalous background .reflected in the anachronism of the Abimelech story, 11:172. Confusion on the placement of the point of first occupation of the site of Megiddo by the Israelites, 11:189. XIXth-D. INDEX 349 placement of the Exodus leaves too short a period for the J., 1:42. The anachronism of the low cultural level in Palestine during the era now attributed to the J., !:233. The anachronism removed by the revision, I :266. THE KASSlTES (K) A king list of the Kassites synthesized, II: Table F. Correlation of the K. dynasty with Assyrian history, II :Table F. Correlation of the K. dynasty with Chaldean history, II:306f. Kassite names in the Amarna Letters, II:314. Kassites still in official capacity in late Assyrian history, II:317. KING LISTS List of the Israelite judges, 1:10. Names of kings appearing on the Palermo stone, 1:205. Kings of the early Sothis list, I: 120. Kings of Dynasties I-III, 1:167. Kings of Dynasties IV and V, I:l88. Kings of Dynasty XIII by the Turin list, I: 12d. The early Theban list, 1:202. The early Theban list re-evaluated, 1:165. The Sothis list re-evaluated, 1:165. Kings of Dynasties XVIII and XIX, 1:256. Kings of DXXIII, 1:302. The sons of Rameses III, 1:309. The kings of Dynasty XXl, 1:312. The kings of D-XXII, 1:318. The genealogy of Horpasen, 1:321. The genealogy of the Macedonian kings, II:286. The genealogy of the Spartan kings, II:280. Kings of Assyria by the Khorsabad list, II: Tables A, B, and E. Kings of the First Dynasty at Babylon, ll:Table D. Kings of the Hittites, II:297 Kings of the Phoenicians, II :320. The Turin list on Dynasty XI, I: 243. LACHISH Anachronism relative to the point of the Conquest, II:92f. Armies of Gezer destroyed at the time of the fall of Lachish, II:205. MANETHO (M) AND HIS DYNASTIES See under KING LISTS for kings of individual dynasties. The locality assigned to the dynasties by M. refers to the origin of the founder, not to the capital site, 1:308. Periods of the dynasties by summation of reigns, I:294f. Dynasties not necessarily consecutive, I :253. An enlarged concept of the significance of the dynasties needed, 1:157. The enigma of D-XI, 1:242£; U:l09. The modern revision of D-XVIII and D-XIX, 1:280. Failure of the revision to provide solutions, 1:280£. Restoration of M's. organization by the revision, 1:283; Il:7. Reasons for the necessary shortening of the periods of D-IV and D-V, I:l87f. The sequence of D-II and D-III challenged, 1:166. The identification of the kings assigned to D-XI challenged, 1:242£, 247. Relation of the Sothis list names to M's dynasties (see under SOTHIS LIST). On the contemporaneity of D-VI, D-XII and D-XIII, l:llO; Il:l30f. D-XX represents a fragmented rule in Egypt, I:Sll. On the misinterpretation of royal insignia as meaning sole rulers over all of Egypt, 1:179. MARI LETTERS See under INSCRIPTIONS. MEGIDDO (M) Confusion in the archaeology of M., Il:l88f. Controversy over the point of Israel's first occupation, II :98, 189. Anomaly of the stables attributed to Solomon, ll:98, 198f. A sequence of 21 cities revealed 350 THE EXODUS PROBLEM archaeologically, II:l96; Table IV. An alternate interpretation of the archaeology, Il:200. Who built the similar gates at M., Gezer, and Hazor? 11:202. Identity of the Solomonic stratum at M., II:200. MERSIN See under ANTIQUITY PROBLEM in Asia Minor. MIGRATIONS (M) M. at the Dispersion, II:l45-49. M. at the Conquest, 1:98. M. of the Sea Peoples, 11:274. The Dorian invasion an initiating factor for the M., of the Sea Peoples, Il:274f. The M. of the Philistines from Caphtor, 11:230. The M. into Mesopotamia at the time of Joseph's famine, II:312f. MOAB See under EDOM-MOAB. NATURAL CATASTROPHE As bases for synchronism, 11:120. See under FLOODS, EARTHQUAKES and EXODUS-CRISIS. Earthquake of Uzziah, II:l22. Contemporary earthquakes by the revision: in Crete, II: 124; in Asia Minor, Il:l28; in Greece, ll:l29; in Egypt, 11:130. Earthquakes in late EB. correlated with the Exodus-Conquest era, II: 132f. OPPRESSION, ISRAELITE (0) Sesostris III as the pharaoh who initiated 0., I: 146. Israel reduced to slavery, 1:143£. The 0. in the era of the use of pyramids, 1:124, 147. Brick construction in the era of D-XII, 1:147. Demotion of Israel reflected in the defacement of the statue of Joseph, 1:149. Background of Moses in Egypt, 1:157. Anachronism of 0. in the reign of Akhnaton, 11:95. Anachronism of 0. in the reign of Hatshepsut, 11:94, 126; Il:95. Anachronism of 0. in the reign of Rameses II, I:42f. R-II cannot be proved the builder of Pi-Rameses, 1:147, 117. Vast building program in brick in the Delta area in the reigns of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III of D-XII, 1:147. The 0. begins 80 years or more before the Exodus, 1:26, 116. The king 'who knew not Joseph,' I:l65, 219. PALERMO STONE INSCRIPTION Used to support sequence concept of early dynasties, I:205. This interpretation challenged by the revision, 1:205. Relation to the chronology of Dynasties II and III, 1:172. See under INSCRIPTIONS. PHILISTINES (P) P. in Scripture, II:223. Appearance of P. in Palestine too late by popular views, 11:106, 225. Confusion of P. in time of Saul with their presence in the era of the late monarchy, II:225f, 291. Relation of P. to the Sea Peoples, 11:228f. Migration from Crete prior to the time of Moses, Il:220. Identification of the pottery of, 11:231. The P. at Alalakh, 11:233. The era of the Sea Peoples belongs to the 8th century, Il:231. Tracing the P. pottery backward in time, II:23lf. Modernizing Script'ure to account for anachronisms, Il:225f. Creation of a prePhilistine Iron I period to account for discrepancies at Shechem, II: 183. PHOENICIA AND THE Pl!OENICIANS (P) Archaeology at Byblos in P., 11:110. Archaeology at Ras Sharnra in INDEX 351 P., Il:ll5f. Chronology of the P. Kings, Il:320. The Greeks borrow the alphabet from the P. c. 800 B.C., 11:229. Greek writing in Egypt centuries before 806 B.C., 1:307. Abimilki of the Amarna Letters identified as Pygmalion, king of Tyre in P., 11:320£. P. as the postConquest Canaanites, I :98. Pl-RAMESES (P) Building of P. as an expected synchronism, I: 18, 40f. Rameses II cannot be proved the builder of P., 1:117. First construction at this site destroyed by the Hyksos, 1:118. Construction of R-II is a rebuilding, _1:29, 118. Problem of the identity of the site, 1:118. Name of R-11 in profusion in the ruins of P., 1:20, 25, 117. Original builder was either Sesostris III or Amenemhet III of.D-XII, I:l47f. POTTERY DATING SCHEME Limitations in the use of, 1:81. Problem of correlating dates with the B.C. time scale, l:8lf. Use of assumes a fixed chronology of· Egypt, 1:84. Rate of change of culture not a satisfactory measure of elapsed time, 1:82; Il:34f. Tying the scheme to the chronology of Egypt is not a satisfactory answer, 1:85. Misuse of in claiming dates are absolute, 1:83f. Tomb items of no necessary value in dating Palestine pottery, 1:84£.: see under BURIAL CUSTOMS. PREDYNASTIC ERA See under ANTIQUITY PROBLEM. PROBLEMS PROVIDED SOLUTIONS BY THE REVISION See under such entries as ANACHRONISMS, DATING METHODS, CHRONOLOGY, GAPS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS AND IDENTIFICATIONS. The number of such is in excess of 150 and it is not feasible to list them here. RAMESES (R) R-1 not the first king by this name, 1:118. Expectation of the name as a basis for synchronism, 1:116. Ramessides of the Sothis list not kings of D-XX, l:119f. Ramessides of the Sothis list are kings of DXll, 1:137, 149, 213. Ramessides of the Sothis list ruled just prior to the Hyksos era, 1:121. A king by the name of Rameses ruled at the time of Joseph, 1:33, 45, 124. The incident marking the beginning of the 400-year inscription of R-11, 1:293; Il:l08. Weaknesses in the view which would make R-11 both the pharaoh of the Exodus and of the Oppression, 1:42f. The Ramessides of D-XX repre$ent a fragmented rule of Egypt, 1:310f. None of these Ramessides bore a title higher than that of a local prince, 1:308. The Ramessides of D-XX as a clue to the dating of D-XXII, 1:316. The XVIll-D placement of the Exodus must reject the concept that the pharaoh of the Oppression had the name Rameses, 1:33f. RAS-SHAMRA-UGARIT (R) Placement of D-Xll in MB. results from a misinterpretation of data from R., 11:115£. REVISION (R) OF ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY See also under CHRONOLOGY. R. recognizes the demands of archaeological facts, Foreword; I:90, 100-02, 112; 11:7. General outline of R., l:lOOf; Fig. 2. A defense for R. on the basis of agreement with both Scripture and archaeological data, 1:8lf; 11:331. No claim that 352 THE EXODUS PROBLEM no problems remain, II :4£. R. reverses the popular concept of a low level of Hebrew culture, I:lHf. R. rejects the validity of currently used dating methods, Foreword; II: Chaps. III, IV. R. recognizes that a change of approach is not adequate basis per se for a proposed chronological alteration, 1:102; 11:38. R. retains the established synchronisms between Israel, Egypt and Assyria, II:8, 294. ROYAL INSIGNIA AND TITLES Misinterpretation of, 1:179. Lesser rulers often took the title of king, I :308. RULES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATI ON On the relation of conquest to cultural change, I:62f. Scarabs as poor evidence for dating (see under SCARABS). Tomb objects as poor evidence for dating (see BURIAL CUSTOMS). Cannot gauge elapsed time by the thickness of a stratum, II:26, 166f. Cannot assume sequence of cultures, kings, or dynasties except as such can be supported by evidence, II:329f. Names of kings not limited to five, II:20f. Names do not necessarily belong to a specific era, II:22f. Rate of change of culture cannot be converted to elapsed time, II:34f. Kings of Egypt and Mesopotamia often known to Biblical writers by names other than their throne names, 1:296; II:21. A sequence is not a chronology, 1:81. A difficulty is not eliminated because neither of two opposing theories provides an explanation, I:30. Error may be detected by the consistency of the inconsistencies that characterize it, 1:77. SAMARIA (S) The chronology of Palestine as related to the origin of, II:213f. An apparent synchronism for the origin of in the time of Omri, II:215. Was the city built by Omri the first on the site? 11:219. Reasons for confusion in the archaeology of S., II:215. The proper dating of this origin by current views should be in the 13th century, 11:219f. This corresponds to the 9th century by the revision, II:220f. SCARABS (S) S. as very poor basis for chronological studies, I:23f., 240. Reasons for the invalid nature of the use of S. in dating, 1:239. Misuse of S. at critical points in current views, 1:232, 249, 84; 11:328. Uncertainty of identity of origin of S. assigned to the Hyksos, 1:239, 270. Anachronism of the S. of Khyan, 1:249. Anachronism of the S. of Antefa, 1:248. S. of D-III like those of D-1, 1:171. S. found in Palestine in MB. not necessarily of Hyksos origin, 1:238. S. are of Egyptian origin, not H yksos, I :238. SCIENTIFIC METHOD Hypothesizing explanations defended as scientific, 1:28, 45. A limit to the retention of hypotheses in the face of contradictory data, 1:29, 45. Hypotheses not supportable by trivia alone, II:23, 90f. Hypotheses do not become facts because disparate data can be made to fit into them, 11:329. Deductions based on a sequence of hypotheses, any one of which is questionable, remain as theories, 1:29, II:330. A contradiction to a hypothesis is not eliminated because the contradiction applies equally to two opposing views, 1:29. That which is to be proved cannot be· used as proof, 11:91. The erroneous nature of a INDEX 353 premise may be revealed by the consistency of the inconsistencies introduced by it, I:77f. Dates cannot be assigned, even as approximations, on the basis of assumed rate of change, I:83; ll:34. Deductions whose sole or major support is based on scarabs or tomb objects should be rega,rded as suspect. See under SCARABS and BURIAL CUSTOMS. The use of trivial evidence to support a concept not otherwise defensible, while disregarding more pertinent data may be convenient, but it is not scientific, ll:lOf. SCRIPTUR'.E (S) See under HIGHER CRITICISM for evaluation of S. as used in archaeological interpretations. Recognition that S. cannot be proved reliable by archaeology, 1:331. Claim that when archaeology is correctly interpreted, S. is found to be far more reliable than most scholars admit, I: 103, 330f. Can the deductions of archaeology be accepted without surrendering a confidence in S? Il:91. The approach of the author relative to the use of S. in this thesis, I: 19. Myths and fables included in definition of history, 1:103; 11:12. With S. reduced to the level of myth and legend, it is then possible to claim S. as historical, I:58; II:l2. SEA PEOPLES (SP) Attempted invasion of Egypt by SP, ll:225. Migration set in motion by the Dorian invasion, 11:274. SP, a composite people of which the Philistines were but one branch, II:228. Misidentification of Philistine culture in southern Palestine at the time of the SP. invasion as that from the t.ime of Saul, II:225, 23lf. Culture of the SP. traced back to Crete, II:23lf. SHECHEM (S) In Scripture, II:l72. Predicament relative to the identification of the massive temple at S., II:98, 178. Ana<;hronism of the rebuilding of the city by Jeroboam, I:l74, 189. The 400-year gap preceding the Helenistic period at Shechem, I:l77f. Archaeological observations at S., II:l76f. Weaknesses in the interpretation of, II:l84. SHISHAK (S) PROBLEM Popular identification of Biblical Shishak as Sheshonk. I. of DXXII, 1:258f, 264; II:l04. The anachronism in such an identification, 1:257; II:l09f. S. identified as Thutmose III, I:265, 271. On the identification of Sheshonk I in the royal Assyrian family of the 7th century, 1:321£. See also under ANACHRONISMS RELATED TO THE MONARCHY. SOTHIC DA TING See under ASTRONOMICAL DATING. SOTHIS KING LIST A reconsideration of the basis on which the list was prepared, 1:160, 165f., 209. The early kings of the list, 1:120. A new interpretation of the list which holds rather exactly through the era of Dynasty XII, I: Chaps. XI-XIII. Evidence of correctness of the list at the point of the Exodus, I:l25f. Application of the list to the chronology of D-I, I:l65f. Application to the chronologies of D-IV and D-V, I:l88f. Application to the chronology of D-XII, 1:213. The name of the Exodus pharaoh in the list, I:l26f. The Ramesside names in the list pro- 354 THE EXODUS PROBLEM vides the clue to the ·placement of the Exodus, I: 118f. These Ramessides belong just prior to the Hyksos era; I:ll9f. SPLIT-EXODUS THEORY See under EXODUS. SYNCHRONISMS (S) ABANDONED . The stables at Megiddo attributed to Solomon moved to a later date, Il:98, 198. The massive temple at Shechem associated with the Abimelech story moved back into the 16th century, II:98, 183. The fallen walls at Jericho identified with the Conquest now moved back into the 21st century, 1:78f. The final destruction of the walled city at Ai now dated in the 21st century, 1:71. The identification of Amraphael of Gen. 14 with Hammurabi apandoned, II:22. Conservative Bible scholars have abandoned. the XIXth placement of the Exodus, 1:40. The deductions of Budge on the antiquity of dynastic Egypt have been abandoned, 1:162. The origin of the Sothic calendar in 4240 as proposed by Meyer is universally rejected, II:53. The evidence of an extensive flood in Mesopotamia widely publicized as that of the Noachian flood is all but universally rejected, Il:2. Brugsch's association of the famine inscription of Bebi with that of the Joseph story is now recognized as out of the question, I:35f. The holes in the walls of the structure at Ezion-geber identified as flue holes in a smelting plant have turned out to be the depressions into which the ceiling beams rested, 11:262. Most scholars now recognize that the identification of Zerah of Scripture with Osorkon I is out of the question, 1:264. Most scholars have abandoned, or grossly modified, any relation between the 'Apiru of the Amarna Letters with the Hebrews, Il:322. The list of similar concepts that should be abandoned, if archaeology is to retain a position above mere Scientism, is much longer. SYNCHRONISMS (S), NEW WITH THE REVISION Inscription of Merneptah synchronized with the fall of Israel to the Assyrians, I :292. Saul's war with the Amalekites synchronized with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, 1:230f. The fall of the Old Kingdom of the Hittites synchronized with the invasion of Hittite territory by Tiglathpileser, 11:298. The famine of Bebi and the famine of Unas synchronized with Joseph's famine, 1:23lf. The famine of Ibbi-Sin synchronized with the famine of Joseph, Il:312f. The usurpation of Dynasty IV by the king of Dynasty V, syncronized with a similar usurpation of Dynasty II, 1:192£. The Exodus is synchronized with the Hyksos conquest of Egypt, 1:121, 230. The Exodus and Conquest periods are synchronized with an era of unusually violent natural catastrophe, Il:l32f. The earthquake of Uzziah is synchronized with earthquakes in Crete, Greece, Anatolia, and Syrophoenicia, Il:l22f. The Oppression is synchronized with the reign of a king whose name was Rameses, 1:148f. The Exodus is synchronized with an era of severe crisis in Egypt, 1:122£. The Dispersion is synchronized with an era characterized by extensive migrations out of Mesopotamia into Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt, Il:l44. The proper order of events is restored in Egypt to meet the order in Greek history, 11:274£. The beginning of the 400-year period of the INDEX 355 inscription of R-II is marked by a suitable incident, 1:293£. The fall of Troy is placed in a position to meet the available data, 1:284f.; 11:269. The Philistines find their proper place in the history of Palestine, ll:Chap. XIII. Khyan is found to belong to b-Oth 1st and 2nd Intermediates by virtue of the fact that they are one and the same period, I:225f, 235, 248£. A host of new ipentifications appear with the revision. The Conquest is synchronized with evidence of a total change of culture in Palestine, I:87f. The beginnings of the Hittites in Asia Minor are synchronized with their expulsion from Palestine at the Conquest, 11:295f. The era of Joseph is synchronized with the king in whose reign a severe famine occurred, l:l33f. The fallen walls at Jericho are restored to the Conquest era, I:87f. The final destruction of the walled city at Ai is restored to the Conquest era, 11:93. The massive temple at Shechem is restored to its proper position in the era of the late judges, II:l85. The beginnings of Samaria synchronizes with the reign of Omri, Il:219f. The Oppression period is synchronized with a: period of vast building projects in brick in the Delta region, 1:147. The years of chaos of the Harris papyrus finds its proper background, l:304f. See also under IDENTIFICATIONS. SYNCHRONISMS (S) RETAINED BY THE REVISION The revision does not require the abandonment of any well-estabJished synchronism. The synchronisms for the late history of Assyria and Egypt with Israelite history are retained by virtue of the fact that the chronologies of Ds. XXIII to XXVI and of Assyria back to the 14th century have not been significantly altered, 1:100; II:7-10, 294. SYNCHRONISMS (S), UNSATISFACTORY BASES FOR Proposed S. based on similarity of names may be invalid, II:20f. Proposed S. based on incidents or situation with little or no unique characteristics are useless in chronological studies, II: lOf. Scarabs are very poor evidence for chronological studies, 1:239. Tomb objects can be very deceptive as a basis for chronological studies, (see under BURIAL CUSTOMS). Archaeological finds in unstratified soil have little or no value for establishing a chronology, 11:197. TIME PERIODS The 215 yrs. vs. the 430 yrs. for the period from the Descent to the Exodus, I:9, 138. The 400-yr. period of R-II cp. to the 393 yrs. of Josephus, I:293. The many years of the Harris papyrus, 1:291. The 245 yrs. of Manetho for D-XII cp. tci the 213 yrs. of the Turin papyrus, I:212f. The fallacy of the 208 yr. period between D-XII and DXVIII, 1:123. The 450 yrs. of Acts 13:20 correlated with the 480 yrs. of I Kings 6:1, I:6f. The 480 yrs. of I Kings 6:1confirmed,1:9. Bases for shortening the period of. the early dynasties, I: 187. The 500-yr. gap in Hittite chronology closed, 1:75, 95f. The 300-yr. gap in Greek chronology closed, Il:272. The Hyksos period extended to a reasonable length, I: 124. Failure of· the 600-yr. period of Sennacherib, II:293. Average reign length, II:265. The 34-yr. period between the end of D-XII and the Exodus, I:222f. The life-span of Bokenkonsu reduced to reasonable limits, I :307. The problem of the 4th generation of Gen. 15:16, 1:140. The life-span of Mertitefs reduced to rea- 356 THE EXODUS PROBLEM sonable proportions, 1:187. Time periods for D-XXIII to D-XXVI not altered, 1:86, 800. Time period in Assyrian chronology back to Adasi not altered, II:294. Time period from Mena to the Exodus defined, 1:237, n-15. Scharffs reduction of the dynastic period, 1:163. The 300-yr:. period of Jephthah, 1:12. A chronology not necessarily correct because one or more of the ancient time periods can be fitted into it, . 1:294. TOMB OBJECTS IN DATING See under BURIAL CUSTOMS. TRANSJORDAN AND THE :NEGEB Glueck's deductions on, 1:50; 11:254. Problems related to the Negeb, 11:254f. The problem of Ezion-geber, 11:259. Basis for Glueck's assignment of Abraham to MB. I, Il:256f. Objections to this placement, Il:256f. An alternate interpretation of the archaeology of, 11:264. See also under-EDOM-MOAB. TRANSLITERATION OF NAMES FROM ANCIENT LANGUAGES Basis for difficulties in, 1:154f. Ord~r of consonant sounds not necessarily fixed, 1:155. Sounds of 'n' and 's' in Egyptian names often interchangeable, 1:155, 198. Kings of Egypt and Assyria often known by other names in other countires, 11:106. Results of transliteration approximate at best, 1:°154. TREE-RING DATING Insecurity of results from, II:35. TROY (T) Current dating of the fall of T., 11:270. Anachronisms in popular dating, 1:284; 11:271-73. Basis for date in the 8th century by the revision, Il:273. Problem of dating Homer relative to the fall of T., 11:277f. Relation to the 300-yr. gap in Greek history, Il:272. Identity of Thuoris of Manetho of the T. era, 1:284. Time relation to the Dorian invasion, 1:281£. VELIKOVSKY Acceptance of his placement of the Exodus, 1:128. Acceptance of his identification of the Hyksos, I: 128. Acceptance of his identification of Shishak as Thutmose III, 1:128, 265. The use of earthquakes as a basis for synchronism in the revision does not necessarily negate his thesis of astronomical origin of the disasters at the Exodus, Il:l36, 155. The concept of ·half kings' and 'double kings' not accepted, Foreword; 1:128. Acceptance of his interpretation of the lpuwer papyrus, I: 129. Acceptance of his intex:pretation of the Ennitage papyrus, 1:131£. WRITING Greek writing in Egypt before it appears in Greece by popular datings, 1:307. Origin of Hebrew writing, l:lllf. Fallacy of concept that the sequence of Egyptian dynasties can be traced through tlie evolution of Egyptian language, 1:193. PALESTINE Haw am ·Megi ddo Dor • Taanach ,Beth Shan ~ "l: Cl er Samaria • • She chem Bethel • • Gezer Jericho • Jerusalem• Gath .Lachi sh ..Gaza • •Hebron Beit Mirsim c Gerar? •Beersheba Ai 0 VOLUME II SUMMER, 1975 The Journal of Christian Reconstruction Symposium on Christian Economics No. 1 Historical Revisionism: A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S EARLY CHRONOLOGY DoNOVAN A. COURVILLE Problems dealing with the apparent discrepancies between the views of popular science and those of Scripture have long occupied the attention of Bible scholars. The early phases of the controversy dealt primarily with the problems of creation and the flood versus evolution. The major disciplines involved were geology, anthropology, and biology. Problems in the area of archaeology are of a notably later origin. This late entrance of archaeology into the controversy resulted from the late appearance of a chronology of antiquity that could be generally agreed upon. Since there were more incidents of Scripture related to Egypt than to any other area, the development of a chronology of Egypt became a matter of particular importance. The developed chronology of Egypt was based on the work of Manetho, a Greek scholar who lived in Egypt just prior to the time of Christ. Manetho undertook the task of arranging the kings of Egypt into groups or dynasties. He recognized twenty-six such dynasties reaching from Mena, first king of dynasty I (assigned a beginning date in the sixth or seventh millennium s.c.) to the fall of Egypt to the Persians in 525 B.c. Early scholars had assumed that these dynasties ruled in an uninterrupted sequence. By a summation of the time periods as given by Manetho, and making liberal allowances for areas of uncertainty, such a beginning seemed defensible. With the introduction of the Carbon-14 method of dating, analyses of materials from the era of the first dynasty demanded that the date for Mena be moved forward to the late fourth millennium B.c. Evidence was shortly noted calling for a still further reduction. Dates for the first dynasty (c. 2800-?; revised chronology, c. 2125-1880 B.c.) are now widely accepted by conservative Bible scholars. The earliest point in Egyptian history that presented a clear basis for relating the histories of Egypt and Israel was the incident of the Exodus. Such an incident, belonging to the histories of two areas, or referred to in the inscriptions of two areas, is called a synchronism. Obviously, the date for such a synchronism must be the same on the B.c. time scale for 131 132 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION both areas. It is on the basis of such synchronisms that the inter-relations among the peoples of antiquity are determined. Prior to the devising of a chronology for Egypt, scholars had noted, on the basis of Exodus 1 : 11, that a king by the name Rameses was ruling in Egypt during the period of enslavement of the Israelites. Of the known kings by this name, Manetho's Rameses II of Dynasty XIX (13501200 B.c.; revised chronology, 835-790 B.c.) seemed the only king by this name to be reasonably so identified. Since Rameses II had a long reign of 67 years, he, or possibly his successor Memeptah, was nominated as the pharaoh of the Exodus. At that time, the nomination was not hampered by problems of chronology, and the nomination was universally accepted by both skeptics and conservative Bible scholars alike. There was no question but that when such a chronology had been agreed upon, Rameses II would meet the limitations imposed by Bible chronology. On the basis of I Kings 6: 1, 480 years elapsed between the Exodus and the beginning of construction on Solomon's temple. The date for the fourth year of Solomon could be calculated from the biblical figures with close approximation to the decade 970-960 B.c. This date was later revised1 to 966-965 B.c. to yield a date for the Exodus 1446-1445 B.c. This date is now accepted among conservative Bible scholars generally. With the development of a chronology of Egypt acceptable to scholars, Rameses II was assigned dates 1292-1226 B.c. These dates are a century and a half too late to agree with an Exodus dated in the mid-15th century B.c. In recognition of this discrepancy, most conservative Bible scholars abandoned the 19th dynasty setting for the Exodus in favor of a position in the 1~th dynasty (1580-1350 B.c.; revised chronology, 1028-700 B.c. See note in Table 1.) Since the dates within the dynasty were susceptible to minor corrections, the Exodus pharaoh could be identified as either Thutmose Ill or his successor, Amenhotep Il. Both identifications have been defended. This altered placement of the Exodus, in the opinion of most scholars, had little to recommend it beyond this agreement with the calculated date from the biblical figures. The late William F. Albright, one of the more conservative biblical archaeologists, commented on the matter thus: "Some scholars wish to date the Exodus much higher, even in the 15th century B.c. but the high chronology offers such insoluble difficulties that it scarcely seems worth considering at all. " 2 This opinion is now shared 1. Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965), chap. 3. 2. William F. Albright, Old Testament Commentary (Alleman and Flack, 1948), cited by H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (London, 1948), p. 16n. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 133 by virtually all scholars other than the fundamentalist Christian scholars who retain a belief that I Kings 6: 1 is as much a part of inspiration as is Exodus 1 : 11. It was believed that the Exodus reference did not actually demand a ruling king by the name Rameses at the Exodus and that further archaeological excavations would yield information that would vindicate this altered placement. The 18th Dynasty Setting in Deep Trouble That the 18th dynasty setting of the Exodus involved some large problems was apparent from the time of its origin. It suffered from the necessary placement of the period of enslavement at a time when there were no kings by the name Rameses, and no reference otherwise to such a name. Even more significantly, the kings of the 18th dynasty ruled from Thebes, far to the south of the Delta region, where the story of the enslaved Israelites finds its background. It is in this area that sites believed to be those of Pithom and Pi-Rameses have been located. In the ruins of Pi-Rameses, the name of Rameses II appears in profusion. A problem was thus created, since Scripture pictured the enslaved Israelites near the king's palace (Ex. 1 :15f). That this was not a temporary residence, as some have proposed as a means of avoiding the difficulty, is indicated by the continued presence of the pharaoh in this area from the time of Joseph to the Exodus. He was there at the time of Joseph (Gen. 45:8-10). He was there at the time of Jacob's death (Gen. 50:4-6). He was there at the time of the birth of Moses (Ex. 1:15f). He was there at the time of Moses' flight (Ex. 2: 15). He was there througbout the experience of the plagues and at the Exodus (Ex. 8-10). It is hardly allowable that this difficulty can be explained by assuming a temporary or periodic residence in this area. Both the 18th and 19th dynasty settings suffer from the discovery of the mummies of the pharaohs nominated as the pharaoh of the Exodus. It is thus necessary to either deny the death of the Exodus pharaoh in the Red Sea debacle, which view is contradictory to Psalms 136: 15, or to assume that the body was recovered and returned to Egypt for burial. This latter explanation is contradictory to Exodus 15: 5. Since the king, above all others in the army, would certainly wear armor, he would be among the first to find his final resting place at the bottom of the sea. Even more traumatic to the 18th dynasty placement of the Exodus is the failure of the Egyptian inscriptions even to suggest that there was any significant crisis in Egypt at this time. The power and prosperity to which Egypt was elevated in the reign of Thutmose III continued unabated into the reign of Amenhotep II. The attempts to defend this placement of the Exodus have overlooked one important factor-a 134 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION factor which, standing alone, is adequate to negate this theory as far as meriting serious consideration. This is the well-recognized fact that it would have required far less than the situation described in Scripture to have resulted in a rapid and easy rebellion on the part of the tributepaying .peoples. There would certainly have resulted a complete loss of any empire that Egypt may have controlled at the time. The empire of Thutmose III extended to the widest limits in all of Egyptian history. All the evidence. points to the total absence of any such crisis at the death of Thutmose III, which point is taken by some as that of the Exodus in order to meet the detail of the pharaoh's death in the Red Sea. Jam es Henry Breasted has commented at some length on the situation at this point: As so often in similar empires of later age, when the great king died, the tributary princes revolted. Thus when the news of Thutmose Ill's death reached Asia the opportunity was improved and the ·dynasts made every preparation to throw off the irksome obligation of the annual tribute. . . . With all his father's energy the young king [Amenhotep II] prepared for the crisis and marched into Asia against the allies, who had collected a large army. . . . In this encounter he led his forces in person as his father before him had so often done, mingling freely in the hand-to-hand fray. . . . The enemy was routed.... He had rescued a garrison of his troops from the treachery of the revolting town of Ikathi and punished its inhabitants. . . . "The chiefs of Mittani come to him, their tribute upon their backs. . . ." His return [to Egypt] was a triumphal procession ....3 This description hardly fits into the picture provided in Scripture for the conditions following the death of the reigning pharaoh. Furthermore, Amenhotep II was able to maintain this control over his empire. After quelling the revolt in Asia, he similarly established his control .of Nubia to the south. Breasted continued: "-It was now regarded as a matter of course that Ammon [god and father of the king] had pressed into the eager hand of every Pharaoh scepter and sword alike. The work of Amenhotep's great father was so thoroughly done, however, that as far as we k~ow, he was not obliged to invade either Asia or Nubia again." 4 If conservative Bible scholars have not been able to recognize the demand of the scriptural details of the Exodus and related events for producing an unconcealable crisis in Egypt, certainly the opponents of a historically dependable Scripture have had no difficulty in this matter. This is indicated by the extreme lengths to which scholars have gone to 3. James Henry Breasted, A History ·of Egypt (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909), pp. 323, 324. 4. Ibid., p. 326. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 13S reduce the significance of the Exodus to one of more manageable proportions. The interpretations of biblic.al archaeology start with the premise that no specific statement of Scripture is necessarily historical except as it can first be confirmed by archaeology. Starting with this supposition, there is no difficulty in avoiding the implications of Scripture for such a dire crisis. Those of us who believe in Scripture for what it claims to be do not have recourse to such reasoning in meeting these problems. The detail of the loss of perhaps 2,000,000 of the total population (estimated to have been about 8,000,000), of whom some 600,000 were adult male slaves, must be considered. The effects of the ten plagues must be taken as the record reads. The last of the ten involved the death of the firstborn, but certainly there must have been many more deaths from the preceding plagues. 6 The loss of the Egyptian army cannot be ignored. It is not improbable that Egypt, at this time, lost up to one-half of its population. To these disasters must be added the loss of most of the cattle (Ex. 9:6, 19-21; 11 :5), most of the season's crops (Ex. 10:5), and much of the wealth of Egypt (Ex. 12:36). To avoid the implications of these details, as is done by scholars generally, the number of escaping Israelites is reduced to about 5,000. To avoid the expected crisis from the loss of the army, the pursuit was made by a mere task force. The plagues are made the results of not too unusual weather conditions.8 The pharaoh did not lose his life in the Red Sea; he either did not accompany his army or else commanded his army from the shore line. To accept these details as part of the inspired and dependable historical record, is to face the overwhelming incongruity of the 18th dynasty placement of the Exodus. E. Eric Peet recognized that the single factor of the loss of the slaves would have been adequate to have produced such an unconcealable crisis. He wrote: "-Whereas, if the numbers of the emigrants were nearly 2,000,000, which is a legitimate deduction from Ex. 12:37, the movement was one, which would have shaken Egypt to its very foundations, and which, even if it had failed to be recorded in one of the numerous monuments which have survived in Egypt, would at any rate have left some unmistakable impression in Egyptian history." 7 S. Josephus states that there were many deaths from the plagues of lice, of frogs, of boils, and of darkness, with a note that "a great part of the Egyptians perished." Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, tr. William Whiston (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Co.), bk. Il, chap. XIV, para. 4. 6. G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), p. S4. 7. T. Eric Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament (London, 1924), pp. 105, 106. One sees little indication that these early views have been relinquished. 136 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION Bible Critics Soften; Conservative Bible Scholars Become Complacent There has been a continued and lingering expectation on the part of conservative Bible scholars that eventually this setting of the Exodus would be vindicated and the scriptural accounts confirmed. One evident reason has been the fact that during this time when the discrepancies with Scripture were increasing in number and magnitude, there have also been developments pointing to a vindication of certain teachings of Scripture. The antiquity of historic Egypt had been shortened by some 3,000 years, thus more nearly approaching the deductions from the biblical figures. The very existence of the Hittites had been denied by the higher criticism because archaeology had found no evidence for such a people. The later discovery of the Hittite civilization in Anatolia confirmed Scripture on the repeated reference to this people. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicated that the variations introduced in the copying of ~cripture were neither so numerous nor so significant as had been pictured by the skeptics. These developments seemed to point in the direction of an ultimately exonorated Scripture. But during this same time, discrepancies between Scripture and the discoveries of archaeology were increasing also. Bible scholars had tended to depreciate the significance of these developments while the skeptics were becoming more and more bold in their claims of repeated errors and inaccuracies in the Old Testament writings. Another factor that has kept alive this hope and expectation of ultimate vindication of Scripture has been the simple fact that there has been no alternate to turn to. The 19th dynasty setting of the Exodus had been abandoned because of obvious discrepancies, most of which are the same as those giving rise to problems in the 18th dynasty placement, with still others to be added. Nothing was to be gained by reverting to this theory. A Warning Against Complacency In recognition of the growing difficulties involved in demonstrating harmony between archaeology and Scripture, Nie. H. Ridderbos advanced a signal warning against complacency in dealing with these problems. In his chapter in the compilation by Carl F. H. Henry, dealing with this softening on the part of Bible critics, the increasing difficulty in which the fundamentalist Christian scholar is finding himself is clearly portrayed: Writers like Noth and von Rad are not extreme critics whose views we can ignore; they are well qualified Old Testament scholars wielding great influence. . . . On the other hand, their views do not reign unchallenged. With what we may perhaps call "a winning American optj.mism," Albright proclaims insistently that the latest discoveries strikingly confirm the Israelite traditions. He certainly ascribes much A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 137 more to the trustworthiness of the Old Testament materials than do Noth and von Rad. But this does not mean that Albright warns simply against the dangers of hypercriticism; he warns also against an over-reliance on tradition. . . . Nevertheless, the instances in which according to Albright, the Old Testament is historically untrustworthy, are not few. The complicated questions that are posed for us by Israel's exodus from Egypt and entrance into Canaan are dealt with, for example, in the book From Joseph to Joshua, by H. H. Rowley, which appeared in 1950. This volume demonstrates that even a moderate critic such as Rowley regards considerable Old Testament data as untrustworthy. Reading this book will also confirm the impression of the difficulty of harmonizing all the data of the Old Testament and the results of recent excavations. In these matters also we must be careful not to overestimate the significance of the reversals since the tum of the century. Is the position of orthodox Old Testament scholarship easier than it was half a century ago? This question cannot be met by a direct answer. . . . Yet the orthodox Old Testament scholar still finds himself in as much of an isolated position at the· end of the nineteenth century. In all likelihood we must say that he finds himself more isolated than ever before. s Why a Chronological Reconstruction ls Needed The growing magnitude of the problem of demonstrating harmony between Scripture and archaeology became apparent to me some twenty years ago. I initiated an investigation with the aim of determining for myself, as a scholar as well as a Christian, whether these increasing claims of error in Scripture were valid. If the traditional chronology of antiquity has any resemblance to being correct, there is no rational escape from these claims. Such harmony will never be attained until the errors in setting up this chronological structure have been corrected. It would be highly desirable to be able to believe conscientiously that this long-sought harmony can be attained short of such an extreme measure. It can only be stated, as a scholar, that the explanations offered to account for these discrepancies are altogether inadequate for meeting the total problem. Defenders of Scripture have been over-enthusiastic, as Albright has warned,9 in seeing confirmation of certain statements in Scripture from archeological evidence 8. Nie. H. Ridderbos, "Reversals of Old Testament Critici.sJn," in Carl F. H. Henry, Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958), pp. 345-349. 9. See quotation of reference in note 8. 138 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION that does not require the interpretation placed on the evidence. This is only wishful thinking in action. The use of evidence that lacks the unique qualities necessary for specific biblical-archaeological correlations, without unequivocal evidence to confirm the unique incidents of Scripture that could be expected to be revealed archaeologically, is but a candid admission that the evidence is not there. That is, evidence is not at the locations expected from the traditional dating of the archaeological levels in Palestine. The ultimate question is whether or not such evidence exists otherwise. If it does, we are pointed unmistakably to a grossly erroneous chronology of antiquity as the basis for these presumed discrepancies with Scripture. The incidents of Scripture are then being set against faulty backgrounds; the discrepancies are then pointed to as errors in Scripture. The aim of this treatise is to demonstrate that this is the case. The Task Undertaken The undertaking of the task of providing an altered chronology of antiquity that meets the demands of the facts, yet which is based on the rules of logic and of the scientific method, was not an inviting one. It was going to be necessary to show that any proposed revision did not violate any established synchronism between the peoples of antiquity, and there were many hundreds of them to be considered. The revision must not introduce any new problems of significance, though there might remain problems which could not be settled because of inadequate available information. It must be shown why the dating methods used to arrive at this traditional structure are either invalid or insufficiently accurate to distinguish between the traditional structure and the proposed reconstruction. It should eliminate all basis for these claims of error in Scripture; It must be shown that the revision provides the proper background for all of the unique incidents of Scripture that could be expected to be revealed archaeologically. There is every right also to expect that there will be coincident solutions to many other problems of archaeology which are not particularly related to Scripture. It meant taking a position in opposition to all of the scholars in this field over the last century-not only the skeptics but also the highly i_ntelligent Bible scholars. The claim by scholars that certain dates in this conventional structure have been fixed astronomically did not make the undertaking any more inviting. In short, the undertaking, from all appearances, was hopeless-except for one factor. If Scripture is what it claims to be, there was available, as a constant check, one infallible source that had been rejected by those who had developed the currently accepted structure. The project took sixteen years. Since publication of the results in A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 139 1972, under the title The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, 10 still further supporting evidence has come to light, some of a most surprising nature. The remainder of this article is given to ( 1 ) a summary of this reconstruction, (2) supporting evidence for the critical alterations made, (3) references to some of the major errors made in setting up the traditional structure, and ( 4) a review of some of the· major contributions provided by the solution. The number of such solutions is well over one hundred. It is not feasible to note more than a selection of the more significant examples. An Outline of the Reconstruction The fundamental error that was made in setting up the conventional chronology of Egypt reaches back to the infancy of archaeology as a discipline. In this era, when Egyptologists had little more data than the king lists provided by the transcribers of Manetho, it was assumed that these dynasties must be recognized as having ruled in sequence without exception. 11 Later discoveries forced a recognition of exceptions. The two Hyksos dynasties, XV and XVI ( 1688-1580 e.c.; revised chronology, 1445-1028 e.c.) are now generally recognized as having ruled in parallel. Dynasty XIV (dates uncertain but within the Hyksos period) ruled locally also within the Hyksos period. Late Dynasty XIII (1778-1678 s.c.; revised chronology, c. 1692-?) is currently recognized as having continued to rule for an indefinite period after the Hyksos conqust dated 1678 B.c. A parallel line of rulers is also recognized for the period following Amenhotep III of Dynasty XVIII-one through Akhnaton, his son, and the other through Achencheres, his daughter. 12 With the necessity for recognizing these and other exceptions, this premise of an invariable sequence is negated, leaving open the possibility, and even the probability, that still other exceptions remain unrecognized. The proposed reconstruction rejects this concept of a necessary sequence except in cases where there is unequivocal and independent evidence for such a sequence. By the reconstruction, the total elapsed time between Mena and the fall of Egypt to the Persians in 525 e.c. is spanned, with 10. Donovan A. Courville, The Erodus Problem and Its Ramifications (Box 993, Loma Linda, CA: Crest Challenge Books, 1972), subsequently referred to as Courville, op. cit. 11. W. M. Flinders Petrie, A. History of Egypt (London, 1912), I, addenda, p. xxx. 12. The transcribers of Manetho give the line through the daughter of Amenemhet III. It is believed that there was a long continued hatred of the son Akhnaton, because of his introduction of a heretic religion and that the omission of the line through Akhnaton is deliberate. 140 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION Table I EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY Traditional Dynasties by number Dates and Notes I There are no dates of general agreement. Dates are assigned by individual scholars as each sees best. Some continue to recognize beginnings from 3400 B.c., others from 28502800 B.c. The period for the first eleven dynasties ends with the year 1991 B.c., regarded as astronomically fixed. XI XII 1991-1788 XIII 1788-1688 1688-1588 XV and XVI are Hyksos dyXV with nasties. XIV is a native Jine XVI+XIV under the Hyksos. 1588-? . XVII XVIII 1580-1350 XIX 1350-1200 xx 1200-1090 XXI 1090-950 XXII 950-750 XXIII 750-718 XXIV 718-712 xxv xxv 712-663 663-525 A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY Table I EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY Rec-onstruction Dymstles Dates and Notes by number I IV v XII XVI XVIII XXI XXVI c. 2125-1880 III is parallel to late I starting about one century later than I. c. 1880-1780 First half of II is parallel witb IV. c. 1780-1640 Last half of II is parallel with v. 1692-1480 II and V extend briefly into the era of XII. VI is parallel with XII but starts about 75 years later and extends about 75 years past the end of XII. XIII is composed of subrulers and officials under XII. 1445-1028 XVI is Hyksos, ruling parallel with XV, also Hyksos. XIV, VII to X were local dynasties ruling by permission of the Hyksos. XVII was composed of the kings during the war of liberation. 1028-700 The dates are for the recomposed XVIII. XIX is but a brief offshoot from XVIII dated 840-790 B.C., XXIII is a line of usurper kings ruling locally, 776-730 B.C. XX overlaps late XVIII as recomposed and was fragmented after the rule of Rameses Ill 710-? The fragmented rule of XX was in competition with XXI, composed itself of a dual line of kings, the line of High Priests ruling from Thebes, the other at Tanis. Dynasty XXI soon took over the fragments of XX. XXII was Assyrian and competed for control with XXIV, XXV and early XXVI. 663-525 XXIII to XXVI retain the dates as traditionally held. 141 142 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION but minor exceptions, by the dynasties listed by dates in the right half of Table I. The manner in which the other dynasties find their places parallel to these eight dynasties is noted in the accompanying notes of this table. Major Mistakes in Developing the Traditional Chronology The earliest mistake may be recognized as the acceptance of the evaluation of Scripture as proposed by the higher criticism. By this evaluation, much of the Pentateuch was not reduced to writing until the post-exilic period in the early fifth century e.c. The contained accounts are presumed to have been passed on orally in poetic or semipoetic form over the interim between occurrence and reduction to writing. During this period of telling and retelling, additions, subtractions, and modifications are assumed to have been made to such a degree that there remained no demand that any specific statement be regarded as necessarily dependable historically. This opened the door for rejection of the miraculous and of any other unsavory detail which did not fit into the developing chronology. Thus, the most valuable source for providing correct interpretations of the obscure archaeological observations was lost to archaeology in its infancy. To this irreparable loss, was added the acceptance of the premise of the invariable sequence of the dynasties as noted above. The factor demanding such a premise was the necessity for providing maximum time to allow for the evolutionary development of man's intelligence to that observed at the beginning of the pyramid age of the fourth dynasty (date uncertain; revised chronology, c. 1880-1780 B.c.). A severe blow was given to this premise with the necessary abbreviations of the antiquity of dynastic Egypt as noted previously. However, the premise survived by avoiding assignment of definite dates to either the beginning of the period or to any of the specific dynasties prior to Dynasty XII (see note in Table I). There had been developing in the meantime the basis for an additional mistake which was to fix the chronological structure beyond further possibility of significant modification. No matter how severe were the anachronisms (synchronistic failures), the incongruities or enigmas that were to result, the structure must be maintained and the difficulties explained as best could be done. The culprit this time was the so-called sothic dating method. 13 To complete the confusion beyond any possible recognition of need for reconstruction, a severe error was made in the modem reconstitution of Manetho's Dynasties XVIII and XIX. That there was a degree of confusion at this point on the part of Manetho's transcribers seems obvious. When modern scholars were unable to recognize the basis for this con13. The method is noted briefly in subsequent sections. A more complete discussion appears in Courville, op. cit., II, chap. IV. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 143 fusion, it was elected to reconstitute these dynasties in terms of the demands of the monumental inscriptions. The difficulty lay in the fact that the names of Rameses II and his successor Memeptah had been included (evidently in error) in both Dynasties XVIII and XIX. a In the reconstitution, these two names were deleted from Dynasty XVIII and left in Dynasty XIX. The credit for founding Dynasty XIX was shifted from Seti, as given by Manetho, to Harmhab. These moves seemed innocent enough and the gross errors introduced by the alterations seem not to have been recognized to the present day. What should have been done was to remove these names from Dynasty XIX and leave them in Dynasty XVIII. Such a move would have made it obvious that what was left of Dynasty XIX was but a brief offshoot from XVIII at about the time of the redivision of rule between the son and daughter of Amenhotep Ill Dynasty XIX ruled locally in the Delta region, coming to its end a full century before the end of Dynasty XVIII. As a result of the unwarranted reconstitution, a critical synchronism was assigned to the era following Memeptah which actually belongs a century earlier. 15 This in tum was one factor in deducing an erroneous chronology of Greece and in tum confusing the chronologies of other areas which had imported a characteristic Greek pottery, datable to this misdated era. 16 It is the correction of this error that provides the basis for the reconstruction of the late Egyptian dynasties as shown in Table I. The Reconstruction Provides Solutions, Not Problems The ultimate weight of the evidence supporting the reconstruction rests on the fact that numerous problems are provided solutions by it without introducing any new problems of significance. Well over one hundred such have been noted in the author's more complete treatise. Many of these are problems quite unrelated to Scripture, thus meeting this specific 14. The names occur in Dynasty XVIII of Manetho as "Rameses, also called Aegyptus," and "Ammenophis," the first being recogniz.ed by his long reign of 67 years, the latter as his successor. In Dynasty XIX, the names appear as Rapsaces and Ammenophthis. 15. This error resulted from regarding the Thuoris of late Dynasty XIX as the same person as Tausert (by similarity of name), who is one of four "antikings" following Memeptah. This error was inexcusable, since Thuoris is identified as husband of Alcandra, while Tausert was sister to Siptah. To gloss over the error, it has more recently been proposed that the identification is with the brother of Tausert, though even the similarity of the names is lost in the shift. 16. This is the so-called Mycenaean pottery, widely exported into many of the surrounding areas. Between this error, and the assumed, but unwarranted, 300-year gap in Greek history, dating by correlation with this pottery type has led to confusion. · 144 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION demand on a reconstruction. 1., It is, of course, out of the question to review any large fraction of these in this brief summary. Selections will be noted from both areas, hopefully in sufficient number and significance to lead the reader to a complete confidence in the general correctness of the reconstruction. That minor modifications may be required with continued investigations must always be recognized. Primary attention will be given to scriptural problems (1) related to the Exodus, (2) related to the conquest under Joshua, and ( 3) related to the era from Joseph to the Exodus. Others will be referred to by reference to the author's more complete work. An outline of the manner in which the major incidents and eras of biblical history are placed by the traditional and reconstructed chronologies as provided in Table II. Frequent reference to this table will be helpful in following the subsequent discussions. Another Look at the Exodus Problem By the reconstructfon, the Exodus incident is set at the point of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt. This setting explains the enigmatic statement of Josephus 18 to the effect that the Hyksos w~re able to take over Egypt without a battle. Egypt had been beaten to her knees by the disasters resulting from the plagues. The slaves were gone, the army was gone, the king was gone, and there was not even an heir apparent to take over the control. The population had been decimated to perhaps half. The cattle were gone, the season's crops were gone, much of the wealth of Egypt was gone. It was only necessary for the Hyksos to move in and take over. This invasion was in line with the recognized sequence of events expected to follow any situation of weakness in Egypt. The desert tribes lurked on the fringes of civilization, ever ready to take advantage of the first indication of weakness in the government. Thus is explained the incongruity in the current views which place the incident at points where there is no indication of this sort of crisis and no indication of invasion, or even of the expected loss of the empire. It is also explained how the Isralites could leave Egypt with any reasonable hope of finding a new home in Palestine, which territory was controlled to a degree, and at least periodically thereafter, by the Egyptians. 19 There is thus no need to qualify the number of escaping Israelites from the biblical figure of 600,000 adult males, besides women and children, 17. other 18. 19. Courville, op. cit., I, 102, provides a statement of recognition of this· and demands on the proposed reconstruction. Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (see note S), bk. I, para. 14. Peet, op. cit., p. 121. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 145 Table D Conelation of Scriptural Incidents with Egyptian History by the Tnditional and Reconstructed Chronologies Incident or en Traditional Background or Date Reconstruction Background or Date Noachian Flod Not recogni:ied as factual. The proper background for the immediate post-diluvian period is the Mesolithic period, dated c. 10,000 B.c. or earlier. If recogni:zed at all, the incident is set far back in the predynastic. Commonly set in early Dynasty XII dated c. 1900 B.c. Earlier dates are entertained. No famine inscription datable to the era of Joseph as placed in the Hyksos period. The Mesolithic background for the immediate post-diluvian period is accepted. Date c. 2300 Dispersion from Babel Abraham enters Canaan Famine of Joseph Enslavement of Israel The Exodus Eighteenth dynasty theory of Exodus must recogni:ze an early king of this dynasty as the pharaoh initiating the enslavement. This would be Amenhotep I or Tbutmose I. Eighteenth dynasty theory must recogni:ze the position either at the end of the reign of Tbutmose m or early in the reign of Amenhotep II Date c. 1445 B.C. Period of the Judges Encompasses the period of Dynasty XVIII from Amenhotep m, all of XIX as currently composed, and the first half of XX. Dates: 1375-1050. United Monarchy Background is in Dynasties XX of Israel and XXI. Dates, 1050-930 B.C. B.C. Dated 27 years before the unification of Egypt under Mena. Date, c. 2125 B.C. Dated very soon after the beginning of Dynasty IV; 1875 B.C. Equated with the famine inscription in the reign of Sesostris I of twelfth dynasty. Dated 1600 B.C. Enslavement initiated by Sesostris III of Dynasty XII. Date, c. 1560 B.C. The reconstruction places the Exodus at the end of the fiveyear reigri of Koncharis, second primary ruler of Dynasty XIII, but 26th in the Turin list. Date is 1446-1445 B.C. Falls in the Hyksos period, c. 1375-1050 B.C. Background is in early Dynasty XVIII ending near the beginning of the sole reign of Tbutmose Ill Dates, 1050-930 B.C. Shishak identified as Tbutmose III of Dynasty XVIII. Date 926 Sacking of Solomon's Temple Fall of Israel to Assyria Shishak identified as Sheshok I of Dynasty XXII. Date is 926 B.C. in fifth year of Rehoboam. Must be placed in the background of Dynasty XXIII to retain the established date 722721 B.C. Fall of Judah In Dynasty XXVI. Date c. 606 Falls in the fifth year of Merneptah dated 721 B.C. Synchronism indicated by inscription of this year telling of catastrophe to Israel. In Dynasty XXV. Date c. 606 B.C. B.C. to Babylon B.C. 146 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION to a few thousand. 20 There is no need to question the census figures, twice taken during the following forty years. There is no need to assume a split Exodus such as Kathleen Kenyon and others have be,m driven to believe. She wrote: "It is, however, generally accepted· by scholars that the Old Testament account is a conflation of different ancient sources. A theory that has gained acceptance from a number of scholars is that there is evidence in the biblical account that not all the tribes which make up the subsequent Israelite nation took part in the Exodus. This school of thought holds that the religious significance of the Exodus was such that in the course of time all the tribes came to believe that their ancestors took part in it. Such a theory has many attractions, particularly since it goes far to reconciling the biblical account with other historical records and with archaeological evidence. " 21 The acceptance of such a theory leads to a necessary abandonment as historical of a large fraction of the materials in the five books of Moses. The explanations offered, which would make the pharaoh a very stupid individual or a coward are revealed for what they are: mere ruses to avoid the clear implications of the clear statements of Scripture. These pharaohs were not cowards,22 and they were not stupid; obstinate, yes, but not stupid. The Exodus pharaoh was thoroughly convinced that these plagues were beyond any powers possessed by his gods or by his magicians (Ex. 8:18, 19, 9:21). The entire experience was pre-ordained to be a "judgment" on Egypt (Gen. 15: 14), for the cruel manner in which they had treated the descendants of the one who had earlier saved them from catastrophe in time of famine. The experience was also designed to be a demonstration of the incomparable superiority of the God of the Israelites over the gods of Egypt (Ex. 12:12; Num. 33:4), not only to Egypt but to all surrounding peoples. It is evident that reports of the Exodus had reached the ears of these neighboring peoples before the conquest. The peoples of Jericho were demoralized by the reports of the approaching Israelites (Josh. 2:9). To reduce the significance of the incident is to lose the force of the entire story, beginning back in the time of Abraham. Neither can it be argued with reason that the apparent silence of the Egyptian inscriptions relative to the incident provides a basis for such modification of Scripture. Velikovsky, who also recognized this setting of the Exodus,23 calls attention to two inscriptions describing crisis in Egypt of an unprecedented magnitude. One of these (the Ipuwer papy20. 21. 22. 23. Wright, op. cit., p. 67. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (London, 1960), p. 208. See quotation of reference in note 8. Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1955), pp. 5tf. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 147 rus inscription) has been dated, on the basis of its form and content, to the dark period following the end of Dynasty VI {dates uncertain; revised chronology, c. 1620-1400 B.c.) By the reconstruction, this is the era of the Exodus. The inscription makes mention of plague in general and to situations reftecting the plague of waters turned to blood, the plague on the cattle, the destruction of the vegetation, and of widespread death to the Egyptians. The Ermitage papyrus refers also to such a dire crisis. Velikovsky cites excerpts from this document, some of which are here reproduced: "The land is utterly perished and nought remains. . . . The sun is veiled by clouds. . . . The river is dry [even the river] of Egypt. Bedouins pervade the land. . . . The beasts of the desert shall drink from the rivers of Egypl . . . I show thee the land upside down, happened that which never had happened. . . . Men laugh with the laughter of pain. None there is who weepeth because of death. . . ." 24 This situation would seem to apply to the situation in Egypt after the Exodus and at the time when the Hyksos had taken over. Josephus points out that on the morning following the Red Sea debacle, the Israelites were able to recover weapons from the bodies of the Egyptians washed ashore. 25 These would be warriors without armor which would otherwise have left them at the bottom of the sea. Thus is explained how the Israelites, as unarmed on leaving Egypt, possessed weapons at the time of the conquest. The Conquest Under Joshua The point of the conquest under Joshua in Egyptian history cannot be determined from any evidence of Egyptian origin. There is no ultimate reason for supposing that this conquest should be reflected in the history of Egypt. This is even more certain in this case since the point is forty years into the Hyksos period, an era from which not a single inscription has come down to us. This point can be defined only in terms of the appearance of the expected evidence in Palestine as observed archaeologically. This expected evidence would include a widespread destruction of cities, but even more nearly unique,28 there should appear unmistakable evidence of a total change in culture {pottery forms) which continued in use, with traceable variations for the period of the next 800 years. This evidence should appear at some point archaeologically between 24. Ibid., p. 4S. 2S. Josephus, op. cit., bk. II, chap. XVI, para. 6 26. This principle of archaeological interpretation is clearly stated by Leonard Woolley, Digging Up the Past (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1937), p. 7S. 148 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION 1400 and 1250 B.c. The observation of the expected evidence, datable more closely within the period, would support one or the other of the two popular settings for the Exodus. But no such break in culture was found to exist at any point between these dates as defined by the traditional chronology. By the current views, these dates encompass the entire period from Thutmose III to Rameses II. The failure to find such evidence led R. A. Macalister to propose that the invading Hebrews had no culture of their own. He commented: "It is no exaggeration to say that throughout these long centuries the native inhabitants of Palestine do not appear to have made a single contribution of any kind whatsoever to material civilization. It was perhaps the most unprogressive country on the face of the earth. Its entire culture was derivative." 27 He commented in another- connection: "As a result of the Israelite settlement in Canaan, the civilization of the country, such as it was, was effaced and had to be painfully built again with the help of the cultured Philistines. " 28 By the reconstruction, what Macalister was looking at as the basis for these comments was the decline in culture in Palestine during the times of the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, when the intellectuals and the more cultured were removed from the land, leaving the poor and the lower class to cope with the results of the disaster (II Kings 17:23, 24; Jer. 52). Kathleen ~enyon echoed this picture by noting that there "is no complete break [in culture] within the period [1400-1200 e.c.]."29 Evidence of destruction could be observed throughout the period but it did not "tell a coherent story."80 As with the Exodus, there is only one point in the archaeology of Palestine which reveals such a complete cultural break. This is at the end of the so-called Early Bronze Age. This is the era represented by the fallen walls at I ericho, which were universally recognized as those of the Joshua story, that is, until it was found that these walls belonged back in the 21st century in Early Bronze. 81 This is also the era of the rock pile representing the final end of the walled city at Ai, also destroyed at the time of Ioshua. 32 This designation of Early Bronze need have no pertinence to the present discussion beyond a recognition that the end of the period can be roughly correlated with the end of Dynasty VI in Egypt. 33 This point is marked in Palestine archaeology by widespread destruction in Palestine 27. R. A. S. Macalister, A Century of Excavation in Palestine (London, 1925), p. 210. 28. Ibid., p. 164. 30. Ibid. 29. Kenyon, op. cit., p. 209. 31. Wright, op. cit., p. 67; Courville, op. cit., I, 68. 32. Courville, op. cit., I, 72. 33. Ibid., pp. 78ff., gives further material on the significance of the archaeological ages. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 149 followed by a complete change of culture. Kathleen Kenyon commented on the situation at this point in a manner reflecting clearly the background ot the conquest. The final end of the Early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze Age walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the walls has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed for all the finds show that there was an absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shows the same break. . . . All traces of the Early Bronze Age civilization disappeared. "H The subsequent period of Middle Bronze was characterized by a series of destructions, but after each the same culture reappeared, indicating that there is no other point in the archaeology of Palestine subsequent to the end of Early Bronze which reveals this expected break. Furthermore, this new people occupied the same territory as that held by the Israelites, and the culture continued for the expected period of time. Miss Kenyon commented further: "Moreover, the culture now introduced into Palestine was to have a very long life. In spite of the fact that a series of events took place of major political importance, there is no cultural break until at least 1200 B.c. [reconstruction date, c. 750-700 B.c.]...• Archaeology can show a recognizable progression of artifacts such as pottery, and can show that towns suffered a succession of destructions, but after these destructions, the old culture was re-established. " 35 The identification of this new people as the Israelites is confirmed by the fact that at no other time than during the Israelite occupation was this territory occupied by a single culture (Josh. 3: 10). Miss Kenyon notes further that these people had a tribal organization,36 as indicated by a variety of burial customs, and that they were a numerous people. Williatn F. Albright noted that the weapons of early Middle Bronze showed an Egyptian influence. 37 This is to be expected if the Israelites obtained many of their weapons from the dead Egyptians at the Red Sea debacle, as stated by Josephus. With the necessary redating of the fallen walls at Jericho, with the dating of the final end of the walled city at Ai back in Early Bronze, and 34. .Kenyon, op. cit., p. 134. This conquest is attributed by Miss Kenyon to the Amorites. 35. Ibid., p. 162. 36. Ibid., pp. 141, 143. 37. William F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (Baltimore: Penguin Boob, 1961), p. 87. 150 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION with the runs of the city of Pi-Rameses in Egypt providing not a hint of occupation by an eighteenth dynasty king,38 the eighteenth dynasty setting of the Exodus was in increasingly deep difficulty. Cpnservative Bible scholars were ready to grasp at any evidence that would provide a basis for retention of this placement of the ·Exodus. Such evidence seemed to be offered in the library of correspondence found at Tell el Amarna in Egypt and known as the Amarna Letters. These letters constituted correspondence between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton) with certain personages in western Asia, mostly from the territory to the north of Palestine. These letters contained references to a people called the 'apiru or Habiru who were involved in political difficulties in this territory. Attempts were made to interpret these letters as providing the Canaanite version of the conquest under Joshua, the Habiru being identified with the invading Hebrews. While some few scholars seem to be desparately clinging to this interpretation· of the letters,39 most have bowed to the overwhelming evidence that the Habiru of the letters were not an ethnic people and hence could not be the Hebrews. The political difficulties aret for the most part, in the territory to the north of Palestine which was never involved in the Israelite conquest. The difficulties are of local concern and certainly no invasion is involved. The Habiru-Hebrew equation was dealt a death blow with the discovery of one inscription containing the term Habim but also containing reference to the Hebrews, but by a spelling notably different from that for the Habiru. By the revision, the letters belong to a much later period than the time of the Conquest, and under no circumstance is it feasible to use these letters as support for the conquest under Joshua in the fourteenth century B.c. A discussion of the fallacies in the bases used for such an interpretation cannot be undertaken in this treatise.40 From Joseph to the Exodus Neither of the popular placements of the Exodus can refer to an inscription of famine at a point prop~rly related chronologically to the Exodus placement. If there were no such references to a famine which meet the unique details of Scripture for the famine of Joseph, one might presume that such records were not made, or if made, they have not survived. With two such inscriptions being extant, such a supposition has little merit. The famine inscription from the reign of Sesostris I, of early Dynasty XII, not only meets the biblical details for the famine of Joseph, 38. Wright, op. cit., p. 60. 39. Personal communication. 40. Courville, op. cit., n, 314ff. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 151 but has been shown to fall chronologically at a date properly related to the Exodus placed at the point of the Hyksos invasion. An identification of this famine inscription with that of Joseph's time was recognized many years ago by Henry Brugsch-Bey.'1 The identification had to be rejected because it could not be made to agree with the era of Joseph as then assigned. Brugsch attempted to correlate the second of these famine inscriptions, which met the details of Scripture, with the era of Joseph.' 2 This was the inscription found in the tomb of Bebi. Brugsch dated the tomb in the eighteenth dynasty to meet this chronological demand. It was later shown by Jacques Vandier'3 that this dating of the tomb was in error. The tomb belonged to the thirteenth dynasty era. (By my reconstruction, Dynasty XIII follows Dynasty II. The name Debi occurs at the juncture of the names of the kings of Dynasties II and m in the king list of Sakharah as an alternate name for Zazay in the Abydos list.«) Since neither list gives the kings by dynasties, the name could belong to either late Dynasty II or early Dynasty III, the latter being commonly accepted. It is here contended that the name belongs at the end of Dynasty Il which immediately precedes Dynasty XIII, the era assigned to the tomb of Bebi by Jacques Vandier. Thus, both these famine inscriptions, which meet the details of Scripture, should be recognized as the same famine as that of Joseph's time. It develops further that the famine in the reign of Unas of late Dynasty V'11 belongs to this same position though the inscription gives no specific details. A reference to famine also is extant from the reign of lbbi-Sin of the third dynasty at Ur in Chaldea, which by the reconstruction falls in this same position.'6 It .appears that this famine not only involved the areas of Egypt and of Palestine, but extended into the valleys of the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers. This was no ordinary famine. The reconstruction recognizes the name Yufni, of the early Turin list'7 of the thirteenth dynasty, as an Egyptianized form of the name Joseph. The position of the name in the list permits a chronological correlation with the reign of Sesostris I of the famine inscription. James Henry Breasted was intrigued with the appearance of this name in the list since it was clearly not in the royal form. He commented: "The succession may have lasted during four reigns when it was suddenly interrupted, and the 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Henry Brugscb-Bey, .A History of Egypt (London, 1881 ), I, 304-305. Ibid. Jacques Vandier, La Famine Dans L'Egypte .Ancienne (Cairo, 1936), p. 18. Petrie, op. cit., I, 23. Courville, op. cit., I, 203. Ibid., II, 314. Ibid., I, 153ff. 152 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION list of Turin records as the fifth king one Yufni, a name which does not display the royal form showing that at this point the usurper had again triumphed." 48 Such a conclusion seemed logical, starting with the premise that these numerous names of the Turin list were full kings of Egypt. When it is recognized that they were only important officials or rulers of local areas, the name is susceptible to another interpretation. Yufni was a foreigner who had earned a position as one of the important officials of the king. With the name standing opposite that of Sesostris I chronologically, the identification with Joseph, reached by independent data, is confirmed. A legend is extant to the effect that the foster father of Moses had the name Chenephres. 49 This name also occurs in the Turin list of Dynasty XIII. It was not possible to equate the name with the time of Moses by the developed chronology. By the 'reconstruction, such a correlation is reasonable, if we understand that these names do not represent a sequence of rulers, but rather overlapping groups of officials under a sequence of kings. 50 This is the heart of my reconstruction thesis. A prominent official under Dynasty XIII records possession of an Asiatic female slave by a name transliterated as Shiprah,51 quite the same name as that of one of the midwives at the time of Moses' birth (Ex. 1 : 15). Again, the name could not be thus identified, since the time was not correlatable with the era conventionally assigned to Moses. Another of the names in the Turin list is given as Mermesha. Mesh or Mesu is the Egyptian equivalent of the name of Moses,52 and a possible correlation with Moses during his years of service in Egypt is not out of the question. Modern maps of Egypt show a man-made canal running parallel with the Nile and bearing the name Canal of Joseph.53 The populace regards this canal as the work of Joseph of Scripture, constructed as one means of increasing the productive land in Egypt in preparation for the coming famine. Such an origin must be rejected by scholars who would identify this Joseph as a Mohammedan of a later era. By the reconstruction, Dynasty XII, which provjdes a reference to the construction of such a canal, is the background for the era of Joseph. This reference is from the reign of Amenemhet III, a later king of the dynasty than Sesostris I. 48. Breasted, op. cit., p. 211. 49. E. A. Wallis Budge, Book$ i>n Egypt and Chaldea (l,.ondon, 1904), IX, 100. 50. On occasion, a recognition of some such interpretation has been voiced. CourvilJe, op. cit., I, 152. 51. Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), pp. 93, 94. 52. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Nile (London, 1910), p. 16. 53. Courville, op. cit., I, frontispiece. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 1S3 This does not negate the identification. The reference may well be to repair or extension of a system begun at an earlier date. Scripture does not provide identification of the factor which changed the attitude of the Egyptian kings to the descendants of Joseph. This gap is filled in by Egyptian sources. During the reign of Sesostris III, there was a radical change in the form of government. Egypt had been under a feudal form of government in which the authority was distributed among r.tlers of local areas called nomes, much as is now done among the governors of states in the United States. Sesostris III abolished these local governments by princes and took over the entire authority to himseH. James Henry Breasted commented on the shift in a few succinct statements: ••For thirty-eight years Sesostris III continued his vigorous rule of a kingdom which now embraced a thousand miles of the Nile Valley. He had succeeded in suppressing the feudal nobles; and their tombs, as at Deni-Hasan and Bersheh, now disappear."H Joseph occupied a position as a prince of Egypt (Gen. 47:22, margin) and was evidently a local prince over Goshen as well as being second ruler to the king. With such a modification in the form of government, the Israelite descendants would have been stripped of their favored position and possessions along with the other princes. Having taken this step, it was but one further move of necessity to enslave the people, lest they rise in rebellion and join an invader (Ex. 1 : 10). It was thus Sesostris ID who enslaved Israel. Under the reign of this king and of his successor, Amenemhet III, an extensive building program in brick was carried out in the Delta region, providing the proper background for the period of oppression of Israel. James Henry Breasted commented: All the Delta cities of all ages, as we have so often mentioned, have perished, and but little survives to testify to the activity of these kings there, but in the eastern part, especially at Tanis and Bubastis, massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities. Amenemhet I followed their example [kings of dynasty XI] in the erection of his pyramid at Lisht; the core was of brick masonry.... The custom was continued by all the kings of the dynasty with one exception. 55 Josephus states that the Israelites built pyramids for the Egyptians. 56 Yet pyramids were obsolete in the eighteenth dynasty, where the era of 54. Breasted, op. cit., p. 189. 55. Ibid., pp. 197, 198. S6. Josephus, op. cit., bk. II, chap. IX, para. 1. 154 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION enslavement is conventionally placed. The building activity at Tanis, noted above, is of interest since this is the site commonly identified with the Pi-Rameses rebuilt by Rameses II. The mistake here has been in supposing that it was the rebuilt city by Rameses II,57 rather than the original, that was built by the Israelites. It was then the daughter of Amenemhet III who adopted Moses. It was under this king that Moses was trained as the future heir to the throne (Heb. 11 :24-27). It was evidently this daughter of Amenemhet III who eventually took over the kingship after the flight of Moses and in the absence of any male heir. After a brief reign of four years, indicating her advanced age, she died, and the dynasty came to its end. The rule passed smoothly to one of the more powerful thirteenth dynasty princes. The Exodus occured in the fifth year of the reign of the second of these kings, a king whose tomb has never been found. Solutions Provided to Other. Problems Related to Scripture With the fixing of the events of the Exodus, the Conquest, and the Oppression in their proper backgrounds of Egyptian history, solutions to a number of other problems now follow by time relations, some in a most remarkable manner. The evidence for the incident of the dispersion from Babel (Gen. 11 : 1), of necessity now dated far back in the predynastic period, finds clear evidence of confirmation in the era just preceding the beginning of the dynastic period. 58 The date for the massive temple at Shechem, once regarded as certainly that of the "hold of the house of the god Berith" (Judges 9:46) of the Abimilech story, but later redated centuries earlier, is now restored to its proper background. 59 Identifications of a number of pharaohs mentioned in Scripture, but not by identifiable names, may now be identified. These include So60 (II Kings 17:4), Zerah81 (II Chron. 14:9), the king who conquered the site of Gezer and gave it to Solomon as a dowry for his Egyptian wife82 (I Kings 9:11), the pharaoh ruling at the time of Abraham's visit to Egypt83 (Gen. 12:10), and the pharaoh who sacked Solomon's temple84 (I Kings 14:25). Among the names in the earliest Assyrian list may be recognized several 51. See note 38. 58. Courville, op. cit., II, chap. VII.. 59. Ibid., II, chap. IX. 60. Ibid., I, 296. 61. Ibid., I, 263. 62. Ibid., II, chap. XI. 63. Abraham entered Canaan 430 years before the giving of the law at Sinai (Gal. 3:16, 17). Dynasty m, by the reconstruction, ends c. 1880 B.c. Hence the ruling king was Khufu, builder of the great pyramid at Giza. 64. Courville, op. cit., I, 258, 295. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY lSS found also in Genesis 25: 1-3.66 Thus is confirmed the beginnings of Assyria with Assur, great grandson of Abraham (Gen. 10: 10, 11 ). The reference to Israel by Memeptah now falls exactly in line with the date 721 B.c.,88 the established date for fall of Israel to the Assyrians. Thus is identified the catastrophe to Israel mentioned in this inscription. 67 The anomaly in the dating of the first appearance of the Philistines in Palestines (c. 1200 B.c.), in contradiction to Deuteronomy 2:23, is eliminated. 68 So also is eliminated the anomalous beginning of the Hittites in Anatolia in 1900 B.c. The Hittites of Anatolia should be related to the Hittites driven out of Palestine at the time of the Conquest and dated in the 14th century B.c. (Josh. 3:10).69 The period from the Descent to the Exodus is now established at 215 years, not 430 years as some have supposed. TO Solutions to Problems Not Related to Scripture If it is true that the traditional chronology must be severely altered as proposed in this thesis, it can be presumed that there are many other unsolved problems of archaeology that would be provided simultaneous solutions by the same reconstruction. 71 That this is the case, provides the strongest sort of evidence for the general correctness of the alteration. The gross incongruity in the length of the period between Dynasties XII and XVIII is eliminated. 72 Dynasty XXII (950-750 B.c.; revised chronology, c. 670-?), with its Assyrian names, now finds its place in the era when it is known that the Assyrians were in control of Egypt. 73 The wrong order of events in Egypt is corrected to agree with the order of the same events in Greek history. 74 The enigma in the dating of Homer in Greek history is provided a clear solution. 75 The incident marking the beginning of the 400-year anniversary inscription of Rameses II may now be unequivocally identified. 76 The Sothis king list, currently regarded as useless for chronological purposes, turns out to be the most exact of any of the lists, particularly for the era prior to the eighteenth dynasty. 77 The gaps in the histories of Greece78 and the Hittites79 are closed. The method used by the ancients in expressing time between events is clarified. 80 The significance of the royal titles of Egyptian kings is elucidated. 81 The time squeeze for the "many years" of chaos mentioned in 6S. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. Ibid., Il, 322fl. Ibid., I, 292. Ibid., I, 43. Ibid., Il, chap. XID. Ibid., I, 93, 95. Ibid., I, 138. Ibid., I, 102. Ibid., II, 68. Ibid., I, 314. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. Ibid., II, 274. Ibid., 11,,277. Ibid., I, 293. Ibid., I, 165fl. Ibid., Il, 272. Ibid., I, 175. Ibid., I, 295. Ibid., I, 157-158. 156 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION the Harris papyrus inscription is eliminated. 82 The usurpation of the power of Dynasty IV by the early kings of Dynasty V is shown to be a historical event. 83 The anachronism of the jar sealed by Amenehmet III of Dynasty XII, but which contained inscribed materials belonging to a later king of Dynasty XIII is now converted to a synchronism. 8' The enigma of Manetho's Dynasty XI is clarified. 85 The Sesostris of Herodotus may now be clearly identified, as well as others of his references to Egyptian kings. 86 The prehistoric graves in Egypt may now be identified as to their origin. 87 The enigma of the early Kassites now comes into proper focus. 88 The internal chronologies of the early Egyptian dynasties may now be attained. 89 The horrendous anachronism of the assumed Hyksos empire is demolished. 90 The rationale behind the following statements by C. W. Ceram, as he viewed the insecure nature of the traditional structure of chronology, takes on a strange pertinence: Anyone approaching the study of ancient history for the first time must be impressed by the positive way modem historians date events which took place thousands of years ago. In the course of further study, this wonder will if anything increase. For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. As poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us; half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men. As a matter of fact, the more we pursue our studies, the less are we impressed by the dates which initially filled us with respect. We begin to recognize· the framework of chronological history for what it isa purely hypothetical structure, and one which threatens to come apart at every seam. Crooked and tottering it gives us a picture of a strangely arbitrary history, while at the same time our instinct tells us that the ancient civilizations must have had some sort of reasonable and organic growth. When we reach this point in our studies, we begin to be doubtful of every single date. 91 On the Inadequacy of Dating Me.thods of Archaeology The so-called pottery-dating scheme was invented by Flinders Petrie early in this century and refined later by William F. Albright and bis scholars. The method is based on the observation that as one digs down82. Ibid., I, 291. 83. Ibid., I, 189, 197ff. 84. Ibid., I, 156. 85. Ibid., I, chap. XV. 86. Ibid., I, 297. 91. C. W. Ceram. The Secret of the 1956), p. 133. 87. 88. 89. 90. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Il, 163. II, 306ff. I, chaps. XI, XIl. I, 93-95; II, 107. Hittites (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 157 Table ID The Chronologies of Other Peoples of Antiquity Traditional Chronology Reconstruction Assyria Early Assyria to Adasi Dynasty of Adasi c. 2100-1650 B.C. c. 1650-600 (unchanged) c. 1750-1350 B.C. c. 1650-600 Chaldea Dynastic period begins about coincident with that of Egypt Early dynasties illrd dynasty at Ur Dynasty at Uruk 1st dynasty at Babylon Kassite dynasty c.2800 c.2100 dates obscure c.2500-2350 c.1660-1535 wide variation of opinion. c. 1840-1550 minimal c. 1530-? dates obscure c. 1800-1625 c. 1660-1535 (unchanged) c. 1530-1230 (unchanged) c. 1530-? (unchanged) c. 1500 125-year gap c. 1375-1110 c.1100-700 no gap shortly after 700 (unchanged) c.950 c. 790 c.·760 no gap 8th century Hittites in Anatolia 1st King Annitas Hittite empire Hittite kingdom End of Hittites c. 1900 160-year gap c. 1740-1500 c. 1500-1190 500-year gap shortly after 700 Greece Historic period begins Fall of Troy Dorian Invasion Homer's era c. 1500 c.1180 c. 1100 300-year gap 8th century Philistines First appearance in Palestine I.ate secular evidence for Philistines before 1875 c. 1200 not recogniz.ed c. 1250-? ward in a mound of ancient occupation, he meets a series of levels characterized by different pottery types or by a sequence of variations of the same type. Since it is obvious that the pottery in any given archaeological level is younger than that below it and older than the one above, it is theoretically possible to arrange these types and variations in the order of their historical use. The method is incapable of providing more than relative dates except as absolute dates can be provided by independent means for the various types and varieties. This demand is presumed to have been met by finds in identifiable levels of items of foreign origin and datable to the reign of a specific king or of a specific dynasty. This assumption depends, of 158 THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION course, in tum on the security of the chronologies of these foreign areas. As demonstrated in this thesis, this latter assumption is not valid. 92 Hence all dates provided for mound levels on the basis of these index types are in error until one reaches a point where inscriptional evidence is available for absolute dating. As for the Carbon-14 dating method, 93 one wonders how long it will be before intelligent scholars are willing to recognize that this method is not capable of providing unequivocal dates, even as crude approximations. There are factors involved which have not as yet been evaluated. The fundamental assumptions on which the method is based continue to be challenged as to their validity. In the last analysis, it must be recognized, and is recognized by thinking scholars, that the entire framework of traditional chronology of antiquity ultimately rests most of its weight on the validity of certain dates presumed to have been astronomically fixed. Reference is not to the few dates in late antiquity which have been securely fixed by means of eclipse data. Reference is rather to dates presumed to have been fixed by the method known as sothic dating. The theory behind the method and the inherent weaknesses in the method cannot be discussed in this brief· treatise. 94 It is claimed that the method provides an astronomically fixed date 1849 B.c. for the 31st year of reign of Sesotris III of Dynasty XII. 95 Calculations from this date provide dates 1991 and 1788 B.c., respectively, for the beginning and end of the dynasty. It need only be noted here that the method rests on premises that have never been established. The results can never be more secure than the premises on which the method is based. The faulty nature of the reasoning is indicated by the incredibly short period that must be assigned to the interval between the end of Dynasty XII and the beginning of Dynasty XVIII. The insecurity of the results from the method is also indicated by the fact that other dates have been obtained using the same data, one in 1812 B.c.,98 another in 1549 B.c. 97 Lunar data are involved in the calculations. But lunar data tend to repeat themselves at intervals of 19 or 25 years, making 92. The method, particularly as it has reference to the presumed sequence of variations of types, is challenged even with the discipline. William G. Dever, "Vestigial Features in MB I: An Illustration of Some of the Principles of Ceramic Typology," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1970), 19f. 93. The weaknesses in this method are discussed in Courville, op. cit., II, chap. m. 94. Ibid., II, chap. IV. 95. Lynn H. Wood, "Kahun Papyrus and the Date of the Twelfth Dynasty," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Researcli (1945), Sf. 96. R. A. Parker, ''The Beginning of the Lunar Month in Ancient Egypt," Journal of Near Eastern Studies XXIX (1970), 218. 97. John Read, "Early Eighteenth Dynasty Chronology," Journal of Near Eastern Studies XXIX (1970), lff. A BIBLICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EGYPT'S CHRONOLOGY 159 deductions a matter of selection from a number of possible results. In simple language, one must assume an approximate date for Sesostris III as a starting premise. But as indicated by the results of this investigation, the assumed dates for Dynasty XII are in gross error. Hence these "fixed dates" have no significance in fact. They are no more factual than the ''fact" of evolution. The creationist should not be deluded into believing that his views on ancient chronology must recognize these dates as a starting premise. Conclusion When Nie. H. Ridderbos summarized the situation existing in 19 58 with reference to the discrepancies between Scripture and archaeology, he concluded his chapter with the following plea: "May God give us, in the present and in days to come, men who will take up the study of the Old Testament both in believing subjection to God's Word and in keeping with the new challenges which each changing period of history imposes upon this enterprise of scholarship. "98 These words came to the attention of the writer shortly after the initiation of the research leading to the publication of the volumes on The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications. They have been continually before him in the attempt to provide a true and solid solution to these problems which would permit an unqualified retention of confidence in the historical reliability of Scripture as the veritable message of the God of creation to his fallen creation. The volumes are offered with a hope and a prayer that many may find in them a basis for confirmation or reaffirmation of an unwavering acceptance of the complete historicity of Scripture. Only as Scripture is thus dependable is it a fact that Jesus. Christ was the Son of God, sent to pay the price of redemption of those who believe (I John 3:10-12). 98. Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 350.