Ramses II, Nebuchadnezzar and Jeremiah
The Age of Images
Home Addtopics Submenu
Ramses II - Deutsch
The Old Kingdom
Hittite cautions
Hazor glyphs
Ramses III
Pix of Noahs Ark
The Age of Images
The Babylonian Archaeological Gap
Wesr-ma-Re, Ramesses al-Akbar, Ramses II
Abu Simbel Temple
Three Periods in Egypt
Elephantine and Ramses II
Chance Discoveries of Artifacts
Ramses - the Exodus and the canal
Who is right on Ramses II?
The Hittite/Chaldean/Babylonian Empire
Ramses Against Kadesh
The Battle of Kadesh
The Hittites of the Bible & Carchemish
Necharomes, Chief of Staff
Conclusion on Necharomes
Comparing Ramses II with Necho
Working out Some Claims
Written History Triumphs
Rahotep, Official of Ramses II
Name of the King the Babylonians Fought
The Treatment of Refugees
Nebuchadnezzar visits Ramses
A very important fact
The Historical Tablet of Nebuchadnezzar
The so-called Marriage Stele of Ramses II
The Bas-Relief of Abu Simble in Nubia
The Beth Nikki Building Inscription
Did Sheshonk squeeze the Bubastite Portal
The Red Granit Columns from Bubastis
Constructions in Heliopolis
The Interlocking Reigns
Time Line of Ramses & His Contemporaries
Other personalities of the 19th Dynasty
Food for Thought
Recent archaeological discoveries
Notes & References
Peace Treaty: 1, 2, 3
Plan 261, 87, 103

Bridging time

The Age of Images
Both, Harmhab and Ramses I (Necho I) were appointees of Assyrian kings; Harmhab of Sennacheriba in about 702 BC and Ramses I of Assurbanipal in 665 BC. 22 years after the expulsion of Harmhab by Tirhaka Ramses I was named king. The Age of ImagesHistorians have wondered why no references were found by Ramses I to Harmhab. Instead, Ramses I calls himself "Conductor of the Chariot of His Majesty", "Deputy of His Majesty in North and South", "Fanbearer of the King on His Right Hand." The similarities of these titles to those borne by Harmhab were noticed [100], and we must emphasize they were similar on account of the Assyrian backing these pharaohs had, not because they reigned in close proximity in time. Assurbanipal also elevated Ramses' I. son [Seti II - the Great, so numbered because Sethos of the three brothers should be Seti I.] to the position of co-rulership with his father, and let him reign in Arthribis. The Assyrians called his son "Nabushezibanni", but the Greek authors knew him as Psammetichos. In his own inscriptions his name is "Seti-Meri-en-Men-maat-Re", or "Seti Ptah-Maat". Seti (II) the Great built a fortress at Tell Nebi Mend known also as Riblah in the Bible.

In conventional chronology Seti I (our Seti II, the Great) is dated from 1294-1279 BC, a mere 15 years, in revised view from about 663-609 BC. A number of relief carvings from Seti have survived representing his campaigns against the Shasu(Arabs) and Syria, as well as campaigns against the Libyans and Hittites/Chaldeans. During the reign of this king in Egypt there was deep apostasy and religious confusion in Jerusalem. The years of the Jewish Exile were fast approaching. Theirs was the age of images as exemplified by the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, the golden image in the plain of Dura [Daniel 3] and the many images of Ramses II as both kings dreamed of being empire builders.

Seti making his way through Palestine
Seti the Great on his way through Palestine. "And in the 2nd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, and he was troubled in his spirit by them, and could not sleep."
"Thou, oh king, sawest, and behold a great image ... with a head of fine gold, his breast and arms of fine silver, his belly and thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay." Daniel 2:1, 31-33.

"If the greatness of an Egyptian Pharaoh be measured by the size and number of the monuments remaining to perpetuate his memory, Sethos's son and successor Ramses II would have to be adjudged the equal, or even the superior, of the proudest pyramid builders."

"Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image whose height was three score cubits and the width six cubits (60 x 6 cubites or about 90 x 9 feet); he set it up in the plain of Dura ..." [Daniel 3:1]
Could it be that this large, free standing image or pedestal with an image at the top was directly inspired by his knowledge of Necho/Ramses' II many images of himself in Egypt? To our knowledge no other Chaldean/Babylonian king before him had ever done so but Herodotus reported that in the days of Cyrus, that is just after the Babylonian empire became his, there was a solid golden statue or image of a man 15 feet high. [130]

The Babylonian Archaeological Gap in and around Jerusalem/Judah.
Archaeologists have been surprised not to find plenty of Babylonian artifacts from the time of Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Judah and his dealings with Ramses II/Necho. Do large invading armies leave artifacts behind to trace their presence? While there may be some small items lost during the march of large armies, these may be also found by people later searching for anything these armies left behind. Many times archaeologists find metal arrow tips but no such finds were made around Jerusalem from this time period until more recently [135]. This seems to agree with the view that Jerusalem was not besieged by Nebuchadnezzar but was taken quite easily. Nevertheless his troops destroyed at least the first Temple and took the population into a 70 years captivity. Babylonian presence at Jerusalem was at one time scant or wanting, not so anymore today. Assyrian presence in the area has long been evidenced by constructions, like the `open-court-design', an Assyrian stamp and cylinder seal and pottery vessels assumed to be Assyrian because the type was found at Nimrud and all of this was found at Dor. In revised view any archaeological finds from the time of Ramses II and later 19th Dynasty pharaohs, as well as finds of the Hittite/Babylonian/Chaldean King Hattusa/Nebuchadnezzar would fall into this same time frame. [150]

Wesr-ma-Re, Ramesses al-Akbar, Ramses II - the Great

The Far Flung Empire of Ramses II

From his apparent hometown of Piramesse [200] the activities of Ramses extended in the south from Nubia to the borders with Libya as the recent discovery of the remains of a limestone chapel adjacent to a miltary garrison and kitchen at Zawiyet Umm Al-Rakham located near Marsa Matruh on the western most coast of Egypt show. To the north Ramses short lived influence extended up to Jerablus/Carchemish, the land of the Hittite/Chaldeans, the place of which was first rediscovered in 1912 by Leonard Wooley and his assistant, T.E. Laurence, the later Lawrence of Arabia. [220] .

The Early Years of Ramses the Great
The earlier years of Ramses, especially the years of his more official functions with his father, are usually deduced from the names he used. According to the `Kuban Stela' Ramses had already some authority over a detachment of `a group of people', usually understood to be troops. We think it is a mistake to always think of prince/king relations strictly as coregencies. Each father-son relationship [400] was different, but that the length of the reign of Ramses could be figured by him inclusive or non-inclusive for the years of his father.

The `400 Jahr Stele' as a chronological helpful source:

1. The text of the `400 Year Stele' states "His majesty commanded to make ..." Seti had left it upon his son Ramesses to commission a memorial stele. [Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 541]
1. The following statement gives the reason for the stele, "... in the great name of his fathers ...", this quotation points back to Seti and his father, the grandfather of Ramesses II. [Ibid.]
2. The fact that Seti commissioned a stele helps us understand that he was already an older man at that time. 2. The production of a memorial stele is more a characteristic of older than that of young rulers. In the end it became a memorial for the father and grandfather of Ramses as well as connecting to an event, the establishment of the native Egyptian kings after the defeat of the Hyksos, some 400 years in the past at the time of the production of the stele. Like many fathers would, Seti sought to impress on his son a sense of history by recalling such an important event for Egypt and its royal house.
3. Seti I reigned longer than 11-15 years and so we read:
" ... thy heart is kindly toward thy father, Menmare [Seti I], the divine father ... As for him who does that which the god (Seti) did, he (Ramses) shall have the length of life which he (Seti) enjoyed." [Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 270]
3. Ramesses counted about the last 20-25 years of his father as his own and that is why he is credited today with an over 60 year reign.
4. Seti I was an elderly man when he commissioned the `400 Year Stele'.

Ramses honored his father in various ways more so than the kings before him did their fathers. In our opinion that fits better a long life of growing up together than the time allotted to Seti today. [KMT, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 51; See small limestone stela in sunk relief depicting the juvenile Ramses following his father, King Seti I. The cartouche is that of Seti, there is not yet a cartouche of his son shown. Both hold implements of their status in their hand. Also Time-Life Books: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile, Alexandria, VA 1993, p. 6; The full page image shown is the youthful Ramses in profile seated on a low cushion assuming a pensive posture with his right hand touching his lips. He still has the side lock of youth and wears the diadem with the royal cobra. The cartouche contains his royal name.]

4. How old was Ramses II when he began his sole rule?

We read in his inscriptions: "... He gave me the land while I was in the egg ... when I was installed as eldest son, as hereditary prince upon the throne of Keb." [Ibid., Sec. 267] Ramses was the `eldest/oldest' son of Seti, who had him crowned while he was still alive. However, the above citation seems to indicate that he did not become sole ruler after at least a number of his brothers were born, `eldest son', suggesting that he was not a child himself anymore - probably in his early to mid-twenties when he became pharaoh.

Granted conventionally Seti's reign lasts only a short time beyond his attested 11th year inscription but if he is given some 4 to 5 years in addition to these 11 years by conventional authors, why not 44 years? After all there was at least one Apis bull dedicated to Seti. While Egyptologists can extend the latest known `Year 3' date of the Ethiopian king Shebitku/Shabataka by considering his military deeds, they seemingly have not tried to do the same with respect to Seti the Great. And so the comment, "So short a reign is known to be impossible. ... Thus ... we are obliged to assign a 12-year reign to Shebitku." [500]

After all any extension of Seti's reign beyond 11 years is only based on personal views. Basically it appears improbable that a king, of the stature of Seti, the many campaigns he conducted and perhaps even wars he fought, would not have sought for a coregent in case of his demise. The fact that Ramses went on distant military campaigns very early in his reign seems to indicate that he had military training and the backing of the leading officers for some time before he became pharaoh, succeeding his father. We know that one of his commanders on the Western Front was a man named Nebre. It is from his first campaign that we find the only written words of Ramses II quoted through his messengers outside the borders of Egypt. [KMT, Vol. 15, Fall 2004, p. 28.]

"What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not." [2.Chronikles 35:21]

He seems to come across as a king who had wished no ill on Judah just like he does later on when he roots for them in the peace treaty with Hattusilis/Nebuchadnezzar. But he also recalls events in `Retenu' when he had it written:

Abu Simbel Temple

"... When his majesty arrives in the countries, he overthrows myriads; he desolates them. He has - Retenu, slaying their chiefs." "... his mighty sword, slaying `H'-rw', wasting Retenu (`Rtnw'), which his sword overthrew." [`Records', Vol. III, Sec. 451, 457; Breasted translated `hrw' as `Kharu', Max Müller as `Haru' ; For a drawn image what the temple of Abu Simbel looked like in 1815 see P. Usick, `William John Bankes' in KMT, Vol. 14, p. 65-(66)-69.]

"He smote the chiefs of the Retennu with his valiant sword." [E. Naville, `Bubastis', p. 39]

Even so some exaggeration is discernible in such statements, that he had some successes in `Retenu/ Rezenu/ Palestine/ Israel' is not without reason and so the Judean king Josiah died at the hand of an Egyptian archer about 609/608 BC. In the first part of the above quotation, the hyphen after `He has' is there in the original and Breasted does not explain it. He mentions a `possible lacuna' 2 sentences back but not in the here quoted sentence. Therefore it may be that the reason for the hyphen is there in the original or we assume that there was a separation in the hieroglyphics due to a picture carving and the sentence continues on the other side of the picture. It appears he wrote `He has Retenu ...', a phrase however not repeated elsewhere.

After the death of Josiah the nobility attempted to enthrone Jehoahaz but Pharahoh chose his brother Eliakim to be the next king changing his name to Jehoiakim. A tribute of 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold was levied upon the country and Jehoahaz was exiled to Egypt where he died, 2.Kings 23:34; 2.Chronicles 36:4; Jeremiah 22:10-12.

Three Periods when Jews, Israelites and Judahites Settled in Egypt

  1. The 35 year period of unrest from the time of the Syrian-Ephraimite War of 735 BC until the siege of Jersualem in 701 BC.
  2. The middle of the 7th century BC when Manasseh joined Egypt in an attempt to throw Assyrian rule over his kingdom.
  3. the ca. 30 year period between the crowning of Jehoiakim in 609 BC and the escape to Egypt led by Johanan b. Kareah after the assassination of the governor Gedaliah b. Ahikam, Jeremiah 41-43.

Community Formations and Urbanization in the New Kingdom Period

The period described as the centralized New Kingdom Period experienced large increases in populations as a whole. Primarily these centered around Memphis, Tanis, Herakleopolis and Thebes. These immigrants formed tight knit communities which provided skilled workers in textiles, glass making, translators, scribes, seamen, merchants and mercenaries.

Elephantine and Ramses II

According to information Ramses II artifacts were also found at Elephantine. Among these are:

  1. the upper part of a colossal granite statue of Ramses holding the flail and crook, the royal insignia, and wearing the double crown. It comes from the temple of Khnum on the Island of Elephantine. [T.G.H. James, `Ramses II', p. 125, British Museum EA67]
  2. Anukis, "lady of Elephantine", one of the cataract deities, suckles Ramses II, who is not shown as a child. He is "the Great King, lord of the Two Lands". [Ibid., p. 272]
  3. Blocks of the time of Ramses II were found at Elephantine. [Friedrich Junge, `Elephantine XI. Funde und Bauteile', 1.-7. Kampagne, 1969-1976. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 49. Mainz, 1987]
  4. In a poem of the Battle of Kadesh we find this line, "I have erected thee high pylons and stood up their tall flagpoles, I have brought to thee obelisks of Elephantine, where I myself was the burden bearer!" [Translated from the German, "Ich habe dir hohe Pylone erbaut und dir selber ihre Flaggenmasten aufgestellt, ich habe dir Obelisken aus Elephantine gebracht, wobei ich selber den Steinträger spielte!";

Conclusion: We believe this evidence is eloquent enough that during the time of Ramses II/Necho the Elephantine Island was a place of much activity and fits the background of its history attributed to the 26th Dynasty already in 19th Dynasty times.

Chance Discoveries of Artifacts

Found in the 1990's from the time of Ramses II, perhaps when he was on his way to Kadesh/Jerablus/Carchemish, a carnelian scarab, issued to honor Thutmosis III, was found just north of Mt. Ebal located between Samaria and Shechem. The scarab shows deeply engraved at the top a salamander, Egyptian symbol of abundance, and on the damaged left side a kneeling bow man whose weapon has the unintentional appearance of the modern letter `B'. On the right side is the cartouche of Thutmose III.

Ramses - the Exodus and the canal

Years ago when the discipline of archaeology first began, Ramses II was regarded by most as the pharaoh under whom the Israelites worked as slave laborers constructing his edifices. The fact that many bricks were found in the delta area stamped with his name further contributed in identifying Ramses II [800] as the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Brick with cartouche of Ramses II - Go see cartouche of Ramses III The Israelites built the treasure city of Pi-Ramses. No doubt besides being brick layers many Israelites were skilled in most other trades for they had a period of economic successes giving rise to jealousy of the natives. At first glance Ramses II did seem to be a likely candidate for this role. However, he never claimed to have forced any foreign nation into slave labor. There is no hint that would cause us to place the Israelites into Egypt at his time and there are no inscriptions to support it. But most of all there is no indication whatsoever that a devastating event like the Ten Plagues and the Exodus, resulting in the destruction of his army occurred during his life time or any of the pharaohs before him, of the 18th dynasty. We have their mummies. Most of them died at a mature age. Historical evidence was found which states that Ramses II had built a canal to connect the Mediterranean with the Red Sea. Since Herodotus credits pharaoh Necho with this feat a discussion ensued on who was the first to build this canal. This Greek author on History, never talks about a Pharaoh named Ramses since they called him Necho. Furthermore, the recent discovery of the likely site where the Persian army perished in 525 BC, tends to vindicate Herodotus and points to the doubters as uninformed. Modern historians argued against Herodotus' statement [900].

In the end it was concluded that Ramses II built the canal and that Necho (Gr. Nexa, Septuag. 2.Chr. 36:4; Jer. 26:2) finished what Ramses had begun. As a result of this, all the inscriptions of Egypt were searched to find out who this pharaoh Necho actually was, for this name is known only from Greek and Hebrew sources. The winner was one Nekau-Wehemibre [1000] of whom precious little is known and there is no solid evidence that he ever was an enthroned king. Seal of Nekau/Necho The only cartouche of Wehemibre does look rather mediocre for a famous warrior king he was supposed to have been. He does not claim any great deeds we would expect if he in fact was Pharaoh Necho of the book of Jeremiah. Cartouche of Wahemibre, suggested to have been Pharaoh Necho - a rather mediocre appearing cartouche for a famous king like Necho. We just can't believe this identification represents the king who won a war far away from the borders of his country against a bonified, large city, while no hard proof exists for famous King Ramses II to have won his campaign against little Riblah.[1100]

E.W.Budge wrote: "He [Necho] gave orders for fleets of triremes to be built for him, both in the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. In order to give these vessels the opportunity of being employed in both seas, he conceived of connecting them by means of a canal, which he intended to join the old canal that was already in existence in the days of Ramses II." [1200]

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, Necho [Ramses II] used his own people for his construction projects.

"It was Necos who began the construction of the canal to the Arabian gulf, a work afterwards completed by Darius the Persian." [1400]

Who is right on Ramses II/Necho, E.A.W.Budge or Herodotus?
According to conventional chronology it depends on whom you would rather believe; according to the revised chronology there is no conflict because Ramses II and Necho I are the same person. [1600] But because of placing Ramses II and all other pharaohs into earlier time slots the chronology of Egypt became very distorted, often resulting in the abandonment of the Greek writers and the scriptural account as trustworthy.

Because historians interpreted the lists of dynasties as found in the unoriginal writings of Manetho through Josephus, Eusebius and Africanus as being strictly successive in nature earlier scholars began to frame the overall history of Egypt on a weak foundation. There is plenty of evidence that there was extensive overlapping of dynasties as for example the 13th having preceded, coexisted with and outlasted the 12th dynasty. Similarly the 21st dynasty coexisted with the Persian (27th) dynasty, the names of whose kings are not given by Manetho, as we shall still discuss. Of course we realize by now that in our revision pharaoh Ramses II and Necho I are one and the same person.

Ramses II was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, also known as Hattusilis whose father was Nabonidus, also known as Mursilis of the so-called Hittite empire. This was the age of dreaming about empires by Nebuchadnezzar, as we learn from the writings of the prophet Daniel, and by Ramses II, as we see it cut in stones in many of his monuments. Nebukadnezzar was the proud builder of the gates `The Beautiful', `Bit-Zida' and `Bit-Saggatu' which he caused to be made as "brilliant as the sun." [WGL, `Babylonian and Assyrian Literature', Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, Column II, 51-53, p. 254] Like many ancient battles the future of world history had arrived at a cross road in the beginning of their reign. To attribute the Chaldean empire to the Hittites was an unfortunate misnomer arising out of a distorted world view at the turn of the 19th Century. How the word `Hittites' was derived out of `Hatti' by conventional historians is still another problem.

Perhaps another clue as to the later chronology for Ramses II may be derived from the facts found at Gebal Barkal in 1916.

"When the Harvard Boston Expedition of Dows Dunham, W.G. Kemp and G.A. Reisner began work at Gebal Barkal from 1/24 to 4/24, 1916, the area of the temples under the `western' cliff seemed to be in a hopeless condition of decay and destruction. ... The great temple of Amun was manifestly in its day the most important monument at Gebel Barkal. It was the source of the famous stelae which at the time of our first expedition constituted almost the only material for the history of Ethiopia, and was undoubtedly the great national temple to which the inscriptions of the stelae contain so many references.

On removing the Meroitic floor, the underlying stratum was found to be stratified ... The group of statues fragments lay partly on the white debris over the pavement and partly in this trough. ... The insciptions on the statues gave the names of an Egyptian governor of Kush, named Dhutmose, and of the Ethiopian kings Tirhaqa, Senkamanseken, Anlaman, and Aspalta. There was also a torso with the name of an Ethiopian queen, Amanmalenra. ... A similar heap of fragments ... added the name of Tanutaman to the list. The total number of statues was 11, of which the statuette of Dhutmose was only a fragment, but of the others five were practically complete and five were complete except for the heads. ... Near the second group there was part of an obelisk of Atlanarsa, whose name is also borne by the obelisk in the Cairo Museum, by an altar found by Lepsius and by another found by us. To this group must be added the colossal grey granite statue found by Dr. Budge under the portico of B.700 (probably representing Atlanarsa), the two colossal statues on the Island of Argo, the unfinished statue in the Tombos quarry, and the headless statue of Amtalqa found by Lepsius at Merawi. ...

To sum up, the deposit of B.500 belongs clearly to the New Empire, but is not as a whole identical with any known Egyptian deposit. In its bronze models and in the absence of crude mortars, it resembles the deposits of the 18th Dynasty, but differs from them in its pottery. In the saucers and jars it presents some resemblance to the deposits of Ramses II, Tawosret, and Siptah, but differs from them in its bronze models and in the absence of mortars and of certain forms of pottery. Thus a period is indicated between Amenophis III and Ramses II. Unfortunately, as explained above, I was unable to find any record of deposits of this period. The kings who might have built at Barkal are Tutankhamun, Haremhab, and Sethos I.

Now the temple B.500 is certainly earlier than its `southern' chapel, which was built by Ramses II." (Next in the report follows weak, assumed evidence) "As the peculiar masonry and the type of construction are the same in both chapel and temple, it is clear that the two were built by the same school of workmen, probably even by the same generation. Less than 25 years intervened between the end of the reign of Haremhab and the beginning of the reign of Ramses II. Even Tutankhamun reigned less than 70 years before Ramses II, and we know that he sent viceroys to Napata. Thus B.500- first may have been built as early as the reign of Tutankhamun, but it seems to be more probable that it was built by Haremhab or Sethos I. Any more conclusion is for the moment beyond the evidence. [JEA, Vol. VI, 1917, p. 213-227]

Comments: The author underscores the preset ideas of chronology at the time had to be vindicated in his excavation report which is a fine example of the interweaving of fact with fiction as his conclusion part demonstrates, which is based on plans, masonry and mortar but not inscriptions stating such links. What he doesn't repeat is that the columns were different. "They were built of segments of drum and were round, not many sided like those of 506." Therefore, we have here evidence which seems to have similarities and dissimilarities. Which one of these is more important is not certain and therefore, we would suggest, the evidence derived from the mentioned items is at best inconclusive. What the paper does seem to underscore is that Ramses II belongs into the time after the Ethiopian Dynasty or is at least close in time.

Much has been made on the supposed 67 year reign of Ramses. Conventional historians make much of the conditions of his teeth at death, but wearing out of teeth is heavily influenced by the diet over a life time and therefore is based on assumptions. Another, more important indicator is the degree of ossification of the articulated junction of the ribs to the sternum and these reveal Ramses to have died at a much younger age than in his nineties. As a person ages the ribs will become fused to the sternum losing their cartilage. The degree of fusion then becomes an indicator of age not depending on factors like diet. In addition to these considerations, the average life span of Egyptian men absolutely seems to forbid such a long life span at this time in history as currently assigned to this king.[1800] His reign was long because he counts it from his childhood on but from the day of his sole rule he reigned only some 39 years. It was Dr. Rosalie David of Manchester University who examined the mummy of Ramses and noted his fat clogged arteries, indicating that he died of a massive heart attack.

The Hittite/Chaldean/Babylonian Empire - Ramses II contemporary with the Lydian Kings!

Searching the Assyrian war annals scholars found references to the Hatti, already so known from the war annals of Thutmose III in a few lines only, the el Amarna letters frequently, and the annals of Seti and Ramses III, extensively. In Egyptian records from Thutmose III they found references to the Kheta. In a double identification the Kheta were thought to be the Hatti of Assyrian records and the Hittites of the Scriptures. When the first tablets of Boghazkoi were studied scholars thought that eight languages were represented all using cuneiform signs. One of these languages was represented more often than others and it was thought to be the language of the Hittites and from then on referred to by that name. F.Hrozny, a Czechoslovakian cuneiformist, was able to decipher this language. Only later it was found to be called `Neshili' in the texts themselves. It was thought to be an Indo-European language but in no text was it referred to as Hatti or Hittite.

When one more language was decoded it was found to be called Khattili in the texts, the name we know from the Egyptian documents. But it was too late to rename the first decoded language and the newly discovered one was called Hattish. In essence then the first language translated is Neshili and the second one is Hittite, Khattili or Hattish, the apparent main language of the Hittite empire. But in history books Hittite should be regarded as Neshili. Khattili is a rich language; in its inflections it employs prefixes but not suffixes; it is not Indo-European and bears no recognizable relation to any known linguistic group. Khattili was used in the palace and in temple services, for litanies, prayers, songs, and exorcisms. Four or five other languages were read by the decipherers in the cuneiform tablets and named appropriately. It appears that the site where these tablets were found, Hattusas (Boghazkoi), was a capital with many international connections.

Removing the historical scene to where it belongs, the seventh and sixth centuries BC, we wonder which of these languages is Chaldean, Phrygian, Lydian, Median, and by chance Etruscan. The royal annals found at Boghazkoi reveal a close relation to the Assyrian royal annals of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Assurbanipal of the seventh century BC.[2000]

Assyrian justice, as far as civil laws were concerned, had much in common with the civil laws of the Boghazkoi archives. The "Hittites" had in common with the Babylonians scholarly works, hymns, writings based on historical traditions, vocabularies, and other literary works.[2200]

The Assyrian empire was supposed to have begun after the "Hittite" empire. But in some ways the "Hittites" were more advanced than the Assyrians, and consequently it is assumed that the Assyrians regressed culturally as compared to the "Hittites".

The goal of Ramses was not the rather small, fortified town of Riblah alongside the Orontes River. Riblah would later figure as a military station for the Hittite/Babylonian army. The national enemies he encountered were a very powerful force, they won the conflict. Riblah could not contain such a nation. They had a vast `Hinterland' to draw their people from, a situation well explained once we put this war into the time where it belongs.

We should also realize that the Hittites of the Bible are not the same as the Hittites of Yazilikaya and Boghazkeui [Hattushash]. The real Hittite empire is that of the Chaldeans which had its early beginnings in Central Turkey at Hattushah/Bogazkoi some 300 miles NNW of Carchemish. These were the years before the city of Babylon became the capital for Nebuchadnezzar. When Nabonidus died, his oldest son Nergil became the `Great King' of Babylon. Nergil made his brother Nebuchadnezzar general of the army.

"My brother Nirgal set on the throne of his father, and I came before his face the commander of the army ... My brother ... let me preside over the upper land (Assyria and the land of the Hittites) under my rule." [The Autobiography of Nebuchadnezzar, Sec. 4]

"The princess of Hatti-land beyond the river Euphrates to the west over whom I exercised lord-ship." [Inscription #17]

"... still in the prime of life, and sent against the rebel, Nebuchadnezzar engaged and defeated the latter in a pitched battle, and placed the district under Babylonian rule." [Josephus, `Against Apion', Book I, Sec. 19]

These quotations show that Babylon was more than the region around the city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates. It included also parts of Assyria and Asia Minor.

Ramses Against Kadesh
Ramses' II war against Kadesh, was the same war that pharaoh Necho waged against the holy city of Carchemish where young general Nebuchadnezzar opposed and routed him.[2600]

"At Jerablis, the ancient Carchemish on the Euphrates, a number
of Hittite inscriptions have been discovered, and the inscribed
stones have been secured for the British Museum."

When archaeologists therefore found the Hittite (Chaldean) version of the peace treaty between Ramses II [3000] and Hattusas at Bogazkoi in a surprisingly late strata, it was not an inversion of the strata but an indication that he really did live at that time. [3200] The Akkadian version of this peace treaty was signed by Hattusilis, son of Mursilis, grandson of Subbiluliumas. So many times archaeologists will explore a stratum of a later epoch and then come unexpectedly upon an Egyptian artifact of a much earlier pharaoh and either date the whole layer to that period or else explain it away by calling it intrusive or some such thing when instead it represents a check on their data proving their Egyptian chronology to be unreliable. This has happened over and over again.[3400]

There was a difficulty of a stratigraphic nature: the remains among which the tablets were found indicated a much more recent period than the age of these documents. But the existence of the treaty with Ramses II precluded even a consideration of the conflicting data, and a chronological place in accord with the time of Ramses II was allotted to Hattusilis, the king of Hatti, and to the entire period. [3600] Other famous debates among leading scholars as a result of disagreements on Egyptian chronology were those of R. Dussaud and W. Spiegelberg.[3800]

There were disagreements among art experts and epigraphists, historians and all of them. Usually these disagreements were of a time span of around 500 - 600 years. Also note instances of bewilderment among archaeologists when chronologically irreconcilable discoveries were made as for example the many victory stela of Ramses II found in Syria after the discovery of the tomb of Ahiram.[4000] And so it was that we read, "The results of excavations at Byblos have shown a curious fact which has been a source of discussion among scholars. In the excavated area at Byblos there is a complete absence of stratified levels of the Iron Age, that is the period of 1200-600 BC."[4200] During this period, Byblos was supposedly a thriving commercial center.

How is it that the Greek authors from Homer to Herodotus to Strabo, all of them natives of Asia Minor, never heard of the Hittites but described the land where the monuments were found as that of the Chaldeans?[4400] And why do Greek sculptures with Persian motifs found in Arslan Tash have Hittite signs on them? Or better, why would coins of the Commogene kings on the western side of the Euphrates be minted with "Hittite" royal titles, and this in the days of emperor Vespasian, when the Hittite empire was supposed to have been dead for 1300 years, and no Greek or Roman ever heard of their existence? But the Chaldeans, especially as a class of priests, as Greek and Roman authors testify, were still present in Commogene and in Asia Minor till at least 100 AD.[4600]

These and other striking facts should prepare us to read about the Hittites with much more caution.

Conclusions: Retrogression of cultural achievements, the `Dark Age' of Greece and Anatolia were the result of dependence on conventional Egyptian chronology which we find in need to be dramatically revised.[4800]

The Battle of Kadesh For more click Here!

Why did Ramses march upon `Kadesh/Carchemish'? The last Assyrian king Assuruballit (II) (611-605 BC) was put under siege by Nebuchadnezzar in Niniveh before the city was destroyed by 606 BC and the Assyrian empire came to an end.[4802] Ramses probably planned to attack Carchemish to give indirect aid to the Assyrian king.

Located on the west bank of the Euphrates River Ramses thought he neededThe fortress bowl, first court, southern wall, Abydos to encircle the city Qadesh/Carchemish only from the north, west and south since the river was a natural barrier toward the east. However, the king of the city was prepared and his army waited outside the walls for the advancing but now widely separated Egyptian troops. Why Ramses proceeded on this march knowing full well that his army was not in a position to be at the ready in their pre-planned attack locations is nothing short of amazing and not easily explained in either the conventional or revised account. So it happened then that the initiative of the battle was assumed by his enemy and Ramses never regained a strategic advantage but fled leaving his troops behind to fend for themselves.

For images of the `Battle of Kadesh' see TGH James, `Ramses II', 2002 and an article by Gonzalo M. Sanchez, MD, `Injuries in the Battle of Kadesh' in KMT, Spring 2003, Vol. 14, p. 58ff.

The best support for our contention that Ramses II belongs into the late 7th century BC from the account of his war with the chief of Kheta is how he got to Kadesh. Three successive points on the map, all within a 50 mile line to Carchemish, are mentioned in Ramses inscriptions.

They are:            Kadesh () = Carchaemish, Jerablus on the
			    / 20 miles          Euphrates  (p-r-n-t)
	         Shabtuna () = Hierapolis of today Vol. III, Sec. 310
	                  / ~15 miles
	       Arinama  () = Arima Vol. III, Sec. 310
	                / ~10 miles
	          Baw () = Al Bab of today, Vol. III, Sec. 340.  For a map see also
A.H. Sayce, `Notes on an Unexplored District in Northern Syria' in
Proceedings of Bibl. Arch., June 14, 1911, p. 172.

Few discuss these city names as points on a map, two of them which even today retained their old name. This is an indication that many conventional historians do not seem to realize their importance. Hans Goedicke commented on this as follows:

"The intensive nature of this political deliberation is further demonstrated by the continuation of the pictorial record. According to it, the main decision of the staff meeting was the dispatch of the `vizier to hurry on the army of His Majesty as they marched on the road to the south of the town of Shabtuna so as to bring them to where His Majesty was.' Once the precarious situation of Ramesses II with the army corps of Amun became apparent, the urgent assembly of the entire force was the next logical step. It was divided into four brigades, which moved separately. For logistical reasons, especially questions of quartering and supply, but also for the purpose of `pacification', I have previously argued that it is likely that the advance covered both sides of the Orontes. [Of course that is conventional speculation.] ... This suggests that the brigades moved in a day's distance ..." [5000]

Interpretations of the site Next Goedicke's conclusions, based on a faulty geographical location, bring out his concerns how the 2,500 Hittite chariots, manned with 3 soldiers pulled by 2 horses could cross a ford quickly enough to confront Ramses. As our drawing shows, where red signifies the Egyptian and blue the Hittite forces, he may not have crossed a river bed at all, eliminating that concern.
[Drawing based on a book published in 1754. Alexander Drummond, `Travels ... as Far as the Banks of the Euphrates', (London, 1754); the map is reproduced in Maspero's `History of Egypt', and the insert in Hogarth, `Carchemish', Plt. 1, p. 4]

Carchemish was a center of the Chaldean/Babylonian world in the late 7th century BC. We know Carchemish was a center of Chaldean culture just from the fact that Nebuchadnezzar repulsed here the Egyptian attack of Pharaoh Necho in 609 BC. In revised view Hattusilis was another name for Nebuchadnezzar and Necho for Ramses II.

Citadel of Carchemish from the north The majestic Euphrates River, truly a significant barrier to the escape of Ramesses troops. Both, the Euphrates and Sadjur Creek surrounded Carchemish on 2 or e sides, a situation not found at Riblah. Modern historians arbitrary choice of calling the people who inhabited these regions at that time `Hittites' is false in revised view.
The Hittites of the Bible have nothing to do with the Hittites of Yazilikaya/Boghazkoi/Carchemish.

The outcome of the battle was a defeat for Ramses. Similar to an Egyptian relief showing the king clutching Nubian, Libyan, and Syrian prisoners by their hair, Ramses wields Carchemish from the north-west an ax to dispatch them. Egyptian reliefs, like a limestone fragment from Memphis, proclaim only victories, never defeats. Such painted propaganda had the undeviating purpose to ensure loyalty and inspire fear. Such are the marks of despotism. [5190]

After the defeat of Ramses, textual evidence seems to indicate that even his royal wife, presumably Neferure, had accompanied him to battle. [5200] And so it was that the British archaeological team including Leonard Wooley found a fragment of a stone mace bearing the cartouche of Ramses II inside of Carchemish.

"The Lower Palace bordered the broad road that led to the Water-Gate and the Euphrates bank. Its facade, looking approximately south, faced on but was not quite parallel with the Herald's Wall and its prolongation past the `Hilani' to the Water-Gate, so that at the western end the distance from the Palace front to the Herald's Wall was a little more than 63 meters, a wide open space which we may imagine to have been the ceremonial center of the town. The Palace, or the part of it which concerns us, was built in terraces up the slope of the Acropolis mound; but just before the Herald's Wall turned to make the King's Gate, a great wing of the Palace (the Temple) ran out over the flat ground at the mound's foot leaving between it and the Herald's Wall a roadway 15 meters wide. Against this wing the lower terrace wall of the Palace was broken by a monumental staircase which led up the slope to the building on the top of the Acropolis. The main part, the Upper Palace, now totally destroyed, presumably stood upon the mound's summit. ... Certainly there were found here, between the stairs and the Water-Gate, numerous fragments of sculpture; most of them were in the `Water-Gate' style or in that of the Herald's Wall, so that the passage from the river to the Palace stairs may well have been adorned on either side with reliefs of the Middle Hittite period. Amongst the very few objects other than sculptured or inscribed fragments found here were a stone mace-head bearing the cartouche of one of the Ramessides, probably Ramses II and part of a terra-cotta cone or cylinder inscribed in Hittite hieroglyphics; both would probably have come from a palace or official building." [Hogarth, Thompson & Wooley, `Carchemish', Part III, p. 158, 159. Pt. 71c.]

While Ramses artifacts were found at Carchemish, none were found at Riblah. At Carchemish [5300] the troops of Nebuchadnezzar pursued the fleeing Egyptians and entered into Judea. Because the Jewish zealots, still trusting in the might of pharaoh, their country and Jerusalem, were now doomed. The Hittite/Chaldean troops made Riblah into their fortress and center of administration.

We shall discuss more of the content of the peace treaty between Ramses II and Hattusilis whose purpose it was to make an end of hostilities between their two lands. The name of one of the two legates is given in the treaty text itself:

"Copy of the silver tablet, which the great chief of Kheta, Khetasar (H-t-s-r) caused to be brought to Pharaoh, L.P.H., by the head of his messenger, Terteseb (T-r-ty-s-bw), and his messenger, Ramose, to crave peace from the majesty of Ramses II, the Bull of rulers, making his boundary as far as he desires in every land."[5400]

Necharomes/Netjerwymes, chief of staff for Ramses II

Recently the tomb of the chief of staff of Ramses II was found in a tomb near Netjerwhymes, Necharomes Saqqara with his name and image in situ. The name `Necharomes (`nTr.w-ms' going by sound') itself, now also written as `Necheruymes' or `Netjerwymes' in French (the basic consonants `nchrms' remain the same), seems intriguing. The French variant in spelling using `tj/Netje' is not really unlike `ch/Neche' in transliteration. What is more important is to find the hieroglyphics for the name and consider how the Greeks would transliterate his name turning it into `Nekau' or `Neco'. However, it could be that the Greeks borrowed the word (Niku) from the Assyrian Annals of Assurbanipal. The discoverer, Alain Zivie', wrote, "Inside the tomb we found the envoy's name inscribed on the walls, though its exact spelling remains unclear." [National Geographic, October 2002, p. 29]

Necharomes Could it be made up of `Necha' like in `Necho' and `romes' like in `ramse(s)', `Necharomes' or `Nech(a)Ramose', see here? Necharomes(presumed glyphs) According to Gaballah Ali Gaballah: "He could have been a member of a delegation sent by Ramses II to the Hittites to conclude a peace treaty." - Gaballah also said "Necharomes was also an administrative supervisor of the area of Memphis and of the Treasury."

Did the chief of staff name himself after the king under whom he served using his Egyptian and Greek name? Apparently before this treaty was concluded, his name was `Ramose', toward the end of his life he changed it to `Necharomes', including the name of his pharaoh as the Greeks and Hebrews called him. As the excellent diplomat of his king he certainly had the right to give himself a name recognizable world wide in his days. If so, that would be a wonderful confirmation of our point that Ramses II was Pharaoh Necho of the Greek and Hebrew authors. The least piece of information we learn from the tomb of Necharomes would be that the name `Necho' was in use in the days of Ramses II. Even if the names of Ramses himself do not contain the part `Neco', one of his officials apparently did. We recall that Seti the Great/Psammetichus, father of Ramses II/Necho II [5500] was an admirer of the Greeks.

Other officials in the days of Ramses II included `Pa-ur', the well known governor of Thebes whose name was found in the tomb of Ramses at Deir-el-Medinet (Thebes). We must also remember KV5, the burial place of at least two and perhaps as many as eleven sons of Ramses II. [5550]

Part of the responsibility of websites on archaeology may be to safeguard information which could become lost especially if it is of this nature.

The `American Society of Oriental Research', Summer 2000 Vol. 50, Number 2 said it this way:

"Statues of a pharaoh thought to be Ramses II and an ancient cow goddess, their colors intact, have been discovered in a hidden chamber at a necropolis south of Cairo. The meter-high statue of the king and the taller sculpture of Hathor, goddess of love and happiness and guardian of cemeteries, were found in a sealed room beneath the Saqqara funeral chapel of Ramses II chief treasurer, Necheruymes." [Source: Agency France Press, June 10, 2000 (emphasize ours); www.asor.org/pubs/news/50_2.pdf]
In the beginning more websites carried this news item, today information about this find is dwindling. We have the images which were then provided. Such a discovery should be published and discussed, however, instead it seems to be put under the shelf. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. We regard the original announcement as free of preconceived ideas.


The fact that the name Necho/Necharomes is now attested from the time of Ramses II together with the fact that the name of feather crown wearing soldiers of the time of Ramses III as represented at Medinet Habu was Prstt/Peresett indicates that Ramses II was indeed Pharaoh Necho and Ramses III was fighting the Persians rather than the Philistines. We believe these twin facts demolish conventional chronology for those who are able to read.

Was one of the chiefs of Nebuchadnezzar this Terteseb whose name we read above? Presumably this `Terteseb' would have been the counterpart to Ramose.

The names of Nebuchadnezzar's chiefs are: Nergal-Sharezer, Sarsechim, Rabsaris. Was Terteseb one of them? [5600]

The treaty has an "oath and curse" clause. `Gods' of many places are invoked to keep vigilance over the treaty and to punish those who would violate it. More importantly for our purposes in the list of these local gods and goddesses, the goddess of Tyre is followed by the `goddess of Dan.' But in the days before the conquest of Dan by the Danites, in the time of the judges, that place was called `Laish', [5700] and it was Jeroboam who built a temple there. The name of a place called Dan in a treaty of RamsesII, presumably of the first half of the 13th century BC, sounds like an anachronism.[5800]

What is here interpreted as Tyre is presumably `D y-y-t-hy-r- ry' [5900] and Dan is `D-y-n --' or `D-n---- nw-ty'. The reading of Breasted appears to be forced, placing this treaty into its correct time frame allows for a reading of Tyre and Dan.

Comparing the Battle of Kadesh with the Battle of Carchemish - Pharaoh Ramses II with Pharaoh Necho and Nebuchadnezzar

In this comparison we show the account of two independent ancient sources and what they have to say about the famous battle of Carchemish fought between the Egyptians and the Hittites or was it the Egyptians and the Chaldean/Babylonians?
The divisions of Amon, Re, Ptah and Sutekh on their way to Carchemish
Hebrew sources about pharaoh Necho Egyptian sources about Ramses II
1. Pharaoh carries war into Palestine and Syria. [2.Kings 23:29]
Four years after the first invasion of Palestine by pharaoh Necho. [2.Chronicles 35:20; 2. Chronicles 36:2.4; Jeremiah 46:2]
"The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah the prophet against ... Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt ... which Nebuchadnezzar smote in the 4th year of Jehoiakim..."
The king of Juda before Jehoiakim was king Josiah (640-609 BC) who died by an arrow shot through him by the archers of Pharaoh Necho on his first campaign. Therefore the fourth year of Jehoiakim is four years after this first encounter (609 BC) between an Egyptian army and a Judean king; but this time the contenders were Necho/Ramses II and Hattusilis/Nebuchadnezzar, the chief of Kadesh/Carchemish, placing it into 605 BC.
Pharaoh reached the North of Syria & established an outpost at Riblah in the land of Hamath. That he holds captives here indicates Riblah was going to be far behind the lines of his primary goal. From this campaign he brought back a captain of the royal house of Palestine and imposed tribute on the land. [2.Kings 23:33-35; 2.Chronicles 36:3, 4 ]
1. Four years after the first invasion of Palestine by pharaoh Ramses II.
"Ramses II's first campaign was directed along the Phoenician coast"
during which he had the relief carving at Nahr el Kalb (just north of Beirut, Lebanon) made next to that of the Assyrian King Esarhaddon "in his fourth year. Another stela, dated `year 2' is called uncertain by Lepsius, and is probably to be read `year 10;' for the first is clearly 4; and there was but one campaign before the `year 5' against Kadesh."
[Stele of the 2nd year at Nahr-el-Kelb; `Annals'; `Poem of Pentaur'; Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 297]
"Year 2, 11th month, 26th day, under the majesty of Ramses II, beloved of Amon-Re, king of gods, and Khnum, lord of the cataract region. ... He has overthrown myriads in the space of a moment ... He has crushed the foreigners of the north, the Temeh have fallen for fear of him, the Asiatics are anxious for breath from him, who sends Egypt on campaigns..."
[Assuan stela; Brestead, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 478, 479; Obelisk at Tanis]
2. By the river Euphrates in Carchemish.' [Jeremiah 46:2] "... against the army of Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebukadnezzar ..." 2. `In the land of Khatti, Nahrin [Naharaim], Carchemish, Kedy, the land of Kadesh.' [Poem of Pentaur] "Beginning of the victory of King Ramses II ... which he achieved in the land of Kheta and Naharin ... Arvad ... Pedes ... Derden ... Mesa ... Kelekesh ... Carchemish" [JBREA, `Records', Sec. 306]
3. Near a fortress, surrounded on all sides by water; the fortress as shown on the Balawat Gate at Niniveh, has a double wall and moats; it projects into a large stream; nearby is a sacred lake. [The description and plans of the Carchemish excavation.] City of Carchemish from the walls of Niniveh 3. Near a fortress, surrounded on all sides by water; the City of Kadesh from Egyptian monuments fortress has a double wall and moats; it projects into a large stream; nearby is a sacred lake. [The four plans drawn on the walls of Karnak.
Click on the image to see the hieroglyphic inscription of the largest tower in the moat. Compare corbulated fortress wall of Carchemish at Niniveh with Kadesh Compare the Fortresses crown of Qodesh with the fortress of Carchemish as shown at the Balawat Gate at Niniveh. Both show typical pointed bricks.
Position More Map!
4. Carchemish is north of Bab. Compare maps. [`Lands of the Bible Today', National Geographic, Washington 1967; Edited for better visibility.]
Map to Carchemish - For educational purposes only. We have here 2 place names, Baw and Arima, representing successive points on the map on the way from Aleppo to Jerablus (Carchemish).
In the past various cursory attempts were made to locate Arima, as far as we know, without success so far. Click on `Bab' and you will see two images described as of Al Bab in northern Syria. Today this region is described as treeless but Leonard Wooley mentions that it had forested areas until the 17th century of our era. [L. Wooley, `Carchemish', Pt. 2, pp. 33-34]

4. The field of battle was north of Baw.
See Karnak inscriptions. "Now the division of Re and the division of Ptah ... were in the forest of `bwy' (Baw)" [JBREA, Vol. III, Sec. 340; Breasted vocalizes `Bewey' in Records and `Baui' in `The Battle of Kadesh'.]
The records of Ramses state that the divisions of Ptah and Sutekh were "to the south of the town of Aronama (r-n-m) (Aranami)." [Ibid., Sec. 310] This is the town of Arima of today.
[Originally this town was called `the city of Arame', the name of the king whose capital it was in the days of Shalmaneser III. Shalmaneser wrote during a campaign in his 10th year: "Against the cities of Aarame I drew near. Arne, his royal city, I captured."
(Luckenbill, `Records of Assyria', Vol. I, Sec. 567; A. Gardiner, `Egyptian Grammar', London, 1927, pp. 52-53]
5. Cities were allied with pharaoh's adversaries. `The army of the Syrians' warring on the side of the Chaldean (Babylonian) army. [Jeremiah 35:11]
"... when Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and ... the Syrians..."
5. `Armies of the Syrian cities' on the side of the army of Hatti. "When his majesty went to look behind him, he found 2,500 chariotry surrounding him, in his way out, being all the youth of the wretched Kheta, together with its numerous allied countries, from Arvad, Mesa, Pedes, Keshkesh ... Aleppo ... Kadesh ... Luka" [JBREA, Sec. 312]
Who did Ramses fight against? The Hittites? Or was it the Hattiites? Well, how in the world did historians construe out of the `Hatti' the `Hittites'? For more click Here or Here!
Pharaoh's Army
6. Four divisions: Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, Lydians. Jeremiah 46:9; Of these Lydians were mercenaries, `hired men.' Jeremiah 46:21. Chariotry participated in the battle, Jeremiah 46:9.
"Come up, you horses; and rage, you chariots; and let the mighty men come forward; the Ethiopians and the Libyans, that handle the shield; and the Lydians, that handle and bend the bow." ... "Egypt is like a fair heifer (sheep), but destruction is coming, it comes out of the north. Also her hired men are in the middle of her like fatted bullocks." Jeremiah 46:9, 20, 21

Comment: The Egyptian account of their divisions approaching Kadesh shows how far apart they were by the time they reached the land of the Hittites. In our view this aspect supports more so a long journey toward far away Carchemish rather than Riblah. By the time the troops arrived in the region of Carchemish overpowering weariness may have set in. The result was, their inability to maintain a close knit fighting force became likely factors in their defeat. Though not admitting to defeat on the monuments, the lack of rich spoils and booty underscores that outcome.
6. Four divisions: Amon, Re, Ptah and Sutekh. [JBREA, Sec. 310, `Poem of Pentaur'] Mercenaries in the army were the Sardana, or the warriors from Sardis in Lydia. Chariotry participated in the battle. [`Annals' of Ramses II, `Poem of Pentaur.']
"Behold, his majesty prepared his infantry and his chariotry, the `srdyn' (Sherden/Sardana) ..." [JBREA, Sec. 307], "The arrival of the recruits of Pharaoh ...". [Ibid., Sec. 340]
Conventional chronology does not equate the `Sherden' with Sardana, a city of later times according to their dates, trying instead to turn them into recruits from `Sardinia' for which there is no good reason to understand why they would have chariots on Sardinia or be trained to use them, or have great battle ships with hardly any trees growing there. [Various chapters in N.K. Sandars, `The Sea Peoples' (London, 1978)] In contrast the men from Sardis, the capital of Lydia in today's Turkey, had skills and experience in warfare from many battles before this time, especially understandable when revised dates are considered.
"Then came the host of graceful-living Lydians who control all the mainland race. Princely commanders, Metrogathes and noble Arcteus, and Sardis rich in gold set these in motion mounted up with numerous chariots. In various squadrons...they are a dreadful sight to behold." [Aeschylus, `The Persians', 41-47.]
"When Cyrus saw the Lydians take up battle positions on this plain, his fear of their cavalry led him to adopt a suggestion of Harpagus, one of the Medes; this was to get together all the camels...unload them and mount men armed as cavalrymen on their backs....The reason for confronting the Lydian cavalry with camels was the instinctive fear which they inspire in horses. No horse can endure the sight or smell of a camel....The ruse succeeded, for when the battle began, the horses turned tail the moment they smelt and saw the camels--and Croesus' chief ground of confidence was cut from under him."
[Herodotus, Bk. I, Sec. 80]
If this account is true or not, after the Persian conquest Lydia, and with it Sardis, the region came under Greek influence.
The Course of the Battle
7. The Egyptian army was taken by surprise `dismayed and turned back.' Palestine was taken by the Chaldeans, Jeremiah 46:5, 8-10. 7. Suddenly attacked, "the infantry and chariotry of His Majesty were discomfited." [`Poem of the Battle of Kadesh'; Sec. 325; `Annals of Ramses II']
The Retreat Developed Into a Flight
8. "Their mighty men are beaten down, fled apace, and look back." Jeremiah 46:5. 8. "I charged all countries while I was alone, my infantry and my chariotry having forsaken me. Not one among them stood to turn about."
[`Annals of Ramses II', Sec. 327]
The Flight Took the Direction to the North, Away from Egypt
9. "...stumble and fall toward the north." Jeremiah 46:6. 9. "Then the infantry and chariotry of His Majesty were discomfited before them while going northward." [`Annals of Ramses II., Sec. 325]
Additional Points to Ponder
10. Year 8: Egypt reconquers Ashkelon. "... Ashkelon is cut off with the remnant of their valley." Jeremiah 47:5. 10. Stele of Beth-Shan, bas relief and inscription in the Ramesseum.
11. Chaldeans drive Ramses out of Palestine again. "And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt." 2.Kings 24:7. 11.
12. Hostilities for many years without battles.
"And all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am the Lord, because they have been a staff of reed to the house of Israel." Ezekiel 29:6.

Working out some Claims

Conventional authors claim that a special corps known as the `Naharin' turned the battle in Ramses' favor. The `Naharin' were an elite archery detachment of perhaps around 200 troops. At any rate they were too small a force to turn the battle into a victory. What they did do is give Ramses enough time to flee the tightening noose of the enclosing Babylonian/ Chaldean/Hittites. A far cry from an Egyptian victory.

The object of this comparison is that these 9 parallels as found in the Egyptian account and in the Bible represent grid points which in the kind of events, their chronological order, timing and outcomes are unique points which never repeated themselves in history and therefore pin down the time of Ramses II into the 7th/6th century. Not only are these 9 points sufficient evidence but also the close chronological correlation and interlocking reigns of Ramses II, Nebuchadnezzar and King Jehoiakim of Judah demand the same need to revise ancient history and bring Ramses II into the time of Jeremiah.

Written History Triumphs over Pottery Driven Chronology: The following information has been researched here.The larger picture A number of pieces of information direct our attention Enlarged view of the name `kadesh' in hieroglyphics. / Die unter der Welle Glyphen am Turm von Karkemisch buchstabieren Kadesh (Heilige Stadt), da sie einen Tempel hatte.toward Carchemish as the site of confrontation between Ramses II and Hattusilis. Carchemish being a prominent city with a palace and temple means, Carchemish certainly qualifies as a `holy' kadesh city. - The Egyptian source for `Carchemish' as documented by Breasted reads, "Beginning of the victory of King Usermare-Setepnere (Ramses II), Budge: Qethsu or Qadesh[who is given life], forever, which he achieved in the land of Kheta (Ht) and Naharin (N-h-ry-n), in the land of Arvad (Y-r-tw), in Pedes (Py-d-s), in the Derden (D-r-d-ny), in the land of Mesa (M-s), in the land of Kelekesh ([K]-r-[k]y-s, sic!), -, Carchemish (K-r ]-k-my-š), Kode (Kdy), the land of Kadesh (Kdš), in the land of Ekereth (-k-r-t), and Mesheneth (Mw-š-n-t). " [James Breasted, Records, Vol. III, Sec. §§ 306, p. 136.] - - Hieroglyphic names for Kadesh can be compared in this city list of Thutmose III and in this write up. The left is the form by Budge who locates it in Syria [E.A.W. Budge, Egyptian Dictionary, Vol. II, 1045a], the right is the writing in the larger tower in the fortress artwork (click on the image) of Qodesh on the north wall of the great hall of the temple at Abu Simbel. Both of these renditions seem to have enough in common below the wavy line to conclude that we have here the name for `Qodesh' represented. Other forms can be seen here. -- Here follows a cuneiform version for `Carchemish,' Carchemish which city name, as far as we know, is not found in the peace treaty version by Hattusilis.
Gebel el Asr: This is some 70 km NW of Abu Simbel and is a known gneiss and quartz quarry.
  1. The faint outline of the pointing hand can be seen, it stands phonetically often for the letter `d', [W.V. Davis, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, p. 31.]
  2. The rectangular brick is intended here.
  3. The crown can be seen quite readily.
  4. The upside down arrow or pointer can be recognized.

Because of this written evidence from the monuments of Ramses II (Budge says, `a district in Syria situation unknown', he transliterated `Qetshu'. Better it is `Qodesh,' a known location.), the Fortress of Carchemich is the city of Kadesh where his army engaged the forces of Hattusilis/Nebuchadnezzar of the Hittite/Babylonian/Chaldean Empire. There never was a battle on the banks of the Orontes River.

Post script - Necharomes: We would like to emphasize that the conventional `Kadesh' on the Orontos River has never revealed any relevant information to the actions between Ramses II and his counterpart Hattusilis, which could not be interpreted any other way. That is so because the action took place near Carchemish, at least there was found a maze club bearing the name of one of the Ramese, probably that of Ramses II for there is no reason to assume that the other Rameses had contact with Carchemish. Displacing Ramses II into a wrong century wrecked havoc with ancient history, in particular the participants of these battles. The Peace Treaty, which must have been known to Ramses Chief of Staff Necharomes, represents an agreement between Nebuchadnezzar/Hattusilis and Ramses II/ Necho toward the end of the 7th century BC written in the writing of the Babylonian Chaldeans of Anatolia, the Hatti, not the Hittites.

Another Official of Ramses II [5902]

Rahotep, Ambassador Royal to the Chetta/Kheta

Many years ago a damaged Egyptian statue was dug up in the neighborhood of Norwood, in the county of Surrey, England. How it got there is not stated but this statue represents a dignitary of the court of Ramses II, seated in a chair. "The figure holds upon its knees, between its two hands, a large cartouche containing the name of the Great Rameses, Ramessu Amenmeri. Below this we are informed that the statue is that of the `High Judge and Prefect Rahotep', director of the festivals of his Lord [the king].
We next have the important notice that he was Glyphs reading `Ambassador Royal to the land of Kheta`Ambassador Royal to the land of Kheta'.
The name of Rahotep's son was `...nnu-meri'. His duties lay in the `House of Life', a part of the great `Temple of Ptah'.
On the right side his mother, `Suten Hat', is named. She was the `President of the college of the chorists of Anheru'."
On the left side is pictured his sister, by the name of Hunrei, `President of the college of the god Hersefit'.
On the backside two personages are represented kneeling before a table of offerings. One of these is "his brother, the first prophet of Aman", Amsu-mesu. The other is his father the "Great Craftsman of Ptah", that is the High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, Pa-nutar-hen."
[P. Le Page Renouf, An Ambassador Royal of Ramses the Great in PSBA, Vol. XIV, June 1892, p. 163-165]

The Thebes tomb of a scribe of Ramses II, Dhwtjme, and his wife Isis, a songstress, was excavated by a Hungarian team.

What was the name of the king the Babylonians fought according to their records?

Ca. 1878 Babylonian tablets were offered for sale to the British Museum containing some historically useful data. We read: ".... [ummanisu A-ma-] a-su sar Misir iphir-ma ...." translated as, "[his army Ama]sis king of Misir collected and ...." [T.H. Pinches, A New Fragment of the History of Nebuchadnezzar III' in TSBA, Vol. VII, Jan. 1881, p. 210-225.]

When this fragment was first interpreted conventional chronology assumed that the ending `asu' was part of the name of pharaoh `Amasis' of the 26th Dynasty. In revised view this same ending `asu' or `es' or `as' could just the same be the last syllable for `Ramesses', Pharaoh Ramesses II.

The Treatment of Refugees

At the end of the 6th century BC Egyptian pharaonic period presence has been verified during more recent excavations at Ashkelon. Archaeologists concluded that in Ashkelon there must have been an Egyptian enclave in the inner city's winery based on finds made there. These finds included 1. an abalone jewelry box with 9 small amulets, 2. Seven bronze bottles (situlae). Ashkelon was destroyed in 604 BC by the Babylonians. But the defeat of Egypt at Carchemish ended their presence also in Ashkelon. And so it is that historians sometimes wonder if Ramses II account of the destruction of Ashkelon is more propaganda than fact. The question, `Even if there is a revolt, would one lay to waste a city?', may occur. Why the Hittite Treaty at Karnak is right next to the conquest of Ashkelon is another question.

Now that hostilities had ended, Syria and Palestine were no longer under the influence of Egypt. This is in agreement with the scriptural data. The major part of the treaty is given over to the treatment of political refugees. The paragraphs were written in a reciprocal manner; it is apparent that it was the great king of Hatti who was interested in the provisions for extradition of the political enemies of the Chaldeans. A special paragraph in the treaty deals with Syrian (Palestinian) fugitives:

"Now if subjects of the great chief of Kheta transgress against him ... I will come after their punishment to Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt ... to cause that Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, shall be silent ... and he shall turn them back again to the great chief of Kheta."[6000]

This is an extradition treaty requiring the return of any refugees to the king of Hatti. Please note now, it was only a short time before this that a similar accord had existed between the pharaoh and the king of Jerusalem. The prophet Uriah had fled from the sight of Jehoiakim to Egypt.

"And Jehoiakim the king sent men into Egypt ... and they fetched forth Uriah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king." Jeremiah 26:22-23.

Now, 10 or 15 years later, the population of Palestine and Edom were once again fleeing into Egypt from the sight of the approaching Chaldeans.

Jeremiah foretold that these refugees would be removed from Egypt.

"...none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain." Jeremiah 44:14.

The following provision of the treaty was a fulfillment of what Jeremiah had foretold only a few years before.

"[If] one or two people flee .. and they come to the land of Egypt in order to change allegiance, then User-Ma'at Re, Chosen-of-Re, the great ruler of Egypt, shall not tolerate them, but he shall cause that they be brought back to the great chieftain of Hatti."[6050]

It was the fate of Jeremiah that against his will he became a fugitive in Egypt when the last remnants of Judah decided to migrate there.

Jeremiah 41:17: "And they departed .. to go to enter into Egypt,
Jeremiah 41:18: "Because of the Chaldeans for they were afraid of them ..."

The Talmud has preserved the story of the end of Jeremiah and those who forced him to go to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar took the fugitives out of Egypt to Chaldea. This he did by virtue of the treaty he had concluded with Ramses II. [6100]

This treaty contained a paragraph calling for humane treatment of the fugitives who were handed over.

"If people flee from the land of Hatti ... and they come to User-Ma'at Re, the great ruler of Egypt ... [and] they be brought back to the great chieftain of Hatti, [then] the great chieftain of Hatti shall not [arraign their] crimes against them and one shall not destroy his [house], his woman or his children, and one shall not slay him nor shall one trespass against his ears, against his eyes, his mouth, or his legs, ..."[6150]

Ramses found it necessary to include this humanitarian provision in the treaty for the protection of the unfortunates who he was now obliged to hand over. For it was Nebuchadnezzar who had killed the children of Zedekiah and put his eyes out.[6200]

Ezekiel 23:23: "The Babylonians, and all the Chaldeans ..."
Ezekiel 23:25: "... they shall take away thy nose and thine ears..."

The treaty's provision dealt with an actual situation. It casts additional light on the story of martyrdom as told in the Bible: the story of mutilated prisoners, slaughtered children, and deportations; and the story of these few who escaped from the horrors of torture, of their flight to Egypt, and of the long arm that reached out for the refugees into the land of their asylum. Does any of this sound familiar to events happening in our own days? But as far as the revised chronology is concerned it represents a glorious crowning stone to make history truly come alive.

Herodotus was right when he says that thousands of Egyptians died when they tried to build a canal to the Red Sea. He used his own people for his projects. But by placing Ramses II and all the other pharaohs into wrong time slots the history of those years became very distorted resulting mainly in the abandonment of the scriptural accounts as trustworthy. Regarding the arrangement of the dynasties of Manetho as being successive in nature invited disaster for the chronological order of the history we here discuss. Ramses II [Necho] was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar also known as Hattusilis whose father was Mursilis known also as Nabonidus. The Hittite Empire is that of the Chaldeans and Ramses II war against Kadesh [holy city] is the same war that pharaoh Necho waged against the holy city of Carchemish were young general Nebuchadnezzar opposed and routed him.

Ramses II was followed by Merneptah.[6250] He was the one who had the so-called Israel stele made in which he mentions Israel, the country that was just laid waste by the conquest of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore is the language of this stele reminiscent of the language of the book of Jeremiah, because the time period is the same.

The art of the 19th dynasty agrees with such a placement. The evidence found in the tomb of Ahiram and several other locations agrees with it and so on.

Nebuchadnezzar Visits Ramses II - The Evidence

The evidence here presented is subtle but persuasive. Only by an impossible chance could the soon following correlation have happened by some other means we cannot understand today.

The scenario now presented could hardly be conceived of any better by a writer of fiction. But what is being told now is not fiction but nonfiction. In this part we shall compare the following sources:

a. The Brick-kiln and the Glazed Tiles
b. The single tablet of Nebuchadnezzar of historical value
c. The so-called Marriage stele of Ramses II
d. The Bas-Relief from the Rock Temple of Abu-Simble in Nubia
e. The Evidence from Excavations at Daphnae, Tell Defenneh of today
f. The Beth-Nikki Building Inscription at Babylon
g. The Evidence from Excavations of the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon
h. Nebuchadnezzar's conversion to God in Heaven.

a) The Brick-kiln and the Glazed Tiles

Jeremiah we learned was taken to Egypt by his own people,

"So they came into the land of Egypt ... even to Tah-pan-hes (Daphnae in Greek)." Jeremiah 43:7.

When in exile in Egypt, Jeremiah, in a symbolic act, took stones and hid them:

"... in the clay of the brick-kiln, which is at the entry of Pharaoh's [6300] house in Tah-pen-hes, in the sight of the men of Judah." Jeremiah 43:8.

With his people from Judah witnessing this act it was to be a prophecy:

"And [Jeremiah] said unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold I will send and take Nebuchad-nezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them." Jeremiah 43:10.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon..." Ezekiel 29:19.

The Tablet of the Babylonian Chronicle Was this prophecy ever fulfilled? Most Bible commentators say no, in fact none can present good evidence for this event. No one can point to any evidence indicating that Nebuchadnezzar ever `invaded' Egypt to set up his royal pavilion there. Others, even today, misunderstand these texts, not realizing their prophetic character and construe out of these statements that Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt and was defeated in bloody battles. It is clear that the quote from the Book of Ezekiel talks about it as a future event like it does about other events, in a prophetic manner. It hadn't happened yet. Arabic sources may contribute to a mis-representation of the actual historicity of a Babylonian/Egyptian engagement. We believe that those interpreting the statements of the Babylonian Tablet 78 and the Biblical references [see below] in such a way to mean that a bloody battle took place do so without sufficient evidence.

"Whether Nebuchadnezzar ever invaded Egypt we do not know."[6350]

In connection with his visit to Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar mentions `Putu-Yaman' which means the colony of the Greeks. The Hebrew name for this colony of Greek soldiers in Egypt was Tahpanheth.

It was located just south of the eastern most, Pelusian mouth of the Nile. [6400] It had a royal palace according to Jeremiah and also was a fortress:

"... at the entry of Pharaoh's house..." Jeremiah 43:9.

This was Daphnae or Tell Defenneh and housed Greek soldiers in the 7th and 6th centuries to protect the Palestinian side of the border of Egypt.

"The Egyptians had guard-posts in various parts of the country: one at Elephantine against the Ethiopians, one at Daphnae at Pelusium against the Arabians and Assyrians one at Marea to keep a watch on the Libyans." [6450]

Excavations at Daphnae revealed large numbers of Greek scale armor, tools, and wares. Nebuchadnezzars kiln-baked bricks; Greek iron scale armor from Defenneh [Petrie, `Defenneh'] [6500] Foundation stones of a temple of Ramses II bearing his cartouches. Daphnae was supposed to have been built in the time of the 26th dynasty in about 664 BC and existed until about 565 BC. To find remains of a temple of Ramses II there was completely unexpected.

Flinders Petrie was the excavator and was impressed by reddish kiln-baked bricks found at Tell Defenneh and the neighboring village of Nebesheh. The building material in Egypt had always been stone and mud bricks. To find kiln-baked bricks was very unusual in the eyes of Petrie. He also found a statue bearing the name of Ramses II at the same location. He opened a few tombs. Right away the first tomb revealed the time of its origin.

"The earliest tomb opened, was one built of red baked bricks, No. 35, almost at the extreme east of the cemetery. It had been much disturbed and broken up in early times ... This tomb was of `Pa-mer-kau', according to the two limestone ushabti found in it; and from a statue found in the temple, representing `Merenptah', son of `Pa-mer-kau', and bearing the cartouche of Ramses II, it may be dated to the 19th dynasty. The style of the two ushabti also exactly accords with that period; and some fragments of wrought granite found in the tomb again agreed to a Ramesside period. The employment of red brick in this tomb, and in the next, which is also Ramesside, is of great importance. Hitherto I had never seen any red brick in Egypt of earlier times than the Constantine period; and it appeared to be a test of that age. Now we see from these cases ... that baked brick was introduced in the Ramesside times in the Delta." [6550]

Also in Tahpanheth (Daphnae) the archaeologists excavated the foundations of a structure built of kiln-baked bricks.

"The earliest remains found here are a part of the foundation of a building of red bricks." Ibid. p.47.

As these bricks were identical to those of the tombs, the conclusion was drawn that some buildings had been erected in the time of the Ramessides.

It is very important to note this fact:

The baked bricks were not discovered in Egypt of an earlier age than the time of the Ramessides, or of an age following that of the Ramessides; they reappear only in the time of the Christian emperor Constantine (about 320 AD).

We must ask, from where did this short lived innovation come to Egypt?

R. Koldewey, the excavator of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, wrote on the first page of his account:

"Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt the palace of his father, replacing the walls of mud brick by walls of baked brick."

Describing the characteristic features of the buildings of Nebuchadnezzar, the excavator of Babylon repeatedly stressed the `well baked, reddish Nebuchadnezzar-bricks,' and Nebuchadnezzar himself refers to them time and again in his building inscriptions.[6600]

Conclusion: According to the several lines of evidence which tend to place Ramses II into the time of king Nebuchadnezzar and Jeremiah, which we discussed already, this evidence of the baked bricks, supports that nicely.

b) The Single Tablet of Nebuchadnezzar of Historical Value
Nebuchadnezzar in cuneiform:
Nebuchadnezzar in cuneiform. See: Source

Thousands of clay bricks inscribed with the prayers of Nebuchadnezzar have been found but comparatively very few tablets containing historically valuable content. Only one single, mutilated fragment of a tablet attributed to him has any historical significant content. The tablet left much room for interpretation.

"The kings, the allies of his power and -- his general and his hired soldiers -- he spoke unto. To his soldiers -- who were before -- at the way of -- In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon -- the king of Egypt came up to do battle [?] and ---es, the king of Egypt -- and -- of the city of Putu-Jaman [6650] -- far away regions which are in the sea -- numerous which were in Egypt -- arms and horses -- he called to -- he trusted." [6700]

Ever since this fragment was published it has been interpreted to be an allusion to a military invasion of Egypt in his 37th year. Of the name of the pharaoh there remained only the last part, ---es or ---as.

This reconstruction was made:

"The only name of a king of Egypt of this period which ends with ---as [---es] is Ahmes or Amasis." [6750]

"This tablet is remarkable for the fact that it is the only historical tablet which we have from this epoch. That the king chose a small clay tablet whereon to record his conquest of the Egyptian and Mediterranean alliance is most surprising and demands explanation." [6800]

Langdon thought that this inscription was a royal letter.

But there exists no evidence in Egyptian, Hebrew or Greek sources that Nebuchadnezzar actually invaded Egypt. Even though the prophecy is there and Nebuchadnezzar was able to remove the Jewish refugees from Egypt to Babylon, we don't know that he came there in might and power.

A more critical reading of the inscription suggests, that "this inscription used to be misunderstood as a reference to an invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar." [6850]

The expedition appears to have been a peaceful one, even though infantry and cavalry accompanied the king. What then is the meaning of these broken sentences?

  1. after a speech delivered before his nobles and his army the king went to Egypt
  2. he was accompanied by mounted and foot soldiers
  3. a pharaoh whose name ends with ---es is mentioned
  4. also mentioned is the city of the Greek mercenaries in Egypt-Putu-Jaman (Yaman).

To discover what the `invasion' of Nebuchadnezzar of Egypt most likely was all about, read on.

c) The so-called Marriage Stele of Ramses II

In synchronized history we have here Nebuchadnezzar/Hattusilis visiting Ramses II. In the 34th year of Ramses II, Hattusilis came to Egypt to visit the pharaoh and give him a daughter for a wife. He also wanted to see the wonders of that country. The `Marriage Stele' records that the king of Kheta gathered his army and his nobles, and:

"Then spake the chief of the land of Kheta to his [army] and his nobles..." [6900]

He explained to them the advantages and disadvantages of giving his daughter to be the wife of this pharaoh.

"His majesty received the [word] - - [in] the palace, with joy of heart. ... When he heard such strange and unexpected matters." [6950]

"His army came, their limbs being sound, and they were long in stride...The daughter of the great chief of Kheta marched in front of the army...of his majesty in following her. They were as regulars; they ate and they drank not fighting face to face-- between them..." [7000]

d) The Bas-Relief of the Rock Temple of Abu-Simble in Nubia

This marriage took place in the 34th year of Ramses II which was the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. A bas-relief on a rock temple from Abu-Simble shows the king of Hatti bringing his daughter to Ramses II. She stands before her father; he raises his arms with open hands in an expression of a respectful greeting. His face is clean shaven and he has a large tuft of hair falling down from his neck under a tall, cone shaped headdress which looks like a bishop's miter and is a Phrygian cap. [See Kenneth Kitchen's `Pharaoh Triumphant', p. 94 for a newer image.]

Compare this image of the king of Hatti with the remaining silhouette of the only known representation of Nebuchadnezzar on a rock relief found at Wadi Brissa in Lebanon. Even though his figure is weathered and worn away we still can make out his Phrygian cap and his tuft of hair.

"His headdress is like the miter of a bishop." [7050]

Marriage scene Despite the damage of the likeness of Nebuchadnezzar's image one can see the profiled likeness with the image of Hattusilis in the bas-relief of Abu-Simble.

The visit of Nebuchadnezzar to Egypt is not only recorded in pictures and the tablet mentioned already but is also testified to by his royal seals found in Egypt. These are:

`set up his throne' and `spread his royal pavilion'. As he only passed along the Syrian road, and Daphnae would be the only stopping place on that road in the region of the isthmus, all the inferences point to these having come from Defenneh [Daphnae], and being the memorials of establishment there." [7100]

e) The Beth-Nikki Building Inscription at Babylon

In other words these seals were evidence of the visit of Nebuchadnezzar to Tahpenhes- Daphnae. Vice-versa Ramses II also paid respects to Nebuchadnezzar by visiting him in Babylon. The Bentresh Stele of Ramses II tells us:

"Lo, his majesty was in Naharin [7150] according to his yearly custom." [7200]

It is of important interest that we can find traces of his visits to Babylon. A building inscription of Nebuchadnezzar mentions `Beth-Nikki', or the house of Necho, outside the walls of Babylon.[7250]

`Beth-Niki is generally understood to signify "The House of Expenditure."

It was probably the house in which the former enemy and now son-in-law stayed during his visits. The place has never been excavated to date.

When the daughter of "the Great Chief of Hatti" gave birth to a girl he wrote a letter to Ramses demanding that the little one be sent to him and he would give her later "to queenship." [7300]

Nebuchadnezzar was concerned that his granddaughter should not live the life of a minor princess in Egypt. Ramses had married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar when he was already a middle-aged man; although his wife became the chief wife, he had a chief wife before who had borne him children. This former chief wife had corresponded with "her sister, the wife of the Chief of Hatti," and copies of these letters were preserved in the archives of Boghazkoi. [Ibid., Luckenbill, p. 195.]

The prophecy of Jeremiah that the king of Babylon would spread his royal pavilion was fulfilled. Jeremiah accurately foretold the spot where Nebuchadnezzar would set his throne. The second part of the prophecy - "And when he cometh, he shall smite the land of Egypt" - never was fulfilled, as far as the Egyptians were concerned. But it came true as far as the Jews were concerned, and this in accordance with the treaty for the extradition of the refugees.

Did Sheshonk I "squeeze in" the Bubastite Portal between the second Pylon and a small temple of Ramses III at Karnak? In the revised scenario Ramses III was still in the future, so how are we to understand this statement by Alan Gardiner? [A. Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 328] As Alan Montgomery has pointed out, `Rohl has demonstrated convincingly from the architecture of the buildings that the Bubastite Portal was constructed after the Pylon of Ramses II as the cartouche of Ramses II is hidden by the Portal. Again there would be no need for the structure unless the temple of Ramses III already existed.' He then asks the question: `With what material would a rather impoverished Dynasty XXX build a Portal between the Pylon of Ramses II and the Temple of Ramses III?' The real explanation of this conundrum is that Ramses III built it himself with material from the Libyans used in their buildings - particularly of the reigns of Sheshonq I and Osorkon I as their monuments are almost non-existent.' [D. Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings, p. 120. Features a photo image of the Bubastite Portal closed entrance and city list wall.]

From our London based source comes this information

British Museum red granite column

I managed to visit recently to recheck details, and had something of a surprise - EA1065, the one on the left, seemed to have changed quite dramatically!
"EA 1065 is the Ramses/Osorkon column: the big, fat one on the left of your picture; an ugly pear-shaped thing that looks like a mismatched, worn composite of two columns (the big cemented joint is a bit higher, out of the picture)."
Plaque photo The top of the column was as I remembered it, but about halfway down it was now joined by a band of cement to a different base - a larger, heavier, much more weathered part-column purporting to be 'a column of Ramesses II usurped by Osorkon II'.
I asked a museum guide about the column, and received the guarded answer that I could find out about it from their computer information database (I could not). Amateur image of the here joined red granite column, however, not showing the name change in particular. So I took a look at this 'column of Ramesses II usurped by Osorkon II'.
As we are doubtless aware, one of Osorkon's names was 'UsermaatRa', and indeed the visible cartouches had a nice, deep-cut 'UsermaatRa' at the top, with, interestingly, a scratchy, indistinct, shallow-cut and partially worn away set of names for Osorkon.
You tell me how an eighth-century Libyan monarch can usurp the column of a supposedly thirteenth-century pharaoh by cutting in his name less deeply than that of the pharaoh he was usurping from ...
Column EA1123, the Ramses/Merneptah column, is much more elegant (not to mention more intact) - a curious feature is how shallowly Merneptah's name is cut, as if Ramses was expecting to have to replace him at some point. The column's evident newness relative to EA1065 is, incidentally, a point that we, who know that Osorkon preceded Ramses, have no trouble explaining.
Conclusion: the 'new' lower portion of British Museum exhibit EA1065 was a column originally of Osorkon II, and was usurped by Ramesses II, but the process was not completed, either because the column was considered unsuitable or because Ramesses died before it was finished. Therefore, the information on the accompanying plaque is misleading. (By our London correspondent Patrick).[7330]

Constructions in Heliopolis

The history of Iwn.w', the City of Pillars' is regarded as having been the most significant cultic location of the sun god. For this association with sun worship the city was called in Greek times Heliopolis. Its history is long and reaches back to at least to 4th and 5th Dynasty times.[7350] Numerous inscriptions testify to the fact that almost all kings [7400] errected structures at Heliopolis indicating the central role this city played throughout the history of Egypt. [7450]

For this reason we ought not to be surprised to also find constructions of Amenhotep III and Ramses II in the area. [7500]


The manufacturing of kiln-baked brick was apparently an innovation introduced into Egypt from Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar. We also have the testimony of Jeremiah that in his time there was a brick-kiln in Daphnae/Tahpanheth. Since no kiln baked bricks have been discovered in pre-Christian Egypt, except those of the Ramesside period, those who adhere to the conventional chronology must assume that the kiln stood for seven centuries from sometime after Ramses II down to Jeremiah without being used in the meantime and that the bricks made in the kiln in the days of Jeremiah all vanished.

This last statement, once it sinks in, emphasizes the fact that the baked bricks of the time of Ramses II found at the very same location - Tell Defenneh/Tahpenhes - and being discussed from two viewpoints:

1. The conventional viewpoint by virtue of the fact that such bricks were found in association with Ramses II's artifacts who was in modern times dated to the 13th century BC
2. The Book of Jeremiah's plain references to the brick-kiln. Of course the baked bricks mentioned by Jeremiah did not vanish, they were the same baked bricks attributed by archaeologists to the time of Ramses II.

Unfortunately the sources of this discovery by Petrie are not well documented and discussed in modern literature since their importance in conventional thinking is not being recognized. Overall it seems that a false chronology can also lead to unfortunate choices in setting priorities which locations to excavate or re-excavate.

In essence then kiln-baked bricks were found only from one rather narrow period of Egyptian history in a single location. The Book of Jeremiah aids us greatly in understanding the true time of the unique bricks which together with the statements from Babylonian sources in essence equate Necho with Ramses II and place Ramses into the time of Jeremiah and Nebuchadnezzar.

If Ramses II lived during the period we describe here how come 19th Dynasty pottery is not found in association with Babylonian times? Well, it is, just remember the vessel in the tomb of Ahiram. Also conventional historians, once they have a `pottery measuring rod' established on perhaps a faulty scheme everything related to it will be faulty but yet agree with their measuring rod.

The Interlocking Reigns of King Jehoiachim, Ramses II and Nebuchadnezzar

Overview of key events:
588 Peace treaty between Nebuchadnezzar (Hattusilis) and Ramses II, Necho.
586 Nebuchadnezzar destroys the Solomonic Temple and takes the inhabitants into exile
580 Governor Gedaliah killed by Ishmael, Jeremiah 40; 41.
577 Ramses II marries daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.
575 Jeremiah goes involuntarily to Egypt, Jer. 42:14;43:7;44:30.
570 Nebuchadnezzar visits Ramses II shortly before his death.
569 Merneptah becomes pharaoh.
546 Lydian king Croesus destroys Hittite capital Boghazkoi.

The present reconstruction of ancient history elucidates the length of the reigns of Seti, Ramses II, and Merneptah if not to a year, then in close approximation. Seti-Ptah-Maat (Psammetich of Herodotus) reigned from -663 (the year he returned with the retinue of Assurbanipal to Egypt) to -609 (3 years after in -612), altogether for 54 years.

Ramses II was made co-ruler while he was still an infant. In his own words:

"When my father made his state appearance before the people, I being a child in his lap, he said referring to me: ` Crown him as King that I see his qualities while I am still living.'" [7550]

Ramses 1st campaign toward Carchemish took place in his 2nd year, obviously counted from the beginning of his reign as a sole ruler; on his 2nd campaign he proceeded in his 5th year; Gaza and Ashkelon he took in his 9th year he concluded the peace treaty with Nebuchadnezzar in his (Ramses') 21st year; he married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in his 34th year, always counted from the death of his father, Seti. Jeremiah, when in exile in Egypt and before he was removed to Babylon, refers to Pharaoh Hophra, whom we identified as Merneptah Hophrama'e. [7600]

Merneptah's reign, judged by the dates in his inscriptions, endured for 10 or 11 years. If the figure 43 years for Amasis reign 103) is true, then he [Merneptah] must have begun his rule in -568(9), or 19 years after the destruction of Jerusalem: in -525 Egypt was conquered by Cambyses, the Persian, only a few months after Amasis death. Of these 19 years the longer part belongs to Ramses; Merneptah, however might have been a co-ruler in the last years of Ramses. That Amasis, after he seized the throne, allowed Merneptah to wear a crown and be a coruler with himself, we learn from Herodotus:

"Apries (Merneptah/Hophra/Apries) is said to have believed that his power was so firmly established, that not even a god could have brought him down; nevertheless, he had the worst of the engagement, was taken prisoner, and conveyed to his former royal palace at Sais - his no longer, but now the property of the victorious Amasis. Here he was kept for a time, and well treated by his conqueror, but in the end the Egyptians objected of the injustice of maintaining a man who was his - and their - worst enemy, and persuaded Amasis to surrender the prisoner."

".... When Apries had been disposed in the way I have described, Amasis came to the throne." [7670]

It follows that Ramses II reigned over 30 years (609-569 BC) [7700]; should, however, the years of his co-regency with Seti be added, his entire reign endured for most of his life and might have exceeded 60 years. The 1st campaign of Ramses II into northern Syria took place in the 2nd year of his reign. This is the date of his earlier stele at Nahr-el-Kelb. The obelisk at Tanis seems to refer to the same events.

In the beginning of the first campaign which the king of Egypt directed toward the Euphrates, Josiah, king of Jerusalem, was killed at Meggido. 3 months later [7750] Jehoiakin was made king of Jerusalem. The beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim corresponds to the 2nd year of Ramses II. In the 4th year of King Jehoiakim the pharaoh undertook his 2nd military campaign and reached Carchemish.[7800] The 4th year of Jehoiakim started in the 5th year of Ramses II; accordingly this 2nd campaign must have taken place in Ramses' 5th year. This conforms with the Egyptian sources:

`Ramses II. started his 2nd campaign leaving Egypt on the 9th day of the 10th month of the 5th year.' [7850]

The Illustrated Time Line of Ramses and His Contemporaries

The 4th year of Jehoiakim was also the1st year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.[7900] It follows that Nebuchadnezzar counted the years of his reign from the year that he fought the second battle at the Euphrates. At the time he was commander in chief of the Babylonian army Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, a part of the Babylonian Empire. At first he was called king of Assyria,[7950] later king of Babylon or king of the Chaldeans.[8000]

The interlocking reigns of Nebukadnezar and Ramses II Nebuchadnezzar's first year fell in the latter part of the 5th year of Ramses and the earlier part of the 6th.

According to the Egyptian sources, Palestine was in revolt against Egypt from the end of the 5th to the 8th or 9th year of Ramses' reign. Those years following the defeat of the Egyptians at Kadesh-Carchemish correspond to the period from the 5th to the 8th year of Jehoiakim. These years are mentioned: `In his days Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant 3 years then he turned and rebelled against him.'[8050] At the end of this time Jehoiakim revolted against the Babylonians, as the same verse in Kings states; thus he revolted in his 8th year. The time when Ashkelon was destroyed, was recorded as the 9th year of Ramses II.[8100] Since the 9th year of Ramses II was the 8th year of Jehoiakim, the siege of Ashkelon by Ramses II was coincident with Jehoiakim's revolt against Nebuchadnezzar.

The Karnak bas-reliefs of the storming of Ashkelon and Chapter 47 of Jeremiah give prominence to this event. The presence of Egyptian soldiers in Beth-Shan in the 9th year of Ramses is testified by a stele of his erected there in his 9th year and indicates Egyptian control of Palestine.

Three years after that, early in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar [8150], which was the 12th year of Ramses and the 11th year of Jehoiakim, Jerusalem was again subdued by Nebuchadnezzar, and 3 months later Jehoiakin, the son of Jehoiakim, was deported to Babylon. During the 3 months of Jeheiakin's reign [8200] (2.Kings 24:8) and from the 1st year of Zedekiah until his 8th, Jerusalem was a tributary of Babylon. It was Nebuchadnezzar who made Mattaniah king and changed his name to Zedekiah. [2.Kings 24:17]

In his 8th year Zedekiah revolted, and Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. At that time the pharaoh's army, which since the disposal of Jehoiakim (the 12th year of Ramses) had not left Egypt, strengthened itself and crossed the border of Palestine. [8250]

The army of the Chaldeans withdrew from Jerusalem to meet the Egyptian army, but Jeremiah predicted that pharaoh's army `shall return to Egypt into their own land' [8300] and that the Chaldeans would come again and fight against Jerusalem. The interval was long enough for the inhabitants of the city, who had freed their slaves, to believe that the danger was over and try to void the release. [8350] In the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah, after the Egyptians had returned to their country without offering battle, Nebuchadnezzar went back to Jerusalem and renewed the siege. [8400]

As the result of the agreement between the two empires, Egypt yielded Syria and Palestine to Nebuchadnezzar, leaving Jerusalem without support. This treaty between the king of Egypt and the king of the Chaldeans was concluded sometime before the 10th day of the 10th month [8450] of the 9th year of Zedekiah, on which day the Chaldeans renewed the siege of Jerusalem [8500] The 9th year of Zedekiah was the 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar;[8550] thus it must have been the 21st year of Ramses II. Actually the treaty between Ramses II and the king of Hatti (Nebuchadnezzar) was signed on the 21st day of the 4th month of the 21st year of Ramses II.

The entire conflict between Egypt and Hatti (Akkadians-Chaldeans) lasted 19 years, from the 2nd year of Ramses II [8600] until his 21st year. [8650] A check with the Hebrew data gives the following figures: the time from the death of Josiah at Megiddo [8700] to the beginning of the last siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans comprises three months of Jehoahaz,[8750] ten years and a number of months of Jehoiakim, 3 months of Jehoiachin, and 8 years and 9 months of Zedekiah. [8800]

Since 2.Chronicles 36:11 speaks of the 11 years of Zedekiah, whereas in Jeremiah 39:2 it is the 11th year, the 11 years of Jehoiakim referred to in 2.Chronicles 36:5 likewise may be taken to signify the 11th year. Thus 19 years passed from the first march of the pharaoh through Palestine and the death of Josiah to the withdrawal of the Egyptian army and the beginning of the final siege of Jerusalem. According to the data of the Scriptures and the records of Ramses alike, Egypt participated in the war for nineteen years.

The Egyptian and Hebrew sources agree on the order and the length of all stages of the Egyptian-Chaldean war. The exact data in the Egyptian and Hebrew sources made possible this cross checking, and that with a precision unattained by historiography of many periods a thousand or even two thousand years closer to us.

The conventional history of Egypt assumes that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of Oppression at the time of Moses,[8850] or that he was the ruler of Egypt and Palestine at the time of the Judges.[8900]

Consequently the campaigns of Ramses II in northern Syria and in Palestine are supposed to have taken place either in the days of the Israelite bondage in Egypt or in the days when the Judges ruled the tribes in Palestine. However, no mention is made in the Book of Judges of an Egyptian ruler or of any campaign of a pharaoh against Syria and Palestine.

By the same token, with Ramses II removed to the remote past, it could be presumed in advance that the records of the Books of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel on the war of Nebuchadnezzar with Pharaoh Necho will find no counterpart in Egyptian history.

Reference to a pharaoh by the name of Necho and to his campaigns was sought among the Egyptian inscriptions, but Egyptian archaeology could not supply the story of the war. The only monumental inscription that mentions the name of one Nekau-Wehemibre is an epitaph on the tomb of a bull. If we follow conventional history there is no account of Ramses' wars in the Scriptures and the wars of Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt are likewise not accounted for in extant records of the country on the Nile.

But the wars of Ramses II correspond precisely with the biblical account of Pharaoh Necho.

Or did the same occurrences, battles, and sieges of the same cities occur some seven hundred years apart at exactly the same intervals? It would be miraculous if records of two such identical series of events had come down to us. But there exist no Egyptian records of the wars of Nekau-were-mibre.

Seal of Nekauwere as found at Carchemish Four clay impressions of a seal of Nekauwere were found in the ruins of the same house at Carchemish together with seals of Psamthek. As we are showing in Ramses III, this person is to be identified with Psamshek, Seal of Psamtek as found at Carchemisha Persian high official mentioned in the Elephantine papyri. The seals of Nekau (Room 5) found next to those of Psamshek (Room 4) would seem to place also Nekau Wehe-mibre in the 5th century when Egypt was under Persian occupation. [See L. Wooley and T.E. Lawrence, eds., Carchemish, II (1915-1952), pp.126-128;Pl.26c]

In 1982 the Israeli archaeologist Yigal Shiloh discovered 51 clay bullae in a controlled excavation in Jerusalem in a house destroyed by the army of Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. One of these bullae belonged to `Gemariah', son of Shaphan, official to King Jehoiakim (608-598 BC) and mentioned in Jeremiah 36:10. [BAR, Jul/Aug 1997, p. 37]

Other lesser known personalities linked to the 19th Dynasty and what we know about them

The story of Tia

Archaeologists identify Tia as one of two sisters to Ramses II whose husband reportedly also had the name of Tia.

Most of the latest information on Tia and her tomb complex comes from evidence found in the 1980's. Archaeologists encountered two surprises in the tomb:

  1. Most unexpected was the base of a small pyramid found in the rear courtyard.
  2. A burial shaft underneath the stones of the forecourt led to a serious of chambers belonging to `Iurudef', a loyal retainer of the princes. The original burial had been burned, but over the charred remains they found 75 intact and mostly undisturbed burials, many of them children. This cache dates from the very late Ramesside period. Always speaking here of conventional dating, archaeologists thought of this as a far earlier date than anticipated since most other intrusive materials at Saqqara date from Late Dynastic, or even Graeco-Roman times.

These last remarks we need to let sink in and ask us what does that information point to? In revised view late Ramesside is the 5th century BC, much closer to Graeco-Roman times and explaining these discoveries much better in our opinion than conventional chronology can ever hope to do.

To put it another way, 860 years (1190-330 BC) separate the end of the 19th Dynasty from Graeco-Roman times in conventional view, in revised view it is 230 years, the stretch of time between about 560-330 BC.

Food for Thought
Scratch all we ever heard about history. Are we to believe that big Ramses II led a mighty four division army against little Riblah and that little Necho led a mighty four division army against the big capital city of Carchemish and that both were beaten but Necho was too meek, forgetful or for some reason unable or unwilling to cut his mighty deeds into stone while Ramses II had a feast doing so? While history books will state that the name of Psammetichus, Necho or Nectanebo were found in various places we must understand the names being found are not these names but the names of those, historians chose to represent them. This way a person by the name of `Wahibre' was chosen to represent Psammetichus I, our Seti the Great. Who was `Wanhibre'? - For many years Ramses II was seen as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as that king who proudly said, "Who is Jehovah, that I should hearken unto His voice to let Israel go? . . . I will not let Israel go." (Ex. 5:2) Ever since such voices represent the voice of denial of the existence of God, voices which we find repeated during the French Revolution, a time which has some peculiar similarities to our time in America today. Voices which do not know the amazing grace of God.

What else can we say? After it is all said and done, `Use traditional, conventional ancient history of the Bible lands with caution.'

Recent archaeological discoveries in Israel

Personal excavated possessions found at Arad of authentic Israelite personalities include: Eliashib, son of Ehiyahu, whose Hebrew inscription on scarab shaped seals read, `Belonging to Eliashib'. They are said to belong to stratum VI of 605-595 BC. Among the written evidence were supply vouchers, inventory lists and military orders. No immediate chronological conclusions could be drawn from this information to date but it may be helpful to keep these finds in mind. [BAR, Mar/Apr 1987, p. 36-39]

During excavations of the `Philistine' city of Ekron (Tel Miqne) in 1995, archaeologists found a golden cobra measuring 8 inches (20.7 cm) from its head to the tip of its curled tail. It was made of more than 18 carat gold and weighs about one ounce (12.64 grams). There is no writing on the snake just crude parallel lines in the area of its enlarged throat. The palace in which the snake was discovered is built in Neo-Assyrian style. But the golden cobra was apparently placed there during Egypt's short rule, beginning about 630 B.C.E., and ending abruptly when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon vanquished Ekron during his campaign to defeat Philistia, 16 years before conquering Jerusalem in 586 BC. [BAR, Jan/Feb 1996, p. 28]
In revised view this puts it into the time of Seti the Great or the early years of Ramses II.

Carved relief in wall of palace complex at Carchemish / Jerablus-Carchemish had a long history reaching back to pre-Chaldean/Babylonian times. Like many other cities it was built and rebuilt after destructions as for instance that by Sargon II in 717 BC [Isaiah 10:9].

Notes & References

[100] Bulletin de l'Institut d'Archaeologie Orientale au Cairo. Ramses reigned, according to Manetho, for 1 year and 4 months. This is confirmed by a stele dated to his 2nd year (Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 248; The titles Gardiner quotes stem partly from the days of Harmab's employment as scribe: `Superintendent of Horses', `Fortress-Commander', `Superintendent of the River Mouths', `Commander of the Army of the Lord of Two Lands', `Deputy of the King in Upper and Lower Egypt'). The length of his (Ramses I) reign can be determined from the Assyrian documents: It began ca. 665 BC when he was installed by Assurbanipal, and ended in ~664/663 with his assassination by Tandamane/Tenutamon (664-663), the last ruler of the 25th dynasty.
[120] Sir Alan Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 255.
[130] Herodotus, Bk. I, Sec. 183.
[135] Babylonian arrow heads were found at Jerusalem. See BAR, 2000 Year old tower found, p. 38-40-41.
[150] Ephraim Stern, `The Babylonian Gap', BAR Nov/Dec 2000, pp. 45-51; Additional publications are referred to in the article's list of references.
[200] See Time-Life Books: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile, Alexandria, VA, p. 32]
[220] David Hogarth, archaeologist and T.E. Lawrence, who was by 1911/1912 the assistant of Leonard Wooley when they rediscovered the site of Carchmish, purchased in 1878 from the land owner. See `The Adventure of Archaeology', Lawrence of Arabia1985, p. 184.
[400] For an image of Seti the Great and Ramses II together see `KMT' Winter 1999-2000, p. 511.
[500] K.A. Kitchen, `Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists', Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 5-12.; See also A. Wiedemann, `A Forgotten Prince' in PSBA, Nov. 1889, p. 258-261. Wiedemann argues that RII counted his years not from his birth but from his real kingship on the basis that Ramses is called prince, not king and that no buildings are dated in a double reign of Seti I. To this we may reply that these assumptions are based on the conventional length of reign for Seti I. If he reigned much longer than 13 years the assumptions may also come out differently.
[800] Conventionally dated to 1292 - 1230 BC. Both, Ramses and Nebuchadnezzar are known for producing stamped bricks many of which bear their name.
[900] Alan B. Lloyd, Necho and the Red Sea in Egyptian Archaeology, 1977, p. 142-155. While the author affirms such activities under Pharaoh Necho, he makes no comparison in his detailed account with Ramses II time, probably since in conventional view, there should be none. (Septuagint Vol. II: pharaoh = `phara'; Necho = `Nexa', Did the Septuagint authors know the name Necharomes?; See Ieremias 26:2, p. 697)
[1000] James H.Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Vol. IV, Sec. 977, 979.
[1100] A thin basalt fragment showing what appears to be a royal figure holding a staff and mace with the legs of a bird at the bottom of a cartouche was reportedly found at Sidon. Basalt piece from Sidon This relic was taken as evidence that Necho - Wehemibre was in Syria to wage war. We would like to remind our readers that Wehemibre is not the only personality who exhibits a bird at that spot in his name ring. The bird in question is the little chicken chick which also appears in the name ring of the 4th dynasty, Snefru and Khufu, the 5th dynasty Sahure and Menkauhor, the 12th dynasty Amenemhet IV, the 19th dynasty Ramses I/ Menpehtyre, the 25th dynasty Taharqa and the cartouche for the Persian king Darius I. While the actual drawing of the basalt relic does not show a little chicks leg but more that of a rapture bird, the kind which appears in the name ring of the 21st dynasty Herihor, these possible candidates were apparently not considered. [F.L. Griffith, The god Set of Ramessu II and an Egypto-Syrian deity - A relic of Pharaoh Necho from Phoenicia in PSBA, January, 1894, p. 87-91.] Please note the legs of a chick and rapture bird are shown on the right of the same relic's opposite side. The comparison seems to rule out the legs of a chick in the royal name ring entirely as long as their is room for the tail. Comment: With such tenuous information the biblical and Greek Pharaoh Necho was linked to Wehemibre, links which we note are hardly worth a second glance.
[1200] Of course this is the authors interpretative conclusion.
Compare E.A.W.Budge, "A History of Egypt", Vol. VI, p. 219.
See also K. Sethe, "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens", Vol. II (1902), p. 23; cf. Posener in "Chronique d'Egypte", Vol. XIII (1938), pp. 259-273.
[1400] Herodotus, "The Histories", Book II, par. 158, p. 145. Additional support that the 19th Dynasty belongs in Greek times comes also from the `baggy style' clothing which has been found in relief carvings dated to the 19th dynasty in Egypt and has been compared to such fashions shown among Greek and Cretan seals. Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2, 1914, p. 31.
[1600] Please note that it was Darius who finished the canal about 80 years later.
[1800] George Hart of the British Museum said in reviewing a book by R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier entitled, `The Demography of Roman Egypt', (Cambridge University Press, 1994). The review can be found in `Egyptian Archaeology 6', (1995). - `The authors analyse 300 census returns surviving on papyri dating to the first three centuries AD, and concerning families, lodgers and slaves (who comprise 11% of the census population). A few statistics will give an idea of the value of this book. At birth, the life expectancy for a female was 22 years, with only one-fifth surviving from their teens into their sixties. Males had a higher life expectancy of 25 years.
[2000] A.Götze, `Das Hethiter-Reich', in `Der Alte Orient', XXVII, 2, (Leipzig,1928), p.44. "Annalen treten zuerst in Boghazkoi auf, und die Ähnlichkeit in Stil und Ausdrucksweise zwischen den hethitischen und assyrischen Werken ist so groß, daß man ohne die Annahme eines Zusammenhangs garnicht auskommt."
Translation: "Annals appear first in Boghazkoi and the similarities in style and expression between the Hittite and Assyrian documents are so great that we cannot but conclude there is a connection between the two."
Also H. Güterbock, `Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200', Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, XLIV (1938), p. 45.
[2200] Ibid. p. 45.
[2400] G. Contenau, `Ce que nous savons des Hittites', Revue historique, Vol. CL-XXXVI, (1939), p. 15. "Apres les Hittites, commence l'empire assyrien, dont les moeurs tegmoignet par rapport a eux d'une veritable regression."
[2600] William Wright wrote in "Empire of the Hittites", (London, 1886) p.55:
[2800]12) The city of `Kadesh' was not alongside the Orontos (Grk: `Thapsakos) River in Lebanon since this river was called Typhon and did not receive the name `Orontos' until the 4th century BC. Kadesh was alongside the `n-r-t' or `p-n-r-t' river which stands for `Puratu' (Babylonian) or `Prat' (Hebrew) referring to the Euphrates River, one of whose main tributaries derives from the slopes of Mt. Ararat. About the conventional site of `Qadesh' var. `Kadesh' on the Orontes ` and conventional views about Ramses II supposed war here, Jonathan Tubb was able to give a special insight into the archaeology of this historically very significant site, as he had worked there as Assistant Director with Peter Parr in the 1970s for some 10 years.... Tell Nebi Mend was first identified as the site of the battle of Qadesh (1289 BC) between the armies of Rameses II of Egypt and the Hittite king Muwatallis (Nebukadnezzar), by the PEF's Charles Warren in the late 19th century. However, Jonathan informed the group that in all his time at the site, he didn't excavate a single arrowhead or detect any destruction debris that would indicate a mighty battle there.
[3000] Usermare Setep-nere, son of Menmare=royal name of Ramses II, son of Seti, grandson of Ramses I.
[3200] The early investigators were Hugo Winckler and Makridi-Bey. A detailed report of the excavations was never published. Preliminary reports appeared in "Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientalgesellschaft", No. 35 (1907), and in "Orientalische Literaturzeitung", IX (1906), pp. 621-634.
[3400] Pierre Montet, "Byblos et l'Egypte", Quatre Campagnes de Fouilles a Gebel (1921-1924), Paris, 1928, ch. IV.
[3600] R. Dussaud, a leading French orientalist in "Syria", Vol. V (1924),p. 104.
[3800] R. Dussaud, "Les Inscriptions pheniciennes du tombeau d'Ahiram, roi de Byblos", Syria, Revue d'art oriental at d'archeologie, V(1924), pp. 143-144.
Also W. Spiegelberg, "Zur Datierung der Ahiram-Inschrift von Byblos", Orientalische Literaturzeitung, XXIX (1926), p. 237.
Sidney Smith, "Alalakh and Chronology", (London, 1940), p. 46.
A.H. Gardner, "Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund", 1939, p. 112.
W.F. Albright in "The Aegean and the Near East", studies presented to Hetty Goldman, 1956, p. 159. Albright's earlier treatment of the subject is found in "Journal of the American Oriental Society", LXVII,1947, pp.154f 4)
[4000] Maurice Dunand, "Fouilles de Byblos", I (1937), pp. 53, 54, 56, 93, 339. See also Here!
[4200] Nina Jidejian, she was Dunand's pupil and assistant, in "Byblos Through the Ages", 1986, p. 57 (UCD: DS 89B9 J53 c.1).
[4400] Herodotus, `The Histories', Bk. I, Sec. 178-183.
[4600] Vespasian reigned from 69 - 79 AD. Herodotus, `Histories', Bk. I, Sec. 181, 182.
[4800] E. Akurgal, "Die Kunst Anatoliens", (Berlin, 1961). H. Frankfort, "The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient", (Baltimore, 1954), pp.164-166.
H.G. Güterbock, "Carchemish", "Journal of Near-Eastern Studies", 1954, pp. 113ff.
[4802] On the Fall of Niniveh see D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria,' Vol. II, Sect. 1166ff.; pp. 417ff.
[5000] H. Goedicke, `The Battle of Kadesh - A Reassessment', in `Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache', p. 86; British archaeologists excavated around `Jerablus Tahtani' about 1998. For the report see: http://www.arcl.ed.ac.uk/arch/jerablus/jerahome.html; For an image of the younger Lawrence of Arabia and a report on excavations at Carchemish see: a) `The Adventure of Archaeology', p. 184; a) http://www.castle-hill-press.com/teweb/NPG/part2/052.htm] Ramses II regiment of Amun was based at Tell el-Borg, the latter of which may be either the 2nd (`The Dwelling of the Lion')or 3rd (`The Migdol of Menmaatre') fort on `The Ways of Horus' route toward Palestine.. [Egyptian Archaeology, 2003, p. 189, 196.]
[5190] See National Geographic, Vol. 179. No. 4, apr. 1991, p. 5.
[5200] "Arrival of the ... of Pharaoh, L.H.P., at ... the mother of the royal children, together with the ... of the divine mother ... fleeing to the west [side] of the camp ... before the foe." [Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 332] The name of one of the wifes of Ramses II was Neferure (TJH James, Nefertari), another was Meryt-Amun (2nd wife) and `Bent-Anath', whose name is found on a 10 m colossal statue of the king. [Bonechi, Art and History of Egypt, 1997, p. 44.] Cut off from his southern approaches to Carchemish Ramses, his entourage and at least part of his remaining troops followed the geographical terrain leading west to north in their effort to get away. Later they approached the coast before turning south. It is quite possible that the king and his court fled by ship while his troops continued by land.
It is of interest to observe how frequently statues of Ramses II and even his queen(s) are found in Egypt itself quite close to the surface in a country were dust storms are relatively frequent. Compared to Palestine, were layers assigned to his dynasty are often quite deep that is astonishing; it should tell us that the conditions and events in Palestine in ages past are quite different and we should not assume that we can interpret layers correctly. It helps us to realize that the age of Ramses II is not as ancient as supposed.
[5300] British Museum Tablet, BM#21946 - "In the 21st year the king of Akkad stayed on his own land, Nebuchadnezzar his eldest son ... mustered [the Babylonian army] and took command of his troops; he ... crossed the (Euphrates) river [to go] against the Egyptian army which lay in Carchemish ... fought with each other and the Egyptian army withdrew before him."
This crossing of the Euphrates must have occurred to position his troops before the battle.[The quote is from an e-mail source rather then Thiele. Thiele, E., `The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,' p. 184.]
The Euphrates is described as being often 300 to 400 yards wide between Jerablus (Carchemish) and the chiefly Kurdish beehive constructed, treeless village of Tel Ahmar (Ahuni's capital Til-Barsip), a site explored by D.G. Hogarth, 14 miles downstream from Jerablus. In the summer it flows about 2 miles an hour, in the winter and spring flood time nearly twice as fast. [See R. C. Thompson in PSBA, `Tel-Barsip, Its Cuneiform Inscriptions,' Feb. 14, 1914, p. 66-67-71. The article states that terns and ibis (kelinak in Turkish) of Birejik fly past in the area. The villages attracted them because of `Hittie' and a few cuneiform inscriptions. These inscriptions show that it was `Kar-Sulmanuasarid', a name given by Shalmaneser II for Til-Barsip. ]
[5400] James Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Vol. III, Sec. 372. The funerary stela of Ramose can be seen in KMT, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 55. We also have a boundary stone ascribed to a Nebuchadnezzar I.; See: `Wycliffe Historical Geography', p. 24.
[5500] Since Ramses I should be Necho I and Ramses II, Necho II.
[5550] Egyptian Archaeology, No. 4, 1994, p. 25. For the hieroglyphic name of R. II oldest son `Amon-her-khepeshef' see BAR, Jul/AUg 1995, p. 22. For a full page color image of the carved cedar wood sarcophagus of Ramses II see Alan Millard, How Reliable Is the Exodus in BAR, Jul 2000, p. 54; on p. 56 is the image of the rearing lion with Ashurbanipal. See our view on the Exodus.
[5600] Jeremiah 39:3.
[5700] Judges 18:29. For the reader: Pagan gods and goddesses are Satanic inventions and to occupy oneself with these aside from understanding only history should not be entertained for there are dangers, these human inventions are forbidden by the Creator God who alone is worthy of our worship.
[5800] Breasted, `Records', III, Sec. 386, Breasted does not give Tyre or Dan. But Breasted gives it as `the god of Zeyethekhrer'.
[5900] James Breasted `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 381.
[5902] The shown Egyptian (partial?) inscription found at Hazor is saidRamses II? official's title to denote the title of an important official (vizier?), surmised of the time of Ramses II. Which bird signs are shown is a bit uncertain. The top one could be a chick, except it shows a tail. Finding this artifact could mean that Hazor was connected with Egypt in some way in the days of Ramses II. and King Nebuchadnezzar in revised view. [BAR, Vol. 32, Mar 2006, p. 37.]
[6000] James Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Vol.III, Sec.389.
[6050] John D. Smith, "Ramses II: A Chronological Structure for His Reign", (Baltimore, 1973), p. 116.
[6100] See, The Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, I, 19a; Sedar Olam 26. See Ginzberg, "Legends", Vol. VI, p. 399, n.42.
[6150] Vol. III, Sec. 390. Schmidt, "Ramses", p. 118.
[6200] 2.Kings 25:7.
[6250] Merneptah (coreigned with Ra.II from about 582 BC, sole reign from 569-562) and is Apries of the Greek authors and Hophra of the scriptures.
[6300] Necho/Ramses II.
[6350] Hugo Winckler, `The History of Babylonia and Assyria', (New York, 1907), p.318.
[6400] The ancient Nile branches are: 1.Canopic 2.Rosetta 3.Sebennytic 4.Mendesian 5.Saitic (Tanitic) 6.Pelusian. Today remain only two. There is also evidence that the capitals of Sais and Tanis were the same and there never was a capital on the western Nile branches.
[6450] Herodotus, Book II, Sec. 30.
[6500] Petrie, `Nebesheh and Defenneh', p.78, Pt. XXXVII 19, 19a, 19b.
[6550] Ibid. p. 18, 19.
[6600] R. Koldeway, `Die Königsburgen von Babylon', (Leipzig, 1931), I.
[6650] Yaman means `Greek' in Babylonian.
[6700] Cuneiform tablet British Museum 78-10-15, 22, 37 and 38; Cf. Langdon, `Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire', p. 182.
T.G. Pinches, `A New Fragment of the History of Nebuchadnezzar', `Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology', Vol. 7, 188D (1882), pp. 210-225.
[6750] Ibid. p. 216. Amasis ruled from about 568 - 526 BC.
[6800] Langdon, `Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire', p. 183.
[6850] H.R.Hall, `The Ancient History of the Near East', p. 547.
[6900] James Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt', Sec. 419.
[6950] Ibid. Sec. 421 (last part) & 422 (first part).
[7000] Ibid. Sec. 424.; See Elmar Edel, `Der geplante Besuch Hattusilis III in Ägypten', `Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientalgesellschaft', 92 (1960), pp. 16-20.
[7050] F.H.Weissbach, `Die Inschriften Nebukhadnezars II im Wadi Brissa und am Nahr-el-Kelb', (Leipzig, 1906), p.3.
[7100] Petrie, `Nebesheh and Defenneh', p. 51.
[7150] Naharaim or Mesopotamia.
[7200] Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 434.
[7250] R.Koldewey, `Die Königsburgen von Babylon', Vol. I, p. 63-64. See also Eckhard Unger, `Babylon' - Die Heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier', (1931), pp. 159ff.
[7300] Luckenbill, `American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures', XXXVII (April, 1921), p. 195.
[7330] For an image of the shallow cartouche of Merneptah underneath the sunk-relief cartouche of Ramses II. on that red-granite column, consult KMT, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2010, p. 72.
[7350] M.I. Moursi, `Die Hohenpriester des Sonnengottes von der Frühzeit Ägyptens bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches I', MÄS 26, 1972, pp. 159ff.
[7400] Cmpr. Wofgang Helck, `Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches I', 1961, 124ff.; Breasted, `Ancient Records', Vol. V (Indices)(1962), p. 80ff.
[7450] The article claims here, "With exception of the El Amarna Period." The time of the `heretic' king Amenophis IV/Akhenaten.
[7500] M.I. Moursi & M. Balboush, `Funde aus dem Tempel Ramses II. im Tell el-Hisn bei Heliopolis' in Mitteilungen des DAI, Band 31, 1975, p. 85-91, Tafeln 29-31; Featuring numerous drawn inscriptions and photos.
[7550] Trans. by C.Aldred in `Akhenaten', (1968), p.102. Cf.K.A.Kitchen, `Rameside Inscriptions', (1969), Vol.II, pp.323-26. For a discussion of the question of coregency between Ramses II and Seti see Schmidt, Ramses II, Ch.V, `The Coregency', pp.154-64.
[7600] Jeremiah 44:30; For the source of the 34th year click Here.
[7650] Herodotus, III, 103, and Africanus' version of Manetho give 45 years as the length of Amasis' reign; but Eusebius and the Armenian version of Eusebius allot only 42 years to Amasis.
[7670] Herodotus, Book II,169, 172.
[7700] According to conventional chronology Ramses II reigned 67 years plus 2 or 20 months? The 67 years plus 2 monthes calculation seems to stem from the writings of Manetho who gives Ramses 66 years plus 2 months. In the Papyrus Harris Ramses III mentions the 67 years of Ramses II in the course of a dedication in which he juxtaposes his own achievements within just 4 years to those of Ramses II in 67 years: "And thou shalt be pleased with the land of Egypt ... thou shalt double for me the long duration of King Ramses II ... for more are the mighty deeds and benefactions which I do ... than those things which King Ramses II did for thee in his 67 years." [Sec. 471] Conceivably these 67 years could also refer to his total life span. Others like P. Gurob uses the dates "year 67, I Akhet 18" and "year 1, II Akhet 19" a few lines apart, so implying that Ramses' death came in between. The basis for a 10th month opinion we do not know. In revised view the number of months at the end are inconclusive to his chronology. Since we don't know the exact year in which Ramses as infant was made co-ruler with his father, we don't know how many of the years of Seti I Ramses counted as his but they may have been some 27 years making 636 BC, half of Seti's reign, the start of his co-regency. There exists also a hieratic label found on a jar from the tomb of Apy at Thebes of the 50th year of Ramses II. See Bryant G. Wood, Egyptian Amphorae in BA, June 1987, p. 75-(77)-83. We cannot rule out that Ramses was proud and used the maximum years he could muster to state the length of his reign.
See also Ramses' II obelisk at Luxor in Ancient Egypt, Oct/Nov 2004, p. 33; the Paris obelisk on p. 35.
[7750] 2.Chronicles 36:2-4.
[7800] Jeremiah 46:2.
[7850] Poem of Pentaur.
[7900] Jeremiah 25:1. For an image of the damaged cuneiform clay tablet relating the accession of Nebuchadnezzar and his capture of Jerusalem see `Wycliffe Historical Geography', p. 30.
[7950] 2.Kings 23:29
[8000] There is a discrepancy between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 - in the latter Nebuchadnezzar is called king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim. For Nebuchadnezzar's later claims to have been the legitimate king of Babylon immediately following the death of Nabopolassar. [See E.R Thiele, `The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings', 1965]
[8050] 2.Kings 24:1.
[8100] According to archaeologists Sir Flinders Petrie and Maspero.
[8150] 2.Kings 24:12.
[8200] 2.Kings 24:8.
[8250] Jeremiah 37:5; 2.Ki. 24:7. Jer. 37:11 shows that no battle took place Shalem block, request permission to usebetween Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt during the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. - See also the `Shalem block' which shows the outline of a fortress facade carved in shallow relief and, down the center, the vertical column of text which reads, "The town which the king plundered in Year 8 - Shalem." Source: D. Rohl, `Pharaohs and Kings', p. 5. - This may have been in consequence and after the initial attack by Nebuchadnezzar, ca. 606 BC, therefore year 8 for Ramses II may be 598 BC or thereabouts considering his coreign/military education with Seti I. - It also depends on the correctness of the reading and identity of Shalem with Jerusalem, which sounds tempting to use.
[8300] Jeremiah 34:11.
[8350] 2.Kings 25:1.
[8400] 2.Kings 25:1;
[8450] Jeremiah 39:1.
[8500] Ez.24:1.
[8550] Since the 10th year of Zedekiah was the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar - Jer.32:1.
[8600] His first march to the north.
[8650] When the peace treaty was signed. See also: The Assuan stele
[8700] Which occurred on his first march of the pharaoh to the north.
[8750] 2.Kings 23:31.
[8800] The renewal of the siege.
[8850] If the Israelites left Egypt in the days of Merneptah.
[8900] If the Israelites left Egypt before the beginning of the 19th Dynasty.

Previous Bible Topics Main Menu Submenu Next