Sea Wars
Seti the Great
Ramses II
Merneptah
The 21st Dynasty
Setnakht - Acoris

Main Menu

1.

Starting from the insurrection of Iannaros Persia had some setbacks in Egypt but none as consequential as those after the death of the powerful satrap Arsames in about 407 BC. Apparently there was no other powerful successor in place to continue the procurement policies over Egypt.

Alan Gardiner almost discovered the truth about these kings when he wrote: "The multitude of his [Nekhtnebef's] monuments might leave the impression of unbroken peace and prosperity; the oldest parts of Philae were built by him; at Edfu he was remembered as the donor of much land to the temple of Horus; a great stela at Ashmunen (Hermopolis Magna) records extensive additions to the temples of the goddess Nehemat`away ...; and a finely inscribed inscription from Naucratis (`Decree from Naukratis') commemorates the imposition of a 10% duty on imports to that town and on goods manufactured in it; the proceeds to be devoted to the enrichment of the goddess Neith of Sais. But a very different story emerges from the Greek historians of whom Diodorus is once again the foremost representative. ..." [Paraphrased from Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', pp. 372-375] This `rest of the story' we discuss here and elsewhere on this website. Unfortunately Gardiner was unable to free himself from the constraints of conventional chronology when he failed to realize that Nekhtnebef and Nectanebo were in fact so different because they lived in different times and were different individuals.

As best we know Ramses III had a military background and did not have a royal pedigree. He also was not of the family of Achoris/Setnakht, his predecessor on the throne. Ramses III succeeded to seat himself as pharaoh because at this time the influence of the Persians in Egypt was at a low level. Arsames, after levying heavy financial burdens on the Egyptians, died in about 407 BC. He was not followed by another pekida with similar powers. In time the income from Egypt dwindled, presenting the background to the decision of Artaxerxes II to regain what they had lost, by war. Having had plenty of experience in warfare, the Persians wanted to be well prepared before they attempted their campaign against Egypt. This delay gave Ramses time to fortify the most likely approaches into his kingdom.

He constructed his mortuary temple of Medinet Habu and used it to present himself as the god-king in his `Window of Appearances', already known from the time of Akhnaton, in order to satisfy his people's religious feelings.

During his reign people in his court conspired to assassinate him indicating that perhaps they were well aware of his posturing and common origin and therefore felt no compunction to do so.[1100]

Lastly, we may consider that the mortuary temple of Medinet Habu is the best preserved complex at Thebes; we think that is the case because it did not survive the destructions of the Assyrians and the Persians under Cambyses, but was erected much later. [1200]

In addition we find that Herodotus describes the army of Xerxes about 100 years before the time of Ramses III. Among these he described the Lycians from the island of Crete as wearing "hats stuck round with feathers." [1400] Crete had long been a stopover for Persian marines.
We also have a record from the palace of Sennacherib of soldiers wearing feather crowns from Niniveh recorded by Sir Austen Henry Layard. [1500]

However, calling these feather crowned men `Philistines' is not based on inscriptional evidence but just by comparison to the Egyptian monuments at Medinet Habu and some images from Crete which Herodotus called `Lycians'. To refer to the city under siege as Ascalon may be tempting, but the Assyrians didn't write the Bible and their view of important events do not parallel the scriptural authors views, therefore, we should not jump to conclusions here and it is quite possible that historians drew erroneous conclusions. A.T. Olmstead wrote: "In the same room was a scene which we may locate at Ashdod, where Mitinti had already proffered submission. We now have a double-walled city, the gateway arched and approached by ramps from the outer wall. Within are warriors, without is a narrow canal with trees on either side, which finds its outlet in a larger river on whose waters are skin crafts and double-headed boats. From the former a man drops a line which just has been swallowed by a fish and two of his companions are investigating the food found in a kettle. Horses are ferried on the double-headed craft and their drivers swim across on skins. In the rocky gardens outside the city, with their regular rows of trees, a man is being lowered by a rope into the water. At the extreme end is a hanging garden, supported by entablatures and columns which are not far from Corinthian. The submission of Sil Bel of Gaza soon followed and Zedekiah of Ascalon was carried off with his gods, while his place was taken by Sharru-ludari, son of their former king, Rukibti." [1600]

We notice that this description of Ascalon seems very far fetched. A canal flowing into a river, large enough to have to be navigated by boats, seems hardly to fit Askelon. Was transporting horses across the river (A) really that much easier then just walking them around the inlet (B)? Animals such as horses on boats are not always that easily transported unless the distance saved makes it more convenient. After all, if such a water inlet existed is not sure either but it certainly becomes an important feature in the description of the city under siege by Sennacherib according to the passage cited above by Olmstead. Are there alternative cities, perhaps along the Euphrates or in Syria? Merenptah's possible sketch of `Ashkelon' under siege certainly gives no hint of water nearby. [1700]

The point we want to make is, that the `feather crowned' soldiers at Niniveh, even though they reportedly were carved into a wall in the same room were a city, supposedly Askelon, was shown under siege may not have been Philistines if the city does not fit the facts of Ashkelon. In that case these soldiers would more likely be Medes or early Persians and the city under siege far removed from Ashkelon.

The fourth century Nectanebo I became pharaoh and in him we recognize Ramses III. Additional points that support placing Ramses III into the 4th century are furnished by the fact that Greek influences are prevalent during his reign. We reiterate a few of these now:

"When the king's forces came to Aces (Acco), in Syria, and were there mustered, there were found 200,000 barbarians, to be under the conduct of Pharnabazus, and 20,000 Grecians, under the command of Iphicrates." [2500]

As V already observed, it appears that Ramses III referred to this camp when he wrote:

"They set up a camp in one place in Amor [Syria]." [2600]

As others already pointed out:

"Ramses III's inscriptions specifically mention the towns and orchards of the `Plst' - which stands clearly against the idea that they were all new arrivals from elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Many `Plst' must have already been settled in southern Palestine. These points, originally stressed by Alessandra Nibbi (1975), have since been echoed in the work of other scholars including Peter James (in numerous lectures and in an unfinished postgraduate thesis of the early 1980's), Phoenician archaeologist Patricia Bikai (1992) and classicist Bob Drews (1993, 52-3)." [2700]

We have no reason to believe that these same scholars probed the situation in the revised context presented at this website. But they make this fact into somewhat of an anchor point for the correctness of their interpretation. In their thinking, since the `plst' were not new arrivals, they must have been the Philistines. Of course the Persians were not new arrivals either in 374 BC. Persian armies had come and gone for many years. But in this particular campaign against Egypt, with the Persians under their leading general Pharnabazus, they were spending years for their preparation to return the income from Egypt to the Persian crown.[ It is no wonder they had occupied towns and planted orchards. These many military personal had to live on something.

Archaeological evidence was found which points to the involvement of the Sardinians in such industries and crafts but their main occupation for up to 3000 years was that of shepherds.
The great quantity of loom-weights found in structures of the lower city at Sardis supports the reputation of the Lydians as makers of fine textiles. It may be possible that Sardinia had connections or cultural affinities to the Lydians in some way.

Another example of a feather headdress comes to us from an ivory gaming piece found at Enkomi, Cyprus. We know of course that Persians had contacts with Cyprus. Elsewhere we have information on the chronological implications of excavation results from Enkomi.

But if the 20th Dynasty reigned in the 12th century BC, who could these foreigners have been?

"That which I commanded is come to pass, and my counsels and my
plans are perfected."

Over the fortress it is written: "Migdal" which means in Hebrew a
`tower' or `bastion'. [3900] This must
be the fortress Diodorus talks about in Book XV, Sec. 42, which was located
at a mouth of the Nile and was occupied by the Persian invaders and where they
underwent a siege.
Diodorus uses the word `pyrgos' here for "tower". The exact same
description we read at Medinet Habu. This indicates that Semitic
Hebrew was already very prevalent as for example through the influence of
the Jewish garrison at Elephantine but sometimes the influence of
this Jewish garrison seems to be taken too far.

Another example of preference of a Hebrew word used by Ramses III, even though
Egyptian words were readily available, is the word for `cry':

"Keper (K'-pw-r') came to salam, like [--], he laid down his arms, together with his soldiers.
He cried to heaven, to beseech his son, his feet and his hands were paralyzed ..." [4000]

The word used here is `d-k', Hebrew , tzaek for cry. Egyptian choices may have been `au', `am' or `akeb' used in the sense of weeping and lamenting. Other examples are the Hebrew word ashek is used for `oppress' in the `Papyrus Harris' [4100], aliah is used for `ramp' [4200], barekh for `to bless' [4300], keseth for `cover' [4400] and marcheshet for `pan'. [4500]

15. The `capitals' of Ramses III and Nectanebo.

As historians study the various questions raised on the correct time for Ramses III they decide today that his conventional setting makes more sense. One study deals with the `capitals' of Ramses' temples compared to the `Late Period' `capitals' of Nectanebo at Philae and Luxor. On this issue we need to remember that Nectanebo/Nekhthorheb would come a few decades before Ramses III/Nectanebo. The monuments of Nectanebo are said to demonstrate late period characteristsics while Ramses III's pillared capitals resemble earlier styles.

Are such more detailed architectural features a safe guide to assign time?
No doubt these features testify to the architectural expression desired if not by the king himself at least by his priests, advisors, architects and craftsmen.
After all these rulers were not architects themselves. They had to rely on others for their design and construction projects. This would introduce also a degree of uncertainty for us today to assign ages based on architectural features, and probably on the more detailed features more so than the overall design.
Of Ramses III we know he tried to imitate the era and names of Ramses II.
Are the capitals of Medinet Habu also intended to show this affinity to an earlier epoch? We believe that the overall layout of the temple fits the period closer to Greek times [4700], while some other features revert back to pattern after older period features. What we have is an amalgamation of styles and influences.

What about the floral capitals and broken lintels of Nectanebo over doorways at Philae? They are supposed to demonstrate his Late Period affinity. Again, his `contractors' were not the same as those of Ramses III and their style was one chosen based on criteria we really cannot fully analyze as to its period today.

What can we learn from the tomb of Paser, the mayor of Thebes, in the days of Ramses III?

The name Paser we know already from the days of Ramses II who had a vizier by that same name. First we want to find the hieroglyphic name of Paser which is not separately pointed out in the source but which is closely associated with the word for mayor, `mer nu-t' and deceased, `m3-hrw'. There is no indication that this Paser was anything else than a mayor. [4800]

Also note the horned helmet from Enkomi and shown in Pamela Garber (See #5). [5200] This figure was dated to the 12th century BC precisely because of the correlation to the sea battle images at Medinet Habu and, we say, the Greek warriors depicted there.

Another feature of the artists rendition of the troops of Ramses II and those pictured by Ramses III at Medinet Habu seems intriguing. Taking a good look at the soldier in the very left image and how his facial features are rendered and comparing them to the one from Ramses II carvings, they seem to have the same or similar facial characteristics, the shape itself, the way the hold their chin up with lips tightly closed, their neck and proud outlook to a distant point. Perhaps this is an indication that both artists illustrate troops originating from the same region, the old Lydian kingdom.

Why are no triremes pictured on the bas-reliefs at Medinet Habu?

The bas-relief is crowded with ships. The Egyptian vessels have a decorative lion head jetting out at the bow which could be used to ram other ships [5240]. The Persian vessels have a straight up bow with a small point protruding at the bow. For a better view of these items click Here! Diodorus wrote the Persians had 300 triremes and 200 vessels with 30 oars which apparently were not triremes and smaller since they take second place. These ships were probably commandeered from the Phoenician coast since the Persians themselves had apparently not an online Persian natives owned shipyard at this time. The Persians were also accompanied by a great number of supply ships. While Ramses III did not illustrate triremes it does not mean therefore that this battle could not be a sea battle of the 4th century BC. Reading carefully about the extensive preparations Egypt made to meet the crisis, it is very probable that the delta waters did not allow unhindered movement of the warships in many places, thus making longer and deeper draft triremes unsuitable to help in the assault. A clue that various types of seagoing vessels were constructed in the Egypt of Ramses III reads like this:

"I made for thee transports, galleys and barges, with archers equipped with their arms, upon the sea. I gave to them captains of archers and captains of galleys, manned with numerous crews, without number, in order to transport the products of the land of Zahi and the countries of the ends of the earth to thy great treasuries in `Victorious Thebes'." [5300]

Ramses also mentions fire being used as a weapon during this fighting, a method not known to be used in the 12th century BC.

In essence then we can say that Ramses III tactics to deal with his emergency was different from that of previous kings in that the enemy could invade his land by the way of the desert or by sea. Consideration of this situation alone demands to place Ramses III. into the 4th century BC. The king decided this time to let the enemy come to him. Despite his victory, however, Egypt lost its power and greatness soon afterwards underscoring the fact that his enemies were vastly superior in manpower and his era was still embedded within the Persian domination of Egypt.

The Mariannu (Aramaic=nobleman) were foreign warriors on Egyptian soil. Aramaic is a Semitic language which supplanted Hebrew after the Babylonian Exile (532 BC). The oldest Aramaic inscriptions date from the 9th and 8th centuries. The Elephantine papyri were found on an island by Aswan in 1906. They originated in the 5th century and contain names of Persian kings and talk about the existence of a Jewish military colony at Elephantine. This colony had a temple where Yaho (Yahweh) together with Anath-Venus was worshipped. This colony existed already when Cambyses overran Egypt. The first word of that papyrus which was written in 407 BC is `el-maran', `to the sir'. This word `maran' is repeated over and over again. The singular and possessive forms are `marenu' and `mareinu'. Here we have proof that the military colony still existed in 374 BC because Ramses III wrote:

The identity of Ramses III being Nectanebo we established on much more compelling information than identity of names: but coming on top of all the other evidence, the identity of names is most welcome. But in order for Ramses III to be Nectanebo we also must divest Nectanebo of the identity on the Egyptian monuments modern scholars assigned to him. When searching the monuments for Nectanebo scholars chose several candidates. We shall discuss each one. [5500]

[See also our file on the 26th Dynasty]

Several monuments survived to our days from the time of Nekht-hor-heb and Nekht-nebef, who had been assigned to be Nectanebo I and Nekht-nebef who is said to be Nectanebo II. Significantly enough E.Naville introduces a chapter in one of his books as follows:

"It is in the hypostyle hall, near the entrance of the hall of Nekhthorheb, that we meet with all the monuments of this (the 20th) dynasty."[5600]

The significance of Naville's statement is the close association of Nekhthorheb of the 5th century BC, the conventional shoe in for Nectanebo I of the 30th Dynasty when Naville wrote this in 1891, with the supposedly 12th century BC Ramses III in mind. But we know that Nekhthorheb oversaw the affairs in Egypt for the Persian satrap Arsames. He was no seated king. The monuments of Nekhthorheb were there before those of Ramses III.

The disturbing fact was that neither one of them, Nekhthorheb and Nekht-nebef, mentioned in their many inscriptions anything about the wars that both of them were supposed to have carried on. Nectanebo I's wars against Artaxerxes III before he was defeated in the final campaign. Their inscriptions are vainglorious, and therefore in the absence of any reference to war exploits crowned by victories seemed enigmatic. In view of the many inscriptions left by them it could not be claimed that only by chance did their many building and donation inscriptions survive while the monuments dedicated to the conduct of the wars and the memorials to their triumphs all perished. Yet, for lack of better choices, the identifications were made.

Then early in the 20th century W.Spiegelberg, a German Egyptologist, found reason to rearrange the identifications and Nekht-nebef was pronounced to have been Nectanebo I and vice versa. We shall ask, who were these two?

Nectanebo ruled from 376 - 361 BC when the particular Arsames, who resided in Babylon, was the Persian satrap overseeing affairs in Egypt. His business affairs were huge. Cuneiform tablets from the time of Darius II (~413/412 BC) show that on one day a transaction involving 1809 heads of cattle took place. [This Arsames is not the same we discuss next but a later one and probably the private name of Artaxerxes II (404-358 BC) himself.]

In 1932 L.Borchardt purchased in Cairo a leather pouch full of leather scrolls. These scrolls were letters from Arsames, the satrap, to his administrator in Egypt by the name of Psamshek and another named Nekht-hor, both Egyptians. It was a surprise to learn that Aramaic was the official language for this kind of correspondence at the time.[5700]

The letters show that Psamshek preceded Nekht-hor in his post. Arsames writes with a haughty attitude toward his plenipotentiaries in Egypt. They deal mainly with exacting tribute and even more with personal land and serf properties of Arsames and his cohorts. We learn from these letters that property was unceremoniously confiscated and added to Arsames possessions. People from everywhere were made bondsmen and marked with his brand, this way becoming his possession.

Of Arsames we can justly say what Ramses III said of Arsa, the foreigner who, many years after the overthrow of Egypt "from without", following which event there was no native ruler in the country, "was with them as chief." Everything points to Arsames, the satrap and writer of the Aramaic letters as being Arsa of the Harris Papyrus who "set the whole land tributary before him" and "plundered their possessions." The ending `mes' means son and could easily be dropped by the Egyptians.

Psamshek [about 445 BC, Psammetich] was the one who send grain boats to Athens. It is quite certain this was done with the knowledge of Arsames. In 407 BC Nekht-hor-heb deplored the death of his master Psamshek. These two fixed dates help us to disentangle a number of problems.

Bas-reliefs exist which show in parallel Nekht-nebef and Psamshek and therefore these two must have been contemporaries functioning under Arsames. Perhaps one was the governor and the other the chief treasurer; or one in the north and the other in the south.

Underwater evidence speaks for itself
Franck Goddio just recently announced his discoveries in the ancient city of Herakleion, or its Egyptian name of `Rahinet', located now some 4 miles off shore of the Canopus side of the Nile Delta and 20-30 feet under water. The most impressive find so far seems to have been the ca. 2 meter tall, intact stela described to be of Nectanebo I in which he levied a 10% tax on the Greek `gods' for an Egyptian temple. When we are told that this stela is of Nectanebo I we understand that to mean that the name of Nekht-nebef was found on it. If that is true why did he not also brag about his successful war against the Libyans, Persians and Greeks? There is every reason to believe that taking on these enemies was not a small affair one could easily forget about. Just recall the wars the Greeks and Persians fought with each other. But the monuments of Nekht-nebef are silent on any of these events. The stone found by the F. Goddio team of divers would have made a wonderful canvass to glorify the mighty deeds of Nekht-nebef/Nectanebo. But so far all his inscriptions remain silent for he did not fight these wars. The story is already told in the annals of Ramses III and how he fought the Peoples of the Sea, meaning those who often came by sea from the Greek islands and the city states of the coast of Asia Minor. The story of Pharnabazus and how he commandeered ships of the Phoenician coastal towns speaks for itself on how some of his troops were transported.

The Temple of Umm Ebeida

Many years ago Minutoli visited and described the temple of Umm-Ebeida in the Siwa Oasis where he noticed two cartouches which he reproduced in his book of drawings. The significance of these cartouches is that they bring together a 21st Dynasty character with a supposed 30th Dynasty potentate. [5800]

`Among the artifacts found at Beth-Shean is a pharaonic statue which for several years was the only one of its kind ever found in Canaan until that time, a basalt carving of Ramses III (1185-1153 BC) The statue was found in the courtyard of one of the city's temples, in a stratum that postdates the Egyptian departure from Beth-Shean in the late 12th century. Apparently the statue, moved from its original location, became a cultic object, revered perhaps by subsequent generations at Beth-Shean. Since then a small New Kingdom Dynasty pharaonic statue showing a seated figure from the hip down was found in Jerusalem [6300]. This is another example where an artifact found in situ is explained away as being a cultic object kept around for years to account for its presence in later strata.

Among the administrative buildings exhibiting Egyptian features, the so-called Governor's House contains many carved stone lintels bearing hieroglyphic inscriptions. One depicts an official of Ramses III by the name of Ramesses-User-Kephesh, the garrison commander.' [6400]

For the Archaeological Evidence at Megiddo click Here

But here "stratum VIIA represents the last unmistakable Canaanite city. In its layout it resembles stratum VIIB, which, according to the presence of imported Mycenaean IIIB ware, was destroyed around 1200 BC. In addition to objects marked with the cartouche of Ramses III, fragments of Philistine ceramic were also found in stratum VIIA. Furthermore, a bronze pedestal carrying the name of Ramses VI was found hidden under a wall of stratum VIIB, but it probably belongs to stratum VIIA." [6500]

Are we then to assume that Megiddo existed clear into the 4th century BC? Is there any evidence which would preclude that possibility? The valley of Megiddo was referred to in the days of Josiah (640-609 BC). [2.Chronicles 35:22]

The Evidence from El Ahwat

Quite recently Israeli archaeologists excavated an Iron Age site which reportedly had only one stratum. We read:

"Another curious - but helpful -characteristic of the site was that the settlement had only one stratum. ... In a large building, we call the `governor's house', ... the most significant find made inside the house was a scarab with the royal name of Ramses III ... The pottery and architecture found at el-Ahwat indicated the site was inhabited for only a short time - about 50 years, from 1220 to 1170 BC, give or take 10 years." [6600]

More recently we read:

"Our city wall was analyzed at many points along its perimeter, including the 200 foot strip in area C (the domestic quarter). In all the houses that we inspected, the floors that abutted the city wall and integrated the wall into the structure of the house yielded pottery, jewels, scarabs and other objects that came entirely from Iron I (this is conv. dated by the author to 1200-1000 BC)." 6700] (For additional info click Here.)

These 50 years were of course calculated on the basis of conventional dates for Ramses III whose scarab was found inside a building. Pottery finds include a) hill-country Israelite pottery, b) pithoi, c) large, rough, undecorated vessels, d) plains (Canaanite) pottery and e) more Egyptian scarabs of the 19th dynasty. [6800]

"But not one painted Canaanite sherd turned up. Nor did a single sherd imported wares (Mycenaean or Cypriote). These locally produced and imported wares are found in almost every contemporaneous site in the Levant. Why not here?" [6900]

But the strangest discovery was that the architecture resembled nothing found in Israel before but had features known from Nuragic sites on the island of Sardinia. The author then wonders:

"The pottery and architecture found at el-Ahwat indicated the site was inhabited for only a short time - about 50 years ... We could see that whoever built the site did so on virgin soil. Once abandoned the site was never again occupied, apart from some agricultural activity in Late Roman and early Byzantine periods. This early abandonment did not make sense. Approximately 200,000 cubic feet of stones were used for the wall alone. People don't generally invest in a huge fortification project, use it for 50 years, then leave and never come back. How to account for the short occupation of a settlement that had required such a great effort to build?" [7000]

In revised view the site was not occupied for 50 years but more like 170-200 years from the time of the 19th/26th dynasty to somewhere in or just after the time of Ramses III (379-361 BC). This chronology also demonstrates the problem of the dating by pot sherds examples of which have been assigned to wrong time periods which are the cause for so much confusion in Israelite archaeology. Of course we do not expect Canaanite and/or Mycenaean artifacts to turn up in quantities in the revised time frame of el-Ahwat.

However the Sardinian correlation with the site assuming there are no such architectural features attested in other regions like Persia, regions which had contact with Israel between the years we assign, seems to suggest that people from this island had migrated to Israel in the wake of the Babylonian exile and established themselves there until they decided to pack up their belongings and move out, leaving hardly a trace of their implements or artifacts. If this was a regular town or a military city we don't know. A beautiful ivory ibex head testified to trade with Egypt and a stone incised with a soldier testifies to the military connection of the town. A black stone cylinder seal and a deity wearing a high Anatolian tiara presented a Hittite/Chaldean connection not surprising in revised view. [7100]

The Evidence at Gezer

This presents a problem for the revised chronology since the time of Ramses III belongs to the level I, Persian period at Lachish and not level VI. The sole evidence of the Persian period seems to be a solar shrine. The archaeologist Starkey had found 2 anthropoid clay coffins in a tomb said to be associated with level VI at the foot of the mound. He also found 4 bowl fragments in Egyptian hieratic script in the foundation fill of the later Judean palace-fort. These bowls document that `smw', the harvest tax, was paid to Egypt at that time.

Ussishkin further writes that "contrary to the Biblical traditions, Canaanite Lachish was not destroyed by the Israelite tribes." [7400] But the telling lack of Philistine pottery at level VI, sherds of which should have been found there considering its close proximity to the Philistine cities of Tel Zafit (Gath) and Tel Miqne (Ekron) should give us pause on the correctness of chronology.

Conclusion: As we have pointed out elsewhere already the Philistine region of Palestine was also where major caravan routes led from Egypt to Mesopotamia. There were peoples of many nations who came through here and left their marks behind. What is commonly referred to as Philistine pottery is more likely Greek style pottery, Greek people who came to this area starting in the 7th/6th centuries BC. In the context of the revised chronology, the evidence at Tel Lachish leads us to conclude that the lack of so-called Philistine pottery in level VI points to the intrusive nature of the artifacts found at that level. In other words, during the sieges and conflicts a pit was dug, for water most likely, and the objects were thrown into it at some point. We must always keep in mind that at the University of Pennsylvania excavations at Memphis, Egypt, the 21st dynasty layers were immediately under the Ptolemaic layers.

Tell el-Farah

"At Tell el-Fara [7500] South Petrie excavated a large mud-brick fortress that also seems to have been erected by the Egyptian administration. Its history is not clear, but it appears that it continued to serve the Philistines in the later part of the Iron Age I. The cemeteries adjacent to the mound are of great importance for the study of the Late Bronze - Iron Age transition. Cemetery 900 contains a series of solitary burials, rock-cut tombs with stepped dromos, and a burial chamber with broad benches. The finds in these tombs include many vessels made in the Late Bronze Age tradition but no Mycenaean or Cypriote imports. Scarabs of Ramses III, Ramses IV, and perhaps Ramses VIII were found, thus dating the cemetery to the final days of Egyptian rule in Canaan."

"Stratum VI at Lachish provides a good example of the cultural sequence of the first half of the 12th century. This stratum follows stratum VII and Fosse Temple III, in which Cypriote and Mycenaean imports appeared, and has been dated to the 20th Dynasty, on the basis of the discovery of a bronze object bearing the cartouche of Ramses III. Votive bowls bearing hieratic inscriptions, similar to those found at Tel Sera'[7600], are dated to the same time, as is a tomb containing a clay anthropoid coffin inscribed in Egyptian hieratic script, which probably belonged to an Egyptian official. The temple found in Area P at Lachish resembles a temple of the same period at Beth Shean; both contain many Egyptian elements." [7700] Click also Here for the following paragraph! The authors comparison of the Sea-Peoples headress bands with those shown on anthropoid coffins implies that the Persians burried their dead in such clay coffins.]

Sometime after the Sea Peoples Wars against Persia Ramses III prides himself to have undertaken a `Punt Expedition'.

"I hewed great galleys with barges before them, manned with numerous crews, and attendants in great number; their captains of marines were with them, with inspectors and petty officers, to command them. They were laden with the products of Egypt without number, being in every number like ten-thousands. They were sent forth into the great sea of "the inverted water", they arrived at the countries of Punt, no mishap overtook them, safe and bearing terror. The galleys and barges were laden with the products of God's-Land, consisting of all the strange marvels of their country: plentiful myrrh of Punt, laden by ten-thousands, without number. Their chief's children of God's-Land went before their tribute advancing to Egypt. They arrived in safety at the highland of Coptos; they landed in safety, bearing the things which they brought. They were sent forward downstream and arrived amid festivity, and brought (some) of the tribute into the (royal) presence like marvels. Their chiefs children were in adoration before me, kissing the earth, prostrate before me. I gave them to all the gods of this land, to satisfy the two serpent-goddesses every morning." [7800]

Undoubtedly this inscription echoes the Punt expedition of Queen Hatshepsut which stood out in the memory of all Egyptians as it was carved in the walls of her mortuary temple at Deir el Bahari. Ramses III had an insatiable appetite for grand display and wanting to have all these famous events happen to him too, even if only in his poetic dreaming. If this account represents real events may be debatable. Coming from Egypt there were 2 seas which according to our geographical knowledge could be described as `great seas',

1. the Mediterranean Sea and
2. the Red Sea.

If the Mediterranean Sea is meant, where could the inverted river be? The only sizable rivers flowing from the north to the south would be in Asia Minor, i.e. the Ceyhan River flowing into the Gulf of Iskunderun, or its western neighbor, the Seyhan River.

The Orontes River also flows for a short distance in a south-western direction just before entering the Sea, but its doubtful that was impressive enough to refer to it in this way.

The other often quoted choice is the Euphrates River, by way of the Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. This choice certainly is possible. God's-Land and Punt then would be their new trading partner in that region.

Besides the Euphrates it could also be the Indus River in Pakistan, which is not any further to travel to than the Euphrates River coming from Egypt, provided a ship would leave the coast.

With Greece being a center of civilization, their only rivers flowing south are the Nestos, Struma and Axios Rivers. How significant a river they then were is doubtful.

In Italy we have the Garigliano and Tiber Rivers, again not really major bodies of water either.

Looking down the African coast, there are the Dschuba, Tana, Ruaha, Sambasi and Limpopo Rivers. Of these the last two are major rivers. Certainly they could be a choice just as well as the other rivers mentioned.

Lastly, we shall consider the Jordan River. The problem with that choice is that the Jordan is not a major river either and does not flow into the Gulf of Aqaba but into the Great Dead Sea.

Perhaps then we should reconsider what the meaning of `the great sea of the inverted water' could be. May be the inverted water is not a good translation, perhaps it is an Egyptianism and means `deep water' letting Ramses send his galleys across the Great Green Sea to a Palestinian port. After all standing on an Egyptian beach, the waves come from the north, or northerly directions, giving rise to the appearance that its water flows in the opposite direction of the Nile. No doubt that would be the best, sensible solution to such a passage. Certainly Punt/Israel/Palestine was at a distance which ships could navigate safely even at that time with a safe return. Or is Ramses III account just a way to express his dreams?

Summary

This then is the scenario of the history as presented in the revised version of chronology in a nutshell. It represents a natural evolution of the historical data available to us and leaves the scriptural account intact. The only thing it does not leave intact is the history of these nations as represented by modern historians who, unfortunately, had selected a wrong starting point for their historical account probably as the result of some of the ideas having been entertained by them as described at the beginning of this summary.

Once decided on and written about in books, taught to students and then finding evidence that in a strange way seemed to support their viewpoints, [as for example Shishak and So, one being Thutmoses, the other pharaoh Shoshenk in the revised view but both being Shoshenks in the conventional view [7900] their theory eventually was pronounced irrefutable fact. Dissenting scholars were themselves helpless in voicing caution and for the lack of a better explanation acquiesced eventually to the majority view.

[0100] It appears that the conventional 31 years attributed to Ramses III include the reign of his predecessor Setnakht/Achoris (393-380 BC). In revised view his reign endured from 379-361 BC.
[0500] In the Pyramid Texts `bu' has been thought to mean metal and some theorize that it means `copper' in particular and that `hmt' was the humble metal-workers term for copper later (or at some point in time?) also including bronze. The Edfu Texts are said to show that `r-wy' and `r-hmt' are later period terms for silver. [Alessandra Nibbi, `Some Remarks on Copper' in JARCE, Vol. XIV, 1977, p. 59-65.]
[0600] Landels, L.G.; `Engineering in the Ancient World', Clarke, Irwin and Company, 1980; Information from -http://www.mri.on.ca/steel.html.
[0700] See (http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php3?mediakey=xu2nhqg2zp).
[0800] Waldbaum, `The First Archaeological Appearance of Iron', pp. 75-77.
[0900] S. Vinson, `The Earliest Representations of Brailed Sails', JARCE, Vol. XXX 1993, p. 133-150.
[1000] See `Bibl.Archaeology' BA, Sept. 1985, p. 165.
[1100] For more see, H. Goedicke, The Harem Conspiracy against Ramses III, in JEA, Vol. 49, 1963, p. 71-92.
[1200] U. Hölscher, `Medinet Habu: Ausgrabungen des Oriental Institute der Universität Chicago: Ein Vorbericht.', Leipzig, 1933: J.C.Hinrichs.; U. Hölscher, `The Excavation of Medinet Habu', I: General Plans and Views. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; U. Hölscher, `The Excavation of Medinet Habu', V, 1954: Post-Ramessid Remains. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[1300] N.K. Sandars, `The Sea Peoples', p. 165; The above relief carving based drawing of the `Prst' prisoner of war can be seen in W. Wreszinski's, `Atlas zur Altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte', (Dec. 4, 1931).
[1400] Herodotus, Bk. VII, Sec. 92.
[1500] A.H. Layard, `Monuments of Niniveh', Vol. II, p. 33.
[1600] Olmstead, `History of Assyria', p. 306.
[1700] BAR, Sep/Oct 1990, p. 29; Mar/Apr 1991, p. 26.
[1800] See a) E. Naville, `The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias', Egyptian
Exploration Fund, 1887 (1890), pp. 6-7; See also, T. Hayter Lewis, Some Remarks made in Tel-elYahoudee' in PSBA, Feb 1880, p. 31-34.
b) F.L. Griffith, `The Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh', The Mound of the Jew, p. 41.
c) Mahmud Hamza, `Excavations of the Department of Antiquities at Qantir, 928',
d) `Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte', XXX (Cairo, 1930), p.58.
[1900] Louis Spieler, `Les Scenes de chasse assyriennes et egyptiennes', Recuell de travaux relatifs a la philologie et l'archeolgie egyptiennes et assyriennes, Vol. 40 (1923), pp. 158-176.
[2000] KMT, Fall 1999, p. 64-67.
[2100] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 403.
[2200] Ibid., Sec. 219.
[2300] Ibid., Sec. 270.
[2400] BAR, Nov/Dec 1991, p. 46.
[2500] Diodorus, Vol. XV, Sec. 5.
[2600] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 64; See also Pritchard, `Records', Pl. 95; showing R. III on a relief at Medinet Habu attacking a walled fortress in Amor manned by Syrian lancers.
[2700] From the website at http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm, p. 12-13.
[2800] Diodorus, Book XV, Sec. 29.
[2900] Ibid., p. 29.
[3000] Ibid. pp. 41, 49, 90, 91.
[3100] See H. Gauthier, `Les Royce', p. 166, 167, 169; E.A.Wallis Budge, `The Book of the Kings of Egypt", (London, 1908), Vol. II, p. 1. Name Plates.
[3200] An epitaph in the tomb of Petosiris. See G.Lefebvre, `Le Tombeau de Petosiris', (1924), Vol. I, p. 3f. Olmstead, `History of Persia', (Chicago, 1948), p. 441.
[3300] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 64.
[3400] Ibid., Sec. 77.
[3500] Ibid.
[3600] Ibid.
[3700] Ibid.
[3800] Ibid., Sec. 81.
[3900] J. Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 77.
[4000] Breasted, `Records', IV, Sec. 97.
[4100] Ibid., Sec. 188.
[4200] Ibid., Sec. 189.
[4300] Ibid., Sec. 207.
[4400] Ibid., Sec. 225, Pl. 14b.
[4500] Ibid., Sec. 237, Pl. 17a.
[4600] J.A.Wilson, `The Language of the Historical Texts Commemorating Ramses III', Medinet Habu Studies, 1928-29, (Chicago, 1930), p. 32.
[4700] See also the fragment of an Egyptian green porcelain vase found at the end of the south trench 29 at Gezer bearing the name of Ramses III. R.A.S. MacAlister, `The Excavation of Gezer', Vol. II, London, 1912, p. 235-236. MacAlister erroneously attributes the sherd to Ramses II. Inspection will show the beholder that the cartouche is that of Ramses III. The sherd was found among Classical Period examples of figures and figurines in Terra Cotta supporting, in our view, that Ramses III belongs in Greek times.
[4800] Siegfried Schott, (transl. by E. Hauser), `Wall Scenes from the Mortuary Chapel of the Mayor Paser at Medinet Habu', Chicago University Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 30, 1957.
[4900] Right side image: `The Cambridge Ancient History', Plates to Vol. VII, Part 1.
[5000] The Lydian division were the Shardana, Sherden or Sardana, people from the vicinity of their capital of Sardis in Lydia, Asia Minor.
[5100] R. Zahn in Sir W.M. Ramsay, `Anatolian Studies', Manchester 1923, p. 451, Plate XIV, 2.
[5200] Pamela Garber, `The Museums of Cyprus' im BA, Vol. 52, DEc. 1989, p. 175. This helmet has long horns but otherwise looks quite like those of the Sea Peoples helmets. Check also on Crawford H. Greenwalt & Ann M. Haywoodz, A Helmet of the 6th Century from Sardis in ASOR, Feb 1992, p. 1-31. Shown is also a helmet wearing man from Golgoi, Cyprus; a medieval Spangenheim type from Baldenheim im Alsace, Germany; a Graeco-Persian worn stele depicting a horseman with helmet (worn) in stone with a crest.
[5240] For a B&W image of an ancient, three pronged battering ram of a ship found at Atlit, south of Haifa, see BA, Sep/Oct 1984, p. 8.
[5300] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, The Great Papyrus Harris, Sec. 211.
[5400] Edgerton & Wilson, `Historical Records of Ramses III'. On the Maruannu/ maryannu, see also Michael Heltzer, The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit, Wiesbaden, 1982. According to the author he calculated/ estimated there were about 230 persons in this group whose `profession' could be inherited, p. 111-112.
[5500] See F.K.Kienitz, `Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende', (Berlin, 1953)]
[5600] E.Naville, `Bubastis', p. 45.
[5700] See A.T.Olmstead, `History of the Persian Empire', (Chicago, 1948),pp.116-117; Also the letters from Ezra 4:7 to and from Artaxerxes were written in Aramaic (Syriac).
[5800] H.C.Minutoli, `Reise zum Tempel des Jupiter Ammon in der Lybischen Wüste', (Berlin, 1824). [5900] Ahmed Fakhri, `Siwa Oasis', p. 100; p.167-168 in 1990 edition.
[6000] Ibid., ed. 1990.
[6100] A. Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 453 He reads Nekhtharehbe.
[6200] Biblical Archaeologist, "Conquest or Settlement", by Volkmar Fritz, Vol. 50, No.2, June 1987, p.87.
[6300] BAR, May/June 1998, p. 41 and May/June 2000, p. 56.
[6400] Carolyn Higginbotham, `The Egyptianizing of Canaan', Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol.24, No.3, May/June 1998, p. 41.
[6500] Ibid. p. 88.
[6600] A. Zertal in BAR, `Philistine Kin Found in Early Israel', May/June 2002, p. 18ff.; Archaeologists found that El-Ahwat, located 9 miles east of Caesarea in the territory of Manassah, was surrounded by a 13 feet wide and 33 feet high wall. [BAR, Jan 1996, p. 44. & BAR, May 2002, p. 18-31,60-61;] The low city gate seems to indicate that enemies like the Assyrians, which caused in Palestine strong fortifications to be build, were not around. We would place this town in the 5th to 4th century BC, Persian times. To compare the square towers of this site with round towers, corbelled domes and the use of lintels with constructions of Sardinia seems arbitrary.
[6700] A. Zertal in BAR, `Sticking to the Facts', Mar/Apr 2004, p. 23. [6800] Ibid., BAR, 2002.
[6900] Ibid., 2002, p. 23.
[7000] Ibid.
[7100] For a more recent exchange see I. Finkelstein, `Just another Israelite Village' in Israel Exploration Journal, May/Jun2 2003 and A. Zertal's reply, `Sticking to Facts' in BAR, Mar/Apr 2004, p. 22-23.
[7200] Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987, p. 89.
[7300] D.Ussishkin, `Lachish Key to the Israelite Conquest', BAR, Jan/Feb 1987, p. 20.
[7400] Ibid, p. 36.
[7500] Tell el-Farah South is located ca. 9 miles south of Gerar (but a little more inland) which is 18 miles south of Gezer. Tell el-Farah North is located near Shechem.
[7600] The Tel Sera hieratic inscription on a bowl reads: b3^a "which [....(southern)]^(b) of regnal year 22 (+x) record ^(c) grain measured in the first (?) quadruple hk t making 460 sacks." [Ibid., p. 262, Fig. 8.1]
[7700] A. Ben-Tor, `The Archaeology of Ancient Israel', 1992, p. 262.
[7800] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 407.
[7900] It is untanable to suggest that Shoshenk can be transliterated as both, Shishak and So.
[8000} Alessandra Nibbi, `The Sea Peoples and Egypt', Noyes Press, 1975.
[8100] Trude and Moshe Dothan, `People of the Sea', New York, 1992.