From: Subject: CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE LIBYAN AND ETHIOPIAN DYNASTIES Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:12:27 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/kronos/vol0503/001cult.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE LIBYAN AND ETHIOPIAN = DYNASTIES

CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE LIBYAN AND ETHIOPIAN DYNASTIES

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

EVIDENCE FROM LANGUAGE, ART, AND RELIGION

Editor's Note: The following material on the Libyan and = Ethiopian=20 dynasties is taken from Velikovsky's forthcoming book The Assyrian=20 Conquest, Vol. II of the Ages in Chaos series. The appearance of = The=20 Assyrian Conquest will mark the completion of that series.=20

In conjunction with the attempt to bring the period of Libyan and = Ethiopian=20 domination in Egypt into correct alignment -- within the framework of = the=20 history of that land and in proper synchronism with the histories of = foreign=20 countries -- I shall select several examples from the fields of = language, art,=20 and religion to demonstrate that the revised chronology does not = contradict the=20 natural evolutionary process we would expect to find in these various = fields. To=20 the contrary, the evidence in all these fields will argue for = the new=20 version of history. Paradoxical finds will no longer be paradoxical and=20 enigmatic solutions will be easily understood. We shall elucidate, on = such=20 examples, the close following of the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties upon = the=20 Eighteenth and their precedence in relation to the Nineteenth = Dynasty.

On the other hand, the comparison of language, art, and religion of = the=20 Eighteenth Dynasty with examples from the same three fields under the = Nineteenth=20 Dynasty exhibits a veritable gulf, or break in tradition. With the = beginning of=20 the Nineteenth Dynasty, "Egypt was a changed world". The author of this=20 evaluation, Sir Alan Gardiner, explained: "it is impossible not to = notice the=20 marked deterioration of the art, the literature, and indeed the general = culture=20 of the people. The language which they wrote approximates more closely = to the=20 vernacular and incorporates many foreign words; the copies of ancient = texts are=20 incredibly careless, as if the scribes utterly failed to understand = their=20 meaning."(1)

Considering that, in the conventional chronology, between the end of = the=20 Eighteenth Dynasty (King Ay) and the beginning of the Nineteenth = (counted from=20 Ramses I) only some fifteen to twenty years are available (and Haremhab = is=20 supposed to fill them) -- and even taking into account the revolutionary = tendencies of Akhnaton -- a break in all aspects of cultural development = marking=20 the transition between the two dynasties, the Eighteenth and the = Nineteenth, is=20 more than enigmatic.

___________________=20

1. A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1964), p. = 247.

THE LITERARY STYLE OF THE LIBYAN PERIOD

The oracular stele of Thutmose IV, father of Amenhotep III and = grandfather of=20 Akhnaton, is a famous relic. Thutmose, when still a prince in his teens, = visited=20 the oracle of the Great Sphinx at Gizeh. There he fell asleep and heard = in his=20 dream that he, not the eldest among his brothers and not in the line of=20 succession, was destined to follow his father Amenhotep II on the = throne. The=20 oracle required Thutmose, upon his ascent to the throne, to clear the = Sphinx of=20 the desert sand that had swept in around it; when pharaoh, Thutmose = fulfilled=20 his vow and also erected a stele with a description of both the oracular = dream=20 and his freeing of the Sphinx from the sand. This stele was found = between the=20 paws of the Sphinx when in modern times the sand, that had again buried = the huge=20 figure above its paws, was removed under the supervision of = archaeologists.

A. Erman, an eminent Egyptologist, tried to prove that the stele is a = product=20 of a late dynasty, possibly the Libyan. He presented the evidence of = literary=20 style, epigraphy, and spelling, concluding that the stele must have = originated=20 between the tenth and sixth centuries, and not in the fifteenth which = was the=20 accepted time of Thutmose IV.(1) "Our Sphinx stele is thus to be = regarded as a=20 restored inscription, but obviously a careless and free restoration. The = time at=20 which it was completed cannot be estimated exactly; it is not in any = case later=20 than the Saitic period, but can be placed equally well in the 21st or = 22nd=20 [Libyan] dynasty."(2)

Erman's position was disputed by another equally eminent = Egyptologist, W.=20 Spiegelberg, who presented the argument that the "late style and = spelling" are=20 actually not late and that, furthermore, the texts of the Saitic period = are=20 conspicuous for their classical style; additionally, no marked = difference is=20 evident between the texts of these two periods. "The good archaizing = texts of=20 the Saitic period are conspicuous in their use of correct 'classic'=20 orthography.'(3)

Spiegelberg concluded that, because of this similarity in the art of = writing=20 in these two periods, separated by half a millennium and more, Erman's = argument=20 was unfounded and the stele must have been carved in the days of the = pharaoh=20 whose name it bears, Thutmose IV.

Is it not strange that the style and epigraphy of two periods, = thought to be=20 separated by such a large span of time, are so similar as to engage two=20 specialists in such a dispute?

The Eighteenth Dynasty and the Libyan period in Egypt produced very = similar=20 literary works. In no language, ancient or new, would four to seven = hundred=20 years have passed without very considerable changes: one need think only = of the=20 metamorphosis of English between the time of Geoffrey Chaucer and that = of Oscar=20 Wilde. It was no different with the Egyptian language; and most likely, = the two=20 epochs under consideration show so little change simply because there = was so=20 little time difference. Thus the conflicting opinions are much less = conflicting=20 if only scores of years, not five centuries, separate the time of = Thutmose IV=20 from the beginning of Libyan rule.

___________________=20

1. A. Erman, "Ein neues Denkmal von der grossen Sphinx," = SKPAW,=20 1904, p. 1063.
2. Ibid.
3. W. Spiegelberg, "Die Datierung = der=20 Sphinxstele," Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Vol. 7 (1904), = pp.=20 288ff. and 343ff.

THE ART OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND LIBYAN = DYNASTIES

The Libyan Dynasty, following directly upon the Eighteenth, = perpetuated not=20 only its literary style, but many of its artistic traditions as well. In = some=20 instances, the resemblance was so close that experts mistakenly = attributed a=20 work of art to the wrong Dynasty; and while the difference in time = actually=20 amounted to not more than a few decades, on the conventional time scale = many=20 centuries were involved -- centuries which could not have passed without = profound changes in the mode of execution of statues, bas-reliefs, and=20 paintings.

Metal sculpture: One such instance is the Carnarvon = statuette=20 of Amun, a rare chef-d'oeuvre discovered by Howard Carter at = Karnak in=20 1916. When first exhibited in 1922 it was described by Carter as a = "Statuette of=20 the God in the Likeness of Thotmosis III". "This attribution has never = been=20 challenged by any of the scholars who have published illustrations of = the=20 specimen," wrote Cyril Aldred in 1956,(1) "and the present writer must = include=20 himself among those who accepted without cavil a dating to the Tuthmosid = period." But a more detailed examination of the statuette convinced = Aldred that=20 "a date in the Eighteenth Dynasty is untenable". The statue was not of = the=20 Eighteenth Dynasty. It was not even Ramesside. "There is, in fact, = nothing in=20 this statuette which does not belong to the style of the Third = Intermediate=20 Period [the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties] and everything is in favour = of such=20 a date. . . . If a more precise dating within the Third Intermediate = Period be=20 insisted upon, then the writer is inclined to place this statuette of = Amun early=20 in the Twenty-second Dynasty, since it shows the stylistic features of = such=20 metal sculpture in fully developed form...(2)

Conventional chronology puts almost six hundred years between the = time of=20 Thutmose III and the early Libyan (Twenty-second) Dynasty kings. Were = the=20 changes in the execution of the sculptures so minute in this span of = time that=20 they could not be detected by an art expert? Or was the elapsed time = much=20 shorter, a century perhaps, as the revised chronology implies?

In trying to explain how a blunder of this magnitude was possible, = Aldred=20 goes on to discuss the history of metal sculpture in Egypt. Metal = sculpture,=20 introduced under the Eighteenth Dynasty, experienced a setback under the = Nineteenth Dynasty, but becomes plentiful again in the Libyan period. = With the=20 time of Libyan domination immediately following on the Eighteenth = Dynasty, there=20 was no interruption between the introduction of the technique under the=20 Eighteenth Dynasty and its greatest florescence in Libyan times.

We can cite another instance of misattribution of a sculpture in = metal. A=20 bronze figurine of Anubis, dated to the Libyan period in 1963, was only = three=20 years later redated by half a millennium to the Eighteenth or early = Nineteenth=20 Dynasties.(3)

Sculpture in stone: Problems not unlike those = involved in the=20 dating of metal sculpture arose in the attribution of monumental = sculpture in=20 stone. In a private communication, the late Egyptologist Walter Federn = brought=20 to my attention the case of the sphinxes erected at Karnak in the temple = of Mut.=20 According to Federn:

"In the temple of Mut at Karnak stand more than a hundred statues of = the=20 lion-goddess Sekhmet. The majority date from [the time of] Amenhotep II, = and can=20 be so identified by their inscriptions. Many were dedicated also by = Shoshenk I,=20 and are without the inscriptions characteristic of the others; they are = notable=20 for their somewhat careless execution.... It is remarkable also that one = statue,=20 which is the largest of all, and which was formerly taken to be the = oldest of=20 them, originates rather from Shoshenk I."(4)

Was the completion of the Sekhmet sphinxes interrupted for more than = six=20 centuries? Why did Seti the Great or Ramses II not complete the work, = if, as is=20 generally thought, they followed the Eighteenth Dynasty? It was the = Libyan kings=20 who completed the decoration of the temple begun by Amenhotep II, only a = few=20 decades after his death; and they did so in a style hardly = distinguishable from=20 the original work.

Chalices: Chalices, or drinking vessels with relief=20 decorations, are unique objects; they seem to have been made "by the = same group=20 of men over no long period of time".(5) Some of them definitely belong = to the=20 Libyan period (Twenty-second Dynasty) because the names of Libyan kings, = such as=20 "Shoshenk", are inscribed on them. These come from Memphis, at the apex = of the=20 Delta; but another group of somewhat finer workmanship originates in the = town of=20 Tûna in the vicinity of Hermopolis, almost directly across the = river from Tell=20 el-Amarna. The style of the uninscribed chalices from Tûna = recalled so strongly=20 the el-Amarna style of art that several experts ascribed to them a late=20 Eighteenth Dynasty date. The case was argued most forcefully by Ricketts = in an=20 article he published in 1918.(6)

In the decoration of one chalice Ricketts found "an almost Asiatic = richness=20 of design, a certain lack of severity" which tended to confirm his = impression=20 that it belonged "to an age of experiment, even of cross-influences, = such as the=20 later years of the Eighteenth Dynasty".(7) Another cup which he examined = made=20 him even more secure in his attribution: it was "yet richer in aspect = and, with=20 its sparse figures, more certainly in the temper of the Eighteenth = Dynasty".(8)=20 A "spirited fowling scene" on a third chalice, so familiar from = Eighteenth=20 Dynasty painted tombs, strengthened his case still more.(9)

The arguments presented in 1918 for a late Eighteenth Dynasty date = for some=20 of the chalices were at first accepted by most scholars; and when = Sotheby, the=20 renowned art dealer, listed them in his 1921 catalog, he also labeled = them as=20 such.

Soon, however, several art experts expressed their unhappiness at = such an=20 early attribution, chiefly because of the similar, though somewhat = inferior,=20 chalices from Memphis, which could be dated securely to Libyan times on = the=20 basis of inscriptional evidence. It was unthinkable that there could = have been a=20 gap of over four centuries between the two groups. It was difficult to = imagine=20 that the art of manufacturing the objects died out under the Nineteenth, = Twentieth, and Twenty-first Dynasties, only to be revived under the=20 Twenty-second or Libyan Dynasty. Scholarly opinion swung toward a Libyan = date=20 for all the chalices. Ricketts' paper of 1918, so carefully argued on = the basis=20 of artistic analogies, was termed "misleading"(10) -- yet no real = reasons were=20 adduced to invalidate the Eighteenth Dynasty attribution of the objects=20 discussed by him.

The solution to the dilemma becomes obvious when the Egyptian = dynasties are=20 placed in their correct sequence. The chalices were made as Ricketts = deduced,=20 during the Amarna period -- the late Eighteenth Dynasty. They continued = to be=20 manufactured under the Libyan Dynasty that followed, even while = exhibiting the=20 same decline in artistic standards which characterized all Egyptian art = in the=20 wake of the civil war and foreign invasion that precipitated the end of = the=20 house of Akhnaton. And if they were made, as Tait argued, "by the same = group of=20 men over no long period of time", they appear to have been manufactured = in the=20 space of two or three consecutive generations.

___________________=20

1. Cyril Aldred, "The Carnarvon Statuette of Amun," Journal of = Egyptian=20 Archaeology 42 (1956), p. 3.
2. Ibid, p. 7.
3. N. = Dorin=20 Ischlondsky, "Problems of Dating a Unique Egyptian Bronze," Journal = of Near=20 Eastern Studies 25 (1966), pp. 97-105.
4. Cf. Percy E. Newberry, = "The=20 Sekhemet statues of the Temple of Mut at Karnak," Proceedings of the = Society=20 of Biblical Archaeology XXV (1903),pp. 217-221; Henri Gauthier; = "Les=20 Statues Thebaines de la déesse Sakhmet," Annales du Service = des Antiquites=20 de l'Egypte XIX (1920),pp. 177-207; Kurt Sethe, "Zu den = Sachmet-Statuen=20 Amenophis' III," Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und=20 Altertumskundew, 58 (1923), pp. 43-44.
5. G. A. D. Tait, "The = Egyptian=20 Relief Chalice," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 49 (1963), p.=20 132.
6. C. Ricketts, "Two Faience Chalices at Eton College from the=20 Collection of the Late Major W. J. Myers," Journal of Egyptian=20 Archaeology 5 (1918), pp. 145-147.
7. Ibid., pp. = 145-146.
8.=20 Ibid., p. 146.
9. Ibid.
10. Tait, "The Egyptian = Relief=20 Chalice," p. 93.=20

SURVIVALS OF THE CULT OF ATON IN LIBYAN AND = ETHIOPIAN=20 TIMES

The Eighteenth Dynasty saw, toward its end, the worship of Aton. = Akhnaton in=20 his religious reform -- or heresy as it is usually called instituted = Aton as the=20 supreme god. His heirs, Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen, having worshipped = Aton in=20 their earlier years, reverted again to the worship of Amon, and the=20 circumstances of these religious vacillations are described in my = Oedipus=20 and Akhnaton. These kings, however, reigned for a few years only = and died=20 in their youth; they served as prototypes for Polynices and Eteocles of = the=20 Theban cycle of tragedies.

Under the Libyan Dynasty not only the worship of Amon, but even the = worship=20 of Aton survived. Amon was a deity through long periods of Egyptian = history, but=20 the worship of Aton was very characteristic for the end of the = Eighteenth=20 Dynasty only.

A stele,(1) now in the Cairo Museum, shows a priest in office under = king=20 Osorkon II, one of the later Libyan pharaohs. The priest is described in = the=20 text as "Prophet of Amonrasonter in Karnak who contemplates Aton of = Thebes", a=20 somewhat peculiar description which H. Kees remarked upon. He noted that = it is=20 "as if the priest had lived in Amarna times!".(2)

At the beginning of this century James H. Breasted drew attention to = the fact=20 that the Ethiopian temple-city Gem-Aten, known from the annals of the = Nubian=20 kings, carries the same name as Akhnaton's temple at Thebes, and that = the two=20 must be in some relation, despite the great difference in age. A relief = in a=20 Theban tomb shows Akhnaton with his family worshipping in the temple of=20 Gem-Aten. "The name of the Theban temple of Aton therefore furnished the = name of=20 the Nubian city, and there can be no doubt that Ikhenaton [Akhnaton] was = its=20 founder, and that he named it after the Theban temple of his god.... We = have=20 here the remarkable fact that this Nubian city of Ikhenaton survived and = still=20 bore the name he gave it nearly a thousand years after his death and the = destruction of the new city of his god in Egypt (Amarna)."(3)

Recently, Alexander Badawy discussed the worship observed by Akhnaton = at the=20 Gem-Aten ("Meeting of the Aten") which stood at Amarna. It is thought = that the=20 king used to come to meet the Aton "daily in the eastern open courts of = the=20 Gem-Aten".(4) "Music and singing, rattling of sistra, presentation of = incense=20 and flowers gave a festive note of jubilation to the daily liturgy of=20 Aten."(5)

The Gem-Aten (or Gempaton) of the annals of the Nubian kings was = found by F.=20 Addison at Kawa in 1929.

The further excavations of Griffith and Macadam at the site uncovered = "two=20 documents of Amenophis III which attested the foundation by this king of = the=20 historical Gempaton".(6) Breasted's conclusion that the later Ethiopian = temple=20 went back to the Amarna period was now confirmed by archaeology.(7)

This only underlines the "remarkable fact" that the city carried, = through the=20 many centuries that supposedly elapsed between the Amarna period and = Ethiopian=20 times, a name recalling a heretical cult and, moreover, remained = unnoticed=20 throughout this period in contemporary documents. After Akhnaton's time = the name=20 GemAten is first referred to in an inscription of Tirhaka in one of the=20 side-chambers of the Gebel-Barkal temple(8) -- yet "its earlier history = is=20 totally unknown".(9) Between the Amarna period and the time of Tirhaka, = the=20 accepted chronology inserts almost 700 years -- but we know that in fact = only=20 little more than a century elapsed, the period of Libyan domination; and = we have=20 seen that the cult of Aton persisted through the Libyan period.

Possibly the cult of Aton was perpetuated for a time by priests who = fled=20 south when, about -- 830, the tide turned back in favor of the religion = of Amon=20 and the Libyan kings from the Delta were pushing toward Thebes. In any = case, the=20 religion of Atenism did not survive into Ethiopian times. When Piay = (Piankhy)=20 invaded Egypt about -- 725 he did so under the guidance of Amon -- but = even=20 then, ironically, Amon's chief sanctuary in Ethiopia retained the name = it had=20 received from Akhnaton a century earlier.

___________________=20

1. Catalogue no. 42213.
2. ... als ob er in der Amarnazeit gelebt = hätte!"=20 -- See "Ein Sonnenheiligtum im Amonstempel von Karnak," = Orientalia,=20 Nova Series 18 (1949), p. 442.
3. James H. Breasted, "A City of = Ikhenaton in=20 Nubia," Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache 40 = (1902/1903), p.=20 107.
4. A. Badawy, "The Names Per-Ha'y/Gem-Aten of the Great Temple = at=20 'Amarna," Zeit schrift für Aegyptische Sprache 102 (1975), = p.13.
5.=20 Ibid., p. 12.
6. Jean Leclant and Jean Yoyotte, "Notes=20 d'histoire et de civilization éthiopiennes," Bulletin de = l'Institut=20 Francais d'Archéologie Orientale 51 (1952), p. 6.
7. T.=20 Säve-Söderbergh, Aegypten und Nubien (Lund, 1941), p. = 162, affirms that=20 the city, while founded by Amenhotep III, received its name from = Akhnaton.
8.=20 R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Part V, = (Vol. 10),=20 pl. 12. 9. Breasted, "A City of Ikhenaton in Nubia," p. 106.=20

THE TOMB OF MENTUEMHAT

The Ethiopian period, following the Libyan, came between the = Eighteenth and=20 the Nineteenth Dynasties, and its art shows affinities with both. This = can be=20 seen for instance in the decoration of the tomb of Mentuemhat, governor = of=20 Thebes in the time of Tirhaka and Assurbanipal.

In 1947 the Brooklyn Museum purchased "a fragment of limestone relief = of=20 exceptional quality".(1) It was evaluated by John D. Cooney of the = Egyptian=20 Department as a product of the late Eighteenth Dynasty. The bas-relief = contains=20 scenes already known from paintings in the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of = Menna in=20 the Theban necropolis (tomb no. 69) -- a peasant girl sitting on a chair = and=20 taking a thorn out of the foot of another girl sitting opposite her; and = a=20 second scene of a woman with a child in a sling at her breast arranging = fruits=20 in a basket (Plate XIV). Both scenes, of exquisite bas-relief technique, = have so=20 many identical details with the paintings of the tomb of Menna that = Professor=20 Cooney was not acting inconsiderately when he assumed he purchased = objects of=20 art of the late Eighteenth Dynasty.

However, "only a few months later," Professor Cooney narrates, "two = other=20 fragmentary reliefs were offered to the Museum" and were assessed by him = as=20 dating from the seventh century.(2) They were also purchased at a price=20 appropriate for art of the Saïte period, or the seventh and early = sixth=20 centuries, which is by far below the value of comparable art pieces of = the=20 Eighteenth Dynasty. The two fragments contained a scene depicting = musicians and=20 scribes with certain details that "made a Saïte date completely = certain"(3)=20 (Plates XIII and XVI).

Of the first acquisition Cooney wrote: "I was so convinced of the = early date=20 of the relief with peasant scenes that I failed even to consider a = relationship=20 between it and the Saïte pieces."(4) Yet when, at the suggestion of = a colleague=20 (W. Stevenson Smith), he compared all three reliefs he found that the = limestone=20 and the heights and divisions of the registers were the same in all of = them; the=20 conclusion became unavoidable that all three had been made in the = seventh=20 century, and actually were recognized as being derived from the same = tomb=20 (Theban tomb no. 34) -- that of Mentuemhat, the governor of Thebes under = Tirhaka=20 the Ethiopian.(5)

Because of the artistic similarities between the scenes in the tombs = of Menna=20 and Mentuemhat, Professor Cooney had to assume that the Eighteenth = Dynasty=20 example was still accessible and artistically influential after more = than seven=20 hundred years had elapsed. "The lucky preservation of the Eighteenth = Dynasty=20 original," wrote Cooney, "which served as model to the Saïte = sculptor provides=20 an ideal chance to grasp the basic differences between the art of these = periods=20 separated by a span of almost eight centuries."(6) Actually, however, = between=20 the time of Menna and the time of Mentuemhat not 800, but ca. 200 years = passed,=20 only a fourth of the span noted by Cooney.

Upon having surveyed some of the problems in language (style and = trends) and=20 art (including religious art), in comparing the Eighteenth Dynasty with = the=20 Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties, the conclusion is irresistible that the = logical=20 development of Egyptian culture requires re-ordering the sequence of the = dynasties as they are presently known from Manethonian heritage to = modern=20 scholarship.

At the same time, the obvious rift between the language, art, and = religion of=20 the latter part of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the language, art, and = religion=20 evident at the inception of the Nineteenth Dynasty is extremely = difficult to=20 explain given the proximity of the two dynasties in the conventional = scheme of=20 Egyptian chronology.

___________________=20

1. John D. Cooney, "Three Early Saïte Tomb Reliefs," Journal = of Near=20 Eastern Studies 9 (1950), p. 193.
2. Ibid., p. = 193.
3.=20 Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 194.
5. Ibid.
6.=20 Ibid., p. 196.=20

\cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol0503\001cult.htm=20