From: Subject: THE LIBYAN PERIOD IN EGYPT Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:18:09 +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/vol0802/018egypt.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 THE LIBYAN PERIOD IN EGYPT

The Libyan Period In Egypt

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

Editor's Note: This article is a conflation of two = separate=20 sections of Velikovsky's forthcoming book The Assyrian = Conquest. -=20 LMG

The period of Libyan domination in Egypt, the Twenty-second Dynasty, = is said=20 by Manetho to have lasted for 120 years:(1) "but the accepted = chronology," wrote=20 Sir Alan Gardiner, "finds itself compelled to legislate for fully two=20 centuries...."(2) What is the basis for beginning the time of the Libyan = Dynasty=20 of Egypt -- that of the Shoshenks and Osorkons - as early as -945, or = even=20 earlier, and for stretching the period for over two hundred years? The = end of=20 the period is well established, since Libyan rule was supplanted by the=20 Ethiopian conquest ca. -712;(3) and the latter stands firmly fixed in = time in=20 relation to Biblical and Assyrian sources. The beginning of the Libyan = Dynasty=20 was dated to -945 because a synchronical link was claimed to exist = between the=20 Biblical references to Pharaoh Shishak, who conquered Palestine in the = fifth=20 year after Solomon, and Shoshenk I of the Libyan Dynasty. The placing of = Shoshenk I in the second half of the tenth century did not follow from = the=20 Egyptian material,(4) but from the supposed synchronism of Rehoboam -- = who=20 followed Solomon on the throne in Jerusalem - and Shoshenk I. In = Ages in=20 Chaos, I have already pointed out that this alleged synchronism is = not=20 supported by the available evidence, and I was able to show that the = conqueror=20 of Jerusalem and sacker of its temple was not a Libyan king but Thutmose = III of=20 the Eighteenth Dynasty.(5)

With the revised chronology, Manetho's figure appears to be = approximately=20 correct. The Eighteenth Dynasty ended ca. -830 and the last of the = Libyan kings=20 was deposed in -712 by Shabaka, advancing from Ethiopia to occupy the = Delta.=20 Also, to put Shoshenk "I" at the head of the Libyan Dynasty is = incorrect;=20 actually, he belongs to the end of the period of Libyan domination in = Egypt, and=20 is seen to be Pharaoh So of the Scriptures.(6)

During the greater part of the eighth century, when the Libyan = Dynasty of=20 Osorkons and Shoshenks ruled over Egypt, the kings of that country vied = with the=20 kings of Assyria for influence in Palestine and Phoenicia. Elibaal, king = of the=20 Phoenician port-city of Byblos, had an Egyptian artist carve a statue of = Osorkon=20 I and cut an inscription on its chest: "Statue that Elibaal, king of = Gebal=20 [Byblos], made...."(7) Since the conventional chronology made Osorkon a=20 contemporary of Asa, who ruled over Israel in the early ninth century = before the=20 present era, Elibaal also had to be placed in the ninth century nearly a = hundred=20 years too early. Abibaal, another king of Byblos, ordered a statue of = Shoshenk I=20 to be carved and inscribed in his name;(8) for this reason Abibaal was = placed in=20 the tenth century as a contemporary of that Libyan king.

Placing Abibaal and Elibaal in the tenth and early ninth centuries,=20 respectively, created problems for epigraphists concerned with the = history of=20 Hebrew script. The inscriptions on the sculptures are in Hebrew = characters, and=20 were the subject of much discussion in connection with the development = of=20 Hebrew. The epigraphists, taking their directives from the = archaeologists, tried=20 to reconcile the dates derived from these inscriptions with the = characters on=20 the stele of Mesha - the king of Moab who, in the middle of the ninth = century,=20 revolted against Ahab, king of Israel -- and with the ivories from = Samaria=20 belonging to the same period. This created a puzzle. The inscriptions of = Abibaal=20 and Elibaal are written in a script that appears to bear the closest = resemblance=20 to eighth-century ostraka from Samaria; yet conventional historians have = them=20 precede the stele of Mesha. Evidently, the order of Libyan kings on the = throne=20 of Egypt has been improperly reconstructed; for just as Elibaal and = Abibaal=20 should belong to the eighth century, so do Osorkon I and Shoshenk "I" -- = their=20 contemporaries in Egypt.

References

1. W. G. Waddell, Manetho (Loeb Classical = Library,=20 1940).
2. Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford University Press, = 1961), p.=20 334. Actually, at least 220 years must be allotted to the Twenty-second = Dynasty=20 on the conventional time scale.
3. A. Spalinger, "The Year 712 B.C. = and its=20 Implications for Egyptian History," Journal of the American Research = Center=20 in Egypt 10 (1973), pp. 95-101.
4. [For criticism of the = monumental=20 evidence traditionally used to assign long reigns to some Libyan kings, = see=20 Helen K. Jaquet-Gordon, "The Illusory Year 36 of Osorkon 1," The = Journal of=20 Egyptian Archaeology 53 (1967), pp. 63-68, and R. Caminos, "An = Ancient=20 Egyptian Donation Stela," Centaurus 14 (1969), pp. 42-46; see = also NOTE=20 below. JNS]
5. Ages in Chaos, Chapter IV: "The Temple in=20 Jerusalem", especially pp. 159-163. [Cf. E. Danelius, "Did Thutmose III = Despoil=20 the Temple in Jerusalem?" SISR II:3 (1977/78), pp. 64-79; and=20 Velikovsky's response in Ibid., p. 80. - LMG]
6. See I. = Velikovsky,=20 "From the End of the Eighteenth Dynasty to the Time of Ramses II", the = section=20 titled "Pharaoh So" in KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), pp. 7-9.
7. P. = Montet,=20 Byblos et l'Egypte (Paris, 1928-29), pls. 36-38.
8. = Ibid.,=20 p.53, fig. 17 and p.56, fig. 18. Cf. my Ramses II = and His=20 Time (1978), Chapter III: "The Tomb of Ahiram".

NOTE

It may be useful to summarize here the content of the articles of = Helen K.=20 Jaquet-Gordon and Richard Caminos, referred to above. The first author = showed=20 that, because of a faulty reading by Flinders Petrie of the year formula = on a=20 stele of Osorkon I, this king had been wrongly credited with a = thirty-six year=20 reign; in fact, it is unlikely that he reigned beyond the fifteen years = recorded=20 by Manetho - the highest date mentioned on his documents is twelve = years.

In a note, Jaquet-Gordon contended that the reign of Osorkon I's = successor on=20 the throne, Takelot I, needs to be similarly reduced, for a stele "on = the basis=20 of which a 23-year reign has been meted out to him does not in fact = belong to=20 him at all". She suggested that Takelot only reigned the seven years = which are=20 attested on his genuine monuments. The attribution of the stele was = definitively=20 clarified by Caminos in an article published two years later, removing = an error=20 which "has particularly affected king-lists and discussions of the = Libyan period=20 in Egypt". As a result of the two adjustments, the Libyan period becomes = shorter=20 by a total of at least thirty-seven years. This did not, however, = produce a=20 lowering of the absolute date for the beginning of the Dynasty, which is = still=20 held to be firmly tied to the supposed synchronism between Shoshenk I = and=20 Rehoboam. But the shortening of individual reigns within the Dynasty = places the=20 entire scheme under increased strain. -- JNS

\cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol0802\018egypt.htm=20