Manfred Bietak

Ancient Chronology

Published November 1, 2011

Ancient Chronology is a subject fraught with difficulties^(a)as well as the focus of intense academic debate, particularly over the past half-century.

Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) calculated the date of creation to have been October 23rd 4004 BC^(d). Incredible as it may seem, even today (2019), there are still people prepared to give further consideration to his ideas ^(c)^(e).

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) became the first ‘modern’ revisionist of accepted ancient chronology. His work was heavily criticised and few serious advances were made until the development of Egyptology following Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt at the end of the 18^thcentury.

Difficulties with details of Egyptian dating slowly accumulated, particularly when endeavouring to align it with Greek, Minoan and other Eastern chronologies. The scholarly debates became very public in the middle of the 20^thcentury with the eventual publication of Ages in Chaos by Immanuel Velikovsky and the attempts made to suppress it altogether. The refining of Velikovsky’s theories followed, with important contributions by S. Talbott, Edward Schorr and John Bimson. Some, such as Emmet Sweeney, have accused Velikovsky of being over-dependent on his belief in the inerrancy of biblical chronology.

The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS)^(b) was founded in 1974 and produces regular publications. This was followed a few years later by three important books^{[229][230][232]}by David Rohl and Centuries of Darkness ^[046]by Peter James, who also wrote The Sunken Kingdom in which he places Atlantis in Turkey. Rohl & James were in agreement on many details, but fell out over the identity of Shishak (was he Ramesses II or III?). However, prior to that, in the early 1980s, they had published a joint paper that gave the world a first look at their New Chronology. Rohl republished it in 2012^(v).

On the occasion of the SIS Jubilee Conference in 1999 a paper by P. John Crowe was presented, which gave a valuable insight into historical revisionism before and after Velikovsky^(a).

In 2002, Manfred Bietak and Ernst Czerny, both distinguished Egyptologists edited a collection of 45 papers presented at a SCIEM Conference in 2000 highlighting the problems of synchronising the chronologies of civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd millennium BC^(w).

Gunnar Heinsohn (1943-2023) was a Professor Emeritus at the University of Bremen but was also an ardent chronology revisionist,< concerned not just with the dating problems of the ancient world^(l) but also with difficulties to be seen in the first millennium of the Common Era^(m).

One of the most controversial aspects of Plato’s Atlantis story is the old Egyptian priest’s claim that Atlantis was destroyed 9,000 years before Solon’s visit. He also related that Athens, who fought the Atlanteans, was established one thousand years before the Egyptian state or as is more likely, before the foundation of the city of Sais. Apart from anachronisms in Plato’s narrative, the archaeological evidence completely contradicts the dates seemingly offered by the priests of Sais. It is interesting that most of the chronology revisionist debate centres on the second millennium BC which is arguably the most rational timeframe for the destruction of Atlantis based on the Bronze Age references in Timaeus and Critias, provided they are not just anachronistic embellishments.

I should also mention that while the debates regarding the Bronze Age chronologies rage on, further controversy has arisen regarding claims of duplicated centuries in the first millennium of our era. Leading the charge here are Anatoly Fomenko^(k) ^[^1823], Heribert Illig^(h)(i)(j) and Gunnar Heinsohn^(g). A keen supporter of Fomenko’s work is Garry Kasparov the former World Chess Champion^(p). A more critical view of Fomenko’s work is on offer from Stephen Sorensen^(s).

Nathaniel Lloyd had written an extensive three-part paper on the history of chronological revisionism^(t). This should be read in conjunction with a paper entitled The Glorious Stupidity of Fomenko’s New Chronology^(u).

Up to this point, I have outlined some of the problems and theories concerning the accurate alignment of specific events with particular years. A clash of archaeology and accepted history, secular and religious. has generated libraries of debate. However, our problems do not end with the counting of years, but contention has also arisen over the length of the day before the seventh century BC. Evidence is available to show that there was a 360-day year in use around the world in those ancient times.

Some religious sites have proposed that before the Deluge we had a 365-day year, then it changed to 360 days and then reverted to the current 365.2422 days^(q). By way of complete contrast Danny Faulkner, a creationist astronomer rejects the idea that the world was created with a 360-day year, although it is a view held by many creationists^(r).

William Whiston was one of the first ‘modern’ commentators to conclude that in very ancient times a 360-day year was used(n). More recently, Immanuel Velikovsky devoted a chapter of Worlds in Collision to The Year of 360 Days^(o). The Brit-Am movement endorsed Velikovsky’s views in this regard, as does William F. Drankenbring.

^(a)The Revision of Ancient History – A Perspective | Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (archive.org)

^(b) Welcome – Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (archive.org)

^(c) https://stevenmcollins.com/archbishop-usshers-chronology-reconsidered-its-possible-impact-for-us-today/

^(d) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

^(e)https://www.academia.edu/36854822/Ussher_Explained_and_Corrected

^(f) See (a)

^(g) https://www.q-mag.org/_search.html?req=heinsohn

^(h) The Phantom Time Hypothesis • Damn Interesting

⁽ⁱ⁾ Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist? (ecplanet.org)

^(j) Jan Beaufort: 30 questions about chronology (cybis.se)

^(k) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_chronology_(Fomenko)

^(l)THE RESTORATION OF ANCIENT HISTORY (archive.org)

^(m) https://www.q-mag.org/_search.html?req=heinsohn

⁽ⁿ⁾ https://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2013/11/the-life-and-times-of-william-whiston-part-1-of-2.html

^(o) I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, Part 2, Chapter Viii, p.316

^(p) Wayback Machine (archive.org)

^(q) http://xwalk.ca/360vs365.html

^(r) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265167051_On_the_Caution_about_the_360-Day_Year

^(s) Fomenko’s New Chronology – Ctruth

^(t) https://www.historicalblindness.com/blogandpodcast//the-chronological-revision-chronicles-part-one-the-fomenko-timeline (new link)

^(u) The Glorious Stupidity of Fomenko’s New Chronology | Goldwag’s Journal on Civilization (wordpress.com)

^(v)https://davidrohl.blogspot.com/2012/11/

^(w) The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the … – Google Books *

Tagged Anatoly Fomenko, Archbish, Atlantis, Bronze Age, David Rohl, Deluge, Edward Schorr, Egyptology Ussher, Emmet Sweeney, Gunnar Heinsohn, Heribert Illig, Immanuel Velikovsky, Isaac Newton, John Bimson, Manfred Bietak, Nathaniel Lloyd, P.John Crowe, Peter James, S. Talbott, Sais, Shishak, SIS, Stephen Sorensen, Turkey, W.F. Drankenbring, William Whiston

Avaris

Published June 3, 2010

Avaris (Tell el Dab’a) located in the Nile Delta, was the capital of the Hyksos rulers of northern Egypt during the second millennium BC. Recent excavations have unearthed Minoan-style frescoes, including bull leaping. At least one commemtator has remarked on the similarity of this ‘island’ city to Plato’s Atlantis (The Jerusalem Post, July 12th 2006).

Manfred Bietak (1940- ) the celebrated Austrian archaeologist spent many years excavating at two sites in the Nile Delta and identified Tell El-Dab’a as the location of Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos period; and Piramesse, which was the capital of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt(b). In 1991 he delivered an illustrated lecture at the British Museum on his most recent discoveries in Egypt(c).

In 2021, Diego Ratti published Atletenu(a), in which he identified the Hyksos as Atlanteans and situated their capital as Avaris! He claims to have matched Plato’s description of the city of Atlantis with the Egyptian location. I identified a number of discrepancies and was not convinced.

>In a recent (2024) paper^(e), R(ich) McQuillen also identified Avaris as the City of Atlantis although you can see that he previously (2007) named Pharos, near Alexandria as Atlantis^(d). In that earlier paper he also identified the Atlantean Gadir with Rhakotis, an ancient city near Alexandria.<

Also See: Meizon

^(a)About | Atletenu (archive.org)

^(b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Bietak

^(c)(99+) Avaris: Capital of the Hyksos | Manfred Bietak – Academia.edu

^(d) http://gizacalc.freehostia.com/Atlantis.html (See Summary) *

^(e)(99+) Manifestin with Manetho: Finding commonality from Plato’s Atlantis and Egyptian Sources | Rich McQuillen – Academia.edu *

Tagged Alexandria, Avaris, Diego Ratti, Gadir, Hyksos, Manfred Bietak, Minoans, Nile Delta, Pharos, Piramesse, Rhakotis, Rich Mcquillen, Tell El Dab'a

Hyksos

Published May 31, 2010

The Hyksos is the name applied to two dynasties of foreign kings who ruled Egypt around 1650-1530 BC⁽^a⁾. Gerard Gertoux suggests three dynasties reigning from circa 1750- 1530!^(l)They are generally accepted to have been Semitic people, from an unknown land, who invaded Egypt around 1710 BC. They ruled for over a hundred years until defeated by the Egyptian Pharaoh Amasis I.

Their name was originally taken to mean ‘Shepherd Kings, but more recently, it is accepted that the Egyptian term ‘heqa-khase’ which means ‘rulers of foreign lands’ gives us a simple but credible title of ‘Foreign Kings’. It has been suggested by David J. Gibson (1904-1966) that the modern interpretation indicated that the Hyksos ruled a vast empire and has devoted a book^[1507^] to justifying this view^(g). This empire lay mainly to the east of Egypt with the possible exception of Crete. Gibson identifies the Hyksos with the biblical Edomites!

Walter Baucum summarises his view on the subject as follows, “The Early Hyksos Shepherd Rulers of Egypt were descendants of Shem and identical with Typhon and the Titans, the peoples of Set, and to some degree with the Hebrews. The early Hyksos were to a large degree Israelites but after they left, the Amalekites conquered Egypt and were also referred to as Hyksos”.

Hyksos Pharoah

This identification of the Hyksos with the biblical Amalakites was supported by Velikovsky, Rohl and Donovan Courville^(o). This identification is disputed by Emmet Sweeney ^[1867], who is generally sympathetic to Velikovsky’s revised chronology, but disagrees with him in this instance. In a recent (2023) paper^(r) on the Academia.edu website Donald Keith Mills was highly critical of Velikovsky’s research on the Hyksos and Amalakites in Ages in Chaos.

“Repeatedly, when faced with conflicting accounts of pre-Islamic (and essentially prehistoric) events, Velikovsky selected only those that met his purposes. The damaging aspect of this criticism is the fact that, almost without exception, he did so without discussing the alternatives, without providing reasons for rejecting them, and without even acknowledging their existence.“

There have also been persistent suggestions that there were strong links between the Hyksos and Crete, as referred to both above and below. But the exact nature of the links is unclear and may not be more than you get between nations trading over an extended period. The relevance of such links, if they were ever shown to be political rather than commercial, would take on new significance for supporters of the Minoan Hypothesis. Time will tell.

Peter A. Clayton, an Egyptologist and author of Chronicle of the Pharaohs suspected that the Hyksos had their origins in Crete. E. J. de Meester has suggested links between Crete and the Hyksos, an idea included in an article by Philip Coppens^(b). In a similar vein, Diaz-Montexano claims that a study of the names of the Hyksos pharaohs suggests to him that they were proto-Greek or Mycenaeans.

An example of the diversity of opinions regards the origins of the Hyksos is a brief article written by Emilio Spedicato who identifies them with the Scythians. Gunnar Heinsohn (1943- ) is a German professor emeritus at the University of Bremen, who presented a paper entitled ‘Who were the Hyksos’ to the 6th International Congress of Egyptology in 1993, in which he concluded that they were to be identified with the Old-Akkadians^(j).

Perhaps even more radical is the suggestion by Riaan Booysen that the Hyksos were the fleeing Israelites in the biblical Exodus story^(c). He claims that there were two ‘exoduses’ which coincided with two separate eruptions on Thera. This idea is not as new as it might seem as something similar was proposed by the 1st century AD Jewish historian Josephus^(d).

Nick Austin also identifies the Hyksos as Jews ^[1661.184] but is more generous than Booysen claiming that there were four separate eruptions of Thera. Like many others, he has also associated the biblical Exodus and the Plagues of Egypt with the Theran eruptions.

Ralph Ellis, among others, has endorsed^(e)^(f) the idea that the biblical Exodus and the historical Expulsion of the Hyksos describe the same event. There are theories, many and varied, regarding the origins and post-Egyptian settlement of the Hyksos.

>In March 2024 an undated paper on the Academia website written under the pseudonym of ‘The Mumble’ and titled Mexico City & the Site of Atlantis^(s). Its basic contention is that the Olmecs were originally Hyksos, who ruled an empire stretching from America to India! Unfortunately, real evidence is in short supply here to support this wild hypothesis. The paper is full of misquotations and other inaccuracies that are offered throughout.

One glaring error, at the heart of the claim is that Mexico City was city of Atlantis described by Plato. Unfortunately, Plato’s Atlantis was situated close to the sea, while Mexico City is roughly 200 miles from both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Canals led from the city to the sea – where are the 200-mile-long canals in Mexico? Additionally, Mexico City lies at a height of 7,350 feet and could not have been inundated by either ocean. According to Plato, Atlantis disappeared underwater, but Mexico did not! I think it was a good idea for ‘The Mumble’ to write under a pseudonym.<

In July 2020, it was reported that “new research led by Bournemouth University archaeologists supports the theory that the Hyksos, the rulers of the 15th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, were not from a unified place of origin, but Western Asiatics whose ancestors moved into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom lived there for centuries, and then rose to rule the north of Egypt.”^(k)

The full facts relating to the Hyksos’ rule are only slowly emerging^(m) and I expect that it will be some years before a definitive history can be agreed upon. Just over a year after I wrote this, In March 2021, Diego Ratti published Atletenu, in which he identified the Hyksos as Atlanteans, with their capital situated at Avaris in the eastern Nile Delta⁽ⁿ⁾.

Ratti explains “that the first king of Atlantis called Atlas by Plato was a prince of Ugarit called Shamshi-Shu I who led a coalition of Foreign Kings to conquer Egypt. Plato’s “Critias” mentions the name of the first 10 kings of Atlantis: in “Atletenu” author Diego Ratti explains that the names of these 10 kings provide us with an indication of the origin and ethnicity of the Hyksos.

It was a coalition of 10 foreign Hyksos kings to invade Egypt in 1646 BC: some of them were from Southern Canaan and Northern Sinai while their majority was from Northern Syria and Lebanon. The prevalent ethnicity of the Hyksos coalition was the Amorite one: they had Amorite names, Amorite customs, traditions and religion. The prince of Ugarit leading the coalition of Hyksos was an Amorite.

The legend of Atlantis was the history of the Hyksos: this fascinating thesis is discussed in the book “Atletenu” with supporting archaeological and textual evidence.”^(q)

A paper by the distinguished Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak entitled Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos^(p) should be read in conjunction with Ratti’s theory.

>Arguably, the most exotic suggestion put forward regarding the Hyksos comes from a Chinese geochemist, Professor Sun Weidong^(h)(i) at the University of Science and Technology in Hefei in eastern China stirred up a debate with the suggestion “that the founders of Chinese civilization were not in any sense Chinese but actually migrants from Egypt. He conceived of this connection in the 1990s while performing radiometric dating of ancient Chinese bronzes; to his surprise, their chemical composition more closely resembled those of ancient Egyptian bronzes than native Chinese ores.” Sun specifies these culture bearers as the Hyksos. A paper^(t) by Ricardo Lewis on the Academia.edu website offers more details and background information.<

^(a) https://web.archive.org/web/20180203181622/https://history-world.org/hyksos.htm

^(b) See: Archive 2133

^(c) https://riaanbooysen.com/misc/167-book-announcement

^(d) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Hyksos

^(e) https://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

^(f) https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-January/006340.html

^(g) See: Archive 3468

^(h) https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/02/did-chinese-civilization-come-from-ancient-egypt-archeological-debate-at-heart-of-china-national-identity/?utm_content=buffer7bb49&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

⁽ⁱ⁾ https://www.ancientpages.com/2016/09/05/controversial-theory-suggests-ancient-egyptians-were-founders-of-chinese-civilization/

^(j)https://web.archive.org/web/20111202130828/https://www.egyptologie.be/6IECT_1993_hyksos_heinsohn.htm

^(k) https://web.archive.org/web/20200902181329/http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/immigrant-hyksos-dynasty-08646.html

^(l)https://www.academia.edu/2414447/Dating_the_war_of_the_Hyksos