From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #42 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Friday, February 11 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 042 ane New CDL Books: Sumerian Archival Texts, vols. II and III ane Velikovsky's Revision for D19 ane Egyptian Furniture ane Philistine Hyksos PPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:03:17 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane New CDL Books: Sumerian Archival Texts, vols. II and III Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: cdlpress CDL Press is pleased to announce the availability of: Sumerian Archival Texts, vols. II and III by Marcel Sigrist II: Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections part 1 --- From Shulgi to Amar-Sin Texts from the Nies Babylonian Collection and the Yale Babylonian Collection, containing introduction by W. W. Hallo, catalogue, concordance, transliterations of 664 texts from the reign of Shulgi and 537 texts from the reign of Amar-Sin. (Indices are in Part II.) *Sold only as a set with Part 2. 336 pp. Cloth; 1-883053-137 III. Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections part 2 --- From Shu-Sin to Ibbi-Sin Texts from the Nies Babylonian Collection and the Yale Babylonian Collection, containing transliterations of 739 texts from the reign of Shu-Sin, 88 texts from the reign of Ibbi-Sin, and 207 undated Ur III texts. Included are indices for Parts 1 and 2. *Sold only as a set with Part 1. 365 pp. Cloth;1-883053-145 The two-volume set costs $120. Individuals need prepay with a credit card or check. Institutions will be invoiced. CDL Press, PO Box 34454, Bethesda, MD 20827 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:14:51 +0700 From: Randolph Rooroh Subject: ane Velikovsky's Revision for D19 Dear Mr. Simmons: I have seen from several postings of yours in ane, that you are developing a still different chronological revision. So, instead of requesting your complete proposal, I actually prefer to have an in-depth discussion with you in a specific event, let's see for example the period of the 19th dynasty which is being discussed in ane lately. I have seen, however briefly, that your revision begins from Velikovsky's revision until D-18, but then develops to a different one from the SIP, and ends up to a completely new one in D-19. So, while Velikovsky has shown that the war between Egypt and the Hittites is none other than the war between Nekho II and his adversary Nebukadnezar, you put D-19 one century earlier, of which arguments I'd really like to see. For a starter, I will put here some of Velikovsky's strongest arguments for that period (from his book "Ramses II and His Time"): 1. Velikovksy argued that Nekhos or Nekho II of the Asian and Greek sources, the greatest adversary of the Babylon king Nebukadnezar, is none other than Ramses II the great king of D-19, and NOT the infamous, non-prestigious pharaoh Wahemibre of D-26, son of Wahibre, as believed by the greatest archeologists and historians. 2. According to today's chronology, Ramses' father, (Meryenptah) Seti I, ruled Egypt around 13 years (ca. 1291-1278), to be followed by Ramses' 65 years (ca. 1279-1212). A period of coregency is known, but the length is assumed only one year. Velikovksy argued that Meryenptah Seti I of D-19 who was followed by his son Ramses II, was the Psammetikhos (7th century b.c.) of Herodotos, the father of Nekhos. Let's say that Psammetikhos liberated Egypt from under Assyrian hegemony in -647, during the Elamite war, reigned until around -632, and to be followed with a coregency (632-610) with his son Nekhos until his death, still to be followed with Nekhos' reign as a sole monarch (610-568). It means that Ramses II as a sole monarch did not battle against the Hittites as a young pharaoh. He was at least in the end of his 30s by then. 3. During Ramses' reign, he had coregency with Khaemwaset (1230-1225), and with Merneptah Hotephra-maat (1225-1212), to be followed solely by the latter (1212-1202), and since then by Amenmesses the usurper and his successors Merenptah Seti II etc. During Nekho's reign in 7th century b.c., it is known that he had a coregency with a son Psammetikhos II (ca. 586-581) who died early. If we extend the similarity of Nekho with Ramses, we may conclude that in later period he also had a coregency with his other son, the Pharaoh Hophra of Jeremiah 44:30. Later on, Merneptah reigned solely, only to be usurped by Amasis of Herodotos and his successors Psammetikhos III etc. 4. Velikovsky's chronological revision meets the condition explained by Herodotos, that the Greeks first appeared in the scene during and after Psammetikhos and Nekhos time. Your revision, however, which puts Ramses II in 8th century b.c. is one century too early and therefore does not meet this (let alone today's accepted chronology which creates the dark age of Greece as a scapegoat to enable the persistance of 13th century Ramses II). I strongly argue that this condition from Herodotos should be taken seriously, and that D-19 could not, therefore, be placed before 7th century b.c. 5. The Egyptian sources mentioned that Ramses II of D-19 began to construct the canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, and Herodotos clearly stated that it was Nekhos who started it. Again, I strongly argue that this condition should be taken seriously. We can stop right here to declare that Ramses II is none other than Nekhos of Herodotos, because the condition has been met sufficiently and we don't need any other evidence. If there are more facts to be discussed here, they are only to strengthen, not to prove: 6. Velikovsky showed that the great adversaries of D-19, Hattusili III the son of Mursili II, are Nebukadrezar (Greek)=(Nabu)-Khetasar (Egyptian)=(Nabu)-Hattusili (in Khattili), the son of Nabopolasar (Greek)=(Nabu)-Merosar (Egyptian)=(Nabu)-Mursili (in Khattili). The name of the Babylonian god "Nabu" were presumably added when they, coming from the land of Khati after losing the Battle of Harran (-618) against Assyria-Egypt alliance, took the city of Babylon and made it their new capital. Velikovsky used this to explain the migration of the Hittite ruling class and their families to the lower Euphrates. He also used this to explain why in Hattusas and many other Hittite cities, Babylonian influence was so deep. Babli (Babylonian language), was more popular than Khattili itself. Also the Babylonian cultures and magic were employed there, and a translation of Gilgamesh epic was also found. Theologically, this explains why Jeremiah, referring to Nebukadnezar the king of Babylon (in the east of Jerusalem) and his allies, dubbed them as "the family of the kingdoms of the north" (Jeremiah 1:14-15, 25:9). The answer is, because he referred to the kingdoms of the Hittite 9 languages in Hattusas, Harran, Karkemis, etc. in modern Turkey, north of Jerusalem. Although the capital has been moved to Babylon in the east of Jerusalem, the armies were still gathered from the allied cities in Turkey and north Syria. Note also that a similar terminology was employed by the Egyptian king (2Chronicles 35:21) ! This also explains why Babylon was called the capital of the Chaldean Empire, and why the Babylonian armies were called the Chaldean armies (Jeremiah 37:11), while the Chaldeans did not form the population but a small fraction of reigning class (cf. Daniel 2:10). 7. The Chaldean king Merosar warred against an alliance of Ashuruballit of Assyria with Seti of Egypt. Centuries later, the Babylonian king Nabopolassar warred against an alliance of Ashuruballit of Assyria and Psammetikhos of Egypt. The history repeats itself ? 8. In 13th century b.c., the Assyrian strength under Ashuruballit could be overcome after the Umman-Manda (Scythians) came from the Russian steppes to the rescue, and Mursili had only to deal with the Egyptian to fight for the power of the land of the Hittitte. Again, in 7th century b.c., the Assyrian strength under Ashuruballit was defeated after the Scythian warriors, led by "king Madyas son of Protothyas" (Herodotos I:103), came into the picture, and Nabopolassar had only to deal with the Egyptian to fight for the power of the entire land of the Hittite. Again, the history repeats itself ? 9. In his early campaign, Ramses II won the battle against the Hittites only after he defeated a local chief somewhere in Palestine. "He has extended its boundaries forever, plundering the Asiatics (St-tyw) and capturing their cities" (Aswan Stele). Still dissatisfied, he carried off "the princes of Retenu as living prisoners" (Obelisk of Tanis). Centuries later, in his early campaign against the Hittite (608), Nekho won the battles against the Babylonian armies in Karkemis, only after he defeated King Josiah of Judah in Megiddo (2Kings ch. 23, 2Chronicles ch. 35). Aftersince, he imposed a levy to the kingdom of Judah (2Chronicle 36:3). And Jeremiah (22:10-12) mentioned regarding Jehoahas-Shallum who just replaced his father Josiah as king of Judah: "he will never return nor see his native land again. For this is what the LORD says about Shallum son of Josiah, who succeeded his father as king of Judah but has gone from this place: He will never return. He will die in the place where they have led him captive; he will not see this land again". 10. According to the Poem of Pentaur, Ramses II directed his campaign to "the land of Khatti, Nahrin, Karkemis, Kedy, the land of Kadesh". After his victory there, he controlled the area for several years, pursuing and defeating the Hittites from Kimuhu to Quramati, until his 5th year. His hegemony over Syria was only ended by the decisive Battle of Kadesh (-1275), the unknown city. Centuries later, according to Herodotos, pharaoh Nekho took over "Kadytis", a great city in Syria (Herodotos II:157-159). Until his 5th year, Syro-Palestina was under his control, and so King Jehoiakim of Judah, son of Josiah, paid his tribute year by year to Nekho of Egypt. This situation was only ended by the decisive Battle of the unknown city of Kadytis (Herodotos). But Jeremiah (46:2 ff.) implied that the battle took place in the surroundings of the great city of Karkemis, the modern Jerablus. 11. In this battle the Egyptian armies were defeated. Ambushed in the middle by the hiding Hittite armies, they ran to the north, to the wrong direction, according to Velikovsky. "Then the infantry and chariotry of His Majesty were discomfited before them whilst going northward to where His Majesty was" (A. Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II; Poem of Pentaur). Centuries later, Jeremiah prophesied that the Egyptian armies under Nekho will fall to the north (Jeremiah 46:5-6) when suddenly attacked by their enemies, again to the wrong direction. 12. There is only one thing different between Poem of Pentaur and Jeremiah. In Poem of Pentaur, Ramses II in 13th century b.c. said about his bravery fighting alone against the enemies soldiers hemming from every side: "All foreign countries were combined against me, I being alone by myself, none other with me, my numerous infantry having abandoned me, not one looking at me of my chariotry ... The nations have seen me: they will repeat my name even in far away region" (A. Gardiner). Disagreeing Ramses II's statement, the Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah (46:12) about what would befall pharaoh Nekho on that day, in the end of the 7th century b.c.: "The nations will hear of your shame; your cries will fill the earth". 13. After the decisive Battle of Kadesh, Ramses lost his colonies in Syro-Palestine to Hattusili, and for the following several years, he completely ceased from his Syrian campaigns. Centuries later, after the decisive Battle of Kadytis-Karkemis, pharaoh Nekho lost his colonies in Syro-Palestine to Nebukadnezar. Neo-Babylonian Prisms mentioned that Nebukadnezar "marched to Karkemis which is on the bank of the Euphrates, and crossed the river against the Egyptian army which lay in Karkemis ? and the Egyptian army withdrew before him ... Nebukadnezar conquered the whole area of the Hatti-country ... All the kings of the Hatti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute. He marched to the city of Askelon and captured it in the month of Kislev. He captured its king and plundered it and carried off ...". Hatti-land included Kingdom of Judah, and from Daniel we know that some of the nobles from Judah were indeed carried off to Babylon in the first deportation of the people of Judah (-605). 14. After ceasing from Syrian campaigns for several years, Ramses II suddenly restarted his wars in 3-5 campaigns (1273-1270), during which he regained his victories. The reason was unclear. Centuries later, after Nekho's several years without marching out from his country, suddenly the king Nebukadnezar decided to attack Egypt in their own land wherein he lost the war. As a result, the Babylonian colonies fell back to the Egyptian hands (601-598). In Israel, a stele erected to commemorate this ninth year campaign of his was found. According to one of his inscriptions, "The wretched town which his majesty took when it was wicked, Ashkelon". And that happened before he took Gaza, said Jeremiah (47:1). Indeed, the tide was turned, and it was Nebukadnezar's turn to gather his strength: "In the fifth year, the king of Akkad (stayed) in his own land and gathered together his chariots and horses in great numbers". All these political manouvres were reflected when a Judah scribe stated, "During Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for 3 years. But then he changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar" (2Kings 24:1). 15. After his 5th campaign, again Ramses II ceased without clear reason. But centuries later, Nebukadnezar made it known to us that he successfully defeated pharaoh Nekho and his armies, and brought the Syro-Palestine colonies back to the Babylonian king's hands. Jehoiakim king of Judah, who turned to Egypt during the previous years, was punished. Though the Chaldean Emperor had "bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon" (2Chronicles 36:6), he was eventually executed in Jerusalem (Flavius Yosefus, Antiquities, X, 6:3; cf. Jeremiah 22:19, 36:30-31). Coniah-Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim was then vowed as the new king, but like his father he soon rebelled against Babylon to the favour of Egypt. The Babylonian armies should besiege Jerusalem before they could take control of the city. After reigning only 3 months, Jehoiachin was deported by Nebukadnezar to Babylon, along with his mother and the members of his household, and many nobilities (Jeremiah 22:22-27). Then was the second deportation (-598). In Neo Babylonian Prisms: "In the seventh year (-598), the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own heart (Zedekiah the last king), received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon". 16. The situation didn't change for 8 years, until in -1262 a war crisis between Ramses II with the Hittite king Hattusili III was renewed, which lasted for 3 years (1262-1259). Centuries later, a similar situation appeared. The Babylonian hegemony was not challenged by pharaoh Nekho for 8 years (598-590). "The king of Egypt did not march out from his own country again, because the king of Babylon had taken all his territory, from the Wadi of Egypt to the Euphrates River" (2Kings 24:6-7). But after the 8 years, a war crisis was renewed, as reflected in the last 3 years (590-587) of Zedekiah (598-587) the king of Judah. Despite of Jeremiah's clear and convincing warnimgs, Zedekiah suddenly insisted to bring his people and his kingdom to make an alliance with Egyptian power. He rebelled against Babylon, and soon he found his city besieged by the Babylonian armies (-590). In the middle of the siege, the Egyptian armies came to the rescue, and the Babylonian armies ceased their siege to fight against Egypt. "Pharaoh's army had marched out of Egypt, and when the Babylonians who were besieging Jerusalem heard the report about them, they withdrew from Jerusalem" (Jeremiah 37:5). 17. Suddenly in -1259 (on the 21st day of the 4th month of the 21st year of Ramses II) the rivalry was ended with a treaty, inscribed on a silver tablet which nolonger existant. But the copies for both sides still are. The Egyptian copy was inscribed on the Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amon in Karnak, and also on the Ramesseum walls. The Hittite copy was found written on a clay tablet in cuneiforms, in Babli (Babylonian language !), in Hattusas, the old capital of the Hittites in Turkey. This treaty was confirmed by a royal marriage, wherein a daughter of the Hittite king Khetasar was brought into the Ramses II's harem. Ramses II became Nebukadnezar's son-in-law. Centuries later, the 2-decade-the rivalry (610-590) between Nekho II and Nebukadnezar was promptly ended. A treaty was assumed, as confirmed by rabbinical literatures (Talmud Jerusalem; Sanhedrin I, 19a). The peaceful wind that followed, clearly reflected the existant of a treaty, so did many authorities conclude. "Thus Necho and Nebukadnezar came to an understanding, and probably even concluded a formal treaty" (F. K. Kienitz, 1953). "It is natural to suppose that a treaty was negotiated ? Breasted takes it for granted" (R. P Dougherty, 1929). But none was found under the expected name of pharaoh Wahemibre of D-26, nor under the name of Nebukadnezar king of Babylon ! 18. According to the treaty, all the Syro-Palestine territory belonged to the Hittite king Khetasar (Hattusili III), and Egypt was forbidden to help any people who came from those countries. But what actually the outcomes of this rivalry are, noone is clear. Centuries later, on 10/10/-589, the Babylonian armies came to proceed the siege on Jerusalem, and this time, for an unclear reason, the Egyptian armies didn't come to the rescue. Two days after the siege began (on 10/12/-589), the Lord said (Ezekiel 29:6-7): "You have been a staff of reed for the house of Israel. When they grasped you with their hands, you splintered and you tore open their shoulders; when they leaned on you, you broke and their backs were wrenched". After 2,5 years under siege, Jerusalem fell, the Temple of Lord was burnt to the ground, and its walls were utterly destroyed into ruins. The Kingdom of Judah was forcefully ended. Most of the population were deported out of the country, and Israel became nearly without population. As Velikovsky said, "Judea was the victim in this deadly struggle". According to Jeremiah (25:10): "This whole country will ecome a desolate wasteland". The same thing happened to the Palestinian cities along the Gaza strip, as had been prophesied by Jeremiah: (47:4-7): The LORD is about to destroy the Philistines, the remnant from the coasts of Caphtor. Gaza will shave her head in mourning; Ashkelon will be silenced. O remnant on the plain, how long will you cut yourselves? Ah, sword of the LORD, how long till you rest? Return to your scabbard; cease and be still. But how can it rest when the LORD has commanded it, when he has ordered it to attack Ashkelon and the coast?". 19. Later, Nekho alias Ramses II died, and his son Pharaoh Hophra of Jeremiah (44:30) alias Merneptah Hotephramaat became the sole ruler of Egypt. During his reign, he had his famous stele inscribed, mentioning the destruction of Israel, Ashkelon and some other cities. But as has been discussed, Merneptah didn't explicitly claim all of them as his victory. He merely mentioned what had happened until his days. In fact, all the countries who previously hoped for Egypt's help, obviously charmed by the greatness of Ramses II, had then been weakened, along with Egypt itself: Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified; Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon ; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are pacified; Everyone who was restless, he has been bound by the King of Upper and Lower Egypt. Dear Mr. Simmons: As Velikovsky said, Merneptah was not the Pharaoh of Exodus as believed by many, but the Pharaoh of Exile. The evidences are comprehensive. Do you really want to challenge his revision and develop a new one instead ? Sincerely, Randolph Rooroh Jakarta, Indonesia. RenR@cbn.net.id ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:10:07 EST From: Rojemomo@aol.com Subject: ane Egyptian Furniture I am a student at Arizona State University and would like help in finding bibliographical sources on any topic related to Egyptian furniture from the Pre-dynastic period up to the New Kingdom. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bob Mofle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:01:57 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Philistine Hyksos PPS About the desperate resorting to metathesis to explain Kasluhim: I remembered that D Redford in Eg, Is, and Canaan did the same: p 407: "Kasluhim is utterly obscure... one would like to see in Kasluhim a garbled form of Kalasiri, the warrior class mentioned in demotic and classical authors." At least my metathesis khlsu/kslu falls in the right milennium! [Herodotus (II. 166) reports that there were 250,000 Kalasiri stationed in Thebes, Bubastis, Aphthis, Tanis, Mendes, Sebennytus, Athribis and a list of other places, most of which seem on first glance to be in LE & the Delta, though I may be wrong. The editor points out in a note to II 81 that Egyptians wear a linen tunic fringed about the legs called kalasiris... don't know if there is any connection implied. One thinks of the fringed tunics that begin to appear on seals in Msp at a certain point in the 2nd mil. glyptic. ] In fact Redford's idea is not as nutty as he seems to think. Redford refers to Spiegelberg in ZAS 43, 1906, "Die Kalasirier und Hermotybier". The -l- in Kalasiri in the spellings listed in Spiegelberg is the lion. This is a later innovation, is it not? I know it was used in hieroglypic spellings of Meroitic for -l-. Before the NK I thought 3 could represent foreign r or l, and that Eg. didn't have an true l? And Spiegelberg does think this is a foreign name; though after reviewing and rejecting his earlier "young Syrian" etymology, he opts for a Nubian one in a convoluted etymological effort [see below] which requires turning the Kalasiri into the posterity of Nubian troops. But if this caste/ethnic minority/tribe is NOT a recent arrival in the late late period, the name might have been originally spelled K3siri. In several of the Spiegelberg spellings there is only one i, and the initial gutteral is the tent? glyph which can be k/g. So Spiegelberg offers the variant Gl$ri , describing it somewhat unfairly as a "dialectal variant". Then there are two plural spellings offering Kalasiru/ Kalsriu, so we can go from an original K3sriu > Kasliu [3>a, r>l] >Kaslu[Him] and thus rid ourselves of the nasty little problem of metathesis! But if the Philistines "came from" the Kasluhim, then the latter is anywhere from 500-1000 years or more older than our attestations for the Kalasiri so the phonetic changes should be done in the reverse direction! This was easy! Just remember that Scheftelowitz guy who managed to turn Kashshite ianzu/king into Indo-Aryan raj! Never mentioning in the process Egyptian nsu/king, which was transcribed in Akkadian as insi! (One of the attested variant forms of ianzu/ianzi/ was inzu/inzi.) [Scheftelowitz, J. (1902) "Die Sprache der Kossäer", Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft , Bd. xxviii (N.F. xviii. cf. Sethe, Kurt (1911) "Das Wort für König von Ober Ägypten," in ZÄS 49. And Kemal Balkan (1954) Die Sprache der Kassiten, AOS 37, p 155.] Spiegelberg speculates that the Kalasiri were originally Nubian soldiers and comes up with an etymology based on the Old Nubian word "gal" meaning "son" added to an Egyptian "siri" meaning "young, small", a Mischetymologie giving us "young men, warriors." (He would have done better with a pure Nubian etymology from Mahas Nubian kalissi/child!) In any case it's an odd meaning for a group whom Herodotus (II, 166) informed us had to occupy themselves with war for their entire lives, their sons being obliged to follow the fathers in this profession. In other words it wasn't an age group stage, like the Masai moran, it was a life time hereditary caste. As in Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away! If we want to dispense with the Nubian ploy (not ALL military castes were of Nubian descent!) we could instead turn to the nome and city of Xois/ Eg. X3sw/Kh3sw, whose city symbol and name was the 3 mt. "foreign lands, mountains" glyph with a bull on it. Wainwright (JEA 21, 1935) prefers the interpretation "mountains" and sees the whole as Min the storm god on his two mountains (i.e. Tessub/Baal on Hazzi and who? his two bulls, Mt. Kasion and Mt. ? ). In LdA,"Xois", Pascal Vernus sees the Kh3sw as meaning "fondriere" (bog, swamp), i.e. the Delta marshes where the wild bull had its lair. In any case, this city of Kh3sw/Xois was listed by Manetho as the seat of the 14th dynasty, which seceded or maintained a semi-independent status under the 13th dynasty and beyond?- he gave it 476 kings? Lots of revisionism going on here today in regards to identity and locale and date of 14th dyn; but the city seems to have had a local Egyptian line of kings, some of whom later had Semitic names so that some are now regarding the 14th as "Canaanite" [how about the proto- Philistines, or the KasluHim who never left? ]. Not only is it a good candidate for the ancient seat of the Kasluhim [it had many ancient connections with Horus and Osiris myths and also had an important temple of Amon-Ra, and cults of Shu, Tefnut, Thoth, Imhotep, etc. ] but also for the ancestral seat of the Kalasiri warrior caste, whom most have seen as perhaps of Libyan or at least West Delta extraction. An ancient Egyptian nome/tribe of KasluHim in X3lsw/Xois, if they were part of, if not always the seat of, the 14th dynasty kingdom, could have led to a Philistine "coming out" even before the main Hyksos arrival under Salitis, since the 14th dynasty-13th dynasty period preceded the 15th-16th dynasty Hyksos period. (The always somewhat mysterious King Nehesi, whose name means Nubian, is now seen as part of the 14th dynasty, though his seat seems to have been further east than Xois.) This scenario offers the advantage that the Philistines/ Kh3su[Him] were not hated by the Egyptians, as they were included in the concept of Egyptians, they had not been forcefully expelled, but presumably left voluntarily, perhaps to escape the civil wars of the Hyksos period, and that their Semitization did not begin when they hit Philistia, but had already begun in the Delta, perhaps as early as the end of the 12th dynasty. It also offers a better explanation of Berber genealogical traditions going back to Kasluhim, because an exit to the West for others would be even more likely. And which ancient historian pointed out that when the Phoenicians settled in Carthage, they found their distant relatives already there to welcome them? Ouch! it's midnight! E. Adams ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #42 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html