Several times already we have mentioned the earlier revisionist work of Immanuel Velikovsky, who in 1952 published an exhaustive reappraisal of 18^th dynasty chronology in his pivotal Ages in Chaos book. In that book Velikovsky argued that the queen of Sheba, a contemporary of Solomon, was none other than queen Hatshetsup, the predecessor of the 18^th dynasty king Thutmose III. It followed from that identification that Thutmose III must have been a contemporary of Solomon's son and successor Rehoboam and that he must therefore be identified as the biblical pharaoh Shishak who invaded Egypt in the 5^th year of that king. It also followed that Amenhotep II, Thutmose's grandson, must be the biblical Zerah, the Ethiopian general who lost a battle to king Asa of Judah around the year 900 B.C. Velikovsky further reasoned, allowing a 55 year reign for Thutmose III, that Amenhotep III, Akhenaton and Tutankhamon must have ruled Egypt in the mid-ninth century, and that the famed Amarna letters, which date from late in the reign of Amenhotep III and run through the reigns Akhenaton and Tutankhamon, must belong in the time frame 870-840 B.C. Clearly our chronology, which fixes the beginning of the reign of Ramses II around the year 840 B.C., stands in conflict with Velikovsky, leaving no room for the 30 year reign of Haremheb and the several decades which belong to Ramses I and Seti, the immediate ancestors of Ramses II. Some, though not all of Velikovsky's error results from his assigning to Thutmose III an excessively long reign of 54 years, following the traditional history. As explained in the second book of our series this king did not author the Karnak annals which bear his name and assign to him this expansive reign. His kingship was much shorter, certainly less than twenty years, a fact soon to be confirmed by the Berlin genealogy where his name occurs only once. This suggested shortening of Thutmose's reign length in and of itself does not account for the earlier dating of the Amarna letters which we are about to suggest, but it is without doubt a major contributor.

        Returning to the Berlin genealogy we reproduce below the data from the second row (positions 2.1 through 2.15) and the beginning of the third row (positions 3.1 -3.4) of ancestors, reading from right to left on the monument. We supply additionally the approximate date of birth and date in office of each of the priests, continuing to use the 16 year and 35 year figures which yielded reasonable results earlier in the genealogy. In evaluating the table we must be mindful of the provisional status of the resulting chronology, the chances of error increasing the further we are removed from the time of Ashakhet. But as it stands, the suggested chronology is illuminating.
 
 

Position Number	High Priest/Prophet Named	Name of King Served	Approximate Date of Birth	Approximate Date of H.P./Prophet
2.1	Ptahemakhet	not named	808 B.C.	773 B.C.
2.2	Neferrenpet	Ramses II	824 B.C.	789 B.C.
2.3	Ptahemakhet	Ramses II	840 B.C.	805 B.C.
2.4	[--]masjemet?	Ramses II	856 B.C.	821 B.C.
2.5	Ptahhotep	Ramses II	872 B.C.	837 B.C.
2.6	Neterwihotep	Menmaatre  (Seti I)	888 B.C.	853 B.C.
2.7	Sekeremsaef	Menmaatre (Seti I)	904 B.C.	869 B.C.
2.8	Ty	Tjeserkheperre (Haremheb)	920 B.C.	885 B.C.
2.9	Sekeremsaef	not named	936 B.C.	901 B.C.
2.10	Aypew	Ietnetjeray (?) (Ay)	952 B.C.	917 B.C.
2.11	Wirmer	Nibmaatre (Amenhotep III)	968 B.C.	933 B.C.
2.12	Penpanebes	Nibmaatre (Amenhotep III)	984 B.C.	949 B.C.
2.13	Nekhememptah	not named	1000 B.C.	965 B.C.
2.14	Nebre	Menkheperre (Thutmose III)	1016 B.C.	981 B.C.
2.15	Damaged section		1032 B.C.	997 B.C.
3.1	Ty	not named	1048 B.C.	1013 B.C.
3.2	Pa'emrud	Djeserkare (Amenhotep I)	1064 B.C.	1029 B.C.
3.3	Ty	not named	1080 B.C.	1045 B.C.
3.4	Menet	Nebpetire (Ahmose I)	1096 B.C.	1061 B.C.

        It goes without saying that the date assigned to each king in this table represents nothing more or less than an approximate date at which that particular king was likely reigning in Egypt. It need not imply, for example, that the king in question ruled for the entire sixteen years assigned to that generation, nor that the assigned date is central in the span of years during which that king actually reigned. But with that in mind the table remains instructive in confirming several assumptions we have made in our earlier discussions vis-a-vis the 18^th dynasty kings.

        In the first instance we cannot help but observe an obvious discrepancy between the length of the 18^th dynasty as portrayed by the Berlin genealogy, and the length of that same dynasty as represented in the textbooks sanctioned by the traditional history. Since position 3.5 in the Berlin document is occupied by a priest who served under Apophis, the terminal king of the 17^th (Hyksos) dynasty, it is clear that the 18^th dynasty patriarch Ahmose I began his rule at the earliest some time around the year 1073 B.C.. At the other end of the temporal spectrum the rule of Haremheb, which brought the dynasty to a close, must be dated at latest around 873 B.C.. The resulting 200 years assigned to the 18^th dynasty contrasts sharply with the 267 years assigned these same kings by the traditional history, which typically places the dynasty in the time frame 1575-1308 B.C..

        The difference of sixty-seven years cannot be accounted for by simply lengthening the time of each generation in the Berlin genealogy by six or seven years. If we were to make such a change it should apply consistently to all generations. But we have already observed how, at the lower end of the temporal spectrum, any increase would produce serious chronological problems for the four generations of priests who served Ramses II and the two generations preceding who served Seti I, whose independent reign, as is, must necessarily be increased from the ten years assigned it by the traditional history. And at the other end of the spectrum the length of a generation of priests must be correspondingly small. Here we observe that all of three generations of priests served to span the reigns of Ahmose I and his successor Amenhotep I (positions 3.2-3.4). Since Ahmose ruled around 22 years, and Amenhotep at most an additional 21 years, it follows that the 16 years per generation figure is, if anything, excessive. Any significant lengthening of the generation number cannot be justified.

        Thus at both ends of the genealogy depicted in table 1 our figure of 16 years per generation seems about right. There is therefore no justifiable reason for adopting an alternate figure at any point between the extremes we have discussed.

        The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from table 1 is that the length of the 18^th dynasty as represented in the traditional history is excessive and needs to be reduced by around 65 years. And the table itself suggests the means whereby this reduction should be made.

        It is clear from even a casual glance at the Berlin chronology that a drastic shortening of the reign of Thutmose III is demanded, and a modest reduction in the combined reign lengths of Thutmose's three predecessors is strongly suggested. The latter can be accomplished in part by allowing only a year or two for the reign of Thutmose I. The reader will recall from our discussion in Piankhi the Chameleon that the mummified remains of Thutmoses I and III do not support the excessively high number of regnal years assigned them by the monuments which bear their names. The Berlin chronology adds support to our earlier argument that the monuments bearing the names of these two kings, those which support the inflated regnal numbers assigned them in the traditional history, belong instead to 7^th century namesakes. In table 1 the two generations which precede Menkheperre Thutmose must accommodate the reigns of three kings - Thutmose 1, Thutmose II and Hatshepsut. Gardiner credits Thutmose II with 18 years and Hatshetsup with 20. As is, these two reigns more that fill the time frame allotted to them on our assumption of 16 years per generation. If we assume that there existed no co-regency between these two pharaohs then their reigns must necessarily intrude slightly into the time slots assigned to Amenhotep II and Thutmose III, leaving little if any room for Thutmose I. The reign of Thutmose I must indeed have been brief, as his mummy suggests. Perhaps a year of two of independant rule at most. Monuments which suggest otherwise must be otherwise interpreted as belonging to someone other than the 18^th dynasty king. Either that or a coregency with his father or with his son must be assumed..

        We note also from our table that the generation following the mention of Menkheperre Thutmose must encompass the reigns of Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV, assigned 23 and 8 years respectively by the traditional history. Once again they must intrude on the time slots of Menkheperre who precedes them and Ay who follows. If our reasoning is correct, the reign of Menkheperre cannot have been even a generation (16 years) in length. If so, there can be no denying the reasonableness of our earlier conclusions regarding the annals which suggest a reign length of 54 years. Those annals must belong to someone else. Under no circumstances can a 54 year long reign for this king be squared with the data of the Berlin genealogy, regardless of how many years we assign to a generation of priests!