Broken Timelines - Book 1: Egypt

By Jack Stornoway

The current timeline of dynastic Egypt is impossible. Believing in it means endorsing the idea the Hyksos were time-travelers, and that the Egyptians were technologically a thousand years behind their major trading partners in Mesopotamia during the Middle Kingdom. It also is not what the ancient Egyptians actually recorded, so believing it mean

• Language: English
• Publisher: Digital Ink Productions
• Release date: Mar 30, 2019
• ISBN: 9780991912483

Book preview

Broken Timelines

Book 1: Egypt

JACK STORNOWAY

Copyright

While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.

BROKEN TIMELINES - BOOK 1: EGYPT

First edition. March 30, 2019

Copyright © 2019 Jack Stornoway

ISBN: 978-0991912483

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Introduction

Part 1 - Dynastic Egypt

Conventional View of Ancient Egypt

Early Egyptology

Ancient Egyptology

Dark Age Egyptology

The First Egyptian Short Timeline

Ancient Kingdoms and Dark Ages

Second Egyptian Dark Age

Egyptian Middle Kingdom

First Egyptian Dark Age

Egyptian Old Kingdom

Foundation of Egypt

Christian Timeline

Islamic Timeline

The Even More Christian Timeline

Carbon Dating

Part 2 - Pre-Dynastic Egypt

Zep Tepi

Rule of Spirits of the Dead and Demigods

The 10 Kings of Thinis

The 30 Kings of Memphis

1817 Year Line of Kings

Reign of the Demigods

Spirits and Followers of Horus

Reign of the Gods

Conclusion

Introduction

Egypt is unique among Earth’s ancient cultures, as the Egyptians kept records longer than most cultures existed. Around 300 BC the Egyptian historian Manetho compiled a record of Egyptian History for the Greeks. It was the height of Greek cultural influence. The Greeks were ruling everything from southern Italy to northwest India, and had established colonies as far west as France, and as far north as Crimea. Manetho’s book Aegyptiaca, circulated far and wide within the Greek world, and then the Roman and Sassanian Empires that rose up to consume the Greek world. Within Aegyptiaca, the dynastic history of Egypt was divided into 30 dynasties, the same dynasties Egyptologists use today. Manetho was the first to refer to the ancient Egyptian royal families as dynasties, however, his account matches the Turin King List dating to the New Kingdom era a thousand years earlier and is believed to be an accurate account of what the Egyptians of his period believed. The Turin King List only listed the kings and queens up until the time of the New Kingdom, and Manetho only listed the kings and queens up until the last independent Egyptian royal family. Subsequently, the 31st Dynasty was added, which was the last Persian period of rule, which was followed by the Greek and Roman eras.

While Manetho and modern Egyptologists do agree on the general outline of Egyptian history, there are some striking differences, modern Egyptologists have removed over a hundred kings from Manetho’s timeline, compressing Egyptian history from a dynastic period that should have started in 5510 BC, to a dynastic period that starts in 3100 BC. There are also ongoing efforts to change the foundation date of the 1st Dynasty of Egypt to 3000 BC (Ian Shaw) or 2770 BC (David Rohl). These ongoing attempts to revise Egyptian ‘history’ create more and more fictional history, as dynasties are either forced to coexist or erases them entirely from the timeline. Manetho’s 7th Dynasty is now considered fictitious by Egyptologists,¹ even though it was mentioned in the Turin King List, and the names of the kings were recorded in the Abydos King Lists, both lists dating from the New Kingdom era.

The problem with constantly compressing Egyptian history is that it forces all neighboring civilizations’ history to also become compressed or else leaves massive anachronisms, such as the currently accepted, yet absolutely impossible fact that ancient Sumerians were using horses and war-chariots 1000 years before the Egyptians. This would be like the French inventing biplanes in the Middle Ages and everyone else figuring it out in the 1900s. France would have conquered the world if they have biplanes in the Middle Ages, and Sumer would have conquered Egypt during the First Egyptian Dark Age (First Intermediate Period), if the Sumerians had war-chariots while the Egyptians were running around on foot. This anachronism is epitomized in the Middle Kingdom expeditions into Canaan circa 1870 BC, which would have encountered horses as they had been in use in the Middle East since at least 2550 BC, yet none of the Egyptians bothered noting it, or commenting on how they conquered the locals, who would have in fact defeated the Egyptians if the Canaanites actually had horses during Senusret III’s invasion.

The anachronisms become even worse when the Hyksos appear on the border of Egypt around 1674 BC, invading with horses, war-chariots, and composite bows. The Hyksos introduce these technologies to Egypt, but where did they come from? The Egyptians recorded that the Hyksos occupied Byblos in Canaan before marching south into Egypt, yet none of the Middle Eastern nations noticed. Not Byblos trading partners of Qatna (Southern Syria), Yamhad (Northern Syria), not the Hittite Empire (Central Turkey), not the Assyrian Empire (Northern Iraq), and not the Babylonian Empire (Southern Iraq). To complicate the situation the Hyksos were a largely Semitic people, with a Hurrian nobility who for some reason occasionally had Indo-Aryan names. There simply were no such people in the Middle East when the Hyksos invaded Egypt, but there would be a century later, after Babylonia fell, and the Mitanni Empire emerged. To make things worse when the Egyptians drove them out circa 1535 BC, they simply vanished at the Egyptian border. Manetho recorded that 480,000 Hyksos were driven from Egypt, yet no one in the Middle East noticed.

The only way to believe the Conventional Egyptian Timeline (CET) is to accept that the Hyksos were time-travelers. And now, we’re on the verge of cutting another century or more out of the CET, meaning even more anachronisms will appear. How has this been allowed to happen?

---

¹ Toby Wilkinson (2010) Timeline, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt

Part 1 - Dynastic Egypt

The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that the original Egyptian timeline, as recorded by Manetho and the ancient Egyptian King Lists, and as documented by the foremost Egyptologist of the British Empire, Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, actually make far more sense than the CET. The original timeline is herein called the Unified Long Timeline (ULT) as it also takes into account the dynastic records of Mesopotamia, and the various lines of scientific evidence amassed in the past century such as dendrochronology, paleoclimatology, and carbon-dating.

The dates used in the ULT are taken from Petrie’s Researches In Sinai from 1906, and should not be misconstrued as exact dates. Petrie himself states that the earlier dates could be up to a century off, due to the limited amounts of records and artifacts dating to the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Likewise, the CET used herein is the ‘Middle Chronology’ of Egyptology. Egyptologists have worked out several variations of the short timeline, with each generation seeming to want to distinguish itself by erasing more of Egypt’s ancient history. And it is history, it was written down. There were Kings and Queens recorded, yet the way Egyptologists are going, by the year 3000, the Great Pyramids of Giza will probably have been designed by Archimedes and built by Cleopatra. The various versions of the CET proposed the past century can deviate by up to 630 years for the foundation of the 1st Dynasty, therefore the CET dates given should also be considered relative. The following is a comparison between the two timelines: