Here, Stewart outlines some of his other theses.
Now, this is really facepalm-worthy. The Indo-European Hittite language has been understood to a good degree. So has Semitic Chaldean. They are not the same. Chaldean is more related to Aramaic than any other language, as JD has shown in the Ur debate. While Stewart’s (Velikovsky’s) first presumption, that Ramesses II is Necho II is definitely false, I do not see how anyone with even a modest level of intelligence could believe the Hittites were the Chaldeans, except if one has been so indoctrinated in the works of Velikovsky as to purposely not to have read any literature relating to the Hittite and Chaldean languages. Indeed, Hatti-land (the land of the archeologically attested Aramaean-Hittite states) is known in numerous Assyrian and Chaldean sources to have been in North Syria, and, indeed, Nebuchadnezzar II claimed to have conquered Hatti-land only after the Battle of Carchemish.
Stewart’s idea that Pithom is merely a flipping around of Egyptian “nefert” and “men” is quite unlikely, since Israel had a good and fine word for Memphis, derived from “nefer[et]”, and it is extremely difficult to make “Pithom” out of the same word that made “Noph”. Pithom is best explained as “The House of Atum”, “pr itm”. The name is preserved in the Wadi “Tumilat”, Papyrus Anastasi VI, and in the so-called “Pithom Stele” found at Tell el-Maskhuta. Ramesses is an attested abbreviation of Pi-Ramesse/Qantir.
Etymologically unlikely, both Israel and Egypt had the letter “p”. There was also a kingdom of Saba centered around Marib, which I think a much better candidate for Sheba.
4. The scholarly community is made up of many specialists, all interested in only their own field and relying on an unsound chronological framework.
Bullshit. Here are the pillars which hold up modern ANE chronology:
1. Greek Chronology-That which even scholars entirely divorced from the ANE knew.
2. Assyrian Chronology-Made dates up to 911 BC certain.
3. Archaeology and Stratigraphy-This set up the order of the Egyptian dynasties, and provides the most sure proof the 19th Dynasty came before any Israelite settlement.
4. King Lists and Astronomical dating- This limited the number of possible chronological schemes. For example, Sothic dating and Egyptian king lists with a combination of the above made sure there were only two possible beginnings of Ahmose I’s reign and three of Ramesses II’s. Assyrian and Hittite chronology helped solve this dispute. An example more easily solvable by physical dating methods is the four possible sets of Mesopotamian chronology caused by the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa.
5. Physical dating methods (Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon, Thermoluminescence).
These are used as a last resort, and only if one wants to settle a long standing chronological dispute. Radiocarbon dating almost ceases to work between the 4th and 8th centuries BC, so it is of quite limited use in solving chronological disputes in that era, which, however, happens to be historically documented extremely well. At present, using a combination of physical dating and the archaeology of Hazor, the Mesopotamian High Chronology is impossible, the Middle Chronology is, in its current form, impossible, the Low Chronology is likely, and the Ultra-Low Chronology is possible. A combination of radiocarbon dating, the Shoshenq I list, and archaeology (as of and after 2007, see pg. 1679) confirmed that Solomon could not have built the six-chambered gates which used to be accredited to him and that Early Iron IIa began in the reign of Shishak.
As anyone can see, contra Stewart, the conventional chronology thrives on communication between disciplines. If there are any chronological assumptions done here, it is because others (like Velikovsky’s) are impossible.