mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
°

Original Historical Documents

The Old Kingdom
From Abraham to Hezekiah -A historical and stratigraphical revision
by Damien Mackey - December, 2002

Main Menu
Submenu
Encyclo
EA Period
Altes Königreich
Foundations David & the Thutmosides
The New Kingdom
Part A-Abraham
Mesopotamia
Palestine
Syrian Mesopotamia
Egypt
Ebla
King List
Abram in Egypt
Identifying Abraham's Era against Mesopotamia
Chedorlaomer
Nimrod
Stratigraphy
Early Bronze Burials
Notes & References to A
Part B-Egypt's Old & Middle Kingdoms
Joseph
Synthesizing the 4th & 12th Dynasties
The Name Moses
The 12th Dynasty and the Story of Sinuhe
The Name Moses - Part Two
4th & 12th Dynasty Integration
Moses flight
Shortening the 12th Dynasty
Jannes and Mambres
Linking the 4th/12th Dynasties with the 6th Dynasty
The Jealousy of Chenephres
The Exodus
Stratigraphy
Notes & References to Part B
Part C-MBI-Joshuan Conquest
Stratigraphy
Kadesh Barnea
The MBI-Conquest Part One
Another Conquest
Jericho - Part One
The MBI-Conquest Part Two
Jericho Part Two
Concluding Remarks
Judges
Notes & References to Part C
Next 
Dyn_Menu
Old Chronology
Genealogies
Toledoth
Turtan

Introduction
This Excursus will be divided up into the following sections for what
I consider to be significant historical epochs from Abraham to king
Hezekiah, approximately 2000-700 BC:

A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F: Abraham
Egypt's 'Old & Middle Kingdoms', Moses
MBI: Joshuan Conquest
1. First Babylonian Dynasty, 2. David & Solomon, 3. Thutmose III
1. Late 18th Dynasty, El-Amarna, Horemheb, Omri, Ahab, Jehu
19th Dynasty, Ramses, Merenptah, "Israel Stele", Hezekiah

Each section will in turn be divided into two parts: one to account
for an historical revision of that period and the second, for a new
stratigraphical assessment. This last has been prompted by such
articles as Dr. J. Bimson's "Can There be a Revised Chronology Without
a Revised Stratigraphy?" [1].
Whilst the era of Abraham is admittedly far removed from that of
Hezekiah, the sequence established here (A-F) will hopefully enable
for a firm historico-stratigraphical platform to be laid in
preparation for a detailed study of the C8th BC Jewish king, Hezekiah.
My starting with Abraham has a further purpose inasmuch as recent
challenges by historians to the validity of Israel's historical
record, as given in the Old Testament, tend also to commence with
Abraham. Thus M. Lemonick wrote for TIME magazine [2]: "... much of
what is recorded in the Bible is at best distorted, and some
characters and events are probably totally fictional. Most scholars
suspect that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... never existed".
In a similar vein, professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of
Bremen has written [3]:
Mainstream scholars are in the process of deleting Ancient Israel from
the history books. The entire period from Abraham the Patriarch in the
-21st century (fundamentalist date) to the flowering of the Divided
Kingdom in the -9th century (fundamentalist date) is found missing in
the archaeological record. ....
This revision will cover "the entire period" referred to here by
Heinsohn, plus about a century more; all eras to be checked against
"the archaeological record".
Abraham was often the starting point in ancient Israelite literature
when one recounted that nation's history. For instance Achior, in the
Book of Judith, commenced with Abraham when, in response to
Holofernes' question about the identity of the Israelites, he
basically summarised their history for the benefit of his Assyrian
commander-in-chief (ch.5). Stephen protomartyr did the same,
commencing with Abraham, when confronted by the Jews who were about to
stone him (Acts 7). That even in today's troubled world Abraham is
considered to have a significant relevance is apparent from the fact
that, ironically, TIME magazine for September 30, 2002, features the
Patriarch on its cover, with these words: "ABRAHAM. Muslims,
Christians and Jews all claim him as their father. A new book explores
the challenge of turning him into their peacemaker".
Switching now to stratigraphy, we find that efforts to determine the
precise level for a given era can be fraught with difficulties. The
tendency has been to group eras against a neat progression of
archaeological ages in Palestine: firstly, the Stone Ages,
Palaeolithic to Chalcolithic, and then the dynastic ages: the Early
Bronze Age [EBA], Middle Bronze Age [MBA], Late Bronze Age [LBA], Iron
Age, based largely on the type of pottery found at the various levels.
These ages are in turn subdivided: e.g. the Palaeolithic into Lower
(Acheulean), Middle (Mousterian) & Upper (Aurignacian), etc.; and the
Bronze and Iron Ages into I, II, III and even IA IB etc. This
convenient linear arrangement - so typical of modern dating methods -
though having its undoubted usage, is not entirely lacking in
artificiality, and can often be found wanting.
A strong example of this I think can be given here in regard to the
famous 'flood' level at ancient Ur in southern Mesopotamia: the town
that many designate as being Abraham's actual birthplace. R. Milton
gives this assessment of the massive scale of this flood as uncovered
by Sir Leonard Woolley at Ur [4]: "The extent of the Sumerian flood
was very substantial: a deposit 8 feet thick, covering an area of some
400 miles long by 100 miles wide - a total of many billions of tons of
material". Common sense tells us that a flood of this magnitude must
have affected other cities in the region as well. Yet archaeologists
insist that the Ur flood did not reach even Eridu, a mere 20
kilometres from Ur, and situated at a level lower than Ur. Nor,
according to Seton Lloyd, is the Ur flood to be co-ordinated with
other massive flood evidence elsewhere in the region, since [5]:
... clean strata of water-borne sand or clay appeared in
stratigraphical contexts which varied in time from the 'Ubaid period
at Ur to the end of the Early Dynastic phase at Kish. At Farah
(Shuruppak), however, a stratum of this sort occurs at the end of
Early Dynastic I ....
Clearly the linear approach has failed here and needs to be replaced,
perhaps by more of a pond ripple effect stratigraphically. Throughout
this article we shall come across other examples of how a strictly
linear approach to stratigraphy can lead to severe anomalies and a
failure to link contemporary peoples and events. Kathleen Kenyon,
though an adherent of conventional dating, has been critical of the
purely linear approach in regard to the Stone Ages in Palestine,
strongly recommending an overlap of several of these phases [6]:
In trying to fit into place the cultures these communities represent,
we should learn a lesson from the progress of research in European
prehistory. Earlier European scholars tried to place each culture
observed into a regular sequence. Now it is recognised that many
cultures represent regional developments, and several may have existed
side by side. The older sequence-method tended to produce very
inflated chronologies, which have had to be considerably reduced now
that the picture has become more coherent. This we should bear in mind
in trying to piece together the jigsaw puzzle which our present state
of knowledge in Palestine represents, and in fact some of the new
pieces of the jigsaw ... do suggest that the whole picture will
eventually portray a number of groups of people living side by side
each with their own distinctive culture, but with just enough links
with other groups to suggest contemporaneity.
Finally it must be said, in regard to Abraham and the stratigraphical
record, that the peaceful and relatively small migration of Abraham
and his tribe into Palestine is not really an ideal starting point
from a stratigraphical point of view. One would not expect such a
migration to yield anywhere near the same abundance of data as will
the much larger invasion later by the Israelites under Joshua, when
many cities were said to be violently destroyed; a situation that can
easily be tested by the archaeologists. This last comment should apply
also to the Exodus event. Thus it will be the Exodus and Joshuan
Conquest periods (B & C), more than those of Abraham and the others,
that will be the stratigraphical anchor. But historically we begin
with Abraham.
A: Abraham [See: Genealogies]
History
That it is quite reckless to dismiss Abraham lightly as an historical
figure should already be apparent from references to him and other
patriarchs in the ancient Ebla documents. It should become even more
apparent from evidence given below from various ancient Mesopotamian
king lists that show an intimate connection amongst (a) the
descendants of Abraham (b) the first Assyrian kings and (c) the
ancestors of Hammurabi. Before we study these lists, however, we shall
take a look at the era that the Book of Genesis sets for Abraham, and
who the Bible says were his contemporaries all the way from
Mesopotamia to Egypt, since we shall encounter some of these names
again in the Mesopotamian lists.
_________________________________________________________________

For chronological calculations involving Abraham click Here!
_________________________________________________________________

Genesis, apart from giving Abraham a lengthy genealogy (11:10-26),
names, or refers to, many of his contemporaries across the entire
Fertile Crescent. Let us start with the east:
(i) Mesopotamia.
Genesis 14 describes a razzia by a coalition of four kings, one of
whom is Chedorlaomer king of Elam in his "fourteenth year", against
various peoples inhabiting Palestine who had rebelled against the king
of Elam after having served him for 12 years. This coalition included
Amraphel of Shinar (later Babylonia), Arioch of Ellasar and Tidal of
the Goim. Amraphel was long thought to be Hammurabi [Hammurapi] of
what is known as the First Babylonian Dynasty, as the names are
considered to be linguistically matchable. But this idea no longer
holds any interest with Hammurabi now dated to the early C18th BC.
In D below, I shall re-date Hammurabi even centuries later than this.
(ii) Palestine
The four kings, who firstly subdued the Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, nations
of giants, and the Horites, in southern Palestine, then successfully
attacked the Amalekites and Amorites. Next they warred against a
coalition of five southern Palestinian kings, four of whom are named:
Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admar, Shemeber of
Zeboiim and the king of Bela (or Zoar). The kings faced off in the
Valley of Siddim - which later became the Dead Sea (14:3) - which was
full of bitumen pits, and these were the downfall of the local
coalition.[6a]
Amongst the booty taken by the eastern kings was Abram's nephew, Lot
(14:12).
Three Amorites are named as Abram's allies at the time: Mamre, Eshcol
and Aner (v.13).
Salem, the site of Jerusalem, was in those days ruled by the
priest-king, Melchizedek, who - according to Jewish tradition - was
none other than Shem, son of Noah. This would account for Abram's
reverence for Melchizedek, who blessed Abram after the latter had
routed the four kings at Dan and recovered his nephew, Lot (vv.14:15 &
17-20).
(iii) Syrian Mesopotamia
Abram's relatives who had remained in Haran, in Syrian Mesopotamia,
included his father Terah, and his brothers, Nahor and Haran, father
of Lot, Milcah and Iscah (11:27, 29). Nahor's wife, Milcah, gave birth
to Uz, Buz, Kemuel the father of Aram, Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph
and Bethuel. His concubine's children are also named (22:20-24).
Abram's wife, of course, was Sarai (later Sarah) (11:29).
When the family first came into Palestine, before famine drove them on
to Egypt, the Canaanites^6b) were in the land (12:6).
(iv) Egypt
We are not told the name of the pharaoh in Egypt during a time of
famine who took the lovely Sarai into his house, for which plagues
eventually fell upon Egypt (12:14-17). If I am right in my estimation
in B that the patriarch Joseph belonged to the 3rd dynasty era, and
Moses to the 4th dynasty, then Abram who was Joseph's
great-grandfather must have belonged to Egypt's very early dynastic
period. This view will be strengthened in the Stratigraphy section.
What tightens the situation, somewhat, is Dr. D. Courville's
convincing argument, using "eight lines of evidence", that the 1st and
3rd Egyptian dynasties were actually, in part, contemporaneous
[7]&[7b] .
When Abram returned to Palestine from Egypt, not only the Canaanites,
but now also the Perizzites, lived in the land (13:7).
The ageing Abram was getting concerned because he was childless,
Eliezer of Damascus being heir of his house (15:2). So Abram took the
Egyptian, Hagar, as his wife, and she gave birth to Ishmael, who would
become the father of Nebaioth, Kedar, Abdeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah,
Massa, Hada, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah (cf. 16:3 & 25:12-18)
[8].
After Lot and his daughters fled from Sodom, the daughters gave birth
to Moab and Ben-Ammi, who became the fathers, respectively, of the
Moabites and Ammonites (19:30-38).
The king of Gerar, Abimelech^7), also fell for
Sarah, and suffered temporary affliction as a result (20:1-18).
Abimelech's commander was called Phicol (21:22).
Finally Sarah conceived and gave birth to the promised child, Isaac
(21:1-3), who would become part of the great patriarchal trio of
Abraham, Isaac and (the prolific) Jacob/Israel.
When Sarah died, Abraham bought a burial place for her the cave in the
field at Machpelah, he aquired this land from Ephron the Hittite
(ch.23).
Isaac married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel (ch. 24), whose brother was
Laban (24:29).
Abraham, in his old age, took another wife, Keturah, who bore him
Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. Jokshan became the
father of Sheba and Dedan. The sons of Dedan were Asshurim, Letushim
and Leummim. The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and
Eldaah (25:1-4).
All in all, many people, from different nations and regions, are named
in Genesis as being contemporaries of the patriarch Abraham.
Ebla [Tell Mardikh]
The city of Ebla, discovered in 1973, is considered to be perhaps the
oldest of Syrian cities. Its 20,000 cuneiform tablets are currently
dated to the mid-late C3rd millennium BC. That Ebla has considerable
relevance in regard to Abraham and his vast family, and ancestors, is
apparent from the following account given in Collier's Encyclopedia
[8]:
The Eblaites had close connections with the Hebrews, like themselves a
Semitic people. Many of the personal names recorded on the tablets,
such as Abram, Israel, Ismael, Michael, Micaiah, Esau, Saul, and
David, are similar to Biblical names. It is also possible that Eber,
an ancestor of Abraham, was in fact Ebla's great king, Ebrium. ....
The tablets list, in the same order found in Genesis 14:2, the five
Biblical "Cities of the Plain": Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and
Bela (or Zoar). Previously no evidence of these cities existed outside
the Bible or Biblical tradition [sic]. Now it is apparent that they
were trading partners of Ebla. ....
The King Lists
H. Storck commences his important article, "The Early Assyrian King
List ... and the 'Greater Amorite' Tradition" with the following
explanation [9]:
The Assyrian Kinglist (AKL) is one of the most important chronographic
texts ever uncovered. Initially it was thought to represent a long
unbroken tradition of rulership over Assyria. A closer look at the AKL
by Landsberger ... however, dispelled this somewhat facile approach to
AKL tradition. Subsequent studies by Kraus ... and Finkelstein ...
have demonstrated a common underlying Amorite tradition between parts
of the AKL and the Genealogy of Hammurapi (GHD). Portions of this
section of the AKL containing 17 tent-dwelling kings have also been
compared to biblical ... and Ugaritic ... Amorite traditions.
Storck's purpose will be "to take a closer look at the 17 Assyrian
tent dwellers and the greater Amorite tradition, as evidenced
primarily in the genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty and other minor
traditions" [9]. The names of all 17 tent-dwelling kings are preserved
in various lists. They are:

1. Tudija
3. Janqi
5. Harharu
7. Imsu
10. Hanu
12. Nuabu
14. Belu
16. Ushpia  
8. Harsu 2. Adamu
4. Sahlamu
6. Mandaru
9. Didanu
11. Zuabu
13. Abazu
15. Azarah
17. Apiashal

What is striking is that many of these names can be linked with names
in the GHD, which gives the names in couplet form. Thus, for example,
names 3 & 4, Janqi(Janqu) & Sahlamu are given in GHD as
Ya-am-qu-us-ha-lam-ma. Name 11, Zuabu, may be connected with Sumuabi,
an ancestor of Hammurabi. Thus Storck [10]:
Poebel sought to connect the name with Su-mu-a-bi, the name of the
first king of the first dynasty of Babylon, even though in our list it
is written with the sign ZU. .... Kraus, however, expressed his
personal doubts as to whether this would work .... But in a recently
published fragment of this portion of the AKL (E) this name was indeed
written with an initial SU for ZU, thus supporting Poebel's contention
somewhat. "Nevertheless, the genealogy edited by J.J. Finkelstein has
Zu-um-ma-bu in the apparently parallel line, hinting that the reverse
may be the case. The presence of ma as restored eases the
interpretation of the name Sumu-abu" ....
Storck concludes the first part of his study by claiming that [11]:
"Nine of the 17 tent-dwelling AKL kings can reasonably be identified
with GHD ancestors of Hammurapi. This would appear to be sufficient to
establish that these two genealogies drew upon a common `Amorite'
tradition."
He has also found various important connections with name 9, Didanu
[12]:
This name is mentioned in the pre-Sargonic inscriptions of Lagash; it
appears to be the oldest known West Semitic (WS) tribal name ... and
is almost synonymous with Amurru .... Furthermore, mention of this
term is made by Shu-Sin of Ur in his fourth year name and in the time
of Gudea. "Tidanum a mountain district of Amurru" .... - Poebel also
connects this form with the Biblical Dedan .... Finally and most
interestingly, an "assembly of Didanu" .... is mentioned in a kinglist
of Ugarit recently treated by K.A. Kitchen. He proposes that Didanu
was a shared common ancestor with Assyria and Babylon's Amorite
tradition.
Storck, "in the light of these interconnecting pieces of evidence",
proceeds to consider the biblical genealogies [13]:
The first is Genesis 25:2-4 .... Here late in life Abraham takes a
second wife by the name of Keturah. This name is definitely cognate
with the Arabian tribal name Qetura .... But couched here in the
language of physical relationships appears to be an ancestor line
reminiscent of AKL and GHD. Keturah bore Abraham the following sons
(partially excerpted):
Jokshan - Medan - Midian - Ishbak
Sheba and Dedan - Hanoch - Assurim.
Poebel pointed out that there exists "at least the possibility that
these Assurim, a subdivision of the better known tribe of Dedan, are
in some way connected with the Assyrian nomads" ....
Storck, who had previously argued that personal names can be used to
denote tribal names and toponyms, shows how three of these names from
the Genesis list may be treated in the same way, to forge a connection
with AKL names [13]:

A. Dedan =
B. Hanoch =
C. Ishbak = Didanu
Hanu
Ushpia AKL 9
AKL 10
AKL 16     

Other names in the AKL seem to occur in place names that we referred
to above, at the time of Abraham, in regard to the Genesis 14 conflict
between the coalitions of kings in the Valley of Siddim, and would as
Storck says, "almost seem to force the concept of partial
contemporaneity [of the tent-dwelling kings] upon our sometimes
reluctant minds" [14]. These are Admah (Adamu)[Joshua 19:36], Zeboim
(Zuabu)[Nehemiah 11:34] and Bela (Belu)[Genesis 14:2; Zoar?], names
that, as we saw, also occur in the Ebla tablets as actual trading
partners with that Syrian city.
Abram and Egypt
With the great dispersion from Babel identified in the Stratigraphy
section below with the Jemdat Nasr period - and with this period in
turn marking the beginning of the dynastic era in Egypt (EBI) - we
would expect that Abram, who came several generations after the
dispersion, must have arrived in Egypt after that country's dynastic
period had well and truly begun. Yet, based on what I am now going to
suggest, the 1st Egyptian dynasty so-called was in fact
contemporaneous with the era of Abram's g/grandson, Joseph. So the
question becomes: How can Abram be fitted into Egypt's dynastic era?.
I firstly give the following explanation of why I think the 1st
dynasty belonged to the time of Joseph:
To begin with, I accept Dr. D. Courville's convincing argument, using
what he calls "eight lines of evidence", that the 1st and 3rd
dynasties were contemporaneous [15]. One of Courville's eight links is
that the famine of Uenephes of the 1st dynasty is to be synchronised
with the famine at the time of Zoser, a 3rd dynasty king. Now I also
accept the view of certain revisionists [16] that Zoser's famous
vizier, Imhotep, was Joseph. Imhotep, according to a late tradition,
alerted pharaoh Zoser to a coming seven-year famine (cf. Genesis
40:27) [17].
So, where are we to look for a portion of Egyptian dynastic history in
which Abram can be accommodated? The answer, I believe, lies with
another aspect of Courville's revision, according to which Egypt's Old
and Middle Kingdoms were contemporaneous. I shall be discussing this
in B, where I shall be going into some detail regarding prince Moses'
association with both the 4th dynasty (Old Kingdom) and the 12th
dynasty (Middle Kingdom). There, too, I shall suggest that Joseph of
the 1st/3rd dynasty (Old Kingdom) may also have been contemporaneous
with Egypt's 11th dynasty (Middle Kingdom). Now, since this
arrangement leaves us with no Old Kingdom dynasties in which to locate
Abram, can we find his era in one of the pre-11th dynasties: either
the 9th or the 10th?
We would not expect Abram to have left the same sort of mark upon
Egypt as did Joseph, or Moses. His stay there would have been
relatively brief, and he held no position of power in Egypt. Even the
plagues that followed the incident of pharaoh's taking Sarai into his
palace were said to have afflicted only pharaoh and his house, not all
of Egypt.
There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history,
associated with pharaoh Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis^17b),
that may possibly relate to the biblical incident. It should be noted
firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in
Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on
says N. Grimal by "the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in
eastern Africa" [18]. Moreover, Khety III's "real preoccupation was
with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the
occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics" [19]. Could these
eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of
Abram's era - including the Hebrews themselves - who had been forced
to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the
Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son,
Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in
Egypt):

Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time:
The nome of This was ravaged;
Though it happened through my doing,
I learned it after it was done.[Emphasis added].

Cf. Genesis 12:17-19:
But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues
because of Sarai .... So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, 'What is this
you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?
Why did you say, 'She is my sister'? so that I took her for my wife?
Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone'.
Identifying the Era of Abraham Against Mesopotamian History (The Four
Kings)
Storck's identification of the name 16, Ushpia (Ishbak), with the
"Ushpia ... known to have built at Ashur, according to a later
tradition by Shalmaneser", and his dating of this Ushpia "as a later
contemporary of Abraham ... [to] the later part of Ur III dynasty" now
encourages me to try to identify members of the Mesopotamian coalition
of Genesis 14 during Ur III, at the time of Abraham. Since Storck has
already dealt with these four kings in part, I shall begin where he
does, with Arioch of Ellasar [20]:
A certain Arioch of Ellasar, furthermore, is cited as one of the four
kings against five. This Arioch may provisionally be identified with
Azarah if "WRH" moon (month) is closer to the original etymology.
Ellasar has received various treatments over the years: Larsa al sarri
or "city of the King", Til Assuri, "the country of Assyria" and/or
"the city of Assur ....
The connection between Ellasar is explained as a derived form of A
LA-SAR, an ideogram denoting the city of Assyria" .... That "Assur" is
meant here may receive further support if the connection with
Arioch-Azarah is defensible. However, to the best of our knowledge A
LA SAR is not an attested reading for Assur. We therefore suggest that
it was heard as "alu Assur" and "Ellasar" is an attempt to render
this, based on oral transmission.
Now in the later part of the Ur III dynasty era - the era for Abraham
according to Storck's view - at the time of Amar-Sin of Ur
(c.2046-2038 BC, conventional dating), we read of an official of Ashur
who may well be this Arioch/Azarah. He is Zariqum. I quote regarding
him from the Cambridge Ancient History [21]:
From Ashur itself comes a stone tablet dedicated by Zariqum, calling
himself governor of Ashur, 'for the life of Amar-Sin the mighty, king
of Ur, king of the four regions', whereby it is certain that Ashur was
a vassal-city of Ur under its next king.
The name Zariqum contains the main elements of both Arioch (ariq) and
Azarah (zari), thus supporting Storck's view that these are the same
names and further linking the king lists and the Bible.
But this quotation may tell us more with regard to the coalition. It
in fact gives us the name of the Sumerian ruler whom Zariqum served:
Amar-Sin (var. Amar-Su'en). Now Amar-Sin would make an excellent
candidate for Amraphel of Shinar of Genesis 14. Basically the names
are the same with a different theophoric, the god El in the biblical
name replaced by the moon god, Sin. Amar-Sin was a mighty king of
Shinar, belonging to the very era in which Storck has placed Abraham
in relation to Mesopotamia. And I happily note that the conventional
Mesopotamian dates for Amar-Sin (c.2000 BC) correspond adequately
enough to those usually estimated for Abram's early dwelling in
Canaan.
A third coalitional king was Tidal. Storck identifies this with name
1, Tudija, in AKL [22]:
... Tid'al. This name is intended to represent the form Tudkhalia,
....a Hittite name, although specific identity with one of the four
Hittite kings by this name cannot be suggested. That Tid'al is but a
contracted form of Tudkhalia is almost universally accepted and offers
no major linguistic problems. Tudija is also a contraction or
hypocoristicon of some longer name .... As such it would probably
constitute the Vorlage/(pattern) of Tudkhalia.
Ebla seems also to refer to this name, as if belonging to a real
historical person [23]:
The tablets, for example, refer to a treaty between Ebla and King
Dudiya of Ashur, or Assyria. A nearly identical name, Tudiya, is the
first name on the Assyrian king lists .... Most likely both sources
refer to the same person. Therefore, it appears that Tudiya ... and
the other early Assyrian kings were real figures, a fact that scholars
had previously doubted.
Chedorlaomer
As for Chedorlaomer, his name is certainly Elamite (e.g.
Kudur-Lagmur). We know that relations between Elam and Shinar were
unusually good during the early phase of Ur III. This was thanks to an
initiative undertaken by the dynasty's founder [24]: "... independent
states, such as Elam or Mari, ... had been drawn into the sphere of
influence of Ur by a policy of matrimonial alliances introduced by
Ur-Nammu at Mari and pursued by [his successor] Shulgi elsewhere."
Shulgi was the father of Amar-Sin.
There is no known powerful Elamite ruler though at this time.
Two initial points to consider. Chedorlaomer was not necessarily the
most powerful figure in the coalition, as his name is mentioned only
third amongst the kings in Genesis 14:1. Whilst he ruled Elam, he may
not necessarily have been an Elamite, but may have been a governor
(ensi) of the region set up by either Shulgi or Amar-Sin, just as
Zariqum (Arioch) served as governor of Ashur for Amar-Sin. The
Sumerian empire, now at its zenith, transformed conquered countries
[25]:
... into provinces and put [them] under a civilian governor (ensi) or
a military governor (sagin in Sumerian, shakkanakkum in Akkadian),
often of local origin; this was the case with Susa [Elam], Assur and
probably a great portion of Northern Mesopotamia .... Finally, in the
heart of the kingdom (Sumer and Akkad), the former city-states were
now treated as provinces. The only lugal was the King of Ur, and the
once proud ensi had become mere administrators appointed by him to
maintain order, dispense justice, implement royal instructions
concerning public works and collect duties and taxes.
This scenario may be the key to our understanding the Genesis 14
coalitional structure. More than likely, then, were three of the
coalitional 'kings' actually ensi in the Sumerian empire, servants of
the mighty, self-deified king, Amar-Sin. Chedorlaomer, though, becomes
the central figure of the coalition in regard to the revolt of the
Amorites and others in the west (Genesis 14:4,5). This is perhaps
because his jurisdiction as a tax collector for the Sumerian king
extended to this region of the empire, as well as including the
province of Elam. Certainly an extensive portfolio!
My suggestion for the historical identity of Chedorlaomer is the
amazing and mysterious Gudea (Kudur?) of the city-state of Lagash; a
province which, geographically, would have been a perfect base from
which to govern Elam. Though conventionally dated to just before the
Ur III dynasty, there seems to be nothing really solid to fix Gudea to
this point chronologically. Gudea's building works rivalled those of
the prolific Ur-Nammu himself [26]:
"... we know of a city not far from the [Ur] where a grandiose
building programm was carried out by the local ruler with truly royal
magnificence: this was Lagash under its famous ensi Gudea (c.
2141-2122 B.C.)."
Gudea built, or rebuilt, at least fifteen temples in the province of
Lagash; the most famous one in Girsu. Interestingly, this last was
built with Elamite labour [27]:
"From Elam came the Elamites, from Susa the Susians. Magan and Meluhha
collected timber from their mountains ... and Gudea brought them
together in his town of Girsu."
Moreover, the only military campaign we know that Gudea undertook was
in the region of Elam, in Anshan, from where he collected his labour
force and materials. [28]
Gudea, governor or Lagash - restored But Gudea's influence spread much
further geographically than this, even to the far west - as we might
expect if he were ensi during the empire of Amar-Sin; for we know that
the latter, like his father, ranged westwards, not merely to the
middle and upper Euphrates (Mari, Tuttul, and Ebla) but even to
farthest Syria (Byblos itself). And we should certainly expect some
western connection for Gudea if he were Chedorlaomer. Thus we find
Gudea in the coveted forests of Lebanon [29]:
"Gudea, the great en-priest of Ningirsu, made a path into the Cedar
mountains which nobody had entered before; he cut its cedars with
great axes ... Like giant snakes, cedars were floating down the water
(of the river)." The west would thus have held a fascination for the
Sumerian king and his ensi.
A proposed structure for the coalition, perfectly in accordance with
the times, is Amar-Sin (Amraphel), as a great king, with his governors
in "Susa [Elam]", namely Gudea (Chedorlaomer), "Assur" (Arioch) "and
... a great portion of Northern Mesopotamia" (Tidal/Tudiya, the first,
tent-dwelling, ruler of the Assurim - Assyrian peoples (Goim).
Amar-Sin and his father are known to have fought in a region that
provided asphalt [30], which may too explain the coalition's
attraction to the bitumen pits of the Valley of Siddim. In fact one of
the places attained by the Ur III kings - and so far not positively
identified - has the name, Khumurti, very much like Gomorrah itself.
It was a time of peace for Mesopotamia, with the empire consolidated
under Amar-Sin, who was thus able to devote much of his ample revenue
to temples and public edifices. But the peace was to be short-lived.
Already, by the fourth year of Amar-Sin's brother and successor,
Shu-Sin, we find the king of Ur having to build a wall to keep out the
Amorites; the very people whose lands the coalition had previously
invaded, and who were now apparently seeking revenge.
Nimrod
With Amar-Sin now solidly identified as Abram's contemporary,
Amraphel, there is the strong possibility that Amar-Sin's grandfather,
Ur-Nammu (c.2112-2095 BC, conventional dating), the founder of the Ur
III dynasty - renowned for his conquests, but especially for his
building of massive stage-tower ziggurats or 'towers unto heaven' -
was the legendary Nimrod himself (Nimrod = Nammu-Ur?) of 'Babel' (Ur?
Borsippa?) fame, about two generations before the era of Abraham.
Some have suggested that Nimrod was Enmerkar (N-M-R) of Early Dynastic
II (c.2750 BC, conventional), builder of Uruk I (Erech) (cf. Genesis
10:10), and that Enmeberagesi of Kish I (c.2700 BC) has some
likenesses to Amraphel. Both may be possible, meaning that Ur III
belonged to early Mesopotamian dynastic history. Gudea claimed to have
been the first person to have penetrated the Cedar mountains. Now I
think that Enmakar was Enoch, the son of Cain, himself and Gilgamesh
was the colorful polygamist Lamech (Lamesh).^30b) Ur Nammu emerges
then pretty solid as Nimrod.
Stratigraphy
Traces of the destruction wrought by the four kings can be found in
the Chalcolithic period. Dr. J. Osgood argued this in a clinching
piece of archaeological evidence [31]:
As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most
insignificant portion of the passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that
the [four] kings of Mesopotamia attacked "the Amorites who dwelt in
Hazezon-tamar".'
Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar is En-gedi, the
oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore of
the Dead Sea. The passage in Genesis chapter 14, therefore, allows us
to conclude that in the days of Abraham there was a civilization in
En-gedi ..., a civilization of Amorites, and that these were defeated
by Chedorlaomer in his passage northward.....[Map]
Happily for us, Chalcolithic settlements in Tuleilat al Ghussul,
north-east of the Dead Sea, Jericho, Masada and En-gedi have been
excavated. The excavations found only three major periods of
settlement in En-gedi and its larger area:-

1. The Roman period - not relevant here.
2. During the Kingdom of Israel - not relevant here.
3. During the Chalcolithic of Palestine - "the largest and most
prolific settlement period."

Osgood rightly concludes, therefore, that this Chalcolithic settlement
must be the one that dates to the time of Abraham and the invasion by
the four Mesopotamian kings.
This is another huge argument against the linear approach to
stratigraphy. It tells us that, whilst sophisticated kingdoms and
cities may be in place in one part of the world (e.g. the Ur III
kingdom in Mesopotamia), those in other places may be living so basic
an existence as to be classified according to a late Stone Age
culture.
Courville has in turn identified the Jemdat Nasr period of expansion
westwards - and the corresponding EB I in Egypt - with the event of
dispersion that the Bible describes subsequent to the Tower of Babel
incident [32]:
The beginning of Early Bronze I in the late predynastic^32a) period of
Egypt is tied in unmistakable fashion to Mesopotamian history for the
period known as Jemdet Nasr. ... It is to be noted that, as in Egypt,
so in Mesopotamia the Jemdet Nasr era marks the beginnings of dynastic
history. Hence the point marks a widespread trend toward nationalism,
as is to be expected following the Dispersion incident. Of this era,
Piggot wrote:
... We are now approaching so near to the recorded history and
king-lists of Mesopotamia that we can give an approximate date in
years for the Jemdet Nasr - about 3000 B.C. [sic] - for it was
followed by the period of the early Dynasties.
The correlation of the beginning of Early Bronze I with the Dispersion
from Babel becomes reasonably complete if evidence is at hand to
indicate that the short-lived Jemdet Nasr culture of Mesopotamia and
other contemporary cultures became scattered over the area of the then
known world.
.... If one can free his thinking from the strangle-hold of popular
opinion, the evidences become overwhelming that the beginning of Early
Bronze I marks the point of the Dispersion as recorded in the
scriptural accounts.
The magnitude of the migration of cultures at this point has been such
as to call forth expressions of some astonishment on the part of
scholars. .... Albright wrote:
... Towards the end of the fourth millennium [sic] there must have
been an exceedingly intensive transfusion of culture going on in the
Near and Middle East. Syria and Palestine naturally became the
cultural intermediaries through which Mesopotamian influences streamed
into Egypt in the period just before the First Dynasty, as has been
demonstrated particularly by Frankfort and Scharff. [Emphasis ours].
... Garstang:
... In Palestine many great Canaanite cities have been shown by
archaeological studies to date their origins from these times, such as
Hazor, Taanak and Megiddo, on the north-eastern trade route, and
Shechem, Beeroth and Jerusalem in the hill country to the south; and
probably the same is true of most of the cities of the plains.
Early Bronze Burials
Moreover, "the Early Bronze practice of multiple burials in large
caves" (see p. 33) matches perfectly the form of burial opted for by
the early Hebrew patriarchs, in the cave of Machpelah that Abraham had
bought from the Hittites. There Sarah had first been buried. (Cf.
Genesis 23:9,17,19; 25:9; 49:30).
The above revision, based on the life of Abraham, demands a massive
stratigraphical re-organisation of Mesopotamia, both internally and in
its relation to Syro-Palestine and Egypt.
Notes and references
[1] SIS Review, Vol. VI, Issues 1-3 (Soc. for Interdisciplinary
Studs., UK, 1982), 16-26.
[2] "Are the Bible's Stories True?" (TIME Christmas edition, 1995),
51.
[3] "The Restoration of Ancient History" (Internet), 18.
[4] The Facts of Life (Fourth Estate, London, 1992), 60.
[5] The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, London (Thames & Hudson, 1984),
92. Emphasis added. The Ubaid period (c.4000 BC) is currently
separated from Early Dynastic (c.3000 BC) by about a millennium.
[6] Archaeology in the Holy Land (Ernest Benn, London, 1960), 69-70,
273. Emphasis added.
[6a] According to Dr. James Harrell, `The bitumen used as a
preservative in some ancient Egyptian mummies was previously thought
to come only from the Dead Sea area in Palestine.
A closer source of bitumen was investigated at Gebel Zeit on the
southwestern shore of Egypt's Gulf of Suez. Here two ancient oil wells
were discovered. These were hand-dug in Pleistocene reef limestone and
fed by petroleum seepage along a fault. Bitumen samples from the Dead
Sea, Gebel Zeit, another site in the Gulf of Suez, and five mummies
were analyzed using molecular biomarkers derived from gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry. It was found that four of the
mummies contained Dead Sea bitumen, and the fifth and oldest one (that
of the Libyan Pasenhor from about 900 BC (conv. date)) had bitumen
from Gebel Zeit. This is the first evidence for the use of an
indigenous source of bitumen in ancient Egypt.'
[6b] Canaan means `purple' and is said to be the earliest, native name
for Palestine since it first appears in some of the world's oldest
books, the Book of Genesis 11:31; Exodus 6:4.
[7] Ishmael 'signed' the colophon ending at Genesis 25:12, indicating
that he had written the history of Abraham up to that point, having
begun after the colophon of Terah (Genesis 11:27). Isaac then took
Abraham's history a few verses further, to 25:19.
[7b] On the subject of the 3rd Dynasty Dr. Zahi Hawass, Secretary
General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, Director of
the Giza Pyramids Excavation, stated that, "Günter Dreyer, the
director of the German Institute, made the important discovery, that
Djoser, the builder of the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, was the founder of
the third dynasty. He came to this conclusion when he found Djoser's
name inside the tomb of his father, Khasekemwy, the last Pharaoh of
the second dynasty, who was buried there along with the Pharaoh
Peribsen. "
[7c] For an article on episodes between Abraham (Gen. 21:22-32) and
Isaak (Gen. 26:12-22) and Abimelech see V.H.Matthews, `The Wells of
Gerar' in BA, Vol. 49, June 1986, p. 118-125.; The events center
around confrontations between the immigrant Patriarchs and Abimelech,
i.e. water rights, herd management and establishing a clear title to a
well by the diplomatically acute Abraham using a symbolic/economic
gesture implying long term usage. In the case of Isaac the events had
to do with cautious nomad-urban relations, establishing acceptance
before the indigenous population to demonstrate their role as heirs of
a covenant with Yahweh by acquiring impressive wealth and a large
household.
[8] CE, Vol. 8, "Ebla" (P.F. Collier, Inc. NY), p. 501. Also `The
Adventure of Aeachaeology', Nat. Geogr. Book, p. 318-319.
[9] Proc. of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism & Ancient History (C&AH
Press, Toronto, 1986), 43.
[10] Ibid. (Latin term meaning `refer back to the book mentioned
before'), 44.
[11] Ibid., 45.; We tentatively agree with those who state the
preliminary view that the area around the Sphinx was originally one
vast quarry, from which perhaps the bulk of the stone in the Great
Pyramid was taken. In the process of quarrying, however, bedrock was
reserved not only for the Sphinx, but also for the causeway of Khaefre
which borders the south side of the Sphinx basin. Thus, in effect,
Khufu's quarrying operations anticipated not only the position of the
Sphinx, but also the line of Khaefre's causeway.
Furthermore, the Sphinx and the temple-complex of Khaefre were
elements of the integrated site plan according to which the positions
of the pyramids of Khufu [Horus name: hr md ddw hwfw], Khaefre and
Menkaure were determined. The 3rd pyramid of Giza, the pyramid of
Menkaure, is discussed and shown in color in Aidan Dodson, `Tombs of
the Royal Families of Egypt' in KMT, Vol. 15, Summer 2004, p.
47-(50ff)-55. Also shown are the pyramids of Unas and Pepy II, his
wife Iput II, as well as the plan of a single room structure of
Henutsen.
[12] Ibid., 44; `Dedan' is mentioned in Genesis 10:7; 25:3;
1.Chronicles 1:9, 32.
[13] Ibid., 45.
[14] Ibid., 46.
[15] The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vol.1 (Loma Linda CA,
1971), 170-176.
[16] Most notably T. Chetwynd, "A Seven Year Famine in the Reign of
King Djoser with Other Parallels between Imhotep and Joseph", C&AH,
Vol. IX, pt.1 (Jan., 1987), 49-56.
[17] Following Uenephes, I note, was one Usaphaidos, the first part of
whose name (Usaiph) pronounces almost identically Yusef, the Hebrew
name for Joseph (JseOy).
[17b] Some of the capitals of ancient nomes in the Nile Delta area
were: Kom el-Hisn (Old Kingdom), Buto, Mendes, Tell el-Dab'a,
Heliopolis, Memphis. [JARCE, Vol. XXV, 1988, p. 7]
[18] A History of Ancient Egypt, (Blackwell UK, 1994), 139. Khety III
conventionally dated to the 7th/8th Dynasty. But see Here!
[19] Ibid., 145.
[20] Ibid., 45. Storck had already noted, ibid. with reference to
Poebel, that the name Azarah might be composed of a Western Semitic
(WS) form, "to come forth" and WHR "moon" (month).
[21] CAH, Vol. I, pt.2 (3rd ed.) , 602.
[22] Open citato (`in the work cited'), 45-46.
[23] CE, ibid.
[24] Roux, G., Ancient Iraq (Penguin, 1992), 170. See also CAH, 600.
[25] Roux, ibid. For a full page color image of the Sumerian King List
see `The Horizon Book of the Lost Worlds', N.Y., 1962, p. 150.
[26] CAH, 601. Emphasis added. Famous Sumerian art from the time of
Gudea Rendition of his name at time of Assurbanipal , ruler of Lagash,
are the continuous intertwining snakes shown in `... the Lost Worlds',
N.Y., 1962, p. 148. Images and text on statues of Gudea at the Detroit
Institute of Art can be seen in BAR, Vol. IX, May/June 1983, p. 74f.
Also well known is the 14 ½ inch long dagger of Mes-kalem-dug with a
hilt of lapis lazuli and a sheath of gold.
[27] Roux, 167.
[28] Ibid., 168.
[29] Ibid., 167.
[30] CAH, ibid. "Other towns listed as destroyed in the unremitting
wars of Shulgi and his son... are Kimash and Khumurti, named with
Madqa, from which Gudea had obtained asphalt ...".
[30b] A B&W image of the famous Gilgamesh Epic written in Cuneiform
may be seen in K.G. Hoglund's, `The Collections at Yale University' in
BA, Sept. 1984, p. 160-165.; Also shown is an ancient literary
catalogue, listing various Sumerian compositions by their first lines
or "incipits". [Yale Babylonian Collection #3654.]
[31] "Times of Abraham", Ex Nihilo Tech J., vol.2, 181. David
Ussishkin, `The Ghassoulian Temple in En-Gedi and the origin of the
hoard from Nahal Mishmat' in BA, Vol. 34, p. 23-39. - We suggest to
regard this association with great cautionary care.; See also Osgood's
elaboration on this in vol.3 (1988). "Techlets", 124-125.
[32] Op. cit., Vol.2 (Loma Linda CA, 1971), 144, 145.
[32a] A partially damaged Early Bronze Age jug was found in the `Bay
of Atlit', Mediterranian coast of Israel, evaluated as having been
made of Nile mud which contained `5500' year old fresh water shells
common in Africa. Eretz, Dec. 2002. A good B&W quality image of a
dried body of a, according to E.A.W. Budge, predynastic Egyptian
including pottery can be seen in his `By Nile and Tigris', Vol. II,
1920, p. 360 (BM#32751).
B: Egypt's 'Old & Middle Kingdoms' Moses
History
TIME magazine: "... many doubt the tales of slavery in Egypt and the
Exodus ..." [1].
The linear approach has really caused chaos for this period of
history, too, leading the Egyptologists to split into two major
kingdoms what was in reality only one, separating the beginning of the
'Old Kingdom' from the beginning of the 'New Kingdom' by about 700
years. And splitting into two the one intermediate period that
followed the one kingdom. Fortunately Courville, in his systematic
revision of Egyptian history [2], recognised this most unfortunate
mistake, and was able to 'put Humpty Dumpty together again', in a
rough sort of fashion. The following table shows the extent of
Courville's revision:

Conventional Courville (Revised)

Old Kingdom (c.2700-2200) (EBIII)
First Intermediate (c. 2200-2040)
Middle Kingdom (2040-1674) (MBI)
Second Intermediate (c. 1674-1553) (MBIIB)
Old Kingdom - Middle Kingdom (c.2000-) (EBII-III)
First & Second Intermediates (c.1500-1050) (MBI-MBIIB)

Having, as one again, the Old & Middle kingdoms - and the First &
Second Intermediate periods - one can begin to solve certain
historical difficulties and anomalies. For instance, this new scenario
serves to dissolve the problem for Egyptologists of how the Old
Kingdom pyramids were built when the technology for this was not
available until the Middle Kingdom.^2b) And again, who were the
mysterious vandals who tore apart the Old Kingdom at its end?
Answer: Just go to the end of the Middle Kingdom and check. (Or see
Here). And, most relevant to Moses, we find that whilst one expert
(Professor E. Anati) insists that the Old Kingdom is the perfect
backdrop for the Exodus event, another (Dr. R. Cohen) is equally
convinced that the event would have occurred concurrent with the
Middle Kingdom's 12th Dynasty. In this revision both views can be
accommodated.
Here I do not intend the massive task of writing a complete
interweaving synchronisation of all the dynasties of the Old Kingdom
(1-6) and Middle Kingdoms (11-13), as well as the intermediate
dynasties. Instead I shall employ a simple technique. I shall use
Prince Moses as my unifying principle. This will enable me to forge a
strong connection of contemporaneity between two very famous dynasties
in particular: the Old Kingdom's 4th dynasty of pyramid building and
the Middle Kingdom's expansive 12th dynasty.
Joseph
Now, locating the young Moses to the 4th dynasty fits well with
others' placement of the patriarch Joseph in the 3rd dynasty, since
Joseph can be estimated to have died about 60 years before Moses was
born. [3]
And locating Moses also to the 12th dynasty is going to fit well with
the 11th dynasty identification of Joseph that I shall now propose.
The 11th dynasty is problematical. Courville has devoted a whole
chapter to what he has called "The Enigma of Manetho's XIth Dynasty"
[4], in which he concludes that some of the Antef's and Mentuhotep's -
the most common names featured in this dynasty - actually belonged to
the late Hyksos period (17th dynasty). That may be so, at least in
regard to the Antef's. But there are also aspects of the early 11th
dynasty that, when combined, might lead to the conclusion that this
was the very era of Joseph, concurrent with the 3rd dynasty. I refer
to (i) a severe famine; (ii) a king-like vizier; and (iii) the
unification of Egypt.
W. Shea, who has written a book on famines in Egypt [5], locates one
particular famine to the time of Mentuhotep I of the 11th dynasty.
This very same famine, Courville had attributed to the time of
Sesostris I of the 12th dynasty.
G. Gammon, in his review of Shea's book, distinguishes between
Courville's and Shea's interpretations [6]:
Of the twenty [famines] which Shea reviews, he attributes eight to the
"Dark Age" immediately following the collapse of the Old Kingdom ...
nine to the period from the Dark Age to the reunification of Egypt
under Mentuhotep I; and one apiece to Mentuhotep I, the interregnum
between 11th and 12th Dynasties and Senwosret [Sesostris] I. He
follows Vandier in attributing the stela of Mentuhotep to the reign of
Mentuhotep I. It is of interest that, in his reconstruction of early
Egyptian history, Donovan Courville accepted F.L. Griffiths'
attribution of this text to the reign of Senwosret I and used it,
together with the famine text in the tomb of the nomarch Ameny, to
support his argument that Joseph's famine took place under this 12th
Dynasty king.
Courville had rightly sensed that the vizier Mentuhotep had all the
credentials for Joseph; but he wrongly made him the vizier of
Sesostris I [6b], when instead Mentuhotep had served as vizier during
the 11th dynasty's unification of Egypt.
The vizier was a virtual king, according to J. Breasted [7]: "... the
powerful vizier Mentuhotep ... the account which he could give of
himself ... reads like the declaration of the king's powers". In
regard to this testimony, Courville referred to Genesis 41:41-43
concerning the king-like status of Joseph. Continuing on with
Courville's fascinating account of the power of this Vizier supreme,
we read [8]:
Speaking of Mentuhotep, Brugsch commented:
In a word, our Mentuhotep, who was also invested with several priestly
dignities, and was Pharaoh's treasurer, appears as the alter ego of
the king. "When he arrived, the great personages bowed down before him
at the outer door of the royal palace". [Emphasis ours]
An examination of the inscriptions relative to Mentuhotep, which gave
rise to the remarkable statements of Breasted, shows us that
Mentuhotep carried, among others, the following titles: "Vizier, Chief
Judge, Overseer of the Double Granary, Chief Treasurer, Governor of
the Royal Castle, Wearer of the Royal Seal, Chief of all the works of
the King, Hereditary Prince, Pilot of the People, Giver of
Good-Sustaining Alive the People, Count, Sole Companion, Favorite of
the King". .... We compare these with the titles ascribed to Joseph in
Scripture where he is "Lord of the Land", "Father of Pharaoh", "Lord
of all his House", and "Ruler throughout the Land of Egypt" ....
We are told that Pharaoh gave Joseph the name, Zaphenath-paneah
(Genesis 41:45), which A. Yahuda interprets as Egyptian df (=df3) n t3
pw 'nh = Hebrew Hnf p t n pc, meaning `jefa en ta pew ankh', "food,
sustenance of the land is the living", or "is this living one". [9]
We should expect Joseph to have ruled Egypt for many decades, since he
was 30 years of age when he entered pharaoh's service and he lived
until the age of 110 (cf. Genesis 41:46 & 50:22). A floruit in Egypt
of half a century would not be unreasonable for him. Since Joseph the
Vizier held pharaonic-like powers throughout Egypt, there now emerges
the possibility that the 11th dynasty was in fact the dynasty of
Joseph, and that Joseph was at once the 11th dynasty's (i) Mentuhotep
I, who unified Egypt; (ii) Mentuhotep II, who ruled for 51 years;
(iii) Mentuhotep III, during whose reign we read - in the letters of
the priest Hekanakht - of the onset of famine [10]; (iv) Mentuhotep
IV, about the state of whose reign N. Grimal has written [10]: "At
this point the Turin Canon mentions 'seven empty years' which
correspond to the reign of Mentuhotpe IV". Cf. Genesis 41:54
The element, -hotep, is common to Imhotep^10a) and Mentuhotep: i.e.
Joseph. It is also common to the sage, Ptahhotep - variously assigned
to the 3rd and 5th dynasties - who, like Joseph, lived to be 110 years
of age, and whose writings resemble parts of the Proverbs. It would
not be suprising if different theophorics were attached to Joseph's
name, according to geographical location. Thus Ptah at Memphis, Mentu
at Thebes, Ra at Heliopolis, etc., etc., as was Egyptian custom.
The long reign of a particular ruler seems to cause Egyptologists to
duplicate that sovereign, as I have just argued may have been the case
with Mentuhotep of the 11th dynasty, and as I shall argue was the case
with both Amenemes and Sesostris of the 12th dynasty (see further on),
and Rameses II of the 19th dynasty (see F).
Synthesising the 4th & 12th Dynasties
4th Dynasty
From the 4th dynasty, we gain certain elements that are relevant to
the early career of Moses. Firstly we have a strong founder-king,
Cheops (Egyptian Khufu), builder of the great pyramid at Giza^10b),
who would be a good candidate for "the new king" during the infancy of
Moses who set the Israelite slaves to work with crushing labour
(Exodus 1:8). This would support the testimony of Josephus that the
Israelites built pyramids for the pharaohs, and it would explain from
whence came the abundance of manpower for pyramid building. Cheap
slave labour.
"... they became very abusive toward the Israelites, and contrived
many ways of afflicting them; for they enjoined them to cut a great
number of channels for the river, and to build walls for their cities
and ramparts, that they might restrain the river, and hinder its
waters from stagnating, upon its running over its banks: they set them
also to build pyramids, and by all this wore them out; and forced them
to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom them to hard
labor."[11]
The widespread presence of Asiatics in Egypt at the time would help to
explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh
would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans
and Nubians. As precious little though is known of Cheops [12],
despite his being powerful enough to build one of the Seven Wonders of
the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty
alter ego.
In Cheops' daughter, Mer-es-ankh [III], we have the Merris of
tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name
Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the
latter being the 'life' symbol for Egypt worn by people even today.
Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Ka-kheper-re), builder of the
second Giza pyramid and probably of the Great Sphinx. He thus became
Moses' f/father-in-law. Chephren is the Chenephres of tradition [13].
Prince Moses, now a thorough-going 'Egyptian' (cf. Exodus 2:19), must
have been his loyal subject. "Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of
the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his
actions." (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for
Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in
a 4th dynasty context, we shall see that it is perfectly appropriate
in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren's alter ego.
Given the presumed status of Moses in Egypt at the time, we might
expect to find him, too, in the 4th dynasty history. But firstly we
shall need to recover his full Egyptian name, as given to him by
pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:9), to establish the Egyptian structure
and meaning of the name: 'Moses' (Hebrew hw,m*, Moshe).
The Name 'Moses' (Part One)
'Moses' is generally thought to be identified with the Egyptian ms
(pronounced Mes), and derived from the root msy, 'conceive, give
birth', in the sense of 'child, son of so-and-so'. Egyptologists point
to names like Thut-mose, 'Son of [the god] Thoth' and Ra-meses, 'Son
of [the god] Ra', which incorporate the ms element with the theophoric
(god-name). Professor A. Yahuda [14], however, strongly disagreed with
this standard explanation, claiming that the identification of Moshe
with ms, or msy, whilst "having the appearance of being in order" is
in fact "very far-fetched." The whole explanation "falls to the
ground", he wrote, in view of the fact that the very name 'Rameses',
in which ms is held to be of the same root as the Hebrew mes in Moshe,
is twice transliterated in the Exodus narrative (1:11 & 12:37), not as
should be expected by Ramees, but by Rameses. Yahuda considered it
"unthinkable" that the same Egyptian word ms could be reproduced at
one time as Moshe and at another as Mose, not only "in two different
vocalizations but also in two sibilants [i.e. sh and s] which
etymologically and phonetically are quite different."
As to Yahuda's own account of the name, Moshe, from the elements mw
and e (i.e. Mwe), I am half in agreement with him. I can readily
accept his view that the first element of the name corresponds to
Egyptian, mw, meaning 'water' (vocalised as Mu, alternatively Nu
[15]).
Yahuda claimed that mw here stands metaphorically for 'seed' in the
sense of 'child, son' [e.g. mw ntry 'divine water' of So-and-so =
'divine son'].
But perhaps his explanation of the second element, as e, meaning
'pond, lake, expanse of water', "... applied here to the Nile which
was called by the Egyptians also e", may give rise to a redundancy.
Whilst Yahuda's overall conclusion, that "the name means simply 'Child
of the Nile'", is ingenious, I rather find the impression he creates
of Moses as a Watery Seed of the Nile to be a bit too, well, watery
for my liking. For a possible further clue on the name 'Moses' we
shall need to turn to the 12th dynasty, to the famous The Story of
Sinuhe [TSS], the Egyptian Moses.
The 12th Dynasty and The Story of Sinuhe
From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are
relevant to the early career of Moses. Once again we have a strong
founder-king, Amenemes I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually
unknown Cheops as "the new king" of Exodus 1:8. This new ruler "knew
not Joseph", not in the sense of never having heard of him (the great
Imhotep, still 'known' about a millennium and a half later in
Ptolemaïc times), but in the Hebrew sense of 'not knowing', presumably
, that is, 'not recognising' what Joseph had done for Egypt. The reign
of Amenemes I was, deliberately, an abrupt break with the past. The
beginning of the 12th dynasty marks not only a new dynasty, but an
entirely new order. Amenemes I celebrated his accession by adopting
the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt ("He who repeats births"), thought to
indicate that he was "the first of a new line" [16], that he was
"thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a
renaissance, or new era in his country's history." [17]
Amenemes I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally
from southern Egypt [18]. Further on (see p.23) I shall attempt to
track down his beginnings. This will be done via the 6th dynasty,
which too will be found to be contemporaneous with the 4th and 12th.
"The Prophecy of Neferti", relating to the time of Amenemes I, shows
the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the
eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of
Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9). That
Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent
from the Cambridge Ancient History [19]: "The Asiatic inhabitants of
the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been
many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...". D.
Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the
Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn
[Kahun], which Petrie described as "an unaltered town of the twelfth
dynasty" [20]. Of the 'Asiatic' presence in this pyramid builders'
town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the
Manchester Museum) has written [21]:
It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some
numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt.
It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians
as 'Asiatics', although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine
cannot be determined ... The reason for their presence in Egypt
remains unclear.
Undoubtedly, the 'Asiatics' were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise
pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary
evidence that 'Asiatics' in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the
Egyptians? "Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics
became slaves", Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn
Papyrus [22]. Egyptian households at this time were filled with
Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven
legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi
recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the
Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name "Shiphrah" is identical to that
borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill
the male babies (Exodus 1:15). "Asian slaves, whether merchandise or
prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households
[prior to the New Kingdom]", we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[23]
Amenemes I was represented in the 'prophecy' - as with the 'new
pharaoh' of Exodus - as one who would set about rectifying the
problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of
Egypt, transferring the from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the
north, just below the Nile Delta. He allowed those nomarchs who
supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale.
Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area,
but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to
have settled at the time of Joseph. Professor J. Breasted provided
ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried
out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region.
More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region
which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where
the Israelites first settled [24]. "... in the eastern part [of the
Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis, ... massive remains still
show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta
cities." Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the
construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the
original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the
New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II).
The Biblical account states that: "... they made their lives bitter
with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick". (Exodus 1:14).
According to the Book of Exodus, not only did the Egyptians enslave
the Israelites, to keep them in check, but Pharaoh even gave orders
for all their male babies to be slain at birth, to stem the numbers
(1:15-16). In the light of this grim episode, an intriguing aspect of
Sir Flinders Petrie's discoveries was the unusual number of infant
burials beneath the floors of the houses of Illahûn. Rosalie David
thus describes Petrie's find [25]:
Larger wooden boxes, probably used to store clothing and other
possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at
Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two to three to a box,
and aged only a few months at death .... Internment of bodies at
domestic sites was not an Egyptian custom, although such practices
occurred in other areas of the ancient Near East.
David Rohl [26], moreover, has noted multiple graves in the Delta
region, at Tell el-Daba during the same approximate period, had an
excessively large proportion of babies:
... it was discovered that there was a higher percentage of infant
burials ... than is normally found at archaeological sites of the
ancient world. Sixty-five per cent of all the burials were those of
children under the age of eighteen months. Based on modern statistical
evidence obtained from pre-modern societies we would expect the infant
mortality rate to be around twenty to thirty per cent. Could this be
explained by the slaughter of the Israelite infant males by the
Egyptians?
Amenemes I assumed a co-regency with Sesostris I [27], who acted as
the king's deputy and was entrusted with the control of the army,
responsible for Libya and Ethiopia. Also, late in his reign, Amenemes
undertook campaigns into Ethiopia (Nubia), opening up to him the
diorite quarries at Wadi Toshka [28]. And he campaigned against the
Bedouin in the Sinai, thereby safeguarding the turquoise mining
operations at Serabit el-Khadem [29]. It is at this point in history
that the 4th and 12th dynasties can really be found to converge, thus
seeming to vindicate Courville's view of the contemporaneity of the
two kingdoms. For instance, Sesostris I had, as another of his names,
Kheper-ka-re; a name containing the exact same elements as we had
discovered in the Egyptian name of (the Greek version) Chephren [30].
Thus, as far as names go, Sesostris I (Kheper-ka-re) is as equally
likely as Chephren (Kha-kheper-re) to have been Chenephres, the
traditional f/father-in-law of Moses. [Further links, associated
largely with Cheops, will be argued beginning Here].
Then there is the further seemingly identifying element of Sphinx
obsession in the case of 'these' prolific builders. This is quite
obvious with Chephren, in his building of the Great Sphinx of Giza.
And it is again obvious in the case of Sesostris I, from his building
works, because he was an obsessive builder of sphinxes. For example:
[31]:
Gold was brought also from mines east of Koptos and hard stone from
the nearby Wãdi Hammãmãt, where, in Sesostris I's thirty-eighth year,
an expedition of more than seventeen thousand men quarried the blocks
for sixty sphinxes and one hundred and fifty statues.
There is also the fact of the 12th dynasty's extension of empire into
Ethiopia, where tradition has prince Moses playing so important a
rôle.
But the most likely reason for Sesostris I's being the pharaoh whom
Moses last served before his flight is that the high official Sinuhe,
the 'Moses' of Egyptian folklore, was the servant of Sesostris I.
Professor Anati is amongst many who have perceived what are in fact
quite startling likenesses between the Exodus account of Moses' flight
to Midian/ Arabia and Egypt's account of Sinuhe [32]:
The account of Moses in the land of Midian [Exodus 2:15-25] describes
how he settled there for several years and formed a family ....
Apparently the biblical account also corresponds quite closely to an
Egyptian text ... which tells the story of Sinuhe, an officer of
Pharaoh Amen-em-het I who lived in the harem and served the hereditary
princess. It seems that he committed a violation of some sort, and
when the Pharaoh died Sinuhe feared his successor. He fled into Asia,
'in the land of Yaa near the desert', where he was welcomed by a local
chieftain.
He took the chieftain's eldest daughter as his wife, raised a family,
and tended his father-in-law's pastures and flocks. Finally he was
called back to Egypt and returned to his homeland from exile. The
chronicle of Sinuhe contains many elements in common with the biblical
account of Moses, who escaped to Midian, and his father-in-law,
Jethro. It is hard to believe that these similarities are pure
coincidence. It seems, instead, quite legitimate to hypothesize that
the two accounts have a common matrix that cannot have originated
later than the twentieth century B.C. [sic].
Before we fill out the historical aspects further, and bring to a
conclusion the 4th dynasty in its relation to the 12th - and both in
relation to prince Moses - we need to conclude our analysis of Moses'
name.
The Name 'Moses' (Part Two)
Is it possible to merge the name Sinuhe with the Egyptian name for
Moses? And can the former throw any light on the meaning of the
latter? I think that the name Sinuhe [33], when unravelled, may
provide a needed clue. The first part of Sinuhe is variously given as
Si [34], or Sa [35], and translated as 'Son of ...'. (See footnote
[36]).
Combining Yahuda's element Mw (i.e. Mu or Nu) with the Sa element from
[TSS], we arrive at Sa-mu or Sa-nu, 'Son [or Child] of the Nile', the
very same conclusion that Yahuda had reached though via different
means. Perhaps 'Child of the Water' ('Water- baby') is more accurate.
We can easily discern in the name Sinuhe the two elements Sa-nu [37],
meaning 'Son [Child] of the Water.' Now I suggest that Sinuhe (var.
Sanehat, Samehit) is composed of these same two elements, Sa and Mu
(Nu), in reverse (quite a common feature of Egyptian names), with the
addition of the theophoric: either Hat, for the goddess Hathor (as in
Sanehat), or Re. Originally, Sinuhe was probably something like
Sa-nu-re. Now this is a genuine Egyptian name, being found, element
for element, in the name of the Fifth Dynasty Pharaoh, N(e)userre, and
the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh, My-ce-ri[nus] (i.e., the Greek version of
Menkaure).
Moses' full Egyptian name would therefore have meant, e.g: 'Child
Drawn from the Water by Hathor', of which goddess pharaoh's daughter
was apparently a personification: "She named him Moses, 'because', she
said, 'I drew him out of the water'." (Exodus 2:10). Now notably we
find in Egyptian mythology that Hathor was identified with the
wet-nurse of Horus, the Moses-like baby god drawn from the marshes of
the Nile Delta. And from this legend of Horus I suggest that the
Greeks got their concept of Hermes, that is, Hor-mes, "Son of Hathor";
a name carrying exactly the same meaning as Sanehat.
Later, of course, the Yahwistic (monotheistic) Moses would have
dropped from his name any Egyptian theophoric elements.
I am particularly interested in the fact that Moses' full name equates
with Mycerinus, because the latter both belonged to the 4th dynasty
and followed Cheops and Chephren.
Moreover, the legend of Hathor and baby Horus seems to be represented
in Egyptian statuary for Mycerinus; for in each of the four triads
found by G. Reisner in the temple of Mycerinus (now in the Cairo and
Brooklyn museums) the Pharaoh is shown in the embrace of Hathor, 'Lady
of the Sycamore', whose function here, according to N. Grimal [38],
was for "suckling the king"; the same function that the lion-goddess
(of writing), Sekhmet, fulfilled for Pharaoh N(e)userre [39].
Well-known is that legend of Horus - and its likeness to the Exodus
account of the baby Moses - according to which Isis hid Horus in the
marshes of the Delta, with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet
nurse in the form of a cow. [39b] The child grew up ... (cf. Exodus
(2:2-4, 9-10).
One might be surprised at the implication here that Moses was himself
a great pharaoh such as Mycerinus, being the builder of the third Giza
pyramid [39c]. But tradition calls Moses a 'king' [40]. Likewise,
Sinuhe had impressive official titles such as: "... hereditary prince,
royal seal-bearer, confidential friend ... follower ... of the house
of the hereditary princess, the greatly favoured, the royal wife."
Petrie [41] claimed that these titles were of a very high rank,
implying that Sinuhe was the son either of the king or of a great
noble. And his position in the queen's household shows him to have
been of importance, quite familiar with the royal family. That someone
like Moses could realistically have become a prince of Egypt is
affirmed by archaeologist J. Hoffmeier [42]. The Egyptian court, he
says, did rear and educate foreign-born princes, who then bore the
title "child of the nursery." Hoffmeier believes that Moses was one of
these privileged foreigners, some of whom went on to serve as high
officials in their adopted land.
We can now tabulate our 4th and 12th dynasty synthesis around Moses in
the following basic fashion:

Fourth/Twelfth Dynasty Integration

1. Cheops = Amenemes I = Moses' f/grand-father;
2. Chephren = Sesostris I = Moses' f/father-in-law;
3. Mycerinus = Sinuhe = Moses.

Fittingly, Herodotus contrasted the impious and long-reigning Cheops
and Chephren, the "oppressive" pharoahs during whose reign "the
country was reduced in every way to the greatest misery", with the
goodly Mycerinus [43]:
... the son [sic] of Cheops ... of all kings who ruled in Egypt he had
the greatest reputation for justice in the decision of legal causes,
and for this the Egyptians gave him higher praise than any other
monarch .... Such were [his] generosity and mild rule ....
Similarly, Exodus (18:13,16) portrays Moses as a fair judge; whilst
Numbers (12:3) praises his mildness: "Now Moses was mild, the mildest
man upon the face of the earth."
Moses' Flight
According to the Bible, the incident that led to Moses' flight into
Midian was his act of killing an Egyptian foreman to protect one of
his fellow-Israelites (cf. Exodus 2:12 & 2:15). Some Israelites though
did not seem over grateful for Moses' sudden interest in their
welfare. 'Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you mean to
kill me as you killed the Egyptian?', snapped a certain Hebrew whom
Moses had stopped from fighting his compatriot (2:14). He no doubt
resented prince Moses who would presumably have been ruler over the
very foremen who were then so cruelly oppressing the slaves.
Tension had apparently been building up too between Moses and
Chenephres because of Moses' popularity with the Egyptian people. In
fact tradition has it that Chenephres was seeking to kill Moses out of
jealousy, after Moses' successes in Ethiopia. Moses would have
realised that his killing of an Egyptian, on behalf of an Israelite
slave, would have given his f/father-in-law the very pretext he
needed. Exodus tells us that: "When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to
kill Moses" (2:15). So Moses fled the country.
That Moses sojourned in Midian until this very same pharaoh was dead
is argued as follows by D. Murphie [44]:
... the bible narrative implies (and other source materials emphasise)
that the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled to Midian remained on the throne
of Egypt for all but the closing years of Moses' exile, expiring just
as the latter was commissioned to return to Egypt. By any calculation,
this would give that Pharaoh a lengthy reign of at least, say, 40
years. Josephus ...wrote, 'So Moses, when he understood that the
Pharaoh, in whose reign he fled away, was dead, asked leave from
Raguel (Jethro) to go to Egypt ... and (he) made haste to Egypt'.
The 45-year reign of Sesostris I completely covers this period, even
allowing for his co-regency with Amenemes I.
Shortening the Twelfth Dynasty
According to this scenario, supported by Exodus 4:19, there would be
no room for the conventional 12th dynasty sequence of pharaohs
Amenemes and Sesostris (3-4 of each name). [See F also for the way the
19 & 20th dynasty Ramessides have been duplicated]. The
founder-pharaoh Amenemes I is, I now suggest, the same person as the
mighty Amenemes III; whilst Sesostris I is to be equated with the
equally mighty Sesostris III. The name Kheper-ka-ra is common, in
variant form, to Sesostris I-II-III [45]. And Courville refers to the
"striking discrepancy between the latest monumental inscription of
Sesostris II (10th year) and the total figure as given by Manetho (48
years)", as indicating that there was "something unusual in the
situation at this point" [46]. The unusual situation I suggest is
simply that Sesostris II stands in need of his alter ego's. Murphie
thinks that Amenemes III, as a master of water management, is a
candidate also for the legendary Menes himself, unifier of Egypt [47]:
Ammenemes III ... was a particularly strong ruler, renowned for
massive projects involving water storage and channelling on a
gargantuan scale. He is credited with diverting much of the Nile flow
into the Fayuum depression to create what became known as lake Moeris
(the lake Nasser project of his time).
Indeed if a newcomer to Egyptian history was challenged to identify a
candidate for the legendary Menes (organiser of a system of dykes and
channels to bring the river Nile under control) on the basis of works
alone, (ignoring the remarkable similarity in names), he could do far
worse than nominate Ammenemes for the role. ...
The grim-faced depictions of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemes III and
Sesostris III, have been commented upon by conventional and
revisionist scholars alike. Thus CAH has noted with regard to the
former [48]: "The numerous portraits of [Amenemes] III include a group
of statues and sphinxes from Tanis and the Faiyûm, which, from their
curiously brutal style and strange accessories, were once thought to
be monuments of the Hyksos kings." For revisionists, these pharaohs
can represent the cruel taskmasters who forced the Israelites to build
using bricks mixed with straw (Exodus 5:7,8) [49]. This combination of
materials can clearly be seen for example in Amenemes III's Dahshur
pyramid.
Now when one slots Amenemes III into his rightful place at the
beginning of the 12th dynasty, there emerges a very comprehensive
picture of the régime under which captive Israel toiled. Amenemes III,
according to Grimal [50]:
... was respected and honoured [sic] from Kerma to Byblos and during
his reign numerous eastern workers, from peasants to soldiers and
craftsmen came [sic] to Egypt. This influx [sic] of foreign workers
resulted both from the growth in Egyptian influence abroad and from
the need for extra workmen to help exploit the valuable resources of
Egypt itself. For forty-five years [Amenemes] III ruled a country that
had reached a peak of prosperity ... and the exploitation of the
Faiyûm went hand in hand with the development of irrigation and an
enormous growth in mining and quarrying activities.
The Faiyûm was a huge oasis, about 80 km S.W. of Memphis, which
offered the prospect of a completely new area of cultivable land.
Exodus 1:14 tells of the Israelite slaves doing "all kinds of work in
the fields." Mining and quarrying also, apparently, would have been
part of the immense slave-labour effort. Grimal continues [51]:
In the Sinai region the exploitation of the turquoise and copper mines
reached unprecedented heights: between the ninth and forty-fifth years
of [Amenemes III's] reign no less than forty-nine texts were inscribed
at Serabit el-Khadim .... The seasonal encampments of the miners were
transformed into virtually permanent settlements, with houses,
fortifications, wells or cisterns, and even cemeteries. The temple of
Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim was enlarged .... The expeditions to
quarries elsewhere in Egypt also proliferated ....
Here, surely, was all the organisation and slave work force needed for
the building of the (contemporary) Giza pyramids as well!
Amenemes III, it seems, was a complete dictator [52]:
The economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works
that make the reign of [Amenemes] III one of the summits of state
absolutism. Excavations at Biahmu revealed two colossal granite
statues of the seated figure of [Amenemes] III .... Above all, he
built himself two [sic] pyramids, one at Dahshur and the other at
Hawara. Beside the Hawara pyramid were found the remains of his
mortuary temple, which Strabo described as the Labyrinth.
The Jealousy of Chenephres
We already alluded to the fact that pharaoh Chenephres had become
jealous of prince Moses - who had been growing in popularity with the
people because of his military successes - and had set his mind upon
killing Moses. There is a perfect parallel here to Saul's jealousy of
David for the very same reasons (I Samuel 18:6-9).
But perhaps the jealousy of Chenephres went even further than all
this, to regicide. The assassination of Amenemes I may be implicit in
Grimal's likening of the growing civil disorder in the reign of Teti -
founder of the 6th dynasty - leading to Teti's assassination, to what
happened during the reign of Amenemes I [53]
The whole drama may have been re-told again in the legend of Osiris
and Set (Seth). Let me briefly recall that legend, inserting real
names in square brackets after the names of the gods and goddesses:
Osiris [Khufu/Amemenes] was King of Egypt. Set [Chephren/Sesostris],
his brother, urged on by jealousy, resolved to dethrone him and put
him to death. The faithful Isis [wife of the King], discovered this
criminal design and succeeded for some time in foiling the plots of
Set, but his skilful intrigues ended by triumphing over Osiris whom he
treacherously assassinated. Set then seized the throne of Egypt.
Enter Horus the Avenger whom we have already associated, in his
infancy, with Moses. The chronology is a bit askew, but it is only a
legend after all:
... Isis [here, Moses' Hebrew mother] then gave birth to Horus [Moses]
in the marshes of the Delta, near the sacred town of Buto, with the
help of the goddess Hathor [Meresankh III, Moses' f/mother]. ....
Horus, brought up by his mother amid a thousand dangers, driven to
seek a sanctuary in the desert [Midian] to escape the implacable
pursuit of Set, grew at last to maturity, and dethroned Set.
Clearly this story has its basis during Moses' career as a prince of
Egypt.
Grimal has noted other striking likenesses, too, between Teti and
Amenemes I, though he would conventionally date the former about half
a millennium earlier than Amenemes. They shared the same throne name,
Sehetibre, and the same Horus name, Sehetep-tawy (meaning "He who
pacifies the Two Lands") [54].
Linking the 4th/12th Dynasty with the 6th Dynasty
We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty's Khufu (Cheops)
to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble from Abydos in the south,
called Khui. The latter had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose
name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, daughter of the
Pharaoh who became Moses' adopted mother and married
Chephren/Chenephres. Damien's suggested synthesis of kings This family
relationship may again be duplicated in that Piops I (Cheops?) had a
daughter Ankhenesmerire whom his 'son' Merenre I (Chephren/Sesostris?)
married. These characters, it seems, have been dupli/triplicated.
Further possible links with the 6th dynasty are the likenesses between
the latter's founder, Teti, and Amenemes I, as pointed out by
historians. Despite the little that these admit to knowing of Teti -
and the fact that they would have him pre-dating the 12th dynasty by
half a millennium - historians have noted that Teti shared some common
features with Amenemes I, including the same throne name, Sehetibre,
the same Horus name, Sehetep-tawy ("He who pacifies the Two Lands"),
and the likelihood that death came in 'both' cases through
assassination [55].
The long reigns of the two pharaohs under whom prince Moses served -
45 years each to Amenemes [III] & Sesostris [I] (corresponding well
with Herodotus's approximate half-century long reigns each for Cheops
and Chephren) - would suggest that these were the only two Egyptian
rulers for the first 80 years of Moses' life. These were followed by
the ill-fated pharaoh of the Exodus, whose reign lasted only about a
year, and whose son died in the plague (Exodus 12:29). Most
conveniently, the Old Kingdom's end came shortly after the 1-year
reign of its last male ruler of the 6th dynasty, Merenre II, who thus
looms as an excellent candidate for the Pharaoh of the Exodus. His
Middle Kingdom alter ego may well be Amenemes IV, Maat-en-ra (similar
to Mer-en-re), whose mummy has never been found.
It is noticeable that both the 6th and 12th dynasties ended with a
woman ruler, respectively Nitocris and Sobek-neferure, whom I suspect
was the same person, suggesting that there were no more male members
left of the royal family (after the biblical plagues) [56]:
The Turin Canon lists Nitocris immediately after Merenere II,
describing her as the 'King of Upper and Lower Egypt'. This woman,
whose fame grew in the Ptolemaic period in the guise of the legendary
Rhodopis ... courtesan ... was the first known queen to exercise
political power over Egypt.
Nofer-ka-ra (Nefer-kare) of the 6th dynasty may have been the
ill-fated 'first born son' who died in the tenth plague (Exodus
12:29), since it was during his lifetime that Egypt was plunged into
darkness. (See also Stratigraphy section).
Whilst W. Stiebing would, contrary to Courville's view, flatly reject
any notion of contemporaneity between the 6th and 12th dynasties [57]:
This revision, however, ignores the fact that while Palestinian EB III
pottery is found in Sixth Dynasty tombs, it is not found in tombs
belonging to the supposedly contemporaneous Twelfth Dynasty. It also
ignores stylistic differences and developments in tomb reliefs and
inscriptions which indicate that the Old and Middle Kingdoms were not
contemporaneous ....
there might be some substantial architectural evidence to support
Courville. Thus J. Osgood proposes a possible close relationship
between the 6th and 12th dynasty mortuary temples [58]:
Edwards certainly opens the possibility unconsciously when referring
to the pyramid of Sesostris the First:
"... and the extent to which its Mortuary Temple was copied from the
Mortuary Temples of the VIth dynasty, as illustrated by that of Pepi
II, is clearly evident."
The return of a culture to what it was before ... after some three
hundred years must be an uncommon event. The theoretical possibility
that the two cultures, the Twelfth and the Sixth Dynasties were in
fact contemporary and followed a common pattern of Mortuary Temple
must be borne in mind as real.
Jannes and Mambres
The apostle Paul has most obligingly left to us the names of two
Egyptian dignitaries who he said resisted Moses. "As Jannes and
Mambres opposed Moses ..." (2 Timothy 3:8; Numbers 21:4-9; John
3:14-15)*). Had he actually given us their Egyptian names, there would
perhaps have been little debate over the era of Moses. But Jannes and
Mambres would be Grecised or Latinised versions of names that were
originally Egyptian. Moses and the magicians And these can be very
different, as we have seen in the cases of Khnum-khuefui, converted
into Cheops, and Ka-kheper-re, Chephren. More recognisable is Hor-mes,
son of Hathor, who became Hermes for the Greeks. Hermes' Roman
equivalent was Mercury (Mercurius), which may well have arisen from
Moses' Egyptian name, Menkaure. The Romans also apparently borrowed
Moses' name, Musare, and gave it, in inverted form, to Rome's two
legendary founders, Romulus (originally Rhomus) and Remus [i.e.,
Re-Mu-Sa]. The famous legend of these twins being suckled by a
she-wolf is merely an adaptation of the Egyptian legend of the one
baby Horus being suckled by the goddess Hathor in the form of a cow.
The original story, though, was about baby Moses being wet-nursed by
his own human mother on behalf of the Egyptian princess, whose meeting
with Moses' mother had been brought about by the sister of Moses
(Exodus 2:5-10).
The task of identifying the two Egyptian dignitaries referred to by
the apostle Paul - both of whom hopefully stand out as key figures in
the above revision of the era of Moses - is complicated by two textual
variations between the Latin and the Greek. (i) Whereas the Latin
gives "Quemadmodum autem Jannes et Mambres restiterunt Moysi"; the
Greek gives Jannes and Jambres in 2.Timothy 3:8 (Exodus 7:11, 22):
2.Timothy 3:8; Image expands when downloaded
Again, (ii) whereas the Latin tells us nothing of the pair's office;
the Greek calls them: "pharaoh's magicians": Exodus 7:11 .
_________________________________________________________________

*) The imagery of the lifted up brass serpent is used by Jesus in his
discussion with the nightly visitor Nicodemus to explain to him that
"... the brass serpent had the appearance of a serpent but lacked its
venom, so too, when Christ would be lifted up upon the bars of the
Cross, He would have the appearance of a sinner and yet be without
sin." [Fulton J. Sheen, `Life of Christ', p. 90]
_________________________________________________________________

My preference in each case is for the Latin version.

Who were the two Egyptians who "resisted Moses"? Undoubtedly
Chenephres who appears to have invoked a fatwa against Moses that he
maintained to the very grave. I suggest that Chenephres is Jannes; the
already westernised name Chenephres having been shortened to Chennes,
hence Jannes. The other obvious Egyptian resister of Moses, again unto
death, was the obdurate Pharaoh of the Exodus, Mer-en-re ('Beloved is
Re')/Maat-en-re ('Truthful is Re'). Merenre/Maat-en-re is not a bad
likeness to Mambres. We should actually prefer a "b" in the middle of
the name, as in the case of e.g. Meribre, but to find such a name we
might have to go back earlier in Egyptian history, to the beginning of
the 10th dynasty.

That the Old Kingdom ended with a period of great confusion is fully
confirmed by Breasted when describing the archaeological data at the
end of the 6th dynasty [59]:
The internal struggle which caused the fall of the Old Kingdom
developed at last into a convulsion, in which the destructive forces
were for a time completely triumphant. Exactly when and by whom the
ruin was wrought is not now determinable [sic], but the magnificent
mortuary works of the greatest of the Old Kingdom monarchs fell
victims to a carnival of destruction in which many of them were
annihilated. The temples were not merely pillaged and violated, but
their finest works of art were subjected to systematic and determined
vandalism which shattered the splendid granite and diorite statues of
the kings into bits .... The nation was totally disorganized.
The Exodus
Regarding whether the Egyptians recorded the Exodus, Anati has written
[60]:
In the last 100 years, many efforts have been invested on finding some
hints of the Israelites and their exodus in the Egyptian ancient
literature. In the many Egyptian texts that date to the New Kingdom
... there is no mention of the flight from Egypt or the crossing of
the "Red Sea."
Not even the general historical and social background correspond. ...
If all of this tradition has a minimal basis in historical fact, then
it cannot have been totally ignored by the Egyptians.
Nor, according to Professor Anati, did they ignore it [61]:
... The relevant texts do not date to the New Kingdom at all, but to
the Old Kingdom. In other words ... the archaeological evidence ...,
the tribal social structures described in the Bible, the climatic
changes and the ancient Egyptian literature all seem to indicate that
the events and situations which may have inspired the biblical
narrations of Exodus do not date to the thirteenth century BC but ...
to the late third millennium BC.
Professor Anati still accepts the conventional dating of the Old and
New Kingdoms [62]. But this only means that his discoveries are all
the more meaningful, because he has not set out to make a
chronological statement [63].
The story of the Exodus, Lemonick wrote, "involves so many miracles" -
plagues, the parting of the Red Sea [64], manna, from heaven, the
giving of the Ten Commandments - that critics take it for "pure myth".
In this regard he referred to Fr. Anthony Axe, Bible lecturer at
Jerusalem's École Biblique, who has claimed that a massive Exodus that
led to the drowning of Pharaoh's army would have reverberated
politically and economically throughout the entire region. And,
considering that artefacts from as far back as the late Stone Age have
turned up in the Sinai, Fr Axe finds it perplexing that - as he thinks
- no evidence of the Israelites' passage has been found. Indeed Fr Axe
is right in saying that an event such as the Exodus would have had
widespread political and economic ramifications; but because he has
been conditioned to thinking according to the Sothic-based time scale,
Fr. Axe is unable to see the wood for the trees, so to speak. For,
contrary to the conventional view, the Egyptian chronicles do give
abundant testimony to a time of catastrophe reminiscent of the Exodus,
and archaeology does clearly attest the presence of an invasive people
sojourning for a time in the Sinai/Negev deserts.
And the reason why the Israeli archaeologists of the 60's-80's "...
didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites'
supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert", as M. Broshi, curator
emeritus of the Dead Sea Scrolls, claims [65], is because they were
always expecting to find such "evidence" in a New Kingdom context. The
error of looking to the New Kingdom for the Exodus scenario has
already been pointed out by Anati, and will become even more apparent
in our discussions of Stratigraphy below and in C.
Dr. Cohen, Deputy Director of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, when
asked which Egyptian dynasty he considered to be contemporaneous with
the Exodus events, nominated the Middle Kingdom's 12th dynasty [66].
In this regard he referred to the Ipuwer Papyrus as describing the
conditions in Egypt that could be expected as the result of the ten
devastating plagues (cf. Exodus 7-12). Cohen of course is not the
first to have suggested the relevance of the 12th dynasty, or of the
Ipuwer Papyrus, to the situation of the Israelites in Egypt and the
Exodus. Courville [67] had discussed in detail its suitability as the
background for the enslavement and ultimate deliverance (Exodus
1:8-5:22). More recently, Down [68] has developed this view. And
Velikovsky had presented a compelling case for both the Ipuwer and
Ermitage papyrii's being recollections of the plagues and devastation
of Egypt. [69]
Stratigraphy
Despite what might at first seem to be a dearth of positive
archaeological data from this truly dark moment in Egyptian history,
the collapse of the Old/Middle Kingdom, there is clear evidence that
the 'Asiatic' labourers in Egypt departed suddenly and unexpectedly.
The archaeology at Illahûn for example (where, as we saw, these
foreign labourers had been living in numbers) reveals the exact time
when they abandoned the town. Up to the time of Khasekhemre-Neferhotep
I of the mid-13th dynasty, there was evidence of a continuous
occupation. But then, as Rosalie David, explains, it was deserted
[70]:
There is every indication that Kahun [Illahûn] continued to flourish
throughout the 12th dynasty and in to the 13th dynasty .... It is
evident that the completion of the king's pyramid was not the reason
why Kahun's inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their
tools and other possessions in the shops and houses. The quantity,
range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in
the houses may suggest that the departure was sudden and
unpremeditated.
We may now presume that Khasekhemre-Neferhotep I, the 13th dynasty
prince in charge of Illahûn when the desertion occurred, was a ruler
contemporary with the Exodus. This data enables us now to synchronise
the 13th dynasty as well with the Exodus scenario so far ascertained.
Neferhotep's full name is not unlike Nofer-ka-ra (Nefer-kare) of the
6th dynasty referred to above. Quite possibly this was the same
person; death having come as a result of the tenth plague. David Rohl
[71] describes the archaeology at Tell el-Daba (ancient Avaris, in the
eastern Nile Delta), which he thinks may be evidence for this plague:
At the end of stratum G/1 ... [Manfred] Bietak and his archaeological
team began to uncover a gruesome scene. All over the city of Avaris
they found shallow burial pits into which the victims of some terrible
disaster had been hurriedly cast. These were no careful internments of
the deceased. The bodies were not arranged in the proper burial
fashion but rather thrown into the mass graves, one on top of the
other. There were no grave goods placed with the corpses as was
usually the custom. Bietak is convinced that we have here direct
evidence of plague or some other sudden catastrophe at Avaris.
Rohl next tells of a mass exodus from Avaris [72]: "What is more,
analysis of the site archaeology suggests that a large part of the
remaining population of the town abandoned their homes and departed
from Avaris en masse."
This was followed at some point by a foreign invasion [73]:
The site was then reoccupied after an interval of unknown duration by
Asiatics who were not 'Egyptianised' like the previous population of
stratum G. Stratum F marks a new beginning in the settlement of purely
Asiatic (Canaanite) people ... The inhabitants of stratum G seem to
have left the site before the arrival of [this other] wave of Asiatic
immigrants, who settled and remained there until the be-ginning of the
New Kingdom.
According to Rohl, the Asiatics who had dwelt in Egypt during this
Middle Kingdom period were thoroughly 'Egyptianised' (just as one
would expect the Hebrews to have been on the eve of the Exodus). It
appears that these 'Egyptianised' foreigners fled Avaris at this time
of plague, only to be replaced some time afterwards by other Asiatics
(stratum level F) who show no evidence of their having been
'Egyptianised'. These latter would therefore be the 'Hyksos' invaders.
They began at Avaris, during the reign of Neferhotep's brother,
Sobekhotep IV.
From Avaris, the Hyksos foreigners gradually moved towards Memphis,
following the eastern ridge of the Delta: [74]: "This progression took
place over a period of almost half a century, until about 1675 BC
[sic]. The Thirteenth Dynasty had by then reached its thirty-third or
thirty-fourth king, Dedumesiu I"; almost certainly to be identified
with Manetho's unfortunate "Tutimaius".
With the Old and Middle Kingdoms now combined, it will become
necessary also to merge the EBA (= Old Kingdom) with MBA (= Middle
Kingdom). This is something that Courville neglected to do. He tried
to argue, against the facts, that the combined Old/ Middle Kingdom
belonged entirely to the EBA. That this leads to some huge problems,
which Courville does not appear to have even recognised, is already
apparent from Stiebing's criticisms. It will become even more apparent
in C.
Notes and references
[1] Lemonick, M., "Are the Bible's Stories True?" (Christmas, 1995).
[2] The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vols. 1&2 (Loma Linda
CA, 1971).
[2b] On the extent of resources required to built the pyramids see
Mark Lehner's `Lost City of the Pyramids', `Fire in the Desert' in
Egypt Revealed, Fall 2000, p. 42-(53)-57; The constant fires required
in the bakeries, copper tool making and similar workers shops,
suggests the author, may have led to a period of deforestation in
Egypt.
[3] See P. Mauro's The Wonders of Bible Chronology
(Reiner Publications, 1933), 32.
[4] Op. cit., I, Ch.XV.
[5] Famines in the Early History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine (Uni. of
Michigan, 1976).
[6] "Famines in the Early History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine", SIS
Workshop, No. 1 (UK, 1986), 32.
[6b] Labib Habachi, Building Activities of Sesostris I in the Area to
the South of Thebes in Mitteilungen of the DAI, Band 31, 1975, p.
27-37, Tafeln 12-14. Inscriptions shown and discussed include: a)
Offering table from Elephantine, b) Base of the Triad of Elephantine,
c) Stela of Elephantine, d) Boundary Stela from Karnak, e) Boundary
Stela in the Cairo Museum, f) A block from El-Ashar (no picture).
See also Wolfgang Schenkel, Die Bauinschrift Sesostris' I. im
Satet-Tempel von Elephantine in Ibid., p. 109-125; Featuring numerous
inscription images.
[7] As quoted by Courville, op. cit., I, 141-142.
[8] Courville, ibid., 142.
[9] The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian (Oxford
U.P., 1933), 33.; Perhaps one good thing could be learned from the
Egyptian author Moustafa Gadalla who theorizes that the Egyptian
original of Joseph's Egyptian name could also be read as, `[S ph] -
ntr - iw-f-`nh', meaning "success/creation - god - is he - live",
where we note the elements `s' and `ph', or `seph'. So the whole name
could mean `creation/success/medicine of god, may he live'. M.G.,
1Historical Deception, 1999, p. 167f.
[10] A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1988), 158. For an image
of a limestone relief attributed to king Mentuhotep III see KMT,
Summer 2003, p. 20. However, this relief is in fact of the time of
Mentuhotep II of the 11th Dynasty according to modern classifications,
whose cartouche appears twice on the relief. See also A.H. Sayce, `The
Karian and Lydian Inscriptions' in PSBA, Vol. XVII, Jan/Dec 1895, p.
39-43.; "This inscription was cut on the ledge of the sandstone rock
overhanging a quarry which had been excavated. ... These inscriptions
are for the most part of the XIth and XIIth dynasties, and several of
them contain the name of Mentuhotep." p. 41.
[10a] A discussion of the deified Imhetep can also be read in
Chassinat's, `Pseudo-architecte du temple d'Horus a Edfu' (Ancient
Egypt, Sep 1930, p. 91). For the image of a recently naophoros statue
of Imhotep see KMT, Vol. 14, Fall 2003, p. 52. According to the
description this statue was made in the Roman-period cult of the
deified 3rd Dynasty physician/architect Imhotep. We present the
hieroglyphics of this naos Here.
[10b] See also Jaroslav Cerny, `A Note on the Recently Discovered Boat
of Cheops' in JEA, Vol. 41, 1955, p. 75-79. Also C. Aldred, `Egypt to
the end of the Old Kingdom', London, 1965, p. 87ff. On the subject of
ancient Egyptian road construction click Here.
[11] Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Bk.II, Ch.IX, par.1
(trans. Whiston). [Conventionalists also realize that Dashur seems
mostly to have been used as a necropolis at the beginning of the 4th
Dynasty (Snofru) and during the 12th Dynasty (Amenemhat II and III and
Sesostris III.] Inside Khufu's Great Pyramid of Giza the names of work
gangs were found in the steep passage to the tomb. One work gang
called itself, "The strong boatmen of Khufu" and another simply "The
pure" according to the movie, Building the Great Pyramid directed by
Jonathan Stamp..
[12] Grimal, N., A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1988), 71.
Cheops was succeeded by Djedefre.
[13] As cited by Courville, op. cit., I, 155.
[14] The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian
(Oxford U.P., 1933), 259.
[15] It appears from Yahuda, ibid., 262 [n.1], that Egyptian m and n
are sometimes interchanged, mw and
nw both meaning 'water'.
In this regard we find in the Story of Sinuhe that whereas the hero's
name is usually spelt with an n in the middle, the princesses, in
their song of welcome on Sinuhe's return to Egypt, call him Samehit
(also given as Sime-hyet), with an m.
[16] Grimal, op. cit., 158. My emphasis.
[17] CAH, 495. My emphasis;. [Conventional authors also may make
statements like, "The first four tombs in the list (Dyn. IV, Ra`djedef
to Shepsekaf) could be earlier than the reign of Ra`djedef', but they
are better placed in this group to allow for possible later dating.
... Probably the earliest chapel in this group belongs to (Kawah) a
son of Khufu." A description of scenes of mat making, boats and
dragnets with cages of ducks follows. "... Both figures hardly differ
in posture and activity from the figures in mat making scenes from
Dynasty VI."[Harpur, Yvonne, `Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old
Kingdom', N.Y., 1987, p. 180; CIAS comment: Conventionally over 200
years separate Khufu from the 6th Dynasty.]
[18] "Prophecy of Neferti"; Peter Clayton, `Chronicle of the
Pharaohs', p. 78f.
[19] CAH, Vol. 11, pt. 1, 49. My emphasis.
[20] Petrie, as quoted in Digging Up the Past (October, 1986), 3.
[21] David, R., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt, 191; as quoted
in Arch. Dig., Vol.2, No. 6, 9.
[22] Digging Up the Past (October, 1986), 5. The documentary movie
Building the Great Pyramid directed by Jonathan Stamp, though
impressive, fails to present a well documented account of the issues
surrounding the building of the Great Giza Pyramid of Khufu.
[23] E.B. (1964), vol. 8, 35. See also Mace, A. C., and H. E.Winlock.
1916. `The tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht'. New York: Metropolitan Museum
of Art. According to the Brooklyn Papyrus, she tries to ascertain her
right to own 95 servants. See also N. Reeves, `The Great Discoveries',
p. 141.
[24] A History Of Egypt, 189-200.
[25] As quoted in Digging Up the Past (October, 1986), 8. Emphasis
added.
[26] A Test of Time (London, Random House Century, 1995), 271.
[27] See Grimal, op. cit., 161.
[28] Hence, I suggest, the beautiful diorite statues of the Fourth
Dynasty.
[29] Grimal, 159-161.
[30] Courville, op. cit. I, 189, 214, also finds the name Sesonchosis
common to these two pharaohs.
[31] Grimal, 164-165. Emphasis added.
[32] The Mountain of God (Rizzoli, NY., 1986), 158, Emphasis added.
See also, `The Ashmolean Ostracon of Sinuhe' by JWB Barns, Oxford,
1952 as described in JEA, Vol. 39, 1953, p. 124f.
[33] Petrie, W.F., Egyptian Tales (Methuen & Co., London), 133, calls
him Sanehat, which he translates as 'Son of the Sycamore'.
[34] E.g. by J. Kaster, The Literature and Mythology of Ancient Egypt
(Allen Lane, The Penguin Press); and A. Nibbi, Ancient Egypt and Some
Eastern Neighbours (Noyes, Press, N.J., 1981).
[35] Petrie, op. cit.
[36] The Egyptians commonly inverted name-elements, e.g. Neferkare =
Khaneferre.
[37] Op. cit., 122.
[38] Roman mythology eventually borrowed from this, with Remus (i.e.
Musa-re) being suckled by the she-wolf. The Old kingdom Dynasties are
also known for developing highly artistic, painted marsh scenes,
Yvonne Harpur, `Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom',
London, 1987.
[39] Possibly linking the 5th dynasty with Moses, as a priest-king.
Interestingly enough from the 5th dynasty also comes reportedly the
first example of `Pyramid Texts (Wenis Text)', also the pyramids of
the 6th dynasty feature these texts. See Cyril Aldred, Egypt to the
end of the Old Kingdom, London, 1965, p. 100f.
[39b] "Often she has the form of a cow - the animal sacred to her ..."
E.A.W. Budge, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, p. cxx.
[39c] Abdel-Aziz Saleh, `Excavations Around Mycerinus Pyramid Complex'
in Mitteilungen of the DAI, Band 30,1, 1974, p. 131-154; Tafeln 19-34.
Among many other accounts the article describes 2 prominent types of
pottery associated with the late OK: 1) a rough pottery with a brown
surface; 2) large jars with a coarse heavy stuff covered with a
whitish wash, sometimes on the outside, and largely on the inside.
[40] At least in Jewish accounts. According to information the lower
courses of the third Giza pyramid of Menkaure/Mycerinus "... were of
red Aswan granite instead of the usual white limestone. The outer
faces of the stones were not smoothed off until after they were put in
place, and we can still see the exact point at which the ancient
workers laid down their tools when word came that the god had joined
his fathers" which is taken in conventional view as an indication to
his early demise which would be in our revision his rejection of his
Egyptian roots and becoming Moses of the Israelites. [B.Mertz,
Temples, Tombs, and Hieroglyphs, p. 70.
[41] Egyptian Tales (Methuen & Co., London).
[42] Israel in Egypt, as referred to in TIME's "Who was Moses?"
(December 14, 1998).
[43] The Histories, Penguin, 1972, Bk.II. Emphasis added to third
block quote (about Mycerinus).
[44] D. Murphie, "Critique of David Rohl's A Test of Time", C&C Review
(1997:1), 33.
[45] D. Murphie, Ibid. See also Here!
[46] CAH, 514. Emphasis added.
[47] E.g. D. Down in articles in his periodicals, Digging Up the Past;
(later) Diggings and Archaeological Diggings.
[48] Grimal, 169-170. Emphasis added.
[49] Ibid., 70.
[50] No longer need it be said, according to the textbooks, that
Sesostris II was the first to undertake the extensive exploitation of
this area, since (according to this revision) the Faiyûm-developing
Amenemes III is now to be dated before Sesostris II and would
therefore have inaugurated this massive project.
[51] See e.g. Grimal, 80-81.
[52] Ibid., 89.
[53] Jealousy paper.
[54] The Jealousy paper. According to Gerald Herm, Phoenicians, p.
128-129, "In Phoenicia, as in Egypt, the king is a priest-tyrant."
[55] See e.g. ibid., p. 80-81.
[56] Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries (Edizioni del Centro,
1993), 76. Emphasis added. See also P.E.Newberry, `Queen Nitocris of
the 6th Dynasty' in JEA, Vol. 29, 1943, p. 51f.
[57] Ibid.; John MacDonald wrote, "... various Palestinian pottery
wares have been found in sizeable quantities in Early Dynastic and Old
Kingdom Egyptian sites. These various facts must be regarded, even at
a conservative evaluation, as indicative of an Egyptian presence in
the Lower Levant." [J. MacDonald, Egyptian Interests in Western Asia'
in the Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology - AJBA, Vol. II,
1972, p. 74.; Referencing W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Aegyptens zu
Vorderasien im 3. & 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr.', Wiesbaden, 1962, S. 31f.;
See also D. Courville on the 6th Dynasty.
[58] "The Time of the Judges - The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to
Conquest", EN Tech. J., Vol.2 (1986), 76.
[59] A History of Egypt (Uni. of Chicago Press, 1954), 147. Emphasis
added.
[60] As quoted by Lemonick, op. cit.
[61] Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries (Edizioni del Centro,
1993), 76. Emphasis added.
[62] Thus he would re-locate the Exodus about 500-600 years too early.
[63] Indeed, Anati is far from being a biblical 'literalist'. He does
not baulk at rejecting as fact a given statement of Scripture for
which he himself can find no factual evidence. Moreover, he appears to
follow the liberal "Documentary Hypothesis" of scriptural
interpretation. Har Karkom, 22.
[64] op. cit. That the biblical route for the Exodus went nowhere near
the Red Sea is apparent from Anati's examination of the geography of
it in The Mountain of God.
[65] As quoted by Lemonick, op. cit.
[66] Down, D., "Dr. Cohen Identifies the Mysterious MBI People",
Diggings No.9 (September, 1992), 7.
[67] `The Exodus Problem', Vol. 1, esp. ch's IX, X, XIII.
[68] Down, Ibid.
[69] Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, pp. 35-29.
[70] Rosalie Davis, `Source', xxx. Peter Clayton wrote in `Chronicle
of the Pharaohs': "Kahun was like an Egyptian Pompeii since it seems
to have been suddenly abandoned, with many possessions left behind."
p. 83.
[71] Op. cit., pp. 34-39.
[72] Ibid., 279 (Check).
[73] , 279-280.
[74] Grimal, 185.
C: MBI: Joshuan Conquest
History
TIME magazine: "... and relatively few modern historians believe in
Joshua's conquest of Jericho and the rest of the Promised Land. In the
most extreme view, all of the above are complete fabrications,
invented centuries after the supposed fact." [1]
Lemonick, having presented the typical opinions of the archaeologists
in regard to the Exodus, then proceeds to sum up their views about the
Conquest [2]:
Unlike the Exodus, the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan can
be tested against a rich archaeological record. The scientific
consensus: bad news for the biblical account.
According to the Book of Joshua, the Israelite leader and his armies
swept into Canaan, destroying cities including Jericho, Hazor and Ai,
after which the Israelites settled the land. Archaeology tells a more
complicated tale .... Joshua's conquest would have taken place in the
13th century B.C.
But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for
six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time. Indeed, says
Dead Sea Scrolls curator emeritus Broshi, "the city was destroyed from
the beginning of the 15th century until the 11th century B.C." So was
Ai .... And so, according to archaeological surveys, was most of the
land surrounding the cities. Says Broshi: "The central hill regions of
Judea and Samaria were practically uninhabited. The Israelites didn't
have to kill and burn to settle".
Already we have, in our discussion of the Exodus, prepared the ground
for a correct dating of the conquest by showing that the Israelites
whom Moses, and later Joshua, led, were the products of Egypt's
Old/Middle Kingdom (EBA/MBA); not the New Kingdom's LBA. No matter
then, as Broshi states, that there is no indication of a habitable
city standing on the site of Jericho ''from the beginning of the 15th
century until the 11th century B.C."; for, by conventional reckoning,
these centuries belong to LBA.
The important fact is - as will now be discussed in the Stratigraphy
section - that there was a very strong city standing on the site of
Jericho during the EBIII phase, and that it was this city that was
utterly devastated by the MBI invaders.
Stratigraphy
That the conventional chronologico-stratigraphical arrangement cannot
by any means accommodate the conquest sequence in its New Kingdom
context (various points in LBA having been suggested) is apparent from
the above testimonies of both Kenyon and Broshi. It is also apparent
from the following facts as pointed out by S. Vaninger [3]:
At none of the points [in LBA] is a cultural break indicated in the
archaeological strata that would suggest the arrival of a new people.
At none of these points has there been found any evidence of fortified
cities at Jericho and Ai, much less of a destruction level. At none
has there been found a previous occupation at Arad and Hormah that is
required by Numbers 21:1-3 and Judges 1:17. In short, at none of these
points has there been any real success in matching the archaeological
evidence with biblical conquest narratives.
Vaninger could also have included the absence during LBA of Hebron
(Numbers 13:22; Joshua 14:15 & 15:13; Judges 1:10,20) and Gibeon/El
Jib (Joshua 9-10; ca. 9 km NW of Jerusalem).
Everything changes though when the conquest is located earlier to the
Canaanite EBIII stage, with the conquerors being the MBI people whom
more and more experts are calling the 'Israelites' [4].
Even conventional scholar Stiebing, who rejects an MBI conquest of
EBIII as the time of Joshua, admits that the conquest's location at
this point would solve certain problems. Let us first listen to his
important distinctions between EBIII and MBI [5]:
Several scholars believe that agreement between archaeology and the
Bible can be achieved if the conquest is placed at the end of the
Early Bronze Age. The latter part of the Early Bronze Age was an era
of widespread urbanization in Palestine (including the Negev) and
Transjordan. But almost every one of the flourishing Palestinian
cities was destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze III (EB III)
period. The succeeding era, Middle Bronze Age I (MB I), ... was
characterized by a non-urban pastoral society.
The change from EB III to MB I has often been seen as a total cultural
break. The urban culture of EB III was succeeded by an era in which
there were no true cities in Palestine, only small villages consisting
of a few flimsy, poorly built structures. Pottery types and other
artifacts were very different in the two periods. The Early Bronze
practice of multiple burials in large caves was replaced by single or
double burials in smaller tombs, and the differences between the tomb
styles and burial practices during the MB I period might indicate that
they belonged to non-sedentary groups with a tribal social structure.
This view that the EB III culture was almost totally destroyed and
replaced by that of invading semi-nomadic tribes has led some scholars
to place the Israelite conquest of Canaan at this point in the
archaeological history of Palestine.
Stiebing now points to what he sees as certain advantages of this
interpretation [6]:
An EB III exodus and conquest would solve some problems. Both Ai and
Jericho were large, walled cities during EB III and were destroyed at
the end of that era. And the widespread destruction of cities and the
changes in material culture which took place at the end of EB III
could be credited to the invading Israelites. The almost total
cultural break between EB III and MB I could indicate that the
Israelites conquered virtually all of Palestine and massacred most of
the Canaanite population, just as the Bible says.
Such a scenario, Stiebing goes on to tell, has recently been
strengthened by the testimony of experts.
Firstly by Dr. Cohen [6]:
This view has been bolstered in recent years by Israeli archaeologist
Rudolph Cohen's claim that the spread of the MB I culture into
Palestine follows the pattern which the Bible gives for the invading
Israelites. Cohen argues that the MB I culture first appeared in
northern Sinai and the southern Negev, spread through Transjordan,
then across the Jordan into the southern hill country, and finally
into northern Palestine. ....
Secondly, by Anati [6]:
Emmanuel Anati, professor of paleo-ethnology at the University of
Lecce, in Italy, furthermore has found an EB III/MB I holy mountain
which he claims is Mount Sinai. Anati discovered a great concentration
of rock art (much of it with what seem to be religious themes) at Har
Karkom, a mountain in the southern Negev of Israel. He also found
standing stones and altars, suggesting that this mountain had been a
place of religious pilgrimage. All in all, he feels it fits the
Bible's description of Mount Sinai quite well.
The largest number of habitation sites near Har Karkom and the
greatest volume of rock art there belong to the Early Bronze Age and
Middle Bronze Age I. There seems to have been little activity at this
site during the Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, and Iron Ages. .... So,
if Har Karkom was Mount Sinai (as Anati believes), then the exodus
must have begun during the Early Bronze Age and the conquest must have
taken place at the end of EB III.
Dr. Cohen, known as 'the King of the South', is highly qualified to
speak about the discoveries in this part of the world where he has
been excavating for the last 25 or so years. He thus belongs to that
era of Israeli archaeologists of the 60's-80's who, according to
Broshi, "didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the
Israelites' supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert". Anyway, third
millennium archaeologists in the region are concluding quite
differently from those earlier excavators.
Uniquely qualified is professor Anati, who has been labouring in the
Sinai/Paran wilderness for as long as the Israelites were said to
have: 40 years (Numbers 14:33) [7].
Kadesh Barnea
Dr. Cohen has provided an interesting account of the archaeological
situation at Kadesh Barnea - a place of great familiarity to the
Israelites during their sojourn in the desert (cf. Num 32:8; Deut.
9:23; Josh 14:7). Prior to the irruption of the MBI people into the
Negev, he said, that region had been occupied by a Canaanite people of
the EBIII era, as indicated by the Kadesh pottery styles. The end of
EBIII came about with destruction and ruin. No more occupation after
that. But, interestingly, there were numerous MBI settlements in the
surrounding area. The pottery styles and way of life of this new
people were sharply different from those of the Canaanites; e.g., the
MBI people preferred to settle on hills rather than in the valleys as
the Canaanites had done [8].
Importantly, the MBI culture showed a definite Egyptian influence. W.
Albright [9] referred to "the preponderance of weapons and ornaments
made in Egypt, or made after Egyptian models". And Cohen himself noted
in the BAR article that these MBI people carried with them grinding
stones made of Aswan granite, conch shells from the Red Sea and even
fragments of ostrich egg shells (ostriches being native to Africa).
All of this would seem to suggest that the MBI people had come across
the Sinai from the direction of Egypt.
The MBI Conquest (Part One)
For this section (Part One) I shall be sticking to the simple idea, as
discussed above, that the MBI were the Israelites who destroyed the
major EBIII Canaanite sites. The situation is actually far more
complex than this, as we should expect from our previous comments that
stratigraphy does not follow a neat linear pattern (e.g. the
Mesopotamian flood sequences; Kenyon's explanation; Ur III and the
Chalcolithic age). Of necessity too would the MBI Israelites, because
of their abrupt departure from Egypt and their nomadic circumstances,
reflect quite a rudimentary form of MB culture; more basic than the
stable, urban civilisations that they conquered. These latter should
largely reflect a sophisticated Middle Kingdom/MBA culture. However,
much of the archaeological data and the Bible can be correlated by
this simple application of MBI = Israelite conquest.

Afterwards (Part Two), I shall deal with the problems that arise from
this simple scenario, using a fuller stratigraphical matrix. Vaninger,
who accepts the MBI = Israelite scenario is a useful guide for Part
One with the following ten points of his [10]:

Another Conquest
.... There is an abundance of positive archaeological evidence for
synchronizing the conquest with the end of the Early Bronze III
period. ....
1. Almost every major site in Palestine was destroyed and/or abandoned
at the end of the Early Bronze III period .... This agrees with the
general statement in Joshua 11:23 that "Joshua took the whole land".
2. Both Jericho and et-Tell [Ai] were prosperous and fortified cities
during EBIII and both were violently destroyed at the end of that
period. The last EBIII walls of Jericho fell flat outward from the
city and show the effects of intense burning. These facts are
uncontested and agree perfectly with the biblical narrative of the
conquest of Jericho and Ai recorded in Joshua 6:1-8:29. ....
3. Shechem was at most a small unfortified village during EBIII and
would not have been capable of resisting the Israelites. This explains
why the Bible gives no account of a confrontation with Canaanite
forces when the Israelites went there to recite the blessings and
curses of the law (Deuteronomy 27; Joshua 8:30-35). Arad and Hormah,
on the other hand, were both occupied during EBIII and both
experienced a discontinuity at the end of that period. Arad was
abandoned altogether until the Iron Age, while Hormah was taken over
by a new people (see below). This agrees with the conquest account
found in Scripture (Numbers 21:1-3; Judges 1:17).
4. Excavations have shown that Gibeon was one of the few cities not
destroyed or abandoned at the end of EBIII, but that the site does
show evidence of a radically new cultural influence at this time. This
fits perfectly with the Joshua 9 narrative where Gibeonites
deceitfully entered into a covenant with Israel in order to avoid
conquest - and subsequently became subject to the invaders anyway.
5. The people of the Early Bronze Age were for the most part displaced
by newcomers having an entirely different culture (this EBIV/MBI
transitional society was later superseded by the greatly superior MBII
culture with no destruction levels separating the two ...).
6. The new culture introduced at the beginning of the Middle Bronze
Age proper (MBII) continued through the Late Bronze and even into the
Iron Age, and it is the only culture in Palestine that could possibly
correspond to a distinctive Israelite society.
7. The people who destroyed the Early Bronze civilization and
introduced cultural innovations initially occupied northern
Transjordan and the Negev in addition to northern and southern
Cisjordan - the very same regions that were given to Israel as an
inheritance in Numbers 34 and later conquered under the leadership of
Moses and Joshua.
8. According to William Dever the geographical progression of the
EBIV/MBI transitional culture can actually be traced archaeologically;
it appeared first in northern Transjordan, entered Cisjordan by
crossing the river at Jericho, spread first to the southern hill
country and the Negev, and finally to northern Cisjordan. This
corresponds exactly with the advance of the Hebrew conquest recorded
in Deuteronomy 2, 3; Joshua 3, 10, and 11.
9. The new people had a tribal organization, as evidenced by burial
practices.
10. The abundance of copper weapons in many of the MBI burials
suggests that the newcomers were warriors and took the land by force.
From an Egyptian perspective, the Israelites of the Exodus would
correspond well with those 'Egyptianised' Asiatics who left Egypt in a
hurry, en masse. In terms of Palestinian archaeology these were the
MBI people, carrying Egyptian artefacts, who can be traced through the
northern Sinai, at the oasis of Kadesh-barnea, who were at Har Karkom,
and who destroyed the Midianite cities at Babh-Ed Dhra, Numeira etc.
in the western portion of Moab, east of the Dead Sea, and perhaps at
its southern end (cf. Numbers 31) [11]. More on Israel in Egypt.
EB IV culture can now be defined as Moabite [12].
Jericho (Part One)
The Israelites totally destroyed the inhabitants of Jericho (except
for Rahab and her family) and burned the city to the ground (v.24).
Joshua placed Jericho at that time under a curse; so that whoever
rebuilt its wall would do so at the cost of the lives of his two sons
(v.26). This prediction was fulfilled more than half a millennium
later, at the time of King Ahab, when the wall was rebuilt by Hiel the
Bethelite (I Kings 16:34). The walls of Jericho
Taking as our guide the biblical scenario, we should expect that the
archaeologists would find at the appropriate stratum on the mound of
ancient Jericho (modern Tell es Sultan), a mighty Canaanite city, well
fortified with strong walls.

We should further expect them to find that these walls had collapsed,
apparently as the result of an earthquake. In regard to this latter
phenomenon, I must pause to ask the question:
What more unique incident could be hoped for as an anchor point for
properly correlating the archaeology of this area with its history
(unique because the incident belongs in the category of a general
invasion followed by a natural catastrophe, and followed by evidences
of occupation of the entire territory by a new people - and even
further unique because of the peculiar nature of the destruction of
Jericho)?
In 1930 the British researcher, John Garstang, undertook an
investigation of the site of Jericho that lasted for six years. Among
Garstang's finds was the discovery of the double line of walls around
the city that had been thrown down violently, apparently by an
earthquake. Garstang positively regarded these as the walls destroyed
at the time of Joshua. The bricks of the walls had been thrown down
the sides of the slope of the mound, and the outer wall base had been
tilted outward, giving further indication that the destruction had
been a violent one by natural causes. We should furthermore expect
archaeologists to find that there occurred the destruction by fire of
the city inside these walls. Kenyon, describing the ferocity with
which the destruction of the EBIII city at Jericho came about, wrote
[13]:
The final end of the Early Bronze Age civilization came with
catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze walls of
Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks, and
was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or
none of the town inside the walls has survived subsequent denudation,
but it was probably completely destroyed for all the finds show an
absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier
inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated
shows this same break.

Courville [14] has suggested that the evident haste in erecting the
last of these protective walls "reflects in an amazing manner the fear
of the people of Jericho at the rumours of the approach of the armies
of Israel." As formidable as were the defences already prepared, there
was a hasty effort to strengthen these fortifications (cf. Joshua
2:9-11). But there is even more correspondence. According to an
intriguing detail of supporting evidence as gleaned by professor Anati
from the Book of Joshua, EBIII Jericho alone qualifies for the city
destroyed by the Israelites [15]:

With regard to the correspondence between archaeology and biblical
descriptions, if the latter is reliable in terms of historical
reconstruction, then the following passage may prove to be
particularly significant: 'Rahab let them down from the window by a
rope, for her house was against the city wall itself' (Jos 2:15).
Which of the archaeological layers that have been excavated might
correspond to this description? ...

This ... description can only refer to a form of urban planning and
surrounding wall from the Early Bronze Age .... There were no windows
that looked towards the outside of the walls, during the Middle and
Late Bronze Ages, either at Jericho or at any other site in the
Syro-palestinian region.

All well and good so far. But now things should - and do - become more
complicated. For should we not also expect, from our alignment of
Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms, for an MBA civilisation already to
have been established in Canaan before the arrival of the MBI people?
This also is in keeping with our non-linear theory (Kenyon).
Recognition of this complexity will help to solve the stratigraphical
problems now to be considered in the second part of this analysis.

The MBI Conquest (Part Two)
We have seen how an MBI conquest of EBIII fits well with the Joshuan
scenario. However, the picture is by no means that simple, for what we
find also is that there are some glaring anomalies associated with
this proposed situation, and it is undoubtedly these that are keeping
archaeologists from fully embracing the MBI = Israelites equation.
First of all I shall give Stiebing's general points that are
unfavourable to this simple equation; and, after that, his more
specific points in relation to certain problematical sites. The reader
may be surprised to find that even Jericho now has its anomalies.
General
The general stratigraphical problem of the Courville/Vaninger model is
well explained by Stiebing, who had previously admitted this model's
strong points [16]:
This theory, however, contains a major inconsistency in dealing with
cultural breaks in Palestinian archaeology. On the one hand, the break
between EB III and MB I is seen as evidence for the invasion of a new
population group. But the equally complete and dramatic change from MB
I to MB IIA .... is supposedly due only to the Israelites' settling
down and becoming more urbane.
Vaninger tries to remove this inconsistency by minimizing the cultural
discontinuity between MB I and MB IIA and by arguing that population
growth, climatic change, new pottery-making techniques, and influence
from the north through trade account for the differences between the
two periods. .... But he rejects the opinion of archaeologists who
have argued for continuity between EB III and MB I on much the same
grounds - that the changes reflect socio-cultural fluctuations between
periods of urban settlement and eras of pastoralism and small
villages, rather than invasions by new groups of people. ....
Vaninger justifies his different treatment of the two periods of
cultural change by noting that major destructions mark the end of EB
III towns while no destruction levels delineate the end off MB I ....
However, climatic changes and internal strife can lead to widespread
destruction, abandonment and urbanization, and a reversion to pastoral
life. The EB III destructions do not necessarily prove that an
invasion took place.
On the other hand, since during the MB I period there were only small
semi-nomadic encampments or villages in Palestine, rather than cities,
destruction levels should not be expected. If invaders had arrived in
strength at the end of MB I they would have had little reason to burn
and destroy the undefended villages they found, especially since most
of the MB I settlements were in the Negev, an area in which the MB IIA
population chose not to settle. So destruction layers at the end of EB
III do not prove that an invasion occurred then, nor does the lack of
destruction levels at the end of MB I prove there was no invasion at
that time. The changes between MB I and MB IIA are comparable to those
between EB III and MB I. If such changes signal the appearance of new
population groups at the end of EB III, then the abrupt change from MB
I pastoralism to the new urban culture of MB IIA should also be
credited to invaders.
Specific Sites
Continuing with Stiebing [17]:
... excavations have shown that Beth-shean, Dor, and Beth-shemesh were
not occupied in EB III ..., and thus could not have survived the
Israelite conquest as the Book of Judges claims. ... Shiloh and Gaza
present major problems for theories of an EB III conquest. Shiloh was
one of the centers of Israelite activity during the period of the
Judges (Joshua 18:1-10; Judges 21:12,19; etc.) and Gaza was a
Philistine city which plays an important role in the stories about
Samson (Judges 13-16). Yet Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun) was occupied for
the first time in MB IIB (which begins just before the time of Saul,
according to the Courville/Vaninger chronology), while Gaza (Tell
Harube) was not occupied until the Late Bronze Age (which equals the
Divided Monarchy in their system) ....
It should be noted immediately, with regard to Shiloh, that scholars
are not unanimous as to its true location [18]. As for Gaza, its
emergence in LBA is exactly what one would expect from the
stratigraphical pattern that I shall now begin to trace, following
Bimson.
Jericho (Part Two)
Bimson shows how the archaeological data for the end of MBA Jericho
corresponds strikingly well with the conquest scenario [19]:
In analysing the Biblical account, we must go back to Numbers, 25.
Here, just a few weeks or months before the attack on Jericho, we find
the Israelites living in a camp which extends along the eastern side
of the Jordan just opposite the city ....
During this time the area was affected by a severe plague. Numbers
25:9 reports that 24,000 Israelites died of this plague. In due course
the Jordan was crossed (Josh. 3) and a new camp established at Gilgal.
From here the campaign against Jericho was launched. The Israelite
victory was assured when an earthquake broke down the city's walls.
The inhabitants were slaughtered and the whole city burned to the
ground.
Precisely the same sequence of events is evidenced by archaeologicl
finds from the final phase of MBA Jericho.
Late in the series of MBA tombs at Jericho, several multiple burials
are evidenced. Kenyon has concluded from these that "some catastrophe
caused high mortality on an occasion very late in the history of
Middle Bronze Age Jericho" .... All the evidence points to the
conclusion that MBA Jericho "suffered a plague" shortly before the
greater catastrophe of the city's destruction .... It is logical to
identify this plague with the one which struck the Israelite camp at
Shittim in Numbers 25. Shittim was not very far from Jericho. It was
from there that spies were sent out to the city (Joshua 2:1) ....
Evidence for an earthquake at the end of MBA Jericho comes from the
tombs containing the multiple burials. Organic material contained in
these tombs was found to be unusually well preserved. F.E. Zeuner, who
carried out tests in some of these tombs when they were first opened,
concluded that the material was preserved because a short while after
the burials were made, natural gas containing methane and carbon
dioxide entered the tombs and brought the process of biological
destruction to an end .... Earth movement and resultant fissuring are
suggested as the best explanation of how this gas was suddenly
released into the tombs.
The MBA city was destroyed in a terrible conflagration [19]:
"All the Middle Bronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by fire
.... There is no doubt from the scorched surfaces of the walls and
floors of the violence of the conflagration" .... Dame Kathleen
Kenyon, who wrote these words, concluded from the violence of the
destruction that this burning was the result of an enemy attack on the
city ....
Further in favour of Bimson's revision, against Courville/Vaninger's,
is the following [20]:
According to the Biblical tradition, there was no city at Jericho
between the Conquest and the reign of Ahab. We have seen that in the
scheme offered above, the archaeological evidence confirms this
picture. In Courville's scheme, however, the archaeological findings
do not correspond with the Biblical tradition at all, since the
strongly fortified and populous MB II city fills the period which
ought to have been one of abandonment or, at the most, sporadic
temporary habitation ....
Moreover, that Bimson's synchronism between the MBA phase at Jericho
and Egypt's Middle Kingdom is accurate is apparent from the nature of
the scarabs [21]:
... only four of the MBA scarabs bear royal names. Three of these
definitely come from the Twelfth and Thirteenth (pre-Hyksos) Dynasties
.... The date of the fourth, which bears the obscure name "Sheshi", is
debated. In Gardiner's view, however, scarabs bearing this name date
from immediately prior to the rise of the Hyksos. The Sheshi scarab
from Jericho was found in one of the multiple burials which date from
very near the end of the MBA city's history.
The question for Courville and Vaninger becomes: If the Israelites had
previously left an Egypt that had seen the demise of all the 12th
dynasty pharaohs, how come it is the MBA city at Jericho (which
Courville would presumably maintain was built some time after the era
of Joshua) that contains the scarabs of the 12th dynasty kings?
More precisely, Bimson has noted that scarabs of Sesostris I of the
12th dynasty begin to occur in MBII A contexts in Western Asia. But
Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects are far more numerous in MBII B-C,
which - according to convention - was the Hyksos period [22]. Bimson
has thus rejected MBII as the Hyksos period. Instead he has concluded
that, since MBII was contemporaneous with Egypt's Middle Kingdom, then
LBI was, at least partially, contemporaneous with the Hyksos period
[22].
Concluding remarks
While the conventional view of a conquest during LBA is quite
inadequate, strong arguments can be made for either the EBIII and MBA
scenarios. But both of these latter also have their shortcomings. It
is only when EBA and MBA are properly integrated - the logical result
of Courville's revision of pre-New Kingdom Egypt - that the full
picture emerges and the anomalies disappear. As with the Mesopotamian
flood, so with Jericho, have the archaeologists provided only an
incomplete part of the picture. I ask:
What are the chances of two distinct cities at Jericho, supposedly
well separated in time, suffering collapse from earthquake followed by
radical burning from an enemy? It is like reading the same story
twice.
The EBIII city whose walls fell outward, that was burned to the
ground, must be recognised as the same as the MBA city that suffered
earthquake and was burned. This was the city contemporaneous with
Egypt's 6th and 12th dynasties - and with the Exodus - that the
Joshuan forces attacked and destroyed. Its MBA defences, clearly
observable on the sides of the mound [23], were likely the most recent
fortifications for what was a very old city. But EBA and MBA Jericho
was not a separate city.
Other seeming anomalies for the conquest, too, can be solved from a
complete archaeological application along these lines, recognising
that archaeology is not purely linear.
Judges
Just a few words about the long Judges period, as I shall not be
devoting a separate section to it. It corresponds with the Hyksos
domination of Egypt, and hence the Bible nowhere during the Judges era
speaks of Egypt as a contemporary power.
Stratigraphically, it would largely be represented by LBI
Quite early in the Judges period, Israel was oppressed for 8 years by
the Syro-Mesopotamian king, Cushan-rishathaim (Judges 3:8). Regarding
the historical identification of Cushan-rishathaim, I am very
impressed with Hickman's reconstruction, according to which Israel's
oppressor was none other than the renowned Sargon of Akkad (cf.
Agade), currently dated to c. 2334-2279, to even before Ur III [24].
Cushan is likely also the hard-to-locate, chronologically,
Enshag-kushanna of the Mesopotamian lists, considered to be close to
the time of Sargon of Akkad [24].
If this reconstruction be correct, then the Judges period would for
much of its first part be contemporaneous with the lengthy Sargonid
dynasty in Mesopotamia.
But the latter part of the Judges era (e.g. closer to the time of
Samuel) would be - as we shall now learn from Zimri Lim -
contemporaneous with the early First Babylonian Dynasty, whose chief
king, Hammurabi, was, as I shall suggest, a contemporary of Solomon's.
Notes and references
[1] "Are the Bible's Stories True?" (Christmas, 1995).
[2] Ibid., 54.
[3] "Abraham to Hezekiah: An Archaeological Revision", C&AH, Vol.V,
pt.2 (CA, July, 1983), 71.
[4] See latest Archaeological Diggings (October 2002). Opinion of
archaeologists working in the Negev.
[5] "New Archaeological Dates for the Israelite Conquest" C&AH, Vol.X,
pt.1 (CA, Jan., 1988), 5-7.
[6] Ibid., 7.
[7] See his Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries (Edizioni del
Centro, 1993).
[8] Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1983. The full title of
this article is: "The Mysterious Middle Bronze I People. Does the
Exodus Tradition in the Middle East Preserve the Memory of their Entry
into Canaan?"
Down, D., "Dr. Cohen Identifies the Mysterious MBI People", Diggings
No.9 (September, 1992), 2-7.
[9] Albright, W., The Archaeology of Palestine (Penguin Books, 1960),
87. Albright, of course, was not intending to identify the MBI people
with the Israelites.
[10] Op. cit., 72-74.
[11] Not the cities of Pentapolis (Genesis 19) as is sometimes
thought.
[12] See Osgood's detailed treatment of this in "Times of the Judges -
Archaeology", EN Tech J., Vol.2 (1986), 65-68.
[13] Kenyon, K., Archaeology in the Holy Land (London, 1960), 134.
Kenyon referred to the MBI people as Early Bronze-Middle Bronze.
Emphasis added.
[14] The Exodus Problems and its Ramifications, I, 88.
[15] The Mountain of God, 280. Emphasis added.
[16] Op. cit., 11-12.
[17] Ibid., 9, 13.
[18] See e.g. T. Lawrences's "Shiloh", SIS Workshop, Vol.6, No.3
(Feb., 1986), 9.
[19] "The Conquest of Canaan & the Revised Chronology", SIS Review
Vol.I, No.3 (Summer 1976), 5-6.
[20] Ibid., 3.
[21] Ibid., 6-7.
[22] "The Hyksos and the Archaeology of Palestine", SIS Review Vol.II
(1977), 60.
[23] Conquest of Canaan, 6.
[24] "The Dating of Hammurabi", Proc. of the 3rd Seminar of
Catastrophism & Ancient History (C&AH Press, Toronto, 1986), 18-19.
If this revision is correct, then no longer can the story of Sargon's
being placed in the water as a child be seen as the paradigm for the
tale of baby Moses.

[LINK] Crawl out of this tomb [LINK] Previous Vultures above Above
Jellyfish below Below [LINK] Next [LINK] Submenu setstats 1