The Libyans in EgyptThe period of Libyan domination in Egypt, the Twenty-second Dynasty, is said by Manetho to have lasted for a hundred and twenty years:(1) “But the accepted chronology,” wrote Sir Alan Gardiner, “finds itself compelled to legislate for fully two centuries. . .” (2) What is the basis for beginning the time of the Libyan Dynasty of Egypt, that of Shoshenks and Osorkons, as early as -945 or even earlier and for stretching the period for over two hundred years? The end of the period is well established, because ca. -712 the Libyan rule was supplanted by the Ethiopian domination,(3) and the latter stands firmly fixed in time in relation to Biblical and Assyrian sources. The beginning of the Libyan Dynasty was dated to -945 because a synchronical link was claimed to exist between the Biblical references to Pharaoh Shishak who conquered Palestine in the fifth year after Solomon, and Shoshenk Hedjkheperre of the Libyan dynasty. The placing of Shoshenk Hedjkheperre in the second half of the tenth century did not follow from the Egyptian material, But from the supposed synchronism of Rehoboam, who followed Solomon on the throne in Jerusalem, and Shoshenk Hedjkheperre. In Ages in Chaos I have pointed out that this alleged synchronism is not supported by the available evidence, and I was able to show that the conqueror of Jerusalem and sacker of its temple was not a Libyan king but Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In the Chapter entitled “The Temple in Jerusalem” I compare Thutmose’s depiction of the booty taken by him with the Biblical description of the vessels and furnishings of Solomon’s Temple to arrive at a positive identification of the sacker of Jerusalem’s temple.(4) Now to bring Shoshenk Hedjkheperre to the head of the Libyan Dynasty is unnecessary; actually he will be shown to belong to the end of the period of Libyan domination in Egypt, and to be the Pharaoh So of the Scriptures.(5) During the greater part of the eighth century, when the
Libyan Dynasty of Osorkons and Shoshenks ruled over Egypt, the kings
of this country vied with the kings of Assyria for influence in Palestine
and Phoenicia. Elibaal, king of the Phoenician port-city of Byblos,
had an Egyptian artist carve a statue of Osorkon I and cut an inscription
on its chest: “Statue of Elibaal, king of Gebal (Byblos) made .
. .” (6) Since the conventional chronology
made Osorkon a contemporary of Asa, who ruled over Israel in the early
ninth century before the present era, Elibaal needed also to be placed
in the ninth century—nearly a hundred years too early, according
to the conclusions reached in this work. Abibaal, another king of Byblos,
ordered a statue of Shoshenk Hedjkheperre to be carved and inscribed
in his name;(7) for
this reason Abibaal was placed in the tenth century as a contemporary
of that king. Placing Elibaal and Abibaal in the tenth and and early
ninth centuries respectively created problems for epigraphists concerned
with the history of the Hebrew script. The inscriptions on the sculptures
are in Hebrew characters, and were the subject of much discussion in
connection with the development of the Hebrew alphabet. The epigraphists,
who must take directives from the archaeologists, tried to reconcile
the dates derived from these inscriptions with the characters on the
stele of Mesha, the king of Moab, who in the middle of the ninth century
revolted against Ahab, king of Israel, and with the ivories from Samaria
belonging to the same period—and were rather puzzled. The inscriptions
of Elibaal and Abibaal are written in a script that appears to bear
the closest resemblance to the eighth-century ostraka from Samaria;
yet the conventional historians have them precede the stele of
Mesha. Evidently, the order of the Libyan kings on the throne of Egypt
is not properly put together, and Elibaal and Abibaal belong to the
eighth century, just as do Osorkon I and Shoshenk Hedjkheperre, their
contemporaries in Egypt.
References
|