Ramses III much diminished due to not being recognised as Ramses ‘the Great’

by Damien F. Mackey “While many Egyptologists have been reluctant to allow Ramesses III any military action in western Asia north of Sinai, archaeologists were identifying a phase at the transition from the Bronze to Iron Age in Palestine as a period of “Egyptian empire”—largely under the early 20th Dynasty”. Peter James That Ramses II ‘the Great’, and Ramses so-called III, need to be identified as being just the one mighty pharaoh, I have argued in articles such as: The Complete Ramses II (3) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ramses II, Ramses III (3) Ramses II, Ramses III | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Can the long-reigning pharaoh, Ramses II, possibly be fitted into a tightening revision? (3) Can the long-reigning pharaoh, Ramses II, possibly be fitted into a tightening revision? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, information provided by Peter James in his scholarly article for Antiguo Oriente, volumen 15, 2017: THE LEVANTINE WAR-RECORDS OF RAMESSES III: CHANGING ATTITUDES, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE* PETER JAMES https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/bitstream/123456789/7248/4/the-levantine-war-records.pdf only serves to reinforce me in my view that, to minimalise Ramses III, as one merely aspiring to - but by no means succeeding in – emulate (ing) Ramses II, does a great disservice with regard to the stupendous achievements of Ramses III. Beginning on p. 65 (through to p. 73), Peter James will write about the minimalising assessments of the career of Ramses III: …. “MINIMALIST” VIEWS OF RAMESSES III’S CLAIMS Returning to trends in attitudes towards Ramesses III’s campaigns, in 1906 Breasted was prepared to see both land and sea battles with the “Sea Peoples” as having taken place near the coast south of Arvad (northern Phoenicia). …. British Egyptologist Henry Hall was far more cautious, placing the land and sea battles with the Sea Peoples close to the frontier of Egypt itself; he did allow, however, that Ramesses III later marched to Amurru to restore Egyptian authority there, although not as far as the Euphrates. …. In Hall’s understanding the place names from the Euphrates region in Ramesses III’s toponym lists (such as Carchemish) were “due probably to a very bad habit begun in his reign, that of copying the names of cities captured in the wars of Thothmes III...” Mackey’s comment: Ramses III was copying no previous pharaoh. His records are likely genuine accounts - allowing for some degree of pharaonic embellishment - of his own achievements. Attitudes against the reality of Ramesses III’s claimed campaigns continued to harden in the mid-to-late 20th century. By then it was becoming the received wisdom that Ramesses III did not campaign as far as northern Phoenicia. This view was symptomatic of a more general one regarding the originality of his war records, which casually dismissed them often in toto as copies from the records of the “great” Ramesses. Of the Medinet Habu war records Faulkner wrote that “the inscriptions contain but a halfpenny-worth of historical fact to an intolerable deal of adulation of the pharaoh ...” Regarding the Nubian battle scenes, the magisterial Alan Gardiner felt that they “seem likely to be mere convention borrowed from earlier representations.” …. Likewise Faulkner: “...the scenes of a Nubian war at Medinet Habu are surely only conventional with no historical reality behind them.” …. Gardiner dismissed a Syrian campaign entirely. …. Faulkner was only slightly more generous: “...the scenes in question are anachronisms copied from a building of Ramesses II. Yet there may be a substratum of historical fact beneath them...” …. Mackey’s comment: If Ramses III were II, as I am claiming, then there was involved no “copying” whatsoever. Surprisingly, after his generally scathing remarks, Faulkner allowed that Ramesses III “may have attempted to follow up his success [defeating the “Peoples of the Sea”] by “pushing on into Syria to drive the enemy farther away from Egypt...” Mackey’s comment: Now it’s a two bob each way bet. George Hughes stressed “the fact that Ramses III patterned his mortuary temple after that of Ramses II, but on a smaller scale.” …. Nims listed the many comparisons he observed between the two buildings, from the general arrangement to specific details of iconography and text: The evidence of the copying of the Ramesseum reliefs by the scribes who planned the reliefs in Medinet Habu shows that a large number of the ritual scenes in the latter temple had their origin in the scenes in the former and occupied the same relative positions in both temples. …. Mackey’s comment: Same pharaoh, probably same architects and same scribes. Most of the similarities concern cult and religious scenes per se, though with some differences with respect to the placement of military scenes: Ramses III used the rear face of the first pylon of Medinet Habu for accounts of his military exploits, just as Ramses II used the equivalent space at the Ramesseum for his. The long account of Year 8 of Ramses III was carved on the front face of the north tower of the second pylon at Medinet Habu; the parallel wall at the Ramesseum seems to have been occupied by the famous battle poem of Ramses II. The rear face of this pylon at the Ramesseum, on the other hand, shows battle reliefs below scenes of the Min Feast, as does the lower register of the east wall of the first hypostyle hall south of the axial doorway, while in Medinet Habu the corresponding walls have religious scenes. …. Mackey’s comment: Same pharaoh, probably same architects and same scribes. Building on the observations of Nims, Lesko took the extreme position that all of Ramesses III’s war records at his mortuary temple of Medinet Habu and elsewhere, were copied from the work of predecessors—with the exception of his second Libyan campaign, dated to Year 11. …. In Lesko’s view, even the famous records of the “Sea Peoples” battles were borrowed from the nearby (and now-destroyed) mortuary temple of Merenptah. A major factor in the dismissal of Ramesses III’s northern campaigns has been the assumption that the Medinet Habu reliefs show his troops storming two Hittite towns (see above). Indeed, the inhabitants of the two towns look Hittite in appearance. One is labelled “Tunip,” while the name of the second has been frequently read as “Arzawa.” As the location of the Hittite vassal kingdom of Arzawa in western Anatolia (on the Aegean seaboard) is certain … the idea that Ramesses III would have been able to campaign this far, Sesostris-like, strikes as absurd. Mackey’s comment: The location of Arzawa if far from “certain”. I have grappled with it in my recent article: More uncertain ancient geography: locations Tarḫuntašša and Arzawa (2) More uncertain ancient geography: locations Tarḫuntašša and Arzawa | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “Arzawa …. The exact location is unknown …”. “Arzawa … a poorly-recorded state with uncertain borders …”. Peter James continues: Gardiner flatly stated that: All these pictures are clearly anachronisms and must have been copied from originals of the reign of Ramessēs II: there is ample evidence that the designers of Medinet Habu borrowed greatly from the neighbouring Ramesseum. Confirmation is given in the papyrus [Harris I] cited above; this has no mention of a Syrian campaign, still less of one against the Hittites. All that is said is that Ramessēs III “destroyed the Seirites in the tribes of the Shōsu”; the Shōsu have already been mentioned as the Beduins of the desert bordering the south of Palestine, and ‘the mountain of Se‘īr’ named on an obelisk of Ramessēs II is the Edomite mountain referred to in several passages of the Old Testament. It looks as though the defeat of these relatively unimportant tent-dwellers was the utmost which Ramessēs III could achieve after his struggle with the Mediterranean hordes.... With these words, a nadir was reached in the assessment of Ramesses III’s military activities. It still prevailed forty years later when Kenneth Kitchen wrote: There is no evidence that he invaded Palestine in Year 12 (a rhetorical text of that date itself proves nothing). The Medinet Habu Syrian war-reliefs are most likely merely copies from those of Ramesses II, as they include entities no longer extant for Ramesses III to battle against. Ramesses III attacked not Israel, but Edom in south Transjordan, as the factual descriptions in Papyrus Harris I make clear. …. By the “entities” which Kitchen described as “no longer extant for Ramesses III to battle against,” he meant various Anatolian states such as Hatti and Arzawa which were allegedly swept away by the “Sea Peoples” invasion of Ramesses III’s Year 8. …. Otherwise it is clear that in 1991 Kitchen, like Gardiner, was arguing that Ramesses III did not campaign any further than the Sinai/Negev area—as no campaigns further north are mentioned in the “factual descriptions” from Papyrus Harris. More recently Strobel went even beyond Gardiner, Kitchen, Lesko and others, writing what can only be described as a tirade against Ramesses III. For reasons of space only a few quotes follow: Ramses III started his triumphal report on the walls of the temple in Medinet Habu, which was finished in his year 12, with his “Nubian War.” However, this war never happened. The same is true for the “Asiatic or Syrian War”, the last of the reported military deeds. Ramses’ ideological invention of these wars should bring his deeds on the same level as the triumphs of Ramses II and Merenptah, especially Merenptah’s Asiatic war. The texts and reliefs of Ramses III are no “war journal” or realistic picture of his military campaigns, but a triumphal self-representation on a highly ideological degree. The texts are first of all rhetorical and formulaic; the events are presented and described in a fixed ideological scheme and language...Ramses III was a “plagiarizer and self-aggrandizer of the first order.” He ordered direct copies from the records and illustrations of the Ramesseum and without doubt, from the today destroyed funerary temple of Merenptah in his direct neighbourhood. He even took a quite important amount of blocks, recuts and not recuts, by quarrying other temples, especially those of his predecessors. …. Were we to take all the negative opinions together, Ramesses III’s military efforts would have been confined to repelling Libyan invaders in his year 11 and a minor raid against “bedouin” in the Sinai area. Such a picture seems unrealistic, to say the least. Ramesses III’s records talk of tribute from northern lands, the supply of his temples by goods and tribute from foreign lands (notably Djahi and Kharu), and the revenues drawn from temples maintained in the empire, including the construction of a new one in “Canaan.” …. Ramesses III ruled Egypt for 31 years in relative security and prosperity, with tribute drawn from Levantine domains. One wonders how this feat was achieved, in economic terms, if the Egyptian army was so idle, only fighting defensive wars and never active beyond the frontiers—with the exception of an allegedly trivial foray against the Shasu of Edom. Such a picture goes totally against the grain of what we know of New Kingdom dominion and economics. It has also long run counter to the archaeological evidence from the Levant. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE In the days of Sayce (see above) the Amarna and Boghazköy archives were the “smoking guns” proving the reality of the campaigns of Thutmose III and Ramesses II. Was there an equivalent for Ramesses III? No, but what Ramesses III lacked in terms of new literary documents was amply recompensed in terms of archaeological finds—from small finds such as numerous scarabs … a statue fragment from Byblos … the “pen-case” of an of an officer at Megiddo … to the plethora of discoveries at Beth-Shean, beginning in 1923 with a seated life-size statue outside the “northern temple” to inscriptions from its doorways and jambs, and the “pen-case” of another local official. …. Most of these finds had been made by the mid-20th century, such as the Megiddo pencase in 1937. Taken together they should have had an impact on views about the reality of his Levantine expeditions further north than the Sinai region (where inscriptions are known from the mining centre of Timna, etc.). So how did Egyptology react to such finds? An interesting dichotomy arose. …. While many Egyptologists have been reluctant to allow Ramesses III any military action in western Asia north of Sinai, archaeologists were identifying a phase at the transition from the Bronze to Iron Age in Palestine as a period of “Egyptian empire”—largely under the early 20th Dynasty. Evidence for this comes most clearly from southern sites like Tell esh Shari‘a, Tell el Far‘ah (south), Gaza and Deir el-Balah and, to the north, Megiddo and Beth-Shean in the Jezreel Valley. ….At the latter, pottery and other evidence suggest an increased Egyptian presence during the early 20th Dynasty. …. It is clear that his successor Ramesses IV maintained a presence at Beth-Shean … 51 though it seems that he was the last pharaoh to hold sway so far north. …. With respect to the reality of Ramesses III’s campaigns, the arch-minimalist Lesko noted: “Archaeological evidence should help to resolve these problems.”53 But he restricted his comments here to an alleged destruction of Beth Shean by Ramesses III (for which there is not a shred of evidence), mentioning but failing to appreciate the significance of an inscription of his Chief Steward from that site, i.e. the power of Ramesses III reached as far as the Jezreel Valley. The idea that Ramesses III’s campaigning in Palestine was limited to Edom overlooks the archaeological evidence. Other mid-to-late 20th century Egyptologists, such as Wilson, appreciated more fully the importance of the archaeological finds: Ramses III still held his Asiatic empire in Palestine. His statue has been found at Beth Shan and there is record of him at Megiddo. He built a temple for Amon in Palestine, and the gods owned nine towns in that country, as his duepaying properties. The Egyptian frontier was in Djahi, somewhere along the coast of southern Phoenicia or northern Palestine. …. Wilson allowed Ramesses III’s empire a fairly generous reach, but the implication is that he merely “held” it as an inheritance from his 19th dynasty predecessors (see below) without any active campaigning. Likewise, Kitchen states that “the Egyptians under Ramesses III maintained their overlordship over both the Canaanites and the newcomers...” …. Weinstein was more positive. Stressing the scarcity of late 19th dynasty remains from Palestine … coincident with “Egypt’s domestic problems,” he clearly attributed a more active policy to Ramesses III than one of inheritance: “Ramesses III seems to have done his best to restore a measure of control in Palestine.” …. Likewise Redford: “... Ramesses III had been able, by dint of military activity, to reassert his authority over much of Palestine and perhaps parts of Syria as well...” …. So also Morkot: Ramesses III certainly did emulate Ramesses II—but in no superficial way. Archaeology is now showing that Ramesses III did, in fact, manage to renew Egyptian control over parts of western Asia.... These writers appreciated the obvious: the “smoking” gun for Ramesses III is provided by the archaeological and inscriptional remains from both southern Palestine (e.g. Lachish) and the Jezreel Valley (notably Beth Shean and Megiddo).

Mighty Assyro-Chaldean kings mistaken for Hittite emperors

by Damien F. Mackey And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Responding to a Brazilian researcher concerning a series of letters of Sennacherib that are generally thought to constitute his correspondence, as Crown Prince, with the Assyrian king, Sargon II, I concluded that Sennacherib (who actually is my Sargon II) must instead have been writing, as King of Assyria, to a contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty: Some Letters from Sennacherib (3) Some Letters from Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I then followed up this article with one on: Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar (3) Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu which enabled me to establish, for Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria, a “contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty”, namely pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’. He, the great pharaoh, would be, I believe, the only contemporary of Sennacherib (Sargon II) to whom the Assyrian king would deign to have shown such deference as to write (Letter # 029): [To] the king, my lord: [your servant] Sin-ahhe-riba [Sennacherib]. Good health to the king, my lord! [Assyri]a is well,[the temp]les are well, all [the king's forts] are well. The king, my lord, can be glad indeed …. in such a way as could suggest a treaty had been established between the mighty pair. Now, with the mention of Ramses II and a treaty with another Great King, one must think only of the famous treaty made between Ramses II and Hattusilis so-called III. And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Obviously there is a lot that must be worked out to solidify this identification. But there appears to be a parallel scenario between (a) Hattusilis, his formidable wife, (b) Pudu-hepa and (c) Tudhaliya so-called IV, on the one hand, and – {in my revision, according to which Sennacherib was succeeded by his (non-biological) son, Esarhaddon, a Chaldean, who is my Nebuchednezzar} - (a) Sennacherib, his formidable wife, (b) Naqī’a (Zakūtu) and (c) Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar). I need to note here that I have multi-identified each (a-c) of this second set. Thus: Sargon II/Sennacherib is, all at once, Tukulti-ninurta; Shamsi-Adad [not I]; Esarhaddon is, all at once, Ashur-bel-kala; Ashurnasirpal; Ashurbanipal; Nebuchednezzar [I and II]; Nabonidus; Artaxerxes of Nehemiah; Cambyses’; Naqia/Zakutu is, all at once, Semiramis (of Tukulti-ninurta’s era); Sammu-ramat; Adad-Guppi. But how can an Assyrian king, or a Chaldean king, become confused as a Hittite? Well, perhaps we may consider a few things here. For example: No such people as the Indo-European Hittites (3) No such people as the Indo-European Hittites | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article I referenced Brock Heathcotte as follows: Brock Heathcotte has written on this in his article “Tugdamme the Hittite” (January 28, 2017): The theory espoused here is that Mursili II and Tugdamme were the same person. This does not mean that his subjects, euphemistically called the “Hittite” people in modern times were ethnic Cimmerians. They almost certainly were a people of many ethnicities including prominently Luwian, based on language. The cold hard fact that has been distorted by decades of talking about the Hittites is that there is no such people as the Hittites. The tablet people we spoke of never called themselves Hittites, and nobody else called them Hittites either at the time. This is actually not controversial. It is just obscured by convention. Academics could argue all day and night about the ethnic composition of the people who lived in Anatolia, and which of them were the rulers we know as the Hittite kings. The argument is not susceptible to resolution, especially not in the current mistaken historical context the Hittites are placed. The rulers called themselves the Great Kings of Hatti. They could be any ethnicity. We should think of “Hittite” as the same sort of location-based moniker for a people as “American.” It doesn’t make sense to say there is an American ethnicity, and it doesn’t make sense to say there is a “Hittite” ethnicity. Americans come in many different ethnicities, as did the Hittites. …. [End of quote] Moreover, some time before I wrote any of this, I had already penned this article about Ashurnasirpal, who is my Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar), a Chaldean: Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal (3) Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu These Assyro-Chaldean kings, who conquered the lands of the Hittites, could easily have assumed titles akin to King of the Hittites. Tudhaliya’s accession like that of Esarhaddon Esarhaddon, Tudhaliya, had no real prospect of succeeding to the throne. The ancient term for someone in that position, not of the royal line, was “son of nobody”. And I found this characteristic in Esarhaddon’s alter egos, having written: …. Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”. …. And we read in the following Abstract that that was also the former status of Tudhaliya: https://academic.oup.com/book/36172/chapter-abstract/314550786?redirectedFrom=fulltext Abstract In his early years, the prince Tudhaliya could have had little thought that he would one day become king. But he was installed by Hattusili ‘in kingship’, that is, Tudhaliya probably now assumed the role of crown prince. This chapter examines the career path which Hattusili had mapped out for Tudhaliya in preparation for his becoming king of the Hittites, Puduhepa's effort to arrange her daughter's marriage to Tudhaliya, problems and potential crises inherited by Tudhaliya from Muwattalli as Hittite ruler, political developments in western Anatolia during Tudhaliya's reign, the impact of establishment of a pro-Hittite regime in Milawata on Ahhiyawan enterprise in western Anatolia, political problems that arose from the marriage alliance contracted between the royal families of Ugarit and Amurru, Tudhaliya's war with Assyria, possible coup instigated by Kurunta to wrest the throne from his cousin Tudhaliya, Tudhaliya's conquest of Alasiya, and the achievements of Tudhaliya IV as ruler of the Hittite kingdom. The whole thing seems to have been arranged by the formidable Queen, as was the case again with Esarhaddon and his mother Naqī’a/Zakūtu: Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis (3) Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://www.britannica.com/biography/Naqia “[Esarhaddon’s] energetic and designing mother, Zakutu (Naqia), who came from Syria or Judah [sic?], used all her influence on his behalf to override the national party of Assyria”. I would expect now to begin finding many parallels between Esarhaddon/ Nebuchednezzar, in his various guises (alter egos), and the so-called Hittite emperor, Tudhaliya.

Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep

by Damien F. Mackey “Mentuhotep, prince in the seats of … Splendor … at whose voice they (are permitted to) speak in the king’s-house, in charge of the silencing of the courtiers, unique one of the king, without his like, who sends up the truth …”. Inscriptions of Mentuhotep Dr. Donovan Courville had proposed, in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (Vols. I and II, 1971), that Egypt’s so-called Old and Middle Kingdoms were, in part, contemporaneous – a view with which I would broadly agree. He then proceeded to select, as the Patriarch Joseph of Egypt, the significant official, MENTUHOTEP, vizier to Sesostris I, the second king of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty. And very good revisionists have followed Dr. Courville in his choice of Mentuhotep for Joseph. With my own system, though, favouring (i) the Third Dynasty for Joseph; (ii) Amenemes [Amenemhet] I for the “new king” of Exodus 1:8; and (iii) Amenemes I’s successor, Sesostris I, for the pharaoh from whom Moses fled (as recalled in the semi-legendary “The Story of Sinuhe”), then Mentuhotep of this era must now loom large as a candidate for the Egyptianised Moses. Introduction In 1981 I began a search for Moses in the Egyptian records. The first lesson that I had to learn (and Courville’s two-volume set served as my handy guide in this) was that the history books and the Bible just did not align. Now, after decades of effort on this work of revision, I have been blessed to have encountered - and sometimes to have made - exciting discoveries, including the appropriate (so I think) era for Moses and the Exodus, and the true archaeology for the Israelite (Joshuan) Conquest of Palestine, the MBI people. But Moses himself, the person, had proven to be most elusive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I now think that - and it has taken me only about 34 years to realise it - this Mentuhotep may be Moses staring revisionists right in the face. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my excursions into this era of biblico-history, I have returned to the view - in line with the thinking of professor Immanuel Anati, in his classic, The Mountain of God - that the famous Egyptian “Sinuhe” tale carried a reminiscence of the historical Moses: “I accept that this famous Egyptian tale is based upon a real biblical event. The semi-legendary Sinuhe may at least provide us with the time of the flight of Moses from Egypt to Midian, during the early reign of Sesostris I”. And I as well, in line with my revised Old to Middle Kingdom parallelism, tentatively making contemporaneous: 4th Dynasty 6th Dynasty 12th Dynasty 13th Dynasty have also suggested a possible connection of Sinuhe with the Sixth Dynasty’s Weni. Thus: There is a famous Sixth Dynasty official, Weni (or Uni), who may be the parallel of the Twelfth Dynasty’s Sinuhe as a candidate for the elusive Moses. I have previously written on this: Now, given our alignment of the so-called Egyptian Middle Kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty with the Egyptian Old Kingdom’s Sixth Dynasty (following Dr. Donovan Courville), then the semi-legendary Sinuhe may find his more solidly historical identification in the important Sixth Dynasty official, Weni, or Uni. Like Weni, Sinuhe was highly honoured by pharaoh with the gift of a sarcophagus. We read about it, for instance, in C. Dotson’s extremely useful article (“…. The Cycle of Order and Chaos in The Tale of Sinuhe”): https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/StudiaAntiqua “…. The king gives Sinuhe a sarcophagus of gold and lapis lazuli as a housewarming gift. The gift of a coffin by the king was considered a great honor and a sign of respect. In the Autobiography of Weni from the Old Kingdom, Weni records that the king had given him a white sarcophagus and “never before had the like been done in this Upper Egypt.” …. [End of quote] Naturally, Dr. Courville’s radical proposal that the Egyptian Sixth and Twelfth dynasties were contemporaneous - whereas, according to conventional history some four centuries separate the end of the Sixth (c. 2200 BC) from that of the Twelfth (c. 1800 BC) - has not been well received by non-revisionist historians, such as e.g. professor W. Stiebing who has written: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yf2NWgNhEecC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=co “There is simply no textual support for making the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties contemporaneous, as Courville does”. However, as I have previously noted: …. [Dr.] J. Osgood proposes a possible close relationship between the 6th and 12th dynasty mortuary temples ....: 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. …. [End of quote] That there is in fact some impressive evidence to suggest that: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms [were] far closer in time than conventionally thought (8) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu is apparent from a set of examples that I listed there taken from Nicolas Grimal’s text book, A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell 1994). After recalling some striking similarities between the Sixth Dynasty founder, Teti, and the Twelfth Dynasty founder, Amenemes I, as follows: “…. {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. ….}”, I continued: Grimal notes the likenesses: Pp. 80-81 “[Teti‟s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (“He who pacifies the Two Lands”) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”. “Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. P. 84: “[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (“The devotee of Ra”)”. …. P. 159: [Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”. P. 164: “[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. P. 165: “There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”. P. 171: “Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”. P. 173: “… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”. P. 177: “… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty. …. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s “co-regency” with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”. P. 178: “The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”. Pp. 178-179: “[Ammenemes III’s “black pyramid” and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”. “[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”. “The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”. P. 180: “The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”. P. 181: “A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …”. [End of quotes] Moses as Chief Judge and Vizier “Weni’s famous “Autobiography” has been described as, amongst other superlatives … “… the best-known biographical text of the Old Kingdom and has been widely discussed, as it is important for literary and historical reasons; it is also the longest such document”. Comparing Weni - (and Sinuhe) - with Vizier Mentuhotep About Sinuhe, we learn (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/sinuhe.htm): “I was a henchman who followed his lord, a servant of the Royal harim attending on the hereditary princess, the highly-praised Royal Consort of Sesostris in the pyramid-town of Khnem-esut, the Royal Daughter of Amenemmes in the Pyramid-town of Ka-nofru, even Nofru, the revered”. We have already learned something of the greatness of Mentuhotep. Weni has, for his part, been described as a “genius”. This little excerpt on the “Autobiography of Weni” already tells us a lot about the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_Weni Weni rose through the ranks of the military to become commander in chief of the army. He was considered by both his contemporaries and many Egyptologists to have been a brilliant tactician and possibly even a genius. His victories earned him the privilege of being shown leading the troops into battle, a right usually reserved for pharaohs. Weni is the first person, other than a pharaoh, known to have been portrayed in this manner. Many of his battles were in the Levant and the Sinai. He is said to have pursued a group of Bedouins all the way to Mount Carmel. He battled a Bedouin people known as the sand-dwellers at least five times. Weni’s famous “Autobiography” has been described as, amongst other superlatives: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sgoVryxihuMC&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352 “… the best-known biographical text of the Old Kingdom and has been widely discussed, as it is important for literary and historical reasons; it is also the longest such document”. This marvellous piece of ancient literature, conventionally dated to c. 2330 BC - and even allowing for the revised re-dating of it to a bit more than half a millennium later - completely gives the lie to the old JEDP theory, that writing was not invented until about 1000 BC. Here I take some of the relevant inscriptions of the renowned Vizier, Mentuhotep (http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Ancient_Records_of_Egypt_v1_10000750), and juxtapose them with comparable parts of the “Autobiography” of Weni (in brown) (http://drelhosary.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/weni-elder-and-his-mor) (all emphasis added): INSCRIPTIONS OF MENTUHOTEP …. 531. Hereditary prince, vizier and chief judge The exterior face of the north wall incorporates a large niche, and during excavations here a damaged false door inscribed for Weni the Elder was discovered in situ. Not only does this false door provide a nickname for Weni ("Nefer Nekhet Mery-Ra"--Egyptian nicknames were often longer than birth names!), but it also documents his final career promotion, a fact not recorded in his autobiography: Chief Judge and Vizier. attached to Nekhen, judge attached to Nekhen, prophet of prophet of Mat (goddess of Truth), giver of laws, advancer of offices, confirming … the boundary records, separating a land-owner from his neighbor, pilot of the people, satisfying the whole land, a man of truth before the Two Lands … accustomed … to justice like Thoth, his like in satisfying the Two Lands, hereditary prince in judging the Two Lands …. supreme head in judgment, putting matters in order, wearer of the royal seal, chief treasurer, Mentuhotep. Hereditary prince, count the count … chief of all works of the king, making the offerings of the gods to flourish, setting this land … according to the command of the god. the whole was carried out by my hand, according to the mandate which … my lord had commanded me. …. sending forth two brothers satisfied pleasant to his brothers with the utterances of his mouth, upon whose tongue is the writing of Thoth, I alone was the one who put (it) in writing …. more accurate than the weight, likeness of the balances, fellow of the king in counselling … giving attention to hear words, like a god in his hour, excellent in heart, skilled in his fingers, exercising an office like him who holds it, favorite of the king I was excellent to the heart of his majesty, for I was pleasant to the heart of his majesty before the Two Lands, his beloved among the companions, for his majesty loved me. his majesty appointed me sole companion and superior custodian of the domain of the Pharaoh. powerful among the officials, having an advanced seat to approach the throne of the king, a man of confidences to whom the heart opens. his majesty praised me for the watchfulness and vigilance, which I showed in the place of audience, above his every official, above [his every] noble, above his every servant. 532. Hereditary prince over the … the (royal) castle (wsh't) … finding the speech of the palace, knowing that which is in every body (heart), putting a man into his real place, finding matters in which there is irregularity, giving the lie to him that speaks it, and the truth to him that brings it, giving attention, without an equal, good at listening, profitable in speaking, an official loosening the (difficult) knot, whom the king (lit., god) exalts above millions, as an excellent man, whose name he knew, true likeness of love, free from doing deceit, whose steps the court heeds, when preparing court, when preparing the king’s journey (or) when making stations, I did throughout so that his majesty praised me for it above everything. overthrowing him that rebels against the king, hearing the house of the council of thirty, who puts his terror … among the barbarians (fp^s'tyw), when he has silenced the Sand-dwellers, pacifying the rebels because of their deeds, whose actions prevail in the two regions, lord of the Black Land and the Red Land, giving commands to the South, counting the number of the Northland, His majesty sent me to despatch [this army] five times, in order to traverse the land of the Sand-dwellers at each of their rebellions, with these troops, I did so that [his] majesty praised me [on account of it]. When it was said there were revolters, because of a matter among these barbarians in the land of Gazelle-nose, I crossed over in troop-ships with these troops, and I voyaged to the back of the height of the ridge on the north of the Sand-dwellers. When the army had been [brought] in the highway, I came and smote them all and every revolter among them was slain. His majesty sent me at the head of his army while the counts, while the wearers of the royal seal, while the sole companions of the palace, while the nomarchs and commanders of strongholds belonging to the South and Northland …. in whose brilliance all men move, pilot of the people, giver of food, advancing offices, lord of designs, great in love, associate of the king in the great castle (wsfi't), hereditary prince, count, chief treasurer, Mentuhotep, he says: 533. …'I am a companion beloved of his lord, doing that which pleases his god daily, prince, count, sem priest, master of every wardrobe of Horus, prophet of Anubis of … the hry ydb, Mentuhotep, prince in the seats of … Splendor … at whose voice they (are permitted to) speak in the king's-house, in charge of the silencing of the courtiers, unique one of the king, without his like, who sends up the truth …. One to whom the great come in obeisance at the double gate of the king's-house ; attached to Nekhen, prophet of Mat, pillar … 'before the Red Land, overseer of the western highlands, First of the Westerners …. leader of the magnates of South and North … advocate of the people … merinuter priest, prophet of Horus, master of secret things of the house of sacred writings …. Never before had one like me heard the secret of the royal harem. [Sinuhe, too, was] servant of the Royal harim attending on the hereditary princess …. governor of the (royal) castle, governor of the South prophet of Harkefti, great lord of the royal wardrobe, who approaches the limbs of the king, chamber-attendant …. overseer of the double granary, overseer of the double silver-house, overseer of the double gold-house, master of the king's writings of the (royal) presence, wearer of the royal seal, sole companion, master of secret things of the 'divine words’ (hieroglyphics) …. 534. Here follows a mortuary prayer, after which the concluding lines (22, 23) refer specifically to his building commissions at Abydos …. I conducted the work in the temple, built of stone of Ayan I conducted the work on the sacred barque {nlm * /), I fashioned its colors, offering tables His majesty sent me to Hatnub to bring a huge offering-table …. of lapis lazuli, of bronze, of electrum, and silver; copper was plentiful without end, bronze without limit, collars of real malachite, ornaments (mn-nfr't) of every kind of costly stone. of the choicest of everything, which are given to a god at his processions, by virtue of my office of master of secret things. [End of quotes] I recall (but do not currently have it with me) that professor A. S. Yahuda had, in his Language of the Pentateuch in Its Relation to Egyptian, Vol. 1 (1933), when discussing the Exodus 5:5 encounter between Pharaoh and Moses and Aaron: “Then Pharaoh said, ‘Look, the people of the land are now numerous, and you are stopping them from working’”, referred to the rank of Moses and Aaron (differentiating them from the common people) as something akin to new men. Anyway, that is precisely how Weni is classified in this next piece: http://drelhosary.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/weni-elder-and-his-mortuary.html Everyone who has studied ancient Egyptian history is familiar with the autobiography of Weni the Elder, an enterprising individual who lived during the 6th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2407-2260 BCE). His inscription, excavated in 1860 from his tomb in the low desert at Abydos in southern Egypt, enthusiastically describes his long service under three kings, culminating in his appointment as "True Governor of Upper Egypt." Scholars have hailed it as "the most important historical document from the Old Kingdom" and have used it to illustrate the rise of a class of "new men" in Egyptian politics and society--persons whose upward mobility rested in their abilities, not in noble birth. Early in the season, we excavated a number of inscribed relief fragments from this area, including two pieces that, when joined together, furnished the name "Weni the Elder" and a fragment providing the title "True Governor of Upper Egypt," the highest title recorded in Weni's autobiography. Further evidence emerged supporting this association. The exterior face of the north wall incorporates a large niche, and during excavations here a damaged false door inscribed for Weni the Elder was discovered in situ. Not only does this false door provide a nickname for Weni ("Nefer Nekhet Mery-Ra"--Egyptian nicknames were often longer than birth names!), but it also documents his final career promotion, a fact not recorded in his autobiography: Chief Judge and Vizier. [End of quote] Weni was, just like Mentuhotep, “Chief Judge and Vizier”. Weni was also, as we read above, “commander in chief of the army”. And Mentuhotep was also “Chief of Police”. Was this also the historical Moses, whose Judgeship, whose Rulership, some of the Hebrews chose to reject (Exodus 2:14): ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us?’ If Moses were Weni, then may not Hur be Hurkhuf? “The king praised me. My father made a will for me, (for) I was excellent ......... [one beloved] of his father, praised of his mother, whom all his brothers loved. I gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, I ferried him who had no boat”. Inscription from tomb of Hurkhuf [The following is most tentative] Hurkhuf (var. Herkhuf, Harkhuf) comes across here as like an ancient Job (cf. Job 31:19). The question I now ask, could Hurkhuf have been the biblical Hur, who, with Aaron, held up the arms of a tiring Moses against Amalek at Rephidim (Exodus 10:8-13)? The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands’. So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up—one on one side, one on the other—so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword. In Jewish tradition, Hur is indeed an exemplary character. For example: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7942-hur By: Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn, Joseph Jacobs, Louis Ginzberg …. —1. Biblical Data: Man of Judah, the grandfather of Bezaleel, the chief artificer of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30, xxxviii. 22). According to the fuller genealogy in I Chron. ii. 18-20, he was the first-born son of Ephrath, the second wife of Caleb ben Hezron. Besides Uri, Hur had three other sons, founders of Kirjath-jearim, Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader (I Chron. ii. 50, 51). In I Chron. iv. 4, however, Hur is called the father of Bethlehem. He is first mentioned with Moses and Aaron on the occasion of the battle with Amalek at Rephidim, when he aided Aaron to uphold the hands of Moses (Ex. xvii. 10, 12); he is again mentioned as having, with Aaron, been left in charge of the people while Moses ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 14). According to Josephus ("Ant." iii. 2, § 4), Hur was the husband of Miriam; in the Targum to I Chron. ii. 19, iv. 4, Hur's mother, Ephrath, is identified with Miriam. There is a tendency among modern critics to regard the Hur associated with Moses as another than Hur, grandfather of Bezaleel. E. G. H. M. Sel.—In Rabbinical Literature: Hur was the son of Caleb, and when Moses was about to be taken by God, he appointed his nephew Hur, with Aaron, as leader of the people. While Moses tarried on the mountain, the people came to Aaron and Hur with the request to make them a god in the place of Moses (Ex. xxxii. 1). Then Hur, remembering his lineage and high position, rose up and severely reproved the people for their godless intentions; but they, aroused to anger, fell upon him and slew him. The sight of his lifeless body induced Aaron to comply with the wishes of the people, as he preferred to commit a sin himself rather than see the people burdened with the crime of a second murder (Pirḳe R. El. xliii.; Ex. R. xli. 7; Lev. R. x. 3; Num. R. xv. 21; Tan., ed. Buber, ii. 113; Sanh. 7a; comp. also Ephraem Syrus to Ex. xxxii. 1). As a reward for Hur's martyrdom, his son, Bezaleel, was the builder of the Tabernacle; and one of his descendants was Solomon, who had the Temple built (Ex. R. xlviii. 5; comp. Soṭah 11b). [End of quote] As for Hurkhuf, he was a highly important official in Old Kingdom Egypt, following very much in the mould of Weni. And, did he actually assume the gubernatorial office of Weni when the latter (as Moses) had departed Egypt for Midian? http://www.bookrags.com/history/ancient-egypt-social-class-and-economy/sub14.html#gsc.tab=0 Harkhuf served as Governor of Upper Egypt after Weni. Harkhuf's career is not spelled out in his autobiography in as much detail as Weni gave in his text. Though Harkhuf achieved the rank of Count and Sole Companion, he also functioned as a Lector Priest, Chamberlain, Warden of Nekhen, Mayor of Nekheb, Royal Seal Bearer, and, most importantly, as a Chief of Scouts who led four trading expeditions to Nubia. His autobiography is most informative about the nature of trade relations between Nubia (southern Egypt and the Sudan) and Egypt at the end of Dynasty 6 (circa 2350-2170 B.C.E.). His autobiography also highlights the ambiguity surrounding these expeditions and the difficulty of classifying them as trade expeditions or military maneuvers. …. And again: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Autobiography_of_Harkhuf.html The Autobiography of Harkhuf is a tomb inscription from Ancient Egypt which is significant to Egyptology studies. Harkhuf was a governor of Upper Egypt in the 23rd century BC. His name is sometimes spelled Herkhuf, Horkhuf, or Hirkhuf. All that is known of Harkhuf's life comes from the inscriptions in his tomb at Qubbet el-Hawa on the west bank of the Nile at Aswan, near the First Cataract of the Nile. He was a native of Elephantine. He was appointed governor of the southern part of Upper Egypt and overseer of caravans under the pharaoh Merenre I, third king of the 6th Dynasty. His primary business was trade with Nubia,[1] forging political bonds with local leaders,[2] and preparing the ground for an Egyptian expansion into Nubia. He led at least four major expeditions during his life. On the last expedition, he brought back with him what his correspondence with the young pharaoh Pepi II referred to as a dwarf, apparently a pigmy.[3] He travelled a considerable distance to a land called Iyam, which probably corresponds to the fertile plain that opens out south of modern Khartoum, where the Blue Nile joins the White. However, Jean Yoyotte [4] thought Iyam was located further north in the Libyan Desert. The inscriptions in Harkhuf's tomb reflect changes in the Egyptian world view that were occurring during the Late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period, with the person of the king becoming more human and displaying emotions and interests,[5] while commenting on a person leading a moral life by helping his neighbour: I gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, I ferried him who had no boat.[6] ….

Eypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought

by Damien F. Mackey The following samples are taken entirely from Nicolas Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell 1994. P. 67: “Like his Third Dynasty predecessors, Djoser and Nebka, Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king whom later Egyptian rulers such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legtimize their power”. P. 71: “… texts that describe the Fourth Dynasty kings …. It was … quite logical for the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom and later to link those past rulers represented primarily by their buildings with the greatest tendencies towards immoderation, thus distorting the real situation (Posener 1969a: 13). However, it is difficult to accommodate within this theory the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors”. P. 73 “A Twelfth Dynasty graffito found in the Wadi Hammamat includes Djedefhor and his half-brother Baefre in the succession of Cheops after Chephren”. P. 79 “The attribution of the Maxims to Ptahhotep does not necessarily mean that he was the actual author: the oldest versions date to the Middle Kingdom, and there is no proof that they were originally composed in the Old Kingdom, or, more specifically, at the end of the Fifth Dynasty. The question, moreover, is of no great importance”. Pp. 80-81 {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/ Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}. Grimal notes the likenesses: “[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”. “Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. P. 84: “[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (‘The devotee of Ra’)”. P. 146: “The words of Khety III are in fact simply the transposal into the king’s mouth of the Old Kingdom Maxims”. P. 159: [Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”. P. 164: “[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. P. 165: “There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”. P. 171: “Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”. P. 173: “… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”. P. 177: “… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty”. …. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s ‘co-regency’ with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”. P. 178: “The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”. Pp. 178-179: “[Ammenemes III’s ‘black pyramid’ and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”. “[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”. “The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”. P. 180: “The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”. P. 181: “A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …". Some Striking Visual Evidence Representations of various Old and Middle Kingdom pharaohs show that artistic styles with regard to them had barely changed in more than 600 years of conventional history. Take pharaoh Khufu (Gk: “Cheops”) as a perfect case of one in desperate need of an alter ego. Incredibly, as we read: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm “Although the Great pyramid has such fame, little is actually known about its builder, Khufu. Ironically, only a very small statue of 9 cm has been found depicting this historic ruler. This statue … was not found in Giza near the pyramid, but was found to the south at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, the ancient necropolis”. Obviously there is something seriously missing here: namely a detailed historical record, and extensive monuments, concerning the reign of one of the mightiest pharaohs of Egypt! I have begun to fill out Khufu in various articles. After having confidently connected: (i) the 6th Dynasty founder, Teti, with (ii) the 12th Dynasty founder, Amenemhet I, as (iii) the “new king” of the babyhood of Moses, I hinted: “Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemes [Amenemhat] I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Khufu as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8”. Teti, who is found to have borne a most striking likeness to Khufu, is variously thought to have reigned for from 7 to 33 years. Though N. Grimal, in A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1994), thinks a figure such as the last is impossible, otherwise Teti would have celebrated a Heb-Sed Jubilee. Amenemhet I, however, Teti’s proposed alter ego, did reign long enough apparently to celebrate the Jubilee festival. http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12367 “Inscriptions on the foundation blocks of Amenemhat I's mortuary Temple at Lisht show that the king had already celebrated his royal jubilee, and that year 1 of an unnamed king thought to be his successor Senwosret I had already elapsed”. First Twelfth Dynasty ‘Fold’ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …. it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My suspicion is (and, yes, my revision does require a shortening of the 12th dynasty) that at least some of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet (I-IV), and at least some of the kings Sesostris (I-III), must be duplicates. The same would apply, I suggest, for the double 6th dynasty sequence of Pepi (I and II) and Merenre (I and II). And it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. The latter may also be in need of some enfleshing because, despite his reign of about 33 years (including co-regency) (Grimal) - very close to the figure for Amenemhet I - he has fairly little to show for it in terms of building works, according to Phouka: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn12/03amenemhet2.html There is a good chance that Amenemhet II was already middle aged when he took the throne, so the estimate that he ruled for ten or so years is more likely than that 38 attributed to him by Manetho. Ten years also jives better with his lack of building. Amenemhet did very little building during his reign; not many temples bear his handiwork. [End of quote] Like Amenemhet I, Amenemhet II celebrated a Heb-Sed jubilee (see Dorman, Monuments of Senemut, Ch. 5, p. 133): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=I5QrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=amenemhet+II+heb+sed+jubilee&source=bl&ots=dDHlscAsgq&sig=0fBcmm28KNpP3V_ Though the titulary may vary, the mothers’ names at least were similar, Nofret (Nefret), for I, and Nefru for II. And Amenemhet II looks just like his other proposed alter egos:

Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian

by Damien F. Mackey Herodotus, in The Histories, tells of a skilful physician, Democedes of Croton, a character that I claim to be fictitious and based upon a really attested historical figure, the Egyptian, Udjahorresne[t]: Udjahorresne and Democedes (5) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The latter, who was a mentor in Egypt to Cambyses, appears under different names, all of which, I think, are mergeable the one with the other. Thus: Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne (5) Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Greek writers (whoever they really were) have supposed Greek navy men, such as Polycrates, Lysander, fighting in Greek wars, but also interfering in Egypto-Persian battles. These supposed Greeks – and presumably their Greek wars (at least in part) – were a fiction. With all of this in mind, the name Lysander (Greek: Λύσανδρος) now looms for me as a Greek-ised version of Usan[a]huru, the Assyrian rendering of the Egyptian name, Udjahorresne. Compare the two names: USAN[H]UR[U] AND [L]USAN[D]ER Lysander was supposedly, like Udjahorresne (Usanhuru) really was, a navy admiral. Lysander was named admiral of the Spartan navy in 407 BC. Lysander: The Ambitious Admiral - Spartapedia Udjahorresne … had previously held the office of navy commander. http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/displaced_dynasties_chapter_7_-_udjahorresne_-_statue__tomb.pdf Serving a Great King, Darius …. Great King Darius of Persia replaced the local satrap Tissaphernes with Darius’ younger son, Cyrus. Cyrus was an ambitious prince with a desire to foster closer ties with Sparta that they might one day assist his future claim to the Persian throne. He was thus eager to build a relationship with the incoming admiral [Lysander]. Udjahorresne … identified as a high official under Cambyses and Darius I …. Left something of a bad legacy: … scholars have wrongly maligned him, falsely accusing him of collaborating with the enemy. Lysander was a most unspartanlike Spartiate. Time and again he put him own goals before the common good, used his position for self-benefit, and promoted and celebrated himself in the most unpious fashion. In many ways, he exemplified the human flaws which characterized the unravelling of Lycurgan Sparta and its decline from power. To fill him out completely, as Udjahorresne, Lysander probably needs to be aligned also with the physician, Democedes: Udjahorresne and Democedes (6) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar

by Damien F. Mackey According to the typical conventional estimation of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty: https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/anc-ramses-ii-reading/#:~:text=Ramses%20II%20also%20formed%20alliances,coast%20of%20Egypt's%20Nile%20Delta. …. When Seti I died in 1279 BCE, Ramses II was only about 20 years old. He succeeded his father to the throne and became Pharaoh of Egypt. During his early reign, Ramses II faced many challenges. There were rebellions in Canaan and Libya. The Hittites were also a constant threat, as they continued to try and expand their empire. In order to protect Egypt's borders, Ramses II needed to build up his army. He did this by conscripting soldiers from all over Egypt and training them to be loyal and disciplined soldiers. Ramses II also formed alliances with other countries in the region, such as Babylon and Assyria. …. [End of quote] Checking the standard Assyrian king lists, the beginning of the reign of Ramses II would fall right withing the long reign (32 years) of king Adad-nirari I (1295-1264 BC): https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/564-566-the-assyrian-king-list/ My Assyrian Revision Adad-nirari I in my revision, on the other hand, belongs to the first half of the C8th BC, approximately half a millennium after his conventional placement (above). I explained my radical revision and re-identifying of a relevant set of Assyrian kings as follows in e.g. my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (5) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Marc Van de Mieroop will give one perfect sequence (as I see it) of four Middle Assyrian kings, who, nevertheless, need to be folded into the Neo Assyrian era, where Van de Mieroop has these four kings listed again, but now in the wrong sequence. I refer to his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC. The following I would consider to be a perfect Assyrian sequence of kings (p. 294): Adad-nirari [I] Shalmaneser [I] Tukulti-Ninurta [I] Assur-nadin-apli [I] where Tukulti-Ninurta = Sennacherib and Assur-nadin-apli = Ashurnasirpal = Esarhaddon. This sequence accords perfectly with the neo-Assyrian sequence given in Tobit 1: “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; “Esarhaddon”. But on p. 295, the same four kings will become skewed, as follows: Adad-nirari [II] Tukulti-Ninurta [II] Ashurnasirpal [II] Shalmaneser [III] …. [End of quote] If Ramses II were a ruling contemporary of Adad-nirari (I/II) – [and I don’t believe that he was, though he came close to it] - then he would have begun to reign in the first half of the C8th BC. My Egyptian Revision This is complex. It is spelled out in articles of mine such as: The Complete Ramses II (6) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ramses II and his Time, 1978) had identified Ramses II with Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. In Dr. Velikovsky’s scheme of things, Ramses II was a contemporary of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. The Nahr el-Kalb inscription juxtaposes a statue of Ramses II alongside a statue of Esarhaddon. - Conventional scholars presumably might argue that Ramses II is worn because he (c. 1280 BC, conventional dating) is much older than Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating). - Dr. I. Velikovsky, who made Ramses II a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar (c. 580 BC, conventional dating), would have considered Ramses II as ruling later than Esarhaddon. - I (Damien Mackey) have Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon’s predecessor, Sargon II/Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, for his part, likely scratched out his foe, Ramses II, from the Nahr el-Kalb inscription. This last point, Ramses II’s being contemporaneous with the Assyrian king, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, now needs to be explained. Assyria encountering Egypt In approximately 720 BC (conventional dating) Sargon II, very early in his reign, chased away Egypt’s young turtan (commander), Si’be. Egypt’s Turtan, Si’be This Egyptian military commander has been enormously difficult for scholars (whether they be conventional or revisionist) to identify. Was he: Ramses III; or Psibkhenno (I had liked Dr. Rohl’s attempt here due to its close transliteration); or Shabako; or Shebitku; or the biblical “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4)? Or some, or all, of these? As I had observed in my article: Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni (3) Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Sir Alan Gardiner had looked to identify [the biblical] “So with the Sib’e, turtan of Egypt, who the annals of Sargon state to have set out from Rapihu (Raphia on the Palestinian border) together with Hanno, the King of Gaza, in order to deliver a decisive battle” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, p. 342). That conclusion was also, as we have read, the view of Charles Boutflower. Whilst I, too, have wondered if this might be the correct interpretation, such a view would need to address why one whom the Second Book of Kings had entitled ‘King’, prior to the Fall of Samaria, had become, some half a dozen or so years later, a mere Egyptian official (turtan, general); albeit an important one. Dr. Kenneth Kitchen has confidently held that So is an abbreviated form of Osorkon (IV) of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty (The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: 1100-650 BC, 1972). Revisionist, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, had also thought to locate King So to the period of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty, as one of the pharaohs Shoshenq (or Sosenk) – a good name fit in its abbreviated form (So-senk = So). Others prefer for So pharaoh Tefnakht[e] of the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty. …. [End of quote] As noted here, Si’be, as a military commander, is unlikely to have been a pharaoh. Sargon II will distinguish “Pharaoh (Pir’u) king of Egypt [Musri]”. Actually, all Ramses III; Psibkhenno; Shabako; Shebitku; the biblical “So king of Egypt” will be found to be very close to the mark. For only two Egyptian persons are represented amongst these names: namely (1) Ramses II and (2) his son, Khaemwaset. Thus, as argued in “The Complete Ramses II” article: Ramses II, whose son is Khaemwaset, is Ramses III, whose son is Khaemwaset; Ramses II is Psibkhenno (Psusennes) Ramses; Ramses II is Shabako (Sabacos = Psibkhenno); Ramses II is “King So [Sabacos] of Egypt”. Khaemwaset is Shebitku Khaemwaset. I, reluctant to let go of Dr. Rohl’s linguistic connection of Si’be with Psib-khenno, eventually, however, decided that, whilst the latter was a pharaoh, the former had to be a subordinate. Psibkhenno Ramses was Ramses II, and his turtan, Si’be, was his famous son, the highly talented (Shebitku) Khaemwaset. Sargon II will allude to Shebitku Khaemwaset (now as a sub-pharaoh to his father) in the Tang-I Var inscription. Here Sargon calls him, not Si’be (Sibu), but Shabataka. Dan’el Kahn writes of it in his article, “Was there a Co-regency in the 25th Dynasty?: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/85102-Artikeltext-228805-1-10-20211210.pdf …. According to the inscription, king Shebitku (=Shabatka) extradited Iamani to Sargon. The inscription can be dated quite certainly to 706 BC, not long before the death in battle [sic] of Sargon II. in the summer of 705 BC. …. Thus, the Tang-i Var inscription indicates that Shebitku was already king of Kush in 706 BC. This new date is at least four years earlier than has generally been thought. Frame continued and claimed that this is a "piece of information which will require Egyptologists to revise their current chronology for Egypt's twenty-fifth Dynasty", and added: "This would raise difficulties for the current Egyptian chronology". …. Egypt’s King, Šilkanni Ann E. Killebrew, writing from a conventional point of view in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, tells of the exchange between pharaoh Šilkanni and Sargon II: "With the Assyrian army in the region, Silkanni, the king of Egypt (Osorkon IV), felt compelled to send Sargon twelve magnificent horses as a gift. These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time" (pg 240; also citing Heidorn). Since the Nineteenth Dynasty ruled Kush (Ethiopia) it would not surprise if: “These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time". But it would surprise me if Šilkanni was, as according to the conventional estimate, Osorkon. Despite the admittedly apt name comparison of Šilkanni with Osorkon, I think that the even better fit would be Psibkhenno (Psibkhanni), who is my Ramses II. To match, the names Psibkhanni and Šilkanni one need only swap the letters b and l. The Šilkanni incident would have occurred about 4 years before the Tang-I Var inscription incident when Shebitku had joined his father as a co-ruler of Egypt/ Ethiopia. Conclusion Sargon’s (Sennacherib’s) Egyptian contemporaries were: Ramses II/Shabako (Pi’ru; Šilkanni), and his son Shebitku Khaemwaset (Si’be; Shabataka). The biblical “So King of Egypt” was likewise Ramses II, but at the time of Sargon II’s predecessor, Shalmaneser. Ramses II knew two great Assyrian kings, Shalmaneser and Sargon II/Sennacherib. What of Esarhaddon? He was Chaldean, not Assyrian. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was correct in identifying Ramses II as a contemporary of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean. Previously I concluded that: • Pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’ was a younger contemporary of Shalmaneser; and he was • an older contemporary of Sargon II/Sennacherib. Ramses II was also to be identified as: Ramses III; Psibkhenno (Šilkanni); Shabako; “So king of Egypt” His famous son, Khaemwaset, was all of: Khaemwaset, son of Ramses III; Si’be (turtan); Shebitku Khaemwaset; Shabataka (Tang-i Var) Sargon II/Sennacherib, for his part, was also Tukulti-ninurta (and, as identified elsewhere) Shamsi-Adad (not I of that name). The reign of Ramses II was so long (66-67 years), however, that it - having spanned the latter part of the reign of Shalmaneser and the entire reign of Sargon II/ Sennacherib - still had some approximately three further decades to run after that. Now, according to Tobit 1, whose neo-Assyrian sequence I firmly follow, Sennacherib was succeeded by Esarhaddon, he being the king whose statue appeared alongside that of Ramses II at Nahr el-Kalb. Unlike convention and Dr. Velikovsky, I had Esarhaddon as a younger contemporary of Ramses II. I explained this above: The Nahr el-Kalb inscription juxtaposes a statue of Ramses II alongside a statue of Esarhaddon. - Conventional scholars presumably might argue that Ramses II is worn because he (c. 1280 BC, conventional dating) is much older than Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating). - Dr. I. Velikovsky, who made Ramses II a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar (c. 580 BC, conventional dating), would have considered Ramses II as ruling later than Esarhaddon. - I (Damien Mackey) have Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon’s predecessor, Sargon II/Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, for his part, likely scratched out his foe, Ramses II, from the Nahr el-Kalb inscription. This last point, Ramses II’s being contemporaneous with the Assyrian king, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, now needs to be explained. …. [End of quote] My Esarhaddon is also different in other ways from the conventional and Velikovskian versions of him. For one, I do not believe that Esarhaddon was a biological son of Sennacherib, the Assyrian, but was a Chaldean, thereby commencing a new dynasty. And, secondly, I have identified Esarhaddon (as Ashurbanipal) as Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (6) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis in Ramses II and His Time (1978), that Ramses II was a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar, accords perfectly with my own reconstruction, insofar as I have Ramses II as a contemporary of Esarhaddon, my Nebuchednezzar. Despite my manifold identifications of Ramses II (as given above), I have not followed Dr. Velikovsky, though, in his view that Ramses was the same as pharaoh Necho of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, also a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar. In my article, “The Complete Ramses II”, I had identified Ramses II, instead, as Tirhakah of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, who is also Piankhi. Two more mighty identifications of Ramses II to be added to the list. Nor have I been able to accept Dr. Velikovsky’s ingenious thesis that Nebuchadnezzar was Hattusilis, the Hittite emperor, who famously made a treaty with Ramses II. The Chaldean dynasty consisted only of Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar. The latter, who is also Amēl-Marduk, is referred to in Baruch 1:11, 12: … and pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and for the life of his son Belshazzar, so that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven. The Lord will give us strength and light to our eyes; we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and under the protection of his son Belshazzar, and we shall serve them many days and find favor in their sight. Ramses II was thus a contemporary also of the second Chaldean king, Belshazzar, but only while Belshazzar was yet a prince. King Belshazzar was subsequently succeeded by the Medo-Persian king (Daniel 5:31).

Career of Moses re-writes ancient Egyptian dynasties

by Damien F. Mackey When the Bible is forcedly contoured to the king-lists it just does not fit. Fourth Dynasty What makes the Fourth Dynasty particularly appealing, from a biblical point of view, is that the Fourth Dynasty was a pyramid-building dynasty. Back in antiquity, historians then claimed that slaves built the great pyramids of Egypt, a theory not at all popular today: The pyramids of Giza were not built by slaves - Australian Associated Press (aap.com.au) How the pyramids of Giza were built remains one of Egypt’s biggest mysteries but Macquarie University Egyptologist Dr Karin Sowada told AAP FactCheck, that archaeological evidence shows the pyramids were not built by slaves. That misconception began with the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus and later continued with Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who both claimed that slaves, Hebrew or otherwise, built the pyramids. …. Dr Karin Sowada might need to re-examine that “misconception”. But can the Fourth Dynasty be adequately matched to the life of Moses? Its list of rulers is generally given as follows: 1 Sneferu 2 Khufu 3 Djedefre 4 Khafre 5 Menkaure 6 Shepseskaf Six rulers, of whom several are poorly known. Those who seek to find a biblical match in relationship to ancient dynasties tend uncritically to accept the king lists as they stand, and will then try to force-fit the biblical data. We have seen this approach in the case of the Book of Tobit and the neo-Assyrian king-list. And, again, in the case of the Book of Daniel and the neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) king list. When the Bible is forcedly contoured to the king-lists it just does not fit. But when the king-lists are subjected to the cobalt gaze of biblical scrutiny, we learn that the received history needs to undergo a significant revision. That is because the king-lists generally contain duplicates, sometimes series of duplicates. On this, see e. g. my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Might this pattern also apply to the era of Moses? Might we be looking to fit the Book of Exodus, for instance, alongside an erratic king list? In my article: Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus (DOC) Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I detected what I considered to be several potential duplicates within the Fourth Dynasty’s king-list arrangement. Before discussing that, however, let us consider what dynastic structure we might expect from the biblical data. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born during the reign of an oppressive ‘new king who knew not Joseph’ (1:8). When Moses grew up, he, at forty years of age, fled from a ruler of Egypt to the land of Midian, and sojourned there for another forty years. At the end of that period, Moses was informed that all the men who were seeking his life had died. What is clear from this information, albeit meagre, is that a new dynasty came into being some time prior to the birth of Moses, and that that dynasty had terminated not long prior to his return to Egypt from the land of Midian. Moses was now eighty years of age. This means that, if the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt is the dynasty of Moses’s birth and sojourn in Midian, it must have spanned roughly a century, and then died out before the Plagues and Exodus events occurring under a different dynastic ruler, who had no particular a priori grudge against Moses and Aaron. Conventionally, the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt spanned a little bit more than a century - close to according with the biblical data - estimated at from c. 2615 to c. 2495 BC. These dates will, of course, in a Mosaïc context, need to be lowered by about a millennium. Traditionally, two major kings figure in this part of Moses’ life: namely, 1. the “new king”, whose daughter, “Merris”, saved the baby Moses from the water; and 2. the husband of “Merris”, “Chenephres”. The latter, “Chenephres”, seems to have had the same sort of jealous and inimical attitude towards Moses as King Saul will have towards David. This traditional information (from the Jew, Artapanus) now gives me further confidence that I am on the right track in designating the Fourth Dynasty as that of Moses’s first 80 years. For it provide us with the perfect trio of (a) Cheops (Khufu), now as the initial oppressor-king of Exodus 1:8; his celebrated successor (b) Chephren (Khafre), the husband of (c) Meresankh. The name fits are very good, allowing for Greek transliterations of Egyptian: Chephren becomes the traditional “Chenephres”, husband of Meresankh, who is simply “Merris” with an Ankh, who is said to have saved the baby Moses (as according to Artapanus). It makes sense for Chephren to have been the inimical king from whom Moses fled to Midian. This reconstruction necessitates an alteration to the first part of the king list (1-4): 1 Sneferu 2 Khufu 3 Djedefre 4 Khafre Four kings now needing to become two. While Chephren (Khufu) stands firm here as the second oppressive ruler in the life of Moses, Cheops, however, I would merge with both Snofru and Djedefre, as follows: SNEFERU (SNOFRU) This (somewhat semi-legendary) ruler seems to me to connect well with Cheops in various ways. For instance (the pages are taken from N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt): Great “legendary” reputation – good natured P. 67 .... Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later [?] periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king who later Egyptian rulers … sought to emulate when they were attempting to legitimize their power. P. 70 Cheops ... is portrayed in [Papyrus Westcar] as the traditional legendary oriental monarch, good-natured, and eager to be shown magical things, amiable towards his inferiors and interested in the nature of human existence. Cult figure P. 67 Snofru’s enviable reputation with later rulers, which according to the onomastica was increased by his great popularity with the people, even led to the restoration of Snofru’s mortuary temple at Dahshur. P. 69 ... cult among Middle Kingdom miners in the Sinai. P. 165 There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara. P. 70 Cheops was not remembered as fondly as Snofru, although his funerary cult was still attested in the Saite (Twenty-Sixth) Dynasty and he was increasingly popular in the Roman period. According to Papyrus Westcar, he liked to listen to fantastic stories of the reigns of his predecessors. Meresankh (“Merris”) P. 170 Snofru is also associated with a Meresankh, though she is considered to be his mother. P. 67 [She was] one of Huni’s concubines. There is no definite proof of this .... Meresankh will become something of a golden thread, linking the traditional “Merris” of Moses’ childhood to the 4th Dynasty (Meresankh) …. Like his alter ego Cheops, P. 67 [Snofru’s] reign ... appears to have been both glorious and long-lasting (perhaps as much as forty years). Snofru built ... ships, fortresses, palaces and temples ... Three pyramids. If Snofru were Cheops, as I am arguing, then Snofru’s three pyramids - built perhaps early in his reign - would have been the perfect preparation for his later masterpiece, the Great Pyramid at Giza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu “Under Sneferu [Snofru], there was a major evolution in monumental pyramid structures, which would lead to Khufu's Great Pyramid, which would be seen as the pinnacle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom's majesty and splendour, and as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World”. Less positive picture of the king P. 71 ... it is difficult to accommodate within this theory [building immoderation = unpopularity] the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors. Pp. 69-70 [Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule, and Herodotus’ version of events chose to emphasise his cruelty. Taken from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2120.htm 124. ... Cheops became king over them and brought them to every kind of evil: for he shut up all the temples, and having first kept them from sacrificing there, he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually. Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this, they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground chambers on the hill upon which the pyramids stand, which he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years; and the pyramid is square, each side measuring eight hundred feet, and the height of it is the same. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect manner, not one of the stones being less than thirty feet in length. Moreover: 126. Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me); but she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to her to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length. …. DJEDEFRE “Djedefre …. His personality and his reign are still obscure; it is not even possible to say whether he reigned for only eight years, as the Turin Canon indicates, or a longer period … sixty-three years … suggested by Manetho …”. N. Grimal Here I am taking Cheops’ presumed son, Djedefre, to be Cheops himself. Continuing on with N. Grimal: P. 71 The first [presumed son of Cheops] was Djedefre (Didufri or Radjedef) …. His personality and his reign are still obscure; it is not even possible to say whether he reigned for only eight years, as the Turin Canon indicates, or a longer period (without going as far as the sixty-three years suggested by Manetho). I find it most interesting that Grimal had written almost identically (just before this) re the reign length of Cheops: “It is not even known whether Cheops’ reign lasted for twenty-three years, as the Turin Canon suggests, or sixty-three years, which is the length ascribed to him by Manetho”. A possible sixty-three years of reign each! https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedefre/ “It is also notable that [Djedefre] managed to complete his pyramid at Abu Rawash, which was a sizable monument and so a reign of only eight years is perhaps unlikely”. P. 72 The place of Djedefre in the royal family, particularly his relationship with his half-brother [sic] Chephren who succeeded him on the throne, is unclear. His mother’s name is unknown, but he is thought to have married his half-sister Hetepheres …. Appropriately: p. 67: “… [Snofru] would have married … Hetepheres …”. And (p. 72) “Meresankh”, also appropriately to my reconstruction, “married Chephren …”. Pp. 73-74 The rift between the reigns of Djedefre and Chephren was probably not as great as scholars have often suggested, and there was in fact no real ideological contrast between the two kings: On the contrary, Chephren seems to have pursued the same theological course as his predecessor pursued: he continued to bear the title of ‘son of Ra’ and also developed, in a masterly fashion, the theological statement of Atum’s importance vis-à-vis Ra, which had already been emphasized by Djedefre. Whilst there may be no solid “evidence” to indicate that Djedefre had killed his own brother: https://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Djedefre.html “There are stories about that Djedefre killed his brother and then grabbed the throne. There is no evidence for this theory however. It seems that Prince Kawab died during the reign of his father and was buried in a mastaba in Giza”, Djedefre himself may have been murdered: http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/09/djedefre/ “Djedefre later married. He was later succeeded by his brother Khafre, and one theory is that Khafre killed Djedefre …”. http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/09/djedefre/ I suspect that kings 5-6 of the list are a duplicate set of, respectively, Cheops and Chephren: 5 Menkaure 6 Shepseskaf MENKAURE Menkaure, or Mycerinus may have been, similarly to Cheops, disrespectful to his daughter: https://analog-antiquarian.net/2019/01/11/chapter-1-the-charlatan-and-the-gossip/ Legend had it that Menkaure had a daughter who was very special to him. One version of the tale said that she died of natural causes, whereupon in his grief he had a life-size wooden cow gilt with gold built as a repository for her remains. This, Herodotus claimed, could still be seen in his time in the city of Sais, “placed within the royal palace in a chamber which was greatly adorned; and they offer incense of all kinds before it every day, and each night a lamp burns beside it all through the night. Every year it is carried forth from the chamber, for they say that she asked of her father Mykerinos, when she was dying, that she might look upon the sun once in the year. …. Another, darker version of the tale had it that Menkaure had been rather too enamored of his daughter. She sought refuge from his unwelcome advances with his concubines, but they betrayed her, and her father proceeded to “ravish” her. She hanged herself in the aftermath, whereupon a remorse-stricken Menkaure buried her in the gilt cow and her mother the queen cut off the hands of the concubines who had betrayed her. This explained why, in a chamber near that of the cow in Herodotus’s time, there stood many statues of women with the hands lopped off, “still lying at their feet even down to my time. …. A distinct pattern seems to be emerging and it will become even more evident in later articles. It is that the founding Egyptian ruler, say (Snofru or) Cheops, is duplicated again in the king-list, as, say, Djedefre, but then recurs again yet further on. In this case (c) it will be Menkaure. This same pattern may be discerned (if I am right) in the 4th; 6th; and 12th dynasties. Returning to N. Grimal: P. 74 … Menkaure (‘Stable are the kau of Ra’), or, to take Herodotus’ transcription, Mycerinus. We recall Menkaure’s allegedly shameful treatment of his own daughter, reminiscent of Cheops’ own prostituting of his daughter, at least according to Herodotus. Grimal continues: “Manetho is uncertain about the length of his reign, which was probably eighteen years rather than twenty-eight”. Whilst this reign span may not accord so well with some of our longer-reigning (say forty years) alter egos, it is fascinating, nonetheless, that Phouka http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn04/05menkaure.html also has for Menkaure a Manethonian figure of sixty-three years, a figure that we have already met in the case of two other of our alter egos, Cheops and Djedefre. Whether or not our composite king, (Snofru)-Cheops-Djedefre-Menkaure really reigned for a colossal 63 years (which is most unlikely in an Exodus context, even if he well preceded Moses’s birth), the attribution of the same extensive reign to three names that I have fused together as the one grandiloquent monarch gives me further confidence in my reconstruction. SHEPSESKAF The poorly known Shepseskaf (Shepseskaf - Wikipedia) Shepseskaf's family is uncertain. Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner proposed that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son based on a decree mentioning that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple. This, however, cannot be considered a solid proof of filiation since the decree does not describe the relationship between these two kings. Furthermore, the completion of the tomb of a deceased pharaoh by his successor does not necessarily depend on a direct father/son relation between the two. …. The mother, wives and children of Shepseskaf are unknown. …. Who I think (without much investigation) is probably just a duplicate of Khafre (Kaf-Shepses), does not really affect this reconstruction. Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty dies out while Moses was still in Midian. Its last ruler was actually (so I believe) an un-recorded for (this dynasty) female ruler. Fifth Dynasty Most significantly, four of the known six sun temples of the so-called Fifth Dynasty are – as has been said of evolution’s missing link – “still missing”. If, as posited in my earlier discussion, Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, revised, fits promisingly as being the dynastic period of rule from the approximate childhood of Moses through to his sojourn in Midian, then, chronologically, the Fifth Dynasty, which supposedly followed the Fourth, must coincide with the return to Egypt by Moses; the Plagues; and the Exodus. None of this is at all evident during the Fifth Dynasty, however, which was a phase of intense building and supposed innovations – not one of extreme chaos. Thus, for instance, at: http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/5th-dynasty/index.html we read about this impressive dynasty (we can immediately ignore, though, the inflated dates given here): 5th Dynasty (2465-2323) Compared to the previous dynasties, the 5th Dynasty is fairly well known. All kings noted in the king-lists and by Manetho are attested by archaeological sources. This is largely due to the increased amount of documents from this period. This dynasty has brought some significant changes and innovations to the Egyptian society. First of all, the rising importance of the solar cult, already noted for the 4th Dynasty, came to a climax. Except for the last two of this dynasty, all kings built a so-called solar temple. Two such solar temples have been found and have proven to be quite unique buildings. The first solar temple, at Abusir, to the north of Saqqara, was built by Userkaf and extended by Neferirkare and Niuserre. The only other remaining one, was built by Niuserre at Abu Gorab, north of Abusir. The names of the other solar temples are known, but they have not yet been identified. …. Probably due to a shift in religious views, the building of solar temples came to a sudden stop with the reign of Djedkare. A second innovation only came at the end of the dynasty, with the reign of king Unas, who was the first to have religious texts, known today as Pyramid Texts, inscribed in the burial chamber, antechamber and part of the entrance corridor of his pyramid at Saqqara. It is not impossible that the appearance of these texts is related to the disappearance of the solar temples. …. On an architectural level, we not only note the building of the solar temples, but also a standardisation in the building of pyramid complexes. Most kings built their pyramid complex at Abusir, near the solar temple of Userkaf, who had built his own pyramid at Saqqara. The organisation and number of rooms in the pyramid, the buildings outside the pyramid and the rooms inside these buildings would more and more become part of a canon. We also note that the pyramids are significantly smaller than those of the beginning of the 4th Dynasty. This has often been explained by the more limited resources available to the 5th Dynasty kings. Against this view, it should be observed that most of the 5th Dynasty kings no longer appeared to limit their building efforts to a pyramid complex and that the complexes were often beautifully decorated. The Ancient Egyptian penchant for standardisation may also explain the smaller pyramids. The royal titulary was also extended and would from this dynasty on consist of 5 sets of titles. Although it was first used by 4th Dynasty king Djedefre, the title Son of Re would become an important part of the titulary. It was followed by the king's personal name and links him directly to the solar cult. The older titles, the so-called Horus- and Nebti-names, would still be part of the titulary. From the beginning of this dynasty on, we also note an increase in the number of high officials. Contrary to the 4th Dynasty, high offices were now no longer restricted to members of the royal family. Government and administration were reformed and this resulted in a far more efficient bureaucracy through which the king could control the country. The larger number of dignitaries also resulted in more documentation left to us and this is one of the reasons why we know more of this dynasty then of the previous one. Despite all these changes, the 5th Dynasty may have been closely related to the 4th. The Turin King-list lists the kings of this dynasty immediately after those of the 4th, without marking any change. The founder of this dynasty, Userkaf, is believed to have been a descendant of Kheops, perhaps directly or through marriage. The story noted on the Papyrus Westcar, however, makes Userkaf the brother of his two successors and the son of a priest of Re and a woman named Radjedet. Archaeological sources contradict this view, which has been held for true by many Egyptologists. The story is likely to have been intended to explain the close relationship between the 5th Dynasty and the solar cult. [End of quote] Some things here, though, are just not quite right. Most significantly, four of the known six sun temples of the so-called Fifth Dynasty are – as has been said of evolution’s missing link – “still missing”. I wrote about this sensational fact in my article: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (DOC) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, just as I suspect that evolution’s missing link will forever remain missing, so do I believe the same to be the case with the missing temples of the Fifth Dynasty. That would not be music to the ears of Jeff Burzacott, “The missing sun temples of Abusir”: https://www.nilemagazine.com.au/2015-5-june-archive/2015/6/9/the-missing-sun-temples-of-abu-sir There are some sun temples out there somewhere. Abusir is one of the large cemeteries of the Old Kingdom kings, around 16 kilometres south of the famous Great Pyramids of Giza. Although the history of the Abusir necropolis began in the 2nd Dynasty, it wasn't until King Userkaf, the first ruler of the Fifth Dynasty, chose to build here that the Abusir skyline changed forever. What Userkaf built here wasn't a pyramid; he nestled his final resting place close to the world's first pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. What Userkaf raised at Abusir was something new - a sun temple. The sun temple was a large, squat obelisk, raised on a grand pedestal, and connected with the worship of the setting sun. Each day the sun sank below the western horizon into the Underworld where it faced a dangerous journey before rising triumphantly, reborn at dawn. It was a powerful symbol of cyclical resurrection. The obelisk shape is likely symbolic of the sacred benben stone of Heliopolis, which represented the primeval mound, the first land to rise from the waters of Nun at the dawn of time, and where creation began. This was the centre of the cosmos. For the next 70 years, Abusir was a hive of activity as the pyramids of Userkaf's sons, Sahure (rightmost pyramid) and Neferirkare, (leftmost pyramid), as well as his grandson, Niuserre (centre) raised their own step pyramids and sun temples there. Buried in the Abusir sand are also the barely-started pyramids of Fifth Dynasty pharaohs whose short-lived reigns saw their grand monuments hastily sealed, just a few courses of stone above the desert. Six sun temples are mentioned in inscriptions, although only the ruins of Userkaf's and Niuserre's have been discovered. Hopefully, buried out there somewhere lay four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra's rays once again. [End of quote] Can we get further if we proceed, as was done with Egypt’s famous Fourth Dynasty, by patterning the Fifth Dynasty around the early era of Moses? There may already be clues to this end in the ancient-egypt.org “5th Dynasty …” article above. For example: Its solar cult already apparent in the 4th dynasty; a bunch of missing solar temples – suggesting, to me, a duplication of kings; the geography of Fifth Dynasty buildings, Saqqara, Abusir, complementing the 4th dynasty’s Giza – as if all built in alignment; continuation of pyramid building; royal titulary, “son of Re”, simply a continuation of its use by 4th dynasty’s Djedefre; close relationship between 4th and 5th dynasties. In the case of the Fourth Dynasty, it was a matter of dealing with six king names. These were ultimately reduced to only two. Now, with the Fifth Dynasty, we are confronted with an imposing nine names. 1 Userkef 2 Sahure 3 Neferirkare Kakai 4 Neferefre (Neferkhau) 5 Shepseskare Ini 6 Neuserre Izi 7 Menkhauhor Kaiu 8 Djedkare Isesi 9 Unas That there must be extensive duplications amongst this list, though, suggests itself to me by the fact that only two of the six sun temples have been found. Are we again, therefore, looking at only two kings amongst the multitude of names? My own view is that the two great rulers of the Fourth Dynasty, Cheops and Chephren, built their massive pyramids at Giza, but also smaller ones at Abusir and Saqqara, along with their two sun temples at, respectively, Abu Gorab and Abusir. Neuserre Izi, who built his sun temple at Abu Gorab, would then be the Re-named first king, Cheops-previously-fused-with-Djedefre-Menkaure. Whilst Userkaf, who built his sun temple at Abusir, would then be the Khaf-named second king, Khafre-previously-fused-with-Shepseskaf. Khafre, Shepseskaf, may likewise have been married to a Khamerernebti. Now, as the older Neuserre extended Userkaf’s sun temple, as we read above, so, as we have read before, (the younger) “Shepseskaf continued his predecessor Menkaure’s building works, “... he completed the pyramid of Menkaure ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/shepseskaf/ We also read above that Neferirkare, too, extended Userkaf’s sun temple. Something of a pattern is now beginning to emerge: Cheops-Menkaure (4th dynasty) Neferirkare-Neuserre (5th dynasty) Chephren-Khafre Userkaf And we can probably add these three pairs of similar names: Djedefre (4th dynasty) Djedkare Isesi (= Izi for Neuserre) (5th dynasty) Menkaure Menkauhor (= Neferkhau?) Shepseskaf Shepseskare Ini (= Unas?) That covers all but Sahure, another of those Re-names. Sixth Dynasty Previously I may have lain the foundations for linking Egypt’s mighty pyramid-building Fourth Dynasty with the Sixth Dynasty, and indeed with the Twelfth Dynasty (to be considered later). Linking the 4th, 6th … dynasties? We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui? This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”. “Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to [Moses] and brought him up as her own child. (Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27)”. Earlier, we read a variation of this legend with “King Kheneferis [being the] … father of Maris, Moses' foster mother”. I shall be taking this “Chenephres” (“Kheneferis”) to be pharaoh Chephren (Egyptian Khafra), the son of Khufu, since Chephren had indeed married a Meresankh. “We know of several of Khafre's wives, including Meresankh … and his chief wife, Khameremebty I”. … 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, who would be an excellent 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. 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. Egypt’s ruler would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built 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, we presumably 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, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. 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 find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. [End of quote] In preceding sections it has been shown that Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, that Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty, can be contoured to the life of Moses, from his birth to his exile in Midian. Basically I determined that, despite the multiplicity of royal names, there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs. Now, can the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt likewise be adequately matched to the life of Moses? Its list of rulers is generally given as follows: 1 Teti 2 Userkare 3 Pepi I 4 Merenre I 5 Pepi II 6 Merenere II 7 Netjerkare Siptah (Nitocris) Again as in the case of the Fourth Dynasty, six rulers are listed, of whom several are poorly known. Very little is known about Userkare, for instance, and the ephemeral ruler Merenre II. And the list concludes with, appropriately, the female ruler, Nitoctris. So, immediately, I would be inclined to look for alter egos for the two poorly attested rulers, Userkare and Merenre II. And here we may establish a link. Merenre II follows in a tradition of murdered kings of (Old-Middle) Egypt, including Djedefre, purportedly killed by Khafre (as we have previously noted); Teti; and Amenemes I. Merenre II | ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Merenre II - AskAladdin (ask-aladdin.com) “According to Herodotus, Merenre II was murdered. This Greek historian had recorded a legend where an Egyptian Queen named Nitocris avenged her brother as well as husband's murder by drowning all the murderers in [a] pre-arranged banquet. The name of the brother and husband was allegedly Nemtyemsaf II (Merenre II)”. Merenre II now connects with the composite dynasty founder: Cheops-Djedefre-Menkaure (Fourth); Neferirkare-Neuserre-Menkauhor-Djedkare (Fifth); Teti; Merenre (Sixth) There appears to be a triple series of duplicates in the conventional Sixth Dynasty list, with the proper sequence inverted from numbers 3-6. I would suggest the following re-ordering: Dynastic founder: Teti-Merenre I-II (murdered) Second king: Userkare-Pepi I-II Female ruler: Nitocris. Once again, as with the Fourth Dynasty (and probably the Fifth), “there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs”. The obscure Userkare now becomes an alter ego of Userkaf (Fifth), and of the far more substantial Pepi I-II (Sixth), who is Chephren-Khafre (Fourth). Thus: Chephren-Khafre-Shepseskaf (Fourth); Userkaf-Shepseskare Ini (= Unas?) (Fifth); Userkare-Pepi I-II Twelfth Dynasty “… the Amen-em-hat [I] who was the FOUNDER OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY … makes NO PRETENSION TO ROYAL ORIGIN, and the probability would seem to be that he attained the throne NOT THROUGH ANY CLAIM OF RIGHT, but by his own personal merits”. History of Ancient Egypt Eduard Meyer, the father of the “Sothic” theory mangling, was one (amongst many) who would deny the very existence of Moses and his work. We read this information in the Preface to Martin Buber’s book, Moses (1946): “In the year 1906 Eduard Meyer, a well-known historian, ex¬pressed the view that Moses was not a historical personality. He further remarked”: After all, with the exception of those who accept tradition bag and baggage as historical truth, not one of those who treat [Moses] as a historical reality has hitherto been able to fill him with any kind of content whatever, to depict him as a concrete historical figure, or to produce anything which he could have created or which could be his historical work. …. One could reply to this that, thanks to Berlin School Meyer’s own confusing rearrangement of Egyptian chronology, an artificial ‘Berlin Wall’ has been raised preventing scholars from making the crossing between the text book Egyptology and a genuine biblical history and archaeology. Admittedly Moses - not a native Egyptian, but a Hebrew fully educated in Egyptian wisdom (Acts 7:22): “Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action” - has been most difficult for historians to identify in the Egyptian records. Impossible for conventional historians (thanks to the likes of Eduard Meyer), who will always be searching in the wrong historico-archaeological period, but also difficult for revisionists. According to John D. Keyser (http://www.hope-of-israel.org/dynastyo.html): Some say the Israelites labored in Egypt during the 6th Dynasty; while others claim the dynasty of the oppression was the 19th. Still others proclaim the 18th to be the one -- or the period of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt!” Keyser then concludes: “By turning to the Bible and examining the works of early historians, the dynasty of the oppression becomes very apparent to those who are seeking the TRUTH with an open mind! Keyser’s theory here is sound. However, it turns out to be much more difficult to realise in practice. Concerning “the period of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt”, mentioned here by Keyser, there is at least one very good reason why some have fastened onto it. It is because chariots - seemingly lacking to early Egypt - are thought to have become abundant at the time of the Hyksos conquest (c. 1780 BC, conventional dating). The Pharaoh of the Exodus, we are told, pursued the fleeing Israelites with 600 war chariots (Exodus 14:7): “[Pharaoh] took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them”. That incident would have occurred in 1533 BC according to P. Mauro’s estimate (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) - a date estimate that will ultimately need significant lowering in light of a revised Persian-Greek history. Yet, about two centuries earlier than that, we find Joseph riding in “a chariot” (Genesis 41:43): “[Pharaoh] had [Joseph] ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, ‘Make way!’ Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt”. A plausible explanation for Joseph’s “chariot” can be found at: https://josephandisraelinegypt.wordpress.com/tag/merkabah/ The enigma of chariots in the 3rd dynasty of Egypt is easily explained …. The Bible records that Joseph was given a chariot to travel through Egypt. If Joseph and Imhotep were the same person, this would mean that chariots existed in Egypt as early as the third dynasty. In the third dynasty, only high officials like the pharaoh and his chancellor / sage / vizier were afforded a chariot to travel in. Chariots in the 3rd dynasty were not horse drawn, they were carried by a procession of servants. The Hebrew word ‘merkabah’ in the Bible can be translated as ‘chariot’ or ‘riding seat’. It does not distinguish between a vehicle that is horse drawn or a vehicle that is carried. In Joseph’s time, this word is better translated as ‘Riding Seat’ as there were no horse drawn Chariots with wheels in the third dynasty. …. It is what we might call a palanquin. King Solomon used one (Song of Solomon 3:9): “King Solomon made himself a palanquin [or sedan chair] of the wood of Lebanon”. I presume that when, later, Genesis 50:9, referring to the funeral procession of Jacob, father of Joseph, tells that: “Chariots and horsemen also went up with him. It was a very large company”, we may need still to separate the “chariots” from the “horsemen”. Things would be much more straightforward if we were talking about Mesopotamia for which, by contrast, we have very early evidence of chariots - going back as far as 2500 BC (conventional dating). See e.g.: https://traveltoeat.com/chariots-the-first-wheels-of-war/ Based on the extensive biblical evidence, it should be possible to find abundant traces of Moses both in history and in mythology, for, according to Exodus 11:3: “… the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people”. More sympathetic to Moses and the biblical Patriarchs was the Hellenistic Jewish author, Artapanus (C2nd BC, conventional dating), who claimed in περὶ ʾΙουδαίων (“On the Jews”), some extraordinary innovations and inventions by the Patriarchs and Moses, as described at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/artapanus The purpose of this work was to prove that the foundations of Egyptian culture were laid by Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. When Abraham came to Egypt, he taught the pharaoh (Pharethothes or Pharetones) the science of astrology. Jacob established the Egyptian temples at Athos and Heliopolis. Joseph was appointed viceroy of all Egypt and initiated Egyptian agrarian reforms to ensure that the powerful would not dispossess the weak and the poor of their fields. He was the first to divide the country and demarcate its various boundaries. He turned arid areas into arable land, distributed land among the priests, and also introduced standard measures for which he became popular among the Egyptians (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 9:23). But the one who excelled all was Moses, whom Artapanus identifies with Musaeus, teacher of Orpheus, and with Hermes-Thoth, god of Egyptian writing and culture. The name Hermes was given to Moses by the priests who revered him for his wisdom and paid him divine homage. Moses founded the arts of building, shipping, and weaponry, as well as Egyptian religion and philosophy. He was also the creator of hieroglyphic writing. In addition, he divided the city into 36 wards and assigned to each its god for worship. Moses was the founder of the cult of Apis the Bull and of Ibis. All these accomplishments of Moses aroused the jealousy of King Kheneferis, father of Maris, Moses' foster mother. He tried to kill Moses, but failed. Here, undoubtedly, we have an interesting blend of fantasy and reality. We have previously read that the famous account of baby Moses placed in a basket on the river bank (Exodus 2:2-10) was re-visited later in legends about the mighty Sargon of Akkad, who actually pre-dated Moses by some centuries. At: http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/Content/Detail/7 we read: “The parallel lives of Sargon and Moses are intriguing. Both were born to Semite mothers. Both were placed in reed baskets lined with pitch and set afloat. Both were reared in the homes of non Semites, one Sumerian, the other Egyptian. As young men, both became part of their respective royal courts. Both confronted rulers. And both became mighty leaders over a great nation”. For my explanation of this, see e.g. my article: Did Sargon of Akkad influence the Exodus account of the baby Moses? https://www.academia.edu/35752394/Did_Sargon_of_Akkad_influence_the_Exodus_account_of_the_baby_Moses Background to Birth of Moses About sixty-four (64) years are estimated to have elapsed from the death of Joseph at age 110 (1677 BC) to the birth of Moses (1613 BC): P. Mauro’s dates. That phase of time would probably be sufficient to explain why it is said of the Pharaoh of the Oppression (Exodus 1:8): “Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph”. The great Imhotep (Joseph) – surely this “new” pharaoh ‘knew’ of him! The Hebrew (לֹא-יָדַע) here, translated as “did not know”, can also mean something along the lines of ‘did not take notice of’, which is not surprising if more than half a century had elapsed. Moreover, as we are going to find out from the testimony of Josephus, the crown of Egypt had at this stage passed into ‘a new family’. King Solomon, though, many centuries later, will be scathing in his Book of Wisdom about the Egyptian ingratitude (19:13-17): On the sinners, however, punishments rained down not without violent thunder as early warning; and they suffered what their own crimes had justly deserved since they had shown such bitter hatred to foreigners. Others, indeed, had failed to welcome strangers who came to them, but the Egyptians had enslaved their own guests and benefactors. The sinners, moreover, will certainly be punished for it, since they gave the foreigners a hostile welcome; but the latter, having given a festive reception to people who already shared the same rights as themselves, later overwhelmed them with terrible labours. Hence they were struck with blindness, like the sinners at the gate of the upright, when, yawning darkness all around them, each had to grope his way through his own door. Another possible explanation is that the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 did not know Joseph because he was a foreign, non-native Egyptian, presumably a dynastic founder - likely the first ruler of the Fourth (Old) and the first ruler of the Twelfth (Middle) kingdom[s]. Beginning with the Fourth Dynasty, the “new king” would be none other than Khufu (Cheops), best-known pharaoh because of his Great Pyramid at Giza (Gizeh). Yet, for all this, he is surprisingly, unknown. In fact, we have only one tiny statuette representation of pharaoh Khufu. “Although the Great pyramid has such fame, little is actually known about its builder, Khufu. Ironically, only a very small statue of 9 cm has been found depicting this historic ruler. This statue … was not found in Giza near the pyramid, but was found to the south at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, the ancient necropolis”: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm Thus Khufu, like the seemingly great, yet poorly known, pharaoh Zoser, at the time of Joseph, is crying out for an alter ego. And that we get, quite abundantly, I believe, in the person of Amenemhet [Amenemes] I, the founder of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty, Moses’s dynasty (along with the Fourth; Fifth; and Sixth). John D. Keyser has, with this useful piece of research, arrived at the same conclusion as mine, that Amenemhet I was the Book of Exodus’s “new king” (op. cit.): In the works of Flavius Josephus (1st-century A.D. Jewish historian) we read the following: Now it happened that the Egyptians grew delicate and lazy, as to painstaking; and gave themselves up to other pleasures, and in particular to the love of gain. They also became VERY ILL AFFECTED TOWARDS THE HEBREWS, as touched with envy at their prosperity; for when they saw how the nation of the Israelites flourished, and were become eminent already in plenty of wealth, which they had acquired by their virtue and natural love of labour, they thought their increase was to their own detriment; and having, in length of time, forgotten the benefits they had received from Joseph, PARTICULARLY THE CROWN BEING NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; FOR THEY ENJOINED THEM TO CUT A GREAT NUMBER OF CHANNELS [CANALS] FOR THE RIVER [NILE], 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 OWN 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 themselves to hard labour. And FOUR HUNDRED YEARS [sic] did they spend under these afflictions.... (Antiquities of the Jews, chap. IX, section 1). Within this passage from Josephus lie several CLUES that will help us to determine the dynasty of the oppression of the Israelites. The Change of Rulership Josephus mentions that one of the reasons the Egyptians started to mistreat the Israelites was because “THE CROWN [HAD]...NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY.” Does Egyptian history reveal a time when the crown of Egypt passed into the hands of a totally unrelated family? Indeed it does! In the Leningrad museum lies a papyrus of the 12th DYNASTY, composed during the reign of its FIRST KING AMENEMHET I. The papyrus is in the form of a PROPHECY attributed to the sage Nefer-rehu of the time of King Snefru; and in it an amazing prediction is made: A king shall come from the south, called AMUNY [shortened form of the name Amenemhet], the son of a woman of Nubia, and born in Upper Egypt....He shall receive the White Crown, he shall wear the Red Crown [will become ruler over ALL Egypt]....the people of his time shall rejoice, THE SON OF SOMEONE shall make his name for ever and ever....The Asiatics shall fall before his carnage, and the Libyans shall fall before his flame....There shall be built the ‘WALL OF THE PRINCE [RULER],’ and the Asiatics shall not (again) be suffered to go down into Egypt. Here the NON-ROYAL DESCENT of Amenemhet I. is clearly indicated, for the phrase “son of Someone” was a common way of designating a man of good, though not princely or royal, birth. According to George Rawlinson: “There is NO INDICATION OF ANY RELATIONSHIP between the kings of the twelfth and those of the eleventh dynasty; and it is a conjecture not altogether improbable, that the Amen-em-hat who was the FOUNDER OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY was descended from THE FUNCTIONARY OF THE SAME NAME, who under Mentuhotep II. [of the previous dynasty] executed commissions of importance. At any rate, he makes NO PRETENSION TO ROYAL ORIGIN, and the probability would seem to be that he attained the throne NOT THROUGH ANY CLAIM OF RIGHT, but by his own personal merits. (History of Ancient Egypt. Dodd, Mead and Co., N.Y. 1882, pp.146-147). “His own personal merits” probably included conspiracy: “We have to suppose that at a given moment he CONSPIRED AGAINST HIS ROYAL MASTER [last king of the 11th Dynasty], and perhaps after some years of confusion mounted the throne IN HIS PLACE. A recent discovery lends colour to this hypothesis. A Dyn. XVIII inscription extracted from the third pylon at Karnak names after Nebhepetre and Sankhkare a ‘GOD’S FATHER’ SENWOSRE who from his title can only have been the NON-ROYAL PARENT of Ammenemes I [Greek form of Amenemhet].” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, by Sir Alan Gardiner. Oxford University Press, England. 1961, p.125). The inscriptions on the monuments make it clear that his elevation to the throne of Egypt was no peaceful hereditary succession, but a STRUGGLE for the crown and scepter that continued for some time. He fought his way to the throne, and was accepted as king only because he triumphed over his rivals. After the fight was ended and the towns of Egypt subdued, the new pharaoh began to extend the borders of Egypt. The fact that the 12th Dynasty was a “maverick” dynasty -- one that did not conform to the royal blood line of the pharaohs -- was well known in the 18th Dynasty. According to information provided by the family pedigrees in several tombs of the 18th Dynasty, and by texts engraved or painted on certain objects of a sepulchral nature, the ANCESTOR of the royal family of this dynasty was worshiped in the person of the old Pharaoh MENTUHOTEP OF THE 11th DYNASTY, the 57th king of the great Table of Abydos. The royal family of the 18th Dynasty considered the dynasty of Amenemhet I. to be an aberration! According to Henry Brugsch: “The transmission of the PURE BLOOD of Mentuhotep to the king Amosis (Aahmes) of the EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY was made by the hereditary princess Aahmes-Nofertari (‘the beautiful consort of Aahmes’), who married the said king, and whose issue was regarded as the LEGITIMATE RACE of the Pharaohs of the house of Mentuhotep.” (A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs. Second edition. John Murray, London. 1881, p. 314). Thus, with the ascension of Amenemhet I. of the 12th Dynasty, the crown had “NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY”. …. The implications of this choice for the “new king”, though, would likely mean that Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty needs to be shortened, as I have long realised. The possibility of any such radical shortening of the Twelfth Dynasty - along the lines of what I have already done for the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth - will be seriously considered as we proceed. I have mentioned Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty, and shall return to him soon, but I find a more ready and striking alter ego for Amenemhet I in the founder of the Sixth Dynasty, Teti. As I have written previously: Starting at the beginning of the 6th dynasty, with pharaoh Teti, we have found that he has such striking likenesses to the founder of the 12th dynasty, Amenemhet (Amenemes) I, that I have had no hesitation in identifying ‘them’ as one. Thus I wrote in my “Bible Bending” article: Pharaoh Teti Reflects Amenemes I …. These characters may have, it seems, been dupli/triplicated due to the messy arrangement of conventional Egyptian history. Further most likely 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 pharaoh Teti - and the fact that they would have him (c. 2300 BC) well pre-dating the early 12th dynasty (c. 1990 BC) - historians have noted that pharaoh 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 similarly through assassination. This triplicity appears to me to be another link between the ‘Old’ and ‘Middle’ kingdoms!” But Amenemhet I combined with Teti - shaping up remarkably well as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - may need further yet to include the alter ego of the Fourth Dynasty’s Khufu. Though, as noted earlier, “we have only one tiny statuette representation of pharaoh Khufu”, that one depiction of him finds a virtual ‘identical twin’ in a statue of Teti I have viewed on the Internet (presuming that this statue has rightly been labelled as Teti’s). Linking the 4th, 6th and 12th dynasties? We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui? This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”. “Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to [Moses] and brought him up as her own child. (Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27)”. Earlier, we read a variation of this legend with “King Kheneferis [being the] … father of Maris, Moses' foster mother”. I shall be taking this “Chenephres” (“Kheneferis”) to be pharaoh Chephren (Egyptian Khafra), the son of Khufu, since Chephren had indeed married a Meresankh. “We know of several of Khafre's wives, including Meresankh … and his chief wife, Khameremebty I”. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khafre.htm Apart from neo-Assyrian literature picking up the biblical story of Moses and re-applying it, restrospectively, to Sargon of Akkad, the story would also become enshrined in later Greco-Roman accounts of Egyptian myth. Although, as we have found, the ancient gods tend to have originated from major antediluvian characters - and this may also apply to the Egyptian gods, Seth, Osiris, Isis and Horus - Greco-Roman authors were wont to tell variant tales of them. This is not the way “modern biblical scholarship” would explain it, however - as is apparent from the following article by Gary Rendsburg, according to which the Book of Exodus ‘borrowed’ from the pagan myths: http://forward.com/articles/9812/the-subversion-of-myth/ A major finding of modern biblical scholarship is the extent to which the narrative in the book of Exodus is informed by the ancient Israelites’ knowledge of Egyptian culture, religion and literature. The birth story of Moses in Exodus 2:1-10 provides an excellent illustration of both the extent of and the transformation involved in such borrowing. One of the core myths of ancient Egypt concerned the gods Seth, Osiris, Isis and Horus. Seth and Osiris were brother deities, the former representing evil and chaos, the latter representing good and fertility. The battle between the two resulted in the death of Osiris, but before he died Osiris had impregnated his wife, Isis, goddess of wisdom and beauty. Isis in turn gave birth to Horus, the falcon-headed god of kingship. When Seth learned that his brother Osiris’s offspring had been born, he sought to kill the baby Horus. Isis prepared a basket of reeds to hide him in the marshland of the Nile Delta, where she suckled him and protected him, along with the watchful eye of her sister, Nephthys, from the snakes, scorpions and other dangerous creatures until he grew and prospered. Scholars have noted that the birth story of Moses is part of a larger motif of ancient literature, namely the exposed-infant motif. The ancients delighted in telling tales of their heroic leaders who at birth were exposed to nature, usually by their parents who, for one reason or another, did not desire their newborn sons. Among the most famous accounts are the stories of Oedipus from Greece and Romulus and Remus from Rome, along with the less well known but equally important story of Sargon of Akkad (in ancient Mesopotamia). There is a difference, however, between the Moses story and the other exposed-infancy narratives, for in Exodus, chapter two, the goal of Moses’ mother is not to be rid of the child but to save him. This occurs elsewhere in ancient literature only in the story of the baby Horus, whose mother, Isis, sought to protect him from his wicked uncle, Seth. The Hebrew and Egyptian stories share this crucial feature, which is lacking in the other parallels, and therefore beckon us to read the former in the light of the latter. The list of specific features shared by the two accounts is truly remarkable. In both stories, it is the mother who is the active parent (in the Egyptian version, Osiris is dead; in the Hebrew account, Moses’ father is mentioned in passing in Exodus 2:1, after which the role of the mother is highlighted). Both mothers construct a small vessel of reeds and place the baby in the marshland of the Delta. In both accounts, another female relative watches over the baby (Nephthys in the Horus story; Miriam in the biblical account). Significantly, in both stories the mother’s suckling of the child is emphasized: Isis’s nursing of the baby Horus is a prominent feature of Egyptian artwork, with many statues portraying this action; while in the biblical story, Miriam arranges for Moses’ mother to nurse the child. Most importantly, in both stories the baby is hidden and protected from the wicked machinations of the villain. The fact, noted briefly above, that Horus is the god of kingship is of critical importance. It means that every pharaoh was considered the living embodiment of Horus. …. Thus, if Moses is the baby in the bulrushes in the biblical account, he has become, as it were, Horus, and thus the equivalent of the pharaoh. And if the pharaoh of the biblical account is the one who commands that Hebrew baby boys be drowned in the Nile, and who by extension seeks the death of the baby Moses, then he has been transformed into the wicked Seth. The biblical author, in short, subverts the foundational myth of ancient Egypt by portraying Moses as the good Horus and by converting the pharaoh into the wicked Seth. Such subversions are typical of the manner in which a weaker people (in our case, ancient Israel) gains power, as it were, over the stronger nation (in our case, ancient Egypt). The story of Moses’ birth implies that not only did the author of our text possess a thorough knowledge of ancient Egyptian culture, religion and literature, but that his audience, or at least a significant portion thereof, did, as well. One can imagine the ancient Israelite reader, conversant with all matters Egyptian, delighting in such a tale portraying Moses, and not Horus or the pharaoh, as the hero, and depicting the pharaoh not as the good force but as the evil force identified with Seth. [End of quote] But, continuing our merging of kingdoms and dynasties, this family relationship may again be duplicated (though in garbled form) in that the Sixth Dynasty ruler, Piops I, had a daughter also called Ankhenesmerire, whom his son Merenre married. It probably should be the other way around, that Teti (who was Cheops-Amenemes I) had a daughter also called Ankhenesmerire, whom his son Piops-Userkare married. 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, who would be an excellent 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. Thus Josephus: ... 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. 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, despite his being powerful enough to have built 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, we presumably 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, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. 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 find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early era of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemhet I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The reign of Amenemhet 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. Amenemhet 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”, that he was “thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country’s history”. Amenemhet I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt. I have thought to connect him to pharaoh Khufu via the nobleman from Abydos, Khui. “The Prophecy of Neferti”, relating to the time of Amenemhet 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): “‘Look’, [pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us’.” That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from this information from the Cambridge Ancient History: “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 ...”. Dr David 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”. 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: 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, these ‘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”, Dr. Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus. 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. Amenemhet I was represented in “The Prophecy of Neferti” - as with the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - as being the one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the capital 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. “... 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). John Keyser, again, has written very interestingly, in a compatibly revised context, of the oppressive pharaonic labour demands upon the Israelite slaves, he now incorporating pharaoh Amenemhet III into the mix. Thus Keyser has written (op. cit.): Josephus’ description of the type of labor the Israelites were forced to endure under the new pharaoh is REMARKABLY SIMILAR to the observations of DIODORUS SICULUS, the first-century B.C. Greek historian: Moeris ... dug a lake of remarkable usefulness, though at a cost of INCREDIBLE TOIL. Its circumference, they say, is 3,600 stades, its depth at most points fifty fathoms. Who, then, on estimating the greatness of the construction, would not reasonably ask HOW MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN MUST HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED [?], AND HOW MANY YEARS THEY TOOK TO FINISH THEIR WORK? No one can adequately commend the king’s design, which brings such usefulness and advantage to all the dwellers in Egypt. Since the Nile kept NO DEFINITE BOUNDS in its rising, and the fruitfulness of the country depended upon the river’s regularity, THE KING DUG THE LAKE TO ACCOMMODATE THE SUPERFLUOUS WATER, SO THAT THE RIVER SHOULD NEITHER, WITH ITS STRONG CURRENT, FLOOD THE LAND UNSEASONABLY AND FORM SWAMPS AND FENS, nor, by rising less than was advantageous, damage the crops by lack of water. BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE LAKE HE CONSTRUCTED A CANAL 80 STADES IN LENGTH AND 300 FEET IN BREADTH. Through this canal, at times he admitted the water of the river, at other times he excluded it, thus providing the farmers with water at fitting times by opening the inlet and again closing it scientifically and at great expense. — The Pyramids of Egypt, by I.E.S. Edwards. Viking Press, London. 1986, pp. 234-235. These engineering marvels are noted by author J. P. Lepre: “Amenemhat III is also credited with the mighty engineering feat of constructing the irrigation canal now known as the Bahr Yusif, and of using this canal to REGULATE THE FLOW OF WATER FROM THE NILE to Lake Fayum during the flood season. This water was held there by sluices, and later let out again, at will, back to the section of the Nile from Assyout down to the Mediterranean Sea, REGULATING THE HEIGHT OF THE RIVER in that area during the dry season. This irrigation system was the PROTOTYPE for the modern High Aswan Dam.” Although Amenemhat III was involved in several great engineering works, the Bahr Yusif endeavor is of special note. For here, two 20-mile long dykes -- one straight and the other semicircular -- were constructed so as to aid in the ADJUSTMENT OF THE WATER LEVEL through the use of sluices, and to reclaim 20,000 acres of farmland by enriching the soil." (The Egyptian Pyramids. McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, N.C. 1990, pp. 217-218). Obviously, both Josephus and Diodorus Siculus are talking about THE SAME construction project carried out during the reign of AMENEMHET III. OF THE 12TH DYNASTY! …. Historians in pursuit of the Era of Oppression of the Israelites have spent much time and consideration pondering the crucial geographical information as provided in Exodus 1:11: “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh”. Lacking here, but no doubt crucial, is the extra piece of information supplied by the Septuagint version of this verse, that the Israelites also built On (Heliopolis): “And he set over them task-masters, who should afflict them in their works; and they built strong cities for Pharao, both Pitho, and Ramesses, and On, which is Heliopolis”. Let us follow John Keyser further as he considers, in a sensibly revised Twelfth Dynasty context, now (“The Strong City of Ramesses”), and now (“The City of the Sun!”), Heliopolis - however, I would not necessarily adhere to his view that the city of Ramesses was so named before Rameses II ‘the Great’, as later biblical editors were quite able to (as Moses certainly did with the older patriarchal toledôt) update geographical names: The Strong City of Ramesses If we go now to the book of Exodus in the Bible, we can uncover some more clues to help us pinpoint the dynasty of the oppression: And there rose up another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph....And he set over them [the Israelites] taskmasters, who should afflict them in their works; and THEY BUILT STRONG CITIES FOR PHARAO, BOTH PITHO [PITHOM], AND RAMESSES, AND ON, WHICH IS HELIOPOLIS....And the Egyptians tyrannised over the children of Israel by force. And they embittered their life by hard labours, IN THE CLAY AND IN BRICK-MAKING, and all the works in the plains, according to all the works, wherein they caused them to serve with violence. -- Exodus 1:8, 11, 13. Septuagint”. If we can determine when the cities of Ramesses, Pithom and On were built, we can place the Israelite slaves in the right dynasty! Because one of these cities was named “Ramesses,” many scholars believe it was named after Ramesses the Great of the 19th Dynasty, and was therefore constructed during this time -- but is this true? Notice the following: LONG BEFORE RAMESSES THE GREAT WAS BORN, THERE WERE SEVERAL KINGS, NOT KNOWN BY MODERN HISTORIANS, WITH SOME FORM OF THE NAME RAMESSES. The record of these kings of the delta, foolishly rejected by ALL historians today, is the KEY to this enigma in the Bible. The names are preserved by Syncellus in the Book of Sothis. A list of them may be found in Waddell’s Manetho, page 235...Among these rulers is a Ramesses WHO LIVED IN THE DAYS OF JOSEPH and the fourth dynasty. Many historians have been puzzled by the fact that the name of Ramesses should appear on so many of the building blocks that went into the early buildings of the THIRD AND FOURTH DYNASTIES. Their mistaken explanation is that the later Ramesses had his servants take the time out to carve his name on ALL these stones. It NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM that there might actually have been a Rameses who assisted in the erection of these fabulous monuments of a by-gone era. -- Compendium of World History, by Herman L. Hoeh. Vol.I. Ambassador College, Pasadena, CA. 1963, pp. 94-95”. There is another reason why the Israelites cannot have built the city of Ramesses during the reign of Ramesses the Great. The earliest reference to Israel outside of the Bible is on the famous MERNEPTAH STELE. Merneptah was the successor of Ramesses II (“the Great”). Notice what Hans Goedicke, chairman of the department of Near Eastern Studies at John Hopkins University, has to say: Merneptah’s famous stele records his military achievements to the fifth year of his reign. By that time, ISRAEL HAD SUCH SIGNIFICANCE AS A PEOPLE that it is listed among these achievements: “ Israel’s seed is not,” Pharaoh Merneptah boasted, with obvious exaggeration. The people of Israel was plainly a POLITICAL PROBLEM for Merneptah. This could hardly have been the case if the people who became Israel had SO RECENTLY become a “people” after the Exodus. Are we to believe that within 75 years at most, the Exodus group became A POLITICAL AND MILITARY POWER of the magnitude reflected in the Merneptah stele, especially after a 40-year desert sojourn? -- BAR, September/October 1981. The answer is, obviously, NO! In 1966, an Austrian archaeological team, headed by Dr. Manfred Bietak, began long-term excavations four miles north of the delta town of Faqus -- at a site called Tell el-Dab’a. Bietak was aware that this site had an earlier name, Tell el-Birka -- “the mound of the LAKE.” Old maps revealed that this lake was at one time joined to the old Pelusiac branch of the Nile by an artificial waterway that anciently encircled the whole area. When aerial photography revealed the ancient bed of the Pelusaic branch of the Nile, Bietak was convinced he had found the SITE OF RAMESSES. During the 1979-80 excavation season, Bietak realized that the city had been built DURING THE 12TH DYNASTY BY AMENEMHET I. -- WITH ADDITIONS AND/OR REBUILDING BY SENWOSRET III. OF THE SAME DYNASTY! Some FIVE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE TIME OF RAMESSES II. this had been a CAREFULLY LAID OUT CITY of some importance during the time of Egypt’s MIDDLE KINGDOM, a century or so PRIOR to Egypt’s takeover by the Hyksos. Readily discernible were the foundations of an imposing 450-foot-long palace, with a huge court lined by columns, that had probably served as a ROYAL SUMMER RESIDENCE....Records show that order [in Egypt] was re-established by STRONG GOVERNMENT on the part of the kings of Egypt’s MIDDLE KINGDOM, and IT IS TO THESE THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED THE COLUMNED PALACE west of the Tell el-Dab’a mound, as well as a variety of OTHER BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS that seem to have surrounded the Birka lake. One of these, a TEMPLE OF THE EGYPTIAN KING AMENEMHET I., was found to contain a tablet specifically referring to the ‘TEMPLE OF AMENEMHET in [at] the water of the town’ -- independent corroboration of the town’s abundance of water.... But what is also quite obvious from Dr. Bietak’s findings is that not only was this site the TRUE BIBLICAL RAMESSES, it quite evidently had a history MUCH EARLIER than the time of Ramesses II. as well, and was in fact none other than the HYKSOS CAPITAL, AVARIS, referred to in Manetho’s History. -- The Exodus Enigma, by Ian Wilson. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 1985, pp. 48, 49 & 52. The City of the Sun! Let’s look at another city mentioned in the Septuagint version of the Bible -- On, or Heliopolis. Although the city of On wasn’t originally settled during the Middle Kingdom, it was, however, REBUILT ON A MASSIVE SCALE by a pharaoh of the 12th DYNASTY! We read about this in Henry Brugsch-Bey’s book, A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs: ...a remarkable document on parchment, which I had the good fortune to acquire at Thebes in 1858, and which for some years past has been in the possession of the Berlin collection of Egyptian antiquities, make the fact certain, that USURTASEN I. [Sesostris I of the 12th Dynasty], at the very beginning of his reign, occupied himself with BUILDINGS AT THE TEMPLE OF THE CITY OF THE SUN [ON, HELIOPOLIS]. This important material informs us how, in the third year of his reign, he assembled round his throne the first officials of his court, to hear their opinion and their counsel as to his intention of RAISING WORTHY BUILDINGS TO THE SUN-GOD. As usual in such assemblies, the king begins his address with a solemn reference to his divine descent.... From this he proceeds to a discourse on the importance of the buildings and monuments dedicated to the deities, starting from the idea that such alone are able to immortalize the memory of a ruler. After the address, the assembled counsellors UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE the good intentions of their lord, and encourage him to carry out the same without delay. THE PHARAOH IMMEDIATELY GIVES HIS COMMAND TO THE PROPER COURT OFFICIAL, ENJOINS HIM TO WATCH OVER THE UNINTERRUPTED PROGRESS OF THE WORK WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED UPON, and then begins the solemn ceremony of LAYING THE FOUNDATION-STONE by the king himself. -- Pp.151-152. The result of this ceremony was a work that can still be seen today! Not far from Cairo, in the neighborhood of the village of Matarich, a huge obelisk made out of the hardest and most beautiful rose granite points skyward, commemorating the work of the Israelites as they slaved under this pharaoh to re-build the “City of the Sun.” Usurtasen [Sesostris] erected a massive BRICK-BUILT double wall around the main temple at Heliopolis, which also surrounded the area of present-day Tell Hisn. The area this wall enclosed has been estimated to measure some 1,100 by 475 meters, or 1,203.4 by 519.7 yards! (Atlas of Ancient Egypt, by Baines and Malek, p. 173). Apart from the Era of Moses involving the Fourth, Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian dynasties, we also need to add the Thirteenth, based on some known correspondences of its officials with the Twelfth Dynasty. Dr. Donovan Courville has provided these useful, when writing of the Turin list which gives the names of the Thirteenth Dynasty officials (“On the Survival of Veliovsky’s Thesis in ‘Ages in Chaos”, pp. 67-68): The thirteenth name [Turin list] (Ran-sen-eb) was a known courtier in the time of Sesostris III …”. “The fourteenth name (Autuabra) was found inside a jar sealed with the seal of Amenemhat III …. How could this be, except with this Autuabra … becoming a contemporary of Amenemhat III? The explanations employed to evade such contemporaneity are pitiful compared with the obvious acceptance of the matter”. “The sixteenth name (RaSo-khemkhutaui) leaves a long list of named slaves, some Semitic-male, some Semitic-female. One of these has the name Shiphra, the same name as the mid-wife who served at the time of Moses’ birth …. [Exodus 1:15]. RaSo-khemkhutaui … lived at the time of Amenemhat III. …. This Amenemhet III, as we pick up from reading about him in N. Grimal’s book (op. cit.), 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). The grim-faced depictions of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet III and Sesostris III, have been commented upon by conventional and revisionist scholars alike. Cambridge Ancient History has noted with regard to the former …: “The numerous portraits of [Amenemhet] 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 - and rightly so - represent the cruel taskmasters who forced the Israelites to build using bricks mixed with straw (Exodus 5:7, 8). In fact, this very combination of materials can clearly be seen for example in Amenemhet III’s Dahshur pyramid. Amenemhet III, according to Grimal …: … was respected and honoured from Kerma to Byblos and during his reign numerous eastern workers, from peasants to soldiers and craftsmen came to Egypt. This influx 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 [Amenemhet] 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 …: In the Sinai region the exploitation of the turquoise and copper mines reached unprecedented heights: between the ninth and forty-fifth years of [Amenemhet 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 …. Amenemhet III was, it seems, a complete dictator … (my emphasis): The economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works that make the reign of [Amenemhet] 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. …. From the birth of Moses to the Exodus 80 years later, the Twelfth Dynasty rulers sorely oppressed Israel, beginning with an infanticide that Herod in Israel would later emulate. King Solomon tells - in what ought to be a wake-up call for our own times - how Egypt paid for this pharaonic “decree of infanticide” (Wisdom 11:5-16, emphasis added): Thus, what had served to punish their enemies became a benefit for them in their difficulties. Whereas their enemies had only the ever-flowing source of a river fouled with mingled blood and mud, to punish them for their decree of infanticide, you gave your people, against all hope, water in abundance, once you had shown by the thirst that they were experiencing how severely you were punishing their enemies. From their own ordeals, which were only loving correction, they realised how an angry sentence was tormenting the godless; for you had tested your own as a father admonishes, but the others you had punished as a pitiless king condemns, and, whether far or near, they were equally afflicted. For a double sorrow seized on them, and a groaning at the memory of the past; when they learned that the punishments they were receiving were beneficial to the others, they realised it was the Lord, while for the man whom long before they had exposed and later mockingly rebuffed, they felt only admiration when all was done, having suffered a thirst so different from that of the upright. For their foolish and wicked notions which led them astray into worshipping mindless reptiles and contemptible beetles, you sent a horde of mindless animals to punish them and to teach them that the agent of sin is the agent of punishment”. Adopted into the royal household of the mighty and prosperous Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, the Hebrew Moses would grow up to be a great man in the land of Egypt.