Monday, November 4, 2013

El Amarna in Chaos



by
Damien F. Mackey


The good news is that I have retained intact all of the early 18th dynastic sequence with its revised biblical correlations. Namely:

Ahmose (biblical Ahimaaz)
Amenhotep I (biblical King Saul)
Thutmose I (biblical King David)
Thutmose II – {Senenmut} (biblical King Solomon)
Hatshepsut (biblical ‘Queen of Sheba’)
Thutmose III (biblical ‘King Shishak’)
Amenhotep II ….

At this stage, though, I introduce a bit of a fold, with, instead of Thutmose IV coming next, after Amenhotep II, I make Thutmose III and IV (both ‘Menkheperure’) the same person, and IV’s son who pre-deceased him, ‘Aakheperure’, the same as Amenhotep II ‘Aakheperure’.
This means that Amenhotep III ‘the Magnificent’ actually rises to power right after the long reign of Thutmose III.

Now here come the bombshells.

Bombshell One. Amenhotep III is King Asa of Judah, both of approximately 40 years of reign. He comes to the throne of Judah about (and I am following P. Mauro’s biblical chronology here) 15 years after the ‘Shishak’ incident, hence in Year 38 of Thutmose III. In the latter’s Year 43, approximately, which is Year 5 of Amenhotep III (Asa), Pharaoh Thutmose III, whose personally-led Palestinian campaigns had ceased a few years earlier (presumably due to his age), sent his Nubian commander, the biblical “Zerah the Ethiopian”, with a massive army of a million men and 300 chariots, Ethiopians and Libyans, to crush Judah. This was likely the largest army until then ever assembled. King Asa turned to God for help and defeated the enemy host. This was virtually the only major war waged by Asa in his guise as Amenhotep III. He records it on various stelae and he names his ‘vile Kushite’ foe, Ikheny.
Amenhotep III took a massive 30,000 prisoners.
In previous articles I had identified this “Zerah” with Amenhotep II’s Nubian commander (or commander of Nubia), User-tatet; the biblical name “Zerah” having been derived from the name element, User (or Uzer). I think that that identification can still stand, even though I now suspect that Amenhotep II himself was no longer alive (otherwise this warlike man would have led the army himself). I would also suggest in this context that Ikheny was the native name of User-tatet.
Thanks to this massive victory for Judah, King Asa became extremely rich, famous and mighty, just like Amenhotep III, a new King Solomon. And, as Thutmose III’s reign faded out, and with no heirs left to him, Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’ was able to rule Egypt for about three decades.

Bombshell Two. Amenhotep III married the formidable Queen, Tiy. Nicknames were common at this time, and Tiy is one such, or simply an abbreviation, Egyptologists say, equivalent to the ending of the name Neferti-ti. Well, Tiy, who fades out right at the very time of Akhnaton’s reign as does Nefertiti, around Year 16, is Nefertiti, I now suggest. Tiy’s apparent marriage to Akhnaton, her presumed son, of which Velikovsky had made so much (and justifiably so in his context), is nothing other than Akhnaton’s marriage to Nefertiti.

Bombshell Three. Since it was King Asa who was struck with a disease in his feet (and this is when he turned away from his full dependence on Yawheh), he, and not Akhnaton, may then perhaps be considered for Oedipus (‘swollen feet’). El Amarna's Tushratta (my Ben-Hadad I) is thought to have sent Amenhotep III a statue of Ishtar from Nineveh, in the vain hope of curing him. That is probably what the Bible refers to as ‘physicians’, in relation to Asa, that is, magicians or witchdoctors.

Bombshell Four. There is no need for my previous shunting of Queen Jezebel/Queen Nefertiti, from (i) Ahab of Israel, to (ii) Amenhotep III, and then on to (iii) Akhnaton. For Ahab was Akhnaton. Nefertiti (Tiy) had firstly married Amenhotep III (Asa), and, after he had died, or had lost interest, she had passed on (as apparently was her wont) to Akhnaton (= Ahab - as his wife, Jezebel).

{Nefertiti is almost certainly, too, the legendary Queen Semiramis of that same era, who was said to have ruled both Egypt and Babylon – so this incredible woman must have either found time also to have married an Assyro-Babylonian royal, or, perhaps more likely, one of her husbands already mentioned was also ruling Babylon}.

The Great Edict of Horemheb

 
[According to the AMAIC, Horemheb was the founder of the 19th Dynasty Ramessides]
 
 
His majesty took counsel with his heart [how he might] .... [exp]el evil and suppress lying. The plans of his majesty were an excellent refuge, repelling violence behind ...... [and delivering the Egyptians from the oppressions] which were among them. Behold, his majesty spent the whole time seeking the welfare of Egypt and searching out instances [of oppression in the land]. .... [came the scribe] of his majesty. Then he seized palette and roll; he put it into writing according to all that his majesty, the king himself said. He spoke as follows: "[My majesty] commands ... [concerning all] instances of oppression in the land.
 
If the poor man made for himself a craft with its sail, in order to be able to serve the Pharaoh, L.P.H., [loading it with the dues for the breweries and the kitchens of the Pharaoh, and he was robbed of the craft and] the dues, the poor man stood reft of his goods and stripped of his many labors. This is wrong, and the Pharaoh will suppress it by his excellent measures. If there be a [poor man] who pays the dues of the breweries and kitchens of the Pharaoh, L.P.H., to the two deputies, [and he be robbed of his goods and his craft, my majesty commands: that every officer who seizes the dues] and taketh the craft of any citizen of the army or of any person who is in the whole land, the law shall be executed against him, in that his nose shall be cut off, and he shall be sent to Tharu.

[Furthermore, concerning the impost of wood, my majesty commands that if any officer find] a poor man without a craft, then let him bring to him a craft for his impost from another, and let him send him to bring for him the wood; thus he shall serve [the Pharaoh].

[Furthermore, my majesty commands that if any poor man be oppressed by] [robbe]ry, his cargo be emptied by theft of them, and the poor man stand reft of hi[s good]s, [no further exactions for dues shall be made from him] when he has nothing. For it is not good, this report of very great injustice. My majesty commands that restitution be made to him; behold .... .

[Furthermore, as for those who] ... and those who bring to the harem, likewise for the offerings of all gods, paying dues to the two deputies of the army and ... [my majesty commands that if any officer is guilty of extortions or thefts], the law [shall be executed] against him, in that his nose shall be cut off, and (he) shall be sent to Tharu likewise.

When the officers of the Pharaoh's house of offerings have gone about tax-collecting in the towns, to take [katha-plant], [they have seized the slaves of the people, and kept them at work] for 6 days or 7 days, without one's being able to depart from them afar, so that it was an excessive detention indeed. It shall be done likewise against them. If there be any place [where the stewards shall be tax-collecting, and any one] shall hear, saying: "They are tax-collecting, to take katha-plant for themselves," and another shall come to report, saying: "My man slave (or) my female slave has been taken away [and detained many days at work by the stewards;" it shall be done likewise against them.]

The two divisions of troops which are in the field, one in the southern region, the other in the northern region, stole hides in the whole land, not passing a year, without applying the brand of [the royal house to cattle which were not due to them, thereby increasing] their number, and stealing that which was stamped from them. They went out from house to house, beating and plundering without leaving a hide for the people .... Then the officer] of the Pharaoh went about to each one, [to collect the hides charged against him and came to the people demanding] them, but the hides were not found with them (although) the amount charged against them could be established. They satisfied them, saying: "They have been stolen from us." A wretched case is this, therefore it shall be [done] likewise.

When the overseer of the cattle of Pharaoh, L.P.H., goes about to attend to the loan-herds in the whole land, and there be not brought to him the hides of the ... which are on the lists, [he shall not hold the people responsible for the hides if they have them not, but they shall be released by command of his majesty] according to his just purposes. As for any citizen of the army, (concerning) whom one shall hear, saying: "He goeth about stealing hides," beginning with this day, the law shall be executed against him, by beating him a hundred blows, opening five wounds, and taking from him by force the hides which he took.

Now, as for the other instance of evil which the [official staff were accustomed to commit, when they held inspection] in the land, of that which happened [against the law], [the table-scribe of] the queen and the table-scribe of the harem went about after the official staff, punishing them and investigating their affair ...... of the one who sailed down-or up-river. One investigated it among the officials in the time of the King Menkheperre (Thutmose III). Now, when the one who sailed down-or up-river whom they took; and when [the superior officials of] [the king], Menkheperre, went about [after these officials] each year, [that they might make an] expedition to the city, and that these superior officials might come to these officials, saying: "Give thou [to us] the consideration for the careless expedition;" then, behold, the Pharaoh, L.P.H., made the expedition at the feast of Opet each year without carelessness. One prepared the way before the Pharaoh [and questioned the local magistrate, wherever he] landed, [concerning the corrupt official] causing him to ......what he (the corrupt official) was like. As for one who goes about again, afterward, to seek the consideration ......, then these officials shall go about with the expedition concerning the affairs of these poor people ...... My majesty commands to prevent that one shall do thus, beginning with this day ..... the landing; he is the one against whom one shall prosecute it.

Likewise the collection of vegetables for the breweries [and kitchens of the Pharaoh and] ..... [Extortion was practiced, and the officials plundered] the poor, taking the best of their vegetables, saying: "They are for the impost [of the Pharaoh]." [Thus they] robbed the poor of their labors, so that a double [impost was levied. Now, my majesty commands that as for any officials who come to] collect vegetables [for] the impost of Pharaoh, L.P.H., in the arbors, and the .... houses of the estates of Pharaoh, L.P.H., and the ... of Pharaoh which contain vegetables, (concerning whom) one shall hear, saying: "They ... for any ... of any citizen of the army, or [any] people, [beginning with this day, the law shall be executed against them] ...... transgressing commands.

Now as far as these officials of the herds, who go about ...... in the southern region or the northern region collecting grain from the [citizens] of the city .... going about .... in the southern region or northern region collecting ... from the poor ... . ......... going about taking possession to bring every citizen, to cause them to see ... (concerning whom) one shall hear, (saying) ".... a crime, .... collection of the harem who go about in the [towns tax-collecting] ...... the ... of the fishermen .... carrying the ..... .

I have improved this entire land ...... I have sailed it, as far as south of the wall, I have given ..., I have learned its whole interior, I have traveled it entirely in its midst, I have searched in .... [and I have sought two officials] perfect in speech, excellent in good qualities, knowing how to judge the innermost heart, hearing the words of the palace, the laws of the judgment-hall. I have appointed them to judge the Two Lands, to satisfy those who are in ...... . [I have given to each one] his seat; I have set them in the two great cities of the South and the North; every land among them cometh to him without exception; I have put before them regulations in the daily register [of the palace] ........ I have directed [them] to the way of life; I led them to the truth, I teach them, saying: "Do not associate with others of the people; do not receive the reward of another, not hearing .... . How, then, shall those like you judge others, while there is one among you committing a crime against justice.

Now, as to the obligation of silver and gold ....... [my] majesty remits it, in order that there be not collected an obligation of anything from the official staff of the South and North.

Now, as for any official or any priest (concerning whom) it shall be heard, saying: "He sits, to execute judgment among the official staff appointed for judgment, and he commits a crime against justice therein;" it shall be against him a capital crime. Behold, my majesty has done this, to improve the laws of Egypt, in order to cause that another should not be ........... .

[Behold, my majesty appointed] the official staff of the divine fathers, the prophets of the temples, the officials of the court of this land and the priests of the gods who comprise the official staff out of desire that they shall judge the citizens of every city. My majesty is legislating for Egypt, to prosper the life of its inhabitants; when he appeared upon the throne of Re. Behold, the official staffs have been appointed in the whole land ... all ... to comprise the official staffs in the cities according to their rank. ....

They went around ... times a month, which he [made] for them like a feast; every man set down at a portion of every good thing, of good bread, and meat of the storehouses, of royal provision .....; their voices reached heaven, praising all benefits ... the heart of all the soldiers of the army. [The king appeared to the people] ... throwing (gifts) to them from the balcony while every man was called by his name by the king himself. They came forth from the presence rejoicing, laden with the provision of the royal house; yea, they too [grain-heaps] in the granary, every one of them [bore] barley and spelt, there was not found one who had nothing .... their cities. [If they did not complete the circuit therein within three days, [....] their khetkhet-officers hastened after them to the place where they were immediately. They were found there .....

Hear ye these commands which my majesty has made for the first time governing the whole land, when my majesty remembered these cases of oppression which occur before this land.


Sources: James Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt , Vol. III 50 to 67
[ ] A stone slab with a copy of the Great Edict was discovered near the 10th pylon at Karnak. About a third of the text is missing.


Ramses II Clearly C8th BC



Taken from:
http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973
 
....
Here is what Sweeney has noted in regard to the similarities between Ashurnasirpal’s cavalry tactics and that of the Hittite opponents of pharaoh Seti I (c. 1294-1279 BC, conventional dates):[1] “Hittite cavalry are shown in action against Seti I, and their deployment etc. displays striking parallels with that of the cavalry belonging to Ashurnasirpal II”. Thus for example the Assyrian horsemen, he says, “ride bareback, obtaining a firm grip by means of pressing the raised knees against the horse’s flanks - exactly the method of riding employed by the Hittites portrayed on the monuments of Seti I and Ramses II”. Again, both the early neo-Assyrian cavalry and those of the Hittites against whom Seti I battled, employed the bow as their only weapon. “Even more importantly, they are used in an identical way tactically: they are invariably used in conjunction with the chariotry”.
Sweeney next turns to Maspero’s description of the cavalry of Ashurnasirpal: “The army [of Assyria] ... now possessed a new element, whose appearance in the field of battle was to revolutionize the whole method of warfare; this was the cavalry, properly so called, introduced as an adjunct to the chariotry.” More specifically, he writes:
This body of cavalry, having little confidence in its own powers, kept in close contact with the main body of the army, and it was not used in independent manoeuvres; it was associated with and formed an escort to the chariotry in expeditions where speed was essential, and where ordinary foot soldiers would have hampered the movements of the charioteers.
Again, this is just what one would expect from the prevailing ‘Indo-European’ influence, the ‘chariot-riding aristocracy’, with its magnificent horsemanship. Similarly, James tells of the definite likeness between the neo-Assyrian art of Ashurnasirpal II and that of the ‘Middle’ Assyrian period several centuries earlier, C13th-12th BC:[2]
One scholar noted that the forms of decoration of the intricately carved Assyrian seals of the 12th century are ‘clearly late’, as they ‘point the way to the ornate figures which line the walls of the Neo-Assyrian palace of Assurnasirpal [mid-9th century BC]’. The sculptors employed by this king, in the words of another expert on Assyrian art, ‘worked within a tradition that went back to the thirteenth century BC’.
Professor Greenberg has observed, along the same lines, that Mycenaean Greece Shaft Grave Stelae, currently dated variously to the late C14th, or mid C13th BC, “make a good deal more art historical sense when compared, for example, with the hunting scenes of Ashurnasirpal II from Nimrud, which are dated in the ninth century BC …”.[3]
Thus Meyer was being perfectly logical, according to his own artificial context - with its subsequent misalignment of the early history of Israel - when issuing his bold challenge to gainsay the traditional view that Moses was a real historical person. And Meyer was entirely correct too back then, in 1906 (a full century ago), when stating that “not one of those who treat [Moses] as a historical reality has hitherto been able to fill him with any kind of content whatever …”. For Meyer’s chronology, as promoted by the Berlin School of Egyptology, and later by Sir Henry Breasted, which had become the standard, had made it quite impossible for scholars even to locate Moses in that complex scheme, let alone “to fill him with any kind of content”. Whilst an independent-minded historian like Sir Flinders Petrie might try valiantly to make a major adjustment to Sothic chronology - though still unfortunately based on that system’s faulty premises, by adding an extra Sothic period - he did not like what he eventually saw and so had to reject his novel idea.[4] Meyer’s Sothic chronology therefore survived the challenge and prevailed.
Today, for those who do give some credence to the story of Moses and the Exodus account, the favoured era is, as it was in Meyer’s day, the 19th Ramesside dynasty, Sothically dated to the C13th-C12th’s BC – but still two or more centuries after properly calculated biblical estimates for Moses. Ramses II (c. 1279-1212 BC, conventional dates) is now generally considered to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus; though no evidence whatsoever for a mass exodus of foreigners can be found during his reign.
Fortunately, the work of revision is serving to resurrect some long-lost biblical characters of great import. I have already shown in fair detail in Part I how C9th BC biblical characters, for instance, emerge in some profusion when a Velikovskian-based revision is carefully applied to the well-documented EA period. According to the model for Egypt that I shall be proposing in Chapter 11 (section: “A Basic, Revised Chronology for Ramses II”), the reign of Ramses II actually straddled the last half of the C9th and the first part of the C8th BC; the latter being the same century to which king Hezekiah in fact belonged. Thus Ramses II came into being more than half a millennium after Moses. He was certainly not the pharaoh of the Exodus.



[1] Ibid, p. 24.
[2] Centuries of Darkness, p. 273.
[3] ‘Lion Gate at Mycenae’ (1973), p. 28.
[4] Researches in Sinai, ch. xii; q.v. his A History of Egypt, vol. i, add. xvii, xviii.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Europa and Jeroboam of Israel



[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]
 
Europa and Jeroboam of Israel
by John R. Salverda

Do Kidnapped Europa and Her Brothers Represent Lost Israelites?

Background:

Greek Mythology relates that the chief god Zeus disguised himself as a white bull and abducted the Phoenician princess Europa daughter of Agenor from her home in Tyre, Lebanon. They went to Crete where Europa gave birth to Minos, Rhadamanthys, and Sarpedon.
Minos became king of the Minoans in Crete.
Sarpadon went to Lycia in Anatolia (in present-day Turkey).
Rhadamanthus went to Boetia in Greece. His sons were Gortys and Erythrus whose name is Greek for Edom.
Virgil (69 - 18 BC) makes Rhadamanthus one of the judges and punishers of the damned in the Underworld (Tartarus) section of The Aeneid.
Pindar says that Rhadamanthus is the right-hand man of Cronus (now ruling Elysium) in the Isles of the Blessed (a term that could be applied to the British Isles) and was the sole judge of the dead.

Elysium, a paradise which Homer placed in the far west, on the banks of the encircling river Oceanos.

Cadmos and his brothers sons of Agenor of Tyre in Phoenicia were sent to search for Europa. Cadmos founded Thebes in Greece and introduced the Phoenician [Proto-Hebraic] Alphabet to the Greeks. He was reponsible for the creation of the Spartans who sprang from the earth.

In the article below, John R. Salverda, analyses the legends surrounding these figures and finds in them traditions concerning the Ten Tribes of Israel in their journeys westward from the Land of Israel after being exiled by Assyria.

Europa Lost

Europe is named after a descendant of Io's who was called, 'Europa.' The myth of Europa can be found in any book of Greek Mythology, and has been well known for almost 3000 years. Can anything new be learned from it' No, but oddly enough, we can still learn something old, from it. Let us begin by examining the name itself. The name Europa, is a feminized form of the same Hebrew name that comes to us through Biblical sources, in its masculine Latin form, 'Jeroboam.' I learned this, when I compared two maps of the same city in Syria, one had the city labeled, 'Jerablus,' while the other had it as, 'Europos.' It occurred to me that this was a perfectly reasonable transliteration, and that both names were one and the same.

King Jeroboam, the first king of the northern ten tribes of Israel, is mentioned often in the Bible, unfortunately his name usually follows after the phrase, 'the sins of...' This is because Jeroboam was infamous for reintroducing the worship of god in the form of a bull, and calves were set up as images of god's savior, these constituted the 'sins of Jeroboam.' This tendency toward tauropomorphism, began at the Exodus, when Israel's agent of deliverance, (legends say it was Michael the Archangel) was overwhelmingly agreed, by the very witnesses of the event, to have been a calf, of whom they built a golden image. This was an idol, not of God, but of the son of god, and they sang these words as they danced around it, 'This is your god oh Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.' Israel was regularly personified as a maiden, (the Virgin Israel) who was beloved by God and betroth to Him. But the Israel of Jeroboam, went, whoring after foreign gods. It becomes obvious that, to some, she was known by a feminized version of King Jeroboam's name. The evidence for this identification is overwhelming. Europa got carried away adoring god in the form of a bull as well, and both the Virgin Israel and the maiden Europa, were from Phoenicia. The resulting, 'loss among the nations,' occurred in both cases, from the same place, and for the same reason. Does it surprise us to think that this story, (which included a promise by God to his People who were dispersed amongst the nations,) may have, in ancient times, received a wider distribution, than to be stored away on some Temple scroll and only be known, eventually, through the Bible' In fact the story was far famed, as we might have known.

The Greek myths tell us that Europa had a son who ruled over the Island of Crete, his name was Minos. If Europa be from Jeroboam, and the Cretans spoke Western Semitic, (the same language as the land of Canaan) which they did, then I'll bet 'Minos,' is the same name as 'Manasseh.' In fact one wonders indeed, if there wasn't a bit of confusion between the stories of the Cretan, King Minos, and the later Judean, King Manasseh. How many other kings, from this same area, with the same name, were famous for sacrificing youths to a bull headed god' (Minotaur, Manasseh's Torah' is Manasseh an alternate version of the name Moses' as in Judges, chapter 18, Verse 30, if so, perhaps the Minotaur was blasphemously named for the Law of Moses.) Thus it seems likely that the 'Minoan' civilization was named for the son of Joseph, Manasseh.

This series of coincidences about Europa is impressive enough without mentioning this other weird point, which was the fact that Israel was prophesied to be regathered by an heir to the throne, and returned to her homeland in the last days. (Isa. 11;10-12) But, this famous promise, must be cited here as evidence that Europa is Israel, because this hopeful prophecy is also coincidental to the 'myth.' The Greek myth asserts that the true heir to the throne was sent to find the lost Europa, and he was told not to return until he could bring her back.

Cadmus and the Brothers of Europa

Although the story of Io must have been in existence in one form or another, since the Exodus, (parts of her story belong to the days of Abraham, but most of it, is the story of Hermes Argiophontes, her deliverer, who plays the role of Moses at the Exodus) there is no doubt that the version of her story which has come down to us, did not receive it's final form, until after her descendant Cadmus came to Greece. We know this, because the story incorporates the use of the Alphabet within its body, for Io was able to spell her name in the sand with her cow hoof. (This part of the story relies upon the fact that the Greek 'I' was just a 'Jot,' and the letter 'o,' resembles a hoof print.) She was thereby identified when she returned home after her extensive 'wanderings.' This detail limits the Greek antiquity of Io's story, until about 850 BC. when the Greeks first began to use the Alphabet. But, this was a Phoenician story that was brought to Greece at a later date, generations after these events actually occurred, and the Phoenicians knew about the founding of Argos already for years back home, because, they were Israelites and the city of Argos was a colony of Hebron, also it was they who had an alphabet which Io could spell, the Hebrew alphabet.

No one doubts that the Hebrew alphabet was used in Greece, but it seems to me, calling it 'Phoenician,' is a bit misleading. If Moses, famous for his writings, wrote anything, then it is logical to assume him to be the oldest known user of this alphabet. The Greeks, in keeping with the identification of Moses with Hermes, (the serpent stick carrying messenger of god who delivers god's earthly wife from her bondage,) credit Hermes as the inventor of the alphabet. Cadmus is accredited with bringing the alphabet of Hermes, from Phoenicia to Greece, but, not until about 850 BC. It's easy to dismiss all myths in a group as fairy tales, but Cadmus was not a god, he was a man who is famous for doing something which really happened, others who lived within a few hundred years of him speak of Cadmus as an actual historic personage. He came to Greece with a colony and was considered to be the founder of Thebes, a quite well known city in Boeotian Greece, which was even called 'Cadmea,' after him.

While there seems to have been a real Cadmus, it is, as if a very familiar religious doctrine, has gotten attached to him. Because the role of Cadmus in the story about the return of Europa, foreshadows a type of the Christian Messiah, he is made to perform a series of tasks, which are obviously designed to fulfill many key Messianic prophecies. These tasks were, perhaps, more 'expected,' of him than were actually 'performed' by him. He destroys the serpent by transfixing it to a tree, thus, 'lifting it up,' and 'nailing it to the tree.' Leaving the Sparti in Greece, Cadmus goes to the Northwest, into Europe proper, where they make him King, in the land of the Enchelians, (Angels' Angles, or English') where, in the end, he and Harmonia, never really die but are instead Miraculously translated.

The Sparti remained in Greece, where they left many descendants, and worshipped Cadmus as a hero, with shrines. One famous, such hero shrine of Cadmus, was located in the Greek nation of Sparta, on the Laconian coast, and was maintained by the Spartans, (sown ones) even down to the days of the Jewish high priests Onias, and Jonathan. As reported by Josephus, and recorded in Rabbinical writings, Onias and the Spartans, wrote to each other, and both recognized the Spartans as having a common ancestor.

-John R. Salverda

For more articles on the Hebraic Connections of Greek Mythology, see:

"Helleno-Yishurin. The Hebrew Origin of Greek Legends"


Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Emmet Sweeney Identifies Hattusilis with Alyattes of Lydia

 

[The AMAIC does not accept all of Emmet's revised dates]

 

Hattusilis, King of Lydia
Hattusilis, King of Lydia

In his Ramses II and his Time (1978) Velikovsky argued that Ramses II, the great warrior pharaoh of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty, reigned in the first half of the sixth century BC, and not in the thirteenth century BC, as conventional scholarship believes. In support of this dating Velikovsky brought forward manifold proofs, from many different disciplines; and, from an archaeological perspective at least, the case he presented was compelling.
There were however two major problems: First and foremost, if Ramses II was to be placed in the sixth century, this meant opening a gap of two centuries between the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (which Velikovsky placed in the latter ninth century) and the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty (which Velikovsky placed in the latter seventh century). Critics were quick to point that an overwhelming body of evidence showed the Nineteenth Dynasty to have directly followed the Eighteenth, with no hiatus of any kind.
The second problem centred round the identity of Hattusilis, the Great King of the Hatti or Hittites, against whom Ramses II waged war for many years. Velikovsky argued that Hattusilis was none other than Nebuchadrezzar, the King of the Chaldaeans, who is said to have deported the population of Judah to Babylonia sometime in the first half of the sixth century BC. But this identification caused immense problems, as Velikovsky’s critics (and some of his allies) were quick to point out. Most pressingly, how could Hattusilis, whose capital city was in the middle of Anatolia and who never claimed to rule Mesopotamia, be identified with a king of Babylonia who never claimed to rule Anatolia? This was a crucial point; one which, notwithstanding the ingenious arguments presented by Velikovsky, he could not counter.

The answer to the conundrum was finally provided, I believe, by the stratigraphic evidence brought forward by Gunnar Heinsohn in the 1980s. Essentially, Heinsohn found that the Nineteenth Dynasty did come directly before the Persian Age, as Velikovsky claimed (ie in the sixth century), but that the Eighteenth Dynasty immediately preceded the Nineteenth Dynasty – which therefore placed it in the seventh century (actually, late eighth and seventh centuries). This meant bringing the whole of the Eighteenth Dynasty down the timescale by a further two centuries from the position accorded it by Velikovsky. If Heinsohn was right, then both the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties must have been contemporaries of the Medes, the great Indo-Iranian nation which had overthrown the Assyrians during the seventh century, and with the Lydians, the mighty power which controlled much of Anatolia in the same epoch.
As a matter of fact, the greatest power in the Fertile Crescent during the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty was that of the Mitanni, or Mita. These kings, who bore Indo-Iranian names and worshipped Indo-Iranian gods, were famous for having conquered the Old Assyrian kingdom, whose two most notable kings were named Sargon and Naram-Sin. It goes without saying that Heinsohn thus identified the Mitanni with the Medes, and the evidence he mustered for this was extremely compelling. It is an identification fully supported by the present writer.
Ancient writers insisted that during the period of Median supremacy much of Anatolia was controlled by Lydia; and indeed the Lydians were great rivals of the Medes. Now, whilst the monuments and diplomatic correspondences of the Mitanni period apparently make no mention of the Lydians, they do refer repeatedly to a mighty rival power centred in Anatolia. This was the kingdom of Hatti; the Hittite Empire.
Modern textbooks describe the Hittites as a mysterious people, a nation whose history and even existence had been forgotten until revealed by archaeologists in the nineteenth century. The “rediscovery” of the Hittites is held to be one of the great triumphs of modern archaeology. In the early days of archaeology, however, travellers to Anatolia were often inclined to associate the monuments and remains we now call “Hittite” with the ancient Lydians, and several carved bas-reliefs at Yazilikaya, just outside Boghaz-koi, were actually linked to specific events from Lydian history. Thus for example W.J. Hamilton in his Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia (1842) remarked that in his opinion one of the major reliefs commemorated a treaty signed by Croesus with Cyrus around 550 B.C. “I am rather inclined to think that it represents the meeting of two coterminous kings, and that it was intended to commemorate a treaty of peace concluded between them. The Halys, which is not many miles distant, was long the boundary between the kingdoms of Lydia and Persia and it is possible that in the figure with the flowing robes we may recognise the king of Persia, and that in the other the king of Lydia, with his attendants, Lydians and Phrygians, for their headdress resembles the well-known Phrygian bonnet. This spot may have been chosen to commemorate the peace.” (W.J. Hamilton Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia (1842) 393-95)
Another scholar of the same period also identified the monuments as Lydian, but inclined more to the view that the bas-relief commemorated a treaty signed by Croesus’ predecessor Alyattes with the Medes under Astyages. (H. Barth “Versuch einer eingehenden Erklärung der Felssculpturen von Boghaskoei in alten Kappadocien” Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1869) 128-75) According to Herodotus these two kings had met with their armies near the river Halys, but fighting broke off when the sun was eclipsed. (Herodotus, i, 74) Afterwards, through the efforts of the kings of Babylon and Cilicia a peace was negotiated and signed.
The more our knowledge of Hittite civilisation and history has grown, the more clear-cut the Lydian connection has become. The Boghaz-koi documents for example showed that a number of Hittite kings had borne the name Mursilis; identical to the name (Myrsilos) given by Herodotus to one of the greatest kings of Lydia. The language of the Hittite Empire, known as “Hittite” to us, but actually called “Neshili” in the Boghaz-koi texts, was found to be Indo-European. Further research into the linguistic make-up of ancient Asia Minor found that Lydian too was an Indo-European dialect - a dialect identical to “Hittite”. In the words of one scholar, “Linguistically Lydian is related to the Hittite-Luwian group, but the curious thing is that unlike most of its contemporaries it seems to be Hittite rather than Luwian.” (J. G. Macqueen, The Hittites (London, 1975) p. 59) In other words the Lydian language is one and the same as that of the Hittites in their Cappadocian heartland - Nesha/Neshili - rather than Luwian, a related tongue employed by many other peoples of Asia Minor and Anatolia, such as the Phrygians and Lycians. In explanation of this strange anomaly, the writer quoted above continues,
“One has to assume that in the disturbances following the collapse of the Hittite Empire a central Anatolian group had seized power among the ruins of Arzawa, and a memory of this may be preserved in the Herodotean story of a Heraclid dynasty with eastern connections which gained power in Lydia about 1200 BC.” (Ibid.)
Arzawa, of course, is the name given to the Lydian district in the Hittite documents, and indeed the word may be identical to Lydia, given the interchangeability of “l” and “r”, and the conjectural nature of vowels in cuneiform. Thus Arzawa may reasonably be reconstructed as “Lyzawa”.
The relationship between Arzawa/Lydia and the greater Hittite world has in fact caused considerable confusion amongst scholars, a confusion highlighted in the following statement;
“And so we reach the final position that the language originally known as Arzawan [Lydian] is in fact the language of the Hittites, while the language written in ‘Hittite Hieroglyphs’ is a dialect of the language of Arzawa.” (Ibid. pp. 24-5)
Thus the Lydian and Hittite kingdoms used the same language, occupied the same geographical space, and were, as we shall argue, contemporary.
It is generally presumed that the Hittite Empire took in only the eastern part of what was later to constitute the Lydian kingdom – a domain supposedly centred more on western Asia Minor. However, it is untrue to say that Hittite rule did not extend as far as the Aegean coast. The documents of Boghaz-koi show quite clearly that the regions comprising Lycia, Caria, Ionia and Aeolia were considered to be part of the Empire, and this has been confirmed by the discovery of Hittite monuments at Karabel near Smyrna, and on Mount Sipylus overlooking the Aegean.
If then we accept the Hittites as Lydians, how do they fit into the history of the period, and do the historical records of the Hittite period speak of events known to us from the classical authors? Do the two histories match?
An examination of the lives and careers of the last two Hittite emperors, Hattusilis III and Tudkhaliash IV, reveals a close match with the lives and careers of the last two Lydian kings, Alyattes and Croesus. The Hittite Empire came crashing to destruction during the time of Tudkhaliash IV, and we find the “Assyrian” king Tukulti-Ninurta boasting of carrying off great numbers of Hittite prisoners. Since Tukulti-Ninurta was a contemporary of Ramses II and Merneptah, it follows that (if we credit Velikovsky’s own chronological measuring-rod and place these kings in the sixth century), Tukulti-Ninurta must be associated with Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Lydia. As such, Hattusilis, who earlier waged a protracted war against Ramses II, must be the same person as Alyattes.
Classical sources inform us that Alyattes, was a mighty king who waged war against many of his neighbours, and who subjugated most of the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. This certainly does not contradict what we know of Hattusilis. We know that Hattusilis maintained and extended Hittite control over western Asia Minor, and his victories in the far west are commemorated in various surviving documents. The list of Hittite allies at the battle of Kadesh “mentions several peoples who all ... are hitherto already familiar and recognisable from the Hittite imperial records as being the names of peoples of Western and Central Anatolia.” (R.D. Barnett “The Sea Peoples: Anatolians at the Battle of Qadesh” in CAH Vol.2 part 2 (3rd ed.) p.360) The writer of these words, R.D. Barnett, offers the following identifications of these names:
 
Drdny = Dardanoi (Homeric name for Trojans).
Ms = Mysia (a region of Asia Minor).
Pds = Pitassa (either Pedasa, near Miletus, or Pedasos, in the Troad).
Krks = Karkisa (Caria).
Lk = Lukka (Lycia).

If these identifications are broadly correct, and virtually no authority denies it, then the Hittites were at that time in control of most of western Asia Minor.
As part of his policy to strengthen Lydian control over Asia Minor, Herodotus tells us that Alyattes attacked the Greek port of Miletus, continuing a war initiated by his father Sadyattes. (Herodotus, i, 17) By our reckoning Sadyattes must of course be the same as Hattusilis’ father Mursilis, and we must expect this king to be involved in military action on the Aegean coast. Sure enough, Hittite records tell us that Mursilis attacked and conquered a city on the Aegean coast named Millawanda (generally agreed to be Miletus), a settlement which had been the property of the king of Ahhiyawa (generally agreed to be Achaea - ie. Greece). From the records of Mursilis we find that the king of Ahhiyawa at this time was called Antarawas, a name that has been identified with the Greek Andreus. Twelve years later he names another king of Ahhiyawa, this time Tawalagawas, who is also known as “the Ayawalawas”. This has been interpreted as Eteocles the Aeolian. (A. R. Burn, Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks (London, 1930) p. 121)
Yet these clear references to Greek settlements in Hittite documents of supposedly the 13th century BC. have caused the utmost embarrassment to scholars, since the Ionic and Aeolian colonies are not dated by anyone earlier than the 10th century BC. But if we are actually in the 6th century BC., there is no problem, and Greek settlements, as well as a Greek city of Miletus, are entirely to be expected.
During the time of Mursilis the province of Arzawa, the Lydian heartland, rebelled. Uhha-zitish, the rebel leader, was, we are told, defeated in a great battle, and pursued to the town of Apasa, identified with Ephesus. Mursilis followed him to Apasa, but Uhha-zitish had fled “across the sea”, no doubt to Greece.
Thus it would appear that during and directly preceding the reign of Hattusilis the Hittites were busy consolidating their hold over the peoples of the Aegean coast, a situation which agrees precisely with what we know of the Lydian kingdom in the time of Alyattes and his immediate predecessors.
Herodotus mentions the fact that one of Alyattes’ greater successes was his conquest of Smyrna, (i, 16) and sure enough, a stela of Mursilis, Hattusilis’ father, stands at Karabel, just outside the city. (A. R. Burn, op cit. pp. 134-5)
In the end, we are told, Alyattes failed to conquer Miletus, which would explain why Hattusilis makes no mention of a successful war against Millawanda. He recalls with pride however his successful fifteen-year war against the Gasga (whom I equate with the Scythians – see my Empire of Thebes, 2006), a fact which recalls Alyattes’ achievement of driving the Cimmerians out of Asia. (Herodotus, i, 16)
Alyattes, we have seen, was also involved in prolonged warfare on his eastern front against the Medes. Peace was however briefly restored in this region when a major battle was interrupted by an eclipse.
One final point. The name written in the cuneiform of Boghaz-koi as Hattusilis is composed of two elements; Hattus-ili. Since vowels are conjectural and the order in which cuneiform syllables should be read by no means always certain, the same word could be written as Ali-hattus. In short, Hattusilis and Alyattes (Greek Aluattes) are the same name.
Thus Egypt’s link with Lydian and Classical history. But the repositioning of Egypt’s Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties in the seventh and sixth centuries causes profound problems for Biblical history. If we agree with Velikovsky that the Eighteenth Dynasty was contemporary with the Early Monarchy of Israel, this means that the Early Monarchy must likewise be brought into the seventh and sixth centuries. If Hatshepsut, of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, really was the Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon in Jerusalem, we cannot bring that same queen into the seventh century and leave Solomon in the tenth. Clearly Solomon must then also have lived in the seventh century!
How, the reader might ask, can Hebrew chronology be recalibrated in such a way? Is it not true that Hebrew history is well documented at least as far back as the time of David? Is it not accurately aligned, for example, with the histories of Babylonia and Assyria? How then are we to remove two and a half centuries from the span of that same history?
This is a problem I have examined in great detail in two of the Ages in Alignment books, most particularly in Empire of Thebes and Ramessides, Medes and Persians. There it is shown that Hebrew history is not aligned accurately to that of the Classical world, and that a “phantom time period” of over two centuries has been inserted into the Biblical timescale. The two phantom centuries are in fact located in the second half of the Persian Empire and the first century of the Seleucid epoch, a period of more than two centuries that in terms of Hebrew history is a complete blank. Between the time of Ezra, and the Book of his name, and the period of the Maccabees (circa 160 BC), Jewish history is totally silent: The Jews, greatest of record-keepers, apparently left not a single historical document to cover this enormous stretch of time. Yet things get even worse when we realize that archaeology has been no more successful at filling the gap. Between the middle of the Persian Age and the middle of the Seleucid archaeologists have found almost nothing in the land of Israel.
What is the explanation?
The explanation is straightforward; but it requires an imaginative leap in order to be successfully digested. The simple fact is, no three-century gap exists between Ezra and the Maccabees: one follows the other directly. And the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings who come before Ezra are Persian kings under the guise of Mesopotamians. Ezra therefore was active around 260 BC rather than 450 BC, and the king Nebuchadrezzar who took the Jews captive to Babylon shortly before his time was none other than the Persian king Artaxerxes III. In the same way, all the Hebrew kings who interacted with these Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian rulers must be brought forward in the timescale by two centuries. King Zedekiah of Judah, blinded and deported by Nebuchadrezzar, suffered that fate not in 570 BC, but around 340 BC. The prophets Elijah and Elisha, along with the Hebrew kings with whom they were contemporary, lived and worked in the late seventh century, not in the late ninth; and Solomon, who welcomed the Queen of Sheba to Jerusalem, did so around 680 BC, not 930 BC.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Dick Gagel asks “isn’t the XII [Dynasty of Egypt] too early?” for Moses.



Dear Damien,

I must have had your paper on Moses ages ago, made my notes in the margin but never shared my understanding of the man’s early life with you.
Used the following to gainsay those who called him and the Exodus “a myth”.
It would appear we differ on both dynasties and chronology – isn’t the XII too early?
MOSES was a general, as fully described by Josephus in Antiquities, Book II, ch X.
In ch XI, after he had virtually saved Egypt as its victorious general over the Ethiopians/Cushites, he had to flee for his life from an assassination plot. He was heir to a throne in Egypt as the ruler had a daughter but no grandchildren. Josephus: “if Moses had been slain, there was no one, either a kin or adopted, that had any oracle on his side for pretending to the crown of Egypt.” Here are our clues – a dynasty in which Moses is General, and one which effectively ended at the point in history that Moses fled and did not regain authority in the land. There is such a dynasty which also exercised jurisdiction in the Northeastern Delta where Israel dwelt and Moses was found – Dynasty XIII.
The total length of this dynasty according to Africanus’ and Eusebius’ epitomes from Manetho was 453 years under 60 rulers. But the version of Barbarus provides a missing detail from Manetho. It reveals that for a time the court was not only at Thebes, but at Bubastis in the Delta for the first 153 years (Alfred Schoene’s edition of Eusebius, p. 214).
In the Turin Canon catalogue of kings of the thirteenth dynasty, listed number 17, is “The General” with the throne name of Semenkhkare (Gardiner’s Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 440; and Weigall’s History of the Pharaohs, pp 136, 151-152). The Egyptian word for “the General” was Mermeshoi – not in all dynastic history does this title appear again as the personal name of a ruler of Egypt.
When Moses was made General or Commander of the Troops, he automatically inherited royal authority, as only kings could have the supreme command of the army, explaining his appearance in the list. Before the rise to power of this famous General, the thirteenth dynasty was of Asiatic blood. Its kings at time bore the epithet “the Asiatic” – hence no basic prejudice in adopting the Hebrew child Moses into the family. (See volume II, ch II of the revised Cambridge Ancient History, ed.1962.)
The sixteenth king listed in the Turin Canon – just before “the General” – is Userkare Khendjer – the latter being an un-Egyptian personal name. He ruled over the Delta as well as Upper Egypt. A pyramid of his has been found at South Saqqara. No descendant of his is known to have succeeded to the throne. Though nothing more is known of this man’s family, every evidence points to him as the Pharaoh whose daughter is mentioned in the book of Exodus. Within a few years the influence of this dynasty in the eastern Delta ceased.
The kings of this obscure period often have their names associated with king Neferkare (Turin Canon) on royal seals who is Phiops of Manetho, and commonly known as Pepi the Great. Here is the final proof that these minor rulers of Dynasty XIII were contemporaneous with the last great Pharaoh of the sixth dynasty of Memphis – the pharaoh of the Oppression. More than one name on a scarab has puzzled many historians, who view Egypt as generally ruled by one king at a time, but literally hundreds of such seals have been found. They are generally treated with discreet silence, for the implication of these seals would revolutionise the history of Egypt. (See The Sceptre of Egypt, by William C Hayes,, Vol.I, p.342)
Moses is finally able to return to Egypt “and it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died” (Ex. 2:23) confirms that it was a long wait as Pepi the Great ruled for 94 years and died at age 100, succeeded by his son Menthesuphis (Manetho) or Merenre II-Antyemzaef (Turin Canon) – the Pharaoh of the Exodus who ruled only one year 1487-1486, perishing in the Red Sea.
His widow Nitocris (Manetho) or Nitokerty (Turin Canon) ruled 12 years, followed by their son Neferka “the younger” – his first born elder brother and heir presumptive having died at the time of the Exodus.
Manetho ends his list here as the invading Hyksos having by then taken full control of the country with their Dynasty XV and ruled Egypt for the next 400 years.
I feel we are on safe ground to designate Pepi the Great as the oppressive pharaoh. Userkare Kendjer with an ethnic affinity with the Hebrews does not strictly apply the rules emanating from Memphis by elevating Moses who must later have gained huge popularity following his military success. Those factors may well have raised serious concerns at Memphis HO, prompting Pepi the Great to seek Moses’ death by giving those assassination orders to the Bubastis court, and also maintaining his fatwa against Moses till the end of his life and reign.

Best regards
….


Damien Mackey replies:
 
Dear Dick

I just remembered that I, a few months ago, wrote a proposed synthesis of the biblical era, from Abraham to the Exodus, with the corresponding Egyptian history (and archaeology). See my:

 
Connecting the Biblical Patriarchs
to Ancient Egypt
 


The article still has to be finished, but it already contains the basis of what my view is. Fundamental to my reconstruction are the following (after that I am tentative):

-The archaeological period from Abram at the time of the four Mesopotamian kings, to the Exodus, is bookended by Abram in Late Chalcolithic and Ghassul IV (Transjordan) and the Exodus Israelites as the Middle Bronze I (MBI) people.
-According to this archaeological evidence, Abram was contemporaneous with pharaoh Narmer, who may even have been the Pharaoh of Abram and Sarai. This latter, the biblical Abimelech pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac, was clearly a very long-reigning ruler, which would suit pharaoh Aha, the first dynastic king (who may have been Narmer, and Menes).
-Joseph is surely Imhotep, and Ptah-hotep.
-I fully accept the expert testimony of Dr R. Cohen (Israelites as MBI) and Professor Emmanuel Anati (Har Karkom is Mount Sinai).
-Anati notes (and I accept this) that the story of the Egyptian Sinuhe shares ‘a common matrix’ with that of Moses fleeing Egypt for Midian. (Obviously there are some vast differences as well between these two tales). That nails Moses to Late Amenemes I and early Sesostris I. Revisionists have found some striking 12th dynasty correlations with the Exodus account (e.g. those bricks mixed with straw).
-The MBI people do just what the Israelites did in their trek through the Paran desert, Transjordania and into Palestine, where Early Bronze Jericho falls.
 
The 13thdynasty may possibly be partly contemporaneous with the life of Moses.
But be careful. The name, “Moses”, did not mean “General”. It was given to Moses with the meaning of being “drawn from the water” (Exodus 2:10): “She named him Moses, saying, “I drew him out of the water”.” So that might shake your correspondence between Mermoshis and Userkare K.
(Perhaps Joseph, not Moses, was more likely to have left a dynasty of Asiatics).
You will see that I, too, have the 6th dynasty contemporaneous with the era of Moses, though I have not yet been able fully to integrate it all. Given my synthesis of dynasties (following Courville’s clue but not his model), then some 13th dynasty princes (or whatever they were) may well have been contemporaneous with the 6th dynasty’s Neferkare (Pepi the Great).
But Pepi the Great was not a founder, a “new king” (exodus 1:8), so you perhaps need to allow for two major pharaohs before the Pharaoh of the Oppression: namely, the founder Pharaoh and then, as according to the Artapanus tradition, the “Chenephres”(Neferkare?) who married Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, “Merris” (Meresankh, or Meres-ankh).
Artapanus’s“Chenephres” (Neferkare) and “Merris” pattern is fulfilled both with Chephren and Ankhesenmerire (i.e. Meresankh), in the 4th dynasty, and perhaps with Huni (Neferkare) and Meresankh, as explained in the above article, in relation to Sneferu (as Moses).
Merenre, followed by Nitocris, then the Hyksos, is a pattern that I, too, have previously proposed for the finale – but without properly having been able to blend the entire 6th dynasty with the biblical picture.
 
I hope that this is helpful
Damien.

Joseph Davidovits claims error or forgery on "Israel Stele".




Error or forgery on the Stele of Merneptah, known as Israel Stele


eng Archaeology Books News29 juil 2010
....

The objectives of this article are twofold. First of all, it presents one information omitted in Chapter 11 of my last book The Lost Fresco and the Bible (De cette fresque naquit la Bible). Then, it denounces an error, or more probably the forgery of an archaeological document of the greatest importance.
The stele of Merneptah contains the oldest mention of Israel in an extra-biblical document. Flinders Petrie discovered it in 1896, at Thebes, Egypt, in Merneptah’s mortuary temple. Merneptah was the son of Ramses II. The stele describes the military campaign undertaken in 1207 B.C. against the Libyans, and, eventually a campaign to Canaan by which a group of people named Israel would have been destroyed. One reads in lines 26 to 28 of this stele, according to the official translation: The princes are prostrate, they say: let us be in peace! Nobody any more raises the head among the Nine Arcs. Tehenu is destroyed; Khati (Hittites) are in peace; Canaan is captive like its demons, Ashkelon is conquered; Gezer is captured; Yanoam became non-existent; Israel is devastated, it does not have more seed; Kharu became the widow of Egypt. All these countries are pacified. All those, which were in revolt were subdued by the king of Egypt of North and the South…
Since its discovery in 1896, the biblical historians of any obedience have tried to demonstrate the validity of the destruction of Israel by the armies of Pharaoh. However this interpretation is false and the polemical discussions around it have no grounds.

Line 27

The hieroglyphic reading of the word translated by Israel is “ iisii-r-iar ” and, in my book, I largely extended on its meaning. I have demonstrated that « iisii-r-iar » is in fact an egyptian sentence meaning: those exiled because of their sin. Pharaohs Ramsès II and Merneptah used this sentence when talking about the exiled Akhenaton’s followers, forced to quit Egypt. The name of this people iisii-r-iar changed into Israël, through the alteration of the letter r into l.
I had however omitted a detail, discussed in this present article. It relates to the sentence Yanoam became non-existent, which directly precedes the mention “ iisii-r-iar ”. As I will show it here, this translation is entirely false, because it results from the falsification of one hieroglyphic sign.
To begin with, let us look at the transliteration of line 27 of the stele, published in 1909 (cf: P. Lacau, Steles of the new empire (general Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities of the Museum of Cairo, Cairo, 1909):

Line 27, reading from left to right, with the mention “sic”
We notice that in the sentence Yanoam became non-existent a group of hieroglyphs (the eye Re + the vulture aa) is not translated, but is marked sic. The transcription of the hieroglyph represented by the bird vulture is thus doubtful, just like the sentence Yanoam became non-existent. Consequently, the significance of the remainder of the line, in particular the part comprising “ iisii-r-iar”, Israel, is also doubtful.

The tracing with chalk

The engraving of the hieroglyphs on this stele is rather coarse. This explains why, since its discovery by Flinders Petrie in 1896, one over-traced them with a chalk stick, in order to highlight them and to facilitate their reading.


Chalk tracing on the hieroglyphs of the line containing sic, photograph of the original, reading from right to left. (click on the figure to enhance it)
The drawing with chalk of the vulture aa is precise, however it carries the mention: doubtful reading sic. When I began the study of this stele, at the end of the Nineties, I wondered why this vulture transcription posed problem, and was not translated. I did not find any answer in the literature, although there are nearly 200 articles published on the Israel Stele.
 During our last visit to the Cairo Museum, I had asked my son Ralph to photograph this particular part of the stele, under the best possible conditions, by accentuating any contrasts, in order to visualize the true engraving of this hieroglyph sic.

Error or forgery ?

In the photograph below one compares the letter aa (the vulture) in the upper line 26, marked A, with the same letter in line 27 (sic), marked B.

Tracing with chalk of the hieroglyph aa in the upper line 26 and the one in line 27 containing sic, photograph of the original, reading from right to left. (click on the figure to enhance it).
We notice that for the letter marked A, the white chalk drawing follows perfectly the engraving of the hieroglyph (the vulture). On the contrary, for the letter (sic) marked B, the chalk drawing of the neck and the head of the vulture continues outside of the carving. Thus, the engraving does not correspond to this letter aa. It is a forgery.
Now, let us look closer to the engraving of the letter marked B (sic) and highlight in red the contour of the engraving of this letter sic.

The red contour of the engraving of the hieroglyph suggests that of an owl, i.e. the letter m, and not the letter aa (click on the figure to enhance it).
We can now propose a reading of the missing word that was not translated until now. We read: rem-m and we translate into tears.

New reading and its consequences

The hieroglyphs group m tem wun may be separated in two parts due to the presence of the papyrus roller preceding the rabbit (wun). The sentence Yanoam became non-existent is changed into /iinaamm rem-m tem/wun iisii-r-iar (people)/, and the new translation suggests: Yanoam tears are finished; existing is iisi-r-iar, the people.


New translation of line 27 of the Merneptah Stele with highlighted punctuation (rectangles).
The falsification of the letter m (owl) into the letter aa (vulture) was probably the fact of the discoverer of the stele, Flinders Petrie, in 1896. From the beginning, he and his colleagues traced this hieroglyph with chalk in this way, because, in their mind, Pharaoh Merneptah must have attacked and destroyed Canaan nations, in his chase of the people of Exodus, Israel.
In the edited line 27, the people iisii-r-iar (Israel) are not devastated. On the contrary, they exist. This new translation is in agreement with the teaching of Egyptology. One knows that the armies of Merneptah neither attacked nor crushed the nations and people of Canaan, since their action was limited to Libya, in the North-West of Egypt. Merneptah quite simply makes the report of the general situation of Egypt and its neighbors, Canaan included. The mention, line 27, according to which Israel does not have any more seeds (cereals) thus resulted from the falsification of the text. It relates rather to the people mentioned in the next sentence, namely Kharu, i.e. the Hittites. This interpretation is proven by archaeology. It is known that Merneptah dispatched cereals from Egypt to the starving Hittites (Khati and Kharu), victim of a famine.
Nevertheless, this chalk trace was maintained on the Merneptah Stele, until today. To my knowledge, no Egyptologist, nor biblical historian, ever called into question the reading (rather the non-reading) of this forged hieroglyph.
For any further information, see in my book The Lost Fresco and the Bible (De cette fresque naquit la Bible), Chapter 11.

Pharaoh Ramses II - Interesting Facts



Ramses II
Pharaoh Ramses II


 
Ramses II was the third ruler of the 19th Dynasty. Taking the throne at the age of 20, Ramses II ruled for an amazing 67 years, the second longest reign of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs. Ramses II is known for many accomplishments. While it was quite common for ancient Egyptian pharaohs to have several wives, Ramses II seems to have exceeded the norm in number of wives and children. At the end of his long life, the pharaoh had sired over 100 children.
 
The reign of Ramses 2 was marked by numerous military battles and he became one of the famous Egyptian pharaohs known for his military strength. Much of his reign was occupied with taking back territories that were lost to Egypt during the rule of other ancient Egyptian pharaohs, most notably Akehaten, was preoccupied with establishing a monotheistic religion.
 
Rames II was also interested in architecture and that interest resulted in the erection of more monuments than any of the other ancient Egyptian pharaohs. A significant number of architectural tributes still dominate the landscape of Egypt today, attributed to Ramses 2. The Ramses II monument at Abu Simbel is the most famous of all. Menataph, son of Ramses II, gained control of the throne upon the death of his father and the 19th Dynasty ended with his rule.
 
....
 

"... it has been suggested that [Ramses II] shows many Asiatic traits ...".





Taken from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramesses2intro.htm

....

This is the first part of a series of articles on Ramesses II, perhaps even better known as Ramesses the Great, the third ruler of Egypt's 19th Dynasty during the prosperous New Kingdom. Future parts of this series will explore this great Egyptian Pharaoh as a builder, husband and father, military leader and deity, among other topics. While Ramesses II was certainly not a typical Egyptian pharaoh, far various reasons we know a great deal about him, and exploring his life in detail should provide readers with a better understanding of all the rulers of ancient Egypt.

In his book, "Chronicle of the Pharaohs" by Peter A. Clayton, he sums up Ramesses II very nicely, stating that:

"During his long reign of 67 years, everything was done on a grand scale. No other pharaoh constructed so many temples or erected so many colossal statues and obelisks. No other pharaoh sired so many children. Ramesses' 'victory' over the Hittities at Kadesh was celebrated in one of the most repeated Egyptian texts ever put on record. By the time he died, aged more than 90, he had set his stamp indelibly on the face of Egypt."

Ramesses II's father was Seti (Sethos) I and his mother was Tuya. Tuya was not one of Seti I's major wives, and therefore Ramesses II was probably not given the training of a king from an early age (or as Ramesses II states, "from the egg"). However, he did serve as a co-regent with his father prior to Seti I's death.

Statue of Ramesses II

We believe that Ramesses II had as many as fifty sons and fifty daughters, though only a few of them are known to us. His chief, and most likely favorite wife was Nefertari, though he obviously had many others. We believe he was succeeded by a son named Merneptah who was an old man himself by the time he ascended the throne.

It is difficult to tell from most of Ramesses II's statues and depictions on monuments exactly what he looked like physically. This is because the ancient Egyptian artists were not always intend on portraying the king in a totally realistic manner. The king probably never set for specific statues. Rather, they were based upon approved models.

Hence, the official image of Ramesses II promoted by the royal artists is not unlike the ageless portraits we find of the British monarch on stamps or American presidents on currency. His images depict him as a traditional king: tall, dignified, physically perfect and forever young, which prompted one modern scholar to comment that:

"Now Ramesses the Great, if he was as much like his portraits as his portraits are like each other, must have been one of the most handsomest men, not only of his day, but of all history."

His many statues and reliefs show his physical characteristics to include a prominent nose set in a rounded face with high cheek bones, wide, arched eyebrows, slightly bulging, almond-shaped eyes, fleshy lips and a small, square chin. He is often portrayed with a regal smile.


Ramesses II


Of course, we have a better idea of his looks as an old man from his mummy, which has a very prominent, long, thin, hooked nose set in a long, narrow, oval face with a strong jaw. He was large for an ancient Egyptian, standing some five foot seven inches (1.333 meters) tall, and it has been suggested that he shows many Asiatic traits, which might also be recognizable in the mummies of Seti I and Merenptah.

Interestingly, the mummy's gray hair had been died red, and indeed, modern technology has proven that in his youth he was a red head, which was also not a common trait of ancient Egyptians.

Due to a fortunate combination of circumstances, including optimal Nile floods resulting in good harvests, international stability, a large family and of course, the extraordinary longevity which caused Ramesses to outlive not only his contemporaries, but many of his children and grandchildren, Egypt enjoyed a continuity of government that was the envy of the ancient world. Whether by luck, or good kingship, Egypt flourished under Ramesses II and her people were grateful.

Within his lifetime, Ramesses II was venerated as a god, particularly in Nubia. This cult following continued to flourish, even after the end of Egypt's pharaonic period. Unlike many Egyptian kings, who always sought to have their name remembered and repeated so that their soul could live on, the Egyptians continued to make pilgrimages to Abydos, Memphis, Tanis and Abu Simbel in order to make offerings to Ramesses the deity for centuries after his death. During the Graeco-Roman period, in order to elevate the status of a god named Khons, the priests literally rewrote their mythology to allow Ramesses II a starring role alongside the deity.

Ramesses II's reputation resulted in an amazing following, and even a period of Egyptian history we often refer to as the Ramesside period. During the 20th Dynasty, though not descendents, all but one of the kings took the name Ramesses in their efforts to emulate him. Unfortunately, only one of the kings, Ramesses III, would come anywhere close to Ramesses II's achievements, and in the end, this much weakened era would spell the end of the New Kingdom. Later still, the weak dynasty of Tanite kings who only had a tenuous grip on Upper Egypt also attempted to recapture some of the lost brilliance of Egypt's golden age by choosing to use Ramesses II's throne name, Usermaatre, as their own.

Ramesses II

Hence, Ramesses II's name lived on. In 1822, when we first began to decipher the ancient Egyptian language, many new pharaohs became known to us, and later, as new tombs were discovered, along with other documents, we began to piece together a long line of rulers. Only then did we know the names of Egyptian kings and queens such as Hatshepsut, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. However, Ramesses II was never in need of rediscovery, for his name, perhaps corrupted somewhat, was not forgotten.

Even in our modern world, he has also been remembered, though often not very realistically. He was the handsome, courageous and good hearted king of Christian Jacq's Egyptian novels, and a more lonely, complicated man in Anne Rice's "The Mummy". On the silver screen, he was introduced in the 1909 film, "Mummy of the King Ramses, and in 1923, became the great pharaoh of Cecil B DeMille's silent screen epic, "The Ten Commandments". Afterwards, Yul Brynner would become Ramesses in DeMille's more famous 1956 movie by the same name, and just recently, he was not very accurately portrayed in the DreamWorks animated interpretation of the Exodus called the "Prince of Egypt".

The great king was given the birth name of his grandfather, Re-mise, or Ramesses I (meryamun), which means, "Re has Fashioned Him, Beloved of Amun". We often find his birth name spelled as Ramses. His throne name was Usermaatre Setepenre, meaning, "The Justice of Re is Powerful, Chosen of Re".

Ramesses II

We may find many variations of his name throughout classical history. Ramesses fame was not limited to Egypt, for he was known throughout the ancient classical world, due perhaps to a highly efficient royal propaganda machine. From the Christian bible we hear of both Ramesses, as well as his capital city of Pi-Ramesses. Manetho, a famous ancient Egyptian historian, included Ramesses II in his Egyptian chronology as Ramesses Miamun, or Rapsakes. The Greek historian, Herodotus, refers to him as King Rhampsinitus. Writing in 60 BC, Diodorus Siculus, who was especially impressed by the monument we today call the Ramesseum, the mortuary temple of Ramesses II on the West Bank at Thebes, knew him as Ozymandias, which is an obvious corruption of the king's pre-noimen, Usermaatre. Pliny and Tacitus would later write about him, calling him King Rhamsesis or Rhamses, and two thousand years later, in 1817, Percy Bysshe Shelley published Ozymandias, a poem giving his impression of the once mighty Ramesses:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And Wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias,
king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing besides remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

In fact, prior to our modern discipline of Egyptology, the Pharaoh Ramesses II became legendary becoming a fabled king not unlike England's (Celtic) King Arthur. Like that king, an ill defined combination of real kings grew about his person, combining perhaps the deeds of the 12th Dynasty Kings Senusret I and III with those of Ramesses II under the general umbrella of Sesothes.

Yet, it was not until after Jean Francois Champollion decoded the Hieroglyphics of the Rosetta Stone that the immensity of Ramesses II's monumental building works could be appreciated by modern observers. Now, the real king became famous all over again, and not only among Egyptologists, though they certainly began to study Ramesses the Great with a new fervor. Because of the number of his monuments, he seems to have constantly been in the news, as discovery after discovery turned up bearing his name.

Early on, he received considerable bad press from scholars. For example, Bansen regarded him as:

"...an unbridled despot, who took advantage of a reign of almost unparalleled length, and of the acquisitions of his father and ancestors, in order to torment his own subjects and strangers to the utmost of his power."

Even in 1959, William C. Hayes said that he was:

"a brash young man...not overburdened with intelligence and singularly lacking in taste... [yet with] tremendous energy and personal magnetism."

Others only gave him slightly better marks. Miss Amelia B. Edwards, in her travel guide, "A Thousand Miles up the Nile", that:

"...it is safe to conclude that he was neither better nor worse than the general run of Oriental despots - that he was ruthless in war, prodigal in peace, rapacious in booty, and unsparing in the exercise of almost boundless power. Such pride and such despotism were, however, in strict accordance with immemorial precedent, and with the temper of the age in which he lived."

Essentially, Kenneth Kitchen, a more modern observer, seems to back Edwards comments, saying that:

"The deeds and attitudes of a Ramesses II cannot just be crudely measured-off against our own supposed social values, as simply boastful or megalomania; they must be compared with what were the norms and ideas in his culture, not ours."

Modern thought on Ramesses undulates from scholar to scholar, and depending on what role is discussed. However, somewhat of a consensus among Egyptologists seems to be that Ramesses II simply did what Egyptian pharaohs were suppose to do, though he had a longer period of time than average to do so. Essentially, Ramesses II is believed to have been a very traditional king in many respects, who followed in the footsteps of his predecessors.


Ramesses II Chariot

Ideally, an Egyptian pharaoh was simply a link in a long chain of custodians who's ill defined but well understood role passed from king to king. He was the mortal link with the gods upon who's shoulders rested the responsibility of maintaining Ma'at in Egypt, and to some extent throughout the known world. Ma'at might be defined as "truth", but might be better explained as a continuity of "rightness" which could insure that things would continue to function normally. If Ma'at were in balance, there would be reasonable Nile inundations (floods) which would nourish the soil and produce good harvests, victory in battle and there would not be illness in the land. Ma'at was mostly obtained by pleasing the gods, which involved supporting their cults as well as following a righteous path. And among other requirements such as making offerings, participating in festivals and protecting the sacred land of Egypt, pleasing the gods often involved building temples and supporting their priesthood.

Of course, there would be little need for a king to actually promote himself in order to fulfill these duties. Yet, despite the belief by the ancient Egyptians that the King was at least semi-divine, they were, as we now know, all too human. Almost every Egyptian pharaoh seems to have felt a need to prove himself to his people (as well as to the gods). In fact, they wanted to prove themselves superior to their predecessors, and yet, at the same time, many of these kings actually suffered considerable self doubt, particularly when they were not born to a long dynasty of kings and also not to a "Great Wife" of the king, as was the case with Ramesses II.


Statue of Ramesses II

Therefore, they exerted considerable efforts to build monuments and grand statues in order to re-enforce their role as a living god, as well as to defeat the enemies of Egypt in battle and in each case, they ensured that their name and titles were celebrated in connection with these deeds. Furthermore, they often exaggerated every possible deed, even to the point of fabricating war victories and usurping the monuments and statues of their predecessors.

Ramesses II was not the first, nor the last to follow such practices. He was certainly an avid builder, erecting temples and statues from one end of the Nile Valley to the other. And even when he may have failed in war, he nevertheless made it a victory by inscribing it as such on his monuments.

So in reality, regardless of our modern misgivings about Ramesses II, as a king of Egypt's New Kingdom, Ramesses fulfilled his functions, as he was basically expected to, and in return, Ma'at seems, at least to his ancient Egyptian subjects, to have been fulfilled, for the country experienced a long period of prosperity during his equally long reign.

Major Sections on Ramesses II


Main Ramesses II Page

Ramesses II: Anatomy of a Pharaoh - His Family (Specifically, his Women)

Ramesses II: Anatomy of a Pharaoh - His Family (Specifically, his Children)

Ramesses II: Anatomy of a Pharaoh - The Military Leader


See also:

Amun-her-shepeshef, First Son of Ramesses II

The Bentrech Stele

Leading up to the Battle of Kadesh:The Battle of Kadesh, Part I

The Actual Battle of Kadesh:The Battle of Kadesh Part II

Egyptian Account of the Battle of Kadesh

Nefertari, Tomb of - Valley of the Queens

Qantir, Ancient Pi-Ramesse

The Queens of Ramesses II

The First Peace Treaty in History

The Peace Treaty Document

The Sons (and Daughters) of Ramesses II


References:

TitleAuthorDatePublisherReference Number
Atlas of Ancient EgyptBaines, John; Malek, Jaromir1980Les Livres De FranceNone Stated
Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, TheShaw, Ian; Nicholson, Paul1995Harry N. Abrams, Inc., PublishersISBN 0-8109-3225-3
History of Ancient Egypt, AGrimal, Nicolas1988BlackwellNone Stated
Monarchs of the NileDodson, Aidan1995Rubicon PressISBN 0-948695-20-x
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, The Shaw, Ian2000Oxford University PressISBN 0-19-815034-2
Ramesses: Egypt's Greatest PharaohTyldesley, Joyce2000Penguin BooksISBN Not Listed
Ramesses II: Greatest of the Pharaohs Menu, Bernadette1999Harry N. Abrams, Inc.ISBN 0-8109-2870-1 (pbk.)
alley of the Kings Weeks, Kent R. 2001Friedman/FairfaxISBN 1-5866-3295-7
Who Were the Pharaohs? (A history of their names with a list of cartouches)Quirke, Stephen1990Dover PublicationsISBN 0-486-26586-2


Read more: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramesses2intro.htm#ixzz2afotzsTv