A sensible approach to the Pyramid Era

by Damien F. Mackey In Dr. John Osgood’s scenario, the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties, though approximately contemporaneous, remain nevertheless as separate dynasties. For him, this is the time of Joseph and the Famine. Dr John Osgood has made this insightful observation in his new book, They Speak With One Voice. A Correlation of the Bible Record with Archaeology, 2020 (p. 263): Let us look at the testimony of the pyramids – a purely sequential arrangement of the dynasties makes no sense with the pyramids. For it demands that after the demise of the 6th Dynasty, over 200 years passed and the almost identical technology was resurrected in the building of the 12th Dynasty pyramids. This is analogous to our society suddenly returning to the 18th century, and although they placed more on tradition than do we, it still makes no sense. Conventionally, the Sixth Dynasty closes at c. 2150 BC, whilst the Twelfth Dynasty commences at c. 1940 BC, slightly more than two centuries apart. Dr. Osgood is working here at trying to tie up, as the biblical Famine at the time of Joseph, a supposed famine during the reign of Sesostris, in the Twelfth Dynasty, and a supposed famine in the reign of Unas, of the Fifth Dynasty. This is a futile task, I believe, because Joseph is better situated to the Third Dynasty, to the reign of Horus Netjerikhet, when there apparently was a famine lasting for seven years. But what Dr. Osgood has managed to do is to argue for a dynastic re-arrangement that is virtually the very one that I have been working on in recent times, according to which the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian dynasties were contemporaneous. Dr. Donovan Courville had already made the suggestion in his classic set, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (CA, 1971), that the Sixth and Twelfth dynasties were contemporaneous. I have gone so far as, not only to make contemporaneous the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties, but to identify them all as the one dynasty, and at the time of Moses. For more on my early dynastic reconstructions at the time of Moses, see e.g. my article: First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses (3) First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In Dr. John Osgood’s scenario, the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties, though approximately contemporaneous, remain nevertheless as separate dynasties. For him, this is the time of Joseph and the Famine. From Dr John Osgood’s account of The 6th Dynasty, beginning on p. 260 of his book, we learn that, for this dynasty: The Turin Canon then suggests a possible 13 kings (and Queen) Manetho and the Abydos List give 6. Sakkara gives only 4. That is not entirely encouraging. Sakkara’s 4 comes closest to my estimation of only 3 rulers, two kings and a Queen – the latter having come to rule on the throne as the very last of this great dynasty. Dr. Osgood continues (op. cit., pp. 260-261): Newberry has suggested that T [Turin] 4:10 is a king named Nefersahor (1943, p. 52). Karkare Ibi’s pyramid has been discovered among the Pepi II group at Sakkara. Newberry also made the case (not accepted by all) that Neith, whose pyramid is among the group of Pepi II’s wives at Sakkara is in fact the Nitocris of Manetho, and was: Eldest daughter of Pepi I. The sister and wife of Merenre. The sister and wife later of Pepi II, during his minority. Avenged the murder of her brother Merenre and died (allegedly suicide) after a 12 year reign with Pepi II during his early years. How complicated! As I showed in my article above, on Moses, and, regarding the Queen who came to the throne: Female Ruler of Egypt late during sojourn of Moses in the land of Midian (5) Female Ruler of Egypt late during sojourn of Moses in the land of Midian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the Sixth Dynasty was composed of only 3 main royal persons: Teti [= Merenre I-II]; Pepi [I-II]; and Nitocris All three of these monarchs can be found, under various alter egos, amongst several Old Kingdom dynasties, and the Middle Kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty. Thus, for instance, the assassinated Merenre was the same ruler as the assassinated Teti, Sixth Dynasty, who, in turn, connects with the assassinated Amenemes (so-called I) of the Twelfth Dynasty. Teti, Amenemes, as well, shared the throne name, Sehetibre, and the Horus name, Sehetep-tawy. Newberry may well be right that Nefersahor belongs amongst the group, given the second ruler of the dynasty’s many Nefer names (“First Two Kings” article above): “Neferikare has a heap of Kha- element and Neferkare type names (Nephercheres, Neferkeris, Kaikai, Kaka, Nefer-it-ka-re, Neferirkara)”. But I may be able to be even more specific than that. Pepi’s prenomen was Nefersahor, according to: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/pepii/ Prenomen nfr sA Hr (Nefersahor) – Horus Is Perfect In Protection (Abydos kings list) Nor is it so very surprising, in my revised context, that various Sixth Dynasty pyramids would be found amongst Twelfth Dynasty ones. Dr. Osgood continues (op. cit., p. 261): In the Abydos list the next 2 kings may well be repetitions of some of the 6th Dynasty kings (and Queen). No. 40 Netjerkare – may well reflect Pepi II’s Horus name Neterkhau. No. 41 Menkare – the alternate name for Nitocris. In my “First Two Kings” article, Menkare, Menkaure, however, is yet another alter ego for Teti (= Cheops and Amenemes so-called III). Thus I wrote: …. [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. Menkaure, or Mycerinus, who will also figure in this series … may have been similarly 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.” …. Ammenemes III “....This economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works that make the reign of Ammenemes III one of the summits of state absolutism”. Recall: “[Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule …”. [End of quotes] “But Unis’ pyramid is very similar to the 6th Dynasty pyramids and they are very similar to the 12th Dynasty pyramids. I. E. S. Edwards ‘The Pyramids of Egypt’ discusses the similarity, not only in style, but also the pyramid texts. Particularly the similar style of the 6th and the 12th”. Dr John Osgood Dr John Osgood, beginning on p. 263 (-264) of his book, will offer his revised version of the Placement of the 6th Dynasty: The conventional arrangement of the 6th Dynasty is sequential to the 5th, and considered the last dynasty before the ‘First Intermediate Period’. Here the 6th is seen as logically following the 5th, but reasons will be given to show that the 6th, in fact, is for the most part parallel to and subsidiary to the 12th. The concept of a First Intermediate Period is here rejected as historically untenable. 1) The Biblical chronology and narrative does not allow the long time required for the First Intermediate Period. 2) Manetho’s history, in fact, does not require it either, as that dynastic historical arrangement is presented on the basis of sequelae on a geographic basis, ie. The Memphite Dynasties do not necessarily follow sequentially the end of the Thinite Dynasties, and the Heracleopolitan Dyasties (9/10), do not necessarily follow sequentially the Memphite group, nor the Theban group sequential to the Heracleopolitan group; parallelisms can fit well with this arrangement. In fact at least once Manetho admits to multiple parallel rules of native dynasties (at the Hyksos invasion he states that multiple kings were overcome). Let us look at the testimony of the pyramids – a purely sequential arrangement of the dynasties makes no sense with the pyramids. For it demands that after the demise of the 6th Dynasty, over 200 years passed and the almost identical technology was resurrected in the building of the 12th Dynasty pyramids. This is analogous to our society suddenly returning to the 18th century, and although they placed more on tradition than do we, it still makes no sense. Courville, in discussion of the famines, showed reason to place Unis [Unas] of the end of the 5th Dynasty parallel to the early 12th Dynasty. But Unis’ pyramid is very similar to the 6th Dynasty pyramids and they are very similar to the 12th Dynasty pyramids. I. E. S. Edwards ‘The Pyramids of Egypt’ discusses the similarity, not only in style, but also the pyramid texts. Particularly the similar style of the 6th and the 12th. …. [End of quote] What is happening here is that Dr. Osgood, like Dr. Courville whom he largely follows regarding the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynastic arrangement, needs to identify a famine to associate with the biblical Joseph who they both believe to have belonged to the early Twelfth Dynasty. Such they cannot convincingly identify, I believe, because the biblical famine had occurred much earlier than this, during the Old Kingdom’s Third Dynasty. Despite the fact that both Drs. Courville and Osgood were attempting to situate Joseph where, in fact, Moses ought to be, they still managed to come up with a close connection between the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties – {which is precisely what I have done; my reconstruction, though, being according to a Moses context} - because they, unlike I, have over-stretched these dynasties according to the excessively lengthy king lists. Thus Dr. Osgood is basically correct with many of the points that he makes above – but for the wrong reasons. To give some examples, to which I must add my own twist: The conventional arrangement of the 6th Dynasty is sequential to the 5th, and considered the last dynasty before the ‘First Intermediate Period’. With Drs. Courville and Osgood I reject that sequential arrangement. Here the 6th is seen as logically following the 5th, but reasons will be given to show that the 6th, in fact, is for the most part parallel to and subsidiary to the 12th. The concept of a First Intermediate Period is here rejected as historically untenable. My Moses articles un-complicate all of this, by identifying the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth as the one and same dynasty. …. Manetho’s … dynastic historical arrangement is presented on the basis of sequelae on a geographic basis …. In fact at least once Manetho admits to multiple parallel rules of native dynasties (at the Hyksos invasion he states that multiple kings were overcome). Geography is not so terribly important here as any one ruler could be variously situated at different locations at different times. Nor is the Hyksos invasion of a later time at all relevant here. Let us look at the testimony of the pyramids – a purely sequential arrangement of the dynasties makes no sense with the pyramids. For it demands that after the demise of the 6th Dynasty, over 200 years passed and the almost identical technology was resurrected in the building of the 12th Dynasty pyramids. I fully agree with this one. Courville, in discussion of the famines, showed reason to place Unis [Unas] of the end of the 5th Dynasty parallel to the early 12th Dynasty. That was in order to parallel a supposed famine in the time of Unas with a supposed famine in the time of Sesostris. But Unis’ pyramid is very similar to the 6th Dynasty pyramids and … they are very similar to the 12th Dynasty pyramids. They are indeed, because the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth - one and the same dynasty. Dr Osgood continues on p. 265: Examples: (p. 220) ‘Fundamentally, it (Pepi II’s pyramid) resembled closely the complex of Ammenemes I’. (p. 223) ‘… the arrangement of the enclosure walls in this complex was almost identical with the plan of the walls in the complex of Ammenemes I’. And why would that be? Well, in my scheme, Pepi (s0-called II) immediately follows the rule of Amenemes (so-called I). Dr. Osgood: And (p. 220) ‘… the greater part of the original plan of Sesostris I’s complex has been established and the extent to which its Mortuary Temple was copied form the Mortuary Temple’s [sic] of the VI th Dynasty, as illustrated by that of Pepi II, is clearly evident’. Of course, if the two dynasties were parallel, it may be that Pepi II copied that of Sesostris I. Or it may be, as according to my scheme, that Sesostris was Pepi. Dr. Osgood: The practice of co-regency is discussed by Gardiner (‘Egypt of the Pharaohs’), a practice which frequently occurred during the 12th Dynasty, but on p. 129 he mentions the possible practice during the 6th Dynasty: ‘… perhaps even at the start it was not quite an innovation, for we find evidence that Piopi [Pepi] I of Dyn VI may have adopted a similar course.’ If the dynasties were parallel that would not be surprising. Again, even less surprising if as according to my comments above. For more on matters such as these, see e.g. my articles: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms Far Closer in Time than Conventionally Thought (5) Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms Far Closer in Time than Conventionally Thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Was Great Sphinx of Egypt a Middle Kingdom project? (5) Was Great Sphinx of Egypt a Middle Kingdom project? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

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.