Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek

by Damien F. Mackey Once again, there is no real “absence of data” when we recognise the documents of the Middle Kingdom as being wholly relevant to the Old Kingdom. As preparatory reading, see e.g. my articles: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms Far Closer in Time than Conventionally Thought (4) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sphinx of Giza and Egypt’s so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom (4) Sphinx of Giza and Egypt’s so-called 'Middle' Kingdom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (4) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Marco Zecchi wrote in (2010): Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period (4) Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period | Marco Zecchi - Academia.edu …. Old Kingdom Unfortunately, nothing of Shedet from the Old Kingdom has survived. We have no idea of its temple in this period and we do not even possess many documents regarding Sobek of Shedet and it must be stressed that none of these come from the Fayyum. Yet, it was in this period that the crocodile of Shedet was given the first opportunity to appear as a powerful god amongst the other deities of the Egyptian pantheon. It is plausible that the fortune of Sobek was somehow linked to the fortune of his region. And indeed, despite this lack of evidence, the assertion that the Fayyum played a very marginal role in the Old Kingdom is extremely questionable . Mackey’s comment: When the Egyptian Old Kingdom is properly connected to the Middle Kingdom, as it needs to be, then there will be found to have been no lack of Sobek data at Shedet. Two articles, both published in 1997, one in English by Andrzej Cwiek and one in Italian by Patrizia Piacentini , reflect an increasing interest in the region before the Middle Kingdom, when the Fayyum depression and its main town became of paramount importance in the politics of the reigning kings. Recent geoarchaeological survey and the results of field scanning methods have suggested that in the early dynastic period and in the Old Kingdom the lake level was at about 15m or 20m above sea level , and, as a consequence, the Fayyum must have been characterised by the presence of a huge extension of water. A great portion of the Fayyum depression was submerged and what remained above water was probably marshlands. Very likely, the most suitable areas for human occupation, apart from the territory around Shedet, at + 23m, were the area north of the lake and the eastern entrance to the region. Nevertheless, the potential agricultural and, above all, mineral resources of the region suggest that it was neither scarcely inhabited nor unimportant and indeed, besides Shedet, there were a few other centres of human activity. …. The construction of a pyramid on the desert edge, about 9 kilometres from Seila village in the eastern Fayyum, on the hills called Gebel el-Rus, may be explained through a comparison with the other so-called Minor Step Pyramids of the Old Kingdom . Following Günter Dreyer and Werner Kaiser , one can assert that the geographical distribution of the Minor Step Pyramids and their topographical relations with towns and religious centres is particularly important for the understanding of these monuments, which, with the possible exception of the pyramid of Seila erected most likely by king Snefru, were built close to important provincial towns. As Cwiek has remarked , however, the hypothesis that the Seila pyramid was erected in order to mark the western border of the country is hardly sustainable. Given that the Minor Step Pyramids were also symbols of royal power and of the presence of the reigning king in the Egyptian provinces, it is very likely that the Fayyum region itself had a certain appeal for Snefru. Mackey’s comment: But Snefru (or Snofru) was, according to my articles, the same as the Middle Kingdom’s Amenemes [Amenemhet], during which time devotion to the Crocodile god soared. In the proximity of the pyramid, a stela with Snefru’s titulary, a mud brick chapel, a statue of the king and an altar were found , suggesting that this was an active cult centre. Whatever was the function of this pyramid, it is plausible to state that it was also the focus of an administrative centre. The priests who had to perform the necessary rituals might have come from Meidum, 11 kilometres away, but might have lived in the proximity of Seila. Moreover, a necropolis dating from the Third to the Sixth Dynasties was discovered by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt in 1900 at Fag el-Gamus, close to the pyramid. Two statues in limestone published by Ludwig Borchardt and found during illegal explorations near the village of Seila might come from the same necropolis . It is not known if Snefru can be regarded as the first Egyptian king to start the colonisation of the Fayyum . Nevertheless, there is no doubt that, according to the available data, his reign represents a significant step in the development of the region. …. The most ancient document connecting Sobek’s name with the main town of the Fayyum, Shedet, dates back to the Fourth Dynasty and comes from Dahshur. It is a false-door from the tomb of the vizier Ka-nefer, who, amongst many others, carried the title of Hm-ntr sbk Sdt, ‘hem-priest of Sobek of Shedet’ (doc. 1). Another important man to be bestowed with the same title was the homonymous Ka-nefer of the Fourth or Fifth Dynasty, who was buried at Giza and who was also imy-r wpt, xrp aH and smr (doc. 2). …. Mackey’s comment: With the Fourth and Fifth dynasties now merged into one, the Vizier Ka-Nefer can simply be reduced to just the one high official. It should be stressed, however, that the two [sic] Ka-nefer were influential people connected with Memphis. What cannot be ascertained with certainty is whether Sobek’s cult was so important as to have its own clergy in this locality, or, most likely, whether in the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties the priesthood of Sobek in the Fayyum was not very strong or locally organised and, therefore, it was not independent, but directly controlled by high-ranking dignitaries who gravitated around the city of Memphis. Nevertheless, in the Old Kingdom Sobek of the Fayyum was surely already regarded as a prominent deity of the Egyptian pantheon. Not only had he religious personnel who took care of his image, but he also started to be represented on the walls of the royal temples of the Fifth Dynasty and also sporadically quoted in the ‘Pyramid Texts’. …. The temple of Niuserra is innovative from the point of view of iconography, as, for the first time after the above-mentioned seal of the Second Dynasty with the crocodile-headed Horus, it clearly shows Sobek of Shedet through a common combination of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic elements, an iconography that would become, together with his pure animal aspect, Sobek’s standardised depiction. On a limestone relief, the god is shown as a crocodile-headed man in a striding pose; he wears a striated wig, a broad collar and the typical short skirt and holds was-staff and ankh-sing (doc. 5)60. The crocodile god appears also in the temple of Pepy II , but with no geographical indication. Here, some gods stride in four rows, one of which is lead [sic] by Sobek himself, once again in the guise of a crocodile-headed man, followed by Wadjet, Sokar, Hathor, Khonsu and Hekau. Mackey’s comment: Niuserra [Neuserre] and Pepi II, I have also amalgamated with the Middle Kingdom as, respectively, Amenemes and Sesostris. The ‘Pyramid Texts’ offer a new perspective with which to regard Sobek’s personality in the Old Kingdom. Here the god is quoted in seven spells. In Spell 301 the crocodile god is associated for the first time with the wrrt-crown, as the rising sun receives this crown from ‘the great and mighty foreigners who preside over Libya’ and from ‘Sobek lord of Bakhu’ (nb bAhw) (Pyr. §456) . …. It seems particularly significant that in the only spell in which the god is associated with a town, a ‘civic space’, this town is Shedet. This might be interpreted as an indication that Shedet, amongst all others, was considered as his specific and original cult-centre. In Spell 582, the king, identified with a few deities, declares that he ‘governs as Sobek who is in Shedet (sbk imy Sdt) and Anubis in Takhib. Pepy will call for a thousand and the populace will come to him bowing’ (Pyr. §§ 1564b) (doc. 6). In another spell , we read: ‘My father has inherited from Horus as Horus in Seal-ring, Seth in the Ennead, Sobek in [Shedet]. Let arms beat, let drumming go down!’. In Spell 275 the sovereign is once again identified with the crocodile-god of the Fayyum: the king ‘Unis will open the double doors, Unis will attain the limit of the horizon, Unis having laid the msdt-garment there on the ground, and Unis will become the Great One who is in Shedet (wr imy Sdt)’ (Pyr. § 416) . Despite the possibility that the toponym Sdt has been chosen merely because of a pun with the noun msdt, it is however evident that the regal function coincides with that of the crocodile-god of the Fayyum. The die is cast: in the Middle Kingdom, it was Sobek of Shedet who, before any other Sobek worshipped in Egypt, was to be connected with the royal function…. Mackey’s comment: Once again, the ruler Unis [Unas] is likely just another version of the Middle Kingdom’s Sesostris. One of the striking characteristics of the religion of the Fayyum before the Twelfth Dynasty is the complete lack of documents, with the exception of Horus’ name, on the presence of other deities. It is hardly believable that the crocodile-god dominated the Fayyum religious world in a way that did not permit his coexistence with other forms of veneration. Perhaps, other gods were already living in the Fayyum, even though we cannot know the extent of their inluence within the region. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to note this absence of data, which most likely is the result of archaeological accidents. Mackey’s comment: Once again, there is no real “absence of data” when we recognise the documents of the Middle Kingdom as being wholly relevant to the Old Kingdom. But it is also possible that some Egyptian gods were at last able to claim a cult within the region only from the Middle Kingdom onwards, when they started to be theologically interwoven with Sobek’s personality and functions. …. At the end of the Sixth Dynasty, the god disappears from Egyptian sources, to appear again at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. …. Mackey’s comment: There is actually no ‘disappearance’. The Sixth Dynasty and the Twelfth Dynasty is/are one and the same. Chapter II THE MIDDLE KINGDOM …. The beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty Even though the ‘Cofin Texts’ are an important source on Sobek, here the god still remains prevalently a crocodile-deity, deeply immersed in his own natural habitat. With the end of the Old Kingdom, Sobek of Shedet seems to vanish, despite the fact he had reached a quite solid position amongst the Egyptian gods. After the Sixth Dynasty, the first document, mentioning the god and dated with certainty, goes back to the reign of Amenemhat II. Indeed, it is difficult to glimpse Sobek of Shedet at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, despite the fact this very dynasty was a decisive moment in the history of the Fayyum. Mackey’s comment: That is because the Twelfth Dynasty has been over-complicated by Egyptologists not recognising the need for a radical fusion of multiple names, Amenemes and Sesostris. …. The earliest level of recognisable work in the area was in the approach, or pro-temenos, of the temple, where a bed of broken pottery of the Twelfth Dynasty and clean sand was led, most likely for the road to the temple. Buildings were on both sides of the road, evidently to keep the access to the temple clear. But, probably in the III or IV century, red-brick houses were built there, and ‘soon after that, the rubbish mounds were piled up, and in the V and VI century overflowed and filled up the entrance to the then deserted temple’ . Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing the conditions and dimensions of the temple at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. We do not even know whether it stood in the same place as the temple of the Old Kingdom, or whether the latter was completely destroyed or simply enlarged and embellished by the following kings. At any rate, the interest of the new dynasty for the Fayyum and the house of Sobek began with Amenemhat I . Mackey’s comment: This accords with the enormous veneration by Sobek of Amenemes [Amenemhat] III, an alter ego of Amenemhat I. Contrary to what has been claimed, it cannot be demonstrated that Amenemhat I initiated the construction of a new temple at Shedet. As a matter of fact, the assertion that this king was the founder of the temple of the Twelfth Dynasty is based on Golénischeff’s erroneous attribution of an inscription on a granite column, which, as shown by Habachi , belonged instead to Amenemhat III. Mackey’s comment: Another indication to me that Amenemes I was the same ruler as III. …. Sobekneferu, the beauty of Sobek Shedety The temple of Renenutet at Medinet Madi is the only place [?] where the name of Amenemhat IV is associated to Sobek-Horus of Shedet. This king does not seem to have worked in any other site of the Fayyum and, most significantly, he never occurs in the Hawara complex . After Amenemhat IV’s reign, the crown passed to queen Sobekneferu. The reasons of her accession remain unclear. Mackey’s comment: The “reasons” are, according to my various Moses articles, that the Twelfth Dynasty died out, terminating in the brief reign of a female. The hypothesis that she was wife or sister, or half-sister, of Amenemhat IV is not actually based on any contemporary source , where she is never referred to as king’s wife or sister . On the contrary, the fact that she contrived to proclaim herself king and that, during her reign, she used Amenemhat III’s memory for politic and religious aims seem to indicate that she was related to this king and it is very likely that she was one of his daughters. But, as in the case of princess Neferuptah, we do not know the name of her mother. Family connections and loyalties to her deceased alleged father seem to be the key to events and behaviour of this female king. The activities and interests of her reign are turned towards the Fayyum region. Sobek of Shedet had taken, as of right, a position at the centre of Amenemhat III’s policy. And during Sobekneferu’s reign, there was no deity who was able to oppose his supremacy. Even through her names, which were innovative, she showed a predilection for the crocodile god, and, specifically, for that of the Fayyum. She was the first Egyptian ruler to have a theophoric name composed with that of Sobek, even though this was given to her at birth. But when, for whatever reasons, she obtained the crown, she chose for herself also a prenomen composed with that of the same god . …. Mackey’s comment: She may not, however, have been “the first Egyptian ruler to have a theophoric name composed with that of Sobek …”, since the Thirteenth Dynasty’s Sobekhoteps might also have to be factored in to the Twelfth Dynasty, with Sobekhotep IV bearing a prenomen, Nefer-ka-re, that we find also amongst various of my alter egos for Sesostris, such as Pepi so-called II.

H. Tadmor and Y. Levin come close to identifying Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh

by Damien F. Mackey “Both Tadmor and Cogan mention Ahiqar, the Aramean adviser who served in the court of Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son. …. Machinist, in his article on Rabshakeh, writes of “Hayim Tadmor’s now celebrated view,” … and they all cite the Babylonian Talmud tractate b. Sanh. 60a, which suggests that “Rabshakeh was an apostate Israelite”.” Yigal Levin Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh, who verbally taunted king Hezekiah’s chief officials and those Jews manning the walls of Jerusalem during Assyria’s invasion of Judah, was indeed the historical and biblical Ahiqar (Ahikar). And, at that particular point in time, Ahiqar was apparently also, as according to the Babylonian Talmud, “an apostate Israelite”: Achior the Ephraïmite (DOC) Achior the Ephraïmite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu For this Ahiqar was the nephew of a northern Israelite, the pious Tobit, who, unlike his Naphtalian brethren, had remained faithful to Yahwism. Sennacherib may well have chosen Ahiqar for his western (Judah) campaign because of the fact that the latter, as an Israelite, spoke, not only Aramaïc, but also Yehudit, which was akin to Hebrew, the spoken language of the Jews in Jerusalem. The high officials, led by Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who had now replaced Shebna as high priest (“over the Tabernacle”), also - unlike the mass of people - spoke Aramaïc, which Ahiqar, as an exile in Nineveh, obviously knew. King Hezekiah’s officials almost certainly knew of the Rabshakeh and knew that he spoke a form of Hebrew. Yigal Levin has discussed the various view about Rabshakeh in his useful article (2015): How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah? (PDF) How did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah? | Yigal Levin - Academia.edu

Josephus has four versions of Judas Maccabeus thinking they were all different persons

by Damien F. Mackey Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was. The first version, found in Antiquities Book XII, is basically recognisable from what we read about the Jewish Revolt against the Macedonian Seleucids in I-II Maccabees. The second version - Roman era presumably - found early in Antiquities Book XVII, provides us with an account of the Revolt against King Herod, late in life, by the Jewish pair, Matthias and Judas. Compare Mattathias and his son, Judas Maccabeus. This continues over in to the time of Herod’s son, Archelaus, whom Saint Joseph feared on the Family’s return from Egypt (Matthew 2:19-21). This is what Gamaliel was talking about, “Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census”. The Census, the one that greets us at the beginning of Luke 2 (:1-3): Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain” (4) Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2's "rock cut out of a mountain" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In conventional terms, about 170 years separate these incidents, Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus, on the one hand, and Matthias and Judas the Galilean, on the other. In my scheme, they pertain to precisely the same events. This is only some several decades before the estimated birth of Josephus (c. 37 AD). How come, then, that he has it all so badly tangled up? Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (4) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this is borne out further in: The third version, found later in Antiquities Book XVII. Athronges, Josephus’s new name for Judas (without his realising it). Again, it was the time of Archelaus, son of Herod. …. 7. But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors; nor for any great wealth he was possessed of; but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only [were he and his 4 brothers shepherd priests at the time of the Nativity?] , and was not known by any body: yet because he was a tall man [Maccabees likens Judas to “a giant”], and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for King. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that although he should be killed, he did not much care if he lost his life in so great a design. He had also four brethren,20 who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands; and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the Kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own. For those that got together to them were very numerous. They were every one of them also commanders. But when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. While he put a diadem about his head, and assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. And this man retained his power a great while: he was also called King; and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased. He also, as well as his brethren, slew a great many both of the Romans [???], and of the King’s forces; and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. The King’s forces they fell upon, because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod’s government: and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men. Nor could any one escape from one or other of these seditions. Since they slew some out of the hopes of gain; and others from a mere custom of slaying men. They once attacked a company of Romans at Emmaus; who were bringing corn and weapons to the army: and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. But the rest of them were affrighted at their slaughter, and left their dead behind them, but saved themselves by the means of Gratus; who came with the King’s troops that were about him to their assistance. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while, by such sort of expeditions: and much grieved the Romans; but did their own nation also a great deal of mischief. Yet were they afterwards subdued. …. It sure beats Gamaliel’s miserable account of Judas the Galilean at least (Acts 5:37). The fourth version, also found in Antiquities Book XVII, seems to be simply a duplication of Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census. Certain scholars, at least, identify the two as one (see next): https://www.geni.com/people/Judas-the-Zealot-of-Gamala/6000000005747693711 …. Leader of a popular revolt against the Romans at the time when the first census was taken in Judea, in which revolt he perished and his followers were dispersed (Acts v. 37); born at Gamala in Gaulonitis (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 1). In the year 6 or 7 C.E., when Quirinus came into Judea to take an account of the substance of the Jews, Judas, together with Zadok, a Pharisee, headed a large number of Zealots and offered strenuous resistance (ib. xviii. 1, § 6; xx. 5, § 2; idem, "B. J." ii. 8, § 1). Judas proclaimed the Jewish state as a republic recognizing God alone as king and ruler and His laws as supreme. The revolt continued to spread, and in some places serious conflicts ensued. Even after Judas had perished, his spirit continued to animate his followers. Two of his sons, Jacob and Simon, were crucified by Tiberius Alexander ("Ant." xx. 5, § 2); another son, Menahem, became the leader of the Sicarii and for a time had much power; he was finally slain by the high-priestly party ("B. J." ii. 17, §§ 8-9). Grätz ("Gesch." iii. 251) and Schürer ("Gesch." i. 486) identify Judas the Galilean with Judas, son of Hezekiah the Zealot, who, according to Josephus ("Ant." xvii. 10, § 5; "B. J." ii. 4, § 1), led a revolt in the time of Quintilius Varus. He took possession of the arsenal of Sepphoris, armed his followers, who were in great numbers, and soon became the terror of the Romans. When did the Romans come to Judah? This present article has arisen from a discussion I have recently had with a colleague in which we were trying to determine when the Greek (Seleucid) hold over Judah ceased, and the Romans took over – presuming that this is what actually happened. That I have trouble with the conventional view of the Romans for this period will be apparent to readers of my article: Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible (4) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu To my suggestion that Josephus, a political animal, had a political agenda, my colleague replied (26/04/2024): Everyone has biases and agendas. That much can be tolerated by the discerning reader. I mean whether he is reliable witness to basic historical events. For instance I could read a newspaper columnist with whom I vehemently disagree but he is going to be working from the same basic historical backdrop - that Anthony Albanese is the prime minister etc. So, if Josephus is a witnesses to 1st century events and he says the Romans destroyed the Temple - then biases and agendas aside - I'd say that's how it went down. …. This led me to summarise some of my reasons for my minimilisation of the Romans: …. Sounds reasonable. But when do the Romans come into the Judean picture? …. Augustus writes a decree to the whole Roman world. Except, the word Roman is not there. The Romans in Maccabees are allies of the Jews, not invaders. They promise the world, but Judas, then Jonathan, then Simon, all die violently. What happened to the Roman promise of intervention? There are Roman centurions in the Bible. Except, the word Roman is not there. And a Greek word (hekatóntarkhos), not centurion (centurio), is used. We know from history that there was a Jewish centurion in the pagan army. May have been others. My tip is that the centurion (?) Jesus praised was Jewish. No Faith like this in Israel, a builder of a synagogue. Would a Roman centurion build a synagogue? Pilate writes in Hebrew, Greek, Latin (at least Fr. Brian Harrison reckons that that is the proper order). Why Greek, before Latin? Both Pontius and Pilate can also be Greek words. Caiaphas (from memory) warns that the Romans might come - the only solitary mention of them I have found (except for Maccabees) before Paul. If they might come, then does that mean that they are not actually there? Revelation does not name Greek or Roman invaders by those words. Gog and Magog get a look in late. In Ezekiel 38, 39, Gog and Magog refer to the Macedonian Seleucids and their array - and, specifically, to the showdown between Judas and Nicanor. Hence why I have remained non-commital thus far. (That is not to say that the Jewish Revolt ending in 70 AD was not against Rome. I don't know). …. Name “Athronges” As I noted in my “Religious war …” article (above): We can even connect the name, Athronges, thought to mean a “citron” (etrog), to the Maccabees, once it is appreciated that the wrongly-named Second Jewish Revolt was actually that of the Maccabees. See e.g. my article: An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt (DOC) An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu For: https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/was-jesus-of-nazareth-a-jewish-nationalist-53d2b082c9 In 132–135 [sic], the last Jewish leader, Simon bar Kokhba, attempted a final uprising in the hope of restoring Judea’s independence. On his coins, he minted the facade of the temple destroyed sixty years earlier [sic]. We also see a bouquet (lulab) and a citron (etrog), symbols of the traditional cult that Simon intended to restore. We can also read the slogan of the revolt, written in Hebrew: “For the freedom of Jerusalem.” ….

Sumur in Amarna letters of Rib-Addi

by Damien F. Mackey “Velikovsky called this Rib-Addi king of Gubla and Sumur (var. Sumura) … which EA cities he had tried to equate with Ahab’s chief cities of, respectively, Jezreel and Samaria; though they are usually identified with the coastal cities of Byblos (Gebal) and Simyra”. What Sumur was not Sumur cannot realistically have been Samaria, as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had hopefully argued (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). For, as I explained in my postgraduate thesis (2007, Volume One, pp. 83-87): …. Now EA’s [El Amarna’s] Lab’ayu, whom I shall be identifying with Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dates), appropriately straddles both part of Amenhotep III’s reign and the early part of Akhnaton’s. Velikovsky, for his part, had … looked to identify Ahab with Rib-Addi of Gubla, the most prolific Syro-Palestine correspondent to the EA pharaohs (over 50 letters in number). And this was surely a big mistake. For, in order for him to ‘make’ Ahab, like Rib-Addi, a very old man at death, Velikovsky was prepared to fly in the face of the biblical data and completely re-cast the chronology of Ahab’s life. He had convinced himself that there existed a contradiction between the accounts of Ahab in Kings and Chronicles so that, as he claimed, Ahab did not die at the battle of Ramoth-gilead as is stated in 1 Kings 22 (cf. vv. 6, 29 & 37), but rather reigned on for a further 8-10 years. Thus, according to Velikovsky’s view, king Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dates), never truly existed, but was a ghost. From a biblical point of view, the fact that Rib-Addi had been able to report the death of Abdi-Ashirta (Velikovsky’s Ben-Hadad I) meant that Velikovsky was quite wrong in identifying Rib-Addi with king Ahab; since Ahab’s death preceded that of Ben-Hadad (cf. 1 Kings 22:40 & 2 Kings 8:15). But this was Velikovsky in his favourite rôle as “the arbiter of history”, according to Sieff, forcing historical data to fit a pre-conceived idea. Velikovsky called this Rib-Addi king of Gubla and Sumur (var. Sumura), which EA cities he had tried to equate with Ahab’s chief cities of, respectively, Jezreel and Samaria; though they are usually identified with the coastal cities of Byblos (Gebal) and Simyra. …. Velikovsky greatly confused the issue of Ahab of Israel for those coming after him, since Rib-Addi was chronologically and geographically unsuitable for Ahab. Revisionists have since rightly rejected this part of Velikovsky’s EA reconstruction, with Sieff suggesting instead that Rib-Addi may have been Jehoram of Israel. Liel favours this view from the perspective of her linguistic name studies. She has analysed the EA name, Rib-Addi, in the context of Israel’s Divided Monarchy … and has come to the same conclusion as had Sieff, assisted by James, but in her case on name basis alone: …. problematical to the Rib-Addi = Jehoram of Israel theory though are the geographical difficulties, as Liel now admits: Certain questions remain regarding the identification of the Rib-Yauram [Rib-Addi] of the Amarna letters and the biblical Jehoram son of Omri. The main one is geographical; i.e., can Sumur and Gubla be identified with Samaria and Jezreel? This question will be dealt with in a forthcoming paper to be entitled “The Hebrew-Phoenician-Aramean Kingdom of North Israel.” … whether Jehoram could feasibly have been the aged Rib-Addi is another consideration. Whether or not Rib-Addi turns out to be Jehoram of Israel, a far better EA candidate for Ahab than Rib-Addi, in my opinion, and indeed a more obvious one – and I am quite surprised that no one has yet taken it up – is Lab’ayu, known to have been a king of the Shechem region, which is very close to Samaria (only 9 km SE distant); especially given my quote earlier (p. 54) from Cook that the geopolitical situation at this time in the “(north) [was akin to that of the] Israelites of a later [sic] time”. Lab’ayu is never actually identified in the EA letters as king of either Samaria or of Shechem. Nevertheless, Aharoni has designated Lab’ayu as “King of Shechem” in his description of the geo-political situation in Palestine during the EA period (Aharoni, of course, is a conventional scholar writing of a period he thinks must have been well pre-monarchical): In the hill country there were only a few political centres, and each of these ruled over a fairly extensive area. In all the hill country of Judah and Ephraim we hear only of Jerusalem and Shechem with possible allusions to Beth-Horon and Manahath, towns within the realm of Jerusalem’s king. ... Apparently the kings of Jerusalem and Shechem dominated, to all practical purposes, the entire central hill country at that time. The territory controlled by Labayu, King of Shechem, was especially large in contrast to the small Canaanite principalities round about. Only one letter refers to Shechem itself, and we get the impression that this is not simply a royal Canaanite city but rather an extensive kingdom with Shechem as its capital. Against all objections already discussed, this description sounds very much to me like the distinct northern and southern realms during the split kingdom era! Note, too, how the more northerly region of Galilee is missing from this description. We might recall that Ben-Hadad I and/or Tab-rimmon had taken these towns from Israel’s king Baasha. De Vaux considered Aharoni’s identification of Shechem as the capital of Lab’ayu’s kingdom as being by no means certain: Lab’ayu was not, however, given the title of king of Shechem and it is very doubtful whether he ever was. It would seem too that he did not live at Shechem; his authority was probably exercised from elsewhere by means of an agreement made with the inhabitants. The latter took care of the internal administration of the city and recognised Lab’ayu’s authority as a kind of protectorate…. In the light of this, the conclusion of Rohl and Newgrosh is valid: “In most scholarly works Labayu is referred to as the king or ruler of Shechem and this, we feel, has been misleading”. Neither is Lab’ayu, as I already have noted, ever specifically mentioned in EA as a ruler of Samaria. However, given the close proximity of Shechem to Samaria - and given the apparently “extensive” rule of Lab’ayu - then he stands, in a revised context, as the ideal identification for king Ahab of Israel. I am encouraged in this by the fact that Aharoni’s description of the kingdom over which Lab’ayu reigned appears to correspond very well with the realm of Ahab as far as we know it: Lab’ayu was a serious contender with the kings of Jerusalem and Gezer. EA 250 indicates that ... he even dominated the entire Sharon, having conquered Gath-padalla (Jett in the central Sharon) and Gath-rimmon (apparently the biblical town of this name ...). Even in the north Lab’ayu was not content to possess only the hill country; he tried to penetrate into the Jezreel Valley, laying siege to Megiddo (EA 244) and destroying Shunem and some other towns (EA 250). [End of quotes] Conclusion The city of Sumur of the EA correspondence could not have been Samaria of Israel as Dr. Velikovsky had proposed, but was, as according to the standard interpretation, the port of Simyra. What Sumur may also have been That the port of Sumur/Simyra lies north of Byblos (my Babylon) and south of Ullaza (my Arzawa, tentatively) is apparent from what Dr. Mahmoud Elhosary has written (2009, p. 149): …. In his thirtieth regnal year, Thutmose [III] attacked the Lebanon coast in earnest, mounting an amphibious invasion. He left Egypt in early June and arrived in Lebanon a week later. Although the Annals do not tell us where he landed, the most logical place was the port city of Simyra, located about thirty miles by sea from the friendly port of Byblos. Lying just south of Ullaza, Simyra was the closest port to the mouth of the Eleutheros Valley. …. Gabriel, R.A., “Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt's Greatest Warrior King”, Potomac Books, Inc. (2009) (3) Gabriel, R.A., "Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt's Greatest Warrior King", Potomac Books, Inc. (2009) | Dr-Mahmoud Elhosary - Academia.edu Arzawa is closely associated with geographical names such as Mira and the Seha River Land. Thus, for instance: https://www.britannica.com/place/Anatolia/The-Middle-Kingdom Arzawa, with its satellites Mira, Kuwaliya, Hapalla, and the “Land of the River Seha …”. The latter might just possibly refer to the Chaldean Sealand, re-located from Sumer to NW Syria by Royce (Richard) Erickson in his groundbreaking article (2020): A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (3) Academia.edu | Search | A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY Sumur, which can also read as Ṣimirra, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumur_(Levant) Sumur (Biblical Hebrew: צְמָרִי‎ [collective noun denoting the city inhabitants]; Egyptian: Smr; Akkadian: Sumuru; Assyrian: Simirra) was a Phoenician city in what is now Syria. It was a major trade center. The city has also been referred to in English publications as Simyra,[1] Ṣimirra, Ṣumra,[2] Sumura,[3] Ṣimura,[4] Zemar,[5] and Zimyra.[6] could then be Mira, an abbreviation of Ṣimirra. Thought to be situated far away in the Arzawan Lands of Anatolia, Mira (Simyra) and the Seha River Land (Sealand?) can probably take their place, instead, as approximate neighbours of Ullaza (Arzawa) and Byblos (Babylon).

Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology

by Damien F. Mackey “I was lookin' for love in all the wrong places Lookin' for love in too many faces”. Johnny Lee Sounds a bit like the modern archaeologist! Aligned to, and burdened by, a chronological timetable (Sothic) that can be anything from hundreds to thousands of years out of kilter with reality, they can invariably find themselves digging “in all the wrong places” at all the right times, or vice versa. I have described Israeli archaeologists searching for the stratigraphical level of kings David and Solomon as, metaphorically, standing in it, whilst looking about elsewhere. When a shock archaeological situation arises, as arise it inevitably will, and often, they do not know how to process it. Their timetable would never have allowed them to have anticipated it. A classic case in point to which I have referred in recent articles is this one. Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (RIP) wrote about this shock to convention: “… Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded”.” ‘Simply dumbfounded’ is a reasonable first reaction, I guess, from one who has been schooled in the Sothic chronology. A revisionist such as professor Heinsohn, on the other hand, might have anticipated it. For he knew that the Umayyads were contemporaneous with – likely the same as – the Nabateans of Petra fame. See: https://heinsohn-gunnar.eu/mt-content/uploads/2021/08/arab-coinage-hiatus-between-nabataean-1st-c-and-jewish-style-of-umayyad-8th-c-heinsohn-21-august-2021.pdf Israeli archaeologist in Jerusalem, Eli Shukron, is in a somewhat similar position. He is being amicably questioned by Christian researchers such as Dr. Frank Turek and Bob Cornuke to provide a satisfactory answer about the apparent: Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem (4) Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But how can he? Israeli archaeologists are Sothically committed to King Solomon (presumably he ever even existed) inhabiting the Iron Age. The recent finds pertaining to the Temple of Yahweh built by King Solomon, on the other hand, are of the much earlier (late) Middle Bronze era. For the conventional archaeologist, King Solomon and Middle Bronze do not compute. To think so would be for them like … lookin' for [data] in all the wrong places …. Still, Dr. Turek asks the relevant question: So why isn’t Shukron suggesting his site is where the temple was? If true, it would be the greatest archaeological discovery of all time! I had dinner with Eli, Bob and a couple of others to discuss that question. Dr. Turek then answers his question, whilst showing respect for the situation in which one like Eli Shukron finds himself: First, there is the weight of the consensus site. If the true site is actually in the City of David, just how did the Temple Mount become the dominant site in the first place? Cornuke provides some plausible historical answers in his book. He also shows the text of the Bible and other historical witnesses seem to point to the City of David. Nevertheless, maybe the general consensus in favor of the Temple Mount is correct. Second, as a noted Israeli archaeologist, Shukron would need to evaluate more of the evidence and the opinions of his colleagues before he would ever entertain making a shift on such a monumental question. The Temple Mount is so entrenched in tradition, politics, and Jewish identity—the Western Wall being the holiest Jewish site for prayer—that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. Eli Shukron, for his part, is - as one might have anticipated (that word again) - holding out like a good poker player: However, Shukron is open to the possibility. He told us that the location of the Temple is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That debate could be ratcheted up when he presents his findings to a group of archaeologists at a conference in Jerusalem at the end of July. If it’s not Solomon’s Temple, then whose Temple did Shukron discover? When I asked him that question, he just said, “we’ll see.” …. Dumbfounded archaeologists ‘ratchet’ downwards to dumb level when, faced with a shock such as the one Moshe Hartal encountered in Tiberias, leave the matter there. The stratigraphical data at Tiberias had revealed that the Romans at roughly the time of Jesus Christ were contemporaneous with the Umayyads, supposedly succeeding Mohammed in the mid-600’s AD. A discrepancy of more than half a millennium! That means that the prophet Mohammed could not have existed in the C7th AD. Nor could the Umayyads have been what the history books tell us they were. Dumb archaeology fails to take the matter any further? Why? As Dr. Frank Turek has explained: … the opinions of … colleagues before … ever entertain[ing] making a shift on such a monumental question … so entrenched in tradition, politics … that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. Not “overnight”, or, probably, ever – unless one is Truth driven. “we’ll see.” ….

Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem

“[Eli] Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. …. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood”. Dr. Frank Turek Dr. Frank Turek has given a dramatic, and optimistic, title to his 2014 article: https://crossexamined.org/jewish-temple-may-prevent-world-war-iii/ WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 THE JEWISH TEMPLE THAT MAY PREVENT WORLD WAR III • By Frank Turek |Israel is the most contested piece of real estate in the world. And the most contested piece of real estate within Israel is the temple mount in the old city of Jerusalem. Nearly every Jew believes that the Muslim Dome of the Rock, which dominates that thirty-six acre site, sits on the spot of all previous Jewish Temples, including the last one destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Some Jews and Christians believe that the temple must be and will be rebuilt on that spot. Therein lies the problem. Can you think of a faster way to start World War III? Thankfully, new evidence is just coming to light that might reveal a more peaceful solution. The Jewish Temple may not have been on the Temple Mount but just outside the current walls of the old city. I had the privilege of seeing this evidence several days ago along with a few others participating on our CrossExamined.org trip to Israel. Our guide was the man who uncovered the new evidence: Israeli archaeologist Eli Shukron. Since 1995, Shukron has been digging up the twelve-acre area called the City of David that [just] out from the southern wall of the old city of Jerusalem. He and his team have removed thousands of tones [sic] of dirt to discover, among other things, the Pool of Siloam where Jesus healed a blind person (John 9:7), and the once impenetrable fortress of the Jebusites that David and his men captured by sneaking up an underground water shaft (2 Sam 5:7-8). Near that water shaft, about 1,000 feet south of the Temple Mount, Shukron discovered the remains of an ancient temple just a few feet from the Gihon Spring. Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. As the lead archaeologist, only he has the key. The excavated area is down to bedrock, which means there was no civilization below it. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood. Behind it Shukron unlocked a steel box he had built to protect something on the floor. As he swung the doors open, we saw an ancient upright stone (called a “stele”) surrounded by a foundation of smaller stones. “The Bible says Jacob took a stone and put small stones around it, and then put olive oil on top of that stone.” Shukron told me, referring to the stele Jacob erected in the town of Bethel (Genesis 28:18). “It is a connection between Jacob and God—the relationship between them.” Indeed, Jacob called the place he made, “God’s house.” The Jews were known to set up stele to commemorate interactions with God (Gen. 28:18, 31:45, 35:14, Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 8:12). But according to Shukron, the stele he discovered is the only one ever found in Jerusalem. Could it mark the actual site of the real Jewish temple—God’s house? “It certainly was a temple from the first temple period (circa 970-586 B.C.),” Shukron said. “But Solomon’s temple was on the Temple Mount.” When I asked him what archeological evidence exists for the Temple Mount site, he offered very little in response. Perhaps the paucity of evidence is due to the political realities that prevent much digging there. On the other hand, quite a compelling case can be made for Solomon’s Temple being at Shukron’s site. My co-host on the trip, Bob Cornuke, makes that case in a fascinating new book called Temple: Amazing New Discoveries that Change Everything About the Location of Solomon’s Temple. Cornuke picks up on the research of the late archaeologist, Ernest L. Martin, who in 1997 suggested that the biblical text and eyewitness evidence from the first century all point to the City of David as the actual temple location. Now there appears to be quite specific archaeological evidence as well. Cornuke and Shukron have been discussing this evidence for the better part of the last year. There are even a couple of pictures in Cornuke’s book from Shukron’s site. You can see those pictures and some of my own here. So why isn’t Shukron suggesting his site is where the temple was? If true, it would be the greatest archaeological discovery of all time! I had dinner with Eli, Bob and a couple of others to discuss that question. First, there is the weight of the consensus site. If the true site is actually in the City of David, just how did the Temple Mount become the dominant site in the first place? Cornuke provides some plausible historical answers in his book. He also shows the text of the Bible and other historical witnesses seem to point to the City of David. Nevertheless, maybe the general consensus in favor of the Temple Mount is correct. Second, as a noted Israeli archaeologist, Shukron would need to evaluate more of the evidence and the opinions of his colleagues before he would ever entertain making a shift on such a monumental question. The Temple Mount is so entrenched in tradition, politics, and Jewish identity—the Western Wall being the holiest Jewish site for prayer—that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. However, Shukron is open to the possibility. He told us that the location of the Temple is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That debate could be ratcheted up when he presents his findings to a group of archaeologists at a conference in Jerusalem at the end of July. If it’s not Solomon’s Temple, then whose Temple did Shukron discover? When I asked him that question, he just said, “we’ll see.” ….

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).

Smendes and Shoshenq I

by Damien F. Mackey With “Shishak” properly identified by Dr. I. Velikovsky … with Thutmose III, the mighty pharaoh of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty … then pharaoh Shoshenq I must needs be lifted right out of the C10th BC and located some centuries later. Conventional dates for Smendes, considered to have been the first ruler of Egypt’s Twenty-First Dynasty, are c. 1069-1043 BC. Conventional dates for Shoshenq I, considered to have been the first ruler of Egypt’s Twenty-Second Dynasty, are c. 945-924 BC. In terms of biblical chronology, pharaoh Smendes would probably have been a younger contemporary of Samuel; whilst pharaoh Shoshenq I has famously been identified (e.g. by Jean François Champollion) as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” at the time of King Rehoboam (I Kings 4:25-26). However, I have – along with other revisionists – rejected Monsieur Champollion’s view of Shoshenq I as “Shishak”: Shoshenq I. A (i): Who Shoshenq I was not https://www.academia.edu/35837401/Shoshenq_I._A_i_Who_Shoshenq_I_was_not With “Shishak” properly identified (as I believe) by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky with Thutmose III, the mighty pharaoh of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (3) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then pharaoh Shoshenq I must needs be lifted right out of the C10th BC and located some centuries later. So significant a chronological shift must also impact upon Smendes who would also need to be lowered down the time scale. But then we start to get that awful crush of Third Intermediate Period (TIP) dynasties, 21-25, with which revisionists have to contend. https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/egypt02-05enl.html The Third Intermediate Period usually refers to the time in Ancient Egypt from the death of Pharaoh Ramesses XI (reign 1107–1078/77 BC) during the Twentieth Dynasty to the foundation of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty by Psamtik I in 664 BC, following the expulsion of the Nubian rulers of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. …. Smendes, apart from being considered as the founder of the Twenty-First Dynasty, is also thought to have been the first ruler of TIP. A possible solution to early TIP would be to identify Smendes with Shoshenq I of supposedly a century later. That there was a degree of similarity between Smendes and Shoshenq I is apparent from this quote from N. Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell 1994, p. 332): “Shoshenq I immediately sought to prove that his claim to the throne went back to the preceding dynasty, and did so by adopting a set of titles based on those of Smendes I”. Names shared: Meryre; Sekhempehti; Hedjkheperre-setpenre. Similarity can – but does not always – mean identity. However, it is at least worth considering that Smendes and Shoshenq I were one and the same, with the possibility of aligning dynasty 21 with 22 to overcome at least some of the dynastic crushing of TIP. Shoshenq I considered a ‘new Smendes’ “… Shoshenq was, so to speak, ‘another Smendes’ … a ‘new Smendes’. Kenneth Kitchen As I noted above: “Similarity can – but does not always – mean identity”. And, just because someone is described as ‘a new’ someone else, or ‘a second’ someone else (e.g. ‘a new king David’; ‘another Solomon’, ‘a second Judith’) does not necessarily mean that the ‘second’ version is the same person as the original. Hitler, for instance, is considered to have been a new Haman (of the Book of Esther). But Hitler was not Haman, who was, though - like Hitler - an historical character. See e.g. my article: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) https://www.academia.edu/37376989/King_Amons_descent_into_Aman_Haman_ Previously, I quoted Nicolas Grimal who had likened Shoshenq I to his supposed predecessor, Smendes. K. A. Kitchen is more expansive on the similarities. As I noted in my university thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf (Volume One, p. 335), with reference to Kitchen’s text, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650BC, pp. 287-288): [Shsohenq I’s] very titulary exemplifies his qualities and policies. By taking the prenomen Hedjkheperre Setepenre, that of Smendes I, founder of the previous dynasty, Shoshenq proclaimed at one stroke both his continuity with the past – i.e. that he was, so to speak, ‘another Smendes’ - and a new beginning. Like Smendes, he now opened a new era. Nor is the concept of a ‘new Smendes’ limited to Shoshenq’s prenomen. He also adopted Horus, Nebty, and Golden Horus names reminiscent of those of Smendes I. Just as the latter had been Horus ‘Strong Bull, beloved of Re’ plus epithets (whose arm Amun strengthened to exalt Truth), so now Shoshenq I was Horus ‘Strong Bull, beloved of Re’ plus epithets (whom he (= Re) caused to appear as King to unite the Two Lands). [End of quote] Whilst similarity does not necessarily mean identity, there are reasons to think that, in this case, it might. For one, the obviously significant pharaoh Smendes is, yet, so poorly attested, is crying out for an alter ego. And, in the context of the revision at least, a crunching of Smendes with Shoshenq I would provide far more room for chronological manoeuvring. More room is needed. Smendes so poorly attested “… most of what we know of Smendes predates his rise to the throne”. “… we can only guess at Smendes' origins”. “… there is a great deal of confusion concerning the origin of Smendes”. Jimmy Dunn Statements like the above from Jimmy Dunn (Tour Egypt) would suggest that pharaoh Smendes, said to have reigned for as many as 26 years, may be sorely in need of an alter ego – with Shoshenq I being my suggestion for another face of Smendes. Jimmy Dunn has written: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/smendes.htm Smendes, the First King of the 21st Dynasty and the Third Intermediate Period …. Smendes (Smedes), who we believe founded the 21st Dynasty, ending the New Kingdom at the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, is a very difficult individual with almost intractable origins and affiliations. His reign, which Manetho assigns 26 years, produced only a tiny handful of monuments and we have never discovered either his tomb or his mummy (though many believe his tomb to be NRT-I at Tanis, this structure offers up no clues concerning Smendes). Smendes is a Greek rendering of this king's name. His birth name and epithet were Nes-ba-neb-djed (mery-amun), meaning "He of the Ram, Lord of Mendes, Beloved of Amun". His throne name was Hedj-kheper-re Setep-en-re, meaning "Bright is the Manifestation of Re, Chosen of Re". In fact, most of what we know of Smendes predates his rise to the throne. From the Report of Wenamun, dating to Year 5 of the "Renaissance Era" during the last decade of the reign of Ramesses XI, we learn much of what we know of this future king. While on the way to Lebanon to obtain wood for the renewal of the divine barque of Amun-Re, Wenamun stopped at Tanis, which he describes as "the place where Smendes and Tentamun are". Smendes is specifically described as being the one to whom Wenamun gave his letters of credence from Herihor, the High-Priest of Amun and a powerful general in the south. Wenamun was then sent in a ship by Smendes to Syria. Smendes, along with Herihor and others, was cited as having contributed money to this expedition. Smendes, together with Tentamun, are therefore shown to be of great importance in Egypt's Delta, equals at least of the High-Priest of Amun in the south. Consider the fact that Ramesses XI at this time presumably lived at Piramesses, only about 20 kilometers to the southwest of Tanis, and yet Wenamun came to Smendes for assistance rather than to the king. In fact, Herihor assumed some royal titles even while Ramesses XI was still alive, and the implication would seem to be that Smendes had a similar standing in the north. Nevertheless, we can only guess at Smendes' origins. It has been suggested that he was a brother of Nodjmet, the wife of Herihor, but it has also been suggested that Nodjmet could have been a sister of Ramesses XI. However, Tentamun, who was presumably Smendes' wife, may have been a member of the royal family. She could have been a daughter of another woman named Tentamun, who may have been the wife of Ramesses XI (or possibly another Ramesside king). The older Tentamun was certainly the mother of Henttawy, who later became the wife of the High-Priest of Amun, Pinedjem I, who also acquired kingly status in the south. As a royal son-in-law, Smendes' status is more easily understood, though perhaps not his total eclipse of the king. Obviously there is a great deal of confusion concerning the origin of Smendes. Nevertheless, it is very probable that the families of Smendes and Herihor, or at least their descendants, were linked. Whatever his original status, after the death of Ramesses XI, Smendes became a king of Egypt, and is recorded as such in most reference material. However, only two sources specifically name him as pharaoh, consisting of a stela in a quarry at Dibabia near Gebelein (Jebelein), and a small depiction in the temple of Montu at Karnak. Interestingly, while there are no known unambiguously dated documents from his reign, the contemporary High-Priests of Amun used year numbers without a king's name, and it is generally believed that, at least through year 25, these refer to Smendes' reign. In fact, Smendes probably never ruled over a united Egypt as such, a condition which probably also existed at the end of the reign of Ramesses XI. During much of what we refer to as the 21st Dynasty, there was also a dynasty of High-Priests of Amun at Thebes who effectively ruled Upper Egypt, while the kings at Tanis ruled the north. However, there appears to have been a rather delicate balance of powers, and perhaps even a formal arrangement for this division of Egypt. The Priests at Thebes seem to have held sway over a region which stretched from the north of el-Hiba (south of the entrance to the Fayoum) to the southern frontier of Egypt, and their aspirations became apparent around year 16 of Smendes' reign, when Pinedjem I apparently began to take on full pharaonic titles, yet at all times he continued to defer to Smendes as at least a senior king. …. May Psusennes I and II be the actual same person? “On the Dakhleh Stela of the Twenty-second Dynasty reference is made to the 19th year of ‘Pharaoh Psusennes’. …. As Gardiner observes, one cannot determine from this statement whether Psusennes I or II is intended”. Beatrice L. Goff If my suspicion in this article that Smendes of Egypt’s Twenty-First Dynasty was the same pharaoh as Shoshenq I of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty, then this is going to assist in the necessary curtailing of the difficult Third Intermediate Period (TIP), so-called, of Egyptian history. It will the open the door for further shrinkage, enabling, e.g., for the Psusennes I at the time of Smendes to have been the same as the Psusennses II at the time of Shoshenq I – as some have already suspected. Conventionally, the Twenty-First Dynasty is set out something like this: http://looklex.com/e.o/egypt.ancient.dynasty.21.htm About three decades separate Psusennes I from Psusennes II. Then follows the Twenty-Second Dynasty, commencing with Shoshenq I, a known younger contemporary of Psusennes (so-called II). According to the following site: https://www.genealogieonline.nl/en/stamboom-homs/I6000000006758798461.php some have been suggesting an identification of Psusennes I and II: While some authors, including New Chronology followers claim that Psusennes I may actually be identical with Psusennes II, this is impossible because Psusennes II is clearly distinguished from Psusennes I by Manetho and is given an independent reign of 15 years in the author's Epitome. Moreover, Psusenness II's royal name has been found associated with his successor, Shoshenq I in a graffito from tomb TT18, and in an ostracon from Umm el-Qa'ab. This shows that Shoshenq I was Psusennes II's successor. In contrast, Psusennes I died almost 40-45 years before Shoshenq I's appearance as Chief of the Ma, let alone King of Egypt. [End of quote] “Psusennes I died almost 40-45 years before Shoshenq I …” according to the conventional calculations. But that would no longer apply if Smendes were Shoshenq I, and Psusennes I and II were also the same person.

Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans damaged our understanding of the past

by Damien F. Mackey “Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings”. Whitney White Following on from my articles: Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? (3) Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and (the six-part series): Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! beginning with: (3) Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (including a critique of Zahi Hawass), I came across an article by Whitney White, entitled: https://web.colby.edu/copiesfakesforgeries/files/2021/05/WHITE.pdf Desire, Expectation, and the Forging of History: A Reexamination of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans Introduction Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are two of the most well-known names in archaeology. Their excavations of Aegean civilizations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dramatically influenced our understanding of the Bronze Age world. Though there is overwhelming evidence that at least some of their findings were faked and forged to varying degrees, tourists still flock to view their discoveries and even the most contested objects remain included in art historical canon. This continued mainstream acceptance of Schliemann’s and Evans’ findings has meant that the two are rarely considered within the context of another part of the artworld that they certainly could be associated with: that of forgers. Though the study of art forgers is relatively limited, the existing scholarship has revealed that most forgers have a consistent profile and share similar motivations—which are at odds with those of these amateur archaeologists. The question that emerges, then, is how do Schliemann and Evans fit into our understanding of forgers? In this paper, I argue that, as it stands, the current definition of forgers is far too limited. By introducing psychological understandings of desire and expectation as a new framework for considering the motivations of forgers, our understanding of forgers can be expanded to include Schliemann and Evans and our definition of forgeries can be complicated to critically reexamine the contested objects associated with these men’s excavations. …. Heinrich Schliemann was a hoaxer according to professor William Calder: Behind the Mask of Agamemnon Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999 IS THE MASK A HOAX? For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be: …. For the professor’s “nine reasons”, refer to: https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html Whitney White concludes the article with: Desire-Driven Forgers From these concise overviews, it is clear that while Schliemann and Evans intentionally altered their findings to varying degrees, neither fit the typical forger profile. How, then, can we consider them within this context? It is useful here to explore the characteristic of their excavations that united them the most: each had a strong desire to prove a certain narrative about the past, coupled with the expectation that it was there to be proven. This desire-expectation combination can be used as framework to place these men into the context of art forgers and expand our understanding of forgers in general. Though psychological studies of desire are primarily dedicated to universal, tangible desires, like food and sex, and tend to explore issues related to self-control, the desire to know the past, as suggested by David Lowenthal, is also universal and compelling (Lowenthal 325), and can thus be viewed as functioning like other desires and studied in similar ways. Strong desire, as described by Wilhelm Hofmann, often clouds our judgement and can lead us to act out of character (Hofmann 199). This is especially true when we begin to overthink, as we find ways to justify the actions, however unsavory, we need to take to fulfill our desire (Hofmann 200). As educated men set out to prove a past they felt was (or should be) true, Schliemann and Evans would likely have overthought and justified their actions: in their minds, they were actually benefiting mankind (or at least, Europeans) by proving a past that they really wanted to exist; altering evidence here and there could thus be justified as a necessary means to give the world (and themselves) what it wanted. As Lowenthal explains, “we may be fully conscious, partially and hazily aware, or wholly unconscious of what prompts us to alter the past. Many such changes are unintended; other are undertaken to make a supposed legacy credible . . . The more strenuously we build a desired past, the more we convince ourselves that things really were that way; what ought to have happened becomes what did happen” (Lowenthal 326, emphasis added). The desire to change the past, even when intentional, can bring even those responsible for the changes—the forgers—to convince themselves of their own deceptions. While this, as Lowenthal agrees (Lowenthal 331), separates the desire-driven forger from the typical, revengedriven forger, the fact remains that all forgers nonetheless damage our understanding of the past through intentional deception. It should be noted that desire in this context is also closely tied to expectation. As described by David Huron, who studies the psychology of expectation in relation to music, expectations provoke strong emotional responses. When we successfully predict something we expect to happen, we are rewarded by our brains, and when we unsuccessfully predict something, we experience mental “punishments” (Huron 362). These psychological processes developed from a survival standpoint but can be used to explain behavior in many different contexts. Since Schliemann and Evans so clearly expected to find something that they desired, they perhaps felt the need to make their prediction true even more strongly (unconsciously or not) to avoid the double mental punishment of unfilled desire and incorrect expectation. While it has been established that both Schliemann and Evans were aware of their actions in altering the past at least to some extent, considering the psychology of expectation gives them some benefit of the doubt and further separates them from the typical forger. Conclusion Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings. They thus can be tentatively classed as forgers, albeit of a different kind than are usually dealt with in the artworld. In any case, it is important to recognize that their forgeries, like all others, do indeed damage our understanding of the past. Expanding our understanding of forgers to include those who often slip under the radar because their intention to deceive, though present, is not as insidious, has a broader two-fold effect. First, it makes us more aware of the fact that forgers can exist and cause damage in multiple contexts. Sir Arthur Evans He may have been an inveterate racist, who fabricated a so-called “Minoan” civilisation. See also my article: Of Cretans and Phoenicians (3) Of Cretans and Phoenicians | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sir Arthur Evans, a tyrannical, dictatorial type, seems to have his like successor in the incompetent Zahi Hawass.

Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed

by Damien F. Mackey “… Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded”.” Gunnar Heinsohn With reference to my article: Further argument for Prophet Mohammed’s likely non-existence (2) Further argument for Prophet Mohammed's likely non-existence | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu a reader has asked: Dear Damien, This is a highly controversial claim. Do you still stand by it? I cannot believe that you would. Best wishes . …. To which I replied emphatically: Damien Mackey …. A very happy and blessed Easter season to you …. Oh, yes, I absolutely stand by that claim. Apart from problems with an historical Mohammed, and with the Qur'an, there are massive problems associated with his so-called contemporaries, the supposed emperor Heraclius, for one, being a ridiculous composite figure. Somewhat like your Imhotep [the correspondent has written a magnificent account of massive preparations in 3rd Dynasty Egypt for a Famine]. See my: "Anachronistic contemporaries of the so-called Prophet Mohammed" https://www.academia.edu/116850671/Anachronistic_contemporaries_of_the_so_called_Prophet_Mohammed But wait, there is more .... Damien. …. The truly great bombshell is archaeology, see quote at the beginning of my article [see also above]: "Oh my, the Umayyads. Deconstructing the Caliphate" https://www.academia.edu/117122001/Oh_my_the_Umayyads_Deconstructing_the_Caliphate The Umayyad (caliphate) strata, thought by nearly all to follow on not long after Mohammed (600's AD), is found, instead, to lie at the same level of the Romans at about the time of Jesus Christ, some 6 centuries earlier. That wipes out Mohammed and the contemporary Rashiduns, and it terribly vitiates the Abbasids supposed to follow on from the Umayyads. On the strength of all of this, I now laugh at the suggestion that there was an historical Mohammed. ,,,,

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.