"And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds". (Acts 7:22)
Friday, February 16, 2024
Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’
by
Damien F. Mackey
An Occam’s Razor approach may be needed in the case of Khaemwaset, a son of Ramses II, because the history books (e.g. N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994) give us also a Khaemwaset II, son of Ramses III. And, since Ramses III folds so seamlessly into Ramses II:
Ramses II, Ramses III. Part One: Some ‘ramifying’ similarities
https://www.academia.edu/37461306/Ramses_II_Ramses_III_Part_One_Some_ramifying_similarities
and:
New Revision for Ramses II. Part Two: Ramses III was not emulating Ramses II
https://www.academia.edu/38165672/New_Revision_for_Ramses_II_Part_Two_Ramses_III_was_not_emulating_Ramses_II
then Khaemwaset I must be Khaemwaset so-called II.
N. Grimal, bound as he is by the conventional chronology, could have no possible thought of linking together any (or all) of these princes-(pharaoh) Khaemwaset, considering that:
Ramses II is dated by him to 1279-1212 BC;
Ramses III is dated by him to 1186-1154 BC;
According to Grimal’s scheme of things, these three entities are too well spread, chronologically and dynastically, with, so it is thought:
Khaemwaset I belonging to Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty;
Khaemwaset II belonging to Egypt’s Twentieth Dynasty;
My radical scheme of revision, on the other hand, makes such a seemingly impossible link-up look highly probable. Khaemwaset I and II, already connected, can also be contemporaneous with Egypt’s Twenty-Fifth (Ethiopian) Dynasty, considering my view that this dynasty was essentially the Nineteenth Dynasty, that Ramses II/III was Piankhy/Tirhakah.
All in all, one mighty pharaoh with one very significant son, Khaemwaset.
More Khaemwaset
Not listed by Grimal in his Index, but featuring on p. 289 of his book, is yet another important Khaemwaset, “the vizier Khaemwaset, governor of Thebes” during the later phase of the Twentieth Dynasty, officiating in “the sixteenth year of Ramesses IX’s reign”.
Another pharaoh Ramses, another Khaemwaset, and, one would think, another duplication.
Khaemwaset, a man of culture
Khaemwaset, the son of Ramses II, showed great respect for Egypt’s past.
Grimal tells of this on p. 72: “The tomb of [pharaoh] Kawab, one of the earliest in the Giza necropolis … his memory was still maintained up to the time of Ramesses II, at least, for Ramesses’ son Khaemwaset is known to have restored a statue of Kawab in the temple of Memphis”.
And again, on p. 80: “… northern Saqqara … Wenis funerary complex (restored by Prince Khaemwaset in the reign of Ramesses II) …”.
On pp. 267-268, Grimal will even refer to Khaemwaset as “the prince-archaeologist”:
… Khaemwaset, the prince-archaeologist and restorer of the Memphite monuments. The cultured Khaemwaset had been linked with the worship of Ptah since the fifteenth year of his father’s reign, first as a sem priest then as Chief Priest, and it was in this office that he celebrated the first nine jubilees of his father. Khaemwaset died in the fifty-fifth year of Ramesses’ reign. ….
P. 356: “In the fifty-second year of his reign Psammetichus [I] enlarged the Serapeum at Saqqara … rediscovery of Lesser Vaults created at the time of Ramesses II by Prince Khaemwaset”.
Pharaoh Shebitku, contemporary of Sargon II of Assyria, also had the name of Khaemwaset. Khaemwaset Shebitku likewise built at Memphis (p. 346), “… Memphis, Luxor and Karnak”.
And he was very Ramesside like:
He revived [sic] the great Ramessid themes, adopting Khaemwaset (‘Crowned in Thebes’) as his Horus name …. This apparent return to the imperial values of the Ramessid period can doubtless be explained by a renewed desire to affirm royal power both inside and outside Egypt.
Could it not the better “be explained” by this was “the Ramessid period”?
The Tang-i Var inscription tells of this Shebitku handing over the fugitive rebel from Ashdod (i.e., Lachish), [Iatna-] Iamani, to the Assyrian king Sargon II, this incident known to have occurred during the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah. I had previously written on all of this:
The Tang-i Var inscription dated to Sargon II’s Year 15 (c. 707 BC), according to which Shebitku - not Shabaka as was long thought - was the 25th dynasty pharaoh who had dispatched the rebel Iatna-Iamani in chains to Sargon II, has brought new confusion. Here is the pertinent section of this document (Wikipedia’s “Shebitku”):
… I (… Sargon) plundered the city of Ashdod, Iamani, its king, feared [my weapons] and …. he fled to the region of the land of Meluhha and lived (there) stealthfully (lit. like a thief) …. Shapataku’ (Shabatka) king of … Meluhha … put (Iamani) in manacles and handcuffs … he had him brought captive into my presence ….
This means that Shebitku (and Tirhakah) must now be re-located upwards by at least a decade in relation to Sargon II. Perhaps nowhere does the conventional separation of Sargon II from Sennacherib show up as in this case. Yet even revisionist Rohl, as late as 2002, was ignoring the Tang-i Var evidence, dating Tirhakah’s first appearance, at the battle of Eltekeh, to 702 BC, an incredible “thirty-one years earlier” than his actual rule of 690-665 BC, which is, however, about two decades too late. Thus he wrote:
For five years the new king of Napata (ruling from Kush) had reigned in co-operation with his cousin Shabataka [Shebitku], king of Egypt (son of Shabaka). Then Taharka [Tirhakah] became sole 25th Dynasty ruler of both Kush and Egypt in his sixth regnal year following the death of Shabataka in 684 BC. There were other Libyan pharaohs in Egypt (such as Shoshenk V of Tanis and Rudamun of Thebes) but they were all subservient to the Kushite king.
The year 684 BC is far too late for the beginning of Tirhakah’s sole rule in relation to Shebitku and his known connection with Sargon II’s 15th year!
And that is by no means the only problem with the current arrangement of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. In fact there appears to be a significant problem in the case of virtually each one of its major kings. Regarding its first (according to convention) major ruler, Piye, for instance, Gardiner has written:
It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn.
And whilst, according to Herodotus, Shabaka (his Sabacos) reigned for some 50 years, he has been reduced by the Egyptologists to a mere 15-year reign. Furthermore: “The absence of the names of Shabako and Shebitku from the Assyrian and Hebrew records is no less remarkable than the scarcity of their monuments in the lands over which they extended their sway”.
King Saul a type like Egypt’s Chenephres
by
Damien F. Mackey
The biblical estimation of Saul appears to have much in common with
the way Saul’s son, Jonathan, viewed his father:
‘My father has made trouble for the country’.
The prophet Jeremiah will place Samuel on a level similar to Moses, as a powerful intercessor between God and the people of Israel (Jeremiah 15:1): “Then the LORD said to me: ‘Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go!’”
Jeremiah’s contemporary, Ezekiel, will speak similarly regarding three other great men (Ezekiel 14:14): ‘… even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD’.
(Cf. Ezekiel 14:20)
And, indeed, when the people of Israel demanded a king to rule over them, to replace the aged Samuel, the great prophet will remind them of what this very Moses had said about what a king would do to them (I Kings 18:10-18; cf. Deuteronomy 17:14-17):
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
But the sage warnings of the priests Moses and Samuel were not heeded, and so the Lord agreed to the wish of the people (vv. 19-22):
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. ‘No!’ they said. ‘We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles’.
When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. The LORD answered, ‘Listen to them and give them a king’.
Be careful what you ask for.
King Saul like Chenephres
King Saul, the most reluctant father-in-law of David (I Samuel 18:27), reminds me very much of Chenephres, the foster father-in-law of Moses, whom I have amalgamated into Chephren-Sesostris, the husband of Meresankh, the Egyptian foster-mother (traditionally Merris) of Moses himself.
Perhaps the Great Sphinx which he (Chephren) constructed is a fitting image for this Chenephres, as it may also be for the enigmatic King Saul.
Consider how Saul, incandescently jealous of the young David (I Samuel 18:5-9), tried to get rid of him by assigning him impossibly dangerous military tasks (vv. 17-30), only later to welcome back and embrace him (19:1-7), but then, again, seeking to kill him (vv. 8-22).
And that is exactly the kind of jealous and murderous attitude we find in the behaviour of Chenephres towards Moses, as we read in the following:
The author then reverts to the narrative of an adventure tale—and an altogether novel one. Chenephres the Pharaoh, jealous of Moses’ accomplishments, took a dislike to him, and sent him off to war against the Ethiopians with a makeshift band, expecting to see the last of him. But Moses proved to be as successful a military hero as a bringer of culture. He conducted a ten year war of epic proportions and not only returned victorious but won the hearts of the Ethiopians themselves, even introducing them to the fine art of circumcision. …. That bit of whimsy gives a clue to Artapanus’ mindset: a writer of some mischief. The wicked Chenephres pretended to welcome Moses’ homecoming, even asking his advice on the best breed of oxen to plow the fields, whence came the origin of Apis worship among the Egyptians. But, all the while, he plotted against the hero. He appointed assassins, most of whom declined the task, and the one who agreed was duly overpowered by the swifter and keener Moses. The adventures accumulate. A sojourn in Arabia brought Moses to the attention of an Arab leader whose daughter he married but whose importunings to march on Egypt he declined out of regard for his countrymen. Moses returned to his homeland only when the conniving Chenephres perished of elephantiasis, a fitting end, for he was the initial victim of that disease. ….
{This accords perfectly with my revision that the Twelfth Dynasty (same as the Fourth) died out while Moses was still in Midian}
Just as Chenephres would hound Moses out of Egypt and into the foreign Midian, when seeking to kill him, so would David be forced to flee a murderous Saul, to take refuge amongst, of all people, the hated Philistines (I Samuel 27).
King Saul was, like Chenephres, highly superstitious, and would even have recourse in the end to witchcraft (I Samuel 28).
He was also clearly a man who needed the support of the crowd.
http://www.growthingod.org.uk/saul-and-david.htm
Saul defeated the Amalekites and liberated a vast area from their control, but, under pressure from his people, he spared Agag their king and kept all the best of their livestock.
He was disregarding the plain commandment of God. God revealed this to Samuel who went to face Saul with his sin. Saul greeted him with the words: “Blessed are you of the Lord! I have carried out the command of the Lord” (1 Sam 15:13). In the ensuing interview we have Samuel’s well-known words:
“Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Sam 15: 22, 23).
Saul’s reply reveals his heart: “I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice” (24). Then he says, “I have sinned; but please honour me before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with me, that I may worship the Lord your God” (30).
The primary motivation in Saul’s life was the crowd. If he was with a crowd of prophets, he could prophesy. If the crowd was deserting him in battle, he could not trust God. If the crowd wanted the spoils of war, he could not stand in their way. Even now he was rejected by God, the crowd must not know it.
This also was the underlying motivation at Babel. “Let us make for ourselves a name,” they said, “lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Gen 11: 4). They found security in a crowd, while they ignored God. Multitudes of people today will only follow where the majority leads”.
And the biblical estimation of Saul appears to have much in common with the way Saul’s son, Jonathan, viewed his father: ‘My father has made trouble for the country’ (I Samuel 14:29).
Famously, Jonathan will side secretly with his beloved friend, David, against the vengeful Saul.
King Saul’s despicable nature was perhaps most evident in his treatment of his son, Jonathan, one of the most noble characters of the Old Testament, and of the mother who bore him (I Samuel 20:30): “Saul boiled with rage at Jonathan. ‘You stupid son of a whore!’ he swore at him. ‘Do you think I don’t know that you want him to be king in your place, shaming yourself and your mother?’”
Not only was the life of David constantly at risk with the ever changeable King Saul, but the life of Jonathan also, without whose assistance David would not have survived.
No wonder their two hearts were knit close together in friendship.
Dr. I. Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos series), a Jewish nationalist, tended to favour types like Saul and Ahab over the likes of Moses (whom he hardly mentions) and Isaiah.
On this, see Martin Sieff’s brilliant article, “Velikovsky and His Heroes” (SIS Review v5 No. 4, 1984).
One wonders what Jonathan might have told Dr. Velikovsky about the latter’s great hero, Saul, had the two of them had the opportunity to discuss this first king of Israel. Saul and Ahab, not David and Elijah, were the real ‘troublers of Israel’ (I Kings 18:17).
Wednesday, February 7, 2024
When archaeologists become autocrats
by
Damien F. Mackey
“While he led the field in revealing Minoan art to the public,
Evans allowed his literal reading of the Greek myths to distort
his interpretation. ... Though extremely well versed in ancient Egyptian ritual ... Evans denied the influence of Egyptian religion on the Minoans”.
Susan Kokinda
According to Susan Kokinda:
http://schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/fid_012_sjk_homer.html
Archaeology and the Truth
of Man’s Prehistory
The study of man’s most ancient past is more important to the success of his future, than most of us comprehend. Unfortunately, in recent centuries, this has been understood and acted upon, by the oligarchic forces in society who seek to reduce mankind to the condition of beasts, and have twisted the study of pre- and ancient history to prove their definition of man, the better to accomplish this end. Outside of the vast body of work by Lyndon LaRouche, which locates man as a creature of cognition who has understood and acted upon his world for hundreds of thousands of years, only a few determined individuals have succeeded in approaching any aspects of the study of ancient man and civilization from outside the dictates of that oligarchical elite.
One happy exception to that is the 1999 release of Homer's Secret Iliad: The Epic of the Night Sky Decoded, by Florence and Kenneth Wood. Written by the daughter and son-in-law of Edna Johnston Leigh (1916-91), this book presents and develops Leigh’s hypothesis, that the Homeric epics fall within the oral tradition of other ancient epics which, through their sung recitation, transmitted to each succeeding generation profound scientific ideas concerning man’s relationship to his universe.
Mackey’s comment: Previously I had made brief mention of the Wood’s extraordinary book:
This book makes real sense of The Iliad
From the flyleaf of Homer’s Secret Iliad, by Florence and Kenneth Wood, which was deservingly awarded Book of the Year when first released in 1999.
During the 1930s the young daughter of a Kansas farmer spent night after night watching the stars and planets wheel across the vast prairie sky. Later, as a teacher in England, she combined her devotion to astronomy with a passion for Homer. This led her to a discovery which would lie buried until her daughter, Florence Wood, inherited her papers in 1991.
Her years of study, it became clear, had revealed Homer’s great epic to be also the world’s oldest book of astronomy.
[My comment: The dating of the Iliad, and whether it really belonged to the presumed time of Homer, is actually a challenging issue of its own; one with which I hope to come to grips elsewhere].
The changing configuration of the stars, so important for navigation and the measurement of time, had a fascination for the ancient world that it has lost today.
In the Iliad, battles between Greeks and Trojans mirror the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for ascendancy in the sky. The timescale of Homeric astronomy is breathtaking; elements can be dated to the ninth millennium BC [sic], long before the recorded astronomy of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Geography is also represented, since the shapes of constellations were used as ‘skymaps’ to direct ancient travellers throughout Greece and Asia Minor.
[End of quote]
Related to this, one may read:
Taken from: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1616697176973091291#editor/target=post;postID=5178291178604779880
....
Ever notice how hard it is to find a real nice cave man picture these days? Take it from me--it's not as easy as it used to be. Those classic artist renderings from a single tooth, from small bone fragments or from skull pieces -and on occasion, entire skulls permitted artists to let their imaginations run wild and silmultaneously to support the idea that our ancestors were primitive.
Click and drag photo to resize.
This of course supported evolutionary theory and caused many who believed in the Biblical view of creation to perplexedly wonder where cave men fit in.
As time goes by, the truth of what our ancestors actually looked like became more and more evident--like us, pretty much. That's why it's becoming more difficult to find those old cave man characterizations, even most "knowledgeable" evolutionists have to admit that "Cro-Magnon" and "Neanderthal man" are fully human. (Photo:top left; recent computer and/or forensic recreations of "Neanderthal", right and "Cro-Magnon", left who is scowling, of course. Far right: Cro-Magnon steps out.)
So while, in the past evolutionists have been drawing them as ape-like and brutish to drive home the notion that we have "evolved"--we now both (Christians & evolutionists) know that they look like what a Christian or Bible believer would expect--us. Not only that, when " "they" drew themselves from life, (15,000 years ago according to evolutionary time) they tended to look more like this (Photo: Below, left "caveman" self portrait) (more on these self portraits on page 2).
Obviously, this kind of look is more like what Christians might have expected. When's the last time you saw a representation of our supposed evolutionary ancestors with a Supercuts like trim and hat at a jaunty angle?
In Genesis, Adam and Eve are created without dragging knuckles--they raise children and carry on conversations just like "normal" people. They tilled the soil. They spoke to God. Evolutionists, however are tied to the idea of very primitive beginnings--where for long periods, our ancestors were not even fully men.
We've even come to accept the idea that larger brows or thicker bodies necessarily suggests less sophistication--less advancement. I laughed when I read this morning that this particular evolutionist had to admit that "Neanderthal" looked a lot like us but--probably was short and had sloping shoulders.
(See Also the cosmetic surgery performed on Neanderthal, in Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo--See page 8 of this section)That's still supposed to suggest that he was less advanced than modern man--but when you really think about it, --even if it were true about the shortness and sloping shoulders--all that would really mean is that there was little chance he could make it as a runway model.
Shortness and sloping shoulders--even a prominent brow have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence, survival or level of "advancement".
You yourself may be short, have sloping shoulders and/or a prominent forehead. Even so, the evidence is that our ancestors were smarter, faster, and larger--had better eyesight, better technology than we suppose and were as "handsome" as we are.
And by the way, a cave man is simply a man (or woman) who lives in a cave! If they stooped, it was because the roof was low. Why were they in there in the first place? Perhaps war, pestilence, Flood, tower of Babel or other hardships forced men into caves for protection in certain locales and from time to time.
One of the items we discuss here below is suppressed information (over 100 stone tablets) that "cave men" had an early written language--much, much earlier than science admits.
See also: Scientists: Neanderthal More Like "Modern Man" Than Previously Thought
Susan Kokinda continues:
Such a concept of man and civilization, which could transmit science, through art, since no later than the end of the last Ice Age, flies directly in the face of modern archaeology, which has been dominated by the British establishment for two centuries. How that British oligarchy has sought to destroy mankind's true history, is captured in another book published in 2000, Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of the Minoan Myth, by J. Alexander MacGillivray.
This history is the first even remotely objective assessment of the career of Evans, the celebrated excavator of Knossos on the island Crete, and the "discoverer" of the glories of a Minoan civilization, which he supposed to have given birth alone to later classical, Greek civilization.
The Role of Crete
For the word "discoverer," however, substitute, "fabricator." Without drawing the obvious conclusion himself, MacGillivray provides overwhelming evidence that Evans was a degenerate racist, deployed by the British Foreign Office, Prime Minister Gladstone, and Oxford University, at a minimum, throughout his life. His assignment was to erase the real history of Bronze Age Crete. That MacGillivray tiptoes around these conclusions is the great flaw of his book.
Ironically, however, MacGillivray was much more forceful and conclusive in a short article in the November/December 2000 issue of Archeology magazine, where he wrote:
While he led the field in revealing Minoan art to the public, Evans allowed his literal reading of the Greek myths to distort his interpretation. ... Though extremely well versed in ancient Egyptian ritual ... Evans denied the influence of Egyptian religion on the Minoans. ... More amazing is how Evans conceived of the well-known ancient Egyptian symbol for the horizon, the slope between two peaks, which adorns colonnades and buildings in Minoan art. He transformed the horizon symbol into what he called Horns of Consecration, ritual symbols that were shorthand for his supposed bull cult of Minos. ... Once the trappings of his mythical agenda are removed, we will have to re-evaluate a large body of artifacts." MacGillivray went on to propose that the famous "bull-jumping" fresco uncovered at Knossos, is not a depiction of an actual Cretan sport, but rather, is a metaphorical representation of the constellations: “Orion confronts Taurus, composed of the Hyades and Pleiades, while Perseus somersaults with both arms extended over the bull's back to rescue Andromeda ...”.
It was his reference to Egyptian astronomy in that article which caused this reviewer to pounce upon MacGillivray's book, having long been convinced that the Cretan civilization of 2200-1500 b.c. was a critical link between the advanced astronomical knowledge which shaped ancient Egyptian civilization, and its influence on the development of Myceanean and classical Greece.
Unfortunately, the book is a disappointment in terms of stating those conclusions, or providing a fuller elaboration of Crete’s debt to Egypt.
But, whatever constraints caused MacGillivray to pull his punches here, Minotaur is, nonetheless, a useful, if academic, resource for documenting the extent to which the British establishment deployed to suppress a truthful history of the origins of Western civilization.
Evans’ fraudulent treatment of Minos parallels the much better-known fraud of British archaeology, that civilization was born in Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, around 2700 b.c. In manufacturing this "discovery," the oligarchy certainly chose a civilization in its own image: Mesopotamia was a society dominated by an elite class of priests and administrators, who held their looted populations in cattle-like backwardness, subservient to an autocratic and irrational pantheon of gods, notably the mother-earth goddess Ishtar (or Isis, the "Whore of Babylon"). Central to their method of control, was the priesthood's cloaking of its knowledge of the physical world in superstition, magic, and myth.
According to the oligarchy's Disneyland of ancient history, such cult-ridden societies erupted, autochthonously, out of nowhere, ultimately leading to the development of modern civilization. ….
[End of quote]
See also my article:
“Minoans” were basically the Philistines
(8) “Minoans” were basically the Philistines | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Was Arthur Evans an inveterate racist?
“Evans arrived in Crete in 1893 and spent the next four decades creating
a "Minoan" civilization in the image dictated by his, and his controllers',
perverted worldview”.
Susan Kokinda
Susan Kokinda continues:
http://schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/fid_012_sjk_homer.html
British Racist Evans
Returning to Minotaur and the life of Sir Arthur Evans, we can see how the British oligarchy will stop at nothing to enforce that latter conception. If one approaches MacGillivray's thoroughness from such an overview of the intellectual battle afoot, then the book is a goldmine. Without that overview, the text becomes tediously academic.
Arthur Evans was born in 1851, to a middle-class businessman father who had been picked up by British Royal Society circles, and groomed as a promising lackey in the relatively new field of archaeology. The young Evans was raised on a diet of Darwin, Huxley, and Aryan racial superiority. As MacGillivray reports, "Evans came to Oxford just as the Aryans marched from myth into history, and he was as proud as any other to proclaim his connection to them." Evans' racism was unabashed; he wrote in 1875 that, "I believe in the existence of inferior races and would like to see them exterminated."
He became the son-in-law of racist historian Edward Freeman, who once publicly expressed the wish that every Irishman would murder a Negro, and then be hanged, for the greater good of the Germanic race. (His marriage to Margaret Freeman, who shared the racist views of her father and new husband, was one of convenience, since Evans was a homosexual, whose sexual orientation became public toward the end of his life.)
Evans just barely graduated from Oxford, thanks to the intervention of his father and Freeman. His first assignment was as an intelligence agent deployed under the government of Prime Minister William Gladstone. Not yet 20 years old, Evans was arrested by the French as a spy in Paris in 1870, during the Franco-Prussian war; then arrested by the Austrians in 1875 in Zagreb, during an insurrection against the Ottoman rulers; and finally arrested again in the Balkans in 1882.
Deployed vs. Schliemann
It was time to redeploy Evans, and his new assignment was to destroy the work of Heinrich Schliemann, and "replace" him as the preeminent archaeologist of Bronze Age Mediterranean cultures. Schliemann, a German businessman, was a lifelong lover of Homer's epics, who became convinced that Troy and Mycenae were not fictional locations, but grounded in history. He devoted his life to proving this--discovering, and excavating, first, Troy, and then, Mycenae.
Mackey’s comment: See my article:
Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann?
https://www.academia.edu/37036279/Schemin_Heinrich_Schliemann
Kokinda continues:
Evans was introduced to Schleimann in 1883 in Athens.
In 1884, he was given the necessary credentials for his new career, and was appointed to head Oxford's Ashmolean Museum. During this period, the British, through Oxford, were running an "inside/outside" operation against the influence of the Greek classics in education. Benjamin Jowett, representing the "pro-classical" side, was deployed to translate Plato's dialogues, so as to beat the ideas out of them, and render Plato an ancient Newtonian. Jowett's crime continues to this day, by the preponderance of his translations in modern editions.
Evans was groomed to cover the other side, attacking the "excess" reliance on the study of the Greek classics, and, then, sabotaging the study of the origin of Greek culture.
That Schliemann was diverted from travelling to Crete in 1883 and in 1885, in order to be honored by the British Royal Society and Queen Victoria herself, could not have been coincidental. Eventually travelling to Crete in 1886 and 1889, he was never able to obtain excavation rights, and died in Italy in 1890, on his way back to Greece and Crete. The possibility that his enemies orchestrated his demise should not be overlooked.
Evans arrived in Crete in 1893 and spent the next four decades creating a "Minoan" civilization in the image dictated by his, and his controllers', perverted worldview. Evans' assignment was to portray Crete as a mysterious, relatively advanced, autochthonous society, which gave rise to Mycenaean civilization, and from it, classical Greece. As MacGillivray demonstrated in the magazine article quoted above, Evans deliberately ignored, obscured, and even destroyed evidence that Crete and Mycenae were outposts of Egyptian colonization and science.
The ‘Minoan’ Myth
MacGillivray describes in detail how Evans simply rebuilt the palace at Knossos, and other structures, to conform to his preconceived fabrication of Minoan society. Even the term "Minoan" is Evans' creation; there is no evidence that the people of Crete ever called themselves "Minoan." (Prior to his trashing of Cretan history, Evans had performed a similar intellectual fraud on Stonehenge, describing it as a cult center of a prehistoric Aryan belief system, rather than the advanced astronomical observatory which it was in c.3000 b.c. [sic])
Along with this, MacGillivray provides extensive documentation of Evans' appropriation and manipulation of the work of some of his colleagues, and his outright destruction of the careers of others. Not only did Evans cripple the archaeological investigation of Cretan civilization, but he delayed for over fifty years a crucial breakthrough in the study of the early Greek language. Evans had discovered hundreds of baked clay tablets with a hitherto undiscovered form of writing on them, known as Linear B. In order to enforce the idea that Crete was an isolated, unknown culture, Evans insisted that the language could not be an early form of Greek. He refused to make the inscriptions available to others during his lifetime. It wasn't until the 1950's, a decade after Evans' death, that Michael Ventris, a young British architect and cryptographer, proved to the astonishment of the world's experts, that the language of the Linear B script was, indeed, an early form of Greek.
Evans' life and work exemplify the British oligarchy's method of holding back scientific advance. Through suppression of evidence--and, more importantly, through brutal imposition of his ideological assumptions--Evans reigned as the High Priest of a scientific inquisition for more than [fifty] … years.
Over recent decades, the discrediting of Evans, and of other elements of British-controlled archaeology, have broken that inquisitional control, and scientists and amateurs, such as Edna Leigh, are now making valuable contributions to the discovery of mankind's true pre-history. It is that history which the controllers of the Sir Arthur Evanses of this world fear the most.
[End of quote]
Arthur Evans’ ‘refusal to make the inscriptions available to others during his lifetime’ has its modern equivalent (one of many?) in the Syrian government’s censorship of the material contained in the Ebla tablets:
Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities
https://www.academia.edu/43547894/Bible_affirming_Ebla_hampered_and_censored_by_Syrian_authorities
A fabricated so-called “Minoan” civilisation
“Of Evans, Gere remarks that "his methods were distinguished by
a delirious interpretive incontinence." And so they were”.
Shadi Bartsch
Shadi Bartsch tells how Sir Arthur Evans created a pacifist and matriarchal “Minoan” society: https://newrepublic.com/article/73305/the-archaeologist-minotaur
The Archaeologist as Minotaur
….
The evocative power of archeological sites stems at least in part from their promise to put us in touch with the reality of an ancient past. The ruined shell of the Roman amphitheater, the terracotta soldiers unearthed near Xi’an, the sandstone façade of Al Khazneh in Petra: all collapse centuries and millennia into a single moment of contact. In some cases, the ruins themselves are so familiar as to generate a sense not of authenticity but of déjà vu, as with Sigmund Freud’s famous “disturbance of memory” during his 1904 visit to the Acropolis in Athens.
But as many a visitor to the ruins of the bronze-age palace at Knossos has found to his or her surprise, some of the palace’s most iconic sights—the throne room complex, the squat red pillars, the frescoes of the priest-king and the "Ladies in Blue"—do not in fact represent the glories of a bygone Cretan civilization. Instead, they owe their appearance to the fervid imagination and wild reconstructive efforts of a single man, Knossos’s twentieth-century excavator—perhaps inventor is the better term—the British archeologist Sir Arthur Evans.
This disappoints terribly, of course: one wants the echt experience, notwithstanding the presence, especially in the United States, of any one of a number of faux Venices, Parises, and other reproductions of the "old country" that represent commercial pandering to the popular longing to come face to face with the past. And yet it turns out that even a garishly recreated Knossos can offer a rich history of its own, and it is the particular triumph of Cathy Gere’s book to have traced the powerful impact of Evans’s reconstruction of the site and his vision of a "Minoan" civilization upon the most fecund thinkers and artists of his day. In the pages of this fascinating book, Freud, de Chirico, Joyce, Picasso, Graves, and H.D. mark out labyrinthine paths as intricate as the mythical Minoan dancers of Evans’s imagination. Fueled by the idea of ancient Crete as Evans crafted it from the ruins, artifacts, and paint fragments of his excavation, and encouraged by Nietzsche’s notion that the modern era was actually repeating the history of antiquity in reverse movement, these figures went on to embed the myth of Evans’s peaceful and matriarchal Knossos into their own response to the twentieth century. For them, the preoccupations of modernism—the loss of faith in the Enlightenment’s legacy of rationalism, the search for an alternative to the malaise of the modern state, the theological angst accompanying the death of the Christian God—were anticipated, confronted, and resolved in the ruins of what Evans was convinced was the palace of the mythical King Minos.
Evans himself did not discover the site. It had already been identified as the location of bronze-age Knossos, and the preliminary excavations of a local antiquarian named Minos (yes, Minos) Kalokairinos had unearthed painted murals and terracotta jars. Kalokairinos was prevented from further digging by the local Cretan assembly, which feared that his finds might be appropriated by Crete’s Ottoman government.
Still, as Gere writes, "in the spring of 1894 the mound of Knossos finally met its destiny in the shape of the British petitioner for its favors, Arthur Evans." Our petitioner was sniffing out the trail of an unknown script found on seal stones that he had encountered in Greece, and whose source he believed to be Cretan; it was a belief confirmed by the similar characters on some of the stones exposed by Kalokairinos. By 1900, Evans was able to buy the site outright, and what followed were forty years of self-financed digging and reconstruction—self-financed and also self-conceived, since (as Gere suggests in a section on Evans’s early loss of his mother) the archeologist was saddled with a goodly amount of psychic baggage from his own childhood, all of which found some expression on the interpretive playing-field of Knossos.
Of Evans, Gere remarks that "his methods were distinguished by a delirious interpretive incontinence." And so they were. What Evans actually uncovered as he dug further into the mound was not insignificant: the oldest throne in Europe (a gypsum chair plastered to the wall behind it), goddess figurines, fragmentary frescoes. But upon these findings Evans brought to bear the volatile combination of his own imagination and a recent innovation in the construction industry: reinforced concrete. Where the rotted-out wooden pillars of the palace had once stood, Evans erected concrete pillars to take their place, and over them, originally to protect the finds, a concrete ceiling. In the course of the next decades, a three storey modernist structure over the throne would be erected under the supervision of the architect Piet de Jong, and the Swiss artists Guilliéron père et fils, also working for Evans, would generate frescoes from the most fragmentary remnants. A particularly egregious case of invention resulted in the “restoration” of the painting of a red-skinned Minoan captain leading a troop of black soldiers, the whole troop created almost ex nihilo from a few patches of black pigment. The second volume of Evans’s excavation report accordingly included a disquisition on Cretan relations with sub-Saharan Africa, an association that would be indirectly echoed in later scholarly attempts to link Cretan and Egyptian culture.
Interpretive incontinence, certainly. But there was a good precedent for such excess. Evans was following in the footsteps of Heinrich Schliemann, the wealthy German merchant-turned-archeologist who, having tunneled a destructive path through nine archeological strata at Hisarlik near the mouth of the Dardanelles, claimed in 1873 to have found the Troy of Homer’s Iliad at the penultimate level. (We now know that this was a Bronze Age settlement, and that Schliemann’s spade-wielding haste actually destroyed much evidence of the most likely Iliadic Troy.) The claim was based on the discovery of a trove of gold and copper artifacts that Schliemann promptly labeled ‘Priam’s treasure’ and which cemented his fame in the public eye. In his subsequent excavations at Mycenae in mainland Greece, Schliemann’s imagination again did not fail him: uncovering, in 1876, the figure of a corpse wearing a gold death-mask, he suggested he had unearthed Agamemnon himself, and in later accounts of his excavations he created a backstory in which it had always been his childhood dream to find and excavate Homer’s ill-fated city. By publishing this archeology of ambition, as it were, he was able to mythologize himself as well as the skeletons he had summoned to the light of day.
Where Schliemann had been merely destructive, Evans, we might say, was constructive. But a greater contrast between these series of excavations—Troy and Mycenae on the one hand, Knossos on the other—would eventually shape two different modern myths about the origins of European civilization. Schliemann’s work on Troy was a crucial step in the construction of a Greek proto-identity for the German race. His discovery of swastika figures scratched onto some Trojan loom-weights—together with a female figurine also found at Troy, onto whose pubic triangle Schliemann himself had helpfully carved a matching swastika—coincided with the development of the Teutonic scholarship that identified the ‘Aryas’ of the Sanskrit Rigveda with none other than the Germans themselves. The presence of similar swastikas on some ancient German pots meant that "the Iliad could now join the Rigveda as the historical record of the military prowess of a racially pure people, who left a trail of swastikas in the wake of their irresistible westward advance and whose true heirs were the Prussian army." The hoisting of the swastika flag as the symbol of the Reich in 1933 was merely the final step in this "invention of archeology." And in the same year, fittingly enough, Emil Ludwig’s biography of Schliemann was burned in Berlin: written by a Jew, it apparently lacked the wherewithal to recognize the particularly German nature of Schliemann’s heroic idealism.
If Schliemann’s Iliadic proto-Germans were the mythical forbearers of Nazi Germany’s own military ethos, Evans was sickened by the atrocities of the civil war during the Cretan fight for independence, and Gere suggests that his emphasis on the pacific and matriarchal aspects of his ‘Minoan’ civilization was at least in part a reaction to these horrors. When he announced that he had found the "throne of Ariadne" at Knossos, he was staking out an allegiance not to Homer’s warriors but to Johann Jakob Bachofen’s argument that a matriarchal culture had preceded patriarchy on Crete. Support was lent to the theory when in 1884 an Italian archeologist found near Gortyn the inscribed marble remains of a fifth-century B.C.E. law code with favorable legal provisions for women. Evans’s greatest invention, in fact, was this archetype of the Great Mother Goddess, whose religious sway over the early Cretans he derived from the discovery of female statuettes, seal stamps showing a "Mountain Goddess," and the putative dancing floor of Ariadne, daughter of Minos.
But Evans went so far as to put aside evidence he himself had discovered pointing to a network of fortifications on the island in order to present the Cretans as wholly peace-loving: "His King Minos was a famous lawgiver rather than an infamous tyrant; his labyrinth was a dancing floor rather than a monster’s prison. So successful was he, that Mycenae and Knossos eventually came to be seen as opposite extremes, one militaristic and patriarchal, the other peaceful and feminine. Out of the violent hell of the struggle for Cretan independence was born the pacifist paradise of Minoan Crete." In sum, Evans’s multi-volume work The Palace of Minos presented this civilization as taking place in a prelapsarian time, "a gilded infancy suckled by a benevolent mother goddess." Although Evans shared the racist biases of his times, he had no use for Aryan theories: his peaceful and semitic Crete was a world influenced and improved by its neighbors to the south, Egypt and Libya.
Here, then, was the new childhood of Europe, a world cooked up by an archeologist eager to show that a pacific matriarchy lay at the origin of a people caught up in the increasingly violent twentieth century. It was a popular vision: as Gere demonstrates, Evans’s appealing articulation of bronze-age Cretan civilization was appropriated over and over again by its twentieth-century audiences, each adapting it to their own needs in the service of feminism, psychoanalysis, art, Afrocentrism, and the like. For Freud, archeology had already come to stand as the master-metaphor for the "talking cure"--perhaps not surprisingly, given the reverse chronology of both disciplines and the idea that the analyst, like the archeologist, was on a search for the buried sources of the present. "A neurosis or a hysterical symptom," as Gere observes, "was like an archaeological tell—a mound of memories that had to be peeled away, layer by layer, starting from the present and working back to the past, in search of a primal scene."
But more strikingly, Freud went so far as to identify Evans’s Knossos with a pre-Oedipal stage putatively experienced by the West in its Cretan infancy and to identify this historical moment in the development of civilization with a stage in the psychic development of the child: the presence of the Minoan mother goddess in pre-patriarchal Crete (as he argued in Moses and Monotheism) represented a parallel to a young girl’s primary attachment was to her mother. And into this pottage of correspondences between the dig at Knossos and the analyses in his Viennese study, Freud then added an odder still ingredient: "inherited memory." According to this Lamarckian twist in his thought, the history of the human species had left traces in the brains of modern individuals, so that Minoan civilization, which was thought to have perished in a cataclysmic earthquake or eruption against which its Great Mother Goddess had offered no protection, "actually laid down the psychic structure of the pre-Oedipal stage and its termination" in the maturation process of every generation of children.
The unfortunate Mother Goddess thus went the way of all Freudian mothers: both Cretan civilization and the pre-Oedipal child realized that these feminine forces could not hold a candle to a paternal God and a pater. Not Freud’s brightest hour, perhaps; Gere amusingly quotes the complaint by Yosef Hayyim Yerushalmi, the great Jewish historian, that the theory of inherited memory relies on "structures of thought and modes of discourse as alien as those encountered by an anthropologist studying the Bororo or Nambikwara tribes in the Brazilian unknown."
Freud, of course, was hardly the only appropriator of Cretan symbolism. Gere pays witty homage to many equally fascinating figures. Evans’s contemporary, the classicist Jane Ellen Harrison, was likewise convinced by the goddess seals and statuettes of Knossos that the island contained coded references to the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. In a famous chapter entitled "The Making of a Goddess" from her Prolegomena to a Study of Greek Religion, Harrison presents the Olympian gods of the Greeks not as the rational deities of a civilized Hellenism, but as the patriarchal usurpers of female rule: as she wrote in some disgruntlement, "Woman who was the inspirer, becomes the temptress; she who made all things, gods and mortals alike, is become their plaything, their slave, dowered only with physical beauty, and with a slave’s tricks and blandishments." Meanwhile, the painter Giorgio de Chirico was painting his own likenesses of Ariadne, the heroine isolated in an industrial modernist landscape that perhaps not coincidentally resembled Evans’s reconstruction of the throne room complex. In an odd twist of fate, De Chirico had earlier taken drawing lessons from none other than Émile Gilliéron pere. Among the other figures for whom Gere traces out Minoan connections and coincidences, the biographical material on Robert Graves is particularly striking. Graves, like Harrison, lamented the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy in his Minoan-themed best-seller of 1948, The White Goddess, but in this he was apparently influenced by the years he spent in erotic thrall to the unbalanced American poet Laura Riding, who magnificently declared herself a figure of destiny named "Finality." Graves threw himself out a third-story window on Finality’s behalf but survived to write Goodbye to All That.
The final part of the story is dedicated to the role that Knossos played in the ongoing debate about north African civilization’s influence on the eventual cultural and intellectual hegemony of classical Athens. Starting in 1917 with an article by George Wells Parker on "The African Origin of Grecian Civilisation," Gere traces the modulations of this argument in the work of the Senegalese polymath Cheikh Anta Diop and in the "Black Athena" hypothesis championed by Martin Bernal. Both Diop and Bernal have argued that the Egyptian pharaohs were black Africans, the former most notably in his book The African Origin of Civilization, the latter in the three volumes of Black Athena. Crete enters the picture already with Parker, who thought that the red-skinned figures of the frescoes had African facial features; Diop believed that Crete was a colony of Middle Kingdom Egypt, and that its inhabitants had fled to the Peloponnese after the volcanic eruption on Thera. Gere does not delve into the bitter controversy around the Black Athena thesis, but she does point out that Evans’s belief that Minoan civilization had political hegemony over Greek Mycenae lost steam after it became clear that the unfamiliar script on the tablets dug up at Knossos, Linear B, was in fact archaic Greek and not a Semitic language from north Africa. This cast doubt upon the straightforward narrative of cultural inheritance from Egypt to Crete, and Crete to the mainland.
Recently the fabled Minoans have fallen farther still, with the discovery of new archeological evidence that suggests the possibility that they carried out human sacrifice and even cannibalized children. It is interesting to speculate on what Evans would have done had he come face to face with this evidence: would it have gone the way of the other material that had no place in his Pax Minoica? It is surely difficult to find a spot for human flesh on the pacifist’s dining table. We cannot know, but what Gere’s stimulating study repeatedly reminds us is that archeology can be not only a recovery of the past, not only a reflection of the present, but also a projection about our own culture and its ideals. "There is no escaping the fact," as she concludes, "that we read the human past to understand the present, and then interpret it in the light of the future that we fear or desire."
Crete as the Egyptian ‘Isle of the Dead’
“Whereas there is a now a more common consensus that the initial conclusions reached by Evans about the Minoan civilisation are part modern invention, part based on archaeological discoveries, the framework of the “Minoan civilisation” has not been publicly criticised as much as it … should have been”.
Philip Coppens
Philip Coppens re-visits a theory about Crete formerly promoted by Oswald Spengler (1930’s): https://www.eyeofthepsychic.com/crete_dead/
Crete: the Egyptian island of the dead?
….
The man who put Crete on the archaeological map was Arthur Evans, an English archaeologist who excavated Knossos from 1900 onwards, having purchased the site on which the ruins were located. As excavations progressed, the palace, located in the hills south of the capital Heraklion, was quickly identified with the legendary site of the “Palace of King Minos” – the “Minoan civilisation” was coined. Since Evans’ time, it is accepted that the palace culture of Crete was that of a trading empire, typified by lavish and large palaces, which can therefore often be found along the coastline, rather than in the heartland or mountainous regions.
But according to the German geologist Hans Wunderlich, Crete’s history has been harshly misinterpreted.
Whereas there is a now a more common consensus that the initial conclusions reached by Evans about the Minoan civilisation are part modern invention, part based on archaeological discoveries, the framework of the “Minoan civilisation” has not been publicly criticised as much as it perhaps should have been. Wunderlich, however, spoke up against that status quo in the 1970s, and rather than just argue against the conclusions, also put forward a theory of his own about what Crete might have been. Three decades later, Wunderlich’s interpretation has remained a hot topic of debate, though as it does not involve aliens or Atlantis, it has not captured the attention it should perhaps deserve.
The “Minoan legacy” is the presence of several immense and complex buildings – palaces – built over several floors. One problem is that there is more than one palace – it is unlikely that all of these were palaces for a central king. It has therefore been argued that these were “secondary” palaces that controlled “regions”.
All palaces all adhere to the same design: they are situated on lowlands, are close to the seashore, often aligned to important mountains, or more particularly: mountains with important caves, sometimes mythically connected with the birthplace or the place of burial of deities, Zeus in particular.
These observations allow for the argument that the “palaces” could more likely be “temples” – that their purpose is more religious than residential. For sure, archaeologists are quick to point out that certain parts of the palaces definitely had a religious function. But some go further. In fact, archaeologist Oswald Spengler stated in 1935 that these “palaces” were temples for the dead. The Minoan royal throne to him was not the seat from which the king held audiences, but instead the seat for a religious image or a priest’s mummy.
His opinion was not taken seriously, as it went against the – still – accepted belief and Spengler himself could not pursue his own line of thinking as he died the year following the publication of his thesis. Hans Georg Wunderlich continued where Spengler had left off. Both Wunderlich and Spengler noted that the state of the palaces was particularly bizarre. Thousands of people are believed to have roamed the corridors of the Palace of Knossos, but the staircases throughout the complex look as if they have never been used! Most sections of the complex reveal no sign of usage, or age. This in itself is bizarre.
It is all the stranger as the material used was gypsum, a very soft material. Why they used this inferior material to the widely available marble-like limestone, is a great mystery – if the palace was meant for the living.
Still, some argue whether the dead had any need for a sewage system, of such complexity that it would take until Roman times before a similar construction could be seen. There is apparently even a bathroom with a flushing toilet, though there is some discussion whether this is an original find, or an “addition” made by Evans. Evans did many reconstructions throughout the complex, and some of these have been labelled “unfortunate”, as they are felt to be more in line with the early 20th century culture than with that of the ancient Minoans. But the problem, once again, is that the so-called bathrooms are faced with gypsum too – and that substance and running water are mutually exclusive, as it is not resistant to it.
Most remarkable, however, is the fact that the ancient Minoans did not leave much behind – little waste, not many utensils, etc. have been found within the ruins… perhaps because no-one lived inside?
The Palace of Knossos is famous for its depictions of white women and red men. The scenes depict processions, the men dressed in skirts. But the most remarkable aspect of these scenes is that they are identical with scenes – and equally old – found in Egyptian temples. They speak of an island, identified in Egyptian sources as “Keftiu” – Crete.
For a very long period, it was felt that the Minoan and Egyptian civilisations evolved independent from one another, a thesis still adhered to by some historians. But these discoveries contradicted this assumption. It revealed that in the 18th Dynasty (ca. 1600-1500 BC) [sic], when Crete reached its apogee, there was an intense exchange between the two civilisations.
Some archaeologists have interpreted the processions as nothing more than “state visits” and exchange of gifts, i.e. forms of diplomacy, between Crete and Egypt, thus trying to keep the status of an independent Crete intact. But there is evidence that does not support this conclusion. The scenes were depicted in Egyptian graves and the processions were clearly linked with the dead. This makes Crete directly linked with the Egyptian dead.
It was such evidence that led Wunderlich to revisit Spengler’s opinion. He came to the conclusion that the palaces were not built for a living king … but for a dead one; that sections of the palace were clearly designed to allow for the storage of the remains of the dead. And Wunderlich argued that this was the main reason behind the close alliance between Crete and Egypt, going as far as to suggest that the practice of mummification in Egypt was performed by Cretans – and that the mummification itself might have occurred in Crete.
The bull was important both in Crete and Egypt. In Egypt, the animal is linked with the deceased king, whereas the bull is depicted on all Minoan monuments, though its specification function is unclear, because of the absence of any knowledge on the Minoan religion. The palaces depict lilies and lotus flowers, plants that had an important, religious function in Egypt.
The Minoan palaces have a depiction of what is known as “bull leaping”: people performing acrobatics on a leaping bull. Experts have identified that this form of acrobatics is physically impossible – humans and bulls cannot interact in such a manner. The question is therefore whether these scenes depict “imaginary” scenes, i.e. scenes that might occur in the Afterlife?
Wunderlich also noted that the name of king Minos is identical to the first king of the Egyptian First Dynasty, Menes. But in the Homeric legends, Minos is not so much king, as a judge, “wielding a golden sceptre while dispensing laws among the dead.” If Minos ruled Crete, Crete was therefore an island of the dead.
Hard archaeological evidence cementing a link between Crete and Egypt comes in the form of the Haga Triada sarcophagus – the perfect object in discussing funerary similarities. It depicts a griffin wagon and the sacrifice of a bull, but most importantly, offerings being made to the dead, shown in upright posture. The ceremony was performed in the open air, before the deceased was moved to an underground vault, where he received the horns and the blood of the bull. Likely not coincidentally, models of sacrificed animals have been found in great number in the Cretan palaces. Though the scene shows the mummy upright, later, the position seems to have been changed to sitting – the reason why Spengler speculated the “royal throne” might have accommodated a mummy.
Wunderlich asks – rightfully – why “the selfsame cult objects depicted on the sarcophagus should have been found in, of all places, the so-called domestic quarters of the king in the Palace of Knossos? If so, that the king was no longer among the living when he dwelt in these rooms! For the rooms identified by Sir Arthur Evans as living quarters evidently served for the performance of a ceremony such as is depicted on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus: the invocation and ritual veneration of a dead, not a living, person.” Indeed, Wunderlich argues that what Evans interpreted as a bathtub was actually an oval sarcophagus. The ventilation openings in the bottom, to help preserve the dried mummies, Evans took as drainage holes for the bathwater. Evans himself saw the strong Egyptian artistic influence: “This accumulating evidence of early intercourse with the Nile Valley cannot certainly surprise the traveler fresh from exploring site after site of primeval cities which once looked forth from the southern spurs of Dikta far across the Libyan Sea, and whose roadsteads, given a favourable wind, are within forty hours’ sail of the Delta.” Wunderlich went even further and suggested that Crete in essence was no civilisation, but a “vassal state” of Egypt.
Still, Evans was reluctant to endorse the Egyptian theme, even when in March 1904, a tomb was discovered that contained an Egyptian basalt bowl, many Egyptian alabaster bases, an Egyptian lapis lazuli necklace with pendant figures, with the tomb itself – known as the Royal Tomb of Isopata, destroyed in 1942 – resembling the rectangular layout of the tombs of Egyptian nobles at Thebes. Still, writing to his father, he did remark: “It is curious what an Egyptian element there is.” J. Alexander MacGillivray has commented how Evans “continued to maintain that Minoan culture was independent of Egypt, even as he personally continued to gather evidence to the contrary.” In 1991, in the Egyptian Nile Delta, a team of Austrian archaeologists led by Manfred Bietak discovered a palace complex in Tel ed-Daba (Avaris). An area on the western edge of the site, known as Ezbet Helmi, revealed a large palace-like structure dating to the Hyksos period (18th century BC). [sic] The ancient gardens revealed many fragments of Minoan wall-paintings, similar in style to those found in the palace at Knossos in Crete. It was not the first such discovery as German archaeologist Eduard Meyer had found Knossos-like paintings in the tombs of the necropolis of Thebes West.
It has been suggested that the Avaris paintings with a distinctive red-painted background may even pre-date those of Crete and Thera and possibly have influenced some of the 18th Dynasty tomb paintings that appear to include Minoan themes such as the “flying gallop” motif of horses and bulls. In the 18th Dynasty strata of Ezbet Helmi, Dr Bietak also discovered many lumps of pumice-stone, which could have come from the volcanic explosion on the island of Thera, occurring in the 15th century BC and identified as the cataclysmic event that ended the Minoan civilisation.
Mackey’s comment: But see my multi-part Theran series, beginning with:
Problematical Thera Dating. Part One: Introductory
http://www.academia.edu/35338344/Problematical_Thera_Dating._Part_One_Introductory
Evans-like dictatorial tyrant Zawi Hawass
“With an army of adoring international fans and close personal connections to Mubarak, the charges of having a poor scientific approach to archaeological work and being too concerned with endless self- promotion had little impact – Hawass was perceived as virtually unassailable.”.
Emma Watts-Plumpkin
It is quite a killer to healthy research when establishment tyrants such as Arthur Evans and Zawi Hawass become firmly set in place.
Emma Watts-Plumpkin writes of “Cairo: Egyptology in crisis” (September 5, 2011):
https://www.world-archaeology.com/world/africa/egypt/cairo-egyptology-in-crisis/
After the dramatic departure of President Hosni Mubarak, attention swiftly turned to one of his high-profile ministers, the world-famous archaeologist Dr Zahi Hawass.
No stranger to the glare of the media spotlight, Hawass quickly became tainted along with the crumbling regime and was engulfed by damaging charges of corruption and mismanagement.
On Sunday 17 July, Hawass was abruptly sacked as the Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in an overhaul of the country’s cabinet, and his controversial reign as one of the most powerful men in the archaeological world finally came to an end.
Hawass rose to prominence in the late 1980s as the General Director of Antiquities for the Giza Pyramids and became familiar to worldwide television audiences through documentaries investigating the mysteries of the pyramids. Infamous for his trademark hat and self-styling as the ‘Indiana Jones of Egypt’, Western-educated Hawass was elevated to the position of Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) on 1 January 2002. As Egypt’s foremost archaeologist, he was responsible for a staff of 30,000, control of all ongoing archaeological work, and the maintenance of a vast array of cultural riches including the Pyramids at Giza, the Valley of the Kings, and the Temple of Karnak in modern-day Luxor.
Formidable in asserting his new position, Hawass unveiled a raft of new measures. These included an aggressive nationwide museum-building programme, promising to improve the working conditions for local archaeologists, and implementing new site-management policies. Egyptologist Dr Melinda Hartwig of Georgia State University observes that Hawass was ‘adamant about publishing the results of archaeological fieldwork, even going as far as to shut down digs that were behind on their reports’. Hawass masterminded the planning and initial construction of the $550 million Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza – once completed in 2015, it will be the largest archaeological museum in the world, housing more than 100,000 artefacts and expecting around 5 million visitors per year.
World stage
It was through Hawass’s vociferous demands for the return of stolen cultural artefacts to Egypt that he first hit global headlines. Throughout his tenure at the SCA, he attempted to stamp out the relentless and highly damaging illegal trade in Egyptian cultural artefacts with some degree of success, presiding over the return of nearly 5,000 objects.
Hawass used his position as head of the SCA to embark on a decade-long campaign to demand the return of Egypt’s most prized objects from leading museums around the world. These included the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum in London, the Zodiac of Dendera at the Musée du Louvre in Paris, and the bust of Queen Nefertiti at the Neues Museum in Berlin.
In the face of mounting media attention, Hawass applied increasing pressure for repatriation of key Egyptian objects from embattled world-renowned institutions, threatening embargoes on museum cooperation and excavation permits.
Dr Hartwig believes ‘Zahi Hawass was a force of nature and tireless in his pursuits. He spearheaded the return of the country’s patrimony and he clearly demonstrated a strong desire to study, protect and preserve the cultural heritage of Egypt’. The influence of the media has been crucial to Hawass’s enduring campaign, as he acknowledged when returning from a high-profile visit to London two years ago: ‘The English press was on my side in asking for the return of the stone’.
Last year Egypt, the largest country in the Arab world, received revenue of over $12 billion through tourism. Hawass has been the driving force behind the heavy promotion of two successful Tutankhamen exhibitions that continue to travel to major cities around the world, generating for Egypt an estimated final revenue of over $100 million.
Dr Peter Brand of the University of Memphis notes that Hawass’s crowning achievement was ‘to raise the profile of Egyptology around the world, especially in the participation of Egyptians in their own pharaonic heritage’. Hawass has been credited by government officials with boosting the number of visitors to the country through a relentless drive of self-promotion and headline-grabbing discoveries – he became he living embodiment of both Ancient Egypt and modern Egyptology.
Hawass always made sure he was the public face of Egyptology at every level – through the SCA he personally announced every new archaeological discovery, wrote countless bestselling books, and became ubiquitous on every history-themed cable channel in America.
Last year he took another step forward into show business by starring in his own exclusive warts-and-all reality series Chasing Mummies (tagline: ‘Pharaohs ruled then. He rules now’). With an army of adoring international fans and close personal connections to Mubarak, the charges of having a poor scientific approach to archaeological work and being too concerned with endless self- promotion had little impact – Hawass was perceived as virtually unassailable.
Winds of change
In one of Mubarak’s final official acts as president, Hawass was appointed as the Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in a new department that absorbed the SCA. As such, he was charged with the care and protection of all Egyptian monuments and museums. Nearly two weeks later, at the height of the revolution, everything changed. Hundreds of archaeologists protested outside Hawass’s offices, furious at low wages, high levels of unemployment, and poor working conditions. It was also claimed that Hawass took all the credit for work by other archaeologists, causing further frustration. Egyptian archaeologist Nora Shalaby took part in the demonstration and witnessed the angry chants of ‘thief’ against Hawass: ‘He ran the antiquities sector exactly like Mubarak had run Egypt.
He did not allow for people to challenge or criticise him and he monopolised our heritage for his own self-promotion.’ The protestors submitted a list of demands including the immediate prosecution of Hawass on charges of corruption and accountability for the looting of artefacts from the Cairo Museum during the revolution. With the dramatic changes unfolding in Egypt’s political landscape, Hawass was an obvious target for a new generation of disgruntled archaeologists.
Amid rising animosity, criticism was heaped on the alleged $200,000 annual salary Hawass received from National Geographic, particularly as he personally controlled all access to the ancient sites featured in the high-profile magazine reports. His close links with American companies who represent the Tutankhamen exhibitions and associated Egyptian-themed merchandise were heavily scrutinised, further tarnishing his increasingly beleaguered reputation. The subsequent launch of a widely ridiculed Zahi Hawass clothing line (‘for the man who values self-discovery, historicism and adventure’) only succeeded in fanning the flames of resentment, despite claims by Hawass that all profits would be donated to a children’s charity in Cairo.
Following the fallout from protests in Tahrir Square, Hawass resigned his cabinet position – only to be reappointed a month later. After just weeks of being back in the job, he was sentenced to a year in prison in a dispute over the preferential award of a gift shop retail contract at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. A criminal court recently acquitted Hawass of all charges against him. Despite attempts to distance himself from the political old-guard in Egypt, Hawass’s close links to the Mubarak regime continued to haunt him, and he was eventually sacked in July. Hawass does not plan to fade away quietly. He is already at work on his archaeological autobiography, and recently observed that he was ‘blessed to see first-hand how many Egyptians love and respect me’. ….
[End of quotes]
Matthias Schulz has written colourfully about “Zahi Hawass. Egypt's Avenger of the Pharaohs”:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/zahi-hawass-egypt-s-avenger-of-the-pharaohs-a-697174.html
It is 5 a.m. and Zahi Hawass is sitting in his SUV, freshly showered, about to drive out to the Bahariya Oasis for a press appearance. The streets are still empty as Cairo shimmers in the rose-colored morning sun. Hawass must hurry to avoid the morning traffic.
He has already had a heart attack, and since then he only smokes water pipes. Referring to his driver, he says: "If he slows down I'll fire him." He likes to call his opponents "assholes."
But no one here is troubled by his behavior. In fact, Hawass has a license to be loud and angry. He sets his own rules. As Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), he is the ultimate protector of all monuments in the country.
Some 30,000 people report to Hawass, whose organization is responsible for hundreds of dilapidated temples, gloomy tombs and treasure chambers fragrant with the scent of resin, once filled with gold jewelry and papyrus documents, stretching from the delta to the fourth Nile cataract.
Hawass can open them all.
Even looking like Indiana Jones in his jeans shirt and floppy, the master of the keys to Egypt's antiquities has made umpteen TV appearances dangling from a rope in a grave shaft or bending over coffins, constantly repeating the same tried-and-true mantra: "mummy, sand, secret, miracle, exceptional."
He is now "world-renowned," at least in his own assessment of himself. The pyramid whisperer drinks $300 (€242) bottles of wine, and his best friend is actor Omar Sharif. Sometimes he puts on an expensive tuxedo and drives to a party at the villa of President Hosni Mubarak.
He even met with US President Barack Obama in June, and the two men stood at the base of the Pyramid of Cheops with their hands in their pockets, looking cool as could be.
"We were friends right off the bat," says Hawass. "I told him that George Lucas came here to find out why my hat became more famous than Harrison Ford's."
When he was shown the layout for his latest book, he had only one comment: "OK, but you have to print my name in bigger letters."
"I'm not just famous in the United States, but also in Japan and, in fact, everywhere," the narcissistic Egyptian explains without hesitation.
But Hawass is probably best known in his native Egypt, where he writes a column in the government daily al-Ahram. He often appears on television, chatting with official guests and ambassadors, or opening dance competitions in front of the Sphinx.
People like Hawass' approach and his ability to converse on equal terms with the West. He has liberated Egypt from a posture of humility.
'The Fighting Elephant of Egyptology'
He also happens to be a gifted speaker. He loves anecdotes, which usually revolve around him and contain minor untruths.
But this outgoing man isn't overly interested in details. "Jalla, let's go," he calls out testily when his Jeep gets stuck in heavy traffic in Cairo's urban canyons. His chauffeur has already run over several chickens.
But Hawass, who the German newspaper Hamburger Abendblatt dubbed the "fighting elephant of Egyptology," has no patience for delays. He is a restless and driven man.
He says he would need thousands of arms and legs to wipe out all the disgrace that have been inflicted on his country. He is vexed by the daily grind of his fellow Egyptians, the filth, the poverty, the lack of organization and his agency's poor technical facilities.
"We were once at the very top," he says, referring to the time of the pharaohs. "Be proud of this heritage," he tells young people.
Hawass often speaks of dignity, respect and honor. He believes that his nation was cheated, and that it is his mission to exact revenge for this treatment.
"Our heritage was stolen," he says. "People raped the realm of the Nile in past centuries." This makes him all the more determined to pursue one goal above all else: the return of cultural artifacts.
It is true that foreign rulers ransacked the region along the Nile for thousands of years. The Romans, for example, made off with entire obelisks.
Then came Napoleon. "Soldiers, 40 centuries look down upon you," the Corsican called out to his men when they invaded the country in 1798. Entire ships filled with cultural artifacts were later shipped to the West, where they served as the basis for large, new museums.
Many of these treasures were purchased legally and for large sums of money.
But Egypt was also filled with smugglers and tomb raiders who broke the law and stole the country's golden heritage.
Hawass is outraged over this bloodletting, and he doesn't draw any distinctions. The antiquities director makes a general accusation that is inconvenient for the West. He resembles the Sphinx, except that instead of causing the plague, he gives people a guilty conscience.
The man has already brought home 31,000 smuggled objects in past years. They are primarily pieces taken in illicit excavations, which have been sold over the last 50 years, through auction houses like Sotheby's and Christie's, to museums in the United States.
He is celebrated at home for his achievements, and justifiably so. He even tracked down the embalmed body of Ramses I -- in faraway Atlanta. Hawass bent over the papery face and sniffed it. Then he said: "I can smell it -- this is Ramses." The analysis proved him right.
His successes have earned him various descriptions at home, including the mummy magician, the hero from the desert, and the showman of shards who has turned the pyramids into a circus tent.
He has a good sense of humor, but can also be moody. Recently in New York, he upbraided several museum curators from Boston before the assembled world press. They own a statue that he believes belongs to his people. As he was speaking, he rolled his eyes and made a fist.
The Louvre also got a taste of his fury. Hawass wanted the French museum to return five magnificent frescoes it had acquired from a seller who had obtained them illegally. When it refused, he ejected French archeologists from Egypt and terminated all collaboration with the treasure trove on the Seine.
Finally, last October, French President Nicolas Sarkozy put in a sheepish call to Mubarak, promising that everything that had been requested would be turned over. Hawass was triumphant: "It was a victory for us."
The antiquities director has stirred up a difficult fight, for which he will need staying power, strong nerves and robust good health.
To keep up his health, he begins normal workdays with gymnastics, on the advice of his wife, a gynecologist.
By 7 a.m., he is sitting in his office in the exclusive Zamalek neighborhood, drinking herbal tea and lemonade. He only goes out to eat in the evening. After 10 p.m., he relaxes over a game of backgammon in a café near his apartment.
But there are often times when Hawass has to get up very early, skip his morning routine, brush his teeth and quickly eat a falafel before heading out into the countryside in his Jeep.
An Enigmatic Character
The reason he is so busy is that he has monopolized all PR activities relating to archaeology. Some 225 foreign archeological teams are working along the Nile, and all are kept muzzled. None of the professors working with the teams is permitted to report important finds without official approval. "It used to be a self-service operation here," says the boss, "but those days are gone."
Hawass reserves the right to announce all discoveries himself. Not everyone likes this. Some people feel that he is about as interested in serious research as Rapunzel was in having her hair cut.
He boasted that there were "10,000 golden mummies" at the cemetery in Bahariya, but only 200 were found. And he mistakenly declared a shabby find in the Valley of Kings to be the gravesite of a female pharaoh.
His own excavation efforts also appear to be somewhat bizarre. For some time, the master has been searching for the body of Cleopatra in a temple near Alexandria -- based on an idea suggested to him by a lawyer from the Dominican Republic.
"Are you sure about this?" a journalist wanted to know. Hawass replied:
"Completely, otherwise I wouldn't have even mentioned it. After all, I don't want to embarrass myself."
When nothing was found, despite feverish excavation efforts, Hawass took a granite bust of Cleopatra's lover, Mark Antony, from a museum last year and pretended that he had just pulled it out of the ground.
Duncan Lees, a computer specialist who occasionally creates 3-D animations of grave shafts -- in other words, a relatively minor player -- calls him a "greedy guy" and a tyrant, who prefers to surround himself with "bootlickers."
The major Egyptologists, on the other hand, are more reserved, and tend to whisper their criticism. They are anxious not to lose their licenses.
Many in the field had been secretly looking forward to May 28, the day the narcissistic archeologist turns 63, which would normally be his retirement age.
But instead of being feted with a farewell dinner, Hawass has just received a new position. President Mubarak has appointed him Deputy Minister of Culture, which means that he can continue working until the end of his life.
Nevertheless, this enigmatic figure is by no means the sum of his negative traits.
He has really achieved something.
With his frenetic public relations activities and his boundless vanity, Hawass has sparked a change in awareness among the 80 million Egyptians and sparked a new sense of pride.
Zahi Hawass stormed out of debate
“Unfortunately it appeared that Zahi was completely ignorant of the existence
or implications of Gobekli Tepe, arguably the most important archaeological site in the world, so he was unable to answer the question which he passed on to
the moderator …”.
Graham Hancock
Graham Hancock writes of the infamous incident in “Zahi Hawass vs Graham Hancock — the April 2015 “debate” debacle”: https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg15/
Egyptologists frequently pour scorn on alternative researchers calling them “pseudoscientists” and “pyramidiots” and other such insulting epithets. But look what happened when a leading Egyptologist was put to the test…
Dr Zahi Hawass, frequently promoted by his colleagues — for whom he is an icon of the mainstream point of view — as “the most famous archaeologist in the world”, had agreed to participate with me on 22 April 2015 in what was billed and advertised as “the first open debate between the representatives of two completely different versions of history.” Each of us was to give a one-hour presentation, followed by a debate in which the audience would join in with questions. In the event the debate never happened. Zahi refused to accept a coin-toss to decide the speaking order and insisted that I speak first.
I agreed to this, despite the fact that the first speaker is at a slight disadvantage in any debate since he does not have the opportunity to hear the other speaker’s presentation before giving his own.
Before most of the audience had arrived, I was checking the focus on the slides in my PowerPoint presentation prior to giving my talk and I put up on the screen an image which shows the Orion/Pyramids correlation and the Sphinx/Leo correlation at Giza in the epoch of 10,500 BC. Rightly and properly since the Orion correlation is Robert Bauval’s discovery I included a portrait of Robert Bauval in the slide. As soon as Zahi saw Robert’s image he became furiously angry, shouted at me, made insulting and demeaning comments about Robert, and told me that if I dared to mention a single word about Robert in my talk he would walk out and refuse to debate me. I explained that the alternative view of history that I was on stage to represent could not exclude the Orion correlation and therefore could not exclude Robert Bauval. At that, again shouting, Zahi marched out of the debating room. Frantic negotiations then took place off stage between the conference organisers and Zahi. Finally Zahi agreed to return and give his talk and answer questions from the audience, but he refused absolutely to hear or see my talk, or to engage in any debate with me. I therefore gave my talk to the audience without Zahi present (he sat in a room outside the conference hall while I spoke). When I had finished I answered questions from the audience. Then Zahi entered, gave his talk, answered questions from the audience and left.
….
One of the few members of the audience who had arrived early did manage to record part of the scene of Zahi storming out of the conference room — see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc
Likewise during Zahi’s Q&A he was asked a question about the 11,600-year-old [sic] megalithic site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and whether it had any impact on his assessment of the disputed age of the megalithic Great Sphinx of Giza (which I and my colleagues have long argued might be of similar antiquity).
Unfortunately it appeared that Zahi was completely ignorant of the existence or implications of Gobekli Tepe, arguably the most important archaeological site in the world, so he was unable to answer the question which he passed on to the moderator, Dr Miroslav Barta, Head of the Czech Archaeological Institute in Cairo (who was by prior agreement not supposed to intervene or take sides in the debate at all) and whose knowledge of Gobekli Tepe was also clearly incomplete (for example Dr Barta stated that Gobekli Tepe dates from the “late eleventh millennium BC through the tenth millennium BC” whereas in fact the dates presently established for Gobekli Tepe are from 9600 BC — tenth millennium BC — through 8200 BC — ninth millennium BC — i.e. from 11,600 years ago to 10,200 years ago). Dr Barta also used circular logic, arguing that Egyptian civilisation is thousands of years younger than Gobekli Tepe and that therefore there could be no connection, whereas this is exactly the matter in debate, and the point of the question asked, namely whether the findings at Gobekli Tepe require open-minded consideration of the possibility that the Great Sphinx and other megalithic structures at Giza, and with them the origins of Egyptian civilisation, might in fact be much older than Egyptologists presently maintain. I did at that point have a brief opportunity to stand up and give my own point of view on Gobekli Tepe and on its implications for the age of the Sphinx — see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NnCAZcxHg
I had high hopes for this debate — that it might bring about some sort of civil dialogue between alternative and mainstream views of history but I was sadly disappointed. ….
Mackey’s comment: The BC dates proposed here for both the Sphinx and Göbekli Tepe would be far too early according to my own opinion:
Göbekli Tepe dating plain wrong
https://www.academia.edu/39378001/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe_dating_plain_wrong
Early Woman Ruler of Egypt
by
Damien F. Mackey
At the approximate time of Moses’s impending return from his exile in the land of Midian, the rulership of Egypt had fallen into the hands of a woman, due, apparently to the lack of male heirs (Exodus 4:19): “And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go, return to Egypt; for all the men who sought your life are dead’.”
The Hebrew specifically says “the men” (הָ֣אֲנָשִׁ֔ים) here.
I have identified this woman ruler variously with Khentkaus of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasty; Nitocris of the Sixth Dynasty; and Sobekneferu(re) of the Twelfth Dynasty, thereby further securing my amalgamating of these dynasties (and kingdoms) in the one era:
Triplicating woman ruler Khentkaus
(DOC) Triplicating woman ruler Khentkaus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I have written on this:
Her 6th and 12th dynasty manifestations
What happens when kingdoms, rulers and dynasties are set out in a ‘single file’ fashion, instead of being recognised as, in some cases, contemporaneous, is that rulers become duplicated and, hence, tombs, pyramids and sun temples, and so on, attributed to various ones, go missing.
This is not because these are missing in reality, but simply because they have already been accounted for in the case of a ruler under his/her other name, in a differently numbered dynasty.
However, with my revision of dynasties, these ‘missing links’ can be satisfactorily accounted for.
According to an historical scenario that I am building up around the biblical prophet, Moses, the great man’s forty years of life in Egypt (before his exile to Midian) were spanned by only two powerful dynastic male rulers, with a woman-ruler rounding off the dynasty - presumably due to the then lack of male heirs.
Women rulers in Egypt, being scarce - and now even scarcer, due to my revision - can be chronologically most useful. For three of my four re-aligned-as-contemporaneous dynasties, the Fourth, Fifth and the Twelfth, have a powerful woman-ruler, or, in the case of Khentkaus (Khentkawes), Fourth Dynasty, at least a most significant queen who possibly ruled.
I can only conclude, in the context of my revision, that these supposedly three mighty women, Khentkaus; Nitocris; and Sobekneferu(re); constitute the one woman-ruler triplicated.
And hence arise shocks and problems (e.g., the famous “Khentkaus Problem”), “amazement and even sensation” (see below) for Egyptologists, as well as those exasperating anomalies of missing buildings to which I have alluded above.
N. Grimal, writing about Nitocris last ruler of the Sixth Dynasty (A History of Ancient Egypt), tells of her yet to be discovered pyramid (p. 128): “Nitocris is the only genuine instance of a female ruler in the Old Kingdom, but unfortunately the pyramid that she must surely have been entitled to build has not yet been discovered”.
Yet there is another “instance” of an Old Kingdom female ruler, and that is Khentkaus.
Better to say, I think, that there was only one female ruler during Egypt’s Old-Middle Kingdom period.
The semi-legendary and shadowy figure of Nitocris needs to be filled out with her more substantial alter egos in Khentkaus and Sobekneferu(re).
Grimal (on p. 89) tells of how archaeologically insubstantial Nitocris is:
…. Queen Nitocris … according to Manetho was the last Sixth Dynasty ruler. The Turin Canon lists Nitocris right after Merenre II, describing her as the ‘King of Upper and Lower Egypt’. This woman, whose fame grew in the Ptolemaic period, in the guise of the legendary Rhodopis, courtesan and mythical builder of the third pyramid at Giza … was the first known queen to exercise political power over Egypt. …. Unfortunately no archaeological evidence has survived from her reign. ….
On p. 171, Grimal, offering a possible reason for the emergence of the woman ruler, Sobekneferu(re), at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, likens the situation to that at the end of the Sixth Dynasty:
The excessive length of the reigns of Sesostris III and Ammenemes III (about fifty years each) had led to various successional problems. This situation perhaps explains why, just as in the late Sixth Dynasty, another [sic] queen rose to power: Sobkneferu. …. She was described in her titulature, for the first time in Egyptian history [sic], as a woman-pharaoh.
Whist the conventional history and archaeology has failed to ‘triplicate’ as it ought to have (i) Khentkaus, as (ii) Nitocris, and as (iii) Sobekneferu(re), it has, unfortunately, managed – as we shall now find – to triplicate Khentkaus herself into I, II and III.
Here I am following the intriguing discussion of Khentkaus as provided by Miroslav Verner, in his book, Abusir: The Necropolis of the Sons of the Sun (2017).
The “obscure and confused period which set in at the end of the Fourth Dynasty”, to which Verner will refer, is due in large part, I believe, to the failure to fill out the period with the other portions of contemporaneous Egyptian history.
P. 91 Three Royal Mothers Named Khentkaus.
….
But, beside Shepesekaf, there was yet another figure who came to the fore during the obscure and confused period which set in at the end of the Fourth Dynasty. This figure was Queen Khentkaus. In almost every respect she is surrounded by mystery, beginning with her origins and ending with her unusual tomb.
P. 95
Among the many extraordinary discoveries from Khentkaus’ tomb complex in Giza, one in particular produced amazement and even a sensation.
This was the inscription on a fragment of the granite reading “Mother of two kings of Upper and Lower Egypt, daughter of the god, every good thing she orders is done for her, Khentkaus”. The inscription contained the never before documented title of a queen, and its discovery immediately raised a fundamental controversy amongst archaeologists, since, from a purely grammatical point of view, two translations … were possible …. King of Upper and Lower Egypt, and mother of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt.
Pp. 99-100
All the available evidence concerning the titulary of Khentkaus and the form and location of her tomb in the royal cemetery in Giza clearly suggests that she not only belonged to the royal line buried there but that, at the end of the Fourth Dynasty, she played a very important role in dynastic politics …. Importantly, in the vicinity of Khentkaus’ tomb were found several artifacts bearing the name of King Khafre which may indirectly suggest a closer relationship …. between the two personalities. This possibility seems to be supported by an (intrusive?) fragment of a stone stela, discovered in the adjacent building abutting Menkaure’s valley temple, with a damaged hieroglyphic inscription reading “[beloved of] her father, king’s daughter… kau”. According to some Egyptologists, the inscription might refer to Khentkaus and suggest that she could have been a king’s daughter. ….
… The confusing array of different but incomplete historical sources and theories attempting to interpret them finally earned the question its own telling title in Egyptological literature: the ‘Khentkaus problem’.
Khentkaus II
While Miroslav Verner will take the conventional line that centuries separated the Fourth from the Sixth Dynasty, my view is that ‘they’ were one and the same dynasty.
P. 105
The mortuary cult of Queen Khentkaus II lasted … for about two centuries up until the end of the Sixth Dynasty.
P. 106
The most significant result of the excavation of the pyramid complex of Khentkaus at Abusir was the surprising discovery that there were two different royal mothers bearing the same name as Khentkaus and the same unusual title
“Mother of the two kings of Upper and Lower Egypt”, each of them enjoying high esteem and a high-level cult at the place of her burial – Khentkaus I in Giza and Khentkaus II in Abusir.
Khentkaus III
P. 108
Quite recently a third Fifth Dynasty queen named Khentkaus was discovered in Abusir. ….
Thursday, February 1, 2024
Genesis, a finely unified tapestry
by
Damien F. Mackey
P. J. Wiseman, like I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, will present a case for
the more traditional view of the Book of Genesis against JEDP theory,
though with a twist. Moses substantially the author of the Pentateuch,
was not properly speaking the author of Genesis, but its editor.
I: The artificial and the real
Is the Book of Genesis a patchwork, or a unity?
Or is it, as someone today might put it, “a bit of both”?
According to the flyleaf of Isaac M. Kikawada and Arthur Quinn’s book, Before Abraham Was (Ignatius Press, 1985), it emphatically is “not a literary patchwork”, as is borne out also by the book’s subtitle, “The Unity of Genesis 1-11”.
From that same flyleaf, we might also get the impression, perhaps, of a fierce polemic raging within the book’s pages, a rebellion against all current hypotheses: “Rebelling against a century of OT scholarship”, the authors will argue that Genesis 1-11 is “the work of one author of extraordinary subtlety and skill”.
Nothing could be further from the reality, though, as the two authors, themselves employing “extraordinary subtlety and skill”, will studiously avoid recourse to polemic.
P. J. Wiseman, like I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, will present a case for the more traditional view of the Book of Genesis against JEDP theory, though with a twist. Moses, substantially the author of the Pentateuch, was not properly speaking the author of Genesis, but the editor. The Book of Genesis comprises a series of patriarchal histories pre-dating Moses - this being the “patchwork” aspect of it if you like - which series editor Moses organised into a coherent whole - the “unity” aspect of it.
{I would propose that, whilst Moses was likely the book’s main editor,
other inspired editors such as Samuel, Solomon, Ezra, also had a part in it}
From the flyleaf of P. J. Wiseman’s book, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, also published in 1985 (Wiseman died in 1948 and his Assyriologist son, D. J., edited his earlier work), one might get the impression of a somewhat milder, more scholarly approach by Wiseman, as compared to Kikawada and Quinn. Though Wiseman’s intent to contradict any notion of Genesis being a compilation of post-Mosaïc sources is clearly signalled here:
P. J. Wiseman argues that the literary study of Genesis should begin with sources that were available to its author. He presents often over-looked evidence from genealogies inscribed on Mesopotamian tablets which, taken together, form a pattern paralleled in the Hebrew Bible. In so doing, Wiseman challenges theories that fragment Genesis into a series of documents strung together long after the time of Moses and the exile of Israel.
The subtitle of Wiseman’s book, “A Case for the Literary Unity of Genesis”, is very similar to Kikawada and Quinn’s “The Unity of Genesis 1-11”.
Wiseman’s effort is more of a unity in diversity, though, I would suggest.
{The flyleaf’s use of “its author” I find to be somewhat confusing}.
The two approaches, to virtually the same end, could not, however, be more different.
Kikawada and Quinn, far from being polemical, are forever at pains to disassociate themselves from that word. They go to great lengths to praise the achievements of JEDP theory and to show how reckless they think it might be to dismiss the system out of hand.
There is ‘method in their madness’. They will undermine JEDP using subtlety.
Dismiss out of hand, though, is virtually what Wiseman will do [along with R. K. Harrison, in the Preface, who writes (p. 14): “… the only credible source in the entire Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis is D, the book of Deuteronomy, which was already in existence as a complete document before any form criticism arose”].
Studying Wiseman’s attitude to JEDP theory reminds me of something that I have just read (August 8th-9th, 2021) about a USA basketballer in the Tokyo Olympics, Kevin Durant:
“He played as if the opposition didn’t exist. Barely seemed to look at them or even notice their presence. He certainly didn’t acknowledge them”.
(Will Swanton in The Sunday Telegraph, p. 05).
Kikawada and Quinn, being part of the scholarly establishment, University of California at Berkeley, had need to be far more circumspect about what they were writing.
Wiseman, on the other hand, an Air Commodore and only an amateur archaeologist and linguist, could ‘play’ somewhat more like basketballer Kevin Durant, though with occasional necessary passing glances at JEDP.
Amateurs and mavericks can often arrive at some game-changing insights, free, as they are, from the stifling constraints of academic consensus and peer pressure.
A desire for academic credibility, on the other hand, would probably explain why Kikawada and Quinn are so loathe to dismiss JEDP theory as worthless (pp. 9-10):
Since its original formulation the documentary hypothesis has had its own complex historical evolution. A recent survey of that evolution has distinguished no less than ten separate stages. …. The traditional description of four layers – J, E, P, D – have been subjected to many further refinements. Some scholars have thought they could distinguish a sperate stratum L; others have argued for distinguishing between E1, E2, E3, and so forth. Of course, these suggested refinements, at least some of them, are easily enough ridiculed for their excesses, but such ridicule does not touch the central core of the hypothesis. The simple fact is that by the 1880s, as a result of the work of Wellhausen, the documentary hypothesis was supported by a broad consensus of critical biblical scholars. … And by the midtwentieth century, thanks to the work of other great scholars like Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth, that consensus became so strong that it seems virtually unquestionable today.
Von Rad in the last edition of his famous commentary on Genesis … could write proudly, “How can we analyze such extremely complex materials [as Genesis]? There is now no fundamental dispute that it is assigned to the three documents J, E and P, and there is even agreement over detail”. His claim, if anything, was understated.
Kikawada and Quinn would probably take a dim view, therefore, of the kind of approach adopted by Wiseman, and, especially, by R. K. Harrison, though these latter are hardly characterised by the sort of “shrillness that makes them difficult to take seriously” to which the authors will now refer to (pp.10-11):
Of course, there have always been those who have dissented from the consensus, more often on theological than on critical grounds. Compared with the calm understatement of a von Rad, these dissenters often express their view with a shrillness that makes them difficulty to take seriously. Perhaps the most persuasive of these voices is Umberto Cassuto. He offers many plausible alternatives to documentary readings of individual passages. And yet, even he concludes his own discussion of the documentary hypothesis with the assertion, “This imposing and beautiful edifice has, in reality, nothing to support it and is founded on air”.
This last quote would no doubt echo P. J. Wiseman’s sentiment as well.
“Imposing”, the documentary hypothesis may well be, “beautiful” might be debatable, but certainly Wiseman would, like Cassuto, consider it to be without legitimate foundation.
So why should he bother overmuch with it?
Kikawada and Quinn would claim to read the likes of Cassuto quite differently, however, that word “polemic” again:
This is mere polemic. The documentary hypothesis is supported by more than a century of scholarship – and a remarkable body of scholarship it is. After reading even a fraction of it, someone who has not already prejudged the issue cannot help sympathising with the exasperation expressed by Cassuto’s contemporary Gressmann. “Anyone who does not accept the division of the text according to the sources and results flowing therefrom, have to discharge the onus, if he wishes to be considered a collaborator in our scientific work, of proving that all research work done until now was futile”.
….
Gressman and more recent proponents of the documentary hypothesis (a virtual Who’s Who of Old Testament scholarship) obviously feel that a rejection of the documentary hypothesis entails a rejection of all the scholarly research done under its aegis and therefore a rejection of the cumulative results of more than a century’s work. A rejection of the documentary hypothesis becomes tantamount to a rejection of modern biblical scholarship, a reductio ad absurdum for any but the most reactionary of fundamentalists.
The university pair, Kikawada and Quinn, have been at pains to pitch their tent with the ‘calm and understated’, the justifiably ‘exasperated’, in opposition to the ‘shrill, polemical, not to be taken seriously, reactionary fundamentalistic’ deniers of JEDP.
Whether von Rad is understated is open to question. Gressman, however, comes across as a bullying type, as if ‘it’s my way or the highway’.
Sure, the consensus for “more than a century’s work” may be heavily in favour of the documentary theorists, but that, weighed up against the long centuries of Judaeo-Christian tradition that preceded the German blitzkrieg of the Scriptures, makes it appear quite puny. And even the more so when one contrasts the objective, biblically attested evidence for Genesis against the subjective and artificial JEDP.
Certainly had Air Commodore P. J. Wiseman been writing a university thesis, he may have been advised to do what Kikawada and Quinn will do in their 144-page book, only in far greater depth (a thesis), and probe to the very core of JEDP before trying to refute it.
But Wiseman was not writing a thesis and so he had no need to accommodate a Gressman, “to discharge the onus”.
If anything, the “onus” to be ‘discharged’ ought to sit with the documentary theorists themselves, considering their rejection of centuries of tradition about the authorship of the Pentateuch. The JEDP theory actually sits strangely between those centuries that gave an entirely different (from JEDP) viewpoint, and modern archaeology, whose findings have - as Wiseman will show - completely obliterated the foundations of the JEDP theory, making it obsolete - a brief curiosity in the overall scheme of things.
Cassuto was completely correct in describing this “edifice” as having “in reality, nothing to support it and is founded on air”.
Wiseman will justifiably cut to the chase.
Kikawada and Quinn, on the other hand, have set themselves the more onerous task of having to investigate and acknowledge a monolithic system with which their conclusions will not agree, before being able to tackle it. Theirs is a clever ploy, insofar as they - whilst seeming to be sympathetically aligned with the documentary theorists - know that their thesis, if accepted, would bring crashing down that whole JEDP superstructure. But they would never dare to admit that to demolish the documentary hypothesis was what they were hoping to do.
I, acting on some good advice, had to do something similar in a university Master’s degree, explore the foundations of the conventional Egyptian chronology - a bit of a chore, knowing that I did not agree with it - before being freed up to develop a new system, a “more acceptable alternative”, as one examiner called it.
That is what one does in university theses, and Kikawada and Quinn are university men.
Wiseman, on the other hand, who was out of the university circuit, and who would have been entirely unaffected by Gressman’s bullying words, would have felt no such constraint. Thus his son will write on his father’s behalf (Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, p. 8):
P. J. Wiseman’s idea is a simple one. Taking his cue from the recurrent “catch lines” or colophons in Genesis of the form, “These are the family histories (generations) of …”, he examines them as clues to the literary structure of Genesis and as indicative of its origin and transmission. He takes the Genesis narratives as they stand and relates them to well-attested ancient literary methods. My father always thought that such a subjective theory as that of the Wellhausen school would hardly have been conceived or copied had the many literary texts (among them thousands of cuneiform tablets which have since been discovered) been known at that time.
Note the key comment here: “[Wiseman] takes the Genesis narratives as they stand …”. Not really any ‘shrill’ polemics here, for Wiseman, like that formidable USA basketballer, Kevin Durant, did not need to engage much at all with the other side.
He had the massive advantage of archaeology, which showed up those critics who claimed that writing did not arise until around 1000 BC (and we still have learned Dominican priests claiming that Moses and Joshua did not write anything – certainly nothing historical, anyway). P. J. Wiseman writes (p. 21):
Until the beginning of the last century, the only known contemporary history that had been written earlier than 1000 BC was the early part of the Old Testament. The ancient historical records of Babylonia had not been unearthed but lay buried and unknown beneath mounds and ruins which had hidden them for millenniums. It was because the earlier books of the Bible stood alone and unique in this claim to have been written centuries before any other piece of writing then known to the world, that a century ago critics endeavored to prove that they must have been written at a date much later than Moses. On the other hand, the defenders of the Mosaic authorship could not then know that writing was in frequent use a thousand years before he was born. Consequently both sides of the controversy imagined that the contents of Genesis had been handed down by word of mouth, it being assumed that writing was impracticable, and almost unknown in the times of the patriarchs. P. Ewald was prepared to admit that Moses was acquainted with the art of writing, but he says that “the accounts of the patriarchal time contain no sure traces of the use of writing in that early age”. Even as late as 1893, H. Schultz wrote, “of the legendary character of the pre-Mosaic narratives, the time of which they treat is a sufficient proof. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing” (Old Testament Theology).
A shift in direction
Kikawada and Quinn’s approach had had of necessity to be more subtle. Heap praise upon the opponents before commencing to dismantle their platform.
On p. 11 we first notice their shift in direction:
And yet does a rejection of the documentary hypothesis really entail the broader rejection? Certainly it does not if we take the physical sciences as an appropriate analogy. In the twentieth century many of the most cherished principles of Newtonian science have been ceremoniously overturned.
Alfred North Whitehead could write, “I was taught science and mathematics by brilliant men and I did well in them; since the turn of the century I have lived to see every one of the basic assumptions of both set aside; not, indeed, discarded, but of use as qualifying clauses, instead of as major propositions; and all this in one life-span – the most fundamental assumptions of supposedly exact sciences set aside”. ….
What is really going on here?
How is it that a scientific system of such long-standing, its major assumptions seemingly unassailable, and supported by “brilliant men” - and presumably by brilliant women - can, in a seeming instant, be thrown out almost completely?
Kikawada and Quinn will now ramp up the rhetoric, and, in so doing, provide another instance of the overthrowing of a monolithic system with an example that fits closer the JEDP situation: namely, “Homeric interpretation” (pp. 11-12):
A closer historical analogy might be helpful. The same discovery of time that led to the documentary interpretation of the Pentateuch also led to a revolution in Homeric interpretation. … The Iliad, no less than Genesis, was now considered by some scholars as a mixture of diverse sources. And much of Homeric scholarship of the nineteenth century, the best Homeric scholarship, attempted to retrieve these original sources from the received text by focusing on its apparent inconsistencies.
In Homeric studies Wilamowitz occupied the same position as his friend Wellhausen did in Pentateuchal studies. (Wilamowitz himself dismissed the received text of The Iliad as a “wretched patchwork”).
Remarkable is the degree to which these two fields of scholarly inquiry parallel each other through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And this makes it even more intriguing that they should have so sharply diverged from each other in the midtwentieth century. At roughly the same time that North, von Rad, and their colleagues were hammering out the detailed consensus of which von Rad was so justly proud, someone of equivalent stature within German classical studies, Wolfgang Schadewalt, was profoundly challenging the documentary approach to Homer. … To be sure, there had always been doubters. Goethe, after first hearing of the documentary hypothesis of Homer, wrote to Schiller, “When all is said and done, there is more subjectivity in this business than they think”.
Subjectivity and objectivity are vital considerations in our project of contrasting the methods of Kikawada and Quinn, and Wiseman. Thus in Wiseman’s book, R. K. Harrison will be critical of the highly subjective approach of the pioneer of the documentary hypothesis, Jean Astruc: “Quite without any warrant in terms of objective, factual data, Astruc held that the Genesis material was presented in incorrect chronological order, and accordingly he set about remedying the situation”.
And again (p. 12): “The entirely subjective nature of such literary analysis naturally led to considerable conflict of opinion among those who interested themselves in advancing their own views on the manner in which Genesis and the other Pentateuchal books were compiled”.
Compare this account of JEDP theory by R. K. Harrison with what D. J. Wiseman had written of his father’s approach: “[Wiseman] takes the Genesis narratives as they stand …”.
And what Kikawada and Quinn will next write about Schadewalt, could rightly, I think, be applied to the far less celebrated P. J. Wiseman concerning the JEDP theory (p. 12):
“Schadewalt’s work on The Iliad, however, was enough to drive many a documentary critic to despair. As one of them put it, Schadewalt’s Iliasstudien “brought crashing to the ground a century and a half of German scholarship”.” ….
While Wiseman and his supporters would probably be quite comfortable with such graphic terminology, Kikwada and Quinn are quick to qualify the matter (p. 12): “Actually Schadewalt’s work was so effective precisely because he did not bring the earlier work crashing to the ground. He did not want to render it futile. He did not want to because it had provided the true basis of his own work”.
The same could not be said about P. J. Wiseman’s work, whose foundations were not set in subjective literary criticism, but in hard scientific, archaeological fact.
As queried above: What is really going on here?
Kikawada and Quinn find “Remarkable … the degree to which these two fields of scholarly inquiry [Genesis and Homer] parallel each other through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And this makes it even more intriguing that they should have so sharply diverged from each other in the midtwentieth century”.
But it is not so remarkable at all, as it reflects a philosophical mindset that, beginning with the late Renaissance, has continued on into our day.
II: The Philosophy behind the artificiality
Dr. Gavin Ardley will tell of a sharp bending in human thinking, why and when it occurred (Berkeley’s Renovation of Philosophy, Martinus Nijhoff, 1968, Preface, vi):
The 17th Century witnessed a giant eruption of pseudo-metaphysics, of intellectual hubris combined with intellectual poverty. …. The effects of that explosion have lasted until this day. The revolt against metaphysics, which has gathered to a head in the 20th Century, seems to be in large measure a belated attempt to throw off the tyranny of the 17th Century. Like all reforms too long delayed, it has come blindly and without discrimination. The vital distinction between good and bad metaphysics is unrecognised. The modern reformers seem likely to leave us in a worse state than we were before.
God always provides some wise and discerning human instrument who will recognise a clear path out of the labyrinth. And sometimes these are maverick types, like P. J. Wiseman, or psychiatrist, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, in the case of navigating through the monolithic textbook Egyptian chronology. Or medical doctor, John Osgood, with his revision of the Stone Ages and important identification, archaeologically, of the era of Abraham.
Then there is Wolfgang Schadewalt (of whom I know nothing) for the Homeric revolution.
Sorely needed, too, are scholars to bring crashing down the artificial evolutionary theory, which, by now, has already begun to take some very heavy blows.
These reformers, revisionists, renovators, tend to be people of common sense.
They are not always religious, believing people. God, not limited in his actions and designs, may even choose an atheist as his instrument.
And Dr. Ardley tells of bishop George Berkeley, the subject of his book, an Irishman of undoubted common sense (pp. vi-vii):
Two centuries ago Berkeley put forward his modest proposals for a return to common sense and intellectual sanity. He was unheeded or derided.
But now, with the chastening experience of contemporary reformers who succeed only in substituting one intellectual tyranny for another, we may have recourse with profit to Berkeley’s 18th Century generosity and good sense.
….
Berkeley had no great architectonic gift. But he had a rarer gift: he had in him “the soul’s love of wisdom” which, for Plato, is the root of the matter. Further, he had a good measure of the Aristotelian virtue of eutrapelia, the playful-seriousness of the mind; the virtue without which philosophy runs either to trifling or to over-earnestness. As a philosophic eutrapelos he joins a very select company. By entering into Berkeley’s world we participate in some degree in that graceful society.
As Kikawada and Quinn cringe from the word, polemic, so does Gavin Ardley shudder at philosophic “over-earnestness”, which he often refers to as “zeal” (probably in the context of zealotry), that is, making everything conform to a single hard philosophical mould.
Gressmann obviously suffered from this complaint with his all-encompassing JEDP.
Ardley, with degrees in both philosophy and science, was eminently qualified to write books (including Aquinas and Kant, 1950) on the philosophy of science, or the nature of the modern sciences. He, like Kikawada and Quinn in their relation to JEDP theory, can see the enormous benefits, even beauty, of the sciences and mathematics. Berkeley likewise – and Immanuel Kant, too.
In Ardley’s wonderful book on Kant, he argues that the German philosopher had managed to discern what the new sciences were all about. That they were an active imposition of rules and laws upon nature. But Kant, unlike Berkeley and Ardley, men of native common sense, would conclude that this is how the human mind naturally works. It formulates a priori laws and imposes these upon nature, which is per se unknowable.
Gavin Ardley’s: “The 17th Century witnessed a giant eruption of pseudo-metaphysics …”, closely synchronises with the era when Kikawada and Quinn tell of the rise of the documentary hypothesis (Introduction, p. 9):
Not surprisingly, this approach to the Pentateuch first came to the fore in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Within this intellectual milieu, the documentary hypothesis was not an isolated phenomenon. This was the great age of the discovery of time: process, history, change were found everywhere, even in rocks. … And if rocks could yield the story of their formation, then the Torah, with some coaxing, should tell its story as well. The documentary hypothesis was, in short, a characteristic product of its time
To which statement the authors will ‘characteristically’ add their softener clause “– but it has also turned out to be much more than that”.
What it is, in fact, is a product of a, Western, largely European, scientised pseudo-philosophy, that, whatever its benefits may be for humankind (and Dr. Ardley is generous in his praise of such modern benefits in his books), when applied to the ancient text of the Book of Genesis fits worse than a cheap, second-hand suit – Genesis being neither western, nor European, nor modern as to either its science or philosophy.
JEDP theory largely ticks none of the right boxes. Nor could it.
Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, the same can basically be said for the fundamentalist biblical approach, ridiculed by Kikawada and Quinn as reactionary.
For although those, such as the Creationists for instance, might give the impression of their complete dedication to uncovering the truths of the Bible - and I am sure that that is generally their sincere intention - they, too, read the text from a modern, generally Westernised, scientific point of view. In fact one astute commentator has rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science.
That brings us back to P. J. Wiseman, and what his son, D. J. wrote of him: “He takes the Genesis narratives as they stand and relates them to well-attested ancient literary methods”.
This is an approach exactly opposite to the modern ‘scientific’ one that has served to mould JEDP theory. Instead of reading the structure in the ancient text, the modern theorists read their a priori structure into the text. Like the Creationists, they impose their modern will, if you like, upon the ancient Genesis narrative. As Ardley would put it, they make it fit their preconceived views. The process is largely artificial.
P. J. Wiseman and like-minded thinkers are completely justified in dismissing it as such. Umberto Cassuto: “This imposing and beautiful edifice has, in reality, nothing to support it and is founded on air”.
R. K. Harrison: “… the only credible source in the entire Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis is D …”, “… advancing their own views on the manner in which Genesis and the other Pentateuchal books were compiled”.
P. J. had the advantage of knowing, unlike the pre-archaeological JEDP theorists, that human writing began far before 1000 BC.
Kikawada and Quinn, while mounting a very useful and compelling argument for the unity of the Book of Genesis, will, despite their immense scholarship, by no means be capable of unlocking its inner secrets, its ancient structure, since they themselves (like the JEDP theorists and Creationists) will nowhere engage with ancient scribal methods and texts (except for fantastic pseudo-Genesis myths such as the Epic of Gilgamesh).
I can only urge interested readers to study the commonsense writings of P. J. Wiseman (and, indeed, of Dr. Gavin Ardley).