Thursday, July 18, 2024

Moses a trusted world trader for Egypt in the Pyramid Age

by Damien F. Mackey “It is likely that Iny travelled to Anatoly by land before Weni led several mighty military expeditions by land and sea against “native” countries, which were not specified in his biographical inscription, but the word “native” … is the same used for people to be brought to Egypt from Hundašša”. Alessandro Roccati Upon reading through Alessandro Roccati’s absorbing paper: Iny’s Travels (3) Iny's Travels | Alessandro Roccati - Academia.edu finding common purpose in Iny’s adventures, by way of comparison with those of Weni - and throwing in Sinuhe, to boot - it occurred to me that Iny most likely was Weni. The latter, as well as Sinuhe (a semi-fictitious character along the lines of Imhotep at the hands of later scholars), I have already identified as the biblical Moses: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (2) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Since Iny served during the same Sixth Dynasty period as did Weni, travelled to some of the same geographical locations, and traded in the same sort of fine quality material (jewellery, precious stones, etc.), I think it a fairly safe bet that - Occam’s Razor and all - this was one and the same official of Old Egypt, Iny = Weni (Uni) = Sinuhe. Weni: “His majesty sent me to Hatnub to bring a huge offering-table …. of lapis lazuli, of bronze, of electrum, and silver; copper was plentiful without end, bronze without limit, collars of real malachite, ornaments (mn-nfr’t) of every kind of costly stone. of the choicest of everything, which are given to a god at his processions, by virtue of my office of master of secret things”. From what will follow, I may need to refresh the readers’ minds about the Pharaohs whom I think the historical Moses served. Despite a multiplicity of names; dynasties; and even kingdoms, the career of Moses, until his recall from Midian, knew only the one dynasty in revised terms. In conventional terms, this will constitute the Old Kingdom’s Fourth; Fifth and Sixth dynasties, and the so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty. And there were only the two major Pharaohs, plus a female ruler at the end. But there were many names amongst these, including: 1. “New King” of Exodus 1:8: Khufu (Cheops); Teti (Merenre[s]); Amenemhet[s]. 2. Moses’ foster father-in-law “Chenephres”: Chephren; Pepi[s]; Sesostris[s]. 3. Sobeknefrure (female). One feature I find most appealing about Alessandro Roccati’s article is his adventurous approach to ancient geography – whether or not I agree with all of his conclusions. That a massive overhaul of ancient geography is urgently required is apparent from the tectonic effect a new geography has had upon a multi-volumed book that I was writing: My book, “A History of the Fertile Crescent”, swamped by a new and unforeseen geographical paradigm (3) My book, "A History of the Fertile Crescent", swamped by a new and unforeseen geographical paradigm | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and, again, geography will be most relevant subject matter to this present article, especially this one concerning the location of Tarḫuntašša: More uncertain ancient geography: locations Tarḫuntašša and Arzawa (3) More uncertain ancient geography: locations Tarḫuntašša and Arzawa | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Alessandro Roccati writes: “The splendid jewellery discovered in Egypt bears silent testimony to a trade intercourse, direct or indirect, with many remote and little known lands; and it would be of considerable interest to learn through what channels the precious stones that adorned the necks of the Memphite and Theban ladies found their way to the Egyptian markets ... we are tolerably well informed concerning the expeditions that journeyed thither (Sinai) almost annually in quest of the turquoise; but with regard to other much used stones … some of them, like lapis lazuli, from countries farther afield – our ignorance is almost complete.” …. A passage in the Story of Sinuhe was definitely explained as quoting the titles of rulers as far as the Luvian country … and a biography found in Dahshur told of an official, who in the middle of the 12th Dynasty travelled well beyond Byblos. …. Thereafter, although the outstanding archive found at Ebla/Tell Mardikh in 1975 still keeps silent about a likely partnership with Egypt concerning the trade of precious materials … an exciting discovery by Michele Marcolin in Japan … provides decisive evidence in favour of an Egyptian trade much farther than Ebla, reaching the heart of Anatoly in the same time of pharaoh Pepy I, to whose reign the Ebla archive is currently dated. …. A stone built chapel from somewhere in Egypt was illicitly dismantled and sold out in pieces all over the world. It had belonged to a first rank official who lived through the Egyptian 6th Dynasty and left a detailed account of his journeys northwards from Egypt: “… I reached (litt. “I did”) ɂmȝw, ḫntš, pȝws four times when I was a chancellor of the god under the Person of my lord Pepy (I). …. I brought him silver and every good produce that his ka wished, and his Person praised me because of that … exceedingly. Then I was sent to Byblos by the Person of my lord Mernerê. …. I brought three Byblos ships and made the big Palace boats. I brought lapis lazuli, tin … silver, bitumen and every gift that his ka wished, so that I was praised therefore in the Palace … and treasures were given to me. I went down to Byblos from R-ḥȝt and came back … in peace. Never was the same done by any general sent by my god earlier”. …. I was sent by the Person of my lord Neferkarê (Pepy II) to ḫntš. …. brought back one Byblos ship and cargo boats laden … with silver, native men and women. …. The Person of my lord praised me etc.” …. Hitherto almost nothing was known of Egypt’s outreach beyond the Sinai peninsula in this early period, but for the expeditions of general Weni during the reign of pharaoh Pepy I, and the information coming from Byblos and Ebla excavations. Although Marcolin could find out and join together several inscribed slabs from different collections, the relevant piece is kept in Tokyo Archaeological Museum (Kikugawa slab). On it one can read the record of four journeys of Iny under the long reign of Pepy I, that took him to three remarkable towns or countries, their names being perfectly preserved as well as somehow unprecedented. I shall now venture to tackle a reasonable clue for all three, provided that the horizon of the Egyptian civilization is extended in a way that had never been admitted before for such an early period, highlighting the magnificence of Pepy I’s reign, whose pyramid gave the name to Memphis. The reason for presenting a paper in a conference at Istanbul is that the farthest point reached by Iny was sited in central Anatoly and must be the renowned silver market of Burus-ḫanda. This place is well known in the later archive of the Assyrian merchants at Kaneš … and is even quoted in the poem Šar Tamkari. However, Iny’s mention is by far the oldest one, and the hieroglyphic spelling is exactly what we should expect for a name “Purus” or “Bur(r)us” in this period. Its connection with silver ensures the correct identification, whereas the lack of “ḫanda” in Iny’s inscription may be due to it being a later addition, or something that could be omitted in the very concise Egyptian writing. Consider however what is going to be said about ḫntš below. Damien Mackey’s comment: As exciting as one might find the thought of Egyptian Sixth Dynasty expeditions into Anatolia, to Purushanda, this may actually be a bridge too far for that early period of time. What could greatly curtail the geographical distance in Iny’s account is my identification of Tarḫuntašša (thought also to be in Anatolia) as Karduniash, now revised to, approximately, NW Syria. Alessandro Roccati continues: Before reaching Burus, Iny touched two certainly important places, one of which had already been known for a long time, though its exact location is still open to debate. I have the impression that their succession may not represent an exact itinerary, but rather mark the extreme points reached on the east and west (and north) sides. The western place name (ḫntš) occurred during the 12 th Dynasty in the annals of pharaoh Amenemhet II [Mackey: same period as Iny], and later in various sources of the 18th Dynasty … and then until the end of the pharaonic civilization. Moreover, it was mentioned in the 6th Dynasty as the source for the (precious) wood of a prince’s coffin. …. [I cannot reproduce the hieroglyphs here] looks to me as a good Egyptian rendering of “Ḫundašša” (omitting the initial “Tar” of “Tarḫundašša”) and must be related to somewhere on the sea coast. …. Even if a geographical term may have changed its reference in the course of time, I believe that a correspondence with Cilicia Aspera might well fit Iny’s route to Burus. Otherwise that stretch is the closest shore in the continent to Cyprus. …. Damien Mackey’s comment: Byblos is fairly well placed in relation to Cyprus. Alessandro Roccati continues: The third term (ɂmȝw: the first place reached by Iny according to his inscription) is the least certain for a topographical identification as it is known to me only in the present instance, but I suppose that an equation with Palmyra/Tadmor may hit the point. …. Its redundant writing is normal for the archaic writing of the period, but may entail the reduplication of m, perhaps due to assimilation (d > m before m): *Dammuru, or even better *Ṭammuru < *Ṭadmuru. The reference to the writing of the verb “to see” (mȝ, determined with the “eye” sign) may offer a hint of some sort for its reading. Palmyra is already quoted in the letters of Mari, and it must have been from early times the crossroads of important caravan routes. …. The hieroglyphic rendering looks satisfactory in default of another solution, and Palmyra would well suit the easternmost country crossed by Iny. If we trace a line from Palmyra to Cilicia, we notice that it passes not far from Ebla, a town Iny might have stopped at, where a major commercial trade centre for lapis lazuli and tin was thriving and fragments of gifts by the Egyptian pharaohs Chephren (4th Dynasty) and Pepy I have been dug out by the Italian archaeological mission. Moreover most of the evidence in the archive for a trade between Ebla and Dugurasu (Egypt according to Biga) lies during the rule of Išar-Damu, a contemporary of Pepy I …. Damien Mackey’s comment: I never would have thought that: Dugurasu as Egypt, or somewhere therein. Alessandro Roccati continues: It is likely that Iny travelled to Anatoly by land before Weni led several mighty military expeditions by land and sea against “native” countries, which were not specified in his biographical inscription, but the word “native” (ɂȝm = [drm]) is the same used for people to be brought to Egypt from Hundašša. …. During the reign of Pepy I, Iny was not looking for timber or any other materials, but silver, the metal mined in the Amanus. Under the successor of Pepy I, pharaoh Mernerê, Iny was sent not only for silver, but also lapis lazuli and tin … besides bitumen, wherefore he travelled to Byblos (Kbn, namely Gubla), and the inscription stresses that he moved from R-ḥȝt (= Dugurasu ?) …. The choice of a different (sea ?) route was perhaps due to the fact that the inland route was no longer safe and Ebla had been destroyed. Damien Mackey’s comment: Was it a ‘different ’sea route’? Alessandro Roccati continues: Anyway, Iny’s mention of Byblos is the second one we get for the Old Kingdom, after the first one in the reign of Pepy I … besides another one datable to the 6th Dynasty, while the archaeological evidence has shown how many contacts underwent with Egypt since the fourth millennium, and Byblos is well known to the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts. …. Eventually Iny went back to Ḫundašša once more under the reign of the last pharaoh of the 6th Dynasty, Pepy II, who succeeded Mernerê after his rather short reign. Damien Mackey’s comment: In a revised context, this may have been the same trip. Alessandro Roccati continues: He must have been old by this time, being perhaps the most experienced of the pharaoh’s envoys to the northern countries, and he voyaged by sea, in quest of silver, without going as far as Burus … and of people, male and female, from that “native” country. …. Finally the three place names reported by Iny seem to forecast a parallel to the three ruler names quoted in the Story of Sinuhe. …. A similar expedition to Hundašša, on a larger scale, was sent under Amenemhet II, and it was doubtless directed towards the same country as Iny’s, again reached by sea, in order to provide silver (from Amanus ?), copper (from Cyprus ?), tin (from Iran ?), trees (for the transportation of which ships were indispensable), “native” people. …. Damien Mackey’s comment: Conventional history may be repeating itself.

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Pepi pertinent to Palace G at Ebla

by Damien F. Mackey “Freedman himself even noted that the king named Birsha ruled not in Gomorrah but in Admah, contrary to what Genesis says …”. Matt McClellan Matt McClellan, in his article, “Abraham and the Chronology of Ancient Mesopotamia” https://answersresearchjournal.org/abraham-chronology-ancient-mesopotamia/ ambitiously - and, I think, unsuccessfully - grapples with issues pertaining to the right historical and stratigraphical location for Abraham; the ill-fated cities of Pentapolis; the Akkadian and Ur III dynasties; Hammurabi of Babylon; and Pepi ruler of Egypt. A focal point for his discussion will be Palace G at Ebla. Some of these issues, such as the location of Pentapolis, and the stratigraphy for Abram and the four coalitional invader kings of Genesis 14:1 - and hence for Pentapolis (14:2) - can be most satisfactorily settled, I believe, with reference to the penetrating research of Dr. John Osgood. Abraham, Moses and Hammurabi Matt McClellan, in his Abstract, will accept the old view that it was in Sumer “that Abraham had lived before he set out to the Promised Land”. And he refers here to another old view, that Abraham and Hammurabi were approximately contemporaneous: For many years, Abraham was believed to have lived at the same time as Hammurabi, king of Babylon. Later scholars would date Abraham to the period shortly before the reign of Hammurabi. However, the result of recent research is that the chronology of the ancient world is being redated. Hammurabi now appears to be a near contemporary of Moses instead of Abraham. All of this I consider to be wrong. Regarding Abram’s original home, for instance, see e.g. my article: Abram’s “Ur of the Chaldees” (11) Abram's "Ur of the Chaldees" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, regarding King Hammurabi, he ruled centuries later than Moses, and, a fortiori, later than Abraham. On this, see e.g. my series: Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon (11) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: (11) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two: Zimri-lim's Mari Palace and King Solomon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: (11) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two (b): Zimri-Lim's Palace and the four rivers? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. John Osgood, too, ceases to be helpful here with his mis-dating (my view) of Hammurabi to the time of Joshua. If Hammurabi were, as written above, “a near contemporary of Moses”, then it could be argued, as many have done, that the Mosaïc Torah was inspired by a pagan Babylonian Law Code. In a properly revised context (my view), King Hammurabi would instead have come under the influence of Mosaïc law filtered through, say, King David of Israel. Unfortunately, therefore, Matt McClellan will proceed ‘up a garden path’ in trying to establish what he calls “this new chronological revolution”: In Egyptian chronological studies, the patriarchs are dated earlier than ever before. In spite of this, there has been little research conducted on the relationship between Abraham and Mesopotamia in this new chronological revolution. This article will look at the current trends in chronological studies and how they relate to the life of Abraham. It will come to the conclusion that Abraham lived much earlier in Mesopotamian history than what most have realized. Matt McClellan will pursue a course that would set Abraham in the Ur III to Isin-Larsa period (c. 2112-1763 BC): Today the usual dating of Abraham in Mesopotamia is in either the Ur III or Isin-Larsa periods (see table 1). This depends upon the different interpretations concerning biblical chronology. …. Kenneth Kitchen, for instance, dates the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt from c. 1320–1260/1250 and the Exodus around 1260/1250 and uses a 645 year period between Abraham and the Exodus. This gives a date for the period between Abraham and Joseph from around 1900–1600 (Kitchen 2003, pp. 358–359). …. This would place Abraham during the Isin-Larsa period. There are other ways of dating Abraham including the use of the popular date of 1446 for the Exodus and 645 years between Abraham and the Exodus. Using this method one will date Abraham’s 75th year in the year 2091 during the Ur III period. It is during this period that Gleason Archer has placed Abraham (Archer 2007, p. 183). With 430 years between Abraham’s 75th year and the Exodus he would have arrived in Canaan in the year 1876 during the Isin-Larsa period like Kitchen dates him. Alfred Hoerth, in his Archaeology and the Old Testament, uses this method to date Abraham to this period (Hoerth 1998, pp. 58–59). The Ur III and Isin-Larsa period, needing to be re-dated and re-defined, is nowhere near the time of Abraham, or even that of Moses. Ur III again pertains to Hammurabi at the time of King Solomon of Israel, according to e.g. my article: Ur III and Hammurabi (14) Ur III and Hammurabi | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Middle Bronze Age, which coincides with Ur III, proves to be a disastrous choice for the archaeological era of Abraham. The Middle Bronze I (MBI) people are clearly the Exodus Israelites, a half a millennium after Abraham, who belongs to the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze era. This is where Dr. John Osgood’s research really comes to the fore and is a must read (EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 56–76): https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_56-76.pdf The Times of the Judges — The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest See also my article Egal Israel accepts the MBI peoples as being the Israelites of the Exodus (3) Egal Israel accepts the MBI peoples as being the Israelites of the Exodus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu For the correct archaeology of Abraham, finally, see Dr. Osgood’s groundbreaking article (EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77–87): https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_77-87.pdf The Times of Abraham Matt McClellan, by contrast, struggles with a lack of specificity regarding Abraham, Ur III, and the Archaeological Ages: Using Ussher’s date of 1491 for the Exodus and 645 years Abraham would have entered Canaan in the year 2136 during the reign of the Gutium. Using 430 years would place the same event in 1921 during the Isin-Larsa period. To make things even more complicated many scholars seem to date Abraham (and the other patriarchs) to the Middle Bronze Age without being specific on whether Abraham lived during Ur III or Isin-Larsa (Albright 1963, pp. 4, 7; Bright 1981, p. 83; LaSor, Hubbard and Bush 1996, pp. 41–43; Rooker 2003, pp. 233–235). …. Adding Ebla (Tell Mardikh) Thanks to the truth-depriving censorship of Ebla by the Syrian government: Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities (14) Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu biblical scholars and historians have been dreadfully short-changed regarding the fascinating site of Ebla. Hence one is not entirely sure what to believe about it. Matt McClellan introduces the important Ebla as “A New Twist”: …. In 1974, the archaeological world was rocked with the discovery of the archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria. The archives of the city dated back to before the days of the Akkadian Empire …. These texts reveal that Ebla was a thriving commercial city with contacts stretching in all directions for hundreds of miles. The discovery affected not only Near Eastern studies but also biblical studies. Shortly after this discovery David Noel Freedman argued that the discovery of the archives gave evidence for placing the patriarchs into the period of Mesopotamian history before Sargon, the founder of the Akkadian Empire. This would have been the period which Kitchen said was too early for the patriarchs. David Noel Freedman was highly enthusiastic about Ebla, but he wrongly identified Pentapolis (and many have followed him in this) with Bab edh-Dhra and its environs, which Dr. John Osgood, however, with a properly set archaeology for the Israelites as the MBI people, has been able to show were Transjordanian (not Pentapolitan) sites conquered by the marauding Exodus Israelites. According to Matt McClellan: Freedman stated that one of the tablets listed the five Cities of the Plain in the same order in which they were listed in Genesis. It even named one of the five kings in almost the same form as Genesis (Birsha). This allowed Freedman to say that the patriarchs lived in the Early Bronze Age (EBA) which is traditionally dated to the third millennium BC (Freedman 1978, pp. 148, 154–155, 157–158). Freedman went on to argue that the Early Bronze Age remains just east of the Dead Sea were where the five cities were located. It was believed that Bab edh-Dhra and four other sites nearby were the Cities of the Plain. This was backed up by the fact that there were no Middle Bronze Age sites in the area but only Early Bronze Age sites. Interestingly the Early Bronze Age was the same period as the Ebla archive (Freedman 1978, p. 152). It is now accepted by most scholars that Freedman’s conclusions are false. The tablet does not list all five of the cities and concerning the name of Birsha, John Bimson notes that there are several examples of kings with the same name ruling centuries apart. So just because the name sounds like that of the king mentioned in Genesis 14 does not mean that it was him (Bimson 1980, pp. 66–67). Freedman himself even noted that the king named Birsha ruled not in Gomorrah but in Admah, contrary to what Genesis says (Freedman 1978, p. 155). Bimson also argues against Freedman’s archaeological evidence. He notes that Freedman’s argument depends on the fact that no Middle Bronze I sites have been discovered so that Freedman must assume that the Early Bronze Age sites are the Cities of the Plain. Bimson says: Unless the EBA settlements can be identified with certainty as the “cities of the plain” (which would require four of them being shown to have suffered a simultaneous fall in the EBA; Zoar was not destroyed according to [Genesis] 19), Freedman’s case remains weak (Bimson 1980, p. 67). Adding Egypt to Ebla Pepi I is to be considered here. I have identified Pepi I of the Sixth Dynasty (top right) all at once with Chephren/ Khafre of the Fourth Dynasty (top left); Pepi II of the Sixth Dynasty; and Sesostris I-III of the Twelfth Dynasty (bottom). On this, see e.g. my article: Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus (5) Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Matt McClellan continues, now telling at which of its stages Ebla synchronises with Pepi (so-called I) of Egypt, McClellan’s favoured era for Abraham: … The city of Ebla is located in present-day Syria. The city was discovered in the remains of Tell Mardikh. Among the findings discovered was the city’s archive located in the palace. Archaeologists have designated this palace as palace G. Interestingly palace G is dated to the Early Bronze Age. The archive includes more than 17,000 complete and fragmentary documents. Included are letters, administrative, economic, juridical, lexical, and literary texts which give us information concerning the city’s social, economic, and governmental structure, as well as the religion of the city (Archi 1997, pp. 184–185; Matthiae 1997, p. 181). The Ebla tablets were written during the reigns of the last three kings of Ebla and thus constitute a “living” archive (Archi 1997, p. 184; Astour 2002, p. 59; Matthiae 1997, p. 181). …. The Ebla archives allow us to connect Mesopotamian chronology with Egyptian chronology during this early period at one very specific point: the name of Pepi I (of the Sixth Dynasty) was found among the ruins of palace G (Archi 1997, p. 184; Astour 2002, p. 60; Gelb 1981, p. 58; Matthiae 1997, p. 181; Pettinato 1986, p. 58). The name of Pepi I (along with another Egyptian king—Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid during the Fourth Dynasty) was found in undisturbed layers of the debris of palace G which shows us that it was not placed there after the destruction of the palace archive (Astour 2002, p. 60). This all fits like a glove with my revision. Pepi I (Chephren) was the ruler of Egypt who followed the dynastic “new king” (Exodus 1:8). Moses was Mentuhotep/Weni, the Chief Vizier and Judge of Egypt at the time. His foster-mother was Ankhesenmerire, the wife of Pepi, the daughter of Khui (Khufu = Cheops). She (also Meresankh) was the “Merris” of Artapanus (“On Moses”), who married “Chenephres” (or Chephren = Pepi). Moses eventually fled from Pepi (as Sesostris), as according to the garbled Egyptian account of the adult Moses in The Story of Sinuhe. In the Book of Exodus we are told that Moses fled to the land of Midian (2:15). So, it is perfectly in accord with my revision that successive rulers of Egypt, Cheops and Pepi {“The name of Pepi I (along with another Egyptian king—Khufu …”)} - conventionally well separated, and of different dynasties - should be found together. And, indeed at the Early Bronze level {“Interestingly palace G is dated to the Early Bronze Age”}, which is the very level of Canaanite civilisation against which Moses, Joshua and the MBI Israelites would later march. An Abrahamic context this is not, so Matt McClellan is probing in the wrong place at the wrong time: The Sixth Dynasty is the latest that Abraham could have been in Egypt (McClellan 2011). Since Pepi I was a king during this dynasty and is dated to the period before the destruction of palace G, we can use the palace archives to date Abraham within Mesopotamia history. The question is to which period in Mesopotamian history does palace G correlate? There are different opinions, but Ebla is dated using thousands of texts discovered there to show that the palace was destroyed before or sometime during the Akkadian Empire. Nor would I be so quick as to dismiss Paolo Matthiae’s suggested identification of Sargon and Akkad at Ebla – though, if he is correct, this could not have any possible correlation with the much later era (about half a millennium after Sargon) of Moses: Sargon and his grandson, Naram-Sin, the first and fourth kings of Akkad, have been the two most cited kings who could have destroyed palace G. Both kings boast that they conquered Ebla (Bermant and Weitzman 1979, p. 172). Paolo Matthiae is one scholar who believes that palace G was destroyed by Naram-Sin. He notes that the name Shariginu in a text found at Ebla may be Sargon and that Akkad is mentioned as A-ga-duki EN (Matthiae 1977, pp. 166–167). These two names would mean that Sargon reigned during part of the Ebla dynasty before the destruction of palace G (Matthiae 1977, pp. 168–169). To support the theory of Naram-Sin as the conqueror, the pottery found at Ebla seemed to correspond to the period of Naram-Sin, suggesting that he was, in fact, the conqueror of Ebla and destroyer of palace G (Bermant and Weitzman 1979, p. 170). However, there are problems with this thesis. Bermant and Weitzman (1979, p. 172) note that the pottery once thought to belong to the period of Naram-Sin now is believed by some scholars to date to the period before Naram-Sin. Names originally translated as Sargon and Akkad were shown to be a nonentity called Shariginu and an unimportant town named Arugadu (Bermant and Weitzman 1979, p. 174). Perhaps yet further solutions may be attained by recognising: Sargon [as] Naram-Sin (4) Sargon and Naram-Sin | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Matt McClellan will go on to refer to Michael Astour’s view that Sargon’s Akkad is not mentioned in the Ebla archive: “Besides these problems, there are others as well. Astour (2002, p. 64) notes that there is no mention at all of Akkad in the Ebla tablets”. Be that as it may, I have identified Akkad with Ugarit: My road to Akkad (4) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and Ugarit is most certainly referred to at Ebla: “The first written evidence mentioning the city comes from the nearby city of Ebla, c. 1800 BC” (Wikipedia, “Ugarit”).

Sunday, July 14, 2024

Moses a Figure of Controversy

by Damien F. Mackey “Freud had argued that Akhenaton, the supposedly monotheistic Egyptian pharaoh, was the source of the religious principles that Moses taught to the people of Israel in the desert”. The Velikovsky Encyclopedia Moses the Lawgiver, so revered within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, appears to be a figure of enormous controversy amongst certain highly-respected scholars and writers. From at least the time of Sigmund Freud and his book, Moses and Monotheism (1939), Moses has been presented as an enlightened Egyptian: http://www.sigmundfreud.net/moses-and-monotheism.jsp Freud was quite interested in Jewish history. At his time, persecution and hatred for the Jewish people was quite common. Being a pioneer in the field of psychoanalysis, he set out to investigate the origins of the Jewish people. Among his most astonishing claims was that Moses was not [of] Jewish. For one, the name Moses is not of Jewish origin and can be traced back to ancient Egyptians. The book is an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to the field of history. An extension on his earlier works such as Totem and Taboo. In keeping with his suggestion about the primal father, Freud argues that a small band of individuals, which Moses led out of Egypt during a time of great civil war, conspired against him and eventually killed him. [End of quote] In more recent times, the concept of Moses-as-an-Egyptian has been taken up by Ahmed Osman in his book, Out of Egypt: The Roots of Christianity Revealed (Century, 1998). In Part I, Osman presumes to identify Moses with the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, Akhnaton (Akhenaten). I wrote an entirely unsympathetic review of this bizarre distorting of history in my article: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People (6) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Freud’s book on Moses had also been a catalyst for Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s revision of ancient biblico-history. Thus in The Velikovsky Encyclopedia, we read: In 1939, with the prospect of war looming, Velikovsky travelled with his family to New York, intending to spend a sabbatical year researching for his book Oedipus & Akhnaton (which, inspired by Freud's Moses and Monotheism, explored the possibility that Pharaoh Akhenaton was the legendary Oedipus). Freud had argued that Akhenaton, the supposedly monotheistic Egyptian pharaoh, was the source of the religious principles that Moses taught to the people of Israel in the desert. Freud's claim (and that of others before him) was based in part on the resemblance of Psalm 104 in the Bible to an Egyptian hymn discovered on the wall of the Tomb of Akhenaton's general, Ai, in Akhenaton's city of Akhetaten. To disprove Freud's claim as well as to prove the Exodus as such, Velikovsky sought evidence for the Exodus in Egyptian documents. One such document was the Ipuwer Papyrus which reports events similar to several of the Biblical plagues. Since conventional Egyptology dated the Ipuwer Papyrus much earlier than either the Biblical date for the Exodus (ca. 1500 – 1450 BCE) or the Exodus date accepted by many of those who accepted the conventional chronology of Egypt (ca. 1250 BCE), Velikovsky had to revise or correct the conventional chronology. [End of quote] Dr. Velikovsky had, for his part, his own idiosyncratic view of Moses, to which I referred in my: Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky https://www.academia.edu/3689825/Distancing_Oneself_from_Velikovsky with reference to Martin Sieff: Velikovsky was a Jewish nationalist, according to Martin Sieff in his most interesting paper, “Velikovsky and His Heroes” … and consequently his heroes seem to have been more the ‘baddies’ of the Bible (Saul, Ahab), [since these were the nationalistic types] rather than the ‘goodies’ (Moses, Isaiah). But whether or not Velikovsky believed in God, not to have done so would not disqualify him from being able to arrive at a right synchronism for the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, which I believe he achieved. Sure, his original model was defective and needed modifications in various places. But the final result has been an impressive platform for the re-building of ancient history upon proper foundations. His critics, including Clarke, have not been able to come anywhere near it. [End of quote] A major obstacle to the progress of the Velikovsky-inspired revision was the academically entrenched - and, purportedly, astronomically-fixed - “Sothic” (Sirius star) theory of ancient Egyptian history as worked out by the Berlin School chronologist, Eduard Meyer. Thankfully, pioneer revisionists such as Drs. Velikovsky and D. Courville, followed by other bright minds, have been able to blow holes in this absurdly artificial scheme. On this, see also my article: The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited This Eduard Meyer was also the one who had denied the very existence and work of Moses. We read this information in the Preface to Martin Buber’s book, Moses (1946): IN the year 1906 Eduard Meyer, a well-known historian, ex¬pressed the view that Moses was not a historical personality. He further remarked: "After all, with the exception of those who accept tradition bag and baggage as historical truth, not one of those who treat him as a historical reality has hitherto been able to fill him with any kind of content whatever, to depict him as a concrete historical figure, or to produce anything which he could have created or which could be his historical work." [End of quote] Admittedly Moses - not a native Egyptian, but a Hebrew fully educated in Egyptian wisdom (Acts 7:20-22): “At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. For three months he was cared for by his family. When he was placed outside, Pharaoh’s daughter took him and brought him up as her own son. Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action” - has been most difficult for historians to identify in the Egyptian records. Impossible for conventional historians, who will always be searching in the wrong historical period, underpinned by its archaeology, but also difficult for revisionists. My own hopeful attempt to identify Moses as a high official in ancient Egypt can be found in an article such as: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (6) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Finally, regarding Eduard Meyer’s “… anything which [Moses] could have created or which could be his historical work”, see my set: Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis https://www.academia.edu/8175774/Tracing_the_Hand_of_Moses_in_Genesis Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis. Part Two (6) Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis. Part Two. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu