"Ramses II could have never been the Pharaoh of the Exodus": Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim



Egypt’s Antiquities Minister on the Pharaoh of the Exodus

Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in Egypt, Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim, asserted that he would never allow the analysis of King Ramses II’s mummy to confirm whether or not he was the long-disputed Pharaoh of the Exodus. Ibrahim said: “What is being rumored in this context is utterly non-scientific and not founded on any sort of evidence”.

In an exclusive interview conducted with the minister in his Zamalek-based office in Cairo, Mohammed Ibrahim stated that Ramses II’s mummy had previously been flown to the French capital of Paris during the 1980s to analyze the water within it, and try to treat the artifact. “But to speak now of the mummy’s examination and analysis is a matter I can never allow because Ramses II is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus and we should not build upon wrong assumptions in the first place.”

Ibrahim cited evidence for his argument with verses from the Holy Quran and the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament, especially the 14th Chapter. “The scenario and sequence of events clearly show that Ramses II could have never been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Based on several given facts and not just one piece of information, inferences have been drawn concluding that the Pharaoh of the Exodus ruled toward the end of the 19th Dynasty. The facts confirm that Ramses II’s reign did not witness any state of unrest, contrary to what is widely known about the Pharaoh of the Exodus’s reign. Moreover, Ramses II’s rule was marked by power and construction. Hence, we can’t say that either Ramses II or his successor Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.”

Regarding the allegation that the Grand Egyptian Museum – currently under construction on the Cairo–Alexandria desert road – has a design featuring the Star of David, thereby not expressing Egyptian identity, Dr. Ibrahim asserted that “This argument is groundless. From a geometric point of view, it is utterly invalid. And from an archeological point of view, the formation and direction of the exhibits is yet to be conclusively decided, for those that say they will face Jerusalem. For example, some have alleged that the statue of Ramses II will be displayed in a certain fashion towards a specific direction.”

Dr. Ibrahim added that there was no prearranged plan to display the antiquities in a particular manner expressing a precise orientation. “Actually, I am amazed at the link between these claims and the argument that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This is a completely baseless argument, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever corroborating that, as I mentioned earlier.”

Regarding the eternal controversy in Egypt about Egyptian antiquities exhibitions being staged abroad, Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim maintained that “those (exhibitions) are organized in accordance with the law which allows [certain] antiquities to travel abroad. The only exceptions are the unique and unparalleled pieces which are protected and preserved by heightened security measures. Through their sharpened skills and expert abilities, archeologists can identify cloned pieces no matter how accurate and precise the forgery is. Moreover, we have an electronic fingerprint for every archeological piece.”

Dr. Ibrahim revealed that his ministry is currently studying the possibility of tracking antiquities via satellites, stating that “we are looking to cooperate with a foreign partner to implement this.” However, he declined to disclose its details, stressing that they were highly confidential.

Dr. Ibrahim has refused to engage in overseas battles in order to restore the most precious antiquities that Egypt had always yearned for their return. The most notable of such pieces are the renowned Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, and the famous Nefertiti bust on display in the Berlin Museum. Dr. Ibrahim argued that “the restoration process is the task of the forthcoming government and parliament. Today, our ministry is only performing a limited role. Hence, we can’t take any kind of action or engage in battles that might provoke other countries.”

With regards to the political rise of the Islamists, and the fears of some that they might adopt a different stance towards the protection of antiquities, Dr. Ibrahim described all that has been circulated about this issue as “scaremongering hyped up by the media. In answer to this, it is suffice to say that I recently received a request for information from a Salafi MP, inquiring into the occurrence of acts of plunder in ancient tombs. Of course this rumor is completely false; none of our ancient tombs have been violated.”

The minister added that “[Nevertheless] the fact that Islamist MPs requested information about the plundering of ancient tombs indicates their care and concern for our antiquities. Therefore, it is very unlikely they would take an opposing position towards antiquities, or desecrate them in any way.” The minister went on to say that “My dealings with Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi MPs in parliament have revealed to me how keen they are on protecting and preserving our antiquities, even more so than others. Furthermore, I have found them to be very keen on preserving the Ministry of Antiquities in the forthcoming government, without any thoughts of dissolving it.”

In connection to rumors of the military police carrying out acts of torture against vandals arrested for breaking in to the Egyptian Museum premises near Tahrir Square, the minister stated that “such rumors are utterly false.” He maintained that “ever since I assumed responsibility (more than three months ago), no vandals have entered the Egyptian Museum in any fashion. During the first anniversary of the revolution, I was present in the museum and there was not a single attempt made by anyone to enter the building. The museum enjoys the security and protection of the revolutionary youths.”

The Minister of Antiquities regarded the current situation, with protests ongoing on the Egyptian street, as “a matter that is having a negative impact on the influx of tourists and sightseeing trips. This will have implications on the ministry’s revenue, which relies on the income generated by sightseeing trips.”

Dr. Ibrahim revealed that his ministry has been suffering a slump with over a 65 percent reduction in its revenue, ever since the start of the revolution. He added that “Despite the debts originally burdening the shoulders of the ministry, I am now trying to offset part of them to stimulate the work process at archeological sites to some extent.” Dr. Ibrahim, moreover, pledged to never cover up for any kind of corruption. He said that “I am not going to allow any measure of corruption, even if it is slight. Many legal cases have already been referred to the administrative prosecution service or the public funds prosecution. Upon assuming responsibility, I became highly suspicious of corruption in some projects, so I referred them to the cabinet which subsequently referred them to the Attorney General. This is concrete proof that we won’t cover up for any suspicion of corruption no matter how small it might be.”

....

Taken from: http://www.aawsat.net/2012/04/article55242593

Vern Crisler's Useful Modification of Dr Donovan Courville's Archaic Egypt

 

 



Egypt: Archaic Period

 

 

1. PARALLEL DYNASTIES

 

W. Budge has an interesting observation in his *History of Egypt* with respect to the Egyptian Book of the Dead:

 

"[I]n a medical papyrus at Berlin further information is added to the effect that after Hesepti was dead the book was taken to his Majesty Sent; now Sent was the fifth king of the II Dynasty and reigned many years after Semti [i.e., Hesepti-VC], and we must therefore understand that Sent came into possession of a medical work which had once belonged to his great predecessor Semti" (Vol. 1, pp. 199-200).

 

This means there may be a possible temporal correlation between first dynasty Semti (aka: Den, #5 below) and Sent (aka: #6). The correlation between the first and second dynasties of Egypt would then be something like this (as a rough approximation):

 

1st Dyn (South)------2nd Dyn------------3rd Dyn (North)

1.Menes

2.Athothis---------2.Hotepsekhemwy

3.Djer-------------3.Nebre

4.Merneith/Djet----4.Ninetjer

5.Den (aka:Semti)--5.Weneg,Peribsen-----5.Khasekhemwy

6.-----------------6.Sent---------------6.Djoser

7.Miebis-----------7.-------------------7.Djoser-Teti

8.-----------------8.Aka----------------8.Aches

9.Semempses,Hu-----9.Nephercheres-------9.Neferkare,Hu

10.Qaa

 

In other words, Egyptian chronology would need to bring 2nd dyn Sent in line so that he follows 1^st dyn Den. This has the effect of causing the 2^nd dyn to overlap the 1st dyn, which sends Ninetjer way up next to Queen Merneith. Also, Ninetjer was the father of Khasekhemwy, the father of Djoser, so Khasekhemwy would have to be removed from the end of the 2nd dyn (as Courville argued) and placed at the beginning of the 3rd dyn.

This both falsifies and confirms part of Courville's reconstruction. He believed that the 2nd dyn was *consecutive* after the 1st, but that the 3rd was *parallel* with the first. If we follow the Berlin papyrus, however, the 2nd dyn is not consecutive but is parallel to, or at least overlaps, the 1st dyn.

 

Thus Courville is falsified on that front. But at the same time, if the papyrus falsifies the notion that the 2^nd dyn is consecutive after the first, it also confirms

Courville's other belief that the 3rd dynasty was parallel to the 1st dynasty.

 

2. ANACHRONISMS

 

Having said that, one of Manetho's anachronisms is cleared up by this arrangement. He had said that it was in the reign of Ninetjer that women were

first given kingship. On the basis of the above chronology, he was entirely correct. It was indeed in the third 2nd dyn king's reign that women were first given the kingship. As Manetho says of Binothris (aka Ninetjer):

 

"In his reign it was decided that women might hold the kingly office."

 

We can now say that the woman he was talking about was none other than the woman who may have been Egypt's first queen, Queen Merneith.

 

Another anachronism is also cleared up concerning when worship of the Apis bull and Mendesian goat was first introduced. They were introduced under Nebre's reign, which is anachronistic in terms of traditional chronology, but is entirely correct if the above arrangement is accepted.

 

3. MERNEITH & PERIBSEN

 

I've argued that Courville might have been right to place the 3rd dynasty of Egypt as at least partially parallel with the 1st. I am modifying Courville's claim by arguing that the 2nd dynasty *also* partially overlaps these two dynasties.

 

On my little chart of dynastic overlap above, I have Queen Merneith as number 4, followed by Peribsen at number 5.

 

T.A.H. Wilkinson in his book *Early Dynastic Egypt* [1999] says, "Curiously, the name of Peribsen also occurs on a stone vessel fragment found by Petrie

in the First Dynasty tomb of Merneith....The only possible [sic] explanation is that it represents later contamination of the tomb contents, perhaps from Amelineau's excavations" (p. 90).

 

Certainly, it's *an* explanation, but what evidence does Wilkinson present to prove this? None. What seems more plausible is that Peribsen may have been

related to Merneith (a son?), or may have succeeded her as a king of Egypt.

 

If the contamination theory doesn't hold any water, and no evidence was presented that it does, then the above Merneith-Peribsen connection appears to be a major support for the above arrangement, but also a 0major anachronism for traditional chronology if a consecutive view of the earliest dynasties is assumed.

 

4. QA'A-HEDGET

 

Qa'a-hedget is one of the last kings of the first dynasty, (cf. Peter Clayton, *Chronicle of the Pharaohs*, p. 25.) Kings by the names of Sneferka and Ba are thought to have followed Qa'a-hedget (cf. Francesco Raffaele's essay on the Second Dynasty), illustrated as follows:

 

First Dynasty...last three kings:

 

a. Qa'a-hedget

b. Sneferka

c. Ba

 

Now it turns out that some believe a Qa'a-hedget is a king of the *third* dynasty. Raffaele says, "A stela of unknown provenance bought by the Louvre

Museum at the end of the '60s, bears the Horus name of this King; it is the only attestation of Qa Hedget ....The style of the relief and the skillness of its lines are the reasons for the widespread conviction that we have to do with a IIIrd dyn. datable piece, not with one of Qa'a (Ist dyn. ending) as was formerly advanced" (cf. his essay on Qa-hedget).

 

I have Nephercheres of the 2nd dynasty as identical to Neferkare of the 3rd dynasty. Both were numbered as 9 on my reconstruction, and Qa'a was numbered as 10. Raffaele points out:

 

"Lacking the evidences for a Horus name of the predecessor of Qa Hedget, Neferkara, it could be hypothezed these these names belonged to the same sovereign; the few traces they left make it possible that both these kings could have been immediate predecessors of Huni" (Essay on Qa-Hedget).

 

So Neferkara is considered the predecessor of Qa Hedget, just as my reconstruction had it.

 

The fourth dynasty starts (in my view) right after the end of the 1st and 3rd dynasties, and Snofru is the first king of the 4th dynasty. Now that name Snofru (who follows close behind Raffaele's Qa Hedget) bears a remarkable resemblance to the Sneferka who followed Qa'a, both sharing four consonants (S,n,f,r), both sharing a predecessor with the same name.

 

The only thing that I can see as being a possible counter-instance to dynastic overlap in the Archaic Period of Egypt is that German excavators found a seal-impression on the entrance of Qa'a's tomb, and "this has been taken as a proof of the presence of Hotepsekhemwy at the funerary ceremony of the Horus Qa'a...." (Raffaele, Essay on Hotepsekhemwy).

 

The possibility remains however, that Qa'a may have been the one who put the impression on his tomb entrance, thus identifying himself with a famous predecessor (for sacral or political prestige). For instance, a seal impression of Ninetjer was found in a tomb of Khasekhemwy, but this is not taken to mean that Khasekhemwy preceeded his father Ninetjer.

 

A lot more research and digging needs to be done to test whether more kings of the third dynasty share the names of the kings of the first or second dynasty. I think it would be a good investment of time to test out the theory of dynastic overlap for the Archaic Period.

 

Vern

 

Taken from: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/60