Bebi’s Famine, like Joseph’s, was of ‘many years’ duration

by Damien F. Mackey “Now since famines succeeding one another on account of deficiency of water in the overflowing of the Nile are of the very greatest rarity . . . since Beba [Bebi] … lived … about the same time in which Joseph exercised the office … there remains for a satisfactory conclusion but one fair inference; that the 'many years of famine' in the days of Beba must exactly correspond to the seven years of famine under Joseph's pharaoh”. Henry Brugsch-Bey Patricia Halsey Maxwell has made a valiant attempt, following Dr. Donovan Courville, to identify in ancient Egypt the biblical Joseph and the protracted Famine of his time: https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/islandora/object/adl:359637/datastream/PDF/view THE BIOGRAPHY of Joseph is one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. But did it really happen? Was Joseph a real person? Or just a fictional character? Were there really seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine? Is there perhaps some truth in what the Bible says, but is the rest simply exaggeration—or pure imagination? Is the Bible historically accurate? Here is another example in which lovers of the Bible—myself included —had thought it would be a relatively easy matter to prove the Bible true. Just dig around among the pyramids a bit … they thought, and they'd come up with sure and certain proof that there truly was such a famine ... just as the Bible says, Unfortunately. things haven't turned out that way. And skeptics and people who aren't very friendly to the Bible have made the most of the fact. I told you three months ago (Signs, July 19771 about my research into the evidence for Joshua's attack on Jericho. I am convinced, as I wrote in that article, that the traditional dates are inaccurate. If we adjust the dates, we can find the Jericho event in the archaeological record with details that are astonishingly similar to the biblical record of Joshua 3-7. Now let me tell you what I have found regarding Joseph's famine. If we did not have the story of Joseph's life and the famine that is such an important part of it, there would be no historical explanation for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt. And it is impossible to separate Joseph's famine from the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt and their escape at the Exodus. That the Israelites did spend time in Egypt cannot be denied. No scholar worthy of the name even tries to do so. The problems in the conflict of opinions rise rather from the disbelief on the part of many scholars in the dependability of the details of the accounts. The critical details which reflect the participation of a Supreme Being in the affairs of men are denied as being only legendary inventions of later writers. Favorite Son, Jealous Brothers As the story has been recorded in the Bible, Joseph was the next youngest of 12 sons of Jacob, and he was his father’s favorite. The older brothers, consumed with jealousy, sold him to some passing Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an officer of the pharaoh (king) of Egypt. Genesis 37:23-28; 39:1. Because of his faithfulness as a servant, he was made overseer of the officer's house to the point where Potiphar ''knew not ought he had save for the bread which he did eat." Verses 2-6. After a service of ten years, he was falsely accused by his master's wife of attempting to seduce her, and was imprisoned. Verses 7-20. In prison, he found favor with the prison keeper who put him in charge of all the other prisoners, Verses 21-23. In the course of time, the pharaoh's butler and baker were imprisoned on suspicion of misdeeds. One night both had dreams that troubled them deeply. Genesis 40. Next morning Joseph asked them why they looked so sad. and they told him their dreams, Joseph interpreted the dreams as meaning that the butler would soon be reinstated to his position while the baker would pay for his misdeeds with his life. Joseph's predictions were fulfilled. Now, Joseph had asked the butler to remember him to the pharaoh and get him out of prison, but the butler promptly forgot him. Two years went by—and the pharaoh also had dreams that troubled him deeply, Genesis 41. The king's astrologers could not interpret these dreams. Suddenly the butler remembered his experience in prison and told the pharaoh about Joseph. The pharaoh called Joseph from prison. and Joseph interpreted the dreams. They meant, he said, that there would be seven years of great plenty followed by seven years of very severe famine. Joseph advised the pharaoh to select someone to take charge of preparing for the famine by storing the excess food during the years of plenty for distribution during the years of famine. The pharaoh was impressed by Joseph's ability and assigned this responsibility to him. He elevated Joseph to a position of authority second only to himself. Genesis 41:41-45. This position is known in Eastern countries as vizier, although the term is not used in the Bible. During the seven years of plenty, Joseph built storehouses throughout Egypt, Then, during the seven years of famine, the people were provided grain, First, they had to pay with money. When this was used up, they paid with their cattle. Finally, they paid with their lands. Genesis 45:1420. At the end of the famine … all the real property of Egypt belonged to the king. The lands were leased back to their former owners, who were required to return to the king one fifth of their produce year by year. Verses 23-26. According to the Bible, the famine extended into the land of Canaan (Genesis 41:57) where Jacob still lived with his other sons. When he heard that food was available in Egypt, he sent ten of the remaining eleven sons down there to buy "corn" (an old English term for grain). See Genesis 4221. Joseph, in charge of distribution. recognized the brothers who had sold him into slavery, but they did not recognize him. Verse 8. He wondered whether his brothers had experienced any regrets for their action against himself and designed a plan to test them. As a result he was convinced that they had indeed experienced a change of heart. and he revealed his identity to them. Genesis 45. Then he extended them an invitation to come and live in Egypt. Verses 9, 10. Soon his father and all his brothers and their families moved down to Egypt. Genesis 46:1-7. Joseph provided them with food at no cost during the remaining years of the famine. Genesis 47:12, They were given choice land in the Delta region, and here they lived and multiplied and prospered greatly. Verse 27. We cannot predict famines today. But two Egyptian inscriptions talk about famines that were anticipated and prepared for. Archaeologists say they were different famines, in addition to Joseph's famine. So So much for the Bible account. What about the archaeological record? Boasting in the Tombs It might be supposed that even a severe famine could not be detected archaeologically. And this might be true—if archaeology concerned itself only with old stones and bricks. However, archaeology includes inscriptions, and these play a highly significant part in the interpretation of physical evidence. In fact, without the inscriptions, it would be virtually impossible to correlate the physical evidence—the bricks and pottery and other relics—with history. The inscriptions of Egypt frequently mention famine or famine conditions.1 Unfortunately, in most cases there are not enough details to associate—or dissociate—the inscriptions with the account of Joseph's famine. There are, however, two inscriptions that match the unique details of the Joseph account, and I think they match the details in a most striking manner. Both refer to a famine lasting many years; both indicate that preparation was made in advance to meet the famine: and in both cases the food that was gathered before the famine was distributed during the famine. The only discordant factor is that the dates assigned to the two inscriptions by the traditional chronology of Egypt are separated by many centuries. In other words, there appear to have been two predicted famines, and neither appears to have happened while Joseph was in Egypt. Aside from the ultra-unique detail of advanced preparation, the very occurrence of extended famine in the Nile valley is itself unique. Philip Smith has commented: *'Great famines in Egypt are extremely rare, because they require a succession of very low inundations. …. It should then be evident that a famine inscription which provides data that agrees with all these unique details must surely refer to the famine of Joseph's time. If the dating of any of these inscriptions, as demanded by the traditional chronology does not allow this identification, we should recognize that there is an error in the chronology. …. One of the two inscriptions that refer to severe famine was found in the tomb of a man named Bebi (also spelled Beba). He wrote: "I collected corn as a friend of the harvest god; I was watchful at the time of sowing. and when the famine came lasting many years, I distributed the corn to the city each year of famine." The second inscription was found in the tomb of a man named Ameni who dated his service to the reign of Sesostris I, second king of Dynasty XII. Damien Mackey’s comment: Since Sesostris I of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty belonged to the time of Moses, and not Joseph: Moses and Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (8) Moses and Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Ameni’s situation will need to be seriously reconsidered. …. No archaeologist says that either Bebi or Ameni is to be identified with Joseph. These men were local officers of cities (nomes), and it was their responsibility to collect and distribute food in their areas. Some scholars have discussed whether these inscriptions refer to Joseph's famine. But they have run into difficulty over the dates. Ameni served during the reign of Sesostris I. But Bebi has been dated some 300 years later. Because of this, scholars felt obliged to insist that one or the other of the inscriptions could not refer to Joseph's famine—in spite of the fact that both meet the unique details provided in the Joseph story. The way Henry Brugsch-Bey handled the problem helps us understand how errors of interpretation are sometimes introduced. Arguing that Ameni's famine could not be the same as Joseph's, Brugsch wrote: 'The concluding words of this inscription in which Ameni sings his own praises, have given rise to the idea that they contain an allusion to the sojourn of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt and to the seven years of famine under his administration. But two reasons especially tell against this supposition, which would recognize in Usertasen I [Sesostris I] the pharaoh of Joseph. First is the difference in time, which cannot be made to agree with the era of Joseph, and next, still more … the indisputable fact that, in other inscriptions years of famine are mentioned which thoroughly correspond as to the facts and time with the biblical account.' …. Brugsch's reference to "other inscriptions" is to Bebi's inscription, which he said definitely could be dated to the time of Joseph. He wrote: "Now since famines succeeding one another on account of deficiency of water in the overflowing of the Nile are of the very greatest rarity . . . there remains for a satisfactory conclusion but one fair inference; that the 'many years of famine' in the days of Beba must exactly correspond to the seven years of famine under Joseph's pharaoh." …. Unfortunately, subsequent developments have negated the validity of Brugsch's arguments. A further examination of Beba's tomb has indicated that dating the tomb to the era of the seventeenth dynasty was a mistake. The tomb belonged to a "much more ancient" time. Jacques Vandier wrote: "At El Kab. the most ancient tombs are located high on the slope to the north. This is the case with that of Sebek-Nekht and that of Beba with which we are here concerned and which I believe can be dated impartially in the XIIIth Dynasty. ... Taylor, in his introduction to the tomb of Sebek-Nekht, spoke incidentally of the tomb of Beba and stated that the two tombs are very much more ancient than all the others. " …. But if Bebi's tomb belongs to an era "much more ancient" than the era of . did the ancient Egyptians predict THREE famines —or were all three one and the same? Damien Mackey’s comment: I would agree with the “much more ancient” time conclusion for Bebi, but not the Thirteenth Dynasty, which, again, belongs to the time of Moses (and the Exodus) …. In view of the extreme rarity of extended famines in the Nile Valley, identifying Bebi's famine with the famine of Joseph's time is unavoidable. …. [End of article] Damien Mackey’s comment: Obviously we are going to need to know more about this Bebi [Beba] and to ascertain the precise time in ancient Egyptian history which he lived.

Old Kingdom Egypt Famine, even Lake Faiyum dried up

“People were forced to commit unheard of atrocities such as eating their own children and violating the sacred sanctity of the royal dead”. Professor Fekri Hassan We read at (2011): https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml Despair and collapse …. What was the factor that weakened the monarchy and allowed provincial governors to assume royal power over their regions? Mackey’s comment: On this point, see my recent article: Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine (3) Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu One possibility is an invasion by Asiatics. However, there is no evidence that Asiatics invaded Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom. Alternatively, the initial breakdown of the Old Kingdom was caused by a sudden, unanticipated, catastrophic reduction in the Nile floods over two or three decades. This was so severe that famine gripped the country and paralysed the political institutions. People were forced to commit unheard of atrocities such as eating their own children and violating the sacred sanctity of the royal dead. Mackey’s comment: The Famine did not bring about the collapse of the Old Kingdom. It was of relatively short duration. The Egyptian sage Ipuwer gives a graphic description of the horrendous events of that time. Lo, the desert claims the land Towns are ravaged, Upper Egypt became a wasteland Lo, everyone's hair [has fallen out] Lo, great and small say, 'I wish I were dead' Lo, children of nobles are dashed against walls Infants are put on high ground Food is lacking Wearers of fine linen are beaten with [sticks] Ladies suffer like maidservants Lo, those who were entombed are cast on high grounds Men stir up strife unopposed Groaning is throughout the land, mingled with laments See now the land deprived of kingship What the pyramid hid is empty [The] People are diminished. Mackey’s comment: Some, such as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos), would locate the Ipuwer event, instead, to the Plagues and Exodus. Egyptologists concede that there can be no doubt that these texts relate to fact. There is incontrovertible evidence that this terrible famine was caused by the reduction of the Nile floods. Climactic change …. The scale of the failure of the floods is shown by the fact that the Faiyum, a lake of some 65 metres deep, dried up. This means that the lake actually evaporated over time. These low floods were related to global climatic cooling which reduced the amount of rainfall in Ethiopia and East Africa. In Iceland, researchers have detected a transition from birch and grassland vegetation to arctic conditions in about 2150 BC. This correlates with a shift to drier climate in south-eastern Europe c.2200 - 2100 BC. …. The most tantalizing recent discovery, however, was made when scientists made a high-resolution study of dust deposition from Kajemarum Oasis in north-eastern Nigeria. The study conclusively revealed that a pronounced shift in atmospheric circulation occurred in around 2150 BC. This data indicates that an abrupt, short-lived event of cold climate led to less rainfall and a reduction of water flow in a vast area extending from Tibet to Italy. This had catastrophic effects on such early state societies as the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Long-term variations in Nile floods are beyond the perceptions of people. The Nile, today and during the prosperous times of the Old Kingdom, is regarded unquestionably as the source of life in Egypt. Therefore, the Nile can be considered as the force which destroyed the civilization that it had nurtured. Inconceivable as it might be, the Nile is a temperamental river. The volume of flood discharge varies wildly in episodes which range from decades to hundreds of years. Furthermore, there is the impact of freak years where the floods can be disastrously low or high. ….

Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine

by Damien F. Mackey “It should be noted … that the king is absent from Ankhtifi’s autobiography …”. Dr. Doaa M. Elkashef Just who was this incredible character like no other, the mysterious Ankhtifi? I asked this question right at the end of my recent article: Egypt’s high official, Ankhtifi, outboasts even great Senenmut (4) Egypt’s high official, Ankhtifi, outboasts even great Senenmut | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Who, indeed, was Ankhtifi, a high official of Egypt, seemingly a quasi-Pharaoh (see “ruled like a pharaoh” below), who, in his Autobiography, did not even bother to observe standard Egyptian protocol by mentioning the current Pharaoh? Which means that Egyptologists cannot be exactly sure when Ankhtifi lived. Bearing a host of impressive titles, Anhktifi - or whoever wrote his Autobiography - boasted of his having been like no other man ever born: “I am a man without equal …. I am the front of people and the back of people because (my) like will not exist; he will not exist. (My) like could not have been born; he was not born”. Could Ankhtifi have been the renowned Joseph, who likewise was front and centre involved in a terrible Famine? Certainly Ankhtifi’s claim to have been the greatest ever to have been born seems to be echoed in Sirach’s short praise of Joseph (Sirach 49:15): “Nor was anyone ever born like Joseph …”. Ankhtifi’s Famine This was no ordinary famine. It was of long duration, driving Egyptians to resort to cannibalism. Here I am following Dr. Doaa M. Elkashef’s account of it in “Self-Presentation in the Autobiography of Ankhtifi of Moalla between Tradition and Innovation” (2023): https://ijtah.journals.ekb.eg/article_310487_7a8edbc44025d034d58e79abe4b91e05.pdf “I gave bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked. I anointed the unanointed. I shod the one who had no shoes. I gave a wife to the one who had no wife. …. Ankhtifi used the traditional cliché theme of local patronage to introduce the Famine Inscription on Pillar IV. He employed this common theme in a new context in relation to a real event (i.e. the famine): iw ^maw r-Dr.f m(w)t n Hqr s nb Hr wnm Xrdw.f n sp di(.i) xpr m(w)t n Hq m spAt tn iw di.n(.i) TAbt n Sma [Sma] di.n(.i) mHt “All of Upper Egypt died because of hunger, every man eating his (own) children; but I never let death happen because of hunger in this nome. I gave a loan of Upper Egyptian barley …. Ankhtifi stresses that he fed Elephantine and Iat-Negen in the first and second Upper Egyptian nomes respectively, after satisfying Moalla and Hormer in the third Upper Egyptian nome. The formula sanx.n.i “I made … live” (in the sense of “fed”) is recurrent in the First Intermediate Period texts referring to famine. …. The theme of famine also figures in the documents of Heqanakht, a kA-priest (Hm-kA) and farmer during the Middle Kingdom. Heqanakht refers to famine in 4 Letter II as follows: mk Tn tA r-Dr.f m(w)t n Hqr.[Tn] “Look, the whole land is dead and [you] have not hungered.”7 5 mk Tn Dd.tw Hqr r Hqr mk Tn SAaw wnm rmT aA “Look, one should say hunger (only) about (real) hunger. Look, they’ve started to eat people here.”7 Heqanakht boasts of his ability to feed his family while the rest of the country suffers from famine. One might argue that the theme of human cannibalism appearing in the texts of Ankhtifi and Heqanakht is evidence of such terrible famine in their times, so terrible that people were forced to eat their own children. Nevertheless, both Ankhtifi and Heqanakht might be expressing in a rhetorical way how serious the famine events were in their times. The rhetorical device would be hyperbole, an overstatement to impress the audience (contemporaries and posterity) or the addressee. Reference to famine appears again in the Autobiography of Ankhtifi on Pillar V: iw grt sanx.n(.i) Nxn WTs-@r Abw Nbyt Hsi w(i) @r Nxn anx n(.i) @mn iw pH.n it-^ma(.i) Iwnt ^Abt m-xt sanx spAt tn m ……s “Now, I made Hierakonpolis, Edfu, Elephantine and Kom Ombo live so that Horus of Hierakonpolis would favour me and Hemen would live for me. My Upper Egyptian barley reached Dendera and ^Abt after making this nome live with …...” Ankhtifi stresses that he fed the third and second Upper Egyptian nomes of Hierakonpolis and Edfu and the towns of Elephantine and Kom Ombo in the first Upper Egyptian nome for the sake of his local gods, Horus and Hemen.7 He also stresses that he fed the towns of Dendera and ^Abt in the sixth Upper Egyptian nome after supplying his own nome.8 [End of quotes] We read along similar lines at: https://popular-archaeology.com/article/ancient-egypts-great-hunger/#:~:text=People%20were%20so%20hungry%20that,the%20nome's%20inhabitants%20to%20leave. Ankhtifi and Khety the nomarchs Fortunately during these trying times, some nomarchs were competent administrators. They boasted of their achievements on their tomb walls …. Ankhtifi of Hierakonpolis and Edfu, two of the southernmost nomes of Upper Egypt, had such a high opinion of his military abilities and of himself that he called himself the “great chieftain.” He became nomarch just as low floods became commonplace. “All of Upper Egypt was dying of hunger,” his tomb inscriptions tell us. There were reports of cannibalism, of people eating their children; his province becoming like “a starved grasshopper.” As so often happened in famines everywhere, hungry villagers wandered aimlessly in search of food and people fought over water. People were so hungry that they were said to be eating their children. “I managed that no one died of hunger in this nome,” he claimed, as tomb-robbers plundered the dead. Ankhtifi’s grandiloquent inscriptions boasted of loaning precious grain to people upstream, of forbidding the nome’s inhabitants to leave. The nomarch ruled like a pharaoh. “I am the beginning and the end of humankind, for my equal has not and will not come into being.” Fortunately, he controlled food supplies, imposed rationing, and erected temporary dams to impound water. These short-term measures worked and saved many lives, for his leadership was decisive and based on hard-earned local knowledge. …. [End of quote] If Ankhtifi were Joseph, though, the last statement above would need modification: “Fortunately, he controlled food supplies, imposed rationing, and erected temporary dams to impound water. These short-term measures worked and saved many lives, for his leadership was decisive and based on hard-earned local knowledge”. These “measures” were “short-term” in the sense that the dams would have to have been built hastily and may later have fallen into disuse. As I intend to show in later articles, there is abundant evidence for the erection of unadorned, briefly used, infrastructure, such as dams and massive grain storage facilities, in Third Dynasty Egypt, in which I would place Joseph - for one, this accord with the Sehel Famine Stela of king Netjerikhet, a very late document harkening back to Egypt’s Third Dynasty. But I would also definitely expect a (so-called) ‘Middle’ Kingdom correlation with the Old Kingdom’s Third Dynasty, based on articles of mine (Dr. Courville inspired) such as e.g.: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought (6) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this could bring Ankhtifi’s cannibalising famine right into synch with Heqanakht’s Middle Kingdom cannibalising Famine, as I think must necessarily have been the case. But leadership at the time was not so much “based on hard-earned local knowledge” as upon Divine inspiration, on Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams, which the Pharaoh trusted to the extent of giving Joseph virtually free rein in the land (Genesis 41:41-44): So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt’. Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, ‘Make way!’ Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt’. Genesis 42:6: “Now Joseph was the governor of the land, the person who sold grain to all its people”. Ankhtifi: I never let death happen because of hunger in this nome. I gave a loan of Upper Egyptian barley …. Joseph’s new name Genesis 44:45: “Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt”. Can the name Ankhtifi be found in Joseph’s given Egyptian name, Zaphenath-Paneah? This is a difficult matter since no two commentators seem to be able to reach a consensus on the meaning of Joseph’s new name. Here I turn to professor A. S. Yahuda who has proven in the past to be a trustworthy guide in matters pertaining to Egyptian linguistics. Abraham Yahuda suggested for Zapheath-paneah, ḏfꜣ n tꜣ pꜣ ꜥnḫ, "the living one is the sustenance of (the) land", or ḏfꜣ n tꜣ pw ꜥnḫ "the sustenance of the land is he, the living one." (Yahuda, A. S. (1930). Eine Erwiderung auf Wilhelm Spiegelbergs "Ägyptologische Bemerkungen" zu meinem Buche "Die Sprache des Pentateuch". Leipzig. p. 7., cited by Vergote, p. 144). In professor Yahuda’s explanation of this Egyptian name I think that we can basically find, in hypocoristicon form, the three elements that constitute the name, Ankhtifi: viz., Ankh (ꜥnḫ); ti (tꜣ); fi (fꜣ). I should mention that Eulalío Eguía Jr. has also made the identification of Joseph as Ankhtifi, whom he, however, connects with Egypt’s Ninth Dynasty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7oLeJannks This video raises some interesting points not to be found in my present article. Ankhtifi a polytheist? Whilst Ankhtifi fails to refer to a king, and also makes little reference to the Egyptian gods, he does tell of his guidance by the god Horus, and also mentions Hemen. Horus-Hemen can be reduced to the one compound deity. Since Egypt would likely have had no name for – nor interest in – the God of the Hebrews, the best that the writer of Ankhtifi’s Autobiography might have been able to come up with may have been simply Horus, the god of kings. The monotheistic pharaoh, Akhnaton, much later on, would have to grapple with the problem of how to represent the one true God to the polytheistic Egyptian people.

Joseph of Egypt’s Canal

“This was Joseph’s artificial river (to match his granaries) which turned the Fayoum into the first man-made lake”. William Golding An interesting observation made when walking in Egypt: http://www.ancient-egypt.info/2012/05/josephs-canal-1985-walking-through.html Joseph’s Canal, 1985 | Walking Through Egypt Joseph’s Canal, 1985 William Golding …. Then we drove south for about twenty kilometres along the side of the canal in sugar cane country. I looked at this canal until it became ordinary to me. It was a canal, that was all. Idly, I asked Alaa which canal it was and he said it was the Bahr Yusuf. I was moodily and quite illogically vexed. For Joseph’s Canal is alleged by all persons like myself who prefer a good story to literal historical accuracy (whatever that may happen to be) is, I say, alleged to be the very canal that Joseph he of the coat of many colours built for Pharaoh. They say that lot say that it isn’t Joseph’s canal but a canal built by a much later Joseph. Did you ever hear anything so silly? Before I had seen it I had already made my mind that even if it wasn’t biblical Joseph’s actual ditch, his must have lain along the same line so what’s the odds? You put a canal in the best place for it so the later one was no more than a restoration of the original. I had promised myself such a thrill at seeing it; but now I had been looking at it for twenty kilometres and made it so ordinary to myself that my promised frisson was entirely lacking. But still, it was Joseph’s Canal. It was, I think, a greater, a more impressive, a wider leap of the imagination than the pyramids. There was and is a great depression in the desert on the western side of the Nile opposite Cairo. This is the Fayoum, between twenty and thirty miles square. Right back in the earliest pharaonic days someone conceived the idea of deflecting surplus flood water from the river into that depression and then here is the leap of letting it out again into the Nile when the flood was inconveniently low. But this join between the main stream and the Fayoum could not be made down by Cairo. The main stream for obvious hydrostatic reasons had to be tapped hundreds of miles to the south so that the gradient of the canal would be so gradual the water would be controllable. So there the canal is, huge in length, vast in scope and breathtaking in the sheer imaginative size of the conception. Now here it was, a canal like any other and I found I had to screw my wits up to remember what it was I was looking at. This was Joseph’s artificial river (to match his granaries) which turned the Fayoum into the first man-made lake.

Nile pyramid waterway discovered

Taken from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01449-y Found at last: long-lost branch of the Nile that ran by the pyramids Geological survey reveals the remains of a major waterway that ancient Egyptian builders could have used to transport materials. By Freda Kreier Stretching beneath the ground near the Giza pyramid complex in Egypt lie the remains of an ancient branch of the Nile River that might once have helped ancient Egyptians to build their monuments. The highest concentration of pyramids in Egypt can be found in a stretch of desert between Giza and the village of Lisht. These sites are now several dozens of kilometres away from the Nile River. But Egyptologists have long suspected that the Nile might once have been closer to that stretch than it is today. Satellite images and geological data now confirm that a tributary of the Nile — which researchers have named the Ahramat Branch — used to run near many of the major sites in the region several thousand years ago. The discovery, reported on 16 May in Communications Earth and Environment1, could help to explain why ancient Egyptians chose this area to build the pyramids (See ‘Ancient river’). “The pyramids seem like pretty monumental work,” says Judith Bunbury, a geoarchaeologist at the University of Cambridge, UK. “But it’s less arduous if you can bring big stones up by boat rather than carrying them over land.” Wandering waterways For thousands of years, the Nile and its flood-plain have provided food, agriculture and water to Egypt’s inhabitants. The majority of the country’s population still lives in the Nile basin. But the river is prone to migrating, and in the past, populations have had to relocate to keep up. Over the last few hundred years, the Nile has moved several kilometres to the east, possibly owing to shifting plate tectonics. There is evidence that some of Egypt’s important archaeological sites do not have the same relationship to the river as they would have had at the time they that were built. There are remains of harbours and other such clues at sites between Giza and Lisht. But scientists have found it difficult to chart the scope or locations of these lost waterways. While looking for traces of ancient water, a team led by Eman Ghoneim, a geomorphologist at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, spotted what looked like a dried-up river channel several kilometres west of the Nile. The channel ran for around 60 kilometres through agricultural areas and had a similar depth and width to the modern Nile. To investigate whether the channel could be part of an ancient riverbed, the researchers collected core samples of sediment from the channel. Beneath the wet mud of the fields, they found an layer of gravel and sand consistent with that of a riverbed. Combining this sample data with satellite imagery allowed the team to map the branch’s location. They found that it would have flowed past more than 30 Old- and Middle-Kingdom pyramids dating from between 2686 to 1649 BC — thus the decision to called it the ‘Ahramat’ branch, using the Arabic word for pyramid. The Ahramat “connected all these different pyramid fields”, says Suzanne Onstine, an egyptologist at the University of Memphis in Tennessee. “Their valley temples and causeways all oriented exactly to where the water would have been.” Riverside sites Researchers have long debated the significance of the pyramids’ locations. The waterway running right past them could have been an important factor, because it would have provided a convenient way for builders to transport materials to the sites. This theory aligns with documents from the era which state that building materials were brought in by boat, says Bunbury. Eventually, the movement of the Nile and sand blowing in from the Sahara Desert would have caused the Ahramat Branch to dry up and become unnavigable. Today, only a few stray lakes and channels remain where the major branch once ran. But knowing the ancient river’s location provides a blueprint that archaeologists can use to try and uncover more ancient Egyptian settlements, says Onstine. And the finding that Egyptians were probably using boats rather than land transportation to move materials to build the pyramids hints that they were “a lot more pragmatic than perhaps we realized before”, says Bunbury. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01449-y References 1. Ghoneim, E. et al. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 233 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7

Shiloh as Ta’anath Shiloh in valley east of Shechem

“Overall conclusion Shiloh in the valley of Shechem? It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown”. John Wijngaards I (Damien Mackey), finding somewhat unsatisfying the almost universally accepted archaeological identification of the ancient shrine of Shiloh with Khirbet Seiloun, did a quick search at academia.edu for a dissenting view, and straightaway found this intriguing article by John Wijngaards: An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? (1) (PDF) Alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh | John N M Wijngaards - Academia.edu Whilst I warmly encourage those interested to read Wijngaards’ 2020 article in full, here I shall simply reproduce the final part of it (pp. 23-24): …. In Gen 33,18 we find the following Massoretic vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shâlem °îr shekem ‘asher be’ereș kena°an. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render shalem as 'to Salim'. Many modern versions, following the Targum, read 'beshalôm', meaning 'safely, unscathed' (RSV; JB.; Powis-Smith; De Fraine). The text would then mean: “Jacob arrived safely at the town of Shechem in Canaanite territory”. However, this reading does violence to the consonantal text. Observing that Samaritanus and some other manuscripts presuppose the reading 'shl-o-m', I suggest the following vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shilô - m - °îr shekem. This would mean: 'And Jacob reached Shiloh of the city of 'Shechem' (enclytic mem). The parallelism with Gen 12,6 is striking: 'Abram came to the sanctuary (meqôm: status constructus) of Shechem. The text would, therefore, seem to imply that Shiloh is the sanctuary near the city of Shechem. From Gen 33,19 we learn further that, the site of Jacob's encampment, and consequently of Shiloh, was 'facing the city of Shechem', probably meaning 'East of Shechem', and certainly implying that it was not on the Ebal or Gerazim, but rather in the valley itself, facing Shechem across the open space of the valley. A. Alt has drawn attention to the extraordinary fact that “Shiloh the early prominence of which as centre of Jahwistic worship cannot be doubted” seems all the same devoid of vital relationships with the patriarchs. …. And yet we know that it was the 'God of Israel' who gave oracles at Shiloh (cf. 1 Sm 1,17; 2,30), that Yahweh's decrees promulgated at Shiloh (cf. Ps 78,5 and 78,60) were 'decrees for Jacob'. In other words: as amphictyonic centre Shiloh almost had to have had vital connections with Jacob. If our vocalization of Gen 33,18a is correct, Gen 3,18b-19 would provide the link between Jacob, Shiloh and Shechem. Overall conclusion Shiloh in the valley of Shechem? It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown. …. Once every seven years, probably during the Sabbatical Year (Lev 25,1- 7), the tribes would gather at Transjordanian Succoth to re-live the forty years in the desert by celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant. There they would be given instructions on the covenant with Yahweh and on new legislation that would form part of the covenant. To re-enact the crossing of the Red Sea and the landgiving, the Ark would then be carried, ahead of the people, across the Jordan into the valley of Shechem. After depositing the Ark in its sanctuary at Shiloh, the people would then formally renew the covenant by calling on themselves the blessings and curses of the covenant. Portions of the land would then be re-allocated, or re-affirmed, to the tribes at Shiloh before they would return to their own provinces (Josh 13,8 – 17,18). Taking everything into consideration, it seems certainly possible, if not likely, that the ancient pre-monarchic sanctuary of Shiloh lay in the valley of Shechem. “With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem …”. John Wijngaards John Wijngaards sets out on pp. 2-3 the plan of his article (as referred to above): In this essay (1) I will first elaborate how and why topographic information about biblical sites has been lost. (2) I will spell out my reasons for doubting Shiloh's identification with Khirbet Seiloun. (3) I will, from biblical sources, add a brief reconstruction of what Shiloh’s sanctuary must have looked like. (4) I will explain why biblical texts seem to favour a location of Samuel’s Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. (5) I will then proceed to illustrate why Ta'anath Shiloh, i.e. present-day Khirbet et-Tana or Kirbet el- Fauqain the valley of Shechem, could have been the location of early Shiloh. …. Now, on to his pp. 23-24, where he briefly discusses his proposed new site for ancient Shiloh: 5.2 Ta’anath Shiloh in the valley of Shechem --- Jos 16,6 In Jos 16,6 we learn of a place called tant šlh, vocalised by the Massoretes as ta’anathshiloh, rendered by the Septuagint as thênath sêlô. In modern translations the place is known as ‘Ta’anath-Shiloh’. Its location would satisfy the required conditions of Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem. …. I am unaware of any attempt to explain the derivation of the name, but it seems, to me that a Ugaritic passage may throw light on the question. In the text Baal speaks to Anath in these words (verses 18 to 29): “18. I've a word I fain would tell thee, 19. a speech I wouId utter to thee, 20. speech of tree and whisper of stone, 21. converse of heaven with earth, 22. even of the deep with the stars. 23. Yea, a thunderbolt unknown to heaven, 24. a word not known to men, 25. nor sensed by the masses on earth. 26. Come, pray, and I will reveal it 27. in the midst of my mount Godly Zaphon, 28. in the sanctuary, mount of my portion, 29. in the pleasance, the hill I possess.” The Ugaritic original of verse 21 reads: tant šmm °m arș. The word 'tant' in vs. 21 is here rendered by 'conversation' on account of the context. If we were to bring the word in connection with the Hebrew root tâ’ (room, parlour; cf. 3 Kgs 14,28; Ez 40,7ff.; Septuagint transliteration thê; cf. Assyrian ta'u), we might also understand it to mean 'meeting-place', 'parlour'. Ancient sanctuaries were, in fact, considered to be such points of contact between heaven and earth (cf. Gen 28,10-22; 11,4). In the Ugaritic text Baal is therefore inviting Anath to come to his holy mount, his sanctuary, the meeting place of heaven and earth, where through the stone and the tree an oracle will be communicated to her. Is it pure chance that the sanctuary in Shechem's valley possessed such a tree and such a stone? Should it not rather be seen as such an ancient 'meeting-place' between heaven and earth? This would explain why it is also called ‘the navel of the land’ and 'the diviners' oak' (Jdg 9,37), why it is the scene of oracles to Abram (Gen 12,7), to Jacob (Gen 35,1) and to the Shechemites (Jdg 9,7ff.)? Shiloh is also described as a meeting place in Psalm 78,60: “He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among people”. Taanath Shiloh might, therefore, well fit as the holy place in the valley of Shechem, both on account of its position and on account of the implication of its name. ….

Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek

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