Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham

by Damien F. Mackey Thanks to the important revision of Dr. John Osgood, in “The Times of Abraham”, the Sothically mis-dated monarch, Narmer (c. 3100 BC, though conventional dates vary) can now be established archaeologically during the lifetime of Abraham (c. 1870 BC). Introduction Whilst it is a big thing (and many would say, foolish) to suggest that the conventional Egyptian chronology can be out of kilter with real history by more than a millennium, such a claim would not cause great surprise amongst such revisionist historians who are aware of the vastly over-inflated results of the Sothic dating method. On this, see e.g. my: The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited http://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited And, in the case of Narmer, Dr. Osgood has been able to establish with some precision how this ruler’s stratigraphical level (Stratum IV at Arad, see below) sits in relation to the relevant Genesis biblical narrative. Dr. Osgood has shown, in his masterful aligning of real archaeological history against Genesis 14, that the Syro-Palestinian invasion of the coalition of four kings in c. 1870 BC (those kings being): 1. Amraphel, king of Shinar 2. Arioch, king of Ellasar 3. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam 4. Tidal, king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1) saw the end of the Ghassul IV civilisation, which he believes was “Amorite”. Dr. Osgood, a Creationist, has reasonably accepted the standard notion that biblical Shinar was so-called Sumer (southern Mesopotamia) and that Elam was the country immediately to the east of it. However, there has since been a geographical revolution, with even some Creationist scholars looking to locate the land of Shinar further NW. Moreover, in recent times, Royce (Richard) Erickson has brought a ‘tectonic’ shift to ancient geography by re-locating the land of Elam to Anatolia, and Chaldea to NW Syria. I have summarised and referenced his work in my article: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (4) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I myself have proposed some other most radical geographical amendments. See, for example, my article: A new location proposed for Sumer (3) A new location proposed for Sumer | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu All of this needs to be kept in mind as I continue with Dr. Osgood as he explains what he considers to have been “Mesopotamian”: 1. The Mesopotamian complex of Chedor Laomer Ghassul IV corresponds in Mesopotamia to the period known as the Jemdat-Nasr/ Uruk period, otherwise called Protoliterate (because it was during this period that the archaeologists found the first evidence of early writing). Ghassul IV also corresponds to the last Chalcolithic period of Egypt, the Gerzean or pre-Dynastic period (see Figure 7). …. Then a bit further on, Osgood, whilst recapitulating the conclusions that he has reached so far, includes in this archaeological picture the situation of Narmer and Egypt: The Philistine Question …. We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham's 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this. Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.112 Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),10, 13 and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad.12:116 However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan's history, long time periods which are here rejected. The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham's life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilites for the Egyptian king of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:- 1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or 2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20). Of these, the chronological scheme would favour a late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king of northern Egypt, just before the unification under Menes. [End of quotes] Was Narmer, however, an Egyptian pharaoh, or was he actually one of the coalitional invaders? NARMER: EGYPTIAN OR AKKADIAN? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to propose that Narmer was the similarly named Naram, that is, the world-conquering NARAM-SIN OF AKKAD, who claimed to have conquered Egypt (“Magan”) and Ethiopia (“Meluhha”). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There appear to have been several powerful forces in the land at the time of Abra[ha]m: namely, “Pharaoh [of Egypt]” (Genesis 12:15); “Amraphel king of Shinar”; “Chedorlaomer, king of Elam” (14:1); and “Abimelech king of Gerar” (20:2). Could any one of these have been Narmer? To begin with, I have already - {based upon an analysis of the structure of Genesis} - shortened this list by identifying “Pharaoh” as one with “Abimelech”. See e.g. my article: Toledôt Explains Abram’s Pharaoh https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh I then took this a stage further by suggesting, against the common view, that Abraham’s Abimelech was the same ruler as was his son Isaac’s Abimelech. See my: Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac https://www.academia.edu/26240372/Pharaoh_of_Abraham_and_Isaac To qualify for this double honour, my composite biblical ruler (Pharaoh-Abimelech) must have reigned for more than half a century – a phenomenon that I thought ought greatly to facilitate an identification of him in early Egyptian dynastic history. Juggling with all of this, I wrote in the above article: Some consider this Narmer to have been the father of Egypt’s first pharaoh, Menes, whom some equate in turn with pharaoh Hor-Aha (“Horus the Fighter”). It is thought that Hor’s nomen, Min, might have given rise to the classical name Menes. Now, I fully accept Emmet Sweeney’s strong argument for a close convergence in time of Abraham and Menes (http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/70-abr). Most importantly, according to Manetho and Africanus, Hor (Menes) ruled for more than 60 years http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/ pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01menes.h …. My tentative proposal, therefore, is that Abram came to Egypt at the approximate time of Narmer and right near the beginning of the long reign of Hor (Menes), who in his youthfulness had fancied Sarai. However, by the time that Isaac had married Rebekah, the pharaoh (as Abimelech) no longer sought personal involvement with the young woman, but rather commented (Genesis 26:10): ‘What if one of the men had taken Rebekah for himself?’ [End of quote] In dynastic terms, my preference for Pharaoh (= Abimelech) would be as the long-reigning Hor-Aha, who was possibly also the legendary Menes. As for Narmer himself, my tentative view is that he was not an Egyptian (or Philistine) ruler at all, but instead a powerful Akkadian king – he likely being the biblical “Amraphel king of Shinar”. Though Chedorlaomer of Elam would be another potential candidate for this Narmer. Historically, I would be inclined to think that Narmer was the similarly named Naram, that is, the world-conquering NARAM-SIN OF AKKAD, who claimed to have conquered Egypt (“Magan”) and Ethiopia (“Meluhha”). Now, though historians are reluctant to concede that “Magan” and “Meluhha” could possibly, in the case of Naram-Sin and the Akkadians, indicate Egypt and Ethiopia - as they most definitely do in later Assyrian texts - Dr. W. F. Albright is emphatic that Naram-Sin had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920, pp. 89-98). A proposed historical alignment of the millennium-separated (conventionally speaking) Menes (c. 3100 BC) and Naram-Sin (c. 2200 BC) was a major statement by a conventional historian: William Foxwell Albright a conventional scholar who was at times capable of ‘thinking outside the box’ (3) William Foxwell Albright a conventional scholar who was at times capable of 'thinking outside the box' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. what makes most intriguing a possible collision of … Menes with a Shinarian potentate … is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Naram-Sin … had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920, pp. 89-98). In Egyptian dynastic terms, my preference for Pharaoh (= Abimelech) has been the long-reigning pharaoh, Hor-Aha (c. 3100, or 3000 BC, conventional dating). Hor-Aha, in turn, is often considered - based on his nomen - to have been the same as the legendary “Menes”. Phouka, for instance, presents pharaoh Hor-Aha’s “Nomen [as] Mn, Menes, ‘Established’.” http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01me And, given the legendary association of Abraham with Menes, I myself am inclined to think that the Egyptian identity of Abram’s (biblical) “Pharaoh” was Menes. Now, whilst Hor-Aha (Menes) can also loom as a possible candidate for Narmer – {Phouka, though, suggests Narmer instead as a “presumed” father of Hor-Aha} – my preference will be for Narmer as a king of Shinar, rather than a pharaoh of Egypt. Certainly we know from archaeology (above) that Narmer, too, was a contemporary of the patriarch Abram. So what makes most intriguing a possible collision of the semi-legendary “Pharaoh” of Egypt, Menes, with a Shinarian potentate (and possibly the biblical “Amraphel” himself), is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Naram-Sin (of Akkad) had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself. With Naram Sin of Akkad (c. 2200 BC) conventionally dated about a millennium after pharaoh Menes, this was an extremely radical conclusion for a scholar such as Albright to have reached. And Dr. Albright’s opening words reveal that he was completely aware of that fact: “Before proposing a synchronism between the first dynastic king of Egypt and the greatest of early Babylonian kings, one cannot but hesitate, fearful of seeming reckless”. Even more “reckless” will be my further proposed lowering of the historical meeting of Menes and Naram Sin to c. 1870 BC (Dr. John Osgood’s date for Abram). Whilst Dr. Albright naturally adopted the standard view that, with the yet undiscovered city of Akkad thought to lie somewhere in so-called Sumer (southern Babylonia), Naram Sin was essentially a Mesopotamian (“Babylonian”) king, I myself have recently moved away from this in, for example, my article: My road to Akkad (3) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The mighty Sargon of Akkad is generally considered to have been the grandfather of Naram-Sin, though, according to S. Franke, “Naram-Sin [is] occasionally taken to be [Sargon’s] son” (Kings of Akkad: Sargon and Naram-Sin, p. 840: http://www.academia.edu/7801675/Kings_of_Akka Sargon of Akkad, too, has been identified by some as the biblical potentate, Nimrod, a correlation which I think is most likely. Sargon-Nimrod becomes for me a potential candidate for Narmer, the contemporary of Abram? For, we read: “Several … early Judaic sources also assert that the king Amraphel, who wars with Abraham later in Genesis, is none other than Nimrod himself”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod#Traditions_and_legends Dr. Albright was also most controversial - at least in conventional terms - in his firm opinion that the Magan that Naram Sin claimed to have conquered was Egypt. Although Magan and Meluhha are always considered in the neo-Assyro/Babylonian records to indicate, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia, when Naram-Sin uses these terms, he is supposed (for some strange reason) to be referring to, say, Oman, and to a location connecting to the Indus Valley. However, D. Potts, discussing “the booty of Magan” taken by Naram Sin (“Potts 1986 - The booty of Magan”, Oriens Antiquus 25: pp. 271-285), makes the significant observation that: “It is striking that archaeological sites of all periods in the Oman peninsula have yielded an abundance of steatite and chlorite vessels, but practically no alabaster. This fact alone must make one sceptical of an Omani origin for the booty of Magan”. Soundly based, therefore, does Albright’s conviction appear to be, that (op. cit., pp. 89-90): Magan may now be identified beyond reasonable doubt with Egypt, despite the general impression to the contrary, shared by no less an authority than Eduard Meyer. This consensus of opinion is based partly upon erroneous data, and partly upon the sheer inertia of old preconceptions. Dr. Albright’s last phrase, I think, well summarises the moribund Sothic theory of the aforesaid Eduard Meyer. See my article (above), “The Fall of the Sothic Theory”. Dr. Albright had estimated that the “Mani lord of Magan” whom Naram Sin claimed to have smote, could not have been any petty ruler, given that Naram Sin calls him “mighty” (… Mannu dannu šar Magan). Thus he wrote: The fact that king Mannu here is called dannu, ‘mighty’, is very important, as no other of the princes conquered by Narâm-Sin has this honorific title in his inscriptions except the latter himself who, in common with the others of his dynasty, affixes dan(n)u … to his name: Narâm-Sin dan(n)u … Narâm-Sin, the mighty …. The lord of Magan must have been a powerful ruler to receive so illustrious an appellative. [End of quote] The Might and Power of Naram Sin Marc van de Mieroop, following the standard geography, tells us of the vast extent of Naram-Sin’s mighty reach, though typically understated without the inclusion Egypt and Ethiopia (A History of the Ancient Near East. Ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, p. 63): The statements of Sargon and Naram-Sin stand out, however, because of their wide geographical range: these were certainly the greatest military men of the time. Yet, as Naram-Sin had to repeat [sic?] many of his grandfather’s campaigns, it seems these often amounted to no more than raids. The Akkadian kings focused their military attention on the regions of western Iran and northern Syria. In the east they encountered a number of states or cities, such as Elam, Parahshum, and Simurrum …. In the north they entered the upper Euphrates area, reaching the city of Tuttul at the confluence with the Balikh river, the cult center of Dagan that acted as a central focus of northern and western Syria. Mari and Ebla, the most prominent political centers of the region up till then, were destroyed. These places, which had been so close to northern Babylonia in cultural terms during the Early Dynastic period, were now considered to be major enemies. The accounts mention many places even more remote, such as the cedar forests in Lebanon, the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in eastern Turkey, Marhashi, east of Elam, and areas across the "Lower Sea," i.e., the Persian Gulf. These were reached in far-flung forays for the procurement of rare goods, hard stone, wood, or silver. Booty from these areas was brought to Babylonia. Several stone vessels excavated at Ur and Nippur were inscribed with the statement that they were booty from Magan, for instance. It seems unlikely, however, that these areas were subsequently controlled by Akkad. Rather, the raids aimed at monopolizing access to trade routes. Ships from overseas areas, such as Dilmun (Bahrain), Magan … and Meluhha … are said to have moored in Akkad's harbor. So when Naram-Sin claims that he conquered Magan, it seems more likely that he used his military might to guarantee access to its resources. Local circumstances determined to a great extent how Akkadian presence was maintained in this wide region. We observe a variety of interactions. At Susa in western Iran, for instance, the language of bureaucracy became Akkadian and the local rulers were referred to with Sumerian titles, such as governor (ensi) or general (shagina), which imply a full dependence on the kings of Akkad. On the other hand, the rulers of Susa retained some degree of authority. Naram-Sin concluded a treaty with an unnamed ruler or high official of Susa, a document written in the Elamite language. The agreement specified no submission to Akkad, only a promise by the Elamite to regard Naram-Sin's enemies as his own. The autonomy of Elam should not be underestimated. In Syria the Akkadians established footholds in certain existing centers, indicated by the presence of military garrisons or trade representatives there. At … modern Tell Brak … a monumental building was erected with bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Sin. …. [End of quote] So mighty did Naram Sin become that he even began to think of himself as a divine being (ibid., pp. 64-65): Already under Sargon the traditional title "King of Kish" came to mean "king of the world," using the similarity of the name of the city of Kish and the Akkadian term for "the entire inhabited world," kishshatum. Naram-Sin took such self-glorification to an extreme. First, he introduced a new title, "king of the four corners (of the universe)." His military successes led him to proclaim an even more exalted status. After crushing a major rebellion in the entirety of Babylonia, he took the unprecedented step in Mesopotamian history of making himself a god. A unique inscription found in northern Iraq, but not necessarily put there in Naram-Sin's days, describes this act as requested by the citizens of the capital: ‘Naram-Sin, the strong one, king of Akkad: when the four corners (of the universe) together were hostile to him, he remained victorious in nine battles in a single year because of the love Ishtar bore for him, and he took captive those kings who had risen against him. Because he had been able to preserve his city in the time of crisis, (the inhabitants of) his city asked from Ishtar in Eanna, from Enlil in Nippur, from Dagan in Turrul, from Ninhursaga in Kesh, from Enki in Eridu, from Sin in Ur, from Shamash in Sippar, and from Nergal in Kutha, that he be the god of their city Akkad, and they built a temple for him in the midst of Akkad.' Henceforth his name appeared in texts preceded by the cuneiform sign derived from the image of a star, which functioned as the indicator that what followed was the name of a god. Conceptually, this placed him in a very different realm from previous rulers. Earlier kings had been offered a cult after death, but Naram-Sin received one while he was still alive. The court initiated a process of royal glorification through other means as well. Perhaps the most visible of these efforts was in the arts. Stylistic changes originating in the reign of Sargon culminated in amazing refinement, naturalism, and spontaneity during Naram-Sin's reign. Most impressive is his victory stele, a 2-meter-high stone carved in bas-relief depicting the king leading his troops in battle in the mountains. Naram-Sin dominates the composition in a pose of grandeur, and is much larger than those surrounding him. Wearing the insignia of royalty - bow, arrow, and battle ax - he is also crowned with the symbol of divinity, the horned helmet. [See photo above] [End of quote] Archaeology Sargon of Akkad and his presumed son, Manishtusu, refer to “Magan”. The words quoted above about “monopolizing access to trade routes”, and using “military might to guarantee access to [Magan’s] resources”, rather than perhaps overt conquest, may apply in each of their cases. But in the case of Naram Sin (and also of the biblical “Amraphel”, whether or not he equates with Naram Sin), we know that a physical conquest was actually involved. What archaeological evidence do we have for that? Dr John Osgood has, in “The Times of Abraham” (http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham), archaeologically aligned as follows the invasion of the Shinarian coalition with the Syro-Palestine of Abram’s day: In summary, Abraham entered the land of Canaan at approximately 1875 B.C. In his days there was a settlement of Amorites in En-gedi, identified here with the Ghassul IV people. This civilization was ended by the attack of four Mesopotamian monarchs in a combined confederation of nations, here placed in the Uruk-Jemdat Nasr period in Mesopotamia [sic]. They were a significant force in ending the Chalcolithic of Palestine as we understand it archaeologically, and Abraham and his army were a significant force in ending the Jemdat Nasr domination of Mesopotamia, and thus the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia, by their attack on these four Mesopotamian monarchs as they were returning home. Dr. Osgood then goes on to tie up all of this with Egypt and its expansion into southern Palestine, which event I think may, however, have occurred after, rather than just prior to, the invasion of the eastern kings, with Egypt (Pharaoh-Abimelech) now filling up the vacuum left by the demise of Narmer. Egypt was just about to enter its great dynastic period, and was beginning to consolidate into a united kingdom, when from northern Egypt a surge of Egyptian stock, including the Philistines, moved north into southern Palestine to settle, as well as to trade, identified in a number of sites in that region (most notably in the strata of Tel Areini, Level VI then V) as the Philistines with whom Abraham was able to talk face to face. Now I fully accept Dr. Osgood’s concluding statement: The biblical narrative demands a redating of the whole of ancient history, as currently recognised, by something like a one thousand year shortening - a formidable claim and a formidable investigation, but one that must be undertaken.