Egypt’s so-called Sixth Dynasty as an example of kinglist repetitions

by Damien F. Mackey The effect of Dr. John Osgood’s revision of ancient Egypt will be to have Joseph’s Famine in Abram (Abraham’s) Famine era, and Joseph himself in the era of Moses. Consequently, Moses gets squeezed out. Revisionist historians, whilst being keenly aware of the fact that the biblical chronology cannot be fitted to the enlarged conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, on the one hand, are nonetheless falling into the trap of, on the other hand, imagining that they must account for each and every ruler in the over-inflated Egyptian king lists. Regarding my first point here, Dr. John Osgood has nicely summed up his view, and that of others – which would also be my view – in the Preliminary Comments to his article: exodus_egyptian-history_osgood_reply2.pdf “The Place of the Exodus in Egyptian History: Reply #2” (Answers Research Journal 15 (2022): p. 129): Let me point out that Porter, Habermehl, and myself hold that the scriptural chronology is basic to understanding the history of the ancient world. We all hold that the presently accepted secular history/chronology, based on a particular interpretation of Egyptian records in no way represents the real timeline of the ancient world. All of us hold to a sincere attempt to find a satisfactory correlation. But as with all such complex tasks, there will obviously be differences of opinion, which will be open for reasonable criticism. …. [End of quote] While Dr. Osgood will progress from there, basing himself upon the helpful research of Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971), chronologically to fold – though not to merge – Egyptian kingdoms (Old and Middle), he will not, in his revision, take the less adventurous, but vitally necessary, step of merging dynasties and rulers. He continues on from those Preliminary Comments, with an explanation of his and Courville’s Old-Middle reform: One factor that has emerged, however, is the fact that quotes are made, I believe in sincerity, without adequately understanding the original author’s presentation. And this factor has clearly emerged in the foregoing presentations, both by Habermehl (2022) and Porter (2022). Both Courville (1971) and my own presentations have clearly not been fully grasped, as I will point out. First, Habermehl (2022) has suggested that my placement of the Exodus on the Egyptian secular timeline dates to 2150 BC. That is not so. On that timeline it fits at approximately 1750 BC, that is, just after the secular date for the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty. The correct date that I adhere to is the biblical one, reasoned at 1446 BC. Second, while I hold to, at least a partial parallel rule of the Sixth Dynasty with the Twelfth Dynasty, at no stage have I expressed the sentiments that the Exodus occurred at the fall of the Sixth Dynasty, but rather the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty, which was the dominant one of the period. Parallel Dynasties Habermehl (2022) appears to show some exasperation with Courville’s suggestion of parallel dynasties, but such is misplaced, as even at least one secular Egyptologist accepts that this was the case. I quote Olga Tufnell (1984, 155), re the Turin Canon: There is one point about the composition of the Turin Canon—indeed all ancient king-lists—which needs emphasizing since it plays a significant role in the present chapter. Dynasties or other groupings of kings are usually listed as if in a single chronological sequence so that exterior controls are required in order to define contemporary, competing or overlapping dynasties. Precisely this situation is evident in the Turin Canon in both the First and Second Intermediate periods. I have pointed out (Osgood 2020) that Manetho’s king-list is arranged sequentially on a geographic basis, so that widespread overlapping is still consistent with that author’s arrangement. Parallelisms should not surprise anyone. When Ethiopian Piye invaded Egypt he found at least 20 kings, as did Assurbanipal in 664 BC. Now it is clear that Habermehl (2022) has mistaken Courville’s arrangement of the Archaic period, having Courville (1971) claiming a parallel arrangement of Second and Third Dynasties. That is not correct. Courville’s arrangement is a parallelism of the Third Dynasty with the end period of the First Dynasty. Moreover, he devotes considerable space to detail that arrangement. Courville (1971) points to a king of the First Dynasty, that is only in Manetho’s king-list, and not the others, with a Greek name “Kenkenes”. He makes a considerable case for this person being Sekhem Ka, Kha-Sekhem and later Kha-Sekhemui, who he suggests is the founder of the Third Dynasty during the time just before Uadji (Uenephres) of the First Dynasty, after concluding the religious wars and setting up an administration in Memphis parallel with the First Dynasty. Such would make the famine of Uadji the same famine as that of Djoser, and the same as the famine of Abraham’s day. Moreover, it would bring Kha-Sekhemui into close timeline with Djoser. He therefore places Kha Sekhemui, not as the last of the Second Dynasty as suggested in the sequential arrangement, but the first of the kings of the Third Dynasty, parallel to the later First Dynasty. In contrast, these were arranged by Manetho sequentially. Habermehl (2022) rightly points to the idea that we both accept a contemporaneity of the Sixth Dynasty and Twelfth Dynasty but mistakes my arrangement. First, the Sixth Dynasty was not only in the south, as it was centred in Memphis. It almost certainly had a subordinate rule, but not necessarily without a degree of independence. Second, as a result of the findings at the heavily trade-related city of Byblos, it is clear that the reign of the last significant king of the Sixth Dynasty, Piopi II, was over by the time of Amenemhet III of the Twelfth Dynasty, and that the Sixth Dynasty thus almost certainly began slightly before the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. The next and following kings at Memphis were some distantly related kings to the Twelfth Dynasty. They represented the early Thirteenth Dynasty as a sub-administration at Memphis, during the last few years of the Twelfth Dynasty. I have a paper in preparation outlining this early Thirteenth Dynasty in some detail. [End of quotes] In the space of a few paragraphs here, Dr. Osgood has, unwittingly to be sure, managed (my opinion, only) to undo the force of the noble sentiments as expressed in his Preliminary Comments, “to … attempt to find a satisfactory correlation”, whilst wisely allowing that “there will obviously be differences of opinion, which will be open for reasonable criticism”. For, the effect of Dr. John Osgood’s revision of ancient Egypt will be to have Joseph’s Famine in Abram (Abraham’s) Famine era, and Joseph himself in the era of Moses. Consequently, Moses gets squeezed out. Chaldean lists set the pattern The much later Chaldean king lists can provide us with a working model of how I think one ought to proceed. In my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (2) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences I argued that the Chaldean succession (I also discussed the Assyrian lists) can by no means be fitted to the clear biblical evidence, for example from the Book of Daniel. Daniel 5 has (i) Nebuchednezzar the Great (v. 18), followed by his ill-fated son (ii) Belshazzar (v. 22), followed by (iii) Darius the Mede (v. 31). Bang, bang, bang - no ifs and buts, no gaps! The over-inflated Chaldean lists will not allow for a meeting between “secular history” (Dr. John Osgood’s description) and the biblical facts. Here is the too lengthy version of the Chaldean list with which the text books ‘gift’ us: Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar [II] Evil-Merodach Neriglissar Labashi-Marduk Nabonidus Let us unpack this. Biblically, there should be, not six, but only three kings – and so, in actual fact, there are. Firstly, as pointed out in my article (above), there is the need for the merging – not just overlapping as Drs. Courville and Osgood would have it – of kingdoms (Middle and Neo in the case of Assyro-Babylonia). Thus, Nebuchednezzar so-called II was the same as Nebuchednezzar so called I (the same goes for Merodach-baladan I and II, and for the Elamite Shutrukids, and so on): The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (3) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar Nebuchednezzar has been triplicated in the Chaldean list: Nabopolassar = Nebuchadnezzar [II] = Nabonidus The assassinated Belshazzar, who should follow in the list after Nabonidus, his father, has been duplicated: Evil-Merodach = Labashi-Marduk The one who succeeded him, Neriglissar, Nebuchednezzar’s long-serving high official, Nergal-sharezer (cf. Jeremiah 39:3), is the 62-year old Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:31). It is well known that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. And Baruch 1:11, 12 reveals Belshazzar to have been the son, likewise, of Nebuchednezzar. Evidence that Evil-Merodach (Amēl-Marduk), prior to his rule – and exactly like Belshazzar – had to take control of Babylon while his father was indisposed/absent, can be read in my article: Book of Daniel sorts out Babylonian kings (7) Book of Daniel sorts out Babylonian kings Consequently, I have no doubts whatsoever that Evil-Merodach (Amēl-Marduk), the son of Nebuchednezzar, was the very same person as Belshazzar, the son of Nabonidus. Egyptian king lists must likewise be shortened Now our biblically compatible matrix as presented for the Chaldeans and Medo-Persia shows precisely what must be done with Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty, as well as the dynasty with which Drs. Courville and Osgood have approximately aligned it, the mighty Twelfth Dynasty. As radical, indeed, as is the revision of Dr. Courville, of Dr. Osgood, neither has gone far enough with it (my simple opinion). The reality is even more radical yet! As with the Chaldean (and Medo-Persian) lists, the names given in Egypt’s so-called Sixth Dynasty, in its so-called Twelfth Dynasty, need to be at least halved in number. But that is not all. Instead of the Sixth and the Twelfth being only partly over-lapping, as according to what Dr. Osgood has written above, referencing Olga Tufnell (“competing or overlapping dynasties”): “… the Sixth Dynasty thus almost certainly began slightly before the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty”, the Sixth Dynasty needs to be actually recognised as the Twelfth Dynasty. This Sixth-Twelfth is the very dynasty of the Egyptianised Moses. {I am focussing only on these dynasties here, but a full revision of the life of Moses needs also to include the Fourth, Fifth, and, partly, the Thirteenth, dynasties}. If I am right in saying this – and I believe the evidence to be overwhelming – then, as in the case of the Book of Daniel for the Chaldeans, and following Dr. Osgood’s principle that “… the presently accepted secular history/chronology, based on a particular interpretation of Egyptian records in no way represents the real timeline of the ancient world”, the Exodus account of the life of Moses in Egypt and Midian will determine the number of major pharaohs involved. Biblically and traditionally there were only two kings (plus a short-reigning female), after which dynastic termination there will emerge the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The first Pharaoh is the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, who began the Oppression of Israel - the infanticide king (vv. 15-18). The second Pharaoh is the one who sought the life of Moses, who thereupon escaped to the land of Midian (2:15). During that time the dynasty came to an end (4:19), with a female ruler concluding it. Let us unpack this. The Sixth Dynasty is given conventionally as: Teti Userkare Pepi I Merenre I Pepi II Merenre II Nitocris The Twelfth Dynasty is given conventionally as: Amenemes I Sesostris I Amenemes II Sesostris II Sesostris III Amenemes III Amenemes IV Sobekneferure The repetition of names in these two lists, especially the Twelfth Dynasty one, is far more apparent than was the case with the Chaldeans, in which we had a triplication. But let us begin with a strong link, that will enable us to span the conventional period from Teti (d. c. 2330 BC) to Amenemes (Amenemhat) I (c. 1990 BC) – approximately three and a half centuries apart. Teti was Amenemes, the first Oppressor king of Israel (Exodus 1:8), during whose reign Moses was born. Teti Sehetepibre was Amenemes Sehetepibre. Teti Sehetep-tawy was Amenemes Sehetep-tawy. Previously, I have written on this comparison, noting that Egyptologist Nicolas Grimal had also pointed it out (A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994): {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/ Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}. Grimal notes the likenesses: “[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]. Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. Merenre is also thought to have been assassinated, which surely connects him to Teti/ Amenemes. He is to be found wandering through the king list, as Merenre I and II, just like Nebuchednezzar has been spread through the Chaldean list. In The Story of Sinuhe, the somewhat Moses-like hero has to flee Egypt after a possible assassination of Amenemes, Sinuhe now being in mortal fear of Sesostris I. In terms of the Twelfth Dynasty, this, the passing of Amenemes and the rise of Sesostris so-called I, is close to the very point of time when Moses flees to Midian. Dr. Osgood, though, by following Dr. Courville in identifying Joseph as the great Vizier of Sesostris I, Mentuhotep (see below) – and not as Imhotep of the Third Dynasty at the time of a seven-year Famine (Djoser’s), whom other revisionists, including I, firmly favour for Joseph – has effectively bundled out the historical Moses and has also situated the actual Joseph Famine right back at the time of Abram (Abraham). Thus he has written on Joseph’s Famine (“The Place of Dynasty VI and of the Exodus in Egyptian History: Further Comments”, Answers Research Journal 17 (2024), p. 413): “…. I have argued elsewhere (Osgood 2020, 153–190), in agreement with Courville (1971), that the Twelfth Dynasty was the Dynasty of Israel’s sojourn, and the collapse and Exodus occurred in the early Thirteenth Dynasty. No other collapse period in Egypt remotely resembles that event. Joseph’s famine on this revision then is the famine that lasted for many years starting in Sesostris I’s twenty-fifth year (1663 B.C.). It was prepared for in advance as mentioned under vizier Mentuhotep in Sesostris I’s eighteenth year, 7 years before (Grajetzki 2006, 42). This famine was also mentioned by the Upper Egyptian official/nomarch Ameny, known to be a contemporary, a famine which he also claimed to have prepared for in advance”. I fully agree with Dr. Osgood insofar as he writes: “… that the Twelfth Dynasty was the Dynasty of Israel’s sojourn, and the collapse and Exodus occurred in the early Thirteenth Dynasty. No other collapse period in Egypt remotely resembles that event”. He is able to reach this conclusion, quite amazingly, even though he has Joseph and the 7-year Famine pitched as late as the reign of Sesostris I, because he has taken the Twelfth Dynasty at its over-inflated face value. For, as I said right at the beginning: “Revisionist historians …. imagining that they must account for each and every ruler in the over-inflated Egyptian king lists”. There was nothing like a 7-year Famine at the time of the mighty Sesostris so-called I, who, in my scheme, that greatly shortens the Twelfth Dynasty, to: First Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 1:8) Amenemes I-IV Second Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 2:15) Sesostris I-III Female Pharaoh Sobekneferure equates to the second Pharaoh who oppressed Israel: Pharaoh Senusret I “Most records indicate Senusret’s [Sesostris’s] years as pharaoh as peaceful and prosperous for Egypt, despite indications of a possible famine during his rule. Trade flourished and provided Egyptians with cedar, ivory and other foreign goods. The many golden artifacts attributed to his reign reveal his rule to be one of wealth and affluence”. There is no compelling evidence to support any lengthy preparation for an impending disaster by the Twelfth Dynasty Vizier Mentuhotep. There is, on the other hand, massive evidence to show that Third Dynasty Egypt underwent enormous infrastructural development in preparation for the Famine: dams, waterways, canals, great grain enclosures such as Gisr el Mudir, etc., etc. Regarding all of this, see e.g. my article: Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine (10) Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine And it all becomes even more greatly amplified once the Third Dynasty is coupled with its so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom partner, the Eleventh Dynasty – Imhotep (Joseph’s) pharaoh, Horus Netjerikhet, being the same as Horus Netjerihedjet (Mentuhotep II) of the Eleventh Dynasty. Nor does it stop there. The insignificant famine for Egypt (but not for Syro-Palestine) at the time of Abram (Abraham) cannot be the “great famine” (Manetho) at the time of Horus Uadji/Djet, as Dr. Osgood would have it. For the First Dynasty’s Horus Djet was the very same ruler as the Eleventh Dynasty’s Horus Netjerihed-djet at the time of Joseph’s long-enduring Famine: Taking a Djet to Djoser’s Famine (12) Taking a Djet to Djoser's Famine And, regarding Dr. Osgood’s Sixth and Twelfth correlation, while I would agree with his approximate date for the Exodus: “The correct date that I adhere to is the biblical one, reasoned at 1446 BC”, I would disagree with his follow-up to this: “Second, while I hold to, at least a partial parallel rule of the Sixth Dynasty with the Twelfth Dynasty, at no stage have I expressed the sentiments that the Exodus occurred at the fall of the Sixth Dynasty, but rather the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty, which was the dominant one of the period”. For, (so I believe) the Sixth and Twelfth were simply one and the same. Moses in the Sixth Dynasty Putting the Sixth Dynasty into its proper Mosaïc context, we have the founding Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus (1:8), Teti, who equates to Amenemes - and recurring in Merenre I and II. At the other end, we learned that this dynasty terminated, just like the Twelfth did, with a female ruler (Pharaoh). In between there is Pepi I and II, from whom Moses would flee. Thus the conventional arrangement: Teti Userkare Pepi I Merenre I Pepi II Merenre II Nitocris ought now to become: First Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 1:8) Teti (like Amenemes) = Merenre I and II Second Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 2:15) Pepi I and II Female Pharaoh Nitocris (= Sobekneferure) That leaves only the short-reigning Userkare. Well, this Userkare was Moses, who, as according to tradition, ruled, then abdicated. The jealous Pepi would later write Userkare out of history with a damnatio memoriae, assigning his kingship to the “desert” (Midian): Userkare - Wikipedia “Although Userkare is attested in some historical sources, he is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and who usually report the names of the kings whom they served. The figures of some high officials of the period have been deliberately chiselled out in their tombs and their titles altered, for instance the word "king" being replaced by that of "desert". Egyptologists thus suspect that Pepi might have tried to erase all memory of Userkare from official records, monuments, tombs and artefacts. The Egyptian priest Manetho, who wrote a history of Egypt nearly 1,700 years later in the 3rd century BC, stated that Userkare's predecessor Teti was murdered, but is otherwise silent concerning Userkare. Consequently, some Egyptologists consider Userkare to have been a short-lived usurper to the throne. Alternatively, he may have been a legitimate short-lived ruler, younger brother to a more ambitious Pepi I, or a regent who ruled during Pepi I's childhood before his accession to the throne”. Moses according to Tradition What gives power to this seemingly insane (some would more gently call it “fiction”) revision that I am proposing here – and it is something that I do not find interwoven into other revisions – is that two names handed down to us by the Jewish historian, Artapanus of Alexandria (C2nd BC), weave like golden threads through my revision. These names are “Merris”, the daughter of Pharaoh who drew baby Moses from the water (cf. Exodus 2:5-10), and “Chenephres”, who married her. He, who became hostile to Moses out of jealousy, can be found right through my revision for Moses (from the Fourth to the Thirteenth dynasties), under variations of the Greek name, “Chenephres” (including the inverted version of it, Neferkare). For example, we find him as the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh, Chephren (Khafre), who marries a Meresankh (= “Merris”). Yes, the Hebrew slaves played a big part in building the pyramids (as per Josephus), the Giza pyramids and other Old Kingdom and Twelfth Dynasty pyramids. Our “Chenephres” re-emerges again as the Sixth Dynasty pharaoh, Pepi Neferkare, who damned his predecessor, Userkare (Moses). Pepi married “Merris” (= Ankhesenmerire, an inversion of Meresankh). Again, “Chenephres” is the Sesostris I Neferkare from whom Sinuhe fled. {N. Grimal (op. cit., p. 164) gives Neferkare as his coronation name} And, in the Thirteenth Dynasty, “Chenephres” is probably the Sobek (Crocodile) ruler (like the female Sobek-neferure), Sobekhotep Khaneferre: Egyptian Pharaohs : Second Intermediate Period : Dynasty 13 : Sobekhotep IV “Neferkhare "The appearance of Re is beautiful", sometimes Khaneferre, "Beautiful is the Appearance of Re".”