Çatalhöyük – don’t fence me in

“The Turkish government did not stop there, either. After banning Mellaart, officials erected a huge fence around Çatalhöyük. And no one else dug there for the next thirty years. Unfortunately, they also left the site exposed to the elements. Before long, rain and heat destroyed several priceless murals. And mudbrick homes that had lasted nine thousand years crumbled into dust in months. All because of James Mellaart had gotten into a spat with the Turkish government”. ________________________________________ October 24, 2023 People & Politics If Indiana Jones Were a Swindler

James Mellaart discovered one of the most important archaeological sites ever. But his lust for treasure led him to lose it all. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/disappearing-pod/if-indiana-jones-were-a-swindler/ Her name was Anna. And as soon as she entered the train car, James Mellaart was bewitched. It wasn’t because she was beautiful, although she was. It was the bracelet on her wrist, gleaming gold. His trained eye instantly recognized it as a treasure from the days of ancient Troy. It was spring 1958, and the 33-year-old Mellaart was traveling through western Turkey. He was a plump man with thick glasses, a no-name archaeologist from England. The discoveries that would make him famous were still years away. But he burned with ambition. His obsession in life was Turkey. He had moved to Turkey years earlier, and had married a Turkish archaeologist. He was especially obsessed with a region of central Turkey called Anatolia, or Asia Minor. Mellaart wanted to prove that Anatolia had a history every bit as glorious as Rome or Greece. So as soon as he saw the Anatolian bracelet on the arm of the woman in the train, he was transfixed. He screwed up his courage and introduced himself. Her name was Anna Papastrati. She spoke English well. She told him she lived in Izmir, a city on the Turkish coast. As Mellaart peppered her with questions, she revealed that she had a whole horde of similar treasures at her house. Did Mellaart want to see them? Of course he did. But, Mellaart had no place to stay in Izmir. Anna, though, offered to put him up for the night at her house. However excited, Mellaart hesitated. His wife would be furious about him sleeping at a strange woman’s home. But his lust for archaeology got the better of him. Besides, it was just one night. He said yes. He had no idea that this one night would haunt him for the rest of his life. In Izmir, Mellaart and Anna took the ferry to her home. But before they examined the artifacts, Anna insisted on cooking him dinner. They dined overlooking the water, under candlelight, with a bottle of wine. Afterward, Anna wanted to linger at the table and chat, but Mellaart insisted on seeing the artifacts. They did not disappoint. There were gold earrings, ivory combs, jeweled daggers, necklaces with turquoise and amber. Mellaart recognized them as belonging to the so-called Yortan culture, which thrived thousands of years ago near the fabled city of Troy. Anna said the treasures came from a place called Dorak, a town south of Istanbul. They’d been unearthed during a war in the 1920s. But she dodged Mellaart’s questions about how she’d come to obtain them. Mellaart did not press her. And he soon forgot such questions amid his excitement over the treasures. He spent the whole next day studying them. When night fell, Anna encouraged him to stay another night. So he did. The same thing happened the next day and the next. In all he spent a week in Anna’s home, fawning over the treasures while she fawned over him. Mellaart made detailed drawings of the artifacts, but Anna forbid him from taking photographs. Instead, she promised to mail him some photos. This seemed odd, but Mellaart agreed and gave her his address. And upon finally leaving her home, he slyly noted her address—217 Kazim Dirik Street. Then Mellaart went back home to his wife, and waited for Anna’s letter. A whole month passed, then another. Summer arrived and drifted into fall. But still no letter from Anna. Mellaart began to fret like a jilted lover. Why hadn’t she written yet? Did he do something wrong? He finally could not take it anymore, and wrote to her instead. No answer came. Meanwhile, Mellaart was busy doing other archaeology. In fact, that November, he made a discovery that would catapult him to worldwide fame. It involved a site called Çatalhöyük in south-central Turkey. It’s a 9000-year-old city, perhaps the first true city in history. And beyond its incredible age, other things made the place special, too. People in Çatalhöyük lived in mudbrick homes that stood just inches apart. There were no streets, no parks, no open spaces. People got from place to place by walking across each other’s roofs. The houses didn’t have doors, either. People entered and exited their homes on ladders through skylights. Çatalhöyük was a sky city. The insides of the homes were special, too. People painted spectacular murals on the walls—of bulls, vultures, leopards. They crafted figurines of animals and goddesses as well. Most fascinating of all, the people of Çatalhöyük buried their dead inside their homes—and did so right in the dirt beneath their beds. Every night you would tuck in to sleep with the skeletons of grandma and grandpa and your crazy uncle just inches beneath your head. When Mellaart discovered Çatalhöyük in 1958, the city was buried beneath a giant mound of dirt sixty feet tall, with weeds covering it. But even during preliminary digs, he could tell Çatalhöyük was special—the murals, the skeletons in the bedroom, the people walking on the roofs. Who wouldn’t be enchanted? Even while making these spectacular discoveries, however, Mellaart’s heart was still elsewhere—on the Dorak treasures. In between digs at Çatalhöyük, he spent many empty months pining over the treasures and writing Anna letters that she never answered. Until one day, finally, she wrote back. Mellaart tore open the letter, his heart pounding. But it was disappointingly brief. And it contained none of the promised photographs. Anna finished by saying, “You were always more interested in these old things than in me.” It was signed “Love, Anna.” Mellaart never heard from Anna again. Baffled and heartbroken, he finally gave up writing her. Then he published a short article about the treasures in a British magazine, along with his drawings. And he thought that would be that, but the article caused a big stir among archaeologists. What amazing treasures! Unfortunately, it also landed Mellaart in a world of trouble. You see, the Turkish government was quite sensitive about its ancient artifacts, for good reason. Centuries of looting and smuggling had robbed Turkey of much of its cultural history. There were strict laws there about reporting all archaeological finds. But no one had reported the Dorak artifacts. They were undocumented, and government officials were furious to find out about them in a magazine. Who was this Anna anyway? How did she get her hands on such treasures? The officials demanded that Mellaart turn Anna in. Having no other choice, he gave them her address—217 Kazim Dirik Street in Izmir. But upon arriving in Izmir, the officials noticed something strange. 217 Kazim Dirik Street was a shopping center. No one lived there. There were no houses or apartments nearby, either. Something was not adding up. And that’s when Turkish officials began to suspect that James Mellaart was not telling them everything he knew. When they could not find Anna, Turkish officials turned their investigation—and anger—toward James Mellaart. They accused him of working with smugglers. They figured the point of the magazine article was to hype the Dorak treasures and drive up their price. Then, after the smugglers sold the goods, Mellaart would take a cut of the profits. When confronted with these charges, Mellaart denied everything. In fact, privately, he was starting to suspect that Anna was the one working with smugglers. Had it really been a coincidence that he’d met her on the train? And would she really be wearing ancient treasures on vacation? Perhaps she was a plant. Perhaps she had deliberately worn the bracelet to grab his attention. Then, after he confirmed the goods as authentic, she had disappeared and handed them to smugglers to sell. Mellaart confessed his suspicions to the Turkish authorities. But they did not buy his theory. It seemed too convenient. Plus, after digging around a bit, they caught Mellaart in a few lies about Anna. One lie involved when he had met Anna. Sometimes he said 1952, sometimes 1958. Mellaart protested that he was just trying to avoid troubles with his wife. He hadn’t been married in 1952, and he sometimes gave that earlier date to avoid questions about him shacking up with another woman. However understandable, the lies undermined Mellaart’s credibility. The Turkish newspapers were soon buzzing with stories about the fat greedy foreigner who was stealing Turkey’s heritage. Now, all this while, Mellaart continued to dig at Çatalhöyük, the ancient city where people walked across the roofs and buried their family members beneath their beds. In fact, his discoveries there won him worldwide renown. But as a foreigner, Mellaart needed permits to dig in Turkey. And as the Dorak scandal grew, Turkish officials began threatening those permits. In 1964, they denied the permits completely, meaning Mellaart couldn’t excavate that year. Mellaart was furious. He threw an absolute fit. By calling in some favors, he managed to win his permits back in 1965. But it was a short-lived victory. Because another scandal soon erupted. For the excavation at Çatalhöyük, Mellaart had hired diggers from local villages in Turkey. Whenever the workers found something special—like a leopard statue, or a goddess figurine—they told Mellaart. Mellaart then reported every item to the Turkish government—or at least every item he knew about. One day in mid-summer 1965, a government official visited an antique shop twenty miles from Çatalhöyük. On the shelves there, she was shocked to see three figurines from Çatalhöyük for sale. All illegally. She seized the figurines and demanded that the shopkeeper tell her where he got them. He claimed that diggers from the site had just walked in one day and sold them. So the official grabbed the shopkeeper by the ear, and dragged him to the dig site to confront Mellaart. Upon seeing the figurines, Mellaart’s heart sank. They were undoubtedly from Çatalhöyük. But he denied all knowledge of wrongdoing. He led the shopkeeper over to his workers. The shopkeep quickly fingered four of them as the culprits. A heated argument erupted, with accusations flying back and forth. The workers denied everything. And they were so angry about being called thieves that they quit on the spot—as did all the other workers. Mellaart now faced disaster. Although innocent, his name would be sullied by this scandal, since it took place on his dig site. Equally bad, without diggers, work on the site pretty much stopped for the year. And it soon became clear that the digging would not resume anytime soon. Mellaart tried to apply for more permits the next year. The government denied them—and told Mellaart he’d be lucky to ever work in Turkey again. Meanwhile, there was a twist with the saga of the Dorak treasures. The British tabloids had been following the Mellaart scandal avidly. And in 1966, two reporters went down to Turkey to dig up some dirt. What they found shocked them. They visited Izmir, the city where Anna lived. They began searching for her at 217 Kazim Dirik street. To their bafflement, they realized that there were two streets with that name in the same city. One was indeed a shopping center. But the other was a residence. They raced right over. Had they found Anna at last? That’s when the story swerved again. The reporters learned that, a few years earlier, the government had renamed several local roads. The government was trying to bring some order to the city’s chaotic street plan. And while they were at it, officials renumbered all the houses as well. The bottom line was, between the renaming and renumbering—as well as the general turnover of people moving in and out of the neighborhood—no one quite remembered where the old 217 Kazim Dirik Street was. The journalists searched and searched, but never found a trace of Anna. The development left Mellaart in agony. It was partial vindication—proof, he said, that the Turkish government had botched its original investigation. But it fell short of the exoneration he needed. Without Anna, he could not prove his innocence. As a result, the Turkish government retained the upper hand. The government soon banned Mellaart from Çatalhöyük for life. Mellaart had discovered Çatalhöyük—one of the most important archaeological sites in history. But he never set eyes on it again. The Turkish government did not stop there, either. After banning Mellaart, officials erected a huge fence around Çatalhöyük. And no one else dug there for the next thirty years. Unfortunately, they also left the site exposed to the elements. Before long, rain and heat destroyed several priceless murals. And mudbrick homes that had lasted nine thousand years crumbled into dust in months. All because of James Mellaart had gotten into a spat with the Turkish government. In the end, the Dorak treasures never turned up. Like Anna, they vanished. And overall it’s probably impossible to say what really happened in the Dorak affair. The simplest explanation is that Mellaart just made the whole thing up. Or perhaps the treasures did exist, but Mellaart changed key details about them or about Anna, perhaps to protect her. For his part, Mellaart went to his death in 2012 claiming he had been framed. And many archaeologists who knew him still believe he’s innocent. But other clues say perhaps not. As of now, the only tangible evidence that Anna existed is the letter she sent to Mellaart saying she loved him. But there are some fishy details about that letter. For one thing, in the letter’s address line, Anna misspelled “Kazim Dirik” Street. Which seems a bit suspicious, considering she lived there. And that’s not all. Anna dated the letter as 10-dash-18, October 18th. But instead of the numeral 1, there’s a capital I in the 10 and the 18. Read literally, it says I-zero and I-eight. Which is weird. Who beyond the Romans would use an I for a 1 like that? Well, James Mellaart’s wife did. For whatever reason, when his wife wrote letters to people, she usually typed a capital I instead of a 1. And is it really a coincidence that Anna supposedly did as well? More likely, Mellaart’s wife was in on the hoax. How ironic if, after all that smoke from Mellaart about his wife getting angry over Anna, his wife was maybe helping him perpetrate a fraud the whole time. Even worse for Mellaart, after his death, his family found something disturbing. His office was full of fake, supposedly ancient artifacts from Anatolia. It’s not clear why Mellaart was making them. Perhaps to sell. Or, perhaps he was forging them for scholarly reasons. Again, he was obsessed with proving that Anatolia had a glorious past. So perhaps he invented fraudulent evidence to support that theory. Regardless, this discovery further undermined an already teetering reputation. And the worst part is, it was all so unnecessary. The incident with Anna supposedly took place in spring 1958. And later that same year, Mellaart discovered Çatalhöyük—which proved beyond all doubt that Anatolia did have a glorious past, a past every bit as grand as Rome or Greece. But because of his alleged misdeeds, Mellaart was banned from exploring that past. In the end, his invented treasures cost him the real ones.

Abram (Abraham), Egypt, the Four Kings

by Damien F. Mackey Abraham was the first of the Hebrew patriarchs and a figure highly revered by the three great monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. His name contains the “Father” element both in its original short form, Abram (אַבְרָם), “Exalted Father”, and after the Lord had changed it, to Abraham (אַבְרָהָם), “Father of many nations”, as explained in Genesis 17:4-5: ‘Behold, I make my covenant with thee, and thou shalt be a Father of many nations. Neither shall thy name anymore be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham …’. Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees. This was not the Ur in southern (Iraq) Mesopotamia, but Ur (or Urfa) near Haran (the Ebla tablets tell of “Ur in Haran”), not far from where Noah’s Ark had landed on the mountain Karaca Dağ. Pope Francis actually went to Ur in Iraq in 2021, as John Paul II had intended to do: https://aleteia.org/2024/09/01/pope-francis-crazy-gamble-his-historic-visit-to-iraq “But the head of the Catholic Church had no intention of reliving the disappointment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who reluctantly had to abandon his historic trip to Iraq to inaugurate the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 in the land of Abraham, the father of believers”. Well, as they say, to Ur is human. There are various legends associated with Abram, his father, Terah, and Nimrod in Ur. Nimrod I have identified with Sargon of Akkad, and I think he was also Naram-Sin. Abram was, indeed, a (younger) contemporary of this Nimrod. Some of these legends seem to have borrowed from later events, such as the Magi star and Herodian infanticide (there is even one about Abram thrown into a fiery furnace). What is sure is that the son, Abram, was far more Godly than was his idolatrous father, Terah. A Jewish writer for Chabad.org tells this story of Abram, Terah and Nimrod: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112333/jewish/Nimrod-and-Abraham.htm Nimrod and Abraham The Two Rivals Nimrod's Humble Heritage Nimrod the mighty hunter was one of the sons of Kush. Kush was the son of Ham, the lowest and least important of Noah's three sons. Nimrod came from a line which was cursed by Noah: "Cursed be Canaan, a slave of slaves shall he be unto his brothers." By birth, Nimrod had no right to be a king or ruler. But he was a mighty strong man, and sly and tricky, and a great hunter and trapper of men and animals. His followers grew in number, and soon Nimrod became the mighty king of Babylon, and his empire extended over other great cities. As was to be expected, Nimrod did not feel very secure on his throne. He feared that one day there would appear a descendant of Noah's heir and successor, Shem, and would claim the throne. He was determined to have no challenger. Some of Shem's descendants had already been forced to leave that land and build their own cities and empires. There was only one prominent member of the Semitic family left in his country. He was Terah, the son of Nahor. Terah was the eighth generation removed, in a direct line of descendants from Shem. But Nimrod had nothing to fear from Terah, his most loyal and trusted servant. Terah had long before betrayed his family, and had become a follower of Nimrod. All of his ancestors were still living, including Shem himself, but Terah left his ancestral home and became attached to Nimrod. Terah, who should have been the master and Nimrod his slave, became the slave of Nimrod. Like the other people in that country, Terah believed that Nimrod received his kingdom as a gift from the "gods," and was himself a "god." Terah was prepared to serve Nimrod with all his heart. Indeed, he proved himself a very loyal and useful servant. Nimrod entrusted into his hands the command of his armies and made Terah the highest minister in his land. Terah was short of nothing but a wife. So he found himself a wife, whose name was Amathlai. They looked forward to raising a large family, but they were not blessed with any children. The years flew by, and Terah still had no son. His father was only twenty-nine years old when he, Terah, was born. But Terah was getting closer to seventy than to thirty, and yet there was no son! He prayed to Nimrod and to his idols to bless him with a son, but his prayers were not answered. Little did he know that Nimrod felt happy about Terah's misfortune. For although Nimrod had nothing to fear from Terah, he could not be sure if Terah's sons would be as loyal to him as their father. Therefore, he was inwardly very pleased that his servant Terah had no children, and probably would never have any. But he could not be, sure, and Nimrod was not taking chances. He ordered his stargazers and astrologers to watch the sky for any sign of the appearance of a possible rival. The Rise of Abraham One night the star-gazers noticed a new star rising in the East. Every night it grew brighter. They informed Nimrod. Nimrod called together his magicians and astrologers. They all agreed that it meant that a new baby was to be born who might challenge Nimrod's power. It was decided that in order to prevent this, all new-born baby-boys would have to die, starting from the king's own palace, down to the humblest slave's hut. And who was to be put in charge of this important task? Why, Terah, of course, the king's most trusted servant. Terah sent out his men to round up all expectant mothers. The king's palace was turned into a gigantic maternity ward. A lucky mother gave birth to a girl, and then they were both sent home, laden with gifts. But if the baby happened to be a boy, he was put to death without mercy. One night, Nimrod's star-gazers watching that new star, saw it grow very bright and suddenly dart across the sky, first in one direction then in another, west, east, north and south, swallowing up all other stars in its path. Nimrod was with his star-gazers on the roof of his palace, and saw the strange display in the sky with his own eyes. "What is the meaning of this?" he demanded. "There can be only one explanation. A son was born tonight who would challenge the king's power, and the father is none other than Terah." "Terah?!" Nimrod roared. "My own trusted servant?" Nimrod's Rage Nimrod had never given a thought to Terah as becoming a father at the age of seventy. However, if he did become a father, he would surely be glad to offer his first-born son to his king and god! Nimrod dispatched a messenger to Terah at once, ordering him to appear together with his newly born son. That night Terah and his wife Amathlai had indeed become the happy parents of a baby boy, who brought a great light and radiance into their home. Terah had hoped it would be a girl, and he would have no terrible decision to make. Now he could not think of giving up this lovely baby, born to him at his old age after such longing. He had managed to keep his wife's expectancy a secret. None of his servants knew about the birth of his son. There was a secret passage leading from his palace to a cave in the field. He took the baby to that cave and left it there. As he was returning to the palace, past the servants' quarters, he suddenly heard the cry of a baby. What good fortune! Terah cried. It so happened that one of his servants had given birth to a boy about the same time as his own son was born. Terah took the baby and put him in silk swaddling and handed him to his wife to nurse. Just then the king's messenger arrived. When Terah with the baby in his arms appeared before Nimrod, Terah declared: "I was just about to bring my son to you, when your messenger came." Nimrod thought it was mighty loyal of Terah to give up his only son, born to him in his old age. Little did he know that it was not Terah's son who was brought to die, but a servant's. Abraham Emerges For three years little Abraham remained in the cave, where he did not know day from night. Then he came out of the cave and saw the bright sun in the sky, and thought that it was G d, who had created the heaven and the earth, and him, too. But in the evening the sun went down, and the moon rose in the sky, surrounded by myriads of stars. "This must be G d," Abraham decided. But the moon, too, disappeared, and the sun reappeared, and Abraham decided that there must be a G d Who rules over the sun and the moon and the stars, and the whole world. And so, from the age of three years and on, Abraham knew that there was only one G d, and he was resolved to pray to Him and worship Him alone. A life full of many and great adventures began for Abraham …. So much for the fantastic legends. But was Abraham real? For one, the name Abram has been found at Ebla, not far from Abram’s Haran (map). And, the city of Nahur in the Mari archive may reflect the name of Abram’s grandfather, Nahor (Genesis 11:22), whose name was passed on to Abram’s brother, Nahor (v. 27). The other brother was Haran, the name of the place in which Abram settled after Ur. THE REAL ABRAHAM The Ebla Tablets and the Abraham Tradition David Noel Freedman …. Of particular interest are the names of places and persons. We find an extensive area of overlap between the Ebla tablets and the biblical text. Among the many personal names in both the Bible and the tablets are the following: Abram, David, Esau, Ishmael, Israel, Micaiah, Michael, and Saul. We have normalized the spelling of these names to conform to the biblical pattern, but the spelling in Eblaite is so close in all cases that there can be no question of the identity of the names. (In no case can we say the persons are identical, however.) In some cases, notably that of David (which in Eblaite is spelled da-ud-um), the name is not known from any other source in ancient times. Such occurrences point back to a common basis in language and culture for the ancestors of the Israelites and the people of Ebla. Actually, this is no surprise, because the Bible, while not mentioning Ebla, does point to this region as the fatherland of the Israelites. The patriarchs came to Canaan from Haran, where elements of their kinship group continued to live long after Abraham and his family had departed. A bride was brought from there for Isaac; and Jacob returned to his kinsmen there when prudence called for a rapid removal from Canaan. Haran is not very far away from Ebla, and is often mentioned in the Ebla texts. If an archive exists at Haran at the same stratigraphic level, and is ever found, those tablets should contain even more specific information about the patriarchs and their forebears, and should have closer contacts and correlations with the Bible. As it is, Ebla draws from the common pool of terms, names, and traditions which was shared by the biblical people. …. There may be even more relevant information than this, but Ebla, like Göbekli Tepe, has had something of a lid put on it by agenda-driven powers that be. In the Hindu religion: https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/z3g3pf/brahma_abraham_and_sarah_saraswati_how_related/#:~:text=Brahma%20and%20Sarasvati%20lived%20toge Brahma / Abraham and Sarah / Saraswati. How related are they? Brahma is father of All (RV7.97b), while Abraham is father of many nations (Gen 17:5) Brahma’s wife is his sister Sarasvati (SV7.96.2), and she was a great beauty (AV19.17; KenU3), while Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is also his sister (Gen 20:12) and is beautiful (Gen 12:14). Saraswati is known for being a goddess of water, the name means something like retains water. The River Saraswati (PraU1.6) has a tributary named Ghaggar, reflective of the name of Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar. Sarah from Hebrew (שרר sharar) means ruler and / or retains water. Brahma and Sarasvati lived together for 100 years, then had their first son, while Abraham was 100 and Sarah was 90 when they had Isaac (Gen 21.5). Brahma’s son (or grandson), Daksha, is killed as the offering sacrifice before all the gods, while Abraham almost offers his son Isaac. At the pleading of his father, Brihaspati (born from Brahma’s body, RV3.23.1) Daksha is resurrected with the head of a ram, while Abraham finds a ram caught in a bush to sacrifice in place of his son Isaac (Gen 22:1-13). Brahma’s hidden offering (AV19.42.1-2), relates to Abraham’s offering of a ram caught in a bush. There are many more overlaps. …. Archaeology of the Abrahamic Era When historians and archaeologists wrongly identify a particular biblical era, then that usually serves to vitiate the fine fabric overall. For instance, the conventional archaeologists have made a huge mistake - though probably a fairly excusable one in this case - by identifying the nomadic Abraham and his family with the nomadic Middle Bronze I (MBI) people, who were, in fact, the much later Exodus Israelites. Once such a tsunami of a mistake has been made, then it sends unwanted ripples all the way down the line. Thus, apart from the Era of Abraham now no longer being identifiable, the major Exodus and Conquest scenarios, too - which actually belong to MBI - can no longer be identified. And so on it goes. Nelson Glueck, rabbi academic and archaeologist, and his erudite colleagues, could perhaps be forgiven for seizing upon the MBI nomads as appearing to be the right people, in the right era and area, for the Abrahamites - especially since the MBI age has been dated c. 2000-1550 BC, including the correct chronology for Abraham. Well correct, that is, if one follows the conventional system, which, however, sadly, is nearly always wrong. Moreover, so great was the reputation of Nelson Glueck that no one of academic note was likely to gainsay him. Dr. John Osgood, a Creationist, to whom the credit goes, I believe, for being the first and only one to identify the archaeological era of Abram (Abraham), has this to say about Nelson Glueck’s archaeological identification (in “The Times of Abraham”): https://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham Present time placement of Abraham The accepted or evolutionary time scale for the Paleolithic to Iron Age sequence, when placed side by side with the known time relationships in the Scripture concerning Abraham, allows a placement of Abraham of somewhere around the Middle Bronze I period (abbreviated MB I variously referred to as Early Bronze IV (EB IV) in Palestine, or Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze (see Figure 1). The placement originally of Abraham in this time slot can be largely traced to Nelson Glueck, with support from William Albright. Nelson Glueck was one who asserted the correctness historically of Scripture, yet held an evolutionary chronology and so placed Abraham in Middle Bronze I. [Dr. Osgood’s Figure 1. Time scheme of the accepted evolutionary chronology]. ‘If one believes, as we do, in the validity of the historical memories of the Bible, and if one accepts as real flesh and blood human beings the personages reflected in the portrayals of the Biblical Patriarchs, then the Age of Abraham must be assigned to the Middle Bronze I period, ending in the nineteenth century B.C… The only archaeological framework in which the person and period of Abraham in the Negeb can be placed is Middle Bronze I.’2 In that same discussion, Nelson Glueck insists that the destructions of MB I settlements corresponded to the biblical account of the destruction inflicted by Chedorlaomer and his confederates (Genesis 14). However, apart from the statement of such, he offered no positive evidence to confirm that such an historical link-up can be made more secure than the simple statement of belief. William Albright was quick to ally himself with Nelson Glueck and established a belief that Abraham was one who plied a trade as a donkey caravaneer between Mesopotamia and Egypt. This is a belief that was Albright’s, but certainly does not conform to the Scriptures, in the literal sense. ‘Nelson Glueck was prompt to associate the biblical traditions of Abraham with the MB I remains in the Negeb; he also recognised the fact that the settlements from this age were connected with old caravan routes.’3 So the MB I period of Palestine has since been indelibly associated with the time of Abraham in the minds of many. …. A need for a re-evaluation In no way can it be said that the times of Abraham have been established. Moreover, there is much about the presently accepted archaeological time slot which makes one feel quite uneasy. Abraham was the product of a generation that can be traced in the Bible ten generations from the Flood, the Bible narrative giving the impression that only about 430 years elapsed from the time of the world wide [sic] catastrophic Flood until the times of Abraham in Canaan (see Figure 2). Yet on the accepted time scale we are to admit huge amounts of time for the development of civilizations prior to the times of Abraham. …. Dr. Osgood will then proceed to render obsolete (my opinion) all other different attempts at pin-pointing the archaeological era for Abraham. He will do so by analysing the campaign of the four invading kings of Genesis 14, including Amraphel king of Shinar – another of my alter egos for Nimrod (= Sargon of Akkad; Naram-Sin). I shall consider this episode later, for, firstly, Abram has to go to Egypt, to escape from a deadly famine. A comment on Dr. Osgood: It is intriguing that he who has succeeded so brilliantly in unveiling the archaeological era of Abram, and has written as well as any – if not better – on the MBI Israelites of the Exodus and Conquest, and has sorted out the important archaeology of Jericho, has also managed to arrive at a fatal (I think) archaeological conclusion that must inevitably have that unwanted ripple effect as referred to above. For Dr. Osgood has - along with other (now deceased) conservative Christian writers whom he admires, namely Drs. Donovan Courville and David Down - concluded that the important Hammurabi of Babylon was a Middle Bronze Age ruler, and a contemporary of Joshua. These three Christian doctors had all taken a ruler of Hazor, named Jabin, mentioned in the Mari (see map above) archive as being the King Jabin whom Joshua had defeated and killed (Joshua 11:1-10). Unfortunately for Drs. Courville, Down and Osgood, Jabin was something of a generic name for rulers of Hazor. There were several of them, one (Jabin), again, being later, at the time of the prophetess Deborah (Judges 4:2). And neither of these kings Jabin was the Jabin of the Mari archive contemporaneous with Hammurabi king of Babylon, who - as has now been determined beyond doubt - belonged centuries later still, to the time of King Solomon of Israel (c. 950 BC). It is not hard to imagine what chaos might be caused in the quest for establishing a workable biblico-historical model for the ancient world by having the hugely influential king Hammurabi off-set from his proper place in time to the tune of some 500 years! ABRAM IN EGYPT Inevitably, the conventional scholars, with their MBI location of the Era of Abraham, must arrive at a synchronism with dynastic Egypt that is far too late. Abram, as we shall find, arrived in Archaïc Egypt, before the Old Kingdom era of pyramid building. Conventional dating would place him after the Old Kingdom, in the so-called First Intermediate Period (FIP) - about which period I now have doubts. However, because Egyptian history does not follow the linear pattern of dynasties as conventionally assigned to it, with the consequence that some ‘folding’ is involved, a fluke may occur in this case, with the FIP’s Tenth Dynasty - assigned by some to Abram - being contemporaneous with the Archaïc period in which Abram truly belongs. Abram belonged to, as will be argued here, the time of both the first ruler of Egypt’s First Dynasty, the famous Menes (c. 3100BC), and to his alter ego in the (Ninth or) Tenth Dynasty, Nebkaure Khety (c. 2100 BC). Obviously, these dates are too early for Abram (c. 1870 BC, Dr. Osgood), and will need to be dragged down the timescale. Nelson Glueck’s collaborator for the MBI era of Abram, the celebrated Dr. W.F. Albright, will this time make a much better fist of it, by re-dating Menes and the beginning of dynastic Egyptian history to the time of Naram-Sin (above), who, as Albright concluded, had conquered Menes. Naram-Sin of Akkad, who I think was Nimrod, is still dated too early, though (c. 2254–2218 BC) for Abram, and will need (along with Menes) some chronological lowering. Some conservative Christians again, including Dr. David Down already mentioned, have suggested that the glorious Giza Pyramid-building Age of Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (c. 2615 to 2495 BC) was the most appropriate time for Abram in Egypt. Matt McClellan has written of this estimation in his article for Answers in Genesis, “Abraham and the Chronology of Ancient Mesopotamia”: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/abraham-and-the-chronology-of-ancient-mesopotamia/ However, there have been a number of scholars who have come out against the standard chronology in the recent past. …. There has been a concentrated effort to use this new research in ancient chronology to correlate biblical events with Egyptian chronology. Two separate studies have dated Abraham to sometime during the Early Dynastic or the Old Kingdom periods in Egypt. John Ashton and David Down (2006) have dated him to the Fourth Dynasty while this author (McClellan 2011, p. 155) has given a range of dates from the 2nd–6th Dynasties. …. Placing Abraham in this earlier period in Egyptian history also forces Abraham to be dated significantly earlier in Mesopotamian history. (Ur III and Isin-Larsa correspond to the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, and that time aligns better with the Mosaic period than with Abraham’s.) If Abraham is to be dated earlier in Mesopotamian history then in what period did Abraham live in Mesopotamia? What is interesting about the quote by Kitchen above is that he notes that there was another period in Mesopotamian history in which a coalition of kings could have existed; that is, the period before the Akkadian Empire. What is more interesting is that this is the time period that Freedman dated Abraham. So one has to ask whether or not this period could be the setting for Abraham’s life? …. While Matt McClellan is perfectly correct in commenting that “the Middle Kingdom in Egypt … aligns better with the Mosaic period than with Abraham’s”, Ur III, which actually belongs to the time of King Solomon, is irrelevant to both Abraham and Moses. There is some fairly solid tradition that associates Abram with Menes. But what about Nebkaure Khety? How might he connect with Menes? Both Dr. David Rohl and I had, some years ago now, and quite independently, concluded that Abram’s Pharaoh was a Khety (I had Khety III, and he had Khety IV). David Rohl had picked up the important clue that the Classical author, Pliny had called Abram’s Pharaoh Nebkare, close enough to Nebkaure (Khety). Pharaoh and Sarai One of the things that he inclined me to connect Pharaoh Khety with Abram were the words that the ruler of Egypt had uttered in Admonitions to his son, Merikare, that made me think of the Sarai incident that was not entirely the Pharaoh’s fault. Here is what I wrote on this previously: If the so-called Tenth Dynasty were really to be located this early in time … then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Having Abram’s Egyptian ruler situated in the Tenth Dynasty did fit well with my view then, at least, that Joseph, who arrived on the scene about two centuries after Abraham, had belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty (as well as to the Third, as Imhotep). Although I would later drop from my revision the notion of Khety (be he II, III or IV) as Abraham’s king of Egypt - not being able to connect him securely to the Old Kingdom era - I am now inclined to return to it. Previously I had written on this: So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s [king] has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure. …. There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with … Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of “Pharaoh” and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era - including the Hebrews themselves - who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt): Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time: The nome of This was ravaged; Though it happened through my doing, I learned it after it was done. [Emphasis added] Cf. Genesis 12:17-19: But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai .... So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, ‘What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’. When the Egyptian dynasties are taken not in single file, there occurs a nice symmetry: Abraham (dynasties 1 and 10) Joseph (dynasties 3 and 11) Moses (dynasties 4 and 12) It may now be possible to propose some (albeit tenuous) links between the era of Khety and what is considered to be the far earlier Old Kingdom period to which I would assign Abraham. N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II. If Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’) had really reigned for more than sixty years (Manetho-Africanus), then he is likely to have accumulated many other names and titles. …. Menes (‘Min’) Hor-Aha ‘Athothis’ would connect with Nebkaure Khety, or Akhtoes, perhaps through Athothis-Akthoes. Abram’s Pharaoh fits Menes Hor-Aha as being a very long-reigning monarch. I have not only identified the Pharaoh-Sarai incident (Genesis 12:10-20) with the later narrated Abimelech-Sarah incident (20:1-18), using toledôt arguments for the same incident but different authors, but I have further stretched this long-reigning ruler, Pharaoh-Abimelech, to include the somewhat similar Abimelech-Rebekah incident at the time of Isaac (26:1-11). It is notable that the once robust Pharaoh, who had coveted Sarai-Sarah, was now, at an older phase, warning about “one of the men” maybe coveting Rebekah (v. 10). Regarding my identification of Pharaoh with Abimelech, a colleague has pointed out that a chiasmus unites these two entities – a possible clue that this was one and the same person. It can also be shown archaeologically that Egypt had, at this time, encroached into southern Canaan, thereby accounting for why the Pharaoh is also called, as Abimelech, “king of the Philistines in Gerar” (v. 1). Finally, I have most tentatively suggested that Abimelech may have been the same as Mizraim’s (Egypt’s) son, the like-named Lehabim (c f. Genesis 10:13; I Chronicles 1:11). THE FOUR KINGS INVADE CANAAN Since Dr. J. Osgood, and he alone, has completely nailed the archaeology here, there is no need to do any more here than simply to quote the relevant part of his article, “The Times of Abraham”. Dr. Osgood, having archaeologically traced the invasion of the four kings to Late Chalcolithic En-gedi, writes: http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham The remarkable thing about this [Late Chalcolithic] culture also was that it was very similar, if not the same culture, to that found at a place in the southern Jordan Valley called Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of this culture), and also resembles the culture of Beersheba. The culture can in fact be called ‘Ghassul culture’ and specifically Ghassul IV. The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba and the rest of the Negev as well as from Hazezon-tamar or En-gedi apparently at the same time. It is remarkable when looked at on the map that this disappearance of the Ghassul IV culture corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by the Mesopotamian confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates its culture at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization, Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar. If that be the case, then we can answer Bar Adon’ question very positively. The reason the people did not return to get their goods was that they had been destroyed by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia, in approximately 1,870 B.C. in the days of Abraham. Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an isolated context, this may be possible to accept, but many might ask: What about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others may ask: What does this do to Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need to be asked concerning the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines were closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis 20). So we must search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately the end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. All these questions will be faced. …. [End of quote] Much earlier than the MBI age, when the Exodus Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, four … kings swept through the Palestine of Abram’s (Abraham’s) day, destroying the Late Chalcolithic phase of En-gedi and the contemporaneous Amorite Ghassul IV culture which now ceased to exist. Dr. Osgood had also provided us with a corresponding archaeology for the Egypt of Abram’s day, the Gerzean culture, or Naqadah II. The following sections from Dr. Osgood’s “The Times of Abraham”, which encompass both the Egyptian and Philistine scenarios relevant to Abraham, are replete with archaeological syncretisms beneficial to my reconstruction here: But Egypt! At this stage there will be many objections to the hypothesis here presented, for it is totally contradictory to the presently held Egyptian chronology of the ancient world. However, I would remind my reader that the Egyptian chronology is not established, despite claims to the contrary. It has many speculative points within it. Let us continue to see if there is any correspondence, for if Abraham was alive in the days of the Ghassul IV culture, then he was alive in the days of the Gerzean culture of pre-Dynastic Egypt, possibly living into the days of the first Dynasty of Egypt. The correspondence between this period in Palestine and in Egypt is very clear, and has been solidly established, particularly by the excavations at Arad by Ruth Amiram10 and at Tel Areini by S. Yeivin.11 Such a revised chronology as here presented would allow Abraham to be in contact with the earliest kings of Dynasty I and the late pre-Dynastic kings, and this would slice a thousand years off the presently held chronology of Egypt. To many the thought would be too radical to contemplate. The author here insists that it must be contemplated. Only so will the chronology of the ancient world be put into proper perspective. Long as the task may take, and however difficult the road may be, it must be undertaken. In order to support the present revised chronology here held, the author sites another correspondence archaeologically, and this concerns both the Philistines and Egypt. The Philistine Question Genesis 20 makes it clear that Abraham was in contact with the Philistines, yet the accepted chronological record presently held does not recognise Philistines being in the land of Philistia at any time corresponding with the days of Abraham. Yet the Bible is adamant. The Scripture is clear that the Philistines were in Canaan by the time of Abraham, approximately 1850 B.C., or at least around the area of Gerar between Kadesh and Shur (Genesis 20:1), and Beersheba (Genesis 21:321) (see Figure 9). A king called Abimelech was present, and his military chief was Phicol (Genesis 21:22). …. 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’ 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. …. However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan’ history, long time periods which are here rejected. The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham’ 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 possibilities 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). [End of quote] So far, I have identified Abram’s (Abraham) Akkadian and Egyptian contemporaries: Nimrod (= Sargon of Akkad/Naram-Sin), conqueror of pharaoh Menes Hor-Aha (Nebkaure Khety). Nimrod is also Amraphel king of Shinar (14:1). Narmer may be either Naram-Sin, or Chedorlaomer of Elam. Genesis 14:1-4 introduces the four coalitional kings, and goes on to name the five kings of Pentapolis: At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). For twelve years they had been subject to Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. The mighty Amraphel (Nimrod), first mentioned here, may initially have ruled the other three as subordinate kings, in the sense that a later Assyrian monarch will declare (Isaiah 10:8): “Are not my commanders [governors] all kings?” But legend has Chedorlaomer conquering Amraphel and assuming overall leadership, and this may be reflected in real history. The great Elamite king, Kutik-Inshushinak, allied to Naram-Sin, later won a victory over Akkad. He would be my candidate for the biblical Chedorlaomer. Someone has written on this, on Kutik-[Puzur]-Inshushinak: So, could Kutik-Inshushinak be Chedor-laomer? Last night I checked on the internet for Inshushinak and Lagamar. It seems these are both Elamite dieties [sic] of the underworld. Not hard to see them interchanged. Since Kutik can also be Puzur, then that closing k and the closing r can match -- the opening K can readily match the opening hard Ch -- and if the middle t can be a hard z, then that t is not a strong t, and thus not difficult to connect to a d sound. So Kutik-Inshushinak is not incompatible with Chedor-Lagamar -- Chedorlaomer of Genesis 14. The land of Elam had seemed to me to be well too far away from Canaan for a king from there to keep the Pentapolitan kings in submission for “twelve years”. Royce (Richard) Erickson unwittingly came to the rescue when he wrote a brilliant article (2020), shifting the whole land of Elam far, far to the NW: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY https://www.academia.edu/44674697/A_PROBLEM_IN_CHALDAEAN_AND_ELAMITE_GEOGRAPHY None of the four invading kings was Mesopotamian (Dr. Osgood’s “confederate kings of Mesopotamia”, above). Possibly “Tidal king of Goyim”, for instance, was, like Sisera of the later Judges period (Judges 4:2), a military governor for the coalition stationed at Harosheth Haggoyim in what would later become northern Israel.

Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt and Hyksos

by Damien F. Mackey This [Twelfth] dynasty will terminate with a crocodile-named woman ruler, Sobek-neferure Crocodile Sobek Despite all that I have written so far about the Twelfth Dynasty, the Egyptian dynasty that began the Oppression of Israel under its “new king” (Exodus 1:8), Amenemes, I yet suspect that there are some further dimensions needing to be added to it. According to my reconstruction of the life of the Egyptianised Moses (Sixth Dynasty’s Weni and Twelfth Dynasty’s Mentuhotep), the Twelfth Dynasty needs to expire while Moses is yet in Midian. This dynasty will terminate with a crocodile-named woman ruler, Sobek-neferure (amongst her various other names). That has led me to the conclusion that the Twelfth Dynasty, so busy in the crocodile region of the Fayyum oasis, was a crocodile worshipping dynasty. Consequently, I have been able conveniently to propose identification of my two composite rulers, Amenemes (Amenemhat) and Sesostris, with supposed Thirteenth Dynasty rulers, Amenemhat and (the composite) Sobekhotep. That reconstruction now leaves it open for Khasekhemre Neferhotep (whom various revisionists have recognised as the Pharaoh of the Exodus), to have been the stubborn ruler whom Moses and Aaron had had to confront to the end of setting Israel free (Exodus 5:1). The Oppression begun by Amenemes, with male babies being killed, and heavy slave building construction, would only intensify with this Neferhotep, with Moses and Aaron getting the blame for it from their fellow Israelites. Thus (Exodus 5:4-21): But the king of Egypt said, ‘Moses and Aaron, why are you taking the people away from their labor? Get back to your work!’ Then Pharaoh said, ‘Look, the people of the land are now numerous, and you are stopping them from working’. That same day Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and overseers in charge of the people: ‘You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don’t reduce the quota. They are lazy; that is why they are crying out, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ Make the work harder for the people so that they keep working and pay no attention to lies’. Then the slave drivers and the overseers went out and said to the people, ‘This is what Pharaoh says: ‘I will not give you any more straw. Go and get your own straw wherever you can find it, but your work will not be reduced at all’.’ So the people scattered all over Egypt to gather stubble to use for straw. The slave drivers kept pressing them, saying, ‘Complete the work required of you for each day, just as when you had straw’. And Pharaoh’s slave drivers beat the Israelite overseers they had appointed, demanding, ‘Why haven’t you met your quota of bricks yesterday or today, as before?’ Then the Israelite overseers went and appealed to Pharaoh: ‘Why have you treated your servants this way? Your servants are given no straw, yet we are told, ‘Make bricks!’ Your servants are being beaten, but the fault is with your own people’. Pharaoh said, ‘Lazy, that’s what you are—lazy! That is why you keep saying, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to the LORD.’ Now get to work. You will not be given any straw, yet you must produce your full quota of bricks’. The Israelite overseers realized they were in trouble when they were told, ‘You are not to reduce the number of bricks required of you for each day’. When they left Pharaoh, they found Moses and Aaron waiting to meet them, and they said, ‘May the LORD look on you and judge you! You have made us obnoxious to Pharaoh and his officials and have put a sword in their hand to kill us’. We can know that the status of the ‘Asiatic’ Semites (or Aamu) in Egypt had deteriorated even from the time of (my composite) Amenemes (Amenemhat) to the time of Neferhotep. Dr. David Rohl has referred to this very situation, without himself making the (Exodus 5) connection that I would: Several texts have come to light which indicate that certain of these Aamu managed to reach high positions in the administration during the latter part [sic] of the 12th Dynasty (some also marrying Egyptian women), but that this state of affairs did not last long into the 13th Dynasty. The fact that important persons in the time of Amenemhat III felt free to designate themselves as Aam (Asiatic) or as born of an Aamet (female Asiatic) means that one can hardly consider them as slaves in the ordinary sense as in the Brooklyn Papyrus. One must therefore reckon with a deterioration in the status of Asiatics between the time of Amenemhat III and that of Neferhotep. …. Previously, I had proposed that: Apart from the Era of Moses involving the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian dynasties, we need also to factor in the Thirteenth, based on some known correspondences of its officials with the Twelfth Dynasty. Dr. Courville has provided these most useful connections, when writing of the Turin list which gives the names of the Thirteenth Dynasty officials (“On the Survival of Velikovsky’s Thesis in ‘Ages in Chaos’”, pp. 67-68): The thirteenth name [Turin list] (Ran-sen-eb) was a known courtier in the time of Sesostris III …. The fourteenth name (Autuabra) was found inside a jar sealed with the seal of Amenemhat III …. How could this be, except with this Autuabra … becoming a contemporary of Amenemhat III? The explanations employed to evade such contemporaneity are pitiful compared with the obvious acceptance of the matter. “ The sixteenth name (RaSo-khemkhutaui) leaves a long list of named slaves, some Semitic-male, some Semitic-female. One of these has the name Shiphra, the same name as the mid-wife who served at the time of Moses’ birth …. [Exodus 1:15]. RaSo-khemkhutaui … lived at the time of Amenemhat III. This Amenemhet III, as we pick up from reading about him in N. Grimal’s book … was a particularly strong ruler, renowned for massive projects involving water storage and channelling on a gargantuan scale. He is credited with diverting much of the Nile flow into the Fayuum depression to create what became known as lake Moeris (the lake Nasser project of his time). The grim-faced depictions of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet III and Sesostris III, have been commented upon by conventional and revisionist scholars alike. Cambridge Ancient History has noted with regard to the former …: “The numerous portraits of [Amenemhet] III include a group of statues and sphinxes from Tanis and the Faiyûm, which, from their curiously brutal style and strange accessories, were once thought to be monuments of the Hyksos kings.” [End of quotes] “Hyksos kings” - hold that last thought! What I had not appreciated at that stage was the great devotion that Amenemhet (so-called III) had for the crocodile deity, Sobek. https://www.arce.org/resource/rise-sobek-middle-kingdom At Shedet, the new administrative capital of dynasty 12, the cult of Sobek saw yet another plot twist. Amenemhat II began to evoke an early dynastic, merged form of Sobek and Horus. Horus of Shedet was shown as a crocodile on a seal from the reign of Khasekhmwy of the second dynasty. Amenemhat II was the first to see this merge of Sobek and Horus of Shedet as the perfect syncretism to affirm the king’s divinity. But it was Amenemhat III who brought the role of “Sobek of Shedet-Horus residing in Shedet” to the highest significance. Sobek-Horus of Shedet became associated with epithets like “Lord of the wrrt (White) Crown,” “he who resides in the great palace” and “lord of the great palace.” All of these epithets were related to the king rather than associated with any god. Even the name of Horus in this merged form was enclosed in a serekh like a king’s name. The king has always been identified as Horus on earth. With the new divine form of Sobek-Horus, the king as Horus merged with Sobek and incorporated himself as one with the god Sobek. …. [End of quote] Of course, in my scheme of things, “Amenmhat [Amenemes] II” was “Amenemhat III”. As to the Twelfth Dynasty’s female ruler, we read: https://landioustravel.com/egypt/history-egypt/ancient-history/twelfth-dynasty-ancient-egypt/ Sobekneferu Sobekneferu or Neferusobek (Ancient Egyptian: Sbk-nfrw meaning ‘Beauty of Sobek’) was a pharaoh of ancient Egypt and the last ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty …. She adopted the complete royal titulary, distinguishing herself from prior female rulers. She was also the first ruler to have a name associated with the crocodile god Sobek. …. One reader has wondered if this Sobeknefrure might have been the same person as the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses (we know her as Merris = Meresankh), perhaps coming down to the Fayyum to pay tribute to her crocodile god, when she saw the baby Moses afloat in a ‘basket’ in the water. Whilst that may be an intriguing consideration, the fact is that Moses was now about 80 when the Twelfth Dynasty died out, meaning that Meresankh, as Sobeknefrure, would have to have been close to 100 years of age. Khayan (Khyan) “The numerous portraits of [Amenemhet] III include a group of statues and sphinxes from Tanis and the Faiyûm, which, from their curiously brutal style and strange accessories, were once thought to be monuments of the Hyksos kings.” So we read above. Could it be that the non-royal founder of the Twelfth Dynasty was, in fact, a foreigner? That would perhaps explain why it is said of him, the “new king” (Exodus 1:8), that Joseph meant nothing to him. It might also explain why his statues, and those of Sesostris, have a different, “brutal” appearance to them: HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/HYKSOS “The so-called "Hyksos Sphinxes" are peculiar sphinxes of Amenemhat III which were reinscribed [?] by several Hyksos rulers …. Earlier Egyptologists thought these were the faces of actual Hyksos rulers. …”. Were Amenemes and Sesostris in fact the first foreign Hyksos rulers of Egypt? What has set me thinking in this new direction (and I might be entirely off the track) is the apparent evidence for the powerful Hyksos ruler, Khayan, as a contemporary of Sobekhotep, meaning, in my revised context, a contemporary of the Twelfth Dynasty, before the Plagues and the Exodus. This opens the door, perhaps, for Khayan to have been the dynastic founder himself, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, whilst his son, Yanassi, could be the Unas of the so-called Fifth Dynasty (its last male ruler), whom I have already identified as Sesostris. The origins of Khayan (Amenemes?) may even have been Amorite (Syro-Mitannian). For he, Khayan, or Khyan (Hayanu, h-ya-a-n), may possibly have been a distant ancestor of Shamsi-Adad I (c. 1800 BC, conventional dating), who must be re-dated to c. 1000 BC, where he emerges as King David of Israel’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer (2 Samuel 8:3-8). https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2991710 “Ryholt notes that the name, Khyan, generally has been "interpreted asAmorite "Hayanu" (reading "h-ya-a-n") which the Egyptian form represents perfectly, and this is in all likelihood the correct interpretation." [Kim SB Ryholt, op. cit., p.128] It should be stressed that Khyan's name was not original and had been in use for centuries prior to [sic] the fifteenth Hyksos Dynasty. The name Hayanu is recorded in the Assyrian king lists--see "Khorsabad List I, 17 and the SDAS List, I, 16"--" "--"for a remote ancestor of Shamshi-Adad I (c.1800 BC)." [Kim SB Ryholt, op. cit., p.128] Khyan's name is transcribed as Staan in Africanus' version of Manetho's Epitome".”

Those alike Biblico-Egyptian names: Unas, Uni, Iannes, Ioannes, Ianassi

by Damien F. Mackey Now certain traditions tell that the pair, Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres), were two Reubenite (Israelite) brothers, troublemakers for Moses, Dathan (or Jathan) and Abiram. A simple as possible attempt will be made here to sort out, from the Bible and Egyptian history, those like names that can be the source of much confusion. Iannes (and Iambres) What shall we say about Saint Paul’s “Jannes and Jambres [Mambres]”? (2 Timothy 3:8): “And even as Jannes and Jambres [Mambres/Iambres] withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth. Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith”. Jannes (Iannes, Ioannes) and Jambres [var. Mambres] are generally considered to have been Pharaoh’s magicians. I, though, had tried to connect them to actual Pharaohs, thereby stretching Moses’ life around Pharaoh Unas (my “Jannes”), from whom I suggested Moses had fled into Midian, and the Hyksos Maibre Sheshi (my “Mambres”), Pharaoh of the Exodus. (5th and 14th dynasties, respectively). But, for one, Dr. John Osgood has brilliantly shown that pharaoh Maibre belonged much later, to the Judges era of Eglon, king of Moab, ruling at Jericho: Over the Face of All the Earth Home / Archaeology / Over the Face of All the Earth In this fascinating volume, Dr John Osgood explores man’s past using the most ancient evidences and records. Building on his vast research over 40 years, Dr Osgood has developed a new and arguably superior framework of study which brings together all the evidence from ancient history to establish a true understanding of mankind’s exciting past. John presents a convincing case for accepting a modified version of the so-called ‘revised chronology’ of ancient Egypt and demonstrates how a genuine look at the facts establishes the accuracy and reliability of the Biblical records. …. One ought not neglect Hebrew traditions, which - while various of them can be quite misleading - can often throw much light on a subject, even to the point of clinching the matter. Now certain traditions tell that the pair Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres), were two Reubenite (Israelite) brothers, troublemakers for Moses, Dathan (or Jathan) and Abiram. On this, see e.g. my article: Jannes and Jambres (2) Jannes and Jambres | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It was to this pair (names poorly transliterated into Greek), and not to any Egyptians, that Saint Paul was referring. He probably would not have said about idolatrous Egyptians, “Men … reprobate concerning the faith”. Conclusion One: Jannes (Iannes, Ioannes) was a Reubenite, not an Egyptian. Unas (Unis) Pharaoh Unas of Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (Old Kingdom) was indeed the king from whom Moses fled: Moses and Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (7) Moses and Egypt's Fifth Dynasty | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Unas needs to be multi-identified. He is also Chephren; Pepi; and Sesostris (and more). On this, see e.g. my: First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses (4) First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu There I wrote: The Tale of Sinuhe, which seems to recall in rough fashion the flight of Moses from Egypt, may help us here by locating this famous incident to early in the reign of Sesostris I. With the tyrannical “new king” of Exodus 1:8 firmly established as, among many names, Teti-Amenemes I, the founding dynastic king (who was murdered) whose land was becoming overrun by foreigners, then the ruler from whom Moses fled to Midian - some time after the murder of Amenemes I, according to Sinuhe - can only have been the (son- successor of that first dynastic king. To jump ahead of our story, by taking account of the C2nd BC Jewish historian, Artapanus, Moses was the foster son of the Egyptian queen “Merris”, who had married “Chenephres”: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/which-real-story-moses-was-he-criminal-philosopher-hero-or-atheist-008008 Moses, according to Artapanus, was raised as the son of Chenephres, king of Upper of Egypt. Chenephres thought Moses was his own son – but, apparently, the bond between a father and a son wasn’t enough to keep Chenephres from trying to kill him. Chenephres sent Moses to lead his worst soldiers into an unwinnable war against Ethiopia, hoping Moses would die in battle. Moses, however, managed to conquer Ethiopia. He became a war hero across Egypt. He also declared the ibis as the sacred animal of the city – starting, in the process, the first of three religions he would found by the end of the story. He started his second religion when he made it back to Memphis, where he taught people how to use oxen in agriculture and, in the process, started the cult of Apis . He didn’t get to enjoy his new cult for long. His father started outright hiring people to assassinate him, and he had no choice but to leave Egypt. .... [End of quote] With “Merris” already identified as Meresankh - of whom Egyptology may have unnecessarily created several versions, not to mention her alter egos in Ankhesenmerire I-II - then “Chenephres”, apart from being Sesostris I (as in the Story of Sinuhe), must be the Fourth Dynasty’s Chephren (Khafre), who married Meresankh”: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Khafre-king-of-Egypt “Khafre was the son of King Khufu and succeeded the short-lived Redjedef, probably his elder brother. He married his sister Khamerernebti, Meresankh III”. Khufu (Cheops) I have already identified with the founder king of Exodus 1:8. But I have also identified him with Redjedef (Djedefre), who was not (as I think) a ruler distinct from Khufu. Let us now recall, very briefly, our many versions of the first dynastic king (from Part One) to determine if each of these may have a (son-) successor who is appropriate for “Chenephres”. Snofru His appropriate successor, I think – though it does not follow conventionally – would be the (albeit poorly known - parentage uncertain) Huni. The name Huni may link up further on with Unis (Wenis) of the Fifth Dynasty. Huni’s nomen may enable us to link him up with the Sixth Dynasty’s Pepi. “[Huni] may have had the Nomen Neferkare ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/huni/ “Kerpheris” the name given to Huni, apparently, by Manetho is not unlike Kenephres/ Chenephres. Khufu (Djedefre) His highly appropriate (son-) successor was Khafre (Chephren), a name that will be reflected amongst the Twelfth Dynasty’s Sesostris’s praenomina (Kheperkare, Khakheperre, Khakaure). Menkaure The Kaf- element (Khafre) now becomes significant. The successor in this case can only be Shepseskaf (Manetho’s Sebercheres), who, like Khafre, was closely associated with (married to) a Khamerernebti. Shepseskaf continued his predecessor Menkaure’s building works, “... he completed the pyramid of Menkaure ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/shepseskaf/ Sahure Just going by names here of Sahure’s presumed successors: Neferikare has a heap of Kha- element and Neferkare type names (Nephercheres, Neferkeris, Kaikai, Kaka, Nefer-it-ka-re, Neferirkara). And Shepseskaf (see previous paragraph) seems to re-emerge in Shepseskare. But the more important Fifth Dynasty connection (e.g., with Huni) will be Unis (Wenis), see next. Djedkare Isesi As just noted, his successor was Unis or Wenis, and most appropriately Auguste Mariette, as we read in Part One, showed that Unis (Unas) followed on immediately after Tet (Teti), who is my 6th Dynasty version of the dynastic founder king. Teti and Unas also figure together in pyramid text decoration: “Two of the pyramids (those of Unas and Teti) contain chambers decorated with hieroglyph texts (the so called 'Pyramid Texts') that are amongst the earliest manifestations of ancient Egyptian writing”: https://www.flickr.com/photos/amthomson/43838532761 Merenre As in some of the other instances, the Sixth Dynasty is out of sequence (my opinion), with Merenre - my dynastic founder king (= Teti) - following Pepi (Neferkare), who is, in fact, the son-successor. The life of Moses before the return from Midian knew of only two long-reigning Egyptian monarchs, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, and the ruler from whom Moses fled to Midian. That one dynasty died out (Exodus 4:19) - its last ruler a woman - and Moses returned to Egypt. [End of article] Conclusion Two: Unas (Unis) was the ruler from whom Moses fled, to Midian. Uni (Weni) Uni, or Weni, was likely Moses himself (6th dynasty), the same as Mentuhotep (12th dynasty). He was Vizier and Chief Judge in Egypt: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (4) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Drs. Courville and Osgood have unfortunately identified Mentuhotep as Joseph, thereby missing out on Joseph (Imhotep, 3rd dynasty), a connection that many others have embraced. See e.g. my article: Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? (2) Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Osgood does follow Courville, and builds on him, in rightly recognising a link between the 6th and 12th dynasties – which syncretism conventional history would regard as absurd. This is another of those useful contributions in Dr. Osgood’s book. Conclusion Three: Uni (Weni) was likely Moses himself. Ianassi Finally, Ianassi was the son of the Hyksos pharaoh Khyan. Conclusion Four: Ianassi was the son of Hyksos pharaoh Khyan.

Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac

by Damien F. Mackey Upon close examination, the Book of Genesis appears to provide us with several vital clues about the “Pharaoh” encountered by Abram and Sarai. These may be such clues as can assist us in determining just who was, in the Egyptian records, this enigmatic ruler. From a study of the structure of the relevant Genesis passages, from toledôt and chiasmus, as considered in my article: Toledôt Explains Abram’s Pharaoh https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh we learned that the biblical “Pharaoh”: Was the same as the Abimelech of Gerar, ruler of the Philistines, contemporaneous with both Abram (Abraham) and Isaac. which means that: This particular monarch must have reigned for at least 60+ years (the span from Abram’s famine to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah). The era of Abram also closely approximated, so we have found - as archaeologically determined by Dr. John Osgood - the time of Narmer. Now, while some consider this Narmer to have been the father of Egypt’s first dynastic king, Menes, my preference is for Narmer as the invasive Akkadian king, Naram-Sin. Though I would also make allowance for him to have been, perhaps, the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, of Genesis 14. …. 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). I am also inclined to accept the view that the classical name “Menes” arose from the nomen, Min, of pharaoh Hor-Aha (“Horus the Fighter”). Most importantly, according to Manetho, Hor (“Menes”) ruled for more than 60 years: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01menes.html Moreover, Emmet Sweeney has provided a strong argument for a close convergence in time of Abraham and Menes: http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/70-abraham-and First Conclusion My tentative estimation would be that Abram came to Egypt at the approximate time of Narmer, and right near the beginning of the long reign of Hor-Aha (Menes), who in his youthfulness had fancied Sarai. However, by the end of the pharaoh’s long reign, at the time when Isaac had married Rebekah, he (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?’ In my recent article: Abram and Egypt (4) Abram and Egypt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I added this Tenth Dynasty extension to Hor-Aha (Menes): EXPANDING MENES Just as I had earlier suggested that the Noachic Flood, when properly deciphered, might serve to bring into some sort of coherent synthesis those unwieldy and vast Geological Ages, so, too, do I believe that the Patriarchs of Genesis (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph), in company with Moses of the Pentateuch, may serve to tidy up the early Egyptian Kingdoms and dynasties. And here is a preview of how I think it may be done. In this article I shall be proposing that those aforementioned Patriarchs and Moses span the entire period of Egyptian history from the very first king of the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (as we have already learned) to (and even slightly beyond), in the case of Moses, the last king (actually a woman) of the so-called Middle Kingdom. Here is the schematic outline of it, with consideration of a possible Tenth Dynasty connection to Abraham and Isaac to follow after it: Abraham and Isaac (1, 10 dynasties); Joseph (3, 11 dynasties); Moses (4-6, 12-13 dynasties). Dynasties 7-9, which are thought to have followed the collapse of Egypt’s Old Kingdom as a First Intermediate Period (c. 2181-2055 BC), are omitted here. The implications of the drastic revision that I have outlined above are that a period of Egyptian history Sothically calculated as spanning, very roughly, (3100-1780 =) 1320 years, was actually the same 430-year period that we had calculated from the arrival of Abram in Canaan, aged 75, down to the Exodus under Moses. This is a time discrepancy between Egypt and the Bible of a whacking (1320-430 =) 890 years! In terms of the Early Bronze Ages (I-IV), these can neatly be set out (to be elaborated on) as: Abraham and Isaac (EBI); Jacob and Joseph (EBII); Moses (EBIII/IV). Now, in fashion similar to my condensing of the Akkadian dynasty by identifying alter egos, or duplicate rulers, so here do I intend to shorten the early Egyptian history which, I think, fits so poorly against the biblical record. The king of Egypt at the time of Abram (Abraham) I have identified as the first ruler of the First Dynasty, the very long-reigning Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’). And I have been able – following the structure of the Book of Genesis (toledôt and chiasmus) – to link that ruler with the Abimelech known to Abram (Genesis 20:2) and to Isaac (26:1). Whilst Abimelech (אֲבִימֶ֙לֶךְ֙) is a Hebrew name, meaning “My Father is King”, it has a structure and meaning rather similar to that of the supposedly Second Dynasty Egyptian king, Raneb (or Nebra): that is, “Father Ra is King”. Before I had come to the conclusion that Abram’s ruler of Egypt belonged to the First Dynasty, I had thought – the same as Dr. David Rohl, although quite independently of him – that that ruler must have been the Tenth Dynasty’s Khety. Rohl numbers him as Khety IV Nebkaure, whereas I had numbered the same ruler as Khety III (N. Grimal, I note, has a Khety II Nebkaure, A History of Egypt, pp. 144, 148). If the so-called Tenth Dynasty were really to be located this early in time, I had thought, then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Having Abram’s Egyptian ruler situated in the Tenth Dynasty did fit well with my view then, at least, that Joseph, who arrived on the scene about two centuries after Abraham, had belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty (as well as to the Third, as Imhotep). Although I would later drop from my revision the notion of Khety (be he II, III or IV) as Abraham’s king of Egypt – not being able to connect him securely to the Old Kingdom era – I am now inclined to return to it. Previously I had written on this: So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s [king] has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure. Here, for what it is worth, is what I have written about pharaoh Khety III: There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with … Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of “Pharaoh” and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era – including the Hebrews themselves – who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt): Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time: The nome of This was ravaged; Though it happened through my doing, I learned it after it was done. [Emphasis added] Cf. Genesis 12:17-19: But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai …. So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, ‘What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’. It may now be possible to propose some (albeit tenuous) links between the era of Khety and what is considered to be the far earlier Old Kingdom period to which I would assign Abraham. N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II. If Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’) had really reigned for more than sixty years (Manetho-Africanus), then he is likely to have accumulated many other names and titles. The death of Menes may be connected with the death of Akhthoes Khety. Manetho says that a hippopotamus carried off Menes at the end of his life. How Menes died is part of his legend, with the hippopotamus version being only one possibility. Diodorus Siculus wrote he was chased by dogs, fell into a lake, and was rescued by crocodiles, leading scholars to think possibilities include death by dogs and crocodile. It seems that Khety ruled over his neighboring nomarchs with an iron fist, and it is likely for this reason that in later times this ruler became Manetho's infamous Achthoes, a wicked king who went insane and then was killed by a crocodile. Second Conclusion Hor-aha (Menes) was also Khety Nebkaure of the Tenth Dynasty.

King Chedorlaomer of Elam vying for power with Akkad

by Damien F. Mackey “At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled”. Genesis 14:1-4 Seismic shifts in Geography Prior to any discussion now of who were the four coalitional kings of Genesis 14, who successfully invaded Syro-Palestine, we need to re-set their geography, which has undergone seismic shifts away from the earlier accepted opinions. Land of Elam When previously I had begun seriously to scrutinise the four kings of Genesis 14 as to their identifications and geography, it had occurred to me that one of them, Chedorlaomer (Kedorlaomer), king of Elam, was situated much too far to the east to have been able to keep under his control so distant a region as the Dead Sea Valley. So unsatisfied was I with this received geographical scenario that I began to look for a different place with a name like Elam, situated more reasonably close within range of the land of Canaan. The best that I could come up with was the location, Helam, against which King David had fought (2 Samuel 10:17): “When David heard of it, he gathered the Israelite troops, crossed the Jordan River, and marched to Helam, where the Syrians took up their position facing him”. The exact location of Helam, however, is not known, it being broadly described as ‘between the Jordan and the Euphrates’. Some time later my wish for an Elam situated nearer to the land of Canaan was realised when I read Royce (Richard) Erickson’s stunning (2020) article: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (4) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu in which the author has dragged the entire land of Elam hundreds of miles away from its usual place, to the region of Anatolia. Susa, the capital of Elam, was now to be re-identified as Sis (Kozan), in the Adana Province of Turkey. That, I thought, was now far more satisfactory and accessible for King Chedorlaomer. Land of Shinar Amraphel king of Shinar (Genesis 14:1) likewise had to be provided with a more satisfactory geography. This I attempted to do in my recent article: Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel (4) Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu wherein I wrote: “Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there”. Genesis 11:1-2 The Hebrew word miqqedem (מִקֶּדֶם), translated here as “eastward”, can also mean “from the east”, so we don’t need to become too squeezed directionally. The word can even have the quite different meaning of “in ancient times”. The meaning of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר) can be disputed. It may mean “country of two rivers”. The “plain” (בִקְעָ֛ה), biq’ah, of Shinar may just as accurately be translated as “valley”. Long tradition has Shinar connected with the name, Sumer, which is thought to have been the region of southern Mesopotamia (or ancient Sumeria), where Babylon is generally considered to have been situated. From this region, conservative, biblically-minded scholars will build up a whole Babel scenario, humanity having just the one language, and a world-wide dispersion. …. The Bible refers to Shinar only a few times: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Shinar “Shinar was used early to describe the land which included the cities of Babel (Babylon), Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade) within the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10). This was the place where migrants from the E settled and built the city and tower of Babel (11:2). A king of Shinar (Amraphel) took part in the coalition which raided Sodom and Gomorrah (14:1) and was defeated by Abraham. A fine garment looted by Achan near Jericho was described as coming from Shinar (Josh 7:21, KJV “Babylonish”). It was to this land that Nebuchadnezzar took the captives from Jerusalem (Dan 1:2) and from it the prophet foresaw that the faithful remnant would be gathered (Isa 11:11). It was a distant and wicked place (Zech 5:11)”. One thing appears to be certain. Babylon was situated in the land of Shinar, because (Daniel 1:2): “And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon’s] hand, along with some of the articles from the Temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Shinar and put in the treasure house of his god”. But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia? Dr. W. F. Albright, though a conventional scholar, defied tradition by identifying the land of Shinar in the region of Hana (“Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel”, AJSLL, Vol. 40, no. 2, 1924). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Khana “The Kingdom of Khana or Kingdom of Hana (late 18th century BC – mid-17th century BC) was the Syrian kingdom from Hana Land in the middle Euphrates region north of Mari, which included the ancient city of Terqa”. Terqa was located near the mouth of the Khabur river, thus being a trade hub on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers. This area I believe approximates to the land of Shinar, the “country of two rivers”. Now, we really appear to be getting somewhere. For, when the Jews went into Babylonian Exile, the prophet Ezekiel encountered them at the Chebar river, as he tells at the beginning (Ezekiel 1:1; cf. 3:15): “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Chebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God”. Surely the Chebar - unknown in the “Babylon” region of southern Mesopotamia - can only be the Khabur river. And, indeed, this was an older commentary opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Abib#:~:text=Location,in%20what%20is%20now%20Syria “The Kebar or Chebar Canal (or River) is the setting of several important scenes of the Book of Ezekiel, including the opening verses. The book refers to this river eight times in total. …. Some older biblical commentaries identified the Chebar with the Khabur River in what is now Syria”. This now means that we must be in the approximate region of the real Babylon in the land of Shinar. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. (Psalm 136:1-2 Douay; 137:1-2 NIV). …. What all of this means is that the geography of the mighty pair, Amraphel of Shinar and Chedorlaomer of Elam, has been shifted far to the NW 0f southern Mesopotamia, wrongly known as the land of Sumer. See also on this my article: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Presumably, then, the historically obscure allies of these two great kings, “Arioch king of Ellasar … and Tidal king of Goyim …”, will also be found to have been located within this revised geographical scenario, and not in, respectively, Larsa (thought to be in Sumer) and Gutium in the central Zagros region. Our next task is to attempt an historical identification of the coalitional kings. Who were the Four Kings? The primary focus here will be to identify historically the two leading players, Amraphel of Shinar and Chedorlaomer of Elam. The other two kings, Arioch and Tidal, may have been more like officials, subordinate to Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, but powerful enough in their own right. As Sennacherib of Assyria will much later boast (Isaiah 10:8): ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ If we are to take a biblical clue, then Tidal’s Goyim might have been the cavalry fortress location of Sisera, serving Jabin king of Canaan. For, as we read in Judges 4:13: “Sisera summoned from Harosheth Haggoyim to the Kishon River all his men and his nine hundred chariots fitted with iron”. This fort (presuming it had even existed in the time of the four kings) would have been a useful launching pad for the four kings’ irruption into Ashteroth Karnaim and southwards beyond (see Dr. Osgood’s map above). And I have flirted with the idea - without much conviction - that Arioch’s Ellasar could have been the important Mediterranean port city of Ullaza, north of Byblos. Amraphel of Shinar In my “Land of Shinar” article, once again, I identified Amraphel king of Shinar as the biblical Nimrod, and as the historical Sargon of Akkad. There I wrote: “Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord’.” Genesis 10:8-9 Many scholars have tried their hand at historically identifying the biblical Nimrod. Dr. David Rohl’s suggested Enmerkar (“Nmr the Hunter”) may be correct. Enmerkar was an early king of Uruk, which could be Nimrod’s “Erech”, so long as the famous Uruk in southern Mesopotamia is not intended. Dr. David Livingston has identified Nimrod with the semi-legendary Gilgamesh, also a king of Uruk, who is reputed to have built walls at Uruk. http://www.davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm …. While the real Nimrod may be a composite of such semi-legendary characters as Enmerkar and Gilgamesh, the most likely full-bodied tyrant-king for him would be, as various scholars have concluded: Sargon the Great of Akkad. I would enlarge on this, though, by modifying the Akkadian dynasty and identifying Sargon with his supposed grandson, the similarly great Naram-Sin, as well as with Shar kali sharri, and, biblically, with “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1). Amraphel was for long (but wrongly) thought to be Hammurabi king of Babylon. …. My extension of Amraphel, through Sargon of Akkad to include his supposed descendants, Naram-Sin and Shar kali sharri, will prove to be most fortuitous now (though originally quite unintended) as we come to consider the Akkadian partnership with Chedorlaomer of Elam. Chedorlaomer of Elam Chedorlaomer is clearly the powerful Elamite king - often called emperor - of various names, Kutur-Inshushinak (Puzur Inshushinak; Kutik Inshushinak). The name Chedorlaomer is purely Elamite, Kudur-Lagamar. According to the Wikipedia article, “Puzur-Inshushinak” (and note the interaction with all of Sargon; Naram-Sin and Shar kali sharri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzur-Inshushinak Puzur-Inshushinak (Linear Elamite: Puzur Sušinak, Akkadian: 𒌋𒌋𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur3-dinšušinak, also 𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur4-dinšušinak "Calling Inshushinak"), also sometimes thought to read Kutik-Inshushinak in Elamite,[3] was king of Elam, around 2100 BC,[4] and the last from the Awan dynasty according to the Susa kinglist.[5] He mentions his father's name as Šimpi-išhuk, which, being an Elamite name, suggests that Puzur-Inshuhinak himself was Elamite.[6] In the inscription of the "Table au Lion", he appears as "Puzur-Inshushin(ak) Ensi (Governor) of Susa, Shakkanakku (Military Governor) of the country of Elam" (𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞 𒑐𒋼𒋛 𒈹𒂞𒆠 𒄊𒀴 𒈣𒋾 𒉏𒆠 puzur-inshushinak ensi shushiki skakkanakku mati NIMki), a title used by his predecessors Eshpum, Epirmupi and Ili-ishmani as governors of the Akkadian Empire for the territory of Elam.[2][7] In another inscription, he calls himself the "Mighty King of Elam", suggesting an accession to independence from the weakening Akkadian Empire.[8] Rule …. Kutik-Inshushinak's first position was as governor of Susa, which he may have held from a young age. About 2110 BC, his father died, and he became crown prince in his stead. Elam had been under the domination of Akkad since the time of Sargon, and Kutik-Inshushinak accordingly campaigned in the Zagros mountains on their behalf. He was greatly successful as his conquests seem to have gone beyond the initial mission. Early on his inscriptions were in Akkadian but over time they came to be also in Linear Elamite.[9] In 2090 BC, he asserted his independence from king Shar-Kali-Sharri of the Akkadian Empire, which had been weakening ever since the death of Naram-Sin, thus making himself king of Elam.[10] He conquered Anshan and managed to unite most of Elam into one kingdom.[10] According to the inscriptions of Ur-Nammu, Puzur-Inshushinak conquered numerous cities … including Eshnunna and Akkad, and probably Akshak.[11] His conquests probably encroached considerably on Gutian territory, gravely weakening them …. …. He built extensively on the citadel at Susa, and encouraged the use of the Linear Elamite script to write the Elamite language. This may be seen as a reaction against Sargon's attempt to force the use of Akkadian. Most inscriptions in Linear Elamite date from the reign of Kutik-Inshushinak. …. [End of quote] This all fits well with the tradition that Chedorlaomer, initially subservient to the Akkadians, rose up to become the leader: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548 NIMROD. By: Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. …. Ten years later Nimrod came to wage war with Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, who had been one of Nimrod's generals, and who after the dispersion of the builders of the tower went to Elam and formed there an independent kingdom. Nimrod at the head of an army set out with the intention of punishing his rebellious general, but the latter routed him. Nimrod then became a vassal of Chedorlaomer, who involved him in the war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with whom he was defeated by Abraham ("Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.; comp. Gen. xiv. 1-17). …. [End of quote] Let us now take a quote from Royce Erickson’s article (above), showing just how precise his new geography enables for things to be. I refer to his marvellous identification of the Elamite location of Awan (among others), most relevant to Kutur-Inshushinak (Chedorlaomer) who had ruled there (emphasis added): …. All five of the most important historically important Elamite towns can be located in Anatolia: Susa, Madaktu, Hidalu, Awan and Anshan. Susa, the capital during the Neo-Assyrian period, and known to be the closest of these Elamite cities to Chaldaea and thence to Babylon and Assyria, is represented by Sis (Shishan) in Cilicia. Madaktu (Kayseri) and Hidalu (Kundullu) were described by the Assyrians as being in the distant Elamite hinterland from Susa. The equivalent modern sites of Kayseri and Kundullu agree with this description, being 90 miles to the north and 230 miles to the east of Kozan, modern Sis, respectively. Awan was a very early Elamite capital well known to the Akkadian King Rimush about 2400 AD, who campaigned there. He described Awan as being separated from Susa (Sis) by 3 rivers. He pursued the King of Elam between the two cities and defeated his army by the “Middle River.” The modern Turkish town of Avanos is in fact the proposed site of Elamite Awan. It is separated from modern Kozan (Susa) by three north-south running rivers, the Goksu, Zamanti and Damas, over a total distance of 100 miles – a very good fit to Rimush’s narrative. ….