by
Damien F. Mackey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argues a need to lower Pre- and early Dynastic Egypt well down the
timescale, the better to align with a powerful Akkadian dynasty in its sometimes
partnership with the Elamites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Thanks to the new research, as previously
noted, “a whole world
panorama had been opened”.
And it is significantly different from the
linear evolutionary pattern as given in the textbooks.
Biblically, the complex of the patriarch Abram, Melchizedek, and the four eastern kings, can now
be set archaeologically at Ghassul IV in Palestine,
at the end of the Chalcolithic period; in the Halaf phase (the lost culture) of
the Akkadians; coupled with Jemdat
Nasr, perhaps pertaining to Elam; connected
with the Uruk period, also known as
Protoliterate; and contemporaneous with the Late Chalcolithic period of Egypt, its Gerzean phase (associated
with Naqada II) or pre-dynastic.
This is close to the time of the enigmatic Narmer.
“Narmer was apparently late Gerzean -
Chalcolithic, and was [contemporary] with Arad I,22 or the end of
Ghassul IV in Palestine, the end of which has before been dated at around 1870
B.C. during the days of Abraham” (http://creation.mobi/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age).
Now, according to my reconstructions, most recently:
Dr. W.F. Albright’s
Game-Changing Chronological Shift
this Narmer was none other than the Akkadian potentate, Naram Sin, a descendant
of Sargon, and contemporary of first pharaoh Menes. If this be the case, then
the foreign name, “Naram”, may have been hieroglyphically represented on the
Narmer Palette by these rebus symbols,
n'r (catfish) and mr
(chisel), being the phonetic representation of Narmer’s name.
Akkad and Elam Affecting
Egypt
Gerzean
Culture
This is the cultural phase when Mesopotamia is thought to have
influenced Egypt to some extent, though historians can tend to play down the
influence. According to what I have already discussed, however, in:
Part One:
and in
Part Two:
with the Akkadians more centrally located to NE Syria, the eastern
influence upon Egypt would have been even less Mesopotamian-based.
The following excerpt provides us with the typical conventional treatment
of this matter, generally using that linear sort of approach. I shall include
some comments:
Samarra culture, Tell Halaf and Tell Ubaid
….
The Gerzean culture, from about 3500 to 3200 BC,
is named after the site of Gerzeh. It was the next stage in Egyptian cultural
development, and it was during this time that the foundation of Dynastic Egypt
was laid.
Gerzean culture is largely an unbroken development
out of Amratian Culture, starting in the delta and moving south through upper
Egypt, but failing to dislodge Amratian culture in Nubia.
Gerzean pottery is distinctly different from
Amratian white cross-lined wares or black-topped ware. Gerzean pottery was
painted mostly in dark red with pictures of animals, people, and ships, as well
as geometric symbols that appear derived from animals. Also, “wavy” handles,
rare before this period became more common and more elaborate until they were
almost completely ornamental.
Although the Gerzean Culture is now clearly
identified as being the continuation of the Amratian period, significant
amounts of Mesopotamian influences worked their way into Egypt during the
Gerzean which were interpreted in previous years as evidence of a Mesopotamian
ruling class, the so-called Dynastic Race, coming to power over Upper Egypt.
This idea no longer attracts academic support.
Comment: Because of conventional “academic” mis-datings
and mis-identifications, the clearly stated Akkadian contact with Egypt (Magan) and with Ethiopia (Meluhha) cannot be recognised for what
it is. King Ashurbanipal wrote about his first march against Egypt, “In my
first campaign I marched against Magan, Meluhha, Tarka, king of Egypt and Ethiopia, whom Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, the father who begot me, had
defeated, and whose land he brought under his sway”. Nevertheless, the
following clumsy overview of “Meluhha” completely fails to admit these obvious
connections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meluhha):
Sumerian texts repeatedly refer to three important centers
with which they traded: Magan, Dilmun, and Meluhha. Magan is usually identified with Egypt in later Assyrian texts; but the Sumerian localization of
Magan was probably Oman. Dilmun was a Persian Gulf civilization which traded with Mesopotamian civilizations, the
current scholarly consensus is that Dilmun encompassed Bahrain, Failaka
Island and the adjacent
coast of Eastern
Arabia in the Persian Gulf.[1][2]
The location of Meluhha, however, is hotly
debated. There are scholars today who confidently identify Meluhha with the Indus
Valley Civilization
(modern South Asia) on the basis of the extensive evidence
of trading contacts between Sumer and this region. ….
Sargon’s
inscriptions report that ships from Magan,
Meluhha, and Dilmun, among other places, rode at anchor in his capital of Akkad
(or Agade).
With Sargon the
Great’s famous descendant, Naram Sin, now identified (as I see it), in Egypt,
as Narmer, whose approximate archaeological phase we now know, then might not
Sargon himself also figure amongst those ‘Dynastic Race’ potentates? I shall shortly
come back to that. The ‘Samarra’ article continues:
Distinctly foreign objects and art forms entered
Egypt during this period, indicating contacts with several parts of Asia.
Objects such as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, which has patently Mesopotamian
relief carvings on it, have been found in Egypt, and the silver which appears
in this period can only have been obtained from Asia Minor.
In addition, Egyptian objects are created which
clearly mimic Mesopotamian forms, although not slavishly. Cylinder seals appear
in Egypt, as well as recessed paneling architecture, the Egyptian reliefs on
cosmetic palettes are clearly made in the same style as the contemporary
Mesopotamian Uruk culture, and the ceremonial mace heads which turn up from the
late Gerzean and early Semainean are crafted in the Mesopotamian “pear-shaped”
style, instead of the Egyptian native style.
Comment: Regarding “Cylinder seals”, I should like to mention, in the context of
the eastern coalition of Genesis 14:1, led by the Elamite, Chedorlaomer, what N. Grimal has
referred to as the: “Presence in Egypt of Mesopotamian Cylinder seals of
the Jemdat Nasr period” (A History of
Ancient Egypt. Blackwell, 1992, p. 29); the Jemdat Nasr culture being
associated with Elam by Dr. John Osgood:
A
Better Model for the Stone Age Part 2
Osgood wrote there:
Taking the former supposition of the Jemdat
Nasr culture being identified with the biblical story of Genesis 14 and the
Elamite Chedarloamer,4 we would expect to find some evidence in
Aram or northern Mesopotamia of Jemdat Nasr influence, but this would only be
the latest of cultural influences in this region superseding and dominant on
other cultures.
King Scorpion
There are thought to be two (I and II) such named rulers. Perhaps I and II
need to be merged, however details are hard to come by, as are dates.
Nevertheless, the ‘Scorpion Macehead’ is notable (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/scorpionking.htm):
This macehead depicts a King or Chieftain wearing the White Crown of Upper
Egypt in full ritual dress, with the bulls tail
representing power, hanging from the back of his belt. The multi-petalled
rosette or star at this time was used to identify Egyptian kings and in fact,
in neighboring Sumer, signified divinity itself. It is shown in front of his
face, along with a clearly drawn scorpion sign, thereby giving his name as indicated
earlier to be Srqt, or Scorpion. In another convention of Egyptian [sic] art,
this kingly, perhaps quasi-divine, figure is drawn towering over his companions
and attendants.
King Scorpion is accompanied by his high officers, who
carry standards on which are displayed symbols identified with particular
districts into which Egypt was divided. …. On this macehead, Scorpion is
apparently performing a ceremony using a hoe. Perhaps he is opening the
irrigation dykes to begin the flooding of the fields, or perhaps he is cutting
the first furrow for a temple or even a city to be built, thus beginning a
foundation ritual which was a kingly prerogative in Egypt (similar to Roman
emperors millennia later, shown on coins ploughing the outline of a city at its
foundation).
The decorative frieze around the remaining top of the
macehead has lapwing birds hanging by their necks from vertical standards. In
hieroglyphics these rekhyts have been interpreted to represent the common
people of Egypt, and their fate seems to indicate that they were conquered by
King Scorpion. However, some authorities have interpreted the rekhyt symbol as
only later representing the Egyptian population, whereas early in predynastic
history they referred to foreigners or non-Egyptians instead. Thus the Scorpion
macehead and Narmer palette may represent the respective rulers as having
successfully defeated foreigners from the west Delta (something which happened
later in history as well.)
[End of quote]
Similarly as I have suggested that Naram [Sin]’s name may
have been rendered by the Egyptians as nar
mer, so I now tentatively propose that Scorpion’s name (Egyptian serket) may be meant to render Sharrukin (= Sargon), Naram-Sin’s
ancestor.
Scorpion appropriately pre-dated Narmer.
That there then was a foreign (thought to have been ‘Mesopotamian’)
influence upon Egypt is apparent from the following article, “Mesopotamian influences under king Scorpion II”, in which we
also learn of the (disputed) view of some - perfectly in accord with the above
- “that the first Egyptian chieftains and rulers were themselves of
Mesopotamian origin”, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Scorpion#Mesopotamian_influences_under_king_Scor): “All listed motifs and emblems, but also
tomb architecture and traded items (such as tools, bead collars and cylinder
seals) prove a surprising strong and extensive influence of Mesopotamian
culture and religion to the early Egyptians. This cognition is promoted by the
evaluations of architectural developments, visible at burial places such as
Minshat Abu Omar, Hierakonpolis and Naqada. The architectural methods used for
building complex and stable tombs were clearly copied from Mesopotamian
buildings. It is not fully clarified why the Egyptians fostered their amicable
relationship with Mesopotamia so intensively - some scholars[who?] believe that the first Egyptian
chieftains and rulers were themselves of Mesopotamian origin, but this is still
unproven.
No comments:
Post a Comment