Was this the original ‘Famine Stela’?

by Damien F. Mackey “Almost two millennia later, a fairly similar story would be told on the famous “Famine Stela” about the pharaoh Djoser’s making lavish donations to the temple of Khnum on Elephantine in order to terminate the seven years’ famine”. Arkadiy Demidchik Arkadiy Demidchik, member of Saint-Petersburg State University, Oriental Faculty, has picked up what he calls “a fairly similar story” between the famous Ptolemaïc Famine Stela on Sehel Island and a far more ancient document of Wahankh Intef and Nakht-Nebtepnefer Intef of Egypt’s so-called Eleventh Dynasty (wrongly dated here): A ‘Famine Stela’ Episode under the Early XIth Dynasty https://www.academia.edu/36620751/A_Famine_Stela_Episode_under_the_Early_XIth_Dynasty This is what Arkadiy Demidchik has written about it: On the orders of the early Xlth dynasty kings Wahankh Intef and Nakht-Nebtepnefer Intef, the chapels for the gods Satet and Khnum on Elep[h]antine were constructed with stone doorjambs, lintels, columns, etc. This is the oldest example of pharaohs’ monumental stone building for gods in provincial temples. What was the incentive for this grand and labor-intensive innovation in the troubled times when the young Theban monarchy controlled only a smaller part of Egypt? Careful scrutiny of the inscriptions from the chapels shows that Khnum was invoked there first and foremost as the lord of the sources of the Upper Egyptian inundation, believed to be situated at the First Cataract. Together with a good number of other texts examined in the paper, this indicates that the Intefs’ stone building project on Elephantine was undertaken in order to deliver their Theban kingdom from too low or unseasonable Nile floods which resulted in poor harvests. Almost two millennia later, a fairly similar story would be told on the famous “Famine Stela” about the pharaoh Djoser’s making lavish donations to the temple of Khnum on Elephantine in order to terminate the seven years’ famine. The idea of K[h]num’s revelation to a king in a dream, which is said to have happened to Djoser, is also attested as early as in the XXth century BC. [End of quote] But this is not all. The same Arkadiy Demidchik has also been able to point to what he has called: A Northern Version of the “Famine Stela” Narrative? https://www.academia.edu/36620738/A_Northern_Version_of_the_Famine_Stela_Narrative Here he writes: According to the “historical” introduction to the royal decree to the “Famine Stela” on the island of Sehel, the king Djoser managed to cease the seven years’ famine only due to the discovery of the source of the Upper Egyptian inundation and its gods by the sage Imhotep. However, since the Egyptians usually distinguished also Lower Egyptian inundation, with its own source near Heliopolis, there must have existed a kind of “northern” version of the “Famine Stela” story with Imhotep’s discovering the Heliopolitan source, regulated by Atum with his entourage. As early as 1999 this was pointed out by O.D. Berlev. There are mentions of “7 years” when the inundation-Hapi did not come, of the “temple of Atum of Heliopolis” and its high priest Imhotep on British Museum hieratic papyrus fragment 1065, first read by J. Quack. Could this not be scraps of that “northern” version of the “Famine Stela” narrative? [End of quote] Clearly, we are in the time of the highly famed Imhotep (Third Dynasty), the biblical Joseph, son of Jacob, when there occurred a seven-year Famine (Genesis 41-47). In various articles, now, I have multi-identified this great sage of Egypt, who became, in fact, a quasi-Pharaoh. For one, he, not the Egyptian Pharaoh of the time, Horus Netjerikhet/Netjerihedjet (3rd/11th dynasties), was Djoser (Zoser). The name “Djoser” wrongly became attached later to Horus Netjerikhet. On this, see e.g. my article: Enigmatic Imhotep – did he really exist? https://www.academia.edu/120844277/Enigmatic_Imhotep_did_he_really_exist The oldest stone architecture is associated with Imhotep and the Step Pyramid. https://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/imhotep.html “[The Step Pyramid] was the first pyramid built, as well as the first structure of any kind of cut stone”. So, when I read above about (emphasis added): “Wahankh Intef and Nakht-Nebtepnefer Intef … the chapels for the gods Satet and Khnum on Elep[h]antine were constructed with stone doorjambs, lintels, columns, etc. This is the oldest example of pharaohs’ monumental stone building for gods in provincial temples”, I must begin to wonder if the two Egyptian names presented here, presumed to be pharaonic, must actually pertain to Imhotep himself under some of his many guises: Joseph, whose coat was of many colours, was a man of many names https://www.academia.edu/121428289/Joseph_whose_coat_was_of_many_colours_was_a_man_of_many_names In this article I came up with a plethora of potential historical identifications for the biblical Joseph. Thus: The multi-named Joseph From what we have just read, Joseph's names may include Imhotep; Khasekhemwy-Imhotep; Hetep-Khasekhemwy; Khasekhem; Sekhemkhet; Den (Dewen, Udimu); Khasti; Uenephes; Usaphais (Yusef); Zaphenath paneah; Ankhtifi; Bebi and perhaps also: Hemaka; Kheti From stark obscurity, the historical Joseph now abounds! And I suspect that this will not exhaust the potential list of Egyptian (also including some Greek) names for the biblical Joseph. With reference to that last statement, can we now enlarge our list to include those Eleventh Dynasty famine-related (perhaps) names above, Wahankh Intef and Nakht-Nebtepnefer Intef? The latter is poorly known, and I expect that these names would pertain to just the one person. The name Intef may well connect with Ankhtifi as an abbreviation of it. I have already written of this Ankhtifi as one acting as if he himself were the very Pharaoh of Egypt: Ankhtifi of ancient Egypt substituting for the king https://www.academia.edu/121998381/Ankhtifi_of_ancient_Egypt_substituting_for_the_king and: Egypt’s high official, Ankhtifi, outboasts even great Senenmut https://www.academia.edu/120059538/Egypt_s_high_official_Ankhtifi_outboasts_even_great_Senenmut Taking Intef (I-III) as a whole, we read the following most interesting information: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/intefiii/ …. [Intef] is also thought to be the father of Montuhotep II, who successfully reunited Egypt. This view is supported by a relief found at Wadi Shatt el-Rigal (near Gebel es-Silsila) and the decoration on a block of masonry in the temple of Montu at Tod which seems to depict Montuhotep II with three kings named Intef (Intef I, Intef II, and Intef III). However, it is also proposed by some that Montuhotep II was not related to Intef III, but wished to be associated with him to ensure his position as pharaoh. Now, Mentuhotep II Netjerihedjet is my Eleventh Dynasty Pharaoh of the Famine – he being the same as Horus Netjerikhet of the Third Dynasty. Just as the Eleventh Dynasty Intef was the supposed father of Mentuhotep II, so had I noted of the Third Dynasty Khasekhemwy that he is thought to have been the father of Horus Netjerikhet, adding: “Khasekhemwy, as Joseph-Imhotep, was indeed a “Father to Pharaoh” (Genesis 45:8)”. The Pharaoh, of course, was not the blood son of Joseph, “but”, as said above, he “wished to be associated with him”. It happened in antiquity that a powerful Vizier would be called “father”, as in the case of the wicked Haman - a non-Persian - in the Book of Esther (8:11): “[Haman] so completely enjoyed the goodwill that we extend to all nations that we regarded him as our father before whom all should bow down, and we proclaimed him to rank second in line to the royal throne”. Intef’s (so-called II) long floruit in Egypt is well suited to Joseph, who lived to be 110. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intef_II “Wahankh Intef II (also Inyotef II and Antef II) was the third ruler of the Eleventh Dynasty of Egypt during the First Intermediate Period. He reigned for almost fifty years from 2112 BC to 2063 BC.[2] …. …. After the death of the nomarch Ankhtifi, Intef was able to unite all the southern nomes down to the First Cataract. After this he clashed with his main rivals, the kings of Herakleopolis Magna for the possession of Abydos. The city changed hands several times, but Intef II was eventually victorious, extending his rule north to the thirteenth nome”. But what I am tentatively proposing is that Intef was this Ankhtifi. And that he was the biblical Joseph, whose coat of many colours matched his many colourful names and titles in ancient Egypt.

Joseph, whose coat was of many colours, was a man of many names

by Damien F. Mackey And, perhaps most telling of all, Manetho's Usaphais, a virtually perfect Greek transliteration of the Semitic name, Yusef (=Usaph-), or Joseph. Apparently in the search for the historical Joseph, as was the case with Moses, one will need to - in order to find him in all of his fulness - course through various of the old Egyptian dynasties, both Old Kingdom and so-called 'Middle' Kingdom. This is what I have come up with so far: Basically, Joseph was - as many are now thinking (see Internet and You Tube) - Imhotep of Egypt's Third Dynasty, who brilliantly served Horus Netjerikhet. But Imhotep, simply qua Imhotep, does not appear to be very well attested from contemporaneous records, so much so that some say he may never have existed, but may have been a later (say, Ramesside, or Ptolemaïc) fabrication. That problem can be nicely solved, I think, by recognising Imhotep as the Second Dynasty, or the Third Dynasty character, Khasekhemwy-Imhotep (variously Hetep-Khasekhemwy, Khasekhem, or Sekhemkhet). Of this Khasekhemwy, we read (Britannica) that "... he was the first to use extensive stone masonry". But, then, something similar is said again of Horus Den (Dewen, Udimu) of the First Dynasty. Thus, Nicolas Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, p. 53. My emphasis): "In the tomb built by Den at Abydos a granite pavement was found, the first known example of stone-built architecture, which until then had been exclusively of mud brick". And it is said, again, of Netjerikhet (ibid., p. 64): "... Netjerykhet ... is famed for having invented stone-built architecture with the help of his architect Imhotep ...". Very confusing! "... Den ... first known example of stone-built architecture ...". Khasekhemwy "... first to use extensive stone masonry". "... stone-built architecture [invented] with the help of ... Imhotep ...". Never mind, if - as I am proposing - Den, was Khasekhemwy, was Imhotep. Now, Den supposedly had a powerful Chancellor, Hemaka, who might likewise be considered as a potential candidate for Joseph (Wikipedia, article "Hemaka". My emphasis): One of Hemaka's titles was that of "seal-bearer of the King of Lower Egypt" ... effectively identifying him as chancellor and second in power only to the king. .... The tomb of Hemaka is larger than the king's own tomb, and for years was mistakenly thought as belonging to Den. But not a mistake if Hemaka was Den! And Den's wife, Merneith, may be the same as Ahaneth, a name almost identical to that of Joseph's wife, Aseneth (Asenath/Ahaneth) (Cf. Genesis 41:45, 50; 46:20). This Ahaneth must have been very important considering the large size of her tomb. Den's ruler may have been Horus Djer, which name recalls Horus Netjerikhet. Joseph's given Egyptian name, Zaphenath paneah, which biblical commentators generally find so difficult to interpret, I have connected in some of its elements, as a hypocoristicon, with Ankhtifi, a quasi-pharaonic like official (of no definitely fixed address) whose records boast of him as being 'unlike any man ever born', and who fails even to make any clear reference to his ruler. Ankhtifi, and the prolonged Famine of his time, with people cannibalising one another, I have linked to other similarly-described famines, of Bebi, and also the one at the time of Heqanakht. And I have then tentatively suggested a connection between the Famine personage, Bebi, and the Vizier of that same name serving Mentuhotep, so-called II, of the Eleventh Dynasty ('Middle' Kingdom). This powerful king, Mentuhotep, also had a Chancellor of Ankhtifi-like prominence and importance, Kheti. Previously I wrote on King and Chancellor pairings: Once again, as with Horus Netjerikhet and Imhotep, Saqqara ("Sakkara") takes centre stage. Den may here have been recording Horus Djer's Sed festival rather than his own. Similarly, Mentuhotep's quasi-pharaonic vizier, Kheti, will be prominent in the case of his Pharaoh's Sed festival, presumably as its organiser. So far, I have not even come to this Kheti, whose name may be a hypocoristicon of Sekhem-khet (= Zoser/Imhotep). In Djer/Hemaka; Djer/Den; and Mentuhotep/Kheti, we have, I believe, three variant combinations of the one King and Chancellor. And we have not even included here Netjerikhet/Imhotep. The multi-named Joseph From what we have just read, Joseph's names may include Imhotep; Khasekhemwy-Imhotep; Hetep-Khasekhemwy; Khasekhem; Sekhemkhet; Den (Dewen, Udimu); Khasti; Uenephes; Usaphais (Yusef); Zaphenath paneah; Ankhtifi; Bebi and perhaps also: Hemaka; Kheti From stark obscurity, the historical Joseph now abounds! And I suspect that this will not exhaust the potential list of Egyptian (also including some Greek) names for the biblical Joseph.

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.