Chapter 5
Closing the Gap: Revised Dynasty 11
to Dynasty 18
Chronology
Intermediate
Period 2A
We claimed in the last chapter that the “invaders” who occupied
According to our previous argument, this century long interlude between dynasties 11 and 12, confirmed by the chronology of the Berlin Ashakhet stele, is described most clearly by two Egyptian documents – the Admonitions of Ipuwer, which describes its beginning and the Prophecies of Neferti, which describes its end. Clearly it is to these two documents we should direct our attention in order to answer our question.
The
Ipuwer Papyrus
We have previously discussed this lengthy document in brief. From beginning to end it describes a time of
unprecedented social chaos in which the upper classes of Egyptian society
suddenly and inexplicably loose their status, their wealth, their control over
the general population, and in many cases, their lives. Lawlessness reigns in
See now, the
transformations of people,
He who did not
build a hut is an owner of coffers.
See the judges of
the land are driven from the land,
{The nobles} are
expelled from the royal mansions.
See, noble ladies
are on boards,
Princes in the
workhouse,
He who did not
sleep on a box owns a bed.
See, the man of
wealth lies thirsting,
He who begged
dregs has overflowing bowls.
See, those who
owned robes are in rags,
He who did not
weave for himself owns fine linen.
See, he who did
not build a boat for himself owns ships,
Their owner looks
at them: they are not his.
…
See, he who had
nothing is a man of wealth,
The nobleman sings
his praise.
See, the poor of
the land have become rich,
The man of
property is a pauper.[1]
Almost the whole of the seventeen page document echoes this theme, with the added description of widespread death and dying. The land is filled with “gangs”. Crime is everywhere.
There is blood
everywhere, no shortage of dead,
The shroud calls
out before one comes near it.
Lo, many dead are
buried in the river,
The stream is the
grave, the tomb became stream.
Lo, nobles lament,
the poor rejoice,
Every town says,
“Let us expel our rulers.” p. 151
At no time does the
author hint at the presence of a pharaoh.
To the contrary, the text suggests that kingship has been replaced by
the combined rule of the most powerful of the rebellious anarchists.
See now, the land is deprived of kingship
By a few people who ignore custom.
See now, men rebel against the Serpent,
[Stolen] is the crown of Re, who pacifies the Two
Lands.
….
See, the Serpent is taken from its hole,
The secrets of
See, the residence is fearful from want,
Men stir up strife unopposed.
See, the land is tied up in gangs. p. 156
In place of kingship
(in the normal sense of that word),
… in their [midst] {were} like Asiatics -----. None
are found who would stand up to protect them. ----- Every man fights for his
sisters and protects himself. Is it
Nubians? Then we will protect
ourselves. There are plenty of fighters
to repel the Bowmen. Is it Libyans? Then we will turn them back. The Medjai are
content with Egypt.
How then does every man kill his brother? The troops
we raised for ourselves have become Bowmen bent on destroying! What has come from it is to let the Asiatics
know the state of the land. Yet every
foreigner fears it. The experience of
the people is that they say: “Egypt will not be given over [to] sand! p. 161
The references to
Asiatics suggest that the Egyptians possibly feared an invasion or infiltration
of Asiatics on the eastern extremity of the Delta. Momentarily we will argue that Asiatics did
in fact dwell in the wilderness between Gaza and the desert of Shur in the northern Sinai, not far from the eastern edge
of the Delta. Furthermore, we will
argue that these Asiatics were Amalekites.
But nowhere in the Admonitions of Ipuwer is the claim made that Egypt
was invaded from without by these Asiatics.
The Amalekites must have remained in that area as a settled
population.
From what has been
said thus far it follows that Egypt, in the decades following the end of the
11th dynasty, was ruled by multiple native Egyptian “nomarchs”, each claiming pharaonic
status. In these tumultuous times the
reigns of these nomarchs were often of short duration. The casualty rate was high. This explains Manetho’s lengthy list 13th
and 14th dynasty kings, 60 southern (Diospolite) and 76 northern kings (of
Xois), all bearing respectable Egyptian names, filling the interval between
1445 and 1341 B.C.
So much for the
ethnicity of the kings of dynasties 13 and 14.
Dynasty 12 Chronology
The Nature
of the Problem
With dynasty 12 the
problem is not one of defining the ethnicity of the pharaohs, all of whom were
native Egyptian, but rather explaining how the 205 years allotted them in the
traditional history can be reduced to approximately 100 years in our revised
history (1341-1241 B.C.). This is not a
difficult problem, but the solution needs to be documented for the record.
Scholars are unanimous
in claiming that the 12th dynasty consisted of 8 kings, all but one of whom
bore either the nomen Amenemhet (Amenhotep) or Senwosre (Sesostris).
Five of these kings ruled for upwards of 30 years apiece. How then do we explain the fact that their
combined reigns lasted for little more than the century we have allotted to
them?
According to the traditional
history the 8 kings ruled the whole of Egypt for the times listed in table 6
below. Scholars are also convinced that
several of these kings ruled in conjunction with their fathers for the stated
periods of time. There remains
considerable disagreement among scholars concerning some of this data,
particularly the duration of the overlap between the reigns of successive
kings.
|
Nomen of king |
Highest date on monuments (yr) |
Length of corregency
with father (yrs) |
Dates in the traditional
history |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amenhotep I |
30 |
- |
1991-1962 |
|
Sesostris I |
44 |
9 |
1971-1928 |
|
Amenhotep II |
35 |
1 |
1929-1895 |
|
Sesostris II |
6 |
2? |
1897-1877 |
|
Sesostris III |
33 |
2? |
1878-1843 |
|
Amenhotep III |
45 |
2? |
1842-1797 |
|
Amenhotep IV |
6 |
1? |
1798-1790 |
|
Sebeknofru |
- |
0 |
1789-1786 |
Table 6: Traditional dates for kings of the
Egyptian 12th dynasty[2]
It goes without saying
that we disagree primarily with the data in the third column of this table, it
being understood that the entirety of the fourth column is to be rejected in
total. The absolute dates of the 12th
dynasty kings need to be reduced from those cited in column four by as much as
650 years.
Regarding the third
column Egyptologists agree on only one thing.
The pharaohs of this dynasty did accept in principle the elevation of at
least one of their offspring to act as pharaoh in joint rule with themselves. The question remains only how long, if at
all, each king ruled jointly with his father, the evidence from the monuments
being slight to non existent. In the
final analysis the only inscription with a clearly attested co-regency date is
one which states that Sesostris I was elevated to pharaoh in the 21st year of
his father Amenhotep I. The stated reason for this event was an
attempted assassination of Amenhotep which left him
partially incapacitated. This
inscription, however, can be otherwise interpreted. In our estimation it is nothing more than an
acknowledgment that from this time forward Sesostris I was to assume the
dominant role in leading the country. Amenhotep I was no longer able to adequately fulfill his
duties as the primary pharaoh.
In a previous chapter
we argued for drastic reductions to the lengths of several earlier Egyptian
dynasties. In particular we severely
reduced the lengths of dynasties four and five. The operative principle supporting these
earlier revisions was our assumption that pharaohs of these dynasties never
ruled alone. The ruling pharaoh in the
north of the country would always ensure that one of his sons represented him
in the extreme south, i.e. in the Theban area.
The younger pharaoh was always subordinate to his father, but conceived
of his rule as pharaonic, and numbered the years of his joint rule and those of
his reign after his father’s death sequentially. We believe that this principle was operative
also through the 12th dynasty, beginning with the first year of the reign of Amenhotep I.
The rise to power of Amenhotep I is documented only in the Prophecies of
Neferti, a document we have mentioned several times already. It is vital that we pause to discuss this
important text.
The
Prophecies of Neferti
This inscription[3]
is neither as lengthy, nor as repetitious as the Admonitions of Ipuwer. It is also more narrowly construed. Its concern is to document the conditions
which prevailed in Egypt in the months before the advent of Amenhotep
I, thus justifying his rise to power and explaining his subsequent
actions.
When we examine this
document we should keep in mind that we are looking at Egypt following decades
of rule by the rebels who inherited the country after the death of Mentuhotep III.
Some conditions have changed from those which prevailed in the days of
Ipuwer. Others remain the same.
In the Prophecies it is clearly stated that
Egypt continues to be administered by multiple rulers, and that oppressive
conditions persist, though now the problems are man made.
The land is shrunk – its rulers are many,
It is bare – its taxes are great;
The grain is low – the measure is large
It is measured to overflowing. p. 142
Apparently the
fragmented leadership in the country has been unable to regulate the economy
and ensure ample food production and distribution. Suffering abounds. Injustice prevails.
Every mouth is full of “how I wish”
All happiness has vanished;
The land is ruined, its fate decreed,
Deprived of produce, lacking in crops,
What was made has been unmade.
One seizes a man’s goods, gives them to an outsider,
I show you the master in need, the outsider
sated. p. 142
Apparently the passage
of time has also weakened the resolve, or perhaps the ability, of the native Egyptian
leaders to prevent the intrusion of the Asiatics domiciled in the northern
Sinai to the east of the Delta. It is
lamented that many Asiatics now inhabit the Delta, though no claim is made that
this condition came about as a result of armed invasion. Apparently the lure of abundant food amongst
the Nile tributaries has enticed the foreigners to vacate their bleak
wilderness habitat.
A strange bird will breed in the Delta marsh,
Having made its nest beside the people (i.e.
Egyptians)
The people having let it approach by default.
Then perish those delightful things,
The fishponds full of fish-eaters,
Teeming with fish and fowl.
All happiness has vanished,
The land is bowed down in distress,
Owing to those feeders,
Asiatics who roam the land.
Foes have risen in the East,
Asiatics have come down to Egypt. p. 141
The Asiatics are
apparently consuming much of the available foodstuffs. The local rulers, lacking cohesion, seem to be helpless. Famine seems inevitable. The Asiatics have become a threat to be
reckoned with. Conditions are ripe for
a revolt, given the right leader. Enter
Amenhotep I.
Then a king will come from the South,
Ameny, the justified, by name,
Son of a woman of Ta-Seti,
child of Upper Egypt.
He will take the white crown,
He will wear the red crown;
He will join the Two Mighty Ones,
He will please the Two Lords with what they wish p. 143
It is said of Amenhotep in the passage just quoted that his primary
purpose was to unite the north and south of the country, a tall task for any
Egyptian ruler at any time in history, but particularly so in a large country
long dominated by multiple rulers and now occupied by countless
foreigners. We would not be surprised
if he required assistance from his sons, one of whom might be considered a
joint ruler with himself. The Prophecies concludes with a brief
description of the initial activities of Amenhotep I.
Asiatics will fall to his sword,
Libyans will fall to his flame,
Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might,
As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him.
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler,
To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt;
They shall beg water as supplicants,
So as to let their cattle drink.
Then Order will return to its seat p. 143
It is interesting to
note, in passing, that the Asiatics in question are cattle herders, and that they appear to dwell just beyond the
Egyptian border, where the Walls-of-the-Ruler would regulate their entry to
Egypt henceforth. We will return to the
subject when we discuss the Amalekites later in this chapter.
Chronology
of the 12th dynasty
It is time to present
and defend our revised chronology of dynasty 12. As stated, the operative assumption is that
Egypt in these troublesome times required the constant vigilance of at least
two pharaohs, one each in the north and south of the country. At present our only justification is the
indisputable fact that pharaohs of this dynasty are known to have introduced
the practice of joint rule between father and son. In figure 22 below we present a hypothetical
timeline for the kings of the dynasty based solely on this principle. Corroborative argument will follow.
Figure 22: Revised Dates for the 12th
Dynasty Kings
Concerning Figure 22
we make the following observations:
1) The figure
represents only one among several possible scenarios, albeit the most
defensible. Here the principle of joint
rule is practiced in the extreme. At all
times in the century long 12th dynasty, save only for a decade at its
conclusion, precisely two pharaohs ruled within Egypt, the death of one king
leading immediately to the coronation of another. Where the one king rules by himself at the
end of the dynasty there is justification.
The 12th dynasty no longer controls the north of the country.
2) For the regnal
length of each king we have used the highest year number on the monuments as
recorded in table 6, in spite of the fact that common sense would argue the
possibility, and perhaps the probability, that each king may have ruled several
years longer. We have made but a single
exception to this principle. In the
case of Sesostris II we have increased his reign length to 12 years from the 6
years attested by the monuments. This
was necessary in order to begin the reign of his successor Sesostris III in the
year 1286 B.C., a date demanded by the data on the Ashakhet stele (as argued in
the previous chapter). The same effect
might have been achieved by simply lengthening the reigns of Sesostris I and
Sesostris II by 3 years each, an equally reasonable solution to the problem.
3) We have included a
reference line above the listing of dynasty 12 kings, immediately below the
dateline, in order to document the names and dates of the four kings of this
dynasty named on the Ashakhet stele. At
a glance the reader can confirm the fact that the named kings were indeed
ruling at the time indicated on the Berlin document. It goes without saying that the Ashakhet
stele data would be meaningless were we to sequence these pharaohs in
succession, with very minimal overlap (joint reign), as is done in the
traditional history. The Ashakhet stele
is by far the major support for our revised timeline.
4) We have provided but
a single entry covering the reigns of the final two kings, who ruled
successively in conjunction with Amenhotep III. We consider it likely that both were children
of Amenhotep.
For their combined reigns we allot ten years, commensurate with the data
in Table 6. If we are correct, for the
balance of the dynasty Amenhotep III ruled alone, and
was probably restricted to the extreme south of the country. We argue the case in the following point.
5) The absence of any
king name on the Ashakhet stele for the year 1237 B.C. suggests that by this
date Amenhotep III was no longer in control of the
Delta where the priests of Ptah functioned.
In fact, the demise of Amenhotep’s children,
the last two kings of the 12th dynasty, in and shortly before the year 1243
B.C., hints at the possibility that intruders from outside Egypt had by this
date already begun to infiltrate the Delta area, replicating the situation
which existed when the dynasty began. Amenhotep IV and Sebeknofru may
have been casualties of the resulting conflict. Certainly within a few years, thus by 1241
B.C., the 12th dynasty has effectively ended, though Amenhotep
III continued to rule in the extreme south for another decade.
6) Our timeline might
be additionally supported by an in depth analysis of a prominent family of
nobles domiciled near Beni Hasan
in southern Egypt. The leaders of three
successive generations of this large extended family (bearing the names Khnumhotep, Amenemhet, and Khnumhotep
again) interacted with at least the first five of the dynasty 12 kings and left
inscriptional records of their
allegiances in their tombs.
Unfortunately an in depth analysis of this data would lead us too far afield
at this time, and will be left for possible inclusion at a later date. Needless to say it is all but impossible to
devise a scenario in which three generations of this family could interact
(while in office) with the first five kings of dynasty 12, assuming that the
dynasty 12 kings were positioned in sequence as in the traditional history. The
combined reigns of the first five kings lasted close to 140 years, allowing for
the stated coregencies.
With that we rest our
case. Dynasty 12 lasted for
approximately 100 years, not the 205 years claimed by traditional historians. Let the reader decide which history is
correct.
The Hyksos Intruders
In this section we are
no longer concerned with the regnal lengths of kings. If we are correct in our discussion thus
far, then around the year 1241 B.C., the Nile delta was infiltrated, then
overrun by marauding bands of livestock herding Hyksos. By 1231 B.C. the Hyksos had extended their
reach at least half the distance to Thebes in the south of the country. Perhaps Amenhotep
III died in the attempt to stop their advance.
With his death the 12th dynasty ended.
For the next 160-170 years Egypt was ruled by the “shepherd-kings”. In the extreme south pharaohs of Nubian
descent ruled the land, though apparently they ruled in submission to the
Hyksos. It is the time of Manetho’s 15th
– 17th dynasties.
Our primary concern
here is to determine the ethnicity of these Hyksos invaders, insofar as that is
possible. Were they or were they not
Amalekites? If Amalekites, what was their
ethnicity? Several considerations guide
our deliberations.
Origins
& Territory
The origins and thus
the ethnicity of the Amalekites is a hotly debated topic. When Velikovsky discussed the issue in his Ages
in Chaos he traced their origins to Arabia, specifically the southern
coastal area bordering the eastern shore of the Red Sea. He rejected outright the more widespread
belief that they were descendants of Esau[4],
brother of Jacob, the Jewish patriarch, this in spite of the fact that almost
every biblical mention of this tribal group locates them in the south-western
Negeb, not far from the northern Sinai home of Esau, near mount Seir. The biblical
data does appear to argue that the Amalek who
descended from Esau did develop into a prominent nation. And it seems highly
unlikely that there should develop in this remote area of the Near East more
than one national group bearing the identical name, comprised of nomadic animal
herders with aggressive warlike tendencies.
In our opinion the
majority position is almost certainly correct.
There was only one Amalekite nation, descended from a grandson of Esau
(see note 4), and therefore of Semitic stock.
It is very likely that the descendants of this Amalek,
once they reached national size and status, branched out and occupied widely
separated regions of the ancient near East.
A restricted land mass can only support a limited number of grazing
animals. The shepherd must move to keep
his flocks fed. Thus groups of Amalekites are mentioned biblically in the trans
Jordan region, and there are allusions to Amalekites in the area of Ephraim in
northern Palestine (cf. Judges 5:14; 12:15).
By far the majority lived in south western Palestine (the Negev), a
community which may well have stretched eastward into the northern Sinai
ranging as far as the desert of Shur. The Amalekites encountered by Moses during
the Exodus (see below) apparently lived in this northern Sinai area. The sole criteria which determined their
place of domicile was apparently the availability of accessible pasture for their
livestock, since at least initially the descendants of Amalek
were primarily nomadic.
As for Velikovsky’s
claim that the Amalekites originated in southern Arabia, we can easily conceive
of a situation where prolonged drought in the Negev or the Sinai would send
some of them southward into Arabia in search of pasture for their flocks.
There is yet a further
reason for our belief that the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Familiar to all students of the Bible is the story
of the armed battle between the Amalekites and the Israelites under the
leadership of Moses, somewhere in the north eastern Sinai, immediately
following the death of Mentuhotep III in the Red Sea
disaster.
The question is
raised: Whence developed the animosity that clearly existed between the two
nations? The answer is
transparent. According to the Hebrew
Bible Esau and Jacob were bitter enemies almost from birth. So also were their offspring. The hostility that existed between one group
of descendants of Esau (the Edomites) and the
Israelite descendants of Jacob (the Judaeans) is proverbial. It lasted well down into New Testament
times.
Henceforth when we
allude to Amalekites, it should be understood that we refer to the descendants
of Esau. And in the latter half of the
2nd millennium B.C., the time frame which concerns us in the revision, the
majority of the Amalekites appear to reside in a fairly well defined territory
encompassing the region from north central Sinai to south western Palestine.[5]
History
It was the opinion of
Velikovsky that when Moses and the Israelites encountered hordes of Amalekites
on the north-western fringe of the Sinai that the Amalekites were en route from
their Arabian homeland to Egypt. Soon
they would invade and conquer Egypt, taking advantage of the chaos which
prevailed in the aftermath of the 10 plague disasters. The year was 1445 B.C. According to the famed revisionist the
Amalekite/Hyksos nation would subsequently rule Egypt until the death of its
terminal king Apophis and the rise of the 18th dynasty under Ahmose I in the
latter half of the 11th century, thus for roughly 400 years. Velikovsky was careful not to be overly
specific regarding dates.
We have argued from
the Admonitions of Ipuwer that this thesis is indefensible. The biblical data adds weight to our counter
argument. Moses met the Amalekites
precisely where we would have expected such an encounter. He was leading the Israelites on a path
across the northern Sinai toward Palestine, where inevitably they must pass
precisely through the region occupied by the Amalekites. We are not surprised to see the Amalekites
defending their territory.
The Amalekites in
Moses time were already an enormously large group, of sufficient size to raise
an army competent to fight a horde of Israelites numbering minimally in the
tens of thousands. Forty years later,
after a prolonged detour around the Sinai, as Moses led his army of migrants
the final miles toward the promised land, the Israelites confronted a prophet
named Balaam, who understood the size and strength of the Amalekite
nation. Balaam referred to Amalek as the “first among nations.” (Num. 24:20) and in
the course of predicting the greatness of the soon-to-be nation of Israel he claimed
that the Israelite king would be “greater than Agag” (Num 24:7), presumably the
name of the king of the Amalekites. The
latter remark has led at least one commentator to remark concerning Agag, “He
is referred to by Balaam in a manner implying that the king of the Amalekites
was, then at least, a great monarch, and his people a greater people than is
commonly imagined.”[6]
It is our belief that the Amalekites remained in their
Sinai/Negev homeland through the duration of the 100 year interval which
separated the 11th and 12th dynasties.
Toward the end of that time period, as attested by the Prophecies of
Neferti, some of their number apparently migrated westward into the eastern
Delta, drawn by the lush vegetation and ample fresh water provided by the Nile
tributaries. But the rise of Amenhotep I quickly put an end to this opportunism, and the
Amalekites were driven from the Delta back to their Sinai homeland by the
founder of the 12th dynasty. For the
next 100 years the Walls-of-the-Ruler acted as a deterrent to further
exploitation of Egypt’s natural resources, confining the Amalekites to the
north eastern Sinai and Negev regions.
Almost certainly,
during the 200 years from 1445-1241 B.C. there would have been dramatic changes
in the demographics of the Amalekite nation.
On the assumption that their numbers grew substantially over this
prolonged period of time, some Amalekite
families may well have emigrated elsewhere.
Pasturage was limited in their wilderness homeland. Since Palestine was dominated by Israelites and unconquered Canaanites during
this interval it is conceivable that many Amalekites moved further north into
southern Syria. As stated earlier others
may have emigrated to Arabia. The
majority apparently remained where they were and augmented their food supplies
by sending raiding parties into Israelite territory (cf. Judges 6:3-6;
7:12). By the end of this time period
the Amalekite population may have numbered close to a million.
Around the middle of
the 13th century something happened to precipitate more aggressive
behavior on the part of the Amalekites vis-à-vis their Egyptian neighbor. Perhaps there was famine. From necessity grows action. Once again the Amalekites looked to Egypt
and its fertile Nile delta with longing.
According to Manetho Hyksos/Amalekites swarmed into Egypt, seized
Memphis and “founded a town in the Sethroite nome,
from which as a base they subdued Egypt”.[7] The time was around 1241 B.C. Amenhotep III was
powerless to stop the invasion of his land.
He fled helplessly to the Theban area where he died a decade later. The
Hyksos took control of the northern and central parts of the country and
continued to rule Egypt until expelled by Ahmose I around the year 1069 B.C.
Hyksos
= Amalekites
The reader will have
noticed that during our previous recital we simply assumed as fact that the Amalekites and the Hyksos were one
and the same people. There is a need to justify that opinion. A summary of our reasoning follows.
Amalekites appear in
the Hebrew Bible primarily in two contexts, separated in time by about 400
years. We have already noted their
appearance in the time of Moses, c.a. 1445-1405 B.C. They are at the time a large nation,
numbering perhaps several hundred thousand in population. Pastoral, nomadic and aggressive to the point
of being warlike are their most notable characteristics. If we correctly interpret the prophet Balaam
their king is named Agag. They dwell
primarily, though not exclusively in the south western Negev and north-eastern
Sinai.
The Amalekites appear
again in the beginning days of the Hebrew monarchy, the time of the prophet
Samuel and the Jewish kings Saul and David, thus around the years 1050-1000
B.C. At the time they are the primary
antagonists of the Hebrew nation and are apparently still of considerable size
and strength. Their homeland remains in
the southwestern Negev and northern Sinai.
When Saul attempted to annihilate the Amalekites he attacked their
residence city in the Negeb and pursued the remnant across the northern Sinai
as far as the desert of Shur (1 Sam 15:7). The Amalekites remain pastoral, migrant, and
warlike. And their king at the time is
also named Agag. It is possible that the
name is actually a title.
It follows from these
facts that the Amalekite nation has remained virtually unchanged in character,
and has lived in the same general area, for at least 400 years. On the assumption that Egypt, roughly in the
middle of this time span, was invaded by a warlike pastoral tribe of Asiatics
named Hyksos, some of whose kings bore the name Apop [the equivalent of Semitic
Agag in Velikovsky’s opinion[8]]
we would be hard pressed not to equate the two groups. Any other pastoral nations inclined to invade
Egypt in that time frame would have to “run the gauntlet”, so to speak, to
reach the Nile delta. We cannot imagine
the Amalekites tolerating competition for the abundant pasturage and water
supply of the Nile tributaries. We have
already witnessed, in the case of Moses and the Israelites, the likely reaction
should some other group of shepherd warriors try to pass through the Amalekite
homeland for destinations beyond.
There is yet one
further confirmation that the Hyksos and Amalekites are alternative designations
of the same group of people. Having
argued for the beginning of the Hyksos dynasties around the year 1241 B.C. it
is time to describe their expulsion from Egypt and the immediate aftermath
thereof in the days of the Israelite king Saul.
Therein lies the convincing proof we seek.
End
of the Hyksos Dynasties
When Velikovsky found
parallels between the destruction of the Hyksos stronghold at Avaris, as described in Egyptian texts, and king Saul’s
attack on the “city of the Amalekites” in the Hebrew Bible (see below), he used
those parallels to equate the two events, thus enabling him to date the
expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt and the beginning of the Egyptian 18th
dynasty in the second half of the 11th century B.C. The reader should note carefully the logic
of his argument. It was because the
expulsion of Hyksos by Ahmose could be equated to the slaughter of the
Amalekites by Saul that the 18th dynasty could be positioned at the end of the
2nd millennium B.C. For our revision
the syllogism must be reversed. We have
already established the fact, based on evidence filling nearly four voluminous
books, that the 18th dynasty began around 1069 B.C., in the last century of the
2nd millennium B.C. It is for this
reason that we are able to equate Apop and Agag, thus confirming our claim that
the Hyksos and Amalekites are alternative names for the same group of warlike
shepherds. The argument is extremely compelling, the more so because the
timelines for both the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose and the slaughter of
the Amalekites by Saul dovetail so perfectly.
We will refrain from
discussing in depth Velikovsky’s treatment of the situation, primarily because
we disagree almost entirely with his interpretation of events. He believed, mistakenly, that when, in
response to a directive from Yahweh, the god of Israel, Saul destroyed the
“city of the Amalekites”, that Saul had actually journeyed to Egypt to destroy
the Hyksos stronghold at Avaris. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem for Velikovsky was the lack of a
timeline on which to compare the actions of Ahmose in Egypt and Saul in
Judea. As a result he believed that Avaris was destroyed in the days of king Saul. The lack of a timeline is a problem that does
not exist for this revision. We have
consistently dated the siege of Avaris, the expulsion
of the Hyksos from
According to Egyptian
documentation Apop was driven from central Egypt by Kamose,
the predecessor of Ahmose. A siege of Avaris ensued but was interrupted by the death of Kamose. Around the
year 1069 B.C. Ahmose succeeded Kamose and took up
the task vacated by his predecessor.
According to the memoirs of one of Ahmose’s generals, a namesake, one
Ahmose, son of Abana, several protracted battles in
the vicinity of Avaris preceded the sacking of the
city. One last time we turn to Gardiner
in his epic Egypt of the Pharaohs for a summary of the events.
Yet Fate had not decreed that he [Kamose]should
be the final conqueror of the Hyksos.
That glorious achievement was reserved for his successor ‘Ahmose I (Amosis in Manetho), whom later ages consequently honoured as the founder of the eighteenth dynasty. Details of the fall of Avaris
are given in an inscription engraved on the wall of a tomb at El-Kab belonging to a warrior named ‘Ahmose, son of Abana. Early in life
this man replaced his father Baba, who had served under Sekenenre’. His own long military career started under Amosis, when the king sailed north to attack the
enemy. Promoted from one ship to another
on account of his bravery, he fought on foot in the presence of his sovereign,
and on several occasions received as a reward not only his male and female
captives, but also the decoration known as the God of Valour. The siege of the Hyksos fortress appears to
have been no easy matter, and was followed by another siege, lasting no less
than three years, at Sharuhen, a place in the
south-west of Palestine mentioned in the Book of Joshua (xix. 6). This appears to have been the limit of Amosis’s campaign in the Palestinian direction, for he had
still to cope with the usurper in Nubia and with a couple of rebels who still
remained on Upper Egyptian territory.
EP 168-169.
There are two items of
extreme importance in Gardiner’s summary account of the siege of Avaris and its aftermath.
Of primary interest is what is not stated by Gardiner largely because
the subject is not broached by the general Ahmose. Ahmose says nothing about the death of
Apophis. When we read the memoirs of the
general it is clear that the fall of Avaris implied
neither the death of the Hyksos king nor the ultimate defeat of the Hyksos
army. For the record we reproduce the
relevant sections of the El-Kab general’s tomb
inscription.
One besieged the city of Avaris;
I showed valor on foot before his majesty; then I was appointed to (the ship)
‘Shining-in-Memphis.’
One fought on the water in the canal: Pezedku of Avaris. Then I fought hand to hand, I brought away a
hand. It was reported to the royal
herald. One gave to me the gold of
valor.
Then there was again fighting in this place; I again
fought hand to hand there; I brought away a hand. One gave to me the gold of bravery in the
second place.
One fought in this Egypt, south of this city; then I
brought away a living captive, a man; I
descended into the water; behold he was brought as a seizure upon the road of
this city, (although) I crossed with him over the water. It was announced to the royal herald. Then one presented me with gold in double
measure.
One captured Avaris; I took
captive there one man and three women, total four heads, his majesty gave them
to me for slaves. BAR II 8-12
This absence of any
mention of Apophis is important, as is the absence of any declaration of
victory.
The second point of
interest is that the inscription of general Ahmose continues immediately to
describe the siege of Sharuhen in southern
One besieged Sharuhen for 6
years, and his majesty took it. Then I
took captive there two women and one hand.
One gave me the gold of bravery, [besides] giving me the captives for
slaves.
Now after his majesty had slain the Asiatics, he
ascended the river to Khenthennofer, to destroy the
Nubian Troglodytes …. BAR II 13-14
Some later scholars,
including Gardiner, have emended the 6 years siege of Sharuhen
to 3 years. Regardless, it seems to
have been a hollow victory. It is
noteworthy that Ahmose refers to the inhabitants of Sharuhen
as Asiatics.
We ask the obvious
questions. Why no declaration of victory
following the fall of Avaris and why no mention of
the death of Apophis? Why was the
failure to kill Apop at Avaris followed up
immediately by a siege of distant Sharuhen? The reader can surely guess the answer. Apop has clearly escaped the siege of Avaris and retreated to south-western
We should mention in
passing that a garbled version of this interpretation of the situation has
existed for several thousand years.
Early in the present era the Jewish historian Josephus, writing in his
apologetic Against Apion (pp. 88-90), described the fall of Avaris and its aftermath.
He argued that after a prolonged siege the Hyksos within the city agreed
to conditions for their release. “They
were all to evacuate Egypt and go whither they would unmolested. Upon these terms no fewer than 240,000,
entire households with their possessions, left Egypt and traversed the desert
to Syria. Then, terrified by the might
of the Assyrians, who at that time were masters of Asia, they built a city in
the country now called Judaea, capable of
accommodating their vast company, and gave it the name of Jerusalem.” Arguably this tradition contains many
factual elements. Many of the
inhabitants of Avaris did survive and did seek
sanctuary in a Judaean city. The city
name is wrong. Sharuhen
should be substituted for Jerusalem.
The city was not built by the Hyksos.
Sharuhen was part of the inheritance of Simeon
and therefore existed by the end of the 15th century B.C. But as corroboration of our general argument
the story is important.
One final comment is
necessary before we turn our attention to king Saul and the prophet
Samuel. We notice in Ahmose’s memoirs,
in his terse description of the fall of Sharuhen,
that again there is no mention of the death of Apop. The city may have fallen; many Amalekites may
have been killed; but Apophis appears to have escaped capture once again. And we can safely assume that much of his
army escaped with him. When the
Egyptians returned to Egypt; Apop very likely returned to Sharuhen. For upwards of a decade following, Apop
(Agag) and his Amalekite army roamed southern Palestine, pillaging the villages
of the emerging kingdom of
Israel. So we are informed by the
Hebrew Bible.
In a previous chapter
we outlined in brief the chronology of Israel at the end of the 2nd
millennium. In particular we noted the
fact, repeated above, that Saul was
enthroned as Israel’s first king (by the prophet Samuel) around the year 1050
B.C. If we have correctly dated the
beginning of the reign of Ahmose I to 1069 B.C., and assuming that the events
recounted by Ahmose, son of Ebana consumed about 7 or
8 years, then Saul’s coronation followed the end of the Egyptian seige of Sharuhen by about 12 years. If the dates for Ahmose were to be lowered
by 5 or 6 years, to account for a possible accumulated error in the Ashakhet
stele dates (much as we previously reduced the dates of Mentuhotep
II) those 12 years might be reduced by half.
Regardless, we assume that Apop/Agag began to harass Israel several
years before Saul became king. It is
therefore not surprising that one of Saul’s first acts as king was to battle
the enemies of Israel, the names of which are listed in the biblical text. Among them Amalek.receives
special mention.
After Saul had assumed rule over Israel, he fought
against their enemies on every side: Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, the kings of Zobah, and the Philistines.
Wherever he turned, he inflicted punishment on them. He fought valiantly and defeated the
Amalekites, delivering Israel from the hands of those who had plundered
them. 1 Sam 14:47,48
From the text of the
Hebrew Bible which follows it is clear that Saul’s defeating the Amalekites
meant only that he won some battles against this enemy. The text of 1 Samuel goes on immediately to
suggest that Amalek remains intact, and its king
Agag/Apop is still alive and well.
Finally, Saul is ordered by the prophet Samuel to annihilate the
Amalekites.
Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to
anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the
LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty
says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they
waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that
belongs to them. Do not spare them; put
to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and
donkeys.’”
So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim – two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten
thousand men from Judah. Saul went to
the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the
ravine. Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not
destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when
they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from
Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive,
and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. But Saul and the army spared Agag and the
best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs – everything that was
good. 1 Sam 15:1-9 (emphasis added)
It is clear from this
passage that the city of Amalek lies in the
Negeb in south-western Palestine, south of the lands then controlled by the
Philistines. The Kenites
are known to have lived in that general area in the days of Saul, leaving no
room for error in the geography being discussed.[9] Sharuhen is
identified by most scholars with Tell el-‘Ajjul in
southern Palestine, about four miles southwest of modern Gaza. There is no good reason to distinguish Sharuhen and the “city of Amalek”.
The biblical text of 1
Samuel next recounts the displeasure of Yahweh at Saul’s reluctance to kill
Agag as commanded. It documents Saul’s
defense of his actions (1 Sam 15:20) and Samuel’s prediction that Saul, on
account of his disobedience, would lose his kingdom (1 Samuel 15:28). Samuel then proceded
to take matters in hand, calling for an audience with Agag, whence he proceeded
to execute the Hyksos/Amalekite king.
Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the
Amalekites.” Agag came to him
confidently, thinking, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” But Samuel said,
“As your
sword has made women childless,
so will your mother be childless among
women.”
And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal. 1 Sam.
15:32,33
Until the
identification made by Velikovsky over a half century ago the most careful student
of the Bible would have no idea that this text describes the death of Aweserre Apop, the last and one of the most feared of the
Hyksos kings of Egypt.
We rest our case. The Hyksos and the Amalekites are the same
nation. The Amalekites were descendants
of Esau, and therefore Semitic in ethnicity.
Let the reader peruse the evidence and evaluate the argument. We have not repositioned the participants in
this drama in order to create an argument.
Their place in history was determined by four books of closely reasoned text.
:
Early 18th Dynasty
Chronology
In order to close the
circle we conclude our chapter by providing a timeline for the early kings of
the 18th dynasty. In our third book we
provided dates for all 18th dynasty kings beginning with Amenhotep
III (964-928 B.C.) Here we trace our
way back to the beginning of the dynasty.
The regnal dates provided in Figure 23 are tentative at best. With the 18th dynasty kings we cannot depend
entirely on the reign lengths cited by Egyptologists. The reader will recall how, in chapter six
of our second book, we argued that many 18th dynasty pharaohs had namesakes in
the 25th dynasty. The problem was
created when the 25th dynasty kings robbed the tombs of the 18th dynasty
pharaohs and stole not only their burial artifacts, but their identities as
well. Thus when Egyptologists suggest
that the highest date on the monuments for Thutmose I was his 18th year, and
the highest date for Thutmose III was his 54th year, we must disregard those
statements. The 54th year inscription
belongs to Piankhi, alias Menkheperre Thutmose. The mummy of the 18th dynasty Thutmose I
belongs to a youngster who barely survived his teens. He certainly did not reign into his 18th
year. Our only guiding lights are the
anatomical studies discussed in our earlier book and the dates of the early
18th dynasty kings named on the stele of Ashakhet. A few of the earlier kings, Ahmose I and Amenhotep I, have no known 25th dynasty namesakes, and are
therefore more confidently positioned.
But a question mark surrounds many of their successors. We leave this record of our opinion on the
subject without further comment.
Needless to say, there are problem areas.[10] Resolving the problems would require an exhaustive
examination of virtually every dated Egyptian aritifact
or inscription purporting to originate from this dynasty. That is clearly a task for someone with more
time on his/her hands than has this author.
Figure 23: Revised Chronology of the Early 18th
Dynasty Kings
Some Final Thoughts
This
space is reserved for a few summary comments which have yet to be
composed. It may be months before a
decision is made on the nature of these remarks. Meanwhile the reader should consider this
book and this series of books to have ended.
My thanks to the many readers who have endured with me to the end. My time henceforth will be consumed editing
and revising this lengthy series with a view, finally, to publishing its
content in more conventional form.
Hopefully by the spring of 2008 the first book will be in print and
offered for sale on the Displaced Dynasties webpage. Jim Reilly