The Thutmosides

In a recent series of "Compass" shown on ABC TV (Australia), the presenter, an Englishman who had actually been held as a hostage in Israel for a time, and had as a result developed a great interest in that land, set out to find if the best known Old Testament stories had any basis in archaeological fact. Perhaps the title of the TV documentary,"It Ain't Necessarily So", already gave the viewer a preview, a foreboding, that this man's search was not going to prove terribly successful. Actually it turned out to be quite a disaster. The experienced archaeologists upon whose information this presenter had to depend completely, men like William Dever and Israel Finkelstein, unable to find any evidence for an Egyptianised Israel of the Exodus, or for the Joshuan conquest of Canaan, or for the Solomonic era, led him to the conclusion that these biblical events had no basis in reality. It was tragic - and frustrating in the extreme - to watch these archaeologists in action. Guided by their faulty Sothic dating system they, every time, pointed to an empty site or thin air as to where they thought Joshua, or David, or Solomon, ought to be, whilst at that same moment standing upon the very archaeological layers where the evidences for these civilizations are actually to be found.

Talk about the blind leading the blind!

Some of the archaeologists interviewed did occasionally come to light with data that they thought belonged to a given biblical era or nation, such as the Philistines. A few, even though they had found nothing, argued the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' line. In this regard one cited the case of the Byzantine era, known to have had a huge influence upon Jerusalem, of which he had nevertheless found "not a single sherd". But by far the majority of archaeologists interviewed were entirely of the minimalist Dever-Finkelstein view.

There were a couple of moments of light. As when the founder of the famous Tell Dan inscription referring to the "House of David" showed that actual inscription to the cameras and laughed at the early attempts by archaeologists to explain it away. And the program's presenter himself came to be convinced that a massive altar on Mount Ebal in Samaria was the one that Joshua had built there (Joshua 8:30). Indeed it was made of "unhewn stones" (v.31), and the archaeological data discovered around this altar seemed to fit very well that this was indeed an ancient Israelite site of sacrifice.

David himself was grudgingly accorded a real existence, based largely on the Tell Dan evidence, but now as only some very petty king over a tiny portion of Israel. Solomon, however, was virtually denied any real existence at all. The irony is that, as with David, so with Solomon, there is an ancient, non-biblical reference to his "House"; but because it was found in Egypt (el-Amarna) - whose history has not been properly synchronized with Israel's - it cannot be identified, as can David's, for what it really is. I refer to the "Bit Šulmãni" references in pharaoh Akhnaton's archive (letters 74 & 290), which phrase translates as "House of Šulmãn" (and most plausibly, especially in its context: "House of Solomon").

Tell El-Amarna

The relevant el-Amarna letters were actually written to Akhnaton by the contemporary king of Jerusalem no less - most convincingly identified by revisionists as JEHORAM of Judah of the mid C9th BC - who wrote (letter 290):"…the capital of the country of Jerusalem - its name is Bit Šulmãni - the king's city, has broken away."

But with Akhnaton conventionally dated almost half a millennium before Solomon, there could be no thought that these two letters could really contain reference to that great king of Jerusalem.

One of the archaeologists interviewed in the TV program under discussion, comparing the biblical description of David's vast kingdom with what he believed to be the almost total dearth of historico-archaeological evidence for the king, exclaimed that if David were as great as the Bible describes him as being then we should expect some reference to him in historical documents outside of Israel, for instance "by the Egyptians and the Assyrians."

That is a fair enough remark. And my response to it is that there is such evidence for David in abundance, if one only knows where to look for it.

The glorious eras of David and Solomon will never be found where Finkelstein keeps looking for them, however, in the most impoverished Iron Age strata, but rather in the Late Bronze Age. Already in this revision we have seen that the Late Bronze Israelite civilization of king Solomon overflowed like a flood into Egypt and Ethiopia. Just as of old, when the ancient river of Eden (site of Jerusalem; cf. Ezekiel 28:12-17) "flow[ed] out" and gushed into Egypt as the Pishon (that part of the Nile that encompasses the gold-yielding regions of Koptos, Edfu, and Ombos) and into and around Cush (Ethiopia) as the Gihon(Nubian Nile, See Map), and watered the east as the Tigris and Euphrates(Genesis 2:10-14), so too did the Israel of David's and Solomon's time overflow to become the civilizing source of wisdom for the entire ancient world. "Thus King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom. The whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind" (1.Kings 10:23-24).

And who were these contemporary wisdom-seeking "kings"?

They were great ones indeed. I am talking historically here. My revision has set Solomon at the time of such celebrated monarchs as:

The glorious reign of Hammurabi, a veritable watershed in Mesopotamian history, reflects Solomonic influence in its every facet (socio-economic, law, religion, architecture) [0010], as does Hatshepsut's reign over Egypt/Ethiopia. Just as Marduk becomes the supreme god in Babylon at the time; so does Hatshepsut thus honour her god, Amun.

Solomon is said to have had certain enemies, apart from Jeroboam, rise up in the latter, decadent part of his reign: namely, HADAD the Edomite and REZIN, a Syrian (1.Kings 11:14, 23). Rezin I have previously identified with Zimri-Lim of Mari. Now a possible candidate for Hadad is Ishkhi-Adad of Qatna, ally of David's arch-rival, Shamsi-Adad I (biblical Hadadezer ), and who continued on as a force for some time after the latter's death, though "the end of Ishkhi-Adad's reign is still obscure" [0020]:

The two states of Aleppo and Qatna appear to have developed almost simultaneously. We are better informed about the history of the second during the reign of Shamsi-Adad because he was the ally of Ishkhi-Adad, who occupied the throne of Qatna at that time. The arrangement between the two monarchs had been sealed by a marriage, Iasmakh-Adad, the viceroy of Mari, having married Ishkhi-Adad's daughter. Co-operation was political and military as well as economic. There were frequent movements of troops between Mari and Qatna, and it seems likely that a detachment from Mari was stationed in the Syrian town. The presence of these foreign soldiers at Qatna does not seem to indicate a relation of dependence, for Ishkhi-Adad himself insisted on their being sent, and invites his son-in-law to take part in an expedition which seems likely to yield some spoils. It was Shamsi-Adad who had taken the first steps towards the marriage, stressing to his son that the house of Qatna had a 'name'. He also dealt on level terms with Ishkhi-Adad, whom he called his brother.

That Hadad would indeed have had a 'name', or would come to have had a 'name', is apparent from what we know of his drama-packed early life. Hadad was "of the royal house of Edom"; a country from which he had had to flee as "a young boy", with his retainers, when David's General Joab systematically, over a six month period, slew every male in Edom (1.Kings 11:14-16). The prince managed to flee to Egypt, to Pharaoh (vv. 18-20), who:

…gave him a house, assigned him an allowance of food, and gave him land. Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him his sister-in-law for a wife, the sister of Queen Tahpenes.

The sister of Tahpenes gave birth by him to his son Genubath, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh's house; Genubath was in Pharaoh's house among the children of Pharaoh.

Immanuel Velikovsky may very well have found, as he claimed, references to both Queen Tahpenes and Genubath in the Egyptian records, appropriately spaced according to his chronological revision. Thus Velikovsky wrote [0030]:

The pharaoh [who received young Hadad] must have been Ahmose. Among his queens must have been one by the name of Tahpenes. We open the register of the Egyptian queens to see whether pharaoh Ahmose had a queen by this name. Her name is actually preserved and read Tanethap, Tenthape, or, possibly, Tahpenes.

… Hadad had returned to Edom [sic] in the days of Solomon, after the death of Joab. Since then about forty years had elapsed. Genubath, his son, was now the vassal king of Edom; he dwelt either in Edom or in Egypt.

Tribute from this land, too, must have been sent to the Egyptian crown; there was no need to send an expedition to subdue Edom. When Thutmose III returned from one of his inspection visits to Palestine he found in Egypt tribute brought by couriers from the land "Genubatye", which did not have to be conquered by an expeditionary force.

"When his majesty arrived in Egypt the messengers of the Genubatye came bearing their tribute."

It consisted of myrrh, "negroes for attendants", bulls, calves, besides vessels laden with ivory, ebony and skins of panther.

Who were these people of Genubatye? Hardly a guess has been made with regard to this peculiar name. The people of Genubatye were the people of Genubath, their king, contemporary of Rehoboam.

And thanks to Velikovsky's 18th Egyptian dynasty reconstruction, we can know too that Saul of Israel was contemporaneous with pharaoh Ahmose, and that Israel was in fact allied with the Egyptians; an alliance forged in their common struggle against the hated Amu /Amalekites.

With this in mind, I had previously suggested that David's resounding defeat of Hadadezer's Syrian coalition (e.g. 2.Samuel 8:3-6) would have been achieved with Egyptian military support; this last being a factor that would become common practice (at least in theory) during a later phase of the 18th dynasty (el-Amarna).

But it had seemed that there was far more than just a military union between Israel and Palestine. Egypt was in fact beginning to be flooded by Israel's new, vibrant civilization. How could this be happening to a nation known to be extremely conservative, insular and closed to change?

The Encouraging Signs that King Saul of Israel was Pharaoh Amenhotep I.

There were, I found, some initial encouraging signs for Amenhotep I's being king Saul. For instance:

The Coronation Ceremonies (For more click Here)

Moreover, the overflow from Israel went to the very heart of the matter: to the coronation ceremony. The very ceremonial procedure, in its three phases, that David had used for the coronation of his chosen son, Solomon, was the procedure used by Thutmose I (Amenhotep I's successor) in the coronation of the former's daughter, Hatshepsut.

I have followed J. Baikie for the Egyptian texts in the right-hand column below [0040]:

Religious Parallels

Perhaps even more remarkable still was that Israel's religion was overflowing into Egypt. That Hatshepsut was re-inventing Karnak as Egypt's Jerusalem is evidenced by the unmistakably Davidic psalmery that she had written on the base of one of her obelisks. Conventional scholar, Baikie, both notes it and chronologically misinterprets it [0080]:

And then, in language which might have come straight out of the Book of Psalms, though it belongs to an age centuries before [sic] the first of the Psalms was written, she continues:

The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression almost in the very words which the Psalmist used to express his sense of duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah: "Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it" Psalms 132:3-4, 13-14; 2.Samuel 7:5-6

As noted in previous articles, not only David's own writings [0095], but even images from the pre-Davidic Torah (e.g. Genesis) - and from Solomon's wisdom writings and his love poem, Song of Songs - were used by Hatshepsut in her inscriptions.

Construction Parallels

Hatshepsut even built her magnificent temple at Deir el-Bahari along Solomonic lines - not surprisingly since Solomon himself, as Senenmut - was her chief architect. The Phoenician influence this beautiful temple displays (cf. Mariette) would undoubtedly be the work of Hiram's Phoenicians, allies of Solomon, who were amongst the master craftsmen for the building of the Temple in Jerusalem (1.Kings 5:7-18).

Covenant, Ark of the

Hatshepsut would even employ a high-priest in her religious infrastructure.

Now of the high offices of priest, secretary and recorder (herald) established by David in Israel (2.Samuel 8:16-17. Cf. 1.Kings 4:2-3), the latter two are actually considered by some to have been borrowed from Egypt [0100]. But more likely now the correct order of influence is that these became established Egyptian offices only after having firstly been borrowed from Davidic Israel.

Furthermore, do we not find at the time of Hatshepsut greater attention being given to the greatest of all the gods, Amun, and to his barque (ark)-like vessel which was carried around by priests bearing poles on their shoulders? Thus Joyce Tyldesley [0110]:

The Red Chapel, now known more commonly by its French name of Chapelle Rouge, was a large sanctuary of red quartzite endowed by Hatshepsut to house the all-important barque of Amen. Amen's barque, or barge, known as Userhat-Amen (Mighty of Prow is Amen), was a small-scale gilded wooden boat bearing the enclosed shrine which was used to protect the statue of the god from public gaze.[0115] When Amen, on the holy days which were also public holidays, left the privacy of his sanctuary to process through the streets of Thebes, he sailed in style concealed within the cabin of his boat-shrine which was carried, supported by wooden poles, on the shoulders of his priests. When Amen was not traveling the barque rested in its own sanctuary or shrine.

The sacred barque had always played a minor role in Egyptian religious ritual, but during the early New Kingdom it had become an increasingly important part of theology, and most temples now gave great prominence to the barque sanctuary.

That strongly reminds one of the Ark of the Covenant, of great age, before which David danced (2.Samuel 6:14). David had re-emphasized the order that the awe-inspiring Ark was to be carried by "no one but the Levites" (1.Chronicles 15:2). The 'boat' aspect may even hark back to the time when baby Moses (little Horus in the Egyptian version) was enclosed by his mother in an ark (teba) and floated on the river (Exodus 2:3).

Both the Israelite and Egyptian versions of the ark were oracular. Both ideally went forth before their armies into battle (1.Samuel 14:18). Thutmose III (biblical "Shishak") will, after Hatshepsut's death, have that ark of Amun proceed before his own army up the terrifying Aruna (Araunah) pass as he marches to the conquest of Jerusalem and the plundering of its Temple's treasures.

This occurred in the fifth year of Solomon's son, Rehoboam (1.Kings 14:25).

The influence of David upon Egypt was so strong at this time that we may yet need to take our conclusions deeper than we have done so far. David may not merely have influenced Thutmose I in his proceedings.

David may actually have been Thutmose I!

The upshot of this would be that the Egyptians still remained their conservative, insular selves, doing what they had done for centuries. But Israel had also overflowed upon the land. We may have here a clash of two entirely different cultures. Something somewhat akin (and I would not want to push the analogy too far) to the situation that prevailed for a time with the co-existence in Mexico of the war-like Spaniards and the pyramid-building Aztecs. The former prepared to stop at nothing to impose their religion upon the land's inhabitants. The latter continuing with their rituals and re-writing the inexplicable Spanish phenomenon according to their own religious traditions and folklore.

Some questions immediately arise from this new scenario:

The questions concerning Thutmose I will be tackled first, in I; and those concerning Hatshepsut will be tackled in II.

David as the biblical "Pharaoh

Who was the `pharaoh' of 1.Kings 9:16 who had sacked Gezer as a dowry for his daughter to marry Solomon? Velikovsky had opted for Thutmose I, without his having attempted to make any link between this pharaoh and king David. Metzler likewise has identified this biblical "pharaoh" with Thutmose I, but with the far more interesting aspect to it that Thutmose I was David.[0120] Unfortunately, though, Metzler appears to have confused early campaigns by David (1.Samuel 27:8,9), when Saul was still alive, with the biblical account of the conquest of Gezer, clearly occurring after Saul's death [123]:

[Metzler] "Since King David-Thutmosis I was also the father of Queen Hatshepsut-Sheba, King Solomon refers to her in his Song of Songs (4:10 et passim) as Achoti Kallah `my sister, my spouse!'. This explains, too, how it was possible that the city of Gezer, which King David had conquered, was given to King Solomon as dowry of `Pharaoh's daughter'. When the city of Gezer was destroyed by David Achinoam was already his wife, but he was not yet King of Judah and Israel, because King Saul was still alive [sic] (1.Samuel 27, 3-11) . Hence it is technically correct that the city was conquered by the pharaoh (1.Kings 9, 16), as she is the pharaoh's daughter who made him pharaoh by marriage."

"When David defeated Gezer, he killed all its inhabitants leaving `neither man nor woman alive' (1.Samuel 27, 8 and 9). Likewise, the pharaoh, whose daughter King Solomon married, is reported to have `gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city' (1.Kings 9, 16). Since it was rebuilt and resettled only by King Solomon (1.Kings 9, 15), King David-Thutmosis I must be the pharaoh, who ceded it to him as a wedding present. There is no room for a foreign invasion towards the end of King David's reign, because `the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies' (2.Samuel 7, 1). Moreover, it does not make sense to conquer a city just to give it away, as pointed out by Abraham Malamat.[130]

I. Thutmose I as David (More)

To confront point 3 first, about whether David stacks up well as Thutmose I, we know that David was essentially - in career terms - a military man. And that is just what we find with Thutmose I. He was, when he came to the throne,"a middle-aged general" [0140],"with a successful career behind him" [0150]. Indeed he is regarded with the great Thutmose III as amongst the most effective of all Egypt's military pharaohs.

Thutmose I's sons were military men as well, and it is notable that Senenmut - whom I have identified as David's son Solomon in Egypt - is thought to have started his career in the army [0160]. This is what one would expect with David's sons.

One of Thutmose I's sons was actually the military man par excellence [0170]:

Amenmose, the younger but possibly longer-lived son, was accorded the title of 'Great Army Commander', the role now traditionally allocated to the crown prince. Physical bravery had become an important New Kingdom royal attribute and Amenmose was clearly expected to enjoy the hearty lifestyle of the male élite. A broken stela tells us that, during his father's regnal year 4, Amenmose was already hunting wild animals in the Giza desert near the Great Sphinx, a favourite playground of the royal princes.

Thutmose I's origins are not properly known, only guessed at [0180]:

... the new heir to the throne may well have been a descendant of a collateral branch of the royal family. Tuthmosis himself, however, makes no claim to royal blood. His father is never named and remains a man of mystery, although it seems safe to assume that he had been of noble or royal birth.

We know who David's father was: JESSE the Bethlehemite (1.Samuel 16:1). But this Jesse too remains, like Thutmose I's father, "a man of mystery"; his being "of noble birth" stemming from the fact that he was of the royal tribe of Judah.

King Saul

While J. Tyldesley calls Thutmose I "the new heir to the throne", others have considered his to be more a case - as with Ay and other non-designated officials of great influence - of one who had become too powerful for the crown of Egypt to ignore any longer.

Now this was precisely the situation that had begun to develop between Saul and David. And it would lead to a pathological jealousy on Saul's part. When Saul and David returned home from defeating the Philistines, we learn (1.Samuel 18:6-9):

"…the women came out of all the towns of Israel, singing and dancing … And the women sang to one another as they made merry:

'Saul has killed his thousands,
And David his ten thousands'."

Saul was very angry, for this saying displeased him. He said, 'They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands; what more can he have but the kingdom?' So Saul eyed David from that day on."

Whether Saul liked it or not - and he assuredly did not like it - the fact was that David had become co-ruler with him. There was more to it even than that. The revered Samuel had in fact rejected Saul as king and had anointed David son of Jesse in his place. (Cf. 1.Samuel 15:28 & 6:13).

This situation of having two strong kings yoked together, in uncomfortable harness, is reflected, I believe, in the situation at the time in Egypt, leading me to wonder if Amenhotep I might not be Saul himself, co-ruling with Thutmose I as David. Tyldesley tells of at least possible evidence for a co-regency [0190]:

There is some rather weak archaeological evidence to suggest that Amenhotep I may have associated himself in a co-regency with his intended successor. On the wall of the chapel of Amenhotep at Karnak, Tuthmosis I is shown dressed as a king, performing royal tasks and with his name written in the royal cartouche. If, as has been suggested, this scene was commissioned during the lifetime of Amenhotep I, there must have been two kings on the throne at the same time.

But, putting aside David for the moment, under what circumstances had Saul thus managed to bring his influence to bear upon Egypt?

The beginning of an explanation for this is to be found in Velikovsky's reconstruction of history, telling how - as he saw it - the 18th dynasty defeat of the Hyksos (Amu ) was the same war as Saul's defeat of the Amalekites [0200]. Due to the danger posed by this common enemy, Egypt and Israel were now firm allies.

Now, according to the Bible, "Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt." Professor A. Yahuda has identified Havilah (cf. Genesis 2:11), watered by the Pishon (Nile), with those aforementioned regions of fine gold, Koptos, Edfu, and Ombos [0210]. Saul's campaigns had thus taken him deep into Egypt.

Saul would manage to conquer, apart from the formidable Amalekites, "all his enemies on every side - … Moab … the Ammonites … Edom … the kings of Zobah [a Syrian coalition] … and the Philistines" (1.Samuel 14:47; 2.Sam. 8:3; 10:6; Zoba: a portion of Syria east of Coelesyria.). Certainly the Philistines and the Syrians, if not the others, had at that time hundreds upon hundreds of powerful chariots.

So Saul must have been a great king indeed in terms of military power.

It should also be remembered that the 18th dynasty, under Ahmose, was emerging from a long period of native Egyptian subjugation and humiliation at the hands of the Hyksos foreigners. It would not be surprising to find therefore that Saul of Israel might have come to exert some degree of influence over Egypt during the reign of Ahmose. This would only have increased after the latter's death.

There is even a slight possibility that Ahmose was the very Ahimaaz whose daughter Ahinoam Saul had married (1.Samuel 14:50).

Unfortunately, though, we cannot say very much more about Amenhotep I because of the dearth of material about him in textbooks of Egyptian history. And if his body was indeed discovered in 1871 amongst the royal mummies at Deir el-Bahri, then he could not have been Saul who was finally buried at Jabesh in Israel (1.Samuel 31:12-13).

It is at least possible though that Amenhotep I's main theater of operation was in fact Israel, as Saul.

Thutmose Again

Returning to Thutmose I, the reason why he "is shown dressed as a king, performing royal tasks and with his name written in the royal cartouche", together with Amenhotep I, is, I suggest, because he already was a king. He never actually had to be made a king by Amenhotep I, nor by any Egyptian official.

He took, or was given by the Egyptians, the name "son of Ra Thutmose" [0220]; that might translate, in Israelite terminology, as, "Son of God", "Son of Wisdom". David and Solomon are both referred to in the Scriptures as "Son of God" (1.Chronicles 22:6-12). And David was a great lover of wisdom, having instructed his son to pray for wisdom (V.12). David can therefore claim a good deal of the credit for Solomon's own renowned wisdom.

Thutmose I is thought to "have bolstered his claim to the throne by marrying Ahmes [Ahmose], the sister of Amenophis [Amenhotep]I" [0230]. However, even that presumed link with Amenhotep I is not certainly established, according to Tyldesley [0240]:

King Tuthmosis I was married to a lady named Ahmose, a popular female name in New Kingdom Egypt. There is some disagreement over the origins of this lady, with some authorities classing her as a daughter of Amenhotep I and others placing her as the daughter of Ahmose and Ahmose Nefertari and therefore a full sister of Amenhotep I. Whatever her parentage, until recently all experts were in agreement that Ahmose must have been a princess of the royal blood, and that Tuthmosis must have married her in order to make his position as king even more secure. …

But, Tyldesley continues, one cannot even be certain that Ahmose herself was of royal blood [0250]:

However, Queen Ahmose, who bears the title of 'King's Sister' (senet nesu) is never accorded the more important title of 'King's Daughter' (sat nesu). The Egyptians were not generally shy of recording their ranks and achievements, and this unusual reticence may therefore be an indication that Ahmose was not the daughter of a king, and by extension that she could not be either the daughter or the sister of Amenhotep I. Instead, she may actually have been the sister or half-sister of Tuthmosis I.

Or, alternatively,"she may actually have been" one of David's own Israelite wives. For instance, Ahinoam the Jezreelite, whose name has at least the first element (Ahi, 'brother of') in common with Ahmose.

Was she even previously Ahinoam the wife of Saul, and hence already a Queen of Israel before David had married her? If so, then there is no reason to presume that David had gone beyond Israel, to Egypt, to marry a foreign wife.

First Conclusion

With neither Thutmose I nor his wife Ahmose unequivocally of Egyptian royal blood, or of certain origin, we are left free to pursue our idea that Thutmose I was indeed David.

David and Solomon Were Late Bronze Age Kings

Peter James and David Rohl, British revisionists, have each proposed that an ivory found at Megiddo, one of Solomon's forts in Israel, "showing a monarch holding court", may actually be a depiction of Solomon himself and his queen in Egyptian guise.

Megiddo it should be noted was one of Solomon's great forts in northern Israel, where Solomon had, writes James [2010], built a "monumental palace compound" (1.Kings 9:15). And it was at the site of Megiddo that the "material culture of Palestine at the end of the Late Bronze Age [Solomon's era by the revision] is best seen". The ivory plaque, says James:

... is of particular interest. [The monarch] is seated on a throne decorated with sphinxes. If it was intended to represent a specific rather than an idealized ruler, would it be too much to imagine that in this ivory we actually have a depiction of the Egyptianized King Solomon?

Now Rohl (who has apparently fallen out so badly with James that they no longer refer to each other's writings) gives his descriptive account of this amazing item [2020], arriving at the same sort of conclusion as had James:

To the right the king arrives in his chariot, driving before him Shasu captives; in the center is an intimate cameo of the same ruler, seated upon his throne with his queen and lyre player standing before him; to the left, behind the king, two courtiers attend to the royal couple's needs. Now let us pick out what might be interpreted as Egyptian elements in the scene. First, above the chariot horses is a winged sun-disk; second, the queen offers a lotus flower to her husband; and third the king is seated upon a throne, the sides of which are guarded by winged sphinxes (i.e. human-headed lions). Surrounding the monarch we see three doves - a well known motif of peace, Solomon married an Egyptian princess; he had 'a great ivory throne' made for him which was protected by 'lions' on either side [1.Kings 10:18-20]; his traditional name means 'peaceful'.

Solomon's Hebrew name, Shelomoh - said to derive from shalom ('peace') - may indeed be said to mean 'peaceful'. Dr. Metzler though, in his inimitable fashion, argues that Solomon is partly an Egyptian name, derived from she-El Amon (sounds like a bit of a hybrid).

So far, I have not successfully managed to find any sort of connection between the names Solomon and Senenmut (whom I have nonetheless identified as the one person). The name Senenmut, Egyptian sn-n-mwt, depicted in hieroglyphs below, means:

"Brother of the mother."

"Brother of the mother" is not a particularly helpful concept, and I can in no way adapt it to the name Solomon. (Although it may pertain to some other name of Solomon's for he had apparently several names, e.g. he was also known as Jedidiah, 2.Samuel 12:25). However, we saw in "Solomon and Sheba" that Senenmut liked to manipulate the Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example creating cryptograms in regard to Hatshepsut's throne name, Makera (meaning "True is the Heart of Ra"). Perhaps he, as the crafty and intellectual Solomon, had adapted Egyptian names to Hebrew ones in Metzler-ian style. If so, the name Senenmut may be more cryptic than has so far been appreciated.

The Israel of Saul's and David's day had begun to overflow into the fertile land of Egypt, and even beyond, into Ethiopia (Nubia). Campaigns into Nubia were already being conducted in the days of Thutmose I's predecessor, Amenhotep I, whose Viceroy in that southern land was Turi.

Thutmose I, immediately upon his accession - according to P. Montet - sent notification of this to the Viceroy of Nubia, Thuroy (likely the Turi of Amenhotep I's reign) [0260]. One would imagine that Thuroy's scribes in Nubia would have quickly set to work glorifying the new pharaoh in their traditional terms, which would of course have had no likenesses to David's own Yahwistic protocol or standard inscriptions.

A few years later Thutmose I's armies would actually appear in the land of Nubia, setting up there a string of garrisons. Tyldesley tells of the pharaoh's campaigns [0270]:

The former general Tuthmosis I soon proved himself a worthy successor to the newly established tradition of the mighty Egyptian warrior-king, embarking on a series of flamboyant and highly successful foreign campaigns intended to impress Egyptian superiority on the traditional enemies of the south and north. In his second regnal year the Egyptian troops marched southwards into Nubia, where, as Ahmose, son of Ibana [275], tells us, they successfully 'destroyed insurrection throughout the lands and repelled the intruders from the desert region', advancing past the Third Cataract of the Nile, where Tuthmosis set up a stela to commemorate his great achievement , and reaching the island of Argo. ….

He left behind him a subdued land controlled by a chain of Egyptian fortresses stretching across Nubia and the Sudan.

…This was followed by an even more spectacular victory. After establishing new military headquarters at the old northern capital of Memphis, Tuthmosis pressed eastwards into Naharin, crossing the River Euphrates and entering the territory ruled by Egypt's new [sic] enemy, the King of Mitanni. Here, as the ever-present Ahmose records:

[His Majesty] went to Retenu to vent his wrath throughout foreign lands. His Majesty arrived at Naharin. His Majesty - life, prosperity and health be upon him - found that the enemy was gathering troops. Then his Majesty made a great heap of corpses among them. Countless were the living captives of his Majesty from his victories. Lo, I was at the head of the army and his Majesty saw my bravery. I brought away a chariot, its horse, and the one who was upon it as a living captive to present to his Majesty. I was rewarded with gold yet again.

After a great battle with many of the enemy killed or taken prisoner, Tuthmosis laid down the foundations of what was later to develop into Egypt's Asian Empire. Once again a commemorative stela was needed, this time to be set on the bank of the River Euphrates.

These last-mentioned campaigns "eastwards", into Retenu and Mitanni, fit very well with David's conquests of his most formidable enemies, the Philistines and the Syrians; if Retenu be taken as Lower Retenu - that is, the Shephelah coastal plain where the Philistines dwelt - and if I am right in my previous identification of Mitanni with Syria (to the borders of Assyria). According to Montet [0280]: "Tuthmosis I derived great satisfaction from the fact that, during his reign, Egyptian messengers could travel the length and breadth of Syria without being molested."

We can thus conclude, regarding point 4, that David as Thutmose I had effectively conquered Egypt even as far as Nubia and the Sudan.

There is nothing of this in the Scriptures, however. No garrison in Memphis or garrisons in Nubia are mentioned amongst the other garrisons the conquering David (or his generals) are said to have set up in subjugated territories, e.g. in Syria, and all throughout Edom (2.Samuel 8:6,13). But Scripture is strangely silent anyway about Egypt. Moses tells us absolutely nothing of his career in Egypt. And the Egyptian (el-Amarna) rule over C9th BC Palestine is nowhere directly alluded to, though shrewd research has been able to bring the subtle pieces of the puzzle together. Incredibly, too, Solomon's huge influence over Egypt, as Senenmut, is passed over in the Bible in a verse or two. These matters were apparently of little interest to the biblical scribes.

Since the Bible gives no indication whatsoever of David's having ever left Israel for any period of time to rule Egypt, the extent of his 'rule' there may have been via garrisons commanded by his own officials (by proxy), amongst whom there were many heroes of great military skill (2.Samuel 23:8-39).

Thutmose III would later reverse all this, so that Egypt would in his day come to rule Syro-Palestine through its own garrisons and governors of choice.

Names

Contemporary names of Egyptian officials, like the enduring Ineni [0290] for instance, could actually turn out to be Israelite, e.g. Hananiah. David also had plenty of sons from various wives to whom he could give official posts abroad (I Chronicles 3:1-9). Basically though the early kings of Israel, presuming they actually had garrisoned Egypt/Ethiopia, would have found it convenient to retain in place Egypt's own cumbersome bureaucracy.

Inscriptions

Indeed it is hardly likely that David would have been able to maintain a strong personal influence in Nubia so far to the south, and even for that matter in Thebes. And this may in part explain our point 5, how Thutmose I's inscriptions, if he were David, could be of the usual pagan formula, without much sign of modification. Johnny Zwick has provided the following useful explanation in regard to the practicality of this [0300]:

"… inscriptions, attributions, ceremonial utterances, ushabtis and idolatrous items were produced quite automatically, without the 'kings' specific instructions, even if these inscriptions state he instructed them.

If such a thing was possible, Thutmose I being David, that would shed new light on the meaning of Egyptian inscriptions in the sense that they were 'canned' texts, automatically applied by trained artists based on traditions and quite automatically, without prompting or input by the ruler(s) him/themselves.

It would also shed light on how 'important' persons were regarded/honored even if non-native … even though we don't find that stated but logically implied.
It may also reveal a tolerance of Israelites on Egyptian ways in the name of these good relations and perhaps a hope of being a witness to them."

Later we are going to see too how Hatshepsut 're-worked' Thutmose I's inscriptions.

Ruling by proxy, through his ever-growing military and religious bureaucracy, David's Israeli influence must have increased greatly in Egypt upon the death of pharaoh Amenhotep I, after which he himself was regarded as the pharaoh for about ten to fifteen years. But these years may in part also have coincided with the late phase of David's reign in Israel, which were troublesome years of revolt against him, even by his own son Absalom (2.Samuel 13: 25-30), and towards the end of which David himself had begun to degenerate into senility.

Despite his undoubted power and success, Thutmose I (like Amenhotep I) is usually skimmed over in a few pages in Egyptian history books. The fact is that we do not know terribly much about him, and much of what we do know is post-mortem, through the testimony of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III who so greatly admired him. We do know that during the reign of Thutmose I building in the Valley of the Kings was firstly undertaken, chapels and obelisks were built. We know about his military campaigns. Thutmose I even concluded his war on Mitanni with an elephant hunt. This fits what we had seen on a previous occasion, that elephants were roaming Syria at the time, no doubt brought in from the great mercantile expeditions that were being conducted by the Phoenicians. [0310]

Perhaps David never lost that youthful instinct as a hunter of which he had once spoken to Saul, in the face of Goliath's arrogance (1.Samuel 17:34-36):

'Your servant used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb from the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down, and kill it. Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God'.

The Cruelty Factor

The Egyptian army returning from the early Nubian campaign wanted it made known that it was not one to be messed with [0320]: "The new king sailed home in triumph with the body of a Nubian bowman, a dreadful warning to others who might be tempted to rebel, draped 'head down over the bow of his majesty's ship, the Falcon'." Thutmose I's apparent cruelty in torturing and slaying enemies was not - it has to be said - out of place in David's régime, whether David was personally responsible or only by proxy. David and his officials could be cruel, or mutilating, by our standards. Had not David himself fulfilled Saul's demand for 100 Philistine foreskins in order to win the hand of Michal, Saul's prize daughter (1.Samuel 18:25, 27)?

Similarly, Ahmose son of Ibana, present at the siege of Avaris, boasted of having, as Tyldesley explains [0330]:

"… brought away from there as plunder two women and a hand. …."
When Ahmose writes of capturing a hand he is referring to the practice of amputating a hand, or on some occasions the penis [foreskin], of a dead enemy so that the true scale of the victory could be assessed.

There are plenty of bloodthirsty incidents associated with David and his armies. Here for instance is 2 Samuel's account of David's stern treatment of the defeated Moabites (8:2):

[David] also defeated the Moabites and, making them lie down on the ground, measured them off with a cord; he measured two lengths of cord for those who were to be put to death, and one length for those who were to be spared. And the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute.[0340]

This is all the more surprising when one considers that the king of Moab had earlier permitted David to shelter his parents in Moab (1.Samuel 22:3-4).

Nor was David's commander, Joab, setting a precedent by killing all the Edomite males (1.Kings 11:15). David had, in earlier times, determined to annihilate all the males serving the testy Nabal, until Abigail prudently intervened to save the situation (1.Samuel 25:22-25).

Animals were not spared either. During his war with Hadadezer the Syrian: "David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for a hundred chariots" (2.Samuel 8:4).

Did not God finally tell his "beloved" (the meaning of David) servant: "You shall not build a house [Temple] for my Name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood" (1.Chronicles 28:3)?

But it seems that some of David's generals were too inhumane and merciless even for David. After Joab had murdered Saul's noble general, Abner, David would lament: "Today I am powerless, even though anointed king; these men, the sons of Zeruiah [Joab's mother], are too violent for me" (2.Samuel 3:39).

Egyptian vs Israelite Law: Contacts of Israel with Egypt from the time of King Saul to Solomon.

Purpose: Showing the Egyptian background to some affairs and events in the life of King Saul and David:

1. Saul achieved victory over the Amalekites at the River of Egypt (1.Sam. 15).
2. The Hebrew prophets [Samuel, Achijah (1.Kings 11:29) and Shemaiah (1.Kings 12:22)] fullfilled the function of state lawyers, experts, who could foresee legal consequences, or judges who knew what the courts would do and gave their advice on the basis of their professional know-how. (Exodus 18:13-26; 1.Sam. 7:15-17; See E. Metzler at `http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm')
3. Chief judges were called in Hebrew `Elohim' who `judged/shaphat' the people. `Elohim' in this legal usage does not mean `God'. The King James Version translates `Elohim' in Exodus 22:8 with `Dayanim' (English: judges). So the witch of Endor (1.Sam. 28:11ff) describes the `Elohim' judge as an old man with a mantle (Samuel).
[Exodus 22:8; "... he shall be brought unto the `judges'", `elohim' is gods in the ordinary sense, but specifically used of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to `magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative to angels, judges, mighty, great, exceeding. Why Hebrew words can have so many meanings is explained here.]
Of course some even today claim they have encounters with biblical personalities of long ago. They claim they have seances and the like. All of these are being deceived by the master of deception.
4. Ancient 18th Dynasty Egypt permitted marriages between brothers and sisters in conjunction with matrilineal succession based on historical facts [450].
5. The Kingdom of Egypt was inherited by the eldest daughter of pharaoh, who had to marry her own brother in order to continue the dynasty. Alan Gardiner states that Thutmose II is shown accompamied by Queen Ahmose, the widow of Thutmose I, and by her daughter the `king's great wife' Hashepsowe/Hatshepsut [460], but read on.
6. In the Hebrew society marriage between brother and sister was unlawful and a sin. (Gen. 12:13, 19; 20:2; Lev. 20:17; Deut. 27:22)
7. Egypt is surrounded on every side by desert and relatively poor desert dwellers. Only in the east-to-northerly direction was an industrious people of considerable economical interest to Egypt. [Click here for a discussion on Punt.]
8. It was of paramount importance for Israel and native Egyptians to overcome their Amalekite/Hyksos occupiers if they wanted once again be masters of their own destiny.
9. According to history books, Ahhotep (II) was the daughter of Ahmose I and his wife Ahmose-Nefertari. Amenophis I was her brother and husband.
10. Amenhotep I died without an heir but a baby mummy was found with insignia identifying the body as a child of Amenhotep I. [See: http://www.touregypt.net/who/Ahhotep2.htm]
11. The name of the wife of King Saul was Ahinoam [0500], daughter of Ahimaaz [0510] (1.Sam. 14:50), whom he married at the beginning of his reign and one of the places they lived in was a fortress at Beth-Shan. Their palace fortress was at Gibeah (Tel el Ful), just north of Jerusalem. Ahinoam bore Saul 3 sons, Jonathan, Ishui, Melchishua, and two daughters, Merab and Michal, 1.Sam. 14:49.
12. The Goliath incident happened about in the 27th year of King Saul, when David was in his mid teens. Jonathan was at this time already a grown man and Ahinoam, Saul's wife, must have been by that time ca. 43 years of age. At the death of King Saul she would be ca. 56 years old.
13. The Bible tells us the names of the wives of David, Ahinoam and Abigail (1.Sam. 25:40,43). Who was Ahinoam, ostensibly the second wife of David? If she was Ahinoam, the wife of King Saul, David married Ahinoam before the death of King Saul according to 1.Samuel 25:43. If David did not immediately marry Ahinoam in a marriage of succession but kept her until the death of Saul, she would have been a ca. 56 year old woman. Could she have born him a son (Amnon) at that age (2.Sam. 3:2)? Or should we assume that she was, lets say, nine years of age when she married Saul and so, would have been 49 at the time when David married her? While today it is rare, women at that age can at times still bear a child according to medical reports.[515] If Ahinoam, wife of David, was not the Ahinoam, the former wife of King Saul, it may remain a question if she could have been a daughter or other close family member of Saul's Ahinoam.

This is all very fine and nice of course, having Davidic kings of Israel ruling mighty Egypt, but what of the fact that the current crop of archaeologists in Palestine, led by that 'doyen of Israeli archaeologists', Israel Finkelstein, are currently writing ancient Israel right out of the history books? And this includes the glorious era of David and Solomon. Though these archaeologists are compelled by some authentic inscriptions that refer to the "House of David" to give king David at least a certain degree of credibility - but only as a petty king ruling a tiny kingdom, during an impoverished era - Finkelstein and his colleague, Silberman, are still bold enough to ask this question [2000]:

Did David and Solomon Exist?

followed by their response:

This question, put so boldly, may sound intentionally provocative. David and Solomon are such central religious icons to both Judaism and Christianity that the recent assertions of radical biblical critics that King David is "no more a historical figure than King Arthur", have been greeted in many religious and scholarly circles with outrage and disdain. Biblical historians such as Thomas Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen and Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, dubbed "biblical minimalists" by their detractors, have argued that David and Solomon, the united monarchy of Israel, and indeed the entire biblical description of the history of Israel are no more than elaborate, skillful ideological constructs produced by priestly circles in Jerusalem in post-exile or even Hellenic times.

What these two Israeli historians have described here is a classical example of what I referred to above as a current trend to write Israel out of the history books. And Israeli 'scholars' seem to be at the forefront of this. Finkelstein and Silberman though do not outright deny the existence of king David. They return several times in their book for instance to mention the Tel Dan evidence: "... in the summer of 1993, at the biblical site of Tel Dan in northern Israel, a fragmentary artifact was discovered that would change forever the nature of the debate. It was the "House of David" inscription". And they think that there may even be another reference to David in the Moabite stone:

Furthermore, the French scholar André Lemaire has recently suggested that a similar reference to the house of David can be found on the famous inscription of Mesha, king of Moab in the ninth century BCE, which was found in the nineteenth century east of the Dead Sea.

However, the Israeli co-authors look to find models, or patterns, for David and Solomon, not in the cosmopolitan and wealthy Late Bronze I-II era (David's and Solomon's proper archaeological location according to the revision), but in the impoverished late Judaean Iron Age history.

This is a testimony to the bankruptcy of the conventional chronology, which yields a dead-end stratigraphy at every point. The effort of Finkelstein and Silberman is hardly to be acclaimed, as one admiring compatriot does, as: "The boldest and most exhilarating synthesis of the Bible and archaeology for fifty years".

As Queen of Egypt and Her Visit to Jerusalem

Though I am only guessing here, I propose that, as Solomon's huge workforce - under the guidance of king Hiram of Tyre - got to work to build the wonders of Solomonic Jerusalem that the mis-directed spades of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists are completely missing out on, Solomon sent his young bride to dwell at Thebes in Egypt. According to Metzler [2090]:

"While under construction by a work-force of 183,300 (1.Kings 5:27-30), Jerusalem was no place for a princess to live."

Solomon may even have lived there in Egypt with her for some of the time.

Though Solomon's youth was passed in the military, as befitted a son of David, and he was, like his father, a keen hunter (the young sons of Thutmose I hunted wild animals in the Giza desert near the Great Sphinx, a favourite playground of the royal princes), he (as Senenmut) was depicted by the Egyptian artists with fine, sensitive hands and plump cheeks. Solomon, a profound thinker, probably preferred to let others get involved in building work; though he would have maintained a keen interest in it all. His title as "chief architect" in Egypt, as Senenmut, is probably due to the fact that it was he who actually employed the Phoenician artisans (cf. Auguste Mariette, who noted a Phoenician influence also in Hatshepsut's architecture) who would design Hatshepsut's own temple and chapels.

Hatshepsut ruled Egypt as the step-mother and guardian of young Thutmose III, Solomon's son by the concubine, Isis. For this period, she was known as "Queen", not "Pharaoh."

Solomon would have remained in Jerusalem at least as the work neared its completion; back there to receive his Egyptian wife when she returned to see, with her own eyes, what so far she had only heard about from messengers. The Bible presents Queen Sheba's visit to Jerusalem, and her encounter with Solomon, as if it were her first time. But it wasn't. The city of Jerusalem however was now nothing like she had remembered it. She drank it all in with amazement and determined that she must have the same for Egypt. And Solomon was never one to refuse her.

The young Thutmose III who accompanied Queen Hatshepsut to Jerusalem also took it all in. Five years after Solomon's death, he would return there with a conquering army, and sack the golden Temple and Solomon's palace. He is the biblical pharaoh Shishak, the name taken from Thutmose III's Horus name, Tcheser-kau ['Chase a Cow']. Ironically, today, most of the wealth and glory of Solomon's Jerusalem is to be found in Egypt, depicted on the walls and tombs of Thutmose III and his generals.

While the Bible may not give the impression that the Queen tarried long in Jerusalem, but simply came, saw and conquered (and was conquered by Solomon in his might and wisdom), and then returned home, Metzler thinks that she may have stayed there for about a decade.

But the Jews at the time apparently did not want the Egyptian queen, Hatshepsut/Sheba, living in the same royal palace with Solomon in the environs of the sacred Ark of the Covenant (2 Chronicles 8:11).

So Solomon moved her to a new location.

Rohl describes what he believes to be the compound that king Solomon had built for her, "beside the road to Shechem (now called the Nablus road) to the north of the City of David and Mount Moriah" [2100]:

The surviving vestiges of the Egyptian compound, with its royal residence and tombs, has been unearthed in the area of St. Etienne [Stephen's] monastery, the Anglican 'Garden Tomb' and the German convent school, just to the north of the Damascus Gate. Numerous artefacts have been found including a serpentine statuette, alabaster vases (late 18th Dynasty), a limestone funerary stela (depicting the deceased offering flowers to the god Seth), a hotep-style offering table; at least two palmiform column capitals, a scarab (bearing the motif of a khepri-beetle raising the sun-disc within crescent moon), faience rosettes (probably used to adorn a funeral canopy), and a faience ushabti figurine. All this points to the burial of an Egyptian of high status in the area - and just such a tomb has been identified by Professor Gabriel Barkay of Tel Aviv University. The rock-cut rooms are all scaled to the Egyptian royal cubit and the main, inner-most burial chamber contains three rock-cut sarcophagi (as opposed to the table-type burial installations generally found elsewhere in Jerusalem).[2110]

Though Hatshepsut's pharaonic husband, Thutmose II, is a somewhat obscure character, we can greatly supplement him with his alter ego, the very well known Senenmut. Hatshepsut's honouring of Senenmut gives the lie to the view that she has virtually nothing to say about her husband, focusing rather upon her revered father, Thutmose I. As far as she was concerned, she had shared a co-regency with Thutmose I, though historians do not tend to believe her - perhaps at their peril.

Her Separation from Solomon

Metzler has suggested that the biblical phrase "she [Sheba] turned" (to go back home) indicates 'divorce' (Latin divortium, from divertere, "to turn away") [2120]. What I suggest may have happened was that Solomon had kept Hatshepsut/Sheba there in Jerusalem along with Thutmose III for however long it took for the latter to be of an age to marry her, and that he then sent the couple back to Egypt to rule there. If I am correct, then Hatshepsut would therefore be the obscure Hatshepsut II so-called, who was to become the mother of Amenhotep II, eventual successor to the long-reigning Thutmose III.

Thus Sheba/Hatshepsut passed from the harem of Thutmose I, to that of Thutmose II, to that of Thutmose III.

Hatshepsut as Pharaoh

Hatshepsut, surprisingly to all, became Pharaoh. The famous expedition to Punt that she would later organize as Pharaoh was primarily to acquire myrrh trees from Lebanon - [one of the favourite places of Solomon and the Shunammite, as young lovers, appears to have been the myrrh-terraces or "mountains of myrrh" of Lebanon (e.g. Song of Songs 4:6)] - in order to provide fragrant incense for her shining new temple ('Splendour of Splendours') at Deir el-Bahri. This magnificent female, descendant of king David, had risen from obscurity in northern Israel, even though a royal princess, to become the close companion of successive kings of Israel (and wife of one) who also ruled Egypt.

Hatshepsut's dramatic rise to power was complete when she claimed the title of Pharaoh of Egypt.

The Death of Solomon

According to my reconstruction, Solomon/Thutmose II would have died about Year 18 of the reign of Hatshepsut/Sheba and Thutmose III. But according to Egyptology (and this is why I was formerly loathe to accept Metzler's view that Solomon was Thutmose II), Thutmose II died a sickly person in his early 30's, after a sole reign of from 10-14 years. Tyldesley though has cautiously noted [2130]:

…nothing in Egyptology can ever be taken for granted, and it is by no means one hundred per cent certain that the body of a man in his early thirties found associated with the wooden coffin of Tuthmosis II is actually that of the young [sic] king. The body and coffin were discovered not lying in their original tomb but as part of a collection of New Kingdom royal mummies which is now known as the Deir el-Bahri cache.

The Death of Hatshepsut

Hatshepsut's mummy has never been found in Egypt. Was Hatshepsut actually buried there, or was she buried in that compound described above, north of Jerusalem, that Rohl thinks is the one king Solomon had set up for her in Israel?

[0010] Those interested could read, for instance, G. Roux's Iraq (Penguin Books, 1992), chapters 12, 13.
[0020] CAH , Vol. II, pt.1 (3rd ed.), 20.
[0030] Ages in Chaos I , London (Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd., 1953), 80, 157-158.
[0040] Baikie, J., A History of Egypt (A & C Black, Ltd. London, 1929), p. 63. See also the `Temple Scroll', column 56 through 59 which presents the rights and duties of the king od Israel. In column 56 which follows closely Deut. 17:14-16, we read: "He must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt, for war ... since I have said to you, you shall never return this way again." Other `Statutes of the King' described are the king's duties to organize an army and appoint officers, laws concerning conscription and taking booty during war, the king's marriage, the judicial council and the king's obligation to heed it, and more. Compare 1.Sam. 10:25.
[0050] Breasted, Records, Vol. II, Sec. 236, p. 96. While the translation used by Breasted mentions Thutmose I's `companions', this may not be far off of a Hebrew parallel where the King's `friend' is mentioned.
[0060] Ibid., Sec. 237.
[0070] Ibid., Sec. 236 (last part) & Sec. 238.
[0080] Baikie, J., A History of Egypt (A & C Black, Ltd. London, 1929), continued.
[0090] Ibid., Baikie.
[0095] Not only was poetry of Israel read in Egypt and vice versa, the very genre of epic poems praising the deeds of God or traditional heroes in a dignified manner seems to have been first used by Israelite poets like David and Solomon, long before Greek alter egos of Hebrew personalities borrowed their patterns, even content and heroes. [Examples: Exodus 15:19-21 Song of Miriam; Psalm 114;136;137; Isaiah 26; Habakuk 3.]
[0100] The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Jersey (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 9:54.
[0110] Joyce Tyldesley,`Hatchepsut the Female Pharaoh (JTH)', (Penguin Books, 1998), 106-107. For a detail image of the `Royal Barge' see KMT, Summer 1996, Vol. 7, p. 49; for the complete image see Ancient Egypt, Feb/Mar 2005, p. 29. For images of the `Red Chapel' see KMT, Summer, 1999, Vol. 10, p. 32f; KMT, Spring 2003, Vol. 14, p. 24; and KMT, Spring 2004, Vol. 15, p/ 19-33.
For drawings of the two types of solar barques of Ramses IX. see N. Reeves, The Complete Valley of the Kings, London, 1997, p. 47. On p. 100 the author mentions three large funerary barques in the tomb (KV 35) of Amenophis II with the body of a mummy in one of the boats, p. 198. None of these `barques' are alike.
[0115] a) The `barque'of Queen Hatshepsut topped by the shrine of Amun and carried by 9 men can be seen in Andrew Hamilton, The Opet Festival in Ancient Egypt, Feb/Mar 2005, p. 29. b) See also Peter F. Dorman, `The Monuments of Senenmut', New York, 1988, `The Date of Hatshepsut's Priscription', p. 46-65. c) The `barque' of Tutankhamen is shown and discussed in Andy Joose, Tutankhamen's Perplexing Calcite Barque in KMT, Spring, 2005, p. 35-39. The author references a number of Egyptologists comments about the barque none of which offer a logical explanation but then discusses the not matching border decoration.
[0120] But Metzler may well be right that David was the "pharaoh" just referred to, because I have since read that some noted biblical historians (Martin Noth, Hist. 216; Albright, ARI 136, n. 29; AASOR 12, 74-75) have concluded that David must have in fact sacked the city of Gezer.
[0123] Archaeologists argue that Gezer was destroyed by Shishak (ca. 918). See William G. Dever, The Date of the `Outer Wall' at Gezer in BASOR, Feb. 1993, p. 33-(35)-54. At CIAS we hold that King David (ca. 1012-972 BC) destroyed Gezer.
[0130] Abraham Malamat, `Das davidische und salomonische Königreich und seine Beziehungen zu Ägypten und Syrien', Zur Entstehung eines Großreichs, (Wien 1983) pp. 22 and 24. See also BA, Vol. XXI, Dec. 1958, p. 96-104.
However, The Jerome Biblical Commentary 10:23 (1968, Commentary on 1.Kings by P. Ellis) provides the following most interesting piece of information, authoritatively supported by conventional historians, that is very much compatible with the reconstruction aimed at by Metzler (though conventionally presuming the "pharaoh" in question to have been the 21st dynasty's "Psousennes [Psusennes] II"):
"Gezer is west of Jerusalem on the hills above the maritime plain, well situated as a western defence for Israel. It is difficult to see (v. 16) how Pharaoh, probably Psousennes II, would have had to conquer it, because presumably David had done so before him (cf. Noth, Hist. 216; Albright, ARI, 136, n. 29; AASOR 12, 74-75)."
[0140] JTH, Ibid., 62. See also Peter Clayton, `Chronicles of the Pharaohs', London, 1994, p. 101-102.
[0150] Ibid., 73.
[0160] Dorman, P., The Monuments of Senenmut (Kegan Paul International, London, 1988), p. 69.
[0170] JTH, p. 75-76.
[0180] Ibid., 62.
[0190] Ibid., 63. Emphasis added.
[0200] Ages in Chaos, chapter 2 "The Hyksos". Velikovsky was wrong though in his suggesting (p. 73) that the "One" referred to in the Ahmose inscription for the siege of Avaris referred to someone other than the pharaoh, hence Saul. This use of "one" for pharaoh was standard Egyptian practice.
[0210] The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian (Oxford University Press, 1933), 107.; According to Genesis 25:16-18: "These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. ... And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria." Accordingly, Sur was located east of Egypt in the direction of Assyria, which would equate Havilah with today's region of Jordan and Saudi-Arabia, possibly including the area of where the Euphrates enters the Persian Golf near Basra and thus include a part of Mesopotamia. If we allow that the water way of the Pisan of Genesis 2:11*) refers to the Arabian peninsula as it is surrounded by the waters of the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea, this passage and the conquests of Saul take on a different meaning. Saul did not conquer Arabia but just some Arab tribes (Ammonites in Gilead, 1.Sam. 11:1; and others 14:47 ) bordering his territory. Saul's conquests, then, did not reach deep into Egypt but to its borders - but this all changed under King David. Saudi Arabia had one of the richest gold mines.
*) In contrast to Damien, I believe that the rivers flowing out of Eden point to the post-Flood: 1) Pisan, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean surrounding Saudi Arabia, 2) the Gihon, the Indian and Atlantic Ocean surrounding Africa, 3) and the Mediterranean Sea, before Hiddekel, Assyria/Syria, and 4) the Euphrates River. While today we know oceans are not rivers, the ancients may have not made such a strict distinction not having maps of knowing the layout of their world exactly. Basically the geography/topography of the pre-Flood world was rendered unrecognizable by the world wide disaster.
[0220] Montet, P., Eternal Egypt (Phoenix Press, London, 1988), 42.
[0230] Grimal N., A History of Ancient (Blackwell, 1994), 207.
There was also a secondary spouse of Thutmose I by the name of Mutnofret, the mother of Thutmose II. [KMT, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 64]
About Amenhotep I Dr. Birch wrote the following: "It is rare to find on sepulchral objects other indications then those relating to the dead ... occasionally (they) have written on them the name and age of the deceased, and the name of the monarch under whom they were embalmed ... . They often have in their legends or decorations the name of Amenhotep I, of the 18th dynasty, who seems to have enjoyed posthumous honours, for unknown reasons, for a later period then the 18th dynasty."
See also information on the tomb of Ken. In a niche in the middle of the back side the prenomen of Amenophis I (Amenhotep I) of the 18th dynasty was found. Other names which occur include: 1. Hathor, the queen of Amenthi, 2. the divine wife of Amon `Ahmes-nefertari', 3. the sister of the king `Amen-meri-t', 4. royal offerings to `Ra-Harmakhis-Tum'. [Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Nov 1884- June 1885, Vol. VII]
The Queen of Amenhotep I was Merytamen whose colossal rishi-style wooden outer coffin was found in her rock cut tomb at Deir el Bahari. A photo of this coffin and a detailed map and article on her tomb (An-B) can be seen in KMT, Winter 2003/04, p. 65.
[0240] JTH, Op. cit., 65.
[0250] Ibid.
[0260] Op. cit., 44.
[0270] Op. cit., 70. Argo Island is probably located offshore from Argin. See Map.
[0275] Damien is also exploring if `Ahmose son of Ibana', could have been the mighty general, Abner, uncle of Saul and commander of Saul's army (21 Samuel 14:51). Abner first emerges just before Saul's defeat of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), which would be chronologically appropriate given general Ahmose's involvement with pharaoh Ahmose and the Hyksos. He was frequently decorated by the pharaohs,campaigning in Nubia, Avaris and Naharin. The name Ibana could be Egyptian for Abner, hence Ahmose (his Egyptian name) son of Ibana (i.e., son of Ner, i.e. Ab-ner). Abner's father was probably called Ner to distinguish him from his son, Ab-ner.
Abner actually brought David to Saul after David had killed Goliath, the giant's head still in David's hand (17:57). Later, David could have killed Saul and he tells Abner, Saul's guard, that he deserves to die: 'Abner .... Are you not a man? Who is like you in Israel? .... As the Lord lives, you deserve to die ...' (26:15, 16). 'Who is like you in Israel?' Abner apparently had a formidable military reputation.
Abner apparently did not die at the battle of Gilboa with Saul and Jonathan, 'How the mighty have fallen' (2 Samuel 1:19). He later slew Joab's brother, the swift-footed Asahel (2:18-23), and was then pursued by Joab himself until a truce was called (vv. 24-28).
Abner continued to serve the House of Saul (Ishbaal) that continued its enmity against David, but, after Abner's being accused of a misdemeanour by Ishbaal, he defected with many to David at Hebron (ch. 3). Abner was eventually slain treacherously by Joab unbeknowns to David, who was angry when he learned of it, '... these men [Joab and his brothers], the sons of Zeruiah, are too violent for me' (v. 39). Thus Abner did not live to serve David in Jerusalem.
[0280] Op. cit., 114.
[0290] Ineni was the chief architect during the time of Amenhotep I of the 18th Dynasty. In his titled capacity as `Chief of all Works at Karnak', he was also active in tomb constructions.
[0300] In e-mails dated 11/03/02 and 12/03/02.
[0310] An elephant is carved on the Assyrian period `Black Obelisk/Kurkh Stele' where it is presented as a gift from the king of `Musri', either Egypt or a place in Syria. BAR, Sep/Oct 1985, p. 47; See also BAR, Nov. 2002, p. 49.
[0320] JTH, p. 70.
[0330] JTH, p. 25-26.
[0340] By measuring 2 cords for a death sentence, presumably for hanging, and 1 cord for staying alive, presumably long enough to tie someone's hands for a period of imprisonment.
[0450] Alan Gardiner states that Ahmose married the daughter of his older brother Khamose who was therefore his niece (Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 174.).; See also A. Rosalie David, The Egyptian Kingdoms, N.Y., 1975, p. 108-111.; Joyce Tyldesley, Hatshepsut, London, 1996, p. 65-69.
[0460] Ibid., ref. 450, p. 181.
[0500] Assumption: Ahinoam was an Egyptian woman.
[0510] Assumption: Ahimaaz [#11] is an Egyptian name and could stand for Ahmose on the following basis:

(a) The first syllable of Ahmosis (`A-h-mes') contains the `Alef' and `Chet (h)' of Achimaaz as well as its Yod (i) "hand" which corresponds to the hieroglyphic `Ayin' "forearm with grasping hand", See Gardiner (N18) pp. 454 D 36, and 486 N12). The correspondence between `maaz' and `mosis/mes' is easily seen.
(b) Since King David is Thutmosis I, King Saul must be Amenophis I…. This is proved beyond reasonable doubt by his wife's name, who is known in Egyptology as Ahhotep, the daughter of pharaoh Ahmosis I, and in the Bible as Achinoam, the daughter of Achimaatz … which is absolutely identical.

…Translating Achinoam into Egyptian yields Ahhotep, for hotep corresponds to Hebrew no'am "pleasant" ….