Wednesday, April 6, 2011

The Pharaoh Who Looted Solomon's Temple

Damien F. Mackey

This is a significantly improved and enlarged version of my original article by this same title that appeared several decades ago in CompuServe’s ‘Living History Forum’, Ancient/Archaeology Library.

Easter 2011


Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky - historical revisionist and critic of the conventional Sothic-based dating of ancient Egypt - was the first person to be able to propose (Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, 1952) that pharaoh Thutmose III of Egypt’s 18th dynasty was the correct candidate for the biblical “King Shishak of Egypt” (1 Kings 14:25), thereby replacing the highly inappropriate conventional candidate, Shoshenq (Shoshenk) I, of the 22nd Libyan dynasty.
The foundations for Velikovsky’s new identification were:

1. His revised history of 18th dynasty Egypt which he aligned with the Bible from that dynasty’s inception (corresponding to the beginning of Israel’s Monarchy), down to the El-Amarna [EA] period of pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhnaton (corresponding to the Divided Kingdom and the era of king Jehoshaphat of Judah).
2. His identification of the biblical ‘Queen of Sheba’ (or ‘Queen Sheba’) with the Egyptian female ruler, Hatshepsut, thus necessitating that her biblical successor, ‘Shishak’, be Hatshepsut’s nephew-successor, Thutmose III.
3. His attempted reconstruction of Thutmose III’s First Campaign, to “Kadesh” (‘Holy’), with Shishak’s march against the King of Jerusalem, Rehoboam.
4. His comparisons of the treasures depicted by Thutmose III’s scribes on the wall of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak with various types of holy articles and treasures that the Bible says had adorned the Temple of Yahweh and Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem.

Velikovsky also made a host of useful identifications of more minor biblical characters with 18th dynasty personages, some of whom will be met with again in this article.
I have basically accepted Velikovsky’s package (1-4) for the 18th dynasty (only), and my original article of this title, “The Pharaoh Who Looted Solomon’s Temple”, did not veer much from Velikovsky’s original thesis - except for a few modifications (some based on modifications already made by others). And I still accept that package (1-4), but now with some very significant modifications – with even more to be proposed now in this greatly revised version of “The Pharaoh Who Looted Solomon’s Temple”. (I am retaining the original title here, even though I am now conscious of the fact that the Bible never actually calls the Temple in Jerusalem, “Solomon’s Temple”, but rather “the Temple [or House] of Yahweh”). Here are the primary changes, around which this new article will be built:

1. The 18th dynasty of Egypt and the Monarchy of Israel - indeed of the very same era - were in fact also of the very same origins. The Thutmosides were none other than Davidic Jews (but Egyptians on their mothers’ side, in some cases,).
2. Hatshepsut was indeed the biblical ‘Queen Sheba’, but her celebrated Punt expedition - which Velikovsky had insisted was the visit by the biblical queen to king Solomon in Jerusalem - was not the biblical visit after all, but occurred years later, when Hatshepsut was no longer queen, but Pharaoh. The Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is clear that Solomon’s female visitor was a queen (cf. 1 Kings 10:1; Luke 11:31).
3. Thutmose III was the biblical ‘Shishak’, as Velikovsky had rightly claimed, but his First Campaign (Year 22/23), which Velikovsky had interpreted as targetting Megiddo in the north (like the conventional Egyptology has it) - but nevertheless, and most awkwardly against Rehoboam of Jerusalem in the south, according to Velikovsky - was in fact directed towards Jerusalem itself, not at Megiddo.
4. Velikovsky’s lack of knowledge of the Egyptian hieroglyphs has recently been shown up starkly, with some gross inaccuracies exposed as regards various identifications he had tried to forge between the biblical treasures and those of Thutmose III.

Let us now consider these four points in turn.

1. The Thutmoside Dynasty was Jewish

I owe this insight entirely to Dr. Ed (Ewald) Metzler, who claimed to have become aware of the fact (that the 18th dynasty was “Israelite”) as far back as 1989: “… the Israelite
dynasty of Egypt was unheard-of, before I first mentioned it at the end of my last book entitled “DISCOVERING MOSAISTICS, Introduction to the Scientific Study of the Law of Moses and Mosaical Antiquity.” [(Herborn 1989) p. 200 Note 32: “Eighteenth-dynasty Egypt may evolve as the Israelite dynasty, ushered in by King Saul’s marriage
to the daughter of Ahmosis, the biblical Achima‘atz, and King David’s identity with Thutmosis I: Dhwty-ms is David the Messiah!”]. Indeed, I shall come back to discuss Dr. Metzler’s views in a moment. And I am most grateful to Johnny Zwick of the California Institute for Ancient Studies ( for his having alerted me to Metzler’s crucial work in this particular area.
But in 1997, I - at that stage without yet having any knowledge of Dr. Metzler - had myself arrived at a related conclusion when preparing an article for publication for the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies [SIS] (U.K.). The article was my response to a brilliant refutation of Velikovsky by Dr. John Bimson in 1986 (his article, ‘Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba’, C&C Review, Vol. VIII, pp. 12-26), who was the one to show that the Punt expedition (point 2. above) could not have been the same as the biblical visit. This 1986 article by Bimson led him to conclude further that Hatshepsut could not have been the biblical queen. It threw me for a decade, after which I returned with a new approach and defended Velikovsky’s conclusion against Bimson; though now with modified arguments. Whilst writing this article on Hatshepsut I noticed that her powerful steward, Senenmut - ‘the real power behind the throne’ according to some - had kept intruding himself. Eventually I concluded that this Senenmut (or Senmut) had to be in fact Solomon himself. I asked the then editor of SIS, Alasdair Beal, if I could include this new concept in my article, and he said that I could. The article became ‘Solomon and Sheba’ (C&C Review, 1997:1, pp. 4-15). Though the Senenmut aspect of it was then somewhat rudimentarily developed by me, given the very short notice, it nevertheless afforded a whole new dimension to Velikovsky’s revised scenario.
Only later did I find that Dr. Metzler had already (in 1989) concluded that Solomon was also Hatshepsut’s pharaonic husband, Thutmose II. Metzler had noted that Velikovsky, whom he greatly admires, had not taken this logical step (op. cit., p. 31). “… King Solomon-Thutmosis II and his Egyptian wife Queen Hatshepsut-Sheba …. Although the great Immanuel Velikovsky found out that they are contemporaries, he failed to see that they are husband and wife. …”. Nor is there anything in Metzler’s writings, I believe, to suggest that he himself had also connected Solomon with Senenmut. I think that these two ‘Egyptian’ identifications for Solomon (i.e. of Thutmose II and of Senenmut) can both be made.
If my identification of Solomon with Senenmut brought a whole new dimension to the subject, then Metzler’s attribution of pharaonic status to Solomon (= Thutmose II) opened up unimaginable new horizons. For, central to Metzler’s argument was that David himself had been, before he had ruled Israel, the biblical “pharaoh” of I Kings 9:16; the pharaoh who had given Gezer to Solomon as a dowry for his daughter, Solomon’s Egyptian wife, namely Hatshepsut. This meant that David was, as pharaoh, Thutmose I, the father of Hatshepsut, but also the father of Thutmose II (Solomon). Metzler refers to the testimony of the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) that Solomon had in fact married his own (half-)sister (ibid., p. 14):

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”. ….

And Bimson had archaeologically assigned a destruction of the city of Gezer to Thutmose I, in ‘Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?’ (SIS Review, vol. vi, issues 1-3, 1978, pp. 17):

In Velikovsky’s chronology, this pharaoh is identified as Thutmose I [ref. Ages in Chaos, iii, “Two Suzerains”] … In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point during LB I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning [ref. Dever et al., Gezer I (1970, pp. 54-55 …)].

But, what is going on here - Israelites now ruling over the Egyptians?
Scott Hahn explains this wonderfully in his book, A Father Who Keeps His Promises (Charis 1998, ch. 11); the best book I know of for an introductory overview of the Bible that is at once readable, profound and humorous (pp. 212-216, emphasis added):

David's Humility

Even though David longed to build a temple and rule as a priest-king, God denied him this privilege. He promised to grant it to the king's son instead. Wouldn't you think David would be disappointed?
Yet how do fathers who fail to accomplish some dream react when they see their sons achieve it instead? They typically feel even greater satisfaction, as demonstrated in David's reply to God, which begins in this way:

Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that thou hast brought me thus far? And yet this was a small thing in thy eyes, O Lord God; thou hast spoken also of thy servant's house for a great while to come, and hast shown me future generations.
2 SAMUEL 7:18-19, emphasis added

The father's glee over God's generosity to his son was unbounded.
As the Revised Standard Version states in the margin, the Hebrew phrase translated "future generations" (wasoth torath ha'adam) is more naturally rendered "this is the law for humanity" …. The two key words are Torath, which is a form of "torah", the word for covenant-law, and ha'adam, which is the Hebrew word for humanity ("adam").
King David thus announced a greater covenant blessing than God had ever given before, a "torah" for all the nations, not just Israel. In other words, what the torah of the Mosaic covenant was to Israel, a charter of Divine guidance and blessing, the torah of God's covenant with David – and his son – would be for the Gentiles! The "torah" came to the Gentiles initially through Solomon, in the form of God’s "wisdom" (see I Kg 3-10), and was subsequently collected and associated with what we call the Wisdom Literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon).
I would paraphrase the first part of David’s response this way: "O God, you have done all these glorious deeds and made this promise for my house. You’ve pledged to do great things for my dynasty. Yet all of this is small in your eyes, since what you have really given me is the covenant law for all the nations, your entire human family. I can’t believe my ears. Who am I, your lowly servant, that you would do this for me and my son?!"
The Father had accomplished these glorious deeds because David thought of himself as nothing but a servant. If you feel like small stuff, a nobody, take heart: That qualifies you to play a role in God's plan. God has always been and still is looking for people who see themselves as lowly, who are humble before the Lord and who fear the Creator more than their fellow creatures. Such are the ones the Father will use to strengthen his human family and thus build the kingdom of heaven for his own name’s sake,
David exhibited these very traits in his encounter with Goliath. Everybody quaked before this giant. Yet a mere shepherd boy stepped up to meet the challenge. He didn’t claim to be fearless. In fact, David said in effect. "Hey, I would be afraid, too. But listen to this guy. He’s blaspheming the God of Israel! Nobody can do that and get away with it, no matter how big he is. God will do anything for anybody willing to knock him down to size. After all, the bigger they are the harder they fall”.
David's faith allowed him to recognize the deeper import of God's promise: that his dynasty would be a universal kingdom. In fact, this worldwide decree was the means by which God would establish the corporate destiny of the human family. Through the Davidic covenant, he would give a constitution for all humankind, an international family charter offered freely to the nations.
As covenant mediator, King David went to work. He gradually transformed the national family of Israel into an imperial family, a dynastic kingdom. The difference is subtle but crucial. A nation maintains sole sovereignty, whereas a kingdom exercises sovereignty over other states and nations.
The ultimate purpose of this imperial rule was to share with all nations the wisdom, the truth and the righteousness that God had so generously poured out upon Israel. From the beginning, his desire was to. father a worldwide family. He singled out Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses, not because he plays favorites but because he is a wise father who knows how to use his firstborn son to influence the younger siblings who have been deceived by demonic powers.
God allowed the Davidic kings to make vassals out of the surrounding nations for their own good. After all, it was better to serve as a slave in God's family than to be free outside of his household. And in this way, the Father was preparing all the Gentile nations to receive the full gift of divine sonship through Jesus Christ.
For a brief time, the surrounding nations accepted this charter, much as Israel had initially said yes to God's call to be a kingdom of priests. And then Israel and the nations repudiated God's call. But we must not be too quick to condemn them: Sacrificing the lower goods of this world, setting our hearts on treasures in heaven and carrying our crosses, have never been easy and never will be.

The Royal Psalms

King David left one tangible legacy for all humankind: a rich treasury of psalms. These vignettes of agony and ecstasy, hate and love, despair and victory, scorn and praise capture this man's unusually sensitive nature as well as his gift with words and music. The so-called royal psalms offer an insightful commentary as to the real meaning of the Davidic covenant.
Psalm 2 is one of the best known of these songs. David reflects on the nations and kings of the earth who conspire together against the Lord and his Messiah, refusing to be ruled by God through his representative king. But the Lord has been listening in on their communications all along ... laughing at their schemes: "I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill" (v 6). God wasn't worried about the kings and princes of the earth banding together to overthrow his righteous law. They may have deceived themselves and deluded others, but the Father knew their wayward hearts and rebellious plans and would make it all come back on their own heads. Psalm 2 thus highlights a particular aspect of the Davidic covenant: a worldwide theocratic family under God's fatherly law. The rulers of the earth who refuse to serve and worship the one true God court disaster and ruin.
Psalm 72 captures another angle of this vision. The psalmist prays that the royal son would reign with righteousness and justice, and that all kings would serve him. This is provisionally realized in Solomon, but ultimately fulfilled in the true Son of David, Jesus Christ.
Psalm 89 tells us that God will make the Son of David "the firstborn, the highest of the kings on earth" (v. 27). The word "highest" in Hebrew is elyon, a title usually reserved for God himself. Yet the line of David shall endure forever as the means by which God the Father will reunify and restore the family he has created.
The last psalm to consider is Psalm 110, which is the most frequently quoted in the New Testament. It begins, "The Lord says to my lord (literally, Yahweh says to my lord [Adonai]): ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’" (v. 1). Following the ancient tradition that attributes this psalm to David, Jesus referred to this verse and asked, "If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?" (see Mt 22:45). Like the other psalms we've cited, this points to the partial fulfillment of the Davidic covenant in Solomon and its perfect fulfillment in Christ.
The fourth verse is also significant: "The Lord has sworn, he will not change his mind; ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’" (Ps 110:4). Two things may be highlighted: first, this verse refers to God's covenant oath regarding David's son; and second, it reveals how God will bring blessings to Israel and all the nations, through Jesus Christ, our royal high priest (see Heb 5-7).

[End of quote]

Herein lie the origins and the raison d’être of the Thutmoside rule over Egypt and the other nations: … to share with all nations the wisdom, the truth and the righteousness that God had so generously poured out upon Israel.
David himself, as Thutmose I, probably only established garrisons throughout Egypt and Nubia, for the purposes of controlling the trade routes and for tribute, as he did also in Syria (2 Samuel 8:6). With Solomon however, in unison with Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, Israel controlled Egypt and Nubia far more comprehensively, with Davidic and Solomonic wisdom flowing into the southern land. Egypt became like Israel, with a temple, a high priest, a barque [Ark] for Amun-Ra, who had become the foremost of the gods. And Thutmose III went along with all this, for “his many policies and religious rituals are very similar to his step mother” (web article, “18th dynasty pharaohs”).
This third Thutmosid, Thutmose III - whom Metzler also equates with the biblical ‘Shishak’ - was Solomon’s son by his concubine, Isis (or Aset), who some think may even have been Nubian. E.g.; “Thutmose III. He was born into Egypt's 18th dynasty... became the most prosperous on earth. Born to Thutmose II and a Sudanese woman, Aset” (Article: Thutmose III: 'The Napoleon Of Antiquity', from: Sacramento Observer, February 19, 2003, Author: Clegg, Legand H., II). (

Bimson has tentatively pointed out (following on from his biblical-Gezer reconstruction), the true stratigraphical level for pharaohs Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, and for King Solomon (his Revised Stratigraphy, ibid.):

Although an exhaustive study of the LBA contexts of all scarabs commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and perhaps no earlier …. Velikovsky’s chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III’s sole reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam of Judah [ref. Ages in Chaos, iii and iv]. Therefore, if the revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon’s reign saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than from LB I A to LB I B [as Bimson had previously thought].

Finally, a further dimension that I believe I have added, is to identify Hatshepsut, king Solomon’s spouse, as also the biblical Abishag (Aviyshag), “the Shunammite”, of both 1 Kings 1:3 and Song of Songs 6:13 (though some versions of the latter have Shulammite). She was thus a half-Egyptian, half-Jewish royal princess. She hailed from Shunem in the Valley of Jezreel, and fittingly, too, a Jezreelite was Achinoam (1 Samuel 27:3), who I believe was Abishag’s Egyptian mother. Metzler has proposed this interesting connection between Achinoam and Ahhotep, wife of Thutmose I (= David).

When the city of Gezer was destroyed
by David, who killed all its inhabitants, Achinoam
was already his wife, but he was not yet King
of Judah and Israel, because King Saul was
still alive (1. Samuel 27, 3–11).23) Hence it is
technically correct that the city was conquered
by the pharaoh (1. Kings 9, 16), if she is the
pharaoh’s daughter who made him pharaoh by
marriage. Translating Achinoam into Egyptian
yields Ahhotep, for hotep corresponds to Hebrew
no‘am “pleasant”….)

[Ancient Egyptian: hotep: Be at peace; be peaceful, to rest, to be happy, to become content, to repose].

Also her son’s name Amnon
(2. Samuel 3, 2), a theophoric contraction of
Amon-On, and the affair he had with his half-
sister Tamar are clearly Egyptian. The conflict
of laws becomes obvious, when he says to her,
“Come lie with me, my sister,” which would be
all right in Egypt, and she answers him, “no such
thing ought to be done in Israel” (2. Samuel 13,
11 and 12)….)

For some of these identifications considered in greater detail, see my ‘House of David’ article at Johnny Zwick’s site:
According to one view, “Abishag was considered one of David’s wives, and marriage to a widow of the previous king was a way of making a claim on the throne”.
And this status for Abishag is also apparently Metzler’s view (op. cit., n. 24):

He [i.e. ThutmoseI/David] who married King Saul’s widow
Achinoam-Ahhotep could claim the throne under the law of
matrilineal succession, cf. Note 27 infra. This is demonstrated
by the case of Adonijah, who was executed for treason by
King Solomon, because he had tried to marry King David’s widow
Abishag of Shunem (1. Kings 2, 22–25). Similarly, King Saul’s son
Ish-Boshet, who reigned for two years (2. Samuel 2, 10), felt
challenged by Abner’s affair with his father’s concubine Ritzpah
(2. Samuel 3, 7–10), possibly a daughter of Agag (misspelled as Aiah),
the last Amalekite king defeated by King Saul and executed by the supreme
judge Samuel (1. Samuel 15, 32 and 33).

Dr. Metzler also thinks that King Solomon had eventually divorced the biblical queen and sent her home – but only after a substantial period of time had elapsed (ibid., n. 52):

On their divorce cf. Ed Metzler, Discovering Mosaistics
(N. 1) pp. 175 and 182–3. The word “divorce” (Latin divortium)
derives from divertere “to turn away”, and thus the story about the
Queen of Sheba ends by saying that “she turned”, and went away
to her own land (1. Kings 10, 13 and 2. Chronicles 9, 12). The in-
sertion of the two preceding verses (as e. g. Genesis 38 in the story
of Joseph) indicates that a period of time, maybe 10 years, elapsed.

A probable reason for this divorce (if such is what it was), was, I suggest, because Hatshepsut had not given Solomon the necessary male heir. Their child was the female, Neferure, whom Senenmut obviously (from his statues with her depicting great affection) adored. He was also her steward and her tutor, as he was likewise for Thutmose III. Scholars do not realise that he was their father as well. And thus, in the end, Hatshepsut had to play second fiddle to Solomon’s Ammonite wife, Naamah, who bore Solomon the future king of Jerusalem, the ill-fated Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25-31). King Rehoboam was therefore a half-brother of Thutmose III’s/Shishak’s. This situation perhaps explains why the father, Thutmose II, appears to have had only a short reign, with his marital connection to Hatshepsut severed after only a few years.

On the basis of all this, I should now like to propose the following political scenario:

Three pharaohs ruled simultaneously.

(i) Thutmose II/Solomon, as successor to the great Thutmose I. His base was largely Jerusalem; though he came to interfere more and more in international politics (with his international wives). And this is where the Bible leaves him (1 Kings 10-11).
(ii) Thutmose III, his son, was given the rulership of Egypt. But he then appears (though not in reality, see below) to play second fiddle to
(iii) Hatshepsut, who becomes pharaoh herself.

I think, though, that the reason for the apparent fading from the scene of Thutmose III may partly have been because, due to difficulties in Nubia, Thutmose III, a military natural, had actually become pharaoh of Kush in the deep south. This situation is partly discerned by scholars:

By the second year of the young king's rule, Hatshepsut had usurped her stepson's position and so inscriptions and other art began to show her with all the regalia of kingship, even down to the official royal false beard. Yet, at the same time, she did little to really diminish Tuthmosis' rule, dating her own rule by his regnal years, and representing him frequently upon her monuments.
It is likely that Tuthmosis III, was lucky to have survived her rule, though there is some debate on this issue. He obviously stayed well in the background, and perhaps even demonstrated some amount of cunning in order to simply keep his life. Because of the prowess he would later demonstrate on the battlefield, we assume he probably spent much of Hatshepsut's rule in a military position. To an extent, they did rule together, he in a foreign military position, and her taking care of the homeland.

(Tour Egypt’s ‘Tuthmosis III’)

But I shall also be proposing in the next paragraph (with very significant ramifications) that - as already hinted above, anyway - Thutmose III was in fact himself part-Nubian. Kush was probably the logical place for him to be. However, given that it was also necessary for a ruler to exist in the north, in Egypt proper, Hatshepsut must have had that important rôle bestowed upon her by Solomon (who in fact, as Senenmut, would crown her as Pharaoh – Thutmose I had already crowned her as queen in a coronation ceremony that, step for step, resembles Solomon’s own coronation. Thus:

Successor of the King

There is an early parallel between Solomon and Hatshepsut in the ways their fathers presented their children to the assemblies of their respective countries, to designate them as their successors.

(i) The Assembly is Summoned
‘David assembled at Jerusalem all the officials of tribes, the officers of the divisions that served the king, the commanders of thousands ... of hundreds, the stewards of the property ... and all the seasoned warriors’ (I Chronicles 2:81). Likewise Hatshepsut's father, Thutmose I ‘... caused that there be brought to him the dignitaries of the king, the nobles, the companions, the officers of the court, and the chief of the people’ [J. Baikie, A History of Egypt, A. & C. Black Ltd., London, 1929, Vol. 11, p. 63].

(ii) The Future Ruler Presented

Next, King David presented Solomon to the assembly, saying ‘... of all my sons ... the Lord ... has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, over Israel. He said to me, ‘It is Solomon your son .... I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father’’ (vv. 5-6). So did Pharaoh present his daughter to the assembly ‘This my daughter ... Hatshepsut .... I have appointed her; she is my successor, she it is assuredly who will sit on my wonderful seat [throne]. She shall command the people in every place of the palace; she it is who shall lead you …’ [ibid.].

(iii) The Assembly Embraces the King's Decision

In Israel, ‘... all the assembly blessed the Lord ... and bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and did obeisance to the king .... And they ate and drank before the Lord on that day with great gladness’ (29:20, 22). Similarly, the Egyptian officials [ibid.] ‘kissed the earth at his feet, when the royal word fell among them .... They went forth, their mouths rejoiced, they published his proclamation to them’. Also, just as Solomon was presented as ‘son’ of God (cf. II Samuel 7:14), so in Egyptian inscriptions Hatshepsut was called ‘daughter of Amon-Ra’.

Thutmose III did not therefore fade right into the background, as is generally thought.
Far from it!

Here is a further proposed innovation. When Hatshepsut, in her 9th year as Pharaoh, prepared her Punt venture, there is hardly any mention of Thutmose III.
Where was he?
If in Kush, then why was it Neshi (Nehesi), the supposed Chancellor, from that region, and not Thutmose III himself, who had played the leading part, directing the expedition? Well, in my view, Thutmose III was Neshi (or Nesy or Nisyt); this name being taken, I suggest, from Thutmose III’s nebty name, Wahnesyt, (‘Enduring in Kingship’) [A. Gardiner gives it as w3h nsyt … Enduring-of-kingship-…, Egyptian Grammar, Griffith Institute, Oxford, 3rd ed. 1994, p. 72], and his march to Punt with a small army was the prelude to Thutmose III’s many campaigns there after the deaths of Solomon and Hatshepsut.
Although it may be tempting to try to link together the seeming nick-names Neshy (Nishy) and Shishak, I think that these two names might actually relate to two different pharaonic titles of Thutmose III’s. More on that in the section below, The Name ‘Shishak’.
I would agree in a general way with Johnny Zwick that: “It is very likely that Thutmose III, son of Thutmose II and his Royal Wife Iset as a young prince, accompanied [the …] voyage to Punt … and had seen the riches of Solomon …. Later, after he had become pharaoh, he remembered what he had seen and resolved to make these treasures his own” (“Pharaoh Thutmose III - the Napoleon of Ancient Egypt”).
Senenmut was also a most prominent figure too, of course, in the whole Punt arrangements. So I believe that the big three mentioned above (i-iii), all pharaohs, were together well involved in this marvellous venture.
Velikovsky had even claimed that “the chiefs of Irem” referred to in Hatshepsut’s Punt inscriptions at Deir el-Bahri were the officials of King Hiram himself, a fourth big player at the time. I like that idea, too.

The Name ‘Shishak’

Velikovsky did not appear to make any great progress in relating the name ‘Shishak’ to Thutmose III. Though he did apparently find the name Swsk referred to in a Ras Shamra (Ugarit) tablet of that time (revised). Johnny Zwick refers to it as follows (op. cit.):
…. As we demonstrate, Shishak is the scriptural name of Thutmose. Since the tablets of Ras Shamra belong to the period of the Amenhoteps and Thutmose, we should expect to find in them, besides the biblical name of Zerah (Terah, Poem of Keret), that of Shishak. It was found, in fact, among the first of the deciphered words and it caused considerable surprise.
"Le mot `Swsk' semble, un nom propre, a rapprocher peut-etre de l'egyptien Sosenq, hebreu Sosaq, et Sisaq." [Transl. "The word `Swsk' resembles a proper name, bringing together perhaps the Egyptian, Hebrew Shoshenk, or Shishak."] [1770]
The translator did not dare to draw the correct conclusion, for what was this pharaoh of the 9th or 10th century doing in the middle of the second millennium? Why was the name `Sisaq' (French) `Shishak' found on a 15th century tablet in Ras Shamra?

Velikovsky referred to Josephus’s information that the Egyptian conqueror’s name was ‘Isakos’, or ‘Susakos’, and also to the Jewish tradition that Shishak was from Shuk, ‘desire’, because he had wanted to attack Solomon, but feared him. I am sure that this must have become an issue as Solomon aged, with the great Jewish king’s foes now seeking refuge with king ‘Shishak’ in Egypt. And Johnny Zwick tells of certain striking identifications that Velikovsky had made in this context of Solomon’s foes, e.g. (Septuagint) princess Ano (

"And Susakim (Shishak) gave to Jeroboam to be his wife Ano, the eldest sister of Thelkemina, his own wife. She was great among the daughters of the king and she bore to Jeroboam Abijah." [50]

[And he explains the Septuagint reading]

Where Susakim is Shishak;
Ieroboam is Jeroboam;
Ano is princess Ano, wife of Jeroboam;
Tekeminas is Thelkemina;
basileos means king;
Abia is Abijah;
Aiguptou means Egypt;
Sarira in Ephraim are the fortifications;
This information is important because it gives us the name of the queen's sister. The Bible confirms that Jeroboam received a wife in Egypt the way Hadad did just one generation earlier, 1.Kings 11:19. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York there is preserved a canopic jar bearing the name of princess Ano. [60] The jar's style has been dated to the time of Thutmose III.

And Genubath (

And the sister of Tah-pen-es bore him Genubath his son, whom Tah-pen-es weaned in Pharaoh's house: and Genubath was in Pharaoh's household among the sons of Pharaoh.
And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David had died and now slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country.
Then Pharaoh said unto him, "But what have you lacked me, that, behold, you seek to go to your own country?" And he answered, Nothing: but let me go in any way."1.Kings 11 Edom, like Israel, was ruled by a chief appointed by the Theban king. It was 40 years before that Hadad had returned to Edom after the death of King David. Genubath, the son of Hadad, was now king in Edom. He either lived there or in Egypt. As long as he paid his tribute regularly to pharaoh everything would be fine. After Thutmose III had returned from one of his expeditions into Palestine he found in Egypt tribute brought to him by couriers from the land of `Genubatye'.

"When his majesty arrived in Egypt the messengers of the Genubatye came bearing their tribute." [JBREA, `Records', Vol. II, Sec. 474]

It consisted of myrrh, `negroes for attendants', bulls, calves, besides vessels laden with ivory, ebony, and skins of panthers.

[End of quote]

K. Birch came up with the intriguing idea that the name ‘Shishak’ could have arisen from the Golden Horus name of Thutmose III, Tcheser-kau, or Shesher-kau. (“Shishak Mystery?”, C&C Workshop, No. 2 (1987), p.35): “`Sheser-khau' is derived from the Egyptian `Djeser' or `Tcheser' in Hebrew pronunciation only since hieroglyphics cannot directly be translated except by sound”. Though David Rohl has responded that the Golden Horus name was never the one used by the pharaohs, I tend to accept Birch’s view as the explanation.
According to a reviewer of an unpublished article by me on the same subject (I’ll call him ‘Dr. Anonymous’): “The final vowels of Sheser-kau cannot be ignored because they point to the plural of a religiously significant word in Egyptian and would probably not be suppressed in pronunciation”. But see the similar case of Shoshenq I as ‘Shosh’ below.
Thutmose III might prove to undo these pharaonic customs (if ever such they were). Don’t forget that (according to this revision) we are dealing anyway, in the case of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III (and Senenmut), with semi-foreign (Jewish/or part Jewish) rulers of Egypt. Moreover, Senenmut himself had fun playing around with the title of Hatshepsut herself, creating cryptograms in connection with her throne name, Maat-ka-re. It may have been a Solomonic family trend at the time. For example, we read at:

Senenmut, a powerful official [sic] of the female pharaoh Hatshepsut, commissioned at least twenty-five statues of himself. This innovative statue type, which shows him holding a divine symbol, was offered to Montu, the god of Armant, in petition for Hatshepsut's well-being and his own eternal reward. The image, which depicts a cobra resting on a pair of upraised arms and crowned with a cow's horns and a sun disk, is identified in the inscription as Renenutet, a goddess of harvest and nourishment. However, it can also be read as a cryptogram for Maatkara, Hatshepsut's throne name—a visual pun made possible by the close relationship between Egyptian hieroglyphic writing and art.

And also at:

The intact and relatively unscathed portrait statue of Senenmut Kneeling with Uraeus Cryptogram was carved from a grayish green stone called metagraywacke. As he gently kneels, Senemut holds a large cryptogram or emblem with hidden meaning. A cobra's head supports a solar disk and cowhorns. The serpent rests on two upraised arms, the hieroglyphic symbol for the ka or soul. In its entirety, this mysterious composite image was meant to support life and protect one from evil magically. Also, the cobra, arms and sun disk together hieroglyphically spell Hatshepsut's coronation or throne name, Maatkare. Possibly after her demise or by priests hostile to the cult of Amun, Senemut's name was carefully and intentionally erased from the sculpture's inscriptions.

Senenmut Kneeling with Uraeus Cryptogram
Early 18th Dynasty, joint reign of Hatshepsut
and Thutmose III (1479-1458 B.C.)
Western Thebes, Deir el-Bahri
H. 41.6 cm (16 3/8 in.), W. 15.2 cm (6 in.), D. 30. 4 cm (12 in.)
Kimbell Art Worth, Fort Worth AP 85.2
© The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

I should like to recall, too, that the father of Solomon’s two secretaries, had the name, Shisha (1 Kings 4:3). Possibly, then, it may not be necessary to search for Shishak in one of the pharaonic titles, but as a Hebrew name - though I still personally favour Birch’s idea. The name Shisha is of course lacking the important letter ‘k’ (for Shishak).
The K Hieroglyph

But Shoshenq I himself, the conventional candidate for Shishak, was wont to issue scarabs with the abbreviated name (or hypocoristicon/nickname) ‘Shosh’, or the like, from which is missing an entire element, enq, or enk. According to K. Kitchen (The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC), 2nd edn., Aris & Phillips, Warminster, p. 374, n. 751): “Abbreviations of private names are common from the New Kingdom onwards”. (More specifically, Kitchen tells here of Shoshenq’s name having been actually shortened to ‘Shosh’ on scarabs).
I have also tentatively proposed previously that Thutmose III was the same as Thutmose IV of very similar names. Certainly the biblical chronology in relation to Thutmose III as Shishak would demand a significant curtailment of the conventional sequence of pharaohs. For more on this, see my article, “An Eighteenth Dynasty Historical and Chronological Revolution”, at:
Johnny Zwick put my view on this in his article as follows (op. cit.):

Bombshell One. Damien wrote, `instead of Thutmose IV coming next, after Amenhotep II, I make Thutmose III and IV (both named 'Menkheperure') the same person … and Thutmose IV's son who pre-deceased him, 'Aakheperure', the same as Amenhotep II 'Aakheperure'. This means that Amenhotep III 'the Magnificent' actually rises to power right after the long reign of Thutmose III. Conventional history books may state that Amenhotep III was the son of Thutmose IV with no or little evidence to back it up.[625]

While this fold is a bit tentative still, we have not been able to find clear evidence that it is impossible and anticipate it will carry.
[End of quote]

Now, checking ‘their’ (Thutmose III’s and IV’s) other names, apart from the common prenomen, Menkheperre, I find that they are either identical or rather similar. The nomen names are of course exactly the same. The Horus names both contain the element, Kanakht. The nebty names both contain that nesyt or nisyt element, from which I suggest Neshi arises. While the Golden Horus names each have the somewhat similar, but admittedly still different, Djeser or User element.

For Thutmose III

Horus name: Kanakht Khaemwaset
Nebty name: Wahnesyt
Golden Falcon name: Djeserkhau Sekhempehti
Prenomen: Menkheperre
Nomen: Thutmose

For Thutmose IV

Horus name: Kanakht Tutkhau
Nebty name: Djednisytmiitum
Golden Falcon name: Userkhepesh Derpedjetpesdjet
Prenomen: Menkheperre
Nomen: Thutmose

The ser element here in each case in the Golden Falcon (Horus) name may perhaps serve us to make a further important identification: namely, of the elusive ‘Zerah the Ethiopian’. Johnny Zwick had written again on this (Napoleon, ibid.):

Bombshell Two. Amenhotep III is King Asa of Judah, both of approximately 40 years of reign. He comes to the throne of Judah about (and I [Damien Mackey] am following P. Mauro's biblical chronology here) 15 years after the 'Shishak' incident, hence in Year 38 of Thutmose III. In the latter's Year 43 (approximately), which is Year 5 of Amenhotep III (i.e. Asa), Pharaoh Thutmose III, whose personally-led Palestinian campaigns had ceased a few years earlier (presumably due to his age), sent his Nubian commander, the biblical "Zerah the Ethiopian", with a massive army of a million men and 300 chariots, Ethiopians and Libyans, to crush Judah. This was likely the largest army until then ever assembled. King Asa, son of Abijam (1.Ki. 15:8), turned to God for help and defeated the enemy host, 2.Chr. 14:9-15. This was virtually the only major war waged by Asa in his guise as Amenhotep III for his entire reign. He records it on various stelae and he names his 'vile Kushite' foe, Ikheny.
Amenhotep III took a massive 30,000 prisoners in this war.
In previous articles I had identified this "Zerah" with Amenhotep II's Nubian commander (or commander of Nubia), User-tatet; the biblical name "Zerah" having been derived from the name element, User (or Uzer). I think that this identification can still stand, even though I now suspect that Amenhotep II himself was no longer alive (otherwise this warlike man would have led the army himself). I would also suggest in this context that Ikheny was the native name of User-tatet.
Thanks to this massive victory for Judah, King Asa became extremely rich, famous and mighty (2.Chr. 14:9-15), just like Amenhotep III - a new King Solomon. And, as Thutmose III's reign faded out, and with no heirs left to him, Amenhotep 'the Magnificent' was able to rule Egypt for about three decades.
[End of quote]

But now, in light of my findings (see also below) that Thutmose III himself may even have been Nubian, then I would think to reinterpret this as he himself being the biblical ‘Zerah the Ethiopian’ (perhaps from the name element, User), whose continuous campaigns into Syro-Palestine were finally brought to a halt by king Asa of Judah, who became in his turn Amenhotep III (‘the Magnificent’) – a veritable new King Solomon.

_ _ _ _ _

The Mesopotamian Connections

There are yet further dimensions now to be added to the whole historical scenario (revised), apart from the correspondence of the early 18th dynasty with the era of David and Solomon: a time-shift downwards of some 500 years. I refer to the even more radical lowering of the era of Hammurabi of Babylon from c. 1800 BC, conventional dating, to the era of David and Solomon: a time-shift downwards of some 800 years.

Dean Hickman got the ball rolling beautifully in his article, ‘The Dating of Hammurabi’ (Proceedings of the Third Seminar of C&AH held in Parma, Ohio, and Ontario, Canada, 1986, pp. 13-28), when he proposed that Hammurabi was a late contemporary of king David, and hence a contemporary of king Solomon. This was one of the great articles of the post-Velikovskian and post-Courvillean revision – {along with some by the ‘Glasgow School’ (e.g. Bimson and James); Dr. Danelius’s explanation of Thutmose III’s First Campaign that will figure largely in this article, see 3. below, and the work of Dr. Metzler} - not because it was so brilliantly argued and organised, but because Hickman brought some important perspective to the Mesopotamian side of things that, until then, had been quite neglected. The enigmatic Hammurabi, already tossed from c. 2400 down to c. 1800 BC by the conventionalists, and lowered further by Courville, to the time of Joshua, c. 1400 BC (though quite uncompellingly, I thought), was then shunted further down the timescale by Dean Hickman to c. 1000 BC (all round figures).
Hickman argued that the mighty Assyrian king Shamsi-Adad I of that era was David’s foe, Hadadezer, and that Shamsi-Adad I’s father, Ilu-kabkabu, or Uru-kabkabu, [i.e. Ru-kab] was the biblical Rekhob, father of Hadadezer.
This was already a very useful base.
Upon that base, I, in conjunction with Johnny Zwick, have greatly augmented this. The fact that we have been able to do so is an indication to me that Hickman had struck an initial rich vein of gold. It now needed to be mined fully. The significant Zimri-Lim of Mari we identified with Solomon’s foe Rezin, son of Eliada (1 Kings 11:23); Eliada himself being Zimri-Lim’s father, Iahdulim (or Iahdunim). See:
Next came the key identification in all this. Hammurabi was King Solomon himself, in his influence over Babylon. This interesting concept I have now greatly developed in CIAS articles, e.g. ‘Hammurabi the Great King of Babylon was King Solomon’:; and ‘Rescuing King Solomon from the Archaeologists’:
If Hammurabi is to be related to King Solomon, as I believe, then this will mean that the current archaeology assigned to him, in the Middle Bronze Age [MBA], is completely out of whack, and that Hammurabi instead ought to be assigned with Solomon to LB I-II. Having Hammurabi in MBA has caused havoc with archaeological reconstructions, and thus, too, with biblical archaeology (e.g. for the important Jericho). Our revision necessitates, in conjunction with Courville, an alignment of Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms. But this also means a re-aligning of the Archaeological Ages, the extent of which we do not think that Courville properly appreciated (as a ramification of his Old-Middle Kingdom restructuring). Ultimately, all of this is going to necessitate a completely new naming of the different phases of Egyptian history, and a significant reassembling of the associated archaeology.

King Solomon’s Foes

Now Solomon, as he aged, was beset by various foes, as a punishment we are told for his apostasy. This was a very serious fall for a man who had been given so much by God, so many graces and favours and mercies – for a man who had once possessed such profound wisdom. His foes, we are told, were Hadad the Edomite (11:1); the afore-mentioned Rezin, formerly a servant of Hadadezer’s; and the highly talented Jeroboam, son of Nebat (11:26), who became the first king of Israel during the Divided Monarchy era (post-Solomon).
These men were said to have fled to Pharaoh (or ‘Shishak’) in Egypt. Thus:

(a) Hadad went to “Pharaoh king of Egypt”, and married the latter’s sister-in-law, the sister of Queen Tahpenes (whom we saw above Velikovsky claimed to have historically identified).
(b) His son, Genubath (whose name we saw also Velikovsky claimed to have found in the Annals of Thutmose III), was born of an Egyptian mother.
(c) Jeroboam “fled to … King Shishak of Egypt” (11:40).

Likewise, we read of Thutmose III: “He also took a number of foreign princes hostage, who then received training and indoctrination in Egyptian ways. They would later be returned to their homeland as obedient vassals of Egypt”. (Tour Egypt, op. cit.).

The mighty pharaoh Thutmose III, antiquity’s ‘Napoleon’, was beginning to stir and shake his eagle’s wings (though he himself would probably have preferred a Bull metaphor, “the Mighty Bull, Living Horus", as he calls himself in his inscriptions: Hr k3 nht h). Solomon’s adversaries were warmly welcomed in Egypt by Thutmose III/Shishak, who heaped honours upon them. This was all politically-motivated of course.
Who were they? And what became of these Solomonic foes?
I say “Who were they”, ostensibly indicating the three afore-mentioned foes of Solomon; but, as I am actually going to be proposing here, these “three” were in fact only two. This is again brand new material. What I am going to suggest - and I have already developed this in recent articles such as “A Revised History of Northern Israel from Jeroboam I to Jehu” ( - is that:

Foe One: Hadad. He was also the biblical Eliada, father of Rezin (= Iahdulim, father of Zimri-Lim);
Foe Two: Rezin (= Zimri-Lim). He, son of Eliada, was also Jeroboam [I], son of Nebat [ - I know that this last different name does add a complication].

Now Syro-Israel, at the time of Omri, will be divided between two military commanders, Omri himself and Tibni, son of Ginath (1 Kings 16:21). This obscure Ginath was, in turn, I suggest, the Genubath who had, like Jeroboam/Rezin fled to Shishak. He (or his people) emerges again, as Velikovsky had found, in the records of Thutmose III, as Genubatye.
Ginath is thus again our Foe Two: Rezin/Jeroboam.

Tibni (Tabni), for his part, son of Ginath, is Tab-rimmon, the father of Ben-Hadad I. [I now reject my tortuous argument in my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background, that Tab-rimmon and Omri were in fact one and the same person, so that - when Ahab, son of Omri, claimed to be the ‘brother’ of Ben-Hadad I (1 Kings 20:32) - this was literally true. A different meaning for ‘brother’ here, though, will now need to be ascertained].
Tab-rimmon’s father was Hezion (i.e. Rezin).

It was this mighty Egypt-backed king Jeroboam I (= Ginath/Genubath/Genubatye; Rezin/Hezion/Zimri-Lim) - a man so favoured at first by Solomon, and then by Thutmose III/Shishak - who was instrumental in the split of the kingdom of Solomon, leaving Rehoboam with just the southern portion, including the all-important Jerusalem.
Thutmose III/Shishak did not need to attack Jeroboam, therefore. The latter was dutifully paying tribute and had the full support of Egypt. Nor did Thutmose III in his all-important First Campaign, despite objections, attack anything north of the kingdom of Judah.

2. Hatshepsut was ‘Queen Sheba’

Since I have already written extensively on this subject, and have answered all of the major objections to Velikovsky’s thesis, now modified, I wish here simply to make a couple of points touching directly upon Hatshepsut herself relevant to this article. Once that is done, I shall move on to re-consider the rôle of Thutmose III in Hatshepsut’s Punt expedition (and Hatshepsut then only indirectly).
My points re Hatshepsut specifically are these:

(i) If Hatshepsut were the biblical ‘Queen Sheba’ (I am favouring ‘Sheba’ as her name rather than her land), which I personally think has now been satisfactorily shown (and so my conclusion here in bold should not be considered as a case of circular reasoning), then Thutmose III has to be Shishak, chronologically, militarily and opportunity-wise. And indeed he had all of the requisite skills and power and motivation.
(ii) The only other point I shall raise here regarding Hatshepsut is this query: Could Hatshepsut have had some Kushite (Nubian) blood running through her veins? I have never previously thought of this, and I am not aware that anyone else has ever suggested it. Though they may have. But I shall certainly be arguing that such was the case with Thutmose III, that he was part-Nubian. What prompts me to ask the question in relation to Hatshepsut, daughter of pharaoh Thutmose I (= the Jewish king David), though, is that the Song of Solomon, or Canticle of Canticles, says of the bride - who I now consider, following Metzler to be Hatshepsut/Sheba (but with my addition of Abishag):

“I am black and beautiful …” (1:5).

I had previously taken this “black” to indicate simply that the half-Egyptian Hatshepsut/ Sheba may have been darker of complexion by comparison with the maidens of Israel. But some scholars are emphatic that the Egyptians were not any darker. So perhaps we ought to take at face value the bride’s claim to have been truly black. Unless the next verse (v. 6) is meant to indicate that this shepherdess (perhaps) was sun-darkened by her living outdoors: “Do not gaze at me because I am dark, because the sun has gazed on me”. If it is intended to be taken that she was naturally black, then this would mean that David’s Egyptian wife, Achinoam, (i.e. Ahhotep, wife of Thutmose I), must have had Nubian blood in her veins. This, in turn, would give deeper meaning to those Ethiopian traditions about the queen of Sheba, Makeda.
And indeed some think (as already noted) that the mother of Thutmose III, the concubine Isis (Iset or Aset), whom the pharaoh Thutmose II (= Solomon) truly loved - as he did all of his wives (1 Kings 11:1) - was Nubian (or Sudanese). And this again may add force to the view that Solomon had an Ethiopian son, Menelik (= Menkheperre?). This idea will be developed in the next section, Thutmose III and the Punt Venture,, and it will help us to explain much in relation to Thutmose III, bringing in a whole new dimension again, and it will serve to provide him with a further important alter ego.
But first I should like to insert the following relevant piece by Emmet Sweeney on Hatshepsut and Thutmose III in the Ethiopian (Abyssinian) tradition:

Thutmose III, Shishak, and Menelik

Emmet Sweeney

Velikovsky’s identification of the Queen of Sheba with Hatshepsut of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty meant that Hatshepsut’s successor on the Egyptian throne, Thutmose III, had to be identified with Shishak, the ruler of Egypt who, according to the Book of Kings, plundered the Temple of Jerusalem shortly after Solomon’s death. Shishak also seemed to be identifiable with Sesostris (or Sesoosis), the great warrior-pharaoh who, according to Greek writers such as Herodotus and Diodorus, conquered much of Asia.
In Ages in Chaos Velikovsky devoted an entire chapter to the identification of Thutmose III with Shishak/Sesostris, and the arguments he presented were both extensive and ingenious. He found, for example, that the land conquered by Thutmose III in his first year, namely Retjenu, was precisely the region conquered by Shishak. The King of Kadesh, Velikovsky argued, must have been the King of Jerusalem, and he noted that throughout the Old Testament Jerusalem is repeatedly described as “Kadesh” (the Holy). Even today, it bears the same name in Arabic, Al Kuds.
Velikovsky also indicated that the identification of Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba, as well as Thutmose III with Shishak, was strongly supported by the traditions of Ethiopia. He noted, for example, that the Ethiopians gave the name Makeda to the Queen of Sheba, a word strikingly close to Hatshepsut’s throne-name Makera, and he remarked on the fact that, according to the same tradition, the Queen of Sheba’s son by Solomon, Menelik, had returned to Jerusalem many years later and stolen the Ark of the Covenant from the Temple.
Notwithstanding the similarity between the names Makera and Makeda, I was for a long time rather unimpressed by this part of Velikovsky’s argument. The land we now call Ethiopia was not, of course, the same country as that which anciently bore the name. In biblical times “Ethiopia” was the name given to Nubia, the region corresponding to the far south of modern Egypt and the northern half of modern Sudan. Modern Ethiopia, on the other hand, centred on the highlands of Abyssinia, is a region which owes much of its cultural heritage to southern Arabia. Furthermore, the names Makeda and Makera, though similar, could well have been only coincidentally so. They are not so close as to force an identification. How, I thought, could the “r” in one name have been replaced by a “d” in another?
That was before. I now realize however that the traditions of Ethiopia are crucial to the whole Queen of Sheba mystery.
The more I have explored the origins of modern Ethiopia, the more I have come to realize that the country does indeed owe much of its cultural inheritance to ancient Nubia and, by implication, to ancient Egypt. The later Nubian kingdom, from the fifth century BC onwards, had its capital at Meroe, near the Fourth Cataract. This is just over 570 miles, as the crow flies, from Lake Tana, in the Abyssinian Highlands; and the southern borders of this later Nubian realm were substantially closer. It is known that even before the beginning of the Christian age many Egyptian cultural and religious ideas had reached the country. This movement was only strengthened with the advent of Christianity, and from the second century AD, Abyssinia became a Christian land with strong links to the Coptic Church of Egypt.
Bearing the latter point in mind, it is surely significant that the Queen of Sheba occupies a central position in the traditions of the Abyssinians. Indeed, in a very real sense the Queen of the South is regarded as the founding matriarch of the nation; the ancestress of all the nation’s royal dynasties. In the words of Budge, the Abyssinians “never doubted that Solomon was the father of the son of the Queen of Sheba. It followed as a matter of course that the male descendants of this son were the lawful kings of Abyssinia, and as Solomon was an ancestor of Christ they were kinsmen of our Lord, and they claimed to reign by divine right.” (Kebra Nagast, Budge’s trans. p. X)
But whilst the Abyssinians identified and celebrated the Queen of Sheba as ruler of Ethiopia, they were equally unequivocal in identifying her as a queen of Egypt; and the traditions which do so are of a type that could not, as we shall see, have been copied from biblical or other sources.
The great repository of Abyssinian legend and lore is a volume named the Kebra Nagast, the Book of the Glory of Kings. The existing version is said to be a translation from an Arabic text, which in turn was translated from a Coptic (late Egyptian) one. It contains quotation from the Gospels, and therefore cannot predate the rise of Christianity. According to Budge, it is “a great storehouse of legends and traditions, some historical and some of a purely folklore character, derived from the Old Testament and later Rabbinic writings, and from Egyptian (both pagan and Christian), Arabic and Ethiopian sources. Of the early history of the compilation and its maker, and of its subsequent editors we know nothing, but the principal groundwork of its earliest form was the traditions that were current in Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt during the first four centuries of the Christian era.” (Ibid. pp. XV-XVI)
The Kebra Nagast asserts that whilst in Jerusalem the Queen of Sheba became Solomon’s lover, and returned to her own country pregnant. From this liaison was born Menelik, reputedly the ancestor of all the kings of Ethiopia. We are also told that when she returned to her country, “her officials who had remained there brought gifts to their mistress, and made obeisance to her, and did homage to her, and all the borders of the country rejoiced in her coming..., And she ordered her kingdom aright, and none disobeyed her command; for she loved wisdom and God strengthened her kingdom.” Velikovsky noted that this passage “resembles the story of the festival for the officials and for the whole rejoicing land, arranged by Queen Hatshepsut after her return from her journey; so do the words ‘she ordered her kingdom aright’ and that she ‘loved wisdom.’” (Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (1952) p. 136) Yet for all that, “there is nothing so extraordinary in these things as to compel the conclusion that Ethiopian tradition about the Queen of the South knows more than the Scripture narrative.” Should the Ethiopian tradition however disclose some fact or facts not contained in the Scriptures, but which agreed with what we know of Hatshepsut, then its claim to originality would be greatly strengthened.
Such a fact exists. In the Abyssinian tradition, the Queen of Sheba is called Makeda, whilst the royal name of Hatshepsut, mentioned throughout the Punt reliefs, is Makera. The similarity between these two words is indeed close, though, for a long time I was inclined to go along with Velikovsky’s critics, who asserted that it was not sufficiently close to force an identification. How could the “r”, I thought, have been changed into a “d”? I now know that the mutation is easily explained if we remember that the Kebra Nagast is the translation of a translation; passages in Egyptian (Coptic) and Hebrew being translated first into Arabic and then -- after being added to and rewritten many times -- into Abyssinian. A single scribal error (and there must have been many) would have been sufficient to corrupt the original form of Makera’s name.
Velikovsky surmised that if the name was not handed down by an uninterrupted tradition then it might have been disclosed by an Egyptian of early Christian times who, having seen the Punt texts at Deir el Bahri, and being able to read them, identified Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba. There may in any case have been a tradition current in Egypt that the Punt reliefs represented a voyage to Jerusalem.
The Kebra Nagast’s value to our investigation is not exhausted with this disclosure, spectacular though it might be. We find there another tradition of equal or perhaps even greater significance. As we saw, the Ethiopians assert that Solomon and the Queen of Sheba became lovers, from which union was born Menelik, the ancestor of all Ethiopia’s monarchs. Crucially, we are further informed, after reaching manhood Menelik returned to Israel to rob the Temple, and, upon stealing the holy Ark of the Covenant by a ruse, fled to Ethiopia, pursued by his father Solomon as far as the borders of Egypt. To this day, the Ethiopians claim that the lost Ark remains in their possession.
Now we know that, after the death of Solomon, the Temple in Jerusalem was indeed plundered, and that all of its treasures, including presumably the Ark of the Covenant, were carried off to Egypt. Biblical tradition is very specific that the culprit was a ruler of Egypt, a pharaoh, to whom the name Shishak is given. That Ethiopian tradition should also assert that the king who stole the Ark was a son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba makes it very clear that the Queen was regarded by the Ethiopians as an Egyptian monarch.
The real Shishak, the plunderer of Solomon’s Temple, was Thutmose III, not the son of Hatshepsut, but the stepson and nephew. He did not rule Abyssinia, but he did rule ancient Ethiopia, which was Nubia as far south as the Third Cataract. Clearly then Menelik must, in some way or other, represent the historical Thutmose III; and there is some evidence at least to suggest that the name Menelik can be traced to the pharaoh. Given the notorious interchangeability of the letters “l” and “r”, Menelik may originally have been Menerik, and this sounds like a contracted and slightly corrupted version of Thutmose III’s throne-name, Menkheperre; the name by which he is most frequently known on inscriptions and correspondences. It is perhaps worth pointing out too that by early Christian times Egyptian pronunciations had changed dramatically from pharaohnic usage. Thus Amenhotep was, even by the third century BC, pronounced something like “Amenophe,” with the “p” softened and the syllable “hot” unpronounced. It is not impossible therefore that by Christian times, when the Coptic traditions which found their way into the Kebra Nagast were being compiled, the name Menkheperre could have been pronounced something like Menkere. There is no great distance between Menelik/Menerik and Menkere.
We know, of course, that Thutmose III/Menkheperre attacked Palestine in his first year of rule and that he plundered the fabulously wealthy temple he found in the region’s capital.

Emmet Sweeney’s book Empire of Thebes: Ages in Chaos Revisited (2006), is published by Algora.


I've just become aware of how the Egyptian Makera could have been mutated into the Abyssinian Madeka. In the early Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet the letters "r" and "d" are almost identical. Both are a triangle, or delta, on its side, facing left. The "r" has a tail -- a bit like an English "p" facing backwards. The "d" does not, but sometimes scribes did give it a bit of a tail -- making it virtually identical to the "r".

[End of Sweeney’s article]

Thutmose III and the Punt Venture

The male person who takes centre stage in Hatshepsut’s Punt venture is the Chancellor, Neshi (Nehesi, Nehsy, Nehesy, Nehesyw). The name “Neshi” is thought to mean “Nubian”, or “black”. It was also borne by the sole pharaoh (according to some interpretations) of the supposed Hyksos 14th dynasty, c. 1700 BC, about a century after Hammurabi.
Can there possibly be a connection between the 14th and 18th dynasty Sheshi’s?
It may be a long shot, as the throne names seem to be quite different in each case. Of the 14th dynasty Neshi, we find: Nehesy Throne name: Aa-seh-ra (Great in Council is Ra). Unless his Golden Horus name has been confused with his throne name. Aa-seh-ra is more compatible with User (Thutmose IV’s Golden Horus name) – [and indeed Aa-seh-ra is very like Zerah, the name of the biblical Ethiopian]. N. Grimal also gves a Dedumesiu I and II for the 14th dynasty (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 392 Appendix); not unlike Thutmose IV’s nebty name: Djednisyt-miitum.
Senenmut is also an important player in the Deir el-Bahri account of the Punt expedition. As Solomon, now in Hatshepsut’s 9th year, and beginning to age, he would have overseen the whole affair; though without physically having participated in it.
Thutmose III, by that name, is hardly mentioned at all in relation to Punt. He hovers somewhere in the background, and is depicted offering libations to the god. {In a similar fashion, the very powerful Horemheb - a quasi-pharaoh with Ay during the reign of Tutankhamun - is thought to have been mysteriously missing from an important campaign into Kush, and also from Tutankhamun’s burial, being upstaged by General Huy, who was prominent on both occasions. But General Huy was simply General Horemheb. So there is no problem with it}. And the same applies to Thutmose III in relation to Punt, I suggest. Far from his being relegated to the background, and upstaged by Neshi, Thutmose III, I say, was Neshi. He led the Punt expedition. And this peaceful military campaign was just one of the many that this great pharaoh would undertake in the course of his rule. I think that the name Nehsy can be discerned in the nebty name of Thutmose III, -Nesyt. [Unless, ‘Nehsy’ was - as is thought - just a description, hence a non-titular nickname, for a black person or Nubian – even if, in this case, one of royal blood].
Joyce Tyldesley gives the conventional estimation of the degree of involvement in the Punt venture of the supposedly four (but in reality only three) leading characters (Hatchepsut the Female Pharaoh, Penguin, 1998, p. 153):

Hatchesput stands proud before the god [Amen] himself. Senenmut, the king’s favourite, prominent in his role of Overseer of the Granaries of Amen, stands with Neshi to praise the king on the success of her mission; all three figures and much of the accompanying text have been hacked off the wall in antiquity. Meanwhile, in the background of just one scene, the figure of Tuthmosis III appears, wearing the regal blue crown and holding out two tubs of incense to the sacred barque of Amen.

There are also to be considered now, in relation to the name ‘Shishak’, those Sheshi scarabs that are so prominent in southern Palestine – since they apparently post-date Hammurabi. David Rohl tells of these in a Hammurabic (Solomonic according to my revision) context, in which Sheshi is associated with the very town of Sharuhen (see 3. immediately below), whose rebellion would help to trigger the famous First Campaign of Thutmose III. Rohl’s comments here should be considered fully in the context of his so-called ‘New Chronology’ (A Test of Time. The Bible – From Myth to History, Century, 1995, p. 309-312):

A Hyksos Named Sheshi

In addition to excavating the mound of Tell es-Sultan [Jericho], [Kathleen] Kenyon cleared a number of rock-cut tombs belonging to.Jericho's MBA cemetery. In these rock-cut sepulchres she found an astonishing array of funeral equipment, including wooden beds and tables, reed baskets, quantities of pottery and some fine jewellery. The scene which greeted her each time she entered one of the chambers was always the same - complete chaos! These family tombs had been in constant use for over a century, reopened upon the death of a family member for interment with his/her ancestors. The practice was to push the remains of the previous burial (including the skeleton) to the sides of the chamber so as to create a clear space at the centre for the new burial. From an archaeological standpoint this made a precise dating of the finds rather difficult. [Mackey’s comment: Resulting, I think, in a subsequent confusion of MBA and LBA material]. However Kenyon was a good archaeologist and designed a method of dating objects by contextual association with a particular pottery SERIATION.
As we have seen from the Tell ed-Daba excavations, a very distinctive type of juglet was manufactured during the Middle Bronze Age which has been labelled ‘Tell el-Yahudiya Ware’. These small black pots show a general pattern of development from the piriform shape to the cylindrical. By analysing the proportion of piriform to cylindrical juglets in each tomb Kenyon was able to place the burials into five chronological categories which she numbered Group I (earliest) to Group V (latest). Since Kenyon's pioneering work at Jericho the scheme has been slightly modified by scholars such as Israeli archaeologist Aharon Kempinski so that her Groups II and III have been made roughly contemporary whilst the same applies to Groups IV and V …. In spite of the general shortcomings of Kenyon's Jericho tomb assignments, archaeologists continue to use her five-phase grouping as a framework for dating the historical life of MBA Jericho and so I shall retain the practice here. The following key finds from the tombs enable us to date the burial groups to Egyptian history.

1. Babylonian cylinder seals stylistically typical of the period of Hammurabi, or slightly earlier [Mackey’s comment: Perhaps the time of King David, then], appear in tombs classified as Group II. As Hammurabi was a contemporary of Neferhotep I, the twenty first pharaoh of the 13th Dvnasty [Mackey’s comment: Has this been established?], we may assign Group II to the first half of the 13th Dynasty.
2. In a Group III tomb Kenyon recovered a scarab bearing the name of Kahotepre Sobekhotep V, the twenty-fourth pharaoh of the 13th Dynasty and the immediate successor of Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV. Sobekhotep V ruled for less than five years and so it is unlikely that the scarab was the treasured heirloom of a great ancestral king.
Its presence in a collection of funeral goods would tend to date the burial to his reign or not significantly later. ….
3. In tomb H13, belonging to the last phase of burials (Group V), we have the very important discovery of a scarab bearing the name of the Hyksos king, Sheshi. From the archaeological contexts of other scarabs of this ruler, found in both Palestine and Egypt, and the development of scarab design, Aharon Kempinski … and William Ward … have placed the reign of Sheshi near the beginning of the l5th Dynasty, Numerous Sheshi scarabs were found by Petrie at Tell el-Ajjul in the earliest phase of City II. As we have seen, City II is now identified with the Hyksos citadel of Sharuhen, its destruction level being contemporary with the fall of the 15th Dynasty. Sheshi cannot therefore be dated to the end of the 15th Dynasty but rather to a much earlier period [sic] at the beginning of the life of Hyksos Sharuhen. It is important to remember that Kempinski and Ward were both working under the premise that the 15th Dynasty followed soon after the reign of Pharaoh Dudimose. They did not have an 'Early Hyksos' dynasty in which to place Sheshi because the conventional chronology was forced to allocate a much shorter time span to the SIP than is now possible in [Rohl’s] the New Chronology. (Bietak and other Middle Bronze Age specialists have all commented that the archaeology of the MBA appears to require a longer chronology than is currently permissible within the Sothic based orthodox scheme.) It seems clear to me that Sheshi was a ruler of the Early Hyksos period and that Jericho Group V must be dated to that era rather than the Greater Hyksos period which followed. I will return to Sheshi and his dating shortly.
4. Although it is an argument ex silentio, I think it is also crucial to note that no Bichrome Ware was found in the tombs of the MBA cemetery at Jericho - it is 'completely missing' from the pottery corpus. … This suggests that the burials ceased before this type of pottery was introduced into Palestine. I am by no means the first to make this point. As John Bartlett notes:

... the important point for our purpose is that Jericho, along with other sites of southern and central Palestine (Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell Gezer, Shiloh, Bethel and Gibeon), does not show any sign of having used the bichrome ware and imported Cypriot pottery. The explanation is not simply that Jericho was a backwater in the Jordan valley which bichrome ware, spreading inland from the coast, failed to reach, for that leaves its failure to reach places like Tell Beit Mirsim unexplained, and in any case it is not just bichrome ware but a whole range of pottery of the period that is missing from Jericho. The obvious explanation is that there was a break in the occupation of the tell after the destruction of the MB II city. ….

As I have already stated, Bichrome Ware has been found both at Tell ed-Daba and throughout the Levant in strata datable to the late 15th Dynasty in Egypt. All the Group V burials at Jericho must therefore be dated prior to the end of the Hyksos period.


In archaeological terms Group I is MB IIA; Groups II & III (remembering Kempinski's observation that III is indistinguishable from II) are effectively the transition phase between MB IIA and MB IIB; whilst IV and V cover the early part of MB IIB.
It is clear from Kenyon's work that the last phase of Group V in the cemetery was contemporary with the massive destruction of MBA Jericho. Indeed, Tomb H13 containing the scarab of Sheshi is, in the archaeologists' view, one of the very last interments made by the citizens of Jericho. We have noted the occurrence of multiple burials just prior to the city's demise and Tomb H13 was one of the sepulchres utilised for this purpose. Kempinski has thus argued that Jericho fell soon after, or during, the reign of King Sheshi, some considerable time before the end of the Middle Bronze Age. …. He also made one other very interesting observation regarding this shadowy Hyksos ruler which now has direct relevance to our MBA Conquest date. ….
[End of quote]

[Just a note of caution, however. It seems that we have to deal with various pharaohs of Sheshi type names who campaigned in Palestine, including Ramses II (David Rohl’s Sysa/Shysha = ‘Shishak’, The Lost Testament, Century, 2002, p. 392), and Shoshenq I, Shosh). So one needs to establish which archaeological level belongs to which pharaoh].

Anyway, in relation to the above quotes from Rohl on ‘A Hyksos Named Sheshi’, I should like to propose here a wholly different scenario, based on the important city of Sharuhen. This was where the rebellion against Thutmose III had occurred in his Year 22. So he marched against Sharuhen, to quell that rebellion, before marching on to Jerusalem, as will now be argued. The strata for Sheshi must then be the LB II (not Rohl’s MB IIB) strata as previously ascertained for Thutmose III, who Sweeney thinks was also the ‘Sesostris’ (Seshi?) of Herodotus. (Rohl has, for his part, identified this ‘Sesostris’ with Ramses II ‘Seshi’, his choice for ‘Shishak’).

3. The ‘Shishak’ Campaign

Here, before we bring some common sense to bear on the subject, is a typical conventional account of the military genius, Thutmose III (Tour Egypt, op. cit.):

… Tuthmosis III became a great pharaoh in his own right, and has been referred to as the Napoleon of ancient Egypt (by the Egyptologists, James Henry Breasted). But perhaps his reputation is due to the fact that his battles were recorded in great detail by the archivist, royal scribe and army commander, Thanuny. The battles were recorded on the inside walls surrounding the granite sanctuary at Karnak, and inscriptions on Thanuny's tomb on the west bank state that, "I recorded the victories he won in every land, putting them into writing according to the facts". Referred to as the Annals, the inscriptions were done during Tuthmosis' 42nd year as pharaoh, and describe both the battles and the booty that was taken. These events were recorded at Karnak because Tuthmosis's army marched under the banner of the god, Amun, and Amun's temples and estates would largely be the beneficiary of the spoils of Tuthmosis' wars.
Having close ties with his military, Tuthmosis undoubtedly received sage advice from his commanders. It was probably decided that the Levant offered the greatest potential for glory and wealth if the trade routes dominated by Syrian, Cypriot, Palestinian and Aegean rulers could be taken.
Tuthmosis III fought with considerable nerve and cunning. On one campaign, he marched to Gaza in ten days and from Yehem, planned the battle to take Megiddo which was held by a rebellious prince named Kadesh [sic]. There were three possible approaches to Megiddo, two of which were fairly open, straightforward routes while the third was through a narrow pass that soldiers would only be able to march through in single file.
Though he was advised against this dangerous pass by his commanders, Tuthmosis not only took this dangerous route, but actually led the troops through. Whether by luck, or gifted intuition this gamble paid off, for when he emerged from the tight canyon, he saw that his enemies had arranged their armies to defend the easier routes. In fact, he emerged between the north and south wings of the enemy's armies, and the next day decisively beat them in battle. It apparently took a long siege (seven months) to take the city of Megiddo, but the rewards were great. The spoils were considerable, and included 894 chariots, including two covered with gold, 200 suites of armor including two of bronze, as well as over 2,000 horses and 25,000 other animals.
Tuthmosis III had marched from Thebes up the Syrian coast fighting decisive battles, capturing three cities, and then returned back to Thebes. Over the next 18 years, his armies would march against Syria every summer and by the end of that period, he established Egyptian dominance over Palestine. At Karnak he records the capture of 350 cities, and in the 42nd year of his rule, Kadesh itself was finally taken. ….

[End of quote]

Now here is our revised version of the supposed ‘Megiddo’ campaign (Thutmose III’s First Campaign), based on Velikovsky’s view that Thutmose III was ‘Shishak’, and that this campaign was the one as described in the Bible for having occurred in the 5th year of Rehoboam of Judah (I Kings 14:25-26): “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house; he took everything. He also took away all the shields of gold that Solomon had made …”.

The First Campaign - Year 23

Since Johnny Zwick has already done some very useful work on this, I shall take his section of it from his “Napoleon” article. Basically the case is that the topography of the road described in the Annals of Thutmose III for this First Campaign cannot by any means be matched topographically with the way to the famous Megiddo in the north.
Johnny writes, basing himself on the brilliant research of Dr. Eva Danelius (‘Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?’, SIS Review, vol. ii, no. 3, 1977/78, pp. 64-79); one of those cutting-edge revisionist articles (op. cit.):
Here is the scenario of the campaign against Jerusalem.
Advice of the Officers to Thutmose III

The textual (Papyrus Anastasi I) requirements seem to imply the dangerous road to be a path cut into the side of a cliff (as in a), not one on the bottom of cliffs (b). If (b) was an option that would require the sides of the cliffs coming very close together (only room for one horse), a feature probably not seen at Wadi Ara. [800] See ** for a report on the Wadi 'Ara (Musmus) road to Megiddo described as a narrow road, not one that hugs the side of a cliff. "They spoke in the presence of his majesty, `How is it, that [we] should go upon this road … , which threatens to be narrow …? While they [come] and say that the enemy is there waiting, [hold]ing the way against a multitude. Will not horse come behind [horse and man behind] man likewise? Shall our [advance-guard] be fighting while our [rear-guard] is yet standing yonder in Aruna […`'-rw-n] not having fought? There are yet two (other) roads: one road, behold, it [will] - us, for it comes forth at Taanach [T'`-n-k], the other, [behol]d, it will [bring us upon] the way north of Zefti [Df-ty], so that we shall come out to the north of My-k-ty. Let our victorious lord proceed upon [the road] he desires; (but) cause us not to go on a difficult… road.'"

Champollion and all other scholars later on identified My-k-ty with Megiddo. This campaign started in the 22nd year, 4th month of Thutmose III [860] when he crossed the boundary of Egypt. One of his goals was to quell a rebellion in the city of Sharuhen. Nine days later was his anniversary, the beginning of his 23rd year. At that time he was at `G'-d-tw, said to be Gaza. Breasted wrote that it took Thutmose from the 19th of April to the 14th of May to get to M-k-ty. All in all it took him 175 days (5 months and 25 days) from start to finish. Scholars say Thutmose did not follow the northern route through Zephath, neither did he take the southern route from Gath to Taanach, instead he took a route in between, through Aruna and the `Nahal Iron', which is called in Arabic `Wadi Ara'. But a visitor to this Wadi Ara will realize at once, there is nothing dangerous or overly steep about this route toward Megiddo. It is incomprehensible why the officers of the king would almost start a mutiny not wanting to go that dangerous road. Comparing Breasted's `History of Egypt' and `Records' account of events shows that he takes great liberties to get Thutmose to arrive in Megiddo ignoring other possibilities completely. The Nahal Iron is certainly not `inaccessible', `secret', or `mysterious' as the annals describe the actual route.

The Alternative to the Route to `M-k-t' - the conventional Megiddo

The problematic route we must first deal with is the road to Aruna, the one Harold H. Nelson had so much difficulty harmonizing with Wadi Ara leading to Megiddo [1000] in the north. It had been suggested that, instead this road to Aruna is the same as that described in the papyrus Anastasi I.
"Behold, the ... is in a ravine 2000 cubits deep (600 feet?), filled
with boulders and pebbles ... Thou findest no scout, that he might
make thee a way crossing ... thou knowest not the road. Shuddering
seizes thee, (the hair of) thy head stands up, and thy soul (life)
lies in thy hands. Thy path is filled with boulders and pebbles,
without a toe hold for passing by ... The ravine is on one side of
thee, and the mount rises on the other. Thou goest jolting, with
thy chariot on its side, afraid to press thy horse (too) hard
. If it should be thrown toward the abyss, thy collar-piece would be
left uncovered and thy girth would fall."
Nelson commented on this, "Deep gorges as these are scarcely found in Palestine at all and certainly not in the region of Megiddo."
But such a defile cannot vanish from the map. It should be found not only in books on historical geography but also in the Bible. It so happens that the name `Aruna' has been preserved in written Hebrew - letter for letter- though with a slightly different pronunciation. It is the so-called thrashing floor of `Arauna the Jebusite' (2.Samuel 24:16,18-24) the location where later the temple was built on. In other words the dreaded road was the camel road leading from Jaffa up the so-called `Beth-Horon' ascent to Jerusalem, approaching the city from the north.
For our purposes then learning more about the geographical conditions of the a) Wadi Arah Pass and b) Aruna Pass/Beth Horon Ascent becomes important. C. Conder and H. Nelson furnished a description of the Wadi `Arah:
"From the Plain of Sharon to Jordan. This line ... ascends by the broad and open valley Wady 'Arah, crossing the watershed at Ain Ibrahim, which is about 1200 feet above the sea. Thence the road descends, falling some 700 feet in three miles to Lejjun, where it bifurcates ... This line, which appears to be ancient, is of great importance, being one of the easiest across the country, owing to the open character of Wady 'Arah'." [950][C. Conder, `The Survey of Western Palestine', Mem. II, Sheet VIII, 40; See also G. Smith, `The Historical Geography of the Holy Land', p 251]
Nelson traveled the Wadi `Arah pass in 1909, and again in 1912. Here is his detailed description:
"... the road enters the Wadi `Ara which is there ... flat and open ... All the way to a quarter mile above `Ar'arah the valley is wide and level ... the ascent is so gradual as to be scarcely perceptible ... a watcher posted on the hill above Lejjun could discern an approaching army at least a mile above the mouth of the pass." [970]
Harold H. Nelson had two reservations about the views of his days,
1. He could not believe that the name of the pass matched that of the defile named in the account of Thutmose: "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (the Egyptian) `Aruna' with the Arab `Ar'arah'."
2. Nelson had problems with the hardly understandible logistics imposed by identifying … `Mkty' with Megiddo. In the great `Palestine-list' `mkty' appears in 2nd place, in the Karnak list in the Temple of Amun in 31st place.
Nelson was unable to understand the behavior of `the Allies' - as he called them - or why they should have, as he said: "...(have) thrown away the advantage afforded by the narrowness of the pass ... to strike Thutmose under circumstances so favourable to the success of the Allies. Our meager sources must leave us forever ignorant of the reasons of the Allies for thus throwing away the greatest chance of victory ..."
Despite the name given to Nelson's thesis, `The Battle of Megiddo', it appears that there was no battle. As Nelson admitted:
"On the actual conflict which took place there is not a vestige of information. To judge from the Annalist's narrative it would seem that the Asiatics fled without striking a blow ... why the Asiatics fled is not plain. They probably mustered a considerable force."
And finally, why was the city not taken by storm? Nelson could only wonder at this:
"Just why Thutmose did not make such an attempt at once is hard to surmise ..." [1060]
The surroundings of Jerusalem were called … `Kd-sw' (Kadesh … , `Jebel el Kuds' or `Har Kodsho', the Holy Mount. In other words `Kd-sw' was not the name of a city but of the nearby surrounding land. [Seti the Great also refers to a `qds' in his Temple of El Qurneh' list, using …] [1150]
The Beth Horon Ascent was always a focal point of battles and attempts to stop troops trying to reach Jerusalem. The most famous incident that took place here is the first one:
a) Joshua 10:10-14 where Joshua prayed and the sun stood still,
b) 1.Maccabeans 3:23,24 & 7:26-50; revolt against the Romans,
c) Also the Roman general Gaius Cestius Gallus (66 AD) took this route
and encamped his army at Gibeon, where the Jews attacked. Though
Gallus checked them, a large part of the Roman rearguard was cut off
by the Jews as they were mounting towards Beth-Horon. But the real
disaster overtook the Romans during their retreat, after they had
become involved in the defiles and had begun the descent. Josephus
"... but when they were penned up in their descent through narrow
passages..." [1180]
d) In November 1917 the British tried in vain to force the road. It was
the only occasion during general Allenby's campaign that the ominous
words, `successfully withdrew', appeared in the daily dispatches. [1210]
(Comment: While the British used several routes with their various army units several of which were directed into the region of Megiddo, we are talking about that particular one which forced them into retreat.)
The location translated as `Zefti' is the biblical Zephathah from 2.Chronicles 14:10:
"Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array
in the valley of Zephathah at Maresha."
This is the place where Asa won his battle against Zera, who was either Amenhotep II himself or his general. Maresha was the Judean border fortress facing Philistia. Zephathah may have been on the other side of the fence. The road runs north for about 6 miles then turns northeast at the very location which is considered to be the one where David met Goliath. The defile then splits into several wadis, one of which reaches the ridge around Bethlehem in the south, while the other joins the more northerly defile which leads to a point north of My-k-ty, as suggested by the Egyptian officers of Thutmose among them perhaps Djehuti his general (TT11) known from the Joppa story. Even though the hieroglyphics are commonly translated as `My-k-ty' others (Gauthier) read `Makta'. It is interesting to note, however, that in the latter 19th dynasty inscriptions, the last element `ti' of the name is written `sh', `s', or `tsh'. Among the names referring to Jerusalem are:
a) Bait-al-Makdis or Makdis

b) Miqdash 10th century Arab writer Muqadassi the Jerusalemite in his description of Syria, p. 34.


Therefore `My-k-ty' could be read `My-k-sh' or `My-k-tsh', Makdis or Miqdash according to the 19th Dynasty information.

The reading `Aruna' lying in the midst of the mountains according to Breasted is correct but the mountains are not the Carmel heights but rather the mountains of Ephraim and those of Benjamin, Har Kodsho of the Scriptures.

Carrying the god

When Thutmose began his entrance into the dangerous road we find in his inscriptions the following account:
"My majesty proceeded northward under (the protection of my) father, Amon-Re, lord of Thebes, [who went] before me, while Harakhte [strengthened my arms] ---- (my) father, Amon-Re, lord of Thebes..." [1300]

Eva Danelius wrote:
"This is the only instance I know of in Egyptian records where we are told that statues or images of the gods were carried into battle, as the Hebrews carried the ark."
"What kind of fear had thus gripped the pharaoh that he felt it necessary to take this precaution? ... Why did he take it here, and only here, once in a lifetime? ... The answer to the riddle should be of a kind which explains, too, why Thutmose judged his successful ascent through the Aruna road as one of the outstanding achievements of his military career. ... The answer offered here belongs to a realm shunned by science in an age in which techniques have replaced metaphysics, and rationality rules supreme. At the time we are dealing with, religion, including a contact with a higher Being outside oneself, was a reality and part of life. That is why the answer should be sought there. ... In other words, Thutmose was not afraid of a human enemy but was reluctant to enter a road where `The God of the Land' had intervened, from heaven, to help his people..." [1360]
In our estimate the history of Megiddo is irrelevant to this particular campaign by Thutmose III. The very fact that the Egyptian statue was carried for protection from the God of the land they were about to invade is also of some chronological help in that it would make much more sense in this having been the God of Judah of whom the Egyptians were very well aware, whose protection of His people we already outlined, rather than a god of the Canaanites or the Ten tribes of Israel who had candidly forsaken being followers of the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob and made their own gods out of wood and stones with their own hands bowing before them as if they were divine.
Interestingly enough a fragment of a painted limestone relief showing priests carrying on poles the shrine of a god were found in 1996 at the chapel of Thutmose III at Abydos as well as bricks stamped with `Thutmose III beloved of Osiris'. Even though the scene with these priests would have nothing to do with the Egyptians carrying a god before them on the road to Aruna, the fragment represents eloquent evidence that such events occured during his reign. [1380]

Therefore, we would like to spell it out for conventionally bound scholars:
The fact of this incident puts Thutmose III into the 10th century BC, the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam.
In his list of conquered cities the first one is `q-d-s', Kadesh, Jerusalem, the holy city. Then come other names like `m-k-t', Maqtar 9 miles north of Jerusalem; `d-b-h' Tibhath; … `Itmm', Etam; `Bt Sir', Beth-zur; `Sk', Soccoh; and so on 2.Chronicles 11:5ff. Even though pharaoh Shoshenk also carved a list of locations we can tell that he copied Thutmose in this and none of the names of his list are any locations we can pinpoint today. Since Thutmose III encountered no resistance from Rehoboam he did not destroy Jerusalem. Instead he made them pay a yearly tribute to him which he himself sometimes even collected.
This list of Palestinian cities found in Karnak allows us to compare the pictures of the people of this land as portrayed by the artists of Thutmose III with those of the Puntites as portrayed by the artists of Queen Hatshepsut.
In both cases artists of practically the same generation did the sculpturing. They were masters in depicting the characteristic features of different races. A glance at the people of God's Land, the "people of the South", and the Egyptians on the bas-reliefs of the expedition to Punt may help us understand the fine feeling these artists possessed for expressing the types of their own and foreign races. The same characteristic profiles, the same hair styles, with ribbon around the hair tied behind, and the same long beard, shaped as a prolongation of a pointed chin, make it certain that types of one and the same people were pictured on the bas-reliefs of both Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.

Caravans - Plundering the Holy Land
But one might ask, if Thutmose III went to the same country to which Hatshepsut had gone two or three decades earlier, why did he not call the country of his conquest, Rezenu (Palestine), by the same names that Hatshepsut called it, God's Land or Punt?
Well, he did. Year after year Thutmose III returned to Palestine to collect tribute (2.Chronicles 12:8: "... they shall be his servants"). Three years after the conquest of `m-k-t' (Miqtar, Jerusalem and its surrounding territories), and other cities, he had carved on the walls of Karnak pictures of trees and plants that he had brought from Palestine and added this inscription:
"Plants which his majesty found in the land of Retenu. All plants that grow, all flowers that are in God's Land which were found by his majesty when his majesty proceeded to Upper Retenu." [1400]
In another inscription after describing tribute obtained from Shinar, Kheta and the land of Naharin (northern Syria), the register reads:
"Marvels brought to his majesty in the land of Punt in this year: dried myrrh ..." [1450]
The translator (Breasted) was surprised at this phrase. We find therefore that Thutmose III used the same term - Punt and God's Land - frequently together indicating they both had interests for that land. If Punt was a coastal town in Africa or an enclave of imported Africans in Israel is open for conjecture. In this case the Egyptian references to both would indicate the use of these terms as opposites in direction of the compass. But `God's-Land' is used together with `Retenu' making them the same place.
Since we are also showing that the borders of Israel in the days of Solomon extended much further north than previously thought by including Baalbek reading about Upper Retenu should not surprise us.
We also find confirmation that indeed myrrh and frankincense (olibanum) were grown in Palestine in the days of Solomon.
"Until the day break and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense."[Songs of Solomon 4:6]
After his 5th visit of inspection to conquered Syria and Palestine, Thutmose III listed frankincense, oil, honey, and wine as tribute. Following his 9th visit he states that he received "horses, chariots, various silver vessels and also dry myrrh, incense, sweet oil and green oil and wine jars." [1510]
He wrote:
"Tribute of the princes of Retenu, who came to do obeisance ... to the souls of his majesty... Now every harbor at which his majesty arrived was supplied with loaves and with assorted loaves, with oil, incense, wine, f[ruit] ---- abundant were they beyond everything ... The harvest of the land of Retenu was reported, consisting of much clean grain, grain in the kernel, green oil, wine fruit, every pleasing thing of the country." [1530]
The Gebal Barkal Stela of Thutmose III puts it this way:
"It was my army which felled the flagpoles1) on the terraces of `s-wood', on the mountains of God's Land .... for the monuments of my fathers, all the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt. Oared barques of `s-wood' are built for my Majesty .... the coast of Lebanon in the fortress ..... The chieftains, lord of Lebanon, construct the royal ships in order that people may sail south in them to bring all the marvels of the "Garden" to the palace. LPH. ... The cieftains of Retjenu (Retenu) who drag the flagpoles by means of oxen to the shore, it is they who come with their dues to the place where his majesty is, to the Residence in ...... bearing all the fine products brought as marvels of the south and being taxed for tribute annually as (with) all bondsmen of his Majesty." [1560]
1) `Flagpoles' may refer to tall trees suitable for ship building and the products of the south arrived in Egypt via the harbors they used.
Thutmose recalls how he felled the tall trees planted in God's Land, the land of terraces, Phoenicia/Judah/Palestine. He then recounts, how, in imitation to the combined Phoenician/Israelite fleets of Solomon, he, like later King Jehosphat would do, also has his ships made for him by the men of Lebanon (Hiram's men). They also sail to the south to bring marvels of the "Garden". To sail south from Lebanon one would invariably arrive at the estuary mouths of the Nile allowing access into Egypt. But the context does not seem to imply that Egypt is meant in the text. Therefore, the point of departure of these ships may again have been Eilat, the old harbor of Solomon and their goal the coasts of Africa, the "Garden" perhaps meaning the lucious, tropical regions of that great continent, far away regions probably also little known to the Egyptians. Perhaps Eilat was selected as the point of departure because it was easier to transport long wood to it rather than an Egyptian coastal harbor on the shores of the Red Sea.
And so it is that we read the following account from the reign of King Jehoshaphat:
"There was then no king in Edom: a deputy was king. Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not: for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber." [1.Kings 22:47, 48]
"And he joined himself with him [Ahaziah, king of Israel] to make ships to go to Tharshish: and they made the ships in Ezion-geber. Then Eliezer ... prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, Behold, because you joined yourself with Ahaziah, the Lord has broken your works. And the ships were broken (probably during a storm) that they were not able to go to Tharshish [or better `not able to go out in the sea or ocean']." [2.Chronikles 20:36, 37]
"Thou breakest the ships of Tharshish with an east wind." [Psalms 48: 8]
Only about 100 years after Hiram/Salomon had made their fleet of merchant ships Jehoshaphat in imitation also tried such a venture as we read above. These undertakings were so successful for Solomon that later generations could never quite forget those days, "She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth the food from afar."[Proverbs 31:14]

[End of Johnny’s article]

By now I think that we have emphatically shown - indeed from many articles - that Thutmose III was the biblical ‘Shishak’; this to be considered right in conjunction with the famous Hatshepsut as the biblical ‘Queen Sheba’. Having demolished the old Sothic system of chronology, even in university theses, and having established now a “more acceptable” revision of history, raised upon solid bases and pillars, we have been able to demonstrate that Velikovsky was fundamentally correct in his location of the 18th dynasty to the United Monarchy of Israel and beyond.
We have corrected many of Velikovsky’s mistakes.
Thanks to Dr. Eva Danelius, for instance, we have been able to rectify Velikovsky’s clumsy reconstruction of Thutmose III’s First Campaign, showing that it went nowhere near Megiddo in the north, but that it was aimed entirely at Jerusalem and its environs in the south.
So far so good.
It does need to be mentioned, however, that Velikovsky himself rejected Dr. Danelius’s reconstruction in his ‘A Response to Eva Danelius’ (SIS Review, vol. ii, no. 3, 1977/78, p. 80), written, as he said, “in the spirit of constructive co-operation”, even whilst praising her scholarship: “… Dr Danelius is a very gifted researcher and innovator, and she herself carries the responsibility for challenging Breasted and the others …”. Velikovsky’s strongest point of defence was probably that name combination of Mkty and T3-3-n3-k3. Thus he wrote: “Taanach is also next to Megiddo in the Bible (1 Kings 4:12). Your [Danelius’s] equation of Taanach with the Tahhunah ridge does not strengthen your thesis”.

However, there is still one important area of Velikovsky’s ‘Shishak’ reconstruction that needs to be dealt with in depth. And my treatment of it here can by no means be exhaustive, but only rather cursory. I am referring to Velikovsky’s attempted comparison of the treasures that Thutmose III had brought back from southern Israel with those described in the Bible for the Temple in Jerusalem and Solomon’s palace. This is considered to be a trump card in Velikovsky’s reconstruction pack, and those who follow him tend to accept it rather uncritically.
That may now have to change, it seems.
For this particular aspect of Velikovsky’s thesis needs to be subjected - just like Velikovsky’s poor reconstruction of the First Campaign - to real scholarly scrutiny, to test its worth. So it is with gratitude that I regard the efforts of Patrick Clarke, writing for the Creation Ministeries International [CMI], who has done just that (see next section, 4.). And he, like Dr. Danelius in the case of the First Campaign, has found that Velikovsky got it quite wrong. Unfortunately Clarke has then done what Dr. Bimson had done in the case of Hatshepsut, having exposed the problems, he has abandoned the entire Velikovskian reconstruction and set his sights on a different candidate (not yet named by him) for ‘Shishak’.

4. The Jerusalem Treasures at Karnak

Patrick Clarke has recently written for CMI two articles claiming that, contrary to Drs. Immanuel Velikovsky, Donovan Courville and David Down, and also Emmet Sweeney, the 18th dynasty pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, could not have been, respectively, the biblical ‘Queen of Sheba’ (‘Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba’, Journal of Creation, 24/2, August 2010, pp. 62-68), and ‘King Shishak of Egypt’ (‘Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak? – Claims of the ‘Jerusalem’ bas-relief at Karnak investigated’, Journal of Creation, 25/1, April 2011, pp. 48-56).
His ‘Queen of Sheba’ arguments I have largely answered before, in my 1997 article for SIS, ‘Solomon and Sheba’, when dealing with Dr. Bimson’s far more extensive and probing (than Clarke’s) critique. Central to both is the Punt expedition, and also the argument that the ‘Queen of Sheba’ was not an Egyptian, but a Yemenite Arabian.
Clarke’s ‘Shishak’ arguments are more important, since they are actually quite damning, it seems, of Velikovsky’s Karnak wall reconstruction. Before looking at these arguments, let us take a series of comments that he has made on Velikovsky and his supporters. Clarke has, in fact, a very low opinion of Velikovsky’s scholarship and that of certain adherents of what he calls the “Velikovsky Inspired Chronology” [his VIC]. Thus:

P. 51: It appears that one of the major weaknesses of a number of the VIC revisionists is that they are not competent in the ancient Egyptian language, or the rules governing Egyptian art.

P. 53: Velikovsky’s poor scholarship is laid bare.

… his knowledge of the Egyptian language was deficient ….

… got this identification wrong.

The above examples are ample evidence that Velikovsky and later VIC revisionists have misidentified objects on this temple wall.

Reducing Pharaonic emblems to the status of culinary equipment is yet another embarrassment for the VIC.

P. 55: This article has identified some, though not all, of Velikovsky’s erroneous identifications.

What people need to be aware of … is that the comments made by various VIC supporters seem [to] reflect a history based more on their particular preferences than on the facts available.

There is no correspondence between the VIC and the reality represented in art and text in the bas-relief, or in the Bible narrative. How bread made with flour can, transmute into silver, gold or malachite; how a clothes chest transforms into the Ark of the Covenant; and how lilies become almond blossoms should seriously concern those committed to the Velikovskian view of ANE history.

[End of quotes from Clarke]

This does indeed “seriously concern” us. What Clarke has uncovered could well cause someone to abandon Velikovsky’s Shishak thesis completely. This was the effect that Dr. Bimson’s critique of Velikovsky’s Sheba thesis back in 1986 had had on me – perhaps not to abandon it entirely, but to leave it well alone. Until I came back with a fresh approach in 1997. And that is the beauty of constructive critiques like those of Bimson and Clarke. They force one to dig deeper, and either to come up with arguments that are more sound, so as, in Clarke’s words, “[to] reflect a history based … on the facts available”, or to give up some pursuits as a lost cause, rather than, as he says some do, “to reflect a history based more on their particular preferences”. One needs to be ruthlessly honest in the pursuit of truth. Still, in all, Clarke may be heading towards quite the wrong conclusion – [as had Bimson, I believe, in his ultimately abandoning entirely the 18th dynasty revision as it had then stood] – that is, if Clarke has in his own mind rejected Thutmose III as a possible candidate for ‘Shishak’. Admittedly, he has said specifically that (loc. cit.. emphasis added): “On the basis of this bas-relief, Thutmose III is not a viable candidate for the biblical Shishak”. Perhaps he should rather have said, though, ‘on the basis of Velikovsky’s interpretation of this bas-relief …’. But Clarke does also then (on p. 55) mention other potential candidates for ‘Shishak’ (mainly Ramessides).
To go in this direction ought instead “seriously concern” those with a belief in the need for a revision, as Clarke himself claims to have (loc. cit.): “… I support the need for chronological revision…”. Apart from it meaning the loss of those hard-won syncretisms between the Bible and the early 18th dynasty, and also with the later EA period (as discussed in this article), it means the annihilation of those twin stars, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, as key biblical characters. Wouldn’t that be a pity! There is no one to replace them as a partnership. There is no C10th BC Arabian (Yemenite) queen attested by history or archaeology. Who, if anyone, does Clarke himself have in his sights for ‘Shishak’? He mentions Ramses II as a candidate. David Rohl favoured him. But Dale Murphie has shown just what a mess this choice leads to, with Ramses II having the powerful king Asa of Judah (in his strength) sandwiched right between himself and his Hittite ally, Hattusilis (‘Critique of David Rohl’s A Test of Time’, C&C Review, SIS, 1997:1, pp. 31-33).
To abandon Hatshepsut and Thutmose III as Sheba and Shishak, respectively, would be a complete disaster. Not, however, in the sense that Gardiner spoke of ‘abandonment’:

[Professor] Lynn Rose quotes Sir Alan Gardiner as saying, ‘To abandon 1786 BC as the year when Dyn[asty] XII ended would be to cast adrift from our only firm anchor, a course that would have serious consequences for the history, not of Egypt alone, but of the entire Middle East (JNES 94-4-237)’ …,

because that would only be to abandon an already sinking ship. But in the sense of abandoning a by now solidly established model. It would mean, in the case of opting for a Ramesside for ‘Shishak’, a return to the conventional argument that the 18th dynasty writings that so resonate with the Davidic Psalms, the wisdom writings and the love poetry of Solomon, had actually influenced David and Solomon (pagans influencing God’s chosen kings), instead of it being the other way around.
The fact is that there is no replacement for the pair Hatshepsut/Sheba and ThutmoseIII/ Shishak!
We have been able to show that Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was basically correct in his location of the 18th dynasty to the Monarchy of Israel and into the Divided Kingdom era. The fact is that it was this same Velikovsky, love him or hate him, he, and no other, to whom it befell - despite that “[he] would not call himself a Bible-believer” (Clarke, ‘Pharaoh Hatshepsut’, p. 62), may not even have believed in God, and had favoured Bible renegades, like Saul and Ahab) - to realise that the 18th dynasty was a massive 500 years later in relation to the Bible than where the Sothic-based conventional chronology has located it.
And this still stands, despite all of those gross errors. And so do Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, despite Velikovsky’s misinterpreting the Punt expedition (thinking it to have been the biblical visit to Solomon); the route of Thutmose III’s First Campaign (though realising that it was the same as the 5th year of Rehoboam biblical campaign); and the ‘writing’ on the Karnak wall.

There are now various issues to be taken into account when assessing this biblical episode involving ‘Shishak’.
For one, the pharaoh may have taken many of the Temple and palace treasures back to Nubia. There is that very strong Ethiopian tradition, for instance, that the Ark of the Covenant is still to this day being held and honoured down in Abyssinia. In reality, since it seems that Jeremiah later had access to the Ark, it could have been returned to Jerusalem when king Asa of Judah won his great victory over Zerah the Ethiopian (Thutmose III?). Or perhaps later still, when Jeremiah himself was involved with Egypt.
Secondly, as Johnny Zwick has indicated in an e-mail, ‘Shishak’ may initially have subdued Jerusalem, but may have collected the treasures over the long period of his many campaigns into Syro-Palestine. Sometimes the Bible, as we know, telescopes events.
There is yet a third consideration to be taken into account about the Jerusalem treasures appropriated by Thutmose III. It may not have been given sufficient attention so far. By the time that Thutmose III, as ‘Shishak’, had come to Jerusalem as an attacker (no doubt he had been there often enough before), Solomon himself had become thoroughly Egyptianised, and perhaps paganised. So we might not expect to find, entirely, the purely Yahwistic features that the Bible describes in the pristine days of the Temple. The Bible leaves off with Solomon during this unfortunate period of apostasy and does not tell us what Jerusalem was then like – what Jerusalem and its Temple were like when ‘Shishak’ came up against the Holy City. No doubt it was by now wholly syncretistic.
In light of this, it is interesting to read Dr. Danelius’s reference to Egyptian-like objects (“unquestionably of Egyptian workmanship”) in the course of her support (but modified) of Velikovsky and her refutation of the Sothic-based scenario (Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?, pp. 64-65):

…. According to the story as told by Egyptologists, this pharaoh, in the 22nd year of his reign - supposed to correspond to the year 1479 BC (2) - embarked on a military expedition into Syria in order to fight a coalition of Syrian princes under the leadership of a "King of Kd-šw”, who had risen against him. The campaign ended with the overwhelming victory of the Pharaoh who returned to Egypt laden with spoil from the conquered lands.
After his return, the story of this campaign was cut, in hieroglyphs, into the walls of the great Temple at Karnak (Upper Egypt), and illustrated with pictures showing not only the flora and fauna of the defeated country, but, in addition, about 200 different specimens of furniture, vessels, ornaments etc., in gold, silver, bronze and precious stones - each specimen representing many more items of the same kind (3). The character of these objects leaves no doubt that they had been taken from a great and extremely rich temple and palace.
Now, the greater part of Thutmose's report is dedicated to the fight for a city My-k-ty (now read Mkty), its siege and final surrender. In their search for a city written this way in hieroglyphs, Egyptologists decided that My-k-ty must be the transcription of the name Megiddo, a city in the Plain of Esdraelon well known from the Old Testament.
At the time when this identification was suggested and accepted, Palestinian archaeology was still in its infancy. Since then, however, an evergrowing number of Canaanite cities of that period have been excavated, partly with their sanctuaries still intact. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, has any trace been found or any single object discovered comparable to the creations of superb workmanship brought home by Thutmose III from his first campaign into Palestine, and portrayed on the walls of the Temple at Karnak.
The problem of the provenance of the spoil is further aggravated by the observation that some of the objects pictured in murals were unquestionably of Egyptian workmanship; there are pieces of furniture decorated with the royal uraeus, the serpent of the pharaohs; vessels are formed like the lotus flower, symbol of Upper Egypt; others are decorated with the ram’s head of the Egyptian god Amun, and those of other Egyptian animal-gods. An especially beautiful crater [bowl] shows the pharaoh in his chariot, drawing his bow, on one side, and the same pharaoh driving his chariot on the other (4).
According to common consent, Thutmose III was the first pharaoh to conquer Megiddo. If so, how to explain the fact that this 15th century Canaanite fortress harboured not only such tremendous amounts of treasures of gold, silver, bronze and precious stones, but among them objects of Egyptian workmanship scarcely surpassed in exquisiteness of design and execution by those known to us from Egypt, be it through actual finds, or from reproductions?
This, then, seems to be one of the problems to which Velikovsky’s “revised chronology” may offer an acceptable solution. According to this chronology, Thutmose III did not live in the 15th BC, but in the 10th.

[End of quote]

So the initially Israelitic influence upon Egypt, at the beginning of the reign of Solomon (according to Scott Hahn’s interpretation of the reason for the Davidic dynasty) had become an Egyptian influence on Israel by the end of it (1 Kings 10:29-11:1). Johnny Zwick has written along these lines:

Solomon as Senenmut - Fascination with History

We hear the last from Senenmut in his 16th year which corresponds well with the last 20 years of the reign of Solomon were the scriptures remain silent about events as if he was not in Israel during that time. We think that after having met many of the kings from `the ends of the earth' Solomon indeed lived in peace during the 2nd half of his reign and that this situation allowed him to become Senenmut at the court of his royal friend Hatshepsut. Certainly we do not assume that he twiddled his thumbs in Jerusalem. That the Bible is silent about any events relating to this time may be due to Jewish embarrassment that their king had such ties with Egypt and therefore they obliterated any memory of it in their writings.

Senenmut in the Hebrew Sources and the Compelling Reasons to Regard Solomon and Hatshepsut as Contemporaries
Compared to what we could write about Senenmut, the Biblical information of the activities of Solomon during the second half of his 40 year reign are meager indeed. We believe that the reason for that fact may be that he indeed may have spent much of this time in Egypt as Senenmut, the confidant and architect of the Egypt under his friend, Queen/Pharaoh Hatshepsut. In traveling to Egypt he followed the footsteps of his ancestors, Abraham and Jacob. Solomon also may have admired the patriarch Joseph and what he did for Egypt and his people. As far as the name `slmn (slmh)' and `snnmt' is concerned for most of the history of Egypt the `t' sound was not pronounced leaving us with `snnm-' or by the rules of transliteration `slnm' which is the same as `slmn' when writing only consonants.
Besides this similarity in the name of Solomon and Senenmut we also have two ivory images which according to some could represent King Solomon wearing an Egyptian head cover, wig or just arranged his families luxurious growth of hair.
The Egyptianization of Solomon may have led to production of these ivory scenes found in two different locations within the sphere of influence of King Solomon. They depict a monarch wearing Egyptian fashions holding court. Commenting on the Megiddo ivory (right) Peter James wrote [380]:
"The ivory plaque is of particular interest. [The monarch] is seated on a throne decorated with sphinxes. If it was intended to represent a specific rather then an idealized ruler, would it be too much to imagine that in this ivory we actually have a depiction of the Egyptianized King Solomon?" [0400]
The harp player also fits in the era of King David and his son Solomon. Overall the whole scene seems to be one we can read about in biblical narratives.
"... David took a harp, and played with his hand ... And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments ... even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals." 1.Samuel 16:23; 2.Sam. 6:5.
"And also Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom." "Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David ..." "And the king rose up to meet [Bath-sheba] ... and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand." 1.Kings 1:46; 2:12, 19.
[0400] P.James, `Centuries of Darkness', London, 1991, p. 200. Compare also the scene presented on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram where the throne is very similar to that of the ivory from Megiddo. See Glenn E. Markoe,The Emergence of Phoenician Art in ASOR Bulletin, No 279, Aug 1990, p. 13-26. The setting has been perhaps either mimicked over a long period or the sarcophagus itself has been made at a closer time to Solomon while the lid was made or inscribed later. For the images see BAR, Jan/Feb 1982, p. 30.

[End of quote]

And David Rohl has proposed that the palace of Solomon’s Egyptian queen has been discovered in Jerusalem (A Test of Time, pp. 184-186).

It is not surprising, therefore, that Clarke’s critique, which I shall now introduce, also indicates Egyptian type objects, with a special mention of Thutmose II, our King Solomon.

On p. 49, Clarke tells that what has been presented by VIC as the Ark of the Covenant (fig. 76), is actually in Egyptian nbw hbny pds n mnkht, which translates “a gold and ebony clothes chest”.
Against those who would argue that ‘Shishak’ did not take the Ark of the Covenant, Clarke says (p. 48): ‘Since this Egyptian ‘took everything’ (Heb. … qol), included in his looted inventory would have been the Ark of the Covenant, along with many other valuable items of precious metals and gems mentioned in the biblical narrative’.
(Though others argue that the Semitic qol, kol, ‘all’ does not necessarily mean what we would mean by it, as in Mark 1:5, for instance, admittedly a New Testament example).

Most important are the gold shields, since 1 Kings 14:26 specifically mentions that ‘Shishak’ ‘took away all the gold shields which Solomon had made’. Velikovsky claimed to have identified these, as Clarke say (p. 53), ‘… shields made of “beaten gold” in row seven of the bas-relief’. But Clarke says that, except for Figures 127 and 128 there, ‘all the objects in the row are clearly marked as being silver’, with Fig. 127 being ‘described as nbw w hen n mnw (my gift of a gold chest)’; and the rest being basins, not shields, ‘which are rendered differently in Egyptian art’.

A further consideration. King Solomon, as he over-extended and over-worked his kingdom, may have had in the end to beat down much of his gold to pay for his ever-burgeoning expenses.

On p. 50, Clarke tells that Velikovsky claimed that collars in row 4 of the bas-relief (54-57) are evidence of priestly apparel, some having “breastplates”. But Clarke says that they are not “breastplates”, but just a functional ornament. In a vertical column between items 80 and 81-88, the hieroglyphs describe their use, he says: “Jewellery for the Appearance Festival of the god”. ‘Such collars, called usekh … were worn by royalty and the privileged elite’.

Pp. 50-51. Here we meet the uraeus, referred to by Danelius, but that we also found adorning statues of Senenmut (our Solomon). Dr. David Down of whom Clarke is also critical, had claimed in his DVD “Unwrapping the Pharaohs”, that ‘it looks like a fire altar’. But Clarke replies that: ‘The frieze of ureai (a bas-relief of rearing cobras) represents potent occult magic, for the cobra-goddess Wadjet was considered a deadly protectress of the king in both life and death. There is no example from Scripture for such an artefact being found in either the Temple or residence of Solomon and the claim that it is a ‘fire altar’ is not tenable”.

But it is exactly what we would expect from Solomon in his late career as Senenmut. Recall what we included above: The serpent rests on two upraised arms, the hieroglyphic symbol for the ka or soul. In its entirety, this mysterious composite image was meant to support life and protect one from evil magically.

P. 51. Here Clarke quotes Velikovsky as identifying figure 35 (and by association 36-38) as being ‘candlesticks with lamps’. ‘One of them (35)’, writes Velikovsky, ‘has three lily lamps on the left and three on the right’. But Clarke claims that, here, “Velikovsky missed an important detail …’. (He includes Dr. David Down here, too). A text accompanies figure 35 on the bas-relief, he says which reads … nbw-ddt (gold bowl). Clarke also compares it with Wreszinski’s Fig. 35 for clarification.
‘Six Nile lotus blossoms and a human figurine cannot be equated to branches and almond blossoms no matter how hard one tries’, Clarke says, before concluding” ‘… the bowl (Egy. ddt) is not the same as altar (Egy. khawt)’.

P. 52. ‘Row seven on the bas-relief may contain predominantly silver objects but the choice of Egyptian text for 138 leaves no doubt about its nature: ‘white … bread’. Velikovsky’s ‘silver bread’ is deduced only by its position in the register. Had it really been silver its label would have included the Egyptian … hdj nb, where the two hieroglyphs combined translated as hdj white, and nb gold’.

Pp. 52-53. ‘As for 138’, Clarke says, ‘the subject is described as “white bread” (ta hdj): the full description being: ta hdj hnk f kat; “dedication offering of white bread”. From where does Velikovsky derive his idea that 169 is of “colored stone (malachite)”?’, Clarke asks.

An interesting concluding comment of Clarke’s that includes a reference to the great Thutmose II himself, our King Solomon; an ‘indication’ by the high priest Hapuseneb that, as Clarke says (p. 55), ‘… the offerings on the Thutmose bas-relief were not at all unusual, being quite normal in this period … Hapuseneb listed:

“ … a shrine of ebony and gold …offering tables of gold and silver, and lapis lazuli … vessels … necklaces … two doors of copper …’’. . .

Now, here is the thing: ‘Hapuseneb also mentioned that there was a ‘great name’ upon the doors “Okhepernere [Thutmose II]-is-Divine-of-Monuments”. Everything listed was Egyptian, right down to dedications on doors; this consistency in offerings which covers three Pharaohs’ reigns [all Davidides we might add] ‘overturns Velikovsky’s argument’.

Having made this positive start on a new assessment of the lootings by ‘Shishak, I simply conclude this article with some observations by Johnny Zwick, who himself has done so much thorough work on the subject (see e.g. his Grand Folio at:

Johnny Zwick continues:

The Jerusalem Hoard on the walls of Karnak
It is very fortunate for us that the walls of the Karnak temple preserved the record of a treasure of goods looted from another temple, the temple of Kadesh (Jerusalem - the holy city). But scholars did not dare to examine the question if `kds' could refer to Jerusalem, for in their chronological structure that could not have been so. This list of temple goods is rarely discussed in any literature and at the expense of real history we believe. The relief pictures we refer to show vessels, furnishings, tools, utensils and adornments typical for temple services and is without such items which would typically be found in pagan temples such as nakedness, phallic or yonic implements, grotesque representations and so on. A complete account of these treasures, applying conventional chronology however, is found in W.Wreszinski's, `Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte', Leipzig, 1935 (Usually only available in larger university libraries (Berkley).).
Besides the quotations given above on Thutmose III receiving the flora and fauna of the land he just conquered other translators before Breasted say it this way with reference to Thutmose taking the property of the vanquished people:
"Then my Majesty made them take their oaths of allegiance as follows: never again shall we do anything evil against Menkheperre (another name for Thutmose III), may he live forever ... Then my Majesty had them set free on the road to their cities [1700] . They went off on donkeys for I had seized their chariotry. I captured their inhabitants for Egypt and their property likewise." [1720]

The period under Thutmose III also provides the best background for the kinds of conspiracies going on in behalf of Jeroboam and how he came to power in Israel. The policies of Solomon and his son Rehoboam were very costly to Israel. The tribes split apart permanently and the rest is biblical history.
Did the city of Jerusalem exist in the days of Thutmose III? The wealthy city of Jerusalem did not exist in the conventional time frame for Thutmose III, but it did in the revised scenario. The El Amarna Letters reflect the time of Ahab and Jehoshaphat/Jehoram, they also mention Jerusalem.
Who says there is no need to revise ancient history?

The Inventory of the Temple Treasures of Jerusalem
In telling this story we shall rely only on the Karnak account of the looted temple treasures and representations of them from the tomb of Rekhmire, the vizier of Thutmose, Puimre … (TT39), Amenmose and Menkheperre-Seneb, his high priest and James Breasted's `Records' account of Egyptian inscriptions. These craters and ornate vessels are usually referred to as of Syrian origin. In our account though the probability is high that many may derive as well from Jerusalem, the Syrian/Palestinian realm of the successors of King Solomon and their contemporaries throughout the conquered region. All of these accounts together we shall compare piece by piece with the Biblical account in order to realize the amazing agreement between these sources which can only be a result of contemporaneity of the Egyptian with the Biblical records.
The military campaign of Thutmose's 23rd year was directed against Palestine and Syria. He subdued these countries and vanquished some of their cities by force; others bowed down before him and opened their gates like Jerusalem did, and they became tributaries to the Egyptian crown.
A bas-relief at Karnak shows the treasures of gold, silver, bronze, and precious stones that the Pharaoh had brought from one of his campaigns; other murals exhibit the flora and fauna he transported from Palestine to Egypt.
These campaigns are supposed to have been waged against the settlements of the Canaanites long before the Israelite tribes had arrived in the region. But we find the proponents of this theory in gross error of the detailed facts. There are no, zero, evidences that the Canaanites were the producers of these products. The story of the Levite and his concubine [Judges 19:1ff] demonstrates that some Israelites lived in cities just like the Jebusites. Therefore, we may assume that they also traded goods and merchandise, including pottery and other durable artifacts, with each other. For this reason it is by no means a sure task to date artifacts found during excavations and pronounce them to be of Canaanite origin or of some other time period. We learn from the story of the Levite that Israelites also inhabited cities and not only tents as some scholars assume. We would suggest that even pottery and pottery sherds may not be a safe guide in labeling occupation layers. Craftsmen would certainly trade with anyone who could pay their price. The Bible does mention the Canaanites skill in metal working and the cities they had, but only to say that - see the Canaanites had this but we have it even better. It was the Israelites who were the working craftsmen while being in slavery in Egypt. Their skills had been honed and advanced for many generations. The loss of this work force prompted pharaoh to try and force them to return to their slave duties when he and his army drowned in the sea of reeds.
In the days of David and Solomon these craftsmen found increased employment in the construction of the Jerusalem temple and the palaces of the king. It stands to reason that Solomon had a palace built for his Egyptian first wife and Queen; and that she had among her dowry the image of the god Amon-Re in her possession in Judaic, Hebrew Jerusalem.
Among the murals of the Punt expedition, one, defaced by a chisel, contained an inscription, and from the few words which remained Kurt Sethe in about 1905 understood that a statue, obviously of the god Amon-Ra, was erected in the Divine Land visited by the Punt expedition. Just the damaged remains of such a statue was recently found in Jerusalem itself.
Now, as we indicated that Punt could also be referring to Solomon's trading posts along the African coast and that the Punt expedition stopped probably in several harbors in a `Go Around', perhaps even going first to Africa before heading for Eilat in order to see what the great king of Israel had done, Punt also stood for the Palestine of Solomon at this time.

Various types of vessels, furniture, even chariots of gold and silver, were among the booty caravaned by the Egyptians as a result of the invasion of Judah.
The Egyptian records specify:
".... 340 living prisoners; 83 hands; 2,401 mares; 191 foals; 6 stallions; ... young ...; a chariot, wrought with gold, (its) pole of gold, belonging to the chief of `M-k-ty' (as the land around Jerusalem was called); .... 892 chariots of his wretched army; total, 924 (chariots); a beautiful suit of bronze armor, belonging to the chief of Jerusalem; .... 200 suits of armor, belonging to his wretched army; 502 bows; 7 poles of (mry) wood, wrought with silver, belonging to the tent of that foe. Behold, the army of his majesty took ...., 297 ...., 1,929 large cattle, 2,000 small cattle, 20500 white small cattle." [2050] [See also the following sections.]
Different types of skilled work of the invaded nation's elite craftsmen is represented in the artistic vessels and utensils shown at Karnak and in paintings in the tombs of the officials. Many of these men were brought to Egypt to practice their skills for Pharaoh. Judaic presence in the New Kingdom Egypt before their appearance at Elephantine is something we should not be surprised about. In the tombs of Rekhmire gold, silver and copper smiths, cabinet makers, sculptors and builders and bricklayers are shown and we find it written for example over the copper smiths:
"Bringing the Asiatic copper [-smiths] which his majesty captured in the victories in Retenu." [2070]
Over the cabinetmakers it was written:
"Making chests of ivory, ebony."
Over the brickmakers:
"Captives which his majesty brought for the works of the temple of Amon."
"The task master, he says to the builders: `The rod is in my hand; be not idle.'"
All of this evidence was taken as proof that the Canaanites of Palestine were skilled in the arts, strange as that may seem for there are no records of such achievements from their ranks. The translators (Mercer) wrote about this state of affairs:
"At this time (Thutmose III, 1503-1449) the Syrians stood at a higher stage of civilization than even the wonderfully gifted race of Egypt. The plunder carried back to Egypt of coats of mail, of gold plated chariots, of chariots inlaid with silver, witnesses to an industrial and artistic development that was able to teach Egypt. With all these precious goods went captives, who fell to working in the Nile valley at the crafts to which they were accustomed at home, and as they worked they taught the Egyptians ... The Syrian craftsmen worked so well in Egypt that their wares changed even the taste of the Egyptians, while the language was semitized, and the method of writing gradually developed into smooth-flowing and graceful style. Under the great influx of foreign blood even the features of the conquering race were changed into a less bold and more delicate form. Egypt had never known such changes since the beginning of the monarchy." [2210]
While it is true that richly chased vessels (Prunkgefäße) were never found in Israel, we read statements in the Bible which lead us to conclude that such existed but since vanished. Such royal quality vessels are represented at Karnak and in the tomb of Rekhmire. But the artistry to make such vessels has been cultivated for a lengthy period and in several countries and locations. It may not be hard to realize that the cupbearers of the royal court saw to it or commissioned trades people that their king would be served from the highest quality utensils available.
"And all the kings drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold; none were of silver ... and all the earth sought to Solomon ... and they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold ... Belshazar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords and drank wine ... (and) commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem ... and they brought the golden vessels ... they drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone." [1.Kings 10:5, 21; Daniel 5:1-4]
Some of the most enigmatic statements in the Bible concerning ancient buildings are the references to the Solomonic `King's House' and a palace called the `Forest of Lebanon'. We might guess that the latter name implies a structure where much of it was made of wood, but there must also have been some stones used. All evidence of both of these buildings as well as his temple have perished in antiquity. Jerusalem went through events not experienced by any city in Egypt. We might add that no fluid ejecting vessels of the `Karnak treasures' kind was ever found in Egypt either.
While there is total lack of confirmed, written, Canaanite documentation of these skills, the Biblical account verifies these same skills as being part of the kingdom of the early Israelite monarchy.
We read:
"King Solomon made himself a chariot of the wood of Lebanon. He made pillars thereof of silver, the bottom thereof of gold, the covering of it of purple." [Song of Solomon 3:9, 10]
As we have shown the conquest of Palestine by Thutmose III did not take place in the 15th century but in the days of King Rehoboam of Jerusalem. We showed the same profile of the people visited by the Punt expedition of Queen Hatshepsut and those represented as captives by Thutmose. After the initial campaign in his 23rd year (-925) and the 5th year of Rehoboam, Thutmose returned every year carrying nearly everything in sight to Egypt. But coinciding with the end of the reign of Rehoboam, during the reign of Abijah (913-910) and Asa (910-869), these campaigns also began to fade out. Thutmose died about -901.[2500] Only toward the end of his life campaigns into Kush were recorded on his monuments. The sheer quantity, workmanship, presence of precious materials, and variety make it clear that a very rich temple was the source for these objects illustrated at Karnak. No other temple besides the new Temple of Jerusalem fits these specifications in our opinion.
But the `Abijah' of Judah was not the only person by that name, the child of Jehoboram by his Egyptian wife, the princess Ano, was also called `Abijah'.
"At that time Abijah (`Father is Jah`) the son of Jeroboam fell sick." 1.Kings 14:1; Septuagint Regnorum III, 12:24e: "kai Sousakim edoken tù Ieroboam ten Anù adelphen Thekeminas ten presbuteran tes gunaikos autou autù eis gunaika aute en megale en mesù tùn thougaterùn tou basileùs kai eteken tù Ieroboam ton Abia uion autou." [2610] Tribute from Assur
Among those giving tribute to Egypt was also the `chief of Assur'.
"The tribute of the chief of Assur (Ys-sw-r): genuine lapis lazuli, a large block, making 20 deben, 9 kidet; genuine lapis lazuli, 2 blocks; total, 3; and pieces, [making] 30 deben; total, 50 deben and 9 kidet; fine lapis lazuli from Babylon (Bb-r); vessels of Assur of hrrt- stone in colors, ---- very many." "Tribute of the chief of Assur: horses ---. A ---- of skin of the M-h-w as the [protection] of a chariot, of the finest of --- wood; 190(+x) wagons --- --- wood, nhb wood, 343 pieces, carob wood, 50 pieces; nby and k'nk wood, 206 pieces; olive oil, ------.." [2680]
Certainly no riches are here mentioned one might think of as appropriate for a wealthy kingdom. If this reflects the state of affairs in ancient Assur/Assyria at the time we can't be sure of.

Thutmose III as a law maker
With Thutmose III having been a contemporary of King Solomon we may perhaps be able to locate some faint echoes of the influences this era may have had on him in parallel to Hammurabi's code. Before this time inscriptional evidence or references to law and order, law making, are none existing or rare at least back to the 12th dynasty. After all the campaigns came to an end and steady streams of imposts, gifts and tribute were received, the scribes of the king turned their attention to the `Wise Administration' of the king.
"Behold, my majesty made every monument, every law, (and) every regulation which I made, for my father, Amon-Re, lord of Thebes, presider over Karnak, because I so well know his fame. I was wise in his excellence, resting in the midst of the body, while I knew ------- that which he commanded to do, of the things which he desired should be, of all things which his ka desired that I do them for him, according as he commanded. ..." [2720]
Much of the rest of Thutmose's statements sound like he was not at home when it came to giving moral guidance and a philosophical foundation of government. Solomonic wisdom, at best he may have heard of, but his own wisdom seems to have been very much centered on war related matters judging by the surviving sources.
Not until 1962 the deeply buried remains of a temple of Thutmose III were found adjacent to and south of the temple of Hathsepsut at Deir el-Bahari. [2810]
The Tribe of Manasseh mentioned in Egyptian Records of Sesostris III and Seti the Great
"We have shown that Retenu/Rezenu is Palestine, `erez Israel'. This word (Rezenu) is found only once reportedly in the inscriptions of the period of Sesostris III of the 12th Dynasty. It is part of a very short account relating a raid against `M-n-tyw'. Because `Mntyw' is mentioned together with `Rezenu' we look for it in Palestine.
"His majesty proceeded northward, to overthrow the Asiatics (Mntyw-Stt). His majesty arrived at a district, Sekmem (Skmm) was its name. His majesty led the good way in proceeding to the palace of `Life, Prosperity, and Health (L.P.H.,' when Sekmen had fallen, together with Retenu (Rtnw) the wretched, while I was acting as rearguard." [2840]
As we shall find that same name, Mntyw, in Egyptian documents of a much later period, that of King Menashe (Manasseh), the `Mntyw' of the Middle Kingdom must mean the tribe of Menashe/Manasseh.
Time of Seti the Great - Presentation of Syrian Prisoners and Precious Vessels to Amon
Before the King
"Slaying of the Asiatic Troglodytes (Ynw-Mn•t•yw [Menate, Manasseh]), all inaccessible countries, all lands, the Fenkhu of the marshes of Asia, the Great Bend of the sea (w'd-wr)."
Over the king
"Smiting the Troglodytes, beating down the Asiatics (Mn•t•yw), making his boundary as far as the `Horns of the Earth', as far as the marshes of Naharin (N-h-r-n)." [2900]
The Flora and Fauna Reliefs at Karnak
Solomon was like a master of all trades. Besides being at first a faithful servant of the Lord, Solomon was also something of a naturalist. He collected birds, animals and plants of other, exotic regions and planted them on the terraces of his kingdom and displayed the creatures on his palace grounds. Many of these if not all also were transported by caravans in annual trips to Egypt.
The Age of Gold
Having looted Judah in numerous campaigns until no more riches were to be had from that country, Thutmose turned his attention toward Kush. Pharaoh's knowledge of the sources for the riches of Solomon had also turned on his desire for more gold. He invaded the land and its capital Kerma. The Nubians living in Kush became the servants of pharaoh. Wall paintings show a stream of African riches being transported to pharaoh whose overseer of this trade became rich himself. [2940]
Period Artifacts and Discoveries
The Ivory Horn
The B&W image of an ivory horn decorated with gold bands encircling it at 3 locations was found in the so-called 14th century palace at Megiddo and can be seen in Alfred J. Hoerth, `Archaeology and the Old Testament', Grand Rapids, 1998, p. 254. Such horns, if open at the narrow end, may have been used as a musical instrument in a band together with other instruments like cymbals, trumpets, and drums. Or it may have been used as an attention getter by the designated community herald. If closed on one end it may have been made to pour oil or liquids.
An Obelisk
There exists an obelisk in Istanbul, which was erected by orders of Theodosius the Great (379-395 AD), which rises above a marble base. This obelisk is the oldest monument in the city and was commissioned by Pharaoh Thutmoses III and raised at the Amon-Re temple at Karnak. The tip of it is pyramidal in form and was originally gilt covered. Hieroglyphic inscriptions covered all for faces. It was used as a sundial. The base of the obelisk traces special events and presentations of awards in the career of the emperor. The Greek inscription at its base reads, "Fortune bestowed only on Emperor Theodosius the courage to erect the pillar of four facades that lay for long years on the earth challenge of succeeding and he was able to erect it in 32 days." [Quoted exactly as given. Istanbul Museum] - The predecessor of Theodosius was Gratianus (375-383). In 395 AD the Roman Empire was finally divided into East (395-1453) and West (395-476). In the east, Theodosius was followed by Arkadios (395-408) and in the west by Honorius (395-423).

1 comment:

  1. The Specialty interest websites seems to be gone now. I often disagreed with them but they were one of the more comprehensive and convenient websites chronicling this information.

    ON the Subject of the Jar with Princess Ano's name. They had a note acknowledging that the Jar can't be found at the Metropolitan Museam anymore. Which presents a problem for trying to use it as proof of anything.

    Since the source of Tahpenes being named as a Wife of Ahmose is in German I have never been able to verify it.