Senenmut’s originality in use of cryptograms

 

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

  

 

 

Before long [Hat]she[psut] will put aside all pretence and declare herself as the

first ruler of the land, duly (though bizarrely) adding a manly beard to her statues.

King Solomon will enter the land at her request and will greatly assist her as Senenmut (Senmut), her multi-tasking Steward, her quasi-royal consort, and her (you name it) – Senenmut being, according to some “the real power behind the throne”.

 

 

 

 

Essential here is my identification of Hatshepsut with King Solomon’s “Queen of Sheba”:

 

Hatshepsut's progression from Israel, Beersheba, to woman-ruler of Egypt

 

https://www.academia.edu/40872080/Hatshepsuts_progression_from_Israel_Beersheba_to_woman-ruler_of_Egypt

 

The following sequence (i-v) is basically how I see the extraordinary progression of the career of Hatshepsut Maatkare, from

 

1. a princess in King David’s realm, beginning in the king’s old age, through vicissitudes and desolation, and rebellion in the kingdom of Israel, to become
2. the Queen of Beersheba, appointed there by her maternal ‘grandfather’, Tolmai of (southern) Geshur (“Gezer”), who would succeed Amenhotep I as ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia, as Thutmose I, to her
3. visit and marriage to King Solomon in Jerusalem at the height of his wisdom and power, to her
4. subsequent marriage in Egypt to Thutmose II, whom she would succeed as
5. woman-ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia alongside her ‘nephew’ Thutmose III.   

 

and my identification (in the same article) of Hatshepsut’s quasi-royal Steward, Senenmut, with King Solomon himself.

 

The following article provides us with an excellent account of the wise King Solomon and his “encyclopedic knowledge”: https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/solomon-the-scholar/

 

….

Solomon's own intellectual investments certainly paid off. His knowledge and wisdom far surpassed the leading sages and scholars of his day. Whether it was the sons of the East who were celebrated for the sciences and sagacity, or the Egyptians who were legendary for their knowledge of medicine, geometry, mathematics, astronomy and gnomic wisdom, Solomon was smarter and wiser still. He even topped a formidable list of "Who's Who" among the great intellectuals in the ancient world. In verse 31 we read that Solomon was wiser than all men—better than the best and brighter than the brightest. This included such notables as the learned Levitical priests Ethan and Heman, and the more enigmatic Calcol and Darda, both sons of Mahol (a family with smart genes, evidently) who were prominent for their erudite contributions. If these men were renowned, Solomon was more so. Solomon's fame was widespread, not just at home in Jerusalem, Judah or Israel, but in the surrounding nations, or as we might say today, globally. Note that this acclaim is not attributed to a pagan thinker, or to a secularist, if you will, but rather to an Israelite, to a person of faith, to a man of God.

 

If we were to update the point to the present, perhaps we might say that Solomon's intellectual reputation would exceed Ox-Bridge, the Ivies, and Canada's most celebrated institutions (not to mention other worldwide notables). He would be considered smarter than the best in the West and wiser than the academics in Asia. Shouldn't there be a few persons or institutions of Christian persuasion with a comparable reputation today?

 

The boast about Solomon's scholarship was not an empty one. Solomon was not only a prolific writer and composer, but he also possessed encyclopedic knowledge of the natural world. Of the 3,000 proverbs he composed, 375 of them are preserved for us in the Old Testament book of Proverbs that makes the fear of God the prerequisite for wisdom and knowledge. Also, Solomon's grand total of 1005 songs include Psalm 72, which tackles kingly politics, and Psalm 127, which addresses the subjects of providence and parenting. Solomon's number one hit, of course, was the Song of Songs, a lovely lyrical meditation on the holy meaning of marriage and sexuality that simultaneously symbolizes the ardent nature of God's love for His people.

 

Solomon was shrewd to express his ideas in the influential genres of maxims and music. After all, our lives and the world are very much governed by proverbs, since apt and timely thoughts frequently fix our notions and determine our conduct (says Matthew Henry). As we read in Proverbs 15:1, for example, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." These are good words to believe in and to live by. And as Plato noted, rhythm and melody insinuate themselves in a life-shaping way into the innermost parts of the soul. Music has this mysterious ability to inscribe itself deep in our hearts. …. How smart it is, then, to devote considerable energy to the transformative republics of letters and lyrics in which Solomon's own contributions are nothing short of astounding.

 

If this was not enough, Solomon was also an accomplished natural philosopher or scientist whose knowledge of trees, plants and animals is highlighted in verse 33. If we combine Solomon's compositional achievements with his extensive knowledge of dendrology and botany, as well as zoology, ornithology, entomology and ichthyology, then we can see why it would be appropriate to acknowledge him, anachronistically so, as a true "Renaissance man." Indeed, Solomon was the ancient world's polymath par excellence.

 

Solomon's prodigious efforts had a goal—shalom, or peace. His labour was devoted to securing the common good of the surrounding nations, and he worked especially hard to procure the well-being of his own people. As 1 Kings 4:25 memorably recalls, "Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan even to Beersheba, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, all the days of Solomon." As if he were a new Adam, Solomon embodied the original cultural mandate of Genesis 1, which is constitutive of human identity as God's image and likeness. On this foundation, Solomon's fruitful labours illustrate for us the deep meaning and permanent nobility of the tasks of education, learning and culturemaking. If we could ask God for anything at all, shouldn't we beseech him to restore a profound understanding of this abiding purpose in us?

 

Solomon's efforts were not without recognition. As we have already seen, Solomon was internationally famous for his knowledge and wisdom. He was a veritable "tourist attraction" (as Walter Brueggemann says), for commoners and kings alike came from all over the world to obtain his insights. As the world's centerpiece of culture and scholarship, many strangers came to Solomon where they were exposed, not only to Solomon's knowledge and wisdom, but also to Yahweh—Solomon's God.

 

His most famous guest, of course, was the Queen of Sheba. In the account of her visit in 1 Kings 10, we read that the Queen spoke with Solomon about all that was in her heart, and Solomon himself answered all her questions. As the texts states, he explained everything to her. I wish I could have overheard that conversation.

 

Upon hearing his wisdom and observing his prosperity, the Queen was overwhelmed. There was no more spirit left in her. Though skeptical of the things she had heard about Solomon at first, she came to believe that not even half of his magnificence had been reported to her. She proceeded to bless Solomon's servants and subjects who attended to him and heard his teachings daily. Most importantly, she blessed God who had blessed Solomon and enabled him to become Israel's wise, just, and righteous king. The Queen's visit shows that the quest for truth and wisdom can ultimately lead to its divine source, demonstrating the evangelistic or missional potential of education and scholarship pursued avidly in God.

[End of quote]

 

 

So, if Solomon were Senenmut, as I am firmly maintaining, then we would hardly expect the latter to have been any sort of ‘dumbbell’. Nor was he. The word “genius” is frequently applied to Senenmut, as regards his administration, his architecture, literature, and so on.

We read about his grand status in Egypt. “Senenmut did not underestimate his own abilities”: https://www.gardenvisit.com/biography/senenmut

 

Senenmut (or Senmut or Sen-En-Mut) held the titles of 'Overseer of the Gardens of Amun', 'Steward of Amun', 'Overseer of all Royal Works' and 'Tutor to the Royal Heiress Neferure'. His dates are uncertain but he advised Queen Hatshepsut on many topics and is generally credited with the design of her mortuary temple at Deir el Bahri (Djeser-Djeseru). …. his tomb has the earliest astronomical ceiling. …. Over 25 other statues of the man described as 'greatest of the great' survive. They show him holding Neferure, or kneeling for an act of worship with outstretched arms. Without evidence, it has long been suggested that he was Hatshepsut's lover. The influence of Hatshepsut's temple garden is undocumented but as Gothein wrote 'Here stands out for the very first time in the history of art a most magnificent idea - that of building three terraces, one above the other, each of their bordering walls set against the mountain-side, and made beautiful with pillared corridors, the actual shrine in a cavity in the highest terrace which was blasted out of the rock'. [See Marie-Luise Gothein on Egyptian gardens] Senenmut's dates are unknown but Hatshepsut reigned from 1479–1458 BC [sic] and Senemut is reported to have been about 50 in the 16th year of her reign … and no event in his life is recorded after this date ….

 

Senemut did not underestimate his own abilities:

 

He says: "I was the greatest of the great in the whole land;
one who heard the hearing alone in the privy council, steward of [Amon],
Senemut , triumphant."
"I was the real favorite of the king, acting as one praised of his lord
every day, the overseer of the cattle of Amon, Senemut."
"I was '… of truth, not showing partiality; with whose injunctions
the Lord of the Two Lands was satisfied; attached to Nekhen, prophet
of Mat, Senemut ."
"I was one who entered in [love], sand came forth in favor, making
glad the heart of the king every day, the companion, and master of .the
palace, Senemut ."
"I commanded … in the storehouse of divine offerings of Amon
every tenth day; the overseer of the storehouse of Amon, Senemut ."
"I conducted … of the gods every day, for the sake of the life,
prosperity, and health of the king; overseer of the … of Amon, Senemut."
"I was a foreman of foremen, superior of the great, … [overseer] of
all [works] of the house of silver, conductor of every handicraft, chief of
the prophets of Montu in Hermonthis, Senemut ."
"I was one I… to whom the affairs of the Two Lands were [reported;
that which South and North contributed was on my seal, the labor of
all countries … was [under] my charge."
"I was one, whose steps were known in the palace; a real confidant
of the king, his beloved: overseer of the gardens of Amon, Senemut."

 

[End of quotes]

 

Senenmut could also boast: “… now, I have penetrated into every writing of the priests and I am not ignorant of (everything) that happened from the first occasion in order to make flourish my offerings” (Urk. IV 415.14–16; Morenz 2002, p. 134).46”

 

“An aspect of Senenmut's originality was his invention of a number of composite devices, or cryptograms”. We read about this in Hatshepsut, from Queen to Pharaoh (ed. By Catharine H. Roehrig, Renée Dreyfus, Cathleen A. Keller), pp. 117-118:

 

An aspect of Senenmut's originality was his invention of a number of composite devices, or cryptograms. Two of these appear on two block statues from Karnak that depict Senenmut and the King's Daughter, Neferure … incised near the head of the princess …. The first cryptogram shows a flying vulture, with a protective wedjat eye superimposed on its body, grasping a set of ka arms in its talons. It faces a striding male figure with a composition was and ankh device instead of a head and holding a tall was sceptre and an ankh sign in the usual manner of Egyptian divinities. (The was symbolised power, the ankh eternal life). These cryptograms have been interpreted as standing for Hatshepsut's prenomen (Maatkare) and nomen (Khenemet Amun Hatshepsut), respectively … and thus as constituting “new” ways of writing the king’s cartouches on the statue. Senenmut stresses their originality in an additional text inscribed on both statues on the left of the princess’s head: "Images which I have made from the devising of my own heart and from my own labor; they have not been found in the writing of the ancestors”.

 

The most common device associated with Senenmut, however, is the uraeus cryptogram, which takes the form of a cobra crowned with bovine horns and a solar disc rearing up form a pair of ka arms …. This emblem was initially interpreted as a rebus rendering of the kingly Horus name of Hatshepsut, Wosretkaw, … and subsequently as a rebus of her prenomen: Maat (the cobra) + ka + Re (the sun disk) = Maatkare.' …. Alternatively, it has been understood … as referring to the harvest god- dess Renenutet, Mistress of Food, who takes the form of the cobra, guardian of the granary from rodent predators (ka here meaning "provisions" or "food")." As recent scholars have noted, it quite likely referred to both the king and the goddess. ….

 

 

 

 

 

Hatshepsut’s progression from Israel, Beersheba, to woman-ruler of Egypt

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Do you really think that Hatshepsut was Solomon's wife?
I don't think so. Hatshepsut ruled alone for many years”.

(A reader)

 

 

Introduction

 

The following sequence (i-v) is basically how I see the extraordinary progression of the career of Hatshepsut Maatkare, from

 

(i)                 a princess in King David’s realm, beginning in the king’s old age, through vicissitudes and desolation, and rebellion in the kingdom of Israel, to become

(ii)              the Queen of Beersheba, appointed there by her maternal ‘grandfather’, Tolmai of (southern) Geshur (“Gezer”), who would succeed Amenhotep I as ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia, as Thutmose I, to her

(iii)            visit and marriage to King Solomon in Jerusalem at the height of his wisdom and power, to her

(iv)             subsequent marriage in Egypt to Thutmose II, whom she would succeed as

(v)               woman-ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia alongside her ‘nephew’ Thutmose III.    

 

Point (v) is perfectly in accordance with the testimony of Flavius Josephus that the Queen of Sheba who visited King Solomon was ‘the Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia’ (Ant. 8:165–173).

Since Sheba is not Egypt (though an attempt has been made to equate it with Thebes in Egypt), our heroine must have experienced the rulership of at least two separate countries.

Furthermore, Hatshepsut’s throne name, Maatkare (“Maat (the goddess of truth) is the life force of Re”), or Makera, closely resembles Makeda, the name of the biblical queen according to Ethiopian legend (Kebra Nagast).

 

 

Point (i) above encompasses her life as Abishag, the beautiful young virginal princess who served as the ageing King David’s nursemaid, and, some say, his consort-wife.

The name “Abishag” (or “Abishaug”) is, according to some views, “unknown”, and may be a Hebrew attempt to transliterate the foreign name, Hatshepsut, which Sir Alan Gardiner had rendered, “Hashepsowe” (Abishaug?).

Her Hebrew name was Tamar. She, the ‘sister’ of prince Absalom, being the unfortunate beautiful young virginal princess (again) in the care of King David, who was raped by her half-brother, Amnon, David’s oldest son.

This situation left her desolate, and forced her to live in the home of Absalom (in Shunem?) where she, unlike her fellow princesses, became “black” from working out in the sun (Song of Solomon).

The young Solomon, to whom David must have promised her, “the Shunammite”, was constantly on the lookout for her.

 

Point (ii) above encompasses her life when her brother, Absalom, who eventually killed Amnon, had to flee Jerusalem. He sought asylum with his maternal grandfather, Tolmai, king of southern Geshur, near Beersheba. Their mother’s name was Maacah, which name is uncannily similar to Hatshepsut’s throne name, Maa(t)kare, less the theophoric (re): hence Maacah = Maa[t]ka-  

Though we are not told that Tamar fled with Absalom, it would be expected, given her complete subjection to her brother as a young woman shamed (and now with a child?).

And presumably she would have returned with Absalom to Jerusalem after King David had pardoned his son. For we find her, as Abishag, serving David during the revolt of another oldest son, Adonijah, towards the end of David’s life.

 

 

Solomon, the rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem, will eventually slay Adonijah, who had presumed to ask for the hand of Abishag - a request which was tantamount to asking for the throne.

Such was the prestige of the young woman by now.

 

King Tolmai had now succeeded Amenhotep I to the throne of Egypt and he, now Thutmose I, apparently had great plans for his so-called “daughter”, Hatshepsut – though Thutmose I never actually names her as his daughter. He was the biblical “pharaoh” who will give King Solomon’s future wife the chief city of Geshur (= “Gezer”), which is Beersheba, as a dowry.

 

Jesus Christ gives the clearest geographical indications about the Queen of the South, at “the ends of the earth”, in other words, the south end (frontier) of the land (of Israel), the northern end being Dan (we frequently read of the full length of the land of Israel, “from Dan to Beersheba”).

In the Book of Joshua, Beersheba is called, simply, “Sheba”.

 

Point (iii) above includes when the Queen of the South was biding her time in the capital city (Beersheba) of the Negev desert region whilst her fiancée, Solomon, was busy building Jerusalem and the Temple of Yahweh. She could hardly wait to see what Solomon had been up to, and she was overwhelmed when she arrived in Jerusalem and saw the city/Temple in all of its magnificence.

King Solomon will set up a palatial residence for his queen whom he has married - she, his childhood friend, being his very favourite queen.

 

Point (iv) When Thutmose I dies, the couple undergo a diplomatic divorce (“she returned”) in order for her, as Hatshepsut, to marry Thutmose II, and so weld together the kingdoms of Egypt and Israel.

Egypt had become highly important to King Solomon as a trading partner.

 

It is at this point that the biblical scribes seem to lose interest in King Solomon, the mercantile king, whose trade with Egypt, and his many foreign wives, had begun to lead him into apostasy.

 

Point (v) above encompasses the famous queen’s virtual rulership of Egypt while Thutmose III (son of one of Thutmose II’s concubines) was still very young.

Before long she will put aside all pretence and declare herself as the first ruler of the land, duly (though bizarrely) adding a manly beard to her statues.

King Solomon will enter the land at her request and will greatly assist her as Senenmut (Senmut), her multi-tasking Steward, her quasi-royal consort, and her (you name it) – Senenmut being, according to some “the real power behind the throne”.    

 

Eventually Solomon dies, and then, not long afterwards, Hatshepsut.

The long-suffering Thutmose III becomes free to burst upon the scene as “The Napoleon of Egypt” (Breasted).

 

Hatshepsut - Warrior Monarch

 

 

 

“… Hatchepsut is portrayed as a sphinx, a human-headed crouching lion

crushing the traditional enemies of Egypt”.

  

 

Taken from: http://www.egyptvoyager.com/features_womeninancientegypt_hatshepsut_02.htm

 

...

[Hatshepsut's] temple [at Deir el Bahri] was filled with many beautiful scenes that prove herself as Pharaoh. There was even some reference to military activity at the temple, even though she is often portrayed as a peaceful queen. She did, in fact, have some conquest, like the rest of her seemingly war-loving family.

 

This refers to a campaign in Nubia. She even sent Thuthmose III out with the army, on various campaigns (many of which little is known at all!). One inscription even says that Hatshepsut herself led one of her Nubian campaigns. The inscription at Sehel island suggest that Ty, the treasurer of Lower Egypt, went into battle under Hatshepsut herself. This proves her as a warrior Pharaoh to her people, and also depicts her expedition to the Land of Punt. ....

 



Moreover, we read at:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081010133118AAvQ5UT

 

In 'Hatchepsut, the Female Pharaoh', Joyce Tyldesley writes:

 

'Evidence is now growing to suggest that Hatchepsut's military prowess has been seriously underestimated due to the selective nature of the archaeological evidence which has been compounded by preconcieved notions of feminine pacifism.

 

Egyptologists have assu[m]ed that Hatchepsut did not fight, and have become blind to the evidence that, in fact, she did. As so many of Hatchepsut's texts were defaced, amended or erased after her death, it is entirely possible that her war record is incomplete. Furthermore, Hatchepsut's reign, falling between the reigns of two of the greatest generals Egypt was ever to know (Tuthmosis I and Tuthmosis III) is bound to suffer in any immediate comparison.

 

The Deir el-Bahri mortuatry temple provides us with evidence for defensive military activity during Hatchepsut's reign. By the late 19th century Naville had uncovered enough references to battles to convince him that Hatchepsut had embarked on the now customary series of campaigns against her vassals to the south and east. These subjects, the traditional enemies of Egypt, almost invariably viewed any change of [pharaoh] … as an opportunity to rebel against their overlords, while the [pharaohs] … themselves seem to have almost welcomed these minor insurrection as a means of proving their military might.

 

The fragments and inscriptions found in the course of the excavations at Deir el-Bahri show that during Hatchepsut's reign wars were waged against the Ethiopians, and probably also against the Asiatics. Among these wars which the queen considered the most glorious, and which she desired to be recorded on the walls of the temple erected as a monument to her high deeds, was the campaign against the nations of the Upper Nile.

 

Blocks [originally] … sited on the eastern colonnade show the Nubian god Dedwen leading a series of captive southern towns towards the victorious Hatchepsut, each town being represented by a name written in a crenellated cartouche and topped by an obviously African head. The towns all belong to the land of Cush (Nubia). Elsewhere in the temple, Hatchepsut is portrayed as a sphinx, a human-headed crouching lion crushing the traditional enemies of Egypt. There is also a written, but unfortunately badly damaged, description of a Nubian campaign in which Hatchepsut appears to be claiming to have emulated the deeds of her revered father;

 

.....as was done by her victorious father, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Aakheperkare (Tuthmosis I) who seized all lands....a slaughter was made among them, the number of dead being unknown, their hands were] … cut off....she overthrew (gap in text) the gods (gap in text)...

 

….

Hatchepsut's military policy is perhaps best described as one of unobtrusive control; active defence rather than deliberate offence … while either unwilling or unable to actually expand Egypt's sphere of influence in the near east, she was certainly prepared to fight to maintain the borders of her country. '

 

Source(s): 'Hatchepsut The Female Pharaoh' by Joyce Tyldesley

So-called “Minoans” were the Philistines

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

  

 

 

Those whom Sir Arthur Evans fancifully named ‘the Minoans’,

based on the popular legend of King Minos, son of Zeus,

are biblically and historically attested as the Philistines.  

 

 

 

 

Gavin Menzies has followed Arthur Evans in labelling as “Minoans” the great sea-faring and trading nation that is the very focal point of his fascinating book, The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed (HarperCollins, 2011). Though the ex-submariner, Menzies, can sometimes ‘go a bit overboard’ - or, should I say, he can become a bit ‘airborne’ (and don’t we all?) - he is often highly informative and is always eminently readable.

According to the brief summary of the book that we find at Menzies’ own site: http://www.gavinmenzies.net/lost-empire-atlantis/the-book/

 

 

... the Minoans. It’s long been known that this extraordinary civilisation, with its great palaces and sea ports based in Crete and nearby Thera (now called Santorini), had a level of sophistication that belied its place in the Bronze Age world but never before has the extent of its reach been uncovered.

 

Through painstaking research, including recent DNA evidence, Menzies has pieced together an incredible picture of a cultured people who traded with India and Mesopotamia, Africa and Western Europe, including Britain and Ireland, and even sailed to North America.

 

Menzies reveals that copper found at Minoan sites can only have come from Lake Superior, and that it was copper, combined with tin from Cornwall and elsewhere, to make bronze, that gave the Minoans their wealth. He uses knowledge gleaned as a naval captain to explore ancient shipbuilding and navigation techniques and explain how the Minoans were able to travel so far. He looks at why the Minoan empire, which was 1500 years ahead of China and Greece in terms of science, architecture, art and language, disappeared so abruptly and what led to her destruction. ...

 

[End of quote]

 

The Philistines

 

Thanks to Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Loma Linda CA, 1971), we can trace the Philistines - through their distinctive pottery - all the way back to Neolithic Knossos (Crete). And this, despite J. C. Greenfield’s assertion: “There is no evidence for a Philistine occupation of Crete, nor do the facts about the Philistines, known from archaeological and literary sources, betray any relationship between them and Crete” (IDB, 1962, vol. 1, p. 534). The distinctive type of pottery that Courville has identified as belonging to the biblical Philistines is well described in this quote that he has taken from Kathleen Kenyon:

 

The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]

 

By contrast, the pottery of the ‘Sea Peoples’ - a maritime confederation confusingly identified sometimes as the early biblical Philistines, their pottery like, but not identical to the distinctive Philistine pottery as described above - was Aegean (Late Helladic), not Cretan.  

 

The indispensable “Table of Nations” (Genesis 10), informs us that the Philistines were a Hamitic people, descendants of Ham’s “son”, Mizraim (or Egypt) (v. 6).

Genesis 10:13: “Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites”.

These earliest Philistines would be represented by the users of this distinctive pottery at Neolithic I level Knossos (Dr. Courville):

 

With the evidences thus far noted before us, we are now in a position to examine the archaeological reports from Crete for evidences of the early occupation of this site by the Caphtorim (who are either identical to the Philistines of later Scripture or are closely related to them culturally). We now have at least an approximate idea of the nature of the culture for which we are looking ….

 

… we can hardly be wrong in recognizing the earliest occupants of Crete as the people who represented the beginnings of the people later known in Scripture as the Philistines, by virtue of the stated origin of the Philistines in Crete. This concept holds regardless of the name that may be applied to this early era by scholars.

The only site at which Cretan archaeology has been examined for its earliest occupants is at the site of the palace at Knossos. At this site deep test pits were dug into the earlier occupation levels. If there is any archaeological evidence available from Crete for its earliest period, it should then be found from the archaeology of these test pits. The pottery found there is described by Dr. Furness, who is cited by Hutchinson.

 

“Dr. Furness divides the early Neolithic I fabrics into (a) coarse unburnished ware and (b) fine burnished ware, only differing from the former in that the pot walls are thinner, the clay better mixed, and the burnish more carefully executed. The surface colour is usually black, but examples also occur of red, buff or yellow, sometimes brilliant red or orange, and sometimes highly variegated sherds”.

 

A relation was observed between the decoration of some of this pottery from early Neolithic I in Crete with that at the site of Alalakh ….

 

Continuing to cite Dr. Furness, Hutchinson commented:

 

Dr. Furness justly observes that “as the pottery of the late Neolithic phases seems to have developed at Knossos without a break, it is to the earliest that one must look for evidence of origin of foreign connections”, and she therefore stresses the importance of a small group with plastic decoration that seems mainly confined to the Early Neolithic I levels, consisting of rows of pellets immediately under the rim (paralleled on burnished pottery of Chalcolithic [predynastic] date from Gullucek in the Alaca [Alalakh] district of Asia Minor). [Emphasis Courville’s]

 

While the Archaeological Ages of early Crete cannot with certainty be correlated with the corresponding eras on the mainland, it would seem that Chalcolithic on the mainland is later than Early Neolithic in Crete; hence any influence of one culture on the other is more probably an influence of early Cretan culture on that of the mainland. This is in agreement with Scripture to the effect that the Philistines migrated from Crete to what is now the mainland at some point prior to the time of Abraham.[[1]]

[End of quotes]

 

Late Chalcolithic, we have already learned, pertains to the era of Abram (Abraham), when the Philistines were apparently in southern Canaan:

 

Better archaeological model for Abraham

 

https://www.academia.edu/31214563/Better_archaeological_model_for_Abraham

 

We next find the Philistines in the land of Palestine (the Gaza region) at the time of Joshua. Was there a Philistine migration out of Crete (“Caphtor”) at the time of the Exodus migration out of Egypt? (Amos 9:7): “Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?”

Dr. John Bimson becomes interesting at this point, as previously I have written:

 

Here I take up Bimson’s account of this biblical tradition:[2]

 

There is a tradition preserved in Joshua 13:2-3 and Judges 3:3 that the Philistines were established in Canaan by the end of the Conquest, and that the Israelites had been unable to oust them from the coastal plain …. There is also an indication that the main Philistine influx had not occurred very much prior to the Conquest. As we shall see below, the Philistines are the people referred to as “the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor” in Deuteronomy 2:23 … where it is said that a people called the Avvim originally occupied the region around Gaza, and that the Caphtorim “destroyed them and settled in their stead”. Josh. 13:2-3 mentions Philistines and Avvim together as peoples whom the Israelites had failed to dislodge from southern Canaan. This suggests that the Philistines had not completely replaced the Avvim by the end of Joshua’s life. I would suggest, in fact, that the war referred to in Ex. 13:17, which was apparently taking place in “the land of the Philistines” at the time of the Exodus, was the war of the Avvim against the newly arrived Philistines.

 

As conventionally viewed, the end of MB II C coincides with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Bimson however, in his efforts to provide a revised stratigraphy for the revision of history, has synchronised MB II C instead with the start of Hyksos rule. He will argue here in some detail that the building and refortifying of cities at this time was the work of the Avvim against the invading Philistines, with some of the new settlements, however, likely having been built by the Philistines themselves.

 

[End of quote]

 

I have further written on Dr. Bimson’s laudable effort to bring some archaeological sanity to this era:

 

Bimson has grappled with trying to distinguish between what might have been archaeological evidence for the Philistines and evidence for the Hyksos, though in actual fact it may be fruitless to try to discern a clear distinction in this case. Thus he writes:[3] 

 

Finds at Tell el-Ajjul, in the Philistine plain, about 5 miles SW of Gaza, present a particularly interesting situation. As I have shown elsewhere, the “Palace I” city (City III) at Tell el-Ajjul was destroyed at the end of the MBA, the following phase of occupation (City II) belonging to LB I …. There is some uncertainty as to exactly when bichrome ware first appeared at Tell el-Ajjul.

Fragments have been found in the courtyard area of Palace I, but some writers suggest that this area remained in use into the period of Palace II, and that the bichrome ware should therefore be regarded as intrusive in the Palace I level ….

It seems feasible to suggest that the invading Philistines were responsible for the destruction of City III, though it is also possible that its destruction was the work of Amalekites occupying the Negeb (where we find them settled a short while after the Exodus; cf. Num. 13:29); in view of Velikovsky’s identification of the biblical Amalekites with the Hyksos … the Amalekite occupation of the Negeb could plausibly be dated, like the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, to roughly the time of the Exodus …. But if our arguments have been correct thus far, the evidence of the bichrome ware favours the Philistines as the newcomers to the site, and as the builders of City II.

[End of quotes]

 

Next we come to the Philistines in the era of King Saul, for a proper appreciation of which I return to Dr. Courville’s thesis. He, initially contrasting the Aegean ware with that of the distinctive Philistine type, has written:

 

The new pottery found at Askelon [Ashkelon] at the opening of Iron I, and correlated with the invasion of the Sea Peoples, was identified as of Aegean origin. A similar, but not identical, pottery has been found in the territory north of Palestine belonging to the much earlier era of late Middle Bronze. By popular views, this is prior to the Israelite occupation of Palestine. By the altered chronology, this is the period of the late judges and the era of Saul.

… That the similar pottery of late Middle Bronze, occurring both in the north and in the south, is related to the culture found only in the south at the later date is apparent from the descriptions of the two cultures. Of this earlier culture, which should be dated to the time of Saul, Miss Kenyon commented:

 

The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]

 

Drawings of typical examples of this pottery show the same stylized bird with back-turned head that characterized the pottery centuries later at Askelon.

… The anachronisms and anomalies in the current views on the interpretation of this invasion and its effects on Palestine are replaced by a consistent picture, and one that is in agreement with the background provided by Scripture for the later era in the very late [sic] 8^th century B.C.

[End of quotes]

 

 

---

[1] It is interesting in light of this that Dr. J. Osgood has synchronized Chalcolithic En-geddi with the era of Abraham. ‘Times of Abraham’, p. 181.

[2] ‘The Arrival of the Philistines’, p. 13.

[3] ‘The Arrival of the Philistines’, pp. 14-15.