by
Damien F. Mackey
Contents
News.................................................................................................................2
Articles
Solomon
and
Damien Mackey presents new evidence that
Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba.
….
Society for
Interdisciplinary Studies
CHRONOLOGY AND
CATASTROPHISM
REVIEW
1997:1
Editor's Notes
Probably few articles caused more disappointment in SIS
circles than John Bimson's 1986 ‘Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba’, which
presented strong evidence and argument against Velikovsky’s proposal that the
mysterious and exotic queen who visited King Solomon was none other than the
famous Egyptian female pharaoh. This removed one of the key identifications in
Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos historical reconstruction and was a key factor in the
rejection of his proposed chronology by Bimson and others in favour of the more
moderate ‘New Chronology’. It also took away what had seemed a romantic and
satisfactory solution to the mystery of the identity and origins of Solomon's
visitor, leaving her once more as an historical enigma.
In this issue, Damien Mackey returns to the question,
challenging Bimson’s conclusions, giving a new twist to Velikovsky’s scheme -
and throwing up some controversial identifications of other famous Egyptian
(and Greek) historical figures. No doubt it will not be the last word on the
matter but maybe it will stimulate fresh discussion about the identities and
lives of these people whose names and stories have been handed down to us from
ancient times ….
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Mackey (MA,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I
have re-presented my 1997 article for SIS, “Solomon & Sheba”, but with some
very important corrections and additions (author, March 2011) – updated again today,
10th August, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
New evidence is brought forward in
support of Velikovsky’s ingenious thesis that Hatshepsut, the female pharaoh
of Egypt's 18th Dynasty, was in fact the biblical Queen of Sheba. That new
evidence is the presence of Solomon himself in the Egyptian inscriptions in the
person of Hatshepsut’s great Steward, Senenmut.
1.
INTRODUCTION
A decade has elapsed since Dr. John Bimson wrote his
probing critique [I] of Immanuel Velikovsky’s thesis that Queen Hatshepsut was
the biblical Queen of Sheba [2]. In the interim, there has been a succession of
other critiques - and new chronologies - by James, Rohl, Sieff, Sweeney, and
others. Dr. Bimson, by submitting Velikovsky’s thesis to intense scrutiny, has
done a great service, forcing those who would wish to defend the idea that
Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba to dig deeper and to come up with more cogent
arguments.
In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut [3], I endeavoured to answer objections raised by Bimson and
bring forward some new evidence in support of Velikovsky’s conclusion. There
are reasons for believing that the biblical queen was not an Arabian queen from
Her Name
Contrary to Bimson’s claim, there is no grammatical
obstacle to Velikovsky’s view that ‘Sheba’ was actually the queen’s personal
name. The construct state is used in various places in Hebrew for an
‘Apposition’ - a proper name or a description of a proper name [4]. According
to Velikovsky, Sheba
was probably a
nickname for Hatshepsut in the close relationships that existed between the
18th Dynasty and the House of David and in Ethiopian legend Solomon’s visitor
was called Makeda, a name almost identical to Hatshepsut’s
throne name, Make-ra (Maat-ka-re).
Her Nationality
Bimson argued that the biblical
description had an Arabian flavour, with camels, gold, spices and precious
stones - but all
the monarchs who
came to hear Solomon’s wisdom brought ‘silver and gold ... myrrh, spices ...’ (cf. I Kings 10:25 & II Chronicles 10:24). Ever since the
time of Joseph, an Arabian camel train had operated between
Bimson suggested that the biblical queen
was from
But, on the above two sections, see my more recent (2026)
article:
King
Solomon’s illustrious visitor did not hail from southern Arabia
(2) King Solomon's illustrious visitor did not hail from southern Arabia
Her Family
I accept Velikovsky’s basic alignment of Israel’s early
kingdom with the 18th Dynasty, with pharaoh Thutmose I as Solomon’s
father-in-law.
Thutmose I had only two daughters; Hatshepsut and another
who died as a child.
The archaeological evidence for destruction at Gezer in
Late Bronze I-II that Bimson [8] has equated with its sacking by Solomon’s
Egyptian father-in-law (cf. I Kings
But, on the above, see my more recent (2026) article:
King
Solomon’s illustrious visitor did not hail from southern Arabia
(2) King Solomon's illustrious visitor did not hail from southern Arabia
Her Religion
During Hatshepsut's co-rulership with Thutmose III, there
was a trend towards monotheism in
The Egyptians were admittedly polytheistic, with a marked
inclination towards idolatry but in the case of Amon-Ra, Mallon [11] has shown,
this plurality was of titles rather than of gods.
The devotion to Amon-Ra developed at the time Joseph [12],
so the monotheism of Hatshepsut's time would have related specifically to the
worship of the God of Joseph. Joseph’s influence over Egypt must have been
enormous. Pharaoh gave him for a wife the daughter of the priest of
The influence of Hebrew wisdom on the
Egyptians did not end with Joseph. Hatshepsut's own inscriptions betray
Israelite influence - especially from Genesis, the Psalms and, most
interestingly, the writings generally attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, Wisdom,
Song of Songs) [14]. From the perspective of
The
Punt Expedition
Bimson's analysis of the Punt expedition (and the lack of
reference in the Old Testament to Egypt in relation to the Queen of Sheba)
constituted his most formidable argument against Velikovsky’s thesis. Bimson
made a detailed comparison in situ between the Egyptian bas-reliefs and
the biblical description and concluded that the match was extremely poor. The
gifts given by the Egyptians to the Puntites were insignificant compared with
those given by the Queen of Sheba to Solomon.
And Bimson also found no evidence in the inscriptions to
support Velikovsky's view that Hatshepsut had actually gone in person to Punt
(whereas the Queen of Sheba had most certainly gone in person to Jerusalem).
However, on the basis of Dorman’s chronology of
Hatshepsut's, era [16], the Punt expedition is actually irrelevant to the
matter.
Velikovsky had made a significant chronological
miscalculation when arguing that Hatshepsut would have been influenced, in the
design of her own temple, by what she saw in Jerusalem. Hatshepsut would
already have commenced the building of her temple (and would a fortiori
have been in possession of the plans for it) before she launched her Punt
expedition as Pharaoh of Egypt.
(See Appendix A for a revised explanation of the Punt
venture.)
For, whilst Velikovsky was quite correct in his view that
Hatshepsut had been influenced in her temple design by what she saw in
Jerusalem, the fact is that she would need to have gone to Jerusalem before
her having launched the Punt expedition, i.e. while she was still only ‘queen’
in Egypt.
Both the Old and New Testaments specifically entitle
Solomon’s visitor ‘queen’, which is a significant chronological clue.
2. SENENMUT IN HATSHEPSUT’S
QUEENSHIP (Regnal years 1-6)
Velikovsky had claimed to have found in writings about the
Queen of Sheba
a profile of Hatshepsut, sovereign of Egypt.
Can we find any trace of King Solomon in Egyptian records?
I believe that we can, and that Senenmut was Solomon
himself (Heb. Shelomoh). Practically all the inscriptional
evidence is favourable to this except for a snag in relation to Senenmut’s tomb
complex. Senenmut was honoured with a lavish tomb - two tombs in fact [17].
He was not buried in either of them and it has been argued
that he was never intended to be [l8]. Senenmut’s parents are supposed to have
been buried together in one of these tombs - but Solomon’s father, King David,
was buried in Jerusalem (cf. I Kings 2:10).
Furthermore, with the Punt expedition no longer
chronologically convincing as the Egyptian record of the Queen of Sheba’s
visit to Solomon, there is no recorded venture to take its place.
Maybe it was not recorded - at least with the same sort of
inscriptional magnificence as the Punt expedition - because it had occurred
when Hatshepsut was still a ‘queen’, and not the ‘Pharaoh’. With Hatshepsut
merely a ‘queen’ at the time of her trip to Jerusalem, it would have been a
personal initiative, not recorded in the official inscriptions.
Perhaps the real evidence for the queen’s visit to the
Jerusalem of Solomon’s time lies, not in any actual records of the expedition
itself, but rather in the effects that Israelite religion and culture had on
the Egypt of Hatshepsut’s time.
Hatshepsut
and Thutmose III
The architect Ineni described Thutmose as ‘the ruler upon
the throne of him who begot him’ but says that ‘His sister, the Divine Consort,
Hatshepsut, adjusted the affairs of
[Egypt] by reason of her designs ...’
[19].
Hatshepsut brought to the throne of Egypt some ambitious
plans and historians agree she could not have carried them out without the
support of Senenmut and powerful officials.
Nevertheless, Budge says ‘... we are quite justified in
saying that the interests of the country suffered in no way through being in
her hands’ [20].
Senenmut’s
Call
Senenmut is a complete enigma to historians. His ancestry
was not unequivocally Egyptian. According to one of his statues ‘I was in this land under [her] command since the occurrence of the death of
[her] predecessor ...’ [21].
His ‘ancestors were not found in writing’, or - variously
translated ‘[whose name] is not to be found amongst the annals of the
ancestors’ [22].
Both indicate that Senenmut did not hail from Egypt.
Further possible hints that Senenmut was a foreigner were
his fascination with the Egyptian language, his ‘idiosyncracies in regard to
the Egyptian language - the uncommon substitution of certain hieroglyphs’ and
his penchant for creating cryptograms, e.g. in relation to Hatshepsut’s throne
name, Make-ra [23].
His appearance, as depicted on statues does not provide
any clues.
The most outstanding feature is ‘his massive wig’ [24], an
Egyptian feature. However, Solomon was thoroughly Egyptianised - two of his
high officials in Jerusalem bore Egyptian names Shisha
and Eli-horeph (I Kings 4:3).
Peter James [25] refers to an ivory plaque found at
Megiddo, ‘showing a monarch holding court’, depicted in Egyptian guise. Megiddo
was one of Solomon’s great forts in northern Israel, where he had built a
‘monumental palace compound’ (I Kings 9:15).
According to James, the ‘material culture of Palestine at
the end of the Late Bronze Age [Solomon’s era by the revision] is best seen’ at
its site and 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 than an idealized ruler, would it be too much to imagine that in this
ivory we actually have a depiction of the Egyptianized King Solomon?’.
Solomon may indeed have worn an Egyptian
wig [26].
I believe that Senenmut’s arrival in Egypt was a direct
result of Queen Hatshepsut’s visit to Jerusalem as the Queen of Sheba. ‘King
Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all
that she desired, whatever she asked ...’ (I Kings 10: 13). She was so convinced by what he told her
that ‘there was no more spirit in her’ (cf. I Kings 10:3,5). Hatshepsut
regarded Senenmut as her mentor and he claimed to have been an influence in
Egypt ‘since [Hatshepsut’s] youth’ [27]. One of his Cairo statues says he was
one ‘whose opinion [Hatshepsut] has desired for [herself], who pleases the
mistress of [Egypt] with his utterance’ [28] and he was both ‘chief spokesman
of her estate’ (i.e. the material wealth and properties of the royal household
were under his supervision) and ‘judge in the entire land’ of Egypt.
Similarly, Solomon was called ‘judge’ of Israel (Wisdom
9:7).
Wilson [29] recognised that Hatshepsut perceived Senenmut
as ‘an adviser’, though: ‘In what manner he forged the bonds which brought him
into close relations with his royal mistress and by which he won not only her
trust but possibly even her love is a closed page of history’. Dorman notes, in
relation to Winlock [30], that Queen Hatshepsut gave
Senenmut his first government posts, ‘linking him closely to the royal family
by giving him charge of princess Neferura’.
What had impressed the young queen
during her visit to Jerusalem?
It was Solomon’s civil and religious administration. His
military organisation was also efficient, and - despite enemies later like
Hadad in Edom and Rezon in Damascus (1 Kings 11:14-25) - he was never really
seriously challenged during his entire 40-year reign. In fact, the era of
Solomon and Hatshepsut (in revisionist terms) was one of singular peace.
Hatshepsut would also have noticed
Solomon’s magnificent fleet (I Kings 10:11) and the parks and gardens in
Jerusalem with their exotic myrrh trees (Song of Songs 5:1; 6:2).
Presumably these were what later inspired Hatshepsut’s
Punt expedition.
Hatshepsut asked Solomon for help in governing her land.
She probably also sought military back-up in case other forces in Egypt took
advantage of the initially fragile situation in Egypt, to engineer a coup
against young Thutmose III [31]. Perhaps, too, there were some who did not
dispute his accession but were ready to dispute any intervention by the
queen as co-ruler. Winlock [32] suggests that Hatshepsut required Senenmut’s
assistance for her own coup
d'êtat. Hayes says [33]: ‘The
person who probably contributed most to Hatshepsut’s success was her Chief
Steward, Senenmut, a canny politician and brilliant administrator who ... rose
[sic] to be the queen’s most favoured official’.
‘Greatest
of the Great’
Most historians would agree with Baikie [34] that Senenmut
‘was by far the most powerful and important figure of [Hatshepsut's] reign’.
Few supposedly non-royal personages in pharaonic Egypt have caused as much ink
to flow [35], and his statues and inscriptions are still abundant despite the
campaign of destruction waged against them after his death. He boasted ‘I was the greatest of the great
in the land …’ [36]. According to Baikie [37]: ‘... we have sufficient evidence
to make it manifest that a good deal of it was simple truth, and that
[Senenmut] was by far the most powerful and important figure of the reign’.
He even seems to have eclipsed Thutmose
III who - after his death - went on to become perhaps the most potent of all
Egypt’s rulers.
Given Solomon’s generous disposition (cf. Wisdom
7:13-14); his opportunism in trading matters (cf. I Kings 10:28-29), his love for beautiful foreign
women (1 Kings 11:1), he could have found it hard to refuse Hatshepsut’s
requests. There may have been much behind the statement ‘King Solomon gave to
the queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked ...’. On the Cairo statue of Senenmut, it says he ‘was
one who entered in love and
came forth in favour, making glad the heart of [Hatshepsut] every day ...’ [38].
Even during her lifetime, there were rumours that Senenmut owed his power to
his relations with the Queen. Ironically, because there is no record in Egypt
of his having had any offspring, Senenmut is thought by Egyptologists to have
been a life-long bachelor.
My reconstruction of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon
would answer the question of how Senenmut came to power in Egypt and became the
might behind the throne there, pursuing ‘one of the most amazing
careers in ancient Egypt’ [39]. Had historians realised who he was, they might
not have puzzled over why Hatshepsut ‘during her lifetime ... faced less
opposition than might have been expected’ [40].
Senenmut as Tutor of Neferure and
Thutmose III
Senenmut was a renowned ‘judge’ in the
land - and also Steward of Hatshepsut. Steward of Neferure and Steward of Amon
- the latter considered to be ‘his most important position’ [41]. There are
various statues of him cradling Neferure in his arms, or with her peeping out
from the folds of his cloak.
Senenmut was also
tutor to the young Thutmose III.
On a stela discovered in North Karnak,
he applies to the child ruler for deed, of transfer of land for institutions
within the estate of Amon-Ra [42]. The application was granted. There is
nothing conclusive in inscriptions to support the traditional view that
Thutmose III held a deep-seated grudge against Hatshepsut or Senenmut. However,
the biblical scenario shows that, towards the end of Solomon’s life, serious
cracks began to relationship with the young Pharaoh (as the biblical ‘King
Shishak of Egypt’).
Senenmut’s
‘Floruit’
In this revision, Senenmut’s floruit in Egypt would
correspond to the mid-to-late phase of Solomon’s reign = Years 1/7-16 of
Thutmose III. (N.B. Hatshepsut’s reign is dated by
the regnal years of Thutmose III).
Just prior to this period, Solomon completed his great
building projects in Jerusalem, and, towards its end, he fell away from pure
Yahwism into a decadent phase, building shrines to pagan gods for his foreign
wives (I Kings 1:18). In accord this, Grimal says Senenmut ‘was a ubiquitous
figure throughout the first three-quarters of Hatshepsut’s reign’ [43]. He
oversaw some of the most famous temples and shrines built during the co-reign
of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, and Neferure’s name also figures in some of
these.
Solomon’s years of service to Yahweh and also his apostasy
from Yahwism ought both perhaps to be reflected in Senenmut’s inscriptions [44].
Solomon’s
Administration
The Queen of Sheba visited Solomon at the peak of his
power.
Bright [45] has provided a realistic account of how he
organised and administered the land of Israel. Much of it is favourable, but
there is also a negative side to it. Increasingly, he laid a heavy hand on his
subjects in the form of taxation (1 Kings 4:7-19), appointing governors
throughout the land to collect it.
The state eventually faced a chronic financial crisis.
When one thinks of Solomon’s building projects, his army, his lavish support of
the liturgy, of the worship of Yahweh, his burgeoning private establishment and
the administration of the state and its undertakings, this is understandable.
Solomon, unlike his father David, embarked upon no
significant military conquests - so, while expenses mounted, revenue from
tribute did not. Trade was profitable, but not enough to balance the budget.
Solomon took drastic measures and resorted to the hated corvée. State slavery
and forced labour were common in the ancient world, especially in Egypt.
However, when the Canaanite population proved inadequate, Solomon even
inaugurated the corvée in Israel [46]. Labour gangs were levied and worked in
relays in Lebanon felling timber for his building projects (I Kings 5:13f.).
This was a bitter dose for freeborn Israelites to swallow.
The prophet Samuel had warned of the hardships if they
opted for a king to rule over them (1 Samuel 8:11-18). Moses had predicted that
a future king of Israel might cause the people wrongfully ‘to return to Egypt
in order to multiply horses’ (Deuteronomy 17:16).
Ultimately, it was the corvée that made Israel rebel
against Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, who had threatened ‘My father made your yoke
heavy, but I shall add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I
shall chastise you with scorpions’ (I Kings 12:14).
When the administration of Israel spilled into Egypt,
Hatshepsut apparently enforced the same harsh system there. Egypt ‘was made to
labour with bowed head for her ...’ [47]. Not surprisingly, she put Senenmut in
charge. ‘I was a foreman of foremen’, he tells us, ‘... overseer of all the
works of the house of silver [treasury?] .... I was one to whom the affairs of
[Egypt] were reported; that which South and North contributed was on my seal,
the labour of all countries was under my charge’.
The taxation system that Hatshepsut introduced was based
upon ‘a Middle Kingdom prototype’ [48]. It would not be surprising if this were
the same stern model by which Joseph had reduced the Egyptians to servitude (cf.
Genesis 41:34,35). Interestingly Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who led the revolt
against Rehoboam, was previously appointed by Solomon in ‘charge of all the
forced labour of the House of Joseph’ (I Kings 10:28). Archaeologists have
discovered evidence of Senenmut’s work gangs - e.g. an ostracon dated to Regnal
Year 16 records the division between two foremen of a group of labourers
apparently conscripted by Senenmut [49] and ‘two of Senenmut's pay sheets with
three or four of the men struck off the lists’ [50].
Senenmut’s
Religious Functions
Historians claim ‘Steward of Amon’ was
the most illustrious of all Senenmut’s titles. This would be fitting if he
were Solomon, and Amon-Ra were the Supreme God, the ‘King of Gods’, as the
Egyptians called him.
Senenmut was also ‘overseer of the garden of Amon’ (see
Appendix A).
Like Solomon, a king who also acted as a priest, Senenmut’s
chief rôle was religious.
He was in charge of things pertaining to Amon and was
‘chief of all the prophets’. Solomon, at the beginning of his co-regency with
David, had prayed for wisdom and a discerning mind (I Kings 3:9).
On the completion
of the Temple, he stood ‘before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all
the assembly of Israel, [he] spread forth his hands towards heaven’ (I Kings
8:22).
Likewise, Senenmut is depicted in Hatshepsut’s temple with
arms up-stretched to heaven, praying to Hathor, the personification of wisdom.
Acting
Abroad
Solomon must have spent a fair amount of
time in Egypt, to late in his 40-year reign, when Jeroboam turned against him
and sought protection with Thutmose III (‘Shishak’).
Is this a realistic scenario?
The Bible gives far less detail about
the latter part of Solomon’s reign. In I Kings, only 15-16 verses separate the
account of the Queen of Sheba’s leaving Jerusalem (10:13) from chapter 11,
which informs us that ‘Solomon loved many foreign women’ who turned his heart
away after other gods (vv. 1,4), and that he began to build shrines for them
(vv. 7-8), so that God snatched most of the kingdom away from the House of
David (v. l1).
Next we read about the election of Jeroboam and his flight
to Egypt to escape Solomon, who sought to kill him (v. 40). The verses in
between describe Solomon, not so much as a ruler of Jerusalem, but as the great
businessman and world trader
·
sharing, with Hiram of Tyre, the trade of the ‘ships of Tarshish’
(10:22);
·
receiving gifts from the ‘kings of the earth’ (vv. 23-25), who no doubt
wanted a share in his trade; and
·
importing horses and chariots from Egypt and Cilicia and exporting them
to Hittite and Syrian kings (vv. 28-29).
This far-reaching commercially-based type of scenario
seems to be backed up by Senenmut's claim that ‘the labour of all countries was
under my charge’.
During this period, the Scriptures do not say specifically
that King Solomon was in Jerusalem, so there is perhaps scope for his having
spent a fair amount of his time abroad, e.g. in Egypt. Israel would have been
in a position to run itself.
His government was in control and unchallenged, his
bureaucrats well paid and much of the population was in a kind of subjection.
Israel’s fortifications were formidable, as was its army, which would have been
allied with the armies of Egypt. So Solomon may well have been free to travel
and to influence other countries (see Appendix B).
3.
SENENMUT IN HATSHEPSUT’S
KINGSHIP
(REGNAL YEARS 7-16)
Hatshepsut’s Coronation
In about the 7th year of Thutmose III,
according to Dorman [51], Hatshepsut had herself crowned king, assuming the
name Maatkare or Make-ra (‘True is the heart of Ra’). In the present scheme,
this would be close to Solomon’s 30th regnal year. From then on, Hatshepsut is
referred to as ‘king’, sometimes with the pronoun ‘she’ and sometimes ‘he’, and
depicted in the raiment of a king.
She is called the daughter of Amon-Ra - but in the picture
of her birth a boy is moulded by Khnum, the shaper of human beings (i.e.
Amon-Ra) [52].
According to Dorman, Senenmut was present at Hatshepsut’s
coronation and played a major rôle there. On one statue [53] he is given some
unique titles, which Berlandini-Grenier [54] identifies with the official
responsible for the ritual clothing of the Queen ‘the stolist of Horus in
privacy’, ‘keeper of the diadem in adorning the king’ and ‘he who covers the
double crown with red linen’. Winlock was startled that Senenmut had held so
many unique offices in Egypt, including ‘more intimate ones like those of the
great nobles of France who were honored in being allowed to assist in the most
intimate details of the royal toilet at the king’s levees’ [55].
The rarity of the stolist titles suggested to Dorman [56] ‘a
one-time exercise of Senenmut’s function of stolist and that prosopographical
conclusions might be drawn’, i.e., he had participated in Hatshepsut’s
coronation.
It would be fitting for Hatshepsut to have wanted Solomon,
greatest king alive, to crown her as Pharaoh. The most recent statue of
Senenmut to be found was of alabaster, unlike the rest which were granite.
‘Alabaster, used very much in the statuary of Thutmose III, is essentially, it
seems, a stone reserved
for royal monuments’ [57]. Perhaps Hatshepsut had even intended Senenmut to become legitimate ruler
of Egypt with her. According to Redford [58], Hatshepsut planned to insert
Neferure into the line of succession, as demonstrated by the Sinai stela dated
to the 11th year of Neferure, behind whom is portrayed ‘Senenmut, who may well
have been the ‘evil genius’ behind this and many other novel moves’. However,
maybe it was simply Hatshepsut acknowledging that Senenmut was a legitimate
king in his own right.
Chief Architect
Now that Hatshepsut was Pharaoh, nothing could stop her
grandiose plans. As queen, she had seen fantastic things in Israel - the King
enthroned in splendour, the palace, the Temple with its magnificent liturgy and
gardens, and the Red Sea fleet, which may have arrived at Solomon’s port while
she was visiting him (cf. 1 Kings 10:1 and 10:11). Solomon could provide
the same for her in Egypt.
Significantly he, as Senenmut, was also (allegedly) Hatshepsut’s
chief architect [59].
Egypt could be efficiently reorganised on the same stern
system that Solomon had imposed upon his own country. The work gangs would be
employed everywhere, with Senenmut both their ‘foreman [and] overseer’. We
recall how cruel were the Egyptian ‘foremen’ in Moses' time, and that Moses had
killed one of them for beating an Israelite (Exodus 1:11 and 2:11-12). Yahweh
had ultimately delivered his people from this ‘iron furnace’ of slavery in
Egypt.
How ironical, then, that a king of Israel, a believer in
Yahweh, would now force the Egyptian people into servitude - but now with the
Pharaoh’s blessing! In return, Solomon could play the rôle of trading
middleman, e.g. between Egypt and Syria.
Hatshepsut’s Temple
Hatshepsut naturally enlisted Senenmut
to plan her temple, ‘The Most Splendid of Splendours’, at Deir el-Bahri. He no
doubt, in turn, as Solomon, sought expert assistance from the so-called ‘Phoenicians’,
just as he had done more than two decades earlier in the case of the Temple of
Yahweh, in Jerusalem. Accordingly, Velikovsky had referred to Mariette’s view
that Hatshepsut’s fine building betrayed ‘a foreign influence’, possibly from
‘the land of [Punt]’ [60].
Had the Puntites been the ‘Phoenicians’ (they were not) -
(according to the Bible) ‘Phoenician’ craftsmen had assisted Solomon in his
building of Yahweh’s Temple - then it would have been most interesting that
Mariette had observed that Hatshepsut’s temple ‘probably represents ... a
Phoenician influence’ [61]. From this, Velikovsky had concluded that the design
of the latter was based on the Jerusalem model.
Bimson, however, would then reject this
view, saying that Hatshepsut’s temple was clearly based on the layout of
smaller 11th Dynasty temple nearby. Baikie [62], for his part, admitted that
the 11th Dynasty temple would have offered Senenmut ‘the suggestion of how it
would best to treat such a site ...’, but he was adamant that Hatshepsut’s
temple was no slavish imitation of the older building. Senenmut, he said:
... appreciated a good suggestion when he saw it - all the
more credit to him for his commonsense; but to say that he must therefore be
denied any credit for originality is to set up a canon of criticism which would
deprive Shakespeare of the credit for the creation of Hamlet, and Donatello of
that for the creation of the Gattamelata statue. Having got his suggestion, he
proceeded to glorify it, until he had produced a building which is infinitely
superior ... to that of the earlier architect.
Baikie regarded the 11th Dynasty effort
as ‘stumpy and sawn-off looking compared with the grace of the successive
terraces, the long ramps and the graceful colonnades of the XVIIIth Dynasty
artist’.
Senenmut’s
Tomb Complex
At about
the same time, Hatshepsut also ordered a magnificent tomb complex [63] to be
built in Senenmut’s honour, on the highest hill in the private necropolis, at
Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (No.71), with a subterranean passage at Deir el-Bahri down
through the friable tafl to the fine limestone (No.353).
Helck [64] has suggested a novel purpose for tomb 353
(that all agree was the intended place of burial), claiming that it was meant -
like the subterranean gallery below the temple of Mentuhotep II (11th Dynasty)
- for the burial of a jubilee (heb sed) statue of the ruling monarch on
the eve of the celebration of jubilee. The curious presence of Senenmut in the
decorated chamber signified to Helck that it was also destined to hold a statue
of Hatshepsut’s Great Steward, as a ‘mock burial’. Strangely, the intended sarcophagus
was found shattered in pieces on top of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna. Although its
exterior surface was carefully polished, carved and given a coat of red
varnish, the lid was never completed. Was Senenmut/Solomon really meant to have
been interred in it?
Senenmut’s
Astronomical Ceiling
The versatility of Senenmut is revealed
in the paintings of his funerary complex. As Grimal has noted [65]:
‘[Senenmut's] constructions show that he was an architect, but other
dimensions of his career are suggested by the presence of an astronomical
ceiling in his tomb at Deir el-Bahri and about 150 ostraca in his tomb at
Qurna, including several drawings (notably two plans of the tomb itself), as
well as lists, calculations, various reports and some copies of religious,
funerary and literary texts ...’.
Senenmut’s tomb complex has some significant features:
·
the lowest chambers of tomb 353 were within the sacred precincts
of Hatshepsut’s temple.
·
in numerous niches there are reliefs depicting Senenmut praying on behalf
of Hatshepsut. This usurpation of royal property and/or privilege has amazed
historians [66],
·
at the same time, a new corpus of funerary texts - what Assmann [67]
calls ‘liturgies’ - was introduced into Egypt. [Interestingly, in the light of
my claim that Egypt was at this time influenced by the era of Joseph, these
liturgies are based upon ‘sequences attested only on Middle Kingdom coffins’ [68].
·
among the literary texts was the famous Egyptian folktale, the Story
of Sinuhe. I have argued [69] that this story is a conflation of biblical
stories pertaining to Moses (especially), but perhaps also to David and to
Joseph. Senenmut enjoyed the Story of Sinuhe [70].
·
of special interest is the astronomical information in tomb 353,
particularly the ceiling of Chamber A [71]. Senenmut’s ceiling is the earliest
astronomical ceiling known. We are reminded again of Solomon’s encyclopaedic
knowledge of astronomy and calendars (Wisdom 7:17-19). The ceiling is divided
into two parts by transverse bands of texts, the central section of which
contains the names ‘Hatshepsut’ and ‘Senenmut’ [72]. The southern half contains
a list of decans derived from coffins of the Middle Kingdom period that had
served as ‘a prototype’ for a family of decanal lists that survived until the
Ptolemaïc period; whilst ‘The northern half is decorated with the earliest
preserved depiction of the northern constellations; four planets (Mars, Venus,
Jupiter, Saturn) are also portrayed with them, and the lunar calendar is
represented by twelve large circles’. [73]
In tomb 71 at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna,
·
the sarcophagus itself is carved of quartzite in a unique oval form
adapted from the royal cartouche shape. Dorman [74] says ‘... the sarcophagus
seemed to be yet another proof ... of the pretensions Senenmut dares to
exhibit, skirting dangerously close to prerogatives considered to be
exclusively royal’. Winlock [75] would similarly note that it was
‘significantly designed as almost a replica of
royal sarcophagi of the time’,
·
one of the painted scenes features a procession of Aegean (Greek) tribute
bearers, the first known representation of these people [76] - the only
coherent scene on the north wall of the axial corridor portrays three registers
of men dragging sledges that provide shelter for statues of Senenmut, who faces
the procession of statues.
Senenmut had presented to Hatshepsut ‘an
extraordinary request’ for ‘many statues of every kind of precious hard stone’,
to be placed in every temple and shrine of Amon-Ra [77]. His request was
granted. Meyer [78] pointed to it as an indication of his power.
Senenmut’s
‘Parents’
In part 2 I had referred to the
problem for this reconstruction of the burial of Senenmut's parents in Egypt.
Beneath the collapsed artificial terrace in front of tomb
71 excavators in the 1930’s had found the small rock-cut chamber with the
mummies presumed to be Senenmut’s family, including Ramose (father), Hatnofer
(mother), near the funerary monument of their illustrious son. However Solomon’s
father was King David, who was buried in the city of Jerusalem (I Kings 2:10).
Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, was probably much younger
than David, and we know nothing about her death - the last that we hear of her
is at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, when his brother was illicitly bidding
for the throne (v. 19).
It is possible - in the context of the
revision of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty - that Bathsheba was this same Hatnofer,
whose mummified corpse shows that she was elderly when buried with great pomp
in Egypt, in approximately Regnal Year 7 (c. Year 30 of Solomon’s
reign).
Bathsheba may thus have remarried after David’s death.
Moreover, all of the mummies in this chamber, except
Hatnofer’s, had been disinterred and re-located there. That is always a problem
with regard to one’s making proper identifications. Ramose (the husband) was
about 50 or 60 years old (notably younger than David).
Of the eight mummies, Hatnofer alone ‘had been carefully
mummified in linen from Hatshepsut’s royal estate and equipped with a complete
funeral outfit ...’ [79].
On two walls Senenmut is depicted with one of his parents
- Hatnofer. Historians presume Ramose may have accompanied him on a wall that
is damaged. But we cannot be sure of that.
‘The origin of [Senenmut’s] family must
... remain uncertain ...’ [80], it is thought, so firm conclusions cannot be
reached about them in a standard Egyptian context. However, this study has
revealed evidence completely refuting the usual view that Senenmut was of
common origin.
Commemorative
Obelisks
Can we pinpoint when Solomon, as
Senenmut, was actually present in Egypt?
He would definitely have been there
during Hatshepsut’s coronation in Regnal Year 7, and, again, on the occasion
some time after Regnal Year 9, when she summoned Senenmut and the her Nubian
official, Nehesi, gave them places of honour, and proclaimed to the assembly
the success of her Punt venture, and again on several occasions during Regnal
Year 16. Senenmut may often, of course, have delegated tasks to his foremen
(like Jeroboam) while he was elsewhere.
In Regnal Year 16 Senenmut opened the
Silsileh quarries, ‘probably in preparation for a planned intensification of
construction at Karnak under Hatshepsut’ [81]. For Hatshepsut’s jubilee, she
entrusted to Senenmut the task of acquiring two commemorative obelisks.
From the record engraved on the rocks at Aswan, in the far
south of Egypt, it is likely that he went there in person. Baikie [82] says
‘The great man [Senenmut] set off at once, and carried out his commission with
characteristic energy’. Getting the two huge shafts of granite out of the
quarry at Aswan occupied seven months and was an extraordinary feat of
engineering. Raising the obelisks in Thebes must have been a tremendous task.
The survivor is almost 100 feet and weighs over 320 tons.
Thutmose III in the Ascendant
Thutmose, far from having engaged in damnatio memoriae, actually placed a statue of Senenmut in
his Karnak temple and was ‘willing to see honor done to him, at least
posthumously’ [83].
Thutmose III’s apparent respect for his mentor might
explain why such a military-minded Pharaoh left it 5 years after Solomon’s
death before invading Jerusalem and sacking the Temple [84] (as the biblical
‘Shishak’).
However cracks in their relationship surfaced near the end
of Solomon’s life when Jeroboam, chosen by God ‘to tear the kingdom from the
hand of Solomon’, feared for his life and fled to ‘Shishak’ in Egypt, where he
remained until Solomon's death (I Kings 11:26, 31, 40). Perhaps during the last
few years of Hatshepsut’s reign, with Solomon in decline, Thutmose Ill began to
assert his independence.
He may have realised that it would fall
to him to rectify Egypt’s economic problems. He accomplished this after
Hatshepsut’s death, by embarking upon a series of mighty military conquests.
Senenmut’s Decline and Death
‘Senenmut's continuing goodwill at court
seems to have continued unabated during most, if not all, of Hatshepsut’s
floruit’ [85].
In this reconstruction, Senenmut died in about Regnal Year
18/19. Hatshepsut died in about Regnal Year 21. Neferure may have lived well
beyond both of their deaths [86].
There have been all sorts of intriguing guesses about
Senenmut’s demise.
Schulman [87], who estimated Senenmut’s age at over 50 in
Regnal Year 16, thinks ‘it would not at all have been surprising for [Senenmut]
to have died from natural causes at a relatively old age, without our having to
suppose a fall from the royal favour which resulted in his death’.
4. ISRAEL’S
INFLUENCE ON
NEW KINGDOM
EGYPT
At the time of Hatshepsut, Amon-Ra
probably equated to the Supreme Lord, Yahweh. Any Yahwistic influence in Egypt
would be due to Solomon. Neither the Old or New Testament accounts of the visit
by the ‘Queen of Sheba/Queen of the south’ specifies that she was converted to
the God of Israel. She still said ‘Blessed be the Lord YOUR God’ (1 Kings 10:9)
- for her Yahweh was not yet ‘my God’. Whether she
converted to Yahwism in the end is not clear but the scriptural accounts show
she was profoundly impressed and influenced by all that she had seen in
Jerusalem.
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’ [88].
(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 …’ [89].
(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 [90] ‘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’.
Temple
Some of the most notable features of the
majestic 18th Dynasty temple were its sweeping terraces. Velikovsky
[91] pointed this out in relation to the Psalmic ‘song of the ascent’ (Shir
ha-maaloth), and then noted that a Jerusalem style of liturgy was
instituted in Egypt, even with a high priest officiating. It ought not to
surprise us that Hatshepsut, Queen of Sheba, would have wanted to copy the
Temple of Yahweh. Does not the Bible tell us that she drank it all in with
astonishment (e.g. II Chronicles 9:3, 4-5, 6, 12)?
Scriptural Influence
(i) An Image from Genesis
After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she
gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and
Nehesi had places of honour. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon’s oracle
commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the
trees of God’s Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he
commanded’. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image:
‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes
... it is big enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie [92] noted that this is
‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture
of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This
inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical
to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel’s love for Solomon
and his nation.
Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut’s
‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra,
Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ [93].
with
the italicised words in a song of praise
spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who
has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God
loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98).
(ii)
An Image from the Psalms
When Hatshepsut’s commemorative obelisks
were completed, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However,
Baikie states that [94]:
‘The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they
again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient
records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great
woman.
I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utterances the
expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression
underneath all the
customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae’.
In language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book
Psalms’, the queen continues,
‘I did it under [Amon-Ra’s] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no
works without his doing .... I slept not
because of his temple; I erred not from that
which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not
my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that
Karnak is God’s dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears
his beauty ...’.
Baikie continues, unaware that it really was the Psalms
and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut’s
prayer:
‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple
of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the
divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the
Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of
Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah.
‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into
my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I
find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.
- For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’
(iii) An
Image from Proverbs
In another related
verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the
Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating
the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon’s words about
Wisdom’s playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31).
In the Egyptian
version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom: ‘...
it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert
my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’.
Interestingly, the original rôles of
Hathor and Isis in the Heliopolitan ‘theology’ were similar to those of Moses’s
sister and mother (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Grimal [95] says ‘Isis
hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor,
the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...’. In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut,
I had compared this Egyptian account with the
action of Moses's mother and sister in Exodus 2:3-4, 7, 10.
(iv)
Images from the Song of Songs
In the weighing scene of the goods
acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon), Hatshepsut boasts [96]:
‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh
is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with
that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the
midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’. Compare this with verses
from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of
Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh;
Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your
lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’
(4:10-11; 55). (cf.
4:6, 14; 5:1, 5).
Maccoby [97] went so far as to suggest
that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon for the Queen of
Sheba/Hatshepsut.
Clearly, the poem is written in the context of marriage
(e.g. 3:11). We read, partly following Maccoby:
l. ‘To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would 1 compare you,
my darling’ (1:9). This reference to Egypt is strange for an Israelite girl,
but natural if the beloved was an Egyptian.
2. ‘Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem,
like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me
because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me’ (16). A darker
complexion would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman.
3. Perhaps the sentence ‘Who is she that cometh out of the
wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant
powders of the merchant?’ (3:6), refers to the visit by the Queen of Sheba, who
brought a great store of perfumes. She gave Solomon ‘a very great store of
spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen
of Sheba gave to King Solomon’ (I Kings 10:10).
4. ‘My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the
keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept’ (1:6). It is a
puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher but
elsewhere she appears as a great lady. Maybe here she is speaking
metaphorically about her country (and her native religion?) as a ‘vineyard’?
The anger of her ‘brothers’ would be understandable, perhaps, if she were a
princess of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon would have unwelcome political
and religious implications.
5. ‘O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and
bring you to my mother's house’ (8:1-2). She perhaps regrets that Solomon is
not an Egyptian, who could live permanently with her.
Concluding Remark
Unfortunately, most of Solomon’s
greatest works in Jerusalem are now lost because of the successive destructions
and looting of that city. Thutmose III, as ‘Shishak’, eventually divested
Jerusalem of its greatest treasures and carried them back to his own land. How
ironic that perhaps the most complete records of Solomon’s achievements are
today to be found in Egypt!
APPENDIX A
PUNT
RECONSTRUCTION
According to the Old Testament (I Kings 10:2), the Queen
of Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem by camel train. Contrary to Velikovsky,
she did not come to Jerusalem via the Red Sea and Solomon’s port of
Ezion-geber.
The gifts that she brought were of enormous value but Solomon allowed her
to take them all back with her (II Chronicles 9:12).
I suggest that the Punt expedition was a venture entirely
separate from the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Jerusalem, undertaken about 9 years
later, when Hatshepsut had made herself Pharaoh. Its chief purpose was to
obtain myrrh trees for the garden (or park) surrounding the temple of Amon-Ra
at Deir el-Bahri, to provide a continuous supply of this rare plant in Thebes.
Hatshepsut, recalling the magnificent parks and gardens she had seen in
Jerusalem, wanted to create the same for her capital city.
Hence, unlike in Velikovsky’s scenario, Hatshepsut’s
temple must already have been built, or was being built.
The Egyptian inscriptions show Punt as a land of trees - e.g. the c-s
tree that Nibbi equates with the pine [98]. While some of this may appear to be
consistent with the view that Punt was ‘Phoenicia’/Lebanon - Lebanon being the
most noteworthy place for trees in the ancient Near East - the location overall
is clearly African (see below).
Consider the Queen of Punt, for instance.
King Solomon admittedly had a free hand building in Lebanon (I Kings 9:19,
20), where he used forced labour.
The Song of Songs refers to a ‘mountain of myrrh’,
apparently in Lebanon (cf. 4:6
and 4:8). Solomon’s palace was actually called ‘The House of the Forest of
Lebanon’, because it was ‘built upon three rows of cedar pillars, with cedar
beams upon the pillars’ (1 Kings 7:2). All this priceless timber could have
been obtained from the so-called ‘Phoenicians’.
Bimson - whilst favouring Velikovsky’s chronological view
that Hatshepsut’s Punt expedition dated to about the time of Solomon - argued
that the expedition had travelled southward on the Red Sea, to NE Africa
(modern Eritrea). (Velikovsky argued that the fleet had sailed northward on the
Red Sea, to Ezion-geber.) Bimson claimed that myrrh trees were to be found
there, and he explained how the fauna and flora of the Punt reliefs reflect a
NE African location [99]. Interestingly, in Solomon’s own naval expeditions to
Ophir (which certainly were southward voyages on the Red Sea) his servants
brought back mainly gold (1 Kings 10: 11), and there is no mention at all of
myrrh trees.
Still, I am inclined to the view that Punt was
approximately the same place as Ophir:
On this, see Donald Keith Mills’ article:
Ophir and Punt
Filip Taterka, in a wonderful piece of forensic investigation, may have
managed to fix the location of Punt by identifying the rare secretary bird in
the Deir el-Bahri reliefs:
The Secretary Bird of Deir
el-Bahari: One More Piece to the Puzzle of the Location of the Land of Punt,
RdE 69 (2019), pp. 231-250
Abstract
The article presents new evidence in favour of
the African location of the land of Punt, [basing] on the newly discovered
fragments of Hatshepsut’s Punt reliefs from the Southern Middle Portico of her
temple of millions of years at Deir el-Bahari. Among the Nubian products
brought back to Egypt in consequence of Hatshepsut’s Punt expedition, we can
see a mysterious bird, which is only partly preserved, due to which it has
never been properly identified.
Thanks to the newly discovered fragments of the
blocks representing a procession of the foreigners in the Southern Middle
Portico, it is now possible to identify the mysterious creature as a secretary
bird (Sagittarius serpentarius), a species endemic to Africa. The author argues
that the presence of the secretary bird in Hatshepsut’s Punt reliefs indicates
that in her times the land of Punt must have been situated on the African coast
of the Red Sea on the one hand, and in the vicinity of the Nubian lands overlapping
with the habitat of the secretary bird on the other.
Hatshepsut informs us that in her Year 9 an oracle of
Amon-Ra inspired her to dispatch a naval and land expedition to Punt:
‘Maatkara [Hatshepsut] ... made supplication at the steps of the Lord of the Gods; a command was
heard from the great throne, an oracle of the god himself, that the ways of
Punt should be searched out, that the high-ways of the Myrrh-terraces should be
penetrated ‘I will lead an army on water and on land, to bring marvels from
God's land for this god, the fashioner of her beauty’.’
Was Solomon/Senenmut the oracular voice that spoke on
behalf of Amon-Ra?
One of Senenmut’s titles was ‘overseer of the garden of Amon’. He may
have been the brains behind the entire Punt expedition. Hatshepsut credits
Amon-Ra with leading the expedition. Five ships were equipped, provided with an
armed guard of Egyptian troops commanded by one of the queen’s officials,
Nehesi. In the wonderful series of reliefs illustrating the adventure, we see
them setting sail.
Now, contrary to Velikovsky,
·
Hatshepsut did not go in person to Punt. Again the Punt venture does not
match the visit to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba;
·
In stark contrast to the gifts given to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba,
the presents that Egypt gave the Puntites were poor indeed. They comprised an
axe, a poignard in its sheath, two leg bangles, eleven necklaces and five large
rings. ‘The poverty and meanness of the Egyptian gifts’, wrote Mariette [99],
‘are in striking contrast to the value of those which they receive’.
Hatshepsut’s fleet, loaded with produce from Punt, simply
sailed back to Thebes ‘Sailing, arriving in peace, journeying to Thebes with
joy of heart ...’. [100]. The story was inscribed on the walls of her new
temple and Senenmut was present when Hatshepsut - some time after Regnal Year 9
– announced to the Egyptian court the expedition’s success.
APPENDIX B
SOLOMON IN GREEK FOLKLORE
There is a case in Greek ‘history’ of a wise lawgiver who
nonetheless over-organised his country, to the point of his being unable to
satisfy either rich or poor, and who then went off travelling for a decade
(notably in Egypt). This was Solon, who has come down to us as the first great
Athenian statesman.
Plutarch [101] tells that, with people coming to visit Solon every day,
either to praise him or to ask him probing questions about the meaning of his
laws, he left Athens for a time, realising that ‘In great affairs you cannot
please all parties’.
According to Plutarch:
‘[Solon] made his commercial interests as a ship-owner an excuse to travel and sailed away ... for ten years from
the Athenians, in the hope that during this period they would become accustomed
to his laws. He went first of all to Egypt and stayed for a while, as he
mentions himself
‘where the Nile pours forth
its waters by the
shore of Canopus’.’
We recall Solon’s intellectual encounters with the Egyptian
priests at Heliopolis and Saïs (in the Nile Delta), as described in Plutarch's
‘Life of Solon’ and Plato's ‘Timaeus’ [102]. The chronology and parentage of
Solon were disputed even in ancient times [103]. Since he was a wise statesman,
an intellectual (poet, writer) whose administrative reforms, though brilliant,
eventually led to hardship for the poor and disenchantment for the wealthy; and
since Solon's name is virtually identical to that of ‘Solomon’; and since he
went to Egypt (also to Cyprus, Sidon and Lydia) for about a decade at the time
when he was involved in the shipping business, then I suggest that ‘Solon’ of
the Greeks was their version of Solomon, in the mid-to-late period of his
reign.
The Greeks picked up the story and transferred it from
Jerusalem to Athens, just as they (or, at least Herodotus) later confused
Sennacherib of Assyria’s attack on Jerusalem (c. 700 BC), by relocating it to
Pelusium in Egypt [104].
Much has been attributed to the Greeks that did not belong to them - e.g.
Breasted [105] made the point that Hatshepsut’s marvellous temple structure
was a witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles
for which the later Greeks would be credited as originators. Given the Greeks’
tendency to distort history, or to appropriate inventions, one would not
expect to find in Solon a perfect, mirror-image of King Solomon.
Thanks to historical revisions [106], we now know that the
‘Dark Age’ between the Mycenaean (or Heroic) period of Greek history
(concurrent with the time of Hatshepsut) and the Archaic period (that commences
with Solon), is an artificial construct. This makes it even more plausible that
Hatshepsut and Solomon were contemporaries of ‘Solon’.
The tales of Solon’s travels to Egypt, Sidon and Lydia
(land of the Hittites) may well reflect to some degree Solomon’s desire to
appease his foreign women - Egyptian, Sidonian and Hittite - by building
shrines for them (I Kings 11: 1, 7-8).
Both Solomon and Solon are portrayed as being the wisest
amongst the wise. In the pragmatic Greek version Solon prayed for wealth rather
than wisdom - but ‘justly acquired wealth’, since Zeus punishes evil [106]. In
the Hebrew version, God gave ‘riches and honour’ to Solomon because he had not
asked for them, but had prayed instead for ‘a wise and discerning mind’, to
enable him properly to govern his people (I Kings 3:12-13).
Greeks
re-invented King Solomon as an Athenian Statesman, Solon
(7) Greeks re-invented King Solomon as an Athenian Statesman, Solon
Notes and References
l. Bimson, J., ‘Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba’, C&C Review Vo1.VII1, 1986, pp. 12-26. Bimson
previously wrote some very fine articles supporting the revision, e.g. ‘Can
There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?’, SIS Review VoI.VII-3, 1978, pp. 16-26 and ‘Dating the Wars of Seti
I’, SIS Review Vol.Vl (1980/1981), pp. 13-27.
2. Velikovsky, I, Ages in Chaos, VoI. I, ch.3, Abacus, 1973.
3. Mackey, D., ‘The Queen of Sheba – Hatshepsut’, in CompuServe's Living History Forum (Ancient/Archaeology library, 1996).
4. See Kautzsch, E. (ed.) Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, # 130. ‘Wider Use of the Construct State’ and #
131, ‘Apposition’, Oxford.
5. Yahuda, A., The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Oxford UP, 1933. See also Mackey,
Calneggia & Money, ‘A Critical Re-Appraisal of the Book of Genesis’, C&C
Workshop, 19871:2. See also my ‘Moses as Compiler
of Genesis’ in CompuServe's Living History Forum (Ancient/ Archaeology library, 1996).
6. Van Beek, G., Solomon and Sheba, ch. l, ‘The Land of Sheba’, p. 41.
7. Bimson op.
cit. [1], p. 22.
8. Ibid. pp. 16-17.
9. See in relation to this, Bimson’s ‘Can There be a Revised Chronology
Without a Revised Stratigraphy?’
10. See e.g. CAH II, Part I, 2nd ed., p. 323, Cambridge,
1973.
11. Mallon, A., ‘The Religion of Ancient Egypt’, Studs. in Comparative Religion (CTS, London, 1956), p. 3: ‘... this multiplicity [of gods] was
but superficial it was a multiplicity of titles, not of gods. The supreme
Creator god was called Atum at Heliopolis; at Memphis, Ptah; at Hermopolis ...
Thoth; Amon at Thebes; Horus at Edfu; Khnum at Elephantine; but if we examine
them minutely, we recognize at once that these divinities have everywhere a
like nature, the same attributes and properties, an identical role. They differ
only in external imagery and in a few accidental features’.
12. Tom Chetwynd's identification of Joseph as Imhotep, great Vizier to a
Pharaoh of Egypt's Third Dynasty during a seven year famine (in C&AH, January
1987. Vo1. IX, pt. 1, pp. 49-56), fits nicely into my revised scheme, with the
Exodus at the end of the Old Kingdom (with which the Middle Kingdom was partly
concurrent).
13. Heliopolis was the ancient religious capital of Egypt and a great
centre for sciences. At Heliopolis, (cf. Mallon, ibid., p. 4) ‘Moses received his education’. Acts 7:22
states that ‘Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians ...’.
14. Some of these books, e.g. Wisdom, are supposed to have been written
many centuries later than Solomon. If so, they may be compilations of what he
originally wrote, just as Genesis is a collection (or series) of ancient
histories that Moses compiled or edited into its present form.
15. A temple was built at Deir el-Bahri at the time, and a trip was made
to the Land of Punt.
16. Dorman, P, The Monuments of Senenmut, Kegan Paul, London, 1988. Dorman seems to have worked out
the proper sequence of events during Hatshepsut's co-rulership with Thutmose
III. He has shown fairly conclusively that Hatshepsut became ‘king’, or
Pharaoh, in the 7th year of Thutmose III.
17. Tombs No.71 & 353.
18. See e.g. Dorman, op. cit., p. 103, ref. W. Helck’s Zum thebanisehen Grab Nr. 353, GM 24 (1977), pp. 35-40.
19. H. Breasted, A History of Egypt, Hodder and Stoughton, London. 1924. p.
271. Emphasis added.
20. Budge, E., Books on Egypt and Chaldea. Egypt Under the Amenemhats and Hvksos, Anthropological Publications, Netherlands.
1968, p. 4.
21. Dorman. op. cit., p. 175. Emphasis added.
22. Baikie, J., A History of Egypt, A. & C. Black Ltd., London, 1929, Vol. 11, p. 80. Historians tend to
interpret it as meaning he rose to power through the ranks.
23. Dorman. op. cit., p. 138, p. 165.
24. Ibid. p. 93.
25. James. P. Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London, 1991, p. 200. Emphasis added to last part of
quote.
26. There is another possible interpretation. Solomon, as a true
brother of Absalom, may simply have had a luxuriant crop of hair. Absalom used
to cut his hair ‘at the end of every year ... when it was heavy on him ... [and
that it weighed] 200 shekels by the king's weight’ (Samuel II, 14:26). The Song
of Songs says of Solomon ‘His locks are wavy, black as a raven’ (5:11). In
another version, his hair is likened to ‘palm fronds’. If Senenmut were
Solomon, it may not have been a wig.
27. See Dorman, op. cit., p. 124. Cairo, statue, JdE 47278. Emphasis added.
28. Ibid., p. 116.
29. Wilson, L, The Burden of Egypt, Chicago, 1951, p. 177.
30. See Dorman, op. cit. 5, ref. H. Winlock, ‘The Egyptian
Expedition, 1927-1928’, BMMA 23
(December 1928), Section 1125, op. cit., 50.
31. Solomon's brother, Adonijah, tried to usurp the kingdom at the
beginning of Solomon's reign (cf. 1
Kings 5-10 and 5:17).
32. Op. cit., 52. Winlock was actually referring not to Hatsheput’s
intervention as co-ruler, but to her usurpation later in becoming chief
Pharaoh.
33. Hayes, W., ‘Egypt Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of
Amenophis III’, in CAH, ibid., p. 319.
34. Op. cit., 81.
35. Hari., R., ‘La vingt-cinquieme statue de Senmout’, JEA 70
(1984), p. 141.
36. Baikie, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
37. Ibid., P. 81.
38. See footnote [27]. Emphasis added.
39. Grimal, op. cit., p. 209.
40. Ibid.
41. Dorman, op. cit., p. 120.
42. Ibid., p. 29.
43. Op. cit., p. 211.
44. Solomon’s apostasy phase would be reflected in Senenmut’s shrine at
Silsileh, in which he is shown being embraced and welcomed by the gods
themselves. Baikie, op. cit., ibid., calls it ‘an
honour frequently represented as being accorded to Pharaohs and their queens;
but never, save in this one instance, to commoners [sic]’.
45. Bright, J., A History of Israel, SCM Press, 1972, pp. 21f.
46. Bimson has also discussed the corvée in a revised context in his ‘Revised Stratigraphy’, with reference to W.
Dever in EA. 438.
47. Breasted, op. cit., ibid.
48. See CAH, ibid., p. 385.
49. Dorman, op. cit., p. 176.
50. Ibid., p. 69.
51. Ibid., p 171. 53. For the equation between Amon and Khnum, see [11].
52. Op. cit., pp. 129f.
53. Ibid. The Sheikh Labib statue.
54. Berlandini-Grenier. J., ‘Senenmout, stoliste royal, sur une
statue-cube avec Neferoure’. B1FAO 76
(1976), pp. 111-132
55. Winlock, op. cit., ibid.
56. Op. cit., pp. 129-130.
57. Ibid., p. 143. (My translation, emphasis added.)
58. Redford, D., History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt Seven Studies, Toronto, University of Toronto, 1967, p.
85.
59. See e.g. Dorman, op. cit., p. 126. According to S. Wachsmann, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Uitgeverij Peeters), p. 27: ‘[Senenmut]
was responsible, if not actually the architect, for Hatshepsut's principal
architectural accomplishments such as her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri and
her two great obelisks’.
60. As referred to in G. Maspero’s The Struggle of the Nations, p. 241, n.2.
61. Mariette, quoted in Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahari, Introductory Memoir, p. 1.
62. Op. cit., pp. 67-68.
63. ‘Tomb complex’ may be a better description than ‘two tombs’ in the
light of Dorman's remark (ibid., p. 99) that ‘tombs 71 and 353 [though
separated by the entire width of the Asasif valley] are but two parts of a
unified whole’. Architecturally they complement each other and only together do
they function as a typical, private Theban tomb.
64. Op. cit., pp. 35-40.
65. Op. cit., p. 211.
66. See Dorman, op. cit., p. 6, p. 173 ‘without parallel Egypt in
proper’.
67. Assmann, J., ‘Funerary Liturgies in the Coffin Texts’, referred to by
Dorman, op. cit., p. 82.
68. See Dorman, op. cit., p. 83.
69. Cf. [5], ‘Moses as Compiler of Genesis’.
70. See e.g. Grimal, op, cit., p. 159.
71. Neugebauer. O. & Parker. R., Egyptian Astronomical Texts, London. 1969. Vol. l. pp. 22ff; VoI. III, pp. 10-12.
72. Dorman, op cit., pp. 83-84. Much has been made of Senenmut’s
ceiling, including claims that it shows evidence for a reversed sky, as in the catastrophic events proposed by
Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision (Abacus, 1972) – e.g. P. Warlow. ‘Return to Tippe Top’, C&C Review Vol. IX (1987), pp. 2-13.
73. Ibid., p. 84.
74. Ibid., p. 7. Emphasis added.
75. Winlock, op. cit., p. 22. Emphasis added.
76. Dorman, op. cit., p. 100. Wachsmann, op. cit.,
identifies these Greeks as Mycenaeans and (Cretan) Minoans.
77. Ibid., p. 125.
78. Meyer, C., ‘Senenmut eine prosopographische Untersuchung’, HAS
2 (Verlag Borg, Hamburg, 1982), p. 170.
79. Dorman, op. cit., p. 168.
80. Ibid., p. 166.
81. Ibid., p. 176.
82. Op. cit., p. 83.
83. Lesko, B., ‘The
Senmut Problem’, JARCE
6 (1967), pp. 113-117. Note the variations in the
spelling of the name ‘Senenmut’ (Dorman), ‘Senmut’
(Lesko). Other variations give ‘Senmout’ and ‘Sennemut’.
84. Thutmose III was a man of such culture and refinement
that one might well believe that he had been taught by Solomon.
85. Dorman, op. cit., p. 172.
86. Ibid., pp.
78, 79.
87. Schulman, A., ‘The Alleged ‘Fall’ of Senmut’, JARCE 8 (1969-70), p. 48.
88. See Baikie, op. cit., p. 63.
89. Op. cit., pp. 121, 122.
90. Breasted, J., Records, Vol. ll, Sec. 295.
91. Op. cit., p. 74.
92. Baikie, op. cit., p. 89.
93. This particular phraseology, spoken in honour of a royal person, must have been
a convention of the time because it also resembles the way that Hiram of Tyre
greeted King Solomon (e.g 2 Chronicles 2:11-12).
94. Baikie, Ibid., p. 70.
95. Grimal, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
96. Breasted, Records. p. 274.
97. Maccoby, H., ‘The Queen of Sheba and the Song of Songs’, SISR IV,
No. 4 (1980). pp. 98-100.
98. Nibbi, A., Ancient
Byblos Reconsidered, DE Publications, Oxford, 1985, p. 60.
99. Mariette, op. cit., ibid.
100. Breasted, Records, p. 108. 114. Ibid., p. 110.
101. Plutarch, The Rise and Fall of Athens (Life of Solon), Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1964, pp. 68-69, emphasis added.
102. According to these
authors, Solon had to be instructed by the Egyptians, the Egyptian priesthood
claiming to have historical knowledge going back far beyond that of the Greeks.
103. See Plutarch, ibid.,
p. 43 (parentage) and pp. 69-70 (chronology).
104. Herodotus, Histories, Penguin Books, London, 1972, Bk.II.
105. History, p. 274.
106. E.g. footnote [25].0721. Boardman, J, et al. (eds.), The Oxford History of Greece and the
Hellenistic World, Oxford UP, 1991, p. 112.
