Thutmose I Crowns Hatshepsut

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

Comparing the tri-partite parallel crowning ceremonies of Solomon, by King David,

and of Hatshepsut by the 18^th dynasty pharaoh, Thutmose (Tuthmosis) I.

 

 

 

 

The Coronation Ceremonies

 

The cultural overflow from the Israel of kings David and Solomon went to the very heart of the matter: to the coronation ceremony.

The very ceremonial procedure, in its three phases, that David used for the coronation of his chosen son, Solomon, was the procedure also used by pharaoh Thutmose I in the coronation of Hatshepsut, who is thought to have been the pharaoh’s daughter.

I have followed J. Baikie for the Egyptian texts below (A History of Egypt, A. and C. Black Ltd., London, 1929, Vol. 11, p. 63):

 

1. The Assembly is Summoned

 

“David”, we are told, “assembled at Jerusalem all the officials of the tribes, the officers of the divisions that served the king, the commanders of thousands, ... of hundreds, the stewards of all the property ... and all the seasoned warriors” (I Chronicles 28:1).

Likewise in the case of the young Hatshepsut, 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.

 

1. The Future Ruler Presented

 

Next, David presented his son, Solomon, to the assembly as his successor, 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 Hatshepsut to the august assembly: “Said His Majesty to them: ‘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 ...’.”

 

1. The Assembly Embraces King's Decision

 

The assembly of Israel concurred wholeheartedly with David’s decision: “And 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, in the case of the Egyptian officials: “They 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”."

 

 

Might not one have imagined that Egypt, so steeped in ceremony and cultic procedure over so many dynasties and centuries would by now have had its own inviolable court system?

How great, therefore, must have been the Israel of King David’s time that even its ceremonial procedures had flowed into Egypt?

Thutmose III Egyptian Amulet Found in Jerusalem

         Neshama Spielman, 12, was 8 years old when she found the amulet during a dig inside the Emek Tzurim national park

by Steve Law | May 18, 2016 | Evidence | ....

In 2011, eight-year-old Neshama Spielman discovered a rare ancient Egyptian amulet, while working at the Temple Mount Sifting Project in Jerusalem. Recently, archaeologists finally deciphered its intricate inscriptions. The Egyptian hieroglyphics revealed the name of Thutmose III, one of the most powerful pharaohs in Egypt’s history.

Thutmose III was one of the most powerful pharaohs of the New Kingdom’s 18th Dynasty ....

The little amulet was found amongst the rubble at the Temple Mount Sifting Project. This organization headed by archaeologists Dr. Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira, was begun in Jerusalem to sift through the massive amounts of debris that were illegally removed from the Temple Mount by the Islamic Waqf in 1999. Concerned that artifacts going back as far as Jerusalem’s First and Second Temple periods would be lost forever, the project uses thousands of volunteers to work countless hours washing and sorting the material in hopes of recovering some of the ancient past.

Since the inception of the Temple Mount Sifting Project in 2004, over 170,000 people from around the world have taken part in the sifting, This magnitude of participation is unprecedented in the area of archaeological research. The Project is organized under the auspices of Bar-Ilan University with the support of the City of David Foundation and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. Those who are traveling to Israel and wish to participate in the project can find more information at the Temple Mount Website.

.... Spielman made the incredible find when she came with her family to take part in the Sifting Project. “While I was sifting, I came across a piece of pottery that was different from others I had seen, and I immediately thought that maybe I had found something special,” she said in a press release.




....




Taken from: http://patternsofevidence.com/blog/2016/05/18/egyptian-amulet-found-in-jerusalem-holds-clue-to-exodus-part-1/

Does the Name ‘Senenmut’ Reflect the Hebrew 'Solomon'? Part Two: Egyptian and Nahuatl

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

This short Part Two is not primarily about Senenmut.

It is really about the close similarity between ancient Egyptian and Nahuatl.  

Nahuatl appears to add the letter “l” which is uncommon in Egyptian, as noted in Part One in relation to the Egyptian, “Senenmut”, representing Hebrew “Shelomith” (or Solomon).

 

“One very obvious characteristic of the nahuatl language is the extensive use of the letter "l" in most of the words, either as ending to the words or juxtaposed to consonants and vowels within the words. One of the very apparent characteristics of the ancient Egyptian language is the almost total absence of the use of the letter "l" within most of its word-concepts. The letter "l" appears as an ending of words only a handful of times in E.A. Wallis Budge's work, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. It would appear that this very dissimilar characteristic between these two languages would discourage anyone from considering a comparative analysis of possible linguistic correspondence between these two very apparently distinct idioms”.

 

Thus writes Charles William Johnson, in his fascinating article:

 

Linguistic Correspondence:
Nahuatl and Ancient Egyptian

http://www.earthmatrix.com/linguistic/nahuatl.htm

 

 

According to Johnson:

 

In our more detailed analyses of the possible correspondence among words of the ancient Egyptian language and nahuatland maya, we have seen that some word-concepts are almost exactly the same in phonetic values. Furthermore, the maya glyphs and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs share extremely common designs in similar/same word-concepts.

Today, the idea of linguistic correspondence among the Indo-European languages is a widespread fact. From the still unknown Indo-European mother language it is thought came Sanskrit (and the contemporary languages of Pakistan and India); Persian; and Greek, Latin (and many contemporary European languages). The correspondence of similar/same words among the Latin languages is quite visible, with Spanish words, for example, resembling those of French, Italian and Portuguese. English resembles the Teutonic ones, such as, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages.

On the other hand, no apparent linguistic correspondence has been observed between ancient Egyptian and languages such as nahuatl or maya, at least to any significant scholarly degree. In the aforementioned essay, we have examined numerous correspondences between word-concepts (and some glyphs) between the ancient Egyptian language and the maya system. The word for day name in maya is ahau, which means place or time in ancient Egyptian. Hom is ballcourt in maya; hem means little ball in ancient Egyptian. Ik means air in maya ; to suspend in the air is ikh in ancient Egyptian. Nichim signifies flower in maya; nehem means bud, flower in ancient Egyptian. And so on, for hundreds of word-concepts that we have examined in the comparison of these two languages.

When similar kinds of linguistic correspondences were perceived by William Jones, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, between Sanskrit and other languages, such examples were sufficient to convince scholars that all of those languages probably came from a mother tongue, the Indo-European language. Today, when linguistic correspondence is observed between the ancient Mesoamerican languages and ancient Egyptian, scholars are unwilling or hesitant to accept the idea that the same laws of linguistics may apply. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no historical basis for considering the possibility that the peoples of these different languages had any physical contact among themselves. Physical contact among the peoples who descended from the Indo-European family is established by historical data. There is no obvious historical data to think that the peoples of ancient Mesoamerica and the peoples of ancient Egypt ever met or came into physical contact with one another.

Nevertheless, historical data aside for the moment, let us examine some of the obvious examples of linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and the ancient Egyptian language.

One very obvious characteristic of the nahuatl language is the extensive use of the letter "l" in most of the words, either as ending to the words or juxtaposed to consonants and vowels within the words. One of the very apparent characteristics of the ancient Egyptian language is the almost total absence of the use of the letter "l" within most of its word-concepts. The letter "l" appears as an ending of words only a handful of times in E.A. Wallis Budge's work, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. It would appear that this very dissimilar characteristic between these two languages would discourage anyone from considering a comparative analysis of possible linguistic correspondence between these two very apparently distinct idioms.

However, as we eliminate the letter "l" from the nahuatl words, the remaining phonemes (listed in brackets) resemble the phonemes and morphemes of ancient Egyptian in many cases. Let us offer only a few of such examples to consider a possible linguistic correspondence between these two fascinating systems of human speech.

 

	Nahuatl		Egyptian
canoe	ACAL [aca-]		AQAI	boat (page 139b from Budge's work cited above)
reed	ACATL[acat-]		AQ AKHAH-T	reed (139b) reed (8a)
a well	AMELLI [ame-i]		AMAM	place with water in them, wells (121b)
house	CALLI [ca-i]		KA	house (783a)
serpent ...	COATL [coat-] .... ...		KHUT ... ...	snake (30b) .... ...

 

Linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and ancient Egyptian appears to represent a smoking gun; that is, a trace of evidence that these two peoples did enjoy some kind of contact between themselves ages ago. The fact that we have no real evidence of said contact, or that we have been unable to find any such evidence, should not serve as the basis for denying the possibility of that contact. To attribute all of these similarities in sound, symbol and meaning to mere happenstance seems to be a very unscientific way of resolving an annoying issue. To admit the possibility of physical contact between these cultures has implications for our own interpretation of history and the aspect of technological development of our societies. Such fears are unfounded, given the already obvious fact that our technical know-how could probably not reproduce and build something as majestic as the Great Pyramid.

[End of quote]

 

It is probably as a result of the evolutionary view of things - according to which human beings sprang up from lower animal forms, all in their various places - that anthropologists and historians are unable to make the obvious connections between cultures of similar types, that shared language characteristics, pyramid building technology, and hieroglyphics, to name just a few common features.

 

The wise King Solomon’s (Senenmut’s?) view of human origins was quite different from this, and far more enlightened, I believe:

 

 

“For God created man to be immortal,

and made him to be an image

of his own eternity.”

 

Wisdom of Solomon 2:23

Textbook History Out of Kilter With Era of King Solomon By 500 Years

Dr. John Bimson’s important article, “Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba: A Critique of Velikovsky’s Identification and an Alternative View” (C and C Review, Vol. VIII, 1986), exposed as untenable, in the eyes of many revisionists, Velikovsky’s identification of Hatshepsut with the biblical Queen of Sheba. This was due to a series of strong arguments against Velikovsky’s reconstruction – some of these being irrefutable. Amongst the most telling of Bimson’s points were those that pertained to the famous Punt expedition, that Velikovsky had attempted to identify with the biblical visit by the Queen of the South to King Solomon in Jerusalem. Not only was Hatshepsut no longer a queen by the time of the Punt expedition – {she was actually in her Year 9 as pharaoh (king)} – but it appears from the Deir el-Bahri inscriptions that she did not actually accompany the Egyptian expedition to the land of Punt. The biblical queen, on the other hand, had most definitely visited King Solomon at Jerusalem in person.

What Bimson still shared with Velikovsky (at least in 1986), however, was the conviction that Hatshepsut was contemporaneous with the (approximate) era of King Solomon. Revisionists do not necessarily take that view anymore. And therein lies a problem. Because Hatshepsut, as queen, is still the outstanding candidate for the biblical “Queen of Sheba (of the South)”, given the testimony of Josephus that the biblical queen had ruled Egypt and Ethiopia, and given the likeness of her throne name, Maat-ka-re (Makera) to the queen’s legendary name, Makeda.

Bimson scrapped Hatshepsut as a candidate, but failed to provide any other contemporaneous woman ruler to represent this famous queen to whom both the Old and New Testaments attest. The same comment applies to Patrick Clarke in his more recent criticism of Velikovsky on the subject: ‘Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba’ (Journal of Creation, 24/2, August 2010, pp. 62-68).

And the same applies again to those whose new chronologies do not align the early (undivided) monarchy of Israel with the early 18^th dynasty of Egypt: a downward time shift of about 500 years. Now I don’t know if Eric [Aitchison] has himself come up with any candidate for the celebrated biblical queen, but I presume that he, with his “Damien likes moving things by 500 years but my preference remains at 630 years”, cannot possibly accommodate Hatshepsut in this his singular rearrangement of time.

With Hatshepsut gone, then Thutmose III as the biblical “King Shishak of Egypt” must also go. Patrick Clarke, for instance, has rejected this equation in his ‘Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak? – Claims of the ‘Jerusalem’ bas-relief at Karnak investigated’ (Journal of Creation, 25/1, April 2011, pp. 48-56). Two important pillars of the revision thus toppled. But, again, what is the alternative? So far, Clarke has not provided any candidate of his own. And, as for those who would prefer Ramesses II ‘the Great’ as “Shishak”, well they are running into the formidable problem as pointed out by Dale Murphie: “Critique of David Rohl’s A Test Of Time (SIS C&C Review, Oct 1997:1), with Ramesses II having the powerful king Asa of Judah (in all his strength) sandwiched right between himself and his Hittite ally, Hattusilis.
 

Damien F. Mackey.