66 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

"HET WARE LAND VAN ABRAHAM - Een nieuwe theorie over de oorsprong van het volk van Israel".

By Kamal Salibi.

MCMLXXXV

Elsevier - Amsterdam/Brussel.




.

Edited by Abramelin, 06 February 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[TheSearcher]

 Abramelin, on 06 February 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

"HET WARE LAND VAN ABRAHAM - Een nieuwe theorie over de oorsprong van het volk van Israel".

By Kamal Salibi.

MCMLXXXV

Elsevier - Amsterdam/Brussel.

thanks my dear chap, this I can find easily.

[kmt_sesh]

 Abramelin, on 05 February 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

No, it isn't as far as I know.

I am even thinking of copying the whole book to a pdf and then upload it to UM.

280 pages...... I'll be busy for many hours with my lousy scanner.

...

Aside from the tremendous and tedious amount of work this would entail for you, beware of copyright issues. If you see any sort of copyright disclaimers or symbols anywhere, refrain from putting it on UM.

[kmt_sesh]

This discussion got awfully quiet all of a sudden. I hope my preceding post from yesterday isn't at fault for that. It wasn't intended to do so.

In any case I've been wanting to join in the discussion for several days but have been too busy to do so, but time permits me to to join in this evening. There are some points of debate I'd like to contribute, beginning with the example of the Megiddo ivory from the OP:



This was one of many ivories excavated from Megiddo strata nearly a century ago by the Oriental Institute, although unfortunately this one does not seem to have ended up in the collection of the O.I. (which has a beautiful collection of Megiddo ivories on display). It ended up in the collection of the Rockefeller Museum in Israel. Riaan identifies the figure on the throne as a Canaanite king, which does seem to be the consensus in historical circles (although some sources describe him as a prince, suggesting the ruler of a Levantine city-state in the Bronze Age). However, the figure standing before the Canaanite certainly isn't Nefertiti.

The figure is at best ambiguous and the sex is difficult to determine, although it is quite possibly a woman. The cap she wears is, however, only superficially similar to the crown for which Nefertiti is famous. The sash descending from the back of the head marks this headgear as something else, and is not in keeping with the crowns sported by Egyptian queens. More tellingly, the garment the figure wears is decidedly not Egyptian.

Moreover, Egyptian royals were not in the habit of visiting foreign potentates. This is especially true of queens. Always full of themselves, Egyptian royals expected foreign potentates to come to them (or at least to send envoys, which the Egyptians themselves would do). One of the few instances in which a pharaoh would leave Egypt was on military campaigns, to lead his army into battle, and it's questionable how many pharaohs actually dared to do so (with notable exceptions such as Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis III, and Ramesses II). Canaanites were low on the totem pole as far as ancient Near Eastern politics were concerned, and you can be sure no Egyptian king or queen would ever approach the throne of some Canaanite prince. The opposite would be expected.

In full, there is nothing on this ivory to associate it in definitive terms with anything Egyptian. The harpist is equally ambiguous, although in Egypt this instrument was typically played by men. All of the other figures are decidedly male, and all sport beards typical of Levantine peoples (that is, Asiatics or Canaanites). Egyptians did not favor beards. The garments worn by the male figures are not of an Egyptian style, either. I am not dismissing a possible Egyptian context entirely because many examples of Megiddo ivory and other items of Megiddo material culture do bear clear Egyptian motifs, but this one is sketchy. Only the winged sun disk seems truly Egyptian, but that symbol was used in Canaan and even appears in contexts of the Northern Kingdom of the monarchic period of Israel, in the Early Iron Age.

On to other matters. I'm well familiar with David Rohl, and his associations between Labayu and Saul do not survive scrutiny. There's a reason Rohl's revisionist timeline has not affected professional scholarship. Rohl's a first-rate writer but his overall premise is deeply flawed. A careful reading of the Amarna Letters, such as from William Moran's excellent translations (The Amarna Letters, 1987, Johns Hopkins University Press), shows only the most tenuous similarities between the Canaanite Labayu and the biblical Saul. Biblical scholars themselves have noted this slight similarity, but only for the sake of comparison and none suggesting the two figures were the same. Rohl has gone too far.

On the subject of viziers, Joseph is always a popular figure. I field a lot of questions about him in my museum work. However, not only is there no evidence that the biblical Joseph was ever real, but using the clues of the Old Testament to nail him down to some realistic time period, we are left with the fact that Joseph would've been in Egypt around the mid-seventeenth century BCE (almost 300 years before the Amarna Period). Interestingly, this places the biblical Joseph in the time of the Hyksos in the Second Intermediate Period, but even though the Hyksos were mostly Canaanites, no connection to ancient Hebrews is possible.

Yuya was not a vizier. The prime ministers of Amunhotep III are very well attested, and Yuya was not among them. It's clear Yuya was very highly placed in the court of Amunhotep III, and was someone whom this king regarded with great affection, but the truth is, Yuya was not a powerful governmental official. Most of the titles he possessed were strictly ranking titles, which denoted affiliations with the king on some personal level but entailed no real job description. On a governmental level Yuya's most notable title was "master of the horse, lieutenant of the king for the chariots," which reflects a prestigious military position. Yuya's titles also reflect high rank in the cult of the god Min, which makes sense given the fact that Yuya came from the city of Akhmim, ancient Ipu, where Min's chief cult center was located. But the salient point is, Yuya did not exercise significant control in the government of Amunhotep III. Obviously his most direct contribution to this king was as the father of his great queen, Tiye.

I cannot think of any evidence that Yuya fell out of favor. Quite the opposite is clearly true. After all, Yuya and his wife, Tjuya, were permitted burial in their own private tomb (KV46) in the Valley of the Kings, which only the most highly respected individuals of a king were allowed to do.

Archaeology of the Holy Land has painted a rather clear picture of the emergence of the Hebrews. They did not come onto the world stage until the very end of the Bronze Age. Aside from the victory stela of Merneptah, nothing certain of them can even be attested until the tenth century BCE, although there is heated debated even on this. In all likelihood, the United Monarchy, whatever it might have been, could not have gone into full swing until the early ninth century BCE. Israel Finkelstein has even made a very plausible case that an actual United Monarchy was focused on the  Northern Kingdom and its Omride dynasty, which was significantly more powerful than Judah until the Assyrians came on the scene and wiped out the north. What I'm saying is, be it Rohl's revised timeline or Riaan's, neither can stand in the face of historical inquiry. It would require us simply to ignore decades of archaeology, countless C14 dates, analyses of material culture and its development, and mountains of evidence that exists historically to show what transpired in Egypt and in the Holy Land between the fourteenth century BCE and the Early Iron Age.

That will do it for now. I hope the discussion continues.

[DieChecker]

Informitive as always Kmt_sesh. It felt like the arguement was riding on the edge of the Fringe to me. Plus trying to put David, Joseph and Moses all within 3 generations just did not seem likely to me.

[kmt_sesh]

 DieChecker, on 09 February 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

Informitive as always Kmt_sesh. It felt like the arguement was riding on the edge of the Fringe to me. Plus trying to put David, Joseph and Moses all within 3 generations just did not seem likely to me.

No, that definitely would not wash. For the most part all we can go by is the Old Testament with its clues and hints, and I already mentioned Joseph and how he would be placed in the seventeenth century BCE. Moses is more ambiguous as descriptions in the Old Testament clearly stand at odds with historical and archaeological facts. The mention of Pi-Ramesses in the Moses story is the most helpful because this was a real city in the Delta of Egypt and the purpose-built capital of Ramesses II, so we can toy with a date in the very late thirteenth century BCE for Moses. But it must be stressed there is no evidence for either Joseph or Moses outside the pages of the Old Testament.

David is a bit more interesting. The Tell Dan stela from northern Israel specifically mentions byt-dwd, "House of David." This stela dates to the late eighth century BCE and was most likely erected by Hazael, ruler of Aram-Damascus, who invaded northern and southern Israel at that time. Here, in the least, we have extra-biblical evidence: a foreign invader recognized the existence of a Davidic dynasty, whatever the historical realities behind that dynasty might have been.

[Riaan]

Quote

This was one of many ivories excavated from Megiddo strata nearly a century ago by the Oriental Institute, although unfortunately this one does not seem to have ended up in the collection of the O.I. (which has a beautiful collection of Megiddo ivories on display). It ended up in the collection of the Rockefeller Museum in Israel. Riaan identifies the figure on the throne as a Canaanite king, which does seem to be the consensus in historical circles (although some sources describe him as a prince, suggesting the ruler of a Levantine city-state in the Bronze Age). However, the figure standing before the Canaanite certainly isn't Nefertiti. The figure is at best ambiguous and the sex is difficult to determine, although it is quite possibly a woman. The cap she wears is, however, only superficially similar to the crown for which Nefertiti is famous. The sash descending from the back of the head marks this headgear as something else, and is not in keeping with the crowns sported by Egyptian queens. More tellingly, the garment the figure wears is decidedly not Egyptian.
Moreover, Egyptian royals were not in the habit of visiting foreign potentates. In full, there is nothing on this ivory to associate it in definitive terms with anything Egyptian. The harpist is equally ambiguous], although in Egypt this instrument was typically played by men.

In my book I point out several other aspects of the Megiddo Ivory scene. The fact that the queen is wearing a sash and not Nefertiti’s famous see-through clothing (which I also discuss) more likely suggests that this was her travel outfit. It is true that Egyptian royalty did not make habit of visiting their lowly subjects. This occurrence is unique and it occurred in a time of chaos and civil war in Egypt. Moses, as Crown Prince Tuthmosis, had risen against his father and sent messengers to the Hyksos kings in Jerusalem (according to Manetho), requesting them to come to Egypt and join him in his fight against Amenhotep. The incident is also recorded in the El Arish text – Geb, the son of King Shu, sends messengers to the Asiatics and foreigners in their land, summoning them to him. All the legends about the queen of Sheba visiting Solomon relate that messengers were sent back and forth between the two rulers (Solomon and the Queen), before she eventually came.

Another unique aspect of the Megiddo ivory is the queen offering the king flowers and wine. In my book I show that this was a gesture of devotion particular to Nefertiti. In the History of the Queen of Sheba mention is made of her favourite musicians. In my book I refer to evidence of female Hittite musicians found in some Amarna rooms:

“It will be noticed that the women in the upper room of both houses have a peculiar mode of wearing the hair, by dividing it into one or more tresses curling at the ends. Nor is this mere négligé, for the women in the rooms below wear the hair in an ordinary Egyptian mode. This lock or tress is quite un-Egyptian, but is familiar to us in men (and women) of Hittite race...”

The musician on the Megiddo ivory wears her hair in tresses.

Quote

All of the other figures are decidedly male, and all sport beards typical of Levantine peoples (that is, Asiatics or Canaanites). Egyptians did not favor beards. The garments worn by the male figures are not of an Egyptian style, either. I am not dismissing a possible Egyptian context entirely because many examples of Megiddo ivory and other items of Megiddo material culture do bear clear Egyptian motifs, but this one is sketchy. Only the winged sun disk seems truly Egyptian, but that symbol was used in Canaan and even appears in contexts of the Northern Kingdom of the monarchic period of Israel, in the Early Iron Age.

You will note that the captives on the Megiddo ivory scene all have beards, as does the Canaanite king. In other words, they most likely represent the captured Hyksos kings being returned to Solomon, the Hyksos king in Jerusalem. As for the bearded soldiers, Akhenaten is known to have had Asiatics in his personal guard. It is very likely that Nefertiti would have insisted on them accompanying her and not native Egyptians.

Quote

On to other matters. I'm well familiar with David Rohl, and his associations between Labayu and Saul do not survive scrutiny. There's a reason Rohl's revisionist timeline has not affected professional scholarship. Rohl's a first-rate writer but his overall premise is deeply flawed. A careful reading of the Amarna Letters, such as from William Moran's excellent translations (The Amarna Letters, 1987, Johns Hopkins University Press), shows only the most tenuous similarities between the Canaanite Labayu and the biblical Saul. Biblical scholars themselves have noted this slight similarity, but only for the sake of comparison and none suggesting the two figures were the same. Rohl has gone too far.

I do not at all agree with Rohl’s revised chronology. I only point out that he should have used his identification of Saul as Labayu to move the United Monarchy earlier in time, to match the Amarna era. Apart from the fact that Rohl’s identification makes a lot of sense (yes, I know, many academics will fight tooth and nail to dismiss this), there are other circumstances that corroborate this dating of the United Monarchy. Most notably is Solomon’s fabled wealth and world-wide (region-wide) recognition. One of the reason why many scholars doubt the existence of Solomon may very well be that Israel had never enjoyed such an elevated position in relation to Egypt. The only viable explanation is offered by Manetho: that Solomon and his army joined Tuthmosis (Moses) and plundered Egypt of its wealth. They were in fact called ‘robbers of temples’. When the Egyptian army returned from Ethiopia and regained its strength, it attacked Jerusalem and retrieved much of the loot taken from Egypt (Shishak simply means ‘The Destroyer, most likely Ai or Horemheb).

Quote

On the subject of viziers, Joseph is always a popular figure. I field a lot of questions about him in my museum work. However, not only is there no evidence that the biblical Joseph was ever real, but using the clues of the Old Testament to nail him down to some realistic time period, we are left with the fact that Joseph would've been in Egypt around the mid-seventeenth century BCE (almost 300 years before the Amarna Period). Interestingly, this places the biblical Joseph in the time of the Hyksos in the Second Intermediate Period, but even though the Hyksos were mostly Canaanites, no connection to ancient Hebrews is possible.

Yuya was not a vizier. The prime ministers of Amunhotep III are very well attested, and Yuya was not among them. It's clear Yuya was very highly placed in the court of Amunhotep III, and was someone whom this king regarded with great affection, but the truth is, Yuya was not a powerful governmental official. Most of the titles he possessed were strictly ranking titles, which denoted affiliations with the king on some personal level but entailed no real job description. On a governmental level Yuya's most notable title was "master of the horse, lieutenant of the king for the chariots," which reflects a prestigious military position. Yuya's titles also reflect high rank in the cult of the god Min, which makes sense given the fact that Yuya came from the city of Akhmim, ancient Ipu, where Min's chief cult center was located. But the salient point is, Yuya did not exercise significant control in the government of Amunhotep III. Obviously his most direct contribution to this king was as the father of his great queen, Tiye.

Whether Yuya actually was a vizier or was deemed by the Israelites to have held that post is irrelevant. One of the main objections to Osman’s theory is that Jewish legend would certainly have remembered that a daughter of Joseph had become a queen of Egypt. Yuya’s daughter Tiye was the principal wife of Amenhotep III. In my book I point out that there is indeed a legend that provides this link – the so-called Story of Joseph and Asenath, which states that they ruled Egypt as king and queen for 48 years. The legend was incorrectly transmitted in the sense that it was Amenhotep III and his wife Tiye who ruled Egypt for more or less that period of time, taking into account the years Amehotep III spent in Ethiopia.

Quote

I cannot think of any evidence that Yuya fell out of favor. Quite the opposite is clearly true.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence at all that tells us anything about Yuya’s early life, only when he rose to prominence. I am unfortunately not familiar with the ‘mountain of evidence’ that exists regarding what transpired between Egypt and Israel, but what I do know is that there is no view on it that has been universally accepted. Whether the United Monarchy existed at all is still in dispute, etc.

I cannot list everything that I wrote and argue in my book here. For instance, I cite several references to the floods of Ogyges and Deacalion that are linked to Moses and the Exodus, etc. One can certainly dispute individual scraps of evidence one by one, but when they all point to the same conclusion, it is worth considering, don’t you think?