Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red

[Anchorman]

I'll post this here, as it has stuff related to Qantir/Piramesse/'Ramses'. There's also stuff about further investigations on KV 62 (Tutankhamun) and archaic prostrate stones (keep your legs crossed, guys). Osirisnet is one of the best sites around. http://www.osirisnet.net/news/n_02_17.htm?fr

[Spud]

Anchorman, what's your opinion of the word 'Israel' on the Merneptah Stele? Is that the correct translation of the word (I think it requires the substitution of an 'l' in place of what is actually an 'r' at the end)?

[Anchorman]

Anchorman, what's your opinion of the word 'Israel' on the Merneptah Stele? Is that the correct translation of the word (I think it requires the substitution of an 'l' in place of what is actually an 'r' at the end)?

-
 

Hi, Spud;
The word on the Merenptah stela (which is really only concerned with his battles in year 5 in Lybia and a minor tribute expedition in Palestine,mentions Israel in passing.
If you see the inscription, it's a bit hard to read - though a little water sprinkled on it brings it up quite well.
There were no vowels as we understand them in Egyptian hieroglyphs,,. and transliterating them onto a message is a bit difficult. I'll use the number 3 in the word, but it should be reversed as indicator of a symbol.
Thus 'Israel' reads 's3l'.
There is no doubt as to the meaning of the word, though, as it comes as part of a list of territories in what is now Palestine and southern Syria which were reminded of Egyptian hegemony with force!
What is also incontrovertible, though, is that the 'Israel' mentioned could only have occupied a small portion of the Biblical state - as other territories in the same area are also mentioned.

[Anchorman]

As an addendum, you can read the full text of what's left of the inscription here. I note that the translator must have been Jewish, since he uses the word 'Shalom' which is obviously niether Egyptian or English. I'd have substited 'quiet peace' but Shalom does quite well instead. Incidentally, the whole web site of Tour Egypt is a pretty comprehensive, if basic, guide to the archaeology of the country, and worth a look if you have time. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/merenphatvictorystele.htm

[Spud]

What is also incontrovertible, though, is that the 'Israel' mentioned could only have occupied a small portion of the Biblical state - as other territories in the same area are also mentioned.

Hi Anchorman,
It takes me quite a while to get my head around this stuff, but it's good to check the Biblical record against the Egyptian writings. On the Merneptah Stele, Israel is recognized as a people by the Egyptian scribe.
Re: the other territories mentioned alongside Israel; there isn't any record in the Old Testament of this Egyptian conquest around the time of Joshua/Judges, which is the time suggested if the Egyptian word "Israel" refers to an unsettled tribe in the hill country of Palestine. After the Exodus, Egypt doesn't come on the scene again in the Old Testament until the reign of Solomon, who married Pharaoh's daughter. So we could be looking at a 3 century shift in the chronology, to the time of the attack by Shishak.

[Anchorman]

 There's a good reason why there's no mention of a conquest of Israel, Spud. The area was already under Egyptian hegemony - and had been since the early eighteenth dynasty. Various Egyptian kings had boasted of victories in the area since that time, but these were little more than expeditions flying the flag because other powers in the area - Naharin, Mitanni and Hatti - had been flexing their muscles and trying to win the area for themselves. Sometimes, as in the case of Mitanni or Hatti, they managed to skim off a few towns if the Egyptian throne was looking elsewhere, but from about the time of Thutmose i until Ramesses IV, Palestine was under strict Egyptian control. Even after that time, Egypt exercised great influence up until, and beyond, the time of Sheshonq I of dyn XXII The Merenptah stela simply records a punitive tour in year 5, the purpose of which seems to have been to assert the Egyptian side of the bargain with the Hittites which parcelled up the area two decades earlier. Incidentally, did you know that the first Armageddon - Battle of Megiddo - took place in the reign of Thutmose III. and two others - under Amenhotep III and Seti I - are recorded, but the latter were mere skirmishes which Egypt convincingly won?

[Anchorman]

Here's an overview of the situation in New Kingdom Middle and near Est, from University College, London http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/foreignrelations/asiank.html

[Anchorman]

      If anyone's interested in a link to the nineteenth dynasty, with some brilliant pics thrown in, this link http://www.crystalinks.com/Ramesses_II.html will give a good, rounded view of the time of Ramesses II. Merenptah at al. Alternatively, probably the best up-to-date book on the subject is Aiden Dodson's "Poisoned Legacy" (AUC) Incidentally, Dodson is one of the best minds working in Egyptology today, and his books on the Amarna period and the third intermediate period are masterpieces of scholarship.

[Spud]

Incidentally, did you know that the first Armageddon - Battle of Megiddo - took place in the reign of Thutmose III.

Just covered this, while reading about Thutmose I, II and III.

[Anchorman]

Just covered this, while reading about Thutmose I, II and III.

-
If you carry on a wee bit further - into the rule of Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, you'll see the rise of Atenism, as a religio-political idea.....rather than some monotheistic revelation by Akhenaten.
That bursts a few theories in certain intransigent Christian eyes as to Akhenaten being a proto-monotheist.

[Spud]

-
If you carry on a wee bit further - into the rule of Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, you'll see the rise of Atenism, as a religio-political idea.....rather than some monotheistic revelation by Akhenaten.
That bursts a few theories in certain intransigent Christian eyes as to Akhenaten being a proto-monotheist.

Oh! Well I've trawled through Thutmose III's successors up to Seti I paying more attention to military campaigns, for which there doesn't seem to be much evidence after Thut III's successor, Amenhotep II, who reigned from 1427-1401. (That's interesting because it coincides with the traditional date of the Exodus). Military campaigns then start again with Seti I, and his successors Ramesses II and Merneptah.

[Anchorman]

Hang on; There might not have been full scale wars, but there's evidence of Thutmose IV's activities in Palestine and at least two minor campaigns under Amenhotep III - possibly one under Amenhotep IV before he became Akhenaten. Whoever led Neferneferuaten and Tutankhamun's armies certainly left their mark in Syria at some stage, suggesting a minor tour to reassert Egyptian dominance, and Horemheb certainly put his foot down in Palestine. For in-depth analysis of the period, I'd suggest the two books "Amarna Sunrise" and "Anarna Sunset" which cover the times from Amenhotep II-Seti I. Both are by Aiden Dodson, and reflect the very latest finds in the field (up to and including the latest tomb in the Valley, KV 63, and its' significance in Amarna studies.

[Anchorman]

  You might like to look at this site: http://theancientneareast.com/tutankhamuns-war/ Spud, if you are interested in the convoluted history of tactics and skirmishes at the time of Akhenaten, Tutankhamun and Horemheb. There's no record of who led the Egyptian army in lieu of the youth of the king - I'd plump for Horemheb, especially given his "iry-pt" designation - a title usually accorded to the designated heir to the Egyptian throne.

[Spud]

Thanks, I have read the link, which was helpful.

[Anchorman]

Thanks, I have read the link, which was helpful.

-
The Bible doesn't mention Egyptian domination of the area, or the superpower grab of that time for one very good reason:
It was not WRITTEN then - or anywhere near it!
By the time of Jeremiah, when many Bible scholars believe the Pentateuch was rewritten, the 15-12th century situation was virtually ancient history - and unless the writers had access to the records of the countries involved, they would have had no knowledge of the situation.

[Spud]

-
The Bible doesn't mention Egyptian domination of the area, or the superpower grab of that time for one very good reason:
It was not WRITTEN then - or anywhere near it!
By the time of Jeremiah, when many Bible scholars believe the Pentateuch was rewritten, the 15-12th century situation was virtually ancient history - and unless the writers had access to the records of the countries involved, they would have had no knowledge of the situation.

A couple of verses that may be relevant to that are Genesis 22:14, where the name Abraham gave to the place at which he was told to sacrifice Isaac, was still used "to this day" (at the time of writing). Also Genesis 47:26, where the law concerning 20% of produce from the land in Egypt was Pharaoh's according to a law set up during the famine in Joseph's time. According to the narrator, this law still applied at the time of writing.

[Anchorman]

Since technically, all the produce of the land of Egypt (except land specifically granted to major temple complexes such as Karnak, Memphis, Heliopolis and Abydos) was the property of the state - though parcelled out to the major families in the 'nomes', I don't see your point. As for the records of battles, etc, they were there for all to see - being very visual. Problem was, though, that at any given time, less than one percent of the population could read hieroglyphs (though a few more could read the more cursive 'hieratic' script which was used on some official and sacredotal documents.)

[Anchorman]

 Here's a useful guide to land ownership in the New Kingdom - from approx 1800-1000 BC. You'll note that by the Third Intermediate and late periods (the latter being the time when I believe the Pentateuch was rewritten) the situation was drastically changed, with weakened central power, and the theoretical power of the king much diluted - hence the reference to land 'owned by the king' in Genesis. Had the book actually been written before the end of the New Kingdom, the author would have known that all land belonged to the king - and had that author been Moses, a high ranking official, he would have been intimately concerned with the king's use of the land. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/economy/land.htm

[Anchorman]

Spud; I stated that centralised royal authority had been diluted by the LATE PERIOD - that's from about 606 onward. In the New Kingdom - from around 1800-1000 BC, royal authority - and therefore royal land ownership - was absolute.

[Spud]

Spud; I stated that centralised royal authority had been diluted by the LATE PERIOD - that's from about 606 onward. In the New Kingdom - from around 1800-1000 BC, royal authority - and therefore royal land ownership - was absolute.

Okay, so if Genesis was re-written in Jeremiah's day, ie. 626-587 BC, we wouldn't expect it to say what it says in 47:26... right?

[Anchorman]

The thing is, Spud, were the Pentateuch passed down to us unaltered in any way from the twelfth century BC, the glaring omission of certain foriegn powers and the Egyptian hegemony of what was then Canaan should strike warning bells - along with the complete lack of extra-Scriptural evidencefor a Joseph-Moses time in Egypt as described in the Pentateuch.

[Spud]

The thing is, Spud, were the Pentateuch passed down to us unaltered in any way from the twelfth century BC, the glaring omission of certain foreign powers and the Egyptian hegemony of what was then Canaan should strike warning bells - along with the complete lack of extra-Scriptural evidence for a Joseph-Moses time in Egypt as described in the Pentateuch.

Unless those empires have been incorrectly dated? I had a more thorough read of the answers-in-Genesis article from #106, having got my head around the various dynasties a bit more. It describes evidence suggesting that the New Kingdom was around the time of Solomon and Rehoboam. And that the Joseph/Moses events occurred before the Hyksos dynasties.

[Anchorman]

Unless those empires have been incorrectly dated? I had a more thorough read of the answers-in-Genesis article from #106, having got my head around the various dynasties a bit more. It describes evidence suggesting that the New Kingdom was around the time of Solomon and Rehoboam. And that the Joseph/Moses events occurred before the Hyksos dynasties.

-
There is no evidence to back up Rohl's 'new Chronology', Spud - and whole bucketloads against it.
That the New Kingdom existed when it did is not in dispute by any serious archaeologist, confirmed as it is by overwhelming evidence.
Besides, even Rohl admits now that the datable material sent to two universities for 'blind' testing are dated to when the Egyptologists suggested they were - and some of that material was perfectly preserved wheat grain from Tutankhamun's tomb.
Those tests are done by reputable methodology.
The second tests are the DNA from the royal mummies from DB320 and KV35, .
In an attempt to verify a family tree for various royals, DNA was extracted and analysed - and at the same time c14 and radioflourine tests were conducted.
Not only was a tentative genealogy revealed stretching back more than five centuries, but the dates from the tests were in accord with the reburial of the remains under the priest-king Pinodjem I of the Theban branch of dyn XXI.
That's before I even start on inscriptions from Hatti, Assyria, etc - and the thousands of surviving inscriptions from Egypt itself naming kings and events during dated iegns of Egyptian monarchs.

[Anchorman]

 Here's that link to the latest dating of Egypt, Spud : - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.304.html - My only slight quibble is that I'd lump dyn XVII - or part of it at least - in with the New Kingdom, as it encompassed the development of the 'High Theban' state . Two other places to research are; 1: the excellent Theban Royal Mummy Project.: http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/intro.htm And a book - "The complete Royal families of Ancient Egypt" (Thames&Hudson) which gives a complex genealogy of all the known kings, their wives and children, from the very first kings to the Ptolemaic period. It's a must for any serious research.

[Anchorman]

 Another problem I have with the writers of the Pentateuch - and another argument for its' editing in the 6th century BC, is the whole slavery thing. The Exodus account suggests a Hebrew slave population. Let's ignore the number of that population for now. Slavery in New Kingdom Egypt was nothing like the Babylonian, Persian or later Greco-Roman model. The editors of the Pentateuch seem to have thought they were the same - and speak of the Hebrew slave community. That was definitely never an Egyptian concept in the New Kingdom (or Third Intermediate period). Slaves - if that's the word you want to use, but it's a limited word - were not kept in communities, but served in estates, or temples, and were only brought together en mass for a specific building project - quarrying or carrying. Such state slaves were usually prisoners captured as a result of campaigns, rather than born and bred to slavery. Here's an article re: slavery in Egypt in general. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm