The Pre-Patriarchal Era
By Vern Crisler
Copyright, 2006
Rough Draft
1. A Question of Dates
2. The First Dynasty of Egypt
3. The Kings of the First Dynasty
4. The Second Dynasty of Egypt
5. The Third Dynasty of Egypt
6. Parallel Dynasties
7. Criticisms of Courville’s Model
8. A New Model of Archaic Egypt
9. Correlations with the Holy Land
10. Developments in Mesopotamia
1. A Question of Dates
In his discussion of the time before Joseph, i.e., the pre-famine period, Courville strikes a note of pessimism about any synchronisms between the Bible and the history of Egypt:
“The inter-relationships between Egypt and the Old Testament characters of the pre-famine era are too few and, for the most part, insufficiently unique to provide a solid basis for synchronizing the two histories.” (Exodus Problem, 1:162.)
We are led to agree with Courville about this. While much of our previous discussion of the relationship between the Bible and archaeology could point to very good or at least plausible synchronisms, there is not very much before the time of Joseph that can help us determine the best way of reconstructing the chronology of Egypt in relation to biblical history. We shall at least attempt to relate the Bible to Egyptian history, Egyptian religion, and Egyptian culture but readers should understand that our discussion will be experimental to some extent.
Many Egyptologists and historians of the 19th century were influenced by uniformitarian or Darwinist ideas about the antiquity of civilization. Lyell’s theory of immense duration in time began to have its effects upon thinkers from diverse fields of inquiry, and the biblical view of chronology was repudiated by those who followed Lyell down this road. Wallis Budge’s discussion of Egypt’s dynastic history provides an example of the rejection of biblical chronology:
“[T]he system which will have the best chance of survival, and at the same time be the most correct, seems, judging by the evidence before us, to be that which will take into due consideration the extreme antiquity of civilization of one kind and another in the Valley of the Nile, and which will not be fettered by views based upon opinions of those who would limit the existence of the civilization of Egypt to a period of about 3000 years.” (Books on Chaldea and Egypt, Vol. 9, pp. 3; 4; quoted by Courville, EP, 1:163.)
As Courville points out, however, Budge’s claims for an extreme antiquity of Egyptian civilization did not pan out. Modern Egyptologists place the beginnings of dynastic Egypt at about 3300-2850 B.C., much later than what Budge thought feasible. Some nineteenth century historians, and even some twentieth-century historians, have thought of the Bible as a “straight-jacket” preventing the development of a true chronology of the ancient world. However, the subsequent need to down-date Egyptian dynastic history proves that this view is not true, and it would seem that the desire to stretch the beginnings of Egypt beyond the biblical dates was in itself a straightjacket. The following table illustrates the falsity of the claim that the Bible has fettered any system of Egyptian chronology which has the best chance of survival. It is based for the most part on the table presented in Duncan McNaughton’s A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology, 1932, p. 6. The 1st through 18th dynasties are BC dates, while the AD dates are for Egyptologists starting from the early 19th century:
|
Egyptologist (AD) |
Dyn. 1 |
Dyn. 4 |
Dyn. 12 |
Dyn. 18 |
|
Wilkinson (1836) |
2320 |
- |
- |
1575 |
|
Champollion (1839) |
5867 |
4426 |
3703 |
1822 |
|
Böckh (1845) |
5702 |
4402 |
3404 |
1655 |
|
Lepsius (1858) |
3892 |
2744 |
2380 |
1591 |
|
Unger (1867) |
5613 |
4310 |
3315 |
1796 |
|
Mariette (1876) |
5004 |
3703 |
3021 |
1703 |
|
Brugsch (1877) |
4400 |
3300 |
2466 |
1700 |
|
Meyer (1887) |
3180 |
2530 |
2130 |
1530 |
|
Petrie (1894) |
4777 |
3503 |
2778 |
1587 |
|
Meyer (1904) |
3315 |
2540 |
2000 |
1580 |
|
Sethe (1905) |
3360 |
2480 |
2000 |
1580 |
|
Breasted (1906) |
3400 |
2625 |
2000 |
1580 |
|
Petrie (1906) |
5510 |
4206 |
3459 |
1580 |
|
MacNaughton (1929) |
5598 |
4151 |
3398 |
1709 |
|
Petrie (1929) |
4553 |
3282 |
2586 |
1587 |
|
MacNaughton (1932) |
5667 |
5360 |
3373 |
1709 |
|
Gardiner (1961) |
3100 |
2340 |
1991 |
1575 |
|
Clayton (1994) |
3050 |
2345 |
1991 |
1570 |
McNaughton marks it out as “strange” that Wilkinson would place Menes “as low as 2320” but explains it as a product of “the hypnotic influence of Ussher’s Biblical Chronology.” (Idem.) Against lowered dates, McNaughton is in line with Budge’s views, and argues that that those who offered high dates for the beginning of Menes’ reign “respected the information obtained from Manetho.” (Ibid., p. 8.) Presumably, those who hold to a shorter chronology do not respect the information obtained from Manetho. But the question might be asked, how much respect should one show toward Manetho’s dynastic lists? To be sure, one must not reject him out of hand, but a truly scientific view of chronology requires that Manetho’s dynasties be weighed against all the data at hand, not be set up as an independent and unassailable standard of the chronology of Egyptian civilization.
A look at the last rows of the chart will show that current Egyptian scholarship places the beginnings of dynastic Egypt at c. 3050 BC. In terms of this date, Meyer, Breasted, and Sethe came the closest. McNaughton and Petrie are way off by 2,726 years and 1,503 years respectively, while Wilkinson is off by only 720 years. Thus we could conclude with greater justification that the “hypnotic influence” of Manetho’s dynasties led McNaughton and others (including Budge) into gross error with respect to the beginnings of dynastic Egypt. We still think the current date for the beginning of Egypt’s dynasties is too high on the BC time scale, but it does show that Egyptologists have had to back-peddle and down-date the beginnings of Egyptian civilization for quite some time now. While the information from Manetho’s dynasties should be respected, there is no a priori reason to place all the chronological weight on this source, in light of the fact that a more combinatorial approach—taking into account a multitude of sources–might obtain a more rational chronology for Egyptian civilization.
2. The First Dynasty of Egypt
Egypt’s dynastic history begins with Menes, the fabled first king of Egypt. When the term “Men” was found on an inscription with Hor-Aha’s name, the once fabled king—like Gilgamesh–stepped onto the pages of history. Unfortunately, the names provided by Manetho do not always match the first dynasty kings known from inscriptions or other king lists. However, it is known that both Den and Qa’a left necropolis seals that gave the order of reigns of their predecessors. According to Toby Wilkinson: “Excavations in the royal cemetery at Abydos have revealed impressions from the necropolis seals of Den and Qaa….The former lists in chronological order the kings of the First Dynasty from Narmer to Den, with the addition of the queen mother (and probable regent during Den’s minority), Merneith. Qaa’s seal lists all eight kings of the First Dynasty, confirming the order established by scholars from other, more fragmentary, sources.” (Early Dynastic Egypt, 1999, p. 62.) An inscription at Sakkara also gives the order of the later first dynasty kings. According to W. B. Emery: “[T]he order of Udimu and his successors in theFirst Dynasty is confirmed by a stone vase inscription found in the Step Pyramid at Sakkara. On this important fragment are engraved the secondary names of Udimu, Enezib, Semerkhet, and Ka’a—in the accepted order.” (Archaic Egypt, 1961,p. 73.) The following represents the first dynasty of kings who reigned from Thinis, with reign lengths given byManetho (via Africanus):
First Dynasty
Manetho Reign Monuments, Lists, etc.
1. Menes…………………………… 62 Meni, (Narmer or Hor-Aha)
2. Athothis……………………….. 57 Teti
3. Kenkenes………………………. 31 Djer, Itet, Iti
4. Uenephes………………………. 23 Djet, Wadji, (time of Q. Merneith)
5. Usaphais……………………….. 20 Den, Hesepti, Zemti, Khaseti, Udimu
6. Miebis…………………………… 26 Anedjib, Merbiape
7. Semempses……………………. 18 Semerkhet, Semsem
8. Bieneches/Ubienthes………. 26 Qa’a, Khebeh, Khebwe, Sen
Total…………………………………. 263
Note: The above table, and the following ones, are based in part on Alan Gardiner’s Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, p. 430; G. P. Verbrugghe & J. M. Wickersham’s Berossos and Manetho: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, 2000, pp. 187ff. (hereafter V&W); Toby Wilkinson’s Early Dynastic Egypt, 1999, pp. 66ff.; and Peter Clayton’s Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 1994, pp. 16ff.
V&W give the total length of the First Dynasty as 210 years. On an average reign length basis, if the total number of kings of the first dynasty is multiplied by an average reign length of 20 years, the length of the dynasty would be about 160 years. For calculation of reign lengths, Courville relies on the “Sothis” list (or Book of Sothis) for what he describes as “data of vital significance to the clarification of chronological problems of early Egyptian history.” (EP, 1:165.) The Book of Sothis, however, is rejected by Egyptologists. According to V&W: “Sothis’s dedicatory letter to Ptolemy Philadelphos calls him ‘Augustus,’ a title that is plainly anachronistic and marks the piece as a forgery.” (Berossos and Manetho, p. 102.) While V&W grant that it shows some knowledge of Manetho, it is still of little value. Courville attempts to explain why the Book of Sothis is so incomplete. It does not contain the names of kings of dynasties, 2, 3, 6-11, 13, and it names kings that are unrecognized by Manetho or by inscriptional materials from early Egypt. Courville’s defense of the Sothis list consists in the argument that it does not contain the names of kings who ruled parallel with other kings, or dynasties that were encompassed within other dynasties. In other words, Courville appeals to his own proposed chronology to explain the incompleteness of the Sothis list. (EP, 1:166.) We do not regard this as a successful defense of the accuracy of the Sothis list, even though we agree with Courville’s views on the contemporaneity of several dynasties. As V&W point out:
“Sothis calls the first human ruler Mestraim as well as Menes, and in many other ways as well it is so contaminated by Judaic or Judeo-Christian chronographic material that this element is dominant, while what may be Manethonian is a small part of its thrust.” (Berossos and Manetho, p. 102.)
It is our position, then, that chronological revisionists should not appeal to the Book of Sothis in order to defend any particular theory of the arrangements or lengths of the dynasties of Egypt. Courville relied on it to the detriment, in our opinion, of his revised chronology of Egypt.
3. The Kings of the First Dynasty
Menes, according to Manetho and other sources, is known for some sort of an expedition (probably to quell enemies). During his reign he gained fame, taught religion to the Egyptians, founded Memphis, but was finally killed by a hippopotamus. Current scholarship divides between the view that Menes is either Narmer or Hor-Aha. The latter is adopted by Emery, Clayton, and others, and we will make this assumption as well. (Cf., Clayton, Chronicle, p. 20.) Djer ruled after Hor-Aha and is known for the ghastly practice of “retainer sacrifice,” where royal servants committed suicide in order to follow their king into the afterlife. Djet was next in line and ruled for about 20 years. Inscriptional evidence indicates that a servant named Amka began his career in the reign of Djet’s predecessor and ended it sometime in the first part of Den’s reign, “when the country was under the regency of Queen Merneith….” (Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 73.) Amka appears to have been rather lucky in life since he managed to escape Djer’s bloodthirsty funerary practices. Manetho reports that a great famine occurred during Djet’s reign, and that he “raised the pyramids near Kokome.” It is possible that Manetho has confused Djet with a later king of the fourth dynasty, when pyramids first began to be built, and it is also possible that the great famine occurred in that dynasty as well. The wife of Djet, Merneith, ruled as a regent for a while after his death and likely became the first real queen of Egypt. Her tomb contains sealings of King Den which say, “king’s mother Mer(t)neith.” (Wilkinson, p. 74.) Accordingly, Den was therefore the son of Merneith, and is regarded by scholars as one of the most important kings of the first dynasty, whose reign saw significant cultural achievements and material prosperity. (Ibid., p. 75.) Even royal servants such as chancellor Hemaka could afford lavish furnishings and decorations for their tombs during Den’s reign. The cult of the Apis bull was also founded at least by this time. (Wilkinson, p. 77; Clayton, Chronicle, p. 27.) Little is known of the next king Anedjib except that the tumulus of his tomb is of a stepped construction, similar to the design of the Step Pyramid. (Wilkinson, p. 78.) The following king Semerkhet ruled for about 8 years according to one source, but 18 according to Manetho, who reports that during Semempses’ reign (i.e., Semerkhet), “a very great calamity befell Egypt.” Manetho, however, does not describe the nature of this calamity. Was it pestilence? War? Asteroid impact? It appears that we will never know. Formerly, a relief in the Sinai region had been ascribed to Semempses, but scholars now attribute it to third dynasty king Sekhemkhe. (Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 74.) Finally, the last king of the first dynasty was Qa’a, who succeeded Semerkhet. The succession is established on the basis of inscriptional material but also because an official named Henuka served under both Semerkhet and Qa’a. (Wilkinson, p. 80.) Qa’a continued the “wasteful practice” (Clayton) of having his servants commit suicide upon his own death. Sealings of Hetepsekhemwy (first king of the second dynasty) were found in the tomb of Qa’a and this is taken as proof that the second dynasty followed the first. (Ibid., p. 82.)
4. The Second Dynasty of Egypt
It is clear even on a cursory examination of Manetho’s second dynasty of Egypt that the names in his king list do not match up with the names on the monuments, sealings, etc. “The inscriptions and monuments from the period record a plethora of royal names, as do the surviving king lists. The names from these two sets of sources bear little relation to each other….[S]cholars today are scarcely more confident about the internal history of the Second Dynasty than were their predecessors a generation ago.” (T. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 82.) The following table provides a list of the second dynasty kings (cf. sources cited above):
Second Dynasty
Manetho Reign Monuments, Lists, etc.
1. Boethos………………………….. 38 Hetepsekhemwy, Bedjau, Baunetjer
2. Kaiechos………………………… 39 Raneb (or Nebre), Kakau
3. Binothris………………………… 47 Ninetjer, Banetjeren
4. Tlas………………………………… 17 Weneg, Wadjnas
5. Sethenes…………………………. 41 Sendi, Sened, Sendji
6. Chaires ………………………….. 17 Aka, Neterka
7. Nephercheres………………….. 25 Neferkare
8. Sesochris………………………… 48 Seth-Peribsen, Neferkasekre
9. Cheneres………………………… 30 Khasekhemwy, Hudjefa, Bebi
Total…………………………………… 302
The order of the first three kings has been confirmed from inscriptions, but the kings from Tlas to Cheneres “are not mentioned on any contemporary monuments.” (A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 432.) Scholars believe that Raneb (or Nebra) succeeded Hetepsekhemwy based on the find of a stone bowl in the Step Pyramid of Djoser which juxtaposes the names of Hetepsekhemwy and Raneb. (Wilkinson, p. 84.) Additionally, the order of the first three kings was recorded on the statue of a priest by the name of Hetepdief. (Ian Shaw, Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, p. 85; Wilkinson, p. 83.) Also, a flint bowl of Hetepsekhemwy was found in the tomb of Peribsen, and was used as a hand-me-down by Raneb, who reinscribed it with his own name. This bowl was then used by Ninetjer, who inscribed his name over Raneb’s. (Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 84.) These lines of evidence confirm that the first three kings were Hetepsekhemwy, Raneb, and Ninetjer, in that order. Scholars believe the last two kings of the second dynasty were Seth-Peribsen and Khasekemwy: “There is much less evidence for the kings of the 2nd Dynasty than those of the 1st Dynasty until the last two reigns (Peribsen and Khasekhemwy).” (Shaw, p. 85.) Thus, according to current scholarship, the total number of kings for the 2nd dynasty is five.
As noted, modern Egyptologists believe that the 2nd dynasty was consecutive with the 1st dynasty, holding that Hetepsekhemwy buried Qa’a. The following correlations are accepted by current scholarship:
|
King |
Dynasty |
Relation |
|
1. Qa’a |
1st |
Predecessor |
|
2. Hetepsekhemwy |
2nd |
Successor |
It is not necessary to assume that Seth-Peribsen was Sesochris or that Khasekhemwy was Cheneres, as per lines 8 and 9 of the above dynastic table. They are placed in their respective positions only because they were the last two kings of the second dynasty, and Manetho records Sesochris and Cheneres as the last two kings of the second dynasty. Nevertheless, there is no independent evidence other than positional correlation to identify these kings with one another. With respect to Tlas, it has been argued that the name “Tlas” is a shortened form of Wetlas, which is derived from Wadjnas, and finally Weneg. Sethenes appears to be the same as Sendi or Sent, and his name is associated with Peribsen in a later fourth dynasty tomb owned by a mortuary priest named Shery. (Wilkinson, p. 88.)
Manetho’s 302 years for the second dynasty are regarded as too high by modern scholars, who reduce the dynastic total to around 200 years. (Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, p. 26.) Since Manetho and the archaeological evidence appear to be in conflict, it is difficult to determine how many kings ruled in the second dynasty. However, based on the modern view of only five kings in the dynasty, the total elapsed time for the second dynasty based on an average reign length calculation should be approximately 100 years. According to Clayton: “Manetho inserts three kings between Peribsen and Khasekhemwy: Sethenes (Sendji), Chaires (Neterka) and Nephercheres (Neferkara), reigning respectively for 41, 17, and 25 years. The evidence for these kings is slight and archaeological remains are non-existent. Khasekhemwy was the last king of the dynasty….” (Chronicle, p. 28.) In fact, Egyptologists think that the country split into two ruling districts after the time of Ninutjer, with Weneg and Sendi reigning in northern Egypt and Peribsen reigning in southern Egypt. (Wilkinson, p. 88.)
At least one writer, Michael Rice, dissents from the usual view of a succession of the 2nd dynasty after the 1st, and speculates that the two dynasties may have overlapped to some extent:
“The first Kings of the Second Dynasty are obscure figures and little is known of their reigns. We can only presume that the period of their sovereignty was marked by a continuation of that same unrest that marked the final years of the First Dynastic Kings. It cannot be certain that the Second Dynasty actually followed the First; they may, in part at least, have been contemporary, ruling different parts of the Valley simultaneously.” (Egypt’s Making, 1990, p. 141.)
Rice even thinks that the earliest rulers of the second dynasty may have been a “small local dynasty, of which there must have been many in pre-First Dynasty times, which somehow got itself acknowledged as national rulers.” (Ibid., pp. 141-42.)
5. The Third Dynasty of Egypt
The third dynasty of Egypt is famous as a time of monumental building, e.g., the famous Step Pyramid of Djoser. It is also the dynasty of Imhotep, who was later divinized by the Egyptians for his contributions to medicine. An inscription of Imhotep has been found in Egypt, giving him a rightful place as an historical figure. Some revisionists are so impressed by the third dynasty of Egypt that they place Abraham in this dynasty, and regard the famine of Djoser’s time as the same famine of Abraham’s time, a view we will examine later. The following table is based on the sources noted above, the * sign representing a hypothetical placement or name:
Third Dynasty
Manetho Reign Monuments, Lists, etc.
1. Necherophes…………………… 28 *Nebka, *Sanakht
2. Tosorthros………………………. 29 Djoser, Netjerikhet, Djesersa
3. Tureis…………………………….. 7 Sekhemkhet, Teti, Djeserteti
4. Mesochris……………………….. 17 Sedjes, Nebkare, Hudjefa
5. Souphis………………………….. 16 Neferkare
6. Tosertasis……………………….. 19
7. Aches…………………………….. 42
8. Sephuris…………………………. 30 *Sanakht, *Nebka
9. Kerpheres……………………….. 26 Huni, Qahedjet, Khaba
Total…………………………………… 214
It is not easy to identify the names provided by Manetho, for he appears to have filled up his third dynasty with kings from other dynasties, or gotten some of the third dynasty kings out of order. For instance, Souphis may be fourth dynasty king Suphis, Aches may be second dynasty king Aka, Tureis may be first dynasty king Djer (*Djureis), while Sephuris and Kerpheres may be second and third kings of the fifth dynasty (Sephres and Nepherecheres). Tosertasis may simply be Djeserteti, the successor of Djoser. Even if the third dynasty kings were kings in their own right and not merely mistaken designations, it would still be difficult to match them with any kings known from inscriptions. Gardiner says, “Of the kings named above, the monuments know only the first (Djoser, Horus-name Netjrikhe) and the last (Huny, Horus-name unknown).” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 433.)
There is no question that the 3rd dynasty followed the 2nd dynasty since inscriptional evidence indicates that Djoser was a son of Khasekhemwy. The following table describes the relationships recognized by modern scholars:
King |
Dynasty |
Relation |
|
1. Peribsen |
2nd |
predecessor |
|
2. Khasekhemwy |
2nd |
father |
|
3. Djoser |
3rd |
son |
After Djoser comes Sekhemket, and according to Wilkinson, “The archaeological evidence contradicts the Abydos and Turin lists by indicating that Netjerikhet [Djoser] succeeded Khasekhemwy directly. By contrast, archaeological and historical sources agree concerning Netjerikhet’s successor, now that the nbty name Djeserty has been irrefutably linked with the Horus Sekhemkhet.” (Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 94.) Further, the last king of the dynasty was Huni: “There is no doubt,” continues Wilkinson, “that the king known by his nswt-bity name Huni was the last ruler of the Third Dynasty….” (Ibid., pp. 94-95.) The main difficulty is in determining the placement of the kings Khaba, Sanakht, Nebka, and Qahedjet, kings known from inscriptional sources and king lists. We have followed Wilkinson’s placement of these kings (with the exception of Nebka).
As noted, Sekhemkhet is associated with Djeserty, the successor of Djoser. Khaba is known from some inscribed stone bowls and some sealings associated with Huni’s step pyramids, though he is placed after Sekhemkhet. The name Sanakht is thought by Wilkinson to be associated with the name Nebka, the latter regarded by some as the nswt-bity name of the Horus Sanakht. Different lines of evidence are proffered by Wilkinson to establish his belief that Nebka reigned sometime after Djoser but before Huni. (Wilkinson, pp. 102-03.) On the other hand, since the Turin Canon and the Abydos List have a king Nebka reigning just before king Djoser, Verbrugghe & Wickersham maintain the correlation between this Nebka and Manetho’s Necherophes. (Berossos and Manetho, p. 189.) In place of Nebka, the Saqqara list gives one Bebi, who is often associated with Khasekhemwy. Qahedjet, if not identified with first dynasty king Qa’a (as per Clayton), is dated by Wilkinson to the end of the third dynasty on stylistic grounds. (Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 105.)
Modern scholars give 74 years for the third dynasty, while Manetho’s figure is much larger at 214 years. (Cf., Berossos and Manetho, p. 190.) The modern view, that there were only five kings in the dynasty, can be combined with an average reign length calculation, which would put the dynasty at about 100 hundred years (5 x 20). This is much closer to the 74 years of modern Egyptologists than it is to Manetho’s additional 100 years or so.
6. Parallel Dynasties
If we add the total lengths of the first three dynasties using Manetho’s totals, the elapsed time would be:
1st dynasty: 253 years
2nd dynasty: 302 years
3rd dynasty: 214 years
Total: 769 years
In terms of modern reckoning, the first dynasty had 8 kings, while the second and third dynasties have 5 kings respectively. Adding these up gives a total of 18 kings for three dynasties, and the elapsed time for the first 3 dynasties per modern scholarship is 489 years. (V & B, pp. 189-191.) On an average reign length basis, we can multiply these 18 kings by 20 years each, which would give an elapsed time for the first three dynasties of 360 years–less than half of Manetho’s figure, and younger than modern reckoning by 129 years. If Rice is correct that the second dynasty overlapped with the first dynasty, then this elapsed time may need to be reduced even further. Assuming that the five kings of the 2nd dynasty are left out, we then multiply a total of 13 kings times an average reign length of 20 years to equal 260 years for the total elapsed time from dynasty 1 through the end of dynasty 3. Of course, this should not be regarded as an exact amount, but only as a rough estimate of the total elapsed time, assuming a parallel dynasty.
As with Rice, Courville was also of the opinion that there was an overlapping dynasty for the archaic period of Egypt, though instead of the first dynasty with the second, Courville paralleled the 3rd dynasty with the latter part of the 1st dynasty. What was the basis for Courville’s view?
Courville offers what he describes as “eight lines of evidence” in proof of his theory that dynasty 1 and dynasty 3 were partially contemporaneous. (EP, 1:170-175.). They are as follows: (1) The tomb of Khasekhemwy is different from 2nd dynasty tombs, showing that this king did not belong to late dynasty 2. Courville agrees with Petrie that Khasekhemwy was the progenitor of the 3rd dynasty (a view accepted by modern scholars). (2) Khasekhemwy’s monuments show highly sophisticated architectural skill, which is found in dynasty 3 but not in dynasty 2. (3) The placement of Khasekhemwy at the end of dynasty 2 is based on the assumption that the dynasties are consecutive. (4) Ceramics of the early 3rd dynasty are like the ceramics of dynasty 1. For instance, scarabs of Nebka have an early form of the Ka sign, and are made of material similar to the amulets of the 1st dynasty (citing Petrie). (5) Manetho records that 1st dynasty king Uenephes built pyramids near Kochome, which Courville identifies with Saqqarah. This is taken by Courville to mean that the 1st dynasty is too far away from the Pyramid Age, thus requiring a reduction in the time period and rejection of the sequence arrangement between dynasties 2 and 3. It is concluded that “Zozer was a contemporary of Manetho’s Uenephes.” (EP, 1:172.). (6) The famines mentioned in Uenephes’ reign and in Djoser’s reign are regarded as the same event, thus “confirming” their contemporaneity. (7) Annals of the Palermo Stone show that there was a divided rule in Egypt, starting with the reign of Udimu, successor of Usaphaidos. Thus by acknowledging parallel dynasties, the concept of dual monarchy can be retained (citing Emery). (8) the record of a Set-Horus conflict during the time of Khasekhemwy describes a war between northern and southern Egyptians, thus providing more evidence that the country was under divided rule for a time.
The following chart represents Courville’s understanding of the parallel between the 1st and 3rd dynasties, or as best as I can interpret it:
|
Kings of 1st & 2nd dynasties |
Kings of 3rd dynasty |
|
1. Aha, Menes, 1st dyn. |
|
|
2. Teti, Athothis |
|
|
3. Djer, Kenkenes |
Khasekhemwy |
|
4. Djet & Q. Merneith; (Uenephes) |
Djoser |
|
5. Den; (Udimu, Usaphaidos) |
etc. |
|
6. Anedjib, Miebidos |
etc. |
|
7. Semerkhet, Semempses |
Huni |
|
8. Qa’a, Bieneches |
Sneferu |
|
9. 2nd dynasty begins |
4th dynasty begins |
As noted, Courville correlates king Djoser (or Zozer) of the 3rd dynasty to the time of Uenephes of the 1st dynasty. He does this by separating Khasekhemwy from the end of the 2nd dynasty and placing him at the beginning of the 3rd dynasty. The remaining 2nd dynasty kings are regarded by Courville as vassals of the kings of the 4th and 5th dynasties. (EP, 1:168.) In this view, Dynasty 3 is an “offshoot” of Dynasty 1.
In further support of this theory, evidence from the tomb of Uenephes (or Uadji) is introduced, and reference is made to the frequent appearance of the name “Sekhem Ka” in the tomb. Scholars regard this individual as an important official during the time of Uadji, and even entertain the possibility it was his tomb. Nevertheless, the superiority of the tomb suggests a royal burial of a southern king in a northern tomb at Saqqara. Courville thinks this is problematic and in need of a solution, and suggests that Sekhem Ka is really a 1st dynasty king and is to be identified with the founder of the 3rd dynasty, Khasekhemwy:
“The only conclusion permissible within this concept is that this Sekhem Ka was the predecessor of Uadji in Dynasty I. This was none other than Manetho’s Kenkenes….If we are correct, then Kenkenes, Sekhem Ka, Kha-Sekhem, and Kha-sekhemui were names for one and the same person….” (Exodus Problem, 1:177.)
The putative problem of having a southern king in a northern tomb is thus solved by recognizing the tomb as Khasekhemwy’s, not Uadji’s. Courville admits that the Egyptian hieroglyphs for Ka and Kha are not the same and were “undoubtedly pronounced differently” but does not think that modern pronunciations are entirely adequate in rendering ancient Egyptian, and also intimates that hieroglyphic vocalizations were probably not so different that one symbol could not stand in for another. (Ibid., p. 178.) Further, with respect to the identification of Kenkenes with Khasekhemwy, Courville claims that “it is not difficult to recognize Manetho’s name Kenkenes as a Greek transliteration of the name Sekhem Ka or Kha-sekhem.” (Idem.) It is also held that the 1st and 3rd dynasties end at about the same time and that the 4th dynasty began its rule shortly thereafter. (Ibid., p. 183.)
7. Criticisms of Courville’s Model
There is a real problem with Courville’s reconstruction of the relation between the 1st and 3rd dynasties. He cannot simply bring Khasekhemwy up to the beginning of the 3rd dynasty (as father of Djoser) without also bringing up his predecessors, Hetepsekhemwy, Raneb, and Ninetjer. As discussed above, scholars believe that Raneb succeeded Hetepsekhemwy based on the find of a stone bowl which juxtaposes the serekhs of Hetepsekhemwy and Raneb. In addition, the statuette of a mortuary priest Hetepdief contains the names of the first 3 kings of the dynasty in the order of Hetepsekhemwy, Raneb, and Ninetjer. These names were written on the right shoulder of the statuette. (Cf., Clayton, p. 27 for picture.) Also, a stone bowl belonging to Hetepsekhemwy was reused by Raneb, then by Ninetjer, and found in Peribsen’s tomb. Finally, the Palermo Stone has the birth of Khasekhemwy in year 15 of Ninetjer. While providing descriptions of incidents during the years of Ninetjer, the inscription pauses to record:
“Year 15
Birth of Khasekhemui (H`-shmwy).
1 cubit, 6 palms, 2 ½ fingers.”
(Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 1:64.)
This latter inscription, combined with the inscriptions showing the order of the first three kings of the 2nd dynasty, rules out any isolated movement of Khasekhemwy from the end of the 2nd dynasty to the beginning of the 3rd dynasty. Khasekhemwy must arrive at such a destination with his whole family in tow, so to speak.
Moreover, Peribsen cannot be left dangling at the end of a fading 2nd dynasty, separated from Khasekhemwy and his son Djoser, since Peribsen’s sealings have been found in a tomb dated to the time of Djoser (Mastaba K1). (Wilkinson, p. 90.) This may not be conclusive evidence, but it is consistent with the closeness of Peribsen to the beginning of the 3rd dynasty. Peribsen is associated with 2nd dynasty king Sened by a mortuary priest named Sheri (who lived in the 4th dynasty). Sened comes after Ninetjer and Weneg so again Peribsen should be close to Khasekhemwy and Djoser in time.
The only real synchronism offered by Courville is that the famines that took place during the reigns of two kings were one and the same famine (point 6). Courville thinks that the contemporaneity of Uenephes and Djoser is confirmed by these famine records, and that based on his alternative chronology, they are references to the same famine and “provide a basis for an approximate synchronism between the two dynasties.” (EP, 1:172.) Nevertheless, this can hardly qualify as confirmation of Courville’s restructuring since the mere existence of a famine in Egypt does not automatically mean that it can be correlated to any other famine in Egypt from different time periods. True, if these famines could be shown to be contemporary on independent grounds, they would as a matter of pure logic provide proof for Courville’s theory. However, since they are associated with one another on the basis of Courville’s theory, they cannot then be used as confirmation of the theory without falling into circular reasoning.
Courville’s point 3–that the placement of Khasekhemwy at the end of the 2nd dynasty is based on the belief that the dynasties are consecutive–is not evidence for Courville’s theory, but rather a description of the opposing view. It thus cannot serve as proof of his theory. It should also be noted that most of Courville’s arguments for the movement of Khasekhemwy from the end of the 2nd dynasty to a place parallel to 1st dynasty king Kenkenes are based on art-historical considerations. While such arguments are suggestive, they cannot be conclusive. The same would apply to arguments from conflicts between southern and northern kings, alleged similarity of the names Kenkenes and Khasekhemwy, and so on. Such arguments may be complementary but not in themselves decisive. Finally, there is no surprise that Egyptian kings were buried in both northern and southern Egypt since that had been going on for quite some time. It was a way of establishing authority in both Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, not only in this life, but also in the life to come. (Wilkinson, p. 11; Rice, Egypt’s Making, p. 117; cf., Emery, Archaic Egypt, p. 129.) It is therefore not really a problem that needs explanation, nor one that requires contemporaneity between dynasties 1 and 3.
8. A New Model of Archaic Egypt
In our opinion, Courville’s model for correlating the Archaic dynasties is flawed, but does it mean that no such correlations are possible? It has been noted that Rice believes the 2nd dynasty overlapped the 1st dynasty, though he does not venture to construct a model of this relationship. What would the New Courville model of the Archaic period look like, if all the evidence is taken into account? Before illustrating a new model based on this evidence, we should admit up front that our main difficulty is in deciding whether the 3rd dynasty overlapped part of the 1st dynasty (as per Courville’s model) or came right after it. We have provisionally chosen the latter solution, though this does not mean we necessarily reject out of hand a greater overlap between Dynasties 1 and 3.
In our model, we first start out by placing Peribsen just after Merneith, and we base this on archaeological evidence. This consists of an inscription of Peribsen that was found in the tomb of Merneith, the 1st dynasty queen of Egypt, married to Uenephes (or Djet). Wilkinson says:
“Curiously, the name of Peribsen also occurs on a stone vessel fragment found by Petrie in the First Dynasty tomb of Merneith. The only possible explanation [sic] is that it represents later contamination of the tomb contents, perhaps from Amelineau’s excavations.” (Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 90.)
Wilkinson’s explanation of how Peribsen’s inscription got into the tomb of Merneith is gratuitous, but it does confirm the existence of an anachronism if the 1st and 2nd dynasties are regarded as consecutive dynasties. The tombs of the early 1st dynasty were not accessible after their closing, and it was not until the time of Den, fifth king of the 1st dynasty, that entrance stairways began to be used. (Emery, Archaic Egypt, pp. 131, 134, 139.) On the face of it then, Peribsen’s inscriptions should be taken as evidence that he lived during the time of Merneith. This would only be possible if the 1st and 2nd dynasties were contemporaneous.
Wallis Budge also has an interesting observation with respect to a medical papyrus that was transferred from one Egyptian king to another:
“[I]n a medical papyrus at Berlin further information is added to the effect that after Hesepti was dead the book was taken to his Majesty Sent; now Sent was the fifth king of the II Dynasty and reigned many years after Semti, and we must therefore understand that Sent came into possession of a medical work which had once belonged to his great predecessor Semti.” (History of Egypt, Vol. 1, pp. 199-200.)
Semti (or Zemti) was Hesepti, the fifth king of the 1st dynasty (who is also known as Den). Sent was Sened, fifth king of the 2nd dynasty (who was also known as Manetho’s Sethenes). Thus, the following dynastic correlation would hold:
|
Kings of 1st dynasty |
Kings of 2rd dynasty |
|
4. Djet & Q. Merneith |
|
|
5. Den, Hesepti, Zemti |
Sent, Sened |
If the medical papyrus is taken at face value, then Sent lived during the days of Hesepti, but again this could only be true if the 2nd dynasty significantly overlapped the 1st dynasty. Thus, we have both archaeological evidence (Peribsen’s inscription) and literary evidence (the medical papyrus) that taken together appear to provide strong reasons for adopting the theory of dynastic contemporaneity between the 1st and 2nd dynasties. The question as to whether the 3rd dynasty should overlap the 1st dynasty could be solved if we knew where to place Khasekhemwy in relation to Peribsen, or alternatively how close Peribsen was to Merneith. If Merneith died early in Peribsen’s reign, he may have had a long rule, in which case Khasekhemwy (his putative successor) would begin his reign later in the dynasty, moving Djoser to a place after the 2rd dynasty. On the other hand, the Palermo Stone indicates that Khasekhemwy was born during Ninetjer’s reign, so that might require Khasekhemwy to be moved to Den’s time, requiring a similar movement of Djoser to the time of Anedjib or Semerkhet.
For New Courville, the view of an overlap between the 3rd dynasty and the 1st dynasty will not be accepted. Rather, it is tentatively accepted that Michael Rice’s theory that the 2nd dynasty overlaps the 1st dynasty is correct, though we should point out that these correlations are our own, not necessarily Rice’s. Courville did not accept a 2nd dynasty overlap at all but ran the 2nd dynasty parallel to the 4th & 5th dynasties.
An objection to the 1st – 2nd dynasty overlap theory can be brought forward. As noted, inscriptional material of Hetepsekhemwy has been found in the offering chambers near the entrance to Qa’a’s tomb. (Wilkinson, p. 83.) This was taken as evidence of a succession between the 1st and 2nd dynasties. There is, however, some hesitancy in the language scholars use in their inferences about the Hetepsekhemwy material in Qa’a’s tomb. For instance, Wilkinson says that the discovery of these inscriptions “seems to prove that there was a smooth transition between the First and Second Dynasties.” (Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 82.) The note of doubt comes through in the “seems to prove.” The same hesitancy is repeated: “We cannot be certain why the death of Qaa marked the end of a dynasty. The first king of the Second Dynasty seems to have legitimised his position by overseeing the burial of his predecessor, or at least honouring his mortuary cult….” (Ibid, p. 83.) Again, another “seems to”—a hedging rather than a confident choice of words. Similarly, Egyptologist Kathryn Bard refrains from bold statement, and cedes responsibility to others: “German archaeologists have interpreted this find as evidence that Hetepsekhemwy completed the tomb of his predecessor and that there was no break in the dynastic succession.” (Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, p. 85.)
Perhaps there is good reason for cautious statement. In itself, the Hetepsekhemwy material found in Qa’a’s tomb is not conclusive as to the order of reigns. Inscriptions of earlier kings are often found in the tombs of later kings. Without knowing the real order of the kings, it would not be easy to tell whether one king preceded another, or vice versa. For instance, inscriptional material of Hetepsekhemwy has been found in a subterranean gallery near the pyramid of Unas. (Emery, Archaic Egypt, p. 92.) If we follow the above line of reasoning based on inscriptional material–that Qa’a was followed by Hetepsekhemwy because the latter’s sealings were found in Qa’a’s tomb–we would need to conclude that king Unas was also followed by Hetepsekhemwy since the latter’s material was found near his tomb. Such a conclusion, of course, would not be accepted by Egyptologists. Unas is actually a king of the 5th dynasty, and because of this, scholars would interpret the Hetepsekhemwy material as an example of Unas’s reverence for an ancestor. Since Egyptologists generally have the 2nd dynasty following in consecutive order after the 1st dynasty, they naturally interpret the Hetepsekhemwy material as successor material, i.e., Hetepsekhemwy wanted to honor Qa’a. Nevertheless, unless the relation between the 1st and 2nd dynasties is established on independent grounds as consecutive, then the material is capable of alternative interpretation.
The dependence of the interpretation of inscriptional material on Manetho’s order of the dynasties is illustrated in some stone vessel fragments of Hetepsekhemwy that were found in the tombs of Peribsen and Khasekhemwy, and at the Step Pyramid of Djoser. These, however, are not regarded as proof that Hetepsekhemwy followed either Peribsen, Khasekhemwy, or Djoser. Instead, the material is described as “heirlooms,” meaning that Khasekhemwy, et al., where honoring the putative earlier king Hetepsekhemwy. (Wilkinson, p. 84.) We suggest that the same situation may have applied in the case of Qa’a, that he was simply honoring the earlier king Hetepsekhemwy.
Another objection to Courville’s 1st – 3rd dynasty overlap theory might be an inscription found in the Step Pyramid of Djoser that records the name of Qa’a and his predecessors. (Wilkinson, p. 79.) If this is interpreted as mortuary piety on Djoser’s part, it would show that Djoser and the 3rd dynasty must follow Qa’a and the 1st dynasty. Our theory is able to accommodate this by having Djoser begin his reign during the latter part of Qa’a’s reign. However, Courville’s reconstruction will not work in light of this inscription since he has Djoser at a much earlier point than Qa’a. But as we said, such inscriptions are interpreted in the light of previously held views about the relation between the dynasties. Hence, rather than seeing the Qa’a inscription as an heirloom, Courville could just as easily see it as Qa’a’s desire to honor his predecessor Djoser. Still, as far as New Courville goes, we will take the Qa’a inscription as complementary evidence that the 3rd dynasty did not overlap the 1st dynasty, except perhaps during the second half of Qa’a’s reign. This may in fact be why Qa’a’s inscription was found in the Step Pyramid—Djoser was putatively honoring Qa’a at the latter’s death.
A third objection might be based on stratigraphic considerations. According to Emery, tombs of the early 3rd dynasty were built over the remains of tombs of the early 1st dynasty. (Archaic Egypt, p. 29.) This would rule out any drastic movement of the 3rd dynasty into the early part of the 1st dynasty. Courville’s theory would suffer the most from this, for he has Khasekhemwy and Djoser parallel to the early 1st dynasty kings. Our own theory fares better since we have the 3rd dynasty overlapping the 1st dynasty only at the latest stage.
In constructing the New Courville view of overlapping Archaic dynasties, we are guessing as to when Hetepsekhemwy began his reign, placing it in year 30 of Athothis. As long as Ninetjer is correlated with Merneith during the latter days of Djet and early days of Den, our theory is compatible with all the evidence so far presented. For an illustration of the New Courville chronology of the 1st through 3rd dynasties, the following table has been prepared as an approximate model:
|
First dynasty |
Second dynasty |
Description of 2nd dynasty kings |
|
1. Menes, 62 |
|
|
|
2. Athothis, 57 |
Hetepsekhemwy |
begins 38 year local reign during 30th year of Athothis (approximation). Continues 11 years during Djer’s reign. |
|
3. Djer, 31 |
Raneb |
begins 39 year local reign during 12th year of Djer’s reign |
|
4. Djet, 23 |
Ninetjer |
begins 47 year local reign during Djet’s 21st year; Merneith becomes first queen of Egypt during Den’s minority. |
|
5. Den, 20 |
Ninetjer |
continues through 2 more years of Djet’s reign, and 20 years of Den’s reign. Peribsen rules in south and constructs tomb for Merneith. Ninetjer continues 20 more years under Anedjib. |
|
6. Anedjib, 26 |
Khasekhemwy |
begins 38 year reign during 21st year of Anedjib |
|
7. Semerkhet, 18 |
Khasekhemwy |
continues 5 more years during Anedjib’s reign, then 18 years of Semerkhet’s reign |
|
8. Qa’a, 26 |
Khasekhemwy |
continues 15 years during Qa’a’s reign. Djoser’s reign begins during Qa’a’s 16th year; beginning of 3rd dynasty. |
In the above chart, we are not making the claim that Manetho’s reign lengths are accurate. Rather, we are using them for relative correlation between the kings of the two dynasties. This means that any reduction in the total length of the dynasties will result in a proportionate reduction for all the relative correlations. A more plausible reconstruction of the elapsed time might be to recognize that the absolute reign lengths of the first two kings of Dynasty 1 need to be reduced. The reign lengths of Menes (62 years) and Athothis (57 years) can probably be cut in half, giving Menes 31 years and Athothis 28 or so years. The dynastic total would be more like 203 years, 50 years less than Manetho’s figures, and only about 7 years less than the modern view of 210 years. (V & W, Berossos and Manetho, p. 187.) However, to be consistent, we are using average reign length calculations as a rough estimate of the elapsed time, and as we have seen, eight kings multiplied by an average reign length of 20 years gives an elapsed time for the 1st dynasty of 160 years.
If we are right in overlapping the 2nd with the 1st, and beginning the 3rd dynasty near the end of the 1st, some positive results will obtain. First, the Peribsen inscription and the medical papyrus no longer appear anachronistic. It will be remembered that an inscription of Peribsen was found in the tomb of Merneith, who was the wife of Djer, and the regent for Den, her son. This regency meant that she was the first real queen of Egypt: “The regency of Merneith is the first attested occasion in Egyptian history when a woman held the reigns of power.” (Wilkinson, p. 75.) In our chart we have Ninetjer as reigning during both Djet and Den’s time, which would also correspond to the time of Merneith. It is interesting therefore that Manetho records of Ninetjer (i.e., Binothris) that “in his reign it was decided that women might hold the kingly office.” (Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 431.) According to Clayton, “Manetho also adds that it was decided that women could occupy the throne, but Merneith had apparently pre-empted this in the previous dynasty.” (Chronicle of the Pharaohs, p. 27.) This is anachronistic on the view that the dynasties are consecutive, but is consistent with an overlap between the 1st and 2nd dynasties, where Ninetjer would have lived during the time of Queen Merneith.
In addition to the inscriptional correlation of Merneith and Peribsen, and the medical papyrus correlation of Den and Sened, Manetho also records with respect to Raneb (i.e., Kaiechos) that “in his reign the bulls, Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis, and the Mendesian goat, were worshipped as gods.” (Gardiner, p. 431.) Evidence indicates that this took place in the 1st dynasty, at least by the time of Den. Clayton says:
“An interesting point that Manetho adds about Raneb is that he introduced the worship not only of the sacred goat of Mendes but also of the sacred bull of Mnevis at the old sun-worship centre of Heliopolis, and the Apis bull at Memphis. (In fact scholars now believe that an earlier king was responsible for founding the latter cult, which is attested on a stele dating from Den’s (Udimu’s) reign.)” (Chronicle of the Pharaohs, p. 27.)
On our theory, this would mean that the worship of the sacred goat and bull probably began during the time of Den’s grandfather Djer, who correlates to Raneb in the above chart. Thus, the reference to the bull and goat cult for the time of Raneb is consistent with inscriptional material of Den’s reign, which refers to these practices. By overlapping the 1st and 2nd dynasties, the anachronism disappears.
There is also some disagreement among archaeologists regarding where to place a recently discovered king Qahedget. Clayton places him at the end of the 1st dynasty (Chronicle, p. 25), but Wilkinson places him in the 3rd dynasty based upon art-historical considerations. (Early Dynastic Egypt, p. 104.) Now that we have Qa’a near the beginning of the 3rd dynasty, his correlation with Qahedget of the 3rd dynasty would resolve this conflict. Wilkinson says, “[I]n the late 1960s, an unprovenanced limestone stela was purchased by the Louvre, inscribed for a king with the previously unknown Horus name Qahedjet….The style is very reminiscent of the relief panels from the Step Pyramid of Netjerikhet [Djoser]; on stylistic grounds, therefore, the stela may be placed close in to the reign of Netjerikhet.” (Ibid., p. 104.) Wilkinson thinks the carving is superior enough for it to be classified to the end of the 3rd dynasty. (Ibid, pp. 104, 105.) In any case, if Qahedjet is close to Djoser, and if Qa’a himself is close to Djoser, then an overlap of the dynasties would allow for a possible identification between these two kings.
In conclusion, we could say that there is some fairly good evidence for an overlap between the 1st and 2nd dynasties, though obviously, such a model needs more confirmation before we can assert it with requisite certainty. However, we do think Courville’s original model is unworkable, given all the available evidence.
9. Correlations with the Holy Land:
The period from the Pre-dynastic to the end of the 3rd dynasty in Egypt is part of the Early Bronze Age. The EB1 period begins with the disappearance of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic culture shortly before the time of Narmer in Egypt, and ends at about the time of Djer, third king of Egypt’s first dynasty. (Amnon Ben-Tor, “The Early Bronze Age,” in ed., A. Ben-Tor, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, 1992, p. 95.) The Early Bronze 2 strata begins during the later days of Djer, and is represented in the Holy Land by Abydos-ware—a class of pottery made up of characteristic jugs and storage jars, especially at EB2 “Arad.” (Ibid., p. 107.) Helen Kantor places the 3rd Dynasty in the EB2 horizon. (“The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its Foreign Correlations before the Late Bronze Age,” in ed. R. Ehrich, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 1954, p. 27, Fig. 3.) Ben-Tor, however, believes that Khasekhemwy can be correlated to an early EB3 context:
“An object bearing the name of the last king of the Second Dynasty was found at Byblos in an early Early Bronze Age III context (the object should be attributed to late stratum III or early stratum IV at that site).” (Archaeology of Ancient Israel, p. 123.)
If the Khasekhemwy material has been interpreted correctly, this means EB3 would start near the beginning of the 3rd dynasty, not at the beginning of the 4th, as Kantor believed. In actuality, the difference is only about 75 years (the time of the 3rd dynasty) so it may be difficult to be more precise. The correlation of Khasekhemwy with the beginnings of the EB3 horizon would make it more difficult for Courville’s model since the EB2 period would then be correlated to the early 1st Dynasty. But as noted the 1st dynasty is correlated to the EB1 period and ends at the time of Djer, while the EB2 period begins during Djer’s reign and must at least encompass the latter part of the 1st dynasty. How then can the early EB3 Khasekhemwy be made to overlap the EB1 and EB2 pottery phases?
The nomenclature for the Early Bronze Age was originally developed for the Holy Land. The following represents a chart of the various archaeological phases for the Early Bronze Age. It is based mainly on the chart from Amihai Mazar’s Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, p. 109, though the chronological correlations are ours:
|
Sites |
EB1Post-Dispersion |
EB2pre-Patriarchal phase |
EB3Abraham to Moses |
|
Egypt |
Pre-Dyn / Dyn 1 (Narmer & Aha) |
Dyn. 3-6 |
|
|
‘Ai |
1-2 |
3-4-5 |
6-8 |
|
Arad |
4 |
3-2 1 |
——- |
|
Beth-Shean |
17 16 15 |
14 13 |
12 11 |
|
Beth-Yerah |
16-14 |
13 12 |
11-7 |
|
Gezer |
25 |
24-23 |
——- |
|
Hazor |
——- |
——- |
21 20 19 |
|
Jericho |
Q-M |
L-G |
F-A |
|
Tel Etani |
11-5 |
4-2 |
1 |
|
Tel Halif |
14 |
|
13 12 11 |
|
Tell el-Far ‘ah, N |
3 |
4a-f |
——- |
|
Tell el-Hesi |
11 |
10 -> |
4 |
|
Yarmuth A |
|
1-3 |
4-7 |
|
Yarmuth B |
|
5-4 |
3-2 |
What does the archaeology of the Holy Land look like for the EB1, EB2, and early EB3 phases? Unfortunately, almost no written material pertaining to Canaan has come to us from the Early Bronze Age, but is first found only at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. (Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, p. 121.) Therefore, the archaeology of the EB1-early EB3 phases is nearly mute in what it can tell us as compared with what the writings of Egypt and Mesopotamia can tell us. Aharoni says, “Historical texts may one day be discovered in Palestine or its neighbouring lands to transform the Early Bronze Age of these countries into a historical period. Meanwhile, the centuries preceding the second millennium B.C. [sic] must, as far as Palestine is concerned, remain in the realm of pre-history.” (Idem.)
Most of the names of the cities in the Holy Land originated during the Middle Bronze Age, and have Semitic names. (Ibid., p. 96.) Aharoni infers from this that these Semitic names go back to the beginnings of urbanization, during the Early Bronze 1 phase. This inference, however, is based on conventional chronology. According to the Bible, the language of the Holy Land during its earliest phases must have been Hamitic, since the Canaanites (descendents of Ham) settled into the land. It would not have been Semitic until the time of the Conquest. Courville and New Courville, of course, believe that the MB1 phase is the point of the Conquest and start of the Semitic-speaking period in Palestine, whereas the EB3 phases was the time of the Hamitic-speaking Hittites and other Canaanites. Aharoni has an interesting comment regarding the transition to the Middle Bronze Age:
“[O]ne must not forget that there is a certain occupation gap between the end of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Ages. In all the towns that have been excavated signs of destruction are noted for this period. They were left in ruins for some time until a new settlement arose in the twentieth century B.C. [sic].” (Land of the Bible, p. 97.)
This would be the Conquest in our view. Aharoni’s conclusion is that the names of the towns during the Middle Bronze Age were virtually the same as the names of the Early Bronze Age: “Although we really do not have definite information about place names in the fourth and third millennia, it is probable that most of them did not differ appreciably from those we find in the second.” (Ibid., p. 97.) We regard this as false in that no archaeological information confirms it, and secondly an alternative chronological model provides a better explanation. For New Courville, the EB3 period inhabitants of Canaan spoke a Hamitic language, but after the Conquest and destruction of the EB3 urban culture of Canaan, the influence of the Semitic-speaking Hebrews began to be felt, and gave the Holy Land its subsequent linguistic characteristics.
Egypt’s influence on the Holy Land can be discerned in the 1st and 2nd dynasties. These sometimes involved battles described as “smiting the Asiatics.” Egyptian tombs from the 1st dynasty have EB2 pottery, and Egyptian pottery is also found in southern Palestine. However, Egypt’s political control of the Holy Land was limited. Donald Redford says,
“Egyptian remains seem to delineate a sphere of influence confined to the coastal route between the western Delta and the region of greater Gaza, the southern Shephelah, and the Negeb around Arad and westward.” (Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, p. 33.)
The above town of “Arad” was an EB2 town, which is correlated to the 1st and 2nd dynasties of Egypt. Since no characteristic EB3 pottery was found at “Arad,” it is presumed that the town did not last past the EB2 period. In our opinion, this town has been misidentified, and should not be regarded as the city conquered by Moses at the time of the Conquest. The EB2 site does not work on anybody’s chronology, whether New Courville (MB1) or conventional (LB/IA). It is therefore high time to find the real Arad, and our prediction is that it will have been destroyed at the end of the EB3 phase in the Holy Land, the same time that most of the other EB cities were destroyed.
The beginning of the EB3 is marked by the “Khirbet Kerak” ware, and is thought to have originated in Anatolia and the Caucasus area. (Ibid., p. 123.) Aharoni believes it represents an invasion, but provides no evidence of destruction layers at the EB3 sites where the Khirbet Kerak people settled. Kathleen Kenyon says: “[T]here is no clear evidence of disturbance, so it may be deduced that at most there was some infiltration or perhaps trade.” (Archaeology in the Holy Land, p. 127; cf., also Mazar, p. 134.) Before the MB1 phase, the only pottery found in the Negev and Kadesh-barnea was from the EB2 phase, and the rest of the archaeology of the Holy Land shows a long gap in occupation at those sites until the MB1 pottery, and then a long gap after the MB1 pottery. The EB2 people settled along rivers and pastureland, and engaged in copper production. (Mazar, p. 114.) Mazar describes the transition between EB2 and EB3 as “gradual.” (Ibid., p. 132.)
10. Developments in Mesopotamia
After the Dispersion from Babel and the influx of Sumerians into the southern portion of Mesopotamia (as per the New Courville theory), Mesopotamia was divided into several city states during the Early Dynastic period. The king lists present these city states as ruling in consecutive fashion over Mesopotamia, but scholars have long known that these “seats of sovereignty” actually ruled as contemporaneous dynasties.
“[The assumption] of the single rule by various cities but only one at a time, is much more emphasized, and indeed is the principle upon which the list is constructed, but it is so much farther from the truth that it has vitiated the whole document as history….It has been easy to demonstrate that the scheme of successive kingdoms falsifies the perspective by concealing the fact…that many of these kings were reigning in their different cities at the same time….This has the additional evil of greatly exaggerating the length of time over which this history extended….” (C. J. Gadd, Cambridge Ancient History, 1:2, pp. 106-107.)
In the king lists, the “antediluvian” kings are usually identified by scholars with the Early Dynastic 1 period, while the Dynastic 2 and early 3 periods reflect several dynasties, including the dynasty of Uruk 1, which represents the line leading to Gilgamesh, and the dynasty of Kish 1, which represents the line leading to Agga, contemporary of Gilgamesh. The dynasty of Ur 1 starts in the Early Dynastic 3 period, with Mesannipadda being a contemporary of Gilgamesh as well.
The Semitic-speaking people who remained in Mesopotamia even after the Dispersion shared some of the rule of the country with the newly arrived Sumerians (on our view). According to Gadd: [T]he basis for the statement that Semites were influential from the beginning is the occurrence of Semitic names in the earliest dynasty which claimed rule over the whole land. These kings are recorded as mingled with others having Sumerian names, and this mixture characterizes the whole relation of the two.” (Ibid., 1:2, p. 99.)
On our theory, the northern portion of Mesopotamia was less affected by the Dispersion and still retained a largely Semitic-speaking population. The Kish dynasty provides a good example of the shared rule among the Sumerians and Semitic-speaking people (i.e., Akkadians). The following chart is based on David Rohl’s list in Legend, the Genesis of Civilisation, p. 164; and also, L. Woolley, The Sumerians, pp. 21ff.:
|
Name |
Years |
Ethnicity |
|
1. Ga[...]ur |
1200 |
Sumerian |
|
2. —— |
— |
— |
|
3. Palakinatim |
900 |
Akkadian |
|
4. Nangishlishma |
— |
Sumerian |
|
5. Bahina |
— |
— |
|
6. Bu.an.[...] |
840 |
Sumerian |
|
7. Kalibum |
960 |
Akkadian |
|
8. Kalumum |
840 |
— |
|
9. Zukakip |
900 |
— |
|
10. Atab |
840 |
Akkadian |
|
11. Mashda |
720 |
Sumerian |
|
12. Arwium |
720 |
— |
|
13. Etana |
1560 |
Akkadian |
|
14. Balih |
400 |
Akkadian |
|
15. Enmenunna |
600 |
Sumerian |
|
16. Melamkishi |
900 |
Sumerian |
|
17. Barsalnunna |
1200 |
Sumerian |
|
18. Samug |
140 |
— |
|
19. Tizkar |
305 |
— |
|
20. Ilku |
900 |
Akkadian |
|
21. Iltasadum |
1200 |
— |
|
22. Enmebaragesi |
900 |
Sumerian |
|
23. Agga |
629 |
Akkadian |
On the New Courville theory, the mixture of Akkadian and Sumerian names on the king list shows that the situation is post-Dispersion, and it also shows a level of cooperation between the Sumerians and Akkadians that probably reflects intermarriage. The reign lengths of these kings are obviously considerably greater than scholars are willing to countenance, and there is really no way of knowing how many of these kings of the Kish dynasty actually existed, or how many ruled consecutively, or were merely local kings sharing the land with each other. Our own view is that these kings of the Kish dynasty, all the way down to Agga, roughly corresponds to the time between the biblical Dispersion from Babel and the time of Abraham. Obviously, this is represents an educated guess, but it will make more sense as we discuss the remainder of the Egyptian Old Kingdom and its correlation with the time of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses.
End
