Damien F. Mackey
‘The Queen of the South will rise at the
judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the
earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is
here’.
Matthew
12:42
Was this “another Gezer”?
“There was another
Gezer on the south-west of Canaan, the inhabitants
of which David and his warriors smote, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8”.
John
Brown
In a recent article:
Pharaohs known to Old
Testament Israel
I got the opportunity to juxtapose a
former view of mine - that the city of Gezer sacked by the biblical “Pharaoh
king of Egypt” (I Kings 9:16) was at the site of Tel Gezer in central Israel - with a new suspicion that this text
might actually be pointing to quite a different Gezer.
And so I wrote:
…. Thutmose I fits nicely into place for Velikovsky as
our second Pharaoh, who attacked Gezer. Dr. John Bimson once argued that this
identification appears to be supported archaeologically. I had previously
written on this:
Velikovsky had identified David’s era as the same as that of the
18th dynasty pharaoh, Thutmose I, as Dr. J. Bimson tells when providing an appropriate
stratigraphy (“Can there be a Revised Chronology without a Revised
Stratigraphy?”, SIS: Proceedings. Glasgow Conference, April, 1978):
In
Velikovsky’s chronology, this pharaoh is identified as Thutmose I [ref. Ages in
Chaos, iii, “Two Suzerains”] … In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we
would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point
during LB [Late Bronze] I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence
of burning [ref. Dever et al., Gezer I (1970, pp.54-55 …)].
….
Since having written this, however, I have become
convinced that - and intend soon to write to the effect that - the “Gezer”
referred to in I Kings 9:16 was not the well-known city in central Israel, but
was another “Gezer” located much further to the south. ….
[End of quote]
Now John Brown, in his A Dictionary of the Holy Bible: Containing an
Historical Account (Volume
1, p. 521), has actually written there of what he calls “another Gezer”:
There was another
Gezer on the south-west of Canaan, the inhabitants
of which David and his warriors
smote, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. Possibly
these Gezrites might be a colony from north Gezer, and might have changed the name of Gerar into
Gezer. These Gezrites or Gerarites
are probably the Gerreans and
Gerrenians in the time of the Maccabees. Whether it was south or rather north Gezer, that Pharaoh king of Egypt
took from the Canaanites, and burnt with fire, and gave as a dowry with his
daughter to Solomon, who repaired
it, is not altogether certain, I Kings ix. 15, 16.
[End of quote]
This quote presents us with a somewhat
confusing array of G-place-names!
But I suspect that John Brown may be correct
in his view of “another Gezer”, that is, “Gerar”.
Maps tend to place Gerar (often with a
question mark) somewhere near Beersheba.
The Egyptians in the time of
Abram (Abraham), at least - so I have argued - also ruled over Philistine Gerar.
And this has important ramifications for my connecting of the biblical Tamar,
sister of Absalom, with both the realm of king Talmai of southern Geshur (or
Gezer?) and my necessarily tentative identification of king Talmai as Eighteenth
Dynasty Egypt’s Thutmose I, said to have been the ‘father’ of Hatshepsut (= my
Tamar). See e.g. my series:
The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife
beginning with:
Critical for this present
article is Dr. John Osgood’s section, “The Philistine Question” (in his
article, “The Times of Abraham”: http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham):
We have placed
the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat
Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham's 80th year.
Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our
discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870
B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.
Stratum IV
begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly
different from Stratum V.112
Belonging to
Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),10, 13 and
she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later
part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap
between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad.12:116 However,
this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of
Canaan's history, long time periods which are here rejected.
The
chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham's life-time corresponds to the
Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which
equals Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilites for the
Egyptian king of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:-
1. A late
northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
2. Menes
or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20).
Of these, the
chronological scheme would favour a late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king of
northern Egypt, just before the unification under Menes.
Thus the
Egyptian Dynastic period would start approximately 1860 B.C.
[End
of quote]
Apparently,
then, the era of Abram must equate very closely, at least, to the time of the
celebrated, but little known, king, Narmer.
I have argued
elsewhere that Narmer may have been a non-Egyptian ruler, that he may even have
been the mighty Akkadian king, Naram-Sin – and possibly the very Nimrod
himself:
Nimrod a "mighty
man"
Now most
crucially - for my alignment of the apparently Philistine king, Abimelech, with
the “Pharaoh” of Egypt, as explained elsewhere - Dr. Osgood goes on to tell of
archaeological evidence for “Egyptian (cum Philistine) migration” into southern
Canaan at this time (ibid.):
Clearly, if this were the case, by this scheme the Philistines were
in Canaan already, and must therefore have at least begun their
migration in the late Chalcolithic of Egypt and Palestine.
Therefore, we need to look in southwest Canaan for evidence of
Egyptian (cum Philistine) migration, beginning in the late Chalcolithic and
possibly reaching into EB I (depending on the cause and rapidity of migration),
in order to define the earliest Philistine settlement of Canaan from Egyptian
stock. Is there such evidence? The answer is a clear and categorical YES.
Amiram, Beit-Ariah and Glass14 discussed the same period in
relationship between Canaan and Egypt. So did Oren.15
Of the period Oren says:
‘Canaanite Early Bronze I-II and Egyptian late pre-Dynastic and
early Dynastic periods’15:200
He says of the findings in Canaan:
‘The majority of Egyptian vessels belong to the First
Dynasty repertoire while a few sherds can be assigned with certainty
to the late pre-Dynastic period.’15:203(emphasis mine)
He continues:
‘The occurrence of Egyptian material which is not later than the
First Dynasty alongside EB A I-II pottery types has been noted in surface
collections and especially in controlled excavations in southern Canaan. This
indicates that the appearance and distinction of the material of First
Dynasty in northern Sinai and southern Canaan should be viewed as one related
historical phenomenon.’15:203(emphasis mine)
The area surveyed was between Suez and Wadi El-Arish. ED I-II had
intensive settlement in this area.
He continues further:
‘Furthermore, the wide distribution of Egyptian material and the
somewhat permanent nature of the sites in Sinai and southern Canaan can
no longer be viewed as the results of trade relations only. In all
likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into
Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain
and its resources were exploited on a large scale.’15:204(emphasis
mine)
And again:
‘The contacts which began in pre-Dynastic times, were most intensive
during the First Dynasty period’15:204(emphasis mine)
Ram Gopha16 is bolder about this event or
phenomenon, insisting on it being a migration:
‘Today we seem to be justified in assuming some kind of immigration
of people from Egypt to southern Canaan...’16:31
Further:
‘the Egyptian migration during the First Dynasty period may be seen
as an intensification of previously existing relationships between the two
countries.
These relations had already begun in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic
period but reached sizable proportions only in the Late Pre-Dynastic period’ (first phases of Palestinian EB I).16:35(emphasis mine)
The testimony is clear. Excavation at Tel Areini identifies such an
Egyptian migration and settlement starting in the Chalcolithic period.17 There was definitely a migration
of Egyptian people of some sort from northern Egypt into southern Palestine,
and particularly the region that was later known as Philistia.16:32
The testimony
of Scripture is clear that there were Philistines who came from Egypt into
Palestine in the days of Abraham. This revised chronology identifies such a
migration in the days of the Ghassulians, who I insist, perished during the
early days of Abraham's sojourn in Canaan. This period must then be grossly
redated in accordance with biblical expectations, instead of evolutionary
assumptions.
[End
of quotes]
I further wrote:
Tamar and
the Kingdom of Geshur
What, though, does
this have to do with the Queen of Sheba?
Or with the
great Queen Hatshepsut who the biblical queen … was …?
….
Or even more
directly, for the benefit of this article, what does this have to do with
Tamar, the very daughter of King David – she being another of my alter
egos for Hatshepsut/Sheba? ….
See my:
The Bible Illuminates History and Philosophy. Part
Fifteen: Royals Absalom and Tamar (i): Rape of Tamar
If the
biblical Queen of Sheba were both Queen Hatshepsut and biblical Tamar (as
above), then she must have been - just like my composite Pharaoh-Abimelech -
both a ruler of Egypt (as Hatshepsut most certainly was, the 18th dynasty)
(corresponding to Abram’s “Pharaoh”) and one also having royal influence over
the Philistines (corresponding to “Abimelech”).
That Tamar was
the sister of David’s son, Absalom, we learn from 2 Samuel 13:1: “In the course
of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of
Absalom son of David”.
Tamar was also
royally connected (apart from the throne of Judah) to the kingdom of Geshur.
Though Geshur is usually thought to have been situated in Aram (Syria), I,
however, would prefer D. Edelman’s view that this “Geshur” was a southern
kingdom (“Tel Masos, Geshur, and David”, JNES, Vol. 47, No. 4, Oct., 1988, p.
256: http://www.jstor.org/stable/544878):
David, while in
residence in his new capital of Judah at Hebron fathered Absalom with Maacah,
daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur. His first two sons were mothered by his
wives Ahinoam and Abigail, whom he had married while living in the wilderness,
prior to his service to Achish of Gath. His marriage to Maacah must therefore
have taken place in the opening years of his kingship at Hebron.
The political
nature of his marriage to Maacah has been recognized in the past …. It has
always been assumed, however, that Talmai was king of the northern kingdom of
Geshur in the Golan.
It seems more
reasonable to conclude, however, that Talmai was king of the southern Geshur.
Whether or not he remained a Philistine vassal after setting up his own state
at Hebron, it would have been a politically expedient move for David to ally
himself with one or more of the groups he had formerly been raiding as a
Philistine mercenary. Peaceful relations with groups living just to the south
of his new state would have allowed the king to concentrate his limited resources
on other endeavors. His ability to enter a treaty with southern Geshur, had he
remained a Philistine vassal himself, would have been conditioned on the lack
of formal declaration of war between the Philistines and Geshur. No vassal was
allowed to enter a treaty with a declared enemy of its overlord. The postulated
alliance with Talmai, king of Geshur, would have provided David with military
aid when he needed it. At the same time, it could have provided him with a
market for his goods and possibly additional economic opportunities. ….
[End
of quote]
In the Hebrew
name of “Geshur” (×’ְּשׁוּר), I think that the Bible may be
referring to a land, perhaps meaning “Valley of Shur” (Ge Shur), rather
than just to a single site. Compare 1 Samuel 27:8: “Now David and his men went
up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient
times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.)”.
So - and
nicely, it seems, in accordance with this present article - Geshur was a land
that stood somewhat adjacent to Egypt (see Geshuri on Osgood’s
map, his Figure 9).
….
It would have
been more fitting for Talmai to have been the king of a land, rather than of a
single city. Now Edelman has written of this very situation - with her Tel
Masos site in mind (whilst rejecting “Aram” as probably an incorrect gloss):
With the above
comments in mind, Tel Masos becomes an attractive candidate for the political
center of southern Geshur. If one can put any weight in Talmai's
characterization as "king," Tel Masos is the only site south of the
Judahite hills that is large enough to associate with a possible kingdom. In
spite of Finkelstein's suggestion that Masos probably only reached the
political level of a chiefdom, its 200-odd-year existence by the time under
consideration, and its postulated role as a major trans-shipping center and
headquarters for the northwestern branch of the incense trade route, would seem
to have required a developed administration to regulate the flow of goods, and
would seem to presume a stabilized leadership. To me, this suggests its
attainment of statehood and monarchy.
In reviewing
the biblical passages that mention Talmai and Geshur, only 2 Sam. 15:8, which
mentions Absalom's sojourn with his father-in-law in retrospect, associates
Talmai and his Geshur with the better-known northern kingdom. The qualifier
"in Aram" appears after Geshur only in this verse and has the
suspicious appearance of a gloss, since Geshur itself is a sufficient geographical
marker. Elsewhere, references to Talmai and his state (2 Sam. 3:3; 13:37, 38;
14:23; 32; 1 Chron. 3:2) can all be construed to apply to southern Geshur.
It can be noted
that references to northern Geshur are regularly paired with the adjoining
territory of Maacah (Deut. 3:14; Josh. 12:5; 13:3, 11, 13). The single
exception is 1 Chron. 2:23, where it is paired with Aram.
Perhaps the
latter text inspired the gloss in 2 Sam. 15:8. ….
[End
of quote]
Thutmose I’s famous (so-called) “daughter”,
Hatshepsut, who does figure in the
Bible, apparently, but not as a “Pharaoh” (which she would become later,
nonetheless), and who was brilliantly identified by Velikovsky as the biblical “Queen
of Sheba” (or “Queen of the South”), was not specified in Thutmose I’s
documents as his daughter. On this, see e.g.:
The
vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife
Though not of
royal Egyptian blood, Thutmose I had married pharaoh Amenhotep I’s sister,
according to some views. ….
Thutmose I is
generally considered to have become the father of Hatshepsut. “Yet”, according
to Gay Robins” (“The Enigma of Hatshepsut”), “none of Thutmose I's
monuments even mentions his daughter”: https://www.baslibrary.org/archaeology-odyssey/2/1/11
But what I
have suggested is that pharaoh Thutmose I, when crowning Hatshepsut, used a
tri-partite coronation ceremony that uncannily followed the tri-partite pattern
of David’s coronation of his son, Solomon. See my article:
Thutmose I
Crowns Hatshepsut
Tel Masos as the site
of ancient
Beersheba?
“Tel
Masos becomes an attractive candidate for the political center of southern
Geshur.
If one
can put any weight in Talmai's characterization as "king," Tel Masos
is the only site south of the Judahite hills that is large enough to associate
with a possible kingdom”.
Diana Edelman
If ancient Beersheba truly were the capital city of
a southern (“Geshurian”) kingdom (see my):
The Queen of Beer(sheba)
then, also presuming that Diana Edelman is correct
in her above description of Tel Masos as “the only [southern] site … large
enough” - {and despite what I may previously have thought about its suitability}
- Tel Masos may be the only plausible location for the city taken by “Pharaoh
king of Egypt” for his daughter’s dowry (I Kings 9:16), to be regarded (in my
context) as the Geshurian/Gezerian city of Beersheba.
Let us recall from Part One:
https://www.academia.edu/39930129/_Pharaoh_king_of_Egypt_Solomon_and_Sheba_and_the_Gezer_dowry._Part_One_Was_this_another_Gezer_ what
Diana Edelman had to say about Tel Masos (“Tel Masos, Geshur, and David”, JNES, Vol. 47, No. 4, Oct., 1988, p.
256):
With the above comments in mind, Tel Masos becomes an
attractive candidate for the political center of southern Geshur. If one can
put any weight in Talmai's characterization as "king," Tel Masos is
the only site south of the Judahite hills that is large enough to associate
with a possible kingdom. In spite of Finkelstein's suggestion that Masos
probably only reached the political level of a chiefdom, its 200-odd-year
existence by the time under consideration, and its postulated role as a major
trans-shipping center and headquarters for the northwestern branch of the
incense trade route, would seem to have required a developed administration to
regulate the flow of goods, and would seem to presume a stabilized leadership.
To me, this suggests its attainment of statehood and monarchy. ….
[End of quote]
Consider
these descriptions by Edelman, now in the context of the “Queen of (Beer)Sheba”:
…. “only site south of the Judahite hills that
is large enough to associate with a possible kingdom”;
“role as a
major trans-shipping center and headquarters for the northwestern branch of the
incense trade route”;
“a developed
administration to regulate the flow of goods”;
“a
stabilized leadership”;
“attainment
of statehood and monarchy”.
I Kings 10:10: “And she
gave the king 120 talents of gold, large quantities of spices, and precious
stones. Never again were so many spices brought in as those the queen of Sheba
gave to King Solomon”.
It would
greatly streamline things for my revision if the capital city of (presumably a
land) “Gezer”, seized by “Pharaoh king of Egypt”, were the very same city as
that from which his daughter would rule as ‘the Queen of the South’.
According to
my reconstructions, that “Pharaoh” was Thutmose I (18th Egyptian Dynasty), the same
as the biblical Talmai king of Geshur.
And his
“daughter” (so-called) was Tamar, “sister” of Absalom – she becoming ruler of
Egypt and Ethiopia, as Hatshepsut.
The generally
accepted site for ancient Beersheba, Tel Beer-sheba, does not seem to me to fit
well archaeologically – it being mostly too late for the Davidic-Solomonic age
(at least in terms of the revised chronologies), C12th-11th’s BC conventional dating
(this era being far too high).
We know that
the early Patriarchs were there. Abraham probably gave the place its name
(Genesis 21:22-34). That would be Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze. According to
the following chart there was a seemingly insignificant “settlement” at the
site during Chalcolithic:
The city was
built in several phases, as identified by the archaeologists:
|
According to Yohanan
Aharoni (“Excavations at Tel-Beer-sheba 1969-1971”, JSTOR 53-54, 1972, p. 111), city life began there “only in the Iron
age”:
Its
identification with biblical Be'er-sheba is generally accepted since this is the only
true city-mound in the vicinity; and the ancient
name has been preserved in the Arabic name of the mound, Tell es-Seba'. The only scholar
who doubted this identification
was Albrecht Alt. …. From the prominent
appearance of the artificial
mound he concluded that this was a place of Bronze age fortifications, and the biblical
tradition preserved no remembrance of a Canaanite city at Beersheba. Alt's argument may be right;
however, his observations were wrong.
No Canaanite city existed at Tel
Beer-sheba. Our excavations showed that the city was
founded only in the Iron age ….
[End of quote]
The site of Tell Masos has, appropriately for
Abraham’s Beersheba, a Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze level, about which we
read at: https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/tel-masos/
The History of Occupation
The earliest settlement discovered by the excavators in Tel Masos dates
from the Late Chalcolithic period. The remains of the period dating from the
end of the Chalcolithic and beginning of the Early Bronze Age were found
completely covered by the settlement of the Iron Age I period (the period of
the Settlement of the Tribes of Israel—ca 1200 B.C.) [sic]. The Chalcolithic
settlement is about 15 acres in area. The same Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze
Age period is also found in Tel Malhata. The two settlements formed part of a
larger complex of similar settlements along the Wadi Beer-sheba, and one may
assume the existence of smaller settlements between these two.
The inhabitants of Tel Masos lived in caves dug in the loess soil. This
kind of underground housing was common in the culture of Beer-sheba. One such
cave has been excavated in Tel Masos; its pottery assemblage points to the end
of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the transitional phase to the Early
Bronze Age. ….
[End of quote]
Regarding the Davidic -
and hence also Talmaic - archaeological era, the probably temporary Davidic
settlement at Jericho has been located by Dr. John Osgood (as I have quoted
elsewhere) at MB IIC: “One can assume that some repopulation by Israelites
took place in this strong city, and it is certain that there was a place of habitation
at Jericho during David's reign (see 2 Samuel 10:5) MB IIC/LB I by this scheme”.
And we find that Tel Masos, too, was fortified at this approximate time:
Six hundred
meters to the southwest of the main settlement, the remains of a fortified
enclosure from Middle Bronze II were discovered. This fort, which protected
the route running through Wadi Beer-sheba, was occupied for only a short period
in the middle of the 18th century B.C. [sic].
Mackey’s comment: Significantly, the
conventional “18th century B.C.” was actually the time of King Hammurabi of
Babylon, his era needing to be ‘demoted’ on the time scale to the time of David
and Solomon. See e.g. my series:
beginning with:
About both Chalcolithic and Middle
Bronze stratigraphy at Tel Masos we read more at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195065121.001.0001/acref-
and I wonder: Could
the two successive MB forts mentioned below represent the work, now of Thutmose
I (King Talmai), and now of King Solomon? “Within the MB enclosure,
two fortified settlements can be distinguished, the older of which was
demolished when the subsequent one was built”.
The tell owes its formation
to a settlement dated to the end of Iron II (seventh century bce); resettlement
took place, however, at the end of the Byzantine period.
There is a former Iron I
village (1200–1000 bce) [sic] situated northeast of the tell, with some remains
dating to the Chalcolithic period. The fortified enclosure on the southern bank
of the wadi was constructed during the Middle Bronze Age II–III and was
abandoned during the same period.
Altogether, five periods of
occupation can be distinguished: Chalcolithic earth dwellings; a fortified MB
II–III enclosure; an Early Iron Age village; a settlement from the seventh
century bce; and a monastery dating from the seventh–eighth centuries ce.
The Chalcolithic material
is meager and neither the pottery nor the implements exhibit any peculiarities.
The funds come mainly from one subterranean dwelling dug into the loess; later,
in the Iron I, a house was built on top of it. No exact date within the range
of the period from 3600–3200 bce can be given. The site belongs to the
so-called Beersheba culture, known throughout the Negev.
….
Within the MB enclosure, two fortified settlements can be distinguished, the older of which was demolished when the subsequent one was built. The embankment enclosed a square with sides approximately 100 m in length, but a large part of the site had been washed away by the wadi that runs next to it. These settlements probably represent an attempt on the part of the coastal cities to control the route leading to the east; they yielded homogeneous ceramics that date to the seventeenth century bce. ….
….
Within the MB enclosure, two fortified settlements can be distinguished, the older of which was demolished when the subsequent one was built. The embankment enclosed a square with sides approximately 100 m in length, but a large part of the site had been washed away by the wadi that runs next to it. These settlements probably represent an attempt on the part of the coastal cities to control the route leading to the east; they yielded homogeneous ceramics that date to the seventeenth century bce. ….
[End
of quote]
There
is Phoenician evidence, and some Egyptian also, which would be appropriate during
the reign of the cosmopolitan King Solomon: “The diverse nature of this
assemblage shows that the village had wide-ranging connections in every
direction”:
…. The finds from Tel Masos
include both local and imported ceramic wares; an example of early Phoenician
ivory art; and a remarkably large number of copper and bronze objects. The
imported ware include bichrome-style vessels from the Phoenician coast; sherds
of Philistine pottery from the coastal plain; so-called Midianite ware
originating in northwest Arabia; and fragments of Egyptian “flowerpots.” The
diverse nature of this assemblage shows that the village had wide-ranging
connections in every direction. The large quantity of copper and bronze
implements indicates that copperworking played an important role. A scarab made
of steatite bears the motif of a pharaoh defeating his foes ….
[End
of quote]
