by
Damen F. Mackey
As, I think, Noah and the Genesis Flood enable for a radical revision of
the Geological (Ice) and Stone Ages, so will the long life of Moses,
who carefully presents himself as “a new Noah” (see I. Kikawada and A. Quinn’s Before Abraham Was. The Unity of Genesis 1-11, 1985), enable for
a stringent tightening up of what are thought to have been some very powerful Egyptian dynasties, stretched out, in Procrustean fashion, over the ‘bed’
of supposedly two separate Egyptian kingdoms.
A key to understanding the history and chronology of ancient Egypt, and the place of Moses in it, is to recognise, as had Dr. Donovan Courville (in The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, 2 vols., 1971), that the Old and Middle Kingdoms are, at least in part, contemporaneous.
This will immediately cut out hundreds of years of unwanted ‘history’, and remove a lot of baggage and duplication of people and events.
There are, indeed, indications that Egypt’s Old Kingdom was much closer in time to the so-called Middle Kingdom than is realised in the text books.
The following samples are taken entirely from Nicolas Grimal’s
A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell 1994:
P. 67:
“Like his Third Dynasty predecessors, Djoser and Nebka, Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king whom later Egyptian rulers such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legtimize their power”.
P. 71:
“… texts that describe the Fourth Dynasty kings …. It was … quite logical for the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom and later to link those past rulers represented primarily by their buildings with the greatest tendencies towards immoderation, thus distorting the real situation (Posener 1969a: 13). However, it is difficult to accommodate within this theory the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors”.
P. 73:
“A Twelfth Dynasty graffito found in the Wadi Hammamat includes Djedefhor and his half-brother Baefre in the succession of Cheops after Chephren”.
P. 79:
“The attribution of the Maxims to Ptahhotep does not necessarily mean that he was the actual author: the oldest versions date to the Middle Kingdom, and there is no proof that they were originally composed in the Old Kingdom, or, more specifically, at the end of the Fifth Dynasty. The question, moreover, is of no great importance”.
Pp. 80-81:
{Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/ Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}.
Grimal notes the likenesses:
“[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”.
“Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”.
P. 84:
“[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (‘The devotee of Ra’)”.
P. 146:
“The words of Khety III are in fact simply the transposal into the king’s mouth of the Old Kingdom Maxims”.
P. 159:
[Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”.
P. 164:
“[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”.
P. 165:
“There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”.
P. 171:
“Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”.
P. 173:
“… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”.
P. 177:
“… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty”.
…. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s ‘co-regency’ with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”.
P. 178:
“The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”.
Pp. 178-179:
“[Ammenemes III’s ‘black pyramid’ and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”.
“[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”.
“The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”.
P. 180:
“The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”.
P. 181:
“A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …".
As, I think, Noah and the Genesis Flood enable for a radical revision of the Geological (Ice) and Stone Ages, so will the long life of Moses, who carefully presents himself as “a new Noah” (see I. Kikawada and A. Quinn’s Before Abraham Was. The Unity of Genesis 1-11, 1985), enable for a stringent tightening up of what are thought to have been some very powerful Egyptian dynasties, stretched out, in Procrustean fashion, over the ‘bed’ of supposedly two separate Egyptian kingdoms.
From the historical setting that I have so far argued for Joseph, however, in the Third Dynasty, and in the Eleventh Dynasty, it would be expected that, for a start, the infant Moses must have belonged to the early part of the new Fourth Dynasty and the early part of the Twelfth Dynasty.
Many revisionists accept the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt (c. 1991-1783 BC, conventional dating) as being the most likely historical location for the Egyptian career of Moses.
And this is quite contrary to the generally held conventional view that the Egyptian ruler during the Exodus was Ramses II ‘the Great’.
Not only are the conventional dates proposed for Ramses II (c. 1279-1213 BC) quite incompatible with the biblical dating for the Exodus, but the hopelessly mis-dated Ramses II reigned a good half a millennium after the Exodus:
The Complete Ramses II
(6) The Complete Ramses II
Egypt’s Antiquities Minister is adamant that Ramses II was not the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
http://www.aawsat.net/2012/04/article55242593
“Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in Egypt, Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim, asserted that he would never allow the analysis of King Ramses II’s mummy to confirm whether or not he was the long-disputed Pharaoh of the Exodus. Ibrahim said: “What is being rumored in this context is utterly non-scientific and not founded on any sort of evidence”.
In an exclusive interview conducted with the minister in his Zamalek-based office in Cairo, Mohammed Ibrahim stated that Ramses II’s mummy had previously been flown to the French capital of Paris during the 1980s to analyze the water within it, and try to treat the artifact. “But to speak now of the mummy’s examination and analysis is a matter I can never allow because Ramses II is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus and we should not build upon wrong assumptions in the first place.”
Ibrahim cited evidence for his argument with verses from the Holy Quran and the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament, especially the 14th Chapter. “The scenario and sequence of events clearly show that Ramses II could have never been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Based on several given facts and not just one piece of information, inferences have been drawn concluding that the Pharaoh of the Exodus ruled toward the end of the 19th Dynasty. The facts confirm that Ramses II’s reign did not witness any state of unrest, contrary to what is widely known about the Pharaoh of the Exodus’s reign. Moreover, Ramses II’s rule was marked by power and construction. Hence, we can’t say that either Ramses II or his successor Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.”
Regarding the allegation that the Grand Egyptian Museum – currently under construction on the Cairo–Alexandria desert road – has a design featuring the Star of David, thereby not expressing Egyptian identity, Dr. Ibrahim asserted that “This argument is groundless. From a geometric point of view, it is utterly invalid. And from an archeological point of view, the formation and direction of the exhibits is yet to be conclusively decided, for those that say they will face Jerusalem. For example, some have alleged that the statue of Ramses II will be displayed in a certain fashion towards a specific direction.”
Dr. Ibrahim added that there was no prearranged plan to display the antiquities in a particular manner expressing a precise orientation. “Actually, I am amazed at the link between these claims and the argument that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This is a completely baseless argument, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever corroborating that, as I mentioned earlier.” ….
[End of quotes]
The Book of Exodus (coupled with some ancient traditions) gives the following simple scenario for the life of Moses in relation to Egypt, only three major kings:
• A new king (presumably a new dynastic ruler), who knew not, or paid no attention to, the contribution made by Joseph to Egypt. This new king began the oppression of Israel and, as a forerunner to Herod, murdered the male Hebrew children.
• A “Chenephres”, who married a “Merris”, who was Moses’s Egyptian foster-mother. He was jealous of Moses and sent him against Ethiopia with inferior troops, hoping for the demise of Moses (very much like King Saul, later, with David).
Moses, the military genius, triumphed, and was very much loved by the people.
Moses had to flee this king who sought his life over the incident in which Moses killed an Egyptian. Moses fled to Midian for 40 years, finally to be told that those who sought his life – in other words, that dynasty – were all dead.
• The stubborn and hard-hearted ruler during the Plagues and the Exodus.
We are also going to find that, at the end of that new dynasty, a female ruler took the throne for a brief period of time – presumably no males heirs were now alive.
This all amounts basically to a two-man dynasty (and a woman) for the period from the birth of Moses to his return to Egypt from Midian. And this is how I have previously confected it all, incorporating the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties (with the Thirteenth Dynasty also being concurrent, but continuing beyond the Twelfth):
(a) Incorporating Snofru
So far I have identified the biblical ruler (Exodus 1:8) with: KHUFU (Cheops), 4th Dynasty; TETI, 6th Dynasty; and AMENEMES I, 12th Dynasty (with likely inclusions of other kings “Amenemes”).
Now, in this article, the new king’s identity will be significantly expanded.
The first extra name with which I intend here to integrate the new dynastic founder will be SNOFRU (also considered to have been of the 4th Dynasty), whom I have previously found extremely difficult to locate convincingly.
Then, as the article progresses, I shall be looking to integrate into a Mosaïc scheme of things the likewise troublesome 5th Dynasty.
A corollary of my identification of Cheops with the oppressor-king of Exodus 1:8, is that his celebrated successor, Chephren, the husband of Meresankh, becomes the traditional “Chenephres”, husband of “Merris”, who is said to have saved the baby Moses (Artapanus).
{Most of the following quotes will be taken from N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1994)}
SNOFRU
This (somewhat semi-legendary) ruler seems to me to connect well with Cheops and Amenemes I in various ways. For instance:
Great “legendary” reputation
P. 67
.... Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later [?] periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king who later Egyptian rulers [sic] such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legitimize their power.
P. 70
Cheops ... is portrayed in [Papyrus Westcar] as the traditional legendary oriental monarch, good-natured, and eager to be shown magical things, amiable towards his inferiors and interested in the nature of human existence.
P. 159
Like his predecessors [sic] in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler [cf. Exodus 1:8] [Amenemes I] used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti ... who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru ... at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty he had become the model of good-natured kingship to whom the new kings traced their origins.
Cult figure
P. 67
Snofru’s enviable reputation with later rulers, which according to the onomastica was increased by his great popularity with the people, even led to the restoration of Snofru’s mortuary temple at Dahshur. P. 69 ... cult among Middle Kingdom miners in the Sinai.
P. 165 There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara.
P. 70
Cheops was not remembered as fondly as Snofru, although his funerary cult was still attested in the Saite (Twenty-Sixth) Dynasty and he was increasingly popular in the Roman period. According to Papyrus Westcar, he liked to listen to fantastic stories of the reigns of his predecessors.
Black Athena Revisited, p. 52
…. The destinations are mainly cults associated with ... Amenemhet [Amenemes] II ... and perhaps of Amenemhet I as well (cf. the Petrie fragment mentioned by Posener).
P. 170 (back to Grimal)
Ammenemes [Amenemes] III.... his name became closely associated to the [Faiyum] area in the Greco-Roman period, when he was worshipped under the name of Lamares.
Snofru is also associated with a Meresankh, though she is considered to be his mother.
P. 67 [She was] one of Huni’s concubines. There is no definite proof of this ....
Meresankh will become something of a golden thread, linking the traditional “Merris” of Moses’ childhood to the 4th Dynasty (Meresankh) and to the 6th Dynasty (as Ankhenesmerire).
Like his alter ego Cheops, and his alter ego Teti, and his alter ego Amenemes I ....
P. 67 [Snofru’s] reign ... appears to have been both glorious and long-lasting (perhaps as much as forty years).
(Also in common with these king-names), The Palermo Stone suggests that Snofru was a warlike king.
Snofru’s places (tribes) of conquest included:
P. 67
Nubia-Dodekascoenos
P. 68
Libyans
Medjay
(Abu Simbel)
Sinai
P. 69
Syria-Palestine
(Wadi Nasb Wadi Maghara)
Bedouin
These are all the sorts of places we associate, too, with his proposed alter egos.
Snofru’s trading places
... commercial links with Lebanon and Syria via the Phoenician seaboard. He had a fleet of 40 vessels.
Snofru built
... ships, fortresses, palaces and temples ...
Three pyramids.
If Snofru were Cheops, as I am arguing, then Snofru’s three pyramids - built perhaps early in his reign - would have been the perfect preparation for his later masterpiece, the Great Pyramid at Giza.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu “Under Sneferu [Snofru], there was a major evolution in monumental pyramid structures, which would lead to Khufu's Great Pyramid, which would be seen as the pinnacle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom's majesty and splendour, and as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World”.
Less positive picture of the king
P. 71
... it is difficult to accommodate within this theory [building immoderation = unpopularity] the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors.
Pp. 69-70
[Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule, and Herodotus’ version of events chose to emphasise his cruelty.
Taken from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2120.htm
124. ... Cheops became king over them and brought them to every kind of evil: for he shut up all the temples, and having first kept them from sacrificing there, he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually.
Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this, they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground chambers on the hill upon which the pyramids stand, which he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile.
For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years; and the pyramid is square, each side measuring eight hundred feet, and the height of it is the same. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect manner, not one of the stones being less than thirty feet in length.
Moreover:
126. Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me); but she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to her to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length.
Menkaure, or Mycerinus, who will also figure in this series (see c.), may have been similarly disrespectful to his daughter:
https://analog-antiquarian.net/2019/01/11/chapter-1-the-charlatan-and-the-gossip/
Legend had it that Menkaure had a daughter who was very special to him. One version of the tale said that she died of natural causes, whereupon in his grief he had a life-size wooden cow gilt with gold built as a repository for her remains. This, Herodotus claimed, could still be seen in his time in the city of Sais, “placed within the royal palace in a chamber which was greatly adorned; and they offer incense of all kinds before it every day, and each night a lamp burns beside it all through the night.
Every year it is carried forth from the chamber, for they say that she asked of her father Mykerinos, when she was dying, that she might look upon the sun once in the year.”
Another, darker version of the tale had it that Menkaure had been rather too enamored of his daughter. She sought refuge from his unwelcome advances with his concubines, but they betrayed her, and her father proceeded to “ravish” her. She hanged herself in the aftermath, whereupon a remorse-stricken Menkaure buried her in the gilt cow and her mother the queen cut off the hands of the concubines who had betrayed her. This explained why, in a chamber near that of the cow in Herodotus’s time, there stood many statues of women with the hands lopped off, “still lying at their feet even down to my time.”
P. 170
Ammenemes III ....This economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works that make the reign of Ammenemes III one of the summits of state absolutism.
Recall: “[Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule …”.
(b) Incorporating Menkaure
Continuing with N. Grimal
P. 74
… Menkaure (‘Stable are the kau of Ra’), or, to take Herodotus’ transcription, Mycerinus.
We recall Menkaure’s allegedly shameful treatment of his own daughter, reminiscent of Cheops’ own prostituting of his daughter, at least according to Herodotus.
Grimal continues: “Manetho is uncertain about the length of his reign, which was probably eighteen years rather than twenty-eight”.
Whilst this may not accord so well with some of our longer-reigning (say forty years) alter egos, it is fascinating, nonetheless, that Phouka
(http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn04/05menkaure.html
also has for Menkaure a Manethonian figure of sixty-three years, a figure that we have already met in the case of two other of our alter egos, Cheops and Djedefre.
Menkaure may also enable us to incorporate into our revisionist mix the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty via Menkaure’s virtual namesake, Menkauhor, whose reign is otherwise “poorly known” (p. 74).
Grimal continues: “… like Neuserre [Menkauhor] sent expeditions to the Sinai mines …”.
As did our other alter egos.
We read above that Menkauhor is “poorly known”, a phrase that – along with “little known” – one encounters time and time again in ancient history.
That is because kings, kingdoms, have been split up into pieces by historians and scattered.
The fact that (p. 74):
… Menkauhor’s pyramid has not yet been identified, and it is difficult to decide whether it is likely to have been at Dahshur, or at northern Saqqara where a personal cult was dedicated to him in the New Kingdom …, could lead us now to the conclusion that Menkauhor’s missing pyramid may have been Menkaure’s (far from missing) pyramid at Giza.
(Soon we shall read about a supposedly missing sun temple as well).
Note, again (from quote above), that Menkauhor became – like the other alter egos – a “cult” figure.
(c) Incorporating Sahure
The following description of the Fifth Dynasty expansion by N. Grimal could just as well have been written of the Sixth, the Twelfth, Egyptian dynasties. It is apparently all one and the same.
P. 76
During the fifth Dynasty Egypt seems to have been opened up to the outside world, both northwards and southwards. The reliefs in the mortuary temple built by …. Sahure, include the usual … conquered countries ….
To which Grimal adds: “… (belonging more to rhetoric than to historical evidence)”.
This is another observation that we frequently encounter in ancient history, a failure to believe a straightforward record only because the limited knowledge of historians prevents them from grasping the bigger picture.
However, as Grimal then goes on to tell:
… but they also show the return [sic] of a maritime trading expedition probably from Byblos, as well as forays into the Syrian hinterland; if the references to bears in these region are to be believed. A campaign against the Libyans has also been dated to Sahure’s reign ….
Grimal then becomes negative again, adding: “… although there is some doubt surrounding this “.
Re trade to Byblos, we find M. Bernal (Black Athena, p. 149) mentioning three Old Kingdom names in connection with it, all of whom are “new king” alter egos of mine: “… the names of Menkauḥōr and Izozi [= Isesi, to be discussed in (e)] as well as that of Sahureˁ …”.
Sahure’s trade and exploits read like Snofru again, as well as others:
… primarily economic: the exploitation of mines in the Sinai, diorite quarrying to the west of Aswan and an expedition to Punt, which is mentioned in the Palermo Stone and perhaps also depicted on the reliefs in Sahure’s mortuary temple.
That “diorite quarrying” no doubt served to provide the material for superb 4th dynasty statues:
In one of Sahure’s names, Sephris (Manetho), I think that we might come close to Cheops’ name of Suphis (Manetho):
http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn04/02khufu.html
(d) Incorporating Djedkare
Just as in the case of the mighty and long-reigning Khufu (Cheops), one may find it very hard to imagine that a ruler of the significance of Djedkare Isesi (Assa), whose reign may have been as long as forty years - a figure that we have already found connected with the reign of Snofru - has only one image of which to boast: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedkare/
“The only image of the king is from a temple to Osiris …”.
N. Grimal tells:
P. 79
[Djedkare’s] reign was long: Manetho suggests that it lasted about forty years, but this figure is not confirmed by the Turin Canon, which suggests a reign of only twenty-eight years.
Djedkare Isesi is thought to have had a famous and scholarly noble named Ptahhotep, who apparently lived for 110 years. Because of this particular age, and because of the fact that Ptahhotep’s writings bear striking resemblances to certain Hebrew wisdom (e.g. Proverbs), I had felt constrained to identify Ptahhotep with (Imhotep =) biblical Joseph of Egypt, who lived to be 110 years of age (Genesis 50:26).
This duration, 110 years, would become something of a mythical age figure in Egypt.
(Joshua also lived until the age of 110, Joshua 24:29)
But in this challenging endeavour it does not serve to have pre-conceived ideas.
Try as I may, Djedkare Isesi himself just would not lend himself to the era of Joseph, to any sort of a fit with Joseph’s (Imhotep’s) master, Horus Netjerikhet.
I am now of the view that Djedkare, too, is an alter ego of the (now most substantial) “new king” of Exodus 1:8.
Fittingly (with Djedkare as an alter ego, I think, of 4th dynasty names), we find Djedkare Isesi adhering to “the Heliopolitan dogma”.
P. 78
[Isesi] … without … moving away from the Heliopolitan dogma. He chose the name Djedkare – ‘The Ka of Ra is Stable’ – as his nsw-bity (king of Upper and Lower Egypt) title, thus placing himself under the protection of Ra ….
Grimal proceeds to add here, “… but he did not build a sun temple …”.
Neuserre, though, upon whom I have only briefly touched, and who “is remembered mainly for his sun temple at Abu Ghurob”, may be an alter ego of Djedkare.
At: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedkare/ a connection is made between Neuserre (Niuserre) and Menkauhor (a previous alter ego):
“[Djedkare] may have been the son of his predecessor Menkauhor, but there is no positive evidence of this and it is also proposed by some that he was the son of Niuserre”.
More likely, I think, Djedkare was Menkauhor, was Neuserre.
The Turin Canon’s estimation of Djedkare’s reign length, “twenty-eight years”, comes close to Neuserre’s estimated (p. 77), “about twenty-five years”.
The name Meresankh, our ‘golden thread’, also re-emerges in connection with the Fifth Dynasty:
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedkare/
“[Djedkare] may have been married to Meresankh [so-called] IV who was buried in the main necropolis in Saqqara, but it is also possible that Meresankh was the wife of Menkauhor”.
As with Khufu/Cheops, Meresankh (“Merris”) would have been, instead, the daughter (not wife), who married the succeeding ruler.
Djedkare can remind one also of the previously discussed Sahure – the latter’s Horus and Nebty names, respectively, Neb-khau and Neb-khau-nebty, are replaced by just the one element (Djed) in Djedkare’s corresponding names, Djed-khau and Djed-khau-nebty.
Grimal makes this comparison between Sahure and Djedkare Isesi:
P. 79
Like Sahure, [Isesi] pursued a vigorous foreign policy that led him in similar directions [also, again, like Snofru]: to the Sinai, where two expeditions at ten-year intervals are recorded at Wadi Maghara; to the diorite quarries west of Abu Simbel; and further afield to Byblos and the land of Punt.
There is also a Merenre connection – {for more on Merenre, see (f)}: “Isesi’s expedition to Punt, mentioned in a graffito found at the lower Nubian site of Tomas, was evidently still remembered [sic] in the time of Merenre”.
But this (e.g. Nubian site of Tomas) also connects perfectly with Teti (founder of the 6th Dynasty), whom I have already linked with the “new king”, especially akin to his persona in Amenemes I.
Moses emerges during this dynasty as (the semi-legendary) Sinuhe, and as the solidly historical Vizier and Chief Judge, Mentuhotep.
On Teti, Grimal has written:
P. 81
[Teti] … was able to continue [sic] many of the international links of the Fifth Dynasty: he maintained relations with Byblos and perhaps also with Punt and Nubia, at least as far as the site of Tomas in northern Nubia.
As with Djedkare, so with Menkauhor (Menkaure?), so with Teti, the chief officials and governors appear to have been allowed greater power. Thus:
P. 79
The acquisition of greater powers by officials continued during Isesi’s reign, leading to the development of a virtual feudal system.
Likewise, with suggested alter ego Menkauhor:
P. 78
It was during this period that the provincial governors and court officials gained greater power and independence, creating an unstoppable movement which essentially threatened the central authority.
Likewise, with suggested alter ego Teti:
P. 80
Thus ensconced in the legitimate royal line, [Teti] pursued a policy of co-operation with the nobles ….
P. 81: “Clearly, Teti’s policy of pacifying the nobles bore fruit”.
Likewise, with suggested alter ego Amenemes I:
P. 160
… he allowed those nomarchs who had supported his cause … to retain their power … he reinforced their authority by reviving [?] ancient rites.
Nor is one now surprised to read (p. 80): “… there were a good number of officials who served under Djedkare and Wenis as well as Teti …”, because this historical period in my revision (including Wenis in Part Two later) encompasses only two successive reigns.
Correspondingly, we find in Auguste Mariette’s (https://pharaoh.se/library-vol-9)
Note on a fragment of the Royal Papyrus and the Sixth Dynasty of Manetho
the sequence … Tet [Teti], Unas [Wenis]
….
They read: 1. Menkeher 2. Tet 3. Unas.
(e) Incorporating Merenre
The era of Merenre introduces us to some key characters, including my 6th Dynasty Moses: WENI (already discussed).
As well there is “Khui, a noble from Abydos” (p. 83), who is my Khufu (Cheops).
Khui, in turn, had a daughter Ankhenesmerire (i.e., Meresankh), who is (my) Khufu’s daughter, Meresankh, the “Merris” of Moses’ legend.
Weni, who is often described as “a genius”, expresses his career (Autobiography) “in a perfect literary form”.
As Moses (my view), he would go on substantially to write the Pentateuch.
Needless to say, I am instinctively fusing Merenre I and II - the latter thought to have been little known: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/merenreII/
“His name appears on a damaged false door inscribed with Sa-nesu semsu Nemtyemsaf (“The elder king’s son Nemtyemsaf” – i.e dating to the period before he became king) near the pyramid of Neith.
His name as a king also appears on a decree protecting the cult of queens Ankhesenmerire and Neith, also from pyramid complex of Neith in Southern Saqqara. We know little else about this king”.
The name Merenre means ‘Beloved of Ra’.
However, Manetho also gives him Cheops’ other name, Suphis, as Mentusuphis (or Methusuphis).
Merenre was again, like his presumed alter egos, warlike, “adopting Antiemdjaf … Anti was a falcon-god of war …”.
He followed similar economic patterns, too.
P. 84
… [Merenre] continued to exploit the mines in the Sinai and, to provide materials for the construction of his pyramid, the quarries in Nubia, at Aswan and at Hatnub, where a graffiti confirms the exploits recounted by Weni in his autobiography … maintaining control of Upper Egypt and delegating its administration to Weni.
And so on it goes, round and round: Sinai, Nubia, Aswan ….
Here is that Tomas again:
P. 85
During Merenre’s reign the policy of Egyptian expansion into Nubia bore fruit, judging from inscriptions left by successive expeditions to Tomas.
…. There is evidence that Merenre was not only active in these places … but also sent officials to maintain Egyptian rule over Nubia ….
On p. 168 we learn that Sesostris III (probably our “new king” of Exodus 1:8’s actual successor – he to be considered in Part Two), “… began by enlarging the canal that Merenre had built near Shellal to allow boats to pass through the rapids of Aswan”.
In my revision this activity of Sesostris would have occurred soon after the death of Merenre.
In conventional history it would have been a time distance of roughly (2260 – 1860 =) 400 years.
Finally, just as we have found that our founder king (Teti; Amenemes I) had come to a sticky end, having been murdered, so, too, it may have been with Merenre.
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/merenreII/
“However, according to Herodotus, Merenre was murdered, forcing his queen, Nitocris, to take revenge before committing suicide”.
In the course of this section the following names all became potential candidates for reconstructing the “new king” of Exodus 1:8:
SNOFRU; KHUFU; DJEDEFRE; MENKAURE;
MENKAUHOR; NEUSERRE; SAHURE; DJEDKARE ISESI;
TETI; MERENRE;
AMENEMES I (AND PERHAPS II-IV)
That is a conventional time span of some (2600 – 1800 =) 800 YEARS!
