Does Ivory Inlay Engraving from הַר מְגִדּוֹ Depict ShᵊlomꞋoh's Throne?

The "Two-Century Enigma"

Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ: B.C.E. 15^th Century Or 13^th Century?

B.C.E. 15^th Century Dating Of Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ Corroborates My Biblical Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart”

Pâ•qidꞋ  Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu

Ivory inlay of Kᵊna•an•iꞋ king on his throne, with kᵊruvꞋ sides, a bit over a century before Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh (ca. B.C.E. 1031-992) and ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-MëlꞋëkh (ca. B.C.E. 991-951). The ivory inlay is from MᵊgidꞋō (Stratum VIIA, ca. B.C.E. 1130).

Update 2002.12.31 & 2014.12 – Until recent decades, the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ was known to have taken place in the B.C.E. 13^th century because [a] all evidence demonstrates it happened at least that long ago and [b] Rameses the Great is known, with great reliability from other sources, to have lived in the B.C.E. 13^th century and Exodus 1.11 proves that he was Par•ohꞋ before the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ – and the Bible is right, right?.

But then the preponderance of evidence kept pointing two centuries before Rameses, to the B.C.E. 15^th century while all other evidence was unhelpful in dating the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ. Evidence supporting the B.C.E. 13^th century dating, apart from that Bible verse, dwindled as every shred proved unreliable or plain wrong – except for that Bible verse. Hence, the world of archeology split between those following the evidence to the new, B.C.E. 15^th century dating of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ, who forced to reject the Bible (whereupon, they threw it out in its entirety and with excessive and vindictive vigor), and those who followed the B.C.E. 13^th century Biblical dating of dating of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ, who remain forced to reject the evidence – the "Two Century Enigma"; an archeological earthquake that emanated a tsunami of Bible- and religious-bashing and atheist-worship as the new archeological correctness.

 "What a revoltin' development this is!"

This is yet another case like Copernicus, in which those following today's Renaissance in researching real-world evidence are turning out (to their own dismay) to be following the Bible of the Creator-Singularity of the universe, exposing, by contrast, religious traditionalists as shallow and intellectually blind followers of superficial misunderstandings of the Bible – like the Christian Church in the days of Copernicus (and like both the Christian Church, the Muslim masses and Ultra-Orthodox Jews today). Neither the Ta•na"khꞋ nor the Creator-Singularity are the problem. The shallowness, and often anti-science beliefs, of institutional clerics who claim to interpret, and often override, the Ta•na"khꞋ and Creator-Singularity are always the problem.

Science vs Traditional Biblicists' Errors; Not Science vs Bible

I follow Ta•na"khꞋ and Tor•âhꞋ. Yet, as I elaborated in my 2005 book, The Mirrored Sphinxes and, before that, since 1999 in this website (see, inter alia, Pâ•râsh•atꞋ Shᵊm•otꞋ), I've long dated the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ to B.C.E. 15^th century (ca. B.C.E. 1453, see my Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart”). In Egyptologists' parlance, this is known as the 18^th Dynasty of the New Kingdom. In archeologists' technospeak, this is the Late Bronze Age 1-a (LBIA, B.C.E. 1550-1479), the period from the Pharaonic princess of Shᵊm•otꞋ 2.5 who became Queen-Par•ohꞋ Khât-shepꞋset (reign ca. B.C.E. 1504-1483), ranging to the Late Bronze Age 1-b (LBIB, B.C.E. 1479-1400) of her son, Tut Moses III (reign ca. B.C.E. 1483-1450), the Par•ohꞋ of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ (ca. B.C.E. 1453).

Scientists Prefer Models

Ancient historical records were all primarily internally – nationally – oriented. Connections corresponding to events and histories in other countries were details included only when the writers regarded the detail as enhancing the writer's goal of instilling national pride in the masses of their internal audience. In most cases, the Bible being a glaring exception, the goal was national pride in a glorious history. Shameful episodes and leaders were excluded and even expunged from the record. These created gaps in the record that didn't mesh with external records or B.C.E. year chronology. The result is frequent distortions in each of the historical records, rarely at corresponding points in B.C.E. years, across all of the accounts. Historians, archeologists and Egyptologists have attempted to correlate these different records by artificially stretching the reigns of some leaders, telescoping other reigns or some combination of the two. The "Two-Century Enigma" introduced yet another, this time enormous, chasm grossly distorting the correspondence between the chronological record in B.C.E. years, the Biblical account, the Egyptologists' account and even the archeologists' – particularly the Biblical "Arts" archeologists' – findings.

Historians, archeologists and Egyptologists, unable to resolve the Two-Century Enigma, extricated themselves from the hard dates in years B.C.E. by floating internally-consistent models anchored to hard dates only at a few, near certain, events whose dates could be fixed with relative certainty—like the date of the destruction of the first Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, the Syrian Conquest, the Shishaq Campaign and the end of the Egyptian presence in Kᵊna•anꞋ. Thus, each began to float above hard dates with only an occasional fixed point. Contradictions between the models at intermediate points no longer existed to grind the gears – except for the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ that unalterably bound Egyptian history to Israeli history, in which Biblical "Arts" archeologists degrees interposed an unwanted and inflammatory 2-century gap impossibility. Models, as long as they are internally consistent, allow scientists to skirt these contradictions while continuing to develop their internal models and expand their knowledge in a given area (e.g., Egyptology, archeology). Focusing on a specialized model minimizes being constantly ground to a halt by a contradiction in real world correspondence to the other historical accounts and their models.

Reverberations of the "Two Century Enigma"

The הַר מְגִדּוֹ Ivory Throne Inlay

During the (still ongoing) arguments over the "Two Century Enigma," proponents of the B.C.E. 13^th century Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ dating either have to telescope 2 centuries of Egyptian (and all other Middle Eastern) history relative to Israeli history or stretch Israeli history 2 centuries relative to Egyptian (and all other Middle Eastern) history, or some combination. Remnants of these artificial distortions, and repercussions, continue to reverberate among (Biblical "Arts" vs "anti-Biblical" science) archeologists to account for the impossible discrepancy until the B.C.E. 15^th century dating – relatively recently – began to predominate, despite earlier Biblical "Arts" archeologists.

The Lost Testament by atheist English musician with a degree in photography whose hobby is Egyptology, David Rohl, properly identifies the Par•ohꞋ of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ as Tut Moses III following most recent archeologists as well as my findings (Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart”). The earlier dating has for decades been drawing a growing number of adherents (who seem to have plagiarized some of my research work and contributions that I've published and copyrighted for several decades rather than acknowledge and cite a Mensan researcher without a Ph.D.). The earlier dating has, in recent decades – since a few years after I began publishing, increasingly retrieved adherents from the later, B.C.E. 13-century dating, of the Biblical "Arts" archeologists in the tradition of William F. Albright, et al..

Referring to this ivory inlay depicting a king on a throne, "According to Rohl, who is stirring controversy in the academic departments that study the Ancient Near East, Solomon is no further away than the Rockefeller Museum, a few minutes drive from my Jerusalem apartment. Or at least his portrait is."  

In his 1992 Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences Fellowship Lecture, Rediscovering Ancient Israel, Rohl remarked, "The design of the Solomonic throne is reminiscent of the representation of both the throne of [Akhirâm] of Byblos, carved on his sarcophagus, and the throne of a Late Bronze Age Levantine ruler, carved on the ivory handle found in the [הַר מְגִדּוֹ] ivory cache of Stratum VIIA (possibly manufactured during the period of Stratum VIIB). Both of these thrones have winged sphinxes acting as arm-rests. In virtually every respect the archaeological phase known as Late Bronze Age IIB reflects admirably the era of [ShᵊlomꞋoh] as handed down to us in the [Ta•na"khꞋ]." (pp. 36-7).

"Discoveries at many sites have made ivory veneered furniture a familiar product of the ancient Near East. The manufacture was well-established by the Late Bronze Age (e.g. at הַר מְגִדּוֹ)…"

Apparently stretching Middle East history by using some of the "Two-Century Enigma" distortions borrowed from the B.C.E. 13-century dating, advocated by earlier Biblical "Arts" archeologists, Rohl pulls Stratum VIIA of הַר מְגִדּוֹ from the B.C.E. 12^th century dating of most archeologists about 2 centuries forward into the B.C.E. 10^th century of ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-MëlꞋëkh (ca. B.C.E. 991-951, see my Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart”).

Accepting the dating of most archeologists, IMO this ivory inlay depicts a king of Kᵊna•anꞋ from ca. B.C.E. 12^th century, exemplifying what the future throne of ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-MëlꞋëkh probably very much looked like. When the accuracy of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart” is realized the physical evidence is easily incorporated and falls in place. Notice the doves (symbols of a peaceful reign… and, 2 centuries later, a king of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ named, ShᵊlomꞋoh, meaning "peace"). Notice, also, the kᵊruvꞋ (not the popular, anachronistic and Hellenized Greek Σφιγξ) forming the side of his throne.

Ra-Moses II, the Great Preceded the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ? — The Verse

The fulcrum underpinning the B.C.E. 13-century dating of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ was one single Biblical verse that was ubiquitously understood to anchor the reign of Ra-Moses II, the Great (B.C.E. 1279-1213) as preceding the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ.

Pi-Tom – Irriga­tion ditch beside field that covers the ruins of the remain­ing foundations, 2 km south of today's Qantir, near modern Avaris in the Egyptian Nile Delta

Pi-Ra-Moses – later Djanet morphed to Tanis – in the Egyptian Nile Delta

The error, introduced by "Arts" major archeologists, and still intransigently accepted by many "Arts" archeologists who have become career-ossified, is based on a misunderstanding of a passage of Scripture that referred to an Egyptian city, Pi-Tom ( in the Nile Delta on an ancient tributary, long-since dried-up, of the Nile. Further complicating the identification and dating of this city, archeologists have demonstrated that, in B.C.E. 1047, consequent to the drying up of the local tributary of the Nile (the royal city being dependent on accessibility by Nile barge), Sosthenes moved – carried – the entire city, stone by stone, 22 km (14 mi) north to Djanet (later Tanis), in the Delta, on a traversable tributary of the Nile.

By the time the Books of Tor•âhꞋ, which had been transmitted exclusively orally for millennia, were being copied by scribes, Djanet – originally Pi-Tom ( built by the Israelis – had been renovated by Ra-Moses the Great (B.C.E. 1304-1237), who, according to long-held Egyptian Pharaonic tradition, renamed the renovated city, at the second location, from an "old" incarnation (Par•ohꞋ) of god to his incarnation of god: Pi-Ra-Moses), according to Shᵊm•otꞋ 1.11, which should be understood:

Lower (northern) Egypt Nile Delta showing Pi-Tom (Qantir-Avaris) and Pi-Ra-Moses (Tanis).

Then they set up over [am Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ] Ministers of Taxes, in order to afflict [hâ-âm] in their burdens; and [hâ-âm] built the cities of מִסְכְּנוֹת for Par•ohꞋ: Pi-Tom, i.e., Pi-Ra-mᵊseisꞋ.

Most archeologists' datings still remain a couple of enigmatic and self-contradicting centuries off because of this error of insisting that the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ (B.C.E. 15^th century; ca. B.C.E. 1453, see my Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart”) was subsequent to Ra-Moses the Great (B.C.E. 13^th century).

Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart” also corroborates that the Par•ohꞋ when Mosh•ëhꞋ was born was Amun-hotep I. It was his daughter, the royal Pharaonic princess (and later Queen-Par•ohꞋ) Khât-shepꞋset, who found Mosh•ëhꞋ among the reeds of the Nile, adopted him and gave him his Pharaonic Egyptian name: Moses, transliterated into Hebrew as Mosh•ëhꞋ.

Each royal Pharaonic personage was also designated an apotheotic name. In Moses' case, this seems to have been Sen-en-mut. The name(s) refer(s) to Khât-shepꞋset’s belief that Mosh•ëhꞋ was Horus – found in the Nile – complementing her self-identification as the incarnation of Isis.

"From [the] Egyptian myth left on the walls of the pyramids we learn that the Nile delta was where the Egyptians believed Isis had hidden among the bulrushes [of the Nile] with her man-God son, Horus. Members of the royal Egyptian family viewed themselves as deities. When Princess Khât-shepꞋset saw the basket woven of bulrushes in the Nile, in the Delta, bearing the mysterious infant (Mosh•ëhꞋ) she must have thought, 'Horus!' It was this association that Mosh•ëhꞋ’s parents, A•mᵊr•âmꞋ and Yō•khêvꞋêd Bën-Lei•wiꞋ, had counted on."

After becoming the only female Par•ohꞋ ever, Khât-shepꞋset (viewing herself as Isis) likely made Mosh•ëhꞋ (her Horus) the behind-the-scenes power over Egypt — as history documents that the Pharaonic family, practicing incest as a matter of "keeping the royal bloodline pure," she certainly regarded her adopted lover-brother, Sen-en-mut!!!

Interestingly, the history of Khât-shepꞋset is the only history expunged from the Egyptian records depicted on the walls of the Temple of Karnak and she is the only Par•ohꞋ all of whose images were defaced throughout Egypt, leaving only the defaced images as an expunged record of the "Mystery Queen Par•ohꞋ." It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that her alliance with Mosh•ëhꞋ (aka Sen-en-mut?), leader of the greatest epic in history, the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ against Egypt, was the reason.

© 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher