Post by caonedh on Mar 23, 2013 1:44:24 GMT -8
<a manilla envelope lays on Tess Auerbach's desk. On it is a yellow post it which reads, "As promised, this is what I've been working on. Ken Loper.">
As Atenists begin to fully take over the area around the so called "City of the Sun God," and as I was somewhat directionless, I decided that the best use of my skills was to dust off my old Mercer Heiroglyphic Grammer and try to find corelations between the emergence of the Aten cult both today and in the later 18th dynasty. Most of my work is thus far only speculative; the finds I am looking for would be the greatist triumph in Egyptology since the discovery of King Tut.
The reason that I believe that finding this corelation is important is so that we can understand what drives the Atenists. Of course, many of the current cultists we see are brain washed and filth infected, but a good number of people had to have been drawn to the Aten in the first place. The so called Prophet being the most prominent example, but there surely must have been others. Given my skill set and my inability to interview any living Atenists without getting exploded, I have thus far focused my attention on the Archaeology.
That leads us, of course, to Akhenaten. One of the most compelling and contentious arguments in Egyptology is why Akhenaten would abandon the gods of his ancestors for this new god (especially considering that in this religion, some of those gods WERE his ancestor). To this, I refer back to three known points about Akhenaten; one, he identified Aten and a previous god, Amon Re, as the same god, only newly discovered; two, he did not claim the other gods were false, he simply did not worship them in Amarna, and three, he did not give up the notion of his own godhood upon his death.
These facts have led me to two inferences. The first is that the Aten probably fooled the man who was then Amenhotep IV into believing that he was an avatar of a known god, a starting point from which he could corrupt the young Pharoah. The second inference is that there must have been at least some sort of social movement within Eighteenth dynasty culture that would have led to some people being ready to accept a pseudo-monotheistic religion. After all, a city isn't a city until there are people there, and Tel Amarna at least had a demonstrably large population during Akhenatens reign (as well as that of his immediate successors until Tutankhamon).
This is where my research has been focused; what event might have occurred to facilitate such a shift in paradigm for the Egyptian people? My current theory is that it was the event known today as the Exodus. The incident at the Red Sea might have shaken the faith of the Egyptian people, who lost so many soldiers (and, according to the Hebrews, the Pharoah himself) in the tragedy. How could the God of Abraham prove so much more powerful than the multitude of their gods? Science has already proven that it is physically possible, either through an earthquake or the phenomenon known as Wind Setdown (beautifully described in this Huffington Post video www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/parting-red-sea-science_n_739229.html), to have enough drainage of the Red Sea into the Lake of Tanis to make a crossing. All things being equal, we have to believe that the Hebrews did use such a crossing, and that at least some of the pursuing Egyptians were caught when the waters returned (though probably not in the manner described in movies. More likely the wheels of their chariots got stuck in mud that would have been nearly impossible to get out of given the average weight of a chariot car).
The Pharaoh of the Exodus is not named. Many Judeo-Christian scholars believe that it was Ramses (or Rameses if you prefer) the Great, while many Archaeologists believe that it was Thutmosis III. Having gone over the archaeology, theories of when modern histories line up with Egyptian timelines, and the words of the Bible, I do not believe that either is possible. Ramesses was far too late archaeologically; he was the third Pharoah of the 19th dynasty, and probably was ruling around the time the books of Moses were being written down in their final form in Jerusalem, hence the mention of places named after him; they were describing lands with names that their people would be able to recognize.
Thutmosis III presents a different problem. The first and foremost was the way he came into the throne; he was proceded by his mother, Hatshepsut. With the vitriol aimed at the Exodus Pharoah, would not the Hebrews pointed out that his own mother did not think him fit for rule if the Exodus Pharoah was Thutmosis? And secondly, Thutmosis III is considered by most to be a military genius; he expanded the Egyptian Empire by more than double with his forays into the upper Nile and Syro-Palestine. A military genius would know better than to send his armored men and chariots after slaves that he himself let lose.
And a final arguement makes either Ramesses or Thutmosis bad options for the Exodus Pharoah; their names. The root of both names, Mses, is the sum total of the name of Moses. It means, litterally, "child" or "born of." Ra-mses means "Child of Ra", Thut-mses "Child of Thoth." If the story of Moses being found in the river are true, it makes sense for him to be named simply "child," especially if it was seen to honor the current Pharoah. It also would have been unseemly, given the fact that he would have grown up alongside the Prince, for them to have the same base name; it might have been construed as an insult to his honor, and more to the point might have led to confusion among the commoners.
This is why I believe Amenhotep II, son of Thutmosis III, is the likely candidate. The Pharoah of Moses' birth lived a long time; through Moses' adolescence and through most of his time in desert exile. Thutmosis is thought to have ruled for 54 years. There are also stela that suggest that at least three of Amenhotep II's children died, including one that was named, Amenehmet. This naming suggests that this son may have been an eldest or a favored son... and his death would fit into the Biblical story. If I am correct, then the Exodus would have occured in the time of Akhenaten's Great Grandfather, giving plenty of time for the social changes I have suggested previously to occur, but not so much time as to have made the Exodus into a legend or fairytale by the people. It is also worth noting that, with the exception of one raid into Syria by Amenhotep II (while the Isrealites were still wandering the region), the Egyptian army steered clear of Syro-Palestine up to and including Akhenaten's reign. It is theorized that the historical Isrealites probably earned a reputation as mercenaries under Jacob (or they would never have had the skill in arms to take walled cities like Jericho). While correlation does not equal causation, it is a coincidence worth noting that Egypt never tried to take revenge on the Isrealites for the debacle at the Red Sea Crossing.
There are problems with my theory. The most glaring is that the Hebrews are emphatic that the Pharoah of the Exodus died in the Red Sea. Amenhotep II did not die; in fact, we have his mummy. I cannot scientifically dispute this claim. But I'm not a real scientist, so fuck it....they're lying. No way in God's Green Earth did a Pharoah, confronted with something he would have seen as paranormal, a miracle sent by the God of his enemy, strut in there like it happened every day. He would have sent his men in, and they would have died, but he would have stayed where it was safe. If you prefer, I can say they're "embellishing the truth."
I continue my search through Egypt. Hopefully I will find something that will tell me, at least, if I'm on the right path or if I'm full of it. And, of course, I will not hesitate to pause my research in aid of a dictated investigation. However, I do think my research is key if we are ever going to get a handle on Egypt and prevent the spread of Atenism to other Middle Eastern nations, and the world.
As Atenists begin to fully take over the area around the so called "City of the Sun God," and as I was somewhat directionless, I decided that the best use of my skills was to dust off my old Mercer Heiroglyphic Grammer and try to find corelations between the emergence of the Aten cult both today and in the later 18th dynasty. Most of my work is thus far only speculative; the finds I am looking for would be the greatist triumph in Egyptology since the discovery of King Tut.
The reason that I believe that finding this corelation is important is so that we can understand what drives the Atenists. Of course, many of the current cultists we see are brain washed and filth infected, but a good number of people had to have been drawn to the Aten in the first place. The so called Prophet being the most prominent example, but there surely must have been others. Given my skill set and my inability to interview any living Atenists without getting exploded, I have thus far focused my attention on the Archaeology.
That leads us, of course, to Akhenaten. One of the most compelling and contentious arguments in Egyptology is why Akhenaten would abandon the gods of his ancestors for this new god (especially considering that in this religion, some of those gods WERE his ancestor). To this, I refer back to three known points about Akhenaten; one, he identified Aten and a previous god, Amon Re, as the same god, only newly discovered; two, he did not claim the other gods were false, he simply did not worship them in Amarna, and three, he did not give up the notion of his own godhood upon his death.
These facts have led me to two inferences. The first is that the Aten probably fooled the man who was then Amenhotep IV into believing that he was an avatar of a known god, a starting point from which he could corrupt the young Pharoah. The second inference is that there must have been at least some sort of social movement within Eighteenth dynasty culture that would have led to some people being ready to accept a pseudo-monotheistic religion. After all, a city isn't a city until there are people there, and Tel Amarna at least had a demonstrably large population during Akhenatens reign (as well as that of his immediate successors until Tutankhamon).
This is where my research has been focused; what event might have occurred to facilitate such a shift in paradigm for the Egyptian people? My current theory is that it was the event known today as the Exodus. The incident at the Red Sea might have shaken the faith of the Egyptian people, who lost so many soldiers (and, according to the Hebrews, the Pharoah himself) in the tragedy. How could the God of Abraham prove so much more powerful than the multitude of their gods? Science has already proven that it is physically possible, either through an earthquake or the phenomenon known as Wind Setdown (beautifully described in this Huffington Post video www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/parting-red-sea-science_n_739229.html), to have enough drainage of the Red Sea into the Lake of Tanis to make a crossing. All things being equal, we have to believe that the Hebrews did use such a crossing, and that at least some of the pursuing Egyptians were caught when the waters returned (though probably not in the manner described in movies. More likely the wheels of their chariots got stuck in mud that would have been nearly impossible to get out of given the average weight of a chariot car).
The Pharaoh of the Exodus is not named. Many Judeo-Christian scholars believe that it was Ramses (or Rameses if you prefer) the Great, while many Archaeologists believe that it was Thutmosis III. Having gone over the archaeology, theories of when modern histories line up with Egyptian timelines, and the words of the Bible, I do not believe that either is possible. Ramesses was far too late archaeologically; he was the third Pharoah of the 19th dynasty, and probably was ruling around the time the books of Moses were being written down in their final form in Jerusalem, hence the mention of places named after him; they were describing lands with names that their people would be able to recognize.
Thutmosis III presents a different problem. The first and foremost was the way he came into the throne; he was proceded by his mother, Hatshepsut. With the vitriol aimed at the Exodus Pharoah, would not the Hebrews pointed out that his own mother did not think him fit for rule if the Exodus Pharoah was Thutmosis? And secondly, Thutmosis III is considered by most to be a military genius; he expanded the Egyptian Empire by more than double with his forays into the upper Nile and Syro-Palestine. A military genius would know better than to send his armored men and chariots after slaves that he himself let lose.
And a final arguement makes either Ramesses or Thutmosis bad options for the Exodus Pharoah; their names. The root of both names, Mses, is the sum total of the name of Moses. It means, litterally, "child" or "born of." Ra-mses means "Child of Ra", Thut-mses "Child of Thoth." If the story of Moses being found in the river are true, it makes sense for him to be named simply "child," especially if it was seen to honor the current Pharoah. It also would have been unseemly, given the fact that he would have grown up alongside the Prince, for them to have the same base name; it might have been construed as an insult to his honor, and more to the point might have led to confusion among the commoners.
This is why I believe Amenhotep II, son of Thutmosis III, is the likely candidate. The Pharoah of Moses' birth lived a long time; through Moses' adolescence and through most of his time in desert exile. Thutmosis is thought to have ruled for 54 years. There are also stela that suggest that at least three of Amenhotep II's children died, including one that was named, Amenehmet. This naming suggests that this son may have been an eldest or a favored son... and his death would fit into the Biblical story. If I am correct, then the Exodus would have occured in the time of Akhenaten's Great Grandfather, giving plenty of time for the social changes I have suggested previously to occur, but not so much time as to have made the Exodus into a legend or fairytale by the people. It is also worth noting that, with the exception of one raid into Syria by Amenhotep II (while the Isrealites were still wandering the region), the Egyptian army steered clear of Syro-Palestine up to and including Akhenaten's reign. It is theorized that the historical Isrealites probably earned a reputation as mercenaries under Jacob (or they would never have had the skill in arms to take walled cities like Jericho). While correlation does not equal causation, it is a coincidence worth noting that Egypt never tried to take revenge on the Isrealites for the debacle at the Red Sea Crossing.
There are problems with my theory. The most glaring is that the Hebrews are emphatic that the Pharoah of the Exodus died in the Red Sea. Amenhotep II did not die; in fact, we have his mummy. I cannot scientifically dispute this claim. But I'm not a real scientist, so fuck it....they're lying. No way in God's Green Earth did a Pharoah, confronted with something he would have seen as paranormal, a miracle sent by the God of his enemy, strut in there like it happened every day. He would have sent his men in, and they would have died, but he would have stayed where it was safe. If you prefer, I can say they're "embellishing the truth."
I continue my search through Egypt. Hopefully I will find something that will tell me, at least, if I'm on the right path or if I'm full of it. And, of course, I will not hesitate to pause my research in aid of a dictated investigation. However, I do think my research is key if we are ever going to get a handle on Egypt and prevent the spread of Atenism to other Middle Eastern nations, and the world.