Psibkhenno may serve to anchor Ramses II in a biblico-historical era

 



 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Pharaoh Psibkhenno needs an alter ego, because much of his building work is thought no longer to exist.

This is typical of Egypt’s so-called Twenty-First Dynasty, which is quite archaeologically deficient.

Nicolas Grimal has written, re “The historical interpretation of Tanis”, for instance (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 317): “Nothing remains of the actual buildings of Psusennes I …”.

 

And again (p. 315): “At Tanis, Psusennes I built a new enclosure around the temple dedicated to the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu. If the few traces of reuse of earlier monuments are to be believed, he made many other contributions to the temple, but because of the current conditions of the site little is known concerning this work”.

 

Psibkhenno was apparently the father-in-law of Shoshenq I (N. Grimal, p. 319).

Smendes II, who I suspect must be Smendes=Shoshenq I, “sent a pair of bracelets to Psusennes …”. (p. 318).

 

Pharaoh Psibkhenno may now, at last, enable us to anchor Ramses II ‘the Great’ in a real historico-biblical phase.

 

Egypt often gets considered in complete isolation from the other nations, from Mesopotamia, for instance, and from the biblical history.

 

This is very much due to the effect of the Sothic chronology, serving to disconnect much of Egyptian history (especially in its earlier phases) from its real, contemporaneous scene; but it is also because the pharaohs were more inclined to boast about themselves to the exclusion of the other nations.

 

In this the ancient Egyptians were unlike, say, the Assyrians, who - whilst likewise being boastful - kept detailed and useful historical records, which included many handy foreign names and places.

 

With the name, Psibkhenno, we may perhaps be able to pick up a useful clue, enabling at last for a potential connection for Egypt with Mesopotamia. Thanks to David Rohl, a revisionist, we get this compelling observation of real phonetic value: “… we might find the true identity of Si’be in the 21st Dynasty king Psibkhenno, more commonly known by the classical name of Psusennes”.

(“Comments by David Rohl”, SIS Workshop, vol. 5, no.1, 1982, p. 19).

 

I had much liked this connection as made by Dr. Rohl, and had initially embraced it – Psibkhenno, a long-reigning ‘Ramesses’, and indeed my Ramses ‘the Great’, a contemporary of the mighty neo-Assyrian king Sargon II.

In conventional terms, the Sargonic era is c. 700 BC, approximately 600 years from Ramses’ presumed beginnings in c. 1300 BC.

 

However, I have since concluded, on the basis of the Tang-i Var inscription and other evidence, that Sargon II’s Egyptian opponent, Si’be, was in fact, Shebitku Khaemwaset, co-regent with Ramses II, and indeed, the son of that great pharaoh.

On this, see e.g. my article:

 

Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’

 

(6) Khaemwaset, son of Ramses 'the Great'

 

And I have further extended the phonetics by concluding that Sargon II’s pharaonic tribute bringer, Shilkanni, was, not the conventional Osorkon IV of the Twenty-Second Dynasty, but was Psibkhenno:

 

Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon

 

(6) Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon

 

What may strongly re-inforce Ramses II’s place in the neo-Assyrian era is the fact that an inscription of his at the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, stands opposite one of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon (c. 680-668 BC, conventional dating).

 

What to make of this?

 

-       Convention, of course, would have Esarhaddon arriving at the scene about half a millennium after Ramses II, and defacing the latter’s image. Thus, for instance:

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/289-esarhaddons-nahr-al-kalb-inscription/

“To make sure that the Phoenician cities better understood that Esarhaddon was and would always be victorious, the king left an inscription at the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, opposite one of the reliefs that the Egyptian king Ramesses II had once made to commemorate his Syrian campaigns. Everyone traveling along the coast from Byblos to Beirut would see Esarhaddon's relief and understand that Esarhaddon was a greater conqueror than the heroes of the past”.

 

-       Dr. Velikovsky, with his radical revision, actually located Ramses II even later than Esarhaddon;

 

-       My revision has Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon:

 

The Complete Ramses II

 

(6) The Complete Ramses II

 

Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah Chapters [1-XXXIX] in the Light of Assyrian Monuments, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London/New York, 1930, p. 126) really extended Si’be, biblically, so that ‘So’, Sibe and Shabaka were all one and the same person. He had written that: “The Hebrew characters read “So” should probably be read “Sĕvĕ”. And: “Sĕvĕ” … is to be identified with Shabaka [Shabako] the son of Kashta, who succeeded his father in 715” [sic].

 

The name ‘So’, it seems, can be variously rendered: e.g. Sĕvĕ; Sua; Soan (Josephus[1]); Soa, Soba, Segor (LXX).

 

Most interestingly, in my new context, the Lucianic recension of the LXX has ‘So’ as an “Ethiopian, living in Egypt” (one Adrammelech).

 

Psibkhenno was the elusive “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4) at the time of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. {Psibkhenno was most likely also the Shabako of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, as Boutflower had thought}.

 

This now extends the floruit of our Ramses ‘the Great’ all the way from Shalmaneser to Esarhaddon.

This is also the very era of the Book of Tobit, whose chapter 1 encompasses “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; and “Esarhaddon”.

 

Book of Tobit and the Neo-Assyrian Kings

 

https://www.academia.edu/14097259/Book_of_Tobit_and_the_Neo_Assyrian_Kings

 

Sargon is not mentioned here in Tobit.

That is because Sargon was Sennacherib. See e.g. my article:

 

Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap

 

https://www.academia.edu/8854988/Sargon_II_and_Sennacherib_More_than_just_an_overlap

 

At last, Ramses II ‘the Great’ can be firmly fixed to the neo-Assyrian era, from Shalmaneser to Esarhaddon, thereby solving the long-existing problem for revisionists: Where to fit in Ramses II?

 

It also solves the burning question of who was the biblical “So”. We need no longer entertain such ridiculous assertions that “So” pertains to pharaoh Tefnakht by a “process of metonymy” in relation to Tefnakht’s town of Saïs (cf. N. Grimal, p. 342).

 

With the right key now in hand, we can firmly identify Sargon II’s Egyptian contacts, namely:

 

Si’be = Shebitku;

Pharaoh of Egypt (Pirʾu of Musri) = Ramses II ‘the Great’;

Shilkanni (thought to be Osorkon IV) is clearly Psibkhenno

Shebitku of the Tang-i Var inscription = Shebitku

 

Shilkanni’s gift to Sargon II of “twelve great horses from Egypt, which are unrivalled in the whole country” (N. Grimal, p. 343) is reminiscent of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty with its love of fine chargers. Thus, as is thought (loc. cit.): “Piankhy … was buried at Napata along with two of the famous Egyptian chargers … the same horses which had aroused the admiration of Sargon II”. 

 

 



[1] Antiquities, 9:14:1.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse

Problematical Thera Dating

An Archaeology for the Garden of Eden