Moses and Akhenaten (31 page)

In addition to those Shasu he had already slaughtered in battle, Seti brought many bedouin prisoners back to Egypt, tied to his chariot, to be sacrificed. The scene showing the king being welcomed back on his arrival at Zarw has an inscription that provides the reason for Pharaoh's campaign against the Shasu: ‘One came to say to His Majesty: “The foe belonging to the Shasu are plotting rebellion. Their tribal chiefs are gathered in one place, waiting on the mountain ranges of Kharu.”
⁵
… Now as the good god (Pharaoh), he exults at undertaking combat; he delights at an attack on him; his heart is satisfied at the sight of blood. He cuts off the heads of the perverse of heart. He loves an instant of trampling more than a day of jubilation. His Majesty kills them at one time, and leaves no heirs among them. He who is spared by his hand is a living prisoner, carried off to Egypt.'
⁶

The king, as can be seen from the following scenes, then proceeded with his Shasu prisoners to the temple of Amun at Karnak. Over them we find: ‘Captives which His Majesty carried off from the Shasu, whom His Majesty himself overthrew, in Year 1.'
⁷
Then comes the depiction of the final act – the sacrifice by Seti I personally of his Shasu captives at the feet of the Theban god Amun.

(ii) The Hattusili Peace Treaty

Year 21, first month of Winter, day 21, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Usimare Setpenre, son of Re, Ramses-mi-Amun, granted life eternally and forever, beloved of Amun-Re, Harakhti, Ptah South-of-His-Wall, lord of Onkhtowe, Mut lady of Ishru and Khns-Neferhotpe, being arisen upon the Horus-throne of the Living like his father Harakhti eternally and evermore.

On this day, when His Majesty was at the town of Pi-Ramses-mi-Amun doing the pleasure of his father Amun-Re, Harakhti, Atum lord-of-the-two-lands-of-Heliopolis, Amun-of-Ramses-mi-Amun, Ptah of Ramses-mi-Amun and Setekh great-of-valour, son of Nut, according as they give to him an infinity of
sed
festivals and an eternity of peaceful years, all lands and all hill countries being prostrate under his sandals; there came the king's messenger … the messenger of Hatti (the land of the Hittites) … carrying [the tablet of silver which?] the great chief of Hatti, Hattusili [caused] to be brought to Pharaoh in order to beg pe[ace from the Majesty of Usimare] Setpenre …

The treaty which the great prince of Hatti, Hattusili, the strong, son of Mursili, the great chief of Hatti, the strong, the son of Suppi[luliuma, the great chief of Hatti, the str]ong, made upon a tablet of silver for Usimare … : the good treaty of peace and brotherhood, giving peace … forever. But hereafter, beginning from this day, the great chief of Hatti, is [in?] a treaty for making permanent the policy which … so as not to permit hostilities to be made between them forever. And the children of the children [of] the great chief of Hatti shall be [?] in brotherhood and at peace with the children of Ramses-mi-Amun, the great ruler of Egypt; they being in our policy of brotherhood and our policy [of peace]. [And the land of Egypt?] with the land Hatti [shall be?] at peace and in brotherhood like us forever; and hostilities shall not be made between them forever.
¹

(iii) A Dissenting Voice

In discussing where the battles of Ramses II against the Shasu took place Dr Kenneth A. Kitchen of Liverpool University says: ‘The area in question is indicated by two or three other sources … One is Obelisk I at Tanis: “Terrible and raging lion who despoils the Shasu-land, who plunders the mountain of Seir with his valiant arm.” Here, Shasu is by parallelism equated with Mount Seir, “which is Edom” (cf. Genesis, 36: 8, 9). The second source is a topographical list of Ramses II at Amara West in which the words
t Å SW
Shasu-land, are qualified by each one in turn of the six names
S'r, Rbn, Pysps, Yhw, Šm′t
and
Wrbr.
Thus Seir is classed as being at least part of the Shasu-land along with the rest. Of the other names, Bernard Grdseloff, the Polish Egyptologist, has aptly compared
Rbn
with the Laban of Deuteronomy, 1:1 (and Libnah of Numbers, 33: 20, 21) and
Šm′t
with the Shimeathites of I Chronicles, 2:55, all in the area of Seir/Edom, the Negeb, or the Araba rift valley between them. Thirdly one may cite a stela of Ramses II from Gebel Shaluf.

‘On the right edge (among other things) Anath says to the king: “[I] give to thee [the] Shasu-land …” while line two on the front of the stela surely must be read:
“
ḥ
k dw [n] s[′r
…
]
, i.e. who plundered the mountain [of] Se[′ir].” Again, Shasu and Seir go together. This evidence clearly suggests that Ramses or troops of his raided the Negeb, the uplands of Seir or Edom, and perhaps part of the intervening Araba rift valley … Thus we have evidence for the activity of Ramses II (or at least of his forces) in both Edom and Moab.'
¹

After dealing with possible dates for the confrontation between Ramses II and the Shasu, Dr Kitchen makes the following comment on the latter's sudden appearance on the scene with the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty: ‘It is significant that, after the mentions of Shutu in the nineteenth century
BC
(six centuries earlier), no more clear Egyptian reference to southern Transjordan occurs before the reign of Seti I.'
²

We therefore have the situation, as we saw earlier, that, in the first year of Seti I, the Shasu were emerging from Sinai and posing a threat to Canaan, Edom and Moab. Then, at the time of Ramses II, about two decades later, they have left Sinai and are to be found in Edom and Moab. If we compare the sudden appearance of the Shasu bedouin and their movements with the Israelite Exodus from Sinai we find that they followed the very same route. Dr Kitchen, too, was struck by this fact: ‘For Old Testament studies, the new information has some bearing on the date of the Hebrew conquest of central Transjordan and their entry into W. Palestine, not to mention the date of the Exodus.'
³

Nevertheless, after showing that both movements were similar, Dr Kitchen rejected the possibility that they might be identical: ‘Now it would be highly unrealistic to have Ramses's forces invading the region of Dibon, north of the Arnon [in the land of Moab], once the Hebrews under Moses and Joshua had taken over this area.' What made Dr Kitchen believe that this would be unrealistic? ‘Otherwise, one might expect a mention of “Israel” in the same class of records of Ramses II that mention “Seir” and “Moab” before its known occurrence on Merenptah's famous Israel stela.'
⁴

Although he saw the close similarity between Shasu movements and the emigration of the Israelite tribes from Sinai to Palestine as recorded in the Bible, Dr Kitchen failed to recognize that these were the very same people. This was a consequence of his preconceptions about when and how the Exodus took place. His acceptance of 430 years as the length of the Sojourn, as well as the idea that the Israelites should have their separate geographical land of Israel once they had crossed the border, prevented him from grasping the historical reality to which his own translations pointed.

APPENDIX B

(i) The Amarna Rock Tombs of Huya and Meryre II

P
ROFESSOR
Redford, who does not agree that a scene and inscription in the tomb of Huya, steward to Queen Tiye, at Amarna is evidence that Amenhotep III was alive and in Amarna after the second half of Akhenaten's Year 8, quotes Norman de Garis Davies, whose book
The Rock Tombs of El Amarna
was published by the Egypt Exploration Society of London in 1905, as having also rejected this scene as evidence of a coregency. This is not strictly accurate. Davies preferred not to accept the idea for three reasons – the fact that Tiye and Baketaten are shown separated from Amen-hotep III; the fact that the uplifted hands of Tiye and Baketaten imply an unusual measure of reverence, suggesting that the king was dead; and the fact that Akhenaten's name precedes that of his father in the accompanying inscription on the jamb of the door. Davies commented: ‘But for this and the difficulty of reconciling the situation with other records, this equipoise of the two royal households would have suggested a coregency of the two kings even at this late date in Akhenaten's reign.'
¹

The points raised by Davies are not, in fact, serious objections to a coregency. There are two explanations for the form the scenes take, one historical, the other artistic. Huya was Queen Tiye's steward, appointed to his position by her son, Akhenaten, and had no direct relationship with her husband, Amenhotep III. If Tiye was shown sitting by her husband she would have been a minor character, in his shadow, as Nefertiti is shown in the shadow of Akhenaten: by separating her from her husband, Huya gave his mistress enhanced importance. The artistic explanation is that in Egyptian tombs and temples we usually find two similar scenes or inscriptions, coming from left and right to meet in the jamb or centre of the door. In the Huya scenes, three female attendants have been added to the Amenhotep III scene to make up for the fact that there is-only one princess depicted, not four, and the uplifted hands of Tiye and Baketaten balance the gestures of Akhenaten's two elder daughters in the opposite scene, where they are shown waving their fans towards their parents. There is nothing in the scene depicting Amenhotep III, who sits under the rays of the Aten, waving a hand to his family, to suggest that he was dead at the time.

As for the inscription, although he was ill in his latter years, Amenhotep III remained the senior partner in the coregency until the day he died. In the normal course of events, one would expect his name to precede that of his coregent son – but not at Akhetaten. Here, in the domain of the Aten, the name of the Aten's only son and prophet, Akhenaten, had to come first.

Redford goes on to argue, as we saw earlier, that, as Tiye is shown alone on the outer wall of the hall in question, Amenhotep III must have already been dead when construction of the tomb began: ‘Presumably, if the decoration of the tomb kept pace with its excavation, the scenes in the first hall showing Tiye alone would have been carved before the lintel jambs.'
²
A detailed analysis of the whole hall of Huya's tomb, as well as the neighbouring tomb of Meryre II, makes it clear, however, that the walls were not decorated in the order that Redford assumes, and, in addition, that their decoration provides further evidence pointing to a coregency of twelve years.

South Wall: This is the wall near the entrance to the first hall. On the right of the door is a banquet scene featuring Tiye, entitled ‘King's mother, Great King's Wife'; Akhenaten, Nefertiti and two of their daughters (only the name of the eldest, Merytaten is found); and Tiye's daughter, Baketaten, identified by the inscription ‘the King's daugher, begotten and beloved by him, Baketaten'. This is the first time the princess was depicted. The rays of the Aten extend from the top centre of the scene. To the left of the doorway we find a scene of an evening entertainment which has the same shape and includes the same characters except in the case of Nefertiti's two daughters, who seem here to be a younger couple. The rays of the Aten are missing from this evening scene and have been replaced by cartouches of the God and the king.

East Wall: Here there is a picture of Tiye visiting an Aten temple called ‘the Sunshade', which can either be part of the main temple of the Aten or a separate temple built specially for her visit. Inside the temple, Akhenaten is seen holding his mother's hand and leading her affectionately towards an interior building. Aten shines on the royal pair as well as on the building towards which they are proceeding. They are preceded by Huya and followed by the young princess, Baketaten, who holds three gifts for the altar and has two nurses to watch over her.

West Wall: This features a unique scene bearing the following inscription: ‘Year 12, the second month of Winter, day 8. Life to the Father, the double Ruler, Re-Aten, who gives life for ever and ever! The King of South and North Neferkheprure and the Queen Nefertiti, living for ever and ever, made a public appearance on the great palanquin of gold to receive the tribute of Kharu (Palestine/Syria) and Kush (Nubia), the West and the East; all the countries collected (gathered) at one time, and the islands in the heart of the sea, bringing offerings to the King (when he was) on the great throne of Akhenaten for receiving the imposts of every land, granting them the breath of life.'
³

Akhenaten and Nefertiti are depicted, borne in the State palanquin on the shoulders of a dozen carriers. At least four of their daughters follow behind the chair. At its side walk officials, servants and military personnel. Davies noted that in Huya's tomb and a later version of the same day's events in the neighbouring tomb of Meryre II some of the troops carried a hooked staff and commented: ‘As the curved staff is a Bedawi weapon, according to Wilson (Sir J. Gardiner Wilson, an early British Egyptologist of the last century), we probably have here the troops who have escorted the embassies into Egypt.'
⁴
What Davies meant was that these bedouin troops, whom Akhenaten had entrusted with the task of guarding his guests and him personally, could have come from the desert borders of the Eastern Delta and Sinai – that is, the Shasu.

While Huya's tomb shows only the procession on the occasion of the Tribute of the Nations, the next stage of the celebrations, after the royal family, including all six princesses, had arrived at the open pavilion, is depicted on the East Wall of Meryre II's tomb – with an inscription that suggests a different reason for the gathering. The inscription reads: ‘Year [12, second month of the winter season, day 8] of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt… Akhenaten, great in his duration, and the great wife of the King, his beloved, Nefertiti, living for ever and ever. His Majesty appeared on the throne of the Divine and Sovereign Father, the Aten, who lives on Truth, and the chiefs of all lands brought the tribute.'
⁵
The implication of the Meryre II inscription, which has a bearing on whether or not there was a coregency, is that the chiefs of all the lands brought their tribute because Akhenaten had inherited the throne as sole ruler. But to return to the tomb of Huya …