All  
The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon

King Solomon’s Mines Discovered: Kings and Pharaohs - Part I

Print

Have King Solomon's Mines really been discovered? Yes, indeed. In fact, they have been known about for centuries, and modern archaeological work on them started way back in the early 19th century. But the site’s true significance has never been realized before, and so their role in biblical and popular history has never been fully understood. And that lacuna in our understanding has stemmed from one fundamental problem—we still do not know who King David and King Solomon really were, nor where their capital city was. And so before we can find the legendary gold mines of these famous monarchs, we need to find their true identity.

Mystery Men: King David and King Solomon

How can this be, readers may well ask—how can the identities of King David and King Solomon be 'unknown'?

Well, one of the primary problems for Judaeo-Christian theologians is the disturbing reality that the most celebrated kings of Judaic history, cannot be found in the historical record. While that may sound unlikely, recent archaeology in this region by professors Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman has demonstrated that Judaea was very sparsely populated during the United Monarchy era, while Jerusalem itself was ‘little more than a village’.

So the central problem that bedevils all historical research into the United Monarchy is obvious: the Tanakh (the Old Testament) describes an influential nation and a wealthy society that simply could not have existed in this early era. Kings David and Solomon were supposed to have been the most influential and wealthiest monarchs in the entire region, who had subordinate monarchs paying them tribute in gold and spices, and yet the archaeology says this is impossible. So how did the Jewish people manage to 'mislay' the region's most famous monarchs? The only conclusion that archaeologists can logically come to, is that the Tanakh is a complete fiction and kings David and Solomon did not exist.

Painting illustrating David, King of Israel.

Painting illustrating David, King of Israel. ( Public Domain )

Controversial Problem

The cultural and religious solution to this controversial problem is to tiptoe around these troublesome archaeological findings, and pretend that they do not exist. However, a logical alternative is that we are either looking in the wrong era or the wrong location for the United Monarchy, and so the solution to this perennial problem actually lies in Egypt. And while this may sound like a bizarre suggestion, it does actually make a great deal of sense.

Josephus Flavius, the first century Jewish historian, said that the ancient Israelites were the Hyksos pharaohs of Egypt, a story that I cover in some detail in my book Tempest & Exodus . So, originally the Israelites were an almost fully Egyptianized people, which is why they were joined on the Exodus by Apis-bull worshippers.

But what if some of these Hyksos-Israelite refugees did not go all the way to Jerusalem, or came back to Egypt in later generations? They would then be almost indistinguishable from the Egyptian 21st dynasty, which was likewise founded by immigrants.

The Third Intermediate Period of the 21st and 22nd dynasties is said to have been ruled by Meshwesh immigrants from Libya. And yet these immigrant Meshwesh were remarkably Egyptianized in both culture and religion, almost as if they had previously been exiled from Egypt. And so the possibility exists that there has been a slight confusion here. The Meshwesh and the Israelites are the same people—previous exiles from Egypt—and they did not establish their primary capital city at Zion (Jerusalem), but instead they built it at Zoan (Tanis) in the Nile Delta.

Fig 1. One of the temples at Tanis, in the Nile Delta. Was this the original Temple of Solomon?

Fig 1. One of the temples at Tanis, in the Nile Delta. Was this the original Temple of Solomon? (Photo R Ellis.)

Biblical Kings and Historical Pharaohs

But if the Israelites were the Meshwesh, then the biblical history of the United Monarchy should be directly comparable to the equivalent history of the 21st and 22nd dynasties of Egypt, whose pharaohs ruled at the same time as the biblical kings. This has been deemed impossible and unthinkable, which is why it has been dismissed out of hand and never investigated. However, since I don't mind going out on a limb, I compared these 'two' royal dynasties, and was surprised to find a great number of similarities between them. For instance, the following table compares the pharaohs of the twenty-first dynasty with the equivalent ancestors of King David:                             

Biblical leaders

Historical pharaohs

Ezron (Hezron)   

Ramesses

Ram      

Ramesses

Amminadab  

Amen-Nesbanebdjed (Smendes)

Nahshon        

Nemneshu  (Amenem-neshu)

Salmon 

Siamun

Boaz   

Bas-Uasorkon

Obed      

Amenem-Opet

David

Psusennes II     

This list clearly demonstrates that there are some equivalent-sounding names in both the historical record of Egypt and the biblical chronology of the United Monarchy – indeed the two royal lines appear to mimic each other remarkably well. But then we hit a problem, because the pharaonic king-list ends up with a pharaoh called Psusennes, whereas the biblical chronology results in King David. However, while these names may look very different, there are close similarities between these 'two' monarchs.

For instance, King David is known even to this day for his ‘Star of David’ and ‘City of David’. And as it happens, Psusennes was called Pa-seba-kha-en-nuit, which means 'My Star Rises Over (my) City'. In which case, both Pharaoh Psusennes and King David were closely associated with a star and a city. And in the book I go one to show that Psusennes was also called Duad, the biblical King Duad (King David in English).

Fig 2. Cartouche of Paseba-khaen-nuit (Psusennes) - the biblical King David.

Fig 2. Cartouche of Paseba-khaen-nuit (Psusennes) - the biblical King David.

The star means 'star' while the transverse cross means 'city'.

Fig 3. The magnificent solid silver sarcophagus of Psusennes or King David, which is almost unique in Egypt, and demonstrates the great wealth and influence of this dynasty.

Fig 3. The magnificent solid silver sarcophagus of Psusennes or King David, which is almost unique in Egypt, and demonstrates the great wealth and influence of this dynasty. (Photo R Ellis.)

In which case, there are many similarities between the United Monarchy and the 21st dynasty. But if these truly were the same royal dynasty, then everything between them should be the same, and strangely enough that is more or less what we find.

Surprising as it may seem, King David had a daughter who was called Maakhah Tamar rmt hkem, while Pharaoh Psusennes had a daughter who was known as Maakhare Mu-Tamhat. And the only appreciable difference between the names of these two royal princesses, is that the Judaean lady has dropped the ‘Mu’ from her second name or title.

Fig 4. The name of Maakhare mu-Tamhat - the biblical Maakhah Tamar.

Fig 4. The name of Maakhare mu-Tamhat - the biblical Maakhah Tamar.

But these similarities do not end with a king and his daughter, they extend much further. And so as we look deeper into the history of Pharaoh Psusennes, even more connections can be seen.

Biblical name           

Egyptian name                  

Rank or position

Maakhah Tamar

Maakhare Mu-Tamhat

A daughter of the king

Joab        

Un-Joab-Endjed 

An army commander of the king

Hiram Abi(f)         

Herum Atif                        

A chief architect of the king

Contrary to popular perceptions, we see here conclusive links and similarities between the supposedly distinct and separate monarchies of Egypt and Israel during the 10th century BC. And do remember that these two monarchies existed at exactly the same time, as the Tanakh itself makes perfectly clear. If the truth were known and its implications understood, the Israelite United Monarchy and the Egyptian 21st dynasty were one and the same. The story of the Tanakh is, in fact, the history of the new Lower Egyptian pharaonic line.

This discovery is interesting on so many levels, but one thing it can do is point us towards the true location of King Solomon's mines. Now we know that King Solomon was a member of the 21st or 22nd dynasties, then these famous mines must have belonged to the Tanis pharaohs. So where were the gold mines of the Tanis pharaohs? Actually, rather than being in Ethiopia or Southern Africa, they were located in Upper Egypt, and we shall discover their surprising location in Part II of this article.

(Read Part II )

Ralph Ellis, December 2002 © All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means or in any form whatsoever without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher.

Extracted from:  Solomon, Pharaoh of Egypt by Ralph Ellis

Ebooks available on iPad, Kindle, Kobo or Nook.

Paperbacks from Amazon or Adventures Unlimited.

Featured image: The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon ( Public Domain )

By Ralph Ellis

Comments

The problem with relying on the Ipuwer papyrus is that almost the entirety of it is contradictory to the account. Christians desperate for verification of the Old Testament stories have cherry picked the Ipuwer papyrus. One example of ignoring the entirety of the document is that it says that 'Asiatics' are arriving, not leaving Egypt.

Reading tis article makes me lament the tragedy of Velikovsky's suppression by the establishment. As early as 1953 Velikovsky explained why archaeologists could find no evidence for the great events and persons recorded in the Old Testament: They were looking in the wrong strata. So, the Exodus, for example, was recorded by the Egyptians, but their record of the event, the Papyus Ipuwer, was dated to the start of the Middle Bronze Age, whereas the Exodus is normally dated to the Late Bronze Age. In the same way, Solomon's luxurious Jerusalem was the opulent and mighty Middle Bronze Age city - the city conquered and ruined by Thutmose III, not the miserable Iron Age village normally associated with Solomon.

In his "Ages in Chaos" Velkovsky explained in great detail howHatshepsut, who went on a great expedition to the "Divine Land", was the Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon in the "Holy Land". Hatshepsut's successor, Thutmose III, was the "pharaoh Shishak", who plundered the temple in Jerualem (Al Kuds, the "Holy Place"). Thutmose conquered the land of Palestine in his first year and records the plunder he took from the great temple of the King of Kadesh (Kadesh and Kuds both being names for Jerusalem.

As long asVelikovsky is rejected by the establishment, no one will ever make sense of the archaeology.

Tsurugi's picture

Very interesting work, Ralph. Looking forward to part 2.

Incidentally, I have to wonder about the description of Jerusalem as a mere village. A little village surrounding the gigantic Moirah platform...?
Oh wait, I forgot...the Romans built that platform. So it wasn't there yet. Except for the part that once held Solomon's Temple....which is most of it. And neither Solomon nor David built that part; the texts indicate it was already there when they got there. So....
...yeah. A little village surrounding the huge platform.

Solomon was never a pharaoh, or king of egypt. He was King of Israel !

Bathsheba was not Davids daughter. he noticed her while standing on the roof of the palace. She was the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah, whom he had killed. 2 samuel ch 11.
also read Chronicles ch 3. for Davids children names. And Davids blood line, lead to Jesus !

Pages

Next article