I am compelled to post this particular article to settle the historical accounts of the Biblical Patriarchs in Egypt. The story told in the Bible is one sided and TOTALLY inaccurate in many ways. Too many take a book that was allegorical with some semblance of historical events interspersed through out it as an accurate historical text. many scholars of the Xtian tradition and historians have proven this assumption false. In a research paper I posted entitled a Chronology of the Bible by Dr Ben so people can see how many major revisions of the Bible there are and the fact that it came from the oldest religious text in the world the Pert Em Heru (The Egyptian Book of the Dead). Now through these articles we will delve into the ACTUAL history of some of the Bibles most important patriarchs from the Egyptian perspective to clear up this confusion. There are 3 sides to every story in this case the only story told has been the biblical one.l Now hear the Egyptians side. The Egyptians were the best ancient record keeper sin history bar none. Here is the story as understood in a multidisciplinary approach. The books listed below have changed the entire overstanding of Biblical history. Part 2 to come soon

Who Are the Biblical Patriarchs?

Tutmose III also known as King David as Nter Amun. In Hebrew David was spelled Dwd/Dvd in Medw (egyptian) the Hebrew letter D becomes a letter T as in TWT so King TWT/TUT also was a Dwd. – Ras~

The Gospel According to Egypt
Epitome of Ahmed Osman’s books:
Stranger in the Valley of the Kings
Moses: Pharaoh of Egypt
House of the Messiah

Introduction

The United Kingdom of David and Solomon

David and Solomon are portrayed in the Bible as two of the greatest kings of the ancient world. However, no trace of their empire has ever been found in Palestine. It is a period curiously missing from the archaeological record of the region. Quoting from the book, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, “The Bible is the only written source concerning the United Monarchy, and it is therefore the basis of any historical presentation of the period.”(1) There is such a complete void of external sources that the archaeologist, author and leading authority on the era, Donald Redford, writes in frustration that “such topics as the foreign policy of David and Solomon, Solomon’s trade in horses or his marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter must remain themes for midrash and fictional treatment.”(2)

In contrast, archaeology has confirmed the reigns of all other great kings of the ancient world mentioned in the Bible, and some of the later, lesser kings of of Judah and Israel (namely, Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Pekah, Hosea, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Mannasseh, and Uzziah).(3) Conservative Biblical scholars believe that it is only a matter of time before concrete evidence of the reigns of David and Solomon is found as well. As will be discussed, concrete evidence for David and Solomon already exists, and comes from the very place one would least expect to find it.

King Solomon

In the Bible,(1) King Solomon is said to have:

1. Inherited a vast empire conquered by his father David that extended from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia (1 Kings 4:21; Gen. 15:18; Deut. 1:7,11:24; Joshua 1:4; 2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Chron. 18:3).
2. Accumulated great wealth and wisdom (1 Kings 10:23).
3. Administered his kingdom through a system of 12 districts (1 Kings 4:7).
4. Possessed a large harem, which included “the daughter of Pharaoh” (1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 11:1,3; 1 Kings 9:16).
5. Honored other gods in his old age (1 Kings 11:1-2,4-5).
6. Devoted his reign to great building projects (1 Kings 9:15,17-19), including:

1. the Temple (1 Kings 6).
2. the Royal Palace (1 Kings 7:2-12).
3. the walls of Jerusalem,
4. the Millo (an earthen fill made to enlarge Jerusalem) (1 Kings 11:27)
5. the royal cities of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer
6. the store cities, the cities for his horsemen and the cities for his chariots throughout his empire.

To be consistent with the pattern of other great Bronze and Iron Age cultures in the ancient Near East (Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hittite), it would be expected that numerous documents, art, and inscriptions on buildings or public monuments would have been left by such a great king or by his descendants later in honor of him.(2) Yet no article of any kind bearing his name has ever been found.(3)

The cities of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer have now been extensively excavated. A stratum containing large palaces, temples and strong fortifications was found in each of these cities. The name of Solomon was not found, but the cartouche of the 18th Dynasty Pharaoh Amenhotep III instead.(4) In Jerusalem, it has not been possible to excavate the temple mount, however, extensive excavations in the city, including the areas adjacent to the temple mount have not revealed the existence of a Solomaic palace complex.(5) Moreover, excavation of the Millo has revealed (due to pottery found in the Millo) that its original construction was also contemporary with the Egyptian 18th Dynasty of Amenhotep III.(6)

Amenhotep III, known in ancient times as the “King of Kings” and “Ruler of Ruler’s,”(7) was a Pharaoh of Egypt’s glorious 18th Dynasty. He, like Solomon, inherited a vast empire whose influence extended quite literally from the Nile to the Euphrates.(8) In contrast to the empire of Solomon, the empire of Amenhotep is indisputable.(9) The buildings, monuments, documents, art, and numerous other vestiges of his reign are ubiquitous and unparalleled (with the possible exception being those left by the 19th Dynasty Pharaoh, Ramses II).

The entire reign of Amenhotep III was devoted to monumental construction throughout Egypt, Canaan, and Syria.(10) In addition to the ancient world’s most glorious temple at Luxor,(11) he built many other temples of similar design throughout Egypt and in the rest of his empire,(12) including the Canaanite garrison cities of Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer,(13) Lachish and Beth-shean.(14)

According to Egyptian records, Amenhotep’s father Thutmose IV and grandfather Amenhotep II deported over 80,000 Canaanites. The Canaanite inhabitants of Gezer were specifically included in this deportation.(15) It was during Amenhotep III’s reign that Gezer and other major Palestine cities were refortified as royal Egyptian garrisons, and endowed with fine temples and palaces.

The Bible states that in Solomon’s day, the Pharaoh of Egypt captured the Canaanite city of Gezer and presented it to his daughter as a dowry upon her marriage to Solomon (1 Kings 9:16-17).(16)

It was customary and obligatory for Amenhotep III to marry “the daughter of Pharaoh” in order to secure the throne.(17) This is precisely what was done when he was married to Sitamun, the daughter of his father, Pharaoh Thutmose IV.

The network of Egyptian 18th Dynasty garrison cities also included Jerusalem. If construction by Amenhotep III at Gezer, Hazor, Megiddo and other garrison cities is any indication, then a magnificent temple undoubtedly was also built by Amenhotep on Jerusalem’s venerated Temple Mount.(18) The structure adjacent to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, known traditionally as “Solomon’s stables,” is consistent with the architecture of Amenhotep’s garrison cities.(19) Archaeology has also confirmed that chariots were kept in these cities during his reign in groups of between thirty to one hundred and fifty each.(20)

The ancient mining operations at Timna in the Negev desert, known as “Solomon’s mines,” “are earlier than Solomon by some three hundred years [in the conventional chronology],”(21) dating once again to the time of Amenhotep III. Copper from Timna, gold from the Sudan,(22) other precious metals, jewels and high quality stone were used in great abundance in Amenhotep’s temples, just as they were in Solomon’s.(23) A stela from Amenhotep’s mortuary temple boasts that the temple was “embellished with gold throughout, its floor shining with silver … with royal statues of granite, of quartzite and precious stones.”(24) The list of materials used in another temple built by Amenhotep is also “staggering: 3.25 tons of electrum [an alloy of silver and gold], 2.5 tons of gold, 944 tons of copper…”(25)

The Biblical Solomon’s greatest satisfaction is said to have been the challenge of completing grand projects (Ecclesiastes 2:4-11). The same was said of Amenhotep III. A royal Egyptian text of the period reads, “Lo, His Majesty’s heart was satisfied with making very great monuments, the like of which had never come into being since the primeval age of the Two Lands.”(26) Only an enormously wealthy king of a long established empire could have built so splendidly and in so many widely distributed locations in the ancient world. Amenhotep III was arguably the ancient world’s wealthiest king. The completion of such magnificent projects required management of a considerable and constant source of labor and revenue extending over a period of many decades.

The administration and taxation system of Amenhotep with its 12 districts(27) is identical to that of Solomon as described in the Bible (1 Kings 4:2-7,27; 5:13; 9:23). Amenhotep also dedicated himself to rediscovering the wisdom, mysteries and traditions of earlier Egyptian Dynasties.(28) A strong relationship has been established between the “Proverbs of Solomon” in the Bible and the “Maxims of Amenhotep III” found in Egypt.(29)

In addition to the projects already mentioned, Amenhotep also built a completely new palace complex in Thebes. The new royal residence included all of the elements contained in the palace complex of Solomon which are described in the Bible (1 Kings 7:2-12),(30) namely:

1. a house made almost entirely out of cedars of Lebanon (built for Amenhotep’s Jubilee festival);(31)
2. a colonnade (hall of columns) fronted by a portico (porch) and surrounded by a column-lined courtyard;(32)
3. a throne room built with many wooden columns and whose floor was a painted lake scene (identical to the one crossed in wonder by the Queen of Sheba when she approached the throne of Solomon, as described in the Koran);(33)
4. a separate palace built for Sitamun, “the daughter of Pharaoh;”(34)
5. a royal palace (consisting of his own residence, the residence of his Great Wife, Tiye, and a residence for the royal harem).(35)

Amenhotep, like Solomon, was relentless in his pursuit of women for his harem, especially beautiful foreign women of both royal and common backgrounds alike.(36) Amenhotep’s harem included two princesses from Babylon,(37) two princesses from Syria, two princesses from Mitanni, and like Solomon’s harem, it included a princess from each of the seven nations listed in 1 Kings 11:1.(38) As the mightiest king of the Middle East, Amenhotep did not send any of his own daughters to other kings in exchange, nor did any other Pharaoh of this dynasty (or likely any other throughout Egypt’s history).(39) He specifically denied a request by the king of Babylon for an Egyptian wife.(40) Importantly, the Bible emphasizes Solomon’s Egyptian bride, but does not mention that Solomon had any Hebrew wives.(41) Rehoboam, who is said to have succeeded Solomon, was the son of an Ammonite princess.(42)

The court of Amenhotep III was an extremely liberal one, and reflected every possible excess of an affluent and secure kingdom.(43) Eroticism in art and court life reached its height during the reign of Amenhotep.(44) The famous “nude dancing girls” mural dates to Amenhotep’s reign.(45) As with Solomon, Amenhotep denied himself nothing “his eyes desired” and “refused his heart no pleasure” (Ecclesiastes 2:10). However, the last years of Amenhotep’s thirty-eight year reign were not pleasant ones. The long years of indulgence had taken their toll and he had many ailments. As a compassionate gesture, his Mitanni brother-in-law(46) sent him an idol of the goddess Ishtar (i.e., Asherah)(1 Kings 11:5).

The “inescapable conclusion”(47) is that the story of Solomon was patterned specifically after the life of Amenhotep III. The name Solomon itself, which literally means “peace” or “safety” points to Amenhotep III whose long and pervasive reign in the 14th Century B.C. did not include any major military campaigns, but was characterized by unprecedented stability throughout the Near East.(48) After the Egyptian 18th Dynasty, the region between the two great rivers was not controlled by a single power again until the Assyrian empire of Ashurbanipal (the grandson of Sennacherib) who invaded Egypt and pillaged Thebes in the 7th Century B.C.,(49) and the 6th Century B.C. empire of Cyrus, who also conquered Egypt and made it a Persian province.(50) There is no evidence of any empire at any time controlling this region whose capital was Jerusalem.(51)

Solomon is said to have had “a thousand and four hundred” chariots (1 Kings 1:26). This represents a prodigious army by ancient standards, and one which could only have been amassed over a long period of time by an established civilization.(52) Yet we are told that only five years after the great King Solomon’s death, the Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak and his allies invaded Judah and captured its fortified cities with little or no military resistance (2 Chron. 12). The Bible adds that Jerusalem itself was spared only after delivering up the entirety of King Solomon’s accumulated wealth to Shishak.

The rapidness with which Solomon’s empire was established, as described by the Bible, and the ease with which it shortly thereafter submitted to a foreign power is also not consistent with the pattern set by other great ancient civilizations.

The Egyptian House of David

If King Solomon is to be properly identified as an adaptation of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, then the source of his predecessor, King David, should also be found in Egypt. Consistent with this premise, Osman has compared the account in the Bible of David and his wars with the exploits of Amenhotep III’s great grandfather, the 18th Dynasty Pharaoh Thutmose III.(1) Not only are their achievements equivalent, but so are their very names.

Thutmose is a compound name comprised of Thut (from Thoth, the Egyptian god of wisdom) and mose (an Egyptian title or suffix indicating son or rightful heir). In the ancient Egyptian language, words were written without vowels. Thut was, therefore, written as Twt. The ancient Hebrew language, although very different from Egyptian, originally derived its written structure from the Egyptian language.(2) As with Egyptian, the consonants were written and the vowels were vocalized only. Transliterating the Egyptian word twt into Hebrew, because of their similar alphabets, leads to dvd. Reinserting the vowels for pronunciation in Hebrew leads directly to David!(3) Moreover, it was the Egyptian King David (Thutmose III) who had defeated an earlier coalition of Syrian and Canaanite kings, and as described in the Bible, had established garrisons(4) in these regions in order to permanently secure Egyptian control there (2 Samuel 8:5,6).(5) At the beginning of the Egyptian 17th Dynasty, much of Egypt was still being dominated by foreign rulers known as the Hyksos. Through the initiative of the early Pharaohs of the 17th Dynasty, the Hyksos were attacked and eventually driven out of Egypt during the reign of Ahmose I. Ahmose and his son Amenhotep I extended their campaigns into Asia, “principally to deter any fresh incursions by roving bands into the Eastern Delta [of Egypt]“.(6)

When Amenhotep I died without a male heir, he was succeeded by the commander of the army who became Pharaoh Thutmose I. Inspired by previous successes,(7) Thutmose I, now as Pharaoh, led his army into Canaan and Syria and crossed the Euphrates River at the fords of Carchemish. After routing Mitanni forces, he set up a monument (stele) to his achievement on the north side of the Euphrates.(8)

The heiress daughter of Thutmose I, Hatshepsut was married to her step-brother Thutmose II who became Pharaoh. Thutmose II and Hatshepsut had no surviving sons. After the death of Thutmose II, his young son Thutmose III (by a minor wife Isis who was possibly of foreign birth)(9) was denied the throne by Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut continued to rule even after Thutmose III had clearly come of age.

When the male blood line of the founding dynasty ended at the death of Amenhotep I, an even greater emphasis was thereafter placed on preservation of the female blood line(10) which by this time had already distinguished itself and wielded considerable power. Ahhotep I had become an interim ruler upon the death of her husband Ahmose I and was immortalized for rallying Egypt’s forces against the Hyksos. Her daughter Ahmose-Nefertari was given the title, High Priestess of Amun, and was the first to be designated as the “God’s Wife.”(11) (The royal offspring of 18th Dynasty Pharaohs were considered to have been conceived through Devine visitation of the state god Amun with the “God’s Wife.”(12) This concept is clearly demonstrated by large murals in the mortuary temples of both Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III.) Ahmose-Nefertari was, according to the famous turn of the century archeologist Flinders Petrie, “the most venerated figure of Egyptian History.”(13)

Upon Hatshepsut’s death, the succession of Thutmose III was complicated not only by his own paucity of royal blood, but by the fact that Hatshepsut’s daughter Neferure (and holder of the titles “Gods Wife” and virgin High Priestess of Amun) was also no longer living. The nubile princess who could claim the strongest relation to Ahhotep I and Nefertari was found to be Merit-re, the daughter of Huy, the Superior of the Royal Harem. Thutmose III was married to Merit-ra, and in an official ceremony confirmed (cf., Psalm 2:7) as Pharaoh and “adopted” as the son of Amun.(14)

It is recorded that the God/Amun and Father of Thutmose III’s spoke of him, “I grant thee by decree the earth in its length and breadth. The tribes of the East and those of the West … that thy conquests may embrace all lands … I ordain that all aggressors arising against thee shall fail…”(15)

Of David, it was written in Psalm 2, “I will proclaim the decree … ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father … I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them…’”

Queen Hatshepsut had built impressively in Egypt but had shown no interest in securing an empire in Asia(16) where Egyptian influence largely eroded. The long frustrated Thutmose III was eager to prove himself, and upon becoming Pharaoh his first act was to march out with the military. In anticipation, a formidable confederation of Canaanite and Syrian kings had already consolidated their own armies and were waiting in their camps when Thutmose III arrived in Canaan with his own. Using a risky strategic maneuver, Thutmose III divided the opposing confederation and conquered them at the original epic battle of the Valley of Armageddon (Har-Megiddon).(17)

While the nearby fortress of Megiddo was under a seven month long siege, Thutmose III led a contingent of men to Kadesh (the present day site of Jerusalem), and as the Bible describes, he “took the stronghold of Zion.”(18) Kadesh was the first of over one hundred cities listed as having been conquered by Thutmose III in this campaign as recorded in the temple of Amun at Karnak,(19) and immediately precedes the city of Megiddo on the list. The more famous city of Kadesh in Syria, and the center of the Syrian-Canaanite opposition of that time, is known to have fallen to Thutmose III in a later military campaign.

The name Jerusalem does not show up on any of the lists of cities conquered during any Egyptian 18thDynasty military campaign in Asia, however, it was unquestionably part of the Egyptian empire of that time. A diplomatic letter sent to a later Egyptian Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty (of whom we will learn more about shortly), was addressed from “mat Urusalim,” i.e., “the land of Jerusalem.” Another letter from the governor of Jerusalem during the 18th Dynasty refers to Jerusalem as a city “in which the king [i.e., the Pharaoh] has set his name” (cf. 1 Kings 11:36).(20) According to Manetho’s 3rd Century B.C. History of Egypt as quoted by Josephus, Jerusalem was being ruled at this time by the Hyksos who had been expelled from Egypt by Ahmose I. It is not surprising that they readily resubmitted themselves to Thutmose III.

The name of Jerusalem (literally meaning “to establish peace or submission”)(21) certainly symbolized the role that it played in establishing and maintaining Egyptian control over Palestine during the 18th Dynasty. Both names are found in Chapter 11 of Nehemiah where the Hebrew reads as “Yurushalayim ha Qudesh,” meaning, “Jerusalem the Holy City.”(22) The capture of Jerusalem/Kadesh by Thutmose III also resolves the formerly unknown source of the name Zion. Zion consists of the components On (Hebrew for the holy city of On/Heliopolis in Egypt) and the Hebrew word zi (meaning arid place). Literally translated, Zion appropriately becomes “Holy City of the Desert.”(23)

The sacredness attributed to Jerusalem by the Egyptians initially derived from the transport of the Barque of Amun(24) (a holy shrine carried on poles in much the same manner as the Israelite Ark of the Covenant) to the city by Thutmose III. The shrine was normally kept within the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, however Thutmose III had carried it with him into battle.(25) It remained with him when he took up residence in Jerusalem during the prolonged siege of Megiddo.(26)

After the fall of the Syrian city of Kadesh (in the Biblical region of Zobah and Hamath) during the sixth military campaign (he conducted a total of 17 in all),(27) Thutmose III was able to cross the Euphrates and erect a second stele beside that of Thutmose I.(28) In essence, Thutmose III (David) “recovered his border at the river Euphrates,” (2 Samuel 8:3) that border being the one originally established by his grandfather.(29) It was at this time that Thutmose III (David) “established garrisons in Syria” as the Bible describes (2 Samuel 8:13).

Osman suggests that the tribal David, as with King Solomon, may have had been known by another name initially. Osman quotes the Encyclopedia Judaica which states, “Elhanan was David’s original name, which was later changed to David.”(30)

Yuya also known as Joseph of the Bible. father in law of Amenhotep III

Tuya mother in law of Amenhotep III like others seeking power in Egypt he married an African from the south.

Egyptian
Semite – Hyksos
Other Africans (IE: Nubians)
Europeans

Egypt before the Pharaohs

By Gamal Nkrumah

Dynastic Egypt, the classical “Two Lands” of the Pharaohs, did not miraculously spring fully ordered in all its fabled splendour. It took some five millennia before 3,500 BC for the inhabitants of the Nile Valley and Delta of Egypt to reach the cultural attainments now instantly and universally recognisable as unique to dynastic Egypt. There is abundant archaeological evidence of several predynastic kingdoms in Upper Egypt. It is commonly acknowledged that at least rudimentary political structures existed in Upper Egypt about 7,000 years ago. Because of the rise in the water table, it is rather more difficult to ascertain whether similar kingdoms existed in the Delta.

So, who were the people whose culture laid the seeds of the very first nation-state in recorded history? There is scarce, but categorical, evidence of very ancient human presence in Nubia and Upper Egypt. Early Paleolithic — Stone Age — hand axes believed to be over 70,000 years old were found in the vicinity of Abu Simbel, Nubia. But skeletal remains dating to that very distant past are yet to be discovered. How and why did the Nile Valley’s Neolithic, or late Stone Age, hunter-gatherers who had started experimenting with agriculture and animal husbandry, so rapidly progress to urbanisation and state formation at a time when the rest of humanity slumbered in prehistory? A precise answer is still a matter of conjecture.

However, Egyptologists all agree that the bounty of the lush Nile Valley was instrumental to the luxuriant flowering of Ancient Egypt. The Sahara was not always a desolate wasteland. Some 10,000 years ago, the Sahara received considerably more rain than it does today, permitting a savanna-like vegetation of open grasslands peppered with shrubs and trees, much like the East African plains of today. And, like their modern counterpart in East Africa, the Sahara was teaming with game and nomadic people who herded cattle — perhaps the first to do so in all of Africa — and roamed the savanna in search of grazing land. For watering cattle, they congregated along the banks of lakes. One such former lake is Nabta Playa — a mere 45 kilometres west of Ramses II’s temple of Abu Simbel. Today the site where these people performed their religious rituals is marked by a circle of small upright stone slabs only four metres in diameter. The curious circle looks like a miniature replica of England’s Stonehenge except that it was set up some 2,000 years earlier. Perhaps, these nomadic Saharan people were the ancestors of the early Nile Valley inhabitants?

There is evidence to suggest that around 6,000 years ago, these nomadic desert-dwellers left the Sahara Desert as it turned into the barren waste it now is and journeyed towards the life-giving waters of the River Nile and the lush Valley where first they practised hunting and gathering and gradually with the annual inundation that occurred every summer, year after year, they turned to settled agriculture. It seems that they journeyed along the tributaries of the Nile or wadi, today’s dried-up watercourses, until they reached the banks of the great river itself. The cultural remains of these prehistoric people can be traced in places like Wadi Es-Sebua, Abu Simbel and Toshka, 160 kilometres south of Aswan.

Nevertheless, the earliest human skeletal remains in Egypt’s Nile Valley were found in Jabal Sahaba, Nubia, and is some 12,000 years old. An excellent venue, therefore, in which to kick-start an exploration of predynastic cultural remains is the Nubian Museum of Aswan. The impetus for early predynastic cultural advancement in all probability came from the Khartoum Mesolithic people around 6,000 BC. These were the first people to domesticate cattle and cultivate cereal crops in the Nile Valley. In the Nubian Museum, Aswan, you can sample some of the ceramics, decorated ostrich-eggs and rock-carvings of these predynastic people. The principal material remains of these people are their stone tools, jewellery and numerous rock paintings, showing the animals they hunted. (See exhibition zones C, D and E, which display an interesting array of tools, utensils and handicrafts of the earliest inhabitants of the Nile Valley.)

The cultural influences of the Khartoum Mesolithic people appear to have drifted northwards, along the banks of the River Nile, into Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt over the next millennium. In the process, the Mesolithic cultures evolved into more advanced Neolithic culture. Between 5,500 BC and 3,100 BC, a number of successive Neolithic cultures in both Lower Egypt and, especially, Upper Egypt evolved into large, hierarchical and well organised communities. They excelled in the crafts of basketry, weaving, the tanning of animal hides and their pottery in particular was of outstanding quality. These cultures were the forerunners of dynastic Egypt. Many of the cultural features that later came to characterise dynastic Egypt originated first in predynastic Egypt. In the last stages of predynastic Egypt, sometimes referred to in literature as protodynastic Egypt, predynastic culture resembled dynastic, especially Old Kingdom, culture in more ways than one. Predynastic culture was fast acquiring those specificities that we today instantly recognise as characteristic of dynastic Egypt: an obsession with tombs and the afterlife, a preponderance of animal deities, a centralised government and the appurtenances of statehood, the first etchings of hieroglyphics, royal symbols and religious iconography. The provincial administrative divisions in dynastic times, which the Greeks called nomes, perhaps even represented the clan totems or fetishes of predynastic Egypt. Against this backdrop emerged the earliest urbanised societies in the world.

In the late Paleolithic period, from 25,000 BC, Egypt was inhabited by egalitarian nomadic bands who lived in small temporary camps close to the Nile and depended for their survival on hunting and fishing. Their material means of existence differed little from similar groups of Stone Age hunter-gatherers the world over. Beginning in 5,500 BC, Egypt’s nomadic bands began to build permanent settlements focused around agriculture, particularly the growing of cereal grains like wheat and barley. By the Neolithic period, the trend towards the establishment of more settled societies accelerated to such an extent that these people began to boldly experiment with stone, mud, metals, wood and leather to produce useful household utensils and artifacts.

The first nomadic tribesmen dwelt in temporary camps of reed or grass huts and moved with the seasons. They appeared to be acutely aware of the ebbing and subsiding of the Nile and sensibly built settlements that avoided the inundation. The mound, so prominent a feature in the creation myths and legends of dynastic Egypt, must have assumed special importance in predynastic times. The people, however, came in close proximity to the river in spite of the annual flood because it was a rich source of food. Later, they discovered that it was not only their lifeline, but a convenient highway as well. Most of their settlements were located at the edge of the floodplain. Rock-shelters were also used, and towards the end of the fourth millennium BC permanent settlements, on mounds, had become the norm. Very occasionally, the settlements even had one or two stone houses.

By 4,000 BC Neolithic communities ceased being organised into hunting bands, discarded the nomadic way of life and became settled agriculturists, artisans and traders. By this time, as their graves so graphically suggest, they were clearly divided into rulers and ruled, rich and poor. While hunting was no longer the only way of life, the early inhabitants of the Nile Valley held tenaciously to their animal totems — the falcon, the vulture, the ibis, the frog, the snake, the crocodile, the lioness, the hound and the hippopotamus. These were to emerge as gods in dynastic times. With urbanisation and settled agriculture came social organisation and a rigidly hierarchical society. The seeds of the hierarchical Pharaonic civilisation, with god-king or Pharaoh at the apex and commoners making up the base, were sown.

No study of predynastic Egypt can be complete without a reference to the work of the Father of Pots, William Matthew Flinders Petrie, a British archaeologist who meticulously unearthed the pots and grave goods of the predynastic period. Even though Petrie’s work was not confined to the predynastic, he was perhaps the first Egyptologist to scrupulously jot down notes about the predynastic objects he excavated.

Around 4,000 BC some of the finest and most elegant pottery were being produced in Upper Egypt. They were of a far superior quality to the pots produced in the Delta. At first the predynastic people of the Delta tried to imitate Upper Egyptian pottery but differences were eventually blurred when during the protodynastic period — the two or three centuries immediately preceding dynastic Egypt, Upper Egyptian kings overran the Delta and ultimately united the Two Lands. The Delta people then adopted the ways of the culturally dominant Upper Egyptian people. Indigenous pottery from the Delta ceased to exist and was replaced by pottery from Upper Egypt. Even the Delta houses ceased to be made of the traditional bundled papyrus and mats. The vanquished Lower Egyptians began to build their houses with mud bricks like those of the conquerors from the South, a style widely regarded as the prototype for dynastic houses. Several clay models of houses discovered in Hieraconpolis graves closely resembled future Old Kingdom dwellings. Other Upper Egyptian customs and traditions, like placing valuable grave goods with the deceased, were adopted by the people of the Delta. This particular custom emerged as an essential feature of dynastic Egyptian culture. Once set in place, the Egyptian civilisation was to prevail in all the splendour of its cardinal characteristics for the next 4,000 years.

Unconventional pottery, some with elaborate decoration, and an extraordinary ivory comb (bottom left) are among the finds in the new Nubia Museum in Aswan

Archaeologists divide the predynastic period into separate stages of development. The first relatively sophisticated Neolithic culture in Egypt proper, as opposed to Nubia, was of a people today commonly described as Badarians, in reference to the site at the village of Al-Badari, to the immediate south of Assiut, Upper Egypt, where many of their cultural remains were found. Next came the Amratian and Gerzean civilisations, also referred to as Naqada I and Naqada II — a site a few kilometres north of Luxor, where an impressive array of their cultural remains was located. The Amratians and especially the Gerzeans displayed an even more sophisticated cultural distinction than the Badarians. The Gerzean Civilisation can be regarded as the immediate forerunner of dynastic Egypt.

You can view all these people’s beautiful handicrafts at various museums abroad: The British Museum, London, the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College, London, the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, Oxford, the Musée du Louvre, Paris, are among the best-stocked. In Egypt, the Nubian Museum, Aswan, the Egyptian Museum, Cairo; and hopefully the Maadi predynastic Museum, Cairo, which will open its doors to the public soon.

In Egypt, the Chalcolithic Period, sometimes also called Primitive predynastic, saw the emergence of Badarian agrarians. The Badarian culture also witnessed the first beginnings of stonemasonry in Egypt, which differed qualitatively from the primitive art of Stone Age toolmaking that had existed for millennia. The Badarians appear to have lived in shelters made of animal skins and dressed also in animal skins. They were skilled artisans who, while not entirely giving up hunting, bartered trade goods, had began to experiment with agriculture, and domesticated many animals. The Badarians obviously were a gregarious people who, judging from the artifacts they left behind, were fond of dance. The preponderance of female figurines in Badarian tombs hint at a more matrilineal political system or female-oriented religion than that which prevailed in Egypt in dynastic times, when male-gods predominated. Dancer figurines, mostly female, with upraised arms were common in graves. Perhaps these figurines represented the original belly dancers. Such figures are now scattered in museums all over the world. One especially expressive and mirthful figurine is deposited at the Musée de Lyon, France. Other figures are to be found in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo; the Musée du Louvre, Paris; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; the Museum of Fine Art, Boston; the University of Chicago Oriental Institute Museum; the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; and several museums in London including the Victoria and Albert; the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology; and the British Museum.

The Badarians’ wardrobe must have been essentially a collection of animal skins. But strong evidence suggests that the Badarians discovered the loom and were, therefore, producing textiles as well. A pottery dish depicting a horizontal ground-loom was found at a tomb at Al-Badari. The earliest known Egyptian flax and Neolithic linen goes back to the Badarian period.

The Badarians also cleverly crafted combs of ivory, bone and wood which are remarkably reminiscent of traditional African combs. But perhaps the most impressive feature of Badarian culture was their highly distinctive pottery. Of superlative quality, the Badarians’ pottery was of a reddish brown finish and the tops were burned black, by being inverted in the ashes of the kiln. The walls of the Badarian ceramics were fired to something of a metallic hardness even though they were often eggshell-thin.

But the handiwork of the Badarians pale into relative insignificance when compared with those of its two successor civilisations — the Amratian and the Gerzean. The first is named for the site at Al Amra (or Naqada I) in the vicinity of modern Luxor. Naqada, 30 kilometres north of Luxor, is one of the most important predynastic sites in Egypt. Carpentry and furniture-making began in earnest during the Amratian period. In time, objects began to be made not just with function in mind, but with aesthetic value as well. The beautiful black-topped pottery so characteristic of the time was produced in abundance.

Around 4,500 BC this new, dynamic and relatively sophisticated culture known today as Naqada I or the Amratian Period, produced veritable works of art. There was a distinct change in pottery decorations. Previously ceramics were decorated by simple geometric designs and bold bands of paint. But, in the Amratian period, the ever more complex designs that were not just purely functional came into vogue. Among the grave goods the Amratians left behind were solemn-looking cloaked and bearded male figures in ivory and clay. These figures are instantly recognisable as the antecedent of Osiris Lord of the Dead, Resurrection and Rebirth. Such figures are also reminiscent of the tightly-fitted Hed-Seb ceremonial dress of dynastic Pharaohs.

The Amratians grew Emmer wheat and baked bread. Food production gradually became a more sophisticated process and the domestication of cattle was firmly established by the fourth millennium. The Amratians traded with the peoples of Nubia, the Red Sea, the Delta and the Levant, perhaps even further afield.

One of the most important predynastic trading settlements was in the southern Cairo suburb of Maadi. A distinctly Maadi feature was the burial of dogs and gazelles. There is evidence of the extensive use of copper in the Maadi predynastic settlement. Copper was hammered cold and shaped into pins and harpoon heads. Such objects are found in the Maadi predynastic Museum, Cairo. Trade with the people of Sinai and Palestine was crucial to the economic well-being of the Maadi settlement. Donkeys were used as draft animals. Palestinian pottery and other artifacts from the Levant were found in abundance in Maadi. Jewellery and artifacts for personal adornment show a marked level of artistry. Moreover, the strong and astonishingly intact samples of teeth reveal that the people of predynastic Maadi had an exceptionally healthy and varied diet of grain, fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy products.

Other important and distinct predynastic cultures in Lower Egypt were found in Fayoum and Merimda in the Delta. A notable feature of Lower Egyptian predynastic sites like Maadi, Fayoum and Merimda is that they were once living quarters or trading settlements as opposed to the primarily grave sites of Upper Egypt.

The third stage of predynastic cultural development began at around 4,000 BC and is referred to as the Gerzean Period or Naqada III, in reference to the village of Gerzah halfway between Saqqara and Fayoum, on the western bank of the Nile. But the Gerzean predynastic culture spanned a long stretch of the Nile in Lower, Middle and Upper Egypt. In Hemamiya, just south of Assiut, Badarian artifacts were found beneath Amratian and Gerzean levels, suggesting a strong sense of continuity of predynastic cultures.

Artifacts from the Gerzean Period, however, are decidedly different from those produced in the earlier Amratian and Badarian periods. The difference between the Gerzean and the two other cultures is perhaps most marked in ceramics. Gerzean pottery was produced along not merely functional lines. The aesthetic or decorative aspect of ceramics became the hallmark of Gerzean culture. Geometric motifs on ceramics dating to the Gerzean period could be interpreted as a form of early writing. Gerzean exquisitely painted desert-hunting scenes and animals such as the ostrich and the inex abound. Another favourite object depicted on Gerzean ceramics was the boat.

The art of dyeing, using natural colours of local origin, was known in Egypt as early as the Gerzean period, with the textile fibres spun and then dyed. Spinning and weaving were practised in ancient Egypt from the Neolithic period, technical evidence being afforded by depiction, models and the surviving artifacts. But it is beginning of the Gerzean times that the art of dressmaking approached the excellence of dynastic times. Spare clothing for the afterlife was an archaic Egyptian custom, and dates back to the Gerzean Period when hanks of yarn were traditionally placed with the body of the deceased. Copper and silver needles and pins with loop heads are some of the surviving objects that were in everyday usage during the Gerzean period.

The Hierakonpolis Expedition uncovered a brewery, perhaps what is Egypt’s earliest temple destined to become the prototype for dynastic Egyptian temples. The predynastic rulers of Hierakonpolis were in all probability the kings who eventually united all Egypt: Delta and Nile Valley. Surviving dwellings from the predynastic periods are uncommon and a rare exception, however, is the house and workshop of a potter who signed his pots in one of Egypt’s earliest urban settlements — Hierakonpolis, the Falcon city. Hierakonpolis was a sprawling settlement of over 11 acres on the desert’s edge. The potter’s subterranean rectangular house was burnt down after what appears to be a devastating fire. The potter wisely rebuilt his house in stone. Because of the fossilised remains of the potter’s house, we are able to glimpse something of the architectural creativity of the late predynastic period.

Among the most important items left behind by these predynastic people were palettes of slate for grinding cosmetics — many in the shape of animals, birds and fish. Boats were the dominant theme of the pottery of the late predynastic, or protodynastic times. Naval battles were also depicted as on the handle of a knife discovered at Jabal Al-Arak. The names of certain predynastic kings such as Scorpion were depicted in a serekh, or cartouche, like their dynastic counterparts. By this time, of course, it is not entirely clear whether we are still talking of predynastic times. For it is at that historical moment that the predynastic, or protodynastic, metamorphosed into the far more familiar dynastic Egypt.

West Africa Magazine