Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar II were ‘camera-shy’?

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

 

“… there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V …”.



 



Such is the case according to the article, "Shalmaneser V and Sargon II", at: http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Rel302/Shalmaneser%20V%20and%20Sargon%20II.htm

.... The revolt of Israel against Assyria during the days of King Hoshea, last king of Israel, brought on a siege by the Assyrians (1 Kings 17). The siege was led by Shalmaneser V, King of Assyria (there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V). During the siege, he died. Sargon II replaced Shalmanezer V as King of Assyria, who finished the siege and sacked Samaria.

 

Whilst that may be surprising in itself, the fact is – I believe - that Shalmaneser (so-called V) was the same person as Tiglath-pileser (known as III) of whom there are plenty of depictions.

 

 

And the lack of apparent portraits of Nebuchednezzar II was part of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s reason for (rightly) seeking to find an alter ego for the Great King (though wrongly, I think, equating him with the Hittite emperor, Hattusilis). Velikovsky wrote in Ramses II and His Time, p. 184: “At Wadi Brissa in Lebanon, Nebuchadnezzar twice had his picture cut in rock; these are supposedly the only known portraits of this king”.

 

King Nabonidus like an Assyrian monarch

 

 by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

Nabonidus is an Assyrian king.

He adopts Assyrian titulature and boasts of having

the Assyrian kings as his "royal ancestors".

 

 



 

This is what I wrote some years ago now to Johnny Zwick, sysop of the California Institute for Ancient Studies (then www.specialtyinterests.net/), regarding my projected realignment of late Judah with neo Assyro-Babylonia:

 

My connecting of Hezekiah of Judah with Josiah went down like a lead balloon amongst the few to whom I sent it. (See Pope’s valuable effort at: http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-37.html)

 

[Comment: I have since re-done this properly in my article:

 

'Taking aim on' king Amon - such a wicked king of Judah

 

https://www.academia.edu/37575781/Taking_aim_on_king_Amon_-_such_a_wicked_king_of_Judah

 

So here is the next phase. I would not actually call it a bombshell.

More like a Third World War.

Nabonidus is an Assyrian king. He adopts Assyrian titulature and boasts of having the Assyrian kings as his "royal ancestors". There is nothing particularly strange about his supposed long stay in Teima in Arabia. This was a typical campaign region adopted by the neo-Assyrian kings. There is nothing particularly remarkable about his desire to restore the Ehulhul temple of Sin in Harran.

Ashurbanipal did that.

 

Nabonidus is said to have had two major goals, to restore that Sin temple and to establish the empire of Babylon along the lines of the neo-Assyrians. Once again, Ashurbanipal is particularly mentioned as being his inspiration.

 

Nabonidus was not singular in not taking the hand of Bel in Babylon for many years, due to what he calls the impiety of the Babylonians. Ashurbanipal (and now you will notice that he keeps turning up) could not shake the hand of Bel after his brother Shamash-shum-ukin had revolted against him, barring Babylon, Borsippa, etc. to him. He tells us this explicitly.

 

Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same.

So, basically Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal during his early reign. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.

 

Now, if Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal (and I am now pretty much convinced that he must be), then Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) can only be Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign.

Nebuchednezzar is the Babylonian face, while Ashurbanipal is the Assyrian face.

The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! Add to this paltry number all of the depictions of Ashurbanipal.

 

The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. Add Ashurbanipal (whose lack also in places is supplemented in turn by Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus).

 

It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. Just add Ashurbanipal who certainly did conquer Egypt.

 

The many queries about whether an inscription belongs to Nebuchednezzar or Nabonidus now dissolves.

 

It was Nabonidus, not Nebuchednezzar, they say, who built the famous palace in Babylon.

Nabonidus's well known madness (perhaps the Teima phase) is Nebuchednezzar's madness.

Nabonidus calls Sin "the God of gods" (ilani sa ilani), the exact phrase used by Nebuchednezzar in Daniel 2:47 of Daniel's God ("the God of gods").

 

Looking for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one. His brother dies in it.

“Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p. 176).

….

 

Dynastic patterns for Ay[e] and Horemheb

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

The Ay[e] and Horemheb combination seems to recur approximately

half a dozen times between the C14th and C11th’s BC, conventional dating.

 

 

[Dates given below are only approximate, favouring round figures]

 

 

We begin with:

 

1. Ay and Horemheb (c. 1325-1290 BC)

 

The pair is generally considered to have concluded Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty.

 

https://alchetron.com/Ay

Ay was the penultimate Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt's 18th dynasty. He held the throne of Egypt for a brief four-year period (probably 1323–1319 BC or 1327–1323 BC, depending on which chronology is followed), although he was a close advisor to two and perhaps three of the pharaohs who ruled before him and was said to be the power behind the throne during Tutankhamun's reign. Ay's prenomen or royal name—Kheperkheperure—means "Everlasting are the Manifestations of Ra" while his birth name Ay it-netjer reads as 'Ay, Father of the God.'

Records and monuments that can be clearly attributed to Ay are rare, not only due to his short length of reign, but also because his successor, Horemheb, instigated a campaign of damnatio memoriae against him and other pharaohs associated with the unpopular Amarna Period.

[End of quote]

 

1. Ramses I and Seti I (c. 1290-1280 BC)

 

The pair is generally considered to have inaugurated Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty.

Like Ay, “who rose from the ranks of the civil service and the military …”:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ay-king-of-Egypt

the similarly brief-reigning Ramses I “came from a long line of soldiers …”. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mummy/rameses.html

 

1. Amenmesse and Seti II (c. 1200-1195 BC)

 

This pair has been situated (wrongly, I believe) towards the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty.

Amenmesse’s short reign length is compatible with that of Ay. Also compatible with Ay’s subsequent damnatio memoriae is the fact that Amenmesse “was later considered a usurper”. Thus N. Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, p. 269): “According to Papyrus Salt 124, Amenmesse reigned for five years, but since he was later considered a usurper it is somewhat difficult to trace his career …”.

 

Meanwhile, Seti (“Sethos”) II is lacking records of the military and building exploits of which he boasted (these to be found in the records of Seti I). N. Grimal again (ibid., pp. 269-270): “Sethos II claims to have undertaken an extensive building campaign, but there is little indication that his words were transformed into actions”.

 

1. Bay and Siptah (c. 1190 BC)

 

This pair has been situated (wrongly, I believe) right at the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty.

Ay probably rears his ugly head here again as Chancellor Bay, he likewise (as with Ramses I) “also called Ramesses”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_(chancellor)

Did Bay, like Ay, suffer damnatio memoriae, like Amenmesse as a ‘usurper’?

That is likely, since he was “an usurper” according to phouka:

http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn19/08tausret.html

“Chancellor Bay is a shadowing figure who was coregent for Siptah along with Tawosret. He may have ruled by himself for a year or so after Tawosret's death in 1185 or so, accoridng to Piccione. Most egyptologists relegate him to the background, ruling from behind the throne while Tawosret sat in it. He was originally a scribe, and is referred to as "The Kingmaker" and "The self-made Man", which may imply that he was an usurper”.

 

Bay’s epithet, “The Kingmaker”, is also a perfect description of Ay.

 

But it may even be that the ‘usurper’ was, not just exiled, but executed by the new pharaoh: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_(chancellor)

“According to the information in Ostraca IFAO 1864, which is composed of two inscribed potsherd fragments that were reunited in February 2000, Bay was executed on or shortly before Year 5, III Shemu day 27 of Siptah, on the king's orders. The recto of the ostracon is essentially a public announcement to the workmen of Deir el-Medina and reads thus:

Year 5 III Shemu the 27th. On this day, the scribe of the tomb Paser came announcing 'Pharaoh LPH, has killed the great enemy Bay.(sm3 Pr-‘3 ‘.w.s. khrw ‘3 B3y)'^[10]”

 

[End of quotes]

 

Pharaoh Siptah has also, for his part, the names ‘Merenptah’ and ‘Ramses’, the first of which we have met in the combination, Seti Merenptah, and the second of which we shall encounter again in 7. below, with ‘Ramses-Psusennes’.

 

1. ‘Usurper’ and Seti-nakhte (c. 1185 BC)

 

Conventional Egyptology does it all over again, with Seti (here Seti-nakhte) and ‘the usurper’ here emerging at the very beginning of the so-called Twentieth Dynasty:

http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn20/01sethakht.html

“Sethnakhte is relatively unknown, with only a few written records attesting to his reign. He ruled over a chaotic period in Egypt, after the (possible) reign of Chancellor Bay, an usurper to the throne. Sethnakhte claims to have "Driven out the usurper", and he restored law and order to Egypt. It is possible that he took the throne directly from Tawosret”.

 

The little known Seti-nakhte (Setnakhte), a hero to his successors, was, like Horemheb, like Seti I, a reformer, one who had “restored law and order to Egypt” – and he becomes far better known when he is properly attached to his alter egos (Horemheb and Seti).

“Setnakhte”, according to Grimal (op. cit., p. 271), “kept Hori son of Kama in office as Viceroy of Kush”.

This “Hori” may perhaps be an important connection with the renowned Herihor (see next).

 

1. Amenhotep and Ramses XI (c. 1100-1070 BC)

 

The Twentieth Dynasty has, like the Nineteenth, a ‘Seti’ type at its beginning (Seti-nakhte) and one at the end (Ramses XI), the latter’s being another restorative period including whm mswt. I tentatively suggest that the “chief priest Amenhotep sent into exile” (Grimal, op. cit., p. 291) was the same as the too-big-for-his boots Ay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ay

“Ay is wearing the Leopard skin worn by Egyptian High Priests”.

 

Herihor, “an Egyptian army officer and High Priest of Amun at Thebes (1080 BC to 1074 BC) during the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses XI” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herihor), may possibly be the same person as Setnakhte’s high official, Hori, as already mentioned.

 

1. Amenemnisu and ‘Ramses-Psusennes’ (c. 1050-1000 BC)

 

Now in the so-called Third Intermediate Period, the Twenty-First Dynasty, we encounter a name, Amenemnisu, very similar to that of our ‘usurper’ in 3., Amenmesse.

The reign length of Amenemnisu, “4 years”, is the same as that estimated for Ay, and very close to the “five years” given for Amenmesse. Nor are we surprised to read of his close association with another of our ‘Seti’ types, Psusennes: http://www.touregypt.net/21dyn02.htm

“Amenemnisu was the second ruler of the Twenty-first Dynasty. He is though to have ruled for 4 years possibly as the co-regent with Psusennes I”.

 

Conclusion:

Our ‘Dynastic patterns for Ay[e] and Horemheb’ span (c. 1325- 1000 BC) a massive 325 years.

And that is without our yet even including Psusennes so-called II (= I?) (d. 940 BC).

Conventional fudging has Seti occupying centuries

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

In the case of the so-called Twentieth Dynasty, Seti-nakhte, the heroic dynastic founder

who drove out the usurper, and who is Seti, rears up again in the guise of Ramses XI

at the end of that dynasty.

 

  

 

 

The characteristic feature of the early reign of Horemheb, of Seti, is restoration (and lawgiving) after a period of chaos and usurpation. Hence the institution of a new era, whm mswt (‘Repetition of Births’).

 

This connection between the Nineteenth Dynasty and, supposedly, the era the preceded it, is picked up again with Ramses XI, also (like Seti) named Menmare, with his new era of restoration, whm mswt.

Ramses XI is supposed to have reigned, like Horemheb, for 28 years.

 

Topsy-turvy Egyptian dynasties, as we noted elsewhere, with a dynasty’s beginning re-emerging at its end.

Thus, in the case of the so-called Twentieth Dynasty, Seti-nakhte, the heroic dynastic founder who drove out the usurper, and who is Seti (supporting the strong tradition of a “Sethos” as dynastic founder), rears up again in the guise of Ramses XI at the end of that dynasty. 

 

That is already a chronological stretch from c. 1320 BC (Horemheb) - 1070 BC (Ramses XI).

250 years for he who I consider to be the one pharaoh: Seti the Great.

 

And this does not yet take into account possible further extensions of Seti, via Psusennes I (=II) and on even into the 25^th dynasty.

 

 

Merenptah completes Seti

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

  

 

“Merenptah’s involvement with the Osireion raises some questions,

not least, how did he gain access when the brick arch appears

to have been blocked up by Seti?”

 

Keith Hamilton

 

 

 

 

The somewhat poorly known pharaoh Merenptah - generally thought to have been the son and successor of Ramses II - needs, it seems, to be filled out with his supposed grandfather, Seti (the father of Ramses II), whom I have multi-identified in e.g. my series:

 

Seti I and Seti II Merenptah

 

See especially:

 

Seti I and Seti II Merenptah. Part Three: Seti I and II Merenptah and Merenptah

 

https://www.academia.edu/39120467/Seti_I_and_Seti_II_Merenptah._Part_Three_Seti_I_and_II_Merenptah_and_Merenptah

 

Merenptah’s relative obscurity (qua Merenptah) is apparent from the following quotes:

 

http://www.ancientpages.com/2018/04/17/pharaoh-merneptah-his-giant-sarcophagus-and-unique-victory-stele/

“Greatly overshadowed by his dominant and long-lived father, Merneptah never had a chance to become a famous pharaoh and he was almost unknown for most of his life”.

 

Note, in the next quote, the sequence: “probably”, “likely”, “presumed”, “possibly”.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah

“Merneptah was probably the fourth child of Isetnofret I, the second wife of Ramesses II, and he was married to Queen Isetnofret II, his royal wife, who was likely his full sister bearing the name of their mother. It is presumed that Merneptah was also married to Queen Takhat and one of their sons would succeed him as Seti II. They also were the parents of Prince Merenptah and possibly the usurper, Amenmesse, and Queen Twosret, wife of Seti II and later pharaoh in her own right”.

 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Merneptah

“He left few monuments, but in his conduct of Egypt’s defense and diplomacy he was at least the equal of his father”.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10208b.htm

“His original works are comparatively few and insignificant. His name is constantly found on the monuments of his father …”.

 

Merenptah is thought to have “decorated” (in some cases, “largely”) monuments of Seti, even though he is considered to have been separated from Seti by the almost seven decades of reign of Ramses II.

 

https://therolesandcontributionsofsetii.weebly.com/builder.html

“The Osireion is located behind the Abydos temple and may have been intended to be a 'cenotaph' (empty tomb.) The architecture of the Osireion is particularly unusual: a rectangular 'island' surrounded by a channel of water was constructed in the middle of the hall on which large pillars were built. This design may have represented the primeval waters and mound which began all of creation. Although the structure was built by Seti I it was largely decorated by his grandson, Merenptah with scenes from 'The Book of Gates', images of the journey to the underworld, texts relating to astronomy and depictions of gods and goddesses”. 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keith_Hamilton4/publication/328225133_The_Osireion_A_Layman%27s_Guide/links/5bbf5cbe299bf1004c5a4617/The-Osireion-A-Laymans-Guide.pdf

“When Murray discovered and excavated the two chambers at the end of the entrance passage, she found them decorated with texts; she states,

 

“The cartouche of Merenptah appeared in every place where it could be inserted, and we therefore had to consider the possibility of its being his tomb.”24

 

It seems clear therefore, that a lot of the preliminary laying out of the texts was accomplished by Seti, and that these texts were utilised by Merenptah, who only had to sculpt the walls and replace Seti’s name with his own; though his workers appeared to have missed Seti’s name on two occasions.

 

There are indications that Ramesses II did likewise in the adjacent temple, when he completed Seti’s work; though there is no evidence that Ramesses did any work on the Osireion.

 

Merenptah’s involvement with the Osireion raises some questions, not least, how did he gain access when the brick arch appears to have been blocked up by Seti? Frankfort makes no comment on it, other than to question Strabo’s access; he states, Ingress could not be obtained by the arch at the north end of the entrance passage, because we found it still bricked up with Seti’s bricks,..”25

 

But if this logic is good for Strabo, what about Merenptah? Merenptah was Seti’s grandson and he ruled after his long lived father Ramesses II, who ruled about 66 years: Merenptah would not be so fortunate and his reign is believed to be a more modest 10 years. It would seem therefore, that Merenptah took an unusual interest in the subterranean Osireion some 66 years after Seti bricked up the arch. If Merenptah had used this entrance, might not he have used bricks with his own name on it? So how did he gain access? ….

 

http://www.historyembalmed.org/egyptian-pharaohs/merneptah.htm

“Children:  Little information about his children but it is believed that his son Seti-Merneptah became Pharaoh Seti II”.

 

Seti Merenptah’s 'Israel' Stele

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

 

Bimson thought (at least as late as 1980) that Merenptah’s Stele had pre-dated

the fall of Samaria by about a decade, to c. 734-733 BC; it being a reference rather

to the earlier Assyrian deportations of Israel by Tiglath-pileser III.

 

 

 

 

To recall what I have written previously:

 

– According to Courville, as we have seen, the stele’s inscription pertains to the Assyrian deportation of Samaria in c. 722/721 BC.

 

– Velikovsky would later look to connect it with the deportation of the Jews to Babylon after the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchednezzar II [Ramses II and His Time, pp. 189-196]. Though Bimson has estimated Velikovsky’s date for the 5th Year of Merenptah at “no earlier than 564 BC … 23 years after the fall of Jerusalem” [‘An Eighth Century Date for Merenptah’, p. 57].

 

– Bimson thought (at least as late as 1980) that Merenptah’s Stele had pre-dated the fall of Samaria by about a decade, to c. 734-733 BC; it being a reference rather to the earlier Assyrian deportations of Israel by Tiglath-pileser III. …. [Ibid. See also ‘John Bimson replies on the “Israel Stele”,’ pp. 59-61].

 

– Rohl has in turn dated the conquests described in the stele to those effected by Seti I and Ramses II, his candidate for the biblical ‘Shishak’, himself regarding the stele as being Merenptah’s merely basking in the glory of what these, his great predecessors, had achieved before him. […. A Test of Time, ch. 7, pp. 164-171].

 

[End of quote]

 

For Drs. Velikovsky, Courville and Bimson (back then), this Egyptian Stele was supposedly commemorating one or another Assyro-Babylonian triumph – a most unlikely scenario! 

 

And Rohl, for his part, though regarding the document as being a commemoration of Egyptian victories, considered these to be triumphs pre-dating pharaoh Merenptah – victories by his predecessors, Seti I and Ramses II.  

 

Only Martin Sieff, amongst the revisionists, had envisaged this as being an Egyptian victory achieved by Merenptah himself.

 

Thus I wrote:

 

– And Sieff … related Merenptah’s victory to what he called the “time of troubles in the northern kingdom of Israel after the death of Jeroboam II”.

 

Martin Sieff’s realistic version, which is the one that I basically embraced in my postgraduate university thesis (Volume One, Chapter 11, pp. 300-305):

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

was dependent upon the biblical chronology of Martin Anstey - and taken up by Philip Mauro - that the reign of Jeroboam II in Israel was followed by a 22-year period of interregnum.

 

Patrick Clarke

 

Rohl’s revised chronology, according to which Ramses II was the biblical pharaoh “Shishak” at the time of king Rehoboam of Judah (I Kings 14:25), has recently been picked up by Creationist, Patrick Clarke in his article, “The Stele of Merneptah—assessment of the final ‘Israel’ strophe and its implications for chronology”:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j27_1/j27_1_57-64.pdf

 

 It is clear that the Merneptah stele can be interpreted in line with the United and Divided Monarchy Periods of Israelite history. Furthermore, if it can be demonstrated that Merneptah’s father, Ramesses II, was in fact Shishak, many synchronisms previously held by both supporters of the CEC [conventional] and revisionists between the people of Israel and their neighbours collapse, and a whole new series of compelling synchronisms emerges. The reigns of Ramesses II and Merneptah are contemporaneous with the last few years of the United Monarchy and the first 75 years of the Divided Monarchy. A detailed analysis of the ‘Israel’ text indicates that far from being placed in the 1200s bc, Merneptah’s reign should be dated to 913–903 bc; a movement of three centuries. Consequently, Ramesses II would have reigned from 979–913 bc, in the Divided Monarchy Period. In my proposed revised chronology all the political, military, and economic factors detailed on the stele coincide with conditions in Israel. This was not the case three centuries earlier in the time of the Judges.

[End of quote]

 

Whilst Clarke is correct in rejecting the conventional location of the Merenptah Stele to the approximate period of “the Judges”, his chronological re-setting of Ramses II and Merenptah has, in my opinion, dire consequences for the best efforts of the revision as explored by the likes of Drs. Velikovsky and Courville, and modified and enhanced by astute minds of the “Glasgow School” (including Martin Sieff).

For, as Clarke goes on to write:

 

Once this historical re-alignment takes place, a number of synchronisms previously held to be true by some revisionists, albeit well-intentioned, are refuted. Some of these erroneous synchronisms are: Thutmose III/Shishak;31 Hatshepsut/Queen of Sheba;32 Amenhotep II/Zerah the Cushite; Israel’s King Ahab/Battle of Qarqar; Israel’s King Jehu/Shalmaneser III—the final two failed synchronisms in this list have serious implications for the less than reliable Assyrian chronology.33

[End of quote]

 

No thank you. I myself shall stick with the, now manifold, synchronisms - as worked out by revisionists - between Egypt’s 18^th dynasty and the United to Early Divided kingdom periods, especially those iron-cast synchronisms with El Amarna.

 

Clarke’s most useful contribution is, in my opinion, his expertise in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, which he has correctly noted has not been a strong suit amongst revisionists: “Knowledge of the Egyptian language and syllabic orthography is essential when assessing any Egyptian text, otherwise mistakes are inevitable”. Thus Clarke writes with regard to the Stele: 

 

This reliance in Christian works on blind copying of old, outdated translations, which probably reflects the dearth of competent archeology and history specialists in the Christian community, is fraught with problems, as will be seen.

 

Knowledge of the Egyptian language and syllabic orthography is essential when assessing any Egyptian text, otherwise mistakes are inevitable. The majority of Egyptologists are in agreement regarding the entity ysry3l as Israel based on the syllabic orthography of the name and the context of the final poetic unit of the Merneptah stele. It is the chronological placement of Israel where scholars of the CEC and revisionist positions come into conflict.

[End of quote]

 

Clarke is particularly scathing about professor Joseph Davidovits, whom he calls “A secularist”, regarding the latter’s unorthodox translation of the Victory Stele (see Clarke’s section on p. 62: “A secularist attempt to deny Israel is even mentioned on the stele”).

 

A suggested solution

 

With my modification of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty in its relation to Seti and the awkward Third Intermediate Period in multi-part series such as:

 

Smendes and Shoshenq I

 

beginning with:

 

https://www.academia.edu/39023282/Smendes_and_Shoshenq_I

 

and:

 

Seti I and Seti II Merenptah

 

beginning with:

 

https://www.academia.edu/39108688/Seti_I_and_Seti_II_Merenptah._Part_One_Some_topsy-turvy_Egyptian_dynasties

 

I am now inclined to accept Rohl’s and Clarke’s opinion that the Israel Stele pertains to an early Nineteenth Dynasty ruler, such as Seti – but with my twist to this, that Seti was Merenptah.

 

See especially my article on this:

 

Seti I and Seti II Merenptah. Part Three: Seti I and II Merenptah and Merenptah

 

https://www.academia.edu/39120467/Seti_I_and_Seti_II_Merenptah._Part_Three_Seti_I_and_II_Merenptah_and_Merenptah