ial circumstances).10 In the later second millennium BC, the basic price of slaves crept upwards, to 30 shekels (and more) as at later 15th-Century Nu

in a Name?On his appointment to office as the pharaoh’s chief minister, Joseph was given an Egyptian name, Zaphenath-pa’aneah (in English form) and an Egyptian wife Asenath, daughter of a Potiphera, (high) priest of On (i.e., Heliopolis)—Genesis 41:45—the latter’s name being reminiscent of his former employer’s (Potiphar, Gn 39:1). Naturally, these outlandish names have attracted much comment. Regarding Zaphenath-pa’aneah, the suggestion of C. Steindorff, a century ago, has enjoyed wide, not to say dogmatic acceptance (1889:41–42; 1892:50–52). He understood it as Egyptian Dje(d)pa Nute(r) (e)f-’ankh, to be translated “The God has said: ‘he will live’!”15 This particular type of name (Djed DEITY ef-’ankh) is very well attested from the late 20th Dynasty down to the 26th Dynasty and after, say ca. 1100–500 BC.16 But this particular form of the name, with “God” instead of a named deity, is still purely theoretical,17 and may be purely imaginary.18 Its theoretical status is not the only problem. It is, by meaning, a birth-name, the kind given to a child at birth (as various scholars have pointed out) and hence eminently unsuitable for Joseph at 30 years old.19 Thus, we are fully entitled to present a better solution to Zaphenath-pa’aneah if it exists.20 Quite some time ago, this writer presented precisely such a solution, but only in brief (1962; 1980); hence, a slightly fuller treatment is in order here. The Hebrew “name” is rather long and falls into two parts. The second half clearly contains the Egyptian word ‘ankh, “life/to live,” as is almost universally conceded; before it is some element containing p or f. The first half, conversely, seems much more “Semitic” at first sight: Zaphenath is directly reminiscent of the common Semitic root zaphan,21 and of very little in Egyptian.22 However, if a simple metathesis of the p and t be conceded, giving Zat(h)nap(h) for Zap(h)nat(h), then the situation is radically different. Zatnap corresponds precisely to Egyptian djad(u)-naf, “who is called...,” introducing a second name after the first-for example, “Ankhu djad(u)-naf Hedjeri” means “Ankhu called Hedjeri.” In its masculine and feminine forms, this construction appears in the Middle Kingdom (from ca. 2000 BC), and stayed in use into the New Kingdom to at least the 18th Dynasty.23 The verbal variant of this construction, djad tu-naf (and feminine equivalent) was current mainly from the 18th Dynasty (ca. 1550–1300 BC) onwards, into the Later Period.24 Thus the construction is superabundantly attested in Egyptian, in two closely-similar forms, covering between them the period of ca. 2000–600 BC.25 But is the assumption of metathesis justified? The answer is “yes.” It is a common feature when names and words transfer from one language into another. Compare the k/s and s/k sounds in Greek (Al)eksandros and Arabic Iskander; or the Hurro-Hittite Ini-Tesub becoming in Egyptian Ini-Tebus. Or in the Bible itself,



Egyptian Taharqa becoming in Hebrew Tirhaqah.
And not least with our name itself Hebrew Zapnat becomes in the Greek of the LXX Psonth... The reason in our case (Djat-naf to Zapnat) is very simple. The consonantal succession was totally foreign to a Semitic speaker and writer, so it was switched to a sequence that was very familiar, z-p-n(-t). Hence, there is no problem in accepting Zapnat from Egyptian Djad(u)-naf.26The second half of the name (“pa’aneah”) is very straightforward. As Engelbach long ago foresaw, names of the type Pa(i)ankh are very rare and unsatisfactory. But at least two other better solutions exist. One is to understand (E)fankh, as in the birth-name solution, but as an independent name. Such a name is attested from Middle-Kingdom times to the Greek period (Ranke 1935:14:5). The other, far better-based solution is to understand Pa’aneah as Egyptian (I)p-ankh or (I)pi-ankh or (I)pu-ankh, closely-related variants of each other (Ranke 1935:21:30; 22:16; 23:18). These are very common in the Middle Kingdom, but not any later. So, at court, the pharaoh is to be envisaged as calling his new minister Yosep djad-naf (I)pi-ankh, “Joseph called (I)pi-ankh.” In Hebrew the link-word djad-naf and name proper (I)p-’ankh were simply taken over as one epithet of Joseph. The case of a foreigner in Egypt being given an Egyptian name introduced by djad-naf now known to be a very common one, from the Middle Kingdom, as Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 of the 18th century BC makes very clear (Hayes 1955:99–102).Joseph’s wife Asenath also bears an Egyptian name. But which? The classic explanation owed to Sethe (1899: §223,l)was to derive it from Egyptian Nes-neit (“she belongs to [the goddess] Neit,”), with elision of initial n, giving Es-neit. For this, we have cuneiform and Greek transcriptional evidence during the first millennium BC. However, this name is not attested, it is theoretical, although there are plenty of other such names compounded with those of other deities—(N)es-Amun, (N)es-Hor, etc. (Ranke 1935:173–80, passim). And, as Spiegelberg objected (1904:18–19), the a-vowel in Hebrew Asenath and LXX Greek Asen(n)eth did not agree with the e-vocalization of the (N)es-names. He therefore suggested a name Iu.s-en-Neit (pronounced As-en-Neit) instead. This, too, is unattested; it has a parallel with one other deity—Mut is attested.27 The iu.es-, pronounced As-en-, is certainly preferable to Sethe’s (N)es. But the ancient goddess Neith is rather rare in personal names—she belonged mainly in Sais in the West Delta, whence we have almost no data on personal names. In the East Delta, at Heliopolis, she would not be expected to occur in names. Is there an alternative? Again, yes. We have men called Iuf-ni, “he belongs to me” (spoken by a parent), and commonly women called Ius-ni, “she belongs to me” (ditto), well-attested in the Middle Kingdom (Ranke 1935:14:7 and 15:4, respectively). We have women called Ius-n-ites and Ius-en-mutes, meaning “she belongs to her father” and “she belongs to her mother” (Ranke 1935:15:1, 7, respectively; of Middle Kingdom date). We have a man called Iuf-en-at, probably “he belongs to you” (fem.), i.e. to his mother (Ranke 1935:14:12, of the First Intermediate Period/early Middle Kingdom). From this, it is a very short step indeed to suggest that our Asenat(h) is simply Ius-en-at, “she belongs to you” (fem.), in exactly the same way, and pronounced As-en-at. This explanation for Asenath eliminates the unrealistic link with Neith, fits the vocalic pattern in Hebrew and Egyptian, and derives from an attested name (even if in the masculine only at present).Mummy of Ramesses II, Pharaoh of Egypt 1279–1213 BC. Egyptian Museum, Cairo.There remain Potiphar and Potiphera. The universally acceptable interpretation of Potiphera is that it is from the Egyptian Pa-di-Pre, “the gift of the (god) Re,” a well-known type of name (Pa-di-DEITY), and in fact attested just learn french

te of its orchards and crops.”[62]Even Kadesh, the fierce enemy of Thutmose III that led a rebellion against Egypt at the outset of his reign as

ired innumerable supplies. A central part of the Egyptian campaigning policy in Palestine was to provide food for the troops and horses.[67]b. Evidence related to the reign of Amenhotep II. Even stronger evidence demonstrating that Thutmose III did not burn the city to the ground is that Hazor was a functioning city during Amenhotep II’s reign, and that Amenhotep II himself could not have burned the city to the ground either, despite his own claim to have destroyed Hazor. This conclusion is based on both archaeological and epigraphical evidence. Archaeologically, Hazor’s stratigraphy reveals a notably long period of non-habitation that occurred between the city’s Late Bronze I and Late Bronze II occupations, thus demonstrating that Hazor sat deserted for a considerable time after its conflagration at the close of Late Bronze I. Yadin writes in reference to the findings in the lower city, “In view of a considerable accumulation between Stratum 2 and Stratum 1B above it, it may be assumed perhaps that there was a gap in the history of Hazor, some time in the middle of the fifteenth century” BC.[68]This “considerable accumulation” attests to a period of multiple decades in which the once-glorious Hazor sat abandoned, unused, and uninhabited. Since Amenhotep II mentions Hazor on the conquest list of his Year-3 campaign, the city cannot have been destroyed by his father and then abandoned throughout the entirety of his own reign. If Amenhotep II’s claim to have destroyed Hazor is accepted as trustworthy,[69] this renders a conflagration under Thutmose III and a subsequent invasion/conquest under Amenhotep II mutually exclusive, an impossible chain of events. There had to be an occupied city of Hazor for Amenhotep II to conquer!Important archaeological evidence exists in the form of a royal scarab from the reign of Thutmose IV (ca. 1418–1408 BC).[70] This son and successor of Amenhotep II reigned for a modest “eight-plus years,” though most scholars assign ten years to his reign.[71] During Yadin’s second year of excavations, he began work in what became Area F, which is located in the lower city between Area C and Area D.[72] While digging in Stratum 1B (Late Bronze IIA, = 1400–1300 BC), his team found a burial cave, designated 8144, which yielded the critical scarab. The cave was buried under Stratum 1A (Late Bronze IIB, = 1300–1200 BC), so the stratified scarab was placed there at the end of the 15th century BC, indicating roughly when this cave was first used for burials.[73]The final period of the cave’s use, which further defines the chronology of the cave and the stratum, is indicated by an unusually great yield of imported Mycenaean pottery, along with datable imported Cypriotic ware (Milk Bowls, a Base-ring, and Bucchero Ware) and local pottery, none of which dates beyond the 14th century BC.[74] Yadin draws special attention to “a large group of imported Mycenaean vessels of the late stage of III A: 2,”[75] noting also that this abundance of IIIA:2 pottery was complemented “with [a] few A: 1” vessels.[76] According to the pottery specialist whom Yadin consulted, Mycenaean IIIA:2 pottery dates to ca. 1400–1375 BC in its early forms and dates to ca. 1375–1300 BC in its late forms, while Mycenaean IIIA:1 ware dates to ca. 1425–1400 BC.[77] In Yadin’s discussion of LB-I-Age pottery found in Hazor’s caves during his expeditions, he describes numerous types of late Mycenaean IIIA:2 wares, but he makes no mention of any early Mycenaean IIIA:2 pottery that would date to the short period from ca. 1400–1375 BC.[78] This dearth of early Mycenaean IIIA:2 pottery matches well with the period of non-habitation—as revealed by the noted occupational gap—that occurred after the city was destroyed on Joshua’s northern campaign in ca. 1400 BC. Thus the cave was in use during the years shortly before ca. 1400 BC, and throughout the years from ca. 1375–1300 BC.The stratified, royal scarab of Thutmose IV cannot be considered a later reproduction or a mere family heirloom that was passed down from one generation to the next. As Yadin carefully explains, “All Thutmose IV scarabs are rare and a boon to archaeologists in this country because we know that they were made exclusively during his reign (the names of some Pharaohs continued to be inscribed on scarabs after their death, but the popularity of Thutmose IV was buried along with him). We can therefore conclude that the cave was first used sometime during his eight-year reign, from 1410 to 1402 BC, or immediately thereafter.”[79] The significance of this royal scarab to the present debate is that it confirms the existence of Hazor as an occupied and functioning city in the last quarter of the 15th century BC, immediately after the reign of Amenhotep II. Due to the subsequent occupational gap after the destruction of Late-Bronze-I Hazor, which was discussed above, the city could not have been occupied during the modest reign of Thutmose IV if Amenhotep II truly had destroyed the city. Therefore, Amenhotep II’s “destruction” of the city was immediately followed by continuous occupation.Epigraphically, one piece of evidence that argues conclusively against the destruction of Hazor under Amenhotep II is Papyrus Hermitage 1116A, which contains a list recording the allocation of beer and corn to messengers from Djahy, who are envoys to cities such as Megiddo, Chinnereth, Achshaph, Shimron, Taanach, Ashkelon, and Hazor. This list, which demonstrates the trading relations between these southern Canaanite towns and the Egyptian government, is variously dated to the reign of Thutmose III, to the coregency he shared with his son, and to the sole reign of Amenhotep II.[80] However, dating the papyrus to the reign of Thutmose III can be eliminated from the realm of possibility,[81] given that the manuscript is attributed to a regnal Year 18 and bears the praenomen of Amenhotep II—the sign that provides the pharaonic throne-name, and is given to the Egyptian monarch upon his ascension to the throne—enclosed in a royal cartouche.



As Redford concludes,A date for the two Leningrad
papyri shortly after eighteenth year would satisfy all the evidence. But there is no reason to believe that Thutmose III was still alive and reigning at the time.”[82] Given that Hazor was one of the thriving cities involved in the trading of commodities at this time, it had remained unharmed at least into the 18th year of Amenhotep's reign, coinciding to 9 years after the Israelite exodus.Because Amenhotep II’s Year 18 (ca. 1438/1437 BC) was a time when Hazor thrived, it must be emphasized that he launched only two campaigns into Asia: the first in Year 3, and the second in Year 9.[83] This grossly diminished number of Asiatic campaigns is especially startling given that the Egyptian empire was at its height during the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II.[84] Immediately after these were waged, a sharp decline in the Asiatic campaigning of the pharaohs transpired. Aharoni attributes this to an underlying diminishment of Egyptian power: “Already in the days of Amenhotep II, the son of ThRosetta Stone

The King and I: The Apostle John and Emperor Domitian, Part 1

Tags: domitian, apostle john, patmos, revelation, sabastoi temple, ephesus, zeus, jupiter--> This article was first published in the Spring 1999 issue of Bible and Spade.Emperor Domitian, the self-proclaimed “Lord and God” and ruthless dictator, reigned from AD 81 to 96. He was the son of Emperor Vespasian and the brother of Titus, the conquerors of Jerusalem in AD 70. Late in life, Domitian become very superstitious. In fact, on the day before he was murdered, he consulted an astrologer. During this time he also consulted Apollo, the god of music and poetry, as well as light, truth and prophecy! Commemorating his superstition, the emperor minted coins depicting Apollo on one side and a raven, associated with prophecy, on the other (Jones 1989: 266).The ancients believed a bird’s flight could foretell the future (Kanitz 1973–1974: 47) and Domitian looked to the raven to foretell his immediate future. Ironically, Suetonius, a Roman historian and senator, records, “A few months before he (Domitian) was killed, a raven perched on the Capitalium and cried, ‘All will be well,’ an omen which some interpreted as follows: . . . a raven . . . could not say, ‘It is well,’ only declared ‘It will be well’“ (Rolfe 1992: 385). Emperor Domitian died soon after and all was well!The Apostle John, exiled to the island of Patmos about AD 95, received a more sure word of prophecy. Not from a raven or Apollo, but from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Book of Revelation begins, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place” (Rv 1:1). He goes on to say, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it, for the time is near” (Rv 1:3).Emperor Domitian minted coins with the head of Apollo, (right) and the raven (left). He consulted Apollo, Roman god of music, poetry, light, truth and prophecy, for knowledge of the future. Depicted as a handsome young man, Apollo was also identified with Helios, the Greek sun-god. Emperor Domitian consulted the raven because its flight pattern was believed to predict the future. Christians have a “more sure word of prophecy.”The Book of Revelation is a polemic against Emperor Domitian and the Roman world. While Domitian looked to Apollo and the raven to foretell the immediate future, the omniscient Lord Jesus Christ, infinitely greater than Domitian, revealed the future of the world in this book. He instructed John to:write the things which you have seen [the vision of the glorified Son of Man—Rv 1], and the things which are [the situation of the seven churches in Asia Minor at the end of the first century AD—Rv 2–3], and the things which will take place after this [all the future events recorded in Rv 4–22] (1:9).This article will examine several aspects of Domitian’s reign and John’s exile to Patmos.In the 19th century, Bible scholars, linguists, pilgrims, travelers and military intelligence officers from America, England and the Continent began visiting the lands of the Bible. They described sites, recorded manners and customs, drew maps and sketched landscapes. This research began to open up the world of the Bible, making it no longer just a theological treatise, but a Book about real people, events and places. Another dimension these explorers provided students back home was intelligence information for European countries awaiting the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.Remains of a gate built by Emperor Domitian at Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale) 6 mi north of Laodicea, Turkey. While he had his name inscribed on the gate when it was constructed, Domitian’s name was removed after his death, by edict of the Roman Senate.At the turn of the 20th century, Sir William Ramsay explored, excavated and wrote about Asia Minor. Among his important works was Letters to the Seven Churches, about the world of Revelation 2–3. An important recent study on the setting of Revelation 2–3 is Colin Hemer’s Ph.D. dissertation under F.F. Bruce at the University of Manchester in 1969, entitled The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting.I have tried to “follow in the footsteps” of these great explorers. First, by reading the accounts of their travels and, secondly, traveling to the places they visited, making my own observations and taking pictures. From this perspective, we will consider the historical setting of Revelation 1:9 and the Apostle John’s exile to Patmos. I begin with the assumption that Revelation was written in AD 95, during the reign of Emperor Domitian, not in the reign of Nero (Thomas 1994: 185–202).A dedicatory inscription for the Sabastoi Temple in Ephesus. The name of Emperor Domitian had been chiseled out of the top four lines as a result of the damnatio memoriae issued by the Roman Senate.The Self-Deified EmperorEmperor Domitian had a definite ego problem! In Imperial Rome the senate would deify an emperor upon death (Kreitzer 1990: 210–17). However, like Gaius Caligula, and well attested by ancient writers, Domitian could not wait until death and deified himself.Seutonius (AD 75-ca. 140), in his Lives of the Caesars, wrote: "With no less arrogance he began as follows in issuing a circular letter in the name of his procurators, ‘Our Master and our God bids that this be done’" [Dominus et deus noster hoe fieri iubet] (Rolfe; 1992: 367).He also delighted in the adulation of the people in the amphitheater when they shouted “Good Fortune attends our Lord and Mistress” [Domino et dominae feliciter] (Rolfe 1992:367).In Panegyricus (33.4), Pliny the Younger (ca. AD 61–113) wrote a tribute to Emperor Trajan:He [Domitian] was a madman, blind to the true meaning of his position, who used the arena for collecting charges of high treason, who felt himself slighted and scorned if we failed to pay homage to his gladiators, taking any criticism of them to himself and seeing insults to his own godhead and divinity; who deemed himself the equal of the gods yet raised his gladiators to his equal.Dio Cassius, in his Roman History, wrote:For he even insisted upon being regarded as a god [theos] and took vast pride in being called ‘master’ [despotus] and god [theos]. These titles were used not merely in speech but also in written documents” (Cary 1995: 349).Elsewhere he wrote:One Juventius Celsus . . . [conspired] . . . against Domitian . . . When he was on the point of being condemned, he begged that he might speak to the emperor in private, and thereupon did obeisance before him and after repeatedly calling him “master” [despoton] and “god” [theon] (terms that were already being applied to him by others) (Cary 1995: 349).Later writers repeat the same claim and even embellish it (Jones 1992: 108). However, in Silvae 1.6:83–84, Statius claims Domitian rejected these titles. Other contemporary evidence seems to support the view that Domitian claimed deity. Unfortunately, no inscriptions with such titles on them have been discovered. Dio Cassius again adds an important detail, when he wrote:After Domitian, the Romans appointed Nerva Coceius emperor. Because of the hatred felt for Domitian, his images, many of which were of silver and many of gold, were melted down: and from this source large amounts of money were obtained. The arches, too, of which a very great number were being erected to this one man, were torn down (Cary 1995: 361).Upon his death, the Roman Senate was:overjoyed . . . [assailed] the dead emperor with the most insulting and stinging kind of outcries . . . Finally they passed a decree that his inscriptions should everywhere be erased, and all record of him obliterated (Rolfe 1992: 385).This decree, the damnatio memoriae, destroyed all the statues and inscriptions of Domitian, such as Domitian’s arch at Hierapolis and dedicatory inscriptions at the Temple of the Sabastoi in Ephesus (Friesen 1993a: 34).A coin minted by Emperor Domitian in AD 84, depicting Jupiter, chief deity of the Roman pantheon.

Rosetta Stone German

where the entire nation could be more effectively

Administrated and the eastern frontier could be better accessed (Leprohon 1992:345–46).Still, the most powerful city in the south, Thebes, continued to serve as a national shrine with each Pharaoh bringing gifts to the Amun Temple at Karnak. Throughout the Second Intermediate Period, when the Asiatic Hyksos from the Delta ruled Egypt, Thebes continued to be the dominant city in Upper Egypt. A new Theban dynasty (the 18th) finally defeated the Hyksos and again reunited the nation.While all New Kingdom Pharaohs were not Theban like the 18th Dynasty, they all treated Thebes as their royal hometown and necropolis. Admittedly they did seem to prefer residences in the north to administer their growing empire in Canaan to the east, but they continued to make their own mark on the national shrine at Karnak, the ever-growing Amun (now known as the combined god—Amun-re) Temple. Bringing vast quantities of booty from foreign wars, each Pharaoh made pilgrimages to Thebes for the annual Opet-festival (Redford 1992:442). During this ceremony, the images of Amun-re, Mut and Khonsu (the moon god) were transported up the Nile from Karnak to the newer Luxor Temple where Pharaoh would meet with the gods.While royal palaces would have been constructed all around Thebes in antiquity, they have not yet been found. What we do know is that, at its height, Thebes was actually a series of settlements around major temples situated along broad sphinx-lined avenues on the Nile’s east bank. The central settlement lay in and around Karnak’s Amun-re Temple. To the north was the Montu temple and 1 km (0.6 mi) south was the complex to Mut (mother goddess) and Khonsu (her child). Another 3.5 km (2.2 mi) south was the Luxor Temple to Amun (Redford 1992:443). Communities of priests, builders, artisans and supporting industries made relatively self-sufficient settlements near each temple. Numerous prisoner-of-war slaves were employed in the state building projects in and around Thebes, including the Karnak Temple, the Pharaoh’s own Valley and Mortuary Temples, and the royal tomb. Many of these slaves were Asiatics from Canaan.Massive columns of the Hypostyle hall in the Karnak Temple built in the early 13th century BC. Note the remnants of paint still visible on the under side of the capitals and stone roof beams. The hall is a dizzying forest of 134 papyrus-shaped columns. The columns of the two central rows that form the main aisle are a lofty 69 ft high and 34 ft in circumference. Remains of one of the stone-cut clerestory windows along the central aisle can be seen in the upper center. The capitals are so large that 125 men can stand on the top of one capital! On either side of the central aisle are seven rows of smaller columns 42–1/2 ft high and 27–1/2 ft in circumference. Michael LuddeniLuxor TempleConnected to the Karnak Temple by a 3.2 km (2 mi) long sphinx-lined avenue was a later temple known as the Luxor Temple. Very near the Nile’s east bank, the earliest religious structures were shrines built by Hatshepsut (18th Dynasty) to the Theban triad of Amun-re (the husband/father god), Mut (the wife/mother goddess; the goddess of war) and Khonsu (their divine offspring; the moon god). They still can be seen today within the Peristyle Court.Amenhotep III (18th Dynasty) greatly enlarged the temple as Amun’s private quarters, including the Great Colonnade and the Court of Amenhotep III behind it with its double rows of massive columns. Much of this still can be seen today. The Luxor Temple was the focus of the annual ophet-festival. Later additions were made by Tutankhamun (18th Dynasty), Rameses II (19th Dynasty) and Alexander the Great (who redesigned the main sanctuary). During the Roman period, the Temple was rededicated to the imperial cult and even an altar was found dedicated to Emperor Constantine (fourth century AD).During the 19th century, the Mosque of Abu el-Hagag was built within the ruins of the Luxor Temple. Until excavations of the temple began in 1885, a village was located inside the temple walls. Within the Inner Sanctum was a suite of rooms, the “bedroom” of the god, where the secret rites of the opet-festival took place (Oakes and Gahlin 2003:152–53). The boats, which floated down the Nile with the images of the gods, were carried into this area for the culmination of the festival.The first pylon was constructed by Rameses II (19th Dynasty) and recorded his military exploits against the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh (1275 BC). He further decorated the entranceway with six statues of himself (two seated and four standing) and two obelisks.Along the secondary north-south axis of Karnak Temple is a relief carved by Merenptah (1212–1202 BC) that apparently corresponds to the famous stele found in his mortuary temple on the west bank (Byers 2004). In an area between the Hypostyle Hall and the seventh pylon at Karnak Temple, known as the Cour de la Cachette, Merenptah depicted military exploits from his Canaanite campaign in 1210 BC. This wall, originally about 49 m (160 ft) long and 9 m (30 ft) high, was constructed by Ramesses II and already contained the text of his Battle of Kadesh (1275 BC) peace treaty with the Hittites. Merenptah usurped space on both sides of the treaty text to illustrate his Canaanite campaign. Interestingly, he did the same thing with the stele on which is recorded in text form this same military action. After demolishing Pharaoh Amenhotep III’s mortuary temple to build his own, Merenptah appropriated and reused the reverse side of a 3 m (10 ft) tall stone monument originally carved by Amenhotep III. In the Karnak Temple, three cities are depicted being conquered by the Pharaoh. One of them, Ashkelon, is named and apparently the other two are Gezer and Yenoam, as described in Merenptah’s stele. The fourth scene, above and to the right of Ramesses’ peace treaty, did not depict a city but a people group being defeated—also described in the stele. They appear as a confusing jumble of defeated soldiers beneath the horses of Merenptah’s chariot. Like the people in the conquered cities, these soldiers wear ankle-length garments, suggesting they inhabit the same region. Apparently these soldiers were the fourth defeated enemy in Merenptah’s Canaan campaign—Israel—just as recorded in the Merenptah Stele. That makes this the earliest visual portrayal of Israelites ever discovered. The next time Israelites are visually depicted on a relief comes ca. 370 years later on an Assyrian obelisk (Maier 2004:91). Michael LuddeniValley of the KingsWhile the Nile’s east bank was given over to palaces and temples and their surrounding settlements, the west bank was a vast necropolis, both royal and private, within the desert mountain region. Beyond Pharaonic tombs in the Valley of the Kings was the Valley of the Queens, the Valley of the Nobles and even the necropolis (and village) of the Valley of the Kings’ workers, at Deir el Medina (Hawass 1997:287). As was customary throughout dynastic Egypt, the royal necropolis was located near the capital. In Old Kingdom Egypt, when the capital was at Memphis, Pharaohs built their mortuary temples and pyramid tombs at Dahshur, Saqqara, Abu Sir and Giza. When Thebes became Egypt’s capital during the 11th Dynasty, Pharaoh Montuhotpe I constructed his mortuary temple and tomb in a valley on the Nile’s west bank, across from Thebes.Later Middle Kingdom Pharaohs also built pyramid tombs, now of mud brick, near the northern capital, itj-tawy. While the exact location is unknown today, it was no doubt near the royal Middle Kingdom cemetery at modern El Lahun (Leprohon 1992:346). But with the 18th Dynasty reuniting Egypt at the beginning of the New Kingdom, Thebes was reestablished as a capital city. The new royal cemetery was in the mountains across from Thebes.In the desert directly across from Thebes each Pharaoh had his own Valley Temple constructed at the end of a canal dug from the Nile. Here the royal body was received from Thebes by way of the royal funeral barque. The body was then transported to the Pharaoh’s specially constructed mortuary temple in preparation for his burial.