Such is the im portance o f the H eb rew Bible to m odern m an th at the ancient history o f the w hole N ear East has been re searched w ith an eye to prove its historicity. H o w ever, as I have suggested, the traditional m isinterpretation o f Biblical g e o graph y has led to a m isunderstanding o f the historical geo graphy o f the ancient N ear East in general. A goo d example o f the confusion that has resulted from this crucial error o f m isplacem ent is provided by an analysis o f the m uch studied E g y ptian records relating to the expedition o f Sheshonk I.'
Sheshonk I was an Eyptian king o f the tw enty-second d y n asty, w h o ruled from about 945 to 924 B.C., and is credited w ith a m ilitary cam paign against the cities o f Jud ah described briefly in 1 K ings 14:25-26; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. So far, the lists o f the places he subdued o r visited have been studied on the assum p tion that th ey referred to cities or tow ns in Palestine (see m ap 9). O n the face o f it, this is n o t unreasonable, for Sheshonk, like o th er rulers o f ancient E gypt, m ust have had m uch to do w ith Palestine and Syria. A fragm ent o f an E gyptian stela found in coastal Palestine bears his name, or w h at scholars assume was his nam e, b u t evidence such as this does n o t necessarily m ean that he was actually there during his recorded expedition against the k in g d o m o f Judah. Ancient E gyptian inscriptions and artefacts bearing nam es o f ancient E gyptian kings have been discovered in various parts o f the N ear East, but few scholars regard their presence there as necessarily indicating th at the m onarchs they refer to once passed th ro u g h the vicini ties w here they w ere found.
^Rehob T irza h ^ ichem A da m ■ Bethel sJerusalei .B eersheb a J a m a r Shu r D esert - (Sur) K adesh Z in / .Desdrt T H E BI BLE C A M E F R O M ARABI A r*-r E zio rj-G e b e r 0 0 km
I w o u ld certainly suggest that on his expedition against Judah, Sheshonk did not go to Palestine. Setting out for this expedition from one o f the E gyptian seaports along the coast o f the Red Sea, Sheshonk landed som ew here along the coast o f the Hijaz, apparently near Lith. His intention, it seems, was to m ake a great sh o w o f m ilitary p o w e r there, to rem ind the kings o f Ju d ah and other W est A rabian rulers that their territories were
not outside E g y p t’s m ig h ty reach. After gaining a foothold in the Lith hinterland, the E gyptian Pharaoh proceeded south tow ards the central p art o f Judah, either by w ay o f the coastal road, o r by taking another further inland w hich hugs the first line o f hills. A long the w ay, he stopped from tim e to tim e to conduct forays into the m o re m ountainous regions, and on one occasion penetrated the Sarat escarpment as far as Al Sharim, w h ich I have suggested was probably the site o f the H eb rew B ible’s ‘Jeru salem ’. Perhaps flushed w ith his success in that area, he was em boldened to m ove further southw ards into the Jizan region, w here his m ilitary operations appear to have been lim ited, perhaps on account o f the stiff resistance he m et from the m o untain tribes o f the region. From there, Sheshonk re tu rn e d alm ost directly to the vicinity o f Lith, w here he subdued n o t only n u m erou s places on the m aritim e side o f the escarp m ent, b u t also m any others in the region o f Taif, pushing his conquests inland to the lim it o f the desert.
Such, at least, is m y o w n supposition, based on a reinterpreta tion o f Sheshonk’s expedition as described in the H ebrew Bible and in his o w n topographical records. Needless to say, the itinerary I have traced does n o t conform to that o f traditional Biblical scholars, w ho , I w o u ld suggest, have engaged in som e bew ildering legerdem ain in an effort to im pose som e form o f logic on the Sheshonk account to accom m odate it w ithin the borders o f Palestine. T heir version can hardly be taken seriously, how ever, for it rests on the curious assum ption that the E g yptian scribes responsible for transcribing the accounts did n o t k n o w h o w to render the place-names they contain in their o w n language and script. C onsidering that ancient E g y p tian is n o t too distant a cousin to the Semitic languages, that h ardly seems likely. Even if w e accept such a shaky hypothesis,
fitting the nam es o f all the places referred to in the Sheshonk lists to Palestine can only be done w ith cavalier disregard to the original E g y p tia n text. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there is considerable disagreem ent am ong Biblical scholars as to w h a t actually happened on S heshonk’s expedition. If we read the accounts w ith W est Arabia in m ind, how ever, m any - if n o t all - o f the problem s disappear, leaving us w ith a rem arkably clear itinerary o f the E gyptian ruler’s campaign. Incidentally, I w o u ld suggest that if other E gyptian topographical lists, as well as M esop otam ian lists o f a similar nature, w ere studied in a similar w ay, it w ou ld produce som e startling results (see, for example, m y co m m en ts on Carchem ish and K arkara in C hapter i, note i i, and on the conquests o f Sargon II and the A m arna Letters, in C h a p te r 5).
It is true th at the Biblical accounts o f the Sheshonk (Biblical
swsq or sysq, ‘Shishak’) expedition against Jud ah do n o t go into
geographical detail. T h e longer o f the tw o - that o f 2 Chronicles 12:2-9 _ sim ply reports that the E gyptian king arrived w ith a large arm y, ‘to o k the fortified cities o f Ju d ah and came as far as Jerusalem ’, w ith o u t actually capturing it. T h e king o f ‘J u d a h ’, w h o was R eh o b oam , the son o f Solom on, apparently m anaged to b uy o ff the invader w ith ‘the treasures o f the house o f the Lord (i.e. the temple) and the treasures o f the k in g ’s ho use’. This m ig h t explain w h y ‘Jerusalem ’ does n o t feature am ong the readable nam es in the Sheshonk lists. It is also possible, o f course, that th e nam e o f the city m ig h t have existed in the parts o f the lists th at have been lost, o r which survive only as indecipherable fragm ents.
Sheshonk, as I have already said, m u st have crossed the Red Sea to land on the coast o f the southern Hijaz near Lith. From there he proceeded uphill to subdue six places in the Lith hinterland (nos. 10-15 in the great Sheshonk list at the tem ple o f A m o n in K arnak), four o f w hich rem ain fully legible. These places are, as n u m b ere d in the original Sheshonk topographical list: 10 mtt‘: M u t i ‘ (mt‘), in W a d i A d a m ; o r a l - M a t‘a h (mt1), in W a d i al-Ja’izah, f u r t h e r so u th . 13 rbt: R i b a t (rbt), in th e Z a h r a n lo w la n d s , o r a n o t h e r R ib at, f u r th e r s o u t h in W a d i a l-S h a q q a h . 1 3 6 T H E BI BLE C A M E F R O M A RA BI A
T H E I T I N E R A R Y OF T H E S H E S H O N K E X P E D I T I O N 137 14 t'nkV:2 th e B iblical T a a n a c h , o r t'nk; t o d a y K a ‘n a h (k ‘nt), in th e Z a h r a n lo w l a n d s . 3
15 snmV:4 a l - M a s h n iy y a h (tnsny), in th e Z a h r a n h ig h la n d s.
In a first raid inland fro m there, Sheshonk appears to have subdued a place in W adi Ranyah, w hose headw aters are in the Z ah ran region:
16 snri’:5 S h a r y a n iy y a h (sryny).
H e then return ed to the Lith hinterland w here he seized yet a nother place:
17 Rhbt’: W a d i R a h a b a h (rhb), a clu ste r o f villages in th e Z a h r a n lo w la n d s ; o r R u h b a h (rhb), in W a d i A d a m .
N e x t Sheshonk proceeded southw ards to the central lands o f Judah, in the hinterland o f Q u n fu d h a h and Birk. H e could have
taken either the coastal road, o r the one further inland which hugs the first line o f hills. A long the way, he stopped here and there to conduct forays into the m ountain regions (see map 10). O f the seventeen places he raided in the area, the names o f fifteen are still legible and can be identified w ith varying degrees o f certainty:
18 hprmi’ ( p arsed hpr mV): H a f a r (hpr), id e n tifie d in rela tio n to n e i g h b o u r i n g M u w a y h (mwy), in th e Q u n f u d h a h v ic in ity , to d is tin g u is h it f r o m o t h e r H a f a r s in th e sa m e area a n d e ls e w h e re .6 H a f a r t o d a y is a v illage o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e d istric t o f M u w a y h .
19 idrtn, also re a d ’drm: a l-M a r d a (mrd’), in th e M a ja r id a h re g io n . 21 swd: a l-D ls h (dys), in th e h in te r la n d o f H ali.
22 mhnm: clearly a m e ta th e s is o f th e B iblical ‘M a h a n a i m ’ (imhnym) w h ic h w o u l d b e at p r e s e n t U m m M a n a h i (A rab ic p lu ra l o f mtih, m e ta th e s is o f mini o f w h ic h th e H e b r e w p lu ra l is mhnym), in th e Q u n f u d h a h r e g i o n . 7
23 qb‘n: Al J u b 'a n (gb‘n), th e B iblical ‘G i b e o n ’ (gb‘u>n), in th e M a ja r id a h r e g io n .
24 bt h(w)rn: a l - R a w h a n (rwhn), th e B iblical ‘B e t h - h o r o n ’ (byt hwnvn), in th e Q u n f u d h a h re g io n ; unless th e la tte r is K h a y r a n (hyrn), in W a d i A d a m . 25 qdttn: p e r h a p s M a k d a h (mkdt), in th e B a h r re g io n . 26 iyrn: a l - R a w n (rwn), in th e h in te r la n d o f H a li .8 27 mkdV: M a q d i (mqd), in th e Q u n f u d h a h r e g io n , o n e o f th e th r e e B iblic al ‘M e g i d d o s ’ (mgdw), th e o th e r t w o b e in g M a g h d a h (mgd), in th e T a i f r e g io n (see n o te 3), a n d S h u 'a y b M a q d a h (the ‘v a lle y ’ o f mqd), in W a d i A d a m . 28 idr: W a d h r a h (wdr), in th e B a n i S h a h r re g io n . 29 id htnrk (parsed h-mrk): th e id in th e n a m e ( H e b r e w yd) is th e
1 3 8 T H E BI BLE C A M E F R O M A R A B I A
T H E I T I N E R A R Y OF T H E S H E S H O N K E X P E D I T I O N 139 e q u iv a le n t o f th e A ra b ic wadi (wd), o r ‘v a lle y ’; h-mrk, w i t h th e H e b r e w d e fin ite article, is to d a y a l- M a r a k a h (mrk, w i t h th e A ra b ic d e fin ite article), in th e Q u n f u d h a h re g io n . T h e villag e o f a l-M a r a k a h is ac tu a lly lo c a te d in o n e o f th e m a j o r w a d is , o r valleys, o f th e re g io n .
31 hinm, also r e a d h’y ’nm: H a w m a n (hwmn), in th e Q u n f u d h a h re g io n ; Al H a w m a n , in th e B a lla s m a r re g io n ; o r H a w m a n , in th e M u h a y il r e g io n .
32 ‘rn: ‘A r m (‘rn), th e B iblical ‘E r a n ’ (‘rn), in th e Q u n f u d h a h re g io n ; u n le ss th e la tte r is Al G h u r r a n (grn), in th e B a n i S h a h r re g io n .
33 brn, also re a d brm: B a r m a h (brm), in th e Q u n f u d h a h re g io n ; u nle ss it is B u r r a n (brn), in th e Z a h r a n lo w la n d s.
34 dtptr, also r e a d d dptr:9 e ith e r a l-F a tra h ( ’l-ptr) in Rijal A l m a ‘, o r a l - D a f r a h (’l-dprt), in th e B a h r re g io n ; u n less th e referen c e is to a n o t h e r a l - D a f r a h in th e Faifa d is tric t o f t h e j i z a n r e g io n (see b e lo w ).
It m u st have been at this stage o f the cam paign that Sheshonk crossed the escarpm ent and advanced against Al Sharim , i.e. the suggested Biblical Jerusalem in the N im as region, w ith o u t entering the city. O nce he had arrived at dt ptr or d dptr, ho w ever, Sheshonk was already on his w ay south to m ake a rapid sweep th ro u g h the Jizan hinterland, or perhaps he was already there (see no. 34). T h e four places w hich he m ust have subdued in this region w ere the following:
35 ihm: W a h m (whm), i n th e M a s a r ih a h district.
36 bt ‘rm: ‘U m a r (‘mr), full n a m e Q a r y a t ‘U m a r M a q b u l (literally, ‘th e v illa g e o f ‘U m a r to w h o m p r a y e r, o r p ilg rim a g e , is d u e ’, w h ic h e x p la in s th e bt, o r ‘t e m p l e ’, in th e n a m e as cited in th e S h e s h o n k list), in th e M a d a y a district.
37 kgri: G h a r q a h (grq), in th e A b u ‘A rish d istrict; a p p a r e n tly th e h o m e o f th e ‘A r k i te s ’ (‘rqy, g e n itiv e o f ‘rq o r ‘rqh) o f G enesis 10:17, h i t h e r t o ta k e n to b e th e ‘A r q a o f th e n o r t h e r n L e b a n o n , in th e h in t e r la n d o f T rip o li.
38 sik: Kus (kws), in the Masarihah district, or Kls (kys), in the ‘Aridah district.
R eturn in g from the Jizan region, Sheshonk stopped at bt
tpw(h) (the Biblical ‘B eth -tap p u ah ’, or byt tpwh, Joshua 15:53),
to day al-Fatih (pth) in the B ahr region. Fro m there he proceeded directly back to the hinterland o f Lith, m aking fresh conquests there (notably in W adi A dam ), and resum ing his forays, this tim e across the B uq ran col, to subdue places in the T a if region. A m o n g the new places he subdued in W adi A dam were the following:
40 ibn’: W a b ir (ivbr). 55 p ’ ktt: Q a t i t (qtt) . 10 56 idmi’: W a d m a h (wdni). 58 (m)gdr: M a q d h a r (mqdr).
67 inmr: N a m i r a h (nmr); u n le ss it w a s a n o t h e r N a m i r a h , o r N a m i r (nmr), o u ts id e W a d i A d a m , b u t close b y in th e L ith h in te rla n d .
69 ftisT’: F atish (pts). 74 (h)bri: K h a b ir a h (hbr). 78 ‘dit: A d y a h (‘dyt).
112 & 119 irhm: a l - R a h m (rhm), a p p a r e n tly ra id e d tw ic e.
133 ir(i’): W a r y a h (wryh), th e B iblical ‘J o r a h ’ (ywrh, see C h a p te r
8).
O utside W adi A dam , Sheshonk appears to have subdued Al Y arar ( 7 yrr), in the B anu ‘A m r region o f the Sarat. T h e nam e
is rendered in the list (no. 70) as irhrr o r V hrr (parsed h-rr), the E gyptian V standing for the Semitic 7 (Arabic Al), as the ancient
Egyptians w ro te the I as r (and som etim es as n). In the broader Lith hinterland, the follow ing places were also attacked:
45 bt dbi: U m m Z a b y a h (’m zby). 54 (q)dst: K a d ls a h (kdst).
57 dmrm (p arsed d mrm): A l M a r y a m ( 7mrym. B iblical ‘M e r o m ’, o r mrwrn, J o s h u a 11:5, 7).
59 yrdV: Y a r id a h (yrd).
89 hq(q) (p arsed h-qq): a l - Q u q a ’ (qq, w i t h th e A ra b ic d efinite article).
Across the B u qran col, Sheshonk w aged raids against four teen places in the T a if region, w hich the great Sheshonk list m entions by name:
60 p ’ ‘mq: th e v a lle y o f W a d i ‘A m q (‘mq).
72 ibrm: B a r m a h (brm), an oasis n e a r W a d i T u r a b a h a n d th e basaltic d e s e r t o f H a r r a t al B u q u m .
76 wrkyt: a l-W ira q (wr’q, A ra b ic p lu ra l o f wrq; cf. wrkyt as th e f e m in in e p lu ra l o f wrk). 80 dpkl’ ( p a rse d d pkT"), also re a d dpk (d pk): A l F aq ih ( 7pqh); unle ss it is th e a l-F aq ih (as 7pqh) o f W a d i A d a m . 86- tsdn(w): S h a d a n a h (sdnt); u nle ss it is D a s h n a h (dsnt) in th e L ith h in te r la n d . 88 snyy’: S h a n iy a h (stty).
91 wht wrki’: W a h a t (wht) , id e n tifie d in re la tio n to th e n e i g h b o u r in g D a r a l-A r a k a h (’rk), cited in th e A ra b ic lite r a tu re o n th e T a i f re g io n , to d is tin g u is h it f r o m th e W a h a t o f th e B a lla sm a r r e g io n in A sir.
93 ysht: S h u h u t (slit), th e n a m e o f a sm a ll w a d i o f th e T a i f re g io n . 95 & 99 limnt’ a n d hnni: n o t o n e place, b u t t w o d iffe re n t ones, A l H u m a n (hmn) a n d H a n a n a h (hnn).
107 hqrm: a l - M i h r a q (mhrq), e ith e r o f t w o villages b y this n a m e in th e s a m e vicin ity .
108 & n o ‘rdV: ‘A r a d a h (‘rd).
i l l nbt: N a b a h (nb, w i t h th e f e m in in e su ffix nbt).u 118 (p’?) byy B u w a ’ (bwr).
150 irdn: a l - D a r a y n (dryn\ n o t th e ‘J o r d a n ’, see C h a p t e r 7): a n y o f th r e e villag e s b y this n a m e ; u nle ss it is th e a l - D a r a y n o f th e Z a h r a n h ig h la n d s f u r th e r so u th .
It is possible to identify o th er places raided by Sheshonk in n o rth e rn Asir and the southern Hijaz, b ut I think the point has been made: his cam paign was clearly conducted in West Arabia rather than in Palestine. M o re precisely, it seems that the E gyptian invader pushed inland in his raids as far as the basaltic desert o f H arrat al-B uqum , w here he attacked the oasis o f B arm ah (see no. 72), and also ibr (no. 122), w hich is today the oasis o f W abr (wbr). It also appears that he proceeded sou th w ards across the headw aters o f Wadi Ranyah (srnrV, no. 104, parsed sr tin ’: Al Siyar (syr), in the G ham id highlands w here the w aters o f W adi Ranyah (my) spring) to invade Wadi Bishah. Here, apparently on tw o different occasions, he attacked irqd (no. 97), w h ich is probably present Al Q irad (qrd)\ idmm (nos. 98 and 128), probably W adi A dam ah ( ’dm)\ and inn (no. 140), w hich is today W anan (wtin).
In the pro lo g ue to his great list at Karnak, Sheshonk speaks o f having subjugated ‘the armies o f M itan n i’ - either the present village o f M athani (mtny), or m ore likely the vicinity o f Wadi M athan (nitn), in the T a if region w here he took so m any villages, as I have already noted. Certainly, the M itanni in question was n o t a k in g d o m in no rth ern M esopotam ia; had it been so, it w o u ld have involved a blatant anach ronism .12 In the shorter Sheshonk list at the tem ple o f A m o n in El Hibeh,
nhrn (no. 4) is certainly n o t ‘M esop o tam ia’, as has hitherto been
assum ed, b u t the present village o f N aharin (nhrn), a short distance fro m W adi M ath an o r the village o f M athani in the T a if region. This place is no d o u b t the Biblical ‘N a h a raim ’
(nhrym, Genesis 24:10; D e u te ro n o m y 23:5; Judges 3:8; Psalm
60:2; I C hronicles 19:6), w hich the Septuagint (followed by traditional Biblical scholarship) v/as to identify as ‘M esopo tam ia’ (see C h a p te r 1). Likewise, the iss(wr) in this same list (no. 9) is n o t ‘A ssyria’, b u t am o n g various possibilities the m ost plausible candidate is Yasir (ysr) in the region o f Mecca, near the seaport o f Rabigh.
Setting aside such m in o r uncertainties, w h a t seems clear is that n o t only Biblical history should be reassessed, b u t also the ancient h isto ry o f the entire N e a r East region. T h ose seem ingly arid lists o f H e b re w O ld T estam en t place-names are, I am sure, fertile g ro u n d for a n e w generation o f scholars w h o , if they can rid them selves o f the traditional n o tio n that they are located in Palestine, m ay be able to clarify large areas o f ancient history w hich have h itherto been w rapp ed in confusion.