Damien F. Mackey
Emperor Charlemagne’s life bears some
uncanny likenesses to
that of the ancient King Solomon of
Israel and his family.
Charlemagne has
indeed been likened to King Solomon of old, e.g. by H. Daniel-Rops (The Church in the
Dark Ages, p. 395), who calls him “a witness of God, after the style of
Solomon …”, and he has been spoken of in terms of the ancient kings of Israel;
whilst Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, was hailed as “the new king
David”.
Charlemagne, too,
appears sometimes as a larger-than-life king, almost too good to be true. His
coronation on Christmas Day of 800 AD can seem just too neat and perfect. He
was, according to Daniel-Rops (ibid., p. 390),
“… the heaven-sent man, for whom Europe was waiting …”. And: (p. 401): “Who in
the world fitted this role more than this glamorous personage, who set every
man’s imagination afire and who seemed so much larger than life?”
Charlemagne is
assigned to the period known as the Dark Ages (c. 600-900 AD); a period
somewhat lacking in archaeology – and there is precious little evidence for the
many buildings that this famous king is supposed to have had erected. (See Part Two)
Admittedly, the
anomalies and contradictions associated with virtually every aspect of the life
of Charlemagne, from his birth to his death, are evident for all to consider.
Other striking
likenesses to the persons of the Old Testament, apart from that of
Charlemagne’s father king Pepin being like king David; are his mother, Bertha
or Bertrada, reminding of Bathsheba; Charlemagne’s wife, “Desideria”, reminding
of the “Queen of Sheba”; and Charlemagne’s colourful eastern friend and ally,
Harun al-Raschid, most definitely like Solomon’s ally, King Hiram of Tyre. The
last I believe to have been - as King Solomon most certainly was - a real
historical person:
Charlemagne’s Father,
Pepin, “the new David”
D. Fraioli tells
of Pepin at his peak (Joan of Arc and the
Hundred Years War, p. 46): “An aura of prestige now surrounded the king,
whom the pope called the “new king David” …”. Gregory of Tours had, as we shall
read below, spoken similarly of king Clovis I, of the Merovingian dynasty. This
traditional likening of Frankish kings to the ancient Davidic kings immediately
raises the important point to be considered in this article concerning a sacred
attitude held in regard to French kings, and this might go a long way towards
accounting for the phenomenon of Charlemagne.
Let us take a
relevant section on this from Fraioli’s book (pp. 43-45):
THE FRENCH
TRADITION
France developed
by far the most sacred mythology around its kingship of all the kingdoms in
western Europe, although the earliest known coronations occurred in Visigothic
Spain and Ireland. The sacred mythology of French kingship, which became known
as “the religion of the monarchy”, first emerged during the Merovingian
dynasty, in the context of a baptismal anointing rather than a sacred
coronation, when Clovis, king of the Franks, converted to Christianity. ….
Fraioli will
however, in a later section on Hincmar (d. 882), suggest that this whole notion
of sacred kingship was a late tradition, both mythical and “fabricated”. Here
is what she has to say about it there (pp. 47-48. Emphasis added)
Hincmar,
archbishop of Reims from 845 to 882, was a learned theologian and nimble
politician, whose fame in the development of sacred kingship rests on his
introduction of the legend of the Holy Ampulla into the history of Clovis, four
centuries after the fact. In an effort to prove the continuity of Frankish
kingship and, it is commonly believed, to challenge the influence of the abbey
of Saint Denis – then successfully fusing its own history with that of the
monarchy – Hincmar authorized a new myth. He is often believed to have
fabricated the story himself in an attempt to expand the importance of the see
of Reims. In all likelihood, he did not invent it, although he had confessed to
forging other documents. The myth made the astonishing assertion that the
liquid used to consecrate Frankish kings was of divine origin. A dove, the
Christian symbol of the Holy Spirit, had allegedly delivered the Ampulla, or
vial, of sacred liquid in its beak, when the bustling crowd at Clovis’ baptism
had prevented the bearer of the baptismal oil from a timely arrival at the
ceremony. Through this myth the election of French kings was seen as the will
of God. Furthermore, the continuity of their rule was guaranteed by an
inexhaustible supply of anointing balm in the Holy Ampulla, which could anoint
French kings to the end of time.
[End of
quote]
This charming
story may have Old Testament origins in the miraculous preservation, in liquid
form, of the sacred fire as recorded in 2 Maccabees 1:18-36, for the time of
the biblical Nehemiah, whom we have found apparently making an anachronistic
‘return visit’ at the time of the Prophet Mohammed, BC dragged into AD time:
The legend of
Hincmar may perhaps have arisen out of a confused transmission of the original
true historical account relating to the governor Nehemiah.
We continue now
with Fraioli’s earlier section on The French Tradition, where she briefly
considers Clovis I (pp. 44-45), and then proceeds on to Pepin (p. 46), emphasis
added:
Clovis I (d. 511)
and the Franks
…. At his
baptism, King Clovis was anointed with a holy balm, or salve … in a ceremony
blending kingship and religion. According to the contemporary chronicle of
Gregory of Tours, the anointing of Clovis occurred by the grace of God,
prompting Gregory to draw an analogy between Clovis and the sacred kingship of
David in the Old Testament. ….
Pepin the Short
(d. 768)
…. Pepin the
Short … receives the credit for introducing the ritual of sacred anointing, or
consecration, into the installation ceremony for French kings. …. As Patrick
Simon has stated, Pepin’s innovation consisted of “legitimizing through a
religious ceremony a power obtained by force ...”.
…. The union of
king and clergy provided mutual benefit …. An aura of prestige now surrounded
the king, whom the pope called the “new David” ….
[End of
quotes]
Again, we recall
the famous anointing with “the horn of oil” of David the shepherd, the youngest
son of Jesse, by Samuel the high priest and prophet, after Samuel had rejected
one by one David’s seven older brothers (1 Samuel 16:1-13). After the death of
Saul (Samuel was also dead by now) David was anointed again, at Hebron, as king
of all Israel (2 Samuel 5:3).
Now Pepin,
likewise, was twice crowned (Fraioli, p. 46. Emphasis added): “The second
coronation, celebrated at Saint-Denis in 754 [AD], cleverly reconnected Pepin’s
reign to the Merovingians through his wife, big-foot Bertha, a descendant of
Clovis, which provided fictional continuity to French kingship”.
King David is
sometimes found going so far, it seems, as to act out the priest’s rôle, as for
example when he had triumphantly returned the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem,
and he subsequently offered “burnt offerings and the offering of well-being
before the Lord” (2 Samuel 6:17).
Both David and
Pepin were warrior-kings and men of great personal courage. Pepin is famous, in
his youthful days, like David, for his courage against wild animals, including
lions. Daniel-Rops (op.
cit., p. 387) tells of it: “A well-known picture, which was already very
popular in the Middle Ages, has impressed on our minds the features of this
thickset, broad-shouldered little man who, for a wager, amused himself by
separating a lion and a bull who were in the middle of a fight in the circus
arena”.
In the case of
David, this courage is manifest, not “in the circus arena”, but in the field.
More serious, and we might say less frivolous, was David’s situation, when the
giant, Goliath, was challenging the armies of Israel. Then David said to Saul
(1 Samuel 17:34-36):
‘Your servant
used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took
a lamb from the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb
from its mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw,
strike it down and kill it. Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and
this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied
the armies of the living God’.
Pepin was
nicknamed “the Short”.
Was David also
short? He probably was not of very tall stature. When the prophet Samuel came
to Jesse’s boys, to anoint the one amongst them whom God had chosen, Samuel had
been most impressed by Eliab, who was apparently of a good height (1 Samuel
16:6-7). So, we could probably draw the conclusion that, when the Lord advised
Samuel not to look on “the height of [the candidate’s] stature” in making his
choice, that David, the youngest of the boys, who eventually was chosen, was
not that very tall. But David was of fine appearance, nonetheless: “Now he was
ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome” (v. 12).
Charlemagne,
“after the style of Solomon”
His Beginnings
Like Solomon, the
young son, Charlemagne (said to be 26 at the time), succeeded his father. But
some hazy legend seems to surround Charlemagne’s mother and the king’s own
early years. Thus Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p.
391):
What had he done,
this boy who was promised to such a lofty destiny, between that day in 742 when
Bertha, the daughter of the Count of Laon – the ‘Bertha of the big feet’ of the
chansons de gestes – brought him into the world in some royal villa or other in
Austrasia, and the premature hour of his succession? No one really knows, and
Einhard of all people, who faithfully chronicled his reign, is strangely
discreet about his hero’s early years.
[End of
quote]
In the case of
Solomon, he was not born out of wedlock, as it is thought of Charlemagne.
Rather it was Bathsheba’s child who had died as a result of king David’s sin of
adultery with her (2 Samuel 12:16-23). Solomon himself was the child of
‘consolation’ for the pair after the sad death of this un-named child (v. 24).
Now were, perhaps,
the French 'Songs' (or Chansons), the Song of Roland (La Chanson de Roland) and
the "Songs of heroic deeds [or lineages]" (Chansons de gestes),
inspired by, or even in part based upon, the biblical “Song of Songs” or
“Canticle of Canticles” (also known as the “Song of Solomon”); a love poem that
could well have inspired some of the famous French chivalric notions?
Was the ‘wisdom
of Oliver’ in the Song of Roland inspired by the Wisdom of Solomon? “Oliver
urges caution; wisdom and restraint are part of what makes him a good knight” (http://www.gradesaver.com/song-of-roland/study-guide/section2/).
Did the “giants”
in these Chansons perhaps arise from the encounter between David and the giant
Goliath? Wikipedia tells (article “Chanson de geste”):
Composed in Old
French and apparently intended for oral performance by jongleurs, the chansons
de geste narrate legendary incidents (sometimes based on real events) in the
history of France during the eighth and ninth centuries, the age of Charles
Martel, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, with emphasis on their conflicts with
the Moors and Saracens. To these historical legends, fantasy is gradually
added; giants, magic, and monsters increasingly appear among the foes along
with Muslims. ….
[End of
quote]
His Birthplace
More than a dozen
places are claiming the honour to be the birthplace of Charles.
The year of birth
varies between 742 and 747 AD. Bertrada, the mother of Charles, was said to be
a Bretonian princess, an Hungarian noble woman, or a member of the imperial
family of Byzantium.
The competition
for the throne between Charles and his brother, Carloman, is also very much
like what we find in the biblical account of the challenge to the throne by
Solomon’s brother, Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5-10). The mother may perhaps have been
complicit in this (cf. 2:9). According to Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 395):
“At the time of [Charles’] accession this question [of Italy, Rome and the
Lombards] had been considerably confused owing to the political mistakes of
Queen Bertha, his mother”. Solomon, like Carloman, seems to have been twice
elected king (accession and coronation), and in the first case, in both
instances, the mother appears to have played an ambiguous part.
Again, when
Adonijah’s bid for the throne had failed, he cunningly approached Bathsheba to
ask Solomon to give him the beautiful Abishag for his wife (2:13-18). When
Bathsheba did approach Solomon, the latter acted out the pretence of complying
with his mother’s request (2:2): “King Solomon answered his mother, ‘And why do
you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom as well!
For he is my elder brother; ask not only for him but also for the priest
Abiathar and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!’ [both of whom had supported Adonijah
in his revolt against David and Solomon]”.
This situation
can perhaps be likened to the case of what Daniel-Rops (op. cit., ibid.)
has referred to as “these manoeuvres when Queen Bertha had married her elder
son … to Desiderius’s [King of Pavia’s] daughter, Desideria”. Though, in the
biblical story, Adonijah apparently was not actually a son of Bathsheba’s (1
Kings 1:5), nor of course did he manage to fulfil his wish of marrying Abishag,
despite his desire for her. “Desideria” is certainly a most appropriate
appellation for the much-desired Abishag. And soon I shall be showing, from
another parallel situation between Solomon and Charlemagne, that Desideria well
equates with this Abishag.
Of course Solomon
was being completely sarcastic in his reply to Adonijah’s request via
Bathsheba. The wise king fully appreciated the implications of the scheming
Adonijah’s attaining the hand of David’s favourite, Abishag. Thus he added,
chillingly (vv. 23-25):
‘So may God do to
me, and more also [a typical idiom of the time], for Adonijah has devised this
scheme at the risk of his life! Now therefore as the Lord lives, who has
established me and placed me on the throne of my father David, and who has made
me a house as he promised, today Adonijah shall be put to death’. So King
Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he struck him down, and he died.
Conveniently,
likewise, Charlemagne’s brother died suddenly (Daniel-Rops, p. 391): “But
scarcely three years had elapsed when an unexpected death completely broke
these shackles …. Charles claimed his brother’s heritage and thus rebuilt the
unity of the paternal realm under his leadership”.
Solomon’s sarcasm
in the face of Bathsheba’s request may even have its faint glimmer in the case
of the chaffing compliance of the young Charles towards his own mother (ibid., pp.
394-395): “Despite his twenty-five years Charles had appeared to defer to his
energetic mother’s wishes. But he fretted under the restraint”.
His Natural
Qualities
Like Solomon,
Charlemagne was a most gifted individual, and the perfect king material
(Daniel-Rops, p. 392):
Charles was …
throughout his life – quick, far-sighted, and energetic. In these instinctive
qualities lies the secret of his incomparably fruitful labour, and, to their
service, a never-failing vigour lent an activity which was truly prodigious.
….And he had other complementary qualities, which decisively defined his
grandeur: prudence, moderation, a realistic appreciation of the possible, a
mistrust of unconsidered actions. It is the Emperor Augustus whom Charlemagne
recalls, rather than Caesar or Alexander.
Or is it rather
king Solomon “whom Charlemagne [most closely] recalls”?
As for “prudence”
and his other cardinal virtues, as mentioned in the quote above, well, was not
Solomon the first person to list these virtues (Wisdom of Solomon 8:7)?
His Appearance
What did
Charlemagne look like?
“Truth to tell,
nothing very detailed can be put forward on this point” (Daniel-Rops, ibid.).
What is certain
is that Charlemagne was not in fact the giant ‘with the flowing beard’ whom
Chanson de Roland has immortalized; the mighty build is a poetic exaggeration,
and the beard is an anachronism which owes its origin to the Byzantine-Arab
fashion which, in the tenth century, considered that all distinguished Western
Europeans should be excessively hairy.
[End of
quote]
The beard was of
course de rigueur
in Solomon’s era.
For an idealized
(and even mighty) physical description of king Solomon and his Shunammite
bride, from which Chanson de Roland may perhaps have gained some epic
inspiration, see “Song of Songs” 5:10-16.
His Intelligence
and Discernment
“Was he
intelligent?”, asks Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p.
393), who then answers his question:
Most certainly;
and when we think of his profound knowledge of men, of his ease at grasping
situations, of the immensity of the tasks which he conceived and of the
undertakings which he managed, we realize that his intelligence was far above
the average”. And: “He unquestionably had a supreme appreciation of the
overriding need of the moment – the foundation of a new culture – and this is
one of the aspects of his character in which his genius shines forth most
brilliantly”.
Solomon was of
course the wisest of the wise; his name being a byword for wisdom. We read, for
instance, in the Book of Ecclesiastes of king Solomon (12:9-14):
Epilogue
Besides being
wise, the Teacher [Qoheleth]
also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many
proverbs. The Teacher sought to find pleasing words, and he wrote words of
truth plainly. The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly
fixed are the collected sayings that are given by one shepherd. Of anything
beyond these, my child, beware. Of making many books there is no end, and much
study is a weariness of the flesh.
The end of the
matter: all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is
the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including
every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Most of this
could be applied to Charlemagne, we shall find, for we shall see unfurl the
traditional multi-facetted concept of him as a pious, wise and culturally
restructuring (even Renaissance-like) king.
There are many
other examples, too, of Solomon’s extraordinary wisdom and discernment. Here
are just a few:
1 Kings 4:29:
“God gave Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding,
as vast as the sand on the seashore”.
Wisdom 1:1: “Love
righteousness, you rulers of the earth …”.
Ecclesiastes 9:1:
“… how the righteous and the wise … are in the hand of God”.
Moreover, Solomon
was not shy about broadcasting his wisdom and the fact that he had exceeded all
others in it. For example (Ecclesiastes 1:16): “I said to myself, ‘I have
acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my
mind has great experience of wisdom and knowledge’.”
However Solomon,
in his ‘Prayer for Wisdom’ (Book of Wisdom 7:15-17), had attributed his wisdom
to God:
“May God grant me
to speak with judgment, and to have thoughts worthy of what I have received;
for He is the guide even of wisdom and the corrector of the wise. For both we
and our words are in His hand, as are all understanding and skill in crafts.
For it is He who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists …”.
Ecclesiastes
1:12: “I, the Teacher, when king over Israel in Jerusalem applied my mind to
seek and search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven …”.
Ecclesiastes
7:25: “I turned my mind to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the
sum of things, and to know that wickedness is folly and that foolishness is
madness”.
The
multi-talented Solomon was, I have proposed, the genius Senenmut (or Senmut), a
key organiser in 18th dynasty Egypt:
“by far the most
powerful and important figure of [female pharaoh Hatshepsut’s] reign”, who was
- like Solomon - not beyond self-praise: “I was the greatest of the great in
the land”. Thus Senenmut.
King Solomon,
too, exhorted other kings and officials to follow his way (Wisdom 6:1-9):
Listen therefore,
O kings, and understand; learn, O judges of the ends of the earth. Give ear you
that rule over multitudes, and boast of many nations. For your dominion was
given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High; he will
search out your works and inquire into your plans. Because as servants of his
kingdom you did not rule rightly, or keep the law, or walk according to the
purpose of God, he will come upon you terribly and swiftly, because severe judgment
falls on those in high places. For the lowliest may be pardoned in mercy, but
the mighty will be mightily tested. For the Lord of all will not stand in awe
of anyone, or show deference to greatness; because he himself made both small
and great, and he takes thought for all alike. But a strict inquiry is in store
for the mighty. To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed, so that you may
learn wisdom and not transgress.
His Repudiated
Wife
Charlemagne,
according to Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 396):
“… repudiated Desideria, his Lombard wife, and sent her back to Pavia
post-haste.
Solomon also
divorced “the Queen of Sheba”, Hatshepsut, and sent her back to Egypt. This, as
I have explained following the terrific research of Dr. Ed Metzler (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), is the
full meaning of the Hebrew of 1 Kings 10:13, that now translates weakly as:
“Then she returned to her own land, with her servants”. Metzler has suggested
that the biblical phrase "she [Sheba] turned" (to go back home)
indicates 'divorce' (Latin divortium, from divertere, "to turn away")
….
The Europeans of
the Middle Ages would have known of Solomon only from the Bible. They did not
have the advantages that we have today of archaeology and other knowledges –
and even today this era can still be so poorly known.
Solomon’s divorce
of ‘the Queen of Sheba’ was all purely political.
Despite King
David’s having made absolutely clear his wish regarding the succession in
favour of his son, Solomon, there arose ‘the Abishag incident’, in relation to
which Queen Bathsheba was involved in an intrigue with Solomon’s brother for
the throne. And, just as Solomon went counter to his mother, Queen Bathsheba,
on behalf of David, so, we find from Daniel-Rops (op. cit., ibid.)
that: “Bertha’s policy was abruptly abandoned, and Charlemagne was returning to
that pursued by Pepin”.
Charlemagne’s
triumph is recounted by Daniel-Rops as follows (ibid., p. 397):
At Easter 774, in
a grandiose ceremony, the victorious Frank was to be received at St. Peter’s
like a hero; the three doors of the basilica were opened in his honour. As he
ascended the steps he kissed them piously, one by one, and prostrated himself
upon the apostle’s ‘confession’, whilst the choir sang: ‘Blessed is he who
comes in the name of the Lord!’
Cf. The Accession
of King Solomon: 1 Kings 1:28-48.
And the
proclamation here: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’, is of
course straight out of David’s Psalm 118:26.
His Morality and
His Piety
“As for his
personal morals, they too remained typical of his epoch: this virile man, who
married four times certainly followed Old rather
than new Testament practices in his private life” (Daniel-Rops, ibid. Emphasis
added).
Solomon was of
course a serial polygamist.
Charlemagne was
most definitely a religious man, too (ibid., p. 394):
Charles was
personally devout, rigorously observant in his prayers and his fasting (and the
latter cut into his fine appetite), and he was indeed the man as portrayed by
the chroniclers, the man who attended interminable religious services entirely
of his own free will, his own strong voice mingling with those of the choir.
We could expect
that Solomon might have inherited some of David’s musicianship.
Charlemagne was a
wise and religious ruler, and here is where Daniel-Rops does actually liken him
to King Solomon (ibid.,
394-395. Emphasis added):
To make his
subjects live in perfect harmony, to establish the concordia pacis between men,
above all to fight against all the evils which ravaged the world: famine,
cruelty, and injustice – such was the ideal of this mighty and awe-inspiring
monarch …. And the certainty which this man held at the bottom of his heart, of
‘taking the place of God on earth, of having, as his task, the exaltation of
His Law [the Torah?]’ …. Charles is, on the
historical plane, a witness of God, after the style of Solomon….
[End of
quote]
Cf. King
Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication of the Temple: 1 Kings 8:22-61.
Solomon also
acted like a priest on this important and triumphal occasion (vv. 62-64).
His Imperial
Coronation
It is unclear
whether Charles requested the coronation, or whether he was crowned
unexpectedly by the Pope. It is not clear whether there was a formal coronation
or an acclamation. Einhard reports just the 'acceptance of the imperial title'.
Andreas from Bergamo (9th century), Bonizo from Sutri (11th century), Gero from
Reichersberg (12th century) and Nicolaus Cusanus (15th century) don't know
anything about an emperor Charles.
Similarly
Daniel-Rops has written (op. cit., p.
402):
There only
remains the … element which was responsible for the great event of Christmas
800: Charles’s own will. This is the point upon which we know the least. Was
the imperial coronation the result of a well-matured plan on the part of the
Frankish leader, a ladder which he had long ago resolved to climb? It is quite
impossible to give an answer.
And Fraioli
writes (p. 47):
So on Christmas
day 800, in commemoration of the birth of Christ, a surprise coronation took
place … Charlemagne, whom his biographer Einhard described as persuaded of his
own God-given mission to unite western Christendom …. was looked upon as king
and priest (rex et sacerdos).
But now it is
Charlemagne who is the ‘new [king] David’. Thus Daniel-Rops (p. 400): “Next the
pontiff [Leo III] anointed the forehead of the ‘new David’ with sacred oil and,
uniting the ceremonial imposed, since Diocletian’s time, by the protocol of the
Roman emperors, with the ancient biblical rite, he prostrated himself before
him and ‘adored him’.”
No wonder the
French kings came to consider themselves the rightful descendants of the
Israelite royalty!
“The triple and
ritual acclamation” to which Daniel-Rops refers in this part (ibid.) is also
seemingly reminiscent of the triple procedure used by pharaoh Thutmose I to
crown Hatshepsut (“Queen of the South”).
Like Solomon,
Charlemagne reigned for at least four decades.
His Empire
Whilst Solomon’s
empire lay entirely in the ancient region of ‘the Fertile Crescent’ (Egypt;
Syro-Palestine; Mesopotamia), as reconstructed in my various articles on him,
to Charlemagne are attributed European conquests; firstly, Italy, Rome and the
Lombards. “The ease with which Charles could impose his rule on Italy in this
way remains astonishing” (Daniel-Rops, op. cit., p.
397). Then, he pushed back Islam and conquered the entire Germanic world, so
that (ibid.,
p. 401): “His domain, which spread to the Elbe, to the middle Danube, to
Brussels, and even as far as the outskirts of Rome, seemed now too large for
the ordinary world ‘realm’ to fit it any longer”.
In Solomon’s
case, he would have been pushing back, not Germans and Islamic armies, but
Philistines, Syro-Hittites, Elamites and Nubians.
His Ally, Harun
al-Rashid
Finally, the
whole Charlemagnian scene does shift to the east.
Daniel-Rops
introduces this exotic phase in the life of Charlemagne as follows, once again
making allusion to Solomon (and also now to “the Queen of Sheba”), p. 410:
Another aspect of
Charlemagne’s ‘Christian policy’ struck his contemporaries very strongly; it is
almost unbelievable, and brings into his career, which is almost devoid of
poetic quality, a note of exotic charm similar to that which the visit of the
Queen of Sheba casts upon the reign of Solomon; in other words, his relations
with Haroun-al-Raschid, the Caliph of Bagdad.
I would be more
emphatic here and suggest that it is more than “almost unbelievable”. It is
unbelievable!
Harun al-Raschid
belongs to the world of fairy tales! “Harun al-Raschid has become famous as
protagonist in tales from One Thousand and One Night[s]”.
Relations
Charles exchanged
diplomats with Harun al-Raschid, the Caliph of Baghdad, who sent him the white
elephant Abul Abbas, which took part in all journeys and military actions of
Charles between 802 and 810 AD. Arab sources do not mention these relations.
Harun al-Raschid has become famous as protagonist in tales from One Thousand
and One Night[s].
In a Solomonic
context, Harun is not unlike the king of Israel’s great Phoenician ally, Hiram,
king of Tyre. Though Hiram’s power extended much further than Tyre; for he, as
I have argued in my “King Hiram” article (ref. above), was also the mighty
merchant-king Iarim-Lim
of the Aleppo region, who was able militarily to threaten with extermination
rulers as far away as Babylonia (the region of the exotic Harun), if they
failed to pay for his shipbuilding services.
King Hiram had
told Solomon that the Galilean towns that the latter had given him in payment
for his services were “Cabul” (1 Kings 9:13), virtually ‘rubbish dumps’.
According to Daniel-Rops (ibid.), Harun
“was an intelligent, well-educated, and relatively sympathetic man …”. And
Daniel-Rops continues with his account of Harun:
Probably no
Eastern ruler ever equalled the glory of this great caliph: he lived in the
palace of the ‘Golden Gate’, whose famous green dome dominated the Mesopotamian
plain, amongst his priceless carpets and tapestries, in the midst of a gigantic
court of servants, concubines and eunuchs, and he was worthy indeed to become
the hero of the Arabian Nights. But he was also a skilful diplomat and a
soldier.
[End of
quote]
The architecture,
the lavish courts and the multitudes of servants, as well as the skill factor
in ruling and conquering, all are perfectly true of Hiram, too, especially in
his partnership with the magnificent Solomon. The royal pair had fleets of
ships visiting the most exotic regions, for gold, slaves, precious myrrh and
rare spices, and other quite unique flora and fauna. I have suggested that
Solomon and Hiram were actually turning Palestine at the time into a zoo and a
botanical gardens; a lot of which atmosphere is reflected in the exotic “Song
of Songs”.
It is such a pity
that the archaeologists have been looking at the wrong strata levels for the
cosmopolitan Late Bronze phase of king Solomon.
The harmonious
relations between the two sovereigns were marked by exchanges of gifts, which
the Carolingian chroniclers enlarge upon charmingly and freely. Everyone at
Aix-la-Chapelle was enraptured by the arrival of a chess set with the figures
finely carved in ivory, of spices with unknown scents, of a clock which moved
by means of a cunning hydraulic mechanism, and even of elephants and other
strange animals!
Part Two: Archaeology of Charlemagne
For AD history to be fully convincing
and to be made to rest on firm foundations, it
will need to undergo a rigorous revision
similar to the one that scholars have been undertaking for BC history, with the
application of a revised stratigraphy.
There may be some indications that the
history of Charlemagne is yet far from having been established on such firm
stratigraphical foundations.
The following
will be based upon the research of some pioneering European revisionists
(Illig; Niemitz; Topper) who have bravely embarked upon a re-assessment of AD
time. Whilst I may not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions, or
their revised models, I would applaud them for having undertaken so necessary a
revision.
Charlemagne’s
Economy
The findings of
historians regarding Charles' economy show extreme contradictions: Some concede
abundant wealth to Charles, while others have to complain economic decay. Jan
Beaufort writes (“Illig’s Hypothesis on Phantom Times – FAQ”: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm):
Economy: The findings of
historians regarding Charles' economy show extreme contradictions: Some concede
abundant wealth to Charles, while others have to complain economic decay. [DeM 161 ff.] As Heinsohn
has shown recently, coins attributed to Charles (or, likewise Charles the
Bald-head) cannot be distinguished from the coins of Charles the Simple
(898-929). According to Illig, Carolus Simplex has been a real Carolingian and
the model for Charlemagne. The attribute "simplex" (= stupid, but
likewise single, not-duplicated) has been used for the first time following the
turn of the millennium. [Heinsohn (2001)]
Charlemagne’s
Capital City
and His
Cultural Achievements
‘The Carolingian
Renaissance’, as Daniel-Rops calls it (The Church in the Dark Ages, p.
422), centred on Aix-la-Chapelle. But Aix-la-Chapelle is considered to have
been a rather unusual geographical choice anyway:
The vital centre
of this Renaissance was Aix-la-Chapelle, the ancient ‘villa’ of Pepin the
Short’s time, which was situated some distance off the great Roman roads. From
794 onwards Charlemagne made it into a Carolingian Versailles, judging from its
intellectual atmosphere and the splendour of its appearance. The geographical
position of this new capital has given rise to much discussion: why was this
Rhineland area chosen, rather than some town in Gaul, or even Rome itself? ….
Aix was the centre of the intellectual Renaissance; and the centre of Aix, and
especially the Palatine school, was a kind of general headquarters of the mind,
which influenced the entire empire ….
[End of
quote]
Amongst this
august group was Charlemagne himself, now “known as David”; this being about
the only seemingly eastern factor in what comes across as a very European ‘club
of gentlemen’ (ibid., p. 424):
The leaders of
this pleiade of scholars and cultured men formed a sort of club, a small,
self-contained group. Historians are accustomed to call this group the Palatine
Academy. Each of its members bore a pseudonym borrowed from antiquity. Charlemagne
himself, who was not a whit averse to residing over this learned assembly, was
known as David, which overestimated the power of the cantor of the Psalms and
overrated even more outrageously the poetic talents of the son of Pepin!
[End of
quote]
Charlemagne is
also, like King Solomon, famed for his architectural achievements. Thus
Daniel-Rops, p. 425:
…. Because the
building, decoration, and beautifying of the House of God was one of the major
preoccupations of the master, architecture and the plastic arts developed so
much that Dawson has been able to write: ‘Charlemagne founded a Holy Roman
architecture as well as a Holy Roman Empire’. In fact, it was not only Roman,
but followed tendencies which we have already noticed in the Merovingian epoch,
mingling Eastern and remote Asiatic influence with the revival of classical
features.
But sadly - as
somewhat also with king Solomon (but in his case due to centuries of
destruction and looting, and also to the failure by archaeologists to identify
Solomon’s era stratigraphically): “We no longer possess many examples of the
architecture of this great reign”.
[End of
quote]
Beaufort would
concur with the fact of this dearth of architectural evidence (op. cit.):
Buildings: As
we know from the ancient texts, between 476 and 855 AD more than 1695 large
buildings were erected, including 312 cathedrals, 1254 convents and 129 royal
palaces. The historian Harald Braunfels: "Of all these buildings [until
1991] only 215 were examined by archaeologists. Artefacts were found only at a
fraction of these buildings. One may count with ten fingers the number of
buildings that still exist as a whole or as a significant fraction." [DeM 208]
Publisher
Heribert Illig, who has advanced the historical conspiracy theory known as the phantom
time hypothesis, has made this observation about the “masterpiece of
Carolignian architecture” (as told by Beaufort):
Pfalzkapelle
Aachen: The masterpiece of Carolingian architecture, the Chapel
of St. Mary at Aachen (about 792-799) is unique. Its direct predecessor
(Ravenna's San Vitale) had been erected some 200 years earlier. Buildings
comparable to Aachen in style and technology were not erected until the advent
of the Romanesque style in the 11th century. Consequently, Illig assumes the
Pfalzkapelle to be a Romanesque building of the 11th century.
[End of
quote]
In other words,
Illig claims it to be quite anachronistic.
His
Burial and Tomb
Beaufort tells
about this (op. cit.):
Burial: Charles' burial place
is the Pfalzkapelle at Aachen (his explicit will to find his grave beneath his
father at Saint-Denis had been ignored). This contradicted the general
prohibition of burials within churches, proclaimed by councils held under
Charles at Aachen (809) and Mainz (813). [DeM 44 f.]
And again:
Tomb: Charles' tomb had been
camouflaged so well (in fear of the raiding Normans) that it could not be
localized for two centuries. In the year 1000 the emperor Otto III discovers
the tomb. He finds Charles sitting on his throne. Again the tomb became forgotten
until it was found once more and reopened by Friedrich Barbarossa. Then again,
the tomb disappeared and was never found again. For comparison: The tomb of
Otto I in the dome of Magdeburg has always been honoured - despite of all
destructions and rebuilds of this church. [DeM 44 ff.]
His Cult
and Biography
And, again from
the same source:
- Cult: Friedrich Barbarossa (1152-1190) is said to have coined the term Sacrum Romanum Imperium. Friedrich gave order to exhumate Charles, and to canonize him. Most known forgeries referring to Charles were produced during Friedrich's lifetime. The reliquary for Charles' arm (dated about 1170) displays the imperial attitude of Barbarossa in reference to Charlemagne. [DeM 338]
- Biography: Leopold von Ranke classifies the biography of Charles, written by his palatial clerk Einhard: "The small volume is full of historical errors [...]. Frequently, the years of reign are false [...]; about the split of the empire between the two brothers the opposite of what really happened is reported [...]; the names of the popes were confused, the spouses and children of Charles were not noted correctly; so many offences have been found that the authenticity of the book has been questioned quite often, although it is beyond all doubt." [DeM 345]
- Tradition: Charles' son in law Angilbert rhymes in 799 an epos, where he denotes Charles to be the "light of Europe", "Head of the world; summit of Europe; father of Europe; most graceful father; hero". But in 799 Charles was not yet crowned as the emperor. [DeM 35 f.] In an essay for the Spiegel magazine (“A dark lighthouse”), Johannes Fried has shown that the myth of Charles as the "father of Europe" came up very much later as a product of a romantic Napoleonism and even Hitlerism. [Fried]
[End of quotes]
It seems that
French kings too, such as Philip II and Louis IX, did much to enhance the
reputation of the glorious ‘Charlemagne’. D. Fraioli takes up this point (Joan
of Arc and the Hundred Years War, pp. 49-50, 51, 52.):
Philip II
Augustus (r. 1180-1223)
…. Entranced by
the life and imperial image of Charlemagne, to whom he must have considered
himself in many ways parallel, Philip consciously patterned himself on the
model of the great Christian emperor. …. In the twelfth century, Charlemagne
was primarily known through literary rather than historical works. Philip had
certainly listened to the popular epic poems about national heroes – the most
prominent being Charlemagne – called chansons de geste. ….
Louis IX (r.
1226-1270)
…. Hincmar’s
legend of the Holy Ampulla was permanently incorporated into the coronation
ritual. As a result, it was declared, with far-reaching consequences, that
because French rulers were appointed with oil sent from heaven, the king of
France “outshines all the kings of the earth”.
…. As others
before him, Saint Louis maintained that the consecration of French kings was
intimately connected to the original anointings of Old Testament kings.
[End of
quotes]
Conclusion
Hopefully this
series has provided sufficient indications that the true Charlemagne must needs
be sifted out from the larger-than-life, and often biblically-based
“Charlemagne” we read about in the text books.
And, obviously, a
proper archaeology needs to be developed to underpin all of this.
Part Three: Archaeology of King Solomon
Three entirely different - supposedly
historical - eras, with their accompanying archaeologies, can presently be
identified for King Solomon, the wise king of C10th BC Israel.
Whilst a major problem
regarding an historical Charlemagne appears to be, from previous
considerations, a lack of due archaeological evidence, in the case of Solomon
the archaeology is there, but it is not recognised.
The current system of archaeology that underlies a badly warped
conventional chronology of antiquity has so ‘knocked into a three-cornered
cocked hat’ the era of the wise King Solomon as to render that era today
virtually unidentifiable.
The ‘three corners’, that each point in quite different directions, are as
follows:
1. The Era of Hammurabi (c. 1800 BC). Middle Bronze I
(2000-1750 BC);
2. Hatshepsut, 18th Dynasty Egypt (C15th BC). Late
Bronze I (1550-1400 BC);
3. Solomon (biblically c. 950 BC), conventionally
Iron Age IIA (1000-900 BC).
Let us consider 1-3 in turn:
- The Era of Hammurabi
That the true era of the splendid King Hammurabi of Babylon has mystified
historians is apparent from the fact that he, famously described by Dr. D.
Courville as “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”,
was originally dated as far back as the mid-third millennium BC, then to c.
2100 BC. Whilst, even today, various high and low chronologies can be proposed
for the king, the general opinion is that he is to be dated to c. 1800 BC.
Conventionally, this is the
Middle Bronze Age I period.
As we shall see, the need for the significant lowering of Hammurabi from
2100 BC to 1800 BC is based on the flimsiest of evidence.
Dr. Courville’s revision of, especially Egyptian, ancient history (in The Exodus Problem
and its Ramifications, 2 vols., 1971) next ‘conveyed’ this misunderstood
king to what ought now be regarded as, for him, a far more realistic historical
location, in the C15th BC, but still based on very flimsy evidence. The
Hammurabi conundrum was finally solved by Dean Hickman (“The Dating of
Hammurabi”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni.
of Toronto, 1985, 13-28), who
finally laid Hammurabi safely to rest in the C10th BC era of kings David and
Solomon.
I have no doubt that this is the correct era for King Hammurabi. See my:
Hammurabi
and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
and:
Hammurabi
and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two: Zimri-lim's Mari Palace
and King Solomon
This well-documented era (e.g. the Mari archives) has begun to produce
biblico-historical synchronisms similar to the abundant el-Amarna period,
revised (C14th BC down to C9th BC).
And once its potential becomes fully appreciated by revisionists, it will no
doubt produce even more abundantly, along the lines of the far more intensely
investigated el-Amarna.
Hammurabic
Anomalies
Stratigraphical and Astronomical
The universal influence of kings David and Solomon permeated the entire
ancient world of the c. C10th BC, with 18th dynasty (Hatshepsut)
Egypt, mentored by the great Senenmut (Solomon) (see 2.), being a
most eager recipient.
Nor was Hammurabi’s Babylon to be deprived of this cultural overflow.
See e.g. my series:
Given Hammurabi’s proper location now at the time of kings David and
Solomon, then Hammurabi could not possibly have been (that is, according to my
revision) contemporaneous with the Middle Bronze I period, to where he is
conventionally located, as the Middle Bronze I nomads were indubitably the
Exodus Israelites.
Dr. I. Velikovsky had told, in his article “Hammurabi and the
Revised Chronology”, of how King
Hammurabi first came to be dated to c. 2100 BC, and of his chronological
importance: “The period of Hammurabi also served as a landmark for the
histories of the Middle East from Elam to Syria, and was used as a guide for
the chronological tables of other nations”, and of Velikovsky’s own radical
revision of the Hammurabic era (http://www.varchive.org/ce/hammurabi.html):
|
….
Until a few decades ago, the
reign of Hammurabi was dated to around the year 2100 before the present era.
This dating was originally prompted by information contained in an
inscription of Nabonidus … who reigned in the sixth century ….
In the foundations of a temple
at Larsa, Nabonidus found a plaque of King Burnaburiash. This king is known
to us from the el-Amarna correspondence in which he participated. On that
plaque Burnaburiash wrote that he had rebuilt the temple erected seven
hundred years before by King Hammurabi. The el-Amarna letters, according to
conventional chronology, were written about -1400. Thus, if Burnaburiash
lived then, Hammurabi must have lived about -2100.
When Egyptologists found it
necessary to reduce the el-Amarna Age by a quarter of a century, the time of
Hammurabi was adjusted accordingly, and placed in the twenty-first century
before the present era. It was also observed: “The period of the First
Dynasty of Babylon has always been a landmark in early history, because by it
the chronology of Babylonia can be fixed, with a reasonable margin of error.”4 The period of Hammurabi also
served as a landmark for the histories of the Middle East from Elam to Syria,
and was used as a guide for the chronological tables of other nations.
Since the dates for Hammurabi
were established originally on the evidence of the plaque of King
Burnaburiash found by Nabonidus—which indicated that King Hammurabi had
reigned seven hundred years earlier—the revision of ancient history outlined
in Ages in Chaos would set a much later date for Hammurabi, for it
places the el-Amarna correspondence and King Burnaburiash in the ninth, not
the fourteenth, century. Burnaburiash wrote long letters to Amenhotep III and
Akhnaton, bore himself in a haughty manner and demanded presents in gold,
jewels, and ivory. In the same collection of letters, however, there are many
which we have identified as originating from Ahab of Samaria and Jehoshaphat
of Jerusalem, and from their governors.5
Therefore, seven hundred years
before this correspondence would bring us to the sixteenth century, not the
twenty-first. Also, the end of the First Babylonian Dynasty—in circumstances
recalling the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt—would point to some date
close to -1500, or even several decades later.
A connecting link was actually
found between the First Babylonian Dynasty and the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt,
the great dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. At Platanos on Crete, a seal of the
Hammurabi type was discovered in a tomb together with Middle Minoan pottery
of a kind associated at other sites with objects of the Twelfth Egyptian
Dynasty,6
more exactly, of its earlier part.7
This is regarded as proof that these two dynasties were contemporaneous.
In the last several decades, however,
a series of new discoveries have made a drastic reduction of the time of
Hammurabi imperative. Chief among the factors that demand a radical change in
the chronology of early Babylonia and that of the entire Middle Eastern
complex—a chronology that for a long time was regarded as unassailable—are
the finds of Mari, Nuzi, and Khorsabad. At Mari on the central Euphrates,
among other rich material, a cuneiform tablet was found which established
that Hammurabi of Babylonia and King Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria were
contemporaries. An oath was sworn by the life of these two kings in the tenth
year of Hammurabi, The finds at Mari “proved conclusively that Hammurabi came
to the throne in Babylonia after the accession of Shamshi-Adad I in Assyria”.8
Shamshi-Adad I could not have
reigned in the twenty-first century since there exist lists of Assyrian kings
which enable us to compute regnal dates. Being compilations of later times,
it is admitted by modern research that “the figures in king lists are not
infrequently erroneous”.9
But in 1932 a fuller and better-preserved list of Assyrian king names was
found at Khorsabad, capital of Sargon II. Published ten years later, in 1942,
it contains the names of one hundred and seven Assyrian kings with the number
of years of their reigns. Shamshi-Adad I, who is the thirty-first on the
list, but the first of the kings whose regnal years are given in figures,
reigned much later than the time originally allotted to Hammurabi whose
contemporary he was.
The Khorsabad list ends in the
tenth year of Assur-Nerari V, which is computed to have been -745; at that
time the list was composed or copied. By adding to the last year the sum of
the regnal years, as given in the list of the kings from Shamshi-Adad to
Assur-Nerari, the first year of Shamshi-Adad is calculated to have been -1726
and his last year -1694. These could be the earliest dates; with a less
liberal approach, the time of Shamshi-Adad needs to be relegated to an even
later date.
The result expressed in the
above figures required a revolutionary alteration in Babylonian chronology,
for it reduced the time of Hammurabi from the twenty-first century to the
beginning of the seventeenth century. The realization that the dating of
Hammurabi must be brought forward by three and a half centuries created “a
puzzling chronological discrepancy”,10
which could only be resolved by making Hammurabi later than Amenemhet I of
the Twelfth Dynasty.
The process of scaling down the
time of Hammurabi is an exciting spectacle. Sidney Smith and W. F. Albright
competed in this scaling down; as soon as one of them offered a more recent
date, the other offered a still more recent one, and so it went until
Albright arrived at -1728 to -1686 for Hammurabi, and S. Smith—by placing
Shamshi-Adad from -1726 to -1694—appeared to start Hammurabi at -1716.11
If Hammurabi reigned at the
time allotted to him by the finds at Mari and Khorsabad—but according to the
finds at Platanos was a contemporary of the Egyptian kings of the early
Twelfth Dynasty—then that dynasty must have started at a time when, according
to the accepted chronology, it had already come to its end. In
conventionally-written history, by -1680 not only the Twelfth Dynasty, but
also the Thirteenth, or the last of the Middle Kingdom, had expired.
[End of quotes]
|
As noted above, Hammurabi underwent a significant chronological shift at
the hands of the conventional historians “based on the flimsiest of evidence”.
Owing to the discovery of that one seal at Platanos, that was thought to look
Hammurabic-ish, and due to a vague piece of neo-Babylonian chronological
information, and even vaguer astronomy (see below), Hammurabi has become
conventionally set as a contemporary of the 12th dynasty of Egypt.
Hammurabi, therefore, stratigraphically and wrongly placed at the time of the
wandering Israelites (Middle Bronze Age I), has been located in relation to
dynastic Egypt - again quite wrongly according to my revision - to the time of
Moses. See e.g. my:
Pharaoh of the Exodus
Hammurabi needs to be lowered
from here by about half a millennium!
However, supposedly in support of
the 12th dynasty synchronism for Hammurabi, is the astronomical
information as supplied by the famous Venus tablets of Hammurabi’s descendant
Ammisaduqa. Charles Ginenthal, who has managed to find a place for both
Hammurabi and the 12th dynasty of Egypt during the Persian era -
following professor G. Heinsohn’s most radical view that Hammurabi was the same
as Darius I - writes as follows about Ammisaduqa (http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Pillars-Vol-II-(large).pdf):
The scientific method by which
the Old Babylonians were dated to the early part of the second millennium B.C.,
and not to Persian times, was based on astronomy and in particular on the Venus
tablets of an Old Babylonian king named Ammisaduqa. This was taken to be the
absolute anchor of Mesopotamia in the second millennium B.C. to which it was
fastened. Since this placement aligned itself with that of the 12th Egyptian
Dynasty, also in the early part of the second millennium B.C., it was seen as a
double anchor point.
….
He then adds this most
significant information about how the highly-respected Otto Neugebauer came to
view the Ammisaduqa data:
…. Otto Neugebauer originally
maintained that because the Venus tablets “are given in the contemporary lunar
calendar, these documents have become an important element for the
determination of the chronology of the Hammurapi [Old Babylonian] period. …”14
This was in 1957. Then in 1983 he claimed:
“From the Old Babylonian period
only one isolated text is preserved which contains omina … from the later
astrology. Predictions derived from observations of Venus made during the reign
of Ammisaduqa (ca. 1600 B.C.) are preserved only in copies written
almost a thousand years later and clearly [were] subjected to several changes
during this long time. We are thus again left in the dark as to the actual
date of the composition of these documents.”15 [emphasis added]
[End of quotes]
2. Hatshepsut and Senenmut: 18th Dynasty Egypt
The Late Bronze Era of the early 18th
Egyptian Dynasty - and not the Middle Bronze I (conventional Hammurabic), nor
the Iron II (conventional Solomonic) - is the stratigraphical phase that truly
reflects the cosmopolitan reign of King Solomon of Israel.
Introduction
In 1., we
considered King Solomon as a contemporary of the Hammurabic era, which latter
era, however, then needed to be dislodged from its date of c. 1800 BC; and from
its supposed contemporaneity with the 12th dynasty of Egypt; and
from its archaeological situation in the Middle Bronze Age I. King Hammurabi’s
era, revised, properly dates to the C10th BC; is contemporaneous with the 18th
dynasty of Hatshepsut’s Egypt; and belongs archaeologically to the Late Bronze
Age.
We can be more specific about King Solomon. He was, according to my
article:
Solomon and Sheba
Hatshepsut’s right-hand man and mentor, Senenmut (Senmut).
Dr. John Bimson had, in a ground-breaking article:
Can There be a Revised
Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?
achieved what the conventional archaeologists have so miserably failed to
do. He identified archaeologically this glorious era of Solomon (my Senenmut),
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. Here is the relevant portion of Bimson’s article:
- The Late Bronze Age and the Reign of Solomon
…. Though chiefly concerned
with dating the start of LB I A relative to the Hyksos period, I also suggested
briefly that the transition to LB I B belonged in the reign of Solomon [13].
Research carried out since that article was written has led me to modify that
view. Although an exhaustive study of the LBA contexts of all scarabs
commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this
point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these
two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that
scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and
perhaps no earlier [14]. Velikovsky's chronology makes Hatshepsut (with
Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III's sole
reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah [15]. Therefore, if the
revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon's reign
saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B.
Placing the beginning of LB II
during the reign of Solomon produces a very good correlation between
archaeological evidence and the biblical record of that period. It is with this
correlation that we will begin. In taking the LB I - II transition as its
starting-point, the present article not only takes up the challenge offered by
Stiebing, but also continues the revision begun in my previous articles, and
will bring it to a conclusion (in broad outline) with the end of the Iron Age.
Though KENYON has stated that
the LB I - II transition saw a decline in the material culture of Palestine
[16], ongoing excavations are now revealing a different picture. LB II A
"was definitely superior to the preceding LB I", in terms of
stability and material prosperity; it saw "a rising population that
reoccupied long abandoned towns" [17]. Foreign pottery imports are a chief
characteristic of the period [18]. According to the biblical accounts in the
books of Kings and Chronicles, Solomon's reign brought a period of peace which
saw an increase in foreign contacts, unprecedented prosperity, and an energetic
building programme which extended throughout the kingdom [19].
I Kings 9:15 specifically
relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised
stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would
therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities
would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI
at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower
City) [21].
The wealth and international
trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more
accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we
have "no evidence of any particular luxury" [21a].
The above-mentioned strata at
Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and
courtyards [22]. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately
not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive
looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the
Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by
Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament [23].
Art treasures from these
cities not only indicate the wealth of the period, but reflect contacts with
Egypt and northern Mesopotamia [24]. These contacts are precisely those we
would expect to find attested during Solomon's reign, the Bible records
Solomon's trade with Egypt and his marriage to the Pharaoh's daughter [25], and
says (I Kings 4:24) that his kingdom extended as far to the north-east as
Tiphsah, which is probably to be identified with Thapsacus, "an important
crossing in the west bank of the Middle Euphrates ... placed strategically on a
great east-west trade route" [26].
The Bible adds extra detail
concerning Gezer: namely, that Solomon rebuilt it after it had been captured
and burnt by the Pharaoh, who had given the site to his daughter, Solomon's
wife, as a dowry (I Kings 9:16-17). In Velikovsky's chronology, this pharaoh is
identified as Thutmose I [27]. In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we
would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point
during LB I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning
[28]. The "latest possible date" for this destruction is said to be
the reign of Thutmose III, with some archaeologists preferring an earlier date
[29]. We may readily identify this destruction as the work of Solomon's
father-in-law.
From the period between this
destruction and the LB II A city comes a group of several dozen burials in a
cave. DEVER remarks that most of these "show signs of advanced arthritis,
probably from stoop labour, which may be an indication of the hardships of life
during this period" [30]. Yet contemporary finds, including "Egyptian
glass, alabaster and ivory vessels, and a unique terra-cotta sarcophagus of
Mycenaean inspiration" [31], indicate considerable prosperity and
international trade at this time. In a revised framework, it is tempting to
speculate that the burials were of people who suffered under Solomon's system
of forced labour, by which Gezer was built according to I Kings 9:15. It
emerges in I Kings 12 that this forced labour caused sufficient hardship to
contribute to the bitterness which split the kingdom after Solomon's death.
We must turn briefly to
Jerusalem, where Solomon's building activities were concentrated for the first
twenty years of his reign, according to I Kings 9:10. Here we find that traces
of occupation datable to Solomon's time in the conventional scheme are rather
poor [32] In the revised scheme, we may attribute to Solomon the impressive
stone terrace system of LBA date excavated by Kenyon on the eastern ridge [33].
In fact, this is probably the "Millo" which Solomon is said to have
built (I Kings 9:15, 24; II:27). Kenyon describes the nucleus of this terrace
system as "a fill almost entirely of rubble, built in a series of
compartments defined by facings of a single course of stones..." [34].
"Fill", or "filling", is the probable meaning of
"Millo" [35]. Also to Solomon's time would belong at least some of
the LBA tombs discovered on the western slope of the Mount of Olives; many of
these contain LB I - IIA material which includes "a surprisingly large
number" of imported items from Cyprus, Aegean and Egypt [36]. The number
would not be surprising in the context of Solomon's reign. ….
Comparison of (A) LB II
(Stratum Ib) temple at Hazor with (B) the basic ground plan of Solomon's Temple
in Jerusalem, as deduced from biblical information. Both have a tripartite
division on a single axis, side-rooms and a pair of free-standing pillars
(though the latter are not identically situated in both cases)
[End of Bimson’s
section]
Whilst much more work needs to be
done, it seems obvious that Bimson’s Late Bronze Age placement of Solomon and
Hatshepsut is far more appropriate than either Middle Bronze I or Iron Age II.
3. Iron Age II
Iron Age II, the archaeological phase
favoured by archaeologists for kings David and Solomon, turns out to be
hopelessly inadequate as a representation of that glorious period.
Introduction
As we read in 2.,
Dr. John Bimson, contrasting his view of the Late Bronze Age for King
Solomon with the conventional view of Iron Age II for the great king, wrote:
I Kings 9:15 specifically
relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised
stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would
therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities
would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI
at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower
City) [21].
The wealth and international
trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more
accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we
have "no evidence of any particular luxury" [21a].
That the bankrupt conventional
arrangement of chronology and attendant stratigraphy falls to pieces completely
when subjected to biblical scrutiny is well apparent from the attempted merging
of the Solomonic era with a mis-dated archaeological phase: Iron II.
David and Solomon simply disappear. Thus
professor Israel Finkelstein famously remarked – and quite logically according
to the strictures of his conventional scheme:
“Now
Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!”
(National Geographic article, “Kings
of Controversy” by Robert Draper (David and Solomon, December 2010, p.
85).
What Finkelstein ought to have been “sorry”
for, however, was not the wise King Solomon – who continues to exist as
a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused utterances of
the current crop of Israeli archaeologists – but for Finkelstein’s
own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system
that causes him to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old
Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon).
We may read of the current wretched
minimalistic (re the Bible) situation at
1000–800 BC – Iron Age II
The memories of the events and persons from the heroic past are the
memories that are reactivated. The Davidic monarchy was Judah’s Golden Age. The
founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was Saul
who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units
capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the
Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite
plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city. It is
generally accepted among scholars today that there is some genuine historical
material in the Books of Samuel, which describe the careers of Saul and David;
but even these books must be critically examined to distinguish between legend
and fact, in as much as it can ever be known.
As recently as the 1980s most scholars viewed the United Monarchy as a
fairly secure period of historical reconstruction. Critics debated whether one
could speak of the exodus as an actual historical event. Archaeology gives no
record of Exodus, of forty years of wandering in the desert, of Joshua's
conquest of the land. But virtually all modern histories of ancient Israel
included, if not commenced with, the monarchy of David and Solomon.
Archaeological surveys showed that there were about 250 settlements in the
central hill country of Canaan in Iron Age I (1200-1000 BC), as compared to
about 50 settlements in Late Bronze Age II (14th-13th century BC). Such a large
increase in settlements would have required the creation of a state apparatus,
such as the United Kingdom.
This is no longer the case: even the Davidic Kingdom becomes reduced.
"The United Monarchy no longer unites modern scholars". During recent
decades the scholarly consensus about the United Kingdom was undone. Many
modern scholars question the historicity of the Bible’s stories about Saul,
David, and Solomon. Doubts have been raised about the historicity of the
biblical account, and consequently about the ascription of archaeological
strata to this period.
In the opinion of most modern scholars, the Bible is not an entirely
reliable historical document. Corroborating evidence is required, and some
indeed exists; but it is not conclusive. There is an endeavor to pierce through
the displacements and exaggerations of national pride which influenced the
historical form of the statements and to discover actuality as it was and
developed. This reveals the nature and value of the texts, but grasps also
their connection with the original fact, their original relations, their mutual
dependence or independence. In religious literature it is necessary to have
regard to the conceptions embodied to see whether these are the original gift
of the religion or whether they have entered during the course of the
development.
There is a fundamental debate between maximalists, such as W.F. Albright
and G.E. Wright, who gave considerable credence to biblical descriptions of the
United Monarchy and minimalists, such as G. Garbini, N.P. Lemche, D.B. Hedford,
and H.M. Niemann, who were rather hesitant to do so. Both these traditions
remain very much alive, and many scholars adhere to one or the other of these
broad categories. But a third school has emerged - nihilists who contend that
the traditional theories of the United Monarchy are unfounded. Scholars such as
P. Davies, M. Gelinas, and T. Thompson came to see Saul, David, and Solomon as
the stuff of legend — the King Arthurs of ancient Israel. They view the whole
narrative of the United Monarchy as a literary construct of scribes writing
during the Persian or Hellenistic period. The whole idea of an historical
Israel drawn from northern and southern constituencies and governed by a single
monarch is seen as a literary fiction.
Iron Age Chronology and the United Monarchy of David and Solomon is the
subject of an ongoing and long-standing controversy in both biblical studies
and archaeology. The ‘conventional’ chronology, which places the Iron Age I |
II transition (in Dor terminology: the Ir1|2 transition) around 1000 BC, is
based on the biblical dating. The 'low chronology', inspired by the
‘minimalist’ or ‘nihilist’ stance, which regards the biblical narrative of this
period as myth, dates the Iron Age I | II transition later, c. 900 BC.
The "Copenhagen School" of biblical researchers advocate a more
radical revisionism than anything produced by Israel Finkelstein or his peers
in the archaeology department at Tel-Aviv University. The Copenhagen School is
the modern descendant of the approach taken in the nineteenth century by Julius
Wellhausen, who argued that the Bible offered little in the way of actual
history — that it was, as he put it, just a “glorified mirage”. Thompson wrote
in his 1999 book The Mythic Past, “Today we no longer have a history of
Israel…. There never was a ‘United Monarchy’ in history and it is meaningless
to speak of pre-exilic prophets and their writings…. We can now say with
considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of anyone’s past.”
To quote Soggin [J. A. Soggin, "The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom,"
in Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and I. M. Miller, OTL
(London: SCM, 1977), and ]. A. Soggin, "Prolegomena on the Approach to
Historical Texts in the Hebrew Bible andthe Ancient Near East,” in Aumlmm
Malmnat Volume (ed. S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine; Erlsr 24;jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1993) 215 ] "There are no traces even of the Davidic
and Solomon empire outside the Bible and reasonable doubts have been expressed
as to the reliability of the pertinent biblical sources."
[End of quotes]
Meanwhile David and Solomon rest entirely secure in their real
historico-archaeological home.
