Part One:
Can be found only with a revised history-archaeology
by
Damien F. Mackey
With King Solomon established by Dean Hickman as a contemporary of
the celebrated Hammurabi of Babylon, we would thus expect Solomon
and his father, David, also to emerge historically in this new setting.
Buoyed by my apparent success in finding King Solomon in the historical records, as the grand Steward, the quasi-royal Senenmut (Senmut), ‘the power behind the throne’ of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, I have tended to go in search of further historical manifestations of that King of Israel in preference to his most illustrious father, David. Though I have not entirely neglected the latter.
Whether or not Senenmut really was King Solomon, my reconstruction has aroused enough interest, at least, for my thesis on this subject to have been published twice.
Firstly, as “Solomon and Sheba”, in SIS’s Chronology and Catastrophism Review, in 1997, and, most recently (2025), in the French journal, Kadath, as “Salomon et la reine de Saba”.
Salomon et la reine de Saba
Prenant le relais des travaux jadis présentés par Immanuel Velikovsky dans son livre Ages in Chaos (Le Désordre des siècles pour la version française), Damien F. Mackey propose ici de nouveaux éléments en faveur de l’hypothèse selon laquelle Hatchepsout, la pharaonne de la XVIIIe dynastie égyptienne, était en fait la reine de Saba biblique. L’argument principal avancé est la présence de Salomon lui-même, dans les inscriptions égyptiennes, sous l’identité de Sénènmout, l’éminence grise d’Hatchepsout.
Taking up the work formerly presented by Immanuel Velikovsky in his book Ages in Chaos, Damien F. Mackey proposes here new elements in favor of the hypothesis according to which Hatshepsut, the pharaoh of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, was actually the biblical queen of Saba. The main argument put forward is the presence of Solomon himself, in Egyptian inscriptions, under the identity of Senenmut, the grey eminence of Hatshepsut.
Damien F. Mackey, Salomon et la reine de Saba, traduit de l’anglais par Stéphane Normand.
37 pages, 6 illustrations.
Outside of Egypt, and its Velikovksian synchronisations of the Eighteenth Dynasty with the United Monarchy of Israel (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) – thereby enabling for my identification of King Solomon, in that revised context, as Senenmut – a further vital synchronisation has been provided by Dean Hickman, in “The Dating of Hammurabi”, according to which King Solomon would have been a contemporary of the famous Hammurabi of Babylon.
{Hickman, George Albert. 1986. “The Dating of Hammurabi.” In Proceedings of The Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History}
Surely, I thought, King Solomon was of sufficient greatness for him to be identifiable as well in this new context, well to the north of Egypt/Ethiopia.
I Kings 10:23-25:
“King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift—articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules”.
Dean Hickman had already laid a solid platform towards this end.
Had he not identified Hammurabi’s mighty older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I of Assyria and Syro-Mitanni, as the biblical Hadadezer, Syrian arch foe of King David? And Shamsi-Adad I’s father, Ilu-kabkabu, or Uru-Kabkabu, as Hadadezer’s father, Rekhob (= Uru-Kab)?
2 Samuel 8:3:
“Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer son of Rehob [Rekhob], king of Zobah, when he went to restore his monument at the Euphrates River”.
An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit
(4) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit
so I have recently written.
And this now becomes apparent as Dean Hickman’s healthy ‘tree’ of revisionism begins to yield its fine produce. Thus I have further determined that:
• Hammurabi’s contemporary, Zimri-lim of Mari, was Solomon’s persistent foe, Rezon (Rezin), whose father,
• Iahdulim (Iahdulin) was Eliada (=Li(m)iahdu), the father of Rezon.
A very good name fit!
I Kings 11:23-25:
“Here is how God made Rezon son of Eliada an enemy of Solomon: Rezon had run away from his master, King Hadadezer of Zobah. He formed his own small army and became its leader after David had defeated Hadadezer's troops. Then Rezon and his army went to Damascus, where he became the ruler of Syria and an enemy of Israel”.
In these few scriptural verses, we now find several known historical characters of the Hammurabic era: Zimri-Lim (Rezon); Iahdulim (Eliada); Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer). And we have just read that Uru-kabkabu (Rekhob) was the father of Shamsi-Adad I.
But where is the historical King David amongst all of these famous names?
Building on Dean Hickman’s rock-solid foundation - expecting to pick more fruit from his abundant ‘tree’ - I ventured some further biblico-historical identifications, namely:
• Iarim-Lim of Yamhad (location not determined) was David’s ally, King Hiram;
• Hammurabi himself may be Huram-abi, the specialist artificer whom Hiram appointed to assist King Solomon with the design of the Temple and Palace.
2 Chronicles 2:13-14:
‘I am sending you Huram-Abi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose father was from Tyre. He is trained to work in gold and silver, bronze and iron, stone and wood, and with purple and blue and crimson yarn and fine linen. He is experienced in all kinds of engraving and can execute any design given to him. He will work with your skilled workers and with those of my lord, David your father’.
Iarim-Lim fits very well, indeed, as Hiram, the most influential king of the time, as we learn in a Mari letter (my emphasis): There is no king who is mighty by himself. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, a like number Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, but twenty follow Yarim-Lim of Yamhad.
What’s more, Iarim-Lim does exactly what King Hiram does - he supplies his patrons with fleets of ships. On this, see e.g. my article:
King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram
(10) King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram
I Kings 10:11-12:
“Hiram’s ships brought gold from Ophir; and from there they brought great cargoes of almugwood and precious stones. The king used the almugwood to make supports for the Temple of the Lord and for the royal palace, and to make harps and lyres for the musicians. So much almugwood has never been imported or seen since that day”.
Can we eke out - especially with regard to kings David and Solomon - any further biblico-historical value from the above Mari letter, naming five great kings of the day?
There is no king who is mighty by himself. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, a like number Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, but twenty follow Yarim-Lim of Yamhad.
So far I have proposed biblical identifications for two of these five kings:
Hammurabi (= Huram-abi?); Rim-Sin of Larsa; Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna; Amud-pi-el of Qatanum; Yarim-Lim (= Hiram).
The great Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer) had by now, presumably, passed from the scene.
Part Two:
The geographical revolution that is also required
Apart from, perhaps, Qatna (Qatanum), the four other cities/lands
referred to in that famous Mari letter:
Babylon; Larsa; Eshnunna; and Yamkhad (Yamhad),
may (or will) need to be re-located.
In Part One, we encountered a handful of royal and geographical names that would be regarded as being generally unfamiliar, except to the specialists. Names such as Yarim-Lim; Yamkhad (Yamhad); Rim-Sin; Larsa; Ibal-pi-el; Eshnunna; Amud-pi-el; Qatanum.
Some of these names have been completely lost on me.
I would not have been able to pinpoint on a map either Yamkhad or Larsa independently of the usual guesses for these.
Yarim-Lim I have confidently identified as the biblical King Hiram - though his problematical kingdom of Yamkhad will need to be properly explained in this context.
And Eshnunna (Ashnunna) I have confidently identified with Ashduddu (Ashdod), which is the same as Lagash (var. Lakish), that is, Lachish, in SW Judah, a long, long way from where Eshnunna/Lagash is conventionally placed in southern Mesopotamia.
On this, see my article:
As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash
https://www.academia.edu/89313146/As_Ashduddu_Ashdod_is_to_Lachish_so_likewise_is_Eshnunna_to_Lagash?uc-sb-sw=31251124
This is part of that ‘geographical revolution’ as referred to above.
For more on all of this, and regarding just how far-reaching it is, see another article of mine:
More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea
https://www.academia.edu/104403646/More_geographical_tsunamis_lands_of_Elam_and_Chaldea?f_ri=32226
I am content at this stage, at least, to accept the common opinion that Qatanum was Qatna, and was in western central Syria.
While I am confident that the kings of this Hammurabic period, and their geography, will become identifiable (some already having been identified) in a c. 1000 BC context, I hold out no hope whatsoever for the conventional historians - still stuck in an artificial c. 1800 BC for Hammurabi - being fully able to identify any of these kings.
And that huge chronological discrepancy (some 800 years) will not serve well, either, one would think, for the conventionalists to sort out whatever geographical anomalies.
Apart from, perhaps, Qatna (Qatanum), the four other cities/lands referred to in that famous Mari letter: Babylon; Larsa; Eshnunna; and Yamkhad (Yamhad), may (or will) need to be re-located.
Babylon
Following Royce (Richard) Erickson’s radical shift of the lands of Chaldea and Elam (see ‘tsunamis’ article above), which I wholeheartedly accept, a corresponding shift of the related Babylon has become absolutely necessary.
Here is Royce Erickson’s visually explanatory map (his Figure 6).
After a fair amount of trial and error, I have settled upon the important city of Carchemish for Babylon (var. Karduniash):
Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos
(2) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos
This re-location of the famous Babylon is in accord with the westwards (N and S) shifting also of Elam; of Chaldea; and of other places that ‘fall permanently off the map of lower Mesopotamia’ (see Eshnunna section, next).
Eshnunna
If Eshnunna/Lagash really was - (not in southern/central Mesopotamia) - Ashdod/ Lachish in SW Judah, a strong fort second only to Jerusalem, then it now becomes most likely that Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, of the Mari letter, was Solomon himself, perhaps as Crown Prince, governing Jerusalem’s major fort.
Or, perhaps, as King Solomon himself, with his kingdom known to the Syrians and Assyrians as Ashdod (to be distinguished from the Philistine Ashdod, known to the Assyrians as “Ashdod-by-the sea”).
Jerusalem is otherwise referred to in the historical records as Girsu (the “mother city” to Lagash), it being one of those places along with Lagash - supposedly situated in southern Mesopotamia - that, according to Seth Richardson, “seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia …” (“Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur” (2008): (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson – Academia.edu).
Why?
Because “Lagaš and Girsu” (read Lachish and Jerusalem) should never have been on the map of lower Mesopotamia in the first place. See also on this my article:
Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello
(3) Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello
Yamkhad
When I wrote above of “the usual guesses” for Yamkhad and Larsa, I had in mind, in the case of Yamkhad, what I had already read about this kingdom regarding the various uncertainties associated with it. Comments like this one:
https://petesfavouritethings.blog/2017/11/10/the-amorite-kingdoms/
Little is known about the kingdom of Yamkhad, which probably occupied what today is Syria and Lebanon. There have been no internal written records found and what we do know comes from the records of surrounding countries. This was the Amorite homeland. It is very possible that Yamkhad was never a kingdom as such, but more an area controlled by a loose confederation of tribes who banded together only in the face of external danger.
This Yamkhad is said to have been centred on Aleppo (Halab):
https://kurdistantribune.com/free-state-aleppo/
“In the ancient times of Yamkhad, Aleppo had a direct access to the Mediterranean via its port Alalakh, the now inland-lying site Tell Atchana”.
Obviously, Yamkhad was (despite what we read above) a very significant kingdom at the time of Iarim-Lim, who appears to have become the dominant king in the region (presumably after the departure of Shamsi-Adad I).
This would indicate to me that the kingdom also went by another, better-known name. I have never yet read a decent explanation for the name Yamkhad.
My tentative suggestion would be that Yamkhad was Chaldea - the revised version of it according to Royce Erickson’s maps above. Perhaps the Yam element in the name equates with the Hebrew word Yam for Sea: the Sealand, another most obscure entity:
Horrible Histories: Kingdom of the Sealand is ‘all at Sea’
https://www.academia.edu/104962176/Horrible_Histories_Kingdom_of_the_Sealand_is_all_at_Sea
If Iarim-Lim was King Hiram, as I maintain, then we would expect the kingdom of Yamkhad to take in, also, Tyre, of which Hiram is said to have been king (I Kings 5:1).
Tyre, a coastal port like Alalakh, is a long way to the south of it (see map above).
A colleague of mine has informed me that Josephus (I have not personally seen the quote) has Hiram returning home from Tyre, which would suggest, as we both agreed, that he was not based at Tyre.
Tyre could have been, in the minds of the Jews, the geographical reference point most meaningful to them over which the mighty King Hiram had exerted power.
No wonder he had accumulated twenty kings in train (Mari letter) if he had dominated the entire coastal region!
Larsa
That leaves just Larsa. And Rim-Sin.
Larsa is not included by Seth Richardson (above) as being one of those places that “seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia …”.
Apart from Lagaš and Girsu, he had also included Puzriš-Dagān and Umma.
But Larsa, along with Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, he had left untouched.
Had Seth Richardson mentioned Larsa in the same fashion as Lagaš and Girsu (my Lachish and Jerusalem), then I would have been able to eye off Larsa as being another name requiring to be shifted to the land of Israel.
Larsa is supposed to have been situated not very far away from Lagash:
AI Overview
“The ancient cities of Larsa and Lagash were relatively close, located in what is now southern Iraq, with Larsa approximately 25 kilometers southeast of Uruk and Lagash situated about 22 kilometers east of the modern town of Al-Shatrah. While the specific distance between them isn't given, they were both significant Sumerian city-states in the same region, with Larsa being annexed into the empire of the king of Lagash in the past”.
That the conventionally located Larsa has proven to be somewhat problematical for archaeologists is apparent from what Marc Van de Mieroop wrote in 1993, in his article:
1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69.
(4) 1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69. | Marc Van De Mieroop - Academia.edu
“Many texts are published as deriving from Larsa, a site that was indeed
heavily looted before scientific excavations took place; yet it is often unclear
as to whether they are from the site itself or from a neighboring tell”.
And we learn at:
https://www.ancient-origins.net/premium-preview/larsa-0019154
Scant sources for Larsa
There is scant evidence of Larsa being mentioned in archaeological finds, before its rise as a strong city state. King Eanatum of Lagash’s Stele of Vultures (circa 2450 BC) [sic] mentions that he made the King of Umma swear an oath to Larsa’s sun god Utu, and it refers to sacrifices that were performed at Utu’s temple in Larsa. It is called the Stele of Vultures for it depicts vultures flying away from the battlefield with the heads of the slain enemy in their beaks. ….
Part Three: As an older contemporary of Hammurabi
King Solomon
In Part Two, we reached the important conclusions that two names generally associated with central and lower Mesopotamia, namely Eshnunna and Lagash, both, in fact, refer to the strong Jewish fort of Lachish, clearly recognised in Lakish, a variant of Lagash - with Eshnunna (Ashnunna) being Ashdod (Ashduddu), another name for Lachish.
This now means that any ruler historically referenced in connection with Lagash, or Eshnunna, is going to be an Israelite (Jewish) king, or, at the least, governor.
Apart from Senenmut as Solomon in Egypt, as previously discussed, I find what I believe to be two other manifestations of him in connection with Lagash, and with Eshnunna.
One of these is as the semi-historical, semi-mythological Gudea of Lagash, of very uncertain chronology (c. 2080–2060 BC, SHORT CHRONOLOGY, c. 2144–2124 BC, MIDDLE CHRONOLOGY.) (Perhaps Gudea was Solomon much later divinised by the Seleucids/Ptolemies in a fashion similar to their venerating of Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu in Egypt).
Another manifestation of King Solomon is as the Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna whom we met in the Mari letter. A contemporary of Hammurabi, as we would now confidently expect King Solomon to have been, my reasons for opting for Ibal-pi-el, for Solomon, apart from his rule of Eshnunna, will become clear as we move on to consider King David.
The only other historical identification for King Solomon with which I have toyed is as Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor, a fort ruled by Solomon. Jabin also emerges in the Mari letters. Jabin, a generic name for rulers of Hazor, apparently, must not be confused with earlier kings Jabin of Hazor, one at the time of Joshua, and one at the time of Deborah:
Cosmopolitan King Solomon
(4) Cosmopolitan King Solomon
This identification (Solomon as Jabin) is still, admittedly, quite tentative.
Archaeologically, the House (Kingdom) of King Solomon is attested in El Amarna letters, revised by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) from c. C14th BC down to about a century after King Solomon. Before Dr. Velikovsky wrote his book, any hope of connecting the El Amarna (EA) references to King Solomon would have been impossible. I wrote in my article:
Abdi hiba and the House of Solomon
(4) Abdi hiba and the House of Solomon
…. two … pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 … determine
the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention
of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”).
King David
The House of David is also attested archaeologically, and most famously, in the Tell Dan inscription.
Surely, the great King David must emerge at the approximate time of the Mari correspondence, as either a ruler of Eshnunna, or of Lagash, or of ‘the mother city’ of Lagash, Girsu (Jerusalem)!
And emerge he does.
The father of Ibal-pi-el (my Solomon) had the most David of names, Dadusha, and he, too, of course, ruled Eshnunna. His supposed brother, Naram-Sin, ruler of Eshnunna, also had a David-like name, “Beloved of [the god]”.
Since this Naram-Sin had a David name, and ruled Eshnunna, and since he fought against Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer) as did King David (name from the noun דוד (dod), “beloved”), I would confidently identify these supposed brothers, Naram-Sin and Dadusha, as just the one David the Beloved.
Dadusha - Wikipedia
Dadusha (Dāduša) (reigned c. 1800–1779 BC) [sic] was one of the kings of the central Mesopotamian [sic] city ESHNUNNA, located in the DIYALA VALLEY. He was the son of the Eshnunna king Ipiq-Adad II (reigned c. 1862–1818 BC) [sic]. Although previously kings of Eshnunna had referred to themselves as ENSI (governor) of the city god TISHPAK, in the early 19th century rulers of Eshnunna began referring to themselves as King (Sumerian LUGAL). Dadusha's father Ipiq-Adad II and his brother NARAM-SUEN (reigned c. 1818–? BC), who ruled Eshnunna before him, both used the title king and Dadusha followed suit.
....
Dadusha followed the expansionist policies of his father and his brother Naram-Suen, mixing war and diplomacy to increase his control over areas. His continued expansionism caused Eshnunna to become one of the most powerful states in the Mesopotamian region in the early 18th century. ....
Dadusha was succeeded by his son IBAL PI’EL II (reigned c. 1779–65 BC). ….
….
In 1781 BC, Dadusha joined forces with the king of Upper Mesopotamia, SHAMSHI-ADAD I, in order to subdue the area between the two ZAB RIVERS. [sic] The attack on Qabrā occurred in the last regnal year of Dadusha and the 28th regnal year of Shamshi-Adad I. .... They were successful in this endeavor, and Dadusha had a victory stele commissioned commemorating the event. .... The fragmentary Mardin Stele of Shamshi-Adad I tells the story from a different perspective. ....
[End of quote]
Whether or not King David and Hadadezer were once allies, we learn that Naram-Sin, like David, successfully fought against the Syrian potentate:
Naram-Sin of Eshnunna - Wikipedia
“[Naram-Sin] was contemporary of SHAMSHI-ADAD I, the future king of the Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia. .... Shamshi-Adad was apparently ousted from his city by Naram-Sin which led to a brief exile in Babylon”.
Dadusha’s (Naram-Sin’s) victory stele may possibly be referred to in an Old Testament verse, usually taken to mean that it was Hadadezer who was setting up his stele (I Chronicles 18:3): “Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer king of Zobah, in the vicinity of Hamath, when he went to set up his monument at the Euphrates River”.
David as Rim Sin
Though he fell short by a few years of the mammoth 66-67 year reign of pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’ of a later era, Rim Sin’s approximately 60-year reign (c. 1822 BC to 1763 BC, conventional dating) is quite remarkable – though, probably, significantly over-exaggerated.
But what is especially remarkable is that a king who could boast of so lengthy a reign, and who popularly equated with greats such as Hammurabi and Solomon in following: “.... Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna ...”, is almost totally lacking in depictions.
Thus I must exclaim:
Where are all the depictions of the long-reigning Rim Sin so-called I?
Although I have been slow to realise it - considering the incredible apparent borrowing by Rim Sin from the wisdom writings and thoughts of King David, and the fact that, like David, Rim Sin was an older contemporary of Hammurabi - I would now identify this Rim Sin as David himself, a shepherd king, a man after God’s own heart.
The identification can be facilitated, I think, through David’s alter ego, Naram-Sin of Eshnunna, the name Rim Sin being merely a shortening of the name Naram-Sin.
Compare: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22).
Rim Sin is so like David that he can be David.
Larsa could be simply an anagram for Israel.
But that now raises some queries.
Was the kingdom of David divided between he, with his 10-15 kings, and his son Solomon, with his 10-15?
Perhaps the fact was that Rim Sin, and that Ibal-pi-el, both led the same 10-15 kings; or that Solomon as Crown Prince ruled the strong SW fort of Lachish, while his father looked after the region of Girsu (Jerusalem).
Or, that David had actually died, recently, but was still included in the Mari letter – this one seems most unlikely.
Whatever be the case, the stunning truth is that, despite what the Mari letter has to say, Marc Van de Mieroop, writing of Rim Sin, claimed that he was “… more important than his challenger [sic] Hammurabi …”.
Rim Sin’s kingdom supposedly extended to the Girsu that I have re-located so as to be Jerusalem itself. “Ninkimar in Ašdubba near Larsa” is most interesting.
The name Ašdubba is almost identical to the neo-Assyrian name, Ashduddu (Ashdod), that I have identified with the Judean fort of Lachish (Lagash).
Rim-Sin seems to be frequently moving here in Syro-Palestinian, and not Babylonian, territory, with Eshnunna/Lachish, with Karkar, and with Al-Damiq-ilišu looking rather suspiciously like the Syrian capital city of Damascus (Dimašqu).
Apparently there was temple in Larsa (Israel?).
Eanatum (Eannatum) of Lagash, here, I have identified as the potent king of Judah, Hezekiah (C8th BC):
Scant Sources for Larsa
There is scant evidence of Larsa being mentioned in archaeological finds, before its rise as a strong city state. KING EANATUM of Lagash’s Stele of Vultures (circa 2450 BC) [sic] mentions that he made the King of Umma swear an oath to Larsa’s sun god [sic] Utu, and it refers to sacrifices that were performed at Utu’s temple in Larsa. It is called the Stele of Vultures for it depicts vultures flying away from the battlefield with the heads of the slain enemy in their beaks.
Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma
(5) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma
