Velikovsky

[Tamrin]

Velikovsky & Hatshepsut's Temple

In his book, Ages in Chaos, The tendentious polymath, Immanuel Velikovsky sought to identify the Pharaoh Queen Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba. One of his principle arguments was that of Hatshepsut's mortuary temple being a copy of King Solomon's temple (the discrepancy in dating is consistent with his theories). Referring to an excerpt from David Lorton's, Hatshepsut, the Queen of Sheba, and Immanuel Velikovsky, we read:

Velikovsky wishes, first, to argue that Hatshepsut’s temple was directly inspired by Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. Though each has a hall whose dimensions form a ratio of three to one, Velikovsky acknowledges that the two buildings ... were not identical and states, “This difference in location must have influenced the architects to alter their plans.” But if the plans differ, they differ, and the argument is not cogent. More importantly, after citing two outdated statements by Mariette as to the uniqueness of Hatshepsut’s structure at Deir el Bahari and the possibility that it might have been inspired by buildings seen in Punt, Velikovsky states in a footnote, “However, a more ancient temple of similar architecture was discovered in the vicinity; it probably represents, too, a Phoenician influence.” The “more ancient” building in question is, in fact, the funerary structure of Montuhotep the Great of the Eleventh Dynasty (this king reunited Egypt after the internal dissolution of the First Intermediate Period and paved the way for the splendor of the Middle Kingdom; he ruled about 2052 to 2010, about 520 years before Hatshepsut in the orthodox chronology, and about 1,060 years before her in Velikovsky’s revised chronology). Hatshepsut was a usurper on the Egyptian throne, and perhaps she erected her funerary monument next to her glorious Theban predecessor, and imitated its plan, as a way of legitimizing her rule; but whatever her reason, the similarity of plan of the two monuments is evident. That Hatshepsut’s building is not simply a slavish copy of Montuhotep’s, but rather an enlarged and more elaborate version, is clear; but the architectural relationship of the two is obvious. What inspired the plan of Montuhotep’s monument is unknown. However, it seems best viewed as an indigenous development, and not inspired by a known foreign model, as Velikovsky suggests, for its excavators found that it underwent several changes in plan during the course of its construction.

The obviousness of this point cannot be over emphasised. Montuhotep's temple is clearly visible, barely a stones throw from Hatshepsut's as shown below (in the left foreground, in the right background and beneath in an artist's reconstruction).