What was the new kingdom in ancient Egypt?

Answer 1

Hi everyone!

I am gladly here to answer your question. The correct answer would be from about 1550 to 1050 BC. The New Kingdom that is, that is how long it lasted. Thanks again and tune in soon!

Answer 2

It was during 1550 - 1070 BC

Answer

However, under the emerging new chronology which truncates the number of dynasties from 26 between 3000 BC ad 550 BC to about 8 truly supra-national dynasties from 2200 to 550 BC, there is no such thing as the "New Kingdom" and some of the dynasties in it were not dynasties at all. They were name lists that Manetho and others believed were "dynasties".

A better way to segment ancient Egypt's history is to talk about pre-Hyksos and post Hyksos. We might well label these two eras as the New and Old or First and Last 'kingdoms'. For example, we segment Britain's history into pre- and post-Roman. Just as Rome systematically destroyed as much British history as it could over 400 years, so too the Hyksos destroyed much of ancient Egypt's history. The Romans took over from an essentially Tyrian-Phoenician-Carthaginian and Celtic Britain. The Phoenicians came from the West, South-West and the Sea. Celts came from central Europe and across the channel, although some may have come with the Carthago-Phoenicians as well.

Rome hated Carthage and ancient Tyre hence its vicious assault on ancient Britain. However, Rome was established by Chaldean-Babylonian refugees from Troy, savagely destroyed by the Achaeans (Greeks). The Chaldeans (a.k.a. Galatians, Gelts or Celts) had been driven out of Southern Iraq by the deserts. The ancient irrigation systems ended up destroying the soils by depositing salts from the Persian Gulf. This caused a great exodus from South Iraq. Many of these people settled in East Turkey where they are known as Kurds today. Historians named these people "Hittites" because the Egyptian hieroglyphs for this nation i.e., Kh-D/T could be read by interpolating vowels as Hittite, Kurd, Kald or Chaldean, Galatian, Gelt, Celt etc.

Thus Rome's conquest of Britain can be read as liberating their Babylonian Chaldean cousins from the Phoenicians and preventing Carthage from setting up a new basee to launch attacks on the Roman Empire [which every good Briton today should be doing e.g., by opposing the EU?].

Using this 'British' model, Egyptian history makes much more sense by placing this Hyksos 'inter-regnum' or anarchic era itno the framework. Rome's rule of Britain was not anarchic. The Hyksos rule of Egypt was anarchic. In the Bible this people is known as Amalek. The ancient Egyptians named the barbarians or goat- and sheep-herding bedouin in Arabia and Asia as "Amu". Their small bands were led by chieftains (melech). They were known as the "Amu Melech" or shepherd-kings. In Psalm 78:49, the Hebrew describes them as the Malakei-roim i.e., Amalek. They invaded Egypt after Israel left that country in 1500 BC.

Thus 1500 BC was the beginning of the era of anarchy and it lasted until 1000 BC when Saul and David of Israel defeated Amalek and effectively liberated Egypt. The 18th dynasty emerged from this and quickly united Egyptians and Ethiopians (who were mainly independent of the Hyksos who based themselves in North Egypt). This can be called the New Kingdom because it was the start of a new era in Egypt's history. It was an era that started with a wonderful relationship with Israel whereby Thutmose I and Hatshepsut, his daughter, feted Israel and appreciated David's great efforts to rid the Middle East of the anarchic Amalekite-Hyksos.

"Hatshepsut", which means "The Sign of the Sheba (ruler) of the South (= Egypt and Ethiopia)", famously visited Solomon, converted to worship Israel's Jehovah and returned to Egypt to encounter opposition to the religious hierarchy. She managed to build a temple in Deir el-Bahari that evoked the words of Solomon in Song of Solomon 2:14: Oh my dove, you are in the clefts of the rock; in the secret places of the stairs." [Look at photos of the temple on the Internet]. Her temple was a "sign" she was the "queen" who visited Solomon. As Song of Solomon implies, she was 'Black', i.e., a daughter of the Ethiopians. She could not put her full story on the walls of her temple. She was overthrown probably. But she left it as a clever coded sign to show who she was and what she did. The other side of her history is captured in the Bible. Her future history (prophecy) is outlined also as the Gospels attest.

After Hatshepsut, the 18th dynasty descended slowly into chaos with Akhenaten and Tutenkhamen in circa 800 BC. Ethiopians, Assyrians and Carthaginians ("Sons of Irem" or Hiram) then batteld fro control of Egypt with varying success. A dynasty called the 19th seems to have emerged to control Egypt. It is generally believed to have been "Egyptian" rather than Assyrian etc. However, it fell too with Merneptah who said Israel's seed is castrated; the land razed to the ground." This is clear evidence the dynasty of Sety the Great, Ramesses the Great and Merneptah (the "19th") ended at the time Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Israel. The latter did not because nowadays we see the seed of Israel well established in its ancient homeland. How wrong Merneptah was! But his error is overwhelmed by the modern chronologists' errors which have distorted so much ancient history.

However, with all this said and done, the 18th and 19th dynasties can be regarded as Egypt's New Kingdom but it fell disastrously and ever since the country has been controlled by foreign powers commencing with Chaldeans, then Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Persians again, Kurdo-Chaldeans again, Mameluks, Ottomans, and modern westerners be they French, British or American.

The "New Kingdom" of the orthodoxy arose after the "Old" (supposedly 3000 BC to 2200 BC) and "Middle" kingdoms (ended 1700 BC). There were so-called "Intermediate Periods" of chaos or non-dynastic government or non-government as the case may have been. A standard history of Egypt will outline these in more detail although differences, sometimes quite significant, are to be found from 'history' to 'history'. This structure, or framework, suffers badly from the chronology problem. The dynastic era did not start until circa 2200 BC. Bogus dating systems, facilitated by supra-nationalising regional or local nomarchs or priest-kings, inflate Egyptian chronology by an estimated 800 years.

The insurrection against Mr Mubarak's regime in February 2011 reads like a repeat edition in a long-running saga. Another New Kingdom on its way?

Answer 3

Answer

2750B.C. :)

yay!!! i answered my own question!!!!!:)

*actually it began in 2700 B.C

Answer 4

Egypt acquired new territory and reached the height of its power and glory. Egypt became even richer and more powerful.

Answer 5

The new kingdom began from around 1550 BC, to 1080 BC.

Answer 6

The new kingdom of ancient Egypt emerged between the 16th century BC and the 11th century BC.

Answer 7

It started around 2575 B.C

Answer 8

about 5000b.c to 4000b.c