Joe Baker
Manetho mid-late 18th dynasty
Tue Dec 20, 2011 07:18
218.215.194.228


Hi Ian

I am way behind in reading many of these posts. So rather than answer this one I want to lay some groundwork and return to an old post I began to write to counter one of your posts but never finished. Here I give an abbreviated version of it - it shows why I disagree with your assignment of the mid-late 18th dynasty.

This suggests that Manetho’s source of the last eight kings of Dynasty 18 alternated the reading direction, called boustrophedon. A sudden switch from one-directional to boustrophedon writing is bound to lead to reading mistakes ...

When scribes constructed a listing in hieroglyphic or hieratic writing on a scroll they would presumably place all the signs and cartouches facing the same direction. One would then read from the direction these signs faced. Thus if the signs faced right (left) one read from right to left (left to right). But if one had to read in a boustrophedon manner than the scroll would have been very unusual with alternate lines having their signs facing opposite directions. I do not see this as being likely.

More than likely Manetho was not confused, instead most of the confusion is of your own making as a result of your “boustrophedon" theory. Thus in your sequencing below (from post 11824 covering your “Amenhotep 2” to Ramesses 1), only 2 out of your 10 identifications are correct. And even here I am confused by your ordering of 12. Akenkheres 2 and 11. Rathotis, because in your scheme the order given in Manetho (who was reading your supposed two column list). You say the list was to be read in a boustrophedon manner but that instead Manetho read it in a normal manner, so that he reversed the order of Amenophis and Thmosis and also Armesses Miamun and Ramesses but then should he not have also reversed the order of Rathotis and Akenkheres 2?

We have debated this before and although I will be repeating myself I will point out why I see Manetho himself as being against your identifications. But first lets outline your supposed 2 column arrangement and the way you say the order was read.

        COLUMN 1                             COLUMN 2 
|
/--<-- 7. Thmosis (Thutmose 4) -----<----- 8. Amenophis (Amenhotep 2) --<--/
|
|
\-->-- 9. Oros (Amenhotep 3) ------->----- 10. Akenkheres (Akhenaten) --->--\
|
|
/--<-- 12. Akenkheres (Smenkhkare) --<----- 11. Rathotis (Nefernefruaten) <--/
|
|
\-->-- 13. Akenkheres (Tutankhamun) ->----- 14. Armais (Ay 2) ------------>--\
|
|
/--<-- 15. Ramesses (Ramesses 1) ----<----- 16. Armesses Miamun (Horemhab) <--/
|

7. Thmosis - we agree

8. Amenophis - An Amenophis following Thmosis should be Amenhotep 3 - but you say he was Amenhotep 2 (misplaced due to ignorance of the boustrophedon layout). However the Christian chronographers say this king was Memnon who built the two singing statues (of Amenhotep 3) at Thebes. So even Manetho identifies him as Amenhotep 3. I doubt if the Christian chronographers would have made this identification themselves as in their time the builder of these statues was known as Amenothes (not as Amenophis).

IMO it is Amenhotep 2 who has fallen out of Manetho’s source due to the common scribal eye error of “line skipping” which resulted in Tuthmosis 3 inheriting Amenhotep 2’s reign length in the following manner. Here the scribe, in copying the original list to a new scroll, has looked back to the original scroll but mistakenly skipped those parts shown in red.

KING         |  ORIGINAL LIST            |  LIST AFTER ERROR
-------------+---------------------------+------------------------
Tuthmosis 1 | Mephres 12.09 | Mephres 12.09
Tuthmosis 3 | Mephramuthosis xx.xx | Mephramuthosis 25.10
Amenhotep 2 | Amenhotep 25.10 |
Tuthmosis 4 | Thmosis 9.08 | Thmosis 9.08
Amenhotep 3 | Amenophis 30.10 | Amenophis 30.10

Indeed just the same sort of “line skipping” is to be found in the Syncellus manuscripts. There are two known manuscripts and in one two lines have been skipped as follows -

MANUSCRIPT A      |  MANUSCRIPT B
------------------+------------------
Oros 36 | Oros 38
Akhenkherses 12 | Akhenkherses 16
Athoris 39 |
Kenkheres 16 |
Akherres 8 | Akherres 8

9. Oros - The king who followed Amenohotep 3 should be his son Neferkhepeure WAenRe Akhenaten - but you say Oros was Amenhotep 3. Amenhotep 3 was one of the most revered of Egyptian kings (worshipped for a long time after his death and the only king to have a month named after him) Akhenaten the most reviled (being called criminal in a later text). For Manetho Or was a most sacrilegious king. Also Manetho says that Oros fathered a female pharaoh. The only king of the late 18th dynasty known to fit these condition is Akhenaten.

Smenkhare is missing at this point because he was the foreigner Zannanza.

10. Akenkheres - The female who followed Akhenaten should be his daughter Meritaten, who reigned as ANKHKHeperuRE Neferneferuaten. You however say that this ruler was actually Akhenaten, a man, and that Manetho was confused and converted him into a woman because some images of Akhenaten looked feminine (although how he could actually get to see such images is a bit of a mystery). Manetho says this female was succeeded by her brother.

11. Rathotis - The brother who succeeded the female pharaoh would be NebkheperuRE TWTankhamun. You say Manetho was again confused because this ruler was actually the female, daughter of Akhenaten and therefore was not a brother of a female Akhenaten.

12. Akenkheres and 13. Akenkheres - The one who succeed Tutankhamun was KheperKHepeRURE Ay. IMO the scribe has duplicated Ay by first writing his name and then his eye has gone back to his text and reread the same line. BTW I think that the two names that originally stood here were not Akenkherres but something like (A)kherres (as per Eusebius and Africanus). The names found in Iosephos, have been standarised to Akenkheres by some hand whose copy Iosephos used. The same person was probably also responsible for standardising on the name Amenophis for several other similarly written names in Iosephos (such as Merenptah). You on the other had credited these two as Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun whose praenomen and nomen do not in any way resemble the Manetho names.

14. Armais - Clearly Horemheb as in a known bilingual Demotic/Greek manuscript. You however say he is Ay, most unlikely. IMO year dates can be more easily corrupted than names.

Regards Joe


  • Re: Carter 001kIan Onvlee, Sun Dec 18 22:42
    Joe, Thanks for the references. At least we would be safe to assume that Neferneferuaten = Meritaten = Dakhamunu. However, in that case, if Dakhamunzu was not lying, and Mursili was not lying or was... more
    • Re: Carter 001kJoe Baker, Thu Dec 22 08:39
      Hi Ian Your theory of Smenkhkare being Zannanza is still being evaluated by me. If he was indeed Zannanza, he must have been killed on his way back home to visit his father after having married... more
      • Ankhkheperure at UgaritGabolde Marc, Sat Apr 28 05:07
        Dear member of ANECF To complement the informations concerning king Ankhkheperure, I just published an article (in french) devoted to an exceptionnal ivory plaque with Ankhkheperure's cartouche found ... more
        • Akhenaten as Nephersôphris in a Byzantine sourceMarc Gabolde, Tue May 29 03:44
          Dear member of the ANECF Dear colleagues, Please, find a link for an article (author Fabien Hertier, Montpellier) devoted to a surprising mention of Akhenaten in a Byzantine encyclopaedia from the... more
          • Merci Beaucoup Dr. Marc/The Article's English Version!Waael ebn Fekry, Thu May 31 20:38
            Respectable Dr./ Marc Gabolde, Merci beaucoup pour cette "Cadeau Egyptologique" fantastique! It is definitely an important addition to the data-base of my research on the Late 18th Dynasty Period,... more
          • re: Akhenaten as Nephersôphris in a Byzantine sourceMarianne Luban, Wed May 30 09:40
            Dear Marc, I cannot access the article--can you summarize it? But does Nephersôphris really amount to Neferkheperure even in the Northern Egyptian dialect--or just Neferkheperre? My research into... more
            • Nephersôphris AkhenatenMarc Gabolde, Thu May 31 08:53
              Dear Marianne, Thank you very much for posting and advice. If you need a pdf copy of F. Hertier’s article, I can send it in attachment with the help of a valid e-mail address. If you have some... more
              • re: Nephersôphris AkhenatenMarianne Luban, Thu May 31 17:09
                Dear Marc, I'll try to access the paper again, but first I'll respond to some of your philological concerns. You wrote: “Concerning the identity of Nephersôphris, it seems that Akhenaten fits better... more
                • Nephersôphris AkhenatenAnonymous, Fri Jun 1 06:02
                  Dear Marianne, MG original “Concerning the identity of Nephersôphris, it seems that Akhenaten fits better with the text of Suidas due to the ill reputation of that king. The other possible king would ... more
                  • re: Nephersôphris AkhenatenMarianne Luban, Fri Jun 1 20:23
                    MG Original “The fact that /p/ disappears in xpr.w from the name of Akhenaten in the Amarna Letters is not as embarassing as you suggest. This is probably the result of the /p/ or /b/ of the first... more
                • re: Nephersôphris AkhenatenMarianne Luban, Thu May 31 18:18
                  I have read the brief paper but am skeptical about the prenomen of Akhenaten being represented here: Headword:... more
            • re: Akhenaten as Nephersôphris in a Byzantine sourceMarianne Luban, Wed May 30 12:57
              Oh--I left out the most important part of what I was trying to say, which is--where is a king named Neferkheperre? I don't know of one. However, I am also skeptical of the name "Nephersôphris" on... more
      • Re: Carter 001kIan Onvlee, Sun Dec 25 13:24
        Hi Joe, Thanks for the references. Texts and languages are not my strongest. And thanks for your last post which reconfirms that the confusion you see in Manetho is of your own making. Along with... more
      • Re: Carter 001kMarianne Luban, Fri Dec 23 12:14
        Regarding the letter here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010426040650/www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/Ay.html I think it is not very likely that the queen who wrote to the Hittites can have... more
    • Manetho mid-late 18th dynasty — Joe Baker, Tue Dec 20 07:18
      • Manetho mid-late 18th dynastyIan Onvlee, Wed Dec 21 07:54
        Hi Joe, Thanks for responding to an old post. I thought nobody was interested in the topic. I agree with you on certain points, as far as your philosophy goes, but it is mostly a matter of how we... more
Click here to receive daily updates