Tory
Re: Every year is accounted for
Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:46
112.198.81.178

Hi Joe

He [Krauss] lists only the hry-b3ḥ official for years 13-17 of Akhenaten

Amarna wine-jars per Petrie, Helck, Cerny and Fairman:

ḥry-k3mw in Years 15, 16, 1, [2?], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13;
ḥry-b3ḥ in Years 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 2, 10

For Years 1 and 2 dockets with ḥry-b3ḥ, see CoA (= City of Akhenaten), III, 35. The Year 1 docket also mentions the 'House of Smenkhkare'.

and then for year 1 of Smenkhkare, with the title reverting back to ḥry-k3mw with year 1 and 2 of Ankhkheperure.

Wouldn't be the first time Krauss is wrong. What does he think of your outlandish and untenable Smenkhkare = Zannzana theory? A ruler (Ankhkeperure) in Egypt followed by another ruler with the same prenomen (Ankhkeperure) does not happen in the New Kingdom. The male and female kings named Ankhkeperure have the same year count, Neferneferuaten (= Meritaten) continuing that year count after the death of Smenkhkare. I agree with Marc this is the most logical deduction.

He [Krauss] thinks, on the basis of oil and wine jars from the pergola built by Ankhkheperure (for him, a male), that the last residency date at Akhetaten is from year 3 of Ankhkheperure.

Wouldn't be the second time Krauss is wrong. I see this as possibly the last year that Smenkhkare resided at Akhetaten before beginning his building activity at Memphis.

Your suggestion that Smenkhkare may had gone to Memphis is weak as no Memphite tomb of his presumed officials are found there.

So you're saying he never went there despite the clear fact that his building activity is attested there? Got it. Zannazana died in Egyptian territory before he reached the Nile Valley. So the building activity of Smenkhkare at Memphis was done in anticipation of his arrival from Hatti. And in your revised version of Marc's theory he did arrive in Egypt but didn't do any construction at Memphis. Stop, think, and come back to reason.

Besides you already have Horemheb pseudo-reigning from there

And lets not forget that Horemheb (the subordinate deputy ruler) has a tomb there which mentions the Aten (more than once) favorably.

Neferneferuaten still staying in Akhetaten and presumably having wine sealed with your (unattested) reign dates.

You mean like Amenhotep I with unattested reign dates anywhere in Egypt between Year 10 and Year 20? Who was sealing the wine during these years and where are the nameless dates on wine-jars at Thebes or Memphis or ?

Tory

  • Re: Every year is accounted forJoe Baker, Thu Dec 22 04:26
    Hi Tory When I gave the following example of your gaps - 12 year reign for Neferneferuaten (highest attested date year 3), 9 year reign for Smenkhkare (highest attested date year 1 and his only... more
    • Re: Every year is accounted for — Tory, Thu Dec 22 11:46
      • Re: Every year is accounted forIan Onvlee, Fri Dec 23 16:09
        Hi Tory, Just analizing. If I forget for a moment the single Year 1 of Smenkhkare, which is difficult to place with any certainty anyway, I come accross the following lunar based chronology: 1376/5... more
        • Re: Every year is accounted for (correction)Ian Onvlee, Fri Dec 23 16:48
          I saw that year 17 ended up at the end of year 16, which is irritating, so I correct this here: Era Horemheb hry-k3mw hry-b'h Date BC Equation 1376 BC = 1 Akhetaten = 1 Akenkheres I (12 years) 1 1 ?... more
Click here to receive daily updates