Re: Every year is accounted for
Fri Dec 23, 2011 16:09
82.170.121.166

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 BC, Year 1 Akhenaten
1372/1 BC, Year 5 Akhenaten
1365/4 BC, Year 12 Akhenaten - End of public display = Year 1 of Horemheb (as era)
1365-1360/59 BC, 5-6 obscure years
1360/59 BC, Year 17 Akhenaten = 1 Neferneferuaten-Meritaten
1350/49 BC, Year 1 Tutankhamun (= Year 11 Neferneferuaten-Meritaten?)
1339/8 BC, Year 1 Ay = Year 12 Tutankhamun
1335/4 BC, Year 1 Horemheb (as king)

So we may have here three figures displaying a year count of about 12 years when a change occurs, plus an obscure period of 5-6 years.

If we compare this with Manetho, we find again three kings displaying a 12 year period, all three kings called Akenkheres. Only Rathotis counts 9 years in Josephus, but in Africanus he counts only 6 years, interestingly in the same position as the obscure 5-6 years, and the name Rathotis surly alludes to Meritaten as well. We can thus correlate the four periods with the four Amarna kings of Manetho on a simple one-on-one basis as follows:

1376-1365 BC: Akhenaten, 12 years = Akenkheres I, 12 years (1 month)
1365-1360 BC: Obscure coregency of Meritaten & Akhenaten, 6 years = Rathotis 6 (+ 3 = 9?) years
1360-1350 BC: Neferneferuaten-Meritaten (new year count?), 11 years = Akenkheres II, 12 years (5 months)
1350-1339 BC: Tutankhamun, 12 years = Akenkheres III, 12 years (3 months)
1339-1335 BC: Ay, 4 years 1 month = Harmais 4 years (1 month) / 5 years

As for the placement of Smenkhkare, I find it more likely that he acceded in 1353 BC, thus later in Neferneferuaten asnd just prior to Tutankhamun, but if he did accede together with Neferneferuaten, which is quite possible, then he must have lived on until Tutankhamun acceded. However, not much traced have been left by either Neferneferuaten or Smenkhkare to bolster a combined 11 years reign for them, except for the lunar dates which actually bolsters a distance of only 10 years between 17 Akhenaten and 1 Tutankhamun. I think that this may account for Josephus's 9 years for Rathotis. So I've reordered your "accounted for years" as follows, and add my whole chronological reassessment down to and including Ramesses II to it:

Era Horemheb hry-k3mw hry-b'h Date BC Equation
1376 BC = 1 Akhetaten = 1 Akenkheres I (12 years)
1 1 ? 1365/4 BC = 12 Akhenaten = 1 Rathos (6 years) = 1 Akhenaten & Meritaten (5 years) = 393 years after the Exodus (in 1758/7 BC!) according to Josephus
2 2 ? 1364 BC = 13 Akhenaten = 2 Meritaten
3 ? 14 1363 BC = 14 Akhenaten = 3 Meritaten
4 4 15 1362 BC = 15 Akhenaten = 4 Meritaten
5 5 16 1361 BC = 16 Akhenaten = 5 Meritaten
6 6 17 = 1 1360 BC = 17 Akhenaten = 1 Neferneferuaten-Meritaten (10 years) & Smenkhkare (2-3 years?) = 1 Rathotis & Akhenkheres II (9 & 12 years)
7 7 2 1359 BC = 2 Neferneferuaten
8 8 ? 1358 BC = 3 Neferneferuaten
9 9 ? 1357 BC = 4 Neferneferuaten
10 10 ? 1356 BC = 5 Neferneferuaten
11 11 ? 1355 BC = 6 Neferneferuaten
12 12 ? 1354 BC = 7 Neferneferuaten
13 13 ? 1353 BC = 8 Neferneferuaten
14 ? ? 1352 BC = 9 Neferneferuaten
15 15 10 1351 BC = 10 Neferneferuaten
16 16 ? 1350 BC = 11 Neferneferuaten-Meritaten (& Smenkhkare) = 1 Akenkheres III = 1 Tutankhamun (12 years), wine-jar from Tutankhamun's tomb gives overseer's title hry-k3mw but no year dates. 17 ? ? 1349 BC = 12 Neferneferuaten = 2 Tutankhamun, royal court abandons Akhetaten
18 ? - 1348 BC = 3 Tutankhamun. The title hry-b'h does not seem to continue.
19 ? 1347 BC = 4 Tutankhamun
20 ? 1346 BC = 5 Tutankhamun
21 ? 1345 BC = 6 Tutankhamun
22 ? 1344 BC = 7 Tutankhamun
23 ? 1343 BC = 8 Tutankhamun
24 ? 1342 BC = 9 Tutankhamun
25 ? 1341 BC = 10 Tutankhamun
26 ? 1340 BC = 11 Tutankhamun
27 ? 1339 BC = 12 Tutrankhamun = 1 Ay (4/5 years) = 1 Harmais (4/5 years)
28 28 1338 BC = 2 Ay
29 ? 1337 BC = 3 Ay
30 30 1336 BC = 4 Ay; last stray year date at Akhetaten, last people abandon Akhetaten
31 - 1335 BC = 5 Ay = 1 Harmesses = 1 Horemheb (destroys Akhetaten) The title hry-k3mw doesn't seem to continue, but the numbering apparently continued under the name of Horemheb. Acceded: I Shemu 9, Full Moon, 28 March 1335 BC (reigning perhaps 16 or 19 years 9 months 16 days?)
32 1334 BC = 2 Horemheb.
...
47 1319/8 BC = 17 Horemheb? (28 March 1319-8 BC) = 1 Ramesses I?; II Peret 20 = No Moon, 4 January 1318 BC (reigning perhaps 5 years 5 months 2 days?)
...
50 1316/5 BC = 20 Horemheb? (23 March 1316-5 BC) = 1 Ramesses I?; II Peret 20 = First Visible, 3 January 1315 BC (reigning perhaps 2 years 5 months 2 days?)
...
52 1314/3 BC, lunar date: No Moon in Year 52, No Moon, II Peret 27 = 13 January 1313 BC; 1 Seti I, III Shemu 24 = No Moon, 5 June 1313 BC! reigning: 8 years 3 days thus into his 9th year?). Compare Manetho's 51 years (= Year 52) for Sethos (I) as per Africanus.
...
56 1310/9 BC Compare Manetho's 55 years (= Year 56) for Sethos (I) as per Eusebius.
...
59 1307/6 BC, Death of Neshy, Mes inscription, end of era Sethos (end of reign of Seti I).
60 1306/5 BC = 1 Ramesses II (III Shemu 27, No Moon, 6 June 1305 BC!) = 9 Seti I. Compare Manetho's 59 years (=Year 60) for Sethos (= Seti I) = Harmesses (= Horemheb) = Aegyptos = Ramesses (= Ramesses I), brother of Danaus = Harmais (= Ay), followed by Rampses (= Ramesses II) for 66 years (= Year 67) as per Josephus.
...
69 1297/6 BC = 10 Ramesses II, end of era Harmesses/Horemheb/Aegyptos/Sethos for 68 years (= Year 69)
1289/8 BC = 18 Ramesses II, Mes inscription (or the date of the second judgement)
...
1240/39 BC = 66/67 Ramesses II = 518 years after the Exodus (in 1758/7 BC!) according to Josephus, while Manetho according to Africanus says of the 32 Dynasty 16 Shepherd Kings to have reigned for 518 years (until when? Perhaps indeed meant to be a total from 1758/7 to 1240/39 BC, thus designating the Early 19th Dynasty kings the descendants of the Hyksos, whether true or not), which Josephus elsewhere lowers by 7 years to 511 years (Thus redating the Exodus to 1751/0 BC)!

1239/8 BC = 1 Merenptah

Is it possible that the idea of an era of Horemheb by coincidence originated from an association with the overseer's title hry-b'h (wordplay: hry[em]h'b?) to be able to refer to past years without naming a single Amarna kings or even Horemheb himself as king, Ramesses I, Seti I, or Ramesses II? This would have been handy in court matters concerning the recent past to remain officially neutral.

Elsewhere Josephus claims that according to Manetho the Exodus he believed in correctly "preceded the Trojan war by wellnigh a thousand years". The traditional date of the Trojan was is 1192-1183 BC, so Josephus himself was seriously thinking of an Exodus date circa 2192-2183 BC instead of 1758/7 or 1751/0 BC! In that case he must have been thinking of "Sethos" to have reigned at the end of the 393 years in 1799-1790 BC for 59 years, thus in the same time as the Exodus in 1758/7 BC and thus concerning the same person Osarseph/Moses which he places during Akhenaten instead, 434-425 (the biblical 430?) years later; and "Ramesses II" then at the end of the 518 years in 1674-1665 BC. Pretty confusing, eh? But then we are actually talking about Hyksos kings instead of Early 19th Dynasty kings, right? Conform the 400 years stela, for some odd reason only 7 years different from Josephus's 393 years (conform his 7 years difference between the 511 and 518 years for the 32 Shepherd rulers of Dynasty 16). So strangely enough Josephus is talking about three different Exodi:

1. between 2192-2183 BC and 2151/0-2147/6 BC = Exodus I (beginning of Early Dynasty 11)
2. between 1799-1790 BC and 1758/7-1751/0 BC = Exodus II (abandonment of Itjtawy and Avaris, the advent of the Hyksos)
3. between 1406-1399 BC and 1365/4-1358/7 BC = Exodus III (Amenhotep III and Akhenaten at Akhetaten)

Tory, weren't there also two stray year dates 18 and 21 at Akhetaten, or am I misinformed?

There is also the hardly readable graffiti, suggesting a Year Date 32 (which in my scenario may fall in Year 2 of Horemheb):

In 1992 a mission from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, excavated part of a papyrus column from the complex south of the pyramid enclosure of Senwosret III at Dahshûr. The fragment in question bore several New Kingdom hieratic visitors’ graffiti (as do many of the columns in this complex; they will be published in due course by the Metropolitan Museum) (The earliest such graffiti at Dahshûr appear to date to the mid 18th Dynasty: Allen, GM 140, 1994, 8 n.2. Several were published by J. De Morgan, ’Fouiles à Dahchour, mars-juin 1894., vol. I, 1895, 3, 77-80, and figs. 1, 183-186 and 190-195. The latter are very fragmentary records of names, titles and year-dates), and one of these ink-written texts, terribly damaged but perhaps of great importance, has been transcribed and published by Allen (So GM 140, 1994, 7-8; cf. Allen et al., ’Amarna Letters 3, 1994, 26-31.) who gives the following, provision, reading:

”Year 32 (??), month [x of ..., day y], under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt [Nebmare], [corresponding to (hft) Year 2 under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt] Neferkheperure [waenre],[There came the Scribe] Re-[...]”.

The first line of the graffito may preserve a Year 32 of a ruler whose name is now lost. But we must not forget that even the number 32 is so terribly damaged that it requires at least two question marks! The last line appears to partially preserve the prenomen of Akhenaten, However, the Year 32 cannot belong to the latter ruler, for whom the highest date-line is Year 17 (See K.A. Kitchen, ’Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology’, 1962, 6 nn. 2-3; add also G.T. Martin, ’The Royal Tomb at El-’Amarna II. The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Architecture’, The Rock Tombs of El-’Amarna VII, 1989, 60-61). As Allen observes, it is highly unlikely that the name of Ramesses II would be associated with that of Akhenaten, and the same can likewise be said for Thuthmosis III, the only other possible candidate for such a high year-date; so presumably this Year 32, if read correctly, belongs to Amenhotep III. If read correctly (Note the concerns of William Murnane and Jacobus van Dijk in Allen et al., ’Amarna Letters 3’, 1994, 29-30.), what we may have here is possibly the only attested example of a double-dated inscription of Amenhotep III and IV. If so, then this would certainly help to confirm the alleged joint rule between the pair and according to this inscription at least provide for a minimal co-regency period of some 7 years (For views on this most thorny of Egyptian co-regencies, cf. The references in Kozloff and Bryan, ’Amenhotep III’, 59-60, nn. 151-153; Eaton-Krauss, ’BiOr 47’, 1990, 544-545.). (Alexander J. Peden, ’The graffiti of pharaonic Egypt: scope and roles of informal writings (c. 3100-332 BC)’, pp. 63-64).

Given the absolutely speculative transcription the possible reading of a year date 32 and somewhere along the line a reminiscent of a year date 2 and a further association with Akhenaten may just as well be referring to Year 32 of the era of Horemheb in Year 2 of king Horemheb associating it with Akhenaten, similar to the mentioning of 59 Horemheb since the days of 'the enemy of Akhetaten' in the Mes inscription. This may be just a coincidence or wishfull thinking though.

Other dated 18th Dynasty visitors’ graffiti, found at Meidûm, are two inscriptions of Year 30 of Amenhotep III. The first of these runs as follows:

”Year 30 under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nebmare, the Son of Re, Amenophis [= Amenhotep] III, - may he live forever as a beneficient king in this whole land. The Scribe May came to see the very great pyramid of King Snofru [= Snefru]”. (Petrie: ”Medum”, 41 and pl. 36, no. Xvii; also Rowe, The Museum Journal 22, 1931, 45; Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige, 143-144).

This text was mooted by Edwards (in JEA 60, 1974, 251-252.) as a possible piece of evidence for determining the ’terminus a quo’ of the collapse of the Meidûm pyramid. He argued that the scribe May is unlikely to have recorded the monument as ’very great’ if in fact it was already in a delapidated state by Year 30 of Amehotep III, the ancients being quite willing to describe their buildings as ruined if required, and this seems plausible.

The second Year 30 graffito of Amenhotep III at Meidûm has been used by some to advocate the start of a co-regency in that year between Amenhotep III and IV (Fairman, in Pendlebury, ed., ’The City of Akhenaten’, Part III, 1951, 156-157.), thus giving a minimum co-regency of just over 8 years for these two rulers (Year 30-38 of Amenhotep III and Years 1-9 of Amenhotep IV). This text runs:

”Year 30 under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lowser Egypt, Nebmare, son of Amun, satisfied Maat, Amenophis [= Amenhotep] III. Lord of Might, Ruler of Joy, who loves him(?) who hates falsehood; causing the male offspring to sit upon the seat of his father, and establishing his inheritance [in] the land”. (Petrie, Medum, 41 and pl. 36, no. xviii.)

For any co-regency thesis it is obviously crucial that Amenhotep III is personally the one, ’causing the male offspring to sit upon the seat of his father...’. That the father and (younger) male mentioned in the text are indeed Amenhotep III and IV is also dependent on the assumption that the divine determinative (the Horus-falcon on a standard; Gardiner Sign-list G7) used with the word ’father’ denotes royalty here. However, even so, the younger male heir in this text may just as well be Akhenaten’s elder brother Thuthmose, who died prematurely. Given such ambiguity the matter is wide open to various speculations and interpretations (A judicious appraisal of the evidence, see: K.A. Kitchen, ’Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology’, 1962, 6 n. 4; idem, Cd’E’ 43, 1986, 316). Alexander J. Peden, ’The graffiti of pharaonic Egypt: scope and roles of informal writings (c. 3100-332 BC)’ pp. 66-67).

Regards,
Ian


  • Re: Every year is accounted forTory, Thu Dec 22 11:46
    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, ... more
    • Re: Every year is accounted for — Ian Onvlee, Fri Dec 23 16:09
      • 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