Re:The Amarna Period again
Mon Aug 29, 2016 18:44

Hello Marianne

You wrote

This cites the same old arguments, plus a bit of "Manethonic" numerology. Every single extant exponent of these numbers, including Josephus, treats them as consecutive and not overlapping periods, as also they treat the "Manethonic" lists for all the other dynasties.
Yes, we can resort to other evidence to show that some dynasties in fact overlapped, but that is evidence from the ground. You cannot work the other way, that is to claim that there is evidence in "Manetho" for an overlap that is not evidenced on the ground. The data for Dyn. 18 as we have them are wrong: they cannot be reasonably aligned to what we know without supposing specific explanations for different parts of the list. These explanations are not one unique explanation that makes sense of all the material, but have to be applied separately in each case. As far as I can tell (and I may be wrong so bear with me) you treat the "Manethonic" numbers as giving a complete number of years, plus a calendar month date. Yet in this instance (of 30.10) you treat the year number as incomplete (30th year, not 31st). Otherwise the reign length of Amunhotep I (misplaced, as you admit) would actually be 19 years plus a fraction to month 7, and fall short of the 21 attested.
I note also you treat the age gap between Tiye and Akhenaten as 22-24 years (see below).

"As for scholars arguing over whether a coregency existed between them, it seems to me that hardly means compelling evidence doesn't exist. People ignore or try to explain away whatever suits them."
Agreed. Take a look at your own position some time.

"One thing I did not address in the paper is the tomb of the vizier Ramose, although that can certainly be viewed as evidence for an eight-year coregency, as well. The Fourth Prophet of Amun, Si-mut, was elevated to Second Prophet in Year 34 during the second heb sed, but he never changed his office of Fourth Prophet in the tomb of Ramose, even though he was in charge of building projects at Western Thebes."
No evidence for this date for the promotion of Simut at all. Rests on a chain of assumptions which are unprovable. Suggest you read Murnane again on this point. Likewise the careers of the viziers Ramose and Amunhotep-Huy (see also below, re tomb AT28). Here the "absence of evidence" arguments comes into remarkable play - Ramose is absent from the heb-sed donations of years 34, 37 and so must be dead. But if that is the case, then so is his replacement absent. So the evidence of the absence of Ramose turns out to be simply absence of evidence and as you rightly point out, nothing can be argued from it.

"What one can "expect to find" is subjective--not objective.
I think you are confusing Joe's post with mine here. I don't base my arguments on what one could expect to find, but coregency proponents should at least hope to find something, and let's face it, there have been numerous attempts over the years to mine the slightest scrap from the EA letters. There is nothing, and the Tushratta letter implies that foreign correspondence would not be conducted by Akhenaten prior to the death of Amunhotep III.

"The purpose of the coregency of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten should have been most obvious for a long time but never was, even after it was realized that Amenhotep III identified with the sun. The sun does not stand alone in the Egyptian religion. He is the major element in a triad or "holy trinity" with his children, Shu and Tefnut--as embodied by Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Creating a co-king in the person of a thirteen-year-old boy when one is old and ailing is not a dangerous move, but a rather wise one."
Adducing the "old and ailing" argument will not work. Ramesses II never promoted a son to coregent, and lived to considerably greater age. Thutmose III lived to a similar age. Merenptah to greater age. No evidence of coregency except in Thutmose III / Amunhotep II, which is now generally discounted. Was Shu the junior coregent of Re? If not, then the rest is simply a modern rationalisation of what was happening.

"A very great indicator of a lengthy coregency between the father and the son is the mummy of Queen Tiye. ...Since then, a book has appeared with the title of "Scanning the Pharaohs" by Z. Hawass and S. Saleem. The mummified body of Queen Tiye was subjected to CT-scan in Cairo. The team who did the scanning could find no reason to assign a higher age-at-death to this queen than 40-50 years. 50 is the top of the range."
This is getting ridiculous now. Tiye lived to at least year 12 of Akhenaten and her son survived her by at most 5 years. Thus the same team who want KV55 to be aged 35-45 (their assessment, not mine, or even yours) want Tiye to be aged 40-50. This means that, with only 5 years' separation or less at death, in year 12 Akhenaten was aged 30-40 at the same time as his mother was aged 40-50. A generation of 10 years? We all know these age estimates should be revised upward, but nobody admits it in print. However the age estimate of KV55 at 35-45 is completely skewed. I go with the 1967 x-ray results (estimated 20) and Smith's original estimate (24+) as providing the lower and upper ranges 20-25, and adding between 10 and 20% to get a reasonable range of 22-30. My own personal assessment of the chronological requirements is
Tiye about 5 years younger than Amunhotep III and aged about 7 at the beginning of the reign. She started her childbearing career about year 8 (aged 14/15) and stopped 30 years later, at the end of the reign, aged 44/45. She then outlived her husband by over 11 years, dying at about 56.
KV55: born about year 27 of Amunhotep III, as Thutmose B, after Thutmose A (born about year 10, died about year 27) had lived and died. KV55 then died in about 13/14 Akhenaten after only a few months, less than a year, of coregency, aged about 22-24.
Amunhotep B (Akhenaten, mummy not yet identified or not in our possession) was born about year 17, as you suggest, was old enough to send materials to his father's year 30 heb-sed, acceded to the throne aged about 21, died aged about 37.

"What about the ignorance of the sound maxim "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?"
This works both ways (see Ramose above). You have happily breezed past the evidence (not absence) of the period required to be spanned by the Egyptian reigns, and the evidence that Horemhab was not a king until later in the reign of Murshili, much too late for Ankhesenamun to be the queen who wrote to Shuppiluliuma without a substantially longer reign for Aya. Run that one past your coregency fan club, that Aya must have reigned about 15 years and lived to 80, to be followed by Horemhab who must have lived to 65.

"You want joint inscriptions? Why are they necessary when clearly one king is only a "junior partner"? Where are the joint documents in the absolute coregency [or what scholars believe to have been one] in the time of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III? Between his Year 5 and his Year 13, where are the mentions of Thutmose III? He is seen once at Deir el Bahari in the Punt expedition scenes after Year 9. And that's the sum total of his extant existence during the supremacy of Hatshepsut--until Year 13. When he is attested at that time, it's at Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai, far from the intrigues at Thebes. No joint documents on papyrus, which is your criterion (c) for acceptable evidence
And what is your reason for demanding that Queen Tiye be styled "king's mother" during the reign of Amenhotep III?"

This was a short list of the kinds of evidence that are necessary as proof. All categories would be marvellous, but I don't require all of them. Just one would be an enormous weight compared with the other "evidence". The co-reign of Hatshepsut and Thutomse III, despite your complaints, is attested. And it was not a father-son coregency, but a usurpation of power by Hatshepsut during the minority of Thutmose as you know very well; the reign of Thutmose started before that of Hatshepsut, not the other way round, and Hatshepsut did not appoint him as her junior, nor did he appoint her as his senior. As far as "king's mother" is concerned, I am not interested in depictions of Tiye with Akhenaten, only depictions of her with Amunhotep III, in a dated context in his reign. As you are aware, no such exists. The double crown of Tiye is evidence of something, but what? Her status is unique, at least until her time, in so many ways.

The tomb of Amunhotep-Huy vizier AT28:
I have not, I admit, read the latest reports. I have read the earlier ones, and seen the photos that have been published. As far as I can tell, the cartouches do not relate to the same scenes but to adjacent ones. That is to say, the evidence here is not of a different kind to that presented in, say, the tomb of Kheruef, not far away. The latter tomb shows events from both the year 30 and year 37 heb-seds, and cannot therefore be contemporary with year 30. It also shows Amunhotep IV. That is precisely what the tomb of Amunhotep-Huy shows, and we know he was in office by year 30 to at least year 35 (could easily be another 5 years). It does not add to our knowledge of a possible coregency as it stands, and I can see no reason at present to change. What it does do is show that both viziers, Amunhotep-Huy and Ramose, survived a mere decade in office (not at all problematic) from year 30 of Amunhotep III to the early years of Amunhotep IV. Reliance on the 19th dynasty reproduction of the stela for Amunhotep son of Hapu is not secure; as director of works for Upper and Lower Egypt Amunhotep perhaps has a perfect right to be in Upper Egypt dealing with the tomb of the son of Huy, or with quarrying operations in Gebel el Silsila, without impinging on his southern vizieral counterpart's responsibilities.
What we actually have from these tombs is clear and unequivocal evidence that Amunhotep IV succeeded Amunhotep III. That is good (always useful to know that the latest crackpot theory that there was a Thutmose V, or Neferneferuaten succeeded Amunhotep III first - I am making this up of course - is a load of rubbish). Without tomb evidence we would be lost in "Manetho" for the actual sequence of rulers for this dynasty.



  • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Mon Aug 29 12:26
    Joe: "As I have said many times in the past, no co-regencies - there is no evidence of a co-regency only evidence of the gullibility and or ignorance of scholars and commentators." Is that so. What... more
    • Re:The Amarna Period again — Anonymous, Mon Aug 29 18:44
      • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Mon Aug 29 23:52
        Kim wrote: "" "This cites the same old arguments, plus a bit of "Manethonic" numerology." I don't know what... more
        • Re:The Amarna Period againKim Sargerson, Tue Aug 30 15:54
          Marianne If you don't understand what I write, ask me to explain it to you. That's not being patronising, I often have to do the same. But don't sneer at something you do not understand, just say you ... more
          • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Tue Aug 30 18:34
            Kim: "Everyone who thinks anything about "Manetho" that is positive, is of the opinion that Josephus had access to a more detailed and more original text than the others." What I said to Cullom about ... more
            • Re:The Amarna Period againKim Sargerson, Wed Aug 31 13:25
              Marianne "What I said to Cullom about people who have not made an extensive study of Manetho pontificating applies to you, as well." If by studying you mean sitting in a room on your own imagining... more
              • I wrote: "What I said to Cullom about people who have not made an extensive study of Manetho pontificating applies to you, as well." Kim: "If by studying you mean sitting in a room on your own... more
                • "What I said to Cullom ..."Kim Sargerson, Thu Sep 1 12:31
                  Hello Marianne You wrote "Why did I need some specific teacher?" So you are claiming, as I thought, superior insight based on autodidactism. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but if you can do it, ... more
            • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Tue Aug 30 19:06
              I should clarify one thing, however. Even though version of Theophilus of the kinglist of Dynasty 18 is more correct than that of Josephus in some respects, he did not understand that there were some ... more
      • Re:The Age of KV55Joe Baker, Mon Aug 29 20:37
        Hi Kim You commented on the age estimate of the KV55 mummy in the book "Scanning the Pharaohs" by Z. Hawass and S. Saleem Thus the same team who want KV55 to be aged 35-45 (their assessment, not... more
        • Re:The Age of KV55Kim Sargerson, Mon Aug 29 22:45
          Hi Joe "You are forgetting things." Yes, I am. It was 1966, not 1967. It was Harrison's examination I was referring to. This concluded that the age ranges for two features, eruption of the wisdom... more
          • re: The Age of KV55Marianne Luban, Tue Aug 30 00:26
            Kim: "The magic bricks are surely not original to the Akhetaten burial, and even the coffin and canopic jars were altered at least once in the tomb. Not what I would call a convincing provenance.... more
        • re: the age of kv55Rich McQuillen, Mon Aug 29 21:46
          Old: Hawass/Saleem, Harris/Wente Young: Grafton Elliot Smith, 1967(Harrison, R. G. 1966) **** Add 2 more to the Young camp... Filer(2000) and Derry(1931) Filer (2000) said: "More conclusively, many... more
          • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Tue Aug 30 10:09
            Unfortunately, there is not even a world standard for aging human skeletal remains. However, once... more
            • re: the age of kv55Jaime O, Tue Aug 30 15:50
              Hi all, Marianne, if you'll allow me to interject here. "However, once again, Professor Smith of the Cairo School of Medicine had experience with ancient Egyptian remains. He told Weigall he thought... more
              • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Wed Aug 31 10:09
                Jaime: "Smenkhkare was about 16 years old when he sired Tutankhamun by a sister." I wrote: "You see? It's very easy to say "Oh, well, that KV55 guy has to be Smenkhkare" but it's not very easy to... more
                • re: the age of kv55Jaime O, Wed Aug 31 12:58
                  Hi Marianne, Thank you for the reply. "Well, I'm sorry you would characterize my valid comment about "easy" as opposed to "compelling scenario" as a "rant"." My apologies here. English is not my... more
                  • Re: the age of kv55Joe Baker, Fri Sep 2 05:15
                    Hi Jaime Meryre II's tomb has the last appearance of the royal Amarna family dated to Year 12 and these representations are followed by Smenkhkare's debut with Meritaten by his side. I too think the... more
                    • re: the age of kv55Jaime O, Sat Sep 3 07:52
                      Hi Joe, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your remarks on Meryre II and they do make sense. To some extent. You and me seem to agree that Meritaten was likelier than not Ankhkhe(t)perure... more
                    • Re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Fri Sep 2 10:17
                      Hello Joe, Jaime "Meryre II's tomb has the last appearance of the royal Amarna family dated to Year 12 and these representations are followed by Smenkhkare's debut with Meritaten by his side." "I too ... more
                  • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Wed Aug 31 21:19
                    I wrote: "However, I do not believe that Akhenaten [Tutankhamun, per Post 17018] was born to Nefertiti until after Year 12. I am with Gabolde in thinking that the child, shielded by fans and attended ... more
                    • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Thu Sep 1 08:03
                      I wrote: "I don't think the name "Smenkhkare" ever appears in KV62. I will have to confirm. Regardless, there is still KV55, whose earliest door seals bear the name of Tutankhamun--so in his reign."... more
                  • Yet another correctionJaime O, Wed Aug 31 12:59
                    "c) AFAIK, the coffin is considered to have been reused from a female to fit Akhenaten" I meant to say "a male' instead of 'Akhenaten' Regards, Jaime
                • CorrectionMarianne Luban, Wed Aug 31 10:10
                  I should certainly have written "However, I do not believe that TUTANKHAMUN was born to Nefertiti until after Year 12."
              • A small noteJaime O, Tue Aug 30 16:06
                Marianne, you also asked: "If he married Meritaten around Year 12 of Akhenaten, then when was Meritaten the wife of her own father, since she was probably less than 12 in Year 12?" In my scheme, she... more
          • re: the age of kv55Kim Sargerson, Mon Aug 29 23:23
            Hello Rich Thank you for posting these quotations. Add two more to the "young" camp - Dr Brenda Baker (2010) and Dr Eugene Strouhal (2010 based on an examination in 1998). All the pathology... more
          • re: 500 gold sheets foundRich McQuillen, Mon Aug 29 21:55
            Hopefully this new ongoing study comes up with some new evidence to add to this debate. Forgotton box may hold the key to Egypt’s pharaoh without a face... more
            • Re: re: 500 gold sheets foundJoe Baker, Tue Aug 30 04:06
              Hi Rich You quoted from a website In it were 500 scrunched-up gold sheets, the remains of a skull — and an old note scribbled in French with the date the tomb was found. ... The note simply states... more
Click here to receive daily updates