Tory
Re: Correction
Mon Aug 29, 2016 20:03
112.198.79.136

Hi all,

Every time Joe opens his mouth he makes the case for the overlap of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV that much stronger.

1. An overlap is two or more kings (related or not related) ruling from different cities and over different parts of the same country.

2. A co-regency is an overlap but an overlap is not always a co-regency. A co-regency is two kings (always related) on the same throne in the same city ruling over the same parts of the empire simultaneously.

I have repeatedly said there was no co-regency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton. The co-regency was between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (prior to the name change). There was an overlap between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton but not a co-regency.

So let me get this straignt. The Gurob Papyri with three consecutive transactions dated year 27 Amenotep III, and years 2 and 3 Amenhotep IV, with all three of these records found in the same conical pottery jar in Kahun, and all three naming the same people, is just an anomaly and not proof these three transactions belong to three consecutive years?

Murnane should have quoted the relevant parts of the documents so the nature of these transactions could be reviewed and their temporal relationship clarified. I lost my copy of Gile's book, but fortunately Griffith's book "Hieratic Papyri..." is available online.

II. 1 year 27 of Amenhotep III
- the female Pikay receives payment for a certain number of days that she will perform the work as a maid-servant. her son the priest Menua and other priests named Zay and Khay are witnesses of the deal and the receipt of full payment before the performance of services by Pikay

II. 2 year 2 of Amenhotep IV
- - the female Pikay receives payment to perform 6 days of maid service. the priests Zay and Khay are again witnesses to the deal and the receipt of full payment before the performance of services by Pikay

On the relationship of these two documents, aside from the fact that they come from the same jar, Griffith remarks that "the engagement recorded in II. 2 followed directly upon the engagement in II. 1" (p. 94).

Indeed, I don't see how any rationale argument can insert 12 years between these two transactions.

Regards,
Tory

  • CorrectionKim Sargerson, Sun Aug 28 16:07
    I wrote "The closest Aldred came was to (c) when he showed that two papyri (not one) written by the same scribe and featuring many of the same local village names, including those of slaves, dated to ... more
    • Re: Correction — Tory, Mon Aug 29 20:03
      • Re: CorrectionKim Sargerson, Thu Sep 1 16:07
        Hi Tory "The Gurob Papyri with three consecutive transactions dated year 27 Amenotep III, and years 2 and 3 Amenhotep IV, with all three of these records found in the same conical pottery jar in... more
      • Re: CorrectionKim Sargerson, Mon Aug 29 22:47
        Hi Tory I did say it was the closest Aldred came. For a while (about 2 years) it convinced me. But then came Murnane's article... Kim
        • Re: CorrectionTory, Tue Aug 30 00:10
          Murnane's article does not take a position with respect to the papyri in question. It also doesn't discuss the contents of the papyri in any satisfactory way that can be described scholarly rigor.... more
Click here to receive daily updates