Marianne Luban
Re:The Amarna Period again
Mon Aug 29, 2016 23:52
75.162.250.209

Kim wrote:

"https://www.academia.edu/16702265/The_Significance_of_Eight_Years_for_King_Akhenaten_"

"This cites the same old arguments, plus a bit of "Manethonic" numerology."


I don't know what "numerology" means in the context--but what if 30 years plus 10 months *is* the correct duration of a sole reign for Amenhotep III? Or are you trying to say that Manetho was always wrong? And what about the graffito from Meidum, which agrees with that? How do you explain that away? Meidumic 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."


So what? Does that mean they are correct? And how many "exponents" would that be? Hardly anybody has bothered with Manetho since the Waddell book, first printed in 1948. Progress is possible.

"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."

Whatever that means!

" 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)."

That's right. Manetho gives a complete number of years, plus the month within an incomplete year in which an individual's reign terminated--which month number he always calculates from the first month of the year. That should be obvious. But I never said Manetho ever gave a "date". That is *your* interpretation, as I recall very well from previous discussions. Which is wrong. The ancient Egyptians-and that includes Manetho--knew only one way to give a date--when they actually wanted to date a text. That was Year, month of season, day. That's it. If someone wrote, "he reigned for 54 years", that is not a date. That is merely a statement of duration. You can trust me when I tell you that I have no intention of arguing on that topic with you again. If you want a date, look at what's on the front page of your newspaper, and keep looking until you understand the concept.

" 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."

No. It would be 20 years and 7 months--which is the duration given by Manetho. The seventh month is when his successor, Thutmose I, arose as king--as you should know.

"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"

Oh, yes? What about your post to which I am replying. That's *your* position in a nutshell.

"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."

If you believe not, you go against the consensus that Simut was promoted in Year 34, including Kozloff here: https://books.google.com/books?id=MKsgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=Simut+Fourth+Prophet&source=bl&ots=Uvl99xBKFY&sig=bWg8AtKW8rlaJ5JSMC5CahNHtIo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIgIbvmujOAhVQymMKHXJYCQYQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=Simut&f=false

"Rests on a chain of assumptions which are unprovable. Suggest you read Murnane again on this point."

Ah, well, if the position that there had been no coregency at all were provable--why wasn't it proved once and for all by now by Murnane or someone else? Why was there ever a controversy, two schools of thought? Which still exist.

" 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."

Why dead? Could one actually lose one's position in ancient Egypt? Could one actually fall out of favor?


"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."

Stop saying "there is nothing". A man did his thesis on everything that could point to a coregency--or otherwise. I had the thesis at one time, but lost it when my hard drive crashed a few years ago. When I think of his name, I'll let you know where to find it. Why would Tushratta correspond with Akhenaten while his father was alive? Akhenaten was not the primary ruler. He would not have been the source from which all favors and good things flowed. I would never claim that Akhenaten was king over anything but his new city once he moved there. Until Year 8.

"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."

"Old and ailing" is not the main reason. The main reason is the identification with the sun--for which there is considerable suggestion.

" Was Shu the junior coregent of Re? If not, then the rest is simply a modern rationalisation of what was happening."

It was a triad. All were gods, inseparable from one another. It was a religious concept that had nothing to do with reality, politics, or the business of state. It was only applicable while Amenhotep III lived. After Year 8 of Akhenaten, both Ra-Horakhty and Shu were removed from the cartouches of the Aten, as I stated in my paper. Because the reason for the charade was gone,

"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?"

What's ridiculous is your obvious desperation in attempting to obviate every proof against your stubborn denial. I said that I thought Akhenaten might have been born when he mother was 24 years old. It is accepted--and I have no reason to object, that Tiye died in Year 14 of Akhenaten. If she was 50 in that year, that makes Akhenaten 26 at the time--if his mother had been 24 when he was born. Three years later, in Year 17, he is 29. But nothing hangs on that. 30 is just as good. No one can know exactly when Akhenaten was born. But Akhenaten was not yet married, I believe, when he stands in front of his mother in the scene on the lintel of the tomb of Kheruef as a king. He was quite young. Where and how you obtain a "generation of ten years" I have no idea.

"We all know these age estimates should be revised upward, but nobody admits it in print."

Who are the "all" that know this? Don't include me!

"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."

Arthur Weigall wrote that, when he sent the KV55 bones to Prof. Smith, the latter told him that he opined "a man of thirty years". As to the rest of your remarks--not really worth the bother of a response, as they are mostly just more carping and false accusations against me.



  • Re:The Amarna Period againAnonymous, Mon Aug 29 18:44
    Hello Marianne You wrote "https://www.academia.edu/16702265/The_Significance_of_Eight_Years_for_King_Akhenaten_" This cites the same old arguments, plus a bit of "Manethonic" numerology. Every single ... more
    • Re:The Amarna Period again — Marianne Luban, Mon Aug 29 23:52
      • 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. https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/determining-age-in-human-remains-call-for-standards/ 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 kv55Kim Sargerson, Mon Sep 5 07:59
                      Hi Jaime, Joe I think too much is made of "erasure". There are not always political overtones to this. The calcite jar which apparently had the cartouches of Smenkhkare and Akhenaten side by side,... 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
                    • CorrectionMarianne Luban, Fri Sep 2 10:47
                      Joe: "Phantom children only ever depicted/mentioned in illustrations/texts from the Kiya dedicated Meru-Aten. Her original inscriptions were later reinscribed to represent the older surviving... 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
                    • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Thu Sep 1 09:34
                      Anything that can be known about any sequins from KV62 can be found on page 60 of Reeves' "After Tutankhamun". Interesting chapter, but still nothing verifying Smenkhkare on those sequins.... 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