Kim Sargerson
Re:The Amarna Period again
Tue Aug 30, 2016 15:54


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 don't. This is a discussion forum after all, so if you cannot accept that there might be opposing points of view, genuinely held, don't bother...

"30 years (complete) plus 10th month" does NOT equate to "year 30, 10th month".
Is that clear enough for you? You are a year out, so it is not evidence of anything.

" Does that mean they are correct?"
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. But it is STILL WRONG, and Josephus treats the periods as consecutive too. So there is no statement in his (Josephus') copy that reigns are coterminous, or overlapped, or whatever else you or others think may be going on. There is no way to get back to some original, perfect, and exactly accurate edition, even if such a thing existed.

"Whatever that means!"
If you cannot just say "I do not understand you" without being totally aggressive about it...see above.
It means you can correct "Manetho" from the evidence. But you can't correct the evidence from "Manetho", and that is what you are trying to do.

"if the position that there had been no coregency at all were provable--why wasn't it proved once and for all by now"
It has been, to the extent that the non-existence of something can ever be proved. You can never prove that Amunhotep IV definitively did not start his reign a few months or days before the death of Amunhotep III on present evidence for example. But years is simply not possible. See later under Ramose.

"Why would Tushratta correspond with Akhenaten while his father was alive?"
Exactly my point. How could any letter be docketed "received when the king was in Thebes" with a yeardate of Akhenaten's, whether year 2 or year 12? If it was year 2, he wasn't receiving correspondence; if it was year 12, he had vowed several years previously never to leave Akhetaten...

Re Ramose: "Why dead? Could one actually lose one's position in ancient Egypt? Could one actually fall out of favor?"
Then you argue all the tomb evidence out of existence, since "out of favour" implies that they could at a later date be "back in favour" and resume their tomb decoration.
Can you prove that is not what happened? No, and I can't prove it did happen either, which is why I said "dead" and not "exiled" or "abducted by aliens" or whatever other remote possibility is not covered by the scanty evidence. It's a non point. Stop trying to show how clever you are, and think about what you are writing.

It is just an opinion here, but too many unfinished tombs of the dynasty (not just in the Amarna general period) have at one time or another been attributed to a fall from favour. Not to say it did not happen from time to time, but if someone is out of favour, never to return, why abandon a perfectly good tomb, why not finish it for someone else? Clearly there were other reasons for a tomb to be unfinished, so how is one to determine which it is?

"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"
So then it has nothing to do with whether Amunhotep IV was junior coregent or not.

"Where and how you obtain a "generation of ten years" I have no idea"
Simple arithmetic, if you had bothered to read what I wrote. In year 12 Akhenaten is 30-40 according to Hawass' team, and Tiye is 40-50. That's a maximum separation of 20 years, and a minimum of zero years, in age, average 10.

Your estimate of 30 (Akhenaten) is too low for Hawass, so we are all cherry-picking the result we already agree with. Tiye undeniably survived Amunhotep III by over 11 years (my timeline) or 6 years (your timeline) so even if 3 years younger than him (your suggestion) she ought to be 3 years older than him at death i.e. into her fifties, not somewhere between 40 and 50.

"Who are the "all" that know this"
See conveniently

I quote "It should be noted that the approximate ages given for the three bodies are based on European standards, Elliot Smith stating that he had employed “the ordinary European standards of ossification” (1912), “with my present experience of the variability of the relative dates of the epiphyseal unions in ancient Egyptian bones, I would make the reservation that the anatomical evidence, when based upon the penultimate stage of consolidation of a single bone, cannot be regarded as conclusive” (Smith 1912, p.ix). During Harris and Wente’s radiographic studies on the Royal Mummies it was noted that “a comparison of our results… reveals that the pharaohs' ages at death as determined by the biologists are generally younger than what the written sources suggested. Part of this disparity may be attributed to a somewhat slower maturation in antiquity - as it is among modern Nubians, who reach puberty two to three years later than modern Americans” (Wente 1995). Egyptologists now tend to treat these varying ages with a certain degree of caution, and “although it is tempting to assume that the estimated ages of death of the royal mummies can be used as a starting point for establishing chronology, it appears that we must accept that not only the estimates given by Maspero and Smith, but also those based on recent scientific examination are not accurate enough to be used absolutely for this purpose, and that no historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid… Certainly, if it goes against what can be deduced from other sources, priority should be given to the latter” (Robins 1981)" (authors Professor Don Brothwell, Dr. Samia El-Merghani, Dr. Stephen Buckley, Dr. Joann Fletcher,
Andrea Bates, Dr. David Allen 2003)

Now, "chronological argument based solely on evidence of age at death" is exactly what we are both doing. However, in my case, I am arguing about unidentified mummies (two, or more, candidates for each of KV55 and KV35YL) so what can be deduced from other sources does not apply, because there are none.

"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"."
Well, he didn't opine that in print, and that may have been before he undertook any detailed examination. His printed view has been posted.

"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"
What false accusations? Are you reading someone else's posts again? You don't read through what people take the trouble to write - true; you respond either to a point they had not made, because you did not understand - true, or with some remark along the lines of "who are you, to question me" (true) and then if someone still does not agree with you, you get abusive (true) and threaten to quit the forum for good (true, at least 3 times to my knowledge). Need I go on? We all have various failings. On the rare occasions I have "lost it" on this forum I have apologised afterward. I am still waiting for one from you. So, I am trying to be as courteous as I can, under those circumstances, and not simply ignoring a post you wrote in response to a thread I started. All other posts of yours to this forum I have ignored, except where I have read someone else's post which quotes part of yours, as I said I would do at the time, and it is clear that you are behaving the same way to others.

If you hold everyone on this forum in such contempt, tell me, why DO you bother? Really?


  • 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 again — Kim Sargerson, Tue Aug 30 15:54
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates