Joe Baker
Re: The Amarna Period again
Fri Sep 2, 2016 07:02

Hi Kim

Hattushili II (III) wrote to king Kadashman-Enlil III (II) some time after the latter’s accession, and refers to an offer by the latter’s father Kadashman-Turgu to assist him in a war with Egypt. This should date to a period prior to the Egypto-Hittite alliance treaty of 21 Ramesses II, but after Hattushili’s own accession, that is some time about years 14-20 of R. II.

On the other hand I place Kadašman–Enlil’s offer after the year 21 treaty. The decreasing supporters of a pre year 21 anti-Egypt stance are mostly confined to supporters of the Low Chronology model (Rameses at 1279). However the Low Chronology model is coming under pressure as its supporters begin to accept Taḫamunzu as the wife of Akhenaten and also that Ḥoremḥeb only reigning 15 years. There is no known Hittite-Egyptian hostilities between the accession of Ḫattušili and the year 21 Treaty. However there is one known quarrel some time after year 21 and several years before year 34 - that is when Urḫi-Tešub sought and was granted asylum in Egypt. And besides, during these years, Kadašman-Turgu was having his own quarrels with Egypt - we know his ambassadors were banned from seeing the daughter he had sent to Egypt and Egypt revoked recognising him as a Great King.

His widow “Dahamunzu” (which may simply be “Ta-hmt-nsw” (the king’s wife) in Egyptian), wrote to Suppiluliuma, Mursili’s father, saying she did not wish to marry “a servant” and asking for a son of the Hittite king as new consort. Suppiluliuma sent an envoy to Egypt to find out the truth, and after some further exchange(s) sent a son, “Zannanza” to Egypt ... the widow ... apparently makes two claims (i) the deceased king had no son and (ii) she had no son ... If the widow was telling the truth, and it is inconceivable that she was not, as (i) the lie would have been found out very easily, and (ii) as the son of Akhenaten, Tutankhamun would have succeeded him without question

In this incident (as later told by Muršili) she claimed she had no son but never admits to the deceased king having a son - read the account, it is very carefully crafted. As you know I support the idea that Taḫamunzu was Meritaten and that Suppiluliuma sent his son (renamed) Zannanza to rule in Egypt where Meritaten was preparing for his arrival and had already giving him the throne name Smenkhkare. Everything falls into line except for the problem of the presence of Tutankhaten. The story told in the Deeds of Suppiluliuma implies that the Hittites were unaware of Tutankhaten. However I believe the Hittites knew about Tutankhaten all along, but this goes against the story line and so I have to resort to special pleading to support my claim.

As I said, this episode in the Deeds of Suppiluliuma is very carefully crafted. The amount of space and detail goes way beyond anything else in these Deeds. The story is seen to be building up to a climax but the final stage is mostly not preserved. The episode has the feel and tone of an “apology” saga - like that of Ḫattusili - whereby a king (or in this case his son Muršili on his behalf) tries to justify his actions before the gods. The apology was required because Suppiluliuma (as known in hindsight by Muršili) in the lead up to and after this incident broke his treaty with Egypt (by invading parts of Egyptian controlled central Syria) and thereby provoked the gods who punished him and his country by sending a plague (in which he and later his son and successor died).

I find it inconceivable that the Hittites did not know about Tutankhaten or that Ḫattu-ziti, after several months negotiating in Egypt (probably at Memphis), did not know of him. Its too easy to say Tutankhaten was hidden far away in Akhetaten when even the local peasants must have known about the king’s son. Certainly he was depicted in scenes at Akhetaten and probably any merchant who visited that place would have known about him. So why the repeated discussions about an heir? Why harp on this, over and over again, in the Deeds? Surely once a denial was given that should be the end of it? It makes me suspicious for when Muršili wrote it he knew that Akhenaten had a son who in due course became the king. Maybe the aim of Muršili’s extended treatment of this incident was to show that Suppiluliuma was deceived by Ḫani (only this Egyptian ambassador at the very end of the negotiations admits that the king had no son) and thereby in someway his “apologetic account” attempts to justify Suppiluliuma’s breaking of the treaty (and the reading of the treaty was an important element in the story) and thereby convince the gods to end the plague that was still devastating Muršili’s people twenty years after the event - just like his plague prayers were designed to do.

Well that is how I see it.

Regards Joe

  • The Amarna Period againKim Sargerson, Sat Aug 27 23:46
    Hi all There have been a few almost random mentions of this period in recent months, so I thought I would outline the problems and information again, as well as my own latest thoughts. General... more
    • Re: The Amarna Period again — Joe Baker, Fri Sep 2 07:02
      • Re: The Amarna Period againKim Sargerson, Fri Sep 2 20:00
        Hi Joe "On the other hand I place Kadašman–Enlil’s offer after the year 21 treaty." I think you mean Kadashman-Turgu. Yes, this is a possibility. However the chronology I presented had K-T acceding... more
    • re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Sun Aug 28 10:45
      Kim wrote: "At the other end of the timeline, the ruler Kadashman-Enlil I wrote to Amunhotep III complaining that he had not been notified of the king’s “great festival”, which can reasonably be... more
      • re:The Amarna Period againKim Sargerson, Sun Aug 28 15:48
        Hello Marianne You wrote "Why assume that when he had two more--the last in Year 37?" Because that would make the period required to be spanned by the Egyptian reigns a further 7 years more, and bang ... more
        • Re:The Amarna Period againJoe Baker, Mon Aug 29 03:30
          Hi Kim The only kinds of evidence that would be acceptable in this context are (a) a dated inscription from the reign of Amenhotep III titling Tiye "king's mother" (b) a joint inscription by the two... more
          • 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 againAnonymous, Mon Aug 29 18:44
              Hello Marianne You wrote "" This cites the same old arguments, plus a bit of "Manethonic" numerology. Every single ... more
              • 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
                    • 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 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
          • Re:The Amarna Period againKim Sargerson, Mon Aug 29 07:59
            Hi Joe Many thanks for your comments. I really only posted this because I was becoming tired of the old, old "evidence" being cited over and again without any new evidence or new reasoning to back... more
            • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Mon Aug 29 10:13
              Kim wrote: "If such a co-regency existed then one would expect to find in the Amarna correspondence copies of the same letters sent to both monarchs, especially by the superpowers, or if separate... more
            • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Mon Aug 29 09:24
              Kim wrote: "I really only posted this because I was becoming tired of the old, old "evidence" being cited over and again without any new evidence or new reasoning to back it." All my arguments for a... more
            • Re:The Amarna Period againJoe Baker, Mon Aug 29 08:42
              Hi Kim In less than 20 years there were full warring pharaohs at Thebes (Rudamun and later Ini, warring with the Kushites), and later, warring with each other, were Hermopolis (Nimlot) and... more
        • 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: CorrectionTory, Mon Aug 29 20:03
            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... more
            • 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