Tory
Re: Pinudjem I and Masaharta
Fri Dec 2, 2016 01:48
112.198.72.79

An anonymous year date with the mention of a king within the very same date formula is technically not anonymous. The Egyptians were not ignorant. Shouldn't the default assumption be that the year belongs to the king mentioned later in the same date formula? Or did HP's not care about the confusion created by continuing to call ones self a king's son, which is not a problem, even in the same date-line with a year number not directly connected to a kings name? Since they intended these inscriptions to be read, what were they expecting readers to assume?

Regards
Tory

  • Pinudjem I and MasahartaMarianne Luban, Wed Nov 30 19:30
    "C - The priests - Ramses XI, 1064-1029 - Amenhotep, c1070-1050 - Piankh , 1050-1044 - Herihor, 1044-(995) - Pinudjem Ib, 1019-1004 - Djedkhonsuefankh, 1004-1003 - Masaharta, 1003-995 - Menkheperre,... more
    • Re: Pinudjem I and Masaharta — Tory, Fri Dec 2 01:48
      • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaJaime O, Fri Dec 2 06:51
        Hi Tory, I appreciate your reply to this thread. "An anonymous year date with the mention of a king within the very same date formula is technically not anonymous. The Egyptians were not ignorant.... more
        • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaAnonymous, Fri Dec 2 10:04
          My question relates to the year date not the identity of the HP. I will rephrase. Unless these HPs were trying to be misunderstood they had a default assumption they expected readers of their linens, ... more
          • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaJaime O, Sat Dec 3 07:50
            Hi Tory, thank you for the reply. "My question relates to the year date not the identity of the HP." My point is this: 'Menkheperre son of King Pinudjem' is an epithet, in no way related to the date. ... more
            • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaTory, Thu Dec 8 23:13
              Jaime: "My point is this: 'Menkheperre son of king Pinudjem' is an epithet, in no way related to the date." Actually "son of X" is a patronymic not an epithet. Epithets can be earned, acquired, and... more
              • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaJaime O, Sun Dec 11 17:33
                Hi Tory, thank you for the reply. "Actually "son of X" is a patronymic not an epithet. Epithets can be earned, acquired, and taken away. Patronymics cannot." Yes. you're right. By 'epithet' I had an... more
                • HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyTory, Fri Dec 16 07:13
                  Jaime: Thanks for bringing the Prada paper on tabs, mummy braces, and pendants from the Bab el-Gasus cache reproduced in Černżís notebooks to the forumís attention. Those who have had time to go ... more
                  • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyJaime O, Fri Dec 16 18:14
                    Hi Tory, I appreciate your further comments. "Those who have had time to go through it have to be struck, as I was, over the number of items belonging to "HPA Pinudjem son of KING PSUSENNES... more
                    • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyTory, Sat Dec 17 00:21
                      Hi Jamie: To be honest, although I greatly respect Thijs I have not read all of his papers. I do not agree with him, and others, that the one explict text linking the first year of the wHm-mswt to a... more
    • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaJaime O, Thu Dec 1 06:30
      Hi Marianne. I appreciate a lot your reply. "Queen Meryetamun's burial was "restored" in Year 19 of Pinudjem I, 3rd month of Peret, day 19. The linen for the re-wrapping contained the name of HP... more
      • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaMarianne Luban, Thu Dec 1 12:27
        Dodson and Hilton, "The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt" [page 207] still have HP Masaharta as being a son of Pinudjem I. They also state that Masaharta was responsible for the restoration... more
        • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaJaime O, Thu Dec 1 15:51
          Hi Marianne, thank you for the reply. "Dodson and Hilton, "The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt" [page 207] still have HP Masaharta as being a son of Pinudjem I." Because they: a) are not... more
Click here to receive daily updates