Marianne Luban
Some Math
Sun Jul 9, 2017 12:43
97.126.142.155

Here's some math regarding all this. I'm not quite sure how others have figured that the tenth year of the reign of King Mursili of Hatti could have fallen on 1312 or 1308 BCE so that he could have seen an eclipse viewable in Anatolia. This doesn't fit at all to my preferred [high] chronology, which had Year 38 of Amunhotep III falling in 1377 BCE. I use as an anchor Year 22/23 of Thutmose III being 1482. It's figured by the phase of the moon, which falls on a certain date in 25-year increments. So, if we take down the chronology by 25 years, Amunhotep III would have ended his rule in 1352 BCE instead.

Given those two choices of eclipses, to approach them, there can have been no overlapping reign for A III and Akhenaten [which I don't like at all]. Deducting 17 years we get to 1335. I would say 3 years for interim rulers until Tutankhamun, which amounts to 1332. But, to get anywhere near to where King Mursili could be in his Year 10 at those eclipse dates and still write to Horemheb, addressing him as a commoner, we need to have Tutankhamun AND Ay *each* reigning for 12 years which amounts to 1311. It's only a year off and that can be adjusted by taking a year from the interim rulers before Tut, from Tut [whose highest attestation is Year 10] or Ay [whose highest is Year 4]. But, for Mursili to succeed after the Dahamunza Affair, Ay would have had to have a much longer reign than has been assigned him. The ancient historians had several kings after Amunhotep III reigning for 12 years--maybe they knew something there. I, however, do not much like anything depending upon the assumption of an eclipse. The ancients never wrote the word "eclipse" and what they saw has more than one interpretation.

  • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 9 08:06
    Joe wrote: "I was one of those who disagreed, as a perusal of this forum will show. Maybe several years ago this statement was valid but today the reverse is rapidly taking hold, particular amongst... more
    • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Tue Jul 11 06:55
      Hi Marianne "Why shouldn't Mursili have written to Horemheb? Obviously, Horemheb was still a powerful person. Can you prove that Ay did not reign for seven years or more? I can be shaken by facts but ... more
      • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 09:37
        Hi Joe. You wrote: "I assume from your statement that (given your position that Suppiluliuma was still ruling when Tutankhamun died), you have Ay ruling some 7 or more years and that Mursili could... more
        • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Thu Jul 13 07:53
          Hi Marianne As for the name of the king who had died in the Dahamunza affair--it is a sure thing that the element "nb" was vocalized as "nib". First off let me point out that all the examples you... more
          • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Thu Jul 13 09:11
            Joe wrote: "First off let me point out that all the examples you give for “nb” and “nfr” were written in Akkadian (including the ones Naptera = Nefertari sent to Ḫattuša. However this is not... more
            • Re: Dahamunza AgainAnonymous, Thu Jul 13 09:59
              Look at Tory's old post: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12412;search_term = There doesn't seem to be so much consistency in how the prenomen of Amunhotep III was written ... more
              • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Thu Jul 13 23:23
                I wrote: Look at Tory's old post: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12412;search_term = There doesn't seem to be so much consistency in how the prenomen of Amunhotep III... more
                • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Sat Jul 15 07:42
                  Hi Marianne Nibḫurrereya EA 9:1 from Burna-Buriyaš of Karaduniyaš is not Amunhotep III. It is an erroneous writing for the prenomen of Akhenaten, Neferkheperure. So you agree that EA 9 was... more
                  • Re: Dahamunza AgainRobert Killian, Sun Jul 30 00:24
                    Hi Marianne & Joe Baker, I too have, exactly like Joe,---1457BCE, for 22 year Thutmose III. I have 1792BCE, minus 42 years to 1750BCE, for Hammuribi I. If this proves to be true,---"Middle... more
                    • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 30 10:16
                      Robert wrote: "I too have, exactly like Joe,---1457BCE, for 22 year Thutmose III. I have 1792BCE, minus 42 years to 1750BCE, for Hammuribi I. If this proves to be true,---"Middle Chronology",---just... more
                  • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 16 09:38
                    I wrote: "Nibḫurrereya EA 9:1 from Burna-Buriyaš of Karaduniyaš is not Amunhotep III. It is an erroneous writing for the prenomen of Akhenaten, Neferkheperure." Joe: "So you agree that EA 9 was ... more
                    • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Tue Jul 18 07:05
                      Hi Marianne If the addressee had been Amunhotep III, I doubt any "ancestors" would have been mentioned because all this diplomacy probably didn't go back any farther than the reign of Thutmose IV.... more
                  • Re: DahmamunzaRobert Killian, Sun Jul 16 00:56
                    Hi Joe & Marianne, I must go with Joe on his 1457BC, 'date' for Thutmose III 22/23. In that year: 2435AM, 1326CJ/BC, +131yrs = 1457BC, 'actual'. In that year, I have 'posted' several other historical ... more
        • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 10:01
          Ach--I meant not just from Tell ed-Daba--not Amarna.
          • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 10:14
            Wait a minute--how do you get six years for Arnuwanda II, who came before Mursili II? I don't recall anyone having him as ruler for more than a year.
            • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 10:24
              Forget Arnuwanda II. What makes you think Suppiluliuma I reigned for six more years after the Dahamunza affair?
              • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Wed Jul 12 08:48
                Hi Marianne Forget Arnuwanda II. What makes you think Suppiluliuma I reigned for six more years after the Dahamunza affair? Actually it is the combined reigns of Suppiluliuma (after the... more
                • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Wed Jul 12 10:09
                  Joe wrote: "Actually it is the combined reigns of Suppiluliuma (after the Daḫumnzu episode) and Arnuwanda 2.Assuming year A was the year of the Daḫumunzu episode. Year A+1. Zannanza to... more
                  • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Thu Jul 13 08:40
                    Hi Marianne Surely you are aware that other sources maintain that Suppiliuliuma died of the plague quite soon after the Egyptian prisoners came to Egypt--and then Arnuwanda succumbed quickly to the... more
    • Re: Dahamunza AgainJaime O, Mon Jul 10 16:03
      Hi all, Miller has argued that Mursilis II held correspondence with Horemhab before he became Pharaoh. Miller equates Arma’a with Horemhab, thus establishing that the latter didn’t ascend to the... more
      • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Tue Jul 11 06:48
        Hi Jaime I am not specialized on linguistics, so I must side with those (like Marianne) who say that Nibhururyia is a better fit for Nebkheperure. This, nevertheless, does not invalidate Miller’s... more
        • Re: Dahamunza AgainJaime O, Thu Aug 3 09:24
          Hi Joe, Thank you for the reply. I apologize for not replying promptly. Real life got in the way. “There can be no letters sent to/by Tutankhamun as the Amarna archive had already been closed when... more
    • Some Math — Marianne Luban, Sun Jul 9 12:43
      • Re: Some MathJoe Baker, Tue Jul 11 07:08
        Hi Marianne By the way the annals for year 10 of Mursili do not mention a solar omen of the Sun god. It is only mentioned in KUB 14.4 (CTH 70), a text which outlined the legal case for the removal of ... more
      • re: Some MathMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 9 15:37
        And, once again, keep in mind that the radiocarbon results favor the high chronology--with the New Kingdom possibly starting as early as 1570 BCE.
        • re: Some MathMarianne Luban, Thu Jul 13 08:19
          These low chronologies, based on assumed solar eclipses, do not work because, earlier in the era of Dynasty 18, there are certain texts that require a specific seasonal event. In Year 22, Thutmose... more
        • Mursili's Omen of the SunMarianne Luban, Mon Jul 10 08:38
          I have looked into this a bit more. Here's a good overview: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+solar+omen+of+Mursili+II.+(Brief+Communications).-a083939817
          • Mursili's Omen of the SumRobert P. Killian, Tue Jul 11 03:42
            Here's another good overview of Mursili II timeline. www.exegenesis.com Just click on 1st Vol. in the blue box at left-hand-side of Home Page and scroll-down to Page 26 to view the 24 June 1312BC,... more
            • re: Mursili's Omen of the SunMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 17:41
              What in the world do you mean by this? "These new chronological dates are supported by biblical scripture and also confirmed in the much better documentation of the book of Jasher."
              • re: Mursili's Omen of the SunRobert P. Killian, Wed Jul 12 02:39
                What I mean by saying: "These new chronological dates are supported by biblical scripture and also confirmed in the much better documentation of the Book of Jasher". Is,---that these newly computed... more
                • The Book of JasherMarianne Luban, Wed Jul 12 09:39
                  Robert, you wrote: "These new chronological dates are supported by biblical scripture and also confirmed in the much better documentation of the book of Jasher." But when I asked what you meant by... more
                  • The Book of JasherRobert Killian, Thu Jul 13 07:49
                    Marianne Luban, You claim:--- "That's because you do have no way of knowing how accurate anything in this book is..." etc. My response: Then you mention one of the exact sequential timeline sequence... more
                  • The Book of JasherRobert Killian, Wed Jul 12 15:57
                    Just click-on,---www.exegenesis.com and read down to verify that Moses was 18yrs old, ("when he kills the egyptian and flees"), in 148th year of Israel in Egypt. Moses was 27yrs old, (when he begins... more
                    • Re: The Book of JasherAnonymous, Thu Jul 13 08:46
                      Robert wrote: "Moses was 27yrs old, (when he begins 40yr reign in Kush)), in 157th year, at death of Kikanus, king of Kush." In the 55th year of which king of Egypt? "Exodus: Passover at 'midnight'... more
                • The Book of JasherMarianne Luban, Wed Jul 12 09:21
                  Robert, you wrote: "These new chronological dates are supported by biblical scripture and also confirmed in the much better documentation of the book of Jasher." But when I asked what you meant by... more
            • re: Mursili's Omen of the SunMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 11:51
              Arinniti was a sun goddess to whom, it is claimed Mursili II was particularly devoted. She is represented in this relief:... more
              • re: Mursili's Omen of the SunMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 12:22
                And see here about Hittites and omens and oracles. For all we know, this whole thing may be about nothing more than a cult statue being asked a question. The Egyptians did this and, evidently, so did ... more
Click here to receive daily updates