Jaime O
Re: Dahamunza Again
Mon Jul 10, 2017 16:03
95.95.208.52

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 throne before the 7th year of Mursilis II or so. He also argues for just one attack by the Hittites on Amqu, around the time Dahamunzu sent her letter. In other words: early Mursilis II overlaps late Tutankhamun or early Aya, and thus Tutankhamun could not have been the husband of Dahamunzu. He mentions other factoids against this equation. I grant most of you are aware of his argumentation, but I leave the link to his paper anyways: http://www.sprachwiss.uni-muenchen.de/ueber_uns/personen/lmu/miller/publ_miller/amarna_2007.pdf

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 position, which is well argued and has a lot going for it. I side with those who argue that Nibhururyia is an error for one of Tutankhamun’s predecessor.

I agree with Marianne and Joe when they say Aya was already crowned by the time Tutankhamun died. Maybe he was made king when poor Tut was laying in his deathbed, who knows? But this muddies the water for the case of Ankhesenamun as Dahamunzu. It means Ankhesenamun could get a whole Hittite entourage into the country to evaluate her claim of being a sonless woman, while Aya was already reigning elsewhere (I suppose Suppiluliuma wouldn’t allow his messenger to go to a kingdom of supposed political instability alone). And we know from the Hittites that she *and* her husband where both sonless. Didn’t the Hittites know that Egypt had a king already? Wouldn’t the same investigation conclude that Tutankhamun had made his decision as to who was to succeed him? We also know that Memphis was the capital after Akhetaten, so where else would the Hittites go to take conclusions about this affair? We’d suppose Aya was there or nearby, or had people of trust in the capital to confirm the whole thing. All in all, Ankhesenamun-as-Dahamunzu has something going for it (the certainly sonless widow of a certainly sonless king), but it implies a very complicated situation when a simpler one, aligned with other evidences and Miller’s interpretation, might be preferred.

I should side with those scholars who argue that the Hittites had themselves confused with it was time to write annals and chronicles, and so they wrote Nebkheperure’s prenomen where someone else was meant. Neferkheperure is certainly the closest one can think of, given the similarities between both names found in the El Amarna letters. Yet, had Tutankhamun been son of Akhenaten, we’d expect the Hittites to know that (at least). Some other sonless king with a similar prenomen must have been known.

In other words, now that I’m siding with Marianne by having Tutankhamun as son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, I must argue for some other case. I know of Joe’s interpretation (that Mursillis II was going for a novella-like retelling of the events, and the conflict was to be resolved by the end), but again, we must assume the Egyptians worked together in some sort of international conspiracy to conceal the rightful heir from the Hittites. I now have a position like Wilhelm and Boese (apparently, since I have not read their argumentation fully). My interpretation is that Dahamunzu is Meritaten and the Hittites where more than confused when it came to whom her husband was, thus they conjured names like Nibhururiya (Tutankhamun) and Bibhururiya. At least Huriya was in the name. I now argue that Smenkhkare was the king who died sonless, and this small factoid, plus the -kheperure element of the prenomen, allowed him to be confused by Tutankhamun, a much fresher king in the memory of Hatti, who also died without a son and had -kheperure in his prenomen.

In my interpretation of events, Smenkhkare marries Meritaten and succeeds his father, Akhenaten. Tutankhamun is a younger brother. Smenkhkare dies shortly after and without a son; Meritaten holds the reins of the government as both a royal-born widow and a king’s eldest daughter. In this position of power, she asks Suppiluliuma for one of his princes, who ultimately doesn’t make it. This, of course, means that Meritaten sidelined a younger brother of hers for a year or so, but this shouldn’t be a disadvantage given that, being both a King’s Daughter and a King’s Wife, plus having influence over territories in Syria (see EA 155), Meritaten would be in the position to make her case for succession. At least once we see a royal widow taking precedence over anyone else (although her background is debatable): Tausret, first as coregent to the younger Siptah and then later alone.

Given that negotiations with Hittites seemingly failed after the death of Zannanza, Meritaten took the throne as king-queen herself above her younger, crippled brother. She assumes her brother-husband’s prenomen, Ankhkheperure, and her mother’s formal title, Neferneferuaten. She later goes on to occupy her mother’s place in some attestations, such as the Coregency Stela. To me this speaks volume: after coming to the throne on her own, Meritaten prefers to be openly associated with her father, and moderately with her husband. Her claim to the throne relies on being both a King’s Daughter and a King’s Wife, while the first title takes precedence over the latter. See Hatshepsut for instance, who reinstated her father’s seemingly preference and even alleged to be his elected successor. Dead men can’t speak for themselves, and these women knew this better than anyone else. To me, Carter 001k is a clear case of Meritaten associating herself with her father and her husband simultaneously, while omitting the latter’s name. I postulate (like Joe) that she went to great lengths such as posthumous depictions with Akhenaten where she almost poses as his wife (see http://www.hieroglyphen.net/andere/berlin09.gif, where Akhenaten’s companion has three cartouches, just as in Carter 001k).

Although I don’t think my position can make up for every single fact there is, I did try to align as many as possible. I admit that attributing errors to texts requires extraordinary evidence to corroborate the scenario borne of such an interpretation, and I fear I can’t make a case on linguistic grounds. Nevertheless, I think the case for Meritaten and Smenkhkare as Dahamunzu and her dead husband fits better a scenario where Tut is son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (as held by both Marianne and Joe) and the well-argued interpretation Miller has made of Arma’a and the attack on Amqu.

Best regards,
Jaime

  • 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 Again — Jaime O, Mon Jul 10 16:03
      • 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 MathMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 9 12:43
      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... more
      • 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