Joe Baker
Re: Dahamunza Again
Tue Jul 11, 2017 06:48
1.127.49.12

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 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.

Now what I say here about how the Amarna correspondants wrote the name of Akhenaten should be considered in the light of the fact that this correspondence only contains letters from the reigns of Amenhotep and Akhenaten, There can be no letters sent to/by Tutankhamun as the Amarna archive had already been closed when the city was abandoned as a royal residence, during the third year of Nefernefuaten. Tutankhamun never ruled from Amarna which is the reason why there has never been discovered in the city any foundation inscription, temple relief, painting, stamped brick, docket, stele or any tomb relief from his reign. Indeed the first dated inscription we have from him, that is the year 1 “Restoration Stele”, has him residing in Memphis. Thus any Pharaonic royal name in the address of the Amarna correspondence should refer to only Amenhotep or Akhenaten.

The problem with how names SHOULD be written is that modern linguist try to formulate absolutes. But ancient scribes had no hard and fast rules on how to transcribe Egyptian sounds and words into their own internal version of international Akkadian. The Babylonian, Mittanian and Assyrian scribes wrote Akhenaten’s praenomen as Napḫururiya (with slight variants), Unfortunately the Hittite scribes only use an abbreviated Ḫuriya, whereas the scribes at Qaṭna used Namḫuri<y>a. Yet two letters mention a Nipḫuri<ri>ya, who, as argued above, can only be Akhenaten, not Tutankhamun. Both are in international Akkadian, one is the very fragmentary EA 210, ([.i]pḫuri[.]) from central Syria and the other is EA 9 (Nipḫurririya) from Babylon, the content of which shows that both kings had already corresponded several times. This latter form is the same as the form in the Hittite annals (Nipḫururiya), which is written in Hittite.

I agree with Marianne and Joe when they say Aya was already crowned by the time Tutankhamun died.

No, I have Ay only becoming Pharoah on the death of Tutankhamun, that is technically on the day the falcon (Pharaoh) flew to heaven. When Tutankhamun was buried, Ay would have already been Pharaoh for 70 days. That is why, in Tutankhamun’s tomb, he is shown as Pharaoh performing the Opening of the Mouth ritual.

Regards Joe


  • 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 Again — Joe Baker, Tue Jul 11 06:48
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates