Marianne Luban
Re: Dahamunza Again
Tue Jul 11, 2017 09:37
97.126.142.155

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 have corresponded with Horemheb during this time."

Actually, according to my math in a subsequent post, I gave Ay as ruling for 12 years. There was another eclipse in 1339 BCE [see the page I made a link to regarding "the omen of the sun"]. According to my favored chronology [which I have tested in several different ways to my satisfaction] Amunhotep III died in 1377 BCE. As I believe in an eight-year coregency with Akhenaten, the latter left the throne in 1368. If we allow five years for interim rulers and twelve for both Tutankhamun and Ay, we can get to 1339. There must be some reason for Manetho having assigned several kings who followed "Orus" twelve years of rule. I suspected all of this had been taken from the last Year 12 dates seen in the tombs at Amarna--but perhaps not. But it is a fact that, before the pharaoh named "Harmais" [clearly Horemheb] there are two kings with 12 years each. Tutankhamun's last attestation of ten years is good, but Ay falls short with only four. But what about Amenhotep I? Manetho gave the correct length of his reign, 20 years and seven months, corroborated by two contemporary inscriptions--but his last attestation is only Year 10, otherwise.

Even so, I don't find it such a big deal that the Hittite king wrote to Horemheb, calling him by his nomen, if that was what he was accustomed to doing. Perhaps he didn't yet realize that the man had become pharaoh. There certainly was no instant communication in those times. 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". This is shown earlier in the prenomen of Amunhotep III, which is written "Nimmuaria" because whenever there was an "n" or a "b" coming before an "m", both elided into the "m" in pronunciation. When there were two "n"s together, they could also turn into an "m". Example "mn nfr" became "Memphis". The Hittites could not read hieroglyphs. The correspondence was achieved in Akkadian and the names of the kings of Egypt written phonetically. "nfr" [vocalized "nafeh"] was only written as "nap" for want of an "f" in the Akkadian syllabary.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/akkadian.html

The correspondence of Ramesses II shows the name of Queen Nefertari written as "Naptera". Not "Nibtera" or "Piptera". Because "nb" and "nfr", those two elements, did not sound alike. I have said this more than once here but it evidently is not recalled or just brushed aside. Maybe we now know more about the Hittite succession than we do the Egyptian one. Nothing but arguments there ever since Tell el Amarna was discovered.

Ay being shown as king in KV62 is unique. No other successor was depicted as such in any royal tomb of Egypt before or since. All dead kings were mummified for probably the same length of time--so obviously that has no bearing. Besides, Ay is conducting the opening of the mouth ceremony there in KV 62, which means the funerary rites had not yet been concluded. Even the Hittites wrote to some pharaoh after the Dahamunza affair, saying something to the effect that nobody knew that "you had made yourself king".

Joe:
"So in your chronology Ay would have to have reigned at least 13 years."

More or less, yes, depending upon whether the Hittites failed to realize Horemheb was already king. Following the letters of the widow to the Hittites and the disappearance of Zannanza, there was yet that other letter that I mentioned above. You like Merytaten for the widow, but who was supposed to be the one who "had made himself/herself king"? Surely not young Tutankhamun!

And the Radiocarbon data is not just from Amarna, Joe.

  • 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 Again — Marianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 09:37
      • 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 AgainRobert Killian, Mon Jul 31 00:49
                      Oops! Marianne,---you are right! Meddigo and not Kadesh! The battle was at Kadesh. I still go with Joe! 1457BCE. The rest of my "post" remains. Hammurabi reference just establishes Nimrod's 'defeat'... 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: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 18 09:41
                      Joe wrote, quoting Chris Bennett: "Mean date of inundation ("plenitude"): August 17 (corresponding to August 13 at Thebes)" There is something wrong with this. In my research the first signs of the... 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
Click here to receive daily updates