Marianne Luban
Re: Dahamunza Again
Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:01
97.126.142.155

Ach--I meant not just from Tell ed-Daba--not Amarna.

  • 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 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: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Wed Jul 19 09:42
                      Moreover, my High Chronology agrees with the math set forth by Eusebius in his "Chronicon" [via St. Jerome] and Robert Killian should pay close attention to this. I now believe I have solved 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 Again — Marianne Luban, Tue Jul 11 10:01
      • 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