Joe Baker
Re: Dahamunza Again
Thu Jul 13, 2017 07:53
121.215.7.74

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 give for “nb” and “nfr” were written in Akkadian (including the ones Naptera = Nefertari sent to Ḫattuša. However this is not the case with the Nipḫururiya written in the Hittite annals. These annals are written in Hittite not Akkadian.

I take it you would say that that Pharaoh Nibḫurrereya, to whom Burna-Buriaš sent EA 9 was in fact Nb-ḫprw-Rꜥ Twt-ꜥnḫ-ỉmn because Akkadian Nib can only represent Egyptian Nb, never Egypt Nfr as in Nfr-ḫprw-Rꜥ Ꜣḫ-n-ỉtn (Akhenaten). If so this would be the only Amarna letter that had been sent by a Great King to Tutankhamun, who never resided or ruled from Amarna. This is in contrast to the time of Akhenaten, when we have letters from all the Great Kings (Ḫatti, Mitannia, Assyria and Babylon), and in particular letters from Suppiluliuma (see below), Tušratta and Burna-Buriaš congratulation him on ascending the throne. No letter even considers that Tutankhamun has become Pharoah. Where are these? Below I present EA 9 and you seriously need to look at its content. This is a letter between two kings who have exchanged several letters before. If one were Tutankhamun then where are all the previous letters sent to him by Burna-Buriaš, or indeed by the other Great Kings?

Say to Nibhurrereya, the king of M[iṣri, m]y [brother] speak: Thus Burraburiyaš, king of the land of Karad[un]iyaš, your brother. To me all is well. To you, your house, your wives, your sons, your land, your ma[g]nates, your horses, your chariots, may all it be very well.
From the time my fathers (= ancestors) and your fathers (= ancestors) mutually spoke of friendship, they sen[t] beautiful greeting gifts to each other and did not hold b[ack] any beautiful request. Now, my brother has now sent me 2 minas of gold as my greeting gift. Now, (i)f gold is plentiful, send as much as your fathers (= ancestors), but if it is scarce, send half of what your fathers (= ancestors) (sent). Why do you send me only 2 minas of gold? Now my work on the god’s house is extensive, and I am seriously engaged in carrying it out. Send me much gold. And as for you, whatever you desire from my land, write to me and let them bring it to you.
In (the time of) Kurigalzu, my father (= ancestor), all the Canaanites wrote to him, saying, “C[om]e to the border of the land; let us revolt and let us be allied [wi]th you!” My father (= ancestor) wrote this to them, saying, “Leave being allied with me. If you become estranged from the king of Egypt, my brother, and become allied with another, will I not then come and will I not plunder you? How can there be an alliance with me?” My father (= ancestor), because of your father (= ancestor), heeded them not.
Now, as for the Assyrian, my vassal, it was not me who sent him to you. Why on their own initiative have they come to your land? If you love me, they will conduct no business whatsoever. Send them off to me empty handed.
As your greeting gift I have sent 3 minas of genuine lapis lazuli, and 5 teams of horses for 5 wooden chariots.

As for letter EA 41, sent by Suppiluliuma to Pharoah Ḫuriya and congratulating him on ascending the throne, some like to think he was Ꜥnḫ-ḫprw-Rꜥ Smenḫ-kꜣ-Rꜥ. They are clearly careless in their assessment, for, as per EA 9, such people should actually read the content of the letter. In this letter Suppiluliuma says:

Neither my messengers, whom I sent to your father, nor the request that your father made, saying, ”Let us establish only the most friendly relations between us”, did I indeed re[fus]e? Whatsoever your father said to me, I indeed did absolutely eve[ry[thing. And my own request, indeed that I made to your father, he never refused, he gave me absolutely everything.
Why my brother, have you held back the presents that your father made to me, when he was al[iv[e?
Now my brother [yo]u have ascended the throne of your father, and just as your father and I were desirous of peace between us, so now too should you and I be friendly with one another. The request <that> I expressed to your father [I shall express] to my brother, too. Let us be helpful to each other.
My brother do not hold back anything that [I asked] of your father. [As for the 2 st]atues of gold, one [should be standing], one should be seated...

Here we have Suppiluliuma saying relationship were friendly with the father of Ḫuriya. Now from the Amarna letters it is probable that Amenhotep 3 was friendly with the Hittites, but relations under Akhenaten were not so friendly. Hittite armies were fighting in central Syria against Egyptian vassals. Egyptian vassals were quick to attribute local trouble to their opponents gaining Hittite support. Aitakama of Qadeš had been installed by the Hittites and his land became anti-Egyptian. Aziru of Amurru had to be called to Egypt in fear he was going over to the Hittites. So EA 41 was sent to Akhenaten, on his accession, before relations turned sour.

The letter could not have been sent to any ruler after Akhenaten since Suppiluliuma constantly says that relations were friendly with the father of Ḫuriya. Those who think that Ḫuriya was Smenkhkare and that he was a son of Amenhotep 3 (no proof whatsoever exist for this connection) cannot explain why Suppiluliuma would not have made some reference to the hostile relationship during he reign of Akhenaten. Nor would it explain why the first thing Suppiluliuma talks about is two statues that the father had promised to send. If this letter were directed to Smenkhkare, then this would have been something promised some 17 years previously, but Suppiluliuma writes as if it were only a recent event.

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".

This document is a draft letter written in Hittite. This is unfortunate as the letter is fragmentary and Hittite case endings do not allow us to know if the one who became king was male or female. If it were written in Akkadian, the case endings would tell us if the new king were male of female. In my opinion the letter concerns Meritaten, who on the death of Zannanza=Smenkhkare ascended the throne in her own right and, on appropriating the praenomen of Zannanza=Smenkhkare, took the name Ꜥnḫ-ḫprw-RꜤ Nfr-nfrw-ỉtn.

Regards Joe


  • 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 Again — Joe Baker, Thu Jul 13 07:53
      • 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 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