Marianne Luban
Re: Dahamunza Again
Thu Jul 13, 2017 09:11
97.126.142.155



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 the case with the Nipḫururiya written in the Hittite annals. These annals are written in Hittite not Akkadian."

It wouldn't matter. Once again, the Hittites did not know how to read hieroglyphs or hieratic. They only knew what the names of the kings of Egypt sounded like in the mouths of the envoys from Egypt. That had to be approximated in another graphic system. I am not the only one who feels as I do about "nb" as "nib". See here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=MzVszHxO3JoC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=Amarna+letters+AND+EA+9&source=bl&ots=RPvCqNMja5&sig=VZiewxsq23m9ieNcpoPPvQ8Vzck&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUjNu7s4bVAhUSxGMKHa48AKwQ6AEIWzAI#v=onepage&q=Amarna%20letters%20AND%20EA%209&f=false

As for EA9--you ask questions that cannot be answered. From my research, I came away with the impression that the reading of "Nibḫurrereya" is not so certain in that letter as you would indicate. However, as for Tutankhamun never residing or ruling from Amarna--who knows? There were letters addressed to Amunhotep III at Amarna. Did that king ever reside or rule from there?

  • 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 Again — Marianne Luban, Thu Jul 13 09:11
      • 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: DahamunzaRobert Killian, Thu Jul 20 03:12
                      Marianne, You can rest assured that I am paying close attention, to this, your latest attempt to reconstruct this portion of History. I can also assure you that, as you should know by now, that... 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
Click here to receive daily updates