Anonymous
Re: Dahamunza Again
Thu Jul 13, 2017 09:59
97.126.142.155

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 by the Babylonians. Maybe "Nibḫurrereya" was intended "Nebmaare".

  • 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 Again — Anonymous, Thu Jul 13 09:59
      • 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: DahamunzaMarianne Luban, Thu Jul 20 10:12
                      Robert: "You can rest assured that I am paying close attention, to this, your latest attempt to reconstruct this portion of History." It is at least partly history as the math calculates backwards... 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