Joe Baker
Re: Dahamunza Again
Sat Jul 15, 2017 07:42
121.215.7.74

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 written to Akhenaten. However you say that instead or writing Nap-ḫurririya they wrote Nip-ḫurririya because they confused the initial part of Akhenaten’s praenomen with the first part of the praenomen of Amenhotep 3, his well known predecessor. This partial mixing of names I find difficult. I would find this argument more convincing if they had written the alternate possibility of Nim-ḫurririya.

That the pharaoh was a new correspondent is also indicated in EA 9 because he receives a lecture about the history of the relations between Babylon and Egypt.

As I said there is nothing in this letter to suggest that the Egyptian ruler had just come to the throne. The Babylonian king has not brought up past history to educate the Egyptian king. He brought it up because a diplomatic situation has suddenly happened which deeply concerned him. One ruler he considered his vassal (Assyria) had just sent a diplomatic embassy to Egypt. The purpose of the letter was to suggest (diplomatic talk for “demand”) the expected Egyptian response. And so he reminded the Pharaoh that just as his ancestor refused to consider an appeal by rebellious Egyptian vassals then (in accordance with precedence and ultimately for reasons of stable relations) the Pharaoh should also refuse to consider the Assyrian approach. As such the event could have occurred anywhere within a reign. It was not triggered by the accession of a new king but by a specific event.

There were letters addressed to Amunhotep III at Amarna. Did that king ever reside or rule from there?

No, he died some years before Akhenaten built and moved to Amarna. The letters from about year 30 of Amnhotep to year 4 of Akhenaten were brought to Amarna when it was built. Interesting a whole box of Rib-Ḫadad letters from the early years of Akhenaten appear to have got lost in the process. If Amenhotep had resided at Amarna (on occasions, as per your scheme) we would expect to find many dated documents from years 30 to 38 amongst the hundred of such examples - but we only have two (from year 30 and 31).

And the Radiocarbon data is not just from Amarna, Joe. ... Ach--I meant not just from Tell ed-Daba--not Amarna.

Well the radiocarbon data from Amarna, at 2σ (85%) confidence, is not narrow enough to distinguish between High, Middle or Low Chronologies. Similarly the spread of dates of maximum Nile levels is is too large to distinguish between the chronologies. For example you said -

In 1488 BCE, which was Year 16 by that time, Day 30 of IV Smw was Julian August 24 ... Obviously, the obelisk was meant to be finished in plenty of time for its removal on the Nile to Thebes

Now from Popper’s collection of Nile Level maximum heights during the pre-Aswan dam and Muslim era, the adjusted date of maximum height at Thebes is 13 August ± 24 days. The range is more than sufficient to cover all the conventional chronologies. You are correct that in 1488 BC the 30/IV Šmw is 24 August (Julian) = 11 Aug (Gregorian, a better measure as it keeps track with the seasons). I have year 15 being 1463 wherein the Egyptian date corresponding to 18 Aug (Julian) = 5 Aug (Gregorian). Again these dates are all well within the range limits of maximum Nile level heights.

In the date of my choice for Year 22 of Thutmose, which is 1482 BCE ... However, his annals definitely state that the Egyptians managed to harvest the wheat around Megiddo

My date is 1457 BC, 25 years later (my date for psḏntyw is a day after yours, see our previous discussion). In terms of seasons, my dates would be 7 days earlier than yours. So again not enough to distinguish between the High and Middle chronologies.

Regards Joe


  • 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 Again — Joe Baker, Sat Jul 15 07:42
      • 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: MosesRich McQuillen, Fri Jul 21 22:40
                    Hi Marianne, We are in agreement with your reading, and that your reading is in alignment with Standard Biblical Chronology. ***** I don't subscribe to standard Biblical Chronology, with the cut off... more
                    • re: MosesMarianne Luban, Sat Jul 22 09:55
                      Rich wrote: "I don't subscribe to standard Biblical Chronology, with the cut off point of before David. All of those Patriarchs from Methuselah to Moses living such long lives, it doesn't make sense... more
                    • re: MosesRobert Killian, Sat Jul 22 04:00
                      Hi Rich, For the 'Actual' birth date of Moses: Jewish calendar count 1948AM, 1813CJ/BCE, + 131yrs = 1944BCE. See: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-for-the-history-of-judaism . Enjoy,
      • 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