Marianne Luban
Re: Dahamunza Again
Sun Jul 16, 2017 09:38
97.126.142.155

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 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."

Joe, it was the nasals and the labials that elided into one another--but not into the other consonants. Once again, the foreigners did not know how the names of the kings of Egypt were spelled with hieroglyphs. They only heard them in pronunciation and that depended upon how careful the speaker was, how precise. "Nim-muariya" can only have happened because the Egyptian habit was to elide a /b/ into an /m/. The tendency was to always favor the /m/ and the /b/ got lost. However, since /x/ is neither a nasal or a labial, the /b/ in "nb" would never elide into it. So your seeing that as more convincing makes no sense. It didn't happen in "Naphurruriya", either. Never.

I wrote:

"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."

Joe:
"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..."

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.

I wrote:

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

Joe:

"No, he died some years before Akhenaten built and moved to Amarna."

I suggest you read two papers of mine at Academia.edu. They are "The Significance of Eight Years" and "The Deification of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and the Reason For It." You may change your mind--because there was a coregency and only one reason behind it.

Joe:
" 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)."

You know very well that not all the Amarna Letters survived! They were being used for fertilizer until someone realized their significance. There is little point in asking "Where are they?"

Joe:

"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 -"

Have you forgotten the olive branch at Akrotiri? It doesn't all depend on one site.

https://dendro.cornell.edu/articles/Manningetal_Antiquity_2014.pdf

Joe:

"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)."

If that were true then everyone would use the Gregorian Calendar vis a vis the ancient Egyptian one--but nobody does. Not astronomers--no one. All the retro-calculating programs use the Julian. You have been insisting the late-appearing Gregorian is best ever since I've known you--and I don't know why you stick with this.

Joe:

"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."

Since the Nile flood usually was seen at Thebes about July 14, that can hardly be true--especially that Gregorian date. Hatshepsut's engineers knew [or believed] that the water was at its highest 40 days after the start of the inundation and remained at that level for another forty days before diminishing. Anyone with any math skills can see that the end of August, even September, is best for a high level. However, August 24 is exactly 40 days from the start of the flood. Nasr e-Khosraw wrote: "When the sun enters Cancer, the Nile begins its increase and gradually rises day by day to twenty cubits above the water level." Then he goes on to say that it rose for 40 days and remained at its highest level for another 40 and then it began its gradual decrease for yet another 40 days. [You can find the whole quote from him online.] If that was the old belief in Egypt, then, of course, the engineers of Hatshepsut would use this for a plan.

I wrote:

"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."

Joe:

"My date is 1457 BC, 25 years later (my date for psḏntyw is a day after yours, see our previous discussion)."

I explain why that is not so good here:

https://www.academia.edu/24662705/Unlucky_Day_During_an_Asiatic_Campaign

Joe:

"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."

Seven days is an entire week. As I said, even with the high chronology [mine] the Egyptians barely had time to harvest their own wheat. There was no standing army in those times. Most of the foot soldiers came from the villages as another text about the pros and cons of Egyptian occupations makes clear. Even in the case of a low Nile and a resulting famine, the king of Egypt was not about to make the peasants leave their own crops in the field, let their families go hungry and not collect the tax on their yield, in order to go on a campaign with him. There was a precise schedule for all this--and some of it did depend upon the lucky and unlucky days calendar.

Anyway, chronologies aside, you are going to have to accept that the words "nb" and "nfr" did not sound at all alike in pronunciation and that EA 9 makes no exception to that obvious fact. The prenomen of Akhenaten was written erroneously for reasons I already gave. Just because you don't study the Egyptian language does not mean it doesn't matter, isn't a factor. But, of course, you are not alone. Other commentators on these names, written in foreign graphic systems, have been in the same boat.

  • 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 Again — Marianne Luban, Sun Jul 16 09:38
      • 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: Temple of JerusalemRich McQuillen, Sat Jul 22 20:06
                      "But who designed the Jerusalem Temple in your scheme? Frank Lloyd Wright? Sorry--couldn't resist." -- I love the reference. :) The temple of Solomon hasn't been found yet...... 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