Joe Baker
Re: Dahamunza Again
Tue Jul 18, 2017 07:05
1.122.38.119

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.

Tuthmosis 3 records that in year 33 he was contacted by the chief of Sꜣngrꜣ (the king of Karduniaš) who sent him “tribute” including Bbrꜣ (Babylonian) lapis lazuli.

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?"

Amazing the people who discovered these tablets selected all those sent/by Tutankhamun to use as fertilizer. And from amongst the large collection of Rib-Ḫadad letters they selected only those from about year 36 Amenhotep to year 4 Akhenaten.

When I said the radiocarbon data from Amarna, were too wide to distinguish between High, Middle or Low Chronologies, you replied:

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

The alternate Egyptian High, Middle and Low chronologies are only separated by 50 years (being based on lunar cycles). Again too narrow for the use of radiocarbon dating to distinguish between the alternate chronologies. The High, Middle and Low chronologies mentioned in the above paper are in reference to alternate Babylonian chronologies which are separated by 120 years (being based on the Venus cycle). Here the range is sufficient for radiocarbon dating to allow matching one of the alternatives. As a result they match the radiocarbon dating of the olive branch, at around the late seventeenth century, to the Middle Babylonian chronology (which I agree with).

Then they try and correlate this with Egyptian chronology and suggest the Tempest Stela of Ahmose was associated with the Thera eruption. Even though they point out that “The start of the New Kingdom of Egypt has usually been placed at c. 1550 BC or 1540 BC in conventional scholarly assessments over the past three decades ... Recent historical, astronomical and 14C work indicates either similar or slightly earlier dates”, they go all out to try and raise the accession date of Ahmose. They desperately search for some evidence to increase the Egyptian dates. They choose the High Egyptian chronology (accession Thutmosis 3 in 1504) and also note that “The very latest work indicates likely adjustments to some of the reign lengths employed ... (especially Tuthmosis IV)”. But these attempts to increase reign lengths, particularly that of Tuthmosis 4, are not supported by the facts. Even if they were correct, the problem is that their accession date for Ahmose is still more than 50 years below their date for Thera.

Joe: ... 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.

But it is true. The Gregorian calendar is designed to get the vernal equinox to fall on 21 March each year. Thus the beginning of the year stays aligned with spring. I do not particularly care if everyone else can not see common sense but instead choose to use the out of date Julian calendar. (Even the Russians finally abandoned it in 1918 and as a consequence their October revolution is now celebrated in November). So today no country uses the Julian calendar and back before the first century BC (with which this forum is concerned) nor did anyone else. Nor too, this far back in time, do astronomical programs use a proleptic Julian calendar (since they have a year 0, between 1 BC and 1 AD).

On the Nile level data; here is a snippet of Chris Bennett’s analysis of the Popper data on the long defunct ANE forum, It is many years since the posts on that forum have been available on the web. However, they can still be retrieved using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at
https://web.archive.org/web/20041028233703/http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/ANE-DIGEST/1999/v1999.n225
In part he said

“Number of samples: 329, covering the years 1074-1888 -- about 40% coverage
Range: July 17 - October 24
97%ile range (omitting 10 outliers which are separated by at least one clear day from the body of the data): July 29 - September 11 -- 45 day spread. Two of the outliers are before July 29, the other eight are after September 11.
Mean date of inundation ("plenitude"): August 17 (corresponding to August 13 at Thebes)
Median date of inundation: August 22
Median date of inundation (97%ile): August 19
Standard deviation: 12 days
The distribution is skewed with a tail stretching for about 3.5 weeks past the mean date. The 97%ile median +/- 2 standard deviations covers 97% of the dates. Therefore, a very good estimate for the inundation at Thebes is August 13 +26/-22 days...”

Note that the above dates are in the Julian calendar. To get the corresponding Gregorian dates for the time of Ḥatšepsut and Tuthmosis 3 you have to take off 13 days (almost 2 weeks). So the mean date for flooding at Thebes is 31 July ± 24 days.

Regards Joe


  • 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 Again — Joe Baker, Tue Jul 18 07:05
      • 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: Temple of JerusalemRobert Killian, Mon Jul 24 04:14
                      Hi Rich, http://www.crystalinks.com/dynasty21.html has: Siamun:986 to 967. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Dynasty_of_Egypt has: Siamun: 986 to 967. Mattis Kantor, in "THE JEWISH TIME-LINE ... more
                    • re: Temple of JerusalemMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 23 09:22
                      Rich: "In my scheme, or timeline, I have Solomon as a contemporary of Siamun in Egypt(975BC)." That's pretty standard but, previously you wrote: "Moses 140 years later in 1159BC(Ramses 4)". How do... more
                    • re:Temple of JerusalemRobert Killian, Sun Jul 23 00:48
                      Hi Rich, Perhaps: a sequence like this? David 1008 to 968 Siamun ac.986 to 967 Solomon: ac.968 to 928 Psusennes II ac.967 to 943 Rehoboam: ac.928 to 911 Jeroboam: ac.928 to 907 Shoshenq I: ac.943 to... 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,
Click here to receive daily updates