Joe Baker
Re: Amenhotep II and His Reign
Thu Dec 28, 2017 01:59
121.215.155.48

Hi Marianne

As you know, I support the Low Chronology for Dynasty 18 (accession of Thutmose 1 = 1479) and the Middle Chronology for Dynasty 19 (accession of Rameses 2 = 1290). These dates are set astronomically by Lunar Day 1 data and historically by synchronisms between Egypt and Babylon/Assyria/Ḫatti.

For Thutmose 3 the first known lunar data is the occurrence of lunar day 1 (psḏntyw) on 21/I 確w/24, the day of the battle of Meggido. Now I know we disagree over the day but I follow the text itself (see Glenn Lello, Thutmose III痴 First Lunar Date, JNES 37/4 (1978) 327-330) and have no need to change the date to 20/I 確w (as do others who seemingly have forgotten how the Egyptians dated by sunrise). The fact that the battle took place on 21/I 確w presents a problem for the High Chronology because in that chronology psḏntyw occurred on Gregorian 2 May 1482 (Julian 15 May 1482) which corresponds to 20/I 確w (so a day out in the High Chronology - hence the reason for the supporters of the High Chronology to attempt to amend the date provided in the text).

Relevant dates are

  EGYPTIAN        EVENT                                 GREGORIAN      (JULIAN)
4/ I 確w/ 1 Accession Thutmose 3 15 Apr 1479 (28 Apr 1479)
21/ I 確w/23 psḏntyw at Megiddo year 23 26 Apr 1457 ( 9 May 1457)
30/ II Prt/24 psḏntyw foundation ritual year 24 4 Feb 1455 (17 Feb 1455)
30/III Ꜣḫt/54 Death Thutmose 3 year 54 30 Oct 1426 (12 Nov 1426)
1/ IV Ꜣḫt/ 1 Accession Amenḥotep 2 31 Oct 1426 (13 Nov 1426)
9/III 確w/20 psḏntyw 6 to 9/III 確w/20 or 21 1 Jun 1406 (14 Jun 1406)
I Ꜣḫt/26 Death Amenḥotep 2 c. Aug 1400
III Ꜣḫt/26 Burial Amenḥotep 2 c. Oct 1400

Note - many websites, probably following the erroneous Wikipedia page, incorrectly date the accession day of Tuthmose 3 to Julian 24 April 1479.

A second psḏntyw date for Thutmose 3 is recorded as 30/II Prt/24 on which day was laid the foundation of the Akhmenu temple in Karnak. This Egyptian date corresponds to Gregorian 4 Feb 1455 (Julian 17 Feb 1455) and that dawn (before sunrise) the old waning crescent was not observed (after having been observed the previous dawn). In the High Chronology psḏntyw occurred on 1/III Prt/24, so a day later.

An inscription in the tomb of Amenemḥeb, a general of Tuthmose 3, records the date Thutmose died as 30/III Prt/54 and immediately follows this with the statement that Amenḥotep 2 then established himself on the thrown of his father. Problem here is the the accession date of Amenḥotep is known to have been 1/IV Ꜣḫt. Since I do not see formal co-regencies as a practice at this time in Egypt (other then the attempt by Ḥat啼psut to establish her independent authority), I too - like others - accept that Maḥu, the scribe who wrote the tomb biography of Amenemḥeb, made a slip in the date. That is, Thutmose 3 died on 30/III Ꜣḫt/54 (Gregorian 30 Oct 1426 = Julian 12 Nov 1426) not 30/III Prt/54.

The lunar date that is recorded for Amenḥotep 2 is not precise for it has a range of possible dates. In year 20 or 21, grain was allocated on some day between 6 III 確w and 9 III 確w (inclusive) to brew beer (a 3-4 days process) for consumption on lunar day 1. Thus lunar day 1 probably fell between 9-12 III 確w in these years. Of these dates only Gregorian 1 Jun 1406 (Julian 14 Jun 1406), which fell on 9/III 確w /21, corresponds to lunar day 1 in the Low Chronology. The same fit also occurs in the High Chronology where lunar day 1 falls on 9/III 確w/21, that is Gregorian 7 Jun 1431 (Julian 20 Jun 1431).

As to why I assign 25 years and 10 months to Amenḥotep 2, who does not even appear in Manetho痴 listing. It is because when some scribe at some stage in the process of copying a pre-Manetho list, made a quite common error (the error probably was made long before Manetho had access to this copied list). After copying the name of Thutmose 3 (or however the manuscript recorded his name), over to the new copy, the scribe痴 eye, on returning to the source list dropped down a line and so read the reign length of Amenoḥotep 2. As such the actual reign length of Thutmose 3 and the name of Amenḥotep 2 fell out of this newly copied list (these errors are illustrated in red in the following table).

SOURCE LIST                     
MISCOPIED LIST USED BY MANETHO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thutmose 3 54 years and 7 months
➤Thutmose 3 25 years and 10 months
Amenophis 25 years and 10 months

Thutmose 4 9 years ➡︎Thutmose 4 9 years

By the way a similar type of copy error had previously occurred in the Eusebius manuscript used by Syncellus. Here the scribe (or even an earlier copyist) of this manuscript, after reading and recording the name of the 9th king (Akhenkhersēs = AnḫḫprwRʿ Neferneferuaten) when on looking back at the source document, for the corresponding reign length, their eyes skipped to the third line and they wrote down the reign length of the 11th king (16 years) and so left out kings 10 (Athōris = Tutankamun) and 11 (Kenkherēs = Ay).

EUSEBUS           
MISCOPIED LIST USED BY SYNCELLUS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Akhenkherēs 12 years

10 Athōris 9 years ➡︎ Akhenkhersēs 16 years

11 Kenkherēs 16 years

The wine jar found in the tomb of Amenhotep 2, dated by year 26, would then have contained the first wine from the grape harvest of Sep 1400, that is from around II Ꜣḫt.

Now as to the High Chronology versus other chronology. Back in the 1970's the High Chronology was all the rage. Hardly any Egyptologist considered the Low Chronology and all the synchronisms were interpreted in such a way as to bend them to fit the High Chronology. However, in recent times and particularly in the last decade, these forced interpretations began to unwind as new synchronisms appeared that only fitted into a Low Chronology for the 18th dynasty - at least from those Middle eastern scholars who considered all the evidence from Egypt, Ḫatti, Ugarit, Assyria and Babylon.

Yet most Egyptologist refused to even consider that maybe their myopic view was incorrect. But slowly this is changing as they come to realise that their reign lengths for Ḥoremḥeb and Seti 1 are far too high and lack any evidence for year dates above 15 and 9 respectively. At the same time the new synchronisms require the Low Chronology date for Rameses 2 (1279) to be raised to the Middle Chronology date (1290) for dynasty 19.

Now as for the claim that the Kenkherēs of Eusebius version of Manetho (as preserved in manuscripts of later copiers of Eusebius) was the pharaoh of the exodus - this is purely a concoction of Eusebius. Actually in other better copies of Manetho this king is Khebrēs/Akenhkerēs, that is Ḫprḫprwre Ay. In obtaining his Egyptian date for the exodus, Eusebius merely added up the years in his faulty copy of Manetho until they equalled the year he assigned to Moses (obtained by adding up the equally corrupt figures in the bible), thereby establishing a Kenkherēs-Moses synchronism. An example of this process can be seen from Jerome痴 Chronological Table constructed from Eusebius works - see
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_02_part1.htm
It was of course nonsense but Eusebius reputation and influence was such that his idea displaced previous speculation. To quote Syncellus on Eusebius Kenkherēs synchronism - 摘usebius alone places in this reign the exodus of Israel under Moses, although no argument supports him, but all his predecessors hold a contrary view, as he testifies. Early writers and even some later writers usually equated the exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos.

As for Manetho, he distinguished the Hyksos (foreigners expelled at the start of the 18th dynasty) from those who were later led by Moses and expelled (polluted Egyptians and their Hyksos mercenaries). Now I have argued, if one follows the order of the kings listed in Josephos copy of Manetho, that he placed Moses and the exodus in the reign of Setnakht (whom Josephos names Amenophis as the story was conflated with hostile tales from the time of Amenḥotep 4/Akhenaten).

Regards Joe


  • Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 17 12:42
    Robert Killian wrote in re: Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date Pharoahs Sun Nov 5, 2017 03:06 "Amenhotep II begins in the 19th year AFTER Exodus in 2448AM, 1444BC, and ENDS in the 46th year,... more
    • Re: Amenhotep II and His Reign — Joe Baker, Thu Dec 28 01:59
      • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 13:44
        Joe wrote: "As you know, I support the Low Chronology for Dynasty 18 (accession of Thutmose 1 = 1479) and the Middle Chronology for Dynasty 19 (accession of Rameses 2 = 1290). These dates are set... more
        • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 13:52
          This is what I wrote here in July of 1017 in the "Dahamunza" thread: "I now believe I have solved the problem of why Eusebius, by whose reckoning Moses should have left Egypt in 1510 BCE, perversely... more
          • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Sat Dec 30 02:50
            Hi Marianne As for the Chronicle of pseudo-Dionysius, which is now called the Zuqnin Chronicle and whose last entry is for 774/5 AD, I am afraid it does not support your argument. Now, I can not find ... more
            • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 31 09:10
              Joe wrote: "Here the era used is (inclusive) years since the birth of Abraham. So 490 in pseudo-Dionysius, is just 490 (inclusive) years after the birth of Abraham. In this year Chencheres began his... more
              • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Sat Jan 6 21:15
                Hi Marianne pseudo-Dionysius ... is the first one to say that the Year 490 is when Moses confronted Cencheres This entry does not say Moses confronted Cencheres in 490. The entry says 添ear 490. The... more
              • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 31 09:27
                And see Pietersma's book on page 8 as to when Palmanothes and Cenephres were placed. They were Amenhotep I and Thutmose I.... more
                • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 31 10:52
                  Here, once again, is the math of Eusebius. According to Eusebius, there are 2044 years from the birth of Abraham to the 15th year of Tiberias Caesar [which is 29 CE]. Abraham born in 2015 BCE.... more
                  • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Sat Jan 6 21:22
                    Hi Marianne In response to your posts, I, for clarity, again give a chart showing the chronology of Eusebius, Pseudo-Dionysius and his excerpts from Artapanos (I add an extra one - via Eusebius [in... more
                    • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Jan 7 12:50
                      Joe wrote: "In your post of 31 Dec 2017 (post 17794) you said According to Eusebius, there are 2044 years from the birth of Abraham to the 15th year of Tiberias Caesar [which is 29 CE]. Abraham born... more
                  • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Mon Jan 1 11:31
                    Studying Latin for four years comes in handy once in awhile, so I was able to translate the version of Pseudo-Dionysius from that language to a more or less accurate degree. Here is the relevant... more
                    • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignRobert Killian, Wed Jan 3 04:26
                      This post, by Marianne, can be verified mathematically. "Suggestion", for integrating most of this information. Year 000 b.Abram 1948AM, 1813CJ/BC,+131yrs=1944BC. ----------------------+420yrs---... more
                    • ErrataMarianne Luban, Tue Jan 2 14:31
                      I should make some corrections to my previous post. They are: "[*Obviously, Pseudo-Dionysius got all this from Artapanus [via Euseubius] but knew that the story had to do with that same Amenhotep who ... more
          • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 15:48
            The interpretation of the words of the lunar date of Thutmose III hangs on this phrase "hrw m Hb n psDntiw r mty"-- meaning "the day the festival of the new moon as usual" in my opinion. Of course,... more
    • re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 17 13:12
      And, oddly, a decorated box from the reign of Amenhotep II even features the god, Bes, with pox all over his body.
Click here to receive daily updates