Marianne Luban
But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquity
Sat Feb 23, 2008 15:55
67.150.4.153 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

Cullom: In your earlier post you related that Egypt was ruled by Palmanothes AND Chenephres so Chenephres must have been more than an important official.

ML: Why? He can have been a local lord. Anyway, we'll probably never know who was intended. Palmanothes was supposedly king of Heliopolis. Chenephres was styled "king of Mapas" [Memphis]in some sources and governed "the regions beyond Memphis" in others. Who knows what this is all about.



Cullom: I find no royal names in the 18th dynasty that can be hellenized or latinized into those names.

ML: As I wrote earlier, "Palmanothes" is surely "pn ImnHtp", the same as the month "Phamenoth". At first the months of the civil calendar only had numbers, but later on they were named after the major feasts of the months. I don't know for sure, but Phamenoth might have been called after a festival commemorating the deified Amenhotep I. Now D. Rohl thought this story was about the 13th Dynasty and opined Chenephres must be Khaneferre Sobekhotep. But he drew a blank for Palmanothes! Bar Hebraeus repeats this tale, as well, but he calls the pharaoh "Amonpathis". Michael the Syrian calls him "Amenopnathis", perhaps "ImnHtp nTr". Anyway, I don't know anything more about it. This is all the info I have.

  • But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquityCullom, Sat Feb 23 08:51
    Hello Marianne, I should have said that Thutmosis I was succeeded by a "son-in-law" since his son Thutmosis II married his daughter Hatshepsut. The story of Abisha is remarkably similar to the story... more
    • But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquity — Marianne Luban, Sat Feb 23 15:55
Click here to receive daily updates