Monkton
Re: Hatshepsut's Accession
Sat Feb 28, 2009 02:32
75.133.148.82 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

"I prefer to rely on the information from ancient Egypt rather than the calculations of modern scholars.
The genealogies of the TIP, the inscriptions of the 19th dynasty and Manetho point to a much later date for the New Kingdom."

Are you by some chance the first to read something in the iscriptions of the 19th Dynasty and what remains of the writings of Manetho that all those misguided modern scholars have missed? As far as is known, those texts do nothing to place Hatshepsut in any chronological time frame.

A. Hatshepsut does not appear in a 19th Dynasty kinglist. She was one of the excoriated ones, memory suppressed.

B. It must have worked because Manetho does not mention Hatshepsut by any of her names. It may have been that there was some memory of such a person in the folklore but...evidently not specific enough. The plain truth is that nobody in the era Manetho lived had any idea of the year of Hatshepsu's accession. In fact, nobody could be sure what year it was at all. All anybody knew was what reign he was born in and perhaps the year of the reign. There was no Anno Domini because Jesus wasn't going to be born for yet another three centuries or so. Time, that is BC time is calculated retrospectively from there by one means or another. Mostly by astronomical means and now such wonders as carbon dating have been added. The latter is very much against your theory, I'm afraid. Is it really the year 2009 AD now? Some say even that's debatable. Besides, 2009 is only a Christian year. Other religions have their own years but are forced to use the Christian reckoning in order to have a "default date" ever since the world shrunk and people got about much better than they used to.

C. Nobody even knows what year of the reign of Thutmosis III she made herself pharaoh. There is even disagreement there. Most of the modern scholars you object to opt for Year 7. What year Anno Mundi would that be? Well, there are the terms "High, Middle and Low". You are way out of the ballpark and justify your date on the flimsiest of bases. Simply put, there is no justification at all. You cannot cram everything that occurred after Hatshepsut into a thousand years prior to the Christian Era. In fact, by your own reckoning, Christ has yet to be born.





  • Hatshepsut's AccessionCullom, Fri Feb 27 18:45
    Hello A. Gordon, I prefer to rely on the information from ancient Egypt rather than the calculations of modern scholars. The genealogies of the TIP, the inscriptions of the 19th dynasty and Manetho... more
    • Re: Hatshepsut's Accession — Monkton, Sat Feb 28 02:32
      • Hatshepsut's AccessionCullom, Sat Feb 28 09:16
        Hello, While it is true that Hatshepsut is not mentioned by subsequent 'dynasties', the total structure of Egyptian evidence, incuding the lack of any evidence for the alleged years 10-20 of Ramesses ... more
        • Re: Hatshepsut's AccessionMonkton, Sat Feb 28 10:39
          "While it is true that Hatshepsut is not mentioned by subsequent 'dynasties', the total structure of Egyptian evidence, incuding the lack of any evidence for the alleged years 10-20 of Ramesses II,... more
          • Hatshepsut's AccessionCullom, Sat Feb 28 13:24
            Hello, You are thinking backward here. If the TIP is shorter, by about 175 years, then it must have begun later, not 'when it began'. The TIP is securely connected to later periods, which are... more
            • Re: Hatshepsut's AccessionMonkton, Sun Mar 1 01:28
              "You are thinking backward here. If the TIP is shorter, by about 175 years, then it must have begun later, not 'when it began'. The TIP is securely connected to later periods, which are securely... more
              • Hatshepsut's accessionCullom, Sun Mar 1 10:36
                Hello again, I don't know where to begin with my response. I don't like evidence bashing. I prefer to read the inscriptions and evidence as it written. You say that Twosret and Siptah are mentioned... more
                • Re: Hatshepsut's accessionMonkton, Sun Mar 1 23:51
                  'I don't know where to begin with my response. I don't like evidence bashing. I prefer to read the inscriptions and evidence as it written." Don't you mean as translated? "You say that Twosret and... more
                  • Re: Hatshepsut's accessionJoe Baker, Sat Apr 4 02:11
                    Hi Monkton I have just been doing some house cleaning and came across this old unfinished aborted post. It rehashes somem old material I posted before buy maybe it will be of interest. On Cullom -... more
                    • Hatshepsut's AccessionCullom, Sun Apr 5 09:45
                      Hello Joe, Madness? Please educate me about the inscriptions of Ramesses II that were actually inscribed during the period from year 10 to year 20. There are several inscriptions that refer back to... more
                  • Hatshepsut's AccessionCullom, Mon Mar 2 19:33
                    Hello, The description of Thuoris in Manetho section 19 says clearly that he was a man who had a wife. Saying the gender of the two people was wrong so they can be equated with Twosret and Siptah is... more
          • Re: Hatshepsut's AccessionMonkton, Sat Feb 28 10:51
            The correct spelling is Uluburun and it was a scarab of Nefertiti that was found, not a ring. Tests on firewood from the wreck revealed a date circa 1300 BC.
Click here to receive daily updates