Cullom
Hatshepsut's Accession
Sat Feb 28, 2009 09:16
24.162.196.33 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

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 II, the genealogies of the TIP, and the unaltered carbon dates mean that the New Kingdom, Hatshepsut included, occurred much later than the OC wishes to believe. None of this evidence relies on BC or AD dates. In fact, it is based solely on Egyptian inscriptions.
The C-14 dates are 'calibrated' by comparing the raw dates to a very ambiguous tree ring calibration curve. This curve has so many kinks, and such broad error margins that a raw date can be pushed around until a date that matches the preferred chronology is found. This calibration method is not objective. It is built on too many assumptions and ignores the built in error of dating decadal blocks of rings and the statistical manipulations used to build the tree ring sequences and place the averaged dates on the curves.
Cullom

  • Re: Hatshepsut's AccessionMonkton, Sat Feb 28 02:32
    "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... more
    • Hatshepsut's Accession — Cullom, Sat Feb 28 09:16
      • 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