Monkton
Re: Hatshepsut's Accession
Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:39
75.133.148.82 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

"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."

Something escapes me. What does the absence of dates on some monument or document for certain lower years of Ramesses II signify when later years are attested? Manetho, himself, assigns a very long reign. Surely you must believe, in any event, in a Year One AD or any dating is impossible by that reckoning. Therefore, even if the TIP is shorter, that only affects the years prospectively toward AD, not retrospectively. The TIP still began when it began, whether it lasted for a longer or shorter time. In order for the TIP to have begun later, you have to find justification for the previous reigns to have begun later, as well, and you have thus far given no reason why you think they did.

" None of this evidence relies on BC or AD dates. In fact, it is based solely on Egyptian inscriptions."

None of which supply a date Anno Mundi! Added to which we don't actually know how long some of the reigns of the kings of Egypt lasted. If Years 10-20 of Ramesses II are missing mention, why isn't it possible for years of his successor, Merneptah, to be missing from the record? How do we know this king didn't rule another decade?

"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."

Isn't that rather an exaggeration? The margin is really not that great or ambiguous and scientists don't have preferred chronologies. Carbon dating seeks results and doesn't serve anybody's preferences. Be serious. What is the point of carbon dating at all if the idea is to manipulate it? I really don't know about any carbon testing from the period of Hatshepsut but I am aware of tests regarding a later era, the Amarna time, including the Illuburun (not sure of that spelling) shipwreck, whose cargo included a golden ring bearing the name of Nefertiti. The results there tend to agree and are nowhere near where you would like to place that era.


  • 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 Accession — Monkton, Sat Feb 28 10:39
      • 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
                  • To Cullom, Wade, Gordon, Monkton and The Rest, Some of you say: "We all know that assigning absolute dates is controversial", or say: "I prefer to rely on the information from ancient Egypt rather... more
                    • Hatshepsut's AccessionCullom, Fri Apr 10 20:53
                      Hello Waael ebn Fekry, Is there any publication of the interesting event you described? Have the dating tests been done? If so what were the results? Cullom
                  • Re: Hatshepsut's AccessionJoe Baker, Wed Apr 8 22:09
                    Hi Cullom Please educate me about the inscriptions of Ramesses II that were actually inscribed during the period from year 10 to year 20 I do not have sufficient resources for that information but... more
                    • Hatshepsut's AccessionCullom, Wed Apr 8 23:30
                      Hello Joe, Thank you for a prompt reply on a difficult matter. In the excerpts of I have seen of KRI, Kitchen is uncritical of the inscriptions but only copies and translates them. The year 10 Nahr... 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