Cullom
Hatshepsut's Accession
Sat Feb 28, 2009 13:24
24.162.196.33 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

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 securely connected to our own. There cannot be a gap between them and the later period cannot be forced to begin earlier.
The earlier periods must also have begun later, unless you wish to have a dark age with no evidence to show an Ancient Egypt existed between the 19th dynasty and the 21st dynasty.
The evidence of Manetho and the evidence of the Egyptian inscriptions shows that the New Kingdom was much shorter than allowed by the standard chronology. As for specific evidence, it has been discussed many times on this forum and on the NC forum.
As for the dates of Ramesses II. He seems to have made an historical adjustment to his official record which converted what would have been his year 10/11 into year 21. This is attestd by the absence of records for the years in question and by the information from Manetho that tell us that Ramesses II reigned for 66 years by only 55 years elapsed from the end of Seti I to the end of Ramesses II. Merneptah was certainly not missing from the record of Manetho, since he is described as reigning for a total of 40 years, beginning in the 55th year of his father and ending with 9 years as co-regent with his son Seti II. He was succeeded by his grandson Amenmesses. It is Siptah and Queen Twosret who are missing from the record of Manetho.
When you are looking at the evidence we have of Manetho, look at all of it. Do not cherrypick it like some sort of Chinese menu, with one from column A and one from column B as most Egyptologists seem wont to do.
One source of the problems with the Egyptian chronology is the effort to force the evidense to fit a BC scheme. The scheme in place dates to the erroneous identification of Biblical Shishak with Egyptian Shoshenk I and the date of 925 BC for year 21 of Shoshenk I. The problems with that identification have been discussed at length on this forum and on NC forum.
While the scientists who actually do the radio-carbon process may not have a preferred chronology, the Egyptologists who submit the samples do. They wish to have the tests conform to the dates which were in place long before the C-14 process dating method was developed. Look into the structure of the calibration curves and see for yourself how much leeway there is for correlating a raw date with a 'calibrated' date. The calibrated dates should not be trusted. There is just too much statistical adjustment involved.
Cullom

  • 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 Accession — Cullom, Sat Feb 28 13:24
      • 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