Re: Hatshepsut's Accession
Sun Mar 1, 2009 01:28 (XFF:

"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."

I haven't noticed any universal agreement that the TIP ought to be shortened by 175 years. But you speak of that as a certainty.

"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."

That may be, but it is evident that the ideas of Manetho and his copiers about the New Kingdom are probably the most muddled in the entire kinglist. The 18th Dynasty is replete with odd names, repetitions, and the 19th has King Seti I reigning for an impossible 55 years. For some reason, you're concerned about the lack of evidence for certain years in the reign of his successor, but don't seem worried about some four decades of absence of any "Egyptian texts" that mention those regnal years of Seti, let alone many that Manetho apparently attributed to Merneptah. I fail to comprehend your reliance upon Manetho for this entire era, given that he does not seem to have understood what was going on at the end of the 19th and doesn't go into any details about the 20th at all. So much for his New Kingdom.

"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."

That is quite an assumption regarding the reign of Ramesses II on your part. And your interpretation is faulty, IMO, regarding those 55 years because you already allow that Manetho gives 66 years for Ramesses. That is not very short of the mark of 68 years that Egyptologists accept.

" 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."

So say you, but as it happens Amenmesse succeeded Merneptah according to MANETHO and Seti II is not mentioned at all in his 19th.

"He was succeeded by his grandson Amenmesses."

Whose grandson? Nobody knows a blessed thing about Amenmesse for sure except that the 20th Dynasty regarded him as an illegal king, along with everybody else who appeared in the twilight years of the 19th Dynasty with the exception of Seti II.

"It is Siptah and Queen Twosret who are missing from the record of Manetho."

Actually, they are not. The problem is that Manetho assigns to them the wrong genders. God only knows what his source was there (probably a Greek one) but he couldn't possibly have had access to a kinglist which included them. Personae non grata. All he seems to have known for certain is that these reigned around the time of the Trojan Wars, which is certainly possible.

"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."

I would suggest you take your own advice and refrain from making so many suppositions, besides.

"One source of the problems with the Egyptian chronology is the effort to force the evidense to fit a BC scheme."

I don't see that happening. But Egyptian history didn't exist in a vacuum. The timeline of the rest of the Ancient Near East must be taken into consideration, as well. To have Hatshepsut's accession around 1,000 BC, which is your own scheme, one would think you would advocate for compressing the following reigns, but you appear to want to make some shorter and others longer with a kind of baffling methodology. Moreover, you seem to have little or no respect for careful scholarship spanning about a century. True scholarship tends to be on the conservative side and avoids assumptions and guesswork when possible. Too much of the of latter on the parts of too many people make for a muddled mess and serves the truth but little.

"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."

I'm afraid to ask just whom you would identify with Shishak but, regardless, there is that pesky other ANE history, which must also give a timeline for the kings of Judah and Israel, some of them appearing in primary sources, i.e. texts of their enemies.

"The problems with that identification have been discussed at length on this forum and on NC forum."

Resulting in exactly what firm and irrefutable conclusions?

"While the scientists who actually do the radio-carbon process may not have a preferred chronology, the Egyptologists who submit the samples do."

It doesn't seem to me that you are exempt from this business of having a "preferred chronology", so why point a finger at others, alluding to some sort of scholarly corruption on their parts, some kind of blindness to the truth?

" They wish to have the tests conform to the dates which were in place long before the C-14 process dating method was developed."

What for? History isn't a horse race where one places a bet on some filly and maybe sabotages the other nags in order to win a big payoff. If carbon dating reveals a discrepancy in some accepted chronological structure, what profit would there be for any historian, archaeologist to want to poo-poo that? Some things are written in stone but the body of knowledge is mutable and must be for any advances to be made.

"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."

And placing Hatshepsut at ca. 1000 BC isn't an adjustment? It's a pretty radical one, IMO, and based on some kind of "curve", too, all depending on what one scholar called the "graveyard" of Egyptian chronology, that TIP so near and dear to would-be revisionists. And not to leave out Manetho, who didn't get it one bit better than those Egyptologists you frown on as far as anybody has been able to see (excluding yourself)and probably a good deal worse. Cullom, I have read some of your posts here out of curiosity and was struck by the fact that people rarely agree with you on much of anything. Is it just a coincidence? Peace unto you, but your narrow viewpoint makes me feel that further discussion with you is pointless.

  • 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 Accession — Monkton, Sun Mar 1 01:28
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates