Cullom
Hatshepsut's accession
Sun Mar 1, 2009 10:36
24.162.196.33 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

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 in Manetho but are assigned the wrong genders. This is a common and shameful example of bashing. You pick a bit of evidence and change it to suit your needs! You are not the first to do that. I know Gardiner did so over 50 years ago. This sort of thing has been done too many times. Even on this forum, the dates of Manetho have been 'corrected' to fit the theories. The primary assumptions is that if Manetho does not seem to fit a modern chronological construct Manetho is wrong, not the modern idea.
If you review the genealogies of the TIP and read the analysis of them published by the careful sholars, you will see many such things. Any such inscription that does not fit the prevailing theory has been declared a 'scribal error' then 'corrected' to make it fit the theory. The assumption from the careful scholars is that the ancient Egyptians did not know their own families or how to spell the current king's name.
The 'careful scholarship' to which you refer is really over 100 years of repeating the errors of Champollion and Legrain.
Where is the inscription in which the later kings of the 19th dynasty are referred to as illegal?
We know the name of Amenmesses mother, Takhat, was the same as a wife of Seti II and that Seti II was the son of Merneptah. It is not unanimous that the two women were the same person, but Amenmesses had some claim to the throne and made it stick well enough to be mentioned in the chronicles used by Manetho.
Modern scholars, especially Egyptologists, do have a sense of being in a horse race, in which they want their theory to win. So constraints are placed on C-14 calibrations and astronomical dating calculations in order to make the results fit the theory.
Try setting up a chronology for the NK using only the raw dates from C-14 samples. I am now collecting that sort of data. A cursory examination shows the raw dates are closer to 1100 BC than to 1500 BC for that period.
The basic chronology being protected by careful scholars was derived by trying to make directs correlations between the Bible and the newly translated Egyptian texts. When further work showed that the correlations, such as the Exodus taking place during the 19th dynasty, were not tenable, the Bible was declared to be defective and the modern dates were declared correct. It was just not possible that modern European scholars, with their advanced degrees from the finest European universities, could be wrong when compared to the backward ignorant ancient people of Judah and Israel.
Cullom

  • 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 accession — Cullom, Sun Mar 1 10:36
      • 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