Hatshepsut's Accession
Mon Mar 2, 2009 19:33 (XFF:

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 evidence bashing. Describing it as such is not petulance. If the usual transition from Egyptian name to Hellenized name is followed, Thuoris would becomd Thut Hor.
When I say that I read the inscriptions as written means I find the inscriptions and read them, with the aid of a dictionary and grammar.
Are you familiar with the memorial statues of the TIP?
If you read them for yourself, you will see that they do not match the published interpretations as found in Kitchen's TIPE and in some cased Bierbrier's LNKE. One mustn't blame Kitchen for the goofs since he relies on his cited sources.
Those sources distorted the genealogies by adding imaginary generations to CGC 42219 and 42212, assuming the author of 42224 did not know how to write the name of the current king and reading statue 717 inside out. These distortions had powerful ripple effects on the interpretations of many other inscriptions and created a culture of very old fathers and merging several different persons into one and splitting some others into two or more.
The apparent 50 year gap in the record and sequence of HPA's and the apparent 50 year gap in the record and sequence of HPM's is caused by the distorted genealogies, as is the 80 year gap in the record and sequence of GWA's.
Gaps in the sequence of 3PA's are less discussed, but still present. The shortage of 4PA's during the 21st dynasty was created by flawed genealogical constructions, not by a lack of data or priests.
These problems were created by bashing evidence to make it fit an awkward theory instead of building the theory from the evidence.

  • 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 Accession — Cullom, Mon Mar 2 19:33
Click here to receive daily updates