Joe Baker
Re: Hatshepsut's accession
Sat Apr 4, 2009 02:11 (XFF:

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 - frustrating isn't he. By now you are aware of his "unique" ideas. It appears his chronology of Egypt is based purely on Manetho - or at least his own interpretation of the various versions of Manetho. But he has set out to gather translations of the original inscriptions and has amassed some good material. But surprise, the more he gets, the more he convinces himself that he is right and they are wrong. Throw him example after example and he will dismiss them - if they contradict his reading of the Manetho versions.

Take for example his Manetho inspired idea that Ramesses 2 did not reign 66 years because his reading of the Manetho sources convinces him that Ramesses reign lasted only 55 years. So his solution is to have Ramesses seemingly skip years 11 to 20 by renumbered them as years 21 to 30, and so on. In effect he says there can be no Ramesses documents dated by years 11 to 20 - madness in the face of records that are actually dated by these years. But, of course, he dismisses this evidence simply because it goes against his model. Madness also in the face of external synchromisms - i.e. Ramesses 2 defeated by the Hittites at Qadesh in year 5 and (in Cullom's scheme) six years later (i.e. year 11 = year 21) he signed a treaty with them. Any reading of the contemporary Hittite records would dispel that idea - but not for Cullom. What use is a contemporary record against the writings of Manetho who wrote his work some 900 years later (and whose works are only partially preserved in extracts by authors working some 300 to 500 years later).

By the way Manetho's source do record Hatshepsut - just under a title rather than a name. See former discussions, particularly on the matrix solution for the first 6 rulers (including Hatshepsut under the title, King's wife). Also check out my former posts which argued that Manetho (or his sources) have confused two earlier king lists. (Yes I too, like Cullom, have a sort of Manetho theory). One list (List 1) listed Ahmose to Ramesses 3 while the second list (List 2) began with Seti 1. Due to an earlier transmission error, in the first king list (List 1) Seti 1 had fallen out, leaving only Seti 2. Later these two kings lists were melded together but with the resultant mis-identification of Seti 1 (List 2) = Seti 2 (list 1). I also argue that one of Manetho's story, the one which includes Moses, was an amalgamation of various story elements including Akhenaten's rule and the expulsion of Asiatics by Setnakhte. Josephus' listing shows that Manetho placed the "Moses exodus" in Setnakht's reign, but named him Amenophis which was Josephus' rendition of Merenptah/Amenophath (for the amalgamated list had identified Setnakht with Merenptah and Manetho preferred to use the name Merenptah in these stories rather than Setnakht).

Here is how it works

                         |    LIST 1                         LIST 2
| Ahmose | 1 Amosis 25.04 | |
| Amenhotep 1 | 3 Amenophis 20.07 | |
| Aakhprkare Tuthmose 1 | 5 Mephres 12.09 | |
| Aakhprnre Tuthmose 2 | 2 Khebron 13.00 | |
| Hatshepsut (Hmt-nsw) | 4 Amessis 21.09 | |
| Mnkhpre Thutmose 3 | 6 Mephramuthosis missing | |
| Amenhotep 2 | ------- missing 25.10 | |
| Tuthmose 4 | 7 Thmosis 9.08 | |
| Amenhotep 3 | 8 Amenophis 30.10 | |
| Wanre Akhenaten | 9 Oros 36.05 | |
| Ankhkhprure Nfrnfruatn | 10 Akenkheres 12.01 | |
| Tutankhamun | 11 Rathotis 9.00 | |
| Khprkhprure Ay | 12 Khebres/Akenkheres 12.05 | |
| {Ay again} | 13 Akherres/Akenkheres 12.03 | |
| Horemhab | 14 Harmais 4.01 | |
| Ramesses 1 | 15 Ramesses 1.04 | |
| Set1 1 | ------- missing missing | |
| Ramesses 2 Meriamen | 16 Armesses Miamen 66.02 | |
| Merenptah | 17 Amenophis/Amenophath 19.06 | |
| Seti 2 | 18 Sethos = 1 Sethos 59 | Seti 1 |
| Ramesses Siptah | 19 Rampses = 2 Rampses 66 | Ramesses 2 |
| Setnakht | 20 Amenophis = 3 Ammenephthes 20 | Merenptah |
| Ramesses 3 | 21 Sethos called Ramesses = 4 Ramesses 60 | Seti 2 |
| | 5 Ammenemes 5 | Amenmes |
| | 6 Thuoris 7 | Tauser/Siptah |

So in Manetho's final version Ramesses 2 occurs twice, once as Armesses Miamen and once as Rampses. Merenptah likewise, once as Amenophath (Amenophis in Josephus) and once as Amenephthes (also labelled Amenophis by Josephus) - and, as above, stories about Setnakht were subsummed under this name). In addition at some stage in the transmission of List 1 the names of Amenhotep 2 and Seti 1 have fallen out and Ay has been duplicated. In the case of Amenhotep it was due to a copyist's eye missing a line - after copying Tuthmose 3's name, his eye went back and picked up Amenhotep's reign length, thereby missing out Tuthmose's reign length and the name of Amenhotep 2 and as a result Tuthmose 3 ended up with Amenhotep 2's reign length. List 1 also did not include Amenmes (as in fact he was only a rebel king during the middle of the reign of Seti 2) and also ignored the reign of Tauser (probably subsuming it into Siptah's reign). On the other hand List 2 (a more "up-market gossip column" list?) included the reign of Amenmes but ignored that of Siptah by subsuming it all into Tauser's reign. Okay that all very complicated (and off the main discussion) - but that's how I see Manetho.

Regards Joe

  • 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 accession — Joe Baker, Sat Apr 4 02:11
      • 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