Hatshepsut's Accession
Sun Apr 5, 2009 09:45 (XFF:

Hello Joe,
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 years numbered less than 21, but they are commemorative dates counted back from years later. I do not have my own copy of KRI, but I do have Schmidt's compendium of the relevant inscriptions. He allows only the Beth Shean stela as definitively dated to the period in question, but even that stela is properly dated to year 9. The alleged 10 in the damaged spot would be in the wrong place for a 10.
I DO NOT say that Ramesses II reigned for only 55 years. I say that he reigned for 55 years after the death of Seti. He claimed (and Manetho shows) that he began his reign from the end of the reign of Ramesses I. He made the change from counting from the death of Seti I to counting from the end of Ramesses I during his year 10.
By the way, in an earlier post you mentioned another scholar who had deduced that the reign of Hattushilis must have ended in the 30th or 31st year of Ramesses II, while you countered that it Tudhaliash could not have succeeded before year 42 of Ramesses II. These views, each of which has strong merits, are easily reconciled by admitting the change of year counting I propose.
You insist on adhering to the notion that what we have of Manetho's 'Epitome Aegyptiaca' is rife with garbled transmissions and outright errors. I say that it is not. I say that Book Two begins in 1996 BC with the advent of the 12th dynasty and continues to the end of the 19th. It mentions all but three kings and queens of the New Kingdom in order as known from the inscriptions of Ancient Egypt. There is no need for the complications of any 'grid system' with ups, downs, or back and forths. The one apparent bit of confusion is the name Amenophis after Chebron (Thutmosis II). I think this happened because the reign of Amenhotep I (also called Misphramuthosis) was of the same duration as the age of Thutmosis III when he succeded Hatshepsut.
Hatshepsut is named as a queen in her own right (Amensis or Amessis). This name is derived from reading her nomen as Amun Henem. She was sister of the preceding king. Eusebius omitted her name.
The only kings or queens omitted by the entire list are Ay, Twosret and Siptah.
I must admit I am disappointed that, as an Australian, you still seem to subscribe to the notion that educated Europeans must by definition know more about Ancient Egypt than the ancient Egyptians themselves. Perhaps you might find the time to make a list of all the 'scribal errors' among the ancient inscriptions that are necessary to make the evidence fit the theory.
I refer especially to the TIP, where it seems the ancient Egyptians did not know their own families, what their fathers and grandfathers did for a living, or even how to write the name of the reigning king.
Would you ever claim that a chemical process did not work as expected because the elements involved did not know how to behave properly? This is what Egyptologists have been claiming for over 100 years. Their theory is right, the evidence is wrong.

  • 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 Accession — Cullom, Sun Apr 5 09:45
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates