Cullom
Hatshepsut's Accession
Wed Apr 8, 2009 23:30
24.162.196.33 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

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 el-Kelb stela was originally read by Lepsius and de Rouge as year 2, but has been interpreted since then to year 10 based on the content. Schmidt mentions that it describes the king differently than the Gizeh fragment which does not mention any specific deeds and is not complete. The basis for redating is suspect since it decides that Ramesses must have waited until that time to campaign in Nubia without any other chronological evidence.
The year 16 Apis Bull is a commemorative date of the Bull previous to that buried in year 30 and is not an inscription from year 16.
The Beth-Shean stela is often dated to year 18 but even though Schmidt admits the position of the '10' is awkward he prefers 18 rather than 9. Kitchen's pages about the stela are uncritical. Rowe, who seems to have the publisher, read it as 9. I have been informed by Prof. Weggener of Univ Pennsylvania that is now so badly worn as to be unreadable.
The year 11 is dated only to the 19th dynasty by Schmidt.
The year 14 stela of Paser is a commemorative date and may have actually been inscribed in the Late Period, judging by the names and the oracular nature of the text.
The graffiti of years 14 and 18 are not included by Schmidt.
The year 19 Deir el-Medineh ostracon 31 does not contain a complete name, but only User.. Re.., so it could be dated paleographically to either RII or RIII, so it is not a certain inscription from RII.
Schmidt also does not include the year papyrus. I shall look into it.
The important point here is that all the other years of Ramesses II are well documented and quite clear about the date and king. It is the period from 10 to 20 that is not.
I have said many times that we should read the various transmission of Manetho as a whole rather than as separate and differing versions. When you do so, the sequence of kings matches what we know from the inscriptions and the length of the reigns can be matched with what we know from the Egyptian records. In fact, the Manethonian version will even match with the Hittite synchronisms which you have discussed at length.
I shall try again to send you the brief in which I summarize Book Two of the Epitome. My primary source for the variations is Waddell's work.
The names for the kings and queens in Manetho are derived from either the prenomen or nomen, with the choice being inconsistent. But the name elements can be found within the cartouches. I suspect that the 3rd Cent. BC scribes which translated for Manetho were not truly fluent in the hieroglyphs and read the names differently than we now read them. That is why Thutmosis I was Tethmosis while Thutmosis IV was Thumosis and Thutmosis III was Mefres (derived from Menkheperre). Merynptah became Amenophis because of the HOTEP element in his nomen.
The name Thuoris ( the root of much discord) I now see as Thut Hor based on the way other names were Hellenized. It is possible this actually referred to TIT kheperre HOR Pesibkenno of the 21st dynasty.
I have no argument with your interpretation of Hatshepsut's full name. I say that the Amensis derives from the Amun element in her nomen. Manetho also says she was sister of the previous king, which wasn't the Amenophis but Chebron. That was short for Kheperrenre Thutmosis II.
More later,
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 Accession — Cullom, Wed Apr 8 23:30
Click here to receive daily updates