Marianne Luban
Re: Dahamunza Again
Thu Jul 13, 2017 23:23
97.126.142.155

I wrote:

Look at Tory's old post:

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12412;search_term=

There doesn't seem to be so much consistency in how the prenomen of Amunhotep III was written by the Babylonians. Maybe "Nibḫurrereya" was intended "Nebmaare".

-----------------

But tonight I was thinking some more about this and concluded that what I said above cannot be the answer. From everything that we know, "nb" was vocalized "nib" and "nfr" as "nafeh" [final /r/ dropped as the British do, for one]. Nobody can say that these two words were pronounced anything alike. However this


Nibḫurrereya EA 9:1 from Burna-Buriyaš of Karaduniyaš

is not Amunhotep III. It is an erroneous writing for the prenomen of Akhenaten, Neferkheperure. People don't like to see errors in the texts but they do exist [and I can offer examples] because they were written by humans. This error occurred for the same reason that a scribe in the Memphite tomb of Mes gave Horemheb a Year 59--because that was the date of the reign of Ramesses II when this text was composed and that was what the scribe had been writing all that year so far. Force of habit.

"Nibḫurrereya" was the result of the same. Someone got confused between the prenomen of the old king and this new one. Therefore, he got the prenomen of Akhenaten only partly correct. "nb" was written instead of "nfr". It was not an error based on pronunciation but sheer habit. That the pharaoh was a new correspondent is also indicated in EA 9 because he receives a lecture about the history of the relations between Babylon and Egypt. But that certainly does not mean that Akhenaten was the king who had just died prior to the Dahamunza affair. That was Tutankhamun plain and simple. Because prior to his becoming king, everyone had gotten into the habit of writing "Neferkheperure" a decade since. This is the most logical explanation.

  • Re: Dahamunza AgainAnonymous, Thu Jul 13 09:59
    Look at Tory's old post: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12412;search_term = There doesn't seem to be so much consistency in how the prenomen of Amunhotep III was written ... more
    • Re: Dahamunza Again — Marianne Luban, Thu Jul 13 23:23
      • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Sat Jul 15 07:42
        Hi Marianne Nibḫurrereya EA 9:1 from Burna-Buriyaš of Karaduniyaš is not Amunhotep III. It is an erroneous writing for the prenomen of Akhenaten, Neferkheperure. So you agree that EA 9 was... more
        • Re: Dahamunza AgainRobert Killian, Sun Jul 30 00:24
          Hi Marianne & Joe Baker, I too have, exactly like Joe,---1457BCE, for 22 year Thutmose III. I have 1792BCE, minus 42 years to 1750BCE, for Hammuribi I. If this proves to be true,---"Middle... more
          • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 30 10:16
            Robert wrote: "I too have, exactly like Joe,---1457BCE, for 22 year Thutmose III. I have 1792BCE, minus 42 years to 1750BCE, for Hammuribi I. If this proves to be true,---"Middle Chronology",---just... more
            • Re: Dahamunza AgainRobert Killian, Mon Jul 31 00:49
              Oops! Marianne,---you are right! Meddigo and not Kadesh! The battle was at Kadesh. I still go with Joe! 1457BCE. The rest of my "post" remains. Hammurabi reference just establishes Nimrod's 'defeat'... more
        • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 16 09:38
          I wrote: "Nibḫurrereya EA 9:1 from Burna-Buriyaš of Karaduniyaš is not Amunhotep III. It is an erroneous writing for the prenomen of Akhenaten, Neferkheperure." Joe: "So you agree that EA 9 was ... more
          • Re: Dahamunza AgainJoe Baker, Tue Jul 18 07:05
            Hi Marianne If the addressee had been Amunhotep III, I doubt any "ancestors" would have been mentioned because all this diplomacy probably didn't go back any farther than the reign of Thutmose IV.... more
            • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 18 09:41
              Joe wrote, quoting Chris Bennett: "Mean date of inundation ("plenitude"): August 17 (corresponding to August 13 at Thebes)" There is something wrong with this. In my research the first signs of the... more
              • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Wed Jul 19 09:42
                Moreover, my High Chronology agrees with the math set forth by Eusebius in his "Chronicon" [via St. Jerome] and Robert Killian should pay close attention to this. I now believe I have solved the... more
                • Re: DahamunzaRobert Killian, Thu Jul 20 03:12
                  Marianne, You can rest assured that I am paying close attention, to this, your latest attempt to reconstruct this portion of History. I can also assure you that, as you should know by now, that... more
                  • Re: DahamunzaMarianne Luban, Thu Jul 20 10:12
                    Robert: "You can rest assured that I am paying close attention, to this, your latest attempt to reconstruct this portion of History." It is at least partly history as the math calculates backwards... more
                    • re: MosesRich McQuillen, Fri Jul 21 22:40
                      Hi Marianne, We are in agreement with your reading, and that your reading is in alignment with Standard Biblical Chronology. ***** I don't subscribe to standard Biblical Chronology, with the cut off... more
        • Re: DahmamunzaRobert Killian, Sun Jul 16 00:56
          Hi Joe & Marianne, I must go with Joe on his 1457BC, 'date' for Thutmose III 22/23. In that year: 2435AM, 1326CJ/BC, +131yrs = 1457BC, 'actual'. In that year, I have 'posted' several other historical ... more
Click here to receive daily updates