From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #214 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Sunday, August 1 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 214 ane Egyptian transcription. RE: ane ? Chronology - Part I RE: ane ? Chronology - Part II Re: ane Liver Re: ane ? Chronology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:38:01 +1200 From: "Don Mills" Subject: ane Egyptian transcription. In his paper, "Hatshepsut, Queen of Sheba, and Immanuel Velikovsky", David Lorton writes: « It would be worthwhile at this point to look more closely at the Egyptian word “Punt,” which is spelled pwnt in the consonantal system of the hieroglyphic script. The final “t” is not part of the “root” of the word, but rather the consonantal part of a grammatical ending showing that the word is of feminine gender; for the most part, names of countries are grammatically feminine in ancient Egyptian. This “t” actually ceased to be pronounced well before the New Kingdom, indeed probably as early as the Old Kingdom, though the Egyptians tended to retain historical spellings, much as we do in English, and the “t” continued to be written as a clear marker of feminine gender. The “root” (this is a technical term) of the word is thus pwn ». In that case, should Egyptian PLST be interpreted as "PELES" rather than as "PELESET"? Or is there a typographical or grammatical difference of form not obvious in transcription? Regards Don Mills Wellington New Zealand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:31:10 +0200 From: Jaap Titulaer Subject: RE: ane ? Chronology - Part I { My answer to Chris Bennet's post apparently never arrived, possibly because it's too long. So I'm resending it in two parts, this is part I. } Chris, On sunday 25 juli 1999 1:49, Chris Bennett [SMTP:cbennett@adnc.com] wrote: > This responds to Jaap Titulaer's comments and pretty much exhausts what I > know of developments on the Egyptian side of this debate. -- Chris > To anticipate: Rohl's "replies" to Kitchen and Brissaud need to be treated > with at least as much care as he suggests you need to treat their original > critiques (unfortunately, with some justification). The debate between the > principals has too easily descended into polemic, and its not good enough > for any student of it just to read the diatribes by the protagonists -- on > either side. You're right of course, which is partly why I included the links to Rohl's site, so anyone can see for himself. The other side hasn't been so nice either though, which was the other reason. For example the weird reference to 'a certain Sothic date wich utterly destroys their/his case' has been used on and on, but then appear to be not relevant and misleading. The first one I heard of was a quote to a mysterious sighting of Sothis somewhere in the Western desert, which later appeared nonsense and irrelevant, because it doesn't even contain a reference to a king. So misleading? Sure. The second one was another certainty, that absolutly destroys the case of both James and Rohl. But what do we get? A floodlevel or receding flood. Which, as you say, has a very high standard deviation (floodmaximum: between 28.8 and 31.10 according to von Beckerath [97; p.51], two (2) months!).. That's apart from the deviation of the start of the flood to maximum, or from the end of the maximum to the end of it. The deviations used are apparently not based on a set of statistical samples, so we have to use much broader estimates to get anything like a statistical liklyhood. So when von Beckerath says: Merenptah (Y1-3) falls between 1345-1085 (var. used is 260 years), we have to take even that with a piece of salt. Whether he is correct or whether it's even greater, depends on the actual standard deviation and observed average of the phenonemen. Now a second problem with these Graffiti, these 'Nile-sightings', is that it's contested what exactly the observed event was. Rohl claims that Janssen assumed the wrong event, and therefore his figures are way off. To which you replied that Rohl is misquoting Kitchen (he thinks it a floodmaximum). And von Beckerath is also adamant that the event in question is a floodmaximum. Now Rohl is implying that people are still using the wrong figures, they simply still use Janssens. As I can't check what Kitchen actually said, let's check von Beckerath (see below). Using von Beck's Sothic tables, his Graffiti, and his data on floodmaxima, what do we get? It seems that he is still using Janssen's figures... The floodmaximum occurs between 28.8 and 30.10 (Julian), ergo average is 29.9. Observation is dated to month III, so we look in the table for 1.III and Julian date 27.9, we get 1361 BC, we need to add 2*4 years because we need 29.9, gives 1369 BC. We correct for the day, which is 3.III, not 1.III, then we have 1361 as our midpoint. Then we use the variation given by vB (+/-130): 1491 BC - 1231 BC for this inscription dated to year 1, 3.III of Merenptah. You see the difference with 1345-1085? Conclusion: It would indeed seem that people now see it as a floodmaximum, but at least one (vB.) is still using the wrong figures. By the way using your variance of +/- 140 years could almost work: 1501-1221 and 1213 (or 1212) is year 1 of Merenptah (...). But we are now beyond the absolute extreme of the range! Is this perhaps an unique event? We also (vB. says) have one in year 2, same date. They may be not unique, they are certainly extreme. Are we sure these are floodmaxima? Are we sure our average's & deviations are correct? Can we trust these observations (apparently not made by Egyptian officials). The conclusion would seem obvious: either these are extrema (twice), or the events in question are not floodmaxima, but e.g. the end of the flood, or the observers are less than accurate. And any 'flooddate' with a month II in it, how about that? We have Rohl alledging that the inscription (for Merenptah) actually gives that, and vB gives another inscription, belonging to Merenptah, which Spiegelberg had as 'year 2, day 3, month II ?'. Von Beck. assigns one other 'flooddate' to Ramesses II, but apparently he is still using Janssens figures (R.II year 22, 5.II: between 1457-1158 [p.53]) Okay: 1.II + 29.9 is in 1481+8; correct for four days(-16): 1473 as our midpoint!; this gives a range of 1603-1343, clearly wrong for Ramesses II (yet which other king of those days reign's that long, only R.II has a year 22 in D19?). To get to the days of Ramesses II we need a variation of at least +/-200 years (1673-1273), or better we use a variation of +/- 240 days and we have a range of 1713-1233 and year 22 of Ramesses II can indeed fall between that. Of course if any month 'II' inscription does belong to Merenptah, we have no change in hell that that's possible, which may very well be what Rohl was trying to proove. Conclusion: the variation used should be much larger, more in the range of +/240 years or even more, not +/-130 or even +/-140. (And that's assuming we the right event etc.) > You have to keep tying yourself back to the data and to its > significance. Okay, I should have checked my sources against Rohl's arguments, but given the huge margin of error, I really didn't care. I argued for a smaller reduction, and I hoped to show that the reaction by some to the idea's of James et.al. was, shall we say, less than scientific. > > Taking the evidence at face value, the reduction to D20 upto D25 is more > > likely > > in excess of 100 years, without the need for any large overlap between D21 > > and > > D22, which, as you so aptly stated, is indeed unlikely because we would > > then > > end up with too many overlapping priests. > > Well, the trouble with that is that you run right back into the Shishak > issue. If this is all that you can lower the TIP by, then you certainly > can't equate Shishak with any of the Ramessids. Leaving you back with > Shoshenq I, which says that whatever chronological games you play D22-D25 > have a net zero effect. At that point, if you really believe that post D21 > TIP chronology is too long you must proceed by attacking the Biblical > framework upon which the invasion of Shishak is dated. I now quote from a post by me last year:"Shoshenk I's campaign in Palestine is against the wrong Jewish kingdom, if one want to identify him with Shishak. Shoshenk campaigns against the North, naming only one of the fortified towns of the south, whereas Shishak is an ally of the North and attacks the South" On top of that, Jerusalem, the center of the campaign of Shishak, is missing from the campaignlist of Shoshenq. People might say, "maybe they forgot it, as they didn't deem it important". Yet the same people who claim that, claim that D22 suddenly got very rich from this campaign.. So one might say: " a copyists error, somehow Jerusalem was ommitted" But so are all (but one) of the fortied towns between the attacker and Jerusalem. It takes too much imagination for me to have a general (in his right mind) going into the central hillcountry, somehow around these towns which block (almost) any route, without taking out these fortified towns in his rear. So that leaves us with the likeness of names Shshk and Shshnk, or according to some actually Shshk and Ssnk, because of the change to the Sh between Egyptian and Semetic languages like Hebrew ("Susink"). And because I think the total reduction is more in line of ca. 150 years, see below, we may still have a Ramesses (in this case Ramesses XI, not Ramesses III as James et.al. propose, or Ramesses II as Rohl would have it) to take the role of Sesi or "Sesi the Crusher" (doesn't the Hebrew root "sh-sh-q", mean "to crush or to pound"? I once read that, on this list I think). In general, whatever the considerations above, I simply don't think the "Shishak" argument strong enough to soley bear the heavy weight of the chronology of the ANE or as a good opposition to all the problems it creates throughout ANE and the Mediterranean. > > > > In my opinion CoD most seriously challenges the standard doctrine on two > > points: > > 1. In a broader view something is amiss, upto the tune of 250 years. > > 2. As a case in point D22-D25 can be reconstructed in such a way that a > > reduction > > by some 75 years is in order. > > > > There main point is therefore not the alleged total overlap between D21 > and > > D22, > > as is often alledged and attacked. That is not neccesary for their point 1 > > to stick. > > James et.al point to some anomalies for the period before D22, but don't > > give a > > reconstruction as they do for D22-D25. > > A reduction of D20, a small overlap between D21 and D22, and maybe a > > reduction to D21 will just do as nicely. > > Disagree, though perhaps this is really a point Peter James should comment > on. Lets try some numbers. Essentially, CoD argues for a reduction of > about 250 years for Ramses III -- lowering him from c1200 to c950. > Supposing c75 years come from D22-25 as you suggest, the remaining 175 years > must come from D20 and D21 -- a period of time currently reckoned at c250 > years. I only listed the numbers I'm quite certain of, or thought likely, and are easier to discuss about. Now removing some more fat from D22-D25 is certainly possible, IMHO. Just take any book on that period and look at the recorder highest reign years, then compare them to standard attributed reigns. Then also see CoD. (Meanwhile still maintaining the order/sequence of Kitchen). Osorkon I is given as 36/35, later as 33 years, yet he could be as low as 15 (Manetho) [see CoD p.380]. Osorkon II is given 38 years yet his highest date is 30 [both in von Beckerath 1997, p.95 & p.191]. Shoshenq II is not attested ["kein beleg", p.95], so we may strike his 2 years. And then we end D22 with Shoshenq V 774-736 [von Beck., P.191] or 780-743 [Dodson 1995, P.210], yet Shoshenq V is some one or two generations after Takeloth III/Rudamun/Peftjauawybast/Shepenwepet and of the approximately the same generation as Tabetjet (cousin of Montemhat, 4PA under Taharqo 690-664) and Pediamennebnesuttawy (3PA, Y9 Psamtik I 664-610) [see CoD, Table 10:2, p.240/241]. But I would agree that even that doesn't really help to get a reduction the size of 250 years. We get a reduction of say 125 years for D22-D25, maybe a bit more if we get really inventive. > IOW you must remove about 70% of the time currently allotted to > these two dynasties. Well 125 years or 50%, but that's still a lot. > The maximal dates recorded for D20 (as summarised in > von Beckerath's 1997 Chronologie) add up to 113 years, so even if you > somehow managed to eliminate D20 altogether you still would have to reduce > D21 by 60 years -- nearly half its conventional length (c125 years). Since > D20 is not nearly so compressible, a CoD-style chronology is forced to > perform even more drastic surgery on D21. Agreed, I may want to snip at D20 a bit, but that results in say what 25 years? That would leave 100 years to reduce from D21. I already said in my previous post that we could remove some 14+18 years from D21. But even that still leaves 68 years. So unless we can show that D20 run in parallel with D21, we certainly can't compress things enough to reduce things by ca. 250 years, so I think Rohl (-350 years) is out. But I'm sure the CoD people would think ca. 200 years is okay also. > interested in the cite for Leclere reference for the Osorkon/Shabaqo kiosk > at Karnak. According to Rohl the temple of Osiris Hekadjet, in the NE corner of the Karnak temple precinct, contains the pictures & cartouches of Osorkon III, Takelot III, Rudamun and Shepenwepet. On another wall Shepenwepet is joined by the 'adopted' GWA Amenirdis. On another wall we have Amenirdis together wiith Shabatqa, who ruled after Shabaqo. The dig by Leclere can be read about in the digging diary: http://www.ees.ac.uk/updig.htm#Karnak "WINTER (December-March) 1997-98: ..... Investigation of the so-called Tomb of Osiris, in the NE of the precinct, was undertaken by François Leclère to clarify its nature and construction sequence. " I assume this is the same temple (I know of no other "temple/tomb of Osiris" in the NE precinct). > My initial reaction is that even if "any amateur" could have > built it in a year that is no proof that it was so built, True, but then it's the size of a house. > nor that it was fully decorated in the same year. > Now that's certainly true, I (we) have no way of knowing that. I think it's odd though, and we know most of the people on the walls were alive at the same time (Shepenwepet & Amenirdis + a brother/father and a brother), so why not their brothers & sisters? > > > > The evidence that y10 of Siamun falls after y10 or even y11 of Shoshenq I > > (Ia), would mean a further reduction by some 18 years (reign length of > > Siamun). No evidence has been given against this point, unless one > > discredits the archeologists that found the Royal cache or claims that > > somehow the hard evidence is wrong. > > Somehow Reeves' discusson on DB320 keeps getting ignored on this point. See > chapter 10 of C N Reeves, Valley of the Kings: Decline of a Royal > Necropolis (London/New York 1990). Reeves notes that the coffin of Rai, > containing Inhapi's body, was the coffin second-closest to the e place). So: No, DB320 is not Inhapi's tomb, they first went to Inhapi's tomb on the 17th, then they went on to DB320 on the day that Pinudjem II was buried on the 20th. So my point remains: The linen on Djedptahefankh (son-in-law of Pin.II) is dated Y10 of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, another piece of linen gives a year 11 (no king given). Pinudjem II, also deep in DB320, is buried in Y10 of Siamun. Seti I blocks the entrance (and so does Inhapi by the way), brought there in year 10 of Siamun. There is really no other entrance, and it's extremely unlikely that someone would open the cache at a later date , disturbing the rest of all these revered kings, to remove all the blocking coffins and then burry the lowly Djedptahefankh at the back of the tomb, replacing all the coffins, before sealing it again, where it remained undisturbed until the late 19th century. Ergo: I still think that year 10 of Siamun is after or equal to year 10 (or 11) of Shoshenq (Ia). > > > > > The total number of years awarded to D20 is also very suspect, and a > > overlap between R.IX and R.XI, just to name one possibility, would remove > > some 22 years. > > If you also make Ramses X a contemporary of Ramses XI. Probably? That depends on the reason of the supposed overlap between RIX and RXI. Furthermore aren't you then supposing family relations among RIX-RXI, which are uncertain and often under attack? Also the highest attested year of R.X is only year 3, so we would hardly miss him. > What other possibilities do you have in mind? A civil war after Rameses III (murdered by or with the aid of family members/concubine), or at least after year 4 (or 2?) of Ramesses IV, when he (R.IV) changed his prenomen into HeqaMaatre (the true/rightfull lord/ruler). This I think would only be done if he had some reason, like his rule was contested by presumably (some of) the other sons/grandsons of Ramesses III. This civil war would mean that several Rammesses would claim the title at the same time. > Even if you supposed R.IV-R.VIII all > reigned in parallel (how??) you would only remove another 20 years. How would I know? I am just speculating on the many possibilties. Well let's say first the sons (R.IV, R.VI and R.VIII) and after them their sons (R.V, R.VII). But agreed that only gives you a few years, as their reign are already very short. After them RIX-RXI, or even, who knows, they might also be sons/ grandsons of R.III an joined the fray. Now only if they somehow (also) overlap do we get a nice reduction. > Assyrian side of CoD reconstructionism has received much less attention than > they Egyptian side. Which is a pity.> Yep. It makes the CoD case somewhat more difficult, but that's just my humble opinion. { We'll continue in Part II, stay tuned.} Regards, Jaap Titulaer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:33:32 +0200 From: Jaap Titulaer Subject: RE: ane ? Chronology - Part II { My answer to Chris Bennet's post apparently never arrived, possibly because it's too long. So I'm resending it in two parts, this is part II. } > > > > > a graffito of > > > Merenptah showing flood data consistent with conventional Sothic > > chronology; > > > > Kitchen indeed claimed that. And Rohl gave an answer (on the web): > > http://www.rohl.demon.co.uk/reply_to_kitchen.htm > > In short: > > The graffito in question is Theban Graffito 862 (Spiegelberg's Graffito > > XVI, also pubished by Lieblein). > > According to Kitchen, who has it from Janssen (who saw a copy) it says: > > "Year 1, month 3, season of Inundation (Akhet), day 3. This day the waters > > of the great flood returned/came to inundation. The Dual King, Ba[en]re > > (Merenptah)." > > Well, no. That is Janssen's translation. According to Kitchen, (TIPE, 2nd > rev edn, preface, p xlv) it says: > > Year 1, 3rd month of Akhet (=Inundation) day 3, [on] this day of the descent > made by the water of the great inundation -- (under) King of S & N Egypt > Baienre LPH. Seems that Rohl is misquoting Kitchen. > I mention this because Rohl attacks Janssen heavily for reading the graffito > as the start of the flood instead of the end of the flood, claims that > Kitchen interprets it the same way -- when he does not -- and then says that > this introduces a 120 year error into Kitchen's calculation. One would > never guess, from Rohl's essay, that he and Kitchen are actually in complete > agreement about what the graffito means (if not its date). See what I mean > about polemic and diatribe? Oh yes, I do, next comes a nice one > > According to Rohl the dating in fact is "Year 2, Month 2". > > If Rohl is right at that, this flooddate is in fact 120 years off. > > Firstly, if Rohl were right, it would move Merenptah backwards in time -- > i.e. its 120 years in the wrong direction for his chronology. Yep, I checked von Beck [p.51/52], he gives Ramesses II dates like that: 5. II. 22 of a king (Ramesses II ?). And we apparently have 3 or 4 Graffiti dating to Merenptah, see below [p.53] > Secondly, Rohl's assumptions are flawed. He assumes a perfect correlation > between the flood dates and the solar year -- i.e. that the flood always > starts precisely on a certain date and always reaches a maximum on a certain > date. In fact flood dates are a very imprecise chronological marker. The > much-maligned Janssen article quotes 19th century flood dates, from W > Willcocks & J I Craig, Egyptian Irrigation (London, 1913) (non vid) ranging > from 5 May (1887) to 23 June (1898) for the start of flood -- a 7 week > variation -- and flood durations (minimum to maximum) ranging from 60 days > (1895) to 129 days (1881), with no correlation observable between the start > of a flood and its duration. So, a simple model says that a flood maximum > is only precise to +/-35 days --which would represent a precision of +/-140 > years against a Sothic calculation. IOW, flood data is only useful for > testing chronological schema which differ by c140 years or more. You can > use it to discrimate between conventional chronology and CoD or Rohl, but > you can't use it to discriminate between variations within conventional > chronology, like the one which Rohl is arguing here. I agree that these kind of dates are very imprecise, which is why I'm so astounded that it's taken as such "firm evidence" by Kitchen. And I think the deviation(s), may be some what larger (although I really don't know, we need much better data for that, I would estimate a std.dev. of (49+69)/2,5 or c.47 days, which gives a precision of =+/- 190 years). Von Beckerath gives 1345 to 1085 for Merenptah (1213-1203) [p.53, p.190], a variation of 260 years or a precision of +/- 130 years, which of course is more in line with your estimate. > > Worse: there is a second flooddate, graffito 883, which has "Year 4, Month > > 2 peret". > > Here the reading of the text isn't difficult, so it's simply ignored! It > of > > course confirms that the reading of #862 should be Year 2, Month 2. > > We simply have the same event in the reign of Merenptah, years 2 and 4, > > same month (2), and both are off by 1 month. > > 2 Akhet is not the same month as 2 Peret. Also (without being able to refer > to Spiegelberg's original monograph) it would appear that this graffito does > not name a king, so why is it relevant to the argument? Finally, neither > Janssen nor Rohl present the text, so how do you know whether its a flood > date or not? All you know is that Spiegelberg thought it was and that > Janssen disagreed. Von Beckerath gives ("Drei weitere Inschriften sind ausdrucklich unter Pharao Mer-en-ptah (Ende 13.Jh.)datiert"):: #1. Gr.862 (Spiegelberg) "Year 1, month III, day 3" (Rohl says this one should be Year 2, month II, day 3) #2. Gr.? (,,) "Year 2, month II ?, day 3" (the note in von Beck. says "II ?" should probably be "III"). #3. Gr.856 (,,) "Year 7, month III, day 5" All bear the name of Merenptah according to von Beck.. Couldn't find Gr.883, so I don't know wether it bears the name of a king. Note that we seem to have two extra's, or maybe Gr.883 is confused with another one (?#2?). But Rohl has it as: #4. Gr.883 (Spiegelberg) "Year 4, month VI (2 peret), day ?" If, and only if, this one is also from Merenptah then it of course shows that the variation between recorded flooddates is way too high (either 4 months or 3 months not two months). Or any of the other possibilities I noted above are correct. > > Even worse, the text would probably imply the going down of the flood, > > signifing the highest point has past, which means another month off, which > > in turn means an error of 240 years. > > See above. Yes, von Beckerath also says that Janssen's thought those inscriptions related to "den Augenblick der Offnung der Schleussen (das 'Herabkommen des Nils')". Rohl basically claims that Janssens saw it differently (wrongly) and used that in his calculations, the results of which were then later used by others, who saw it differently, but didn't corrected the figures, or made the same error and made the same bad calculations. (Rohl seems to be assuming a lot here). I don't know about Kitchen, but von Beckerath is indeed using the wrong figures. We did the calculations for months II and III above, what about the alledged (by Rohl) inscription #883? " Year 4, month VI, day ?". day midpoint +/- 140 +/-200 +/-240 1.VI 1009 BC 1149-869 1209-809 1249-769 (for any day beyond 1 substract 4 years from the figures) Now it seems clear that II is too early for Merenptah. Certainly VI seems too far off, yet is even possible (in the standard chronolgy) using +/- 240 years. But again at the extreme end of the range > The discussion between Brissaud and Rohl is rather nasty and personal, on > both sides, and many of the points raised are best ignored. Agreed. > However, the > central point of Brissaud's case against Rohl, which is equally applicable > to CoD, is that tomb NRT VII, whose foundations Brissaud discovered in 1985, > was earlier than the antechamber of NRT I, the tomb of Osorkon II, and that > NRT VII contained in its south wall a lintel of Aakheperre Psusennes > (conventionally, Psusennes I), who therefore must have preceded Osorkon II, > contra to Rohl's reconstruction. As far as I can tell NRT VII may be built before an extension to NRT I was built, only if it's really shown that part of this tomb underlies that extension. As far as I know, that's just an estimate. > Rohl claims that Brissaud "has deliberately used ambiguous language to imply > that NRT VII lay beneath the Osorkon structure". That the ambiguity is > there I won't deny -- that was what I thought Brissaud was claiming myself > when I read his BSFFT article. I am not in a position to judge whether it > is deliberate. But in fact he never says it, all he says is that NRT VII > is older than the antechamber to NRT I. But for even that (NRT VII is older than NRT I's antechamber) he has no real proof, or has he dug under NRT I in the meantime? Implying that NRT VII is older than NRT I. > So, the key issue is when was NRT VII built. The critical wall containing > the Psusennes block runs into and underlies NRT II, which is immediately to > the south of NRT I. Knowing know how Brissaud describes his finds, I wonder whether he dug under NRT II to bolster that, largely irrelevant, claim. > NRT II contained the body of Pimai, so NRT VII is > certainly older than Pimai. Contrary to Rohl, it is clear from Brissaud's > diagrams that NRT II was built in two phases, but how close these two phases > were to each other is impossible to say. Besides, nowhere does Brissaud use > this conjunction to date NRT VII. Rather, he assumes a principle that the > lower a building is amongst the royal tombs, the earlier it is, and this > appears to be the first basis of his view that NRT VII is older than NRT I. Lower compared to see-level you mean, not one on top of the other, which is was what Brissaud was implyiung and/or claiming, which certainly is misleading. So there is a tomb nearby that was dug deeper, so? Maybe the ground is lower, or somewhat different of constitution? > Rohl appears to miss the weight of this argument by simply pronouncing that > depth The depth of NRT VII you mean? > has nothing to do with the age of the various sections of tomb I; Well it hasn't necceasry anything to do with the age of Tomb I and/or various sections thereof. > But I think we can do better than that. NRT VII is positioned so that -- > unless it were a very low building -- it would block access to the entrance > to the antechamber to NRT I. > Brissaud points out that the floor level of > NRT VII is below that of the door to the antechambers that were (universally > agreed) to have been added to NRT I by Osorkon II, so that it would have > been necessary, and rather awkward, to pass through NRT VII in order to get > there if NRT VII was still around. Say NRT VII was build after NRT I, then where is the problem? People could enter NRT I, Osorkon II tomb, then some people build a structure, NRT VII, and use a block with that lintel of Psusennes I in it. Rember both Rohl and James say: NRT III (Psusennes I) was built after NRT I (Osorkon II). and now Rohl says, and in fact your words say as much: NRT VII (+/- Psusennes I) was built after NRT I (Osorkon II). > Now, Rohl presents a reconstruction in which NRT VII was built at the time > that a king Usermaatre Sheshonq was placed in the antechamber of Osorkon > II's tomb, and that NRT VII became a new antechamber for Osorkon's displaced > grave goods. Yes those ushabtis that Rohl claims were removed from his antechamber and dumped in NRT VII. By the way, those things being in/under NRT VII may very well mean that they were dumped there before NRT VII was sealed. Which means that it was sealed after Osorkon II, etc. > He responds to Brissaud's point by saying that "The > foundations were built at a level lower than the entrance to Tomb I and a > door provided in its west wall so that access to the original tomb was not > restricted." Well, maybe. As evidence for his theory of the building of > NRT VII he notes that a collection of Osorkon II's ushabtis were found in > NRT VII, "buried beneath the floor of the new antechamber so that the > servants of the king in his afterlife would be close by and on hand to do > the bidding of the deceased king". Unfortunately for this theory, the > ushabtis were in fact "un amas d'ouchebtis brises d'Osorkon II en contrebas > de seuil" -- a heap of broken ushabtis of Osorkon II down by the threshold > [of the entrance to the antechamber to NRT I]. Where were they found in NRT I or NRT VII?? > The picture, rather, is that > the ushabtis were simply dumped outside the entrance to the antechamber of > Osorkon II at the time it was cleared for the new burial. Yes, agreed. Shoshenq II takes over that spot. His people, (his son(?) Harsiese who was dumped(?) by Osorkon II and replaced by Takeloth II ?) dump the stuff of Osorkon II. So? That family hardly had a reason to like Osorkon II, and besides so what? Osorkon II is buried, then Shoshenq II takes over his antechamber and dumps his ushabti's on/in/under some other structure that is/has been already there. All this points to is that both NRT I and NRT VII existed before Shoshenq II was buried, but that's it. > So, no careful > and respectful removal and burial of ushabtis, and no subsequent building of > NRT VII for some other reason since that would have disturbed the dump. > Rather, there was no structure there to impede the dumping -- NRT VII had > already been destroyed. Huh, yet the ushabti's were found in / under NRT VII? If under NRT VII, then NRT I before Shoshenq II and Shoshenq II before NRT VII. If in or even on, then see above, that just prooves Shoshenq II was later than both. > So, no reason to suppose it was there to block the > access to NRT I at the time the antechamber was first built, meaning it had > already been destroyed by that time. And so Brissaud's analysis holds.. I think not, see above. I find Brissaud's argument lacking. You see I still can't believe Os.II is earlier than Psu.I, but I'am getting a bit annoyed with all these assumptions by Brissaud, to try and proove that the evidence that that is the case is wrong. Why doesn't he simply dig under those tombs and give us hard evidence? Or has he already done that, but his description of that is a bit vague? > > > > Also, in order to > > > achieve such a reduction, it really is necessary to make D21 and D22 > > > parallel dynasties, as both James and Rohl have tried to do, > > > > Again, not really, they didn't even try, they just gave some general > > pointers and point to some anomalies. > > I agree CoD does not go into detail, but see Table 10:4. Rohl does go into > detail, not in his book but in his JACF articles. Agreed, they both of course imply an (large or even total) overlap between D21 and D22 (e.g. the tomb's). Yet both also imply an overlap between D20 and D21, and they don't really seem to care which is true (well they do of course as long as we get - -200/-250 or -350 years). 1. The Memphite genealogy (of HPM's) mentions D21 dynasts, but is missing D20 dynasts. 2. The Apis bull evidence (also Memphis) mentions D20 dynasts, but is missing D21 dynasts. Now 1 has been compiled later, and 2 occured at the time; so we very well may have that D20 was recognized at the time, and D21 was recognized as the rightfull rulers later on... And with this last bit of speculation I end my post for today... "Nano, Nano" [Mork, 21th century AD] Regards, Jaap Titulaer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:22:55 +0300 (EET DST) From: Robert Whiting Subject: Re: ane Liver On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 cuibono@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote: > isn't there a book out from saa called something like inquiries to the sun > god which is recent and specifically on hepatoscopy. maybe you mentioned > it below, and i didn't recognize the author or title; i don't have an > eisenbraun's catalogue handy. From the SAA web site (http://www.helsinki.fi/science/saa): STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA VOLUME IV QUERIES TO THE SUNGOD: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria Edited by Ivan Starr 1990 Paper $78.00 (FIM 340) ISBN 951-570-058-2 Hardbound $99.50 (FIM 440) ISBN 951-570-059-0 This volume has a lengthy introduction that covers both the practice of extispicy and the nature of the texts themselves. It's not as recent as it used to be, and the volume was in press when Ulla Jeyes book came out and so does not utilize her material. Robert M. Whiting Managing Editor The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Institute for Asian & African Studies | Voice: +358-9-191 23289 PL 59 (Unioninkatu 38 B) | Fax: +358-9-191 22094 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki | E-mail: whiting@cc.helsinki.fi Finland | URL: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/saa/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:22:34 +1200 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane ? Chronology Congratulations to Jaap Titulaer, Chris Bennet, and Banyai Michael on their mature and enlightening dialogue regarding correlations between Nile flood levels and Sothic dates. I cannot contribute much to the debate itself, but as it continues, there is a question I would like considered and, if possible, answered. There have been several references to computations such as this: « The floodmaximum occurs between 28.8 and 30.10 (Julian), ergo average is 29.9. Observation is dated to month III, so we look in the table for 1.III and Julian date 27.9, we get 1361 BC, we need to add 2*4 years because we need 29.9, gives 1369 BC. » The multiplication by 4 arises because of the supposition that the solar year is 365¼ days long. Therefore, a correction of one year per quarter day of calendar date must be made, to get a correct year for the event (flood date or Sothic rising, as the case may be). Almost from the first time I read about Sothic dating, this bothered me, since I already knew that the solar year is not 365.25 days in length, but 365.25635 days long -- longer than a quarter day by almost 10 minutes. The basis of Sothic dating is that it takes 1460 quarter-days (one per solar year) to accumulate a whole solar year, thereby bringing the civil calendar back into line with the seasons after 1461 calendar years. But the extra fraction of a day means that a solar year will accumulate in a much shorter time than 1460 solar years -- about 1424 years and ten months. Even the elapse of this period would still leave the calendar over 30 days one way, or about 60 days the other, out of phase with the seasons, which is why our modern calendars have additional adjustments beyond four-yearly leap-years. (Years 1700, 1800, and 1900 weren't leap years; 2000 will be one; 4000 won't). Looking at it from the other direction: after 1460 solar years, the civil calendar would still be out of step with the seasons by about 10 days. My question, therefore, is: Do Sothic computations of pharaonic reign-dates take these factors into account? As a side issue, I've read that both Censorinus, and Theon of Alexandria, refer to the Sothic cycle, but assign different dates to the start of the cycle current in their day. Is anyone able to comment on this? Regards Don Mills Wellington New Zealand ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #214 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html