PaulK,
quote:
I can't believe that you're still trying to push the "molecular frequency generator". Your own sources admit that it is a Hieronymous machine (even if they spell the name incorrectly). And the Hieronymous machine just doesn't work. It's just a pseduo-scientific gimmick that works off the same principles as dowsing - a subconscious reaction from the mind of the operator.
Prove to me that they don’t work? According to a TLC program I just watched, they were using the latest---state-of-the-art equipment on Noah’s Ark at the time. This Radar Scanner would show positive results of chambers and shafts throughout the ark (could easily see the rooms and timber lines), but when they passed the machine over regular ground off the site itself, it gave no readings whatsoever. This in itself is proof that this was a good working device for the time.
quote:
"...the Thutmose IV mummy is one of the better identified ones, with dockets inscribed both on his mummy and coffin." - looks like that mummy was probably in the proper coffin after all. The dockets match.
Thutmose IV is one of the better identified ones OF the Thutmosis mummies. However, of ALL the mummies, the ones of Amenhotep I and II match the closest to the individuals of whom they are associated.
quote:
And the two schems which reassign that mummy reidentify the mummy previously thought to be Amenhotep II to Tuthmosis IV and have no mummy for Amenhotep II.
And? How does this alter anything regarding the craniofacial morphologies?
quote:
As for the co-regency you completely fail to understand the problem.
THe issue as I have said is why would Tuthmosis II reigning as co-regent under Amenhotep I ALSO have a another co-regent ? That IS your hypothesis. Moreover you have produced no evidence for the identification of Senmut as Tuthmosis II.
Because Hatshepsut, as I’ve pointed out a thousand times, was a woman who could not embody the gods. She was the only heir to the throne, and in order for a male heir to take her place, she prepared her adopted son Moses to become co-regent with her in order to legally have him ascend the throne. As for Senmut and Thutmosis II relationship, go read all that I have provided regarding the similarities between these two figures as well as the inscriptions with Horus the falcon bird. There is no possible way we can say these two people are the same person. Once again, we are dealing with the inextricable history of Egypt.
quote:
Your answer to 5 is in error. Aside from the need for support for your interpretation of the name there is more evidence. Hatshepsut is depicted as Pharoah. Hatshepsut identified herself as the daughter of Amun, born to be King as Deir El-Bahri. We have her cartouche givng her Horus name as well as her Throne name and identifying her as Pharoah http://www.bediz.com/hatshep/cartouche.html
Claiming that a woman could not be Pharoah explains why Hatshepsut was often depicted as male - but adhering to it as an absolute is contradicted by the evdence that she was called Pharoah and took the names and titles of a Pharoah and claimed that her father named her as heir.
That’s right, because she was Pharaoh. Like we stated before, co-regents were considered Pharaoh’s too---thus her Pharaoh style of dress fits perfectly. She was a co-ruling Pharaoh, but not supreme Pharaoh. Women were not known to be co-regents either, so thus the male depiction as she is co-regent.
quote:
6) If you are forced to "crunch" the reigns together so much the worse for your hypothesis. We are still awaiting any significant evidence on that front.
How is it so much worse? First, logically try and fit the reigns of the Amenhoteps and Thutmosis’ between the year 1518 B.C. and 1446 B.C. You will try and say that Amenhotep III extended into the 1300rds, and I will soon show you how that is absolutely impossible.
quote:
7) The schemes presented are explicitly identifications of the mummies. And all of them contradicted your hypothesis. You don't have good evidence for your scenario at all here.
Answer to 7 supported our hypothesis strikingly, and you know it. Read again the relationships between the mummies. The relationships between the mummies, indeed, have everything to do with altering the original chronology.
quote:
8) The block statue of Senmut without Nefure lists Senmut's titles - it cannot be of Nefure. YOu can clearly see that it is heavily inscribed.
http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/...h/personen/senenmut/sen_karr.htm
The second of the two statues of Hatshepsut is more clearly feminine than the other (we can see an "hour-glass" figure, unlike the stautes of Senmut) - but both appear more so than the statues of Senmut
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/18d.htm
As for the final statue although the name has been erased that does not meen that the identification as Senmut rather than Nefure is in doubt. There is more to the inscription as can clearly be seen.
I see you do not read my material carefully. My answer to number eight was:
In link #3, I believe that statue is probably the statue of Senmut (however the inscription of Senmut has been erased, so this cannot be proven with 100% certainty). The headdress is very similar on the adult holding the child in the adult/child statue. But can we know for certain that this is indicative for the statues being the same person? No.
of which was in response to this:
quote:
And another statue of Senmut without Nefure is here
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
Since if you will carefully read your own article, it says:
The name of Senenmut has been intentionally erased from the inscription, probably in the aftermath of Hatshepsut's demise or by priests hostile to Amun.
I would not have just blindly stated that if I had not gathered it from somewhere. I did not deny that the names Senmut and Nefure are inscribed on the other statesonly in the statue from your above link.
quote:
11) Here you are again appealing to uncertainty as evidence FOR your view. But the fact is that so far the evidence against your view is of better quality than that you have offered.
And yet again, you are assuming that I am claiming this to be evidence. We feel it is only a hypothesis which fits the Exodus account. Nowhere have we stated this view as fact.
quote:
As to the inscription at Deir El-Bahri it has NOT been established that the translation is confused nor that the reading you offered has any validity. I can find no source that suggests that the child is anyone other than Hatshepsut herself.
It is clear that the individual inscribed on the wall is a boy. This individual is attributed to Hatshepsutin that it is her growing up. Scholars agree that the inscription depicts a boy, but state it as a mistake and assert that they meant to draw a girl-child and that the painters were confused.
quote:
And I really can't beleivthat you are trying to dismiss the fact that the child is identified as a daughter with "So just because she has a daughter means she does not have a son? " There's only one child in the mural so if that child is a daughter named Hatshepsut it is not an unnamed son.
We know that Hatshepsut had a son and a daughter. We do not know however within what proximity the children were born. If an inscription in one place is talking about Hatshepsut having a daughter, and then in another inscription (painting) we see her holding a male child, does this necessarily mean we must connect the two? Why wouldn’t different inscriptions talk about both events at different times?
quote:
And if you didn't notice that all the sites I referred to were talking about the same mural that you are referring to - well you need to do a bit more research.
Of course I know this is all from the same mural. But does this mural all correlate with the same paintings? There are many depictions (paintings) on these walls. Is the particular section that describes Hatshepsut’s birth specifically referring to the painting where the child is growing up? How can we know this?
quote:
Well that leaves uis with your refusal to support your claim that Egyptian women changed their names in the way you said they did. Surely you must see that if you cannot we should accept that they are different women ? Especially as you have no other evidence and the evidence already produced supports Tuthmosis I as succeeding Amenhotep I directly contrary to Wyatt's hypothesis.
But I never say they weren’t different woman. All I’m saying is there are a number of clues that suggest co-regencies between the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s. There must be some sort of crunching in order to fit the time span between 1518 B.C. and 1446 B.C.
quote:
Finally you did indeed use the phrase "compelling evidence" in regard to the Exodus - and what I said is still true.
I may have used the phrase compelling evidence in regard to the Exodus, but did I use it in regard to our hypothesis of the 18th dynasty? That there is compelling evidence that the Thutmosis’ and Amenhoteps’ are the same individuals? If I said that, then I take it back, because there is no compelling evidence for this hypothesis. What is compelling evidence, in my opinion, is the archaeological remains of Red Sea Crossing and Mt. Sinai. But for trying to solve the chronology of a dynasty, no way!
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-09-2004 09:04 PM
~Lysimachus
™ Version 4.2
