[b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?

MarianneLuban at aol.com MarianneLuban at aol.com
Mon Aug 30 13:51:09 EDT 2004

In a message dated 8/30/2004 4:36:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
peterkirk at qaya.org writes:

> I am puzzled by your "The only pharaoh ever called “Rampses” was 
> Ramesses III". "Rampses" is a very obvious Greek corruption of "Rameses" 
> and so can equally refer to any Pharaoh called Rameses. On Rohl's 
> interpretation Rampses father of Amenophis is of course Rameses II.

The "p" in Rampses is just a naturally occurring thing.  Say "Ramesses" a few 
times quickly and you will see what I mean.  It has nothing to do with the 
actual spelling of the name--but then few of the names of Manetho do.  He just 
gave them as they would have been pronounced (more or less) and added the Greek 
sibilant at the end.  But I am pretty certain Ramesses III is the only one to 
which the ancient historians add a "p" or and "f".  Why, I have no idea.  But 
I will double check on this.  Rohl is wrong.  But this time he is no more 
wrong than anybody else.  Including me.  In my own book, I stated that the story 
can have been referring to things that happened in more than one reign.  And 
this has been a concensus for a long time.  I qualified this by writing that 
this might be connected to times when the prenomina began to be duplicated by 
the 20th Dynasty kings.  But since then I discovered something that made me 
realize this is the absolute truth--and that the Tale of the Polluted Ones has 
nothing to do with any earlier time at all.  I realize that this statement will 
arouse your derision, but I ask you, for your own sake, to hold off saying any 
more until I finish the paper I am writing ;-)  

> >
> > >... For further remarks on Setnakht in the Classic memory, see
> > >
> > >http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/setnakht.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >>Interesting. In the same chapter Rohl dates the Trojan War 872-863 (so
> > agreeing with Diodorus Siculus that this was in the time of Setnakht),
> > and Menelaus visiting Setnakht (= Thouris = Polybus) soon afterwards. I
> > am sure Rohl's chronology could be adjusted sufficiently to have
> > Menelaus visiting Tausert instead with your identification, but wouldn't
> > the Greeks have realised that it was a woman he visited?>>
> >
> > They did--and called her Polydamna. She was the one who introduced the 
> > Greeks to a drug--nepenthe--which made people forget their woes. What 
> > the Greeks didn't realize that this Polydamna was the same as Thouris.
> Thank you.
> >
> > >>But your visit to Egypt by Helen would have to be earlier. Indeed, 
> > your synchronisms of Helen visiting Setnakht before the Trojan War and 
> > Menelaus visiting Tausert after the Trojan war both work only if 
> > Setnakht precedes
> > Tausert, and that is what Joe said is impossible.>>
> >
> > But I didn't say anything about "before" or "after" the Trojan War. It 
> > is only said that Proteios, which I equate with Setnakt, ruled around 
> > the time of the Trojan War.
> My point was that, if we are taking these old Greek stories at all 
> literally, Paris and Helen must have visited Egypt before the Trojan 
> War, or perhaps during it, because Paris died during the war and Helen 
> returned to Sparta after it.

 I take your point.  So perhaps Polydamna has nothing to do with Tawosret, 
after all.  But is another woman.  But I still believe that Thouris is a 
combination of Tawosret, Seti II and Setnakht--all because of the term "wsr" in their 
nomina or prenomina--which was evidently construed as having the connotion of 
"rich"--which it did--but not in the case of names.  There it means 
"powerful".  Regardless, it is evident that Manetho didn't know too much about this 
time because he gives it short shrift--and makes poor Akhenre Siptah into a 

> >
> > >>I wonder if Rohl tried to bring both of these synchronisms into an 
> > earlier version of his chronology but was forced to make adjustments 
> > by the evidence from Tausert's tomb.>>
> >
> > I wouldn't know anything about that. But I do know this: Tawosret was 
> > a female regent for a young king named Siptah, a puppet of Bey, the 
> > "kingmaker". Bey was obviously allied with Tawosret. My conclusion is 
> > that, at some point, this Siptah became troublesome and Tawosret 
> > usurped his prerogative--in a Hatshepsut-like maneuver. But it also 
> > looks like Siptah killed Bey. Siptah was the son of an unknown pharaoh 
> > but his mother had a foreign name, shortened to Tiaa. Sorry, but the 
> > tomb of Tawosret, where she is at first shown with Siptah, was usurped 
> > by Setnakht. The tomb of Tawosret appears to depict some stages. As I 
> > said, at first she is shown with Siptah--as his regent. Then she is 
> > shown with her husband, Seti II, his names being written over those of 
> > Siptah. Then Setnakht takes over the tomb--his images replacing the 
> > earlier ones of Tawosret. It is the sarcophagus of Setnakht that was 
> > found in the tomb--not that of Tawosret. Hers was taken out in ancient 
> > times and later reused to hold the body of a Ramesside prince. So 
> > Tawosret was never buried in that tomb.
> >
> I'm not sure what your "Sorry" is about, but there is nothing here 
> inconsistent with what Rohl writes.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list