SBWire
With thanks to Tony Cagle's Archaeoblog for this link. See Tony's page for his doubts on the subject. The story was based on a paper published by the Paleontological Research Corporation.
With thanks to Tony Cagle's Archaeoblog for this link. See Tony's page for his doubts on the subject. The story was based on a paper published by the Paleontological Research Corporation.
Harvard University educated archaeologist and president of the Paleontological Research Corporation, Dr. Joel Klenck, states an array of archaeological discoveries evidence a crisis during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose II (ca. 1,492-1,479 B.C.) in the Eighteenth Dynasty. An inscription by the succeeding Pharaoh Hatshepsut (ca. 1,479-1,457 B.C.) in her Underground Temple at Speos Artemidos states that Egypt was “ruined” and “had gone to pieces” before the beginning of her reign. Hatshepsut’s inscription also states that a population of “vagabonds” emerged from former Asiatic populations that once controlled northern Egypt and caused this ruination. Hatshepsut notes these vagabonds were responsible for “overthrowing that which had been made”.
Klenck comments, “The reign of Thutmose II ended between 79 and 86 years after Seqenenre Tao II (ca. 1,560-1,555 B.C.) began to reconquer northern Egypt from foreign Hyksos populations, who controlled Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 B.C.). Egyptian texts are clear that the son of Tao II, Ahmose I, conquered the Hyksos and captured their capital at Avaris around 1,550 B.C. Yet, this inscription by Hatshepsut notes another population remained in Egypt from ‘the midst’ of the ‘Asiatics’ and ruined Egypt ‘down to my majesty’ or before the beginning of her reign.”
Further, there is evidence that disease affected the royal court before the reign of Hatshepsut.
4 comments:
I wonder what is meant by the Asiatic populations that controlled northern Egypt.
Benjamin Raucher
Interesting, but there are indeed a few oddities in the article.
Thutmose III built a temple to Aten at Karnak?That one was news to me.
The interpretation of the Speos Artemidos inscriptions are key here.
It seems the author has interpreted Hatshepsuts words very differently than others before them.
Lots of key facts missed out in the research and no references in the article.
Regards "“After the reign of Thutmose II, the Egyptian court seems to have had a crisis of faith in their principal deity Amun-Re.”
This is odd considering Hatshepsuts very obvious elevation of the same diety. Obelisks to Amen-Re at Karnak, Djeser Djeseru Amen - her mortuary temple, Medinet Habu, amulets,scarabs and the list does go on. And that's just Hatshepsut. Amun-Re fell out of favour during the Amarna period, but that ended with the end of the Amarna period.
Perhaps i need to re-read the article- but its not one i will be featuring for the moment at least - as there are a few points in there which are worth consideration.
Stuart
Also
"That Sitre-In and Thutmose III show evidence of this disease suggests the disease was not hereditary but widely affected Thutmose II and his court"
Surely we need more mummies of the court to come to that conclusion. The "mummy of Sit-Re" is the same one which was a "possible" Hatshepsut a while back and as far as i know remains "Unknown".
Not a mummy to be used in conparison- which leaves- no one from the "thutmose II" court with the skin disease. Threfore we can rule out the findings that it is not hereditary.
Stuart
Hi Andie-
I posted before, but the comments didnt appear. In short i am not at all convinced by this article and find the conclusions to be misleading. I have been over it again and again and am frustrated at how poor it is.
Stuart
Post a Comment