KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

De 18de Dynastie was een periode waarin veel nu beroemde Farao's regeerden.

Moderator: Thoetmosis XII

Plaats reactie
Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » za 28 feb 2009, 2:52

I went and got teh series of articles on Merneptah's battle scenes that
correspond to the Israel stele. Here are my notes about them. I will try
to get them scanned so people can have access to them if they don't have
access to 1990 and 1991 issues of BAR.

--------------Ahstrom and Edelman. Merneptah's Stele. JNES. 1985. 44(1)
59-61.

Askelon ----> Gezer ---> Yenoam -----> Israel
Israel is sometimes seen as the 4th element in N to S campaign sequence and
linked to Galilee.

Internal structure of the coda section:

Israel serves as a parallel element to Canaan, not to the three city-states.
Ring structure moves from general to specific.

A ring - Egypt's enemies at large.
B ring - After brief reference to Libyan campaign of previous stanza, he
moves into arena of Syria-Palestine. (Hatti and Kharu).
C ring - Limits discussion further to region of ancient Palestine (Canaan
and Israel)
D ring - focuses specifically on individual city-states within this area;
Askelon, Gezer, and Yenoam.

Kharu F. Hatti = Syria and Palestine.
Canaan and Israel may subdivide Cisjordanian Palestine.
Canaan would be coastal plain and adjacent lowland area.
Israel could be hill country. (Why couldn't Israel be Transjordan?)
Determinative could have no meaning because scribes at the time were loose
in use of determinatives, or the people of Israel could be associated with
the hill country.

Alt scribe could have used common geographical terms less prescisely, names
roughly equivalent as synomyns for whole regions rather than complementary
subdivisions within regions.

Canaan = Israel in Cisjordan.

Hjelm and Thompson. Victory Song of Merneptah JSOT 27(1) 2002 3-18.

These authors argue that Israel's location cannot be deduced from the stele
because it is mentioned in a review of Egypt's enemies to celebrate its
victories in Libya.
Illustrates reference to Gaza, Askelon, Gezer, Yensoan. Israel was Hurru's
former husband. It has been replaced by Egypt, who now cares for Hurru,
since Israel has no wife it has no seed.


The Birth of the Israelite Naiton - Part II, Samuel Kurinsky online. Fact
Paper 39-II.

1976-77. Yurco. At Luxor. Working on Chicago epigraphic survey.

Set of elaborate battle scenes, on massive wall adjoining great hypostyle
wall of Karnak temple. Cartouches and titles of Seti II on surface.
Usurped twice. First by jAmenmesse. Was Merneptah's military campaign in
southern Palestine.

Corroborated by discovery of stray block that had been removed form wall.
Blcok matched Yurko's decipherment of visages of Merneptah from his tomb in
Valley of Kings. Text and lay out of battle scenes match that on Merneptah
stele.

Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoum - fortified towns. Israel - determinatif for a
people.

Determinative for a people could mean nothing - loose application of
determinatives, or could mean accurate record of Israel's association with
hill country, ie, geographical scene.

Scenes of Merneptah's conquest lend weight to literal interpretation of the
stele.
Scenes illustrate siege and conquest of the cities. JjStages of same
campaighn as in Israelite scene in which Pharaoh battles enemy in open hill
country.

Israelites are depicted as well organized force with chariots with 6-spoked
wheels, most advanced version of time.

So Merneptah boast refers not to defeat of 4 separate entities but to
conquest of 3 strongholds of Israel and defeat of their force on
battlefield.

Elsewhere in last of the Carnak scenes, separate from the battle scenes,
line of Shasu shown being led away prisoners in short kilts and turban -
very different from "Israelites" muti-colored garments. They are dressed
like urban Canaanites - or merchants? Of 600 years earlier, and several
hundred years later.

Jacob distinguished from Israelitse who did not leave Canaan?

Yurco, Frank. "3,200 Year Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt".
Biblical Archaeology Review Sept/Oct 1990, 23-38. (Includes photos and
drawings of the battle scenes.)

Outer wester wall of Cour de la Cachelle.
3 scenes of the right are no longer in place; Romans widened the gateway,
Coptics pulled out stones to make holes.
To left of wall is long text of treaty from Battle of Kadesh of Ramses II.
To left of treaty are two battle scenes; to right, to more.
Farther to right are - or were - 6 more scens. Two are completely gone and
must be reconstructed in part from blocks from a nearby field.
The four battle scnes frame the treaty.
To the right of them, other battle scenes seem to progress from left to
right. Binding of prisoners, collecting prisoners, marching them off to
Egypt, presenting them to god Amun, Amun presenting sord of victory to King.
Finally large triumphal scnee. Scenes stand in two registers, one above
other, except final triumphant scene that goes from the top of the wall to
the bottom.

A stray block that once fit inot scen 10, which depicts the spoils of the
campaign being presented by the pharaoh to the Theban deities. Pharaoh and
deities are now pretty much missing. The stray block was in the field
nearby, it bears visage of a pharaoh (See photo, p 26). We have many
depictions of Ramsesses II, and some of Seti II also, but this visage does
not resemble either of them. Closest parallels to this visage are in the
"indisputably identified visages of Merneptah from his tomb in the Valley of
the Kings, on the other side of the Nile from Tehbes. "

The reliefs represent the military expolits of Merneptah rather than those
of Ramsesses II.

Earlier scholars who thought the battle reliefs were of Ramesses II were
misled by the Peace Treaty text that alone occupied the panel between the
plasters and was framed by the four battle scenes. Morevoer, a horizontal
hieroglypyic inscription that runs just under the cornice at the top of the
wall proclaims that the wall was built by Ramesses II. The wall was built
by Ramesses II. This does not necessarily mean that all the carvings on
the wall are his.

The two battle scenes to the left of the treaty were both carved over
earlier reliefs which the engraver had attempted to erase. Hwoever many
traces of the earlier engraving were visible. JThe earlier scene displays a
concretion of horses moving to the left with water at the bottom. This
combination is well known as the sub matter of the battle of Kadesh of
Mamses II. This material extends, however, only up to the Peace Treaty
text, and in any event was covered by the later battle scens.

To the right, the Merenptah reliefs were carved onto a blank, previously
uninscribed, wall surface. Rasmesses II had started the decoration of this
wall but did not use the area to the right of the Peace Treaty text.

So the four battle reliefs, two on each side of the Treaty of Kadesh text,
belong to Merneptah.

Merenptah Stele is at the Cairo Museum. It was discovered by Sir Flinder
Petri in 1896 in ruins of Merenptah's funeral temple in western Thebes. It
was originally a stele of Amenophis or Amenhotep III. Mrenptah demolished
Amenhotep's funerary temple to build his own, also appropriated and reused
the reverse side of the stele. The text we are concerned with is carved on
the verso, or back of the stele. In the semicircular top is a depiction of
Merneptah receiving the sword of victory from Amun (tiwce) with Mut in
attendance at the left and Khonsu at right. Carved in Merenptah's fifth
regnal year, the text as a whole records Merenptah's overwehlming defeat of
the Libyans and their Sea Peple allies. But Merenptah also alludees
retrospectively to an earlier campaign he conducted in Canaan.

Historians often dismissed the text as simply literary allusion with little
basis in fact, a sort of poetic hyperbole. [On Egypt's defeat of its
enemies in general; a universalistic text] Others granted it some historic
value because it is unlikely Merneptah would take the title "Subduer of
Gaza" if he had not done such a thing.

A fragmentary duplicate copy of the text, which contains part of the
critical lines about Israel and the three city-states, was also found in the
Cour de la Cachette, beside the long inscription. Merenptah's victory ofver
Sea Peoples and Libyans in his fifth year, and quite near the very battle
reliefs we have just dated ot the reign of Merenptah.

One of the foru battle scenes (the one to the bottom right of the peace
treaty, which he numbers scene 1) contains a hieroglyphic identification of
the stie of the battle: Ashkelon. Ashkelon is menitoned in the Merenptah
Stele; Ashkelon has been overcome.

Four scenes on Karnak wall appears to correspond to four names mentioned on
the stele.

The relief of the battle of Ashkelon shows a fortified town. Soldiers have
erected siege ladder. The toher two battle reliefs also depict sieges of
fortified towns. The fourth battle scne to the right of the treaty and
above the siege of Ashkeon only half preserved. The upper half is missing.
The battle is against an enemy w/o a fortified town. We can deducte this
from the position of pharaoh's horse and chariot team. Horse and chariot
are dead in center of the origional painting. (in other scenes he was at
the far right.)

The fourth battle scene depicts a battle with an enemy in open country w low
hills. This is consistent with the designation of Israel in the Merenptah
Stele as a people whereas the three fortified cities are designated as
city-states.

Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam on a map like in a south to north progression
from the coastal plain into the hill country, where the Israelites lived
(though the site of Yamoam is a matter of some dispute). This parallels the
narrive sequence of Merenptah's Karnak reliefs. Ashkelon is shown on the
first scene, two other in the next scenes, and an open battle in low ills
in the last scene. On the stele, Ashkelon is listed first and Israel last.

If this is correct, the enemy men depicted in the last battle scene are 13th
century Israelites. The Israelites are shown wearing ankle style cloaks,
just like the Canaanites in the other scenes. (Neither the text nor the
pictures contain anything about designs or multiple colors in the cloaks.
They are just line drawings. In black and white, they appear as white
cloaks or gowns wrapped around the body like maybe cloaks.) They are
dressed distinctly differently from the Shasu, who ware depcited in the
Merenptah reliefs on the wall of the Karnak temple but not in the battle
scenes. The Canaanite prisoners, on the other hand, are wearing long,
ankle-length cloaks.

This may tell us something about Israel's origins. The Israelites are
dressed like people of Canaan and not like the semi-nomadic Shasu.

The Shasu are not the primary focus of Merneptah's campaign in Canaan, thus
the secondary representation on the Karnak reliefs of the campaign. They
are not referred to at all in the Victory Stele.

Some thing the Shasu formed the core of the Israealites when they settled in
the hill country of Canaan. The Karnak reliefs contradict this idea; the
Israelites of these battles appear Canaanite.

The reliefs are also consistent with accumulating archeological evidence
that the initial Israelite settlements were in the highlands in open
dispersed villages with no substantial fortified towns. Nonetheless they
had begun to disturb the settlemetns under Egyptian suzerainty, which would
have provoked the response from Merenptah. Wehreas Egyptian control in the
highlands was previously limited, this time Merenptah penetrated the hill
country in force and there found the settlements of the Israelites. They
must have been calling themselves Israelites in [1220] 1211 to 1209.

A small detail suggests that Israelites had been attacking the settled
towns. In the scne representing the battle with the Isarelites, there
appears a chariot with wheels with six spokes that belings to the phraoh's
enemy, that is, Israel. How could the early Israelites be in possession of
six-wheeled chariots, once thought to be the exclusive possession of
Israel's enemies such as the Canaanites? In Judges 4-5, for instance,
Sisera, Jabin, (of Hazor) have all the chariots. Israelites might have
gotten chariots through raids on Canaanite towns. They could also have
gotten them through an alliance with some of the Canaanite towns that
Merenptah attacked ro that feared such an attack.

The campaign must be dated before Merenptah's victory over the Libyans and
the Sea Peoples, because the Victory Stele celebrates that victory. Stele
was dated 5th year of Merenptah's reign. Merenptah ruled 1212-1202. (From
1227). Campaign into Palestine occurred by this chronology 1212 to 1207.

[My note: Philistines must not have invaded yet; Israel and Ashkelon seem
to have been on same side.]

Outer verses refer to broader international situation involving Libya,
Hittites.
Inner verses balance description of Canaan and Hurru, the two major
components of Egypt's Syro-Palestinian realm.
The text for Canaan is further broken down into the three city-states and
Israel.
So the breakdown neatly delimints the area of Merenptah's military
activity - it is all within Canaan.
Finally Canaan and Hurru are poetically couched in terms of husband and wife

Redford has argued that Merenptah in his sixties could not have lead an army
into Canaan - when clearly he led an army in major offensive against Libyans
and sea peoples sometime after the campaign into Palestine. It is true
that Merenptah's mummy shows him to have been in poor condition at death,
but this was atleast five years later.

Despite internal dynastic problems, Egyptian control of Palestine seems to
have tightened rather than slackened between Merneptah and Ramses III.
Under Ramsses III (1182-1151) tax collection was instituted and substantial
administrative centers were built at a number of locations. Artifacts
bearing names of Merenptah and successors of 19th dynasty found at numerous
excavations of Canaanite sites. Merenptah's campaign strengthened Egyptian
control. Geza and possibly Lachish have yielded objects naming Merenptah.
At Gezer, a destruction level dated to Late Bronze II B 1300 - 1200 BC
probably is work of Merenptah [was there a later one after it that would
have beeon done by the Philistines - or did they settle on Merenptah's
damage?] Seti II's name is attested in Tell el-fara, Tell Beit Miusim, and
possibly tel Masos. Other Egyptian rulers at this time names found at Acco,
Beth Shemesh and Deir 'Alla (Jordan).

Papyrus Anastasi III, dated Merenptah's 3rd year, shows Egyptians in
possession of strategic places in the highlands of Canaan. Shortly after
the Canaanite camapign?

Yurco sees the following scenario. "Mereneptah's transjordanian vassals,
previously conquered by Ramses II, did not invite attack and probably
remained loyal. The chief trouble was found to be in the hill country west
of the Jordan, where the Israelites had been settling in considerable
numbers. Very probably enboldened by the long period of quiet and absence
of military activity that marked the end of Ramesses II reign, some of these
Israelites were coasescing into a group identifying itself as Israel, and
attempted to penetrate into the lowlands held by Canaanite vassals of
Pharaoh. Some of these vassals may have thrown in their lot w the
Israelites, even giving them some of the chariots. Merenptah, however, was
not prepared to let Canaan slip away so easily, so that after he had dealt
with the rebelling vassals on the coast and inland, he turned to the hill
country and dealt a heavy blow to the Isarelites. "

The defeat must have been heavy for the Israelites could not take advantage
of the struggle between Merenptah's successros. Ramses III imposed a tight
hold on Canaan, which was not broken until the Sea peoples weakned the
Egyptian hold sufficiently for the Israleites to begin to overcome the
Canaanite strongholds.

There may be a garbled reference to Merenptah's campaign in Joshua. Joshua
15-19 records the allotment of the land to the various tribes. In Joshua
15:9 the border of Judah near Jerusalem, is drawn from a hilltop at the
northern end fo the valley of Repahim to the "spring of the waters of
Nepthtoah" and then, goes on to the cities of Ephraim. In Joshua 18:15 the
southern boundary of Benjamin is drawn west from Kirjath-yearin 9to the
spring of the waters of Nepthoah." Probably refer to a well or spring at
Lifa near Jerusalem.

Papyrus Anastasi III dates from Merneptah's reign - places Egyptians as
possessing strategic places in the higlands at Canaan. The arrival of a
military commadner at Sile comes from "the Wells of Merenptah-hotphina'e
which are in the hills."

Spring referred to in Joshua 15 and 19 is prob the same place. Egyptian
papyrus indicates there was a place in the highlands of Canaan that included
the naem Merenptah. Merenptah spelled MRNPTH; Nepthoah spelled NIPHITH.
Signs P and PH are identical in Hebrew. "Sring of the Waters of
Merneptah". Waters and Spring is redundant. Wathers in Hebrew is MY, but
if this was originally MR, it would supply the missing letters of Mernptah's
name and the Hebrew text would no longer be redundant; it would read simply
"Spring of Merenptah". Indeed, such naming of geographical features for the
currently ruling pharaoh was a common practice in Ramesside Egypt.

If MY Nephtoah is inded a garbled form of Merenptah, then we have further
corroborating evidence from the Bible regarding the presence of Israelites
in Canaan during Merenptah's reign.




Rainey, Anson F. Rainey's Challenge. Yurco, Frank. Yurco's Response.
Biblical Archaeological Review, Nov/Dec 1991, 56-61.

Rainey:

Yurco points to the wrong picture as that of the Israelites.

The western face of the eastern wall of the same Cour de la Chachette
carries Merneptah's battle scenes depicting his defeat of the Libyans and
the Sea Peoples who had tried to invade Egypt from the West. The famous
"Israel" Stele of Merneptah is devoted mainly to Merneptah's defeat of the
Libyans and the Sea Peoples.

The likelihood of a correlation between the reliefs and the stele is further
enhanced by the fact that another, more fragmentary, stele inscription of
the same text was also found at the Karnak temple.

Rainey agrees with Yurco that the reliefs on the western face of the western
wall were commissioned and carved to represent and commemorate his Canaanite
campaign as described in the Merneptah Stele.

These reliefs originally consisted of ten different panels in two registers,
according to Yurco's reconstruction. The only toponym or place-name
identifying the location of a battle scene in the relefs is Askelon, Yet it
was always a puzzle why Ramesses II should have campaigned aginst Ashkelon.
None of his other battle reliefs such as those at the Luxor temple or his
own funerary temple, the Ramseshum, or at Abu Simbel, give any hint that
Ramesses iI had ever had occasion to besiege Ashkelon. Problem is solved
by Yurco's demonstration that it was Merneptah.

Yurco slips in identifying the scene 4 w the Israel mentioned in the stele.
Yurco reads the sequence of battle reliefs (two on each side) in a clockwise
order. He cites precedents for reading them that way.

Rainey thinks that scene 4 cannot represent Israel because the soldiers are
dressed as Canaanites. They are also using chariots.

Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam have hieroglyphic determinative for a foreign
country. Israel is the determinative for "peoples" (plural) or "tribes"
(ethnic groups) - plural. Determinative is plural.

Given what we know of Canaanite urban society and the high social status of
people who have the wherwithal to mainatin chariots, ie noble warriors
called maryanu, it is unlikley that the Israelites would have had them (even
if not Canaanite). Rainey finds it absurd that one scribe woud use tribal/
ethnic determinative for a group of people and another scribe would depict
them with chariots.

Rainey thinks it more likely that the Canaanite soldiers depicted in this
scene should be equated with the "Canaan" mentioned in the poem on the
stele. Canaan is in fact mentioned separately in the poem.

From this Yurco concludes that early Israelite society emerged from
Canaanite society.

Yurco really doesn't know what to do with the Shasu depcited in other panels
of the relief ont eh same wall. He tells us Shasu are Bedouin who are
often associated with Israealite origins. He argues that many of the Shasu
pastoralists are depicted on scenes 5-8 as brought to Egypt as captives.

Ancient Israelite tradition unanimously ID's Jacob and his sons as
pastoralists. Rainey finds it more reasonable to think the Shasu were
Jacob's people than that people in Canaanite dress with chariots were.

Ramses II says he accomplished the destruction of the Seirites of the clans
of the Shasu people. "I plundered their tents, their chiefs, and their
flocks without number, they being bound and carried away as captives as
tribute to Egypt…"

Yurco's suggestion is closely related to the "peasant revolt" theory which
Rainey calls the "revolting peasant" theory, according to which Israelites
were mainly former Canaanite peasants who fled to the hill coutnry, became
tribalized. Dever and others have joined this point of view mainly because
of interpretation of Early Iron Age ceramics as continuation of Late Bronze
ceramic traditions.

Negative correlation between lcoation of early Israelites, mainly confined
to hill country and Negev, and the plains where the Canaanite cetnters were.
Action in Jduges - Samuel is on the part of villagers from the hills
fighting various enemies.

The pastoralistsa re now being recognized by scholars as a permanent element
all along the Fertile Crescent; they lived in symbiosis with the settled,
agricultural society. This explains how they had a knowledge of late Bronze
Age Canaanite pottery. The potters among the pastoralists had learned from
the villagers.

Yurco:

Says he followed the order of the scenes. Ashkelon is the first city
attacked and is the southernmost geographically. This suggests a series to
Yurco. He followed the series the way it went to end up at the scene that
did not involve a fortress.

The determinative w seated man and woman (three hash marks denting the
plural) in the writing of "Israel" on the stele does not absolutely require
that the people described be pastoralists and nomads. It might also refer
to a population grouped in small, unfortified settlements without a
city-state capital [my note - could also be organized at tribal or clan
level.]

If the Israelites were settled and prosperous in the hill country they could
have acquired a few chariots. Scene 4 shows just one Israelite chariot.

"Rainey's attempt to interpret scene 4 as Canaan based on the Israel Stele
inscription fails to suit the poetic symmetry of the stele's retrospective
passage. There Canana is coupled with Khor (Syria), which "has become a
widow" as a result of Canaan's despoiling. These are the overall regions
of the Egyptian Asiatic realm. Israel is coupled w Yanoam, and with
Ashkelon and Gezer, in poetic couplets describing the actual places
Merenptah had attacked.

Shasu are in the return to Egypt scenes. They were not as important in the
campaign as the three cities and Israel. As indicated by the relegation of
the Shasu to a conventional prisoner-binding scene, w no site-specific
references, and by their inclusion among the catives marched back to Egypt.
[My note: that is a first w Shasu, of secondary importance and not
associated with places - it could have to do with rise of Israel.]

In his original article Yurco says he did not pursue the question of who the
Israelites were. This is where Rainey's discussion leads. He estimates
conservatively that at least some of the Isrealites had coalesced from
Canaanite society. That is hardly a wholesale endorsement of the peasant
revolt theory. Pastoral nomads clearly also had a part in Israel's
history. Book of Judges shows Israel partly settled and partly pastoral.

[My note - what about Shechem - it was settled!]

Archaeoloyg attests that some of the early Israelites were settled in the
hill coutnry of Canaan in the late 13th and early 12th century. Built
farmsteads, complete w terraced fields and cisterns for collecting water in
the dry season. Nomads didn't do this.

Yurco thinks that the Shasu simply played a minor, supporting or harassing
role in the campaign as according to Yurco they did in other Ramesside
campaigns. [my note - not all of them; atleast one attack was
definitively against Shasu alone, in some scenes in Syria "Shasu" atleast by
Giveon's interpretation, they could as well be Syrian or Amoritic, Shasu
defend towns.


Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@...
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

hetepherachet

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door hetepherachet » za 28 feb 2009, 7:31

Thanks nofret, heb er wat bruikbare info uit kunnen halen. zoals dat het deel van de muur waarop de zgn. lange inscriptie, naast de kopie van Israel stele op een nog niet gedecoreerd deel van de muur gemaakt is. Dank voor je zoekwerk!
<thumbup>

Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » za 28 feb 2009, 16:11

Afbeelding Afbeelding

Afbeelding

Heb je hier misschien nog wat aan ?? <egypt>
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » za 28 feb 2009, 16:23

The evidence for Merneptah's Palestinian ventures come from Karnak where Frank Yurko found the cartouche of Amenmesse (Amasis II, about 558-525 BC) superimposed over that of Ramses II and his again superimposed by Seti II (Psammetichus II, for 6 months in 525 BC ) The battle scene of Kadesh/Carchemish carved by the artists of Ramses II also was replaced by those of Merneptah/Hophra against Ashkelon by plastering over those of Ramses II and carving his own there. But the most telling detail of the covered up battle scene of Ramses II are the remaining wavy lines indicating water which Amasis and Seti II did not destroy in their changeover. Gezer and Yano'am stormedThese wavy lines represent the river against whose shoreline the Egyptian troops were pushed which was a significant barrier to their escape. It hardly fits the description of the Orontes but is well suited for the wide Euphrates river. These recurring wavy line patterns representing water in the `kadesh' scenes of Ramses II in our opinion stand for a larger body of water than the Orontes ever had. That is why it impressed the Egyptians so much to keep representing it.
Afbeelding

As can be imagined F. Yurko's article was not without a challenger. Anson Rainey wanted to call the inhabitants defending Ashkelon Canaanites instead of Israelites. In Yurko's reply he defends his identification of the defenders as more likely to be Israelites. We would remind the reader that during all of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah Israel was in Exile in Babylon and their land was occupied largely by a mix of Arabs, Syrians and many other peoples, they were neither Canaanites nor Israelites. Their appearance is a typical appearance which fit many populations at this time in the Middle Eastern countries. The men have beards, they wear head bands and clothing reaching to their feet held together with a girdle. The hair do is similar to the style shown on the king of Hatti, Hattsulis/Nebuchadnezzar.

The lingering question we may have is, if these changes in the cartouches from Merneptah to Amenmesse to Seti II was really instigated by these kings, why are they so faint and not deeper carvings? Could these be just changes made by others at later times without the involvement of these rulers at all? Perhaps we should allow the possibility that Yurko's claim of these changes made by these kings is not unfalsifiable. On the other hand, it was not the kings themselves who took hammer and chisels into their hand. Reliefs such as these were made by workmen who may have just been too disinterested to do a more permanent job. If they are contemporary changes they may represent chronological interdependencies, if not, chronological conclusions should perhaps not be based on them.

The other observation we should mention is that the nomen of Amenmesse shown in the article by Frank Yurko does not feature the double n sign but instead employs kk. Similarly in the case of the nomen of Seti II the changeover leaves out the commonly seen kk. The particular kings may still be meant since it is not uncommon that cartouches use some variant glyphs or even leave out a glyph.(?) On the other hand could it also open up the possiblity that other individuals are meant.(?)
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » za 28 feb 2009, 16:27

Ben is door mijn links aan het spitten en plaats het maar als ik wat vindt. Waarschijnlijk heb je het al, maar je weet nooit. Heb je niet een foto'tje van wat je precies bedoelt ?? Want die muur kan ik niet vinden, tis wat he, maar ben daar nog niet aan toe gekomen. Wet van Murphy, heb duizenden foto's en precies wat jij zoekt, heb ik nog niet in Kaart (foto) gebracht <shocked> Maar heb wel nog een map met zeg maar losse foto's misschien zit daar wat tussen <egypt>
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » za 28 feb 2009, 17:53

Heb iets gevonden Pfff, maar de foto's zijn al van een paar jaar geleden, om te bestuderen heb je er niets aan, maar deze muur is toch welke je bedoelt ?? De foto's zijn in orginele grote (helaas), dus zet hem hier maar neer:

Afbeelding

Afbeelding
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

hetepherachet

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door hetepherachet » za 28 feb 2009, 21:54

Allereerst helemaal super dat je zoveel moeite doet om me van info te voorzien. Ik ben je heel dankbaar. Beloof je wanneer het onderzoek uiteindelijk afgerond is stuur ik je wel een kopie van het onderzoeks"verslag". Wordt een aardig boekwerk en wordt ergens in 2020 dat het klaar is. Met de week wordt het groter, ingewikkelder en gaat het meer tijd en ruimte op papier kosten.
Het begon met het vertalen van de Israel Stele, las toen in commentaar van Breasted dat er meer stukken waren die over hetzelfde onderwerp gingen. Dus op zoek naar deze teksten, tijdens het vertalen van deze teksten, waar ik nog druk mee bezig ben,op zoek naar meer info over de inhoud van de teksten, dit leverde meer vragen op, dus weer op zoek naar meer info, wat...je voelt hem al aankomen, tot meer vragen leidde...dus weer op zoek naar info. Soms zie je door de bronnen het onderwerp niet meer. Vandaag zat ik zelfs in de Byzantijnse tijd en de middeleeuwen om een theorie over de Slag bij Perire, de slag tussen de Egyptenaren en de Libisch-zeevolkeren troepen waar de teksten voornamelijk over gaan, te onderbouwen. Had tijdens mijn studie nooit gedacht dat ik de Honderdjarige oorlog tussen Frankrijk en Engeland nog eens zou gebruiken om iets uit de Egyptische oudheid te onderbouwen. Ach ik heb er heel veel plezier in, en houdt me bezig.

Om antwoord op je vraag te geven...ja dit is de muur die ik zoek. Op de bovenste foto is net het eerste deel van het Merenptah deel te zien, de muur links zijn nog decoraties aangebracht door Ramses II. Het eerste deel van de muur is door Merenptah gedecoreerd, dit deel heeft hij over decoraties van zijn vader heen aangebracht. Net aan het randje van de foto is op de rechterkant de rand van het verdrag met de hittieten te zien, deze is niet beschadigd, de cartouches in de rand zijn die van Ramses II terwijl de cartouches op andere plekken overschreven zijn door eerst Merenptah, toen Amenmesse en vervolgens Seti II. Is weinig meer van te maken.
Ik herken wat je zegt over het niet hebben of kunnen vinden van foto's die je zoekt. Ik heb de laatste keer dat ik in Karnak was nog naar het verdrag heb staan te kijken, maar omdat ik zoveel foto's gemaakt had dacht ik, ach maak foto van het verdrag, maar niet van de rest van de muur. Wist wel dat het van Merenptah was, maar zei me verder niet zoveel dat ik deze, minder aantrekkelijke muur, niet op de foto zette, en al helemaal niet in detail. Dat het niet de mooist gedecoreerde muur is vind ik nog steeds, echter nu ik me steeds verder verdiep in deze muur wordt die steeds interessante en wordt ik steeds "kwader" op mezelf dat ik die muur toen niet goed op de foto heb gezet. Jij en ik zijn niet de enige die deze muur niet helemaal op de plaat hebben gezet. Ik heb de laatste maanden al met een aantal Egyptologen zowel in binnen als buitenland gesproken, gemaild over deze muur, er zijn er zelfs die zeggen....ik heb eigenlijk nog nooit naar die muur gekeken.
Ik zal geen namen noemen.....maar aan de andere kant zijn er zoveel muren in Karnak...

Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » za 28 feb 2009, 22:50

Ik ben alles zoveel mogelijk op de foto aan het zetten in Karnak, maar juist die hoek ben ik nog niet echt geweest, net als oa de Tempel van Ramses III, ook in dat stuk zeg maar, moet ik ook nog. Vandaar dat ik deze foto's nog bij algemeen had zitten. Heb ik dat stuk gedaan dan gaat alles weer in een aparte map. Als je zoals ik alles maar dan ook alles op de foto wilt zetten, dan ben je wel een paar jaartjes druk daar <egypt> De laatste keren zat ik in de hoek van de 10e Pyloon. Zal is aan mijn vriendin in Luxor vragen als ze naar de Tempel gaat of ze even wat foto's maakt van de muur.

Kan wel even duren want ze heeft het druk op het moment.
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

hetepherachet

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door hetepherachet » za 21 mar 2009, 9:23

Vooral voor Nofret die me al geholpen heeft met het vinden van informatie over cachettehof een update over onderzoek naar cachettehof.

Het wordt steeds groter. Is nu een vergelijking van de grote oorlogsinscripties van Ramses II, Merenptah en Ramses III. Alleen Merenptah was wat "mager".
Kijk naar textuele context, dus wat is de schrijfstijl,opbouw van de tekst, welk vocabulair wordt gebruikt, zijn hier overeenkomsten, verschillen tussen, is er sprake van een evolutie, of puur van elkaar overnemen. Daarnaast ook kijken naar de historische context, welke inhoud kan historisch betrouwbaar worden genoemd.
Ook de contacten die hiervoor worden gebruikt worden steeds wereldwijder. Contact ogenomen met Peter Brand van de universiteit van Memphis, is de projectleider van het Karnak, great hypostyle hall project, brengen delen van de tempel stukje bij beetje in beeld, zowel fotografisch als epigrafisch. Hij voorziet me van gedetailleerde foto's en lijntekeningen van de buitenmuur v. cachettehof.
Zit al een hoop tijd in, maar zal nog een hoop tijd gaan kosten.
Omdat ik het groter gemaakt heb houdt dit in dat ik meer teksten moet vertalen. Ik kan wel vertaligen van anderen gebruiken maar ik wil het zelf vertalen, dan kun je het zelf beter beoordelen.

Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » za 21 mar 2009, 10:15

Wat een project <egypt> Lijkt me geweldig om mee bezig te zijn !! Zelf kan ik niet aan zoiets beginnen, daar is mijn hierogliefen kennis te klein voor.

Geweldig project Hetep <!> <!> <!> <!>
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

hetepherachet

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door hetepherachet » za 21 mar 2009, 21:46

Ja is inderdaad geweldig om mee bezig te zijn.

Nofret
Site Admin
Berichten: 10812
Lid geworden op: zo 03 apr 2005, 16:20

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door Nofret » zo 22 mar 2009, 12:24

Hoe ben je daar eigenlijk op gekomen, op dit onderwerp ??
http://ancientegyptianmonuments.blogspot.nl/



nn ms.i sA.w -- No one is born wise.

hetepherachet

Re: KARNAK CACHETTE HOF, MERENPTAH

Bericht door hetepherachet » zo 22 mar 2009, 14:54

Ben begonnen met het vertalen van de Israel-stele, toen ik die vertaald had begreep ik eigenlijk niet zo goed wat de inhoud nou wilde melden. Daarom wat over opgezocht. Wat bleek de stele is een poëtisch verslag van de libische campagne van Merenptah. Er bleken een aantal bronnen te zijn die meer informatie hierover bevatten. Die teksten opgezocht en ze vertaald. Op de grote inscriptie uit Karnak na, die moet ik nog doen.
In verschillende artikelen die over deze campagne en teksten gaan las ik dat de stijl van de inscripties en dan met name de Israel-stele en de libische inscriptie op de muur van het cachettehof vergelijkbaar waren met de twee Kadesh verslagen van Ramses II. De grote inscriptie zou qua stijl overeenkomen met het zogenaamde bulletin van Kadesh, terwijl de Israel-stele, hoewel korter qua inhoud, overeen kwam met het gedicht (poem) van Kadesh. Ook de oorlogsteksten van Ramses III uit Medinet Habu behoren tot ditzelfde genre, wat dan weer een subgenre van de zgn. koningsnovelle wordt genoemd. Als het eenzelfde genre is ishet misschien wel leuk om de teksten met elkaar te vergelijken, vergelijken op het gebied van stijl, taalgebruik opbouw enz. Dit zou wel inhouden dat ik veel teksten moest vertalen, waari nu druk me bezig ben.

Verder kijkend naar de muur van het cachettehof in Karnak las ik dat het hier gaat om twee campagnes, de libische, maar ook een campagne in Syro-Palestina. Omdat er over deze afbeeldingen niet heel veel gepubliceerd is, behalve dan over het feit of een van de afbeeldingen een verwijzing zouden zijn naar de Israelieten van de Israel stele, is er niet veel over te vinden, geen goede foto's, lijntekeningen etc. Omdat ik een overzicht wil van de militaire campagnes van Merenptah hiervoor hulp gevraagd bij de universteit van Memphis waaraan de Karnak Hypostyle hall project is verbonden. Deze voorzien me van materiaal over deze muur en de Kadesh afbeeldingen op de zuidmuur van de hypostyle hal. Zodat ik ook daar mijn licht op kan laten schijnen.

Op bepaalde momenten heb ik de neiging om het nog verder te vergroten, te kijken waarom de schrijfstijl en ook afbeeldstijl van de negentiende en twintigste dynastie zo afwijkt van die van de 18e dynastie. En op welke vlakken dit dan precies gebeurd. Maar trap dan maar even op de rem, kan een stap zijn wanneer ik hiermee klaar ben. Het moet wel behapbaar blijven.

Plaats reactie

Terug naar “18de Dynastie / 18th Dynasty”