by
Damien F. Mackey
“It is worthy of notice that the two Pharaohs who employ this dating, namely Sethos I
and Ramesses XI, both bear the prenomen Menmare. I imagine that Ramesses XI
copied in this, for some reason unknown to us, his homonymous predecessor,
just as Ramesses III in several things imitated Ramesses II”.
Jaroslav Černý
Except, I do not think that: “Ramesses III in several things imitated Ramesses II”, because, in my opinion (for what it is worth): Ramses III was Ramses II. See e.g. my article:
Ramses II, Ramses III. Part One: Some ‘ramifying’ similarities
So could it perhaps likewise be that: “Sethos [Seti] I and Ramesses XI [who] both bear the prenomen Menmare”, and “who employ [whm mswt] dating”, were one and the same pharaoh?
Then why have I, in my title above, lined up Ramses XI, not with Seti I, but with Horemheb?
The reason for this is because I have already drawn comparisons, and a potential identification, between Horemheb and Seti I. See the latter part of my article:
Seti I’s Kom Ombo inscription mentions pharaoh Horemheb
Jaroslav Černý is quoted in William Austin’s article:
The Riddle of the Renaissance during the reign of Ramesses XI
telling of the supposedly two separate incidents in later Egyptian history involving whm mswt (Austin pp. 135-135):
….
A year later Jaroslav Cerny took on another chronological problem concerning the late 20thDynasty: where to place the puzzling era known as the whm mswt, which translates literally as “Repeating of Births”, but is more commonly called the Renaissance. In one sense, Cerny demonstrated remarkable insight. Notice that his list of sources does not include Pap. Turin Cat.2034, with the explicit dateline “Year 1 whm mswt = Year 19” (figure 9-2, E), yet he correctly made that connection from the fact that thieves listed on the back of Pap. Abbott, in two ‘dockets’ dated “Year 1 = Year 19” (figure 9-2, C & D), were the same as those on trial in Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052 and Pap. Mayer A, dated “Year 1 of the whm mswt
” (figure 9-2, G & H). Thus he had connected Year 1 whm mswt to Year 19 of an unnamed king, but he did not connect that Year 19 to Amenhotep or to Year 3 of Ramesses X.
Dating by means of the expression “Repeating of Births” occurs in five papyri: Years 1 and 2 in Pap. Mayer A, Year 1 in Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052, Year 2 in Pap. Brit. Mus. 10403, Years 4 and 5 in Pap. Turin, Cat. 1903/180, and Year 6 in Pap. Vienna, No. 30. It is thus evident that “Repeating of Births” lasted at least six years; but the question where in the Twentieth Dynasty this epoch is to be placed is very difficult. Fortunately in this era we are somewhat helped by the text on the verso of Pap. Abbott, which is itself dated “Year 19 corresponding to (hft) Year 1.” In the sequel the text gives a list of thieves precisely those whose trial occupies a great part of Pap. Mayer A and Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052, both of them dated, as has been said, in Years 1 and 2 of the “Repeating of Births.” Consequently it seems quite legitimate to consider the Year 1 of Abbot as identical with the Year 1 of “Repeating of Births,” and further this latter as identical with the Year 19, probably of a king.
Jaroslav Cerny,
“A Note on the Repeating of Births”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 15, (1929), p. 194.
Next Cerny went in search of clues to the identity in of the unnamed king in Year 19 who was also connected to Year 1 of the whm mwst. He noted that the front of Papyrus Abbot was written in Year 17 of Ramesses IX, and contemplated that the dockets, dated “Year 1 = Year19” on the back, were from the reign of Ramesses IX as well. But he ruled that out because he noticed a clue placing the whm mswt no earlier than the reign of Ramesses XI: part of the name of Ramesses XI was identical to that of the 19th Dynasty pharaoh Sety I, and in Papyrus Mayer A it seemed that this was known during Year 1 of the whm mswt. Therefore the whm mswt could not be earlier than the reign of Ramesses XI.
The curious form of Menmare Sety instead of the simple Menmare, which would be quite sufficient, can only be explained if we admit that at the epoch of the whm mswt it was necessary to distinguish between Menmare Sety (Sethos I) and another king Menmare, i.e., Ramesses XI; in other words we are forced to place the whm mswt at least in the reign of Ramesses XI, if not after it.
Jaroslav Cerny,
JEA 15, p. 196.
Furthermore, the term whm mswt had already been used by Sety I, thus Ramesses XI seemed to have been honoring Sety I by the reuse of his name.
That Sethos I did occasionally use an whm ms•wt dating we know from one of his inscriptions at Karnak… It is worthy of notice that the two Pharaohs who employ this dating, namely Sethos I and Ramesses XI, both bear the prenomen Menmare. I imagine that Ramesses XI copied in this, for some reason unknown to us, his homonymous predecessor, just as Ramesses III in several things imitated Ramesses II. Peet’s suggestion to see the in whm mswt an epoch “of restoration after a period of foreign invasion” might be right after all, though the last known invasion of Libyans under Ramesses X Khepermare becomes now separated from whm mswt by at least 19 years.
Jaroslav Cerny,
JEA 15, p. 198.
[End of quotes]
In a recent series:
beginning with:
I began a potential shrinkage of the early Third Intermediate Period (TIP) of Egyptian history, collapsing Smendes of the 21st dynasty into Shoshenq I of the 22nd dynasty.
As the series proceeded, the suggestion was made also about Psusennes that:
Now, Smendes is supposed to have followed Ramses XI, a subject of this present article.
If Ramses XI is to be identified with Horemheb-Seti I, then this makes for a very interesting indeed potential alter ego for Smendes (= Shoshenq I).
We have already learned that Horemheb was likewise associated with a whm mswt.
(1320-1292 BC, conventional dating)
And so, apparently, Ramses XI “… reigned for some 28 years on the throne of Egypt between 1098 and 1070 BC” : http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramessesxi.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment