Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Archaeologists discover name of lost pharaonic king

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    Send from Chris Bennett s Iphone ... Independent scholar visiting UCSD
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 7, 2012
      Send from Chris Bennett's Iphone

      >>
      >>
      >>>
      >>> There is a little more to it. The discovery is the first _contemporary_ document naming the king. It gives his Sedge and Bee or throne name -- Senakhtenre -- which was previously known. But it also gives his Son of Re or personal name, which was not, and about which there has been much speculation. Aayko Eyma on EEF pointed out that the "Son of Re" title and the cartouche for the name is shown in a photograph supplied by CNRS at http://www.cfeetk.cnrs.fr/uk/index.php?page=senakhtenre, although the name itself is obscured by buffers being used to protect the monument while it is being raised.
      >>>
      >>> Chris Bennett
      Independent scholar visiting UCSD
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Robert McRoberts <mcroberts.robert@...> wrote:
      >>>>
      >>>> Ian,
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> Thanks for the clarification. I have been hearing different views of this for several days. If I understand correctly what is being stated is that an artifact from this king's reign had been discovered showing his name. Previously the name was only known from artifacts dating to his successor's. So the idea that there needs to be a new name added to the king list is bunkum. Sadly it seems this misconception is tainting an otherwise worthwhile find.
      >>>>
      >>>> Robert F. McRoberts
      >>>> Suite101 Ancient History Editor
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> ________________________________
      >>>> From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
      >>>> To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:35 AM
      >>>> Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Archaeologists discover name of lost pharaonic
      >>>> king
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> Â
      >>>> <<He belongs to the XVII dinasty. You can read his name in this article:
      >>>> http://www.egyptindependent.com/node/694016?>>
      >>>>
      >>>> Just to let you all know: The title and the first sentence of this
      >>>> article is a sensationalistic lie. The king Nakht In Re is not a previously unknown king nor a "lost king". He is known from a family list of Amosis I as Senakhtenre, the alleged father/predecessor of Sequenenre. So Mohamed Ibrahim Ali should have said that the discovery is no more than a verification of the existence of an already long known early 17th Dynasty King.
      >>>>
      >>>> Ian Onvlee
      >>>> Den Haag, Netherlands
      >>>>
    • Ian Onvlee
      It is likely that the minister of antiquity in Egypt did not say such an unprofessional thing as unknown , but used the proper word unattested and probably
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 8, 2012
        It is likely that the minister of antiquity in Egypt did not say such an unprofessional thing as "unknown", but used the proper word "unattested" and probably in Arabic. It was also probably lifted out of context. Since a word like "unattested" is common in Egyptology but not suitable for the general public, for a cunning journalist who wants to present a more sensationalistic headline and story, it's easy enough to deliberately mistranslate it into a radical "unknown" instead of a more closely related word like "unproven", or "uncertain". And if he decides to leave out anything else that has been said, you'll get this kind of confusing or downright fraudulous articles. Journalists have the best opportunity to mislead the public and to play dumb themselves.


        Regards,
        Ian Onvlee

        Den Haag, Netherlands

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.