Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

[Tammuz]

So that, what you really see is ...

//// two Month one winter day ///

I see. Krauss and Hornung assume the reading ´2´, Murnane and Kühne the reading ´12´. This author favors ´2´:

The hieratic dockets on the cuneiform tablets from Amarna

Further evidence of processing of the tablets is evident in the docket of EA 27, which reads:

[Year] 2, month 1 of Peret, day [...]. One was in the Southern City in the villa (bxn) of Haemakhet. Copy (mitt) of the Naharin letter which the messenger Pertja and the messenger [...] brought.

The existence of the docket demonstrates that the receipt of letters by the royal administration
was occasionally recorded, presumably primarily when the king himself was not present at
the Residence.

Murnane writes:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc42.pdf

(p.197)

The date of Shuppiluliuma's Great Syrian campaign within the reign of Akhenaten can be approximately fixed bymeans of the Amarna Letters written by Tushratta of Mitanni.EA 27, in particular, bears a hieratic docket, the date of which is most probably to be read "[regnal year] 12, I Prt 5(or 6)".

 

[AlpinLuke]

Example of complete datation [from the boundary stelae, it's the Later Proclamation].

 

[AlpinLuke]

I see. Krauss and Hornung assume the reading ´2´, Murnane and Kühne the reading ´12´. This author favors ´2´:

The hieratic dockets on the cuneiform tablets from Amarna

Further evidence of processing of the tablets is evident in the docket of EA 27, which reads:

[Year] 2, month 1 of Peret, day [...]. One was in the Southern City in the villa (bxn) of Haemakhet. Copy (mitt) of the Naharin letter which the messenger Pertja and the messenger [...] brought.

The existence of the docket demonstrates that the receipt of letters by the royal administration
was occasionally recorded, presumably primarily when the king himself was not present at
the Residence.

That there was the sign for "Year" is certain. What's uncertain is how wide it was. Considering the proportions among the signs, it should be as wide as the three signs for the number "3". Is there still enough room for "ten" [which is as wide as "two"]?

 

[Tammuz]

I´m a bit confused. Since Erman presents the docket in hieroglyphs I thought it was originally written in this language. However the docket seems to be originally written in Hieratic. Here is a shot from a Spanish page showing the tablet and presenting some explanation. I translated the text from Spanish.

In one of the Amarna Letters, specifically EA 27, addressed to Akhenaten and written by the king of Mitanni, Tushratta, Amenhotep III is mentioned as deceased. On one side of the tablet is inscribed the second year of Akhenaten's reign, but for years the 2 was interpreted with doubts as a 12 and precisely this that served as "proof" of a long co-regency, now it is the opposite (curiously only thanks to a better photograph of the tablet) since there is no longer any doubt that the hieratic sign for the number 10 (see attached table) does not appear in the inscription:

¿Corregencia entre Ajenaton y Amenhotep III?



Quote:

Date inscribed in hieratic on one side of the tablet: "In year 2, first month of peret...". In the image below we can better see, from right to left, the hieratic signs (italic hieroglyphic) of the "discord".

 

[AlpinLuke]

I´m a bit confused. Since Erman reproduces the docket in hieroglyphs I thought it was originally written in this language. However the docket seems to be originally written in Hieratic. Here is a shot from a Spanish page showing the tablet and presenting some explanation. I´ve translated the text from Spanish:

In one of Amarna's Letters, specifically EA 27, addressed to Ajenaton and written by the king of Mitanni, Tushratta, Amenhotep III is mentioned as deceased. On one side of the tablet is inscribed the second year of Ajenaton's reign, but for years the 2 was interpreted with doubts as a 12 and precisely this that served as "proof" of a long corregencia, now it is the opposite (curiously only thanks to a better photograph of the tablet) since there is no longer any doubt that the hieratic sign for the number 10 (see attached table) does not appear in the inscription:

¿Corregencia entre Ajenaton y Amenhotep III?

View attachment 21430

Correct, I was forgetting this [I have read the inscription is in hieratic, but I was not keeping this in mind !!!].

In this case, I haven't got an expert eye with hieratic. So I can rely only on experts.

 

[Ayrton]

I´m a bit confused. Since Erman presents the docket in hieroglyphs I thought it was originally written in this language. However the docket seems to be originally written in Hieratic. Here is a shot from a Spanish page showing the tablet and presenting some explanation. I translated the text from Spanish.

In one of Amarna's Letters, specifically EA 27, addressed to Akhenaten and written by the king of Mitanni, Tushratta, Amenhotep III is mentioned as deceased. On one side of the tablet is inscribed the second year of Akhenaten's reign, but for years the 2 was interpreted with doubts as a 12 and precisely this that served as "proof" of a long co-regency, now it is the opposite (curiously only thanks to a better photograph of the tablet) since there is no longer any doubt that the hieratic sign for the number 10 (see attached table) does not appear in the inscription:

¿Corregencia entre Ajenaton y Amenhotep III?

View attachment 21430

No chance of 10? If so, that is fascinating.

 

[AlpinLuke]

Anyway, pay attention that usually a hieratic inscription is almost as long [physically] as an inscription in hieroglyphics. What I see in that not well defined picture ... it seems to be only a part. And I cannot orientate myself [it's a matter lack of experience with hieratic]. My be Alcandra can help us here.

 

[AlpinLuke]

Anyway ... looking at this reconstruction ... [if the hieratic signs are interpreted in the correct way ...]

... I don't see room for the sign for "ten". So it's Year 2.

 

[Alcandra]

... I don't see room for the sign for "ten". So it's Year 2.

You have been fooled by the fact that someone has drawn, in the reconstruction, the two strokes denoting "2" in an
extraordinarily long fashion and the Egyptians never would have written them that way in hieratic. If somebody with the
stature of Bill Murname sees the possibility of 12 there anybody who can actually read hieratic can easily see why.
What looks like two dots above the two strokes need to have a reason for being there. They can be the remnant of
the sign for "ten". So there definitely is room. Look at this wine jar docket from KV62 of Year 4 and how small the
strokes are that make up the number "4" compared to the strokes for "year" and the following /i/ that begins the word
"irp" [wine].

 

[AlpinLuke]

You have been fooled by the fact that someone has drawn, in the reconstruction, the two strokes denoting "2" in an
extraordinarily long fashion and the Egyptians never would have written them that way in hieratic. If somebody with the
stature of Bill Murname sees the possibility of 12 there anybody who can actually read hieratic can easily see why.
What looks like two dots above the two strokes need to have a reason for being there. They can be the remnant of
the sign for "ten". So there definitely is room.

Ah ok, if we disengage the vertical line from the signs above them we can reconstruct something which in hieroglyphics would be ...
"Year 12"