Jim
You wrote: " Maya is mostly associated with Year 16 in the Amarna Letters, at
the very > end of Akhenaten?s reign, when Akhenaten was planning an invasion of
Syria > that, probably because of Akhenaten?s declining health, never happened"
And your scholarly support for this claim is...? This is just your opinion
once again. Please read E. F. Campbell's book "The Chronology of the Amarna
Letters". He deals with Maya's career extensively in ways you haven't
considered. Example: he points out the Tomb of Maya (Tomb 14) is recogniozed by
archeologists to have been built in Year 9 of Akhenaten based partially on the
depictions of just three of his daughters(out of six) and other factors that
help fix a date and the fact archeologists know no new Tombs were constructed
in Amarna after Year 12.
Campbel relates how Maya rose to power, then fell from grace during the time
of Akhenaten to such a degree his tomb was defaced.You place Maya in year 16..
His tomb dates from year 9. Whom to believe? I go with the Tomb. Mr Campbell
places Maya "in of shortly after the eighth year of Akhenaten" "The chronology
of the Amarna letters" page 105. You place Maya in Year 16. Mr Campbell, on
whose work all Amarna Scholars refer, says Year 8. I go with Campbell.
You wrote: " Cyril Aldred, the most respected biographer of Akhenaten, sees
an 11-year co-regency."
Jim, come on now "most respected"??? Whom are you kidding?? Mr Aldred's
theory is almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars such as Nadav
Naaman. The theory is a retread of one proposed much earlier by someone else,
and was addressed by Mr Campbell in 1964 in his book "The Chronology of the
Amarna Letters". Mr Aldred , on the point of co regency, is faulted for basing
his theoryprimarily on the interpretation art found at Amarna over archeology.
Some scholars such as Kicthen do believe in a possible 8 year co regency-,
some in a two year. Some sort of co regency may haveoccurred ,but no co regency
theory places Labayu in year 12-13 of Akhenaten as other factors, such as
Abimilki leaving Tyre in Year 14 (Kitchen), events in Byblos, Sumur, etc make
this impossible. Your comment regarding letter 254 is discussed by Campbell
on page 103, please endeavor for accuracy as your claimis invalid.
You wrote:
" But I see such scholarly view, which is one of two main competing
scholarly views, as being untenable on the merits. "
You are saying here is that all the major scholars are wrong and only you
are right. That is what I see.
You wrote: " Moreover, if Lab?ayu sent EA 254 to Thebes in Year > 32, being
16 years before Amarna was built, then why would the original of > that tablet
be in the Amarna archives in the first place?"
I am not interested here in your reasoning... you should stand back and see
just how simplistic that statement is. I don't wish to make this a history
lesson but I feel for this site to move on readers shouldknow the facts as
accepted by the majority of scholars today .
A. Scholars such as Campbell, Leverani, Na'aman, etc agree Lab'ayu died before
the death of Amenophis lll.
.Mr Campbell states: "Lab'ayu was still alive in the 32 year of Amenophis lll
but was out of the picture 7 years later."
EF Campbell places the death of Lab'ayu at year 34 of Amenophis.(Na'aman
places it closer to year 36) Egyptian Commissioner Pawura, was mentioned
as being in Jerusalem after the deathof Labayu EA 287 and all scholars know it
was also Pawura who was killed after the Egyptians took Sumur from Abdi
Ashirta.(Read Professor's Mario Liverani's account of the death of Pawura in
"Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography")...and Abdi Ashirta
dies before Amenophis lll
3. Scholars say Lab'ayu was dead by the time Abdi Heba took control of
Jerusalem Campbell, following the career of Zurata, prince of Accho, and
writes:
"Zurata's appearance in the period after Lab'ayu's death but BEFORE ABDI
HEBA's time, fits well with the other references..."
it's really that simple. So to recap what most scholars agree is the
chronology:
1. Labayu died in the reign of Amenophis lll (Campbell, Redford, others) 2.
Labayu dies months or perhaps more than a year before Abdi Ashirta as evidenced
by the famous murder of Deputy Pawura, possibly by Aziru, after the
Egyptians, lead by Haya, retake Sumur. (Mario Liverani) 3. Abdi Ashirta dies
about a year before Amenophis 111 (Nadav Na'aman) 4. Abdi Heba came to power
in Jerusalem AFTER the death of Labayu (Campbell, others) 5. Commissioner Maya
replaces Commissioner Yanhamu in Gezer by Year 8 of Akhenaten.(Campbell) 6.
Milkilu and Abdi Heba are dead by the time Maya arrives in Gezer. (Campbell,
others) 7. There are NO Egyptian records of the condition of Jerusalem or the
Hill country beyond Year 8 of Akenaten. The Egyptians abandoned the region
at the time of Abdi Heba.(Campbell, whose chronological chart is blankunder
"Southern Vassals" in the last half of Akhenaten's reign
Jim, any one of these statements completely disrupts your theory. The odds
of scholars being wrong on every oneis astronomical. You will have to address
each fact separately ... You wrote:
"The Biblical testimony supports my view. The second half of Genesis 14: 4
references Year 13, meaning that chapters 12-13 of Genesis occur in Year 12.
Genesis 12: 6 refers to the ?Canaanite? at the major city-state of Shechem.
That?s Lab?ayu in Year 12, shortly before his grand plans for Greater Shechem
bit the dust with his assassination early in Year 13. Everything in the
Patriarchal narratives fits the original reading of the hieratic docket on EA
254 as being Year 12. '
This claim is just your theory, and nothing said here is correct. My
challenge to you to find onerecognized scholar who would place Labayu in Year
13. There are none. Even a casual study makes it obviousthis is impossible.
You make the claim Nadav Na'aman and Campbell etc are all complete
incompetents.
Rob Acosta
**************************************
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
