Talk:Ramesses XI

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Ramses/Rameses/Ramesses. –Hajor 18:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments: Ramses/Rameses/Ramesses

message: This page presents as hard fact the traditional order of High Priests (Herihor before Piankh).
Since Jansen-Winkeln has proposed to reverse the order of these two individuals, such an approach is no longer viable.
It is recommended that this page be rewritten in the light of recent developments.
The text as it stands has multiple issues:
Ramesses XI's reign was characterized by the gradual disintegration of the Egyptian state. Civil conflict was already evident around the beginning of his reign when High Priest of Amun, Amenhotep, was ousted from office by the king with the aid of Nubian soldiers under command of Pinehesy, Viceroy of Kush, for overstepping his authority with Ramesses XI. 
-"the beginning of his reign" is incorrect: the suppression probably took place just prior to year 19, certainly not at the beginning.
As the chaos and insecurity continued, Ramesses was forced to inaugurate a triumvirate in his Regnal Year 19, with the High Priest of Amun Herihor ruling Thebes and Upper Egypt and Smendes controlling Lower Egypt. 
-No longer undisputed. This is merely the communis opinion before the groundbreaking work of Jansen-Winkeln.
Herihor amassed power and titles at the expense of Pinehesy, Viceroy of Nubia, whom he had expelled from Thebes. This rivalry soon developed into full-fledged civil war under Herihor's successor. At Thebes, Herihor usurped royal power without actually deposing Ramesses, and he effectively became the defacto ruler of Upper Egypt because his authority superseded the king's.
'''
-Any relation between Herihor and Pinehesy is pure speculation. There is no basis in fact for them even having been contemporaries. Again, the theory of Jansen-Winkeln reduces most of this to pure speculation.
Herihor died around Year 6 of the Whm Mswt (Year 24 of Ramesses XI) and was succeeded as High Priest by Piankh. 
-No evidence at all for these statements. Again, the theory of Jansen-Winkeln reduces most of this to pure speculation. Ignoring this important theory is no option!
In fact, much of Wikipedia's pages on this period (the end of the 20th Dynasty) and related topics are outdated since they do not take into consideration recent developments.
Neferkere (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: DODSON's chronology for Ramesses II's accession at 1279 BC might in fact also be WRONG. As Jared Miller writes in pages 252 to 255 of his important paper here Horemheb likely came to power around Year 9 of Mursili II of Hatti. Mursili II's accession is generally dated around 1322 due to a major Year 10 eclipse that is recorded in his archives that occurred in 1312 BC. With Horemheb acceding to power at 1313 BC, you have:
*Horemheb: 1314/1313-1300/1299 BC
*Ramesses I: 1300/1299-1299/1298 BC
*Seti I:   1299/1298 to 1290 BC (J. van Dijk, "The date of the Gebel Barkal Stela of Seti I" [OLA 204], pp. 325–32. has now argued that Seti I has a 9 year reign and that the Year 11 stela date for this king is damaged and should be read as Year 3 instead)
*Ramesses II comes to power around 1290 BC and not 1279 BC and certainly not 1265 BC as Dodson speculated! 
*PS: In Miller's 2007 article, he dated Horemheb's accession at 1319 BC on page 256 since he did not know about the Year 13 and Year 14 wine labels in Horemheb's tomb at the time and assumed that Horemheb had a 27 year reign at 1319-1292 BC rather than just a 14 year reign. In the old chronology, R I, ruled at 1292-1290 BC and Seti I at 1290-1279 BC.  The Egyptologists have not yet corrected this and HdO in 2006 did not have the information on Horemheb's correct reign length when that book was published by Krauss-Warburton. That is also why Miller dated Ramesses II's accession at 1279 BC in his paper. But--I am not pushing my 1290 BC proposal on Ramesses II's accession date in his wikipedia article. The Egyptologists will decide this issue eventually in their books and articles, not me. At any rate, Ramesses XI most likely had an independent reign of 29-32 or 33 years even though Horemheb was the real power behind Ramesses XI's throne at Thebes. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated presentation of the reign of Ramesses XI 

message: I have (once again) deleted the following paragraph:
Unfortunately, however, it must be stressed that there are clear inconsistencies in the description of an individual's precise title even within the same source document itself. For instance, Papyrus Mayer A mentions both a certain Dhuthope, a doorkeeper of the temple of Amun as well as a Dhuthope, Chief Doorkeeper of the temple of Amun. The reference to the first Dhuthope occurs in the regular papyrus entry while the other appears towards the end of the list but few people would dispute that they refer to the same man. Hence, Thijs' case for a Year 33 proper for Ramesses XI should be treated with caution. Since there are two attested promotions of individuals in 2 separate papyri, however, there is a small possibility now that Ramesses XI did live into his 33rd regnal Year.
''
Since this paragraph has subsequently been reintroduced in its entirety by Leoboudv, I feel I should give my fundamental reasons to delete this text once more, this time on the Talk-page of Ramesses XI.
The reasons for this step can also be found on the Talkpage of Leoboudv, where I wrote: 
Likewise, the observation on the discrepancy in the titles of (Chief) Doorkeeper Dhuthotpe in P. Mayer A is misleading to the uninformed reader, since it should have been mentioned that the more modest title appears in an abandoned entry (see my previous TALK). It is a little strained to bring this case forward as ‘evidence against’, while one could even argue that the best way to explain the unfinished entry of 5.15 is to assume that it was abandoned precisely because exact titles mattered to the scribe! Whatever one's preferred explanation, given this undeniable ambiguity, I think the issue does not belong in Wikipedia. The reader should not be bothered with such minor issues which can be explained either way. Naturally, serious objections against the redistribution of sources to the Whm Mswt should be brought forward, but, especially with 'damaging' statements, one should be very, very careful, especially on a forum of non specialists as Wikipedia.
''
Leoboudv’s reply was:
I know what Thijs says about the titles but the omission of the title 'Chief' Doorkeeper is important shows that the ancient scribes were not consistent in recording people's status in society occasionally in their documents.
My reply:
You wrote: “I know what Thijs says about the titles but the omission of the title 'Chief' Doorkeeper is important shows that the ancient scribes were not consistent in recording people's status in society occasionally in their documents”. Once again, I find your reaction not comme il faut. Now that you have been informed that one of the entries was actually abandoned by the scribe, possibly because he realized that he had just written down an incorrect title for Dhuthotpe, you can’t just return to your original statement as if this alternative is not relevant. It could be argued that by simply reintroducing this bit into the Wikipedia page of Ramesses XI you are actively misinforming readers. The very example you present to them for your point of view can be turned upside down and just as easily used to show that the scribes did care about correct titles. The first time around you didn't know this. The second time you did not have that excuse. Also here, you present your own one-sided idea as ‘fact’, actively withholding the uninformed reader the alternative explanation, which, as you said yourself is a disservice to Wikipedia (and harmful to someone else's theory, we might add).
In my opinion the rendering “If true, then Ramesses XI should have survived into his 33rd Regnal Year or Year 15 of the Whm Mswt era before dying” presents the fact that we are dealing with a theory quite adequately.
 
Neferkere (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dhuthope fallacy 

message: I have deleted the supposed counter-argument to the following statement:
(Thijs in his GM 173 paper (...) attempted to argue that the Taxation Papyrus also belonged to the whm-mswt era. )
Deleted text:
The reasoning in this paragraph is flawed and one-sided:
The fact, in itself correct, that Pinehesy was an enemy of the state in the first two years of the Whm Mswt tells us absolutely nothing about the way he was viewed almost a decade later. It would be simplistic to postulate that he must of necessity have continued to be persona non grata for the rest of his life. In politics it is not uncommon for former enemies to forget their differences and reunite.
To use the unfounded theory of a perpetual status as enemy as a decisive ‘fact’ to dismiss a detailed chronological reconstruction as “impossible” is ultimately a logical mistake.
The paragraph is all the more problematic, since explanations for the reappearance of Pinehesy have been given in Thijs, SAK 31 (2003), 289-306 and Thijs, SAK 35 (2006), 307-326.
Although the supposed reappearance of Pinehesy as Viceroy of Nubia in year 12 is a remarkable feature which requires explanation, it is certainly not "impossible" as the readers of Wikipedia are here led to believe.
-Neither the purpose nor the outcome of the Nubian expedition undertaken by Piankh are known. The sources are severely limited and open to multiple interpretation:
-The Egyptologist Niwiński has suggested that Piankh went to Nubia to negotiate with Pinehesy rather than to fight him
-The Egyptologist Edward Wente has suggested that during the campaign of year 10 Whm Mswt it was Pinehesy and not Piankh who was loyal to Ramesses XI.
-During this period there was some sort of power struggle going on between the king and the family of Theban High Priests which was becoming more and more powerful. It is well possible that by this time Ramesses XI more or less (secretly) teamed up with Pinehesy to curtail the power of Piankh.
-There is evidence in the Late Ramesside Letters that in year 10 of the Whm Mswt Piankh may no longer have been a loyal supporter of Ramesses XI (e.g. the order to secretly interrogate and possibly even kill two Medjay policemen "without anyone in the land finding out"
-etc.
All these alternative explanations for the expedition of year 10 Whm Mswt could be used to explain the reappearance of Pinehesy as Viceroy following the (still mysterious) demise of Piankh
Neferkere (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reappearance of Pinehesy in the Whm Mswt 

message: *Has anyone seen Mladjov's article on a possible new Dynasty 20 king who ruled after Ramesses XI here on The Transition between the Twentieth and Twenty-First Dynasties Revisited in 2017. It is interesting. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramesses XII?