Richard III & the Car Park

[Steve S]

I'm really beginning to think Phil and I were separated at birth.......Only real difference is Egypt doesn't work for me....My replacement is fascination with the Early Colonisation of America........Going back a bit,on the pike thing...I've read about the vibration theory..Furthest I marched with a pike was about 9 miles (N.A.M. to Turnham Green) back in 1992.......Don't recall any real problems...........

[Phil H]

Sally, a few days ago I mentioned some HUGE brooches I once saw in Newcastle which might have been worn by a Romano-barbarian commander. I have now found the old guide book and a pic.

Phil

[Steve S]

The "massive personal ornaments" do seem to have been popular about that time..I'm afraid the Late Romans did NOT have the good taste of their ancestors..............

[Sally]

Sally, a few days ago I mentioned some HUGE brooches I once saw in Newcastle which might have been worn by a Romano-barbarian commander. I have now found the old guide book and a pic.

Phil

Hi Phil,

That's the Aesica Brooch - 2nd century trumpet brooch. It's part of a hoard of jewellry found at Great Chesters (Aesica) fort. It's very famous - not Late Roman though.

There are some very large brooches from the 4th/5th centuries; but those are of different types.

Thanks for posting the pic.

[Phil H]

You are quite right Sally - not LATE Roman, but maybe worn by a show-off auxiliary commander on the Wall - from abroad!!??

Like the spats with Mr Astrakhan, I just think these brooches must have been totally over the top and worn by someone with a certain sense of style but no subtlety. The sort of man who, in the 70s, might havwe worn a gold shell-suit and loads of "bling"!

Phil

[Wickerman]

Ancient Egypt - it is Akhenaten and the 18th dynasty that fascinate me. So many enigmas, so many unknowns.

And here's me thinking no-one else appears interested in Ancient Egypt.

Akhenaten, such a controversial figure. The suggestion that Biblical Monotheism may have began with him does have some merit as neither acknowledged true Monotheism, both Akhenaten & the Hebrews knew other gods existed, so a version of Henotheism is what they practiced.

I wonder, within your interest of Akhenaten, have you read, The Mystery of the Copper Scroll of Qumran, Robert Feather, 2003.?

A fascinating proposal by an expert in metallurgy.

[Phil H]

No, I've not read that.

It's attempting to reconstruct the "political" history of the period that is my main focus. I think that is where some (at least) of the answers lie).

My view at the moment is that Amunhotep III elevated himself to godhead about 12 years before he died - becoming the Aten. (The three Jubilees over the last seven years of Amunhotep's reign relate in part to this "promotion" as does the baby faced image of later sculpture). Akenhaten was then his earthly representative - the period sometimes claimed a a co-regency.

In Year 12 of Akenhaten's reign his father died - hence the "durbar" of that year. Akhentaen then became the Aten and Nefertiti rules as viceregent (perhaps as a man like Hatschepsut) in his stead. This may be the period of the effacing of the images of other gods.

But without the stability provided by his father, Akhenaten proved a weak and foolish ruler, and plague and rebellion led (probably in my view) to his demise. I think he was assassinated.

I see no reason why Hebrew thinking may not have been influenced by Egyptian theology and poetry but my current thinking is that Moses lived much earlier than the "heresy period". Joseph and the famine have been suggested as being in around the period of Senwosret III (Middle Kingdom) with the Exodus being around the time of the Hyksos??

But that is all just my speculation.

What is the thesis of the book you mention? If it seems relevant I might try to get hold of a copy.

Phil

[Phil H]

On Richard III - I see that his "descendents" have won their case for a review of the decision to bury RIII at Leicester.

The judge suggested that an expert tribunal look at the case.

Chris Gratling - the responsible Minister - is said to be furious with the judge for wasting time and money on such a n issue.

Personally, I think the decision will go the way of Leicester - but who knows.

Judges sometimes take the side of the little man, or group, against mighty monolithic Government.

Phil

[andy1867]

On Richard III - I see that his "descendents" have won their case for a review of the decision to bury RIII at Leicester.

The judge suggested that an expert tribunal look at the case.

Chris Gratling - the responsible Minister - is said to be furious with the judge for wasting time and money on such a n issue.

Personally, I think the decision will go the way of Leicester - but who knows.

Judges sometimes take the side of the little man, or group, against mighty monolithic Government.

Phil

Wonder if they called Witnesses....
"I call Elizabeth Woodville"
Mz Woodville!!!?
"Elizabeth?????"
errr..."liz???"

[Wickerman]

What is the thesis of the book you mention? If it seems relevant I might try to get hold of a copy.

Phil

Perhaps the book by Feather is not directly in tune with your interest on the political climate in Egypt during the Amarna Period.
On this note, have you also read, The Amarna Letters, Moran, 1992.?
I notice Moran's book is not as complete as that by S.A.B. Mercer, The Tell el'Amarna Tablets, 1939, which comes with both translations & transliterations of all the tablets.
Either book though is a terrific source for anyone interested in the political troubles between Egypt and their foreign neighbours.

The theory proposed by Robert Feather is that the Monotheistic teachings survived the death of Akhenaten by way of Hebrew scribes, who eventually found their way to the eastern desert to live out their last days at Qumran.
Their descendents are the same people who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Copper Scroll is essentially a treasure map, and it is interesting how some of the details given on the scroll seem to line up with what Feather has located topographically speaking.

On your points about Amenhotep III - finally being the Aten, and his son Akhenaten carrying on the belief, yes, agreed.
Incidently, the switch to a 3 yr frequency for the Heb-Sed, after the yr 30 is common elsewhere, but precisely why this occurred is unknown.

I find the frequency of the Heb-Sed is another fascinating subject, I think Petrie was correct - as described on the Canopus Decree, it was a Calendrical 30 yr celebration, not tied to the 30th year of a kings reign, as assumed by modern historians.
Though what impact, if any, this has on the switch to 'every 3 years' after year 30 is not clear.

[Phil H]

Interestingly, Amunhotep III - through his "minister" or factotum, Amunhotep son of Hapu, seems to have had an antiquarian bent.

He researched the heb sed (jubilee) festivities/rituals and sought to restore them to their "ancient" form (we know that Zoser/Soser carried out the race, wearing the special cloak etc 16 or so dynasties earlier).

So something was going on.

I have not done the detailed analysis (yet), but I think that it would be found that Akenhaten carries on his father's sequence of heb seds, since these now relate to the Aten, NOT the king's reign. I think that explains the switch to a three year cycle too - Amunhotep was now a rejuvenating god, not simply a Pharaoh.

Phil

[Wickerman]

I have not done the detailed analysis (yet), but I think that it would be found that Akenhaten carries on his father's sequence of heb seds, since these now relate to the Aten, NOT the king's reign. I think that explains the switch to a three year cycle too - Amunhotep was now a rejuvenating god, not simply a Pharaoh.

Phil

Would you agree that whatever the reason for the switch to 3 yr intervals, the same reasoning should be applied to the reigns of both Ramesses II and Thutmosis III, who also celebrated Heb-Sed festivals beyond the 30th year, and then at 3 yr intervals?

[Mayerling]

The last book on ancient Egypt I read was on Hatshepsut, which I read five years or so back. I have a backlog of those. I noted the obituary of one writer/Egyptologist/ and mystery author, Barbara Mertz. She died on August 8th, and wrote two books that I still have that were quite enjoyable: "Temples, Tombs, and Hieroglyphs: A Popular History of Ancient Egypt" and "Red Land, Black Land: Daily Life in Ancient Egypt". She wrote very well, and her bibliographies were annotated with her comments about the value of the books she recommended. I noted that she did not think highly of Pharoah Ramses II "the Great" whom she thought something of a blowhart and monomaniac with his monuments all over Egypt, and something of a foul up as a military commander at the battle of Kadesh. Her chapter on the Tel-al-Amarna letters in "Temple Tombs, and Hieroglyphs" was as informative as possible (given the puzzle of how the letters are to be read in chronology).

As to Akhnaton, he's memorable for his effect on religion and for his "individuality" (one writer said he is easily the only Pharoah one can name seeing impressions of him against the similarity of the other rulers due to uniform art forms). But he was not a successful Pharoah - certainly not on the level of Thutmose III.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I noticed an article in today's New York Times referring to the decision of Mr. Justice Charles Haddon-Cave (page A4 of the paper dated Saturday, August 17, 2013). He is urging the two groups to settle out of court - stating the tussle over King Richard's remains is unseemly. Interesting point, but he's forgetting that it is the potential tourist revenue that is also at stake - Leicester in particular hoping to cash in there with the fitting burial spot in the Cathedral.

Jeff

[Phil H]

he's forgetting that it is the potential tourist revenue that is also at stake - Leicester in particular hoping to cash in there with the fitting burial spot in the Cathedral.

We have been over this before.

It is surely YORK that wants to change the status quo because it perceives the lucrative income from having Richard as an attraction?

Richard was buried in Leicester, had the Greyfriars survived until today no one would be thinking of moving him.

Leicester (albeit unknowingly in large measure) nursed his remains for 500 years. It was Leicester which funded the excavations which found him and Leicester which has mounted an excellent little exhibition (which I visited) in a timely way.

Leicester Cathedral has had a prominent memorial slab for a couple of decades. the RIII Society, which paid for the slab (I believe) clearly felt Leicester was the place to remember him.

What has York done to find the king's body, or to memorialise him at any point in the last 500 years?

Where is ANY evidence that Richard proposed to be buried in York?

Contrary to a report I read in The Times, Richard was NEVER, Duke of York, his title derived from Gloucester. The current Duke of York was his nephew Richard (bastard son of Edward IV) who was alive until Richard assumed the throne. Richard's mother and father and elder brother Edmund are buried at Fotheringhay; Edward IV at Windsor; Richard's queen at Westminster and his son (putatively) at Sheriff Hutton.

York has no claim on Richard III. Leicester has the strongest claim (bar perhaps Westminster Abbey or maybe Windsor) and - in my firm view - should be his place of reinternment.

York not Leicester is trying to jump on the bandwagon here, I think.

Phil