Seti, so-called II, Merenptah as Seti 'the Great' Merenptah

Seti, so-called II, Merenptah as Seti ‘the Great’ Merenptah by Damien F. Mackey Velikovsky renumbered pharaoh Seti I, whom he often calls ‘Seti the Great’, as Seti II. …. The reason for this is that Velikovsky had moved the pharaoh conventionally known as Seti (or Sethos) II Merenptah (c. 1202-1196 BC) from his usual position at the end of the 19th dynasty to become a predecessor of Ramses I at the beginning of that dynasty; thereby preserving the tradition of a Seti (or Sethos) as founder of the dynasty. Most likely the accepted Nineteenth Dynasty (Ramesside) succession, conventionally (but wrongly) spanning c. 1300 BC - 1200 BC: Ramses I; Seti (Sethos) I ‘the Great’; Ramses II ‘the Great’; Merenptah Seti II Merenptah Amenmesse (Seti II) Siptah, Queen Tausert, or Twosre (and Bay) is, just like other ancient king-lists (e. g. Assyrian, but notably the Chaldean), a mix of duplications. On this, see e.g. my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (18) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu My suggested (tentative) re-arrangement of it - partly following Dr. Velikovsky’s shifting of Seti II and his contemporaries from the bottom, to near the top, of the list - would be something like this: Ramses I = Amenmesse = Bay (Ramesse Khamenteru) (Queen Tausert, or Twosre) Seti (Sethos) I ‘the Great’ = Merenptah = Seti II = Siptah Merenptah Ramses II ‘the Great’. This would mean that (as in the case of Shalmaneser I-V), there was no Seti I, let alone a Seti II – for, to have a I for any given leader, there apparently has to be a II. (Thus a I cannot yet be attached to pope Francis) On p. 264 (Volume One) of my doctoral thesis, I explained Dr. Velikovsky’s radical re-arrangement of this famous dynasty: Velikovsky, too, would attempt to preserve the ‘Sethos as founder’ tradition; though his radical solution to the problem - and indeed to the very structure and location of the entire 19th dynasty - would differ greatly from Courville’s comparatively modest attempt [that is, within a Velikovskian context] to show how Seti could be the founder pharaoh. Velikovsky’s long-awaited revision of the 19th Egyptian dynasty was the subject matter of his book, Ramses II and His Time. Velikovsky renumbered pharaoh Seti I, whom he often calls ‘Seti the Great’, as Seti II. See e.g. ibid, p. 10, n. 1. The reason for this is that Velikovsky had moved the pharaoh conventionally known as Seti (or Sethos) II Merenptah (c. 1202-1196 BC) from his usual position at the end of the 19th dynasty to become a predecessor of Ramses I at the beginning of that dynasty; thereby preserving the tradition of a Seti (or Sethos) as founder of the dynasty. Velikovsky also removed the minor rulers, Siptah and Tausert, to the beginning of the 19th dynasty. …. The important Seti so-called II is completely understated in Egyptology and really needs to find one or more alter egos. Typically, his extensive building works cannot be identified, as happens when we do not have at hand the complete person (thesis, 2007, p, 272): Grimal has written, Op. cit, pp. 269-270. “Sethos II claims to have undertaken an extensive building programme”, there is, as he goes on to tell, “little indication that [Sethos’] words were transformed into actions”. Similarly: Ibid, p. 269. “There is no evidence of foreign policy during this period, but it is no doubt significant that the Serabit el-Khadim mines were in use”. Now would the following confusion have occurred if it were recognised that Seti II Merenptah was, in fact, Merenptah (and Seti ‘the Great’)? (Thesis, pp. 273-274): Bimson then turns to this new consideration: ‘Dating the Wars of Seti I’, ibid. The remains of a small temple at Hermopolis bear inscriptions by Merenptah and Usikheprure-setpenre Seti, in which both kings claim some part in building it. Velikovsky notes that Merenptah claims “to have completed the structure and to have dedicated it to the deity, presumably Thoth”. He then argues that this is an illogical claim if Merenptah preceded Seti, and that the temple’s inscriptions support the revised order, in which Seti precedes Merenptah by more than a century [ref to Kronos IV:3 (1979), pp. 20-21]. However, this argument is not strong enough to counteract the genealogical material which proves the conventional order. Faulkner’s understanding of the temple’s inscriptions, which Velikovsky rejects, is perfectly plausible: Merenptah completed the fabric of the building and dedicated it; a short while after, Seti II completed its decoration [ref to R. Faulkner, CAH, vol. II, pt. 2 (3rd edn), 1975, p. 237]. But I think Velikovsky may have a point here. And this would be reinforced by the fact that the mummy of Seti II (if it is in fact he) is, as we shall find, distinctly ‘Thutmoside’. According to Gardiner, though: Op. cit, p. 276. “There is little doubt but that Merenptah ̣was followed by his son … Sethōs II. Memoranda on ostraca mention both the date of his accession and that of his death, this latter occurring in his sixth year”. Gardiner’s statement alone, though, does not tell us how this relates Seti II to Merenptah. And van der Veen has claimed that: ‘Sethosis: the Seti II from the Kinglists?’, p. 20. “Hornung finally located Amenmesse’s reign before that of Seti II, in line with the inscription on the pylon of the Armant Temple where the cartouches of Merenptah hotep-hir-ma were firstly overwritten by the cartouches of Amenmesse but later by those of Seti II”. Unfortunately, though, van der Veen does not provide any actual reference here for Hornung. And, that Bimson could make so definite a statement, in regard to Černý at least, that: “The [late 19th dynasty] material … leaves no doubt …”, is surprising I find after having actually read Černý’s relatively brief article, in which one encounters, at regular intervals, Černý’s presuppositions in relation to un-named kings. Thus: Op cit, p. 252. Emphasis added. “Ostracon Cairo J 49887 … dated in the year 5 of an unnamed king [presumed to be Sethos II]”. And: Ibid, p. 255. Emphasis added. “… years 12 and 15 respectively, the king is not named but must be Ramesses III”. And: Ibid, p. 256. Emphasis added. “… the Vizier Hori occurs on some unpublished Cairo ostraca dated in the first year of an unnamed king … either Ramesses III or one of his immediate predecessors”. Moreover, Bierbrier’s painstaking and laudable attempts to establish a clear chronological framework for Egyptian officials and workmen for the most difficult phase of the 19th dynasty, the 20th dynasty, and the TIP [Third Intermediate Period] , based on important genealogical lists - for which Bierbrier is most heavily reliant upon Černý Bierbrier, op. cit, pp. 145-146, lists 17 of Černý’s publications in his Bibliography, including Černý’s ‘Papyrus Salt 124’. - ends up yielding a host of very aged personages indeed when estimated according to the conventional arrangement for this era of Egyptian history. But about 14 years will be shaved off if the supposedly post-Merenptah 19th dynasty rulers are subtracted and transferred to an earlier period. Furthermore, the mummy of Seti II (and these mummies are always tricky and I like to stay well clear of them) suggests early, Thumoside connections. (Thesis, pp. 307-8) Now, with the news that the mummy of Seti II (presuming that it is really his), is clearly ‘Thutmoside’ Luban, Where is the Mummy of King Horemheb? (see pp. 312-313 … for an account of this) then it becomes quite anachronistic I think to talk about Seti II in terms ‘post-Merenptah’. And the same must then apply also to his contemporary, Amenmesse. …. Seti II, so-called (Userkheperure Setepenre), the same as Sethos Merenptah, Grimal, op. cit., p. 268. would probably now be Seti-nakht (Userkhaure Setepenre) ….. Tyldesley has written of Seti II, that: Ramesses, p. 191. “His titles are strongly militaristic …”. This extra dimension to the pharaoh, as Seti-nakht, would at least serve to fill him out. ….