tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post8722215227934505720..comments2024-02-04T03:57:19.271+01:00Comments on Zenobia: Empress of the East: Hatshepsut and the Turin Papyrus MapJudith Weingartenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06683483030413488309noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post-63502111875024794142011-09-11T12:22:59.890+02:002011-09-11T12:22:59.890+02:00I'm not entirely sure why Ritner was so confid...I'm not entirely sure why Ritner was so confident, Judith, but it is clear that there is a good deal of Intefoker material out there I haven't time at the moment to dig out and plough through all of this, so I think we should accept the interpretation you drew upon for the moment. The question remains of why Intefoker suffered a damnatio memoriae.<br />Best DylanDylan Bickerstaffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11665531163461262637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post-12915889847787385902011-09-06T14:30:07.907+02:002011-09-06T14:30:07.907+02:00Dylan, Thank you for that information on Intef-ike...Dylan, Thank you for that information on Intef-iker. I am not an Egyptologist -- which is why, when I'm out of my own field, I am extra careful to use the most up-to-date and authoritative sources. <br /><br />In this case, I was citing James Delgado in <i>AJA</i> 112 (2008) 307, who refers to two stele found in the 1970's by Abdel Monem Sayed; one is the stela of Intef-iker, whom Delgado calls the king's (Senusret I) vizier. This may not be the same stela you cite from 'year 17', discussed by Ritner, since Ritner's reference is to Simpson 1969, thus earlier than the discovery of Intef-iker's stela at Mersa Gawasis. Ritner's argument need not apply if the Mersa Gawasis stela is from early in Senusret's reign; as he himself admits (fn 926) "...the discovery of the vizier's complicity -- if such were the case -- might not have been made immediately, and he could have continued to act as vizier for an unknown length of time."<br /> <br />Might this be the answer?<br /><br />JudithJudith Weingartenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06683483030413488309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post-8163693852527380642011-09-06T12:30:41.293+02:002011-09-06T12:30:41.293+02:00It now seems unlikely that Intefoker was Vizier un...It now seems unlikely that Intefoker was Vizier under Senusret I, and the Year 17 mentioned refers to the preceding reign of Amenemhet I. Indeed it seems likely that Intefoker was implicated in the assassination of Amenemhet I and so would not have served the son and successor, Senusret. See Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SOAC 54 (1995)m, 200.<br /><br />I look forward to reading some of your Roman posts.<br />Best<br />DylanDylan Bickerstaffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11665531163461262637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post-18845002898649942712011-09-05T21:05:23.986+02:002011-09-05T21:05:23.986+02:00Thanks for this post, Judith.
It's an interes...Thanks for this post, Judith.<br /><br />It's an interesting read. I shared it on Facebook in the "Hatshepsut Project Group".<br /><br />Your blog is mentioned of course.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Stuart TylerStuart Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852168221500295895noreply@blogger.com