SoA Forums

That's one of the things I miss is somewhere to socialise. Though as I have been away for years I don't know that many folk.

My next thought is that, on the assumption that the Ethiopians are on now-lost tiles (assuming of course that any Ethiopians were actually taken in this particular campaign), why identify the captives in question as Libyans rather than native Egyptians?

That is discussed in the paper. At least one other figure is identified as an Egyptian, the casualty in the river. The main argument for identifyinig the prisoners as non-Egyptian seems to be the head feather, since the paper points out that these are worn by Libyans and Nubians in Egyptian art. Also, though I don't think it is explicitly linked, the patterned kilts could be non-Egyptian - the Egyptian river guy mentioned wears plain white - and reminiscent of the patterned garments worn by Libyans in art as early, IIRC, as the Middle Kingdom.

Perhaps with spoken commentary as opposed to text?  I like the idea of an online extras bit of Slingshot in general (and Justin has experimented here with putting clickable links from article references on the website before) but I don't know how easy it would be.  Certainly Justin has the technical capability (and more) but I'd not want to put additional burdens on him.

I had thought quite a bit about tying Slingshot with the Society's YouTube channel (adding animated battle reports or other relevant videos to the current issue) but that would really be too much work.

Perhaps with spoken commentary as opposed to text?  I like the idea of an online extras bit of Slingshot in general (and Justin has experimented here with putting clickable links from article references on the website before) but I don't know how easy it would be.  Certainly Justin has the technical capability (and more) but I'd not want to put additional burdens on him.

Quote

the 19th Dynasty, aka 26th Dynasty under the revised chronology

Given the issues we had with Egyptian chronology, it may help to be clear which of several revised chronologies you are using here.  I'm guessing this is the Waterson/Velikovsky chronology?

Yes, Velikovsky's, with refinements.  The others tend to have some useful revelations but also terminal problems at some point,

It may help if I list the Nineteenth (aka 26th) Dynasty Pharaohs along with their names in Greek literature.

Ramses I = Necho I (664 BC)
Seti I = Psammetichus (663-610 BC)
Ramses II = Necho II (610-c.580 BC - he actually makes it easy for us by calling his new capital Pi-Ramesse-Nekaa)
Siptah = Psammis (c.580-575 BC)
Merneptah = Apries (c.575-560 BC - last five or so years with Amenmesse*)
Amenmesse = Amasis (c.560-525 BC - dual-ruling with Merneptah for about five years previously*)
Seti II = Psammenitus (525-522 BC, the last two years under the Persians until his revolt)

*Not a co-regency so much as Amenmesse's reluctance to eliminate a full-blooded pharaoh.

Velikovsky places Seti II at the beginning of the dynasty owing to a misinterpretation of the 'Tale of Three Brothers' - the tale actually refers to Thutmose III.  I am grateful to Johnny Zwick for helping to establish the actual order of Nineteenth Dynasty pharaohs and their corresponding Greek identities.