Kim Sargerson
Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590
Sun Aug 28, 2011 20:48

Hi Joe

Thanks for the link. I have read this article, and it is hard to make anything of the fragment. There seem to be two separate lists of the kings of the period, one from column III line 29 to column IV line 8, and the other from Column IV line 9 to line 22 or further. The reason for listing these twice is not stated, although there are enough differences to suggest one. They agree on the first 5 kings, as far as I can tell (with variant spellings), but then the first set has 5 or 6 rulers who are not in the second set. Sadly this group is very mutilated and no decent regnal years can be read. Then there are 6 rulers in the second group (7 in the first, but 6 of the names agree in sequence) before Dyn. 25.

There are no Takelots or PeduBasts in the lists as extant, and still no SiAmun, and they both have kings called Smendes and Psusennes (under various spellings) right down to the end. Maybe we have it wrong, and the king Nesubanedjedet (Smendes) with prenomen HedjkheperRe actually belongs in Dyn. 22. "Amoses" seems to have been used as a contraction for Amu[nemn]isu, probably influenced by the next name, "Amenoph(r)is" for Amun[em]ipe[t]. I like the variant Psousames (etc.) instead of the -n- version of Manetho, although the last one might be the equivalent of Manetho's "Psammous" which is perhaps a different name entirely.

Of interest to me are the variants 51 years for Psusennes I (a possibility I considered long ago because of the year 49) and 11 for Osorkon the elder instead of 6. I am not sure however that any of the extant regnal numbers can be "justified" in terms of actual extant regnal years, since identification is virtually out of the question.

The only other comments I have at this time are:
1) It is nice to see the variants Sesonches and Sesyncheis for Sheshonq in the Greek, as well as the Manethonic "Sesonchosis";
2) As you have mentioned there are several names on the list reminiscent of Syncellus, such as So[u?]ophtheis / Suphois, and the unfortunately mutilated S[...]sites (twice);
3) I wish I could work out who is being referred to in the final extant line [...]nchos[...] - it can't be a Necho because it is spelled with a gamma for the -ng- sound, and the two previous names are the two "Sebenchos" (Shabaka, Shabataka) fully extant in the first set. If the gamma were a miswritten rho, we might have [Tara]rcho[s].



  • Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590Joe Baker, Sat Aug 27 22:23
    Hi All On reading the abstracts from the latest issue of Journal of Egyptian History 4 (2011) at I noticed a paper by Lutz Popko ... more
    • Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590 — Kim Sargerson, Sun Aug 28 20:48
      • RE: Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590Joe Baker, Mon Sep 5 06:07
        Hi Kim This is the best I can do, if I ignore all the reign lengths and the “his son” lineage of the person I identify as Takelot 1. I use a combination of Manetho, Herodotos and modern... more
        • Re: Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590Kim Sargerson, Mon Sep 5 12:40
          Hi Joe, Thanks for your reconstruction. I actually view it as 2 different lists of the same period, one being much truncated. Thus we have: Col III 1. Smende[s] [xx] 2. Mompsanes 51 3. [Amo]s[es] [x] ... more
Click here to receive daily updates