Joe Baker

RE: Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590

Mon Sep 5, 2011 06:07

218.215.194.169

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 identifications. Those I label as missing - mean they are in (Africanos) Manetho but not in Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590. My assumed 12 contemporary rulers, as per Herodotos, seem to be constructed by varying the names of various previously listed kings.

Smende[s x years] Smendes

[..]mompsames: 51 years Psusennes

[........ x years] Nepherkheres

Amenophris [x] years Amenpphthis

Us[e]rthos 11 years Osorkhor [missing Psinakhes]

Psossam[m]eos [x years] Psusennes

S[..]ites 1 year Sesonkhosis 1 Hedjkheperure

Use[r]tho[s] [x years] Osorthon 1

S[..]tes II [x years Shashanq Heqakheperure

[....]os [x years] X [missing X]

[....] his son 75 years Takelot 1

Us[e]th[os] 24 years Osarkin 2

Se[s]unkheis 14 years Shashanq 3a

So[k]ophtheis 3 years Shashanq 3b

Amendesis 11 years Pamiy

Sesonkhis 41 Shashanq 5

Ousorthos 40 [+x] years Osorkin 4

Psonsames [x] years ?? an unrecorded Psusennes

The Lamb known myth, time of Bakenrenef

Sebenkhos: 23 years Shabataka

Sebenkhos II 13 years Shabaka [missing Taharqa]

Medes 48 years Assyrian control

Psonsame[s x+]1 years 1st of 12 contemporary rulers

Amoses 14 years 2nd

Amenophis 9 years 3rd

Uertho[..] 20 (years?) 4th

U[e]rtho[s .. x] years 5th

Sesunkh[eis x] years 6th

Syphois 7th

Zmendas 8th

Userthos 9th

Psonsame[s] 10th

[..]ekkhos[…] 11th

[…].kkhos[…] Psametikhos 1

[…]nkhos..[..] Nekos 1

Regards Joe

- Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590 — Kim Sargerson, Sun Aug 28 20:48Hi 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... more
- RE: Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590 — Joe Baker, Mon Sep 5 06:07
- Re: Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590 — Kim Sargerson, Mon Sep 5 12:40Hi 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