Kim Sargerson
Re: Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590
Mon Sep 5, 2011 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:

1. Smende[s] [xx]
2. Mompsanes 51
3. [Amo]s[es] [x]
4. Amenophris [x]
5. Ous[o]rthos 11
a. Psousammeos [x]
b. S[..s]ites [x]1
c. Ose[r]tho[s] [x]
d. [S..]s[i]tes II [x]
e. [name lost] [x]
f. [NL] his son [x]5
6. Ous[or]th[os] 24
7. S[es]yncheis 14
8. So[u]ophtheis 3
9. Amendesis 11
10. Sesonches 41
11. Ousorthos 4[0+x]
12. Psonsemes [x]
13. Sebenchos 23
14. Sebenchos II 13

Col IV
1. {S}me{n}des 48
2. Psonsames [5]1
3. Amoses 14
4. Amenophis 9
5. Ouerthos[.]11
a. omitted
b, om.
c. om.
d. om.
e. om.
f. om.
6. Ou[e]rthros [x]
7. Sesynch[eis] [x]
8. Suphois [x]
9. Zmendas [x]
10. misplaced after Sebenchos II
11. Ouserthros
12. Psonsame[s]
13. [Seb]ekchos
14. [Seb]ekchos
10. [Seso]nchos[is?]
I do not see "Sokophtheis" (the reference being to Sobek) as a viable reconstruction. "Ouophtheis" looks to me like a Greek attempt at "Iuputi" with an intrusive "S" added at the start to make Souophtheis.

I do not think names b, d in col. III can be restored as a version of "Sesonchis". They look more like the "Saites" of Syncellus, but there are too many possibilities in the Greek (Sousites, Syssites, Stasites etc.). Nor do I think the name in the last extant line [...]gchos[.?] can be read as n[e]chos.

I think we have to accept that the regnal years reported are of little value (the values given for Smendes (48), Amunemnisu (14), Osochor (11) and Shabataka (23) seem to be inferior to those given by Manetho) and I see little point in seizing upon this or that Osorkon or Sheshonq with a regnal period we think we recognise and equating them. Although [7]5 is a possible reading for ruler f, I am naturally doubtful.

My own take is that the author listed these reigns twice, perhaps from competing sources, one of which either dropped several names by jumping from one Ouserthros to the next, or excised these names as contemporary rulers not relevant for a timeline. I base the alignment not only on the coincidence of regnal years (where extant) and the spelling variants of Sheshonq exhibited, but also on the introductory "meta toutous ebasileusen" preserved in full in IV 8-9 preceding "Medes" and in part III 29 (ebasileu[s]en) preceding Smende[s]. I can see what you are trying to do with "Medes" = "Assyrians" but I don't think it works. For me, "Medes" is a singular personal name, an easy corruption of [S]me[n]des.



  • 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. 590 — Kim Sargerson, Mon Sep 5 12:40
Click here to receive daily updates