Jaime O
Re: Pinudjem I and Masaharta
Fri Dec 2, 2016 06:51
2001:8a0:708e:b801:9c6c:cc09:f046:6667

Hi Tory,

I appreciate your reply to this thread.

"An anonymous year date with the mention of a king within the very same date formula is technically not anonymous. The Egyptians were not ignorant. Shouldn't the default assumption be that the year belongs to the king mentioned later in the same date formula?"

Within the context of early 21st Dyn, the king mentioned is never associated with the action occurring in the text, nor with the date. He is always linked to the HPA he fathered. This father-son relationship works as an epithet to the priest, not as part of the date formula, which actually precedes the priest's name in most occasions. The king is never coupled with the dating of the document, nor is the document attributed to his reign explicitly. We also have non-dated artifacts in which these HPAs use the father-son link as epithet (namely, 'Menkheperre son of |(Pinudjem Meriamun)|'), while being associated with other living kings. See the PDF I'll be sending you, where you will find pendants in which HPs assume a father-son link while another king is mentioned. The Egyptians knew well that 'Year X, HPA Y son of King Z' didn't meant Year X belonged to King Z because they already used the recipe 'HPA Y son of King Z' while another king was around.

http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/Catalogue_GI_Cerny_MSS_17.125.1-17_by_Prada.pdf

"Since they intended these inscriptions to be read, what were they expecting readers to assume?"

Probably the same that 'HPA Pinudjem son of Piankh', 'HPA Pinudjem King's son of Psusennes Meriamun' and 'HPA Pinudjem son of |(Menkheperre)|' expected their readers to assume: that they were the HPA now, they were son of some other man who was either HPA or LOFTL, and that same man was dead, thus why they are exercising his office.

Best wishes,
Jaime

  • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaTory, Fri Dec 2 01:48
    An anonymous year date with the mention of a king within the very same date formula is technically not anonymous. The Egyptians were not ignorant. Shouldn't the default assumption be that the year... more
    • Re: Pinudjem I and Masaharta — Jaime O, Fri Dec 2 06:51
      • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaAnonymous, Fri Dec 2 10:04
        My question relates to the year date not the identity of the HP. I will rephrase. Unless these HPs were trying to be misunderstood they had a default assumption they expected readers of their linens, ... more
        • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaJaime O, Sat Dec 3 07:50
          Hi Tory, thank you for the reply. "My question relates to the year date not the identity of the HP." My point is this: 'Menkheperre son of King Pinudjem' is an epithet, in no way related to the date. ... more
          • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaTory, Thu Dec 8 23:13
            Jaime: "My point is this: 'Menkheperre son of king Pinudjem' is an epithet, in no way related to the date." Actually "son of X" is a patronymic not an epithet. Epithets can be earned, acquired, and... more
            • Re: Pinudjem I and MasahartaJaime O, Sun Dec 11 17:33
              Hi Tory, thank you for the reply. "Actually "son of X" is a patronymic not an epithet. Epithets can be earned, acquired, and taken away. Patronymics cannot." Yes. you're right. By 'epithet' I had an... more
              • HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyTory, Fri Dec 16 07:13
                Jaime: Thanks for bringing the Prada paper on tabs, mummy braces, and pendants from the Bab el-Gasus cache reproduced in Černżís notebooks to the forumís attention. Those who have had time to go ... more
                • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyJaime O, Fri Dec 16 18:14
                  Hi Tory, I appreciate your further comments. "Those who have had time to go through it have to be struck, as I was, over the number of items belonging to "HPA Pinudjem son of KING PSUSENNES... more
                  • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyTory, Sat Dec 17 00:21
                    Hi Jamie: To be honest, although I greatly respect Thijs I have not read all of his papers. I do not agree with him, and others, that the one explict text linking the first year of the wHm-mswt to a... more
                    • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyJaime O, Mon Dec 19 16:17
                      Hi Tory, I appreciate your reply. "To be honest, although I greatly respect Thijs I have not read all of his papers. I do not agree with him, and others, that the one explict text linking the first... more
Click here to receive daily updates