Jaime O
Re: Pinudjem I and Masaharta
Sun Dec 11, 2016 17:33
95.95.208.52

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 idea closer to 'patronymic' than anything else. Thank you for pointing it out.

"Can there be such a thing as a useful anonymous year in Egypt if there is no way to determine from the text who owns the year? [...]No sophisticated society operates like that."

I agree with you. But my point is that priests, when it came the time to use these linens, presumed by themselves from which period they were. Contrary to anyone else in Egypt, they had access to privileged and detailed information about their past, so by reading a linen made by Menkheperre son of King Pinudjem in some year-date, presumably archived with many other linens with similar information (I don't believe very, very old linens were kept and used), priests would assume under which king this linen was made, and to which time period it belonged. This, however, doesn't mean these dates weren't made under King Pinudjem, like you argue. It's still a possibility, but not the only one.

"Amenhotep I. His first reburial was in year 6, IV-Peret 7, anonymous, by HP Pinudjem son of HP Piankh. [...]Directly beneath this is another docket, and this one is dated year 16, IV-Peret 11, by HP Masaharta son of KING Pinudjem. It records the second reburial of Amenhotep I."

Your sequence does play better with evidences, although the linen with Year 8 of King Pinudjem could have been made before the 1st reburial by HPA Pinudjem. In my scenario, this said linen could have been the first under King Pinudjem, as you want to presume, but antedates the reburial by Masaharta in Year 16 by 18 years (Pinudjem's Year 8 in c1022, and [Herihor's] Year 16 in c1004). It's a possibility that this linen existed by the time the first reburial was made under HP Pinudjem, but only came to be used later.

Given that you raise some fair points, I can postulate a scenario where Years 16-48 all belong to King Pinudjem, returning to the original position of equating this ruler with the same-named priest. I would have Herihor succeeding Ramses XI directly, and Smendes I and Pinudjem I succeeding him afterwards. In such scenario, I would allow Smendes I to reign for the 26 years ascribed to him by Manetho, overlapping the entirety of the first half of the reign of Pinudjem (it would feel more comfortable than correcting 26 to [1]6, a whim of mine in order to solve some anomalies). Then, Pinudjem I would still be Psusennes I's father, and their reigns would overlap, allowing for Henuttawy to be king's wife and king's mother simultaneously as the Coptos Stele shows.

A new sequence of kings:
- Ramses XI, 1097-1063
- Herihor, 1063-1048
- Pinudjem I, 1048-1001
- Smendes, 1048-1022
- Psusennes I, 1022-971

Nevetheless, I don't subscribe to the above sequence. It doesn't answer many points originally raised by Thijs and some others I pointed out in my two first posts in this thread.

Best wishes,
Jaime

  • 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 Masaharta — Jaime O, Sun Dec 11 17:33
      • 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
              • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyTory, Tue Dec 20 11:21
                Hi Jamie: Iím afraid I canít comment on Adís theory to separate king Pinudjem from HPA Pinudjem I until Iíve read his views. But I certainly do not put much stock in ď12 kings of DiospolisĒ for the... more
                • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyJaime O, Wed Dec 21 16:03
                  Hi Tory I appreciate your further comments. " Iím afraid I canít comment on Adís theory to separate king Pinudjem from HPA Pinudjem I until Iíve read his views. " I haven't read all, just a few,... more
                  • ΣέσογχωσιςTory, Wed Dec 21 18:21
                    Hi Jamie: Σέσογχωσις (Sesonchosis) is the Libyan name Shoshenq. So your question avoids the obvious one which is why is the name Senusret I deleted... more
                    • Re: Σέσογχωσι&#Jaime O, Thu Dec 22 07:51
                      Hi Tory, Thanks again for the reply. "Where did Senusret I go? He got turned into Shoshenq I." Your theory of having Shoshenq I in between mid-21st Dynasty makes more sense to me as this discussion... more
                    • re: TwosretRich McQuillen, Thu Dec 22 01:13
                      Hi Tory, Your article is almost entirely correct and a wonderful and nearly prototypical read for any Historian. Manetho does have flaws and different versions have different flaws. And it is hard to ... more
Click here to receive daily updates