Jaime O
Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronology
Fri Dec 16, 2016 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 MERIAMUN." Prada lists all five items under Pinudjem II son of Menkheperre. This seems wrong."

I agree with you. It seems anomalous that HP Pinudjem would change his patronymic at will. There is also the position of many scholars that Isetemkheb daughter of Wiay, wife of Menkheperre and mother of HPA Pinudjem was daughter of Psusennes I, but there is no sound proof of this. Isetemkheb was not a King's Daughter, Wiay was not a King's Wife. Thus, nothing says HPA Pinudjem son of King Psusennes should be equated with HPA Pinudjem son of Menkheperre.

My position is that HPA Pinudjem son of King Psusennes is another priest. My position at the time I published this thread was that he was son of Psusennes II and was buried in his Year 10. However, after reading the paper I sent, I realized my scheme was wrong: Pinudjem son of King Psusennes appears on those tabs and pendants alongside Amenemope's name, which means they lived about the same time. I wanted to post an alternative solution here on this thread to this problem, and it seems you've reached a similar conclusion to mine: that Pinudjem son of Psusennes Meriamun was HP around the time Amenemope was king.

Here is the order of priests in my chronology:
1. Amenhotep
2. Piankh
3. Herihor
4. Pinudjem son of Piankh
5. Masaharta
6. Djedkhonsuefankh
7. Menkheperre
8. Nesubanebdjed
9. Pinudjem IIb son of King Psusennes (your Pinudjem II)
10. Pinudjem IIa son of Menkheperre (your Pinudjem III)

For the sake of it, I'll be calling HP Pinudjem son of King Psusennes Pinudjem IIb.

"No. 3 is number 3 because he died and was buried in someoneís year 10. The assumption is that it is year 10 of Siamun. [...]I again point out that, contra Reeveís attempt to get around this, year 10 of Shoshenq I comes before year 10 of Siamun [...]. Have to give Rohl credit where its due, and this doesn't mean agreeing with all of his conclusions."
Your positioning of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq shortly after Psusennes I is to some extend quite inventive (in a good way), and probably answers better Rhol's point without arguing for a major overlap of dynasts. On my model (which was ignorant of Pinudjem IIb being directly associated with Amenemope), Pinudjem IIb was buried in a Year 10 of Shoshenq I, thus being buried in the same year as Djedptahiuefankh and being directly succeeded by Iuput; of course, this is impossible, for Pinudjem IIb must have lived many generations before. This is a problem I will deal with later.

"If Herihor succeeded RXI directly, whose year is the year 6 when Herihor renewed the royal burials as just an HPA?"

In the model I proposed, based on Thijs's work which separates King Pinudjem from HP Pinudjem son of Piankh, King Pinudjem succeeded RXI directly, not Herihor. In such model, Year 6 belongs to King Pinudjem.

"I think its time to agree with the late Terry Skinner about Hedjkheperre-setepenre Nesbanebdjed I (Σμένδης, Σμένδις) reigning 26 years. It is more likely just 6 years and Manetho followed by Ptolemy of Mendes have an error here, ďeta ksĒ = 26 years; but delete the kappa, ďeta sĒ = 6 years, and problems go away."

I aiming for a model where few errors are assumed in the texts, but the reign of 26 years of Nesubanebdjed is one I am ready to challenge. To give him 6 years is a possibility I played with in the past. Allow me to ask you who do you think Year 19 = Year 1 belongs to, or do you assume it is an error for Year [9] = Year 1 of Whm Mswt?

"I list here again my chronology from Ramesses XI to the early 22nd dynasty, incorporating the data of three HPAs under Amenemope."

You have change some things, so allow me:

- Ramses XI: I doubt any kings would have been unknown to Manetho or Ptolemy. If anything, a king could fall from a list by accident. But 12 entries unknown to Manetho or Ptolemy seems odd. I interpret these missing names as the way epitomizers copied the 20th Dynasty list: they shortened it to '12 kings of Diospolis', because most of the kings had the same name. Nine of these rulers were named Ramses, the other three were Setnakhte, Herihor and King Pinudjem (the latter two must fit somewhere. The 21st Dynasty is not the best place to look for them). Epitomizers did the same to the 22nd Dynasty list: 6 kings had the same name, or similar names, and their entries where edited to merely 'Three kings for 25/42 years'. These periods have something in common: many kings in close succession or parallel to each other with the same name (many Ramses-kings in the 20th Dynasty; many Shoshenq-kings in the 22nd).

- King Nesubanebjed I: nothing odd here, everything seems to fit in your model. However, note that Masaharta carried the titles of 'Crown Prince' and 'Great Lord of Egypt' (https://books.google.pt/books?id=qY2dCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=masaharta+crown+prince&source=bl&ots=VCEUTDNmqv&sig=gXqNfg5WqKs0Tsr7Fd6VePRApdE&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV0MCpovnQAhWK1xQKHZjQDtoQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=masaharta%20crown%20prince&f=false), so maybe you should consider him Pinudjem's eldest son instead of Menkheperre.

- King Herihor: Do also note that Nodjmet is nowhere called King's Wife in her funerary papyrus. She is King's Mother, daughter of Herher who is a King's Mother too (thus, Nodjmet is a King's Sister), and she is directly associated with Herihor; the default assumption should be that this woman is the mother, not the wife, of Herihor

- King Pinudjem: I see nothing out of the extraordinary here either. It seems to fit your model well. I also don't discount the possibility of Menkheperre having served as HP somewhere else before someone's Year 25: the data in the Banishment Stele is ambiguous enough to draw a conclusion.

- Aakheperre Psusennes I: many interpretations can be made out of the discrepancy. I prefer a number higher than 41 years given the infamous linen (or linens?) inscribed with "[Year X] of King Amenemope, Year 49 [of King ??]". You date these to the reign of Shoshenq I. If so, then these dates are separated by a maximum of 57 years, a minimum of 49. Linens were made of very good material, but their quality certainly declined with time; so, to what extend was an almost 60 year old linen preferable to a more recent one? Given this reasoning, I prefer to close the gap, and Psusennes I becomes the best candidate for the aforementioned linen. We also know that the name of Aakheperre Psusennes has been found in his tomb alongside Amunemnisu's, which indicates: a) Psusennes came some time after Amunemnisu; b) Amunemnisu came some time after Psusennes; or c) both were coregents, or overlapped to some degree. Option c) can account for both Manetho and epigraph facts. Thus, I propose that Amunemnisu became king in Psusennes I's Year 42 (after the latter had reigned for about 41 years), died during Year 46, and Psusennes I made his other son, Amenemope, his coregent the next year. Thus, Psusennes I reigned 41 years until Amunemnisu, and 46 years until Amenemope.

On Aakheperre Osorkon: "27 years. Manetho gives a dynasty total of 130 years but only 114 years are listed (Africanus). [...] instead of increasing Psusennes III from 14 to 35 years these 21 years probably belong to Osorkon and his reign should be increased from 6 to 27 years."

Your numbers fall short, and this kind of correction is the one I am trying to avoid. Why give these 21 years to Osorkon and not to anyone else? Like King Nesubanebdjed, Aakheperre Osorkon is a ghost-king who didn't left explicit traces of his own existence.

On Shoshenq II/C plus Osorkon I: your solution to linens with Year 33 and Year 3 is similar to mine when I first started to post in this forum, although now I date Year 33 with a Second Heb-Sed date to the reign of Psusennes II, whom now I see as reigning for 35 years. I also note that you date Shoshenq II's birth to c940, but this seems problematic to you. You're arguing on another thread that any generational count below 25 is suspect, but if I'm not mistaken, by dating Shoshenq V's Year 37 to about c733, you ought to date Pasenhor B's birth (9th generation after King Shoshenq, who you equate with Shoshenq II) to about c760 (unless you want to make him elderly at the time), having a 180 years span for 9 generations, an average of 20 years per generation. If won't mind the comparison, in my chronology, I date Pasenhor B's to c738 (my dates for Shoshenq V are lower than yours) and King Shoshenq's to c966, which gives a genealogy of 25,3 years per generation.

I do also note that you have Nesipakashuti A dying during Shoshenq II's reign, but how old would he be, given that he was the second generation after that king? It seems, at least to me, that he would have died too young to have sired children and serve as Vizier. For comparison's sake, in my scheme, the Usermaatre Shoshenq was a later son and successor of Osorkon I, and Djedthutefankh was married to a daughter of King Shoshenq B (not Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I, who was Shoshenq B's son and Osorkon I's brother. He was also the first of his dynasty to be named Shoshenq, which might delight your criteria of kings with no pronomen being the first ruling dynast of that name). Nesipakashuty A in this scenario is the same generation as Usermaatre Shoshenq, and his contemporary. Either way, your scheme and mine are certainly better than the conventional one, where Shoshenq III poses as the only Usermaatre Shoshenq and is contemporary of people who come 3 generations after Siamun, who in turn reigns about 150 years before Shoshenq III. This means 50 years per generation, although we might allow short family trees to sum up these oddities. In my scheme, where Siamun starts to reign about c960 and an early Usermaatre Shoshenq about c860, 100 years for 3 generations spans about 33,3 years per generation.

Best wishes,

  • 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 chronology — Jaime O, Fri Dec 16 18:14
      • 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
                  • ΣέσογχωσιςTory, Thu Dec 22 21:02
                    Hi Jaime: If anyone can explain to me what possessed Manetho to put Σέσογχωσις, Άμμανέμου... more
                    • SesonchosisJaime O, Sat Dec 24 06:48
                      Dear Tory, I appreciate your reply. "If anyone can explain to me what possessed Manetho to put Σέσογχωσις,... more
                  • re: OrusRich McQuillen, Thu Dec 22 08:44
                    "You're totally right about Orus and other names." -- We have a possible lead from the Greeks on an Orus who was a king, about at that time. "Orus 1. The first king of the Troezenians, whose land was ... more
                    • re: OrusJaime O, Thu Dec 22 15:57
                      Dear Rich, "We have a possible lead from the Greeks on an Orus who was a king, about at that time. [...] This is a vague reference; the name does look like the Egyptian Horus. This could be some... 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
                  • re: TwosretTory, Thu Dec 22 02:19
                    Hi Rich Twosret was indeed a pharaoh, not a governor of some Libyan nome. But she does not have to be female-pharaoh in Egypt at the time of the Torjan war unless one is trying to salvage the... more
Click here to receive daily updates