Tory
Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronology
Sat Dec 17, 2016 00:21
112.198.78.36

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 specific year of Ramesses XI is an error. P. Turin 2034 has to be accepted as written, year 1 of the wHm-mswt = year 9, and let the chips fall where they may. The anonymous year 1 = year 19 from the Abbott Dockets does not have to be the same as year 1 of the wHm-mswt in P BM 10052 and P Mayer A. These two documents deal with the same cases and the sames thieves, but so what? These trials continued into year 2 of the wHm-mswt, according to P Mayer A and P BM 10403. The anonymous year 1 = year 19 from the Abbott Dockets is year 1 of Ramesses X and year 19 of Ramesses IX. There is no mention or link to the wHm-mswt in these dockets. It is my understanding that the Abbott Dockets were filed with documents of Ramesses IX, so they are anonymous but not really because the royal name appeared in the first line of the first document, and by logic the higher number 19 belongs to him. Breasted wasn’t always right, but this time I think he clearly was. Ramesses IX presumably was near death when Ramesses X was made king in year 19. The trials began in this year 19 which was also year 1 of his successor Ramesses X (3 years). But the trials were adjourned, for some reason, and did not resume until a decade later in year 9 of Ramesses XI. This king discontinued his old year count this year and initiated a new count, the wHm-mswt count. The new count was only used down to year 9 of the wHm-mswt. The convention was not needed in years 10 or higher since there was no years 10 and higher in the old count. So there was never any confusion about the year dates. The notion of two localized counts for the same king Ramesses XI running simultaneously from year 19 to year 30 is just not credible unless every wHm-mswt year is denoted as such in a dated document, otherwise this is a dating chaos.

I think it is fair to say that there were a number of kings Manetho and Ptolemy of Mendes simply did not know about, because their sources did not always convey the complexities of the political situation throughout the centuries. The Manetho who wrote the “Agyptiaka of Manetho” either lived in the Roman period, or Ptolemy wrote under his name, or Ptolemy edited and revised his work. It is not attested during the Ptolemaic period, so there is no a-priori reason to believe two Roman period historians in Egypt had all of the facts in front of them. They had a lot but not all. It’s easy to invoke copying alterations but this is baseless without a manuscript transmission to compare variants. So I don’t buy that copyists left out kings by accident, etc., and that Manetho and Ptolemy are not to be blamed for any of the holes in their lists.

It is not just “12 kings of Diospolis” and “3 kings for 25 years” who don’t have names. Manetho/Ptolemy have other dynasties with numerous nameless kings, and one cannot say its because these kings all had the same nomen within their dynasty. These late historians simply could not provide the names. They only had imperfect knowledge about the number of kings. Their sources failed them in these cases.

I put a question mark about Menkheperre as eldest son because I’m not sure he was. The Libyans were not Egyptianized to the point where they always followed strict primogeniture rules of inheritance and royal succession. So Masarhata could have been the eldest son but not made HPA before Menkheperre.

I have no objection to Nodjmet as the mother of king Herihor, but then Herher would have to be the mother of king Nesbanebdjed I, and Nodjmet was his sister. Herher was also the wife, sister, or daughter of an HPA.

I don’t have to date the line naming “King Amenemope” and the linen with “year 49” at least forty-nine years apart. Amenemope was reburied. So the first line could have said something to the effect of: “[Regnal year 48, month y, day z (of Shoshenq I): On this day, the First Prophet of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, Psusennes (II), son of the First Prophet of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, Pinudjem (III), dispactched so-and-so to renew the burial of the] King of Upper and Lower Egypt Amenemope.” This strip of linen would have been made to re-wrapp the king’s mummy but it was found by Daressy unused, “loose” and “detached” (quoting Breasted) inside the tomb of the priests of Amon. The piece with “year 49” found with it suggests both strips were going to be used to wrap a priest’s mummy and Daressy copied them as one piece. That mistake gave rise to the assumption that Amenemope reigned 49 years instead of 9. If it is one piece of linen then he did reign 49 years. If we exclude that then it has to be two pieces because none of these linens ever record a double-date and two kings. I do not contest giving an attested Theban year 49 to a northern king Psusennes I when Manetho/Ptolemy do not; but they do not and other Greek data records a Shoshenq for 49 years.

I give the missing 21 years to Osorkon the Elder and no one else because (a) we are limited to the kings named in Manetho/Ptolemy list to reconcile their enumeration totals; (b) giving the missing 21 years to Nesbanebdjed I just brings back the problem Terry Skinner pointed out; (b) the lunar data sets fixed upper and lower limits in the dynasty; and (c) we have dates for Siamun who is missing in the Manetho/Ptolemy list but almost nothing for Osorkon who is in the list. So the ghost years go to the ghost king whose co-regent son(?) was the king Theban officials dated by after his accession, and after Osorkon presumably moved to Tanis. If he survived his son by a few weeks or months, that would explain both the missing king Siamun and the missing 21 years of his father in Manetho/Ptolemy. Nothing conclusive here, just a possibility. The other option for me would be that 6 years for Osorkon is a graphic mistake for 9, but that leaves unsolved where 11 years go.

Nimlot C and Tentsepeh were not the parents of Wedjptahankhef. The “son of” is omitted here, so the relationship of Wedjptahankhef and his princess-wife to the couple Nimlot C and Tentsepeh is not clear. The “son of” is also intentionally omitted between Shoshenq II/C and Nimlot A. I assume here that Karoama was the daughter of Nimlot A and that Shoshenq II/C was his son-in-law. I think Wedjptahankhef’s wife Tentsepeh was the royal daughter of Osorkon II and a sister of Nimlot C. She was 4 not 5 generations after Shoshenq II/C. From Wedjptahankhef to Pasenhor B is not 10+ generations. It is also only 4 generations. For generational counts this short, yes the averages can be less than 25 years for father-son generations. Hemptah A would be born ca. 820; Pasenhor A ca. 797; Hemptah B ca. 774; Pasenhor B ca. 751. Pasenhor B would still be young in 734 (age 17) but we already know he was young in year 37 of Shoshenq V. In the other post I was quoting D. Henige that anything less than 25 years is suspect for generation counts of 10 or higher.

I have a typo in my last post. Thanks for catching it. Tashepenbast was the daughter of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I. Her son the vizier Nesipakashuti A, son of 3PA Djedthutefankh, died between years 1 and 5 of Shoshenq II/C when he was calling himself Usermaatre (CG 42232) and before he settled with Hedjkheperre by year 5. His son Harsiese was the HPA when CG 42232 was made for the deceased.

Regards
Tory

  • 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 chronology — Tory, Sat Dec 17 00:21
      • 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: I’m afraid I can’t comment on Ad’s theory to separate king Pinudjem from HPA Pinudjem I until I’ve read his views. But I certainly do not put much stock in “12 kings of Diospolis” for the... more
          • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyJaime O, Wed Dec 21 16:03
            Hi Tory I appreciate your further comments. " I’m afraid I can’t comment on Ad’s theory to separate king Pinudjem from HPA Pinudjem I until I’ve 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: SesonchosisTory, Sun Dec 25 19:21
                      Jaime: Nesipaqashuty. Not sure what you mean. He is not beyond 100 in later Siamun. Nesipaqashuty (i) does not make it to Siamun. The year 5 mention (burial of Neskhons) of Nesipaqashuty (i) is... 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