Jaime O
Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronology
Mon Dec 19, 2016 16:17
95.95.208.52

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 year of the wHm-mswt to a specific year of Ramesses XI is an error."

I agree with you. The date Year 9 = Year 1 Whm Mswt is the only certain synchronism. Some papers are available online at Academia.edu for free. I wonder what is your opinion on the matter of king Pinudjem.

"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?"

The problem of equating Year 19 of RXI with Year 1 of the wHm mswt is about time: it means that some 30 years lapsed mid RIX to late RXI, and that the same individuals were in trial and under investigation for the same reason during those 30 years. Were the Egyptian authorities that incompetent? Of course not. To follow the only certain synchronism (Year 9 = Year 1) will reduce the time lapsed by half. This chronology can be shorten even more. Remember late Terry Skinner's theory of all Ramses XI's years being wHm-mswt years, thus Year 9 (of RX) = Year 1 of wHm-mswt (of RXI). I've gravitated this theory for a long time now, and it seems to be an option as good as Year 9 belonging to RXI.

"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). "

This is probably the best option about Year 19 = Year 1. The only problem is that we are pulling a coregency out of the hat without more evidence, although a short overlap in a time of civil chaos should be expected to not leave many vestiges of its existence.

"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 agree with you. This reasoning should make the Abydos Stele with Year 27 of RXI part of the wHm-mswt era. These mysterious dates crossed a minimum of 26 years, not 10 or 11 as originally thought (or 14-15, as Thijs argues). It certainly fits Herihor's words in his Oracle, as he would have served as HPA from about Year 12 to Year 27.

"It is not just “12 kings of Diospolis” and “3 kings for 25 years” who don’t have names."

Maybe the 20th Dynasty is not my best example. Dynasties 15-17 don't have names too, yet, they have something in common with the 20th: they are said to be southern in origin, which I believe is the reason why the royal names were neglected, as the Manethonian writings are northern-biased. I was wrong when I wrote "I doubt any kings would have been unknown to Manetho or Ptolemy"; I had the '6 kings for 25/42 years' of the 22nd Dynasty in mind, which are anomalous because, unlike Dynasties 15-17, 20, these entries are summarized twice in the middle of the epitome.

"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."

Totally possible. The data is ambiguous enough to allow more than just one possibility. As I proposed an alternative genealogy based on Thijs's work, I followed him on having Nodjmet as King Pinudjem's sister, given the similarities between the sarcophagus of the two.

"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. [...]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."

Your interpretation is possible, but only if these are two linens. At light of my chronology, I have a reburial of King Amenemope happening around the time of Osorkon the Elder, with a Year 49 linen of Psusennes I being used. Also, what other Greek data records a Shoshenq for 49 years? The closest to this is the Book of Sothis, where we have 8. Sesonchosis, for 49 years. IMHO, this seems to be Senusret I rather than Shoshenq I: 8. Sesonchosis is followed by 9. Amenemes, for 29 years, which is coincident with Manetho's 12th Dynasty, whose first two entries are 1. Sesonchosis, for 46 years, followed by 2. Ammanemes, for 38 years; Shoshenq I as 8. Sesonchosis in the Book of Sothis seems to be out of place.

On Osorkon the Elder: "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.". You hypothesize a lengthy coregency between Osorkon and Siamun in which the father outlived the son, which is fine to would and does account for the disappearance of Siamun from this list, but I wonder what are your thoughts on Shoshenq I? It seems implausible to me that Shoshenq I came after Amenemope and was not considered to have founded a new dynasty, and how come he was not included on the list? You've wrote before you don't think kings fall out by accident from these lists, so where did he go? You add: "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."; have you consider looking at what Kim has called 'World Chronology'? It has an Osorkon reigning for 11 years following what seems to be King Amenemope for 9 years.

On Pasenhor's genealogy. I appreciate your comment on the matter. I agree with you that Tenetsepeh should be seen as daughter of Osorkon II.

"I have a typo in my last post. Thanks for catching it."

Is Tashepenbast the only typo? In some of your points, you include HPA Nesubanebdjed and HPA Iuwelot as sons of Osorkon I, but you fought this view in the past, arguing that to name a pharaoh without further epithets presumed that same pharaoh was the first one of that nomen. King Osorkon who fathered those HPAs was meant to be understood as Osorkon the Elder, per you. Tashepenbast fell under the same reasoning, as she was daughter of King Shoshenq.

Best wishes,
Jaime

  • 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 chronology — Jaime O, Mon Dec 19 16:17
      • 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: SesonchosisJaime O, Sat Dec 31 12:37
                      Hi Tory First of all, happy new year. For you and everyone else on this forum. On Nesipaqashuty. I messed this one badly; my bad here. Thanks for clarifying. In theory, it is not impossible that... 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