Jaime O
Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronology
Wed Dec 21, 2016 16:03
95.95.208.52

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, which alone raise some fair points. I initiated this thread in order to discuss an alternative genealogy I theorized based on the premise that King Pinudjem is not the same man as HP Pinudjem. Mainly because Ad Thijs's model is flawed at many levels, by overlapping all Ramesside kings after RIII with Smendes I and Psusennes I, tangling even more the family tree of the Tanite kings. Nevertheless, the model proposed is one I will freely abdicate if proven unworkable.

" P. Turin Cat. 2034 can’t easily be year 1 of wHm-mswt = year 9 (of Ramesses X)."

I see your point. Can't really battle this, although in theory, given that Ramses X lived in a time of conflict and economical havoc, we might not except civil functionalities and records to be as assiduous and plenty as under RIX and RXI, who reigned relatively longer than RX under any scenario.

" I don’t think year 1 = 19 is necessarily a co-regency. It is an overlap but its not a “co-regency” unless the two kings share the same capital and the same administration officials."

Maybe a peaceful overlap, with RX's authority being recognized at Thebes while RIX was living there. As I've stated before, it was a time of many powerful men rising to power and claiming petty kingdoms for themselves, so if Year 1 belongs to RX or any other king (like Smendes I or RXI) I'll leave it open.

" “Sesonchosis” is nothing other than the Libyan name Shoshenq. No way around it. The Libyan pharaoh ends up as the founder of the 12th dynasty, at the place where Senusret I belongs, because the Agyptiaka was authored by a late Roman period writer who misunderstood a king list fragment which had the order: “Amenemope, (then) Shoshenq.” He assumed this to mean: “Sesonchosis, son of Amenemes.”"

This seems a bit of a stretch, unless you can effectively show and theorize more examples of kings being thrown back or forth in these lists. Where did Senusret I in Manetho go, then? 8. Sesonchosis in Sothis reigned for 49 years, but Sesonchosis in Manetho reigned for 46 years, a figure too close to Senusret I for 45/46 years to be coincident, closer than your Shoshenq I for 49 years. Wasn't Ptolemy (or 'Manetho') able to tell Sesonchosis, successor of Ammanemes and predecessor of Ammanemes, apart from Shoshenq, successor of Amenemope and predecessor of Osorkon?

" I don’t agree Shoshenq I should be the start of a new dynasty. Why doesn’t a new dynasty begin with Osorkon (the Elder)?"

In the model I proposed, there is the possibility that Mehetemweskhet might have been a concubine of Herihor and mothered Osorkon the Elder with him. Nevertheless, the Libyans seemingly had their own succession rules, and it is my belief (judging by Piankh's name and Pinudjem's) that the kings and priests from the 21st Dynasty were Nubian and Libyan in origin.

" I still have not seen the “World Chronology.” It is not a Manethonian fragment?"

It doesn't appear to be Manethonian. It was brought some years ago by Joe to the forum (back in 2011). It's the Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590. Parts of it seem to preserve a list of kings from the 21st to the 25th Dynasty. It includes a Smendes, followed by a mompsames, followed by a king Amoses, followed by Amenophris, followed by Userthos, followed by Psossammeos, followed by S...ites, followed by Userthos again. It is basically the whole 21st Dynasty list down to Osorkon I, and it goes deeper. No Shoshenq I is to be seen here, and no Psinaches seems to be included; I being to suspect Psinaches might be Psusennes II repeated. Here: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=177754;article=11606;title=The%20Ancient%20Near%20Eastern%20Chronology%20Forum

" Tashepenbast was the daughter of a Shoshenq with no prenomen and I still say that indicates he was the first king of that name in his dynasty. Shoshenq II/C began a new dynasty at Bubastis."

I don't think this methodology can be conclusive, but it might be helpful. My 21st Dynasty chronology certainly needs revision, I'll update in time.

PS: Your posts 17267 and 17268 hold some interesting views. I can't say anything substantial about EKL, other than its accuracy is open to debate, although I'm inclined to deny it any attention. You antedate Piye to 803-772, thus overlapping with Shoshenq III; I've always thought that Piye would fit better in a time shortly after Shoshenq III, for various reasons, which is why I keep myself sympathetic of some NC ideas.

Best wishes,
Jaime

  • 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 chronology — Jaime O, Wed Dec 21 16:03
      • 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: SesonchosisTory, Mon Jan 2 11:14
                    Hi Jaime: If he is not Shoshenq III then there are no monuments, no door jambs, no lintels, no walls, no temples, no priestly annals, no donation stelae, no geneaologies, no scarabs, no tomb, and no... more
                    • Re: SesonchosisJaime O, Sat Jan 7 18:41
                      Hi Tory, thank you for the reply. "If he is not Shoshenq III then there are no monuments, no door jambs, no lintels, no walls, no temples, no priestly annals, no donation stelae, no geneaologies, no... 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