Tory
Σέσογχωσις
Thu Dec 22, 2016 21:02
112.198.69.248

Hi Jaime:

If anyone can explain to me what possessed Manetho to put Σέσογχωσις, Άμμανέμου υίός ("Soshenq son of Ammanemou") in his 12th dynasty king list that would exclude my explanation, I'm all ears. This is clearly Shoshenq I, successor of Amenemope, but in the wrong place by mistake.

As for the EKL, the part that can be verified against the monuments, inscriptions, and external-sources like the Hebrew Bible is the Makeda-Menelik dynasty forward. I think Makeda is none other than "the King of Upper and Lower Egypt" M3rk3ty. It is now recognized that she was a predecessor of Piankhy (see Ritner, p. 456). But I think the signs in her name on the Semna inscription are probably being read in the wrong order by scholars. It is not K3tym3r (Katimala). It is M3rk3ty = Markati, and this became voiced as "Makeda" by later generations. She began as the "great king's wife" and a "king's daughter" but she apparently became regent during her husband's reign, and then an independent king herself when her husband died. She evidently refused to marry his successor. In my opinion, she was the great royal wife of Amenemope and she reigned at Saba in Kush after he died and when control of Egypt came into the possession of Shoshenq I, the immediate successor but not the son of Amenemope. Her trip from her capital of Saba in Kush to Jerusalem and the report she and her entourage brought back to Egypt and Kush is probably what inspired Shoshenq I to attack Yao-dah (Judah) and rob the temple of all its wealth shortly after the death of Salamo (Solomon). I further speculate that it was her absence and her extended stay with Salamo that emboldened the Makaresh attacks which she complains about in her inscription. The enemies were vanquished upon her return to Kush. She has a year 14 linked directly to her name in this inscription. So I don't rule out the EKL data that Makeda reigned 31 years.

On Rudamon II. There were several people with the name Rudamon. So there is no reason to think the son of Osorkon and Tadiamon was the only one to have the name. You are right to make the Kushite Urdamane not Tanutamon but Rudamon II.

On year 40 of Piankhy. I didn't pay close enough attention to this letter from T. G. H. James of the British Museum written to Klaus Baer. It is dated June 14, 1972: "I have re-examined our piece of linen 6640 and showed it at the same time to Professor Parker ... The fascimile given by Greene is basically correct. The two ten signs on the left are very clear. On the right nothing can be read with any conviction and it cannot be said that anything was ever actually written there. The linen is mostly preserved in the space and I should have thought that if there had been two more ten signs something would have been visible. The traces given by Greene in this area cannot be wholly substantiated. Even so, they do not appear to suggest two ten signs. The piece as a whole is very strange. The position of the date at the bottom is very peculiar. Parker feels that the position of the two visible tens requires two more tens on the right but as I have said there is no trace of these hypothetical tens."

Klaus was not satisified with this analysis, but James is correct that any year assumed to be greater than "year 20" is just guesswork and this bandage cannot be used to confirm a 40-year reign. The other references I have are Kitchen 152 and n. 292; Redford in JARCE 22; Wente in JNES 35 (1976), p. 275; and Krauss in his 2006 book. The racist Morkot, for whom I have zero respect because of the title he gave to his book, The Black Pharaohs, ignores this Theban bandage on pp. 170-172. He puts Kitchen's and Redford's discussions in a footnote (n. 9, 314).

On Taharqa. My reconstruction does not demand that Taharqa continue his Nubian year count once he became king of the entire Kushite-Egyptian empire in 690. It just accepts the biblical and the EKL data that he became king of Kush long before he became king of Egypt and Kush. The EKL data also precludes him from being Piankhy's son.

Regards
Tory

  • 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
    • Σέσογχωσις — Tory, Thu Dec 22 21:02
      • 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: SesonchosisKim Sargerson, Sun Jan 8 12:46
                  Hi Jime, Tory In post 16339 on 7/4/2016 Tory wrote "I argue Taharqa became a real king of Kush when his father died, but king in the Kushite definition and more or less "chieftain" from the Egyptian... more
                • Re: SesonchosisRobert P. Killian, Sun Jan 8 09:15
                  Jaime, Tory and Kim, Question,---was 732BC, the 13th year of the Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser III? Question,---was 732BC, the death year of Retzin, King of Damascus? Question,---was 732BC, the death ... more
                  • Re: SesonchosisJaime O, Sun Jan 8 16:10
                    Hi Bob, thank you for your questions. Allow me to respond for myself. A) 732 BCE was the 13th year of Tiglath-Pileser III's reign. It is not my belief that any dates lower that 911 BCE (Adad-Nirari... more
                    • Re SesonchosisRobert P. Killian, Mon Jan 9 00:39
                      Hi Jaime O Thanks for answering my list of questions. A) 732 BCE, was 13th year of Tiglath-Pileser III's reign. B) Retzin of Damascus died in 732 BCE. Did Pekah die too? I do have 701 BCE, for... 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
Click here to receive daily updates