Re: Sesonchosis
Mon Jan 2, 2017 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 grave goods, etc., that attest to an independent existence of a king Usermaatre Shoshenq. He would only be mentioned in CG 42232 which is someone else's funerary statue. So rather than use CG 42232 to invent another Shoshenq who has left no trace of his existence, it is more economical to equate him with an attested Shoshenq. My Shoshenq II/C was not an Usermaatre who once was Hedjkheperre. He began with Tyetkheperre in year 1 (imitating his maternal grandfather Psusennes III), then changed to Usermaatre (imitating Amenemope) in ca. year 2/3, then made the final change to Hedjkheperre (imitating his uncle Shoshenq I) by year 5.

My take on the statement "Three other kings for 25 years" in Africanus is that its only slightly above being worthless. I tend to accept Josephus when he says there was more than one edition of the "Agyptiaka of Manetho" in existence and that each edition had conflicting information. I believe Josephus consulted all three editions. Eusebius reproduced the second edition and Africanus reproduced the third and final edition. All three editions were published during the long reign of Augustus Caesar, with about 10 years separating each edition.

In my view, the 25 years belong to Takeloth I/II and several people became kings over different parts of the country during his 25-year reign. The first and second editions of the Agyptiaka artificially reduced Takeloth I/II to just 13 years and terminated the dynasty at this point because, in my opinion, Takeloth I/II moved his capital to Thebes in year 13/14 and the northern chronographic sources lose touch of the dynasty's history after this point. The third and final edition of the Agyptiaka tries to fill in missing details but the result is just more confusion and misinformation. Osorkon II is one of Africanus's last "three other kings for 42 years", but Ptolemy of Mendes couldn't determine the names of any kings in this dynasty after Takeloth I/II.

Louvre C100 does not record the name Iny. Yoyotte's guess is as good as anyone's, and this name could be Py. The name Iny is only clearly attested by the Djedioh graffito. Also, Py could have replaced the prenomen Menkheperre in Thutmose III's monument with something else when he usurped it. So it cannot be said that he did not style himself Menkheperre during his reign. AFAIK, there are no inscriptions of Iny Meryamun.

The 21st dynasty was the first Libyan dynasty and Psusennes I was the first Aakheperre-setepenamon in this dynasty. I'm saying he died in a terminal year 46 and was succeeded directly by Amenemope. Berlin 23673 trumps the late, and confused, Greek data. The Berlin record also cannot be interpreted apart from Cairo JE 45569 which mentions 各dsunefertum and his son as just prophets in the reign of Siamun.

That's correct that Amonemnisut is not explicitly connected to HPA Menkheperre, but HPA Nesbanebdjed II buried Psusennes I. So even in your model Menkheperre has to be HPA during the brief reign of Amonemnisut.

On the seal-ring of 覚baka found in Nineveh. When Sargon II says the Kushite king (覚batka) who sent him Yamani had no forebears who sent a message to Assyria since the day of the moon-god, he痴 telling the truth but he's also copying something Tiglath-Pileser III once said in his Summary Inscription 8:20'-21' and Summary Inscription 9:23-25. This earlier king of Assyria states that a king who sent envoys to him had forefathers who had ever sent any message to Assyria, nor submitted to the Assyrian yoke. The king's name has not survived but it has to be a king who ruled Egypt. Tadmor suggested Shoshenq V or Osorkon IV, but these Libyan kings of Egypt did have a royal predecessor who sent messages and gifts to Assyria: Osorkon II sent all types of exotic fauna to Shalmaneser III. Thus, it cannot be a Libyan king of Egypt who sent a message to Tiglath-Pileser III in the 8th century. It would have to be a Kushite king of Egypt who did.

The 覚baka seal-ring was on correspondence between 覚baka and Tiglath-Pileser III. The occasion was when Tiglath-Pileser III established an Assyrian colony right on the Egyptian border in 734. 覚baka had just killed Bakenrenef for making overtures to the Assyrians on their doorsteps. He then reached terms with Tiglath-Pileser III about the border. That's how the Kushite king's seal-ring ended up in Nineveh. Sennacherib began residing in Nineveh, in the old palace, in 720 as the crown prince in charge of all his father Sargon II痴 administrative affairs. So there is no mystery as to how the seal-ring ended up in Sennacherib's palace. He inherited everything in Nineveh after his arrival in 720.

According to the annals of Sargon II, the Yamani incident was the first contact between the Assyrians and the Kushites

Actually, what Sargon II literally says is that the last time a Kushite king had sent a message to Assyria was in the day of the moon-god. This could be a cryptic reference to a lunar eclipse that occurred during the diplomatic exchanges between 覚baka and Tiglath-Pileser III. There was a total lunar eclipse visible from Assyria on April 19 (Julian), 732. This was just after Tiglath-Pileser III set up shop on Egypt's front doorstep. Tiglath-Pileser III appointed someone named Idibi'ilu to the unique office of 'Gatekeepership' facing Musri in 734/733. This is year 2 of 覚baka on my time-line. In any case, Sargon II is not saying the first contact between the Kushites and the Assyrians took place during his reign. He's saying the last contact took place in connection with the moon-god Nanna.

Sib'u was the general of all Egypt in 720 but this is an Akkadian name. He is not likely to have had an Akkadian name or nickname. The Sumerian sign SIPA was normally read out in Akkadian as "Re'e" or SIPA as in Borsippa, not as Sib'u (in fact, never as Sib'u). The word Re'e means "shepherd" in Akkadian. Thus, SIPA is probably a pun on the pet form of the Nubian name 覚batka. The joke being made is that SIPA, like a shepherd, abandoned his Delta flock in 720. Pir'u is mentioned after SIPA vacated Lower Egypt in 720. If 覚batka was only the general of all Egypt in 720 his father 覚baka must have been the supreme monarch of all Egypt. But the abandonment in 720 after the confrontation with the Assyrians at Raphia left Pir'u to be the leading figure in the Delta. The Tang-i Var rock inscription from 706 just proves 覚batka was king before 706 and extradited Yamani to Assyria in 707.

On Papyrus Louvre E3228c. This is another weak attempt to reverse the order. Peteknoumis pawned his POW named Ietouroz to Petoubastis in year 7 of 覚baka for 6 debens of which Petoubastis paid 4. Later, in year 2 of Taharqa Petoubastis paid the remaining balance of 2 debens owed. However Peteknoumis went to court over the course of the next four years and tried to get his slave back from Petoubastis, but he lost all his cases. The document is dated the day of the final court judgement which was II 確w 6, year 6 of Taharqa.

First, this is an abnormal hieratic document of Kushite period date from Thebes (and we have many that are dated but no royal name). So this year 6 can be year 6 from Taharqa's Kushite year-count in 708 on my time-line. This would be during his kingship over Kush from Thebes but not yet over Egypt and the span of elapsed years would be 22 (729-708). Second, to use this document to reverse the order 覚baka-覚batka the assumption has to be that the POW was not young in year 7 of 覚baka when in fact we don't know that he wasn't and he could have been. Third, these court cases cannot tell us about people's emotions. Peteknoumis may have considered Ietouroz a family member and not just property. In that case, his persistence in trying to get Ietouroz back from year 2 to year 6 of Taharqa may have had nothing to do with Ietouroz's age or value as a slave.

There is also the pylon of the small temple at Medinet Habu, which was finished by Taharqa but began by Shabaka. 25 years separate the ascension of the former and the death of the latter in your model.

This type of thing happened a lot in Egypt. The argument is therefore not real, only another illusion.

Similarly, CG 42204, made by HPA Haremakhet, names the priest as son of Shabaka, confident of Taharqa and director of the palace under Tanutamun, but Shabataka is absent.

Haremakhet was the son of 覚baka but not his heir, nor did he hold any office during his reign or during the reign of his brother 覚batka. So there was no reason for Haremakhet to mention his brother 覚batka, especially since CG 42204 is not a king list but a record of Haremakhet痴 official career. 覚batka, Taharqa, and Haremakhet all had the same biological father, i.e. 覚baka, in my reconstruction.

Kawa Stelae can be interpreted as mentioning two trips to Egypt made by Taharqa at different times.

I once thought one could argue this but its not possible. If you read Kawa IV and V carefully you値l notice Taharqa leaves his mother for a trip north and doesn稚 see her again until after he痴 crowned king of Egypt in 690. This is recorded in Kawa V. In Kawa IV Taharqa mentions 覚batka and that he saw the ruins of Gempaaton on his way to see him. If this is the first trip and Kawa V records a second one, did Taharqa avoid seeing his mother after going back south after the first trip? Not possible. There was only one trip north.


  • 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: Sesonchosis — Tory, Mon Jan 2 11:14
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates