Jaime O
Re: Sesonchosis
Sat Jan 7, 2017 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 scarabs, no tomb, and no grave goods, etc., that attest to an independent existence of a king Usermaatre Shoshenq."

You seem to think that the case for a previous Usermaatre Shoshenq is made out of thin air, but it's not. Shoshenq D was buried with a bracelet mentioning Usermaatre Shoshenq Si-Bast, but if he died before Osorkon II, one must ask the question as to why he didn't succeed his father as eldest (surviving?) son but was able to be buried honorably. A crown-prince who dies as heir to his king and not as his successor must be presumed dead before that same ruler, unless further evidence can be shown. If anything, the bracelet of Usermaatre Shoshenq can argue for an overlap between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III (Thijs argued this, so do you. I had a similar model once), but the standard chronology runs into a blind alley when it wants to fit three generations in office in 150 years, roughly the time between Siamun and Shoshenq III on most chronologies. CG 42232 calls for an earlier Usermaatre Shoshenq and your model admits this; the bracelet found on Shoshenq D can thus be interpreted as belonging to this Usermaatre Shoshenq, thus not presuming an extended overlap between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III (at least not one where the latter was still ruling at Thebes as you have it). NLT 23 also belongs to an earlier Usermaatre Shoshenq: I am very aware of your resolution in order for NLTs 23 and 25 to belong to the same king, but either the year or the city of Thebes become too crowded with rulers and priests. This is just the beginning of the case. At light of this, I still hold that is preferable to have an earlier and ephemeral Usermaatre Shoshenq than assuming that the founder of a dynasty did a very rare thing more than once (I fully understand your theory, I wrote your Shoshenq II was Hedjkheperre after being Usermaatre, not the other way around) and was contemporary of an unattested HPA, who by coincide had a namesake priest generations later associated to a king of that same pronomen.

Nevertheless, I'll have to admit for the sake of objectivity that retracting Shoshenq I in time to mid-21st Dynasty and then having an Usermaatre Shoshenq (identified with all others three Shoshenqs, although I'm still not sure how you separate the first Hedjkheperre from the second and the third), plus having an overlap between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III, might solve many of the problems above.

"My take on the statement "Three other kings for 25 years" in Africanus is that its only slightly above being worthless."

I appreciate your opinion. Can't really say anything else: I've tried before to make something out of the 25 years, but they are probably numbers of mixed meaning. I also agree with you, based on Josephus, that there was more than one manuscript (or edition) with contradicting information: it justifies the differences between Eusebius and Africanus, and Josephus on the 18th Dynasty.

"Louvre C100 does not record the name Iny. Yoyotte's guess is as good as anyone's, and this name could be Py. [...] 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."

Yoyotte examined the artifact, contrary to us. Iny and Py are also similarly written in hieroglyphs. Py might have styled himself as Menkheperre on Thutmose III's monument while usurping it, but he usurped the 18th Dynasty king's whole titulary and adapted it to his own Nubian ideology. I made an argument once based on the same premise, but this is a mere case of lazy usurpation. Piye never used this whole titulary ever again. Nevertheless, I should notice that the titulary of king Menkheperre on Louvre C100 closely match Py's.

"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."

I will reconsider my position with Cairo JE 45569 on mind. I forgot about this detail. Thanks for mentioning it.

I fear this contradicts your own reasoning, that a king called by his nomen or pronomen alone would be the first king of a dynasty with such name. It only makes me think of a question. It seems like Ancient Egyptians and 'Manetho' were in full (or partial) agreement about who belonged to and who didn't belonged to a dynasty, so by the time Berlin 23673 was composed, scribes certainly understood Osorchor (Aakheperre Osorkon, as found on a faience ring) as part of the dynasty. If so, then your reasoning would put the induction of Nespaneferhor in Year 2 of Aakheperre Setepenamun not under Osorchor, but under Psusennes I, as the pronomen alone is used to identify the ruler. As Psusennes I was the first Aakheperre from the dynasty, there would be no confusion had the pronomen been used alone. The time-span between Psusennes I and Siamun in your model, however, is way beyond two generations. As you may have noticed already, I believe this logic might be used as an interesting tool, but not a decisive one. To name a king anywhere was probably as usual (and by usual I do not mean trivial) as a date, so Egyptians didn't felt the need to put every detail every time they wanted to write '[something was done] under Year X of King Y'; we also have records of kings being mentioned posthumously by their first name alongside kings of the same name (take Pasenhor for example).

"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."

Yes, Menkheperre overlaps Amunemnisut in my model, but it is not mandatory, and Nesubanebjded still buried Psusennes I without overlapping Menkheperre. You said your model resolves a problem of overlapping HPAs, but no one is posing overlapping HPAs anywhere; you also stated "[...] Menkheperre was HPA in the first year of Amonemnisut" but this is not a fact.

"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."

Had Shabaka and Tiglath-Pileser III had any contact, then Sargon II is not telling the truth, as he says it was Shabataka who had predecessors who never bothered to send envoys to Assyria. If Shabaka predeceased Shabataka, then Shabaka was the one whose predecessors never contacted Assyria, not Shabataka. I don't know of any evidence for Osorkon II to be contemporary of Shalmaneser III. The closest I am aware of is when Yurco, in 1993, argued that James et al had overlooked an important synchronism in their revision, which was the moment Osorkon II sent troops to fight Shalmaneser III in Karkar. But Shalmaneser, like Tiglath-Pileser III, does not name the Egyptian king.

"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."

Good point and good match. But Luckenbill actually translated "(...) whose fathers since the far-off days of the moon-god's time (...)". The days is not a singular day. I interpret this as a more poetic way of saying 'the southern kings of Kush had never contacted Assyria before this moment', given that the moon-god Sin/Nanna appears as a very important figure in the Mesopotamian pantheon. Sin/Nanna was viewed as a creator, fathering gods and men alike, so 'days of the moon-god' might be a reference to the beginning of times.

"On Papyrus Louvre E3228c. [...] Peteknoumis pawned his POW named Ietouroz to Petoubastis in year 7 of 覚baka [...].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 [...]. [...] 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."

a) Your interpretation of dating year 6 to year 6 of Taharqa as king of Kush (and Upper Egypt) is problematic and subjective. One must wonder how to distinguish Taharqa's year-dates. An Apis bull was buried under his Year 14, the last one to be buried on a reliable date is under Year 2 of Shabaka; are these burials 47 years apart or 34? How certain can we thus be that dates of Taharqa that go up as high as Year 24 do not actually belong to his period of king of Kush and Thebes (713-690)?
b) But the age of the POW is not the only age in question. The POW could have been a young lad around Year 7 of Shabaka, but then Peteknoumis and Petubast could not have been much older. If the dates are separated by 21 years (729-708) or 13 (698-685), all participants could have been young adults to middle-aged men by the end of the case. But read above, and whether or not you want to keep the distance as 21 years, to not keep this distance is to make the case between Peteknomis and Pedubast 45 years long, and then the ages will certainly become a problem.
c) Again, you seem to miss the point. It is not the age of the POW I am contesting, it is his age and the age of all participants had this cause elongated for over 4 decades.

On the Kawa stelae, one trip might be the correct version.

My honest regards,

  • 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: Sesonchosis — Jaime O, Sat Jan 7 18:41
      • 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