Kushite chronology
Tue Jan 10, 2017 20:49

Jaime, Kim:

Jaime: 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.

I’m afraid that is not positive evidence of an “Usermaatre Shoshenq” distinct from one of the Shoshenqs we already know about. I’m saying that Usermaatre Shoshenq of CG 42232 is most likely a known king, not one with virtually no trace of his having been here besides CG 42232 and this bracelet on Shoshenq D.

I don’t have three Hedjkheperre Shoshenqs. There are only two: Shoshenq I and Shoshenq II/C. If you are thinking of Shoshenq ‘quartus’ discovered by David Rohl, he is a phantom in my opinion. All items currently attributed to him I attribute to Shoshenq II/C.

Louvre C100 has “Nubian-period” written all over it. I appreciate that Yoyotte knows his stuff, but so does Kitchen. I’ve only seen the hand drawn copies and unless these are greatly inaccurate, the case cannot be settled one way or the other conclusively. But I will now lean towards the view that Iny is short for (Pia)n(kh)y and see where that leads. Piankhy is 803-771 in my reconstruction. So year 5 is 799 and this a generation after Djedioh’s grandfather Djedioh left a graffito dated year 4 of Shoshenq Meryamun (i.e. Shoshenq III 832-794).

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.

This misunderstands the argument. KPA 3(B)a is part of series of priestly annals and this was not the first entry in the series. My reasoning says a stand-alone inscription, like a donation stela, or a Nile Level Text, that only mentions one or two kings and does so by just nomen or just prenomen is because there was no fear of them being confused for the wrong people because they were probably the first kings of the dynasty to have the names. The Greater Dakhla Stela immediately comes to mind. There is also a Nile Level Text with just “year 6, king Taharqa.” Is this a different king than the man in the Nile Level Text dated “year 6, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khunefertem-re Taharqa”?

The time-span between Psusennes I and Siamun in your model, however, is way beyond two generations.

I again repeat that Šedsunefertum and his son are just prophets in the reign of Siamun. So there has be more than two generations between Psusennes I and Siamun. Pepi A has to be HPP under Psusennes I. How can he be HPP under Osorkon the Elder instead and Šedsunefertum become a prophet in the time of Siamun five generations after Pepi A? Pepi A can have an adult grandson during the brief reign of Osorkon the Elder, but not a great-great-great grandson Šedsunefertum who became a prophet in the following reign.

You said your model resolves a problem of overlapping HPAs, but no one is posing overlapping HPAs anywhere

No, the "Rohlites" have proposed overlapping HPAs. So do many other New Chronologies out there which have been influenced by Rohl. Jean-Fred, when he was still doing Egyptology and was contributing here, is the one who brought this problem up.

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.

That’s not how the actual Akkadian reads. You can rely on a translation which attempts to smooth out perceived difficulties or you can go straight to the source language. In the Display Inscription the phrase is "[$a ultu UD.ME]$ ru-qu-ti a-di i-d.Nanna" ---- this is literally “[from day]s distant until the god Nanna” (line 110). Sargon II is clearly not saying no Kushite king ever had contact with Assyrian until his time. He’s saying the last time it happened was long ago and the moon played a role in some an unexplained way. He’s being intentionally vague. The question is why?

Shalmaneser III does not have to name the king of Musri who sent him gifts. His reign 859-824 limits our options considerably. It does not matter if this is Osorkon II or not. My point is that the king of Musri who contacted Tiglath-Pileser III in 733 had no predecessor who ever contacted Assyria. Unlike Sargon II, Tigalth-Pileser III is not vague with his words. He is very clear. This rules out any Libyan pharaoh who may have been around in 733 as the king who contacted him because a Libyan king in 733 did have a Libyan predecessor who contacted Shalmaneser III.

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.

The Display Inscription is not technically an annal text, but its also not the place for poetry. That’s a different genre for a separate type of inscription. What we have in the Display Inscription can be an exaggerated boast to make Sargon II look more important than his predecessors, but its not poetry. Sargon II according to the Babylonian sources did not belong to the same family as Tiglath-Pileser III but founded a new dynasty of HA-BI-GAL = Habi-rabu (or Habiru assuming a scribal mistake). Stephanie Dalley thinks this means Sargon II was probably a Hebrew. Anyway, don’t expect Sargon II to admit outright that the honor of receiving a letter from a Kushite king of Musri for the first time belongs to the previous dynasty he displaced in 721. Sargon II is not lying, he’s just being intentionally evasive because he knows he’s not the first king of Assyria to be contacted by a Kushite king.

Kim wrote: On lunar eclipses - these are so frequent that a chronology based on them requires several points of comparison, not just one. And why would an eclipse visible in Assyria be relevant to TPIII at Damascus? How many further lunar eclipses occurred between 732 and 707?

I’m not suggesting an eclipse visible in Assyria in 732 meant anything to Tiglath-Pileser III at Damascus. I’m saying Šobaka is probably the king of Musri who sent an envoy to Assyria in 733 and the scribes in Assyria noted the coincidence of the eclipse when the diplomatic exchanges were taking place with a Kushite king of Musri which is something that had never ever happened before. Then, many years later, when Sargon II received word from Šobatka, instead of admitting he was not the first king of Assyria to hear from a Kushite king, his scribes vaguely state that the last time a Kushite king wrote to Assyria was not since the moon-god Nanna. It’s the truth but worded in such a way to make Sargon II look more important than his predecessor Tiglath-Pileser III whose dynasty he supplanted in 721.

Eclipses were frequent but in Assyria they could be lethal and require the installation of a substitute-king, or they could be interpreted as signs of good times ahead. Not all eclipses were interpreted the same way. So some eclipses would be long remembered as significant moments in history, whereas others would be forgotten as irrelevant as time passed.

Your interpretation of dating year 6 to year 6 of Taharqa as king of Kush (and Upper Egypt) is problematic and subjective.

I do acknoweldge problems with my evolving Kushite chronology. I should modify in light of your remarks about the Apis data which continues to give me headaches. The burial in year 2 of Šobaka was followed by the burial in year 4 [of Taharqa?] and this year 4 burial was followed by the burial in year 14 of Taharqa. Then came the burial in year 24. This sequence has to be right because Šobaka reigned at least 15 years. Even on the conventional time-line there is 25 years between year 2 of Šobaka and year 4 of Taharqa. So I am forced to make a change here. The reversal theory also has to assume the year 4 burial is year 4 of Taharqa or the distance from year 2 of Šobaka to year 14 of Taharqa is pushing beyond the reasonable limits for the life of a bull.

I must now argue that Šobatka only lasted 3 or 4 years (716-713) and he extradited Yamani of Ashdod to Nineveh in 713 before he died and Taharqa succeeded. Sargon II does not call Šobatka “king of Musri” in Tang-i Var. So he probably reigned over Egypt from Thebes, not from Lower Egypt, and Sargon II considered far off Thebes to be the “inapproachable region” of Meluhha. Note that when Antiochus IV invaded Egypt he went no further than Thebes and it was called Meluhha in the Babylonian sources that reported it. So the Akkadian term meant Thebes and it is not synonymous with Kush which appears separately in the Assyrian-Akkadian inscriptions.

When Yamani fled to Musri in 714 it was already part of the Kushite-Egyptian empire. This is stated explicitly in Tang-i Var. Sargon II mentions the Yamani episode in his inscriptions but does not mention the Nubian king’s name until 706 when he had Tang-i Var carved in Iran.

The problem I face now is Serapeum Stela Louvre No. 192. It says that a bull born in year 26 of Taharqa died in year 20 of Psamtik I and was buried in year 21. I have to suggest that the hieratic number should be 48 and 26 is a scribal error and there are other peculiar mistakes and gaps in the scribe’s knowledge in this document:

1) The scribe did not know the bull’s exact date of birth. Very strange.
2) The scribe did not know the regnal year of the bull’s induction and assumed it was still year 26 of Taharqa on Pharmuti 9 when the bull was inducted.
3) Because the scribe did not know the bull’s exact date of birth, he gave an incorrect format for recording the length of the bull’s life instead of the standard formula. The scribe knew the bull was inducted on Pharmuti 9 at the end of Taharqa’s reign so he just counted the years from 665 to year 20 of Psamtik I in 645 as a period of 21 years inclusive and called it a day. This is not the length of the bull’s life. It is a time-span measured from 665 to 645. This is strange and unheard of in these stelea.

These peculiarities lead me to suggest that the scribe in year 21 of Psamtik I may have gotten the regnal year of Taharqa wrong. I’ve also never felt comfortable with the idea that Taharqa was sharing Lower Egypt with Shepsesre Tefnakhte, Nechepsos, and Nekau I in the early years of his reign from 685 onward. These Saite kings and the plethora of other Delta kings who were around when the Assyrians started invading belong to the latter part of Taharqa’s reign (per “Manetho”) and somebody named Ammeris the Ethiopian preceded them at Sais. This is probably Taharqa’s heir to the throne, or a general in charge of Lower Egypt.

I give here a slightly revised time-line.

735 – death of Kashta (748-735), accession of his son Šobaka (735-716)
734 – Apis burial year 2 of Šobaka (= year 6 Bakenrenef = year 37 Shoshenq V)
734 – Šobaka killed Bakenrenef, etc. (commemorative scarab)
733 – Šobaka sent an envoy to Tiglath-Pileser III (Šobaka seal-ring impression in Nineveh)
729 – year 7 of Šobaka: Peteknoumis pawned Ietouroz to Petoubastis for 6 debens and received 4
720 – SIPA (= crown prince Šobatka) defeated at Raphia; Kushites abandon Lower Egypt
716 – Pir’u of Musri (Osorkon IV) sends 12 horses to Sargon II
716 – death of Šobaka in Thebes, accession of his son Šobatka (716-713)
716 – Taharqa summoned north to Thebes by his elder brother Šobatka at age 20
715 – Shilkanni (Osorkon IV) sends tribute to Sargon II
714 – death/removal of Osorkon IV by the Kushites
714 – Yamani overthrew the king of Ashdod and contacted Šobatka, Pir’u of Musri
714 – Yamani fled Ashdod and went to “Musri the territory of Meluhha”
713 – death of Kannsa in Kush, accession of Taharqa as king of Kush (subordinate to Šobatka)
713 – Taharqa, king of Kush, fights the Assyrians campaigning in Syria (2 Kgs 19:9).
713 – Šobatka sends Yamani to Nineveh in shackles.
713 – death of Šobatka, accession of his brother Taharqa as king of Egypt (713-665)
712 – year 2 of Taharqa: Petoubastis paid the remaining balance of 2 debens owed
710 – Apis burial year 4 [of Taharqa]
708 – year 6 of Taharqa: Peteknoumis lost his legal case to get Ietouroz back
700 – Apis burial year 14 of Taharqa
696 – year 18 of Taharqa: Taharqa appoints Ammeris the Ethiopian to be ruler at Sais.
690 – Apis burial year 24, IV Prt 23, of Taharqa
684 – accession of Shepsesre Tefnakhte at Sais (vassal of Taharqa).
677 – accession of Nechepsos at Sais (vassal of Taharqa).
671 – accession of Nekau I at Sais (vassal of Esarhaddon!).
668 – Apis birth year 48/49 of Taharqa
665 – Apis induction year 49, IV Prt 9, of Taharqa
664 – death of Taharqa, accession of Rudamon II (664-658)
664 – accession of Psamtik I at Sais (vassal of Assurbanipal!).
645 – Apis death year 20, IV Smw 21, of Psamtik I
644 – Apis burial year 21, II 3ht 25, of Psamtik I

I don’t know if the above solves all my problems, and there will be balk at the suggestion of a 49-year reign of Taharqa (which is in fact attested in the EKL) misunderstood to be just 26 years by a scribe under Psamtik I, but in my defense the reigns of the Saite rulers Ammeris, etc., would now begin in year 18 of Taharqa in agreement with Africanus, for whatever that’s worth. Furthermore, this reconstruction has the bull that was buried in year 24 of Taharqa succeeded immediately by a bull who lived the normal life-span of about 24 years. On the conventional time-line the bull that died in year 24 did not have a successor until two years later. This is not impossible, just very strange. It adds to the view that something else is wrong with the information in Serapeum Stela Louvre No. 192 besides the strange ending.


    • Re: Kushite ChronologyJaime O, Sat Jan 14 09:38
      Hi Tory and Kim thank you for your comments. Allow me to respond to you both in this post. Tory: "I’m saying that Usermaatre Shoshenq of CG 42232 is most likely a known king, not one with virtually... more
      • Re: Kushite ChronologyTory, Sun Jan 15 00:51
        Hi Jaime and Kim Your HPA Harsiese is in the same place as my Usermaatre Shoshenq. Nothing else attests your high-priest besides CG 42232. If my model is inventing one individual, yours isn't doing... more
        • Re: Kushite ChronologyJaime O, Wed Jan 25 09:17
          Hi Tory I apology for the delayed answer. Many things have kept me distracted in the last couple of days (maybe 'occupied' is the best word). I also took some time to reconsider some positions of me. ... more
          • Re: Kushite ChronologyTory, Thu Jan 26 06:54
            Hi Jaime: I no longer assume the existence or need of an earlier Usermaatre Shoshenq, as long as Shoshenq III and Osorkon II overlap. Noted. My alternative proposal is that Petubastis of the 23rd... more
            • Re: Kushite ChronologyJaime O, Wed Feb 1 12:52
              Dear Tory, I wrote: "I no longer assume the existence or need of an earlier Usermaatre Shoshenq, as long as Shoshenq III and Osorkon II overlap." You replied: "Noted." But he we need to be cautious.... more
              • A correctionJaime O, Wed Feb 1 16:36
                Dear Tory, I feel the need to make a correction. I wrote: " - Menkheperre, dies aged 62;" Actually, on Post 17263 (last time you updated us on your dates for individuals of early 21st Dynasty), you... more
                • Libyans and KushitesKim Sargerson, Thu Feb 2 14:29
                  Until Tory returns... "we have to consider the fact that Osorkon II had adult great-grandchildren by Year 28 of Shoshenq III." This is indeed the problem (and probably the next generation adult too,... more
                  • Re: Libyans and KushitesJaime O, Fri Feb 3 07:42
                    Dear Kim, thank you for the reply. I fear I did not responded the last time you replied to a post of mine, which happened because posts started to accumulate and time was lacking. My apologies. "... more
      • Re: Kushite ChronologyKim Sargerson, Sat Jan 14 18:12
        Hi all Cullom was kind enough to send me Malinine's original article on Louvre E.3228c. The main date is "year 6, II Shemu day 6, of pharaoh Taharqa Sieset Meryamun LPH" The earlier date is "year 7... more
        • Re: Kushite ChronologyTory, Sun Jan 15 02:45
          Hi Kim and Jaime The main date is "year 6, II Shemu day 6, of pharaoh Taharqa Sieset Meryamun LPH". The earlier date is "year 7 of pharaoh Shabaka justified". I do not see any way that either... more
          • Re: Kushite ChronologyKim Sargerson, Wed Jan 25 14:33
            Hi Tory Many thanks for your responses. I don't want to rehash old arguments too much. "When I suggested the year 6 could be Kushite, I no longer think so" Good, thank you for that. As I have seen... more
            • Re: Kushite ChronologyTory, Thu Jan 26 10:33
              Hi Kim: please could you tell me what your current thinking is on the interval between year 7 of Shabaka as pharaoh and year 6 of Taharqa as pharaoh? I think year 7 and year 6 are separated by about... more
              • Re: Kushite ChronologyKim Sargerson, Sat Jan 28 12:16
                Hi Tory Thanks for replying to both Jaime and myself in such short order. I had been mulling over my response for days, cutting out superfluous verbiage and the like, and Jaime's post had not... more
  • Click here to receive daily updates