Jaime O
Re: Kushite Chronology
Sat Jan 14, 2017 09:38

Hi Tory and Kim

thank you for your comments. Allow me to respond to you both in this post.


"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."

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 any better. I do, nevertheless, acknowledge than an overlap between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III might solve the problem with Shoshenq D. The fact that Usermaatre Shoshenq Si-Bast appears on his bracelet indicates that the king and the HPP were contemporaries at some point, likelier than not closer to the death of the HPP. Remember Aakheperre Psusennes and HPA Nesubanebdjed son of Menkheperre. However, in my model, Shoshenq D was a teenager when his maternal grandfather (my Shoshenq IId). This is to solve a problem while posing another one. An overlap between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III, not necessarily a coregency, would solve the problem of the bracelet and also the age of the Apis Bull installed in about Year 24 of Osorkon II and buried in Year 28 of Shoshenq III. On the standard chronology, these dates are separated by more than 30 years, some models reach more than 40 years if we follow those scholars who support a reign of +40 years for Osorkon II, whilst the oldest Apis bull in the record is the one buried at the end of Psamtik I's reign (31 years, installed in Year 21 and buried in Year 52). It seems conceivable that these bulls, from time to time, lived beyond 25 years, but this must be avoidable unless evidences can sustain such a stretch.

"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."

The Hedjkheperre Shoshenq Rohl wrote about should exist. Rohl originally pointed out St. Petersburg Hermitage 5630, which dates to Year 10 of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq and mentions Great Chief of the Libu Niumateped. Great Chief of the Libu is a title that appears again in Year 31 of Shoshenq III, which just happens to be held by a Niumateped. The seemingly same person appears again under Shoshenq V. To identify Hedjkheperre Shoshenq with a Year 10 with your Shoshenq II/C means a huge gap in the existence of the title, which can simply be solved by having a third Hedjkheperre Shoshenq during or after Shoshenq III, to whom St Petersburg Hermitage 5630 would belong.

"Louvre C100 has “Nubian-period” written all over it. I appreciate that Yoyotte knows his stuff, but so does Kitchen."

I'll concede for now that Louvre C100 might be Piye. It doesn't help your case of identifying many kings as possible with Shoshenq II/C, as no other evidence can be shown that a second Hedjkheperre Shoshenq also used Tyetkheperre, Maatkheperre (?) and Usermaatre as pronomens at some point. It is likely to be an attempted scenario until a better one is thought of.

""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)."

You seem to be contradicting yourself, or maybe you've changed your mind in the meantime. On Post 17328, 12/25/16, you wrote "The argument Kitchen makes is that what Djedioh, grandson of Djedioh, scribbled on the roof of the Khonsu temple is a mere graffito and not an official royal inscription. He dated it year 5 and used Osorkon’s hypocoristic Iny. [...]Djedioh put this scribble right next to one dated year 4 of Shoshenq which his grandfather Djedioh had left. This Shoshenq is most likely Shoshenq III and that leaves Osorkon III as the strongest candidate for the identity of a Theban king named Iny two generations later."; so is Year 5 of Djedioh, grandson of Djedioh, dated by Osorkon III (per Kitchen, with which you seemed to agree with) or by Piye?

"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."

Had KPA 3(B)a been the first entry with the name of King Aakheperre Setepenamun, then confusion would ensue. But this we can't know. I still stick to the convention that Ancient Egyptians knew they history well and wouldn't commit such mistakes easily.

"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?"

I see the error in my model. Thank you for noticing.

"No, the "Rohlites" have proposed overlapping HPAs. So do many other New Chronologies out there which have been influenced by Rohl"

Okay, but this was the way you phrased firstly on Post 17313:

"This is how HPA Nesbanebdjed II was able to dedicate the bracelets found in Psusennes I's burial even though Menkheperre was HPA in the first year of Amonemnisut."This problem which besets all other chronologies is now solved in mine without ov rlapping the HPA-ships of Menkheperre and Nesbanebdjed II"

What I wanted to say from the start is that not *all* models overlap priests, mine doesn't for instance. You also cited that Menkheperre was HPA 'in the first year of Amonemnisut', but this is not factual and I corrected you. I asked you for the source of this said first year of a never-explicitly dated king, which you haven't given yet. Nobody mentioned Rohl's theories, or Jean-Fred's. I don't believe in overlapping HPAs anymore (I used to), and I avoid a model which poses so. Nor mine, nor yours overlap HPAs. So, moving on...

"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."

I'll look forward to read more on the original Akkadian and translations. Thank you for your own input.

"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."

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Please, allow me to make just some few remarks on your comments to Kim.

"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."

The said Year 4 is considered to belong to the Kushite period, and doesn't have to belong to Taharqa. If you pose Shabataka as successor to Shabaka, then he could have buried the bull in his Year 4. Given that the standard dates are 722-707 for Shabaka, 707-690 to Shabataka, and 690-664 to Taharqa, three bulls would have been buried in 721, 704 (17 years later) and 687 (17 years later). This is admissible, as 16-18 years is considered the average lifespan for these bulls. The reversal theory doesn't have to assume that year 4 belongs to Taharqa because the distance between Year 2 of Shabaka and Year 14 of Taharqa is not pushing the reasonable limits of a bull's lifespan: on the reversal theory, Year 2 falls in 703, which is 16 years before 687.

"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."

But why 3-4 years and not more? His highest year-date is Year 3, but could have reigned a bit longer. Manetho attributes 8 years to Sabacon and 14 years to Sebichos, and the last name seems to spell Shabaka as well as Sabacon can. It shouldn't be a coincidence that Shabaka's highest known year is 15 whereas Sebichos reigns for 14, and Shabaka's highest know year is 3 whereas Sabacon reigns for 8 years. Whether you will argue that Sabacon stands undisputedly for Shabaka or that the entries are reversed (like you have Nephercheres and Psusennes reversed), it may help your case to date Shabaka to 735-721, Shabataka to 721-713 and then Taharqa to 713-664. A bull would thus be buried in 734 (Year 2 of Shabaka, corresponding to Bakenrenef's Year 6 and Shoshenq V's Year 37?), his successor in 718 (Year 4 [of Shabataka], aged 18), and his successor in 700 (Year 14 of Taharqa, aged 18). Your theory of SIPA = Shabataka would fall, but then again, SIPA could have been anyone in Egypt close to the king and with a similar name.

The bull of Taharqa's Year 26 has a lot of problems, and you've noticed some. I also pointed out before (although certainly nor unknown to anyone here) that there was a two years gap between the death of a bull and the induction of his successor, between Years 24 to Year 26. Had Year 26 been Year [48], then there was an extra bull, which indeed inducted in Year 24 and died in Year 26, his successor is the one buried in Psamtik I's Year 21. Nevertheless, to correct 26 to [48] is another last resort.

On Ammeris and the Saite kings, Africanus' version has 18 years for Taharqa, which might be 18 years until the ascension of the 26th Dynasty. On my chronology, I have Ammeris ascending in 696; he was probably a Nubian aristocrat to whom Taharqa trusted the Delta suzerainty. Ammeris is succeeded by Shepsesre Tefnakht I/II in 684 (I don't identify Shepsesre with the Chief of the West Tefnakht; there is zero proof that the adversary of Piye became king or was related to Bakerenef). Ryholt claimed that documental evidence show Necho I was the son of a King Tefnakht, so I identify Necho I as the son and successor of Shepsesre Tefnakht I/II, reignin from 677 to 671. He was dethroned by the Assyrians. Nekauba was an alternative name for Necho, maybe a pet-name? Manetho rendered Necho I's name by the alternative form, Nekauba = Nechepsos. King Nechao between 671-664 was not Necho I and the father of Psamtik I; I hold this was the viceroy Niku, installed by Esarhaddon, and I doubt he was Egyptian or Libyan. Psamtik I followed him when he died in 664. The rest is history.


"My position on the "3 kings 25 years" is that the omission of the names is due to the fact that they are simple variants on a name or names already given (that is, Sheshonq, or Osorkon, or both). It so happens that the group of barely attested kings who might be successors of Osorkon I are all called Sheshonq (Heqakheperre, Maatkheperre, Usermaatre Setepenamun, Hedjkheperre the second...)."

This is also my position. But it might not be the best one. The other examples we have of 'X kings for Y years' are usually the summary of whole dynasties; so it's possible that the epitomizers might have done something similar here, but this time in mid entries. I find it equally possible that the 3 kings for 25 years might be the appearance of a parallel line of kings who succeeded Osorkon I at some point during someone's 25 years, like Tory has it. This, of courses, depends if one identifies Takelot I with Takelot II, which only seems possible if one has Shoshenq I in mid-21st Dynasty.

My honest regards,

  • Kushite chronologyTory, Tue Jan 10 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... more
    • Re: Kushite Chronology — Jaime O, Sat Jan 14 09:38
      • 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: Libyans and KushitesKim Sargerson, Fri Feb 3 11:39
                      Hi Jaime "the fact that Osorkon II had a grandson named Takelot (B) might suggest the namesake king was alive to see the birth of the third generation after his." I agree, in fact have been arguing... 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