Kim Sargerson
Re: Kushite Chronology
Sat Jan 14, 2017 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 of pharaoh Shabaka justified"

I do not see any way that either reference is to a king of Kush. Thus year 7 of Shabaka ought to be earlier than year 6 of Taharqa by no more than a slave's lifetime. It cannot be in excess of 30 years, and the latest conventional chronology would put it at about 30 years with Shabaka starting c721 and Taharqa c690. Even the 13-14 years posited by the reversal of position of Shabaka and Shabataka seems quite a long time.

On Shedsunefertem:
The individuals named Shedsunefertem and Pahemnetjer on the lintel studied by Schulman are not given any family connections. They are clearly members of the higher ranked Memphite clergy, and clearly bear names also carried by members of the famous priestly family. But these names are not unique, and Schulman's analysis rests on Siamun's reign being separated from the reign of Sheshonq I by 14 years, that is, he accepts the chronology proposed by Kitchen. He says "unless he had become high priest at the age of fourteen years, it is obvious that the high priest Shedsunefertem must have lived during the reign of Siamun".
This assumes that he becomes 1PP at the very beginning of the reign of Sheshonq I. If we take the line of 1PPs descended from this Shedsunefertem as having "loyalty-names", that is they were named after the king in whose reign they were born, then we have Sheshonq (C), Osorkon (A), Takelot (A), Osorkon (E). This, as Kitchen notes, mimics the lineage of the Libyan kings shown on the Pasenhor genealogy. But if we take Takelot A as born around the midpoint of the very obscure reign of Takelot I, then (using Kitchen's dates and a 25-year generation) his grandfather Sheshonq C would be born around year 11 of Sheshonq I. His older half-brother Pahemneter, at that date, would be about 32, even if he became a priest aged 8 in the very last year of Siamun. If Sheshonq C succeeded Shedsunefertem directly as 1PP, aged say about 20, then Shedsunefertem would have reached 70 at the very least (more, if Pahemneter was older, or the generation gap between him and Shedsunefertem was over 18 years; less if Sheshonq C was older, although he cannot be more than 10 years older and still be born in the reign of Sheshonq I).

As far as the 3 kings, 25 years, goes, I turn to the same loyalty-names. The eldest grandsons of Osorkon II were called Takelot. Assuming that Sheshonq D and Nimlot C, their fathers, were relatively young at the time, say about 18, and that the two Takelots were born towards the end of the reign of Takelot I (of 13 years) this puts the generations and reigns as follows:
Takelot born (say) 910 reign c863-c850
Osorkon II born c890 reign c850-c825 or later
Sheshonq D born c870 Nimlot C born c868
Takelot B born c852 Takelot E born c850
I have assumed short generations throughout in order to keep the ages of Takelot I and Osorkon II to a minimum. You can see that he eldest son of Osorkon II, Sheshonq D, was born before his grandfather became a king. As he is not named Takelot, in a papponymic system, his name must also be a "loyalty-name" in honour of a king Sheshonq who ruled between Osorkon I and Takelot I. Similarly if we assume Osorkon II was named in honour of a living Osorkon I, and the latter had only the 15 years assigned in Africanus and Eusebius, not the 35 years of Kitchen, then his reign at latest falls c890-c875 on the same dates, and there is a distinct gap 875-863 between him and Takelot I, where the birth of Sheshonq D falls.

I am not making a case specifically for my own arrangement here. All I am arguing is that an arrangement where the immediate successors of Osorkon I included at least one Sheshonq, before the reign of Takelot I, makes perfect sense. Such arrangements have been put forward several times. If these kings also included a Nimlot, rather than one of the Sheshonqs I have suggested, I would be equally satisfied, although no such king has yet been suggested.

Overlapping 1PAs:
It is my understanding that Tory does overlap Menkheperre with his brothers, in the early part of his tenure, in order to account for the year 6 datum. To argue that he was in office, then out, then in again is specious, as this argument does not differ in kind from the NC, or from the "dance of the high priests" suggested by the orthodox chronology and others for Osorkon B.

I don't see how Shabataka could extradite Yamani in 713, when this is before Yamani's flight to Egypt. I do not see how T.P.III in 732 would know that the king of Musri was of a different dynasty to the one who sent presents to Shalmaneser III, or indeed if this would make a difference. "His predecessors" refers to former kings of Egypt, not to direct male line ancestors who may or may not have been Egyptian. This may cast doubt on the veracity of such statements, but if "time of the moon god" related to a lunar eclipse then there would be a time of the moon god every couple of years in the Assyrian empire. For this phrase to signify "time immemorial" does not seem a stretch, unless we are already inundated with other expressions that mean exactly that.

Jaime wrote "Africanus' version has 18 years for Taharqa, which might be 18 years until the ascension of the 26th Dynasty."
I don't see how this works, unless you accept Nekao 672-664 as part of the Saite dynasty. Otherwise, 18 is just "wrong", as is "20" (Eusebius). Perhaps 18 until the Assyrians?

"I have Ammeris ascending in 696; he was probably a Nubian aristocrat to whom Taharqa trusted the Delta suzerainty."
This is the argument of many, but he is not a king or a god in that instance, and "Manetho" listed only the reigns of kings and gods, not viceroys, governors, and the like. Why would he be listed as part of Dynasty 26?

"Ryholt claimed that documental evidence show Necho I was the son of a King Tefnakht"
Interesting, but not conclusive, if Tefnakht A was active around 720 or later. Certainly the "master of ships" Somtutefnakht who conducted the princess Neitoqerty-Shepenwepet III to Thebes c656/5 had a royal mother who might have been related to the Saite dynasty. But names ending in tefnakht are not unique or dynastic.

"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"
Same problem applies - what is he doing in a list of Egyptian gods and kings? If Niku is not Neko I, then I do not think he has any obvious connection in the Assyrian record with Sais? Also, what is he doing conspiring with Taharqa against his own and his master's interest? And how would he "get off with a warning" if that were the case?

On the 3 kings issue Jaime wrote
"The other examples we have of 'X kings for Y years' are usually the summary of whole dynasties"
Yes and no. True for Dynasty 20 and Dynasties 8, 13-4, 17. But portions of dynasties are summed elsewhere (Dynasty 12, Dynasty 9/10). Seems to be a common technique, X kings who did nothing worth mention, Y years. I think the entire period from the end of Dynasty 22 to the end of Dynasty 25 has been confused in the Greek textual tradition, consisting of "3 (or 2) kings, 40+ X years" all the way from the "3 kings 42 years" of Africanus at the end of Dynasty 22 down to the "3 kings 40 years" for dynasty 25, and the 24th dynasty in Eusebius may originally have had 3 kings for 44, of which Bocchoris was only one.



  • 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: "Iím 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: 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: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 7 03:09
                      Hi Kim, Jaime: Sorry for the delay. When the wife loses her patience with ancient chronology I cannot go near a history book or even a computer keyboard for several days. Here are my Egyptian dates... more
    • Re: Kushite Chronology — Kim Sargerson, Sat Jan 14 18:12
      • 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