Tory
Re: Kushite Chronology
Sun Jan 15, 2017 00:51
112.198.82.243

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 any better.


They would have to be in the same place since we are talking about the same piece of evidence, i.e. CG 42232. I’m not pitting my model against yours and calling yours inferior to mine, if that’s what you feel the need to react to. I’m only saying that a king Usermaatre Shoshenq and his HPA Harsiese are likely to be father and son and are likely to be the same closely related people mentioned in other documents. “My” HPA Harsiese on CG 42232 is the former prophet of Amun-Re Harsiese son of king’s son and HPA Shoshenq C. Both are mentioned on the Bes Statue which HPA Shoshenq C made for his son Harsiese (and not the other way around as has been reported). We have no inscriptions from any of Shoshenq C’s immediate family which definitely postdate him despite some weak attempts to suggest otherwise. His wife, a God’s Wife, was named Karomama. The first king Shoshenq in the Pasenhor geneaology had a wife, a God’s mother, with this same name and their son became king Osorkon I. The prophet Harsiese was the son from a different wife named Nesnebtasheru. I connect all of these dots to say HPA Shoshenq C became king Shoshenq II/C, the founder of the 22nd dynasty at Bubastis, and he made one son by Nesnebtasheru HPA and appointed another son by Karomama to be his heir to the throne.

Of course you could say the above evidence can be explained in other ways. I’m not saying it can’t be explained in other ways. History only happened one way, so the goal is not just a model or models that appear to be plausible to us centuries removed. I do not claim any argument, by me or anyone else, for a detail of TIPE chronology is conclusive. But yes, my model is not inventing any new individuals unless the evidence is extraordinary and not singular.

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.


Out of all the options proposed, this one makes the most sense to me. We can call it a condominium instead of “coregency,” and there are other kings in the condominium throughout Egypt at this time. As I said, the Manethonian “3 kings for 25 years” after year 13 of Takeloth is in my view garbage but garbage that is not completely worthless. It is suggestive of overlapping reigns and multiple kings within the stated period.

There is no evidence of the Libu chief Niumateped in the reign of Shoshenq V. The lost stela is dated by a Shoshenq but with no prenomen or epithets that demand he be identified as Shoshenq V. I assign this year 8 stela to year 8 of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq II/C. The year 10 Hermitage Donation Stela mentioning Niumateped is dated explicitly to Hedjkheperre Shoshenq. Again, Shoshenq II/C, in my opinion, and just two years after the previous stela.

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.


There was a great chief of the Libu named Rudamon in someone’s year 30 but his name is erased from the stela. Is this what you are referring to? AFAIK, Niumateped is only attested in a year 8 and a year 10.

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.


Except this is not what my model says at all. The great chief titles existed throughout the entire period of the Libyan domination and into the Kushite domination. There are only two Hedjkheperre Shoshenq’s in my model. The first one was the greatest king of the 21st dynasty. The second was the founder the 22nd dynasty. The lost donation stela from year 8 and Hermitage 5630 from year 10 name the same king Shoshenq and the same great chief of the Libu Niumateped, in my view. So there is no huge gap between these two documents but you will find people with the title of great chief even during Taharqa’s reign over Egypt. So I think this is a case where you’ve made wrong assumptions about my model.

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 overlap Menkheperre with his brothers. I do assume he was reassigned to some unknown post in the north and that his brothers took turns in the post of Theban HPA until year 25 of Pinudjem and then Menkheperre returned to the south to take back up his old office. I also do overlap the warring HPAs Osorkon B with HPA Harsiese and then HPA Takeloth E/F. Neither is a specious argument according to standard chronology models where Osorkon B is in, then out, then in, then out, etc.

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.


Not quite sure what one has to do with the other. Apples and oranges. All I said was that Louvre C100 is not conclusive proof of a king Iny. I also said I agree with Kitchen that Iny is probably a nickname of a known pharaoh. Kitchen said it could be Osorkon III’s nickname. It can also be Py’s nickname instead. Who knows? None of this has any thing to do with a king adopting a prenomen and then adopting a new one later, which is an attested phenomena. Tyetkheperre Shoshenq was clearly imitiating Tyetkheperre Psusennes in the choice of prenomen, assuming he reigned after Psusennes. Maatkheperre might be a spelling mistake for Hedjkheperre, but this Shoshenq says he was related to his predecessor Tyetkheperre Psusennes. So I again connect the dots, but I’m not expecting you are anyone else to agree.

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?


The year 5 graffitto Djedioh “II” scribbled has the name Iny. Again, I’m saying Iny is a nickname of either Osorkon III (as per Kitchen) or Py, and I’m now leaning more towards Py. I don’t see how this can possibly be construed as a contradiction.

You also cited that Menkheperre was HPA 'in the first year of Amonemnisut', but this is not factual and I corrected you.


If you say so. In Egypt a king’s “year 1” begins the same day he ascends the throne. So my statement that HPA Menkheperre is linked to year 1 of Amonemnisut takes this into account. Whether Amonemnisut is immediately before Psusennes I, during Psusennes I, or immediately after Psusennes I, the very first day of his year 1 (and he had to have this) will cross paths with HPA Menkheperre no matter how you try to argue it. I don’t see what the confusion is or how my remarks have caused any confusion.

Nor mine, nor yours overlap HPAs. So, moving on...


Well, hold on there. I do overlap HPAs if they are fighting over the office. I just don’t overlap Menkheperre with this brothers. In this case I believe they shuffled amicably but not overlapped.

The said Year 4 is considered to belong to the Kushite period, and doesn't have to belong to Taharqa.


Ok, and year 4 Taharqa is 687 conventional.

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.


Am I missing something? Is the reversal theory putting the year 4 burial in 687 or not? You are saying that year 4 does not have to be Taharqa’s year 4. Ok so where does it go in a reversal theory if not 687? If year 2 Shabaka is 703 and year 14 Taharqa is 677 thats 26 years on the reversal theory and you just said “16-18 years is considered the average lifespan for these bulls.” So 26 years is pushing the limits like I said. I've already admitted in advance that my bull living 24 years between year 24 of Taharqa and year 48/49 is also pushing the limits. I just find it more attractive than a bull not having a successor for 2 years after year 24.

Manetho attributes 8 years to Sabacon and 14 years to Sebichos, and the last name seems to spell Shabaka as well as Sabacon can.


Or is that 12 years to each? Which Manetho are we talking about?

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).


Also possible, but not as likely.

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.


I don’t think it can be said that Sargon II’s scribes would mention someone by name and make fun of them and their name unless that person was extremely significant and the jab was simply too hard to pass up. So by this reasoning, SIPA cannot be just anyone. He was not king in 720 but clearly no one but the supreme king of Musri was more important than him. When he fled Raphia in 720 he pulled out of Lower Egypt and retreated to the south (to Thebes = Meluhha) where he died (this detail is also stated). Sargon II actually says he ruled Lower Egypt after this, and the annual tribute sent to Assyria by Osorkon IV proves it. Hence SIPA was not only the general of all Lower Egypt but likely the crown prince and heir to the throne, and Sargon II’s scribes salivated over the chance to mock him when he abandoned Lower Egypt to the Assyrians in 720.

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 think we all have this, as there is really no other option. As I said, I was never comfortable with Taharqa having a fractured Lower Egypt from his year 7 onwards. So I keep Ammeris at 696 and Shepsesre Tefnakht at 684, but 696 is year 18 of Taharqa on my revised model. Lower Egypt does not have any other king in Egypt to answer to but Taharqa until year 30.

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.


According to Assurbanipal, his father Esarhaddon installed a king at Sais in 671 named Niku, not a mere viceroy. His son was born Nabu-sezibanni. Chronologically, it does not matter what race or ethnicity they were, but I lean towards Libyan.

Regards
Tory

  • 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 Chronology — Tory, Sun Jan 15 00:51
      • 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 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