Jaime O
Re: Kushite Chronology
Wed Jan 25, 2017 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. I no longer assume the existence or need of an earlier Usermaatre Shoshenq, as long as Shoshenq III and Osorkon II overlap.


For the record, I am not totally against your model. It seems quite convincing, frankly. However, like many other models, it still holds some problems. Allow me...

"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."

I've thought about this a lot. One thing I found interesting is that Africanus only gives 14 years to Psusennes II, whilst Eusebius gives 21 more years, thus Psusennes II reigns 35 years per his copy of Manetho. Similarly, Africanus attributes 40 years to Pedubast of the 23rd Dynasty, but Eusebius copied 25 years. I've accepted a solution where Psusennes II reigns for 14 years until the rise of Sesonchis of the 21st Dynasty; the Libyan king reigns for 21 years until the rise of Osorkon I, likely caused by the death of Psusennes II given the coincidence. For consistency's sake, I tried to postulate a similar scenario in order to justify the "3 kings for 25 years" and "3 kings for 42 years" plus the discrepancy by the epitomizers on Pedubast's reign length. My alternative proposal is that Petubastis of the 23rd Dynasty ruled for 15 years in the north overlapping some other king and then reigned alone for 25 more years. His first 15 years are actually included in the "3 kings for 42 years" entry: this means that this entry begins, chronologically speaking, 42 years before Pedubast II's sort of independent reign in the north. The first of these 3 kings must be Takelothis for 13 years (either his whole reign or, as we will see, the start of an overlap), plus a king in between during whose reign Pedubast II became king and ended up succeeding him directly at Tanis. The best candidate for the middle king must be Osorkon II. Takelothis reigns for 13 years until the rise of Osorkon II, who then reigns for 29 years until Petubastis became sole ruler at Tanis. I merely subtracted 13 years to the total of 42, which ends up in 29 years, exactly the number we'd expect Osorkon II to rule.

The "3 kings for 25 years" can't be any difference. This interpretation of Manetho assumes that Africanus understood most of the overlaps but he, or someone else later, messed up while counting (thus, most kings have their total reign length interrupted in his epitome, but all figures add up numbers), and that Eusebius didn't count for most overlaps, merely copying full reigns. Takelothis, for instance, got his own entry and was included in the "3 kings for 42 years" part because he had an independent reign, with no overlaps, before someone started to rule in the north during his reign. Similar to Psusennes II. This logic pleads that Psusennes II must be included in the "3 kings for 25 years" part; Shoshenq I (or II, per you) is also included and Osorkon I. Osorkon I became king after Psusennes II died. This accounts for 21 whole years, during which Shoshenq I and Psusennes II reigned together until the ascension of Osorkon I. The remaining 4 years, I theorize, belong to Shoshenq I. The period of 25 years begins with Shoshenq I's ascension until his death: it is his whole reign, but during which 2 to 3 kings were ruling Egypt.

To summarize:
- 1. Psusennes II, for 14/35 years - 0-35
- 2. Sesonchis, for 21 years - 14-39
- 3. Osorthon, for 15 years - 35-50
- 3 kings, for 25 years - 14-39
- 4. Takelothis, for 13 years - 50-63
- 3 kings, for 42 years - 50-92
- 5. Petubates, for 40/25 years - 77-117

In this scenario, there is no need to correct Sesonchis's numbers, as such high years like Year 33 will certainly belong to Psusennes II (Psusennes IIb in my model, I equate Psusennes IIa with Psinaches and Tyetkheperre).

"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."

You seem to have mixed one of Kim's response with mine. I take position with Kim that your model can't be any better than the standard chronology when it comes to Osorkon B. On Menkheperre, I don't see how switching priests is any better than warring priests either.

Given that we are talking HPAs know: Osorkon B is the firstborn of King Takelot with his Great Royal Wife Karomama. These two, in your genealogy, are uncle and niece, so we have two generations crossing paths. Were uncle and niece similarly aged? It is totally possible, and plausible in some cases, but in that case, then Osorkon I and Shoshenq I must be older at ascension and death. One must also take in consideration how Osorkon II seemingly had adult grandchildren by the end of his reign of 30 years or so, but your chronology seems quite tight with a 43 years old Takelot I/II assuming the throne in 859 and dying in 835, aged 67.

"Not quite sure what one has to do with the other. Apples and oranges."

You are the one who originally cited Piye's changes of pronomen as a comparison to your theory of Shoshenq II/C changing his. I mentioned rah chances were that the pronomen Menkheperre belonged to Iny, not to Piye; you argued Menkheperre on Louvre C100 was likelier than not Piye. I concede this is possible, which strengths the fact that Piye changed his pronomens more than twice. But still, it has nothing to do with your theory of Shoshenq II/C changing his pronomen. My point is that this is possible theoretically speaking, but not supported by surviving evidence. It is still a last resort, like Kim wrote. That's what I meant.

"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."

Well, on Post 17284, you clearly identify Iny with Osorkon III only, like Kitchen did. No mention of possibly being identified with Piye on that same post, nor did you hinted this anywhere else. Thus my confusion. You've changed your mind apparently, as you know lean more to identify Iny with Piye instead of Osorkon III.

"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."

Their paths don't have to cross. This is my point. On my model right know, Amunemnisut comes right before Psusennes I, between the latter and Smendes I. Menkheperre only becomes HPA in Psusennes I's Year 25. Amunemnisut was already dead. This can't be prove wrong just because Amunemnisut and Menkheperre have to cross paths. Such synchronism is non-existent; your original comment made it seem otherwise ("[...] even though Menkheperre was HPA in the first year of Amonemnisut").

On Taharqa and Year 4, I messed this one badly. I don't assume it is mandatory to identify Year 4 with Taharqa, which would be in 687; so, in a model which reverses Shabaka and Shabataka, the Apis bull buried in Shabaka's Year 2 eventually lives to be 26 years old at death in Taharqa's Year 14. Year 4 is anyone's guess: Taharqa, Shabataka, any other kinglet powerful enough to afford such a burial in the north?

"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."

Yes, it is pushing the limits. Your right. And your model is to some extend better than a 2 years hiatus between Years 24 and 26 of Taharqa. But then, one might as well just say that correcting factual data to fit a theory without anything else to support such change is not the right way to go.

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

You responded: "Or is that 12 years to each? Which Manetho are we talking about?"

Eusebius's numbers seem to be in their own world when it comes to the 25th Dynasty. Eusebius gives Dynasties 23, 24 and 25 44 years each, which seems quite coincident; plus, he only divides Dynasties 22, 23 and 25 into three kings each, but Africanus is clearly aware of one more king in the 23rd. There is a pattern here: lists of 3 kings each (with the exception of a one-king dynasty) that add to 44 years, or 49 in one case. So, it seems to some extend safe to disregard Eusebius's numbers for the 25th Dynasty. I might as well just ponder why do you keep 20 years for Shabaka (8+12, 735-716), yet disregard both Africanus and Eusebius when it comes to the length of the reign of the second king of this dynasty.

I wrote: "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)."

You responded: "Also possible, but not as likely."

Do you have Bakenrenef's Year 6 = Shoshenq V's Year 37 = Shabaka's Year 2? It seems like so; yet, there is no hard evidence that Shabaka buried the same bull in Year 2 as Bakenrenef in his Year 6.

"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."

I'm not saying that. I meant to say that SIPA could have been a very powerful general under Shabataka with a very similar name, who was ultimately mocked by the Assyrians. This presumes SIPA's true identity is lost to history, but he isn't alone when it comes to characters who lack an historical backbone yet were vanquished and remembered by Assyria.

Honest regards,

  • 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 Chronology — Jaime O, Wed Jan 25 09:17
      • 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: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 7 03:11
                      Kim wrote: On the Apis of 26 Taharqa: Numerically, you can make this work (although in accepting the EKL reign length of 49, you reject the detail of his immediate predecessors, a queen for 10 years... more
Click here to receive daily updates