Re: Kushite Chronology
Thu Jan 26, 2017 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.


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.

In the past, when I still believed Manetho was a 3rd century native Egyptian priest-historian, I tried every conceivable configuration and number crunching scenario I could think of to make his data agree with the monuments and inscriptions. A lot of this stuff is in the forum archives and sometimes I wish I could delete it. Now that I’m convinced there was no native 3rd century historian who wrote an authoritative history of Egypt in Greek for Ptolemy II, I tend to believe the real Roman period author just did the best he could with data he did not fully understand. The one date he could not get wrong was the year Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525. If you look at the figures in Africanus and work backwards from that point you will see that Pedubast is king during the first year of the first Olympic games.

26th dynasty: 150 years, 6 mos.
25th dynasty: 40 years
24th dynasty: 6 years
23rd dynasty: 89 years
Total: 285 years, 6 mos.

This puts the accession of Pedubast in 810, and the Olympics in 776 falls within his 40-year reign. Accordingly, this version of “Manetho” says Pedubast was king when the Olympics began in 776. Contrast with the figures of Manetho in Eusebius:

26th dynasty: 163 years
25th dynasty: 44 years
24th dynasty: 44 years
23rd dynasty: 44 years
Total: 295 years.

This data puts the accession of Pedubast in 820, and the Olympics in 776 cannot fall within his 25-year reign. Hence the remark about the Olympics is not here. It’s easy to dimiss Eusebius as artificial and the less reliable of the two witnesses at this point, but he had Africanus in front of him and he apparently did not think Africanus had the best manuscript of Manetho available. Looking at this from a text-critical perspective, Eusebius was working with an older Manethonian tradition (but not older than the one Josephus had) and Africanus was using a revised/updated edition of the work that tried to weed out perceived mistakes. Eusebius dismissed many of these edits as secondary and stood by his manuscript of Manetho whenever it disagreed with Josephus or Africanus. Yet both of these later versions of the work, despite Herodotus antedating them both, have it that Nekau II reigned 6 years when Herodotus already said 16 (the correct figure)!

Having said this, I see no plausible way for Manetho, Africanus, or Eusebius to know where overlaps take place and how to account for them within individual dynasties. Eusebius states that dynasties overlapped but not any of the reigns listed within each dynasty. We can suggest where overlaps are because we have sources Africanus and Eusebius didn’t have. So for me its either 25 years or 40 years for Pedubast, or both figures are wrong. They both can’t be right, unless its by an accident.

as such high years like Year 33 will certainly belong to Psusennes II

I have years 1-9 of Shoshenq II/C at Bubastis overlapping years 6-14 of Hedjheqare Psusennes II at Tanis (no coregency). If I wanted to keep playing the Manetho numbers game I could say the next 21/22 years of Shoshenq II/C after the death of Psusennes II were his independent years and these are the years that got recorded by Manetho. Maybe this is what happened, I don’t know; but I don’t see why Year 33 “will certainly” belong to Psusennes II. If Sesonchis for 21 years is an error it would not be the first time Manetho gets the data for the beginning of a dynasty completely wrong. Recall his Sethos for 51 and 55 years who founded the 19th dynasty. Even his data for Cambyses and the 27th dynasty is wrong. Cambyses is attested with a Year 8 in the Egyptian documentation. So the 6-year reign of Cambyses in Africanus (525-521/520) and the 3-year reign in Eusebius (525-523/522) are both erroneous, as is the failure of Manetho to account for an attested overlap between Darius I and Xerxes I in the contemporary Egyptian documentation.

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.

But Manetho labels these “three kings for 25 years” with the letters Gamma, Delta, Epsilon. So Sesonchis cannot be both Alpha and Gamma, or Alpha and Delta, or Alpha and Epsilon.

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.

“Year 48 OF HPA Menkheperre” is then 48 years after Year 25 of Psusennes I and falling in the middle of Siamun’s reign.

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’ve been hinting that I’m ready to reject anything Manetho says in any of the surviving copies, at even the slightest indication he might be wrong, because he is proven not to be reliable most of the time. It is the law of averages. My having Šōbaka at 735-716 is a rejection of Manetho, not an endorsement. Šōbaka reigned at least 15 years, so Manetho is wrong regardless of the order of the first two kings of the 25th dynasty. I also don’t keep the traditional order because of anything in Manetho. See below.

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.

We can second guess Mariette’s plan of the Serapeum all day long, but I accept his word that the stela dated Year 2 of Šōbaka was found by him in the same room, quote, “where the cartouches of Shoshenq V and Bakenrenef were inscribed.” He also says the cartouche of Šōbatka was found in this room. Most of the stelae from this single burial are dated after Shoshenq V (at least fifteen stelae). Then comes Bakenrenef (at least six stelae). Šōbaka donated just one stela. Šōbatka put his name in the chamber, perhaps intending to use it for the next Apis burial, but no stelae from him were donated, suggesting he predeceased the bull he planned to bury in this chamber. He did not have the time or the resources to provide for a new burial-chamber.

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.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a similar case in any of the Assyrian inscriptions I’ve studied. The inscriptions of Sargon II equate SIPA with being king in one text and then commander-in-chief (turtan) in another. The contradiction makes sense if SIPA was the top general in 720 but then went on to become king himself later on. I also mentioned how Sargon II records the death of SIPA. Here are the two relevant texts:

“SIPA ordered his turtan to go his (Hanun’s) aid, and he came forth against me offering battle and fight. At the command of Assur, my lord, I defeated him, and SIPA ran off alone, like a shepherd, whose sheep have been carried off, and he died” (ARAB II, p. 3, §5).

“Hanun, king of Gaza, with SIPA, the turtan of Egypt, who had come out against me at Rapihu to offer battle and fight, I defeated. SIPA became frightened at the clangor of my weapons, and fled, to be seen no more. Hanun, king of Gaza, I seized with my own hand. The tribute of Pir’u (Pharaoh), the king of Egypt, Samsi, queen of Arabia, … I received” (ARAB II, pp. 26-27, §55).

In the first text, SIPA is the king who sent his top general (turtan) to Raphia to fight the Assyrians in 720. When the Assyrian beat this anonymous general then SIPA fled and got the hell out of Egypt. In the second text, SIPA is not king but only the top general who was ordered to march against the Assyrians at Raphia in 720. The Pir’u in this second text is a Libyan king who became the point man in Lower Egypt after SIPA abandoned the north and fled south where he died. The second text is the Display Inscription made in 706 (narrating events from year 1 down to year 15 in 707). The first text from the annals also narrates events down to year 15 in 707. Both inscriptions were made after SIPA had went from being general to becoming king and he obviously died before these inscriptions were made in 707. This evidence establishes that SIPA was most likely a Kushite, and it refutes the reversal theory without even having to clarify what SIPA's real name is.

Regards Tory

  • 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 Chronology — Tory, Thu Jan 26 06:54
      • 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
                    • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 7 03:12
                      Kim wrote: Ok. Does this now mean that you have an “undated” Apis bull between 2 Shabaka and 14 Taharqa, which are separated by 32-33 years? Is the “year 4” docket doing its duty in everyone's theory ... more
Click here to receive daily updates