Re: Kushite Chronology
Thu Jan 26, 2017 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 20 years maximum.

I would agree, if Pahemnetjer were stated to be the son of Shedsunefertem. He isn't.

There seems to be an error in the text since there is missing a conjunctive and Schulman restores “and by” here to clarify that Šedsunefertum does not have a second name Pahemnetjer and string of duplicate titles. The missing text probably said “and by his son.” The single line of vertical text running down the entire length of the jamb only mentions Šedsunefertum, suggesting he is the main author of the monument, and Pahemnetjer’s senior, even though they have identical titles. This plus the placement of Pahemnetjer after Šedsunefertum in the main text implies they are father and son. But ok. Let’s say you’re right. I’m not using the Berlin genealogy the same way convention is. I pointed to the fact that Pepi A is HPP under an Aakheperre Setepena[mon]. If this is not Psusennes I but rather Osorkon the Elder then the king Shoshenq under whom Pepi A’s great-great-great grandson Šedsunefertum is roughly that many generations removed from Osorkon the Elder. This cannot be the case, and therefore Aakheperre Setepena[mon] is Psusennes I, but there has to be more than two generations between the end of Psusennes I and the start of that king Shoshenq when Šedsunefertum was HPP.

The Shedsunefertem who occurs on the Berlin and Louvre genealogies has a floruit of approximately c910-c890, which is not the reign of Sheshonq I, in the conventional chronology. I don't quite know how his date works out in your own chronology, but if it does parallel your Sheshonq II I would be surprised.

My Sheshonq II/C is 905-873 in total agreement with your floruit for the HPP Šedsunefertum ca. 910-890 on these two genealogies.

Menkheperre: it was my understanding, maybe wrong, that you had Menkheperre as remaining a 1PA, just not at Thebes, between the year 6 and year 25 attestations. I am not familiar with the concept of a non-ruler laying down a priestly office in Egypt without force being applied. Do you have a clear example (excluding promotion within the ranks)?

I think the Libyans invented the Tanite HPA office to be separate from the Theban one. So my guess is Menkheperre started out as the HPA for the entire county when his father became king in the south (same time Amenemnisu became king in the north). But sometime after Pinudjem I’s year 7, Menkheperre was made HPA of Tanis exclusively and a brother took over the southern post. Menkheperre did not return south to Thebes until the death of his brother in year 25 of Pinudjem I, at which point Menkheperre becomes HPA of the entire country once again.

With Osorkon B made HPA of the whole country in year 11 of his father, but prevented from entering Thebes in year 15, this is Harsiese B beginning his struggle with Osorkon B over the Theban post. So I put the year 12 = year 5 Pedubast text here with year 15 Takeloth. I don’t claim my reconstruction is necessarily an improvement to the conventional dance of the HPAs, but it is less complicated and Osorkon B is presumably always HPA of Tanis whenever he’s not given a green light to distant Thebes.

Or, much more simply, it means that this ruler sending envoys was not a king of Musri. Is the name of the country not "missing"?

He has to be a king of Musri, even if the country name is lost in a lacuna, because Siruatti the Meunite is mentioned next and his country is said to be ‘below’ Musri. Whereas Hanunu’s Gaza and the Brook of Musri are above Musri. No other option is plausible in Summ. Inscription 8 given the geographical arrangement here and elsewhere in the inscription.

On Ammeris. I have nothing to add to your list of possible explanations.

But amazingly when it comes to a king Usermaatre Setepenamun Sheshonq and his 1PA Horsieset, NLT of year 6, you want to place this elsewhen.

These Nile texts begin with the founder of the 22nd dynasty, Hedjkheperre Shoshenq and his successor Osorkon I. Nothing earlier than these two texts dated year 6 of the former and year 12 of the later. NLT 23 dated year 6 of Usermaatre Shoshenq is way off to the left of these and grouped with 22, 24, and 26. This is why I do not equate the Usermaatre Shoshenq of NLT 23 with the Usermaatre Shoshenq of CG 42232. HPA Shoshenq C and Maatkheperre Shoshenq are the only Shoshenqs to claim descent from Tyetkheperre Psusennes, and Maatkheperre is probably a spelling error for Hedjkheperre. The way I see it, HPA Shoshenq C took the prenomen Tyetkheperre at his accession/year 1, changed to Usermaatre shortly thereafter, and settled with Hedjkheperre by year 5 and NLT 1 from year 6 is his. Shoshenq I has left no trace at Bubastis. The earliest king Shoshenq to do so was Tyetkheperre Shoshenq and that puts him in the cross hairs of being Manetho’s 22nd dynasty founder.

I now think it is indicative that the 3 kings, 25 years, simply had variant names on Sheshonq and/or Osorkon, Takelot was a "new" name, then the next 3 kings also were variants on preceding names in the same dynasty.

Doesn’t this necessitate that Osorkon I was succeeded by an Osorkon? Then a Shoshenq by another Shoshenq? Manetho has no trouble mentioning Nekau I and Nekau II, or Psamtik I and Psamtik II, and Psamtik III, or Darius I and Darius II, etc.

If from 23 Osorkon II to 28 Sheshonq III is the lifetime of one Apis, and if we accept that 25/26 years was the maximum lifespan allowed, then 1 Sheshonq III has to fall 2 or more years before 23 Osorkon II.

It’s 7 more years before 23 Osorkon II in my reconstruction.

I do not recognise this picture of Lower Egypt in the last quarter of the 8th century. Ruled by Assyria? Annual tribute? A "supreme king of Musri" as the immediate superior of "SIPA"? Shilkhanni is the only named tributary, and his limited geographical control is not indicated. Nor is the subsequent "loss" of Lower Egypt to Kush. If "Piru of Musri" is your supreme king, and a Kushite, and a tribute payer, then your argument must fall.

SIPA is a king who orders his turtanu to fight the Assyrians at Raphia in 720. When this unnamed turtanu loses, SIPA flees Egypt. This is clearly stated. In another text, however, SIPA is that unnamed turtanu and not king in 720. When he loses at Raphia he vacates Lower Egypt and Shilkanni is the most important king of the north as far as Sargon II was concerned, and his tributary. I don’t say the Pir’u of Musri who paid tribute to Assyria in 716 was a Kushite. I say he was Osorkon IV = Shilkanni. I say the Pir’u of Musri to whom Yamani fled in 713 was a Kushite and he was SIPA (Šōbatka), the former turtanu who lost at Raphia. The Pir’u of Musri in 720 was his father Šōbaka. SIPA died before Sargon II had his annals and his Display Inscription narrate events down to 707 (his year 15). His death is mentioned by Sargon II. So the contradiction with SIPA being king in one text but only a general in another is due to an anachronism by Sargon II’s scribes. They knew SIPA was only the top general in 720 but they also knew he went on to become king and that he died before 707.

Regards Tory

  • 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 Chronology — Tory, Thu Jan 26 10:33
      • 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