Kim Sargerson
Re: Kushite Chronology
Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:16
81.151.216.235

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 appeared on my screen at the time I made mine, so apologies if it looks like some sort of concerted effort.

"I think year 7 and year 6 are separated by about 20 years maximum"
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 at a different place? (Not a criticism, just enjoying the moment).

"My Sheshonq II/C is 905-873 in total agreement with your floruit for the HPP Šedsunefertum ca. 910-890 on these two genealogies."
This is what comes of cutting too much verbiage, my bad. The date I calculated is based on the conventional dates c1046 and c716 for Amunemnisut and Bakenrinef respectively. As you have (I believe) different dates for both kings, your resultant approximation would also be different. My calculation cannot support your chronology. All it does is cast doubt on the conventional placing of the 1PP Shedsunefertem as a contemporary of Sheshonq "I", and suggestive of another, later, Hedjkheperre Sheshonq. It also suggests that the positioning of this Shedsunefertem cannot be used to bolster Schulman's argument that this is the same man (already a mature adult with a son active in the priesthood) before the end of the reign of Siamun.

Schulman suggests that "the physical placement of Pahemnetjer's name after that of Shedsunefertem suggests that he was the latter's son". I do not think this is at all likely.
You rightly note that Schulman supplies "and by" between the titles of Shedsunefertem and the titles of Pahemnetjer and suggest "and by his son" was originally intended. I note that "by" is also omitted for Shedsunefertem himself, and that although there are two figures in the same adoring posture, this text applies only to the right-hand one. The omitted text could much more simply be "son of". The left hand figure had his own label text, now lost, and would be the living relative of Shedsunefertem participating in the adoration of the royal names of Siamun.

"I think the Libyans invented the Tanite HPA office to be separate from the Theban one."
Almost certainly right, and they built a temple of Amun at Tanis on a grand scale to match. Yet the evidence that we have for this priesthood during dynasty 21 is limited to the kings Psusennes I and Amunemipet (and maybe Psusennes II although this is controversial) being 1PAs. The only other proposed 1PAs at Tanis are from later in Dynasty 22, namely Hornakht C son of Osorkon II, and a Sheshonq son of Pamiu probably at the tail end of the dynasty.

"So I put the year 12 = year 5 Pedubast text here with year 15 Takeloth"
This seems to be a change to previous statements. Whose year 12 is it, then? The placement imitates that of Aston almost exactly, although he ascribed the year 15 to a separate Takelot II and the year 12 to Sheshonq III following Baer, Kitchen etc. I said before that your reconstruction improved on the conventional in-and-out of Osorkon B, but now I am less sure. Previously you had the year 12 as being king Horsieset, and by coincidence this being the same as year 12 of Osorkon II. But this shifts king Horsieset back into the reign of Takelot I/II. I will have to review your arguments to determine of this is an improvement, or if you have just shortened your own timeline by a decade, as I notice that your Sheshonq II now has a longer reign.

"This is why I do not equate the Usermaatre Shoshenq of NLT 23 with the Usermaatre Shoshenq of CG 42232"
You seem to be drifting back to the conventional arguments here also. The "two Horsiesets" solution is the one proposed by Kitchen. The coincidence of a king Usermaare Setepenamun (not Setepenre) Sheshonq and a 1PA Horsieset is strong enough for me, no matter where the NLT is physically placed, and if you remove this from the Sheshonq - Horsieset grouping then you are left with only two - the Bes statue (neither is a king and the father is 1PA not the son) and CGC42232. If your Sheshonq II dies c873 and your Sheshonq III accedes c844, I see no chronological problem with placing 42232 in the reign of Sheshonq III. This also is the conventional placing.

"Doesn’t this necessitate that Osorkon I was succeeded by an Osorkon? Then a Shoshenq by another Shoshenq?"
No. In my own reconstruction all 3 of the first group were called Sheshonq, and whoever was writing the variant spellings in order to avoid writing "and a second, third, fourth RN" got bored. Then he gets to another group after Takelothis and thinks "nobody in the Greek world has heard of any of these. Why bother".
"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"
But even before the Christians got hold of chronography and bent it, the Greek-speaking literary world had of course heard of these names, and associated certain events in their own history and historiography with different rulers of the same nomen (did not prevent them from spelling them slightly differently, or tacking on a Greek nickname, if they were going to be mentioned in the same book).

"It’s 7 more years before 23 Osorkon II in my reconstruction."
So 1 Sheshonq III = 16 Osorkon II? Then 28 Sheshonq III is approximately 43-44 years after 1 Osorkon II. For the sake of argument, Hornakht C is made 1PA (at Tanis??) in year 1 of Osorkon II and dies that year, aged 10 - although not found in his original burial place, he was most likely in his original coffins and therefore his father was king already. 10 years old seems to be the most anyone will allow, and year 1 is obviously the earliest point at which he can die. So there are 44 + 10 = 54 years between the birth of Hornakht and 28 Sheshonq III, at most. Again, for the sake of argument, Sheshonq D, elder full brother of Hornakht, was about 15 years older than him (there are at least 3 daughters, and probably other sons, of this pair, but no reason to suppose Hornakht was the youngest child). So from the birth of Sheshonq D to 28 Sheshonq III there are 69 years, or less. But in 28 Sheshonq III two sons of Pedieset A are officiants - Peftjauawybast A as 1PP and his halfbrother Takelot D as stm of Ptah. As their father is alive and holding the military titles (and still alive 26 years later still), these two need not be particularly old, but they are depicted as adults, so an argument that they were younger than Hornakht C, the youngest "high priest" certainly known, would have to be convincing a priori, and not as a result of a proposed chronology. If they were about 18 and 15 respectively, this would be appropriate (they would be "men" without the sidelock of youth). They could of course be older, but I am trying to get the best result possible for your (and my) chronology. This would mean that the 3 generations from Sheshonq D to Peftjauawybast totalled 69 - 18 = 51 years at best, 17 years per generation. It could be a lot worse (e.g. 12 years per generation). There is also no evidence that Pedieset A was the eldest born son of Takelot B, or that Peftjauawybast was the ditto of Pedieset A. There is no papponymy (or Pedieset A would have been called Sheshonq) or loyalty-names (Pedieset would be called Osorkon, and Peftjauawybast should be called Sheshonq). Perhaps there were sons of these names who died early.

I admit my own chronology is not a great deal better here. I have Osorkon II born about 885 (in the reign of Osorkon I), dying c815 aged about 70; his son Sheshonq D born about 866 (only 19 years to a generation here, for a nonroyal father) in the reign of a Sheshonq; his son Takelot B born about 847 (on another 19 year generation) shortly before the death of Takelot I, and his son Pedieset A born about 826 as at least the second son of Takelot B, but the only one who grew up that we know of. Pedieset's sons are a similar age to suggested above, i.e. Peftjauawybast born about 806 and Takelot D about 803. Despite having similarly short generations, I have 40 years between the bulls of 23 Os. II and 28 Sh, III, instead of your 20 years.
Why the compression? Why not simply assume 25-year generations? This is where ages at death come into play; I have the death of Takelot I c845, of Osorkon II c815 (and no gap to Sheshonq III). If Peftjauawybast were born about 805, then Osorkon II would be born about 905 and be 90 at death; Takelot I born about 930 and be 85 at death. I view these results as undesirable, and the generations framing these 5 (that is from Osorkon I to Takelot I, 40 years, and Pedieset A to his eventual successor Horsieset 35 years) bring the total up to a respectable 175 years for 7 generations, averaging 25 years. Whereas a 17-year generation back from Sheshonq D to Takelot I on your chronology would have Takelot I aged 46 on accession (which is about the same as the age I have). A longer generation would make him well over 50, with 25 years of reign yet to come.
The chronology I propose does not require anyone to be exceptionally long lived. Stress "require". The nominal birth dates and ages I propose mean that none of the kings has to exceed 70 years of age. Some of them may well have done so, but it is not a requirement. Likewise some of them may have become the father of an heir at age 14/15, or at the opposite end at age of over 60, but it is not a requirement. There are of course other constraints. Aston was correct to point up the fact that grandchildren of Osorkon II were active adults during his reign (Takelot E and Shepensopdet A, at least). This certainly points to a long life (65+) but we have no similar evidence for grandchildren of other kings, except possibly for Sheshonq III, who certainly had a long reign.

On "SIPA"
You wrote "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 one version. The other version is that SIPA is the turtanu, and he flees the battlefield, not Egypt. There is no statement as to where SIPA died. In fact the similarity between the two versions as to the fate of SIPA is the closest i.e. he fled, alone, and his ultimate fate was unknown. The second version, that SIPA was the turtanu's name, not the king's, makes much more sense in context, as his flight would have been witnessed. His flight is nowhere stated to be "from Egypt", or "to Upper Egypt" as you claimed previously, as far as I can see. The first inscription, that you rely on, says SIPA "went up" after the battle. He died, or he disappeared, or he went north. None of these equates to a subsequent kingship or to a flight into Kush. SIPA cannot be Shabataka, on your model, unless his reign terminates in 720. The only way I can see to "rescue" this is for both men to be called SIPA (i.e. Shabaka and Shabataka). Then SIPA (A) (Shabaka) would be the king who fled and disappeared or died; SIPA (B) would be Shabataka, the turtanu, who fled from the battle, disappeared and was presumed dead, but subsequently reappeared, this time as king.

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 preceded by Shabaka for 12 years). So Taharqa has a reign of about 24 years as king of all Egypt, followed by a reign of 25 years as king of upper Egypt. But it does not make sense in context. Taharqa would vacate Lower Egypt 3 years before Dynasty 26 starts, and 10 years before the first Assyrian attack. This results in an unattested bull, but this does not of itself represent a problem - there is a 49 year gap between the bull that died in 20 Psametjik I and the one that died in 16 Neko II, with the indication that a bull died around years 52/53 of Psametjik. This means there is still a 31/32 year gap between 21 Psametjik and 52 Psametjik; could this be filled by a single bull? I am doubtful, so burials of ~year 36 and ~year 52 are completely unattested by remains or stelae. If the conventional chronology is followed, then between the burial of year 24 Taharqa, IV Peret 23, and the induction of the next, in year 26, IV Peret 9, is 14 days shy of 2 years, where the expected interval is about 6 months. Are there grounds for thinking this bull was older than the usual 8-9 months when inducted? Yes, because his lifespan is given as 21 years. If he was born IV Shemu 20 of year X and lived 21 years exactly to die on IV Shemu 20 of 20 Psametjik, then either Taharqa had an unevidenced year 27 (the usual explanation today) or in fact this Apis was born in year 25 of Taharqa, but not discovered and inducted until the following regnal year, due to the disruption caused by repeated Assyrian attacks on Lower Egypt and Memphis. As the year change for Psametjik occurred some time between IV Shemu 21 and II Akhet 25, 70 days later, when the bull was buried, he must have lived for a minimum of 19 years, 10 months, and 25 days during the reign of Psametjik - counting from II Akhet 25 as day 1 of the royal year 1 of Psametjik at the latest, and his death in year 20 on Iv Shemu 20. This means there is a maximum of 1 year, 1 month, 10 days that the Apis lived before the accession of Psametjik (and the death of Taharqa). If he were already 7 months and 24 days old at the time of induction, this leaves 5 months 21 days (171 days) at most that Taharqa had left to live. It could be as much as 69 days less than this. I do not know of any serious attempt to determine an accession day for Taharqa; there is a tacit assumption that Dyn 25, and Dyn 26, used antedating, so every year after year 1 began on I Akhet 1. There is also a clear assumption that "21 years" for the age of this bull was a round figure. Neither assumption is necessarily correct.

Regards

Kim

  • 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 Chronology — Kim Sargerson, Sat Jan 28 12:16
Click here to receive daily updates