Kim Sargerson
Libyans and Kushites
Thu Feb 2, 2017 14:29
81.151.216.165


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, in the person of Peftjauawybast). This is one of the reasons that Aston extended the nominal reign of Osorkon II to c45 years, so that in his arrangement 1 Sheshonq III would be approximately 48 years after 1 Osorkon II. I do not think the interval need be quite that high (I have 30 years approx.) but a separation of only 17 years seems ruled out by the genealogy you discuss.

"HPA Osorkon B was King Takelot's oldest son, and equally his mother Karoma's eldest son too."
Actually Tory claims that the inscriptions of Osorkon B do not say that he was the eldest son of his father. Consequently Osorkon B can be a younger son of Takelot I/II, and certainly younger than Osorkon II.
"It is equally possible that he was just the oldest surviving son by the time things got complicated in Thebes in Takelot's Year 11."
That is certainly an option on Tory's model; smsw (senior) rather than tpy (first) could imply that he was the eldest surviving, or the eldest of a particular wife (which would probably find parallels in the sons of Ramesses III), or even the eldest "prince" who was not already a king in his own right. However, Tory's model makes Osorkon II become a king around year 13/14 of Takelot (this in accordance with "Manetho"!) and not in year 11.

"The longer the overlap between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III, the older the former must be at ascension, and the older all his immediate predecessors must be at ascension and death."
It is most acute with regard to Takelot I/II, who not only must be at least in his forties at accession (implying his father in his sixties at death if he succeeds him directly, even if Takelot were the eldest son of Osorkon I, which I doubt) but he only predeceases Osorkon II (known to have had a long life, hence Aston's assumption of a corresponding long reign) by about a decade, so even on a 16 year generation he would reach an age 6 years older than Osorkon II. But no such evidence of either long life or long reign is forthcoming for him, unlike for Osorkon II.
By contrast my own model has Osorkon II surviving his father by about 30 years, and the generation between them about 20 years, so Osorkon II attained c10 years older than his father.

"- Shoshenq II/C, born c940
- Osorkon I, born c920
- Takelot I/II, born c900
- Osorkon II, born c868
- Shoshenq D, born c852
- Takelot B, born c834
- Pediese, born c816
- Peftjauawybast, born c796
Average generational gap of c18 years"
Two points here - nitpicking, 7 generations in 144 years as you present it is over 20 years per generation on average; and I think you will find that Tory does not date Osorkon II as a younger halfbrother of Osorkon B, but makes him older. The dates you offer could be shifted up by 16 years (for the birth of Osorkon II) and about 20 years (for the birth of Peftjauawybast, making the intervening generations just a little shorter) with undue strain. This just barely fits with Pef.'s birth c816 and the bull of year 28 c800.
The main absurdity of Tory's proposal, for me, is the succession from Osorkon (the elder) to his father in law Psusennes, to Sheshonq II (son of the first and grandson of the second, but adult at the death of his father). I cannot think of an exact parallel. Yes, rulers could be succeeded by their father in law, or by their maternal grandson, but not when the father in law was a member of the displaced previous dynasty; much better to have them in generation order i.e. Psusennes of dynasty A, succeeded by son in law Osorkon (pivotal, could be dynasty A or B) then by grandson Sheshonq (dynasty B).

"this requires that Takelot I/II was married simultaneously to two or more wives even before he was king"
This follows inevitably. Nimlot C was the son of a non-royal wife who is not titled queen, and may have died before Osorkon II became king. Sheshonq D, his half-brother, was the first son (tpy) specifically, but his mother survived to become queen and was still living at the sed-festival. So Nimlot C was born when Osorkon II was already married to Karoama B. As I do not think his status was even that of "crown prince and eldest son" at this time, as Takelot I's short reign does not give time for this, then it follows that a minor princeling of the dynasty, which is all Osorkon II was at this point, could be polygamous. In order to avoid this, you would have to adopt a solution like Cullom's where Karoama B (not queen or king's daughter) is the mother of Sheshonq D and another Karoama, who married her own father and was the mother of the other children.

"Maatkare B, c958; Psusennes II, c976; Pinudjem III, c1044; Menkheperre, c1069. This is 24,8 years per generation = 25 years, although you have Psusennes II been born after his father has been dead for years (Post 17263)."
I find this confusing in the extreme. 3 generations in 111 years, or 4 generations in 129 years, does not average out the way you say. The interval between Psusennes II and Painedjem III is 68 years, so no wonder he has been "dead for years" when Psusennes II comes along. Are you making a straw man here, or do Tory's figures actually give this? Have you mixed Painedjems II and III?

"should we not dismiss Manetho totally? Should we discard Africanus or Eusebius? Or both? One might also ponder about who to choose, when and why."
If you were living in Thebes and used the archives there to come up with a list of the kings after Ramesses XI, it would be an almost completely different list to the one at Tanis, or at Memphis. I think the copies of "Manetho" derived from a Saite perspective (the city, not the dynastic period). However it is most likely that neither Africanus nor Eusebius knew this, and accepted the list of "Manetho" as definitive.
The lists were then embedded in a unified chronology which used data from different sources uncritically, so the Greek chronographic model was placed next to the Hebrew, Babylonian and Egyptian models, and cross dated significant events or people. The one comment in the lists I have been unable to explain in conventional chronograhpy is the tagline next to Osorkho in Dynasty 23 "the Egyptians call him Herakles". This is not a chronographic inference. The goddess Hera, who gave Herakles his name, and was responsible by persecution for his fame, adopting him as her son after his mortal death, was occasionally equated with Isis. A very tenuous argument could be made that this Osorkon was a SiEset. But Isis was more commonly equated with Greek Demeter, and the northern Bastet was identified with Greek Artemis, who has no connection at all with Herakles.
I do have a view on this, but it relies on "Manetho" being familiar with the Demotic Story Cycle and incorporating popular tales into an otherwise dry chronicle of names and reign lengths.

"I've just recently noticed a similar discrepancy in the total numbers of years attributed to the 20th Dynasty (135 years in one, 178 years in the other)"
But there are degrees of freedom here. Given that dynasties overlapped, not all of the extra 43 years need be at the end of the dynasty, as we are given no reigns.

"I'm also trying to play with the EKL and some of your resolutions for the Nubian period"
So which of two Kashtas in the EKL is the right one; there are two Taharqas, a Sabaka, a Sabakon, a Sepechos (but no Sabataka), no Atlanersa or Senkamanisken, and several unidentified or unidentifiable names (which of "Abralyus-Piyankhi" and "Axumay-Warada-Tsahay" is meant to be Alara, and who is the other man). The other rulers called Piyankhi (3rd and 4th occurrences) are not in the correct place, unless you are a NC fan.

"I've always flirted with the NChronologist positioning of Piye closer to Shoshenq III than Shoshenq V. It seems to fit better some facts and resolves some minor anomalies."
There seem to be almost as many "NC" chronologies of the period as there are variant "conventional" chronologies. It does make it more interesting, to see how many ways the same evidence can be rearranged. However most of the drastic revisions seem to result in a fallacy, or an implausible equation of two or more separate individuals. Time-loops seem to be another feature - event Y comes after event X; move event X later, without moving Y...

"25 years and 42 years are summary of periods, but Africanus interpreted it as measures of sequential periods of time"
I think Cullom's system is similar. I am not sure how it works for these particular numbers however.

"so he gave a total of 120 years to the dynasty when something closer to 49-69 might be closer to factual truth."
There are at least 4 kings, in 4 generations, in the Pasenhor genealogy. This should surely be one dynasty, and already has more kings and probably more years than the truncated version of Dynasty 22. Unless your aim is a radical revision of Pasenhor, I do not see how this can be matched up, kinglist to "real", without making assumptions about overlaps within the dynasty, which then most likely will invalidate any simple assumptions or rules made when first manipulating the material.
There are reasonable limits to the date of the Shishak invasion of Judah, depending on what version of the chronology of the Judahite kings you think is best. These limits are approx 970/920 BC. Then there is the identity of Shishak, who is not to be found in "Manetho", and the identity of "Zerah the Ethiopian" a generation later (you will find Sera, 3rd of the Menelik dynasty, in the EKL). There are few options other than Sheshonq for Shishak, and none that are later.
At the tail end, Piye was contemporary with king Peftjauawybast of Herakleopolis. The latter was married to, among other wives, a daughter of a king Rudamun. This king appears in the Heqadjet temple at Thebes where his name has been plastered in i.e. he is after the kings Osorkon III and Takelot III who built it, but (in the conventional timeline anyway) only immediately after. It is generally assumed (but not from definitive evidence) that Osorkon III post-dates Sheshonq III and his 1PA Osorkon B (whether or not B and III are the same man). Osorkon III (reign) is genealogically later than Osorkon II (reign) by 3 generations, and Osorkon II is definitely the son of Takelot I and the last of the 4 generations of kings listed in Pasenhor. From him to the start of Shabaka we have at least 6 Apis burials (28 Sheshonq III, 2 Pamai, 11 Sheshonq V, 37 Sheshonq V, 6 Bakenrinef, 2 Shabaka).
There might be ways to overlap (e.g. Sheshonq V with Dynasty 25, the early rulers with Dynasty 21) but the start of Dynasty 22, or at least the date of the first known ruler called Sheshonq, would be between 150 and 250 years before 700 BC. There is plenty of leeway here, but not as much as the main NC chronologies (which push Sheshonq I down to the early 8th century) require.

Regards

Kim

  • 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 Kushites — Kim Sargerson, Thu Feb 2 14:29
      • 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
                • Re: Libyans and KushitesKim Sargerson, Mon Feb 20 14:31
                  Hi Tory I have now had a chance to go through your massive and detailed presentation. First, the minor corrections that I have picked up on, that you might want to incorporate in case they lead to... more
                  • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 21 09:21
                    Hi Kim, On the members of Dynasty 21: I am certain your Painedjem II is a phantom created by a miswriting of a single bandage. If it is not, then he must be moved earlier in date, as his father is... more
                  • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 21 03:24
                    Hi Kim Thank you for your reply and these minor corrections to my Saite chronology. I was in bit of a rush. As I said, my wife uses a stop watch every time I sit down at the computer to do historical ... more
                    • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 21 10:50
                      Ooops Year 20 Apries, II-smw 10 (P. BM 10113, Thebes) (Oct 12, 567), this is the highest known date for Apries. Nebuchadnezzar II stormed Thebes and sacked it (Nov, 567) shortly after previous date.... more
                • Re: Libyans and KushitesKim Sargerson, Mon Feb 13 11:39
                  Hi Tory Ian Mladjov (once a regular contributor to this forum) has an article in Birmingham Egyptlogy journal, which can be downloaded free here... more
                  • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Wed Feb 15 20:48
                    Hi Kim I will have to look at Ian's paper, but since it appears to be a criticism of Thijs' work I don't know how much it will shed any new light on what we already know. "It was not a calendar in... more
                • Addendum: a mangled Saite DistanzangabeTory, Tue Feb 7 08:57
                  The stela Tawfik discovered and published by Handoussa states that the priest Psamtek was born in Year 1 of Nekau II, III-smw 1, and that he died in Year 27, IV-3kt 28. His lifespan is given as 65... more
Click here to receive daily updates