Jaime O
Re: Libyans and Kushites
Fri Feb 3, 2017 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.

" 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."

Yes, but last time Tory tackled the issue, he argued Osorkon B was claiming to be son of the god Amun. I didn't find it convincing, as I am not aware of instances where high priests of Amun claim themselves to be sons of Amun (with the exception of Herihor, who prefixed Siamun to his nomen, but again, I am only aware of this happening during his royal phase). I prefer to let Tory reply with his own words and thoughts on the matter.

" 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."

I am not troubled by a long living Takelot I/II, or a very old Takelot I; 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. All of this, of course, is speculative; we also need to keep in mind the average age of death of these individuals, which is pushing 70s as of now on Tory's model for a whole lineage from Pinudjem I down to Osorkon B.

One might argue that the average age of death of a whole lineage of royals and non-royals might not be accurate, given that, although kings and their aristocrats had similar access to a more luxurious and comfortable life, ancient pharaohs likely had a different kind of diets and rituals based on the religious figure of the godly son of Amun. So, allowing us to calculate the average age of death of the royal figures as Tory gives us:

- Pinudjem I, dies aged 77
- Psusennes I, dies aged 61
- Shoshenq I, dies aged 68
- Osorkon the Elder, dies aged 83
- Psusennes II, dies aged 79
- Shoshenq II, dies aged 67
- Osorkon I, dies aged 61
- Takelot I, dies aged 70
- Osorkon B, dies aged 90
Average age of death: 72,8 = 73 years

I exclude Menkheperre because his kingship is ambiguous at best. I find it hard to believe that Menkheperre was not remembered as a king because he reigned for a short time, yet was remembered for being the priest he was for 48 years. This stings me, especially on a model which poses that HPA Nimlot and Nimlot from whom Pasenhor B descended could not be the same guy because had the latter been HPA for a day, he would have been remembered as such (plus many other factoids, dependent or not of this one).

" Two points here - nitpicking, 7 generations in 144 years as you present it is over 20 years per generation on average (...)"

Yes, you're totally right. My bad here. Were it to be some 18 years per generation, then we would equally have the gap between two men 20 years apart as 10 years per generation: nonsense. I appreciate your correction.

" 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."

Didn't you suggested some time ago that Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit, wife of Tutankhamun, could have been Aya's daughter? That would be a son-in-law to father-in-law succession. Had Shoshenq C been the only male issue of the king at the time of his death, and deemed too young to rule, Psusennes, the powerful HPA who was the boy's grandson and heir to a line of priest-kings, might have been the better candidate to rule instead, and in Tory's reconstruction, he and Osorkon are the same generation. Shoshenq C might have been the last resort, or the all powerful priest made him so. This requires Psusennes II to be Psinaches, which is equally possible. I was initially reluctant as well in the beginning, but once we understand Maatkare as a very young bride of Osorkon, aged as to be his daughter, then it's possible to conjure a too-young-to-rule Shoshenq C at the time the king died. The problem is: Maatkare was never a King's Wife, otherwise her son would have said so without hesitating (especially since she was the joint point of two royal bloodlines, and that was probably Shoshenq C's backup to his claim as crown-prince); had she bore a son to Osorkon during his reign, she would have been his wife. She could have been his concubine too, but would the all powerful HPA at Tanis allow his daughter to be a mere concubine? Even a minor wife would still be the king's wife.

"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."

Interesting. I missed totally that Nimlot C's mother is nowhere attested as king's wife, like Maatkare. I wouldn't discard Cullom's solution; maybe having only one Karomama would be more economic, but what to do the polygamous minor princes? I am not aware of cases of polygamy outside the monarchy.

" 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."

You did not understand what I meant to do. I meant to extend the lineage from Peftjauawybast to Menkheperre. 796 for Peftjauawybast is my calculation, supposing Osorkon II was a minor son of Takelot I/II; 1069 for Menkheperre is Tory's own math. This is 12 generations, and 273 from the birth of Menkheperre to the birth of Peftjauawybast. This is about 24 years per generation.

" 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?"

Not at all. Tory's figures give this. He poses Pinudjem son of Menkheperre (whom he calls Pinudjem III) was buried in Shoshenq I's Year 10. I had a similar scenario myself some time ago, allowing an overlap for Psusennes II and Shoshenq I, so the priest buried in a Year 10 was under the latter's reign and was Pinudjem son of Psusennes; I know take the position that such priest was son of Psusennes I, as he attested under Amenemope. But I'm falling out of topic. The thing is: Shoshenq I ascends the throne in 994, which means Year 10 falls about 985; Tory calculates that Pinudjem III was about 59 years old at this time, so he must have been born around 1044, exactly 25 years after Menkheperre, which is fine. But later, it is calculated that Psusennes II, the same king who was condominum and maternal grandfather of Shoshenq II/C and who served as HPA under Psusennes III/Psinaches, i.e. Psusennes II equates HPA Psusennes son of Pinudjem, died about 897 aged 79, so he was born around 976. This means that Psusennes was born about 9 years after his father died. I fear Tory missed this small detail. Can't blame him, I've done worse...

" 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 only possibility I can think of about Herakles is that this is an encrypted reference to Herakleopolis Magna, in Upper Egypt. I suspect Osorkho might have succeeded Pedubast II in Herakleopolis; to that effect, one would feel the need to postulate that Pedubast II extended his rule to the south, like Shoshenq III (as Tory both have them), and likelier than not, was succeeded by Osorkon B: time and geography seem to indicate that. The problem here is really the presence of Osorkon B's mother if the NLTs mentioning Kamama are to be interpreted as his. His mother must have been alive at this time, and I don't think Kamama was if Osorkon B was c82 years old at ascension. Not only would Osorkon B and Kamama be extremely old, his brother, Bekenptah, alive during Year 39, must be presumed similarly aged.

" 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."

Of course. As I wrote, it's just an experimental approach, a bit similar to what Cullom has done. I've come up with the resolution of identifying the 3 kings for 25 years in early 22nd Dynasty with Psusennes II, Shoshenq I and Osorkon I, but researching in the archives, I've stumbled upon Cullom arguing the same way before me... my apologies if anything.

" 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."

On Piye, Shoshenq III and a New Chronology. Many new chronologists, predominately Peter James and Ad Thijs, feel the need to shorten the time between Shoshenq III and Taharka. On different grounds, these two authors have pointed out factors in favor of lowering the dates of the Libyan kings. Thijs attempted to identify the burial of an Apis bull under year 37 of Shoshenq V with the same one on year 14 of Taharqa; I know discard this. James pointed out that kings Osorkon III and Takelot III suffer the influence of an archaizing style present during the 25th Dynasty into the Saite period; James also notes stylistic similarities of the Harsiese H stelae from Shoshenq III's reign with figures and art from Taharqa's reign. James and Thijs ought to reduce the time between Shoshenq III and Taharqa by overlapping Shoshenq V with the latter. The reduction of time as played by the NChronologists is a way to resolve the problem, by making mid-Libyan period and late Nubian-early Saite period closer in time, thus the artistic similarities don't seem so awkward. However, if we date Piye earlier, and fill the space in between with Kashta and Alara, then this archaizing art movement must have started equally earlier. Thus, there is no need to lower Shoshenq III and the entire TPI with him. That's what I meant and this is why I find Tory's proposal interesting.

"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)."

I don't argue against any of these facts. But I agree with Peter James that something seems wrong with very early demonstrations of an artistic fashion that isn't suppose to show up until the early 25th Dynasty. However, we can't really get around this unless we lower Shoshenq III, Shoshenq V and the whole TIP; if we can get Piye to actually rule earlier, around late-Shoshenq III, then I will play with such a model. This is my point. About Shishak, even if I were to be a NChronologist (which I am not), I don't find any other possible candidate besides Shoshenq I and Psusennes (one of the two or three. The Greek Psusennes, where -p is mute, renders a pronunciation similar to Susennes, which, contrasting with Pasebakhaenniut, makes it apparent that -paseba was rendered as -psus in Greek; the rest of the name, -khaenniut, might be a clue behind names such as Susakeim and Psinakhes and, ultimately, the Hebrew Shishak).

Honest regards,

  • 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 Kushites — Jaime O, Fri Feb 3 07:42
      • 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 Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Wed Feb 22 17:19
                      Hi Tory "these minor corrections to my Saite chronology." The finding of the mistakes is in no way an attempt to invalidate or criticise, quite the reverse. I know from experience the embarassment of ... 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