Tory
Re: Libyans and Kushites
Tue Feb 7, 2017 03:12
112.198.101.118

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 at a different place? (Not a criticism, just enjoying the moment).

I have the Apis burial in year 2 of Šōbaka, then a burial in “year 4” [of Taharqa (710)], then the burial in year 14 of Taharqa (700), then a burial in year 24 of Taharqa (690). Not sure what you mean by “docket.” The anonymous year 4 burial is attested by fifteen stelae (Ibrahim Aly’s tally) not by a docket or dockets. Perhaps they are anonymous because Šōbatka just died and year 4 was the start of Taharqa’s rulership over Egypt.

By the way, I write Šōbaka instead of Shabakah because I think Hebrew Sw’ (Gk. Σωα) = Sōa at 2 Kgs 17:4 is a hypocoristic and therefore the Greek normalization Sabacōn (Σαβάκων) transposes a long o-vowel from the opening syllable to the end of the word. Kō is a Greek mistake for Ka.

Kim wrote: 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 date for Amunemnisut is 1052-1048, so pretty much conventional. Bakenrinef is 739-734, ok so not so conventional. Yet the Berlin genealogy was made under Shoshenq V whose dates are 770-734 on my chronology, again pretty much as convention has it. So I don’t see a different approximation for Šedsunefertum’s career resulting from my dates.

The year 12 of the year 12 = year 5 Pedubast Nile record still belongs to king Harsiese. No change. The change is that I would see that Harsiese began his reign at Thebes only a few years after Takeloth I/II succeeded Osorkon I in the north. As I said, I think but cannot prove Takeloth I/II moved his residence to Middle Egypt in year 13 and his son Osorkon II was put on the throne of Tanis. This is hardly based upon Manetho who kills off Takeloth in year 13 and who doesn’t know the names of any of his successors. Everything was fine in the condominium of Libyan-controlled Egypt until the civil war of year 15 of Takeloth I/II when HPA Harsiese prevented HPA Osorkon B from entering Thebes.

Kim wrote: 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).

The Greek-speaking literary world of Diodorus hadn’t yet learned about any kings of Egypt named Sheshonq, Osorkon, and Takeloth. This happened for the first time after Manetho’s history appeared during the reign of Caesar Augustus. And Manetho appears already to have been bent by its author who I believe put out a revised second edition (the one used by Eusebius) and then a re-revised third edition (the one used by Africanus) during the long reign of Augustus. Josephus knew all three editions and rightly defacated on them at the appropriate places. Even Apion does not mention Manetho by name. As far as we known, he only cited Ptolemy of Mendes’ history in three books as his authority for Egyptian history and chronography, which leads me to believe Ptolemy of Mendes is probably the real author of Manetho’s history in three books.

Kim wrote: There is no statement as to where SIPA died.

The text that mentions SIPA’s death equates him with being king. He did not flee the battlefield of Raphia because he didn’t go. His turtanu did. This text says SIPA ran away from what can only be his place of residence within Lower Egypt at the time of the battle of Raphia in 720. Thus we do know where he didn’t die: Lower Egypt.

Kim wrote: 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.

Both versions were composed at the same time, i.e. year 16 of Sargon II in 706 (since both narrate events down to year 15 in 707). The version that calls SIPA turtanu says he not only fled the battle of Raphia but that he was also “to be seen no more.” So he obviously abandoned his base in Lower Egypt and never returned in person. We are talking about the same SIPA, just one version recognizes he was not king in 720 and another uses an anachronism because SIPA died a king prior to year 16 of Sargon II.

Kim wrote: The first inscription, that you rely on, says SIPA "went up" after the battle. He died, or he disappeared, or he went north.

“went up” means the king died. Look at the various usages of this expression listed in CAD whenever the fate of a king is the issue. It absolutely does not mean “went north” or vanished into thin air.

Kim wrote: SIPA cannot be Shabataka, on your model, unless his reign terminates in 720.

The Assyrian inscriptions often telescope events. Luli of Tyre died in 693. Sennacherib mentions his death as if it happened years earlier during his third campaign. Bible does the same thing when it mentions Sennacherib’s death in 680 as if it occurred during the reign of Hazak-Yah’oh (727-698) even though the latter died first on Oct 2, 698. I could go on. Hence there is no problem with SIPA being only a general in 720 but dying a king before 707. These are the clear statements of Sargon II’s scribes who played with SIPA’s bio-data to stroke Sargon II’s ego when they composed his annals and display texts in 706.

Kim wrote: 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.

More sense that SIPA is one person mocked two different ways by the Assyrians scribes. The main point: the Kushites were in control of Lower Egypt prior to 720. They abandoned Lower Egypt in 720 when SIPA lost bigly at Raphia. Assyrian scribe #1 to scribe #2: “We know he was only the top general in 720 and not yet king, but in this version lets write that he was king in 720. This is a pardonable anachronism in our scribal trade. It will make his running away look even worse and make our lord Sargon II look even more of a badass. But let’s also keep on mocking him with the name ‘(false-)shepherd’ since we know the Sumerian logogram SIPA sounds like the first syllables of his real Nubian name anyway. Only someone ignorant of Sumerian wont know who we are talking about and wrongly assume this Nubian was given the Assyrian name Re’e at birth, which will be a final parting jab in his face from us.” Assyrian scribe #2: “Brilliant.”

Regards Tory

  • 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 Kushites — Tory, Tue Feb 7 03:12
      • 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 Kushites part 1Tory, Wed Feb 22 23:15
                Hi Kim My wife is one of those who would prefer I go to the casino since there is chance I would actually leave with more money than I came. Lapdancers? Same thing. Hardware store? Another word for... more
                • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Fri Feb 24 17:46
                  Hi Tory Re: Saite chronology. Sorry, it was me missing something. Although you changed the detailed dates you kept the summary statement of reign period (e.g. "Apries (587-568) accession I-3kt 24... more
                  • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Sun Feb 26 02:22
                    Hi Kim He apparently has quit Egyptology so I have not bothered to contact him, but what Koenraad Donker van Heel said in his book and what he reiterated to Krauss is that the P. Louvre 7848 was... more
                    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Wed Mar 1 15:15
                      Hi Tory Sorry I mentioned the Ramesses article at all now. My thanks to you and Marianne for seeing off Fabian Boudville in style. I do however recommend Ian's article on the subject, if you have not ... more
                  • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Kim Sargerson, Fri Feb 24 18:05
                    continued... "Takeloth E/F only finds a supporter in Pedubast II AFTER the death of Shoshenq III. Where he was during years 22-29 need no more be an exile than where Osorkon B was during years 6-21... more
                    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Tory, Sun Feb 26 04:21
                      continued ... The gaps are not real. Osorkon B mentions an opponent who tried to claim 1PA only once, at the very beginning of his account. He never mentions such an opponent again. Yes but that does ... more
              • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Kim Sargerson, Wed Feb 22 17:24
                ...continued "Tashepenbast was the daughter of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I. Her son the vizier Nesipakashuti A, son of 3PA Djedthutefankh, died under Usermaatre Shoshenq. My Shoshenq II is king at... more
                • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Tory, Thu Feb 23 00:05
                  Hi Kim if Nimlot C is not an ancestor of Pasenhor B, remind me what he (and his wife) is doing in this list of ancestors... Because Wedjptahankhef’s wife Tentsepeh was the royal daughter of Osorkon... 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