Tory
Addendum: a mangled Saite Distanzangabe
Tue Feb 7, 2017 08:57
112.198.68.84

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 years, 10 months, and 2 days. J. F. Quack already pointed out that there is an error in this stela and IV-3kt 28 is what the scribe really did write. The problem is not simply that the distance from IV-3kt 28 and III-smw 1 is really 6 months and 2 days not 10 months and 2 days. There is another problem.

The scribe states that the body was taken from the pr-nfr and brought to the beautiful west on I-smw 29. This would mean the body was in the embalming house for 151 days instead of 70.

My solution is that the scribe has confused dates and this is a re-burial in Year 27. The priest was born in Year 1 of Nekau II, III-smw 1 (Nov 11, 609). His death 65 years, 10 months, and 2 days later fell in Year 25 on IV-prt 28 (Aug 25, 543). The end of his 70-day period of embalming was Year 25, III-smw 8 (Nov 3, 543). Then, in Year 26, IV-3kt 28 (Aug 25, 542), the priest’s mummy was exhumed and taken to the pr-nfr for re-wrapping and re-burial, and perhaps a new location was being prepared in the beautiful west for his re-interment causing a delay until Year 27, I-smw 29 (Sep 25, 542).

It is not a simpler solution to say that the given lifespan is where all the problems are and it should be emended to 67 years, 6 months, and 2 days. This does not explain why the embalming period lasted 151 days.

Regards Tory

  • 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 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 1Tory, Wed Mar 1 23:21
                      Hi Kim So you and Marianne have had issues with this Fabian Boudville cat on EEF? I get the digest but I don't have time to read every mail inside. Why commence the writing of a document then set it... 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 Mar 1 15:17
                      Hi Tory continued from part 1... "Nor do these genealogies mention Shilkanni, but he is in the generation I place him." Nor do they mention king Ping of Zhou. Your king Takelot II has an abundance of ... 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 Distanzangabe — Tory, Tue Feb 7 08:57
Click here to receive daily updates