Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites
Mon Feb 20, 2017 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 errors later. These concern the Saite chronology where you give detail.

1. Neko II accedes IV Peret 16, which is Aug 28, 609 Gregorian in your model. His year 16 therefore starts Aug 26, 594 Gregorian. But the Apis which dies in II Akhet 6 of year 16 you have assigned a date of 17 Feb 594 (should be 593).
This then bears on your comment "I do not understand the claim that [Psamtek II] died in his 6th year". On your dates his maximum independent reign (not allowing for unevidenced overlaps) is 18 Feb 593 to 3 Feb 588, which does not quite give him a year 6, never mind a year 7.

2. The date of death of the Apis in 12 Apries is correctly given as Egyptian IV Peret 12, but this equates to Gregorian 17 August 577 (not 17 April).

3. A similar error for Petosiris' oath. This must be around I Shemu 15-16 of year 12 of Amasis, i.e. 14-15 Sep 556 Gregorian, not 21 Oct 557.

These are the only ones I could spot, apart from your varied use of either accession day or coronation day anniversaries.
Only the first may require some actual chronological adjustment.

On the Kushites:
The data as presented do not explain the existence of a year 8 of Tanutamun.
A definite daughter of Alara, Tabiry, was a definite wife of Piye. Yet the paternal and maternal grandmothers of Taharqa were younger sisters of Alara. This combined with the EKL dates seems to generate a generational mismatch (Alara born by c810 to have a daughter old enough to marry Piye by 771 at latest, but Taharqa's grandmothers born about 786/776 if he himself was born about 736).

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 not titled "king".
As Jaime has pointed out the career of your Painedjem III terminates 996, shortly before his brother king Amunemipet, but to be the father of Psusennes III he must live on in obscurity at least a further 26 years.
I am somewhat confused by the position of Painedjem's wife Henttawy. She is a king's daughter, king's wife (apparently successively of Smendes I and Painedjem I) and king's mother (of Psusennes I during her own lifetime). Is she a Ramesside? Did she divorce Smendes (died 967) to marry Painedjem and have Menkheperre (born 969)? Or is she the mother of Masaharta or Djedkhonsuiufankh instead, but not of Menkheperre.

On the Libyans (dynasties 21-24)
Iuwelot is aged 49-64 during the reign of his father Osorkon I. This hardly qualifies him as a "youth" during that reign.
Osorkon "F" is 1PA (2 genealogies), and a king's son (one of the two, but without naming the king). He was never king himself, and generationally he is too early (as the combined Osorkon F/IV born c792 died c715 having left the South c732)
to be the 3rd generation ancestor of several people living c650.
Peftjauawybast, the king, was the son in law of a a king Rudamun. Your dates have the former dying c783, 3 years before the latter even becomes a king c780. This seems to be a mismatch.
Takelot III has a year 13 attested now, so his reign should be extended beyond the year 7 you give him.
Osorkon III: although you list Osorkon IV as going to Bubastis c732, it must be apparent that this originally was a solution to the Osorkon of the Piye stela being the Osorkon based at Bubastis, not at Thebes. In your scenario Osorkon B/III goes to Bubastis by c783 and is there when Piye's campaign takes place.
Your dates and individuals seem to me to show that you in fact have a 1PA Harsiese (A) associated with an Usermaatre Setepenamun Sheshonq (your II) whilst denying the validity of such a postulation. Your Harsiese A is not associated with a Hedjkheperre or a Maatkheperre Sheshonq, and there is no reason to suppose that these rulers are the same individual, even if they occupy a similar period (around 3 decades) in both your chronology and mine.

As far as I can tell, king Heqakheperre Sheshonq, whose age at death was 50+, has no chronological match with either your Sheshonq I (aged 80+?) or Sheshonq II (aged 92).

General concerns:

Given that kings in this family "arise" without necessarily succeeding to a vacated position, the number who attain kingship at an advanced age is linked to but not simply another way of saying that they are mostly too old at death. Of the kings that you have given approx. birth dates as well as reigns, I can list the following ages at accession, with alternative possible accessions earlier in the dynasty:
Sheshonq I 30?
Osorkon Elder 56 could not be earlier
Psusennes II 79, could succeed father directly, age 53
Sheshonq II 60, could succeed Siamun directly, age 46
Osorkon I 71 could not be earlier
Takelot I/II 66 ditto
Osorkon II 58 ditto
Osorkon B/III 86 could have succeeded Osorkon II age 55
Osorkon F/IV 37 could not be earlier
For these 9 kings the average is over 60 years. The instances where a more direct succession would make more dynastic sense would lower this to about 52-53. Given that (for example) a minor sprog by the name of Harsiese B could be set up as rival to Osorkon B c845, when Takelot I/II is still living and (in theory) in control of the South, with his son Osorkon II in control of the North, friendly rivalry seems to have descended to hostile competition. There are in fact two lines of succession to the high priesthood,
Line A = Nesbanebdjed III, Iuwelot, Nimlot F, Osorkon B 874/780 in direct unbroken succession;
Line B = Harsiese B, Nimlot (G?), Takelot E/F 845/791 in direct unbroken succession.

The scheme as presented offers few solutions that naturally fall into place. I could suggest one, for example, Nimlot D at Hermopolis as a successor of your Pedubast II, who is otherwise without ancestors or descendants (or an explanation of how he came to be king, with so many other claimants around). Or another, that Peftjauawybast the king is the same man as the 1PP. I am in agreement with you that the frieze on the Anath temple is likely Psusennes I's embellished by Siamun, and that Ps. I was the campaigner in Palestine himself. Your dissection of the Pasenhor stele leaves Pasenhor B, floruit 734, as the 5th generation descendant of a Nimlot who can only be Nimlot A (floruit 995?) or around 40 years plus per generation, even with both papponymy and succession of title in evidence to indicate this is a senior line for at least 4 of the 5 generations.

Kind regards


  • 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 Kushites — Kim Sargerson, Mon Feb 20 14:31
      • 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 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