Re: Libyans and Kushites
Tue Feb 21, 2017 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 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.

There appears to be a misunderstanding. Putting bandages to the side, there are pendants of "HPA Pinudjem son of Menkheperre" and the latter has no title at all. Yet this is clearly HPA Menkheperre and such pendants should not be dated prior to Menkheperre's assumption of the office. There are also several pendants of "HPA Psusennes son of Pinudjem" and the latter has no title at all.

As for Jaime, my Pinudjem III son of King Psusennes I is well attested by pendants in the time of Amenemope. But not by linens. So its clear he's no phantom but its also clear his time as HPA was very short. I don't know why but it may be that he was removed by Shoshenq I in 994 and replaced with Pinudjem IV son of Menkheperre. Then, when this man died in year 10 of Shoshenq I, the HPA-ship was given to Iuput.

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.

I would say Henttawy was the daughter of Ramesses XI and Tentamun. When Ramesses XI died, Tenutamun married Smendes I. When Tentamun died (1069), Smendes I married his step-daughter Henttawy and they became the parents of Psusennes I (born 1068). When Smendes I died (1067) Henttawy married HPA Pinudjem I (= year 1 of king Herihor) and started having children with him (Menkheperre, Masarhata, etc.). When Amenemnisu became king in 1052 after the death of Herihor, Henttawy's husband HPA Pinudjem I became king in the south at the same time. When Amenemnisu died in 1048, Henttawy's son Psusennes I became king in the north. His half-brother Menkheperre had been HPA for 4/5 years by then.

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.

I believe this is Osorkon I, first king Osorkon of the new dynasty, but I agree with you that year 10 is not definitely the year Iuwelot was a youth. He was a youth when the district he is giving to his son was called "The Good Mound." That's when Iuwelot obtained it. The year 10 of Osorkon (865) is when HPA Iuwelot gave it to Khaemwese.

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.

Osorkon F could easily have kept having children until the day he died, as king Osorkon IV, in 715. So I don't think its implausible that he has grandchildren living in 650 only 65 years later.

Peftjauawybast, the king, was the son in law of 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.

He was son-in-law of Rudamon I. 783 in my time-line is just the highest date known for Peftjauawybast. He could and probably did reign longer than 10/11 years, and was contemporary with Rudamon I's reign.

Takelot III has a year 13 attested now, so his reign should be extended beyond the year 7 you give him.

I assign this year 13 to Takeloth I/II.

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.

Osorkon F/IV has nothing to do with Piankhy in my reconstruction. Osorkon F/IV moves to the Delta after the death of Shoshenq V. He is the Shilkanni mentioned by Sargon II. Osorkon III does not leave Thebes. His kingship began in the north in 788 after the death of Pedubast II. Osorkon III is recognized at Thebes (explicit dates in years 3, 5, and 6) but he did not rule from there. He ruled from the Delta where Piankhy found him.

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.

I believe I have always said HPA Harsiese "the First" was the son of HPA Shoshenq. I said this Shoshenq was first Tyetkheperre and then Usermaatre before he adopted Hedjkheperre by year 5. Maatkheperre is probably a spelling error for Hedjkheperre. And there is reason to equate them, as a number of scholars already are. Maatkheperre was a descendant of Tyetkheperre Psusennes. HPA Shoshenq was a descendant of Tyetkheperre Psusennes. Tyetkheperre Shoshenq is the earliest Shoshenq attested at Bubastis. If Maatkheperre is a spelling mistake for Hedjkheperre as many argue, and as I now agree, then my position is made stronger. 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 exactly the same time. So I equate them by connecting this and all the other dots just mentioned.

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).

Heqakheperre is either Shoshenq I or his father GC Shoshenq A and the latter had a year 2 while still GC but died with full royal titles and was buried by his son Shoshenq I. Shoshenq I dies around age 70.

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.

I would not call him a minor sprog in 845. He's likely a son of king Harsiese and a brother of Pedubast I. I have the aged Takeloth I/II in Middle Egypt at this time and not in control of the south. King Harsiese, perhaps a brother of Takeloth I/II is king of the south and Pedubast I is his co-regent. Yes, the friendly division of Egypt came to an abrupt end in 845 but the sky did not swallow the moon. HPA Harsiese B is the same age or older than Osorkon B.

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.

Harsiese B interrupts Osorkon B and Nimlot G is son of Osorkon II.

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.

The first suggestion could work but I don't see how it is more natural than leaving a question mark here. As for Peftjauawybast, the HPP and the king are in two different areas of Egypt. So to equate them we need more than the similarity of their names. My time-line precludes this anyway or else Peftjauawybast was demoted from king to HPP.

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.

Its Nimlot C not A. Nimlot C and Tentsepeh were not the parents of Wedjptahankhef. I have Wedjptahankhef’s wife Tentsepeh as the royal daughter of Osorkon II and a sister of Nimlot C. She was 4 generations after Shoshenq II and Wedjptahankhef to Pasenhor B is only 4 generations.

Hemptah A born ca. 820
Pasenhor A ca. 797
Hemptah B ca. 774
Pasenhor B ca. 751, age 17 in 734

Regards Tory

  • 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 Kushites — Tory, Tue Feb 21 09:21
    • 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 1Kim Sargerson, Sat Mar 4 10:11
                      Hi Tory "So you and Marianne have had issues with this Fabian Boudville cat on EEF?" I cannot speak for Marianne's experience with the gentleman. My experience is that not only does he not listen to... 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 2Tory, Thu Mar 2 01:45
                      Hi Kim continued from previous The absence of descendants of a king who never ruled or lived in Thebes is no surprise. Or is Tukulti-Mer, king of Asshur, to be identified as Takelot-Mer(yamun)? So... 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
Click here to receive daily updates