Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Wed Feb 22, 2017 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 having put something like this out, and everyone saying "yes, very good" then years later I find my own mistakes when I come to use the same dataset again.

"my wife uses a stop watch every time I sit down at the computer to do historical research and write"
I am astonished that someone of your evident powers of persuasion cannot put a positive spin on this activity. Spiritual wellbeing? Saves all the money you would otherwise have spent at the casino/lapdancers/hardware store/?

The revised Saite chronology: Neko II, ok, Psametjik II ok, and the line-up with the priest Psametjik seems to fit. However you are now forced to assume a regnal overlap between Psametjik II and Wahibre. I am not sure this is a plus.
The ins and outs of Amasis versus Apries, have possibly been subjected to historical revisionism by Amasis. Where do you acquire the date of January for Nebuchadrezzar's invasion?

"Year 12, I-smw 21 (Sep 20, 556) the date P. Louvre 7848 began to be written
Year 12 Amasis, II-smw 13 (Oct 12, 556) LD 16: Petosiris agreed to swear an oath on day of the full moon
Year 12, I-smw smdt (Oct 12, 556) Petosiris swore the oath that evening before the god and in the light of the full moon"
Sorry, but this does not seem to work. Oct 12 cannot be both II Shemu 13 and I Shemu smdt. The text reproduces the dates differently.
Opening date: H3.t-sp 12.t ibd-1 Smw 21 pr-c3 IcH-ms..."Year 12, month I Shemu [day] 21 [of] pharaoh Ahmose" (the words sw for "day" and n for "of" do not seem to have ever been present)
We then get two dates in rapid succession within the reported statement of the three men:
n H3.t-sp 12.t ibd-2 Smw 13 ("in year 12, month II-Shemu [day] 13" is immediately followed by
n 15.t ibd-1 Smw ("in/on 15th, I Shemu")
As the document is dated to year 12 at the start, the second cannot be a reference to year 15, but must be a reference to day 15, as van Heel transcribes it.
Absent a "lunar calendar" there are only a couple of viable explanations.
(a) Year 12, I Shemu 21, is the latest date in the document, and all other dates including Year 12, II Shemu 13, precede it. Therefore the accession day of Ahmose must fall somewhere between I Shemu 22 and II Shemu 13, and the original contract was arranged 11 months prior to the oath being taken (II Shemu 13 to I Shemu 15) and then the document was drawn up attesting to the fact 6 days after the oath was performed.
This would contradict your deduction that the coronation day of Ahmose was I Akhet 15.
(b) Year 12, I Shemu 21, was "when the document began to be written". I Shemu 15 lies in the immediate past and II Shemu 13 in the immediate future, at this point; however, as the clause is not "anticipatory" but factual, the document must have been completed a month after it was begun, and the relevant date, II Shemu 13, and the text that followed it was written in later. Now, I am neither a handwriting expert nor a reader of abnormal hieratic, but nobody who is has commented on a change of hand, or of ink, or of sign size, part way through the document, which would be a more obvious sign of a "living" document, and the only photo of it I know of seems to show one piece of writing, written in one hand without a significant break.
Without a somewhat microscopic analysis of the ink, and of the relative size and stroke-thickness of individual signs, I see no compelling reason to opt for this alternative.

"Tanutamun is only given 4 years in the EKL. Since this is list of kings who ruled Kush, it is possible he did not return to rule Kush in 655/4 but remained in Egypt"
Possible, but not logical, here at least. Chronologically you have a point, but it does not make political sense to hand over Kush (independent, relatively powerful and probably the source for troops for any future campaign) but retain an impoverished, war-battered and not entirely loyal upper Egypt, even if the case for Psametjik's absorption of the south rests largely on his year 9 being higher than Tantamane's year 8.

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.

"Not sure I follow the logic."
Clearly you don't. Your resultant dates have
"Abar, daughter of the above lady, born ca. 787"
and "Taharqa, son of Abar, born 736"
That's 51 years from mother to her only certainly known child. Then of course she is still alive when she visits Egypt in year 6 of Taharqa (c708 on your timeline) aged 79 as she dances and plays the sistrum before the gods...

"Alara and Piankhy are roughly the same generation in opinion"
I don't see that as a natural conclusion. Piyankhiy reigns 32, followed by Alara 23. The natural conclusion was that Alara was the representative of the next generation, going by the EKL.

A brief excursus on the Gods Wives: I believe that Jurman has re-analysed the Wadi Gesus graffito and determined that it is in fact two parallel graffiti, both of the Kushite period, which is what I have been saying for years. There is nothing then to show that Shepenwepet I, daughter of Osorkon III, was in any way associated with Amunirdis I, apart from the recurrence of the name Shepenwepet in the next generation. The anonymous years 12 and 19 of the Wadi Gesus belong to Kushite rulers (and although I do not agree with the attribution by Jurman, to 12 Shabaka and 19 Taharqa, such an attribution is perfectly possible). Shepenwepet I was functioning as Gods Wife as late as the coregency and appears in the jointly constructed chapel of Osiris lord of eternity at Karnak. On your dates the induction of Amunirdis I should be moved down to c724.

On the members of Dynasty 21:

"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."
I think you are missing the point here. Painedjem I was a king. There are enough of him, as 1PA, simply as "son of Paiankh" also. It is not the title of 1PA that is missing but the title of king, which none of the other sons of Painedjem I omitted AFAIK. I am actually glad that some of these linens did omit the ancestral titles, otherwise we would be here today arguing about whether or not father and son were 1PA simultaneously...

"my Pinudjem III son of King Psusennes I is well attested by pendants in the time of Amenemope. But not by linens."
He is attested as a son of a king Psusennes, most certainly. His actual date is a matter of conjecture; however the point being made is not that this man does not exist (I think we three all agree that he did, and was a separate individual from the conventional merger of him with Painedjem son of Menkheperre). The point Jaime made, and I agree, is that this man, the natural successor of Amunemipet in your scheme, did not die in 996, but was still alive in 970 when he was the father of king Psusennes III. Although not impossible to conjure up circumstances where this could happen, it is highly unlikely.

"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.)."
Like I said, confusing, since you here assign the birth of Psusennes I c1068, but his younger halfbrother Menkheperre elsewhere to c1069. This is also one of the few kings for whom we have reliable physical evidence, and his skeleton has been "aged" at 70+ by modern techniques (so maybe higher...). He is one of the few rulers whom you assign an age at less than 70!.

I do "like" Ian Mladjov's suggestions here, although my sentiments on yet another Ramesses are similar to yours. There is a certain symmetry in
(a) a Ramesses-heqawaset followed fairly closely by Neferkare-heqawaset (Amunemnisu)
(b) a dynastic practice where Herihor (south) and Smendes (north) were father and son, starting at about the same time, followed by
Painedjem I (south) and Psusennes I (north), also father and son, also starting about the same time.
I think his ideas improve on Thijs' position whilst retaining the same basic postulates.

On the Libyans (dynasties 21-24)

"I agree with you that year 10 is not definitely the year Iuwelot was a youth."
But I am not sure that the Egyptian text will sustain your point of view, whereas it will sustain mine. The youth of Iuwelot is explicitly connected to the reign of Osorkon his father. I don't have a problem here, as his father probably had children born to him over a span of about 30 years by different women, and Iuwelot can easily be a younger son of Osorkon I even on your chronology, since you do not require him to be 1PA by year 10 of that reign. However he must be 1PA in someone's year 10 (if it is not to be the date when he was a youth) or else the very specific date (day and month) becomes meaningless in context.
It is a very minor point in your scheme, but a great deal hinges on the distinction in my own, which is why I make so much of it. As far as I can see in your scheme the only reason to make Iuwelot the age you do, is to have the sons of Osorkon I become 1PA in turn in order of age. But there is nothing to date Nimlot F, nor is it clear that Osorkon B succeeds him directly. So rearranging Nimlot F c861/856, followed by a much younger Iuwelot c856/849, does not present a new problem, and solves an existing one.

"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."
It is adult greatgrandchildren. The implausibility is not that he could have had such descendants, so much as that he would not have been simply described as 1PA and a king's son, omitting his kingly title. Your Osorkon IV is king at Thebes 755/732 at precisely the period when the children whose descendants we are talking about would be born on a reasonable first approximation, but they are not royal children whereas Osorkon F himself is.
Osorkon F is 3 generations removed from c650, and the last king Osorkon in the genealogical record is 5 or 6 generations removed. There is no "Osorkon IV" who has Theban descendants.

"783 in my time-line is just the highest date known for Peftjauawybast."
Accepted as not intentionally misleading, although you do terminate both him and Iuput I/II at the appropriate point (783).

"I assign this year 13 to Takeloth I/II."
This is not to be confused with the year 14, once assigned by Payreaudeau to III but then reassigned to II. NesThuty, chief of the Shamin, appears in both this year 13 (hieratic) stele and the lesser Dakhla of 24 Piye. From 847 (13 Takelot I/II) to 779 (24 Piyankhiy in the EKL) would create yet another individual with a private career of, in this case, 68 years or more. The "not impossible, but unlikely" stats do seem to mount up. In this particular case as you have a vast gap of 127 years between two kings Takelot, the career of this man is surprisingly long whichever you choose.
Before anyone trots out the old papponymy excuse, once employed by Kitchen to explain the two Niumatipeds, there is zero evidence that unreconstituted Libyan chiefs practised any sort of nomenclature. All the chiefs we know of have unique names, except in the family of Sheshonq A (and not in his ancestry either) even when the names themselves are not apparently Libyan in origin i.e. two men of the same name holding the same tribal chiefship two generations apart is not something I would buy willingly.

"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."
The Delta is beginning to look rather crowded, with independent rulers Pedubast II, Iuput I/II, Sheshonq III all setting up shop, whereas Thebes is empty. Of course he "left Thebes", since he was a functioning 1PA actually present, with his victorious army, in Thebes in year 39 of Sheshonq III (794). So before the intervention of first Tefnakht A and then Piye, there was a dance of the kings. When Sheshonq III dies c794 his place is taken at Tanis and Bubastis by Pedubast II, who was previously king somewhere else unspecified, instead of by his brother Iuput, or one of his many sons. The only son (hypothesised) of Sheshonq III that makes the cut is Peftjauawybast, who ends up in a "new" kingdom at Herakleopolis. When the interloper Pedubast II dies c788, Osorkon B (not already a king at this point, no reason to think he was on the spot in Tanis as 1PA) succeeds him, effectively another interloper who is probably responsible for the transfer of Peftjauawybast.

"I believe I have always said HPA Harsiese "the First" was the son of HPA Shoshenq."
I don't know about always. I do seem to recall that you argued for this princeling's early death since the Bes statue was dedicated by the father on behalf of the son.

"I said this Shoshenq was first Tyetkheperre and then Usermaatre before he adopted Hedjkheperre by year 5."
But the crucial point is that he is Usermaatre Setepenamun (CGC 42232). There is nothing to link a 1PA Horsieset with the other prenomina at all.

"Maatkheperre is probably a spelling error for Hedjkheperre."
Unlike "hedjheqare", "maatkheperre" is a consistent and logical formation of the prenomen of the period. Without exemplars of a similar spelling error, I do not see how this is anything but a bare assertion. By contrast the prenomen "Uasnetjerre" coupled with a nomen Shesh-Amun is (if a Sheshonq) so full of other omissions and errors that the signs uas and netjer may credibly be doubted, a la Kitchen.

"And there is reason to equate them, as a number of scholars already are."
Only those who are already invested in a uniform chronology without all these extra kings floating around. This particular spelling was published many years ago, but not noticed by any of the more popular or enduring works on the subject. The perception that Heqakheperre is either "II" (Kitchen) or another spelling variant for Hedjkheperre (= "I") sets the tone for this in mainstream scholarship. It is only recently that the mainstream has accepted that there are a few more Sheshonqs lying around, only 40 years since Yoyotte showed there was probably an extra and earliest Osorkon, and I think the jury is still out on other kings of these names. All this of course irritates the scholars who have weighty publications dealing with the entire period, when the spectre of renumbering, and of considering whether evidence blithely assigned to one king as "the only possible candidate" actually now belongs better with another...

"Maatkheperre was a descendant of Tyetkheperre Psusennes. HPA Shoshenq was a descendant of Tyetkheperre Psusennes. Tyetkheperre Shoshenq is the earliest Shoshenq attested at Bubastis."
Again, there is nothing to equate Maatkheperre with Tyetkheperre, nor am I sure what you mean by "earliest". "Spelling mistakes" do not obviate at least two changes of prenomen for your unitary Sheshonq II, maybe 3 if you have to accept Maatkheperre as a genuine spelling. I do not imagine Maatkare B and Osorkon I (or Osorkon the elder, whichever) had only one child, and in your reconstruction every king of this family from Sheshonq II onward is a descendant of Psusennes II, so there is an abundance already.


  • 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 1 — Kim Sargerson, Wed Feb 22 17:19
      • 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 1Tory, Sun Mar 5 05:22
                    Hi Kim, So FB stands for full of bullshit. Got it. Thanks. "pCarlsberg only allows you to predict a lunation 25 years in advance, not weeks in advance, and it is only good for 500 years." Simply not... more
                    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Sun Mar 5 16:14
                      Hi Tory ""If" you start the missing entry of the first month of the cycle with psdntwy on I-3kt 1 in the first year of the cycle..." The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a... 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, Sat Mar 4 10:23
                    Continuation: "So the absence in Thebes of descendants of Takeloth III is a surprise? Osorkon III is only a king because of an assumption that he is Osorkon B." I cannot make any sense of either... 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