Tory
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Wed Feb 22, 2017 23:15
112.198.71.163

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 my basement.

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.

?

Apis death, II-3kt 6, year 16 Nekau II (Feb 17, 593)(highest known date)
assume Nekau II's death in the same month
accession of Psamtik II, II-3kt 6+x
coronation of Psamtik II, II-3kt 26 (Mar 8, 593) FULL MOON
Apis induction, III-smw 9, year 1 (Nov 16, 593)
Year 2 Psamtik II, II-3kt 26 (Mar 592)
Year 3 Psamtik II, II-3kt 26 (Mar 591)
Year 4 Psamtik II, II-3kt 26 (Mar 590)
Year 5 Psamtik II, II-3kt 26 (Mar 589)
Year 6 Psamtik II, II-3kt 26 (Mar 588)
Year 7 Psamtik II, II-3kt 26 (Mar 587)
Death of Psamtik II, I-3kt 23, year 7 (Feb 2, 586)

Apries (587-568) accession I-3kt 24 (Feb 3, 586)
Apries coronation II-3kt 10, year 1 (Feb 19, 586) Full Moon

There is no overlap here and no need to assume one. Did I miss something?

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?

I just got off the phone with him. No, actually his invasion of Egypt is dated by him to his Year 37, so anywhere between April 568 and April 567. The text is extremely broken and does not mention Apries in the preserved parts, but according to the Bible Nebuchadnezzar II invaded Egypt and attacked Apries. So my January invasion date is based on the earliest Amasis date being II-3kt 1, year 1 (Feb 5, 567) and the highest date in year 1 being IV-smw 1 (Dec 2, 567). I don't see Apries fleeing to the Mediterranean initially. I see him fleeing first to Thebes, and then to Kush where he collected troops from there and also from Arabia across the Red Sea in order to stage his first failed comeback during year 1 of Amasis. He sailed up through the Suez and reached the Nile by Nekau II's canal (with insider help I imagine). The h3w-nbw in Amasis' new navy were not the Greeks of Herodotus. They were Phoenician, African, and Arabian seamen. Amasis says he defeated this invasion of Sxt-mfk3t at Im3w (Kom el-Hisn) in his year 1 in II-smw, which for me is between Oct 13 and Nov 1, 567. So I have Apries fleeing the north in Jan 567 and then returning ten months later with his new navy. His defeat at Im3w is when he fled to the Greeks and started preparing for his second attack using sttiw forces by land and sea.

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.

Oct 12, 556 (Gregorian) was both II-smw 13 civil and a lunar half-month (I-smw smdt), so yes it can work. The civil date began at dawn. The oath swearing took place later that evening in the light of the full moon.

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.

No one to my knowledge has suggested 15 is a year date. There is no numeral here, just "smdt" which means full moon and full moon can fall on LD 14, 15, or 16. He should not have transcribed this with 15 since that forces the interpretation in Parker's direction. Keeping track of lunations does not mean this is a lunar calendar, as Belmonte has already explained vigorously in his papers.

If you read Tanutamun's stela carefully, he has no plans to return to Kush. He seems content to stay in Egypt and receive tribute from people coming from the south and people coming from the north. Nothing implausible about giving direct governance of Kush over to a subordinate as of year 4 when the EKL terminates his Kushite reign.

The year 12 = 19 Wadi Gasus are not anonymous. Those dates are clearly linked to the named ladies. We can argue about whether they are the same year, but Ritner is right to reject the attempt to disassociate the years from the two ladies. So for me they are 19 Shepenwepet (= 19 Osorkon IV) and 12 Amonardis I (= 12 Kashta).

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.

These types or arguments have little weight in the absence of clear parallels. If an HPA can omit his father's title in his own patronymic there is no rule that says "king" could not ever suffer a similar fate. Now that I've seen pendant 18, the kingship of HPA Menkheperre cannot be questioned. Before I thought this was limited to the items listed in Gauthier. It's not. And yet his children could and did omit both HPA and king from his titles.

On Abar. We are talking approximate dates (except for Taharqa) so "ca." is not a fixed date. Taharqa mentions brothers so there is no reason to assume he was Abar's first and only child.

Piankhy and Alara can certainly be of "roughly" the same generation on the EKL time-line. We do not know how old Piankhy was when he became king. But to marry the daughter of his future and immediate successor Alara, they would not be extremely far apart in age.

"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."

Highly unlikely is only a matter of opinion. In my reconstruction Shoshenq I is not the "natural" successor of Amenemope. New president new administration. Some keep their jobs some don't and get re-assigned or let go completely.

"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...

This I don't see being definitively supported by the LE grammar.

... the territory of the high cultivation northwest of the island “The Good Mound,” as it was called in his youth (full stop)
In the reign of his father King Osorkon, beloved of Amon, regnal year 10, month 4 of summer, last day, etc.

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.

My Osorkon IV/F had a daughter who he made GW in the first year of his reign, her year 1. His great grandson Djedamunefankh ii (JdE 37163) omits the fact that he became king. I'm not aware of any inscriptions by this man's ancestors after Osorkon F. Same with the Khonsu genealogy. It omits the fact that HPA Menkheperre became king. The king Osorkon who is 5 and 6 generations before Psamtik I is Osorkon III.

Like I said, confusing, since you here assign the birth of Psusennes I c1068, but his younger halfbrother Menkheperre elsewhere to c1069.

Same with Abar. The "ca" again is not a fixed date and if we have to be razor precise then of course I would emend so that the birth order Psusennes Menkheperre is clear.

although you do terminate both him and Iuput I/II at the appropriate point (783)

783 is not meant to indicate a fixed terminal point for these two kings. It is simply the highest date for one and the same year for both when Piankhy campaigned against Tefnakht.

Takeloth I/II year 13. I only accept one NesThuty, chief of the Shamin. He was a youthful chief in 847 (year 13 Takeloth I/II) and an old chief in 780 (year 24 Piankhy).

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.

The photograph and the drawing justifies JWK's skepticism here. The document has several other spelling mistakes.

Again, there is nothing to equate Maatkheperre with Tyetkheperre, nor am I sure what you mean by "earliest".

Two Shoshenq's both claiming maternal descent from Tyetkheperre Psusennes is enough to suggest identity in any working hypothesis. Tyetkheperre Shoshenq is attested at Bubastis before any other Shoshenq according to Troy Sagrillo. These dots pretty much connect themselves. Shoshenq I is not Manetho's 22nd dynasty founder if he cannot be linked to Bubastis and so far he is not.

Regards Tory

  • 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 1 — Tory, Wed Feb 22 23:15
      • 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 1Tory, Sun Mar 5 21:20
                      Hi Kim The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a different day in each of these years. So the "if" is not really applicable, unless you are in year 1 of the cycle. All the other... 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