Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2
Thu Feb 23, 2017 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 II and a sister of Nimlot C. So Nimlot C is indeed an ancestor just not in Pasenhor B's direct line of descent. It makes perfect sense that this genealogy would want to clarify that Nimlot C's wife is not the same lady as Wedjptahankhef’s wife of similar name.

I don't count the EKL, as its exemplar is not contemporary with the period

Please name me one ancient near eastern king list contemporary with the periods it discusses? AKL is 738 yet we rely on it for periods stretching back into the 18th century BCE, in most cases with not a shred of contemporary data to back it up. TKL is Seti I or Ramesses II. Again, we rely on it for periods far removed from these two kings with little or no data to back it up. BKL, same. SKL, same. Any rejection of the EKL for not being contemporary with Taharqa is therefore a double standard and is a thinly veiled form of white supremacy dismissing an African tradition.

I think you are missing the point. The succession Harsiese B / Nimlot G / Takelot E happens quite quickly in your scenario (in the course of one royal year) and is a direct succession as you present it. However Harsiese's claim extends back 18 years, largely successful and uninterrupted apart from perhaps c836/835, and poor Takelot E/F runs from Sheshonq III to exile, then back under Pedubast II c791, then he is out on his ear again or dead.

This clearly is not an accurate description of the political situation my scheme necessitates. I think it also misinterprets JWK's table in JEA 81 which my model is based on in part. Harsiese B is NLT 23; NLT 24, KPA 1; NLT 27. There is no evidence this is a successful uninterrupted period, as you suggest, and yes in my scheme it is interrupted by Osorkon B in year 24 of Takeloth I/II (836). 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 and 30-38. These gaps and the struggle over the HPA office they imply are unfortunately real and Ockham's razor is no help.

It is hard to see how Osorkon B could be cultivating the followers of Pedubast II after 794, as well as having a substantial military presence at Thebes, in order to succeed Pedubast when he died, but at the same time Pedubast is lending his name to Osorkon's old rival Takelot, who has no evident support elsewhere, right in the middle of this period.

This does not follow. Osorkon B presence at Thebes ends in year 39 of Shoshenq III when he claimed some sort of victory over his rival, clearly shortlived or there would additional attestations afterwards. He is not the son of Pedubast II or chosen heir. So it is easy and not hard to see that this long conflict may have spilled over into the north and cost Pedubast II his life for supporting the "wrong" HPA down south. As I said, Osorkon B became king at Tanis not at Thebes but his reign was recognized there. Iuput I/II retains his throne in the Delta. Peftchauawybast retains his at Herakleopolis and also marries the new king's granddaughter, assuming this postdates and not predates Osorkon B's accession.

Regards Tory

  • 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 2 — Tory, Thu Feb 23 00:05
Click here to receive daily updates