Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Fri Feb 24, 2017 17:46
81.151.216.165

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 (Feb 3, 586)" whereas actually the reign of Apries was revised in full down to 586-567.
The difficulty for me is that although in your original layout you had time for Amasis to be crowned I Shemu 23 or thereabouts and the detail of Louvre 7848 then fitted a royal year such that I Shemu 21 of year 12 was very late in that royal year, after the other dates in the papyrus. With a coronation in the middle of I Akhet this is no longer the case, and the opening date of the papyrus precedes the actions described in it. As there is no "anticipatory future" here this seems a less likely result.

"Oct 12, 556 (Gregorian) was both II-smw 13 civil and a lunar half-month (I-smw smdt), so yes it can work."
It can work as a lunar half month, true, but not the lunar half month I Shemu. Tepy Shemu (the start of the lunation) never occurred as late as I Shemu 27. If there is no lunar calendar as such, simply a statement of lunations with reference to the civil month, then the latest possible sequence by the semi-schematic lunation system is:
I Akhet civil, day 30 = lunar I Akhet day 1
I Peret civil, day 28 = lunar I Peret, day 1
I Shemu civil, day 26 = lunar I Shemu, day 1
So I Shemu smdt (lunar half-month) can only fall as late as day 16 (it is either day 15 or day 16) i.e. 15 days later, which is II Shemu 11, civil calendar.
The induction dates recorded in the KPA for the month I Shemu are never higher than day 26 (frg. 7 induction of a vizier, not a priest, in 39 Sheshonq III)

"No one to my knowledge has suggested 15 is a year date."
Just ruling out theoretical possibilities based on van Heel's transcription into hieroglyphs.

"There is no numeral here, just "smdt" which means full moon and full moon can fall on LD 14, 15, or 16."
In the semischematic Egyptian system as depicted etc. it is either 15 or 16.

"He should not have transcribed this with 15 since that forces the interpretation in Parker's direction."
Perhaps, but everyone seems prepared to assume it is a "lunar date". The main difference is whether it is embedded in a purely solar calendar, or in a more general lunar calendar.

"If you read Tanutamun's stela carefully, he has no plans to return to Kush."
I have. Sadly there is nothing of detailed chronological import in it. Whatever he planned to do, did not happen, as he is residing in Memphis when the Dream stele ends, and evidently intended to remain as ruler of a united and prosperous kingdom.

"Nothing implausible about giving direct governance of Kush over to a subordinate"
No? There is a deal of difference between giving the day to day administration to a subordinate, or several; and setting up that subordinate as an independent king of Kush, with the military power to displace Tanutamun. It may or may not be implausible, since we do not know the exact circumstances, but is it evidenced? A parallel case, not drawn from your own deductions about other rulers on the same list? Plenty of cases of a military victor moving into the palace of the defeated, and assuming the trappings of the conquered royal. Not so many, I think that are willing to give up the kingship they already had.

"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)."
There is nothing, apart from one "genealogical" inscription asserting that Shepenwepet I is the "mother" of Amunirdis I, to associate Shepenwepet I with Amunirdis I, at Karnak, although both are well attested there. A further difficulty, it seems to me, is that with Piye 805/773, there must be another Gods Wife Shepenwepet, attested many times over as the daughter of a king Piankhy and daughter of a God's Hand Amunirdis, the latter relationship presumed adoptive.

"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."
There is no rule but what we make from the evidence. There is a ton of material showing that persons of royal birth did not omit the royal title from their parent. There is a ton of material showing that private individuals, of whatever rank, frequently omitted any or all titles of their parent. Equating the two groups and invoking "not...ever" is poor argument. The not...ever argument can be used to theorise that anything at all could have happened at any time at all. There is no cartouche around Painedjem son of Paiankh's name, and there ought to be, no "royal son of", and there ought to be. By contrast, nobody apart from Menkheperre himself puts a cartouche around his name. Perhaps you ought to postulate two different Menkheperres here too?

"Now that I've seen pendant 18, the kingship of HPA Menkheperre cannot be questioned."
The name of Menkheperre is enclosed in a cartouche. But his title is first prophet of Amun (not in a cartouche, so not a prenomen, contrast Herihor). See also Tab 26 (Cerny f1, f2). He is not titled king here - his depiction shows him in priestly attire without even a uraeus - and as you have pointed out, even those closely related to him do not refer to him as such, either during or after his lifetime. So there is every reason for doubt.

"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."
He is the only attested child. However you work it from the unnamed father of Alara, born c830 (and that's not plus or minus 20, that's based on 20 year male generations back from the latest date in Piye's reign that Tabiry could be his wife i.e. Tabiry born c790, chief queen of Piye by 771 at latest, Alara father of Tabiry born c810 (died 748), unnamed father of Alara born c830. From him to his great-grandson Taharqa (736) is 94 years in 3 generations through two different daughters. It could be several decades more, without effort, if Tabiry was married to Piye earlier in the reign, and the generations to Alara's father were 25/30 years and not 20. Again, some sort of parallel that can be historically verified, of a polygamous ruler producing a large brood of children by one wife, up to the end of the wife's childbearing years. All the assumptions here are being made by you, not me, and I am sticking carefully to what is known from these scraps of genealogical data, rather than postulating improbables and unprovables.

"Piankhy and Alara can certainly be of "roughly" the same generation on the EKL time-line"
They could be, but it is not the natural assumption from the dataset (the EKL regnal list). The 5 predecessors of Piankhy all rule for about a generation each, more or less, 136 years total, and you have the first of these, biblical Zerah, as adult before he became king. Piankhy 32 years makes 168 years, for 6 reigns, averaging 28 per reign. This is as good as it gets for "one reign per generation".

"Highly unlikely is only a matter of opinion."
I can cite a large number of cases where a deposed prince was executed, died in prison, or exile, throughout history. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number who lived for 25+ years after deposition in comfort, with a wife or wives, raising an heir or heirs to the throne one of whom later came back to power.
Put this case to any historian, I really don't care who, and ask them how likely it is. If you get a different opinion I would be very surprised. The problem is evidently to find a 1PA Painedjem to be the father of a 1PA/king Psusennes, as you have killed them all off too early in your chronology.

"In my reconstruction Shoshenq I is not the "natural" successor of Amenemope. New president new administration."
And new dynasty. Surely the point here is that this is still "dynasty 21". So it is not a new administration, Sheshonq I did not usurp the throne.

"... 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."
Ah, no. Your dates for Osorkon I 874-859, year 10 = 865/4. Your dates for Iuwelot as 1PA, 861-855. The above construction is possible, I agree, but then you are stuck with year 14 of the 1PA Nesbanebdjed III.
Your own chronological reconstruction requires three separated clauses: youth (undetermined, but here long before the reign of Osorkon starts) followed by the reign of Osorkon I, unspecified but assumed to be at least to year 14, and then a third reign which reaches at least year 10, of a ruler unnamed, at which point Iuwelot is 1PA and making his will. This is in fact my position, only I telescope the first two, the youth and the reign of Osorkon, into one period, and place the year 10 about 25 years later.

"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."
Nor am I, but from memory there is another genealogy of similar length. One simply says Osorkon F was 1PA, the other says 1PA and king's son (but does not say of what king). None of these early Saite period genealogies attest to a king Osorkon in the generation you place him at.

"Same with the Khonsu genealogy. It omits the fact that HPA Menkheperre became king."
This genealogy appears to place 9 generations between Mehtenweskhet, mother of Osorkon the elder (born about 1000 on your dates) and a full sister of a 1PA Menkheperre (he born about 1070 on your dates). I say "appears" because other reonstructions than that offered by Ritner are possible. But on his reconstruction this is simply not biologically possible, never mind probable. My own reconstruction is similar to yours in the separation of Osorkon the elder (about 970) and Menkheperre son of Painedjem I (about 1020) is far too short to accommodate this genealogy.
Either this genealogy is wrong, or wrongly interpreted, or there is another, earlier, 1PA Menkheperre. Any or all of these is possible.

"The king Osorkon who is 5 and 6 generations before Psamtik I is Osorkon III."
Here we agree entirely, although I approximate Osorkon III (birth, not reign) considerably later than you.

"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)."
A minimum tenure of the same as Ramesses II's kingship. No comment necessary.

"The photograph and the drawing justifies JWK's skepticism here. The document has several other spelling mistakes."
Unfortunately I have not seen this photograph. There are "spelling mistakes" in a very high proportion of Egyptian texts. It depends on the nature of these.

"Two Shoshenqs both claiming maternal descent from Tyetkheperre Psusennes is enough to suggest identity in any working hypothesis."
This is certainly enough to justify equating Maatkheperre with Sheshonq Q (Meryamun) the 1PA and son of Maatkare B. I don't see how this identifies him with Tyetkheperre.

"Tyetkheperre Shoshenq is attested at Bubastis before any other Shoshenq according to Troy Sagrillo."
And this is based on what? Stratigraphy, with a lot of other Sheshonqs attested at higher/later levels? Temple building and additions? I seem to recall that less than a year ago you assigned Tyetkheperre Sheshonq as the mystery king preceding Siamun (i.e. the king in whose year 11 the 3PA DjedPtahiufankh was buried in TT320) and that his labels had been misread (Hedj for Tyet). This would probably require the hieroglyphs of Hedj on the Bubastite gate to have been similarly mirwritten, but nonetheless it is an example of joining the dots in a different way.

"Because Wedjptahankhef’s wife Tentsepeh was ... a sister of Nimlot C. So Nimlot C is indeed an ancestor just not in Pasenhor B's direct line of descent."
So he is not an ancestor. So he has no business being listed, without a connecting passage (e.g. "Tentsepeh, sister by the same parents of Nimlot", compare the insertion of Menkheperre in the T. Khonsu genealogy discussed above).

"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."
Not unless there was abundant reason to confuse them. I cannot find any reference to this Tentsepeh (C in Kitchen) outside of the Pasenhor stele. She was not a king's daughter. Tentsepeh D was. She was not the only wife of this Nimlot, if dots have been correctly joined elsewhere.

"Please name me one ancient near eastern king list contemporary with the periods it discusses?"
Do I have to dignify this? Of course, I discount the "Manetho" lists in the same fashion, covering the same period. You yourself discount vast swathes of the EKL itself. I was referring to contemporary (with the period, not necessarily with the exact date) evidence which has to be shoehorned, or discounted, or "explained" in an unsatisfactory manner. I was simply saying that matching the EKL (or any other kinglist) against the received data of the order and regnal length of kings given in monumental and textual inscriptions, and creating a fit, whilst extremely satisfying, is not the kind of evidence I was talking about, nor does it usually help to explain perceived anomalies. With "Manetho" for example, the process is now usually worked in reverse, i.e. the kinglist is put in place after the evidence has been assembled, and then has to be "explained" as to why it differed from the straightforward picture of the primary material.

"Harsiese B is NLT 23; NLT 24, KPA 1; NLT 27. There is no evidence this is a successful uninterrupted period, as you suggest"
The only 1PA who bewails the fact that other people are getting in the way of his rightful power is Osorkon B. We assume, for example, that the 1PA Iuput, attested in years 10, 11 and 21 of his father Sheshonq, had an uninterrupted tenure from year 10 to year 21 at the least, because this is the kind of level of information we are likely to get for one individual. There are large numbers of instances of this, in lists of priests, viziers, viceroys of Kush, and so on. It is the default position, so I do not see why you have difficulty with my estimation of a (not unqualified) successful period of tenure.

continued...

  • 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 1 — Kim Sargerson, Fri Feb 24 17:46
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates