Tory
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2
Sun Feb 26, 2017 04:21
112.198.71.43

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 not mean the gaps are not real. I'm with you in criticizing the conventional model where it is improbable or better alternatives are available, but rejecting this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the gaps are not real one expects him to continue his annals. He does not. Something is preventing him from doing so.

Firstly, he claims a complete victory, not some sort of victory. No specific rival is even intimated. You cannot construe a shortlived victory from the fact that he was in Thebes long enough to set up his inscription, and not have it erased by this mysterious rival.

If it were a complete and total victory with no more problems after this date, then this shouldn't be his last attestation as HPA at Thebes.

The attestations do not continue because shortly after he elevates himself to kingship (whilst still holding 1PA).

That's one possibility but not the most natural. The one I prefer is that his rival was back in the picture but with a new king as his supporter. Osorkon B probably had to overthrow Pedubast II to become king and settle this decades long conflict once and for all.

This kingship is attested where? At Thebes. So why assume he left to go anywhere?

Because his father's throne, and his own dynastic claims, originated at Tanis. His brother Osorkon II is the reason he could not immediately ascend that throne when Takeloth I/II died. Pedubast II's origin is still a question mark, but I assume that king also blocked Osorkon B from his father's throne. I don't assume he left Thebes voluntarily. I assume his rival HPA forced him out and so he mustered whatever forces he had in el-Hibeh and planned his attack and successful overthrow of Pedubast II at Tanis.

There is no "long conflict". A war of this nature would have left its mark in many ways, including I would have thought erasure of inscriptions, but also polarisation of the clergy and local military. Your war of the high priests lasts, with intermissions, about 60 years. This would have become legendary and left its traces in many ways.

Again, I don't think "this must happen if this happened" scenario is justified. It is possible this conflict did become legendary and Manetho simply didn't include it because he didn't know how, just like he didn't know the number and names of all the kings of this period.

One of these kings called Osorkon had a tomb at Thebes. We don't know which one, because it has not been identified, but none of your kings called Osorkon has any reason to be buried there.

This is only an opinion. My Osorkon IV/F began at Thebes and just moved his capital to the north after the death of Shoshenq V. Thebes was left to his son Takeloth III. Why can't the senior king be buried where his reign commenced? In my opinion, Takeloth I/II began at Tanis, moved to Middle Egypt, but upon death he was buried back at Tanis.

The king Osorkon in Piye's stela actually controls Bubastis, and Tanis itself is oddly absent from the list of tributary / subjugated / visited sites.

That would be Osorkon B/III, the successor/overthrower of Pedubat II at Tanis, in my view. Piankhy returns to Kush and Thebes has no resident king at this time.

Also oddly the period Osorkon III is attested at Thebes (years 2, 3, 5 = 787/784) is partly coincident with the period Piye is attested at Thebes (years 19/24 = 785/778). Piye is claiming to be in control of Thebes as early as year 4 (800) and to have his own tame 1PA there. Does not seem to fit well, if at all.

Year 4 was Piankhy's first war against the armies of the Northland, year 33 of Shoshenq III (Thebes), year 36 of Iuput I/II (Leotopolis), year 14 of Pedubast II (Tanis and Memphis). I'm not aware of a year 19 of Piankhy at Thebes? But this is year 4 of Osorkon III and this year is unattested at Thebes. His year 6 is attested at Thebes but I have this just before Piankhy marches north in year 21. In his year 24 there is no Libyan king attested at Thebes. Pamiu is in his first year in the north.

Who is this HPA serving only Piankhy you mentioned?

Regards Tory


  • 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 2 — Tory, Sun Feb 26 04:21
      • 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