Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2
Wed Mar 1, 2017 15:17
81.151.216.140

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 non-royal descendants at Thebes. Your king Osorkon IV has none, and Osorkon F has some, which do not place him a generation earlier than Takelot but a generation later or more. 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)?
The identity of "Shilkhanni" with an Osorkon is not, of course, certain, although I would argue that it was likely, on the grounds that any alternative spellings (e.g. Sharkinu) would be too close for comfort to the name of the king of Assyria himself.

"I agree with you in disagreeing with out Ritner has reconstructed the Khonsu genealogy but I see no reason to believe something is wrong about it."
I think I understand, but may not. The full sister of Menkheperre listed at the top of the genealogy is not directly attested, nor is she titled king's daughter. These are the doubts. Ritner gets around the latter by suggesting she is a half sister by the same mother only, but I do not think this actually makes matters any better, as the most likely mother of "the" Menkheperre is Henttawy, herself only the wife of Painedjem I for certain, and if married before that, it was to a king.

"Yes it is based on stratigraphy and later Shoshenqs, none of whom are Shoshenq I, found at later levels."
Astonishing. In 2007 Sagrillo was of the opinion that Bubastis was not a site of major importance to the dynasty as a whole, and certainly that the Bubastite origin of dynasty 22, assumed from "Manetho", was not secure. He also instanced a small number of items of Sheshonq I which either did come from there, or were most likely to have come from there, whilst allowing that the lintel ascribed to Hedjkheperre and to Psusennes II should be ascribed to Tytkheperre Sheshonq instead.
Stratigraphically there seem to be only two "fixed" reigns, Osorkon II and Sheshonq III, everything else being assigned a relative position to these reigns, which have the best attested archaeological strata.

"This is why the "discoverer" of Tyetkheperre Shoshenq has not suggested a position for him later than Shoshenq III."
This is why we have IIa, IIb, IIc ad infinitum. Equally, nobody seems willing to suggest a position earlier than Sheshonq I. I readily concede that in the absence of substantial monumental attestation, these kings are extremely difficult to place

"Nimlot C is an ancestor. In any family tree, we choose to mention people who hold important and ignore people we do not regard as important."
No, "we" do not choose to mention etc. Egyptian genealogical documents trace direct ancestry. They do not mention side connections who may be more famous than the direct ancestors. The T. Khonsu genealogy is as far as I know unique in mentioning a non-direct ancestor, and it explicitly connects the earliest named direct ancestor to him. The only parallel I can think of is the genealogy of Ankhpakhered (which you earlier agreed was a descent from Osorkon III) where the 4th generation ancestor, Djedptahiufankh, is (along with various offices) called "king's son of king Osorkon, king's brother of king Takelot". The relationships are spelled out in each case. The Pasenhor stele does not do this, and names a wife for Nimlot C, implying that Tentsepeh C ought also to be a direct ancestress of Pasenhor.

"Nimlot C and his wife were important members of Pasenhor B's family tree or he would not mention them."
They were members of his family tree, full stop, as were all the other named persons. Some were of little importance; and some who were of greater importance (such as the king of whom Mehtenweskhet A was mother) are simply mot named. It seems to me that it is highly likely that all the attested principals at Herakleopolis are in fact relatives of the same family; and Tentsepeh D, the king's daughter, also lacks a filiation in the text. I would have no problem with Ptahudjankhef being both the son of Nimlot C and the husband of a daughter of Osorkon II (that is, his half-aunt).

"I guess the next question is which king lists do you then accept since none of the existing ones are contemporary with any of periods they discuss?"
Another topic, I think.

"But Iuput never bewails being denied entry into Thebes. So I do not assume his tenure as HPA was interrupted between years 10 and 21."
Why not? Surely his regular and magnificent inscriptions, both between years 11 and 21, and after year 21, were erased by a rival? This seems to be the import of what you are saying with regard to Osorkon B. Because we are fortunate enough to have something besides NLTs and brief mentions in the KPA or on dedicatory statues, suddenly the blanks in the record (quite normal for everyone else) take on a sinister significance.
Osorkon B was in Thebes in 11 Takelot (and before that is a similar blank for years 1-10 of Takelot). From year 12 to year 15 of Takelot he was elsewhere, for the most part. He was in Thebes, at least annually, for years 22-28 of Sheshonq III, and made an inscription in year 28 summarising his donation activity, which was added to in year 29. Was he in Thebes continuously for this period? Probably not. In year 39 he is not simply stopping for a comfort break. He installs a new vizier (who happens to be a Chief of the Ma among his other titles). He also records a NLT of that year, but how far separated in time this is from the KPA one can only guess.

"if he really was present in Thebes during years 6-21 and 30-39 of Shoshenq III then what happened and why does he stop recording donations?"
The first gap is surely not real, in that the years he was in Thebes under his father Takelot coincide with some or all of these years. So the only real gap is 29-39 Sheshonq III. Why he did not continue to record his dedications is not clear, but the initial inscription was made to summarise only up to year 28; even year 29 is an addendum. So there may have been something innate in the the text summarising his reasons for recording, that would explain this.
Perhaps he ran out of suitable space on this particular wall. Perhaps he spent more time organising matters to his liking further north. Without his day-journals it is impossible to say. There is no other 1PA who has a ten year period of office who could be his displacer.

"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."
And it isn't. There is the NLT. Then there is the record of him as both king and 1PA.

"his father's throne, and his own dynastic claims, originated at Tanis."
So far we lack attestation of a D22 royal residence at Tanis, AFAIK. Identifying anything at all of Takelot I has proved difficult, apart from his (secondary?) burial and probably one donation stele from year 9. We lack primary burial sites for all the kings between (not including) Amunemipet and Osorkon II. This unfortunately rules out any positive statement, and has led to much speculation.

"Pedubast II's origin is still a question mark, but I assume that king also blocked Osorkon B from his father's throne."
I see that your latest dates for him allow 25 years. Where now do you place the "year 29 of Usermaatre Setepenamun" NLT?

"It is possible this conflict did become legendary and Manetho simply didn't include it"
I was not referring to Manetho. A short war in Dyn 20 is referred to in at least two different documents as the war of / suppression of the high priest, as if "everyone could remember where they were" when these events went on.
As I have said before, your scenario requires a great deal less in-and-out of the various 1PAs than the conventional model, but does require substantial periods, particularly but not exclusively for Takelot E/F, where he is assumed to be the incumbent but leaves almost no attestation at all (years 6-22, 29-39 Sheshonq III is represented by a single NLT at the start of this). The situation for Harsiese A is similar. The conventional model at least tried to fill the 29/39 gap by placing 6 Sheshonq there, and the 6/21 gap by having Horsieset B followed by Takelot there.

"My Osorkon IV/F began at Thebes and just moved his capital to the north after the death of Shoshenq V. ... Why can't the senior king be buried where his reign commenced?"
Because in your opinion his Theban descendants would be walking past his tomb every day and calling it the tomb of king Osorkon, but not calling him a king in their own genealogies.

"I'm not aware of a year 19 of Piankhy at Thebes?"
I had a feeling as I wrote that, that I was mixing up the Wadi Gesus year 19 with the actual hieratic documents with his yeardates. It may only be years 21-24, in which case there is no overlap to speak of (year 6 Osorkon = year 20 Piye).

"Who is this HPA serving only Piankhy you mentioned?"
That is my question to you. Conveniently, Ritner p.465, Cairo 47085 teamed with Berlin 1068 (now lost) mentioning I Akhet 14 (presumably of year 4) and the first prophet of Amun [name lost], then the Opet festival in II Akhet of year 4 and the army sailing north to fight.
In your timeline Piye year 4 is c800/799, around 33 Sheshonq III during the decade of silence from Osorkon B. This massive intervention by Piye's army does not seem to fit well with the purely internal and desultory squabble between Takelot and Osorkon, already in its 28th year with up to a decade more to run...

Regards

Kim

  • 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 2 — Kim Sargerson, Wed Mar 1 15:17
      • 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