Tory
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Wed Mar 1, 2017 23:21
112.198.83.77

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 aside for an unspecified period?

As you know, this was not uncommon in Egypt. A started document could be put to the side and then sit around for years until newer information was added to it where space was still empty. Sometimes the empty space used was BEFORE the previous date, which causes problems for us in terms of chronology. But what I'm saying is the dispute in P. Louvre 7848 could not be resolved on the day it occurred which is the date the writing of the document commenced. The parties agreed upon a future date, the next full moon, for the resolution but they could not give this a precise civil date 22 days in advance. This is because they could not predict 22 days in advance exactly when the next full moon would happen.

Aside from it being impossible for a lunation designated "I Shemu" to begin as late as I Shemu 28/29 in the solar calendar

It is not impossible for a lunation called I-smw to begin as late as I-smw 28/29 civil. You are thinking in terms of the way Parker explained the calendar. Lunations did not receive their names from the civil month in which they began. Spalinger and Belmonte rightly point out that Egypt began with a wandering lunar calendar. When they invented the schematic solar calendar it was the civil months that were named after the lunar months, not the other way around. The "lunar calendar" was then retired, forever, but keeping track of lunations continued on. So yes there were Blue Moons whenever two lunations began in the same civil month. Belmonte has shown that we are in fact dealing with a Blue Moon in this P. Louvre 7848. A Blue Moon has the same name as the previous lunation.

A schematic system of lunations, as instanced in both pCarlsberg of much later date, and the service periods of 12th dynasty, much earlier in date, will rarely be off, and never by more than one day, from a pure astronomical new moon and full moon. Most modern astronomically based computations are prepared to be off by more than this, allowing for "observer error".

pCarlsberg only allows you to predict a lunation 25 years in advance, not weeks in advance, and it is only good for 500 years. The Egyptians had no way of predicting where lunations would fall in the civil calendar 24 years, 23 years, 22 years, 21 years, ...., 1 year, 12 months, 11 months, 10 months, ...., 1 month, three weeks, two weeks, or even one week in advance.

"It is a lunar date. Today is also a "lunar date" in the Gregorian calendar."

No, it isn't. For it to be a lunar date there would have to be some reference to the phase of the moon. In just referring to a Gregorian date, there is no such reference.

My point was simply that every printed Gregorian calendar lists the four phases of the moon where they fall in the Gregorian calendar throughout the solar year, but this is not a "lunar calendar" existing alongside the solar calendar. It is simply a lunar computus keeping track of lunations in the context of the solar calendar. We say "conjunction" the Egyptians said "tepy shemu." We say "full moon" they said "smdt," etc. Tomato Tomata.

I cannot see any way of making Tomadyon Piyankhiy into Atlanersa (or Atranelsa or however it was pronounced). Just because this name is in that position does not mean it is the same ruler.

I can think of several plausible ways "T-m-dy-n" is corrupted from iT-rA-D-ln-s, but this will divert us into phonology and etymology. Not all the royal names in the EKL are in their original shape, just as every single name in Manetho is not in its original shape. But no white American or white European Egyptologist combing through African Egyptian history disputes that "Rathos" must come from the name Tutankhamun given the position and reign length of "Rathos" in Manetho's butchered 18th dynasty list.

The Adoption stela refers to Psametjik as "king of Upper Egypt" (line 12) and his gifts to his daughter include lands in the first 7 nomes of Upper Egypt.

I don't think much should be read into these traditional titles at this time. They do not always reflect political reality in the Libyan and early Saite periods. Besides, Tanutamon established his throne at Memphis, so if Psamtik I submitted to him at Memphis and became a trusted loyal vassal, there is no reason to assume Tanutamon would deny Psamtik I from owning land in Thebes or sending his daughter to Thebes for adoption. I know of no stele besides Piankhy's victory stele where the working relationship of contemporary kings in Egypt is actually discussed in detail. All of these monuments usually speak as if the named king is the only king in town. That is style and genre, not necessarily reality. The Nitocris stele does not say Psamtik "could have" removed a GW. It says he honored the system already in place. Reading between the lines, the reason is because he had a boss. Why let your daughter be ranked an unheard of third-place with no guarantee she would ever move up? Because you have no choice. If you have the ultimate authority in Thebes, your daughter goes to the front of the line. It is inconceivable he put her third if he could have made her first. He evidently couldn't.

When Psametjik makes a point of saying that he will not depose Shepenwepet

I'm reading this document differently than perhaps you, Caminos and Dodson, are. In my view, the GW Shepenwepet II in this document is the daughter of Taharqa (name omitted in line 3). She was given to Amonardis I, literal sister of Taharqa to be Adorer of the God. And she became GW when Amonardis I died. The current Adorer of the God, Amonardis II, was the daughter of Rudamon II (his name is omitted in line 16). He gave her to his sister/niece Shepenwepet II to be her eldest daughter. The woman Psamtik I did not remove was the king's daughter (of Rudamon II) Amonardis II. He instead gave Nitocris to be her eldest daughter, or third place in the college. I don't see it as him not wanting his daughter to cut ahead of her, for surely that is exactly what he would have done and deposed Shepenwepet II if he had a real say in the matter. Of course he loves truth and hates mendacity, but he has to say that or he potentially gives it away openly that he has a boss (named Tanutamon in Memphis).

1. GW Shepenwepet I, daughter of Osorkon F/IV
2. Adorer Amonardis I, daughter of Kashta
3. GH Shepenwepet II, daughter of Taharqa

1. GW Amonardis I
2. Adorer Shepenwepet II
3. GH Amonardis II, daughter of Rudamon II

1. GW Shepenwepet II
2. Adorer Amonardis II
3. GH Nitocris, daughter of Psamtik I

No, you are claiming that absence of direct evidence, in the form of a sworn affidavit signed by every Egyptian pharaonic official who ever wrote a line of text, justifies assuming something which there is no other evidence for.

Because I said I believe Abar married twice? There is no evidence for second marriages in Egypt? Abar's husband is never mentioned explicity. It is not a plausible assumption that the reason may be because she was married more than once and Taharqa's father was not her first husband, nor Taharqa her only child?

The younger full sister of Alara, and also his wife, was the mother of Abar, and was dedicated to Amun when pregnant with Abar, according to Kawa VI, and this was when Alara was already king. No need for inferences or assumptions.

The younger sister of Alara, Abar's mother, is not Alara's wife. Abar was not the daughter of Alara. I do not see how this assumption comes remotely close to being implicit. Alara has no heirs so he prays that his younger sister's children carry on the royal succession. The implicit assumption is that Kashta was Alara's nephew, the son of his younger sister. Abar was Alara's niece, daughter of the same sister.

I was talking about Psusennes III being the son of Painedjem III

Cyrus kept deposed kings alive at his court who presumably were not forbidden from going near their wives and having children. Earlier than this, our king Yah'oh-yachyn (Jehoiachin) was kept alive for decades in a Babylonian prison and fathered his first son while he was still a prisoner before Amel-Marduk released him in 561 BCE. I'm not suggesting Pinudjem III was put in jail, but just kept at Shoshenq I's court and probably re-assigned to a different job. I don't see the problem here with him having children after losing his job as HPA since we have the parallels I just mentioned.

Cannot see any reason why the new ruling class would employ a member of the old as 1PA, when there are plenty of sons running around who would do.

In my view Shoshenq I outlived all his sons and was succeeded by a younger brother Osorkon the Elder. If there were plenty of sons of Shoshenq I running around this probably would not have happened. HPA Psusennes III fits in here as the successor of HPA Iuput before the death of Shoshenq I. Amel-Marduk probably did not just release Yah'oh-yachyn from jail. Text says he elevated him to his own table. So he may also have appointed one of his sons to a senior level position. This would explain why the Persians, who left almost everything in place, allowed a descendant of this king to become the governor of the province of Yah'oh-dah (Yehud), which laid the foundations for the Second Jewish Commonwealth. Like Yah'oh-yachyn later on, HPA Psusennes III played his cards right perhaps, and by doing so there was a real future for his son in the new administration of Shoshenq I.

You should probably also jettison the idea that because "Manetho" says dynasty 22 was from Bubastis, this means you can make a reliable argument about the order in which kings called Sheshonq occur.

It's not an idea that he says dynasty 22 started at Bubastis. He says this. I'm simply pointing out that the earliest king Shoshenq attested at Bubastis is Tyetkheperre Shoshenq whose name was confused with being Shoshenq I until very recently.

I don't think you can move it back into the grandfather's reign because Nebanebdjed is explicitly the son of king Osorkon. Year 14 belongs either to Osorkon I or to a successor.

HPA Nesbanebdjed III was the son of "an" Osorkon. This is either Osorkon the Elder or Osorkon I. It is not definitely the latter. If I have to move year 14 back then Nesbanebdjed III becomes the brother of Shoshenq II who succeeded his nephew Harsiese as HPA by year 14. In this scenario, Nesbanebdjed III dies in or shortly after year 8 of Osorkon I (867) and he is succeeded by Iuwelot who gives land he obtained as a youth in the time of Osorkon the Elder to his son two years later in year 10 of Osorkon I. If Nesbanebdjed III and Iuwelot were born to Osorkon the Elder during his brief reign then they were still "youths" when he died.

the act of giving the land and the status of Iuwelot as 1PA are coincident; and either this, or the commencement of the collection of land, must be someone's year 10.

Agreed.

continued ...

  • 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 1 — Tory, Wed Mar 1 23:21
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates