Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2
Thu Mar 2, 2017 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 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. There is no statement of fact, only an assumption. Same with my Osorkon F becoming Osorkon F/IV (Shilkanni). But I do like the idea of Tukulti-Mer being Takelot-Meryamun.

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 wouldn't touch this one. Shilkanni can't be anything else but the name Osorkon in Akkadian. The Akkadian script cannot write a long o-vowel as the initial syllable of a word without turning it into a diphthong /au/, so in this case it got dropped in transcription. The /r/ confused as /l/ is as expected because the Assyrian scribe was working with a written text and not the sound of the name as it was uttered by Libyans. No way this can be any other name but Osorkon.

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.

I rest my case. I'm not prepared to let this be the sole attestation of a Menkheperre different and earlier than "the" Menkheperre. It much simpler to accept that these Libyans did not always mention their father's highest title, even if that was king. These are not native Egyptians keeping all of the protocols of the ancestral past. These are Libyans who kept many of the native traditions after assuming power, but they also introduced many non-Egyptian habits. The mummy of King Pinudjem I does not have his arms crossed over his chest the way a royal mummy is supposed to be arranged. Both hands cup his balls. That pretty much says it all in a humorous way. He evidently anticipated that his journey to the underworld as king could potentially be a bumpy ride, so he fastened his seat belt, whereas the earlier truly native kings looked death straight in the eye and said bring it on.

He [TS in 2007] also instanced a small number of items of Sheshonq I which either did come from there [Bubastis], or were most likely to have come from there ...

I don't think there are any items from Bubastis that are indisputably his anymore. BTW, Troy has an excellent paper refuting attempts to disassociate Shoshenq I from the biblical Shishak. A few point I would challenge, but overall extremely well researched and referenced, as is typical for Troy.

I'm not suggesting Bubastis must be important to the whole dynasty overall. I accept a point made long ago by Fred P. that the dynasty founders in Manetho started their reigns in the cities mentioned, not that every successor, or even the founder, reigned exclusively in that city. The lintel ascribed to Tytkheperre and to Psusennes puts this Shoshenq at the top of the list of candidates for being Manetho's 22nd dynasty founder even if he only reigned there during the first year and then moved on to somewhere else.

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.

Again, Libyans departed from many of the expected norms. The king's daughter Tentsepeh held titles in Herakleopolis which she apparently inherited from the non-royal Tentsepeh and then passed on directly or indirectly to Tchankeme, a direct female ancestor of Pasenhor B. So I have to disagree with you here about what we are "supposed" to expect in these Libyan genealogies.

suddenly the blanks in the record (quite normal for everyone else) take on a sinister significance.

Exactly. Because he complains about being denied entry into Thebes and that a civil war broke out in the land but without the warning sign of the sky swallowing the moon. Clearly, this is not to be compared with gaps in the record of Iuput's career.

I see that your latest dates for him allow 25 years. Where now do you place the "year 29 of Usermaatre Setepenamun" NLT?

Still with Pedubast II. I'm undecided about how many years to give Osorkon II and this impacts Pedubast II his successor. 25 years is the minimum for Pedubast II, 40 the maximum. Maybe 30 is reasonable.

"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.

That's probably exactly the case given how the reign ended, at least in my reconstruction. An HPA who became king but who sold out to the Assyrians after moving his capital to the north, and was subsequently eliminated by the Kushites in 715. I might not wish to mention his reign either if I were a descendant. I would rather recall his days as a very successful HPA.

Okay so the HPA in year 4 of Piankhy is not named. He would be HPA Takeloth E/F on my time-line. And I shouldn't have to say that with Takeloth E/F having the backing of Piankhy and Shoshenq III at this moment, Osorkon B had good reason to remain quiet and bide his time. Piankhy becomes king in 803, same year Osorkon B stops recording donations for 9 straight years. Year 4 of Piankhy is 800 and this falls neatly within the 9-year period. Osorkon B's victory in 794 just means Takeloth E/F lost the support of Piankhy and Shoshenq III, for whatever reason. But after the death of Shoshenq III in 793, Takeloth manages to obtain the backing of Pedubast II in the north. Piankhy has presumably decided to let these Libyans work out there own differences so long as they continue to pay him on time. Osorkon B topples Pedubast II in 788. Goodbye Takeloth E/F. Chief Tefnakhte is emboldened only a few years later. He rejects Piankhy and attacks his loyal subordinate kings in 784. BIG mistake.

Regards Tory

  • 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 2 — Tory, Thu Mar 2 01:45
      • 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