Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Sat Mar 4, 2017 10:11
81.151.216.140

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 arguments against, but he is not above fabricating evidence to support his position. When I first joined this forum, I argued for a short reign of Horemhab, on the grounds that his attested regnal years ran up to 13. He adduced a year 16 of Horemhab, from an object known to be a modern forgery. I believe he is responsible for at least two fabricated entries in Wikipedia, one of which asserts that the anonymous year 33 from the wrappings of Nakhtefmut E contains the additional text "second heb-sed" (you can find this under "Osorkon I") and that Piye had a year 27 evidenced by a news article reporting on a burial in that reign and there was no reference to a death stele or a yeardate in that article. So the fact that he still chooses to see "year 15, 1PA Painedjem", as immediately preceding "year 16, 1PA Masaharta" (as Kitchen aligned them) whilst ignoring the clear "year 8, King Painedjem" on other dockets, and his superior attitude towards two of the best minds on this forum (yes, I do mean you and Marianne) shows he has not changed.

"As you know, this was not uncommon in Egypt. A started document could be put to the side and then sit around for years"
I am not sure that I do know. There are instances of several texts being written on the same papyrus, it is true, but I am less sure about partial documents, particularly as this one has nothing to say before the second date is given. If the first date were II Shemu 21, not I Shemu 21, it would make perfect sense.

"You are thinking in terms of the way Parker explained the calendar."
No, not really. I am thinking of a "logical" calendar (the 365 day solar one) and how Egyptian priests might specify past and present lunations in it to avoid ambiguity.

"Lunations did not receive their names from the civil month in which they began."
I do not disagree that the very very ancient predecessors of the Nilotic Egyptian culture may have used an exclusively lunar calendar, and that the solar calendar replaced it at some point. But the names of the months? I am as mistrustful of such an assertion as I am of Parker's constructs, or anyone else's in the field.
Spalinger is an immense authority on Egyptian festivals. Belmonte is a highly respected astronomer. However, my experience of astronomers involved in Egyptology consists in that if you put an archaeoastronomy theory to an astronomer he/she will oblige you by finding a way to make it fit. I have seen this with eclipse data, with lunations, with transits of Venus, among other things, from both Old World and New. These comments also apply to radiocarbon dating.
That isn't a criticism of astronomers. Rather, Egyptologists have been less than open in the past about the lack of rigidity in their hypotheses and date ranges.

"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 true. It allows you to predict two lunations ahead exactly, and a prediction one lunation ahead cannot be out by more than one day. If the lunations themselves were not functional i.e. did not have to be observed in order to be reckoned, then a schematic lunar calendar with corrective additional 30 day months built in (as both the cited items appear to have) will, as you say, function without correction for 500 years. That is as good a record as any fixed calendar of the ancient world. To have to insert an extra 30 or 29 day month every 500 years is surely not a problem when dealing with a narrower date range. Look what happened to the Julian calendar.

"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."
Owning land at Thebes, or in the northernmost 5 nomes of UE, perhaps not. But sending a daughter for adoption? Not unless Psametjik was a member of the Kushite ruling house, and in the direct line of succession. I can see no reason otherwise for Tanutamun, or any other Kushite king, to allow a dynastic change in the God's Wives, even if it would only take effect in 20 years' time.

"All of these monuments usually speak as if the named king is the only king in town. That is style and genre"
True. But in other cases, including many from the TIP, a "local" stela naming a particular king is taken to signify that that king was indeed in power in that locale, not the reverse.

"The Nitocris stele does not say Psamtik "could have" removed a GW. It says he honored the system already in place."
Quoting Ritner's translation "I shall not do the very thing that should not be done and expel an heir from his position"
If Psametjik did not have the power to do this, that is, remove Amunirdis (not Shepenwepet!) from her position and put in Nitoqerty as the immediate heir to the position of Gods Wife, why say that he did. You say he is making a virtue of necessity. I say it is only the lack of necessity that makes it a virtue at all.

"Reading between the lines, the reason is because he had a boss. Why let your daughter be ranked an unheard of third-place"
Because she is only about eight years old. She would have to acquire supporters and retainers (using the lands she had been given) and general recognition among the Theban hierarchy. This would take time, and maturity. If she died a child, I am sure he had other daughters who could step up.

"If you have the ultimate authority in Thebes, your daughter goes to the front of the line."
There is no evidence at all for this assertion, and plenty of evidence for its opposite. We have no evidence for the deposition of an incumbent God's Wife.
The text indicates that Nitoqerty was adopted by both ladies, making sure that if Amunirdis died first, Nitoqerty would automatically "move up" and could not be supplanted by having Shepenwepet adopt someone else.

"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)."
But (a) there is no evidence of a Shepenwepet daughter of Taharqa, although you are correct that the Amunirdis of the Adoption Stela has no extant paternity and is only presumed in the standard texts to be a daughter of Taharqa. The Shepenwepets of the Kushite period are attested as (i) daughter of a king Osorkon and "mother" of Amunirdis the daughter of Kashta; (ii) daughter of Piye.
(b) the omission of these royal names makes little sense in your context.

"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."
Again, the conventional version seems to be that Amunirdis II never succeeded to the post, but around year 17 of Psametjik, Nitoqerty moves up the ladder to Adoratrix, and then in or by year 25, becomes Gods Wife.

"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)."
And why on earth would he avoid saying so. In two places the father of Amunirdis II was originally named in the stele, or a blank cartouche was left for the name. If the omission is original, it makes no sense in your context (as the king in question is the deceased predecessor of the living over-king). If there was a living over-king, why has he not inserted his own daughter in this place?

"Because I said I believe Abar married twice? There is no evidence for second marriages in Egypt?"
Not the only reason. But on this specific point, there is very little evidence for second marriages of upper class women in Egypt or Kush, and none at all for king's daughters.

"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?"
I am fairly confident that Taharqa was not an only child, but cannot prove it, that is, that Qalhata the mother of Tanutamun was Taharqa's full sister. In any case, on the EKL reign lengths Abar cannot be born before 771 (35 years before Taharqa) rather than the ludicrous 787 (51 years before Taharqa) you suggested, so this particular argument over a might-have-been is completely pointless.

"The younger sister of Alara, Abar's mother, is not Alara's wife."
Kawa 6, line 23, Alara's speech refers to Abar's mother as his sister, his wife, and his full sister born from the same mother. This does not rule out Alara having other, older, children by other wives; nor does it exclude the possibility that at least one of these wives was another sister, older than Abar's mother (again implicit in Kawa IV, 16-17, that the "mothers" of Abar were dedicated to Amun by their elder brother Alara, is the possibility that Abar was born to one sister-wife of Alara and adopted by another).
What does seem to me to be clear is that at this juncture (when Alara dedicated his younger sister to Amun) not only was Abar not born, but none of her siblings were either. Your original estimate for Abar's birth c787 is actually a good estimate for Abar's mother's birth.

I note that you appear also to have abandoned the "year 40" of Piye in hieratic that you once championed. According to Redford this can only be "year 20" or "year 40", although I prefer "year 20[+X]". This would make his Egyptian (as distinct from Kushite) attestations years 20?, 21, 22, 24 from different sources in and around Thebes.

"Cyrus kept deposed kings alive at his court who presumably were not forbidden from going near their wives and having children."
These are deposed kings of conquered states, not rival heirs to the throne of your own state. Unless you are now supposing a military conquest of Egypt by an external power, which is something quite different. An internal coup, as I said before, would not leave alternative male heirs to the throne alive.

I wrote "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 don't think you understood what I said. Read it again. The "idea" is that you can base a chronology on this.

"I'm simply pointing out that the earliest king Shoshenq attested at Bubastis is Tyetkheperre Shoshenq"
Very good. Show me the attestations of king Nesbanebdjed at Tanis? Or indeed anywhere else, that even suggest he spent time at Tanis when he was king, or was crowned there?
The parallel seems to be apt.
"Manetho" ascribed D21 to Tanis because still extant in his day were the buildings of Tanis by Psusennes I. There is nothing of Nesbanebdjed the king there, and his residence as king appears to have been Memphis.
"Manetho" ascribed D22 to Bubastis because still extant in his day were the buildings of Osorkon I and II at Bubastis, but there is nothing of Sheshonq I there. Sagrillo again suggests that the residence of Sheshonq I was Memphis.
"Manetho" ascribed D19, D20 to Thebes because still extant in his day....and so on. The "dynastic origin" given by "Manetho" is by no means historically sure in the first place. As you rightly criticise "Manetho" for lack of accuracy in a number of places, I cannot see how arguing for his accuracy here (in assigning Bubastis as the home town of D22) stands up to scrutiny.

"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."
So from being aged c63 and c68 at death, just to salvage your sequence, which was provisional anyway, and to avoid concession on this tiny point, you want to add 20 years to their ages? It seems an astonishing waste of effort in pursuit of the unpalatable. You already accept "year 5" of Iuwelot as a year of Takelot I/II. Why not just accept year 10 as a similar year, well clear of Nesbanebdjed C, and (appropriately as he is making a kind of will) Iuwelot dies in 10/11 Takelot. Nimlot F is undated, and could precede Nesbanebdjed, as there is no dated evidence of his tenure.
This would give:
Nimlot F c874/870, perhaps born about 920
Nesbanebdjed C, c870/860, perhaps born about 910
Iuwelot c860/849 perhaps born about 895/890 and a "youth" 874. On his death the anonymous claimant to 1PA whom Osorkon B disposes of would be a son of one of these latter two.

continued...

  • 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 1 — Kim Sargerson, Sat Mar 4 10:11
      • 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