Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2
Sat Mar 4, 2017 10:23
81.151.216.140

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 sentence. Descendants of Takelot III abound, so what non-surprise is there in their non-absence? Osorkon III is a king, agreed by many who do not think he is to be identified with Osorkon B.

"I wouldn't touch this one. Shilkanni can't be anything else but the name Osorkon in Akkadian."
Yoyotte long ago suggested Shrkn as a more logical rendition. I see no reason to omit the long vowel, which can be rendered as "Au" as you suggest, or even "Wa". Beside the point, though, as I agree that Shilkanni = Osorkon is the most likely explanation by far.

"I rest my case."
Surely not. I have already said that Osorkon F, in one of the genealogies descended from him, is not given the "king's son" epithet. This is after only 4 generations. You did not spot this one, so why is this other any different, when a distant ancestress of somewhere between 10 and 20 generations, whose parents are also not named, is not given the title of "king's daughter"? I am not doubtful on this account alone - her name could quite easily be restored as "Muthotepti" a popular name of the period, for example, without seeming out of place. It is the vast number of generations of alternating male and female names, separating her from the maternal grandfather of an unidentified (to me) ancestor of Ankhefenkhonsu.

"I'm not prepared to let this be the sole attestation of a Menkheperre different and earlier than "the" Menkheperre."
But it is not the sole.
G3, 232, I: year 6, II Peret 7: the vizier, general and 1PA Herihor ordered the reosirification of Menmaatre Sety-mererptah
G3, 263, 5, I: fine linen made by the 1PA Menkheperre in year 6 (on the body of Sety I)
G3, 264, II: year 7, II Peret 16, day of burying Sety I.
The logical conclusion is that this particular Menkheperre, however scant his attestations, is a predecessor of Herihor as 1PA (the year 6 of his record need not be the same year 6 of Herihor's record). A later rewrap under "the" Menkheperre would have removed the statements of Herihor and replaced them with more recent orders to re-osirify.
As you have yourself found, fitting a year 6 into the career of "the" Menkheperre is quite awkward and requires special pleading. There are of course "radical" alternatives but these involve moving Herihor even further down the timeline, and I am not sure these are viable.

"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."
Then maybe it has been misidentified in modern times (or maybe the fashion had changed). We only have photos of two Painedjems, and only one surviving mummy AFAIK. Yet you have four and I have three, and only one was a king. Neither of the photographed Painedjems appears to be old enough to be Painedjem I, and neither was found in the coffins that were redecorated for him.

"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"
Tjaenkemit's titles are dittographed, so presumed to be "chief sistrum player of Herishef", also borne by Tentsepeh C, but Tentsepeh D is (more high ranked?) prophetess of Hathor like the mother of Pasenhor B. How these titles were passed between women married into the same family is not a mechanism I have ever seen demonstrated. I do not see them as peculiarly "Libyan". The wives of leading cult priests often have duties in the same or associated cults.

"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."
The rebellion (or civil war) is already in progress in years 11, 12. The calamity (whatever it was) does not happen until year 15, and it has not prevented Osorkon from coming to Thebes (but there is nothing dated to years 13-14). It seems in fact that it was the rebellion that made him come, or try to.
The gaps are not a consequence of a civil war, they are just the natural consequence of loss of material evidence over time. There is no evidence of another 1PA coming into Thebes in triumph, having ousted Osorkon B. Where are these other records, during the periods of Osorkon's absence? They too seem to be missing, in your reconstruction. The conventional reconstruction, which has Osorkon making the occasional visit to Thebes up to at least 24 Takelot (in a section which is very fragmentary) and doing the honours on a donation stele of year 25, does not require him to be barred from Thebes during this decade, just not there very much due to pressing concerns elsewhere.

"Clearly, this is not to be compared with gaps in the record of Iuput's career."
But it is, of course, simply as a control. As well as the gaps in all the other careers of other 1PAs, and even kings, of the period, apparent or real. There is certainly no evidence of frequent changes in administration that the conventional picture would require, to go along with the frequent changes of 1PA (for Osorkon B and his rivals) or king. There is simply by-chance survival, or not, evidence that substantial gaps can be expected in the dated records of 1PAs of this period, without inferring any loss of access or loss of title. The "chronicle" was not a living document, updated every few months or years. There is a text of year 11 Takelot, then a text of year 12 Takelot, then the next discernible text is of year 28 Sheshonq III, narrating events from 15 Takelot onward but not written in that year, in which a summary is given of every benefaction from 11 Takelot to 28 Sheshonq. This shows that he was not recording his donations as he went, but also that although he actually makes no inscription between 12 Takelot and 28 Sheshonq, he was in Thebes a great deal in the intervening period. Without this specific set of inscriptions we would have only year 11 (the graffito of Hori), year 25 (a donation stele) of Takelot and in your combined Takelot I/II a stele of year 9. Nothing from years 1-8, nothing from years 12-24. Similarly we lack, even on the most generous interpretation of whose regnal years go where, years 1-11 of Osorkon II, and there are many other gaps. The kings seem to have an annoying (to us) habit of not dating their inscriptions, and the non-royals the equally annoying habit of putting a year date but not telling us which king they were talking about. All part of the charm of the TIP.

"I'm undecided about how many years to give Osorkon II and this impacts Pedubast II his successor."
It Will also impact on the last attested date for your Takelot E/F. 30 years for Pedubast puts Takelot about 796/5, before Osorkon B's year 39 attestations in 794. Then there would be no evidence, even indirect, that Osorkon B was only in Thebes in 794 for a short stay. Your latest set of numbers that I have, give Osorkon II 847/819 and Pedubast II 813/788. So there is a gap to be "filled" if you think these two are in direct succession.

"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."
But whose immediate ancestors had already sold out to the Kushites, without suffering this kind of damnatio memoriae. Logical consistency does not seem the flavour of the month here - at no point can you instance an established practice, of which it seems the Egyptians were very fond. Appealing to the novelty value of the Libyan approach may get you some leeway (bearded 1PA, 3PA and maybe 4PA in the time of Iuput, most shocking) especially near the beginning of their domination, but the Sheshonqid line was hardly an unreconstructed Libyan cultural holdout.

"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."
I do not see any evidence at all of Sheshonq III backing Takelot after year 6. You still have not accounted for the God's Wife Shepenwepet, daughter of Piye and presumably installed by him (as Adoratrix / God's Hand, my assumption). Piye had a permanent stake in control of Thebes once he had done this. He was not a bider of time. Any jumped up princeling waltzing in and putting out his tame 1PA, indirectly threatening his daughter's safety by his actions, would get short shrift.

" Piankhy becomes king in 803, same year Osorkon B stops recording donations for 9 straight years"
Osorkon B never resumes recording donations. He did not intend to. By year 28 he had set up a comprehensive system of annual donations. He records all these in one go.

These posts do not seem to be getting shorter. I think this means the disagreement is more fundamental than usual.

Regards

Kim

  • 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 2 — Kim Sargerson, Sat Mar 4 10:23
Click here to receive daily updates