Tory
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Sun Mar 5, 2017 05:22
112.198.99.29

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 true. It allows you to predict two lunations ahead exactly, and a prediction one lunation ahead cannot be out by more than one day.

No, it doesn't. "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, then you can have

[...]
II-3kt 1 = psdntwy
[...]
III-3kt 30 = psdntwy

only once every 25 years within a given 500-year period.

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.

I don't see how "lunations" do not require observation in order to determine them. In nature you can have three 29-day lunations in a row, or three or even four 30-day lunations in a row. No schematic lunar calendar can predict these times in advance.

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.

No daughters of Tanutamun are attested but some are hypothesized. The lack of any daughters could be why he allowed Psamtik I to send his daughter to Thebes for adoption in the third place. The relationship between these two kings and the exact nature of the transfer of power from Kushite to Saite is far from clear. Kashta did not remove Osorkon but Amonardis I was put ahead of any other of Osorkon's female descendants, effectively heralding the end of Libyan GW's. If Shepenwepet was not represented by her father at Thebes at this time, and she were alone, I doubt very much Kashta would still have put his daughter Amonardis I in second place. He did this out of respect for the still reigning Osorkon, not the latter's daughter the incumbent God's Wife.

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.

If Amonardis II never became GW, then we could suggest deposition. Her position, and that of Shepenwepet, was secure as long as Tanutamon was still in Egypt. Year 17 of Psamtik I is only a few years after Year 8 of Tanutamon who possibly reigned a little more than 8 years in Egypt (but only 4 in Kush). By year 17 of Psamtik I, not only is Tanutamon out of the picture but gone also was Shepenwepet II's supporter and Amonardis II's chances of ascending the ladder before Nitocris. If I recall correctly, Dodson believes Amonardis II left Thebes and returned to Kush. If so, why?

"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?

The omissions are certainly NOT original. The nomen-cartouches of the Kushite kings Taharqa and, in my view, Rudamon II, were erased later on according to Caminos. They were there in stela's original state. Tanutamon had no daughters that we know of. You ask why on earth would Psamtik I avoid saying he has a Kushite boss. I say why on earth would you say this if you're not compelled to and when everybody alive already knows it? I think whoever erased these names later on (Ptolemy II?) knew it too and probably felt somewhat embarrassed by it. Rudamon II at least got to keep "the good god" before his name in line 3. Psamtik I is not using this epithet simply because of his good nature. No way in my opinion. Clearly a member of the Kushite ruling family was the senior authority in the land at this time.

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.

Abar was not a king's daughter. Her only claim to royalty prior to Taharqa's accession is that her mother was Alara's younger sister. Her father is completely unknown and was not a king.

Qalhata the mother of Tanutamun was Taharqa's full sister.

On the Dream Stele she is called the wife of Tanutamun not his mother. She was some king's mother, but this title comes from her burial chamber. So I take it as given that she was the mother of Tanutamun's successor in Nubia.

"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.

I will quote Dan'el Kahn on this one: "The separation of the nouns sn.t and Hmt by the first person suffix pronoun seems, however, to speak against this interpretation" (MittSAG 16, p. 148). So Kahn returns to the Pierce-Macadam translation in FHN I 173, "Look upon my sister for me, a woman born with me in one womb." On grammatical grounds, this is correct. She was just Alara's younger sister, not also his wife, and not necessarily his full-sister as the racist Morkot points out in Meroitica 15 (1999): 190, 208.

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.

See my remarks on T. G. H. James of the British Museum to Jaime here from post # 17295.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=17295;search_term=Baer

An internal coup, as I said before, would not leave alternative male heirs to the throne alive.

I still disagree. Herod's accession was pretty much an internal coup backed by Rome and he left many potential heirs from the previous dynasty alive and not because Rome told him to he couldn't wipe them out. It was his own kids, and other family members, he eliminated. Josephus was lucky to have been born because of this. I could list other examples.

"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.

So what you're saying is I cannot use Manetho if I reject him in numerous places elsewhere because evidence says we should in those instances? No, I think I can cite Manetho for a point until evidence proves him wrong on that specific point. As of today, there is no evidence he is wrong about the town where the 22nd dynasty began. I have no problem with Shoshenq I starting in Memphis or any place else. But he did not start in Bubastis and therefore he is not Manetho's 22nd dynasty founder.

Show me the attestations of king Nesbanebdjed at Tanis?

Wenamun Report. Beyond this, this king is so poorly represented anywhere by explicitly named inscriptions it is a joke to assign him as much as 26 years.

"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?

I think you know I would tap out, especially in a debate with you, before being choked to sleep in the ring. If I move the births of Nesbanebdjed III and Iuwelot to 945 and 944, respectively, then the former lives to be 78, and Iuwelot lives to be 79. No reason to tap out.

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.

Obviously because this would "erase" HPA Nimlot F.

Nimlot F is undated, and could precede Nesbanebdjed, as there is no dated evidence of his tenure.

That's true but I think its more reasonable and a more natural assumption that Osorkon B succeeded his maternal grandfather directly. Osorkon B's installation was regular not irregular. There is no hint that he deposed anyone to become HPA. There is only evidence of opposition to him as HPA subsequently.

I provisionally put "year 5" in Takeloth I/II, but again, this can be an earlier king's year 5 since it is after all anonymous.

Continued ...

  • 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 1 — Tory, Sun Mar 5 05:22
      • 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