Kim Sargerson
re: Year 6 reosirification
Wed Mar 8, 2017 18:24
81.151.216.140

Hi Tory

I have no doubt that the New Kingdom royals were indeed routinely plundered by these priests. It seems to have been a kind of "last resort", so they did a group in a short time, then there was a gap, then another group. I agree that a previous robbery, whilst convenient, was not essential to the process.

The chiselling off of the slightest scraps of gold leaf, and wholesale replacement of gold by yellow paint, leaves no doubt that this was a primary motive. The relatively rich coffins of king Painedjem and queen Henttawy were not immune, ironically, as it may have been NK plunder which went into the decoration / redecoration of these coffins in the first place.

But even if renewing the burial was a pretext, I think it is clear that this was in fact carried out. The looted mummies were re-wrapped in contemporary linen, and placed in poorer quality coffins, in many cases not being returned to their original burial places. IMHO if at some stage cynicism set in and the priests ceased to take due care of the royal mummies, this would be later in the development of this phenomenon, not at its very start.

As I see it the year-dates suggest a rough chronology of

(a) King Anonymous A years 1-6+, 1PA Menkheperre A
(where this year 6 is separated from the next year 6 by around 10 years or less)
(b) King Anonymous B years 1-7+, 1PA Herihor
(c) King Herihor himself, reign length unknown but probably 2+ from the Karnak decorations, holding 1PA throughout
(d) King Anonymous C, years 1-15+, possibly parallel with previous for years 1-5; 1PA Painedjem A (by year 6-year 15 or later)

A daughter of Paiankh also had a son called Menkheperre. Thus it is possible that Paiankh was succeeded, or immediately preceded, by a relative of himself or his wife, and that both grandsons of Paiankh were named after this earlier relative (great-uncle? maternal great-grandfather?). If this were the xase, however, I would have to accept that in all probability Cerny was right to emend "year 9 = year 1 of the wmh mswt" to "year 19 etc.", otherwise the interval between Paiankh and his son Painedjem A becomes very long, if Anon. A and Anon. B are both "Ramesside" successors of R.XI.

The alternative is that the year 6 of Menkheperre belongs either to R.XI or to the whm mswt (but retaining year 9 = year 1) and the minimum interval between the manufacture and the use of the Menkheperre linen is about 19 years -
year 6 whm mswt / year 14 R.XI, to year 27 R.XI = 13 years+
year 1- year 6 of R. "XII" = 5/6 years, assuming no regnal overlap. As you know I do not favour solutions where the linen used is "old".

To me it remains a conundrum as to how these anonymous years fit together. Whether or not Ian has correctly identified the king as "Ramesses XII" I think he certainly makes a strong case for a short reign between Ramesses XI and Herihor, as did Ad Thijs.

Regards

Kim


  • Year 6 reorsificationTory, Tue Mar 7 02:34
    Hi Kim and Jaime: 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... more
    • re: Year 6 reosirification — Kim Sargerson, Wed Mar 8 18:24
      • re: Year 6 reosirificationTory, Thu Mar 9 08:12
        Hi Kim The way I see it, there is no need for yet another new person to be injected into this period. No Ramesses "XII" or Menkheperre "A". If there is a HPA Menkheperre "A" who reosirified Sety I,... more
        • re: Year 6 reosirificationKim Sargerson, Wed Mar 15 17:11
          Hi Tory Sorry has taken so long to reply. I didn't "get" this for the longest time, but: once the ATM withdrawal has been made, this particular source of revenue is gone. If Herihor cashed in Sety's... more
Click here to receive daily updates