Joe Baker
On Psinakhes = Tutkheperre aanq
Wed Aug 1, 2018 09:21

Hi All

In light of the now universal acceptance of abataka before abaka, a position I had repeatedly argued for on this forum since 2002, I again turn to my repeated ascertain, on this forum, that Manethos Psinakhes is actually a aanq.

Originally I thought that this king was the known Ḥqȝ-ḫpr-Rʿ nq even thought his burial apparel included two bracelets of Ḥḏ-ḫpr-Rʿ nq 1 and a pectoral of of this king before he became a king (both of which I assumed came from a reburial under aanq 1). Then in 2004, Lange published her evidence for a Twt-ḫpr-rʿ nq and I immediately saw he was a better candidate for Psinakhes than Ḥqȝ-ḫpr-Rʿ nq - see my 14 June 2005 post at;article=5111

A decade later, in 2014 Dautzenberg published a paper (On the Identity of King Psinaches, GM 240 (2014) 115-118) which postulated the same identification. For my comments on this paper, see my 20 Aug 2014 post at;article=15358

Dautzenberg presents 3 main arguments to support his proposal

  • Like me Dautzenberg saw that in hieratic the letters p and were quite similar and a scribe unfamiliar with his source may misread the signs and instead of transcribing the name as nq actually transcribed it as pnq and from this came Greek Psinakh-es.

  • Like me Dautzenberg noted that in Manethos 21st dynasty King List there is no name that resembles Siamun and since he can not be equated with Psinakhes then, at some stage in its transmission, the line that originally containing Siamun (and his reign length) must have fallen out of the list.

  • Unlike me, Dautzenberg then restored Siamuns position in the list by placing him between Psinakhes and Psusennes 2, whereas I would place Siamun one position earlier, between Osokkor and Psinakhes. Dautzenbergs supported his order of Osorkon - Psinakhes on the flimsy basis that just as Osorkon based his throne name (ʿȝ-ḫpr-rʿ) on the throne name of Amenhotep II, his successor Psinakhes based his throne name (Twt-ḫpr-r) on the Horus name (Twt-ḫʿw) of Tuthmosis 4 the successor of Amenhotep 2. This makes no sense to me.

So I here give more information in support of Psinakhes = Twt-ḫpr-R nq and my order of Osorkon - Siamun - Psinakhes - Psusennes 2.

  • There musts have been a king between Siamun and Psusennes 2. HPA Pinudjem was buried in year 10 of Siamun (dated documents in his tomb recording his burial). He was succeeded by his son HPA Psusennes whose name appears on a bandage inscription on mummy 17 of the second cache at Deir el-Bahr as bandage made by the high priest of Amun, Psusennes, son of Pinudjem, for his father Amun, year 4 (in the first publication) or 5 (in the subsequent publication) - a similar inscription appears on a bandage of mummy 65 from the same cache dated to year 12. So if this Pinudjem later became king then this year 4 or 5 bandage must come from a reign after Siamun (since Pinudjem was still HPA in his 5th year) but before Psusennes himself became king.

  • I assign the Larger Dakhleh Stela (Ashmolean 1894, 107A) with its date of year 5 of Pr-ʿȝ ȝȝqȝ and its reference to an earlier year 19 of Pr-ʿȝ Pȝ-sbȝ-ḫʿ-Nỉwt, to Twt-ḫpr-R nq rather than to the (universally accepted) later Ḥḏ-ḫpr-Rʿ nq (aanq 1), Such an assignment guarantees that this year 19 of Psusennes refers to Psusennes 1 since, at the time the stele was inscribed, the reign of Psusennes 2 had yet to begin and besides his highest probable attested dates are year 11 and year 13 in accordance with the 14 years of Africanus-Manetho King List and the lunar data discussed below. For one of the previous forum discussions on this subject see my 18 Jun 2007 post at;article=7313

  • I also, on lunar data evidence, assign to him the induction date in KPA 4b, that is 17/3 Aḫt/2 Great Chief of Ma aaq (wr ʿȝ n mʿ ȝȝq), and so distinguish him from following induction date in KPA 4c, which id dated 9/3 Prt/13 King MeryAmun nq (nsw mry-ỉmn nq), that is Shashanq 1. (I note that Krutchen's transcription and transliteration of KPA 4b clearly shoes the day as the 17th, however Ritner - in his book - records it as day 7).

  • In order to show how the placing of a 9 year reign for a Shashanq between Siamun and Psusennes 2 gives very good agreement between certain dated events and their alignment with New Moon (conjunction), I present the following table (which assumes that most inductions and certain types of oracular enquiries occur as near as possible to a predicted New Moon). Note the use of double day Gregorian dates for the Egyptian day to show that the Egyptian day began on a certain Gregorian morning and ended on the following Gregorian morning. I also show the lunar Day (LD) on which the Egyptian event occurred. As required most are within observational error of New Moon, that is LD 1 (understandable as, unlike the Babylonian day, it is based on not observing something that can not be seen). Using these lunar dates one can derive the best fit for the reign lengths of these kings to within two calendar years (and in those cases where two (or more) lunar dates are known for a reign, then one can sometimes reduce this to a particular year). The reign lengths can then be compared to those given by Africanus-Manetho (generally more accurate then Eusebius-Manetho during this period). Of course, if all is transmitted correctly, one could still expect some occasional one year differences due to rounding. For one of the previous forum discussions on this subject see my 18 Jun 2007 post at;article=9306;
    | Djehutymes 1 [Osorkon] 23/4 Aḫt/ 2 | = 10/11 Aug 994 | 10:35 8 Aug 994 | 3 | 995-989 | 6 | 6 |
    | KPA 3B.3a Osorkon 20/1 mw/ 2 | = 4/ 5 Jan 993 | 2:48 4 Jan 993 | -1 | | | |
    | Djehutymes 6 [Osorkon] 10/1 mw/ 3 | = 24/25 Dec 993 | 7:56 23 Dec 993 | -2 | | | |
    | KPA 33b [Siamun] 5/4 mw/14 | = 15/16 Mar 975 | 8:18 14 Mar 975 | 2 | 989-968 | 21 | - |
    | KPA 3B.3b Siamun --/1 mw/17 | | 16:52 11 Dec 973 | | | | |
    | KPA 4b aanq GCM 17/3 Aḫt/ 2 | = 28/29 Jun 966 | 13:44 30 Jun 966 | -2 | 968-959 | 9 | 9 |
    | L Dakhleh aanq 25/4 Prt/ 5 | = 2/ 3 Dec 964 | 13:11 2 Dec 964 | 1 | | | |
    | KPA P Psusennes 2 13/1 mw/11 | = 16/17 Dec 949 | 23:37 16 Dec 949 | 1 | 959-945/44 | 15 | 14 |
    | KPA 3B.3c [Psusennes 2] 10/3 Prt/13 | | 18:48 15 Oct 946 | | | | |
    | KPA 4c aanq 1 9/3 Prt/13 | = 9/10 Oct 932 | 22:11 10 Oct 932 | -1 | 945/44-924/23 | 21 | 21 |
    | KPA P Osorkon 1 14/2 Aḫt/ 3 | = 14/15 May 921 | 14:32 14 May 921 | 1 | 924/23- | | |

  • My reign dates for Rehoboam of Judah are Sep/Oct 932 - Sep/Oct 916 which means his 5th year was Sep/Oct 928 - Sep/Oct 927. The biblical account in 1 Kings 14:25 is that aanq (wq) conducted a campaign against Rehoboam in this year, presumably during the spring/summer campaign season of 927, which would correspond to the 17th or 18th year of aanq 1.

  • The above chronology effectively raises the year dates of the earlier 21st dynasty kings by some 10 years (by raising Siamun to 20 years and . Now this does cause a problem with existing conventional chronology of the 19th and 20th dynasties (and I hold to the Middle Chronology for these two dynasties with the accession of Ramesses 2 at 1290). In order to eliminate this problem some 10 years has to be removed from one of these two dynasties. My solution, long argued on this forum, is that these 10 years can be removed from the 20th dynasty by rejecting the reconstructed Papyrus Abbot synchronism of year 19 [Ramesses 11] = year 1 [wḥm mswt] and accepting the alternate Papyrus Turin Cat. 2034 reconstructed synchronism year 9 [Ramesses 11] = year 1 wḥm mswt and reconstructing the Papyrus Abbot synchronism as year 19 [wḥm mswt] = year 1 [HPA/King Ḥeriḥor].

Regards Joe

    • Re: On PsinakhesJaime O, Mon Aug 20 16:56
      Hi Joe Where do you place your Thutkheperre Shoshenq/Psinakes in the family tree of the early royal Libyans? Regards, Jaime
      • Re: On PsinakhesJoe Baker, Wed Aug 29 19:59
        Hi Jaime The family tree given here is my current opinion. It contains a lot of facts and a lot of speculation. Because of the latter, it differs from my former position and it is just as likely that ... more
        • Re: On PsinakhesJaime O, Fri Sep 7 17:43
          Hi Joe Thank you for your the reply. Speculation and nuances will always feed discussion. Your current position agrees with mine by having Hrere as Amenhotep's wife and Nodjmet's mother, although I... more
          • Re: On PsinakhesJoe Baker, Sun Sep 9 06:04
            Hi Jaime The speculation that Djedmutesankh was a wife of Pinudjem II as a result of a marriage alliance once Amenemope exerted his authority over Upper Egypt (at the end of the reign/pontificate of... more
  • Click here to receive daily updates