Ian
TIP and Kushites
Wed Jun 25, 2003 14:39
68.41.191.114 (XFF: 202.148.94.2)

Dear Fred,

I would like to obtain a clearer understanding of your current position on the transition between the line of Osorkon 'III' and the Kushite kings. Some time ago, while already favoring a Year 14 for Takelot III, you were very proud to identify Nimlot as the king whose Year 19 was associated with Shepenupet I in the Wadi-Gasus inscription.

1. Have you anything new to report on attributing the papyrus of King Takelot with Year 14 to Takelot III rather than Takelot II.

2. If you think a Nimlot with Year 19 cannot fit after Takelot III and Rudamun and by Piankhy's Year 12, then who will be the king with Year 19? It cannot be Takelot III, who came to the throne far too early (about 772) for his Year 19 to equal Year 12 of Piankhy, who came to the throne far too late (about 751). Or are you now attributing Year 12 to someone other than Piankhy?

3. I think Nimlot can still fit, although the 5+x-year reign of Ini would now have to be inserted after Nimlot and perhaps even after Piankhy's campaign (you have already suggested that possibility). If we retain Nimlot as the successor of an ephemeral Rudamun, we could assign to Nimlot the Year 3 of Quay Inscription #10. The resulting chronology (tentatively accepting Year 14 for Takelot III)is a little tight but nevertheless entirely possible:

795-768 Osorkon 'III', highest date Year 28 (= Year 5 of Takelot III)
772-759 Takelot III, highest date Year 14(?)
759-758 Rudamun, no date preserved?
758-731 Nimlot, highest date Year 19(?), still attested 731
751-721 Piankhy, highest date Year 30, expedition 730-731
721-707 Shabaka, highest date Year 15
707-690 Shabataka, on the throne by 707/6

4. In previous posts (e.g., #1960, 1995, 2026, etc), you argued forcefully against inverting the order Shabaka-Shabataka. You recently hinted that you are less opposed to this now. Why?

Best, Ian


    • Re: TIP and KushitesFred, Thu Jun 26 11:37
      Dear Ian, - On Takelot III 's problem, I work for an article to be publish in the GM. Apart of the Berlin papyrus I though to be of year 14 of this king for several reasons you will see, I also... more
      • Re: TIP and KushitesIan, Thu Jun 26 12:38
        Dear Fred, 1. Line of Osorkon 'III'. Do you now propose to make HPA Osorkon a different person from King Osorkon 'III'? If you still think they are the same, he would be about 95 years old when he... more
        • Re: TIP and KushitesFred, Thu Jun 26 14:58
          Dear Ian, Some comments : Ian : 1. Line of Osorkon 'III'. Do you now propose to make HPA Osorkon a different person from King Osorkon 'III'? If you still think they are the same, he would be about 95 ... more
          • Re: TIP and KushitesIan, Thu Jun 26 21:49
            Dear Fred, well, let's see... I suppose that I really have to see the bloody new edition of JEA which appears to contain another important article by Broekman. Is it available for sale in France?... more
            • Papyrus Berlin 3048Leo, Thu Jun 26 23:51
              Dear Fred, Personally, I do second Kitchen's reading of the Year 30 bandage but acknowledge that its poor state of preservation does not help us much. I don't see any strong reason why Piye could not ... more
              • A ClarificationLeo, Fri Jun 27 03:52
                As an aside after thinking things through, I still do hope that you FREDERIC or one of his fellow professional classmates will publish "THE CASE" for dating the Berlin Papyrus in the future in GM or... more
                • Re: A ClarificationFred, Fri Jun 27 08:56
                  Dear leo, Some comments : - the article on Takelto III is not a hope, it is reality, I will send it the next months probably. I thought I had spoken of it earlier... - the n 3 can not be Rudamon,... more
                  • Re: A ClarificationIan, Fri Jun 27 09:37
                    Dear Fred, Can you please tell me where in Paris one could obtain the new volume of JEA? I have people hunting for it. Although your response to Leo contains some of the answers, I would appreciate... more
        • Some notes on ShebitquIan, Thu Jun 26 14:20
          After looking at the [limited] genealogical data available for the Kushite kings, it still seems to me that the traditional order Shabaqo-Shebitqu is preferable. I can understand the reluctance to... more
          • Re: Some notes on ShebitquFred, Thu Jun 26 14:43
            Dear Ian, All your material is good and well-known, and in fact it is the same as mine, but I consider that there is no definite proof. Some comments : Ian :But Shebitqu belong in the 3rd generation... more
            • Re: Some notes on ShebitquIan, Thu Jun 26 15:12
              Dear Fred, thanks for your prompt response. Why do you want to see a usurper in Shabaqo? We know his relative placement generationwise and his place in the genealogy. In spite of many questionmarks,... more
              • Re: Some notes on ShebitquFred, Thu Jun 26 15:59
                Dear Ian, What i want to say on this matter is that the sources leave a little possibility that the order can be reversed. The traditionnal order is only the result of cruising two data with the... more
                • Re: Some notes on ShebitquIan, Thu Jun 26 21:06
                  Dear Fred, I think the possibility exists, but it is very very slim. There are still a number of points that trouble me. 1. Can you comment on your particular reasons for abandoning the synchronism... more
                  • Re: Some notes on ShebitquFred, Fri Jun 27 08:43
                    Dear Ian, Some quick comments 1. Can you comment on your particular reasons for abandoning the synchronism Shabaqo-Bakenranef, which you defended in the past. FP : the traditionnal synchronism comes... more
  • Click here to receive daily updates