Re: TIP and Kushites
Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:38 (XFF:

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 died. While this is by no means impossible, it is less likely than the age of about 80, which would be the case if Osorkon 'III' became king on the death of Shoshenq III. The elimination of Takelot II from the list of Tanite kings made this very likely identification possible and at least for a short while you seemed to accept it. Is the attempt to assign Year 19 to Takelot III your primary reason for lowering the chronology of the "Theban" 23rd Dynasty?

Which Shoshenq do you mean by "Shoshenq IV"? The Tanite successor of Shoshenq III (Hedjkheperre Shoshenq) or Shoshenq III's Theban contemporary (Usermaatre-meryamun Shoshenq)? My guess is you mean Hedjkheperre, but why do you date Osorkon 'III's accession to his Year 6? (Which, by the way, I still have in 790, and I wonder what earlier reigns would have to be lengthened to bring it down by a whole decade.)

2. Why do you reject Year 30 as Piankhy's highest? The British Museum 6640 bandage from Western Thebes dates to a damaged regnal year of Sneferre Piankhy which is higher than 20 probably by a decade (rather than two) -- see Kitchen 152 and note 292. Do you have any new information explicitly negating this conclusion, or have you come up with a more convincing restoration of the damaged date?

Morkot, in The Black Pharaohs, 170-172 also opposes a reign of 30 years for Piankhy, but the evidence that he cites for it is chiefly based on Sed-festival depiction on his temple in Gebel Barkal, relegating Kitchen and Redford's discussions of the Theban bandage at the BM to a footnote (n. 9, 314). Apart from the suggestion that Piankhy's famous campaign took place much earlier than Year 21, Morkot also thinks the Sed-festival depicted at Gebel-Barkal could have been celebrated before Year 30, because Osorkon 'II' did so in Year 22 (which we now know is almost certainly wrong). Of course a Sed or Sed-like festival could have been celebrated at a date other than Year 30 (compare Hatshepsut), but festival scenes may well be anticipatory.

If Piankhy's reign could be estimated at about 24 years after all (allowing for a hypothetical Year 25), we could modify the tentative "tight" chronology I proposed by allowing a little more time to Rudamun and perhaps even opening space for Ini, if he belongs here at all.

3. Was there any particular reason for including Djehutyemhat in your chronology. Seems to me that he should follow Nimlot I, who was attested at the time of Pinakhy's campaign. Of course the Hermopolitan sequence Nimlot-Djehutyemhat-Nimlot is hypothetical.

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 Kushites — Ian, Thu Jun 26 12:38
      • 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
                  • JEA 88Jean-Fred, Fri Jun 27 12:04
                    Dear Ian Just a very quick note! JEA 88 has reached Montreal earlier this week and I'm going to my friend's house tonight in order to have a look at it (my friend is member of the EES who publishes... more
                    • JEA 88, correction, and TefnakhtIan, Fri Jun 27 12:23
                      Dear Jean-Fred, Thanks for the note, and even though I still hope my friends in Paris turn it up somewhere on St-Michel, I will be very happy to get copies from you should they fail. I will be happy... 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
                  • Re: Some notes on ShebitquIan, Fri Jun 27 09:32
                    Dear Fred, 1. On the Bakenranef - Shabaqo synchronism. I am familiar with the arguments against it, but I am still willing to accept the conclusion that we have a Year 6 - Year 2 synchronism. The... more
                    • Re: Some notes on ShebitquFred, Sat Jun 28 05:07
                      Dear ian, some errors...: Ian : We have no idea who nominated Amenirdis I, but we do know that she became the God's Wife of Amun (as opposed to the apprentice) in the reign of her brother Shabaqo. We ... more
Click here to receive daily updates