Re: Some notes on Shebitqu
Thu Jun 26, 2003 14:43 (XFF:

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 of [known] Kushite monarchs, while Shabaqo belongs in the 2nd. The Kushite succession departed from traditional primogeniture and seems to have favored the eldest qualified male in the royal family. So it would be difficult to see a representative of the 3rd generation taking the throne before a representative of the 2nd.

FP : Not necessarly, if it was an usurper...

Ian :(Kawa Stela): Taharqo was the brother or cousin ("one among the royal brethren") of his unnamed predecessor. Since the king is unnamed, once again, we cannot identify him with either Shabaqo or Shebitqo on internal grounds.

FP : Here you made an error. Shabataqa is clearly stated as the cousin/brother of Taharqa, but the king who died just before the coronation of Taharqa is not named precisely. Before these years it has always been seen as the same : Shabataka, but it could be Shabaka.

On all the genealogical data, nothing is certain about Shabataka, except that he was probably a cousin or a brother of Taharqa. This would explain why this later does not speak of Shabaka, him being an uncle usurper...


(see the other post for libyan studies...)

  • 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 Shebitqu — Fred, Thu Jun 26 14:43
      • 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
                  • Re: Some notes on ShebitquIan, Sat Jun 28 08:38
                    Dear Fred, 1. According to Morkot, Shepenwepet I died probably between Year 12 and Year 15 of Shabaqo. Hence Amenirdis I became God's Wife in that reign. 2. Shepenwepet I is depicted in the inner... more
                    • Shabaqo-Shebitqo againIan, Sun Jun 29 22:42
                      I recently came across a point that does not seem to have been covered by our recent discussion of whether or not to invert the traditional order of Shabaqo and Shebitqo within the 25th Dynasty. I am ... more
Click here to receive daily updates