Re: TIP and Kushites
Thu Jun 26, 2003 21:49 (XFF:

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? Perhaps I can get my friends there to get it for me and it will make it here before the library copy which seems to take forever.

So I am assuming that Broekman reattributed the Year 5 Hedjkheperre Shoshenq inscription to the second Hedjkheperre Shoshenq. That would be a good indicator for continued recognition of the Tanite line in Thebes for a few years after the death of Shoshenq III. But can we be completely sure that Shoshenq I was incapable of appearing as -siese in Thebes? While these epithets were employed regularly only late in the Libyan period, they were often employed on an ad-hoc basis (even by much earlier kings). I agree with you that Pedubast I appeared as both -siese (in Thebes) and -sibast (in Memphis), which attests to that flexibility. So yes, the king who reigned in the north as Hedjkheperre Shoshenq-sibast, could be Hedjkheperre Shoshenq-siese in the south. Are there other reasons to abandon the identification of this Shoshenq with Shoshenq I?

In my estimation, Shoshenq III would reign 833-795, and his successor 795-781. If you see Year 5 of the second Hedjkheperre Shoshenq as 781/780, you would be lowering the dates for these kings by ten years. Since Ramesses II must remain at 1279-1213 (NE synchronisms and not enough years opened up to consider the next option, 1254-1188), to which reigns do you propose we should add yet another decade? The 1279 accession for Ramesses II already includes some padding.

Anyway, back to the TIP... Let us be easy on old age say that Osorkon 'III' did become king in Year 6 of the second Hedjkheperre Shoshenq. In that case he would reign (in my estimate) 790-763/. Since he must have been at least nearing 20 when he was sent by his father Takelot II to Thebes in Year 11 (826), he would have been born not much later than 846. If he died in 763 (his last attested Year 28), he would have been approaching 83. So I did miscalculate. Although high, this is not an impossible age.

I would not worry about attributing a long reign to Takelot III. Given his father's advanced years (which apparently necessitated at least 5 years of associate rule), Takelot III is likely to have been a mature man himself when he came to the throne. He need not have reigned long to have seen his grand-children and great-grandchildren. If Osorkon 'III' had succeeded his father directly, he would have reigned for 76 years (812-763) -- more than Louis XIV -- and, like Ramesses II's, his heirs could be expected to be short-lived.

This is not to say that Year 14 should not be attributed to Takelot III, for which you have independent grounds. But if Takelot III is the king whose Year 19 appears at Wadi-Gasus, Piankhy's Year 12 would fall in 754, and Piankhy's campaign (Year 20-21) in 746-745.

If we accept Year 14 as a date of Takelot III, we would now have:
Osorkon III 790-763/ (accepting Year 5 of Hedjkheperre)
Takelot III 767-754
Rudamun 754-?
Piankhy 746-721 (accepting 25 years instead of 30)
His Year 12 will = 735 and his Year 21 will = 726.

Year 19 (occurring in 735) can now belong to either a long-lived but poorly attested Rudamun (754-735/) or to Nimlot I(754-726/), who would have either succeeded Takelot III alongside Rudamun, or could still have succeeded a very ephemeral Rudamun (754).

Given the connections between Nimlot and the family of Osorkon 'III', it seems to me that his probable son Djehutyemhat's statue at Thebes does not necessarily indicate political control, but rather a dedication to a pan-Egyptian sanctuary with close family association to the kings of Hermopolis. Now if Djehutyemhat had taken to decorating temple walls and building shrines and portals, then political control would be a virtually inevitable conclusion.

On the British Museum bandage with a defective date of Piankhy, have you read Kitchen's comments about Redford's reading? He explicitly denies the possibility of reading 40, because the space where one of the four tens should have been located is vacant. On the other hand he notes that the traces next to the visible 20 are compatible with one more ten. Anyway, I am not opposed to a slightly shorter reign for Piankhy, but just want to be sure this is accepted on solid grounds.

Best, Ian

  • 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 Kushites — Ian, Thu Jun 26 21:49
      • 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
                  • Wadi Gasus, Takelot III and JF's offerLeo, Sat Jun 28 02:38
                    Hello JF, Fred and All, JF, an offer of help from you wld be appreciated concerning just the Broekeman paper. You stated that there were Four articles of deep interest to you in the more recent JEA... more
Click here to receive daily updates