Tory
Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronology
Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:21
112.198.71.121

Hi Jamie:

I’m afraid I can’t comment on Ad’s theory to separate king Pinudjem from HPA Pinudjem I until I’ve read his views. But I certainly do not put much stock in “12 kings of Diospolis” for the 20th dynasty from the hand of a Roman period author in Egypt.

P. Turin Cat. 2034 can’t easily be year 1 of wHm-mswt = year 9 (of Ramesses X). The document has dates in the following order:

year 17, IV [x], day 11 (recto C 1; or III [x], day 11)
IV Prt, day 29 (recto C 3)
year 1 of the wHm-mswt = year 9, IV 3ht, day 5 (verso A 1)
year 17, IV Prt, day 2 (verso B)

The last date looks like a forgotten entry, added to the end of the document shortly after the wHm-mswt count commenced. If this is what the scribe is doing and there is a 9-year reign of Ramesses X why are there no entries at all for years 1-8 of Ramesses X? Much more sense if we assume he only lasted 3 years. His highest full date is year 3, II 3ḫt 2 and Ramesses XI came to the throne the same year on III Šmw 20. A king cannot logically say his year 1 is a rebirth if this is the first year 1 he’s ever had. Remember, the wHm-mswt formula is linked to year numbers, which implies it is the renewal of the king’s year count. This part of the conventional wisdom is sound. Terry didn’t like this because he assumed it had no precedence in Egypt, but it probably does with Seti I, and Ramesses XI adopted his prenomen.

I don’t think year 1 = 19 is necessarily a co-regency. It is an overlap but its not a “co-regency” unless the two kings share the same capital and the same administration officials.

The way “Manetho” writes the name of Senusret I from the 12th dynasty is one of the reasons I don’t believe this work was authored by a native Egyptian priest in the 3rd century BCE. “Sesonchosis” is nothing other than the Libyan name Shoshenq. No way around it. The Libyan pharaoh ends up as the founder of the 12th dynasty, at the place where Senusret I belongs, because the Agyptiaka was authored by a late Roman period writer who misunderstood a king list fragment which had the order: “Amenemope, (then) Shoshenq.” He assumed this to mean: “Sesonchosis, son of Amenemes.” This is clearly what happened, in my opinion, and how a Libyan pharaoh who reigned almost 50 years fell out of the 21st dynasty and got thrown back into the 12th dynasty by mistake. So the Greek data I was referring to is not just Sothis.

I don’t agree Shoshenq I should be the start of a new dynasty. Why doesn’t a new dynasty begin with Osorkon (the Elder)? Besides, Smendes I was probably Libyan anyway. Payankh, Herihor, Pinudjem, Psusennes I, etc., all Libyans. One of these Libyan kings gave his daughter to Šalamō (Solomon) -- a no-no for a pharaoh with patrilineal roots in the Nile Valley. The 20th dynasty was the last truly native Egyptian dynasty.

I still have not seen the “World Chronology.” It is not a Manethonian fragment?

Tashepenbast was the daughter of a Shoshenq with no prenomen and I still say that indicates he was the first king of that name in his dynasty. Shoshenq II/C began a new dynasty at Bubastis. So, applying the same criteria, I cannot say Nesbanebdjed III and Iuwelot cannot be sons of Osorkon I. He was the first Osorkon of the new dynasty. The newly discovered HPA Pinudjem son of KING Psusennes Meriamun removed the need to put Nesbanebdjed III and Iuwelot in the previous dynasty.

Regards
Tory

  • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyJaime O, Mon Dec 19 16:17
    Hi Tory, I appreciate your reply. "To be honest, although I greatly respect Thijs I have not read all of his papers. I do not agree with him, and others, that the one explict text linking the first... more
    • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronology — Tory, Tue Dec 20 11:21
      • Re: HPAs and 21st dynasty chronologyJaime O, Wed Dec 21 16:03
        Hi Tory I appreciate your further comments. " I’m afraid I can’t comment on Ad’s theory to separate king Pinudjem from HPA Pinudjem I until I’ve read his views. " I haven't read all, just a few,... more
        • ΣέσογχωσιςTory, Wed Dec 21 18:21
          Hi Jamie: Σέσογχωσις (Sesonchosis) is the Libyan name Shoshenq. So your question avoids the obvious one which is why is the name Senusret I deleted... more
          • Re: Σέσογχωσι&#Jaime O, Thu Dec 22 07:51
            Hi Tory, Thanks again for the reply. "Where did Senusret I go? He got turned into Shoshenq I." Your theory of having Shoshenq I in between mid-21st Dynasty makes more sense to me as this discussion... more
            • ΣέσογχωσιςTory, Thu Dec 22 21:02
              Hi Jaime: If anyone can explain to me what possessed Manetho to put Σέσογχωσις, Άμμανέμου... more
              • SesonchosisJaime O, Sat Dec 24 06:48
                Dear Tory, I appreciate your reply. "If anyone can explain to me what possessed Manetho to put Σέσογχωσις,... more
                • Re: SesonchosisTory, Sun Dec 25 19:21
                  Jaime: Nesipaqashuty. Not sure what you mean. He is not beyond 100 in later Siamun. Nesipaqashuty (i) does not make it to Siamun. The year 5 mention (burial of Neskhons) of Nesipaqashuty (i) is... more
                  • Re: SesonchosisJaime O, Sat Dec 31 12:37
                    Hi Tory First of all, happy new year. For you and everyone else on this forum. On Nesipaqashuty. I messed this one badly; my bad here. Thanks for clarifying. In theory, it is not impossible that... more
                    • Re: SesonchosisTory, Mon Jan 2 11:14
                      Hi Jaime: If he is not Shoshenq III then there are no monuments, no door jambs, no lintels, no walls, no temples, no priestly annals, no donation stelae, no geneaologies, no scarabs, no tomb, and no... more
            • re: OrusRich McQuillen, Thu Dec 22 08:44
              "You're totally right about Orus and other names." -- We have a possible lead from the Greeks on an Orus who was a king, about at that time. "Orus 1. The first king of the Troezenians, whose land was ... more
              • re: OrusJaime O, Thu Dec 22 15:57
                Dear Rich, "We have a possible lead from the Greeks on an Orus who was a king, about at that time. [...] This is a vague reference; the name does look like the Egyptian Horus. This could be some... more
          • re: TwosretRich McQuillen, Thu Dec 22 01:13
            Hi Tory, Your article is almost entirely correct and a wonderful and nearly prototypical read for any Historian. Manetho does have flaws and different versions have different flaws. And it is hard to ... more
            • re: TwosretTory, Thu Dec 22 02:19
              Hi Rich Twosret was indeed a pharaoh, not a governor of some Libyan nome. But she does not have to be female-pharaoh in Egypt at the time of the Torjan war unless one is trying to salvage the... more
Click here to receive daily updates