Jaime O
Re: Sesonchosis
Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:37
95.95.208.52

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 Shoshenq II/C had changed his pronomen to Usermaatre by the time Nesipaqashuty died, and kept changing until he attained Hedjkheperre in honor of a predecessor. However, few pharaohs ever altered their pronomens (during the New Kingdom, only three - Akhenaten, Ramses IV and Siptah - did it); more evidence should be required before arguing for such a change. By postulating that Usermaatre was once used by Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, you get rid of one individual (Usermaatre, who poses a serious problem for the standard chronology) but invent another one, a HPA Harsiese, whereas we can only safely verify one, during the time of Pedubast I. On my model, Nesipaqashuty would die just a bit older, somewhere close to his 70s; I have Usermaatre as the last of the 3 kings for 25 years. May I ask what is your take on these 3 kings? Your chronology seems to prefer Eusebius by having a smooth transition from Sekhemkheperre Osorkon to Hedjkheperre Takelot.

"I think you misunderstand the case for Iny. The argument Kitchen makes is that what Djedioh, grandson of Djedioh, scribbled on the roof of the Khonsu temple is a mere graffito and not an official royal inscription. He dated it year 5 and used Osorkon’s hypocoristic Iny. This is the pet form of the king’s name, similar to Ramesses II’s pet name Sessy."

I don't argue against Libyans pharaohs using pet names. But Yoyotte argued long ago that Louvre C100, which mentions king Mn-hpr-R' [...]y, belongs to Iny; this seems to have become basic knowledge among scholars, plus no actual evidence of Piye using Menkheperre as his own pronomen. Either way, Iny Meriamun is not known to have a pronomen from the inscriptions that actually name him.

"On Berlin 23673. The Memphite genealogy of priests has never made more sense to me as it does now. A small adjustment here. I move Amonemnisut from 1007-1003 up to 1052-1048 so that he precedes Psusennes I as in the standard interpretation."

How were people to assume that the entries of King Psusennes were actually mentioning the same king as Aakheperre Setepenamun? Specially since he was not the only king in the dynasty to have used that pronomen. The king Aakheperre Setepenamun fits better a pharaoh who must have been recognized by the sole use of his pronomen and who was succeed by one or two rulers named Pasebakhaniut. We have a king who did this, and he came about a generation or so before Siamun, who was in turn quickly succeeded by a Psusennes. He is commonly identified with Manetho's Osochor. This reasoning fits the Greek data, which has a Nephercheres = Neferkare [Amunemnisut] succeeding Psusennes I, not predeceasing him. You also seem to have extended Psusennes I reign again, this time to 45 years.

"This is how HPA Nesbanebdjed II was able to dedicate the bracelets found in Psusennes I's burial even though Menkheperre was HPA in the first year of Amonemnisut. This problem which besets all other chronologies is now solved in mine without overlapping the HPA-ships of Menkheperre and Nesbanebdjed II."

There is no factual proof that Menkheperre was HPA under Amunemnisut. Amunemnisut's existence is only attested by bow caps; he appears alongside Psusennes I, which means he was either his coregent or his predecessor with whom Psusennes wanted to be associated. Amunemnisut could have succeeded Psusennes I directly too, and donated the bow caps during the burial. Whatever the case, Psusennes I is the only person to whom Amunemnisut is explicitly connected. The model I proposed on this thread, like all my models before, does not overlap HPAs, and yet, Menkheperre serves Psusennes I and Amonemnisut and dies before Psusennes I, allowing Nesubanebdjed II to offer bracelets to the latter. The closest that there is of an attestation of Menkheperre and Amonemnisut is the standard interpretation of Louvre C. 256, which dates Year [1-5] to the latter's reign. But the only thing that we can conclude from this stele is there was a rebellion in a Year 25 and the rebels were pardoned afterwards, at the beginning of another king's reign, presumably the successor of the ruler to whom Year 25 belongs. To what 'first year' are you referring to?

"On the Greek Papyrus Leipzig Inv. 590. This document is dated to the 2nd century CE."

My bad (again). The first time I read about some months ago, I read 2nd Century BCE, and I have been thinking about ever since in the context of that century.

"The orthodox order Šobaka-Šobatka holds no genuine problems. Those so-called problems are illusions. The Assyrian inscriptions and Kawa Stelae support the traditional order."

The Assyrian inscriptions won't actually play along. Seals of Shabaka were found in the late 19th Century by Layard during excavations he made at the palace of Sennacherib in Nineveh. According to the annals of Sargon II, the Yamani incident was the first contact between the Assyrians and the Kushites; the Tang-i Var rock inscription names the Kushite king of Meluhha as Shapataku. Had Shabataka been the first contact between Assyria and Kush, then Shabaka's names shouldn't appear at the palace of Sennacherib. This makes more sense if Shabaka was alive at the time of the clash of 701, and afterwards, to sign peace between Egypt and Assyria. My interpretation of this is that Sargon II confronted an Egyptian army in 720, Sib'u was a general and Pi'ru of Egypt was one of the Delta princes Piye subdued; by 712, Shabataka was already king and he received Yamani at his court, only to extradite him later, in 707/706. Shabaka succeeded shortly after, in 704.

Outside of Assyria. There is the Papyrus Louvre E3228c, which discusses the payments made for a war slave in Year 7 of Shabaka and Year 2 of Taharka, and later again in Year 6 of Taharka; this spans a time of 40 and 45 years in your model, during which all participants must have been alive. There is also the pylon of the small temple at Medinet Habu, which was finished by Taharqa but began by Shabaka. 25 years separate the ascension of the former and the death of the latter in your model. Similarly, CG 42204, made by HPA Haremakhet, names the priest as son of Shabaka, confident of Taharqa and director of the palace under Tanutamun, but Shabataka is absent. At light of this, the Kawa Stelae can be interpreted as mentioning two trips to Egypt made by Taharqa at different times.

The EKL might be useful for this time, as you use it, but these anomalies are no illusion and they need to be reconsidered.

Best wishes,
Jaime

  • 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: Sesonchosis — Jaime O, Sat Dec 31 12:37
      • 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: SesonchosisJaime O, Sat Jan 7 18:41
          Hi Tory, thank you for the reply. "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... more
          • Re: SesonchosisKim Sargerson, Sun Jan 8 12:46
            Hi Jime, Tory In post 16339 on 7/4/2016 Tory wrote "I argue Taharqa became a real king of Kush when his father died, but king in the Kushite definition and more or less "chieftain" from the Egyptian... more
          • Re: SesonchosisRobert P. Killian, Sun Jan 8 09:15
            Jaime, Tory and Kim, Question,---was 732BC, the 13th year of the Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser III? Question,---was 732BC, the death year of Retzin, King of Damascus? Question,---was 732BC, the death ... more
            • Re: SesonchosisJaime O, Sun Jan 8 16:10
              Hi Bob, thank you for your questions. Allow me to respond for myself. A) 732 BCE was the 13th year of Tiglath-Pileser III's reign. It is not my belief that any dates lower that 911 BCE (Adad-Nirari... more
              • Re SesonchosisRobert P. Killian, Mon Jan 9 00:39
                Hi Jaime O Thanks for answering my list of questions. A) 732 BCE, was 13th year of Tiglath-Pileser III's reign. B) Retzin of Damascus died in 732 BCE. Did Pekah die too? I do have 701 BCE, for... more
Click here to receive daily updates