Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites
Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:39

Hi Tory

Ian Mladjov (once a regular contributor to this forum) has an article in Birmingham Egyptlogy journal, which can be downloaded free here

In it he discusses the transition from Dynasty 20 to Dynasty 21, and posits an alternative to Thijs' theory of Painedjem I (the king), suggesting a poorly attested Ramesses XII in whose brief reign Herihor and Smendes controlled upper and lower Egypt before becoming kings themselves.

On your dates for the Saites, I can see no immediate problem. The question of how they counted regnal years has always seemed to me to be unsatisfactory, and the removal of "year 2" of a king Psametjik from consideration as Psametjik III (6 months in Greek sources) means that there is no longer any genuine evidence to support the antedating theory, as the other data, concerning the Apis bulls, can fit either antedating or the usual royal year dating.

I agree that Parker's interpretation of a lunar date, and Depuydt's reversal of the dates by employing a lunar calendar based on full moons, are wide of the mark. The only possible "lunar calendar" from pharaonic times is the Ebers calendar, and I am more inclined to see this as a "Hyksos calendar" (solar but with no epagomenal days).

At the moment I think that Egyptians used a period of 59 days to cover 2 successive lunations, with a very occasional 60 day period to correct this. The actual precise occurrence of no moons and full moons were probably observed but the "lunar calendar" was stylistic and fixed. It was not a calendar in everyday use, just a system used by the temples to coordinate service days and some festivals, that is, in a predictive fashion. Astronomically calculated phases are not necessarily coincident with this "calendar" but cannot be more than one solar calendar day out.

I will need time to study your revised chronology. Many thanks for all the detail. My comments about the unique sequence of king 1, king 2 (father in law of 1), king 3 (son of 1) were based on what is probably a previous incarnation.

Just a few specific notes on this third section:

"So I don’t see a different approximation for Šedsunefertum’s career resulting from my dates."
Actually it does. The floruit generated is c915/890. This does overlap with your dates for Sheshonq II.

"The Greek-speaking literary world of Diodorus hadn’t yet learned about any kings of Egypt named Sheshonq, Osorkon, and Takeloth"
Besides the point. You were arguing that more well known (to Greeks) names such as Necho etc. were recorded, so there would be no difficulty in recording "another Sheshonq, another Osorkon" in the same fashion. I was simply saying that a long litany of such names, with no actions recorded, would be readily abbreviated out of existence.

"Thus we do know where he didn’t die: Lower Egypt."
But you explicitly claimed that the text stated he died in Upper Egypt, which is simply not correct.

"“went up” means the king died..."
I agree. I mentioned the other alternative only to cover previous attempts to explain or translate. The discrepancy between the two versions is not simply one of title, but also where he was when the battle of Raphia was fought. If you downdate the kingship and death of SIPA in this way, then his flight from Lower Egypt (as king) becomes of questionable timing also. Both versions cannot be "right" at the same time. So if he was not a king at the time of the battle, but later on, then there is no reason to suppose he was not present at the battle. In that case the "flight" would be from the battle, not from Lower Egypt.

There is a complete absence of any evidence from Egypt that Shabaka reigned longer than year 15, or that Lower Egypt came under the control of Assyrian governors at this early a date. People have looked, so the "absence of evidence" mantra does not apply. We have a fairly full record of Shabaka's yeardates, especially years 10-15. This may not be absolute proof that he did not reign longer, but it is evidence.



  • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 7 03:12
    Kim wrote: Ok. Does this now mean that you have an “undated” Apis bull between 2 Shabaka and 14 Taharqa, which are separated by 32-33 years? Is the “year 4” docket doing its duty in everyone's theory ... more
    • Re: Libyans and KushitesKim Sargerson, Mon Feb 20 14:31
      Hi Tory I have now had a chance to go through your massive and detailed presentation. First, the minor corrections that I have picked up on, that you might want to incorporate in case they lead to... more
      • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 21 09:21
        Hi Kim, On the members of Dynasty 21: I am certain your Painedjem II is a phantom created by a miswriting of a single bandage. If it is not, then he must be moved earlier in date, as his father is... more
      • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 21 03:24
        Hi Kim Thank you for your reply and these minor corrections to my Saite chronology. I was in bit of a rush. As I said, my wife uses a stop watch every time I sit down at the computer to do historical ... more
        • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Tue Feb 21 10:50
          Ooops Year 20 Apries, II-smw 10 (P. BM 10113, Thebes) (Oct 12, 567), this is the highest known date for Apries. Nebuchadnezzar II stormed Thebes and sacked it (Nov, 567) shortly after previous date.... more
          • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Wed Feb 22 17:19
            Hi Tory "these minor corrections to my Saite chronology." The finding of the mistakes is in no way an attempt to invalidate or criticise, quite the reverse. I know from experience the embarassment of ... more
            • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Wed Feb 22 23:15
              Hi Kim My wife is one of those who would prefer I go to the casino since there is chance I would actually leave with more money than I came. Lapdancers? Same thing. Hardware store? Another word for... more
              • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Fri Feb 24 17:46
                Hi Tory Re: Saite chronology. Sorry, it was me missing something. Although you changed the detailed dates you kept the summary statement of reign period (e.g. "Apries (587-568) accession I-3kt 24... more
                • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Sun Feb 26 02:22
                  Hi Kim He apparently has quit Egyptology so I have not bothered to contact him, but what Koenraad Donker van Heel said in his book and what he reiterated to Krauss is that the P. Louvre 7848 was... more
                  • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Wed Mar 1 15:15
                    Hi Tory Sorry I mentioned the Ramesses article at all now. My thanks to you and Marianne for seeing off Fabian Boudville in style. I do however recommend Ian's article on the subject, if you have not ... more
                    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Wed Mar 1 23:21
                      Hi Kim So you and Marianne have had issues with this Fabian Boudville cat on EEF? I get the digest but I don't have time to read every mail inside. Why commence the writing of a document then set it... more
                • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Kim Sargerson, Fri Feb 24 18:05
                  continued... "Takeloth E/F only finds a supporter in Pedubast II AFTER the death of Shoshenq III. Where he was during years 22-29 need no more be an exile than where Osorkon B was during years 6-21... more
                  • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Tory, Sun Feb 26 04:21
                    continued ... The gaps are not real. Osorkon B mentions an opponent who tried to claim 1PA only once, at the very beginning of his account. He never mentions such an opponent again. Yes but that does ... more
                    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Kim Sargerson, Wed Mar 1 15:17
                      Hi Tory continued from part 1... "Nor do these genealogies mention Shilkanni, but he is in the generation I place him." Nor do they mention king Ping of Zhou. Your king Takelot II has an abundance of ... more
            • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Kim Sargerson, Wed Feb 22 17:24
              ...continued "Tashepenbast was the daughter of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I. Her son the vizier Nesipakashuti A, son of 3PA Djedthutefankh, died under Usermaatre Shoshenq. My Shoshenq II is king at... more
              • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Tory, Thu Feb 23 00:05
                Hi Kim if Nimlot C is not an ancestor of Pasenhor B, remind me what he (and his wife) is doing in this list of ancestors... Because Wedjptahankhef’s wife Tentsepeh was the royal daughter of Osorkon... more
    • Re: Libyans and Kushites — Kim Sargerson, Mon Feb 13 11:39
      • Re: Libyans and KushitesTory, Wed Feb 15 20:48
        Hi Kim I will have to look at Ian's paper, but since it appears to be a criticism of Thijs' work I don't know how much it will shed any new light on what we already know. "It was not a calendar in... more
    • Addendum: a mangled Saite DistanzangabeTory, Tue Feb 7 08:57
      The stela Tawfik discovered and published by Handoussa states that the priest Psamtek was born in Year 1 of Nekau II, III-smw 1, and that he died in Year 27, IV-3kt 28. His lifespan is given as 65... more
Click here to receive daily updates