Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2
Fri Feb 24, 2017 18:05
81.151.216.165

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 and 30-38. These gaps and the struggle over the HPA office they imply are unfortunately real and Ockham's razor is no help."
But it is. 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. He mentions opposition in Thebes in his last attestation, in 39 Sheshonq III. But we have no reason to suppose, because there is an hiatus in his dated attestations between 29 and 39 Sheshonq, that he was out of Thebes, or out of power, all this time. In each instance he survives his opponents and emerges victorious.

"Osorkon B presence at Thebes ends in year 39 of Shoshenq III when he claimed some sort of victory over his rival, clearly shortlived or there would additional attestations afterwards."
Firstly, he claims a complete victory, not some sort of victory. No specific rival is even intimated. You cannot construe a shortlived victory from the fact that he was in Thebes long enough to set up his inscription, and not have it erased by this mysterious rival. The attestations do not continue because shortly after he elevates himself to kingship (whilst still holding 1PA). This kingship is attested where? At Thebes. So why assume he left to go anywhere?
There is no "long conflict". A war of this nature would have left its mark in many ways, including I would have thought erasure of inscriptions, but also polarisation of the clergy and local military. Your war of the high priests lasts, with intermissions, about 60 years. This would have become legendary and left its traces in many ways.

"As I said, Osorkon B became king at Tanis not at Thebes but his reign was recognized there."
One of these kings called Osorkon had a tomb at Thebes. We don't know which one, because it has not been identified, but none of your kings called Osorkon has any reason to be buried there. I cannot see why the reverse should not be true i.e. he became king at Thebes, a city he was apparently obsessed with controlling for 60 years, and was briefly recognised also at Tanis. The king Osorkon in Piye's stela actually controls Bubastis, and Tanis itself is oddly absent from the list of tributary / subjugated / visited sites. Also oddly the period Osorkon III is attested at Thebes (years 2, 3, 5 = 787/784) is partly coincident with the period Piye is attested at Thebes (years 19/24 = 785/778). Piye is claiming to be in control of Thebes as early as year 4 (800) and to have his own tame 1PA there. Does not seem to fit well, if at all.

Regards

Kim

  • 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 1Kim Sargerson, Sat Mar 4 10:11
            Hi Tory "So you and Marianne have had issues with this Fabian Boudville cat on EEF?" I cannot speak for Marianne's experience with the gentleman. My experience is that not only does he not listen to... more
            • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Sun Mar 5 05:22
              Hi Kim, So FB stands for full of bullshit. Got it. Thanks. "pCarlsberg only allows you to predict a lunation 25 years in advance, not weeks in advance, and it is only good for 500 years." Simply not... more
              • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Sun Mar 5 16:14
                Hi Tory ""If" you start the missing entry of the first month of the cycle with psdntwy on I-3kt 1 in the first year of the cycle..." The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a... more
                • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Sun Mar 5 21:20
                  Hi Kim The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a different day in each of these years. So the "if" is not really applicable, unless you are in year 1 of the cycle. All the other... more
    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2 — Kim Sargerson, Fri Feb 24 18:05
      • 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 2Tory, Thu Mar 2 01:45
            Hi Kim continued from previous The absence of descendants of a king who never ruled or lived in Thebes is no surprise. Or is Tukulti-Mer, king of Asshur, to be identified as Takelot-Mer(yamun)? So... more
            • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 2Kim Sargerson, Sat Mar 4 10:23
              Continuation: "So the absence in Thebes of descendants of Takeloth III is a surprise? Osorkon III is only a king because of an assumption that he is Osorkon B." I cannot make any sense of either... more
Click here to receive daily updates