Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Sun Feb 26, 2017 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 drawn up on I-smw 21 in year 12 Amasis and the oath swearing ceremony was to be taken 22 days in the future. The parties could not have known if II-smw 13 would be a full moon in advance. So what I'm saying is I-smw 21 is the date the document began to be inscribed. The conflict between the parties is what was mentioned at this date. Then when II-smw 13 came around and the conflict was resolved and the details about the resolution was added to the document. This is why the phrase "it is we who have caused" is used. So there still is no "emphatic future" but II-smw 13/smdt year 12 is after I-smw 21 year 12.

There is really no such thing as a "schematic lunar calendar" that corresponds to actual lunations unless a new one is drawn up every 3 or 6 years. According to Belmonte, and I agree, Tepy Shemu falls wherever it falls in the civil calendar. This is not a lunar calendar but only a lunar computus.

everyone seems prepared to assume it is a "lunar date". The main difference is whether it is embedded in a purely solar calendar, or in a more general lunar calendar.

It is a lunar date. Today is also a "lunar date" in the Gregorian calendar.

Tanutamun. He was succeeded in Kush by Atlanersa and I am not so sure this is the correct way to pronounce his name, however he would be a close relative and most likely Tanutamun's son. The EKL calls him "Tomadyon" (12 years) and gives him the alternate name Piankhy. With the Dream Stela showing Tanutamun in Memphis, with no apparent plans to vacate Egypt anytime soon, I include Psamtik I among those kings who came to submit to him at Memphis. I assume further that Tanutamun allowed Psamtik I to send his daughter to be adopted at Thebes. Kush would be ruled by Tanutamun's son since his father's year 4/5.

You say Piankhy has a daughter who was a Gods Wife Shepenwepet. Where are these statements? They are not part of the Nitocris Stele.

"There is no rule but what we make from the evidence. There is a ton of material showing that persons of royal birth did not omit the royal title from their parent. There is a ton of material showing that private individuals, of whatever rank, frequently omitted any or all titles of their parent. Equating the two groups and invoking "not...ever" is poor argument."

Not a poor argument at all. Nothing happens until it happens. I'm merely rejecting the presumption not any of the facts used to create and justify it. Of all the pendants found Menkheperre is the only HPA to put his name inside a cartouche and add it to pendants. So he is not like his father who gave up HPA to become king. Menkheperre was an HPA who became king and remained HPA. That his children omitted this fact doesn't really change anything.

"All the assumptions here are being made by you, not me, and I am sticking carefully to what is known from these scraps of genealogical data, rather than postulating improbables and unprovables."

But you've assumed Taharqa is the only child simply because he is the only attested child of Abar. That's not sticking carefully to the data. It is reading into the data as well. All I assume is that Abar was the full-sister wife of Kashta, and their mother was Alara's younger sister. She was still able to have children when Kastha died and she married his son/her step-son, i.e. Taharqa's father and Shobatka's father. There is nothing remotely improbable in these inferences from the data. The argument of "natural assumption" is a useful tool, but it is only a tool. It has it shortcomings.

I can cite a large number of cases where a deposed prince was executed, died in prison, or exile, throughout history.

The only case that would have any bearing is one where the country is divided into separate regimes, as Egypt was when he was kicked out of Thebes. Osorkon B was not deposed by a king who then ruled the whole country. He was marginalized by a king and his HPA who controlled only a part of the country. It just so happened to be the part where Osorkon B's work as HPA needed to take place.

So it is not a new administration, Sheshonq I did not usurp the throne.

No. It is a new administration. "Dynasty 21" is Manetho's label. We use it but we should use it cautiously and critically. Amasis was a completely new dynasty/administration, yet Manetho would disagree in his ignorance. I don't know and you don't know if the accession of Shoshenq I was a usurpation or not. On the conventional model he needs to legitimize himself and the future of his dynasty. One way he supposedly did this was by marrying his son to his predecessor's daughter. I can mention several instances in history where similar events happened when the incoming king was a usurper.

Ah, no. Your dates for Osorkon I 874-859, year 10 = 865/4. Your dates for Iuwelot as 1PA, 861-855. The above construction is possible, I agree, but then you are stuck with year 14 of the 1PA Nesbanebdjed III.

My royal dates may be fixed, but Iuwelot as HPA is only a range and just approximate. His time as HPA falls in the range ca. 861-855. HPA Nesbanebdjed III is still HPA in year 8 (867) and Osorkon B is installed/inducted in 849 (year 11 of Takeloth I/II). If I have to I can easily move the year 14 HPA Nesbanebdjed III back into Shoshenq II if the year 10 date on the Aspanage Stele is not recalling the year Iuwelot gave the land to his son. The text cannot be used to force the view that he was already HPA when he gave the land to his son.

None of these early Saite period genealogies attest to a king Osorkon in the generation you place him at.

Nor do these genealogies mention Shilkanni, but he is in the generation I place him.

I agree with you in disagreeing with out Ritner has reconstructed the Khonsu genealogy but I see no reason to believe something is wrong about it.

"Tyetkheperre Shoshenq is attested at Bubastis before any other Shoshenq according to Troy Sagrillo."

And this is based on what? Stratigraphy, with a lot of other Sheshonqs attested at higher/later levels?

Yes it is based on stratigraphy and later Shoshenqs, none of whom are Shoshenq I, found at later levels. This is why the "discoverer" of Tyetkheperre Shoshenq has not suggested a position for him later than Shoshenq III.

So he is not an ancestor. So he has no business being listed, without a connecting passage (e.g. "Tentsepeh, sister by the same parents of Nimlot", compare the insertion of Menkheperre in the T. Khonsu genealogy discussed above).

You seem to be speaking directly on behalf of the family? Nimlot C is an ancestor. In any family tree, we choose to mention people who hold important and ignore people we do not regard as important. Nimlot C and his wife were important members of Pasenhor B's family tree or he would not mention them. He's not just tracing his bloodline but also the line's connection to Herakleopolis.

Of course, I discount the "Manetho" lists in the same fashion, covering the same period. You yourself discount vast swathes of the EKL itself. I was referring to contemporary (with the period, not necessarily with the exact date) evidence which has to be shoehorned, or discounted, or "explained" in an unsatisfactory manner.

I guess the next question is which king lists do you then accept since none of the existing ones are contemporary with any of periods they discuss? Yes I do reject "vast swathes" of the EKL. I also reject "vast swathes" of the Sumerian king list, and for similar reasons.

The only 1PA who bewails the fact that other people are getting in the way of his rightful power is Osorkon B. We assume, for example, that the 1PA Iuput, attested in years 10, 11 and 21 of his father Sheshonq, had an uninterrupted tenure from year 10 to year 21 at the least, because this is the kind of level of information we are likely to get for one individual.

But Iuput never bewails being denied entry into Thebes. So I do not assume his tenure as HPA was interrupted between years 10 and 21. Who does? I have no idea why Osorkon B's annals weren't defaced but if he really was present in Thebes during years 6-21 and 30-39 of Shoshenq III then what happened and why does he stop recording donations? I don't agree these gaps are not real and lack support simply because the rival of Osorkon B left his annals alone.

continued ...

  • 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 1 — Tory, Sun Feb 26 02:22
      • 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 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 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