Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Wed Mar 1, 2017 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 had a chance to read it yet, as it seems well reasoned and researched.

To continue in response to your points from last week:

"...van Heel said ..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."
Why commence the writing of a document then set it aside for an unspecified period?
"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."
See above. Aside from it being impossible for a lunation designated "I Shemu" to begin as late as I Shemu 28/29 in the solar calendar, the sequence of events makes no sense.

"There is really no such thing as a "schematic lunar calendar" that corresponds to actual lunations"
A schematic system of lunations, as instanced in both pCarlsberg of much later date, and the service periods of 12th dynasty, much earlier in date, will rarely be off, and never by more than one day, from a pure astronomical new moon and full moon. Most modern astronomically based computations are prepared to be off by more than this, allowing for "observer error".

"According to Belmonte, and I agree, Tepy Shemu falls wherever it falls in the civil calendar."
But if each successive lunation in the civil calendar received its name from the civil month in which it fell, there would have to be two lunations in a prior month, in that civil year, the second of which was called what? wgy? Blue Moon?
Tepy Shemu does not simply fall when it falls, but is connected to previous lunations with preceding names in each calendar year. I need to think about this some more, as no solution seems especially convincing here.

"It is a lunar date. Today is also a "lunar date" in the Gregorian calendar."
No, it isn't. For it to be a lunar date there would have to be some reference to the phase of the moon. In just referring to a Gregorian date, there is no such reference.

"He was succeeded in Kush by Atlanersa ... 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."
I cannot see any way of making Tomadyon Piyankhiy into Atlanersa (or Atranelsa or however it was pronounced). Just because this name is in that position does not mean it is the same ruler. At this point or shortly after the list diverges from what it known, in both names and reigns. I can identify Aspelta, Nastasen and Harsiotef, but the latter, for example, has a reign of 12 in the EKL, but a year 33 is known from his own inscriptions.

"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."
The Adoption stela refers to Psametjik as "king of Upper Egypt" (line 12) and his gifts to his daughter include lands in the first 7 nomes of Upper Egypt. There is no reference to or implication that there is any other king allowing Psametjik to do all this.
Psametjik may very well have been among those who paid court to Tanutamun in the events of the Dream Stele. But by his own year 9, Tanutamun is not in control of Upper Egypt, unless it is only the portion south of Thebes. When Psametjik makes a point of saying that he will not depose Shepenwepet, the implication is that he did have the power to do this, and chose not to, rather than the opposite.

"You say Piankhy has a daughter who was a Gods Wife Shepenwepet. Where are these statements?"
There are several, on statues, scarabs in various European museums, and on inscriptions at Karnak. See conveniently Livre des Rois 4, pp25-28 (daughter of Piankhi II according to Gauthier)

"Nothing happens until it happens. I'm merely rejecting the presumption"
No, you are claiming that absence of direct evidence, in the form of a sworn affidavit signed by every Egyptian pharaonic official who ever wrote a line of text, justifies assuming something which there is no other evidence for.
If this is the foundation of your argument, then I am happy to put forward the notion that Menkheperre had all the trappings of a king without being one. It is just as untraditional a notion, although "shadow kings" have fallen out of scholastic favour lately.

"Of all the pendants found Menkheperre is the only HPA to put his name inside a cartouche and add it to pendants."
He also puts his name in cartouche elsewhere. He is not the only man to put his name in a cartouche who was not a king. All those who did seem to have been doubly royal, that is, both father and mother's father were kings. They also appear to be high priests (Menkheperre of Amun, Ahmose of Re, Amunhotep of Ptah, Sheshonq Q of Amun).

"But you've assumed Taharqa is the only child simply because he is the only attested child of Abar."
I have made no such assumption. The assumption I do make is that two successive female generations will not average 35+ years when the end product (Taharqa) was considered eligible for the throne.

"All I assume is that Abar was the full-sister wife of Kashta, and their mother was Alara's younger sister."
The younger full sister of Alara, and also his wife, was the mother of Abar, and was dedicated to Amun when pregnant with Abar, according to Kawa VI, and this was when Alara was already king. No need for inferences or assumptions.
The only inference required here is that Alara is also the father of Abar, which is implicit but not explicit. Who Taharqa's father was, and what relation he was to Abar, is also not stated.

"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."
I was talking about Psusennes III being the son of Painedjem III, nothing to do with Osorkon B here or a divided country. You have Painedjem III leaving office as 1PA in 996, then living unmolested in obscurity until at least 970 (when Psusennes III is born). It is this circumstance, not anything to do wih Osorkon B, that is difficult to find a parallel for.

""Dynasty 21" is Manetho's label. We use it but we should use it cautiously and critically."
Agreed, fair point. In that case I suggest you jettison Psusennes III as a son of Painedjem III and attach him to Psusennes II instead. Do we have a filiation for him? I suspect not. Cannot see any reason why the new ruling class would employ a member of the old as 1PA, when there are plenty of sons running around who would do. This obviates the need for the lifetime in obscurity of Painedjem III.
You should probably also jettison the idea that because "Manetho" says dynasty 22 was from Bubastis, this means you can make a reliable argument about the order in which kings called Sheshonq occur.

"My royal dates may be fixed, but Iuwelot as HPA is only a range...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"
I don't think you can move it back into the grandfather's reign because Nebanebdjed is explicitly the son of king Osorkon. Year 14 belongs either to Osorkon I or to a successor.

"the Aspanage Stele...The text cannot be used to force the view that he was already HPA when he gave the land to his son."
I do not see how it can be forced to any other view. The lands were doubtless collected over a period of time, not all in one go, but they are being given to one of Iuwelot's sons, to the exclusion of all other potential heirs, in one lot. I do not see the point of tacking this exclusion clause on at a later point than the actual gift, and a good Egyptian lawyer would say that this cannot be done, since such a clause can only be applied by the owner of the land. If Iuwelot had given the land to his son on a prior occasion then he no longer had the right to make such clauses.
Thus the act of giving the land and the status of Iuwelot as 1PA are coincident; and either this, or the commencement of the collection of land, must be someone's year 10.


  • 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 1 — Kim Sargerson, Wed Mar 1 15:15
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates